Mike I take your point but I'm not sure I agree with your premise that
vernacular names are more 'useful'.
I realise this is a wellworn topic but for the sake of answering Steve's
request for clarification (and defending the taxonomists!):
Look again at Steve's question and you will note the specific name (species
epithet) of the bird in question has not changed – basalis.
Nor will it ever change for the type population (which I think is our
Australian bird?) as there are strict rules of precedence, unless disputed due
to obscure early synonyms. So the specific name is in fact very very stable –
arguably more so than the vernacular.
Only the genus name has changed, usually to reflect new understanding of
relationships (shared ancestry) between related species. In this case splitting
Australo-Papuan from African bronze-cuckoos. So the Latin binomial contains
more information (implied ancestry) than the English vernacular. If you know a
bit of Latin the binomial also contains more useful information than the
vernacular ie. 'bronze' and 'base' (of tail feathers).
So I would argue the Latin is both more stable, and more useful in several
ways. Except perhaps in a search engine, but even then the term basalis should
be just as 'useful' as Horsfield's?
And Steve to answer your question, no there is no 'definitive' list, but the
'official' list is supposedly Birdlife Australia's list as it takes over from
C&B 2008. However many Australian birders are increasingly preferring IOC
because it's online, updated very regularly, international (with good
Australian representation), and defensible (ie they usually give reasons and
citations for their decisions). I don't want to start a war here but let me
quote part of the BirdLife website: "In undertaking this work, BirdLife does
not pretend to be an authority on the taxonomic status of the world’s birds
(and indeed does not have the resources or aspiration to become this)". Plus
some recent decisions eg failure to split western White-naped Honeyeater are
beyond belief and seem to imply BirdLife don't believe in DNA. Why would any
sane birder want use a taxonomy that openly confesses it's not an authority,
and explicitly rejects genetic evidence???? But Steve if change annoys you, IOC
might not be the best choice, it's one of the more dynamic taxonomies.
Sorry, end of rant
Martin
_______________________________________________
Birding-Aus mailing list
To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
|
