North American splits (1 Viewer)

[njlarsen]

For scientific nomenclature, you have the rule of keeping the old name for part of the split entity. For common names, to me it makes sense to use the rule that AOU had. Unfortunately they have not done that.

Niels

 

[Snapdragyn]

I actually think the exact opposite, that this is an example of the benefit of retaining the old name. Each of the four final species would have changed name twice. Imagine the confusion for the average birder if this process had been:
Herring Gull > "Mackerel" Gull + Yellow-legged Gull > "Mackerel" Gull + "West European" Gull + Caspian Gull > "North Sea" Gull + "West European" Gull + Caspian Gull + "American" Gull
(Obviously I have made some names up here - I don't know if other names exist for these splits :smoke

Birders would need to report their sighting under any one of seven names (Herring Gull, "Mackerel" Gull, Yellow-legged Gull, "West European" Gull, Caspian Gull, "North Sea" Gull, "American" Gull) according to how certain they were about the specific identity of the species involved. There may be up to seven entries into a bird report or species list for a particular location.

Someone with an older field guide may identify a bird as a Herring Gull, but then find that Herring Gull does not occur in the country - and the four species that could occur are not even the result of splitting Herring Gull (but are the result of splitting "Mackerel" Gull and Yellow-legged Gull). So what was the bird they just saw?

This is a situation where it would have been essential to keep up with changing taxonomy to be able to track the name of a particular taxon and correctly report a sighting. I suspect that it would seriously alienate the less taxonomically-minded birders.


Incidentally, under the AOU policy set out in post #95, would Herring Gull now be retained as the name for the American species, as this is a widespread North American form and the others are extralimital splits?

And yet if said hypothetical birder just reports 'Herring Gull', we don't have any clue what they actually saw (whether they actually do or not). Are they completely up on the latest splits, & properly ruled out all of the 'gulls formerly known as Herring'? Are they a casual birder who actually saw one of the split forms, but doesn't even know there are splits to look for? No idea from seeing 'Herring Gull' reported somewhere.

On the other hand, if they go to report 'Herring Gull' & find that the situation has changed, they are presented with a choice and an opportunity. They can choose to just record 'herring gull sp.' and leave it at that - & many will. The data will be of known accuracy. They can also choose to learn about these new (to them, at least) splits - what are the field marks, how could they have determined which form they encountered? Maybe they'll even go back to look for the bird again now that they've learned something new about it. This is an opportunity for them to grow as birders, and sharpen their skills.

So - do we want to foster inaccurate data, or do we want to foster better informed birders? I really see this as the effect (however unintended) of the decisions made around naming policy.

 

[Mysticete]

I wasn't aware of Mongolian gull...but then I don't think there are any AOU area records for this species? so presumably ABA wouldn't be involved with creating a common name for the bird.

 

[Richard Klim]

Mongolian Gull

I wasn't aware of Mongolian gull...but then I don't think there are any AOU area records for this species? so presumably ABA wouldn't be involved with creating a common name for the bird.

Actually, mongolicus is treated as a ssp of Larus cachinnans by AOU, eBird/Clements and Malling Olsen & Larsson 2003/2004.

But mongolicus and vegae are treated as sspp of L [argentatus] smithsonianus by BOURC, AERC, OSME, H&M4 and BirdLife/HBW; and L vegae (with ssp mongolicus) is further split by IOC, CAF, CSNA and German TC.

:smoke:

 

[gusasp]

Bumping this thread for an update on David Sibley's list of potential AOU-splits. Whip-poor-will, Winter Wren and Xantus’s Murrelet are all split, Western Scrub-Jay and White-breasted Nuthatch rejected. But what about the rest? Anyone heard of any research going on with Willet or Spruce Grouse for instance?

 

[Richard Klim]

Spruce Grouse

Anyone heard of any research going on with... Spruce Grouse for instance?

BirdLife/HBW have split Spruce Grouse:

• Spruce Grouse (Falcipennis canadensis)
• Franklin's Grouse (Falcipennis franklinii)

Also, Potapov & Sale 2013 (Grouse of the World).

 

[Mysticete]

It should be mentioned that while AOU rejected and earlier proposal for splitting Scrub-Jay, it only narrowly was rejected, with the major critique being lack of work in a possible hybrid zone. Since the proposal, another paper has been published looking at that issue, and seems to show that Scrub-Jays should be split. So I think if proposed again, this would probably pass.

 

[MichaelRetter]

Michael,
I may be reading the wrong types of papers, but is Carolinian a term that is in general use? What is its definition?

Niels

Yes. Google "Carolinian Ecoregion". It gets over 100,000 hits.

 

[MichaelRetter]

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolinian_forest

 

[MichaelRetter]

Normally Carolina is used instead of Carolinian

i.e. Carolina Wren

Yes, just as "Canada" and "Panama" are used. That doesn't mean they're correct or preferable, though. Why are there "Costa Rican Pygmy-Owls", "Nicaraguan Grackles", "Guatemalan Screech-Owls", "Jamaican Orioles", and "Mexican Jays", but "Panama Flycatchers" and "Canada Warblers". There are perfectly good adjectives that describe those countries. It makes no sense.

But those are referring to countries--not ecoregions/forests. For an broadly parallel analogy, we have "Amazonian Umbrellabirds", "Himalayan Snockcocks", and "Andean Solitaire"--not "Amazon Umbrellabirds", "Himalayas Snococks", and "Andes Solitaire".

 

[njlarsen]

Michael,
the quote of me that you bring in post 108 is pretty old.

However, I am gladd you did bring it up, because I did ask a later question that I do not think was answered:

I have done some more searching, and Carolinian seems to be a word more frequently used in Canada than in the US. It seemed to me based on those searches that only half of the area containing the eastern form of the WB Nuthatch actually is covered by this biome? (e.g., is the area from Missouri to Colorado part of the biome?).

So, the name Carolinian seems only to cover half of the area that the subspecies occurs in that the name would be applied to?

Niels

 

[MichaelRetter]

Michael,
the quote of me that you bring in post 108 is pretty old.

However, I am gladd you did bring it up, because I did ask a later question that I do not think was answered:


So, the name Carolinian seems only to cover half of the area that the subspecies occurs in that the name would be applied to?

Niels

No, I don't believe this is accurate. Those more westerly populations of the nuthatch occur in fingers of Carolinian habitat along rivers (where other such Carolinian species, like bloodroot, American hop-hornbeam, and Red-bellied Woodpecker may be found) and in residential areas where typically Carolinian trees have been planted. In areas such as S Canada, New England, and the Upper Midwest, the transition between Carolinian forest and boreal forest isn't an abrupt one, with the two blending together. The range of the nuthatch essentially stops where "true" boreal forest begins.

 

[Nutcracker]

For an broadly parallel analogy, we have ... "Himalayan Snockcocks", ... --not ... "Himalayas Snococks", ....

Or, more correctly, Himalaya Snowcocks, since Himalaya is already a plural term and shouldn't have an 's' at the end :t:

 

[MJB]

Or, more correctly, Himalaya Snowcocks, since Himalaya is already a plural term and shouldn't have an 's' at the end :t:

Isn't that going off half-cocked?:-O
MJB

 

[Farnboro John]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelRetter View Post
For an broadly parallel analogy, we have ... "Himalayan Snockcocks", ... --not ... "Himalayas Snococks", ....
Or, more correctly, Himalaya Snowcocks, since Himalaya is already a plural term and shouldn't have an 's' at the end

I like the idea of Himalayan Snockcocks. Particularly when I think of the angst to be caused to etymologists a hundred years hence.

I have been following the discussion about e.g. Carolina Wren with interest. Surely the derivation is not the bird's range but simply the location of its discovery, so comparable with Myrtle Warbler, which I think was shot off a Myrtle bush? Nobody would think of calling that a Myrtlian Warbler, and Carolinian Wren is similarly inappropriate.

Viz the Snockcocks, Himalayan (for something from the Himalayas, which is conventional traditional English usage for the region in the same way as we say German instead of Deutsch) is correct for when the bird was named - and consequently has priority. So Himalayan Snockcocks they must remain. :t:

John

 

[chris butterworth]

Bugger! They'll be bloody "Snockcocks" forever now! In the same ( ish ) vein ....... are they Kentish Plover or Plovers-of-Kent?

 

[njlarsen]

In the same ( ish ) vein ....... are they Kentish Plover or Plovers-of-Kent?

I used to be able to ignore that name and just call them Snowy - but then they were split o

Niels

 

[Richard Klim]

I have been following the discussion about e.g. Carolina Wren with interest. Surely the derivation is not the bird's range but simply the location of its discovery...

John, the discussion was mainly about the potential splitting of White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis (type locality South Carolina). Carolina Wren was mentioned as an example of the use of Carolina within a toponym, but the species was actually described from Louisiana. :h?:

 

[Farnboro John]

John, the discussion was mainly about the potential splitting of White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis (type locality South Carolina). Carolina Wren was mentioned as an example of the use of Carolina within a toponym, but the species was actually described from Louisiana. :h?:

Oh Carolina! (Shaggy)

So the parallel would be Louisiana Waterthrush, then? Or is that going to be renamed Louisianian Waterthrush?

John

 

[Richard Klim]

Oh Carolina! (Shaggy)
So the parallel would be Louisiana Waterthrush, then? Or is that going to be renamed Louisianian Waterthrush?

Louisiana Waterthrush was described from... Kentucky!