Doing both is exactly what I am suggesting. But if we do both we have
to be open to a few possibilities. Song may be the soul criterion by which
some species are identified and no amount of multiple regression analysis will
be able to change that. The act of catching a bird may interfere with a
researcher's ability to identify it completely. The definition of species may
actually be different for a breeding individual relative to non-breeding and
species may not be able to recognize (or even need to recognize) one another
outside the context of breeding. Some species may have a dual nature and
uncertainty may be an important reality that we build into our definitions.
Perhaps we are entering the era of quantum biosystematics. And if this
is a suitable metaphor, then we must remember that quantum physicists did not
throw out classical mechanics they simply recognized and defined its
limitations. Classical systematics is still a useful and powerful tool readily
accessible to the average field biologists. I hope we are building our new
definitions with this in mind.

>
>
>To the first part of this, I would like to point out that it's not such a
>black-and-white issue as this. Why not both? Mike Patterson is correct
>that from a human point of view (at this point in time), these
>flycatchers are only 'Western' unless they sing. So when designing
>studies, we will have to keep that in mind. Studies of breeding biology
>comparisons between the two will certainly need to distinguish who is who
>in the field. Alternatively, migratory patterns based on banding returns
>will be limited to 'Western' status until greater knowledge of field
>characteristics allow us to quanitfy differences (I'm not a flycatcher
>expert, maybe this already exists for these two, but you get the point).
>Not all studies will need to distinguish the two, and a study should not
>be designed to try to do so when they're not singing. Finally, in terms
>of life lists, that is such a personal thing, it shouldn't matter what
>anyone else does or thinks. Life lists don't change the world, or the
>way we protect species, so there is no 'right' or 'wrong' way to do it.
>
> To the second part, continuing to split species and list them
>will probably weaken the ESA and its support as we bicker amongst
>ourselves about how many flycatchers there are (how can we list species
>when we don't even know if they exist? That's what the Rush Limbaugh
>types want to know). The point here is that we are now exposing to the
>public what many biologists have known for some time, that the ESA is
>ecologically flawed in design. Functionally, it has served well, but we
>will need to think in terms of preserving systems, managing landscapes,
>etc. Of course, this is another debate entirely, which I will not pursue
>because I have to get back to work.
>
>
>****************
>Michael R. Smith
>Washington Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Unit
>University of Washington, Seattle
>whimbrel at u.washington.edu
>****************
>
>
>
>

--
**************************************************************
Mike Patterson, Astoria, OR
mpatters at ednet1.osl.or.gov
**************************************************************