Hi All, After reading Sean Dooley’s reply to Paul, I have been trying to figure out what happened with the Christidis and Boles list with regards to the Lesser Sooty Owl. In the guide books they are a different size and live in different parts of the country, so why is the Lesser Sooty Owl no longer counted as a separate species? Does this mean that if I am lucky enough to see the owl formally known as the Lesser Sooty Owl on the Atherton Tableland that I will be seeing the Sooty Owl? Can someone please explain this to me or at least if it makes no sense to others then, what is the official explanation? And I have been trying to figure out the conspecific term. C & D still have some species as separate (tickable) but as conspecific. Are they saying that as with the Western Wattlebird and Little Wattlebird that at some stage millions of years ago they were one species? Thanks, Patrick Scully ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I note that the recent IOC version 2.8 list splits the rufous form of the Boobook found in north Qld from the non-rainforest form.
John Leonard
Indeed – what is a species? To quote Darwin (who may have known a thing or two?) “No one definition has satisfied all naturalists; yet every naturalist knows vaguely what he means when he speaks of a species. Generally the term includes the unknown element of a distinct act of creation”
The Guardian reckons there are around 26 different species concepts – http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/punctuated-equilibrium/2010/oct/20/3!
I guess we are trying to categorise things which may not always fit into the neat boxes that scientists desire – indeed as evolution progresses there is rarely a clear dividing line between the end of one species and the start of another.
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Sorry Tony, not trying to hang this on you personally, but I think C&B get unfairly bashed for presenting their annotated taxonomy. They have been quite open about their process of how species are included or not, with solid evidence supporting each decision. If you choose not to use C&B for your personal list, then obviously that is your decision. I just object to the implication they have somehow wronged the birders of Australia by following good scientific protocol in creating their list. The topic keeps coming up on Birding-Aus with no resolution because no one goes and actually does the science required to change the taxonomy. Sadly from what I hear there will be no more updates to C&B. The IOC list seems to be becoming more widely accepted, though the IOC list agrees with C&B on Sooty Owl at this stage. Honestly I won’t be surprised if when someone does a project on Sooty Owl they come up with a sound justification for re-splitting the species, but please, get it peer reviewed so it can be included in evidence-based taxonomies.
Regards, Chris
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I always record subspecies so I have a world list of species and subspecies (actually I have 4 based on different publications – though easy enough to update when species are recorded). Some are guesses (particualarly overseas) but one or two minor glitches I can live with. Four points on this topic (please shoot me down if I am wrong or you diasgree) The reason Sooty Owl and Lesser Sooty Owlhave been lumped is that for many years the southern Sooty Owl was lumped with a similar taxa in Papua New Guinea (different subspecies) with the smaller Lesser Sooty Owl in the middle. There are possibly strong arguments both ways to have one species or three but having two probably doesn’t make much sense. However the most recent genetic works indicates that the three were equally different, but had not been separated long enough to be considered separate species. Given they are unlikely to interbreed eventually (unless climatic changes bring rainforests closer together again) they will be eventually be fgenetically distinct to be listed as three species. All this is detailed on Pages 166-7 of C&B.Conspecific simply means ‘Member of the same species’ – Penguin Dictionary of Biology (apologies if this is not what you mean). The best place to get at least an idea of subspecies is from the 2006 publication ‘CSIRO List of Australian Vertebrates – A Reference with Conservation Status’ by Clayton, Wombey, Mason, Chesser and Wells. This lists all subspecies so you can allocate to C&B species taxonomy – some will always be a guess (particularly in non-breeding season). Schodde & Mason (1999) also maps distributions for all subspecies of Australian passerines.C&B is the ‘official’ list maintained by Birds Australia. However the official Australian List is maintained by the Australian Biological Resources Study (Australian Faunal Directory). More info here http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/online-resources/fauna/index.html The CSIRO publication was an attempt update this list. I do believe they have updated to the C&B list so at the moment they may be the same but this will not be forever. The greatest limitation of C&B I think is the lack of subspecies. Good to IOC making Version 3.0 to ha ve this included – I suspect in the longer term this will become the standard list of species and taxa for Australia (particularly as it gets updated based on published papers relatively often).My two cents and apolgies if I am wrong. Cheers, Peter
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi all,
To determine taxonomical status Christidis and Bole use mainly morphological and molecular characters, rather than things like topography, food, hunting, behaviour, breeding, and vocalisations. According to the research carried out by C&B the Sooty and Lesser Sooty are less morphologically different that many birds considered the same species. In essence the specific status is substantiated by DNA evidence with nucleotide substitution in DNA-sequencing variable at subspecific level from zero to 1%. Greater differences suggest species status. A good example of this is found in Southern Boobook, with birds in Victoria being more morphologically divergent from birds in northern NSW than Sooty Owl are from Lesser Sooty Owl. In essence it depends on where you draw the line.
Quite clearly subspecies complex are poorly understood and further detailed work is required.
Personally I’d hoped that genetics would give us some clear answers when determining species status, however quite obviously this is not the case – and from reading the comments here – it is still a matter of interpretation.
Cheers,
Tim Dolby
________________________________________ Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2011 12:21 PM Cc: ‘birding-aus threads’; scullyp3@gmail.com
Hallo Chris, I’m not sure I deserved such a condemning response – I certainly wasn’t complaining about the published taxonomy – merely that I choose not to go along with all of it and have in fact moved on without some of it.
And yes, I do keep the Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans separate from the subspecies nigrescens, flaveolus, subadelaidae, fleurieuensis, and melanoptera (on KI, and recently also on the tip of Cape Jervis where I have a property).
I do choose not to adhere slavishly to what the professionals dictate . That’s not to say they are wrong, just that I choose otherwise. I think it’s still a free world ?
Tony
Sent: Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:18 AM Cc: martin cachard; scullyp3@gmail.com; birding-aus threads
Do you all have Adelaide and Yellow Rosellas on your list as separate species too? They are pretty distinct from the Crimson Rosellas we have locally but are the same species taxonomically also (for now at least, I think there’s a paper in the works on this). Personally I’ll leave taxonomy to the professionals. If you have complaints, please publish a peer reviewed journal article to rectify the taxonomic disparity rather than complaining about others who have done good science. Not saying you are wrong about the Sooty Owl complex, but C&B is based on the best available science at the time of writing, if you want it overturned, fix the science, otherwise accept the umpire’s decision and move on.
Regards,
Chris
I keep the Sooty and the Lesser Sooty Owls as two separate species. Anyone who has seen them knows very well how different they are.
Tony
Hallo Chris, I’m not sure I deserved such a condemning response – I certainly wasn’t complaining about the published taxonomy – merely that I choose not to go along with all of it and have in fact moved on without some of it.
And yes, I do keep the Crimson Rosella Platycercus elegans separate from the subspecies nigrescens, flaveolus, subadelaidae, fleurieuensis, and melanoptera (on KI, and recently also on the tip of Cape Jervis where I have a property).
I do choose not to adhere slavishly to what the professionals dictate . That’s not to say they are wrong, just that I choose otherwise. I think it’s still a free world ?
Tony
Sent: Wednesday, 4 May 2011 11:18 AM Cc: martin cachard; scullyp3@gmail.com; birding-aus threads
Do you all have Adelaide and Yellow Rosellas on your list as separate species too? They are pretty distinct from the Crimson Rosellas we have locally but are the same species taxonomically also (for now at least, I think there’s a paper in the works on this). Personally I’ll leave taxonomy to the professionals. If you have complaints, please publish a peer reviewed journal article to rectify the taxonomic disparity rather than complaining about others who have done good science. Not saying you are wrong about the Sooty Owl complex, but C&B is based on the best available science at the time of writing, if you want it overturned, fix the science, otherwise accept the umpire’s decision and move on.
Regards,
Chris
I keep the Sooty and the Lesser Sooty Owls as two separate species. Anyone who has seen them knows very well how different they are.
Tony
Do you all have Adelaide and Yellow Rosellas on your list as separate species too? They are pretty distinct from the Crimson Rosellas we have locally but are the same species taxonomically also (for now at least, I think there’s a paper in the works on this). Personally I’ll leave taxonomy to the professionals. If you have complaints, please publish a peer reviewed journal article to rectify the taxonomic disparity rather than complaining about others who have done good science. Not saying you are wrong about the Sooty Owl complex, but C&B is based on the best available science at the time of writing, if you want it overturned, fix the science, otherwise accept the umpire’s decision and move on.
Regards, Chris
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
I keep the Sooty and the Lesser Sooty Owls as two separate species. Anyone who has seen them knows very well how different they are.
Tony
Hi All, as Martin mentions, he keeps sub-species lists also in the off chance that one day they might be upgraded to a “tickable” full species.
My only problem with that is, apart from maps in Simpson and Day, where else can I find a list of all Australian sub-species and their approximate distributions??
Bring back the Lesser Sooty Owl!! My life list dropped with its lumping
Yours in all things “green”
Regards
John Harris Manager, Environment and Sustainability Donvale Christian College 155 Tindals Rd Donvale 3111 03 9844 2471 Ext 217 0409 090 955 john.harris@donvale.vic.edu.au
President, Field Naturalists Club of Victoria (FNCV) Past President, Victorian Association for Environmental Education (VAEE)
Hi Patrick
When you come up to FNQ & hopefully observe the local Lesser Sooty Owl, you can’t ‘officially’ count it as a new species tick (unless of course, you are yet to see a Sooty Owl further south!!).
BUT, this ‘lumping’ by C&B 2008 is strongly disputed by many, including many of us up here more familiar with this bird in the field than some taxonomists.
So Patrick, come up here, find & enjoy the bird, record that you’ve observed it, & in time, I’m sure that you will find that this local bird will be split again from the Sooty Owl & given the full species recognition it deserves. Some of us up here are currently working on this to be rectified….but there is much work still to be done on this one….(amongst some other lumps/splits of FNQ birds).
As for further answers to your questions about what is tickable (or not) due to a species’ status, I’m sure someone else more qualified than me can help to explain this to you.
But for my own records list, I just make sure what birds I observe are recorded to sub-species level – changes in the taxonomy of our birds, & accordingly our official list (whatever the source of it), will continue to occur. For now, I keep my records as per the current C&B species list as it is defined in 2008 because this is the current official species list, like/agree with it or not. I can update my full species list as the changes to the official list occur since I have a record of the sub-species I have seen & where. I think you will find that most Aust birders do the same thing or similar.
Someone else I’m certain, will add a better & more scientific explanation about your other questions – I, for now, just wanted to put my gripe out there about the poor lumping of Lesser Sooty Owl on behalf of several other dismayed local FNQ birders !!
Obviously Patrick, as it stands now I haven’t got a Lesser Sooty Owl on my species list – just 2 sub-species/races of Sooty Owl….
Cheers
Martin Cachard Cairns 0428 782 808
figure out Lesser longer enough to explain the conspecific Little species?
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org =============================== ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Patrick
When you come up to FNQ & hopefully observe the local Lesser Sooty Owl, you can’t ‘officially’ count it as a new species tick (unless of course, you are yet to see a Sooty Owl further south!!).
BUT, this ‘lumping’ by C&B 2008 is strongly disputed by many, including many of us up here more familiar with this bird in the field than some taxonomists.
So Patrick, come up here, find & enjoy the bird, record that you’ve observed it, & in time, I’m sure that you will find that this local bird will be split again from the Sooty Owl & given the full species recognition it deserves. Some of us up here are currently working on this to be rectified….but there is much work still to be done on this one….(amongst some other lumps/splits of FNQ birds).
As for further answers to your questions about what is tickable (or not) due to a species’ status, I’m sure someone else more qualified than me can help to explain this to you.
But for my own records list, I just make sure what birds I observe are recorded to sub-species level – changes in the taxonomy of our birds, & accordingly our official list (whatever the source of it), will continue to occur. For now, I keep my records as per the current C&B species list as it is defined in 2008 because this is the current official species list, like/agree with it or not. I can update my full species list as the changes to the official list occur since I have a record of the sub-species I have seen & where. I think you will find that most Aust birders do the same thing or similar.
Someone else I’m certain, will add a better & more scientific explanation about your other questions – I, for now, just wanted to put my gripe out there about the poor lumping of Lesser Sooty Owl on behalf of several other dismayed local FNQ birders !!
Obviously Patrick, as it stands now I haven’t got a Lesser Sooty Owl on my species list – just 2 sub-species/races of Sooty Owl….
Cheers
Martin Cachard Cairns 0428 782 808
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================