Aussie Finch Forum

Fincho162 wrote:My "informants" info based on their geographical locations still suggest otherwise sir!!

Nah, I think its just a distributional overlap between Homo clumperii and Homo splitterensis

mickw wrote:

Fincho162 wrote:My "informants" info based on their geographical locations still suggest otherwise sir!!

Nah, I think its just a distributional overlap between Homo clumperii and Homo splitterensis

This seems to be a common issue these days. What we once considered to be different species or subspecies are now often considered just differently coloured populations of the same species.

At the end of the day, if different populations are distinct enough in appearance, it doesn't matter if taxonomically they are classified as species, subspecies, races or populations.

It only matters whether we are interested in saving these distinct forms or not and if we have the inclination and resources to do so.

The old clumpers & splitter joke aye.......that's the second time this week................would u believe third time???
That might make me Homo fencesitterus Mick!!!!

Given that many may be relict species these days u are possible correct but the decriptions of some of the smaller "races - for lack of a better word" suggest far more variation than say between Masks & White-eared masks.......................also many point to what we have today and say it must be so/wrong..............with the massive habitat destruction through Queensland who knows what we've already lost.........remember mouth brooding frogs??
And who'd have ever believed that a flock of Gouldians could take over an hour to pass through a camp site.......and that was only in the early 1950's...................

However, I once had a discussion with the father of well-known fincho David Myers from NSW about the races of Parsosn and he had even more than I "postulated"....................anyway...............anyone seen the Pale Diggles lately............sigh...............................

Just a thought. With the reduction in habitation the quantities will decrease. BUT those that remain will be isolated from each other. And therefore the "races" could become more obviously different over time due to no longer "cross breeding"
LML

.............if they don't disappear along with their habitat.............or become assimilated into the nominate species/race..................

Forshaw's argument for dropping back to two forms was that genetically there is no separation within the "diggles' races and within the 'parsons' races and specimens fitting the morphological gamut of previous races can be found within a single flock.

..............great maybe unless there is no overlap and the colonies/races have differentiated/evolved in isolation.............................lets agree to disagree.............they are out there!!!!!!

The Diggles around Coen, further up the cape appear to be a smaller bird, than the birds along the Gilbert river. Cheers

Fincho162 wrote:..............great maybe unless there is no overlap and the colonies/races have differentiated/evolved in isolation.............................lets agree to disagree.............they are out there!!!!!!

I never said I agree with Forshaw - just outlining the most current thinking and what he'll be putting in his book. I had pure wild caught nigrotecta's , ex zoo, for many years and they were certainly not the same bird as the regular diggles that lived next door.

Taxonomy is such a temperamental and subjective field. It appears to me that the findings of one taxonomist are limited/inhibited by the number and diversity of specimens of each species they have observed and the range of habitats (or lack thereof) they observe them in. Today's current thinking is tomorrow's historical whim despite each new generation of taxonomists claiming to have more discerning technology/method. For what its worth, I don't at all care what the current thinking is at any particular time. For the benefit of the aviculture/ornithology of each species, I much prefer Gregory Matthews' recognition of many different geographically distinct "forms" of many species. Our recognition that all these different forms exist can only add to our understanding of the species and their various adaptations. I know from my own keeping of different "races" within the same species, these different races don't only look a different shade, shape or size - they have differing dietary, nesting, habitat, courtship, vocalisations and other behaviours and preferences. If we fail to even recognise the existence of these differing forms we are not giving ourselves the chance to understand these different features of the species which may assist greatly in our ability to find out what really makes them click. I certainly found that the pale Diggles was a very different bird to feed, house and breed than is the nominate Black-throated. And although the southern "Chocolate" Parson was not recognised as a subspecies itself, I always found its modus operandi in the aviary just as different to the nominate as is the Diggles. I firmly believe the taxonomic clumpers do no favours to aviculture. It is the splitters which give us extra possibilities for different forms to keep & breed & this can only add to our understanding of each species far more than failing to recognise the full diversity within each species.