[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: an extraordinary count.
Hi carolinabirders,
I do not think we should saddle regional compilers with too much of the
blame for mysterious records such as the ones that Jack documented (I
have not seen Harry's comments yet, are they in print somewhere or posted
to the list?). Regional compilers volunteer to get saddled with loads of
work for which they get little reward beyond their name on the published
report. Individual birders have to be responsible for maintaining the
quality of their counts, and the compiler of each CBC needs to make
counters aware of the potential significance of their reports and the
necessity of documenting seasonal rarities, as well as regional ones.
Yes, even if it comes at the cost of decreasing your count's species
total because a rarity was not documented sufficiently. At this point,
the numbers and variety of birds are smaller and more manageable, and
editing much easier. By the time the CBCs reach a regional editor, the
volume of data reported is staggering, and if mistakes reach that stage
it's impossible to catch them all. This problem will probably only get
worse as computer technology gets more advanced and compilers can "write"
reports by combining data files without actually looking at individual
entries.
I have found the CBC and NAMC organizers in this area to be very good
about providing checklists before the counts that not only list bird
names, but also frequency of each species either on that specific count
or just generally in the area at that time of year. In return, I have
done my best to provide all relevant details whenever I report a bird
which is either new to the count or very rare in the area at the count
season.
As for the individual species mentioned, if they were misidentified on
the Hilton Head count, they have also been on many other counts. The web
site for the BBS and CBC, http://www.mbr.nbs.gov/bbs/, shows all of these
species occurring rarely along the Carolina coasts in winter, with CBC
reports for Eastern Kingbird as far north as New Jersey, Great Crested
Flycatcher up to Massachusetts, and Wood and Grey-cheeked Thrushes all
they way up to the Great Lakes. It becomes easier to understand why many
professional ornithologists disapprove of using CBC data for scientific
purposes. Other folks have written on this listserv before about the
practice of publishing bird records in CBC summaries and publications
like Field Notes/North American Birds or Winging It before the state
records committees have evaluated the documentation, and how this leads
to published, seemingly scientific data on bird distribution which is
erroneous and misleading; not sure what's to be done about it though...
Good birding,
Josh
Joshua S. Rose
Duke University
Department of Zoology
jsr6@acpub.duke.edu
http://www.duke.edu/~jsr6/