sage grouse

Mike Patterson celata at pacifier.com
Wed Jul 5 08:33:46 PDT 2000


I think the difference is that this is a previously undescribed
species.  Most splits are between two closely related taxons, 
often groups that have been lumped and split previously in their
history, but at the very least previously known and described
variants.

This grouse was assumed to be Northern Sage Grouse and know real
taxonomic work was done until the 1980's.  When the descriptive
work was done it was (apparently) clear that it was an unequivocal
species not just a subspecies.


http://www.western.edu/bio/young/gunnsg/gunnsg.htm

"Constance J. Sidles" wrote:
> 
> Hey tweets, Jamie Acker writes that the AOS has designated the Gunnison
> sage grouse a new species. The announcement was made in the New York Times.
> I read that article, and there's something about it that I don't
> understand. Perhaps all you tweetsters out there can help me. The article
> quoted an ornithologist as saying that he couldn't remember another time in
> 30 years when a new species had been discovered in North America.
> 
> At first, I thought he or the reporter had not heard about all the
> splitting the AOS does. I mean, was it only two years ago that we got the
> Cassin's, blue-headed and plumbeous vireo out of the solitary? The
> Bullock's and Baltimore orioles out of the northern? And so on.
> 
> But the article did talk about splitting. It just didn't make it clear (to
> me at least) why the Gunnison sage grouse is not just splitting. Any ideas?
> - Connie Sidles, Seattle
> csidles at mail.isomedia.com

-- 
Mike Patterson               Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo,
Astoria, OR                  it is not enough to be persecuted    
celata at pacifier.com            by an unkind establishment,
                             you must also be right. 
                                                     ---Robert Park
http://www.pacifier.com/~mpatters/bird/bird.html


More information about the Tweeters mailing list