naturerecordists
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: AOU, Genetics and Bird songs

Subject: RE: AOU, Genetics and Bird songs
From: "Barb Beck" <>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 23:56:53 -0700
Yes the AOU sorta ticks people off at times and does not represent broadly
the countries in which the birds are.  (I am viewing things from Canada
although a Californian) but it is far far better that we have them than tha=
t
we do not.  Look at the absolute chaos in the common (and scientific) names
assigned to butterflies.  A group who know little about the butterflies of
the west and even less about those in the north are assigning names without
even the benefit of a taxonomist!! They use the respected Oplars list for
the east but continue to use a very very outdated list for the west.
Species are lumped often because somebody just said they should be because
to their eyes they looked similar - no evidence whatsoever and often their
eyes were not that good.  Or that they ingrade in Alberta (no evidence and
no such place has ever been found.)  So here we are either stuck with names
which do not describe our butterflies or do what we can on our own.  Be
happy there is the AOU.  There just are not enough lepidopterists studying
butterflies to put in the time and effort that goes into something like the
AOU.  OK so they changed the Canada to Gray Jay because it is also in Orego=
n
(but did nothing about the many names for species which are rearely seen in
the area which bares their name but spend their time breeding in Canada.  I=
f
you want to see a Connecticut Warbler for gosh sakes do not go to
Connecticut - come to Alberta.  I can put you on a place where we had 21
signing males in half a mile.  But warts and all I have grown to really
appreciate the AOU after being heavily involved with butterflies for the
last 8 years. Though it would be nice if there was balanced representation
of the areas involved.

DNA analysis is not the final answer all the time as some assume. It is a
useful tool but must be used in conjunction with life history, breeding
experiments etc.   Unfortunately this is again a butterfly example but a bi=
g
study of the Crescents (Phycoides) in North America was just completed by
James Scott(a noted North American butterfly expert and a Nicklas Whalberg
(a geneticists from Sweden)
http://www.zoologi.su.se/research/wahlberg/Phyciodes/phyciodes.htm  Several
of the species we have here fall very very close to one another and one eve=
n
though it looks different and is in different habitat is essentially on top
of others (yes I said others not just one other)  Really strange.

And what happens when there is a little bit of hybridization as with many o=
f
our eastern and western bird species which meet in Alberta.  Even birds wit=
h
hard wired songs (the flycatchers specifically the Pacific Slope and
Cordilleran Flycatchers) seem to have vocalizations which blend into one
here.  In fact they show blending in a very broad band. (In this case I am
pretty sure the AOU blew it but the work analyzing 155 songs from this area
was rejected by AUK because of complaints by Ned Johnson who did the
original work on 6 birds to split the things 8-).    Things which are
similar but have learned songs are really blended here even though the
physical chrematistics of the bird remain for the most part distinct
(specifically pairs like the Black-throated Green and the Townsend's
Warbler)  Our Townsend's do not sound like those on the other side of the
Rocks.  If you want to have some fun try sorting out the Cassins and
Blue-headed Vireos here by sound then by sight.  And if you think the birds
are a mess because we are in the zone where species separated into the east
and west by glaciers are meeting again sometimes as species sometimes as
subspecies sometimes as something that we cannot put into a nice box (after
all at least in my eyes evolution is still going on).  With our butterflies
there were not only separated east and west but some remained in the ice
free areas north of the glaciers, some crossed the land bridge and some
spent time isolated in refugia in the glaciers.  All makes for an
interesting time here and can lead to many cranial cramps trying to sort
things out..

Have a Happy Halloween

Barb Beck
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada


-----Original Message-----
From: Marty Michener 
Sent: October 30, 2003 9:52 AM
To: 
Subject: Re: [Nature Recordists] Plesiomorphic, vs the AOU; [set rant on]

Doug correctly wrote:

>Sorry,
>
>Plesiomorphic traits are traits that have been passed down through earlier
>taxa. They arose in animals which evolved prior to the animal in question,
>and they continue to manifest themselves, usually because they are
>effective. In the sense of bird (and other animal) communication, we often
>find certain calls that several different, but related, species use - this
>is a plesiomorphic call - it came from a common ancestor. If you are
>familiar with Canyon Towhees and Abert's Towhees, you might hear them both
>use the same complicated duetting call - a call unlike any other bird uses=
.
>They both inherited it from a previous species.
>
>Our human "Flight or Fight" response is a plesiomorphic trait that we
>inherited ultimately from the earliest animals - a very effective tool tha=
t
>survived in nearly all animals.
>
>Plesiomorphic calls are important because they indicate how closely relate=
d
>taxa are and are sometimes an indication of where a particular species
>arose. That's why I pay attention to plesiomorphic vocalizations - they ar=
e
>a way to know who's related to whom and how close that relation is.
>
>Doug
>Doug Von Gausig
>Clarkdale, Arizona, USA
>Moderator
>Nature Recordists e-mail group
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/naturerecordists


RANT warning!   Delete as you wish.

Yes, but the relationships between and among birds are being redefined as
we write.  The AOU committee has just re-arranged several major groups
(putting ducks and chickens/quail first just after the Tinamiformes, and
before the Gaviiformes and Procellariiformes) and announced* (see below
attachment, copied from their July 2003 introduction) that they will be
making many huge shifts every July from now on as well, especially among
the small Embrizidae slash Thraupidae slash Fringillidae mess.  Several
years ago they reversed the order of all the Tanagers, so finding a tanager
in a tropical guide depends on exactly when the guide was published!

AOU has now relegated more birds into the taxonomic equivalent of a
trashcan -- "there is now NO real family" called "incertae sedis".   As I
understand it, this category means - "you stick these genera and species in
about here in the list, but they are not necessarily related to the others
we place in this same trashcan."

So, although what Doug says sounds fair enough for my purposes, he is
assuming the plesiomorphologicality of sound traits, and it is going to get
trickier and tricker before AOU is done.  Taxonomists got where we are now
by always assuming certain characteristics are non-adaptive (conservative
characteristics). I think we sound-people should now be more and more
suspicious of convergence, especially in evolving communication
systems.  Human anthropologists and sociologists have long warned of using
language as a key to long-term human relationships, because of the
volatility (you Yanks, like me, try reading the latest Harry Potter if you
think British English isn't rapidly changing).

Of course, in English we call the Spangled Tanager that name to correctly
inform the layman that the bird is in the tanager family.  When it becomes
a sparrow what will we call it?  The AOU has a policy of changing all the
English names to be consistent with the family.  If you don't believe me,
this July (actually published in September) the familiar "Rock Dove"
officially became "Rock Pigeon" and the ten New World species in the genus
Columba disappeared from the scene and magically fell into the
unpronouncable Patagioenas.  Here was IMHO a case for nomina conservanda
rule to be invoked.  All Latin American birders I know use genus and
species, and thus call these birds Columba, and now some bunch of gringo
guys, most of whom have never even been to any Latin American country, are
telling them how to call birds that ONLY occur in their own
country??  There are no new world members of Otus anymore, either.

Personally, I think the AOU committee are significantly misguided, and I am
at best skeptical of the effects of all the changes in the elusive goal of
perfection.  I (regret to) predict that their messing with the names will
at the very least add fuel to the anti-conservation movement when we have
currently such a volatile political situation and we probably least need to
move in the direction of stimulating more anti-intellectualism to obstruct
the enforcement of The Endangered Species Act.  It seems to me it is only
most USA people who do not realize how presumptuous USA people appear!  Or,
maybe I am just getting too old for this S**T.    [SET RANT OFF]

my best regards to all,
Marty Michener
MIST Software Associates PO Box 269, Hollis, NH 03049
EnjoyBirds.com  - Software that migrates with you.
http://www.EnjoyBirds.com

*A recent series of papers on genetic relationships of members of the
nine-primaried oscines has shown that some species and genera long
classified in established family groups actually, or probably, are more
closely related to members of other family groups. It has long been
recognized that the distinction between "tanagers" and "finches" is
problematical; see Notes under Emberizidae in AOU 1998:591. Recent studies
of mitochondrial DNA (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, Klicka et al. 2000,
Garc=EDa-Moreno et al. 2001, Lovette and Bermingham 2002, Yuri and Mindell
2002) indicate that some species normally considered to be members of the
Thraupidae are actually more closely related to the Cardinalidae,
Emberizidae, or Fringillidae. Other groups of species seem not to belong in
the Thraupidae, but relationships with other families are not obvious.
Further, some species traditionally placed in the Emberizidae or Parulidae
may make these families paraphyletic or polyphyletic in respect to other
families in the nine-primaried oscines. In many instances these studies
complement and support earlier morphological work that questioned
traditional placement but that were inconclusive. The combination of
several lines of evidence often provide compelling arguments that species
and genera are misplaced in the current classification, but do not provide
equally compelling arguments about where they should be placed. The primary
reason for this is the limited sampling of taxa either within the misplaced
groups or among the potential recipient groups. Another related reason is
that different studies may lead to different placement, partly because of
differences in taxon sampling. These studies leave us with varying degrees
of uncertainty about the relationships of groups that have been studied-not
to mention those that have not yet been tested. We anticipate that
additional studies, some already under way, will lead eventually to
definitive answers to questions raised by past studies. Meantime, we are
faced with several options. First, we can leave the present classification
alone, continuing with a system we know to be flawed but that is at least
familiar. Second, we can remove genera from families where genetic data
show that they do not belong and place them into a large and growing group
of uncertain position (incertae sedis), which admits our ignorance but
results in a mere list rather than a classification. Third, we can remove
genera from families where they do not belong and place them tentatively in
other families on the basis of genetic evidence, which risks an unstable
classification that may change when more data become available. We have
chosen what we believe is a middle ground, to retain the present sequence
of families and species, but to mark those species that studies have shown
or suggested should be transferred to another, but still indefinite,
position. In the list of species on pp. xvii-liv of AOU (1998), and on the
AOU web site, we suggest using the symbol * to mark such species. When
additional studies resolve the relationship of these problematical taxa,
formal changes will be proposed and acted on.



  ----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.512 / Virus Database: 309 - Release Date: 8/19/2003


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:




Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/




________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • RE: AOU, Genetics and Bird songs, Barb Beck <=
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the naturerecordists mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU