Jude & Tony,
You may want to add Wigeon and Lesser Black-backed Gull to the list now.
Cheers
Mark
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 20:28:45 +1100 From: “Tony Palliser”
Jude, It is a constant moving target these days – taxonomy is constantly changing and new species are still being added regularly. I make the list 891 plus 3 newly added species accepted by BARC within the last couple of months namely: Japanese Sparrowhawk, Chinese Sparrowhawk and Mugimaki Flycatcher to make the total 894. No doubt there will be more added in the not too distant future also.
Here is a link to a list prepared by David James which was updated recently:
http://www.tonypalliser.com/barc/australian_checklist.xls
Cheers, Tony
Hi Mark,
To answer your question.. For species potentially new to Australia BARC members will encourage folk to submit their find. If no action for a period (no set time but normally around a year or so) then BARC members may also recommend that others that may have seen the bird to submit.
There are many reasons for delays in submissions, for example researching the identification of sub-adult gulls or little known Swiftlets for example, seeking expert opinion etc. Some just hate paperwork and would rather be watching birds than writing submissions and there will always be a few people who think that rarities committees are a waste of time – recalling a comment a while back “how would you guys know what I saw?” and then there are publishers that would prefer to make up their own mind.
Yes you are correct these days taking notes in the field while watching the bird just doesn’t happen much.
Cheers,
Tony
Sent: Thursday, 21 March 2013 1:00 AM Cc: Dave Torr; birding-aus@lists.vicnet.net.au
Hi Tony,
Thanks for clarifying that. But I’m not quite sure from what you say what happens if no-one makes a formal submission of, for example, the Broome Lesser Black-backed Gull? And please be aware that I am in no way criticising BARC. I believe that it is very important for the birding community to have an official list of verified bird species and that the committee does invaluable work. A quick perusal of the published rulings indicate the care and effort required to make a decision and the long list of under-review cases would understandably make the idea of deliberation in the absence of a formal submission not very attractive.
But the question of “grey literature” – unverified usually internet based publishing – will become increasingly important. The advent of high quality digital photography makes bird identification per se significantly more certain but it comes with I suspect a reduction in field note taking and perhaps less formal submission of records. There may be a variety of reasons for non-submission – observers feeling that they may not have taken sufficiently comprehensive notes, not wanting to be embarrassed by having a submission not accepted, afraid of stepping on the toes of the finder or original observer, deferring to birders who may have had a better view/photograph, being unsure of the exact taxon (there was a lot of discussion and not a little controversy when the LBB Gull first turned up) or simply assuming some else will. Dave Torr thinks that consideration of birds without a submission to be a dangerous idea. I am not so sure especially in cases of well documented new species as have occurred recently.
Cheers
Mark
Hi Mark, Generally speaking BARC does take it on board to review “the Literature” for example the old Cocos (Keeling) record of Lesser Black-backed Gull is currently circulating. Some species are still to be submitted but I have no doubt the day will come – Slaty-backed Gull springs to mind. Additionally some species end up on the supplementary list for considerable periods and does in some part include those “awaiting a submission”.
Cheers, Tony
On the topic of BARC submissions, surely if most members of the BARC see the bird eg Wigeon, and tick it for their own lists, then shouldn’t it be accepted with less stuffing around than if Joe Blogs (sorry Joe!) or myself saw a bird without others verifying it?
I saw what could have been a vagrant Martin (?), in 2008, in WA on the tail of Cyclone Pancho, took photos and passed them around to some of the most well-known birders in Oz (including BARC members) but as my photos were inconclusive I didn’t submit the required paperwork…. I have no dramas with this, but if many, many people see and identify a bird, surely the process should be easier……
Hi Tony,
Thanks for clarifying that. But I’m not quite sure from what you say what happens if no-one makes a formal submission of, for example, the Broome Lesser Black-backed Gull? And please be aware that I am in no way criticising BARC. I believe that it is very important for the birding community to have an official list of verified bird species and that the committee does invaluable work. A quick perusal of the published rulings indicate the care and effort required to make a decision and the long list of under-review cases would understandably make the idea of deliberation in the absence of a formal submission not very attractive. But the question of “grey literature” – unverified usually internet based publishing – will become increasingly important. The advent of high quality digital photography makes bird identification per se significantly more certain but it comes with I suspect a reduction in field note taking and perhaps less formal submission of records. There may be a variety of reasons for non-submission – observers feeling that they may not have taken sufficiently comprehensive notes, not wanting to be embarrassed by having a submission not accepted, afraid of stepping on the toes of the finder or original observer, deferring to birders who may have had a better view/photograph, being unsure of the exact taxon (there was a lot of discussion and not a little controversy when the LBB Gull first turned up) or simply assuming some else will. Dave Torr thinks that consideration of birds without a submission to be a dangerous idea. I am not so sure especially in cases of well documented new species as have occurred recently.
Cheers
Mark
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Wow. We will soon need a 900 Club! Another club that I won’t be a member of …
Russell Geelong
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
The Slaty-backed is on my list – saw it ourselves in Cooktown – lots of pics too.
Tony
Hi Mark, Generally speaking BARC does take it on board to review “the Literature” for example the old Cocos (Keeling) record of Lesser Black-backed Gull is currently circulating. Some species are still to be submitted but I have no doubt the day will come – Slaty-backed Gull springs to mind. Additionally some species end up on the supplementary list for considerable periods and does in some part include those “awaiting a submission”.
Cheers, Tony
“If a tree falls in a forest and no one hears it, does it make a noise?”; if a bird is seen in Australia but it is not reported to BARC is it on the Australia list? Both Lesser Black-backed Gull and Wigeon have been seen, photographed and their provenance and identification extensively discussed in this forum so is there any doubt that they will be on Australia list? The BARC “under review” list includes an old LBB claim from the Cocos Islands but not the recent Broome bird, nor the Wigeon.
What happens if nobody submits a record? This can easily come about if the original observer is not that fussed/interested in going through the process of making a submission and other viewers are reluctant to put in a submission in case they could be viewed as “claiming” the record or do not want to be involved in some controversial identification.
Given the fact that most significant rarities are likely to be discussed in forums like this, perhaps BARC should take it upon itself to review “The Literature” particularly on cases of species new to Australia. Some acknowledgement of the original finder of the bird could then be included. A “waiting submission” category might prompt birders to make a submission.
Cheers
Mark
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I guess there has to be some “authority” if people want to compare notes on what they have seen – of course everyone is free to use whatever list they like for Australia according to whatever taxonomy they choose! However – if BARC is accepted as the arbiter of the Aussie list (and I don’t know of any other body who would do it) I guess we need to allow them to follow “due process”. May be a non event for the Wigeon as (as far as I know) there is no doubt about it, but often claims are knocked back by BARC. As to whether BARC can consider birds without a submission – that seems a dangerous idea. The whole idea of a submission is to prove beyond doubt that the bird should be accepted – I guess there will always be birds that are claimed but no proof is offered (not that the Wigeon is in this category of course)
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
But are they accepted by BARC yet? It takes a while to get things “officially” accepted
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================