Australian Masked Owl/Australian Reed Warbler, why not Australasian? (1 Viewer)

[Andy Hurley]

AustralianAustralian Masked Owl - BirdForum Opus | BirdForum
Australian Reed Warbler - BirdForum Opus | BirdForum

Looking at the distribution of these two (and probably more) Australian species, I'm surprised they aren't called Australasian. Can anyone explain the thinking on this please?

 

[sicklebill]

I have often wondered similarly, I think it's just customary usage from more parochial times, I will drop a line to IOC and suggest it gets looked at

 

[Taphrospilus]

You can ask the same questian e.g. for Peruvian Booby (Sula variegata) (why only Peru?) and you will find several other examples.

 

[Björn Bergenholtz]

As well as hundreds, and hundreds, of other Birds (and toponyms), very few connected to their exact (current) range.

 

[Andy Hurley]

Thanks very much for your input, esp SicklebillThis is a discussion that the editors had when we looked at the 2 particular species. One of those things that "are" until someone changes them. Misspselt scientific names is another thing that seems strange. Once a name is misspelt and accepted, that is it. Tradition is a bit strange in that respect.

 

[MJB]

AustralianAustralian Masked Owl - BirdForum Opus | BirdForum
Australian Reed Warbler - BirdForum Opus | BirdForum

Looking at the distribution of these two (and probably more) Australian species, I'm surprised they aren't called Australasian. Can anyone explain the thinking on this please?

It might have something to do with the word Australasia being used in a number of different contexts including geopolitically, physiogeographically, and ecologically where the term covers several slightly different but related regions. (Taken from Wikipedia). For example, New Guinea is often included in Melanesia, but New Zealand is mostly regarded as being in Australasia, though ethnographers consider it to belong to Polynesia.)

On the other hand, there may be different views about whether a bird's main range or core population lies in continental Australia (including Australian-owned islands)?

Lastly, it's possible that the rationalisation of world lists simply hasn't got round to it.
MJB

 

[Andy Hurley]

As well as hundreds, and hundreds, of other Birds (and toponyms), very few connected to their exact (current) range.

I understand that ranges are in flux, paticularly with the effect of global warming, but I throught that the current thinking was that names should reflect that, particularly in these taxonomically changing times. Former European species become Eurasian, or Common. May be a better system would be to avoid geographical range in the name and have names that reflect plumage and characteristic behaviour.

 

[Andy Hurley]

It might have something to do with the word Australasia being used in a number of different contexts including geopolitically, physiogeographically, and ecologically where the term covers several slightly different but related regions. (Taken from Wikipedia). For example, New Guinea is often included in Melanesia, but New Zealand is mostly regarded as being in Australasia, though ethnographers consider it to belong to Polynesia.)

On the other hand, there may be different views about whether a bird's main range or core population lies in continental Australia (including Australian-owned islands)?

Lastly, it's possible that the rationalisation of world lists simply hasn't got round to it.
MJB

Thanks MJB, your last sentence had me spitting my tea at my monitor. Sorry, with all your complex reasoning, it comes around to it still be debated in committees, or people have higher priority things to discuss, or can't be bothered..

 

[Jos Stratford]

May be a better system would be to avoid geographical range in the name and have names that reflect plumage and characteristic behaviour.

There will never be a perfect system, most names are inherently 'incorrect', think Marsh Tit and Willow Tit, Kentish Plover, Black-headed Gull, Caspian Tern, Manx Shearwater, Grey Phalarope, Little Stint ...all 'wrong' for different reasons.

Maybe better to just embrace the diversity of interesting names and accept them, rather than seek to continually change?

 

[MJB]

Thanks MJB, your last sentence had me spitting my tea at my monitor. Sorry, with all your complex reasoning, it comes around to it still be debated in committees, or people have higher priority things to discuss, or can't be bothered..

Andy, re your subsequent post, the advantage of a geographical modifier is that it does at least indicate to the tyro an approximation of where a species might be encountered. The downside would be the astonishing degree to which the British public at almost any level are geographically challenged!

As evidence, I give you the statements of British politicians and the answers give by the public and 'celebrities' to the most basic questions on UK TV quiz shows. Do they think that once they've seen a map, it magically changes by the time they next see it?
MJB

 

[Andy Hurley]

There will never be a perfect system, most names are inherently 'incorrect', think Marsh Tit and Willow Tit, Kentish Plover, Black-headed Gull, Caspian Tern, Manx Shearwater, Grey Phalarope, Little Stint ...all 'wrong' for different reasons.

Maybe better to just embrace the diversity of interesting names and accept them, rather than seek to continually change?

That makes a lot of sense. It makes trying to understand taxonomy a bit of a labour of love. Some might just accept the names as given, but others try to find reason and rationality. That is, I suppose, the long long slipery slope into madness, as biology is never as simple as that. It is more chaos theory than carefully ordered boxes to place things in.

 

[MKinHK]

Thanks to Delia for directing me here.

Having just moved to Australia I’m struggling to remember which species are Australian and which Australasian.

My simple solution is to simply call them all “Aussie”. Because then whether someone asks me do I mean Australian or do I mean Australasian I can simply reply “yes”.

Think the IOC will go for it? 😉🤔

Cheers
Mike