• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Change in Recording rules for ABA lists (1 Viewer)

Mysticete said:
Wow...where to start?

Taiga and Tundra Bean Goose: You do realize these birds got new names because they are split by the AOU, and not by the BOU? Or should we just have two species of bird on the checklist with identical names??!!??

European Storm Petrel, European Golden-Plover, etc
Click to expand...

I've been using these, formally, for years ( as, I suspect, have many other 'world' birders ).

Mysticete said:
Gray vs Grey: This is a regional dialect issue, and to me is no different than complaining that a Spanish language bird checklist doesn't use English names
Click to expand...

That's a different kettle of fish. I thought the convention was that new world birds were "gray" and old world "grey". Not that it matters ( apart from the double indignity of "Gray-headed Chickadee" ;) ).
 
Mysticete said:
Wow...where to start?

Taiga and Tundra Bean Goose: You do realize these birds got new names because they are split by the AOU, and not by the BOU? Or should we just have two species of bird on the checklist with identical names??!!??

European Storm Petrel, European Golden-Plover, etc

Also...you do realize that all of these European so and so's are usually vagrants or relatively rare in the ABA area. So it makes absolutely no sense to retain Golden Plover (the rarest ABA golden plover) when we have Pacific and American. When a US birder shouts "Storm Petrel" on a pelagic trip, European is like literally one of the last options that will pop into anyone's head (especially if you are on a west coast pelagic!). So yes...we use more modifiers...because we have a larger bird diversity to tackle.
Click to expand...
You're misunderstanding completely ;)

What I'm saying is, quite simply, get rid of those dreadful, woefully unsightly, and grammatically illiterate hyphens that you've been foisting on the World's birds. Two species with distinct names, Tundra Bean Goose and Taiga Bean Goose. And European Golden Plover. And so on.

chris butterworth said:
I thought the convention was that new world birds were "gray" and old world "grey".
Click to expand...
Exactly :t:. Gray Catbird is correct, Grey Catbird is wrong; Greylag Goose is correct, Graylag Goose is wrong.
 
The field usage card is an interesting one, because birders shout on instinct the first thing that comes into their heads (this is not just limited to bird species names.....) but I don't think it can be held to be paramount in this discussion. British birders faced with a selection of auric plovers would be likely to shout "Yank Goldie" "Packy Plover" and unlikely to shout for 300 Golden Plover (and I've never heard "European Golden Plover" in the field in the British Isles any more than "European Robin" or any of the other artificial additions to primary names). The usual confusion when a rare bird is called tends in my experience to be caused not by its name but by "over there" "In that bush" or "twelve o' clock from me".

I stand by the principle that it is perfectly acceptable to say Robin, American Robin, Siberian Blue Robin as those are in fact the proper names. The first robin to be named by an English-speaking people was Erithacus rubecula and it is only the late-comers that require a qualifier.

In the field you can say what you like, and if you desire to confuse an American at the court of King Arthur then you can speak of Yaffles, Buttles and Windhovers if you like in order to do so. Likewise I expect there are some fascinating American folk-names now in general disuse but not quite forgotten. Minor things like which Golden Plover are easily sorted out in seconds between people who are actively seeking to be clear rather than obfuscatory.

When there is more time, and over matters such as formal names, minor difficulties over shouting vagrant names should not be a consideration compared to priority and regional/national origin. In which vein, whither Great Grey/Gray Owl?

Good birding all!

John
 
Last edited:
Nutcracker said:
You're misunderstanding completely ;)

What I'm saying is, quite simply, get rid of those dreadful, woefully unsightly, and grammatically illiterate hyphens . . ..
Click to expand...

Agree, the hyphens are indefensible and I personally never use them. As for "imperialism" (what a fierce word for such a small matter!) I'm still smarting over the AOU's adoption of "American Wigeon" for "Baldpate" and "Northern Harrier" for "Marsh Hawk", changes which if the direction were reversed I'm sure you would hate with every fiber of your being.
 
Farnboro John said:
I stand by the principle that it is perfectly acceptable to say Robin, American Robin, Siberian Blue Robin as those are in fact the proper names. The first robin to be named by an English-speaking people was Erithacus rubecula and it is only the late-comers that require a qualifier.
Click to expand...

Nutcracker said:
What I'm saying is, quite simply, get rid of those dreadful, woefully unsightly, and grammatically illiterate hyphens that you've been foisting on the World's birds.
Click to expand...

Precisely the attitude I'd expect from British imperialists--the British way is correct, it's the rest of the world that needs to change.;)
 
Last edited:
Gentlemen, good friends or not could we please stay on topic? Thank you.
 
Yeah...the thread was about listing changes enacted by the ABA. The ABA has nothing to do with bird common names....that is the AOU.
 
Mysticete said:
The ABA has over the past year begun the process of revising recording rules for birds seen within the ABA Area (Basically...Alaska, Canada, and the lower 48)
These can be seen here: http://listing.aba.org/rsec/
with some discussion here: http://blog.aba.org/2014/09/recording-standards-and-ethics-all-online.html
Anyway, some tweaks of the rules, but the most significant is that the reintroduced populations of native birds can be considered as countable after successful hatching of young in the wild.
This rule now means that California Condor, Aplomado Falcon, and eastern populations of Whooping Crane are now countable.
Click to expand...
Nick Lund, The Birdist, 1 Oct 2014: Changes to the ABA's Recording Rules.

[With thanks to Nate Swick for posting on the aba blog.]
 
I feel that provision that 'captured birds may not be counted until they regain normal behavior' may paradoxically cause birders to further chase ringed birds, to see them later.

I would suggest that captured bird may be counted on initial take off and flight, but that significantly delaying the release, changing the place of release or releasing the bird so it cannot escape as it normally would (eg. in some fence) is a breach of code of ethics and this makes such observation invalid.

About reintroduced birds and mammals, I count individuals born in the wild, or any individual when wild-born animals are majority of the population and distinguishing them is not possible. I wouldn't count the original released animals, even if they live in the wild for years, but this is my personal taste.
 
jurek said:
I feel that provision that 'captured birds may not be counted until they regain normal behavior' may paradoxically cause birders to further chase ringed birds, to see them later.

I would suggest that captured bird may be counted on initial take off and flight, but that significantly delaying the release, changing the place of release or releasing the bird so it cannot escape as it normally would (eg. in some fence) is a breach of code of ethics and this makes such observation invalid.

About reintroduced birds and mammals, I count individuals born in the wild, or any individual when wild-born animals are majority of the population and distinguishing them is not possible. I wouldn't count the original released animals, even if they live in the wild for years, but this is my personal taste.
Click to expand...

I think you are still allowing some degree of arbitrariness into counting ringed birds, even under that definition. At any rate, birding in the US has always relied on a substantial degree of personal honor, and I think most birders can probably be trusted not to stretch out and exploit loopholes for the sake of adding a bird to the list, especially since most of the banders I have come across are not really listers anyway (Banding is overall something that isn't huge hobby oversees, and my sense of things is that it is much harder to get a license to do so)

As far as reintroduced species go, the ABA now pretty much follows your rules Jurek, RE: reintroduced species
 
Most of the revisions appear sensible, particularly the one covering reintroduced populations of native species. There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the phrasing of some rules though. When can you count a ringed / banded bird? If, for example, a Berylline Hummingbird is mist netted, banded and released in southern CA, and then goes directly to a feeder, does it count? Or do you have to wait until it flies around, for an unspecified amount of time, before ticking it? All lists rely on personal honour but Rule4 A (ii) appears to be phrased in such a way that it's a bit like offering iced Perrier to someone dying of thirst. ;)
 
chris butterworth said:
Most of the revisions appear sensible, particularly the one covering reintroduced populations of native species. There is a certain amount of ambiguity in the phrasing of some rules though. When can you count a ringed / banded bird? If, for example, a Berylline Hummingbird is mist netted, banded and released in southern CA, and then goes directly to a feeder, does it count? Or do you have to wait until it flies around, for an unspecified amount of time, before ticking it? All lists rely on personal honour but Rule4 A (ii) appears to be phrased in such a way that it's a bit like offering iced Perrier to someone dying of thirst. ;)
Click to expand...

I think its more like letting someone dying of thirst look at iced Perrier but not drink it!

I also wonder what kind of sheep-like birders let themselves be led around by the nose by people with this sort of attitude - you wouldn't catch British birders putting up with it. More like American anti-Birders Association.....

John
 
...sigh

They intentionally put the criteria in birders hands so that they can decide themselves what they want to count or not. It's not like their is an ABA swat squad that swoops in and tells people you can't count that. Most of these revisions only affect a few corner cases. For instance, the reintroduction rule, at the ABA listing level, Affects a whopping two species out of nearly a thousand birds, (and for both of those two cases, various numbers of birders have seen vagrant or pre-reintroduction). The banding rule might influence some state checklists, but rare birds only seen via banding are pretty uncommon. Again, there is no massive ringing community in the US.
 
Also...technically speaking, the rules only "constrain" birders in that they have to follow them for any checklist total submitted to the listing central. I am not aware of any anything similar for the UK, unless you count the UK400 club. Which is way more draconian than anything the ABA does.
 
Mysticete said:
...sigh

They intentionally put the criteria in birders hands so that they can decide themselves what they want to count or not. It's not like their is an ABA swat squad that swoops in and tells people you can't count that. Most of these revisions only affect a few corner cases. For instance, the reintroduction rule, at the ABA listing level, Affects a whopping two species out of nearly a thousand birds, (and for both of those two cases, various numbers of birders have seen vagrant or pre-reintroduction). The banding rule might influence some state checklists, but rare birds only seen via banding are pretty uncommon. Again, there is no massive ringing community in the US.
Click to expand...

So changes are voted on by association members? ;)

John
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

birderbf
Bird Points Game Version 2.0 - ABA Life List Edition!
18 19 20
Replies
384
Views
27K
tyrannulet
tyrannulet
Tanny
Dr Manjeet Singh's Malasian patch revised
Replies
5
Views
18K
christineredgate
christineredgate
ChinaBirds
China Birds (Nick Sismey) 2006 List
Replies
12
Views
22K
ChinaBirds
ChinaBirds

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top