World Yearlist Record Attempt (1 Viewer)

[Paul Chapman]

Maffong

Many thanks. I would have expected a significant proportion of these results for instance the high percentage recorded of groups of larger more obvious bird species with larger distributions (eg waterfowl, grebes, herons, ibises/spoonbills and plovers/lapwings). What I do not have the knowledge to understand are the groups that support (or contradict) my theory that he had taken a far higher proportion of the 'easy pickings' in the New World than say Africa but more so Asia, Oceania & Australasia though I suspect the New World Warblers and Troupials may support this?

He did remarkably well with the Owls and the Nightjars in my view but this will yield a significant proportion of 'heard onlys'?

All the best

 

[Maffong]

He seems to have missed lots of pelagic birds, should he have done more pelagic trips (e.g. one in Peru?) or are most birds he's missed too difficult anyways (e.g. Fiji Petrel and many more)
I really can't wait for that final anylisis with IOC splits, heard-onlies and introduced species. Does anybody know what birds are likely that he has only seen outside of their native ranges?

Maffong

 

[Mysticete]

He seems to have missed lots of pelagic birds, should he have done more pelagic trips (e.g. one in Peru?) or most birds he's missed too difficult anyways (e.g. Fiji Petrel and many more)
I really can't wait for that final anylisis with IOC splits, heard-onlies and introduced species. Does anybody know what birds are likely that he has only seen outside of their native ranges?

Maffong

Pelagic trips can be pretty chancy, since a lot of time they require luck, occupy a chunk of time, and they can easily be cancelled due to weather. I am not totally sure in a global big year if doing many of them is all that great strategy???

 

[Paul Chapman]

Pelagic trips can be pretty chancy, since a lot of time they require luck, occupy a chunk of time, and they can easily be cancelled due to weather. I am not totally sure in a global big year if doing many of them is all that great strategy???

To me there seem to be two types of birders. Those that are happy to put themselves down for two hours with a scope and pick up seabirds and those that aren't. Some of his seabird misses are so surprising that you feel that they could have been remedied by an hour's seawatch here and there.

All the best

 

[njlarsen]

To me there seem to be two types of birders. Those that are happy to put themselves down for two hours with a scope and pick up seabirds and those that aren't. Some of his seabird misses are so surprising that you feel that they could have been remedied by an hour's seawatch here and there.

All the best

It has to be a question of what else could one do in that time - seabirds from shore are usually best seen during the same times that are the prime observation times for land-based birds.

Niels

 

[Paul Chapman]

It has to be a question of what else could one do in that time - seabirds from shore are usually best seen during the same times that are the prime observation times for land-based birds.

Niels

Point understood and certainly true in relation to an early morning seawatch but I would suggest not always so for that last hour of light when many landbirds have already quietened down. Arjan has already grabbed a brief seawatch in UAE from a restaurant.

All the best

 

[njlarsen]

Time of year certainly important too, but in late spring in Denmark, my recollection is that the last hour of light was often about as magical as the first hour. Good for me, who always liked my morning sleep!

Also in Denmark, mid October could be different, the last hour of seawatch could be really good (my lifers Sooty Shearwater and Leach's Storm Petrel).

Niels

 

[Paul Chapman]

I've not yet seen anything on the IOC alternative total or the 'heard only' species:-

https://www.audubon.org/news/day-365-so-long-and-thanks-all-birds

https://www.audubon.org/news/the-final-species-list-taxonomic-order

Has anyone else seen anything?

All the best

 

[Maffong]

I'm checking everyday, but haven't seen anything yet.

However here are some more statistics that people might be interested in. I tried to convert the corresponding regional lists into Clements taxonomy (e.g. when BOU lists Bean Goose as one species, but both subspecies occur). However I'm sure there will be some minor errors. Also interestingly the Western Palearctic is the region where it is most difficult to find a source for what counts as vagrant (or introduced). I don't want to be judge for that so I just excluded what was highlighted through a comment by AERC)
Noah has recorded of the corresponding lists:

491/594=82,66% (213/243=87,65% data cleared from introduced, extinct, vagrant and rare visitor species) Great Britain - BOU

752/995=75,58% (660/879=75,09% data cleared from introduced and super rare vagrants species) Western Palearctic - AERC

802/988=81,17% (566/654=86,54% data cleared from introduced, extinct, vagrant and rare visitor species) North America - ABA

1561/2114=73,84% (1380/1830=75,41% data cleared from introduced, extinct and vagrant species) North &Central America - NACC

2208/3374=65,44% (2132/3279=65,02% data cleared from introduced, extinct and vagrant species) South America - SACC

1696/2631=64,46% (1510/2396=63,02% data cleared from introduced, extinct and vagrant species) Africa - ABC

588/792=74,24% (505/676=74,70% data cleared from introduced extinct, vagrant and rare visitor species) Australia - Nielsen, L. 2008 Australian Checklist

265/391=67,78% (145/230=63,04% data cleared from introduced, extinct and vagrant species) New Zealand - B.J. Gill, et al 2010. Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand, Norfolk (...)

I still have to finish the checklists for the OBC, OSME and Oceania regions (well I already had them almost finished and then managed to erase all my work )

Maffong

P.S. He clearly did best in Great Britain

 

[Mysticete]

You might have to await awhile for his IOC conversion...I think he has been birding in Ethiopia since sometime near the start of the year!

 

[Surreybirder]

http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/stryckersummary/

 

[Paul Chapman]

http://ebird.org/content/ebird/news/stryckersummary/

Thank you very much!!

So removing non-natives (only 5 not eventually seen in native ranges - African Collared-Dove, Tanimbar Corella, Rosy-faced Lovebird, Red-crowned Parrot and Java Sparrow) gives him 6,037.

Then removing heard onlys (331) gives him 5,706.

Removing re-introductions (12 including Californian Condor, 9 New Zealand endemics, etc) gives him 5,694.

That simply leaves the issue of comparative taxonomies.

All the best

 

[Maffong]

I think 331 heard-onlies is an astonishingly low number, I'd have expected something between 500 and 700. I wonder if he's gonna upload the complete data set about heard-onlies.

Can someone tell me which the re-introduced species are, besides Andean Condor, South Island Takahe, and Kokako. I'm guessing most of the species he saw on Tiritiri. What else?

Maffong

 

[Paul Chapman]

I think 331 heard-onlies is an astonishingly low number, I'd have expected something between 500 and 700. I wonder if he's gonna upload the complete data set about heard-onlies.

Slightly lower than I expected on the Category C's but higher than I expected on the 'heard only' total.

... often when looking at his checklists it becomes apparent that many 'heard only' species have been seen at other locations.....

The taxonomic approach on this attempt appears less favourable and the Category C species appear limited to maybe a dozen or so? The apparent anomalies appear remarkably few otherwise there would have been more comment as the thread developed. So this leaves the 'heard only' species which I would be surprised numbered more than a hundred?

The full data set would be fun.

All the best

 

[Richard Klim]

Noah Strycker, aba blog, 28 Jan 2016: Big Year Aftermath.

 

[lewis20126]

"I went birding every single day, across 41 countries and all seven continents, and saw 6,042 species of birds – surpassing the previous big year world record of 4,341 recorded by British birders Ruth Miller and Alan Davies in 2008."

I think tis is a slip of the keyboard as it was "recorded" wasn't it?

cheers, alan

 

[Maffong]

Well he saw 5711 species, but I think that's a mistake we all make once in a while

Maffong

 

[StevePreddy]

Does anyone know:

- how many of Noah's 6042 were lifers for him?
- what his total life list was at the end of the year?

The answers are probably buried somewhere in this thread, but I couldn't find them in a quick search.

 

[nikothomsen]

Does anyone know:

- how many of Noah's 6042 were lifers for him?
- what his total life list was at the end of the year?

The answers are probably buried somewhere in this thread, but I couldn't find them in a quick search.

I've been wondering the same questions, but I think only Noah knows?

On eBird Top100 birders of the world he has registrered 6328 species. Not really sure what to make of this number, but if we assume he has entered all lifers on eBird, this answers your second question.

 

[James Lowther]

"I went birding every single day, across 41 countries and all seven continents, and saw 6,042 species of birds – surpassing the previous big year world record of 4,341 recorded by British birders Ruth Miller and Alan Davies in 2008."

I think tis is a slip of the keyboard as it was "recorded" wasn't it?

cheers, alan

noah's been using the verb "to see" euphemistically throughout. It's not what I'd do, but I think we can forgive him that slight obfuscation

James