To address two points raised today:
1 Rowleyi form of Striated Grasswren. A 2010 paper on grasswrens by Christidis, Rheindt, Boles and Norman (Plumage patterns are good indicators of taxonomic diversity, but not of phylogenetic affinities, in Australian grasswrens Amytornis (Aves: Maluridae)) included genetic samples from rowleyi. While it didn’t specifically address whether it deserves to be split, some of the the results did suggest the genetic differences between rowleyi and other forms of Striated Grasswren are comparable with those between some other species pairs. Actually there have been quite a few papers on Fairy-Wren and Grasswren taxonomy in recent times. Most are listed at this thread on Bird Forums: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=178345 It is interesting that this form was only described in 1999, whereas most of the other Australian splits or potential splits have been known about for a long time.
2 Tasmanian Boobook. This is something I have been looking at recently. The treatment Joshua refers to was first published in Handbook of the Birds of the World. At the time Les Christidis said (see http://bioacoustics.cse.unsw.edu.au/birding-aus/1999-10/msg00418.html ) that it was based on a misinterpretation of some of his research. But having looked at specimens, the Tasmanian birds do look more similar to New Zealand ones than mainland ones. See these photos I took of specimens at the Australian Museum: http://www.pbase.com/mklord/boobooks Frank Rheindt and James Eaton are doing some research on genetics of Ninox owls which hopefully will shed more light.
The second edition of Owls of the World by Weick goes further and splits four Boobooks – Tasmanian, New Zealand, Australian and Red (lurida). The absence of any genetic samples of lurida, plus a lack of detailed research on how they interact with other forms of boobook, makes it hard to assess the merit of that treatment.
Hope this helps.
Murray Lord ===============================
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 ===============================
Hi Michael, The biogeography of a Tasmanian-New Zealand Morepork owl species is interesting and complex, but I’m not convinced it is impossible. It may be unique as you point out (from a Tas-NZ perspective), but that doesn’t rule it out. But first to the morphology. The morphology has been discussed by Mees 1960s, Schodde & Mason 1980, 1997 and Dunn 1999 (= HANZAB). They sort of agree but not completely, and I don’t think any of them got it exactly right. . When I looked at specimens recently (with Murray) it was immediately apparent that NZ novaeseelandiae, Tas leucopsis and Norfolk I undulata all cluster together as a morphological group. They differ consistently from LHI albaria, Wet Tropics lurida, eastern boobook and arid ocellata. The differences between the novaeseelandiae and boobook groups seem to be greater than the differences within either group. That is the basis of a significant difference between the two groups. I need to get a larger sample size of specimens before I can describe the pattern fully, but for now here is a summary: the novaeseelandiae group are smaller and have darker ground colour below, characteristic fine spotting on the upperparts and bright yellow to yellow-orange eyes. Possibly this is convergent evolution. A paper by Norman et al. showed a close genetic relationship between novaeseelandiae and undulata but not leucopsis; however, it is an incomplete study and not particularly enlightening. If these 3 were a species apart from the mainland boobooks then what are the plausible biogeographical scenarios?. Firstly, speciation (and subspeciation) always works by one species becoming two (in a given space), when some form of isolation occurs. So here are some scenarios. 1) The Aus owl evolved into 2 species, 1 on the mainland and 1 on Tas; the Tas species then colonised NZ and NI (in whatever order and by whatever route) and diverged into 2 then 3 subspecies. 2) The Aus bird colonised NZ where it evolved into a new species, and then recolonised Tas; problem is that it would then have to displace the birds already in Tas on its return, and that seems unlikely. 3) The Aus bird colonised NI, speciated, then invaded NZ and Tas (in what ever order), but again colonisation of Tas with a resident Aus form seems unlikely. 4) It radiated out of NZ and across Aus, but then you would not expect a change in morphology between Tas and Aus and between NI and LHI, and would have a problem explaining the diversity of small ninox owls in Asia etc. There are some more unlikely scenarios. Only scenario 1 seems plausible to me. Now, suppose they are all one species across Aus, Tas, NZ, LHI and NI with lots of subspecies. The subspecies still have to evolve (1 becomes 2) through a process of island biogeography and evolution. The only step that needs differ from scenario 1 is that the owl did not need to speciate after colonising Tas and before colonising NZ and NI. We know that many other birds have speciated in Tas. Fossil evidence would help test it, but Murray tells me he can’t find much. A thoughtful DNA would be able to test if the gap between Tas and Aus is larger than the gaps between NZ, NI and Tas, and if the gap between LHI and NI is larger than between NI and NZ. As Murray said before, an Owl book by Weick considers the Red Boobook N. lurida, of the Wet Tropics (not just Atherton) to be a full species. However, the IOC does not agree for now, so it is not on the ‘new aussie checklist’ that started these discussions. It is a distinctive-looking form, though the calls are identical to my ears. But I am not convinced it is a valid species. I think it hybridises with ocellata around Paluma, but the jury is still out on that one. Here’s the thing: it is not that hard to resolve the species-or-subspecies issue when the breeding distributions abut. Lurida and ocellata breed side by side in NQ with ocellata sort of surrounding lurida in its rainfor enclave, Either they hybridise and are therefore subspecies or they don’t and are therefore species. Recent forest clearing may bl the picture, and perhaps a small amount of hybridisation is hard to interpret, but there aren’t many data. David James, Sydney burunglaut07@yahoo.com ==============================
________________________________ Sent: Thursday, 24 November 2011 8:13 AM
HI all, It does not seem to make sense, in a biogeographic sense that Tasmanian and NZ Boobooks are the same species while mainland ones are another. I can’t think ofany other species pairs between Tas and NZ. Perhaps the birds share some similar characteristics beacuse they inhabit wetter forests and more southern forests than mainland birds. There is also the northern Atherton race, lurida I think to consider as well. Would that be a seperate species too??? Michael> From: mklord@iinet.net.au ===============================
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 all, It does not seem to make sense, in a biogeographic sense that Tasmanian and NZ Boobooks are the same species while mainland ones are another. I can’t think ofany other species pairs between Tas and NZ. Perhaps the birds share some similar characteristics beacuse they inhabit wetter forests and more southern forests than mainland birds. There is also the northern Atherton race, lurida I think to consider as well. Would that be a seperate species too??? Michael> From: mklord@iinet.net.au
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================