tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954081165153280225.post4792286376897827416..comments2024-03-20T04:12:43.360-06:00Comments on Utah Birders | Birding Blog, Utah Birds, Utah Birding, Utah Bird ID: When Subspecies Matter in eBird or in generalUtah Birdershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469804211127586442noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954081165153280225.post-75712672535031157902015-02-27T11:06:32.683-07:002015-02-27T11:06:32.683-07:00@Kenny, et al:
This just appears to be a case whe...@Kenny, et al:<br /><br />This just appears to be a case where I fundamentally disagree. If a species is only detected one time for every let's say 10,000 checklists submitted I don't see the point in showing the more common expected subspecies. Northern Flicker is the example that we are using here where in yes, there are a couple of reports every year. But by in far as I mentioned on Facebook, only 1 in about 1,400 detections of Northern Flicker actually note Yellow-shafted in Utah. I believe this is fairly accurate. There are likely more detections, but not a lot more. In this case as a user entering Northern Flicker every flicker I enter is by default a Red-shafted. If an observer sees and is able to identify one that has yellow-shafts, THEN it makes sense to make note to subspecies because it is the outlier. There are not enough detections in my opinion to warrant showing the subspecies of Red-shafted in this case. Anyone trying to interpret the data can make the assumption that all Northern Flickers reported in Utah are therefore Red-shafted unless otherwise noted. <br /><br />Same thing with the Red-tailed Hawk--with Red-tailed year round I would only show Red-tailed Hawk. From November through March however, I would show "Harlan's" as a regularly occurring subspecies. In this instance, the number of detections is far higher than for the flicker. We don't need to show "Western" as it THE species seen here. Again, I am coming from a fundamentally different view here; wherein we know the default taxa; and we know the regularly occurring taxa; and we know the rare if ever occurring taxa. Showing default taxa is not necessary if we look at the data using common sense. I don't think seeing subspecies listed is necessarily the driving factor in birders learning them, or studying them more. That comes from within, and wanting to. It does certainly make them aware if they weren't--but then why not just get rid of base species and only show subspecies? If we truly want to help people learn; and to know what is found locally; then the local taxa or multiple subspecies are all worth noting based on occurrence. Get rid of base species all together.<br /><br />eBird is different strokes for different folks so there are going to be differing points of view. I think anyone could argue any number of ways to display species and subspecies and make a valid argument. My personal opinion remains the same. Data accumulation and analysis make it possible to make inferences with less specification on general data points. The outliers are what generate the information to fill in the gaps. In my world less is more and simplification guides users in the right direction... generally. The views from a strictly scientific standpoint will definitely differ than mine--granular data is highly useful, but we can take species specific data for what it is. I actually have a really cool idea for subspecies and how to display it for data entry if we wanted to get really granular. Another day another blog post. Maybe I should just do a blog for eBird feature requests...Tim Averyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17632013488170310609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954081165153280225.post-53535221437022505622015-02-27T10:19:58.565-07:002015-02-27T10:19:58.565-07:00Great post. I agree with many of your points and d...Great post. I agree with many of your points and disagree with others.<br /><br />I agree that any species where the rarer subspecies is less than annual or never expected in a given Utah location, then you shouldn't list the expected subspecies. There are many cases of this worth looking into on the Utah ebird checklsts- Mallard (Northern), Green-winged Teal (American), Willet (Western), Warbling Vireo (Western), Steller's Jay (Interior), Western Scrub-Jay (Woodhouse's), Marsh Wren (Interior west) and Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (Western). With these species we are only going to see the expected subspecies.<br /><br />For species with two or more subspecies that occur in Utah and the rarer subspecies at least annual, I think the expected subspecies should be listed to bring attention that another subspecies can occur. This applies to species like Red-tailed Hawk, Northern Flicker, Yellow-rumped Warbler and Orange-crowned Warbler where there is a predominant form and the rarer subspecies (Harlan's, Yellow-shafted, Myrtle and Lutescens respectively) does show up annually at the very least. Without this distinction, the rarer subspecies could go unreported since newer birders could see "Northern Flicker" and just put in that count and not even realize that the Yellow-shafted one they saw was special. Even more experienced birds may think that ebird doesn't care if they saw a yellow-shafted if only "Northern Flicker' is listed and skip searching out Yellow-shafted Flicker to enter it in.<br /><br />Several species should have multiple subspecies listed most the of the time (depending on the season) like Gambel's and Mountain White-crowned Sparrow, the various Dark-eyed Junco subspecies and the 2 Gray-crowned Rosy-finch subspecies.<br /><br />I think it is important to be more detailed with subspecies than what you are suggesting. I think there is nothing wrong with listing both the expected subspecies if the 2nd second subspecies is at least annual, since it would let birders know that there are multiple subspecies that can be found in Utah. Birders becoming more detailed in the field by studying birds at a subspecies level can only be a good thing since it will make them better birders through the focused study of a bird, looking for additional field marks. Learning birds better and learning to study birds in a more detailed fashion will also help birders to find rarer species as well.<br /><br />Ebird is also very underrated for the information it can provide on local status and distribution of a species when the checklist for a particular region is accurate. I would even say that an accurate county checklist on ebird is the best source of local distribution a birder can have. Field guides can't possibly give distribution and state accurately at the local level, not even any of the Utah field guides. For example, field guides like Sibleys and the NatGeo will show species like Lewis's Woodpecker and Sagebrush Sparrow as being present in Salt Lake County when there are only a handful of records for each ever in the county. Ebird checklists for Salt Lake County can show those species as rare at a county level. Information like this about the local distributions and statuses will only help birders out.<br /><br />Showing the subspecies can be helpful to both beginner and more experienced birders alike. If people don't want to see subspecies, they can always click the button on the right side of a checklist they are submitting to hide them. But for the birders who do want to see subspecies, they should be accurate for a given area and reflect the subspecies that can show up.<br /><br />If you want a real conundrum, what do you do on checklists for species that we have 2 subspecies expected (most of the time a breeder and a different migrant subspecies),that look too similar to accurately tell apart? Species here include Sandhill Crane (Greaters breed, some Lessers migrate through), Spotted Towhee (montanus breed, arcticus winters?) and Swainson's Thrush. Or if to list Cackling Geese subspecies even.Kenny Frischhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13734829016074996623noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954081165153280225.post-5440447327650783332015-02-27T09:26:01.696-07:002015-02-27T09:26:01.696-07:00Agreed on all points! There is no reason to show ...Agreed on all points! There is no reason to show the locally common subspecies of a bird. IT IS EXPECTED FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. If there is a regularly occuring subspecies then show them both. I don't live in Utah so I can't speak to the flickers, but there are quite a few places where they both occur regularly enough to warrant showing them. Johnnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6954081165153280225.post-63546722401224247382015-02-27T08:10:30.182-07:002015-02-27T08:10:30.182-07:00Interesting take on the issue. I live in Colorado ...Interesting take on the issue. I live in Colorado where were get both flickers, both warblers, among a multitude of other subspecies overlap. I think as we go forward this data will be useful, but also for the purpose of potential splits it is the only way in a place like this to have that past data be useful. I hate the Mallard one--it really is kind of odd to note that. Blue form heron? Seriously? I don't get why that is worth noting either. So I agree with you to an extant. I do note the subspecies and will keep on doing so. It may all be a lesson in futility, but that's how I like to do it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com