• 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.

Western Yellow Wagtail (1 Viewer)

A better question is, where does that name come from ;)

It is not found in Clements list, and Avibase does not have it either, probably meaning that it is a name not usually recognized (synonym with another subspecies, hybrid swarm between two subspecies or whatnot).

Cheers
Niels
 
It's listed with all the other fellows in the Collins.

I forgot an 'i' though - apologies: 'dombrowskii'

Region: Romania

But they don't give much more Info than that :/
 
Nicole,
if you want to hurt your head, then look at the discussions of what constitutes subspecies or not in the taxonomy forum here in BF. The short version is that subspecies are difficult to define, and that intergrades and different ends of a gradient normally should not be considered subspecies.

To avoid making such judgment calls ourselves, the Opus editors have chosen to include subspecies that are listed in Clements but not others.

Cheers
Niels
 
To avoid making such judgment calls ourselves, the Opus editors have chosen to include subspecies that are listed in Clements but not others.

Surely that is a little narrow and potentially excluding? If Opus is attempting to bring together a database of knowledge, would it not be better to allow editors to note other authorities also, citing as necessary?
 
Surely that is a little narrow and potentially excluding? If Opus is attempting to bring together a database of knowledge, would it not be better to allow editors to note other authorities also, citing as necessary?

Well, yes we do do that Jos. Or trying to on the whole.

Generally the reader is referred to Avibase for more information on the subspecies that aren't generally recognised.

D
 
I don't believe that Clements is a good baseline for subspecific taxonomy (being largely unmaintained in this respect since Cornell assumed authorship several years ago).

But to be fair to the Opus editors/authors, 'dombrowskii' (along with numerous other Yellow Wagtail races) isn't recognised as a valid subspecies by any other significant author/authority, eg, Mayr & Greenway 1960 (Peters), BWP, Alström & Mild 2003 (Pipits & Wagtails), Dickinson 2003 (H&M3), Tyler 2004 (HBW9), Zoonomen, IOC.

Even Svensson puts the name in quotation marks to indicate its questionable validity.
 
Last edited:
Surely that is a little narrow and potentially excluding? If Opus is attempting to bring together a database of knowledge, would it not be better to allow editors to note other authorities also, citing as necessary?

Jos,
I have done that to some extent too. However, the discussions in the taxonomy forum is more often talking about subspecies that are not valid but still included in the lists in e.g., Clements rather than the opposite. I therefore feel that is is very few good subspecies that are not included based on this policy.

Another way to see this is that opus started from more or less scratch not too long ago; there are still many species for which information is lacking with the current policy; if we tried to say that you must include more than that, then it becomes too big a job to get the missing information filled in, I think. Once we have what is now required, we can come back and see if we can add more info.

One thing I dream about is a section on how to recognize from confounding species; currently there are a few species for which the confounding species are mentioned, but rarely much more than that. If anyone has expertise and time to add that already now, I think everyone would welcome that -- again, it is not something you can put on the shoulders of the Opus editors.

A completely different issue is that Opus is a resource where everyone can add their 5 cents worth, it is not only limited to the Opus editors.

Niels
 
And just to show I am not stubborn about these things, I have added a tiny bit about these other forms to the page ;)

Niels
 
To avoid making such judgment calls ourselves, the Opus editors have chosen to include subspecies that are listed in Clements but not others.

Cheers
Niels

OK, fine with me :)

I didn't know that :)




Thanks!


And just to show I am not stubborn about these things, I have added a tiny bit about these other forms to the page ;)

Niels


Grin, thanks! I didn't want to cause a big hubub. I know how much work Opus is, what I am sometimes missing is the clue on what the information is based, you gather there.
Now I'm a bit less clueless, thanks ;)
 
@Deliatodd - the picture placements are currently not working, they go way down past the end of the text, forcing a huge blank gap down to the search links. That's why I'd put the last 4 in a gallery, and I'd say they should go back into one.
 
Strange how it changes overnight!!!

I've made some amendments in Pale Moon and checked in Firefox, Chrome and Internet explorer.

Chrome is the only one where it's a little askew for me but not too bad.
 
I only checked on firefox, and the last thing in the column of text is the gallery with two images. To the right of that is the bottom half of a regularly included image. So that looks OK to me. (laptop with 1366x768 display)

Niels
 
Strange how it changes overnight!!!

I've made some amendments in Pale Moon and checked in Firefox, Chrome and Internet explorer.

Chrome is the only one where it's a little askew for me but not too bad.

I'd think a lot (probably mostly!) also depends on your monitor dimensions - what works on a 1024×768 screen won't work well on a 2048×1152 wide screen, and vice-versa, unfortunately. On wide screens, the text takes fewer lines, so the pics go relatively further down the page.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 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