[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: avian nomenclature
> Try this http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ wich is run by the IOC
> (International Ornithological Committee) wich is constantly
> reviewed by experts on the field. You can also track the
> proposals, rejections for splits and lumps and everything
> Here you have experts deciding what to do, not just a
> copy/paste of every paper that comes out.
This is actually good, but "Ibises to Pelicans and Cormorant" and "Nightjars"
are almost certainly wrong at ordinal level. Passeriformes families are also
somewhat fluent; Wikipedia actually tends to have the most current information.
For the first group I personally find the scenario of Christidis & Boles
(Systematics and Taxonomy
of Australian Birds) best at present. There are few reasons for lumping
Shoebill and herons, and fewer still seem any good.
I would personally favour including Cariamidae in a large Falconiformes than
splitting Accipitriformes; there has not been not one reliable study that puts
falcons where Hackett et al find them. Falcons close to seriemas? Yeah, I'd buy
that. But the split is presently overemphasized if you have only seen half of
the molecular data, and IMO the impact factor issue plays a role. Truth to be
told, I find Science one of the less-reliable journals these days.
Do You Yahoo!?
Sie sind Spam leid? Yahoo! Mail verfügt über einen herausragenden Schutz gegen