• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Native Birds, Escapees and Columba livia. (1 Viewer)

birdman

Орнитол&
In a recent thread, Kaled asked about “ticking” birds in zoos. Generally the “answer” was that you can tick what you like, but most (all) respondents wouldn’t tick anything that wasn’t wild.

I agree entirely, but it does lead to an interesting (I hope) possible conflict.

Would you tick an escapee?

I’ve read recently that one member (at least) gives them a dodgy tick.

I would probably disagree with that personally, but it does lead on to the definition of an escapee. There probably is a standard definition of an escapee, which I expect involves cages or collections, and probably refers to exotic (= the opposite of endemic) species.

Mind you, some birds would find it extremely hard to "escape" for the obvious reason.

If I want to add a Humboldt Penguin to my life list, I don’t have to go to Antarctica or Chile (or wherever)… I can go to Harewood. OK, they’re in a tank, but they are still Humboldt Penguins.

“Ah”, I hear you interject, “but they didn’t arrive under their own steam!”

True, but neither did Common Pheasants, but we in the UK and you folks over in the US are quite happy to treat them as tickable. And for that matter, what about the small British population of Egyptian Geese, and the ever increasing population of Ruddy Duck.

And what is the status of Black-winged Stilt (Sammy) and Glossy Ibis (Izzy), easy UK ticks if you can get to them. But they’re only one of each… there’s hundreds of Penguins in the UK.

“Ah but… it’s not the number of individuals that is important.”

Well, you see, you’re butting in again, aren’t you, because I would say that it is the number of individuals that is important. At least in one particular case.

Good old Columba livia.

We Brits don’t half seem to get in a pickle about Columba livia. Charles Harper, over in Japan, is not “allowed” to tick his, because all Japanese Columbae liviae (pluralised correctly – I hope - especially for you Charles!) are considered “dovecote birds”. I read that as freeflying, but owned.

A bit like British racing pigeons, perhaps.

But would you tick a racing pigeon? I’m guessing no.

Would you tick a “Feral Pigeon”… whatever that is? I’m guessing maybe, BUT…

…unless you’ve got one already, what you’re really waiting for is a pure Rock Dove.

Am I right?

And that’s the rub. What does “pure” mean?

No… don’t interrupt, I’ll answer for you.

It means uncontaminated… or essentially not polluted by the genes of racing or show pigeons (ie captive birds).

By why do we get all hung about it? They are all, after all, Columba livia.

It because Feral/Racing/Homing/Show Pigeons are everywhere – and Rock Doves are way out in the Western Isles of Scotland = there ain’t many of ‘em.

I’m not criticising anyone, because I include myself in what I expect will be the general consensus – and speaking of general consensus, I’ve rambled on too long about this… Anyone else want to throw in their 10 cents worth?

(By the way, Brits, it Wren on your life list? There’s millions o’ those!!!)
 
I have a new solution..... I won't tick anything not approved by the American Birding Assoc. or Charles.
 
ABA basically won't consider a bird as 'countable' unless it has developed a fairly large, self-sustaining population that has been around for quite some time (on the order of decades). That's why House Sparrows and Rock Doves are countable in the States, but Nutmeg Mannikins are not. Escaped Nutmeg Mannikins *have* developed small populations in California, but these populations are still fairly tiny and recent. Until they demonstrate "staying power", they won't be considered officially countable.

As for mongrel birds - I generally don't count them if there's been some obvious, man-assisted mixing of their genes. Out here, the big problem is with ducks and geese, which seem to cross-breed like crazy, particularly in urban areas. If the duck has some Muscovy in it, and I'm nowhere near South Texas, I won't count it.

That said, I keep two versions of my life list. One for the officially tickable birds, and one for birds that are not tickable by official rules, but are still worth mentioning (e.g., the Nutmeg Mannikins, California Condor, etc.) Nobody said you had to keep just *one* list!

Arnel Guanlao
 
Last edited:
Let me start off by saying that I'm always amused by the expression 'ticking'.

Recording the species that you have seen is OK, but 'ticking' implies that you have pages of names with little boxes by the side of each to put a smudge in. Indeed I've encountered websites that provide such 'official' print-it pages for a particular geographical area, and some reserves also produce a tickit leaflet for those species recorded at the site.

Some have talked about comparing lists, but I cannot fathom what information can be gleened from comparing two lists of smudges. What is the purpose of the comparison? If, as I suspect, there is none, then it does not matter at all whether someone lists zoo birds or escapees.
 
The term 'ticking' never appealed to me....it sounded like you were giving somebody or something ticks (the bloodsucking kind)!

If you choose not to list, then that's a matter of preference - nothing inherently good or bad about it. And I don't really keep a list to compare with other people - that may be an issue with other birders, but not with me. I certainly don't snub people because my list is longer than theirs!

Really, the main reason I keep a list is to identify birds that I haven't seen yet, because one of the pleasures I get out of birding is seeing that new bird. I have neither the time nor the resources to see every single species that exist in the world today, but still....I always like seeing new ones.

Returning to birdman's original post - well, sure, you can put on your list whatever you want. Or you can keep multiple lists - lots of birders do. Really, it's a hobby - take it as seriously or as un-seriously as you'd like.

Arnel Guanlao
 
Actually, walwyn raises a fair point, and perhaps an important distinction.

Ticking, listing, whatever you want to call it, is whole heap different from recording.

As Arnel says, birding can be taken as seriously or un-seriously as the individual wants.

But I would then counter that by making a difference between a birder (most of us) and an ornithologist (some of us - but not me!), and to me, once you start "recording", you are entering the realms of ornithologist.

(As an aside, Patrick Moore (famous British astronomer) has said that Astronomy is perhaps the only science where a significant contribution can be made by amateurs. I think Ornithology is another science where amateurs also can contribute significantly.)

So, who out there records, rather than simply lists or watches (I know some of you do) and do you record Starlings or Feral Pigeons etc.?

I suspect recording then implies a dedicated patch (?) but we still have a crossover, perhaps.

Do you record the Zebra Finch or Nutmeg Mannikin that appears on your patch, or do you simply list it, or ignore it?

Equally, what about birds that are not on your recording patch, including the rare (genuine) vagrant? Do you list them?

Am I being too simplisitic? Do you recorders actually record everything you see?

What about the UK's Red Kites? Would you count the birds that have just been released in Yorkshire, or the M4 corridor birds, or do you only count the birds in the Welsh mountains?

And to go back to my original post... what about pigeons? Do you count them at all if they are not "pure", or do you actually have 2 or more "boxes" or "records" for the same species.
 
My thoughts on this are, at the end of the day its a hobby, do whaterver you feel comfortable with.
I sometimes think we getted bogged down with small things everyone can take from the hobby whatever they want there are plenty of purists but why look down on someone who does things differently, live and let live as long as they a lovers of nature they have my support.
 
Hi all,
Each to their own,to a degree,but here's some of my thoughts on the matter:
There is a feral population of Canada Geese here in Cork city,but I waited until I saw a presumed wild bird on the North Slob(of the race interior,had arrived with Greenland White-fronts,which share a similar range to this race of Canada).Also waited until I saw wintering Icelandic Greylags!
Count Rock Dove on the basis of pure-looking(although obviously with the possibility of having being "sullied" with Feral Pigeon genes!)birds at coastal headlands.
Note escapes in my notes,but don't count them.(in fact,I have yet to formally tick the Redhead,which is a potential vagrant,as it may yet be treated as an escape by the IRBC).Obviously,birds such as the Bufflehead(accepted to Cat.A,Jan-Mar 98)MAY have been escapes,but if the IRBC are giving them the benefit of the doubt,then who am I to argue?;-)
I DO count birds seen in the hand(i.e.trapped for ringing),but ONLY if I see them being released(at the moment,this applies only to two birds:Little Bunting and Thrush Nightingale,both damn good birds here!)
I only count splits if formally adopted over here,so no Yellow-legged Gull,Carrion Crow(though this split will probably be adopted in due course,or so I was told by an IRBC member) etc...YET!
Harry H
 
I count all Rock Dove individuals of the endemic Fair Isle race (popularly known as Fairisle Pigeon), even Skemmies, unless they're obvious racing pigeons (ringed with a plastic ring). Personally, I doubt there's a single Rock Dove in Britain, maybe the world, which isn't 'sullied' by domestic pigeon genes - escaped racing pigeons have no qualms about settling in and breeding with local Rock Doves on coastal headlands in western Ireland and NW Scotland, etc. So might as well count all free-living Rock Doves - anything else smacks of Nazi propaganda.

Guess I'd say the same as Harry about birds in the hand for ringing, there's no way I'm going to chuck Swinhoe's Petrel off my list (even tho' it wasn't easy to see an all-dark bird flying off into the night!).

Yellow-legged Gull . . . the Northumberland Records Committee has accepted this as a distinct species, so I count it for county listing purposes, but not for discussing national lists (since the BOU haven't split it yet). Now there's a minefield . . .

Michael
 
Hi Michael,
Re Yellow-legged Gull:that reminds me of a similar situation here in Cork in the early 90's.The Cork Bird Report split Mediterranean Shearwater(as it was then known)from Manx BEFORE the split was formally adopted here in Ireland!(I suppose Cork birders were seeing these more often than most,and realised that they surely weren't conspecific?)
I DO know 2-3 birders here in Ireland(all younger than me,is this a coincidence?)that tick Yellow-legged Gull on their Irish lists:perhaps this practice is widespread among early 20-something birders here?All I know is that I won't tick them a while,despite having seen at least 10 of them in Ireland.
Harry H
 
Harry, Michael,

I remember reading somewhere that large gulls from Iceland Gull, through Herring Gull and Lesser Black-backed Gull were all part of a 'super species' and not distinct species in their own right. If you think about the number of clinal variants there may be something in this, after all we don't have Glaucous or Great-black backed subspecies. If this turned out to be true just think what it would do to our lists - which would be the nominate???

Darrell
 
Hi Darrell,

The nominate would be Great Black-back (Larus marinus, which, as well as being the type of the entire genus Larus, also means 'Seagull' ;))

So if all the large white-headed gulls were lumped (a taxonomic viewpoint with a lot of merit in genetic terms), we could call them all Seagulls.

Michael
 
Hi Darrell,
I doubt that even the most conservative advocate of the BSC could seriously propose lumping all of the large gulls in the Northern Hemisphere into one polytypic species:for a start,Great Black-backed,argenteus Herring and graellsii Lesser Black-backed breed sympatrically in the UK and Ireland(plus a few michahellis Yellow-legged in S UK),and for the most part behave as good biological species.
I would associate clinal variation more with things like argenteus/argentatus,graellsii/intermedius/fuscus,Western/Glaucous-winged,glauciodes/kumlieni/thayeri etc,where many intermediate birds occur along the cline.No such situation exists with most currently recognised species(except for Western/GLW in the US and(depending on taxonomy)Thayer's/"Iceland"(glauciodes and kumlieni).
Such a situation MAY exist for Yellow-legged(these Northern Iberian birds are intriguing),Caspian(barabensis?)etc:eek:nly further careful research can throw light on this.
To sum up,I feel(as a non-taxonomist)that the following European species are okay:Herring,LBB,GBB,Glaucous,Iceland(perhaps including thayeri?).I also feel that Yellow-legged and especially Caspian may be good species also,but would be sceptical of "Siberian Gull",smithsonianus etc.
Harry H
 
Birdman

Is the schitzophrenia yours or are you trying it out for a friend? (your first post).

p.s. I saw a nice pigeon in the far north of Scotland with all the right markings for a rock dove. That will do me, I'm not about to ask it for DNA. Does it really matter folks?

James
 
Or is that, schnitzelphrenia? Boy, I'm glad I didn't catch up with THIS thread till now.

Ha, hum.. the only thing I'm really interested in is the pluralization of a Latin binomial. You had the right idea for Latin nouns, B'man, but I'm not sure it applies to scientific names. I myself have no idea, actually-- I think the plural may have the same form as the singular: one Columba livia, two Columba livia-- just like one grouse, a brace of grouse. Or 'a bird on the tick is worth two in the bush'.
 
birdman
if its free flying Iwill tick it:but I make detailed records of garden
birds, for myself-& B.T.O. if I was lucky enough to find somthing rare it would be straight on my list then on my garden records.
right or wrong? its the way I enjoy my hobby and I think thats
what it should be about.
bert
 
Warning! This thread is more than 21 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top