Beg to differ but it is that simple Harry,
If a taxon can be identified, whether it is currently considered a species
or subspecies doesn't affect the interest or importance of registering its
occurance extralimital to its generally accepted range. I am in the group
who believe that BARC should include subspecies in the review list for this
very reason. I am perplexed by your comments about BARC as if it is the
cause of some sort of problem.
Cheers Jeff.
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Henry Battam
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 12:59 PM
To: Nikolas Haass; John Graff; ; Birding-Aus
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
It's not that simple. What is important is that researchers are able to
clearly identify their target stock, regardless of the current version of
classification. Classification is a model of natural order and is a function
of time. The first rule of models is that they are all imperfect. Generally
it does a reasonable job, but it has severe limitations when it meets
apparently closely related taxa that breed in isolated colonies and in
different timeslots.
My association with albatrosses started in 1958. There were then just two
Diomedea species, Wandering and Royal. Currently there could be 6 or 7 or 8
Diomedea, With missing type specimens and arguments over DNA evidence, there
may be contention for centuries. The albatrosses don't givbe a hoot, they've
never heard of taxonomy or BARC.
Cheers
Harry Battam
BE, PhD
Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of
Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883
________________________________
From: Nikolas Haass
Sent: 04 April 2012 13:02
To: Henry Battam; John Graff; ; Birding-Aus
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
Taxonomy should be irrelevant to rare bird committees. I have been member of
a number of rare bird committees around the globe, in which we did include
vagrant taxa not generally accepted as species - such as nigricans Brant in
Germany, but also in New Jersey.
Therefore irrespective of the taxonomy, BARC should not be irrelevant to
albatrosses.
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: Henry Battam <>
To: John Graff <>; "" <>;
"" <>; Birding-Aus
<>
Sent: Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:55 AM
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
unlike many terrestrial species, albatrosses and other petrels will always
be a taxonomic problem. The formal dogmatic definition of a species is
intended to put creatures into boxes where they can be uniquely classified
for human convenience. The Procellariiformes just will not adopt this
philosophy. Nature is not at our convenience and regardless BARC will remain
irrelevant to albatrosses.
Cheers
Harry Battam
BE, PhD
Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of
Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883
________________________________
From: John Graff
Sent: 04 April 2012 12:39
To: Henry Battam; ; ; Birding-Aus
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
I believe BARC has recently adopted the IOC taxonomy, and so Tristan
Albatross records would be considered now (there are several Chatham
Albatross and Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross records now listed as under
review). But that's only a recent thing
John
> From:
> To: ; ; ;
>
> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] Which Wandering Albatross?
> Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 01:30:20 +0000
>
> So true for ID. Note that BARC is irrelevant to albatrosses.
>
> Cheers
>
> Harry Battam
> BE, PhD
> Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of
> Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883
>
> ________________________________________
> From:
> on behalf of Nikolas Haass
>
> Sent: 04 April 2012 09:40
> To: Ashwin Rudder; John Graff; birding-aus
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Which Wandering Albatross?
>
> To my knowledge it is also very difficult to ID Tristan in the hand. I
have personally seen two interesting candidates (both caught and measured by
SOSSA), but we did not get to a definite ID. As far as I know there is not a
single record of a Tristan Albatross accepted by BARC. Correct me if I am
wrong.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ashwin Rudder <>
> To: John Graff <>; birding-aus
> <>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 3, 2012 10:29 PM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Which Wandering Albatross?
>
> Thanks John and Henry for the replies about the occurrence of
> Tristan's Albatross in Aus waters. It seems that the difficulty in
> ID-ing them makes them not really worth considering unless you can get
them in the hand.
>
> Cheers,
> Ashwin
>
> On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 7:24 PM, John Graff <> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ashwin,
> >
> > I think Tristan is pretty rarely recorded with certainty in
> > Australian waters, but the ID difficulties make it difficult to know
> > for certain. It's interesting to note though that satellite tracking
> > data shows that non-breeders do reach the south coast of WA - see
> > the Tristan Albatross factsheet at ACAP
> > http://www.acap.aq/acap-species
> >
> > John
> > > Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:24:43 +1100
> > > From:
> > > To:
> >
> > > Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Which Wandering Albatross?
> > >
> > > Thanks to all those that have replied :)
> > >
> > > The general consensus was that these birds (both in general, and
> > > the two
> > I
> > > asked about) are incredibly difficult to identify with certainty.
> > > Those
> > who
> > > replied were fairly happy to call the first bird a Gibson's, while
> > > the second attracted a fairly even split between exulans and gibsoni.
> > >
> > > I originally dismissed Tristan's (dabbenena) straight out on the
> > > basis of distribution, however a few people made reference to
> > > them. How often are they recorded in Australia's waters?
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Ashwin
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:19 AM, Henry Battam
> > > <>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Ashwin
> > > >
> > > > Individual 1 has brown plumage and a definite forehead. It is
> > > > most
> > likely
> > > > D. gibsoni, but could be (less likely) D. dabbenena.
> > > > Individual 2 has 3 generations of plumage. However the youngest
> > > > generation is slate-coloured, and this bird has no distinct
> > > > forehead, characteristics of D. exulans
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > Harry Battam
> > > > Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management
> > > > University of Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile
> > > > +61 429 887 883
> > > >
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > From: [
> > > > on behalf of Ashwin
> > > > Rudder [
> > > > Sent: 27 March 2012 21:05
> > > > To: birding-aus
> > > > Subject: [Birding-Aus] Which Wandering Albatross?
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I'd like a hand identifying these two Wandering Albatross to
> > > > species
> > (or
> > > > subspecies depending on your taxonomy beliefs) level, if it's
> > possible. At
> > > > the moment I'm struggling to split between gibsoni and exulans,
> > > > and
> > thought
> > > > I'd throw the pics out to some experts to get some more
> > > > opinions. I
> > have
> > > > more photos/bigger crops of both individuals.
> > > >
> > > > The photos were taken mid January 2012, off Lord Howe Island.
> > > > Images 1-3 show the first bird
> > > > Images 4 and 5 show the second bird, which I neglected to get
> > > > good
> > shots
> > > > of...
> > > > Images 6 and 7 show both birds, with the first bird on the
> > right-hand-side
> > > > in both pics.
> > > > (This information is included in the captions)
> > > >
> > > > The images can be viewed here:
> > > >
> > > >
> > https://picasaweb.google.com/noisypitta/Albatross?authuser=0&feat=di
> > rectlink
> > > >
> > > > Any thoughts would be appreciated :)
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > Ashwin
> > > > ===============================
> > > >
> > > > 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
> ===============================
>
>
===============================
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
===============================
|
