Scientific names

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 Birding-Aus@birding-aus.org To change settings or unsubscribe visit: http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org