I'd like to know more details about the U. of Toronto research on jaegers,
Alvaro. I assume it's molecular. Recent mitochondrial DNA work on
phalaropes seemed to indicate that Wilson's isn't particularly close to Red
and Red-necked, i.e., they evolved independently from different groups of
sandpipers. If that's the case, and if the Pomarine is really more closely
related to the skuas than to the Parasitic & Long-tailed, systematics based
on assessments of morphology and general biology almost sound valueless.
However, I guess I'm saying there will be an uphill battle to convince me
of either of these findings. There are so many more similarities than
differences between (1) Wilson's and the other phalaropes, and (2) Pomarine
and the other jaegers, in comparison with their nearest relatives, that I
would be suspicious of the *molecular* data rather than the remaining
characteristics. I would guess, not knowing the molecular data, that
Pomarine is near the base of the split when skuas and jaegers diverged.
Probably Wilson's is near the base of the split between phalaropes and
other sandpipers, too, but I don't think this makes it a nonphalarope.

Any more info? I remember the response of some birders when we were writing
about phylogenetic species ("let's keep it to one red crossbill, ok?"), and
I wonder what birders think of such taxonomic machinations (or what will
Michael Price write about it?).

I also have mixed feelings about changing names to reflect phylogeny, not
that I don't think it is basically a good protocol, but because we will
probably continue to revise our knowledge of phylogeny and, accordingly,
name changing will never end. Will it be Diademed Sandpiper, Diademed
Plover, or Diademed Sandpiper-Plover? Tune in next year....

Dennis Paulson