Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2020 (records 26 through 60)

2020-26  Louisiana Waterthrush

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Photos are definitive

2nd round:  

4 Oct 2020 Acc Based on my experience the separation of the waterthrush species is not always as straight forward as suggested by field guides and there is often overlap in many of the 'diagnoistic' characters. Based on the photos, if forced, I'd still call this a Louisiana (supercilium length and color graduation from buffy up front to white in back, leg color appears very pick, and throat is unspotted, etc., but the photos are poor and I believe the buffy coloration may simply be an artifact of white balance).
Kenny F. 29 Jul 2020 Acc The bold white rear supercilium, brighter pink legs, buffy flanks and unspotted white throat with more limited chest streaking and blacker overall streaking on the underparts favor Louisiana Waterthrush over Northern.

2nd round:  

30 Sep 2020 No, ID The comments from Mark and the Texas birders were convincing that this is a Northern Waterthrush.
Stephanie G. 29 Jul 2020 To 2nd Hm...pushing it through to second round here. It's hard to say. Is that a bold white supercilium or is it buffy? Is the throat streaked? In some photos it looks like there could be streaking there, but in others it looks plain. The streaking on the breast doesn't look dense, from my perception its a good field mark supporting Louisiana. Are those buffy lores there? Would also support Louisiana. I see where they're coming from but I'm not 100% convinced and would like to see what others say.

2nd round:  

26 Sep 2020 No, ID IDeferring to the opinion of those more experienced with these species. I think the burden of proof is not strong enough to support Louisiana, although it was a good candidate to explore.
Mike H. 15 Aug 2020 Acc Glad there are quite a few photos. I feel the wide supercilium, buffy lores, and muted streaking are within range for LOWA.

2nd round:  

2 Oct 2020 No, ID After reading other s comments, and looking a little more into this ID, I feel good in changing my previous vote.
Mike S. 3 Aug 2020 Acc I was initially skeptical, but the relatively sparse breast streaking, apparently unmarked throat, and buff limited to the flanks establish the ID of Louisiana Waterthrush. I also think that the width and paleness of the eyebrow stripe favors LOWA over NOWA.

2nd round:  

25 Sep 2020 No, ID I emailed a couple of "expert" opinions to Milt to be included with this record. Both of the opinions I received are in favor of Northern Waterthrush as the ID of this bird.

After receiving this input, I have lost confidence in my first round vote and I'm fine with deferring to those who have more extensive experience with both waterthrush species. Mark's first round comments are helpful as well.
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 No, ID The eyestripe is wide, but seems to be within the range for a Northern. Also doesn't appear to be as bright white as a Louisiana's eyestripe

2nd round:  

30 Sep 2020 No, ID Sticking with original vote. Thanks Mark for the nice write-up and additional info by Mike.
Mark S. 21 Jul 2020 No, ID I can see why someone might want to call this a LOWA - the supercilium is very prominent, and there appears to be a yellowish wash on the lower flanks, but let's see how it "scores" on my list of field marks I use to identify the waterthrushes.

Bill - not always clear in the photos, but looks small for LOWA, and more like NOWA.

Throat spotting - I can't see it well enough to really tell. A partial view in one photo looks clear, but I can't see enough of the throat to know for sure. Call it inconclusive.

Supercilium - It's big and prominent, and in some photos looks wider behind the eye, but in others not so much. In addition, some of the photos show buff color in front of the eye, that is better for NOWA. I would lean NOWA on this field mark, but not very strongly - so call it another inconclusive.

Lower eye-arc - In most photos it looks obvious and white, like LOWA, but in others more diminutive, more like NOWA. But call this LOWA.

Breast streaking - It's much blacker than the back color, and seems crisp, taking into account the blurry photos. This favors NOWA.

Flank color - Buffy flanks favors LOWA.

Leg color - I've rarely (if ever) seen a LOWA with legs this dull, but the appearance varies in the photos, as it does in these species, so perhaps it's more inconclusive than I think, but I'd call these legs NOWA.

Behavior - no useful information, so inconclusive.

Habitat - presumably a running stream, that would favor LOWA, but hard to say in Utah, where NOWA can also be along streams. Give it (sightly) to LOWA.

So here's the score:

NOWA 3
LOWA 3
Inconclusive 3

So the score is perfectly tied.

That, of course, assumes equal weighting of all the field marks. Perhaps the strongest LOWA mark, the flank color, should override the rest. But then you'd have to discount leg color, breast streaking, and bill size.

It's an intriguing bird, but I don't think there's enough here to definitively go against the default waterthrush species for Utah.

2nd round:  

20 Sep 2020 No, ID As per my first round comments. I see lots of both of these every year, and though I can understand seeing this as a LOWA, I don't think this i.d., based upon the evidence we have, is well enough supported for a bird this rare for Utah.
Larry T. 24 Aug 2020 No, ID The photos aren't the greatest but from what I see it looks like a Northern.

2nd round:  

2 Oct 2020 No, ID Can be difficult but Northern is the right call.
David W. 21 Jul 2020 No, ID Vent area is not contrastingly buffy. Eyebrow stripe gets narrower behind eye and is the same color as the rest of the bird's underside. Legs don't look very bright pink. Streaking looks heavy. Bobbing tail was not noted. Bird was not heard.

Photos look like I took them, so it isn't entirely clear how long the bill is nor whether the eyebrow stripe is contrastingly buffy in front of the eye (it almost looks like it might in some of the photos).

2nd round:  

20 Sep 2020 No, ID I am sticking with my first round vote and reasoning. Mark did a very good job describing the case to vote against.

 

2020-27  Scissor-tailed Flycatcher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Excellent photos (need to include a link to photos in the record)
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2020 Acc Great documentation of this gorgeous rarity.
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 Acc Good documentation and obvious ID.
Mike H. 15 Aug 2020 Acc Well documented.
Mike S. 1 Sep 2020 Acc Nice record!
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 Acc Not sure if I am supposed to vote for this or abstain but glad that lots of others saw it and got pics
Mark S. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Good description and photos.
Larry T. 24 Aug 2020 Acc Wouldn't it be nice to have good pics of every record.
David W. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Photos and description clearly show this species.

 

2020-28  Bay-breasted Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 Sep 2020 Acc excellent find
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2020 Acc Great photos of this long-staying rarity.
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 Acc Exciting!
Mike H. 15 Aug 2020 Acc If only all photos of rarities were so clear!
Mike S. 1 Sep 2020 Acc Great photos of a distinctive male Bay-breasted Warbler.
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Distinctive photos.
Larry T. 2 Sep 2020 Acc  
David W. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Excellent photos clearly show a Bay-breasted warbler. However, I am not sure it is an adult male. Depending on which field guide you look at (I checked 6), different parts of this bird look like parts from different genders and ages. What a drag. I am voting on probable male.

 

2020-29  Golden-winged Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 Sep 2020 Acc Another great record
Kenny F.      
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 Acc Bryant's on a roll!
Mike H. 15 Aug 2020 Acc Distinct facial pattern and coloration.
Mike S. 1 Sep 2020 Acc Nice record of a very rare warbler for Utah.
The only question could be potential hybridization with a Blue-winged Warbler. I think I'm seeing a tinge of yellow in the upper-breast in Terry Reid's photos, which gave me slight pause. However, this is very subtle, and I don't think this feature alone would necessarily indicate hybridization.
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Distinctive species, and neither the description nor the photos suggest a hybrid.
Larry T. 2 Sep 2020 Acc Nice bird for Pine Lake. Camped there many times.
David W. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Nothing else looks like it.

 

2020-30  Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 Sep 2020 Acc Nice series of photos. Slightly upturned bill, underwing, & tail pattern rule out more exceptional possibilities.
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2020 Acc The photos of this bird support Hudsonian Godwit with the black and white tail pattern, bold supercilium and grayer overall color than the other Marbled Godwits.

Of note, this observer reported a godwit the day before that looked like a Bar-tailed Godwit. It might be worth it for him to submit that record as well.
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 Acc Clear differences between Marbled Godwits
Mike H. 15 Aug 2020 Acc Underwing coloration/pattern is diagnostic for this ID. I do feel strongly that the godwit sp observed on 8/12 is a different bird, but all photos I ve seen of the individual in question seem to be the same bird with the one rufous feather on its left side.
Mike S. 1 Sep 2020 Acc Excellent documentation by multiple observers. I was glad to see that the distinctive underwing pattern was captured from Mike Malmquist's video.
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 16 Aug 2020 Acc Good to have a photo (video) showing the underwing pattern, that firmly establishes this i.d.

Remarkable autumn migration record for Utah.
Larry T. 2 Sep 2020 Acc  
David W. 18 Aug 2020 Acc The photo of the raised wings from Mike Malmquist cinches the ID. Very cooperative bird seen by very many people.

   

2020-31  Northern Parula

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 Sep 2020 Acc nice series of photos
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2020 Acc Photos and notes match Northern Parula.
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 Acc Been a great summer for warblers
Mike H. 14 Sep 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 1 Sep 2020 Acc Everything looks good for a hatch-year Northern Parula. Good description and photos.
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 19 Aug 2020 Acc Good documentation; photos show a Northern Parula.
Larry T. 2 Sep 2020 Acc  
David W. 17 Aug 2020 Acc Clearly this species.

 

2020-32  Laughing Gull

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 13 Sep 2020 No, ID Very sparse description to distinguish from a first summer Franklin s Gull.
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2020 No, ID Observer doesn't sufficiently rule out Franklin's Gull and not alerting other birders next to him of the presence of this potential rarity seems suspicious as well.
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 No, ID Inadequate documentation; again the observer was the only one in the group to report a rarity. This seems to be a pattern.
Mike H. 1 Sep 2020 No, ID My short answer for this is that the observer is leaning on size of the bird and mantle color which are very hard to read correctly with a bird in flight.
Mike S. 10 Sep 2020 No, ID I don't think that similar and more likely species have been adequately eliminated. I would have a difficult time accepting a flyover gull rarity without photos unless there was an excellent written description and the observer was known to be extremely competent. This is especially the case for a potential second state record.
Bryan S. 31 Aug 2020 No, ID  
Mark S. 19 Aug 2020 No, ID I don't think there's enough to go on here for a sighting of this rarity. The sighting was brief, and I don't think a second year Franklin's Gull, that can also show all-black wingtips, can be eliminated by the description.
Larry T. 2 Sep 2020 No, ID Limited description to eliminate similar species on a flying bird to accept this bird.
David W. 18 Aug 2020 No, ID That's a lot of information to glean from a 30 second flyover.

I do not think the record, considering how rarely Laughing gulls are reported in this state, adequately eliminated an immature Franklin's gull. Some of the field marks purporting to separate this species from a Franklins are pretty darn subtle for a quick flyover (that phragmites is rather far away, so the bird must have made a pretty direct flight over there).

 

2020-33  Cerulean Warbler   | resubmission comments (2021) |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F.   2nd: 4 Oct 2020 No, ID Timing would be unprecedented for a Cerulean Warbler in the western states (although there are very few vagrant Cerulean Warbler records).
Kenny F. 27 Aug 2020 To 2nd While the description sounds convincing, the committee rules, the observer's lack of experience with this species and no documentation make this a good record to put on the "hypothetical" list.

2nd round:  

30 Sep 2020 No, ID The lack of August records for this species in the west combined with the other criteria for accepting a state first species leaves me to vote no on this bird.
Stephanie G. 25 Aug 2020 No, ID A Cerulean Warbler would be hard to misidentify, however, as others looked in the area all day for this bird, I feel that it lacks the evidence to vote yes on a state first.

2nd round:  

26 Sep 2020 No, ID Sticking with my original comments, I feel the burden of proof has not been established for a state first, without photos or more than one observer.
Mike H. 1 Sep 2020 No, ID There are 4 different criteria to accept a first state record without physical documentation. 1) Easily differentiated from other species, 2) Observed by multiple competent birders, and 3) Observer familiar with species, are criteria that don t apply to this record. I don t feel there is enough here to accept a first state record.

2nd round:  

2 Oct 2020 No, ID Other than the fact that I can t seem to count, I still feel there isn t enough documentation to accept this as a first State record.
Mike S. 1 Sep 2020 To 2nd The description sounds good for a Cerulean Warbler. All else being equal, if this observation was a month or two later, I would probably have no issues with accepting this observation as a hypothetical record.
However, I think the timing of this record deserves some discussion. I cannot find a single August Cerulean Warbler record west of southern and eastern Texas. Western September records are almost as scarce. It's not until October when this species appears to exhibit some westward vagrancy patterns, with several records from California and one from New Mexico (according to eBird). One would think that this would be the most likely month this species would turn up in Utah, at least during the fall. August 20th appears to be an unprecedented observation date for anywhere in the western U.S.

Additional concerns include the fact that this is a single observer record with no photos, and the observer apparently does not have previous experience with this species. The latter concern may not be an issue for a competent observer looking at an adult male that was apparently seen quite well, but I think it's still worth considering.

I m open-minded heading into the second round, but I think all of the above should be considered before accepting a potential first state record (even as a hypothetical).

2nd round:  

1 Oct 2020 No, ID In summary:
Single observer record, no photos, observer has no prior experience with this species, unprecedented timing for a western CERW vagrant.

Based on that combination of factors, I can't bring myself to accept this as a state first.
Bryan S.  2nd: 30 Sep 2020 No, ID I wish that I could accept this record - it would be great to add to our state list and I agree that a Cerulean is a hard species to mis-ID, but I think that for a 1st of state there should zero doubt. With no photos and only one observer I don't think we should accept the record and it should be placed on the hypothetical list.
Mark S. 20 Aug 2020 Acc The description is detailed, and the time of observation, distance to bird, etc. sufficient to generate such a detailed description. As described, similar species can be safely eliminated. There are no other species that could be mistaken for a well-observed male Cerulean Warbler.

The only question is if a written description by a single observer is adequate for a state-first record. Hopefully the bird will be re-found and photographed.

2nd round:  

10 Oct 2020 No, ID While I'm convinced by the description that this could have been a Cerulean Warbler, the lack of physical evidence or other observations precludes its acceptance as a state-first record. But I also think that the date is so far out of the normal pattern in the west (May and October records only) that it also shouldn't be included on the hypothetical list. There simply isn't enough evidence here to justify reporting the record as even hypothetical, against the established pattern of sightings.

Put it on the "IIT" (interesting if true) list.
Larry T.  2nd: 23 Oct 2020 No, ID Hard to accept a record like this without more to go on.
David W. 21 Aug 2020 Acc Nice to have a good description of a male. It is unfortunate that no photo was taken.

I do wish the observer had included more of an argument against the possibility of a female Black-throated warbler. Unfortunately, the lack of a white supercilium is implied in the writeup, but not explicitly stated.

I recommend putting the record on the hypothetical list, per IV.C.11 of the bylaws.

2nd round:  

13 Oct 2020 Acc Again, I accept this for the hypothetical list.

I also think this record should be re-voted (at least in the second round) because of the issue I brought up in the RECCOM email regarding how a first state record without photos or overwhelming evidence should be put on the hypothetical list in cases where people are using extra (tougher) criteria simply because this species has never been documented in Utah. [Note, I am not saying that those voting based on evidence, such as occurrence dates, fall into the hypothetical list trap, so long as they would reject a species already on our list for the same reasons as they are using on this record.]

 

2020-33r Cerulean Warbler
           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.

2nd round:  

25 Jun 2021 No, ID See comments under 2008-08r (I really don't have any problem with the written description of this record (as witnessed by my original votes to accept in 2008), but as I stated before I will stand by the UBRC's original decision on this record. I still believe this process of re-reviewing a few handpicked records (and let's be clear they were not "re-submitted") is completely arbitrary, lacks in process, and ultimately undermines the UBRC's credibility. I understand there were some slight changes in the committee's bylaws, but if we are going to apply these changes retrospectively, than we should use a systematic process. Re-reviewing a few records hand selected by the secretary appears desultory at best.)
Stephanie G. 28 Mar 2021 No, ID Other observers on the same day were unable to locate, no photo. I'd like more documentation.

2nd round:  

24 May 2021 No, ID Sticking with my original vote for this, as there is too much doubt involved. The timing for the species as others point out, seems off, and the fact that it was such a brief encounter that couldn't be confirmed by other observers close by.
Mike H. 22 Mar 2021 No, ID I used the no physical evidence clause to vote no on this record the first time around. I still feel this is not enough to allow this record through on such a species.

2nd round:  

20 Jun 2021 No, ID Nothing has changed my thoughts on this record.
Bryant O. 23 Feb 2021 No, ID I have concerns about the timing of migration, the fact that no one was able to relocate this bird just a couple hours after being seen (including me as I was almost exactly where she reported the bird when the report hit eBird and ubird), and think the possibility of weird lighting on a female Black-throated Gray Warbler was not eliminated.

2nd round:  

26 May 2021 No, ID Just a little too far fetched to believe, especially with the timing. Still not convinced they didn't just see a BTYW in weird light. Bright sunlight reflecting off black feathers can look blueish.
Mike S. 4 Apr 2021 No, ID Although different circumstances, if I am being consistent, I have to vote "no" on this record since I am also voting "no" on the Tufted Duck record. When we reviewed this one the first time around, I mentioned the following:

"All else being equal, if this observation was a month or two later, I would probably have no issues with accepting this observation as a hypothetical record.
However, I think the timing of this record deserves some discussion. I cannot find a single August Cerulean Warbler record west of southern and eastern Texas. Western September records are almost as scarce. It's not until October when this species appears to exhibit some westward vagrancy patterns, with several records from California and one from New Mexico (according to eBird). One would think that this would be the most likely month this species would turn up in Utah, at least during the fall. August 20th appears to be an unprecedented observation date for anywhere in the western U.S."

The description is a good match for a Cerulean Warbler. However, it is difficult to accept based on unprecedented timing, which I believe diminishes the "merits" of this record.

If this record would be limited to the 'Provisional' list upon accepting at a later (more expected) date, then I have to vote "no" at this early, unexpected date.

2nd round:  

4 Jun 2021 No, ID  The observer may well have seen a Cerulean Warbler. However, I simply don't have a high enough level of confidence to accept. I'll continue to vote "no" due to unprecedented vagrancy timing and the fact no one else was able to track down this bird.
Bryan S. 11 Apr 2021 Acc hard to imagine this being anything else

2nd round:  

19 May 2021 Acc  
Steve S.  2nd: 26 Jun 2021 No, ID  I'll stick with the original decision
Mark S. 14 Mar 2021 Acc I think the observer does a good job describing a distinctive species and differentiating it from others possible, especially with Black-throated Gray Warblers also present for comparison.

2nd round:  

6 Jun 2021 Acc I think the bird was correctly identified, and spoke with the observer about what she saw. It's not a difficult identification, and the
bird was well seen.
David W. 5 Mar 2021 Acc I continue to think this description matches nothing but a Cerulean warbler.  Pale blue back with black streaks, thin necklace, streaked flanks, white throat.  Though not explicitly stated that the face lacked stripes, the observer uses the stripes on a Black-throated as a distinguishing field mark to eliminate that species.

2nd round:  

19 May 2021 Acc Although I have heard some pretty compelling hearsay naysaying this record, I don't feel comfortable voting on that second-hand information. I will keep with my original vote, although with some trepidation.

 

2020-34  Long-tailed Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Nice record
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc The rounded tail feathers, skinny bill and slim shape and upperwing pattern look best for Long-tailed Jaeger.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc The two white primary shafts and the blunt tips of the central tail retrices seem to fit for Long-tailed.
Mike H. 1 Sep 2020 Acc The two white primary shafts, smallish bill, and what appears to be blunt tipped central tail projections point to LTJA.
Mike S. 27 Sep 2020 Acc Photos and description establish the ID of Long-tailed Jaeger and rule out both Parasitic and Pomarine. Nice record!
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 20 Sep 2020 Acc Although this is a tough i.d., the two white shafts on the primaries is a pretty convincing field mark in immature LTJA.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Nice photos. Looks good for a LT.
David W. 14 Sep 2020 Acc Good photos and description.

 

2020-35  Veery

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 No, ID This appears to be a young Pacific / Russet-backed Swainson's Thrush. A Western Veery (salicicolus or subpallidus) would have darker face with grayish lores, less complete eye-ring, and brighter white flanks/ belly.

2nd round:  

11 Oct 2020 No, ID To elaborate on first round comments; back, wing, and tail coloration on both RB Swainson's and Western Veery and even breast spotting are nearly identical. The distinguishing characteristics are face pattern / color and belly / flank coloration. From my experience, Veery would never show such a complete eye-ring (only a slight expansion at the rear of eye), would have a grayish face (particularly the lores) with less contrast, and brighter white belly and flanks.

3rd round:  

15 Nov 2020 No, ID As per earlier round comments, I believe this is a Pacific / Russet-backed Thrush based on face pattern and coloration. I've observed many of these in Nevada and western Utah desert migrant traps (or perhaps I've seen a few dozen Veery!).
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc Photos show the red overall color and brownish throat markings of a Veery.

2nd round:  

5 Oct 2020 No, ID Prompted by Rick's comments, I did some more research into Russet-backed Swainson's Thrush since it is a subspecies I am unfamiliar with. Upon the second glance, the more complete eyering looks better for Swainson's rather than the incomplete rear eyering of a Veery and there should be at least some white showing on the shot of the belly if it were to be a Veery.

3rd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID Going through all the comments has been instructive, but to my eye this bird looks better for a Swainson's for the reasons I mentioned previously.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Photos diagnostic

2nd round:  

14 Oct 2020 No, ID Good catch, I see now that russet-backed Swainson's thrush cannot be ruled out and is likely what this is.

3rd round:  

39 Nov 2020 Acc It's been a back-and-forth for me, but ultimately the field marks that Mark pointed out in the second round, as well as the points that Mike Schijf have gotten me back to the side of Veery. The pale gray loral patch and the pale flanks/underparts seem to be pretty strong indicators in my perception.
Mike H. 14 Sep 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

6 Oct 2020 No, ID It seems after reading everyone s comments that I need to pay more attention to subspecies. I agree with Rick s comments that the coloration, eye ring, and facial coloration fits better for SWTH (Russet-backed) than Veery.

3rd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID Easy to say that I ve learned quite a bit about subspecies of VEER and SWTH with this observation. We are all looking at the same photos, but seeing things differently. I feel the eye ring and facial pattern better fit the SWTH.
Mike S. 27 Sep 2020 Acc The photos back up the description and establish the ID, even without a complete view of the underparts.

2nd round:  

28 Oct 2020 Acc I found a good excerpt from a paper titled Field Identification of Hylocichla/Catharus Thrushes. Part II: Veery and Swainson s Thrush, authored by Daniel Lane and Alvaro Jamarillo

The following specifically addresses distinguishing Veery from Russet-backed Swainson s:

"The key difference is the face: Swainson's Thrush has a bold buff eye-ring and supraloral area immediately above the lores that contrasts with the dark lores (resulting in characteristic spectacles), unlike the more indistinct buffy or pale-gray loral patch of Veery. Also, the flank coloring of the two species differs: that of Veery is grayish, whereas Swainson's is washed with buffy-brown (Dunn and Garrett 1983b), resulting in stronger flank/wing contrast in Veery than in Swainson's."

This bird appears to be lacking the spectacled appearance of a Swainson s thrush, and instead has the indistinct pale-gray loral patch of a Veery. This bird also has significant flank/wing contrast, with very pale underparts/flanks and less washed buffy-brown than I would expect from a Swainson s. I also would not describe this bird s eye ring as bold. It's not obvious to me whether it's a complete eye ring or not, but I think this would be more obvious on a Swainson s Thrush. At the very least, the eye ring is more prominent towards the rear, which is consistent with Veery.

I was prepared to change my vote after reading Rick's comments, but after reading Mark's comments and doing my own research, I think Veery is the right call.

3rd round:  

23 Nov 2020 Acc It is difficult to accept as a Veery when I know that Rick is confident in the ID as a Russet-backed Swainson's Thrush, given his extensive field experience with this subspecies. I have spent significant time studying photos and digging up anything else I could find that would assist with the ID. I have been open-minded that this could be a Swainson's Thrush. However, I can't get around the points in favor of Veery, which I think far outnumber the points in favor of a Swainson's (see my second round comment).

I am less confident that the back color is diagnostic for a Veery. I am open to the argument that various shades of reddish-brown may be the product of lighting. However, if the back color is within range for a Russet-backed Swainson's, it is odd that there is not a single photo online that shows one with this extent of red. Conversely, this is quite clearly an expected shade of red for a Veery (and perhaps even brighter red than most western Veery). Based on this, I would think that the back color strongly suggests Veery at the very least.

Still believe Veery is the correct ID.
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

26 Oct 2020 Acc I am voting to accept for some of the same reasons Mark listed. I spent a couple of hours looking at photos of the "russet-backed" swainsons and could not find one photo that showed this bright of a rusty color on the back. The eyering seems weak for a swainsons.

3rd round:  

14 Nov 2020 Acc Sticking with accept per previous comments
Mark S. 20 Sep 2020 Acc Photos show a Veery.

2nd round:  

10 Oct 2020 Acc I appreciate Rick's comments, and it is instructive to examine more closely both the Pacific subspecies of Swainson's Thrush, and the western subspecies of Veery.

However, I disagree that this is a Pacific Swainson's. I just spend several hours looking at photos of both Pacific Swainson's and western Veery, and this bird is a very good fit for Veery, and not so much for Swainson's.

The points that lead me to this are as follows:

1) I don't see a complete eye ring. I see an eye ring that is obvious at the back of the eye, and virtually non-existent in front of the eye. That is perfect for Veery, and not good for Swainson's. Most of the Swainson's photos I looked at had a much more prominent eye ring on all sides of the eye than this bird shows.

2) Supraloral stripe - most of the Swainson's photos I examined had a much better defined buffy supraloral stripe than this bird has, and even a number of the western Veery photos had more of a stripe. This bird has an ill-defined gray area that doesn't even get to the bill.

3) Color of the underparts - the lower belly/under tail area is bright white, and the flanks are almost entirely gray, with only one small, faint patch of buffy color. That again is perfect for Veery, and not Swainson's. Swainson's should show much more extensive buffy color to the flanks and lower belly.

4) Color of the upperparts - I couldn't find a single photo of Pacific Swainson's Thrush with as bright a rusty color as this bird has. In fact, many of the western Veery photos showed less bright rustiness. The very bright rusty edges on the wing coverts are also much better for Veery.

For those reasons, I think the identification of this bird as a Veery is the correct call.

3rd round:  

11 Nov 2020 Acc As per my second round comments - I don't think the field marks point to SWTH, but are consistent with Veery.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Photos are good enough for me to eliminate other Catharus thrush's.

2nd round:

 23 Oct 2020 Acc I'll stay on the accept side from what I see in the photos and Mark's great points. This is a difficult group to separate so I can see why there are different opinions on the ID.

3rd round:  

29 Nov 2020 Acc This bird shows how difficult the ID can be on a Catharus thrush. I don't think you would get a unanimous consensus vote on this one from the best experts in the world. But I will still accept it from what I see and the comments from others.
David W. 14 Sep 2020 Acc I am going to vote a soft "Accept." Veery seems the best fit for this bird, but the evidence is a bit fuzzy around the edges (especially considering how many subspecies exist in this genus). There appears to be a hint of warm buff to the flanks in the second photo (though just a hint), the cheek and throat area is less buffy than I'd like, and the malar is in the overlap zone between Veery and some other thrushes. But leg color, back & tail color, lores, and eye ring all support the ID. It is unfortunate that the breast was not clearly seen.

The photos are excellent for what they do show.

2nd round:

 20 Oct 2020 Acc I also spent a long time looking at the different Swainson's thrush & Hermit thrush subspecies. I still think this is a Veery for the reasons I listed in the first round and Mark mentioned in the second round.

3rd round:  

27 Nov 2020 Acc This is a difficult call, but I agree with Mark & Mike on this one.

 

2020-36  Ruff

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Tentative acceptance based on written description (photos are not very helpful).

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2020 No ID I'll defer to Bryan's first hand knowledge on this one; the written description is textbook perfect but if you told me the photos showed a Pectoral Sandpiper and a black & white cat I wouldn't be able to argue against it ...
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc The description matches a Ruff and the photo while poor doesn't show anything that would rule out a Ruff.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 Acc The description is still good enough for a ruff and rules out other possibilities.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc While photo F seems to be a mistake (Stilt) and the photos poor, the photos supplemented with description are enough for me to accept.

2nd round:  

14 Oct 2020 Acc Going to continue to accept. Even though the photos are poor, I believe the observer has experience with this species and was able to see enough field marks.
Mike H. 6 Oct 2020 To 2nd In low lighting, at distance, and windy makes for a difficult observation. Some of the field marks are good, but would like to read other s comments before committing to a vote.

2nd round:  

26 Oct 2020 Acc I agree with most other s opinions on this observation. Taken as a whole, there is enough to accept.
Mike S. 1 Oct 2020 Acc Very blurry photos are difficult to discern, but seem to give a vague impression of this species. Given the good written description, length of the observation, and the fact there were multiple competent observers present, I feel comfortable accepting this record.

I will just point out that Photo F appears to show a Black-necked Stilt and should probably be removed from this record.

2nd round:  

16 Oct 2020 Acc I am comfortable accepting based on the good written description and the competent observers that reported this bird. Despite the distance, I have no reason to distrust that they saw the field marks that are described.
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 No, ID The written description is good, but I wonder about the ability to actually see everything described in the record at that distance. I visited the causeway the following day and had a tough time IDing birds closer than this due to the poor light conditions (admittedly a different time of day may have been better). Also I don't know how much it should play into the decision, but while I was at the causeway I spoke with somebody (Lauri?) who said she was there with them while they were looking at the bird and she couldn't tell the difference between it and the nearby lesser yellowlegs since it was so far. It could have been a Ruff but I am skeptical.

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2020 Acc swayed by everyone else and really no good reason for me not to accept
Mark S. 20 Sep 2020 Acc Good description, poor photos at least don't contradict the description.

2nd round:  

10 Oct 2020 Acc I trust the observer's description, even considering the distance. Several of the points raised for identification involved structure, and directly comparable size, that would be less likely to be distorted by distance and light conditions.

Even though the photos are poor, the bird seems to fit Ruff structurally better than Lesser Yellowlegs.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Description sounds good for a Ruff.

2nd round:  

23 Oct 2020 Acc I'll still vote to accept.
David W. 14 Sep 2020 Acc I agree this sounds like a C. pugnax, but am not sure whether the bird was a ruff or a reeve.

2nd round:  

21 Oct 2020 Acc I am not troubled by the fact that another birder of my generation could not differentiate between a yellowlegs and a Ruff at great distance. Firstly, young Mr. Watkins has excellent eyesight and skills, far beyond the average birder. Second, I think we all know that eyesight generally declines with age (mine sure has), so it shouldn't be a disqualifying fact that a birder in his optical prime might be able to glean more out of a scope view than someone of the Baby Boomer generation. Last time I birded with Mr. Watkins, I felt like selling my binoculars and applying the money toward a white cane.

I stand by my first round vote.

 

2020-37  Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc marginal photos, but helpful to corroborate written description.

2nd round:  

11 Oct 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc Photos and description match Buff-breasted Sandpiper.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 Acc No additional comments.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 No, ID I'm not sure that Ruff has been effectively eliminated as an option.

2nd round:  

11 Oct 2020 Acc Alrighty, I'll suspend my disbelief. :)
Mike H. 6 Oct 2020 Acc Description, along with subpar photos, seem to fit BBSA while eliminating other species.

2nd round:  

26 Oct 2020 Acc Still think the same.
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 Acc There appears to be enough detail in these photos to indicate this species. The written description of field marks and high-stepping behavior further validates the ID as a Buff-breasted Sandpiper.

2nd round:  

16 Oct 2020 Acc  
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc  

2nd round:  

26 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 20 Sep 2020 Acc Good description, adequate supporting photos.

2nd round:  

10 Oct 2020 Acc The photos are definitive.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Nice bird.

2nd round:  

23 Oct 2020 Acc I'll stay with my accept vote.
David W. 14 Sep 2020 Acc I had not known about the high-stepping walk. Very interesting. An excellent find!

2nd round:  

11 Oct 2020 Acc Stephanie rightly points out that a juvenile female Ruff looks very similar to a Buff-breasted Sandpiper. However, the record states that the distinctive black crescent was noted under the wing in flight. Also, the body structure and head shape better fit the latter. The bill on a female Ruff is longer than what is shown in the photos. The better European guides do a fine job of differentiating between the two species.

 

2020-38  Parasitic Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc Beautiful juvenile dark morph Parasitic Jaeger!
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Fortunate the observers were able to get such close views and photos
Mike H. 23 Sep 2020 Acc If only all records were accompanied by such photos!
Mike S. 1 Oct 2020 Acc Let me get this straight...
A couple of visiting birders from coastal California come to southern Utah and find a Parasitic Jaeger? Come on...clearly they brought it with them!

Just kidding.

Nice description and definitive photos, especially Rick's excellent shots. This bird was last reported on September 23rd.
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc  
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent documentation and photos.
David W. 15 Sep 2020 Acc Good record. Rick's photos, as always, are amazing, and help to make the case

 

2020-39  Pomarine Jaeger

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Marginal record but I guess description of "fairly long, slightly trailing, spoon-shaped, rudder-like tail" would be definitive for a Pomarine Jaeger

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2020 No, ID Very marginal record and I'll defer to others first-round comments; distinguishing Parasitic / Pomarine Jaegers isn't trivial for experienced birders let alone first time observers. There really is very little to go on for such a rare sighting.
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 No, ID The description doesn't fully eliminate Parasitic Jaeger.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID I still don't think Parasitic was thoroughly eliminated. The lack of experience of the observer and the short observation time are also troubling for a jaeger.

There is no mention of the bill which is bicolored in Pomarine and it sticks out when viewing one since it contrasts with the dark face. Also no mention of the broadness of the wings either.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc I'm accepting with hesitation because of the lack of photos, but a spoon-shaped tail would be hard to misidentify.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 Acc Agree with Mark, the tail shape should be pretty definitive, even for an inexperienced birder.
Mike H. 10 Oct 2020 Acc I ve contemplated this observation for some time. Over and over trying to think what he possibly could ve observed other than the reported species. However, the description of the tail in combination with the length of time observed, I can t come to any other conclusion.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 Acc I still can t imagine the observer saw anything except what he described.
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 No, ID This may well have been a Pomarine Jaeger. The description of the tail is most compelling.

However, I have an uneasy feeling about this record. Given that this observer had no prior experience with any of the Jaeger species, and the bird was not observed for an extended length of time (and only in flight), makes me want to err on the side of caution here. The barrel-chested impression would certainly match this species, but even this is a relative field mark.

When you consider that this is the most rare of the 3 Jaeger species in Utah (combined with what I noted above), I would rather play it safe with this one.

2nd round:  

13 Nov 2020 No, ID I'm still not confident enough in this record to accept, mainly due to the relatively brief observation, the observer's inexperience with jaegers, and the description that is lacking in detail (specifics are mentioned by Kenny and Mark).

I understand the argument to accept. The tail description, as written, does best match a Pomarine Jaeger. However, I'm personally having a difficult time basing the ID (to a high degree of confidence) on that single field mark, given the other considerations I noted above.
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc I don't think the description is good enough to rule out the other Jaegers other than the tail description but I decided to accept it based on the "spoon-shaped" tail.

2nd round:  

14 Nov 2020 Acc Agree that the description is lacking, but the description of the tail seems diagnostic even without mentioning other points.
Mark S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc This is a weak vote to accept, based upon the observed size comparison to gulls and the tail shape. I'm troubled by the observer's lack of experience with jaegers, and the failure to note some definitive features, such as bill, undertail coverts, etc.

If others have reservations about this record, I will have no hesitation to change my vote.

2nd round:  

16 Oct 2020 Acc Still not a high degree of confidence, but an adult bird with visible spoon-shape tail streamers should be definitive, even for an inexperienced observer.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Description sounds good for a Pom.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2020 Acc I'll still accept on the description.
David W. 22 Sep 2020 Acc I wish the observer was more specific about how long those central rectrices stuck out, but the combination of field marks do seem to eliminate other possibilities.

2nd round:  

12 Nov 2020 Acc  As per first round.

 

2020-40  Blackpoll Warber

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Nice definitive photos.
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc Excellent pics of this vagrant.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc pretty clear record
Mike H. 14 Sep 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent photos and nice description match a Blackpoll Warbler.
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Good documentation and photos.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 14 Sep 2020 Acc The photos clearly show pale/pink feet & legs, white undertail contrsating with yellow-tinged vent, and vague streaking on flanks.

 

2020-41  Vaux's Swift

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Marginal, but adequate, description.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2020 Acc As Vaux's Swift. I'm not sure why it wound be relevant to accept as 'Chaetura sp.' Also Vaux's Swifts are regular migrants (both spring and fall) through Utah and perhaps we should consider removing them from the review list.
And regarding David's comments, probability should absolutely be considered when reviewing records. .
Kenny F. 30 Sep 2020 Acc Description, while not the most thorough, seems to favor Vaux's Swift vs Chimney.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID While the first 2 weeks of May are the most likely time to see Vaux's Swifts in Utah, this description doesn't thoroughly rule out Chimney Swift.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 No, ID I don't feel the description is detailed enough to accept.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID Continue to say no on this one -- I don't think the description is detailed enough to accept.
Mike H. 10 Oct 2020 No, ID It seems he observed a chaetura species, but the lack of details eliminating other, less likely species is lacking. The overall size of the bird is one field mark that the observer is mainly leaning on to differentiate between Vaux s and the much less likely Chimney, but I feel in a mixed flight of swallows this can be very misleading. I ve looked through flocks of hundreds of swifts in the Amazon and thought there were at least 5 species present due to size of birds being observed, but photos later revealed there was only 1 species present. A guess at size is not enough.

2nd round:  

25 Oct 2020 No, ID I m sticking with my first round vote. Nothing has been stated to make me feel different.
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 No, ID This was probably a Vaux's Swift, but I don't think the ID has been adequately established based on the description. In addition, there was no real effort to rule out the much less likely Chimney Swift.

2nd round:  

13 Nov 2020 No, ID I don't see much in the description to confidently rule out a Chimney Swift.

I don't have any issues with using "likelihood" as a criteria to accept or not. However, I don't think it should be a standalone consideration when there are other, less likely, similar species that are still within a reasonable realm of possibility.
Bryan S. 30 Sep 2020 Acc Accepting on the assumption that it is a Vaux's and not a Chimney just because it was Utah, but the observer doesn't really address the possibility

2nd round:  

24 Oct 2020 Acc There are more than 20 accepted Vaux records and more than 50 sightings. We have a total of 2 chimney records in the last 50+ years. Only one sighting ever on ebird. I agree that it is not a good idea to ID a bird based on range, but with how hard these two species are to ID, and how common one is here and the other so rare here I do not think it is a problem to accept it based on range in this case
Mark S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Documentation here is barely adequate, and doesn't offer much to separate it from similar Chimney Swift, other than pale throat (that Chimney Swift can show), and silent flight.

But Vaux's is much more likely than Chimney Swift, so perhaps this scant evidence is enough.

2nd round:  

16 Oct 2020 No, ID On further reflection, I think this should be left as Chaetura sp. Range is always an untrustworthy field mark, and especially so for a rare bird records committee.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc Sounds good for a Chaetura Swift but I'll accept it as a Vaux's.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2020 No, ID Voting to accept to Chaetura Species is probably the prudent way to go.
David W. 22 Sep 2020 To 2nd The only difference between this description and a Chimney swift is the size. The Chimney swift is the same size (length) as a Violet-green swallow, which the observer said were a bit bigger. Although a Vaux swift is more likely, I am troubled by the paucity of differentiating field marks. The observer notes the chin was paler than the dark body, which describes the Chimney swift better (if one assumes the standard definition of "chin" in birds).

2nd round:  

11 Oct 2020 No, ID Is no one else alarmed by just how many of the first round votes are to accept, but without adequate confidence to say for sure that the record adequately differentiates between a Vaux's and a Chimney swift? How come sometimes we demand iron-clad evidence for a species-level ID and other times we are OK with "odds are this is the reported species?" (i.e. "Yeah, probably."). I propose we should be more consistent. The vote should be consistent with the comment.

 

2020-42  Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Photos are helpful
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Thick bill and larger size than nearby Red-necked Phalarope look good for Red Phalarope.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc I know there has been some discussion about this bird, but that bill just is so thick, I don't see how it could be a Red-necked. Examining further, looking at how it rides higher in the water, with the chest mostly above the water line and the tail cocked upward also points to Red. Finally, blackish tertials with crisp buff fringes are apparent. Photos she posted to Facebook seem to have uploaded with more detail.
Mike H. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 Acc Difficult to see plumage details such as back streaking, and some of these photos aren't very helpful. However, the apparent larger size than nearby Red-necked Phalaropes and the fairly thick bill make this a Red Phalarope. Photos B and B1 are most helpful.
Bryan S. 24 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Thick bill visible in the photos eliminates other phalaropes.
Larry T. 2 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 22 Sep 2020 Acc Size & thick bill support the ID.

 

2020-43  Blue-headed Vireo

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 No, ID This appears to be a bright Cassin's Vireo; BH would show brighter contrast between crown/ nape and back color and throat color.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2020 No, ID  
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 No, ID This bird looks like a bright Cassin's as the head doesn't seem dark enough and doesn't seem as contrasting that would be expected on a Blue-headed Vireo.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID No additional comments.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 No, ID I think it's a good candidate, but without seeing the throat, I don't think we can cinch the ID here.

2nd round:  

8 Nov 2020 No, ID Definitive ID marks not able to be confirmed.
Mike H. 23 Sep 2020 No, ID There was an additional photo attached to the eBird checklist that showed the throat area better. In that (now missing) photo it showed the delineation between the white throat and grayish head to be smudged more so than I would expect in a true BHVI.

2nd round:  

26 Oct 2020 No, ID  
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 No, ID I don't think there is enough detail in the photos or description to to rule out a bright Cassin's Vireo. In addition to the back/head contrast I would have liked to see something about the contrast between the throat and auriculars, which is lacking from the description.

2nd round:  

28 Oct 2020 No, ID Likely a bright Cassin's.
Bryan S. 24 Oct 2020 No, ID I believe this bird is a Cassins, or maybe inconclusive at best. There is no white-throat visible in photos and not in description. She mentions bright yellow flanks, but the photos seem to so dingy, greenish flanks.

2nd round:  

30 Nov 2020 No, ID  
Mark S. 10 Oct 2020 No, ID I don't think that a bright fall Cassin's can be eliminated. The photos aren't really clear enough to show a sharply divided gray head and olive back, and none of the photos show the throat boundary between gray head and white throat. It would be good to see photo "B" cropped, for a closer view.

2nd round:  

11 Nov 2020 No, ID Not enough here to eliminate Cassin's.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc The photos are not a lot of help but I will accept it on the description.

2nd round:  

9 Nov 2020 No, ID I guess everyone is seeing more in the photos than I. I'll change my vote to not accept on the description alone.
David W. 22 Sep 2020 No, ID Looks like a very bright Cassin's vireo to me. The photos are very small, but I do not see the sharp contrast between the gray auriculars on the face with the white throat, nor do the flanks seem adequately bright yellow.

2nd round:  

26 Oct 2020 No, ID Still voting for bright Cassins vireo (see first round comments).

 

2020-44  Ovenbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Nice record
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Gorgeous shots of this bird!
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Great record
Mike H. 23 Sep 2020 Acc Great photos.
Mike S. 7 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent photos leave no doubt.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent photos.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 22 Sep 2020 Acc Incredible photos.

 

2020-45  Blackpoll Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Appears to be a big year for Blackpoll Warblers in the west.
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Well documented rarity that stayed for an unusually long time, about a week.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Pretty straightforward to me
Mike H. 6 Oct 2020 Acc Photos clearly show a Blackpoll Warbler.
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Another nice record of a Blackpoll Warbler. There are lots of photos of this one on eBird.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2020 Acc Good documentation.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 22 Sep 2020 Acc  I'm one of the ones who heard it sing.

 

2020-46  Blackburnian Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc great series of photos
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc While I would have liked to see a better picture of the back to look for striping, all the other field marks point to Blackburnian including the dark cheek surrounded by yellowish supercilum and throat, bold white wingbars, white undertail covert and streaked flanks.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Photos seem to eliminate other species. Undertail pattern fits, diagnostic triangle facial pattern.
Mike H. 6 Oct 2020 Acc Believe this to be a first year male with darker legs and black starting to appear in the auriculars.
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc The photos show a warbler with gray auriculars and lores surrounded by a yellow throat and supercilium, two bold white wingbars, faint streaking on sides, a very pale belly and undertail coverts, and a fairly prominent lower eye arc. Photo F (and F1) also gives us a glimpse of the underside of the tail, showing mostly white with dark outer edges.

All of this adds up to Blackburnian Warbler as the identity of this bird, apparently a hatch-year individual.

Excellent job by the observer getting photos of multiple angles.

September was an incredible month for rarities at Sand Hollow - not a place I would have guessed would attract a state first Blackburnian Warbler.

Too bad that this bird didn't stick around for more observers.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2020 Acc Photos show a Blackburnian Warbler.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 22 Sep 2020 Acc Mysteriously, the write-up makes no attempt to differentiate this bird from a Townsend's, but the photos compensate for that omission.

 

2020-47  Northern Parula

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc nice record
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Can't ask for better photos, measurements and field marks!
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Straightforward
Mike H. 23 Sep 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Good photos of a bird in hand show a Northern Parula.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent documentation.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 23 Sep 2020 Acc I'm just going to assume all those measurements provided in this report are consistent with the photos and description, which show a Northern parula.

 

2020-48  Red Phalarope

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc nice photos
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Thick bill and solid gray back confirm Red Phalarope.
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Thick bill, buffy edges to blackish primaries, pale base of bill
Mike H. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Photos show a phalarope with a fairly thick bill with a hint of red at the base, and an unstreaked back. This combination establishes the ID of Red Phalarope and ruled out the similar Red-necked.
Bryan S. 24 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 14 Oct 2020 Acc Good documentation.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Another fine find by Bryant. Both the photos and the write-up are convincing.

 

2020-49  Hudsonian Godwit

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc blurry, but definitive photos
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Photos match a breeding plumage Hudsonian Godwit. Is it possible that this is same bird as the fall bone?
Stephanie G. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Chestnut colored underparts diagnostic
Mike H. 25 Oct 2020 Acc Poor photos seem to show a color pattern and paler head that would indicate a Hudsonian. The observer s experience with Hudsonian is also helpful.
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Given the poor quality of these photos, I wish that the observer had taken the time to mention Bar-tailed Godwit in the similar species section. However, this may not have been necessary in the end based on the description (particularly the paler head contrasting with the body, and the details of the bill). It's probably fortuitous that this bird was a male in breeding plumage.

I think that other, more likely possibilities have been adequately eliminated.
Bryan S. 24 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Good description from an observer experienced with the species. Photos, though poor, support the written account.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 26 Sep 2020 Acc Marginal photos were decisive when combined with sparse write-up. One can make out strongly contrasting white undertail coverts, which support the ID. Nice find!

 

2020-50  Kentucky Warbler
        (non-public info: Jeana Shaw, 1699 E. Wolf Hole Dr., St. George, UT    84790, shawseano@goldenwest.net)

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Definitive photos
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Amazing backyard bird!
Stephanie G. 3 Oct 2020 Acc I was a bit skeptical at first due to the rarity of the bird and the lack of description and context. However, I emailed the observer and she provided additional photos. It seems to be a legitimate sighting and obviously a Kentucky Warbler in the photos.
Mike H. 25 Oct 2020 Acc The bird in the photo appears to be a Kentucky Warbler.
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Very limited written description, but the photos are diagnostic. Great record.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Photos show a Kentucky Warbler.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 4 Oct 2020 Acc A bit reminiscent of the Bachman's warbler, but the clear yellow breast eliminates that possibility. Much better fit for a Kentucky warbler. Wow.

 

2020-51 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Present through October 1st
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Exceptional photos of this beautiful bird.
Stephanie G. 1 Oct 2020 Acc Great record
Mike H. 2 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Great find by the Sommerfelds.

This bird was last reported on eBird on October 1st.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Good documentation; photos show diagnostic features well.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 4 Oct 2020 Acc That back in those amazing photos is much greener than any of my field guides show. Was that color boosted or was this bird just living right?

 

2020-52 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Nice photos
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Great photos of a Brown Thrasher.
Stephanie G. 1 Oct 2020 Acc Great record
Mike H. 2 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Diagnostic photos
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Photos show a Brown Thrasher.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Nice.

 

2020-53 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Good photo
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Another well documented Brown Thrasher. Something of an irruption this fall with at least 4 different sightings.
Stephanie G. 3 Oct 2020 Acc Great find
Mike H. 2 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 16 Oct 2020 Acc Photos show a Brown Thrasher.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Good documentation.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc May be getting time to take this bird off the review list?
David W. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Good photos eliminate all other possibilities.

 

2020-54 Gilded Flicker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Oct 2020 No, ID I believe this is a HY female Northern Flicker.
At first glance, several of the subtle characteristics shown in the photos favor Gilded Flicker (crown, breast spotting & crescent, back pattern), however, on closer examination it appears the crown color fades and is less distinct towards the rear. Also interesting the observer makes no note of the tail / wing feather coloration.

2nd round:  

15 Nov 2020 No, ID  
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 No, ID I think this is a hybrid with a Red-shafted Northern Flicker. Although the cinnamon brown cap, thinner barring on the top of the back and the oval shape of the black patch on the chest look good for Gilded, there seems to be some brown in the mustachial area of the flicker which would seen to indicate some Red-shafted genes as would the location. Gilded flickers are very habitat specific and don't tend to found at higher elevations ever, so I wouldn't expect one to be at 8700 feet. The observer also didn't see the colors of the underwings or tail which would have helped with the id.

2nd round:  

8 Dec 2020 No, ID No additional comments.
Stephanie G. 3 Oct 2020 No, ID I don't think we can effectively rule out female Northern Flicker. The forehead does look fairly cinnamon, but the crown seems to be more gray brown. No description about yellow underwings.

2nd round:  

22 Nov 2020 No, ID Unlikely for a pure Gilded to be this far out of range and habitat. Without description or photo of underwings, I have to continue to decline this sighting as Northern Flicker or hybrid cannot effectively be ruled out.
Mike H. 27 Oct 2020 No, ID Coloration of breast on Gilded would be more uniform pale. The undertail is clearly pale on this individual while the breast is grayish. This indicates Northern.

2nd round:  

27 Nov 2020 No, ID  
Mike S. 16 Oct 2020 No, ID This bird appears to show a couple of traits that would be consistent with a Gilded Flicker. However, we cannot see the color of the underside of the wings or tail. Also, I believe the brown nape would be more contrasting on a GIFL, and should extend further down towards the back.

Unfortunately, there is basically no written description to help us fill in the details for some of the field marks that are not visible in the photos.

In addition, the high elevation habitat (8750 ft.) would be unprecedented for a Gilded Flicker, which is known to be confined to lowland desert areas.

2nd round:  

19 Nov 2020 No, ID Continuing to vote no for reasons previously stated.
Bryan S. 14 Nov 2020 No, ID I think that the cinnamon crown seems to be fading to gray in towards the back and would be brighter in Gilded. Do not think it is diagnostic in this bird. Description is lacking - no mention of yellow wings?

2nd round:  

30 Nov 2020 No, ID  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 No, ID This looks like a female Northern Flicker. The chest patch and shape of the spots on the lower belly are better for NOFL, and the head pattern is not definitive.

The location, altitude, and habitat would be very odd for GIFL.

2nd round:  

25 Nov 2020 No, ID As per my first round comments.
Larry T. 9 Nov 2020 To 2nd I wish I could see a little more in the pics like tail and shaft color. What a can see does look good for a Gilded but the lacking description and the location make this a difficult one to accept in the first round.

Maybe someone can help convince me.

2nd round:  

29 Nov 2020 No, ID That was easy.
David W. 26 Oct 2020 No, ID There is support for the ID: the oval shape of the breast patch and the thin barring on the pale nape.

However, the breast spots are fairly round rather than crescent shaped and the observer didn't mention whether the color on the underside of the wings/tail was yellow or salmony (which would seem like a fairly obvious field mark to note). Sadly, the photos don't show the underwing color either.

I do not think the case was made convincingly, especially for a bird found in such an alpine, wooded habitat. I would expect to see Utah Gilded flickers in Joshua trees rather than aspen and fir/spruce forest.

2nd round:  

16 Nov 2020 No, ID I still believe there are no field marks presented for this bird which would conclusively argue for a Gilded flicker.

  

2020-55 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Thorough description
Kenny F. 4 Oct 2020 Acc Description matches Brown Thrasher.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2020 Acc Description and experience seem to rule out other species.
Mike H. 25 Oct 2020 Acc Good description.
Mike S. 31 Oct 2020 Acc Good description. The observer does well to eliminate similar species.
Bryan S. 26 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent description. Seems like these are in style this year . . .
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 4 Oct 2020 Acc I'd like to have even one species of thrasher coming to my feeder.

 

2020-56 Boreal Owl

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Oct 2020 Acc Nice record
Kenny F. 5 Oct 2020 Acc Great photos of this species.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike H. 5 Oct 2020 Acc This is clearly a breeding species in a handful of counties. The rarity of observations has more to do with access to habitat when this species is easier to find than overall scarcity.
Mike S. 16 Oct 2020 Acc Awesome photos make this one easy.
Bryan S. 10 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Excellent description and photos.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc

Nice photos
David W. 9 Oct 2020 Acc Amazing photos show pale bill, white in facial disc rim, etc.

 

2020-57 Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 11 Oct 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 8 Nov 2020 Acc Looks good for a female Black-throated Blue Warbler.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike H. 8 Nov 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 31 Oct 2020 Acc Photos show a female Black-throated Blue Warbler.
Bryan S. 26 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Good description; photos show distinctive face pattern.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 11 Oct 2020 Acc Good photos tell the tale

 

2020-58 Broad-billed Hummingbird

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Nov 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 8 Nov 2020 Acc Gorgeous shots of this southern rarity.
Stephanie G. 14 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike H. 25 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 16 Oct 2020 Acc Nice photos clearly show a Broad-billed Hummingbird.
Bryan S. 14 Nov 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 15 Oct 2020 Acc Good documentation and photos; unmistakable.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 20 Oct 2020 Acc Photos tell the tale.

 

2020-59 Brown Thrasher

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Nov 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 8 Nov 2020 Acc The fall Brown Thrasher irruption continues.
Stephanie G. 26 Oct 2020 Acc Well-documented
Mike H. 26 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mike S. 19 Nov 2020 Acc Another good Brown Thrasher record. Excellent fall for this species, it seems.
Bryan S. 14 Nov 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 11 Nov 2020 Acc Good documentation.
Larry T. 23 Oct 2020 Acc  
David W. 21 Oct 2020 Acc How many Brown thrashers this year? We have four in the first round right now.

Clearly this species based on photo and description.

 

2020-60 Hooded Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Nov 2020 Acc  
Kenny F. 8 Nov 2020 Acc Great documentation of this long staying rarity.
Stephanie G. 26 Oct 2020 Acc Photographed and well-documented by numerous observers
Mike H. 26 Oct 2020 Acc Well documented and observed by many.
Mike S. 31 Oct 2020 Acc Nice photos show a distinctive male Hooded Warbler.
Bryan S. 26 Oct 2020 Acc  
Mark S. 11 Nov 2020 Acc Overwhelming documentation. Would have been a yard bird for me .
Larry T. 29 Nov 2020 Acc  
David W. 26 Oct 2020 Acc Good photos leave no doubt on this distinctive species (for males). Seen & heard by many. Excellent find by Pomera.