Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:33 pm
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Based on the details in the checklist comments, I think the location of this West Coast checklist should be in Canterbury: S188879393.
-
- Posts: 153
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2022 8:51 pm
- Location: Currently in Australia for university :)
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
https://ebird.org/checklist/S109660059
This checklist desperately needs to be flagged and taken off data input, wrong location, way too long of a checklist and adds a lot of birds to the Manukau City district list that have not been observed there (eg the albatrosses).
https://ebird.org/checklist/S64822470
This checklist although the Stewart Island Shags were 'unconfirmed' the rest of the media for species that clearly weren't observed in Auckland are still up and should also not be in public data output.
This checklist desperately needs to be flagged and taken off data input, wrong location, way too long of a checklist and adds a lot of birds to the Manukau City district list that have not been observed there (eg the albatrosses).
https://ebird.org/checklist/S64822470
This checklist although the Stewart Island Shags were 'unconfirmed' the rest of the media for species that clearly weren't observed in Auckland are still up and should also not be in public data output.
my inat: https://www.inaturalist.org/people/4733175 & ebird account is linked in that profile :)
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:33 am
- Location: Auckland
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
This checklist cannot all be from Ayrlies wetlands, as the distance travelled is nearly 19 km, and many observations are unlikely there: https://ebird.org/checklist/S227692144
-
- Posts: 157
- Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:33 pm
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Wrong species identity on this checklist: S214736506.
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:33 am
- Location: Auckland
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Fluttering shearwaters, surely (not Hutton's): https://ebird.org/checklist/S237193553
- Oscar Thomas
- Posts: 1015
- Joined: Sat Aug 27, 2011 7:15 pm
- Location: Dunedin
- Contact:
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Hi Mike, yes we can be confident that these are Fluttering shearwaters based on location, but more and more Hutton's are being sighted off the North Island in particular during Summer. In terms of field ID, both species show a lot of variation in size and plumage, with a degree of overlap. I found the following excerpt from a thesis in 1985 really interesting on distinguishing Hutton's (huttoni) from Fluttering (gavia):Mike Bickerdike wrote: Wed May 14, 2025 8:55 am Fluttering shearwaters, surely (not Hutton's): https://ebird.org/checklist/S237193553
Wragg (1985) took external measurements and recorded the plumage colouration of live birds from three populations of Fluttering Shearwaters [Poor Knights Islands (AE), Moturipa Island (EC) and Long Island (NC)] and from Hutton's Shearwaters at the Upper Kowhai River colony (CN) in August, November and February 1983. He found that no one character can be used to separate the two species and concluded that it was best to check several characters. The best characters to check are:
1. Exposed undertail coverts: Dark markings are on the lateral feathers of 90% of huttoni, but of only 5% of gavia.
2. Underwing colouration: Most huttoni are smudgy brown on underwing coverts, some being darkish all over but a few being pure white. Most gavia have white underwings, but a few show smudgy markings on the coverts.
3. Long axillaria: These are round ended and rarely white tipped on humi, square ended and usually white tipped in gavia.
4. Bill length as a percentage of head plus bill length: This is greater than 44% in huttoni and less than 43% in most gavia, but a few huttoni are less than 43%.
As a note, eBird users who have submitted 100 or more complete checklists the year prior are able to report incorrectly identified media, by clicking on the little flag to the bottom right of the photo. This one has already been reported (or more likely was never confirmed as it would've tripped the Auckland filter) and will be questioned by the regional reviewers.
Wragg 1985: https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... 1985/stats
Oscar Thomas Photography - https://www.facebook.com/oscarthomasnz
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:33 am
- Location: Auckland
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
That’s a very useful piece to differentiate the two. Much appreciated Oscar, thank you.
(I didn’t know about flagging media so thanks for that too. I can’t get to work right away but I’m sure I’ll work it out).
(I didn’t know about flagging media so thanks for that too. I can’t get to work right away but I’m sure I’ll work it out).
-
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2009 10:17 am
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
Checklist S71525591 is for the Oamaru Bay hotspot, but he spends 7 hours and travels 10 miles on the Coromandel Peninsula north to Colville
-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:33 am
- Location: Auckland
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
I wondered about the Terek sand, broad billed sand and grey-tailed tattler sightings... until I saw this was from 31 years agoBobolink wrote: Mon May 19, 2025 10:06 pm Checklist S71525591 is for the Oamaru Bay hotspot, but he spends 7 hours and travels 10 miles on the Coromandel Peninsula north to Colville

-
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2024 9:33 am
- Location: Auckland
Re: Obviously incorrect reports on eBird
https://ebird.org/checklist/S237580073
Claims Rainbow Lorikeet, as well as a Weka which is almost certainly a Banded Rail.
Claims Rainbow Lorikeet, as well as a Weka which is almost certainly a Banded Rail.