Dear Murray, dear Birding-Aussers
Thanks for bringing up this intriguing topic. Yes, I think there is a fair
chance Les Christidis will include this split in the next Checklist, and no
- your sentence did not misrepresent things. Actually it explained things
straight to the point: Genetically, the NT and Kimberley taxa are more
distant from each other than other (unequivocal) Meliphaga species. This
lies at the core of the so-called "yardstick approach", where divergence
(whether it be genetic, plumage or song divergence) between unequivocal
species is taken as a "ruler" to gauge taxonomic decisions in ambiguous
cases.
You mention that the plumage divergence between the two forms is rather
uninspiring. I would beg to differ: If compared with other Meliphaga species
from New Guinea, the plumage differences are indeed vast. As you can see in
the article, New Guinea harbours a whole radiation of pretty much
identical-looking Meliphaga honeyeaters.
Another conclusion this study arrived at which may be of interest to
Australian birders is the split between Graceful Honeyeater (M. gracilis)
and M. cinereifrons from the Eastern Peninsula in New Guinea.
Happy birding,
Frank
---------------------------------------------
============Frank E. RHEINDT================
DEPARTMENT OF GENETICS
University of Melbourne
POSTAL ADDRESS:
Museum Victoria - Sciences Department
GPO Box 666
Melbourne 3001
Victoria
Australia
Telephone: 8341 7426
Fax: 8341 7442
E-Mail:
=============================================
From: "Murray Lord" <>
To: <>
Subject: [Birding-Aus] White-lined Honeyeater split?
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 21:09:28 +1100
Not sure if this has been mentioned on birding-aus before; couldn't find it
in the archives. I have just been reading an article by Janette Norman,
Frank Rheindt, Diane Rowe and Les Christidis entitled "Speciation dynamics
in the Australo-Papuan Meliphaga honeyeaters". The part that would
probably interest Australian birders the most is the suggestion that the
White lined Honeyeater actually comprises two species - the White lined
Honeyeater from the top end and the Kimberley Honeyeater from WA. This
conclusion is reached on the basis that the genetic differences between the
two forms exceed those between other forms that are clearly separate
species.
{Frank if you're reading this and that one sentence misrepresents things
please correct me - must admit that as usual with these sorts of papers the
Methods and a fair chunk of the Results sections are lost on me!}
Following Terry's suggestion on how to provide long links, you can download
the paper from http://tinyurl.com/wghx3
Having looked at HANZAB and some other books, it's interesting to note that
the plumage differences between the two forms are - to put it mildly -
pretty trivial. In fact as recently as 1978 Julian Ford didn't even
consider them to be worthy of being considered different subspecies. To
quote Schodde and Mason's Directory:
"upper surface of remiges and rectrices edged finely citrine; under-wing
coverts ochreish-buff; belly greyish white" (White lined)
"upper surface of remiges and rectrices without citrine edging; under-wing
coverts pale creamy-buff; belly milky white" (Kimberley)
Given that Les Christidis was one of the authors, I guess we can assume
there's a decent chance the next RAOU checklist will give this proposal
some consideration!
Murray Lord
Sydney
==============================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:
==============================
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
===============================
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:
===============================
|
