Having been unable to resist the temptation to post a tongue-in-cheek one-li= ner=20 about listing this morning I find I do have an opinion on the recent discuss= ion=20 that has taken place concerning the compilation of lists of birds. Let me= =20 state outright that I have many =91lists=92 of birds I have seen: they are= =20 scribbled on the back of napkins, or scraps of paper. They are tucked insid= e=20 novels I was reading at the time and they have turned into globs of paper ma= ch=E9=20 in my washing machine. In only one very fallible place, my mind, have I=20 compiled all of these and so my lifelist has a rolling window of opportunity= . =20 If I got a lifer long ago, I might well get it again and never know the=20 difference! =20
So now that I have destroyed all of my credibility among Listers, perhaps th= ey=20 will only be mildly offended when I suggest that nothing is more tiresome th= an=20 birding with someone who is hell-bent upon seeing the greatest number of bir= ds=20 possible within the span of time available for birding. Furthermore to do s= o=20 within a set of rules describing when I can and cannot put a bird on my list= =20 adds another layer of ennui. For my personal list of birds I have seen, a b= ird=20 is included if I am convinced I have seen it. Undoubtedly some of those bir= ds=20 have been misidentified as my birding skills have increased over time. But= =20 this must also be true of those who compile lists of many birds. Consider a= =20 very good birder who only misidentifies one bird in a thousand. If that bir= der=20 has seen 100 birds in each of 100 counties, then, on average, ten of those= =20 birds were misidentified. To argue that no errors creep into lists is insupportable (see Kim Eckert=92= s=20 interesting article in the latest Loon). So maybe we can think of listing= =20 rules as a means for standardizing error-rates between lists, and now the ru= les=20 seem somewhat less odious. Perhaps these rules can be further defended on= =20 grounds that such lists may be useful someday in ways that we can only dimly= =20 appreciate now. T.S. Roberts=92 made a quick list of 89 Loggerhead Shrikes = seen=20 during 3 days (not consecutive) of driving in southern MN in June 1926, a to= tal=20 that would be impossible today, and we can conclude that shrikes are less=20 abundant than they were in 1926. Stan Temple and colleagues at the Universi= ty=20 of Wisconsin have an interesting series of papers in which species lists=20 collected by birders have been used to help document long-term population=20 trends. And the citizen-science initiatives of the Cornell Lab of Ornitholo= gy=20 are a good example of how birding zeal can be applied to furthering our=20 understanding of avian ecology. =20 However, the best defense of listing, I believe, resides not in the list, bu= t=20 in the skills one must develop to achieve a long lifelist and in this respec= t,=20 as has been pointed out already by Laura Erickson and others, the birder who= =20 has managed to compile a long list while birding a limited area, is the=20 winner. He or she will know the plant communities of the region and the=20 associated habitat and food preferences of the birds using those communities= . =20 She will know who makes those little holes in the goldenrod galls, and why. = In=20 short, he will be a well-rounded naturalist, intimate with many of the speci= es,=20 bird and otherwise, found nearby. This knowledge cannot come when chickadee= s=20 are dismissed after having been ticked and this, I believe, is where good li= sts=20 go bad. =20 Julie and I recently took our kids (4 months and 4 years) to the Texas Coast= . =20 We wanted to go birding in a place where the kids could also have fun=20 (actually, =91fun=92, for the 4-month old has little to do with scenery and = a lot=20 to do with his mother). We wanted a place to bird where the birds would com= e=20 to us, and it was an overwhelming success. However, the observation that=20 stands out most in my mind (with the possible exception of an overflight of= =20 whooping cranes) is that of a brown pelican surfing the air currents ahead o= f=20 the waves. I had watched hundreds doing this with remarkable skill, while I= =20 changed diapers, played catch, or built sandcastles and I so I was astonishe= d=20 to see a 1st year bird come along who hadn=92t quite got the technique down = yet. =20 I don=92t know if the bird was molting, or still developing its flying skill= s,=20 but I watched it crash twice into the water when its wing happened to catch = the=20 tip of an oncoming wave. Or maybe the bird was injured or destined for=20 Darwinian selection. But I wouldn=92t have seen it had I stopped looking on= ce=20 Brown Pelican was on my trip list, or my day list. I confess that I am still very much a beginner at understanding the natural= =20 world around me, and if I have a long lifelist it is because it is bottom-he= avy=20 with the common birds of several continents. But I think the great naturali= sts=20 are so because of their eye for detail and their understanding of the=20 complexity of the relationships between organisms. When such a person makes= a=20 list it is of interest indeed. Another writer posted advice to the beginnin= g=20 birder to follow standardized listing rules from the start, lest the birds s= een=20 now become disqualified from entry on a lifelist later on. True enough, but= I=20 would add to this the advice not to let the birds you haven=92t seen prevent= you=20 from learning from the birds around you.=20 Matt Etterson Duluth
