[mou] Listing (long opinion)

[metterso@d.umn.edu]

Having been unable to resist the temptation to post a tongue-in-cheek one-li=
ner=20
about listing this morning I find I do have an opinion on the recent discuss=
ion=20
that has taken place concerning the compilation of lists of birds.  Let me=
=20
state outright that I have many =91lists=92 of birds I have seen: they are=
=20
scribbled on the back of napkins, or scraps of paper.  They are tucked insid=
e=20
novels I was reading at the time and they have turned into globs of paper ma=
ch=E9=20
in my washing machine.  In only one very fallible place, my mind, have I=20
compiled all of these and so my lifelist has a rolling window of opportunity=
. =20
If I got a lifer long ago, I might well get it again and never know the=20
difference! =20

So now that I have destroyed all of my credibility among Listers, perhaps th=
ey=20
will only be mildly offended when I suggest that nothing is more tiresome th=
an=20
birding with someone who is hell-bent upon seeing the greatest number of bir=
ds=20
possible within the span of time available for birding.  Furthermore to do s=
o=20
within a set of rules describing when I can and cannot put a bird on my list=
=20
adds another layer of ennui.  For my personal list of birds I have seen, a b=
ird=20
is included if I am convinced I have seen it.  Undoubtedly some of those bir=
ds=20
have been misidentified as my birding skills have increased over time.  But=
=20
this must also be true of those who compile lists of many birds.  Consider a=
=20
very good birder who only misidentifies one bird in a thousand.  If that bir=
der=20
has seen 100 birds in each of 100 counties, then, on average, ten of those=
=20
birds were misidentified.

To argue that no errors creep into lists is insupportable (see Kim Eckert=92=
s=20
interesting article in the latest Loon).  So maybe we can think of listing=
=20
rules as a means for standardizing error-rates between lists, and now the ru=
les=20
seem somewhat less odious.  Perhaps these rules can be further defended on=
=20
grounds that such lists may be useful someday in ways that we can only dimly=
=20
appreciate now.  T.S. Roberts=92 made a quick list of 89 Loggerhead Shrikes =
seen=20
during 3 days (not consecutive) of driving in southern MN in June 1926, a to=
tal=20
that would be impossible today, and we can conclude that shrikes are less=20
abundant than they were in 1926.  Stan Temple and colleagues at the Universi=
ty=20
of Wisconsin have an interesting series of papers in which species lists=20
collected by birders have been used to help document long-term population=20
trends.  And the citizen-science initiatives of the Cornell Lab of Ornitholo=
gy=20
are a good example of how birding zeal can be applied to furthering our=20
understanding of avian ecology. =20

However, the best defense of listing, I believe, resides not in the list, bu=
t=20
in the skills one must develop to achieve a long lifelist and in this respec=
t,=20
as has been pointed out already by Laura Erickson and others, the birder who=
=20
has managed to compile a long list while birding a limited area, is the=20
winner.  He or she will know the plant communities of the region and the=20
associated habitat and food preferences of the birds using those communities=
. =20
She will know who makes those little holes in the goldenrod galls, and why. =
 In=20
short, he will be a well-rounded naturalist, intimate with many of the speci=
es,=20
bird and otherwise, found nearby.  This knowledge cannot come when chickadee=
s=20
are dismissed after having been ticked and this, I believe, is where good li=
sts=20
go bad. =20

Julie and I recently took our kids (4 months and 4 years) to the Texas Coast=
. =20
We wanted to go birding in a place where the kids could also have fun=20
(actually, =91fun=92, for the 4-month old has little to do with scenery and =
a lot=20
to do with his mother).  We wanted a place to bird where the birds would com=
e=20
to us, and it was an overwhelming success.  However, the observation that=20
stands out most in my mind (with the possible exception of an overflight of=
=20
whooping cranes) is that of a brown pelican surfing the air currents ahead o=
f=20
the waves.  I had watched hundreds doing this with remarkable skill, while I=
=20
changed diapers, played catch, or built sandcastles and I so I was astonishe=
d=20
to see a 1st year bird come along who hadn=92t quite got the technique down =
yet. =20
I don=92t know if the bird was molting, or still developing its flying skill=
s,=20
but I watched it crash twice into the water when its wing happened to catch =
the=20
tip of an oncoming wave.  Or maybe the bird was injured or destined for=20
Darwinian selection.  But I wouldn=92t have seen it had I stopped looking on=
ce=20
Brown Pelican was on my trip list, or my day list.

I confess that I am still very much a beginner at understanding the natural=
=20
world around me, and if I have a long lifelist it is because it is bottom-he=
avy=20
with the common birds of several continents.  But I think the great naturali=
sts=20
are so because of their eye for detail and their understanding of the=20
complexity of the relationships between organisms.  When such a person makes=
 a=20
list it is of interest indeed.  Another writer posted advice to the beginnin=
g=20
birder to follow standardized listing rules from the start, lest the birds s=
een=20
now become disqualified from entry on a lifelist later on.  True enough, but=
 I=20
would add to this the advice not to let the birds you haven=92t seen prevent=
 you=20
from learning from the birds around you.=20

Matt Etterson
Duluth