RE: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[rcech]

I wasn't going to comment on this, even although Doug's post (and several
that followed) were excellent and thought-provoking.

But then Shai's comment came along, and that prodded me.

I sent some shots of the Jones Beach bird awhile back (not on eBird, so Doug
may not have seen them).  I included the bunting along with a number of
other 'young males' in odd plumages that make the early winter period
interesting. By including the bunting in this post, it was clear I thought
it was a male, although I provided no justification.

What I didn't say was that I thought the bird was a young male because of
the bluish tone on its nape region. (Another birder, well known to you all,
came to the same conclusion at the time). This coloration was more visible
on site than in later photos, but I thought it still showed, see below. (I
did not know the ratio of young male vs. female northward strays at the
time, that's very interesting.)

But no, I didn't write that out in my post, because (1) it's a subtle and
mistakeable mark, and (2) because my own field experience with the species
is limited to occasional contacts here and in the SE, some long ago. Maybe I
should have said something, because these conversations are how group skills
develop, but experience suggests that care is required in engaging such
conversations on a listserve. (When all is said and done, it has been noted,
more will have been said than done.)

Apologies, Doug and Shai, for shirking citizen science responsibility. I
agree that where id ambiguities exist dialogue is preferable to check-boxes.
I also agree that we shouldn't be too stringent with one another on
listserve postings. as much of the error variance will come out in the
statistical wash (and some info is better than none) - although that
argument can cover a multitude of sins, and it only goes so far.

That's it, just a few thoughts,
Rick

https://rbc-pix.smugmug.com/Nature/Nature-Trip/Jones-Beach 


-Original Message-
From: bounce-124372670-3714...@list.cornell.edu
 On Behalf Of Shaibal Mitra
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:41 AM
To: NYSBIRDS-L@cornell edu 
Subject: RE: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted
Bunting info)

Doug's message is important and deserves careful attention from all
contributors to citizen science. People should take care to be objective,
accurate, and interpretable in their conclusions.

But I would also stress that this shouldn't mean giving up and omitting
analysis altogether when, as is usually true, one doesn't feel 100%
authoritative and certain. For instance, instead of checking boxes in the
age and sex drop-down tables, or typing unqualified terms like "female" or
"immature male" in the species comments, make an effort to describe the
actual features you observed and to explain how you are interpreting them.
This way a future user--or your future self--will be able to understand both
what you actually saw and what you thought about it. This is what I mean by
striving for interpretability in one's comments. Many new discoveries in the
frontiers of identification have been achieved by the patient application of
this method. In contrast, simply clicking a box in what amounts to a guess
has almost zero value and can even confuse matters.

On a similar topic, I'm concerned about many of the breeding bird atlas
codes I'm seeing in eBird checklists. Being asked 20 or 30 times per
checklist to "Choose the highest code..." is appealing and addictive to many
of us, but, like the age and sex tables, this kind of game-ification is
destructive to understanding. Just as in assessing age and sex, assigning
breeding codes depends on prior knowledge and accurate judgement. Common
Goldeneyes perform courtship displays on Long Island in winter; Herring
Gulls copulate miles away from their actual breeding sites; White-throated
Sparrows sing day after day on their wintering grounds; etc. A bird is
either going to breed in a given block or it isn't. If you have good reason
to know that it will NOT, it is best to refrain from assigning any breeding
code, even if the wording of the codes seems to allow for it.

Shai Mitra
Bay Shore

From: bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu
[bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu] on behalf of Doug Gochfeld
[fresha2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:16 PM
To: NYSBIRDS-L@cornell edu
Subject: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted
Bunting info)

While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the
overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to
classify natural organisms.

This winter's incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought
delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island
individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park by
Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hu

RE: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[rcech]

I wasn't going to comment on this, even although Doug's post (and several
that followed) were excellent and thought-provoking.

But then Shai's comment came along, and that prodded me.

I sent some shots of the Jones Beach bird awhile back (not on eBird, so Doug
may not have seen them).  I included the bunting along with a number of
other 'young males' in odd plumages that make the early winter period
interesting. By including the bunting in this post, it was clear I thought
it was a male, although I provided no justification.

What I didn't say was that I thought the bird was a young male because of
the bluish tone on its nape region. (Another birder, well known to you all,
came to the same conclusion at the time). This coloration was more visible
on site than in later photos, but I thought it still showed, see below. (I
did not know the ratio of young male vs. female northward strays at the
time, that's very interesting.)

But no, I didn't write that out in my post, because (1) it's a subtle and
mistakeable mark, and (2) because my own field experience with the species
is limited to occasional contacts here and in the SE, some long ago. Maybe I
should have said something, because these conversations are how group skills
develop, but experience suggests that care is required in engaging such
conversations on a listserve. (When all is said and done, it has been noted,
more will have been said than done.)

Apologies, Doug and Shai, for shirking citizen science responsibility. I
agree that where id ambiguities exist dialogue is preferable to check-boxes.
I also agree that we shouldn't be too stringent with one another on
listserve postings. as much of the error variance will come out in the
statistical wash (and some info is better than none) - although that
argument can cover a multitude of sins, and it only goes so far.

That's it, just a few thoughts,
Rick

https://rbc-pix.smugmug.com/Nature/Nature-Trip/Jones-Beach 


-Original Message-
From: bounce-124372670-3714...@list.cornell.edu
 On Behalf Of Shaibal Mitra
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:41 AM
To: NYSBIRDS-L@cornell edu 
Subject: RE: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted
Bunting info)

Doug's message is important and deserves careful attention from all
contributors to citizen science. People should take care to be objective,
accurate, and interpretable in their conclusions.

But I would also stress that this shouldn't mean giving up and omitting
analysis altogether when, as is usually true, one doesn't feel 100%
authoritative and certain. For instance, instead of checking boxes in the
age and sex drop-down tables, or typing unqualified terms like "female" or
"immature male" in the species comments, make an effort to describe the
actual features you observed and to explain how you are interpreting them.
This way a future user--or your future self--will be able to understand both
what you actually saw and what you thought about it. This is what I mean by
striving for interpretability in one's comments. Many new discoveries in the
frontiers of identification have been achieved by the patient application of
this method. In contrast, simply clicking a box in what amounts to a guess
has almost zero value and can even confuse matters.

On a similar topic, I'm concerned about many of the breeding bird atlas
codes I'm seeing in eBird checklists. Being asked 20 or 30 times per
checklist to "Choose the highest code..." is appealing and addictive to many
of us, but, like the age and sex tables, this kind of game-ification is
destructive to understanding. Just as in assessing age and sex, assigning
breeding codes depends on prior knowledge and accurate judgement. Common
Goldeneyes perform courtship displays on Long Island in winter; Herring
Gulls copulate miles away from their actual breeding sites; White-throated
Sparrows sing day after day on their wintering grounds; etc. A bird is
either going to breed in a given block or it isn't. If you have good reason
to know that it will NOT, it is best to refrain from assigning any breeding
code, even if the wording of the codes seems to allow for it.

Shai Mitra
Bay Shore

From: bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu
[bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu] on behalf of Doug Gochfeld
[fresha2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:16 PM
To: NYSBIRDS-L@cornell edu
Subject: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted
Bunting info)

While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the
overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to
classify natural organisms.

This winter's incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought
delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island
individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park by
Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hu

Re: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[TURNER]

it was a shallow hole.


> On February 13, 2020 at 8:32 AM Bob Grover  wrote:
> 
> 
> As I have been known to do, I am about to dig myself a hole here. This is 
> an interesting discussion.  My only caution is that we must all recognize 
> ebird, as well as the CBC’s, and similar efforts, for what they are: lightly 
> vetted databases that are useful to academic researchers mainly due to their 
> sheer volume, which tend to mask many of the errors that inevitably creep 
> into the data.  This is the definition of Citizen Science.  Ebird isn’t 
> Science, or Nature, or any of the many highly peer-reviewed journals (and 
> even they retract research papers on occasion), and will never be.  let’s all 
> beware of the dangers of driving citizen scientists away from this great 
> endeavor.
> 
>  
> 
> Bob Grover
> 
> West Islip
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination 
> statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not 
> discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the 
> selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials 
> and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies 
> will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit 
> proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an 
> award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use 
> of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain 
> information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If 
> you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you 
> are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this 
> communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.
> --
> NYSbirds-L List Info:
>  Welcome and Basics 
> http://www.northeastbirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
>  Rules and Information 
> http://www.northeastbirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
>  Subscribe, Configuration and Leave 
> http://www.northeastbirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm
> Archives:
>  The Mail Archive 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
>  Surfbirds http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
>  ABA http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01
> Please submit your observations to eBird http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ !
> --
> 
 

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

Re: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[TURNER]

it was a shallow hole.


> On February 13, 2020 at 8:32 AM Bob Grover  wrote:
> 
> 
> As I have been known to do, I am about to dig myself a hole here. This is 
> an interesting discussion.  My only caution is that we must all recognize 
> ebird, as well as the CBC’s, and similar efforts, for what they are: lightly 
> vetted databases that are useful to academic researchers mainly due to their 
> sheer volume, which tend to mask many of the errors that inevitably creep 
> into the data.  This is the definition of Citizen Science.  Ebird isn’t 
> Science, or Nature, or any of the many highly peer-reviewed journals (and 
> even they retract research papers on occasion), and will never be.  let’s all 
> beware of the dangers of driving citizen scientists away from this great 
> endeavor.
> 
>  
> 
> Bob Grover
> 
> West Islip
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination 
> statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not 
> discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the 
> selection and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials 
> and leases of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies 
> will ensure that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit 
> proposals and will not be discriminated against in consideration for an 
> award. This communication and any attachments are intended only for the use 
> of the individual or entity named as the addressee. It may contain 
> information which is privileged and/or confidential under applicable law. If 
> you are not the intended recipient or such recipient's employee or agent, you 
> are hereby notified that any dissemination, copy or disclosure of this 
> communication is strictly prohibited and to notify the sender immediately.
> --
> NYSbirds-L List Info:
>  Welcome and Basics 
> http://www.northeastbirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
>  Rules and Information 
> http://www.northeastbirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
>  Subscribe, Configuration and Leave 
> http://www.northeastbirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm
> Archives:
>  The Mail Archive 
> http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
>  Surfbirds http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
>  ABA http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01
> Please submit your observations to eBird http://ebird.org/content/ebird/ !
> --
> 
 

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

RE: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Shaibal Mitra]

Doug's message is important and deserves careful attention from all 
contributors to citizen science. People should take care to be objective, 
accurate, and interpretable in their conclusions.

But I would also stress that this shouldn't mean giving up and omitting 
analysis altogether when, as is usually true, one doesn't feel 100% 
authoritative and certain. For instance, instead of checking boxes in the age 
and sex drop-down tables, or typing unqualified terms like "female" or 
"immature male" in the species comments, make an effort to describe the actual 
features you observed and to explain how you are interpreting them. This way a 
future user--or your future self--will be able to understand both what you 
actually saw and what you thought about it. This is what I mean by striving for 
interpretability in one's comments. Many new discoveries in the frontiers of 
identification have been achieved by the patient application of this method. In 
contrast, simply clicking a box in what amounts to a guess has almost zero 
value and can even confuse matters.

On a similar topic, I'm concerned about many of the breeding bird atlas codes 
I'm seeing in eBird checklists. Being asked 20 or 30 times per checklist to 
"Choose the highest code..." is appealing and addictive to many of us, but, 
like the age and sex tables, this kind of game-ification is destructive to 
understanding. Just as in assessing age and sex, assigning breeding codes 
depends on prior knowledge and accurate judgement. Common Goldeneyes perform 
courtship displays on Long Island in winter; Herring Gulls copulate miles away 
from their actual breeding sites; White-throated Sparrows sing day after day on 
their wintering grounds; etc. A bird is either going to breed in a given block 
or it isn't. If you have good reason to know that it will NOT, it is best to 
refrain from assigning any breeding code, even if the wording of the codes 
seems to allow for it.

Shai Mitra
Bay Shore

From: bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu 
[bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu] on behalf of Doug Gochfeld 
[fresha2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:16 PM
To: NYSBIRDS-L@cornell edu
Subject: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted 
Bunting info)

While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the 
overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to classify 
natural organisms.

This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought delight 
to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island individuals 
are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park by Heather Wolf 
in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at this point, and eBirded 
perhaps a couple of hundred times.

Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird, and 
of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty as a 
female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any discussion as 
to why it is being classified as such.

In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make sense of 
it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the bottom of this 
E-Mail, but the concise version is this: The bird IS an immature (hatched in 
2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually identified to sex, and it 
seems most likely that it is a young male (as so many vagrants are) if he had 
to guess.

On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent 
record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from 
now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very 
careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically 
thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach out 
to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments, it 
would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments that 
reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions or 
guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check your 
prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.


In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at Brooklyn 
Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as time goes on. 
Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days ago, where it seems, 
though it may be my imagination, that there are some brighter green feathers 
and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the nape:

https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675


Full text from Peter Pyle:
"So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices have 
been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition of these are 
no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt li

RE: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Shaibal Mitra]

Doug's message is important and deserves careful attention from all 
contributors to citizen science. People should take care to be objective, 
accurate, and interpretable in their conclusions.

But I would also stress that this shouldn't mean giving up and omitting 
analysis altogether when, as is usually true, one doesn't feel 100% 
authoritative and certain. For instance, instead of checking boxes in the age 
and sex drop-down tables, or typing unqualified terms like "female" or 
"immature male" in the species comments, make an effort to describe the actual 
features you observed and to explain how you are interpreting them. This way a 
future user--or your future self--will be able to understand both what you 
actually saw and what you thought about it. This is what I mean by striving for 
interpretability in one's comments. Many new discoveries in the frontiers of 
identification have been achieved by the patient application of this method. In 
contrast, simply clicking a box in what amounts to a guess has almost zero 
value and can even confuse matters.

On a similar topic, I'm concerned about many of the breeding bird atlas codes 
I'm seeing in eBird checklists. Being asked 20 or 30 times per checklist to 
"Choose the highest code..." is appealing and addictive to many of us, but, 
like the age and sex tables, this kind of game-ification is destructive to 
understanding. Just as in assessing age and sex, assigning breeding codes 
depends on prior knowledge and accurate judgement. Common Goldeneyes perform 
courtship displays on Long Island in winter; Herring Gulls copulate miles away 
from their actual breeding sites; White-throated Sparrows sing day after day on 
their wintering grounds; etc. A bird is either going to breed in a given block 
or it isn't. If you have good reason to know that it will NOT, it is best to 
refrain from assigning any breeding code, even if the wording of the codes 
seems to allow for it.

Shai Mitra
Bay Shore

From: bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu 
[bounce-124371160-11143...@list.cornell.edu] on behalf of Doug Gochfeld 
[fresha2...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 8:16 PM
To: NYSBIRDS-L@cornell edu
Subject: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted 
Bunting info)

While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the 
overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to classify 
natural organisms.

This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought delight 
to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island individuals 
are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park by Heather Wolf 
in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at this point, and eBirded 
perhaps a couple of hundred times.

Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird, and 
of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty as a 
female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any discussion as 
to why it is being classified as such.

In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make sense of 
it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the bottom of this 
E-Mail, but the concise version is this: The bird IS an immature (hatched in 
2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually identified to sex, and it 
seems most likely that it is a young male (as so many vagrants are) if he had 
to guess.

On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent 
record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from 
now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very 
careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically 
thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach out 
to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments, it 
would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments that 
reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions or 
guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check your 
prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.


In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at Brooklyn 
Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as time goes on. 
Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days ago, where it seems, 
though it may be my imagination, that there are some brighter green feathers 
and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the nape:

https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675


Full text from Peter Pyle:
"So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices have 
been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition of these are 
no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt li

[nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Bob Grover]

As I have been known to do, I am about to dig myself a hole here. This is an 
interesting discussion.  My only caution is that we must all recognize ebird, 
as well as the CBC's, and similar efforts, for what they are: lightly vetted 
databases that are useful to academic researchers mainly due to their sheer 
volume, which tend to mask many of the errors that inevitably creep into the 
data.  This is the definition of Citizen Science.  Ebird isn't Science, or 
Nature, or any of the many highly peer-reviewed journals (and even they retract 
research papers on occasion), and will never be.  let's all beware of the 
dangers of driving citizen scientists away from this great endeavor.

Bob Grover
West Islip






Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination 
statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not 
discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection 
and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases 
of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure 
that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will 
not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication 
and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or 
confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or 
such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited 
and to notify the sender immediately.

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

[nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Bob Grover]

As I have been known to do, I am about to dig myself a hole here. This is an 
interesting discussion.  My only caution is that we must all recognize ebird, 
as well as the CBC's, and similar efforts, for what they are: lightly vetted 
databases that are useful to academic researchers mainly due to their sheer 
volume, which tend to mask many of the errors that inevitably creep into the 
data.  This is the definition of Citizen Science.  Ebird isn't Science, or 
Nature, or any of the many highly peer-reviewed journals (and even they retract 
research papers on occasion), and will never be.  let's all beware of the 
dangers of driving citizen scientists away from this great endeavor.

Bob Grover
West Islip






Per Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other Nondiscrimination 
statutes, Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will not 
discriminate on the grounds of race, color or national origin in the selection 
and retention of subconsultants, including procurement of materials and leases 
of equipment. Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. and its related companies will ensure 
that minorities will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals and will 
not be discriminated against in consideration for an award. This communication 
and any attachments are intended only for the use of the individual or entity 
named as the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged and/or 
confidential under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or 
such recipient's employee or agent, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, copy or disclosure of this communication is strictly prohibited 
and to notify the sender immediately.

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

Re: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Michael Cooper]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.  I looked into Painted Bunting 
molts earlier this winter when I started looking at the spate of e-bird reports 
of vagrants from around Maryland and north.  I found at least 15 or so records 
for this fall and early winter, many of them included photos or at least a 
description.  All that I checked were green birds- right up until a recent 
Connecticut adult male within the past couple of weeks broke the mold.  
I didn’t realize, and I suspect most casual birders also don’t realize, that 
even male Painted Buntings are green until their second basic plumage in their 
second fall- this is true even though they are capable of breeding in their 
first summer.  Per CW Thompson in The Condor:
“This is the only passerine known in which sexually mature sub adult males grow 
female- like rather than adult male-like plumage during prealternate molt.” 
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v093n02/p0209-p0235.pdf

This is probably a simplified description of the situation, but once I started 
digging into it, I found quite a lot of interesting discussion online, 
including mentions of different molt timing between east coast and western 
populations.  

Regards 

Mike Cooper
Ridge, NY


Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 12, 2020, at 9:52 PM, Herb Smith  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for posting this Doug, it is very interesting to hear what Peter had 
> to say about it. I do see what you're talking about though with the slight 
> blueish tinge in the nape area. 
> Good point regarding bid info as well
> 
> Herb
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:16 PM Doug Gochfeld  wrote:
>> While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the 
>> overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to 
>> classify natural organisms.
>> 
>> This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought 
>> delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island 
>> individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park by 
>> Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at this 
>> point, and eBirded perhaps a couple of hundred times.
>> 
>> Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird, 
>> and of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty 
>> as a female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any 
>> discussion as to why it is being classified as such.
>> 
>> In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make sense 
>> of it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the bottom of 
>> this E-Mail, but the concise version is this: The bird IS an immature 
>> (hatched in 2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually identified 
>> to sex, and it seems most likely that it is a young male (as so many 
>> vagrants are) if he had to guess.
>> 
>> On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent 
>> record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from 
>> now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very 
>> careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically 
>> thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach 
>> out to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments, 
>> it would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments 
>> that reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions or 
>> guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check your 
>> prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.
>> 
>> 
>> In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at Brooklyn 
>> Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as time goes 
>> on. Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days ago, where it 
>> seems, though it may be my imagination, that there are some brighter green 
>> feathers and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the nape:
>> 
>> https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675
>> 
>> 
>> Full text from Peter Pyle:
>> "So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices 
>> have been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition of 
>> these are no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt limits in 
>> the remiges indicating an "eccentric" preformative molt, which confirms SY. 
>> It looks like p5-p9 and s5-s9 or s6-s9 have been replaced leaving p1-p4 and 
>> s1-s4 or s1-s5 as juvenile. I can't quite decide on s5 in the photos you 
>> sent but the limit is easiest to see on image 3563 between the green 
>> tertials/s6 and  the browner s1-s4. The limit in the primaries is also 
>> subtle here but seems to be between p4 and p5.
>> 
>> So, reliable sexing in formative plumage is not really possible, but its 
>> brightness and the relatively big bill suggests male to 

Re: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Michael Cooper]

Hi Doug,

Thanks for starting this interesting discussion.  I looked into Painted Bunting 
molts earlier this winter when I started looking at the spate of e-bird reports 
of vagrants from around Maryland and north.  I found at least 15 or so records 
for this fall and early winter, many of them included photos or at least a 
description.  All that I checked were green birds- right up until a recent 
Connecticut adult male within the past couple of weeks broke the mold.  
I didn’t realize, and I suspect most casual birders also don’t realize, that 
even male Painted Buntings are green until their second basic plumage in their 
second fall- this is true even though they are capable of breeding in their 
first summer.  Per CW Thompson in The Condor:
“This is the only passerine known in which sexually mature sub adult males grow 
female- like rather than adult male-like plumage during prealternate molt.” 
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v093n02/p0209-p0235.pdf

This is probably a simplified description of the situation, but once I started 
digging into it, I found quite a lot of interesting discussion online, 
including mentions of different molt timing between east coast and western 
populations.  

Regards 

Mike Cooper
Ridge, NY


Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 12, 2020, at 9:52 PM, Herb Smith  wrote:
> 
> Thanks for posting this Doug, it is very interesting to hear what Peter had 
> to say about it. I do see what you're talking about though with the slight 
> blueish tinge in the nape area. 
> Good point regarding bid info as well
> 
> Herb
> 
>> On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:16 PM Doug Gochfeld  wrote:
>> While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the 
>> overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to 
>> classify natural organisms.
>> 
>> This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought 
>> delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island 
>> individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park by 
>> Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at this 
>> point, and eBirded perhaps a couple of hundred times.
>> 
>> Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird, 
>> and of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty 
>> as a female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any 
>> discussion as to why it is being classified as such.
>> 
>> In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make sense 
>> of it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the bottom of 
>> this E-Mail, but the concise version is this: The bird IS an immature 
>> (hatched in 2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually identified 
>> to sex, and it seems most likely that it is a young male (as so many 
>> vagrants are) if he had to guess.
>> 
>> On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent 
>> record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from 
>> now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very 
>> careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically 
>> thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach 
>> out to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments, 
>> it would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments 
>> that reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions or 
>> guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check your 
>> prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.
>> 
>> 
>> In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at Brooklyn 
>> Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as time goes 
>> on. Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days ago, where it 
>> seems, though it may be my imagination, that there are some brighter green 
>> feathers and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the nape:
>> 
>> https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675
>> 
>> 
>> Full text from Peter Pyle:
>> "So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices 
>> have been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition of 
>> these are no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt limits in 
>> the remiges indicating an "eccentric" preformative molt, which confirms SY. 
>> It looks like p5-p9 and s5-s9 or s6-s9 have been replaced leaving p1-p4 and 
>> s1-s4 or s1-s5 as juvenile. I can't quite decide on s5 in the photos you 
>> sent but the limit is easiest to see on image 3563 between the green 
>> tertials/s6 and  the browner s1-s4. The limit in the primaries is also 
>> subtle here but seems to be between p4 and p5.
>> 
>> So, reliable sexing in formative plumage is not really possible, but its 
>> brightness and the relatively big bill suggests male to 

Re: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Herb Smith]

Thanks for posting this Doug, it is very interesting to hear what Peter had
to say about it. I do see what you're talking about though with the slight
blueish tinge in the nape area.
Good point regarding bid info as well

Herb

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:16 PM Doug Gochfeld  wrote:

> While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the
> overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to
> classify natural organisms.
>
> This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought
> delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island
> individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park
> by Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at
> this point, and eBirded perhaps a couple of hundred times.
>
> Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird,
> and of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty
> as a female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any
> discussion as to why it is being classified as such.
>
> In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make
> sense of it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the
> bottom of this E-Mail, but the concise version is this: *The bird IS an
> immature (hatched in 2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually
> identified to sex*, and it seems most likely that it is a young male (as
> so many vagrants are) if he had to guess.
>
> On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent
> record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from
> now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very
> careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically
> thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach
> out to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments,
> it would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments
> that reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions
> or guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check
> your prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.
>
>
> In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at
> Brooklyn Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as
> time goes on. Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days
> ago, where it seems, though it may be my imagination, that there are some
> brighter green feathers and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the
> nape:
>
> https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675
>
>
> *Full text from Peter Pyle:*
>
>
>
>
> *"So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices
> have been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition
> of these are no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt limits
> in the remiges indicating an "eccentric" preformative molt, which
> confirms SY. It looks like p5-p9 and s5-s9 or s6-s9 have been replaced
> leaving p1-p4 and s1-s4 or s1-s5 as juvenile. I can't quite decide on s5 in
> the photos you sent but the limit is easiest to see on image 3563 between
> the green tertials/s6 and  the browner s1-s4. The limit in the primaries
> is also subtle here but seems to be between p4 and p5.So, reliable sexing
> in formative plumage is not really possible, but its brightness and
> the relatively big bill suggests male to me. If it winters, keep an eye out
> for some blue and/or red featherd to come in within the next 4
> months. These would probably be accidentally lost and replaced feathers
> rather than molt. If it gets away without replacing any feathers like this,
> best to leave it as sex unknown.Hope this helps and feel free to re-post
> these comments."*
>
> Good Birding,
> -Doug Gochfeld. Brooklyn, NY.
> --
> *NYSbirds-L List Info:*
> Welcome and Basics 
> Rules and Information 
> Subscribe, Configuration and Leave
> 
> *Archives:*
> The Mail Archive
> 
> Surfbirds 
> ABA 
> *Please submit your observations to **eBird*
> *!*
> --
>


-- 
*HERB SMITH*

*  artist*

*www.herbsmithart.com *

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) 

Re: [nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Herb Smith]

Thanks for posting this Doug, it is very interesting to hear what Peter had
to say about it. I do see what you're talking about though with the slight
blueish tinge in the nape area.
Good point regarding bid info as well

Herb

On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 8:16 PM Doug Gochfeld  wrote:

> While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the
> overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to
> classify natural organisms.
>
> This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought
> delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island
> individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park
> by Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at
> this point, and eBirded perhaps a couple of hundred times.
>
> Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird,
> and of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty
> as a female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any
> discussion as to why it is being classified as such.
>
> In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make
> sense of it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the
> bottom of this E-Mail, but the concise version is this: *The bird IS an
> immature (hatched in 2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually
> identified to sex*, and it seems most likely that it is a young male (as
> so many vagrants are) if he had to guess.
>
> On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent
> record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from
> now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very
> careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically
> thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach
> out to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments,
> it would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments
> that reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions
> or guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check
> your prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.
>
>
> In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at
> Brooklyn Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as
> time goes on. Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days
> ago, where it seems, though it may be my imagination, that there are some
> brighter green feathers and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the
> nape:
>
> https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675
>
>
> *Full text from Peter Pyle:*
>
>
>
>
> *"So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices
> have been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition
> of these are no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt limits
> in the remiges indicating an "eccentric" preformative molt, which
> confirms SY. It looks like p5-p9 and s5-s9 or s6-s9 have been replaced
> leaving p1-p4 and s1-s4 or s1-s5 as juvenile. I can't quite decide on s5 in
> the photos you sent but the limit is easiest to see on image 3563 between
> the green tertials/s6 and  the browner s1-s4. The limit in the primaries
> is also subtle here but seems to be between p4 and p5.So, reliable sexing
> in formative plumage is not really possible, but its brightness and
> the relatively big bill suggests male to me. If it winters, keep an eye out
> for some blue and/or red featherd to come in within the next 4
> months. These would probably be accidentally lost and replaced feathers
> rather than molt. If it gets away without replacing any feathers like this,
> best to leave it as sex unknown.Hope this helps and feel free to re-post
> these comments."*
>
> Good Birding,
> -Doug Gochfeld. Brooklyn, NY.
> --
> *NYSbirds-L List Info:*
> Welcome and Basics 
> Rules and Information 
> Subscribe, Configuration and Leave
> 
> *Archives:*
> The Mail Archive
> 
> Surfbirds 
> ABA 
> *Please submit your observations to **eBird*
> *!*
> --
>


-- 
*HERB SMITH*

*  artist*

*www.herbsmithart.com *

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) 

[nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Doug Gochfeld]

While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the
overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to
classify natural organisms.

This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought
delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island
individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park
by Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at
this point, and eBirded perhaps a couple of hundred times.

Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird,
and of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty
as a female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any
discussion as to why it is being classified as such.

In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make
sense of it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the
bottom of this E-Mail, but the concise version is this: *The bird IS an
immature (hatched in 2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually
identified to sex*, and it seems most likely that it is a young male (as so
many vagrants are) if he had to guess.

On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent
record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from
now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very
careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically
thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach
out to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments,
it would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments
that reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions
or guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check
your prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.


In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at Brooklyn
Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as time goes
on. Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days ago, where
it seems, though it may be my imagination, that there are some brighter
green feathers and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the nape:

https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675


*Full text from Peter Pyle:*




*"So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices
have been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition
of these are no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt limits
in the remiges indicating an "eccentric" preformative molt, which
confirms SY. It looks like p5-p9 and s5-s9 or s6-s9 have been replaced
leaving p1-p4 and s1-s4 or s1-s5 as juvenile. I can't quite decide on s5 in
the photos you sent but the limit is easiest to see on image 3563 between
the green tertials/s6 and  the browner s1-s4. The limit in the primaries
is also subtle here but seems to be between p4 and p5.So, reliable sexing
in formative plumage is not really possible, but its brightness and
the relatively big bill suggests male to me. If it winters, keep an eye out
for some blue and/or red featherd to come in within the next 4
months. These would probably be accidentally lost and replaced feathers
rather than molt. If it gets away without replacing any feathers like this,
best to leave it as sex unknown.Hope this helps and feel free to re-post
these comments."*

Good Birding,
-Doug Gochfeld. Brooklyn, NY.

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--

[nysbirds-l] (Over)Certainty in eBird reports (Brooklyn Painted Bunting info)

[Doug Gochfeld]

While the specifics below directly pertain to one individual vagrant, the
overall take home message should be valuable to anybody who tries to
classify natural organisms.

This winter’s incursion of Painted Buntings into the region has brought
delight to many New York birders. All three of the lingering Long Island
individuals are green. The bunting that was found at Brooklyn Bridge Park
by Heather Wolf in late December has been seen by hundreds of people at
this point, and eBirded perhaps a couple of hundred times.

Of those reports, many have comments regarding the age or sex of the bird,
and of these, a not-insignificant portion refer to the bird with certainty
as a female and a an immature male, virtually none of which have any
discussion as to why it is being classified as such.

In January, I E-Mailed Peter Pyle some photos, to see if he could make
sense of it. He sent me a detailed analysis, which I have pasted as the
bottom of this E-Mail, but the concise version is this: *The bird IS an
immature (hatched in 2019). It CANNOT, in its current plumage, be visually
identified to sex*, and it seems most likely that it is a young male (as so
many vagrants are) if he had to guess.

On that note, and given that eBird reports become a part of the permanent
record, it would be great if the comments, when people look back years from
now, were not just consistent, but accurate. Rather than having the very
careful and earnest eBird moderators (a wholly volunteer and typically
thankless job), in this case Sean and Shane, whom many of you know, reach
out to every single person who writes “female” or "_ male" in the comments,
it would be great if those reporting the bird going forward make comments
that reflect only the highest level of certainty, rather than assumptions
or guesswork. Also, if you have gone to see the bunting, please also check
your prior observations to see if your comments can use some amending.


In the meantime, the young Painted Bunting does indeed continue at Brooklyn
Bridge Park, seemingly becoming more acclimated to passers by as time goes
on. Here are some photos and video of it from a couple of days ago, where
it seems, though it may be my imagination, that there are some brighter
green feathers and a bluish tinge starting to appear around the nape:

https://ebird.org/checklist/S64302675


*Full text from Peter Pyle:*




*"So you are correct, this is a first-winter bird (SY now). The rectrices
have been replaced during the preformative molt, so shape and condition
of these are no longer useful for ageing. However, you can see molt limits
in the remiges indicating an "eccentric" preformative molt, which
confirms SY. It looks like p5-p9 and s5-s9 or s6-s9 have been replaced
leaving p1-p4 and s1-s4 or s1-s5 as juvenile. I can't quite decide on s5 in
the photos you sent but the limit is easiest to see on image 3563 between
the green tertials/s6 and  the browner s1-s4. The limit in the primaries
is also subtle here but seems to be between p4 and p5.So, reliable sexing
in formative plumage is not really possible, but its brightness and
the relatively big bill suggests male to me. If it winters, keep an eye out
for some blue and/or red featherd to come in within the next 4
months. These would probably be accidentally lost and replaced feathers
rather than molt. If it gets away without replacing any feathers like this,
best to leave it as sex unknown.Hope this helps and feel free to re-post
these comments."*

Good Birding,
-Doug Gochfeld. Brooklyn, NY.

--

NYSbirds-L List Info:
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsWELCOME.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsRULES.htm
http://www.NortheastBirding.com/NYSbirdsSubscribeConfigurationLeave.htm

ARCHIVES:
1) http://www.mail-archive.com/nysbirds-l@cornell.edu/maillist.html
2) http://www.surfbirds.com/birdingmail/Group/NYSBirds-L
3) http://birding.aba.org/maillist/NY01

Please submit your observations to eBird:
http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

--