Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Seems to me that the current "wisdom" is that there are not "splits", just "variations" of the one species of bird, namely "Redpoll". In other words just a plethora of "sub-species".
Larry my reading of the paper and the AOU proposition is that there are not even any subspecies. The different morphologies are not geographically dependent. They are formed because of mitochlorian counts, fairy-dust or some undefined low tempature and arid conditions.?? Co-author Nick Mason commented on the ABA blog. The powers that be/bird police do not like it if you joke about one redpoll to rule them all. "treating redpolls as a single species actually increases their biological allure." Right. Its too bad because I really respected his drumming with Pink Floyd. http://britishbirds.co.uk/article/martin-garner/ .
Larry, this thread includes several links to blogposts by Martin Garner, who sadly died on Friday (29 Jan). As always evident from his enthusiasm for the subtleties of redpoll identification, bird forms can be interesting and challenging irrespective of their taxonomic treatment!