[Tom Tarrant]

Not sure if this has been mentioned already on BirdForum Taxonomy but it was recently posted on Birding-Aus.
Tom

Tony Pym <tony_pym@hotmail.com> wrote:


A paper in the journal Molecular Ecology by Pierre Jouventin et al has shown, as expected, that the Rockhopper Penguin should be split and recognised as two species, E. chrysocome and Eudyptes moseleyi .

For information, here's an abstract:
The taxonomic status of populations of rockhopper penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome) is still enigmatic. Northern populations differ from southern ones in breeding phenology, song characteristics and head ornaments used as mating signals. We conducted a molecular analysis using mitochondrial DNA sequencing to test if there is a gene flow barrier between northern (subtropical) populations and southern (subantarctic) populations in relation to the Subtropical Convergence, a major ecological boundary for marine organisms. Sequences of the control region and the ND2 gene were analysed in rockhopper penguins and in the macaroni penguin (Eudyptes chrysolophus), a closely related species. Genetic distances and phylogenetic analyses showed a clear split into three clades, two rockhopper clades and the macaroni penguin. Moreover, ÈST and gene flow estimates also suggested genetic structuring within the northern rockhoppers. Our results add further support to the notion that the two
rockhopper penguin taxa, often considered as two subspecies, can be recognized as two species E. chrysocome and E. moseleyi. The divergence in mating signals found between these two taxa seems to have occurred recently and relatively rapidly. Thus, the behavioural changes may have been enough to isolate these taxa without the need for morphological differentiation. The findings have important conservational implications, since E. moseleyi is far less abundant than E. chrysocome, but more populations may warrant an uplisting to endangered status if full species status should be recognized for more subpopulations.

[Richard Klim]

SACC Proposal #511A (Pearman, Oct 2011): Split Eudyptes moseleyi from E. chrysocome.

Northern Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes [chrysocome] moseleyi is recognised as a species by IOC and BLI.

BLI Species factsheet.
Martínez 1992 (HBW 1).

[Peter Kovalik]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

SACC Proposal #511A (Pearman, Oct 2011): Split Eudyptes moseleyi from E. chrysocome.

Northern Rockhopper Penguin Eudyptes [chrysocome] moseleyi is recognised as a species by IOC and BLI.

BLI Species factsheet.
Martínez 1992 (HBW 1).

SACC Proposal 511:
A). Split Eudyptes moseleyi from E. chrysocome (Pearman) PASSED (8 Feb 12)
B). Add E. moseleyi to the main SACC species list (Pearman) PASSED (8 Feb 12)

[Richard Klim]

With the recent transfer of SACC files to a new server, unfortunately many links in earlier posts to proposal files no longer work. The problem seems to be the transformation of 'Prop' to 'prop'. So it's just necessary to change the P to p, eg:

• was www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCProp511.html
• now www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop511.html

[Richard Klim]

SACC Proposal #516 (Pearman, Feb 2012): Establish the English name of Eudyptes moseleyi.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

SACC Proposal #516 (Pearman, Feb 2012): Establish the English name of Eudyptes moseleyi.

Passed 8 Mar 2012: RECENT CHANGES.

Tristan Penguin.

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

Passed 8 Mar 2012: RECENT CHANGES.

Tristan Penguin.

About as good as Sandwich Tern, IMO. I'll read the rationale now...

cheers, alan

[Kuiornis]

Whilst I am happy with the decision to recognise the taxon at species level I am rather surprised at the decision to use this name. It is simply illogical on several levels:

1) The bulk of the population breeds on Gough not Tristan. Wikipedia says "the current population is estimated to be between 100,000-499,999 breeding pairs at Gough Island, 18,000 to 27,000 pairs at Inaccessible Island, and [only] 3,200 to 4,500 at Tristan da Cunha.
2) There are significant populations in the Indian Ocean, the population was 25,500 pairs on Amsterdam Island, and 9,000 pairs on St Paul Island in 1993". This is only a small proportion if one uses the upper (rather unlikely) estimate of 499000 on Gough!

I agree that Northern is also not a good name, as what does north refer to, but can not fathom the logic that Moseley was not an ornithologist (so only ornithologist are allowed to have birds after them??) nor that Moseley is already honoured in the scientific name. If this was a valid argument then we should rename Richards Pipit and the committee should have change the name of De Filippi's Petrel when it voted recently. I also can't understand the arguement that Moseley's is difficult to pronounce in Spanish. So what! This is a decision about an English name - presumably the Spanish ornithological community can can it whatever they want. If you follow this logic through we should probably rename Hoatzin and Lammergeier as no English speakers seem to be able to correctly pronounce these names...

Paul

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Kuiornis

Whilst I am happy with the decision to recognise the taxon at species level I am rather surprised at the decision to use this name. It is simply illogical on several levels:

1) The bulk of the population breeds on Gough not Tristan. Wikipedia says "the current population is estimated to be between 100,000-499,999 breeding pairs at Gough Island, 18,000 to 27,000 pairs at Inaccessible Island, and [only] 3,200 to 4,500 at Tristan da Cunha.
2) There are significant populations in the Indian Ocean, the population was 25,500 pairs on Amsterdam Island, and 9,000 pairs on St Paul Island in 1993". This is only a small proportion if one uses the upper (rather unlikely) estimate of 499000 on Gough!

I agree that Northern is also not a good name, as what does north refer to, but can not fathom the logic that Moseley was not an ornithologist (so only ornithologist are allowed to have birds after them??) nor that Moseley is already honoured in the scientific name. If this was a valid argument then we should rename Richards Pipit and the committee should have change the name of De Filippi's Petrel when it voted recently. I also can't understand the arguement that Moseley's is difficult to pronounce in Spanish. So what! This is a decision about an English name - presumably the Spanish ornithological community can can it whatever they want. If you follow this logic through we should probably rename Hoatzin and Lammergeier as no English speakers seem to be able to correctly pronounce these names...

Paul

Paul

I agree entirely. I would have preferred "Long-plumed Penguin" or something like that! Moseley's Penguin is the best (least worst) of the existing names.

cheers, alan

[Alan henry]

Originally Posted by lewis20126

Paul

I agree entirely. I would have preferred "Long-plumed Penguin" or something like that! Moseley's Penguin is the best (least worst) of the existing names.

cheers, alan

Long-plumed Penguin seems the best name to me

Cheers

Alan
www.surfbirds.com/community-blog/falklandbirder

[Mysticete]

Hopefully IOC will see these comments and take them in account in regards common names...

[McMadd]

Why then is Rockhopper itself a good name? Don't all penguins "hop" and live near rocks?

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by McMadd

Why then is Rockhopper itself a good name? Don't all penguins "hop" and live near rocks?

Agree its not ideal (although quite nice) - the point here is to establish an English name for a "newly recognized" penguin species, not to rename all inappropriately named penguins!

cheers, alan

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by McMadd

Why then is Rockhopper itself a good name? Don't all penguins "hop" and live near rocks?

Not quite -- I remember seeing a colony of Little Penguin in sand dunes

Niels

[McMadd]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

Not quite -- I remember seeing a colony of Little Penguin in sand dunes

Niels

Bumping into them in the understorey of Rangatira during the night was quite surreal...

[Markus Lagerqvist]

Originally Posted by Kuiornis

Whilst I am happy with the decision to recognise the taxon at species level I am rather surprised at the decision to use this name. It is simply illogical on several levels:

1) The bulk of the population breeds on Gough not Tristan. Wikipedia says "the current population is estimated to be between 100,000-499,999 breeding pairs at Gough Island, 18,000 to 27,000 pairs at Inaccessible Island, and [only] 3,200 to 4,500 at Tristan da Cunha.

Don't you think the SACC has intended Tristan as refering to the group of islands rather than the specific island of Tristan da Cunha? The archipelago inluding Tristan, Gough, Inaccesible and Nightingale is called Tristan du Cunha.

A similar example would be Hawaiian Shearwater where "Hawaiian" refers to the island group rather than the island of Hawaii (Big Island).

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Markus Lagerqvist

Don't you think the SACC has intended Tristan as refering to the group of islands rather than the specific island of Tristan da Cunha? The archipelago inluding Tristan, Gough, Inaccesible and Nightingale is called Tristan du Cunha.

A similar example would be Hawaiian Shearwater where "Hawaiian" refers to the island group rather than the island of Hawaii (Big Island).

Even so, the Indian Ocean populations are forgotten. Sandwich Tern, Dartford Warbler, Kentish Plover and the like are historical curiosities. We should not be creating another one when more rationale names exist.

cheers, alan

[Roy'N]

Even so, the Indian Ocean populations are forgotten. Sandwich Tern, Dartford Warbler, Kentish Plover and the like are historical curiosities. We should not be creating another one when more rationale names exist.

Sandwich, Dartford and Kentish are a tiny section of their distribution. They are not really comparable to the Penguin. If we use the lowest figure about 3/4 of the population is in Tristin archipelago and with highest figure more than 9/10. If we only accept names where the descriptive part is totally accurate all the time it is very hard to find a name. I don't understand why it is better to have names like 'rockhopper' or 'Moseley's' that say very little about the bird than a descriptive name that is accurate most of the time. Playing the devils advocate: juveniles and young adults don't have very long head plumes. Long-plumed is only accurate in most of their life. Tristan is accurate for most of the population. The difference is the same

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Roy'N

Long-plumed is only accurate in most of their life. Tristan is accurate for most of the population. The difference is the same

Bizarre. You might as well say that female Birds of Paradise..are not.

cheers, a

[Roy'N]

Bizarre. You might as well say that female Birds of Paradise..are not.

Some like their subtle colors but yes the same argument can be used for them. I should remind you that you are the one that in previous posts have argued for the dismissal of Tristan because it wasn't accurate for the entire population. Only most, if it is the Tristan archipelago. I never made that argument. I only pointed out that if you want all descriptive names to be 100% accurate all the time relatively few birds have names that fit.

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Roy'N

Some like their subtle colors but yes the same argument can be used for them. I should remind you that you are the one that in previous posts have argued for the dismissal of Tristan because it wasn't accurate for the entire population. Only most, if it is the Tristan archipelago. I never made that argument. I only pointed out that if you want all descriptive names to be 100% accurate all the time relatively few birds have names that fit.

But geographical descriptors, if they are to be used, can and should be precise, otherwise they should be avoided. There are many many species confined to single islands or island groups which are well named, as they only occur on those islands. Galapagos Penguin is fine. To a non specialist "Tristan Penguin" sounds like a penguin that only occurs on Tristan. It is therefore immediately misleading. Long-plumed Penguin is not misleading in any way at all.

cheers, alan

[Roy'N]

Galapagos Penguin is fine.

is Fiordland Penguin fine? Most breed in Fiordland. Except some on Codfish island at Stewart island.

[lewis20126]

Originally Posted by Roy'N

is Fiordland Penguin fine? Most breed in Fiordland. Except some on Codfish island at Stewart island.

You're missing the point. That is an established name. In respect of moseleyi, we can and do have a choice. We can actively choose an English name now which is misleading or at least has the potential to be so. Or not. Actually, since many English names are so hopeless (Black Curassow is a favourite), I think this one just carries on a long tradition, so let's leave it be. How about Rufous Screech Owl for the "new" endemic Santa Marta Megascops?

cheers, alan

[James Jobling]

May I enter the minefield re Moseley's Long-plumed Tristan Penguin? Since neither Long-plumed nor Tristan are strictly accurate, the obvious solution is to adopt Moseley's Penguin as a name that mirrors the specific eponym and is accurate all the time.

[MJB]

Originally Posted by lewis20126

But geographical descriptors, if they are to be used, can and should be precise, otherwise they should be avoided. cheers, alan

Alan,
I think you meant accurate, not precise. For example, the goegraphical descriptor 'Eurasian' is accurate, but it applies well because of its imprecision, ie vagueness...
MJB