http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/taxonomy.html shows they base it on
Sibley and Munroe. But that page is very out of date as it shows the old C&B
for a start (thanks to Jen for pointing that out to me!)
On 31 October 2010 13:14, Carl Clifford <> wrote:
> Aaargh! you are right. Mea culpa. It indeed should have been "not to
> accept".
>
> Out of interest, on who's taxonomy does BI base their list, or are they
> making up their own?
>
> Carl Clifford
>
>
> On 31/10/2010, at 1:01 PM, Dave Torr wrote:
>
> Do you mean "not to accept"?
>
> I would agree except that as far as I know both organisations promote the
> C&B list as their standard.
>
> Should BA and BOCA merge then the current plan would have them affiliated
> with Birdlife International, who maintain their own International list (
> http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/taxonomy.html). A (very) quick
> search appears to show that they do not accept the White-naped split!
>
> <>
>
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
