Quite persuasive, John. No point filling the head of a 7-year old with information that is of no present use to him. My suggestion is that you take responsibility,
at some future time, perhaps before he becomes of voting age, for ensuring that he knows that a ‘Yellow Rosella’ is not a full species, assuming that, by then, given these turbulent taxonomic times, the ‘Yellow Rosella’ will not be a full species again.
From: John Harris [
Sent: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 2:25 PM
To: chatline
Subject: FW: [canberrabirds] Crimson Crimson Rosellas
Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Crimson Crimson Rosellas
Yes, Philip, I agree with all that. I was joking really as I am sure you know. But I do feel that we – the ornithological world - can sometimes become too pedantic for our
own good and therefore for the good of birds generally. We want ordinary people to care about birds and to become a bit knowledgeable and to want to preserve them. I was very excited last year in Deniliquin when my 7 year old grandson and I were able to get
a good view of what I am not supposed to call the Yellow Rosella (Platycercus elegans race flaveolus). I did not tell him it was a Crimson Rosella, nor even the Yellow race of the Crimson Rosella. I simply told him it was the Yellow Rosella. He will remember
that. And I hope he grows up to know and love birds. I just think the name Yellow Rosella should be retained. With COMMON NAMES, I don’t see why a distinctive race or subspecies can’t retain its obvious and well-known name, especially when that name, as in
this case, labels its most visible characteristic.
John
From: Philip Veerman <>
Date: Tuesday, 20 March 2018 at 1:46 pm
To: chatline <>
Subject: RE: [canberrabirds] Crimson Crimson Rosellas
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
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].
Message protected by MailGuard: e-mail anti-virus, anti-spam and content filtering.
http://www.mailguard.com.au/mg
Report this message as spam
