IOC British list

Obviously Virtue should be Virkie. Autocorrect error!

Hi Paul

Ta for the information. I did not spot that I had a non-accepted bird on my list. I have now updated my list with the 11 May 2016 Titchfield Haven bird (Caspian Stonechat S. m. variegatus)

Cheers
Steve

Confused about the 1985 Portland bird. It's named as Turkestan on RBA
.. ' Portland has two records prior to this week’s bird ~ an adult female Daurian in September 1959 and an adult female Turkestan in September 1985. The only other county records have been a first-winter Turkestan Shrike at Winspit in October 1978 and a first-winter Daurian Shrike at Durlston in October 1988.'[MG] ..
and I have it in my notes as such.
BS also states that it showed features indicating Turkestan. Yet I think it was listed as Daurian in the BBRC review. Is that correct?
Also saw the Scilly and Yorkshire (which was trapped!) '91 birds - even though they are both possible Daurian, and my notes indicate that - they are uncountable (Some people have added them)

What's happening with the 1985 Portland Shrike, RBA have it as Turkestan
.. 'Portland has two records prior to this week’s bird ~ an adult female Daurian in September 1959 and an adult female Turkestan in September 1985. The only other county records have been a first-winter Turkestan Shrike at Winspit in October 1978 and a first-winter Daurian Shrike at Durlston in October 1988.' MG
But I think it was stated as Daurian in the BBRC review
My own notes describe it as Turkestan
Others are also listing 91 Scilly and Yorks(trapped) shrikes as Daurian but to my knowledge neither has been attributed to species - my notes point to them being Daurian.

What indeed has happened to previously accepted records (both adult and trapped individuals) of Daurian and Turkestan Shrikes, as alluded to in my previous recent posting on this thread?

With regards to the formally lumped "Siberian Stonechat", my three previous sightings in Britain i.e. Isles of Scilly in 1985 and 1999 and Norfolk in 1985, were never conclusively attributed to race but were all presumed maurus at the time. Therefore, in keeping with the new BOURC criteria and being purist about such matters, I again reluctantly make a further deduction from my BOU British list total until an officially accepted individual of either maurus or variegatus presents itself in the future.

Likewise, I will also remove Siberian Stonechat from my IOC world list (having not seen any others globally) but will retain Stejneger's Stonechat on the basis of adult males being definitely identified in Hong Kong and Japan.

Whilst first-winter individuals of both S.m. maurus and S.m. stejnegeri can be tricky to distinguish with any certainty (short of DNA analysis) in the field, it is my view that the majority occurring in Britain in that plumage type are probably maurus anyway.

Hi Jeremy

I was thinking a few days ago I wonder if bubo could include some new categories into their BOU/IOC list.

If someone has seen Daurian/Turkestan then there could be slot for that on the list as Daurian/Turkestan. So the bubo list will contain 3 slots:
Daurian
Turkestan
Daurian/Turkestan.

Birders then just choose the slot they wish to use. At least this would keep the birders totals at the correct number.

The same system could be also used for Fea's/Desertas/Zino's. So perhaps have 2 slots
Fea's/Zino's/Desertas Petrel
Fea's Petrel.

The same system could be be used on Sib. Stonechats, Black/White- bellied Storm Petrel, etc.

I hope the above makes sense.

Cheers
Steve

Steve

Your categories on the Petrels are wrong. Fea's is no longer on the list. Presumably you mean two categories:-
Fea's/Desertas/Zino's eg seawatching birds
Fea's/Desertas eg Scillonian Pelagic bird

All the best

Paul

This would be possible, although would be a departure from the basic data model we've pursued ever since setting up BUBO. That is, people tick full species and nothing else. Whilst we could allow ticking of species aggregates like Daurian/Turkestan Shrike, there would be a divergence of opinion between listers as to whether this would count towards the list total. I know some say yes, others say no, and that makes for a pretty messy system. Moreover, if we did allow Daurian/Turkestan to count as "1" on the list, what happens when Daurian is subsequently seen? Clearly you wouldn't want that to count as "2" - would we have to build in functionality that would automatically insist on no aggregates if the underlying species are seen? Starts getting difficult. It's much cleaner to be strict with saying a tick is a full species, simple as that. I'd rather then that people can make their own decision on level of proof they feel comfortable with for saying whether they feel a particularly shrike was actually a Daurian, no matter what BBRC has said about an individual record. IMHO anyway!

Hello Steve,

Thank you for reading my recent posting on this topic and responding.

Your listing ideas for this website seem liberal and flexible. However, as Andy rightly points out, to facilitate such a departure from the established format on BUBO Listing could give rise to ambiguities and muddy the waters with regards to sequential numbering and totals.

For my own part, I would prefer an unsullied BOU British list and an IOC world list for that matter and am prepared to take it on the chin with the recent re-evaluation and pruning down of previously accepted records, now considered indeterminate. "Them's the rules" as they say.

There will be further opportunities in Britain to "tick off" officially ratified examples of Daurian and Turkestan Shrikes and Siberian and Stejneger's Stonechats. Being lackadaisical in the past about seeing formerly nominated sub-species has evidently cost me dear.

As we all know, the pendulum has drastically swung the other way from the predominant lumping ethos
in the 60's and 70's. Remember Common/Spotted Sandpiper and Rock/Water Pipit pairings, which seem just plain wrong now? That said, I am still perplexed as to why both IOC and Clements have not even began to consider Hudsonian Whimbrel as a distinct species.

Needless to say, the ever increasing scientific rigour required in field identification is challenging to say the least but should only enrich our ornithological insights and experiences.

Happy birding.

Jeremy

Andy Musgrove wrote: This would be possible, although would be a departure from the basic data model we've pursued ever since setting up BUBO. That is, people tick full species and nothing else. Whilst we could allow ticking of species aggregates like Daurian/Turkestan Shrike, there would be a divergence of opinion between listers as to whether this would count towards the list total. I know some say yes, others say no, and that makes for a pretty messy system. Moreover, if we did allow Daurian/Turkestan to count as "1" on the list, what happens when Daurian is subsequently seen? Clearly you wouldn't want that to count as "2" - would we have to build in functionality that would automatically insist on no aggregates if the underlying species are seen? Starts getting difficult. It's much cleaner to be strict with saying a tick is a full species, simple as that. I'd rather then that people can make their own decision on level of proof they feel comfortable with for saying whether they feel a particularly shrike was actually a Daurian, no matter what BBRC has said about an individual record. IMHO anyway!

Andy

Of course, if only it were as simple as taking the BBRC's word for it.

Whilst noticing the irony of a proposed puritanical approach to Shrikes when the Stonechat conundrums had slipped by the proposers, what still seems to be unnoticed from a purists' perspective is that the BBRC reports betray a substantial divergence of view between the BBRC's approach and the BOURC's approach on Shrike identification.

Numerous birds have been published as showing characters of the races within BBRC reports including classic first winters whereas the BOURC has stubbornly only been prepared to accept adult males.

So I do not see how taking the BBRC's view on an individual record is a sufficient standard if you wish to be a purist. For instance, the accepted Nene Washes female Daurian Shrike predates the male Daurian that the BOU accepted as a first record by two years. If the BOURC were not prepared to accept it, can it really be counted on a 'pure' list?

Personally, I prefer to try to maintain my sanity and take a sensible approach with the identifications rather than what has become a lottery of standards:-

Fea's/Desertas Petrel - DNA only (presumably?)
Moltoni's Warbler - DNA or call
Eastern Yellow Wagtail - DNA or call
Stejneger;s Stonechat - DNA only (as long as you don't mix up the samples)
'Siberian' Siberian Stonechat - DNA only
'Caspian' Siberian Stonechat - plumage is fine
Daurian/Turkestan Shrikes - BOU adult males only; BBRC at one time at least classic first-winters & older birds but maybe now just adults??

Happy New Year

Paul