Subject: [Tweeters] 15 new North American Bird Species by DNA
Date: Feb 19 19:31:13 2007
From: Douglas Canning - dcanning at zhonka.net


And there's yet another story on the Environmental News Network site at
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=12246 (I haven't been able to read
the other two - they don't like the way I block their pop-ups.)

The researchers are quoted as saying, "...there might be more than
1,000 new species of birds on top of 10,000 identified so far." The
article closes with: "The scientists are hoping to raise $100 million
to compile a barcode of life -- 10 million DNA records of 500,000
animal species by 2014."

Looks like we're approaching the final triumph of laboratory mechanics
over field biologists. Be interesting to see what the science really
is. I agree with Jerry that this stuff reads more like a news release
from an institutional PR office.

But, if this is as goofy as looks like right now, it'll save me the
cost of never having to buy another updated field guide to keep up with
stuff that makes little or no sense out in the real world.

Doug Canning


On 18 Feb 2007 at 19:12, Tangren Family wrote:

From: Tangren Family <tangren.family at verizon.net>
Subject: Re: [Tweeters] 15 new North American Bird Species by
DNA
Date sent: Sun, 18 Feb 2007 19:12:10 -0800
To: Tweeters <tweeters at u.washington.edu>

> >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>
>
>


*******************
Douglas Canning
Olympia, Washington
dcanning at zhonka.net
*******************