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]