Hi Laurie, Mike et al.
Yes, you are right, the addition of vagrants to the Australian list is a separate matter from the IOC split/lump issue, but both are part of the generation/maintenance of a dynamic OZ list. I did not want to mix these two issues. However, I used them to explain that it takes time and effort to maintain a dynamic list. Further, there is not only the OZ-list that needs to be maintained, but also BARC’s ‘index of decisions and case summaries’ and ‘current review list’ need to be updated and possibly other things, too. And this is all done by people who primarily do other things for work. So we should allow some time for that to happen.
I agree with you, Mike, that some of the lumping and splitting is a bit annoying – especially the Great Egret error and other premature decisions. But moving NZSP between three genera I thought was very interesting (especially having read the original paper suggesting to include it into Fregetta [1]). BTW thanks, Mike, I guess you were referring to “our” Ulladulla Fregetta maoriana? 😉
And yes, I agree with you, Laurie, lots of the vagrants are one-offs. So I had a bit of a smile when Mike mentioned his 854 “Australian” birds. Does e.g. a single visit of a Slaty-backed Gull make it an “Australian” bird? But one never knows – nobody would ever have dreamed of NZSPs in Australia in three consecutive years…
Cheers,
Nikolas
Reference:
Robertson B.C., Stephenson B.M., Goldstien S.J. When rediscovery is not enough: Taxonomic uncertainty hinders conservation of a critically endangered bird (2011) Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 61 (3), pp. 949-952. Â
