Common Koel - What's in a name

[David James <>]

It is unlikely that the next edition of the Australian Checklist will split Koels. The philosophy of C&B 1994, which is likely to be upheld in the next edition, was only to change the status quo if sound and logical arguments IN THE LITERATURE backed with data, supported the change (be it lumping or splitting). As far as I'm aware,  there are no such publications relevent to Koels. The fact that Sibley & Munroe and White & Bruce etc split Koels chganges little because they did not present compelling arguments as to why they did so. 

 

Slight differences in female and juvenile plumages and alledgedly call may mean very little. Take for example the Eurasian Cuckoo. A number of different forms occurr accross the palearctic from the UK to Japan. Females are very specific about the hosts they parasitise. Different forms parasitise different host species and mimic the eggs of their hosts. Small differences also occur between the forms. Perhaps there might be grounds for splitting this complex. But it turns out not to be the case. The host preference and egg mimicry genes are carried on the female chromosome, inherited from mother to daughter, but not to son. Males don't care which form they mate with or what host species raises their offspring. So genetically, Eurasian cuckoos remain one species. 

 

The point I'm making is that there is more to taxonomy than whether you can see a difference at a glance.  And that is why Christidis & Boles 1994 took a conservative approach and did not change things around unless there was a good chance that the change was right.

 

Anyway, the Koel on CI seems to be gone; at least it's not calling around the nursery or or the Parks Office this week.

 

cheers

Mike Carter <> wrote:

> The discussion re Koel is very pertinent. We suspect that there is one of
> the Asian form, i.e. Common Koel currently on Christmas Island. Seen and
> heard by Barry Bucholtz and Stuart Pell it was an all black male (not
> distinguishable on plumage) with a call 'similar, but not identical' to the
> familiar Australian bird. This form, or as some would have it, species, has
> not certainly been recorded from Australian Territory before but there are
> previous reports of Koels from Christmas Island and a female (inadequately
> described) from the Cocos Islands. As Tom said, the published view of
> Australian authorities, HANZAB and Christidis & Boles, regard these as forms
> of the same species but this could change to follow some Asian authorities
> when C & B issue their much anticipated revised list.
>
> Mike Carter
> 30 Canadian Bay Road
> Mt Eli
>  za VIC
>  3930
> Ph: (03) 9787 7136
> Email: 
>
> In reply to Mike Simpson, Tom Tarrant said: -
>
> > Hi Mike,
> >
> > I'm not sure if you've done much birding in Asia before but the female
> > (and juvenile) Common Koel (Eudynamys scolopacea) look rather different
> > to ours (Australian E.cyanocephala) and to my ear sound slightly
> different.
> >
> > If you can borrow or have a copy of the Birds of Wallacea by Brian
> > Coates & David Bishop there is a good description of both species.
> >
> > I'm afraid there is a big divide between Asian and Australasian bird
> > taxonomy and both should be looked at together (re: Clamorous &
> > Australian Reed Warbler, Little & Black-backed Bittern, Spangled &
> > Hair-crested Drongo, etc......there are taxonomists on either side of
> > the fence that are familiar with one but seem to have little or no
> > experience of the
>  other)
> >

---

Do you Yahoo!?
New Yahoo! Photos - easier uploading and sharing