> But at least they look like shorebirds should. I have no argument with
> them being included, if that's what the DNA says, only that it seems odd
> to the uninitiated (me) to include them. I would have expected a tiny
> explanation about why they included it.
I don't have my copy handy; is there anything in the introduction
discussing the order Charadriiformes, and why other members of the
order e.g. gulls aren't included in the book?
My understanding is that "waders"/"shorebirds" is a label of
convenience for members of the order Charadriiformes, except
the suborders (gulls, terns etc.) usually referred to as
"seabirds", so Plains Wanderer and buttonquails are "shorebirds".
(I don't know if BQs were included in the book - it would have
been interesting if they had.)
It doesn't matter whether or not a particular "shorebird" wades
or lives on the shore - that isn't the point. Lorikeets eat
nectar, but that doesn't make them "honeyeaters".
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Paul Taylor Veni, vidi, tici -
I came, I saw, I ticked.
===============================
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:
===============================
|
