All this discussion about political and biogeographical boundaries and
official listing is all very interesting but it isn't going to change
anything is it. Birders, twitchers, call them what you will, will continue
to include in their lists whatever birds they wish no matter where they find
them, and no amount of debate will alter that. I don't think there will
ever be any resolution to these issues because no-one has any authority over
anyone else such that they are in a position to dictate what boundaries to
adopt or which birds should be included within certain "official" lists.
Interesting academic discussion maybe, but useful outcomes ? I think not.
If you see a particular bird and it suits you to include it in your list, go
for it. What other people do is immaterial.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Chris Gregory
Sent: Monday, 10 January 2011 4:55 PM
To: birdingaus mailing list
Subject: [Norton AntiSpam] Re: [Birding-Aus] Cocos-Christmas
Maybe the problem does lie with Christidis and Boles. Their 1994
classification was titled* The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia
and its Territories* but come 2008 the classification became *Systematics
and Taxonomy of Australian Birds*. Both are technically correct but I guess
has given birders license to blurr the edges of what is "Australian". I
cannot imagine a book *Systematics and Taxonomy of British Birds* listing
birds from places as diverse as Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Diego Garcia, St
Helena or Pitcairn. It would be a fascinating list though!
Chris Gregory
*
* presents an up-to-date classification of Australian birds. Building on the
authors' 1994 book,
On 10 January 2011 15:32, David Stowe <> wrote:
> Thanks Tony (and Mike) for clarification on those points for me. Much
> appreciated!
>
> Cheers
> Dave
>
> On 10/01/2011, at 11:37 AM, Tony Palliser wrote:
>
> David,
> From memory I think Christidis and Boles does include Antarctic.
However,
> given the fact that Antarctica is on another continent, even further away
> and out of reach for most it was left off the totals page. But again it is
> up to the individual what they wish to count on their Australian List.
As
> for 'mainland' Australia - it made sense to follow the guidelines outlined
> by American Birding which would include the Torres Strait Islands,
Tasmania
> and any location within the 200NM zone. So Lord Howe NSW and Macquarie
> Island TAS are excluded.
>
> Regards,
> Tony
>
>
>
> >>
> Legally I believe they are part of Qld - just as Lord Howe is part of NSW.
>
> On 9 January 2011 17:40, <
> > wrote:
> Great to see a separate column on your site now Tony giving the totals
> without external territories. I have no problem with either sides of "the
> fence" and can understand both arguments, but it is interesting to have it
> split. I know i won't be in a position to get there any time soon so its
> great to be able to compare totals on a more level field.
>
> I know this has probably been discussed before, but why isn't Australian
> Antarctic territory able to be counted?
>
> Also are Boigu and Sabai counted in the separation into territories or are
> they "mainland" Australia? I must confess I find it amusing how close they
> are to mainland PNG! Sorry - not wanting to open another can, but i am
> genuinely curious.
>
> Cheers
> David Stowe
> >>
>
>
>
> 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
>
==========
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
==========
===============================
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
===============================
|
