Subject: next birds
Date: Apr 11 09:46:16 1994
From: Dennis Paulson - dpaulson at ups.edu


For those of you who get WOSNEWS, you saw an article I wrote=
asking
for guesses as to the next 5 species to be added to the Washington=
list.
Scott Ray raised the interesting question about whether I thought=
to
include species that may be split off in the near future, for example
Timberline Sparrow (Spizella breweri taverneri) from Brewer's. I=
was going
to answer Scott directly until I realized the question raised some=
thoughts
that I wanted to share with tweeters everywhere.
No, I wasn't thinking of splits at all, Scott, but it's certainly=
a
good point. There is still some question about exactly which birds=
will be
split--and especially when--and not knowing for sure, I'll leave=
it for the
future. My personally relevant story is that I saw a Brewer's Sparrow
singing from low conifers on top of Mt. Spokane in 1968, and I sure=
wish I
had had the ability to tape-record it! I knew nothing about subspecies
differences in Brewer's, but I suspect it was a taverneri that had=
wandered
over from the Rockies.
Along with this is a feeling I have: with the desire to=
find
rarities so prevalent among birders combined with the upcoming splits=
among
populations of birds that look very similar to one another, I dread=
the
specter of sight records of Timberline Sparrows, Plumbeous Vireos,=
Eastern
Warbling Vireos, Brown-capped Rosy Finches and others from this region.
There is abundant evidence that this will happen. I already have=
people
reporting Red Crossbill types to me by number who, on questioning,=
clearly
know little about how to distinguish them or even what type of call=
they
should be listening for (crossbills have many other calls that differ=
from
one another or not, but it is the differences among the flight calls=
that
are somewhat understood now).
The most obvious sign of this problem is that all golden-plovers
are being reported by species now, which I know is very difficult--no
matter what it says in that new book on NW shorebirds. A comparable
phenomenon is the identification to species of silent fall Empidonax,=
which
is possible but only with extreme care and, I would add, considerable
experience with *known* individuals (how to get such experience?=
a catch 22
if I've ever seen one). A recent report of comparative distribution=
and
abundance of Pacific-slope and Cordilleran flycatchers in one part=
of
Washington was by *sight reports,* some of them silent individuals,=
and I
don't think the two can be told apart in the hand!! This treatment=
of birds
has no relationship to ornithology any more.
It is of great interest to determine species limits in birds,=
but
it makes me anxious to know that a lot of splitting will be followed=
by a
lot of attempts to identify that which is unidentifiable. This is=
not being
done by ornithologists who are carefully trying to assess the avian
diversity of their county, state or region but instead by birders=
who
appear to be motivated by an urge to increase their own lists or=
simply
some geographic occurrence list. I am really concerned by the "list=
=FCber
alles" mentality that runs counter to a goal of accurately documenting=
the
occurrence of birds (see Bill Tweit's letter in the next WOSNEWS).=
Birds
should be added to peoples' lists because they have been carefully=
recorded
in a state (or country or whatever), not recorded from a state because=
they
have been enthusiastically added to a list!

I can only expound all this as a personal attitude, of course,=
but
I would hope it was the prevailing attitude among birders. I welcome
comments from others.