I find it interesting that almost every opinion on this topic is based on
the consequences it would have on people's life lists! Doesn't anyone feel
checklists have a more fundamental importance than as a tool to justify
twitcher A's superiority over twitcher B? Nothing against twitching at all
- I just think things need to be kept in perspective. If Joe Bloggs saw
the last Hawaiian Akialoa or whatever, it should not have to be on the
latest checklist for him to be justified in counting it. The only
exception should be if its absence is because of a recent change in
taxonomy that results in it no longer being considered a species.
On the whole, my answer to the question would be that a checklist is there
to provide a reference point for ornithological research, and since
research work can still involve species currently extinct there is a need
to keep them there.
Murray Lord
====================================================================
|
