From south-bay-birds-bounces+south-bay-birds-archive=[[email protected]] Sat Oct 11 11:59:18 2003 Received: from www.plaidworks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9BIueI5017634 for <[[email protected]]>; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:56:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.116]) by plaidworks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h9BIstZP017590 for <[[email protected]]>; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:54:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from HAL2003 (235.dallas-34rh16rt-tx.dial-access.att.net[12.87.11.235]) by worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc12) with SMTP id <2003101118545211200hnahbe>; Sat, 11 Oct 2003 18:54:52 +0000 Message-ID: <003d01c39029$258fb620$eb0b570c@HAL2003> From: "John Mariani" <[[email protected]]> To: <[[email protected]]> Date: Sat, 11 Oct 2003 13:54:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.2+ Subject: [SBB] Documenting Rarities: A Long-winded Dissertation Sure To Cure Insomnia X-BeenThere: [[email protected]] X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.2+ Precedence: list List-Id: South Bay Birding List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: south-bay-birds-bounces+south-bay-birds-archive=[[email protected]] Errors-To: south-bay-birds-bounces+south-bay-birds-archive=[[email protected]] Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by plaidworks.com id h9BIueI5017634 Howdy South-bay-birders, I've been reading the Rufous-backed Robin postings from afar, and I have some friendly advice that relates to reporting rare birds, and that I think is pertinent not only to birders with a lot of experience who report extraordinary sightings, but to relative beginners who report less awesome finds too. This is about the importance of note-taking where rarities are concerned. My comments here are general, and not meant to be specific to the robin issue. When I read a report of a rare bird and the supporting commentary runs like "I got out my Sibley,and it looked just like the picture," or "I found the exact bird in the National Geographic guide" I immediately clench, especially if the bird is one that's difficult to identify, like a fairly nondescript sparrow or flycatcher, and even more so if the observer is a relative beginner or unknown to me (and birders who have been actively pursuing and reporting birds for years would be very unlikely to use such expressions, so it's almost a given that the person who says that is a novice/beginner). All birds are individuals subject to individual variation, and it is rare that a bird perfectly matches the image presented in a field guide. When, as too often happens, I read that a bird "looked like the book" it indicates to me that the reporter is "thinking inside the box." It suggests that the observer was not so much making detailed observations of an actual living organism, but trying to match a set of criteria to an idealized image in a book. It could mean that actual documentation (notes, photos, or sketches) is lacking. It could indicate that the person was a beginner who may not be aware of the importance of individual variation. The lack of documentation may also reveal that the observer was unaware of how unusual the sighting really was. Example: I once pointed out a male Eurasian Wigeon to a birder who was holding the Peterson field guide. Her Peterson guide clearly showed a green spot on the male's reddish face, either a printing error or an attempt by Peterson to show some possible variation. The bird we were looking at didn't show that green spot, and the birder with the book seemed to be unconvinced of the ID--it didn't perfectly "match the book." Relying on memory + books is even worse, because the desire to have found a rarity can make memory a bit...selective. "Well I said it was yellow, but now that I think about it, it was kind of orangish..." Notes or sketches made at the time of a sighting, or IMMEDIATELY afterward, are the most trustworthy documentation we have. In a reply to earlier postings, Mr. Sheehan wrote "I could have gone into all sorts of detail, but at the same time I could have copied the information from any informed tome." I think he's saying that if his intent was to falsify, he could have done so by simply cribbing from a book. If that's what he meant, then he's incorrect, that's not the right way to do it (please don't take what I am about to say as advice on how to falsify bird records!). Specific personal observations are much more compelling than a textbook exact description. For example, which of these made-up descriptions of an adult male Indigo Bunting sounds more like a real observation? It was bunting sized, bright blue all over, with a small dark bill. Just like the picture of the adult breeding male in Sibley. OR When the light hit it right it was almost entirely navy blue, but most of the time it just looked dark. It was tiny compared to a nearby grosbeak. I think I saw some brown in the wings, and there were some light brownish flecks on its neck and flanks. It was nervous and kept flitting from bush to bush. If I wanted to fool somebody I'd send in the second description. My point isn't that I make up all my bird sightings, but that notes or sketches made in the field tell far more than book descriptions or uncertain memory can. What I've suggested to people in my birding classes is this: Leave the field guide in the car or in your knapsack and carry a notebook instead. I don't even carry a field guide in my car most of the time. If I see something unusual or that I can't identify I make notes and sketches on whatever paper I have handy. Another example: A long time ago I found a warbler in Carmel that I reported to the rare bird alert as a Virginia's Warbler--it looked just like the book. Joe Morlan called me back about it, and questioned me about what I'd seen. I mentioned that the wing feathers had greenish yellow edges, from which he deduced that it was actually a very grayish Yellow Warbler. I had made a mistake (thank goodness we don't have to use the Golden guide anymore!), but thanks to my detailed notes the truth came out sooner than later. When it comes to those mega-rarities, especially first state or regional records, without good detailed notes no report can be expected to pass muster with the CRBC. That doesn't mean the observer was wrong or didn't see what he says he saw, just that the documentation didn't provide unequivocal proof to others. There's that old adage--extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence-- John Mariani Lumberton, TX [[email protected]] _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. south-bay-birds mailing list ([[email protected]]) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://www.plaidworks.com/mailman/options/south-bay-birds/south-bay-birds-archive%40plaidworks.com This email sent to [[email protected]]