It matters to some people how big your list is. To others it doesn't.
I do think it's a bit of a savage restriction though!
I have been birding for two years and my life list is 131 species.
I am thinking of restarting my life list, and here's why:
I went to see a White-winged Black Tern at Staines Reservoir a couple of days ago. I didn't get a change to do any research before I went there, and forgot to take my book. I assumed that this bird would look markedly different from Black Tern.
Last night I checked the diagnostic features of White-winged Black Tern and the 2S bird I saw, and I can't say that I noticed these diagnostic features.
So while I know that the bird I saw was a White-winged Black Tern, I didn't personally identify it as such. This makes me want to untick the bird.
What this has made me realise is that, for me, a tick is a species that I have ID'd, not seeing a bird that I am, however reliably, informed is X.
This lead to a question: how many other species have I seen where I did not personally and satisfactorily view the diagnostic features that separate that species from similar ones? I can't reliably answer that question.
So I am going to restart my life list, and I think this process will re-enforce things I have previously learnt (and possibly forgotten) and probably learn new things in doing so.
But I wonder what other people think of this? Do you tick a bird on being 'reliably informed' (for example, someone else's photographic evidence) or do you need to 'see for yourself'?
I know how you feel and I suggest you learn from this experience. I did, many years ago, and came to the conclusion that taking extensive notes on the spot is essential. Carrying a fieldguide does not, in my view, help a great deal. In fact, I think it's a downright disadvantage as you can spend more time looking at the book than the bird! Train yourself to take notes on all aspects of plumage and appearance (size compared to a similar-sized bird with which you are famiiliar, bill shape, colour, leg colour, etc), movement, voice, habitat (even down to "how far up a tree") and general jizz. When you've done that you can compare to the fieldguide - inevitably this can be frustrating in the early days as your fieldguide will point out some point about the appearance that you didn't note. But keep at it and experience will pay off.
I rarely take a fieldguide with me when I go birding in familiar avian territory (which means much of western Europe). I'll take the notes and wait until I get home or back to the hotel. Even in unfamiliar parts of the world where I'm likely to be seeing species I've never seen before I'll still make the notes in the same way. The only difference here is that the fieldguide will be in the car so I can check a bit quicker and, if needs be, I may be able to go back for a second look.
As to whether or not you count a species on the basis of somebody pointing out a "new" bird - well that's down to how well you know, and trust, the individual. If I was with someone I knew and respected for their knowledge of the area I was in then I think it's reasonable to "tick". But even then you should still take the notes for comparison with fieldguides and other resources.
Whether you restart your list is up to you - if you do, at least you'll get plenty of "lifers" over the next few months! But this does seem a bit dramatic. Perhaps you can compromise by deleting those for which you are not 100% sure.
These are my quick reactions that I hope may help or, at least, give you further food for thought.
Good birding
David
It's your list, your rules.
It matters to some people how big your list is. To others it doesn't.
I do think it's a bit of a savage restriction though!