HI Ashwin,
I guess this summary would begin to answer that question
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/12110/
Cheers,
Tony
From: Ashwin Rudder
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:09 PM
To: Tony
Cc: Jeff Davies; Peter Shute; ; ;
;
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
This is (I suspect) a very simplistic question, but if it is practically
impossible to separate dabbenena from gibsoni, even in the hand, what is the
basis for suggesting that speciation has occurred? Is it just a matter of
physical distance between breeding colonies? Or DNA evidence? Or something
else?
Cheers,
Ashwin
On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:04 PM, Tony <> wrote:
Well put Jeff (I won't dwell further on the strange BARC comment).
For those interested here is a paper displaying just how difficult it is to
identify Tristan Albatross using measurements
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1675/1524-4695%282003%29026%5B0338%3ASTTAAT
%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Although the sample size is small this paper suggests to me (see table 3)
that separating dabbenena from gibsoni in the hand is impossible given our
current knowledge?
For the time being BARC still follows Christidis & Boles utilizing the IOC
for species new to Australia. So yes BARC would definitely be interested in
any claims of dabbenena.
Cheers,
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From:
On Behalf Of Jeff Davies
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 4:28 PM
To: 'Peter Shute'; ; ;
; ;
Subject: Which Wandering Albatross?
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
|
