|
2021-61 Red-throated Loon
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
24 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Continuing to accept. |
|
Mike H. |
15 Nov 2021 |
To 2nd |
|
|
2nd round: |
27 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
There were a couple of things on this bird that
I had concerns with when initially looking at the record. Admittedly, I
wanted to spend more time on this observation than I had at the time so, I
kicked the record to the second round to buy me more time. |
|
Max M. |
25 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
27 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Pretty straight forward juvi RTLO, and I was
able to confirm ID myself. Continuing to accept. |
|
Bryant
O. |
24 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
8 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Not sure what the concern is with this one? Only
thing it could be confused with is a Pacific, but there were 2 Pacific
also present giving direct comparisons, even in the same field of view of
the scope. There is a striking difference in head and bill shape between
the two species as well as throat pattern. |
|
Mike S. |
23 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Photos and description confirm the ID. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryan S. |
27 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Good description. Photos show Red-throated Loon. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I have no problems with this record. |
|
David W. |
24 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
Good writeup. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
My confidence is unshaken |
|
Kevin
W. |
2 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show good characteristics for
Red-throated Loon, including the angle of the head, shape of bill. |
|
2nd round: |
20 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Looks like a Red-throated Loon. |
2021-62 Chestnut-sided
Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
26 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
Well darnit |
|
Mike H. |
3 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Max M. |
26 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
Too bad it was a window strike. . . 3rd
Chestnut-sided this year? |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
Photos leave no doubt on ID, no reason to
believe it died elsewhere and was transported to that location, although a
full frame view of the strike area might eliminate all doubt as they often
leave a smudge on the glass |
|
Mike S. |
23 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Definitive photo |
|
Bryan S. |
27 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark S. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Photo is definitive. |
|
David W. |
26 Oct 2021 |
Acc |
Guess this isn't one to chase. Excellent, if
somewhat sad, photo. |
|
Kevin
W. |
2 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Photos seem good for a female Chestnut-sided
Warbler, including the white eye-ring, bright greenish back, and plain
chest/belly. |
2021-63 Mexican Duck
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
22 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
continuing to accept. i think it's as 'pure" as
one would expect for a utah record |
|
Mike H. |
13 Dec 2021 |
To 2nd |
I struggle with this bird. First, although I understand why we are
reviewing it, it is not technically its own species. Second, research has
shown the low percentage of a pure Mexican Duck being this far north.
Looking more towards what others think and may just go with the flow . |
|
2nd round: |
27 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I agree completely agree with Mike S s
sentiment. |
|
Max M. |
4 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
2nd round: |
20 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Continuing to accept |
|
Bryant
O. |
2 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
About as good as it gets for a pure Mexican in
the states |
|
2nd round: |
20 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I see no obvious indication of hybrid in this
one |
|
Mike
S. |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I think that almost all Mexican Duck records in
Utah can be nit-picked to the point of arguing against the ID. I believe
all of these records should be reviewed cautiously. However, I also
believe that records shouldn't be dismissed based on the possibility of
very subtle Mallard traits. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I'm sure some individuals will continue to give
us a headache, but this one looks solid. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
To 2nd |
Overall it looks good, but in some light
(specifically photo D) appears to have some green tint to the head
feathers but it doesn't show in other photos. Curious to read comments
from others |
|
Mark
S. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos; checks all the boxes with no
signs of being a hybrid. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
If we're looking for hypothetical genetic purity
on this species, we'll never find it in Utah. This individual falls well
into the non-hybrid area phenotypically. |
|
David
W. |
9 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
As has been noted by Sibley, Fridell, and other
birding greats, Mexican ducks in the US and even in Mexico are intergrades
to various degrees. So it really is pointless to look for a "pure" Mexican
duck in Utah. That being said, this bird has some good southern qualities:
-- there appear to be no curly tail feathers as found in male mallards
-- the area below the tail is not white
-- the dark on the head does not look very green
-- good contrast between head and body, although the breast looks more
chestnut than the rest, suggesting some Mallard ancestry
-- nice yellow bill with no black gape spot (as on a Mottled duck)
-
I'm going to vote YES and see what the rest of you think. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I don't know how it's possible, but I still
think this guy made it over that beautiful wall. |
|
Kevin
W. |
2 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
This looks like a good Mexican Duck to me. Dark
undertail coverts, neck color contrasts with breast color, and lack of
upturned tail feathers all show good in photos. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Still think it looks like a Mexican Duck. |
2021-64 Parasitic Jaeger
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
sparse description, other jaeger species not
effectively ruled out |
|
Max M. |
4 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
Not enough here to eliminate similar Jaeger
species |
|
Bryant
O. |
2 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
No attempt made to eliminate Long-tailed or
Pomarine Jaeger. Parasitic are notably smaller than a California gull, I'm
not convinced they didn't just see a juvenile California Gull. This was
seen during the time that many people were there looking for the reported
Prothonotary Warbler, strange no one else of the many there also reported
a Jaeger. |
|
Mike
S. |
7 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I'm actually not convinced that this description
rules out a first-cycle California Gull. In addition, there is no mention
of how other Jaeger species were eliminated. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Inadequate description and no attempt to
differentiate from other jaeger species, plus only a 5 second view |
|
Mark
S. |
15 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
This was very likely a Parasitic Jaeger, but
there are no photos, and the description is barely adequate to call it a
jaeger, let alone distinguish which species it was, especially in juvenile
plumage. Not enough to go on here. |
|
David
W. |
7 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I appreciate the effort of the observer to
submit this record to the Committee, but there is very little here by way
of species- or even genus-specific information to evaluate. If someone on
the Committee knows the observer, perhaps they could encourage him to
submit some more (and more precise) field marks for our consideration.
This submittal process is not always intuitive to a first time submitter. |
|
Kevin
W. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
This may have been a Parasitic Jaeger, but I
don't think enough detail is given to rule out other more likely species
(gulls). |
2021-65 Scissor-tailed Flycatcher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
3 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
Max M. |
4 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
3 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Well written record and photos leave no doubt |
|
Mike
S. |
9 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show a Scissor-tailed Flycatcher. |
|
Bryan S. |
15 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark
S. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Scant description and poor photographs, but for
such a distinctive species, they're good enough. |
|
David
W. |
3 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
As the observer noted, this is a pretty unique
bird in this part of the world. |
|
Kevin
W. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Photos are definitive. |
2021-66 Parasitic Jaeger
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
I dont know if we can narrow this one down to
the species level safely |
|
2nd round: |
22 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
not at the species level |
|
Mike H. |
13 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I don t feel there is enough in the description
or photos to eliminate other jaeger sp. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Jan 2021 |
No, ID |
Still feel there isn t enough information. |
|
Max M. |
15 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
I am kind of on the fence with this one. This
could very easily be a Parasitic Jaeger, and the photos, although poor
somewhat support the record, but I don't think other species have been
adequately eliminated. Curious to see what other reviewers think. |
|
2nd round: |
20 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I think DW may have accidentally accepted, but
sticking with my original vote. Not enough in the record for definitive
ID. |
|
Keeli M. 2nd: |
4 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
Not enough evidence to rule out other
jaeger spp, pictures are no help. |
|
Bryant
O. |
6 Nov 2021 |
To 2nd |
Observers lack of experience with Jaeger ID is a
problem and they did not really touch on most of the necessary field marks
to eliminate other Jaeger species, and made no real attempt to do so.
Photos are of no help. However based on their description of the tail it
probably was a Parasitic. |
|
2nd round: |
20 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
My concerns were echoed by others and I agree
not good enough to eliminate all other Jaeger species |
|
Mike
S. |
9 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
This may have been a Parasitic Jaeger, but the
limited written documentation and very poor photos leave me unconvinced. |
|
2nd round: |
29 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Looks like we're all on the same page. |
|
Bryan S. |
15 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't think the description eliminates other
jaegers and pictures are not worth a lot |
|
Mark
S. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
We must be running a special on jaegers with
indistinct, functionally useless photographs. Unfortunately, this record
also lacks enough written description, and the observer enough experience,
to determine the species here. Given the trend this year, Parasitic would
be a good guess, but I can't make that call based upon the evidence
presented. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Not enough here to establish i.d. to species. |
|
David
W. |
7 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't think this report is specific enough to
eliminate other jaegers. On an appreciative note, I did enjoy the
treatment of gulls in the similar species portion: "Gulls, no." Many
people feel that way about those rascal larids. |
|
2nd round: |
17 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Nothing to add. |
|
Kevin
W. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
I'm not sure that the photos nor description are
definitive enough. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Not a good enough description to rule out other
species. |
2021-67 Red-throated Loon
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Photo shows what appears to be a RTLO. |
|
Max M. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Bryant
O. |
10 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike
S. |
9 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Photos combined with the description establish
the ID. Nice job on the similar species section. |
|
Bryan S. |
15 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark
S. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Good description. The shape visible in the
photos is distinctive. |
|
David
W. |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Photos tell the tale. Nice writeup. |
|
Kevin
W. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Good description. Photos not the best, but the
general shape and upturned bill fit. |
2021-68 Black-throated
Blue Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike H. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Well documented rarity. |
|
Max M. |
15 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Lovely bird. I've been waiting to see a male of
this species for a long time, glad I was able to see it myself. |
|
Bryant
O. |
16 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike
S. |
9 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I see a blue warbler with a black throat. Nice
photos! |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark
S. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Unmistakable. |
|
David
W. |
23 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Definitive photos, good writeup of a very
distinctive species. |
|
Kevin
W. |
20 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent photos definitively show
Black-throated Blue Warbler. |
2021-69 Rusty Blackbird
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
Sparse description with no mention of eye color |
|
Mike H. |
27 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Without photos, the description alone falls
short of being able to ID this bird. |
|
Max M. |
27 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
Eye ring? huh? Sorry - speechless on this one. |
|
Bryant
O. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
Eyering? Rusty can have a prominent supercilium
and a dark line through the eye giving a masked look, but not an eyering
as far as I know. No mention of rusty plumage on the back or wings, no
mention of iris color, no mention of undertail coverts. Not sure what they
saw, and based on this description we may never know. |
|
Mike
S. |
15 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
The description does not adequately rule out a
drab nonbreeding Brewer's Blackbird, which would stand out in a flock of
glossy black individuals. There is also no mention of the extent of
rustiness, nor the level of dark contrast around the eye. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
|
|
Mark
S. |
17 Nov 2021 |
No, ID |
Probably a good record, but not enough detail in
the description to know. |
|
David
W. |
7 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
There is not enough here for me to evaluate. I
am not sure what the observer means by "eyering." Perhaps he meant a pale
iris. But even so, I would need more detail to get it down to species. |
|
Kevin
W. |
20 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I don't think that there's enough information in
this record to be sure it was a Rusty Blackbird. The only characteristics
used to differentiate from a Brewer's were "slightly lighter plumage" and
and "eyering"- which both seem odd field marks to note. Rusty Blackbirds
don't really have an eyering, and plumage color can vary. |
2021-70 Western Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I hemmed and hawed about this one due to the
poor photos, but I can't see another species this could be. |
|
Mike H. |
27 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Max M. |
27 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Poor photos, but excellent description rules out
similar species. I still need to see one of these buggers in Utah. . .
hope it sticks around this winter. |
|
Bryant
O. |
17 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike
S. |
29 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
I believe the written documentation eliminates
similar species, and the blurry photos don't contradict the description.
The side-by-side comparison with HEGUs is especially helpful here, and I
believe the combination of described field marks eliminates this species,
as well as the others mentioned. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark
S. |
12 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Good documentation; the photos, though very
poor, at least show two very good features for this species - the bulbous
bill tip and the dark mask. |
|
David
W. |
17 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Detailed and convincing description. Nice
writeup! |
|
Kevin
W. |
21 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
The description and elimination of other gulls
seems thorough. Photos could be more definitive, but do show a thick,
droopy bill. |
2021-71 Chestnut-sided
Warbler
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Clear observation |
|
Mike H. |
27 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Max M. |
27 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Beautiful little bird. I've seen thousands of
these buggers in the mid-west over the years (monitored 12-16 nests a year
on the property I managed in Wisconsin from 2013-2017), but a Utah first
for me. Given their success with 2nd story growth as a result of logging
practices in the Midwest and increasing numbers, I wouldn't be surprised
if they become a more regular visitor in UT. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike
S. |
15 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Clear photos of a distinctive species. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark
S. |
12 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Distinctive. The photos are conclusive. |
|
David
W. |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Well-documented distinctive species. Great
photos. |
|
Kevin
W. |
21 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show distinctive greenish back and wings
of a female Chestnut-sided Warbler. |
2021-72 Little Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Obviously a little gull, dark undewings, small
bill. Nice find! |
|
Mike H. |
13 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Max M. |
29 Nov 2021 |
Acc |
Bryant and I had been looking for one of these
for weeks. . . very pleasant surprise. Fun to have one of Utah's original
birders share the experience with us. |
|
Bryant
O. |
1 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Just to clarify encase I didn't make this clear
in the written record, the under wings were strikingly black ;-) |
|
Mike
S. |
29 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Great photos clearly show a Little Gull. |
|
Bryan S. |
14 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Mark
S. |
12 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. |
|
David
W. |
7 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Looks good to me. Very good photos & writeup. |
|
Kevin
W. |
21 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Photos show the dark underwing of a Little Gull;
seems sufficient for me. |
2021-73 White-tailed
Kite
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
22 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
exceptional record! |
|
Mike H. |
27 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Observed and documented by many. |
|
Max M. |
20 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Great find and documentation - wish I had time
to go see this bird! |
|
Bryant
O. |
20 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
|
|
Kris P. |
1 Jan 2022 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike
S. |
29 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Definitive photos |
|
Mark
S. |
30 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation of an unmistakable
species. |
|
David
W. |
17 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Well-documented distinctive species. |
|
Kevin
W. |
30 Dec 2021 |
Acc |
Photos are definitive |
2021-74 Snowy Owl
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
22 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
did not eliminate similar species |
|
2nd round: |
24 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
Continued no. Did not eliminate similar species.
Too much room for Mis-ID |
|
Mike H. |
27 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Although the observer may have very well seen a
SNOW, I feel it s best to be very cautious with inexperienced birders
reporting these without photo documentation. There have been too many
erroneous reports of what are most likely Barn Owls. Also, when
inexperienced it is very easy to convince yourself that what you saw in
the field is what you re looking at online or in a field guide. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
Still agree 100% with my initial thoughts. |
|
Max M. |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
I followed up with the record submitter via
email, and he thought the "Snowy Owl" might nest above his house. . .
Bryant, my dad and I investigated (given this seems like a reasonable
location and an irruption year of sorts for SNOW) and the habitat was
marginal at best, especially in the two locations that he reported to have
seen the bird. I am not sure what you confuse a Snowy Owl with, maybe a
Barn Owl, but personally I don't think there is enough here to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
Concerns echoed by others |
|
Keeli M. |
4 Jan 2022 |
To 2nd |
Description and location are consistent with
snowy owl sighting but I hesitate to accept without photos. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
Not evidence to rule out other species, not
enough familiarity with observer to know level of experience, not enough
supporting documentation. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Although the actual description of the bird does
sound like a Snowy Owl, the incompletely filed out record raises a lot of
red flags. No mention of their experience with IDing owls, no mention of
similar species, no mention of the size of the bird etc, so I have no idea
what experience level they have with raptors or owls. I wonder if there is
a way we can make every field required to have at least something written
in it before a record can be submitted? Again, records without physical
evidence require a very thorough written description to eliminate all
other similar species, this record falls short of that. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
I've heard no argument for this being accepted,
so I will continue my original opinion. |
|
Kris P.
2nd: |
11 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
Too many red flags.
- Observer acknowledges the level of rarity, but introduces the
possibility that he may have seen a second one in the area.
- Distinct lack of any Snowy Owl reports west of the Rockies (in eBird)
this winter with the exception of a few in Washington.
- Expression of 100% confidence. Confidence is not data, facts, truth or
even falsehood. It's a belief based on some form of analysis and may not
be supported by anything factual. I think this sighting was a remarkable
experience for the observer, but falls into the category of seeing hoof
prints and concluding it must be a zebra. I think it's more likely that
this bird was a Barn Owl. |
|
Mike
S. |
6 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
I have several concerns with this record.
First, a 5-second view may not be enough time to eliminate a Barn Owl if
you have no previous experience with this species. Second, no optical
equipment was used. Third, we have no way of knowing whether other species
were even considered since this section of the report form is blank.
Fourth, some parts of this description (such as "speckled pattern") could
be describing a Barn Owl.
All things considered, I don't think the documentation is sufficient to
accept. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
No changes of opinion... |
|
Mark
S. |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
There are some things about the description that
don't fit Snowy Owl. In particular, the speckled upperparts, especially
the back of the head, would indicate an immature, but an immature wouldn't
have an all-white belly. We aren't told whether the speckling is blackish,
or brownish.
I don't think that we can completely eliminate the possibility that this
was a Barn Owl from this description. It's also odd that such a
distinctive bird was never re-found. |
|
David
W. |
27 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Although this 5 second sighting might indeed
have been of a Snowy owl, the record is too vague for me to vote to
accept. There is no description of structure which would differentiate
this bird from a variety of pale raptors or other leucistic/pale owls (Google,
for example, "pale Great horned owl" and see birds matching this
description). Hopefully the bird will return and the observer will get a
photo or at least a third opportunity at recording some more field marks.
Certainly, the reported habitat is appropriate for this species. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
I still think that there is insufficient
evidence in this record to vote to accept. |
|
Kevin
W. |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
When I talk to normal (not birding) people about
owls; many of them have seen pale-looking owls that they think must have
been snowy owls. I need more than this observer's confidence to accept it. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Feb 2022 |
No, ID |
I still don't think there's enough her to accept
as a Snowy Owl record. |
2021-75 Purple
Gallinule
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Stephanie
G. |
24 Jan 2022 |
Acc |
I'm actually going to accept this record. The size and shape seems to be
on point from what I can tell. I think juv coot has been effectively
eliminated with the report. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
In light of others comments I'm changing my vote
to no. Too much doubt has been cast with behavior, distance, and lack of
other observations. |
|
Max M. |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Bryant and I followed up on this bird the day
after it was initially reported as a Common Gallinule. There was one oddly
colored juvenile American Coot in the group of coots at the exact
location, with some of the same plumage characteristics visible in the
photos. With difficult distance and lighting conditions, I am having a
hard time with this one. Would like to see other reviewers thoughts. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
Concerns unchanged. |
|
Keeli M. 2nd: |
8 Feb 2021 |
No, ID |
Really thorough write-up, so bravo for that. I
don't believe the evidence lends enough support for Purple Gallinule or
for ruling out Common Gallinule. That white stripe really throws me off
the PUGA ID. |
|
Bryant
O. |
31 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Angie is one of my Community Science volunteers
and I've always been impressed by her precision due to her medical science
background, and kudos to her for doing such a good job on this record, so
many records lack good details these days. Nevertheless I'm not convinced
this actually was a Purple Gallinule. Admittedly I chased their eBird
report (of a Common Gallinule) and only found one weird looking immature
coot mixed in with the raft of coots they described, from the same viewing
location they described. We were there later in the afternoon the same day
when the angle of the sun offered better viewing yet we still struggled
with the young coot due to the distance. I think the distance and the
angle of the sun at noon (note zenith would be at around 1:30pm due to
daylight savings time) meant that their viewing circumstances would have
been much worse. Young coots can have a yellowish bill and do have much
more white on the UTC than adults, and because of their "teenage
awkwardness" behave different than adults. Also immature PUGA don't
acquire purple underwings until almost mature when they have a messy
purple belly, I'm not sure that wasn't just an illusion of light in the
scope? Is it possible they saw a bird that we didn't see later in the
afternoon? Yes, but never the less I just don't feel immature coot has
been completely eliminated as a possibility, much less Common Gallinule.
Photos are pretty inconclusive but do seem to show a knob on the forehead
that would favor Coot. I admit I have little experience with immature PUGA
so could be wrong.
On a tangent, Common Gallinule has all but disappeared from Utah and even
in the St. George area has shown a sever decline, most recent records are
"audibles" which could actually be Coots. It might be a good idea to add
Common Gallinule to the review list too? I would say their current status
in Utah is unknown and obscured by mis-identification, which would seem to
warrant review to clarify. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Feb 2022 |
No, ID |
It sounds like most of us have concerns about
the distance and lighting circumstances. Also the point of PUGA not likely
to be swimming seems to raise an additional red flag. With such an out of
range vagrant I feel the burden of proof has not been meet for this
record. |
|
Kris P. |
8 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
The level of analysis and earnestness of the
submitter is really commendable, but such a distant sighting in poor
lighting conditions caused observed/photographed details to change. The
poor images (although likely the best that could be captured under the
circumstances) were further undermined by the narrative frequently
qualifying that the actual observation showed something else. While I
couldn't conclude that this bird was a Purple Gallinule, I also couldn't
conclude that it wasn't. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Feb 2022 |
No, ID |
Multiple comments noting the bird's atypical
behavior of swimming in the open further bolsters the conclusion that this
was not a Purple Gallinule. |
|
Mike
S. 2nd: |
31 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
I spent a few days pondering this record and had
my first round comment ready to submit, but then apparently forgot. So are
my thoughts:
I commend the observer for this lengthy write-up. I can imagine a good
amount of time must have gone into this, and the details provided are
quite substantive.
However, I do have concerns about the distance observed, harsh light, and
unusual behavior for a Purple Gallinule (swimming in open water away from
any vegetative cover). I m not seeing enough detail in any of these photos
to be confident about the ID, and I don't believe the most likely
possibility (an immature American Coot) can be ruled out. The extensive
white undertail coverts would be consistent with a PUGA, but coots can
also show lots of white when swimming with their tail in an upright
position. I'm not sure what to make of the "purple underwings," but again
wonder about the reliability of this given the distance observed and harsh
lighting conditions. All things considered, I believe there is too much
uncertainty to accept. |
|
Mark
S. |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
Well, I hate to do this to my successor, and I
appreciate all the work the observer put into analyzing this record, but I
don't think that the conditions of the observation, nor the quality of the
photos are sufficient to unequivocally support the i.d. of this bird as a
Purple Gallinule. Much is made of the purple underwings as a diagnostic
feature, but even adult PUGA don't have purple underwings, so I have to
conclude that this observation was a trick of the light.
If the bird was an adult the identification would be straightforward.
Juvenile PUGA are a much warmer brown/fawn color than the photos show,
even taking into account the tough lighting. The bird in question is not
much different in color than the adjacent AMCO.
The tail shape/posture/whiteness is the strongest point in favor of PUGA
over COGA, but even that doesn't rise to the level of "diagnostic" in
either the photos or the description, given that COGA can exhibit similar
enough features to be confusing under such difficult observational
conditions. The posture regarding the wings that is presented as a
potentially distinctive feature is also too similar in both species to be
of much help here.
Part of the problem is the fact that the bird was swimming in the open -
an uncommon position for any gallinule, but especially rare for PUGA.
There is a paucity of information and relatively few photos of either
species in this situation.
My general impression based upon the structure and seeing both species
quite frequently (I just saw a juvenile PUGA a couple of hours ago),
especially from the first photo, is of a COGA. Although I don't think the
evidence here is clear enough to support either species, I'd have an
easier time believing COGA than PUGA. |
|
David
W. |
7 Jan 2022 |
No, ID |
I am torn about this record, leaning toward NO.
That white "racing stripe" is prominent in most of the photos, and often
occurs far above the water line (like a Moorhen/Common gallinule). The red
on the bill seems to extend all the way to the top of the bill shield, but
that may be an artifact of blowing up the photo past its useful size (i.e.
edge effects). The habitat is entirely wrong, as this species is very
closely associated with thickly vegetated marshes rather than open water
adjacent to a sandy beach. It is reported to swim infrequently and
reluctantly. When swimming, the Purple gallinule is reported to have a
steeply upsloped straight back, which this does not. I am willing to
be convinced, but am currently skeptical.
Intriguing record. |
|
2nd round: |
1 Feb 2022 |
No, ID |
No further thoughts. |
|
Kevin
W. |
30 Dec 2021 |
No, ID |
In spite of the observer's insistence on this
being a Purple Gallinule, the photos seem to contradict the description,
particularly the white mark across the wing. It looks like a Common
Gallinule to me. I'm interested to know others' thoughts. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Feb 2022 |
No, ID |
I remain unconvinced that this is a Purple
Gallinule. |
|