Lowland White-eye in Taiwan? (1 Viewer)

Is there a split/lump I missed or something else with Zosterops meyeni ?

Several references give obviously wrong information

http://datazone.birdlife.org/species/factsheet/lowland-white-eye-zosterops-meyeni

Claim it is endemic to Philippines but give "the population in Taiwan has been estimated at c.10,000-100,000 breeding pairs (Brazil 2009)." :eek!:

Same on Avibase map, said "endemic to Philippines" and "present in Taiwan".

http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?lang=EN&avibaseid=2662E8DAB9006131&sec=map

Thank you for helping me to solve this problem and explain me what is the actual situation (such Taiwan population split or transferred to another species... Japanese White-eye???)

Alino

Maybe there was an unannounced annexation of Taiwan by the Philippines

Zosterops meyeni (of the ssp. batanis) is present on Green/Lüdao Island and on Orchid/Lanyu Island, but is wholly absent from mainland Taiwan. The distribution map on the BirdLife website is correct; Lüdao and Lanyu are the two northernmost green dots there, off southern Taiwan. (Beware that the maps on Avibase are uninformative below the country level -- the entire country will be coloured even if the bird is present in a very restricted part of it. See, e.g., the entirety of China, Russia, and the USA for Z. japonicus [here].) The species as currently defined would probably qualify as a near-endemic. (But not as a real endemic, thus.)

(HBW and the HBW/BirdLife checklist both suggest that batanis has been treated occasionally as part of japonicus while meyeni was kept distinct distinct, in which case Z. meyeni would become a real Philippine endemic. No idea who adopted this treatment, however; the deliberate omission of references in the text of HBW makes tracing sources from this work, unfortunately, a nightmare.)

l_raty said:

Zosterops meyeni (of the ssp. batanis) is present on Green/Lüdao Island and on Orchid/Lanyu Island, but is wholly absent from mainland Taiwan. The distribution map on the BirdLife website is correct; Lüdao and Lanyu are the two northernmost green dots there, off southern Taiwan. (Beware that the maps on Avibase are uninformative below the country level -- the entire country will be coloured even if the bird is present in a very restricted part of it. See, e.g., the entirety of China, Russia, and the USA for Z. japonicus [here].) The species as currently defined would probably qualify as a near-endemic. (But not as a real endemic, thus.)

(HBW and the HBW/BirdLife checklist both suggest that batanis has been treated occasionally as part of japonicus while meyeni was kept distinct distinct, in which case Z. meyeni would become a real Philippine endemic. No idea who adopted this treatment, however; the deliberate omission of references in the text of HBW makes tracing sources from this work, unfortunately, a nightmare.)

Click to expand...

That's helpful thanks, so I can consider that the wrong information is here.

Country endemic: Yes

Click to expand...

I understand how works Avibase, but in my opinion, either Taiwan and Philippines should be green "present", either only one country violet "endemic", but one green and one violet is non-sense, right?

Thanks again

Alino

The origin of Z. meyeni/japonicus batanis McGREGOR 1907 ... is also (in a different way) questioned in the Bird Name Etymology sub-forum (here).

Odd, two different topics, in different posts, in different threads, in just about the same hours, dealing with the same, obscure batanis.

However; enjoy!

Björn
--

One more case where the definition of 'endemic' is rendered ridiculous by the peculiarities of human-constructed borders - if those two islets on the same submarine ridge as the Philippines had been Filipino territory rather than Taiwanese, 'endemic' would have been used freely without argument.

Nutcracker said:

One more case where the definition of 'endemic' is rendered ridiculous by the peculiarities of human-constructed borders - if those two islets on the same submarine ridge as the Philippines had been Filipino territory rather than Taiwanese, 'endemic' would have been used freely without argument.

Click to expand...

I totally agree, but in term of actual conservation, it is important. If a bird has a range of 100.000 km2 in Amazonia Brazil or exist on 45 Indonesian islands, it is endemic in the way that only one government car decide to protect it properly or not, or even eradicate the species, who knows? While a bird with a much smaller range in Africa, that occur in 6 or 7 different countries can be protected by several different authorities.

I my case I've a little conservation project, and I don't want to list a national endemic that is not really, just for the credibility of my document (and obviously, this is not the Lowland White-eye that is most in needed of conservation action .

Now, for our personal or scientific interests, endemics to one island or one geographical unity are much more exciting than national endemics indeed!