In answer to Laurie's query, the NE boundary of Australasia seems to
be where you can make some kind of justification for drawing it, I am
not sure a consensus exists! ABA excludes everything east of the
Australian mainland continental shelf, which is ridiculous as just a
casual look at the bird family compositions of NZ, Solomons, Vanuatu,
Norfolk Is, Lord Howe etc shows a heavy preponderance of Australian
taxa, and this goes right out as far as Fiji, with honeyeaters, wood-
swallows, Golden-derived whistlers and a form of what is currently
called Fan-tailed Cuckoo.
Hawaii is faunistically very distinct so this is not usually included.
The NW boundary is also contentious, as the original Wallace's line
ran west of Sulawesi, which is very much a transitional avifauna
between Asia and Australasia, having such Asian-derived forms as
woodpeckers, hornbills and babblers, as well as Australasian
derivatives like a gerygone, wood-swallow and honeyeaters.
Most recent treatments use Weber's line, which excludes Sulawesi but
does include the much more strongly Australasian avifauna of
Halamahera and the North Moluccas. The Lesser Sundas (including
Timor) are excluded, and the South Moluccas are problematic, with
Buru and Seram often included in Australasia, with the Kai Islands and
Tanimbar either in or out depending on your point of view. Note that
Christmas Is. and the Cocos-Keeling Is. are definitely out, being well
into the Asian-Oriental faunal zone.
It is interesting that definitions of the Western Palearctic are just
as variable and complex, with a new major reference going to include
Iraq, Iran and the Arabian Peninsula. but I digress......
Phil Gregory
www. cassowary-house.com.au
===============================
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:
===============================
|
