|
2021-01 Chestnut-collared Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
21 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Stephanie
G. |
11 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Dark breast seems diagnostic |
|
2nd round: |
5 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Continuing with my original comments |
|
Mike H. |
8 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
I really wish I d gotten longer looks, and I
REALLY wish my photos were better. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
White lesser coverts seen in photos seen in
photos F & G is diagnostic among longspur sp. the dark underbellies and
facial patterns in photos A-F also show CCLO. These are very difficult to
photograph with our lack of snow this Winter. The relative abundance of
rare longspurs this year makes me wonder if we re just finding them better
than before or if the lack of snow is keeping them around longer? |
|
Bryant
O. |
6 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Photo does show the black breast and face
pattern of a CCLO, I did a quick search of Macaulay Library photos and
found several examples of males in similar plumage near that date, so
plumage matches what is expected. I can't make it into anything else. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
No change of opinion, photos and description
support ID of CCLO |
|
Mike S. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
I'm voting to accept somewhat hesitantly. It's
clearly not ideal to have to identify this species from 90 yards away.
However, the description of the breast and belly favors Chestnut-collared
over similar species. The photo is poor, but a close examination of it
appears to show a bird with underparts that are consistent with the
description. |
|
2nd round: |
5 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryan S. |
27 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
4 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
The written description favors this species. The
photo although terrible seems to show a dark upper breast extending toward
the belly. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Sticking with my first round comments. |
|
Mark S. |
15 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
The description is adequate to establish the i.d.,
and at least the photo doesn't contradict the description! |
|
2nd round: |
8 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
David W. |
18 Jan 2021 |
To 2nd |
I want to be convinced, but I would like more
detailed information. Were there any other field marks? Just how big was
the bill? How far down the breast did the black extend? What exactly was
the shape of the linear marks on the face and how dark were they? Shoulder
pattern? I'm close--I just need a little nudge. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
At the beginning of the second round, I was able
to correspond with Mike (the observer) and got the necessary "nudge" of
clarification I needed to Vote to accept. |
2021-02 Thick-billed Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Stephanie
G. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
8 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
I don t feel this is an exceptional Winter for
this species. An exceptional year would be when they re more widespread
and being observed at non traditional locals. I do believe that they are
more present than previously thought, there are just more, experienced
eyes out looking for them. I would be curious to see the number of
observations in relation to the number of people out looking. |
|
Bryant
O. |
6 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Photo shows rusty coverts and thick pink bill,
other field marks in description |
|
Mike S. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Definitive photos and description. |
|
Bryan S. |
27 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
15 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
David W. |
18 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Sounds like an amazing flock. |
2021-03 Red-throated
Loon
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Nice record |
|
Stephanie
G. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
8 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
9 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Originally submitted to eBird as a Pacific Loon,
when I emailed him for more info he sent me photos, which looked better
for a RTLO with the small upturned bill, so I request him to change the
species and submit a record. The photos he sent me are not the same one in
the record, and look better for RTLO than the record photos. I can share
with the rest of the UBRC if desired. |
|
Mike S. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Photos and description combined are enough to
establish the ID. |
|
Bryan S. |
27 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
15 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Adequate description, and the photos appear to
show a Red-throated Loon. |
|
David W. |
8 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show a Red-throated loon. |
2021-04 Thick-billed Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Nicely documented record. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
11 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Photo of male leaves no doubt about species. |
|
Bryant
O. |
13 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Yet another good Thick-billed Longspur record. |
|
Bryan S. |
27 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Good description and photos.
[not a mistake] |
|
Mark S. |
15 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Good description and photos.
[not a mistake] |
|
David W. |
18 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Good photos. |
2021-05 Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
2 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Stephanie
G. |
5 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Messy wide-striped back, no red on the nape,
looks fine to me. Molt seems somewhat advanced so I hesitate, but I can't
see any evidence otherwise of hybridization. |
|
Mike H. |
17 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Great photos. |
|
Bryant
O. |
14 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
22 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos show a juvenile Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker. |
|
Bryan S. |
13 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
15 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. Checks all the boxes. |
|
David W. |
18 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
This applepecker must surely be a Yellow-bellied
sapsucker if it retained this much juvenile plumage into January. Also,
the red on the crown is coming in evenly-speckled rather than progressing
from forehead to nape, which supports the ID. The photos are lovely.
[The bird was still there, still juvenile-plumaged, this afternoon,
January 18th.] |
2021-06 Baltimore Oriole
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
Immature / female type 'Northern' orioles can be
extremely tricky to identify with very subtle differences. This however, I
believe is a Bullock's Oriole: the bright face auriculars / lower face
color (relative to the breast color) with a faint dark transocular line
favor Bullock's. More importantly, I believe the wingbars in the photos
are definitive; the black indentations on the tips of the median coverts
near the leading edge of the wing and the white on the tips extending
along the leading edge of the greater coverts are characteristic of
Bullock's. |
|
2nd round: |
18 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Stephanie
G. |
5 Feb 2021 |
To 2nd |
With that gray belly, I'd like to see what
others are saying on this one |
|
2nd round: |
10 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't think Bullock's can be ruled out |
|
Mike H. |
9 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
4 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
I accidentally submitted an accept vote in the
first round, but informed Milt that I would remedy the vote in round 2. I
believe the coloration of this individual points towards Bullock s. |
|
Bryant
O. |
19 Jan 2021 |
No, ID |
After the hybrid Oriole I had last summer, and
deepening of my understanding of the differences in female types between
Baltimore and Bullock's, this one is pretty clear cut and easy Bullock's
to me. Very drab and gray with brightest yellow on the cheek, prominent
eyeline. In-fact I see nothing that even suggests Baltimore. Not sure why
or if Kenny suggested that option for this bird? Although very rare, there
are some winter records of Bullock's locally(male, Jordan River CBC
1-4-2020). |
|
2nd round: |
25 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Mike S. |
9 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
Photos appear to show an immature female
Bullock's Oriole. This bird shows very bright yellow in the malar area
with limited/dull yellow in the breast, pointing to Bullock's over
Baltimore. I would also expect a Baltimore to have a darker, more
contrasting face. The serrated appearance of the upper wingbar and extent
of pale edging to the greater coverts are also suggestive of a Bullock's
Oriole. |
|
2nd round: |
23 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I believe the "No" votes have collectively made
the case for a Bullock's Oriole. |
|
Bryan S. |
13 Feb 2021 |
To 2nd |
I am voting to second round since I admit I am I
not sure on this one and hope to gain insight from everyone else's
comments. The brightest yellow being the cheek and the lighter breast
point towards bullocks? |
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
I was glad to read everybody else's comments
confirming my thoughts on this one. |
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't see why this isn't a Bullock's Oriole. A
Baltimore Oriole's face and head should much more dingy brown and grayish
rather than yellow/orange as in this bird |
|
2nd round: |
16 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
Still looks like a Bullock's Oriole |
|
Mark S. |
20 Jan 2021 |
No, ID |
Submitted by my former neighbor, who lives
across the street from my old house.
I think that this is a Bullock's Oriole, or at least a hybrid
Baltimore/Bullock's, leaning more towards the Bullock's side.
There are numerous features that point to this conclusion:
1) The brightest orange-yellow is on the head and upper throat, as
expected for Bullock's, and not on the upper breast (where there's no
color) as would be expected for Baltimore.
2) There's too much contrast on the head, between the crown, auriculars,
eyebrow and eyeline - Baltimore should have a rather plain head with
little contrast.
3) There's little dark streaking/spotting on the back.
4) The wingbars are wrong. Especially in the first photo, the upper edge
of the median coverts wingbar shows a scalloped edge, created by a pointed
basal portion of the white spots on each feather. This should be a smooth
edge on Baltimore. The greater coverts show a white outer edge to each
feather, creating a whitish lattice between the wingbars that shouldn't be
there for Baltimore.
5)The undertail coverts are white, instead of yellow, as they should be
for Baltimore.
Every one of the potential field marks for distinguishing between
first-year females of these two species favors Bullock's to a greater or
lesser degree. None favor Baltimore. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
As per my first round comments. |
|
David W. |
20 Jan 2021 |
To 2nd |
OK, since Kenny told the observer to submit the
record, I would like to hear his case. I have some thoughts, but I want to
hear someone articulate the case beyond just photos. Kenny is an excellent
birder--someone give that man a call. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I am glad to see we are in general agreement on
this record. I think this looks like a Bullocks or, at best, slightly
possibly a hybrid. I think Mark does a great job listing the field marks
supporting that conclusion. Since no defense has been presented as to why
this might have been a Baltimore, I have to vote NAY. |
2021-07 Gyrfalcon
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
Well. . . I could go either way on this observation. Although the
description lacks many plumage details, the sighting / behavior / habitat
is compelling for a Gyrfalcon. It would be extremely unusual for a white
morph vagrant to occur so far south. . . |
|
Stephanie
G. |
22 Jan 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't think that an adult male Northern
Harrier has been effectively ruled out here. |
|
Mike
H. |
22 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
20 Jan 2021 |
No, ID |
There are so many problems with this record I
don't know where to begin. 1st, IDing a raptor to species while driving on
the freeway pulling a trailer should not be attempted, this record
illustrated that well. 1.He didn't even mention Prairie Falcon or
Ferruginous Hawk of any other multitudes of raptors it could have easily
and more likely been. 2.Falcons do not fly slow and leisurely like a
"Marsh Hawk". 3. Most Gyrfalcons are not white with a clean marked face. I
could go on. This is my winter Raptor survey route for the past 9 years,
there are lots of Ferruginous Hawk here, 89 on my last survey, based on
his description, that's what I would guess he saw, but I won't put any
money on that. |
|
Mike S. |
5 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I'm troubled by the "lazy style of flight"
description, and fact that this bird was observed from a moving vehicle
while traveling at 55-60 mph. While some of the field marks seem
consistent with a white morph Gyrfalcon, I can't bring myself to accept
based on the circumstances of the observation. |
|
Bryan S. |
4 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I might consider it more if it didn't make so
many references to why it was a gyr and not a goose. This person saw a
bird he didn't recognize and turned it into a gyr |
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't know what he's describing, but I don't
know of any falcon fly's slowly, turning left and right 3-4 feet of the
ground. |
|
Mark S. |
20 Jan 2021 |
No, ID |
The description sounds much more like a
Ferruginous Hawk, that would be expected in that location, than any
falcon. |
|
David W. |
2 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I am concerned by the observer's admission that
he is not a birder and his circling back to assurances that this was not a
goose. I appreciate thoroughness, but do not count that as a plus in that
category. The possibility of it being some variety of waterfowl should
never have been a question considered more than once, even while driving
at 55 mph.
Also, I have never heard a Gyrfalcon described as "exhibiting the hunting
behavior that was similar to a harrier, in the height (3-4 feet) above
ground, slow turning left and right... It was similar to a hawk hunting
while slowly flying over the field."
This is a charming record, but I do not think it presents enough evidence
to eliminate other possibilities (including, but not limited to, a male
harrier). |
2021-08 Thick-billed Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
nice work getting accompanying photos |
|
Stephanie
G. |
5 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
9 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Another Nat Geo quality photo making everyone s
job sooo much easier. (Heavy sarcasm)
The facial pattern with the pink bill that is seen in the photo would hint
towards TBLO. The field marks in the description are more diagnostic. |
|
Bryant
O. |
25 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
23 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryan S. |
13 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
8 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Diagnostic field marks noted in the description
and visible in the photo. |
|
David W. |
2 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
You had me at median coverts. |
2021-09 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Nice photos |
|
2nd round: |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
This is a straight forward YB Sapsucker |
|
Stephanie
G. |
5 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't think we can rule out YBSA x RNSA or
even just RNSA here. In one of the photos we can see a touch of red on the
nape. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
I see two very distinct rows on the back, a hint
of red on the nape. Photos on the eBird checklist shows incomplete black
border (perhaps mid-molt so it's hard to tell on one of them). RNSA or
hybrid cannot be ruled out here. |
|
Mike H. |
4 Mar 2021 |
To 2nd |
|
|
2nd round: |
10 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I still do not like the back pattern of this
bird, but in searching out photos of eastern YBSA for this date it appears
to be slightly within acceptable variation. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Jan 2021 |
Acc |
A little confused by the age of this bird, adult
or 2nd cycle? But the back pattern, throat pattern plus the lack of any
red on the nape makes a pretty solid YBSA |
|
2nd round: |
15 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I don't see any red in the nape, and the back
pattern looks within range of a YBSA. Its common for an immature YBSA to
have an incomplete border to the throat patch. I see no obvious sign of
hybridization in this bird. We clearly had an exceptional winter for YBSA,
it will be interesting to see if that trend continues. |
|
Mike S. |
23 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
I have some concerns about the extent of red in
the crown for a juvenile Yellow-bellied Sapsucker at this date.
Ultimately, I still believe this bird is within expected variation, but I
won't be surprised to see this record in the second round. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Still believe this bird is within range of
variation for a YBSA at this date. |
|
Bryan S. |
13 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker |
|
Mark S. |
8 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Retained juvenile plumage should be diagnostic.
Other field marks also support the i.d. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I think it's hard to make a case for a hybrid
with retained juvenile plumage at this late a date, or with any of the
plumage characters visible. The back pattern is within the range of
variation for YBSA. If it has any RNSA in it, it's pretty far back in its
ancestry. |
|
David W. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
I'm going with a soft accept on this one only
because of the back pattern (widely separated rows) which makes me wonder
about a hybrid. Everything else looks solid. |
|
2nd round: |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I agree with Bryant & Mark. I see no red in that
nape whatsoever. |
2021-10 Chestnut-collared Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Love the flight shots with HoLa & LaLo! |
|
Stephanie
G. |
5 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
4 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Black on lower breast, auricular pattern, white
on median coverts, and smallish bill are all shown in these photos and
make this an easy ID. |
|
Bryant
O. |
9 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
23 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Nice documentation including diagnostic
photos. [Photos link currently missing from report form.] |
|
Bryan S. |
13 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
8 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
David W. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Fine write-up, as I would expect from our new
Committee member.
Good photos, considering how hard they are to obtain. |
2021-11 Tennessee Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Stephanie
G. |
10 Mar 2021 |
To 2nd |
I'm leaning toward a yes, but are those
undertail coverts a little yellow or is it just the lighting? |
|
2nd round: |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Agreed the field marks add up |
|
Mike H. |
11 Mar 2021 |
To 2nd |
After observing a few OCWA with white undertails
in the field, I feel this species probably gets misidentified more than I
previously thought. There are some aspects of this bird that I feel make
it a tougher call. I would like to see others thoughts. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
After observing multiple OCWA with pale/whitish
undertails in Utah, I feel this is a species that is misidentified quite
often locally. This appears to be a good TEWA. |
|
Bryant
O. |
9 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Photos and description support ID of TEWA. Not
sure why TEWA is a review species, one of the more expected "Eastern"
Warblers in fall migration, seen annually. |
|
2nd round: |
15 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Besides the whitish UTC, it also has the thin
bill, short tail and yellow as opposed to greenish color of a TEWA and
doesn't look like any OCWA I've seen. TEWA can have slightly yellowish UTC |
|
Mike S. |
23 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
David gives a good summary in his first round
comment. I believe the face pattern is an underrated field mark for
separating TEWA from OCWA. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
12 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation and photos. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
There's no doubt that separating Tennessee and
Orange-crowned Warblers is an under-appreciated difficult i.d., especially
in Fall, which is why it should be on the review list even though reported
almost annually. But this individual is solidly in the TEWA camp. The
strong black eyeline, prominent supercilium, bill shape and extensively
whitish underparts are not good for OCWA, and perfect for TEWA. |
|
David W. |
12 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Strong face pattern, shape of bill, white on
undertail coverts, short tail, and the underside tail pattern, all point
to this species. Good writeup and photos! |
|
2nd round: |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Sticking to my strong ACCEPT. Although sometimes
a tricky ID, this one does not strike me as one of those cases. |
2021-12 Purple Finch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
21 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Nice record.
Should be tagged as purpureus subspecies. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
10 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
11 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good photos. Clean white undertail coverts. |
|
Bryant
O. |
14 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Bill shape, dark mask, and lack of eyering all
indicate a Purple. Clean undertail coverts and fine streaking imply
Eastern ssp. This winter has been a major invasion of Purple Finches
across north america, and I predicted we would get one in November. |
|
Mike S. |
14 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation establishes the ID of an
Eastern Purple Finch. (I agree that Photo G shows a Cassin's Finch.)
Nice job by Max Malmquist catching this one on the eBird rare bird alert! |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation and photographs eliminate
female Cassin's Finch. |
|
David W. |
14 Feb 2021 |
Acc |
First, let us dispense with nicest photo (Photo
G). That one is a lovely photo of a Cassin's finch (clearly streaked
undertail coverts, crisp & thin breast streaks, straight culmen, eye
ring...). That photo should be excised from the record or clearly
identified as being of a different bird. It does serve as a useful foil,
however.
Some of the other photos are a bit blurry or obstructed, but do show
supporting field marks. I will focus on those in my evaluation below:
Based on the unstreaked undertail coverts, more rounded culmen, smudgier
streaks on the breast, and lack of eye rings/arcs, I am voting to accept.
Apparently, according to some sources, the face pattern is not that
useful/consistent of a field mark (though consistent with a Purple in this
bird), so I'll let others play with that. |
2021-13 Bell's Sparrow
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
This is another example of a recently split
species that probably doesn't warrant committee review.
In my experience, there are usually a few Bell's Sparrows in the large
wintering flocks of Sagebrush Sparrows on the Beaver Dam Slope. I haven't
seen them in the upper Virgin River Valley flocks, but I haven't looked
very hard either. |
|
2nd round: |
18 May 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
As much as I believe Annette
personally, I have to be impartial and pretend she's not someone I
consider to be a friend. In that case, the lack of photo, sparse
description, and poor lighting conditions lean me in the favor of a "no"
on this one as it doesn't seem to fill the burden of proof. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
Sticking with my previous comments |
|
Mike H. |
11 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
Size seems to be a big part of their ID. I don t
feel there is enough info to eliminate the more likely sp. |
|
2nd round: |
23 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
Still agree there isn t enough to differentiate
from the more likely sp. |
|
Bryant
O. |
7 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
I was just down on Beaver-dam slope
and saw many Sagebrush Sparrows, and looked into the possibility of some
of them being Bell's, so I read some online articles about
distinguishing them, including Pyle's paper. All I can say is telling
"Mojave" Bell's from Sagebrush is one of the most difficult, subjective
and troublesome ID problems out there, and I question the AOU's decision
to put the Mojave ssp. into Bell's rather than Sagebrush. Regardless,
NONE of the traits used to distinguish these 2 birds are even mentioned
in the record. Nothing about the streaking on the back, nothing about
the color of the lores. Even the malar comment fails to explain how and
why it was bolder. Additionally, other field marks mentioned are not
used to distinguish them, such as the eyeing or tail length. Bell's
actually are slightly smaller than Sagebrush with shorter tails.
Clearly, this person doesn't actually know how to distinguish these
birds from another. I think any record of this species in Utah needs to
have excellent photos to clearly show the differences to be accepted.
|
|
2nd round: |
3 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Still not convinced they know how to ID this complex. Just because a
species in theory should be present in that location does not mean this
particular bird is a Bell's. Have formal surveys been done in Washington
county for Bell's in winter, or is it assumed they are here by the
habitat? There is 1 accepted record, that does not establish a "regular"
occurrence here |
|
Mike S. |
10 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
The observer may have seen a Bell's Sparrow.
However, separating interior Bell's vs. Sagebrush is usually a very subtle
ID with overlapping features. I have my doubts that this description
adequately rules out the possibility of a SABS. |
|
2nd round: |
21 May 2021 |
No, ID |
I still don't believe the description rules out Sagebrush Sparrow. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
To 2nd |
The description and especially how Sagebrush was
eliminated is lacking detail. It may be acceptable but decided to punt to
round 2 |
|
2nd round: |
19 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Still feel like we can't eliminate Sagebrush with this difficult ID |
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
All field marks noted also fit
Sagebrush Sparrow. The lack of streaking on the mantle and scapulars are
not noted to separate these two species. |
|
2nd round: |
16 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
There is really nothing in the description to
rule out Sagebrush Sparrow. |
|
Mark S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
This is a tantalizing record,
and may represent Bell's Sparrow. But the only piece of evidence presented
that might be definitive is the malar stripe. I don't think this level of
evidence is sufficient to clearly establish the identification. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
It may be that a Bell's Sparrow was seen, but
the evidence presented here is not compelling, therefore I'll stick with
my "no" vote. |
|
David W. |
4 Mar 2021 |
To 2nd |
The description sounds good for a Bell's sparrow
and I think it very likely that the observer made the correct ID.
However, the description is a tad less precise than I would like to
differentiate it from the highly similar Sagebrush sparrow. For example,
did the observer think she saw the coastal race (belli) or the interior
canescens? There was white in/above the lores, but did it extend past the
eye? Shade of gray on head? Shade of brown on tail? Was there subtle
streaking on the crown? Mantle streaking? How was the dark moustachial
stripe different than a Sagebrush's? |
|
2nd round: |
19 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
The observer may or may not have seen a Bell's
sparrow, but the record does not, in my opinion, prove it. This is not a
vote on whether this species occurs on the slope, but rather whether this
record adequately makes the case. |
2021-14 Bendire's
Thrasher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Description is limited, but adequate for a
Bendire's Thrasher. |
|
2nd round: |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Description best fits Bendire's Thrasher |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Expected rarity for this location; the thing
that cinches it for me is the running on the ground with tail cocked at 90
degree angle, which appears to be diagnostic. |
|
2nd round: |
20 May 2021 |
Acc |
Continuing to accept; I believe the observer has
sufficient experience |
|
Mike H. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Experience with more common thrasher sp combined
with description seems to suffice. |
|
2nd round: |
21 May 2021 |
Acc |
I do agree with the others that the description
isn t ideal, but I still feel there is enough to accept. |
|
Bryant
O. |
17 Mar 2021 |
No, ID |
No mention of bill length or shape, eye color,
or shape of markings on breast. No attempt to eliminate Curve-billed
Thrasher or even Cactus Wren. He briefly saw a brown bird running on
ground with tail cocked up, could have possibly been several other birds |
|
2nd round: |
3 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Observer made no attempt to eliminate LCTH or
especially CBTH, did not note specific field marks for BETH like eye color
or shape of marking on breast. ID based mostly on assumption. This is a
very tricky ID, in AZ one has to be very careful distinguishing CBTH from
BETH, why should we be less careful here? BETH may be nesting on the
Beaver dam slope, that alone does not mean this was one. |
|
Mike S. |
10 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't believe that the documentation is
adequate to rule out a Sage Thrasher. The behavior could be describing a
SATH, and I wish there was a more detailed description of the underparts
(including the general shape and boldness of the "streaking"). A
description of the head pattern would also be useful. In addition,
"lighter undertail coverts" sounds like a better match for a SATH. |
|
2nd round: |
21 May 2021 |
Acc |
After taking another look at this record, I have
come around to Bendire's as the most likely possibility based on the
description.
I would have liked to have seen Curve-billed Thrasher mentioned in the
similar species section (there is an eBird record with a photo from last
year near Scenic, AZ, not all that far from this location). However, I am
still comfortable accepting as a Bendire's based on probability. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I will tentatively vote to accept on the written
description, but the description white and brown streaking on the chest
rather than triangular spotting is concerning to me. |
|
2nd round: |
16 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Still think Bendire's Thrasher fite written
description. |
|
Mark S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I'll give a weak vote to accept based upon
adequate description, and likelihood of this species in the location and
season. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
I think that the description given adequately
eliminates similar species, including ones not mentioned specifically,
either by structural features (description of the bill), plumage
characters described, and/or the behavior described. |
|
David W. |
9 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Should have tried to eliminate LeConte's, but
the description much better fits a Bendire's, which have occurred at this
location for some decades (at least). |
|
2nd round: |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
I don't think the description matches a Sage
thrasher, what with the flanks. The description of the bill also fits the
more expected Bendire's than a Curve-billed thrasher. I will continue to
vote as a weak accept. |
2021-15 Purple Finch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Definitive photos |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
22 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
10 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Photos clearly show a male Purple Finch. Nice
photos Milt |
|
Mike S. |
10 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos show a male Purple Finch. I
believe this one is a Pacific individual. Nice record, Milt! |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
2 purple finch records for utah county in a yr -
pretty crazy! |
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Is that the best you can do, Milt? After seeing
hundreds of examples of good and bad records?
Well, really quite good - excellent documentation of a real rarity. |
|
David W. |
12 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Nice record and description of raspberry
crown/beret. A lovely yard bird. |
2021-16 Mexican
Duck
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good photos / documentation. |
|
2nd round: |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
From what I've read there is a lot of
introgression between Mallard X Mexican Ducks; nearly all Mexican Ducks in
the nothern portion of their range have at least 10% Mallard genes. . .
My opinion on these is if the phenotypic expression (since we have no way
of assessing genotypic / phylogenetic characters by sight) shows
predominately a species (obviously not an F1 hybrid) than it should be
assigned to the focal species. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
20 May 2021 |
Acc |
I feel that it's "pure enough" to accept |
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
Maybe it s artifacts of the images, but I m not
seeing the coloration of plumage in the breast and into the underside that
I think would/should be visible in a Mexican Mallard. Perhaps I m alone in
my thinking and can be convinced otherwise, but will vote no for the first
round. |
|
2nd round: |
23 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
Bryant s photo only strengthens my concerns. |
|
Bryant
O. |
15 Mar 2021 |
To 2nd |
I think I'm seeing a contrasting rufous breast
on this bird, and the tail has a lot of white in the outer tail feathers.
Photo do not show the tail well at all though. This is likely a hybrid.
Where do we draw the line, if it has any sign of hybrid do we toss it, or
accept as mostly Mexican? |
|
2nd round: |
17 Apr 2021 |
No, ID |
I have since re-found and photographed this
bird, and as I originally suspected it seems to show some signs of Mallard
genes, specifically it has a black rump and rusty breast. So it is a
mostly Mexican. I see Mallard X Mexican ducks several times a year, but
the vast majority show more evidence of hybridization than this bird,
nevertheless, a 90% Mexican Duck is still a 10% Mallard, I think any bird
that shows signs of hybrization should be called as such, even though it
means losing the "tick" for me. Here is my photo
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/318626041 |
|
Mike S. |
10 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
It's too bad that this birder has yet to find a
Mallard for his life list. Maybe if he keeps weeding through these pesky
Mexican Ducks, he'll find one eventually.
[On a more serious note, this record contains good documentation and I'm
not seeing any indication that this is a hybrid.] |
|
2nd round: |
21 May 2021 |
Acc |
I understand the concerns that have been
raised. I think many of these individuals are quite subjective and there
is a clearly a line where expressed Mallard features are too much to get
away with calling it a Mexican Duck, but where is that line? If we use
Rick's recommended standard of accepting anything that isn't clearly an F1
hybrid then that would make our lives easier. We are likely to encounter
backcrosses that have greenish heads - are we okay with accepting those
individuals as Mexican Ducks?
I am still comfortable accepting since this individual's phenotypic
expression is overwhelmingly that of a Mexican Duck, but the "line" is
admittedly murky for me. Hopefully we can eventually compile enough
records of this species to remove it from the review list. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
The report does a good job going through the
case against hybridization |
|
2nd round: |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Not sure why we are reviewing Mexican Duck
records as they are fairly regular in the state. |
|
2nd round: |
16 Mayr 2021 |
Acc |
When do we stop calling birds a hybrid? When
that one feather has a green tinge instead of tan? If it looks like a
Mexican Duck and doesn't have a green head call it a Mexican Duck. |
|
Mark S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Solid documentation, and photos show no
intermediate characters that would suggest a hybrid. |
|
2nd round: |
16 Mayr 2021 |
Acc |
I think that our scrutiny of details that could
suggest a small amount of hybridization in Mexican Duck records ignores
the fact that all species are variable, and variance from some ideal
paradigm does not always mean that an individual is a hybrid. I see dozens
of presumably pure Mexican Ducks every year, and the individual in this
record is well within the range of variation I typically see.
Demanding some level of phenotypic purity, if such even exists for this
species, is a rabbit hole I don't think we want to go down. Without any
obvious signs of hybridization, this record looks fine for Mexican Duck to
me. It certainly wouldn't stand out among the groups of Mexican Ducks I
see here. |
|
David W. |
22 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
I saw this duck today and that helped me with my
vote to accept. The photos were not the best on this record, but real life
was more convincing. Nice find. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Mayr 2021 |
Acc |
I'll defer to the "local expert" in Mexico.
Also, I think our second-most southern expert makes a good point, with the
qualification that the phenotypic expression can only be muddied so much. |
2021-17 Thick-billed
Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Adequate description. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
15 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Description seems adequate to eliminate other
longspurs |
|
Mike S. |
14 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Good description rules out similar species. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
14 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good description. |
|
David W. |
12 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good writeup. |
2021-18 Thick-billed
Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
photos are marginal, but show tail in flight
well and along with written description eliminates the CCLo. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
15 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Photos, although poor, do show the white tail
with a dark inverted T of TBLO |
|
Mike S. |
14 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Another good record. Photos are poor but the
distinctive tail pattern is visible. The first photo in the eBird
checklist (not attached to the sight record) is quite clearly this
species. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
David W. |
12 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Nice photo of tail. |
2021-19 Winter
Wren
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good photos and very helpful audio in YT video. |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Pretty "cool" coloration good for Winter Wren. |
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Spectogram seems to fit for WIWR. |
|
Bryant
O. |
19 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Likely the same individual I found here in
January 2020, using the same thicket, returning for a 2nd winter. I
re-found this bird today(3-16) and confirmed the audibles, recording to be
uploaded soon. Very skulky but singings its little heart out. |
|
Mike S. |
14 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Good video/audio recording establishes the ID.
Photos also looks good for Winter Wren with more contrasting plumage than
would be expected for a Pacific. |
|
Steve S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Calls in the video are distinctive, and
establish the i.d. The photos look consistent with typical Winter Wren. |
|
David W. |
16 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
The "Jeet" calls were even more distinctive in
real life. |
2021-20 Rusty Blackbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Clear record |
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Photo D (D1) shows the pale tipped undertail
coverts that are diagnostic. |
|
Bryant
O. |
21 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
14 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Diagnostic photos. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Photos are diagnostic. |
|
David W. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Another Kendall specialty. Well done! |
2021-21 Rusty Blackbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Pale tipped undertail coverts are diagnostic for
Rusty Blackbird. These can be seen in photo C and C1. |
|
Bryant
O. |
21 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
14 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Photos clearly show a Rusty Blackbird. |
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
David W. |
18 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
What a beautiful specimen. |
2021-22 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Nice work by observer getting diagnostic photos |
|
Stephanie
G. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
22 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
21 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
25 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Juvenile plumage at this very late, completely
white throat, no red on nape, all point to a female Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker. |
|
Bryan S. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
28 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Face and back pattern support the i.d., even
without the plumage stage being considered. |
|
David W. |
22 Mar 2021 |
Acc |
Seen by many. Convincing juv plumage, lack of
red in nape, completely white throat, solid black outline to the throat,
back pattern. It's all good. |
2021-23 Rusty Blackbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Last observed April 5th |
|
Stephanie
G. |
27 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Straightforward, well-documented |
|
Mike H. |
17 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Rusty secondary coverts, rusty edged primaries,
and bill all look good for Rusty Blackbird. |
|
Bryant
O. |
12 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos by many |
|
Mike S. |
14 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryan S. |
11 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and good documentation. |
|
David W. |
26 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photo shows face mask, adequate
rustiness, and appropriately-located paleness. |
2021-24 Vaux's
Swift
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Nice work getting diagnostic photos |
|
Stephanie
G. |
27 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
Straightforward record. Also, adorbs. |
|
Mike H. |
21 May 2021 |
Acc |
Definite Chaetura sp. Having never heard a Vaux
s Swift vocalize, I don t feel I know enough to question the
differentiation of the calls in the field (or memory). Max s familiarity
with the CHSW from a recent visit to TX would definitely help. Wing shape
looks good for VASW. |
|
Bryant
O. |
3 May 2021 |
Acc |
Me and Max both heard a weird sputtering twitter
we couldn't place, it reminded me of an EAKI but off. As we were looking
around for the mystery bird I spotted this bird and immediately knew it
was a Chaetura swift and yelled SWIFT! GET PHOTOS!, Max snapped of some
photos which sealed the ID. Our looks in the field were brief but the
overall short body and wings plus paler gray color favored Vaux's over
Chimney. In my limited experience with CHSW they seem larger and have
longer more curved wings and are darker. Just after we lost the swift we
put 2 and 2 together and realized the mystery calls we heard came from the
swift. Max had gotten back from Texas a few days before where he had
thousands of CHSW going to roost in a chimney and he said they sounded
totally different, so we compared recordings on the Sibley app and the
Vaux's calls were a perfect match for our mystery twittering. I asked Max
to do the record because he got the photos |
|
Mike S. |
27 May 2021 |
Acc |
Good photos and description. |
|
Bryan S. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
David W. |
26 Apr 2021 |
Acc |
The photos, though good for a swift, were not
decisive, but the description of the call tipped the scale. |
2021-25 Vaux's
Swift
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos! |
|
Stephanie
G. |
25 May 2021 |
Acc |
Great documentation |
|
Mike H. |
2 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Good photo! |
|
Bryant
O. |
3 May 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show the pale throat and rump, plus the
shorter body and shorted broad based wings of a VASW |
|
Mike S. |
27 May 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos. |
|
Bryan S. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos and good documentation. |
|
David W. |
|
|
|
2021-26 Blue-throated Mountain-gem
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
This sighting was summarized in American Birds,
February 1972, Volume 27(1):94. |
|
2nd round: |
25 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
There appears to be a bit more uncertainty with
this record than I original believed. While I do not have any copies of
photos, I recall seeing photos of this BTHu when I was putting together
the Birds of Washington County Checklist. I believe the photos may have
been in the files at Zion National Park (?), and based on this sighting I
included it on the Washington County list. However, Roland Wauer's book,
Birds of Zion National Park and Vicinity (Wauer, R.H., 1997) includes the
BTHu under the list of "Birds of Uncertain Occurrence - birds not
documented by either a specimen or photograph or by unquestionable reports
by five or more individuals" with the listing "An immature bird was
observed daily at hummingbird feeders in Springdale from August 3 to 8,
1972 by Jerome Gifford and Lois Harden, and a female was seen there on
August 5, 1972". I know Ro Wauer and Jerome Gifford were close friends
suggesting that Jerome maintained some uncertainty regarding his sighting.
. . |
|
Stephanie
G. |
25 May 2021 |
To 2nd |
I'm having a hard time knowing what to do with
this record. There are so many different individual birds in the report.
Unfortunate that there are no photos, especially with wildlife
photographers being present. Report contains a lot of details, but not
necessarily a lot of field marks. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
This record is lengthy but a bit convoluted.
There are several different birds described but no strong descriptions of
relevant field marks and despite being observed by "wildlife
photographers" there are no photos. |
|
Mike H. |
2 Jun 2021 |
To 2nd |
I guess I m confused by this report? |
|
2nd round: |
19 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
I will go with accept off of Rick s recollection
of seeing photos. |
|
Bryant
O. |
19 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Although very intriguing, there are a couple
things about this record that trouble me. 1st the statement that Rivoli's
do not have a Rictal stripe (I presume this means a moustachial stripe
going from the bill down the cheek), females and especially immature males
can and do have 2 white stripes on the face. 2nd the statement of the
gorget being pale green is perfect for Rivoli's, but BLMG either show
powder blue or no color at all, I've never seen them show green and they
are less iridescent than other hummer gorgets. 3rd the description of the
back a green is troubling for BTMG as they have a distinctive bronzy lower
back unlike the entirely emerald green back of a RIHU. As such it seems
they may have seen an immature male RIHU rather than a BTMG. The reported
female is even more vague. Apparently he had a RIHU female all that summer
that was joined by another? |
|
2nd round: |
20 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
Does anyone have a copy of the article of
'American Birds, February 1972, Volume 27(1):94' that can be made
available to the committee? Reading over this record again, as much as I
want to believe they had a BTMG, and we should have records based on the
number of records(11) in Colorado, I just can't get there. He barely
mentions the tail, which is the most striking field mark for BTMG, they
have a dark blue tail that they wave and flash around and almost half the
tail is white, it can't be missed and basically slaps you across the face.
All he say's is prominent white corners, but that doesn't actually tells
us how much of the tail was white and doesn't do justice to this field
mark. Also he fails to mention any vocalizations. BTGM are loud giving a
repeated high note and vocal chase calls, in AZ I usually find them
audibly before seeing them. Gorgets can catch weird light and be odd
colors, but the fact remains he never saw a blue gorget on this bird, only
green. His main basis for ID seems to the "rictal" stripe, which perhaps
at that time was seen of as good field mark for BTMG, but we've learned a
lot in 49 years and it is no longer a safe field mark. ID should be the
sum of field marks not just one. My experience with BTMG is they are bold
extroverted hummingbirds, with prominent vocalizations and a flashy tail,
that can't be ignored, not shy or retiring. He just didn't describe the
BTMG I know and love. |
|
Mike S. |
5 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Very good written documentation. Seems
remarkable that there would be two different individuals, but the
description of the immature male is especially convincing. The timing is
consistent with some of the other vagrant records of this species. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
While I agree that there are a couple of odd
things in this description, I believe that the "large, white corners on
the underside of the tail" rules out a Rivoli's. While the other field
marks are weaker, I believe they are at least suggestive of a BTMG (with
exception of the gorget color, which can be deceiving). |
|
Bryan S.
2nd: |
4 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
There is so much going on in that report it is
hard to wrap my brain around, but overall the description fits |
|
Steve S. |
17 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Written report eliminates other species |
|
2nd round: |
26 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Description is fine for this bird. |
|
Mark S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
An unconventional but compelling account; key
points of identification were noted, especially the facial stripes and the
prominent tail spots. The color of the gorget is not inconsistent with
what I have seen on Blue-throateds - lighting can affect the color seen,
and they can have a greenish cast to them. |
|
2nd round: |
18 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Description of the tail eliminates Rivoli's, and
nothing described is out of the range of normal variation for
Blue-throated. |
|
David W. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
First, let me just say I am almost misty with
nostalgia at the type-written description.
Second, I am astounded at the amazing hummingbirds that came to Jerome's
feeder.
Third, his description sounds compelling to me. |
|
2nd round: |
5 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
Nothing further to add. |
2021-27 Vaux's
Swift
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Marginal, but adequate, description.
Vaux's Swift are regular migrants through Utah. |
|
2nd round: |
25 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
I agree this is a marginal record, and I admit I have a low standard for
accepting Vaux's Swift observations as they are regular migrants through
Utah (annual in numbers), so in this case I'm okay going with probability
without details systematically ruling out the extremely unlikely Chimney
Swift (or the other 9 or 10 species of Chaetura swifts) |
|
Stephanie
G. |
25 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Details are too sparse for me to feel
comfortable to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
Likely a Vaux's but the details of the record
are too lacking for me to accept. |
|
Mike H. |
18 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
Great year for Vaux s Swifts moving through the
State, but I don t feel there is enough on the description to
differentiate from the less likely Chimney. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Jul 2021 |
No, ID |
Will stick with the opinion that the record
doesn t eliminate CHSW. |
|
Bryant
O. |
19 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Very poorly written record, no attempt to
eliminate Chimney Swift or even Swallows. Maybe he saw a Swift, but there
is no way to know what kind. |
|
2nd round: |
20 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
I wanted to clarify my problem with the write up on this record. The
record was incompletely filled out and missing critical information,
specifically length of time observed and distance to the bird, so we have
no idea what kind of look the observer got of this bird. They also failed
to consider some similar species, namely Black and especially Chimney
Swift. The assumption of the observer seems to be there are only 2 swifts
in Utah, that assumption is false. No mention of their experience with
swifts other than saying they have seen WTSW before. Also am I the only
one concerned with this observers use of a pseudonym on this record? That
is not something we want to encourage as it is in essence falsify
information on the record. Did Milt add the real name to the record? |
|
Mike S. |
5 Jun 2021 |
To 2nd |
The description fits a Vaux's Swift, but is it
detailed enough? I believe the description is decent enough to eliminate
swallows and White-throated Swift. So now we are again left with the
question of probability and whether we are okay with no effort to rule out
a (much less likely) Chimney Swift? I believe I voted "no" on a Vaux's
Swift record about a year ago for this reason, so for the sake of
consistency, that's the direction I'm leaning on this one. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
Not enough here to ID to species, in my opinion. |
|
Bryan S. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
4 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
26 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
I don't know why we are reviewing Vaux's Swifts
as they are regular migrants through the state. I think the emphasis of
reviewing swifts should be if and when records are turned in for Chimney
Swift. |
|
Mark S. |
16 May 2021 |
No, ID |
Odds are that he saw a Vaux's Swift, but there's
nothing in this record that could eliminate Chimney Swift. |
|
2nd round: |
20 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
He probably saw a Vaux's Swift, but Chimney Swift can't be ruled out. |
|
David W. |
12 May 2021 |
No, ID |
I do not think this record has adequately ruled
out Chimney swift. |
|
2nd round: |
25 Jun 2021 |
No, ID |
I am sticking with my first round vote and
comment. I am pleased that the record has been updated with the actual
name of the person submitting it. Bryant is correct that pseudonyms are
inappropriate in this forum (unless accompanied by a Rosetta Stone
translating them to their true identity). |
2021-28 Baltimore Oriole
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
18 May 2021 |
Acc |
Nice record |
|
Stephanie
G. |
25 May 2021 |
Acc |
Great find |
|
Mike H. |
18 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Photo shows a BAOR. |
|
Bryant
O. |
13 May 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show a male BAOR, no doubt about it. No
sign of hybridization either |
|
Mike S. |
5 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Good photos show a male Baltimore Oriole. |
|
Bryan S. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
16 May 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
17 May 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show adult male Baltimore Oriole with no
signs of hybridization. |
|
David W. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
Although it has a funky breast line, I think
this bird is a Baltimore. I wish more effort had been put into the written
portion of this record, but the excellent photos tell the tale. |
2021-29 Ancient Murrelet
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
25 Jun 2021 |
No, Nat |
This is a very peculiar record, with vague
locality, some ambiguous details, etc. Why the elapsed time between
reporting and hearing of the record, why was the specimen sent to UC Davis
(rather than a local university museum via UDWR), is there any chance of
mix up in labels, origin, etc. ? |
|
Stephanie
G. |
25 May 2021 |
Acc |
Wild find |
|
2nd round: |
12 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
Thanks to Mark's sleuthing I'm voting to accept
this outstanding record. |
|
Mike H. |
18 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
1 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
When reading Mike S s comments from the first
round, I thought I was reading the comments I had thought I typed in
verbatim. I guess I only thought them! Anyways, I feel that provenance is
the only issue here, but without some sort of evidence that may lead to
the location being erroneous or of the bird catching a ride on something,
I think the record is good. |
|
Bryant
O. |
17 May 2021 |
Acc |
Although the circumstances of this birds
occurrence are extremely poorly documented by the record and the UC Davis
museum, it is without a doubt an Ancient Murrelet. If I recall, it was
posted in one of the facebook groups as being found on main street in
Orem, not sure how or why that data did not make it into the record.
Honestly I find that rehabs generally take very poor records of the
wildlife they service, such as location or circumstances of injury, which
seems a real waste as that data could be very valuable in informing
patterns of occurrence to potentially eliminate or reduce future
injuries/deaths of wildlife. |
|
2nd round: |
4
Jul 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike S. |
15 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
The photos clearly show an Ancient Murrelet. The
only possible concern could be provenance, as there appears to be some
uncertainty regarding the exact location this bird was picked up. However,
it seems unlikely someone would scoop up a Murrelet and drive it across
state lines. I will assume that the info passed along to Second Chance
Wildlife Rehab was reliable, at least the "Utah County" part.
Setting that aside, this is a great record! (...even if the circumstances
are a bit unfortunate.) |
|
2nd round: |
13
Jul 2021 |
Acc |
My confidence in this record is bolstered with
the added location details.
Thanks to Mark for doing the detective work! |
|
Bryan S. |
19 May 2021 |
Acc |
Wow ! |
|
2nd round: |
4 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
17 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
26 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
6 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
There's no question about the i.d., the only
issue is the unclear location, though "Utah County" is sufficient for a
Utah record. Perhaps we should do some sleuthing to find out more
precisely where it was found. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
With better location details regarding the
finding of this bird, we have a well-documented record of a remarkable
occurrence in Utah. |
|
David W. |
23 May 2021 |
Acc |
Hard to argue with those excellent photos, both
pre & post mortem. Much thanks to the submitter of the record for getting
this to the Committee. |
|
2nd round: |
19 Jul 2021 |
Acc |
Thanks to the good investigative work of Mark,
et al, we now have a better idea of this bird's provenance. The ID was
never in question, but now we have a better idea how this unfortunate
individual wound up in Zion. |
2021-30 Vaux's Swift
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Rick F. |
25 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
nice record |
|
Stephanie
G. |
25 May 2021 |
Acc |
short blunt tail, all brown swift. Chimney Swift
adequately ruled out |
|
Mike H. |
18 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
26 May 2021 |
Acc |
Description carried this one for me, poor photo
shows a swift but nothing more |
|
Mike S. |
15 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Good description. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Steve S. |
17 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Vaux's Swift seems to be a fairly common migrant
through the state both spring and fall. Not sure why we are still
reviewing this species. |
|
Mark S. |
6 Jun 2021 |
Acc |
Good description adequately eliminates Chimney
Swift; photos only show a Chaetura swift. |
|
David W. |
23 May 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent write-up. What a year for this species
in Utah, as is evidenced by it being the first species to pop up when I
clicked the Species field. |
|