DMW
Well-known member
Vocal differences are increasingly relied upon in avian taxonomy, to the point that Birdlife recently split at least two species (an African cuckoo and barbet) pretty much entirely on the basis of vocalisations. As far as I can tell, the morphological / plumage differences involved are trivial, and no genetic analysis was undertaken. I don't take issue with this - Birdlife has a "quick-and-dirty" approach to species-level taxonomy, and it's likely that genetics will support these splits.
However, one thing I have noticed is that a lack of vocal difference is often ignored when species limits are revised on the basis of morphological differences, and I wonder whether there is an inconsistency here?
I can think of instances where I have had very strong response to playback from the "wrong" closely-related species (e.g. Mentawai Scops-owl reacting to Sunda Scops-owl; Rufous-vented Prinia reacting to Swamp Prinia).
Is it correct to treat vocal differences / lack of differences assymmetrically in this way, or does this reflect a bias in favour of splitting?
However, one thing I have noticed is that a lack of vocal difference is often ignored when species limits are revised on the basis of morphological differences, and I wonder whether there is an inconsistency here?
I can think of instances where I have had very strong response to playback from the "wrong" closely-related species (e.g. Mentawai Scops-owl reacting to Sunda Scops-owl; Rufous-vented Prinia reacting to Swamp Prinia).
Is it correct to treat vocal differences / lack of differences assymmetrically in this way, or does this reflect a bias in favour of splitting?