Hi John,
I don't understand where you got the number 12 from? Even the most
'conservative' count gets me to 13, IOC 21 and the most 'progressive' count 24
(or if you count the suggested Phoebastria albatrus split, then 25). Maybe I
missed an important point in your review?
traditional IOC progressive
1 1 1 Phoebastria immutabilis Laysan Albatross
1 1 1 Phoebastria nigripes Black-footed Albatross
1 1 1 Phoebastria irrorata Waved Albatross
1 1 1 Phoebastria albatrus Short-tailed Albatross
1 1 1 Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross
1 1 Diomedea antipodensis Antipodean Albatross
1 Diomedea gibsoni Gibson's Albatross
1 1 Diomedea amsterdamensis Amsterdam Albatross
1 1 Diomedea dabbenena Tristan Albatross
1 1 1 Diomedea epomophora Southern Royal Albatross
1 1 Diomedea sanfordi Northern Royal Albatross
1 1 1 Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross
1 1 1 Phoebetria palpebrata Light-mantled Albatross
1 1 1 Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross
1 1 Thalassarche impavida Campbell Albatross
1 1 1 Thalassarche cauta Shy Albatross
1 Thalassarche steadi White-capped Albatross
1 1 Thalassarche eremita Chatham Albatross
1 1 Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross
1 1 1 Thalassarche chrysostoma Grey-headed Albatross
1 1 1 Thalassarche chlororhynchos Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross
1 1 Thalassarche carteri Indian Yellow-nosed Albatross
1 1 1 Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross
1 Thalassarche spec. nov. Pacific Albatross
13 21 24
Cheers,
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
________________________________
From: Jeremy O'Wheel <>
To: John Penhallurick <>
Cc: Birding-aus <>
Sent: Monday, July 30, 2012 11:22 AM
Subject: Paper on Albatross species
Hi John,
I read your paper with much interest, thanks.
I have to say though that I disagree with your argument that the lowest
difference between conventional Thalassarche species should be the limit
for speciation within that genus. That also seems like an arbitrary cut
off based purely on historical morphological taxonomy. In fact it seems
probable that the majority of avian splits will be amongst closely related
species, while species that have been traditionally viewed as separate
species will be more distantly related because their morphological
differences will be greater. So that criteria will usually lead to a
rejection of new splits in favour of conventional taxonomy.
It sounds to me like you're saying that many of the new species do have
morphological differences, genetic differences, geographical isolation and
are distinct populations, but you don't think those differences are big
enough to constitute species status, but your definition of a big enough
difference for species status is the distance between conventional species,
and this is an arbitrary measure, just like the ones you're criticising.
I also thought you dismissed Rains et al. rather quickly, without
addressing any of the arguments for why non-coding mtDNA is better for
taxonomy. I don't think it's a case of "one metric didn't work so we'll
try another," but rather there are good reasons why non-coding mtDNA gives
more precise answers than cytB, and when I look at the Rains et al. data, I
find the uniqueness of D. amsterdamensis haplotypes compelling. I agree
with you about the claim you mention of species divergence 1000 years ago
being questionable (in Phoebastria), but Rains et al. is providing evidence
for a divergence over 200,000 years ago, which seems to me long enough for
a population to be isolated to be regarded as a species - and I would argue
that the fact that the cytB shows only small differences with closely
related species is a reason why non-coding mtDNA evidence is better than
cytB. I was under the impression (and I'll have to check my text book when
I get home) that cytB is usually most informative for divergence at a
genera level, rather than between closely related species.
Finally regarding the anecdote you offer of a D. antipodensis with
identical markings to an Amsterdam Albatross being found at the Antipodes
Islands. I wonder if you can give the reason how it was known to be an
Antipodan Albatross and not an Amsterdam Albatross? Was it merely assumed
to be Antipodan because of the location and the rarity of Amsterdam
Albatross, or was there a more definitive reason for rejecting that it
actually was the bird that it had all the distinguishing features of?
Kind Regards,
Jeremy O'Wheel
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 1:09 PM, John Penhallurick
<>wrote:
> Hi Friends,
>
> I have just had a paper published in the refereed journal The Open
> Ornithology Journal showing that all the splits proposed in Albatross
> species over the last 30 years and unjustified and that in terms of the
> multidimensional Biological Species concept, only 12 species should be
> recognised. One notable feature of this paper is that as far as I know, it
> is the first published paper in ornithology that uses the concept of
> epigentics. If anyone would like the pdf, please reply privately to me.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Dr John Penhallurick
>
> 86 Bingley Cres
>
> Fraser A.C.T. 2615
>
> Australia
>
> email:
>
> Phone: Home (612) 62585428
>
> Mobile:0408585426
>
> sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt Aeneid Book 1,line 462 "The
> world is a world of tears, and the burdens of mortality touch the heart."
>
> Magna est veritas et praevalet Vulgate, Book of Edras
>
> The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people
> whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or can not so well
> do, for themselves-in their separate, and individual capacities. Abraham
> Lincoln
>
> Please visit my website: http://www.worldbirdinfo.net
> <http://www.worldbirdinfo.net/>
>
> Please visit my blog:
>
> http://jpenhall.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/why-i-remain-a-climate-sceptic-in-r
> elation-to-human-emissions-of-co2/
>
>
>
> ===============================
>
> 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
===============================
|
