Discussion thread for Category:Anseranatidae. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Category:Anseranatidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter AlexC
- Start date
I wonder if that is from H&M? Clements in sixth edition also has Magpie Goose in Anatidae. If you want to change this, please do not delete Category:Anseranatidae, but instead make a link to Anatidae as well as editing the magpie goose to show its new genus (and include a mention of the previously used genus, perhaps even with a link to that category).
Niels
Niels
I won't change it without a discussion of the sources (presumably on this thread) and a consensus between a those who comment.
I'm pretty sure Anseranatidae is from the IOC (Gill & Wright 2006) list. I think JT used IOC to set up parts of the structure originally, and I remember him saying that we need to make some corrections, so I'm sure its fine to make the change.
jthoppes
spectacled spiderhunter
Fact is, if we want to rid the opus of this family, we need to know what H&M says. Avibase says it bases its families off H&M, and if that's the case, Clements and H&M don't have a consensus, so we go to status quo.
Well, as far as status quo, IOC and the Royal Australian Ornithologists' Union (Christidis & Boles, 1994) put Anseranatidae as a full-fledged family.
Well, as far as status quo, IOC and the Royal Australian Ornithologists' Union (Christidis & Boles, 1994) put Anseranatidae as a full-fledged family.
To clarify (hopefully I have this right?!): The original set of species was based on Sibley & Monroe 1993, and (partly) updated using S&M 1996; S&M 1996 is therefore our starting point. In some situations, however, this is now outdated, and as S&M has not had further updates, we have therefore decided to change if there is a consensus between the latest Clements and H&M regarding splits or lumps at the species and genus levels.
On the other hand, the family/order category project came later, and in this case (in order to keep things simple??!!) we decided to use only Clements (for the family & order structure) because this is the most regularly updated, widely accepted taxonomic authority covering the whole world.
Anyway, thats the way I see it; please correct me if I am wrong.
On the other hand, the family/order category project came later, and in this case (in order to keep things simple??!!) we decided to use only Clements (for the family & order structure) because this is the most regularly updated, widely accepted taxonomic authority covering the whole world.
Anyway, thats the way I see it; please correct me if I am wrong.
Similar threads
