Mark Newsome
Born to seawatch...
Discussion thread for Audubon's Shearwater. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.
-
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.
Audubon's Shearwater (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Mark Newsome
- Start date
I've checked out this page and it contains a comment by the original photographer, which has been carried over from the old Database, as follows:
"Precision regarding the current photo (as of 5/4/2006): The current photo was taken in the Galapagos so it's presumably what some people now consider to be a separate species (P. subalaris).
Originally posted by Momo"
I've done some checking in Avibase and neither of the most current check-lists, Clements or AOU, mention Galapagos Shearwater (P. subalaris), although I did find it on a Galapagos Conservation Trust website and it states that the AOU have recently accepted this change in taxonomy and there is a link to the AOU website. Scroll down to the section on Procellariidae (Shearwaters).
I can only presume that the Avibase website is not up to date. Comments from the taxonomy experts, please.
"Precision regarding the current photo (as of 5/4/2006): The current photo was taken in the Galapagos so it's presumably what some people now consider to be a separate species (P. subalaris).
Originally posted by Momo"
I've done some checking in Avibase and neither of the most current check-lists, Clements or AOU, mention Galapagos Shearwater (P. subalaris), although I did find it on a Galapagos Conservation Trust website and it states that the AOU have recently accepted this change in taxonomy and there is a link to the AOU website. Scroll down to the section on Procellariidae (Shearwaters).
I can only presume that the Avibase website is not up to date. Comments from the taxonomy experts, please.
The way I see it, there are a lot of papers which have come out supporting one split or another lump or whatever. As Opus does not have a lot of Taxonomic experts, we are not set up to look at these primary papers and see if we agree with the arguments or not. For that, there are a couple of World-wide checklists that we follow, Clements and Howard & Moore: if both agree to differ from current opus in the same direction, then we will make a change, otherwise not. Normally, if AOU makes a change Clements have followed it pretty swiftly, and that may have happened with Galapagos Shearwater, even though I dont have my Clements with me at this moment. However, H&M has not yet accepted the split, and in that case, we will let Status Quo rule in Opus.
I think the quote you give telling something important and should be in the entry. There probably should be a mention of this possible split in the taxonomy part of the page.
The link you give to the SACC page is to a working dokument for a committee under AOU; it can not be takes as an official document from AOU until it is published, so I cannot say from there if AOU at this point in time does recognize GS as a separate species; it looks like it is probable that they will in due time.
Cheers
Niels
I think the quote you give telling something important and should be in the entry. There probably should be a mention of this possible split in the taxonomy part of the page.
The link you give to the SACC page is to a working dokument for a committee under AOU; it can not be takes as an official document from AOU until it is published, so I cannot say from there if AOU at this point in time does recognize GS as a separate species; it looks like it is probable that they will in due time.
Cheers
Niels
Rasmus Boegh
BF member
Without going into details, I will add that the whole Audubon's/Little Shearwater is a complete mess, and earlier generally accepted ideas of the standard taxonomy are, at least in part, wrong. The Galapagos Shearwater is one such case - it is now known to differ strikingly both in DNA (with high support), physiology and voice from the members of the Audubon's/Little complex. Indeed, they're not even the closest relatives of the Galapagos Shearwater, which actually is closer to the Christmas Shearwater. In other words: The case for the Galapagos Shearwater really is very strong, but the info is pretty new, so few authorites have had the time to include this in their list.
One list where that isn't the case is the SACC list (as linked to in Helen's post). The list you see on their page is ever changing as new info on various taxonomical matters are dealt with, but what you see is the current official stance of SACC, and thereby also AOU. The SACC list isn't published in a paper format.
One list where that isn't the case is the SACC list (as linked to in Helen's post). The list you see on their page is ever changing as new info on various taxonomical matters are dealt with, but what you see is the current official stance of SACC, and thereby also AOU. The SACC list isn't published in a paper format.
Last edited:
Sorry to have mislead on the SACC, I made an interpretation based on this sentense ("The SACC hopes to have this classification published as a printed document within a year or so.") on the page (and a more thorough reading I did a while ago, where I must have missed something).
Cheers
Niels
Cheers
Niels
Thanks Niels and Rasmus. I'l update the page with the info as mentioned. We don't have any other photos of an Audubon's Shearwater in the galleries, and even this one is not in the Gallery, but it is in the old Database. It was probably posted in the forum for Database Photos & Corrections, back in 2006.
Glen Tepke
Oceanodroma
Here is an image taken in the Atlantic that you are welcome to use:
http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/image/48538191
This would be the nominate subspecies, so it should be safe to call it Audubon's.
Glen
http://www.pbase.com/gtepke/image/48538191
This would be the nominate subspecies, so it should be safe to call it Audubon's.
Glen
If I should advice, I would say to include both in the current entry, Glen's in large size (550 pix) and the other with the reduced size (300 pix ?). That way the Galapagos image would still be found when it became necessary to split the two entries into one (and I take Rasmus' post to say that in the future it will become necessary!)
Cheers
Niels
Cheers
Niels
I have include a quote from Rasmus's reply in the article page.
Thanks, Alan. Was meaning to get around to finishing this page this week, but I did get as far as the photos!
I added necessary info for internal splits which the 2009 Clements update starts to get into. Doesn't seem like there's anything we can act on. However, I'm uncertain as to whether or not the info on the page regarding Austin et al. 2004 is correct. I don't have access to the paper - can someone with access double check the Taxonomy section of this page for errors? Thanks.
Well what raises a flag to me is that from what I read on the Clements' update, it seems to base its decisions on Austin et al 2004, but what is listed here as the conclusions of that paper are inconsistent with Clements changes.
bionicsherpa
aka Ken Petch
Attached is a picture of a Galapagos Shearwater in case it is of use to you. Taken from South Plaza Island in the Galapagos in March 2009. I will add it to my gallery tomorrow as I have already uploaded 3 today.
Attachments
Last edited:
Similar threads
