David wrote: "I want to emphasize that I am *not* arguing against using
*reproductive isolation*, which is the conceptual core of the BSC, as a
basis for a species concept. My argument is with the operational criteria
classically used to lump phenotypically distinct populations into single
species: hybridization and 'potential interbreeding.'"

I have a feeling we're all on the same wave length with this. I spent a
lot of time in the West Indies and marvelled that working taxonomists had
lumped so many quite distinct critters on all those scattered islands into
broad species categories. At some point it dawned on me that it was just a
sign of a prevailing attitude, rather than a measure of truth. I'm
personally very pleased that a lot of the differences between populations
are again being acknowledged (as they were when they were first described
as distinct species 100-200 years ago!).

DW: "But again, if you want to get a suite of characters together, I
volunteer to run them through PAUP."

Between this collection and the Burke, there actually is a fair
representation of oriole specimens in the area, but we don't have all the
plumages of all the species by a long shot, not to mention skeletons, and,
interesting as it is, I don't have the time to do the work necessary to
tally all those characters--the very same characters, of course, that need
to be tallied for either a phenetic or cladistic classification. There's
no question it would be very interesting to do so.

Too many birds, not enough time.....

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