Records Committee Utah Ornithological Society Web Site

Records Committee
Utah Ornithological Society

Status & Comments
Year 2008 (records 16 through 37)

2008-16 Neotropic Cormorant

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.	16 Oct 2008	Acc
Terry S.	11 Sep 2008	Acc	Great photos
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	25 Aug 2008	Acc	Outstanding photos.

2008-17 Painted Bunting

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Aug 2008	Acc
Eric H.	19 Sep 2008	Acc
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	Acc	Hesitant without photos or recording...but female Painted Buntings have little confusing species, and the description is sufficient and from a competent observer.
Kristin P.	31 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	11 Sep 2008	Acc	A distinctive species
Larry T.	1 Feb 2009	Acc
David W.	31 Aug 2008	Acc	Well, seeing as a relatively drab female is unlikely to be an escapee from the pet trade, this should put to rest some of the angst about the status of the Fish Springs record. Nice work, Rick.

2008-18 Painted Redstart

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.	31 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	11 Sep 2008	Acc
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	25 Aug 2008	Acc	Great photos.

2008-19 Zone-tailed Hawk

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.	20 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	11 Sep 2008	Acc	Great Photos
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	29 Aug 2008	Acc	good photos!

2008-20 Zone-tailed Hawk

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	25 Aug 2008	Acc
Eric H.	26 Aug 2008	Acc
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	Acc	Good photo
Kristin P.	20 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	11 Sep 2008	Acc
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	29 Aug 2008	Acc

2008-21 Western Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	2 Oct 2008	Acc	Excellent record
Eric H.	19 Sep 2008	Acc
Colby N.	2 Oct 2008	Acc	Good photos and description
Kristin P.	13 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	2 Oct 2008	Acc	I believe the description is good for a Western Gull. The overall color, legs, p-10 mirror, gonydeal angle,all seem to eliminate other possible species. Photos help.
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	31 Aug 2008	Acc	Two excellent photos. The second photo showing the flight feathers was especially helpful. Nicely described as well.

2008-22 Pacific Golden-Plover

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	2 Oct 2008	Acc	Outstanding record
Eric H.
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	Acc	Photos and description seem good for this species.
Kristin P.	9 Jun 2009	Acc
Terry S.	18 Sep 2008	Acc	Good documentation and photo
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc	Very nice bird!
David W.	1 Oct 2008	Acc	Excellent writeup & definitive photos. The extent of the white stripe along flanks; the relative extent of the tail, primaries, and tertials; and the description of the undertail coverts, all sound very convincing.

2008-23 Black Phoebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	2 Oct 2008	Acc
Eric H.	19 Sep 2008	Acc
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	Acc	Good photo and description
Kristin P.	9 Jun 2009	Acc
Terry S.	18 Sep 2008	Acc
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	1 Oct 2008	Acc

2008-24 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 Oct 2008	No, ID	There is not enough detail in either the description or the photos to support a definitive identification of a vagrant Empidonax flycatcher. Confirming the identification of an out-of-range Yellow-bellied Flycatcher in the west is extremely difficult and usually requires extensive study and often detailed photographs of subtle characteristics (e.g. spacing of primaries, primary projection length, etc.). With that said, there are several characteristics visible in the photos that do not support the identification as a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher (bill shape and length, lower mandible color, inconspicuous eye-ring, whitish throat, yellow-olive back, primary projection, etc.), and very few that would suggest a YB Flycatcher. Yellow-bellied Flycatchers are characterized as having a large, broad bill, yellow / orange lower mandible, conspicuous eye-ring, yellow throat, very green back, yellowish underparts, and moderate primary projection. Perhaps the biggest character that is incongruous with Yellow-bellied Flycatcher is the crested crown shown in all three photos. I ve never observed a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher with a crested or ragged crown. The head of a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher, even on first-fall birds, should appear smooth and round. According to Kaufman (1990), the crown of YB Flycatchers is usually smoothly rounded, not crested or peaked . Alderfer and Dunn (2006) de! scribe the YB crown as rounded and not peaked or crested and Sibley (2000) describes YB s with a rounded head and slight but not ragged crest . The description states that 10-15 pictures were taken. I would encourage submitting all available photographs when trying to establish an extremely difficult identification.
Bob B. 2nd round	27 Aug 2009	No, ID	There are many things that point to this being a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher. However there are many question. I don't believe I can really tell what the eye ring is like from the photos. The head is obviously crested in all the photos. Kenn Kaufman states in his Advanced Birding Guide, that this bird usually has a rounded head, not crested or peaked. In addition he states that the bird usually sticks to dense forest, even during migration. There are too many unknowns with this bird for me to make a definitive ID.
Eric H.	10 Apr 2009	Acc	Color and shape look right. Observer is experienced with this species.
2nd round	26 Jul 2009	No, ID	The observer had better views before he was able to get his camera and has in hand experience with this species. But I also believe the concerns of other committee members are valid. I have changed my vote. I think we need more to confidently ID such a difficult species.
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	No, ID	First, I have no experience with Yellow-bellied Flycatcher. Second, it does seem to be the best fit for this bird. However, I'm not sure this couldn't be a Least...although the thin, relatively indistinct eye ring, overall coloration, and the bill size and shape suggests otherwise. I'm not sure Acadian should have been eliminated so quickly, but they do have a relatively long primary projection, which does not appear to be the case for this bird via the photos (and the observers note that it was short-medium). I would like to see this go to the second round, and hopefully someone with more experience has some useful thoughts because I don't think this bird is one of our more common Utah empids.
2nd round	12 Jun 2009	No, ID	concerns still the same
Kristin P.	9 Jun 2009	No, ID	The difficulty of defending a non-singing Empid in migration out of habitat looms large considering the similarity of Western Flycatchers, plumage variability, the general wariness of the review bird (preventing exceptional images necessary in this case), and poor lighting. While several features favor Yellow-bellied, not all do and I keep in mind that poor lighting affects not only the camera's images, but it affects observers' perceptions as well. I don't think it's realistic to compare differences in shades of color of two species of Empids when one of the birds is not present and the lighting is poor. In the category of extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, I believe a Yellow-bellied sight record requires a recording and/or outstanding images and the bird/lighting/circumstances allowed none of these.
2nd round	11 Aug 2009	No, ID	Some IDs are just plain harder to defend. While a recording of an Empid might be the conclusive evidence needed to accept a record like this, the likelihood of obtaining a recording of a Yellow-bellied Flycatcher in Utah, almost certainly to be a bird on passage, is extremely low. My inclinations toward the narrative info and photos are the same--not enough to ID this bird conclusively.
Terry S.	11 Dec 2008	No, ID	The empidonax flycatchers can be difficult to tell apart this time of year. Plumage differences due to molt, wear and age sure make the plumage quite variable. I look at the photos submitted and I am not convinced that this not a Western Flycatcher. The bill seems larger than I would expect and the tail I believe is not that short. The quality of the photos makes it difficult to really see details of the bird including the eye-ring. I have seen several western type flycatchers that have strong yellow washes that fall within the range of this bird.
Ron R. 2nd round	5 Jul 2009	No, ID	I don't feel there is enough compelling support for this bird being a yellow-bellied flycatcher. Some characteristics are supporting: greenish back, what appear to be almost black wings that set off the wing-bars and tertials, round eye ring; while others are not so supporting: faint eye-ring, grayish rather than yellow throat, crested head (although this might simply be an agitated bird), lack of strong greenish wash on sides of breast. Given that the ID is not definitive (observations and photos taken under poor light conditions) and the ID is based in part on trying to eliminate other species, I don't feel this is a sufficient record for a tough species ID (without vocalization).
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	No, ID	This is a well done write up and the bird could very well be a YBFL. But for a first state record on such a difficult group a calling or in hand bird is almost a must. If the description had said a yellow instead of pale white eye ring that would have been very helpful too.
2nd round	12 Jun 2009	No, ID
David W.	1 Oct 2008	No, ID	I think everything but the eye ring are very suggestive of some plumage or other of a Yellow-bellied flycatcher. The bill shape and color eliminate most options, especially the eastern empids. The problem I am having is definitively eliminating the yellower races of the Willow flycatcher (for which the eye ring might fit best, but whose bills, in my opinion, should be a bit longer than shown on the photos). I at first thought this bird represented a worn fall adult of the Yellow-bellied flycatcher, which is "allowed" a pale throat, but the very broad "yellow-beige" wing bars make me wonder just how "worn" this individual really is. Please, if there are Committee members out there who are more familiar with the molt/wearing sequences of the different portions of the respective empid species, do share your knowledge (especially as regards the molt timing of the throat feathers vs. the wing coverts). [see "NOTE ON MOLT" below for some background] By the way, the fact that this bird appears to have a dark tip to its lower mandible in no way eliminates it from consideration as a Yellow-bellied flycatcher. Photos of this species can show quite a bit of darkness there (more than this one). I am reluctantly voting "NO" in hopes that this record will go into the second round, but also because I am sufficiently unsure that this is definitely a Yellow-bellied flycatcher (though that appears to me at this time to be the best fit). ***** NOTE ON MOLT: (This is from Cornell's "The Birds of North America Online") Basic I Plumage Prebasic I (postjuvenal) molt partial; occurs Jul Sep, primarily on summer grounds; unknown if molt is suspended for migration. Molt includes body-feathers, most to all median wing-coverts, 0 (in approximately 22% of individuals) to 7 inner greater wing-coverts and usually (approximately 89%) 1 3 tertials, but no rectrices. Basic I plumage similar to Definitive Basic plumage, except shows different molt limits. Retained outer wing-coverts tipped buffy brownish, contrasting with fresher, duskier, and whitish to yellowish tipped, replaced inner wing-coverts; 1 3 tertials usually contrastingly fresh; outer primary-coverts narrower and relatively abraded, with reduced greenish edges; primaries and secondaries even in wear, and rectrices narrower and more tapered Definitive Basic Plumage Definitive Prebasic molt incomplete to complete; occurs Aug Oct on wintering grounds. Body plumage and all or most flight feathers replaced; 1 6 inner secondaries (among S1 S7) and outermost 1 5 primaries (among P6 P10) sometimes retained.
2nd round	11 Aug 2009	No, ID

2008-25 Magnolia Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	2 Oct 2008	Acc
Eric H.	19 Sep 2008	Acc
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	Acc	Good photo and description
Kristin P.	14 Jun 2009	Acc
Terry S.	2 Oct 2008	Acc	Good description and helpful photo for a distinct species.
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	1 Oct 2008	Acc	Good photo. [Note that I am almost certain Mark Stackhouse & I saw this bird (or one just like it) at the International Center on Sep 29, 2008, and the best match we could come up with at the time (based on our glimpse) was a Magnolia Warbler.]

2008-26 Glossy Ibis

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	2 Oct 2008	Acc	Great photos
Bob B. 2nd round:	27 Aug 2009	Acc	I believe the photos and the description are good for a pure Glossy Ibis.
Eric H.	8 Dec 2008	Acc
2nd round:	23 Jun 2009	Acc	I will accept as a Glossy Ibis.
Colby N.	20 Oct 2008	No, ID	Again, I don't see any red in the eye, and the facial skin appears more blue-ish than Ryan's bird, but again, is this still within the range of a hybrid? Same questions as in 2008-14.
2nd round:	12 Jun 2009	Acc
Kristin P.	4 May 2009	Acc
2nd round:	11 Aug 2009	Acc	Just enough information to accept this ID as a Glossy, considering late breeding record and the most distinctive features are muddled. Brownish bill, bluish delineated facial skin, think pale line bordering face top and bottom. Hybrid characters addressed only at minimum. This one ekes by.
Terry S.	8 Oct 2008	Acc
Ron R. 2nd round:	12 Jun 2009	Acc	I feel the photo safely eliminates white-faced ibis and hybrids with the dark eye (no red coloration) and lack of white facial feathers (as would be expected with white-faced and many hybrids).
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
2nd round:	23 Jun 2009	Acc
David W.	1 Oct 2008	Acc	Superb photos.
2nd round:	3 Jun 2009	Acc	When I look at the dark color of the eye, the fact that the pale edging to facial skin does not extend beyond eye, the blue tone to the facial skin, and the lack of pink tones in the pale face border, I feel confident this is not a hybrid (at least not a first-generation hybrid--who knows about back-crossing back toward Glossy ibis!). When one compares this bird to the hybrids shown on the Plegadis website, the link to which was provided by Colby, I think the differences listed above are pretty dramatic. Cliff Weisse, a bird expert in Idaho whose advice on our Birdtalk I've come to greatly respect over the years, had a very good discussion on differentiating the two species in May 2006. What I noted from the discussion were the following points: 1) The pale edges of the facial skin on a Glossy should be pale blue, not lavender. [To me, the edging appears white with no "warm" tones, consistent with a Glossy.] 2) All hybrids Cliff has seen had a reddish tinge to the iris. This is well illustrated in the Plegadis website sent by Colby.

2008-27 Wood Thrush

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 Oct 2008	Acc	photos are definitive.
Eric H.	25 Oct 2008	Acc
Colby N.	21 Oct 2008	Acc	Photos sufficient.
Kristin P.	14 Jun	Acc
Terry S.	11 Nov 2008	Acc	The photos help in identifying this species.
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc	Great bird.
David W.	22 Oct 2008	Acc

2008-28 Palm Warbler

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 Oct 2008	Acc	conclusive photos.
Eric H.	25 Oct 2008	Acc
Colby N.	21 Oct 2008	Acc	Photos sufficient.
Kristin P.	22 Jun 2009	Acc
Terry S.	11 Nov 2008	Acc
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
David W.	22 Oct 2008	Acc	Nice photos.

2008-29 Red-necked Grebe

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	21 Oct 2008	Acc	marginal description but definitive photos. The grebe was reported through May 05, 2008.
Eric H.	25 Oct 2008	Acc
Colby N.	21 Oct 2008	Acc	Photos sufficient.
Kristin P.	22 Jun 2009	Acc
Terry S.	17 Nov 2008	Acc
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc	Always a nice bird to see at this time of the year.
David W.	22 Oct 2008	Acc	Another fine record by Colby, with good photos.

2008-30 Northern Parula

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B. 2nd round:	2 Dec 2009	No, ID	There are just too many questions about this bird.
Rick F.	7 Dec 2008	No, ID	Timing is appropriate and a Northern Parula, even a worn one, in San Juan Co. on 24 May is certainly a possibility, but there is really very little to go on in the description. Perhaps the description could be of a N. Parula, but it ignores some important and diagnostic characters such as eye-arcs rather than eyering, leg/foot color, bicolored bill, wing-bars, etc. Accepting the assumption that the wing-bars 'were eliminated' through wear, the remaining description (gray face and upperparts, faint eyering, yellow throat and upper breast, white underparts, olive patch on back, etc. certainly does not rule (and may better fit) a first-winter Magnolia Warbler (with delayed molt into first alternate plumage).
2nd round:	6 Jan 2010	No, ID	See first round comments
Steve H..	20 Nov 2009	No, ID	Most of the described fieldmarks fit this species but I have a concern with the lack of white wingbars. The wingbars on Parulas are prominent and should have been present, even on a worn bird.
2nd round:	25 Nov 2009	No, ID	This bird could have been a Parula but I have to agree with Rick, Eric, and Terry that the description does not eliminate 1st winter Magnolia or female Nashville warbler. I still have concerns with the lack of wingbars.
Eric H.	10 Apr 2009	No, ID	This was likely a Parula but the notes don't exactly fit Parula. Eye-ring and plain wings may better describe Nashville Warbler?
2nd round:	29 Nov 2009	No, ID	I don't think this description adequately describes Northern Perula. I appreciate having these records in our data (especially the older records) even if they don't pass. Its nice to know that there was possibly a spring sighting of a Parula in San Juan Co. in 1987.
Colby N.	17 Apr 2009	No, ID
2nd round:	20 Dec 2009	No, ID
Ron R.. 2nd round:	22 Jan 2010	No, ID	I agree with Rick (and others) on this bird. The description is not definitive and could be another species. In addition to suggested other species, the description could also fit a Virginia's warbler given the "plain wings", and if the rump and vent were not clearly seen.
Terry S.	1 Dec 2008	No, ID	This record is difficult to review. There is much information lacking such as conspicuous wing bars. I don't think a Nashville Warbler can be ruled out given the conflicting information.
2nd round:	7 Jan 2010	No, ID	Same concerns as expressed in my first vote
Larry T.	14 Dec 2008	Acc
2nd round:	15 Dec 2009	Acc	It is unusual to see a bird this worn looking in late May but it does happen. I would guess a first Spring female retaining it's juvenile wing coverts explaining the lack of wingbars. And the more of a faint eyering look over eye arcs would be from a worn bird also.. Everything else about the description fits a Parula fine. N. Parula is one of the more common eastern Warblers in Spring. The 20+ year old notes and memory to go along with this record are still convincing enough for me.
David W.	4 Dec 2008	No, ID	Northern parulas have prominent wing bars. This bird is described as having "plain" wings.
2nd round:	30 Nov 2009	No, ID

2008-31 Iceland Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 Dec 2008	Acc	Nice thorough record. I think it meets all the criteria for a first-cycle Kumlein's Gull. Nice series of photos to help eliminate other possibilities, even tricky ones like Glaucous X American Herring hybrid (usually show some hint of a secondary bar).
Steve H.	20 Nov 2009	Acc	Fieldmarks in the photos fit this species.
Eric H.	21 Jan 2009	Acc
Colby N.	11 Dec 2008	Acc	Looks good for Kumlein's
Terry S.	13 Dec 2008	Acc	I think of all the possible Iceland Gulls we have reviewed this one seems to fit the descriptions given by Lehman, Grant and Zimmer. My personal bias is that Thayer's and Iceland are the same species spread over a varibility cline with Kumlien's somewhere in the middle. That aside and given they are recognized as different species I believe the observers and done an excellent job in detailing the characteristics of the bird.
Larry T.	23 Jun 2009	Acc	This is always a very difficult pair to separate. There is a lot to take into consideration with the variability in their plumage. But looking at the great pics and given the time of year I can see nothing wrong with accepting this bird as a Iceland.
David W.	3 Jan 2009	Acc	Boy, this is one of those that can be (and has been) well argued both ways. I must admit I am not a gullophile, and I am generally skeptical of the sanctity of species limits of gulls in general. Furthermore, I am not convinced that, with the amount of hybridization that occurs in the genus Larus, gulls are that certain either. So I am not sure one can ever be 100% certain of IDs within certain gull complexes such as this. Perhaps the best one can do with certain gull IDs is to give it one's best shot. So here goes. In my analysis, I think the bird must be an Iceland, Glaucous, or Thayers gull, based on overall paleness of body plumage, etc. I think Thayers can be eliminated because even the palest Thayer's don't seem to be this pale, especially on the flight feathers and tail, even though its bill is a very good match. So that leaves the first two, which parse out as follows: Overall size: In the photos, the bird appears just barely larger than California gulls around it. This strongly argues for an Iceland gull, as Glaucous gulls are generally much larger (Sibley & Natl Geo say California = 21", Iceland = 22", Thayer's = 23", and Glaucous = 27"; and Peter Harrison's Seabirds guide gives the ranges of Calif = 51-58cm, Thayer's = 56-63cm, Iceland = 58-64cm, Glaucous = 66-77cm). Based on these measurements, the bird in question is too small to be a Glaucous gull. But, according to Cliff Weisse's e-mail of 5 Nov 2008 on Utah's Birtalk, Howell & Dunn's measurements for the barrovianus ssp of Glaucous gull is downright wee at 21.5-24.8", compared to 19-24.5" for Iceland gull. So perhaps size is not such a good fieldmark as one might think. [Note, the barrovianus ssp also has a smaller, more slender bill, per literature] Wing Extensions: The primaries extend far beyond the tail on this bird--much longer than those shown in Kaufman, Natl Geo, and Sibley for Glaucous gull, but match an Iceland gull quite well. This is a strong argument in my opinion, as it shows proportions rather than just size. Bill size: In general, Glaucous gulls should have much thicker and longer bills than this bird, while Iceland bills match this bird quite well. But note the Cautionary Note below. Photos of bills of Glaucous gulls I've seen all look at least somewhat larger than this bird's. Position of Legs: The legs on this bird are positioned farther back on the body than guides say the Iceland gull should show. This is perhaps the best evidence for this bird being a Glaucous gull. However, photos on the web show several examples of Iceland gulls with legs farther back on the body than shown in those learned sketches in guides, and completely consistent with this gull. Head Shape: This bird has a round head, consistent with an Iceland gull. Glaucous gulls tend to have blocker heads. But this is so subtle as to be dangerous. Cautionary note: Kaufman (in Advanced Birding) strongly cautions that the size difference between sexes in some gulls, including Thayers, can be dramatic. Likewise, females tend to have shorter, thinner bills and smaller, rounder heads. Bill Color: The Iceland gulls in 1st winter plumage tend to have more uniformly dark bills, but there appears to be variation in this field mark. Still, the bill color is a better (more typical) match for a Glacous gull than an Iceland gull. All this being said, photos I have seen on the internet of both Glaucous & Iceland gulls show excellent matches to Iceland but not so much for Glaucous. So, to my mind the bird is a far better match for an Iceland gull than any other species. In fact, I see nothing in this bird that would preclude it being an Iceland gull, even if a couple of the fieldmarks push the limits of the bell curve.

2008-32 Lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 Dec 2008	Acc	Nicely documented record.
Eric H.	21 Jan 2009	Acc
Colby N.	11 Dec 2008	Acc	Good photos
Kristin P.	10 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	1 Dec 2008	Acc	Excellent narrative and convincing photos
Larry T.	1 Feb 2009	Acc
David W.	1 Jan 2009	Acc	Excellent writeup & photos, especially those by Jason Pietrzak. Exemplary elimination of similar species.

2008-33 Lesser Black-backed Gull

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 Dec 2008	Acc	Another nice record. Unusual to have a late second cycle gull like this around.
Eric H.	10 Apr 2009	Acc
Colby N.	11 Dec 2008	Acc	Good photos
Kristin P.	10 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	22 Dec 2008	Acc	The observer has good photos and observations in identifying this species.
Larry T.	18 Mar 2009	Acc
David W.	1 Jan 2009	Acc	Again, a superb writeup & photos.

2008-34 Black Scoter

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	7 Dec 2008	Acc	Nicely documented.
Steve H.	20 Nov 2009	Acc
Eric H.	8 Dec 2008	Acc
Colby N.	11 Dec 2008	Acc
Terry S.	1 Dec 2008	Acc
Larry T.	18 Mar 2009	Acc
David W.	4 Dec 2008	Acc

2008-35 Cackling Goose

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	28 Dec 2008	Acc	Nice record.
Eric H.	29 Apr 2009	Acc
Colby N.	11 Dec 2008	Acc	Good photos
Kristin P.	25 May 2009	Acc
Terry S.	25 Dec 2008	Acc
Larry T.	26 May 2009	Acc
David W.	2 Jan 2009	Acc	Excellent writeup & photos.

2008-36 Brown-capped Rosy-Finch

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Bob B. 2nd round	2 Dec 2009	Acc	I don't see how this can be anything but a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch. Although there does seem to be a size disparity in some of the photos, there doesn't seem to be any in other photos. I just think this must be an illusion.
Rick F.	28 Dec 2008	Acc
2nd round:	6 Jan 2010	Acc	This bird appears fine for a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch
Steve H.	20 Nov 2009	Acc	Good photos show all fieldmarks.
2nd round:	25 Nov 2009	Acc	The subject bird in Photos A and B does appear slightly larger than the accompanying Black Rosy-Finches but in the other photos the birds are all about the same size. There is nothing in the photos to suggest the subject bird could be anything other than a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch.
Eric H.	21 Jan 2009	Acc
2nd round:	29 Nov 2009	Acc	I don't know what to say about the size of the bird. I haven't any experience seeing the two species side-by-side. It does look larger than the other birds in the first photo. I did a quick search for Rosy-Finch measurements and could only find the chart on this page. http://azfo.org/journal/RosyFinch.html
Colby N.	17 Apr 2009	Acc	Good photos
2nd round:	20 Dec 2009	Acc
Ron R.. 2nd round:	22 Jan 2010	Acc	Very good and helpful photos. The overall brown color, dark cap, lack of silver head band, extensive pink on underside are diagnostic for this likely male individual.
Terry S.	31 Dec 2008	Acc	Great photos for an exceptional bird.
2nd round:	7 Jan 2010	Acc	Still looks like a good record.
Larry T.	18 Mar 2009	Acc
2nd round:	15 Dec 2009	Acc
Merrill W.
David W.	1 Dec 2009	No, ID	I thought this would be an easy ID and that I would vote to ACCEPT. Utah is long overdue for this species, and I firmly believe we must surely be visited by these birds on a regular basis, especially SE part of the state. I still think the bird is most like a Brown-capped rosy-finch. However, I am very troubled by the seemingly large contrast in size between this individual and the Black rosy-finches around it. This bird looks significantly larger than those around it in all the photos. According to the sources I consulted, the three species of American rosy-finches are all about the same size with the exception of the Aleutian races, which are significantly larger (14-16cm vs. 17-21cm per Cornell site). Everything else about the bird seems to strongly point to or at least be consistent with a Brown-capped rosy-finch, but the size issue troubles me enough to attempt pushing it to the second round, with apologies. For what it is worth, and I am not trying to be glib or clever here, I also think the bird looks more like a Brown-capped rosy-finch than the Siberian forms of rosy-finches which until recently were all lumped with the American forms into the "Rosy finch."
2nd round:	17 Dec 2009	Acc	Having only seen this species clearly once in my life, and that without other rosy finches on the mountain top to compare their size to, I have been trying to figure out from books and internet sources how this size difference could be so pronounced in so many of the photos included with this record. I finally found this: "Black Rosy-Finches tend to be about 1/4 inch shorter from tip of bill to end of tail than the other species, which are about 6 1/4 inches in length." Odd that this bit of knowledge is not more widespread. Perhaps it is because there are so many subspecies within this complex (esp. the Gray-crowned rosy finches) that it is difficult to make size generalizations. With this quote in mind, and after studying other possibilities vis-a-vis the other field marks, I have decided to change my vote to ACCEPT. A long overdue species, well documented.

2008-37 Ruff

Evaluator	Date	Vote	Comment
Rick F.	29 Dec 2008	Acc	nice record
Steve H.	20 Nov 2009	Acc
Eric H.	21 Jan 2009	Acc
Colby N.	17 Apr 2009	Acc	Good photos
Terry S.	31 Dec 2008	Acc	Photos are excellent but virtually no narrative for this record.
Larry T.	18 Mar 2009	Acc
David W.	1 Jan 2009	Acc	I am voting to accept this based on the wonderful photos, especially Photo C of the first set and those of the second set by Mr. Avery & Binch, rather than the near-absent (to put it kindly) description in the writeup. For me, the most persuasive field marks observed from the photos are: --bright orange-yellow legs of med length --mostly-white underwing --length & slightly decurved shape of bill --shape of and length of tertials relative to primary projection --white U-shaped pattern on uppertail coverts, and --the slightly "scruffy" mantle.