From all this passionate discussion on taxonomies I am assuming that someone (or some committee) has finally come up with a viable, scientifically based and universally accepted definition of “a species”.
Would someone be so kind as to tell me what that definition is.
Bob Inglis Sandstone Point Qld ===============================
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 Dave:
I get your point. As a layman, I always assumed a species was defined by appearance (visual and physical traits) and the fact that one species wouldn’t usually hybridize with others in the same genus or family. If populations of a species were separated by range or barriers, then appearance, behaviour, calls and songs would determine if each was a separate species in its own right or just a sub-species. Then DNA analysis came along……..
Cheers,
John
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
WRT visual distinctness and splits – is there a rationale (or investigation) why Black Currawong is a species and why Clinking isn’t (given the separation of Tasmania and mainland Oz was the same for all of these taxa?) – or for that matter Tasmanian race of Aust Magpie (which has some anomalous size differences)? Cas
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
A few minutes Googling and on Wikipedia will point to what I think is the fundamental problem (and again I am not an expert!) – there is no universally accepted definition of what is a “species” and whatever rules you make you can find problems and exceptions. (I would LOVE to be proved wrong). It may well be of course that humans have an inbuilt need to put everything in neat boxes and that – and any given point in time – some things just won’t fit, not matter how you arrange the boxes!
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
My understanding John (and I am sure experts will correct me!) is that it is not that simple – which gets back to Bob’s point! Each “species” has a range of DNA (see for example humans – and I guess if it didn’t evolution would not happen?) and the ranges can overlap. At what point does a new species occur – what %age difference does there have to be? My understanding is that Chestnut and Grey teals are actually genetically identical and it is which genes are activated that (simplistically) makes one of them Chestnut? So are they 2 species or 1. And subspecies seem to have an even vaguer definition.
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Good one, Bob! I second that motion…
At least in Australia, Europe and North America there is healthy debate on taxonomy….in Asia, it is pathetic – lots and lots of “sub-species” that should be full species but will remain “sub-species” until such time as the “western” authorities see fit to get around to approving and accepting rather than dismissing or ignoring research from this part of the world (mind you, research is sadly lacking here). I daresay the same applies to Africa and Latin America, although their closer proximity to the “Romes” of Ornithology means at least there is some progress. Mind you in Japan, the Yamashina Institute of Ornithology works about as fast as a tortoise moves! A Japanese friend had a rarities sighting publication held up for 2 years before it was finally accepted and approved, probably because he was an “amateur” rather than an “academic”, despite the fact he is probably more knowledgeable than any ornithology professor in the country. Unfortunately, he says that was the first and last time he would ever try to have a rarities sighting officially recognized – no doubt a sentiment shared by many expert non-academic birders here.
But back to species vs sub-species, it should be very simple to compare DNA and decide once an for all, and very quickly as well…but I guess then at lot of ornithologists would be out of a job!
Cheers,
John
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================