Clements 2021 Update Coming! (1 Viewer)

[johnallcock]

The problem lies in the distribution of przewalskii Siberian Stonechat, as that is a resident/altitudinal migrant that is found in at least part of the non-breeding range of stejnegeri, central China down to Northern Thailand. They tend to occur in different habitats, and also look quite different so as long as you have your notes/site details then you should be able to work out which one you have seen where.

Yes, this is the problem, and it's a difficult one for eBird to solve automatically, because there's not a clear geographical divide.
But some records have been assigned to Siberian in Hong Kong and parts of south/east China where only Amur occurs, and there are no records of przewalskii, which could lead to confusion later (and will require reviewers to check records in their region). It would perhaps have been better to assign more records to the 'slash' code (Siberian/Amur Stonechat) rather than to one or other of the split species, leaving observers to check notes and reassign them wherever possible.

 

[Andrew Spencer]

Yes, this is the problem, and it's a difficult one for eBird to solve automatically, because there's not a clear geographical divide.
But some records have been assigned to Siberian in Hong Kong and parts of south/east China where only Amur occurs, and there are no records of przewalskii, which could lead to confusion later (and will require reviewers to check records in their region). It would perhaps have been better to assign more records to the 'slash' code (Siberian/Amur Stonechat) rather than to one or other of the split species, leaving observers to check notes and reassign them wherever possible.

As has been pointed out before, the update is NOT done yet, so it is likely that these and many of the other records that have been discussed recently are still to be reassigned.

 

[D Halas]

eBird has announced that the taxonomy update is complete. Now's the time to start worrying about chats showing up in the wrong places.

 

[Paul Clapham]

After checking a number of updates and finding (as you did) that each one has both Common and Short-billed gull, and that Common is often in much higher numbers (505 to 1 here! - https://ebird.org/pnw/checklist/S32755070), and thinking about how I might approach this sort of thing, it's pretty clear that what happened was:

• The user had entered "Mew Gull (505)" and "Mew Gull (American) 1"
• The eBird update took having both forms present as a sign that it should do something different than just treating them both as a single Short-billed Gull entry. Not sure why it didn't change "Mew Gull" to Short-billed/Common Gull in those cases, but there may be good reasons.

The taxonomy update is complete and the west-coast Common Gulls have been reduced to a single collection of sightings of a Kamchatka Gull near Juneau plus a few other farther-west sightings. The resolution of the particular case you posted was to change it to contain a single sighting of 506 Short-billed Gulls.

 

[Paul Clapham]

The eBird taxonomy update says

"Paraguayan Snipe occurs widely in South America and Magellanic Snipe are restricted to Argentina and Chile, but caution is warranted in migration and the austral winter when some Magellanic Snipe move north to winter at least rarely as far north and east as Uruguay."

So my "Paraguayan" observations, all being during migration in northern Argentina, all ended up as "Paraguayan/Magellanic Snipe". I expect that's where they will stay, and since I don't have any justification for saying they weren't migrating Magellanics I'm going to leave them there.

However it looks like eBird has reviewed that situation and only a few sightings of Paraguayan/Magellanic Snipe remain in northern Argentina. So my armchair tick is better late than never.

 

[pbjosh]

However it looks like eBird has reviewed that situation and only a few sightings of Paraguayan/Magellanic Snipe remain in northern Argentina. So my armchair tick is better late than never.

I have seen many Snipe in N Argentina in many different months. Some will clearly have been Paraguayan but some of the border season birds were resolved to Parguayan, and I am perhaps less confident. At some point I’d like to look into it more but not sure how much there is to learn, perhaps specimens are the only real data source?

 

[Paul Clapham]

I have seen many Snipe in N Argentina in many different months. Some will clearly have been Paraguayan but some of the border season birds were resolved to Parguayan, and I am perhaps less confident. At some point I’d like to look into it more but not sure how much there is to learn, perhaps specimens are the only real data source?

The SACC proposal Establish English name of Gallinago paraguaiae talked a lot about the distinctive vocalization of Paraguayan; apart from that I couldn't find much else online in a brief search.

 

[pbjosh]

The SACC proposal Establish English name of Gallinago paraguaiae talked a lot about the distinctive vocalization of Paraguayan; apart from that I couldn't find much else online in a brief search.

I have actually never heard either, at least knowingly, though I have seen both species unequivocally plenty of times.

What would be more curious to see is if arrival / departure dates are known at all for the zone of overlap in austral winter.

Also, Iguesd we cannot rule out the possibility that some Paraguayan Snipe also retreat further north in winter?

 

[pbjosh]

Not to wander too far off topic, but I also had a seen and heard Snipe near Coca, Ecuador, during boreal winter. Published „common knowledge“ is that it should have been Paraguayan. But Wilson‘s is now known to make it to N Ecuador, and at the time after a lot of discussion with Ecuadorian birders and ornithologists, and a lot of listening to recordings of their flush / flight calls, I don’t think that ID is very easy by voice, and was not confident calling it solely on elevation… still lots to learn about Snipe in S America!