Have I got this straight: submitting records satisfies a narcissitic need to see one's name in print somewhere?
----- Original Message -----
From: C óilí n MacLochlainn
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2006 12:55 AM
Subject: Re: John Bull's other Island. Long but funny.Slipstreaming etc
Joe, et al,
I think Muller dealt with this topic in some detail about a year ago. I have
already forgotten what he said exactly, sorry about that, but I remember
that it differed from my views.
I believe the finder should receive first credit, even if the correct name
is put to the species by somebody else. The identifier, if different from
the finder, should come second. After all, the identifier owes the record to
the finder. Other observers who take the trouble to submit a description,
which can help to remove any lingering doubts (if there are any) as to a
species' identity, should all be listed and not be relegated to the
inscrutable 'et al' category at least for any species with ten or fewer
In this respect, Doyler's joint accreditation for the Arctic Warbler makes
sense, though was it only there because of alphabetic order and others
further down the alphabetic scale simply became 'et al'? Either way, he is
daft to apologise for 'slipstreaming' and should be complimented for sending
in a description, even if in error (an unlikely tale, though I'll take his
word for it).
If the finder and identifier fail to submit a report (or a record shot) a
bit unlikely in the case of top ten birds, but not unknown then the
descriptions from other parties become crucial and should all be
To avoid confusion, the initial F (in brackets) should follow the finder's
initials, and the initial I (in brackets) after the identifier's; or the
initials F/I (in brackets) if the finder is also the identifier. No initial
to follow the rest of the recorders. This would do away with the possiblity
of anyone being accused of slipstreaming, though how that term entered the
lexicon is beyond me. Anyone who sends in a rarity description is doing the
Irish Bird Report a service and should be acknowledged for it.
I'm guessing that Killian's reservations on accreditation protocol were
about the submission of record shots. Anybody could send in a photo of a
bird before it had been identified, and that photo could prove crucial to
identification, even if the photographer was not the finder or identifier.
So, how should such a photographer be credited? Again, I would recommend an
initials protocol: the finder (F) retains top billing, followed by the
identifier (I) if different from the finder and correct in his
identification, and followed by the photographer (P) if the photograph
provides the crucial evidence. If the ultimate identification is made by the
IRBC itself, then no identifier need be credited.
27 Kilcross Court
(01) 294 3459
Mobile: 086 340 7802
email: [log in to unmask]
> From: joe hobbs <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: John Bull's other Island. Long but funny.Slipstreaming etc
> By the way, I always assumed that the names appearing after a bird in the IBR
> (and other reports) simply refer to those who submitted a record of the bird
> and not necessarily who found it. Apart from when a report is written up
> (usually a first record) there does not appear to be any specific means of
> identifying a finder from a report.