Boobooks in Australia - and Lesser Sooty Owl

Subject: Boobooks in Australia - and Lesser Sooty Owl
From: Lloyd Nielsen <>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:35:15 +1000
It is to be hoped that the boobook studies under way will take into account other factors along with genetics. Including calls is probably a good indication. I am afraid I can have no confidence in some of the findings of geneticists where determination of species is based on DNA evidence alone. While some of these decision are OK and useful, a few are ridiculous. The classic example of this has to be the very conservative lumping of the Lesser Sooty Owl with the other two races of greater Sooty Owl by Norman et al. (on DNA evidence alone), completely disregarding other factors which by themselves strongly point to the fact that the Lesser Sooty has already evolved into a very distinct species. Unfortunately, while Konig later regarded the Lesser Sooty as a distinct species in his study, the IOC opted to follow Norman et al.

The lumping was apparently done on the grounds that the three Sooty Owl taxa have similar/identical DNA. But so apparently do birds (species pairs) such as Grey and Chestnut Teal, White-browed and Masked Woodswallows, the two black-cockatoos in SW WA. Where is the consistency?

There are a number of important differences between these two Australian owls – e.g. the larger Sooty (/tenebricosa/) has a home range of from about 350 to 800 hectares, sometimes as much as 3,000 hectares with nests far apart and well out of earshot of each other (Hollands). Conversely, the Lesser Sooty comes close to being a communal breeder. Territories can be as small as (and often are) 50 hectares or less in extent with nests as close as 400 metres, sometimes less, and well within earshot of each other. Of all the other territorial Australian Owls, only the Southern Boobook approaches this sort of breeding density. There are other differences.

In the early 1970s, the late David Fleay attempted to interbreed a male Lesser Sooty with a female southern Sooty in captivity. After two torrid years of reluctant and fiery courtship, the female finally nested and hatched two young whereupon she immediately set upon the male, killed him and fed him to the nestlings!

I think we have to get well past declaring species or subspecies on genetics alone, especially in the more complicated cases. While it is a great tool, surely it should be corroborated by other lines of evidence, balanced by good field research, emphasis on plumage, behaviour, territory, song, calls and many other things. Surely field work still has a critical role. Unfortunately, one gets the feeling in some instances that the science seems to overshadow a good dose of common sense!

Lloyd Nielsen
Mt Molloy, Nth Qld


To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU