• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

How do you write a description (1 Viewer)

Andrew Whitehouse

Professor of Listening
Supporter
Scotland
Following on from the thread on the Black-headed Bunting, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread on description writing. Anyone who finds a rare bird has to try to convince a records committee that they've seen what they say they've seen, at least if they want the record officially accepted. To do this a written description of some sort is normally required. But what should a description consist of? Perhaps more significantly, how do you make a description convincing? I'd be particularly interested in contributions from people who've been on records committees.
 
Andrew Whitehouse said:
Following on from the thread on the Black-headed Bunting, I thought it might be a good idea to start a thread on description writing. Anyone who finds a rare bird has to try to convince a records committee that they've seen what they say they've seen, at least if they want the record officially accepted. To do this a written description of some sort is normally required. But what should a description consist of? Perhaps more significantly, how do you make a description convincing? I'd be particularly interested in contributions from people who've been on records committees.

Awesome idea - been pondering this myself over the past few days. I never really know just what to look for. Do I get as much of the overall impression while I have it in the scope or go straight into detail and hope I get something diagnosyic before it scarpers? I try to do the overall before going into detail or, more likely, just write down whatever I can before managing to ID the bird.
I for one would be glad of some tips.
 
Firstly it’s good idea to spot the bird on the coast and try to make sure it’s not a finch. Write your description using as many bird books as possible. Then put it onto paper in unreadable handwriting, scrumple it up and chuck some coffee over it.

Also might be a good idea to back this up with bribery, false witnesses, intimidation, begging, getting to know and arse licking as many birders as possible.

Offering to become lifelong subscriber to BB and to buy a pair of Zeiss bins might also help.

At the end of the day you have got to do whatever it takes to get the record through. Remember a string too many means you become the worst insult of all, a stringer.
 
Steven Astley said:
Firstly it’s good idea to spot the bird on the coast and try to make sure it’s not a finch. Write your description using as many bird books as possible. Then put it onto paper in unreadable handwriting, scrumple it up and chuck some coffee over it.

Also might be a good idea to back this up with bribery, false witnesses, intimidation, begging, getting to know and arse licking as many birders as possible.

Offering to become lifelong subscriber to BB and to buy a pair of Zeiss bins might also help.

At the end of the day you have got to do whatever it takes to get the record through. Remember a string too many means you become the worst insult of all, a stringer.

LOL! You obviously saw my Geography A-level field study notes, left in the garden for a few days after a good trampling ;)

Seriously, when you're faced with something you know is unusual, especially when you're on your own, a mild panic can set in. I start by looking carefully to make sure you've not been fooled by an unusual angle/odd lighting or position, and it really is a goodie. Mentally absorb as much detail as you can, and if you know what it is and have a mobile phone, a quick call to alert others can be useful, maybe reading out any key features you've noted. Then get your notebook out and sketch/note everything you can see!. There really is no substitute. I tend to work from head to wings to back, underparts and tail. If it calls, note how it sounds, and always compare to birds you are familiar with - I find my memory of an odd call fades extremely quickly, much quicker than plumage details. behaviour notes can then be added. If you know what it is and what to look for, concentrate on actually trying to see the key features.

IMHO there is no point in trying to make a description sound convincing. Like the teacher faced with 30 homework essays, they've seen it all before. Be honest in what you note as having seen. If they accept it, great, if not it's up to you whether or not you count it (no different to counting it yourself and not submitting, I feel).

I was tempted to put a similar post on the BHB thread ( may still do) but I don't believe age etc comes into it. I was only 13 when a friend (of 12!) and I found a June Grey Phalarope in summer plumage on a stream at Charmouth, Dorset - accepted with no probs, and 17 when a Bonaparte's Gull was accepted. As Roy Walker might put it "just say what you see"...
 
Andrew Whitehouse said:
But what should a description consist of? Perhaps more significantly, how do you make a description convincing?

Handle the bird itself and keep it objectively away from your own knowledge or diagnosis or whatever impure influence (like any movement of the greedy ego)..and write or draw what originally IS there.
After that, use everything you ve got to compare it with. Then the bird must be subjected to all your knowledge and diagnosis, and even more; subject it to others who are known for their right applicable means.
.

If one makes it subject to the comparable data immediately, (mostly taken from other individuals then 'your' subject bird) a good commitee has to reverse such attempts AGAINST the supposed identity.
Like: "Was the bird itself not testifying enough of its own identity?"

And: dont do Drugs!
 
P.S. the RBC record form gives spaces for optics, weather, previous experience etc, then a big blank space for the description. I give an overview of the occurrence (what I was doing, when/how I noticed the bird) then describe it, then explain how I came to my conclusion as to ID. Posting with photocopy of page in notebook can only help (or scan and email) and attach any pictures.
 
My formula is simple.

Start with a bit of background. Not what you had for breakfast, but the circumstances of the observation. Like conditions, distance, what the bird did etc. Then a detailed description following these headings

Structure and jizz
Upper Parts (in head)
Underparts
Soft parts

I'm careful to explain what I am certain of, what I inferred and what I could not see. Finally I make a note of any calls.


Here is an example. On a brief check it would seem that I followed my unimaginative formula quite closely!

http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=79905&postcount=1
 
Both BB and Birding Scotland have published examples of good descriptions.

For particularly difficult species or contentious records then some degree of analysis is also appropriate. What research have you done? How does it fit in with what you saw? Why did you eliminate various confusion species?
 
Jane, I wish I could sketch like you! Whenever I try to draw a bird it looks like I've used my "wrong" hand.
 
I do something a bit like Jane. Here's one I made earlier, perhaps interesting as I got good but rather brief views of this bird.

Species: Great Shearwater Puffinus gravis
Site:Fife Ness, Fife
Grid Ref:NO639097
Date:5th September 2003
Time:16:50
Duration of view: c.30 seconds
Distance:150-250 metres
Optics: Nikon ED 20x

Bird found by: Andrew J. Whitehouse
Additional Observers: GA, AE

Weather conditions: SE wind, F4-5; misty
Light:Visibility c.1 mile; light good; looking SE with light from SW

Circumstances

A good SE breeze had picked up during the day and with misty conditions GA and myself thought a visit to the Fife Bird Club seawatching hide at Fife Ness could prove productive. We arrived at around 16:45 and AE was already in the hide. There was a steady passage of commoner seabirds offshore, including a few Manx Shearwaters. Many birds were close in to the shore. Within 5 minutes of starting I picked up a large shearwater in my scope flying in from the south (to my right) at close range. After double taking, I realised that the bird was a Great Shearwater. I immediately told the others and tried to get them onto the bird. Both were able to see it fairly quickly as it passed in front. As the bird flew across we tried to note as many features as we could before it disappeared from view. This it eventually did as it rounded the Ness. GA reported the bird to Birdline Scotland but it was not seen again during the remainder of our seawatch (to 19:00). The duration of the view was probably around 30 seconds for myself. The bird was, at closest, within 100 metres of the shoreline and so probably around 200 metres from the hide. It flew much closer to the shore than most of the Manx Shearwaters we observed that afternoon. For the majority of my observation the bird was flying slightly away from me as it moved north. Its flight pattern allowed for reasonable views of the underside and slightly better views of the upperside. GA wrote a brief description soon afterwards and I wrote one on returning home (on which this account is based).

Description

Behaviour:
Flew in typical shearwater fashion with rapid flaps interspersed with long glides. Flight positive and dynamic – appearing as if it ‘had somewhere to get to’. The line of flight was undulating with higher arcs well above the sea followed by low glides close to the water. In the former the wings appeared flexed back, somewhat like a Sooty Shearwater, although not as pronounced. In the latter the wings were distinctly bowed downwards. The wing-beats were swift but flexible and strong.
Size and Shape:
The immediate impression was of a large shearwater, much bigger than a Manx. Although no other species immediately accompanied it, this impression was reinforced when watching other seabirds pass at a similar range later on. It was certainly as large as a Fulmar but with proportionally longer and narrower wings and with a much slimmer head and body. The tail was short and with a straight-edged tip. The bill was not seen clearly enough to assess its exact proportions but it was not particularly large or prominent. The overall impression in flight was reminiscent of a large and powerful Manx Shearwater.
Bare parts:
The bill was certainly dark, although the exact colouration was impossible to assess. The legs were not clearly seen.
Upperparts:
Crown dark blackish, contrasting with white of underparts and collar. The bottom edge of the crown appeared to run approximately through the eye. The wings and rump appeared a fairly uniform dark grey-brown – not as dark as the crown but still very contrasting with the underparts. Very noticeable was a broad white crescent on the uppertail coverts. This contrasted with the blackish uppertail.
Underparts:
Predominantly a clean white, extending into a collar. The underwing was edged dark blackish although the exact extent and pattern of this was not fully ascertained. The dark belly patch was looked for on the brief occasions when the underside was clearly in view but was not discernable.

Identification

I immediately identified the bird as a Great Shearwater and have not found reason to change this identification. The other observers present also agreed with the identification. Although I have not seen the species before, the close views in good viewing conditions make me 100% confident that the identification is correct. It was not possible to note every feature of the bird given the rather short period of time it was under observation but the following combination of features were diagnostic and clearly established:

•This was clearly a large shearwater with a typical shearwater shape and flight action
•The flight was positive and dynamic
•The bill was dark
•The crown was dark and blackish and contrasted with a white collar
•The wings and rump were dark grey-brown
•The uppertail coverts were white, forming a broad crescent that contrasted with the tail and rump
•The underparts were predominantly white

The largest potential for confusion within the UK is with Cory’s Shearwater. Compared to this species the crown and bill were much too dark and the upperparts rather darker. The white collar and uppertail crescent also urge against Cory’s. The flight action was also rather more purposeful, lacking the languid and easy wing-beats I have noted with Cory’s.

The bird was obviously larger and more powerful than a Manx Shearwater. The wings were held at a more flexed angle and were distinctly bowed during low glides. The wings and rump were brownish and not blackish. I have never seen a Manx Shearwater with a white crescent on the uppertail and have not read of the possible occurrence of this feature.

The plumage was somewhat reminiscent of some immature Gannets but this was a smaller bird with a more purposeful flight and quicker wing-beats. The head and bill were of very different shape and proportions and the wings were narrower looking. Many Gannets were available for immediate comparison.

It could also be possible to confuse this bird with a light phase skua but the flight action and shape were different, with very long wings, a slim build and stiffer wing-beats. The clean white centre to the underwing also rules out any skuas. A Fulmar would be very much paler and is a much stockier bird.

Previous Experience

I have never seen a Great Shearwater before. To my knowledge, neither had the other two observers present. I am very experienced with Manx Shearwater, Sooty Shearwaters, Gannet, Fulmar and the various Skua species and have seen these birds in a variety of plumages and viewing conditions. I have seen Cory’s Shearwater in the Mediterranean.


I don't know if this is a 'good' example (although it got accepted!) but it shows some of what I do to try and be convincing whilst giving an accurate impression of what I saw. As well as providing as much of a detailed description as I could, I tried to be as precise as possible about the views I had and to explain my thinking about the identification of the bird.
 
On that note, just what is worth reporting? Do different races count as much as rare species? And just how rare is rare?
Is (for example, and not just because I saw one the other day...) a white wagtail ever worth writing up, apart from the exercise?
 
colonelboris said:
On that note, just what is worth reporting? Do different races count as much as rare species? And just how rare is rare?
Is (for example, and not just because I saw one the other day...) a white wagtail ever worth writing up, apart from the exercise?

Normally, in any local bird report a list of species requiring a description is provided and these usually include any subspecies requiring a description.
 
Steven Astley said:
jeez, v. good and comprehensive descriptions andrew and jane. After reading that hope I never find a rarity, it's like being back at school!

Must admit that some I've done aren't always that detailed - in fact a few from last year haven't actually been 'compiled' at all yet!
 
colonelboris said:
On that note, just what is worth reporting? Do different races count as much as rare species? And just how rare is rare?
Is (for example, and not just because I saw one the other day...) a white wagtail ever worth writing up, apart from the exercise?

In my notebook is a good description of a bird seen on my local patch in December 1980. At the time it was accepted as a Yellow-browed Warbler. My notes from the time state "probably of race humeii". Now if we'd known what would happen in the future, we'd have had the 4th Hume's for the UK! I still get tempted to submit it from time to time.
 
colonelboris said:
On that note, just what is worth reporting? Do different races count as much as rare species? And just how rare is rare?
Is (for example, and not just because I saw one the other day...) a white wagtail ever worth writing up, apart from the exercise?

definitely, more important than rarities in my opinion, these are the types of birds that interest me the most. In my opinion pied/white are not described adaquately in the popular id guides.
I thought your wagtail did look more like a white but i am still waiting for a more comprehensive description myself.
might get this if they split them, so fingers crossed.
By the way Tony, ever thought of entering your sightings on Birdtrack, if anything you see is a rarity you got to fill in an online form that goes to the local recorder.
 
Here are a couple more (races too)

A short one - the Sibechat - which was accepted without fuss. I reckon this is the minimum I'd put down for a BBRC bird assuming I had seen it for more than a few seconds

and a long one - the eastern Grasshopper Warbler, which was alas not deemed acceptable as a first for Britain (though had he tail measurement been taken and fitted we would have allegedly have had accepted as a first.

I tend not to do the rarity committee's job and tell them why it wasn't a different species as bluntly as that, though I do emphasise critical separation points and how certain I am that I have seen them.

Edit: the pdf for the Sibechat is too big to post..... I'll jpeg it another day

Unusual Grasshopper Warbler at Red Rocks - Oct 12th 1994
The weather on the morning of Oct 12th was just what we wanted for Red Rocks. Clear skies an easterly air stream and very poor visibility (Welsh and Lancashire coast out of view). Unlike east coast sites which rely on cloud cover and even drizzle to bring migrants down, we require the kind of conditions which get birds moving. The reduced visibility means that once they reach the NW point of the Wirral, they hang round long enough for us to see them. Early on a few Redwings, a couple of Blackcaps and a "pleeping" Chiffchaff had appeared in the area.

At about 09.00 JET was checking a mist-net set between a phragmites reed-bed and a large Alder bush. There was a Wren prominently in the top pocket and what appeared at first glance (through the mist) to be another in the pocket below. Identifying birds in mist-nets is always problematic and the lack of a prominent supercillium and grey rather than russet brown colour suggested that it might be Chiffchaff. On reaching the bird JET was shocked to see a graduated tail, streaked under-tail coverts streaked flanks and a gorget. Bearing in mind the size of the bird, JET let out a loud and involuntary shout of "LANCIE" which brought EW to the end of the net in a remarkably short time.

With uncontrollably shaking hands JET turned the bird over, expecting to see tobacco brown upperparts and neatly edged dark centred tertials. Neither of these were not present. The bird was taken back to the ringing station where it was processed by MGT. Despite extended and valiant efforts to turn it into a Lanceolated Warbler, the bird showed under tail coverts and tertials of a Grasshopper Warbler whilst the wing formula details were just within the overlap range. Feeling distinctly deflated, having ruled out Lanceolated Warbler we released the bird without completing a full biometric analysis or taking photographs. In our defence, the bird was not in the best of condition, the camera was at home, and there were dozens of Long-tailed Tits throwing themselves into nets! On its release it sat on MGT's hand for several seconds then took off and spiralled up into the sky. We watched it circling for about 30 seconds before losing it behind, or in, a stand of Poplars. At the time we assumed that we were dealing with an unusually plumaged runt Grasshopper Warbler. It was only after reading the Harvey and Riddiford Identification of Lanceolated Warbler paper in BB that the" possibility of an Eastern race Grasshopper Warbler emerged and we cursed ourselves for not making the trip back for the camera!


Description:
Size/Structure: A tiny Locustella, much smaller than any other Grasshopper Warbler seen or handled previously by any of the observers. It had the "cute" look of a Lanceolated Warbler rather than the more robust look of a normal Grasshopper Warbler. In the hand it felt like a Phylloscopus Warbler, or at most a Wren, whereas Grasshopper Warblers usually feel substantial in the hand - more like a medium sized Sylvia\ The weight was 12.Og with a fat score (tracheal pit) of 0/5 and a pectoral muscle score of 0/5. The tail length appeared to be quite long in proportion te the body and particularly the wings. This was particularly apparent as the bird circled overhead! Unfortunately we did not measure its length. The bird was generally long and thin rather than short and dumpy, though the wings appeared more rounded than usual for a Grasshopper Warbler. The maximum flattened chord wing length just reached 61mm on the left wing. The second primary was 3mm shorter than the third, and fell between the 3rd and 4th primaries (closer to the 4th) The first primary was equal to the primary coverts and the notch on the second primary fell between the 7th and 8th primaries (8mm). The second and third primaries were emarginated. The legs and feet were strong for the size of the bird - comparable to Wren. The bill was in proportion with the rest of the bird.

Plumage: The ground colour of the upperparts was different to any Grasshopper seen previously. It was a strange grey-olive brown, very close to the colour of grey Meadow Pipits and the plate 17 Lanceolated Warbler in the Harvey/Riddiford paper. All the upperpart body feathers had darker brown centres. These were clearest on the smaller feathers of the crown The centres fell well short of the tips of the back, mantle and rump feathers. The centres of these feathers were also quite diffuse. Again the total effect was very close to the above-mentioned plate. The wing coverts also had diffuse darker centres. However, the tertials were particularly bland, being dull grey brown in the centre, modulating to pale grey brown on the edges. The outer webs had wider pale edges than the inner, though it was not really possible to decide where the centre ended and the edge started. The tail and flight feathers were dull grey-olive brown. The underparts, including the under wing coverts were dirty grey-brown, though the upper breast and particularly throat had an ochrous suffusion. There was a gorget of spots, similar to but more strongly marked than a juvenile Sedge Warbler. These were round, not streaks, and set off the clean throat. The flanks feathers, particularly the rear flank had fairly prominent brown streaks which were about 2mm wide and followed the shaft. These were the most clearly visible streaks on the bird. All the under tail coverts were dirty grey-brown. They had darker black/brown centres which reached the base of the feathers and narrowed off rapidly to c.imm either side of the shaft by 1/3 of the length. These reached the tip.

The pattern was repeated on all the under tail coverts, though the longer feathers had marginally more diffuse markings. There was a poorly marked darker eyestripe, which did not reach the bill or the rear or the ear coverts. There was also a very slight supercilium - a gap between the eyestripe and the streaked/spotted crown rather than a positive feature. The ear coverts were slightly blotchy dirty olive-grey-brown, similar to the tone of the rest of the upperparts and contrasting with the slightly yellowish throat.

Soft parts. The detail of the bill were not noted at the time. MGT and JET both recall an unexceptional darkish horn colour. The legs were pale flesh coloured (paler still on the soles of the feet) with distinctive white claws. Eye was dark and beady (mouse-like).

The first thing we did when we got home was to read all the literature we had on Locustella warblers, and seeing the above-mentioned plate in BB led to several brief crises of confidence. This was exacerbated by a phone call from Richard Millington who had found out that we had caught a small Locustella. RM informed us that the recent Filey Lanceolated Warbler had shown poorly marked tertials and yellowish underparts in the field. In the hand however it was apparently showed classic Lancie features. The limited descriptions we can find on L.n.straminea appear to more closely fit our bird. Later that morning a Richard's Pipit dropped in briefly (one of an unprecedented 11 reported in the NW that week). We also recorded two Yellow-browed Warblers, three tristis-type and two abientinus-yypc Chiffchaffs in the following two days, suggesting that we were receiving birds from the east.

We are obviously not sure how safely L.n.straminea can be separated from nominate Grasshopper Warbler, or the degree to which the races intergrade. However, we are certain that we have never seen anything like this bird before and that we want the record to be officially documented if at all possible. After all, the likelihood of a second minuscule Locustella warbler with a gorget and flank streaks being recorded at a west coast mainland site in mid-October are low enough to be negligible!
Reference:
Riddiford, N and P.V.Harvey, 1992, British Birds, 85(2), 62-78
 
Last edited:
Steven Astley said:
definitely, more important than rarities in my opinion, these are the types of birds that interest me the most. In my opinion pied/white are not described adaquately in the popular id guides.
I thought your wagtail did look more like a white but i am still waiting for a more comprehensive description myself.
might get this if they split them, so fingers crossed.
By the way Tony, ever thought of entering your sightings on Birdtrack, if anything you see is a rarity you got to fill in an online form that goes to the local recorder.

I could have a pop at it, although round these parts you normally get the square root of b***er all (see 'Worst birding county' thread and my terribly poor attempt at a 'my local patch' - 'Hants, Berks and Surrey Borders'...). However, I'm now a bit better armed in terms of what to look for and how to not go silly at the sight of something different, so who knows this winter?
I can't really add any more than that for the ww - it's to all intents and purposes the same bar the plumage and there's nothing I could really add that the photo doesn't say. I did drop a note to one of the recorders for South Essex, just in case they're interested. I also had no chance to write notes as i was being harassed by parents to hurry up as they'd wazzed the entire day drinking tea and going to a boot sale, so only left a short time at the reserve...
Tomorrow, I'll dig up that link again on diffrentiating pieds and whites at all ages/sexes. One of my favourite birds, those.
Cheers,

Tony
 
Andrew Whitehouse said:
...*big snip*

I don't know if this is a 'good' example (although it got accepted!) but it shows some of what I do to try and be convincing whilst giving an accurate impression of what I saw. As well as providing as much of a detailed description as I could, I tried to be as precise as possible about the views I had and to explain my thinking about the identification of the bird.


Cripes. That compares favourably to my dictated notes of a Long-tailed Skua, on Sunday (full story in the secret freezer - see sig).

'****, juvenile skua... jeez, it's a small one, it's got to be long-tailed... ****... ****... ****... I can't see a bloody thing... yep, it's a skua... small... ****... get out of the light! Go on... get next to that sarnie.. go on... no! ****. Long-tailed. It's just sailing past, not doing anything. ****...it's just going to keep going. Looks quite pale.'
Then a couple of minutes later... '****'.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top