Two people break 10,000 species, and on the same day? Can it be? (2 Viewers)

[Owene]

In Romania last year we had a thrush nightingale singing in reeds a few meters from our moored boat. Definitely thrush nightingale. Singing repeatedly. Could place where it was and track it. Movement of reeds. I think one person got a glimpse of a sbj. I didn’t.

No possibility of it being a tape or anything. In fact if we’d played a tape we might have seen it. Very unlikely to go back to Romania but might see one elsewhere

Needs to be that kind of situation to be heard only for me and even then it’s not on my bubo life list.

 

[YuShan]

Anyway, within a few years all these lists will be meaningless. Even beginners with no ID skills or other birding skills will rake in thousands of birds with no effort by simply letting a Merlin-like app run and tick off all the birds from which the app detects a song or call. HO. But of course you can argue that that wouldn't be that much different than using a human guide and ticking off what your guide finds for you .

 

[Andy Adcock]

Yes, nothing wrong with that. Great technology. Of course they don't go bragging about how they have beaten other birders, like that marathon runner who took the train .

I don't know anybody that does, using this method.

 

[YuShan]

 

[Andy Adcock]

That's plain stupid.

 

[opisska]

But of course you can argue that that wouldn't be that much different than using a human guide and ticking off what your guide finds for you .

Yep, that would have been my next angle of attack

 

[dantheman]

That's plain stupid.

Totally bananas ...

;-)

 

[Swindon Addick]

I can even one-up this discussion: do you count birds that you don't even hear, but see on the spectrogram? I was surprised to learn that European Robin has a very specific high frequency call - I never heard it, but I can immediately tell it from the spectral shape.

I think ticking something you didn't hear or see purely from a spectrogram would be like ticking a bird that a guide called out but you yourself never got on - fine if you're doing a list of species known to be present for a research paper, definitely cheating for a personal life list. Where it would get trickier is if you did hear & see the bird, got the ID down to 2 species and then used a spectrogram to decide which of the 2. Most people wouldn't count that, but I can see some might. It's not that different from what's standard practice with bats, and it's not a world away from using a photo to reveal a plumage feature you couldn't see in the field and nailing an ID from that.

 

[Swindon Addick]

Anyway, within a few years all these lists will be meaningless. Even beginners with no ID skills or other birding skills will rake in thousands of birds with no effort by simply letting a Merlin-like app run and tick off all the birds from which the app detects a song or call. HO. But of course you can argue that that wouldn't be that much different than using a human guide and ticking off what your guide finds for you .

Set up internet-connected microphones in various locations around the world, Feed them into the Merlin app on your phone in a flat in central London. Welcome to the UK 4000 Club.

 

[opisska]

I still don't understand why is it such a great difference from using a scope. What about looking through the viewfinder of a camera, is that fair? Now what if the camera is mirrorless and the viewfinder is actually a screen?

If looking at real-time FFT of a sound is not fair, would having the app play the sound slowed down to lower frequency fair? Or do I need to construct a device that's fully mechanical so that the sound never stops being a wave?

To me this all sounds like "at the olden days everything was analog, so analog things are fine".

 

[pbjosh]

In Romania last year we had a thrush nightingale singing in reeds a few meters from our moored boat. Definitely thrush nightingale. Singing repeatedly. Could place where it was and track it. Movement of reeds. I think one person got a glimpse of a sbj. I didn’t.

No possibility of it being a tape or anything. In fact if we’d played a tape we might have seen it. Very unlikely to go back to Romania but might see one elsewhere

Needs to be that kind of situation to be heard only for me and even then it’s not on my bubo life list.

Yeah I find the "it could have been someone with tape" suggestion a bit of a red herring, or perhaps a specialty of birding in the UK? I mean sure, it happens. I have taped in other birders a couple times over the years and I have heard people playing tape from time to time. But it's far from common.

I rarely am birding where other people are, most of the time its abundantly clear there is no one around playing tape. Sure, it still happens that there are situations where a heard only bird could be someone else's tape. There are clues though - it's usually a good bird, you hear the same vocalization repeated many times, and it's usually coming from a direction where there is a trail or road

 

[Farnboro John]

I still don't understand why is it such a great difference from using a scope. What about looking through the viewfinder of a camera, is that fair? Now what if the camera is mirrorless and the viewfinder is actually a screen?

OK if you're looking through the camera, not OK if you are looking the other way at a wifi connected monitor even if you are on-site. This also means not OK to tick on the basis of the view through e.g. Loch Garten Osprey cam monitors in the reserve centre. Look out of the window at the bird.

This is all a bit daft but suppose you are nocmig taping and something goes over that isn't on your garden list: does it count for the garden list? I'd say yes it counts for the location's garden list but not for any of your lists as it occurred while you slumbered or watched Strictly or whatever. So if someone asked how big your garden list was you could include it on the garden list but you'd have to caveat it as not being your garden list which is one less.

John

 

[pbjosh]

I still don't understand why is it such a great difference from using a scope. What about looking through the viewfinder of a camera, is that fair? Now what if the camera is mirrorless and the viewfinder is actually a screen?

No shit I have heard people argue that birds seen through an SLR count but through a mirrorless don't.

An interesting philosophical question in this regard that a friend floated: suppose you saw a hard / rare bird at the edge of the water, like a White-eared Night-Heron, Zig Zag Heron, or White-backed Night-Heron, but only saw it's perfectly clear reflection on the surface of the water as it was actually behind foliage and wasn't directly visible...

 

[qwerty5]

Where it would get trickier is if you did hear & see the bird, got the ID down to 2 species and then used a spectrogram to decide which of the 2. Most people wouldn't count that,

Why on earth not? You've seen and heard a bird that you have positively identified to species. I don't see why anyone wouldn't count that. Many of the crossbill types require spectogram analysis to ID.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think ticking something you didn't hear or see purely from a spectrogram would be like ticking a bird that a guide called out but you yourself never got on - fine if you're doing a list of species known to be present for a research paper, definitely cheating for a personal life list. Where it would get trickier is if you did hear & see the bird, got the ID down to 2 species and then used a spectrogram to decide which of the 2. Most people wouldn't count that, but I can see some might. It's not that different from what's standard practice with bats, and it's not a world away from using a photo to reveal a plumage feature you couldn't see in the field and nailing an ID from that.

I spent nine days, looking for Schneider's Pitta, heard it once, subsequently it's not on my list as I haven't 'seen' one.

 

[Farnboro John]

No shit I have heard people argue that birds seen through an SLR count but through a mirrorless don't.

An interesting philosophical question in this regard that a friend floated: suppose you saw a hard / rare bird at the edge of the water, like a White-eared Night-Heron, Zig Zag Heron, or White-backed Night-Heron, but only saw it's perfectly clear reflection on the surface of the water as it was actually behind foliage and wasn't directly visible...

I think the answer is no tick but I hope I'm never in that position!

John

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think ticking something you didn't hear or see purely from a spectrogram would be like ticking a bird that a guide called out but you yourself never got on - fine if you're doing a list of species known to be present for a research paper, definitely cheating for a personal life list. Where it would get trickier is if you did hear & see the bird, got the ID down to 2 species and then used a spectrogram to decide which of the 2. Most people wouldn't count that, but I can see some might. It's not that different from what's standard practice with bats, and it's not a world away from using a photo to reveal a plumage feature you couldn't see in the field and nailing an ID from that.

I think they probably would, that's no different to ticking certain Stonechats after DNA analysis of a scat.

 

[pbjosh]

Why on earth not? You've seen and heard a bird that you have positively identified to species. I don't see why anyone wouldn't count that. Many of the crossbill types require spectogram analysis to ID.

I can see both sides of the argument. I am happy to log birds that I positively heard and was able to positively ID by myself. But if I heard it and relied on someone else to ID it (as in by myself I still couldn't have told it from a similar sounding species), I'm not sure I'd want it as a tick. However if someone else wants to do so I have no problems with that.

 

[Farnboro John]

Why on earth not? You've seen and heard a bird that you have positively identified to species. I don't see why anyone wouldn't count that. Many of the crossbill types require spectogram analysis to ID.

The crossbill types aren't species any more than the Great Tit or Chaffinch dialects.

John

 

[Mark Lew1s]

It’s pretty simple for me. You have to see or hear the bird to count it. This can be through glass - you’re still looking at the bird. On a camera screen, or a nocmig recording, or a sonogram, you’re looking at an electronic representation of the bird or its call, rather than the bird itself. You might as well be watching the telly…