David James adds:
Unfortunately I did not see the Hay Point magpie well enough to attempt
identification to subspecies. A quick look at the limited literature
available to me indicates that ssp ID is pretty difficult due to clinal
variation. Thus I can not speculate on its point of origin.
As Les Thyer pointed out, the location at an international coal port
suggests the bird was ship assisted, even if the evidence is circumstantial.
There is no evidence that the bird has ever been in captivity. Indeed, its
long tail was in perfect condition, and I would expect that any bird with
such a tail that had been kept in a cage on a ship would show some signs of
wear.
Does this mean the bird is tickable? Mike Carter might think so, but I think
not. Mike stated that he had ticked the Philip island House crow because,
while obviously ship assisted, there was no evidence of captivity. He argued
that the species belongs on the Aus list because circumstances and criteria
have changed sinced Christidis and Boles (C&B) was published in 94. I
disagree. The Philip Island Crow is the first since C&B and it does not
change the pattern of occurence in Aus at all. C&B deferred to the Rarities
Committee (BARC) for opinions on vagrants. BARC rules did not allow for ship
assisted birds to be admitted to the Aus list then, and they do not now. As
a member of BARC Mike should be familiar with this. (Note also, the
criteria allowing Green Jungle Fowl to be on the list have not changed, only
the info about the species existence in Aus has). The assertation that "The
criterion used for allocation of certain species to the ?Supplementary List?
is no longer viable" is nonsense. There has been no change of policy on
these criteria in at least a decade.
No bird checklists will ever be definitive or legally binding on tickers.
However, checklists have purposes apart from providing standards for
listers. C&B is a scientific work documenting the contemporary taxonomic
thoughts on birds occuring naturally in Australia. BARC inputs to the
checklist process by assessing records of vagrants to determine whether they
are reliable enough to be admitted. To protect the scientific record BARC
will not accept records where there is doubt about natural occurence. (just
as a jury does not commit when there is doubt about guilt). However, BARC
does not care who ticks what. Likewise, no one needs BARC approval to tick a
record, and BARC is not an instrument for vetting personal bird lists.
Whilst I am unconcerned about what Mike Carter ticks, I do object to
suggestions that birds like house Crow and Euro Magpie should be added to
the "official" Australian List in the name of good ticking.
Birding-Aus is on the Web at
www.shc.melb.catholic.edu.au/home/birding/index.html
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message
"unsubscribe birding-aus" (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
