Subject: Crows
Date: Jan 6 20:50:08 1999
From: Eugene Hunn - hunnhome at accessone.com


Bill,

I don't recall the history quite that way. I do recall the Dawson heaped
scorn upon the idea that it was a separate species in his 1908 Birds of
Washington. I believe it was first split in the 1910 AOU checklist (I
guessing somewhat on the dates, but I believe they are approximately
correct). I believe it stayed split thereafter. Those arguing for two
species seemed to equate it with the Fish Crow situation on the east coast,
however, the geological histories are totally at odds with that.
Furthermore, I challenge anyone to define where the boundary between the two
exists. Are are they presumed to broadly overlap? If so, I challenge anyone
to sort them out in the field in the Puget Sound region. There is no "no
crow's land" isolating them either on the outer coast nor in Puget Sound,
nor are the east side populations isolated since the interstate corridor is
loaded with crows all the way up and over. I have on occasion picked up dead
crows in Seattle and the were right in the middle on all measurements. If
Johnston's study is so flawed, what pray tell are those flaws?

Gene Hunn.

At 12:22 PM 1/6/99 -0800, you wrote:
>I'm out-of-town and can't completely comment on this thread, but
>I can briefly offer why the AOU considers the Northwestern Crow a "good"
species, and in fact is the crow occurring in most of western Washington.
>
>There is a long and fascinating history of this species. It
>was recognized as valid (by the AOU) from before that body's
>inception until the mid-1920's, when they reduced it to a
>subspecies of American Crow only to unleash a torrent of scientific
>criticism by ornithologists of this region. Therefore, in 1945,
>despite widespread lumping of other taxa (orioles, rosy finches,
>etc.) at the time, they resplit the NW Crow.
>
>Since then, the ONLY contrary "SCIENTIFIC" evidence (that it should
>not be considered a valid species) is Johnson's 1961 paper, and
>that paper can easily be shown to be methodologically flawed.
>There is considerable other (mostly older, not necessarily
>convincing) evidence that it should be split. Thus, the NW Crow
>remains a species in much the same way that O.J. Simpson remains
>a free man: despite considerable opinion, no truly convincing
>evidence ever was offered (to the jury) to the contrary, and the
>"null" hypothesis in taxonomy is generally precedence. Criticizing
>the jury (in the crow's case, the AOU Check-list Committee) is not
>helpful.
>
>This is a great opportunity for a PhD thesis, but no one has undertaken it,
unlike the situation with Western-Glaucous-winged Gulls. An excellent paper
summarizing D.A. Bell's findings about those taxa was published in Condor in
1996. That paper also gives a good summary of the most currently
fashionable concept of a species
>in ornithology--i.e., why those gulls both are considered "good" species
despite a widespread hybrid zone.
>
>I hope this helps, even if it leaves out a lot of details.
>
>Bill Smith
>Grays Harbor
>pwsmith at techline.com
>
>
>
>
>