Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2013 (records 40 through 60)

2013-40 Flamingo

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	8 Jun 2013	No, ID	This record provided no species identification.
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	No, Nat	I would accept this record as a flamingo species, except I question their natural occurrence.
Bob B.	23 May 2013	No, Nat	I do not question the correct Identification of these birds. The likelihood that these are naturally occurring seems remote. If only there was a simple way of chasing down a possible source of missing captive birds.
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	No, Nat	As I mentiioned, I don't believe we need to know the specific species of Flamingo to reject this record as it is most certainly represents birds that did not arrive here by natural means.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	No, Nat	Interesting record
2nd round:	15 Aug 2013	No, Nat
Ryan O.	21 May 2013	No, ID	Our bylaws do not allow voting on any taxon other than species. Therefore, since a species was not proposed for voting, all votes should be "Reject, specific (i.e. species-level) identification not established." This is why I submitted a proposal to allow voting on records like this. I am convinced the observer saw two flamingos, but our bylaws explicitly prohibit voting to accept any record that is not identified to the species level, and "flamingo" includes six species in the family Phoenicopteridae.
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	No, Nat	I do believe that the observer saw two flamingoes. If we could be convinced they were American Flamingoes, then I'd be wrestling much more with the possibility of natural origin of these birds. However, with recent records of Chilean Flamingo (http://www.utahbirds.org/featarts/2004/UtahsPinkFloyd.htm) and Lesser Flamingo (photographed within 70 miles of this observation and about two months later: http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S14779398), both either known to not be or VERY unlikely to be natural vagrants from established populations, I think the most likely source for these individuals was that they were escapees. In fact, I wonder if the Lesser Flamingo photographed later (link above) might be one of the two individuals reported here, except that the observer described the bill as black tipped, not black. I contacted the ISIS database of zoo collections and they report 17 institutions in North America that currently keep a total of 391 Lesser Flamingoes in captivity. I have not attempted to contact these institutions to see if any are missing a bird. Regardless, I appreciate having this record in our archives, accepted or not.
Terry S..	5 Jun 2013	No, Int	Most probably a flamingo but with no species indicated it difficult to evaluate if this is a possible valid sighting of a wayward bird. We have had a flamingo sighting in Utah about 20 years ago but was an escaped Chilean Flamingo that escaped from Tracy Aviary in Salt Lake City. The bird would appear on the shore of Great Salt Lake every winter for several years.
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	No, ID	The species ID for this record was not established and the possibility of it being an escaped bird was not excluded.
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	No, Nat	Species not established, and this would be a critical factor for even beginning to consider the natural occurrence of this individual, unlikely as it would be for any flamingo sp., it would be prohibitively unlikely for anything other than American Flamingo.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2013	No, Nat
David W.		Acc/No, ID	I am voting to accept this as a flamingo (species unknown), in case that the vote on how to deal with species groups comes out to affirm that possibility. If the Committee's vote determines that records need to be for a particular species, then I vote NO, ID.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2013	No, Nat	OK, I am swayed by the sound logic of many of you. The natural occurrence of the species has not been established. Without knowing the species, we cannot assign proper probabilities as to the natural occurrence of the species. I like Mark's logic on this.

2013-41 Least Tern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	8 Jun 2013	Acc
Bob B.	23 May 2013	Acc
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	Nice diagnostic photos
Ryan O.	21 May 2013	Acc	Certainly the most likely identification for this individual, but Little Terns and Saunder's Terns are quite similar and can be difficult to exclude except by range. Vocalizations are distinct, but no vocalizations of this bird were heard. Least Terns are slightly smaller than Little Terns, but description of size as "smaller than other terns" doesn't help in this regard. Although the written description does not attempt to eliminate these two very similar species, the photos are conclusive: the rump appears gray in photo D, not contrasting with lower back, consistent with Least Tern and ruling out Little Tern. Saunder's Tern can be excluded by the shape of the white patch on the forehead, projecting back into the black in a point, rather than a squared-off patch of white.
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc	Good Photographs!
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Adequate description and photos.
David W.	20 Jun 2013	Acc	The ID is not in question. But is this the same individual as in Lehi? I cannot be certain, but this individual does appear to be different than the one seen in Lehi. Perhaps it is just the way it is holding its tail in the photos, but the the tail seems longer in this bird

2013-42 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	23 May 2013	Acc	I would like to have had a description of the legs and a little more detailed description of the bill. I don't believe one can completely rule out a juvenile White-faced, but it might be too early. I suspect this was a Glossy so I am voting yes.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	21 May 2013	Acc	I'd still prefer a more explicit elimination of potential hybrids, but description seems entirely consistent with pure Glossy Ibis in breeding plumage.
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	I'm not sure that a possible hybrid was adequately considered, but nothing in the description suggests a hybrid.
David W.	26 May 2013	Acc

2013-43 White Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	Acc
Bob B.	23 May 2013	Acc	This description pretty much rules out anything else.
2nd round:	2 Aug 2013	Acc
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	No, ID	Although the description is brief it describes a White Ibis pretty well. I'm concerned that two naturally occurring vagrant White Ibis would be unprecedented....
2nd round:	15 Aug 2013	No, ID	Without photographic confirmation, I cannot accept an unprecedented record of multiple vagrant White Ibis.
Ryan O.	25 May 2013	Acc	Description is right on, eliminating similar species, and timing is good for a vagrant.
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	Acc	I scanned around many of the other peripheral records of White Ibis in eBird and every observation of 30+ that I looked at reported only a single bird. I checked in Birds of North America about when pair bonds form, and it was not very explicit, although it did describe the species as monogamous. My conclusion is that it is quite unlikely to see a pair of vagrants together, but plausible that a mated pair could wander together. I did not see enough evidence to the contrary to convince me to change my vote.
Terry S..	24 Jun 2013	Acc	While no photo the narrative describes a White Ibis. The only question is the origin of the bird and if it may be an escapee. At this point I think it is likely an acceptable sighting.
2nd round:	28 Aug 2013	Acc	I agree that 2 White Ibis showing up together in Utah is extremely unlikely, but the description given is pretty much unmistakable for this species.
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc	The structure and plumage descriptions (White overall, red face, bill, and legs, black wing tips especially prominent) are certainly right and distinctive for this species.
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Decent description of a nearly unmistakeable species, at least as an adult.
2nd round:	28 Aug 2013	Acc	I don't think that the i.d. of an adult of this species could be easily mistaken. Given that it's not a species commonly kept in captivity in this region, I'm not overly concerned with the idea that this is an escapee.
David W.	26 May 2013	Acc	It is unfortunate that this sighting was not reported on one of the rare species alerts/websites (at least none I am aware of). This is a very rare species in Utah.
2nd round:	28 Aug 2013	Acc	Since birds often travel together in groups, I see no reason why two birds couldn't get lost together.

2013-44 Prothonotary Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	Acc
3rd round:	9 Nov 2013	Acc	I still believe this was a Prothonotary Warbler. The description, although sparse, indicates overall coloring of the bird. No wing bars were mentioned meaning to me they were not observed and therefore were not mentioned in the description of what was seen. This omission has created concern for other committee members, but I don't assume not mentioning wing bars means the bird was seen in poor lighting or not well.
Bob B.	23 May 2013	Acc	Very good description.
2nd round:	2 Aug 2013	Acc
3rd round:	1 Oct 2013	No, ID	I still suspect that this bird is a Prothonotary Warbler, but have enough doubts after reading everyones notes that I too am changing my vote. There definitely are certain key id features that are not described.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc
2nd round:	15 Aug 2013	Acc
3rd round:	11 Oct 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	25 May 2013	No, ID	I'm on the fence on this one, and could easily be convinced to vote to accept, but I'd like to see other's opinions before doing so. My main concern was with the "Similar Species" section and the lack of an attempt to eliminate similar yellow songbirds with bluish wings, such as Pine Warbler, Blue-winged Warbler, and Yellow-throated Vireo. Some evidence against Yellow-throated Vireo is provided in the description of belly as yellow (not white) and bill as "sharp, pointed", but on the other hand, a Yellow-throated Vireo's bill could still be described as sharp and pointed in comparison to, for example, a House Finch, and the observer states that the undertail coverts were not seen so perhaps the lower belly was also not seen. Blue-winged Warbler is eliminated only by the lack of mention of dark lores or wing bars, but the description also did not describe these as being absent. Likewise, Pine Warbler is only really eliminated because wing bars were not mentioned, but the observer did not actually say whether or not the bird had any wing bars. Description of the back as dark gray with a bluish tinge indicates that views were brief and obscured. (Prothonotary Warblers have an olive green back and lesser and median upperwing coverts that contrast with blue-gray greater coverts and remiges). This, of course, isn't reason to discredit the record in itself, but if the back color were not seen well, then perhaps wing bars could have been missed? The observer also doesn't mention whether he has any previous experience with the potentially similar species. The report is mostly consistent with Prothonotary Warbler and probably describes that species, but I'd be much more comfortable with this record if similar species were excluded more explicitly.
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	No, ID	It seems I'm not the only one with reservations about accepting this record. As mentioned in the first round, the description does not completely eliminate Pine Warbler, Blue-winged Warbler, or Yellow-throated Vireo, and is not entirely consistent with Prothonotary Warbler.
3rd round:	5 Nov 2013	No, ID	Concerns from previous rounds remain, and third-round "Accept" votes cast so far make no attempt to address those concerns.
Ron R.
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc	While no photos the description adequately identifies the bird
2nd round:	10 Sep 2013	No, ID	While I still believer this is a prothonotary warbler I agree there are some field marks that were not mentioned to adequately eliminate the possibility of similar species.
3rd round:	29 Sep 2013	No, ID	Key field marks not noted that would exclude possibility of similar warblers
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	No, ID	I'm hesitant to vote yes on this record because of some of the narrative. In particular the observer did not observe (and does point this out) the contrast between the pure white undertail coverts and bright yellow of the chest to head. My experience is that this is very obvious with a good view of the bird. I'd like to hear discussion from other committee members regarding this record.
2nd round:	23 Sep 2013	No, ID	Same comments as above.
3rd round:	7 Nov 2013	No, ID	Same comments as above.
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Not the best description, but definitive markings were noted.
2nd round:	28 Aug 2013	No, ID	I'm going to change my vote, based upon the concerns of others stated here, and a closer review of the record. The description is too sketchy to completely eliminate other species, including even Yellow Warbler, and the behavior doesn't even sound much like Prothonotary Warbler, that usually forages lower. The bill color was not noted, and the dark wings/tail, etc. could have been from poor lighting, etc. Apparently the colors were weak enough that a female was suspected, and that, too, adds to the idea that certain characters were perhaps poorly seen or over-stated.
3rd round:	19 Nov 2013	No, ID
David W.	4 Jun 2013	No, ID	I could go either way on this record, so I'll push it towards the second round. The things that make me pause are the following: 1) There is no mention of whether the bird had wing bars. This is important because the Blue-winged warbler was not dealt with in the similar species section. 2) Likewise, the size was mentioned but the observer did not explain how the size was determined. Were there Yellow warblers and Robins in the same tree for comparison? 3) The greenish back is not mentioned (though the blue-gray wings can be seen as the "back" when folded. 4) The tail pattern was not noted, though distinct. As I said, these troubling points do not necessarily disqualify the ID, but I was curious what the rest of you thought.
2nd round:	28 Aug 2013	No, ID	My concerns remain.
3rd round:	22 Oct 2013	No, ID

2013-45 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	2 Jun 2013	Acc
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	Nice record
Ryan O.	26 May 2013	abst	[submitted the record]
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Good description, adequate photos.
David W.	4 Jun 2013	Acc

2013-46 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	2 Jun 2013	Acc	I am a bit concerned about how pink the legs are. Rest of description and photos look ok for Glossy. In the back of my mind I have to wonder if this couldn't be a hybrid, but I suspect it is a true Glossy.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	26 May 2013	abst	[submitted the record]
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc
David W.	4 Jun 2013	Acc	This individual may be, to some small degree, a hybrid, based on the amount of pink in the legs. But it displays by far more Glossy ibis characteristics than White-faced.

2013-47 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	2 Jun 2013	Acc	Wish the legs could be seen, but everything else fits with Glossy Ibis. Good photo.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	26 May 2013	abst	[submitted the record]
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc
David W.	4 Jun 2013	Acc

2013-48 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	Acc	I think this description is adequate for a Western Gull. The "light legs" do not bother me in that Slaty-backed and Yellow-footed Gulls typically have bright pink and bright yellow legs respectively. For a Western Gull, the pink color should be distinguishable in good light, but it is not always bright. In dimmer light the legs could appear light without being able to distinguish between a tinge of pink, yellow, green, etc.
Bob B.	2 Jun 2013	No, ID	I suppose this is most likely a Western Gull. However I am troubled by what are called light colored legs. Western Gull legs are distinctly pink. I don't think Slaty-backed Gull can be completely ruled out. Or for that matter, even Great Black-backed Gull. Perhaps even a Lesser Black-backed Gull could be described as having light colored legs. The former two of course are extremely unlikely, but I would like to see what others say on this bird.
2nd round:	2 Aug 2013	No, ID
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	No, ID	The description is rather scant for a record without accompanying photos. Perhaps others on the field trip took photos?
2nd round:	2 Aug 2013	No, ID	The description is not conclusive for a Western Gull; other dark-backed gulls are not adequately eliminated.
Ryan O.	29 May 2013	No, ID	Several things just don't quite add up for this record. First, legs are described as "light colored" but Yellow-footed Gull is eliminated because the legs were not yellow, and Slaty-backed Gull was eliminated because the legs were not pink, so I don't know what color the legs were except that they were light and not pink or yellow. Regardless, this is at odds with identification as a Western Gull, because an adult Western Gull should have pink legs. Second, although this gull was observed in mid-May, it was described as being in non-breeding plumage, but all adult northern hemisphere gulls should be in breeding plumage in mid-May. Therefore, elimination of Glaucous-winged Gull and Slaty-backed Gull for the lack of head streaking is not supported: these gulls also lack head streaking in breeding plumage in May. Several large, dark-backed gulls are then eliminated in part by location, which is not a feature to use to rule out vagrant species of gulls: Western Gull could likewise be "ruled out" by location. Finally, nothing is presented to eliminate other large, dark, pink-legged gulls (except that the legs may not have been pink?) such as Great Black-backed Gull.
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	No, ID	Description does not eliminate other large, dark gulls with pale legs such as Great Black-backed Gull, Kelp Gull, "Olympic Gull," and Slaty-backed Gull.
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
2nd round:	10 Sep 2013	No, ID	I agree that other large gulls were not adequately ruled out and weakens the record for acceptability.
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	No, ID	The description of this bird is marginal in my opinion and many details are not present. A photograph would have been extremely useful. I'm open to what other committee members suggest.
2nd round:	23 Sep 2013	No, ID	same as above and others have similar concerns
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	No, ID	I'd like to have some discussion on this record. The distance and the weather both provided less than ideal viewing conditions. I'm concerned by the lack of clarity regarding the leg color - a critical field mark. Apparently they were neither yellow nor pink. "Light colored" isn't very helpful. Neither Kelp Gull nor Great Black-backed Gull were considered, nor was Lesser Black-backed, though that would presumably be eliminated by bill shape. Lots of questions about this record to have much confidence in the i.d.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2013	No, ID	.As per my first round comments. I really doubt that this was seen well enough to be at all certain about the i.d.
David W.	4 Jun 2013	Acc	I was troubled by this record because of the timing (Western gull migration should end by early April, per the Cornell BONAOL site) and the statement that the legs were NOT pink. But I suppose, despite the lateness of the season, this could be a very pale-pink-legged individual.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2013	No, ID	I'm going to switch my vote on this to NO. The record is just not convincing enough for me to be certain.

2013-49 Least Tern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	2 Jun 2013	Acc	What great photos.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	Great record
Ryan O.	29 May 2013	Acc	As with the two other recent Least Tern records, no attempt is made to eliminate the very similar (but much less likely) Saunder's Tern or Little Tern, and this written record does not provide sufficient detail to rule out these two closely-related Old World species. Fortunately, the details in the photos are sufficient to make this distinction. Saunder's Tern is eliminated by two (not three or four) black outer primaries and the shape of the white forehead patch, and Little Tern is eliminated by the grayish rump (not white) that does not contrast with the lower back.
Terry S..	12 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc	Excellent description and spectacular photographs!
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Excellent photos, decent description.
David W.	4 Jun 2013	Acc	Great photos.

2013-50 Scaled Quail

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	No, Nat	Although the description in this record is sparse, I would accept it as a Scaled Quail. However, the natural occurrence of this bird at this location is questionable. I think it's more likely an escapee.
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	No, Nat	My concern for natural occurrence of the bird at this location is unchanged.
Bob B.	10 Jul 2013	No, ID	This record is difficult for me on two accounts. First, it is difficult to be absolutely certain of identification with a brief observation while driving at speed on the highway, although the description certainly sounds good. Second, one has to wonder a bit about the provenance of any game bird that is clearly seen this far out of it's expected range. This may well have been a Scaled Quail, but for the above reasons I would like to see what others have to say.
2nd round:	10 Aug 2013	No, Nat
Rick F.
2nd round:	15 Aug 2013	No, Nat
Ryan O.	11 Jun 2013	No, Nat	I believe the observer saw a Scaled Quail, and I think the description, although brief, eliminates similar species. However, given the distance to other accepted records of this species in Utah (all in San Juan County, so far); the lack of a pattern of vagrancy in this species; the commercial availability of Scaled Quail eggs (a current eBay listing, for example: ); and the fact that it is legal to use pen-raised Scaled Quail for training hunting dogs in Utah (link ), I think it is too likely that this is an escaped or released domestic bird and not a natural vagrant from established populations.
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	No, Nat	Concerns from the first round about the origin of this bird (potentially captive) remain.
Ron R.
Terry S..	24 Jun 2013	No, Int	The observer had a quick view of the bird as it flew across the road but is familiar with the species since he had hunted them in Colorado. Most likely the observered bird is a scaled quail but I have concerns with a circleville sighting. This some distance from known populations of the species as is more likely to be an introduced bird.
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	No, ID	I'm hesitant to accept this record in the first round without some discussion. Although the 'cottontop' tuft is quite distinctive on a running bird (this is often the view I've had of this species), the few seconds of observation time from a speeding vehicle makes me wonder how well this bird was observed.
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Amazing record for the location, but the description fits, and the description of the scaly pattern and crest are distinctive.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2013	No, Nat	Funny, I didn't even consider the possibility of a game-farm bird, and although I see that Scaled Quail are not a commonly kept bird, they are kept, so the possibility that these were escapees exists. This raises an issue even for the SE Utah records, especially as I see that Colorado has questioned the origin of records in the SW part of Colorado. With photos, there might be some help, as the form that seems to be most traded in captivity, the "Blue Scaled Quail," can be easily identified, and is different from the expected wild forms.
David W.	8 Jul 2013	No, Nat	I do not doubt this was a Scaled quail. However, this is so far out of that species' natural range, and, as a game bird, likely to be bred in some local hunting club.
2nd round:	28 Aug 2013	No, Nat	People report Bobwhites in Utah on a regular basis, yet the consensus is that they are escapees from game farms (or unharvested denizens thereof).

2013-51 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	Would like to have seen a photo, but the description is adequate for ID.
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	There really isn't much to go on here, but the limited description provided fits...
Ryan O.	11 Jun 2013	Acc
Terry S..	24 Jun 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc	The description was not complete, but it was sufficient in my opinion to identify this species.
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Description fits this species. Observed eye-arcs eliminate Tropical Parula, Crescent-chested Warbler.
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc	I am not convinced that this was a female from the description, but, despite there being no mention of the back, I believe this was a Northern parula.

2013-52 Baltimore Oriole

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	Acc
Bob B.	11 Jun 2013	Acc
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	Acc
Rick F.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	limited description, but described key diagnostic characters
2nd round:	15 Aug 2013	Acc	I really don't have a problem with this record. Ryan describes three characters that might be associated with a hybrid: black hood, no black on tail, and Baltimore Oriole like song. While these characters can be expressed on some hybrid orioles, they are found on all Baltimore Orioles.
Ryan O.	11 Jun 2013	No, ID	Probably a Baltimore Oriole but I'd prefer to see more explicit elimination of hybrids. Some hybrids (possibly backcrosses) can fit the description given including the solidly dark hood and lack of black on the end of the tail, like this: Also, in a study of the songs of hybrid Baltimore x Bullock's Orioles, song was found to not be intermediate, but rather to strongly resemble Baltimore Oriole (Edinger 1985, as cited in the Birds of North America account), possibly because song was learned from a pure Baltimore father. I'm convinced the bird reported was at least partly Baltimore Oriole, but without photos or notes describing the wing coverts in detail I don't think a hybrid could be eliminated.
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	No, ID	This identification is made on three points: black hood, no black on tail tip, and Baltimore Oriole-like song. However, all three of these can be expected in hybrids, therefore, Bullock's x Baltimore hybrid was not sufficiently eliminated here. It can be quite difficult to eliminate hybrids for some species pairs, but I believe it is important to do so to keep our records accurate.
Terry S..	7 Jul 2013	Acc	While more description would be desirable for such a rare sighting for Utah I vote to accept this record. This is a distinctive species and enough basic description was given. Also the observer was able to match the song with the bird app. Song
2nd round:	10 Sep 2013	Acc	As with my first round comments the description given, though not complete, makes me believe this is a Baltimore Oriole. I see no indication this may have been a hybrid.
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc
2nd round:	23 Sep 2013	Acc
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Good description of a distinctive (males, at least) species.
2nd round:	30 Aug 2013	Acc	While a hybrid might not be entirely eliminated by this description, there's nothing that actually suggests a hybrid individual. Given that hybrids are rare relative to the "pure" individuals, I think that unless there's some evidence to suggest a hybrid, it doesn't make sense to reject a record from the mere possibility that it might be a hybrid.
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	13 Aug 2013	Acc

2013-53 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	6 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	11 Jun 2013	Acc	Excellent description. Diagnostic song description.
Rick F.	15 Aug 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	10 Jun 2013	abst	[submitted record]
Terry S..	7 Jul 2013	Acc	Excellent documentation.
Jack S..	13 Jun 2013	Acc	Nice Record!
Mark S.	12 Jun 2013	Acc	Excellent documentation, recording cinches the i.d., but the description and photos both support it as well.
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc	Bill is on the large side, but everything else matches.

2013-54 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	14 Sep 2013	Acc	I still think the description is sufficient to accept this as a Glossy Ibis.
Bob B.	19 Jun 2013	Acc	Would like to have had a description of the legs also, especially with this close a look, but I believe this was a Glossy Ibis.
2nd round:	11 Sep 2013	Acc	I still feel comfortable voting yes on this bird.
Rick F.	15 Aug 2013	No, ID	Without supporting photos, description is too scant to eliminate possible hybrid.
2nd round:	18 Sep 2013	No, ID	Still believe we cannot rule out a possible hybrid with only a limited discription
Ryan O.	20 Jun 2013	Acc	Again, I'd prefer to see WFIB x GLIB hybrids more explicitly eliminated in the elimination of similar species, but the description seems to fit pure GLIB and exclude most or all examples of hybrids.
2nd round:	5 Sep 2013	Acc	While certainly concise, I believe the description of the face as blue, eye as black, and white edges of face stopping at the eye is sufficient to rule out identifiable hybrids. If the description were less clear (eye as "dark", facial skin as "dark" or "not red"), I would be voting to not accept.
Ron R.	24 Aug 2013	Acc	Minimal description, but saw at very close range and described distinct facial pattern.
Terry S..	13 Jul 2013	Acc
2nd round:	10 Sep 2013	Acc	The good description of the facial pattern does not hint of a hybrid possibility.
Jack S..	13 Aug 2013	Acc
Mark S.	24 Aug 2013	Acc
2nd round:	30 Aug 2013	Acc
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc	It would have been nice to see a discussion of the legs, but the face description is adequate.
2nd round:	11 Sep 2013	Acc

2013-55 Neotropic Cormorant

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	8 Feb 2014	Acc
Bob B.	18 Dec 2013	Acc	We are dealing with rather poor photos and no description, and certain portions of the report seem to differ from what I see in the photos. The report notes that 1 bird is sitting. The photos show birds both sitting and flying. In the flying photos it appears to me that there are 2 probable Neotropic Cormorants, not one. The face pattern and size comparison with the other flying cormorant, in spite of the above problems with the report, cause me to vote yes.
2nd round:	11 Feb 2014	Acc	I still feel the flying photos are adequate for identification, although certainly less than ideal.
Rick F.	8 Jan 2014	Acc
2nd round:	17 Mar 2014	Acc	Photos are diagnostic
Ryan O.	18 Dec 2013	Acc
2nd round:	20 Feb 2014	Acc	To refresh our memories, these Neotropic Cormorant records had to go back to the first round because some of the photos were assigned to the wrong records the last time we voted. I think the in-flight photos with this record are completely convincing, showing brown lores, long tails, etc.
Terry S..	28 Dec 2013	No, ID	Without narrative description I believe the photos are not adequate to accept this record
2nd round:	2 Mar 2014	No, ID	I am still not comfortable accepting this record. The quality of the photos, I believe, do not adequately show identification. The birds are not labeled and I am not sure the observer is indicating 2 Neotropic Cormorants or showing comparison with a Double-crested Cormorant.
Dennis S.	13 Jan 2014	Acc	Enlarged photos show pointed border of gular pouch at bill base of two immature birds.
2nd round:	25 Feb 2014	Acc
Jack S..	22 Dec 2013	Acc
2nd round:	3 Mar 2014	Acc	The photograph showing side-by-side comparison of DCCO and NECO in flight is distinctive.
Steve S.	29 Jan 2014	Acc	Virtually no description, but the photos seem to show Neotropic Cormorants.
2nd round:	24 Feb 2014	Acc
David W.	24 Jan 2014	No, ID	I thought we'd already voted on these. Photo A1 is the one where the branch behind the tail makes the tail look longer.
2nd round:	25 Feb 2014	No, ID	When I look at the proportions of this bird, especially visible when flying, it is identical to the DC cormorant behind it. In the sitting bird photo, which is of a hunched bird next to an erect one the tail looks longer than it is because there is a branch directly behind it. I'm sticking to NO.

2013-56 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	19 Jun 2013	Acc	Great audio is definitive.
Rick F.	15 Jul 2013	Acc	Nice record
Ryan O.	20 Jun 2013	Acc
Ron R.	24 Aug 2013	Acc	Audio sufficient and photos helpful for ID.
Terry S..	13 Jul 2013	Acc	Great documentation
Jack S..	13 Aug 2013	Acc
Mark S.	24 Aug 2013	Acc	Audio recording cinches this record. Photos, though less conclusive, are consistent with this species.
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc

2013-57 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Jul 2013	Acc
Bob B.	10 Jul 2013	Acc	Thanks for the definitive call note heard on the video.
Rick F.	15 Jul 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	17 Jul 2013	Acc
Ron R.	24 Aug 2013	Acc	Video clearly displays distinct song of this species.
Terry S..	13 Jul 2013	Acc
Jack S..	23 Aug 2013	Acc	song description, recordings, and photographs supportive
Mark S.	24 Aug 2013	Acc	Good documentation, as with the previous record, the audio is conclusive.
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc	Bill is a bit on the large side, but audio unmistakable.

2013-58 Neotropic Cormorant

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	8 Feb 2014	Acc
Bob B.	18 Dec 2013	Acc	I am hesitant to vote yes on any bird with no description and with photos this poor. I don't think we can make any definitive id from the head and face pattern on this bird as the photos are just not adequate. However in viewing the overall profile I really believe this is a Neotropic Cormorant. The tail is just too long for a Double-crested and the observer notes that a nearby Double-crested was much larger. So I am voting yes.
2nd round:	27 Feb 2014	Acc	I will continue to vote yes on this bird, not because I am happy with the poor photos or the essentially nonexistent description, but because it is probably a Neotropic Cormorant and in the overall scheme of things this bird is common enough now in the state that this vote really makes no difference. I must say that I am most happy to not have to vote on this species again..
Rick F.	8 Jan 2014	Acc	No description, but photos are conclusive
2nd round:	17 Mar 2014	Acc	I'm disappointed in the lack of written description, however, the photos are definitive.
Ryan O.	5 Feb 2014	Acc	Tail length looks strikingly different between these two birds, although they are both reported as Neotropic Cormorants. Including the Double-crested in the photo would have been helpful. The lack of mention of lore color, gape shape, and other diagnostic features in the written record is not helpful. I'm giving the benefit of the doubt here, because I think I can see a relatively shorter bill and more compact body than I'd expect for a Double-crested Cormorant, but could be convinced otherwise.
2nd round:	20 Feb 2014	Acc	I'm on the fence on this one, but leaning to accept. I think the photo shows a comparison of Double-crested and Neotropic in the same shot, and if so, the size difference seems to be apparent. However, the narrative is scant, and doesn't mention any of the other field marks to identify these two species.
Terry S..	28 Dec 2013	No, ID	Without narrative description I believe the photos are not adequate to accept this record
2nd round:	4 Mar 2014	No, ID	As with my first round comments, there is no narrative to help describe which bird is which. Is the shorter tailed bird which appears smaller than the longer tailed bird suppose to be a Double-crested? I could take a stab at identifying the birds by profile but I don't believe that is our role as reviewers. The record should provide enough narrative to describe what is being seen in the photo, especially given the poor quality of the photo and the chance of misinterpreting the image.
Dennis S.	13 Jan 2014	Acc	Photos and report does leave some things to be desired though.
2nd round:	25 Feb 2014	Acc
Jack S..	11 Jan 2014	No, ID	I voted "no" on the original submission of this record and I continue to be uncertain of the ID. The written description is sparse and I'm not even confident of what's shown in photograph A; two NECOs? or one DCCO and one NECO? I would like to hear what other committee members write about this record before reconsidering my vote. I'm assuming the observer thinks the right-most bird is a Neotropic Cormorant(NECO) while on the left is a DCCO.(?) The putative NECO does have a slightly smaller build and the bill appears thinner. The supraloral area also appears dark but this is hard to judge from the photos. The DCCO tail however appears relatively long and the NECO appears short.(?) The gular area is not described and the photographs do not show this area well enough to determine the shape and brightness.
2nd round:	3 Mar 2014	No, ID	I'm still voting "no" on this record for the same reasons as above.
Steve S.	29 Jan 2014	Acc	As with record 2013-55 absolutely no description, but the photos, though not very good, seem to show Neotropic Cormorants.
2nd round:	18 Mar 2014	Acc	same reasons as second round
David W. 2nd round:	25 Feb 2014	Acc	The write-up on this record is not only "sparce," but also doesn't seem to match the photo it addresses. The apparently larger bird has the apparently longer tail, contrary to the write-up! I didn't even want to vote on this the first round because I found it so confusing (then the deadline snuck up on me--sorry). In order to make any sense of this record, I'm just going to ignore the write-up and vote on the photos. Personally, I'd like to see it binned, especially since we have so many good reports of this species in the state now anyway.

2013-59 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Aug 2013	Acc
Bob B.	10 Jul 2013	Acc
Rick F.	15 Aug 2013	Acc	No description but photos are diagnostic.
Ryan O.	17 Jul 2013	Acc
Ron R.	24 Aug 2013	Acc	Nice photos show distinct facial pattern. No suggestion of hybrid.
Terry S..	23 Jul 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Aug 2013	Acc
Mark S.	27 Aug 2013	Acc	Good documentation and excellent photos. I also observed this bird in the field, and had excellent views. The description as written is accurate, and I fully concur with the i.d.
David W.	8 Jul 2013	Acc

2013-60 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Aug 2013	Acc
Bob B.	10 Jul 2013	Acc
Rick F.	15 Aug 2013	Acc	nice photos
Ryan O.	17 Jul 2013	Acc
Terry S..	23 Jul 2013	Acc
Jack S..	23 Aug 2013	Acc	song description supportive; photographs supportive
Mark S.	27 Aug 2013	Acc	Excellent documentation - distinctive call was heard.
David W.	11 Jul 2013	Acc