The new Christidis and Boles is a terrific contribution to
what’s what (at least for now) with the local birds.
One thing I notice about it is the use of – and willingness
to revise – geographical labels like ‘Australian’, ‘Australasian’
etc. We seem to have moved on from the stage where English names
can acquire authority from usage and be allowed to settle down. After all
nobody is proposing changing ‘Papuan Frogmouth’ because it occurs
in Australia, or ‘Canada Goose’ because it occurs in the US. I
notice that 4 names in this category have been sufficiently hardy to have survived
from Gould: Australian Pelican, Australian Pratincole, Australian
Bustard and Pacific Gull (which I’m sure would not be called that
if it was being named now).
Moreover some geographical names look somewhat arbitrary and
are based on species limits that are evidently little more than
speculative. Therefore be prepared for more changes. If you are
interested in this kind of thing see the enclosed table which sets out the
relevant geographical names in the list, with historic counterparts.
I have a particular dislike of ‘Australasian’
which does not slide easily from the tongue and in my view should not be used
unless unavoidable. According to my Macquarie ‘Australasia’
has a primary meaning ‘Australia, New Zealand, New Guinea, and
neighbouring islands of the South Pacific Ocean’. A secondary
meaning is ‘Australia and New Zealand’.
‘Gill and Wright’ is the 2006-published list of recommended
English (world) bird names supported by the International Ornithological
Congress. With one striking exception nearly all C&B2 English names
are also accepted in G&W, allowing for a slightly more conservative view on
some of the splits. (It is noteworthy that ‘Maned Duck’ lives
on.)
G&W’s view of ‘Australasia’ is
even more expansive: ‘Wallacea (Indonesian islands east of Wallace’s
line), New Guinea and its islands, Australia, New Zealand and its subantarctic
islands, the Solomons, New Caledonia, and Vanuatu’. [Not
necessarily in order of importance, one assumes.]
C&B appear to have created a roadblock to international
uniformity all their own. This is the idiosyncratic practice of hyphening
names like ‘Black-Cockatoo’ and ‘Imperial-Pigeon’ (not
to mention the ridiculous ‘King-Parrot’). This was suggested
in the 1978 recommendations and was unlikely to catch on internationally, and
it hasn’t. If you want to find ‘Glossy Black-Cockatoo’
in G&W don’t look under ‘Black-Cockatoo’ in the
index. Try under ‘Cockatoo, Glossy Black’. It is
a pity the opportunity was not taken in C&B2 to retreat from the hyphening
adventure. Perhaps too many Australian texts had already followed it.
