Dave and All, Has anyone gone through all the list of possibilities and come up with a proposal of which subpopulation names/groups we would include in the county default lists (for whichever county they actually occur in)? I know I haven't. I know you mentioned things like flickers, juncos, yellow-rumped warblers, maybe fox sparrows, ... I'm just brainstorming, but Dave do you want to propose a list? Matt On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:31 PM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Doug, > > I too think that Matt's option #2 is best. As soon as we include > non-identifiable or somewhat unquantified sub-population/subspecies in the > default checklist, user will them use and likely misuse them. Many of the > dicey sub-population designations are those that reference generalized > regional forms like I described in my long initial post on this topic. > These taxa (for lack of better word) do not necessarily represent a > specific subspecies or readily identifiable population. Folks use these > thinking that they are helping, when in reality they are making waters that > are already murky more muddy. > > Dave > > ------------------------------ > From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on) > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:05:02 -0800 > To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > I feel like Matt's option 2 is generally the best. It strikes a balance > between adding the obvious and regionally identifiable subspecies to the > lists while making it easy to find them (and therefore gather data on them) > and not cluttering lists with too many subspecies. > > I'm still open to hosting a group meeting of reviewers who want to attend > and talk about these and other issues. The initial offer was met by a few > positive replies and a bunch of negative ones. We don't all have to attend. > I know we have a big state and it is hard for all of us to travel to a > meeting. If interested, one option would be to meet a day before or after > one of our upcoming 2020 county blitzes. The schedule is on the > oregon2020.com website. The counties are Sherman/Gilliam, Wheeler, > Clatsop/Columbia, Wallowa and northern Malheur. Maybe some of you find it > easier to shake free during late May and June, and could multi-task by > joining a blitz? > > Cheers > Doug > > > On Feb 28, 2015, at 9:49 AM, Matthew G Hunter wrote: > > I assume a short note for the NW portal would be directed at "users" and > encouraging a conservative approach to using these designations? I think > that is a good idea. > > We, I think, still have not had enough discussion among ourselves (just a > couple big long emails from Dave and me), about what we should do with > regard to our default checklists. Options I see: (1) leave them all off so > people have to add them if they want them, (2) include only the > subpopulations that we feel are readily identifiable in the field, and any > others people have to add themselves, or (3) put all the expected > subpopulations for each county in the default checklist, so people don't > have to add them. In all cases people would have to add out of range > subpopulations (e.g. a European Herring Gull or whatever). > > Matt > > On Sat, Feb 28, 2015 at 9:16 AM, David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > Doug at al., > > You are probably right. A short note on this topic and the use of > sub-population assignments would be a good topic for the portal. I will try > to get something started on this. > > Also, I heard back from Craig Miller this morning and to my modest > surprise he has offered to take on the eBird review for Lake, Harney and > Malheur counties. I will make contact with Noah (to the extent that it's > possible right now) and let him know that Craig is willing to take on these > duties. Noah has another book to write upon his return from the World Big > Year effort, so I don't foresee eBird review fitting into his life again > any time soon. We may want to recruit some help with Harney for Craig, as > this county becomes a load once the masses descend in May. Lake and Malheur > are both very manageable year around. > > Once I get Craig's user name, I will forward it to Brian Sullivan so that > we can get him set up as a reviewer. I know that he'll do a fantastic job > with these counties. As soon as all this is in place, I will let Greg > Haworth and Ian Davies know so that we can update the review team > spreadsheet and get everyone properly assigned. > > Dave > > > > ------------------------------ > From: w.douglas.robinson@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on) > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:34:54 -0800 > To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > Dave, > > I think a short article about the need for Mallard (Northern) and why it > is showing up on Oregon eBird checklists would be good for eBird Northwest > article. Pretty sure most birders will see it and think "What's this all > about?" Want to write something up? > > Doug > > > On Feb 27, 2015, at 11:58 PM, David Irons wrote: > > Greetings All, > > Given that Noah Strycker is out of the country for nearly the entirety of > this coming year (doing a World Big Year) it is probably safe to assume > that eBird reviewing will not be part of his activities in 2015. He is > currently the assigned reviewer for Harney, Lake, and Malheur counties. > Over recent weeks I have taken it upon myself to plow through the modest > backlog of un-reviewed records for these counties. The Malheur County queue > is, as of a few minutes ago, empty. I've been able to whittle the Harney > and Lake queues down to fewer than 10 outstanding records each, with > queries out to those observers with records that remain in question. I also > sent a note to Craig Miller, asking if he might take on Lake County. He > knows the status and distribution of Lake County's birds as well as anyone > and would surely make a wonderful addition to our team if he accepts > (fingers crossed). > > Today, Shawneen and I went out to the Nature Center at Jackson Bottom > Wetland Preserve to meet with staffers and volunteers there who have been > entering more than two decades of monthly on-site bird survey data into > eBird. As one might expect, their survey protocols, particularly the > earlier ones don't dovetail perfectly with the current requirements of > eBird. There are of course taxonomy issues, with older checklists listing > all white-cheeked geese as "Canada Goose" and Pacific Wrens as "Winter > Wrens." There are also lots of checklists that show "Common Snipe," which > is now of course the Eurasian cousin of North America's Wilson's Snipe. > They have a wonderful volunteer who is a whiz at getting the data formatted > and transferred en masse and just today he solved most of the biggest > issue. In there historical data there is a consistent use of regional > sub-population designations that have not been entered into the default > Washington County checklist or had filters set. Examples of this are things > like "Song Sparrow (Pacific Northwest)" and "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)." > > Since I've raised this issue, you should be aware that there has been some > behind the scenes discussion about the value and usefulness of some of the > regional taxonomic designations. Personally, I don't like many of them > because I think the definitions themselves defy quantification. Can any of > you define the bounds of "Spotted Towhee (Pacific)." I can't, so I suspect > that the average birder can't either. It's likely that most observers who > select this more refined regional designation when entering Spotted Towhee > are doing so because they are standing in proximity to the Pacific > Ocean/Coast and not because they are identifying the bird (based on > appearance) to a particular source breeding population. > > During the winter months in particular, western Oregon gets Spotted > Towhees that are not very spotted on the upperparts and uniformly dark > burnt orange on both the flanks and the undertail (the local breeding *P. > m. oregonus*). We also get quite a few birds that are heavily spotted and > paler burnt orange on the flanks, with even paler somewhat yellowish-orange > under the tail. The latter birds resemble a number of interior and more > northerly breeding subspecies, which in my opinion probably can't be > assigned to subspecies with any clarity. We have a long way to go in order > to gain a grasp on where these birds originate, so for now it may be best > to leave them as simply Spotted Towhee and discourage the use of "Spotted > Towhee (Pacific)" until such time that we or someone else comes along who > can teach the rest of us how to sort them out. > > My personal yardstick for determining whether I make > subspecies/sub-population assignments is, "can I, in relatively short > order, show other birders the difference between two subspecies or > sub-population types and have them understand it and be able to use it > themselves." If I can't, then I probably shouldn't be using such > designations myself. For example, I've had good success teaching folks the > difference between Gambel's and Puget Sound White-crowned Sparrows, so I > endeavor to sort this species to subspecies whenever I get a good look. > Myrtle and Audubon's Yellow-rumped Warblers are another good example of > readily identifiable sub-populations. To a lesser degree, most Dark-eyed > Juncos can be sorted to types that most frequently occur in Oregon. On the > reverse side of this coin, I don't have any notion of what a "Song Sparrow > (Pacific Northwest)" is, although I assume most would limit the use of this > designation to the really dark coastal types that we see most often on the > west side of the Cascades. That said, one doesn't have to travel very far > east to start seeing Song Sparrows that are considerably paler in > appearance. When I think of the Pacific Northwest, I don't lop off the > eastern two-thirds of Oregon and Washington. > > As those of us who subscribe to OBOL have seen, many of the birds listed > in the daily eBird rarity alerts for Oregon are there solely because we > have not added these regional sub-population taxa or set filters for them > in our respective default county checklists. Ultimately, the eBird project > managers are interested in the most refined reporting possible, with the > ultimate goal of being able to map the ranges of identifiable subspecies > and sub-population groups. In my view, the key word is "identifiable." If > we allow the use of designations for which there are not well-established > ID criteria we are creating a lot of less than ideal and perhaps even > incorrect data that we may have to revisit and unravel someday. There is no > easy answer. I am all for trying to collect subspecies information when > available. > > I would encourage you all to keep this issue in mind as you review flagged > reports and set filters. Take the extra time to ask observers how or why > they decided to label a bird under one of these murky regional taxa and add > them to the county checklist only when you feel like you are capable of > helping your user base through the process of identifying them. > > Finally, some of you may have seen "Mallard (Northern)" pop up in a > checklist or in the Oregon alerts for a particular county. This is the > default Mallard for all parts of North America away from the southerly > areas where Mexican Mallard can be found. Since this is a readily > recognizable form and the presumed type that we get in Oregon, it should be > added to all county default checklists and the filters should be set at the > same level as "Mallard." On the surface this may seem like having two entry > slots for the very same bird, but think of the big picture goal of being > able to define the range of this sub-population of Mallard. Ideally, we > want train local users to start entering their birds as "Mallard > (Northern)" rather unspecified "Mallard." It may save us a lot of work in > the future. > > I know this post is long and lot of ideas are addressed. Let's try to stay > on top of our respective reviewing responsibilities. Folks who are > dedicated about entering checklists and accurately accounting for what they > see and hear deserve to see their data points represented in the output > data in a timely fashion. Reviewing eBird observations tends to be one of > those things that I forget to do for several weeks at a time, so I have set > my phone up to give me a weekly notification reminding me to do it. Every > Sunday at 10AM my phone beeps at me. It has helped me keep up and stay on > top of the review process. > > Thanks to all of you for the time that you invest in making Oregon's eBird > data as good as it can be. > > Dave Irons > > ------------------------------ > From: g.haworth@xxxxxxxxx > Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:10:17 -0800 > Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update and Ian Davies introduction > To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; id99@xxxxxxxxxxx > > Brian, Ian, fellow OR review team: > > Among ourselves, we came to decisions of "best case" assignments. These > were based on evolved personal circumstances, balancing the work load of > the available reviewers, and familiarity with the counties to be reviewed. > We still have one outstanding issue and that is what to do with Noah > Stryker's three SE counties during his travels this year. > > We have a communal spreadsheet that reflects the decisions we came to. It > can be found here > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/11l15yHrtUqkNTeH-dmlDaKJsfl9UAKxzXLJK5SUs-AA/edit>. > Currently reviewer access to the filters reflected in this spreadsheet do > not match with current access. Current access matches past assignments. > Changes would need to made to filter access in order for us to achieve our > current thinking on how best to cover Oregon. > > greg haworth > Columbia (access) Clackamas (no access) Counties > > On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Brian Sullivan <bls42@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Everyone > > I've been meaning to respond to the recent spate of emails and make sure > that everyone has the correct review assignments in OR and that we can > successfully accomplish any juggling that needs to be done. Luckily, we've > just brought on Ian Davies to help with these kinds of house-keeping > issues, so please add Ian to the orebird list so he can be up to speed on > what's happening. In addition to helping with reviewers/filters, Ian is the > point person for content on the eBird site and social media. Please feel > free to email him directly if you have questions. > > I think, once Ian is added, that it would be worth everyone sending an > email to this list that details the OR counties that they are currently > covering. That way Ian can double-check the review assignments and make > sure they are up to date. > > Thanks > > Brian > > -- > =========== > > > *Brian L. SullivaneBird Project Leader * > www.ebird.org > > *Photo Editor* > Birds of North America Online > http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA > ------------------------------- > > > > > -- > Avian Migration w/ PNW focus <http://birdsoverportland.wordpress.com/> > Forays into the field <http://birdingfromportland.wordpress.com/> > > > > >