I don't equate "interesting" with "rare". Rare birds are often
well-characterized - not least of all in weekly RBA posts. Interesting
birds (self-defined) run a much larger gamut than that, and I can point to
a lot of eBird checklists where there's no additional context whatsoever
for such specie
Please limit postings to 2 cents.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:11 PM Dominic Garcia-Hall
wrote:
> I find most people reporting to eBird are pretty good about including
> context (location etc) in the comments field - not least because when it's
> a genuine rarity eBird mandates some kind of comment
I find most people reporting to eBird are pretty good about including
context (location etc) in the comments field - not least because when it's
a genuine rarity eBird mandates some kind of commentary. In fact, I'd say
once a rarity has had its initial few ebird reports, further comments tend
to re
The current intent of the list as given on the list's website is not what
Kevin McGowan indicated may or may not be the original intent - and I've
pointed this out recently - its even linked at the end of every message.
Certainly this has not been a purely RBA list for quite some time -
although th
,
however, and as noted can be overdone.
Rick
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE KöszDevice
Original message
From: Paul R Sweet
Date:11/30/2016 4:50 PM (GMT-05:00)
To: NYSBIRDS-L
Cc:
Subject: RE: [nysbirds-l] St. Paul's Church, Manhattan 1903-04 - 41 species
Daily
l] St. Paul's Church, Manhattan 1903-04 - 41 species
With the recent attention on lower Manhattan parks due to the continuing
Western Tanager and multiple Chats, we thought it might be interesting to take
a look at the birds that people reported in those same parks in the past.
Reading many
With the recent attention on lower Manhattan parks due to the continuing
Western Tanager and multiple Chats, we thought it might be interesting to take
a look at the birds that people reported in those same parks in the past.
Reading many 19th-20th century articles about NYC birds in the Wilson