Strange that OSME has apparently used the English name 'Western Fish Owl' (suggesting recognition of
semenowi as a distinct species), but scientific name
Ketupa zeylonensis.
ORL v3.2 treats 'Western Brown Fish Owl
Bubo (zeylonensis) semenowi' as a
potential split.
Not entirely strange, Richard: see TSC09 for reasons for use of
Bubo. Also, Wink
et al 2009 stated:
'
Paraphyly can (also) be seen in Ketupa, of which three species (K. zeylonensis, K. flavipes and K. ketupu) have been described from Southeast Asia. Ketupa zeylonensis and K. ketupu cluster as close relatives to the Asian Bubo species, such as B. nipalensis. Also the general appearance of Ketupa is similar to that of Bubo; because of genetic relationships (p-distance of 9–10%)' we agree with Amadon & Bull (1988) to merge Ketupa in Bubo. Also this change has been accepted by now by most authorities (König & Weick 2008)'.
There may now be a supervening argument for the retention of
Ketupa, which IOC 6.1 still does, and so we'd appreciate a copy of any recent literature we may have missed.
The 'potential split' refers van den Berg
et al 2010 and to whether the other taxa listed in IOC6.1 would be attributable to the '
zeylonensis' group or the '
semenowi' group, but again we know of no work that quantifies this. It may be that future work will confirm a split or the reverse. The use of 'Western' in the informal name merely indicates that this taxon occurs west of all the other related taxa. We prefer it because the equally novel informal name 'Turkish Fish Owl' used elsewhere does not cover the rest of the presumed breeding distribution to NW India.
The ORL's use of round brackets is explained in the 'Ornithological Basis' link on the OSME website: a brief quotation from it:
'
This is where the taxa could be full species, allospecies/semispecies, subspecies, or exist in identifiable populations that are intermediate in evolutionary terms. Also, it may be that we haven’t formed an opinion, because the evidence is not available, contradictory, or we are unsure whether it has been shown to apply sufficiently comprehensively (We may not have had time to discuss which treatment is appropriate). Here we use round brackets (…) for the "Don't knows".'
Should more information be forthcoming, we'll happily stand corrected!
MJB
References
Amadon, D and J Bull. 1988. Hawks and owls of the world.
Proc.
W. Found. Vertebr. Zool. 3: 297–357.
van den Berg, AB, S Bekir, P de Knijff and The Sound Approach. 2010. Rediscovery, biology, vocalisations and taxonomy of fish owls in Turkey.
Dutch Birding 32:5 287-298
König, C and F Weick. 2008. Owls of the World, 2nd edn. Helm. London. UK.
Sangster, G, JM Collinson, P-A Crochet, AG Knox, DT Parkin and SC Votier. 2013. Taxonomic recommendations for Western Palearctic birds: ninth report.
Ibis 155: 898–907
Wink M, AA El-Sayed, H Sauer-Gürth and J Gonzalez. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of owls (Strigiformes) inferred from DNA sequences of the mitochondrial cytochrome
b & the nuclear RAG-1 gene.
In: Johnson DH, D van Nieuwenhuyse and JR Duncan. (Eds). Proc. 4th World Owl Conf. Oct–Nov 07. Groningen, The Netherlands.
Ardea 97(4): 581–591.