• 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.

Scaup (1 Viewer)

qwerty5

Controversial opinion generator
United States
Today, I stumbled across this eBird checklist, which includes both Lesser and Greater Scaup. The attached pictures are causing me to wonder whether I really know anything at all about scaup identification. To me, the left bird looks like a textbook Greater Scaup, based on head shape (smoothly rounded, with the peak at the front of the head) but the eBirder says both birds on the left side of the photo are Lesser. What am I missing here?
 
Last edited:
I'm not familiar with both species to suggest a definite ID, but I don't know if you are aware that in eBird any observer can question the ID of media (using the flag in the lower right area), and that sends the record straight to the regional reviewer for further consideration. It is yet another mechanism to improve the quality of data (if the observation didn't break any filter it is possible that it escapes reviewing, especially in places with many lists) Maybe you can try it with this one
 
Last edited:
in eBird any observer can question the ID of media (using the flag in the lower right area)
This has been raised before in the forum and is not correct. Apparently, only members who have submitted 100 checklists in the previous year can do this - which probably excludes the vast majority of members. Go figure!
See >>
 
Last edited:
This has been raised before in the forum and is not correct. Apparently, only members who have submitted 100 checklists in the previous year can do this - which probably excludes the vast majority of members. Go figure!
See >>
Y. I realise we're dealing with volunteers and a potentially massive workload but I do think the review process is less than transparent. I've had no response to my request about a local patch...

I received a query about an observation from a reviewer: I responded but heard nothing more (even when I tried his native language: request was in English)

Perhaps correct id of photos is more important since many of us use Macaulay etc to check our own obs. The inaturalist model seems better
 
Warning! This thread is more than 2 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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top