The abbreviations still seem very convoluted to me. May I suggest a digital
voice recorder or an app like birdsight. I used the former before moving to the
latter when I bought an iPhone. Much easier all round.
Sent from my iPad
On 21/03/2012, at 13:48, "Tony Russel" <> wrote:
> Yes, of course Chris, I understand some people like to manage things this
> way, and if it suits them then fine. I don't do it anymore but I used to use
> a voice recorder in the field and transcribe the info when I got home,
> worked fine, and I could get more on the recorder very quickly , much
> quicker than trying to write things down. I don't bother writing or
> recording much nowadays unless I'm on an official field count of species, ie
> wader counts, in which case one person in the car has a proforma and fills
> out a tally sheet while others call birds as seen, both species and number
> estimates. Codes would only confuse things.
>
>
>
> Tony
>
>
>
> From: Chris Sanderson
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 10:22 AM
> To: Tony Russel
> Cc: Perkins, Harvey; ;
>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] RFI Bird species codes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
>
>
> Tony I think you will find it is most useful when in the field and writing
> down everything you see. I personally use only a small notepad for most
> surveys, and abbreviated names help you fit more on each page, and are
> quicker to write, leaving more time for concentrating on listening for calls
> and watching for movement. It may seem like only a small thing, but using
> codes definitely help me be a lot more efficient on surveys. When I get
> home to enter data into the Atlas or my own files they go in as full common
> and scientific name. Think of it like secretarial shorthand.
>
>
>
> I use a slightly different system to the four/five letter system (which is
> more elegant than mine). Where clashes exist I do things like MLark/MLap,
> CBrC/CBiC, GFan/GFal etc. I just use enough letters to help me distinguish
> each species individually. Often with honeyeaters I just write the full
> descriptor followed by HE (eg. Fuscous HE, Painted HE, etc.) though
> sometimes I use a code such as for White-throated Honeyeater (WTHE), Brown
> Honeyeater (BrHE) or Scarlet Honeyeater (ScHE, as opposed to SCHE which
> would be Spiny-cheeked). Not as elegant or particularly internally
> consistent, but it works for me.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Tony Russel <> wrote:
>
> This discussion has been going on for years. I'm not sure why people want (
> or need) to develop codes , I find using the full scientific and common
> names to be a perfectly satisfactory way of of identifying and talking about
> birds. Why learn three names for everything ?? I suppose it's for quicker
> data entry into computers and taking up less file space but surely computer
> storage is so huge nowadays that it just becomes another academic exercise.
> As Harvey says below, he made up a code system several years ago but barely
> bothers with it anymore.
>
> Tony
>
> aka Russellius antonius adelaidei.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> On Behalf Of Perkins,
> Harvey
> Sent: Wednesday, 21 March 2012 9:31 AM
> To:
> Cc: <>
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] RFI Bird species codes [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
>
> Martin et al
>
> Several years ago I made up for my own use a variation of the system
> described by David James below. The main differences were:
> 1. I retained a four-letter code for non-passerines but used a five-letter
> code for passerines. This immediately splits your interpretive challenge and
> also resolves several conflicts.
> 2. I split two-component names even if they are normally considered a single
> non-hyphenated word - so using one of David's examples, Malleefowl becomes
> MAFO rather than MALL.
>
> It had its own issues (eg I ended up using bk for black to distinguish it
> from bl for blue, green and grey had to be similarly distinguished) and
> there were still issues around interpretation of compound words (eg I used
> HAHE for Hardhead, SILEY for Silvereye, but had concerns over whether
> Goshawk should be GO or GH).
> And there were still a few unresolved double-ups such as WHBWS for both
> White-browed and White-breasted Woodswallows; and of course EMU was still
> EMU.
>
> I barely bother to use it anymore, but still think the 4- and 5-letter code
> distinction would be valuable to any such coding system.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Harvey Perkins
> Canberra
>
>
>
>
> Message: 15
> Date: Tue, 20 Mar 2012 14:24:14 -0700 (PDT)
> From: David James <>
> To: Birding Aus <>
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] RFI Bird species codes
> Message-ID:
> <>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Hi Martin,
> ?
> (...following Alan Richard's reply with some overlap and some
> differences....)
> ?
> Sorry I don't have a file to send you. I don't know of the national system
> you refer to. However, I have used a four-letter acronym code for Australian
> birds for about 25 years.
> ?
> When I was in North America for a few years in mid 80s I learnt of a quite
> formal and official 4-letter acronym code that was widely used there. It was
> based on some very simple rules that related to the basic principles of bird
> names. Bird names mostly have two parts, a descriptor followed by a group
> name, but sometimes there is only one name.
> Sometimes there are two words to one or both parts of the name. The rule
> divides the acronym evenly between the two parts of the name. Hyphens are
> treated as spaces (i.e. hyphenated words are treated as two words); case is
> ignored (some of these might be my own rules?). If there is one word in a
> part of the name then the first two letters of that word are used. If there
> are 2 words in a part then the first letter of each word is used. The
> importance of the rules is that it should be possible to work backwards from
> an unfamiliar acronym, unambiguously to a single species.?
> ?
> Acronyms were used in Australia at that time, but there was little
> consistency. BFCS for Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike conforms to those rules from
> America. YFH or YFHE for Yellow-faced Honeyeater did not conform.
> It would be YFHO. Black-shouldered Kite is not BSKT (pronounced
> 'biscuit') but BSKI.
> Mistletoebird is one word (someone decided to remove the space) so it is
> MIST, Malleefowl MALL, Galah GALA, ROCK, PILO, FERN, SCRU, etc.
> ?
> In 1989 (I think) I typed up all the acronyms according to the American
> rules in a spreadsheet which I no longer have. It was based on the 1975
> checklists (Condon, Schodde) and the 1977 list or recommended English names,
> so now it would be 2 or 3 checklists out of date. I was dismayed to find
> quite a lot of problems:
> ?
> Emu is EMU, not four letters, trivial these days but troubling for some
> computer programs back then.
> ?
> Some things go against the grain. Fairy-wrens are FW, but Scrubwrens,
> Grasswrens and Thronbills are SC, GR and TH (e.g. WBSC and BLGR) ?
> Duplicates are out of control (I can't remember them all just now but here
> are most of them):
> WBWO: White-breasted and White-browed Woodswallows
> WBRO: White-breasted and White-browed Robins
> BHHO: Brown-headed and Black-headed Honeyeaters
> BBHO: Brown-backed and Bar-breasted Honeyeaters
> BBBQ: Buff-breasted and Black-breasted Button-quails
> YTHO: Yellow-throated, Yellow-tufted and Yellow-tinted Honeyeaters
> MAHO: Mangrove and Macleay's Honeyeaters
> STSA: Sharp-tailed and Stilt Sandpipers
> STSH: Short-tailed and Streaked Shearwaters
> KEPE: Kerguelan and Kermadec Petrels
> MAPE: Macaroni and Magellanic Penguins (I've not yet found this one a
> bother)
> BLPE: Black and Blue Petrels (that's 2 petrels, not a single bruised
> one)
> LBCO: Little-black Cormorant, Long-billed Corella
> GRFA: Grey Fantail, Grey Falcon
> MALA: Masked Lapwing, Magpie-lark
> RNPH: Red-necked Phalarope, Ring-necked Pheasant (no duplicate now that the
> later is COPH, but the only duplicate I was aware of in North America).
> CBCU:
> BAOW:
> STGW:
> SBTH:
> BRHO:
> CHWE:
> ?
> MALA is the most common clash followed by GRFA, most others are usually not
> sympatric.
> I've not found a simple rule to sort out the clashes, and have usually
> ignored most of them because of the location. For Masked Lapwing and
> Magpie-lark I have used MALAP and MALAR (substituting the first
> non-conflicting letters in the group part; i.e. using the first non
> conflicting letters whilst still restricting it to 4 letters). However for
> BBBQ and most others the rule needs to be applied to the descriptor part. It
> doesn't work at all well for YTHO: (YHHO YUHO and YIHO? ? who could ever
> figure out what those are from a field note book?). I do like the old
> bushies? name Cranky Fanny... Nevertheless, to resolve GRFA I have fallen
> into the habit of using GRFAN (5 letters) all the time and ?***GREY FALCON!?
> about 5 times. However, the conflicts are many and I have found no simple
> rule to resolve them all. It's a nuisance that Long-billed Corellas are so
> widely established these days.
> ?
> Changes to English names potentially render the code suddenly out-dated, and
> without recognition of the code as a standard, those who change English
> names do damage that they are unaware of. Most importantly, the decision to
> remove hyphens (See the IOC list) can change so much (e.g.
> if Cuckoo-shrike becomes Cuckooshrike then BFCS becomes BFCO, which then
> clashes with Black-faced Cormorant; BBBQ and BBBQ become BBBU and create a
> 3-way clash with you-know-what) ?
> This 4-letter code has saved maybe millions of letters in my note books, and
> therefore lots of time and space and books, and I keep using it despite all
> the faults. However, I have never used it in a data base situation. I've
> often given my notes to others to transcribe to Atlas sheets or for
> writing-up fauna surveys. They usually complain at first, but with
> instructions of the rules that I follow they usually do well, query a few
> things, and after a little practice they always interpret the code easily.
> ?
> I hope you can take it a step or two further. The three challenges I
> recognise are:
> 1) Simple rules for resolving the conflicts
> 2) Stability in the face of changing English names
> 3) National standardisation.
> ?
> I hope this information helps
> ?
> .
>
>
> David James,
> Sydney
>
> ==============================
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Allan Richardson <>
> To: <>
> Cc: birding-aus Aus <>
> Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2012 11:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] RFI Bird species codes
>
> Hi Martin,
>
> I first came across a four letter code for bird records when doing some
> survey work for State forests in NSW in the 90's.
>
> The basic format is this: the code represents the first four letters in
> the bird's formal name, with variations on the theme where required, as
> follows.
>
> A single word bird name such as Galah would be Gala
>
> A double word bird name such as Striated Thornbill would be St Th
>
> A three word bird name such as Gang-Gang Cockatoo would be GG Co
>
> A four word bird name such as Black-faced Cuckoo-shrike would be Bf Cs,
> although when I use the code I always put in the hyphens as an added cue
> to the bird's identity - e.g. B-f C-s or G-G Co for the Gang-Gangs
> above.
>
> The hyphens also help to separate some species that? would otherwise be
> difficult to separate, such as Brown Thornbill (Br Th), and Buff-rumped
> Thornbill? (B-r Th), or Masked Lapwing (Ma La), and Magpie-lark (Ma-la),
> or Little Black Cormorant (L B Co), and Long-billed Corella, (L-b Co).
> Using capitalisation where it falls also helps to separate species as
> you can see from these examples.
>
> There will always be those species that you can't easily separated,
> because their codes are the same, such as White-breasted Woodswallow
> (W-b Wo), and White-browed Woodswallow (W-b Wo), so you might have to
> add another digit, such as W-bs Wo and W-bw Wo respectively. It won't
> ring true if you're trying to develop a four letter code database but
> neither would the hyphens in such a case. Overlaps are not that frequent
> for local lists, but they do add an element of ambiguity for referencing
> down the track or when you are listing or surveying on a large trip or
> large area, where many species will be encountered.
>
> I do know of a number of folk who give birds their own four letter codes
> as their imagination dictates, but the above code is one more formal
> approach that I have used now for many years. I find it very useful for
> saving on note pad paper and being able to get down many species when
> activity is high. it does take some getting used to, especially when you
> have to interpret them later, or worse still, you pass them on to have
> someone else interpret them.
>
> i have noticed lately, while entering bird names into datbases
> (encompassing all fauna guilds) that many species have sequences of
> letters that bring only one species up very quickly with few characters
> entered, such as ie- for Magpie-lark, toeb for Mistletoebird, er-ey for
> Silver-eye or llarb for Dollarbird. A difficult method to take on board,
> because you would have to remember all of the codes without a format
> formula to follow, but especially powerful when others may have to enter
> your data into a database and you are not around to give them help when
> they get stuck.
>
> I would guess that most four letter codes are similar or a variation on
> the above more formal theme.
>
> All the best,
>
> Allan Richardson
> Morisset, NSW
>
> On 20/03/2012, at 2:25 PM,
> <> wrote:
>
>> A request for list members.
>>
>> Would the people/person who developed short acronyms or 'series of
>> letters' for Australian species codes please send me a copy of their
> code
>> list or direct me to where this can be found?
>>
>> Martin O'Brien
>> Melbourne
>
> *************************************************************************
> The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments to it,
> is intended for the use of the addressee and is confidential. If you
> are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, read,
> forward, copy or retain any of the information. If you received this
> e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return
> e-mail or telephone.
>
> The Commonwealth does not warrant that any attachments are free
> from viruses or any other defects. You assume all liability for any
> loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening
> or using the attachments.
>
> The security of emails transmitted in an unencrypted environment
> cannot be guaranteed. By forwarding or replying to this email, you
> acknowledge and accept these risks.
> *************************************************************************
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
>
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
>
>
> Check out our site: <http://www.bird-o.com/> http://www.bird-o.com
> Follow us on Facebook (Bird-O) and Twitter
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
