[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

RE: "a model of superb documentation"

True, from a geographical perspective this post doesn't seem to matter to
you in Utah (or to me in Idaho, either)...but there is a VERY IMPORTANT
lesson here for us all to pay close attention to.  How many times have we
looked at a bird - WITHOUT REALLY LOOKING AT THE BIRD - and come to an
identification conclusion because it is what we EXPECT, or maybe even what
we want to see.  Perhaps someone else has seen it before us and made the
"authoritive" identification...or it was posted to be a certain kind of
bird...or it is what "always" occurs in that area at that time of the
year...or...or...or. Believe me when I say that there is much more
satisfaction in carefully coming to a conclusion based on detailed, thorough
personal observation and documentation than on what all too often is a
flipant community-based "OK, I saw it.  Now what?"  
This may be a bit backwards to some, but I would rather go into the field
with a notebook and pencil (and perhaps a camera) than with a field guide in
my pocket or car.  There was a point where I acturally consciously left my
field guide at home, so that I would be dependent on taking notes and
otherwise documenting what I was seeing.
Note the line in the observer's post: "I am very
> inexperienced with waterthrushes so would appreciate ANY comments."
Inexperience is all the MORE reason for painstaking documentation...and
inexperience does not preclude us finding "good birds!"  
And finally remember: "It is what we think we know that we really don't
until we really get to know it personally." 

Harry Krueger
Boise, ID
hkrueger@cableone.net  
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-birdtalk@utahbirds.org [mailto:owner-birdtalk@utahbirds.org] On
Behalf Of Richard Wood
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 11:01 AM
To: birdtalk
Subject: Re: "a model of superb documentation"

Hi all,

Not that it matters to us in Utah, but I don't think how anyone could say
that was a NORTHERN Waterthrush, at least based upon his photos.


It's definitely a Louisina, as the Lousiana's eyestripe and chest are whiter

than the Northern's.

Good birding,
Richard


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "L. D. Giddings" <seldom74@xmission.com>
To: "birdtalk" <birdtalk@utahbirds.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 08, 2005 8:47 AM
Subject: "a model of superb documentation"


> The following note was posted - in part - on the Arizona listserv
> yesterday:
>
> "There wasn't much else to soften the blow, except for a waterthrush on
> the river directly east of the Kingfisher Pond. According to the
> sightings book, it has been seen several times recently (I don't recall
> seeing it reported here though - shame on those observers!) and it
> has been reported as both Louisiana and Northern - the consensus seemed
> to be for Northern. I disagree, however, and think it was a
> LOUISIANA WATERTHRUSH. I have put a few record shots and some notes on
> why I think that ID is correct at
> http://richardfray.topcities.com/waterthrush.htm. I am very
> inexperienced with waterthrushes so would appreciate ANY comments.
> Thanks!"
>
> A few hours later it received the following response:
>
> Subject: Re: Waterthrush, yes, kingfisher, no.
> Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2005 22:29:22 -0700
> From:  Kenn Kaufman <kenn.kaufman@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
>
> Good show, Richard, your waterthrush is definitely a Louisiana, for all
> the
> reasons that you mention on your website.  Furthermore, I have to say
> that
> your photos / notes on it are a model of superb documentation.
>
> The status of the two waterthrushes in Arizona makes for an intriguing
> pattern.  Northern is a regular migrant in small numbers through
> Arizona,
> and it's one of the most numerous of the "eastern" warblers to occur
> throughout the west.  By contrast, Louisiana is one of the rarest of all
>
> eastern warblers in most parts of the west -- there are extremely few
> records for California, for example.  Even in Arizona, it's extremely
> rare
> in most of the state.  But along rivers and streams near the Mexican
> border,
> especially the Nogales / Patagonia / Huachucas area, Louisiana
> Waterthrush
> is apparently a regular winter resident in very small numbers.   So
> although
> the Northern would be the more likely of the two at most seasons in most
>
> parts of Arizona, the Lousiana is actually more likely in midwinter in a
>
> place like the upper San Pedro.   However, further refinement of our
> knowledge of the distribution of these birds will only be possible if
> birders continue to document sightings of both.  Thanks Richard!
>
> Kenn Kaufman
> Tucson, AZ
>
> ******************************************************
>
> Take a good look at http://richardfray.topcities.com/waterthrush.htm. It
> is indeed a model of superb documentation.
>
> Lu Giddings
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> "Utah Birds" web site: http://www.utahbirds.org
>     BirdTalk:
> To subscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-subscribe@utahbirds.org
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-unsubscribe@utahbirds.org
> To send a message, e-mail:  birdtalk@utahbirds.org
> _________________________________________________
> 

_______________________________________________

"Utah Birds" web site: http://www.utahbirds.org
     BirdTalk:
To subscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-subscribe@utahbirds.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-unsubscribe@utahbirds.org
To send a message, e-mail:  birdtalk@utahbirds.org
_________________________________________________


_______________________________________________

"Utah Birds" web site: http://www.utahbirds.org
     BirdTalk:
To subscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-subscribe@utahbirds.org
To unsubscribe, e-mail:  birdtalk-unsubscribe@utahbirds.org
To send a message, e-mail:  birdtalk@utahbirds.org
_________________________________________________