morphology sample sizes
A note about sample sizes: in the paper, we presented comparative biometrics for 51
cyprius (of which 26 were live birds) and 24
scops s. l., as noted above (see Table 7, p. 310). Nevertheless, if you read the Methods (p. 303), you will see that I collected biometric data (and obviously examined morphology simultaneously) for a total of 28 and 25 specimens, respectively. The discrepancy in totals (2 and 1, respectively) is due to the fact that, following standard practice, data from specimens from which it was impossible to take one or more of the different biometrics were discarded from formal analyses. On p. 303, you will see that I also examined an additional 10 and 12 specimens of
cyprius and
scops s. l. at two German museums, in these cases for plumage alone. (In fact, it is actually true that I looked at many more
scops [but not
cyprius] than these numbers reflect, but the totals pertain to those subject to “detailed” examination.)
Speaking purely personally, I’d say there are questions to answer still about which taxon in this complex inhabits some of the Greek islands, e.g. Crete. And, while the suggestion that voice is a sufficient isolating mechanism looks pretty good on the face of it, for me
cyprius is a taxon en route to becoming a species, but whether it’s there yet, well you pays your money and takes your choice—evolution is a continuum, more rarely an endpoint (until, of course, Man’s havoc-wreaking behaviour really kicks in). Peter Flint, as lead author, is confident though and, in any case, journals don’t like to publish papers that don’t provide reasonably definitive points of view! Birdwatchers should certainly pay more attention to
cyprius than they have been doing … that much is true.
The paper is here:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...Otus_scops_cyprius_a_neglected_island_endemic