Aus-birders
Peter Menkhorst and I seem to have taken up the running for the moment but
I am hoping we will have some people bursting out of the pack as this
thread enters the finishing straight.
I assume we all agree that a taxonomic treatment should be rigorous in its
application and thus scientificly correct. What we seem to disagree about
is whether on not it is appropriate.
It seems to me that this whole debate rests upon perceptions of the
validity of a PSC based taxonomy versus BSC. I think it is a wonderful
subject to debate. I am just desperately sorry that the Antarctic
Division, Environment Australia, some of the worlds leading Albatross
Biologists etc become tragets for abuse. Otherwise, I consider that David
James' contribution was particularly useful and would like to see him
puiblish this review.
In respect to Peter Menkhorst's comments, there is no way I would condone
"scientific dishonesty or deception" by anyone under any circumstances and
I do not believe I have given this impression. I accept that Peter was not
accusing me of the same but the lesser accusation of condoning it is
precisely what I was objecting to!! Anyway lets leave that for now because
it is clear we are on the same side...
Peter Menkhorst wrote:
>Rather, I am concerned that all taxa are treated equitably
>when our precious conservation dollars are being divided up amongst the
>1000s >of competing taxa which all require urgent attention.
Surely Peter, myself [with the exception of Star Finch :)] and virtually
everybody on the list must agree on this point. The virtue of the PSC
treatment is that all terminal taxa end up with equal status, as David
James pointed out originally.
Albatross conservation is a truly international issue: e.g. an albatross
banded by SOSSA off Wollongong a few years ago ended its days as bycatch in
the Chilean Fishery. We regularly capture banded birds from all over the
Southern Oceans. It happens that the PSC-based taxonomy was adopted as the
internationally agreed basis for legislation. My point about the state of
crisis addressed the urgent need to facillitate IMMEDIATE INTERNATIONAL
AGREEMENT rather than complicate things by arguing about nomenclature for
years and years in the way we are doing now. I agree with Peter Menkhorst
that the outcome in Australian legislation would be neutral. (It was never
my intention to criticise what is happening in Australia.)
It is thus perfectly clear that I support 'taxonomy for conservation
convenience'. I naively thought taxonomy was an essential tool to
facilitate the practice of biology.
What I do not support are falsifying or fabricating data to justify
decsription of terminal taxa, which seems to be what I am accused of. I do
not believe that this has happened, although, as I have stated before, I
agree with David James that there is a paucity of published primary
phylogenetic data. Way back in the discussion I suggested that we might
see some changes as further data become available.
It seems to me that we have become bogged down in personal views over the
relative merits and demerits of the PSC and BSC. I happen to find the PSC
convenient and think it has merit because it does not create the perception
of uneaqual status between terminal taxa. It has demerit because some of
the terminal taxa appear very similar at a glance.
I do think that the BSC -based taxonomic treatment has demerit as it has
been used in books and field guides etc. because it has a tendency to bury
a lot of terminal taxa in the fine print. Since it is often the
ultra-scarce taxa that tend to be glossed-over this leads to a lower than
desirable public perception of the conservation issues. I am sure I am not
alone in hearing the phrase "who cares its just a sub-species". How many
people have been to NZ and not bothered to look for White-flippered
Penguin? If not why didn't they bother? I suggest that it is because it
is a taxon that has been overlooked.
Peter Menkhorst wrote
>However, I think that the issue is important and needs to be considered. I ask
>the following question. Is it helpful for one group of specialists to decide
>that one particular taxonomic arrangement, in this case the PSC, better suits
>their conservation aims, and push for universal adoption of that
>arrangement for
>one family, in this case Diomedeidae, when all other Australian birds are
>classified under a different system, including in legislation, in the Federal
>Government's Zoological Catalogue and in Birds Australia's checklist? Why
>didn't
>they simply argue that most small isolated breeding populations of albatross,
>whatever their taxonomic status, are threatened and are the basic units of
>conservation, and therefore clearly a high priority for conservation
>action, as
>the Australian legislation allows?
My answer (obviously) is yes because it is an international issue even
though it may not be a pertinent issue in Australia. I think that it is
useful to use international convention in cases where a species normal
distribution overlaps many national boundaries. In the case of Diomedeidae
the Australian legislation matches that of other nations and international
organisations, surely that is convenient. Most recent literature treats
Lesser Noddy as a species. It is considered a sub-species in Australian
Legislation. Surely, it would have been better to follow international
convention. While on the subject, in the context of Australia what is a
Great Skua? From an international prespective I've never seen this species
in Australia. Does this cause confusion?
Unless I'm accused of further abominations I think I will refrain from
further comment on this thread.
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)
|
