Six different species of Rainbow Lorikeet.......

[Cage]

If you struggle with bird ID at times, it may be even more difficult in the future.

The bird boffins, as a distinct group from the bird nerds, have now decided that there should be more ways to make it difficult for bird togs to identify their subjects.

For starters, it seems we have six different species of Rainbow Lorikeet. :eek:

And that Blue-faced Honeyeater may in fact actually be a White-quilled Honeyeater ???

Even the iconic Maggie is under investigation. They may change it's name but they can't change it's wonderful early morning singing.

Check it out here..... https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-19/rainbow-lorikeet-species-split-into-six/11806318

[ameerat42]

Oh, what fun: I can be pedantic! :lol2:

So they say "different species". I wonder if the different species can interbreed?
If they can, then they're subspecies, not species, and that'd mean someone is
guffing on[I] :rolleyes: - I notice it is an ABC News article, and that it is light on science,
just "splitting species". Then they revert to "types", not "species" :confused013

Well, [I]nuff's head! on this article. It would be good to see something less "newsy"
and more precise :rolleyes:

/Well that was fun :D

[Tannin]

So they say "different species". I wonder if the different species can interbreed?
If they can, then they're subspecies, not species

This s a common misconception. Simple ability to interbreed is not what determines whether two populations are different species. It is a bit more complex than that.

There are several common and well-supported ways of defining a species ("species concepts") and they are used in different ways and for different purposes. But we will stick with the biological species concept, which is typically used for creatures like mammals and birds. It works like this:

We start with the two populations in question (for example, some birds in Adelaide and some fairly similar birds in Melbourne), and ask questions.


1: Are the two groups exactly the same? Or is there some consistent difference? For example, different plumage, calls, size - any difference at all, it doesn't matter how small so long as it is consistent and detectable in the field or in the lab. If NO, then they are the same species. If YES:
2: Is there gene flow between the two groups? (Are they swapping DNA by some direct or indirect interbreeding?) If YES, then:
2b: Is this gene flow significant? Or is it minor enough to ignore for all practical purposes? If YES (there is significant gene flow) then they are the same species. No, they are not different subspecies, they are simply different variants of the same species. Any change in one group will, over time, be reflected in the other group too because there is gene flow. If NO then:
3: Is the lack of gene flow because of external factors? Or is it because of something built in to the creatures? For example, do the rosellas of Victoria and Tasmania not interbreed because Bass Strait is in the way? Or would they not interbreed anyway, even if the strait wasn't there? Sometimes this question can be clearly answered in a scientific way, sometimes it is difficult to be be sure and we wind up using best-guess. Mostly we can be reasonably sure. If we say YES, the lack of gene flow is simply down to external factors (not to do with the creatures themselves) then we have two different subspecies. Although the populations are different and do not share DNA in any significant way, they would merge back into a single population if the external factor was removed. (E.g., if we paved over Bass Strait.)
3b: If we say NO - i.e., we determine that the lack of gene flow is because of something in the creatures themselves - then we have different species. They are not interbreeding in any significant way, and will not even if the external factor is removed because (for example) their mating rituals are different. Any change in one group will not be reflected in the other group and, over time, the differences between them will probably grow larger.


Sometimes we get situations where these straightforward rules get tangled up by reality. For example, the heath-wren - field-wren complex. In NSW and Victoria, the Shy Heathwren and the Chestnut-rumped Fieldwren are clearly different species. They look different, act different, and do not interbreed even when they occupy the same habitat. There is practically no gene flow between them. No question, these are different species. However, the further west you go, the smaller the differences between them get, and by the time you reach South Australia, you can't tell them apart. Indeed, the birds themselves can't tell each-other apart either and they interbreed freely. If we test in South Australia, using the exact same rules above, they are unquestionably one species.

This sort of complexity is fairly uncommon but far from unique. The species concept doesn't quite fit the reality, but it is the best approximation we have got.

The moral of the story is that there is no such thing as "species". It is simply a human concept (well, about five different human concepts!) which we overlay onto the natural reality in an attempt to approximate the truth.

(Finally I should mention that different researchers use different methods for different purposes , so don't expect the official classifications to always follow the "proper rules above. For example, the Black-eared Miner is always listed as a true species where all the evidence shows that it is in reality a subspecies of the Yellow-throated Miner. This is apparently done for political reasons. And in different areas of study, researchers tend to use different classification rules. With plant taxonomy, for example, they do really weird stuff which I don't pretend to understand.)

[ameerat42]

^ That looks predicated on interbreeding, but if that is not the determining factor, then maybe it's semantics :p:p
So the question becomes: are the two varieties semantically congruent/the same/equal/...? :bird:

[paulheath]

well this is popping up everywhere.....5 years too late , as that's when the species were split.... also there are no "Magpies" in Australia, our Australian Magpie is part of the Butcherbird family.... so a more suitable name would be Great Pied Butcherbird:nod:

[ameerat42]

^ Darn, and other needlework! - So I've been just seeing things and hearing them too :eek::( :p
What a lark! - Or is that also wrong :(

[Cage]

I'm glad I'm switching my main area of interest to things astro.

[ameerat42]

I'm glad I'm switching my main area of interest to things astro.

Scientists discover 8 species of parrot on a giant planet 10 light-years away...
Alas! :( :p

[Cage]

Scientists discover 8 species of parrot on a giant planet 10 light-years away...
Alas! :( :p

That would be Uranus. :lol2:

[paulheath]

^ Darn, and other needlework! - So I've been just seeing things and hearing them too :eek::( :p
What a lark! - Or is that also wrong :(

Depends which Lark your referring too and where in the world you heard it lol..... only 1 lark in Australia....( ie part of the family Alaudidae ) that's the Horsfield's Bushlark, the other species ( introduced ) is the Eurasian Skylark..