Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2013 (records 61 through 80)

2013-61 Neotropic Cormorant

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Aug 2013	Acc
Bob B.	21 Jul 2013	Acc
Rick F.	18 Sep 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	17 Jul 2013	abst
Terry S..	23 Jul 2013	Acc
Jack S..	13 Aug 2013	Acc
Mark S.	27 Aug 2013	Acc	Both of these birds appear to be Neotropic Cormorants, but I'm not sure that they're the same individual.
David W.	29 Aug 2013	Acc	I think the tail length is definitive, especially on the bird at left.

2013-62 Least Bittern

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	10 Aug 2013	Acc
Bob B.	10 Aug 2013	Acc	Great record and photos. I and others have heard Least Bitterns calling on other occasions in the St. George area and I suspect there may well be an established breeding population here. (15 Aug 2013 - Great find. I, and others, have heard Least Bitterns several times over the past 10 to 15 years in the St. George area, and I suspect that these birds are probably regular in low numbers and are probably breeding.)
Rick F.	18 Sep 2013	Acc
Ryan O.	13 Aug 2013	Acc	Since there is an audio recording available, it would be ideal to have it part of our permanent record, but certainly it is not required in this case to confirm the identification.
Terry S..	10 Aug 2013	Acc	Great documentation including excellent photos!
Jack S..	23 Aug 2013	Acc
Mark S.	27 Aug 2013	Acc	Excellent photos.
David W.	29 Aug 2013	Acc	Great photos of a distinctive bird. Terry Saddler / Bob Bond's Big Day team used to regularly report this species calling from a marsh by St. George on nights during the 1990s.

2013-63 Hermit Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	12 Aug 2013	Acc
2nd round:	9 Nov 2013	Acc	I've reviewed everyone's comments and still think this record is acceptable as a Hermit Warbler. Although a hybrid could be possible, the "Hermit-like" qualities outweigh any others I see in the photos.
3rd round:	28 Jan 2014	Acc	My vote is unchanged. I still think this is a Hermit Warbler and not a hybrid.
Bob B.	12 Aug 2013	Acc	I agree this is an adult female Hermit Warbler. One must be very careful with this species as there is considerable hybridization with Townsend's, but this appears to me to be a pure bird.
2nd round:	14 Oct 2013	Acc	What a tough bird, made more difficult by the quality of the photos. I have again reviewed this bird in multiple guides and taken into account everyone's concerns. As far as the amount of black on the throat and the face, I feel this is compatible with an adult FEMALE Hermit. So I don't have a problem saying this is a Hermit on the basis of the head. It really does appear almost exactly as the illustration in Sibley, and is not incompatible with the pictures and description in Dunn and Garrett Warblers. I personally cannot see what I can call streaking on the flanks, and even if there were slight streaking here, that is not incompatible with Hermit. I feel the white vent rules out Black-throated Green. The slight yellowish wash to the breast is troubling. I don't know how much weight we can place on that in a photo this bad. If this is a hybrid it is not a first generation hybrid. I am rather reluctantly sticking with my original yes vote.
3rd round:	23 Dec 2013	Acc	It is interesting that rather extensive research by one is rather convincing that this is a hybrid and by another is just as convincing that this is not a hybrid. Can we be absolutely certain one way or the other on this bird? probably not. I still feel this bird looks like a valid Hermit Warbler and I will continue to vote yes.
Rick F.	18 Sep 2013	Acc	good job documenting with photos
2nd round:	3 Dec 2013	Acc	I don't have any problem accepting this as a Hermit Warbler, likely a first fall male, or perhaps an adult female. Although the photos are of poor resolution, I don't see any features that are out of line for a Hermit Warbler, including the smudges on the face. I would also expect yellow to extend below the dark throat and/or streaking down the sides of a HeTo Warbler.
3rd round:	8 Jan 2014	Acc	After reviewing this record again, I still do not see any characteristics that would conclusively suggest a hybrid HeTo Warbler rather than a Hermit Warbler.
Ryan O.	13 Aug 2013	No, ID	The observer wisely acknowledged the possibility of a hybrid Hermit x Townsend's Warbler, and I think that is what this bird is, or at least that that possibility cannot be excluded based on the evidence presented. In the written description, the observer says there is no streaking in the flanks, but I see a bold dark flank streak in photos A1 and C1. I also believe the yellowish wash to the belly is real, and not a photographic artifact. This bird looks quite similar to a much-discussed hybrid from New York: This is an interesting record I'm glad to have in the archives either way, and it may be the first record of this hybrid combination from the state.
2nd round:	8 Nov 2013	No, ID	According to Sibley, Dunn and Garrett, and Stephenson and Whittle, adult females do not have black or blackish reaching all the way up the throat to the bill. In particular, this individual differs from Sibley's illustration of an adult female Hermit Warbler in that it has blackish all the way up the throat to meet the bill, it has a bold flank streak visible, and it has a distinct yellow wash to the breast and belly. Likewise, it differs from the pictures and description in Dunn and Garrett because of the bold flank streak and the yellow below the throat. This bird also has more distinct facial markings than in the August photo in D&G, although the throat in that photo is comparable. The facial pattern approaches D&G's first fall female September photo, but the throat on this bird is completely washed in black and this bird has a bold flank streak that their example lacks. I think with the extent of black in the throat, this has to be a male, perhaps in fresh plumage (with white tips still on black throat feathers) or perhaps immature/first fall. Given that it is a male, D&G state that the face of adult and first-fall males is similar, which indicates that the face of this bird is too dark and patterned for a pure Hermit Warbler. S&W give contradictory information about the first fall male plumage, indicating that it is more similar to adult female, and that it has both a darker face and a white throat. Either way, neither source describes any plumage with a solidly dark throat and a distinct facial pattern like this bird. D&G say that Hermit x Townsend's hybrids tend to have the face pattern of Hermit with but the underparts of Townsend's, with at least some yellow below the throat/breast and with streaking on the sides. That written description fits this bird perfectly, with a mostly Hermit-like face, but with a yellow wash throughout the lower chest and belly, and a thick flank streak visible between the base of the right leg and the edges of the folded wing in photo A1 and C1. In conclusion, I remain unconvinced that this is unambiguously a Hermit Warbler given the bold flank streak, the yellow belly, and the combination of a relatively dark face with a mostly blackish throat. This bird is a better fit for a Hermit x Townsend's Warbler hybrid.
3rd round:	16 Dec 2013	No, ID	Addressing votes to accept submitted after my second-round vote: One vote to accept says, "a hybrid could be possible." If the bird is not identified to the exclusion of a hybrid, then we should vote to not accept. One vote says that there are no features inconsistent with adult female or first-fall male Hermit Warbler, citing the lack of yellow below the throat and a lack of streaking in the sides, but I see a clear yellow wash on the breast and a clear dark flank streak on the sides in the photos presented. Another second-round "accept" vote doesn't address any of the traits presented in the photos or notes, nor does it address any of the objections raised by the "not accept" votes, but it cites a relevant paper on the topic of scoring hybrids. I tried to use the criteria in the Rohwer and Wood 1998 article to score this bird, but because it relies on quantitative measurements of plumage characters and requires views of the crown and back, it cannot be applied to this bird. In summary, this bird best fits a hybrid according to every authoritative reference I reviewed, and hybrids (including "probable" and "possible" hybrids) by definition do not qualify as evidence for an acceptable record of one of the parent species.
Terry S.	10 Sep 2013	Acc	While the photos are marginal in helping in identification I tend to believe this is a female Hermit Warbler. The timing and location are both right for a hermit warbler migrating through the state. There might be something other observers see.that may raise question as to hybridization but I don't see it.
2nd round:	18 Nov 2013	No, ID	I have decided to change my vote on this after review of other committee members input. The quality of the photos is just not there to make determination of the facial pattern to determine of this is or is not a hybrid bird.
3rd round:	23 Dec 2013	No, ID	I still believe the photos are not clear enough to make definitive identification of this sighting without a certain amount of conjecture as to the lack of hybridization.
Dennis S. 3rd round:	3 Jan 2014	Acc	It's fun to jump right in the middle (end) of this record's discussion, and I've enjoyed reading the various comments, be they yea or nay. In Warblers Of The Americas by Curson, Quinn, and Beadle, a detailed discussion is found of the "Black-Throated, Yellow-Faced" superspecies warbler group which includes the Hermit, Townsend's, Black-throated Green, and Golden Cheeked, and I used this as my primary reference. To boil it all down the best characteristic to separate a Hermit from its three closest congeners, in all ages, is its lack of streaking on the breast sides and flanks. Even in the occasional Townsend's x Hermit hybrid, again in all ages, the hybrid normally has the head pattern of a Hermit and the pencil-like black streaks on the breast and flanks of a Townsend's. I don't see anything concrete that doesn't make me think it isn't a Hermit Warbler - most likely a first-year male or possibly an adult female (however the prominence of white in the wing leads me more to a male). Further, it doesn't detract, to me, the record submitter didn't realize he had a note worthy bird until he later reviewed his photographs. In fact, I think it bodes well that he threw it open for discussion and ultimately a decision by the committee.
Jack S..	25 Aug 2013	Acc	Good documentation on this record; the key field marks of a yellow face with weak contrasting auriculars, sparse dark feathering in throat, yellow eye-ring, no streaking in flanks, wing bars, pale belly, flanks, and chest, ....etc are supportive of Hermit Warbler.
2nd round:	4 Dec 2013	Acc	My voting position has not changed. There may be some non-Hermit heritage in this bird however it's mostly Hermit in my opinion. I found this research article useful for sorting through the different phenotypic characters observed in Hermit and Townsend's hybrids (The Auk 115(2): 284-310, 1998).
3rd round:	22 Dec 2013	Acc	The article that I suggested to read by Rohwer and Wood describes seven characters the authors used to score hybrids of Hermit X Townsend's Warblers. The characters are (1) mid-flank streaking, (2) lower-flank streaking, (3) black at the bib corners, (4) distance of yellow below the black bib, (5) intensity of the yellow at the edge of the bib (6) amount of black on crown, and (7) amount of green on the back. They normalized each character to be weighted equal. The normalized scores range from 0 (Hermit) to 1 (Townsend's). The parental types of each species showed enough variation in these characters to cover 0 to 0.2 (Hermit) and 0.8 to 1 (Townsend's), the "hybrids" scored 0.2 to 0.8. My scoring of this bird is qualitative and based on a common sense gradient between hermit and townsend's. Obviously I cannot easily determine a numerical hybrid score since the reference specimens are stored in a Washington museum. The bird in question has (1) no mid-flank streaking (score=hermit), has (2) a lower flank streak (score=hybrid), (3) white at bib corners (score=hermit), (4) NO yellow extending below the bib (score=hermit;) and (5) NO intense yellow below the bib (score=hermit), (6) cannot score, and (7) cannot score. Four of the five character traits that can be scored are very close to Hermit parental and one suggests a hybrid. I found that zoomed, but not lightened, versions of the photos show characters 4 and 5 best; B is optimal because it is a direct chest-on view, it shows white below the bib, comparable to the tail underside; C also shows white below the bib; the 'apparent' diffuse yellow in A1 and C1 is misleading in my opinion, and it is reduced if I zoom-only the original images.
Steve S. 3rd round:	21 Jan 2014	Acc	This looks like an acceptable Hermit Warbler to me. I don't see the flank streaking or yellow wash in the photos.
Mark S.	27 Aug 2013	No, ID	This individual appears to be a hybrid with Townsend's Warbler. The extent of the black on the throat suggests that this bird is a male, not female, and the darkness of the auricular patch is too much for a pure male Hermit, and probably a female, too. Particularly troubling is the dark loral stripe that continues to below the eye. I don't know of any plumage or sex of pure Hermit that can show that, but it's not an unexpected mark for a hybrid. The yellow wash below the throat patch is also better for a hybrid.
2nd round:	19 Nov 2013	No, ID	Given the poor quality of the photos (the only thing we have to go on, as David points out), and the anomalous facial markings, I can't accept this as a pure Hermit. In the one photo where we can see the face, the most prominent mark is the dark streak in front of and below the eye. While this mark is present in both sexes of Townsend's, I can't find any age or sex of Hermit that has this, nor can I remember having seen this in any of the dozens of Hermit Warblers I see each year. The females often have considerable dark on the head, but it's invariably concentrated in the auricular behind the eye, not in front of it. One could make the argument that an immature female might have this much dark in the face, but this is clearly not an immature female, because of the extensive black in the throat. There are too many questions on this record for me to accept it.
David W.	10 Sep 2013	No, ID	This bird was misidentified in the field, and only afterwards, re-identified as a Hermit warbler by others. So this bird needs to be judged mainly on the merits of the photos (which, unfortunately, are blurry). The bird in the photos, in my opinion, is likely a Hermit warbler, but the observer didn't make any effort to differentiate it from a Black-throated green warbler. Although most BTGWs have more streaking on their flanks, some BTGW photos on the internet show only a grayish wash (much like this bird). Unfortunately, there is no discussion or photo that addresses the mantle/nape color. Therefore, I am going to vote NO to push this to the second round because I am curious what the rest of you think.
2nd round:	11 Nov 2013	No, ID	I am still troubled by the facial pattern on this bird. Although it may well be a female Hermit warbler, I find it hard to rule out the significant possibility of a hybrid, especially a back-cross with a Hermit warbler.
3rd round:	18 Dec 2013	No, ID	Same reservations as before.

2013-64 Bar-tailed Godwit

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	13 Aug 2013	abst
2nd round:	9 Nov 2013	abst
Bob B.	13 Aug 2013	Acc	Very good description for an extremely rare bird for Utah, or anywhere inland. This is a good illustration of the value in having the pantience to carefully scan through a large flock of anything it search for rarities.
2nd round:	14 Oct 2013	Acc	Although no photo is available I feel the description is adequate to accept this bird, even though it is a Utah first, at least first for us to evaluate.
Rick F.	11 Oct 2013	No, ID	Barring photos, I'm holding out for descriptive submissions from additional observers. Corroborative submissions would help this as a first state record.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2013	No, ID	Still waiting.....David? Mark?
Ryan O.	13 Aug 2013	Acc
2nd round:	5 Nov 2013	No	After reading Rick's first-round "no" vote, I reviewed our bylaws. Section B.11 outlines voting on first state records, and says "a first state record may be accepted without physical documentation with these considerations in mind: . . . . (4) There are multiple competent observers that submit separate, careful documentation." I interpret this to mean that we cannot accept a first state record without "physical" documentation unless there are multiple reports, and this record does not qualify under that criterion. To be clear, I believe this species was thoroughly documented in the written record and is a legitimate observation of this species, but that our bylaws prohibit a "yes" vote on a technicality. If any of the other observers (including two committee members?!) were to submit a record that did not conflict with this report, we could accept the record, and I would vote to do so.
Dennis S. 2nd round:	2 Jan 2014	Acc	This is my first voting attempt as a brand-spanking-new record committee member. So to do things right I began by establishing a standard review procedure that I'll try to follow for each record. First I'll review the identification descriptions in whatever literature I have. In the case of the Bar-tailed Godwit I summarized sections from; Shorebirds - An Identification Guide To The Waders Of The World, Birds Of The World-Vol.5 -(shorebirds), and of course the popular field guides -Sibley, National Geographic, Stokes, Peterson, Dunne. Not until this was done did I open and read the current record entry report -#2013-64. I was pleased and satisfied with the excellent and thorough description of the field marks and identifying characters the observers documented. Of course a defining photograph, or better yet a bird in the hand, (which isn't usually possible) would have sealed the deal. But short of these physical "documents" the report leaves little doubt the bird in question is a Bar-tailed Godwit. After making my unbiased decision to vote to accept the record, I then read the voting history and committee comments. I was surprised to see the complications created by the "First-Of-State" designation this record fell under and the accompanying bylaws rules. I agree in principle that a FOS must be scrutinized at a higher level, but where a record leaves little or no doubt it should be accepted. It does appear the bylaws allow for a convincing sight record only to be accepted, which I believe this case falls into. I believe the meticulous report received meets the criteria of (1) submitted by competent observers, that were (2) familiar with the species in question and it's similar species, and that (3) several other competent observers saw the bird on a separate date (even if additional reports were not submitted).
Terry S.	10 Sep 2013	Acc	Excellent documentation. It would be great to have photos but this is the next best thing.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Ryan gives citation to a portion of section 11.B of our by-laws. There are other citations within that section that allow us to accept this record. This whole section of the by-laws reads: 11. First State Records. It is preferable that a first state record have some form of physical documentation. Acceptable evidence could consist of photographs, sound recordings, specimens, verified band numbers, etc. However, a first state record may be accepted without physical documentation with these considerations in mind: (1) The species is obvious and easy to identify and cannot be confused with a similar species. (2) The observer is familiar with the species. (3) The observer is known by the committee members as a careful competent observer with experience in documenting rare birds. (4) There are multiple competent observers that submit separate, careful documentation. Accepted records will be listed as either "verified with physical evidence" or "accepted but not verified with physical evidence." First state record submissions that involve only a single observer, may be accepted as "hypothetical" and added to the UOS Checklist of Birds of Utah as such. Species shall remain on the hypothetical list until a record meeting the above criteria is accepted by the committee. Based on total consideration of this section of the by-laws and given that there is excellent written documentation submitted by two observers, we should accept this record at least as "hypothetical".
Jack S..	25 Aug 2013	Acc	Good description of this species!
2nd round:	4 Dec 2013	Acc	The description is very good for this species. I also agree with Rick (and others) that the record will be stronger with collaboration from other observers!
Steve S. 2nd round:	5 Jan 2014	Acc	I wish others who had observed this bird would have submitted a report, but I believe the description by the two observers is good for this species.
Mark S.	28 Aug 2013	Acc	Excellent description that matches the bird that David and I saw some days before. The white-wing linings on an obvious godwit, coupled with the barred tail, eliminated other similar species.
David W.	11 Sep 2013	Acc	Very detailed description.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2013	Acc	I think it is up to the voting members to vote on the record, and it is a completely separate matter for the Secretary to put it on the list or not based on the laws. My vote is for the record, and the other issue can be decided separately by the "lawyers."

2013-65 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	14 Sep 2013	No, ID	The sparse description does not sufficiently rule out a Western Kingbird. For example, an adult Western Kingbird with worn plumage sometimes appears to have less yellow on the breast and belly with stronger yellow coloring on the flanks. Also, even though this is described as a first year bird and less contrast would be expected, the photo still does not show the a strong enough contrast between the "light gray head and mantle" and the "dark wings".
2nd round:	9 Nov 2013	No, ID	Same comments as before.
Bob B.	11 Sep 2013	No, ID	I have several concerns with this bird. In my research, even though the juvenile Scissor-tailed has a shorter tail, it isn't this short. The primary extension appears to come down almost a third of the way on the tail, and I would think that should never happen on a Scissor-tailed. Also the description suggests a pinkish hue to the breast, and as best I can tell the juvenile Scissor-tailed should have an almost colorless breast. I will be interested in what others say on this bird.
2nd round:	29 Oct 2013	No, ID	My concerns are unchanged. This is a Western Kingbird.
Rick F.	11 Oct 2013	No, ID	Photos (and description) show an immature Western Kingbird
2nd round:	3 Dec2013	No, ID	This is a Western Kingbird based on plumage and structure.
Ryan O.	25 Aug 2013	Acc
2nd round:	5 Nov 2013	No, ID	Elimination of Western Kingbird in this record relies entirely on the color of the belly and flanks. After further study, I agree with other committee members that the description and photo of the belly color are not inconsistent with Western Kingbird. For example, these photos look like good matches to me: http://www.flickr.com/photos/coinpurse/6009256089/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/ganesh_j/3700666338/
Ron R.
Terry S..	28 Sep 2013	No, ID	The photo is just not clear enough for me to make positive determination. While the narrative gives some description of the flank area I would like more information on the tail.
2nd round:	4 Dec2013	No, ID	Same concerns I indicated in the first round. Other reviewer comments regarding the probability that this is a Western Kingbird have also influenced my vote.
Jack S..	25 Aug 2013	No, ID	Photographs and description do not completely exclude a Western Kingbird in my opinion!
2nd round:	4 Dec 2013	No, ID	same comments as 1st round!
Mark S.	28 Aug 2013	No, ID	I'm not sure why this isn't a Western Kingbird. Although the observer seems to want more yellow on the underparts for this to be a kingbird, there is considerable variation in this characteristic, and I see nothing in the photo that is inconsistent with WEKI.
2nd round:	19 Nov 2013	No, ID	I still think this is a Western Kingbird.
David W.	11 Sep 2013	Acc
2nd round:	7 Nov 2013	Acc	Well, I was on the fence with this record, but let me defend why I am going to go down in flames on this one. The observer stated the bird had "light orange/yellow" or "faint yellowish/orange color" on the flanks, and I take that to be yellowish orange, which is a color I've never seen on a Western kingbird. Even nestling Western kingbirds have bright yellow breasts & bellies, and the observer explicitly said this was not present. Plus, the tail appears forked in the photo (though that may just be an illusion, and Westerns can sometimes sport that forked-tail look), and I do not see a white outer edge (though that can be hidden when the tail is tightly folded, I know). I think y'all bring up good points that affirm my misgivings, but I suppose it comes down to my trusting the observer when he describes the flank and breast color.

2013-66 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	14 Sep 2013	No, ID	Since the description is inconsistent with the photos in some aspects, my vote is based primarily on the photos. From the photos, the general shape of the head is flat rather than rounded. The overall color of the back is grayish brown rather than olive, and the wings appear more brown tinged rather than black, especially toward the tips. Also, although it could just be difficult to distinguish, I don't see any olive tinge on the sides of the breast or in a breast band across the breast. The throat seems predominantly whitish rather than yellow. Because of these characteristics, I would not identify this bird as a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.
2nd round:	23 Nov 2013	No, ID	I've reviewed the photos again, and my opinion is unchanged.
Bob B.	17 Sep 2013	No, ID	Bryant has done a super job of carefully discussing all the ID features separating out the various empids in arriving at his conclusion. However I am not convinced that this is not a "Western" Flycatcher for several reasons. I don't feel that primary projection is out of line for a "Western". The question of the eye ring being incomplete is a bit relative. The first photo certainly shows an eye ring that appears complete, but if we only had the last two pictures, we would come to a different conclusion. I have examined numerous photos of what are called Cordilleran/ Pacific-slope birds, and at least some of them show a complete eye ring, although it may be thinner on top. But the extension of the eye ring behind the eye to more or less a point is much more suggestive of "Western" to me. I want to see what others have to say on this bird.
2nd round:	14 Nov 2013	No, ID	I still feel this is most likely a "Western" Flycatcher. This bill does not look like a Hammond's to me. Too long. Described as bicolored. (21 Nov 2013): My feelings are unchanged. I don't believe the bill is that of a Hammond's Flycatcher. I suspect this is most likely a "Western Flycatcher".
Rick F.	11 Oct 2013	No, ID	Shape, bill size and shape, fresh plumage, primary projection and spacing, head/ nape color, throat color, eye-ring shape all support Hammond's Flycatcher rather than Yellow-bellied.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2013	No, ID	I still believe this is a Hammond's Flycatcher based on the characters listed in first round comments. The bill appears very narrow in the photos and length and coloration are not out of line for a Hammonds.
Ryan O.	8 Nov 2013	Acc	I don't feel very confident at all on this one, so I'm looking forward to others' opinions, but to me this bird does appear to have the appropriate bill shape, bill size, and primary projection for YBFL. The throat contrasts little with the nape, another weak supporting character. My initial impression was of Hammond's Flycatcher, but I think the primary projection could be "moderate" rather than "long" and the bill could be a bit too large. The shape of the eye ring does look consistent with our expected Hammond's/Dusky flycatchers and is insufficient to rule out any species on its own. I thought this bird might be too drab for a fall Yellow-bellied, but apparently a worn YBFL could be this drab, and YBFL molt on the wintering grounds so an adult would be worn this time of year. These photos aren't good enough for me to tell confidently if this is fresh or worn plumage. It's worth noting here that I have never seen a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, so my vote here is based entirely on references rather than first-hand experience.
2nd round:	16 Dec 2013	No, ID	As I mentioned in the first round, I wasn't too confident in my vote to accept. The many concerns cited by others have convinced me that this isn't a sufficient record. It is fascinating to me that we can't even agree on whether it's a Hammond's or a Western.
Terry S..	29 Sep 2013	No, ID	The remigies don't seem to have the very dark coloration with strongly contrasting wing bars. The eye ring is inconclusive. Some photos look more like the typical western tear-drop shape while other photos show a more rounded even eye ring. The photos do not clearly show the primary spacing of p5-p7 which would help in identification.
2nd round:	10 Dec 2013	No, ID	As per my for round comments.
Dennis S. 2nd round:	7 Jan 2014	No, ID	There are two over-riding problems I have with this record. First, there are too many characters that overlap with the "Western Flycatcher," including the two characters primarily used, by the submitter, to separate Yellow-bellied from "Western" (lets say Cordilleran) -- eye-ring and primary wing projection. For the life of me, I can't see either a complete eye-ring or a plainly projected enough primary wing to rule out another Empidonax. The eye-ring appears to be more of a teardrop shape ( thicker and pointed at the rear of the eye) which is much more consistent with a Cordilleran. And the extent of the primary wing projection does not show up clearly enough on the photos. Additionally, the amount of yellow in the underparts is so available in fall Empidonax as to be almost meaningless. Second, comments listed in the "Similar species and how they are Eliminated" section in the report, is way too much of a simplified version of an extremely complicated and difficult to separate group.
Jack S..	13 Nov 2013	No, ID	I could not get much past the eyering on this bird. In my opinion, most of the photos (except the wide-eyed A/A1) show the expected almond shaped version of the Western Flycatcher. Other characteristics; peaked crown, olive/green back, primary projection... do not rule out the Western Flycatchers.
2nd round:	4 Dec 2013	No, ID	I've reviewed the description and photographs again and my vote has not changed.
Steve S. 2nd round:	9 Jan 2014	No, ID	Between the odd, not at all yellowish eye ring, the back looking more brown than olive and the wings seem brown not blackish I can't say that this fits as a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher.
David W.	11 Nov 2013	No, ID	This is a difficult ID. Some field marks seem more consistent with a "Western" flycatcher (Cordilleran/Pacific-slope) (hereafter referred to as Western), some with Yellow-bellied, which raises enough doubt in my mind to vote NO (to say that the case hasn't been adequately made to remove reasonable doubt in my mind). 1) Eye Ring: Goofy, irregular shape. Doesn't really fit either species well. But if one removed the teardrop going up (good for neither species), the shape is better for a Western. Near as I can tell from the photos, there is no yellow tone to the eye ring, which is also suggestive of a Western rather than YB. 2) Back Color. The write-up says the back is olive yellow, but the photos definitely strike me as brownish. According to the Californiabirds article submitted by Terry last November, the Yellow-bellied never has brownish tones on the back. So this points to Western in the photos, but not the write-up. 3) Wing Morphology. I cannot be sure from the photos whether the wing formula matches the Western or the YB, but I'd say maybe more the latter. 4) Breast Streaking. I see none, so that doesn't help the YB case. 5) Head shape. I'd say the head shape is more rounded than peaked, but not outside the range of a flattened Western. 6) Wing Bar. I'm not sure on this one. The dark wing bar does seem to lighten as it progresses "back." 7) Tail Length. To me, the tail length seems consistent with a Western.
2nd round:	3 Dec 2013	No, ID	I don't think this is a Hammond's, especially based on the bill.

2013-67 Veery

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	9 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	1 Oct 2013	Acc	Excellent description, supported by good photos. This does look like a western Veery.
Rick F.	11 Oct 2013	Acc	Excellent record
Ryan O.	2 Dec 2013	Acc
Terry S..	30 Sep 2013	Acc	Excellent photographs and documentation
Jack S..	19 Nov 2013	Acc	Great Documentation!
David W.	7 Nov 2013	Acc	The record states that the photos are accurate with regards to color. As such, I have a hard time with the descriptions of the upperparts as being "reddish brown" or even "reddish." And I certainly have a hard time accepting the statement that no ssp. of Swainson's thrushe is as red in tone as this bird. Fortunately for this record, the western form of the Veery is not very reddish either. The small eyering, uniform back & tail color, and plain face are all consistent with a western Veery.

2013-68 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	14 Oct 2013	Acc	Wonderful photos that I feel definitively show this to be a Parasitic.
Rick F.	22 Nov 2013	Acc	nice record
Ryan O.	8 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S..	24 Nov 2013	Acc	Wonderful photos and write up.
Jack S..	6 Dec 2013	Acc	Good documentation!
David W.	11 Nov 2013	Acc	Nice photos.

2013-69 Tennessee Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	1 Oct 2013	Acc	Excellent photographs confirm the ID. I do wish a more detailed written description could have accompanied this report.
Rick F.	11 Oct 2013	Acc	No description, but photos clearly show a hy Tennessee Warbler
Ryan O.	5 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S..	1 Oct 2013	Acc	Fantastic photos. Unfortunate there is not a lick of narrative to support the photos.
Jack S..	27 Nov 2013	Acc	Nice photographs!
David W.	11 Nov 2013	Acc	Great photos. It is unfortunate that there was no attempt to describe the bird beyond the photos.

2013-70 Chihuahuan Raven

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	No, ID	This could be a Chihuahuan Raven. However, the bill does not appear stout enough, nor the nasal bristles long enough. The white on the neck could still be light gray which is hard to discern due to the bright light conditions.
2nd round:	25 Jan 2014	No, ID	I'm still not convinced this is a Chihuahuan Raven for the reasons I stated in the first round.
3rd round:	8 Feb 2014	No, ID	After re-evaluating this record and referring to the comments made by others, I'm still not convinced this is a Chihuahuan Raven.
Bob B.	1 Oct 2013	Acc	This record is difficult for me. It appears to have the white neck typical of Chihuahuan Ravan, but the bill seems long with bristles that are less than half way out, typical of Common Ravan. The white seems so obvious that I am going to vote for this bird, but not without some misgivings. I am reminded of the report from Canyonlands Nat. Park a few years ago that we agonized over and ultimately rejected. Just maybe we have a population of Chihuahuan Ravans in SE Utah.
2nd round:	8 Dec 2013	Acc	The color of the base of the neck feathers certainly looks white to me, rather than gray. In addition the observer noted that the photos did not fully demonstrate the extent of the white. In reviewing the bill characteristics of the two ravens, the word usually is frequently used, in other words, the bristles on the Chihuahuan Raven are "usually" longer than half the length of the bill, and they are "usually" shorter than half the length on the Common Ravan. I doubt we can be absolutely certain on this bird, but I am sticking with my original vote.
3rd round:	30 Jan 2014	No, ID	The discussion of this bird brings a whole new meaning to the term "gray area". We like things to be black or white. Or in this case gray or white. I have given a great deal of thought to this bird. I still feel it is likely a Chihuahuan Ravan. However it is not totally black or white. For a first state record, it really should be definitive, in my opinion. Therefore I am changing my vote to no.
Rick F.	11 Oct 2013	Acc	Photos are rather convincing and appear to show bright white rather than grayish feathers on the lower throat...
2nd round:	8 Jan 2014	Acc	I've tried to study these species closely over the last 10-15 years, and unless the photo exposures are very misleading, I've never seen a Common Raven with inner throat feathers this white. I cannot adequately evaluate the bill, bristles, etc. with the poor resolution photos. So my acceptance is somewhat reluctance based solely on the apparent white throat. I cannot access the flickr links provided by Ryan, but he U.K. length shows typical grayish feathering than the bright feathers apparent in the photos accompanying the record.
3rd round:	17 Mar 2014	Acc	Second round comments regarding white (not pale gray) throat feathering stand.
Ryan O.	8 Nov 2013	No, ID	Unfortunately, the field mark of the white neck feathers is illustrated in a very misleading way by Sibley. This has resulted in my own misidentifications, and probably many others. The catch is that the bases of the neck feathers in the Common Raven are (or can be? I don't know about age/regional variation in this) a very very pale gray, not the dark sooty gray shown in his illustration. Thus, in the field, this trait is essentially useless, except perhaps in side-by-side comparison with ideal lighting. The bird submitted in this record is a Common Raven, and the "white" base of the neck feathers is just a very pale ashy gray, made to look even whiter by a bit of overexposure on the brightly lit surfaces (but undoubtedly very pale and whitish in life as well). The shape and size of the bill and nasal bristles further support the identification of this bird as Common Raven. Here is a photo I took of a Common Raven at Grand Canyon, Arizona that likewise shows "whitish" neck feather bases:
2nd round:	16 Dec 2013	No, ID	As I mentioned in the first round, pale neck feathers are not diagnostic for this species. Further, the bill shape and proportions, especially the extent of the nasal bristles, are in support of Common Raven and inconsistent with Chihuahuan Raven. Here is a few more photos showing the "white" bases of the neck feathers that Common Ravens can have, this one taken in Alaska: http://www.flickr.com/photos/64351863@N00/2097433154/ This one was taken in New Mexico, where both species could occur, but this Common Raven is captive and is identified with certainty: http://hawksaloft.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Raven-preening.jpg And here is one from the U.K. In softer light, this white does appear as a pale gray, but in harsh contrasty light like the bird in this record, the gray easily washes out to appear white. http://www.flickr.com/photos/66339356@N00/4222606975/ The bill shape, rictal bristles, and even pale bases of neck feathers of the bird submitted in this record are all consistent with Common Raven.
3rd round:	1 Feb 2014	No, ID	As mentioned in previous rounds, pale bases to neck feathers are not diagnostic. Without conclusive information on diagnostic traits (voice, bill shape, rictal bristles, tail shape), this is not a convincing record, let alone for a state first.
Terry S..	3 Oct 2013	Acc	The white- based throat feathers show up clearly in the photos. It helps that the photos were taken from different angles.
2nd round:	6 Dec 2013	Acc	The thorough research and discussion on the possible Chihuahuan Raven at Arches NP a few years back showed that there can be quite an overlap in bill characteristics between Chihuahuan and Common Ravens. The bill length and size and amount of rictal bristles and how far they extend down the bill varies quite a bit. The very white-based neck feathers on the Chihuahuan Raven when visible seems to be one of the best distinguishing field marks. The review bird shows this field mark very clearly in more than one photo.
3rd round:	9 Feb 2014	No, ID	After reading comments and discussion from other reviewers seeds of doubt have been planted. Better quality photos and other documentation that distinguishes the bird from a Common Raven will be needed for acceptance.
Dennis S. 2nd round:	24 Jan 2014	No, ID	I've really struggled with this one. Over the last few weeks I've studied all I could find separating this from the Common Raven. I reviewed our past denied reports and am wondering if the Chihuahuan Raven is really found in Utah and if so just what it will take to get a convincing record. If the "white" neck feathers are the best separating character, along with the bill bristles and possibly voice, then it seems this record and even a past record measures up. But there is so much variability, overlap and subjectiveness, in our interpretation of these characters that it almost appears impossible to make a objective decision. In a court of law two premises are understood. First, the decision making standard is "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt." The key word here is "Reasonable." If our Records Committee standard fits this level then we have a little bit of wiggle room. If our standard is without any doubt, then very few records will ever be accepted. Second it is commonly know fact that photographs are (can be) a weak and attackable item of evidence. They can be a misrepresentation of the actual scene (item). They can be misleading, especially when color and brightness are concerned, not to mention clarity, angles, composition and size comparisons. Enough said! We just need to give records our best shot, which I'm sure we all do. Having gone off on a tangent, but coming back to the record at hand, I'm still in a quandary. I'm just not ready to accept this record.
3rd round:	30 Jan 2014	No, ID	I'm still not totally convinced either way and since it would be a new listing for the State I'm staying with my original decision.
Jack S. 2nd round:	21 Dec 2013	No, ID	I agree that the neck feathers on this bird appear light colored at the base but I'm not convinced that the photographs can distinguish a white from a light grey base color. Even Pyle warns about separating Chihuahuan and Common Ravens in the hand, "Beware that the throat and breast plumage differences can be subtle, particularly without direct comparison". I'm being cautious and not accepting this record, if there were other supporting field marks that were clearly consistent with only Chihuahuan I would reconsider. Interestingly, the wing chord is non-overlapping between Chihuahuan and Common Raven.
3rd round:	8 Feb 2014	No, ID	I have the same reservations as in my previous comments on this bird.
Steve S. 2nd round:	21 Jan 2014	Acc	With the blurry photos all I can base this on is the white feather bases from multiple angles. They don't look at all gray to me.
3rd round:	18 Mar 2014	No, ID	I still think this is probably a Chihuahuan Raven. But after reading all the other comments, I'll agree without better photos, recordings etc. basing the ID only on white feather bases I shouldn't accept this as a first state record.
David W. 2nd round:	5 Dec 2013	No, ID	I agree with Kathy & Ryan on this one. The rictal bristles are quite short on this bird. The bill is on the sharp end for the species, the tail shape intermediate, and the tail length hard to determine because of the foreshortened angle. The observer, unfortunately, did not hear the raven call, and there was no other raven or crow for a size direct comparison. I think it is very likely there are some Chihuahuan ravens in SE Utah, and this may well be one, but I am not convinced enough to vote to accept based on the data presented in this record.
3rd round:	31 Jan 2014	No, ID	As before, I think this may be a Chihuahuan raven, but am not convinced entirely.

2013-71 Ruff

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
2nd round:	25 Dec 2013	No, ID	I've changed my vote, because as other committee members have pointed out, there is not sufficient description to rule out other similar species.
Bob B.	28 Oct 2013	No, ID	I suspect this bird was a Ruff. However, without a photo, I just feel we need more in the description to be certain as to the ID. There is nothing in the description that would rule out a Buff-breasted Sandpiper or even a Pectoral Sandpiper, but we need more information.
2nd round:	18 Dec 2013	No, ID	My vote is unchanged as I feel without a photo and with a less than convincing description we cannot be certain, although it may well have been a Ruff.
Rick F.	22 Nov 2013	No, ID	Very limited description without accompanying photos. Would like to see more plumage characteristics (breast, back, head, rump, tail, flanks, etc.).
2nd round:	8 Jan 2014	No, ID	No description of key plumage characteristics
Ryan O.	5 Nov 2013	No, ID	Probably was a Ruff, but the description is not thorough enough to convincingly stand on its own without additional documentation. In particular, one of the best ways to identify a Ruff is by the U-shaped white patch on the uppertail coverts: this should have been visible if not obvious when the harrier flushed the birds, but is not mentioned. I could probably be convinced to vote to accept, but not in the first round.
2nd round:	16 Dec 2013	No, ID	My concerns from the first round remain, i.e., that the written description is not sufficient to confidently identify this species, especially given the lack of mention of the most obvious field mark at a distance, the white U on the rump, which should have been visible when the birds flushed.
Terry S..	24 Nov 2013	No, ID	More detail on description is needed for an acceptable record. Relative size of head, length of legs and more description of plumage.
2nd round:	24 Dec 2013	No, ID	Without photos better documentation of the bird is needed.
Dennis S. 2nd round:	12 Jan 2014	No, ID	The description is lacking sufficient details to completely remove questions about similar species. An adequate photo would have made the difference.
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	No, ID	My initial impression is the bird was not observed and described well enough to clearly identify as a Ruff.
2nd round:	22 Dec 2013	No, ID	Poor documentation!
Steve S. 2nd round:	21 Jan 2014	No, ID	Probably a Ruff, but report lacking enough details to rule out similar species.
David W.	7 Nov 2013	Acc	I am on the fence with this record. All the field marks are consistent with a Ruff (Reeve) but the record is so vague (especially in its use of unquantified phrases like "about the size of" and "shorter, more tubular" (how much more tubular--and, and what exactly is "tubular"?). And were the feather edges white or buff? But, the combination of relative size, relative shortness and tubularity of bill, leg color, and pale feather edges on back, seems to eliminate other options.
2nd round:	18 Dec 2013	No, ID	I am still on the fence, but I am going to lean to the NO side for the second round. The record is just too vague to be certain, and I find myself over-analyzing vague descriptions.

2013-72 Bay-breasted Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
2nd round:	25 Jan 2014	Acc
Bob B.	17 Oct 2013	Acc	One might wish for better photos, but I feel the description and the photos, such as they are, are adequate to distinguish Bay-breasted from either Pine or Blackpoll.
2nd round:	26 Dec 2013	Acc	I still feel this is a Bay-breasted Warbler even though the photos could be better.
Rick F.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Conclusive photos. Nice record.
2nd round:	8 Jan 2014	Acc
Ryan O.	8 Nov 2013	Acc
2nd round:	1 Feb 2014	Acc
Terry S..	3 Dec 2013	No, ID	I see conflicting images in the photos and I can't tell even with the webmaster's photoshopping the length of the undertail coverts, primary extension, broadness of the wingbars, amount of streaking on the back and the shape of the white spots under the tail. I am interested in other opinions on this one.
2nd round:	30 Dec 2013	Acc	After reviewing comments from other committee members and re-evaluating the photos and narrative I am changing my vote.
Dennis S. 2nd round:	5 Jan 2014	Acc	Adequate photos, but a much better description and elimination process outline of other warblers.
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	Acc	Good description. Supporting photographs!
2nd round:	1 Jan 2014	Acc
Steve S. 2nd round:	21 Jan 2014	Acc	Between the well written description with elimination of similar species and the marginal photos I feel this is a Bay-breasted Warbler
David W.	11 Nov 2013	Acc
2nd round:	24 Jan 2014	Acc

2013-73 Blackburnian Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	No, ID	Description relies on throat color as compared to a nearby Townsend's Warbler. There is no discussion of other characteristics which would separate the two species. For example, no streaking on the back was mentioned.
2nd round:	25 Jan 2014	No, ID	Insufficient description to accept this record.
Bob B.	28 Oct 2013	Acc	I am voting yes, although I have some reservations. I wish we had a photo. I can't really think what else this might have been, so at this point I am voting yes.
2nd round:	31 Dec 2013	No, ID	I still feel that this bird was likely a Blackburnian Warbler. However, I agree, that for a first state record, more definitive information should be available, preferably with multiple observers and/or diagnostic photos. Therefore I am changing my vote to no.
Rick F.	22 Nov 2013	No, ID	Description is lacking sufficient details to distinguish a fall Blackburnian Warbler from (especially an adult male) from Townsend's Warbler.
2nd round:	8 Jan 2014	No, ID	Description of key characteristics is lacking, especially without supporting photos.
Ryan O.	8 Nov 2013	No, ID	Description isn't at odds with Blackburnian, but is much to sparse to accept as a first state record with only a single observer's report. No description of wing coverts, mantle pattern, throat pattern (did it have a black throat, like Townsend's?), connection of black auriculars to nape or collar, etc. Written song description fits Blackburnian but also many other species. Physical description doesn't sufficiently rule out Olive Warbler, or even Townsend's with a pigment abnormality. The record needs more details, photos, audio recordings, or other observers (actually submitting a record, not just present) to be acceptable in my opinion.
2nd round:	1 Feb 2014	No, ID	Description of key characteristics is lacking, especially without supporting photos.
Terry S..	24 Nov 2013	No, ID	The description given is too sparse to make this an acceptable record especially since no photos were submitted with the record.
2nd round:	3 Jan 2014	No, ID	As with my first round vote I still believe more detailed description is needed for this record.
Dennis S. 2nd round:	5 Jan 2014	No, ID	As with other previous sight only records (there have been three), documentation does not completely rule out other similar winter plumage warblers. As a First-Of-State I feel there are still too many unanswered questions for acceptance of this species.
Jack S.	4 Dec 2013	Acc	The yellow-orange throat and breast is diagnostic.
2nd round:	4 Jan 2014	No, ID	I'm changing my vote to "no" after studying the record again and reading comments from other committee members. I'm especially swayed by knowing this would be a first state record.
Steve So. 2nd round:	26 Jan 2014	No, ID	Possibly a Blackburnian, but lacking sufficient detail to exclude other warblers.
David W.	11 Nov 2013	Acc	Although I believe the observer saw a Blackburnian warbler, I have some issues with this record: 1) There is very little actual description of the bird other than that it looked similar to a Townsends' warbler but not Bushtits, and that its throat is yellower than the Townsend's, and that it had "dark head and back with obvious orange-yellow throat and breast." 2) The throat is described as "yellow orange" in parts, but then described as "more yellow" than a Townsend's elsewhere. I am not sure what the latter comment means--more extensive? brighter? more yellow in tone?? 3) I wish the observer had specified whether the "vocalizations" were songs or calls, but certainly "see see see sounds" matches Blackburnian better than Townsend's. Because the observer didn't include a photo, I wish he had been more thorough in the description portion of the write-up. That being said, I think the description is adequate to rule out similar species.
2nd round:	7 Jan 2014	No, ID	I hadn't realized this was a state-first. Although I think this was a Blackburnian, I agree with others that the standard for a state-first requires a better description.

2013-74 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	24 Oct 2013	Acc	Clearly a Red-necked Grebe
Rick F.	22 Nov 2013	Acc	nice record
Ryan O.	5 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S..	24 Nov 2013	Acc
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	Acc	Great documentation!
David W.	7 Nov 2013	Acc

2013-75 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	12 Nov 2013	Acc	Definitive photo
Rick F.	22 Nov 2013	Acc	nice record, summary should include inclusive dates (once the scoter departs).
Ryan O.	5 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S.	24 Nov 2013	Acc
Dennis S..	2 Jan 2013	Acc	Adequate report and good photos. I was one of the "others" who observed this bird.
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	Acc	Good description. Supportive photographs.
Steve S.	5 Jan 2014	Acc
David W.	11 Nov 2013	Acc

2013-76 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	12 Nov 2013	Acc	Good photos
Rick F.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Nice record
Ryan O.	5 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S.	24 Nov 2013	Acc
Dennis S.	2 Jan 2013	Acc	Adequate report verified by identifiable photos.
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	Acc
Steve S.	5 Jan 2014	Acc
David W.	11 Nov 2013	Acc

2013-77 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	12 Nov 2013	Acc
Rick F.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Another nice record with excellent description (77a) and definitive photos
Ryan O.	5 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S..	3 Dec 2013	Acc
Dennis S.	7 Jan 2014	Acc	The two detailed submitted reports, photographs, and the field sketch by Stephanie Burnish, was more than enough to easily accept this record. I loved the Behavior comments by Kris Purdy, "catching Big air" before it dove, and "turning a wary eye skyward multiple times to watch a Bald Eagle pass overhead." Also, Oh how it would be to be able to draw/sketch!
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	Acc	Good documentation.
Steve S.	6 Jan 2014	Acc	Clearly a Red-necked Grebe by the photos. I wish all the written records were as detailed as 2013-77a.
David W.	7 Nov 2013	Acc

2013-78 Tropical Kingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	12 Nov 2013	Acc	What a great find. All signs point toward Tropical and not Couch's.
Rick F.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Great record. Sparse description, excellent photos.
Ryan O.	12 Nov 2013	Acc	This bird was not heard to call, neither by the observer who submitted the report nor by myself when observing this individual in the field for about 30 minutes. However, based on my own impressions in the field and of Paul Higgins' excellent photos, I believe this bird is correctly identified as a Tropical Kingbird to the exclusion of Couch's Kingbird. The bill, while not as convincing as in the first state record, is relatively long and thin-based, with a long culmen that does not curve noticeably until very close to the tip, supporting Tropical over Couch's. The notch in the tail is relatively deep, supporting Tropical over Couch's. The pattern of the primary tips is unlikely to be helpful for this bird, because the bird was in active remige and retrix molt. Geographic location lends weak support for identification as Tropical over Couch's, although of course this should never be emphasized in the identification of vagrant birds.
Terry S..	10 Dec 2013	Acc	Very good photos with this record
Dennis S.	7 Jan 2014	Acc	Could have used more details in the report, but with additional sharp photos, and lots of observers, including several past and current Records Committee members, the record stands.
Jack S..	7 Dec 2013	Acc	I'm accepting this record based on overall plumage, the bill length and bulk, degree of notch in the tail, and similar lengths of P5 and P6 (with P5 being slightly shorter that P6 - I think tracing the primaries 10 to 5 is possible from photo I).
Steve S.	7 Jan 2014	Acc	Sparse description, but I think from the photos and seeing this bird that the bill is long enough to eliminate Couch's Kingbird.
David W.	18 Dec 2013	Acc	Again we are faced with the question of whether this ia a Couch's or Tropical kingbird. I am voting to accept it as a Tropical because of the length of the bill. Other field marks seems indeterminate to me. The primary pattern (which varies between sexes and ages to a confusing degree anyway) and grayness of mantle don't seem to clearly support either a Couch's or a Tropical kingbirds. The tail shape (extent of forking) is not diagnostic, but also seems to match web photos/drawings of Tropicals better than Couch's.

2013-79 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	23 Nov 2013	Acc
Bob B.	25 Nov 2013	Acc	Great photos
Rick F.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Excellent record.
Ryan O.	22 Nov 2013	Acc
Terry S..	3 Dec 2013	Acc
Dennis S.	5 Jan 2014	Acc	No problem what-so ever! If only all submissions were this easy.
Jack S..	4 Dec 2013	Acc	Good description. Supporting photographs.
Steve S.	5 Jan 2014	Acc	Nice photos and description
David W.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Excellent photos.

2013-80 Iceland Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Kathy B.	25 Jan 2014	Acc
2nd round:	8 Feb 2014	Acc	Although the description is limited, the photos support this ID.
Bob B.	8 Dec 2013	Acc	This looks very good for a first year Iceland Gull. It is stretching it a bit however to call this a male.
2nd round:	12 Feb 2014	Acc	This bird seems too pale overall to be a Theyer's Gull. I am sticking with my original vote.
Rick F.	3 Dec 2013	Acc	Descriptions are very limited however, I believe photos are adequate for a Kumlien's Gull. Some additional photos, including flight photos were posted on the list serve and would be helpful with this record.
Ryan O.	16 Dec 2013	Acc	The thoroughly patterned tertials (that is, without a solid color in the center) are an important mark in separating pale Thayer's from Iceland Gull, and are clearly visible in photo A. Body size, head shape, and bill color all help rule out other potential confusion species like Glaucous-winged and Glaucous gulls.
2nd round:	20 Feb 2014	Acc	The narrative is sparse and insufficient on its own, but I think the photos are sufficient to see the relevant field marks. I put a lot of weight on the tertials, patterned throughout in Iceland Gull and solid-centered in Thayer's Gull, following Howell & Dunn and other references. The photos show patterning throughout the visible length of the tertials. In addition, the overall color of this bird seems consistent with Iceland. The bill may be a bit on the large end of the spectrum, but not enough to give me pause about voting according to the rest of the traits on this bird.
Terry S..	30 Dec 2013	No, ID	This record needs some narrative giving full description of the bird . A pale Thayers Gull was not even considered as a possibility.
2nd round:	21 Feb 2014	No, ID	I still have concerns accepting this record. David points out it certainly appears pale enough to be a Kumlien's, but I wonder just how much of the paleness is due to the bright back-lighting that is washing out all the details that we should be evaluating in the tail, primaries and tertials. What I do see clearly is the sloping forehead and a comparatively long bill which would lean more toward a thayer's. Some believe that "Kumlien's Gull" is not a subspecies of Iceland Gull but just a point of intergrade or hybridization in the cline between Iceland Gull and Thayer's Gull. Regardless of the taxanomic perspective you may have I don't believe the quality of the photos are giving us the detail we need to make fair evaluation especially given there is no substantive narrative.
Dennis S.	26 Jan 2014	Acc	I reviewed three different gull books along with the field guides to refresh distinguishing characters of light colored Thayers and Glaucous-winged and darker colored Iceland first winter gulls. There's some overlapping characters, but I believe the bird in question shows too much overall paleness to not be an Iceland. The lack of any marked color darkening towards the wing tip and tertials and the light "checkering" of the folded wings are consistent with a first year Iceland Gull. Having said this the head shape is a bit bothersome, with a more rounded (non-sloping) head the rule. The body size and smallness of the bill are not completely apparent and clear.
2nd round:	2 Feb 2014	Acc	No change in opinion since 1st round.
Jack S..	4 Jan 2014	Acc	I'm voting to tentatively accept as a first cycle Kumlien's Gull based on the checkered pale upperparts, the tail appears light, pink legs, whitish primary tips, and its similar size to nearby California Gulls. The overall plumage is too dark for Thayer's Gull. The bill however looks too long for a Kumlien's (compare bill with CAGU in photo C) and is more consistent with a Thayer's Gull. Considering that the observer studied this bird for 30 minutes the description was very limited.
2nd round:	8 Feb 2014	Acc
Steve S.	21 Jan 2014	Acc	Not much for description,but I believe this is an Iceland Gull from the photos.
2nd round:	24 Feb 2014	Acc
David W.	31 Jan 2014	No, ID	I could go either way on this bird. I suspect that in NE Canada this would be presumed to be an Kumlien's gull. It is certainly pale enough for a Kumlien's gull. But with the blurry quality of the photos (with bright light washing out details), it is difficult to be sure. I am especially troubled by the length and shape of the bill, which is closer to the Thayer's end of the spectrum. I'd like to see what the larophiles among you think. The write-up doesn't offer too many clues to help with this ID.