Hi Laurie, Mike et al.
Yes, you are right, the addition of vagrants to the Australian list is a
separate matter from the IOC split/lump issue, but both are part of the
generation/maintenance of a dynamic OZ list. I did not want to mix these two
issues. However, I used them to explain that it takes time and effort to
maintain a dynamic list. Further, there is not only the OZ-list that needs to
be maintained, but also BARC's 'index of decisions and case summaries' and
'current review list' need to be updated and possibly other things, too. And
this is all done by people who primarily do other things for work. So we should
allow some time for that to happen.
I agree with you, Mike, that some of the lumping and splitting is a bit
annoying - especially the Great Egret error and other premature decisions. But
moving NZSP between three genera I thought was very interesting (especially
having read the original paper suggesting to include it into Fregetta [1]). BTW
thanks, Mike, I guess you were referring to "our" Ulladulla Fregetta maoriana?
;-)
And yes, I agree with you, Laurie, lots of the vagrants are one-offs. So I had
a bit of a smile when Mike mentioned his 854 "Australian" birds. Does e.g. a
single visit of a Slaty-backed Gull make it an "Australian" bird? But one never
knows - nobody would ever have dreamed of NZSPs in Australia in three
consecutive years...
Cheers,
Nikolas
Reference:
Robertson B.C., Stephenson B.M., Goldstien S.J.
When rediscovery is not enough: Taxonomic uncertainty hinders conservation of a
critically endangered bird
(2011) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 61 (3), pp. 949-952.
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: Laurie Knight <>
To: Nikolas Haass <>
Cc: "" <>;
"" <>
Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] C&B vs IOC taxonomy
Thanks Nikolas,
I see there being two conflated issues here.
One is the ongoing taxonomic revisions that affect species that regularly occur
in Australia - species that either breed in Australia or are regular
migrants/visitors to Australia.
The other is the official recognition of observations of vagrants in
Australian territory. These are often only made in external territories and
infrequent / "one-offs" - the "recent sightings of Asian Stubtail, Eastern
Crowned Warbler" you cite are a good case in point.
IOC lumps and splits is the key issue for twitchers who want to keep their
lists up to date. The addition of vagrants to the Australian list is a
separate matter.
Regards, Laurie.
On 14/06/2012, at 8:50 AM, Nikolas Haass wrote:
> Hi Paul,
>
>
> Yes, as I said, the OZ-list is a dynamic list as well and it is meant to
> follow the latest IOC decisions (currently 3.1). But this doesn't only mean
> that it will be frequently updated with the latest IOC decisions but also
> with additions to the OZ list such as the recent sightings of Asian Stubtail,
> Eastern Crowned Warbler...
> Therefore there may be a (slight or not so slight) delay in the dynamic.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Paul G Dodd <>
> To: 'Nikolas Haass' <>;
> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2012 7:23 AM
> Subject: RE: [Birding-Aus] C&B vs IOC taxonomy
>
>
> Thanks Nikolas, that was the list that I was using – however, now I have some
> further concerns.
>
> A number of people have told me that the Quail-thrush splits I mentioned have
> been accepted by IOC in the latest release. On checking the BARC spreadsheet,
> I note that these are not listed as official splits in that list – which is
> based on IOC 2.9 – whereas they are split in the latest IOC 3.1 list that I
> have downloaded from http://www.worldbirdnames.org/
>
> So, this begs the question – IF Australia is to use IOC going forwards, are
> we to use the most current IOC checklist, or do we use the checklist based on
> IOC 2.9 with some amendments posted on the BARC page? In my opinion, if we’re
> to use IOC we should be using the current IOC checklist.
>
> Paul Dodd
> Docklands, Victoria
>
>
> From:Nikolas Haass
> Sent: Thursday, 14 June 2012 12:04 AM
> To: ;
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] C&B vs IOC taxonomy
>
> Hi Paul et al.,
>
> An IOC-based OZ list compiled by David James is on the BARC website:
> http://www.tonypalliser.com/barc/barc-home.html
> Similar to the IOC list itself, this one is a dynamic list. So, keep checking.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
> ________________________________
>
> From:Paul G Dodd <>
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 9:42 PM
> Subject: [Birding-Aus] C&B vs IOC taxonomy
>
> Hi birders,
>
>
>
> Following is my analysis of the splits that are supported by IOC but not by
> Christidis and Boles:
>
>
>
> Antipodean Albatross (split from Wandering Albatross)
>
> Northern Royal Albatross (split from Royal Albatross - and Royal Albatross
> renamed Southern Royal Albatross)
>
> Campbell Albatross (split from Black-browed Albatross)
>
> Salvin's Albatross (split from Shy Albatross)
>
> Chatham Albatross (split from Shy Albatross)
>
> Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross (split from Yellow-nosed Albatross - and
> Yellow-nosed Albatross renamed Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross)
>
> Western Grasswren (split from Thick-billed Grasswren)
>
> Hornbill Friarbird (split from Helmeted Friarbird)
>
> Swan River Honeyeater (split from White-naped Honeyeater)
>
>
>
> And the following are proposed splits, I believe:
>
>
>
> Western Quail-thrush (split from Chestnut-breasted Quail-thrush)
>
> Nullabor Quail-thrush (split from Cinnamon Quail-thrush)
>
> Western Shrike-tit (split from Crested Shrike-tit)
>
>
>
> Can anyone with more taxonomic experience than me please confirm these
> splits? Have I missed any splits that anyone knows about? Also, are there
> any lumps under IOC?
>
>
>
> Paul Dodd
>
> Docklands, Victoria
>
>
>
> ===============================
>
> 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
===============================
|
