Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2015 (records 01 through 025)

 
2015-01 Red-breasted Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 10 Jan 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 31 Jan 2015 Acc Classic daggettii RB Sapsucker. Very nice photos.
Kenny F. 6 Feb 2015 Acc Looks good for a Red-breasted Sapsucker. A minimum of black or white in the face rule out a hybrid with a RNSA.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 5 Jan 2015 Acc Nice photos. Hybridization? Looks good to me.
Jack S.. 10 Feb 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 20 Jan 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 19 Feb 2015 Acc  
David W. 16 Jan 2015 Acc Nice.

  

2015-02 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 31 Jan 2015 Acc Nice record.
Kenny F. 25 Jan 2015 Acc Looks good for a juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. Any sapsucker in December with this much juvenile plumage will be a Yellow-bellied. The paler plumage and streaked crown is also good for Yellow-bellied vs Red-naped.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 16 Feb 2015 Acc The over-all brownish cast, the appearance of a brownish lightly streaked crown, and larger unstreaked creamy white/yellowish central breast area are all consistent with an immature YBSA. The late retention (Dec.) of the juvenile plumage is also characteristic of a YBSA.
Jack S.. 10 Feb 2015 Acc The molt timing, broad white band across cheek, and messy pale spotting on the back are consistent with this species.
Steve S. 21 Jan 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 19 Feb 2015 Acc No problem accepting this as a first year YB
David W. 20 Jan 2015 Acc The retention of immature plumage into January is a clear indication that this is a Yellow-bellied sapsucker.

  

2015-03 Laughing Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 31 Jan 2015 Acc Good record, with plenty of definitive photos.
Kenny F. 25 Jan 2015 Acc Looks great for a 1st cycle Laughing Gull. Grayish underparts, long dropping bill, all black wingips, all dark tertials, brown coverts, mottled underwing and broad black tail band all help distinguish it from a 1st cycle Franklin's Gull.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc Great photos
Dennis S. 3 Feb 2015 Acc A great FOS!
Jack S.. 11 Feb 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 21 Jan 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 19 Feb 2015 Acc Nice bird for Utah!
David W. 20 Jan 2015 Acc This is a well documented bird.

  

2015-04 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 26 Jan 2015 Abst  
Kenny F. 4 Feb 2015 Acc Looks great for a Brown Thrasher.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 3 Feb 2015 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Feb 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 2 Feb 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 25 Mar 2015 Acc  
David W. 29 Jan 2015 Acc How close to Brook's Nature Park was this St. George bird? Is this the same bird as the one in Record #2015-07 seen in Brook's Park the same day, or is this a thrasher invasion?

  

2015-05 Brown Pelican

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 26 Jan 2015 Abst  
Kenny F. 4 Feb 2015 Acc Great shots of a Brown Pelican.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc Good photos
Dennis S. 3 Feb 2015 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Feb 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 2 Feb 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 25 Mar 2015 Acc  
David W. 27 Jan 2015 Acc Lovely photo. It appears from the reddish gular coloration that this is the Pacific ssp.

  

2015-06 Purple Finch

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 26 Jan 2015 Abst  
Kenny F. 4 Feb 2015 Acc Looks good for a female Purple Finch. Sraighter culmen, facial pattern, stocky build and deeper notched tail rule out House Finch. Dull greenish back, weaker facial striping, shorter primary projection and blurrier streaking rule out Cassin's Finch.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 3 Feb 2015 Acc Nice detective work!
Jack S.. 11 Feb 2015 Acc Great Record. Photographs and description are distinctive.
Steve S. 2 Feb 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 25 Mar 2015 Acc  
David W. 29 Jan 2015 Acc Very good write-up and differentiation between similar Carpodacus females. The different tonality between the two different sets of photos is a caution about using photos in IDs (again).

  

2015-07 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 26 Jan 2015 Abst  
Kenny F. 4 Feb 2015 Acc Photo clearly shows a Brown Thrasher.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 3 Feb 2015 Acc  
Jack S.. 11 Feb 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 2 Feb 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 25 Mar 2015 Acc  
David W. 29 Jan 2015 Acc  (see my comments under Record #2015-04)

  

2015-08 Least Bittern

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 26 Jan 2015 Abst  
Kenny F. 4 Feb 2015 Acc Looks good for Least Bittern. Yellow bill, tiny size and overall buffy coloration rule out Green Heron.
Terry S.. 9 Feb 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 3 Feb 2015 Acc Its good it was alive and flew away.
Jack S.. 11 Feb 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 2 Feb 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 25 Mar 2015 Acc  
David W. 29 Jan 2015 Acc Despite lack of written description, it's hard to argue with a "bird in the hand." Bob Bond, et al reported them in this area during the 1990s.

  

2015-09 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 8 Feb 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 31 Jan 2015 Acc The bird in photos A and B appears to be an adult Brown-capped Rosy-Finch, however, I'm not sure about the birds in photo C.
Kenny F. 4 Feb 2015 Acc Bird looks good for adult male Brown-capped Rosy-finch. Has a a cold brown coloration vs warm brown of a GCRF. Has a mostly black crown with a minimum of gray that no adult male GCRF would show. Looks like a different adult than the one submitted by Ryan O'Donnell because of different amounts of black and gray on the crown and differing amounts of pink on the underparts.

Additionally, Michael Hilchey (co-lead of the Sandia Rosy-Finch Banding Project) weighed in on this bird and said: "Adult M BCRF. I don't think this is the same as the first or 2nd photo."

His email can be viewed here:
Terry S.. 20 Mar 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 16 Feb 2015 Acc Good photo and report. Not as much "gray area" as before.
Jack S.. 30 Mar 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 24 Mar 2015 Acc For what it's worth, I think this is probably the same bird as record 2014-037
Larry T. 31 Mar 2015 Acc Looks like a Brown Rosy to me.
David W. 25 Mar 2015 Acc  This one reminds me of 2014-037, but pinker.

  

2015-10 Gyrfalcon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 11 Apr 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 19 Apr 2015 Acc Photos clearly show a Gyrfalcon
Kenny F. 22 Feb 2015 Acc Looks good for a juvenile gray morph Gyrfalcon. Very bulky falcon with darker underwing linings that rule it out from Peregrine or Prairie.

No unusual feather wear or jesses can rule out escapee.
Terry S.. 22 Mar 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 16 Feb 2015 Acc The flight photos showing the gray coloration, overall falcon body outline, weak facial markings, falcon head and notched bill, heavily streaked breast, broad/longish/barred tail, and dark/light wing lining/flight feather pattern are all consistent characters of a juvenile gray phase Gyrfalcon. A Great Find!
Jack S.. 11 Apr 2015 Acc The description is poor but the photographs look good for this species.
Steve S. 24 Mar 2015 Acc Seems like a reasonable time and place for one to show up.
Larry T. 15 Apr 2015 Acc I don't have a problem with the ID but with a Gyrfalcon there's always the issue with it being a natural occurring bird. A juvenile Gray morph is the most likely to show up here and the location seems good so I will vote to accept it.
David W. 12 Mar 2015 Acc No written description of field marks, but photos appear to show a gyrfalcon. Am I right in having heard that no falconers reported an escaped bird?

  

2015-11 Magnificent Hummingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 11 Apr 2015 Acc  

2nd round:  

9 May 2015 No, ID After noting the comments of the other committee members and reviewing the record again, I am changing my vote because the description given is too limited to warrant a positive ID. I believe this could have been an immature male Magnificent, but now agree the description is lacking the detail needed for acceptance of this record.
Rick F. 19 Apr 2015 No, ID Description lacks important details for a Magnificent Hummingbird and favors, perhaps, an Anna's Hummingbird.

2nd round:  

11 Jun 2015 No, ID  
Kenny F. 22 Feb 2015 No, ID Magnificent has a purple top of the head and should be all dark looking, not "light green and green streaking".

Seems like this bird would better fit an Anna's Hummingbird which does have a rosy triangular head top and is light green with green streaking.

2nd round:  

20 May 2015 No, ID See earlier comments.
Terry S.. 22 Mar 2015 No, ID A lot of identification information missing for this to be a n acceptable record. Concerned it was initially thought to be a Violet-crowned Hummingbird.
Dennis S. 24 Feb 2015 No, ID The large size, overall greenish coloration, and rosy(?) head cap, are all characters of MAHU. However, I'm not sure other possible large immature hummers have been adequately addressed, and there's no mention of any throat coloration, presence of facial markings, and tail characteristics. The nine month lapse since the observation, which was from memory, doesn't add to the "best placement" of the bird as a Magnificent Hummingbird.

2nd round:  

19 May 2015 No, ID No change of thought since first round.
Jack S.    2nd: 23 Apr 2015 No, ID This is a difficult record to judge. I don't feel the description is adequate to confirm the ID this species.
Steve S. 16 Apr 2015 No, ID I don't know what else would have a "rosy/lavender " cap, but a description of a streaked breast doesn't seem to fit for Magnificent. I don't think there is enough here for me to accept this sighting as a Magnificent Hummingbird.

2nd round:  

10 May 2015 No, ID I still can't accept this record as written.
Larry T. 15 Apr 2015 No, ID Not a convincing description and the red cap doesn't sound right. Without any previous experience with this species and only seeing the bird with the naked eye I have a hard time accepting it.

2nd round:  

15 Jun 2015 No, ID  
David W. 12 Mar 2015 No, ID This report lacks sufficient detail for me to make a decision. Anna's hummingbird was not sufficiently eliminated for my comfort, with no other hummingbirds for size comparison.

2nd round:  

12 May 2015 No, ID As before.

  

2015-12 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 11 Apr 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 19 Apr 2015 Acc Nice record
Kenny F. 18 Mar 2015 Acc  
Terry S.. 22 Mar 2015 Acc  
Dennis S. 25 Mar 2015 Acc Nice photos!
Jack S.. 30 Mar 2015 Acc Distinctive photographs!
Steve S. 24 Mar 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 18 May 2015 Acc  
David W. 18 Mar 2015 Acc Excellent record.

  

2015-13 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 11 Apr 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 19 Apr 2015 Acc very good documentation photos.
Kenny F. 10 Apr 2015 Acc Looks good for a Red-necked Grebe molting into its alternate plumage.
Dennis S. 19 May 2015 Acc  
Jack S.. 23 Apr 2015 Acc  
Steve S. 16 Apr 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 18 May 2015 Acc  
David W. 10 Apr 2015 Acc  

  

2015-14 Palm Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 9 May 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 11 Jun 2015 Acc Nice record
Kenny F. 8 May 2015 Abst  
Dennis S. 19 May 2015 Acc  
Jack S.. 9 May 2015 Acc Diagnostic photographs!
Steve S. 10 May 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 11 Jun 2015 Acc Not any question with this one.
David W. 14 May 2015 Acc Excellent photos make the case.

  

2015-15 Baltimore Oriole

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 18 Jul 2015 Acc Although the description lacks detail and there is not a clear elimination of similar species, I think there is enough information to accept this record.

2nd round:  

5 Sep 2015 Acc I'm sticking with my vote to accept this record. Even though the description is very limited, I still think there's enough there to support the ID of a Baltimore Oriole.

3rd round:  

31 Oct 2015 Acc No change to my vote.
Rick F. 11 Jun 2015 Acc Well there is much of a description, but the 'black head, bright orange chest, and orange stripe on wings' is all correct, and rather definitive. Odd though she didn't mention the prominent white wingbars and tertial edging. Also timing is perfect for a vagrant singing Baltimore Oriole, so I suppose I'll vote to marginally accept.

2nd round:  

8 Sep 2015 Acc  

3rd round:  

3 Dec 2015 No, ID I'll accept that as others have pointed out, the limited description does not rule out a Black-headed Grosbeak, and clearly the probability is much greater than a vagrant oriole.
Kenny F. 27 May 2015 Acc The description including black head and orange stripe on the wings match Baltimore Oriole.

2nd round:  

26 Aug 2015 Acc I will still vote this as an accept especially after reading again that this is a birder who moved from North Carolina and is familiar with Baltimore Orioles.

3rd round:  

8 Oct 2015 Acc Still voting to accept this record.
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 No, ID I'm not convinced the possible elimination of other "orange-breasted, black-headed, white winged barred" birds were adequately addressed. What about bill type? Y Mt. trails, with its scrub oak and maple is prime habitat for Black-headed Grosbeak and Spotted Towhee.

2nd round:  

1 Sep 2015 No, ID I'm sill not convinced.

3rd round:  

26 Oct 2015 No, ID I'm still! (see 2cd round) not convinced it wasn't a Black-headed Grosbeak.
Jack S.. 20 Jul 2015 No, ID The observer does not adequately describe a Baltimore Oriole nor how it was distinguished from the more common Bullock's Oriole.

2nd round:  

6 Sep 2015 No, ID The description is simply inadequate for a definitive ID and I cannot support it.

3rd round:  

27 Oct 2015 No, ID  
Steve S. 16 Jul 2015 No, ID Black head, orange chest and orange stripe on wings sure lean toward Baltimore Oriole. I wish there was some mention of at least Bullock's Oriole in the similar species section. But with no optics used is the description really accurate ?

2nd round:  

9 Sep 2015 No, ID Lacking better description and no discussion at all of similar species I will still vote no on this record.

3rd round:  

4 Dec 2015 No, ID No change
Mark S.
    3rd round:   		13 Oct 2015 No, ID Well, late to the party, but, hey, the music was good . . .

I'm going to be a lot less tentative on this record and just say that I don't think she saw a Baltimore Oriole at all. Like Larry, I think she saw a Black-headed Grosbeak, and joined the legions of eastern birders who made the mistake of calling a BHGR a BAOR. Clearly it's one of the most common i.d. mistakes in Utah.

There is nothing in the description that eliminates BHGR, except, perhaps, the orange wing stripe. But that could easily be confused for the orange on the side of the neck, or even the wing lining peaking around at the shoulder, especially in a naked-eye view. She makes no note of bill shape, another obvious way to distinguish these two.

But there are several items in her description that strongly point to BHGR. First is the habitat - oak scrub on a dry slope. It's perfect for BHGR, but would be an odd place for even a vagrant BAOR. Even stranger would be a vagrant BAOR singing from such a location, and singing continuously. While vagrants in Spring do sing, they rarely sing repeatedly from inappropriate habitat. However, the location and habitat are perfect for a singing BHGR at that time of year.

Finally, her description of the song sounds more like BHGR than BAOR. Both birds have similar-sounding songs, note-wise, but BAOR is much slower, more languid, and less continuous than BHGR. Her description of "singing on repeat" fits BHGR, and not BAOR.
Larry T. 18 Jul 2015 No, ID I'm not comfortable with the description on this bird. The birder may be familiar with the species and eastern birds but they make no attempt to eliminate western birds like a Black-headed Grosbeak that has been mistaken for a Baltimore Oriole. I'd at least like to see it go to a second round.

2nd round:  

7 Oct 2015 No, ID The description just isn't complete enough for to accept it.

3rd round:  

1 Dec 2015 No, ID As before
David W. 25 May 2015 No, ID This is one of those records where I don't really know how to vote.  On one hand, the description fits a Baltimore oriole.  But it falls just short of definitive because of a lack of detail.  Is there any way to ask the submitter to elaborate a bit more?  Here are my issues: 
1)  The head was black, as it should be.  But how far down did the black extend?  Was it just black on the crown and nape like a Bullocks?  What of the upper breast? 
2)  In one place, the observer described a white stripe on the wing, in another an orange stripe.  But nowhere are both described simultaneously.  Is that just incomplete description in any one place or is it a typo? 

I think it very likely the observer saw a Baltimore oriole, but the description leaves me a bit uneasy, considering how rare these birds are in Utah.  Are we allowed to call/write the observer to elicit more details? 

I'm willing to reconsider this in the second round, but I thought I'd express some reservations and see if it is possible to tighten this record up a bit.

2nd round:  

4 Aug 2015 No, ID In the absence of additional information, I feel uneasy voting to accept for the reasons stated in the first round. Should additional info be submitted, I am open to reconsidering my vote.

3rd round:  

18 Oct 2015 No, ID As before.

  

2015-16 Mourning Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 18 Jul 2015 No, ID There's not enough detail in the description and the elimination of similar species to accept this record.

2nd round:  

5 Sep 2015 No, ID I still don't think there is enough information to accept this record.
Rick F. 11 Jun 2015 No, ID Mourning Warbler is an extremely rare vagrant in the intermountain west, and I'd like to see a more thorough description, substantiated by photographs or multiple observers

2nd round:  

8 Sep 2015 No, ID  
Kenny F. 27 May 2015 Acc The description especially emphasizing the lack of eye arcs matches Mourning Warbler.

2nd round:  

26 Aug 2015 No, ID Seeing that this would be a state 1st record and the additional scrutiny that goes into such a record, the fact there is no physical evidence and that more info should have went into this record, I will change my vote to no.
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 No, ID Even though there is a good possibility this bird was a Mourning Warbler, several questions and problems are apparent. First, the observer puts most of his emphasis on the lack of any eye-ring, which is certainly a character of MOWA. However,an immature or female of either MAWA, COWA or MOWA species varies in the extent or absence of an eye-ring. Also, if it were a male, as recorded, there was no mention of a black "veil" or throat patch. A one minute observation time is a little troublesome, especially with other closely appearing species.
Since it would be a FOS record, and the committee has reviewed and denied a couple of previous sight-only records, I feel this record falls in the same category.

2nd round:  

26 Aug 2015 No, ID No additional thoughts - a FOS needs more.
Jack S.. 16 Jul 2015 No, ID The description of this bird is marginal and no physical evidence is provided supporting the ID (required of our bylaws to accept a first-state record).

2nd round:  

6 Sep 2015 No, ID The absence of eye-arcs described for this bird IS quite compelling. I admit that. However the description needs to be much more substantial and supported with physical evidence for me to accept this as a first-state record.
Steve S. 16 Jul 2015 No, ID This surely sounds like the correct ID from the written description, but without any other documentation or observers this can't be accepted as a first state record.

2nd round:  

9 Sep 2015 No, ID No change from first round..
Larry T. 23 Jul 2015 No, ID This is such a rare Warbler in the west (especially in Spring) That I would like to see it go at least to a 2nd round. The description of the bird not having eye arcs seems convincing but this can be a difficult bird to see well. On the other hand a male in spring if seen well should be pretty straight forward. The observer does have experience with the species.

2nd round:  

7 Oct 2015 No, ID  As before.
David W. 23 Jun 2015 Acc I wish the observer had described the tail length relative to undertail coverts, black pattern on the lower portion of the breast bib, the color of the lores, and vocalizations. There is some overlap between field marks between this species and the MacGillivray's, but the overlap in the eye-arcs seems to go the other direction only (i.e. some Mourning warblers have vague eye arcs, but all adult male MacGillivray's warblers have eye arcs). At least, that is what the books I have checked indicate.

2nd round:  

30 Aug 2015 Acc I have not heard anyone address my comment supporting the ACCEPT vote, and I am content to go down in a futile effort to vote thus. Does anyone out there know of any literature stating that MacGillivray's warbler males sometimes lack eye rings? I have heard the converse, but not that.

  

2015-17 Least Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 18 Jul 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 20 Jul 2015 Acc  
Kenny F. 27 May 2015 Acc Audio matches Least Flycatcher short "chebek" call.  
Whitish throat, bold eyering and wingbars also match Least Flycatcher.
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 Acc Don't ya just love the little Empidonax!!
Jack S.. 23 Jul 2015 Acc Photographs, description, and audio recording fully support this ID.
Steve S. 16 Jul 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 23 Jul 2015 Acc Well documented record.
David W. 2 Jun 2015 Acc  

  

2015-18 Pacific-slope Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 18 Jul 2015 Acc Interesting comparison of sonograms and audio.

2nd round:  

5 Sep 2015 Acc This sounds like a Pacific-slope Flycatcher to me.

3rd round:  

31 Oct 2015 Acc No change. I still hear a Pacific-slope as opposed to a Cordilleran.
Rick F. 20 Jul 2015 Acc This should not be a review species; Pacific-slope Flycatcher are regular (common) migrants through southwestern Utah.

2nd round:  

8 Sep 2015 Acc I saw and heard a couple of these this week in Washington County

3rd round:  

  3 Dec 2015 Acc  
Kenny F. 29 May 2015 abst  

2nd round:  

27 Jul 2015

 

 abst  

3rd round:  

8 Oct 2015

 

 abst  
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 No, ID Even with a good thorough report and documentation, I'm still not 100% sure we can rule on "Western Flycatchers" - Pacific-Slope and Cordilleran. There is too much overlap not only on field identification characters, but also call notes and song. I don't doubt that PSFY could occur in Utah but I'm not sure how we'll confirm it.

2nd round:  

1 Sep 2015 No, ID There's still too much overlap to convincingly separate these two species during migration periods.

3rd round:  

26 Oct 2015 No, ID No additional thoughts.
Jack S.. 23 Jul 2015 No, ID This record shows a Western Flycatcher but I cannot accept it as a Pacific-slope Flycatcher.

The ID rests solely on description of the call and its audio recording. The sonogram however shows a poor image of the suggested upslurred whistle, which I cannot hear on the recording nor clearly see in the sonogram. The recording also shows a good image of one part of the PSFL song used as playback (the Ptik!, according to the observer). Even if the sonogram were of better quality however, I'm still not certain my opinion would change given the ample warning of identifying migrant PSFL from call-only. See BNA species account of Pacific-slope Flycatcher written by Peter Lowther. I can upload a pdf of the pertinent page if anyone is interested.

2nd round:  

6 Sep 2015 No, ID As I've previously commented the description, and especially the audio, does not definitively ID a Pacific-slope Flycatcher.

I'm not discounting Rick and Steve's opinion that this species may be a common migrant in SW Utah but I don't feel THIS individual record has the quality to confirm a first-state record.

Is there literature that addresses the relative abundance of these two Western Flycatchers during migration (spring AND fall) in adjacent Nevada and Arizona? Any information that can be shared will be useful.

3rd round:  

27 Oct 2015 No, ID This may well have been a Black-billed Cuckoo but the description simply does not fully convince me.
Steve S. 16 Jul 2015 Acc I'm glad to see this bird brought up again. I don't know that this species should even be on the review list much less not even on the state checklist as it is a regular migrant through at lest the SW portion of the state.

2nd round:  

9 Sep 2015 Acc I'm still sticking with this species being a regular migrant through the SW portion of the state.

3rd round:  

4 Dec 2015 No, ID No change
Mark S.
    3rd round:		 14 Oct 2015 No, ID Wow, you sure know how to welcome someone to the committee . . .

O.K., this is probably the toughest question we have to face, which perhaps just indicates how valid this split is in the first place.

I understand all of the arguments, and "theory" as to which should be migrating where and when, and generally even live by a similar distinction. Here in west Mexico, PSFL is our most common wintering empid by far, so I hear and see these almost daily for much of the year. I'm sure that I could walk out of the house right now and find one within 15 minutes.

But we also commonly have COFL, and the convention for distinguishing which is which is strikingly familiar - those in the highlands are COFL, and those in the lowlands are PSFL. I HATE doing i.d.'s on nothing more than habitat. So for years now, I've been paying close attention to the calls - even knowing that I've heard COFL (on territory in Big Cottonwood Canyon in June) give PSFL call (and have recordings of the same), and have heard from others that this can happen at various parts of the COFL range. In spite of doubts as to how reliable the call is, I have yet to hear an exception to the high/low rule here in Mexico. Every bird in the highlands has given a COFL call, and every one in the lowlands has given a PSFL call.

So, given that experience, the "conventional wisdom" from surrounding states, and the local knowledge from birders on this committee, I was predisposed to accept this record, especially given Kenny's excellent job of documentation.

So why am I voting to "not accept?" Because, when I listened to the recorded call, I heard a two-parted call more like COFL than like PSFL. That is to say, that if I heard it without any of the associated information, I would be likely to call it COFL. The sonograms didn't help me get past that impression, either, since I find them inconclusive.

This may be a PSFL. But for a first-state record, I think we need a cleaner example.
Larry T. 23 Jul 2015 No, ID This species is best separated on it's breeding range. In migration I think they are best called Western Flycatchers. But they are separated in other western states by the habitat that they are in during migration. I've always thought that pac slopes come through the desert S W of Utah and I have seen birds myself at Lytle that I assumed were probably pac slopes but I just let them go as westerns. I'm not sure they should have ever been separated.

This is another one that I would like to see in a 2nd round and see if I can get some conniving comments from others even though I feel pretty good about calling this a Pacific-slope.

2nd round:  

7 Oct 2015 No, ID There is no doubt That pac slopes come through Utah. But I don't that we should except this record just because we know they come through.

I like to stick to calling it a Western Fly.

3rd round:  

1 Dec 2015 No, ID I agree with others on this record That we can't be sure with the overlap for the two species.
David W. 23 Jun 2015 Acc I am very reluctantly voting on this record. It's honestly a bit hard for me to tell where the vocalizations of one "species" of Western flycatcher end and those of the other begin. I have agonized over quite a few Xeno-Canto recordings, and I still feel less than sanguine about the distinction being clear-cut.

That being said, I do feel this individual does sound more like a Pacific-slope than a Cordilleran.

2nd round:  

30 Aug 2015 Acc I have spoken to Steve and Rick, and heard their impassioned tales of hearing this species on repeated occasions on passage in SW Utah, and that just confirms my vote. There's something to be said for local knowledge.

3rd round:  

18 Oct 2015 No, ID  I know I am going to exasperate at least two members of the Committee whose knowledge I highly respect, but I am going to switch my vote to No. I really would like to switch my vote to "I don't know", but there is no abstain option on the pull-down menu. This is the species I feel least competent to vote upon as a migrant, and I wish I could just acknowledge that by being allowed to abstain.

Here is my reasoning for switching (read waffling), based mostly on a link provided by Jack (thank you, Jack):
1) The more i read about the various calls given during migration and "bilingual" individuals, the less sure I am that anyone can be certain of any one migrating individual's status unless they give a perfect, notarized repertoire of songs/calls, accompanied by a DNA sample. This individual sounds to me more like a Cordilleran (sorry, Mark, ole buddy), but not in a definitive-leave-no-doubt fashion.
2) There is a large area of suspected sympatry to the north of us, well illustrated in Cornell's map: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/556a/galleries/figures/western-fly--map/image_popup_view
I have run into several references over the years, referring to the need for further study of birds in this overlap zone. This implies the possibility of hybridization.
3) I know some argue that "science" says these two forms represent two distinct species, but in the end this is a question of definition rather than genetic drift. Whether the "Western flycatcher" represent one, two, or three species seems to me a lot like asking whether Pluto is a real planet. Depends which definition of species you subscribe to. Yes, I know we defer to the experts at AOU to answer that question, and I am very happy to do so, but it sounds like the species boundaries have not been entirely resolved for all portions of this empid's range. Thus, I am uncertain whether we fully understand from where a migrating individual comes -- the coast, the deep interior, or the gray overlap zone to the north of us.

I am sorry. I would prefer to abstain, admitting ignorance, but if I must vote on a state first (yes, sorry, Rick, I know you feel this is NOT a state first, and I believe you), I will now vote NO. I do so not because I doubt that it likely is a Pacific-slope flycatcher, but because I am not sure we can prove it without more evidence. [Where is Audubon and his shotgun when you need him?]

Kenny, hell of a record! I suspect future generations will have an opportunity to reexamine this with more understanding and re-evaluate your excellent sound documentation with more certainty.

  

2015-19 Black-billed Cuckoo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Aug 2015 No, ID I'm not convinced of the ID based on the limited description.

2nd round:  

5 Sep 2015 No, ID I'm still not convinced the ID is accurate. I would expect a more detailed description based on the length of observation and the number of observers.

3rd round:  

31 Oct 2015 No, ID No change to my vote.
Rick F. 20 Jul 2015 No, ID This is another tough record. This is an extremely rare species in the intermountain west, and thus it is hard to accept with scant details, very limited description, and no photos.

2nd round:  

8 Sep 2015 No, ID Scant details, very limited description, and no photos, for an observation of an extremely rare species in the west by multiple observers.

3rd round:  

3 Dec 2015 No, ID  
Kenny F. 23 Jun 2015 Acc Description sounds accurate for Black-billed Cuckoo and distinguishes it from a Yellow-billed Cuckoo.

2nd round:  

26 Aug 2015 Acc I will stick with my initial vote due to how distinct cuckoos are and I am find with the description ruling out YB especially with multiple observers present.

3rd round:  

8 Oct 2015 Acc Still voting to accept this record..
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 Acc The long observation time, multiple observers, and coverage of the distinctive characters separating BBCU from YBCU warrant acceptance.

2nd round:  

1 Sep 2015 Acc No change.

3rd round:  

8 Oct 2015 Acc Still voting to accept this record..
Jack S.. 31 Jul 2015 Acc There could have been more detailed description of this bird (especially given 15 minutes of observation by 3-4 experienced birders) but it does seem adequate to identify this species and to exclude a YB cuckoo.

2nd round:  

5 Oct 2015 No, ID I'm changing my vote to NO - too sparse of a report for such a rare species in Utah.

3rd round:  

27 Oct 2015 No, ID This may well have been a Black-billed Cuckoo but the description simply does not fully convince me.
Steve S. 6 Aug 2015 Acc The report seems to indicate Black-billed Cuckoo. I will tentatively vote for this record.

2nd round:  

9 Sep 2015 Acc The description seems to rule out Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and I can't think of anything else you could mistake this bird for.

3rd round:  

4 Dec 2015 Acc With multiple observers and seemingly ruling out Yellow-billed Cuckoo I still vote accept'
Mark S.
    3rd round:		 14 Oct 2015 Acc The descriptions is sparse, but the distinguishing features were noted, and the bird was well observed by multiple observers, suggesting that the features mentioned were accurately observed. Also, this is not a difficult i.d. when so well seen.
Larry T. 6 Aug 2015 Acc It would have been nice to have a photo of this bird. But multiple observers seemed to have very good looks at the bird and confirmed the important field marks.

2nd round:  

7 Oct 2015 Acc I will stay with my first vote. Multiple observers help for me even with the limited description. As others have said, there isn't much to mistake the bird for except a YB and they seem to eliminate that for me with their description.

3rd round:  

1 Dec 2015 Acc I'll stay with my thumbs up on this one.
David W. 2 Jun 2015 Acc Despite sparse description, and despite referring to the upper portion of the body as gray rather than olivy or brownish, I cannot think of any other species that is possible. The tail spot comparison makes me think that the observers saw the bird well, and knew enough to check out that field mark despite their lack of experience with the bird.

2nd round:  

30 Aug 2015 Acc I understand the reluctance voiced by some to vote in the affirmative, but I will do so again for the reasons noted in the first round.

3rd round:  

20 Oct 2015 Acc  

  

2015-20 Blue-winged Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Aug 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 20 Jul 2015 Acc Nice record.
Kenny F. 23 Jun 2015 Acc Pics look good for a Blue-winged Warbler. No signs of hybridization with a Golden-winged Warbler.
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 Acc The in-hand photos are the clinchers.
Jack S.. 23 Jul 2015 Acc Diagnostic photographs, measurements, and description.
Steve S. 6 Aug 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 6 Aug 2015 Acc Nice photo documentation.
David W. 9 Jun 2015 Acc Excellent documentation. I see no signs of the hybridization so common in this species.

  

2015-21 Scarlet Tanager

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Aug 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 20 Jul 2015 Acc limited description, but definitive photos.
Kenny F. 23 Jun 2015 Acc Awesome bird!
Dennis S. 29 Jun 2015 Acc The photo is breath-taking!!
Jack S.. 23 Jul 2015 Acc Photograph is diagnostic.
Steve S. 6 Aug 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 6 Aug 2015 Acc Nice photo documentation.
David W. 23 Jun 2015 Acc Nice photo.

  

2015-22 Mississippi Kite

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Sep 2015 Acc The description, although sparse, indicates a Mississippi Kite.
    2nd round: 31 Oct 2015 No, ID The timing of the sighting has tipped my vote to the negative.
Rick F. 8 Sep 2015 Acc This is a marginal record, viewed without optics and lacking several important details, however, the underwing description is adequate.
The timing of this bird is very odd, however...so I'll tentatively vote to accept.

2nd round:  

3 Dec 2015 Acc  
Kenny F. 10 Jul 2015 No ID Observer doesn't rule out Swainson's Hawk which would seem to fit most of his descriptions
    2nd round: 8 Nov 2015 No, ID My thoughts haven't changed on this sighting.
Dennis S. 4 Sep 2015 No ID The report certainly describes a MIKI but I have a problem with a no optics, short, quick, flight-only, observation. If a flight only observation is all you have then those characters unique to the bird need to be addressed, which in part is lacking. The July 7th, Central Utah record date, is also problematic for this extremely rare migrant.
    2nd round: 20 Oct 2015 No, ID No additional thoughts.
Jack S.. 6 Sep 2015 Acc Although the record is unusual for being 'optics-less' as the observer admits, the description is relatively complete and seems sufficient for identification. The observer also has recent experience with this species in another state and adequately eliminated similar (and potentially confusing) species.

That said I'm voting to accept for the first round but my vote is tentative and I'd like to hear how other members view this record.
    2nd round: 21 Nov 2015 No, ID I believe the description adequately eliminates Swainson's Hawk (even though this is not explicitly stated under similar species). I do agree with others however that the date would be very unusual. My first round yes vote was tentative and I'm changing that vote to no.
Steve S. 9 Sep 2015 No, ID The observer may have seen a Mississippi Kite, but lacking optics and the short observation I have a hard time accepting this record.
    2nd round: 4 Dec 2015 No, ID No change
Mark S.
     2nd round:		 14 Oct 2015 No, ID The observer doesn't eliminate Swainson's Hawk, that could entirely fit the description given. A description of the head would help, as Mississippi Kite has a noticeably pale head, but this wasn't noted by the observer, something that I think would have stood out with such a close observation.

As others have noted, the date would be extremely odd.
Larry T. 7 Sep 2015 No, ID This is a hard one for me to accept. It is a pretty distinct bird in adult plumage if seen well. But the description is lacking which is what may be expected when the observation was without binns.
    2nd round: 1 Dec 2015 No, ID As Before.
David W. 22 Jul 2015 No ID Although this may have been a Mississippi Kite, I don't feel the observer adequately eliminated the possibility of a Swainson's hawk, a species common in that habitat.
    2nd round: 20 Oct 2015 No, ID I still feel the observer did not adequately rule out the more likely Swainson's hawk, which is a species resident in that part of Utah. I find it interesting that the Swainson's hawk was not considered by the observer in the Similar Species portion of the record (perhaps because that species does not regularly occur in Minneapolis or perhaps because the observer considered that species and thought it nothing like the bird he saw). Of our regular buteos, Swainson's have sleeker wings, proportionately thinner and longer than a Red-tail or Ferruginous, thus better approximating a kite.

The observer says the bird was smaller than a Red-tail and larger than a kestrel, but does not say that either species was present for direct size comparison. In the absence of direct size comparison, that field mark is less certain.

In my opinion, the description fits a Mississippi kite well (perhaps best), but is close enough to fitting the more common (esp in July) Swainson's that the burden of evidence falls short to vote to accept.

  

2015-23 Chestnut-sided Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Sep 2015 Acc  
Rick F. 11 Sep 2015 Acc Good timing, adequate description.
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2015 Acc Description matches description of a Chestnut-sided Warbler which is distinctly plumaged.

Also one week later, 2 Chestnut-sided Warblers were seen at Antelope Island including a male so this bird could have been the same male or for whatever reason this spring there seemed to be a small influx of Chestnut-sided Warblers this Spring in Utah as well as Nevada and western Colorado.
Dennis S. 4 Sep 2015 Acc Good detailed report. A photo would have been nice.
Jack S.. 6 Sep 2015 Acc The description if this bird is sufficient for identification.
Steve S. 9 Sep 2015 Acc  
Larry T. 7 Oct 2015 Acc Good description of a bird that was observed well enough to eliminate other species.
David W. 22 Jul 2015 Acc Description leaves no doubt.

  

2015-24 Pacific-slope Flycatcher  (see comments for Re-submission below)

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 5 Sep 2015 Acc  

2nd round:  

31 Oct 2015 Acc This sounds like a Pacific-slope Flycatcher to me.

3rd round:  

5 Feb 2016 Acc Still convinced this is a pacific-slope flycatcher..
Rick F. 11 Sep 2015 Acc These are 'uncommon' / regular migrants through lowland riparian areas in western Utah and in my opinion should not be review species.

2nd round:  

3 Dec 2016 Acc  

3rd round:  

15 Dec 2016 Acc I'll leave the genetic argument to the evolutionary biology experts and taxonomists. I'm convinced the birds currently recognized by the AOU (and ABA) as Pacific-slope Flycatchers are common migrants through Utah.
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2015 Abst  

2nd round:  

27 Oct 2015 Abst .

3rd round:  

9 Dec 2015 Abst .
Dennis S. 4 Sep 2015 No, ID Even with a detailed comparison of PSFL and COFL recordings and sonograms I still am not totally convinced we are simply looking at individual variations and not separate species. Also, has COFY been recorded at Lytle Ranch during migration periods? We can't assume those "Western Flycatchers" seen on the Beaver Dam Slope during migration are PSFL and those in the upland areas COFL.

2nd round:  

28 Oct 2016 No, ID Again, I have a hard time with this " Western Flycatcher" complex. The comparative sonograms are helpful but even with them there are variations and overlap. It seems to base a record acceptance on a single three second repetition of three notes seems shaky at best. It seems the more I study this problem group the more confused I get.

3rd round:  

18 Dec 2016 No, ID No additional thoughts or comments on this problem species.
Jack S.. 27 Oct 2016 No, ID I applaud Kenny for contributing this record for review. This is a difficult identification requiring detailed analysis of high quality sonograms. I simply have too many doubts still to accept this record in the first round. Perhaps clarification on the points below (especially #2) will convince me otherwise.

1. Can the observer provide the full recording or was only the single song captured (2-3 seconds). At one point in the report the bird was observed (heard) for 30 seconds, in another place for 15 seconds, and then 3 seconds are shown in the sonogram. Is there more of a sonogram to share?

2. I appreciated the representative sonograms for comparison to this record. However I think you would agree that there is quite some variation among the songs provided for PSFL at xeno-cantho. Can the observer provide a more complete analysis of the sonogram. I'm attaching a table published in 'Birds of North America Online' that lists quantifiable details of the Pacific-slope and Cordilleran Flycatcher songs. If these details are provided and comparisons drawn between Pacific-slope and Cordilleran this will be a much stronger record (accepted or not).
pdf - "Sounds--Birds of North American Online

2nd round:  

8 Dec 2015 No, ID I'm still voting NO on this record for the reasons I, and many others, have already expressed regarding the use of calls and song for identification of migrant Pacific-slope Flycatchers.

My sense is to keep the species on the Utah review list but discontinue voting, at least temporarily, on these records. I also worry that removing PSFL from the review list will only diminish the amount information for this species in Utah, the exact opposite of what is needed.

3rd round:  

25 Dec 2016 No, ID  
Steve S. 9 Sep 2015 Acc  

2nd round:  

4 Dec 2015 Acc Sill voting yes with recording sounding like Pacific-slope to me.

3rd round:  

20 Jan 2016 Acc If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck.......
Mark S. 14 Sep 2015 Acc O.K., the song is more convincing than the call note, and this recording sounds like PSFL, and the sonograms are a better match. I can live with this one for a first state record.

2nd round:  

4 Dec 2015 Acc, NAS I'm going to change my vote. I choose "Accept, but not at species level." I suppose that this is effectively a "no" vote; at least that's my intent.

I'm perfectly happy to accept it as a "Western Flycatcher," but have doubts, as do many, that Cordilleran and Pacific-slope represent good species. Specifically, recently released results of extensive, range-wide DNA analysis of these species has revealed that the population of Cordilleran Flycatchers has been heavily invaded by Pacific-slope genes (but not vice-versa), to such an extent that virtually all of the Cordilleran Flycatchers of Utah carry Pacific-slope genes. Apparently the only populations of Cordilleran Flycatchers without Pacific-slope DNA are in southern Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico. Given this new data, I suggest that we table discussions of records from this complex, and return to calling them "Western Flycatchers," until these taxonomic issues are better sorted out.

Here's a link to a note about this study:

http://birding.aba.org/message.php?mesid=1027591&MLID=NY01&MLNM=New%20York

And here's a note from the primary author regarding these results:

"Because I am the primary author on the most recent genetic analysis of these species
(mentioned in the post by Douglas Futuyma cited by Peter Post), I thought that I could add a little to this discussion. I recently finished my dissertation research, most of which focused on these two species. While it is true that the two species are admixed in their DNA over a large part of the West, the Pacific-slope populations west of the crest of the Sierra, Cascades, and Coast Ranges (i.e., the Pacific Slope) remain genetically and phenotypically distinct. We know that gene flow from interior populations to the west slope Pacific-slope populations occurs to some extent, but it does not result in widespread genetic mixing like it does on the east slope.

So, it is a little more complicated than two species just merging (back) into one. Pacific-slope seems to be merging more into Cordilleran than Cordilleran is merging into Pacific-slope. I'm not sure taxonomists will take this nuance into consideration when deciding what to do with these species, but from an evolutionary perspective, it is interesting. I will have at least a couple of more papers on this out soon.

As soon as you cross the crest of the Pacific Slope to the east side, you encounter mostly genetically intermediate birds with intermediate songs or calls. There is some proportion of admixed birds in populations all the way to the Black Hills and to northern Utah and Colorado.

On the other hand, you almost never encounter birds with intermediate songs or calls on the west side and almost no birds are mixed in their DNA and these are limited to areas like Mt. Shasta in California, which is very close to admixed populations.

So, if you have seen a Cordilleran Flycatcher in southern Colorado, New Mexico, or Arizona, you are probably safe in terms of listing. If your Cordilleran Flycatcher is from Alberta, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, or the eastern parts of the coastal states, you have a higher likelihood of having seen an admixed bird.

One last thing in terms of identifying these species. I have not formally analyzed the position notes yet (i.e., "pee-o-weet" and "weet-seet") but it seems that these change in a slightly different way than the songs geographically. I.e., you can encounter birds whose position note is more purely Cordilleran that has a more intermediate song type and a more intermediate genotype.

I hope this is interesting to some of you.

Andrew Rush"

3rd round:  

17 Dec 2016 Acc, NAS I'm comfortable calling this a "Western Flycatcher." Any assertion beyond that, I believe, lacks sufficient scientific support.
Larry T. 24 Oct 2015 No, ID I have all the same problems with this record as I do with 2015-18. Until someone comes up with a more reliable way to separate Western Flycatchers in the field I don't see how we can call them anything else but a Western.

As we have all said there's no doubt Pac slopes go through Utah but I don't think we should accept a first state record on what we have to work with.

2nd round:  

1 Dec 2015 No, ID I do agree we shouldn't be reviewing this species because as I said before that outside of their breeding range I don't think we can call them anything but a western Flycatcher. There is just to much overlap in calls and songs.

Then you could also throw in the hybrid word which there is talk about too.

Maybe I'm being old school but I haven't seen convincing evidence To my satisfaction to call a out of range bird anything but a Western Fly.

3rd round:  

30 Dec 2016 No, ID I've never felt comfortable separating these 2 species in migration. With the new information and the recent discussion on the subject I like Marks idea of shelving Pac-slope records for now.
David W. 4 Oct 2015 Acc  [sigh]

2nd round:  

7 Dec 2015 No, ID I voted in the affirmative on this record a few day prior to my monumental waffling conversion to the NAY crowd on the previous Pacific-slope flycatcher record (2015-18) because of the uncertainty of differentiating "Western flycatchers" by call during migration when bilingual populations occur to the north of us. So now I am changing my vote NO on this one as well, to be consistent in my conversion.

I think these are both very important and well-documented records which will likely be re-evaluated in the future as a better understanding of the species boundaries in the "Western flycatcher" complex becomes available. I am gratified that Mark has come to my rescue with scientific citations to support my discomfort as to the certainty of identifying members of this complex to species in our part of the world.

Also, I agree with the philosophy, so well stated by others on the Committee, that we should not vote to accept any one record simply because the species commonly migrates through SW Utah, perhaps even predominantly as regards this complex.

Mark may be wise in his suggestion that we "table discussions of records from this complex, and return to calling them 'Western Flycatchers,' until these taxonomic issues are better sorted out."

3rd round:  

17 Dec 2016 No, ID  

  

2015-24R  Pacific-slope Flycatcher   (see comments for original submission above)

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 20 Oct 2017 Acc  

2nd round:  

16 Dec 2017 Acc I still think this sounds like a PSFL, and the spectogram info supports PSFL.
Kenny F. 22 Sep 2017 Acc The spectrogram for this bird closely matches the other spectrograms for Pacific-slope Flycatcher, especially the diagnostic 2nd element of the song which greatly differs between Pacific-slope and Cordilleran.

Also I know last time when there was voting for this bird, there were comments made about whether it is a "good" species or not or if it should be lumped with Cordilleran back to Western Flycatcher. This committee shouldn't have to worry ourselves with issues like this. According to both the AOU and ABA, Pacific-slope Flycatcher is still a valid species. It is up to us to determine whether this bird was a Pacific-slope.

We should leave the larger question of if this is a valid species to the higher up committees and if there comes a day when the two species are lumped back together, we can lump them too- just like just happened with Thayer's and Iceland Gull. In the meanwhile, I think it is important to properly document this species in this state and see what information we can glean from its occurrence.

2nd round:  

15 Dec 2017 Acc 1) Flycatchers don't learn their songs and calls like other songbirds. They are innate as the calls are hardcoded in their DNA. This rules out a Pacific-slope learning the wrong call. More info can be found here: http://earbirding.com/blog/archives/1956

2) The current research out there shows that Pacific-slope and Cordilleran are "good" species. If good enough research ever comes out to show that they aren't than the AOS will lump the species together like with Iceland Gull. It isn't up to us to determine whether a species is good or not. We just need to review the species that are currently valid.

3) If one thinks the spectrogram could be wrong, find examples of intermediate spectrograms or any other that could show that this is not the spectrogram of a Pacific-slope Flycatcher. It seems wrong to vote against a record of any species due to one not knowing enough about the species in question. There are plenty of resources, both in books and online, that describe these species, their calls and their spectrograms.
Stephanie G. 11 Oct 2017 Acc New evidence seems to clearly favor Pacific-slope

2nd round:  

27 Dec 2017 Acc I still think the updated information supports the record
Dennis S. 31 Oct 2017 No, ID The record may very well be a PSFL (if there is such a thing), and I appreciate the extra effort Kenny has put into this record, but my comments on the first go-around still stand. I'm not comfortable separating these "Western Flycatchers" even with a sonogram.

2nd round:  

18 Dec 2017 Acc There is valid reasoning on both sides of the isle to accept/reject this record but I still think its next to impossible to separate this confusing pair of split flycatchers, especially during migration and based on geographic location.
Steve S. 16 Nov 2017 Acc I still believe Pacific-slope Flycatcher is a regular migrant in at least the southwest corner of the state. The new graphs of calls with this resubmition just further confirm this.

2nd round:  

15 Dec 2017 Acc No further comments.
Mark S. 17 Oct 2017 Acc I commend Kenny for his continued dogged pursuit of this record.

While my reservations regarding the taxonomy of this complex remain unchanged, I am convinced by Rick's comments from the first review of this record that the species is currently recognized by the AOU, so we should review it as such.

Given that, and in spite of continuing reservations regarding the record, especially having a very small sample size in the reference materials, and my general skepticism regarding the reliability of vocalizations for identification of these two species, I'll once again vote to accept this record, as I did in the very first round.

The voice of this bird *sounds* more like "PSFL" to me, and the new spectrograms seem to support that.

Since I´ve been "holding my nose" and calling PSFL and COFL by vocalizations here in Mexico for years, I've decided that it would be hypocritical to act differently in this forum.

2nd round:  

19 Dec 2017 Acc If this species really exists, then I think this record is likely one of the strongest cases we'll see for its occurrence in Utah, which is near certain, considering the patterns in neighboring states.

Given that the AOU still considers this a species, I must assume a submissive position with regards to my own opinions in the matter, and simply hope for reason to prevail and some point in the future.
Larry T. 14 Dec 2017 No, ID Separating a western fly in migration is still a problem as far as I'm concerned. I agree they certainly come through Utah with regularity but with the overlap in ranges could songs be learned from the opposite species? There is certainly inter breeding going on.

Is it ok to add a sighting to the state list Just because we know they go through the state?

I guess I wouldn't have a problem if it was added to the list but I can't vote yes on it with what we have to work with.

I'm being stubborn and still going to call them Westerns for now.

2nd round:  

21 Dec 2017 Acc, NAS
   (No)		 I still have the same reservations as before. As far as I feel comfortable going with this one is to Genus like David..
David W. 11 Oct 2017 Acc, NAS As much as it pains me, I am going to join the Stackhouse bandwagon on this one. I think the conclusions of the Andrew Rush study suggest this question is of similar futility as all our handwringing over Iceland gulls over recent decades. "Western" flycatcher sounds like a good "call". Mark is correct to suggest shelving this until a scientific consensus is achieved.

I pray I don't have to deal with this in round five, but I may
be rescued from that fate by my term limit.

Count this as NO.

2nd round:  

18 Dec 2017

Acc, NAS
(No)   

 I too applaud Kenny's excellent documentation and perseverance. However, I believe the excellent arguments in the affirmative from my friends on the Committee don't address my concerns from the other rounds. Although Mark has switched his vote to Accept, I think the arguments he made in round two of the previous record submission (i.e. 4 Dec 2015), are still sound. I don't think it is possible to definitively be sure this isn't a Cordilleran with Pacific-slope type calls or a hybrid of the two species, based on the literature/studies referenced.

Count this as ACC to genus but not species, i.e. NO..
Kevin W. 26 Nov 2017 Acc I like the spectrogram comparisons, but also think that this species is likely more common than believed in lower riparian areas in southern (Southwestern?) Utah, based on records in NV and AZ.

2nd round:  

5 Jan 2018

Acc

 The evidence seems as strong as it can be to support this identification.

 

2015-25 Black-backed Woodpecker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 31 Oct 2015 No, ID Information provided seems to indicate this may have been a Black-backed Woodpecker. However, I'm not willing to accept this as a first state record without physical evidence or independent corroboration.

2nd round:  

5 Feb 2016 No, ID Same as before. Not enough for a first state record.
Rick F. 3 Dec 2015 No, ID The description sounds like a juv / male Williamson's Sapsucker. I'm not familiar with the area, but the described habitat (pine forest) is appropriate for WiSa.

2nd round:  

15 Dec 2015 No, ID  
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2015 No, ID The observer fails to rule out a male Williamson's Sapsucker which would seem to also match the description.

2nd round:  

26 Dec 2015 No, ID Still think this is just a WISA and with no photographic evidence it would be even harder to accept as a state first.
Dennis S. 28 Oct 2015 No, ID The written report is good and covers the obvious distinctive characters, but since its a FOS record, I once again feel we need more supportive evidence - photos, additional sightings/observers.
The reporter mentioned "as we were leaving the pond" - does this mean others were present at the time?

2nd round:  

7 Dec 2015 No, ID No additional thoughts. Still need more for this FOS.
Jack S.. 6 Nov 2015 No, ID Without physical evidence or multiple observers this record does not meet requirements for a first state record.

2nd round:  

5 Feb 2016 No, ID  
Steve S. 4 Dec 2015 No, ID While it is conceivable that there are a few Black-backed Woodpeckers on the North Slope, without photos or other corroborating reports this can't be accepted as a first state record.

2nd round:  

20 Jan 2016 No, ID Can't vote as a state first.
Mark S. 14 Oct 2015 Acc I'm reluctantly voting to accept, since it's a single observer record without a photograph, and I believe we should have stronger evidence for a state-first record. I'm hoping someone will send it to a second round.

However, the description doesn't really fit anything else, and the location and date make sense for any occurrence of this species in Utah.

2nd round:  

18 Dec 2015 Acc I'm not comfortable with accepting a first state record based upon a single observer, and it looks like other committee members will ensure that the record is not accepted.

However, I'm convinced that what the observer describes is a Black-backed Woodpecker, and so, perhaps, some effort should be made to look for that species in the are where this was sighted.

Although some have stated that Williamson's Sapsucker was not eliminated by the description, I find it difficult to see how it could be a Williamson's when the observer noted white outer tail feathers (that Williamson's doesn't have) as the bird flew away, and failed to note the large white rump patch of Williamson's, that would be impossible to not see in that view. Also, the lack of any color other than black and white on the head doesn't fit male Williamson's.

So, I believe this record to be true, but perhaps it doesn't fulfill the standards required of a first-state record.
Larry T. 1 Dec 2015 No, ID As far as I know I don't think this species is ever seen outside of it's range which isn't to close to where this bird was reportedly observed.

Maybe a Williamson's Sapsucker? The second white line would fit.

2nd round:  

30 Dec 2015 No, ID Hard to accept for a first state record with what we have to work with.
David W. 4 Oct 2015 Acc As a state first, this bird may not meet the criteria of inclusion on the state list without further evidence, but I leave that to the webmaster. Since it was passed to us to evaluate and vote upon, I shall do so.

I went back and forth on this record, since the species has, to my knowledge, never even been reported to occur in Utah. Ms. Mixa makes a compelling argument for considering the species despite its previous absence from our radar screens.
At first, the description of two white lines going around the neck made me question the ID (in favor of a melanistic Three-toed), but then I re-read the record and realized she was likely referring to the white on the throat extending around the side of the neck. I don't see anything in this record that would suggest anything but a Black-backed woodpecker. Amazing sighting.

2nd round:  

22 Jan 2016 Acc I still believe the description is of a Am. BB woodpecker.

I also believe our job is to vote on whether the species is the one reported, as with any species. The question of whether the species should be added to our list is a SEPARATE consideration dictated by our acceptance criteria for state firsts. In my opinion, inclusion on the list should be decided by the Secretary based on that criteria. If this is NOT the case, then why are we even bothering to vote on these birds without photos, etc? Perhaps there should be an option in the vote pull-down menu that says something like "ACCEPT -- but does not meet criteria for inclusion on state list." But to simply say "not adequate for state first" makes no sense to me.