Taking Good Field Notes

Minimum Considerations

for Verification of Sight Records of Birds

Charles R. Smith

Department of Natural Resources
Fernow Hall, Cornell University
Ithaca, NY 14853-3001
May 1995

There has been much progress in bird identification since Audubon had to 
verify his observations over the barrel of a muzzle-loader. In the absence 
of a collected specimen, one's observations can be subjected to alternative 
means of verification. Often, when unusual birds are observed, or common 
birds are observed under unusual circumstances, the observer will want to 
report what has been seen to someone. The observer also may expect their 
observation to be published in a local or regional report, or added to 
check-lists of birds for the region in which the observation occurred. In 
so doing, one may be challenged to demonstrate the accuracy and veracity of 
the observation and evidence may be solicited to verify the account. In 
contexts where verification of observations is desirable, good quality 
photographs of the observed species supplement, but do not substitute for a 
detailed, written account of the observation. Descriptions of the rarity 
from such written accounts should be sufficient to permit identification of 
the species, using only the written description, by an independent, 
experienced observer.

Here in the Cayuga Lake Basin, any species reported that either is not 
listed in Birds of the Cayuga Lake Basin New York Annotated Check- list 
(McIlroy and Smith 1992), or is listed as "Accidental" (Acl) on that list, 
should be accompanied by details of the observation. Consideration of at 
least the following points, at the time of the observation, will enhance 
the chances that an observation will be verifiable and acceptable as a 
record of occurrence to more experienced observers. These suggestions are 
based, in part, on those offered by Axtell (1955d), and form a basis for 
review of observations of rarities in modern times by state avian records 
committees, like the New York State Avian Records Committee (DeBenedictis 
1978). 

1. Date and time of day of the observation. 

2. Number of individuals of the species in question which were 
seen.

3. Detailed account of the location of the observation; include 
its distance from a nearby highway intersection or prominent landmark; a 
map, or specific reference to a U.S. Geological Survey topographic 
quadrangle, would helpful. 

4. Names of other observers accompanying you who saw the bird, 
and identified it.

5. Names of other observers, if any, who independently 
identified the bird in agreement with your identification; explain the 
circumstances.

6. Your previous acquaintance with this species; how many times 
have you seen it over how many years?

7. Type, brand, magnification, objective lens diameter, and 
condition of optical equipment used.

8. Distance at which you saw the bird and how the distance was 
judged, i.e. was it estimated, paced, or measured with a tape.

9. Lighting conditions: (a) Was it generally sunny or were 
there light, medium, or dark clouds? (b) Was the bird in the open or in 
light, medium, or deep shade? (c) Where was the sun as you faced the bird 
and in relation to the bird (behind you, in front of you, to your left or 
right side)? 

10. What was the bird doing and what was its position in 
relation to the observer (e.g. high in a tree, on the ground, in low 
bushes)?

11. What was the habitat like; in what kinds of vegetation was 
the bird seen?

12. Length of time the bird was studied under the above 
conditions and was it determined from a watch or estimated. 

13. What field marks were observed and other details noted which 
contributed to your certainty of your identification? 

14. What diagnostic habits, songs, calls, or associated species 
were noted?

15. What other similar or confusing species were considered and 
eliminated by the evidence you collected during the observation of this 
species?

16. References consulted: (a) Did you use a field guide or 
similar aid during the observation? (b) Have you referred to any aid such 
as a book, illustration, or knowledgeable ornithologist since the 
observation? (c) If you answer, "Yes" to either (a) or (b), how, 
specifically, did the aid(s) consulted influence your conclusions and what 
aid was used?

17. Were written field notes, including most of the above 
information, taken in the field at the time of the observation? If notes 
were not taken in the field, how long after the observation were they 
transcribed and what references were consulted in the interim. 

References:

Axtell, H. 1954. What constitutes adequate verification? The Prothonotary 
20, cited by Beardslee (1958); original not available for examination.

Axtell, H. 1955a. Authorities make too many mistakes. Kingbird 5(2): 37-39.

Axtell, H. 1955b. Can a sight record be scientific? The Prothonotary 21(2): 
13-17.

Axtell, H. 1955c. An analysis of the reasons for writing detailed verifying 
accounts of unusual sight records. The Prothonotary 21(3): 21-27.

Axtell, H. 1955d. How to write verifying accounts of unusual sight records. 
The Prothonotary 21(4): 32-36.

Beardslee, C.S. 1958. The verifying account in ornithology. Kingbird 7(4): 
109-112 (reprinted from The Prothonotary 23(5): 25-27. 1957). 

DeBenedictis, P. 1978. Procedures for submitting reports to NYSARC and 
"Want List". Kingbird 28(2): 72-76.

Easterla, D.A. 1970. Values of scientific collecting. Birding 2(3): 5-8.

Editorial. 1965. The verification of sight records. Kingbird 15(4): 219-
220.

Fisher, D. 1974. Specimens and the rare bird: a scientific viewpoint. 

Birding 6(1): 32-34.

Grant, D.J. 1980. Judging the size of birds. British Birds 73: 227- 228.

Grant, D.J. 1983. Size-illusion. British Birds 76: 327-334. 

Griscom, L. 1954. Historical developments of sight recognition. Proceedings 
Linnaean Society of New York, Nos. 63-65: 16-20. 

Hall, C.A. 1970. Birding vs. competitive sports. Birding 2(1): 6-7. 

Hoyt, S.F. 1961. Comments on the preparation of field notes and regional 
reports. Kingbird 11: 179-183.

Keith, G.S. 1975. A serious question for bird listers. Birding 7(1): 14-16.

Keith, S. 1972. The birder and the professional ornithologist. Birding 
4(6): 54-60, 101-109.

McIlroy, D.W. and C.R. Smith. 1992. Birds of the Cayuga Lake Basin New York 
Annotated Check-list.

Nicholson, E.M. and I.J. Ferguson-Lees. 1962. The Hastings rarities. 
British Birds 55(8): 299-384.

Phillips, A.R. 1974. The need for education and collecting. Bird- banding 
45(1): 24-28.

Robbins, C.S. 1968. A program for the preservation of documentary 
photographs. Audubon Field Notes 22(1): 45-47. 

Tucker, J.A. 1975. List integrity. Birding 7(1): 10-13. 

Van Tyne, J. 1956. What constitutes scientific data for the study of bird 
distribution? Wilson Bulletin 68(1): 63-67 (reprinted in Audubon Field 
Notes 19:390-392, 1965).

Willoughby, H. 1974. Super-birder. Birding 6(1): 9.
This page was last updated on 29 October 1999.