Hi all,
One of the problems that 'splitting' species can cause is confusion.
There is the confusion about whether the 'split' is 'official' or just a
proposal.
Then there is the confusion as to whether the 'new' species can be put on one's
tick-list based on
having a record of the 'old' classification from the distribution area of the
'new' species.
In the case of the Little/Brush/Western Wattlebird complex there is also the
confusion caused by the
use of different or old field guides and other bird publications.
It seems to me that quite a few birders (and not just the novices) are confused
over these two
species.
Yes, three names but only two species.
The two species I am referring to are (as listed in the Handbook of Australian
New Zealand and
Antarctic Birds [HANZAB] Vol 5):
Anthochaera chrysoptera & Anthochaera lunulata
According to the RAOU Monograph 2, "The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of
Australia and its
Territories" (Christidis and Boles, 1994), these were treated by Schodde and
Tidemann (1986) as
seperate species on the basis of plumage, eye colour and clutch size.
Separation of these forms was
accepted by Sibley and Monroe (1990).
However, there appears to have been some doubt about the details of the
difference in the
eye-colour.
On that basis Christidis and Boles, in the above noted Monograph, decided:
"Without a proper
assessment of all the characteristics involved it is premature to recognise
lunulata as a separate
species from chrysoptera". (See page 66.)
By the time Volume 5 of HANZAB was published in 2001 it seems that the 'proper
assessment' had been
done as that publication splits A. chrysoptera into the two species A.
chrysoptera and A. lunulata.
HANZAB shows the distributions for the two species as:
- A. chrysoptera: SE Australia (Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria, South
Australia, Tasmania)
- A. lunulata: SW Western Australia
Prior to the split the English/common/non-scientific name for A. chrysoptera
was either Little
Wattlebird
or Brush Wattlebird; I don't know why the two names were used but I could guess.
HANZAB has given the species the names as follows:
- A. chrysoptera = Little Wattlebird (probably to continue the original name)
- A. lunulata = Western Wattlebird (obviously as a reference to the part of
Australia where it is
found)
Unfortunately............
It appears that not everybody got the same message at the same time!
As HANZAB is supposed to be the 'bible' for Australian birdwatchers, I have
accepted its version of
what is correct as to the names (common and scientific) and distributions of
each of the two
species.
HANZAB Vol 5 was published in 2001 but "The New Atlas of Australian Birds" was
published in 2003 and
only lists one species, Little Wattlebird A chrysoptera, and does not mention
sub-species. The
record
maps for the one species cover the distribution for both species.
Why?
The fifth edition of "Simpson and Day Field Guide to the Birds of Australia"
(1996) tried to
anticipate the 'split' but listed the two species as:
- Little Wattlebird A. lunulata (SW Western Australia)
- Brush Wattlebird A. Chrysoptera (SE Australia)
Only the Brush Wattlebird was illustrated.
The latest (?) edition of that field guide (7th edition) published in 2004 has
a revised
illustration page showing both species and has corrected the names to:
- Western Wattlebird A. lunulata (SW Western Australia)
- Little (Brush) Wattlebird A. chrysoptera (SE Australia)
The 1997 version of "The Graham Pizzey & Frank Knight Field Guide to the Birds of
Australia" lists
only the one species, Little Wattlebird A. chrysoptera but mentions the race
lunulata as being in sw
WA. It also gives Brush Wattlebird as an 'other' name but does not say if that
refers to a
particular
race.
I don't have a copy of the latest version of this field guide so I can't say if
that version has
caught up with the 'split' and what details it provides.
This is a pity as, up until now, this has been my favoured Australian bird
field guide.
The 2004 reprint of the 2003 version of "The Slater Field Guide to Australian
Birds" (which I
presume is the latest version) follows "Simpson and Day" fifth edition with the
names and
distributions of the two species but does illustrate both species.
A 'Google' search on the two names "Little Wattlebird" and "Western Wattlebird"
will show the
confusion that all of the above has caused in the identification of these two
species.
Obviously, some of the references turned up are old and have not been corrected
but even some very
recent references show that some people may be using old field guides or have
not noted that this
split has been accepted.
When I did a Google search on "Brush Wattlebird" I found nothing.
I would suggest that anyone observing either of these species should check the
latest field guides
for the correct details of the particular species in their area.
Also, those people madly running around with digital cameras and posting their
efforts on various
web-sites should check that they have entered 'their' species under the correct
name.
Cheers
Bob Inglis
Woody Point
Queensland
Australia
--------------------------------------------
Birding-Aus is now on the Web at
www.birding-aus.org
--------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message 'unsubscribe
birding-aus' (no quotes, no Subject line)
to
|
