Date: 7/27/26 11:01 am From: Tristan McKee via groups.io <atmckee...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] Tristram´s Storm-Petrel off Humboldt
This Saturday, 25 July 2026, Sean McAllister, Lucas Stephenson, Aidan
Brubaker and I photographed a Tristram's Storm-Petrel northwest of the Eel
River Canyon at 40.757332 N, -124.81674 W, about 28 miles offshore from the
Humboldt Bay. The bird flew straight at the side of the boat and wheeled
around almost overhead, circled a little more with somewhat bowed wings and
mothy wingbeats, and then headed off far to the east in a low, direct style
with rapid, fairly shallow wingbeats.
Identification criteria between this species and the Markham's Storm-Petrel
are poorly developed, since the two taxa normally are found nowhere near
one another geographically. This bird was somewhat worn in plumage and
likely a subadult; it was less extensively gray and with a darker rump than
in my experience with Tristram's in northwestern Hawaii or the Tristram's
that Lucas and others documented off Marin last July, and this led us to
seriously consider Markham's in the field. It was rather slender-bodied and
very long-tailed. However, after review of the photos and videos and
consultation with Todd McGrath, Logan Kahle, Ryan Terrill, Steve Howell,
Peter Pyle, Rob Fowler, and others, we have a strong consensus that it was
a Tristram's Storm-Petrel.
Key features indicating Tristram's rather than Markham's include a small
amount of pale mottling on the sides of the rump (easily visible in Sean's
photos but not mine), a short bill, and an exceptionally deep tail fork.
The leg length and foot size may be important as well, but I haven't yet
assessed how well this can be determined from photos (there is always the
problem that seabirds hold the hidden knee joint in variable positions,
altering field impressions). The flight style difference between the two
species in calm conditions like ours seems to be quite striking and can be
judged from videos; to my eye, Tristram's is reminiscent of a Lesser
Nighthawk, while Markham's recalls a Common Nighthawk. Howell also pointed
out that the lighter wing-loading of Markham's is characteristic of many
Eastern Tropical Pacific species when compared to North Pacific species
like Tristram's and Fork-tailed.
Compared to a Black Storm-Petrel, the short neck, thin bill, squarish head,
grayish back, carpal bars extending out to the forward edge of the wings,
thin body, and long, swallow-like tail made for a very striking bird. The
legs and feet in the photos also appear considerably smaller.
Tristram's Storm-Petrel is a central and western North Pacific bird that
was first documented in Calfornia at Southeast Farallon Island in 2006, and
since then, accepted records are comprised of another there in 2015, one
near San Nicholas Island in 2018, and one last year off Point Reyes. July
seems to be a good time for it. Markham's is a species of western South
America and the eastern tropical Pacific that has been recorded off western
Mexico.
Eel River Canyon is proving itself to be one of one of the best locations
on the west coast, for storm-petrels with flocks numbering in the
thousands, recalling the old days at Soquel Canyon. Saturday´s bird was a
bit further offshore, in the Leach´s zone, however.
Date: 7/27/26 9:00 am From: Kurt Radamaker via groups.io <kurtradamaker...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Frowning on back of the camera shots has zero to do with fraudulent documentation of a sighting, it is all about Macaulay.
Macaulay uses the images to build their AI engines. I’m not against using your best and brightest images in eBird so Macaulay has a better AI engine, but let’s not user shame. Even with AI enhanced images, I don’t think folks are intending to deceive, they are just trying to get better photo ratings, not realizing that the AI enhancements can change field marks and in some cases identity.
My mid level rarity e.g. (Summer Tanager in Baja) back of the camera shot is merely to assist the reviewer with quickly confirming the sighting. I understand the value of posting detailed photos of mega rarities or very difficult to id Empidonax etc.
99% of the time I’m just too busy, lazy, or unmotivated to submit my glossy jpeg of the tanager. If I don’t do it at the time, it may never get done. I might get to uploading my camera photos weeks or even months later.
I get it, I have been wowed by some fantastic photos in eBird, but hopefully toning down the competition for higher ratings may help reduce the desire to submit photographic art rather than photographic documentation.
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of John Garrett via groups.io
Sent: Monday, July 27, 2026 5:07 AM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Kurt wrote:
I have submitted a few back of the camera photos to ebird to support my id, not win a photography contest and I was contacted by an ebird reviewer that ebird frowns on back of the camera photos. Odd, eBird doesn’t frown on supportive drawings, but frown on back of the camera photos that clearly and absolutely confirm an identification. So I think ebird has some culpability hear.
Just to clarify: the reason back-of-camera photos are discouraged isn't that they won't win photography contests. While they're generally less problematic than AI-"enhanced" images, they're still a poorer record of the bird than the original photo the observer already has.
More importantly, the Macaulay Library has many purposes beyond documenting an individual rarity. It is a long-term scientific archive used by researchers, Merlin, and birders around the world. For nearly all of those uses, the original image is substantially more valuable than a photo of a camera screen. Back-of-camera photos are perfectly fine for e.g., Discord or other platforms for quickly alerting other birders.
It's also worth noting that, while the vast majority of observers are undoubtedly honest, back-of-camera photos lack the original metadata (EXIF). In certain cases (such as where a record's authenticity is questioned), that metadata can be important and helps deter fabricated records.
Date: 7/27/26 7:41 am From: Chris Dean via groups.io <chrisdeanbirder...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] passing of Guy McCaskie
Hi,
My heart is aching with the loss of such a generous and knowledgeable
mentor and dedicated Salton Sea birding friend. To honor Guy's legacy, I'm
working on adding his field notes and observations to ebird. If any of you
shared time in the field with Guy, please consider sharing your ebird lists
with him by using his ebird username: McCaskie.
Thank you,
Chris Dean
Silver Lake, Los Angeles
On Fri, Jul 24, 2026 at 2:30 AM <lehman.paul...> via groups.io
<lehman.paul...> wrote:
> Guy McCaskie passed away from natural causes on July 22, just 11 days
> short of his 90th birthday. Truly the end of an era. Guy was the leader in
> moving birding into the modern era. He made countless advances in field
> identification and in our knowledge of West Coast vagrancy patterns and he
> discovered a plethora of migrant and vagrant traps. First moving from
> Scotland to Lake Tahoe, he soon settled in San Diego in the early 1960s,
> where he would remain to the present. He quickly turned California birding
> on its ear. He was extremely active statewide, with a particular passion
> for the San Diego area and for the desert from the Salton Sea north to the
> Death Valley region. He found more California state firsts than anyone. He
> has the highest California bird list. But far more important were his
> myriad of contributions to Western birding and field ornithology through
> his many publications, teaching fellow birders in the field, and in setting
> high standards for careful observation and documentation. His influence
> especially during the latter 1900s extended far beyond California to all of
> North America. There are not enough superlatives that can be said.
>
>
> Many more tributes, including those with more details of Guy's life and
> contributions, will undoubtedly follow in the days and weeks ahead.
>
>
> Plans will be made to spread Guy's ashes at the Salton Sea on a date later
> in fall when temperatures have cooled, followed by an informal get-together
> that same day, probably at Cattle Call Park in Brawley. Further details
> will be posted in the future when plans are firm. Per Guy's wishes, there
> will not be a formal funeral or celebration of life.
>
>
> The family welcomes cards and letters, but please no phone calls.
>
>
> All birders in California and the West should go outside today and tip
> your binoculars to Guy. He showed us the way.
>
>
> --Paul Lehman, San Diego
>
>
>
>
Date: 7/27/26 7:17 am From: John Garrett via groups.io <curvirostra9...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Kurt wrote:
>
> I have submitted a few back of the camera photos to ebird to support my
> id, not win a photography contest and I was contacted by an ebird reviewer
> that ebird frowns on back of the camera photos. Odd, eBird doesn’t frown
> on supportive drawings, but frown on back of the camera photos that
> clearly and absolutely confirm an identification. So I think ebird has
> some culpability hear.
>
Just to clarify: the reason back-of-camera photos are discouraged isn't that they won't win photography contests. While they're generally less problematic than AI-"enhanced" images, they're still a poorer record of the bird than the original photo the observer already has.
More importantly, the Macaulay Library has many purposes beyond documenting an individual rarity. It is a long-term scientific archive used by researchers, Merlin, and birders around the world. For nearly all of those uses, the original image is substantially more valuable than a photo of a camera screen. Back-of-camera photos are perfectly fine for e.g., Discord or other platforms for quickly alerting other birders.
It's also worth noting that, while the vast majority of observers are undoubtedly honest, back-of-camera photos lack the original metadata (EXIF). In certain cases (such as where a record's authenticity is questioned), that metadata can be important and helps deter fabricated records.
The early days of AI bird photos on social media were absurd and easy to detect like that awful bald eagle regrowing its beak video or the snowy owls flying with owlets on their backs, or hummingbirds sheltering in flowers, but the new photos are much more insidious.
Personally I try to limit editing on any photo that I share on community science platforms- just minimal cropping or adjusting brightness. I do not use photoshop. These platforms are for capturing accurate accounts of the species- not showing off photography, though many photos are beautiful. I would recommend saving the editing for your own personal websites or non-science platforms.
Nurit
Encino, CA
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Larry Jordan via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 2:58 PM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
I agree with Kurt. I'm sorry but I think if you have to use AI to enhance your bird photos, get a better camera or a better binocular or scope to ID your quarry. I like the idea of having a tag imbedded in all AI images so folks can appreciate the real world, not some computer image of what we think the perfect animal looks like, but what the real world looks like. [cid:<attach_0_18C5F5C5EBAA918B_1064739...>]
Date: 7/26/26 2:57 pm From: Larry Jordan via groups.io <thelarryjordan...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
I agree with Kurt. I'm sorry but I think if you have to use AI to enhance your bird photos, get a better camera or a better binocular or scope to ID your quarry. I like the idea of having a tag imbedded in all AI images so folks can appreciate the real world, not some computer image of what we think the perfect animal looks like, but what the real world looks like.
Date: 7/26/26 2:03 pm From: Kurt Radamaker via groups.io <kurtradamaker...> Subject: Re: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Very interesting email and the article link is probably interesting, at least the intro was, but it requires a subscription to read the entire article.
It is not surprising encouraging birders to submit their best and brightest photos to ebird could have repercussions. Photos were meant to be supplemental for identification purposes and not a competition for ratings. The emphasis should be on documentation. I have submitted a few back of the camera photos to ebird to support my id, not win a photography contest and I was contacted by an ebird reviewer that ebird frowns on back of the camera photos. Odd, eBird doesn’t frown on supportive drawings, but frown on back of the camera photos that clearly and absolutely confirm an identification. So I think ebird has some culpability hear.
This is a fascinating conundrum and one we all wrestle with as we try to sort through social media and understand what is real and not real.
Maybe some legislation to begin with that when AI creates an image, a tag is embedded in the image.
Ethan thanks for posting this, it uncovers for me an interesting area of research. If it doesn’t violate any copyright laws a link to the full Nature Article would be great.
From: <CALBIRDS...> <CALBIRDS...> On Behalf Of Ethan Monk via groups.io
Sent: Sunday, July 26, 2026 10:23 AM
To: <CALBIRDS...>
Subject: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Dear Birders,
Over the past year, several birders in California and further abroad have used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to edit photographs of birds and have uploaded those altered photos to eBird and iNaturalist. Even though most of these instances have probably been innocuous attempts to make a poor photo look a bit better, this practice is highly damaging regardless of a user's intended purpose. Unfortunately, most birders still do not understand how many of these programs work and why they are so negative. Below I have attempted to explain this issue.
There are several types of artificial intelligence, but the variety used by the most popular platforms (Google Gemini, Claude, etc.) is called generative AI. These programs have immense databases which they use to generate responses to user prompts. To put it simply, if you have a photo of a California Scrub-Jay, and you use a generative artificial intelligence program to edit the photo, the program is going outside of the data contained in the photo, searching its database for what it knows California Scrub-Jays look like, and then uses that external knowledge to “touch up” the photo to meet its expectations. This is not much different than printing a photo out onto paper and asking an artist to touch up the photo by painting onto it. The human artist will use their knowledge of what scrub-jays are supposed to look like to improve the image. So does AI.
To further clarify, I asked Google Gemini to explain how it edits photos. Here is what it told me: “Gemini is a Generator: It doesn’t actually “edit” your photo. Instead, it looks at your image, reads your instructions, and draws a brand-new picture from scratch based on patterns it knows. Because it rebuilds the entire image every time, it struggles to keep the original details—like the exact shape of a face, text, or background textures—identical.”
So, if you upload that Scrub-Jay, the generative AI can use its knowledge of scrub-jays to fill in missing details, and make that blurry photo sharp, or that dark spot visible, etc. But what if you upload a subpar photo of an Empidonax flycatcher? Or a seagull (yeah, I said it)? The AI still goes into its database and uses that external knowledge to touch up the photo… can the blurry Western Flycatcher be mistakenly touched up into a Willow? A Yellow-footed Gull into a Western Gull? Even if you upload a good photo, can the Sooty Fox Sparrow be made to look a bit more like a Slate-colored? Might a hatch-year state of molt return looking a bit more adult like? (If the number of remiges can change on a bird when run through AI, as I've seen a few times, it seems anything is possible.) How about a perfectly decent photo of an Epaulet Oriole, which when “touched up” with AI came out looking like the first-for-Brazil record of Red-winged Blackbird? More on that last scenario, and a further explanation of AI’s problems as they pertain to citizen science databases, here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03141-y
In short, generative AI should absolutely not be used when editing photos. These programs rely on pre-existing knowledge to edit photos, and in doing so, inevitably hallucinate details that were not actually there. At best, uploading these photos pollutes scientific databases with photos not representative of reality. (It is crazy that that is the "at best."]) And, I hate to say it, but with companies shoving AI down our collective throats, the onus is now on the user to verify that new photo editing apps and tools do not use generative artificial intelligence.
One final sobering note: Most of these instances where eBird reviewers or other careful eyed observers have sniffed out AI-altered media have done so because, to the trained eye, most AI edited photos often have the wrong number of feathers, a mishmash of features from different (sub)species, or otherwise appear "strange" or "off." But AI is improving rapidly. Just last year, I was unable to generate a photo of a bird in Google Gemini that did not seemingly combine features of multiple species and that was not positioned at an unnatural angle. Last week, I generated a photo of a Mourning Warbler with AI--completely from scratch, no pre-existing photo to serve as a "canvas" to work off of--that was scarily convincing. (I sent the photo to a few friends to ask what they thought-- the first to reply wrote, “Ok f*** this.”) Soon, we will not be able to tell what is and is not altered.
Please, build good habits now, and encourage the same from those around you by strongly advocating against the use of generative artificial intelligence to edit photos and by educating other birders of its perils.
Date: 7/26/26 10:23 am From: Ethan Monk via groups.io <z.querula...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] artificial intelligence and photos of birds
Dear Birders,
Over the past year, several birders in California and further abroad have
used artificial intelligence (“AI”) to edit photographs of birds and have
uploaded those altered photos to eBird and iNaturalist. Even though most of
these instances have probably been innocuous attempts to make a poor photo
look a bit better, this practice is highly damaging regardless of a user's
intended purpose. Unfortunately, most birders still do not understand how
many of these programs work and why they are so negative. Below I have
attempted to explain this issue.
There are several types of artificial intelligence, but the variety used by
the most popular platforms (Google Gemini, Claude, etc.) is called
generative AI. These programs have immense databases which they use to
generate responses to user prompts. To put it simply, if you have a photo
of a California Scrub-Jay, and you use a generative artificial intelligence
program to edit the photo, the program is going outside of the data
contained in the photo, searching its database for what it knows California
Scrub-Jays look like, and then uses that external knowledge to “touch up”
the photo to meet its expectations. This is not much different than
printing a photo out onto paper and asking an artist to touch up the photo
by painting onto it. The human artist will use their knowledge of what
scrub-jays are supposed to look like to improve the image. So does AI.
To further clarify, I asked Google Gemini to explain how it edits photos.
Here is what it told me: “Gemini is a Generator: It doesn’t actually “edit”
your photo. Instead, it looks at your image, reads your instructions, and
draws a brand-new picture from scratch based on patterns it knows. Because
it rebuilds the entire image every time, it struggles to keep the original
details—like the exact shape of a face, text, or background
textures—identical.”
So, if you upload that Scrub-Jay, the generative AI can use its knowledge
of scrub-jays to fill in missing details, and make that blurry photo sharp,
or that dark spot visible, etc. But what if you upload a subpar photo of an
Empidonax flycatcher? Or a seagull (yeah, I said it)? The AI still goes
into its database and uses that external knowledge to touch up the photo…
can the blurry Western Flycatcher be mistakenly touched up into a Willow? A
Yellow-footed Gull into a Western Gull? Even if you upload a good photo,
can the Sooty Fox Sparrow be made to look a bit more like a Slate-colored?
Might a hatch-year state of molt return looking a bit more adult like? (If
the number of remiges can change on a bird when run through AI, as I've
seen a few times, it seems anything is possible.) How about a perfectly
decent photo of an Epaulet Oriole, which when “touched up” with AI came out
looking like the first-for-Brazil record of Red-winged Blackbird? More on
that last scenario, and a further explanation of AI’s problems as they
pertain to citizen science databases, here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-026-03141-y
In short, generative AI should absolutely not be used when editing photos.
These programs rely on pre-existing knowledge to edit photos, and in doing
so, inevitably hallucinate details that were not actually there. At best,
uploading these photos pollutes scientific databases with photos not
representative of reality. (It is crazy that that is the "at best."]) And,
I hate to say it, but with companies shoving AI down our collective
throats, the onus is now on the user to verify that new photo editing apps
and tools do not use generative artificial intelligence.
One final sobering note: Most of these instances where eBird reviewers or
other careful eyed observers have sniffed out AI-altered media have done so
because, to the trained eye, most AI edited photos often have the wrong
number of feathers, a mishmash of features from different (sub)species, or
otherwise appear "strange" or "off." But AI is improving rapidly. Just last
year, I was unable to generate a photo of a bird in Google Gemini that did
not seemingly combine features of multiple species and that was not
positioned at an unnatural angle. Last week, I generated a photo of a
Mourning Warbler with AI--completely from scratch, no pre-existing photo to
serve as a "canvas" to work off of--that was scarily convincing. (I sent
the photo to a few friends to ask what they thought-- the first to reply
wrote, “Ok f*** this.”) Soon, we will not be able to tell what is and is
not altered.
Please, build good habits now, and encourage the same from those around you
by strongly advocating against the use of generative artificial
intelligence to edit photos and by educating other birders of its perils.
Date: 7/24/26 12:39 pm From: Tsuru via groups.io <tsuru88...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] In memory of Guy's passing
An unbelievable icon in the birding world Guy was so much more. Too many
fond memories of birding together, especially back in the years when we
used to do the spring desert loop each year, pelagic trips, and so
many other great chases either enjoying a life bird or a state bird. I
can't imagine our birding world without his presence.
He will surely be missed by thousands of birders who knew and birded with
him over all these years and my heart goes out to Therese and the family
members.
Monte Taylor
Tustin Ranch, CA
--
Monte M. Taylor (蒙特·泰勒)
Tustin Ranch, CA
http://www.tsuru-bird.net http://www.tsuru-bird.net/image.htm (Image List)
Birds, Mammals, Cetaceans, and more. On the Web since 1996; 979 bird
species photographed (959 seen) from the ABA area & 920 Continental US
photographed (928 seen). Over 2,222 total photographed world, along with
most of the large mammals of the US - all photographed free and
unrestrained, per ABA checklist standards.
Date: 7/24/26 2:30 am From: <lehman.paul...> via groups.io <lehman.paul...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] passing of Guy McCaskie
Guy McCaskie passed away from natural causes on July 22, just 11 days short of his 90th birthday. Truly the end of an era. Guy was the leader in moving birding into the modern era. He made countless advances in field identification and in our knowledge of West Coast vagrancy patterns and he discovered a plethora of migrant and vagrant traps. First moving from Scotland to Lake Tahoe, he soon settled in San Diego in the early 1960s, where he would remain to the present. He quickly turned California birding on its ear. He was extremely active statewide, with a particular passion for the San Diego area and for the desert from the Salton Sea north to the Death Valley region. He found more California state firsts than anyone. He has the highest California bird list. But far more important were his myriad of contributions to Western birding and field ornithology through his many publications, teaching fellow birders in the field, and in setting high standards for careful observation and documentation. His influence especially during the latter 1900s extended far beyond California to all of North America. There are not enough superlatives that can be said.
Many more tributes, including those with more details of Guy's life and contributions, will undoubtedly follow in the days and weeks ahead.
Plans will be made to spread Guy's ashes at the Salton Sea on a date later in fall when temperatures have cooled, followed by an informal get-together that same day, probably at Cattle Call Park in Brawley. Further details will be posted in the future when plans are firm. Per Guy's wishes, there will not be a formal funeral or celebration of life.
The family welcomes cards and letters, but please no phone calls.
All birders in California and the West should go outside today and tip your binoculars to Guy. He showed us the way.
Date: 7/23/26 1:22 pm From: Van Pierszalowski via groups.io <van...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] California Bird Atlas Town Hall Webinar TONIGHT - Late Breeders
Hi birders,
California Bird Atlas is excited to host our 4th Town Hall webinar tonight at 7:00 pm PT on Zoom. We'll share project updates, answer your questions, and highlight some of California's bird species that breed later in the year.
Date: 7/19/26 4:15 am From: <lehman.paul...> via groups.io <lehman.paul...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] San Diego pelagic 18 Jul: 2 Cook's, 2 Laysans, 7 Guadalupes, Nazca, 4 Townsend's, 17 Black-footeds, 14 Craveri's
The San Diego pelagic trip on Saturday, July 18, aboard "Legacy" and sponsored by Buena Vista Audubon Society was excellent for quality species. The trip went out as far as the 30-Mile Bank and "The Corner." The top highlights included 2 Cook's Petrels, one at The Corner and one closer to shore than usual in the San Diego Trough only 18.4 mi WSW of the tip of Point Loma (32.606, -117.555). Two separate Laysan Albatrosses sat on the water near the boat, both at the 30-Mile Bank. The lofty total of seven Guadalupe Murrelets included the first two birds much closer to shore than usual at just 10.1 miles (32.709, -117.433) and 13.6 miles off Point Loma, and an amazing group of five birds on the return in the San Diego Trough (32.607, -117.584) comprised of two adults and three large fuzzy chicks. Most alcids raise only one or sometimes two young, so perhaps this group was comprised of individuals from two family groups or some sort of adoption? A sub-adult Nazca Booby flew right by the boat repeatedly inside the 9-Mile Bank. The total of 17 Black-footed Albatrosses ties the county high count set just six days earlier. Also, four Townsend's Storm-Petrels at the 30-Mile Bank, a total of 14 Craveri's Murrelets, and a single rare-in-July Scripps's Murrelet. Overall numbers of birds were unexceptional. Sea surface temperatures were a bit above average at 70-71 degrees.
Totals for the day once we were a mile offshore were as follows:
Also, Humpback Whale, N. Elephant Seal, Mola-Mola, California Flying Fish
Lots of photos will be added once the shared e-bird lists are available, likely on Monday.
Seven trips still remain this season, three in August, three in September, and one in October. For further information, see sandiegopelagics.com. Reservations made at sdwhale.com (look under "birdwatch trips").
--Paul Lehman, Bruce Rideout, Dan Jehl, Alex Abela, Adrian Hinkle, Matt Sadowski, Barbara Wise, San Diego
Date: 7/15/26 11:41 am From: Van Pierszalowski via groups.io <van...> Subject: [CALBIRDS] California Bird Atlas Newsletter + Town Hall + Top 20 Species
Hi birders,
Thank you all for continuing to build an incredible first year of the first statewide California Bird Atlas. As of this writing, 160,228 Atlas checklists have been submitted from 5,141 atlasers. The number of blocks with data is approaching the 50% mark, with 8,202 blocks receiving some coverage (49.63% of total blocks).
For more detailed updates, please see the following resources:
*ATLAS FIRSTS*
In June, atlasers confirmed breeding observations for 26 additional species, bringing our total (as of May 30) to 298 species. Visit Atlas Dispatch ( https://ebird.org/atlascalifornia/news/atlas-dispatch-june-2026 ) to see the full list of newly confirmed breeding observation species.
