May 30, 1988 Large-billed Tern photographed at Kearny Marsh, Hudson County.  https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/nab/v043n05/p01275-p01276.pdf

Larry Scacchetti
Montvale, NJ
;)

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jan 30, 2018, at 4:29 PM, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I'm sure that, besides the lack of captivity issue and the seasonal movements in SA issue, there must have been persuasive field notes... There are several other species on the Ohio state list for which there is no photo or specimen.  Or for which there was no photo or specimen for the first accepted record.  One that comes immediately to mind is Baird's Sparrow.  I'd have to look through my Peterjohn to find the others...
> Carlton SchooleyStrasburg (Tuscarawas)
> 
> 
>    On Tuesday, January 30, 2018, 3:43:31 PM EST, Bill Whan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  
> 
> I have always been troubled with the acceptance of the Large-billed Tern
> to the Ohio list. There is no specimen, no photograph, and no
> precedence. It was reported seen by three observers on a sandbar in
> Mahoning County on 29 May 1954. It was said to have been the second
> appearance of this species in North America (the other was from 1949 in
> Illinois); I am taking this information from "The Birds of Ohio" and
> there have been other reports I haven't seen). Reported supports of the
> ID were that the species was unknown in captivity and its appearance
> corresponds with its seasonal movements in south America (all data from
> Peterjohn, "The Birds of Ohio." p. 250).
>         Lots of birders' reports of far less rare species are rejected
> for lack of a photo or a specimen, yet this occurrence seems to have
> been accepted. The Birds of Ohio states that large-billed tern reports
> here have been questioned, while this occurrence was accepted because
> the species is "unknown in captivity and its appearance in Ohio
> correspondences with its seasonal movements in South America." The
> occurrence lacks hard evidence and I wonder why this far-fetched
> appearance, lacking persuasive evidence, is still regarded as
> legitimate. If there a better set of hard evidence, where is it? Why has
> it been accepted to the Ohio list, when others with just as
> unlikely have been laughed off?
> Bill Whan
> Columbus
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
> Please consider joining our Society, at www.ohiobirds.org/site/membership.php.
> Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.
> 
> 
> You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
> listserv.miamioh.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
> Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]
> 
> 
> ______________________________________________________________________
> 
> Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
> Please consider joining our Society, at www.ohiobirds.org/site/membership.php.
> Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.
> 
> 
> You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
> listserv.miamioh.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
> Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]

______________________________________________________________________

Ohio-birds mailing list, a service of the Ohio Ornithological Society.
Please consider joining our Society, at www.ohiobirds.org/site/membership.php.
Our thanks to Miami University for hosting this mailing list.


You can join or leave the list, or change your options, at:
listserv.miamioh.edu/scripts/wa.exe?LIST=OHIO-BIRDS
Send questions or comments about the list to: [log in to unmask]