The Port Stephens' bird has been accepted.
Regards
Allan
On 12/06/2011, at 3:53 PM, Nikolas Haass wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Actually the three NZSPs seen last year off NSW neither called nor sang ;-)
>
> Just want to mention that all three sightings have been reported to BARC, but
> to my knowledge the decision on all three is still pending.
>
> Port Stephens (Richard Baxter)
> Ulladulla (Dan Mantle, Rob Hynson, Nikolas Haass, Raja Stephenson)
> Wollongong (Nikolas Haass)
>
> There was a long discussion especially with regards to underwing pattern and
> head shape of the Ulladulla bird.
>
> Raja's photos of the Ulladulla and the Wollongong bird plus some from Hauraki
> are here:
> http://www.adarman.com/Birds/Stormpetrels/Storm-petrels/11535968_9o4mC#851894001_bsSXn
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
> From: Allan Richardson <>
> To: Tony Keene <>
> Cc: Birding-Aus <>
> Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 2:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Year List Ethics (Poll)
>
> 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
> >
|
