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="njlarsen" data-source="post: 1684114" data-attributes="member: 7427">We have in <a href="http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=1684066" target="_blank">a thread in the Opus forum</a> discussed the different possibilities for Puffinus boydi and P. baroli. Our rules say that Opus follows S&M except where both Clements and H&M differs. With the latest Clements, P. boydi and P. baroli are both full species, while S&M only had P. boydi. Sangster treated the two as one species, Macaronesian Shearwater, something followed by IOC. My reading of the Opus rules is therefore that we should again have an entry for P. boydi, but my reading of everything else say that if we do that, the best solution is to include baroli in that species. However, now it becomes hairy: with baroli and boydi together, does baroli have precedent as one would suspect from Sangster? and if Opus goes that way, then I guess that the best English name for the collective species would be Macaronesian?thanksNiels</blockquote>