I note that the recent IOC version 2.8 list splits the rufous form of
the Boobook found in north Qld from the non-rainforest form.
:-)
John Leonard
On 4 May 2011 13:00, Dave Torr <> wrote:
> Indeed - what is a species? To quote Darwin (who may have known a thing or
> two?)
> "No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows
> vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term
> includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation"
>
> The Guardian reckons there are around 26 different species concepts -
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/oct/20/3!
>
> I guess we are trying to categorise things which may not always fit into the
> neat boxes that scientists desire - indeed as evolution progresses there is
> rarely a clear dividing line between the end of one species and the start of
> another.
>
> On 4 May 2011 12:27, Tim Dolby <> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> To determine taxonomical status Christidis and Bole use mainly
>> morphological and molecular characters, rather than things like topography,
>> food, hunting, behaviour, breeding, and vocalisations. According to the
>> research carried out by C&B the Sooty and Lesser Sooty are less
>> morphologically different that many birds considered the same species. In
>> essence the specific status is substantiated by DNA evidence with nucleotide
>> substitution in DNA-sequencing variable at subspecific level from zero to
>> 1%. Greater differences suggest species status. A good example of this is
>> found in Southern Boobook, with birds in Victoria being more morphologically
>> divergent from birds in northern NSW than Sooty Owl are from Lesser Sooty
>> Owl. In essence it depends on where you draw the line.
>>
>> Quite clearly subspecies complex are poorly understood and further detailed
>> work is required.
>>
>> Personally I'd hoped that genetics would give us some clear answers when
>> determining species status, however quite obviously this is not the case -
>> and from reading the comments here - it is still a matter of interpretation.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Tim Dolby
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: [
>> on behalf of Tony Russel [
>>
>> Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:21 PM
>> To: 'Chris Sanderson'
>> Cc: 'birding-aus threads';
>> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] The Lesser Sooty Owl and Sooty Owl?
>>
>> 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
>> ===============================
>> This email, including any attachment, is intended solely for the use of the
>> intended recipient. It is confidential and may contain personal information
>> or be subject to legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended
>> recipient any use, disclosure, reproduction or storage of it is
>> unauthorised. If you have received this email in error, please advise the
>> sender via return email and delete it from your system immediately. Victoria
>> University does not warrant that this email is free from viruses or defects
>> and accepts no liability for any damage caused by such viruses or defects.
>> ===============================
>>
>> 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
> ===============================
>
--
John Leonard
Canberra
Australia
www.jleonard.net
I want to be with the 99,999 other things.
===============================
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
===============================
|
