Saturday, October 1, 2011

Recognition and Identification

I've been thinking quite a bit, lately, about how birders identify birds. Well, actually, by "lately" I mean the past few years--but more so in recent months.

Two blogs discussed this topic in June. A post by Blake Mathys on the ABA blog (How do we identify birds?) and by Ann Nightingale and Dave Irons on the BirdFellow blog (The Recognition vs. Identification Gap) provide an introduction to this topic.

My thoughts ponder the following types of questions.

Why can one person accurately identify a distant and poorly-glimpsed bird, while the person next to him, with the same view and apparently equal field experience and desire to identify birds, has no idea what the bird might have been?

Everyone does it; it's not just beginners who misidentify birds. Why do some experienced birders, who know all the correct field marks, sometimes badly misidentify a common and well-seen bird?

Why does a bird photo sent to the local bird discussion list generate so many diverse (and strongly held) opinions about what it is--even though it is unambiguously identifiable?

I think the answer to these questions comes down to two different reasons.

One reason is that some birders recognize birds based on clues in addition to the standard "field marks" listed in the book. Besides the plumage description (color pattern, wingbars, etc.) in the field guide, each bird comes with a certain shape, a set of behaviors, a certain habitat and specific niche within that habitat. Flying birds have a characteristic flight pattern. And most birds are not silent. And we're seeing them on a certain date, a specific season or time period during the year. (Birds in photos lack these supporting additional clues, thus why they sometimes fool even the best birders.)

Of course, each birder brings with them their own unique set of experiences with the birds they've seen in the past. Certainly, the more time in the field each birder has, the more opportunity they have to form patterns of bird recognition. Thus, to get better at bird ID, spend more time watching birds. (Duh.)

But to a large degree, shape, habitat, niche, behaviors, flight style, songs and calls, and status and distribution can be precisely described--they aren't totally subjective. They can be taught and can be learned--even without direct field experience with the bird under consideration. [See the series of posts: Seven methods of identifying birds.]

Oh, and the second reason some birders have trouble getting to the "advanced" level (meaning quickly and accurately identifying nearly every bird they see)? A future post ("Advanced birding means learning the basics") discusses this.

5 comments:

  1. This is a topic I have dwelt on a lot too. http://www.birdingisfun.com/2011/05/recognizing-vs-identifying-birds.html

    After reading Kenn Kaufman's Field Guide to Advanced Birding, I realized that it was really getting one back to the basics...but at a level that only people who want to be great at identifying birds in the field would be interested in. One can enjoy birding in so many different ways, but being able to quickly and easily "recognize" the greatest amount of species in the field is something that I personally enjoy and aspire to. Its not for everyone, but we all tend to instinctively "rank" other birders by their ability to identify and recognize birds in the field.

    I think "recognizing" bids comes down to consistency in the field and length of experience.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, 'recognize' is a good word to use. 'shape' and 'behaviour' = posture. For example, just looking at overall colour and colour pattern, some people could confuse a dark photo of a Hammond's Flycatcher with an Orange-crowned Warbler but recognition and experience would tell one the bird was sitting too upright with neck scrunched down for it to be a warbler.

    Recognizing posture becomes so innate, experienced birders can hardly describe it. Like recognizing a friend from the back just by how they are sitting.

    I also use 'cuteness'! A Lesser Yellowlegs is cuter than a Greater because of its proportionally smaller head. And 'beauty'. A pintail's proportions and colour hues in eclipse and the female are more beautiful than other ducks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Robert, I think I may have forgotten your post... or rather, I read it and was thinking about it subliminally when these other posts came out. I know there have been a couple other blog posts on this topic recently, too.

    Dianne, I don't mind the labels cute or beautiful, but I've been really trying to pay attention to exactly what the shapes are that bring these labels to mind. If I can describe the shapes exactly, I can communicate these differences to others.

    "Recognition," as Robert uses it in his post, goes on in a split-second, and often unconsciously. I try to figure out exactly "why I know what I know." It's hard!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oh, by the way, the second part of this identification versus recognition discussion, "Advanced birding means learning the basics," is scheduled for next month, November 1. Stay tuned!

    ReplyDelete
  5. A very advanced birder who is a friend of mine and has been birding for 60+ years frequently uses the term "gestalt", which describes all of the factors that you mention above. What it comes down to though is that his internal birding "computer" is more advanced than mine, has a faster processor and a bigger hard drive. He has built an impressive "computer" over time. I hope to have one like his someday.

    ReplyDelete