Joseph,Revised California Lists:
http://www.californiabirds.org/list.html
Surely there are other species that could be considered to be established in CA?
I think we will be looking at possibly adding Nutmeg Mannikin Lonchura punctulata.The Committee will also review records of breeding populations of introduced species not on the state list, but only if evidence is submitted that attempts to prove
(a) the correct identification of the species and
(b) the viability of the population.
To be judged viable, a population must:
(i) have bred in the state for fifteen (15) consecutive years,
(ii) in general, be increasing or stabilized after an initial period of increase,
(iii) be judged to have occupied all geographically contiguous suitable habitat to such a degree as to sustain the population and be thought unlikely to significantly diminish, and
(iv) occupy an environment judged similar enough in ecological factors (e.g., climate, vegetation, food, shelter, competitors, predators) to the species’ natural habitat, or to other successful introductions, that permanent establishment seems likely.
Thanks, Joseph.We have specific guidelines...
Yes, but not for 2009-E-1 supp (wren English names). Or am I missing something (very likely!)?Proposal E now has commentary
while not really explaining any clear advantage to retaining "Winter Wren" for a single species.
CBRC seems to take a tough line on admitting introduced exotics to the state list (eg, compared to FOSRC). Surely there are other species that could be considered to be established in CA?
One simple argument is that the name "Winter Wren" was coined specifically for hiemalis. (Hiemalis = "of winter" in Latin).
Hi Mohamed,Can you guess for which Wren species (the Eurasian or the newly split T. hiemalis) the IOC will retains the English name "Winter Wren" when they accept these splits.
Even (or especially!) in light of the guidelines listed above, I'm still surprised to see so few exotics. Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet are notably missing, despite seeming to meet the criteria listed here. I also wonder about the Aratinga parakeets...
Actually I am on the subcommittee that evaluates proposed additions of introduced birds to the California list so I would welcome documentation that supports Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet. We've looked closely at both of those and are not aware that they qualify under criteria ii or iii; and iv is doubtful. Also we lack specific documentation that they qualify under criterion i. We need documented breeding evidence for each of the past 15 years.
We keep files on all potential exotics, so if you would send us any documentation to support Common Peafowl, Rose-ringed Parakeet or any other contenders, it would be much appreciated.
This site gives a useful summary of psittacid status in California:Even (or especially!) in light of the guidelines listed above, I'm still surprised to see so few exotics. Common Peafowl and Rose-ringed Parakeet are notably missing, despite seeming to meet the criteria listed here. I also wonder about the Aratinga parakeets...
Old World Warblers (finally) broken up and moved around, Suliformes, Eurypygiformes, and Phaethoniformes both recognized, as well as the families Pandionidae, Calcariidae, Semniornithidae, Capitonidae, Rhamphastidae, and Viduidae.