>Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 13:51:29 -0700
>From: mpatters at ednet1.osl.or.gov (Mike Patterson)

>The codes (4-letter codes not 6-letter) should be the same.

Here are a couple of examples of apparent discrepancies between
the USFS and AOU91.TXT lists. I say "apparent" because I am not sure
of the application of the particular common names. First, same bird,
but different codes:

USFS AOU91 Name
---- ----- ------------------
BAGS BAGO1 Barnacle Goose (The AOU91.TXT list adds a # to
BAGO BAGO2 Brant's Goldeneye codes that might otherwise collide.)

Below are (the only?) three common names that might refer to different
birds (are some of these just variations on the common name?) but which
share the same 4-letter code:

Shared
CODE USFS Name AOU91.TXT Name
---- ----------------------- --------------------
BCTI BLACK_CRESTED_TITMOUSE_ Black-crowned Tityra (Are these Parus and/or
Tityra)
GRSW GRAY_SWIFTLET__________ Gray-rumped Swift (Are these the same?)
OLFL OLIVACEOUS_FLYCATCHER__ Olivaceous Flatbill (Are these Dusky FC and/or
Oliv. FC)

BTW, these latter examples argue for the use of scientific names in
the USFS file sci. names are not part of the file; they are part of
the AOU91.TXT file).

Finally, are the codes used in the AOU91.TXT file "the" AOU codes, or are
they just added in to the list by Saunders as an afterthought? (Saunders'
explanatory text accompanying the AOU91.TXT list, referring to
"...I have ... copied...", states:

"Column 7--Species Code

This is a 4- or 5-character code which I have blatantly copied from
several different sources."

Codes, common names, scientific names, voucher specimens, type specimens,
other collection specimens, ..... taxonomic revisions, unpublished
data, ..... What if we _didn't_ have "standards"? ;>)

Ptere