 |
|
|
|
|
ID-FRONTIERS for June 19-25, 2005
[ Prev Week
| Next Week
| Calendar Month
| ID-FRONTIERS Info
]
|
Messages are displayed in the order they were received.
|
| Subject | From | Date | Time |
| More on goose names | Angus Wilson | Sun, 19 Jun 2005 | 4:27pm |
| Re: Antillean Nighthawk - further comments | Matt Sharp | Mon, 20 Jun 2005 | 9:29am |
| Re: More on goose names | Bruce Deuel | Mon, 20 Jun 2005 | 3:43pm |
| Superb photo of Fea's Petrel (Pterodroma feae) | Harry LeGrand | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 5:23am |
| Re: More on goose names | George Sangster | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 7:08am |
| Re: Antillean Nighthawk - further comments | David Sibley | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 7:26am |
| Re: More on goose names | sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 8:06am |
| Re: More on goose names | Joseph Morlan | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 9:12am |
| Re: More on goose names | Keith Arnold | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 9:32am |
| Re: More on goose names | Mike Patterson | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 9:38am |
| More on the nighthawks. | Larry Manfredi | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 10:10am |
| Re: More on goose names | Millington/BIS | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 11:40am |
| Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper (fwd) | Ian Paulsen | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 2:10pm |
| Re: More on goose names | tony gallucci | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 6:07pm |
| Re: Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper (fwd) | Kevin | Tue, 21 Jun 2005 | 6:48pm |
| Re: More on goose names | Clay Taylor | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 | 6:04am |
| Re: Antillean Nighthawk - further comments | Matt Sharp | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 | 9:34am |
| Specimen prep - was nighthawk | Alvaro Jaramillo | Wed, 22 Jun 2005 | 1:21pm |
| TRPA in Ft Collins | SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM | Thu, 23 Jun 2005 | 12:56pm |
| splitting rumors | Ian Paulsen | Fri, 24 Jun 2005 | 9:42am |
|
To use email addresses replace '(AT)' with '@'.
This is done to confuse the spam 'bots.
|
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: More on goose names
From: Angus Wilson <gadflypetrel(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 19 Jun 2005 4:27pm
Hi All,
As Richard Millington and Alvaro Jaramillo were quick to point out to me,
the name 'Lesser Canada Goose' is actually not a good collective name for
the small forms (aka Cackling geese) because it already used for _Branta
canadensis parvipes_, which of course is one of the large forms!! Cap in
hand, I take back what I said about the BOURC's good choice of name........
By the way, Mark Stackhouse provides a nice discussion of the taxonomy
including the idea of splitting through cluster into three rather than two
groups.
http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/NewGoose.htm
(1) Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. canadensis (Atlantic),
B. c. interior (Interior), B. c. maxima (Giant), B. c. moffitti (Moffit's or
Great Basin or Western), B. c. fulva (Vancouver) and B. c. occidentalis
(Dusky).
(2) Lesser Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. parvipes and B.
c. taverneri.
(3) Tundra Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. hutchinsii
(Richarson's), B. c. asiatica (Bering - probably extinct), B. c. leucopareia
(Aleutian), and B. c. minima (Cackling).
This deals with the uncertainties of where parvipes and taverneri fall and
incidentally, helps resolve the naming issues. A counter to Tundra Goose
might be that some B. c. interior and B. c. canadensis nest on tundra. Can
anyone comment further on this?
Cheers, Angus Wilson
New York City
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Antillean Nighthawk - further comments
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 20 Jun 2005 9:29am
Happy Monday!
>Since C.minor chapmani nests as far north as S. Indiana and as far west as
>e. Texas, I wonder if Matt had enough skins to compare northern and western
>birds of this subspecies for size in addition to those from the se. US.
As I said the only locations and date available in the ANSP collection were
summer (June-Aug) birds from FL. I am fairly sure that all of the birds
labeled chapmani here are from Florida. Kevin's comments above actually
re-reinforce my impression that differences between chapmani and nominate
birds is clinal with bigger grayer birds to the north and smaller buffier
birds to the south, though the number of named subspecies in the western US
indicates there is more involved than a simple north-south cline. I appreciate
the comments From Dan Lane and realize that basing size and structural
comparisons on specimens is fraught with inaccuracies. However I think the same
sources of variations in specimen prep allows one to take a large series of
skins
and make an overall, unquantifiable, assessment. Basically if in two large
series
of differently prepared skins one can still see an average difference in size it
is likely
not just the result of prep differences but a real size difference. This is just
an
impression not a rigorously demonstrated difference. (more on that below)
>However, as to his comments about there not being any discernable
>differences attributable to subspecies of Common, I have a few
>reservations about this.
To be clear the point here was that there are too many differences and one
could
potentially split them up in a number of ways, not just as they have already
been
named as subspecies. There are clear average differences but I do not think
they
rise to the level of subspecies designations. I think some Nighthawks subspp.
are probably best considered naturally selected breeds rather than subspecies
though I imagine some may be more isolated than currently thought, esp. in the
tropics where the potential habitat differences increase and migratory patterns
change.
for more fuel on the fire see:
http://www.acnatsci.org/~wechsler/lightbox/ID-Front/Nighthawks.html
I have added a bird photographed in Veracruz MX at the end of Sept. I think it
is an adult male.
Anyone care to put a subspp name on it? (as always corrections comments on the
page are welcome, and no need to be polite)
Here is a thought experiment:
If one were to take a population of C. m. aserriensis from south TX and
transport it to some
where within the range of C. m. m. My guess is that within a short number of
generations
(short in evolutionary time) you would end up with birds that were not
discernable
from local birds, even if one were able to prevent any geneflow. I do not think
this
would amount to (sub?) speciation but rather just be the result of predation on
birds
resulting in selection to look like their surroundings. Maybe that is
sub-speciation?
I think it is interesting that the nighthawk thread followed on the heels of the
subspecies
thread and really one of the points I was trying to make without just saying it
is that naming
nighthawk subspecies in the field is probably very inaccurate given the amount
of variation
let alone the problems with the named subspecies.
After reading Kevin's carefully drawn out conclusions and looking at specimens I
did go
farther than Kevin in terms of comparing subspp. and would say that the only
real problem birds
would be the buffier, smaller birds which seem to be more prevalent in the
south like Florida
(aka chapmani). The "average" long-winged grey Common Nighthawk that I am
familiar with here
in the northeast would make only the most careless lister think Antillean even
if it was seen alone
on the ground and silent in the FL keys. Though as Phil Davis pointed out Common
Nighthawk is not
the only possibility and much as already been said about variability so my
familiar Nighthawk would
not be the only variety. In conclusion I think it may be easier to rule out
Antillean than ID one, and
when it comes to separating Antillean from a small buffy Common voice is
certainly the easiest
way to be certain.
>"Plumage is often useless by itself for ID purposes, which is why one should
study the size,
>shape/structure of all birds, and compare your notes from species to species.
This is the
>main approach of our new book on shorebirds, which stresses impressions based
on size,
>shape/structure and behavior, and the value of comparative viewing with similar
species to
>unlock some of the confusion caused by similarities in plumage."
Attention to shape/structure is surely the best route to increased accuracy in
Field ID.
However "impressions" is usually not one of words included in many taxonomic
papers
published in peer reviewed journals, and certainly was not a character used by
past
ornithologists in naming and cataloging the continents avifauna. It is not
generally
regarded as a very rigorous or inter-subjectively testable character - IE not
scientific.
There seems to be a rift growing between what birders do in the field, and how
they use taxonomy and what bird taxonomists do in the lab and museums and how
they ID
birds. I think part of the rift is the increased accuracy in field ID which is
butting up
against the old inaccuracies in taxonomy. I think birders at (least in N. Am.)
are now ahead
of the taxonomists in terms of detecting differences between birds (in large
part because
of the increased sample sizes available to birders). But birders are also in
part failing to
turn field skills and knowledge into rigorous testable info. I say this without
seeing the
new guide but currently do not know of a method for producing quantifiable
characters
that are statistically testable using photographs.
I am also not even sure how much of a problem this is. If an increased number of
birders
and a big increase I hope for the sake of book sales, learn how to tell a
hendersonii
dowitcher from a griseus without learning that the two are likely ends of a
cline and
come in intermediates flavors does it matter? People will still be paying
closer
attention to what they are seeing which may outweigh any potential inaccuracy
in the names they put down in notes or checklists.
Thank you for bearing with me if you have read this far. I realize that the
above
includes some false dichotomies, and there are many exceptions to any so-called
rift. Also I think Ted Floyd may have touched on some of this already but I
guess
I needed to re-frame things to see the picture clearer.
Also note I do not think Kevin et al are advocating "bad science", I use this as
an
example because it seems to be relevant. Really I think the lack of attention to
subspecies in the AOU checklists is promoting "bad birding".
Cheers
Matt
Matt Sharp
Collection Manager
VIREO/ANS
1900 Benjamin Franklin Pkwy.
Philadelphia PA 19103
http://vireo.acnatsci.org
(tel.) 215-299-1069
(fax) 215-299-1182
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: Bruce Deuel <BDEUEL(AT)DFG.CA.GOV>
Date: 20 Jun 2005 3:43pm
In regard to "(2) Lesser Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B.
c. parvipes and B. c. taverneri."
and Angus's comment "This deals with the uncertainties of where
parvipes and taverneri fall and incidentally, helps resolve the naming
issues."
I respectfully ask how can this deal with the uncertainties when the
genetic data have demonstrated that parvipes and taverneri are different
species?
Cheers,
Bruce Deuel
Redding, California
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Superb photo of Fea's Petrel (Pterodroma feae)
From: Harry LeGrand <harry.legrand(AT)NCMAIL.NET>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 5:23am
In case you folks want to see a beautiful photo of Fea's Petrel, here is
a note that Brian Patteson sent yesterday to carolinabirds listserve:
"I was able to run a pelagic birding trip from Hatteras yesterday, June
19 aboard the Little Clam, and we had a great day despite the somewhat
rough conditions. We saw 10 species of tubenoses, including many
Leach's Storm-Petrels and three different Fea's Petrels, two of which I
photographed extensively. I have posted one of the better images on our
website- http://www.patteson.com/."
----------------------
So, my question: How much longer is the madness about not accepting
Pterodroma feae to the AOU Checklist and ABA Checklist going to continue?
The ABA Checklist at least has gone part-way and accepted Fea's/Zino's
Petrel, which is bad enough. I just examined the AOU Checklist on the
website, and NEITHER P. feae nor F. madeira is in the main list!
As Chair of the NC Bird Records Committee for many years, the NC
Committee long ago has accepted Fea's to the Official List. We must have
over 50 records in NC waters by now. A handful are seen each year,
including 3 on this one trip alone. There is no evidence yet of P.
madeira in US waters.
--
Harry LeGrand
NC Natural Heritage Program
DENR Office of Conservation and Community Affairs
1601 MSC
Raleigh, NC 27699-1601
(919) 715-8697 (work)
FAX: 919-715-3085
e-mail: harry.legrand(AT)ncmail.net
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: George Sangster <g.sangster(AT)PLANET.NL>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 7:08am
Hi Angus,
Please note that each of the three names suggested in your message, i.e.
'Tundra Goose' (for B. hutchinsii), 'Lesser Canda Goose' (for B. c. parvipes
+ B. h. taverneri), and 'Canada Goose' (for B. canadensis but excluding B.
c. parvipes), also have been used by previous authors for one or more
different taxa:
'Tundra Goose' has been used for B. h. leucopareia by Bailey (1948) and
Hellmayr & Conover (1948), and for B. hutchinsii by Sibley (1996)
'Lesser Canda Goose' has been used for B. c. parvipes (Hellmayr & Conover
1948, Delacour 1954, Palmer 1976, Johnsgard 1978), B. h. leucopareia
(Kortright 1943, Aldrich 1946, Gabrielson & Lincoln 1959) and B. hutchinsii
(Sangster et al. 1999)
'Canada Goose' has been used for B. c. canadensis (Bent 1925) and for B.
canadensis sensu Kortright (1943) and B. canadensis sensu Sibley (1996),
Banks et al. (2004).
The choice of the English names for the Canada geese will be discussed in a
lengthy review paper on Canada Goose taxonomy drafted by the taxonomic
subcommittee of the BOU. This will include a list of no less than 39 names
which have been used for the taxa (species and subspecies) in the Canada
goose complex.
Best wishes,
George Sangster (member of BOU-TSC)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Angus Wilson" <gadflypetrel(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:27 AM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names
> Hi All,
>
> As Richard Millington and Alvaro Jaramillo were quick to point out to me,
> the name 'Lesser Canada Goose' is actually not a good collective name for
> the small forms (aka Cackling geese) because it already used for _Branta
> canadensis parvipes_, which of course is one of the large forms!! Cap in
> hand, I take back what I said about the BOURC's good choice of
> name........
>
> By the way, Mark Stackhouse provides a nice discussion of the taxonomy
> including the idea of splitting through cluster into three rather than two
> groups.
>
> http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/NewGoose.htm
>
> (1) Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. canadensis
> (Atlantic),
> B. c. interior (Interior), B. c. maxima (Giant), B. c. moffitti (Moffit's
> or
> Great Basin or Western), B. c. fulva (Vancouver) and B. c. occidentalis
> (Dusky).
>
> (2) Lesser Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. parvipes and
> B.
> c. taverneri.
>
> (3) Tundra Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. hutchinsii
> (Richarson's), B. c. asiatica (Bering - probably extinct), B. c.
> leucopareia
> (Aleutian), and B. c. minima (Cackling).
>
> This deals with the uncertainties of where parvipes and taverneri fall and
> incidentally, helps resolve the naming issues. A counter to Tundra Goose
> might be that some B. c. interior and B. c. canadensis nest on tundra. Can
> anyone comment further on this?
>
> Cheers, Angus Wilson
> New York City
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Antillean Nighthawk - further comments
From: David Sibley <david_sibley(AT)COMCAST.NET>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 7:26am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I have a few comments to add to the excellent and thought-provoking
nighthawk discussion so far. I agree with Dan Lane's cautions about judging
shape from specimens. And while Matt Sharp's suggestion - that looking at
enough specimens will overcome the problems - may work in theory, it's
generally not possible to find a diverse enough series of specimens. Most
collectors took large series from a single location (often in just a few
days), and if someone had a tendency to overstuff the skins or stretch the
tails etc. they would do that to the whole series. In a typical museum
collection the majority of specimens from any location were prepared by the
same collector, so preparation style tends to vary along with location.
Kevin Karlson's suggestion that Antilleans have narrower primaries may be
correct, but it has to be based on comparing birds of the same age. Juvenile
primaries are narrower and more pointed than adult feathers. In Matt Sharp's
interesting series of photos the Fuhrman photo of Antillean is apparently a
1st-spring bird, with pointed and worn primaries and white tips on inner
primaries. I suspect that the primaries of 1st spring Commons look the same,
or at least that variation with age makes it difficult to judge differences
between species.
I agree that there are differences in size, flight style, relative wing-tail
length, and plumage between Common and Antillean Nighthawks; I'm just not
sure how reliable these are. It may all be overwhelmed by variation in both
species, and Kevin has discovered even more variation in Antillean than I
did. I may develop a strong hunch about a bird based on its appearance, and
my hunch is that Ingo's bird is an Antillean, but for now I think I'll stick
with Larry Manfredi and wait to hear it call.
Finally, some comments on the photo series kindly posted by Matt Sharp at
http://www.acnatsci.org/~wechsler/lightbox/ID-Front/Nighthawks.html. Based
on the position of the white primary bar relative to the tertials, which
seems very reliable, the Veracruz Nighthawk is a Lesser, and the Cruickshank
photo called "Lesser" is actually a Common Nighthawk.
David Sibley
Concord, MA
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 21 Jun 2005 8:06am
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings
=20
I appreciate that a variety of names have been used for a variety of white-c=
heeked goose taxa in the past. However, it would take a rare ornithological=20=
historian to pull out Tundra Goose as the old name for Aleutian Goose.=20
=20
We need to follow biological reality as best we can; currently that has two=20=
species. Canada Goose for the larger presents little in the way of confusion=
, especially with the term white-cheeked goose available to refer to Canada/=
Cackling.
=20
Using Lesser Canada Goose, as suggested, I am sorry to say would likely caus=
e even more confusion among North American birders than the current AOU appr=
oach.=20
=20
Though I LOVE Cackling Goose on aesthetic grounds, for the sake of clarity,=20=
it would be best to relagate it to meaning just Bh minima and use Tundra Goo=
se (a name the vast majority of North American birders/ornithologists are no=
t used to using) for the smaller taxon (B. hutchinsi) as a whole.=20
=20
Sorry to prolong the discussion of this off topic.
=20
Cheers
SteveM
=20
=20
-----Original Message-----
From: George Sangster <g.sangster(AT)PLANET.NL>
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:58:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names
Hi Angus,=20
=20
Please note that each of the three names suggested in your message, i.e. 'Tu=
ndra Goose' (for B. hutchinsii), 'Lesser Canda Goose' (for B. c. parvipes +=20=
B. h. taverneri), and 'Canada Goose' (for B. canadensis but excluding B. c.=20=
parvipes), also have been used by previous authors for one or more different=
taxa:=20
=20
'Tundra Goose' has been used for B. h. leucopareia by Bailey (1948) and Hell=
mayr & Conover (1948), and for B. hutchinsii by Sibley (1996)=20
=20
'Lesser Canda Goose' has been used for B. c. parvipes (Hellmayr & Conover 19=
48, Delacour 1954, Palmer 1976, Johnsgard 1978), B. h. leucopareia (Kortrigh=
t 1943, Aldrich 1946, Gabrielson & Lincoln 1959) and B. hutchinsii (Sangster=
et al. 1999)=20
=20
'Canada Goose' has been used for B. c. canadensis (Bent 1925) and for B. can=
adensis sensu Kortright (1943) and B. canadensis sensu Sibley (1996), Banks=20=
et al. (2004).=20
=20
The choice of the English names for the Canada geese will be discussed in a=20=
lengthy review paper on Canada Goose taxonomy drafted by the taxonomic subco=
mmittee of the BOU. This will include a list of no less than 39 names which=20=
have been used for the taxa (species and subspecies) in the Canada goose com=
plex.=20
=20
Best wishes,=20
George Sangster (member of BOU-TSC)=20
=20
----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Wilson" <gadflypetrel(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>=
=20
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>=20
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:27 AM=20
Subject: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names=20
=20
> Hi All,=20
>=20
> As Richard Millington and Alvaro Jaramillo were quick to point out to me,=20
> the name 'Lesser Canada Goose' is actually not a good collective name for=20
> the small forms (aka Cackling geese) because it already used for _Branta=20
> canadensis parvipes_, which of course is one of the large forms!! Cap in=20
> hand, I take back what I said about the BOURC's good choice of > name.....=
...=20
>=20
> By the way, Mark Stackhouse provides a nice discussion of the taxonomy=20
> including the idea of splitting through cluster into three rather than two=
=20
> groups.=20
>=20
> http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/NewGoose.htm=20
>=20
> (1) Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. canadensis > (Atlanti=
c),=20
> B. c. interior (Interior), B. c. maxima (Giant), B. c. moffitti (Moffit's=20=
> or=20
> Great Basin or Western), B. c. fulva (Vancouver) and B. c. occidentalis=20
> (Dusky).=20
>=20
> (2) Lesser Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. parvipes and >=
B.=20
> c. taverneri.=20
>=20
> (3) Tundra Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. hutchinsii=20
> (Richarson's), B. c. asiatica (Bering - probably extinct), B. c. > leucopa=
reia=20
> (Aleutian), and B. c. minima (Cackling).=20
>=20
> This deals with the uncertainties of where parvipes and taverneri fall and=
=20
> incidentally, helps resolve the naming issues. A counter to Tundra Goose=20
> might be that some B. c. interior and B. c. canadensis nest on tundra. Can=
=20
> anyone comment further on this?=20
>=20
> Cheers, Angus Wilson=20
> New York City=20
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________=20
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee=AE=20
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid963=20
>=20
>=20
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01: > http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=
=3Dbirdwg01=20
>=20
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html=20
> =20
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbird=
wg01=20
=20
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html=20
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 9:12am
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:06:06 -0400, sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM wrote:
>We need to follow biological reality as best we can; currently that has two
species. Canada Goose for the larger presents little in the way of confusion,
especially with the term white-cheeked goose available to refer to
Canada/Cackling.
I think limiting the name "Canada Goose" to the larger species is very
confusing, since this name was formerly used for both species.
When a split occurs, such as in the Trail's Flycatcher, it is best to use
two new names for each member of the split and retain the old name for the
combined taxa. Thus Pacific-slope Flycatcher and Cordilleran Flycatcher
are part of Western Flycatcher. Willow and Alder flycatchers are part of
Trail's Flycatcher. This is the way it should be.
However, having Wilson's and Common snipe be part of Common Snipe makes a
mess. What are we to think of all those North American records of Common
Snipe from before the split? It creates much confusion and ambiguity with
regard to old records. The same with Western and Clark's Grebe. What were
all those old Western Grebe records?
This type of ambiguity can be easily eliminated by creating new names for
each member of the split. I have no problem with the name Cackling Goose,
but retaining Canada Goose for only one member of the split was not well
thought out in my view.
To clear up this mess, I think it would be best to change the name of the
Canada Goose to "Honking Goose" or "Honker" as already widely used and
understood, with the name Canada Goose reserved for the combined
Honker/Cackling goose.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
Fall Birding Classes start Sep 13 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: Keith Arnold <kaarnold(AT)TAMU.EDU>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 9:32am
This is a MIME message. If you are reading this text, you may want to
consider changing to a mail reader or gateway that understands how to
properly handle MIME multipart messages.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Joseph,
An interesting idea, but one logical problem: those old records under
the combined species concepts of the time do not permit us to
differentiate the records, unless supported by a specimen, an
unequivocal description, definitive photos, tape recordings, etc.
>>> Joseph Morlan <jmorlan(AT)CCSF.ORG> 6/21/2005 11:13:44 AM >>>
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 11:06:06 -0400, sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM wrote:
>We need to follow biological reality as best we can; currently that
has two species. Canada Goose for the larger presents little in the way
of confusion, especially with the term white-cheeked goose available to
refer to Canada/Cackling.
I think limiting the name "Canada Goose" to the larger species is very
confusing, since this name was formerly used for both species.
When a split occurs, such as in the Trail's Flycatcher, it is best to
use
two new names for each member of the split and retain the old name for
the
combined taxa. Thus Pacific-slope Flycatcher and Cordilleran
Flycatcher
are part of Western Flycatcher. Willow and Alder flycatchers are part
of
Trail's Flycatcher. This is the way it should be.
However, having Wilson's and Common snipe be part of Common Snipe makes
a
mess. What are we to think of all those North American records of
Common
Snipe from before the split? It creates much confusion and ambiguity
with
regard to old records. The same with Western and Clark's Grebe. What
were
all those old Western Grebe records?
This type of ambiguity can be easily eliminated by creating new names
for
each member of the split. I have no problem with the name Cackling
Goose,
but retaining Canada Goose for only one member of the split was not
well
thought out in my view.
To clear up this mess, I think it would be best to change the name of
the
Canada Goose to "Honking Goose" or "Honker" as already widely used and
understood, with the name Canada Goose reserved for the combined
Honker/Cackling goose.
--
Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA 94044 jmorlan (at) ccsf.org
Fall Birding Classes start Sep 13 http://fog.ccsf.edu/~jmorlan/
California Bird Records Committee http://www.wfo-cbrc.org/cbrc/
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: Mike Patterson <celata(AT)pacifier.com>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 9:38am
Around here we refer to the big Canada Geese as "lawn carp",
but I suppose that would conflict with fish nomenclature....
Joseph Morlan wrote:
>
> To clear up this mess, I think it would be best to change the name of the
> Canada Goose to "Honking Goose" or "Honker" as already widely used and
> understood, with the name Canada Goose reserved for the combined
> Honker/Cackling goose.
>
--
Mike Patterson
Astoria, OR
celata(AT)pacifier.com
A rose by any other name (a rant on taxonomy)
http://www.surfbirds.com/blogs/mbalame/archives/002662.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: More on the nighthawks.
From: Larry Manfredi <birderlm(AT)BELLSOUTH.NET>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 10:10am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
I have seen Antillean Nighthawks close up on their breeding grounds in the
lower Florida Keys. The males are noticeably larger than the females; the
primaries are longer than females. The females are much more buff in
overall color than the males and the primaries are noticeably shorter than
the males. The photos that I have of the male show the primary feathers
about even with the end of the tail, the primary feathers on the photo that
I have of the female show the primaries much shorter than the end of the
tail. I know for a fact that these birds were Antillean Nighthawk because I
heard them call; these were not birds on migration like I see in the Dry
Tortugas. When I go and find the photos that I took, I may put a web page
together showing these birds as well as a few photos of Common Nighthawk.
Here on the mainland of South Florida we often get pure Antillean Nighthawks
in the summer not very often though, we also get birds that sound as if they
may be hybrids. This would not surprise me one bit if the two species
interbred, based on some of the calls that I have heard on the mainland I
bet they do.
I also want to show the e-mail that I sent to Phil Davis on the Lesser
Nighthawk that he heard in Key West. The first part is the e-mail that Phil
sent to the group and the second is my response to Phil.
Larry, et al.
Chiming in on this interesting south Florida nighthawk discussion ... On the
evening of April 8, 2005, we clearly heard a Lesser Nighthawk giving its
trill call at the Stock Island Marina, immediately north of Key West. We
were spending the night on our boat, the R/V Tiburon, prior to our early
morning departure for the Tortugas. My wife first heard the call from the
other side of the marina and thought it might be a Eastern Screech Owl;
however, listening a bit longer, it was clear it was a Lesser Nighthawk. (We
also knew that Eastern Screech Owls are not known in the southern keys and
that Lesser Nighthawks are rare, primarily a winter species). I had little
prior experience with the behavior of this species when giving this
vocalization, so my trip report also includes the relevant sections of the
Birds of North America (BNA) account for this species. Talking later to Mark
Hedden of Key West, we realized that this could be a notable observation.
For the record, what follows, below, is the extract from my trip report and
the BNA citation.
Phil Davis
High Lonesome BirdTours
On two of my Dry Tortugas Tours this spring we had Lesser Nighthawk, one on
Garden Key and the other on Loggerhead Key. Both birds were female birds
and both were perched, perhaps the same bird? The only thing that would
make me cautious about hearing a calling Lesser Nighthawk and not seeing it
here in Florida is the Bufo Marinus Toad. The call of this toad is very
similar to a Lesser Nighthawk and Easter Screech Owl. They have faked me
out a couple of times; but when I hear them they are down low so I can
usually ignore them knowing that it is not a bird.
It would have been nice to see Lesser Nighthawk calling to be sure to
eliminate the darn toad. Nothing in the birding world surprises me any more
because anything is possible.
Here are some URLS that Phil sent me with the call of the toad.
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/education/tracker/amphibians/species/
http://www.geocities.com/gem3007/bufmarin.htm
http://www.folkways.si.edu/search/AlbumDetails.aspx?ID=2421
http://mampam.50megs.com/polillo/2001/Images/Amphibianspeciesguide/pages/B
ufo%20marinus.htm
Larry Manfredi
Homestead, FL.
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: Millington/BIS <sales(AT)BIRDINGWORLD.CO.UK>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 11:40am
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Hi all
Is there some scientific/etiquette reason why they cannot be called:
=20
Large Canada Goose B. canadensis
Small Canada Goose B. hutchinsii
Obviously Canada, Cackling and Lesser are all sources of confusion.=20
And so is Tundra (with Tundra Bean Goose, a split in waiting)
cheers
Richard
sales(AT)birdingworld.co.uk
----- Original Message -----=20
From: sgmlod(AT)AOL.COM=20
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU=20
Sent: 21 June 2005 16:06
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names
Greetings
I appreciate that a variety of names have been used for a variety of =
white-cheeked goose taxa in the past. However, it would take a rare =
ornithological historian to pull out Tundra Goose as the old name for =
Aleutian Goose.=20
We need to follow biological reality as best we can; currently that =
has two species. Canada Goose for the larger presents little in the way =
of confusion, especially with the term white-cheeked goose available to =
refer to Canada/Cackling.
Using Lesser Canada Goose, as suggested, I am sorry to say would =
likely cause even more confusion among North American birders than the =
current AOU approach.=20
Though I LOVE Cackling Goose on aesthetic grounds, for the sake of =
clarity, it would be best to relagate it to meaning just Bh minima and =
use Tundra Goose (a name the vast majority of North American =
birders/ornithologists are not used to using) for the smaller taxon (B. =
hutchinsi) as a whole.=20
Sorry to prolong the discussion of this off topic.
Cheers
SteveM
-----Original Message-----
From: George Sangster <g.sangster(AT)PLANET.NL>
To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
Sent: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 15:58:21 +0200
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names
Hi Angus,=20
=20
Please note that each of the three names suggested in your message, =
i.e. 'Tundra Goose' (for B. hutchinsii), 'Lesser Canda Goose' (for B. c. =
parvipes + B. h. taverneri), and 'Canada Goose' (for B. canadensis but =
excluding B. c. parvipes), also have been used by previous authors for =
one or more different taxa:=20
=20
'Tundra Goose' has been used for B. h. leucopareia by Bailey (1948) =
and Hellmayr & Conover (1948), and for B. hutchinsii by Sibley (1996)=20
=20
'Lesser Canda Goose' has been used for B. c. parvipes (Hellmayr & =
Conover 1948, Delacour 1954, Palmer 1976, Johnsgard 1978), B. h. =
leucopareia (Kortright 1943, Aldrich 1946, Gabrielson & Lincoln 1959) =
and B. hutchinsii (Sangster et al. 1999)=20
=20
'Canada Goose' has been used for B. c. canadensis (Bent 1925) and for =
B. canadensis sensu Kortright (1943) and B. canadensis sensu Sibley =
(1996), Banks et al. (2004).=20
=20
The choice of the English names for the Canada geese will be discussed =
in a lengthy review paper on Canada Goose taxonomy drafted by the =
taxonomic subcommittee of the BOU. This will include a list of no less =
than 39 names which have been used for the taxa (species and subspecies) =
in the Canada goose complex.=20
=20
Best wishes,=20
George Sangster (member of BOU-TSC)=20
=20
----- Original Message ----- From: "Angus Wilson" =
<gadflypetrel(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>=20
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>=20
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 1:27 AM=20
Subject: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names=20
=20
> Hi All,=20
>=20
> As Richard Millington and Alvaro Jaramillo were quick to point out =
to me,=20
> the name 'Lesser Canada Goose' is actually not a good collective =
name for=20
> the small forms (aka Cackling geese) because it already used for =
_Branta=20
> canadensis parvipes_, which of course is one of the large forms!! =
Cap in=20
> hand, I take back what I said about the BOURC's good choice of > =
name........=20
>=20
> By the way, Mark Stackhouse provides a nice discussion of the =
taxonomy=20
> including the idea of splitting through cluster into three rather =
than two=20
> groups.=20
>=20
> http://www.utahbirds.org/RecCom/NewGoose.htm=20
>=20
> (1) Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. canadensis > =
(Atlantic),=20
> B. c. interior (Interior), B. c. maxima (Giant), B. c. moffitti =
(Moffit's > or=20
> Great Basin or Western), B. c. fulva (Vancouver) and B. c. =
occidentalis=20
> (Dusky).=20
>=20
> (2) Lesser Canada Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. parvipes =
and > B.=20
> c. taverneri.=20
>=20
> (3) Tundra Goose: This includes the subspecies B. c. hutchinsii=20
> (Richarson's), B. c. asiatica (Bering - probably extinct), B. c. > =
leucopareia=20
> (Aleutian), and B. c. minima (Cackling).=20
>=20
> This deals with the uncertainties of where parvipes and taverneri =
fall and=20
> incidentally, helps resolve the naming issues. A counter to Tundra =
Goose=20
> might be that some B. c. interior and B. c. canadensis nest on =
tundra. Can=20
> anyone comment further on this?=20
>=20
> Cheers, Angus Wilson=20
> New York City=20
>=20
> _________________________________________________________________=20
> Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from =
McAfee=AE=20
> Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid963=20
>=20
>=20
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01: > =
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01=20
>=20
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html=20
> =20
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: =
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01=20
=20
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html=20
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: =
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01=20
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html=20
Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=3Dbirdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper (fwd)
From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker(AT)ZIPCON.NET>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 2:10pm
HI:
FYI
--
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way!"
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:59:19 -0700
From: Dennis Paulson <dpaulson(AT)ups.edu>
To: birdbooker(AT)zipcon.net
Cc: WAYNE RICHARDSON <waynebass(AT)btinternet.com>
Subject: Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper
Ian, could you please forward this to Frontiers of Bird ID?
A probable hybrid Calidris sandpiper was photographed by Wayne
Richardson at Marco Island, Florida, 16 May 2005. Superb photos of it
are on Angus Wilson's Ocean Wanderers website:
http://www.oceanwanderers.com/WayneRichardson.Sandpiper.html
Thanks.
Dennis
--
Dennis Paulson, Director Emeritus phone 253-879-3798
Slater Museum of Natural History fax 253-879-3352
University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson(AT)ups.edu
1500 N. Warner, #1088
Tacoma, WA 98416-1088
http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/museum.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: tony gallucci <humboldtiana(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 6:07pm
I'd vote for Bigger-Than-Most-of-the-Other-Canada Goose and
Smaller-Than-Most-of-the-Other Canada Goose. Or perhaps Goose and Mini-me
Goose.
tony gallucci
hunt, kerr county, texas, usa
http://milkriver.blogspot.com
http://flying.to/kerrfauna
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper (fwd)
From: Kevin <kevinmc(AT)MOUNTAINCABLE.NET>
Date: 21 Jun 2005 6:48pm
Hi to all. There is a striking similarity between the Florida sandpiper and
the bird identified by myself as an apparent Dunlin X White-rumped Sandpiper
in May 1994 and photographed by Alan Wormington and others at Hillman Marsh,
Ontario, north of Point Pelee. That observation, published in the April 2000
issue of ONTARIO BIRDS, is referenced on Angus Wilson's website.
There are a number of things similar between the two and these are nicely
displayed by Wayne Richardson's excellent photos, along with those of Alan
and Robert L. Waldhuber.
BILL : The length and structure are quite alike with the colour black to the
base. I am struggling to decide if the Florida ( hereafter MI - Marco
Island ) bird may have an ever so slightly thicker bill base. Not absolutely
certain. Bill colour on both birds is black, and , if I may venture, perhaps
a "shinier " black on the HM bird.
HEAD PATTERN : The head of the MI bird is generally darker but much like the
Hillman Marsh ( hereafter HM ) bird in pattern. Both have a streaked crown
with some rusty suffusion throughout. The MI bird is more densely streaked
through the lores and the auriculars, which contributes to the darker look
of the head overall. The oval shaped suffusion of rust in the auricular
region seems more noticeable on the HM bird.
EYEBROW : Both birds have a vague, well streaked eyebrow, more heavily
streaked in the MI bird.
UNDERPARTS : The pattern of dark markings on the underparts anterior to the
legs, if not identical, is very similar, and a fascinating feature ! The
upper breast and throat are heavily streaked dark brown or slate. This gives
way to copious round slate spots on the lower breast and side of the belly.
In both birds there are some lengthwise streaks on the flanks above the
legs.
UPPERPARTS : Another compelling similarity. The MI bird has scapulars which
are somewhat more abraded compared to the HM bird. The essential pattern is
much alike with blackish or slate centers combined with broad gray tips
along with a variable amount of russet tinging to the gray sides at the
base. Generally speaking, the HM bird is more profusely shaded with rust on
the upperparts, particularly on the upper scapulars and tertials. The
scapular pattern carries through to the mantle feathers with even broader
gray fringes in this area.
COVERTS AND PRIMARIES : The HM bird possesses very abraded and faded
brownish gray coverts and primaries, placing it in its second calendar year.
I am not sure how to assess the MI bird on this feature from viewing the
photographs.
PRIMARY LENGTH : All photographs of the HM bird show primaries which stop a
millimetre or two short of the tail tip. On shots taken from above, the
faded brown wing tip contrasts to the slate tail tip. The MI bird has a very
comparable ratio involving tail tip to wingtip.
TERTIALS : Quite similar in the two. Dark centers with distinct pale
fringes, the HM bird having somewhat more rust.
RUMP - UPPERTAIL : The flight shot of the MI bird displays a very dark rump
and uppertail, along with a tail consisting of dark central rectrices and
paler gray outers. The HM bird has more white on the outer uppertail but
also possesses a thin black bar extending down the centre of the uppertail
coverts joining the slaty rectrices. The one photo in my possession showing
this also shows a grayish rump.
LEG COLOUR AND LENGTH : As with the bill the legs are black in both birds. I
am not convinced that there is any palpable difference in leg length.
As I have itemized above, there is a striking resemblance between the HM and
MI birds. Characters shown by these two individuals lead me to entertain the
potential that the parents in both cases may have been White-rumped
Sandpiper and Dunlin.
Kevin McLaughlin
Hamilton, Ontario.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Paulsen" <birdbooker(AT)ZIPCON.NET>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 5:11 PM
Subject: [BIRDWG01] Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper (fwd)
> HI:
> FYI
>
> --
> Ian Paulsen
> Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
> A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
> "Rallidae all the way!"
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:59:19 -0700
> From: Dennis Paulson <dpaulson(AT)ups.edu>
> To: birdbooker(AT)zipcon.net
> Cc: WAYNE RICHARDSON <waynebass(AT)btinternet.com>
> Subject: Fwd: Marco Island Sandpiper
>
> Ian, could you please forward this to Frontiers of Bird ID?
>
> A probable hybrid Calidris sandpiper was photographed by Wayne
> Richardson at Marco Island, Florida, 16 May 2005. Superb photos of it
> are on Angus Wilson's Ocean Wanderers website:
>
> http://www.oceanwanderers.com/WayneRichardson.Sandpiper.html
>
> Thanks.
>
> Dennis
> --
> Dennis Paulson, Director Emeritus phone 253-879-3798
> Slater Museum of Natural History fax 253-879-3352
> University of Puget Sound e-mail dpaulson(AT)ups.edu
> 1500 N. Warner, #1088
> Tacoma, WA 98416-1088
> http://www.ups.edu/biology/museum/museum.html
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: More on goose names
From: Clay Taylor <ctaylor(AT)WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Date: 22 Jun 2005 6:04am
Actually, here in the East we need to have them called Golf-Course Goose,
with various subspecies including Fairway, Rough, Putting, and Sand-Trap
Goose. ;-)
Clay Taylor
Moodus, CT
----- Original Message -----
From: "tony gallucci" <humboldtiana(AT)HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] More on goose names
> I'd vote for Bigger-Than-Most-of-the-Other-Canada Goose and
> Smaller-Than-Most-of-the-Other Canada Goose. Or perhaps Goose and Mini-me
> Goose.
>
> tony gallucci
> hunt, kerr county, texas, usa
> http://milkriver.blogspot.com
> http://flying.to/kerrfauna
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
> http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01:
> http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Re: Antillean Nighthawk - further comments
From: Matt Sharp <sharp(AT)ACNATSCI.ORG>
Date: 22 Jun 2005 9:34am
I should probably quit while I am behind here but just to set the
record straight I am the one who mis-identified the Veracruz
nighthawk, not the photographer who more wisely had it labeled
nighthawk sp.
The misidentified Lesser has been in the collection for probably over
a decade, and I just did not catch the error.
>In a typical museum collection the majority of specimens from any location
>were prepared by the same collector, so preparation style tends to vary
>along with location.
This is the case with the ANSP chapmani series, 2 collections by
2 people (or at least 2 different labels). The Common series is larger
and considerably more diverse.
I think changes in collecting laws and more standardization in prep methods
and materials is slowly making specimens a bit more uniform. Still I would not
base anything more than an impression on a series of skins in terms of size
and stuctural differences regradless of how large the series.
>Based on the position of the white primary bar relative to the tertials, which
>seems very reliable,
If I am interpreting what I am seeing correctly the white on the primaries is
about
even or a mm or two past the tip of p5. This would make the longest primary on
the
bird p10. This is mainly what I was basing the id of Common on. Once I made
that
leap I intrepreted the staggered white patch with the diagonal rear edge, and
the
fairly bold black in the scaps as ok for Common.
sometimes the best way to learn is to make mistakes, now if I could only make
these
pictures vocalize!!
Matt
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: Specimen prep - was nighthawk
From: Alvaro Jaramillo <chucao(AT)COASTSIDE.NET>
Date: 22 Jun 2005 1:21pm
Matt and ID Frontiers
Speaking as a person who has prepared a bunch of specimens, and
worked with large series I can attest to the preparator-specific style of
preparation that one encounters in collections. Unfortunately, this will
never become standardized, or maybe fortunately depending on how you see it.
Specimen preparation is an art, and how it is done is as diverse as the
people who put up specimens. It just will never be standardized, in the same
way that any two field guide illustrator's work can never really look the
same.
Taking the standard measurements from skins is a good way to get at
general size, and as noted within a species the tarsus may be the single
linear measurement best correlated with overall size. However, overall size
is a tricky entity to measure, from any set of measurements. In the field
you see size as a blend of features such as mass, linear lengths of wings,
tail or body, as well as wing loading and so forth. It is not difficult in
the field to decide that a certain bird is bigger than another one, but to
quantify this from specimens is difficult to do with any precision.
Therefore, you just take the short cuts and measure wing, tarsus, tail, bill
etc. and hope for the best.
The following paper is a commonly cited one on body size measurement in
birds:
http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v106n04/p0666-p0674.pdf
cheers
Alvaro
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 Matt Sharp
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2005 9:37 AM
> To: BIRDWG01(AT)LISTSERV.ARIZONA.EDU
> Subject: Re: [BIRDWG01] Antillean Nighthawk - further comments
>
> I should probably quit while I am behind here but just to set the
> record straight I am the one who mis-identified the Veracruz
> nighthawk, not the photographer who more wisely had it labeled
> nighthawk sp.
>
> The misidentified Lesser has been in the collection for probably over
> a decade, and I just did not catch the error.
>
> >In a typical museum collection the majority of specimens from any
> location
> >were prepared by the same collector, so preparation style tends to vary
> >along with location.
>
> This is the case with the ANSP chapmani series, 2 collections by
> 2 people (or at least 2 different labels). The Common series is larger
> and considerably more diverse.
>
> I think changes in collecting laws and more standardization in prep
> methods
> and materials is slowly making specimens a bit more uniform. Still I would
> not
> base anything more than an impression on a series of skins in terms of
> size
> and stuctural differences regradless of how large the series.
>
> >Based on the position of the white primary bar relative to the tertials,
> which
> >seems very reliable,
>
> If I am interpreting what I am seeing correctly the white on the primaries
> is about
> even or a mm or two past the tip of p5. This would make the longest
> primary on the
> bird p10. This is mainly what I was basing the id of Common on. Once I
> made that
> leap I intrepreted the staggered white patch with the diagonal rear edge,
> and the
> fairly bold black in the scaps as ok for Common.
>
> sometimes the best way to learn is to make mistakes, now if I could only
> make these
> pictures vocalize!!
>
> Matt
>
>
> Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-
> bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
>
> Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.11/26 - Release Date: 6/22/2005
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.7.11/26 - Release Date: 6/22/2005
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: TRPA in Ft Collins
From: SGMlod(AT)AOL.COM
Date: 23 Jun 2005 12:56pm
----INCLUDING text/plain MIME SECTION----
Greetings All
Alvaro's comments are most appreciated, for I am surprised how often
generally knowledgeable birders will use intermediate song to argue for
hybridization
in an individual passerine.
I know that this phenomenon has been published somewhere, and even some
theories cast about as to why it happens, but it bears repeating. When I worked
summers in Maine doing breeding bird work, I was amazed at how often individual
warblers would start to sing like their neighbors as the summer progressed. For
instance, an individual male American Redstart starting out with a "very
redstart" song but, over the summer, sounding more and more like a nearby
Blackburnian or Black-and-white (and vice versa). With such tendency for songs
to
converge within a localized area, it is not surprising that some young would
learn
songs that sound "intermediate" to us.
I have a new motto for Colorado: From Arctic Loons to Tropical Parulas
Cheers
Steven Mlodinow
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
----DELETED text/html MIME SECTION----
[ << | >> | ^^ ]
Subject: splitting rumors
From: Ian Paulsen <birdbooker(AT)ZIPCON.NET>
Date: 24 Jun 2005 9:42am
HI:
Below are two rumored splits from BIRDWATCH magazine (British):
he BOU taxonomic subcommittee will be announcing the split of Common and
Velvet Scoter to give species status to Black Scoter M americana and
White-winged Scoter M d deglandi and M d stejnegeri.
The Savannah Sparrow split news comes from Condor 107:21-28 which says
that
Baja California, San Diego and Sonora coastal populations should be a full
species P rostratus.
Does anyone have references on how to id these taxa?
--
Ian Paulsen
Bainbridge Island, WA, USA
A.K.A.: "Birdbooker"
"Rallidae all the way!"
Join or Leave BIRDWG01: http://listserv.arizona.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=birdwg01
Archives: http://listserv.arizona.edu/archives/birdwg01.html
|
|
|
|
BIRDxxxx
BIRDCHAT
ID-FRONTIERS
US:NewEngland