Re: Sibley and Ahlquist (long)

Subject: Re: Sibley and Ahlquist (long)
From: (Ronald Orenstein)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 1995 00:15:00 -0400
>I personally think that Sibley & Monroe is the best to date and prefer to 
>use that.  Don't forget that S & M supported the traditional 
>classification 80%.
>John Penhallurick
One of the best reasons to use Sibley-Monroe - regardless of what you think
of its taxonomy - is that (in its full form) it gives far more details than
any other recent list on various splits, lumps and other changes.  I have
found this extremely useful in sorting out (for example) the corresponding
modern allocation of various African birds I saw in 1966 and identified
using Mackworth-Praed and Grant (who had their own ideas about taxonomy).
Ronald I. Orenstein                           Phone: (905) 820-7886 (home)
International Wildlife Coalition              Fax/Modem: (905) 569-0116 (home)
Home: 1825 Shady Creek Court                  Messages: (416) 368-4661
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada L5L 3W2          Internet: 
Office: 130 Adelaide Street W., Suite 1940    
Toronto, Ontario Canada M5H 3P5             

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU