The premise is that "what BARC thinks of them" and what is actually happening
out there in the real world don't correlate. In fact I don't even actually
understand what it was that Henry was actually trying to say about BARC with
that statement, maybe he should ellaborate. I feel uncomfortable when BARCs
name gets thrown up as some sort of punching bag for issues it has nothing to
do with.
BARC isn't a taxonomic review committee, it aims to provide an orderly approach
to identifying uncommonly recorded taxon and part of that orderly approach is
to follow a single recommended species list, also not determined by BARC. I
agree with Nikolas that it would probably be more functional and less
controversial if we recognized subspecies as referable taxon. From a personal
point of view whether a bird is a true species or not is not a contributing
factor to the process of trying to identify what it is flying around in front
of you.
Getting back to Tristram Abatross, I suspect that is one taxon(irrespective of
whether you want to consider it a species or not) that if claimed and presented
to BARC for assessment would be virtually impossible to ever be accepted as a
valid record, I am certainly unaware of a sure fire way to identify it. I am
not speaking on behalf of BARC here just as a voting member.
Cheers Jeff.
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Shute
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 3:57 PM
To: ; ; ;
; ;
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
I interpreted Harry's remark as meaning that it doesn't matter to the birds
what BARC thinks of them, not that they shouldn't concern BARC.
Am I wrong?
Peter Shute
--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry
|
