I think we need some clarification of what is required here,
Martin.
I take it you refer to the ‘Unusual Birds’ list
published in December 2008 (CBN 33: 3).
The relevant policy is that species recorded more than 10 times
in the COG area of interest (CAI – which clearly includes the ACT) are
automatically dropped from the ‘unusual species’ list. In
this regard there is no stated rule that distinguishes the ACT from the rest of
the CAI. (I have recently exchanged emails with David about possible
confusion from the relatively recent adoption of a separate ACT list that itself
refers to ’10 sightings’. The relationship of the 2 lists
does need to be clarified, I think, but that is a separate matter.)
The 2008 list of unusual species has a column showing ‘last
seen’ and a ‘comments’ column. That column explains the
entry in the ‘last seen’ column eg ‘Only LBath’; ‘1
ACT’.
It is true that the ‘comment’ is sometimes in the
form ‘ACT only’. However I can only read that as meaning that
the ‘last seen’ record – and possibly any other known record
- was in the ACT and not the broader CAI. The following are the first 10 species
labelled ‘ACT only’:
Australian Painted Snipe
Long-toed Stint
Little Button-quail
Musk Lorikeet
Black-eared Cuckoo
Barking Owl
Red-backed Kingfisher
White-fronted Honeyeater
Little Wattlebird
Blue-faced Honeyeater
Some of those species are obviously ‘unusual’
anywhere in the CAI, and I would have difficulty understanding why a rarity report
was only required for the ACT. Moreover, if they were so ‘not
unusual’ in the CAI that they were of less interest if in the whole CAI,
then the 10 sightings rule would take care of the matter and they would be
automatically dropped from the list. In short, the rarities panel
procedures and the Annual Bird Report make no distinction so far as I can see
between the ACT and the rest of the CAI.
If that is so, I have some difficulty seeing why the ‘comments’
column is, largely, a list of references to the ACT or the CAI (this time not
including the ACT) or to both the ACT and the CAI, but perhaps someone involved
in the ‘rarities’ process will explain that to us.
From: martin butterfield
[
Sent: Wednesday, 30 December 2009 8:58 AM
To: Mark Clayton
Cc:
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Possible Black-eared Cuckoo
Thanks Mark. I have asked
my correspondent to put in an Incidental record form and a Rarities
report.
I note that the RP only require reports from the ACT for this species. I'm not
sure why as Birdata suggests the species is somewhat like hens teeth in
the rest of the AOI (see attached map). As this is possibly an addition
to the range of the bird (there are a couple of squares on the coast) its worth
formalising.
Martin
On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 6:34 AM, Mark Clayton <>
wrote:
Looks like
one to me. It appears to have the pale salmon pinkish throat (and underparts?)
and there doesn’t appear to be any rufous in the tail that a juvenile
Horsfield’s Bronze-Cuckoo would have.
Mark
From: martin
butterfield [
Sent: Wednesday, 30 December 2009 6:00 AM
To: COG List
Subject: [canberrabirds] Possible Black-eared Cuckoo
I have
received the following message from a resident of Hoskinstown. "Here's a
new one for me, I think. Is it a Black-eared Cuckoo? Perhaps a young one? Or
something else altogether? I didn't get a great look at it, the chest was a
light ginger colour. Photo taken from front verandah today."
I have reduced the size of the photograph but not otherwise (knowingly)
interfered with it.
Is my correspondent correct in his ID? It looks probable to me.
Martin
