David Wright wrote a lot about Bullock's and Baltimore oriole
relationships. I agree with all of what he says about ways by which
Baltimore and Bullock's might share characters, notwithstanding that each
is quite different from its purported nearer relatives. But the bottom
line, as far as I can tell, still is that all of the info on phylogeny came
from Scott Freeman's molecular study.

And I would like to comment on the "bib vs. hood" scenario, which I realize
you used primarily as an example, David. But it does make it sound like
the two species are quite different in this rather basic aspect of "gross
similarity."

DW: "And the characters Dennis cited are contradicted by similar kinds of
characters -- for example, Baltimore shares with Orchard and Scott's the
trait of having a full black hood and back, wheras Bullock's has a black
"bib" that is more like that of Streak-backed and Altamira than the full
hood of Baltimore."

And it seems that you felt that this difference provides evidence against
my argument for similarities.

DW: "Note there there will be contradictions between the above characters
and those Dennis listed."

David and whichever tweeters can do so, get a copy of a Mexican bird book
and look at "Abeille's Oriole," _Icterus bullockii abeillei_. It
hybridizes with _I. bullockii_ in northern Mexico, so people (I guess using
the BSC) have assumed it belonged to the same species, and to the "Northern
Oriole" in the loose sense. The distribution of black on its head is about
midway between that of a Baltimore and that of a Bullock's, so the
distinction between "hooded" and "bibbed" (ironic that a Hooded Oriole is
bibbed) as important to distinguish Baltimore and Bullock's breaks down.
And, of course, Bullock's has a black crown anyway, which already makes it
rather different from the large group of "bibbed" species. By the way, the
new "A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America," by Steve
Howell and Sophie Webb, is a great Christmas present for a birder (i.e.,
yourself)!

But I'm not tendering an argument that any particular plumage character
should be given especially great weight to distinguish phyletic lines of
orioles. I *am* claiming, however, that, other than the mtDNA data, there
is no evidence for a *cladistic* phylogeny of these orioles that would
place Baltimore and Bullock's as anything but sister species. The mtDNA
data fly in the face of both morphology and behavior in this case, and I
still remain unconvinced that this is good evidence for the "genealogically
improbable" hybridization of the two that David cites as evidence of the
fallibility of the biological-species concept.

I really need to get Scott's dissertation so I can try to suggest from more
than merely gut feelings that something is wrong with his oriole phylogeny.
I had the same gut feelings about Dittman, Zink and Gerwin's phalarope
phylogeny (isn't "phalarope phylogeny" a particularly nice phrase?), and I
think they have been borne out, although those authors used a different and
perhaps flawed technique to show relationships. In addition, I suspect
that "gut feelings" may play a part in some of the questions that will be
raised about the basic bird phylogeny of Sibley, Ahlquist and Monroe as
that classification gets scrutinized in detail.

And thanks a lot for the feedback, Jackie; you asked for more!

Dennis Paulson, Director phone: (206) 756-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax: (206) 756-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail: dpaulson at ups.edu
Tacoma, WA 98416