- 2019-D-1: Split Vermiculated Screech-Owl Megascops guatemalae: (a) Recognize M. centralis; (b) Recognize M. vermiculatus
- 2019-D-2: Add Thick-billed Warbler Arundinax aedon to the Main List
- 2019-D-3: Add River Warbler Locustella fluviatilis to the Main List
- 2019-D-4: Add European Robin Erithacus rubecula to Main List
- 2019-D-5: Add Pied Wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka to the Main List
- 2019-D-6: Add Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus to the Main List
- 2019-D-7: Add Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus to U.S. list
- 2019-D-8: Add Nazca Booby Sula granti to the U.S. list
- 2019-D-9: Add Black-backed Oriole Icterus abeillei to the U.S. list
- 2019-D-10: Add White-cheeked Starling Spodiopsar cineraceus to the Appendix
- 2019-D-11: Add House Swift Apus nipalensis to the Appendix
- 2019-D-12: Add Great Black Hawk Buteogallus urubitinga to the U.S. list
- 2019-D-13: Transfer Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus from the Main List to the Appendix
- 2019-D-14: Reinstate Nesophlox for Calliphlox evelynae and C. lyrura
2019-D-1: Split Vermiculated Screech-Owl Megascops guatemalae: Recognize M. centralis; (b) Recognize M. vermiculatus
(a) YES. The vocalizations are very different, and the taxon is genetically distinct. Choco Screech-Owl is a fine English name. (b) NO. Even though the morphological break is between guatemalae and vermiculatus, the vocalizations are quite similar, and the genetic differences have not been assessed.
(a) YES, following SACC. (b) NO, following the recommendation of the proposal. I agree that more data are needed. (By the way, outstanding job on the proposal. This is a valuable summary of a complex case that brings everyone up to speed on the issues.)
(a) YES. This is a complex situation and a well written proposal. The vocalization data are pretty compelling. (b) NO. The molecular dataset, while suggesting species limits are involved, is inadequate to fully assess these species limits. Additionally, “..makes sense from a biogeographical standpoint” is not a compelling argument for me.
(a) YES. I echo the comments of others about this being a very well crafted proposal! (b) NO. This split might be warranted in the future, but the available evidence is not yet sufficient.
(a) YES, based on data presented in the proposal and also following SACC. (b) NO. More data needed to split vermiculatus. Genetic data would be helpful.
(a) YES. Recognize centralis as a separate species (Choco Screeech-owl) based on the clear vocal differences and the genetic evidence. (b) NO, for reasons given in the proposal.
(a) YES. This is the easy one. The voice of centralis is very distinctive. (b) NO. My initial inclination is to split guatemalae and vermiculatus, but as noted in the proposal, crucial data to clinch this change are still lacking. So at present given the subtle vocal differences, I favor waiting for more evidence, especially genetic.
(a) YES. (b) NO. Await further investigation before splitting the Guatemala group further.
(a) YES. centralis appears to be both vocally and genetically distinct. The name Choco Screech-Owl is OK. However, the situation in Middle America looks less clear than either the SACC comments or the NACC proposal would seem to indicate, as (1) there is an XC recording (XC 314751, from Puntarenas) that is really short but not downturned, and the recordist indicates this is the common song of SW Costa Rica, perhaps to the exclusion of the long Caribbean slope-type song; and (2) there are XC recordings (XC190369-70) that sound like guatemalae/vermiculatus from Colon, Caribbean slope of Panama, within the range of centralis (which according to Krabbe doesn’t have a long song). The former may indicate yet another vocally distinct taxon, while the latter may indicate sympatry between guatemalae vermiculatus and centralis, but much further work would be necessary. (b) NO, at least not without genetic data and morphological reevaluation. I don’t hear any consistent vocal differences, while there is considerable within-taxon variation (and the puzzling situation in SW Costa Rica). However, the morphological differentiation is intriguing.
2019-D-2: Add Thick-billed Warbler Arundinax aedon to the Main List
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Published photo, endorsed by records committees, vetted by experts.
YES. The evidence is compelling. I agree that we should not evaluate the subspecies under present (lack of) evidence.
YES. The long graduated tail, dull plumage, thick bill, and seeming large size all point to a reed-warbler (Acrocephalus). Fortunately, there is only one species that collectively has such a thick bill, unmarked underparts, and such a plain face with non-existent eyeline and no post ocular superciulium, namely Thick-billed Warbler.
2019-D-3: Add River Warbler Locustella fluviatilis to the Main List
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Published photo, endorsed by records committees, vetted by experts.
YES. The evidence is solid.
YES. Certainly this bird is in that mess of reed, grasshopper warbler types with elongate shape, dull brownish tones, pale markings near eye, long bill, and stout legs. The long and heavily marked undertail coverts, lack of streaks above, blurry breast streaks, strong eyering and weak pale supercilium, lack of warm colors in the rump collectively point to River Warbler. The pale outer primary web shows up in Locustella in lots of online photos, and could be a good field mark to narrow it to genus with brief looks.
2019-D-4: Add European Robin Erithacus rubecula to Main List
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Published photo and endorsed by records committees, to whom I think we should generally defer concerning origin issues.
YES. Good evidence.
YES. I think there have been a few previous European Robins in the ABA area, but they have been dismissed as probable escapes from captivity. For several reasons, the Pennsylvania record merits a closer look. First, the number of captive European Robins appears to be very low. I could find only one source on the web where the species is listed (Birdsexpress in El Monte, California: http://www.birdsexpress.net/european-robin.html), but that source has them as “Not Available.” Second, the bird appeared in late winter during a fall/winter when very high numbers showed up in Iceland. This indicates that there was a strong westward movement that fall/winter, and I cannot imagine a better fit for seasonality and year of occurrence for a natural vagrant. Although a fall record from Newfoundland may be geographically more plausible, by late winter such a bird would likely be farther south. Third, the bird shows no sign of previous captivity. However, the few photographs available (two on eBird, two with packet) are not detailed enough to adequately assess molt limits or wear. I wish I could find out how often they are seen in the ABA area. There was a recent report from Florida next to a major cruise ship terminal, but the FOSRC has yet to vote on it. So far nearly all evidence points to a natural origin.
2019-D-5: Add Pied Wheatear Oenanthe pleschanka to the Main List
YES. 3 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. I’m still not sure about the age or sex of the bird, except that Per is nearly always right.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Published photo, endorsed by records committees, vetted by experts.
YES. Evidence for this species appears strong.
YES. The photos of this bird clearly show a wheatear. This is a rather odd bird, as it is hard to find reference to this particular plumage (and the same plumage in similar wheatears). To add to the confusion, in the provided notes from the Alaska RC it is called “second summer”, but Per Alstrom calls it a” first-summer”. It is obviously an SY (or older) bird. Particularly instructive, however, is the tail pattern, with the outer rectrices having more black, and the black extends further up the outer webs. Only Black-eared Wheatear is similar. That species however, would never show a blackish mantle.
2019-D-6: Add Mistle Thrush Turdus viscivorus to the Main List
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Published photo, endorsed by records committees, vetted by experts.
YES. Good evidence.
YES. No questions on provenance, as the species has reached Iceland many times, and follows the pattern of European thrushes reaching eastern Canada in the winter. No signs of captivity. The ID is pretty straightforward, with nothing out of the ordinary for Mistle Thrush, including long tail, white tipped rectrices, bright white underwing coverts, pattern of spotting on the underparts, patch of dark on the sides of breast, lots of white in face, etc.
2019-D-7: Add Pink-footed Goose Anser brachyrhynchus to U.S. list
YES. 3 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Obviously needs to be added base on many documented records over several decades.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Multiple published photos and endorsed by records committees, to whom I think we should generally defer concerning origin issues. The geographic and seasonal pattern of records places overwhelming burden-of-proof on “escapees” hypothesis.
YES. I’m a little surprised to discover that we hadn’t already done this.
YES. Repeated evidence.
2019-D-8: Add Nazca Booby Sula granti to the U.S. list
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Well-documented by specimens and genetic analyses, as well as many records with documentation of adults.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Multiple published photos, endorsed by records committees, and vetted by experts.
YES. Incontrovertible evidence.
2019-D-9: Add Black-backed Oriole Icterus abeillei to the U.S. list
YES. 1 without comment.
YES. I went back and forth on this, but ultimately I vote Yes, in part to be consistent with ABA.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. While an interesting collection of observations surround this issue (and mapping an hypothesized flight path!), I am okay following the ABA on this.
YES. I am inclined to follow the ABA Checklist committee on this. They have spent a lot of time and effort thinking about this, and I think we should follow them, unless we have a really compelling reason to do otherwise. I think we had that on Azure Gallinule, but not here. This species, given its distribution, seems much less likely than a number of other orioles in Mexico to end up a cagebird, and random place in Pennsylvania seems like a strange place for an escapee to show up (although to be fair, it’s a strange place for a vagrant, too).
YES. I have no problem with identity as a male Black-backed Oriole. And in first looking at the record, an individual in the northern US that originated in Mexico certainly follows a pattern of vagrancy in many species, including several orioles. Orange-billed Nightingale Thrush has a similar distribution in Mexico, and has wandered twice to the US (albeit in the summer). I feel this pattern is strong enough that we shouldn’t just cross this off as human-assisted.
The Black-backed Oriole has been considered a short-distance migrant, with some retreat from northern populations in the winter. This retreat from these northern populations does not look complete however; the eBird maps show a numbers of records in the winter in the most northerly areas (near Durango). This does not negate the possibility that some migrate and some overwinter there. As mentioned in some of the accompanying literature, a relatively non-migrant oriole (Black-vented) is known to occasionally wander far to the north of its usual range. In addition, that the same bird showed up later in Massachusetts indicates that this particular bird has some degree of wanderlust regardless of how we characterize the species’ migratory status.
Like the California Committee, I think that the bird there in the early 2000s was likely not a natural vagrant, and has no bearing on the records in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. I concur regarding the unlikelihood of a BBOR being brought to PA.
In sum, a tough one to assess. But I see no overarching reason, or even an accumulation of small bits of evidence, why we shouldn’t consider this a natural vagrant.
NO. This is equivocal but in my opinion further evidence is needed before acceptance.
NO. Tough call! My thoughts are a very slight inclination for NO, based on origin issues. Although we typically defer questions of origin to ABACLC, note that they voted opposite Massachusetts BRC on this. My vote would easily be reversed by a second record somewhere in eastern USA. Pretty birds are always prime targets in the cagebird trade. If Black-backed Oriole has tendency to wander NE, other records will follow sooner or later.
NO. Following the ABA on this is a mistake in my opinion. Let’s await a clearer pattern. I’m not sure why the opinion of the ABA CLC should have more weight than the decisions of two of three state committees (Massachusetts and California Bird Records Committee) did not accept the record (not sure what Connecticut did). Regardless of our decision, the overall result is confusion to the wider bird interested public. The map published in Birding showing the records and the trajectory path proved nothing to me, or even suggested it. If the bird was really hell bent for the Maritimes, why did it switch back from MA and head southwest to CT? These sorts of interpretations of vector points are fraught with problems. That it apparently persuaded the one ABA CLC dissenter is regretful, although that individual vote wouldn’t have mattered with the end result. That said, I’ve grown increasingly tolerant of origin issues with many strays and orioles, even sedentary ones (e.g. Streak-backed, even Audubon’s), have appeared far from their “sedentary” range. I suspect that there will eventually be other connecting records, I would have just appeared to wait until such records occurred. What’s the rush?
2019-D-10: Add White-cheeked Starling Spodiopsar cineraceus to the Appendix
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Appendix entry mandated. Origin suspicious.
YES. Okay for Appendix.
YES. I have trouble seeing this a a natural vagrant. Ship-assisted seem a very likely cause in both cases. Tofino and Homer may be a bit out of the way, but both are within a few dozen miles of major shipping traffic from Asia (Tofino to Victoria and Vancouver; Homer on the way to Anchorage). It would not surprise me at all if a starling on a cargo or passenger ship was provisioned in a crossing from Asia, and flew ship when it got in view of land. I do not see a starling surviving a sail across the Pacific without some provisioning.
The ID is not a problem. Escape from aviculture seems unlikely. The species is a short-distant migrant and we have been getting some weird records of not quite far-eastern Asian vagrants in Alaska lately. But it seems to me ship-assistance and provisioning is the much more likely scenario for these birds to reach North America.
2019-D-11: Add House Swift Apus nipalensis to the Appendix
YES. 4 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Appendix entry mandated. Wild origin extremely doubtful.
YES. Okay for Appendix.
YES. The proposal outlines good reasons why the bird is of questionable provenance and should not be added to the Main List. But given that a paper has been published advocating that it was a natural vagrant, it need to be placed in the Appendix.
2019-D-12: Add Great Black Hawk Buteogallus urubitinga to the U.S. list
YES. 3 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. At some point there should be some investigation about the apparent records from the Florida Keys of the nominate subspecies, perhaps even a separate species?
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Multiple published photos; wild origin endorsed by records committees. Too bad about the deposition of the specimen. Hopefully, a tissue sample was saved.
YES. Too bad the specimen wasn’t deposited in a research collection.
YES. Excellent documentation of juvenile Great Black Hawk. Told from other Buteogallus by large size, long tail, long legs (> 1/2 to tail tip), evenly spaced barring on tail, lack of subterminal dark band on tail, lack of dark malar, prominent barring on undersides of remiges, dark base to bill. The rangy look, long legs, and broad wings are distinct to this genus. Provenance does not seem to be an issue. No bands, no abnormal wear, and the species breeds within a couple 100 kms.
2019-D-13: Transfer Budgerigar Melopsittacus undulatus from the Main List to the Appendix
YES. 2 without comment.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. Fifty years is just a raindrop of overall time. Move it to the Appendix.
YES. No doubt that this population has blinked off.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. We should follow Florida and ABA committees on this decision.
YES. Appendix is appropriate, given change in status.
YES. This is consistent with what we have done in other cases of introduced birds that were established, but eventually petered out. I am a little concerned about this approach however. Something like Budgerigar is a very different case from most of the taxa that are in the Appendix. It was established for 50 years and numbered in the ten of thousands. Yes it died out, but it was really part of the avifauna in a way most of the birds in the non-extablished part of the Appendix never were.
2019-D-14: Reinstate Nesophlox for Calliphlox evelynae and C. lyrura
YES. 1 without comment.
YES. Reinstatement of Nesophlox is necessary to maintain monophyly. Licona-Vera & Ornelas provide additional evidence.
YES. This seems like the best treatment for now given the molecular data.
YES. Let’s not continue misinformation.
YES. Seems straightforward.
YES. This may only be a temporary solution, but it is consistent with published data.
YES. Looks like the clear route to go given the phylogenetic tree we have of this group.
YES. This seems like a good start to a lasting solution.
YES. It is clear that the Bahamaian taxa are not close to the Calliphlox type species (amethystina). They may show a close relationship to Mellisuga and Archilochus in the McGuire et al. tree, but they are quite different in plumage and morphology. It would be nice to remove byrantae and mitchellii from Calliphlox as well, but I guess it can wait for firmer results.