>This article is intrigueing, but I wish it provided more details on
>species studied. Do any Tweeters have anything they could add?
>
>http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070218194535.htm
>
>
>Scott R a y
>AFLAC
>Moxee, WA
>509.961.2625
>mryakima at gmail dot com
>_______________________________________________
>Tweeters mailing list
>Tweeters at u.washington.edu
>http://mailman1.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

This looks like it was assembled by university press relations--low
on details but high on hype. Without details, I'm thinking that most
of the bird splits have been previously proposed, and that some in
the past may have been treated as such for phenotypic reasons.

The similarities appeared somewhat surprising--golden-crowned and
white-crowned sparrow for one. If in fact they are proposing species
lumps, then this would fly in the face of the conventional definition
of a species and the importance of reproductive isolation.

It does provide interesting data to consider. However, I believe much
of the biology is missing from the press release, and the results are
not as significant as the press release would have us believe.

--Jerry <tangren.family at verizon.net>