Hi all: I recently entertained a query from a friend as to why the Colorado Bird Records Committee (CBRC) asks for documentation of occurrences of certain species that are regular (some are common) in parts of the state, but rare or non-existent in other parts of the state (see http://www.cfo-link.org/downloads/review_species.pdf). Since my answer might be useful to more than just the querent, I thought that I would reply to this venue. But, first, I will discuss the importance of bird-records committees. For those that think such committees are anathema, please don't delete this missive quite yet; please read on.
Submitting documentation to relevant bird-records committees is important to ornithology to enable the layperson to contribute to the science. Without some sort of review of rare-bird occurrence, ornithology would be unable to utilize much of the information and data generated by the 10s of 1000s of birders, because ornithologists would be unable to separate the wheat from the chaff. Ornithology certainly cannot be expected to accept any sighting from any person as valid, because all of us make mistakes, whether we care to admit them or not. I can recall visiting the Great Smoky Mountains in my first year of birding and, because I didn't put Turkey Vulture on my list of expected species there, I noted -- and was certain thereof -- 27 adult Golden Eagles in a kettle at one point. Upon returning home, my birding mentor kindly pointed out where I had gone wrong. This experience was the first of many humbling events in my birding career, and I will readily admit to still making ID mistakes, though I believe/hope that I don't make errors quite as egregious as the Golden Eagle mistake. With the point of the above paragraph as given, birders in many political units have decided to establish committees of skilled birders to review occurrences of birds rare to the particular political unit, almost always under the auspices of a particular respected organization (the CBRC is under the auspices of the Colorado Field Ornithologists, the owner of this listserve). A decision by a group of people is almost always more conservative than the most liberal opinion of any given member, and conservatism is usually best when dealing with aspects that alter the understanding of a particular topic (though there are many exceptions). That is why simple submission of data through the eBird review process is not enough for reports of review-list species, because that process simply changes who the single person responsible for record acceptance from the observer to the reviewer. Yes, for the most part, eBird reviewers are highly skilled and responsible individuals, but they are still single individuals and one of the reasons that committees are committees is to attempt to arrive at a consensus of opinion that might be more acceptable than having a single person be the arbiter of all. A group of people also brings differing experience, knowledge, understanding, and -- not to be considered inconsequential -- variety of acquaintances, which may allow for more thorough discussion and treatment of individual reports. Though these committees certainly exist in order to come to some group decision on the reliability or acceptability of particular reports of bird occurrence, one of their other primary reasons for existence is as an archive -- some way to store all of the information about bird occurrence that has been submitted so that future researchers can access it. Of course, that archival mandate is one that is never questioned by birders. What gets questioned is the rationale behind the review of bird reports and why cannot a person's word simply be taken as is. For that, see Golden Eagle report, above. One important thing to keep in mind is that a person's list is a personal thing, one can count on it whatever one cares to. However, science requires some form of proof. For those old enough, one might recall the furor created about "cold fusion" in the late 1980s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion). For science, it matters not what any individual states, but what can be proven. The take-home message, if it hasn't already been delivered, is that anyone can make a mistake, so any individual report can reasonably be expected to be questioned, particularly when that report alters our understanding of the world, even if it's just a miniscule portion of that understanding, such as the distribution of Red-winged Blackbird. Let us consider a hypothetical sighting of a single Red-winged Blackbird in Campo, Baca County, Colorado, on 22 April. If the reporter had actually mis-identified something else as the reported Red-winged Blackbird, it doesn't really alter our understanding of Red-winged Blackbird distribution, because the species is, at worst, uncommon to, at most, abundant in the area around Campo at all times of year. However, if the bird mis-identified as a Red-winged Blackbird were actually a Cassin's Finch, that would change our understanding of that species' distribution, at least a little. And, if that mis-identified bird were actually a Tawny-shouldered Blackbird, that would change our understanding of that species' distribution quite a lot. The more radically a particular observation would change current understanding, the more detail about that observation will be required to be accepted by science. This bit is of particular importance when dealing with the subject of regional rarities. Colorado sits astride an incredible juxtaposition of differing biogeographical regions and that fact is the reason that the state list is nearing 500 species (when that milestone is reached, CO would be the only non-coastal, non-Mexico-border state with that distinction). However, because of that habitat variety and a host of other biogeographical reasons, particularly the differences between eastern and western Colorado, there are quite a lot of species that are common (even abundant) on one side but unknown or virtually unknown on the other. Good examples of this include Grasshopper Sparrow (common to abundant breeder on the eastern plains; but only 1 or 2 good records west of the eastern foothill edge) and Purple Martin (uncommon but local breeder in western Colorado, but with only ~10 or so good records in eastern Colorado). Additionally for Purple Martin, there is some concern that the "eastern" subspecies and the "western" group of subspecies might be separate species, though I suspect that this will be shown not to be true. However, if a split were more likely, one can easily see how the CBRC might want documentation for such a rare "species." I find that it helps if one imagines a state boundary running along the west side of Larimer, Boulder, Jefferson, Douglas, El Paso,Fremont, Huerfano, and Las Animas counties and then considering what the Records Committee for the state of "Western Colorado" would like to see as far as documentation of bird occurrence. Or what the ECBRC would like to see. Even on the eastern plains of Colorado, there is a small suite of species, exemplified by Field Sparrow, that are of uncommon to common occurrence in the easternmost tier of counties, but which rarely stray west of there. Or, at least, rarely get found and identified correctly west of there (I've seen multiple birders identify immature White-crowned Sparrows as Field Sparrows). For my final example of the importance of documenting regional rarities, I refer you to the occurrence this past winter of a Curve-billed Thrasher in Eagle County. That species (as currently constituted) is a widespread and uncommon to common breeder in southeastern Colorado, but rare north of the Palmer Divide and virtually unknown west of the eastern foothill edge, despite the species' predilection for vagrancy. As such, this out-of-range occurrence received little play on the listserves in Colorado. However, Jacob Cooper, interested in bagging a pretty darned "good" county bird, went up to ogle the thing. Though I don't know, I imagine that he was pretty surprised when he saw the bird and noted that it appeared to be referable to the western form of Curve-billed Thrasher typically found in the U.S. only in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and California and which looks and sounds different from the eastern form that so many of us have seen in the semi-desert areas of southeastern Colorado. Since he took pictures and submitted a complete report to the CBRC, upon acceptance by that body, science will have gained a bit more understanding about Curve-billed Thrasher distribution. However, there is strong published evidence (genetic and otherwise) that the eastern and western forms of the species are actually separate species and if that is so, science will have gained a much larger chunk of understanding, as the occurrence would be the first for Colorado. To bring us back to the archival aspect of any bird-records committee's duties, let us imagine that Jacob did not submit documentation to the committee. Then, when his computer crashed or his house burned down, all physical records of that bird's occurrence will have been lost. Future researchers would have no recourse but to discount the occurrence, as there would be not a scintilla of proof of such an important record. However, since he did submit a record, those bits of physical proof -- the pictures and the written documentation -- will be archived at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, as are all reports submitted to the CBRC (with duplicates of all records held by the current Chair) -- even the ones that are found lacking in some respect and were not accepted by the CBRC. All of those records will always remain available to future researchers. That cannot be said of individual personal websites, photo collections, etc. In summation, birding is a very individual hobby and I feel that one of the primary reasons that it is so popular, is that it is so flexible. A given enthusiast can take the hobby as far as s/he cares to, whether just enjoying watching birds at a backyard feeder or researching and writing scholarly publications on bird distribution. Or anywhere in between or sideways. However, all of us that do more than just ogle birds at feeders without caring to put names to them can join the uncountable thousands of people that contribute to the science of ornithology by dutifully reporting -- and defending -- ones sightings. To extend our understanding of what is the best-known group of organisms on the planet -- and most of that knowledge gained by amateurs! I strongly encourage submission of checklists to eBird (www.ebird.org) and also submission of reports of Colorado review-list species (http://www.cfo-link.org/downloads/review_species.pdf) to the CBRC (http://cfo-link.org/CBRC/login.php5). I thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tony Leukering Villas, NJ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group. To post to this group, send email to cobirds@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cobirds+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds?hl=en.
