|
2016-01
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
12 Feb 2016 |
No, ID |
Scalloping on breast seems more like a red-naped
to me. Description indicates "messy back" but what can be seen of the back
in the photos doesn't seem to support that description. There also seems
to be a slight reddish wash beginning to appear on the nape in a few of
the photos. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Mar 2016 |
No, ID |
I am still not convinced this is a "pure"
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I know the timing on the molt is late, but I
still have the same concerns I noted previously. |
|
Kenny F. |
27 Jan 2016 |
Acc |
The only sapsuckers that will retain juvenile
plumage this late into the year are Yellow-bellied. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Mar 2016 |
Acc |
The only sapsuckers that will retain juvenile
plumage this late into the year are Yellow-bellied. |
|
Dennis S. |
6 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
Still going with Yellow-bellied Sapsucker given
the juvenile plumage and the overall striping of the back pattern. |
|
2nd round: |
15 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments. Late retention of juvenile plumage is still the #1
factor. |
|
Jack S.. |
29 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
6 May 2016 |
Acc |
The back, face, and late moult pattern are good for YBSA. The head/crown
moult for this age bird is more advanced than normal but everything else
points toward YBSA.. |
|
Steve S. |
20 Jan 2016 |
Acc |
Late date and facial stripes appear to show
Yellow-bellied. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
No additional thoughts |
|
Mark S. |
24 Jan 2016 |
Acc |
I have some reservations about this record,
particularly the red concentrated on the fore-crown, and what looks like a
hint of red coming in on the nape, but the back pattern looks good for
YBSA, as does the non-adult plumage at this date. While the issue of a
hybrid could be raised, I'll leave that to others, if they want to go
there.
In the meantime, I'll cast a "soft" vote to accept this record.. |
|
Larry T. |
15 Jan 2016 |
Acc |
I'll accept it with the photos available.
The date is late enough that anything other than a YB would like this.
Although it is more in adult plumage molt then some. I don't want to even
get into the hybrid possibility which is always there. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
As before I don't have a problem accepting this
record. |
|
David W. |
13 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
Timing of molt points to this species. |
|
Kevin
W. |
1 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
Looks like a straightforward Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker, although the bold, unstreaked cap would indicate that it is an
adult female, rather than an immature, as identified by the submitter. |
|
2nd round: |
31 Mar 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments |
2016-02 Purple
Finch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
12 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
28 May 2016 |
Acc |
Based on all the excellent photos and the
additional information provided by Rick, I agree this is a Purple Finch (purpueus). |
|
Kenny F. |
27 Jan 2016 |
Abst |
|
|
2nd round: |
2 Apr 2016 |
Abst |
|
|
Dennis S. |
6 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
A close call, but I do think there is enough
PUFI characters ( bill shape and size, facial pattern and lack of
eye-arcs, lack of under-tail streaking) to tip the scales. Good comparison
photos(2016 -02) with female CAFI. Not convinced about subspecies. |
|
2nd round: |
15 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
Thanks Rick for the additional photos and
research articles. They were most helpful in evaluation of subspecies. I'm
convinced the bird in question is not only a PUFI but the Eastern
subspecies (C. purpueus purpueus). |
|
Jack S.. |
29 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
Thanks for the additional reference material and
photographs of this bird. I'm convinced this is an eastern subspecies
Purple Finch. |
|
Steve S. |
25 Mar 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
14 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
After looking at this record again and reading
the articles Rick forwarded to the committee I agree with the submitter
that this is a Purple Finch of the Eastern subspecies. |
|
Mark S. |
26 Feb 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm inclined to accept this record, since it
appears that the preponderance of field marks (bill shape, solid ear
patch, well-defined malar stripe, less distinct breast streaking, clear
under-tail coverts) all support Purple Finch. However, I'm voting to not
accept in the first round since I believe that such a difficult bird
deserves some discussion. I expect to change my vote to "accept" in the
second round.
Items that look problematic to me are apparent eye-arcs in some of the
photos, lack of any comment or photo regarding the back color, and no
vocal evidence. That, coupled with the fact that virtually all of the
field marks for this species pair in female-plumaged individuals are
"soft" field marks, i.e. field marks where individual variation creates
overlap between the species, reduces the level of confidence in this i.d.
I think this record deserves some discussion. |
|
2nd round: |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
Thank you, Rick, for the additional information.
I'm satisfied that this record is correct as submitted. |
|
Larry T. |
|
|
|
|
2nd round: |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
With the excellent photos I think this is a
clear cut Eastern Purpueus. |
|
David W. |
28 Jan 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
10 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kevin
W. |
1 Feb 2016 |
Acc |
I have little experience with this species, but
face pattern with lack of eye-ring and bill-shape match descriptions by
Sibley and others. I also agree with the submitter's sub-species
identification. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
Agree with identification, including subspecies. |
2016-03
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
18 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
20 Mar 2016 |
Acc |
With the bird still in juvenal plumage and the
evenly striped back, it looks good for a YBSA. |
|
Dennis S. |
10 May 2016 |
Acc |
As before with this species complex the late
retention (March!) of the juvenile plumage is the deciding factor for
acceptance of this record. The report and photos support acceptance. |
|
Jack S.. |
6 May 2016 |
Acc |
The face/back patterns and late timing of moult
are good for YBSA. |
|
Steve S. |
14 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
Late date would indicate Yellow-bellied |
|
Mark S. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
An individual retaining this much juvenile
plumage at this date eliminates Red-naped as a reasonable possibility. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
No other Sapsucker is still going to be in
juvenile plumage in March. |
|
David W. |
11 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Mar 2016 |
Acc |
Juvenile plumage on the date reported would
indicate that this is a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. The plumage doesn't show
anything that would indicate Red-naped or hybrid to me. |
2016-04 Heermann's
Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
18 May 2016 |
No, ID |
Although the description indicates Heermann's
Gulls, I question the ID because of the number seen. |
|
2nd round: |
28 May 2016 |
No, ID |
No additional comments. |
|
Kenny F. |
21 Mar 2016 |
No, ID |
Not sure what he had but it doesn't seem like it
would be Heermann's Gulls. All the records I could find in Ebird all were
with single birds or at most 2 gulls. 30 would be way beyond anything
expected away from the coast. Even from Salton Sea most sightings are of
individual birds.
Also the distance is quite extreme on this sighting. He has the birds
about 200-300 yards away with only binos. It seems very hard to get an
accurate view of the birds there.
He said that they were smaller or possibly the same size as the
Ring-billed Gulls however Heermann's Gulls are bigger than Ring-billed
Gulls.
His sighting also doesn't rule out 1st winter gulls that would be darker
in color but at this time of year would have bleached heads.
Too many things go against this sighting for me to accept it. |
|
2nd round: |
5 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
See previous comments. |
|
Dennis S. |
10 May 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm sorry I just can't bring myself to vote to
accept this record. All previous inland western states records for this
species have been single birds and mostly juveniles. A flock of 30 would
be highly unlikely. I'm not sure what the birds may have been but the
report leaves too many unanswered questions. |
|
2nd round: |
25 May 2016 |
No, ID |
No additional comments or change from first
round. |
|
Jack S.. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
The number of birds (30) seems unusual to me but
the description is seems sufficient for this distinctive species. I will
vote a tentative 'yes' on this first round. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
|
|
Steve S. |
14 Apr 2016 |
No, ID |
I have a hard time accepting 30 Heermann's Gulls
in Utah, much less with no photos |
|
2nd round: |
15 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
No change. |
|
Mark S. |
22 May 2016 |
No, ID |
Remarkable record, and especially number of
individuals, but the description doesn't fit anything else, and even at
that range, it would be hard to mistake this species.
However, the date for such a large number of adults is problematic, as
most (all?) breeding adults should be arriving at the breeding colonies in
Mexico at this time. I'd like to see some discussion on this record, given
that it would significantly alter the known pattern of occurrence for this
species. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
As per my first round comments. Extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence, which is lacking here. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Apr 2016 |
No, ID |
I would have a hard time with this one even if
they had photos. Certainly not without. |
|
David W. |
10 May 2016 |
No, ID |
I don't know what to make of this record. It is
so improbable and yet there is some excellent evidence to vote FOR the
record. I will vote against it in this round because of the size
inconsistency, but I was very torn and am eager to read what others have
to say. Some thoughts:
1) THIRTY Heermann's gulls so far inland seems very unlikely.
2) Yet, according to a reputable source, there were TWO SEPARATE reports
of about 30 Heermann's gulls at two SEPARATE marinas on Lake Powell, by
two separate out-of-state birders. But I have seen no written evidence of
this second observation.
3) The field marks other than size seem pretty convincing.
4) A Ring-billed gull is considerably smaller than a Heermann's, so it is
puzzling as to why the observer thought these birds to be smaller.
-
I am truly puzzled.. |
|
2nd round: |
26 May 2016 |
No, ID |
For all the aforementioned reasons, and
especially because of the unprecedented nature of this sighting, I believe
this record requires more evidence before it can be accepted.
-
As an informational item, the two separate reports of 30 Heermann's gulls
on Lake Powell which I mentioned in the first round can be found in the
following two eBird checklists (for what it's worth, considering the
second is anonymous and suspiciously similar in its description):
1) Corresponding to our record by Keith Brink:
http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S28419730
2) From anonymous birder a month later, far from 1st location:
http://ebird.org/ebird/view/checklist?subID=S29103345. |
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Mar 2016 |
No, ID |
The documentation is insufficient to determine
positive identification, and the likelihood of 30 Heermann's Gulls
flocking together at Lake Powell seems extremely small. |
|
2nd round: |
18 Jul 2016 |
No, ID |
I agree with M. Stackhouse: Extraordinary claims
require extraordinary evidence, which is lacking. |
2016-05 Hooded
Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
28 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
31 May 2016 |
Acc |
Photos clearly (and sadly) show a Hooded
Warbler. |
|
Dennis S. |
10 May 2016 |
Acc |
No question about ID, but do we recognize dead
birds? |
|
Jack S.. |
6 May 2016 |
Acc |
The plumage is good; the wings and tail look
somewhat blacker than normal (perhaps from to flash photography) |
|
Steve S. |
15 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
Photo shows a Hooded Warbler - remarkable
record. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
Very interesting sighting. Early date for a
eastern Warbler. |
|
David W. |
8 May 2016 |
Acc |
The pattern of the black in the head & shoulders
is a bit puzzling, but I will presume that is due to the angle and
disheveled nature of the corpse. |
|
Kevin
W. |
25 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
Not much of a description, but photo is pretty
definitive. |
2016-06 Palm
Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
28 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
31 May 2016 |
Acc |
Photos look good for a Western Palm Warbler.
Albeit one with more yellow in it than the typical Western. |
|
Dennis S. |
10 May 2016 |
Acc |
No questions! |
|
Jack S.. |
6 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
15 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. I also saw and
photographed this bird. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
Nice bird in April. |
|
David W. |
8 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kevin
W. |
29 Apr 2016 |
Acc |
The photo is definitive. Although the photo
doesn't show the belly as well as I'd like to confirm subspecies, I
believe the submitter is correct in his subspecies identification as a
Western Palm Warbler. |
2016-07 Little
Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
28 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
31 May 2016 |
Acc |
Photos look good for a 1st cycle Little Gull.
|
|
Dennis S. |
10 May 2016 |
Acc |
Good report and photos. A great find and seen by
many. |
|
Jack S.. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
Distinctive photographs! |
|
Steve S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. |
|
Larry T. |
29 May 2016 |
Acc |
Nice pics. |
|
David W. |
11 May 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent photos, including those in the eBird
link. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 May 2016 |
Acc |
Photos and written documentation show conclusive
evidence, particularly with the M pattern shown as a 1st winter (spring)
bird. |
2016-08 Gilded
Flicker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
11 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
3 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
Although the photos are blurry, the brown crown
and forehead can be seen. I Support this identification as a Gilded
Flicker. |
|
Kenny F. |
5 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Brown forehead and crown with a gray face along
with yellow underwings make this bird look like a Gilded Flicker. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
No changes. The poor photos seem to match the
written description. |
|
Dennis S. |
31 May 2016 |
No, ID |
The shortness and distance of the observation is
problematic and leaves some room for doubt and the blurred photos don't
clear up much. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
No change from 1st round. Still too many
"blurred" questions to confirm an ID. |
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
My vote is tentative; the photographs are
inadequate for me to accept this record in the first round.. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I continue to vote "no on this record. Higher
quality photographs are needed in my opinion to better support what is
described and to show additional plumage details (underside of rectrices,...etc). |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
The written report sounds good. I can't tell a
thing from the distant and blurred photos.If these are the views of what
the submitter saw I don't know how the details written could have been
seen. Nothing is written about the amount of black in the tail,shape of
breast crescent or spotting. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Even though the photos are poor they seem to
support this ID along with the Written description. |
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Good documentation. The only real question
would be whether it could be one of the various hybrids, but the observer
has addressed those well. Although I'm not sure that the yellow (as
opposed to yellow-orange) underwings/tail precludes the possibility of a
hybrid, I don't see any specific evidence that this bird should be
considered a hybrid. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
I still think the evidence supports this i.d. |
|
Larry T. |
29 May 2016 |
Acc |
It would be nice to have better photos of this
bird but with the description given and what I can make out in the pics it
does appear to be a Gilded Flicker. Hybrids are always an issue but I will
accept it on the observers experience with this species. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I'll stay with my original thoughts and accept
it. |
|
David W. |
18 May 2016 |
Acc |
Although I wish the bird had been more
cooperative to allow this accomplished photographer to snap some better
photos and get a better look at the back pattern, I am convinced by the
careful write-up. I'm a bit troubled by the possibility of a hybrid, but
the observer did a good job dealing with that concern as well. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments.. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 May 2016 |
Acc |
The photos aren't the best, but with the written
documentation, show what I think are conclusive field marks for Gilded
Flicker, particularly the tan head pattern in combination with the yellow
feathers. |
|
2nd round: |
18 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments. |
2016-09 Eastern
Meadowlark
| resubmission comments (2021) |
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
11 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
10 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
This record provides some evidence to support
the EAME ID, but not enough for a state first. Therefore, based on the
concerns detailed by other members and the required standard of evidence
for a first state record, I am changing my vote to "no." |
|
Kenny F. |
5 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
I do believe this bird is an Eastern Meadowlark,
but I believe it is actually an eastern magna subspecies rather than a
southwestern Lillian's.
The well defined white malar and extensive white in the tail along with
buffy flanks make this bird an Eastern rather than a Western.
However the length and contrast of the white malar, the longer dark
streaks on the sides and flanks make this look more like a magna. The main
feature though that makes me think this is a magna is the thicker darker
centers on the barring on the tertials. Lillian's should have thinner,
paler barring on the tertials. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
I am still going with Eastern Meadowlark on this
one. Although there are some Western traits on this bird, features like
striping on the upper flanks (not spotting like Western) the thicker
darker barring on the tertials and the white malar stripe all point to
Eastern. |
|
Dennis S. |
31 May 2016 |
No, ID |
I studied this record and species complex for
some time and am just not comfortable accepting this record. The pale
female coloration and other reduced color markings have too much overlap
between southern WEME and southwestern EAWE for complete determination of
one species over the other. The songs can be diagnostic, but again "wrong"
song phrases can lead to wrong conclusions.The report Dave directed us to
was very helpful. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
No additional comments from 1st round. |
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
The description and photographs support this ID. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm changing my vote to 'no' given the
well-described concerns of several members. I still think this record is
an Eastern Meadowlark but I also understand the bar is clearly higher for
a first state record. |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
The description of calls and the photo seem to
show Easter Meadowlark. Without sound recordings I'm not sure we can ever
be positive of ID, But for the first round I will tentatively accept this
record. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
No additional thoughts. |
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
It would be nice to have a first accepted record
of this species that included a recording of its call/song. However, I'll
give a lukewarm vote to accept based upon the observer's description of
the call, and the fact that most of the potential field marks point to a
Lilian's Eastern. The only thing that gives me pause is the color of the
auriculars, that seem dark for an Eastern-type bird.
But I'll give this an accept, and will wait to see what the rest of you
have to say.
Thanks to David for sharing the i.d. article. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Jul 2016 |
No, ID |
I still think that Eastern Meadowlark is the
correct call for this bird, and the species is long overdue for our state
list. But I also understand the concerns of some members that the standard
for evidence, as a state first, needs to be of the highest quality,
especially given the difficulty of this i.d.
I'll change my vote to "no," in hopes that we'll get another, clearer
record in the future. |
|
Larry T. |
14 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
This is certainly a very difficult record.
Obviously the observer thought they were seeing a eastern and they very
well may have been. But with what I'm looking at in the pics I can't say
for sure which species this bird is. There appears to be an argument for
either.
I need to see better photos or a good spread tail pic.
The malar looks good for eastern. But the auricular area looks more like a
western.
The rest of the bird in the not so great photos could go either way.
This is going to be a difficult species to except without a good
recording, great pics, ( Rick your the king of great pics go find us
one)or a bird in hand... |
|
2nd round: |
4 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
As before this just isn't a good enough record
to except. |
|
David W. |
26 May 2016 |
No, ID |
This is a difficult ID to make. Since this is a
potential state first, I will treat the review with more conservatism than
I might otherwise. Since I myself have never identified a "Lilian's"
Meadowlark, my guiding criteria are based on "Lilian s Meadowlark: A
Cryptic Species (?) and a Rare Colorado Breeder" in the July 2009 issue of
"Colorado Birds" (Vol 43, No 3).
Here are my thoughts on the field marks:
1) The auriculars on Eastern/Lilian's meadowlarks are said to be whitish,
while Westerns are darker. To me, photos B & C show distinctly grayish not
whitish auriculars. They also appear streaked, which is suggestive of
Western.
2) The tail looks, good for Eastern/Lilian's in photo A, but I cannot be
sure from that slightly blurred photo at that angle. I would say this
supports but does not confirm the ID.
3) The white malar is not a definitive field mark for Eastern/Lilian's
meadowlarks.
4) It's difficult to be sure, but photo C seems to show streaking on the
undertail coverts, which should not be the case in a Lilian's.
5) The post-ocular stripe looks quite brownish to me rather than blackish,
but I am not sufficiently familiar/calibrated with that field mark to feel
confident either way.
6) (I'll let others address the calls.)
To confuse things, a the observer points out this individual is still
molting and may not be an adult. That throws my analysis into some doubt.
So, I don't know whether this is or isn't a Lilian's meadowlark, but there
are enough field marks to the contrary of that ID to make me vote NO. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
As intriguing as this record is, I stay with my
reservations from the first round. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 May 2016 |
Acc |
I believe that the lack of yellow in the malar
area, bold-dark streaking on the crown and behind the eye, pale auricular
area, and white extent in the tail shown in flight all point to this being
a Lillian's Eastern Meadowlark. |
2016-09r Eastern Meadowlark
Resubmission
comments, (23 Feb 2021) with "on its merits" bylaws change (IV.C.11)
| original comments |
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
10 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
I support the UBRC's previous decision on this
record. In addition, the observer
offers that meadowlarks are not typically present on the Beaver Dam Slope
as support this being an Eastern Meodowlark, however, large flocks of
Western Meodowlarks are often found on the BDS in winter. |
|
2nd round: |
24 May 2021 |
No, ID |
I will clarify my first round comments on these
re-reviewed records: It seems very arbitrary to me that we are
re-reviewing a subset of previously evaluated records. . . and if the UBRC
goes down this road (and I don't think we should) it should be done
systematically with some kind of stated criteria and standard process.
I understand there was a minor change in the bylaws, but it seems to me it
would be best to implement this moving forward (and a lot less messy than
re-evaluating old records). And either way, I don't see how this record
applies; this record was submitted with photographs and fully reviewed by
the UBRC. Therefore, I support the committees' previous review and
decision on this record.
It should also be made clear these records were not "re-submitted", but
arbitrarily selected for "re-review". I feel that re-reviewing these
without a systematic process undermines the committee's credibility. Are
we planning on re-evaluating all the potentially provisional records or
just those that would inflate the Utah list?
Regarding this as an Eastern Meadowlark, there are several traits (pointed
out by others in the original review - e.g. auriculars, malar, retrices,
etc.) that are better for a WeMe, or at least non-conclusive for an EeMe.
More importantly, none of the characters offered as support for an Eastern
Meadowlark are definitive; the malar color, amount of white on retrices,
and flank streaking /spotting all have significant overlap in these
species. Regarding molt, a meadowlark (of either species) should not be
molting in April (they exhibit complex basic molt strategy) so would be
either in definitive basic plumage (adult) or formative plumage (first
cycle bird). From the photos, I believe this is an immature bird, but in
either case they would show quite a bit of wear in April, further
compounding the difficultly of assessing subtle, and often overlapping
characters in blurry photographs. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Thick white outertailfeather pattern, streaking
not spots on the sides of the breast, completely white malar all look good
to me. |
|
2nd round: |
24 May 2021 |
Acc |
I agree with KF's comments in the original vote
for this record, it seems more like an eastern magna subspecies, not a
lilian's. My perception of the photos show a completely white malar,
streaking, not spotting on the sides of the flanks, buffy flanks, not
white, and highly-contrasting dark head-stripes. |
|
3rd round: |
29 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
I continue to personally believe
this to be a Magna Eastern Meadowlark, but this record being such a
controversy in its re-reviewing, I'll accept the original decision of the
committee and vote No. |
|
Mike H. |
11 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
description of the audibles combined with the
photos, that in my opinion would lead me to lean Eastern Meadowlark, but
the streaking on the flanks does seem to lean more Western. |
|
2nd round: |
21 May 2021 |
Acc |
After reading other s comments, I feel ok with
reversing my vote. The one field mark I got hung up on doesn t seem to be
an issue with the expected subspecies. |
|
3rd round: |
7 Aug 2021 |
No, ID |
I've been back and forth on this record, but have decided to vote to not
accept. I understand the rereview of records to line up with the new
bylaws, but this record had photos attached to the sight record when
originally submitted. I feel we should accept the initial review process
of this record. |
|
Bryant
O. |
23 Feb 2021 |
To 2nd |
I don't understand why we are re-evaluating this
record? Since it had physical evidence to evaluate, why was it not
evaluated on its merits? Like the original evaluator's, I have some
concerns about this bird. Hybrid was not even mentioned or considered.
Some Meadowlarks sing both species songs, if song can be learned can calls
as well? Plumage in molt seems inconclusive, and although photo appears to
show lots of white in the tail, individual feathers cannot be seen.
Lillian's likes monsoon influenced Mesquite Grassland, a habitat we don't
have in Utah, and it is not found in the low desert creosote bush deserts
of AZ, and there are no records in Joshua Tree in NV or CA, seems very out
of place on the beaverdam slope, and contrary to the observers assertions,
Western Meadowlarks are common there. |
|
2nd round: |
26 May 2021 |
|
(initial vote and comments are
presently withdrawn) |
|
3rd round: |
13 Aug 2021 |
No, ID |
As other have mentioned, this
record has physical evidence and therefore I believe it was originally
evaluated "on its merits", therefore I vote to uphold the original
committees concerns with this record, regardless of my personal opinions
about this record. |
|
Mike S. |
4 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
The meadowlark complex definitely presents an ID
challenge, and I am looking forward to seeing comments from others
(although I did go back and read comments from when this record was first
submitted).
I conducted an eBird photo search for Western Meadowlarks sorted to only
March and April, and I cannot find a single example of a bird with such a
sharply contrasting white malar stripe. When combined with the contrasting
head pattern and the apparent extent of white in the tail, I believe
Eastern Meadowlark is the correct ID.
One potential point against an Eastern is the relatively dark auriculars
(which would be especially unusual on a Lilian's - the subspecies we would
expect in southern Utah). I am also not confident about the call
description, but the observer's notes may be suggestive of an EAME.
[I assume all of these re-reviews would end up on the 'Provisional' list
if accepted? Even the ones with photos?] |
|
2nd round: |
27 May 2021 |
No, ID |
I was also surprised to see that we are
re-reviewing this record, as I thought the recent state-first Bylaws
changes only applied to records without physical evidence.
I still believe that this bird shows some intriguing features for an
Eastern Meadowlark, but I have enough uncertainty that I will defer to
this committee's original decision on this record. According to eBird, it
appears that there has never been a Lilian's Meadowlark recorded on this
side of the Colorado River, and are only two records of Eastern (magna)
Meadowlarks on this side of the Rockies. I wouldn't doubt that EAMEs occur
with greater frequency in our region than what is currently known, but I
believe excellent documentation would be needed to be truly convincing. |
|
3rd round: |
1 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
No changes from my second round comment. |
|
Bryan S.
2nd: |
19 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Very difficult ID and I agree with the decision
when the records committee originally reviewed this species. 2016-09 |
|
3rd round: |
4 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Steve S.
2nd: |
26 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't know why we are re-reviewing this record
as it was sent in with documentation the first time. I will stick with the
original vote of the committee. |
|
Mark S. |
12 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
The photos look diagnostic, and the call notes
support the i.d. |
|
2nd round: |
17 May 2021 |
Acc |
I have trouble seeing anything substantive that
argues against this being a Lilian's Eastern Meadowlark. The plumage as
visible in the photos is almost spot-on for a Lilian's, with the possible
exception of brownish auriculars (but probably within the range of
variation). The wide white malar stripe is hard to reconcile for Western
Meadowlark.
Contrary to the claims of the observer, I see no signs that this bird is
in a molt, nor should it be for this time of year. Meadowlarks of both
species finish molting in the fall, and don't start again until July.
The described calls fit only Eastern Meadowlark, and in contrast to the
songs of songbirds, the calls are not learned, and so are a much more
reliable indicator of species than even the songs are.
While it would be nice to have a recording for a first state record, I
believe the the evidentiary threshold has been reached.
I understand the concerns regarding "wishful birder syndrome," but
questions regarding the credibility of the observer are above my pay
grade, especially considering the fact that the physical evidence supports
the narrative account. |
|
3rd round: |
28 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
I continue to believe this is a correct i.d.
adequately supported by the evidence given. |
|
David W. |
22 Mar 2021 |
To 2nd |
I don't really have much to improve on my
first evaluation of this record in 2016, so I'll vote to push it into the
second round so that I can have yet another shot at it. This is what I
wrote then, minus my hesitancy about it being a first state record:
"This is a difficult ID to make. Since I myself have never identified a "Lilian's"
Meadowlark, my guiding criteria are based on "Lilian s Meadowlark: A
Cryptic Species (?) and a Rare Colorado Breeder" in the July 2009 issue of
"Colorado Birds" (Vol 43, No 3).
Here are my thoughts on the field marks:
1) The auriculars on Eastern/Lilian's meadowlarks are said to be whitish,
while Westerns are darker. To me, photos B & C show distinctly grayish not
whitish auriculars. They also appear streaked, which is suggestive of
Western.
2) The tail looks, good for Eastern/Lilian's in photo A, but I cannot be
sure from that slightly blurred photo at that angle. I would say this
supports but does not confirm the ID.
3) The white malar is not a definitive field mark for Eastern/Lilian's
meadowlarks.
4) It's difficult to be sure, but photo C seems to show streaking on the
undertail coverts, which should not be the case in a Lilian's.
5) The post-ocular stripe looks quite brownish to me rather than blackish,
but I am not sufficiently familiar/calibrated with that field mark to feel
confident either way.
6) (I'll let others address the calls.)
To confuse things, the observer points out this individual is still
molting and may not be an adult. That throws my analysis into some doubt.
So, I don't know whether this is or isn't a Lilian's meadowlark, but there
are enough field marks to the contrary of that ID to make me vote NO." |
|
2nd round: |
19 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
I stand by my first round comments. For two
species this similar, I want to see a more clear-cut example.
Bryant does a very good job in bolstering the case against. |
|
3rd round: |
5 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
Nothing to add. Good record with excellent
documentation, but I don't think it proves the difficult case beyond
reasonable doubt.
It is ironic that this record may well be accepted precisely because three
NO votes have withdrawn from voting for various reasons, including the
very fact that we are voting on this record and other "re-submissions"
like it. That's troubling because it removes this process even further
from the aspirational ideal of objectivity. |
2016-10 Vaux's
Swift
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
11 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
5 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Looks good for a Chaetura swift with the paler
throat and rump making this bird appear to be a Vaux's rather than a
Chimney. |
|
Dennis S. |
20 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
The description, photographs, and size
comparison with nearby swallows supports the ID. |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Nice photos |
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Good documentation. The photos look like Vaux's,
as opposed to Chimney, and the lack of vocalizations is suggestive, too. |
|
Larry T. |
29 May 2016 |
Acc |
Photos seem to be that of a Vaux's Swift. |
|
David W. |
14 May 2016 |
Acc |
Good photos for such a swift bird. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 May 2016 |
Acc |
Definitely a Vaux's/ Chimney Swift. From the
photos showing what seem to be shorter wings, proximal "wrist" bend, and
light rump patch, I lean toward Vaux's, although the throat doesn't seem
particularly pale. |
2016-11
Chestnut-sided Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
16 Jul 2016 |
No, ID |
I have heard Yellow Warblers which sound very
similar to this, so I'm not convinced this is a Chestnut-sided. Therefore,
I'm reluctant to accept this based on the song alone. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm still have the same concern about accepting
this record based on the song alone. |
|
Kenny F. |
5 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Recordings sound like the additional material. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
This song is the typical CSWA song that I heard
many times growing up in the East. Yellow Warblers have similar type songs
but never stick just on that song type and will vary their phrasing. Not
stay consistent like on this recording. |
|
Dennis S. |
20 May 2016 |
No, ID |
I think there needs to be more than simply a
brief heard only record and no sighting. It could very well have been a
CSWA but a mixture of "average" songs of closely sounding other warblers
is problematic and in my mind creates too much doubt. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
I still think it needs more than a brief,
partial song, and a "I saw nothing to tell me it wasn't a CSWA." |
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
No, ID |
I cannot hear the distinctive song (or pattern)
of a Chestnut-sided Warbler in the attached audio files. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I continue to vote 'no' on this record. I hear
individual notes dispersed throughout the recording but not the pattern
I'm expecting. Can someone point me to the exact timing on the recording
where they hear the classical song? |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Recording sounds like Chestnut-sided to me. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Still sounds like Chestnut-sided Warbler |
|
Mark S. |
15 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
"Please, please, pleased to meet cha!".
That's a Chestnut-sided, alright. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
This is one of the most distinctive warbler
songs, and the supplied recordings clearly contain that song. Were it a
rarer, or state-first record, I could see requiring a higher standard of
evidence, but this species is not that rare in Utah, and I wouldn't
hesitate to call it if I heard that in the field. |
|
Larry T. |
29 May 2016 |
No, ID |
I was unable to listen to the recorded song so I
will send it to another round to see what others have to say that
hopefully heard the recording. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I'll accept this one on what I'm hearing. |
|
David W. |
20 May 2016 |
Acc |
This does indeed sound exactly like the song of
the Chestnut-sided warbler to me. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
I appreciate Kathy's comment, and I had similar
reservations, but when I played the recording through (at full volume, for
those of you who cannot hear it -- the recording is quiet), it struck me
as entirely consistent with every vocalization. The Yellow warblers I have
heard making a similar song usually vary it up from song to song.. |
|
Kevin
W. |
19 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
I wish that there was more evidence, but the
song recording does match the Chestnut-sided Warbler better than a Yellow
or any other warbler that I think might sound similar. |
|
2nd round: |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments. |
2016-12 Northern
Parula
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
28 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Looks good for a Northern Parula. |
|
Dennis S. |
20 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
Distinctive photographs! |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Photos show this species. |
|
Larry T. |
29 May 2016 |
Acc |
Not much question here. Nice record. |
|
David W. |
18 May 2016 |
Acc |
Interesting 2nd-hand photos. |
|
Kevin
W. |
19 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Submitted photos are diagnostic; particularly
the greenish back, white wing-bars, and yellow throat and chest. |
2016-13 Scarlet
Tanager
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
16 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Dark wings lacking wingbars make this a Scarlet
Tanager. |
|
Dennis S. |
20 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
22 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
The photos show this species. |
|
Larry T. |
15 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Hard to disagree with the pics. Not the greatest
but I can't see any wingbars and the back looks good for a Scarlet. |
|
David W. |
18 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kevin
W. |
19 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Photos are diagnostic; lack of wing-bars on dark
wings. |
2016-14 Least Tern
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
28 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Great shots! |
|
Dennis S. |
20 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Diagnostic photographs! |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. |
|
Larry T. |
15 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Nice photos. |
|
David W. |
18 May 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kevin
W. |
19 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Photos are diagnostic; yellow bill, white
forehead. |
2016-15 Tennessee
Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
16 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Description matches a male Tennessee Warbler.
|
|
Dennis S. |
31 May 2016 |
Acc |
The length of observation and detailed
addressing of the distinctive characters (white undertail coverts) were
the deciding factors. |
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Good description of this species. |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Good written description. |
|
Larry T. |
15 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Pretty distinct bird if you have good looks at
it. |
|
David W. |
4 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kevin
W. |
18 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
Description is good for Tennessee warbler, and
eliminates similar species. |
2016-16 Tropical
Kingbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
3 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
25 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
My vote is unchanged. |
|
Kenny F. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Browner tail and wings, darker back and longer
bill differentiate this bird from Couch's Kingbird. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
The characteristics of a TRKB are consistent
with this bird - greenish-yellow back, light gray head, long, large, bill,
slightly forked and brown-tipped tail, and lack of white outer tail
feathers. The photos are a little washed out which makes the bird appear
lighter than normal. A good front view would also have be useful. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
No additional thoughts. |
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
The bill does favor Tropical but I'm always
tentative of using this to separate from Couch's. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I continue to vote 'accept' for this record as a
Tropical Kingbird. I also agree with others that we cannot fully rule out
Couch's given the evidence presented. |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Photos show bill sized such that I have no
problem with this ID. |
|
Mark S. |
14 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Good photos and description. Bill size, and
general paleness seems to favor Tropical over Couch's, so, in spite of the
lack of wing formula or vocal evidence, I think Tropical is the best call
for this bird. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
The burden of proof for this record falls more
on Couch's than Tropical Kingbird, and given that the evidence we have
leans strongly in the direction of Tropical, I think that this is a safe
call for this record, even lacking the definitive call. |
|
Larry T. |
9 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
I don't think that you can rule out a Couch's
Kingbird by bill size of this bird alone. The chances of it being a
Couch's over Tropical is very slim but who knows. It certainly is one or
the other. I think it is unusual to have either in May. Tropical is much
more of a fall wanderer and Couch's records in the west are very few.
All that said the bird probably is a Tropical but I'll still approach this
one with caution and leave it unidentified. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
It's at least 99 to 1 that this bird is a
Tropical and it probably should be accepted as one. It will go through but
I feel better showing that there is certainly some doubt with it.
Not being unanimously accepted. |
|
David W. |
4 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Interesting that we are getting more reports of
these in recent years, a sudden. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I appreciate Larry's principled martyr stance. |
|
Kevin
W. |
18 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
Photos and description lead me to believe this
is a Tropical Kingbird. |
|
2nd round: |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments |
2016-17
Zone-tailed Hawk
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
3 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
25 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I have no doubt about this ID. |
|
Kenny F. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
Turkey Vulture like shape, but with yellow cere
and striped tail make this a Zone-tailed Hawk. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
Still going with ZTHA.
Common Black-Hawk should show a shorter tail with broader wings that are
mostly dark with a white comma, not two-toned similar to a Turkey Vulture.
COBH also generally don't show a dihedral while soaring. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
No problems with this one. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Jack S.. |
30 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
8 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I continue to vote 'accept' on this record. The
wing length/width and body proportions, lack of white terminal tail band
(described) and width and position of mid-tail band, two-toned pattern of
wing underside, and description of soaring behavior are fully consistent
with zone-tailed. |
|
Steve S. |
25 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Photos and description are of a Zone-tailed Hawk |
|
Mark S. |
16 Jun 2016 |
Acc |
It's a Zone-tailed Hawk. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
The shape for this bird is wrong for Common
Black Hawk, which is chunky in body, short in tail, and very broad of
wing, even for a buteo. Even taking into account the fore-shortening
effects of the angle of the photo, the bird in photo "B" is has too long
wings and tail for a black-hawk, and a too slender body. Also, in photo
"C," you can see enough of the tail band to see that the position and
width of that band is right for Zone-tailed, but too narrow for Common
Black-Hawk. |
|
Larry T. |
9 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
4 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
There's enough for me not to have a problem
calling this a Zone-tail. |
|
David W. |
12 Jul 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
12 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
As much as I enjoy these ID discussions, I have
to agree with Mark on this rather than my namesake. I think the narrow &
long shape of the tail, narrow & long wings, relative sizes of the
"fingers" (primaries) in flight, contrasting pale flight feathers relative
to the blackish forewing (underwing coverts), and the thickness of the
white tail band (plus it seems to me in photo C that one can even make out
a part of the basal band) all point definitively to a Zone-tailed hawk. |
|
Kevin
W. |
18 Jul 2016 |
No, ID |
This could be a Zone-tailed Hawk, but I don't
think the photos or description eliminate the possibility of a Common
Black Hawk (which, from the angle the photos were taken, would be
difficult to see the width of the wings). |
|
2nd round: |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I agree with others' comments. |
2016-18
Little Blue Heron
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
26 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm not seeing a clear posture difference
between this bird and a snowy egret. There also appears to be a contrast
in color between the feet and legs. Both are yellow, but the feet seem to
be brighter. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
I still am not convinced this is a Little Blue
Heron. |
|
Kenny F. |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
All yellow-green legs, bicolored bill and
forward leaning posture differentiate this bird from SNEG.. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
Still think that the distinctive posture (shown
in pictures and described in the notes) and legs and bill are good for
LBHE. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm not convinced this bird is not a
"straighter-necked" feeding juvenile SNEG, since both species juveniles
are often indistinguishable with overlapping characters - leg color, bill
color and markings and possibly feeding habits. |
|
2nd round: |
25 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
Nothing from the committees 1st round comments
changes my doubts about this record. |
|
Jack S.. |
23 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
28 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
The field marks on their own are not sufficient
for ID but combined with (careful) behavioral observations is convincing
to me. |
|
Steve S. |
11 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I don't see this bird as a Little-blue Heron.
Although the submitter has made a reasonable case for this ID. I can't
accept an ID on posture, and as per Kaufman the skin on the face and loral
area should be gray as the observer points out but which I just don,t see.
Also a Little-blue should always have dusky or grayish wingtips which
appear to be stark white in the photos. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
After reading all the members comments I still
think there isn't enough for this record to be accepted. |
|
Mark S. |
16 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
I've done my best to try and find holes in this
record, but am coming up short. The only thing missing in the observation,
and the photos, are the dusky primary tips. I'm not sure if I can see that
feature in one or two of the photos, or if it's just shadow and lighting.
However, everything else - bill color and shape, overall shape and
posture, and leg color - point to this i.d. being correct. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Jan 2017 |
Acc |
I still think that there's enough here to accept
this record. I've just spent quite a bit of time looking at many immature
Little Blues and SNEG, and neither the bill color/shape nor the leg color
fits for SNEG, and are good for Little Blue. The black tips on the
primaries are often impossible to see in a standing bird. |
|
Larry T. |
26 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I don't think the field marks being used for
this bird being a little blue are that reliable. The posture all look more
like a snowy except the first one. Without seeing the distinctive dark
wing tips I'd have a hard time calling this bird anything but a snowy from
these pics. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
I will stay with my first round vote. As others
have pointed out there isn't enough to confirm that this is a Little Blue. |
|
David W. |
12 Aug 2016 |
No, ID |
Differentiating an immature Snowy egret from a
Little blue heron is not a trivial task.
-- All-white primary tips point to Snowy.
-- The lore color is hard to ascertain, but seems more yellow than I'd
like to see for a Little blue.
-- The bill color is better for Little blue, but immature Snowies can have
that too bi-tone bill as well. It doesn't have as much contrast as I am
used to seeing in a Little blue (though I certainly don't see them every
day). Perhaps the photos are just a bit washed out and my concerns are
unwarranted.
-- Leg color is not definitive to my eyes. I think I do see darker "shins"
in photos A & B, though the observer claims that he did not see that
contrast.
-- Posture in photo A, and described by observer, seems appropriate for a
Little blue.
Boy, I'd like to see what others think before voting in the affirmative. I
have a hard time seeing the difference between this bird and some of the
immature Snowy egrets on the internet (like, for example,
http://www.pbase.com/tgrey/image/63485900). |
|
2nd round: |
27 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I still have the concerns noted in the first
round. |
|
Kevin
W. |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
The overexposed photos may be making the legs of
this wader brighter yellow than they should be, but lack of any black on
them, as well as the two-toned bill with little contrast between the lores
seem to point to this being an immature Little Blue Heron. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
I'll change my vote. There just aren't enough
defining characteristics are shown in the photos to be sure that the
identification is correct. |
2016-19
Least Flycatcher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
13 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
19 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
My first impression was a Least Flycatcher when
I viewed the photos and I'm sticking with that even after noting the
concerns of others. |
|
Kenny F. |
29 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
Complete bold eyering, whitish throat, paler
lower mandible, contrasting wingbars and overall shape (large head, short
bill and wings) all suggest Least Flycatcher. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm not convinced this isn't a Dusky, especially
with so much variability in fall plumage conditions - amount of wearing,
and molting progression. The whiteness/grayish of the throat, length of
tail, eyering thickness - both in front and posterior of the eye, and the
amount of blackish on the tip of the lower orange/yellow bill, all appear
to leave some question of the submitted record. Of course, a voice record
would have been the clincher, but that's why fall Empids are so
problematic. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
Same concerns as First Round. |
|
Jack S.. |
26 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
28 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
I understand ID of fall empidonax is challenging
(and not possible in may instances) but the field marks on this bird point
strongly to Least Flycatcher. |
|
Steve S. |
11 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm not convinced this is a Least Flycatcher.
The eye ring seems to be leaning towards a teardrop shape, and the primary
projection seems on the long side. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm still not convinced this is a Least
flycatcher as per my first round comments. |
|
Mark S. |
30 Aug 2016 |
Acc |
Good documentation; the timing and location are
good for that species. Bill color seems to eliminate Hammond's, and the
primary extension seems short for Hammond's, too. Eye ring shape could go
either way, I think. General structure, especially head shape, looks more
like Least to me.. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Jan 2017 |
Acc |
In addition to my first round comments, the very
black wings, with contrasting white wing-bars are good for Least, as Larry
noted. |
|
Larry T. |
26 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Not a very convincing description but the photos
look good for a Least. The black wings with contrasting wing bars and
tertial edges is always a good field mark for me. Also the top heavy look
is good for a Least. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Even after noting others concerns I still don't
have a problem calling this bird a Least from the photos. As before I like
the black wings and the overall jizz of the bird for a Least. |
|
David W. |
12 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
21 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
Unfortunate that the subject of the vote is
silent on the matter, but I think the evidence points to a Least. This is
another bird that may eventually be removed from the review list. |
|
Kevin
W. |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I'll tentatively vote to accept this record, but
admit that I'm still trying to figure out empids. Some of the traits shown
in the photo seem good (big head, white throat, medium-length primary
projection, bold wing bars). I wish the photos showed the bill better, as
it looks really narrow and dark. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
I have no additional comments. |
2016-20
Tennessee Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
29 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Even with the sparse description, the limited
viewing time and the limited information contained in the elimination of
similar species, I am still willing to accept this record based on the
described white undertail coverts. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
I agree the timing of the bird seems unusual,
however, I'm still willing to accept this record for the reasons I stated
previously. |
|
Kenny F. |
18 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Description matches Tennessee Warbler. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
While the timing is extremely early, I would
think this observer would not confuse a Tennessee Warbler for a Yellow or
Orange-crowned Warbler when he was 25 feet from the bird with binos and a
minute to view it. The white undertail coverts really stand out on this
species. |
|
Dennis S. |
15 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
I see a couple of bothersome points with this
record. First, is the timing. It seems very early for this rarity to
appear in our State. I realize they have apparently been recorded in
California in July, but they have many more annual records each year.
Second, I always have a problem with a "quick call" of a somewhat
confusing complex like this one can be (OCWA, TEWA). It may have been a
TEWA, but more was needed in this case. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
Same concerns as First Round. |
|
Jack S.. |
25 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
28 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
This is a distinctive species for the
experienced birder - the observer is experienced with the species.
"Some adults regularly depart northern breeding grounds (and appear south
of breeding range) in early to mid-Jul."
https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/tenwar/distribution |
|
Steve S. |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
9 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
The description still seems to fit this ID. |
|
Mark S. |
1 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Good description; white under tail coverts
eliminates similar Orange-crowned Warbler. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Jan 201 |
Acc |
I'm not as concerned with the timing, as it's
only slightly outside of the "typical" date, and much variability exists,
especially in young birds and relatively "common" vagrants. The face
pattern would seem to eliminate Yellow Warbler of any age, that has a much
more "blank" expression. |
|
Larry T. |
26 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
Certainly a very unusual time of year for a
Tennessee. This species isn't very rare in fall but at this time of the
year I'd be a little worried about a young Yellow Warbler. I've seen some
young yellows in summer with white under tail coverts that appeared to be
something else like a Tennessee without good looks at the bird.
This at least needs to go to a second round. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm still worried about the timing on this bird
and the lack of a chance to see it for a extended amount of time. It could
have easily been confused with a recently fledged OC or Yellow Warbler. |
|
David W. |
10 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
11 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
I find the comments of others on the Committee
about timing very troubling and relevant. Yet I find it hard to believe
that a birder with the experience & skills of the observer would mistake
this species if he had a chance to observe it for nearly a minute. I don't
agree with those who call that a short viewing time to identify the key
field marks. I won't be troubled if this record goes down, but I still
believe the observer saw this species. |
|
Kevin
W. |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Description fits Tennessee Warbler. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
This still seems good for a Tennessee Warbler. |
2016-21
Philadelphia Vireo
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
29 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
There is too much variation in both Warbling and
Philadelphia Vireos to identify the bird based only on the lack of dark
lores and extent of yellow underneath. The photo does not make this ID any
easier because all that can be seen is the bird from below (and presumably
this is the only view the observer saw) because no info has been given
regarding the cap color and whether or not it contrasts with the back
color as it should if it is indeed a Philadelphia Vireo. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
I'm still not convinced the ID is accurate. |
|
Kenny F. |
18 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Yellow on the chest with brightest color on the
throat and dark eyeline separate this species from similar Warbling Vireo. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
No additional comments. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Photos assisted with acceptance. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
No additional thoughts. |
|
Jack S.. |
25 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
28 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
Field marks clearly point to this species and
not a bright Warbling Vireo.
Regarding timing of the fall migration, a late August sighting is
consistent with the literature (below); Northern Utah being at the same
latitude as Ohio/Illinois.
"Fall migration appears to be more leisurely. Typically departs breeding
grounds late Aug-early Sep ( Johnsgard 1979a , Laughlin and Kibbe 1985 ,
Janssen 1984 , R. W. Campbell pers. comm.). Passes through Illinois and
Ohio between late Aug and mid-Oct ( Graber et al. 1985 , Peterjohn 1989b
), Louisiana from late Sep through early Nov ( Remsen et al. 1996 ), Texas
from late Aug through late Oct ( Oberholser 1974 ), and Veracruz 3-13 Nov
( Winker et al. 1992a ). Known to linger in migration: e.g., recorded 5
and 20 Nov in ne. Minnesota (Benson 2004) and throughout November in
Florida (Stevenson and Anderson 1994). Arrives on winter grounds in Panama
in early Oct ( Wetmore et al. 1984 ; see also Ebird data (http://ebird.org/ebird/eBirdReports?cmd=Start
)."
https://birdsna.org/Species-Account/bna/species/phivir/distribution |
|
Steve S. |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
With the dark lores and yellow throat I'd say
the ID is correct. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
No change from first round. |
|
Mark S. |
1 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Distinctive facial pattern visible in the
photos, that, plus yellow throat eliminate similar species. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Jan 2017 |
Acc |
The face pattern doesn't fit Warbling Vireo, nor
do the underparts. The closest possible alternative i.d. would be
Yellow-green Vireo, but there's far too much yellow, and in the wrong
places, underneath for that species. |
|
Larry T. |
26 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
The photos look like a Philly but the date is
again very unusual for this species to be in Utah.
Do we have the right info for this record?
One date says July 17 and the other is Aug. 30. which either is very odd.
Also the photos are marked as being taken by someone other than Tim but
they aren't mentioned at all in the report.
[The above questions were a result of a mistakes
made by the webmaster in posting the record, which were quickly corrected.
Larry decided to let the comments stand].
Are missing something?
This one certainly need a second round. |
|
2nd round: |
15 Jan 2017 |
No, ID |
I don't feel comfortable at all with this bird.
It's a difficult ID and the pics just don't show all that I'd like to see.
The timing is way off for this species in the west. Philly vireos are
unusual in the west before Oct. Very unusual in Sept.
Maybe the pic got mixed in with a trip to Ohio?. |
|
David W. |
23 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
The lores are well-pictured in these photos. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
I think Kathy brings up good concerns (this is
another notoriously difficult ID) , but I do think this looks like a
Philadelphia. |
|
Kevin
W. |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Photos show good traits for Philadelphia Vireo,
especially the dark lores, yellow underside-being deepest in the chest. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2016 |
Acc |
I have no additional comments. |
2016-22
Zone-tailed Hawk
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
29 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
18 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Great shots of two different ages of Zone-tailed
Hawk. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Good verifying photos. |
|
Jack S.. |
25 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
11 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
1 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. |
|
Larry T. |
26 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
12 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Lovely photos. |
|
Kevin
W. |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Photos show diagnostic features for Zone-tailed
Hawks, especially the long, two-toned underwings and tail bands. |
2016-23
Upland Sandpiper
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
29 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
18 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Amazing shots of an amazing find. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Would like to have been there! |
|
Jack S.. |
25 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Nice Photos |
|
Mark S. |
1 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation, photographs. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Good bird for Utah and nice photos. |
|
David W. |
7 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Amazing photos. |
|
Kevin
W. |
13 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Excellent photos show features of upland
sandpiper, especially the yellow bill and breast pattern. |
2016-24
Buff-breasted Sandpiper
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
2 Nov 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Kenny F. |
18 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Buffy body, short thin dark bill, yellow legs
and plain buffy face that makes the eye stand out are all good for
Buff-breasted Sandpiper. |
|
Dennis S. |
8 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Good report and adequate photos. Multiple
observers over two days.
( I missed bird by 30 minutes.). |
|
Jack S.. |
25 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
7 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Good documentation with the additional
photographs. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Not great pics but the bird seemed to have been
identified by several birders in the couple days it was present. Pretty
distinct species. |
|
David W. |
12 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
Nice record. |
|
Kevin
W. |
3 Oct 2016 |
Acc |
Description and photos seem to point to
Buff-breasted Sandpiper. Similar species can be eliminated. |
2016-25
Varied Bunting
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Kathy B. |
3 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
I would like to see some discussion about this
bird. The difficulty of differentiating female/immature buntings, the
possibility of hybridization, and the fact that this would be a first
state record are all factors which cause me to vote "no" in this round. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
I agree with Kenny and Steve that this is most
likely an Indigo Bunting female.. |
|
Kenny F. |
18 Sep 2016 |
No, ID |
I think this bird is an Indigo Bunting.
Initially when viewing it, it looked to be a Varied Bunting due to the
overall brownish color. However when I went searching Macaulay Library
photos for pictures of females/ immatures of the other Passerina Buntings
(Laz, Indigo, Painted) as well as Varied from late August, I came across a
number of Indigo pictures that came close to approximating this bird. It
shows not all Indigos show the typical field guide Indigo illustration
highlighting streaked breast and white throat. It seems worn bird lack
these field marks and can appear quite drab and monocolor like this bird.
Also the bill seems longer than what Varied Buntings show and more in line
with an Indigo Bunting.
(https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/33215571#_ga=1.52506095.616863992.1474256188)
(https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/33933101#_ga=1.119549263.616863992.1474256188)
(https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/34836541#_ga=1.94872027.616863992.1474256188)
(https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/34594131#_ga=1.94872027.616863992.1474256188)
Also according to Dunne's Field Guide Companion, Varied Buntings show
almost to vagrency, whereas Indigo Buntings are uncommon in the state.
Looking on ebird confirms this with only a few records in Arizona barely
north of Phoenix and 2 records from southwestern Nevada. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
Still have the same concerns as before with this
record. |
|
Dennis S. |
15 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
Due to variability of female plumage in Passerina buntings (extent and
prominence of wing bars, whiteness of underparts and throat, and overall
brownish/buffy/grayish/orangish plumage tones), there ars some shadows of
doubt with this record - not to mention its First of State status. It
would also be a northern most distribution record by several hundred
miles. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
All the questions concerning this record have
been addressed - both pro and con - and I still think there's way too many
problems for acceptance. |
|
Jack S.. |
10 Nov 2016 |
No, ID |
I've looked at this record several times now and
I cannot bring myself to accept the record. The size and wing morphology
cannot be compared to Lazuli Bunting, there is a hint of a wing bar, and
the tertials (barely can see the edge-on view) appear to be edged pale.
The culmen is curved on Lazuli Bunting and this bird shows that - the
extent of curvature cannot exclude Lazuli Bunting. The throat is
indistinct pale buffy and the upper breast has some tinges of buffy, both
more consistent with Lazuli. It's not a clear-cut identification and I'm
not convinced this is a Varied Bunting. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
As with other committee members, I'm not
convinced of this ID. |
|
Steve S. |
16 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
I have read others comments and done
further study of photos and see nothing that changes my mind from the
first round. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
All the questions concerning this record have
been addressed - both pro and con - and I still think there's way too many
problems for acceptance. |
|
Mark S. |
7 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I've spent a good deal of time with this record,
since Mike sent me his photos before submitting the record to the
committee.
As I said to Mike, if I saw this bird here in San Blas, where Varied
Bunting is generally our most common bunting, I wouldn't have given this
bird a second thought - it would be a 2-second (if that) glance in the
bins and move on to something more interesting.
But, since this was in Weber County (not even Washington Co.!), it
deserves more scrutiny.
First, the structure (body shape, head shape, bill shape) all say that
this is a bunting - not a sparrow, finch, or grosbeak. There is not a hint
of wing-bars, nor of any streaking on the underparts. There isn't any
rufous-peach on the breast, nor white on the belly. Those all eliminate
Indigo and Lazuli Bunting as possibilities. There are no greenish or
yellowish tones, so it's not a Painted. The brown is too yellowish (not
chocolatey enough) and the bill not heavy enough, nor dark enough, for
Blue. For numerous reasons, neither Orange-breasted nor Rose-bellied fit.
I'm running out of possible buntings.
Although I can't see any blue in the wings (meaning probably a first-year
bird), nor an eye ring that some individuals have, the name "varied"
applies to female/immature birds just as it does to males. Nothing in this
bird is at all inconsistent with the scores of Varied Buntings I see each
month here.
I don't think that there can be much question as to the i.d., which leaves
only the question of natural occurrence. Given the location, date,
plumage, and apparent age of this bird (and the fact that it would
probably have to have been raised in captivity), I find natural vagrancy a
more plausible option. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Jan 2017 |
Acc |
All the questions concerning this record have
been addressed - both pro and con - and I still think there's way too many
problems for acceptance. |
|
Larry T. |
29 Sep 2016 |
Acc |
I've tried every thing I could to make this
something else. But even with the not so great photos I can't make this
anything but this species.
The only thing that makes me nervous is an escaped bird. I'd feel better
if it was at Lytle ranch and the pics were of better quality.
From what I'm looking at I'll accept it unless someone can change my mind.
What a crazy bird for Utah! And northern Utah.
I would put this one up there with anything every found in the state.. |
|
David W. |
23 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
Boy, this is a tough call for me. Obviously, I
have not seen a lot of these in Utah lately, nor have I visited Mexico or
southern Arizona lately (this is where having a resident of Mexico is very
useful to this Committee, as are other members who bring in exotic
experience because they have lived elsewhere). On one hand, much on this
bird points to a Varied bunting (well addressed by the observer), but
other things seem a bit off:
1) The wings and tail show no blue wash, both of which are illustrated for
immatures and females in all my field guides from Mexico and the USA.
2) The bill is very pale and the shape almost tanager-like. Perhaps that's
within the range for this species, but it doesn't quite match my guides
either.
3) Perhaps it's just an artifact of the warm, evening light, but this bird
seems overall very warm & yellow for a Varied bunting. Perhaps this light
is also what is making the legs look so pale tan/brown.
-
I have checked field guides from many portions of the New World, but
ignored those from the Old World. I have not found a better match for this
bird than a Varied bunting, but I'm not entirely comfortable with that ID.
Thus, I am hoping to kick this to the second round to see what the rest of
the Committee members think.
-
As for whether this was an escaped caged bird, that possibility always
exists. However, I see no evidence for that. Also, I would think most
captive pet birds would be males. So, if we determine that this is a
Varied bunting, I would support the faction calling it a wild bird. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
I found Kenny's photo-links to the Indigo
buntings in the Macaulay Library quite useful (especially ML 34836541) in
my second-round decision. Both coloration and beak shape appear to be
within the range of an Indigo bunting after all. Thank you, Kenny. |
|
Kevin
W. |
3 Oct 2016 |
No, ID |
Varied Bunting seems like a very unlikely
possibility. The thick bill with curved culmen, inconspicuous wing-bars,
and lack of streaking lead me to think it may be a juvenile Blue Grosbeak. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2016 |
No, ID |
Looking at the Indigo Bunting photos that Kenny
F. posted, nothing indicates that this record is not an Indigo. |
|