[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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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