[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: AW: SV: avian nomenclature

The Howard-Moore list is now the standard reference for bird nomenclature for 
the CITES treaty; I think it is the best of the world lists because it is 
thoroughly referenced.  As has been pointed out, though, there is no such thing 
as an "official" world list, though there are regional ones like the AOU list 
for North America.  At this point taxonomy is in such a state of flux that 
producing such a list would be a major challenge, but I am looking forward to 
seeing what the new Howard-Moore edition will be like.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jan 11, 2010, at 2:08 PM, evelyn sobielski <koreke77@yahoo.de> wrote:

A query for the ornithologists on this list:

What is the current most-favored compendium on the
nomenclature of extant bird species? Something comparable
to the Sibley
&Alquist tome, but more recent?


Like it has been said - Clements and Howell/Moore.

Unfortunately, none of them is really usable except on the species level. They 
have all been one step behind science for 10 years now. These days, we're 
beginning to see a clearer picture on what molecular data is reliable and what 
isn't, but the latest editions are, of course, still incorporating unreliable 

Unfortunately, ToLweb has by now adopted Hackett's et al.'s results (the 
massive 2008 paper in Science), even though the data that went into it is now 
known to be flawed (for reasons unknown, beta-fibrinogen intron 7 does not 
carry a clean phylogenetic signal - the "Metaves" disaster was based on it).

In short, we have to wait til someone who has read Mayr's Paleogene Fossil 
Birds plus all the molphyl studies overhauls the ToLweb site, Wikipedia or 
whatnot. Until then, it's basically build-your-own-checklist :(



Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen