• 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.

Yellow Legged Gull (1 Viewer)

AlanR

Bird photographer
United Kingdom
What is the current status of this bird, please?
Is it Larus michahellis or L. cachinnans?
I am just wondering whether the ones I saw on the Canaries recently were different species to those I have seen in England/ Cyprus/ Madeira.
Alan
[I expect the answer is not quite clear cut!]
 
I can't say I understand much about the difference in Gull species but, after looking at the BirdForum Opus section and BOU, I'm assuming that the Yellow legged birds seen in the Canaries (as pictured) are not going to be Caspian versions.
Alan
 

Attachments

  • YLGull2_Gomera_31Oct08.JPG
    YLGull2_Gomera_31Oct08.JPG
    198.6 KB · Views: 126
Larus cachinnans, usually treated as monotypic, is Caspian Gull, with Yellow-legged being Larus michahellis, with two named subspecies (nominate michahellis and atlantis). In addition, there is a possibility that the northern Spanish birds may eventually be treated as a valid taxon (so-called 'cantabricans').
At present, there is some dispute as to what exactly should be included within atlantis, with some favouring the use of that term solely for birds breeding on the Azores, while, at present, it also includes at least the birds found on Madeira and the Canaries, and possibly even some of the Atlantic populations in Portugal and Morocco.
 
I can't say I understand much about the difference in Gull species but, after looking at the BirdForum Opus section and BOU, I'm assuming that the Yellow legged birds seen in the Canaries (as pictured) are not going to be Caspian versions.
Alan

Yellow-legged Gulls on the Canaries are atlantis, the Atlantic subspecies of L. michahellis. On Madeira as well.
In England you could have seen both nominate L. m. michahellis (probably mostly late summer-early autumn) or cachinnans (probably mostly winter). If what you've seen were brightly yellow-legged birds, they were most likely not cachinnans. (But some could have been Herring Gulls... :eek!:)
I'm not too familiar with the avifauna of Cyprus, but the breeding birds there should be michahellis, and cachinnans should occur as a non-breeding visitor. Running into an Armenian Gull should probably not impossible either.
 
Last edited:
Larus cachinnans, usually treated as monotypic, is Caspian Gull, with Yellow-legged being Larus michahellis, with two named subspecies (nominate michahellis and atlantis). In addition, there is a possibility that the northern Spanish birds may eventually be treated as a valid taxon (so-called 'cantabricans').
At present, there is some dispute as to what exactly should be included within atlantis, with some favouring the use of that term solely for birds breeding on the Azores, while, at present, it also includes at least the birds found on Madeira and the Canaries, and possibly even some of the Atlantic populations in Portugal and Morocco.

Usually is a big word; among the world checklists, the majority still treats michahellis as a subspecies of cachinnans, with the combined species named Yellow-legged gull (that may change with the next version of Howard and Moore (Dickinson) which is expected out next year). What the birds seen previously by Alan would be depends partly on the time of year you visited especially the Mediterranean. If in summer it probably was michahellis which in all taxonomies should be the same species as the atlantis in the Canaries; if in winter it could have been cachinnans, but then you would actually have to be able to recognize those two forms to claim both.

Niels

Cross-posted with Laurent
 
Usually is a big word; among the world checklists, the majority still treats michahellis as a subspecies of cachinnans, with the combined species named Yellow-legged gull (that may change with the next version of Howard and Moore (Dickinson) which is expected out next year).

I was only familiar with the decisions of various European national taxonomic authorities, as I know that most treat michahellis and cachinnans as two distinct species (know that the BOU, CDNA and the Germans have split the two at least, and that, despite a lack of an Irish taxonomic authority, both are treated as different species here also). As I don't own any world checklists, I wouldn't begin to know what these have to say about gull taxonomy.
 
World checklists are behind the times.
And regional authorities have widely differing perspectives on which large gulls deserve specific status.

Steve
 
I think gull people generally agree to talk in latin! But even then they don't usually agree; some say Canray Islands Yellow-legs are atlantis, others say they are closer to michahelis, and only Azores are really atlantis
Bob
 
The A.O.U. has accepted michahellis and they have not accepted smithsonianus! “the avifauna of Cyprus” , I am not sure either but the original description is of a bird from Dalmatia! Not that far away. “so-called 'cantabricans’” I thought lusitanius had priority? However, lusitaniusis is Latin for Lisbon so perhaps cantabricans is a better description?
“only Azores are really atlantis” Well in the original description of atlantis two birds from the Canaries were used in the description.
http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/bitstream/2246/4872/1/N0044.pdf .

Originally Feldegg described this gull in Isis 1832 p.1107 and he proposes to name it after Dr. Michahelles but omits doing so. Then Naumman in 1840 repeats the description of Feldegg and names it michahellis. This is only fair of Feldegg since Michahelles named that wagtail after him in 1830. http://books.google.com/books?id=S_...oFNoLK-SqA&lr=&client=firefox-a#PRA2-PA810,M1 . page 812.
Bruch called it michahellesii n J. f. O. in 1853 & 1855.
http://books.google.com/books?id=a7...over&dq=editions:LCCNsn78005953&lr=#PPA282,M1 .


From Zoonomen:
• Spelled Larus cachinnans michahellis by H&M 3rd:147. I find this spelling only in HBW 3:610 and H&M 3rd seems to adopt HBW as the authority for matters nomenclatural and taxonomic for the gulls.
• I am unable to find this michahell[i,e]s name in either the Richmond Index, or in Sherborn's Index Animalium.
• Normand David writes (2006.01.20) that he investigated this name and that in fact michahellis is correct. He examined the original description and this "is the correct latinised genitive of Mr. Michahelles."
• David also confirms that the citation as given by Peters and HBW are incorrect as to the page number, and that p.382 is correct.
 
Further to current status (ref. my Holarctic checklist - link below):

Larus michahellis 'Yellow-legged Gull', the commonplace large, white-headed gull of the Canary Islands (& Cyprus/Madeira), is now recognised by Clements 2007, IOC (International Ornithological Congress - Gill, Wright & Donsker), AERC (Association of European Records & Rarities Committees), BOURC (British Ornithologists' Union Records Committee), DBA (Dutch Birding), OSME (Ornithological Society of the Middle East, the Caucasus & Central Asia), AOU (American Ornithologists’ Union) and Malling Olsen & Larsson 2004 (Gulls of Europe, Asia & North America).

[As Harry and Autobob have noted, it's unclear whether the Canaries/Madeira populations are the nominate ssp, or atlantis ‘Atlantic Gull’ (as in Azores).]

Dickinson 2003 (Howard & Moore), HBW (Handbook of the Birds of the World) and ABC (African Bird Club) treat michahellis as a ssp of L cachinnans. BirdLife International has the recognition of L michahellis “under review”.

L michahellis is an uncommon visitor to Britain (although locally fairly common on the south coast, eg Dorset). L cachinnans sensu strictu 'Caspian Gull' is a scarce but regular visitor.

Richard
 
Last edited:
:t:Thanks for the detailed replies.:t:
For my purposes I tend to stick with BOU and so probably all of my sightings have been L. Micahellis. (I will look at pictures in Cyprus.)
But I will keep my eyes open for upcoming BOU changes.
Alan
 
OK, I didn't find many decent pictures from Cyprus (1 February 2008), so which side of the fence do these come down on, please?
Alan
 

Attachments

  • Query1_Cyprus_Feb08.JPG
    Query1_Cyprus_Feb08.JPG
    150.9 KB · Views: 105
  • Query2_Cyprus_Feb08.JPG
    Query2_Cyprus_Feb08.JPG
    188.6 KB · Views: 105
  • Query3_Cyprus_Feb08.JPG
    Query3_Cyprus_Feb08.JPG
    184.7 KB · Views: 97
OK, I didn't find many decent pictures from Cyprus (1 February 2008), so which side of the fence do these come down on, please?
Alan

All on the mich side. Here is a Caspian from Belgium, for comparison.
 

Attachments

  • larcac011-02.jpg
    larcac011-02.jpg
    53.8 KB · Views: 122
Big issue!

Note that Dwight had atlantis YLG as a race of LBBG, they are close, also in these days considered as a good possibility, many young 'atlantis' can be really tricky to separate from LBBG.
As proposed by Yésou (2002) "it is wise to restrict the use of the name atlantis to the birds breeding in the Azores, as Dwight initially did, pending the results of further research on the phenotypic and genetic variations of the western populations of michahellis"
Alans YLG and the Caspian Gull provided by LR shows some of the obvious differences between these (at the present) species.

JanJ
 
As proposed by Yésou (2002) "it is wise to restrict the use of the name atlantis to the birds breeding in the Azores, as Dwight initially did, pending the results of further research on the phenotypic and genetic variations of the western populations of michahellis"
Except that, as mb noted above, Yésou was not right in saying that Dwight originally restricted his new subspecies to the Azores. Dwight based his decision to describe these birds as a new taxon on the examination of 17 specimens from the Azores and two from the Canaries, then wrote:
"These birds are strikingly different from any of the hitherto described races of Larus fuscus and, as the dates of capture range from August 22 to March 10, it is probable that they represent a form resident upon these islands and upon others off the African coast."
However, he also clearly designated a single type from Fayal, thus if the birds from the Azores are deemed different from those of the Canaries, the name atlantis can be used for them without any problem.

Interestingly, genetic data (http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01370.x; see also http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0469.2004.00255.x) do not suggest that the most differentiated populations of L. michahellis are those of the Azores. MtDNA-wise, the Azorean populations are very close to the populations of the Atlantic Iberian coast, and more similar to the western Mediterranean populations than the populations of Madeira and of the Atlantic coast of Morocco.

L -
 
Last edited:
Big issue!

Note that Dwight had atlantis YLG as a race of LBBG, they are close, also in these days considered as a good possibility, many young 'atlantis' can be really tricky to separate from LBBG.
As proposed by Yésou (2002) "it is wise to restrict the use of the name atlantis to the birds breeding in the Azores, as Dwight initially did, pending the results of further research on the phenotypic and genetic variations of the western populations of michahellis"
Alans YLG and the Caspian Gull provided by LR shows some of the obvious differences between these (at the present) species.

JanJ
I'm glad you said that. I have a lot of difficulty separating LBBG and YLG. It all seems to depend on the diference between dark grey and light black, and this is a lot affected by lighting conditions.
Alan
 
I was only familiar with the decisions of various European national taxonomic authorities, as I know that most treat michahellis and cachinnans as two distinct species (know that the BOU, CDNA and the Germans have split the two at least, and that, despite a lack of an Irish taxonomic authority, both are treated as different species here also). As I don't own any world checklists, I wouldn't begin to know what these have to say about gull taxonomy.[/QUOTEI believe the AUO now treats them separately as well. There was a paper on this but I cannot find it now,
 
Warning! This thread is more than 8 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