--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Birders often find themselves "put on the spot" to produce details for rare species observed. Those unfamiliar with the concept of producing written details or providing documentation of a sighting may feel somewhat persecuted when informed that their "say-so" is not good enough to make a record legitimate. The initial enthusiasm and excitement of finding and reporting a good bird can quickly turn to disappointment, discouragement, and depression when their undocumented record is treated with skepticism by the local or regional "experts." Unfortunately, this treatment is something that most of us have had to endure during developmental stages of our bird-watching skills. Many birders understand the importance of taking field notes and documenting rarities but may only rarely or irregularly practice such good habits because they find it tedious, it requires "work" that takes the fun out of their hobby, they are too busy to "get around to it," they assume that someone else will do it, or they just are not sure what is needed or how to write up such details.

At some point, all birders have probably been guilty of observing a rarity for which they have never written notes or supplied any documentation. Many undoubtedly valid records have not been documented beyond mention in the local newsletter or American Birds, if the record even made it that far. Numerous historical sight-records, especially those prior to the mid-197Os, are missing supporting details. Many others are supported by details gleaned from observers' rusty memories decades after the observation. Although the recent trend is toward more and better documentation, some birders are still not recording information on their sightings beyond keeping simple lists of species and numbers. This omission is unfortunate because each observation of an unusual bird could become an important contribution to the ornithological record; unsupported "hearsay" records (e.g., "tick marks" on checklists) must remain hypothetical or be ignored. If observers make no effort to document unusual birds, then they should not be surprised if these records fail to gain acceptance or be published.

Birders now generate many of today's data on species' distributions and field-identification aspects of North American ornithology. Most professional ornithologists recognize that the large volume of data generated by birders, especially that involving extralimital records, cannot and should not be ignored just because most of it is not based on specimen evidence. There has been considerable debate, however, over what sorts of other documentation are acceptable. In recent years, rare-bird committees (RBCs) have been formed in most states, provinces, and many foreign countries (Roberson 1990) to help bridge the gap between specimen and non-specimen records. RBCs are composed of experienced amateur and professional ornithologists. The RBC process includes acquisition and protection of rare-bird documentation, evaluation by a panel of knowledgeable peers, and publication of proceedings. Many RBCs that must limit the volume of records they receive (or be overwhelmed) compile a review list. Review lists typically contain species that average only a few occurrences annually, representing the rarest of the rare species. Documentation for "lesser" rarities may be requested by some RBCs, as well as by regional ornithological societies and bird clubs, American Birds regional editors, and Christmas Bird Count compilers. Although a particular species may not be on its respective state or provincial review list, records pertaining to unusual seasonal occurrences (e.g., early or late migrants, unusual summer or winter records) may also require documentation for evaluation and subsequent acceptance.

Preparing for Field Observations

Written documentation provides the foundation for non-specimen records, including those well-supported by photographs or tape recordings. These data are best gathered during the observation and are generally referred to as field notes (see Remsen 1977). Field notes should be written in the field during or immediately following the observation. Many birders opt to concentrate on observing and studying the rarity as long as possible and then write notes immediately after the observation. Although this approach has its advantages, especially if the bird is being difficult to observe or does not linger, there is always the possibility that some identification characters may be overlooked. Unless the bird loiters for subsequent observation, there is little possibility of retrieving overlooked information. The likelihood of overlooking features is lessened if you scribble down notes during the observation, thus forcing yourself to look at the bird in more detail, rather than just observing basic identification features.

Field notes do not have to be neatly printed; information scribbled on a paper towel is preferable to nothing at all. These notes, no matter how messy or soiled with mud, sweat, or food, constitute your original data, and, therefore, should be saved whether or not the information is latert transcribed to a separate notebook or directly to a more formalized report (e.g., for subrnission to a RBC). Scribbled notes on small, easily misplaced scraps of paper should be transcribed as quickly as possible to prevent possible loss, and radically abbreviated notes should be rewritten while information not recorded on paper can still be retrieved from memory. No matter how good your memory, the more time that elapses between the observation and recording the information, the more "fuzzy" or biased the details can become, if not forgotten altogether. Most birders would probably be amazed at their poor recall of plumage patterns and fine detail. For example, can you describe from memory the plumage details of some of the most common species (e.g., American Kestrel, Acorn Woodpecker, or Blue Jay)? For most of us, this revealing exercise can reinforce the importance of writing notes instead of "chancing it to memory." A micro-cassette recorder is an al ternative to written notes. Some observers find it convenient to carry a recorder in a pocket. In the event that a rarity is found, it is a simple matter to record your notes. A voice-activated model worn around the neck keeps hands free to maneuver binoculars or camera. The recorded information can later be transcribed verbatim for your files and for submission to appropriate sources. The tape represents your original data and should be saved, if possible.

In an ideal situation, field notes should be written before reference to the trusty field guide or similar sources of information (including other birders) because influence from these sources can bias your description by (1) channeling your description into describing "field marks" instead of describing the whole bird; (2) helping fill in details that you may have overlooked or not been able to see; and (3) predisposing you toward seeing what ought to be seen based on your identification (regardless of whether or not the bird was correctly identified in the first place!). Realistically, however, field guides and birding companions help form the basis for many identifications. In fact, many outstanding birds probably would not be reported if the observer did not have access to a guide to confirm the identification. Nonetheless, the description of the bird must be written from observations of the bird, not from the field guide or other sources. If field guides are consulted during the observation, describe how the bird varies, detail by detail, and cite the reference.

Every beginning birder has probably experienced the disappointment of studying a new bird, only to turn to the field guide later and realize that an important feature was inadvertently overlooked. Most field guides possess a labeled figure of a bird, illustrating the general external morphology or "topography." It is a good idea to become familiar with the general plumage terminology of a bird in order to know what "parts" to look for and where they are located (e.g., supercilium, lesser wing-coverts, nape). If you do not carry your field guide into the field, it may be helpful to make a copy of one of these topographies to slip into your field notebook. The picture will prompt you as to what parts to study. During the observation, record what each part looked like. It is also a good idea to organize your observations, developing a routine that will help you to describe the entire bird in detail and also to avoid the possibility of missing critical features. Practice on common species. Not only will that help to prepare you for describing rarities later, but it is also a good way to really learn and appreciate your backyard birds.

In addition to the record of the bird's appearance, additional information surrounding the observation is necessary to provide complete documentation (who, where, when, and how). Many states and provinces provide an "official" form for the submission of data for review-list species. These forms cue the observer to what additional information is required (Louisiana Bird Records Committee Form (note)). This form is designed to facilitate recording and retrieving information. On some forms the description section is further broken into sub-sections (e.g., colors of eyes, legs, wings) to help, theoretically, cue the observer as to what information is needed. Although helpful in that context, these forms tend to constrain the description to brief responses and tempt observers to fill in information that may not have been seen. Of all the information requested, the description is most crucial. The description should be thorough, describing as much as was observed, and should include the bird's size, shape, plumage characteristics, and soft-part colors (e.g., eyes, legs, all facial and other bare skin, bill). It should be organized in a logical manner --start with the head; then move to the back, wings, and tail before covering the chin, throat, breast, belly, and undertail coverts; finish with the soft parts, behavior, and vocalizations (if any). This will make it easier for the person reading your description to make sense of your write-up. The description should include comparisons, direct and indirect, to adjacent birds and/or similar species, noting structural and plumage characteristics that are similar or different. The description should be unambiguous, leaving nothing to assumption.

Sketches are helpful in making sure that no part of the bird's external anatomy is overlooked (sketch on beginning of article and Figure 1). Even the crudest of drawings (e.g., "stick bird") by individuals professing absolutely no artistic abilities can later be an integral part of the documentation. "Stick birds" are preferable to more elaborate drawings based on (and probably biased by) memory and field-guide illustrations or photographs. Use of generic bird illustrations (Figure 2), especially helpIul to beginning bird watching people, can provide features to "fill in." Homemade versions are easy to make. Using a field-guide illustration as a template, trace only the outline from an assortment of generic birds (e.g., warbler, sparrow, Buteo, hummingbird). Make several copies to take into the field, but remember to note how the bird differs from the generic bird, if it does not exactly match (e.g., "the bill was thicker; the tail was shorter") and illustrate the differences if possible. Like field notes, field sketches should be drawn in the field; they represent original data, and should be retained in personal files. More elaborate illustrations made after the observation or those based on the field sketches should always be indicated as such. Sketches are also helpful in reinforcing certain aspects of written descriptions (such as shapes) that are often difficult to describe, but sketches usually cannot substitute for photos or serve as the sole source of what the bird looked like.

Look Beyond Field Marks

Peterson's (1954) A Field Guide to the Birds introduced his concept of the "field mark" and changed the way birders look at birds. Today, field identification is still based on this principle. A tanager with a white wing-bar, for example, is a Western, a bunting with pale wing-bars is a Lazuli (Peterson 1990). Simple? Well, unfortunately these field marks may not always be diagnostic. Many birders do not look for details in addition to "definitive" characters and fail to observe many of the less obvious details that are visible and may be just as important for identification. Critical identification features (= field marks) should be emphasized, but exhaustive detail is always preferable to a condensed, skeletal description. Detailed information that can be noted during field observations includes intricacies of plumage pattern, coloration, and general body size and proportions (any of which may be indicative of age or sex, or hint at geographic origin); condition of plumage (e.g., obvious molt or stage of plumage wear); general health (e.g., active versus sluggish due to injury or some type of illness); breeding condition (coloration of soft parts); and any other peculiarities of the individual bird. The Birds of the Western Palearctic series (Cramp and Simmons 1977ff) is a good source for examples of detailed plumage descriptions. Shorebirds: An Identification Guide (Hayman et al. 1986) and Identification Guide to North American Passerines (Pyle et al. 1987) illustrate molt sequences, feather patterns, and wear.

Size is an important feature to study and attempt to estimate. A bird's size can involve a series of different measurements: total length bill to tail), height (head to toe), wing span, and body mass. Field guides typically use linear measurements obtained from museum study-