Plains-wanderer in "Shorebirds of Australia"

Subject: Plains-wanderer in "Shorebirds of Australia"
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 14:08:56 +1100
> But at least they look like shorebirds should.  I have no argument with
> them being included, if that's what the DNA says, only that it seems odd
> to the uninitiated (me) to include them.  I would have expected a tiny
> explanation about why they included it.

I don't have my copy handy; is there anything in the introduction
discussing the order Charadriiformes, and why other members of the
order e.g. gulls aren't included in the book?

My understanding is that "waders"/"shorebirds" is a label of 
convenience for members of the order Charadriiformes, except
the suborders (gulls, terns etc.) usually referred to as
"seabirds", so Plains Wanderer and buttonquails are "shorebirds".
(I don't know if BQs were included in the book - it would have
been interesting if they had.)

It doesn't matter whether or not a particular "shorebird" wades
or lives on the shore - that isn't the point.  Lorikeets eat
nectar, but that doesn't make them "honeyeaters".

   Paul Taylor                           Veni, vidi, tici -
                    I came, I saw, I ticked.

To unsubscribe from this mailing list, 
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU