Great Grey Owl (1 Viewer)

[Richard Klim]

Hull, Keane, Savage, Godwin, Shafer, Jepson, Gerhardt, Stermer & Ernest 2010. Range-wide genetic differentiation among North American great gray owls (Strix nebulosa) reveals a distinct lineage restricted to the Sierra Nevada, California. Mol Phyl Evol: in press.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=a86a3faff8f42bdd7b8ee01e44d75996

• Strix nebulosa 'yosemitensis'

Q. How many biologists does it take to name a subspecies?

Richard

 

[ntbirdman]

• Strix nebulosa 'yosemitensis'

Q. How many ornithologists does it take to name a subspecies?

Apparently, 9 isn't enough, because these authors did not provide a formal description. They just 'suggest' a name for the population:

We suggest recognition of a new subspecies, Strix nebulosa yosemitensis, for the Sierra Nevada lineage of great gray owls, which should be considered by the AOU Checklist Committee.

I'm not totally knowledgeable about the workings of the ICZN, but I'm pretty sure this paper fails to qualify as any sort of formal description of a new taxon name. Is it even possible that they have made the name unavailable because of this, or could it still be formally described and used in another work? Also, do they not realize the AOU has nothing to do with creating new taxa, and it is up to them (the peer-reviewed publication authors) to do the work on the formal description?

It wouldn't be hard in this case to do a description and designate a type. Apparently there are no morphological differences (cited in another work), there are some behavioral and ecological differences (also cited in other works), but it is only diagnosable by genetics.

Or maybe I'm making something out of nothing, and this work is sufficient to name a new subspecies. Let me know your thoughts.

Cheers,
Nick

 

[Richard Klim]

Nick,

I've just had a look at the paper. As you say, despite being in the best position to formally describe a new subspecies, the authors instead just suggest consideration by AOU. But (as discussed in a recent thread wrt Oceanodroma castro 'granti'), my understanding is that their suggestion doesn't prevent the name yosemitensis from being used eventually.

As an alternative, I would suggest chevrona (or perhaps gasstationa) in recognition of the site where most birders seek this form.

Richard

 

[Mysticete]

Depending on the background of the biologists, they researchers may have not really realized that they had to make the call. Knowledge of taxonomic process can be rather barebone (unfortunately) for quite a few population geneticists.

 

[Richard Klim]

Hull et al 2014

Hull, Englis, Medley, Jepsen, Duncan, Ernest & Keane 2014. A new subspecies of Great Gray Owl (Strix nebulosa) in the Sierra Nevada of California, U.S.A. J Raptor Res 48(1): 68–77. [abstract]

So, it's still yosemitensis (Appendix 1 notes).

Hull et al 2010. Mol Phylogenet Evol 56(1): 212–221. [pdf]

 

[Melanie]

Is there a weak or a strong chance that Strix nebulosa yosemitensis is a valid subspecies?

 

[Melanie]

The Sierra Nevada Great Grey Owl has been recognized by HBW alive

http://www.hbw.com/new-species/sierra-nevada-great-grey-owl

 

[Richard Klim]

The Sierra Nevada Great Grey Owl has been recognized by HBW alive

It's included in HBW Alive's table of recently described species and subspecies, which has the following general qualification...

The validity of all these new taxa is presently under review within the framework of the forthcoming HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, to which all HBW Alive treatments of taxonomy and classification will be permanently linked. All these new forms will be considered to receive full treatment in HBW Alive, either as species or as subspecies following the publication of the checklist, which is planned for 2014.