[wisb] Re: Counting after the fact birds
- From: jerry937975@xxxxxxx
- To: wisbirdn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:14:36 -0400
Now that I see the rule, the photograph of the theoretical stint should satisfy
rule #4.
As pointed out, rule 4 says "diagnostic field marks, sufficient to ID to
species, must have been seen and/or heard and/or documented at the time of the
encounter".
Given the use of "or" we can drop the "and". Get rid of the "ands" and you have
"diagnostic field marks, sufficient to ID to species must have been seen or
heard or documented at the time of the encounter".
So "seeing" the bird is not a necessity if it is heard or documented. Hearing
the bird is not a necessity if it is seen or documented. And neither hearing or
seeing the bird is a necessity if it is simply documented (granted that seems
hard to do, but it is the scenario being discussed).
The photograph taken at the time of the encounter is the documentation that
will ultimately identify the bird. Unless "documented" is further defined
specifically as written field notes, I would argue that a photograph does
indeed satisfy the requirement of documentation. And as it was clearly taken
at the time of the encounter it ultimately does satisfy the rule.
IMHO, I think the rules suggest both birds could be counted.
Jerry DeBoer
Central Racine County
####################
You received this email because you are subscribed to the Wisconsin Birding
Network (Wisbirdn).
To UNSUBSCRIBE or SUBSCRIBE, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
To set DIGEST or VACATION modes, use the Wisbirdn web interface at:
//www.freelists.org/list/wisbirdn
Visit Wisbirdn ARCHIVES at: //www.freelists.org/archives/wisbirdn
Other related posts:
