Couldn’t agree more with this. Technical jargon should be used correctly or not at all.
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
North American subspecies (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Couldn’t agree more with this. Technical jargon should be used correctly or not at all.
Richard,
I will think more, but I cannot see why I would disagree with your last paragraph. But I also would like to say that I do not feel Clements could in any way hide behind my post, as I stressed the field guide usage (as opposed to the usage in taxonomic works
).
Niels
I will think more, but I cannot see why I would disagree with your last paragraph. But I also would like to say that I do not feel Clements could in any way hide behind my post, as I stressed the field guide usage (as opposed to the usage in taxonomic works
).Niels
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Niels,Richard,
I will think more, but I cannot see why I would disagree with your last paragraph. But I also would like to say that I do not feel Clements could in any way hide behind my post, as I stressed the field guide usage (as opposed to the usage in taxonomic works
Niels
It's significant that for most birders, a field guide is their primary reference - for taxonomy (ie scientific names), as well as for identification - so it's quite important that the terminology used is 'correct' as far as possible.
[And in fairness to David, he's already explained that the current list is a first cut, and that he's open to suggestions on the best presentation (including alternatives to explicitly scientifically-named groups).]
I was guilty (yet again
) of digressing onto the perennial topic of Cornell's group names.Richard
Last edited:
David Sibley
Member
I'm finally finding a few minutes to reply. Thanks. these are all good points. I was able to correct the Hermit thrush and oystercatcher typos yesterday, and I've been thinking more about the group names.
I agree completely with Richard that it's "preferable to stick to non-scientific (geographic or descriptive) names for subspecies groups rather than nomenclaturally-unsound pseudo-scientific names." This is the main reason I had for using only regional names in the guide. (As an aside, I have the same problem with birders using "alternate" and "basic" when they talk about plumage, since they are usually just substituting those technical terms for breeding and non-breeding.)
A list needs scientific names, but I feel a little sheepish about falling into the same trap I tried to avoid in the guide. My main concern in the book and here is not so much with defining the members of subspecies groups but how birders will use that info in the field – that birders with a superficial knowledge will blithely identify an Oregon Junco down to the subspecies oreganus, to use one common example.
For now I think the simplest solution is to remove the word "group" (which has technical meaning) and instead use "and other subspecies" or something similar, just to indicate that the subspecies named is not alone. The "group" is named by the English (regional) name, and I can work on making sure the named subspecies is typical of the "group", and other enhancements.
Looking forward to more comments...
I agree completely with Richard that it's "preferable to stick to non-scientific (geographic or descriptive) names for subspecies groups rather than nomenclaturally-unsound pseudo-scientific names." This is the main reason I had for using only regional names in the guide. (As an aside, I have the same problem with birders using "alternate" and "basic" when they talk about plumage, since they are usually just substituting those technical terms for breeding and non-breeding.)
A list needs scientific names, but I feel a little sheepish about falling into the same trap I tried to avoid in the guide. My main concern in the book and here is not so much with defining the members of subspecies groups but how birders will use that info in the field – that birders with a superficial knowledge will blithely identify an Oregon Junco down to the subspecies oreganus, to use one common example.
For now I think the simplest solution is to remove the word "group" (which has technical meaning) and instead use "and other subspecies" or something similar, just to indicate that the subspecies named is not alone. The "group" is named by the English (regional) name, and I can work on making sure the named subspecies is typical of the "group", and other enhancements.
Looking forward to more comments...
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
Why not a solution in between ?
If you say « and other subspecies » for a usually well-defined group, it could be confusing as we would think it may not be this group you are refering to and we may wonder what is inside.
In most cases your groups go with the senior names, are known as such and are at the right place. Hence it would be a pity to remove the word « group » for them.
However when your groups are not going with the senior names for some reasons (extralimital range of some ssp, unsure of the group limit, …), « + other ssp » could be a good alternative in a first step. Then replacing « other ssp » by the full names of the subspecies involved could be done bit by bit.
It seems to me that Richard covered most of them if not all, so it should not be a huge task.
Well !! my two (euro) cents.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Acorn Woodpecker
One slightly curious choice is the identification of 'Southwestern Acorn Woodpecker' as Melanerpes formicivorus angustifrons (perhaps to be revised to "Melanerpes formicivorus angustifrons and other subspecies") – presumably chosen because it's the most-southwestern form (restricted to the southern tip of Baja California). But given that the ssp in SW USA is nominate formicivorus, it could be confusing to instead highlight a more-junior, isolated extralimital ssp.
[Incidentally, IOC lists M angustifrons (monotypic) as a proposed split (tentatively 'Baja Woodpecker').]
One slightly curious choice is the identification of 'Southwestern Acorn Woodpecker' as Melanerpes formicivorus angustifrons (perhaps to be revised to "Melanerpes formicivorus angustifrons and other subspecies") – presumably chosen because it's the most-southwestern form (restricted to the southern tip of Baja California). But given that the ssp in SW USA is nominate formicivorus, it could be confusing to instead highlight a more-junior, isolated extralimital ssp.
[Incidentally, IOC lists M angustifrons (monotypic) as a proposed split (tentatively 'Baja Woodpecker').]
Mysticete
Well-known member
I think just applying the "common group name" and leaving the contents undefined is the best approach
For one, the type of birders who are going to be really into using this system are going to know generally what an Oregon Junco is, or a White-winged, etc.
Secondly, since the subspecies classification of US birds has been left to stagnate, a lot of names are probably going to be altered, lumped, or are otherwise unstable. A common name won't have to deal with this baggage.
For one, the type of birders who are going to be really into using this system are going to know generally what an Oregon Junco is, or a White-winged, etc.
Secondly, since the subspecies classification of US birds has been left to stagnate, a lot of names are probably going to be altered, lumped, or are otherwise unstable. A common name won't have to deal with this baggage.
mb1848
Well-known member
"David Sibley
March 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM · Reply
Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions. I’ve just updated the list adding some of Dan Lane’s additional subspecies (but not Wrentit, which seems to show a patchwork of local and clinal variations across California, mostly related to climate). I changed some English and Scientific names based on comments (Special thanks to Richard Klim at BirdForum for tracking down priority names for a bunch of subspecies). And I switched the English names so the subspecies names are in parentheses after the official species name, which seems to be a bit easier to follow (Thanks to Elias Elias for that suggestion). I still see a lot of inconsistent treatment in the list, but I’ll keep working on it and I’m confident that a lot of that can get sorted out over time."
I intend to keep nit picking the list as time allows and I hope folks on bird forum keeps at it also.
mb1848
http://www.sibleyguides.com/bird-in...-annotated-list/comment-page-1/#comment-59161
March 29, 2011 at 6:09 PM · Reply
Thanks to all for the comments and suggestions. I’ve just updated the list adding some of Dan Lane’s additional subspecies (but not Wrentit, which seems to show a patchwork of local and clinal variations across California, mostly related to climate). I changed some English and Scientific names based on comments (Special thanks to Richard Klim at BirdForum for tracking down priority names for a bunch of subspecies). And I switched the English names so the subspecies names are in parentheses after the official species name, which seems to be a bit easier to follow (Thanks to Elias Elias for that suggestion). I still see a lot of inconsistent treatment in the list, but I’ll keep working on it and I’m confident that a lot of that can get sorted out over time."
I intend to keep nit picking the list as time allows and I hope folks on bird forum keeps at it also.
mb1848
http://www.sibleyguides.com/bird-in...-annotated-list/comment-page-1/#comment-59161
David Sibley
Member
Yes, I updated the list and plan to continue updating it as new info comes up. Thanks again for the help. I did go with a mixed solution on groups, as Daniel suggested. For example, Western Blue Gray Gnatcatcher, which I had listed as amoenissima group, is now amoenissima [obscura group].
This brought up some questions on priority of names, specifically, if obscura is not distinct from amoenissima, as some suggest, then amoenissima (more recently named) would be merged into obscura, not the other way around, correct? And if Western Blue-gray Gnatcatcher is split it should end up with the name Polioptila obscura. In that case it's important for birders to see the group name so they will be comfortable with future names of splits. ... or maybe there are other rules of nomenclature that I'm missing here?
Another example of that is the potential split of Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which would be Passerculus guttatus based on priority, correct? (Contrary to the 2008 AOU proposal... ). Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, just point me to it and I can read it there.
This brought up some questions on priority of names, specifically, if obscura is not distinct from amoenissima, as some suggest, then amoenissima (more recently named) would be merged into obscura, not the other way around, correct? And if Western Blue-gray Gnatcatcher is split it should end up with the name Polioptila obscura. In that case it's important for birders to see the group name so they will be comfortable with future names of splits. ... or maybe there are other rules of nomenclature that I'm missing here?
Another example of that is the potential split of Belding's Savannah Sparrow, which would be Passerculus guttatus based on priority, correct? (Contrary to the 2008 AOU proposal... ). Apologies if this has been discussed elsewhere, just point me to it and I can read it there.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Great, David. A useful resource.
Correct.
Jim Rising's proposed Savannah Sparrow split was discussed in this thread:
www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=185515
Belding's Sparrow should indeed be Passerculus guttatus (with ssp beldingi). I emailed Jim about it - he agreed and said he would clear it up.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
In comments on Sibley Blog:
3) Black-browed Albatross. While the “first” U.S. record from VA was an immature and tough to identify to subspecies, later photo records (photo of an adult off Newfoundland, and maybe another from Maine) show the expected dark-eyed form T. m. melanophris (or melanophrys, depending on whom you ask)
I ask the ICZN:
From Zoonomen, The issue is resolved by Opinion 2252 (Case 3449) BZN 2010 67(2):194-195. Which ruled as follows:
Ruling
The Commission hereby rules to confirm that melanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophris, is the correct original spelling.
The name melanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophris, as ruled in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name melanophrys Temminck, 1839, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophrys (incorrect subsequent spelling of Diomedea melanophris Temminck, 1828, correct original spelling as ruled in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
3) Black-browed Albatross. While the “first” U.S. record from VA was an immature and tough to identify to subspecies, later photo records (photo of an adult off Newfoundland, and maybe another from Maine) show the expected dark-eyed form T. m. melanophris (or melanophrys, depending on whom you ask)
I ask the ICZN:
From Zoonomen, The issue is resolved by Opinion 2252 (Case 3449) BZN 2010 67(2):194-195. Which ruled as follows:
Ruling
The Commission hereby rules to confirm that melanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophris, is the correct original spelling.
The name melanophris Temminck, 1828, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophris, as ruled in (1) above is hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. The name melanophrys Temminck, 1839, as published in the binomen Diomedea melanophrys (incorrect subsequent spelling of Diomedea melanophris Temminck, 1828, correct original spelling as ruled in (1) above), is hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Specific Names in Zoology.
mb1848
Well-known member
In a comment on Sibley Blog:
"1) Yellow-nosed Albatross. The North American records hat are identifiable to subspecies are, not surprisingly, all ‘Atlantic’ Yellow-nosed Albatross (T. c. chlororhynchos), which have gray heads in adult plumage. This is quite different from the white-headed ‘Indian’ Yellow-nosed Albatross (T. c. bassi), and these taxa are split by many authorities."
Robertson in 2002 stated that T. carteri should be used instead of T. c. bassi.
http://www.marineornithology.org/PDF/30_1/30_1_15.pdf .
Zoonomen uses T. carteri not bassi and as a species not a subspecies.
Zoonomen also has T. impavida as a full species.
"1) Yellow-nosed Albatross. The North American records hat are identifiable to subspecies are, not surprisingly, all ‘Atlantic’ Yellow-nosed Albatross (T. c. chlororhynchos), which have gray heads in adult plumage. This is quite different from the white-headed ‘Indian’ Yellow-nosed Albatross (T. c. bassi), and these taxa are split by many authorities."
Robertson in 2002 stated that T. carteri should be used instead of T. c. bassi.
http://www.marineornithology.org/PDF/30_1/30_1_15.pdf .
Zoonomen uses T. carteri not bassi and as a species not a subspecies.
Zoonomen also has T. impavida as a full species.
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
In a comment to the Sibley Blog:
“Black-capped Petrel sensu NACC includes Jamaican Petrel, the extinct and utterly different dark bird”
West Indian Breeding Seabird Atlas
The taxonomic relationship of this petrel for decades remained unclear with many authors considering it to be a dark form of the Black-capped Petrel. { Murphy (Ocean.
Bds. S. Amer., 2, p. 696, 1936) Recent evaluations however have shown the Jamaican Petrel to be a distinct smaller species more closely related to the Cape Verde Petrel. This is further supported by the bird’s feather lice which show considerable differences with those of Black-capped Petrels. DNA analysis is warranted but there is little question that this is a distinct species.
But I think the NACC taking a conservative approach in changing the check-list is the right plan with our current knowledge.
Bretagnolle & Shirihai 9/2010 Bull BOC v.130 (4). say “…still unresolved case involving the Black-capped Petrel …complex of the Caribbean”. They cite :
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2010/05/Jamaica-Petrel-expedition-report_Nov09.pdf .
This suggests that Black-capped Petrel probably are breeding on Jamaica. And that the birds seen at sea were the black-faced kind. And,
http://www.scillypelagics.com/BCPE_2.html .
…specimens of Jamaica Petrel comprise two types: some are darker, more chocolate-brown overall, perhaps with duller white uppertail-coverts (but specimens may be soiled) whereas one British Museum specimen is paler overall, dark ashy grey with brighter white uppertail-coverts. Both types but especially the ashy-gray specimen shows a ghosting of the Black-capped Petrel head pattern.
The Alula article says they do not know who made the type location of Pt. hasitata as Dominica. The earliest I saw this was in the 1931 Check-list of North American birds AOU. ?
I really do not get the name hasitata Kuhl 1820.
Kuhl, Beitr. Zool. vergl. Anat. zweite abt. p. 142, 1820 (pref. April 9th), ex Forster. Type in Leyden Museum. No locality Kuhl says he found one in The Bullocks Museum. But not in Temminck’s collection. Temminck says the bird was from des mers de 1'Inde. {Temminck may have bought the Bullock petrel when this collection was sold.} The recent “Type specimens of birds of the National Museum of Natural History” still says “Loc. Indian Ocean”.
http://www.naturalis.nl/sites/naturalis.en/contents/i000884/tb01.pdf .
How can this Indian Ocean bird be the type of a population of a Pterodroma from the Caribbean?
Kuhl lists Forster as the author of the name and lists ..tab 97 & tab 98 for this bird.
Beiträge zur Keimtiiifs der Procellarien Kuhl says he went to London and looked at Banks & Forster’s original stuff at Bank’s Library.
Coues in 1866 says that Kuhl refered to two Forster unpublished drawings 97 is a drawing of the mollis of Gould and 98 is the lessoni of Garnot. Coues says that neither of the drawings refer to the bird under discussion.
Temminck (PI. col., 1826, no. 416) wrote a brief description of Aestrelata haesitata he did not figure that species. His plate represents a petrel with grey upper tail-coverts similar to Aestrelata cervicalis Salvin
11. Proc. hasitata Forster.
Forster tab. 97.
— tab. 98 , sub nomine Procellariae leucocephalae.
c) Cauda cuiielformi.
2. Reinij^e primo lonp;Isslmo.
•J-J« üuijiiibiis falculatis, altitudine latitudinein superanti. Halluce
mediocri. Alis caudam aeqnantibus , a ilexura ad apicem usqiie 1 1 ^
poll. longis. Cauda cunpiformi, acuta, () poll. longa;
rostro robustiori , valde deflexo , ab angulo oris ad apicem
19 lin, longo. Fedibus Iiuniilibus, tarsis 17 lin.,
digito medio 25 liu. longis. — Longitudo corporis 16
f poll. — Alba sunt: latus inferiuj, frons, Facies, niiclia caudaeque
tectrices supe^iiores et inferiores. Brunescente-nigra
sunt : alae, cauda, dursum, uropygium et vertex niedius
, interscapulium autem brunescente-cincreum.
Rostro et membranae natatoriae parte antica nigris , peduni
parte reliqua flava.
In Museo Bullokiano , nunc in Temminlciano.
If hasitata is no good maybe?
Procellaria diabolica (L'Herminier MS.) Lafresnaye, Rev. Zool., 7, p. 168, 1844 based on "Les diables ou diablotin" Labat, Nouv. Voy. Amer., 2, p
Upon my return to Cambridge I learned that the Lafresnaye collection (transferred from the Boston Society of Natural History to the Museum of Comparative Zoology) contained two cotypes of Lafresnaye's, Pracellaria diabolica' and two other specimens of Blackcapped Petrel somewhat similar to the cotypes but smaller. These specimens were all collected in Guadeloupe by L'Herminier in 1842. On the label of one of the smaller pair (Lafr. coll. No. 8003) the data reads Maupingue ou Maubingue, and on the other (Lafr. coll. No. 8004) Mauping ou Maupingue.
Lafresnaye (Rev. zool., 1844, p. 168) in his original description of Procellaria diabolica, refered to the larger specimens, … The two pairs of Black-capped Petrels from the Lafresnaye collection are different from each other not only in size but in coloration and in shape of the nostril tubes. The smaller ones have the grey of the cap extending down the back of the neck and not terminating abruptly on the nape as in the larger birds, and the nostril tubes of . the smaller birds are higher and end more abruptly than those of the larger specimens. In this respect as also in size the smaller birds are similar to Aestrelata jamaieensis.Each pair represents, I believe, a distinct species of Aestrelata.
Which species, then, is Aestrelata haesitatal This is a difficult question to decide because of the uncertainty of the original description. Kuhl (Beitrage zur zoologie, Frankfurt, A. M., 1820, p. 142). Since Lafresnaye described the large species as Aestrelata diabolica I prefer to restrict the name Aestrelata haesitata to the small Black-capped Petrel of Guadeloupe.
L'Herminier's list of Guadeloupe birds ( Lawrence, Proc. U. S. N. M., 1878, 1, p. 451) includes both species of Guadeloupe Blackcapped Petrels under the names Procellaria diabolica L'Herm. andProcellaria mauping L'Herm. These species are marked with a cross to indicate that L'Herminier also found them on Martinique. Bones of Pt. hasitata have been found in Martinique. .
Investigation will probably show that Aestrelata diabolica and not Aestrelata haesitata as here restricted is the American Black-capped Petrel mostly represented in collections. It would be rash to consider Aestrclata jamaicens is simply a color phase of Aestrelata haesitata. Yet further study may reveal that these two species are very closely related.
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Volume 60
“Black-capped Petrel sensu NACC includes Jamaican Petrel, the extinct and utterly different dark bird”
West Indian Breeding Seabird Atlas
The taxonomic relationship of this petrel for decades remained unclear with many authors considering it to be a dark form of the Black-capped Petrel. { Murphy (Ocean.
Bds. S. Amer., 2, p. 696, 1936) Recent evaluations however have shown the Jamaican Petrel to be a distinct smaller species more closely related to the Cape Verde Petrel. This is further supported by the bird’s feather lice which show considerable differences with those of Black-capped Petrels. DNA analysis is warranted but there is little question that this is a distinct species.
But I think the NACC taking a conservative approach in changing the check-list is the right plan with our current knowledge.
Bretagnolle & Shirihai 9/2010 Bull BOC v.130 (4). say “…still unresolved case involving the Black-capped Petrel …complex of the Caribbean”. They cite :
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2010/05/Jamaica-Petrel-expedition-report_Nov09.pdf .
This suggests that Black-capped Petrel probably are breeding on Jamaica. And that the birds seen at sea were the black-faced kind. And,
http://www.scillypelagics.com/BCPE_2.html .
…specimens of Jamaica Petrel comprise two types: some are darker, more chocolate-brown overall, perhaps with duller white uppertail-coverts (but specimens may be soiled) whereas one British Museum specimen is paler overall, dark ashy grey with brighter white uppertail-coverts. Both types but especially the ashy-gray specimen shows a ghosting of the Black-capped Petrel head pattern.
The Alula article says they do not know who made the type location of Pt. hasitata as Dominica. The earliest I saw this was in the 1931 Check-list of North American birds AOU. ?
I really do not get the name hasitata Kuhl 1820.
Kuhl, Beitr. Zool. vergl. Anat. zweite abt. p. 142, 1820 (pref. April 9th), ex Forster. Type in Leyden Museum. No locality Kuhl says he found one in The Bullocks Museum. But not in Temminck’s collection. Temminck says the bird was from des mers de 1'Inde. {Temminck may have bought the Bullock petrel when this collection was sold.} The recent “Type specimens of birds of the National Museum of Natural History” still says “Loc. Indian Ocean”.
http://www.naturalis.nl/sites/naturalis.en/contents/i000884/tb01.pdf .
How can this Indian Ocean bird be the type of a population of a Pterodroma from the Caribbean?
Kuhl lists Forster as the author of the name and lists ..tab 97 & tab 98 for this bird.
Beiträge zur Keimtiiifs der Procellarien Kuhl says he went to London and looked at Banks & Forster’s original stuff at Bank’s Library.
Coues in 1866 says that Kuhl refered to two Forster unpublished drawings 97 is a drawing of the mollis of Gould and 98 is the lessoni of Garnot. Coues says that neither of the drawings refer to the bird under discussion.
Temminck (PI. col., 1826, no. 416) wrote a brief description of Aestrelata haesitata he did not figure that species. His plate represents a petrel with grey upper tail-coverts similar to Aestrelata cervicalis Salvin
11. Proc. hasitata Forster.
Forster tab. 97.
— tab. 98 , sub nomine Procellariae leucocephalae.
c) Cauda cuiielformi.
2. Reinij^e primo lonp;Isslmo.
•J-J« üuijiiibiis falculatis, altitudine latitudinein superanti. Halluce
mediocri. Alis caudam aeqnantibus , a ilexura ad apicem usqiie 1 1 ^
poll. longis. Cauda cunpiformi, acuta, () poll. longa;
rostro robustiori , valde deflexo , ab angulo oris ad apicem
19 lin, longo. Fedibus Iiuniilibus, tarsis 17 lin.,
digito medio 25 liu. longis. — Longitudo corporis 16
f poll. — Alba sunt: latus inferiuj, frons, Facies, niiclia caudaeque
tectrices supe^iiores et inferiores. Brunescente-nigra
sunt : alae, cauda, dursum, uropygium et vertex niedius
, interscapulium autem brunescente-cincreum.
Rostro et membranae natatoriae parte antica nigris , peduni
parte reliqua flava.
In Museo Bullokiano , nunc in Temminlciano.
If hasitata is no good maybe?
Procellaria diabolica (L'Herminier MS.) Lafresnaye, Rev. Zool., 7, p. 168, 1844 based on "Les diables ou diablotin" Labat, Nouv. Voy. Amer., 2, p
Upon my return to Cambridge I learned that the Lafresnaye collection (transferred from the Boston Society of Natural History to the Museum of Comparative Zoology) contained two cotypes of Lafresnaye's, Pracellaria diabolica' and two other specimens of Blackcapped Petrel somewhat similar to the cotypes but smaller. These specimens were all collected in Guadeloupe by L'Herminier in 1842. On the label of one of the smaller pair (Lafr. coll. No. 8003) the data reads Maupingue ou Maubingue, and on the other (Lafr. coll. No. 8004) Mauping ou Maupingue.
Lafresnaye (Rev. zool., 1844, p. 168) in his original description of Procellaria diabolica, refered to the larger specimens, … The two pairs of Black-capped Petrels from the Lafresnaye collection are different from each other not only in size but in coloration and in shape of the nostril tubes. The smaller ones have the grey of the cap extending down the back of the neck and not terminating abruptly on the nape as in the larger birds, and the nostril tubes of . the smaller birds are higher and end more abruptly than those of the larger specimens. In this respect as also in size the smaller birds are similar to Aestrelata jamaieensis.Each pair represents, I believe, a distinct species of Aestrelata.
Which species, then, is Aestrelata haesitatal This is a difficult question to decide because of the uncertainty of the original description. Kuhl (Beitrage zur zoologie, Frankfurt, A. M., 1820, p. 142). Since Lafresnaye described the large species as Aestrelata diabolica I prefer to restrict the name Aestrelata haesitata to the small Black-capped Petrel of Guadeloupe.
L'Herminier's list of Guadeloupe birds ( Lawrence, Proc. U. S. N. M., 1878, 1, p. 451) includes both species of Guadeloupe Blackcapped Petrels under the names Procellaria diabolica L'Herm. andProcellaria mauping L'Herm. These species are marked with a cross to indicate that L'Herminier also found them on Martinique. Bones of Pt. hasitata have been found in Martinique. .
Investigation will probably show that Aestrelata diabolica and not Aestrelata haesitata as here restricted is the American Black-capped Petrel mostly represented in collections. It would be rash to consider Aestrclata jamaicens is simply a color phase of Aestrelata haesitata. Yet further study may reveal that these two species are very closely related.
Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, Volume 60
David Sibley
Member
I've just posted an updated version of the Subspecies list here http://www.sibleyguides.com/bird-info/field-identifiable-subspecies-of-birds-–-an-annotated-list/
As always, thanks for the comments and discussion. I tried to get all the corrections in there, but if I've missed any or if anything new catches your eye please let me know. I suspect that the new asterisks of "most distinctive subspecies" will be fertile ground for disagreement, and will definitely need a bit of refinement. I look forward to any comments.
As always, thanks for the comments and discussion. I tried to get all the corrections in there, but if I've missed any or if anything new catches your eye please let me know. I suspect that the new asterisks of "most distinctive subspecies" will be fertile ground for disagreement, and will definitely need a bit of refinement. I look forward to any comments.
