Interesting you mention the 'seen with your own eyes' category Tim.
Last year we had a rarity on a pelagic trip. The bird passed the boat on about
3 or 4 occasions out at about 50m and no closer, so no one could have
identified it with naked eye. As the general call "light bellied stormie" went
up , everyone's binoculars (and cameras) swung around to get onto the bird. The
outcome was, that a very few of the 14 folk on board got a number of clear
images of the bird that were sufficient to allow us (I talk collectively as a
team), together with the jizz of the bird, to identify it as a NZSP. Now by the
strict codes that some folk use for their life list, maybe none of us really
ticked the bird up on the day? It isn't a view I hold, but I know at least one
of the group who saw the bird early on and continued to 'see' it did not put it
down on their list, because they felt they didn't get a good enough picture to
ID it personally. However, some others in the same situation did tick it up. I
guess it's the - what you can live with on your own list rule??
I tend to take the view Nikolas is suggesting, that although we all have a
personal list, the greater good here is that when ever we go out we are
contributing to science, which in the end benefits birds. I guess that's why
there are those times when we can be absolutely certain of the identity of a
bird, by what ever means, and not necessarily nked sight verified, when it is
our duty to report it for the greater good. If a bird I personally see is
absolutely certain enough (without string) to be reported (due to perhaps other
identification means) then who am I to go against the science?
I'm perhaps playing devil's advocate here, as I do have limits on my own list,
but if the criteria is: 1. did you see it? and 2. could you identify it (or
perhaps as in the case of the NZSP) was it conclusively identified collectively
on the day), then shouldn't we 'all' have taken it? The NZSP is a good case
here, because it really was a team effort that identified it, particularly
since much of the evidence needed to be evaluated after the bird was no longer
before us to put it to bed. More importantly it could never have been id'd
without cameras, which goes somewhat against the 'with your own eyes'
philosophy that Tim mentioned.
A number of you guys must run into this situation on pelagics from time to
time, but it can happen with any bird we might only get a good view of without
seeing diagnostic features in a team setting. How many of us walk away from
such team settings with terrestrial birds without ticking the bird that we saw
but couldn't identify (but our three mates did)???
Allan Richardson
Morisset
On 12/06/2011, at 1:16 PM, Tony Keene wrote:
> I usually only tick a bird if I'm sure of the species, so if it's
> questionable on sight alone, I like to hear the call too. However, I don't
> tick solely on call (or I'd have Marsh Warbler, Golden Oriole and Noisy Pitta
> on the life list). However, that's just for my list. If it was for a trip
> report where the information could be useful to someone, I'd mention birds
> that were only heard as long as I was reasonably sure of the ID. But then,
> I've attracted various levels of ire for not ticking introduced birds (I've
> got a separate 'C' list for those), which meant that the Little Corella I saw
> last week in Hattah-Kulkyne NP was a lifer for me.
> Cheers,
>
> Tony
>
|
