Hi all,
I’d like a hand identifying these two Wandering Albatross to species (or subspecies depending on your taxonomy beliefs) level, if it’s possible. At the moment I’m struggling to split between gibsoni and exulans, and thought I’d throw the pics out to some experts to get some more opinions. I have more photos/bigger crops of both individuals.
The photos were taken mid January 2012, off Lord Howe Island. Images 1-3 show the first bird Images 4 and 5 show the second bird, which I neglected to get good shots of… Images 6 and 7 show both birds, with the first bird on the right-hand-side in both pics. (This information is included in the captions)
The images can be viewed here: https://picasaweb.google.com/noisypitta/Albatross?authuser=0&feat=directlink
Any thoughts would be appreciated 
Cheers, Ashwin ===============================
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 obviously meant to type Tristan Albatross not Tristram, I do know the difference between an Albatross and a Stormpetrel.
Cheers Jeff.
G’day Brook,
That’s obviously an acceptable record, I was referring below to a fly by type records. As mentioned in a previous email, radio tracking data indicate the bird reaches at least SW WA, so southern Australia is obviously part of the taxon’s natural distribution.
Cheers Jeff.
This is (I suspect) a very simplistic question, but if it is practically impossible to separate dabbenena from gibsoni, even in the hand, what is the basis for suggesting that speciation has occurred? Is it just a matter of physical distance between breeding colonies? Or DNA evidence? Or something else?
Cheers, Ashwin
===============================
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 Jeff,
I’m certain SOSSA has a confirmed record of dabbenena in Australian waters. The bird in question was captured and had a South African band on it. The South African’s confirmed the bird had been banded as a chick on Gough Island. The South African’s banded it as a chick in 1992. It was captured off Wollongong in 1997 and was recaptured on Gough in 2005.
Cheers, Brook
===============================
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 Ashwin,
I guess this summary would begin to answer that question
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/12110/
Cheers,
Tony
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2012 10:09 PM Cc: Jeff Davies; Peter Shute; hb01@uowmail.edu.au; nhaass@yahoo.com; jgraff2@hotmail.com; birding-aus@vicnet.net.au
This is (I suspect) a very simplistic question, but if it is practically impossible to separate dabbenena from gibsoni, even in the hand, what is the basis for suggesting that speciation has occurred? Is it just a matter of physical distance between breeding colonies? Or DNA evidence? Or something else?
Cheers, Ashwin
Well put Jeff (I won’t dwell further on the strange BARC comment).
For those interested here is a paper displaying just how difficult it is to identify Tristan Albatross using measurements
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1675/1524-4695%282003%29026%5B0338%3ASTTAAT %5D2.0.CO%3B2
Although the sample size is small this paper suggests to me (see table 3) that separating dabbenena from gibsoni in the hand is impossible given our current knowledge?
For the time being BARC still follows Christidis & Boles utilizing the IOC for species new to Australia. So yes BARC would definitely be interested in any claims of dabbenena.
Cheers, Tony
Well put Jeff (I won’t dwell further on the strange BARC comment).
For those interested here is a paper displaying just how difficult it is to identify Tristan Albatross using measurements
http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1675/1524-4695%282003%29026%5B0338%3ASTTAAT %5D2.0.CO%3B2
Although the sample size is small this paper suggests to me (see table 3) that separating dabbenena from gibsoni in the hand is impossible given our current knowledge?
For the time being BARC still follows Christidis & Boles utilizing the IOC for species new to Australia. So yes BARC would definitely be interested in any claims of dabbenena.
Cheers, Tony
The premise is that “what BARC thinks of them” and what is actually happening out there in the real world don’t correlate. In fact I don’t even actually understand what it was that Henry was actually trying to say about BARC with that statement, maybe he should ellaborate. I feel uncomfortable when BARCs name gets thrown up as some sort of punching bag for issues it has nothing to do with.
BARC isn’t a taxonomic review committee, it aims to provide an orderly approach to identifying uncommonly recorded taxon and part of that orderly approach is to follow a single recommended species list, also not determined by BARC. I agree with Nikolas that it would probably be more functional and less controversial if we recognized subspecies as referable taxon. From a personal point of view whether a bird is a true species or not is not a contributing factor to the process of trying to identify what it is flying around in front of you.
Getting back to Tristram Abatross, I suspect that is one taxon(irrespective of whether you want to consider it a species or not) that if claimed and presented to BARC for assessment would be virtually impossible to ever be accepted as a valid record, I am certainly unaware of a sure fire way to identify it. I am not speaking on behalf of BARC here just as a voting member.
Cheers Jeff.
I interpreted Harry’s remark as meaning that it doesn’t matter to the birds what BARC thinks of them, not that they shouldn’t concern BARC.
Am I wrong?
Peter Shute
Beg to differ but it is that simple Harry,
If a taxon can be identified, whether it is currently considered a species or subspecies doesn’t affect the interest or importance of registering its occurance extralimital to its generally accepted range. I am in the group who believe that BARC should include subspecies in the review list for this very reason. I am perplexed by your comments about BARC as if it is the cause of some sort of problem.
Cheers Jeff.
It’s not that simple. What is important is that researchers are able to clearly identify their target stock, regardless of the current version of classification. Classification is a model of natural order and is a function of time. The first rule of models is that they are all imperfect. Generally it does a reasonable job, but it has severe limitations when it meets apparently closely related taxa that breed in isolated colonies and in different timeslots. My association with albatrosses started in 1958. There were then just two Diomedea species, Wandering and Royal. Currently there could be 6 or 7 or 8 Diomedea, With missing type specimens and arguments over DNA evidence, there may be contention for centuries. The albatrosses don’t givbe a hoot, they’ve never heard of taxonomy or BARC.
Cheers
Harry Battam BE, PhD Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883 ________________________________ Sent: 04 April 2012 13:02
Taxonomy should be irrelevant to rare bird committees. I have been member of a number of rare bird committees around the globe, in which we did include vagrant taxa not generally accepted as species – such as nigricans Brant in Germany, but also in New Jersey. Therefore irrespective of the taxonomy, BARC should not be irrelevant to albatrosses.
Cheers,
Nikolas
G’day Harry, I’m sure you don’t mean irrelevant to anything identifiable like Chathams, Laysan etc. cheers Jeff.
unlike many terrestrial species, albatrosses and other petrels will always be a taxonomic problem. The formal dogmatic definition of a species is intended to put creatures into boxes where they can be uniquely classified for human convenience. The Procellariiformes just will not adopt this philosophy. Nature is not at our convenience and regardless BARC will remain irrelevant to albatrosses.
Cheers
Harry Battam BE, PhD Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883 ________________________________ Sent: 04 April 2012 12:39
I believe BARC has recently adopted the IOC taxonomy, and so Tristan Albatross records would be considered now (there are several Chatham Albatross and Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross records now listed as under review). But that’s only a recent thing
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 ===============================
Taxonomy should be irrelevant to rare bird committees. I have been member of a number of rare bird committees around the globe, in which we did include vagrant taxa not generally accepted as species – such as nigricans Brant in Germany, but also in New Jersey. Therefore irrespective of the taxonomy, BARC should not be irrelevant to albatrosses.
Cheers,
Nikolas
So true for ID. Note that BARC is irrelevant to albatrosses.
Cheers
Harry Battam BE, PhD Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883
________________________________________ Sent: 04 April 2012 09:40
To my knowledge it is also very difficult to ID Tristan in the hand. I have personally seen two interesting candidates (both caught and measured by SOSSA), but we did not get to a definite ID. As far as I know there is not a single record of a Tristan Albatross accepted by BARC. Correct me if I am wrong.
Cheers,
Nikolas
I believe BARC has recently adopted the IOC taxonomy, and so Tristan Albatross records would be considered now (there are several Chatham Albatross and Atlantic Yellow-nosed Albatross records now listed as under review). But that’s only a recent thing 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 ===============================
To my knowledge it is also very difficult to ID Tristan in the hand. I have personally seen two interesting candidates (both caught and measured by SOSSA), but we did not get to a definite ID. As far as I know there is not a single record of a Tristan Albatross accepted by BARC. Correct me if I am wrong.
Cheers,
Nikolas
Thanks John and Henry for the replies about the occurrence of Tristan’s Albatross in Aus waters. It seems that the difficulty in ID-ing them makes them not really worth considering unless you can get them in the hand.
Cheers, Ashwin
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Folks
We have had at least one Tristan (banded on Gough Island) off Wollongong NSW. They are very similar in size and plumage to D. gibsoni and there is little chance of discrimination in the field. There are photos on the SOSSA website. However we have had lots of D. gibsoni band exchanges between NSW and Adams Island, thus while Gibson’s is the most common Diomedea in NSW waters, Tristans do occur.
Harry Battam Institute for Conservation and Environmental Management University of Wollongong Wollongong, NSW, Australia 2522 Mobile +61 429 887 883
________________________________________ Sent: 31 March 2012 19:24
Hi Ashwin, I think Tristan is pretty rarely recorded with certainty in Australian waters, but the ID difficulties make it difficult to know for certain. It’s interesting to note though that satellite tracking data shows that non-breeders do reach the south coast of WA – see the Tristan Albatross factsheet at ACAP http://www.acap.aq/acap-species John> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:24:43 +1100
===============================
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 Ashwin, I think Tristan is pretty rarely recorded with certainty in Australian waters, but the ID difficulties make it difficult to know for certain. It’s interesting to note though that satellite tracking data shows that non-breeders do reach the south coast of WA – see the Tristan Albatross factsheet at ACAP http://www.acap.aq/acap-species John> Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:24:43 +1100
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Thanks to all those that have replied
The general consensus was that these birds (both in general, and the two I asked about) are incredibly difficult to identify with certainty. Those who replied were fairly happy to call the first bird a Gibson’s, while the second attracted a fairly even split between exulans and gibsoni.
I originally dismissed Tristan’s (dabbenena) straight out on the basis of distribution, however a few people made reference to them. How often are they recorded in Australia’s waters?
Cheers, Ashwin
===============================
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 Ashwin,
I am not sure if anyone can be 100% sure here without measurements. The plumage of individual 1 is plumage type F (see Onley & Scofield 2007), individual 2 somewhere between F and G (closer to F). Plumage type F occurs in exulans, dabbenena and gibsoni, G in exulans, dabbenena and male gibsoni. Both birds don’t have extraordinarily large bills and especially not ridiculously large ungues. Dabbenena is very difficult to tell without proper measurements and even then there seems to be a lot of overlap with both exulans on one end and gibsoni on the other end.
Structurally, individual 1 seems to be slightly smaller and to have a slightly smaller bill and rounder head than individual 2.
Taken together plumage (especially the “elbow window” that doesn’t connect to the back in individual 1, and also the vermiculations on shoulders and chest), bill size and head shape, I would say that individual 1 may be a female gibsoni and individual 2 a not extremely old male gibsoni.
There are certainly people out there who know more about great albatrosses than I do. So I am happy to be corrected!
Cheers,
Nikolas