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 ------------------------------------------------------------