Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2020 (records 1 through 25)

2020-01 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Jan 2020	Acc	Accept as Parasitic Jaeger based on the flight photo w/ record 01; I recommend combining records 2020-01 and 2020-02.
Kenny F.	4 Jan 2020	Acc	Descriptions and photos match an adult and juvenile Parasitic Jaeger.
Stephanie G.	13 Jan 2020	Acc
Mike H.	8 Jan 2020	Acc	I initially looked at the photo believing I was observing a POJA report. I immediately thought to myself that this bird was a PAJA not a POJA. Once I noticed the observation was of a PAJA it made more sense! Pointed central tail feathers, lighter flanks, bill not showing a bi-colored pattern...
Mike S.	16 Jan 2020	Acc	The photos show an adult and a juvenile parasitic jaeger. The distinctive tail shape is captured in photos of both individuals.
Bryan S.	4 Feb 2020	Acc
Mark S.	19 Jan 2020	Acc	Good description and photos.
Larry T.	25 Jan 2020	Acc
David W.	13 Jan 2020	Acc	The adult is an easy one to accept with Logan Smith's excellent photos. The juvenile is harder, but Bryant does a fine job eliminating the other two jaegers in the Similar Species section.

2020-02 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	11 Jan 2020	Acc	Accept as Parasitic Jaeger based on the flight photo w/ record 01; I recommend combining records 2020-01 and 2020-02.
2nd round:	13 Feb 2020	No, ID	My first round acceptance of this record was contingent upon this being combined with record 2020-01. Description and photo are not definitive to accept as a stand alone Parasitic Jaeger record.
Kenny F.	4 Jan 2020	Acc	Descriptions and photos match a juvenile Parasitic Jaeger.
2nd round:	9 Mar 2020	Acc	My first round acceptance of this record was contingent upon this being combined with record 2020-01. Description and photo are not definitive to accept as a stand alone Parasitic Jaeger record.
Stephanie G.	13 Jan 2020	Acc
2nd round:	15 Feb 2020	Acc	Photo clearly shows a Jaeger. I'll believe that the observers saw what they say they saw, with the white crescent in the primary base, which would distinguish this from other jaeger species. I do think the bill fits Parasitic, and the apparent solid rust undertail coverts fit best for 1st year intermediate Parasitic.
Mike H.	8 Jan 2020	Acc,NAS	Weighing this record on its own merit I don t feel there is enough to ID to species. Too much of this report is based on size which can be very misleading in the field and is known to be an unreliable field mark in jaegers that are observed hundreds of miles out of normal range. The photo which has some ID points drawn from it is too distant and grainy to be reliable. Is this bird believed to be the same individual in record 2020-01?
2nd round:	20 Feb 2020	Acc,NAS	Wow! Voting on record 2020-02 on 02-20-2020 (insert Twilight Zone Music). I still feel that there isn't enough information to ID this individual to species.
Mike S.	16 Jan 2020	Acc	The description best matches a juvenile parasitic jaeger. The photo isn't easy to discern, but I think the head and bill shape both favor parasitic.
2nd round:	14 Mar 2020	No, ID	I've decided to change my vote after reading comments from others, and re-reviewing the record. If we can acknowledge that the poor photo is not diagnostic, we are left with descriptive details that are fairly limited. Although there are some points that favor Parasitic, all of these are quite subtle (as David mentioned), and are probably not enough to rule out a Pomarine jaeger. I probably could have gone either way on this one, but in these instances I think it's better to err on the side of caution.
Bryan S.	4 Feb 2020	Acc
2nd round:	12 Mar 2020	Acc	Tough to ID and marginal photos, but trusting the description of the observer
Mark S.	19 Jan 2020	Acc	Adequate description; marginal photo.
2nd round:	14 Mar 2020	Acc,NAS	I think erring on the side of caution is prudent here - as other members have pointed out, the evidence for separating Parasitic and Pomarine is shaky. So I'll change my vote to approve Jaeger sp.
Larry T.	25 Jan 2020	Acc
2nd round:	24 Mar 2020	No, ID	Standing alone the record isn't acceptable as a Parasitic.
David W.	13 Jan 2020	No, ID	Boy, this one was a lot harder to vote on than 2020-01. I agree this was a separate individual. Also, Bryant did a good job eliminating a Long-tailed jaeger. But I am not sure he adequately eliminated the possibility of a Pomarine. I was especially troubled that the bill description was based on the fuzzy photo, which I do not think is adequate for one to extract that much information. The other field marks were well presented, but are fairly subtle, especially for someone unfamiliar with jaegers (at that time, by his own admission). How was size determined--and relative to what?
2nd round:	29 Feb 2020	No, ID	No, I still believe an ID this notoriously difficult needs better evidence for certainty.

2020-03 Brant

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	13 Feb 2020	Acc	Good photos and adequate description.
2nd round:	25 Mar 2020	Acc
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	Acc	Well documented Black Brant. Unique plumage for a goose rules out all other species.
2nd round:	16 Apr 2020	Acc	Nothing with this bird s behavior or appearance seems to suggest a captive origin.
Stephanie G.	13 Jan 2020	No, Nat	Obviously is a Brant, but I'm voting no to push through to second round. I think that further research should be done (contacting local aviaries) to do our due diligence to make sure this is indeed a wild bird and not an escapee.
2nd round:	28 Mar 2020	Acc	After speaking with my contact in the aviary world, I feel comfortable accepting the record. Brants are apparently not common in local aviaries and would typically be banded, missing a back toe, or clipped. This bird shows no signs of such.
Mike H.	12 Jan 2020	Acc	Photos clearly show a Brant.
2nd round:	3 Apr 2020	Acc
Mike S.	16 Jan 2020	Acc	The photos show a distinctive brant. Very nice find.
2nd round:	14 Mar 2020	Acc	The timing is consistent with many other vagrant records of this species.
Bryan S.	4 Feb 2020	Acc
2nd round:	12 Mar 2020	Acc
Mark S.	19 Jan 2020	Acc	Photos show a Brant.
2nd round:	13 Mar 2020	Acc	Brant are not commonly kept in waterfowl collections, but are regular vagrants over much of the U.S. I don't see any reason to suspect an escapee.
Larry T.	8 Mar 2020	Acc	Well documented.
2nd round:	24 Mar 2020	Acc	I haven't seen any reason to question the sighting.
David W.	13 Jan 2020	Acc	A distinctive bird seen by many people. Another excellent find by Bryant.
2nd round:	21 Mar 2020	Acc	I share Stephanie's concern about the possibility of this bird's provenance, but I continue to vote to accept because I have heard of no evidence over the last two months coming out that this was an escapee.

2020-04 Cassin's Sparrow

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	13 Feb 2020	No, ID	Description does not adequately rule out more likely Spizella sparrows
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	No,ID	Observer said the bird had dull unmarked back when Cassin's Sparrows have a distinctive speckled back. Description of the facial pattern also seems wrong since observer said the bird had no eye line when Cassin's do show one and also no mention of the distinct lateral throat stripe that Cassin's also show.
Stephanie G.	13 Jan 2020	No, ID	Other sparrows not effectively ruled out. Could be a pale Rufous-crowned Sparrow, a pale 1st year White-crowned Sparrow, a drab White-throated Sparrow. Too much doubt. Not a strong enough description for such a rarity.
Mike H.	5 Feb 2020	No, ID	I know I ve pointed out my concerns with this observer s reliability on past records and don t want to continually kick a dead horse, but... Here is an excerpt from a post on UTAH COUNTY BIRDERS Facebook page by a well known published birder, that I have no personal relationship with, regarding this individuals credibility: ...an individual (whose) imagination far far exceeds his knowledge. Unfortunately, I feel that an observation by this individual will need clear photos, audio, or being observed by other reputable birders before I could accept such an exceptional sight record from him.
Mike S.	5 Feb 2020	No, ID	The description is inadequate to establish the ID of this super rare species for Utah. Some of the details that are provided are somewhat puzzling (including "unmarked back"). Maybe the observer meant the back was unstreaked? The 10-second view also doesn't give me much confidence. I think better documentation is needed to accept a potential third state record.
Bryan S.	4 Feb 2020	No, ID
Mark S.	12 Mar 2020	No, ID	I'd like to see some discussion on this record, as I'm not sure that Brewer's Sparrow has been adequately eliminated, and the presence in a mixed species flock isn't typical behavior for Cassin's, that is usually solitary, especially out of range.
Larry T.	8 Mar 2020	No, ID	Description not convincing for a difficult ID.
David W.	13 Jan 2020	No, ID	"faint eye-rolling"? Perhaps that was an auto-corrected "eye ring," but I do not wish to presume. In either case, the description provided in the record is too vague to differentiate a Cassin's sparrow from a whole variety of other sparrows of several genera, especially Peucaea.

2020-05 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	13 Feb 2020	No, ID	Brief description of a juvenile gull does not adequately rule out the highly variable (and much more likely) Herring Gull first-cycle plumages.
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	No, ID	I observed this bird in person and it was an ugly looking 1st cycle Herring Gull. Other observers who initially identified this bird as a Western Gull later changed their checklist to Herring Gull. Observers report doesn't mention field marks expected in a Western Gull like the bill being thicker towards the tip and drooping. Also the observer says the bird had a white rump which a 1st cycle Western Gull wouldn't show.
Stephanie G.	13 Jan 2020	No, ID	Appeared lighter than Juv. Herring Gulls? Should be darker.
Mike H.	20 Feb 2020	No, ID	A very difficult ID in the field.
Mike S.	5 Feb 2020	No, ID	This was a more difficult "No" vote than the Cassin's sparrow record. I really don't see any specific "red flags" in the description that contradict the ID of a western gull. However, I also don't think we have enough details to be reasonably certain, especially when trying to rule out other possible rarities. The plumage description is vague, which is troubling for first cycle gull ID. I am further troubled by the fact that nobody else reported a western gull at this popular location during that same weekend of January 11/12. It looks like several other, experienced birders submitted eBird checklists at this location and many gull species were reported, but no westerns. I believe one other birder had reported a western gull the following day, but then later deleted it off his checklist (perhaps later realizing that a different species was misidentified as a western?). I acknowledge that what I described above shouldn't be a primary criteria for reviewing a record, since gulls can widely travel around, and may show up somewhere briefly before disappearing. It's possible that this birder may have simply been at the right place at the right time when nobody else was. However, I feel that this is a valid reason for skepticism when there is no photo and the description is lacking in detail.
Bryan S.	12 Mar 2020	No, ID	Not sufficient description/lack of other observations at well visited sight/lack of photos of a tough id
Mark S.	12 Mar 2020	No, ID	I'm not sure that Herring Gull is adequately eliminated from this description, especially with the statement that it was lighter than Herring Gulls present. WEGU should be as dark or darker than HEGU, unless it's a hybrid with GWGU.
Larry T.	8 Mar 2020	No, ID	Would be nice to have photo of this species. Sounds like it could be a Herring or hybrid.
David W.	13 Jan 2020	No, ID	As much as this may have been a Western gull, I do not think the evidence presented eliminates the possibility of other species. There are several species of larger, pink-footed, gulls with white rumps. I am confused by the description of this first-winter gull as being "light grey-brown" when this gull is known for having some of the darkest juveniles of the white-headed gull type. The strongest argument was the shape of the bill.

2020-06 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	13 Feb 2020	Acc	Nice record with multiple descriptions and photos!
2nd round:	25 Mar 2020	Acc	I believe the photos show diagnostic features to confirm the indentity.
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	Acc	Great diagnostic photos of Brown-capped Rosy-Finch rule out Black and Gray-crowned.
2nd round:	16 Apr 2020	Acc	Bill color matches what would be expected at the time of year the birds were observed.
Stephanie G.	15 Feb 2020	No, ID	Looking at these photos I can understand the case for a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch. However, I do think this is a juv. Gray-crowned. The light bill would indicate a first-year bird. However, the bird has an extensive warm rosy color on the belly and breast. A would expect a first-winter Brown-capped to be more "mouse-gray" overall. This bird seems to be quite cinnamon and rose, fitting a first winter GC best, in my view.
2nd round:	13 Mar 2020	Acc	Sorry everyone, I see the error of my ways. I struggled to find an in-depth resource for Rosy-Finch IDs and was going off my Sibley, where all the juv. birds have yellow bills and the adults have dark. But looking at other resources I see the bills turn yellow in non-breeding plumage. I also see that this does fit for Brown-capped, so I'm accepting the record and apologizing for my oversight.
Mike H.	5 Feb 2020	Acc	Good photo of adult bird.
2nd round:	3 Apr 2020	Acc
Mike S.	25 Feb 2020	Acc	This can be a challenging ID, since immature/female gray-crowned rosy-finches can show very subtle (or completely lack) gray crowns, similar to brown-capped. Luckily, I believe that at least some of the birds shown in the photos are adults with extensively pink undersides. The crown plumage shows limited gray without a clean line of demarcation. For these reasons, I think these individuals can comfortably be called brown-capped. The record is from the part of the state where this species is most likely to occur.
2nd round:	13 Mar 2020	Acc	Nothing more to add..
Bryan S.	12 Mar 2020	Acc
2nd round:	13 Mar 2020	Acc
Mark S.	12 Mar 2020	Acc	Amount of rosy color on wings and flanks would seem to eliminate immature Gray-crowned Rosy-Finch.
2nd round:	13 Mar 2020	Acc	As per my first round comment.
Larry T.	8 Mar 2020	Acc
2nd round:	13 May 2020	Acc	I haven't got any issues with this one.
David W.	29 Feb 2020	Acc	Combination of bright pink underparts (to eliminate juvenile birds) and lack of gray in crown is compelling.
2nd round:	21 Mar 2020	Acc	I have nothing to add.

2020-07 Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	13 Feb 2020	No, ID	Photos show an immature male Black-chinned Hummingbird
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	No, ID	Description and photos make this look better for a Black-chinned than a Ruby-throated. Observer mentions "streaked brownish pattern" when a Ruby-throated should have a green crown. Photos also show grayish flanks, gray-green upperparts, long-ish bill and wings and tail being about the same length which are all better traits for Black-chinned.
Stephanie G.	15 Feb 2020	No, ID	The tail projection seems to fit Black-chinned better, and I don't see anything here in the photos or description that rules out subadult male Black-chinned.
Mike H.	20 Feb 2020	No, ID	My absolute weakest ID skill set....non breeding hummingbirds. I don t feel gorget pattern or overall structure of this bird appears is right for a Ruby-throated Hummingbird.
Mike S.	25 Feb 2020	No, ID	I'm not seeing anything in the description or photos that would rule out a black-chinned hummingbird. I believe that the only diagnostic field mark to distinguish female/first fall ruby-throated from black-chinned is the shape of the primaries, with black-chinned having broader/blunter primary tips vs. narrower and more tapered for ruby-throated. The only photo that shows the primary tips is a blurry spread wing shot, which I don t think is definitive for establishing the ID. In addition, there is no mention of primary shape in the description. I don't think we have the evidence we need to accept a very rare ruby-throated hummingbird.
Bryan S.	12 Mar 2020	No, ID	can't id from photos or description
Mark S.	12 Mar 2020	No, ID	The bill shape/length look better for Black-chinned Hummingbird, and the shape of the wing feathers can't be seen in the photos, nor were they mentioned in the description.
Larry T.	8 Mar 2020	No, ID	Looks more like a BC.
David W.	29 Feb 2020	No, ID	I think that R5 is too pointed for a female Ruby-throat (better match for a female Black-chinned). However, I am not expert enough to sort out immature males, especially without a diagnostic view of the wing pattern. Never have found a hummingbird guide I really like. Curious what others think. Eager to be educated.

2020-08 Eastern Bluebird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F. 2nd:	25 Mar 2020	Acc	While I agree the photos are marginal and recording is only slightly better, however, I believe I can hear an diagnostic Eastern Bluebird call.
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	Acc	White belly separates Eastern Bluebird from Western and audible sounds better for Eastern.
2nd round:	16 Apr 2020	Acc	Audio matches Eastern Bluebird and rules out other bluebird species..
Stephanie G.	10 Mar 2020	Acc	Photos are a bit poor quality, but the audio seems to fit the Eastern Bluebird call nicely
2nd round:	28 Mar 2020	Acc	Continue to accept, mostly based on audio.
Mike H.	10 Mar 2020	Acc	This is a soft accept. The photos are not diagnostic and I don t feel the audio is much better at eliminating other species. In this case I m leaning on the observer s field notes describing what he observed and the experience he has with bluebirds.
2nd round:	3 Apr 2020	Acc	Nothing has changed my opinion from the first round.
Mike S.	10 Mar 2020	Acc	My vote to accept is based on the audio recording and spectogram in the attached eBird checklist. Although this is not a particularly high quality recording, I think it is good enough to rule out a mountain or western bluebird. Here is an example of another similar recording/spectogram of an eastern bluebird's "tu-a-wee" call (albeit, a better quality recording here): Even without referring to the spectogram, the overall tone/pitch of the call sounds like a very good match for an eastern bluebird to my hear.
2nd round:	24 Mar 2020	Acc	I stand by my first round comments.
Bryan S.	12 Mar 2020	Acc
2nd round:	20 May 2020	Acc	Calls are diagnostic
Mark S.	12 Mar 2020	Acc	The calls are diagnostic.
2nd round:	24 Mar 2020	Acc	Even the poor recording is clearly an Eastern Bluebird - neither Western nor Mountain sound anything like this.
Larry T.	8 Mar 2020	No, ID	Observer seems comfortable with the call but I don't feel good with it. I'll look at the record again next round.
2nd round:	13 May 2020	Acc	I suppose after listening to it again I'll agree it's good enough to call it a eastern.
David W.	29 Feb 2020	Acc	The photo and recording are right on the edge of usefulness, but combined with the description of the rufous wrapping around the side of the neck, convincing. With my hearing aid turned all the way to full, it really does sound like the Xeno-Canto recordings of the Eastern bluebird rather than a Western.
2nd round:	28 Mar 2020	Acc	Nothing to add.

2020-09 Winter Wren

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Mar 2020	Acc	Photos and calls are definitive
Kenny F.	9 Mar 2020	Acc	Excellent photos and recordings show diagnostic field marks and audibles to rule out Pacific Wren.
Stephanie G.	13 Mar 2020	Acc	Audio clips seem good for Winter! It was hard to go off the photo because it did seem rather warmish in appearance, but the audio cinched it for me.
Mike H.	5 Feb 2020	Acc	Spectrogram of call from the bird in question seems to point to this bird being a Winter Wren instead of the more common Pacific Wren. I would also point out that while I was observing this individual, I heard a Pacific Wren calling from further up the creek and so, I feel that some of the photos may not be of the same bird.
Mike S.	24 Mar 2020	Acc	I would lean towards a winter wren (over a pacific) based on the photos, although that is a challenging ID. Luckily, the audio recordings seal the deal as a winter wren.
Bryan S.	12 Mar 2020	Acc
Mark S.	12 Mar 2020	Acc	Photos and the recordings support Winter Wren.
Larry T.	27 Mar 2020	Acc	Nice documentation.
David W.	18 Feb 2020	Acc	Seen & documented by many people.

2020-10 Boreal Owl

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	18 Apr 2020	Acc	nice record
Kenny F.	16 Apr 2020	Acc	Photos match a Boreal Owl.
Stephanie G.	28 Mar 2020	Acc	Nice documentation
Mike H.	25 Apr 2020	Acc
Mike S.	26 Apr 2020	Acc	The photos (especially Photo A) and audio captured in the video match a boreal owl. The recording sounds like a good match for the juvenile call.
Bryan S.	20 May 2020	Acc
Mark S.	28 Mar 2020	Acc	Poor photos suggest Boreal Owl; recorded calls confirm it.
Larry T.	13 May 2020	Acc
David W.	28 Mar 2020	Acc	I will jealously vote to accept. The bill color, amount of white on face, and head shape (the last being inconclusive but slightly confirmatory) all point to the species. The call doesn't match any Saw-whet owl recording I found on Xeno-Canto, but does match juvenile calls for a Boreal pretty darn well XC362057, XC278784, XC253055).

2020-11 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 May 2020	No, ID	RNSa
Kenny F.	18 Apr 2020	No, ID	Red nape on the back of the head rules out YBSA.
Stephanie G.	18 Apr 2020	No, ID	Red nape, two distinct back stripes, incomplete black border on throat patch. A Red-naped Sapsucker.
Mike H.	23 May 2020	No, ID	Hybridization? Back pattern and nape point more towards RNSA while facial pattern and throat show YBSA traits.
Mike S.	14 May 2020	No, ID	This appears to be a fairly straightforward red-naped sapsucker, which wasn't mentioned in the similar species section. This sounds like an instance where YBSA was the first sapsucker species the observer came across, and decided that must be what he saw, without knowing that RNSA is the expected species in Utah.
Bryan S.	20 May 2020	No, ID
Mark S.	4 May 2020	No, ID	I think this individual shows too much evidence of being a hybrid. The red nape, what looks like red trying to bleed through the black border on the malar, and the width of the white regions on the back, especially towards the rump, don't look good for YBSA. On the other hand, the back, and the almost complete black malar, don't look that good for a pure RNSA, either. The written description, while amusing, suggests that the observer doesn't have much experience in distinguishing the different forms in this species complex.
David W.	14 May 2020	No, ID	I think at best this is a hybrid. Fairly strong red nape patch and strongly divided back pattern suggest Red-naped sapsucker. The strong black throat border seems further down the spectrum toward a Yellow-bellied.

2020-12 Palm Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 May 2020	Acc	good photos
Kenny F.	4 May 2020	Acc	Great documentation.
Stephanie G.	15 May 2020	Acc	Great find and documentation
Mike H.	10 May 2020	Acc	Well documented.
Mike S.	14 May 2020	Acc	Excellent photos show a distinctive palm warbler.
Bryan S.	20 May 2020	Acc
Mark S.	4 May 2020	Acc	Excellent photos and a good description of the behavior leave no doubt that the identification is correct.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	14 May 2020	Acc	Very cooperative bird which decided to socially isolate for a long time in Utah (has it been the full two weeks?).

2020-13 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 May 2020	Acc
2nd round:	14 Jul 2020	Acc
Kenny F.	4 May 2020	Acc	The description is spot on for this species and the photos, although not the best, show nothing to rule out ZTHA.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	I still think this bird is good for a ZTHA given the excellent description. This observer has seen this species here before and we have accepted those records so he is familiar with the species. The photos look distorted most likely due to a combination of distance to bird, possible heat distortion and bad lighting.
Stephanie G.	15 May 2020	Acc
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Continuing to accept, observer seems to have experience with the bird and has a detailed description.
Mike H.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	Not the best images, but appears to show enough.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Still leaning on the description over the poor quality photos.
Mike S.	14 May 2020	Acc	The photos are good enough to rule out similar species. The behavior of soaring with turkey vultures is notorious for ZTHA, and the location is consistent with previous records.
2nd round:	9 Jun 2020	Acc	While I can see why the photos alone may not be diagnostic, I maintain that the description (combined with the photos) are good enough to ID as a zone-tailed hawk. Any apparent color oddities in the photos are likely due to glare and the fact that these photos were digiscoped with a phone camera through binoculars (personal communication with the observer). The wing shape doesn't look like a textbook zone-tail from these angles, but this could be attributed to the photos being captured while the bird was flapping, which may be obscuring the actual wing shape. Lastly... I do wish the observer included more details on how he ruled out a broad-winged hawk. However, I believe that a BWHA would appear quite small when compared with nearby turkey vultures. I think the observer is competent enough that he would pick up on the fact that he was seeing a species with half the wingspan of the turkey vultures and realize that it couldn't be a ZTHA (maybe why he included a brief note about size in the similar species section).
Bryan S.	20 May 2020	Acc
2nd round:	16 Jul 2020	Acc	poor photos that leave doubt but don't really make me think it is not a ZTHA either. The written description is sufficient to accept this record
Mark S.	22 May 2020	No, ID	Frankly, I would prefer that this record NOT have the photos attached. Based upon the written description, I would probably vote to accept, though I'm troubled by the note that it was "flapping a lot more than the vultures." The very many ZTHA that I have seen flying with and without TUVU have not been flapping noticeably more than the vultures, especially when sharing the same thermal. But the photos bother me, even taking into account the poor quality and harsh lighting. It's hard to image the color of an adult ZTHA being that heavily distorted, unless they've been heavily post-processed. Why do the tail bands appear black, and yet the body looks reddish-brown? Beyond the color, that probably can't be trusted, what bothers me most is the shape of the wings. They look too broad, short, and the wrong shape for ZTHA. When fully extended, ZTHA should have narrower and longer wings than we see here. When ZTHA draws it's wings in, the tips should be swept back, that we don't see in the photos. I agree with the observer that the location is likely for a ZTHA, but the possibility of BWHA, especially on the date of the observation, can't be discounted. With all due deference to the observer's experience, and their claim that it was too large notwithstanding, I'm not sure that a dark Broad-winged Hawk can be eliminated.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	It's helpful to know that the photos were digiscoped through binoculars, so should be given lesser importance. And while I still see aspects of the described behavior that are troubling, I think that there's enough here to assume the correct i.d. was made in the field by an experienced observer in a known location for the species.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc	This one would have been better without the bad washed out pics. They don't much like a Zone-tailed.
2nd round:	9 Jul 2020	Acc	I'll still vote to accept on the writen description.
David W.	14 May 2020	Acc	Good description of a bird regularly seen in this area of Utah.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	The photos are very marginal and not very helpful in deciding my vote. Were I basing my vote on the photos, I could not be sure. However, the written description still sounds like a Zone-tailed to me. And, as I noted in my first round comment, that species is regularly seen in this area of Utah, and has been for many years. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion by others on the Committee.

2020-14 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	nice record from a seldom reported area
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	Song matches each song type of a Northern Parula.
Stephanie G.	15 May 2020	Acc
Mike H.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	The two song variations are good documentation.
Mike S.	25 May 2020	Acc	Nicely documented record. The audio recordings match a Northern Parula and I can't come up with anything else that is very similar. Given the difficult viewing conditions, I'm glad the observer chose to put the effort into recording the songs.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc	Nice recordings
Mark S.	22 May 2020	Acc	The recordings sound like Northern Parula, and the brief observational notes support that.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	Song sounds like this species. Combined with the basic visual description, I think this is a match.

2020-15 Hooded Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	3 Jun 2020	No, ID	This is a marginal description for a female type Hooded Warbler ; timing is a bit early for this species, especially a female type. I do not believe an expected Wilson s Warbler is adequately eliminated.
2nd round:	14 Jul 2020	No, ID	I don't believe more expected species were adequately eliminated before the observer settled on a Hooded Warbler.
3rd round:	16 Aug 2020	No, ID	I still believe there s too much uncertainty.
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	Description and behavior match a female Hooded Warbler and rules out other species.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	The white outer tail feathers rule out Wilson's Warbler and are pretty obvious on Hooded Warblers when they are foraging. Also there have been a number of records this year of Hooded Warblers just to the south in Arizona and to the west in Nevada including a female in Nevada on 5/2, so I think timing is fine for this bird. Also I have birded with the observer before and had to review various records from him over the years and he seems to be a competent birder. Seeing an unexpected bird in an unexpected place can cause any birder trouble, especially before getting to consult a field guide or other resource to confirm what you saw.
3rd round:	29 Jul 2020	Acc	The only warbler that could match the field marks listed including white outer tail feathers, head pattern and yellow underparts would be a female Hooded Warbler.
Stephanie G.	15 May 2020	Acc	I do wish there were photos, but the description seems to fit Hooded Warbler and rule out other species fairly well.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	No, ID	Hm...enough doubt has been cast in my mind to reverse my position. I think without physical evidence such as a photo or recording, I'm hesitant to approve the record, knowing the circumstances of the sighting. While the white fanned tail is distinctive, having heard that there was a bird with a fanned white tail from other observers, the observer may have filled that detail in through the power of suggestion. And the fact that other observers were around who saw Wilsons Warblers, it's just too iffy now.
3rd round:	29 Jul 2020	No, ID	I saw a juvenile yellow warbler in my yard the other day -- fanning its tail as it begged for food. Those tail feathers were rather pale to white, while the belly was yellow. Molting from juvenile plumage could explain the smudgy dark cap reported. There's enough doubt with this sighting that I'm continuing to vote no.
Mike H.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	Good description.
2nd round:	19 Jun 2020	No, ID	After reading the comments from a firsthand experience with the observer, I ve lost confidence in the written description of this bird. I don t know how some of the field marks listed could be observed and believe it to be a PROW
3rd round:	12 Aug 2020	No, ID	I don t feel that my 2nd round vote was questioning the observer s word, but more along the lines of what field marks were observed and blurred later. Compared to most here I ve been birding for a short time. Because of this I can easily remember how difficult of a time I had coming to a conclusion on ID when I came across a bird I was unfamiliar with. I still feel there is enough of a doubt to stick with my 2nd round vote
Mike S.	16 May 2020	To 2nd	I am a bit conflicted on this record, and would like to push it to the second round while also offering some additional context: I was at Lytle Ranch the same day as this observer, and discussed this observation with him. He initially told me that he believed he saw a prothonotary warbler. After discussing some field marks that he saw, I suggested the possibility of a hooded warbler, and he decided that this was a better match. While I don't have any issues with this being the path that led him to the ID, I am also a bit concerned about his initial impression of prothonotary. Since the observer notes that he has previous experience with HOWA, one would think that this would have been considered prior to my suggestion (although maybe he would have come to this conclusion later on his own). His description here does sound like a pretty good match for a female hooded warbler. Again, just offering some context here, and I'm interested to see what you all think. I spent some time looking for this bird with the observer and the Malmquists but we were unable to track it down.
2nd round:	6 Jul 2020	No, ID	There is enough of a doubt in my mind that I would like to err on the side of caution. The description of a fanned tail with white outer tail feathers doesn't sound like a Wilson's Warbler. However, in the exact area of this observation, we did later observe a Wilson's so this does plant some doubt, especially since most of the other field marks could easily describe a WIWA. When combined with the observer's initial impression of a Prothonatary, I'm simply not confident that a Hooded Warbler is what was observed. For what it's worth: it is not my intention to cast doubt upon the overall ability of this observer. I've birded with him a couple of times and my impression is that he is competent, even if there are some questions about this particular record.
3rd round:	15 Aug 2020	Acc	I've been delaying voting on this record in the third round, as I've gone back and forth, but I've ultimately come around. In hindsight, I probably voted prematurely in the second round in order to beat the voting "deadline," even though most committee members had yet to react to my first round comments. (I wish we still had two months per voting round for these types of records, but I'll digress from that...) Given more time to think about this record, and to absorb comments made by other committee members, I am reasonably convinced that the observer saw a Hooded Warbler. I recall from my conversation with the observer that his initial impression of a Prothonotary Warbler was based on the extent of white in the tail. The other field marks described clearly don't sound anything like a Prothonotary. As others have noted, initial impressions can be deceiving. While a Wilson's Warbler is the most likely other possibility, the white outer tail feathers, the behavior of fanning the tail, and the description of the call all would seem to be a better match for a female HOWA. As previously stated, this is a competent birder. He is also a PhD student at U of U (studying birds). These are not reasons alone to accept his record, but he is unlikely to be someone to report a rarity unless he was really convinced of what he saw. Given the concerns I previously expressed, I think that the discussion on this record has been warranted. However, I believe there is sufficient documentation in this sight record to establish the ID of a Hooded Warbler.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc
2nd round:	16 Jul 2020	Acc	I went back and forth on this one based on the comments, but finally decided that with the description, specifically the white tail feathers, it seems to fit better with a Hooded than anything else.
3rd round:	13 Aug 2020	Acc	I understand the doubts, but think that the observer did a good enough job of describing the details needed.
Mark S.	22 May 2020	Acc	Combination of white in the tail, yellow underparts, and black on the head only fits Hooded Warbler.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	I appreciate Mike's background notes on this sighting, and they certainly raise questions. But the description as submitted would seem to eliminate similar species - with the described call not consistent with Wilson's Warbler. Both Wilson's and Hooded have broadly similar migration dates, though it does seem early for a female of either. Since nothing else is consistent with the description given, I'll stay with my vote to accept for this round.
3rd round:	20 Jul 2020	Acc	I While it's impossible, nor even wise, to not consider the observer's experience when evaluating a record, I think it's also not a good idea to reject a record based entirely upon mistrust of the observer. There may be extreme cases where this course may be warranted, but I don't think that this is one of them. We have all followed convoluted routes to arrive at an identification. If I had a dollar for every time I had reached a different conclusion in a bird i.d. from my original impression, I could do a world "big year." The description as given is conclusive. The combination of white on the tail, clear yellow underparts, and black on the head fit no other species. The closest alternative, Wilson's Warbler, is further eliminated by the call. So the only reasonable ground for rejecting this is mistrust of the observer. I would also note that for a species with over 15 records in Utah, accepting this record wouldn't materially corrupt the database, even if it weren't true. For a rare bird this "common" we often accept a relaxed standard of proof, especially when the sighting fits the established pattern. In that light, there is a record of a female Hooded Warbler in Cache County on a date in May just nine days after this one, and numerous records of males much earlier. For all these reasons, I'll continue to support accepting this record.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc	The tail behavior is pretty distinct.
2nd round:	9 Jul 2020	No, ID	Lost confidence on this one with hearing the observer was thinking prothonatary at the time.
3rd round:	21 Jul 2020	No, ID	I'm still not satisfied with the observers indecision at the time of the sighting. I wouldn't of had a problem if he'd been thinking maybe a Wilson or Hooded.
David W.	16 May 2020	Acc	Good description of behavior and physical appearance.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	The first round comments by Mike gave me great pause and I thought I might change my vote. I wanted to see what others thought, since this had become a bit of a vote on the observer rather than the observed, which always makes me nervous. In the end, I went back to the record itself and just can't convince myself that it could have been anything else than a Hooded, based on the description. I appreciate the deep dive by Mark & especially Kenny in their second round comments.
3rd round:	21 Jul 2020	Acc	I think Mark put it perfectly.

2020-16 Harelquin Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	great find
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	Great documentation of these two birds.
Stephanie G.	15 May 2020	Acc	Nice to see one again in Utah!
Mike H.	14 May 2020	Acc	No question on ID.
Mike S.	25 May 2020	Acc	Well-documented record.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc
Mark S.	22 May 2020	Acc	Photos are unmistakable.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc	My only concern would be natural occurrence.
David W.	14 May 2020	Acc	Truly an unmistakable bird.

2020-17 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	3 Jun 2020	Acc	well photographed
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	Photos clearly show a Northern Parula.
Stephanie G.	15 May 2020	Acc
Mike H.	3 Jun 2020	Acc
Mike S.	25 May 2020	Acc	Diagnostic photos leave no doubt.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc
Mark S.	22 May 2020	Acc	Photos show a Northern Parula.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	16 May 2020	Acc	Good photos of a distinctive bird.

2020-18 Mexican Duck

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	3 Jun 2020	No, ID	This duck appears to have traits of the Mexican form, but I m not sure why we are reviewing Mallard subspecies, especially one with such controversial and complex phylogeny. I thought we followed the AOU / ABA (rather than Clemens checklist) who to date have not elevated even the purer Central Mexican populations because of phylogenetic uncertainty (and the large amount of Mallard introgression outside these areas, particularly in the US, suggested by the white on the tail of this bird). Perhaps we need an Accept, subspecific identification established category . . .
2nd round:	14 Jul 2020	Acc	Now that this has been elevated to full species status by AOS/ABA, my first round comments no longer apply.
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	This bird looks mostly good for a Mexican Duck. My only worry is that the tail looked paler than what I would have expected for this species. I went on ebird and looked at pictures of Mexican Ducks in May and found some variation in the tail color. It seems that these feathers may get worn and look paler this time of year. It seems this bird may fall into the paler end of the the range of possible tail colors, but combined with the other field marks and lack of other hybrid traits, this bird looks good enough for a Mexican Duck.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Not much to add from my initial comments except this bird looks well within the range of Mexican Duck, with limited signs of hybridization. I'm glad this is a full species now as the research has show that Mexican Ducks are more closely related to American Black Duck than Mallard and it's better to think of Mexican Duck as the western counterpart to American Black Duck rather than the southwestern counterpart to Mallard
Stephanie G.	23 May 2020	Acc	Seems to fit, no curled tail feathers, yellow bill, etc.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Continuing to accept -- looking at the pertinent field marks, bill color, tailfeathers. The evidence of hybridization is minimal.
Mike H.	19 Jun 2020	Acc
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Well, I guess this is why we were looking at this former ssp. It seems that most data on this species is incomplete or outdated, but in comparing this record with photos I ve taken and other records I don t see a reason to not accept.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2020	Acc	I was initially troubled by the paleness of the tail for a "pure" Mexican Duck. However, the included link to Terry Reid's photo seems to mostly alleviate this concern, and I think shows a tail that is well within range of "normal" for a Mexican Duck. Another potential issue for a "pure" bird could be the width of the white border at the leading edge of the speculum, but after sorting through a bunch of photos online, I am unconvinced of the reliability of this field mark for a hybrid. It is probably impossible to definitively say that this bird has no (northern) Mallard genes. However, I don't think that the issues that I noted above are outside of a normal range for Mexican Duck. Therefore, I'm comfortable accepting, while maintaining an open mind if this record lands in the second round.
2nd round:	18 Jul 2020	Acc	Apparently gene flow between Mallard and Mexican Duck is more limited than what was previously suspected. I still think this bird looks good for a Mexican Duck, with a couple of physical traits that may not be "textbook," but are apparently still well within range of normal for this species. Mark's comments are helpful, knowing that this bird wouldn't raise any red flags if seen in Mexico.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc
2nd round:	16 Jul 2020	Acc	I don't see any reason not to accept - it may have some mallard in it (perhaps even most likely?) but I don't see any signs of hybridization and every trait appears to be within the normal range for Mexican Duck. I tried for this bird a couple of times and could never find it, but it was quite a while after the initial reports. I did however observe what appeared to be a it once but then after I got better light I could see quite a bit of green feathers scattered throughout the head and concluded it was not the same bird as the photos. That could be what some of the hybrid reports on ebird were, and maybe some people who reported a Mexican Duck were seeing this bird as well. Anyway, I don't know about all those sightings but this record and attached photos seem legit.
Mark S.	23 May 2020	Acc	Since we have declined to second-guess the taxonomic issues here, the only real question is whether or not it's a hybrid with a Mallard. The answer to that is almost certainly "yes." But we don't have the tools or evidence to know for sure, so we're limited to a standard of "phenotypically pure." In that sense I see nothing here to suggest that this individual is a hybrid. It presents itself as a typical Mexican Duck. The only pause I have is the wide and bright white borders to the speculum, but I don't trust that field mark, because I've seen a number of Mexican Ducks here with similar marks, in a non-migratory population well south of the range of Mallard. I have no problem accepting this record, given the parameters we've established.
2nd round:	7 Jul 2020	Acc	I guess this is now a species-level review. I still don't see any obvious signs of a hybrid here - no bits of green in the crown, no extensive white in the tail, no curling upper tail coverts, generally dark plumage overall. While the speculum and the bordering coverts show more blue and wider white than Mexican Duck is "supposed" to have, they are well within the range of what I see for Mexican Duck here.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	10 Jun 2020	No, ID	I'm going to go with hybrid on this one. Especially with Terry Reid's photos, referenced by the observer in the first record. I am troubled by the tone of blue in the speculum (though that can vary with angle to the light, since it is structural), the very prominent white stripe on the leading edge of the speculum, and the pale tail (why would that be so contrasting with the rest of the body feathers if it were a result of wear?) I recall several other birders started calling it a hybrid on eBird, though I did not read why they came to that conclusion. I am eager to read what others on the Committee think.
2nd round:	17 Jul 2020	No, ID	I am content to have this vote go down as accepted with one holdout. I appreciate all the good comments my fellow Committee members, both sides the border wall, have presented. The Mallard complex/superspecies is a sloppy construct, with barely-restrained gene flow between the various taxa. I still have some doubt, based on the photos, about this individual being a non-hybrid (see first-round comments).

2020-19 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Jun 2020	Acc	Nice work getting photos
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	Bird looks good for a female Magnolia Warbler.
Stephanie G.	23 May 2020	Acc	Nice sighting
Mike H.	3 Jun 2020	Acc
Mike S.	13 Jun 2020	Acc	Photos show a Magnolia Warbler. Nice record from an under-birded part of the state.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc
Mark S.	23 May 2020	Acc	Photos are unmistakable.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	10 Jun 2020	Acc	Good photos.

2020-20 White-rumped Sandpiper

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Jun 2020	Acc	Diagnostic photos
Kenny F.	5 Jun 2020	Acc	Great documentation of this particular bird. Unusual from other Utah records of this species, this bird has stayed for multiple days. All but two other records of this species have been of the "one-day wonder" variety.
Stephanie G.	4 Jun 2020	Acc	Nice record!
Mike H.	29 Jun 2020	Acc	Well documented rarity.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2020	Acc	The excellent photos are diagnostic. Well-documented by many observers.
Bryan S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc
Mark S.	4 Jun 2020	Acc	Record 20-20-20! That'll never happen again. I see a white rump. Good documentation and excellent photos.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	4 Jun 2020	Acc	Good description. This bird was well seen by many people after Mr. Hoffman first identified it. Nice record.

2020-21 Ruby-throated Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	8 Jun 2020	Acc	well-documented; great photos
Kenny F.	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Photos and description match a male Ruby-throated Hummingbird.
Stephanie G.	11 Jun 2020	Acc	Good photos, other species effectively ruled out.
Mike H.	29 Jun 2020	Acc	I believe the photos show enough to eliminate the H-word and real time observation only strengthens my thoughts.
Mike S.	13 Jun 2020	Acc	Excellent documentation of a very rare species for Utah. I guess I need to start paying closer attention to my feeder!
Bryan S.	16 Jul 2020	Acc	Nice to have an easy one once in a while
Mark S.	7 Jun 2020	Acc	When I first saw that a record for Ruby-throated Hummingbird was posted, I was filled with dread, thinking that we would be facing a difficult female-plumage bird. Surprise! An adult male, well described, and with good photos of all the important parts . . . Maybe the best documentation of this species in Utah yet. No doubt on this i.d.
Larry T.	7 Jun 2020	Acc
David W.	10 Jun 2020	Acc	If there was any doubt before, the new photos of the forked tail and pointy black wings cinch the case. Color of gorget, black on face and chin, relative length of wings vs tail, and lack of ringing trill all confirm this well-documented ID. Excellent record for a species recorded surprisingly rarely in this state (considering its long migrations and abundance so near our state).

2020-22 Eastern Phoebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	14 Jul 2020	Acc	Diagnostic photos
Kenny F.	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Photos match Eastern Phoebe.
Stephanie G.	11 Jun 2020	Acc	Great find, other species effectively eliminated. Tail-wagging behavior diagnostic.
Mike H.	7 Jul 2020	Acc
Mike S.	6 Jul 2020	Acc	Good photos and description establish the ID of Eastern Phoebe and rule out similar species.
Bryan S.	16 Jul 2020	Acc
Mark S.	7 Jul 2020	Acc	Excellent documentation and photos.
Larry T.	9 Jul 2020	Acc
David W.	11 Jun 2020	Acc	Checks out. I like the photos.

2020-23 Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	14 Jul 2020	Acc	I agree this is a Parasitic Jaeger based on a review of Tim's linked photos
2nd round:	16 Aug 2020	Acc	I would have a hard time accepting this as a Pomarine Jaeger; It appears too slight structurally, with a thin bill and a small head. There are also a few plumage details that better fit Parasitic (tail, wings, etc.).
Kenny F.	29 Jul 2020	Acc	While some features like the potbelly and extensive white in the wings seem to favor Pomarine Jaeger, the thinner bill that doesn't strongly contrast with the face, smaller head with thinner neck and wings that aren't as broad as a Pomarine seem to more strongly suggest Parasitic.
2nd round:	27 Aug 2020	Acc	I believe the structural details as well of some of the field marks in the plumage best support Parasitic Jaeger.
Stephanie G.	7 Jul 2020	To 2nd	On the surface, the observer makes a good case for Parasitic. The apparent minimal barring in the undertail coverts. The seemingly thin bill. At rest it appears to have a streaked nape, possibly(?) However, in my view, there are a number of field marks that weigh on the side of Pomarine Jaeger. The underwing "double flash" is pretty apparent in more than one photo. And the crescent on the top side of the primaries seem more like pale bases and less of the full "crescent" patch that I'd expect to see in a Parasitic, if that makes sense. I don't know if that's a diagnostic field mark, but it's something. At rest, the bird seems to have a rounded and uniformly dark head with no crest -- that weighs on the side of Pomarine for me. Color seems to be brown, not cinnamon. Although from the different exposures and lighting conditions, the color is a bit hard to tell. (Better for Pomarine) Seems to have a sharply bi-colored bill. Bill size and shape is difficult to tell at the distance of the photos. The central tail feathers seem to barely extend past the tail, and appear to have a blunt shape. (Pomarine trait) The body seems to be quite bulky. I would think that an inland bird would be emaciated -- to have that bulky of a belly, he had to be pretty bulky to start out with. That barrel-chested look makes me think Pomarine. Additionally, the wingspan, when compared to the Ring-billed it was harassing, seemed better for Pomarine. I would expect a Parasitic to be a touch smaller. It's a difficult one. Right now I'm leaning more toward Pomarine as the ID. But I'm interested to see what other committee members say.
2nd round:	25 Aug 2020	No, ID	I'm going to stick by my original notes. The discussion in ID frontiers was not a foregone and unanimous conclusion. In most cases an inland jaeger would be emaciated; a bird with that extent of a barrel-chest would be better for Pomarine. Link Along with the other field marks and impressions noted in my original comments. The ID is questionable enough for me to continue to vote NO.
Mike H.	1 Aug 2020	Acc
2nd round:	12 Aug 2020	Acc
Mike S.	18 Jul 2020	Acc	I'm in agreement with the observer, and the eventual consensus reached by the experts who weighed in on the ID. I believe the points in favor of Parasitic outweigh the concern of the "double flash" underwing pattern (a characteristic which some immature Parasitic can show). The observer does a good job of summarizing the points in favor of Parasitic in the Similar Species section.
2nd round:	4 Aug 2020	Acc	I still believe this is a Parasitic Jaeger for all the reasons outlined by the observer.
Bryan S. 2nd round:	31 Aug 2020	Acc
Mark S.	7 Jul 2020	Acc	The structure of this bird appears to fit Parasitic better than Pomarine. I think Ryan's descriptions make a convincing case.
2nd round:	4 Aug 2020	Acc	As per my first round comments. I think the identification is well-reasoned in the documentation submitted.
Larry T.	9 Jul 2020	Acc
2nd round:	24 Aug 2020	Acc	I don't have any issues with this one being a Parasitic.
David W.	17 Jul 2020	No, ID	This is one of those records that makes me wish we had an option to abstain. I haven't seen a jaeger in far too many years to offer anything but book experience to this discussion. When I look at this bird, I get a Parasitic vibe, based on the thin wings and bill. According to the write-up's description of the opinion of experts, my calibration on this vibe is off, but so be it. I'll let those more familiar with this genus carry the water on this one.
2nd round:	29 Aug 2020	Acc	Sorry, I got confused during the first round by the back & forth aspect of this vote. I was voting against Pomarine. As my comments suggest, I think it was a Parasitic. That being said, I sure wouldn't bet any money on that.

2020-24 Rivoli's Hummingbird

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	14 Jul 2020	No, ID	This is an intriguing sighting, but I don't believe there's enough documentation to establish this record as a Rivoli's Hummingbird
2nd round:	16 Aug 2020	No, ID
Kenny F.	29 Jul 2020	Acc	The lack of a prominient white eyestripe and longer bill favor Rivoli's over Blue-throated Mountain-Gem. Timing is good for Rivoli's with 3 previous June records on ebird.
2nd round:	27 Aug 2020	No, ID	I still think that the observer may have had a Rivoli's, the strength of the observation and notes aren't adequate for a record with no photo documentation.
Stephanie G.	29 Jul 2020	No, ID	With it being such a brief encounter, with the bird being too fast for a photo, and with size being the primary field mark which can be a subjective perception, I'm going to decline to accept this record.
2nd round:	25 Aug 2020	No, ID	Size can be a subjective field mark. Other field marks not adequately described. "greenish back and grayish chest" could be Annas, Black-chinned, etc.
Mike H.	1 Aug 2020	No, ID	I don t feel there is enough documentation or description to eliminate similar species.
2nd round:	12 Aug 2020	No, ID	I still feel that the documentation isn t adequate.
Mike S.	18 Jul 2020	No, ID	I really think that there is a decent chance the observer did in fact see a Rivoli's Hummingbird. The timing is consistent with previous records in Utah, and the observer's impression of size and bill length definitely seem like they could be describing this species. However, I do have some concerns. I think that size would be a more reliable field mark if it was seen at a feeder near other hummingbirds. The fact that this bird was perched on a barbed wire fence (presumably alone with nothing to compare it to) makes me somewhat concerned about the size impression. Also, even if the size description was very convincing, I would like to see a detailed description of the tail and underparts to help rule out a Blue-throated Mountain-gem. Looking forward to seeing what other committee members think of this one. It's too bad this bird didn't return after it was initially reported.
2nd round:	4 Aug 2020	No, ID	There are simply not enough details provided to be confident about the ID.
Bryan S. 2nd round:	31 Aug 2020	No, ID	Interesting record, but size is tricky and I don't feel that there is enough to accept this record
Mark S.	7 Jul 2020	To 2nd	Hey, I just wanted to use the new "To 2nd" button, since I haven't yet. Seriously, though, I have some problems with this record. The only things we have to go on with this record is a large size and a long bill. The bill size is relative to the body size, so if the bird was smaller than the observer thought, it could easily be a female Black-chinned from that description, since they, too, are greenish on the back and grayish on the chest, and have a long bill in proportion to their body size. The Black-chinned bill size in proportion to the head is virtually identical to that of Rivoli's. There is no note of the scaly appearance of the underparts that is a fairly obvious feature of female Rivoli's. So all we really have here is the observer's impression of size as being "at least 5 inches." I'm not sure I'm ready to approve a record based upon that alone. I'll wait to see if any of you have similar concerns.
2nd round:	4 Aug 2020	No, ID	Easy to switch to a "no" vote. I don't think there's nearly enough to go on for such a rare sighting. Size alone won't do it.
Larry T.
2nd round:	24 Aug 2020	No, ID	Certainly not enough for me to accept this record.
David W.	7 Jul 2020	No, ID	I went into this record thinking I would vote to accept, but I have reconsidered upon closer examination. I am uncomfortable in basing the entire ID for such a rarity on size: 1) size of bird to eliminate all but the Blue-throated (assuming some Central American beauty hadn't come for a visit), and 2) size of bill eliminate the Blue-throated. This seems a bit nuanced... I would have liked a discussion of upper tail color and face pattern to buttress this ID. Was it a smooth gray or speckled gray on the underparts? How much white was there on the tips of the tail? I agree this was likely the claimed species, but am not 100% convinced.
2nd round:	3 Aug 2020	No, ID	I agree with Kenny that it was unlikely to be a Mountain-gem, but I still don't believe the record adequately establishes that it was a Rivoli's.

2020-25 Cassin's Sparrow

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	14 Jul 2020	Acc	Nice record with both photos and audio!
Kenny F.	29 Jul 2020	Acc	Great documentation of the two Cassin's Sparrows there.
Stephanie G.	29 Jul 2020	Acc	Well-documented sighting.
Mike H.	1 Aug 2020	Acc	Well documented.
Mike S.	3 Aug 2020	Acc	Excellent photos and diagnostic audio leave no doubt.
Bryan S.	13 Aug 2020	Acc	Awesome record and good job to the original observer to pick this one out of all the other sparrows in the area
Mark S.	17 Jul 2020	Acc	Come on folks, this is clearly just a female House Sparrow lost in the desert . . . Just kidding. The excellent documentation, with top-notch photos and even audio make this the best-documented occurrence of Cassin's Sparrow in Utah, and helps establish a pattern that might lead someday to documented breeding here, or at least regular vagrancy.
David W.	17 Jul 2020	Acc	A superbly documented bird, seen and heard by very many birders in Utah. Based on their range, this species likely passes through our state in much larger numbers than reports would indicate. They are likely dismissed as "drab sparrow sp." by most of us.