Re the new Washington State OFFICIAL checklist published by WOS:

I'm no longer on the bird records committee so can't provide an
authoritative answer (try Kevin Aanerud for that), but I presume that it
reflects two things. First, skepticism about the split of "Cordilleran" from
"Pacific-slope Flycatchers," which in my view is very well founded, since
Ned K. Johnson ignored the widespread populations of "Western Flycatchers"
that link the "Pacific-slope Flycatchers" of northern Washington and
southern British Columbia west of the Cascades with populations of
"Cordilleran Flycatchers" in the northern Rocky Mountains. Tape recordings
of songs and calls of birds across southern British Columbia and northern
Washington by myself and (mostly) Richard Cannings (more than 30 individuals
represented) and from southeastern Washington by myself and others --
analyzed statistically using Ned Johnson's own algorithms for distinguishing
the two "species" show a clear pattern of clinal variation in all song
features across the northern border region. As to the southeeastern
Washington populations: Johnson specifically included these in his
"Cordilleran Flycatcher" (and cited a specimen from the Blue Mountains and
tape recorded songs of a bird from near Pullman, WA were included in his
published sonogram sample) but he was forced to distinguish a "volcanic
region [or some such term]" type of "Cordilleran Flycatcher" from the
typical southern Rocky Mountain populations as intermediate in several
respects vis-a-vis "Pacific-slope Flycatchers." In any case, the
southeastern Washington "Western Flycatcher" songs are, to my ear, closer to
"Cordilleran" than to "Pacific Slope," but I have heard (and have recorded)
individuals in western Whitman County that gave both call notes in quick
succession. Dick Cannings and I have a manuscript in preparation reporting
this analysis. Since the bulk of the work on this is by Cannings and I
haven't checked with him recently on the status of the manuscript, I can't
say when it might be published.

In any case, in my opinion, differences of opinion with the AOU checklist
committee should not be the basis for excluding a bird from the list
(witness the inclusion of the "Northwestern Crow"). I believe the exclusion
was based on the fact the committee has not yet seriously considered the
reports of "Cordilleran Flycatcher" already on file. Your evidence is
clearly of great interest and relevance on this point and you should by all
means submit a summary in writing to the committee.

As for the Scaled Quail: again, if you have an observation from the Crab
Creek population it has apparently not been submitted to the bird records
committee for review. It is my understanding that there are no unquestioned
reports on file from the region of the original (< 1920) introductions since
the mid-1970s. Once again, PLEASE submit reports of interest to the
committee in a timely fashion.

Gene Hunn, Seattle, hunnhome at accessone.com
>
>(1) CORDILLERAN FLYCATCHER -- Omitted. The wisdom of The Committee for the
>Cordilleran Flycatcher status and situation in Washington is addressed on the
>back cover of the new Checklist, when in fact I had thought records in some
>parts of SE Washington had been accepted as full-blooded valid. However, in
>the apparent absence of genetic studies and with Committee-stated evidence of
>hybridization, I conducted a little test over in those parts last June where I
>did some tape play-back experiments of Rocky Mountain (South Dakota, Colorado)
>Cordilleran back to back with California and Oregon recorded Pacific-slope
>calls and songs on birds I thought or suspected to be Cordilleran based on
>calls of otherwise undisturbed individuals. Birds responding to the
>Cordilleran were in my face instantly like flies on you know what, whereas,
>the Pacific-slope play back was ignored completely. Hmmm, you say. There was
>nothing systematic about all this; I was just piddling around. Granted,
>Cordilleran Flycatcher was a 'write-in' on my old 'yellow' list as it never
>was officially listed, but only more recently had I thought the 'species' had
>become officially endorsed and valid in Washington.
>
>So what's the poop? My little encouraging random experiments were conducted
>in the Lewis Peak and Coppei Creek areas east and northeast of Walla Walla,
>and along Asotin Creek, west of Asotin, 13-15 June 1997. Now, if current
>wisdom still advises on the side of caution until more thorough genetic
>analyses are done and I should withdraw the Cordilleran Flycatcher from my
>list, I have no problem with that; it's only one bird amongst the multitude.
>However, when it comes to genetic analyses, we might want to start analyzing
>some of those pesky and endlessly controversial seagulls around here. "Oh No,
>Mr. Bill. Oh No!" :-(( Look too closely and we might all each end up having
>to subtract about ten. '-) ...On the bright side though, we'll probably get
>to add several hundred variations of other things by the year 2050.
>
>SCALED QUAIL -- Omitted. There was a thread on this species and quail in
>general back in January 1997. Scaled Quail did in fact thrive or at least
>occur briefly as an introduced species in the Lower Crab Creek area, Grant Co.
>(where I saw one several years ago), but is presently believed extirpated from
>the state. There may still be a few around and if so, extremely local in
>isolated desert areas of the Lower Columbia Basin, and most likely perhaps in
>the Juniper Dunes Wilderness Area, Franklin Co. However, I believe someone
>posted to Tweeters that the WRBC would no longer accept reports of Scaled
>Quail without photo documentation or specimen. In any case, Scaled Quail is
>missing from the new checklist. Should it be or was it omitted because it is
>an extirpated introduction? I'm not sure if 'extirpate' is just quite the
>correct word here as that may refer to a deliberate elimination by man or by
>man altering the habitat such that a given species can no longer survive.
>'Extinct' sounds a little harsh for a species introduced by man and the
>Washington Department of Game and which simply couldn't survive well here
>naturally but may still exist in small isolated relic numbers. Is there
>another more appropriate term I should be thinking of?
>
>Thanks. --Richard
>
>Richard Rowlett (Pagodroma at aol.com)
> 47.56N, 122.13W
>(Seattle/Bellevue, WA USA)
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>God was my co-pilot,
> but when we crashed in the mountains,
> I had to eat him :-))
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>
>
>
>
>