[Tweeters] Classifications based upon songs?

[J Christian Kessler via Tweeters]

Jim -

The "Cliff's Note" version of the answer to your question is a practical
definition of a species is a population the members of which breed with
each other but not (or "rarely") with those outside of that population.
While the concept is clear and simple - nature isn't really like that.  But
the template for defining what is and not a single species starts from this
idea.  How to define a "population" is then based on what we know of
characteristics - plumage, range, foraging behavior, songs/calls, etc. -
that distinguish some birds from other birds.

for instance, in much of the U.S., a small brown wren with an upright tail
and a certain song is identified as a Winter Wren, but a bird that looks
the same (to most of us) that lives here in the far West & sings a
different song and breeds with others who sing that same song are defined
(by us) to be Pacific Wrens.  they just like partners who they identify as
"like me."

different groups of buteo hawks vary in their plumages, but with
inter-grading, and large overlaps in range, and they have a lot of common
characteristics (like voice & foraging habits), and including breeding with
each other, so they are all deemed Red-tailed Hawks, but are
distinguishable by plumage.

ultimately, "species" is a concept invented by people to explain what we
see - Nature isn't always so precise - and things change over time as
genomes evolve due to many factors.

Chris Kessler

On Thu, Aug 1, 2024 at 9:50 AM Jim Betz via Tweeters <
tweeters at u.washington.edu> wrote:


> 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

>

> _______________________________________________

> Tweeters mailing list

> Tweeters at u.washington.edu

> http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/mailman/listinfo/tweeters

>



-- 
“Life is not about waiting for the storms to pass … it’s about learning how
to dance in the rain.”
Deborah Tuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman11.u.washington.edu/pipermail/tweeters/attachments/20240801/0c5bc115/attachment.html>