Matt, I have not really worked through the entire list of Oregon's birds. It probably wouldn't take too much time, as most of the birds that occur in Oregon appear here in only one field recognizeable 'form.' Along these lines, are there any Oregon counties where both gray-headed and brown-headed Bushtits occur with some frequency. Off hand only Klamath and Sherman strike me as possibilities. I would have to check, but I think I have seen both types in Sherman and I really don't know about Klamath. The range of gray-headed (P. m. plumbeus) extends quite a bit farther north than it is described by most sources. There is actually an isolated population in Yakima County, Washington and I've found plumbeus at multiple locations in Sherman County. Dave Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:02:18 -0800 Subject: [orebird] Re: Oregon eBird update (some things to chew on) From: matthewghunter@xxxxxxxxx To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 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? CheersDoug 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. 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. Sullivan eBird Project Leader www.ebird.org Photo Editor Birds of North America Online http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA ------------------------------- -- Avian Migration w/ PNW focus Forays into the field