Funny though, with talk of cryptospecies etc. around, I recall the paper
which had race nigrescens of crimson as more genetically distinct than the
Yellow/Adelaide forms.
Cas
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Dave Torr
Sent: Wednesday, 23 January 2008 7:27 AM
To: L&L Knight
Cc: birding aus
Subject: ROSELLA TAXONOMY
True - I think they all do and in the case of Rosellas that would be pretty
easy - although whether the software could do it for you or just tell you
that you have a problem and you need to fix it is debatable. The real
problem is splits where the ranges overlap - not sure if this is ever a real
problem though?
On 23/01/2008, L&L Knight <> wrote:
>
> Well, the geographically based splits would be easier to resolve if
> the systems recognise location.
>
> On 23/01/2008, at 6:09 AM, Dave Torr wrote:
>
> > I wonder when the major birding software systems will be updated for
> > the new C&B - and how they cope with lumps (which are easy to
> > handle) and splits (which are difficult unless the software allowed
> > for you to record subspecies, which none of the ones I have looked
> > at did).
> >
> > On 22/01/2008, Andrew Wood <> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> In answer to Steve's question, in the new C&B Northern, Western and
> >> Eastern Rosella remain separate. Crimson Rosella, Yellow Rosella
> >> and Adelaide Rosella remain together. Platycercus adscitus is
> >> indeed Pale-headed Rosella. No change to Rosellas at all!
> >>
> >> Andrew Wood
> >>
>
===============================
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:
===============================
===============================
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:
===============================
|
