|
2025-01
Northern Cardinal
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C |
8 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Washington County would be a
reasonable location for such a vagrant to appear, but the record leaves me
with questions. I read the record several times to become clear on whether
the words represented the observer s description and previous experience
with the species or the description of and experience with the species by
the submitter, who did not observe the bird. The showing of field guides
to the observer by the submitter left me with the impression that the
observer wasn t sure of the species that visited the feeder. For such a
vagrant, I d like more conclusive documentation from the observer s
perspective before accepting the record. |
|
2nd round: |
27 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
Same as first round |
|
Max M. |
14 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
This is a very odd record. Written by the parent
of the observer? How old is her daughter? How much experience does she
have? I don't think the mother's experience qualifies for the observer.
Showing someone pictures of birds in a book may lead to thinking they saw
something that may be different than was actually observed, and then the
record submitter describes a cardinal from a field guide? I don't think
there is enough here to accept an exceptional species like Northern
Cardinal without more information. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Thanks Kris for the follow up information, I
still don't think there is enough information to support this record. |
|
Keeli M. |
20 Jan 2025 |
To 2nd |
Description seems like it rules out other
species, however, observer doesn't explicitly discuss how other species
were actually ruled out. Soft accept but wondering what other board
members think about this one. |
|
2nd round: |
127 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
I believe the submitter is an experienced
birder, and the bird she said her daughter described is likely a NOCA, but
as others mentioned, the secondhand report is problematic and there are
issues with supporting details that don't rule out an escapee or other
similar species. |
|
Bryant
O. |
5 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Although on the surface this
looks like a good record, at the very end under additional info, we see
that this whole record is a 2nd hand report by a parent speaking for their
child, therefore it is hearsay. There is no information on the age or
experience of the child and the person writing the record did not see the
bird, which is very problematic. There is at least one other report of a
NOCA in Washington county recently, and this would fit the expected
pattern of their occurrence in Utah(unlike many other records) but I don't
think a second hand report from a parent for their child is a
scientifically valid record |
|
2nd round: |
1 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
This report is all hearsay without an actual
account from the observer of the bird, not a scientifically valid
sighting. |
|
Kris P. |
11 Feb 2025 |
No, nat |
This record is confusing and misleading, and I
wouldn't accept it for those reasons if we had voting categories to match.
But we don't, so I'm not accepting it because neither the observer nor the
submitter established that the bird is wild and not an escapee.
I think the misleading nature of this record is unintentional. My e-mail
inquiries to clear up the confusion have gone unanswered.
I believe Lucy Ormond submitted this record on behalf of her daughter,
Adrienne. Lucy filed an eBird checklist from the same address on the same
date and with the same details as in record 2025-01, except she didn't
mention that her daughter was the observer and she (Lucy) didn't see it:
https://ebird.org/checklist/S206977609
Note that Lucy also comments she thought the bird was a stray from
Arizona; the same comment that appears a couple times in the record. But
her name doesn't appear on the record anywhere.
Very confusing is that the observer, Adrienne Shoell, also uses the name
Annie. Misleading, if my conjecture is right, is that Lucy may have
entered her own experience with the species rather than Adrienne/Annie's.
(I don't think an observer with the experience listed would need to be
shown a Northern Cardinal and other red birds in eight field guides to
confirm what she saw.)
I e-mailed Adrienne at the e-mail address in the record in early January
to clear up the mystery. She has not replied. She might not even be aware
of the UBRC or that a sight record was submitted on her behalf. Or maybe
my message ended up in her spam folder. I also e-mailed Lucy in
mid-January and haven't received a reply while allowing extra time because
she wasn't available during part of that period. While I have Lucy's phone
number and birded with her once, I think additional attempts to straighten
this out are too intrusive and unnecessary because I've confirmed most of
this information through publicly-available sources.
I don't think Adrienne is a birder nor is she in a position to evaluate a
Northern Cardinal for signs of captivity. Those would be under-pigmented
feathers, unusual feather wear and unwary behavior. Even experienced
birders may not know these are concerns for a certain subset of songbirds,
and the additional comments don't include trying to establish the bird's
wild status. |
|
2nd round: |
21 Feb 2025 |
No, nat |
I'm staying with my No, Nat vote for the second
round. There are myriad reasons not to accept this record, and others I
described without realizing it in my first round comments: This record was
submitted anonymously, perhaps not intentionally. I don't think following
the scientific method ever allows for data bases to accept anonymous
records. This circumstance probably should result in an automatic 'Not
Accept' regardless of the content of the record. Another that I mentioned
is that the means of contacting the citizen scientist involved in this
sighting is not viable, or my inquiry was simply ignored--also not
acceptable when following the scientific method. The details of the
observation and species elimination are irrelevant in light of the fact
that neither the "scientist" nor the submitter are available to answer
questions about the observation. This, to me, is akin to submitting a phD
dissertation to a panel of academics and then never being available to
defend the thesis, all the while expecting to be published: No. |
|
Mike
S. |
23 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
This is a potentially intriguing and truly
unusual record. If this description was a first-hand account of this bird,
I would likely vote to accept. However, the secondhand account from the
submitter's daughter introduces some uncertainty. I think it was prudent
of the submitter of this record to allow her daughter to point out the
bird that she saw in field guides, and she may well have seen a Northern
Cardinal. However, this is a very unusual circumstance, and I don't
believe we have much precedent for accepting records submitted by someone
other than the observer (except for maybe some exceptional circumstances
where there was a photo or other definitive documentation that could be
traced back to the observer).
The fact that Adrienne is apparently too young to submit her own sight
record introduces some additional concerns...
I hope Adrienne becomes an avid birder and adds this one to her life list,
but I don't feel comfortable accepting this rarity based on the unusual
circumstances of this record. I'm interested to see what others have to
say... |
|
2nd round: |
2 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Looks like we are mostly on the same page. |
|
Dennis S. |
19 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Due to the extreme rarity of this species ( only
4 site records) along with the unauthorized introduction in the 1990's in
Utah County, this record is hard to accept based on the one short
observation time, and no additional later observations at the feeder. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No additional thoughts from first round. |
|
Mark S. |
11 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
This is a soft accept, due to
the irregular nature of the submission and the observation. The
description clearly fits Northern Cardinal, but it's unclear whether the
report is being submitted by the actual observer.
There are always questions regarding natural occurrence for this species,
but at least this location would be logical for a naturally occurring
vagrant. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Feb 2025 |
No, nat |
I'll change my vote considering the concerns of
other committee members. I offered a soft accept, but the irregularities
of this record make a rejection for such a rare species warranted. |
|
Kevin
W. |
24 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Although the description of characters in this
submission would eliminate other possibilities, I have several concerns.
Primarily, that this bird was observed by the daughter of the submitter,
who didn't see the bird herself (the report doesn't indicate the age of
the observer). Also, the bird supposedly only showed once at a feeder,
although other people were watching the feeders regularly.The fact that
the observer then had to look through a book to find a bird that fits what
she remembered indicates little or no experience with the species. I'm not
sure the record is trustworthy enough to accept. |
|
2nd round: |
28 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No change in thoughts from first round. |
2025-02 Gilded
Flicker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
10 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
I took extra measures with this record because
it reminded me of the Gilded Flicker record from last January (2024-04).
The brown/cinnamon cap and nape of our current bird initially gave me the
impression of a male Gilded Flicker. But closer observation seemed to
reveal that the forehead color was slightly warmer or brighter than the
rest of the crown and nape in some images. Beyond the head, the rest of
our review bird appears to be typical of Northern Flicker (Red-shafted).
First and foremost, Red/orange shafts can be seen in the primary and
secondary feathers in photos C, D, and F. A hint of that color also
appears in the lighter spots in the folded primaries. These traits do not
support the Gilded Flicker ID.
I generated a list of images that are labeled Northern Flicker
(Red-shafted) in the Macaulay Library that show the same cap and nape
traits as our review bird but also clearly show the red/orange color
expected for Northern Flicker (Red-shafted) on the undersides of flight
feathers. Some were even labeled as Red x Yellow-shafted intergrades.
Sibley notes that Red x Yellow-shafted Northern Flicker intergrades can
appear similar to Gilded Flickers. Our bird seems to lack the red nape
crescent often seen on red x yellow-shafted intergrades, but rather than
confirm that such is the case with this bird, I took the approach of
determining whether this bird is a pure Gilded Flicker as submitted. While
not the most reliable traits due to variation among individual birds, I
reviewed and noted that our review bird also appeared to have a darker
brown dorsal color, bolder barring across the folded wings and back, more
uniformly round black spots on the sides and flanks, and a breast patch
that comes to a sharp point on the bird’s right side (although its left
side is less so). Again, I recognize that these traits vary among
individuals in both species, but I wanted to consider all traits in the
balance. The scale tilted away from a pure Gilded Flicker.
Final note: After finishing my review of the complete record with its
images and confirming that it was permitted, I reached out to the observer
to see if he had any other images that could supplement the record. I
received several images clearly showing the undertail feathers
characteristic of Northern Flicker (Red-shafted). I forwarded those images
to the secretary and webmaster to be included in the record. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
For the same reasons noted in my first round
vote. |
|
Max M. |
14 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
While the bird pictured does have a brown nape,
this trait can be pretty extensive in Red-shafted Flickers. No mention of
the shape of the bib or spots on the breast, no description of the
undertail color or amount of black in the tip of the tail (not the best
photos to view this either). I don't believe a normal, much more expected
Red-Shafted Northern Flicker can be ruled out. |
|
2nd round: |
31 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
No change of feelings from first round vote. |
|
Keeli M. |
20 Jan 2025 |
To 2nd |
This bird has some confusing characteristics to
me. The cinnamon forehead made me lean toward GIFL, but the bright orange
under tail and hints of orange under the wings in Photo G as well as the
bib shape being more crescent shaped and less oval shaped make me lean
toward hybrid. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No change of opinion that this is not a GIFL and
appreciate the in depth analysis of other committee members' comments that
this is a subspecies of NOFL with interesting characteristics. |
|
Bryant
O. |
5 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
There is no description of the
bird under field marks? No mention of the shaft color or the tail pattern.
Yes, the cap is intriguing, but the chest spots look very round and
without a view of the tail or shafts, I don't think we can rule out an
unusual Red-shafted, and especially a hybrid Red-shafted x Gilded. Someone
needs to re-find that bird. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Jan 2025 |
No, Int |
Red under tail eliminates pure Gilded. |
|
Kris P. |
5 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
This bird's crown pattern is arresting and I see
why it caught Jacob's attention. But I think it's more likely a vagrant of
the red-shafted subspecies C. a. cafer of the Pacific Coast region of the
Northern Flicker's range. Here are a couple examples from Macaulay
Library:
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/628564457
https://macaulaylibrary.org/asset/462640971
In addition, other characteristics favor red-shafted Northern Flicker
including:
- Crescent-shaped black breast patch with pointy ends rather than more
oval-shaped with rounded ends
- Circular breast spots on the sides rather than elongated to oval and
becoming bars
- Feather shafts appearing to be salmon-orange rather than yellow
- Black bars on back not particularly thin/pale
I considered the possibility of a hybrid given recent Gilded Flicker
record 2025-02 occurred less than 2 miles away, but the overwhelming
phenotypic characters of the bird in this record are than of a red-shafted
Northern Flicker. |
|
2nd round: |
30 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
As per my first round comments. |
|
Mike
S. |
30 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
The photos show a male Northern Flicker. This is
an interesting individual with a partial black outline around the red
malar (potentially indicating some yellow-shafted introgression?). The
crown/nape combo has a bit more contrasting brown than what is shown on
many NOFL, but I believe still within range of variation. We are clearly
seeing reddish-orange under the tail and on the wings, and the shape of
the black breastband is consistent with a NOFL.
I suppose if this same bird was seen near the expected range of Gilded
Flicker, there could be some discussion about a potential hybrid. However,
at this location I am not seeing any reason to call this anything but a
Northern Flicker. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No change of opinion. Kris's examples from the
Macaulay Library appear to be a good match. |
|
Dennis S. |
19 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Even with the apparent bright cinnamon colored
fore-crown, I'm not convinced this bird is a GIFL. The variations among
the NOFL make the GIFL dtermination complicated at best. In this bird the
photos give a more reddish tail coloration appearance and the back and
tail black barring appears more consistent with a NOFL. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
No change from 1st Round. |
|
Mark S. |
27 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
I'm not sure that this isn't a pure red-shafted,
but at the most, it's clearly a hybrid. The under-tail color is
red-orange, not yellow, the back color dark and heavily marked, and the
chest crescent very crescent-shaped and not at all rounded. The nape color
seems to be within the range of red-shafted. The only thing I can see that
would point towards Gilded Flicker is that the black on the underside tail
tip seems wider than on red-shafted.
I'm not sure who at eBird suggested this as a Gilded Flicker, but I
certainly can't see a pure Gilded Flicker here, and maybe not even a
hybrid. There's too much red-shafted in this individual. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
As per my first round comments. |
|
Kevin
W. |
24 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
This is an interesting bird. The color of the
feathers in the wings and the tail (particularly noticeable in photo G)
are more reddish than what I would think a Gilded should show. The breast
patch (more so on the left than the right side, for some reason) is more
pointed than rounded like a Gilded. Also, I think that on a gilded
flicker, the black tail tip should extend about halfway or more up the
tail; whereas this looks to be less than half. The brown crown is the only
real thing that confuses me. I haven't seen any Northern Flickers with a
completely brown crown like that, but it also seems that the brown fades
somewhat toward the rear instead of staying constant - I don't know what
that means as far as a Northern Flicker, but I don't think Gilded Flickers
should have a gradient of brown going to gray like that. |
|
2nd round: |
31 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
I agree with others that this bird is a Northern
Flicker. I hadn't recalled Northern Flickers with that much of a tan crown
before, but the photos that Kris attached are right on. |
2025-03
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
8 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
The record provides specific details and
represents a great attempt by the observer to observe and document key
field marks. The objective approach by the submitter was helpful with my
review of the record. As I considered the details, it seemed that we
needed to eliminate the possibility of a variant female Red-naped
Sapsucker, for example, since some female Red-naped Sapsuckers can show a
red chin and lack the red spot on the nape. I hesitate to accept the
record without notes on whether there was a complete black border around
the red throat and if the white markings on the back were indicative of
Yellow-bellied rather than Red-naped Sapsucker. |
|
Max M. |
14 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
I don't think the description of the throat
pattern is enough to eliminate RNSA or Hybrid, along with the quick view.
Also knowing that the nape isn't always red in RNSA. No mention of a
complete or incomplete black border to the red on throat. . . Doesn't
eliminate possibility of RNSA or Hybrid. |
|
Keeli M. |
20 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Not enough information in the record to fully
support ID or rule out a hybrid. |
|
Bryant
O. |
6 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
No discussion of the amount of red on the throat
or if it had a black border, no mention of age or back pattern. I don't
think there is enough here to rule out hybrid RNSA X YBSA. |
|
Kris P. |
6 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Not enough to ID this bird to species or
eliminate hybrids given that some Red-naped Sapsuckers don't have either
the red nape or red spattered on the auriculars. A good view of the throat
and its pattern and extent of red is imperative, and the pattern and
extent of white on the back is also important. |
|
Mike
S. |
4 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
I don't believe the description is detailed
enough to call this a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. I certainly don't trust
Merlin's ability to separate the calls of RNSA and YBSA. The description
of no red in the nape may suggest a YBSA. However, the red may not always
be obvious on a RNSA, and could also raise the question of a potential
hybrid (which isn't addressed in the similar species section).
While the observer mentions red on the "chin," the extent isn't mentioned
at all, particularly if this extended throughout the throat and whether
the red was fully enclosed within a black border. I would also like to see
more written detail on the back and head patterns to rule out a RNSA or
hybrid.
I believe this record demonstrates the difficulty of adequately
documenting a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker in Utah without photographs. It's
certainly possible, but there should be very detailed field notes to rule
out other possibilities (and as we've seen, sometimes even records with
decent photographs can be tricky, especially when dealing with some young
birds and potential hybrids). |
|
Dennis S. |
19 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Due to the minimum length of clear view
observations admitted by the reporter and the questionable amount of red
head coloration and other non-mentioned distinctive plumage characters I
am unconvinced of its correct identity.( Additionally, was the bird a
juvenile or adult?) |
|
Mark S. |
27 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
I don't think there's enough in this description
to establish the i.d., or certainly to eliminate the possibility of a
hybrid. Red-naped Sapsucker can lack the red nape, and no description of
the throat pattern or the back, that are key features, are offered.
Not enough here to accept. |
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
The observer may have seen a Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, but details that
would be conclusive are not included in the report, specifically the
pattern on the back and the black pattern around the red on the throat. I
certainly can't trust a merlin sound id and the lack of red on the nape to
confirm it as a Yellow-bellied. |
2025-04 Black-headed
Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
28 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
Description, images, and elimination of similar
species confirm the ID. Independently confirmed by many subsequent
observations documented in eBird. |
|
Max M. |
31 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent, well documented find by one of our
own. Makes you wonder if it is the same bird from Sand Hollow, wandering
around Utah of course no way to know but interesting to think about given
how exceptional the record is. |
|
Keeli M. |
8 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Great find. Red bill and legs and small size of
bird combined with dark ear spot and wing pattern all support ID.
Excellent job ruling out similar species. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
|
|
Kris P. |
27 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Such an excellent find by Bryant, and a thorough
record well-documented and defended. I especially appreciate the extensive
photos and the underwing shots showing those important dark primaries. |
|
Dennis S. |
26 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
A good sighting with multiple observers over
several days leaves little doubt. |
|
Mark S. |
27 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation. I'm glad Utah gets to
participate in the Black-headed Gull invasion happening this year. |
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
The red bill and legs, along with the unique
wing pattern clench this id for me. |
2025-05
Hudsonian Godwit
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
29 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
The description and images gave me an impression
of Greater Yellowlegs. The highly cropped images distort the bill shape,
but it seems that the length is about right for a Greater Yellowlegs,
nearly twice the length of the head. A Godwit s bill length would be
nearly three times the length of the head and begin with a thicker base.
An overwintering Willet would be rare and show a stouter bill. While this
bird appears chunky and hunchbacked like a godwit, foraging posture could
give that appearance for a yellowlegs. Since the submitter indicated that
the reported field marks relied on the cell phone images, that could
explain why the leg color was described as dark, lighting on the legs is
poor in the images we have to review. I checked recent checklists for the
location in eBird and noted that one eBirder reported Lesser Yellowlegs at
the same location two days (Jan 28th) after this reported sighting (Jan
26th). Two other eBirders that I know with significant experience also
visited the location on the 28th and reported a Greater Yellowlegs. This
record makes no mention of Greater Yellowlegs as a possibility nor how
Greater Yellowlegs was eliminated as a similar species. Consequently, I am
voting no on the ID. |
|
2nd round: |
2 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Same vote for the same reasons shared in the
first round. |
|
Max M. |
31 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Clearly a Yellowlegs - not sure why the observer
only chose to consider vagrant species. Also no optics other than a cell
phone shot does not help in reliable field marks. |
|
2nd round: |
7 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
I can see from the photo quality why it gave
some committee members pause, seems like most agree that this is a Greater
Yellowlegs with poor quality photos. |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
Some concerns with this record that leave
questions for me. Ruling out REPH by bill size was one concern since a
REPH would be half the size of a Godwit. The bird is a godwit, and based
on the bill shape and proportion of head to bill and the upturned shape I
think I'm seeing in some of the photos, HUGO seems like the best fit, but
the photo quality and lighting might be masking some details, the lack of
optics aside from a cell phone camera, all make it a challenging ID for
me. |
|
2nd round: |
12 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Agree with others this bird is likely a GRYE.
Poor cell phone photos show tricky lighting and distortion that added
confusion to the ID. Have also observed GRYE in places I don't usually see
them this winter, as Bryant mentioned. |
|
Bryant
O. |
27 Jan 2025 |
No, ID |
Looks like a Greater Yellowlegs. Google lens
suggested a Greenshank, which is a close relative of Yellowlegs, which
should have nudged them in the right direction. HUGO winter in southern
south America and are EXCEPTIONALLY rare in North America in winter. Also,
this bird lacks a pinkish based bill of any Godwit. Note, we had a pair of
Greater Yellowlegs on the Liberty Park Pond the same week, our 1st record
of GRYE there, so we seem to have had an unusual movement of them into SLC,
where they are rare east of I-15. There was also a report of GRYE at
Sugarhouse park on 1/28/25 on eBird, which seems to be this bird. |
|
2nd round: |
6 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Continue to believe this was a Greater
Yellowlegs |
|
Kris P. |
27 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
This bird appears to be a Greater Yellowlegs
despite the observer reporting dark legs. Photo ID apps just can't rise to
the occasion with such distortions presented in low-resolution cell phone
images, which subsequently led the observer astray. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
No new thoughts on this record. |
|
Mike
S. |
2 Mar 2025 |
To 2nd |
I apologize for a couple of my recent late votes
These low resolution photos may show a Hudsonian Godwit, and that may be
the best match, but the timing would be exceptional for that species. I
wish Willet was considered in the similar species section. Curious to see
other opinions on this one. |
|
2nd round: |
11 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Similar to Kevin, I immediately thought about
Greater Yellowlegs but was thrown off by the apparent "plain" back (and
description of the "dark" legs). However, the photos are likely too poor
to accurately assess the former point, and GRYE is a good match based on
structure, not to mention the far greater probability. |
|
Dennis S. |
26 Feb 2025 |
To 2nd |
Would prefer open discussion by committee before
voting. Very unusual place and time of record for this species. |
|
2nd round: |
14 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Too many unanswered questions especially the
time of year and location. |
|
Mark S. |
4 Feb 2025 |
No, ID |
This would be a remarkable record, if true. The
closest winter record (Dec-Feb) on eBird for this species is one bird
(Dec) in central Kansas. There are no records at all father west. From
that standpoint, Bar-tailed Godwit would be more likely, with a scattered
few winter records along the west coast.
However, I don't get a godwit vibe at all from the photos, poor-quality
notwithstanding. This looks more like a Greater Yellowlegs to me, a
species uncommon, but not terribly unusual for that date and location. The
bill doesn't look godwit-like, and is too short and not upturned enough.
The legs aren't visible in the photos, and I don't put much stock in the
description of the legs being dark, given the less-than-ideal conditions
of the sighting.
I just have a hard time turning this into any godwit, let alone one of
earth-shattering rarity. |
|
2nd round: |
26 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
As per my first round comments. |
|
Kevin
W. |
31 Jan 2025 |
Acc |
I have to admit I'm a little hesitant on this
one because it was identified from pretty bad photos, but I can't turn it
into anything else; it seems too plain-backed to be yellowlegs, and it
seems like there's too much contrast between the back color and head color
for it to be a willet. I'm not positive that it even shows the bill being
upturned, as it only looks that way on photo D. |
|
2nd round: |
3 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Changing my vote; I agree with others that the
bird photographed looks more like a Greater Yellowlegs. |
2025-06 Black-headed
Gull
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
5 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
The combination of the red bill and red legs
with nonbreeding plumage separates Black-headed from the other hooded gull
species. The distinct white primary feathers, molting hood, and ear spot
also confirm the species. |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Red legs, drooping red bill, dark primaries with
white window in outside primaries, black hood around/behind eye, all
support ID as BHGU. |
|
Bryant
O. |
5 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Looks like the same individual seen at Lee Kay
as week before, similar facial markings. Should this record be combined
with the 1st so its clear to future generations they both refer to the
same bird? |
|
Kris P. |
27 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
A needle in a haystack found a second time. I
agree with the observer that this is probably the Lee Kay gull documented
in record 2025-04, last seen the day prior to this sighting 25 miles to
the southeast.
- Red drooping bill, red legs, black primaries on the ventral side noted
and photographed. |
|
Mike
S. |
5 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Photos show a Black-headed Gull. Seems likely to
be the same individual as record # 2025-04. |
|
Dennis S. |
26 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Observers comments about previous record and
possible repeat of same bird, along with photos is convincing enought for
acceptance. |
|
Mark S. |
28 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Good documentation. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 Feb 2025 |
Acc |
Similar to 2025-04, unique red bill and legs and
wing pattern with dark underprimaries and white outer strip confirm it as
Black-headed Gull. |
2025-07
Smith's Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
8 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
This is not to say that a Smith s Longspur wasn
t observed, but I hesitate to accept this record because it would be a
first state record that has limited documentation. In my opinion, the bar
is higher for accepting first state records. In this case, we have only a
description from a brief observation. I recognize that many birders do not
carry cameras, but I would be more comfortable confirming such a rarity if
we had some corroborating support from a recording, photo, or one or more
other birders in cases like this, especially considering how many people
have spent a significant amount of time scouring the fields for Horned
Larks, Thick-billed Longspurs, and Chestnut-collared Longspurs over the
past couple of months in the same area. |
|
2nd round: |
4 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Sticking with my first round vote. I hope this
record helps other observers understand the importance of well
documented/substantiated records, especially for first state records. |
|
Max M. |
7 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
The record describes a non-breeding adult or
juvenile bird, which looks VERY similar to CCLO. Many of the field marks
used to describe/elimination of CCLO seem to be the very similar in CCLO/
or there is overlap with both species. "White outertail", "faint streaks
on chest", and "bolder malar stripe" all seem to describe both species. I
found more Smith's Longspur photos with fainter/paler malars than the
other way around, but lots of overlap. Thin bill compared to other
longspurs seems somewhat subjective, and it isn't as if we have a ton of
other longspurs flocking together for direct comparison. For such an
exceptional, first state-type record without physical documentation or
more definitive field marks to eliminate CCLO (which we know are present
in the area), I am not comfortable accepting this record, even as
provisional. |
|
2nd round: |
8 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Looks like we all have similar thoughts on this
record, keeping my first round vote. |
|
Keeli M. |
12 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Observer reports short tail, SMLO should have a
fairly longer tail, especially compared to some of the other Longspurs.
There are some inconsistencies in how similar species were ruled out that
do not sufficiently support ID for me, especially without a photo. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
No change in first round vote. Same concerns as
other committee members. |
|
Bryant
O. |
1 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
Not sufficient for 1st state record, and other
longspurs not eliminated. No mention of wingbars, bill color, amount of
white in tail(all longspurs have white outer tail feathers) etc. |
|
2nd round: |
5 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Insufficient documentation and other longspurs
not eliminated. No one else has reported this species here or anywhere
recently, or for that matter ever in Utah that I can find. |
|
Kris P. |
8 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
My concerns about this record go beyond the extreme improbability of the
species showing up anywhere in the Intermountain West from the Canada to
Mexico borders. (eBird shows only a handful of records and not all of
those are well-documented)
- The bill described as siskin or chickadee-like; those comparisons seem
different enough to me that the two species would not be used to compare
to the same bird
- The inherent weakness of a single-observer anecdotal record with no
repeatability of the sighting through capturing physical evidence
- Birders with excellent cameras have combed the Howell area again and
again for longspurs this winter adding to the improbability factor that no
one else has seen this bird
-The habit pattern of the observer to report immensely rare species when
alone and never substantiate mega-rarities with evidence; consistently no
subsequent reports by other birders, and even when other birders are in
the same party no one else sees the bird. I think these circumstances
constitute good cause to question the veracity of the observer
-I don't think this species belongs even on the provisional list as a
first-state record based on this report |
|
2nd round: |
13 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
I'm comfortable with the first round majority
and will continue with my not accept vote. |
|
Mike
S. |
2 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
The observer may have seen a Smith's Longpsur,
but I don't believe there is enough detail to rule out a first-winter
Lapland Longspur, which are fairly similar to SMLO. For a single observer
record with no photos, I would like to see more extensive written
documentation for a potential state first. |
|
Dennis S. |
14 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
This species has been regularly observed in this
area over the last couple of months and the report is supportive and
adequate. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
After reading the many legitimate concerns,
little doubt exists for not accepting. |
|
Mark S. |
26 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
I'm not sure that an immature Chestnut-collared
Longspur can be eliminated from this description, as well as perhaps some
others.
For a first state record, I'd like to see stronger evidence. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Not enough evidence here to accept. |
|
Kevin
W. |
26 Mar 2025 |
No, ID |
The description is so general that it fits a few
sparrows and other birds. I think a bird of this rarity and similarity to
other species needs more details, and maybe even photos for acceptance.
Details about the bill being bicolored seem confusing, as it doesn't seem
that Smith's Longspur should have a noticeably bicolored bill. |
|
2nd round: |
2 May 2025 |
No, ID |
I don't think there's enough evidence here to
accept. |
2025-08 Mississippi
Kite
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
2 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
The photo shows a juvenile Mississippi Kite
(MIKI), even down to the noticeably shorter outer primary feather on each
wing. I was curious about why the report was delayed, so I googled the
Whatbird Forum that was mentioned as a resource for confirming the ID and
found the observer s post, which was dated February 25th of this year. It
seems that it wasn t apparent to the observer that he d observed a rarity
for Utah until processing images at a much later date, reportedly after a
busy period of life. Regardless of the timing of the record and when the
observer may have confirmed the species, the image clearly documents a
juvenile MIKI, an amazing record for Utah. Here is the link to the
Whatbird discussion for what it s worth:
whatbird discussion |
|
2nd round: |
4 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I'm sticking with my first round vote. I made
efforts to validate and become comfortable with the explanation for a
delayed submission prior to my first vote by researching the Whatbird
chat, looking at eBird records, and the record that was submitted to the
committee. |
|
Max M. |
7 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Wow - Crazy this was taken almost 2 years ago. |
|
2nd round: |
15
Apr 2025 |
Acc |
The photo does look a bit funky upon further
inspection, but I think it might have to do with altering the shadows. It
does have an odd look to it like the outline was clipped and pasted.
However, I think the follow up discussion on whatbird about delay in
reporting makes sense. Continuing to accept. |
|
Keeli M. |
12 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
This looks good for a first year MIKI. Can't
really turn it into anything else with that wing and tail shape and
coloration. |
|
2nd round: |
9 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Appreciate the additional details regarding the
delayed submission, which helps alleviate at least one question/concern
with this record. Continuing with same vote. |
|
Bryant
O. |
6 Mar 2025 |
To 2nd |
If the observer is genuine and photo actually
taken at said location, then it certainly is a MIKI!. However I'm
concerned with the photo which looks photo-shopped? Especially the bird is
surrounded by a pale halo which looks fake. Yet observer insists they only
lightened the photo a bit? But if your going to photoshop a bird for the
BRC, why put it in blue sky and not against a landscape from the location
reported? I don't know, something about that photo looks fake to me, maybe
I'm just being overly critical? There are several legit records in western
Colorado nearby, most adults from June, perhaps a few breed there? |
|
2nd round: |
30 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I'll give the observer the benefit of doubt,
especially considering the forum discussion. It would be nice to see the
original unedited photos however |
|
Kris P. |
12 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
The photo unquestionably depicts a juvenile
Mississippi Kite, and so I have no doubts that the observer identified it
correctly and kudos to him for snapping a great photo. The record is also
thoroughly documented.
This report sort of flew in under my radar as I don't remember seeing it
pop up in eBird around the time of the sighting, and yet, it's there now,
confirmed. I went to the whatbird thread the observer referred to in his
references section for more info:
here it is:
Note the observer said he originally passed it off as something common,
but clearly he had niggling doubts and finally got back to it and sought
help in that forum. Also, I contacted the eBird reviewer for Grand County
and he also confirmed the observer submitted the checklist on February 25,
2025, the same date listed in the whatbird thread where he (Sean Cowden)
said he was going to report it. He filed this sight record within a week
of confirming the ID on whatbird and filing the checklist in eBird.
I have no problem with the late reporting since our bylaws don't levy a
deadline, and therefore, we shouldn't exact a penalty. |
|
2nd round: |
13 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Nothing to change my vote on this record. I
think the photo depicts a juvenile Mississippi Kite, and the whatbird
thread explains the delay. |
|
Mike
S. |
3 Apr 2025 |
2nd |
The photos show a juvenile Mississippi Kite.
While I hate to be "that guy," I am curious if anyone has any insight into
the circumstances of this record. I am somewhat concerned that the
observer lives in the expected range of this species potentially raising
the question of a photo mix-up. For example, a few months ago a photo made
the rounds here in Washington County of a Yellow-throated Vireo that was
supposedly seen at a local park. However, we came to learn after some
inquiry that the observer mixed up some photos from a recent vacation.
Given the time that has elapsed since the observation, it would be nice to
have some narrative from the observer about specifically recalling
observing this bird in Utah or potentially some notes that pin this bird
to the reported location? I can reach out to the observer directly to get
some of these details. I am already late with my first round vote, but I
am happy to reach out to him early in the second round. |
|
Dennis S. |
14 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
I always have a concern on a record that's
turned in a year or more later after occurrence. Why? That aside, the
photo and brief mention of distinquishing characters removes most
concerns. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I still have some concerns when a record has an
extended time lapse between observation date and record entry date and its
authenticity. But I think we still need to try to base our voting on
distinguishing characteristics adequately covered and elimination of look
alike species. |
|
Mark S. |
26 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Photo shows Mississippi Kite; structure and wing
shape are unique. |
|
2nd round: |
10 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Thanks for the additional details regarding the
sighting and its late submission. No need to change my vote. |
|
Kevin
W. |
3 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Photos show distinct kite-shaped bill and body
shape. The pattern eliminates other species. |
|
2nd round: |
2 May 2025 |
Acc |
No additional thoughts. |
2025-09
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
12 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Documentation and photos confirm the ID of
immature Yellow-bellied Sapsucker with no signs of hybridization. |
|
Max M. |
1 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Well-documented bird, glad the two records were
combined |
|
Keeli M. |
9 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Bird is lacking red on the nape, appears to have
a fully complete black border around a white throat, is still in partial
juvenile plumage (showing signs of delayed molt typical of YBSA) at the
end of January. Pictures and discussion are support of ID as a YBSA and
rule out RNSA or hybrids. |
|
Bryant
O. |
1 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
The only Sapsucker that shows an all white
throat is a pure female YBSA, the retained juvenile plumage makes this a
SYF YBSA! Great catch Kris! |
|
Kris P. |
12 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
|
|
Mike
S. |
9 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Nice written description with great photos. No
sign of hybridization. |
|
Dennis S. |
14 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent description of separating characters
from RNSA and supporting photos leaves no doubt in identification. |
|
Mark S. |
26 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Juvenile plumage at this time of year eliminates
Red-naped; red in the crown appearing diffusely across the crown supports
YBSA - the red on RNSA crown starts at the forehead and progresses towards
the hind-crown. |
|
Kevin
W. |
3 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I think that the amount of juvenile plumage on
this bird in late January, along with the dark outline on the throat patch
and the lack of red in the nape all lean toward being a Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker. I am surprised at how clean the back striping is for a
Yellow-bellied (compared to a Red-naped), but I do see photos online of
Yellow-bellieds with similarly well-striped backs. |
2025-10
Chestnut-collared Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
17 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
The writeup and images confirm the species. |
|
Max M. |
1 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Well-documented bird, good photos |
|
Keeli M. |
9 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Photos are supportive and consistent with CCLO. |
|
Bryant
O. |
16 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Diagnostic photos |
|
Kris P. |
13 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent photo documentation. |
|
Mike
S. |
10 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent set of photos leaves no doubt! Nice
record. |
|
Dennis S. |
24 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Photos were great and convincing. |
|
Mark S. |
26 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Excellent documentation and photos. |
|
Kevin
W. |
3 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Photos show pretty distinct features of a
Chestnut-collared Longspur, including the chestnut collar, and distinct
face pattern. |
2025-11 Thick-billed
Longspur
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
17 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
We don't have documentation of the diagnostic
tail pattern (dark inverted T shape) in the record, but the write-up and
images sufficiently document the species from my perspective. The lack of
obvious rufous coloring in coverts may be indicative of a first-winter
bird. |
|
Max M. |
1 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Well-documented bird, good photos |
|
Keeli M. |
9 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Photos aren't the highest quality but support
overall pale bird with a thick pink bill that could be a TBLO. Would have
liked the description of how LALO was eliminated to include a few more
details such as the amount of white in the tail, but the photo details
that are present (appearance of a faint white eye ring, lack of streaking
on sides) support TBLO for me. |
|
Bryant
O. |
16 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Diagnostic photos |
|
Kris P. |
13 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
This species is so similar to the
Chestnut-collared at this age. The streaking on the upper-breast-sides
threw me a bit. The somewhat more distinctive features of the larger pink
bill and developing dark breast patch, and the lack of dark markings on
the rear auriculars support the ID. |
|
Mike
S. |
10 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Nice documentation. Tough to beat a trifecta of
longspurs in one day in Utah. |
|
Dennis S. |
24 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Again photos left no doubt. |
|
Mark S. |
10 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Good documentation, photos, though poor, show
Thick-billed Longspur. |
|
Kevin
W. |
4 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
The bird in the photographs has lighter
auricular marks and lacks the rufous wing-bar in a Lapland Longspur, and
has a thicker bill and lacks the streaks of a Chestnut-collared Longspur. |
2025-12
Yellow-bellied Sspsucker
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
1 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Photos would have really helped with this record
since there is variation and similarities among individual sapsuckers, but
we are left with making a decision based on the descriptions provided in
the record. A red chin with a solid black border and a nape with no red
feathers support a male Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (YBSA), but the
description of the back being more neatly patterned with straight white on
black streaking gave me the impression of a Red-naped Sapsucker (RNSA),
which will typically show two nearly neat rows of white markings on the
black back. I d expect the back of an adult YBSA to be described as
showing messier white markings, at least in the middle and/or lower
portions of the back. Perhaps streaking referred to vertical rows as we
often see on RNSA. When eliminating RNSA, the records states that RNSA
would show a messy patterned, white on black back . I associate that
description with YBSA instead. Consequently, I m interpreting the record
as describing head traits of a YBSA and back traits of a RNSA. I m left
unsure of which species was observed. |
|
2nd round: |
1 May 2025 |
Acc |
McKay is a conscientious birder, so the back
description in the record gave me pause when it sounded more like that of
a RNSA. When I initially asked if the record was written as intended, he
also had some hesitation. However, based on the head and chest
description, I will change my second round vote to accept. |
|
Max M. |
1 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Good description and elimination of similar
species |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Apr 2025 |
To 2nd |
Description of throat and nape color and
patterning support ID as YBSA, but the back patterning description is a
little unclear to me and doesn't really add anything to support the ID. |
|
Bryant
O. |
16 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Diagnostic field marks noted |
|
2nd round: |
30 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
IMain features, throat and nape, seen well. Back
pattern could be subject to interpretation, both could be described as
neat or messy. Also male YBSA can have a RNSA like back pattern |
|
Kris P. |
15 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I'm accepting this record grudgingly because the
back pattern described in the Field Marks section and the pattern used to
defend against the Red-naped in the Similar Species section seem to be the
opposite of what they should be. A Yellow-bellied having a "neatly
patterned, and straight white on black streaking" would be atypical, while
the defense against a Red-naped in Similar Species says Red-naped would
show "a messy patterned, white on black back..." which I don't believe is
true unless the bird is fresh and young or just got out of the bathtub and
needed to preen to put feathers back where they belonged. In truth, an
adult Red-naped should look fairly crisp and neat in March and not messy.
Given the observer didn't obtain a photo, I wonder if he got mixed up in
what he saw regarding the back pattern.
I did find a single image of a South Carolina Yellow-bellied male with
fairly neat, white, chain-like stripes down the black back, which seems
much more Red-naped-like than Yellow-bellied, so there's one anecdote of
support for overlap between the species with this neater back pattern.
The only feature I think is a strong endorsement of the Yellow-bellied
conclusion is the description of the throat pattern since the lack of red
on the nape is not diagnostic.
I'm willing to accept this record by a hair because Kaufman suggests that
a Red-naped female with a full red throat and no red on the nape would be
very unlikely. |
|
2nd round: |
24 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I'm continuing to accept due to the absence of
red anywhere except the throat, which I think eliminates the possibility
of anything but a Yellow-bellied male. About 10 percent of female Red-naped
show full red throats, but that's the maximum red for females. Not to have
any on the nape Oct-May before wear becomes pronounced during breeding
season would be the minimum for a female Red-naped with even average red
on her throat. The two extremes on the same bird in March raise the
unlikelihood factor way beyond the bird's just being a Yellow-bellied
male. This is not a crazy-rare species for our state. The maximum-minimum
red combination also makes a hybrid less likely than a pure Yellow-bellied
male. I don't have any fresh thoughts about the back pattern being off,
but noted that the observer didn't describe it as either wide or
extensive, and multiple circumstances could lead to those feathers not
appearing neatly ordered. |
|
Mike
S. |
18 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
The description sounds mostly good for a
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker. However, I have concerns about the
neatly-patterned back, which sounds better for a Red-naped. This makes me
wonder about a potential hybrid, if not just a RNSA. The observer s
understanding of the back messiness between the two species seems to be
reversed. It would also be nice to have a description of more subtle
features, such as the overall thickness of black and white on the head. |
|
Dennis S. |
24 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
Good description of separating characters from
RNSA. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
No change in my thoughts. |
|
Mark S. |
10 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I'm a little confused by the description of the
back markings, with no mention of whether it was divided into two haves or
not, either in the primary description, or in the similar species section.
But given that the description of the head and facial markings are
consistent with a non-hybrid YBSA, I'll give this a soft accept. |
|
Kevin
W. |
4 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
The description given, including the black
border of the white throat, barring on the back, and lack of red in the
nape, rule out Red-naped Sapsucker and hybrid Red-naped x Yellow-bellied
Sapsucker. |
|
2nd round: |
2 May 2025 |
Acc |
I think that there are enough details here to
support this identification. |
2025-13 Bendire's
Thrasher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
3 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
After reviewing the record, I am comfortable
with ruling out Sage and Crissal Thrashers, the most likely for the date
and location. If the observation had been made in the fall, I would wonder
if a vagrant juvenile Curve-billed Thrasher had been sufficiently
eliminated since they also have a shorter decurved bill and bland overall
coloring along with similar chest markings and eye colors. However, given
the date of this observation, I believe that similar species have been
adequately eliminated. |
|
2nd round: |
1 May 2025 |
Acc |
Same vote as first round for the same reasons. |
|
Max M. |
1 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
I think there is enough here to safely eliminate
other species. Habitat/range is good for BETH, description does a decent
job of eliminating SATH (which you would also expect to see at this
location), it would have been nice to have a bit more detail on
eliminating CBTH but range does support BETH or CBTH. My experience has
been that the bill base of BETH is noticeably paler and the shape of the
spots are more triangular. I could be swayed otherwise but I am fairly
comfortable accepting this record. |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Description supports ID for me, although there
were some details that I wish had been included or emphasized in the
write-up. There have been a few observations over the years in this area,
so it is not outside the realm of possibility. |
|
Bryant
O. |
16 Mar 2025 |
To 2nd |
No discussion of wingbars or outer tail
feathers, not sure SATH has been completely eliminated but like to see
others thoughts |
|
2nd round: |
30 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Changing my vote to a soft accept. Sage Thrasher
probably eliminated, Curve-billed unlikely and observer at least discussed
it. I do truly struggle with those 2, still have photos I can't call
either way. However, CBTH does not wander out of range, and we know BETH
nest in this area so. We could probably exempt BETH from review for
lowlands of Washington co. |
|
Kris P. |
15 Apr 2025 |
To 2nd |
I'm comfortable that the
observer defended the Bendire's ID adequately against the Sage Thrasher,
but there's very little to distinguish this bird from a Curve-billed,
perhaps always the challenge between those two species. The defense boils
down to the impression of the bill length and curve, and the birder may
have been unduly influenced by seeing Crissal Thrashers earlier in the
day. Wouldn't most Utah thrashers, including a Curve-billed, look
"proportionately normal" after seeing a couple Crissals already that day?
I'm not comfortable with how little there is to go on and the words
"proportionately normal" are too subject to interpretation for me, so I'm
sending this record to the second round with the hope of gaining more
insight from everyone else's wisdom. |
|
Mike
S. |
18 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
This written description appears to describe a
Bendire s Thrasher and it s difficult to find much to nit-pick so I am
fine accepting this record, mostly based on the underparts and bill
description. Despite my somewhat hesitant acceptance of this record, there
is more I d like to say about this and similar species that has been on my
mind with these recent records.
Broadly speaking, I do have some concerns/skepticism regarding the recent
BETH reports on the Beaver Dam Slope. First, Sage Thrashers are quite
common (perhaps more common that people realize) in this area. I followed
up on one of these recent BETH reports and only found a SATH. That should
be considered the default thrasher species (along with the easier to ID
CRTH), and I m not sure it s always treated that way. In addition, it
seems like it s very rare for BETH reports to be supplemented by photos,
which only adds to my concerns. I suppose I am only bringing this up as a
point of caution going forward. |
|
Dennis S. |
24 Mar 2025 |
Acc |
This was a close call. With the close appearence
ofseveral thrashers makes doubt always creep in. But I think the report
was adequate for acceptance and covers the questionable areas. |
|
2nd round: |
22 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Still a close call, but about 80/20 for
accepting. |
|
Mark S. |
10 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Another soft accept, as there's nothing in the
description that raises any red flags - habitat, behavior, and appearance
as described fits this species. |
|
Kevin
W. |
4 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
The description given, particularly the shorter,
curved bill, lightly streaked breast, and plain tail, rule out other
similar species. |
|
2nd round: |
2 May 2025 |
Acc |
Continuing to accept, although I wish there was
more evidence. |
2025-14
Brown-capped Rosy-Finch
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
3 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
KC and Clarissa s prior experience with
Gray-crowned and Black Rosy-Finches, the opportunity that they had to
compare the record species to the other two species on the spot, and the
field notes they observed and documented regarding the record species make
me comfortable with confirming the record. The last paragraph of the
section for eliminating similar species contained a typo regarding Black
Rosy-Finch and a sentence that was a little confusing to me, but that did
not sway my opinion. |
|
Max M. |
8 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Kind of odd that this particular group of
birders didn't post it on any of the alerts/groups, but the description is
good and adequately eliminates similar species. |
|
Keeli M. |
|
|
|
|
Bryant
O. |
1 Apr 2025 |
To 2nd |
I'm hesitant to accept records of this species
without photos and by people not experienced with the species. I want to
here some others thoughts, but the description does checkout |
|
Kris P. |
28 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
I don't think a second-year Brown-capped can
always be ID'd conclusively given the similarity with second-year
Gray-crowns and the variability in both species' appearances, which may
cause an overlap in visible characters. Add to the challenge a 2-minute
view and the tendency of the flock to be in constant motion swarming over
the ground makes getting good looks difficult. I'm not surprised Casey's
camera wouldn't focus on the subject bird. Unless a bird takes a spot on
the feeder or a branch, confirming subtle details can be out of reach. I
think it's really important for this age of bird to have photos or the
bird in hand by banders, and even then there's overlap with Gray-crowns. I
also think field guides have a difficult time showing the subtleties of
color, which may put field birders at a disadvantage.
I'm pointedly not suggesting that this crew mis-identified this bird, only
concluding that a 2-minute view of a 2nd-year bird in a swarming flock
without photo evidence or seeing the bird in-hand is not enough to make
this difficult ID. I strongly believe the species is possible at Powder
especially in late winter and spring when birds are on the move from
southern wintering areas. I had watched the flock closely a few days
before this sighting, and watched especially carefully the day after the
sighting because Casey had given me a heads up about the candidate bird as
the group of birders was leaving the site. Repeating a sighting is also
hit-or-miss because the flock can change hourly.
As recently as yesterday, I photographed a bird in the flock with a very
diffuse crown pattern and little contrast of gray at the back of the
crown; it was also a young bird that didn't show the cinnamon-brown of a
Gray-crowned adult, and I couldn't gain enough detail to confidently say
which species it was. It's a tough call. |
|
Mike
S. |
29 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Separating BCRF from some first-winter GCRF can
be challenging so I think this record should be approached with caution.
However, I do believe the observer hits on most of the main points for the
most ID, particularly the limited gray in the head and lack of brown/gray
contrast. As a refresher, I reviewed many photos of our three rosy-finch
species and couldn t find a good match for GCRF or BLRF based on the
description here. Still interested to see what others on the committee
think of this record. |
|
Dennis S. |
27 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
The detailed description of chacteristics
observed along with the separation of the other two Rosy-Finches answered
most ID questions and leaves only a small amount of doubt. A photo sure
would have been nice! |
|
Mark S. |
11 Apr 2025 |
To 2nd |
This is a tough call, given only a written
description from observers with no experience with the species. I'm not
sure that their description adequately rules out a first year Gray-crowned
Rosy-Finch. Especially with the pink on the sides described as paler than
the other birds, I think a first winter bird is quite possible, making
this i.d. more challenging.
I'd like to see if others share my reservations, or have other points to
add. |
|
Kevin
W. |
4 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
The Rosy-finch is well described and I commend
the observer for the details that were noted. The bird observed may well
have been a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch, but the lack of photos and difficulty
of separating first year Brown-capped Rosy-Finches from other species
makes me wonder if this bird may just not have enough evidence to
confidently identify. |
|
2nd round: |
2 May 2025 |
No, ID |
Again, I think that the observers may have
observed a Brown-capped Rosy-Finch, but along with my previous thoughts, I
agree with Kris that this is a difficult bird to positively identify given
the circumstances and variability in 2nd year birds between species. |
2025-15
Bendire's Thrasher
|
Evaluator |
Date |
Vote |
Comment |
|
Jeff C. |
1 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
A one-second observation from a top view of a
flying bird makes it difficult to confirm a rare bird while eliminating
similar species. Crissal Thrasher, for example, would be more likely, but
the record does not consider nor eliminate that possibility. Without a
confirmation of the bill, throat, or vent traits, it is hard to confirm
one species and rule out others. |
|
Max M. |
8 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
One second look as it flew across a wash? I know
I personally wouldn't feel comfortable making that ID call. Interesting
that he submitted a record with the expectation it would not be accepted? |
|
Keeli M. |
15 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Not enough support for how other species were
eliminated. No discussion of bill shape/size. Length of time observed
leaves questions about reliable observation. |
|
Bryant
O. |
1 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
1 second look, no discussion of Crissal Thrasher
which is common here and has the same field marks. Both SATH and BETH have
white corners on the tail. Someone needs to tell him just because an eBird
reviewer ask you submit a record, doesn't mean you have too. This is not a
valid record and the observer knows it based on their own comments in the
record. |
|
Kris P. |
15 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
One second is not enough time to make this ID
- Did not observe two of the most important characteristics, the bill and
the possible breast spotting
- Failed to eliminate the most similar thrasher species, the Curve-billed,
however, there's little about these details that narrows the ID down to
the thrasher family
- The description easily fits the Abert's Towhee (reported on the Beaver
Dam Slope in the past) in size, color, pattern and behavior, and given the
observer didn't see the bill, breast spotting or white tail tips, a case
can't be made for either the Bendire's or any thrasher |
|
Mike
S. |
1 May 2025 |
To 2nd |
The written description seems to adequately rule
out everything except for a Curve-billed Thrasher. While BETH is clearly
much less likely, there is a CBTH ebird record from 2020 just outside of
Scenic, AZ (not very far from the Beaver Dam Slope). By itself, that isn t
a reason to reject this record but it shows there may be an occasional
wandering CBTH in this vicinity.
I will note that I do have some skepticism because (similar to the other
birder mentioned), I followed up on the report from this location and only
saw a Sage Thrasher. As I mentioned previously, it would be nice to have
some photo-documentation with some of these BETH records just as a reality
check that wishful thinking isn t getting the best of us ( us as in the
birding community). Still, these concerns aside, the written description
is fairly solid and I ll be open-minded in the second round. |
|
Dennis S. |
27 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
Am not satisfied with the discussion of the
identifying characteristics, such as bill characters. A one second flight
observation seems a little lacking for positive ID, especially for this
rare to uncommon species of this area. |
|
Mark S. |
11 Apr 2025 |
Acc |
Description seems to fit the species, in
behavior, appearance, and habitat. Although it may not eliminate an
even-rarer Curve-billed Thrasher, so consider this a soft accept. |
|
Kevin
W. |
4 Apr 2025 |
No, ID |
The bird observed may have been a Bendire's
thrasher, but the observer didn't see the bill, and most of the
description indicates things that weren't seen, even though the observer
admits that he didn't get good looks because it was so close to the
ground. I feel that the description lacks characteristics that would have
confirmed its identification. |
|