1st Round

2nd Round

15 December 2009
Weisse – Reject, specific identification not established

3/10/10
Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established

Despite the fact that the observer is an experienced birder I'm not comfortable with this description. Especially troubling, it states that the Arctic Tern was larger than adult Common Terns it was with. The description lacks sufficient detail of structure and plumage to confirm the identification.

12-18-2009
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

The description was not detailed enough for me to be convinced of the identification.

03-03-2010
Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm going to repeat my previous vote to reject this one for the reason already mentioned.

12-27-2009
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

The field marks noted include the larger size of the bird, shorter legs, and a bill with no black on the tip. From the resources I find Arctic and Common Terns are nearly identical in size. I also read that Common Terns can lose the black tip in late summer. The shorter legs do apply to Arctic Tern, but it can be a subjective field mark. No mention was made of the size of the bill or the tail projection, which should be longer on Arctic Tern.

05-04-2010
Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established

Same comments as before

12-27-2009
Chuck Trost--Accept

The bill color, short legs, and comparison with other nearby terns convince me.

3-16-10
chuck trost--Reject, specific identification not established

I'm switching my vote, as I agree that Arctic Terns should not appear larger than Common Terns.

12-20-2009
Sturts --Reject, specific identification not established

The bill without a black tip fits that of the Artic Tern but the description of it being larger than the Common tern is confusing. The Artic Tern is the smaller of the two and has the shorter legs. It makes me wonder if the observer wrote it down wrong and meant it the other way areound.

02-28-2010
Sturts--Reject, specific identification not establishedt

I'm staying with my first round vote for the same reasons.

1-31-10
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

Very possible but not enough detail (i.e., what color was the bill?, mantle color? chest color?) and I'm not sure an Arctic should appear larger than a Common.

4-3-10
Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established

no change from round 1

2 March 2010
Hardy--Accept

An unsatisfyingly thin description, but the shorter legs in direct comparison with adjacent perched Common Terns leaves no alternatives.

27 April 2010
Hardy--Accept

Same comments as first round.