Geoffrey,
In light of the BA English naming committee rejecting the name Pacific Koel ....” However C&B expressly rejected that name as the species occurs in places (e.g. parts of Indonesia) that were clearly not in the ‘Pacific’. “.... how then does it treat the Pacific Black Duck (I saw them in Sulawesi earlier this year) which has a similar distribution to the Pacific (and I use this name because it is far more descriptive than Eastern Koel “orientalis” notwithstanding) Koel. Similarly the Pacific Swallow also occurs widely in Asia (with some recent subspecific elevations). Does this mean we should be renaming birds such as the Australian Pelican – it gets to Indonesia, South Island Pied Oystercatcher because it has been recorded in Australia, Siberian Rubythroat because I saw it in India, and no doubt countless other species. How are species such as the Swift tern, Crested Tern , Great Crested Tern, Greater Crested Tern treated – what was the original name given to the bird when first described? For those who don’t follow taxonomy, the tern is all the same species.
Methinks the BA committee is being far too politically correct and needs a good swift kick where it might knock some sense into them. It is interesting that more and more people are using the up to date IOC list rather than the now well out of date C&B list to keep their bird lists – see the Birding-aus forum from a month or so ago.
Mark
From: Geoffrey Dabb [
Sent: Friday, 26 August 2011 2:32 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] KOELS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
Bruce
Several issues are being run together, that go back to the confusion (with which I am in sympathy) mentioned in your original question.
NUMBER OF KOEL SPECIES
Originally the Australian bird was described as a separate species. Then for a long period the prevailing view was that the Asian birds and the Australian birds were in the one species. That was the view taken in HANZAB and the Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW). Among several other divergent treatments the Zoological Catalogue of Australia (Mason 1997) put the Australian birds in a species E orientalis along with subspecies in Wallacia and NG. That view was noted in HANZAB ( vol 4, 1999) but not followed . However Mason 1997 was followed in Christidis & Boles 2008 (C&B) and has now been followed in the IOC list. If that arrangement proves to be stable, the reason may be exhaustion.
ENGLISH NAME
‘Pacific Koel’ had been suggested by Mason 1997. However C&B expressly rejected that name as the species occurs in places (eg parts of Indonesia) that were clearly not in the ‘Pacific’. The BA English-names committee has regard to an English name offered by a species proposer, but does not regard it as conclusive. This follows the approach of the AOU. The committee has English names for subspecies on its agenda but as yet has not recommended any.
SUBSPECIES IN AUSTRALIA
From my own state of confusion I can only offer the following. The birds that reach here are apparently cyanocephala. In 1912 Mathews proposed a second subspecies subcyanocephala, a postulation that has not been disturbed. There is confusion about plumage variations. Individual females vary considerably in plumage. An HBW illustration shows subcyanocephala as dark with solid head colour and cyanocephala as paler with a streaked head (which does not accord with observations of birds here). HANZAB says: ‘Rand 1941 attributed variation in Aust. birds to geographical differences; this is incorrect, and females from NT, n.WA and e. coast show equal range of variation’.
LOCATION AND MOVEMENT OF SUBSPECIES
Mathews located subcyanocephalus in ‘North West Australia and Northern Territory’. HANZAB suggests a north/south division ie ‘tropical Australia’ for that subspecies, the assumed separation occurring at the Burdekin lowlands. However, the entry goes on: ‘small samples [collected in Oct and Feb] from ne. Qld (N of 21S) include a mixture of small birds like subcyanocephala … and larger cyanocephala’. One would think they would be mixed up in migration. On top of that, the IOC summary quoted by Harvey below has our cyanocephala migrating north-west to the Moluccas, and at least some subcyanocephala migrating cross-wise across that flow north or north-east to New Guinea, where, in the absence of cyanocephala, it would be the only Australian koel.
From: Perkins, Harvey [
Sent: Thursday, 25 August 2011 11:58 AM
To: ; Geoffrey Dabb; Ian Fraser; Canberra Birds
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] KOELS [SEC=UNOFFICIAL]
I should have mentioned that IOC is in the process of compiling a sub-species listing as well. The draft can be found at http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-subspp.html
The table below is taken from its listing for the three Eudynamys koels. The listed subspecies differ slightly to those in Geoff's email below which looks like it is from Handbook of Birds of the World (HBW). The IOC list does not (at this stage) attempt to put 'common names' against subspecies.
Harvey
Eudynamys | | | |
scolopaceus | Asian Koel | OR | widespread, also Lesser Sundas |
scolopaceus | | | Nepal, Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Laccadives and Maldives |
chinensis | | | s China, Indochina (to Borneo) |
harterti | | | Hainan |
malayanus | | | ne India and Bangladesh to Sumatra, Borneo and w Lesser Sundas |
mindanensis | | | Palawan and the Philippines to the n Moluccas |
melanorhynchus | Black-billed Koel | AU | Sulawesi, Sula Islands. |
orientalis | Pacific Koel | AU | s Moluccas to n, e Australia. |
orientalis | | | s Moluccas |
everetti | | | Sumba to Timor and Kai Is. |
rufiventer | | | New Guinea |
minimus | | | sw New Guinea |
hybrida | | | Long I. (off ne New Guinea) |
salvadorii | | | Bismarck Arch. |
alberti | | | Solomon Is. |
cyanocephalus | | | n Queensland to s New South Wales (to Moluccas) |
subcyanocephalus | | | nw Australia to nw Queensland (to Moluccas and New Guinea) |
From: [
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 6:45 PM
To: Geoffrey Dabb; Ian Fraser; 'Canberra Birds'
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] KOELS
Many thanks Geoffrey & Ian.
Glad to read that my confusion is shared!
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 5:11 PM
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] KOELS
The situation is a little, er, unstable. I suggest you come to the September COG meeting, and be further confused … [SLIDE}
From: [
Sent: Wednesday, 24 August 2011 11:08 AM
To: 'Canberra Birds'
Subject: [canberrabirds] KOELS
I’m interested in the up-to-date taxonomic position of koels, currently accepted English & scientific names and which species/sub-species are migrants to SE Australia. I have looked at HANZAB Vol 4, but I understand that classification has now been revised.
*************************************************************************
The information contained in this e-mail, and any attachments to it,
is intended for the use of the addressee and is confidential. If you
are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, read,
forward, copy or retain any of the information. If you received this
e-mail in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return
e-mail or telephone.
The Commonwealth does not warrant that any attachments are free
from viruses or any other defects. You assume all liability for any
loss, damage or other consequences which may arise from opening
or using the attachments.
The security of emails transmitted in an unencrypted environment
cannot be guaranteed. By forwarding or replying to this email, you
acknowledge and accept these risks.
*************************************************************************
