Subject: Re: Timberline Sparrows
Date: Apr 14 11:34:56 1994
From: wrightdb at pigsty.dental.washington.edu - wrightdb at pigsty.dental.washington.edu


>I have to agree with Judith. Note she referred to ABA - an organization
>which maintains a list of countable species, for those people who want to
>use that list. So far, ABA has decided to follow the AOU in taxonomics.
>
>With Pacific-slope Flycatcher, Bicknell's Thrush, and maybe in the near
>future Timberline Sparrow, this is creating some problems - species only
>identifiable by voice, i.e. on their breeding grounds (at least the
>first two - we may learn how to identify migrant Brewer's Sparrows), and
>for the latter two species, these breeding grounds are very limited and
>not easily accessible.
>
>I suspect this will be a real issue if the taxonomists indeed go
>crazy and define seven species of Red Crossbill in North America -
>identifiable only by a combination of measurements in the hand, voice,
>and breeding locality. I would hope at that point ABA will draw the line
>and include only one species of Red Crossbill on its list.
>
>Note this need not at all concern taxonomists. They can define anything
>they deem correct. Judith and I are merely making the point that birders
^^^^^^^
>(listers) can disregard the latest taxonomy.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is true, and it might even be a good idea (similar to something Al
Jaramillo proposed, if memory serves). But what would you call the entities on
the list? Would it be wise to continue to call them *species*, if the best
assessment of their evolutionary status is that the entities in question
actually represent multiple species?


>
>Daan Sandee sandee at think.com
>Thinking Machines Corporation
>100 View St, Suite 101
>Mountain View, CA 94041 (415) 254-5757