next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
Index of Subjects
All: 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 (published books and magazines, 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. The 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 to 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 fieldnotes, 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