In addition to the resources mentioned by Kimball, a complete lists of
CBRC records (accepted, rejected, etc.) through Jan 1997 is available
right now on Joe Morlan's site. It will have the date of all the older
records of interest. It is at
As to the "supplemental" list, it is possible that the current CBRC is
approaching the issue differently. When I was Secretary (late 1980s),
even the "supplemental" list was a record-driven list. The Committee was
set up to deal with records, not amorphous concepts. It was possible to
determine, at least at that time, which record(s) warranted placement of
a species on the "supplemental" list. This was most obvious in the case
of Crested Caracara, where the species was placed on the "supplemental"
list back then on the basis of a Mono basin record, and not on the basis
of a variety of other old records, including a fair number of reports in
coastal ports that were thought to be ship-assisted. It had always been
my understanding that Gray Silky-Flycatcher was on the "supplemental"
list solely on the basis of the montane bird in Orange County, and not
any of the more questionably wild coastal plain reports, but it may be
that the current Committee takes a different approach. Yet I would have
answered Thomas's question "is the silky-flycatcher on the supplemental
list because of the Orange County bird" with a firm "yes."
former CBRC secretary/member