SECOND ROUND
Species: Royal Tern             Sterna maxima
Date of Sighting:  28 August 2011 to 28 August 2011
County : PHILADELPHIA      Location : PHILADELPHIA
Observer(s): George Armistead
Date of Submission: 2011
Submitted by: George Armistead
Written Description:  Yes                   Photo: No                                              Specimen: No                                        Recording: No

[list-related-attach]

[member]

 

Below are the comments submitted during the first round of voting. We have opened the comments so you can discuss your thoughts with the other committee members before your second round of voting.

1^st Round Votes

1. Tom Johnson – Class  III
2. Al Guarente – Class  III
3. Drew Weber – Class III – Comments:  I believe there is sufficient written evidence pointing to a Royal Tern.
4. Ben Coulter – Class  III
5. Ramsay Koury – Class 4-B – Comment:   The observer does not describe the head pattern.  The bill and wing patterns fit, but at the distance described it is not convincing.
6. Geoff Malosh – Class  IV-B – Description is too incomplete. This is another example of the observer expressing what they expected to see considering the identification, rather than constructing a more objective-sounding description of the sighting and then analyzing the identification from that standpoint. (“Even at that distance the orange-yellow bill was visible…”) Important details are thus left out (most glaringly, a description of the bird’s head and crown) seemingly because the observer did not feel the need to actually describe them. I know this is a perennial issue and that all bird records committees long for more thorough and consistent documentation, but I think also PORC may want to reinvest itself in efforts to demonstrate what good documentation looks like. I don’t mean to pick on this specific record too much, but it is a perfect example of this problem which seems to be getting more prevalent.)

[/member]