Hotspur
James Spencer
Discussion thread for Little Shearwater. There is currently no page for Macaronesian/North Atlantic Little Shearwater since the split from Little Shearwater
-
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.
Little Shearwater (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Hotspur
- Start date
That is because none of the checklist which Opus is based upon recognized that split. The taxonomy section of the current entry therefore need to be reworded to say that the split is pending, based on all the references mentioned, and that both forms therefore are included in the entry. The full references themselves should be added under the reference heading I just added, preferably with links to online full text if available.
Niels
Niels
Hotspur
James Spencer
I figured that would be the case - so would it therefore be appropriate completely rework the Little Shearwater piece?
Yes. Possibly rework it in a way such that the split, if it later is accepted, will be easy to accommodate, having, say under taxonomy, one paragraph for the group of subspecies that would go one way, and another sentence/paragraph on the group of subspecies that would go the other way. It would be great if you can do that; I personally don't know too much about the shearwaters.
Cheers
Niels
Cheers
Niels
Some interesting developments with Clements Dec. '09 update:
Normally, this would be pretty cut and dry. H&M doesn't yet recognize this split, but strangely, S&M did separate boydi as Cape Verde Little Shearwater. So by our consensus, we should now recognize P. boydi (assumedly under the more recent and reasonable name, Boyd's Shearwater), but not P. baroli, despite their elevation to species status coming from the same data set.
Any thoughts?
Normally, this would be pretty cut and dry. H&M doesn't yet recognize this split, but strangely, S&M did separate boydi as Cape Verde Little Shearwater. So by our consensus, we should now recognize P. boydi (assumedly under the more recent and reasonable name, Boyd's Shearwater), but not P. baroli, despite their elevation to species status coming from the same data set.
Any thoughts?
Hotspur
James Spencer
Surely you cant recognise one split and not the other as they are each others closest relatives surely - either split both or wait and see. Judging by the generally conservative way favoured in taxonomy when keeping opus updated hanging five would probably be worthwhile. Which checklist(s) are we waiting for to include the update? Barolo Shearwater to be included by either S&M or H&M? When are their updates due?
S&M - never
H&M - Spring 2011 :eek!:
What would truly be a funny outcome would be H&M recognizing Barolo but not Boyd's. We'd be kicking ourselves!
Hotspur
James Spencer
In which case you have 2 choices. Discount S&M so you have a draw or wait until 2011. Both seem to leave the status quo until 2011. Silly question but what is the IOC viewpoint?
edit: seems they have split them both as Macaronesian Shearwater
Last edited:
Well, our initial assessment was that S&M was a base from which to work. But not being a dynamic list at this point, we decided that if both Clements and H&M came to a consensus OVER S&M, then we could enact a change in the Opus consensus. So basically, Cape Verde Little Shearwater (P. boydi) was IN initially, then taken out due to the fact that neither Clements nor H&M included it in their lists.
Now that Clements has flopped back, it might seem reasonable to include it again for the sake of a consistent S&M base.
RE: IOC - no Boyd's. Barolo as Macaronesian Shearwater - like you say. Without giving details on subspecies placement, it's difficult to see under which species Boyd's falls on their list.
Last edited:
We have such a strong Taxonomy forum; in difficult cases like this, I suggest that we put the question there - if there is a strong consensus, we go with that (with a link to the discussion) - that way the Opus can be of help by linking to a debate. We do have a precedent - with Orange-backed Troupial we went with Rasmus and split 3 ways.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Regarding IOC's split of Puffinus baroli, IOC references BOU for this change.
BOURC-TSC Report 3rd Report (2005) split P baroli, with sspp baroli and boydi:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118644713/PDFSTART [p822-823]
[But I agree with Hotspur that both P baroli and P boydi should be split (as per Dutch Birding and Clements) or neither – they don't appear to be closest relatives.]
Richard
I do not quite get this: the quote in Alex's post (#5) states that P baroli and P boydi are each others closest relatives? That is also what the text as well as table 2 and figure 3 in Austin et al. 2004 says, so what is it that I am missing?
If all of this is correct, then the way I interpret the Opus rules would be to resurrect the species Boyd's Shearwater, to include baroli, and with a note in the taxonomy section to say that these two taxon's have been proposed for further splitting.
thanks
Niels
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Sorry Niels, I obviously misread the earlier posts. My comment was alluding to Onley & Scofield 2007, who argue that contra Austin et al 2004 and Sangster et al 2005, boydi appears closer to lherminieri than to baroli (thus splitting P baroli, but treating boydi as a subspecies of P lherminieri). I have no firm opinion either way, but given the uncertainty in the affinities of boydi I was just suggesting that it's probably safest either to split both P baroli and P boydi, or to treat both as subspecies of P lherminieri.
Richard
Richard
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
It's just the latter:
P. lherminieri: "We recognise three subspecies: P. l. lherminieri in north Caribbean; marginally distinct P. l. loyemilleri in south and south-west Caribbean; and P. l. boydi on Cape Verde Is. Given the similarity of boydi to nominate and loyemilleri, its inclusion within Macaronesian as suggested by Sangster et al. (2005), based on Austin et al. (2004), is not recommended."
[Sangster et al 2005 (BOURC-TSC 3) also comments: "The taxonomic status of P. b. boydi remains under consideration pending study of recently collected sound recordings of that taxon."]
Richard
Having read Sangster, Austin etc and looked at all the posts in this thread, I will repeat that as far as I can see, the Opus rules are best followed by "resurrecting the species Boyd's Shearwater, to include baroli, and with a note in the taxonomy section to say that these two taxon's have been proposed for further splitting." In addition, we should probably say that Onley & Scofield 2007 feels that boydi would be better placed in Audubon's Shearwater.
However, and this is where we probably should include the taxonomy forum in the debate: if those two subspecies are lumped in one species to the exclusion of others, would baroli have precedent and should the English name be Macaronesian Shearwater following Sangster and IOC?
Niels
Edit: thread in Taxonomy section here
However, and this is where we probably should include the taxonomy forum in the debate: if those two subspecies are lumped in one species to the exclusion of others, would baroli have precedent and should the English name be Macaronesian Shearwater following Sangster and IOC?
Niels
Edit: thread in Taxonomy section here
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
In a species comprising only baroli (Bonaparte, 1857) and boydi (Mathews, 1912), as per BOU, then baroli is senior and has priority as the specific name.
I suggest that the most logical English names are:
- Macaronesian Shearwater for P. baroli including ssp boydi
- Barolo (or Barolo's) Shearwater for P. baroli (monotypic)
- Boyd's (or Cape Verde Little) Shearwater for P. boydi (monotypic)
Richard
Last edited:
Similar threads
