Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2012 (records 21 through 40)

  
2012-21 Northern Parula

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 31 May 2012 Acc This description certainly sounds good for Northern Parula, so will vote yes in spite of no photo and the inexperience of the observer with this species.

2nd round:  

14 Jul 2012 Acc I have reviewed this description again and cannot think of what else this could have been. Will again somewhat hesitantly vote yes.
Rick F. 2 Jun 2012 Acc Adequate description

2nd round:  

15 Jul 2012 Acc Description is relatively sparse, but adequate.
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Not a complete description but marks noted fit this species.

2nd round:  

21 Jul 2012 Acc Even though the description is not as completed as I would like, I'm still inclined to accept this record.
Ryan O. 11 Jun 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

4 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 18 Jun 2012 No, ID While likely a Northern Parula, the description cannot eliminate a Tropical Parula. Need is a description of the white eye arcs.

2nd round:  

5 Aug 2012 Acc On reviewing the record and all comments, I tend to agree with others that the report is sufficient to eliminate other species, including tropical parula. Speckling of the red on the chest would be inconsistent with this species. Described color pattern is not really consistent with any other species.
Terry S.. 22 Jun 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

24 Jul 2012 Acc Key field marks were not noted but this is a distinuishable species with the field marks noted by the observer
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 No, ID I'd like to hear what other members say about this record. The description was not very detailed considering 30 seconds of viewing. Many key field marks were also not included.

2nd round:  

10 Aug 2012 Acc After reading comments I too agree that I should bend on this one and accept. This record is not as conclusive as any of the other 16 vetted records with full Sight Records.
Mark S. 29 May 2012 No, ID I'd like to see some discussion on this record. I suspect that it is a Northern Parula that he saw, but I'm a little troubled by his description, particularly of the "red speckling" on the breast, which is not how I would describe it. He also failed to note the eye-arcs, that would have positively distinguished it from Tropical Parula. I really don't know what he could have mistaken it for that would fit his description better, so I'd be inclined to accept this record, in spite of the odd description, but I'd like to see if any of you had similar reservations.

2nd round:  

4 Aug 2012 Acc I'm still not happy with this record, but feel like the description likely refers to this species. Given that the species itself is not extremely rare in Utah, I'll change my vote to accept.
Comments_5: Excellent documentation.
David W. 30 May 2012 Acc I would have preferred a few more field marks, but cannot think of what other species might have fit these field marks.

2nd round:  

25 Jul 2012 Acc I think, though by no means a perfect record with all the desired field marks, this record does have enough detail to eliminate other species. The Tropical parula can be eliminated, in my opinion, by the description of "red chest speckling." The eye crescents would have been a very useful supplement, but the red on the chest seems to make the case as to which parula was seen. Had the observer noted an actual lack of crescents, that would have been one thing, but the absence of a field mark description doesn't necessarily mean the field mark wasn't there.

  

2012-22 Ovenbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 11 Jun 2012 Acc Although this bird was seen only very briefly, under less than optimal circumstances, I believe the description supports this id, and, although I wish the recording was better, what I hear certainly sounds like the Ovenbird song, so will vote yes.
Rick F. 2 Jun 2012 Acc Nice record
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Acceptable audio ID
Ryan O. 11 Jun 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 18 Jun 2012 Acc Recording clearly is that of an ovenbird.
Terry S.. 24 Jun 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Jun 2012 Acc The behavior of this bird is typical of an Ovenbird ("heard for over half hour, seen for a few seconds") and I found the sonogram of Audio 2 at ~40 (and ear) consistent with the species. I could not hear the song on Audio 1 (perhaps I'm going deaf), nor see the expected pattern in the sonogram (too much noise). The sketchy description is also consistent.
Mark S. 1 Jun 2012 Acc "Teacher! Teacher! Teacher!" A sound of my childhood birding days in Ohio make this record. Though the visual details are inconclusive due to the poor views obtained by the observer, the recordings leave no doubt.
David W.   abst  

  

2012-23 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 11 Jun 2012 Acc Incredible photos. Wishing all our decisions would be this easy.
Rick F. 11 Jun 2012 Acc Nice record.
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Excellent photos
Ryan O. 11 Jun 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 18 Jun 2012 Acc Excellent photos unmistakably this species.
Terry S.. 24 Jun 2012 Acc Great Photos
Jack S.. 17 Jun 2012 Acc Excellent writeup and photographs!
Mark S. 13 Jun 2012 Acc Excellent record and photographs.
David W. 11 Jun 2012 Acc As noted in the report, I saw this beautiful bird. It made itself obvious by repeatedly singing in the open. Tremendous photos & writeup.

   

2012-24 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 16 Jun 2012 Acc Excellent description and photos
Rick F. 8 Jul 2012 Acc Great record
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Excellent photos and description
Ryan O. 15 Jun 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 18 Jun 2012 Acc Description of song and photos are convincing.
Terry S.. 24 Jun 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Excellent documentation!
Mark S. 16 Jun 2012 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 18 Jun 2012 Acc Kris was kind enough to show me this bird in person.

      

2012-25 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 19 Jun 2012 Acc  
Rick F. 8 Jul 2012 Acc Very good description and conclusive recording.
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc good audio recording
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 18 Jun 2012 Acc Song clearly this species on recordings.
Terry S.. 24 Jun 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Well documented!
Mark S. 20 Jun 2012 Acc nice recording
David W. 18 Jun 2012 Acc Good recordings.

  

2012-26 Red-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Good photos and excellent description
Rick F.   abst  
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc good ID and photo
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 5 Aug 2012 Acc Photos clearly indicate this species. Clean color of red on head as well as other markings are not consistent with hybrid.
Terry S.. 12 Jul 2012 Acc Good Photos
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Nice Documentation!
Mark S. 4 Aug 2012 Acc Can't see signs of a hybrid in this individual, in spite of the conventional reservations for this species.
David W. 11 Jul 2012 Acc  

  

2012-27 Gilded Flicker
                                            Solicited opinions

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 12 Jul 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

10 Aug 2012 Acc I feel the description and photos are adequat to exclude this being a hybrid.
Rick F.   abst  

2nd round:  

  abst  
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc good description and photos

2nd round:  

31 Aug 2012 Acc The description fits Gilded Flicker and the photos suggest Gilded as well. I don't see anything that suggest a possible hybrid.
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

24 Aug 2012 No, ID [submitted three opinions for consideration]
Ron R. 5 Aug 2012 No, ID  I'd like this record to go another round. I am not convinced the bird is not a hybrid northern flicker. The following photo looks nearly identical to this photo with the exception of the salmon-colored wing shafts:
In addition, the photos seem to show a reddish tinge to the wing shafts and undertail coloration, spotting not barring in belly, and spotting not oval in shape on undersides.

2nd round:  

24 Aug 2012 No, ID I appreciated all the additional discussions, and the well documented submission. However, my concerns still apply and outside experts indicate similar concerns.
Terry S.. 12 Jul 2012 Acc Finally a Gilded Flicker record that has great photos and a well written narrative. I don't see anything in the photos or narrative that might suggest a hybrid.

2nd round:  

30 Aug 2012 Acc I disagree with the "experts" on this one. My monitor shows yellow in the tail feather shafts. I also se clear contrast between the gray in the face and the brown crown and nape. The amountt of dark in the tail also indicates guilded flicker. More than anything however is the narrative description which I believe details relative size with Northern Flicker and gives more detail on the observed bird than can be seen in the photos.
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Excellent Documentation!

2nd round:  

10 Sep 2012 Acc I'm staying with my vote to accept this record as Gilded Flicker. The written account and photographs document the (1) slightly smaller size compared when viewed side-by-side with a Northern Flicker, (2) cinnamon-brown crown & nape with sharp separation from face & red malar, and (3) yellow in feather shafts and underside of wing (in flight).
Mark S. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

12 Aug 2012 Acc I think the predominance of the field marks are on the Gilded Flicker end of the spectrum, and the ones that look like they might be questionable from the photos, such as the shaft/undertail color seem to be the kind of things that might be poorly rendered in a photo, and thus less trustworthy. Many of the spots do look a bit oval to me, and the bar-type spots on the lower belly, while not clearly visible in any of the photos, were noted by the observer. More objective field marks, like the proportion of black on the underside of the tail, point towards Gilded.

Given the evidence, I think the chance of this being a hybrid to be small, unless the proportion of Northern Flicker in it was also very small.
David W. 6 Aug 2012 Acc Once again, excellent photos & writeup. Everything seems to fit on this one.

2nd round:  

2 Sep 2012 Acc I am pleased that I am not going to be the only one to disagree with the outside experts. Although there are a couple field marks that seem inconclusive (esp the shape of the breast spots), I don't see anything that would rule out the Gilded flicker, and several things to suggest it, especially size. I am by no means an expert myself on this species, but the literature I have read points to this being a Gilded. I still feel this is the species reported.

 

2012-28 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 12 Jul 2012 Acc  
Rick F.   abst  
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc good photos
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 5 Aug 2012 Acc Excellent photo and description clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 12 Jul 2012 Acc Great photos
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Excellent Documentation!
Mark S. 4 Aug 2012 Acc excellent photos
David W. 11 Jul 2012 Acc The photos are not only definitive, but very lovely.

 

2012-29 Ovenbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 12 Jul 2012 Acc I presume that Rick must have his camera tethered to himself at all times. We can all learn from that. Great work.
Rick F.   abst  
Steve H. 11 Jul 2012 Acc excellent photos
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 5 Aug 2012 Acc Excellent photo and description clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 12 Jul 2012 Acc Very good Photos
Jack S.. 11 Jul 2012 Acc Excellent Documentation!
Mark S. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  
David W. 11 Jul 2012 Acc  

  

2012-30 Roseate Spoonbill

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 31 Jul 2012 Acc  
Rick F. 30 Jul 2012 Acc Wow, crazy location. Clearly a spoonbill.
Steve H. 31 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 5 Aug 2012 Acc Photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 5 Aug 2012 Acc Great video and photo showing a Roseate Spoonbill. The only question is whether this is an escaped captive bird or accidental vagrant. To me it seems likely that a vagrant sighting in Utah would occur in the Colorado River drainage. Irregular sightings of roseate spoonbills occur at the Saltan Sea and lower Colorado River. It is very possible this bird worked its way up the river.
Jack S.. 5 Aug 2012 Acc [10 Aug 2012] The only reservation I have is to whether or not this bird could be an escapee. The fact that it was found in such a remote place and is a hatch year bird suggests a dispersal event.
Mark S. 4 Aug 2012 Acc Wow. Saw one yesterday, but not in Utah.
David W. 30 Jul 2012 Acc Amazing record. It appears to be a juvenile based on the sparcity of pink in the wings and the head pattern.

 

2012-31 Palm Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 6 Aug 2012 No, ID I do not believe the details adequately describe a Palm Warbler. There is no mention of tail bobbing which is essential in identification of Palm Warbler. The photos are really of no help and certainly do not show identifying characteristics of a Palm Warbler. I suspect this is a young Orange-crowned Warbler.
Rick F. 13 Aug 2012 No, ID I believe the photos, physical description, and behaviour are a better fit for an Orange-crowned Warbler.
Steve H. 31 Aug 2012 No, ID Description is incomplete and several key marks are not mentioned, including tail wagging which Palm Warblers do continually.
Ryan O. 4 Aug 2012 No, ID Description and photos do not eliminate Orange-crowned Warbler, which can have a pale supercilium beyond the eye, darker cap, and paler throat.  For example, see: Wikipedia page  and Cornell Lab photos
Ron R. 5 Aug 2012 No, ID Photos indicate a bird much too green to be a palm warbler. Dark olive cap is not is also not consistent with palm warbler. Much more consistent with a orange-crowned warbler. Pale supercilium can extend beyond eye on orange-crowned warbler.
Terry S.. 8 Aug 2012 No, ID I am not at sure what the observer may have seen. The description is very sparse and the photos are of such poor quality I can't tell. The are a number of things that suggest this was not a Palm Warbler: Late July is much too early for fall migration of this species; high mountain conifers are not the preferred habitat even in migration; the behavior of constant tail-wagging was not mentioned so probably not observed.
Jack S.. 5 Aug 2012 No, ID Too many field marks in photograph B are inconclusive for Palm Warbler; the back is green not dull brown and patterned, a strong face pattern is not obvious (also photo A) and the undertail coverts are green-yellow not the contrasting bright yellow of Palm Warbler. No mention of telltale Palm Warbler behavior - tail pumping.
Mark S. 4 Aug 2012 No, ID I can't see a Palm Warbler here, from either the description, or certainly not the marginally-useful photos. The behavior doesn't fit, something that is distinctive for this species. I think he most likely saw an Orange-crowned Warbler, as nothing in the description or the photos would be out-of-place for that species.
David W. 6 Aug 2012 No, ID When I look at the photos, the blurry bird there looks more like an Orange-crowned than a Palm warbler to me--which would be more fitting for that habitat and season anyway.   Note, for example, the apparent lack of wingbars, greenish color to back and wings.  Previous fall records in Utah are from far later in the season (late September onwards).  The write-up does not provide adequate detail to convince me that this is a Palm warbler. 

  

2012-32 Magnificent Hummingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 21 Sep 2012 Acc (7 Sep 2012) I really suspect this is a Magnificant Hummingbird, but I have just enough misgivings to vote no on the first round. To vote yes on a bird this far out of range I just feel we need very definitive evidence. The size difference should be striking, more than described. As described, the tail flapping for Black-chinned is an excellent field mark, but not infallible, as I have observed the occasional Black-chinned that seems to have not been informed about this characteristic. There was no comment made about what should be a striking difference in breast coloration between these two birds. I would like to see this go to a second round. Perhaps one lesson we could learn is to keep our cameras near our feeders.

(21 Sep 2012)  After reviewing Steve's additional notes I am inclined to vote for this bird even though I still have a few misgivings. I had originally voted no, but I really don't know what else this might have been. Bill length and facial markings seem to rule out Anna's, although the size I wish were described as larger.

2nd round:  

12 Nov 2012 No, ID I have been vacillating on this bird ever since it was submitted. I have gone from no to yes and now back to no. I certainly cannot say this was not a Magnificent Hummingbird, but I can't say with certainty that it was. The size description is my main hang-up.

3rd round:  

20 Dec 2012 No, ID I have vacillated enough on this bird, so i am not changing my mind a third time. I think this could well be a Magnificent Hummingbird, but I just don't think this description is definitive enough to be certain.
Rick F. 6 Sep 2012 No, ID

There are several aspects of the description that are puzzling to me.  First Magnificent Hummingbirds are considerable larger (and longer) than Black-chinned Hummingbirds (with nearly twice the mass, wingspan, etc).  Also female / imm. Mags have very long bills (substantially longer than Black-chin’s bill), dark broad tails, and greenish spots on the underside, and gray throats with dusky spots.

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 No, ID  

3rd round:  

26 Dec 2012 No, ID  
Steve H. 31 Aug 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

25 Nov 2012 Acc I have concerns with the size,as Magnificent is much larger than Black-chin, but without a direct comparison, size can be more difficult to determine. The field marks described by Steve including the additional comments fit Magnificent, especially the darker gray underparts, larger white eye spot, dark cheek patch, and lack of tail pumping, so I'm voting to accept.
Ryan O. 3 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

5 Nov 2012 Acc  

Ron R.  2nd:  

9 Nov 2012 Acc While not an ideal description, I feel it is sufficient to ID this species. In particular, the larger size and robust stature (as compared to rufous and black-chinned), very long bill, gray underparts (darker than black-chinned), large white eye spot (than black-chinned) are consistent with this species. Wing length less than tail is problematic, but does not eliminate magnificent. My experience with black-chinned is that there are smaller individuals (young birds), but that adult birds don't have a great size range, certainly not enough to "jump out" at an observer as really unusual. Anna's and blue-throated are sufficiently eliminated. Timing is also consistent with this species.
Terry S.. 10 Sep 2012 Acc Even though there are no photographs the description sounds good for a Magnificent Hummingbird. The comparative large size, green back, gray underparts, long dark bill and small white spots on the tail are convincing.

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 Acc I still feel this is an acceptable record. The relative large size while not determined by side to side comparison with a black chinned was determined by the size of the hummingbird in comparison to the hummingbird feeder.

3rd round:  

28 Dec 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 2 Oct 2012 No, ID (1) Lacking a side-by-side comparison of Magnificent and Black-chinned Hummingbird leaves relative size determination ambiguous. (2) Plumage description given (bill size and shape, greenish back, dark wings, grayish underparts, white spot behind eye, dark auricular, white spots at tips of rectrices) are consistent with Magnificent but also the more common Black-ch. (3) My experience with Magnificent is dated by ~20 years, can anyone can comment on Magnificent Hummingbird tail-pumping behavior and its use as a diagnostic field mark?

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2012 No, ID  

3rd round:  

27 Dec 2012 No, ID  
Mark S. 9 Sep 2012 No, ID I'm torn on this record, and I'd like to have some discussion on this before passing (or rejecting) it. Hopefully someone will vote to accept so that we can have this discussion.

The separation of female Magnificent and Black-chinned Hummingbirds is not trivial, and I've seen it lead to problems and false reports of Magnificent, especially in northern Utah, so I think extreme caution is warranted. The coloration can be nearly identical. Some female Black-chinned can have a very strong post-ocular stripe (and all have the white post-ocular spot), and the breast can be as gray, or at least appear as gray, as on Magnificent. Size alone should be enough to tell these apart, since the Magnificent should be 25-30% larger, but I've seen this confused, too, especially in late summer when juvenile Black-chinned are numerous, and can appear noticeably smaller than an adult female. But a Magnificent should appear giant next to a Black-chinned. Unfortunately, it sounds like the observer here didn't get a side-by-side comparison view.

There are structural differences, but here the description has some problems for me. The tail is reported as slightly longer than the wings, but for Magnificent, the tail should be equal to the wings - this sounds more like Black-chinned, where the tail is often slightly longer than the wings. Proportional bill length is roughly the same in these species, but on Magnificent it should be straighter - Black-chinned usually shows a slight droop, especially at the tip. In both wing/tail length and the bill shape, I'd say that the description leans more towards Black-chinned.

I think that this bird could be a Magnificent, and the observer is experienced with both species, but I feel that this is not a trivial call, and not all of the evidence as presented points unequivocally to this identification; I will be interested to see what the rest of you have to say.

2nd round:  

20 Dec 2012 No, ID Again I'm really on the fence here, but erring on the side of caution with a lack of definitive evidence.

3rd round:  

21 Dec 2012 No, ID  
David W. 14 Sep 2012 No, ID I'd like to send this to the second round for discussion.

I think the description of this hummingbird may very well be that of a Magnificent hummingbird, but it is vague enough that I am hesitant. I am also troubled by the size comparison being made indirectly (not while both species were present) and also that this bird was described as being 20-25% larger than the Black-chinneds. A Magnificent hummingbird is a very large hummingbird. Different texts show different measurements, but most show a greater than 25% size differential between the two species. If, for example, one looks at Howell's Mexico guide, the relative sizes are given as 12-13.5cm (ave 13cm) for the Magnificent and 8.5-9.5cm (ave 9cm) for the Black-chinned. Using the higher percent range (25%), that would make the reported hummingbird 11.25cm long, significantly smaller than the average Magnificent. If one uses the 20% (lower) estimate, the hummingbird was only 10.8cm, far smaller than the Magnificent. Now, I know these measurements are based on estimates, s!
o this by no means proves the reported hummingbird was not a Magnificent, but it makes me pause enough to send this to the second round.

Also, I don't know if I would characterize the white streak behind a female Magnificent hummingbird's eye as a spot.

The other field marks (dusky chest and heavy dark eye streak) are helpful, but I do not think definitive. The field marks suggest a Magnificent more than anything else likely to show up in Utah, but I don't think the fit is perfect. I am looking forward to seeing what the rest of you have to say about this.

2nd round:  

26 Nov 2012 No, ID  

3rd round:  

31 Dec 2012 No, ID  

     

2012-33 Pacific Golden-Plover

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 7 Sep 2012 No, ID This is an example of a bird that I would likely count on my own list if I were to see it, but not one I would bet the house on, and one I am hesitant to vote yes on as a definitive ID for the record. The photos are really of no help. It certainly appears to be a "Golden" Plover, but that is all I can say. The wing tip to tail ratio is a valid mark, but at 200 yards, and with at least a little discrepancy between the observers, this is a bit suspect. The second observer really adds no meaningful additional helpful facts. I am a bit swayed by the fact that I saw and counted a Pacific Golden-plover on the AIC last spring myself, including photos that were no better than these, and did not submit it because I wouldn't bet the house on that one either.
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 No, ID

The distinction between American GP and Pacific GP is very difficult and to confirm need more complete description/distinct photos of primary projection, primary spacing, head and face pattern, nape and scapular pattern etc.
Steve H. 31 Aug 2012 No, ID The description and photos are not convincing that the subject bird is a Pacific Golden-Plover.
Ryan O. 3 Sep 2012 No, ID No mention of primary extension beyond the tertials, which should be a more obvious field mark than primary extension beyond the tail. Some inconsistencies in the written description are also confusing: Bill type is described as "short and thin" but the Similar Species section describes a "long thin bill." No attempt to eliminate the (less likely but structurally more similar) European Golden-Plover.
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 No, ID This bird appears to be a black-bellied plover. The video (when bird has wing extended) clearly shows a bold white wing stripe, dark primary tips on the underwing, and apparent black armpit. All are consistent with black-bellied plover, and inconsistent with all three golden plover species.
Terry S.. 10 Sep 2012 No, ID This may be a Pacific Golden-Plover but I don't think the description nor the photos adequately rule out an American Golden-Plover which is very similar.
Jack S.. 2 Oct 2012 No, ID (1) Inadequate description to eliminate the more common American Golden-Plover. (2) I'm open to comments from other committee members on this one.
Mark S. 9 Sep 2012 No, ID This is another tough record to call, and I'd like to have some discussion on this record.

Both the written descriptions and the photos and video are lacking in sufficient detail to truly evaluate this record. From the video, I don't see any indication of black axillars, so I think we do have one of the Golden-Plovers here, but which one is a tough call, and probably isn't safely possible given the data we have.

For this to be a Pacific, there are a couple of things that trouble me. First, in the bird in the photos looks better shape-wise for American to me. The wings/tail look too attenuated, and the body not very deep - more like American. Of course, we can't really see anything of the wing/tail ration or the primary extension, and the observer reports of this feature are somewhat conflicting, but I've found that the overall shape can be a decent preliminary indication of these, and the shape I see here would have me thinking American.

Also, the legs don't appear very long to me, especially the exposed tarsus, again supporting American.

Finally, the prominence of the supercillium that is noted might also suggest American rather than Pacific, especially if this was a juvenile bird, as juvenile Pacific has a mostly yellowish face, where the supercillium is less obvious. However, we don't know the age of this bird, and the date doesn't help, as it's a late date for adults, but an early date for juveniles.

I'll be interested to see the opinions of others.
David W. 13 Sep 2012 No, ID I was really torn about this one. In many ways this is a very good submission. This certainly could have been a Pacific golden-plover (PGP).

From the description, it is clear it was a golden-plover of some sort (and the video of underwing precludes the European). But the bird was seen at such a great distance (200 yds according to Bryant), that it is not surprising that some of the more definitive field marks weren't mentioned. For example, the description of the bird being "very richly colored golden rufus brown" does not address where it was thus colored. What was the color of the face, especially the strong supercilium?

Also, there was no direct size comparison to the American golden-plover (AGP). The short primary projections are a good field mark, but don't exclude a juvenile AGP.

In my mind, barring further evidence to the contrary, the description doesn't adequately eliminate the possibility of a bright juvenile AGP.

 

2012-34 Little Blue Heron

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 11 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 No, ID I obviously did not do my homework on this bird, as I agree it is a Reddish Egret. I have changed my vote to no.
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 No, ID This is a great record ….. of an immature Reddish Egret!

2nd round:  

12 Nov 2012 No, ID This bird is clearly an immature Reddish Egret and THIS submittal should be accepted as such.
Steve H. 21 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

25 Nov 2012 No, ID I'm voting no on Little Blue heron, but accept as imm. Reddish Egret.
Ryan O. 21 Oct 2012 No, ID Dark, very long legs; long, thick, unicolored bill; and overall color pattern indicate that this is a juvenile dark morph Reddish Egret, not a Little Blue Heron.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2012 No, ID 2012-34, Little Blue Heron. Accept as Reddish Egret. "No, ID" if I MUST vote on Little Blue Heron I'd prefer to simply vote to accept as a Reddish Egret. Please consider this my vote as such.
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 No, ID

This bird appears to be a juvenile reddish egret. The bird does not have a narrow, slightly drooping bill, two tone bill, or white near eye that would be consistent with an adult little blue heron. The bill is too straight and heavy for this species, and is uniform in color. In addition, the color is more brown than dark gray. These characteristics are all consistent with a juvenile reddish egret.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 No, ID Comments from first round still apply. This record should be resubmitted as a reddish egret.
Terry S.. 10 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 No, ID Missed the ID on the first round. I agree with Jack that we should accept the record as a Juvenile Reddish Egret even if the observer doesn't resubmit the record.
Jack S.. 11 Oct 2012 No, ID The colors are washed out and its difficult to determine the true color of body plumage, bill, and legs. The structure and size are right for a Little Blue Heron; compare to Franklin's Gull at 13-14". This comparison would put the heron at about 26-30", in agreement with Little Blue Heron.

Another possibility is hatch year Reddish Egret, also similar in size to Little Blue Heron (30" compared to 26"). There is brown-buff color in the head and upper neck of this bird. The all dark bill and legs are in better agreement with Reddish Egret.

Could we get access to the other photographs? The verification says five photographs were taken of this bird.

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2012 No, ID We should accept this record as a juvenile Reddish Egret.
Mark S. 15 Sep 2012 No, ID I'd vote to accept this as a Reddish Egret, but it's not a Little Blue Heron.

Head shape, bill shape/length, bill color, facial skin color, and leg color are all much better for immature Reddish Egret than non-breeding adult Little Blue Heron. By the shape of the bare parts on the face, we can see that this is an immature bird (adults of both species have more extensive bare lores), so Little Blue Heron can be excluded by plumage alone.

Also, the size comparison with a nearby Franklin's Gull in the second photo would suggest a larger bird than Little Blue Heron.

This beast is a Reddish Egret. Perhaps the record can be resubmitted as such?
David W. 13 Sep 2012 No, ID I think this bird's shape/proportion, leg & foot color, iris color, face pattern (including cap), bill shape, and perhaps hint of base bill color, point more to a Basic I plumaged Reddish egret. I'd like to hear what the rest of you think about this, especially those living in climes where both species are regular.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 No, ID I still think this is a Reddish egret, and hope it is resubmitted as such.

 

2012-35 Tropical Kingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 16 Sep 2012 Acc I am just not certain that Couch's can completely be ruled out on the basis of these pictures and description, with no call notes noted. However, Tropical seems so much more likely to occur in Utah, and the characteristics noted do favor Tropical, that I am voting to accept. Great find.

2nd round:  

12 Nov 2012 Acc With Steve's additional notes about response to the Tropical Kingbird playback, I feel even a little more confident in voting yes on this bird.
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 No, ID

Incredible sighting.

I’m not convinced Tropical and Couch’s Kingbird can be reliably distinguished without confirming differences in voice. Although there are great photos of this bird the distinguishing characters between these two species are not conclusive (bill length and shape; primary spacing). The bill appears long in several photos (favoring Tropical Kingbird), however, it does not appear thin, and is extremely broad-based – photos E & F (favoring Couch’s).   Unfortunately the tertails and secondaries are hiding the primary spacing in the photos.  The gap between P7 and P8 in photo C appears staggered but i’m not certain this is definitive in the photo (?).

2nd round:  

12 Dec 2012 Acc Apparently the length of the bill on this bird is outside the range for Couch's.
Steve H. 21 Sep 2012 Acc Excellent find.

2nd round:  

25 Nov 2012 Acc Bill in photos A and B is typical of Tropical Kingbird and much larger than Couch's.
Ryan O. 21 Oct 2012 Acc Couch's Kingbird is obviously the most difficult to eliminate, but I agree with the submitter that the bill on this individual is probably outside of the range expected for Couch's Kingbird. Age can be determined as juvenile based on the rounded, not notched, primary tips in photo H.

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 Acc Outside expert opinions were unanimous in stating that the bill of this bird was sufficiently large to exclude Couch's from consideration, and that primary formula and other traits further confirm Tropical Kingbird over Couch's.
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 No, ID This bird is clearly either a tropical or Couch's kingbird. However, I am leaning toward Couch's kingbird because of the even spacing of primary tips in the folded wing (see Geo guide) that are apparent in photos B, C, E, F.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 No, ID My comments from the first round still apply. While primary development is not as in an adult, the equal spacing does not support tropical (but perhaps cannot eliminate it either). Perhaps this record can be sent to someone with extensive field and/or study specimen experience with these two species.
Terry S.. 26 Sep 2012 Acc Great sighting and excellent photos

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 Acc I appreciate Ryan's solicitation of opinion from ID Frontiers. While some on the committee believe we cannot rule out Couch's Kingbird I think we should accept the record as a Tropical Kingbird with a note in record stating the Couch's possibility.
Jack S.. 30 Sep 2012 No, ID Interesting bird; the overall structure and plumage fits the Couch's/Tropical Kingbird pair. Would it be acceptable to consider this species pair? I'd like to hear discussion from committee members.

It also looks to be a hatch year (HY) bird because of the shape of the primary tips P5-P10 (especially P10 that has no notch), clearly unlike the adult primary feather shapes shown in Figure 166. The rectrices R4-R6 also appear to be tapered (not truncate) and this is consistent with a HY age.

There are several metrics in Pyle (Figures 166-168) but unfortunately he warns that the criteria are not applicable to HY birds.

Good description and photograph!

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2012 No, ID We should accept this record as a Tropical/Couch's Kingbird pair.
Mark S. 15 Sep 2012 No, ID O.K., let's be honest here. Even though we have extensive and excellent photos, and a good description, no one heard this bird call, so really, there is no way be certain as to whether this bird is a Couch's or a Tropical Kingbird.

The excellent documentation eliminates the other possibilities, Western and Cassin's, so it is Couch's or Tropical.

Even with adult, non-molting individuals, visual separation of these two species is perilous, and many individuals simply cannot be safely identified in the field. With immature birds and molting adults, it may not be safe to call any without voice.

Due mostly to the rather rounded, blunt primary tips of this individual, I judge that we have an immature here. Our positive i.d. becomes more elusive.

In *some* of the photos (A&B especially), the bill seems to be long and thick, perhaps out of the size range for Couch's, and better for Tropical. In other photos (especially M), this seems less distinct.

The back color looks to be on the green side for Tropical in some photos, and too gray for Couch's in others.

The primary projection seems rather short, good for Tropical, but the primary tips look mostly evenly spaced, better for Couch's. Of course, assuming that this is an immature bird, neither of those characters are reliable.

Range and known patterns of vagrancy suggest that Tropical would be much more likely than Couch's, but at least one record from California and two from New Mexico indicate that we shouldn't discount the possibility of Couch's completely. However, we don't have exactly the same problem that we do with Eastern Meadowlark, where we probably shouldn't (and haven't) accept any record without vocalization, because, with these kingbirds, neither of the confusing pair are common locally, as is the case with the Meadowlark. Clearly, Tropical would be the "expected" species in this case.

My feeling on this record is that, while the visual evidence is inconclusive, it leans slightly towards Tropical Kingbird being the correct call for this bird.

I wonder if anyone tried using a playback of either species, and if so, what the response was.

I'll be willing to pass this record as a Tropical Kingbird, but not on the first round. I think that we need to acknowledge that there is no way to be absolutely certain of the i.d. given the evidence presented.
David W. 13 Sep 2012 Acc We were overdue for this bird.

2nd round:  

19 Nov 2012 Acc The Couch's-Tropical kingbird identification problem may be a thorny one in many instances, but I do not think this bird, so well photographed, falls into that confusion zone. The outside expert opinions compiled by Ryan confirm my own opinion that this bird, especially as regards the bill, is almost certainly a Tropical kingbird.

    

2012-36 Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 26 Sep 2012 Acc I am always a bit concerned about a delayed report without notes or photos, but this description seems rather straight forward.

2nd round:  

12 Nov 2012 Acc  
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 No, ID

The description is very marginal and lacks several significant details (e.g. rufous in wings is striking in flight), however, a few other characters are mentioned (if not well described).  The timing is correct for a migrating YB Cuckoo passing through Washington County.  I really could go either way on this one.

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 No, ID  
Steve H. 21 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

25 Nov 2012 Acc  
Ryan O. 15 Nov 2012 Acc Report does not include all relevant field marks, but does include enough to eliminate similar species.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2012 Acc Report does not include all relevant field marks, but does include enough to eliminate similar species.
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 Acc  While a minimal description, I feel it is sufficient to eliminate other species.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 Acc Comments from first round still apply.
Terry S..     A scant narrative missing some key ID marks but still enough to accept

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 30 Sep 2012 Acc Sufficient description!

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2012 Acc  
Mark S. 21 Sep 2012 Acc Good documentation.
David W. 18 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 Acc I think there is enough here to eliminate a Black-billed, including the descr. of the tail.

 

2012-37 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 29 Sep 2012 Acc I am again always concerned about a delayed report, especially concerning a bird observed without bins, but I would be hard pressed to think of what else this could be.

2nd round:  

12 Nov 2012 Acc  
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 Acc

Another very limited description, but details fairly convincing.  Long-billed not adequately eliminated by “bill was straight’ – bills of Brown and LB are similar in shape; LB is slighting larger.

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 Acc  I'm confused about the discusssion regarding differences in shape between Brown and Long-billed Thrasher. The bills of both species are similiarly shaped; LB is a bit larger but is shaped the same as Brown.
Steve H. 21 Sep 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

25 Nov 2012 Acc  
Ryan O. 21 Oct 2012 No, ID Although unrecorded (yet) in Utah, description does not sufficiently eliminate Long-billed Thrasher, which has been recorded in New Mexico and Colorado. Description is actually subtly better for Long-billed Thrasher given the description of the base color of the breast as white (not buff) and the tail as brown (not rufous). Long-billed Thrasher was eliminated by bill being straight in the report, but both Long-billed and Brown Thrashers have subtly decurved bills.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2012 No, ID The report attempts to eliminate Long-billed Thrasher solely on the basis of the "straight" bill, but because neither species has a perfectly straight bill and both have a somewhat decurved bill (albeit usually more decurved in Long-billed than in Brown) this description is not sufficient in my opinion to eliminate the similar Long-billed Thrasher.
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 Acc While a minimal description, I feel it is sufficient to eliminate other species.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 Acc While I appreciated Ryan's comments, this bird is still more consistent with brown thrasher. The straight bill is not consistent with the long-billed, which is noticeably decurved. While perplexing, the brown tail is not more consistent with long-billed which has a tail colored the same as the back. The underparts of a brown thrasher often appear white, or nearly white.
Terry S.. 16 Oct 2012 Acc  

2nd round:  

18 Nov 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 30 Sep 2012 Acc Sufficient description!

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2012 Acc  
Mark S. 21 Sep 2012 Acc Good documentation.
David W. 18 Sep 2012 Acc I'm a bit puzzled about the description of the tail color, but I can't think of anything else this could be.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2012 Acc Ryan's comments were quite interesting, and I was surprised to find that in some plumages the head of the Long-billed thrasher can indeed be rusty. Thanks for that. I think, though, that the bill description is much better for the Brown thrasher. The Long-billed thrasher may have a straight-ish bill but never as straight as the Brown (which can have what I would definitely describe as a straight bill). I think the description is sufficient to vote to ACCEPT, especially since the observer is very familiar with the Brown thrasher.

   

2012-38 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 29 Sep 2012 Acc Glad for all the photos
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 Acc

Nice description and photos
Steve H. 18 Oct 2012 Acc Nice photos
Ryan O. 21 Oct 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 Acc Very good photos and written description clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 16 Oct 2012 Acc  
Jack S.. 30 Sep 2012 Acc Nice photographs and writeup!
Mark S. 23 Sep 2012 Acc Good documentation of a distinctive species.
David W. 22 Sep 2012 Acc  

   

2012-39 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Bob B. 1 Oct 2012 Acc Great, great pictures
Rick F. 27 Oct 2012 Acc

Marginal but adequate description, definitive photos.
Steve H. 18 Oct 2012 Acc Great photos
Ryan O. 21 Oct 2012 Acc  
Ron R. 8 Nov 2012 Acc Excellent photos clearly show this species.
Terry S.. 16 Oct 2012 Acc Great photos
Jack S.. 30 Sep 2012 Acc Beautiful photographs!
Mark S. 29 Sep 2012 Acc Good documentation and excellent photos of a very distinctive species.
David W. 30 Sep 2012 Acc  

  

2012-40 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 2nd 6 Jan 2013 abst Abstain
Bob B. 4 Oct 2012 Acc The bill looks a bit long to me, and I don't believe wing flicking, or lack therof,can be used as a reliable ID marker, but everything else on this bird suggests Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, so I am voting to accept.

2nd round:  

18 Dec 2012 No, ID After viewing others comments and this report again, I feel this bird could well be Cordilleran and am changing my vote to no.

Rick F. 2nd :  

26 Dec 2012 No, ID There's a lot I like about this as a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (tertials, eye-ring), but there are several characters (bill length, crested head, proportions, etc.) suggesting a Western Flycatcher. I spent some time in photoshop trying to tease out primary spacing; it was somewhat inconclusive given the low resolution photos, however it appeared relatively evenly spaced on P5-7.
Steve H. 18 Oct 2012 No, ID Some marks fit YBFC but others don't. The tail and bill look a little too long for YBFC and the overall shape is very similar to Cordilleran. I'd like to see comments from others on this one.
Ryan O. 7 Nov 2012 No, ID To me, the peaked crown of this bird and the relatively low contrast in the tertials point toward Western Flycatcher over Yellow-bellied. I'm not certain I can make out the tips of the primaries in any of these photos, but the best indications are for a relatively even spacing of primary tips, also indicating Western Flycatcher. The eye ring is thicker at the back of the eye, within the range shown by either species. The "similar species" section says that Yellow-bellied Flycatchers don't flick their wings, but Kaufman (Advanced Birding) says that Yellow-bellied does much flicking of the wings and tail.

2nd round:  

8 Jan 2013 No, ID Concerns from previous round remain.
Ron R. 9 Nov 2012 Acc Certainly yellow-bellied or "western". Characteristics are more consistent with yellow-bellied. Most importantly: eyering is complete (no break at top) and rounded (not tearshaped), wing and tail color is nearly black and contrasts greatly with upperparts and with tertial edges, tertial edges appear yellowish not white and are prominant, upperparts are very green with no hint of brown, and middle primaries appear relatively uniformly spaced (perhaps I am seeing to much in photo B--thanks Terry!). In contrast, I don't see any characteristics that are uniquely "western", with perhaps the head shape. However, I don't see the head shape being outside the range of photos I reviewed of yellow-bellied.

2nd round:  

27 Jan 2013 No, ID After reveiwing the comments from other committee members, I feel that "Western" flycatcher cannot be safely eliminated. The size of the bill, head crest, eye-ring shape are all consistent with "Western".
Terry S.. 1 Nov 2012 No, ID There are several ID items that concern me with this record:
The head seems rather large and crested in the photos. A typical Yellow-bellied Flycatcher would have a small, rounded head.

The eyering in some of the photos looks more typical of the "Western" flycatchers with a tear-drop shape and thinning at the top of the ring. The observers narrate that the eyering looked bold and uniformly round but I see something different in some of the photos.

The remiges or wings seem a dark brown with pale yellow edges but not the black remiges with boldly contrasting white or yellow edges expected in Yellow-bellied.

The literature review indicates a difference in primary wingtip pattern as a good subjective field mark. Yellow- bellied Flycatchers have longer tertials than Western Flycatchers that cover more of the secondary and primary tips . Four to six primary tips are visible in Yellow-bellied whereas five to nine are visible in Western species. There is also a difference in the spacing and length of primary tips between Yellow- bellied. This important field mark was not mentioned in the narrative. The best view of the primary tip is in the enlarged photo "B". I don't know if the photo can be edited to show more contrast to make the primary tips more visible but as shown I can't see the spacing in the primary tips nor can I count how many are visible.

A good review of the Yellow-bellied vs Western is found at the following link: http://www.californiabirds.org/members/ybfl.pdf

2nd round:  

28 Dec 2012 No, ID  

Jack S. 2nd r:

 27 Dec 2012 No, ID  
Mark S. 1 Oct 2012 No, ID  I'm having trouble seeing a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher here. This bird looks like any number of fall Cordilleran Flycatchers I've seen. The bill looks too long for YBFL, the tail too long, the primary extensions too short, the back too olive, and the underparts not yellow enough. The feathers o the wing seem too brownish, and the eyering does appear to be tear-drop shaped, and broken over the eye, although that character may not be definitive for separating these two species.

I don't think that we can safely eliminate Cordilleran Flycatcher for this record.

2nd round:  

20 Dec 2012 No, ID As per my first round comments.
David W. 8 Oct 2012 No, ID I'd like a little more discussion on this record before voting to accept. I am no empid expert, but I am having a hard time convincing myself that this bird could just as well not be a Cordilleran (or "Western"). The eye ring doesn't seem very even, the head seems proportionately within the range of Westerns and often crested in the photos, the bill looks like a Western's (though the distinction is so subtle between the two as to be nearly useless), the tail fairly long, the back fairly dull, and the primary extensions unconvincing. The two species are nearly identical, and so I'd like to read what the rest of you think. Also, according to Kaufman, the Yellow-bellied stays in the darkest portions of the forest even in migration, whereas this bird was seen in the open, widely-spaced, airy trees near the bathrooms even when the thick Poplar / Box elder / Russian olive copse was just a couple hundred feet to the south, seemingly much better habitat.

2nd round:  

22 Dec 2012 No, ID  

       

 

Return to the Utah Birds Home Page