birding-aus

House Crow; why I count it

To: "BIRDING-AUS" <>
Subject: House Crow; why I count it
From: "Mike Carter" <>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 13:06:11 +1100
 

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

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • House Crow; why I count it, Mike Carter <=
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU