|
| |
Writing Descriptions of Birds you have seen
Principles
It is an essential discipline for every serious birdwatcher to write down what
they are observing, particularly if they are not sure what the species is or
they know it to be particularly rare or unusual. What follows are our standards
for acceptance of unusual records and some guidance on how best to present this
information.
The Northern India Bird Network has resolved to maintain the highest standards
in the publications of records. We intend that people outside India, and our
successors in posterity, should be content with our identifications, even when
they don’t or cannot know the observer themselves.
Our e-mail group and website will publish what people report, but that does not
automatically mean their records are acceptable. Anyone can question a record or
ask for detail through the e-mail group. Everyone is encouraged to be active in
this regard. At the same time the record moderators (see our Network page) will
intervene if they think a record is so rare or unexpected that more detail is
needed.
These principles apply to everyone, however venerable or experienced. It is no
shame (rather a compliment) to be asked to provide a full description. Otherwise
we are forced into the untenable position of selecting an elite that is
unquestionable. Posterity will not necessarily recognise such self-appointed
elites!
Salim Ali was always adamant that anything rare should be fully described. I
personally saw him write field notes on difficult species in the early 1980s’
shortly before he passed away. I believe that his is the only fair way forward
if we are to maintain a reputation as scientifically valid contributors to the
knowledge of Indian birds. Overall guidance
The most important thing is to write down what you see as
close as possible to when you see it. That means carrying a notebook (or paper)
and a pencil or pen (or tape-recorder). Of course you will often refer to your
bird books as soon as you can to help you with the identification, but the
critical information I will always be what you saw. You may well see things the
bird books don’t mention and not all bird books are entirely accurate on the
difficult species. I have found that for some uncertain observations I have had
to refer to as many as six books to settle the issue; but without my own notes
taken on the spot I would never have been certain.
We all use the elimination process to identify birds. That is we say “oh if it
has this it cannot be that”. This is fine as part of the exercise but it is a
very personal process. To have a record accepted this is not sufficient. Nor is
assertion; that is saying “ I am sure this is what I saw”. The only thing that
will convince is reporting what you saw with the information being fully
adequate to identify the species you claim. Rejections
There is nothing more depressing for a keen and honest birdwatcher than to have
their claimed record rejected. Believe me I know! And I also know that however
many years you have been bird-watching (in my case nearly 50); you still make
mistakes. Isn’t that part of the delight of our hobby, that there is always
something to learn?
Please try and put this into perspective. What the moderators are saying is that
the evidence is insufficient; you may well have seen the bird you claimed but
you haven’t got enough data on it and on that basis other confusion species
cannot be excluded. If you read on I believe you will be much less likely to get
your genuine records rejected. What do you need to report:
- Name of bird (or if you are not sure) group of birds. Observers’ names (each
observer must provide an independent description), dates, place (with a brief
description of habitat), times of observation and optical aids used (that is
type of binocular or telescope if any). It is always helpful to include your
experience of the species and any possible confusion species.
- A brief description of what the bird looked like, what it was doing and which
other species were near to it. How did it compare? What struck you? Why do you
think it is what you say it is?
- A description of the bird, start with what it was doing and how. Then move on
to describe what it looked like overall. Then describe it. It is probably
easiest to start with the head move to the back, wings and tail, then the underparts , then the bill and legs. It is often helpful to use the diagrammatic
illustrations (available at the beginning of all good field-guides) to ensure
you are describing the right parts of the plumage. But different species may
require a different order of description. Try to transcribe any calls heard.
- Don’t include what you assumed but didn’t see. It may be irrelevant anyway.
- If you have even the most meagre talent, include a sketch (preferably drawn
while you are looking at the bird). It really is helpful. And you can use it to
highlight the most important features.
Help!
If you have never written this sort of description we can help you. Don’t wait
until you see a rarity. Practise on the common birds you see every day. I am
happy to comment directly and privately on such first attempts, whatever the
species. Please e-mail me on Bill Harvey
|
