Hi All,
I thank Frank O'Connor for his reply (Sat, 14 May 2005 21:41:27 +0800) to my
initial posting on this
topic.
He has provided some interesting and useful extra information and a thoughtful
philosophical view on
the production of field guides and birdwatching in general.
In general terms, I accept and/or agree with much of what he says but there are
a few points I would
like to make.
Firstly, I did not say that "some new birders have [some confusion] about the
Little Wattlebird
complex".
I said: "It seems to me that quite a few birders (and not just the novices) are
confused over these
two species."
I deliberately avoided the reference to 'new' birders as it was the posting of
an image by an
experienced birder to a very worthwhile web-site which finally encouraged me to
comment as I did.
(From my own vague memories, 'new birders' are confused about all things
birding.)
A subsequent search also showed me that other experienced birders appear to be
making mistakes with
these species.
I accept Frank's comments regarding the type specimens, however, I don't think
this is really
relevant to my point, interesting though it is.
What seems to me to be relevant is the fact that Little and Western Wattlebirds
appear in HANZAB Vol
5 as separate species and therefore the split is officially accepted by the
body (Birds Australia)
which officially does that sort of thing in Australia.
In that case, the names (both common and scientific) and the distributions are
as described in
HANZAB Vol 5.
And, therefore, we, as responsible birders, should now follow that until things
(inevitably?) change
again.
I understand Frank's reasoning for why only one species was included in "The
new Atlas of Australian
Birds" but, he also says "If you accept the split, then it is a very simple
matter that all areas
shown in WA are for Western Wattlebird."
In that case, as the split appears to have been accepted some time well before
2004, adjustments
possibly could have been made to include the two species.
As a point of interest, Frank (and others) might be interested to know that an
experienced birder
posted a trip-report to Birding-Aus in 2002 in which he claims to have recorded
both Little and
Western Wattlebirds at Cheynes Beach.
An extract from the report reads "Other birds of interest at Cheynes Beach and
surrounding area
included Brown Quail, Little Wattlebird, Western Wattlebird, ........"
(I have not provided the name of the birder in the interest of preventing
possible embarrassment to
that person.)
This birder obviously was aware of the split as evidenced by the use of the
approved common names
but appears to be confused as to the distributions of the two species.
Perhaps the compliers of "The New Atlas of Australian Birds" were aware of such
confusion and opted
for the safe route.
That is not intended to be a criticism of "The Atlas" but it is an indicator of
the difficulties in
producing such a publication.
The situation pertaining to the publication of later/upgraded versions of field
guides is, no doubt,
as Frank describes and there is obviously a desire by each author to be at the
forefront of the
business.
With all the proposals for change and with all the evidence for new birds to be
added there must be
much tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth amongst authors, editors and
publishers as publication
deadlines approach!!
There certainly can be a problem with submitting photos of these species to a
web-site.
In one notable case the web-site does not recognise the name Western Wattlebird
but instead has the
two species separated as Little and Brush.
It appears that some photographers may be submitting their photos by simply
'clicking' on the common
name and not the scientific name.
This means that some photos are in the wrong folder.
In fact, based on location, most of the photos in the folder for Anthochaera
lunulata are really of
A. chrysoptera. (As of 16/05/2005)
I don't believe that it is acceptable that it is ok if images are submitted to
the wrong folder and
the correct identification then left up to the viewer.
I also believe it may not be wise to identify these species on eye colour;
HANZAB seems to indicate
that both species can have, at some time, a reddish-brown iris.
This particular eye colour has various descriptions.
I think there will be some very disturbed birders out there now that they have
been told they have
to conform to Christidis & Boles (1994) when submitting their totals to Tony
Palliser's website.
(For those interested, that C&B list is in the RAOU Monograph 2 I referred to
in my original
posting.)
As the latest field guides don't conform to C&B (1994) there may more confusion
now.
But as Frank says "It doesn't matter much for your 'list' either. Your list is
your own personal
list.".
Ok, but it should be a 'fair dinkum' list.
Frank says "If you are confused, then this is a simple matter to work out which is
which.".
Well, Frank, there is confusion and it is not just a matter of "Little
Wattlebirds in WA are either
Little Wattlebirds or Western Wattlebirds if you accept the split.".
Many birders are probably not aware of the new name for the Western Australian
species.
Many birders do not have access to HANZAB and do not think it is necessary (or
financially viable)
to update to the latest field guides every time a new one is published.
But the fact is, based on the latest accepted splits and lumps, field guides
more than a couple of
years old contain information which is now inaccurate.
How serious one should be towards one's birding is up to the individual,
however, the least any
birder should aim for is to be accurate with their identifications.
If birders are going to provide images for bird-identification databases then
those images should be
labelled and entered correctly.
If the image data bases do not contain the latest and most accurate species
list then the moderators
need to be advised.
I have done that in one particular case.
But, changing the data base is probably not a simple process and how to deal
with images from a past
era could be complicated.
These online image banks are a useful and easily accessed source of information
and it is desirable
that they be accurate and current.
It should be noted, of course, that not all of the species splits some people
desire have actually
been approved but this one appears to have been.
Please note: In promoting this discussion I have not intended to be critical of
any particular
person or entity; I simply wish to be helpful in bringing to other birders'
attention the facts as I
see them.
Cheers
Bob Inglis
Woody Point
Queensland
Australia
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
