Voting Comments 30-B-07

Voting Comments

Record #: 30-B-07

Eurasian Green-winged Teal

1st Round: 5-2
2nd Round: 4-3
3rd Round: 3-4

1^st Round (5 Accept, 2 Reject)	2^nd Round (4 Accept, 3 Reject)	3rd Round (3 Accept, 4 Reject)
06-23-2007. Sturts -- Accept Field Marks observed were diagnostic for this species.	08-12-2007. Sturts -- Accept I'm staying with my first round vote for the same reasons.	01-31-2009. Sturts--Accept I have not changed my mind - I'm still convinced that Lisa's description fits that of the Eurasian Green-winged Teal.
6-29-07. Carlisle -- Accept Description brief but convincing - I would have liked to have seen more details of the facial pattern.	8-17-07. Carlisle -- Accept no change from 1st round	2-4-09. Carlisle--Reject, specific identification not established With some reluctance (b/c it sounds as if it was indeed a Common Teal), I am changing my vote b/c, in agreement with comments of other committee members, I think we should require more details - esp. in reports lacking photos or other evidence.
06-30-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Accept The description suffices.	09-01-2007. Dave Trochlell -- Reject, specific identification not established I'm changing my vote in the second round to reject this Eurasian Green-winged Teal record. This is because I've become convinced that in the absence of a good, clear photo, the IBRC should require more written details than we were offered here to differentiate Eurasian Green-winged Teal and American Green-winged Teal.	01-31-2009. Dave Trochlell--Reject, specific identification not established I rejected this one for the reason mentioned in the last round.
01 July 2007. Darren Clark -- Reject, specific identification not established The written description is vague and not detailed enough, especially with no additional evidence (photos, videos, etc..)	9 Sept 2007. Darren Clark -- Reject, specific identification not established Even though this probably was a Eurasian Green-winged Teal. I would still have liked more information in the report.	02-06-2009. Darren Clark--Reject, specific identification not established Same comments as before.
7/2/2007. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established This was most likely a Common Teal but the description doesn't include enough detail to confirm the ID. Specifically I would have liked to see the face pattern and base color of the breast included to eliminate possible intergrades between crecca and carolinensis.	8/15/07. Cliff Weisse -- Reject, specific identification not established See first round comments. I'm still not comfortable with the limited details provided in the description.	1/28/09. Cliff Weisse--Reject, specific identification not established We need more details to confirm this identification. I think the observer probably had a "good" Eurasian GW Teal but the report isn't quite enough to eliminate intergrades.
07-14-2007. chuck trost -- Accept The description sounds good to me.	09-06-2007. chuck trost -- Accept No vertical strips, and a horrizontal stripe was seen. good enough for me.	02-02-2009. chuck trost--Accept Again, the horrizontal white stripe should eliminate any confusion with our GWRE males.
7/15/2007. Charles Swift -- Accept The horizontal white stripe appears to be diagnostic. No evidence of hybridization from the description.	9/11/2007. Charles Swift -- Accept I still feel this is sufficient. The description here is similar if slightly less robust to the 2 records already accepted. The details Cliff is asking for were also not addressed in the other 2 accepted records. In any case it's not always possible to absolutely eliminate hybrids.	2/4/09. Charles Swift--Accept See previous comments.