“Thank you” to everyone who responded to my query, even to those whose
responses I didn’t really understand.
It is interesting that the concept of species as a base element of taxonomy is
widely accepted but when a definition of “species” is asked for the response is
usually that it cannot be defined. I beg to differ.
A simple and acceptable (to me at least) definition of “species” could be “a
group subordinate to a genus and containing individuals agreeing in some common
attributes and called by a common name”. Thus “a species” can be defined as a
member of such a group.
Unfortunately, that explains in logical terms what a species is but it doesn’t
explain in biological terms how any of those ‘individuals’ were assessed to be
eligible for inclusion as a ‘species’ belonging in one particular or, indeed,
in any genus.
In retrospect and after considering the above definition I realise I asked the
wrong question.
What my question should have been is “Is there a viable, scientifically based
and universally accepted process (or set of criteria) by which individual
creatures are assessed for the purpose of including them as a ‘species’ in a
particular genus?”.
The fact that there are several taxonomies being used for the birds of
Australia makes it obvious that there is no such universally accepted process
or criteria set. It also seems apparent to me that none of the touted
taxonomies is entirely science based but all depend to some degree on
subjective assessments. It also seems to me that some birdwatchers are
dissatisfied with all of the extant taxonomies and are prepared to devise their
own modified versions of those taxonomies based on their own concepts.
Now, before anyone becomes overly excited and starts to think I am being
hypercritical of anyone or any taxonomy, I think I should clarify (or at least
try to clarify) a few things about my question and why I asked it.
I must point out that I readily, happily and enthusiastically accept the
concept of “species” and all of the other stages of taxonomy so I am not
wishing to critisise anyone who is involved in examining the
species/sub-species status of particular birds. I believe in the “origin of
species by means of natural selection” and thus the evolution of ‘new’ species
as ‘splits’ from ‘old’ species.
In the field of ornithology I am strictly a lay-person observing from the
sideline; I certainly have no qualifications in taxonomy and am quite happy to
accept what the ‘experts’ determine to be the true situation regarding the
status of a particular species or sub-species. However, in Australia at the
moment, there appears to be at least three ‘expertly devised’ taxonomies for
the birds of Australia in use. More precisely, there is one taxonomy
exclusively dedicated to the birds of Australia and another two ‘world’
taxonomies which include the birds of Australia. There also appears to be some
not so expertly devised variations of those three taxonomies devised by
individual birdwatchers to suit there own needs.
To be quite frank, I don’t really care which taxonomy is considered to be the
‘best’ but at the moment I am happy to stick with C&B 2008 as this is the one
which is used (with some licence) in the most recent editions of the most
popular Australian bird field guides. It also appears to be the taxonomy which
Birdlife Australia requires for its Atlas project and also appears to be the
taxonomy required for contributions to Birdlife Photography.
However, no taxonomy stands still and nor should it, so no doubt there will
come a time when Birdlife Australia converts to another taxonomy as will future
editions of the Australian bird field guides and when that time comes I also
will convert even though I am not a member of Birdlife Australia (or any other
‘birdwatching’ club/association/group/collective for that matter) and it would
likely mean some extra work to ‘adjust’ my website. (Sorry about that very long
sentence.)
I would, of course, hope that such a conversion would be done according to good
scientific reasons and not just to obtain a ‘checklist’ which makes more
‘ticks’ available.
I also accept that any new taxonomy accepted by Birdlife Australia will not be
a new C&B.
I could go on for ever on this but I probably would only get myself into
severely turbulent air.
Of the responses so far........
Helen Larson’s response was very incitant (my word for the day) and also
contained a great deal of insight. Thank you Helen. Unfortunately your last
statement does seem to be a commonly held attitude towards what a ‘species’ is.
The detailed contribution from Nikolas Haass sums up pretty much my attitude.
To choose to follow a particular taxonomy simply because that one gives a
desired outcome, e.g., a certain list, doesn’t appeal to me. However, I
certainly don’t deny the right of any other birdwatcher to have a different
approach to birdwatching and taxonomy to the one I have.
My principle (but not obsessive) birding interest is in photographing birds and
I do like to put species names (common and scientific) to those birds but,
unfortunately, it is becoming difficult to be sure that the names I am using
are ones that other birdwatchers are also using.
It would be so much easier if we were all “singing from the same songbook”.
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
===============================
|
