Dave, :-) Thanks. ... I feel like I'm thanking the guy who carried his own backpack AND mine up the hill. ha ha... Seriously, knowing the mental triathlon that is required to make it through there in one piece... I appreciate your work. A couple questions and suggestions: 1) Help me wrap my head around why we need to include the "American" or "Northern" forms of things, or even the "Pacific Northwest" forms of things on Oregon checklists if that is the only type normally expected here? It seems that if some of these taxa are "split" eventually, it seems the eBird data managers are going to "convert" all of these anyway. Thoughts? I suppose it doesn't "hurt" anyway (see #2 below). Seems like we don't want people choosing Mallard (Northern) if they really don't know how to tell that one from any other one; in other words, an eBird point including Mallard (Northern) wouldn't be a reliable indicator of the occurrence of that type of Mallard, it would just be that someone said "I'm here in Nevada so it must be a Northern Mallard." If the EPMs want Mallard (Northern) included in the list, what is the point then of having the plain old "Mallard"? ... except that your average person would become confused at the disappearance of "Mallard" and the only choice being "Mallard (Northern)"). I don't feel settled on the usefulness/purpose of this or how to best implement it or think about it. 2) I tend to think "minimize the number of subpopulation choices" just to minimize clutter in the list. However, at least when entering directly into eBird, one can uncheck "show subspecies" and the list is quickly "uncluttered." So, maybe it doesn't really matter? I use BirdLog for 99.99% of my data entry, so it doesn't really matter to me much either since I just type in 4-letter codes and choose the correct designation. 3) I think your annotated list is fantastic Dave, and as we wade through it, it seems we can just make comments, either to the group or directly to you. I want to offer a "companion" table. I have created a suggested format, attached. This one is just for western Oregon Counties. A similar one could be made for E OR Counties (just delete the counties and enter the E OR ones, which thankfully are also 18 in number). I think a table such as this would more quickly communicate the final suggested inclusion or not for each county (e.g. put an x in counties that are recommended to include the subpopulation). And, once completed it would be easy for someone in a county to go through and see what is suggested for their county. I would suggest filling this out after completing your narrative and getting some feedback, but use it however, whenever, you feel it useful. Matt On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jay Withgott <withgott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks very much, Dave. This is exactly what we need to get started on > this process. > > Perhaps we should proceed thusly?: > (1) Each person who wants to contribute comments enter his/her notes > underneath each species one at a time, using a different color or font (one > color or font per person), and with last name or initials at the end. > (2) Said person saves document, and then posts it to the Google > document site where Greg Haworth had placed our eBird reviewing team list. > (3) As next person gets time to add comments (allowing for 2 or more > tries to avoid excessive head pain), this next person downloads latest > version of document from that Google site, adds his or her comments in a > new color or font, and then saves and re-posts this newest version. > > Will this work? > Or should we just email our revised versions to the group by this > listserv? That's perhaps easier. > > And shall we wait on Part Two, or go ahead with Part One? > > Thanks again Dave (and eBird Central, of course), > > Jay > > > On Mar 1, 2015, at 10:30 PM, David Irons wrote: > > Greetings All, > > If the attached document makes your head hurt, feel free to blame Matt > Hunter, who suggested that we create a list of the subspecies and > sub-population groupings that we want to include in our default checklists > for Oregon's counties. Using an expansive draft document of all of the > potential North American taxonomic delineations, I have created an > annotated list that includes the recognizable and the presumptive forms of > Oregon species with monotypic representation (i.e. Great Egret – American). > For each, I have included my own thoughts about why and how we may go about > including them in our default checklists. Please understand that the draft > document that I used was sent to me by Marshall Iliff for review. He would > be the first to tell you, it needs some tweaking, but it did provide me > with a good base list to work from, anticipating of course that most of > what is in there will make it into the final version. That document makes > my head hurt, but reviewing it in the context of how it applies to Oregon > helped me get through it. When I first looked at it, I was so overwhelmed > that I had to close the file and walk away. Now it makes much more sense. > > There are number of reasons why this taxonomic review (for Oregon) is > something we should be thinking about. First, there is the obvious. > Taxonomies are subject to change and some birds that are treated as > recognizable subspecies today may be full species tomorrow. We need to be > forward thinking and seek to capture data (when we can) so that when and if > the anticipated splits come, we will already have a set of pre-sorted > reports that can be appropriately slotted in the new taxonomy > > Secondly, ongoing climate changes are likely to radically rearrange the > distribution of birds that we now believe will never occur in Oregon. When > I started birding in Oregon (1970), I had no reason to believe that I would > ever see a Red-shouldered Hawk or a Barred Owl in the state. Both species > are now fully established in Oregon and they continue to expand their range > and fill in parcels of suitable habitat. In 1970, Eurasian Collared-Dove > was not remotely on my radar, as it didn't appear in my Golden Guide to > North American Birds. I hardly go a day without seeing one now. > > Lastly, the combination of improving field guides and ID resources along > with digital cameras have allowed us to sort individual birds at a much > higher resolution rate than we once could. Many birders seek to learn the > subspecies of their local area and having done so want to report them in > their eBird checklists. Further, they would love to have range maps showing > where they might expect to find the various subspecies depicted in their > field guides. Obviously, eBird is at the front of the line in terms of its > potential to provide this sort of resource. > > I spent most of today cranking out the attached document, which is part > one of two. It covers the species from waterfowl up through falcons. It is > not intended to be the last word on this topic, only a document that we can > use as a launch point for arriving at some sort of consensus and > consistency in our approach to making default checklist decisions. Right > now, it's the world according to me. What is needed most is the feedback > and refinement that can only come from the rest of the Oregon Review Team > and the eBird staffers who oversee this project. > > Enjoy, > > Dave Irons > > > <OReBirdsubspecies.doc> > > >
Attachment:
ProposedSubPopOReBirdCos.doc
Description: MS-Word document
