Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2025 (records 1 through 50)

2025-01 Northern Cardinal

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C 8 Jan 2025 No, ID Washington County would be a reasonable location for such a vagrant to appear, but the record leaves me with questions. I read the record several times to become clear on whether the words represented the observer s description and previous experience with the species or the description of and experience with the species by the submitter, who did not observe the bird. The showing of field guides to the observer by the submitter left me with the impression that the observer wasn t sure of the species that visited the feeder. For such a vagrant, I d like more conclusive documentation from the observer s perspective before accepting the record.
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 No, ID This is a very odd record. Written by the parent of the observer? How old is her daughter? How much experience does she have? I don't think the mother's experience qualifies for the observer. Showing someone pictures of birds in a book may lead to thinking they saw something that may be different than was actually observed, and then the record submitter describes a cardinal from a field guide? I don't think there is enough here to accept an exceptional species like Northern Cardinal without more information.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 To 2nd Description seems like it rules out other species, however, observer doesn't explicitly discuss how other species were actually ruled out. Soft accept but wondering what other board members think about this one.
Bryant O. 5 Jan 2025 No, ID Although on the surface this looks like a good record, at the very end under additional info, we see that this whole record is a 2nd hand report by a parent speaking for their child, therefore it is hearsay. There is no information on the age or experience of the child and the person writing the record did not see the bird, which is very problematic. There is at least one other report of a NOCA in Washington county recently, and this would fit the expected pattern of their occurrence in Utah(unlike many other records) but I don't think a second hand report from a parent for their child is a scientifically valid record
Kris P. 11 Feb 2025 No, nat This record is confusing and misleading, and I wouldn't accept it for those reasons if we had voting categories to match. But we don't, so I'm not accepting it because neither the observer nor the submitter established that the bird is wild and not an escapee.

I think the misleading nature of this record is unintentional. My e-mail inquiries to clear up the confusion have gone unanswered.

I believe Lucy Ormond submitted this record on behalf of her daughter, Adrienne. Lucy filed an eBird checklist from the same address on the same date and with the same details as in record 2025-01, except she didn't mention that her daughter was the observer and she (Lucy) didn't see it:

https://ebird.org/checklist/S206977609

Note that Lucy also comments she thought the bird was a stray from Arizona; the same comment that appears a couple times in the record. But her name doesn't appear on the record anywhere.

Very confusing is that the observer, Adrienne Shoell, also uses the name Annie. Misleading, if my conjecture is right, is that Lucy may have entered her own experience with the species rather than Adrienne/Annie's. (I don't think an observer with the experience listed would need to be shown a Northern Cardinal and other red birds in eight field guides to confirm what she saw.)

I e-mailed Adrienne at the e-mail address in the record in early January to clear up the mystery. She has not replied. She might not even be aware of the UBRC or that a sight record was submitted on her behalf. Or maybe my message ended up in her spam folder. I also e-mailed Lucy in mid-January and haven't received a reply while allowing extra time because she wasn't available during part of that period. While I have Lucy's phone number and birded with her once, I think additional attempts to straighten this out are too intrusive and unnecessary because I've confirmed most of this information through publicly-available sources.

I don't think Adrienne is a birder nor is she in a position to evaluate a Northern Cardinal for signs of captivity. Those would be under-pigmented feathers, unusual feather wear and unwary behavior. Even experienced birders may not know these are concerns for a certain subset of songbirds, and the additional comments don't include trying to establish the bird's wild status.

2nd round:

21 Feb 2025 No, nat I'm staying with my No, Nat vote for the second round. There are myriad reasons not to accept this record, and others I described without realizing it in my first round comments: This record was submitted anonymously, perhaps not intentionally. I don't think following the scientific method ever allows for data bases to accept anonymous records. This circumstance probably should result in an automatic 'Not Accept' regardless of the content of the record. Another that I mentioned is that the means of contacting the citizen scientist involved in this sighting is not viable, or my inquiry was simply ignored--also not acceptable when following the scientific method. The details of the observation and species elimination are irrelevant in light of the fact that neither the "scientist" nor the submitter are available to answer questions about the observation. This, to me, is akin to submitting a phD dissertation to a panel of academics and then never being available to defend the thesis, all the while expecting to be published: No.
Mike S. 23 Jan 2025 No, ID This is a potentially intriguing and truly unusual record. If this description was a first-hand account of this bird, I would likely vote to accept. However, the secondhand account from the submitter's daughter introduces some uncertainty. I think it was prudent of the submitter of this record to allow her daughter to point out the bird that she saw in field guides, and she may well have seen a Northern Cardinal. However, this is a very unusual circumstance, and I don't believe we have much precedent for accepting records submitted by someone other than the observer (except for maybe some exceptional circumstances where there was a photo or other definitive documentation that could be traced back to the observer).

The fact that Adrienne is apparently too young to submit her own sight record introduces some additional concerns...

I hope Adrienne becomes an avid birder and adds this one to her life list, but I don't feel comfortable accepting this rarity based on the unusual circumstances of this record. I'm interested to see what others have to say...
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 No, ID Due to the extreme rarity of this species ( only 4 site records) along with the unauthorized introduction in the 1990's in Utah County, this record is hard to accept based on the one short observation time, and no additional later observations at the feeder.
Mark S. 11 Jan 2025 Acc This is a soft accept, due to the irregular nature of the submission and the observation. The description clearly fits Northern Cardinal, but it's unclear whether the report is being submitted by the actual observer.

There are always questions regarding natural occurrence for this species, but at least this location would be logical for a naturally occurring vagrant.
Kevin W. 24 Jan 2025 No, ID Although the description of characters in this submission would eliminate other possibilities, I have several concerns. Primarily, that this bird was observed by the daughter of the submitter, who didn't see the bird herself (the report doesn't indicate the age of the observer). Also, the bird supposedly only showed once at a feeder, although other people were watching the feeders regularly.The fact that the observer then had to look through a book to find a bird that fits what she remembered indicates little or no experience with the species. I'm not sure the record is trustworthy enough to accept.

 

2025-02 Gilded Flicker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 10 Jan 2025 No, ID I took extra measures with this record because it reminded me of the Gilded Flicker record from last January (2024-04). The brown/cinnamon cap and nape of our current bird initially gave me the impression of a male Gilded Flicker. But closer observation seemed to reveal that the forehead color was slightly warmer or brighter than the rest of the crown and nape in some images. Beyond the head, the rest of our review bird appears to be typical of Northern Flicker (Red-shafted). First and foremost, Red/orange shafts can be seen in the primary and secondary feathers in photos C, D, and F. A hint of that color also appears in the lighter spots in the folded primaries. These traits do not support the Gilded Flicker ID.

I generated a list of images that are labeled Northern Flicker (Red-shafted) in the Macaulay Library that show the same cap and nape traits as our review bird but also clearly show the red/orange color expected for Northern Flicker (Red-shafted) on the undersides of flight feathers. Some were even labeled as Red x Yellow-shafted intergrades. Sibley notes that Red x Yellow-shafted Northern Flicker intergrades can appear similar to Gilded Flickers. Our bird seems to lack the red nape crescent often seen on red x yellow-shafted intergrades, but rather than confirm that such is the case with this bird, I took the approach of determining whether this bird is a pure Gilded Flicker as submitted. While not the most reliable traits due to variation among individual birds, I reviewed and noted that our review bird also appeared to have a darker brown dorsal color, bolder barring across the folded wings and back, more uniformly round black spots on the sides and flanks, and a breast patch that comes to a sharp point on the bird’s right side (although its left side is less so). Again, I recognize that these traits vary among individuals in both species, but I wanted to consider all traits in the balance. The scale tilted away from a pure Gilded Flicker.

Final note: After finishing my review of the complete record with its images and confirming that it was permitted, I reached out to the observer to see if he had any other images that could supplement the record. I received several images clearly showing the undertail feathers characteristic of Northern Flicker (Red-shafted). I forwarded those images to the secretary and webmaster to be included in the record.

2nd round:

30 Jan 2025 No, ID For the same reasons noted in my first round vote.
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 No, ID While the bird pictured does have a brown nape, this trait can be pretty extensive in Red-shafted Flickers. No mention of the shape of the bib or spots on the breast, no description of the undertail color or amount of black in the tip of the tail (not the best photos to view this either). I don't believe a normal, much more expected Red-Shafted Northern Flicker can be ruled out.

2nd round:

31 Jan 2025 No, ID No change of feelings from first round vote.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 To 2nd This bird has some confusing characteristics to me. The cinnamon forehead made me lean toward GIFL, but the bright orange under tail and hints of orange under the wings in Photo G as well as the bib shape being more crescent shaped and less oval shaped make me lean toward hybrid.

2nd round:

8 Feb 2025 No, ID No change of opinion that this is not a GIFL and appreciate the in depth analysis of other committee members' comments that this is a subspecies of NOFL with interesting characteristics.
Bryant O. 5 Jan 2025 No, ID There is no description of the bird under field marks? No mention of the shaft color or the tail pattern. Yes, the cap is intriguing, but the chest spots look very round and without a view of the tail or shafts, I don't think we can rule out an unusual Red-shafted, and especially a hybrid Red-shafted x Gilded. Someone needs to re-find that bird.
Kris P. 5 Jan 2025 No, ID This bird's crown pattern is arresting and I see why it caught Jacob's attention. But I think it's more likely a vagrant of the red-shafted subspecies C. a. cafer of the Pacific Coast region of the Northern Flicker's range. Here are a couple examples from Macaulay Library:

https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/628564457
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/462640971

In addition, other characteristics favor red-shafted Northern Flicker including:
- Crescent-shaped black breast patch with pointy ends rather than more oval-shaped with rounded ends
- Circular breast spots on the sides rather than elongated to oval and becoming bars
- Feather shafts appearing to be salmon-orange rather than yellow
- Black bars on back not particularly thin/pale

I considered the possibility of a hybrid given recent Gilded Flicker record 2025-02 occurred less than 2 miles away, but the overwhelming phenotypic characters of the bird in this record are than of a red-shafted Northern Flicker.

2nd round:

30 Jan 2025 No, ID As per my first round comments.
Mike S. 30 Jan 2025 No, ID The photos show a male Northern Flicker. This is an interesting individual with a partial black outline around the red malar (potentially indicating some yellow-shafted introgression?). The crown/nape combo has a bit more contrasting brown than what is shown on many NOFL, but I believe still within range of variation. We are clearly seeing reddish-orange under the tail and on the wings, and the shape of the black breastband is consistent with a NOFL.

I suppose if this same bird was seen near the expected range of Gilded Flicker, there could be some discussion about a potential hybrid. However, at this location I am not seeing any reason to call this anything but a Northern Flicker.

2nd round:

4 Feb 2025 No, ID No change of opinion. Kris's examples from the Macaulay Library appear to be a good match.
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 No, ID Even with the apparent bright cinnamon colored fore-crown, I'm not convinced this bird is a GIFL. The variations among the NOFL make the GIFL dtermination complicated at best. In this bird the photos give a more reddish tail coloration appearance and the back and tail black barring appears more consistent with a NOFL.
Mark S. 27 Jan 2025 No, ID I'm not sure that this isn't a pure red-shafted, but at the most, it's clearly a hybrid. The under-tail color is red-orange, not yellow, the back color dark and heavily marked, and the chest crescent very crescent-shaped and not at all rounded. The nape color seems to be within the range of red-shafted. The only thing I can see that would point towards Gilded Flicker is that the black on the underside tail tip seems wider than on red-shafted.

I'm not sure who at eBird suggested this as a Gilded Flicker, but I certainly can't see a pure Gilded Flicker here, and maybe not even a hybrid. There's too much red-shafted in this individual.

2nd round:

4 Feb 2025 No, ID As per my first round comments.
Kevin W. 24 Jan 2025 No, ID This is an interesting bird. The color of the feathers in the wings and the tail (particularly noticeable in photo G) are more reddish than what I would think a Gilded should show. The breast patch (more so on the left than the right side, for some reason) is more pointed than rounded like a Gilded. Also, I think that on a gilded flicker, the black tail tip should extend about halfway or more up the tail; whereas this looks to be less than half. The brown crown is the only real thing that confuses me. I haven't seen any Northern Flickers with a completely brown crown like that, but it also seems that the brown fades somewhat toward the rear instead of staying constant - I don't know what that means as far as a Northern Flicker, but I don't think Gilded Flickers should have a gradient of brown going to gray like that.

2nd round:

31 Jan 2025 No, ID I agree with others that this bird is a Northern Flicker. I hadn't recalled Northern Flickers with that much of a tan crown before, but the photos that Kris attached are right on.

   

2025-03 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Jeff C. 8 Jan 2025 No, ID The record provides specific details and represents a great attempt by the observer to observe and document key field marks. The objective approach by the submitter was helpful with my review of the record. As I considered the details, it seemed that we needed to eliminate the possibility of a variant female Red-naped Sapsucker, for example, since some female Red-naped Sapsuckers can show a red chin and lack the red spot on the nape. I hesitate to accept the record without notes on whether there was a complete black border around the red throat and if the white markings on the back were indicative of Yellow-bellied rather than Red-naped Sapsucker.
Max M. 14 Jan 2025 No, ID I don't think the description of the throat pattern is enough to eliminate RNSA or Hybrid, along with the quick view. Also knowing that the nape isn't always red in RNSA. No mention of a complete or incomplete black border to the red on throat. . . Doesn't eliminate possibility of RNSA or Hybrid.
Keeli M. 20 Jan 2025 No, ID Not enough information in the record to fully support ID or rule out a hybrid.
Bryant O. 6 Jan 2025 No, ID No discussion of the amount of red on the throat or if it had a black border, no mention of age or back pattern. I don't think there is enough here to rule out hybrid RNSA X YBSA.
Kris P. 6 Jan 2025 No, ID Not enough to ID this bird to species or eliminate hybrids given that some Red-naped Sapsuckers don't have either the red nape or red spattered on the auriculars. A good view of the throat and its pattern and extent of red is imperative, and the pattern and extent of white on the back is also important.
Mike S. 4 Feb 2025 No, ID I don't believe the description is detailed enough to call this a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I certainly don't trust Merlin's ability to separate the calls of RNSA and YBSA. The description of no red in the nape may suggest a YBSA. However, the red may not always be obvious on a RNSA, and could also raise the question of a potential hybrid (which isn't addressed in the similar species section).

While the observer mentions red on the "chin," the extent isn't mentioned at all, particularly if this extended throughout the throat and whether the red was fully enclosed within a black border. I would also like to see more written detail on the back and head patterns to rule out a RNSA or hybrid.

I believe this record demonstrates the difficulty of adequately documenting a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker in Utah without photographs. It's certainly possible, but there should be very detailed field notes to rule out other possibilities (and as we've seen, sometimes even records with decent photographs can be tricky, especially when dealing with some young birds and potential hybrids).
Dennis S. 19 Jan 2025 No, ID Due to the minimum length of clear view observations admitted by the reporter and the questionable amount of red head coloration and other non-mentioned distinctive plumage characters I am unconvinced of its correct identity.( Additionally, was the bird a juvenile or adult?)
Mark S. 27 Jan 2025 No, ID I don't think there's enough in this description to establish the i.d., or certainly to eliminate the possibility of a hybrid. Red-naped Sapsucker can lack the red nape, and no description of the throat pattern or the back, that are key features, are offered.

Not enough here to accept.
Kevin W. 31 Jan 2025 No, ID The observer may have seen a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, but details that would be conclusive are not included in the report, specifically the pattern on the back and the black pattern around the red on the throat. I certainly can't trust a merlin sound id and the lack of red on the nape to confirm it as a Yellow-bellied.