Totally agree Niklass!
I used to see Crimson Rosellas (elegans) everyday when I lived in Sydney
(Hornsby) but seeing the flaveolus (yellow) or nigrescens (FNQ) subspecies for
the first time was a real buzz.
Neither were "tickable" but both awesome birds to see.
Just got to get to Adelaide now... ;)
Birding should definitely be more than just ticking! (But each to their own...)
Cheers,
Ed
Ed Williams
Kingsville, VIC
On 06/01/2013, at 9:44 AM, "Nikolas Haass" <> wrote:
> Hi Laurie,
>
> I know that you are joking. You still triggered a response, although I wanted
> to stay away from this discussion.
>
> Hi Birding-Aus,
>
> Regarding species concepts, there is a nice review by the late Andreas Helbig
> and colleagues:
> Helbig et al. Ibis (2002), 144, 518–525 (you can Google it and get a free pdf)
> Maybe that helps a bit.
>
> Taxonomy is very important and interesting for the scientific understanding
> of relationships and evolution. Someone mentioned the former Herring Gull
> complex. I think that this is an exciting example for how our past knowledge
> was proven wrong regarding relations between taxa. Unfortunately, the term
> 'species' is also very important for conservation. As an example, small
> isolated populations on islands receive way more attention if they are
> regarded a species as opposed to a lower taxon. This doesn't really make
> sense to me as I don't see a difference in protecting a population of a
> species or that of a (distinct) lower taxon (e.g. Indian versus Atlantic
> Yellow-nosed Albatross).
> Anyway, the topic is very academic as you may see in the above reference and
> in some of the responses to this thread.
>
> On the other side, I don't really understand all the hype about lumping and
> splitting in the non-academic birding community (listers, twitchers, birdos,
> name it...). Why don't birders enjoy and document identifiable taxa? (some of
> us do - I know) Having "ticked" Crimson Finch clearly doesn't mean that you
> have seen evangelinae - a bird quite different from an "ordinary" Crimson
> Finch! And there are hundreds of similar examples. I believe that ringnecks,
> the blue-cheeked rosella group, the spotted pardalote group, shrike-tits etc.
> were mentioned earlier.
>
> There was an overseas visitor on a pelagic (a year or so ago), who told me
> that he wasn't interested in Indian YN Albatross, because he had seen "it"
> previously. It turned out that he had only seen Atlantic YNA before. He uses
> Clements for his world tick list, which doesn't accept the YNA split. When I
> told him that Clements had accepted the Shy split into 3 species [cauta
> (including subspecies steadi), salvini and eremita], he was suddenly
> interested in seeing a Shy (he had only seen Salvin's before), otherwise he
> would have ignored it (as he did with the Indian YNA).
> Does this make sense?
> If you are interested in a bird rather than a checkmark or number on a
> spreadsheet, then you should have an actual look at the bird - regardless of
> its taxonomic status.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Laurie Knight <>
> To: Robert Inglis <>
> Cc: Birding-Aus <>
> Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Splits, lumps, taxonomies, check-lists, whatever.
>
> A "species" is something you "tick"
>
> :)
>
> LK
>
> On 03/01/2013, at 7:42 PM, Robert Inglis wrote:
>
>> From all this passionate discussion on taxonomies I am assuming that someone
>> (or some committee) has finally come up with a viable, scientifically based
>> and universally accepted definition of “a species”.
>>
>> Would someone be so kind as to tell me what that definition is.
>>
>> Bob Inglis
>> Sandstone Point
>> Qld
>> ===============================
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
>> send the message:
>> unsubscribe
>> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
>> to:
>>
>> http://birding-aus.org
>> ===============================
>>
>
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
> ===============================
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
> send the message:
> unsubscribe
> (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
> to:
>
> http://birding-aus.org
> ===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
