Firstly I would like to thank David James for taking the time to document
the history of Albatross taxonomy for all to follow. I am aware that this
represents a great deal of time and effort on his part. Many of the
references are extremely hard to source and have been sparingly cited in
the recent literature. I am still chasing the original reference to
Thalassarche carteri. On this basis I think it would be great to publish a
review such as this, filling the hole that Robertson and Nunn (1998) left.
Now let me state that I have no connection with either Gary Nunn nor Chris
Robertson. I have met David a number of times on the Wollongong boat in
the past and enjoyed his company. Thus, I must emphasise that none of my
comments have any personal connotaion.
I agree with David James that it is disappointing that in combination
Robertson & Nunn (1998) and Nunn et al (1996) present so little primary
data. I am not appraised of the reasons for that and try to keep an open
mind although this clearly leaves room for healthy skepticism. For those
who have not tuned out of this discussion but do not have access to the
relevant publication I wish to point out that Robertson & Nunn (1998)
presented a paper at the Inaugural Albatross Conference in Hobart in 1995
entitled "Towards a new taxonomy for albatrosses"
The abstract begins "Most previous revisions of albatross taxonomy have,
like the original designations of the taxa, been extrapolations based
almost entirely on morphology from a poor specimen base. However, the use
of mitochondrial DNA sequencing has demonstrated that both traditional
biological and novel phylogenetic methods are largely supportive of each
other." The abstract concludes "Final verification of albatross taxonomy
will not be possible until molecular systematic analyses are available from
all principal breeding localities."
The authors present results from a preliminary set of data (which is not
shown) and, predictably, by adopting the PSC all of the previously
described BSC sub-species (being terminal taxa) are treated as species.
The lack of primary data does not allow one to judge if the convergence of
the BSC and PSC is as exact as is claimed. However, as David points out
BOTH BSC and PSC recognise 24 terminal taxa at present so I do not see how
this could cause so much outrage! The proposition made was simply that of
switching the treatment of terminal taxa ALREADY RECOGNISED (not
universally accepted) in the BSC to PSC. It was clearly stated that this
could not be taken as a complete treatment until further material is
avaiable..
I don't have a problem with a presentation such as this which reviews
preliminary data and one may chose to agree or disagree with the proposal.
However, I do not think it is appropriate for people to use phrases such as
"terrible science" to describe it. The manuscript was reviewed by 2
anonymous referees and acknowledgemnet was made to several named
taxonomists who provided commentary.
I agree with David James that conservation politics may have a negative
affect on due taxonomic process. The proposed "interim taxonomy" was
adopted due to a percieved immediate need for revision by an assembly of
Albatross Biologists in Hobart in 1995. John Croxall and Rosemary Gales
published "an assessment of the conservation status of albatrosses" using
the latest IUCN criteria. This has formed the basis of the present
Australian Federal Legislation. David James has continued his damnation of
all those involved with this process. However, with due respect to for his
sound arguments which pertain to due taxonomic process it has to be stated
that many albatross populations are in a state of crisis. How many Indic
Yellow-nosed Albatross (Thalassarche carteri) were in the southwest Tasman
Sea in the last 2 years? How many were juveniles? Weimerskirch &
Jouventin have predicted a population decrease of 7 per cent per year
between 1995 and 2000.....they do not appear to have been too far wrong if
highly localised observatipons may be trusted. Is it appropriate to wait
for 15 plus years in the pursuit of complete published data sets prior to
the implementation of legislation, conservation strategies etc? I suggest
that this is a matter of opinion. Personally I am happy that an interim
proposal was adopted and that we already have legislation enacted
nationally and internationally (Birdlife International have also accepted
the conclusions of Croxall and Gales).
David James wrote in this regard
>I find this latter situation very alarming.
I don't see any cause for alarm. Many of the terminal taxa of albatross
now enjoy legeslative protection in Australia (as well as internationally).
I do not ask that David James share my enthusiasm for this state of affairs
and I would not dream of insulting him because he espouses a contary view.
David James made some very good points in his appraisal of ablatross
taxonomy. Surely we may agree to differ in our opinions without resort to
insults. To address David's implication that I am an ignoramus with ovine
tendencies:
>Peter Milburn wrote on Birding Aus
>>>My personal view is that since much research is in progress we have to be
>satisfied with the INTERIM taxonomy as has been adopted. It has to be
>emphasized that changes are likely so one may only be authorative about the
>fact that revisions were and probably still are necessary>>.
>
>I can not agree at all. As a scientist I was trained to question. When I
>question this subject I find no basis. I am not satisfied at all with a
>taxonomy based on NO DATA. I have talked to quite a few taxonomists and
><marine ornithologists> around the world who feel likewise, so I must also
>disagree entirely with Peter's statement that the interim taxonomy is being
>followed <in most of the world by marine ornithologists>. Only disciples
>and the ignorant would follow a taxonomy unsupported by data.
It is not a fair statement that the PSC-based taxonomy is based on NO DATA.
The principal problem is that much of the primary data in its support
remains unpublished and this is indeed unfortunate. For this reason it is
a very simple matter to pose an argument which refutes it. This argument
will only stand until data is published which in turn demonstrates its
validity. This is a scientific process in its strictest sense as David
James has eloquently demonstrated. In practical terms, many areas of
science proceed not only on the basis of published data but also on the
basis of personal communication and collaboration. It is clear that
pertinent data will be published at some time since a number of groups are
working in this area. Whether or not we end up with 24 terminal taxa or if
the PSC and BSC terminal taxa match exactly remains to be seen. It seems
rather clear to me that in the near future this whole issue will be
resolved and all that we need is some patience.
I am not trying to argue that we have something that is justified by
published data in strict taxonomic terms..... clearly we don't. The lack
of appropriate references and synonyms in Robertson & Nunn (1998)
frustrates me as much as anyone else. However, in many peoples' view
(please may we not argue over which side has the most votes) its anticedant
was even less appropriate and this view is supported by numerous data. The
interim taxonomic treatment of the albatross must and will be tested like
any other scientific propostion. In the meantime perhaps we could avoid
insults and damnation of scientists and organisations which appear to be
acting for albatross conservation.
The Southern Ocean Seabird Study Association runs a number of banding
studies on albatross. As David has pointed out the ABBBS has diected us to
use the interim taxonomy. Consequently, our reports are written in this
parlance. For those who don't like this simply translate to the prior
taxonomy!
This healthy debate will probaly be the harbinger of many more......
David, what should we be calling the 2 species currently enjoying the name
of Cape Petrel?
cheers
Milburn
Dr.P.J. Milburn
Biomolecular Resource Facility
The Australian National University
GPO Box 334 Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA
Phone No. <61> <2> 6249 4326
Fax No. <61> <2> 6249 4326
E-mail Address
To unsubscribe from this list, please send a message to
Include ONLY "unsubscribe birding-aus"
in the message body (without the quotes)
|
