[NicoleB]

Discussion thread for Western Yellow Wagtail. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

[NicoleB]

I think the 'dombrowski' is missing from the list of various flavors?

:)

[njlarsen]

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

[NicoleB]

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 :/

[NicoleB]

I found this:

a common type of intergrade between feldegg and flava and probably feldegg and beema.

over here

[njlarsen]

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

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

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?

[delia todd]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

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

[Richard Klim]

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.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

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

[Cristian Mihai]

Hi Nicole,

Some information here too:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=138719

[njlarsen]

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

[NicoleB]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

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 :)

Originally Posted by Cristian Mihai

Hi Nicole,

Some information here too:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=138719

Thanks!

Originally Posted by njlarsen

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