Date: 2/8/26 3:23 pm From: 'Tony Leukering' via Colorado Birds <cobirds...> Subject: [cobirds] Re: Appropriate use of tools, including "technology", when identifying birds?
All:
Appropriate technology is all fine and good, but I'd like to make two
points. Many eBirders (including me) use Merlin to detect birds for eBird
checklists. However, its use to generate date for eBird checklists has two
problems.
1 -- The first is that some eBirders start a checklist, open Merlin, let it
run, and enter the species Merlin detects into the eBird checklist.
However, Merlin CANNOT discern the number of different individuals
vocalizing; it can only note the species it "believes" it detects. If an
eBirder does this, all species detected ONLY by Merlin should be entered
with 'X" for the number (but see problem #2).
2 -- The Cornell Lab, both the Merlin and eBird aspects, cautions observers
*NOT* to enter data generated solely by Merlin. The rule is that one must
personally identify the individual(s), typically through visual ID. Merlin
is *very* far from foolproof, and certain species or combos of species
cause it extreme difficulty, often identifying vocalizing birds
INCORRECTLY. Chief among these species in my own experience -- but
certainly nowhere near all of them -- are the three species of "Solitary
Vireo" (Blue-headed, Plumbeous, and Cassin's) and Green-tailed Towhee
versus Fox Sparrow, in which case it generally defaults to Fox Sparrow,
because it cannot see that your phone is in a sea of sage shrubland. Again,
these species are *not* the only ones that cause Merlin problems.
This spring/summer, we may find out how well it does at distinguishing
between the two species of Warbling Vireo.
Finally, I have encountered eBird photos misidentified as species, with
those identifications that the observer stated were made by Merlin. In
fact, the impetus for me finally responding to this thread was a photo I
ran across today in eBird of what seemed to me to be an obvious molting
Forster's Tern that Merlin had identified as a Common Tern... so the
observer submitted it as such, despite the obvious pale outer primaries.
And the above points out the primary problem with using "appropriate
technology" on science-based surveys: Those technologies are still not as
good as a skilled AND experienced birder.
Sincerely,
Tony Leukering
Denver
On Friday, February 6, 2026 at 6:09:09 PM UTC-7 Kevin Schutz wrote:
> Hello CoBirds Community,
>
> Today's post by Bill Kosar and subsequent responses prompted me to start
> the following discussion.
>
> First, some background. We all hear and read of the risks and appeals of
> not relying upon common technology in popular use today - Merlin, etc. In
> the past, I've been forthright in admitting some of my identification
> limitations when inquiring about participation with various surveys and
> describing how I use multiple tools to (personally) learn and narrow on any
> reported identifications I may make. As such, I have been declined for
> participation - no technology allowed, etc. That's fine as I know the
> intent is to provide (reasonably) accurate data for various scientific
> purposes. What I've found curious is reading subsequent posts from other
> participants for the same surveys indicating their use of technology.
> Argh!! - so some routes potentially went uncovered. We know of examples of
> published experts/authors of books covering their "big year" efforts and
> garnering numerous speaking engagements afterwards that use technology such
> as frequency shifting headphones to assist them with identification while
> birding.
>
> I admit confusion, especially in the context of mixed inputs pleading for
> more data reporting juxtaposed against pleas and warnings that at times
> feel more like one is receiving a "thou shalt not" style sermon. When is
> technology use appropriate when recording an identification? Does use of
> technology depend on specific surveys/records/databases? What constitutes
> "technology" and how is technology defined? Does technology include sound
> amplification headphones, recordings that can be compared post observation
> at a later time against vetted libraries, optics, photography, electronic
> or printed guide books? Even consultation to more experienced birders
> relies upon some form of technology (vocalizations, photographic
> confirmation, etc.). All of the examples listed above could be
> characterized as "technology" in the context of humankind, and in some
> cases would seem to be dismissed out-of-hand.
>
> Today, within eBird, when one submit a checklist, one is asked "Are you
> submitting a complete checklist of the birds you were able to identify?"
> I think eBIrd used to ask something along the lines of "... to the best of
> your ability", but I can't attest to that with certainty. I've always
> adopted the philosophy that I would record identifications to the best of
> my ability, which includes the use of various forms of technology to assist
> me with a confident identification.
>
> What are the current, best practices deemed acceptable today for bird
> identification? Should technology use be context specific (eBird database,
> bird surveys, other...)? While database corruption is and always will be a
> concern, are we artificially limiting community science resources over such
> concerns? Humans will always be fallible. When technology limitations are
> appropriate, how much cheating is likely occurring? Are we at a point
> where we are past being able to use an honor system, of relying upon one's
> best abilities? When some form of technology has been used to assist with
> an identification, is it incumbent to disclose all forms of technology used
> (optics, photography, recordings, various forms of guidebooks, applications
> such as Merlin, various AI applications)?
>
> I am sincerely interested in understanding the breadth of views present.
> I may find myself having to reconsider my philosophy of using "my best
> ability" as no longer being appropriate.
>
> I hope this post results in a respectful, thoughtful discussion.
>
> KS
> El Paso County
>
>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To post to this group, send email to <cobirds...>
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/cobirds * All posts should be signed with the poster's full name and city. Include bird species and location in the subject line when appropriate.
* Join Colorado Field Ornithologists https://cobirds.org/membership/ ---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Colorado Birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to cobirds+<unsubscribe...>
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/cobirds/<6a3e2ca5-31c9-40d2-9a3c-87938ac45380n...>
