Cacatuidae (1 Viewer)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Jim, simply following Jobling's Key:

... gives us (in my poor, very poor) French: Cacatoès (banksien) artisane resp. Cacatoès cache-cache

For what it's worth ... 🙄

I had thought to Cacatoès cryptique ou secret for escondidus

We would be the type to write Cacatoès artisan* ou graptogyne

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Denis A. Saunders and Geoffrey Pickup (2023) A re-analysis of the taxonomy of yellow-tailed cockatoos within the genus Zanda. Australian Zoologist. published online 10 November 2023.
A re-analysis of the taxonomy of yellow-tailed cockatoos within the genus Zanda

Abstract
The conclusions of our taxonomic review of the black cockatoos in the genera Calyptorhynchus and Zanda (A review of the taxonomy and distribution of Australia’s endemic Calyptorhynchinae black cockatoos) met with some opposition regarding our classification of the black cockatoos with yellow subterminal tail bands. We raised the three recognised subspecies to full species: Eastern Yellow-tailed Cockatoo Z. funerea Shaw, 1794; Western Yellow-tailed Cockatoo Z. whiteae Mathews, 1912; and Tasmanian Yellow-tailed Cockatoo Z. xanthanota Gould, 1838. Our separation of whiteae and xanthanota caused particular concern. In response to this concern, we re-analysed our data, using only anatomical data from adult specimens and demonstrate that there are valid grounds for the separation, with Z. xanthanota being significantly larger than Z. whiteae in 26 of the 30 anatomical measurements used in our analysis. We appreciate that our conclusion that Z. funerea, Z. whiteae and Z. xanthanota are separate species may not be readily accepted by all readers, but we would welcome any challenges backed by data.

 

[Mysticete]

If Z. xanthanota is significantly larger in 36 anatomical characteristics...isn't this really just one character (.e.g that Z. xanthanota has a larger body size). I haven't seen the paper (feel free to send it my way), but this doesn't seem as persuasive as maybe the authors think?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

If Z. xanthanota is significantly larger in 36 anatomical characteristics...isn't this really just one character (.e.g that Z. xanthanota has a larger body size). I haven't seen the paper (feel free to send it my way), but this doesn't seem as persuasive as maybe the authors think?

It is in free access

 

[Mysticete]

Ah yes it is...I thought the PDF link was just for the abstract

Still looking through this, I think they only thing they can state is that the three populations are morphologically distinct in a fine scale morphometric analysis. That doesn't mean they are different species though...we would expect that different subspecies should have distinctions. This is really only a valid argument if using a PSC approach, which is what the authors seem to be doing.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Ah yes it is...I thought the PDF link was just for the abstract

Still looking through this, I think they only thing they can state is that the three populations are morphologically distinct in a fine scale morphometric analysis. That doesn't mean they are different species though...we would expect that different subspecies should have distinctions. This is really only a valid argument if using a PSC approach, which is what the authors seem to be doing.

It's me or there are no figures in this pap ?

 

[Mike Earp]

It's me or there are no figures in this pap ?

There are in the PDF