Date: 10/30/20 9:02 pm From: larspernorgren <larspernorgren...> Subject: [obol] Re: California vs Woodhouse's Scrub-Jays in OR/NV/CA
I spent a day among the Gambell oaks at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon in south Salt Lake City in 1977. I was immediately struck by the higher pitch to the WOSJ call, softer, gentler than the ones l grew up with in western Oregon. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone -------- Original message --------From: John Pendleton <johnpend1...> Date: 10/30/20 7:28 PM (GMT-08:00) To: <larspernorgren...> Cc: <namitzr...>, OBOL Freelist <obol...>, Joel Geier <joel.geier...> Subject: Re: [obol] Re: California vs Woodhouse's Scrub-Jays in OR/NV/CA Just FYI, my Sibley app has word-for-word identical text for the description of “Sounds” for these two species. The recordings seem quite similar to my very untrained ear. Are these two species distinguishable by ear by skilled listeners?On Oct 30, 2020, at 6:04 PM, larspernorgren <larspernorgren...> wrote:My Sibley app shows the Woodhouse's Jay occupying that part of Lake County , Oregon where California Scrubjays have lived for 100 years, and does not show California Scrubjay in Deschutes, Jefferson, a d Crook Counties where they have been present nearly 50 years, nor the Burns area where they now have at least a decade of steady presence. It's easy to see almost anyone get led astray. How easily is this kind of error updated? Must we buy Sibley 3 as opposed to getting adjustments ?Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone-------- Original message --------From: Russ Namitz <namitzr...> Date: 10/30/20 4:42 PM (GMT-08:00) To: OBOL Freelist <obol...>, Joel Geier <joel.geier...> Subject: [obol] Re: California vs Woodhouse's Scrub-Jays in OR/NV/CA
I took a shot across the bow at our Nevada neighbors and for that I publicly apologize. I did not mean to cast aspersions on the birding skills of those observers. I know that you personally are familiar with some of them.
However, birding by geography is one of the very foundations of bird ID; it is something that is taken into consideration, rightly so, wherever one birds. Using geography alone is a slippery slope, and like much of bird ID, other variables should be taken into consideration.
Of the 19 Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay eBird reports from NW Nevada that are roughly within 50 miles to the Oregon border that you provided (thank you btw), only 6 reports occurred after the 2016 split of Western Scrub-Jay into California and Woodhouse's, and only 3 of those provide any sort of ID comments.
So of the 12 pre-2016 split, none have any comments of scrub-jay ID, most detections are from stationary counts and almost half of those are from stationary point counts. A quick note about the Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) point counts: these reports have 2 counts for each day with different times and species lists, so there are 10 detections there, not five, though almost certainly the same individual(s).
What that means is that this data collection and bird identification took place when Western Scrub-Jay was still a single species. I suspect that observers were not paying as close attention to differentiate subspecies ID details, especially on stationary point counts where the vast majority of bird species are typically "heard only."
To me, this suggests that A) Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay is the default scrub-jay species in eBird for those NW Nevada Counties (Washoe, Humboldt, Elko) and does not get flagged as a rarity, and B) eBird perhaps included NW Nevada in the assumed geographic range of Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay when updating the 2016 split which automatically switched all of the "Western Scrub-Jay" detections in the database to "Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay."
My real point in responding to Bob's post is that I believe that the eBird filters of those NW Nevada Counties should be set to zero for Woodhouse's Scrub-Jay, prompting users to write identification comments at the very least.