Redpoll question (1 Viewer)

[jimbob]

I have a question to the forum regarding species of Redpoll. I am aware of the Mealy (common) redpoll, and the arctic redpoll. However I have noticed some literature speaks of the lesser redpoll. It does not feature in the collins guide (I dont think) and I was wondering if anyone knows why not? Is this just another name for the northern variety of the mealy, or a different bird altogther?
regards all, jim.

 

[jeff]

I have a question to the forum regarding species of Redpoll. I am aware of the Mealy (common) redpoll, and the arctic redpoll. However I have noticed some literature speaks of the lesser redpoll. It does not feature in the collins guide (I dont think) and I was wondering if anyone knows why not? Is this just another name for the northern variety of the mealy, or a different bird altogther?
regards all, jim.

It's a species split, see http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-17255 for more details.

Jeff

 

[TWM]

The Lesser Redpoll is the 'common' Redpoll in the UK. Mealy (now called Common) and Arctic are both rare migrants to Britain.
I think they should have called Mealy, Northern Redpoll.

 

[Hotspur]

Lesser redpoll is "our" redpoll. Mealy Redpoll is a winter visitor in small numbers from iceland and scandinavia. Arctic Redpoll is a autumn/winter vagrant from Greenland/ North America with a couple of records a year. These birds often associate with Mealy Redpoll. Recently all three species were present in one tree at Titchwell (the ssp of Arctic being Coue's Arctic Redpoll). The split between Lesser and Mealy Redpoll is considered tenuous by many and they may get lumped as Common Redpoll in the near future.

 

[jimbob]

cheers for that, clears up that little gap in my knowledge. I can go to sleep counting redpolls in comfort now.

 

[graeme782]

In the Collins guide, and i dare say others aswell, Lesser and Mealy/Common feature together under the heading Redpoll. Lesser is ssp.cabaret and Mealy/Common is ssp.flammea.

 

[Hotspur]

been split since collins was published.

 

[Docmartin]

The split between Lesser and Mealy Redpoll is considered tenuous by many and they may get lumped as Common Redpoll in the near future.

Wow that's news to me. I'll bear it in mind.

If anyone is interested, I have a pdf of the BB paper that went into the details of the split. I don't mind passing it on to anyone who gets in touch.

 

[Mike Pennington]

Wow that's news to me. I'll bear it in mind.

If anyone is interested, I have a pdf of the BB paper that went into the details of the split. I don't mind passing it on to anyone who gets in touch.

Now come on Martin, it can't be news to you!! You must know that other people don't agree with the split.

I know that the main author of one of the main papers on which the BB paper was based do not agree with the interpretation of their data and the AERC TAC draft proposals (see www.aerc.be) include the suggestion that Common and Lesser Redpoll be lumped based on the following paper (which I haven't seen):

Ottvall, R., Bensch, S., Walinder, G. & Lifjeld, J.T. (2002) No evidence of genetic differentiation between Lesser Redpolls Carduelis flammea cabaret and Common Redpolls Carduelis f. flammea. Avian Science 2: 237–244.

Nice avatar by the way, even if it is a shame to see the Skaw Blyth's Reed go!

 

[Docmartin]

Now come on Martin, it can't be news to you!! You must know that other people don't agree with the split.

OK, I know lots of people are uncertain about the split, I just didn't know it was going to be reveresed in the near future. I must have missed that on my agenda! Taxonomic decisions are hypotheses blah blah blah and may be reassessed at any time on the basis of fresh evidence etc. Lots of the 'evidence' for lumping is currently unpublished heresay, but as and when it gets published I'm sure it'll be reviewed. The lack of genetic differentiation reported by Ottvall was known about at the time of the split. There are lots of other interesting bits and bobs of info in that paper that should be assessed too, but note that 3/5 national taxonomic committees on the TAC still support the split.

You too can have an Avatar like mine... http://www.planearium2.de/flash/spstudio.html

 

[Hotspur]

Wow that's news to me. I'll bear it in mind.

If anyone is interested, I have a pdf of the BB paper that went into the details of the split. I don't mind passing it on to anyone who gets in touch.

May being the operative word. I know neither the taxanomic ins and outs nor the whims of the BBRC. I am aware that there is a groundswell of opinion that the split may not be sound. Plus near future does not mean next 6 months, everything is relative.

 

[Mike Pennington]

May being the operative word. I know neither the taxanomic ins and outs nor the whims of the BBRC. I am aware that there is a groundswell of opinion that the split may not be sound. Plus near future does not mean next 6 months, everything is relative.

BBRC do not make taxonomic decisions (that is the BOU TSC Taxonomic sub-committee).

Redpolls are an interesting actually - although there are very small genetic differences there are clear morphological differences (there is a lot of debate about whether these morphological differences can be divided into clearly distinguishable groups which might be species, but there are BIG differences in plumage and size between Hornemann's and Lesser).

Contrast this with Raven for example, a species with very few morphological differences (although there is variation in size but some big genetic differences, particularly in, I think, the midwest of America where two genetic strains (which show greater genetic differences than some species) are interbreeding and losing their identity, with no other behavioral or morphological differences to keep them separate.

It goes to show that neither genetic nor morphological differences alone are sufficient to define a species.

 

[timmyjones]

I think that its good that they have been split as it gives me an extra tick (on my already small life list) and another challange to ID

 

[James Blake]

It goes to show that neither genetic nor morphological differences alone are sufficient to define a species.

I think this is a key point. As the genetic profiles of more and more life forms get mapped, quite a bit of taxonomy and maybe even our species concepts may end up needing tweaking.

James