Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Owls

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Friday 6th April 2018, 19:08   #76
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,686
Glaucidium tucumanum

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Proposal (773) to SACC

Split Glaucidium tucumanum from G. brasilianum
DID NOT PASS (6 April 2018)
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 8th April 2018, 11:26   #77
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 2,686
Megascops gilesi

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
IOC Updates Diary Dec 24

Post new species Santa Marta Screech Owl on Updates/PS
IOC Updates Diary Apr 7

Accept Santa Marta Screech Owl
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 9th April 2018, 17:58   #78
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and Shiny hunting
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: No where, my soul is lost in the churchyard
Posts: 563
TiF Update April 8

Santa Marta Screech-Owl (with hyphen) : The recently described Santa Marta Screech-Owl now has a scientific name, Megascops gilesi (Krabbe, 2017).
[Strigidae, Afroaves II, 3.09]
LeNomenclatoriste is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st May 2018, 11:20   #79
Melanie
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kassel, Germany
Posts: 2,560
Vera, U., Martin, P., Alice, C., Luca, F., Alexandre, R., Comprehensive molecular phylogeny of barn owls and relatives (Family: Tytonidae), and their six major Pleistocene radiations, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.03.013

Abstract

The owl family Tytonidae comprises two genera: Phodilus, limited to the forests of central Africa and South-East Asia, and the ubiquitous Tyto. The genus Tyto is majorly represented by the cosmopolitan Common Barn Owl group, with more than 30 subspecies worldwide. Discrete differences in body size and plumage colouration have led to the classification of this family into many species and subspecies, but the taxonomic status and phylogenetic relationships between taxa remain unclear, and in some groups controversial. Although several previous studies attempted to resolve this problem, they have been limited in their taxonomic and geographical coverage, or have relied on restricted molecular evidence and low sample sizes. Based on the most comprehensive sampling to date (16 out of 17 Tyto species, and one out of three Phodilus species), a multi-locus approach using seven mitochondrial and two nuclear markers, and taking advantage of field data and museum collections available worldwide, our main questions in this study were: (1) what are the phylogenetic relationships and classification status of the whole family; (2) when and where did the most important speciation events occur? We confirm that the Common Barn Owl, Tyto alba is divided into three main evolutionary units: the American Barn Owl, T. furcata; the Western Barn Owl, T. alba; and the Eastern Barn Owl, T. javanica, and suggest a Late Miocene (ca. 6 mya) Australasian and African origin of the group. Our results are supported by fossil age information, given that the most recent common ancestor between the Tytonidae genera Phodilus and Tyto was probably from the Oligocene (ca. 28 mya) of Australasia. We finally reveal six major Pleistocene radiations of Tyto, all resulting in wide-range distributions.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...115?via%3Dihub
Melanie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st May 2018, 13:52   #80
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 21,202
I don't see the whole PDF unfortunately, but the highlights state one thing more strongly than the abstract
Quote:
Split of Tyto alba into three species (T. alba, T. furcata, T. javanica) is supported.
Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean

Temporarily living in Tennessee
njlarsen is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Tuesday 1st May 2018, 14:18   #81
lewis20126
Registered User
 
lewis20126's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 9,239
"T. rosenbergii and T. nigrobrunnea are subspecies of T. javanica; T. sororcula and T. manusi are subspecies of T. novaehollandiae"

and this; important for birders as three very difficult species, now submerged into easier widespread species!

cheers, alan
lewis20126 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st May 2018, 16:10   #82
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,461
[quote=Melanie;3712445]Vera, U., Martin, P., Alice, C., Luca, F., Alexandre, R., Comprehensive molecular phylogeny of barn owls and relatives (Family: Tytonidae), and their six major Pleistocene radiations, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (2018), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2018.03.013

It's been mentioned before, but once again, the authors are cited under their first names, not their surnames....
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 1st May 2018, 17:02   #83
DMW
Registered User
 
DMW's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Jersey
Posts: 1,519
Quote:
Originally Posted by lewis20126 View Post
"T. rosenbergii and T. nigrobrunnea are subspecies of T. javanica; T. sororcula and T. manusi are subspecies of T. novaehollandiae"

and this; important for birders as three very difficult species, now submerged into easier widespread species!

cheers, alan
A few more implications than that! Only one Grass Owl, only one Sooty Owl, and hasta la vista Sulawesi Masked Owl...
DMW is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2018, 13:30   #84
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,767
Coopman´s (heard) Screech-owl ... ?

Guys, I have one short question ...

When trying to write something "witty and clever" regarding the late Paul Coopmans, and "his" birds, I came across the following text (quoted below), in the OD of the (Foothill) Elaenia subspecies Myiopagis olallai coopmansi, Cuervo et al, 2014*:
Quote:
Etymology. The epithet honors the late Paul Coopmans (1967–2007) in recognition of his acute talent for recognizing bird vocalizations in the field and his knowledge of Neotropical birds. Coopmans made many important discoveries using his extraordinary identification skills by ear (see Krabbe 2008), including Myiopagis olallai, Scytalopus unicolor, Henicorhina negreti, and an unnamed Megascops screech-owl from Sierra Nevada de Santa Marta, Colombia.
And don´t worry, this is not an "Etymology issue" gone stray, ending up in the wrong Forum (or even in the wrong thread), I have all the information I need on Mr Coopmans himself, and the three former birds, thereby no need to dig further into him, and those birds, but one question remain; ... has the "unnamed Megascops screech-owl" got a name yet?

Or is this taxon (four years later) still undescribed?

Is this possibly the "Santa Marta Screech-Owl" described as Megascops gilesi Krabbe, 2017 (here), repeatedly mentioned in earlier posts in this thread. Or did Cuervo et al refer to yet another, this far, still undescribed Screech-Owl ...?

I´m just curious. I could delete the Owl from my text all together, but would like to included it, as yet another example of what the (apparently remarkable) ears of Paul Coopmans could perceive, and achieved.

Anyone who knows? For sure?

Björn

__________________________________________________
*Cuervo, A. M., F. G. Stiles, M. Lentino, R. T. Brumfield & E. P. Derryberry. 2014. Geographic variation and phylogenetic relationships of Myiopagis olallai (Aves: Passeriformes; Tyrannidae), with the description of two new taxa from the Northern Andes. Zootaxa 3873 (1): 1–24.
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 11th August 2018, 18:09   #85
DLane
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calalp View Post
has the "unnamed Megascops screech-owl" got a name yet?

Is this possibly the "Santa Marta Screech-Owl" described as Megascops gilesi Krabbe, 2017 [/size]
Yes, the screech-owl Paul heard is that now known as M. gilesi.
DLane is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 07:11   #86
Ian Lewis
Registered User
 
Ian Lewis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Poole, Dorset
Posts: 251
[quote=Calalp;3750304]Guys, I have one short question ...


I´m just curious. I could delete the Owl from my text all together, but would like to included it, as yet another example of what the (apparently remarkable) ears of Paul Coopmans could perceive, and achieved.

Anyone who knows? For sure?

Björn

As someone who did quite a few trips led by the late Paul Coopmans I can indeed had a remarkable ability to locate and identify birds by ear.

He was a remarkable and charismatic bird tour leader and the birding world is a much poorer place since he passed away.

Ian
__________________
Latest lifer - Koslov's Accentor (8369 IOC)
Latest UK - Two-barred Warbler (498 IOC)
Ian Lewis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 07:34   #87
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLane View Post
Yes, the screech-owl Paul heard is that now known as M. gilesi.
Thanks, "DLane", ... I suspected that, but as Krabbe (2017) didn't emphasized the contribution by Coopmans in any major way, in that particular paper (he only mentioned him among others) I had some minor doubts.

Simply wanted to be sure. Once again; thanks!

Björn

PS. Thanks also to Ian for the affirmative/emphasizing reply regarding the unique qualities of the late Paul Coopmans. The internet is full of similar praise (for example; here).
--

Last edited by Calalp : Sunday 12th August 2018 at 07:44. Reason: PS.
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 16:25   #88
Peter Boesman
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: Belgium
Posts: 20
Indeed, Paul and I first heard this taxon on January 4th 1994, I made a recording of it. With playback of my recording, Paul made a better recording on the 5th. Paul deposited this recording in the Macaulay Library as ML68082, with a spoken explanation preceding the actual recording, listen here
Peter Boesman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 21:56   #89
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,767
Thanks Peter!

That's what I call a reliable source; first-hand information, "straight from the horse's mouth" ...

And congratulations to you, being one of the first to hear the Santa Marta Screech-Owl!

23 years prior to the OD. Wow!

Björn
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 12th August 2018, 22:54   #90
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,918
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calalp View Post
23 years prior to the OD. Wow!
I'd love not to, but I still have problems with the 'published' status of this description...
(And a few others that are a similar situation, by the way.)

Last edited by l_raty : Sunday 12th August 2018 at 23:04.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th August 2018, 17:24   #91
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 1,877
"the 'published' status"
I looked in Zoobank for gilesi and found three but none were an owl. The paper does not mention
Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature or Zoobank. But "8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, ...."
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 13th August 2018, 20:49   #92
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by l_raty View Post
I'd love not to, but I still have problems with the 'published' status of this description...
(And a few others that are a similar situation, by the way.)
Laurent, I know I´ve read some of your raised objections in this matter, earlier on, but cannot remember where ... (was it, like post #7, here, or post #14, here?)

Please refresh my (our) memory; and your "problems with" ... what? Or simply link to your original post/s/thoughts/doubts ...

Is it a case of Electronic publication vs the printed ditto?

Do you mean that Krabbe 2017 is a published OD (on the internet), not validly published (IRL) ... ?

As in; only published on the "net"? And thereby, as such, the name gilesi should/would be considered unavailable?

Or?
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 00:52   #93
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 2,918
The work was not "registered in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature (ZooBank)" and does not "contain evidence in the work itself that such registration has occurred" (as required by ICZN 8.5.3). As a consequence, in any case, the electronic version (which is "distributed by means of electronic signals (e.g. via the Internet)" (cf. ICZN 9.11)) "does not constitute published work" (as per ICZN 9).

The journal produces paper copies in parallel to the online edition. These may of course be seen as a separate printed edition -- but for this edition to be published under the Code, the copies should have been made "obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase" (ICZN 8.1.2). The usual interpretation of this last article is that the public should have been offered an option to either purchase, or obtain for free, some of the "simultaneously obtainable" (ICZN 9.1.3) "numerous identical and durable copies" (ICZN 8.1.3.1) of the work at the time of their original release... (Making copies publicly obtainable would place the journal in a situation similar to that of the PLoS journals before the e-publication Amendment came in force, as described in [this document].) Are printed copies of the journal made publicly obtainable ? My understanding is that the number of copies is kept as small as it can, and that the copies are sent to a predefined number of libraries (e.g., 3rd § [here]), which in my view would not at all clearly satisfy 8.1.2. I guess I may be missing a part of the picture, though; if so I apologize for the fuss.

(In any case, I really think it would be preferable for a journal operating on this type of model to ask authors of nomenclatural acts to register their works with ZooBank prior to publication... If the .pdf files themselves -- what most readers will see -- were clearly published, no question could arise. The Code now makes this possible, so why not do it...?)


----------

PS - FWIW, there are also quite significant problems with the statement that used to come with issues of the journal (up to #13 on the website), and I'm not fully clear what these may imply either. (Or how to deal with the situation.) The statement read:
Quote:
CODIGO INTERNACIONAL DE NOMENCLATURA ZOOLOGICA, ARTÍCULO 8.6: Este artículo estipula que para establecer la validez de los nombres de nuevos taxones en zoología, copias (en papel) de la publicación pertinente (en particular esto es aplicable a las publicaciones en el Internet) deben ser depositadas en cinco o más bibliotecas con acceso público. Para cumplir con este requisito, Ornitología Colombiana envía copias en papel de cada número a las siguientes bibliotecas: En Colombia: Biblioteca Nacional, Hemeroteca Nacional, Biblioteca del Congreso, Instituto de Ciencias Naturales – Universidad Nacional de Colombia y Biblioteca Luis Angel Arango. En los Estados Unidos: American Museum of Natural History, U. S. National Museum, Louisiana State University, Field Museum of Natural History, y Los Angeles County Museum. En el Reino Unido: British Museum of Natural History. En Francia: Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle. Este número de Ornitología Colombiana fue puesto en la Internet el 12 enero de 2012 y enviado posteriormente a las mencionadas bibliotecas.
This was obviously derived from the pre-Amendment version of Art. 8.6:
Quote:
8.6. Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself.
...but, unfortunately, deeply misinterpreted it. Article 8.6 was never intended to cover publication on the Internet at all (works distributed by means of electronic signals were excluded from being published by the then-in-force version of Art. 9.8); it was exclusively supposed to deal with publication on a physical support other than paper, such as a CD-ROM. Note also that the copies of the work this Article called for were "in the form in which it is published", i.e., in the case of a CD-ROM, it's the CD-ROM that was supposed to be deposited; not a paper version of its content.
Anyway, with the Amendment, this Article is now gone; it was replaced with:
Quote:
8.4.2. Works on optical disc. To be considered published, a work on optical disc must be issued, in read-only memory form, after 1985 and before 2013, and
[...]
8.4.2.2. if issued after 1999, must contain a statement naming at least five major publicly accessible libraries in which copies of the optical disc were to have been deposited.
...which is very clearly not about online publication. There is no way under the current Code that the deposition of 5, or be it 12, paper copies in libraries might 'validate' an online publication not registered with ZooBank. Without a registration, the online publication simply does not exist, which means that the deposited paper copies must stand as a publication on their own... Do they ? Or were there more copies ?
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 06:10   #94
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
I really think it would be preferable for a journal operating on this type of model to ask authors of nomenclatural acts to register their works with ZooBank prior to publication
I totally agree. It also does not appear to be burdensome. It really is in the interest of the authors and of all users of scientific names of creatures.
My occupation has moved from a very old system with signatures and ink stampings, hot wax and signet rings to now all filings are PDFs a real signature is no longer needed. Parties must be served with documents electronicly. It has been discocerting to my old brain. We now see no difference between paper and a PDF in fact the PDF gets more dignity. I think that putting a paper copy in a few libraries satisfies the spirit of "free" part of the rule. But I could be wrong.
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 07:51   #95
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,767
Ok, thanks guys, so it´s all about registration, whether registered at ZooBank, or not.

Now I get it ...

Björn

PS: If Ornitología Colombiana 16 ever (originally) was printed/published on paper is unknown to me.
__

Last edited by Calalp : Tuesday 14th August 2018 at 07:56.
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 14:40   #96
Norbert R.
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Germany
Posts: 21
You are not alone, Laurent, with your doubts and concerns about the availability of Megascops gilesi. Another new species published electronically without registration in ZooBank is Myrmoderus eowilsoni, although it is said that this journal distributes 25 printed copies among major libraries and museums. But how can we know that the printed copies are actually published simultaneously with the online edition? It should be noted that with N. Krabbe and D. F. Lane two experienced taxonomists are author or co-author of these descriptions, respectively. And if they actually forget to register their publication, should the editors and reviewers of the journals not have hinted at ZooBank registration?
Norbert R. is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 15:13   #97
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 1,877
Quote:
Myrmoderus eowilsoni
My concern with the rule is once you publish with out registration there is no way to fix it.
8.5.3.3. An error in stating the evidence of registration does not make a work unavailable, provided that the work can be unambiguously associated with a record created in the Official Register of Zoological Nomenclature before the work was published. I guess you could republish.
Should not paper published names also register with Zoobank whether required or not.
Björn it is an oversimplification to say it is only about registration. There are institutions that denigrate the ICZN and all "foreign" authorities and just want to publish so they do not perish. Damn the rules. They did not vote for the rule change! Others are concerned with civilization and that rules be followed.
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.

Last edited by mb1848 : Tuesday 14th August 2018 at 15:18.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 17:44   #98
Calalp
Björn Bergenholtz
 
Calalp's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 2,767
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
...
Björn it is an oversimplification to say it is only about registration. There are institutions that denigrate the ICZN and all "foreign" authorities and just want to publish so they do not perish. Damn the rules. They did not vote for the rule change! Others are concerned with civilization and that rules be followed.
Mark, I would like to think of myself as fairly "concerned with civilization", as I prefer rules be followed, however at times, a bit clumpsy, here on BirdForum, as English is not my mother tongue.

Short answers, quick comments, and smart replies, as well as; irony, jokes or even sarcasm, is usually when it doesn´t always turn out the way I intended it.

/B
--

Last edited by Calalp : Tuesday 14th August 2018 at 18:03. Reason: thereby, as always, typo
Calalp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 18:00   #99
DLane
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Norbert R. View Post
You are not alone, Laurent, with your doubts and concerns about the availability of Megascops gilesi. Another new species published electronically without registration in ZooBank is Myrmoderus eowilsoni, although it is said that this journal distributes 25 printed copies among major libraries and museums. But how can we know that the printed copies are actually published simultaneously with the online edition? It should be noted that with N. Krabbe and D. F. Lane two experienced taxonomists are author or co-author of these descriptions, respectively. And if they actually forget to register their publication, should the editors and reviewers of the journals not have hinted at ZooBank registration?
I will respond here, since I am named in this comment. I was entirely unaware of any need to register a new name, so may I ask how was this regulation disseminated? As far as I can tell, journals that regularly publish new taxa should be aware of changes in requirements, not necessarily the authors (who may or may not be informed of the process). I cannot speak for Niels, but I only imagine that he was in a similar situation. In the case of Myrmoderus eowilsoni, it seems that Andre's response here https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...5&postcount=62 would suggest that the Auk made the attempt to rectify the situation, and that perhaps there was no situation, since hardcopies were still distributed? Either way, it seems the ICZN does a rather poor job of making new requirements for taxonomic description widespread knowledge. We (the authors of M. eowilsoni) only heard about this thanks to a private message from Norbert Bahr (many thanks!).
DLane is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 14th August 2018, 19:12   #100
McMadd
and the continuing battle to take *****cilious britbirders to task...

 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Tampere
Posts: 2,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by DLane View Post
I will respond here, since I am named in this comment. I was entirely unaware of any need to register a new name, so may I ask how was this regulation disseminated? As far as I can tell, journals that regularly publish new taxa should be aware of changes in requirements, not necessarily the authors (who may or may not be informed of the process). I cannot speak for Niels, but I only imagine that he was in a similar situation. In the case of Myrmoderus eowilsoni, it seems that Andre's response here https://www.birdforum.net/showpost.p...5&postcount=62 would suggest that the Auk made the attempt to rectify the situation, and that perhaps there was no situation, since hardcopies were still distributed? Either way, it seems the ICZN does a rather poor job of making new requirements for taxonomic description widespread knowledge. We (the authors of M. eowilsoni) only heard about this thanks to a private message from Norbert Bahr (many thanks!).
Hi Dan

Is it not fair to say though that a thorough literature search is part of naming a new taxa?

Meaning, and not trying to be controversial or aggressive, that if you're putting together a description and diving into every obscure manuscript you should also be conversant with "the rules" at the same time?

Isn't there some responsibility to be acquainted with the requirements of "The Code" inherent in the responsibility of "The Naming"...?

Cheers, McM
McMadd is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Do Tawny Owls prey on Little Owls? JCL Birds & Birding 11 Tuesday 20th February 2007 13:03
Barn Owls vs Tawny Owls CBB Birds Of Prey 3 Saturday 12th August 2006 23:18
Killing Owls to Save Owls your thoughts? W.coast Raptor Birds & Birding 11 Tuesday 27th September 2005 20:46
How Are Your Little Owls Doing??? Johnny1 Birds & Birding 4 Monday 13th June 2005 17:05
When are Owls (Eastern Screech Owls) vocal? Bono Birds Of Prey 2 Monday 23rd August 2004 14:04

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.32198095 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:32.