[NatureNS] Reporting extreme bird rarities

Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:06:29 -0300
From: iamclar@Dal.Ca
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H3 (4.0.3)
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <naturens-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>
Original-Recipient: rfc822;"| (cd /csuite/info/Environment/FNSN/MList; /csuite/lib/arch2html)"

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects


All: (I sent this last evening, but it seems not to have been received.)

The ever-sensitive business of reporting rarities has been raised, and I thought
I’d put my 2-cents worth.

We have all been guilty of not reporting full details of extreme rarities –
group subeditors of “Nova Scotia Birds” as well as the finders of such birds.
As has been pointed out, without detailed published description or an
identifiable image, such records will probably be ignored by those who end up
keeping track of birds for the permanent record (in published books and
magazines,and on museum-kept lists, and state, provincial national, and
international bird record committees).

Let’s compare two examples. The Broad-billed Sandpiper seen briefly, but closely
studied, by me and Blake Maybank in Sept. 1990, was reported in “Nova Scotia
Birds” thus:

“The most remarkable shorebird record of the year, or any year, one may say, is
the Sighting of a BROAD-BILLED SANDPIPER Sept. 9, at Hartlen’s Pt. By Ian
McLaren and Blake Maybank. Their comprehensive, moment-by-moment account makes
exciting reading and should be referred to for further details – it should
satisfy the most critical as a satisfactory sight record pending confirmation
in the centuries ahead.”

THAT’S NOT GOOD ENOUGH. Where are the details?

Fortunately, the evidence was published in full in the international journal of
bird records “American Birds” (now “N. Am. Birds”) 1992, vol. 49, p. 48-50,
based on field notes and a sketch made within minutes of viewing the bird and
before consulting any field guides or specialized shorebird books. It’s too
long to give here, but even so, because of the briefness of our study the
editor of that journal persuaded us to use the title “An Apparent Broad-billed
Sandpiper in Nova Scotia,” and we agreed. Of course we were convinced that we
had seen this extremely rare vagrant (no prior records in E. N. America, and
only a 2 or 3 since), but the details are out there for others to decide what
they want to do with it.

Now compare this with the “NS Birds” writeup of a Little Stint on Brier I., Aug.
21-24, 1997 (sections with . . . . snipped): “ . . . RAF who studied this ad.
bird gives a model description, which, as well, distinguishes it from the
Rufous-necked” . . . . “Head all pale orange except for fine streaking on
crown; orange down sides of neck and breast, blackish streakings within orange
area at sides of breast, but no streaking across breast or in white area below
orange area; chestnut-red scapulars, lower coverts dark, similar in basic
colour to mantle; bill black with fine tip slightly downcurved; black legs
quite long; body did not have sleek, elongated appearance; no obvious white ‘V’
on back.”

That’s pretty convincing, but even better were the photos taken by Doug MacRae,
an expert birder then leading a field trip on Brier I. (I have two copies of the
originals) One black & white image is in “NS Birds” 41(2), p. 37, and shows
some features (to extent possible in b & w – much better in colour) of Little
rather than Red-necked Stint. Notably, Doug’s account with the photo reads “ .
. . we were not positive it was Little (as opposed to Red-necked) at the time,
but subsequent study of the literature(some of which is surprisingly confusing)
and the photos confirmed the original suspicion.”

When you come across a real rarity, it’s always best to take copious notes in
field – and preferably to leave the field guides at hone or in the car. In
writing notes, it is also vital to know and use the names and parts of
birds – scapulars, coverts, supercilium and all that good stuff, in written
descriptions.

Finally, birders can readily get documentary photos for their finds, especially
those they study through telescopes, using cheap, point-and-shoot digital
cameras. All you need do is focus the telescope, put the camera on automatic up
against the lens of the telescope (best if the lens is small enough to fit
inside the rim of the eyepiece) and click away. I have an old 2.1 MB canon with
no frills like image stabilization (probably reoplaceable for less than $50
now) that is o.k. for getting second-rate images as first-rate evidence.
Taking digital photos through binoculars can be done, but needs pretty good
aiming skills. Also, for less than $200 you can now also get pretty good digital
cameras with built-in zoom that will give the equivalent of a 400+ mm lens on a
full digital camera in 35 mm format.

I hope I haven’t been too preachy, but I do think we can all do better when it
comes to documenting truly rare birds.

All best,
Ian McLaren

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects