We only give each individual subspecies names when different sections of what we call one species become distinctive from other sections. The awkward thing
about this situation is that the name retained for one of the subspecies refers to the particular feature on which we choose to differentiate the various subspecies.
There was a move to call the species Blue-cheeked Rosella which never really caught on, but it could have been convenient, apart that it would be really tedious
if every mention of observing the species in eastern Australia required the words “Crimson subspecies of the Blue-cheeked Rosella”. Actually the Yellow Rosella (and others) are no more a subspecies of the Crimson Rosella than the Crimson Rosella is a subspecies
of the Yellow Rosella. I suggest that one is really not a subset of the other, in any sensible biological meaning. They are just different local forms of the same species. It just depends on the historic starting point, what was named first (hence the nominate
subspecies, in this case Platycercus elegans elegans), or maybe which one is most known to most people. Other forms described later need to be given a distinctive name but that does not make them somehow a lesser form.
If the Australian Magpie’s formal species name was “White-backed Magpie” then the northern form would be “Black backed form of the White-backed Magpie”.
Philip
From: Geoffrey Dabb [
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March, 2018 10:01 AM
To:
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] Crimson Crimson Rosellas
If John (Leonard) is referring to reporting on eBird, the question would be best addressed to eBird, rather than to this chatline.
WLAB, which gives English names for subspecies, is as follows. –
Happily, on this occasion the subspecies are in agreement with those given on IOC -
The hard-pressed author of the English (Australia) option on eBird offers the following –
Presumably observers entering Crimson Rosella (Crimson) are choosing that item. On this point, eBird is not aiming at taxonomic precision but trying to be
helpful to the average user. Clearly more than one subspecies is included in ‘Crimson Rosella (Crimson)’. Those who prefer a simple life, can just tick ‘Crimson Rosella’.
From: John Harris [
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 7:26 AM
To: calyptorhynchus .; Canberra Birds
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Crimson Crimson Rosellas
I presume it to mean subspecies. I am one who is very annoyed by the standardising of names and the loss of good old fashioned Yellow Rosella, Adelaide Rosella etc which we have happily used without any confusion at all for 200 years. Now they
are all sub species of the Crimson Rosella and we are supposed to report them as such. The ssp is I presume to make sure we all understand this highly technical distinction that the Crimson Rosella (Crimson) [ssp Crimson] is a sub species of the Crimson Rosella.
I understand that the Yellow Rosellas are quite annoyed at not being Yellow and at this loss of their distinctive name and do not wish to be lumped in with Crimson Rosellas (Crimson)[ssp Crimson].
From: calyptorhynchus . <>
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 6:49:10 AM
To: Canberra Birds
Subject: [canberrabirds] Crimson Crimson Rosellas
