Tony,
Thanks for your thoughts.
I think it would be sensible to define lists that correspond to ABA lists
on the same basis. A number of us put in ABA list totals and it would be
confusing to have one total for the American Birding Assoc and another
for the Australian Birding Assoc.
In our area, the only list reported by the ABA is Australasia (NOT
Australia). So this means that we should not include Cocos-Keeling,
Christmas Island or Macquarie Island in our Australasia total.
It would be logical for Australian birders to have an Australian list.
And in principle, it would be possible to include the three islands
mentioned earlier in that list, even though they were not included in
the Australasian list.
If there were to be a vote on this, and these matters should probably be
put to a vote(it's probably best to conduct the vote via Australian
Birding), I would vote against including the islands because they would
also figure on other lists relevant to Australia, notably Indian Ocean
and Southern Ocean.
I'd like to hear anyone else's thoughts on the matter.
Would anyone like me to restate the definitions of the American Birding
Association lists?
John Penhallurick
On Wed, 6 Sep 1995, TPALLISE.AU.ORACLE.COM wrote:
> John this is a very good point and one that pops up all the time. There
> have been several attempts to document this over the years. When the
> new RAOU checklist came out it was all but resolved.
>
> 1. Australia includes any species recorded in Australia and its
> Territories which include: Christmas, Heard, Norfolk, Macquarie, Bouigu
> etc. In other words if its in the new RAOU checklist by Christidis and
> Boles its OK.
>
> 2. Many of the world birders use the American Birding Assoc as the
> standard point of reference, Which I think follows Clements & as a
> world checklist and thats fine too.
>
> Personally though I think both have problems. eg To include Christmas
> Island on your Australian list is a bit like counting the Falklands on
> your British List or Hawaii on your US list. However to be consistent
> I remain in favour as there is now an up to date standard point of
> reference easily accessible to Australians.
>
> The ABA include Sulawesi as part of Australasia and yet New Zealand
> and the Solomon Islands are not. Possibly for good reason, but not very
> well accepted. However once again to be consistent I remain in favour.
> This does mean that there will be a variation between the two which
> needs to be resolved.
>
> Do you know what the differences are? I do not have the latest copy of
> Clements?
>
> There have been attempts to document the term Australia and Australasia
> in old copies of the BOC newsletter and the earlier ABA (Australian
> Birding) newsletter's.
>
> Regards
> Tony
=================================================
|
