I've been re-reading Bill Oddie's landmark book on birding (Bill Oddie's Little Black Bird Book, 1980) and those who've read it will recognize the title of this piece as being lifted from one of his chapters.
Oddie speculates on a "ficticious" encounter in the fields of Cornwall. A small brown bird is poking around in the wet grass. The details gathered are vague and could be something common like a Skylark or something rare like a Richard's Pipit. The observer commits to the Richards' Pipit, but as more information comes in from other observers, it becomes clear that he cannot support the conclusion on the data he has. He's probably made an identification error.
Oddie describes the techniques for creating a cover-up and those of us who've been around a while will easily recognize the techniques (heck some of us have actually applied them).
1. The two bird theory - the bird I saw is not the bird everyone else saw. I still cling to this theory regarding an Eastern Phoebe I saw at Sage Hen Hill back in the mid-90's. I saw the bird I saw a full day before anyone else (I was on my way back to Bend. It took me at least 4 hours to get to a phone). The bird seen by everyone else the next day was conclusively shown to be a brightly marked Willow Flycatcher.
2. The aberrant bird theory - I was justifiably mistaken because the bird, though common, was funny looking. Those paying attention will recognize the moderately successful application of this theory just last week with a certain non-Scissor-tailed Flycatcher.
3. The hybrid theory - Some might be tempted to place this in the aberrant category, but it deserves to be separated. If properly mounted, the hybrid theory may let the oberver claim they were at least half right. It looks the way it looks because it's carrying some genetic material from the rare species from the original identification. Unfortunately the hybrid theory also reeks most of desperation. If it's not obviously a hybrid at first glance, then it's almost impossible to prove that it's a hybrid. There's no resolution.
Resolution is something most birders crave. We have an irrational need to name everything and once committed to an ID, it can be hard to give up. Egos are involved, self-esteem, testosterone. Giving up an ID, especially to a peer group that's watching, and almost certainly knows you've messed up, can be emotionally traumatic and though it certainly does not rise to the level of losing a loved one, some people behave as if it is....
The five stages of misidentification syndrome:
1. Denial (I couldn't possibly have got it wrong)
2. Anger (why won't the all those snobby elitists believe me?)
3. Bargaining (maybe it was an aberrant or hybrid)
4. Depression (no one will ever trust me with a rare bird report again)
5. Acceptance (I think I'll go birding somewhere)
Now I know what some of you are going to say...
Sometimes it is a second bird. Sometimes it is an aberrant. Sometimes it is a [cough] hybrid.
To which I reply: And sometimes it's an ID mistake.
The burden of proof is on the observer, not the skeptics. If I can't demonstrate that it's a second bird or an abberant or a [cough] hybrid than I need to let go, at least publicly. The need to put a name on everything is irrational. The need to always be right is irrational.
Let it go.
Posted by mbalame at September 7, 2006 10:03 PM