House Crow; why I count it.
The Taxonomy and Species of
Birds of Australia and Its Territories, by Les Christidis & Walter Boles
is our guide for what, and what not, to count. But it
shouldn’t be followed slavishly and few of us do. The pertinent paragraph in the
“Introduction” reads as follows.
“The present list should not be
seen as definitive. Taxonomic treatments will change as new information
and concepts are assimilated and new
species will undoubtedly continue to be recorded. It is planned to revise the
list at least every three to four
years”.
After two years of
preparation, the mighty work was published in December 1994. That was six years
ago. Much has changed but we still await the promised revisions. My inside
information is that an update is at least a year away. In the meantime, we can
try for a consensus on acceptable changes.
The criterion used for allocation of certain species to the
“Supplementary List” is no longer viable. Take Green Junglefowl for instance. It
was thought to be extinct where introduced in the Cocos-Keeling Islands (see
page 34), but a flourishing population persists on West Island (Carter in
Wingspan September 1994, p.15) and therefore belongs in the main list. I count
this on my “B” list with other ferals and introductions. (When quoting our
tallies, most of us include our “A” and “B” lists.)
House Crow was relegated to the supplementary list because their
occurrence is “considered to be ship-assisted”, see page 73. At the time, this
was in accordance with the practice in Britain but that has since changed. In an
official publication by the British Ornithologists Union, authored by John
Holmes et al. (British Birds, vol. 91, nos 1 & 2, January/February
1998), entitled “The British List”, is the statement, “Ship assistance is no
longer a barrier to admission to the national list as it is now regarded as a
normal means of dispersal”. It
goes on to qualify this by saying that direct human assistance, such as the
provision of food or shelter, without which the bird would have died, (my
italics) is not acceptable.
How are we going to know this?
If such a criterion is liberally applied, what would be the status of
many other birds? Perhaps I should
discount all my recent sightings of Orange-bellied Parrots. There must be doubts
about all suburban Rainbow Lorikeets, Australian Magpies and Kookaburras. If
people didn’t feed them or provide water, I’m sure the population would be
smaller. Remove them from my Atlas Sheets if not totally wild birds? What about the Regent Bowerbirds and
Crimson Rosellas at O’Reilleys? Then there are those arid country birds
sustained by water provided by man. The Great Tits that make it through a hard
winters day in Britain because of peanuts and suet on a bird-table. The
Hummingbirds which complete their migration across America by virtue of a feeder
in Arizona. Japanese Cranes etc. etc.
Man has such a significant impact on the environment that few species are
unaffected. Most negatively, but some positively.
I have no doubt the Phillip Island
House Crow came here on a ship but I don’t think it matters if sympathetic crew
left scraps for it. They are resourceful birds able to eke out a living in human
association. Maybe it could survive the voyage anyway.
Where did this bird originate?
This was an exceptionally dark bird. Nicolas Day and I reckon it was the
subspecies insolens, the race which inhabits Myanmar (Burma). The feral
population in Singapore, the nearest to Australia, are usually paler having
derived from stock further west. This raises another question. Does it go on
your “A” list or your “B” list? Vagrants, which derive from introduced
populations, go on the “B” list. (The Brits have five categories, one with five
subcategories.)
Other species on the Supplementary List that should move to the main list
are Laysan Albatross, Green Sandpiper, American Golden Plover, Brown Shrike and
Singing Starling as BARC has accepted at least one example of each species. You
can include it on your list if the individual seen has been accepted by BARC.
Most of us are very naughty because we anticipate acceptance. We do however
remove them when this is not realized. Peter Britton, (Sunbird December
2000) has put a good case for upgrading Helmeted Guineafowl to the main list.
Long-billed Dowitcher should be removed as the individual in question has been
shown to be a Short-billed. At least another 13 species, either under
consideration or awaiting submission to BARC, should be included.
As far as the main list is concerned, there are at least 11 new species
accepted by BARC to be included. Wheatear sp? should be included because we know
one of the genus has occurred. But then there is the thorny question of
taxonomic changes. How many of Schodde’s & Mason's ideas should we
embrace? How much of the new
albatross taxonomy should we adopt? My practice is to stick with Christidis
& Boles until they, or another a major authority such as HANZAB,
changes it.
I had better have another look for the
Short-tailed Grasswren.
Mike Carter
