Omani Owl (1 Viewer)

[George Sangster]

hi George,
speaking as a professional molecular biologist it was pretty clear upon publication that Kirwan et al's conclusion that the type specimen of butleri was not the same species as "Hume's owl" was incredibly unlikely to be incorrect.....The pseudo-intelligent remark about the phylogenetic tree was particularly misguided.

There is nothing 'pseudo-intelligent' or 'particularly misguided' about pointing out that the most important branches in a phylogeny have low support.

With n=1 and a short 218 bp sequence from an old specimen, some skepsis is healthy. How can you be so certain that this was not a pseudogene? Finding no stop codons or frameshift mutations (i.e. lack of evidence) with so little data is not entirely convincing.

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Generally the reason why not is egos.......

Well, you are probably right, as you say, generally speaking. Surprisingly, birdwatchers sometimes care more for their ego, as you say than for the birds.

However, personally, my only enemies are those who kill the birds. I prefer my ego, my body or both to die than to kill one bird. Not speaking about several. So if there is a sound approach that avoid killing on one side, and another side who "collect" specimens, yeah, good reason to be enemies. I didn't follow the whole story, I hope no owl has been killed. If yes, I wish the killer to leave this World as soon as possible.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Well, you are probably right, as you say, generally speaking. Surprisingly, birdwatchers sometimes care more for their ego, as you say than for the birds.

However, personally, my only enemies are those who kill the birds. I prefer my ego, my body or both to die than to kill one bird. Not speaking about several. So if there is a sound approach that avoid killing on one side, and another side who "collect" specimens, yeah, good reason to be enemies. I didn't follow the whole story, I hope no owl has been killed. If yes, I wish the killer to leave this World as soon as possible.

Valery

I am not sure what you believe happened here. I am certainly unaware of any collecting pressure at any point in this story but I've only read what is in the public domain and on here.

Whatever effect this story may have on the continued progression towards full scientific research on birds without collecting, it certainly shows that capture of a bird from a target population and it's subsequent release is possible whilst still allowing full DNA sampling for scientific identification.

All the best

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Valery


Whatever effect this story may have on the continued progression towards full scientific research on birds without collecting, it certainly shows that capture of a bird from a target population and it's subsequent release is possible whilst still allowing full DNA sampling for scientific identification.

All the best

This exactly my point. Thanks.

 

[Richard Klim]

Undiscovered owls

Martin Garner, Birding Frontiers, 26 Aug 2015: Omani Owl – Breaking News & Interview.

Martin Garner, Birding Frontiers, 1 Sep 2015: Magnus Robb – Undiscovered Owls: The Interview.

 

[James Lowther]

There is nothing 'pseudo-intelligent' or 'particularly misguided' about pointing out that the most important branches in a phylogeny have low support.

With n=1 and a short 218 bp sequence from an old specimen, some skepsis is healthy. How can you be so certain that this was not a pseudogene? Finding no stop codons or frameshift mutations (i.e. lack of evidence) with so little data is not entirely convincing.

Hi George,
we'll have to agree to disagree here. The phylogenetic tree was not relevant to whether the type specimen sequence was likely representative of a different species to hadorami, nor was the short length of sequence obtained, so calling attention to those shortcomings of the analysis in that way was IMO a bit of a diversion. Your point about the pseudogene is well taken and has been discussed up thread here, but the sound approach didn't mention that possibility in their critique.

But regardless, at that point in time the odds were stacked in favour of Kirwan et al's conclusions being proved correct; scepticism and critical thinking is always justified but that comment came over more as a dismissal.

anyway, again I repeat that I don't want to detract from the terrific discovery and subsequent investigations of both the sound approach and kirwan et al. Everyone can be rightly very delighted with what's been accomplished.
cheers,
James

 

[l_raty]

But regardless, at that point in time the odds were stacked in favour of Kirwan et al's conclusions being proved correct

Maybe it will sound like I'm never happy (and if so I apologize for it), but I'm still somewhat perplexed.

As I explained [here], the butleri type-specimen sequence deposited in GenBank has two non-synonymous substitutions, which are inferred to modify the secondary structure of the protein significantly, in a part of the AA sequence that as far as I can judge is fully conserved in all extant birds. (In addition: this sequence was obtained in two amplicons, which appear to overlap by only one bp; the two substitutions in question are located towards the end of the first amplicon, and within the binding site of the first primer used for the second amplicon, which of course was not designed for a so-modified binding site. Yet this primer did work on the specimen sample.) Given this, under the hypothesis that the sequence was mitochondrial, I really expected these two substitutions to be plain sequencing errors.

But now we are said that the new sequences (which I have not seen yet) overlap with the type-specimen sequence completely, and that one of them is fully identical to it. And I am a bit lost...

 

[Richard Klim]

HBW Alive

Guy Kirwan, HBW Alive, 10 Sep 2015: Latest news on 'Omani Owl'.

The discovery (and description) in 2013 by Magnus Robb and the Sound Approach of Omani Owl (Strix omanensis) caused much excitement and interest among birders, especially when another group of researchers (Kirwan et al. 2015) re-examined specimens of the closely related Hume's Owl (Strix butleri), and published a paper suggesting that its type specimen was in fact the same species as Omani Owl. All of the other specimens of Hume's Owl in existence proved to belong to a different species, based on morphological and genetic data, which Kirwan et al. (2015) described as a new species, Strix hadorami. In a new paper, not yet submitted for publication but already available online, Magnus Robb and his colleagues have reported that a genetic sample from a live Omani Owl taken this year is identical to that of the type of Strix butleri. In other words, they were able to confirm not only the existence of two species of Strix owls in the deserts of Arabia and nearby regions, but also that Kirwan et al. (2015) had been correct in their assertions concerning the identity of Omani Owl. The new paper also examined DNA from an owl discovered in Mashhad, NE Iran in Jan 2015 (see news item 'Hume's Owl in Iran') and confirmed that it is the same as the bird they named Omani Owl, and the type specimen of Strix butleri, providing the first confirmation that the species still exists outside the Arabian Peninsula and 1300 km from the nearest record.

Robb, M.S., Sangster, G., Aliabadian, M., van den Berg, A.B., Constantine, M., Irestedt, M., Khani, A., Musavi, S.B., Nunes, J.M., Sarrouf Willson, M. & Walsh, A.J. (2015). The rediscovery of Strix butleri (Hume, 1878) in Oman and Iran, with molecular resolution of the identity of Strix omanensis Robb, van den Berg and Constantine, 2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/025122

 

[Richard Klim]

Omani Owl: UAE

Judas, Robb & Miller 2015. Omani Owl at Wadi Wurayah, United Arab Emirates, in March 2015. Dutch Birding 37(5): 334–336.

 

[Richard Klim]

Omani Owl: Iran

Ławicki & van den Berg 2015. WP reports. Dutch Birding 37(5): 340–353.

In August, the second for Iran was photographed in Bushehr province, c 1000 km north-west from Al Hajar (Seyed Babak Musavi in litt).

 

[McMadd]

Why keep Omani Owl as the name for something which now ranges far outside Oman? Vanity?

 

[Richard Klim]

Why keep Omani Owl as the name for something which now ranges far outside Oman? Vanity?

Especially given that both species (butleri and hadorami) occur in Oman.

With omanensis now relegated to a synonym, Robb et al have nevertheless recommended the retention of 'Omani Owl', however unsuitable as a common name for the species described by Hume: "We recommend the name 'Omani Owl' for S. butleri sensu stricto, because the only known population of this species is in Oman, with only single individuals ever having been located outside Oman". But surely the individuals located in Iran and UAE are representatives of local populations (albeit poorly known). Or are Robb et al perhaps suggesting that they might be vagrants from Oman!? Anyway, it's obviously a compromise solution that still offers an alternative celebration of the (re)discovery...

 

[BIG]

Hi Richard, within the Sound Approach we have as much discussion about local names as happens here. From my perspective any name that favours the known birds getting increased protection is the one for me. Both Turkish Fish Owl and Omani Owl occur outside of these countries. The aim however is to associate them with national pride to enable local conservationists to dissuade for example fish farmers in Turkey or the mountain hunters we've seen shooting with spotlights in Oman from killing the birds.

As for the earlier posts about taking specimens. I don't fund any projects that involve the killing of fish flesh or fowl for compassionate reasons. On a scientific basis I do believe that catching birds and taking feathers and blood samples, measurements and photographs has great benefit for scientists. especially if the institutions holding the collections can get the funding to convert their collections into data. It would have been far better if less romantic if the DNA data for Humes Owl had been routinely analysed and made available.

Finally thank you for keeping this thread so comprehensive. I don't think there is such a complete resource on the subject anywhere else. Mark Constantine

 

[Richard Klim]

Mark, the two cases are arguably slightly different, given that Bubo (zeylonensis) semenowi is the only fish owl in Turkey and is known only from Turkey in modern times (albeit formerly much more widespread) - although perhaps it may yet be rediscovered elsewhere... But I acknowledge the potential conservation benefit of the suggested English vernacular names.

The thread has clearly been of great interest, with almost 65K views so far – quite impressive for a relatively obscure subforum! It's a pity that the subject of Omani Owl became interleaved with a much wider discussion of the (excellent) book – two separate threads would have been preferable – but that's unfortunately typical of the rather random/unstructured nature of the evolution of BirdForum threads.

 

[Richard Klim]

Iran

Musavi, Khani, Khaleghizadeh & Robb (in press). The first confirmed records of Omani Owl, Strix butleri (A. O. Hume, 1878) (Aves: Strigidae), from Iran. Zool Middle East. [abstract] [pdf]

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Norman Ali Bassam Ali Taher Khalaf-Sakerfalke von Jaffa. The Desert Tawny Owl (Strix hadorami Kirwan, Schweizer and Copete, 2015) : New Species of Bird Discovered in Palestine. Gazelle : The Palestinian Biological Bulletin Number 142, October 2016.

[Article]

 

[macrourus]

I do not quite understand why while its absolutely normal for many European birders and all great Britain ones to call British Storm Petrel a bird breeding all over Europe and to call many taxa Balearic even when most of their population lies and leaves outside those little islands (check M.tyrrhenica , Lanius s.badius, etc.) just because these were a popular tourist destination for British people...and hence a name they love and its easy to speak and do the spelling ...and then so much discussion for Omani Owl that is justified first by a WONDERFUL protection reason...!! And FINALLY I would even accept and understand without problem this time also a bit of vanity as INDEED its ONLY (and of course also to one of my myth GKirwan) thanks to ROBB et al.that nowadays we all know that there are two different species of owls and not only the previously considered single species Hume's Owl...shown for ages at payment to thousands birders by Hadoram and nobody ever realized that was far too a pale and least marked bird than the type and any subsequent illustration of it in old journals etc. We all know this today only thanks to their initial discover even though with wrong conclusion...but this is SCIENCE and how science proceeds so often! As opposite to their justified little human and normal vanity I see lot and lot of unjustified and terrible jealousy and competition that IS NOT ANYTHING RELATED TO SCIENCE and simply stop science to go further.

Friendly and without any nasty intention and with apologies if it seems I may offend anybody
A

 

[Richard Prior]

I do not quite understand why while its absolutely normal for many European birders and all great Britain ones to call British Storm Petrel a bird breeding all over Europe and to call many taxa Balearic even when most of their population lies and leaves outside those little islands (check M.tyrrhenica , Lanius s.badius, etc.) just because these were a popular tourist destination for British people...and hence a name they love and its easy to speak and do the spelling ...and then so much discussion for Omani Owl that is justified first by a WONDERFUL protection reason...!! And FINALLY I would even accept and understand without problem this time also a bit of vanity as INDEED its ONLY (and of course also to one of my myth GKirwan) thanks to ROBB et al.that nowadays we all know that there are two different species of owls and not only the previously considered single species Hume's Owl...shown for ages at payment to thousands birders by Hadoram and nobody ever realized that was far too a pale and least marked bird than the type and any subsequent illustration of it in old journals etc. We all know this today only thanks to their initial discover even though with wrong conclusion...but this is SCIENCE and how science proceeds so often! As opposite to their justified little human and normal vanity I see lot and lot of unjustified and terrible jealousy and competition that IS NOT ANYTHING RELATED TO SCIENCE and simply stop science to go further.

Friendly and without any nasty intention and with apologies if it seems I may offend anybody
A

Well that's all right then, but there's no need to SHOUT

Probably a dumb question from me, a record of the Western Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis from Iran, 9 September 2015 (as I read in Sandgrouse 38(1)), is that a different species or the same as 'Turkish Fish Owl' ?

 

[Richard Klim]

Brown Fish Owl

Probably a dumb question from me, a record of the Western Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis from Iran, 9 September 2015 (as I read in Sandgrouse 38(1)), is that a different species or the same as 'Turkish Fish Owl'?

Should be semenowi – it's range supposedly extended east through S Iran to SE Pakistan and NW India (ref Holt et al 2013), and the type locality is in Iran.

[Strange that OSME has apparently used the English name 'Western Fish Owl' (suggesting recognition of semenowi as a distinct species), but scientific name Ketupa zeylonensis. ORL v3.2 treats 'Western Brown Fish Owl Bubo (zeylonensis) semenowi' as a potential split.]

Btw, when did you receive Sandgrouse 38(1)? I haven't had my copy yet...

 

[Richard Prior]

Should be semenowi – it's range supposedly extended east through S Iran to SE Pakistan and NW India (ref Holt et al 2013), and the type locality is in Iran.

[Strange that OSME has apparently used the English name 'Western Fish Owl' (suggesting recognition of semenowi as a distinct species), but scientific name Ketupa zeylonensis. ORL v3.2 treats 'Western Brown Fish Owl Bubo (zeylonensis) semenowi' as a potential split.]

Btw, when did you receive Sandgrouse 38(1)? I haven't had my copy yet...

Thanks Richard. My Sandgrouse arrived here yesterday, perhaps they post to members in foreign parts before UK dwellers. Or perhaps the domestic postal service in the UK really is as bad as my Mum tells me it is!