-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Omani Owl (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Certainly looks quite multicultural!
MJB
Well-known member
Not entirely strange, Richard: see TSC09 for reasons for use of Bubo. Also, Wink et al 2009 stated:
'Paraphyly can (also) be seen in Ketupa, of which three species (K. zeylonensis, K. flavipes and K. ketupu) have been described from Southeast Asia. Ketupa zeylonensis and K. ketupu cluster as close relatives to the Asian Bubo species, such as B. nipalensis. Also the general appearance of Ketupa is similar to that of Bubo; because of genetic relationships (p-distance of 9–10%)' we agree with Amadon & Bull (1988) to merge Ketupa in Bubo. Also this change has been accepted by now by most authorities (König & Weick 2008)'.
There may now be a supervening argument for the retention of Ketupa, which IOC 6.1 still does, and so we'd appreciate a copy of any recent literature we may have missed.
The 'potential split' refers van den Berg et al 2010 and to whether the other taxa listed in IOC6.1 would be attributable to the 'zeylonensis' group or the 'semenowi' group, but again we know of no work that quantifies this. It may be that future work will confirm a split or the reverse. The use of 'Western' in the informal name merely indicates that this taxon occurs west of all the other related taxa. We prefer it because the equally novel informal name 'Turkish Fish Owl' used elsewhere does not cover the rest of the presumed breeding distribution to NW India.
The ORL's use of round brackets is explained in the 'Ornithological Basis' link on the OSME website: a brief quotation from it:
'This is where the taxa could be full species, allospecies/semispecies, subspecies, or exist in identifiable populations that are intermediate in evolutionary terms. Also, it may be that we haven’t formed an opinion, because the evidence is not available, contradictory, or we are unsure whether it has been shown to apply sufficiently comprehensively (We may not have had time to discuss which treatment is appropriate). Here we use round brackets (…) for the "Don't knows".'
Should more information be forthcoming, we'll happily stand corrected!
MJB
References
Amadon, D and J Bull. 1988. Hawks and owls of the world. Proc.
W. Found. Vertebr. Zool. 3: 297–357.
van den Berg, AB, S Bekir, P de Knijff and The Sound Approach. 2010. Rediscovery, biology, vocalisations and taxonomy of fish owls in Turkey. Dutch Birding 32:5 287-298
König, C and F Weick. 2008. Owls of the World, 2nd edn. Helm. London. UK.
Sangster, G, JM Collinson, P-A Crochet, AG Knox, DT Parkin and SC Votier. 2013. Taxonomic recommendations for Western Palearctic birds: ninth report. Ibis 155: 898–907
Wink M, AA El-Sayed, H Sauer-Gürth and J Gonzalez. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of owls (Strigiformes) inferred from DNA sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome b & the nuclear RAG-1 gene. In: Johnson DH, D van Nieuwenhuyse and JR Duncan. (Eds). Proc. 4th World Owl Conf. Oct–Nov 07. Groningen, The Netherlands. Ardea 97(4): 581–591.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Brown Fish Owl
PS. The wide geographic scope of nominate zeylonensis as postulated by Robb et al still doesn't seem to have aroused much interest (ref post #342).
Mike, splitting hairs (as usual!), but I was simply commenting on the nomenclature used. The Sandgrouse advice for authors states that nomenclature should follow ORL. So, Brown Fish Owl Bubo zeylonensis or Western Brown Fish Owl Bubo (zeylonensis) semenowi, but not Western Brown Fish Owl Ketupa zeylonensis (an English name inconsistent with the scientific name, and the species assigned to an alternative genus).
PS. The wide geographic scope of nominate zeylonensis as postulated by Robb et al still doesn't seem to have aroused much interest (ref post #342).
Last edited:
))
Richard Klim
-------------------------
James Lowther
Well-known member
a bit unfair to take a case where the root cause of the confusion and controversy surrounding these species was the failure of taxonomists in the past to properly identify specimens as an example of why specimen-free descriptions are so useless.
under the scenario that the butleri type specimen had actually been a "desert tawny owl", we would still currently be certain of the existence of two taxa, butleri and omanensis, on the basis of photos, sound recordings and genetic testing of the newly discovered Omani birds, even in the absence of specimens
on the other hand if the difference between the butleri type specimen and "desert tawny owl" had been realised earlier, we would have been rightly trumpeting a rediscovery of a long-lost species all along, instead of being unsure as to whether it was a newly-discovered taxon
if anything the Omani owl story is a good illustration that the existence of type specimens is not necessarily a panacea.
James
under the scenario that the butleri type specimen had actually been a "desert tawny owl", we would still currently be certain of the existence of two taxa, butleri and omanensis, on the basis of photos, sound recordings and genetic testing of the newly discovered Omani birds, even in the absence of specimens
on the other hand if the difference between the butleri type specimen and "desert tawny owl" had been realised earlier, we would have been rightly trumpeting a rediscovery of a long-lost species all along, instead of being unsure as to whether it was a newly-discovered taxon
if anything the Omani owl story is a good illustration that the existence of type specimens is not necessarily a panacea.
James
lewis20126
Well-known member
Agree entirely - a number of new species (or specimens thereof) are "discovered" in specimen collections. I see that primarily as a sad reflection on the skills of collectors and curators to date, rather than as some reason for maintaining huge collections going forward.
On the wider point, Bugun Liocichla proves that a physical specimen is not required to demonstrate that a species exists. An example which few collectors like to discuss.
cheers, alan
Grahame Walbridge
Well-known member
GMK
Well-known member
For the record, Alan, the original version of our ms in Zootaxa mentioned the case of Bugun Liocichla within a marginally longer and more wide-ranging discussion of the importance of type specimens in ornithology. As we (i.e. the authors of Kirwan et al.) see it, the latter case is well proven and demonstrates that the precautionary principle of not collecting a complete specimen of a perceivedly extremely rare new taxon can work. Such exceptions to the rule do not alter the fact that, generally, whole-skin type specimens are preferable, less ambiguous and more easily permit follow-up work, but we would admit that exceptional circumstances can and should dictate otherwise on occasion. However, describing a new taxon without any kind of physical sample (= feathers, blood), which was not true of the liocichla, can never make good practice. The extra text was cut more or less at the editor's insistence.
lewis20126
Well-known member
Guy
Interesting, thanks. I'm probably not too far away from your stated position on new taxa here but the reality is that, other than (highly) cryptic species, most new avian taxa are likely to be rare. Cambodian Tailorbird is probably the exception which proves the rule.
[For the avoidance of doubt, I'm entirely against extended type series and locale collections.]
cheers, alan
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Last edited:
Xenospiza
Distracted
Well, the first specimen was from Pakistan and it had already been reported from Iran multiple times:
Birding Iran
Juvenile Omani Owl (Strix butleri) in south of Iran. Recorded by Ali Kasravi on May 10 in Kangan, Bushehr Province
www.facebook.com
The first confirmed records of Omani Owl, Strix butleri (A. O. Hume, 1878) (Aves: Strigidae), from Iran
So the Turkish observers can only celebrate a "first for ebird".
It's a complicated distribution for a fitting name.
James Lowther
Well-known member
also reported from the UAE a couple of timesWell, the first specimen was from Pakistan and it had already been reported from Iran multiple times:
(No need to log in, the picture is accessible even for me).Birding Iran
Juvenile Omani Owl (Strix butleri) in south of Iran. Recorded by Ali Kasravi on May 10 in Kangan, Bushehr Province
The first confirmed records of Omani Owl, Strix butleri (A. O. Hume, 1878) (Aves: Strigidae), from Iran
So the Turkish observers can only celebrate a "first for ebird".
It's a complicated distribution for a fitting name.
Similar threads
