I sent the "Western" Flycatcher question on to the folks at the BBS and
received this response. As to the as to the BBS memo and the general
failure to respond, I must admit that I don't read them very thouroughly.
I would seem, however, that this is our chance to spout officially about
this whole sibling species mess.


================= Begin forwarded message =================

From: Bruce_Peterjohn at nbs.gov (Bruce Peterjohn)
To: mpatters at orednet.org, greg.gillson at bangate1.tek.com, kspencer at tulesd.tulelake.k12.ca.us
Subject: "Western" flycatchers in OR/WA
Date: Tue, 29 Jul



Hi folks:

Your messages concerning the status of Cordilleran/Pacific-slope
flycatchers on BBS routes in Oregon and Washington were forwarded to
the BBS office, so I would like to provide you with some background
information and open up a dialogue on this subject.

When the Western Flycatcher was split into these 2 species, the BBS
office used the distribution information provided in Ned Johnson's
articles as the basis for their suspected distribution on BBS routes.
It was the best information available at the time. However, some of
its shortcomings became evident shortly after the split, and the BBS
office sent out a plea in its newsletter to BBS participants in the
OR/WA/BC/ID area to provide us with better information on the status
of these two species in this area. We received a few comments shortly
after the plea (this was in the late '80s-early'90s), but have heard
nothing subsequently. Hence, we had assumed (apparently mistakingly)
that the BBS distribution information for these species was a
reasonable reflection of reality in these states/province.

The other problem was the old summary sheets which just listed
"Western" Flycatcher but not the 2 split species. Some observers
would cross out "Western" and replace it with the appropriate "new"
species that they recorded, but the majority did not. Hence, the
computer-based distribution would be used to assign the "new" species
in these instances; only if the observer wrote back and informed us of
an error would we make any necessary changes. Since we received no
indication of major problems from the participants, we assumed that
the distribution information was reasonable.

This is just background information, and is by no means intended to
justify maintaining erroneous data in our database. Hence, I am
asking for your assistance. Can you provide me with more current and
accurate information on the status and distribution of these two
species in the Oregon/Washington area? A map showing their ranges
would be most helpful, but any written information would be greatly
appreciated. If you conduct a survey(s) where this office has
incorrectly assigned species records, or know of other BBS
participants who have experienced this problem, please let me know and
we will make any necessary changes to the database.

I have a similar request concerning the status of the recently
split Plumbeous Vireo in southeastern Oregon. The information
available to me indicates this species breeds very close to
southeastern Oregon, but does not actually nest in the state. Is this
information correct? Again, any current information that you are
willing to share would be appreciated.

Even though we are a very small office with many responsibilities,
we try to maintain as accurate a database as possible. Given the size
of the database and variety of observers contributing data, correcting
this database is a never-ending task. Whenever people identify
problems with the BBS data, we try to correct them as quickly as
possible.

I look forward to hearing your responses.


Bruce Peterjohn
Breeding Bird Survey



--
********************************* One of us might lose his hair
* Mike Patterson, Astoria, OR * but you're reminded that it once was ther
* mpatters at orednet.org * from the embryonic whale
http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters to the monkey with no tail -- TMBG