http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1474-919X.2002.00091.x/pdf is
the document. SOme good points Nikolaas - in my "early" days I guess I just
"ticked" the species - now I am much more interested in the subspecies -
although identification at that level is not always easy and not all field
guides even go to that level of detail
On 6 January 2013 09:43, Nikolas Haass <> wrote:
> Hi Laurie,
>
> I know that you are joking. You still triggered a response, although I
> wanted to stay away from this discussion.
>
> Hi Birding-Aus,
>
> Regarding species concepts, there is a nice review by the late Andreas
> Helbig and colleagues:
> Helbig et al. Ibis (2002), 144, 518–525 (you can Google it and get a free
> pdf)
> Maybe that helps a bit.
>
> Taxonomy is very important and interesting for the scientific
> understanding of relationships and evolution. Someone mentioned the former
> Herring Gull complex. I think that this is an exciting example for how our
> past knowledge was proven wrong regarding relations between taxa.
> Unfortunately, the term 'species' is also very important for conservation.
> As an example, small isolated populations on islands receive way more
> attention if they are regarded a species as opposed to a lower taxon. This
> doesn't really make sense to me as I don't see a difference in protecting a
> population of a species or that of a (distinct) lower taxon (e.g. Indian
> versus Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross).
> Anyway, the topic is very academic as you may see in the above reference
> and in some of the responses to this thread.
>
> On the other side, I don't really understand all the hype about lumping
> and splitting in the non-academic birding community (listers, twitchers,
> birdos, name it...). Why don't birders enjoy and document identifiable
> taxa? (some of us do - I know) Having "ticked" Crimson Finch clearly
> doesn't mean that you have seen evangelinae - a bird quite different from
> an "ordinary" Crimson Finch! And there are hundreds of similar examples. I
> believe that ringnecks, the blue-cheeked rosella group, the spotted
> pardalote group, shrike-tits etc. were mentioned earlier.
>
> There was an overseas visitor on a pelagic (a year or so ago), who told
> me that he wasn't interested in Indian YN Albatross, because he had seen
> "it" previously. It turned out that he had only seen Atlantic YNA before.
> He uses Clements for his world tick list, which doesn't accept the YNA
> split. When I told him that Clements had accepted the Shy split into 3
> species [cauta (including subspecies steadi), salvini and eremita], he was
> suddenly interested in seeing a Shy (he had only seen Salvin's before),
> otherwise he would have ignored it (as he did with the Indian YNA).
> Does this make sense?
> If you are interested in a bird rather than a checkmark or number on a
> spreadsheet, then you should have an actual look at the bird - regardless
> of its taxonomic status.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Nikolas
>
> ----------------
> Nikolas Haass
>
> Sydney, NSW
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Laurie Knight <>
> To: Robert Inglis <>
> Cc: Birding-Aus <>
> Sent: Sunday, January 6, 2013 9:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Birding-Aus] Splits, lumps, taxonomies, check-lists,
> whatever.
>
> A "species" is something you "tick"
>
> :)
>
> LK
>
> On 03/01/2013, at 7:42 PM, Robert Inglis wrote:
>
> > From all this passionate discussion on taxonomies I am assuming that
> someone (or some committee) has finally come up with a viable,
> scientifically based and universally accepted definition of “a species”.
> >
> > Would someone be so kind as to tell me what that definition is.
> >
> > Bob Inglis
> > Sandstone Point
> > Qld
> > ===============================
> >
> > 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
> ===============================
>
===============================
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
===============================
|
