Clamorous (Australian) Reed Warbler (1 Viewer)

During a recent visit to Queensland, I saw among a lot of other birds, an Australian Reed Warbler, which supposedly was a Clamorous RW split. When I came home, I got a little confused, because both a Clamorous and an Australian RW was available for ticking off in my database. Is this because the CRW has been seen in AU, or is it some confusion with regards to acceptance of this split, or confusion of the person maintaining the database? The database is built on the Clements list and sold by Santa Barbara Software products.

A similar question can be raised about banded stilt (or white-headed stilt?) Haemantopus leucocephalus or Cladorhyncus l. Which common and scientific name is actually currently recognized and by whom?

thanks
Niels

Niels,

I would be interested to hear others take on the reed-warbler situation, especially from an Australian’s perspective, but here’s how I understand it. One of the issues in Australia is that there is not any one governing taxonomic body overseeing the region. The Birds Australia Checklist (a semi-official list based in large part on the taxonomic work of Boles & Christidis, two preeminent Australian ornithologists) does not recognize the resident forms of reed-warbler, australis and gouldi as being specifically distinct from other Clamorous Reed-Warblers. On the other hand, in the Schodde & Mason's Directory of Australian Birds, Passerines, these two forms are considered to be specifically distinct, with no records of Clamorous sensu stricto considered to occur in Australia.

In the case of the stilts, the issue is actually whether or not to recognize Australasian populations of Black-winged Stilt as being specifically distinct as White-headed Stilt, Himantopus leucocephalus, a name that is coincidentally similar to that of Banded Stilt in sharing a specific epithet. Banded Stilt is its own stable, monotypic entity. The Birds Australia list recognizes H. himantopus, with leucocephalus being the local subspecies. Clements, and Sibley & Monroe, both elevate leucocephalus to species status. I'm not sure about Howard & Moore. Hence the confusion.

Chris

To complete Chris's intervention, here is the Howard & Moore treatment: They separate Australian Reed Warbler, Acrocephalus australis, with the nominate, and with race gouldi from the Clamorous Reed Warbler not ranging for them in Australia; they do not accept the splitting of the races of Black-winged Stilt treated by them as a single entity - Black-winged Stilt, Himantopus himantopus, with races himantopus, leucocephalus, knudseni, mexicanus, and melanurus. Cladorhynchus leucocephalus is called by the HM, Banded Stilt.

Phew, sorted

Phew, glad that one's sorted.
Whilst in Australia 15 years ago I had difficulty sorting out honey eaters, never mind the reed warblers. I just had them as clamourous, but now I know differently
Cheers for good info,
Jono

NJ, Chris,

Well, you didn't really think it was going to be that easy, did you...

I just had a closer look at a footnote appended to the HM race sumbae (Moluccas, Sumba I., New Guinea, New Britain (Bismarck Arch.) and the Solomon Is.) of their Acrocephalus stentoreus. It states: "It is unlikely that this is a single taxon. Schodde & Mason (1999) have shown that there is no evidence of breeding from NE Australia except in the case of A. australis which they separate on the evidence of Leisler et al. (1997)."

My intrepretation of the footnote throws the question of the occurance or not of race sumbae in Australia into the conjuctive. That is to say, there is reason for doubt. Do they, or do they not have records of non-breeding accidental birds associated with the pre-split A. stentoreus not easily collocated within the nominate race australis in NE Australia? Maybe, I am just trying to cut too fine a line here...

Hi All,

Prompted by Steve's second posting, I went back to Schodde & Mason to delve deeper into the text once again to sort out what is going on in northeast Queensland. I've summarized their viewpoint below, although any errors in the interpretation are mine. Schodde & Mason note that the papuan form sumbae is structurally different from either Australian forms (sumbae with shorter, rounded wings), but question whether it a) a form of Clamorous Reed-Warbler (as stated by Howard & Moore), b) is a form of Australian Reed-Warbler that has just changed structure compared with the migratory Australian forms, due to non-migratory habits, or c) might even be a third unrecognized species.

Populations collected in tropical north Australia had been attributed to sumbae by Mayr 1948, and thus would fall under Clamorous Reed-Warbler, sensu Howard & Moore. Schodde & Mason's assessment of northern specimen material is that most match up with longer, pointed winged Australian Reed-Warbler with the exception of a few specimens from northeast Queensland, which they state as being intermediate between sumbae and australis. They state that more evidence is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Chris

Chris Benesh said:

Hi All,

Prompted by Steve's second posting, I went back to Schodde & Mason to delve deeper into the text once again to sort out what is going on in northeast Queensland. I've summarized their viewpoint below, although any errors in the interpretation are mine. Schodde & Mason note that the papuan form sumbae is structurally different from either Australian forms (sumbae with shorter, rounded wings), but question whether it a) a form of Clamorous Reed-Warbler (as stated by Howard & Moore), b) is a form of Australian Reed-Warbler that has just changed structure compared with the migratory Australian forms, due to non-migratory habits, or c) might even be a third unrecognized species.

Populations collected in tropical north Australia had been attributed to sumbae by Mayr 1948, and thus would fall under Clamorous Reed-Warbler, sensu Howard & Moore. Schodde & Mason's assessment of northern specimen material is that most match up with longer, pointed winged Australian Reed-Warbler with the exception of a few specimens from northeast Queensland, which they state as being intermediate between sumbae and australis. They state that more evidence is needed before any firm conclusions can be drawn.

Chris

Click to expand...

Thanks Chris. That answers for the most part my doubts. Of course, it also throws us right smack dab in the middle of the too often seen conundrum - which intrepretation (i.e. which list) is the best assessment of race associations! It would seem unfortunately that in this case the morphological evidence might support both views. I wonder therefore if anyone has done a work-up on the genetic variance of australis, gouldi and sumbae and comparing it with that of the other races surely associated with stentoreus sensu stretto (i.e. post-split).

Hi All,

I can understand the frustration of Niels (I showed him around during his visit....Hi Niels!)
Currently Australia appears to be 'lagging' behind in bird-classification and the subject is frequently the subject of heated debate on Birding-Aus (our mailing-list)

Tom

Hi Tom and everybody else!
For anyone going to the Brisbane area, ask Tom if he has time to show you around; if the answer is yes, you will definitely not be disappointed.

Re the Stilts, the confusion was entirely my own fault, thank you to Chris for clarifying that topic.

Re the reed warblers, I just checked Clements v5 again, and he does not list the sundae for Australia, but it seems that the person maintaining the list for my database has seen the report by Mayr that the other Chris had dug out. As I am following Clements in this database, I will be attributing the observation to Australian RW, and forget that I could click Clamorous as well.

Thanks again to everyone
Niels