-
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.
The British List: A Checklist of Birds of Britain (9th edition) (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Peter Kovalik
- Start date
mb1848
Well-known member
The BOURC does not commit possible errors. The Psittacidae a newish family of old world parrots according to wikipedia has Psittacula in it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psittaculinae .
IOC splits the Psittacidae into Psittacidae (New World + African Psittacus & Poicephalus) and Psittaculidae (Asia, Australia & Oceania + rest of African). cSurely if BOURC follows IOC then Psittacula must be in Psittaculidae.
mb1848
Well-known member
Sorry my mistake. The parrot family Psittaculidae consists of five subfamilies, Agapornithinae, Loriinae, Platycercinae, Psittacellinae and Psittaculinae. Psittaculinae has genus Psittacula in it according to wikipedia. Just contact the head of the taxonomic subcommittee and tell them about the problem..
James Jobling
Well-known member
This caught my eye: "as a rule, Wikipedia is slightly less trustworthy than anything scrawled on the walls of a public convenience" (Christopher Stevens, Daily Mail, 1 Feb. 2018, p. 61).
skatebirder
Well-known member
But still surely far more trustworthy than anything read in the Daily Mail....
Nutcracker
Stop Brexit!
Because wikipedia has blocked use of the DM as a source of information because of its unreliability :t:
https://www.theguardian.com/technol...s-daily-mail-as-unreliable-source-for-website
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/daily-mail-wikipedia-inaccurate_uk_589dd292e4b0ab2d2b1467c2
mb1848
Well-known member
Yes Wikipedia is confused about parrots. Me too. IOC cites Braun et all 2016 about Psittacula.
http://www.do-g.de/fileadmin/do-g_dokumente/Vogelwarte_54_2016-4_DO-G.pdf .
(page 322) This paper puts Psittacula in Psittaculidae, if British list does not they are wrong.
http://www.do-g.de/fileadmin/do-g_dokumente/Vogelwarte_54_2016-4_DO-G.pdf .
(page 322) This paper puts Psittacula in Psittaculidae, if British list does not they are wrong.
I don't see the point in claiming Wikipedia to be confused or not trustworthy. There's a simple solution to it: correct the mistakes with valid sources! The entire project is for everyone by everyone. It's "confused" and incorrect by nature, since both entering and editing the content and the peer reviewing of it is done by normal people in their spare time. If something is lacking, add it. If something is wrong, correct it.
Thank you Mark. I would do but I don't believe BOU has a taxonomic subcommittee any more.
Björn Bergenholtz
(former alias "Calalp")
James Lowther
Well-known member
as Nutcracker says, this is just blowback from a right wing newspaper that most people in the UK (apart from its core readership of gullible old people) think is about as believable as Donald Trump's twitter feed
wikipedia is not perfect and rather inconsistent in nature but in general a reliable first point of reference
James
Farnboro John
Well-known member
l_raty
laurent raty
There is also an apparent discrepancy between IOC and BOU in the subspecific treatment of the Fulmar.
If this taxon is recognized (and it is currently recognized by all the 'global taxonomies', including IOC -- despite recurrent rejection by a lot of authors), the British breeding populations must be auduboni, not nominate glacialis as given in the list.
If this taxon is recognized (and it is currently recognized by all the 'global taxonomies', including IOC -- despite recurrent rejection by a lot of authors), the British breeding populations must be auduboni, not nominate glacialis as given in the list.
mb1848
Well-known member
"the British breeding populations must be auduboni, not nominate glacialis as given in the list." Linne lists Sweden and Greenland and Spitzbergen as habitat of Fulmar. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/137337#page/217/mode/1up .
Audubon collected a few Fulmars on a trip from England to New York. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/103782#page/466/mode/1up .
Bonaparte named this auduboni .
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/141377#page/745/mode/1up .
Bonaparte repeats Hoeboll's name (?) Procellaria minor for Greenland birds and his P. pacifica is years earlier than Cassin's rodgersii.
Audubon collected a few Fulmars on a trip from England to New York. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/103782#page/466/mode/1up .
Bonaparte named this auduboni .
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/141377#page/745/mode/1up .
Bonaparte repeats Hoeboll's name (?) Procellaria minor for Greenland birds and his P. pacifica is years earlier than Cassin's rodgersii.
l_raty
laurent raty
Linné 1766 wrote:
But the name is actually available from his Fauna Svecica of 1761 [here]:
"Within the Arctic Circle" was the type locality accepted in the Peters' check-list.
"Greenland" as such is not very informative as far as Fulmar is concerned, because the populations there do not appear homogeneous. (The usually accepted limit between glacialis and auduboni [where such a limit is deemed to exist] runs through Greenland.)
The Procellaria minor used by Bonaparte was authored by Niels Kjaerbølling in 1852 [here] ("Liden Stormf[ugl], Pr[ocellaria] minor, mihi", in the table headers); the type locality as expressed in the OD is "i Nordgrønland"; this name is now placed in the synonymy of glacialis Linn. (Carl Holböll [here] described Greenlandic "Procellaria glacialis", but didn't give them a more specific name.)
The Procellaria pacifica used by Bonaparte was authored by Audubon in 1839 [here]; this name is indeed senior to Fulmarus rodgersii Cassin 1862 and applies to the same taxon, but it is a junior primary homonym of Procellaria pacifica Gmelin 1789 [here] (now Ardenna pacifica) and therefore permanently invalid.
...i.e.: Inhabits the Glacial Ocean, or within the Arctic Circle, Breeds in Greenland, Spitzbergen.
But the name is actually available from his Fauna Svecica of 1761 [here]:
...i.e.: Inhabits the northern sea, within the arctic circle.
"Within the Arctic Circle" was the type locality accepted in the Peters' check-list.
"Greenland" as such is not very informative as far as Fulmar is concerned, because the populations there do not appear homogeneous. (The usually accepted limit between glacialis and auduboni [where such a limit is deemed to exist] runs through Greenland.)
The Procellaria minor used by Bonaparte was authored by Niels Kjaerbølling in 1852 [here] ("Liden Stormf[ugl], Pr[ocellaria] minor, mihi", in the table headers); the type locality as expressed in the OD is "i Nordgrønland"; this name is now placed in the synonymy of glacialis Linn. (Carl Holböll [here] described Greenlandic "Procellaria glacialis", but didn't give them a more specific name.)
The Procellaria pacifica used by Bonaparte was authored by Audubon in 1839 [here]; this name is indeed senior to Fulmarus rodgersii Cassin 1862 and applies to the same taxon, but it is a junior primary homonym of Procellaria pacifica Gmelin 1789 [here] (now Ardenna pacifica) and therefore permanently invalid.
Last edited:
Psittacula
Well, that was painless. Dr McInerny has replied already saying "Thanks for pointing out this mistake which we will correct in the next BOURC Report."
Well, that was painless. Dr McInerny has replied already saying "Thanks for pointing out this mistake which we will correct in the next BOURC Report."
Similar threads
