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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveClifton" data-source="post: 3652215" data-attributes="member: 48420">It used to be the standard term in use before 'morph' became more popular (and I largely agree with the change, because phase is arguably a less precise term). It was used widely to refer to the permanent variations/colour forms in a wide variety of species including egrets, some raptors, skuas, cuckoos, owls (including Scops and Tawny) and probably many more.Lars Jonsson used it widely in his publications, including in his 'Birds of Europe' as did Vinicombe, Harris & Tucker in the original Macmillan guide (not sure about the more recent re-print though?). It appears to have also been widely used in North America, and probably around the World too?There was a BF thread on it here: <a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=281969" target="_blank">http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=281969</a> in which it is stated that the origin of morph appears to have been J S Huxley (see post #4).We birders don't generally accept new changes and developments without a bit of resistance, and for that reason I think phase will still be used widely and interchangeably with morph by many of us for a few more years to come...So not so much wrong, but just falling out of fashion. How many of us still call them Bearded Tits for example...? I certainly do <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification