What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Butorides striata or Butorides striatus?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 1193210" data-attributes="member: 24811"><p>Actually, Paynes' study is what led the AOU to lump striated and green herons in 1976... They re-split them in 1993, after Paynes' conclusions had been questioned in a re-analysis by Monroe & Browning, published the previous year. More recently, Hayes (2002) took a third look at the same data; he largely confirmed Paynes' findings and concluded that most of Monroe & Browning's criticisms were unjustified. He did not recommend re-lumping, though. (Same qualitative conclusions about what is going on, but different species concept.) This split a borderline case at best, IMHO.</p><p>If anybody wants a more comprehensive summary, please just ask.</p><p></p><p>For <em>B. (s.) sundevalli</em>, you can see the SACC proposal: <a href="http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop15.html" target="_blank">http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop15.html</a></p><p>As suggested by Niels' message, <em>sundevalli</em> is retained as a separate species in the last edition of Howard & Moore - with a footnote reading "Implicitly recognised by A.O.U. (1998: 45)". But this implicit recognition has since been very explicitly retracted in the 44th Supplement to the AOU Check-list, so this justification could probably not be invoked anymore.</p><p></p><p></p><p><strong>PS - Rasmus</strong>: Yes, indeed I meant the ear-coverts - wrong translation on my side, sorry. You are also right that Payne only used the neck color in his index. But this picture is a front view, which is potentially the most misleading angle, and birds showing gray on the face usually also have a rather gray hind-neck; I was merely pointing at something that, to me, seemed unusual for a typical <em>virescens</em>.</p><p>I'm not at all comfortable with assessing precise shades from jpegs shown on the web. When I compare pictures of birds scored by Floyd Hayes to his picture of the vouchers, I quite systematically reach a higher score than him, which makes me suspect the way the vouchers show on my screen may not be accurate. Hence my questions...</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="l_raty, post: 1193210, member: 24811"] Actually, Paynes' study is what led the AOU to lump striated and green herons in 1976... They re-split them in 1993, after Paynes' conclusions had been questioned in a re-analysis by Monroe & Browning, published the previous year. More recently, Hayes (2002) took a third look at the same data; he largely confirmed Paynes' findings and concluded that most of Monroe & Browning's criticisms were unjustified. He did not recommend re-lumping, though. (Same qualitative conclusions about what is going on, but different species concept.) This split a borderline case at best, IMHO. If anybody wants a more comprehensive summary, please just ask. For [I]B. (s.) sundevalli[/I], you can see the SACC proposal: [url]http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop15.html[/url] As suggested by Niels' message, [I]sundevalli[/I] is retained as a separate species in the last edition of Howard & Moore - with a footnote reading "Implicitly recognised by A.O.U. (1998: 45)". But this implicit recognition has since been very explicitly retracted in the 44th Supplement to the AOU Check-list, so this justification could probably not be invoked anymore. [B]PS - Rasmus[/B]: Yes, indeed I meant the ear-coverts - wrong translation on my side, sorry. You are also right that Payne only used the neck color in his index. But this picture is a front view, which is potentially the most misleading angle, and birds showing gray on the face usually also have a rather gray hind-neck; I was merely pointing at something that, to me, seemed unusual for a typical [I]virescens[/I]. I'm not at all comfortable with assessing precise shades from jpegs shown on the web. When I compare pictures of birds scored by Floyd Hayes to his picture of the vouchers, I quite systematically reach a higher score than him, which makes me suspect the way the vouchers show on my screen may not be accurate. Hence my questions... [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Butorides striata or Butorides striatus?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top