DNA analysis would answer a lot of questions about the fig-parrot
complex
... providing material for analysis is available. And it would
bring us to
the question of phylogenetic species v. biological species.
Schodde & Mason, in their "Directory of Australian Birds - Passerines"
introduction, (para (4) on page 2), contrast biological species and
phylogenetic species concepts, biological being what we have now.
And they
reckon adoption of phylogenetic (desirable though this may be)
would "bring
a degree of chaos to conventional classification of the Australian
avifauna". They continue:
"This comes not so much from a dearth of robust phylogenies
(Christidis
& Boles 1994) as from its effect in raising most present subspecies
to the
level of species, almost doubling the size of the fauna at species
level.
And all 'species' would have to be re-circumscribed according to new
criteria. Administrative consequences, in government and the
legislature a
well as biology, would be daunting."
But if our Australian society is ever to be really serious about
conserving
biodiversity, phylogenetic 'species' surely are what we must seek to
conserve?
Cheers.
Syd
["Almost doubling the size of the fauna at species level" - do I
hear all
you twitchers, cheering?]
===============================
www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
===============================
