In response to "John Penhallurick's"
< I do not understand how any sane person can split the Northern (sanfordi)
and Southern (epomophora) Royal Albatrosses when the Tamura-Nei cytochrome-b
distance between them is 0.0000.>
(What ever that means!)
"Ross Silcock" <> said:
< Issues of sanity aside, shouldn't biological considerations (as mentioned
by Double et al for other decisions) be at least as important as genetic
indications? If there is minimal or no gene flow between given populations
because of location or
timing of breeding, then these populations would be at worst incipient
species.>
But Ross, surely there has to be gene flow? According to the Onley &
Scofield 1970 there are hybrids at Taiaroa Heads and mixed Northern/Southern
pairs on Enderby Island. So where is the biological separation? Certainly
not location or timing of breeding.
Rather than incipient species, perhaps they're going the other way and
better regarded as converging taxa (the word 'species' is now almost
meaningless).
Unfortunately, it seems to me that there is at best a remote association
between modern 'taxonomy' and 'sanity'. Onley & Scofield 1970 would
recognise twenty (20) albatross 'species' for Australia, Christidis & Boles
just ten (10). Where is the consensus and therefore sanity there! So no
longer is it a matter of science and therefore a matter of fact but even
more so than it was traditionally, a matter of opinion.
Which brings me to the other point. Since these days splitting taxa is
politically influenced as it has serious implications for conservation, an
argument with which I have some sympathy (e.g. Helmeted/Yellow-tufted
Honeyeater in Victoria!) then let us take political association further and
apply it to what we count as Australia. Excluding Christmas Island from
Australia on biogeographical grounds as espoused by Peter Menkhorst
('Questions about Pizzey & Knight Edition 8', 14th August) and supported by
David Adams ('Biogeography', 20th August) is very dangerous. If you think
that the locals or the Indonesians would provide the same protection for
Abbott's Booby and the other Christmas Island indigenous birds (oh dear, I
nearly said species), you're wrong. The arguments for retaining and
embracing Cocos (Keeling) and Heard Island are similar. Regarding Macquarie
Island it is geologically loosely connected to Australia via Tasmania rather
than New Zealand by a succession of undersea ridges. So I say that Les
Christidis and Walter Boles do the right thing by producing one list which
covers Australia and its territories, land, seabed and water out to the 200
Nm exclusive economic zone. Australians are visiting our far-flung
territories with increasing frequency so any field guide omitting those
areas do us no favours and forgo the opportunity to tighten our claim on
these regions. Shame on you!
Mike Carter
30 Canadian Bay Road
Mount Eliza VIC 3930
Tel (03) 9787 7136
===============================
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:
===============================
|
