> The final point is just that people's lists will differ. Patricia Lott
> mentioned three lists with significant differences. It's the nature of
the
> science game. Opinions about phylogeny will change with newer information
> and with reliance on different techniques, such as the question of how
much
> weight to give the DNA-DNA hybridization work of Sibley and Monroe. But
if
> you've learned the duck-goose-swan category, whether you call it
> Anseriformes or not, and if you've learned to observe the differences
> between marsh-dabbling and sea-bay-diving ducks (which is critical for
> starting to become a good birder), you won't care much whether this clade
> appeared earlier or later than the loon clade. And I think you'll forgive
> the AOU folks if they occasionally move the various groups around in the
> list.

That said, it might be good to use the "old" (pre-2003) order with Loons
first, since that is the order used in just about all *existing* bird books.
Once we get some bird books in the new order, it might make sense to switch.

[Personally, I think the AOU went a bit out on a limb with their new order,
but we'll see]

== Michael Hobbs
== Kirkland, WA
== http://www.scn.org/fomp/birding.htm
== hummer at isomedia.com