Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society
   
Status & Comments
Year 2008 (records 1 through 15)


  
2008-01 McCown's Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 15 Mar 2008 Acc Great record
Eric H. 18 Feb 2008 Acc The field marks described and the marks seen in the photo do not fit any other bird (tail pattern + chestnut median coverts). Some of the description doesn't seem to fit the photo exactly. Maybe there were more than two birds?
Colby N. 18 Feb 2008 Acc Good description and elimination of similar species and photo helps, too.
Kristin P. 23 Jun 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 18 Mar 2008 Acc Even though I would have liked to have seen better description of body shape, primary projection, and comparative bill shape with the Laplands that were present, I believe solid narrative supports the sighting.
Larry T. 8 Jun 2008 Acc  
David W. 13 Mar 2008 Acc Well, we can't complain about too sparse a description on this one.

   

2008-02 Cackling Goose

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 30 Mar 2008 Acc  

2nd round

22 Aug 2008 No, ID I suppose this could be a Lesser Canada Goose (B. c. parvipes), however I still think most of the features point to a Taverner's Goose (B. h. taverni).
Eric H. 13 Apr 2008 No, ID The 'cackling' geese in the photos look fairly large. The bill does look small but not really stubby.  I don't feel at all confident identifying the white-cheeked geese that aren't at the extremes of size/shape. 

2nd round

2 Nov 2008 No, ID I can't say with confidence that this isn't a Lesser Canada Goose (B. c. parvipes).
Colby N. 9 Jun 2008 No, ID While the written description fits Cackling Goose, the photos make this record a little more ambiguous.  In the photos where the bird(s)' bill is observable (photos A,B,E), it looks too long for a 'good' Cackling Goose.  Now that does not mean this bird is out of the range for Cackling Goose either. This reminds of a bird I saw at an industrial park last winter where the bird seemed like it could go either way. If others feel this is within the range of Cackling Goose, and I'm out to lunch (and I do some more research) then I will likely give this record a yes in the second round. I have no doubt that Ryan saw a Cackling Goose, but I'm just not sure the one(s) with the best side profile is a Cackling Goose given the photos.

2nd round

20 Oct 2008 No, ID  
Kristin P. 29 Jul 2008 Acc  

2nd round

2 Nov 2008 No, ID Looks like we share the same doubts about identifying the mid-range Canada/Cacklers from each other. See my comments on 2007-23. What's the future for these subspecies records with our committee, especially records that don't include photos? This one had photos and we couldn't confidently say it's one or the other, therefore, it will not be accepted.
Terry S. 10 May 2008 Acc  

2nd round

11 Sep 2008 No, ID Other reviewers have made me have second thoughts on this record. Colby's and David's comments are persuasive.
Larry T. 20 Jun 2008 Acc  

2nd round

23 Sep 2008 No, ID After reading other comments I looked at this record closer and would have to agree this one could go either way.
David W. 19 Mar 2008 No, ID At the outset, let me just say that I almost want to recuse myself from this vote because I am still struggling with the definitive identification of the various subspecies of the Canada/Cackling goose complex. I've seen geese like these in Utah and have not yet had the courage to put them on my own Utah list, out of nagging doubt.

I do feel comfortable saying these geese do not look like the the minima or leucopareia subspecies of the Cackling goose, but could possibly be the taverneri or hutchinii subspecies.

I am voting NO because these are not "obviously" Cackling geese, to my mind. When I look at photos of the Lesser Canada goose (B. c. parvipes), I see a good match that fits the photos presented with this record. That subspecies of Canada goose also has a squarer head; shorter neck; shorter, more wedge-shaped bill; and is 2/3 the size of our moffitti Canada geese. Neck ring is pretty variable across both species, so I will not even address that. I do not feel the observer adequately ruled out the Lesser Canada goose in this writeup/photos.

2nd round

31 Aug 2008 No, ID  

    

2008-03 Common Ground-Dove

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 30 Mar 2008 Acc  

2nd round

21 Oct 2008 Acc There is no question that Laurie's bird was a Common Ground-Dove. In regards to David's question - yes I did see the bird, and I simply transcribed Laurie's notes.  I also took some notes on the dove and could submit them if necessary, however, since Laurie found the dove, I encouraged her to write-up the record for submission. And in my (biased?) opinion, I believe the write-up (although scant) and photos (although low resolution) are adequat
Eric H. 13 Apr 2008 Acc I wish the photos were just a little sharper and I wish the observer would have described the bird more.
She mentions 'pink at base of bill', 'short tail' and 'a scaled pattern on it's neck and head', didn't say anything about scaling on the back so I'm assuming there wasn't any.

2nd round

2 Nov 2008 Acc I believe there is enough description to rule out similar species. It's good to know someone else saw the bird. I was under the impression that only Laurie saw the bird. Having additional eyewitnesses that independently identify a bird always strengthens a record.
Colby N. 20 Oct 2008 No, ID The photos and the description are almost conclusive? Admittedly, it appears to have a short tail via the photos, which suggests this is a ground dove (and maybe no tail at all?, but the description does mention a 'short tail' with a 'white edge')...I would have liked a more detailed description of the tail, body and wing pattern...did the scaling extend anywhere else on the bird?, what was the wing pattern perched?, what was the underpart coloring and pattern?, etc....

2nd round

11 Dec 2008 No, ID  I think the record as it stands is insufficient.  It will probably pass regardless, but I think a thorough description from Rick helps to solidify this sighting.
Kristin P. 13 Oct 2008 Acc  

2nd round

1 May 2009 Acc Barely adequate elimination of other species. Chestnut-colored primaries eliminate large doves, short tail eliminates Inca Dove, scaling pattern on head and neck favors COGD. Other factors mentioned, like white edge of tail, is a neutral detail since RUGDs also have white tail tips. Photos not helpful toward plumage details. Knowing of Rick's additional observation is a factor in my filing a second round Accept vote.
Terry S. 10 May 2008 Acc Marginal photos but good description

2nd round

11 Nov 2008 Acc  
Larry T. 20 Jun 2008 Acc  

2nd round

1 Feb 2009 Acc  
David W. 19 Mar 2008 No, ID I have some questions on this record, so I am voting "No" in hopes of sending the record into the second round.  Overall, I would like to see a stronger case made against this being an Inca dove with a short tail.  Namely:

1) Was the scaling LIMITED to the head and breast?  The observer doesn't actually state that, though it is implied.  When I look at the photos, it appears there may be scaling on the wings (esp. photo B), or at least splotching (photos A & C).  In photo A, it even appears there may be scaling on the flanks & lower breast.

2)  Was the base of the bill truly pink or just pale?  Juvenile Inca doves often have a pale base to bill.  The photos don't show pink, but they are blurry.  The photos also show what APPEARS to be a fairly long bill too, more consistent with an Inca dove, but this is not at all conclusive.

3)  What was the shape of the tail?  Was it broad and square or like some sort of truncated/regrowing shape (perhaps molted or ripped off)?  Most Inca doves have young during spring to fall, but may do so year-round (per Cornell site).  I mention this because the short tail could possibly be due to a molt from juvenile to adult plumage, though I do not know exactly how such a molt would proceed.

4)  What exactly about the wing pattern differentiated this bird from an Inca dove?  Wings of these two species are fairly similar, so I think it is important to know what was meant by this.  When I look at the photos, I do not see any signs of the dark spots on the wings that I associate with a Comon ground-dove (though I agree the photos are not clear enough to be definitive about this).

5)  Who actually saw the dove?  Depending on which part of the record writeup I look at, it seems like it was Rick or Laurie, possibly both.  Did Rick just transcribe this?
 

2nd round

1 Jan 2009 No, ID I'm sorry to vote against this again, but I have yet to receive requested information on this record which would clarify some ID points (especially the extent of scaling).  Although I think it very likely that a birder of Rick's abilities would have correctly identified this bird, I have to vote my conscience on this one in the absence of data.  I would be very happy to change my vote if my questions were answered, but I do not wish to hold up this record any further.

 

2008-04 Lawrence's Goldfinch

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 30 Mar 2008 Acc  
Eric H. 19 Mar 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 25 Mar 2008 Acc  
Kristin P. 13 Oct 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 10 May 2008 Acc Great Photos
Larry T. 20 Jun 2008 Acc  
David W. 19 Mar 2008 Acc I saw one of these birds still visiting the feeder on the 15th of March 2008. Thank you, Rick, for the submission of the record (saving me the trouble), and also your help in getting me to see the bird in person.

  

2008-05 Common Redpoll

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 30 Mar 2008 Acc  
Eric H. 26 Mar 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 25 Mar 2008 Acc  
Kristin P. 16 Oct 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 10 May 2008 Acc  
Larry T. 20 Jun 2008 Acc  
David W. 26 Mar 2008 Acc Good photos, plus well differentiated from Hoary redpoll.

   

2008-06 Cackling Goose

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc This is nice, clean, minima Cackling Goose
Eric H. 13 Apr 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 9 Jun  2008 Acc Good photos
Kristin P. 29 Jul 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 10 May 2008 Acc  
Larry T. 20 Jun 2008 Acc  
David W. 30 Mar 2008 Acc Now this is a Cackling goose I can get behind.

 

2008-07 Neotropic Cormorant

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 No, ID  
Eric H. 19 Jun 2008 No, ID I believe these are Double-crested Cormorants.
Colby N. 9 Jun  2008 No, ID These are good photos of second year Double-crested Cormorants. The pale edging on the side of the one bird, is within the range of Double-crested Cormorant. Although usually less apparent in water, given the quality of the photos, there would be a noticeable size difference between the two species as well.
Kristin P. 16 Oct 2008 No, ID I believe the observer saw several young DCCOs just entering their second year. Last year's DCCOs retain brown plumage well into the next spring and sometimes summer and wouldn't have head plumes. An adult NECO is entirely black with iridescent tones and is noticeably smaller than a DCCO, not brown and the same size. In addition, photographs dispute the written word picture. Size of alleged NECOs is the same as the nearby adult DCCOs; size, shape, color, and proportion size of gular pouch to the head is the same on the birds in question (alleged NECOs) as in the adult DCCOs in the photographs. I beleive all the birds depicted and observed were DCCOs.
Terry S. 10 May 2008 No, ID Looks like this is probably a Juvenile Double-crested Cormorant.
Larry T. 23 Sep 2008 No, ID  
David W. 24 Apr 2008 No, ID These look like juvenile-plumaged Double-cresteds to me (the juvenile plumage is retained into the first spring in DCCs, the molt extending into at least mid April). Note the yellow supraloral skin on most, which is a classic DCC fieldmark. In the photos, the shape of the gular pouch is inconclusive in some of the birds (and indeed more like DCC in others). Juvenile-plumaged DCCs also have a whitish outline to their gular pouches. Overall feather coloration is also consistent with a juvenile DCC.

Finally, the size difference between the two species (which were together)was not noted, as it should have been because the DCC is usually significantly larger. When one looks at the photos and compares those birds that are clearly DCCs to hose that are in some respects less obviously so, one doesn't see the expected size difference.

       

2008-08 Mississippi Kite     | resubmissionl comments (2021) |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc Description is adequate (particularly 08a) and timing is perfect for a vagrant Mississippi Kite.

2nd round

28 Dec 2008 Acc I still don't have a problem with this as a 'provisional record'.

Bob B. 3rd round

27 Aug 2009 No, ID I really feel that this bird was a Mississippi Kite.  However there are a few nagging questions that have all been mentioned, and for a first state record, I believe the record should be certain, not probable.  However I must say that if I had seen this bird I would be sorely tempted to put it on my own personal list.
Eric H. 22 Sep 2008 Acc I am having a hard time with this one and have waited way too long to vote.  These are two detailed, well written records. The write-ups both seem to eliminate similar species.   
 
My concern is with the rarity of this species and the circumstances of the sighting, mainly the incomplete views and extreme lighting.  Birds flying overhead with the sun at such a low angle can appear much different than in normal situations. If the bird was flying towards the setting sun wouldn't the light wash out the underside of the bird and wouldn't the body of the bird cast a shadow on the tail making it look darker?   

I feel Ryan and Craig have both submitted very descriptive records and I'm voting to accept.  I'll ponder it more and vote again in the second round.

2nd round

8 Dec 2008 Acc The observation was not made in ideal conditions or lighting but two observers feel they saw a Mississippi Kite both of which have experience hawk watching and one has seen Mississippi Kites before. It is a relatively distinctive species. I feel from the descriptions they saw enough to rule out similar species.

3rd round

13 Aug 2009 Acc  
Colby N. 9 Jun  2008 No, ID I think the brevity and quality of the actual observation is hurtful for this record. They did an wonderful job writing up their description though!  Again, I'm going to say no, for similar reasons to the Purple Finch even though short of photos/recording this is about as good of a written record as possible especially given the duration and circumstances of the actual observation.  I look forward to reading other's comments on this record.

2nd round

11 Dec 2008 No, ID I just think the short duration and lighting of the observation throws in too much doubt. I still think the observers did an excellent job writing this report though...and it probably was a Mississippi Kite. 

3rd round

12 Jun 2009 No, ID Concerns still stand...won't be upset if it is accepted though
Kristin P. 18 Oct 2008 Acc  

2nd round

1 May 2009 Acc Good test of our new bylaw to consider a potential first state record on the same merits as other records without physical evidence. Physical documentation and multiple observers as with the first state Pacific Golden-plover record are a records committee dream; I think this one is more typical and qualifies as a typical sighting with good enough documentation. Masterful job on the part of both observers in noting detail considering the lighting and brevity of the observations. Unique dark tail and the shape noted multiple times by both observers; record -08 even addressed a lighting issue that might produce the illusion of white patches on the wings' dorsal surface, lighting that was not present when the bird banked, therefore, white secondaries are extremely likely. Excellent elimnation section in -08a.

3rd round

11 Aug 2009 Acc Ron's comment about the usually-obvious whitish head, along with what seemed to be circumstances to observe it, sent me into another round of research. While I can find evidence of why a kite wouldn't have shown a whitish head (adult female with a medium gray head and body), I can't find information to discount the distinctive dark, long, square-cut tail observed several times by both observers.
Terry S. 26 Jul 2008 No, ID While the color and shape of the tail sound good for Mississippi Kite very little good observation was made on the bird mostly because of the short duration of observation and flight of the bird toward the sun.

2nd round

11 Nov 2008 No, ID I still feel the sighting is questionable given the brevity and lighting

Ron. R  3rd round

8 Jul 2009 No, ID

The observers did a good job documenting what they say and it is quite possible that they saw a Mississippi kite. However, some key features were not observed including the pattern of the head (should appear mostly white (usually pretty obvious) with dark patch around eye extending through loral area), clear documentation of where the observed white was on the wings, and short outermost primary. I don't feel the observation clearly identifies a Mississippi kite, and that the observation relies in part on elimination of other species. Also, I am not sure the description fully eliminates a dark phase Swainson's hawk under the less than ideal light conditions of this observation (one was seen in the area by others looking for the kite).

Larry T. 30 Oct 2008 No, ID The description of the poor lighting make this record difficult.The differences in the described flight style don't help either.

2nd round

1 Feb 2009 No, ID This could very well be a Mississippi Kite. But for a first State record I still don't like the lighting issue and the brief duration of the sighting. 
I'm sure most of us have had brief looks or saw birds in bad light thinking we had a certain species ( rare or not ) only to get a better look and see that we were wrong. It's to bad but I think this is one that we have to let go. I've had plenty of those over the years.

3rd round

16 Aug 2009 No, ID I still can't get past my earlier issues with this sighting.
David W. 2 Jul 2008 Acc Convincing.  I'm surprised we don't get more reports of this species when one considers its migratory habits.

2nd round

1 Jan 2009 Acc  

3rd round

1 Jun 2009 Acc  

 

2008-08r Mississippi Kite  
           Resubmission comments,
(23 Feb 2021)  with "on its merits" bylaws change (IV.C.11)  | original comments |

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 10 Apr 2021 No, ID I support the UBRC's previous decision on this record.

2nd round

25 Jun 2021 No, ID I really don't have any problem with the written description of this record (as witnessed by my original votes to accept in 2008), but as I stated before I will stand by the UBRC's original decision on this record. I still believe this process of re-reviewing a few handpicked records (and let's be clear they were not "re-submitted") is completely arbitrary, lacks in process, and ultimately undermines the UBRC's credibility. I understand there were some slight changes in the committee's bylaws, but if we are going to apply these changes retrospectively, than we should use a systematic process. Re-reviewing a few records hand selected by the secretary appears desultory at best.
Stephanie G. 28 Mar 2021 Acc Extensive description has effectively ruled out other species in my view.

2nd round

24 May 2021 Acc Continuing to accept; detailed report rules out other species in my perception.
Mike H. 11 Apr 2021 Acc Great description and detailed report. This is one of two reports of Mississippi Kite that was observed by very competent birders.

2nd round

20 Jun 2021 Acc No change in my initial opinion.
Bryant O. 23 Feb 2021 Acc Very thorough written description by both observers seems conclusive to eliminate other possibilities. Like the observers noted, we should have more records of this species than we do, particularly in southern Utah.

2nd round

12 May 2021 Acc Description rules out all other possibilities.
Mike S. 10 Apr 2021 Acc I believe that the combination of field marks described establishes the ID as a Mississippi Kite. The timing is consistent with multiple records from both Nevada and California.

2nd round

4 Jun 2021

Acc I believe this record contains very good written documentation, and adequately rules out similar species.
Bryan S. 11 Apr 2021 Acc Good description of the bird and the characteristics that the observers report eliminates any other similar species

2nd round

19 May 2021

Acc  
Steve S.  2nd:

26 Jun 2021

No, ID  
Mark S. 14 Mar 2021 Acc Nothing else fits this description - adult Mississippi Kite is strikingly distinctive.

2nd round

6 Jun 2021

Acc A good observation and description from an experienced observer. This species is long overdue on our list; I've seen one myself, during the time that the committee was not active.
David W. 5 Mar 2021 Acc The reports do an admirable job eliminating other species. I wish the white secondaries had been seen/seen better, but I think there is enough here to vote to accept.

2nd round

19 Apr 2021 Acc I maintain these descriptions eliminate other possibilities.

 

2008-09 Yellow-billed Loon

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc Nice description, excellent photos
Eric H. 19 Jun 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 9 Jun 2008 Acc Good photos
Kristin P. 18 Oct 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 22 Jun 2008 Acc A well documented record with outstanding photos
Larry T. 23 Sep 2008 Acc Nice bird!
David W. 28 May 2008 Acc Photo C is just superb.

  

2008-10 Mountain Quail

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 No, Int Based on the description, it appears a Mountain Quail was observed.
Eric H. 30 Jul 2008 No, ID I need more detailed notes on plumage, taken at the time of the sighting, for a bird as rare as a Mountain Quail. She admitted that she was unfamiliar with western quails at the time, "Before I had seen those in person, I thought it could be a California or Gambel's Quail." and wrote this up a few months after the sighting. She also mentions a couple places near her that raise or keep captive animals.
Colby N. 9 Jun 2008 No, Nat Certainly an interesting record, but I question the natural occurrence  given quail's flight skills and especially the proximity of the location to nearby farms (pet, barnyard escapee, etc.) in the Cache Valley.
Kristin P. 18 Oct 2008 No, Nat It's unlikely that this bird arrived in Paradise under natural circumstances due to the short migratory journeys for which the species is known. In addition, since the species has experienced significant declines in Idaho, Northern Nevada and Eastern Oregon, the likelihood of the population expanding into Utah is extremely low. This bird is more likely an escapee. Contra to that statement however, is the fact that a UDWR representative told me back in June that no one in the Paradise area holds a permit to raise quail.

Good establishment of ID by the observer through plumage, size, behavior and sound.
Terry S. 24 Jun 2008 No, Nat While this narrative describes what may be a Mountain Quail I'm concerned this is probably a captive bird that has been released or escaped. Mountain Quail have a restricted range with altitudinal migration.
Larry T. 23 Sep 2008 No, ID  
David W. 9 Jul 2008 No, Nat I don't know what to think about this record. The description of overall color, long head plume, and voice matches a Mountain quail. However, I have some reservations:

1) The bird was described as looking like a Chukar (which matches the description much better than a MQ other than the head plume), but a Chukar is rather different than a MQ in appearance (face, breast, belly, and even back color). Unfortunately, the description of this bird was very general and omitted any field marks other than the head plume that would differentiate between the two species.

2) The bird was described as being notably larger than a quail. That matches a Chukar, but a MQ is only an inch larger than a California quail.

3) The sound is described as "short, screechy, queark", which is a very good match for a MQ. However, there are several Chukar vocalizations which are rendered similarly on Cornell's Birds of North America Online. So I do not think the call can eliminate that species either. Some examples which jump out at me are: a) Hawk Alarm. Overhead movement or shadows generally elicit short, guttural kerr, b) On Guard. Low-pitched undulating kweer emitted if overhead disturbance (such as a soaring hawk) continues, and c) All s Well. Soft plaintive coo-oor of loafing or feeding bird that is not under stress. Can also signify end of period of alarm.

4) The natural range of this nonmigratory species is nowhere near Bear Lake. It seems much more likely that, if this is indeed a MQ, it is an escapee from some hunting club, or similar game farm. I contacted Idaho Fish & Game and was told that a fellow named Mike Bird raises exotic game birds on the Idaho side of Bear Lake, and they suspect his place may be the source of this bird (though they are not sure what exact exotic species he is raising).

In summary, I think there is adequate doubt as to the identity and source of this non-migratory bird to accept this record.

     

2008-11 Black-throated Blue Warbler

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc The description is barely adequate, but I suppose is convincing for this distinctive warbler. Also description of song and timing are correct.

2nd round

28 Dec 2008 No, ID I suppose two in June is very peculiar, and casts doubt on this record.
Eric H. 9 Jun 2008 No, ID I would like a better description.  Where exactly was the blue?  The Black?  Similar Species? What about Cerulean Warbler, Lazuli Bunting or Yellow-rumped Warbler?  Did  the observer actually see the bird singing or could there have been other birds present?   Insufficient Description.

2nd round

8 Dec 2008 No, ID  
Colby N. 20 Oct 2008 No, ID The fact he heard the song is good...but I'm hesitant about the after the fact 'song was a dead on match'...time of year and habitat/location is, in my opinion, actually very good for this species migrating through the Intermountain West as there multiple records for this species moving through the higher elevations of the region at this time of year...however, the description is poor with few details, and the fact a female was 'tagging along' seems odd to me at best. And there was no description of the female.

2nd round

11 Dec 2008 No, ID Same issues
Kristin P. 19 Oct 2008 Acc Very difficult decision based on multiple shortcomings of this record and improbable timing of two BTBWs. However, I regard the male as unmistakable and the song description as accurate, even if it looks like a field guide description. I vote to accept the sighting of the male only, and not the female, which the observer did not describe.

2nd round

1 May 2009 No, ID Committee members' comments have nudged me from my barely-adequate, what-else-could-it-be opinion to not adequate, elimnation section poorly documented.
Terry S. 22 Jun 2008 Acc A distinctive species

2nd round

11 Nov 2008 No, ID Other comments have raised some doubt even though this is a distinctive species.
Larry T. 30 Oct 2008 No, ID Very distinct Warbler But the female doesn't fit or the song seems a little off. Not sure what else this would be but a second round is in order for this one.

2nd round

1 Feb 2009 No, ID  
David W. 2 Jul 2008 No, ID OK, I will admit that my vote on this record was influenced by the dismissively vague description in the report, and perhaps I am being unduly stringent on this one as a result.  What does "distinctive" mean to a birder who has never seen the species in question?  How far did the distinctive colors extend?

Was a Lazuli bunting adequately eliminated?  The song of that species can be vaguely similar to a Black-throated Blue Warbler's, and it is Blue & black above, with white patch(es) in the wing & below.

What are the odds of a pair being lost together as described here?

The description is a good match for a Black-throated Blue Warbler, in a general way, but I would have wanted more detail to eliminate doubt.

2nd round

31 Oct 2008 No, ID  

 

2008-12 Whip-poor-will   (Resubmitted on 12 Aug 2014 as a Mexican Whip-poor-will)

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc Nice record of a "Mexican" Whip-poor-will!
Eric H. 30 Jul 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 20 Oct 2008 Acc Happy to have recordings despite the multiple observers
Kristin P. 15 Nov 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 26 Jul 2008 Acc Great Find! Good recordings
Larry T. 23 Sep 2008 Acc Great record. Not exactly the area of the state I would have thought the first one would be found.
David W. 2 Jul 2008 Acc Nice record of the Mexican Whip-poor-will race.

      
      2008-12R Mexican Whip-poor-will  (Resubmitted on 12 Aug 2014 as a Mexican Whip-poor-will)

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Kathy B. 13 Oct 2014 Acc  
Bob B. 17 Aug 2014 Acc  
Rick F. 20 Oct 2014 Acc  
Ryan O. 12 Aug 2014 abst [submitted original record]
Terry S.. 15 Aug 2014 Acc  
Dennis S. 14 Aug 2014 Acc Acceptance from 2008 shouldn't be changed. Recordings are convincing a second time.
Jack S.. 13 Oct 2014 Acc  
Steve S. 6 Sep 2014 Acc  
David W. 12 Aug 2014 Acc Comments back in 2008 vote. [2008 comments]

2008-13 Chestnut-collared Longspur

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc Great record. Adequate description, nice photo.
Eric H. 30 Jul 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 20 Oct 2008 Acc Good photo and description
Kristin P. 18 Nov 2008 Acc  
Terry S. 26 Jul 2008 Acc Good photo
Larry T. 30 Oct 2008 Acc  
David W. 31 Aug 2008 Acc Well done.  Another great photo by Tim.

     

2008-14 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 22 Aug 2008 Acc This is a very intriguing record. I appluad the observer for a detailed description and numerous photos. Despite the observer's claim that the bird is an "adult in breeding plumage", I'm not so sure of the age or plumage of this bird. It certainly doesn't appear to be a typical adult alternate-plumaged Glossy or White-faced Ibis
I can accept the identification as a Glossy Ibis, based on two characters visible in the photos. The eye color appears brown in all photos, and the grayish facial skin on the lores does not extend behind the eye, or under the chin (as seen in photos E and G).

In regards to leg color and bill color, which are sometimes mentioned as important features separating the two species, in my opinion these are highly variable and non-diagnostic field marks. 

Hybridization does regularly occur where the breeding ranges of the two species overlap in Louisiana, so I suppose a hybrid is possible, however unlikely.

Bob B. 2nd round: 

27 Aug 2009 Acc I believe this is a pure Glossy Ibis and not a hybrid.  I am a bit concerned about the eye color.  In one of the photos I am not absolutely sure of the dark color, but overall I am convinced this is a Glossy Ibis. 
Eric H. 8 Dec 2008 Acc  

2nd round: 

20 Jul 2009 Acc If the observer got a good look and the bird didn't show any signs of hybridization I will accept as a Glossy Ibis.
Colby N. 20 Oct 2008 No, ID It seems the lack of a red eye is good. However, I have a really hard time seeing red in general.

Also, I'm not sure how we can eliminate a hybrid?  I don't like being this anal, but I'd also like to hear others' thoughts on this bird and the relatively undocumented hybrids of White-faced/Glossy. The observer did note some blue-ish facial skin, but that it wasn't extensive. At what point, do we accept or not accept birds based on the relative lack of documentation regarding hybrids and their variability or maybe this is completely within the range of a pure Glossy?

Here are some additional photos of alternate plumage birds that may be of some use to others...

http://schmoker.org/BirdPics/plegadis.html

2nd round: 

12 Jun 2009 Acc  
Kristin P. 4 May 2009 Acc  

2nd round: 

11 Aug 2009 Acc Observer carefully noted most of the fine distinctions between the Glossy and White-faced Ibises to accept this bird as a Glossy, including color and pattern of facial skin (although no mention of whether blue wrapped behind the eye), lack of white facial feathering, and eye and bill color. Would like to have his impressions of leg color, although I appreciate the observer mentioning that this was not observable. Excellent elimination section. Photos not particularly helpful. One possible new ID point for Glossys vs. White-faced Ibis and hybrids (still to be proven) is color of tertials as mentioned in Leukering, Colorado Birds, April, 2008. The suggestion is that Glossy Ibis tertials tend toward green and violte with no bronze (same color as greater coverts), while White-faced and hybrids may show some bronze. This theory appears borne out in the photos.
Terry S. 11 Sep 2008 Acc Good Description and photo

Ron R. 2nd round: 

5 Jul 2009 Acc The description and photos eliminate white-faced ibis and are most consistent with glossy ibis. The observational comments effectively address this for this individual and I feel safely eliminate a hybrid. In addition, the fine line of light coloration on the face does not look like feathers. However, given the prospects of interbreeding, the likelyhood of hybrids in Utah are high. Unless there is distinct breeding by these glossy ibis or regular in-migration, hybrids are likely to become the normal siting in the near future.
Larry T. 30 Oct 2008 Acc  

2nd round: 

23 Jun 2009 Acc  
David W. 1 Oct 2008 Acc Very thoroughly presented.  The main distinguishing features of the species are discussed:  iris color, facial skin color, extent of pale outline to face, bill color, and (though vague) leg color.  Thankfully, this was an adult, so the ID was more straight-forward.

2nd round: 

3 Jun 2008 Acc I think the observer does an admirable job eliminating the possibility of a hybrid.

  

2008-15 Eastern Phoebe

Evaluator Date Vote Comment
Rick F. 25 Aug 2008 Acc  
Eric H. 26 Aug 2008 Acc  
Colby N. 20 Oct 2008 Acc Good photos
Kristin P. 28 May 2009 Acc  
Terry S. 11 Sep 2008 Acc  
Larry T. 14 Dec 2008 Acc Probably the same bird that has been wintering in the area the last couple years.
David W. 29 Aug 2008 Acc Good photos.

    

 


Return to the Utah Birds Home Page