|The date should read 5th May 2006|
I will now back track to 2006 and a bird that Don Wilkes had found at Minster SF - all the indications were that it was a hybrid Chiffchaff x Willow Warbler. I managed to get a very inconclusive, digiscoped image, but the primary projection does look a little too long for, nominate, Chiffchaff? It was four years later that I discovered a "mixed singer" Phylloscopus warbler in almost the same place. This time I had my EOS and 500 mm lens so was able to get some better images - still no better off, the parentage of this bird very unclear.
So here's the crux of my post! Does it really matter, so much, that I "have to know what it is?" If I was able to follow the example of some fellow naturalists - those manic souls whose devotion to listing our natural world allows for "token" specimens - surely I would be within the spirit of Pan-listing to have shot these birds in the name of data integrity - after all no-one can argue with a DNA sample. If it's not OK to kill a bird for a tick then why is it acceptable to kill insects, just for an Excel spreadsheet entry? All the time that Pan-listers are unable to id live specimens - they are a laughing stock - lost in some Victorian back water where collecting was par for the course and exactly why I cannot find any common ground or empathy. The whole, competitive, concept stinks - push yourself as far as you dare - just don't turn it into a sport, it encourages cheating!