 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for January 23-31, 2005
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp. | Joseph Morlan | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 | 1:02am |
| Re: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp. | John Idzikowski | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 | 9:03am |
| Re: A second California Slaty-backed Gull! | sales(AT)BIRDINGWORLD.C | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 5:31am |
| Bird identification insight from a bizarre source | Ted Floyd | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 12:07pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Keith Arnold | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 12:55pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | J.Harry Krueger | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 1:59pm |
| Re: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp. | Robert Hughes | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 2:14pm |
| Re: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp. | John Idzikowski | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 2:31pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | speedyg | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 5:06pm |
| RFI: Ageing Horned Puffins | Mike Patterson | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 | 7:59pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Eran Tomer | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 4:12am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Alvaro Jaramillo | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 10:13am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Matt Sharp | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 10:29am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Matt Sharp | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 10:49am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | rsheil | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 11:19am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Phillip Pickering | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 11:23am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Alvaro Jaramillo | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 11:31am |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Steve Hampton | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 1:04pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Lethaby, Nick | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 1:09pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Steve Hampton | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 1:22pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Mike Patterson | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 1:47pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Jeff Davis | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 2:10pm |
| Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source | Shaibal Mitra | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 6:55pm |
| Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns | David Vander Pluym | Tue, 25 Jan 2005 | 11:22pm |
| Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns | GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM | Wed, 26 Jan 2005 | 7:04pm |
| Possible adult Vega Gull in Texas | Martin Reid | Thu, 27 Jan 2005 | 9:18am |
| Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns | David Sibley | Fri, 28 Jan 2005 | 1:48pm |
| Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns | Jeff Davis | Fri, 28 Jan 2005 | 2:31pm |
| Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns | mgd(AT)U.WASHINGTON.EDU | Fri, 28 Jan 2005 | 2:42pm |
| argentatus, vegae, or smithsonianus? | Michael L. P. Retter | Sat, 29 Jan 2005 | 7:13pm |
| Fw: Tundra Swan | John Idzikowski | Sat, 29 Jan 2005 | 8:02pm |
| Re: Fw: Tundra Swan | Joseph Morlan | Sat, 29 Jan 2005 | 9:12pm |
| Re: Fw: Tundra Swan | Lethaby, Nick | Sun, 30 Jan 2005 | 4:01pm |
| Re: Fw: Tundra Swan | Kevin J. McGowan | Sun, 30 Jan 2005 | 5:04pm |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp.
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 23 Jan 2005 1:02am
This odd looking bird was found at Lake Merritt in Oakland on January 12,
2005 by Travis Hails. Today I managed to get a few photos which I have
posted at:
http://community.webshots.com/album/257396144ThUYje
Additional photos by Laura Look have been posted at:
http://home.earthlink.net/~chamaea/20050119.htm
I'm pretty sure it's a hybrid Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye, but I don't
know if one parent may have been a Common Goldeneye or a Barrow's
Goldeneye. This apparent hybrid was in a mixed flock of both goldeneye
species.
A quick check on the bird hybrids web site revealed a number of documented
wild hybrids between Hooded Merganser and Common Goldeneye, but only one
published reference to Hooded Merganser X Barrow's Goldeneye and that was
from captivity.
Is there any way to tell if the goldeneye parent was a Common or a
Barrow's?
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
Birding Classes in SF start Feb.8 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp.
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 23 Jan 2005 9:03am
We can at least do some regional comparisons to Joe's bird to speculate on
parentage. Apparent Common Ge X Hooded hybrids are becoming more common,
always in flocks of Goldeneye (here at least), on Lake Michigan during
migration. Our autumn flocks of Ge do not depart the State until
mid-January; they just left in the last week ahead of 12 inches of snow,
high winds, freezing harbors and icy slush covered zebra mussel beds used
for feeding. Here's one such hybrid from about Jan. 8-
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/ducks/hoodedx.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/ducks/hoodedx2.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/ducks/hoodedx3.jpg
Other putative Hooded x C Goldeneye-
http://www.skyenet.net/~wcassady/gallery/homexcogo.htm
http://home.att.net/~cobus/commongoldeneyehoodedmerganser.htm
http://www.indianaaudubon.org/guide/photopages/McCoyHOGO2.htm
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph Morlan" <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Sunday, January 23, 2005 2:03 AM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp.
> This odd looking bird was found at Lake Merritt in Oakland on January 12,
> 2005 by Travis Hails. Today I managed to get a few photos which I have
> posted at:
>
> http://community.webshots.com/album/257396144ThUYje
>
> Additional photos by Laura Look have been posted at:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~chamaea/20050119.htm
>
> I'm pretty sure it's a hybrid Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye, but I don't
> know if one parent may have been a Common Goldeneye or a Barrow's
> Goldeneye. This apparent hybrid was in a mixed flock of both goldeneye
> species.
>
> A quick check on the bird hybrids web site revealed a number of documented
> wild hybrids between Hooded Merganser and Common Goldeneye, but only one
> published reference to Hooded Merganser X Barrow's Goldeneye and that was
> from captivity.
>
> Is there any way to tell if the goldeneye parent was a Common or a
> Barrow's?
>
> --
> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
> Birding Classes in SF start Feb.8 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
> California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: A second California Slaty-backed Gull!
From: sales(AT)BIRDINGWORLD.CO.UK
Date: 24 Jan 2005 5:31am
Hi
I'm just back from a couple of weeks in California, but my last day was 20th
(the day the recent Slaty-backed was found). Had DvP and AJ found it a day
earlier, I probably would have twitched it...
Still, the day was spent profitably gulling with Jon King at Sacremento,
with a nice adult Kumlien's Gull (photographed and videod) being the
highlight.
Yes Allen, I do recall that the mantle shade as seen in Japan seemed
variable. Subsequent birds I've seen in Korea and British Columbia (Burns
Bog) have looked reasonably black, but the clue is, I guess, in the name ...
Slaty-backed (not Black-backed...) Gull. The 'bloom' mentioned by Allen is
something which might logically be expected to be most obvious in
freshly-moulted birds (certainly it is also shown by LBB Gull at this time).
One of my photos published in Birding World of a Japanese adult Slaty-backed
Gull exhibited a degree of greyness that attracted some criticism at the
time, but other (unpublished) shots of the same individual showed a
blacker-backed bird!
I would expect a sub-adult in mid winter to show rather more matt
upperparts, thus blacker-looking in photos. Either way, both the recent
Californian Slaty-backeds cannot be faulted..!
cheers
Richard
sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
...............................................................................
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen Chartier" <amazilia1(AT)COMCAST.NET>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: 22 January 2005 17:33
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] A second California Slaty-backed Gull!
> Alvaro,
>
> I have limited experience with Slaty-backed Gull, largely on a single
> November 1998 trip to Japan (though I saw thousands). I can comment that
> the mantle color of adult Slaty-backed Gulls there seemed to not only vary
> some between individuals in actual shade, but seem to show quite
> considerable variation in appearance based on sun angle. Some sort of
> iridescence, sheen, or bloom??? Anyway, a couple of times in Japan I
> found
> myself looking at some birds a moderate distance away that appeared the
> same
> shade as American Herring Gull, but upon closer approach, and different
> angle, showed mantle color similar to graellsii Lesser Black-backed.
> Other
> times, birds looked nearly as black as Great Black-backed, becoming
> lighter
> with better views. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to capture this range of
> variable appearance in my photos (posted on my website), as gulling was
> only
> part of why I was in Japan birding!
>
> Richard Millington was on that Japan trip with me, and I'd be interested
> to
> hear if his observations matched mine, or not...
>
> Allen Chartier
> amazilia1(AT)comcast.net
> 1442 West River Park Drive
> Inkster, MI 48141
> Website: http://www.amazilia.net
> Michigan HummerNet: http://www.amazilia.net/MIHummerNet/index.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Bird identification insight from a bizarre source
From: Ted Floyd <tedfloyd(AT)ABA.ORG>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 12:07pm
Hello, birders.
So I'm in Borders the other day, and I just happen to be wandering
through the FASHION/DESIGN section (hey, it's the fastest way to get
from the bird books to the men's room). Slightly to my surprise, I
glimpse what appears to be a photograph of a female Pine Siskin on the
cover of what, upon closer inspection, turns out to be the
January/February 2005 issue of "Step Inside Design". I take a closer
look, and see that the lead article is titled, "Ones to watch: A field
guide to Design's best of breed 2005".
Then I checked out the actual article, and my eyes almost popped out. I
saw, to a tee, what I had thought--immodestly and obviously
erroneously--to have been my lone original idea from the past five years
or so. Here's how the article, by Alice Twemlow, p. 41, begins:
"When Roger Tory Peterson published A Field Guide to the Birds in 1934,
its simple but effective premise forever changed the practice of bird
spotting. What the field guide did, as David Reinfurt--a designer
featured in last year's Field Guide--points out in his excellent essay
on this genre (dot, dot, dot, issue 6) was to switch the emphasis from
biology to typology."
Those four little words--FROM BIOLOGY TO TYPOLOGY--are of immense
relevance, I feel, to the whole matter of pushing the frontiers of bird
identification. I would have added one extra word, though: FROM BIOLOGY
*BACK* TO TYPOLOGY. What we birders have been doing ever since 1934 is
pre-Darwinian. It is Aristotelian, it is Thomistic, it is Biblical. It
is emphatically not biology, nor even science. Oh, it is *scientistic*
at times, but it is not scientific.
Our basic goal is to put a name on something, to come up with an answer,
to be definitive. But Ever Since Darwin, the rest of the world has
moving in another direction: toward a realization that the universe is
messy, complex, imprecise, unquantifiable, unknowable. Concepts such as
Evolution (1859), Relativity (1905), Uncertainty (1927), and Chaos
(1961) simply are not on our radar screens. Instead, our goal is the
same as Adam's and Aristotle's: to put a name on something.
Case in point: There has been considerable resistance (from, among
others, several of the prominent contributors to "Frontiers of Bird
Identification") to the practice of The Sibley Guide *not* to slap
meaningless trinomials on every one of the thousand-plus variants
depicted within its covers. From Day One "trinomialism" has been
problematic, to say the least (for a good introduction to the problem,
check out Mark Barrow's A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After
Audubon). Even the A.O.U. hasn't touched the problem for 48 years. And
taking a broader view, the entire concept of the species--let alone the
subspecies--has been in crisis since 1859. Yet we glibly go about our
business, spewing out polysyllabic utterances such as "coronata" or
"auduboni", without realizing how wrong we are.
In 4 years, we will be observing two major milestone anniversaries: the
150th anniversary of The Origin of Species and the 75th anniversary of A
Field Guide to the Birds. No question about it, both are brilliant works
that have changed the course of history. But it is essential that we
come to terms with the fact that the latter is very much a rejection of
the former. (Peterson conceived his Field Guide during the nadir of
Darwinism in American; and even by the time of publication, Peterson was
evidently unaware of the emerging "Modern Synthesis" that would get
Darwinism back on firm footing here.) And it is essential that we
acknowledge that we are Peterson's legatees, not Darwin's.
Is that "okay"? Depends on what we're really all about. If our goal is
to put a name on something--in the fine tradition of Adam, Aristotle,
and Peterson--then, sure, it's okay. But if our goal is to get serious
about variation, to confront hybridization, to make sense out of
speciation--that is, to understand the actual scientific patterns and
processes at play here--then, no, it's not okay. Bird identification, as
it is currently practiced, is pre-Darwinian. And don't get me wrong:
There's lots of great pre-Darwinian stuff, e.g., Ptolemy, Linnaeus,
Mozart, out there. But, again, it's not biology, and it's not science.
As I prepare to step down from my soapbox, I'd like to conjure up again
my "chickadee challenge" from a few weeks ago. Here in the foothills of
the Rockies, I encounter mixed-species flocks of chikadees almost daily.
The Adamic/Aristotelian/Petersonian side of me instinctively and
reflexively sorts them into two categories: Black-capped Chickadee vs.
Mountain Chickadee. The Darwinian/scientific side of me instead sees the
flock as a continuum of multi-dimensional variation; and an individual
Black-capped or Mountain might fall just about anywhere within the cloud
of points that occupy a biological hyperspace of morphology, behavior,
ecology, etc. Identification is not the goal; instead, the
identification of the bird is one of many fuzzy parameters that together
lead me to a better understanding of what I'm observing--and
understanding--in Nature.
----------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor,
Birding
American Birding Association
P.O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd(AT)aba.org
Please visit the website of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Keith Arnold <kaarnold(AT)TAMU.EDU>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 12:55pm
Ted and others on the list,
To be fair, the AOU has "touched" subspecies in 48 years because no one had the
time to keep up with the numerous changes, especially after the AOU decided to
extend the Check-List through Meixco and Central America to Panamá! I do know
that Burt Monroe attempted to keep track of subspecies until his untimely death
from cancer. We hear talk from time-to-time of reinstating subspecies to the
Check-List, but can you image the time anf effort involved for committee members
and the size of the resulting book(s)?
Keith Arnold
WFSC TAMU
College Station
>>> Ted Floyd <tedfloyd(AT)ABA.ORG> 1/24/2005 1:07:03 PM >>>
Hello, birders.
So I'm in Borders the other day, and I just happen to be wandering
through the FASHION/DESIGN section (hey, it's the fastest way to get
from the bird books to the men's room). Slightly to my surprise, I
glimpse what appears to be a photograph of a female Pine Siskin on the
cover of what, upon closer inspection, turns out to be the
January/February 2005 issue of "Step Inside Design". I take a closer
look, and see that the lead article is titled, "Ones to watch: A field
guide to Design's best of breed 2005".
Then I checked out the actual article, and my eyes almost popped out. I
saw, to a tee, what I had thought--immodestly and obviously
erroneously--to have been my lone original idea from the past five years
or so. Here's how the article, by Alice Twemlow, p. 41, begins:
"When Roger Tory Peterson published A Field Guide to the Birds in 1934,
its simple but effective premise forever changed the practice of bird
spotting. What the field guide did, as David Reinfurt--a designer
featured in last year's Field Guide--points out in his excellent essay
on this genre (dot, dot, dot, issue 6) was to switch the emphasis from
biology to typology."
Those four little words--FROM BIOLOGY TO TYPOLOGY--are of immense
relevance, I feel, to the whole matter of pushing the frontiers of bird
identification. I would have added one extra word, though: FROM BIOLOGY
*BACK* TO TYPOLOGY. What we birders have been doing ever since 1934 is
pre-Darwinian. It is Aristotelian, it is Thomistic, it is Biblical. It
is emphatically not biology, nor even science. Oh, it is *scientistic*
at times, but it is not scientific.
Our basic goal is to put a name on something, to come up with an answer,
to be definitive. But Ever Since Darwin, the rest of the world has
moving in another direction: toward a realization that the universe is
messy, complex, imprecise, unquantifiable, unknowable. Concepts such as
Evolution (1859), Relativity (1905), Uncertainty (1927), and Chaos
(1961) simply are not on our radar screens. Instead, our goal is the
same as Adam's and Aristotle's: to put a name on something.
Case in point: There has been considerable resistance (from, among
others, several of the prominent contributors to "Frontiers of Bird
Identification") to the practice of The Sibley Guide *not* to slap
meaningless trinomials on every one of the thousand-plus variants
depicted within its covers. From Day One "trinomialism" has been
problematic, to say the least (for a good introduction to the problem,
check out Mark Barrow's A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After
Audubon). Even the A.O.U. hasn't touched the problem for 48 years. And
taking a broader view, the entire concept of the species--let alone the
subspecies--has been in crisis since 1859. Yet we glibly go about our
business, spewing out polysyllabic utterances such as "coronata" or
"auduboni", without realizing how wrong we are.
In 4 years, we will be observing two major milestone anniversaries: the
150th anniversary of The Origin of Species and the 75th anniversary of A
Field Guide to the Birds. No question about it, both are brilliant works
that have changed the course of history. But it is essential that we
come to terms with the fact that the latter is very much a rejection of
the former. (Peterson conceived his Field Guide during the nadir of
Darwinism in American; and even by the time of publication, Peterson was
evidently unaware of the emerging "Modern Synthesis" that would get
Darwinism back on firm footing here.) And it is essential that we
acknowledge that we are Peterson's legatees, not Darwin's.
Is that "okay"? Depends on what we're really all about. If our goal is
to put a name on something--in the fine tradition of Adam, Aristotle,
and Peterson--then, sure, it's okay. But if our goal is to get serious
about variation, to confront hybridization, to make sense out of
speciation--that is, to understand the actual scientific patterns and
processes at play here--then, no, it's not okay. Bird identification, as
it is currently practiced, is pre-Darwinian. And don't get me wrong:
There's lots of great pre-Darwinian stuff, e.g., Ptolemy, Linnaeus,
Mozart, out there. But, again, it's not biology, and it's not science.
As I prepare to step down from my soapbox, I'd like to conjure up again
my "chickadee challenge" from a few weeks ago. Here in the foothills of
the Rockies, I encounter mixed-species flocks of chikadees almost daily.
The Adamic/Aristotelian/Petersonian side of me instinctively and
reflexively sorts them into two categories: Black-capped Chickadee vs.
Mountain Chickadee. The Darwinian/scientific side of me instead sees the
flock as a continuum of multi-dimensional variation; and an individual
Black-capped or Mountain might fall just about anywhere within the cloud
of points that occupy a biological hyperspace of morphology, behavior,
ecology, etc. Identification is not the goal; instead, the
identification of the bird is one of many fuzzy parameters that together
lead me to a better understanding of what I'm observing--and
understanding--in Nature.
----------------------------
Ted Floyd
Editor,
Birding
American Birding Association
P.O. Box 7974
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974
303-444-6363
tedfloyd(AT)aba.org
Please visit the website of the
American Birding Association:
http://www.americanbirding.org
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: "J.Harry Krueger" <hkrueger(AT)cableone.net>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 1:59pm
As a field ornithologist - or birder - my primary interest is not just
"identifying" the bird that I see, but also understanding how that bird fits
into the totality of the constant change evidenced in the natural avian world
and its interaction with Nature as a whole. Subspeciation is a sometimes
convenient, and often confusing, label that some utilize to categorize
"differences," whether visibly discernible or not. Yet it is those very
differences that are the part and parcel of identification that rises above the
"magic arrows" of the Peterson guides. <BR>
<BR>
Understanding these geographic "differences" in morphology assist me in not
only mentally grasping that a certain bird is present (I see it, therefore
it must be there), but also in understanding where it possibly came from to be
present in "my world" now. Attention to subspeciation (or whatever
you may choose as a label) makes me a more careful observer of detail and
nuance...of the totality of what that bird happens to be in its relationship to
others like it...and those different from it.<BR>
<BR>
Humans generally like to categorize things..it's convenient. Subspeciation
assists us along that path. But the categorization of birds is more
than that. Take two current examples from the "birding world." The
AOU has been less than concerned with subspeciation of "white-cheeked" geese
until now. You don't see the current definite (although still open to
change) lines drawn until the "split decision" of this past
summer. But what has happened in reality, is that people in the field
are now taking a second, and third, and longer look at what was formerly
glossed over as "just another bunch of Canada Geese." Birders have been
"forced" to become aware that there is more than just "one size fits all" in the
Branta world. The other example is the "invasion" of Blue Jays into the
Northwest and Great Basin this fall-winter. Numbers like never before
( <A href="http://idahobirds.net/reports/idaho/blja2004.html" tar
get=_blank>http://idahobirds.net/reports/idaho/blja2004.html</A> ;), but
rather than just recorders of what is there, we also have had the opportunity to
be aware of where they came from (bromia subspecies) and possibly why
they came to be a part of the natural world we see them in now. <BR>
<BR>
A fuller awareness of differences (the basis of ID-Frontiers), of which
subspecies are only an inadequate, though presently often
useful tool, make us "more alive" as humans, more integrated
into Nature as a species, and hey...it fun, or I wouldn't take the time to write
these probably boring, esoteric posts! <BR>
<BR>
Harry Krueger<BR>
Boise, ID<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<B>On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 13:54 , Keith Arnold <kaarnold(AT)TAMU.EDU> sent:<BR>
<BR>
</B>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px;
BORDER-LEFT: #5167c6 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">Ted and others on the list,
<BR>
<BR>
To be fair, the AOU has "touched" subspecies in 48 years because no one had the
time to keep up with the numerous changes, especially after the AOU decided to
extend the Check-List through Meixco and Central America to Panamá! I do know
that Burt Monroe attempted to keep track of subspecies until his untimely death
from cancer. We hear talk from time-to-time of reinstating subspecies to the
Check-List, but can you image the time anf effort involved for committee members
and the size of the resulting book(s)? <BR>
<BR>
Keith Arnold <BR>
WFSC TAMU <BR>
College Station <BR>
<BR>
<FONT color=red>>>> Ted Floyd <<A
href="DEFANGED_javascript:parent.opencompose('tedfloyd(AT)ABA.ORG','','','')"
target=_blank>tedfloyd(AT)ABA.ORG</A>> 1/24/2005 1:07:03 PM >>>
</FONT><BR>
Hello, birders. <BR>
<BR>
So I'm in Borders the other day, and I just happen to be wandering <BR>
through the FASHION/DESIGN section (hey, it's the fastest way to get <BR>
from the bird books to the men's room). Slightly to my surprise, I <BR>
glimpse what appears to be a photograph of a female Pine Siskin on the <BR>
cover of what, upon closer inspection, turns out to be the <BR>
January/February 2005 issue of "Step Inside Design". I take a closer <BR>
look, and see that the lead article is titled, "Ones to watch: A field <BR>
guide to Design's best of breed 2005". <BR>
<BR>
Then I checked out the actual article, and my eyes almost popped out. I <BR>
saw, to a tee, what I had thought--immodestly and obviously <BR>
erroneously--to have been my lone original idea from the past five years <BR>
or so. Here's how the article, by Alice Twemlow, p. 41, begins: <BR>
<BR>
"When Roger Tory Peterson published A Field Guide to the Birds in 1934, <BR>
its simple but effective premise forever changed the practice of bird <BR>
spotting. What the field guide did, as David Reinfurt--a designer <BR>
featured in last year's Field Guide--points out in his excellent essay <BR>
on this genre (dot, dot, dot, issue 6) was to switch the emphasis from <BR>
biology to typology." <BR>
<BR>
Those four little words--FROM BIOLOGY TO TYPOLOGY--are of immense <BR>
relevance, I feel, to the whole matter of pushing the frontiers of bird <BR>
identification. I would have added one extra word, though: FROM BIOLOGY <BR>
pre-Darwinian. It is Aristotelian, it is Thomistic, it is Biblical. It <BR>
is emphatically not biology, nor even science. Oh, it is *scientistic* <BR>
at times, but it is not scientific. <BR>
<BR>
Our basic goal is to put a name on something, to come up with an answer, <BR>
to be definitive. But Ever Since Darwin, the rest of the world has <BR>
moving in another direction: toward a realization that the universe is <BR>
messy, complex, imprecise, unquantifiable, unknowable. Concepts such as <BR>
Evolution (1859), Relativity (1905), Uncertainty (1927), and Chaos <BR>
(1961) simply are not on our radar screens. Instead, our goal is the <BR>
same as Adam's and Aristotle's: to put a name on something. <BR>
<BR>
Case in point: There has been considerable resistance (from, among <BR>
others, several of the prominent contributors to "Frontiers of Bird <BR>
Identification") to the practice of The Sibley Guide *not* to slap <BR>
meaningless trinomials on every one of the thousand-plus variants <BR>
depicted within its covers. From Day One "trinomialism" has been <BR>
problematic, to say the least (for a good introduction to the problem, <BR>
check out Mark Barrow's A Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After <BR>
Audubon). Even the A.O.U. hasn't touched the problem for 48 years. And <BR>
taking a broader view, the entire concept of the species--let alone the <BR>
subspecies--has been in crisis since 1859. Yet we glibly go about our <BR>
business, spewing out polysyllabic utterances such as "coronata" or <BR>
"auduboni", without realizing how wrong we are. <BR>
<BR>
In 4 years, we will be observing two major milestone anniversaries: the <BR>
150th anniversary of The Origin of Species and the 75th anniversary of A <BR>
Field Guide to the Birds. No question about it, both are brilliant works <BR>
that have changed the course of history. But it is essential that we <BR>
come to terms with the fact that the latter is very much a rejection of <BR>
the former. (Peterson conceived his Field Guide during the nadir of <BR>
Darwinism in American; and even by the time of publication, Peterson was <BR>
evidently unaware of the emerging "Modern Synthesis" that would get <BR>
Darwinism back on firm footing here.) And it is essential that we <BR>
acknowledge that we are Peterson's legatees, not Darwin's. <BR>
<BR>
Is that "okay"? Depends on what we're really all about. If our goal is <BR>
to put a name on something--in the fine tradition of Adam, Aristotle, <BR>
and Peterson--then, sure, it's okay. But if our goal is to get serious <BR>
about variation, to confront hybridization, to make sense out of <BR>
speciation--that is, to understand the actual scientific patterns and <BR>
processes at play here--then, no, it's not okay. Bird identification, as <BR>
it is currently practiced, is pre-Darwinian. And don't get me wrong: <BR>
There's lots of great pre-Darwinian stuff, e.g., Ptolemy, Linnaeus, <BR>
Mozart, out there. But, again, it's not biology, and it's not science. <BR>
<BR>
As I prepare to step down from my soapbox, I'd like to conjure up again <BR>
my "chickadee challenge" from a few weeks ago. Here in the foothills of <BR>
the Rockies, I encounter mixed-species flocks of chikadees almost daily. <BR>
The Adamic/Aristotelian/Petersonian side of me instinctively and <BR>
reflexively sorts them into two categories: Black-capped Chickadee vs. <BR>
Mountain Chickadee. The Darwinian/scientific side of me instead sees the <BR>
flock as a continuum of multi-dimensional variation; and an individual <BR>
Black-capped or Mountain might fall just about anywhere within the cloud <BR>
of points that occupy a biological hyperspace of morphology, behavior, <BR>
ecology, etc. Identification is not the goal; instead, the <BR>
identification of the bird is one of many fuzzy parameters that together <BR>
lead me to a better understanding of what I'm observing--and <BR>
understanding--in Nature. <BR>
<BR>
---------------------------- <BR>
<BR>
Ted Floyd <BR>
<BR>
Editor, <BR>
Birding <BR>
<BR>
American Birding Association <BR>
P.O. Box 7974 <BR>
Boulder, Colorado 80306-7974 <BR>
<BR>
303-444-6363 <BR>
<A href="DEFANGED_javascript:parent.opencompose('tedfloyd(AT)aba.org','','','')"
target=_blank>tedfloyd(AT)aba.org</A> <BR>
<BR>
Please visit the website of the <BR>
American Birding Association: <BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp.
From: Robert Hughes <rhughes.enteract(AT)RCN.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 2:14pm
> Is there any way to tell if the goldeneye parent was a Common or a
> Barrow's?
There's probably no way to know for sure, but the the scapular pattern
of the Lake Michigan bird (long b & w stripes) suggests Common
Goldeneye parentage while the scapular pattern of the California bird
(a row of spots) suggests Barrow's Goldeneye parentage. Just an
observation.
Robert Hughes
Chicago, Illinois
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp.
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 2:31pm
From a behavoral viewpoint, if all of these hybrids (4 in the last 2 years)
from migrant flocks on Lake Michigan are associated with flocks of C.
Goldeneye, perhaps we can assume that as these hybrid birds are socialized
into Goldeneye flocks as they mature and as the males in both Goldeneye and
Hooded have nothing to do with the rearing of chicks, can we assume that in
these cases that this is the work of male Hoodeds?
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Hughes" <rhughes.enteract(AT)RCN.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Monday, January 24, 2005 3:14 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Apparent Hooded Merganser X Goldeneye sp.
> > Is there any way to tell if the goldeneye parent was a Common or a
> > Barrow's?
>
> There's probably no way to know for sure, but the the scapular pattern
> of the Lake Michigan bird (long b & w stripes) suggests Common
> Goldeneye parentage while the scapular pattern of the California bird
> (a row of spots) suggests Barrow's Goldeneye parentage. Just an
> observation.
>
> Robert Hughes
> Chicago, Illinois
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: speedyg <speedyg(AT)SWAMPHEN.NET>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 5:06pm
I know my view on this is likely to be perceived as heretical, but what the
heck...
What is the problem with calling a chickadee a "Mountain Chickadee", and
leaving it at that? What's wrong with saying, "That's an 'Audubon's' Yellow-
rumped Warbler", why is there a 'need' to be more 'precise'?
As a lister, I enjoy species splits. :-) But really, do we 'have' to have a
DNA analysis that tells us there are two 'species' of Curve-billed Thrasher?
What is the 'value' in 'knowing' that the 'most primitive (in North America)
birds' are waterfowl, and not loons?
Does it make any difference to a goose if we 'know' there are one, two, three
or thirty 'species' of "Canada Geese"? Does it make any difference to society
to know that there are several 'species' of bird in what used to be
called "Stripe-headed Tanager"?
Don't get me wrong. I seek out new species, new subspecies, and new
populations (although it's getting mighty 'ard To Go Where No Birder Has Gone
Before ;) ). I have 'Western Willet' in escrow on my life list. But really,
distilled to its essence, what is the 'gain' from Biology over Typology? Why
does the concept of a 'species' or 'subspecies' have to be in crisis? Why not
just say "*this* is what makes something a 'species'", and leave it at that?
I'm sure some folk will call me a Luddite. They will probably be right. ;)
Now as the firestorm breaks, pardon me while I go back to work on my time
machine. :-)
-S.P.McCool / http://www.swamphen.net/
Crawfordville, Florida, USA - Wakulla County
30.166ºN 84.402ºW - elv. 35'/11m - GMT-5
USDA Zone 8B - Sunset Zone 28 - Heat Zone 9
32326 - FWCC Northwest Region - Grid EM70td
-------------------------------------------
Walk softly, and carry a big scope.
-------------------------------------------
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: RFI: Ageing Horned Puffins
From: Mike Patterson <celata(AT)pacifier.com>
Date: 24 Jan 2005 7:59pm
Below are photos of a HORNED PUFFIN recovered from Manzanita
Beach, Tillamook Co., OR. I will try to get spreadwing
photos later, but the feather wear looks even. Can one age
puffins by even wear vs sequential wear like gull and
tubenoses?
http://home.pacifier.com/~neawanna/temp/wh_hopu2005012401.JPG
http://home.pacifier.com/~neawanna/temp/wh_hopu2005012402.JPG
--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
celata(AT)pacifier.com
If you want to end war and stuff, you've got to sing loud
- Arlo Guthrie
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Eran Tomer <etomer(AT)EMORY.EDU>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 4:12am
Hello all,
Defining boundaries within and distinguishing among continuous entities
are neither biblical nor scientific, they are the core of animal behavior.
Birds and other animals distinguish and communicate food from non-food,
mate from non-mate, predator from non-predator etc. Even microbes
distinguish between light and dark, and medium (e.g. water) from
non-medium. For their part, humans have been naming and defining all they
know ever since they became capable of doing so. Knowledge, understanding,
learning, language and culture are impossible without naming and
definition. Science approaches the first three, or the lack thereof, in a
formal, systematic, standardized, organized manner so that they may be
easier to study, comprehend and communicate. The taxonomic debate concerns
where to draw the lines, not whether one should draw lines in the first
place.
All organisms form an irregular continuum of variation that science
attempts to divide into species and subspecies. This is not to deny or
ignore the continuum but, again, to make it easier to study and
understand. Some ornithologists do study the continuum itself as a whole.
Demarcating and naming bird species is no different from demarcating a
certain length as, say, `a centimeter'. Length, like birdlife, is a
continuum that science divides for various reasons. This does not
undermine the fact that each of these has sub-units and forms a part of a
larger unit. The discipline of science itself is a hierarchical continuum
divided into fields, e.g. bird physiology vs. bird behavior.
Taxonomy, the basis for bird identification, is entirely biological and
scientific; it is neither `name slapping' nor meaningless. The goal of
taxonomy is to elucidate patterns, not processes (that is the goal of
evolutionary biology). It puts names on birds in order to standardize
communication about them and better understand the relationships among
them, not as an end in and of itself. "Coronata" and "audoboni" are
meaningful terms coined for a reason, and their use is not an error if one
understands the purpose and process of avian nomenclature. This latter is
not pre-anything, it emerged along with human language. Darwin considered
how species arise; Peterson's visual classification does not argue that
they do not form a continuum. In other words, Peterson's differentiating
Red from Green from Blue does not argue that all of these are not a part
of a continual rainbow/spectrum.
Unless Twemlow is using some odd definitions, her writing of biology as
discrete from typology is absolute nonsense. The Oxford English Dictionary
defines typology as "The study of classes with common characteristics;
classification, esp. of human products, behaviour, characteristics, etc.,
according to type; the comparative analysis of structural or other
characteristics; a classification or analysis of this kind." This, more or
less, would be taxonomy, a field within biology.
Taxonomy does not deny a continuum of species. Its motto could well be the
reverse of the United States': Ex unum, pluribus. (The grammar is probably
wrong, I have never studied Latin). For an extensive, semi-technical
treatment of this issue, I'd highly recommend `The Biogeography and
Speciation of Birds' by Ian Newton and `Untangling Ecological Complexity'
by Brian Maurer, who uses avian examples extensively.
Best regards,
- Eran Tomer
Atlanta, Georgia
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 10:13am
Eran
These are good points you make, but I understood Ted's message in a
different manner. I don't think he is attacking taxonomy in general. The
extreme typological view of nature is mirrored in how ornithologists named
many subspecies. Most good subspecies tend to be those which are separate
and non-overlapping populations (allopatric) rather than those that are cut
out of a larger continuous distribution. Many, and some would say most,
subspecies are just points on clines of continuous change. In effect what
many ornithologists were doing was defining boundaries where no boundaries
existed. Subspecies should not be part of any continuum, they should be
discrete entities. The more detail you look at, the more difference you can
find and the more individuals you look at the more differences you can find.
So if you are careful, detail oriented, and look at a large sample you can
convince yourself that there is some real difference and you name a
subspecies, this is particularly easy to do when you have a continuum. Have
you ever seen the example of a perfect gradation of sticks of different
lengths. You tell people to put them into three discrete piles (large,
medium, small) and people have no problem doing so, although it should be
impossible to do since the sticks are all part of a perfect continuum. The
extreme typological view wants to put things into the different piles, the
other extreme resists the piles altogether. I don't think that anyone would
argue that Mountain and Black-capped Chickadees are not different "piles"
but in some places perhaps a specific individual cannot be clearly placed
into one of the piles. There are so many examples of this in gulls, that all
you need is to search back in this list and get tons of them. The
interesting thing is that gull fanatics are pretty typological, partly
because of the extreme level of detail that they are looking at their
subjects. The more you look at, the more differences you can find. But on
the other hand, they know their subjects hybridize and do all sorts of
complex stuff. Yet the question that most do not ask themselves is whether
the "piles" themselves are real, or if they were created by someone who was
typological in their thinking. Is barrovianus a real entity? Yes or no? Does
anyone have the data to show one way or the other? Is albertaensis
California Gull a real discrete and different population, or is it the
extreme of a cline? Does anyone really know? If the answers to these
questions are no, they are not good discrete entities, then you can't
identify them in the field because the entities do not exist, you can only
identify some individuals at the extreme end of the distributions! But gull
watchers, being a subset of the general birding community, are comfortable
with the typological way of thinking. In effect, birding has taught them to
be typological, and they have a much easier time believing the piles exist.
I enjoyed Ted's e-mail as I had never put 2 and 2 together. It is birding
itself, and field guides that in their own subtle ways make us more
comfortable seeing the world of birds as discrete little piles, rather than
the more complicated mess that is reality.
I did not like Ted's example of the Audubon's and Myrtle warblers as
those are certainly not good subspecies - they are good species. I will make
a little smiley face here :-), but I am actually serious.
Cheers
Al
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, CA
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
http://www.fieldguides.com/home.htm
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
> [mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Eran Tomer
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 3:13 AM
> To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Bird identification insight from a bizarre source
>
> Hello all,
>
> Defining boundaries within and distinguishing among continuous entities
> are neither biblical nor scientific, they are the core of animal behavior.
> Birds and other animals distinguish and communicate food from non-food,
> mate from non-mate, predator from non-predator etc. Even microbes
> distinguish between light and dark, and medium (e.g. water) from
> non-medium. For their part, humans have been naming and defining all they
> know ever since they became capable of doing so. Knowledge, understanding,
> learning, language and culture are impossible without naming and
> definition. Science approaches the first three, or the lack thereof, in a
> formal, systematic, standardized, organized manner so that they may be
> easier to study, comprehend and communicate. The taxonomic debate concerns
> where to draw the lines, not whether one should draw lines in the first
> place.
>
> All organisms form an irregular continuum of variation that science
> attempts to divide into species and subspecies. This is not to deny or
> ignore the continuum but, again, to make it easier to study and
> understand. Some ornithologists do study the continuum itself as a whole.
> Demarcating and naming bird species is no different from demarcating a
> certain length as, say, `a centimeter'. Length, like birdlife, is a
> continuum that science divides for various reasons. This does not
> undermine the fact that each of these has sub-units and forms a part of a
> larger unit. The discipline of science itself is a hierarchical continuum
> divided into fields, e.g. bird physiology vs. bird behavior.
>
> Taxonomy, the basis for bird identification, is entirely biological and
> scientific; it is neither `name slapping' nor meaningless. The goal of
> taxonomy is to elucidate patterns, not processes (that is the goal of
> evolutionary biology). It puts names on birds in order to standardize
> communication about them and better understand the relationships among
> them, not as an end in and of itself. "Coronata" and "audoboni" are
> meaningful terms coined for a reason, and their use is not an error if one
> understands the purpose and process of avian nomenclature. This latter is
> not pre-anything, it emerged along with human language. Darwin considered
> how species arise; Peterson's visual classification does not argue that
> they do not form a continuum. In other words, Peterson's differentiating
> Red from Green from Blue does not argue that all of these are not a part
> of a continual rainbow/spectrum.
>
> Unless Twemlow is using some odd definitions, her writing of biology as
> discrete from typology is absolute nonsense. The Oxford English Dictionary
> defines typology as "The study of classes with common characteristics;
> classification, esp. of human products, behaviour, characteristics, etc.,
> according to type; the comparative analysis of structural or other
> characteristics; a classification or analysis of this kind." This, more or
> less, would be taxonomy, a field within biology.
>
> Taxonomy does not deny a continuum of species. Its motto could well be the
> reverse of the United States': Ex unum, pluribus. (The grammar is probably
> wrong, I have never studied Latin). For an extensive, semi-technical
> treatment of this issue, I'd highly recommend `The Biogeography and
> Speciation of Birds' by Ian Newton and `Untangling Ecological Complexity'
> by Brian Maurer, who uses avian examples extensively.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Eran Tomer
> Atlanta, Georgia
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 10:29am
I think Ted makes some provocative points here, but
I also thinks he is trying to force a dichotomy/crisis where
there is none.
>Our basic goal is to put a name on something, to come up with an answer,
>to be definitive.
Obviously when one tries to summarize something as diverse as birding
you are going to make some blatantly false statements. I do not know what
the goal of many birders is, and my goals as a birder will vary. Yes we
name things but I am more likely to call a Yellow-rump a butter-butt as
coronata or audubonii. The name I use will reflect my relation to the
thing I am naming as much as any thing else.
>From Day One "trinomialism" has been problematic, to say the least
>(for a good introduction to the problem, check out Mark Barrow's A
>Passion for Birds: American Ornithology After Audubon). Even the
>A.O.U. hasn't touched the problem for 48 years.
One of the things about sub-species that gets left behind in the 'to
name-or-not-to-name' argument is the truly incredible amount of work
and devotion (and knowledge) the namers gave to their subjects.
These weird mole like people, who spent much of their lives in dank
cold museums breathing arsenic and mercury and being very very odd
in general; gave us as birders the framework to have a discussion of what
is a species or sub-species. Could you imagine trying to talk about Fox
Sparrows without the names like stephensi or fuliginosa? They looked harder
at fewer birds than most of us and learned more than many of us, and
created a workable order to an entire continent's avifauna. That they got
it "right" even half the time was remarkable considering it could take years
to go to some of the places their specimens came from and even today we
are hard pressed to find museum series that capture the whole range of
variation within a taxon. I hardly think that the AOU has not tackled
sub-species simply because it is problematic. Again a broad over-simplification.
The
amount of resources spent on systematics and taxonomy in comparison
to the amount of life that remains simply unknown and in relation to how much
diversity is being lost every day is truly pathetic. I really think this has
more to do with the supposed sub-species mess than any crisis in Biology.
>And it is essential that we acknowledge that we are Peterson's
>legatees, not Darwin's.
A connection between Darwin and RTP is tenuous at best and forcing
a dichotomy between being the legatees of one or the other is really
rather strained. Why aren't my activities with my binoculars as tied to
John James himself as to any other historic figure. In calling for a more
acute awareness of the continuum of diversity it seems we are chopping
up the continuum of history.
One thing that I keep in mind as I pour through my copy of Pyle or look
at a Song Sparrow on a nice October flight day is as the curator of
Ornithology here at the Academy said to me once. "A name is a hypothesis".
It was such a simple statement but captures much of my fascination with
diversity and variation.
Matt Sharp
Matt Sharp
Collection Manager
VIREO/ANS
1900 Benjamin Franklin Pkwy.
Philadelphia PA 19103
www.acnatsci.org/vireo
(tel.) 215-299-1069
(fax) 215-299-1182
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 10:49am
I know I just sent something but since Alvaro specifically
addressed larid fanatics I feel the need to make two points.
I look at gulls because I am fascinated by variation and as he said
the harder one looks the more one sees. If I had not started looking
at gulls I would likely be less acutely aware of the difficulties both
theoretical and practical involved in recognizing and naming
subspecies. The names are invaluable guideposts to help organize
and perhaps more importantly communicate observations. In
short I find the study of gulls to be the opposite of typological
thinking because anyone who is familiar with the history and
practice of Ornithology who looks at gulls closely will quickly realize
that there big problems with the piles, ie that the typological
world view quickly breaks down.
Splitting birders into a typological pile and biological pile is terribly
typological.
Matt Sharp
(again)
P.S.
>Most good subspecies tend to be those which are separate
>and non-overlapping populations (allopatric) rather than those that are cut
>out of a larger continuous distribution. Many, and some would say most,
>subspecies are just points on clines of continuous change. In effect what
>many ornithologists were doing was defining boundaries where no boundaries
>existed. Subspecies should not be part of any continuum, they should be
>discrete entities.
Then what distinguishes a species from a sub-species? Isn't this an argument
to do away with sub-species altogether and elevate those that are allopatric
to species rank?
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: rsheil <rsheil(AT)JUNO.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 11:19am
This discussion is primarily an epistemological one.
Eran Tomer has provided an excellent response to the anti-conceptual,
anti-knowledge post by Ted Floyd!
If the universe is "messy, complex, imprecise, unquantifiable, unknowable"
as Mr. Floyd appears to believe, how, may I ask, does he expect to acheive a
"better understanding of what I'm observing--and understanding--in Nature'?"
Ted Floyd presents the classic example of the 'Fallacy of the Stolen
Concept' in which his argument is immediately defeated because he must
accept and use axiomatic concepts like identity, quantifiability, and
knowability in any and all attempts to deny them.
In discussing the anti-conceptual mentality, philosopher Ayn Rand states:
"A concept [like species] is a mental integration of two or more units
possessing the same distinguishing characteristic(s), with their particular
measurements omitted ... Concepts represent condensations of knowledge,
which makes further study and the division of cognitive labor possible."
and further:
"The purpose of a definition is to distinguish the things subsumed under a
single concept from all other things in existence; and therefore, their
defining characteristics must always be those essential characteristics
which distinguish them from everything else. So long as men have language,
that is the way they will use it. There is no other way to communicate."
The fact that there is variation within a species (or any thing) does not
diminish the species concept, or the cognitive necessity of identifying
those defining and essential characteristics which distinguishes one species
from another ... and of naming it.
I would suggest however that one of Eran Tomer's statements, "Demarcating
and naming bird species is no different from demarcating a certain length
as, say, `a centimeter' " is not really valid because a human constructed
unit of measure such as a centimeter is an arbitrary assignment while the
'species' concept designation, based on observable, inherent and existing
shared attributes, that seperate and distinguish one species from another,
regardless of variation within species, is not arbitrary.
Richard Heil
S. Peabody, MA
rsheil(AT)juno.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eran Tomer" <etomer(AT)EMORY.EDU>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 6:12 AM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Bird identification insight from a bizarre source
> Hello all,
>
> Defining boundaries within and distinguishing among continuous entities
> are neither biblical nor scientific, they are the core of animal behavior.
> Birds and other animals distinguish and communicate food from non-food,
> mate from non-mate, predator from non-predator etc. Even microbes
> distinguish between light and dark, and medium (e.g. water) from
> non-medium. For their part, humans have been naming and defining all they
> know ever since they became capable of doing so. Knowledge, understanding,
> learning, language and culture are impossible without naming and
> definition. Science approaches the first three, or the lack thereof, in a
> formal, systematic, standardized, organized manner so that they may be
> easier to study, comprehend and communicate. The taxonomic debate concerns
> where to draw the lines, not whether one should draw lines in the first
> place.
>
> All organisms form an irregular continuum of variation that science
> attempts to divide into species and subspecies. This is not to deny or
> ignore the continuum but, again, to make it easier to study and
> understand. Some ornithologists do study the continuum itself as a whole.
> Demarcating and naming bird species is no different from demarcating a
> certain length as, say, `a centimeter'. Length, like birdlife, is a
> continuum that science divides for various reasons. This does not
> undermine the fact that each of these has sub-units and forms a part of a
> larger unit. The discipline of science itself is a hierarchical continuum
> divided into fields, e.g. bird physiology vs. bird behavior.
>
> Taxonomy, the basis for bird identification, is entirely biological and
> scientific; it is neither `name slapping' nor meaningless. The goal of
> taxonomy is to elucidate patterns, not processes (that is the goal of
> evolutionary biology). It puts names on birds in order to standardize
> communication about them and better understand the relationships among
> them, not as an end in and of itself. "Coronata" and "audoboni" are
> meaningful terms coined for a reason, and their use is not an error if one
> understands the purpose and process of avian nomenclature. This latter is
> not pre-anything, it emerged along with human language. Darwin considered
> how species arise; Peterson's visual classification does not argue that
> they do not form a continuum. In other words, Peterson's differentiating
> Red from Green from Blue does not argue that all of these are not a part
> of a continual rainbow/spectrum.
>
> Unless Twemlow is using some odd definitions, her writing of biology as
> discrete from typology is absolute nonsense. The Oxford English Dictionary
> defines typology as "The study of classes with common characteristics;
> classification, esp. of human products, behaviour, characteristics, etc.,
> according to type; the comparative analysis of structural or other
> characteristics; a classification or analysis of this kind." This, more or
> less, would be taxonomy, a field within biology.
>
> Taxonomy does not deny a continuum of species. Its motto could well be the
> reverse of the United States': Ex unum, pluribus. (The grammar is probably
> wrong, I have never studied Latin). For an extensive, semi-technical
> treatment of this issue, I'd highly recommend `The Biogeography and
> Speciation of Birds' by Ian Newton and `Untangling Ecological Complexity'
> by Brian Maurer, who uses avian examples extensively.
>
> Best regards,
>
> - Eran Tomer
> Atlanta, Georgia
>
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Phillip Pickering <philliplc(AT)HARBORSIDE.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 11:23am
> But gull
> watchers, being a subset of the general birding community, are comfortable
> with the typological way of thinking. In effect, birding has taught them
to
> be typological, and they have a much easier time believing the piles
exist.
this may be true of gull "listers", but i don't think it is true at all
of serious gull watchers that are paying attention to the overall
picture.
i think by convention subspecies names are frequently used, including
in this forum, to describe probable ends of clines as well as allopatric
populations, but that doesn't mean the person using the name is
necessarily unaware of the dangers of typological pigeonholing. in
other words, at least among serious gull watchers, i think the problem
is more terminological than conceptual.
cheers,
phil
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 11:31am
Matt wrote:
> Splitting birders into a typological pile and biological pile is terribly
> typological.
>
Damn that RT Peterson...see what he has done to me!
> Then what distinguishes a species from a sub-species? Isn't this an
> argument
> to do away with sub-species altogether and elevate those that are
> allopatric
> to species rank?
Many that are happy with the Phylogenetic Species Concept would say, YES
emphatically. I think that you need to look at the biology of the taxa, ask
if there is gene flow, do they react to each other's song, are there large
or small genetic distances between the populations, are they sisters
(closest relatives), etc. Differences alone don't make a species in my mind,
you have to get into the biology.
Back to the work I am desperately trying to avoid doing.
Al
Alvaro Jaramillo
chucao(AT)coastside.net
Half Moon Bay, CA
Field Guides - Birding Tours Worldwide
http://www.fieldguides.com/home.htm
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Steve Hampton <shampton(AT)OSPR.DFG.CA.GOV>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 1:04pm
All,
On a practical side, defining species and subspecies plays a valuable
role in our litigious world, for conservation purposes. At the PSG
(Pacific Seabird Group) annual meeting last week, plenary speaker Susan
Haig of the USFWS issued a plea for the AOU and others to define
subspecies, as this would help in conservation efforts of at-risk
populations.
The Marbled Murrelet provides a case in point. Despite the fact that
the central Calif population (of the Santa Cruz Mtns) is geographically
distinct and recently shown to be genetically distinct, the Bush regime
has ruled it is no different from the Alaskan birds, thus paving the way
for it to be removed from the Endangered Species List. The USFWS also
projects that this population, currently numbering around 500 birds, has
a 100% chance of being extinct within 40 years. Such actions by the
Bush regime would be more difficult in cases where subspecies were
defined.
Steve Hampton
________________
Resource Economist
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
California Dept of Fish and Game
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
-----------------------------------
(916) 323-4724 phone
(916) 324-8829 fax
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 1:09pm
Steve:
If the population has a 100% chance of becoming extinct, I would agree
that we shouldn't try to save it! You might want to elaborate on what
this really means.
Nick Lethaby
DSP/BIOS Product Manager
Software Development Systems
Texas Instruments
805 562 5106
nlethaby(AT)ti.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Hampton
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:04 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
All,
On a practical side, defining species and subspecies plays a valuable
role in our litigious world, for conservation purposes. At the PSG
(Pacific Seabird Group) annual meeting last week, plenary speaker Susan
Haig of the USFWS issued a plea for the AOU and others to define
subspecies, as this would help in conservation efforts of at-risk
populations.
The Marbled Murrelet provides a case in point. Despite the fact that
the central Calif population (of the Santa Cruz Mtns) is geographically
distinct and recently shown to be genetically distinct, the Bush regime
has ruled it is no different from the Alaskan birds, thus paving the way
for it to be removed from the Endangered Species List. The USFWS also
projects that this population, currently numbering around 500 birds, has
a 100% chance of being extinct within 40 years. Such actions by the
Bush regime would be more difficult in cases where subspecies were
defined.
Steve Hampton
________________
Resource Economist
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
California Dept of Fish and Game
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
-----------------------------------
(916) 323-4724 phone
(916) 324-8829 fax
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Steve Hampton <shampton(AT)OSPR.DFG.CA.GOV>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 1:22pm
That is a 100% chance "given current trends", which include near-zero
productivity, probably due to corvid predation. We are trying to change
that. We are currently spending $750,000 of oil spill damages on a
corvid management project at campgrounds in the Santa Cruz Mtns. The
campgrounds are located in the prime remaining old-growth habitat. You
can find a description of the project at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/Command_Final_RP.pdf
See pages 22-38.
Redwood NP in northern Calif is doing a similar project.
The Bush decision was not based on feasibility concerns, but rather on
a determination that this sub-population did not qualify as distinct
under the guidelines of the Endangered Species Act.
Steve Hampton
________________
Resource Economist
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
California Dept of Fish and Game
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
-----------------------------------
(916) 323-4724 phone
(916) 324-8829 fax
>>> "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)ti.com> 1/25/2005 12:09:44 PM >>>
Steve:
If the population has a 100% chance of becoming extinct, I would agree
that we shouldn't try to save it! You might want to elaborate on what
this really means.
Nick Lethaby
DSP/BIOS Product Manager
Software Development Systems
Texas Instruments
805 562 5106
nlethaby(AT)ti.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Steve Hampton
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:04 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
All,
On a practical side, defining species and subspecies plays a valuable
role in our litigious world, for conservation purposes. At the PSG
(Pacific Seabird Group) annual meeting last week, plenary speaker
Susan
Haig of the USFWS issued a plea for the AOU and others to define
subspecies, as this would help in conservation efforts of at-risk
populations.
The Marbled Murrelet provides a case in point. Despite the fact that
the central Calif population (of the Santa Cruz Mtns) is
geographically
distinct and recently shown to be genetically distinct, the Bush
regime
has ruled it is no different from the Alaskan birds, thus paving the
way
for it to be removed from the Endangered Species List. The USFWS also
projects that this population, currently numbering around 500 birds,
has
a 100% chance of being extinct within 40 years. Such actions by the
Bush regime would be more difficult in cases where subspecies were
defined.
Steve Hampton
________________
Resource Economist
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
California Dept of Fish and Game
PO Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
-----------------------------------
(916) 323-4724 phone
(916) 324-8829 fax
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Mike Patterson <celata(AT)pacifier.com>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 1:47pm
I think we may want to find a different definition....
On a geological scale and based on the Earth's history so
far ALL species are 100% likely to go extinct.
What we're really working on are extinction rates, not extinctions
per se.
"Lethaby, Nick" wrote:
>
> If the population has a 100% chance of becoming extinct, I would agree
> that we shouldn't try to save it! You might want to elaborate on what
> this really means.
>
--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
celata(AT)pacifier.com
If you want to end war and stuff, you've got to sing loud
- Arlo Guthrie
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Jeff Davis <jndavis(AT)NETPTC.NET>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 2:10pm
This is straying from bird ID, but what the heck...
I think Steve's estimate applies only to a closed population, which the one
in the Santa Cruz Mountains--based on at-sea surveys anyway--apparently is
not. Zack Peery presented a paper at the PSG meeting about this. I wasn't
there, but in his abstract he said: "Thus, our results suggest Marbled
Murrelets in central California may represent a sink population that is
stable but would decline by 9.2% per year in the absence of immigration from
larger populations to the north."
What I don't understand, though, is that if birds from the north are mixing
regularly with the "500" or so from central California, how genetically
distinct can this population really be?
Jeff Davis
Prather, CA
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Hampton" <shampton(AT)OSPR.DFG.CA.GOV>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2005 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Bird identification insight from a bizarre source
> All,
>
> On a practical side, defining species and subspecies plays a valuable
> role in our litigious world, for conservation purposes. At the PSG
> (Pacific Seabird Group) annual meeting last week, plenary speaker Susan
> Haig of the USFWS issued a plea for the AOU and others to define
> subspecies, as this would help in conservation efforts of at-risk
> populations.
>
> The Marbled Murrelet provides a case in point. Despite the fact that
> the central Calif population (of the Santa Cruz Mtns) is geographically
> distinct and recently shown to be genetically distinct, the Bush regime
> has ruled it is no different from the Alaskan birds, thus paving the way
> for it to be removed from the Endangered Species List. The USFWS also
> projects that this population, currently numbering around 500 birds, has
> a 100% chance of being extinct within 40 years. Such actions by the
> Bush regime would be more difficult in cases where subspecies were
> defined.
>
>
>
> Steve Hampton
> ________________
> Resource Economist
> Office of Spill Prevention and Response
> California Dept of Fish and Game
> PO Box 944209
> Sacramento, CA 94244-2090
> -----------------------------------
> (916) 323-4724 phone
> (916) 324-8829 fax
>
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Bird identification insight from a bizarre
source
From: Shaibal Mitra <mitra(AT)mail.csi.cuny.edu>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 6:55pm
Hi everyone,
These discussions have touched on many fascinating topics, both general and
particular, including several that are close to my heart: epistemology,
population thinking vs. typology, species concepts, geographic variation, and
the validity of subspecies. Without attempting here to tackle all of these at
once, I will offer a few points that might facilitate the on-going discussions.
1. There seem to be some ambiguities or errors in a number of statements on
ID-Frontiers regarding geographical variation, levels of differentiation among
populations, and subspecies. Those evolutionary biologists and taxonomists who
stress the utility of geographical subspecies do not require of them that they
be completely (or almost completely) distinct from one another—that kind of very
abrupt discontinuity between taxa is more characteristic of (but not the
definition of!) biological species. Rather, the level of differentiation
between subspecies should fall somewhere between spatially continuous variation
(as in a true cline) and complete discontinuity. Readers of this forum might be
interested to know that a formal rationale for determining in practice whether
populations ought to be recognized as subspecies was recently published by two
of our well-known birding peers, Michael Patten and Philip Unitt (Auk 119:
26-35). Subspecies can be useful as a means of characterizing and describing
major patterns of geographical variation, such as when differentiation between
two populations is considerable (sufficient, for example, to distinguish at
least 75% of individuals in each) but NOT categorical (e.g., not such that ca.
99% of individuals could be diagnosed). It is very important to note that being
able to assign 75% of individuals to population implies that fully a quarter of
individuals in each CANNOT be distinguished from the other; but note also that
this degree of differentiation is much greater than that associated with a true
cline (in which only those individuals from the very ends of the cline,
generally a small proportion of the total number of individuals, are
distinguishable).
2. I think Ted Floyd pointed out in an earlier thread that seemingly ambiguous
examples of differentiation (e.g., does the pattern in a particular case
represent a cline vs. a set of valid subspecies?; in another, does it represent
a set of subspecies vs. a set of valid species?)—can appear ambiguous for very
different reasons: lack of rigorous quantitative data, actual evolutionary
intermediacy, or a genuine failure of the concept (e.g., in the cases of
asexually reproducing organisms). In the first category, we are all familiar
with examples in which differentiation that seemed quite discrete at first
glance was revealed to be clinal upon collection of more data—and likewise,
cases of superficially very similar populations that were shown to be entirely
distinct when appropriate data were collected. These sorts of examples should
not be construed as failures of the subspecies concept, and certainly they
should not be advanced as reasons why birders should desist from evaluating
geographically variable characters on the birds they see.
3. Alvaro mentions several kinds of population-biological data that he would
like to see in tricky cases, and I couldn’t agree more. The fact is that the
various patterns of phenotypic differentiation observable among populations
reflect a variety of evolutionary processes, and we still know very little about
the generality with which particular patterns can be linked with particular
processes. For example, quasi-clinal variation in a character could reflect
spatially congruent variation in natural selection pressures (the optimal
character state might vary from place to place in exactly the same manner as the
character itself)—or it could reflect discretely different selection pressures
at the two ends (e.g., big to the north, small to the south) with gene flow
obscuring the divergent optima (e.g., resulting in medium-sized individuals in
the middle). For a mind-bending exercise in these sorts of speculation, just
look at range maps of Downy and Hairy Woodpeckers (which basically never
hybridize with each other), super-impose morphometric and plumage data—then
imagine what you would think if only a few widely scattered, allopatric
populations of each survived.
4. Not only is there a long and rich tradition of scientific discourse on all
of these topics, it will surely interest readers of this forum to consider that
the most powerful synthesis, in which the central debates surrounding these
topics were framed in their scientifically modern form, was produced by a bird
watcher, field ornithologist, taxonomist, evolutionary biologist, and
intellectual giant of the 20th Century—Ernst Mayr. His 1963 tour de force
“Animal Species and Evolution” provides a fascinating, accessible introduction
to the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis (which remains conceptually central to this day,
despite the mind-boggling technical advances in the collection and
interpretation of genetic data) that can be read for pleasure and profit by
anyone interested in the biology of natural populations. Its chapter titles
include:
Species Concepts and Their Application
Morphological Species Concepts and Sibling Species
Biological Properties of Species
Isolating Mechanisms
The Breakdown of Isolating Mechanisms (Hybridization)
The Population, Its Variation and Genetics
Geographic Variation
The Polytypic Species of the Taxonomist
The Genetics of Speciation
The Ecology of Speciation
plus ten others—and even a detailed analysis of that perennial favorite among
ID-Frontiers readers—historical origins and species limits among Larus
glaucoides/kumlieni/thayeri/argentatus/vegae/fuscus/cachinnans! The latter,
although probably erroneous in many details, is nevertheless a sobering reminder
of the innumerable re-inventions of the wheel to which we have set our
shoulders over the years, perhaps while neglecting our own discursive history.
5. Finally, I don’t agree with some of the views expressed in this forum
regarding the sorts of positions that should be described as ‘typological.’ For
instance, the mindset amenable to recognizing geographical subspecies does NOT
equate to what evolutionary biologists regard as typological. Mayr, for better
or worse, has been perhaps the most zealous proponent of the polytypic
Biological Species (and the phrase ‘population thinking’) AND also the most
influential critic of topological thinking in population biology. For the
philosophically inclined, Mayr (while neglecting Ayn Rand) didn’t shrink from a
critique of Plato’s eidos nor the (mis-) application of epistemological Idealism
to population biology: “the typological philosophies of Plato and Aristotle
are incompatible with evolutionary thinking...The replacement of typological
thinking by population thinking is perhaps the greatest conceptual revolution
that has taken place in biology.” (Although Aristotle wasn’t strictly an
Idealist, evidently Mayr detected the offensive odor of typology in his natural
history writings!)
Best regards,
Shai
________________________________________________________________
Sent via the WebMail system at mail.csi.cuny.edu
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
From: David Vander Pluym <SCRE(AT)AOL.COM>
Date: 25 Jan 2005 11:22pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
This is something I have been thinking about for the past couple days, but
didn't post as I wanted to try and get a larger sample size, but that doesn't
look like its going to happen anytime soon. Have people noticed that the way
Horned Grebes and Eared Grebes dive are distinct? I recently watched a couple
Horned Grebes dive and they seemed to dive much more horizontally than Eared.
Is this known and I just missed it? I have only watched a couple Horned do
this so the sample size is small and I also haven't checked out Eared Grebes to
see if they might do something similar. Also is it useful on birds at a
distance?
David Vander Pluym
Santa Cruz, Ca
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
From: GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 26 Jan 2005 7:04pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hi all:
At the risk of being wrong, again, but living in an area with reasonable
numbers of both Eared and Horned grebes, I thought that I'd reply to David's
query. In my opinion, Eared Grebe dives usually (and I really stress that
qualifier) start with a fairly high vertical leap such that much of the bird's
body
leaves the surface of the water; Horneds tend (again with the qualification) to
thrust forward much more parallel to the surface and then go under. In fact,
this behavior was one of the features that helped clinch the ID of Whitefish
Point's (in Michigan) first record of Eared that involved a leucistic bird with
a nearly all-white head, which threw us for a loop.
Sincerely,
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Possible adult Vega Gull in Texas
From: Martin Reid <upupa(AT)AIRMAIL.NET>
Date: 27 Jan 2005 9:18am
Dear all,
The Elliot Landfill in Corpus Christi, Texas continues to produce unusual
gulls. Here is an adult that shows almost all the typical characters of
Vega Gull:
http://www.martinreid.com/gullsp73.html
There are a couple of minor non-classic features, but a browse through the
various Korean and Japanese gull sites indicate that such things are with
the normal variation for Vega. Of course, we must consider whether
smithsonianus (or any other possibility) can exhibit such a suite of
characters. With two SBGUs in California, there ought to be a few Vegas
kicking around North America, considering that in Alaska you'll see 50+
adult Vegas for every SBGU...
Compare the underside pattern to these Vegas from Japan:
http://www23.tok2.com/home/jgull/040326/vegae_ad2.html
Compare a couple of the lighter-headed Vegas in these pics of a presumed
smithsonianus from Dec 26th - four weeks before the date of the Texas bird:
http://www23.tok2.com/home/jgull/031226/smith.htm
Compare the head pattern of the Vega next to the 2nd Thayer's Gull here
(2nd-from-last pic), on Dec 16th:
http://www23.tok2.com/home/jgull/041216/thayers.htm
As always, I'd appreciate feedback on the ID of this bird - thanks
Martin
Martin Reid
San Antonio, Texas
mailto:upupa(AT)airmail.net
http://www.martinreid.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
From: David Sibley <david_sibley(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 28 Jan 2005 1:48pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I've studied diving behavior in loons and cormorants, not grebes, but I
think the results would be the same. Basically the type of dive - how high
the bird leaps and how steeply it then enters the water - is variable and
I've always guessed that it depends mainly on how deep the bird intends to
go and/or what type of prey it is chasing. I thought I remembered reading
somewhere that either Western or Clark's Grebe was more likely to use the
"springing-dive" but I checked the BNA account for those species (Storer and
Nuechterlein 1992) and they mention no difference between them. They do say
that Lawrence (1950) identified four types of dives, including what I will
call the "sliding dive", basically just sliding forward and down, and the
"springing dive" which involves a forward and upward leap curving down into
the water. Lawrence says the sliding dive is used in smooth water and the
springing dive mainly in rough water. (The other two types are alarm and
escape dives.) Later in the same paragraph Storer and Nuechterlein cite
another paper finding that "springing dives" were more common when birds
were feeding in deeper water.
I think all of these species are capable of both the smooth, apparently
effortless "sliding dive" as well as the "springing dive" when conditions
warrant, springing when in deep or rough water and maybe other conditions.
There may be differences in the frequency with which each dive is used
(especially if one is comparing birds at a single location), but that will
presumably vary with the location.
David Sibley
_____
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:04 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
Hi all:
At the risk of being wrong, again, but living in an area with reasonable
numbers of both Eared and Horned grebes, I thought that I'd reply to David's
query. In my opinion, Eared Grebe dives usually (and I really stress that
qualifier) start with a fairly high vertical leap such that much of the
bird's body leaves the surface of the water; Horneds tend (again with the
qualification) to thrust forward much more parallel to the surface and then
go under. In fact, this behavior was one of the features that helped clinch
the ID of Whitefish Point's (in Michigan) first record of Eared that
involved a leucistic bird with a nearly all-white head, which threw us for a
loop.
Sincerely,
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
From: Jeff Davis <jndavis(AT)NETPTC.NET>
Date: 28 Jan 2005 2:31pm
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Clark's Grebes, in my experience, use more springing dives, probably =
because they typically forage in deeper water than Westerns.
This was my reply to David Vander Pluym's post on 1/25:
Eared Grebes tend to dive more steeply and use more springing dives =
(hopping up before they descend) than Horned, but the dive styles of =
both species vary with water depth, wave action, and perhaps other =
factors such as water clarity and prey type. So, although the =
differences are true in general, there is so much overlap--even when =
both species are at the same site--that these general differences aren't =
especially useful for ID.=20
Jeff Davis
Prather, CA
----- Original Message -----=20
From: David Sibley=20
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU=20
Sent: Friday, January 28, 2005 12:48 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
I've studied diving behavior in loons and cormorants, not grebes, but =
I think the results would be the same. Basically the type of dive - how =
high the bird leaps and how steeply it then enters the water - is =
variable and I've always guessed that it depends mainly on how deep the =
bird intends to go and/or what type of prey it is chasing. I thought I =
remembered reading somewhere that either Western or Clark's Grebe was =
more likely to use the "springing-dive" but I checked the BNA account =
for those species (Storer and Nuechterlein 1992) and they mention no =
difference between them. They do say that Lawrence (1950) identified =
four types of dives, including what I will call the "sliding dive", =
basically just sliding forward and down, and the "springing dive" which =
involves a forward and upward leap curving down into the water. Lawrence =
says the sliding dive is used in smooth water and the springing dive =
mainly in rough water. (The other two types are alarm and escape dives.) =
Later in the same paragraph Storer and Nuechterlein cite another paper =
finding that "springing dives" were more common when birds were feeding =
in deeper water.=20
I think all of these species are capable of both the smooth, =
apparently effortless "sliding dive" as well as the "springing dive" =
when conditions warrant, springing when in deep or rough water and maybe =
other conditions. There may be differences in the frequency with which =
each dive is used (especially if one is comparing birds at a single =
location), but that will presumably vary with the location.=20
David Sibley
-------------------------------------------------------------------------=
-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification =
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of GreatGrayOwl(AT)AOL.COM
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 9:04 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
Hi all:
At the risk of being wrong, again, but living in an area with =
reasonable numbers of both Eared and Horned grebes, I thought that I'd =
reply to David's query. In my opinion, Eared Grebe dives usually (and I =
really stress that qualifier) start with a fairly high vertical leap =
such that much of the bird's body leaves the surface of the water; =
Horneds tend (again with the qualification) to thrust forward much more =
parallel to the surface and then go under. In fact, this behavior was =
one of the features that helped clinch the ID of Whitefish Point's (in =
Michigan) first record of Eared that involved a leucistic bird with a =
nearly all-white head, which threw us for a loop.
Sincerely,
Tony Leukering
Brighton, CO
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Eared vs Horned Grebe dive patterns
From: mgd(AT)U.WASHINGTON.EDU
Date: 28 Jan 2005 2:42pm
Maybe since eared grebes favor hypersaline lakes, the more springy dive is to
help with their added buoyancy in these waters?
Mike Donahue
Seattle
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: argentatus, vegae, or smithsonianus?
From: "Michael L. P. Retter" <mlretter(AT)YAHOO.COM>
Date: 29 Jan 2005 7:13pm
Today in LaSalle Co, Ilinois I had good, prolonged
looks in flight at a bird that showed many of the
characteristics of an adult Vega Gull. I scanned a
sketch I did of the bird's upper- and underwing
patterns.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mlretter/detail?.dir=ec68&.dnm=3cea.jpg&.src=ph
I also uploaded a poor photo of the bird perched.
Unfortnately, it was fairly distant.
http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/mlretter/detail?.dir=/8029&.dnm=a60f.jpg&.src=ph
Admittedly, the photo is terrible, but you can see
that the mantle *appeared* darker than the adjacent
Herring Gulls. This however, was hardly
a certainty. What you can see in the photo though, is
the pattern on the tip of P-10. It's completely
white, without a subterminal dark band.
In flight the bird displayed a series of white
tongue-tips proximal to the dark subterminal bars on
the 8th through at least the 5th primaries.
I know that Herring Gulls are much more variable on
the Atlantic coast of North America with regard to the
extent of white in the primaries, and I think some
even rarely show patterning like the bird we saw. If
it was indeed darker-mantled though,
one would tend to think it wasn't a smithsonianus. I
believe argentatus is said to be darker-mantled that
argenteus (but what this means for smithsonianus I
don't know), and I've looked at a couple photos of
argentatus tonight that show birds with *fairly*
similar wing patterns above, but so much below. Was
this bird vegae, argentatus, or just smithsonianus? I
have no clue, but I thought I'd throw it out there for
you lariphiles to tear apart.
=====
========================
Michael L. P. Retter
Bloomington-Normal
McLean Co, Illinois
mlretter AT yahoo.com
309.824.7317
========================
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Fw: Tundra Swan
From: John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
Date: 29 Jan 2005 8:02pm
Please answer to Norman or the group. Links to the digitals are below.
John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
To: "John Idzikowski" <idzikoj(AT)uwm.edu>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:28 PM
Subject: Tundra Swan
> Dear John,
> We found a Tundra Swan today in a group of Whoopers near my home here in
The
> Netherlands. It looks like an American columbianus to us. However there
> seems to be an overlap with Eurasian bewickii as far as the amount of
yellow
> is concerned. As this bird has quite a bit of yellow I wonder what you
> think. Perhaps you would be so kind as to put the pictures on display. I
> noticed that a plate showing the variation in yellow has been published in
> The Auk some time ago. I don't have it alas.
> Many thanks on beforehand.
> All the best, Norman
>
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan2.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan3.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan4.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan5.jpg
http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan6.jpg
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Fw: Tundra Swan
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 29 Jan 2005 9:12pm
It looks like a "darky" Bewick's to me.
The "Auk" paper is in Vol 97 #4:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE BILL MARKINGS
OF WHISTLING AND BEWlCK'S SWANS AND
OUT-OF-RANGE OCCURRENCES OF THE TWO TAXA
MARY E. EVANS AND WILLIAM J. L. SLADEN
You can download it at:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v097n04/p0697-p0703.pdf
I hope this helps.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:56:18 -0600, John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
wrote:
>Please answer to Norman or the group. Links to the digitals are below.
>
>John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
>To: "John Idzikowski" <idzikoj(AT)uwm.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:28 PM
>Subject: Tundra Swan
>
>
>> Dear John,
>> We found a Tundra Swan today in a group of Whoopers near my home here in
>The
>> Netherlands. It looks like an American columbianus to us. However there
>> seems to be an overlap with Eurasian bewickii as far as the amount of
>yellow
>> is concerned. As this bird has quite a bit of yellow I wonder what you
>> think. Perhaps you would be so kind as to put the pictures on display. I
>> noticed that a plate showing the variation in yellow has been published in
>> The Auk some time ago. I don't have it alas.
>> Many thanks on beforehand.
>> All the best, Norman
>>
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan2.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan3.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan4.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan5.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan6.jpg
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
Birding Classes in SF start Feb.8 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Fw: Tundra Swan
From: "Lethaby, Nick" <nlethaby(AT)TI.COM>
Date: 30 Jan 2005 4:01pm
I would concur with Joe. I have only once had a bird in N.America that
anywhere approached this and I used to see hundreds of swans up in
Oregon.
Nick Lethaby
DSP/BIOS Product Manager
Software Development Systems
Texas Instruments
805 562 5106
nlethaby(AT)ti.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joseph Morlan
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:13 PM
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Fw: Tundra Swan
It looks like a "darky" Bewick's to me.
The "Auk" paper is in Vol 97 #4:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE BILL MARKINGS
OF WHISTLING AND BEWlCK'S SWANS AND
OUT-OF-RANGE OCCURRENCES OF THE TWO TAXA
MARY E. EVANS AND WILLIAM J. L. SLADEN
You can download it at:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v097n04/p0697-p0703.pdf
I hope this helps.
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:56:18 -0600, John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
wrote:
>Please answer to Norman or the group. Links to the digitals are below.
>
>John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
>To: "John Idzikowski" <idzikoj(AT)uwm.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:28 PM
>Subject: Tundra Swan
>
>
>> Dear John,
>> We found a Tundra Swan today in a group of Whoopers near my home here
in
>The
>> Netherlands. It looks like an American columbianus to us. However
there
>> seems to be an overlap with Eurasian bewickii as far as the amount of
>yellow
>> is concerned. As this bird has quite a bit of yellow I wonder what
you
>> think. Perhaps you would be so kind as to put the pictures on
display. I
>> noticed that a plate showing the variation in yellow has been
published in
>> The Auk some time ago. I don't have it alas.
>> Many thanks on beforehand.
>> All the best, Norman
>>
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan2.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan3.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan4.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan5.jpg
>http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan6.jpg
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
Birding Classes in SF start Feb.8 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Fw: Tundra Swan
From: "Kevin J. McGowan" <kjm2(AT)CORNELL.EDU>
Date: 30 Jan 2005 5:04pm
I agree. You would have to go through, perhaps, millions of swan here to
find one with this much yellow. I've never seen one in 34 years of birding.
Kevin McGowan
Ithaca, NY
At 05:01 PM 1/30/05 -0600, Lethaby, Nick wrote:
>I would concur with Joe. I have only once had a bird in N.America that
>anywhere approached this and I used to see hundreds of swans up in
>Oregon.
>
>Nick Lethaby
>DSP/BIOS Product Manager
>Software Development Systems
>Texas Instruments
>805 562 5106
>nlethaby(AT)ti.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: NBHC ID-FRONTIERS Frontiers of Field Identification
>[mailto:BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU] On Behalf Of Joseph Morlan
>Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:13 PM
>To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
>Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Fw: Tundra Swan
>
>It looks like a "darky" Bewick's to me.
>
>The "Auk" paper is in Vol 97 #4:
>
>A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE BILL MARKINGS
>OF WHISTLING AND BEWlCK'S SWANS AND
>OUT-OF-RANGE OCCURRENCES OF THE TWO TAXA
>
>MARY E. EVANS AND WILLIAM J. L. SLADEN
>
>You can download it at:
>
>http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v097n04/p0697-p0703.pdf
>
>I hope this helps.
>
>
>On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:56:18 -0600, John Idzikowski <idzikoj(AT)UWM.EDU>
>wrote:
>
> >Please answer to Norman or the group. Links to the digitals are below.
> >
> >John Idzikowski, Milwaukee
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Norman D.van Swelm" <Norman.vanswelm(AT)wxs.nl>
> >To: "John Idzikowski" <idzikoj(AT)uwm.edu>
> >Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 6:28 PM
> >Subject: Tundra Swan
> >
> >
> >> Dear John,
> >> We found a Tundra Swan today in a group of Whoopers near my home here
>in
> >The
> >> Netherlands. It looks like an American columbianus to us. However
>there
> >> seems to be an overlap with Eurasian bewickii as far as the amount of
> >yellow
> >> is concerned. As this bird has quite a bit of yellow I wonder what
>you
> >> think. Perhaps you would be so kind as to put the pictures on
>display. I
> >> noticed that a plate showing the variation in yellow has been
>published in
> >> The Auk some time ago. I don't have it alas.
> >> Many thanks on beforehand.
> >> All the best, Norman
> >>
> >http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan.jpg
> >http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan2.jpg
> >http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan3.jpg
> >http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan4.jpg
> >http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan5.jpg
> >http://my.execpc.com/CE/5F/idzikoj/misc/tswan6.jpg
>
>
>--
>Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
>Birding Classes in SF start Feb.8 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
>California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland