[Richard Klim]

Just received my copy of Mikkola 2012 (Owls of the World: A Photographic Guide).

With very few exceptions, the taxonomy follows König & Weick 2008.

Taking IOC World Bird List v3.1 as a baseline, differences include (* = follows K&W)...

Generic reassignments:

• Phodilus prigoginei > Tyto *
• Otus gurneyi > Mimizuku *
• Megascops flammeolus > Philoscops *
• Ketupa > Bubo *
• Scotopelia > Bubo *
• Glaucidium tephronotum, sjostedti, cuculoides, castanopterum, radiatum, castanotum, capense, albertinum > Taenioglaux *
• Pseudoscops clamator > Asio *

Splits not fully recognised:

• Tyto (novaehollandiae) manusi – Manus Masked Owl
• Otus (megalotis) everetti – Everett's Scops Owl *
• Otus (megalotis) nigrorum – Negros Scops Owl *
• Otus (mandanensis) siaoensis – Siau Scops Owl
• Megascops (guatemalae) centralis – Choco Screech Owl *
• Strix (varia) sartorii – Mexican Barred Owl *
• Ninox (scutulata) japonica – Northern Boobook *
• Ninox (scutulata) randi – Chocolate Boobook *
• Ninox (squamipila) hypogramma – Halmahera Boobook *
• Ninox (squamipila) forbesi – Tanimbar Boobook *

Additional splits and new species recognised:

• Tyto (alba) furcata – American Barn Owl (incl pratincola, tuidara, hellmayri, contempta) *
• Tyto (alba) bargei – Curaçao Barn Owl *
• Tyto (alba) insularis – Lesser Antilles Barn Owl (incl nigrescens) *
• Tyto (alba) punctatissima – Galapagos Barn Owl *
• Tyto (alba) detorta – Cape Verde Barn Owl *
• Tyto (alba) thomensis – São Tomé Barn Owl *
• Tyto (delicatula) crassirostris – Boang Barn Owl *
• Otus (senegalensis) pamelae – Arabian Scops Owl *
• Otus (lempiji) cnephaeus – Singapore Scops Owl *
• Otus (magicus) tempestatis – Wetar Scops Owl *
• Megascops (cooperi) lambi – Oaxaca Screech Owl *
• Megascops (roboratus) pacificus – Tumbes Screech Owl *
• Megascops sp. – Santa Marta Screech Owl *
• Megascops (watsonii) usta – Southern Tawny-bellied Screech Owl *
• Pulsatrix (perspicillata) pulsatrix – Short-browed Owl *
• Strix (leptogrammica) niasensis – Nias Wood Owl *
• Strix (leptogrammica) bartelsi – Bartels's Wood Owl *
• Strix (leptogrammica) newarensis – Mountain Wood Owl (incl laotiana, ticehursti, caligata) *
• Strix (virgata) squamulata – Mexican Wood Owl (incl tamaulipensis, centralis) *
• Glaucidium (gnoma) hoskinsii – Baja Pygmy Owl *
• Glaucidium (brasilianum) ridgwayi – Ridgway's Pygmy Owl (incl cactorum) *
• Glaucidium (brasilianum) tucumanum – Chaco Pygmy Owl (incl pallens) *
• Taenioglaux (capense) etchecopari – Etchécopar's Owlet *
• Taenioglaux (capense) castanea – Chestnut Owlet *
• Athene (noctua) lilith – Lilith Owl *
• Athene (noctua) spilogastra – Ethiopian Little Owl *
• Athene (noctua) plumipes – Northern Little Owl
• Athene poikilis – Grey-bellied Little Owl
• Ninox (boobook) lurida – Red Boobook *
• Ninox (novaeseelandiae) leucopsis – Tasmanian Boobook *
• Ninox (philippensis) mindorensis – Mindoro Hawk Owl *
• Asio (flammeus) galapagoensis – Galapagos Short-eared Owl *

Alternative specific names/spellings:

• Pyrroglaux podargina > P podarginus *
• Strix nivicolum > S nivicola *
• Glaucidium minutissimum > G sicki *
• Glaucidium mooreorum > G minutissimum *

[lewis20126]

Richard et al.
So looks like he wasn't party to the Tablas / Cebu Boobook Ninox sp nov.?
Certainly against accepted / collective wisdom on Ninox randi
Does he discuss the evidence for these and other "decisions"?
Ordered mine off Amazon and they are claiming to have no stock as yet...

cheers, alan

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by lewis20126

So looks like he wasn't party to the Tablas / Cebu Boobook Ninox sp nov.?

"...N. p. spilonota...; N. p. spilocephala... The last two-mentioned forms are sometimes regarded as separate species, and it seems likely that there are clear differences even within the spilonota subspecies on different islands (e.g. Sibuyan, Cebu and Camiguin, as shown in recent photos [included] from these islands). Studies of the taxonomy and biology of the entire group are required."

Originally Posted by lewis20126

Certainly against accepted / collective wisdom on Ninox randi
Does he discuss the evidence for these and other "decisions"?

"CHOCOLATE BOOBOOK N. (s.) randi: ...is similar to nominate scutulata, but more rufous, and with darker streaking on the underparts; it could be a separate species, but molecular-genetic data are required.
BirdLife International has not adopted the above-mentioned splits and neither has the present author."

For a photographic guide, there seems to be reasonable discussion of the evidence for splits etc.

Originally Posted by lewis20126

Ordered mine off Amazon and they are claiming to have no stock as yet...

I ordered mine from Amazon UK last Wednesday - it arrived today despite Amazon stating that the title hasn't yet been released!

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

I ordered mine from Amazon UK last Wednesday - it arrived today despite Amazon stating that the title hasn't yet been released!

thanks & good news, I may get it soon after all.

cheers, a

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

[*]Glaucidium mooreorum > G sicki *[/list]

That's an interersting one, perhaps GMK knows mo(o)re? I suppose I'll have to wait for the book!

cheers, a

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Glaucidium mooreorum > G sicki *

Originally Posted by lewis20126

That's an interersting one...

Sorry, Alan. I oversimplified that, again!

• http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...9&postcount=33
• http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...40&postcount=3

[Current link to AOU-SACC proposal #243 (failed to pass, Dec 2006).]

PS. Corrected in post #1.

[dnsallen]

Originally Posted by lewis20126

Richard et al.
Certainly against accepted / collective wisdom on Ninox randi

cheers, alan

I disagree here Alan. The continuous hooting calls and the hoo-hoo calls are the same. Ben's paper claims the shape of the hoo is slightly different but is it really different enough? While the Mindanao randi do look different how do the Babuyan birds fit in? Birds on Calayan were identified by Ben as a possible new subspecies of japonica
http://www.orientalbirdclub.org/publ...ernBoobook.pdf
but Oliveros et al list randi from adjacent islands
http://www.checklist.org.br/getpdf?SL500-07
I haven't seen the specimens they list though
Des

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by dnsallen

I disagree here Alan. The continuous hooting calls and the hoo-hoo calls are the same. Ben's paper claims the shape of the hoo is slightly different but is it really different enough? While the Mindanao randi do look different how do the Babuyan birds fit in? Birds on Calayan were identified by Ben as a possible new subspecies of japonica
http://www.orientalbirdclub.org/publ...ernBoobook.pdf
but Oliveros et al list randi from adjacent islands
http://www.checklist.org.br/getpdf?SL500-07
I haven't seen the specimens they list though
Des

Des

I said "collected / accepted wisdom", not whether it was well supported by data or not! I think N randi is accepted on most world checklists (certainly Clements) but I know not whether that is supported by data. I'm more than happy for it too be merged having missed it a number of times...

cheers, alan

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Sorry, Alan. I oversimplified that, again!

• http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...9&postcount=33
• http://www.birdforum.net/showpost.ph...40&postcount=3

[Current link to AOU-SACC proposal #243 (failed to pass, Dec 2006).]

PS. Corrected in post #1.

Thanks, I'd forgotten those posts but had read them!

cheers, alan

[dnsallen]

But I am sure you will be over for a few spilonota aggs, and won't mind squeezing in a Chocolate tick :)
Clearly I made a mistake by not immediately associating 'checklists' with 'wisdom'...

[Richard Klim]

The following are mentioned in the Geographical variation sections of the species accounts as potential candidates for splitting:

• Tyto (alba) javanica
• Tyto (furcata) contempta – Colombian Barn Owl
• Tyto (furcata) ssp. – Bonaire Barn Owl
• Tyto (sororcula) cayelii
• Tyto (novaehollandiae) manusi – Manus Masked Owl
• Tyto (assimilis) ripleyi
• Otus (senegalensis) feae
• Otus (spilocephalus) sspp. ['some races may be good species']
• Otus (lettia) erythrocampe
• Otus (elegans) calayensis
• Otus (megalotis) everetti
• Otus (megalotis) nigrorum
• Otus (magicus) sspp. ['some insular populations may represent separate species']
• Otus (manadensis) mendeni – Banggai Scops Owl
• Otus (manadensis) kalidupae – Kalidupa Scops Owl
• Megascops (choliba) duidae
• Bubo (bubo) interpositus
• Strix (occidentalis) lucida – Mountain/Mexican Spotted Owl
• Lophostrix (cristata) stricklandi
• Glaucidium (brasilianum) ucayalae
• Glaucidium (peruanum) ssp. [Apurimac area]
• Taenioglaux (radiata) malabarica
• Taenioglaux (capense) ngamiense
• Taenioglaux (capense) scheffleri
• Athene (noctua) sspp. ['some subspecies may deserve full species status']
• Athene (brama) ultra
• Aegolius (harrisii) iheringi
• Ninox (boobook) rotiensis – Roti Boobook
• Ninox (scutulata) japonica – Northern Boobook (incl florensis, totogo)
• Ninox (scutulata) randi – Chocolate Boobook
• Ninox (philippensis) spilonota
• Ninox (philippensis) spilocephala
• Ninox (jaquinoti) granti – Guadalcanal Boobook
• Ninox (jaquinoti) malaitae – Malaita Boobook
• Ninox (jaquinoti) roseoaxillaris – Makira Boobook
• Ninox (squamipila) hypogramma – Halmahera Boobook
• Ninox (squamipila) forbesi – Tanimbar Boobook
• Asio (otus) sspp. ['has been questioned whether this owl comprises more than one species']
• Asio (flammeus) sandwichensis
• Asio (flammeus) domingensis

PS. Further to the earlier summary of the taxonomy followed, I should qualify that many species accounts make clear that the treatments adopted are tentative and require confirmation.

[jmorlan]

Ninox (scutulata) japonica – Northern Boobook (incl florensis, totogo)

This split is already in Clements and in the IOC Checklists, but not the AOU (http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2008-C.pdf). This surprised me, because Clements rarely differs from AOU taxonomy.

The IOC bases its split on King, BF. (2002. Species limits in the Brown Boobook Ninox scutulata complex. Bulletin B.O.C. 122: 250-257) which I do not have access to. However that split has been criticized by someone using the name "GrrlScientist" at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/pu.../2011/mar/19/4

There it is claimed that King's paper is contrary to "prevailing opinion." However no sources are cited. With both Clements and IOC on-board with this split (and evidently others proposed by King) where are the publications which offer a contrary view?

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by jmorlan

With both Clements and IOC on-board with this split (and evidently others proposed by King) where are the publications which offer a contrary view?

In addition to Mikkola 2012 and AOU, others not adopting this split include BirdLife, China Bird Report, Birds Korea, König & Weick 2008 (Owls of the World) and Brazil 2009 (Birds of East Asia).

Ninox scutulata (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) was split into N. scutulata, N. randi and N. japonica by King (2002), but this treatment is not adopted by the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group, because although King (2002) provides good evidence of consistent vocal differences in three groups within the Ninox scutulata complex, he also shows there are no clear matching morphological differences. It is also hard to judge just how great are the vocal differences and to decide whether they represent more than dialect difference between resident and migratory populations of a single species. The BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group therefore feels that more confirmatory work is needed before a decision to go with King's arrangement can be taken.

[Richard Klim]

Brief report by Ian Paulsen: The Birdbooker Report.

[birdboybowley]

Just ordered a copy for my bro's bday - if I like it I'll add it to my own list Amazon has it at an excellent price at present (£22.75) which works out only £1.75 more expensive than the original price with the 40% discount I get from Helm.....!!

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

With very few exceptions, the taxonomy follows König & Weick 2008.

I wonder if there was pressure from Helm, to ensure consistency between the two complementary Helm owl guides? Otherwise it seems surprising, given that there has been very little uptake of K&W 2008 taxonomic decisions elsewhere.

[jmorlan]

Thank you for the helpful summary. It makes the Clements split of Northern Boobook seem very much out of the mainstream.

[Murray Lord]

While it's perhaps better discussed in the books forum than here, I'd like to hear views on how good this book is. If I already have HBW and Koenig and Weick, will I get much out of this book other than lots of nice photos? And is the photo coverage uniformly good or it it patchy when you get to the less well known species?

Thanks.

[Mysticete]

Keep in mind though that the Boobook split largely concerns an Asian taxon. I doubt the taxonomy of ultra rare vagrants is high on the list of changes that the AOU is concerned with, so I am skeptical how relevant their views are on the matter.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Murray Lord

While it's perhaps better discussed in the books forum than here, I'd like to hear views on how good this book is. If I already have HBW and Koenig and Weick, will I get much out of this book other than lots of nice photos? And is the photo coverage uniformly good or it it patchy when you get to the less well known species?

Murray, I would certainly recommend the book for anyone with an interest in owls.

The photographs are generally very good, although inevitably the quality is sometimes lower for less well known or rare species (and just museum specimens in a few cases). Perhaps predictably (as with Nigel Cleere's recent nightjar guide), there are few flight views or images depicting interesting behaviour, except in the general introductory sections. It's obviously a major technical challenge to obtain action shots of nocturnal species; but casual readers could easily conclude that most owls (and nightjars) are immobile! A few photographs depicting typical nest sites and eggs, as in the nightjar guide, would also have been welcome in the introductory sections. One benefit of following K&W taxonomy (with numerous splits not widely recognised elsewhere) is that images of many rarely-depicted forms are included.

The species accounts are quite detailed, far more so than in Cleere's nightjar equivalent. So it works quite well as a stand-alone family guide rather than just serving as a photographic complement to existing literature. However the text is unlikely to offer much new for those who already have K&W.

All in all, as a high-quality 512-page hardback with 750+ colour photographs plus range maps, it definitely represents exceptional value at GBP 22.75 / USD 34.74 (Amazon).

[MJB]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

I wonder if there was pressure from Helm, to ensure consistency between the two complementary Helm owl guides? Otherwise it seems surprising, given that there has been very little uptake of K&W 2008 taxonomic decisions elsewhere.

I think it might be that no-one else is working on owls to the extent that K & W have done, and that much of the Palearctic owl DNA research has involved Michael Wink at Heidelberg. Re the slow uptake, a parallel case is that of Urqhuart 2002(?) and Stonechats, I would surmise...
MJB

[dnsallen]

I'd second Richard's recommendation of the book.
Given the cautious approach to the Otus megalotis and Ninox scutulata group it is rather surprising that Singapore Scops found its way in. I am not personally familiar with owls in that area I have heard significant guffawing from those who are.

[James Eaton]

I must say, having spent 15 minutes flicking through it yesterday I was disappointed with the lack of taxonomic and vocal research for the book, Mikkola hasn't seemed to even bother checking out latest publications or even xeno-canto, ie:

Flores Scops Owl - Vocalisations unknown, thought to largely be silent (see Forktail 23, and xeno-canto!).

Javan Scops Owl vocal description is largely inaccurate.

Brown 'Hawk Owl' - not split, given his willingness to split others that are not peer-reviewed splits, ie Singapore Scops Owl, Red Boobook ('said to be different' - though it clearly is not on current evidence!), Nias Wood Owl and Sunda Scops Owl (the latter of which goes against published molecular work which he deemed necessary for other groups).

What is the justification for splitting Sula Scops, and not Banggai Scops...

Vocal descriptions for highly variable 'groups', such as Southern Boobook complex are disappointingly brief and unexplained.

His choice of english names, ie Forest Spotted Owl rather than Forest Owlet - what is that about?!

Plenty of nice pictures, but I see the book as little more than a coffee-table photo guide. It would have been fantastic to have something similar to Helm's recent photographic monographs, though I agree with Richard, for the money, it offers good value.

Cheers,

James