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: Re: [Birding-Aus] 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: Re: [Birding-Aus] 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
>
|
