Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2011 (records 31 through 50)

2011-31 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	27 Jun 2011	No, ID	I am having difficulty being convinced that this is a Least Flycatcher on the basis of this description. The observer uses some features in ruling out other empidonax flycatchers that I don't believe can be accurately used, such as size differences, particularly without direct comparison. The song is, as he states, very distinct, and really can't be confused with other empidonax. However he describes this song as ascending and descending, which does not sound like a Least Flycatcher. I would like to hear what others think on this bird.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2011	No, ID
Rick F.	27 Jun 2011	Acc	I somewhat tentatively endorse this sighting based on song description, however Gray, Hammonds, and Dusky can give a two-note call that may be interpreted as 'che-bek' if one is not experienced with Least Flycatcher song. I would have liked to see more description on size and shape of the bill.
2nd round:	25 Sep 2011	No, ID	Empidonax records are extremely difficult to review, and especially so without photos. The description is marginal for differentiating beween Least, Hammonds, and/or Dusky. However, the observer compared the song to a Least's song while listening to the bird calling in the field. I agree Hammond's, Dusky, and even Gray Flycatchers often make calls that could be interpreted as 'che-bek', however, the Least's call is very distinctive and after hearing a recording of it, I think one would be very unlikely to misinterpret it as another call.
Steve H.	16 Jul 2011	Acc	Description fits Least flycatcher
2nd round:	31 Aug 2011	No, ID	Description fits Least flycatcher but the song as desribed raises doubts. I have heard many Leasts but never an ascending or descending song, just the repetious monotone che-bek. Given the doubt with the song, I am changing my vote.
Ryan O.	7 Aug 2011	No, ID	Ascending and descending song phrases do not fit Least Flycatcher and seem more likely to apply to Hammond's Flycatcher, which has some phrases that if taken alone could be easily confused with the song of a Least Flycatcher. Description relies heavily on tail fork depth, but this is not a very useful diagnostic trait for Empidonax flycatchers, and Sibley at least shows a deeper fork for Hammond's than Least. Overall the description does not adequately rule out other Empidonax flycatchers and description of voice is at odds with Least Flycatcher.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID	My biggest concern with this record remains: the description of the song as having "both an ascending and a descending version" is not consistent with the song of a Least Flycatcher, which contains repetition of only a single phrase.
Ron R.	23 Aug 2011	Acc	Description consistent with least flycatcher, including bold eye-ring, forked tail extending well beyond primary tips, proportionally large head, and light lower mandible. Song, however, is distinctive and conclusive.Ron Ryel
Terry S..	19 Jul 2011	No, ID	I am hesitant to accept this record in the first round without a description of size and shape of bill. the bold eye ring sounds good but I'm not sure description of the tail helps in distinguishing this sighting. The song or call as described has me a bit perplexed but it may be describing the continuous, rapid "che-beck" associated with the Least Flycatcher.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID
Jack S.. 2nd round:	25 Aug 2011	No, ID	This bird may indeed be a Least Flycatcher but the description, in my opinion, does not entirely rule out other flycatchers, especially Hammond's Flycatcher. Descriptions of the shape & size of bill, uniformity of bold white eye ring, and primary projection would have been helpful to this reviewer. The two-noted song, che-bec, is described as ascending OR descending. My experience with this species is that of a monotonously constant song, with an emphasis and a slightly higher frequency maximum on the second note. The Hammond's has a two-noted element (chu-lup) of it's song that is structurally quite similar to Least's. Although there are accepted records of this species without photographic/audio support, I feel a photograph/audio-recording is needed for a Utah record
Mark S.	15 Jul 2011	Acc	Despite some anomalies in the description and analysis, the call is distinctive and was well heard.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2011	No, ID	I still think there is enough evidence from the physical description to support an identification of Least Flycatcher, namely, the round eye ring, the yellow on the lower mandible, and the apparently short primary extension. However, all of those would be left to the interpretation of an admittedly inexperienced observer, and the objections raised about the call by other committee members are valid. Therefore, I'm changing my vote to "no" because of insufficient evidence to remove doubt from this i.d.
Merrill W.	19 Jul 2011	Acc

2011-32 Purple Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	27 Jun 2011	No, ID	This bird may very well have been a Purple Finch, but I don't think I can vote for it on the basis of this description. The observer basically stated in some detail that he was convinced this was a Purple Finch, rather than describing all the specific features which would identify a Purple Finch. In addition there is so much variation among House Finches, which could be confusing. I would wish that a photo could have been obtained. I need to see how others feel on this bird.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2011	No, ID
Rick F.	27 Jun 2011	No, Nat	Peculair time of year for an adult male Purple Finch (and there's been no recent irruption of western Purple Finches and no out-of-range reports in neighboring states). Would like to see a description of eye/eye-ring, streaking, relative size, undertail covert markings, etc.
2nd round:	24 Aug 2011	No, ID
Steve H.	16 Jul 2011	No, ID	The subject bird may be a Purple finch but there isn't much information in the description to evaluate. I would like to see a better description submitted by the observer.
2nd round:	31 Aug 2011	No, ID
Ryan O.	7 Aug 2011	No, ID	It is quite possible that this experienced birder observed a Purple Finch, but further detail on shape of bill, flight calls, flank pattern, undertail coverts, etc. would be necessary to sufficiently rule out more common species and to confirm the identification of such a rare and difficult-to-identify species in Utah.
2nd round:	24 Aug 2011	No, ID	My previous concerns remain.
Ron R.	23 Aug 2011	No, ID	The observer may well have seen a purple finch. However, the record does not provide any details of coloration or markings, and is not sufficient to determine this often difficult ID.
Terry S..	19 Jul 2011	No, ID	Scant narrative without supporting photos to help distinguish from similar species.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID
Jack S..	18 Aug 2011	No, ID	I find this record difficult to judge given the lack of the birds description, especially details of the bill and relative comparison to House and Cassin's Finch.
2nd round:	25 Aug 2011	No, ID
Mark S.	15 Jul 2011	No, ID	I'd like to see some discussion on this record. The description doesn't really give any information about what the bird looked like, other than general "rosiness." I don't think that there's enough here to eliminate Cassin's Finch.
2nd round:	24 Aug 2011	No, ID	As per my first round comment.
Merrill W.	19 Jul 2011	Acc	This one is conditional on other votes of the committee.

2011-33 Dickcissel

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	27 Jun 2011	Acc	Great find.
Rick F.	27 Jun 2011	Acc	Nice record
Steve H.	16 Jul 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	7 Aug 2011	Abst	(Abstain; one of the sight records is my own.)
Ron R.	23 Aug 2011	Acc	Excellent photos and description.
Terry S..	12 Jul 2011	Acc	Excellent Documentation
Jack S..	10 Jul 2011	Acc
Mark S.	15 Jul 2011	Acc	Extensively documented and observed by many.
Merrill W.	19 Jul 2011	Acc

2011-34 Purple Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	25 Jul 2011	No, ID	It may well be that the observer Saw Purple Finches, but I do not believe this written description is adequate to eliminate other similar species. The writeup is very clear in telling us that the observer is convinced that he saw Purple Finches, but the description itself lacks the details necessary to convince me that that this is definitively a Purple Finch. Oh for a photo. A very rare Utah bird requires more definitive proof, with either a photo, or very detailed written description, preferably with multiple observers.
2nd round:	1 Sep 2011	No, ID
Rick F.	24 Aug 2011	No, ID	Description is lacking key information on undertial coverts, eye-ring, facial pattern, underside streaking characters, etc. necessary to definitively distinguish Purple Finch from House/Cassin Finch.
2nd round:	25 Sep 2011	No, ID	No description of characters necessary to distinguish Purple and Cassin's Finches (eye-ring, undertail covert streaking, head pattern, etc.).
Steve H.	16 Jul 2011	No, ID	A little more information than the other record but still not enough to properly evaluate. Again I would like to see additional information from the observer.
2nd round:	31 Aug 2011	No, ID
Ryan O.	7 Aug 2011	No, ID	It is quite possible that this experienced birder observed Purple Finches, but further detail on shape of bill, flight calls, flank pattern, undertail coverts, etc. would be necessary to sufficiently rule out more common species and to confirm the identification of such a rare and difficult-to-identify species in Utah.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID	My previous concerns remain. There are not enough details presented in this record for it to stand as convincing evidence of this locally very rare species.
Ron R.
Terry S..	19 Jul 2011	No, ID	With the rarity of Purple Finch sightings in Utah and similarity of Cassin's Finch I would hope for more description of the observed birds. This would include a more detailed description of head coloration pattern, bill shape and size, description of streaking on the back, flanks and undertail coverts and relative length of primary projections. also any flight calls heard would help. Supporting photos would also help.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID
Jack S..	18 Aug 2011	No, ID	Insufficient description of this rare (in Utah) finch.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID
Mark S.	8 Aug 2011	No, ID	don't think the description adequately eliminates Cassin's Finch.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2011	No, ID	Not enough info/description to eliminate similar species.
Merrill W.	19 Jul 2011	Acc	Conditional. I feel the description is somewhat questionable.

2011-35 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	27 Jul 2011	Acc
Rick F.	24 Aug 2011	Acc	diagnostic photos
Steve H.	31 Aug 2011	Acc	Good photos.
Ryan O.	7 Aug 2011	Acc
Ron R.	23 Aug 2011	Acc	Good photos clearly show yellow lower mandible and rufous primaries.
Terry S..	26 Jul 2011	Acc
Jack S..	26 Jul 2011	Acc	good photographs
Mark S.	8 Aug 2011	Acc	Not the best description, but the photos clearly show a Yellow-billed Cuckoo.

2011-36 Little Blue Heron

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	8 Aug 2011	Acc	The written description lacks details, but the photos definitively confirm the ID.
Rick F.	24 Aug 2011	Acc	photos are definitive
Steve H.	31 Aug 2011	Acc	Good photos
Ryan O.	7 Aug 2011	Acc
Ron R.	23 Aug 2011	Acc	Photos sufficient to clearly show this distinctive plumage of this species.
Terry S..	1 Aug 2011	Acc	Convincing Photos using digiscoping
Jack S..	25 Aug 2011	Acc	Excellent photographs
Mark S.	8 Aug 2011	Acc	The observer should have considered Reddish Egret, but the photos allow us to eliminate that possibility, even though the description doesn't

2011-37 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	15 Sep 2011	Acc
Rick F.	25 Sep 2011	Acc	Nice spring record.
Ryan O.	7 Sep 2011	Acc
Ron R.	7 Nov 2011	Acc	Good photos and description show and describe this distinctive male plumage.
Terry S..	7 Oct 2011	Acc	Convincing photos
Jack S..	26 Sep 2011	Acc
Mark S.	22 Sep 2011	Acc	Rather unmistakeable. Excellent documentation.

2011-38 Philadelphia Vireo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	4 Oct 2011	Acc	I am voting for this bird, but have to admit I am a bit uncomfortable doing so. Primarily because of the bill. The photos may be distorting the bill but this bill seems too big for a Philadelphia, more like a Red-eyed. The rest of the bird does most closely resembles a Philadelphia. Will be interested to see what others have to say.
2nd round:	20 Nov 2011	Acc	I voted for this bird the first time with hesitation. In reading Ryan's comments, I am even more hesitant now. However I have reviewed numerous photos of this bird in various guides and articles and I still feel this is most likely a Philadelphia Vireo. An ID article in the October 2009 issue of Birders World by Kenn Kaufman mentions that part of the ID problem with Philadelphia Vireo is that it is so variable. Pictures in that article are not that different from this bird. The beak still bothers me. However this is not a Warbling Vireo, it is not a Red-eyed Vireo so what else could it be, except possibly a hybrid, which would be even more rare. So my vote remains yes.
Rick F.	25 Sep 2011	Acc	Great photos.
2nd round:	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	20 Jan 2012	Acc	The bill is larger than for a typical PHVI but all other marks are consistent with this species.
Ryan O.	22 Sep 2011	No, ID	Although the dark lores seem to fit Philadelphia Vireo and exclude Warbling Vireo, I am concerned by the pattern of yellow on the throat and breast of this bird. Philadelphia Vireos almost invariably have yellow brightest on the throat and upper breast, but this bird appears to have a nearly white throat contrasting with a yellow breast. Hatch-year Warbling Vireos can be quite yellow on the breast, and the bright yellow flanks of this bird seem to fit WAVI better than PHVI, but the lores of this bird seem too dark for WAVI to me. The faint suggestion of a dark lateral crown stripe, in conjunction with the throat pattern, breast pattern, and dark lores, make me wonder if this might be a PHVI x Red-eyed Vireo hybrid. These traits seem consistent with one such hybrid that was well documented in California: http://losfarallones.blogspot.com/2008/09/farallon-fall-update.html And not far off from one documented in Ontario: http://www.amazilia.net/images/Birds/Vireonidae/Hybrid_Vireo.htm The timing of the record is a little bit early, as the majority of vagrant Philadelphia Vireo records are later in the fall than this one, but timing alone would not concern me so much. See http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/Reports/UBRC-9th%20report.pdf Certainly a PHVI x REVI hybrid would be exceedingly rare, less likely than a pure PHVI in Utah. Whether it is an unlikely hybrid or not, I don't think the throat and breast patterns fit a Philadelphia Vireo, therefore I'm voting to not accept for now. I'm looking forward to reading others' comments.
2nd round:	4 Jan 2012	No, ID	In my opinion, this record cannot be accepted as a Philadelphia Vireo because of the rather large bill, pale throat, and long tail of this bird. What is it, then? One expert suggested Yellow-green Vireo, and I can't rule that out with certainty: although the pattern of yellow on the underside fits that species well, and the dark eye would fit a first-year bird this time of year, I think the bill is a little too small and dark for that species. In sum, I don't know what this is, but I still don't think it's a (pure) Philadelphia Vireo. (Summary of Comments obtained on this record)
Ron R.
Terry S..	9 Oct 2011	Acc	Great diagnostic photos. Philadelphia Warblers are late migrants but I believe the Sept.17 sighting is within range. Immature Warbling Vireos can show a show a stronger facial pattern than a adult Warbling Vireos but not as strongly contrasting as the bird photographed.
2nd round:	14 Jan 2012	Acc	The field marks of dark lores and contrasting cap indicate Philidelphia Vireo. The large bill certainly does not look "typical" but does not sway me that this is some other vireo or a hybrid. I would expect some variability within this species.
Jack S..	18 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	21 Jan 2012	Acc
Mark S.	22 Sep 2011	Acc	A potentially difficult, i.d., but the description and photos show the critical marks to separate similar species, in particular the dark lores and the amount/distribution of yellow on the underside.
David W. 2nd rnd.:	4 Jan 2012	Acc	Reports of this species always seems to bring about great hand-wringing in our state. And this bird is no exception. I think Ryan makes some good cautionary points. But, despite some unease, I vote to accept based on the lores and a preponderence of other field marks.

2011-39 Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	29 Sep 2011	Acc	Great find.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc
Ron R.	1 Dec 2011	Acc	Unmistakable in photo.
Terry S..	9 Oct 2011	Acc
Jack S..	12 Nov 2011	Acc	Good description and photographs of a distinctive warbler species.
Mark S.	27 Sep 2011	Acc	Not the best photos, but at least they show the most definitive field marks, excellent write-up of a hard-to-mistake species.

2011-40 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	4 Oct 2011	Acc	Great find. I trust what appears to be streaking on the breast in the first photo is simply due to feather position and lighting. Photo is of great help.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc	(4 Oct 2011) Tropical Parula not clearly excluded by written description (they can have limited white eye arcs), but photographs showing extent of yellow on underside, which is limited to upper breast and not extending to lower breast/upper belly, and extensive bold white eye arcs eliminate Tropical Parula. Rare Tropical Parula not eliminated by written description (can have white eye arcs, but usually does not). Photograph eliminates Tropical Parula by limited extent of yellow on lower breast/upper belly, which does not reach the point of the lower wing bar.
Ron R.	1 Dec 2011	Acc	Face pattern eliminates most tropical parulas. Limited extent of yellow in breast and in malar region eliminates all tropical parulas.
Terry S..	9 Oct 2011	Acc
Jack S..	12 Nov 2011	Acc	Good description and photographs of a distinctive warbler species.
Mark S.	27 Sep 2011	Acc

2011-41 Red-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	4 Oct 2011	Acc	Great photos. At first I felt that there was too much white on the face for this to be ruber, but the rest of the bird certainly fits. Do these photos strike anyone else as being perhaps a bit over saturated. I am familiar with both subspecies, ruber in Washington state, and frankly I have never seen an individual quite this colorful.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc	The written description does not attempt to eliminate similar species or hybrids, but the photographs are convincing.
Terry S..	9 Oct 2011	Acc	Great Photos. While their is no discussion of possible hybridization with Red-naped I don't see any evidence of hybridization in the submitted photos
Jack S..	12 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent documentation!
Mark S.	27 Sep 2011	Acc	Excellent photos. I can't see anything that suggests a hybrid on this one.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc

2011-42 Red Phalarope

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	4 Oct 2011	Acc	I believe this has to be a Red Phalarope, especially with the description of the bill and the photos, although the bill is not optimally seen in the photos. I am a bit concerned about how dark the dorsal wing coloring is, but suspect the wing closest to the photographer in the down position is simply shaded.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	9 Oct 2011	Acc
Jack S..	12 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent documentation.
Mark S.	27 Sep 2011	Acc	Good documentation.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc

2011-43 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	10 Oct 2011	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	9 Oct 2011	Acc	Great photos
Jack S..	12 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent documentation.
Mark S.	27 Sep 2011	Acc	Bill shape, mantle color, leg color all fit, and eliminate similar species.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc

2011-44 Harlequin Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	10 Oct 2011	Acc
Rick F.	2 Oct 2011	Acc	Nice record.
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	8 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	12 Nov 2011	Acc	Excellent Documentation!
Mark S.	30 Sep 2011	Acc	Well documented, photographed and seen by many. Odd that it should show up in the same location where a female persisted over a year 10 years ago or so.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc

2011-45 (2010-42A - split) Iceland Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	7 Nov 2011	Acc
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc	Size, shape, and coloration of bird are consistent with Iceland Gull.
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc	Assuming ". . . all black bill (this bird)" and "Bill on one bird all black (here)" in Description section is a typo from editing the combined record.
Ron R.	1 Dec 2011	Acc	This first year bird is sufficiently light in overall color to eliminate other similar aged species except glaucous gull. The size is too small to be a glaucous gull (as compared to other gulls in the photo). The bi-colored bill is unusual but does occur.
Terry S..	8 Nov 2011	Acc
Jack S..	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Mark S.	30 Sep 2011	Acc	This one looks good for Iceland Gull.

2011-46 (2010-42B - split) Iceland Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	10 Oct 2011	Acc	[also voted the same way on 7 Nov]
2nd round:	30 Dec 2011	No, ID	After reviewing these photos and reading all that "Gulls of the Americas" by Howell and Dunn has to say, I am changing my vote. This may well be a "Kumlien's" Iceland Gull, but it could just as well be a hybrid Kumlien's/Thayer's, or even a Thayer's. I just don't think we can be sure on the basis of the information at hand. And it is not because we don't have good photos. This is just an extremely complex group where at times an identification just is not possible.
3rd round:	5 Feb 2012	No, ID	I still have too many reservations to call this a definitive Iceland Gull.
Rick F.		abst
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	No, ID	I'm still concerned with the shape and size of this bird, as it seems to fit Thayer's or thayer's hybrid. I'd like more discussion on this record.
2nd round:	20 Jan 2012	Acc	I'm changing my vote to accept. Photo D shows white wing tips and a very pale gray terminal tail band, which is consistent with Iceland Gull. Thayer's has brown on the outer edge of the primaries and secondaries and a brown tail band. Shape of the head in photos C, E-G is quite round, much like Kumlien's. Given the evidence, I am voting to accept this record as an Iceland gull, possibly Kumlien's given the heavier bill and less rounded head.
3rd round:	6 Mar 2012	Acc	This one is tough but I'm staying with Iceland Gull.
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc	Pale patterning in tertials (not dark-centered) and pale band across tail are consistent with Iceland Gull (g. glaucoides and g. kumlieni collectively).
2nd round:	4 Jan 2012	Acc	I would expect Thayer's Gull to have a dark band on the tail, wingtips darker than body, and dark-centered tertials (per Howell and Dunn). This bird lacks a dark tail band, has wingtips the same color as the body, and pale tertials with patterned, not solid, centers. This bird does not appear to be bleached (patterning still obvious in wing coverts, no visibly worn feathers), and is more pale than Howell and Dunn's examples of pale unbleached Thayer's Gulls (e.g. Fig. 36.8), and also paler than some examples of Kumliens' Gull (e.g. Fig. 35A.13 and 35A.15). Mostly-black bill is still normal for a first-cycle Kumlein's Iceland Gull in February, and a pale base to both mandibles is visible in these shots. Relatively blockier head compared to the other one in the first shot could be explained by sex differences, and apparent body size differences do not concern me because this bird is closer to the camera. In my opinion, there is nothing in this record that excludes pure Kumlein's Iceland Gull.
3rd round:	16 Feb 2012	Acc	I see no reason to question the veracity of the observer who included the flight shot with the wings-folded shots; they seem to me to show the same individual (albeit in different lighting conditions). Even if I were to consider the wings-folded shots alone, the pale patterning in the tertials and the relative shade of the primaries appear to me to be outside the range of Thayer's and solidly within the range of Iceland.
Ron R. 3rd rnd:	14 Mar 2012	Acc	While I have concerns about the head shape and size compared to the other Iceland gull in photo A, I feel the pattern on the primaries has too little gray/brown to be within the range of a Thayer's gull (photo B). The flight photo D does not show the same pattern as in photo B, but may be washed out.
Terry S..	13 Nov 2011	No, ID	I believe this may be a pale Thayer's. The head seems more blocked not small and round as I would expect for an Iceland. The bill also appears more massive when compared to the Iceland gull which was observed at the same time and location.
2nd round:	16 Jan 2012	No, ID
3rd round:	8 Feb 2012	No, ID	In my opinion I still believe this is a pale Thayers
Jack S..	23 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	21 Jan 2012	Acc
3rd round:	7 Mar 2012	Acc
Mark S.	30 Sep 2011	No, ID	I don't think pale Thayer's can be eliminated on this bird, given the dark bill, and dark overall plumage, putting this bird at or even beyond the range of variation for Iceland, and well within that for Thayer's.
2nd round:	24 Jan 2012	No, ID	In examining the additional photos, I'm not sure that the flying bird is the same individual as the sitting ones, and doubt that it is the bird of this record. It's the one photo where we can't see the bill, so there's no way to tell for sure. The wings and tail of the flying bird appear very Iceland-like, but the same features of the sitting bird don't match - they are quite a bit darker, and more Thayer's-like. The tips of both the primaries and the tail feathers have more dark on the sitting bird than the flying bird shows. Since we can only be sure that the photos of the sitting bird are those of the bird in this record, I continue to reject this record as a likely Thayer's or Thayer's hybrid.
3rd round:	11 Mar 2012	Acc	Even though I still have reservations about this bird, particularly the shape of the head and the bill, the plumage features tip the balance in favor of a Kumlien's, though shading a bit towards Thayer's. Still, given the paleness of the plumage, especially the lightly marked primaries and secondaries, I think acceptance as a Kumlien's is a fair conclusion, reservations about the taxonomic issues notwithstanding, of course.
David W. 2nd rnd:	23 Jan 2012	Acc
3rd round:	12 Mar 2012	Acc

2011-47 Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	1 Nov 2011	No, ID	I am most hesitant to vote against a bird that has been carefully measured in hand and meets the Pyle criteria for Pacific-slope Flycatcher. I certainly am not an experienced researcher in the area of the "Western Flycatcher" complex, but I have had fairly extensive experience in the field with both "species, and have spent a fair amount of time looking at the literature in this area. We have a cabin 38 miles from the canadian border in northern Idaho, and we spend anywhere from 3-6 months there each year. If you have reviewed the distribution maps for these two species you will have noted that there is a very extensive overlap area involving southern British Columbia, eastern Washington, northern Idaho, and probably northwestern Montana. It is said that this a a region of extensive hybridization, but it seems to me that it could just as well be called a region of clinal variation within one species. The "Western Flycatcher" nests in the area of our cabin each year. The position call notes vary from typical Cordilleran to typical Pacific-slope. I have never actually seen a single bird give both call notes, but I know they are because they are on territory and calling from the same vicinity. I have been observing this phenomena for the past 10 years, hearing both call notes over a fairly wide area of northern Idaho. Not only that, but in the spring of 2010 here in Holladay near my home I saw a "Western Flycatcher that was calling with the very typical position call of the Pacific-slope Flycatcher. I have read in multiple places that it is thought the Cordilleran can give the Pacific-slope call on occasion, but it is not thought that it works the other way around. (See in Kaufman - newest edition of the Field Guide to Advanced Birding.) If the only way to identify these birds in the field is by their call notes, and they can produce call notes of the other species, this seems to me to be nonsense. Kaufman states in his article that perhaps the decision to split the Western Flycatcher was premature, and I have heard from other sources that this split is under review. Now for the measurements. I am having trouble making sense out of the Pyle measurements listed under this report. It is clear that the Pacific-slope Flycatcher is on average smaller than the Cordilleran. The last column certainly suggests Pacific-slope. However some of the other numbers don:t. An article in the March 2009 issue of Birding addresses some of these measurements. One of the measurements is tail length. The tail length is listed as 54.8 for Pacific-slope and 58.4 for Cordilleran. The tail length of the birds under review is listed as 57, closer to Cordilleran. There is a good review also in the Birds of North America on line that I subscribe to regarding the comparison between the two species. Several measurements are given which frankly are hard for me to interpret. In addition it is stated that females are 4-7% smaller than males, and this report states that the gender is unknown. This too I feel raises questions as to the significance of the measurements. The bottom line is that this seems to be a very complex issue which I don't feel has completely been worked out. As you can probably tell, I remain a sceptic that these birds really represent two species. It appears that I am not the only one because of this date, november 1, no one has yet voted on this bird. I apologize for this lengthy epistle, but I have difficulty calling this a definitive Pacific-slope Flycatcher.
2nd round:	9 Dec 2011	No, ID
Rick F.	15 Nov 2011	Acc	I'm not sure either the photos or the measurements are conclusive (especially given the large amount of variation between the measurements of the capture and recapture of the bird banded 253017791). However, I don't believe that Pacific-slope Flycatchers should even be on the review list. I believe they are uncommon migrants through southwestern Utah (and probably through much of the state) and ALL western flycatcher types I've heard vocalizing in lowland areas during migration are consistent with Pac-slopes. The conventional wisdom is that all western fly types in lowland areas in the southwest (e.g. Arizona and Nevada) are Pacific-slopes and Cordillerans are seldom found in lowland areas during migration. I've had (assumed) Pacific-slope Flycatchers giving Pac-slope calls annually at Lytle Ranch for the past seven or eight years (since I started paying attention).
2nd round:	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Steve H. 2nd rnd:	20 Jan 2012	No, ID	I'm very skeptical of the measurements used to separate Pacific-slope and Cordilleran flycatcher. Voice is even more confusing. I lived many years in western Washington and have heard the call of dozens of Pacific-slope Flycatchers. Many had calls that sounded identical to Cordilleran. Given the uncertainty of the status of these two species, I am voting to not accept this record.
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	No, ID	I'd like to hear more from committee members (or solicit opinion of outside experts) on the reliability of individual in-hand measurements. I'm uncomfortable accepting this as a first state record in the first round because of variability in some of these measurements and the fact that they are outside what is expected for this Pacific-slope Flycatcher. For example, the second measurement of P6-P10 is 16% larger than the first. This seems like a large margin of error for two measurements on the same bird only two days apart. Ditto P9-P5, which changed by -6%. These discrepancies are further highlighted by several measurements outside the 95% confidence interval reported by Pyle: the second measurement of p6-p10 on first bird exceeds Pyle's 95% CI, and on the second bird the longest P-longest S is less than Pyle's 95% CI (reported here at 7.1, but Pyles measurements range down to only 8.6). Also, the result of the formula for the second bird is out of the range reported by Pyle. These discrepancies between measurements on these birds and the ranges reported by Pyle make me hesitant to accept this record in light of potential measurement error. Also, no effort was made to eliminate other Empidonax species from consideration, although I feel from the photographs that at least one of these birds (Which one? Photos aren't labelled with ring numbers.) is a "Western" Flycatcher.
Ron R.
Terry S..	20 Nov 2011	Acc	We need to decide as a committee by what standards we will accept closely related species without genetic analysis. I believe the bird banded 263017802 is well out of the overlap range given by the Pyle formula for Pacific-slope verses Cordilleran Flycatchers. Given that genetic analysis will probably never occur I am willing to accept at least one of these birds as a record for the state. I believe there is good probability that the bird regularly migrates through the state especially in Southern Utah. It is interesting to note record 2007-20 in our review of this record.
2nd round:	10 Jan 2012	No, ID	While I originally accepted this record I am having second thoughts after doing more study regarding the split of the western flycatcher complex. There is growing controversy that maybe the pacific-slope flycatcher and cordilleran flycatcher should not have been split into separate species. There now seems to be a broad contact zone for the two populations. The level of genetic intermediacy in these populations strongly suggests that Pacific-slope and Cordilleran flycatchers interbreed and that there is a broad area of hybridization. Quoting from the attached link: "The decision to split the western flycatcher into the Pacific-slope flycatcher and Cordilleran flycatcher (American Ornithologists Union 1989) was made primarily based on studies of the contact zone in California (Johnson 1980, Johnson and Marten 1988), without data from interior southwestern Canada. We now wonder whether, given the present evidence, the decision to formally split the taxa into distinct species would have been made. On one hand, our data indicate that the two taxa hybridize within a broad region of contact, indicating that perhaps they are best treated as a single species. On the other hand, allopatric populations are genetically distinct and differentiated behaviorally, morphologically, and ecologically (Johnson 1980, Johnson and Martens 1988, Johnson and Cicero 2002); hence, they presently remain evolutionary divergent despite the hybridization. We have no evidence that the genetic introgression seen in interior southwestern Canada has affected populations outside of this region. Thus the allopatric populations might continue to remain distinct despite the presence of the hybrid zone. This situation illustrates the challenges involved in species-level taxonomy, as different species definitions contain competing ideas regarding the importance of reproductive isolation versus evolutionary distinctiveness regardless of the potential to hybridize. An accurate assessment of the species status of the western flycatcher complex will require detailed studies of the amount and form of any reproductive isolation between the taxa in the contact zone, as well as an analysis of whether the allopatric populations are likely to remain differentiated despite the apparent introgression between them in this region." http://www.appliedbioacoustics.com/PDF/RushetalMultilocusDNA.PDF The most recent edition of National Geographic calls to question whether the two populations should continue to be recognized as separate species given the large area that the birds have intermediate DNA It is my recommendation that we not consider accepting this record until the species status of the two populations is resolved.
Jack S..	28 Nov 2011	Acc	Good documentation and photographs! Photographs clearly show the bird has structure and plumage consistent with a Western Flycatcher. The bird banded with 253017791 was captured/measured twice, giving similar measurements (measurement error), both well within the range of PSFL. The second banded bird, #253017802, is significantly within range of PSFL. Clearification obtained from observer
2nd round:	19 Jan 2012	No, ID	While I still believe the second banded bird is most likely a Pacific-slope Flycatcher, I also feel the documentation is relatively poor for a first state record, and its hard for me to fully support it. There is a single photograph of two different birds, little to no discussion of how other flycatchers were eliminated, and little description of the birds plumage and structure... etc. Compare this record with the rigor that Rick Fridell used in describing the a first state record, Purple Sandpiper (There is no comparison). I prefer to wait for much-better documented record(s) so that we can more confidently support a positive ID. Identification of this species will likely require careful in-hand measurements and/or recorded songs and calls. Finally, this species was split from Cordilleran by the AOU with, I assume, solid science-based evidence. I think our job as a review committee is to vote based on the current recognized species list and not what WE think are or are not good species.
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	No, ID	I would like to see some discussion on this record. There are two birds here, and by the formula of Pyle, one of these birds (band #253017802) would clearly fall within the Pacific-slope range, while the other is very close to the borderline, especially considering the variation in the measurement between the two captures. Setting aside the thornier questions of how accurate these measurements are at determining the true identity of any one individual of this difficult species pair, whether these are really good species to start with, or what the actually range of variation is between them, I would probably vote to accept the one, but not the other. I would like to see these records split to allow a vote upon each one individually
2nd round:	24 Jan 2012	No, ID	My comments from the first round still apply. There are multiple issues with this record, from documentation deficiencies for a first-state record to the thornier taxonomic uncertainties. I'm willing to accept them as "Western Flycatcher."
David W. 2nd rnd:	23 Jan 2012	No, ID	I'll admit to being confused by this record. I don't know how molts affect these measurement ratios, and so feel reluctant to vote. I am struck by the fact that this record of 2 birds comes from eastern Utah, which would not have been my prediction. I'm also struck by the significant change in the measurements of one bird between two capture events.

2011-48 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	31 Oct 2011	Acc	This photo is of very marginal quality, but the description seems rather definitive. I am a bit surprised that there was no description of a breast band, which should have been visible, but otherwise the description is good. Although the audio is also of poor quality, it certainly is compatible with this ID.
Rick F.	4 Oct 2011	Acc	As with 2011-40, the written record does not attempt to eliminate Tropical Parula, but I believe the limited extent of yellow on the breast (not reaching the visible flanks in this photo) and the song are convincing evidence that this was a Northern.
Steve H.	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Ryan O.	2 Nov 2011	Acc
Terry S..	13 Nov 2011	Acc	The audio recording is a nice addition to the record
Jack S..	19 Nov 2011	Acc
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	Acc	Photo shows a Northern Parula, description is adequate.
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc

2011-49 Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	31 Oct 2011	Acc	A photo would have been nice, but I appreciate the persistence displayed by the observer. This excellent description certainly favors Blackpoll, and i believe it is adequate to identify this bird as a Blackpoll. Incidentally, I was able to compare both the winter Blackpoll and Bay-breasted in the same tree last February in Panama, and this description certainly favors Blackpoll.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2011	Acc	I still this is in all probability a Blackpoll Warbler. That doesn't mean that there doesn't remain a slight bit of doubt, but I am still voting yes.
Rick F.	15 Nov 2011	Acc	Without a photo, I'd like to have seen more details on characters needed to differentiate between Blackpoll, Bay-breasted, and Pine (leg color, bill shape, covert and primary edging, etc.), but I think this supports a hatch-year Blackpoll (albeit marginally).
2nd round:	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Steve H. 2nd rnd:	20 Jan 2012	No, ID	While the description seems to suggest Blackpoll, two important fieldmarks for separating Blackpoll from Pine and Bay-breasted were not mentioned: the color of the legs and feet and back streaking. Without those marks, Pine and Bay-breasted warblers cannot be adequately eliminated.
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	16 Feb 2012	Acc	Another reviewer mentioned concern that a dark eye line was not noted, but observer reports "dark line through the eye". Combination of streaked breast sides and bright white undertail coverts adequately eliminate Bay-breasted Warbler and lack of dark auriculars adequately eliminates Pine Warbler, in my opinion.
Ron R.	16 Dec 2011	No, ID	While this bird may have been a blackpoll warbler, I am confused by some of the details that are not consistent with a first fall blackpoll warbler. The "yellow head" is not consistent with a blackpoll warbler and a lack of observation of a dark eye-line when the observer saw the face clearly enough to not see a dark auricular patch causes me concern. I'd like to see this discussed again in the second round.
Terry S..	21 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	19 Jan 2012	Acc	Even though there some key field marks missing I believe the observer has done a good job of eliminating similar species
Jack S..	30 Nov 2011	No, ID	This may have been a Blackpoll Warbler but I cannot vote to accept this record. Two important field marks for this species (and season) are not described - the extent of streaking on the back and leg/feet color. The extent of white on underside of tail feathers was not noted. The bill shape/size was not described. These are difficult field marks to see, but they are necessary to establish a confident ID. Of course a photograph would have been wonderful.
2nd round:	8 Jan 2012	No, ID	I still believe this report is insufficient to CONFIDENTLY confirm this species.
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	Acc	A difficult identification, but the observation was careful and thorough, and the description excellent - the other possibilities seem to be adequately eliminated.
2nd round:	24 Jan 2012	Acc
David W. 2nd rnd:	23 Jan 2012	Acc	Even though fall Blackpoll warblers are a notoriously difficult ID, and this record does not address a couple of the important field marks, I think the record is adequate to rule out the other species. I too was troubled by the "yellow head" comment, but the observer appears elsewhere to be referring to the face (which is consistent with the Blackpoll). The record was certainly very thorough and well-written.

2011-50 Vaux's Swift

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B.	31 Oct 2011	Acc	I am having difficulty with this id. Virtually all of the features listed really don't separate Vaux's from Chimney. The Vaux's throat is lighter but there is overlap. The Vaux's is definitely smaller than a Barn Swallow, but so is Chimney. The reporter suggests that the bird may be 20% smaller than a Barn Swallow, which definitely favors Vaux's. Just bacause Vaux's is the more likely to be here doesn't rule out Chimney. But to be honest, both are pretty rare in Utah, and both have been seen. However considering everything together, I have decided to vote yes, although a bit hesitantly.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2011	Acc
Rick F.	15 Nov 2011	Acc	This is a late date for Vaux's Swift.
2nd round:	2 Jan 2012	Acc
Steve H. 2nd rnd:	20 Jan 2012	Acc	Coloration alone cannot usually separate Vaux's and Chimney swift but size can. Chimney Swift appears to be a much larger bird because of proportionately longer wings. Chimney Swift would appear to be nearer in size to a Barn Swallow while Vaux's would appear much smaller. The observer described the bird as being about 20% smaller than a Barn Swallow which would fit Vaux's.
Ryan O.	23 Nov 2011	Acc	Marginal, but I believe acceptable. "Paler brown on throat" is probably not sufficient to eliminate Chimney Swift, and more specifics on size ("20% smaller" than Barn Swallows, but in mass, length, wingspan?) would have been helpful, but dramatic size difference with Barn and Tree Swallows is probably sufficient to indicate Vaux's Swift to the exclusion of Chimney Swift.
2nd round:	16 Feb 2012	Acc	Both the description and my vote to accept rely heavily on accurate assessment of size in the field over a 20-second observation in flight, which is not ideal. However, with two other species in the same flock for direct comparison, I think that the assessment of size is reliable.
Ron R.	16 Dec 2011	Acc	The bird was clearly a Voux's or chimney swift. While the pale throat is not sufficient to eliminate chimney swift (description of rump and/or calls would be desired), I feel the size as described is not consistent with chimney swift. A Vaux's would be noticably smaller than a barn swallow.
Terry S..	21 Nov 2011	Acc
2nd round:	19 Jan 2012	Acc	While there is concern that Chimney swift has not been eliminated as a possibility, I believe the general description of much smaller than barn swallow, short tail, lighter throat and rapid wing beats mostly favors Vaux's Swift.
Jack S..	30 Nov 2011	No, ID	While this is likely a Vaux's Swift, the description cannot eliminate a Chimney Swift. I cannot vote based solely on probability.
2nd round:	8 Jan 2012	No, ID	I still feel Chimney Swift cannot be eliminated based on this description.
Mark S.	17 Nov 2011	Acc	Although I'm not sure that the description adequately eliminates Chimney Swift, given that Vaux's would be the expected species here, and that the bird did not vocalize (Chimney Swifts are more vocal), I think this is a good sighting, a am voting to accept.
2nd round:	24 Jan 2012	Acc
Merrill W.	28 Nov 2011	Acc
David W. 2nd rnd:	3 Jan 2012	Acc	I will trust the observer as to the relative size of the bird to Barn swallows in the area, especially considering field guides include the tail in the given size of a bird, so the Barn swallow comes off as bigger than it actually is mass-wise. The pale throat is also good. I'm not a big fan in voting on probability, but it is relevant, especially since Vaux's swifts seem to really like this area around Utah Lake. We've seen them there ourselves. The absence of call is suggestive of Vaux's over Chimney, as the latter really is louder in my experience, but considering the short period of time the bird was observed on migration (20 seconds), I do not think this field mark is that definitive.