Hi all,
as a lister of sorts myself, it's very difficult to formulate a true listof
recognised species. This is due to the fact that no authors apply a blanket
approach to taxonomy and will even disagree on individual species when they do.
In the oriental region which is where I personally have most experience, it is
getting to the point where most fieldguides will have to be reprinted to
include all the splits. Members of the OBC will be familiar with one of the
most recent moves concerning Babblers in 'Forktail' 22 which alone allows for
the addition of about 30 new species.
The two species concepts apply different criteria and as JP states,
phylogenetic is in opposition to biological, it takes in to account a greater
number of criteria. Biological puts the emphasis on DNA with a difference of
less than 2.4% resulting in two or more species being lumped, I'm sure John
Penhalurick will correct me if I'm wrong. Phylogenetic considers
vocalisations, habitat preference, diet, altitude, migration (or not),
geographic isolation (island populations and even separation on either side of
a mountain range) and plumage differences.
Even here in Britain we have opposing camps withe the official BOU (British
Ornithological Union) who apply the biological line and the UK 400 Club set up
by a self declared expert and well known twitcher which aplies phylogenetics.
The result is that the latter has a larger list by some way and they will even
disagree about the origins of any given rarity e.g was it a wild bird or from a
cage? Ask any British birder what his / her list is and you'll get two
answers, BOU and UK 400. The 400 relates to the days when a list of 400
species for Britain made you a 'mega' lister.
With reference to Michael Hunters query regarding DNA and feathers and faeces
the answer is yes, DNA can be extracted but depending on your application of
the above theories, it may still not provide a definitive answer!
With faeces it can only be done if skin cells have been shed with the faeces
and this was actually done here in the UK recently with an abberant Curlew
which some had thought (hoped) was a Slender-billed, DNA proved it wasn't.
The bottom line is that 99.9% of birders have no taxonomic expertise and for
that mattter neither do a lot of field guide authors so until the actual
experts who are trained in this field can agree between themselves what is or
is not a species, we will all remain confused and maybe with two or more lists!!
Enjoy your birds and as many have said here in the UK ' a list is a personal
thing' so do what makes you happiest, it won't hurt anyone.
All the best, Andy Adcock.
PS just seen the Long-billed Murrelet which is a split from Marbled!
==============================www.birding-aus.org
birding-aus.blogspot.com
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
=============================
|
