[Jim M.]

Originally Posted by Jim Mountjoy

This is a BETTER argument than the one advanced by Joe Morlan (which specifically referred to pre-split records), but I don't feel that the potential for confusion here really outweighs the confusion of new names across the board. With the current wren names, a Winter Wren reported in Illinois can be assumed to be a Winter with a high degree of certainty (probably as high as assuming that those Chimney Swifts that were reported were not Vaux's). A birder reporting a Winter Wren in California will need to append '(not a Pacific Wren!)' to their report if they wish to get people's attention, but a birder knowledgeable enough to identify a vagrant Winter Wren will presumably know about the potential for confusion. But how often will a vagrant Winter Wren actually show up in California? And, although I am a somewhat obsessive lister and a former rarity committee member, I have to question whether these records are even of great significance in the big picture. Certainly English names are not the concern only of rarity committees and serious listers. They are used by a great range of people, from ornithologists to district foresters to casual birders and poets, etc. Decisions on name changes need to bear all these groups in mind.

The "Winter Wren" name wouldn't be retired under Joe's proposal. It would be the name of a super species (like "Traill's Flycatcher"), so the poets and others have no cause for concern. And you seem to be focusing on attacking the arguments of those who say it will create problems, while not really explaining any clear advantage to retaining "Winter Wren" for a single species.

[njlarsen]

We know that the ranges of Pacific and Boreal Wrens overlap in Alberta, and in this thread there are indications Pacific Wren exists as far east as Black Hills, South Dakota. I think it is too early to tell exactly how large the overlap between the two forms is; and getting that data straight will be easier with a clear separation of old versus new names.

Niels

[Reuven_M]

The problem is that we are changing the definition of the name "winter wren", and many in the East who do not keep up with this stuff could go a long time before learning of the change, and this could cause incorrect reporting. If the name was boreal wren we could avoid most confusion, not to mention that the name makes more sense.

[Snapdragyn]

I have to say, 'Boreal Wren' is starting to work for me now that I've seen a couple of people use it here. I may just use that for my personal list for records I'm reasonably sure of, & retain 'winter wren' for any uncertain either/or records (much as I do w/ 'traill's flycatcher').

I also have to say that, as I'm entering my old personal records into eBird, I've noticed one situation where even old data are confused by retaining the same name. When I see an entry for 'Myrtle Warbler' or 'Audubon's Warbler' in my records, I know that I was certain of which form was seen, while records of 'Yellow-rumped Warbler' indicate that I wasn't (most often because I didn't bother to check). When I see a record for 'Canada Goose', on the other hand, I know nothing - did I really know it was a Canada & not a Cackling, or was I unsure? The changed meaning of the name there obscures some data points.

[Peter Kovalik]

AOU checklist historical comparisons
Avibase

[jmorlan]

Revised California Lists:

http://www.californiabirds.org/list.html

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by jmorlan

Revised California Lists:
http://www.californiabirds.org/list.html

Joseph,

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?

Richard (sorry, off topic again!)

[jmorlan]

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

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.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by jmorlan

We have specific guidelines...

Thanks, Joseph.

Richard

[Richard Klim]

Comments/voting on proposals 2009-B/C/D/E (except the controversial E-1 supp) now posted:
http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/p...prior_2009.php

Richard

[Mysticete]

Proposal E now has commentary

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

Proposal E now has commentary

Yes, but not for 2009-E-1 supp (wren English names). Or am I missing something (very likely!)?
http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/p...pplemental.pdf

(Maybe some of the comments were unprintable! )

Richard

[Kirk Roth]

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).

[Kirk Roth]

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...

[Kirk Roth]

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."

[Jim M.]

Originally Posted by Kirk Roth

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

[Acrocephalus]

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.

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Acrocephalus

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

[jmorlan]

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.

[Orchidzrule]

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

[Richard Klim]

For anyone still unclear about sequence changes etc, the changes made in the 51st supplement have now been incorporated in the online version of the AOU Check-list (now 2,070 spp).
http://www.aou.org/checklist/north

Richard

[jmorlan]

Originally Posted by Kirk Roth

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.

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by jmorlan

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

[Richard Klim]

Originally Posted by Kirk Roth

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

[Peter Kovalik]

Originally Posted by Mysticete

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.