Two people break 10,000 species, and on the same day? Can it be? (1 Viewer)

[pbjosh]

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

John

I think it's just up to each person to decide... fortunately just as AOS english name decisions aren't binding for the whole world, neither are the listing rules of any one country, organization, or person

 

[opisska]

Now I am considering to retroactively tick Western Polecat based on smell around its den.

 

[dantheman]

Now I am considering to retroactively tick Western Polecat based on smell around its den.

As long as you could clearly id the smell from other similar/confusion species ...

;-)

 

[Andy Adcock]

I think it's just up to each person to decide... fortunately just as AOS english name decisions aren't binding for the whole world, neither are the listing rules of any one country, organization, or person

Well this argument completely removes the validity of peoples World lists. If we're comparing a particular body part, we all have to be measuring from the same place or there is no point comparing 😉

 

[Paul Chapman]

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.

I have looked for Schrodinger's Antpitta a few times... 😀

An interesting discussion but everyone should take whatever approach they personally want.

I got a lot of pleasure today from photographing two species for the first time that I had only seen before - Mangrove Whistler & Ashy Tailorbird.

I then got pleasure from hearing Brown-winged Kingfisher for the first time. I enjoyed seeing it 20 minutes later but it was then quite stressful until I photographed it. As a decent pic, it was only the photo which was the climax of the experience for me personally.

All the best

Paul

 

[KenM]

An “eyes only list” (no optical aids) could be disruptive to a lot of revered lists, it would be “the falcons” v “the bats”…..just think of the attempted validation arguments, especially
over water….at distance.🤣

 

[Welsh Peregrine]

No optical aids is highly discriminatory against spectacle wearers!

 

[KenM]

No optical aids is highly discriminatory against spectacle wearers!

Spectacles would be perfectly acceptable…cos I wear ‘em.🤣

 

[KenM]

I have looked for Schrodinger's Antpitta a few times... 😀

An interesting discussion but everyone should take whatever approach they personally want.

I got a lot of pleasure today from photographing two species for the first time that I had only seen before - Mangrove Whistler & Ashy Tailorbird.

I then got pleasure from hearing Brown-winged Kingfisher for the first time. I enjoyed seeing it 20 minutes later but it was then quite stressful until I photographed it. As a decent pic, it was only the photo which was the climax of the experience for me personally.

All the best

Paul

Paul,

I really must protest at BOC shots, as they fall somewhat short of expected standards 🤣

Here’s my best ever humble Redwing offering taken a few days ago, and one that I feel I’ll not ever eclipse.👍

 

[pbjosh]

Well this argument completely removes the validity of peoples World lists. If we're comparing a particular body part, we all have to be measuring from the same place or there is no point comparing 😉

And that only matters to the people who are hung up on the size of lists / body parts other than their own.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Paul,

I really must protest at BOC shots, as they fall somewhat short of expected standards 🤣

Here’s my best ever humble Redwing offering taken a few days ago, and one that I feel I’ll not ever eclipse.👍

Still away Ken (and horribly behind on editing last year any way). 😀

 

[Farnboro John]

Spectacles would be perfectly acceptable…cos I wear ‘em.🤣

Spectacles, hearing aids.... "He is more machine now, than man" - Obi Wan Kenobi.

John

 

[Paul Chapman]

An “eyes only list” (no optical aids) could be disruptive to a lot of revered lists, it would be “the falcons” v “the bats”…..just think of the attempted validation arguments, especially
over water….at distance.🤣

I met a birder without bins at Krung Ching National Park a few days ago. He runs a feeding blind and a hide overlooking a bathing pool. He proceeded to find a Rufous-collared Kingfisher and then got us to show it to us. He later spent his time discussing the calls of Malayan Black-capped Babbler with our guide and co-author of The Birds of Thailand. He was effectively educating on variation.

The Western obsession of expensive Optics and not birding by ear from impoverished areas of bird biodiversity is exposed as rather childish and embarrassing when you meet countless individuals with no or poor Optics around the world dealing with many multiples of our species and many many cryptic species.

All the best

Paul

 

[dantheman]

I met a birder without bins at Krung Ching National Park a few days ago. He runs a feeding blind and a hide overlooking a bathing pool. He proceeded to find a Rufous-collared Kingfisher and then got us to show it to us. He later spent his time discussing the calls of Malayan Black-capped Babbler with our guide and co-author of The Birds of Thailand. He was effectively educating on variation.

The Western obsession of expensive Optics and not birding by ear from impoverished areas of bird biodiversity is exposed as rather childish and embarrassing when you meet countless individuals with no or poor Optics around the world dealing with many multiples of our species and many many cryptic species.

All the best

Paul

One word in your second sentence leapt out at me there ... ;-) Nearly misread it!


I understood it was more of a British obsession than Western - European birders more likely to tick birds on call than sight views only (not sure if this is Life lists in addition to Year lists etc).

Personally I completely yeartick etc on call/heard only nowadays (but it's not competitive with others by any stretch). I don't have any potential ticks which have only heard (and not seen) in terms of an identifiably distinct bird on call as far as I recall. I don't think I would tick birds like Savi's Warbler etc if heard only, but maybe I would in a jungle scenario or rare nocturnal birds which would be deemed to suffer undue disturbance in the pursuit of ...

 

[D Halas]

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...

An interesting philosophical question indeed, as it's still the actual photons that bounced off the bird collecting on your retina. Perhaps the interesting philosophical answer is that refraction (binoculars, scopes, eyeglasses) counts, but reflection doesn't?

 

[LittleBitOfBreadNoCheese]

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.

You mean like BirdWeather.com has been doing for some time now? as discussed in this thread - various formats including custom device and iOS app,

24/7 Raspberry Pi/birdNET monitoring

This video shows someone setting up a Raspberry Pi with the lite version of birdNET so you can have continuous monitoring. I had no idea so many people were already doing this, sharing data via sites like BirdWeather: https://www.birdweather.com/ Anyone tried or want to give it a go?

www.birdforum.net

 

[Lerxst]

On the business of ticking a heard-only bird, which I gladly do, I do have the added requirement that I must get a recording of it and verify the call afterward by comparing it both audibly and via spectrogram to references on xeno-canto. Unless the call is so utterly distinctive that it could not be anything else, as is the case with the Sharpbill, for example, which I heard (only) in Brazil (and had been studying for ahead of time) but did not get a recording of. Ticked it with ZERO reservations.

 

[Andy Adcock]

I met a birder without bins at Krung Ching National Park a few days ago. He runs a feeding blind and a hide overlooking a bathing pool. He proceeded to find a Rufous-collared Kingfisher and then got us to show it to us. He later spent his time discussing the calls of Malayan Black-capped Babbler with our guide and co-author of The Birds of Thailand. He was effectively educating on variation.

The Western obsession of expensive Optics and not birding by ear from impoverished areas of bird biodiversity is exposed as rather childish and embarrassing when you meet countless individuals with no or poor Optics around the world dealing with many multiples of our species and many many cryptic species.

All the best

Paul

Someone I went on a trip with last year, only had a camera.

 

[Lerxst]

Had a guide at Asa Wright in Trinidad that carried no optics of any kind and was pointing out birds deep back in the forest that were a pain to see even in the bins for others. It was eerie. I'm sure he could afford bins and had them at home but I think he did this on purpose because he was looking for clients to take to Tobago the next day, and sure as hell, people were very impressed with him.

 

[Lerxst]

An interesting philosophical question indeed, as it's still the actual photons that bounced off the bird collecting on your retina. Perhaps the interesting philosophical answer is that refraction (binoculars, scopes, eyeglasses) counts, but reflection doesn't?

Unless you are using a Galilean scope, or opera glasses, which would be a nightmare, or an astronomical refractor with an inverted image, or a old-fashioned and very long mariner's spyglass, there are at least four reflections happening in the optics per eye. These are in a sense far more 'unnatural' than that occurring off the water, in that these reflections are obtained only because of meticulously engineered prisms. Even without reflective elements, an optical instrument is still a contrived 'artificial' human technology standing between you and the bird, if you want to look at it that way (I don't).

So yeah, the water reflection of an otherwise obscured Zig-zag Heron? Hell yes I would tick that.