|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
Same as first round |
|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Thanks Kris for the follow up information, I
still don't think there is enough information to support this record. |
|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
127 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
I believe the submitter is an experienced
birder, and the bird she said her daughter described is likely a NOCA, but
as others mentioned, the secondhand report is problematic and there are
issues with supporting details that don't rule out an escapee or other
similar species. |
|
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 |
|
2nd round: |
1 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
This report is all hearsay without an actual
account from the observer of the bird, not a scientifically valid
sighting. |
|
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... |
|
2nd round: |
2 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Looks like we are mostly on the same page. |
|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No additional thoughts from first round. |
|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Feb 2025 |
No, nat |
I'll change my vote considering the concerns of
other committee members. I offered a soft accept, but the irregularities
of this record make a rejection for such a rare species warranted. |
|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No change in thoughts from first round. |
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. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Jan 2025 |
No, Int |
Red under tail eliminates pure Gilded. |
|
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. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No change from 1st Round. |
|
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. |
2025-04 Black-headed
Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
28 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
Description, images, and elimination of similar
species confirm the ID. Independently confirmed by many subsequent
observations documented in eBird. |
|
Max M. |
31 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent, well documented find by one of our
own. Makes you wonder if it is the same bird from Sand Hollow, wandering
around Utah of course no way to know but interesting to think about given
how exceptional the record is. |
|
Keeli M. |
8 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Great find. Red bill and legs and small size of
bird combined with dark ear spot and wing pattern all support ID.
Excellent job ruling out similar species. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
|
|
Kris P. |
27 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Such an excellent find by Bryant, and a thorough
record well-documented and defended. I especially appreciate the extensive
photos and the underwing shots showing those important dark primaries. |
|
Dennis S. |
26 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
A good sighting with multiple observers over
several days leaves little doubt. |
|
Mark S. |
27 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. I'm glad Utah gets to
participate in the Black-headed Gull invasion happening this year. |
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
The red bill and legs, along with the unique
wing pattern clench this id for me. |
2025-05
Hudsonian Godwit
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
29 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
The description and images gave me an impression
of Greater Yellowlegs. The highly cropped images distort the bill shape,
but it seems that the length is about right for a Greater Yellowlegs,
nearly twice the length of the head. A Godwit s bill length would be
nearly three times the length of the head and begin with a thicker base.
An overwintering Willet would be rare and show a stouter bill. While this
bird appears chunky and hunchbacked like a godwit, foraging posture could
give that appearance for a yellowlegs. Since the submitter indicated that
the reported field marks relied on the cell phone images, that could
explain why the leg color was described as dark, lighting on the legs is
poor in the images we have to review. I checked recent checklists for the
location in eBird and noted that one eBirder reported Lesser Yellowlegs at
the same location two days (Jan 28th) after this reported sighting (Jan
26th). Two other eBirders that I know with significant experience also
visited the location on the 28th and reported a Greater Yellowlegs. This
record makes no mention of Greater Yellowlegs as a possibility nor how
Greater Yellowlegs was eliminated as a similar species. Consequently, I am
voting no on the ID. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Same vote for the same reasons shared in the
first round. |
|
Max M. |
31 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Clearly a Yellowlegs - not sure why the observer
only chose to consider vagrant species. Also no optics other than a cell
phone shot does not help in reliable field marks. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
I can see from the photo quality why it gave
some committee members pause, seems like most agree that this is a Greater
Yellowlegs with poor quality photos. |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
Some concerns with this record that leave
questions for me. Ruling out REPH by bill size was one concern since a
REPH would be half the size of a Godwit. The bird is a godwit, and based
on the bill shape and proportion of head to bill and the upturned shape I
think I'm seeing in some of the photos, HUGO seems like the best fit, but
the photo quality and lighting might be masking some details, the lack of
optics aside from a cell phone camera, all make it a challenging ID for
me. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Agree with others this bird is likely a GRYE.
Poor cell phone photos show tricky lighting and distortion that added
confusion to the ID. Have also observed GRYE in places I don't usually see
them this winter, as Bryant mentioned. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Looks like a Greater Yellowlegs. Google lens
suggested a Greenshank, which is a close relative of Yellowlegs, which
should have nudged them in the right direction. HUGO winter in southern
south America and are EXCEPTIONALLY rare in North America in winter. Also,
this bird lacks a pinkish based bill of any Godwit. Note, we had a pair of
Greater Yellowlegs on the Liberty Park Pond the same week, our 1st record
of GRYE there, so we seem to have had an unusual movement of them into SLC,
where they are rare east of I-15. There was also a report of GRYE at
Sugarhouse park on 1/28/25 on eBird, which seems to be this bird. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Continue to believe this was a Greater
Yellowlegs |
|
Kris P. |
27 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
This bird appears to be a Greater Yellowlegs
despite the observer reporting dark legs. Photo ID apps just can't rise to
the occasion with such distortions presented in low-resolution cell phone
images, which subsequently led the observer astray. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
No new thoughts on this record. |
|
Mike
S. |
2 Mar 2025 |
To 2nd |
I apologize for a couple of my recent late votes
These low resolution photos may show a Hudsonian Godwit, and that may be
the best match, but the timing would be exceptional for that species. I
wish Willet was considered in the similar species section. Curious to see
other opinions on this one. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Similar to Kevin, I immediately thought about
Greater Yellowlegs but was thrown off by the apparent "plain" back (and
description of the "dark" legs). However, the photos are likely too poor
to accurately assess the former point, and GRYE is a good match based on
structure, not to mention the far greater probability. |
|
Dennis S. |
26 Feb 2025 |
To 2nd |
Would prefer open discussion by committee before
voting. Very unusual place and time of record for this species. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Too many unanswered questions especially the
time of year and location. |
|
Mark S. |
4 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
This would be a remarkable record, if true. The
closest winter record (Dec-Feb) on eBird for this species is one bird
(Dec) in central Kansas. There are no records at all father west. From
that standpoint, Bar-tailed Godwit would be more likely, with a scattered
few winter records along the west coast.
However, I don't get a godwit vibe at all from the photos, poor-quality
notwithstanding. This looks more like a Greater Yellowlegs to me, a
species uncommon, but not terribly unusual for that date and location. The
bill doesn't look godwit-like, and is too short and not upturned enough.
The legs aren't visible in the photos, and I don't put much stock in the
description of the legs being dark, given the less-than-ideal conditions
of the sighting.
I just have a hard time turning this into any godwit, let alone one of
earth-shattering rarity. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
As per my first round comments. |
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
I have to admit I'm a little hesitant on this
one because it was identified from pretty bad photos, but I can't turn it
into anything else; it seems too plain-backed to be yellowlegs, and it
seems like there's too much contrast between the back color and head color
for it to be a willet. I'm not positive that it even shows the bill being
upturned, as it only looks that way on photo D. |
2025-06 Black-headed
Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
5 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
The combination of the red bill and red legs
with nonbreeding plumage separates Black-headed from the other hooded gull
species. The distinct white primary feathers, molting hood, and ear spot
also confirm the species. |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Red legs, drooping red bill, dark primaries with
white window in outside primaries, black hood around/behind eye, all
support ID as BHGU. |
|
Bryant
O. |
5 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Looks like the same individual seen at Lee Kay
as week before, similar facial markings. Should this record be combined
with the 1st so its clear to future generations they both refer to the
same bird? |
|
Kris P. |
27 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
A needle in a haystack found a second time. I
agree with the observer that this is probably the Lee Kay gull documented
in record 2025-04, last seen the day prior to this sighting 25 miles to
the southeast.
- Red drooping bill, red legs, black primaries on the ventral side noted
and photographed. |
|
Mike
S. |
5 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Photos show a Black-headed Gull. Seems likely to
be the same individual as record # 2025-04. |
|
Dennis S. |
26 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Observers comments about previous record and
possible repeat of same bird, along with photos is convincing enought for
acceptance. |
|
Mark S. |
28 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Similar to 2025-04, unique red bill and legs and
wing pattern with dark underprimaries and white outer strip confirm it as
Black-headed Gull. |
|