Sorry Tony, not trying to hang this on you personally, but I think C&B get
unfairly bashed for presenting their annotated taxonomy. They have been
quite open about their process of how species are included or not, with
solid evidence supporting each decision. If you choose not to use C&B for
your personal list, then obviously that is your decision. I just object to
the implication they have somehow wronged the birders of Australia by
following good scientific protocol in creating their list. The topic keeps
coming up on Birding-Aus with no resolution because no one goes and actually
does the science required to change the taxonomy. Sadly from what I hear
there will be no more updates to C&B. The IOC list seems to be becoming
more widely accepted, though the IOC list agrees with C&B on Sooty Owl at
this stage. Honestly I won't be surprised if when someone does a project on
Sooty Owl they come up with a sound justification for re-splitting the
species, but please, get it peer reviewed so it can be included in
evidence-based taxonomies.
Regards,
Chris
On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Tony Russel <> wrote:
> Hallo Chris, I’m not sure I deserved such a condemning response – I
> certainly wasn’t complaining about the published taxonomy – merely that I
> choose not to go along with all of it and have in fact moved on without some
> of it.
>
> And yes, I do keep the Crimson Rosella *Platycercus elegans *separate from
> the subspecies *nigrescens, flaveolus, subadelaidae, fleurieuensis, and
> melanoptera (on KI, and recently also on the tip of Cape Jervis where I have
> a property).*
>
> I do choose not to adhere slavishly to what the professionals dictate .
> That’s not to say they are wrong, just that I choose otherwise. I think
> it’s still a free world ?
>
>
>
> *Tony*
>
>
>
> *From:* Chris Sanderson
> *Sent:* Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:18 AM
> *To:* Tony Russel
> *Cc:* martin cachard; ; birding-aus threads
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Birding-Aus] The Lesser Sooty Owl and Sooty Owl?
>
>
>
> Do you all have Adelaide and Yellow Rosellas on your list as separate
> species too? They are pretty distinct from the Crimson Rosellas we have
> locally but are the same species taxonomically also (for now at least, I
> think there's a paper in the works on this). Personally I'll leave taxonomy
> to the professionals. If you have complaints, please publish a peer
> reviewed journal article to rectify the taxonomic disparity rather than
> complaining about others who have done good science. Not saying you are
> wrong about the Sooty Owl complex, but C&B is based on the best available
> science at the time of writing, if you want it overturned, fix the science,
> otherwise accept the umpire's decision and move on.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Tony Russel <>
> wrote:
>
> I keep the Sooty and the Lesser Sooty Owls as two separate species. Anyone
> who has seen them knows very well how different they are.
>
> Tony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> On Behalf Of martin
> cachard
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 May 2011 10:10 AM
> To: ; birding-aus threads
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] The Lesser Sooty Owl and Sooty Owl?
>
>
>
> Hi Patrick
>
> When you come up to FNQ & hopefully observe the local Lesser Sooty Owl, you
> can't 'officially' count it as a new species tick (unless of course, you
> are yet to see a Sooty Owl further south!!).
>
> BUT, this 'lumping' by C&B 2008 is strongly disputed by many, including
> many
> of us up here more familiar with this bird in the field than some
> taxonomists.
>
> So Patrick, come up here, find & enjoy the bird, record that you've
> observed it, & in time, I'm sure that you will find that this local bird
> will be split again from the Sooty Owl & given the full species recognition
> it deserves. Some of us up here are currently working on this to be
> rectified....but there is much work still to be done on this
> one....(amongst
> some other lumps/splits of FNQ birds).
>
> As for further answers to your questions about what is tickable (or not)
> due
> to a species' status, I'm sure someone else more qualified than me can help
> to explain this to you.
>
> But for my own records list, I just make sure what birds I observe are
> recorded to sub-species level - changes in the taxonomy of our birds, &
> accordingly our official list (whatever the source of it), will continue to
> occur. For now, I keep my records as per the current C&B species list as it
> is defined in 2008 because this is the current official species list,
> like/agree with it or not. I can update my full species list as the changes
> to the official list occur since I have a record of the sub-species I have
> seen & where. I think you will find that most Aust birders do the same
> thing
> or similar.
>
> Someone else I'm certain, will add a better & more scientific explanation
> about your other questions - I, for now, just wanted to put my gripe out
> there about the poor lumping of Lesser Sooty Owl on behalf of several other
> dismayed local FNQ birders !!
>
> Obviously Patrick, as it stands now I haven't got a Lesser Sooty Owl on my
> species list - just 2 sub-species/races of Sooty Owl....
>
> Cheers
>
> Martin Cachard
> Cairns
> 0428 782 808
>
>
>
> > Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 09:11:11 +1000
> > From:
> > To:
> > Subject: [Birding-Aus] The Lesser Sooty Owl and Sooty Owl?
> >
> > Hi All,
> > After reading Sean Dooley's reply to Paul, I have been trying to figure
> out
> > what happened with the Christidis and Boles list with regards to the
> Lesser
> > Sooty Owl. In the guide books they are a different size and live in
> > different parts of the country, so why is the Lesser Sooty Owl no longer
> > counted as a separate species? Does this mean that if I am lucky enough
> to
> > see the owl formally known as the Lesser Sooty Owl on the Atherton
> > Tableland that I will be seeing the Sooty Owl? Can someone please explain
> > this to me or at least if it makes no sense to others then, what is the
> > official explanation? And I have been trying to figure out the
> conspecific
> > term. C & D still have some species as separate (tickable) but as
> > conspecific. Are they saying that as with the Western Wattlebird and
> Little
> > Wattlebird that at some stage millions of years ago they were one
> species?
> > Thanks,
> > Patrick Scully
> > ===============================
> >
> > 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
> ===============================
>
>
>
===============================
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
===============================
|
