The Conowingo Gull and the Records Committee

Phil Davis (pdavis@ix.netcom.com)
Thu, 12 Feb 1998 18:26:08 -0500


The copy of this message that was logged onto Jack Siler's web site did not
include Harvey's imbedded message.  This is a retransmission.  Sorry to
take up
bandwidth to try and correct it.

Thx.  Phil


MD Osprey Subscribers:

The following statement is from Harvey Mudd, Chair of the MOS MD/DC Records
Committee.

Phil Davis


Date: Thu, 12 Feb 1998 14:32:46 -0500 
To: Phil Davis (home) 
From: "S. Harvey Mudd, MD" <shm@codon.nih.gov

All who see the postings to MD Osprey will by now be aware that currently
there
is a difference of opinion about the identity of an unusual gull that recently
frequented Conowingo Dam - some consider it to have been a Common Gull,
whereas
others consider it to have been a Ring-billed. At least a few postings have
also alluded in different ways to the role of the Maryland/District of
Columbia
Records Committee (MD/DCRC) in connection with this identification question. 

As the current chair of MD/DCRC, I am writing now to clarify how the
members of
MD/DCRC see our role in this matter. First, it is clear that at the moment we
have no official role whatsoever. At present, MD/DCRC has received no
report of
a recent sighting of a Common Gull. 

If, and when, we receive such a report it will be processed just as are all
reports: During an initial circulation each member will be asked to examine
the
evidence submitted and the relevant literature known to him or her. So that
initial opinions are formed independently, during that round members are free
to discuss these matters with anyone they choose except other current members.
Each member then submits a preliminary opinion on the identification and the
strength of the evidence which supports that opinion, together with a written
statement of the pros and cons of the tentative conclusion to which he or she
has come.  

Unless complete unanimity results from the first set of opinions, a report is
then recirculated, accompanied by the written opinions from the initial
circulation. Members reexamine the evidence in the light of the opinions of
other members, look at additional published material that may have been
brought
to their attention by others during the first circulation, and are encouraged
to discuss any aspects with other current members, or anyone else they
choose. 

At any time during the review process, the Committee may seek additional
evidence, examine specimens at the US Museum of Natural History or elsewhere,
and/or solicit opinions on the identification question at hand from
acknowledged experts either in the USA or abroad. 

These steps may be repeated through as many as four circulations until the
Committee arrives at a final decision that represents their best combined
opinion as to the identification.  

This complete process may require large amounts of both time and energy.
Committee members are quite prepared to find enough of each to permit them to
come to the most informed and solidly supported opinion of which they are
capable. 

Prior to commencement of the review process, and during it, members strive to
keep open minds until they the have reviewed, perhaps re-reviewed, all
relevant
evidence and background material. Any perception that a member has prejudged
the issue so as not to afford a report a fair hearing would be most
unfortunate, and, I believe based on personal participation in such reviews
during nine years, unjustified. Conversations with as many current members as
could be contacted during the past few days have assured me that all are
awaiting thorough examination of all of the evidence that may be forthcoming,
as well as a critical examination of the relevant background material, before
coming to any final decision about the Conowingo gull. 

Beyond any specific decision at which the Committee arrives, we strongly
consider that a very important function of MD/DCRC is to provide a centralized
repository in the Committee files for deposition of the deliberations of the
Committee and the totality of the evidence on which any decision is based.
Once
the review process has been completed, that material is, and will continue to
be, available to any interested person who wishes to learn from it, or to
inform himself or herself about the bases for any decision and perhaps to make
up his or her own mind about the identification in question. 

Finally, if significant new information bearing on the correctness of a prior
Committee decision is ever brought to the attention of the Committee by any
person, the decision in question may be revisited by repetition of the review
process outlined above. 

If anyone has questions about these procedures, or wishes to suggest ways in
which they can be improved, we would, of course, be pleased to hear from you. 

 Harvey Mudd, Chair, MD/DCRC 

 

____________________________________ 

S. Harvey Mudd 
NIMH/DIRP/LMB Building 36, Room 2D-15 36 
CONVENT DR MSC 4070 BETHESDA MD 20892-4070 
tel: 301-496-0681; fax 301-402-0245 
email: shm@codon.nih.gov 





------------------------------------------------------------
Phil Davis

home:	PDavis@ix.netcom.com	Davidsonville, Maryland, USA
work:	PDavis@OAO.com		Greenbelt,     Maryland, USA
------------------------------------------------------------