• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AOU 51st supplement (7 Viewers)

Surely there are other species that could be considered to be established in CA?

We have specific guidelines which must be met:

The Committee will also review records of breeding populations of introduced species not on the state list, but only if evidence is submitted that attempts to prove

(a) the correct identification of the species and
(b) the viability of the population.

To be judged viable, a population must:

(i) have bred in the state for fifteen (15) consecutive years,
(ii) in general, be increasing or stabilized after an initial period of increase,
(iii) be judged to have occupied all geographically contiguous suitable habitat to such a degree as to sustain the population and be thought unlikely to significantly diminish, and
(iv) occupy an environment judged similar enough in ecological factors (e.g., climate, vegetation, food, shelter, competitors, predators) to the species’ natural habitat, or to other successful introductions, that permanent establishment seems likely.
I think we will be looking at possibly adding Nutmeg Mannikin Lonchura punctulata.
 
while not really explaining any clear advantage to retaining "Winter Wren" for a single species.

One simple argument is that the name "Winter Wren" was coined specifically for hiemalis. (Hiemalis = "of winter" in Latin).
 
CBRC seems to take a tough line on admitting introduced exotics to the state list (eg, compared to FOSRC). Surely there are other species that could be considered to be established in CA?

Even (or especially!) in light of the guidelines listed above, I'm still surprised to see so few exotics. Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet are notably missing, despite seeming to meet the criteria listed here. I also wonder about the Aratinga parakeets...
 
My favorite AOU committee quote, regarding the name change to Great Shearwater:

"YES. Howell makes a reasonable case here and in the spirit of being occasionally cooperative with our Old World counterparts, I favor this change."
 
One simple argument is that the name "Winter Wren" was coined specifically for hiemalis. (Hiemalis = "of winter" in Latin).

That may be an argument, but it's not a practical advantage, which is what I was referencing. No purpose is served by associating common names with the meaning of the scientific analogs.

I think the main argument on the other side is that the confusion caused by retaining the name will only be temporary. In 10 years it will largely be ancient history. And on the plus side we still get the appealing literary/alliterative qualities of "Winter Wren" in field guides, plus continuity with respect to the eastern form.

Best,
Jim
 
Can you guess for which Wren species (the Eurasian or the newly split T. hiemalis) the IOC will retains the English name "Winter Wren" when they accept these splits.
 
'Winter Wren'

Can you guess for which Wren species (the Eurasian or the newly split T. hiemalis) the IOC will retains the English name "Winter Wren" when they accept these splits.
Hi Mohamed,

IOC accepted these splits before AOU (in IOC World Bird List v2.5, 4 Jul 2010). AOU's English names have been provisionally adopted for v2.6:

  • T troglodytes: Eurasian Wren (v2.5)
  • T hiemalis: Eastern Winter Wren (v2.5), Winter Wren (v2.6 draft)
  • T pacificus: Western Winter Wren (v2.5), Pacific Wren (v2.6 draft)
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-PS.html
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-spp.html
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates-en.html

Richard
 
Last edited:
Perhaps, it's worth noting that the names Eastern Winter Wren and Western Winter Wren were used in the 4th edition of the AOU Checklist which is the last edition to provide English names for subspecies. Thus the current IOC version follows the AOU rules on English names, preferring to use names which have been used in the past and avoiding changing the meaning of names when possible, but he AOU and the proposed draft IOC list do not.
 
A question I have is about arrangement of some of the Corvids. They take Brown Jay out of Cyanocorax, where it currently is in the midst of the genus, and place it Psilorhinus. This seems to make some sense, as it always seemed a little out of place in Cyanocorax.

In a separate procedure, they rearrange the sequence of the jay genera.

Cyanolyca
Calocitta
Psilorhinus
Cyanocorax
Gymnorhinus
Cyanocitta
Aphelocoma

What I'm wondering is, did all the rest of the members of Cyanocorax remain in the genus and is the sequence within the genus otherwise unchanged? I don't see anything addressing anything within any of the genera, but perhaps I'm overlooking something.

Cheers,
Rob
 
Even (or especially!) in light of the guidelines listed above, I'm still surprised to see so few exotics. Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet are notably missing, despite seeming to meet the criteria listed here. I also wonder about the Aratinga parakeets...

Actually I am on the subcommittee that evaluates proposed additions of introduced birds to the California list so I would welcome documentation that supports Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet. We've looked closely at both of those and are not aware that they qualify under criteria ii or iii; and iv is doubtful. Also we lack specific documentation that they qualify under criterion i. We need documented breeding evidence for each of the past 15 years.

We keep files on all potential exotics, so if you would send us any documentation to support Common Peafowl, Rose-ringed Parakeet or any other contenders, it would be much appreciated.
 
Actually I am on the subcommittee that evaluates proposed additions of introduced birds to the California list so I would welcome documentation that supports Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet. We've looked closely at both of those and are not aware that they qualify under criteria ii or iii; and iv is doubtful. Also we lack specific documentation that they qualify under criterion i. We need documented breeding evidence for each of the past 15 years.

We keep files on all potential exotics, so if you would send us any documentation to support Common Peafowl, Rose-ringed Parakeet or any other contenders, it would be much appreciated.

I wonder how much of that data could be pulled out of Ebird ...

Niels
 
CA psittacids

Even (or especially!) in light of the guidelines listed above, I'm still surprised to see so few exotics. Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet are notably missing, despite seeming to meet the criteria listed here. I also wonder about the Aratinga parakeets...
This site gives a useful summary of psittacid status in California:
http://californiaparrotproject.org/parrot_pages.html

Richard
 
Last edited:
Suliformes

Old World Warblers (finally) broken up and moved around, Suliformes, Eurypygiformes, and Phaethoniformes both recognized, as well as the families Pandionidae, Calcariidae, Semniornithidae, Capitonidae, Rhamphastidae, and Viduidae.

Does anyone know the author's name and date of the taxon name Suliformes, or who was the first person who used this term?
Also Eurypygiformes.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 13 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top