Hudsonian Curlew (1 Viewer)

Discussion thread for Hudsonian Curlew. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

Does anyone know why this form has a separate entry? The recent thread in the taxonomy forum indicates widespread consensus that it is still a subspecies of Whimbrel N. phaeopus.

It seems to be one of those cases where Sibley & Monroe 1996 recognized a split where nobody else have agreed with them. I recently tried to edit Whimbrel to tell everybody that it included Hudsonian Whimbrel; at that time, I did not even know that the name Hudsonian Curlew had been used for the same entity, Numenius phaeopus hudsonicus

I suggest waiting a couple of days to see if there is anyone who protests, and if not, I will do a few more edits on Whimbrel and then delete this entry. Another way could ofcourse be to make a note in this entry to say that it is a subspecies entry, but opus does not ordinarity make separate entries for subspecies.

Niels

I suggest that "if anyone protests" is not really a useful standard, since it could very well lead to endless wrangling. This would probably be easier if we had some kind of separate category where people could talk about their favorite subspecies/identifiable forms/clinal variations without multiplying entries in the main database.

I should above have said significant protests, in other words there would have had to be good arguments.

I have now deleted the above page after editing the main Whimbrel page.

Cheers
Niels