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="mckaybailey" data-source="post: 1952010" data-attributes="member: 85190">The difference is that some systematist argued strongly for the Song Sparrow subspecies and no one has done this same for the House Sparrow. You might say this is because the geographic variation within the Song Sparrow is older and it is certainly more extreme (the differences among Song Sparrow populations are greater than the differences among House Sparrow populations). However, there are plenty of bird subspecies with no greater differences among them than the differences we find within American House Sparrows (e.g. Dendroica dominica stoddardi off the top of my head). So I think the reason the House Sparrow doesn't have subspecies is more historical (no one has made the case for them) than conceptual (there's nothing fundamentally different about geographic variation within House Sparrow versus other bird species that do have named subspecies).Like I said before, I think this is inconsistent and wrong. My solution, however, would not be to start carving the American House Sparrow in subspecies, but to remove clinal subspecies from other bird species such as the Song Sparrow. Such a classification would be more consistent, more rigorous, and less confusing (for both you and me!).</blockquote>