Common Koel - What's in a name

[Tom Tarrant <>]

Hi David,

Isn't the Birds of Wallacea by Coates & Bishop also relevant
literature? 

As I'm someone who doesn't really have the qualifications to make
judgements I would really welcome some input from the taxonomists,
giving their reasons why they don't consider these changes. I don't
consider myself as a 'ticker' and I'm not searching for new birds for
my list but just interested in the rationale behind keeping species
'lumped' which are, to my eyes (....and ears!) obviously different.

Have you any idea how C & B will deal with Little Bittern,
Clamorous Reed-Warbler and Richard's Pipit?

Surely our 'Little' Bittern is not the same species as that found in
Eurasia and Africa, and if anyone claims that our 'Clamorous'
Reed-Warbler is the same species as that found in Asia then (to me) it
would seem that they don't have much experience of this bird outside of
Australia. 

I would find it very difficult to put much faith in their decisions if
they keep the same classifications despite plenty of 'overseas'
evidence to the contrary.

Looking forward to hearing your views on the subject.

Tom Tarrant


David James wrote:

It is unlikely that the next edition of the Australian Checklist will split Koels. The philosophy of C&B 1994, which is likely to be upheld in the next edition, was only to change the status quo if sound and logical arguments IN THE LITERATURE backed with data, supported the change (be it lumping or splitting). As far as I'm aware,  there are no such publications relevent to Koels. The fact that Sibley & Munroe and White & Bruce etc split Koels chganges little because they did not present compelling arguments as to why they did so. 

 

Tom Tarrant 
********************************************************
Tom & Marie Tarrant
Samsonvale, Queensland 4520
Australia

Email: m("hotkey.net.au","aviceda");">
URL: http://www.aviceda.org/
     http://www.hotkey.net.au/~aviceda   
*********************************************************