[Birdtalk] Bird IDing

[Mark Stackhouse]

I have just a couple of points to add to this thread.

The first is that you should never completely discount an  
identification on range alone, or even on the bird's propensity (or  
lack thereof) to wander out of it's "normal" range.  Birds fly; they  
don't respect boundaries. It's one of the things that makes birding  
fun - the possibility that anything can show up anywhere.

It's why you should never use range alone as a "field mark."

But by the same token, range IS and important factor to consider in  
identification. The propensity of a bird to wander out of its range is  
also an important clue. It helps to determine how extraordinary a  
sighting is (or would be).

Which brings me to my second point. extraordinary claims require  
extraordinary proof. You can claim to have seen anything you want, but  
the more unusual the sighting, the more solid your evidence must be if  
you want anyone to believe you. If you claim something really, really  
rare (like a state-first), or something that is not know to wander  
(like a Tricolored Blackbird on both counts), you'd better have a  
photo that is clear enough to be identified. In such cases, written or  
verbal description is probably not going to be sufficient to establish  
that you actually saw what you thought you saw. Sightings not  
accompanied with physical evidence, relying on descriptions alone,  
need to be very well written, and should include descriptions from  
several independent observers.

Describe EXACTLY what you see, and especially why any similar (and  
more likely) species can be eliminated. Saying that it looks "just  
like" such-and-such illustration in a field guide is completely  
useless and in the end says nothing. No individual bird in the field  
EVER looks exactly like any illustration or photograph. Remember all  
those "find the differences" puzzles in your childhood activity books?

And just as the expert has made many more mistakes than the beginner,  
no birder is as certain of their identifications as a novice birder.  
We ALL make mistakes. Our eyes play tricks on us. Field identification  
of birds is always a matter of "preponderance of evidence," not of  
"proof." The more and better your evidence, the more certain your  
identification can be.

For true rarities (that are, after all, rarities precisely because  
they are rarely seen), the evidence needs to be not just good, but  
overwhelming.

Which is why Pomera did everything exactly correctly. She reported it  
as a "possible" Tricolored Blackbird, acknowledging that she was not  
certain. She had a good photo, and described the bird's behavior. Her  
handling of this allowed a more correct identification to be made  
based upon the evidence presented, and using the experience of other  
birders who have more experience with the species in question.

All of this is even more important when you're claiming to have seen a  
bird with which you have little, or worse, no experience.

But "experts" who dismiss reports of rare birds made by novice birders  
do so at their own peril. Though by definition sightings of rare birds  
are rare, they can be made by anyone. The Siberian Accentor that was  
found in Haley Idaho (second ever lower-48 record) was discovered by  
someone whose birding expertise consisted of having a bird feeder in  
her yard. Utah's only record of Magnificent Frigatebird was found by a  
fisherman, not a birder.

When contemplating a report of a rare bird, considered the evidence.  
When reporting a rare bird, consider the evidence. And in all things,  
be considerate.

Mark Stackhouse

(written while watching Streak-backed, Orchard and Black-vented  
Orioles, along with Yellow-winged Caciques and Golden-cheeked  
Woodpeckers at my feeder)


On Mar 24, 2009, at 9:27 AM, Steve Coleman wrote:

> I have felt the sting of having my bird ID be questioned and while  
> it is painful it has always made me be more observant in the field.  
> Just a couple of weeks ago I reported a Swainson's Hawk in my  
> neighborhood and sent detailed instructions where I saw it because I  
> got many replies questioning a Swainson's in this area this early in  
> the season, but I never saw any reports or received any e-mails from  
> anyone who may have checked it out. People I talked to at DWR tell  
> me that Swainson's Hawks are known to winter over here in Utah  
> however there doesn't seem to be any official documentation of that.
>
> Several years ago I reported a Common Redpoll at one of my feeders,  
> several people came to my house to see it but it never reappeared  
> and they questioned my ID. I began to question my own ID but then  
> within a few weeks Redpolls were being reported all over the Wasatch  
> Front. The biggest find was up in Mantua and many of us went up  
> there and confirmed they were Redpolls. It was a personal  
> reassurance that I hadn't lost my mind.
>
> Having my reports questioned has helped me be a better birder but  
> what has disappointed me a few times is when I report something odd,  
> rare or what seems out of place and get no response what so ever.  
> That makes me feel like those reports are just not taken seriously.  
> Many years ago I was at Kaysville ponds looking at Hooded Mergansers  
> when a really odd duck flew in. I looked over my field guide and  
> found nothing like it, the closest thing to what I was looking at to  
> me was a Black-bellied Whistling Duck. I had been down in Chandler  
> Arizona just a month before and saw several of these ducks down  
> there. While it was the closest thing It still didn't look right to  
> me so I reported it hoping a more experienced birder would go out  
> and check it out. After several days of checking the reports there  
> was no response to my report so I sent another e-mail begging  
> birders to please check out Kaysville ponds. Finally I got a  
> response with a title something like "the Duck is a Goose" it went  
> on to say that the bird was an Orinoco Goose a South American  
> species that was likely an escaped pet. Later though it was reported  
> to be an Egyptian Goose by some others. Though it took some extra  
> encouraging on my part to get someone check out my report I was  
> grateful that someone finally took it seriously and went out and  
> looked. I have added a link of comparisons of the three birds, I saw  
> it several times afterwards and am convinced that it was indeed an  
> Egyptian Goose.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/stevecoleman1155/GooseComparisons#
>
> Happy Birding
> Steve
> _______________________________________________
> Birdtalk mailing list
> Birdtalk at utahbirds.org
> http://utahbirds.org/mailman/listinfo/birdtalk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://secureserver.securesites.net/pipermail/birdtalk/attachments/20090324/1662447d/attachment.htm