I would hope this isn't a big deal to most reading the Maine list. It is unfortunate that some are bothered by the use of the codes and that others are equally upset at those complaining. I've used these codes since the 1970s when they first became widespread and established. There has always been good humor and joking about them, believe me. I sympathize with both positions.
Some background
In 1978, Kathy Klimkiewicz and Chan Robbins proposed a set of abbreviations to aid banders in recording birds. The intent was to develop a standard shorthand that would speed recording on forms and data processing. The rules for the abbreviations were simple, and this made it easy to use even if one had not memorized the list of codes. While this was intended for banders, many of us learned we could jot down species in our notes a lot faster by using these codes; so the idea spread. In 2003, Peter Pyle and Dave DeSante refined and expanded the rules and codes to cover all species in North America, and that's where we are today.
What are the codes for?
The codes are intended for notes, forms, and data processing, i.e. they are meant for communication to a piece of paper or a computer. The "audience" is not another human (except data processor). The originators admonished against this, saying they are strictly for the convenience of banders in their own records and should never be used as a substitute for common or scientific names. As Kirk noted, there's an app for that now, and one doesn't need to memorize the codes. Sure, among a group of peers all versed in them, it's fine to use the codes. For most people, however, the codes simply don't register quickly; even shortened and botched common names work better. The codes do make writing more compact, and the Crossley guide employed them for that purpose, to save space in text. For the other reason, texting alert services with limited characters allowed, the current generation of smartphones have obviated the need for such brevity.
The banding lab says this: "The alpha codes provided here are required for reporting bandings to the Bird Banding Laboratory in Bandit (preferred) or Band manager [these are both computer applications]. They are not required or recommended for any other purpose (source:
http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbl/manual/bandsize.cfm)
Rapid recognition
Consider your audience. If someone has to look up a code to figure out what's being discussed, then I think we've failed to communicate clearly and quickly. One might think that everyone should know the codes and know where to look them up, but that's not very considerate of all readers. It's simply better to write out a bird name. But if someone does use them, there should be no worries. An example might be, subject line "Townsend's [or Toownsends!] Solitaire" and text that reads "TOSO Hermit Island." Nobody needs to do that. And really, if the name is spelled out in the subject line, then all one needs is "Hermit Island" in the text. The code is superfluous and redundant. Most instances I read in list messages are this sort of one-off translation.
Learning and using the codes
The original rules were fantastically easy to learn and apply. The subsequent Pyle and DeSante rules while important for computer coding, are maybe too complex. (I link to both set of rules below.) If one wants to speed up notetaking, then learn the simple set of rules and go! Put pen or pencil to paper and don't care about being exact. Unless you get a job at a banding station, don't worry about potentially conflicting codes, ones that would be the same for two or more species, or learning every nuanced resolution. The context of their use is almost always unambiguous. If not, add an extra letter or note. Done. For example, if the notebook has "flock of TRSW on the wires," TRUS me, the observer didn't mean Trumpeter Swans. (The orginal 1978 list resolved many identical codes, but not this one; life was simpler in those days.) If one writes HEGU in the East, then Heermann's Gull isn't meant (HERG vs. HEEG). If one writes YEWA here in Maine, anyone entering your notes later would surely know you meant Yellow Warbler and not Yellow Wagtail. Besides, since the wagtail was split, its now EYWA (Eastern Yellow Wagtail). This brings up another point, the codes change with the changing classification. It's never ending. And this last example involving Yellow Warbler is YWAR is not the answer.
Klimkiewicz, M. K., and C. S. Robbins. 1978. Standard abbreviations for common names of birds. North American Bird Bander 3(1):16-25.
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/nabb/v003n01/p0016-p0025.pdf
Pyle, P., and D. F. DeSante. 2003. Four-letter and six-letter alpha codes for birds recorded in the American Ornithologists' Union Check-list area. North American Bird Bander 28:64-79.
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/nabb/v028n02/p0064-p0079.pdf
see page 66 for rules
Good birding!
Louis Bevier
Fairfield
--
Maine birds mailing list
maine-birds@googlegroups.com
http://groups.google.com/group/maine-birds
https://sites.google.com/site/birding207
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Maine birds" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
maine-birds+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit
https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
