Valley Vista Staging Area and Hidden Lakes
Park
Fri, 4 Dec 1998 14:14:22 PST
From: Denise Wight
Hi E.B.Birders,
Yesterday, 3 December 1998, at Valley Vista Staging Area, (along Canyon Road between Moraga and Canyon) there was a pair of Northern Rough-winged Swallows flying back and forth over the north end of the reservoir. There were also a male and female Wood Duck, 30+ Ring-necked Ducks, and 6+ Common Snipes. A Winter Wren was along the path through the pines. Lots of good birds (my first time here). We also met a man who said he was tracking a Mountain Lion, but we didn't see it. You need an East Bay MUD permit with you to enter this area.
Today, 4 December, at Hidden Lakes Park in Martinez:
I looked but did not relocate a Tropical Kingbird found by Elizabeth Dicky
on Wednesday, 2 December. There were 2 individual White-throated Sparrows
of the tan race, one by the bridges and and one in the densely wooded area
just west of the eastenmost pond. Here, also was a Sora.
Denise Wight
Martinez
Reply #1 Reply #2 Reply #3 Reply #4 Reply #5 Reply #6 Reply #7 Reply #8 Subject List
California Bird Records Committee functioning
Sat, 05 Dec 1998 10:17:47 -0800
From: Dave Quady
I thought Kimball Garrett's description of how the CBRC functions - and its need for full documentation of rare birds - might be interesting to (any) East Bay Birders who don't also subscribe to Calbird.
If this is a completely duplicate posting, forgive me.
Dave Quady
Berkeley
****************************************************
Subject: [CALBIRD] Misleading Photos and Great Crested Flycatchers
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 1998 17:55:09 -0800
From: Kimball Garrett
To: Calbird mailing listCalbird:
[Here is the promised response to Mitch Heindel's 29 November posting titled "Misleading Photos." To address comments made recently by a couple of Calbirders, it is not that the CBRC felt compelled to offer a response to what might have been taken as an inflammatory posting; rather we felt that there were many interesting points illustrated by this particular record and the nature of the documention we received. So this "response" is meant to be educational to the birding community as a whole.]
Having just reviewed CBRC Record # 215-1990 (the accepted record of Great Crested Flycatcher from Banning Park, Los Angeles Co.), I would like to examine some comments made by Mitch in his posting. I hope that Calbirders will find these comments informative about a difficult identification issue and about the way the CBRC works. Although some folks privately urged me not to respond because of the tone of the original posting, I feel there are some important lessons to be learned. I will not, of course, address any perceived interpersonal problems that may or may not have been a factor in what was submitted to the CBRC or how the record was reviewed. I thank Jon Fisher of the WFVZ for providing me with the record in question, and the guidance of Richard Erickson (CBRC Chairman), Mike Rogers (CBRC Secretary), and Matt Heindel.
The record as submitted to the CBRC consisted of a two page description written by Kimball Garrett and a single photograph taken by Mitch Heindel. [For the record, yes, I strongly believed and continue to believe that the bird was a Great Crested Flycatcher and consistently voted that way;
Mitch and I are in complete agreement there.] When it was pointed out in first round comments that Jonathan Alderfer had also photographed the bird and written a description, his two photos and written description were appended to the record. This (along with some ancillary material regarding extralimital Brown-crested Flycatchers in California) constituted all of the available documentation for the subsequent second and third circulations through the CBRC, the discussion at an annual CBRC meeting, and the "fourth and final" circulation through the mail.
On the first round the record went 9-1, with Jon Dunn as a strong dissenting vote. Jon felt that the bird was more likely a Brown-crested Flycatcher. Nearly all committee members felt that the single photo provided my Mitch Heindel was NOT definitive. In looking at that photo in strong light through a lupe right now, I can see no hint of olive or green on the sides of the breast, for example. The angle of the photo is such that the upperparts and tertial pattern cannot be seen, and the lighting is too poor to carefully assess rectrix pattern. Obviously Mitch's interpretation of what is visible in the photo differs from that of the majority of the CBRC.
To summarize Jon Dunn's reasoning in thinking the bird was more likely a Brown-crested, he relied on:
(1) KLG's written description of the tertial pattern, which did NOT indicate a sharp white edge tapering toward the tip of the tertial as present on most (all? - a matter of debate within the committee) Great Crests.
(2) The late (31 October-1 November) date of the record (with only one previous Great Crest record being that late)
(3) The apparent large size of the bill in the one photo circulating in the first round, and
(4) The perceived paleness of the gray of the throat and chest (this was based in part on Jonathan Alderfer's photos, which Jon Dunn had examined, but which had not been attached to the record in the first round).Mitch is absolutely incorrect in claiming that Jon Dunn's rejection of the record was based on the feeling that the bird was "too yellow for a G C". This statement is nowhere in Jon Dunn's comments. Rather, Jon appropriately cautioned that in "fresh" plumage "Brown-crests are quite yellow below," meaning they are more likely to be confused with Great Crested (which everybody agrees is quite yellow below). Jon's point was that most observer see Brown-crests in spring and summer when they are in more worn and faded plumage.
Many of Jon's points were taken to be substantial, and in the second round the vote switched to 4 in favor of acceptance and 6 against. This switch was also due to the inclusion of Jonathan Alderfer's photos, which showed a bird with a very pale gray breast (unlike the darker gray that a Great Crest could show). This obviously stimulated a debate about whether the photos were misleading, and how much weight to place on the written descriptions (now from KLG and Jonathan Alderfer) versus the three photos (two from Alderfer, one from Mitch Heindel). These matters were discussed in the second and third rounds, and the third round vote was 8 in favor, 2 opposed. [It should be noted that there were minor changes in committee composition with each round, and that Jon Dunn was no longer on the committee for the third and fourth round votes.] After discussion at an annual meeting, the record was finally accepted 10-0 on the fourth and final circulation. Committee members largely agreed that the submitted photos were misleading (Alderfer's photos, for example, showed a paler gray breast than he and KLG noted in the field). Because of the vagaries of lighting, angle, etc., there are many reasons why photos can be misleading. This sequence of events differs somewhat from what Mitch described in his posting. Also, according to CBRC by-laws, the record would have been accepted even with one rejection on the basis of identification, so that a single CBRC member with some kind of "agenda" or misinformation could not, by himself or herself, sink a record.
There are some important lessons I would like to emphasize.
First, the CBRC records are available for perusal by the birding community, by appointment with the staff at the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology. These are YOUR archives. Mitch clearly accessed the archives, as he was most welcome to do. It is unfortunate that he did not accurately portray to the Calbird audience what was in the record.
Second, the problem of identification of Great Crested vs. Brown-crested
Flycatcher is not a trivial one, and Jon Dunn raised some excellent points in his comments. The long process of reviewing this record enlightened everybody on the CBRC, and would be enlightening to anybody who carefully reviewed the comments in the record. Observers should be aware, for example, that there are subspecies of Brown-crest other than the race _magister_ that we are used to. _Cooperi_ (e.g. of s. Texas) is smaller, and other more southerly subspecies are even smaller, and more darkly and richly pigmented (but have reduced rust in the rectrices). Other informative discussions about molt in this group of flycatchers, and the potential impact of plumage state on things like tertial pattern and rectrix pattern arose during the circulation of this record. I think we all learned a great deal from the review process.
Third, this record is yet another case where numerous observers submitted no documentation (I know of at least five observers other than the three who submitted some documentation, and there were likely many more than this). Mitch Heindel submitted no written description to the CBRC, and only one of this "40" slides; this is not a way to help get a record accepted. The CBRC operates best when it has the greatest possible amount of information and documentation for a record; we don't delight in "photo quizzes" or "monthly marathons." Submitted documentation should definitely include written descriptions, which can amplify photographs (which, for a variety of reasons, can be misleading). Please cooperate by always sending any documentation you have for ANY review list species. This neatly brings us back to how the whole subject came up on Calbird: we NEED written descriptions to amplify photos!
I believe this record is illustrative of the advantages of the CBRC review process. The one strong dissenting point of view against acceptance as a Great Crested Flycatcher was based on excellent, concrete points raised by a very experienced CBRC member. There is no indication that it had anything to do with interpersonal issues or any perceived credibility factors. Mitch and I (and ultimately the entire CBRC as constituted in early 1995) were in agreement about the identity of the bird, so I think we should celebrate a process that worked. It simply would have worked much better with greater input of photographs and descriptions from the observers.
Kimball L. Garrett
Member, California Bird Records Committee**********************************************************
Kimball L. Garrett
Ornithology Collections Manager
Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
900 Exposition Blvd., Los Angeles CA 90007 USA
213/763-3368 phone; 213/746-2999 FAX
**********************************************************