Richard Klim
-------------------------
Away birding for the last month, but just noticed that the latest IOC update (V1.7) is now available at http://www.worldbirdnames.org
Richard
Richard
...the latest IOC update (V1.7) is now available at http://www.worldbirdnames.org
Do you know whether somebody has embarked on a similar work between the IOC and H&M 3 lists ?
Anyone else in the UK feel mildly miffed when looking at this list?
As a predominantly ABA area birder, I am unlikely to notice significant changes to European bird names that might vex others.
Take a look at http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline11.html (search for Euphonia within page), and look at footnote 1. More details in http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop29.html. This only covers South America, of course.
Niels
and Long-tailed Tit (rather than Bushtit) for Aegithalos caudatus. There was no way that the latter would ever find general acceptance!
Richard
I accept they ought to be placed in Fringillidae and at least for the time being should be in their own subfamily. But I've seen no published justification for placing them in the centre of what I believe is a well supported canary/goldfinch clade.
I concur - they should at the very least appear ahead of the canaries in the present sequence.
(Although this would at best make the sequence marginally more correct, in fact... There is no "well supported clade" grouping only the canaries and golfinches to the exclusion of other carduelines - the clade that has a good support also [unambiguously] includes Loxia, as well as [most likely - this is currently based on the results of a single research group] Linurgus and Rhodospiza. And these genera are currently spread all over the cardueline finches...)
Of course it will never be possible to keep everyone happy with decisions on perennial clashes such as goosander/merganser, diver/loon, skua/jaeger, guillemot/murre etc. Maybe they could alternate on a 10-year cycle...
Richard
[...] despite what TV would have us believe, the majority of Americans can understand what rufous means [...]
I'm also a little sceptical of the use of 'red' where we would use 'rufous' in some instances - despite what TV would have us believe, the majority of Americans can understand what rufous means, so I can't see why they feel the need to change it.
Perhaps surprisingly, I, as an ABA area birder, rather like many of the European names. Goosander is wonderful, diver is certainly acceptable, and I'm totally at home with either guillemot & murre. Now calling Bank Swallow, Riparia riparia (Latin for bank), a "Sand Martin" *IS* an abomination! <grin>
Cheers,
Rob
Perhaps splitting hairs, but 'red' and 'rufous' are anyway not strictly interchangeable. 'Rufous' means reddish, rather than red, and is most often used to describe reddish-brown (or brownish-red!).