Hi netters,
[non-seabird people be warned this will probably not interest you]
I feel I must add to the thread started by Mike Carter. I am currently
writing summary texts for Species Profiles and Threats, hence aim to cover
all relevant literature pertaining to these topics for the species I'm
covering - mainly seabirds. Through this work, I had noticed an apparent
discrepancy in the figures given by Baker et al. 2002 [Emu 102: 71-97] for
Little Shearwater nominate form Puffinus assimilis assimilis. They give a
figure of ca. 5000 breeding pairs, representing 50% of the world
population. The problem is, where are the rest? Marchant and Higgins (1990)
[i.e. HANZAB] states that nominate assimilis is endemic to Lord Howe and
Norfolk groups (i.e. 100% of population of nominate assimiils breeds in
Aust. territory). This taxonomy is followed in the forthcoming seabird
atlas of south-east Australia by Tim Reid et al. It appears that Baker et
al. are following the taxonomy used by Garnett & Crowley in their Action
Plan for Australian Birds 2000 where the Kermadec Is birds (otherwise known
as subspecies kermadecensis) are included in nominate assimilis. The
problem with that is there are over 100,000 pairs of Little Shearwater
breeding in the Kermadecs. Therefore Baker et al.'s figures on the
percentage of world population are either wrong or at best misleading and
confusing. Incidentally some in New Zealand have foreshadowed Little
Shearwater to be split into at least 4 species (Paul Scofield pers. comm.).
This bring to mind the problem of Albatross taxonomy. I won't takes sides
here, except to say that Baker et al. are apparently following the 'new'
taxonomy espoused by Robertson & Nunn 1998, as modified by Croxall & Gales
1998 [Pp 13-19 and 46-65 respectively, in Robertson, G., & R. Gales (Eds).
Albatross Biology and Conservation. Sydney: Surrey Beatty & Sons] . One
problem is the Laysan Alb. should be Phoebastria according to the new
taxonomy - Baker et al. have it as Diomedea. Furthermore one wonders why
The Emu is adopting the (unconvincing to some?) new taxonomy in the absence
of an updated checklist post-Christidis & Boles 1994? Isn't it about time
this issue was thrashed out and incorporated into a new Austrailan bird
checklist?
Finally, there are two references cited in Baker et al.'s Table 3 which are
not found in the reference list: Serventy & Curry 1984 and Serventy 1967.
Most frustrating when trying to verify a statement from its original source.
In summary, it is unfortunate that the errors so far pointed out in Baker
et al.'s paper detract from what otherwise is a worthy contribution to the
current state of play in conservation of Australian albatross and petrel
populations.
Peter Lansley
Birds Australia
415 Riversdale Rd, Hawthorn East, 3123
ph: (03) 9882 2622, Fax: (03) 9882 2677
CATS - THE OTHER WHITE MEAT
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
|
