waterfowl with weird head (2 Viewers)

[Nutcracker]

BTW, adding "forma domestica" to a birds name scientific name is the scientific way to differ a domesticated animal from it´s wild counterpart.

Sorry, no - it is not so specified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

 

[Roman M.]

Sorry, no - it is not so specified in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature

As far as I know did I talk about scientific work, not about the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.
I don´t know if you can see the contain of the links to the researchgate results. Normaly only accepted scientists are allowed there and you need to proof it when registering.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...cum_a_new_model_system_for_a_wildlife_disease
https://www.researchgate.net/public...sseriformes_Fringillidae_in_Western_Australia
https://www.researchgate.net/public...rinus_canaria_domestica_With_Clinical_Disease
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113513001946
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378113514002478
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014489415300345

ROFL

 

[Dave Appleton]

Surely a domestic variant of a Swan Goose is a Swan Goose? Swan Gooose is the vernacular name for any representative of the species Anser cygnoides. If the context requires you to be specific you can always qualify with, for example, wild-type or domestic variant, but whether wild or domestic they're all the same species, all Swan Geese. In other words Anser cygnoides f. domestica is still Anser cygnoides.

On the other hand you cannot be sure if it is a particular domestic breed of that species unless you know its pedigree or breed it through, even if it resembles that breed. If you mate a Chinese Goose with a different breed of Swan Goose you may get some of the offspring resembling Chinese Geese, so who's to say this isn't a cross-breed and not a pure Chinese Goose? Thus if you wish to go down the route of naming which domestic breed of Swan Goose it belongs to (assuming it does belong to one, which there is no reason to do as the bird is clearly living in an uncontrolled environment), you can at best describe it as resembling a Chinese Goose. You cannot be sure it is a Chinese Goose, only that it looks like one.

 

[Dave Appleton]

I can go further... I should have looked at the picture first. We can in fact say categorically that the dark goose is NOT a Chinese Goose. This bird shows a bit of a dewlap and according to wildfowl breeders' standards any hint of a dewlap is considered a defect that disqualifies it from being a Chinese Goose.

 

[Roman M.]

So can I, Dave. After some research I found out that there is an actual name of this breed now in English "African".
http://www.entente-ee.com/deutsch/s...ssgefl%FCgel/BDRG/Afrikanische%20H%F6cker.pdf
But it´s still "Anser cygnoides f. dom." and not "Anser cygnoides", even when it descended from the wild species.

BTW, your information about the dewlap is not correct. Older geese of the Chinese Goose are allowed to show a dewlap. Only a double dewlap is considered a coarse error/mistake!
Source: Current Standard of pure breed poultry for Europe
And a slight failure in the birds shape/appearance doesn´t disqualify it from belonging to the breed. It´s just punished with a deduction of points.
Or do you consider a eg. Mercedes with a scratch on the bonnet not a Mercedes?

 

[Dave Appleton]

So can I, Dave. After some research I found out that there is an actual name of this breed now in English "African".
http://www.entente-ee.com/deutsch/s...ssgefl%FCgel/BDRG/Afrikanische%20H%F6cker.pdf
But it´s still "Anser cygnoides f. dom." and not "Anser cygnoides", even when it descended from the wild species.

BTW, your information about the dewlap is not correct. Older geese of the Chinese Goose are allowed to show a dewlap. Only a double dewlap is considered a coarse error/mistake!
Source: Current Standard of pure breed poultry for Europe
And a slight failure in the birds shape/appearance doesn´t disqualify it from belonging to the breed. It´s just punished with a deduction of points.
Or do you consider a eg. Mercedes with a scratch on the bonnet not a Mercedes?

For precisely the same reasons as I described above, you can at best describe this bird as resembling an African, unless you know its pedigree or breed it out. As fugl pointed out several posts back, both Chinese Goose and African Goose are just breeders' names, and they are useful only in the context of aviculture, not in an uncontrolled wild setting such as this. And in that setting you would use a specific relevant standard, of which there are several. Your point about the European poultry standard may be correct for that standard, but in other standards it is as I said, for example the British Waterfowl Standards in which any hint of a dewlap is a disqualification for Chinese Goose, not merely a major defect.

But the point that I'm more interested in is your assertion that Anser cygnoides f. domestica is not Anser cygnoides. Would you also assert that Anthus petrosus littoralis (Scandinavian Rock Pipit) is not an Anthus petrosus (Rock Pipit)? Or that a Lycaena phlaeas f. caeruleopunctata (the form of Small Copper with blue spots) is not a Lycaena phlaeas (Small Copper)?

 

[Roman M.]

But the point that I'm more interested in is your assertion that Anser cygnoides f. domestica is not Anser cygnoides. [...]

I already explained this a few times above. My statement is that you don´t tell/speak about an observated bird in such way. NO ONE can know what you mean when you´re returning from a trip and are telling your fellows "I saw a Swan Goose". Nor is it legit to report sightings/breeding of the domesticated variants as "Swan Goose" or "Anser cygnoides". Either you ´re requested to add "domestic" or "forma domestica (f.dom.)" to make sure that it will be not confused with the wild species. That´s why I say Anser cygnoides f. domestica is not the same as Anser cygnoides.

 

[Nutcracker]

Got to point out (again!), use of 'forma' or 'f.' is contrary to the ICZN. It's correct in botany, but not in zoology, where trinomial names are all treated as being of the same rank. So animal trinomials do not have a rank name the way plants can be subspecies, varieties or forms.

The other point to make is that domesticated animals are not valid biological taxa, as they are not monophyletic in origin, nor sufficiently genetically distinct from their wild progenitors to deserve trinomial recognition. The correct way to distinguish them is to say "domesticated Anser cygnoides".

 

[Andy Hurley]

I think that there is some comfusion here between vernacular (common) names, in whatever form of English (or indeed any other language) and scientific names. If the vernacular is used, then f. dom is unecessary and causes (in this case) confusion. Sure, it is a helpful indicator that it is not a pure (non-hybrid) wild bird, but getting into semantic arguments gets us a bit off topic and shows us (IMHO) in a not very favourable light to the OP and others who states that they are non birders.
Just my tuppence worth.

 

[Dave Appleton]

Agreed - this is not what the OP wanted to know! And I think we are all agreed that it's a domestic variant of Swan Goose, however it should (or shouldn't) be described.