[Birdtalk] A few more thoughts on field notes . . .

[Mark Stackhouse]

ironically, there's a bit of discussion on field notes going on on the 
Frontiers of Identification listserve right now, and this note came 
through from Alvaro Jaramillo, though I don't know who the original 
author is. There are a couple of things that I don't exactly agree 
with, but for the most part they're all good points. I especially like 
points b, c, g and h.

Mark Stackhouse
mark at westwings.com
801-487-9453 (Salt Lake City, Utah, USA)
011-52-323-285-1243 (San Blas, Nayarit, Mexico)

Folks
  A few random thoughts on this from someone else involved with bird 
records committees.
 
a)       Not all reports need detailed field notes. If there are great 
photos of the thing, which are diagnostic, well many people on a 
committee will look at the photos and go no further before accepting.
b)      Field notes are not there to impress, just to inform. It is 
entirely unnecessary to describe the scutelation patterns of the tarsi 
if this is information that is unlikely to be important in the 
identification. Concentrate on the important parts, the vital parts, 
and describe these adequately. Point form is fine if that is quicker, 
it does not have to be a prize winning novel you write, in fact the 
more to the point and succinct, the better as far as I am concerned.
c)       Clearly note the pitfalls in the identification, and what 
features exclude other contender species. Many people make the mistake 
of describing the bird, identifying it as X and not noting why it is 
not Y. If the photos are not all that good, committee members will be 
thinking…why is this not Y? Well, tell them why not based on what you 
saw in the field.
d)      Some reports list field marks, and readers could go through and 
piece it all together to come at the correct answer. But why not cut to 
the chase and synthesize the information for them. A rare bird report 
is sort of like proposing an argument in a conversation and backing it 
up with information/points. Make your argument persuasive, honestly 
based on what you saw. I don’t find this misleading as long as it is 
based on the honest points of your observation.
e)       The types of photos/videos that need good notes are when the 
images are not the best and there is a chance for the viewer to be 
misled by what they see. This is when it is important for the observer 
to fill in the blanks that cannot be seen in the photos and guide the 
viewers through the reasoning behind the identification.
f)        Gulls – seabirds – difficult shorebirds etc. Even with great 
photos one often needs context, background, and information on the 
logic behind the identification. I could post great pictures of 
something I believe to be let’s say a young Vega Gull, but without some 
explanation as to why I think that it is that species, and what you can 
see in the photos, well it is less likely that folks will agree with 
your assessment. Do not assume people on a committee know all of the 
latest field marks, taxonomy etc. In short, don’t assume that they know 
what you know. Put your thoughts down, and clarify things for the 
committee. The folks may not know what you know, yet if you inform 
them, they will track things down, get expert opinion, look at photos 
on the internet and put it all into perspective…but if your report does 
not guide them through the logic behind the identification, the 
generally conservative nature of the system will likely end up not 
endorsing a good record.
g)      If you have a choice between video or photography, take the 
stills!!! The resolution of still photography is so much better, and so 
much more versatile for looking at nitpicky features that it wins hands 
down. If we had stills of the “Bachman’s Warbler” in Cuba, or the 
“Ivory-billed Woodpecker” in Arkansas, I bet the uncertainty would not 
be there.
h)       Ever get the though, “gosh I wish I could take my skills in 
identifying birds to the next level.” Well if you do not take field 
notes, that is probably the single easiest thing that you can do to 
improve observation skills. You may see thousands of let’s say Mallards 
in a month of birding, but how many of those does one actually look at? 
Note taking forces you to look, and the action of observation as well 
as writing seems to click a specific learning switch in the brain that 
really works! So to switch the old adage of picture = a thousand words: 
a field note on one Mallard, is worth 1000 seen in the field.
 
Good birding
 
Al
 
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao at coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, CA
 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 8629 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20060821/1758d6b7/attachment.bin