Frank,
very nice summary!
However, I'd like to make a few corrections:
1. Now both IOC (Gill & Wright, latest update 2009) and Clements include the
Tattlers in Tringa (not in Heteroscelus anymore)
2. The old name was Heteroscelus (not Heterosculus)
3. Cattle Egret is/was Bubulcus (not Bubulculus)
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: Frank O'Connor <>
To:
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2009 10:10:47 PM
Subject: JAMBA nomenclature
Alan Stuart asked about the genus of the two tattlers and Cattle Egret
with regard to the Australian list.
For the tattlers, C&B2008 states on page 138 :
Pereira & Baker (2005) examined relationships
in Tringa (all species except T. guttifer; Nordmann's
Greenshank) and related genera using both mitochondrial and nuclear DNA
sequences. They found that Xenus and Actitis sat outside Tringa and warranted
continued generic recognition. The two
tattlers were embedded within Tringa (sensu stricto), thus
requiring Heterosculus to be merged with that genus.
So I assume that nothing has changed since and that the genus of
the tattlers would remain as Tringa for the Australian
list.
However, the IOC (International Ornithological Congress) use Heterosculus in
the book I have by Gill & Wright (2006).
This was published only shortly after the work by Pereira & Baker and
so may not have been reviewed. So I am not certain why JAMBA was
changed to Heterosculus. In a way, I am surprised that it
didn't already use Heterosculus.
As for Cattle Egret, the discussion in C&B2008 is too long to
quote. But they do go into a lot of discussion as to why they
continued to keep it in the genus Ardea. But they note that
the treatment of all the herons (etc) differs greatly. Bubulculus was
monotypic. C&B2004 followed the work of Sheldon (1987), and
saw no reason to change in C&B2008. The IOC still uses Bubulculus.
Perhaps Japan recognises the IOC (or another taxonomy that still uses
Heterosculus and Bubulculus) and it was easier to sign the
agreement that way. I would assume that since C&B2008 was
published by CSIRO and that the authors work for the Australian Museum,
that this would be the taxonomy most likely to be adopted by the
Australian government.
Since C&B say that hell will probably freeze over before they would
look at another revision (well not quite those words), it is unclear when
the Australian taxonomy will next be revised, and by who. It took
14 years for C&B to make their revision. I don't know who
officially has the responsibility to maintain the taxonomy, if indeed
anyone does. Hence you get the situation where a book like that of
Schodde's is thought of as an update, but then only about half of the
changes are adopted.
_________________________________________________________________
Frank
O'Connor
Birding WA http://birdingwa.iinet.net.au
Phone : (08) 9386
5694
Email :
===============================
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:
===============================
|
