I didn't see it as an attempt to change the direction of the debate. The idea
was put forward that including birds seen on these islands on the Australian
list encouraged birders to visit them, and that that would be good for the
birds because the locals would see some value in protecting them.
I'm not necessarily agreeing that that fully justifies having them on the list.
I agree that for most of us, for most of the time, these species are adding to
the size of the field guides for no good reason (but to what extent, I haven't
actually checked).
I like the idea of a supplementary list, but would it result in smaller field
guides? Unless there's a viable market for guides just for this list, it would
still be more practical to just keep adding them to the current guides.
Peter Shute
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> On Behalf Of Lloyd Nielsen
> Sent: Friday, 14 January 2011 6:48 AM
> To:
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] Re: Cocos & Christmas Island Rarities
>
> I also found it rather puzzling that an attempt was made to
> change the
> direction of the debate, the original direction of which was
> clearly the
> adding of those accidental Asian birds from the distant island
> territories to the Australian list.
>
> It seems that two things are responsible for the change in
> direction in
> regard to the Australian list - firstly Christidis & Boles
> changing the
> name from "The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its
> Territories" (1994) to "Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds"
> (2008) both of which in turn were adopted by Birds Australia as the
> official list of Australian birds. Secondly the apparent
> acceptance it
> seems of everything that is accepted by BARC onto the
> Australian list no
> matter where it is from.
>
> In the recent visit to those islands, some birders added up to 10 new
> birds for their "Australian" list - all Asian etc accidentals or
> vagrants to islands a huge distance out from the Australia
> mainland and
> well away from the continental shelf. That's fine! Whatever people do
> with their own personal lists, how they keep them and what
> they regard
> as "Australian" is their business - but the official
> Australian list is
> everyone's business. If this direction continues, where is it
> going to
> stop? With 10 or more Asian accidentals added to the Australian list
> every year, the situation will be mind boggling in a few
> years and the
> end product will be little more than worthless and a joke into the
> bargain. Would it happen in any other country or region? I
> would bet not.
>
> I am not saying don't stop visiting the island territories - what is
> coming out of those islands is fascinating and important
> stuff. What I
> am saying is let's get our listing right. Perhaps Birds
> Australia has to
> take the initiative? And please - no red herrings (e.g.
> tourism) in the
> debate!
>
> The only practical and sensible thing (officially) and to get some
> science (and sanity) back into our listing seems to be the
> creation of
> supplementary lists for the Australian political territories.
> If not it
> will entice authors to create their own lists as is already happening.
>
> Finally, to David's comment about Australian Field guides
> i.e. "If you
> don't like field guides illustrating vagrant birds.... just don't read
> them". Field guides are not there to be "read" but are tools for the
> identification of our birds - which can be rather difficult and
> frustrating, especially for people who are new or casual to
> birding when
> the guide is overloaded with birds from other regions.
>
> Lloyd Nielsen
>
> Mt Molloy, Nth Qld
>
>
> ===============================
>
> 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
=============================
|
