03-517 YELLOW WARBLER (Mangrove Warbler group), Marathon (Monroe). This species is not a review species. Committee voted unanimously to review report because of potential of future split of “Mangrove Warbler” out of Yellow Warbler complex. Written description submitted by one observer who saw the bird from rear and side only. Description incomplete (no view of breast). Head described as “red” (“red hood”), not rusty, or reddish-brown. Committee unable to distinguish between occurrence of possible member of the Mangrove Warbler (erithachorides) subspecies group and one from the Golden Warbler (petechia) group. There were other issues with the incomplete and oversimplified description. VOTE: 0 accept, 7 not accept. NOT ACCEPTED.

03-518 BLACK-FACED GRASSQUIT, Long Pine Key, ENP (Dade). Photos accompanied two descriptions. Committee examined specimens. Descriptions taken together diagnostic, but observers did not look beyond possible confusion with U.S. Passerina buntings. Identification not an issue, since photographs provided all the detail needed, confirmed by descriptions. Bird a subadult male. Mickey Wheeler will ask Larry Manfredi whether he has sound recordings for the FOSRC archives. No questions or reservations raised about natural origin. No information on popularity of species in aviculture/pet industry. Time of year suggests period when natural dispersal is expected. VOTE: 7 accept, 0 not accept. ACCEPTED.

03-519 BREWER’S SPARROW, Pensacola (Escambia). Detailed description by one observer. Bird observed by three people. No photographs. This species is not presently on the “Official State List of the Birds of Florida.” There was some issue about whether streaking was present on rump. Streaking on chest indicated bird probably a juvenile. Since immature Spizella sparrows are variable, there were issues about separation of observed bird from juveniles of other members of genus. Another key issue was lack of verifiable evidence on this sighting. VOTE: 0 accept, 7 not accept. NOT ACCEPTED.

03-520 SAY’S PHOEBE, Pensacola Beach (Escambia), photos. Descriptions by four people, and excellent photos submitted. Descriptions and photographs diagnostic. No unresolved issues. VOTE: 7 accept, 0 not accept. ACCEPTED.

03-521 AMERICAN TREE SPARROW, Pensacola Beach (Escambia), photos. Descriptions by three people, and excellent photos submitted. Descriptions and photographs diagnostic. No unresolved issues. VOTE: 7 accept, 0 not accept. ACCEPTED.

03-522 SAGE THRASHER, Ft. Walton Beach (Okaloosa). Description submitted by one person, no photographs. Bird observed by two people. Description did not mention color of tail corners – a critical identification feature – even thought observers were in a position to have noticed that. A good description so far as it went, but it was a non-narrative account that lacked persuasiveness, and that did not provide the sense of information from a timely, on-site record of observation. This is a relatively rare bird in Florida, so the Committee mostly chose to treat the report from the perspective of a very conservative stance. There was the feeling nevertheless that the identification was probably correct. The evidence was insufficient to confirm this without reservation. VOTE: 1 accept, 6 not accept. NOT ACCEPTED.

03-523 ROSS’S GOOSE, Melbourne (Brevard), photos. Photographs submitted together with a documentation form. Observer did not provide independent description of bird. Photographs excellent, diagnostic. All key features visible in photos. No reason to suspect hybrid origin for bird. VOTE: 7 accept, 0 not accept. ACCEPTED.

03-524 ROSS’S GOOSE, Ft. Walton Beach (Okaloosa), photos. One description and photographs submitted. Photographs and description diagnostic. All key features visible in photos, including a side-by-side comparison with Lesser Snow Goose. No reason to suspect hybrid origin of birds. VOTE: 7 accept, 0 not accept. ACCEPTED.

03-525 KIRTLAND’S WARBLER, Pensacola (Escambia), sighting. Sighting report by one observer, no other documentation. Panhandle location and inland site on migration (not directly on coast) unusual, which caused Committee to view report from conservative perspective. No mention of back streaking, or of tail pumping behavior. Bird was observed very closely for about 2 minutes, so these features should have been noticed, or otherwise commented on in the write-up. VOTE: 0 accept, 7 not accept. NOT ACCEPTED.

3. The committee evaluated the following unresolved and/or tabled reports to determine some specific action necessary for resolution:

03-504 WHITE-TIPPED DOVE, Garden Key, Dry Tortugas (Monroe), original photos plus two additional photographs submitted after July 2003 FOSRC meeting. Lengthy review of documentation, supported by available specimens of Leptotila verreauxi fulviventris (Yucatan subspecies of White-tipped Dove) and L. jamaicensis (Caribbean Dove) from the collections in the Florida Museum of Natural History. Caribbean Dove was thought to be the most likely alternative identification. The combination of visible characters on the photographs discounted other Leptotila doves. The two recently acquired photos showed a bird with a definite buffy tone on the posterior underparts. The observer that provided the description of the Dry Tortugas bird also remarked on its buffy abdomen. This character is not always present apparently – pale abdomen and flanks in some specimens. This feature when present may be taken as diagnostic of fulviventris among Leptotila doves. This is supported by descriptions by Robert Ridgway (1916: v. 50, pt. 7). However, the contradictory colors of the underparts in different photographs, coupled with white forehead and gray crown (thought not to be typical of fulviventris) caused doubts about the identification by most Committee members. A larger series of specimens may resolve issues concerning range of variation in head and underparts colors and patterns in fulviventris, but the Committee did not want to pursue this line of investigation. VOTE: 1 accept, 6 not accept. NOT ACCEPTED. There was at least equal uncertainty expressed relative to the alternative hypothesis of Caribbean Dove (no vote).

03-514 RED-BILLED TROPICBIRD, Destin Beach (Okaloosa). This report had been tabled pending receipt of a photograph. One photo was added to the file, and the report was again reviewed. Description and photograph diagnostic. No unresolved issues. VOTE: 7 accept, 0 reject. ACCEPTED.

91-222 VARIEGATED FLYCATCHER, Dry Tortugas (Monroe), seen 15 March 1991 and accepted by an earlier Committee as Variegated Flycatcher Empidonomus varius, a South American species. A key feature that supported the original identification was the conspicuous rusty tones on upper tail coverts and tail edges. However perceived bill size, an all dark bill, and fruit-eating habit caused some people (e.g., A. Kratter, J. V. Remsen) to re-identify the bird as Piratic Flycatcher (Legatus leucophaius) [also, see Check-list of North American Birds, seventh edition, 1998: 411]. Immature (juvenile) Piratic Flycatchers also exhibit rusty edging on the upper tail coverts and rectrix edges. The Committee reopened the original report, re-examined the slides, and looked at specimens of both species from the FLMNH collections. Characters supporting Piratic Flycatcher were smallish (bill-head length ratio from photos equivocal), all black bill and ventral streaking confined to the breast, well demarcated from clear (unstreaked) abdomen, and fruit-eating behavior. The bird appeared to be in fresh plumage, with adult-like forebody plumage. The rusty edging obvious caudally implied immature plumage. Thus, the bird appeared to be wearing a mosaic feather coat of two plumages that nobody on the Committee could account for. The key character that resolved the issue in the minds of Committee members was the distribution of emarginated (notched) outer primaries reported in the literature between the two genera in question. Specimens available to us supported the view that Legatus has entire, non-emarginated outer primaries, while Empidonomus has distinctly emarginated outer primaries. One slide of the Dry Tortugas showed the bird with a partly fanned outer wing that clearly revealed an entire (non-emarginated) outer primary (P10 or 9). Vote, Variegated Flycatcher hypothesis: 0 accept, 7 not accept. Variegated Flycatcher identification NOT ACCEPTED. Vote, Piratic Flycatcher hypothesis: 7 accept, 0 reject [One committee member later expressed reservations about his vote, because of the above mentioned issue on the rusty edges in the bird’s plumage]. Piratic Flycatcher identification ACCEPTED.

4. The committee considered the following information about Florida birds:

a) House Crow (Corvus splendens), report of breeding pair, Nokomis Beach (Sarasota), May 2003 (North American Birds 57(3): 338, 2003), photo. This is an Indian, human commensal species that has a well-known record of ship-assisted dispersal, mainly throughout the Old World. The Committee chose to regard this as just another Exotic species here in Florida. The Committee asked the Secretary to encourage the original observer to publish the information on this species in the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., FFN).

Based on the above actions of the committee, the following changes were made to the Official State List.

Species added to the state and review list

Piratic Flycatcher

Species removed from the state list

Variagated Flycatcher

5. Secretary Bowman submitted a draft of the 14^th Report of the FOSRC to the committee for review. Members reviewed the report, it was subsequently edited, and was submitted to the editor of the Florida Field Naturalist for publication. The report covers actions of the committee for the years 2001 and 2002. A draft of the 15^th report, covering 2003 is in preparation.

6. The following subcommittee reports were submitted and discussed:

a) EXOTICS SUBCOMMITTEE. The “Exotics Subcommittee” was convened. Committee members were J. Greenlaw, A. Kratter, and F. Lohrer. Other people attending were S. Jue, M. Wheeler, and G. E. Woolfenden (visitor). The mandate of the subcommittee was to re-examine the FOSRC’s criteria for accepting the proposition that any feral, exotic bird has become established in Florida and should be added to the Official List of Florida Birds. We reviewed the current FOSRC criteria, and examined the criteria applied by the AOU, ABA, and California Records Committee, and that used by Robertson and Woolfenden (R &W) in their 1992 book on Florida birds. The discussion included remarks about the general nature of criteria applied to the issue of exotic species establishment by major ornithological organizations. We expressed the view that the Florida and California records committees appear to be leaders in tracking and evalutating feral, non-native birds. In this context, the subcommittee recommended that the current criteria applied by the FOSRC be revised, under the following guidelines: that a two-tiered set of rules be preserved (in a few species, a time criterion in conjunction with rapid increases in abundance and expansion of range to be recognized as a special case, versus a published report on other species to be considered after some prescribed minimum time that is also flexible in allowing a longer time criterion for some problematic species), and that the language be streamlined and made more operational. J. Greenlaw will prepare a draft of revised criteria that will be circulated first to subcommittee members, and then offered as a proposal to the full Committee.

b) ARCHIVES SUBCOMMITTEE. The “Archives Subcommittee” was convened. Committee members were R. Bowman (not in attendance), F. Lohrer, A. Kratter, M. Wheeler. Other people attending were J. Greenlaw, S. Jue, and G. E. Woolfenden (visitor). The mandate of this subcommittee was to consider the issue of preserving Committee records long-term, and ultimately to publish on our website some document on conclusions reached and to adopt its recommendations. Lohrer reviewed recommendations made by Bowman and discussed issues on archiving paper, photographic, and video documentation, all of which are represented in the FOSRC archives stored in the Ornithology Department, FLMNH. Archiving of non-digital material is now standard procedure for libraries and other records depositories. Procedures and technologies for preserving digital records are constantly changing and need monitoring. Paper documentation should be stored in acid-free folders. All paper documents should be copied onto acid-free papers, which are now readily available. Audio and video records, and photographs, should be digitized and preserved on DVDs, now the best available technology. In this case, the issue of best available technology needs to be reviewed, perhaps every ten years or less, and the documentation files upgraded as necessary. We examined the FOSRC Archives in the museum. The committee will adopt formal procedures for archiving materials that will eventually be formalized by incorporation into the Rules and Procedures of the committee.

7. FOSRC web pages. The Committee agreed that the FOSRC web pages should be upgraded and enlarged to better reflect its deliberations in a more timely fashion. More of the photographic evidence on new records accepted by the Committee should be available on the FOS Website, under an FOSRC link. Committee reports and minutes should be available on the website as well. Also, parenthetically, greater emphasis needs to be placed on publishing especially important new records of Florida birds in FFN. The Committee’s web pages should remain on the FOS Website as its natural “home.”

8. NEW BUSINESS Mickey Wheeler, as a follow-up to a statement in R & W on the status of Alder and Willow (“Traill’s”) flycatchers in Florida, suggested that the Committee seek additional vocal documentation on their occurrence in the state. These birds sometimes do call, occasionally even sing, during passage through the state. The motion was made that we add these two species to the Review List of Florida Bird Species. This motion was discussed and passed unanimously. These flycatchers should now be asterisked on the Official List of Florida Birds as a review species, with the footnote that the FOSRC will accept only reports that include tape recordings, or video recordings on which vocalizations also are preserved. Other issues touched on were (1) the importance of timely communication between the FOSRC and people submitting reports for review, and (2) the need to keep the species review list current. The last depends on completing the effort to transfer records from a hand-written log book into an electronic database, so that numbers of reports previously accepted on particular species can be easily summarized. This work is in progress; all reports up through 1999 have been entered into an electronic database.

Respectfully submitted,

Reed Bowman

Secretary, FOSRC