[Tweeters] Classifications based upon songs?

[Jim Betz via Tweeters]

Hi,

   I read with interest the changes in classifications for this year 
(more?/less?).  Among

them were certain splits - based primarily/substantially upon 
differences in songs/calls.

I have often read about song/vocalization changes that happen over 
time/based upon

locations - where a grouping of a species is known to be "evolving a new 
vocalization

change".  And I had to wonder ... ?  And also where a given population 
is know to

have a different set of songs/calls than another population of 'the same 
species'.

   Similarly, this year as always, there are some changes that combine 
what was

previously recognized as more than one species into just one (Redpolls, 
this time).


   Why aren't vocalizations of relatively less importance than they seem 
to be when

organizations such as the AOS are making decisions about species 
classifications.

Or, more importantly, why isn't DNA more important than anything else 
when it

comes to bird classification?


   Let me give a non-birding example ... in the arena of Killer whales 
there are very

distinct differences such as whether or not the pod travels long 
distances or

stays in one specific area.  Yet, they are all considered to be the same 
species.

   Here's another example - when talking about an individual species of 
birds

in a local area and at the same time of year/stage of breeding ... we 
recognize

that there can be huge differences from individual to individual in terms of

the coloring (both locations and 'intensity') and the calls/songs ... 
yet they are,

for example, both/all Red-tailed Hawks.


              I'm asking ... why isn't this approach taken for birds?

              - Jim