- 2007-E-1a: Disperse AOU taxa currently in Larus into four genera
- 2007-E-1b: Merge Rhodostethi into Hydrocoloeus
- 2007-E-1c: Rearrange the species order within Leucophaeu and Larus (sensu stricto) to reflect the relationships in Pons, except for the “distal white-headed group”
- 2007-E-1d: Rearrange the order of genera within the Larinae to reflect the “primitive-derived” relationships in Pons Fig. 1
- 2007-E-2: Put the Old World and New World species of Carpodacus in different genera)
- 2007-E-3: Change English name of Goethalsia bella (SACC #304)
- 2007-E-4: Move Swallow-tailed Gull from pg. 692-693 of the Appendix to the main list)
- 2007-E-5: Add Gray Heron (Ardea cinera) to the North American List (both for Canada and the U.S.)
- 2007-E-6: Add Loggerhead Kingbird (Tyrannus caudifasciatus) to US list
- 2007-E-7: Add Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) to the Check-list
- 2007-E-8: Add Parkinson’s Petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni) to the U.S. list
2007-E-1a: Disperse AOU taxa currently in Larus into four genera
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES.
YES. But…I worry about L. heermanni being placed within Larus, and not even first. Their vocalizations seem very different to my ear than all other Larus I’ve seen and the plumages are, of course, totally different. In fact they rather closely parallel Gray Gull, a species I’ve not seen, and yet that would now be in a different genus. I don’t know how the vocalizations of Gray Gull and Heermann’s Gull differ. And how would Lava Gull, another Heermann’s look-alike get placed?
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES. In response to the question about Lava Gull: Lava Gull is a dark version of Laughing Gull and has been moved with it to Leucophaeus.
YES.
2007-E-1b: Merge Rhodostethi into Hydrocoloeus
NO, for reasons given in the proposal.
NO.
Ok, NO. But the juvenal plumages of the two are extremely similar.
NO.
YES.
NO.
NO, for reasons given in proposal.
NO.
NO.
NO.
2007-E-1c: Rearrange the species order within Leucophaeu and Larus (sensu stricto) to reflect the relationships in Pons, except for the “distal white-headed group”
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES, but I agree that the NACC and SACC should converge on the same sequence.
YES.
YES.
YES.
NO. I agree that this should be the same between the two committees since it is to some extent arbitrary.
YES for Leucophaeus sequence but tentative NO for Larus, but only because it differs slightly from the one SACC produced and is currently using. My recollection is that there is little resolution in the tree among the big white ones, which is exactly where the NACC-SACC sequence differs. So, I suspect the sequence of these species is arbitrary. I recommend that we get together and come up with a single albeit arbitrary sequence – no sense in having two different ones if there is no biology driving the sequence.
YES.
YES.
YES.
2007-E-1d: Rearrange the order of genera within the Larinae to reflect the “primitive-derived” relationships in Pons Fig. 1
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES, for reasons given in proposal.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES. This was the same sequence that SACC also considered best reflects the available data.
YES.
YES.
YES.
2007-E-2: Put the Old World and New World species of Carpodacus in different genera
YES. Both the molecular data and Ridgway’s “intuition” about phenotype support this.
NO. I am concerned about the single gene, but more important is their exclusion of C. purpureus. Previous allozyme data (Johnson and Marten, Condor 1986) showed C. cassinii and C. purpureus to be sister taxa, with C. mexicanus surprisingly divergent from these species. We should wait until all three New World species have been analyzed with DNA data before splitting the genus.
YES.
NO. I don’t see how we can split the genus when a key North American member was not included in the study, and others have suggested that its relationships lie elsewhere. Plus it’s only one mt DNA gene.
NO, pending data on all New World species.
YES, although I believe this to be the tip of an iceberg. Since so many taxa remain unsampled, there is a chance that an existing genus name exists for an Old World species/group to which the NW species are closely related.
YES. Reinstatement of Burrica best reflects the only quantitative data available.
YES.
YES.
NO. This would be premature until all extant New World taxa are included.
2007-E-3: Change English name of Goethalsia bella (SACC #304)
YES. Pirre Hummingbird is a better name and conforms to current SACC usage.
YES, for reasons given in proposal.
YES (with pleasure).
YES.
YES. NO on the actual motion, which was to change it to Pirrre Hummingbird. But an enthusiastic YES to the intended motion of changing it to Pirre Hummingbird.
YES, for reasons given in proposal.
YES.
YES.
ABSTAIN.
2007-E-4: Move Swallow-tailed Gull from pg. 692-693 of the Appendix to the main list
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES.
YES. In addition to the California records I have been sent some photos taken at night at I believe off Cocos Island, Costa Rica. I will forward those to the Committee. So, we have a connecting record.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES, for reasons given in proposal. With the benefit of another 10+ years of vagrant gull records, it seems clear that, more than perhaps any other family, they can show up anytime anywhere (i.e., does not follow the more geographically and seasonally predictable patterns of most other groups).
YES.
YES.
YES.
2007-E-5: Add Gray Heron (Ardea cinera) to the North American List (both for Canada and the U.S.)
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES to both, for reasons given in the proposal and on the basis of recent acceptance of the Alaska record by that committee.
YES. I have been told by Dan Gibson that the Alaska Committee has unanimously accepted the St. Paul Island record which was photographed and documentation submitted by Rich Hoyer. The Committee’s report will appear soon in Western Birds. In view of the published Newfoundland record, I see no point in NOT mentioning the accepted Alaska record as well. To do otherwise would be incomplete.
YES.
YES.
YES. This is the kind of thing that is likely to be overlooked as people don’t usually look carefully at every GBH.
YES on Canada record but NO on Alaska record until details and analysis published. We can always add the latter to the account.
YES.
YES.
YES.
2007-E-6: Add Loggerhead Kingbird (Tyrannus caudifasciatus) to U.S. list
YES.
YES.
YES (just see the cover of latest NAB!).
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
2007-E-7: Add Song Thrush (Turdus philomelos) to the Check-list
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES, for reasons given in proposal.
YES.
YES.
YES.
2007-E-8: Add Parkinson’s Petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni) to the U.S. list
YES, for reasons given in the proposal.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES.
YES, although I think we should stick with the OSNZ-recognized name of Black Petrel. While not a particularly distinctive or apt name, it really does not directly conflict with Black Storm-petrel and it is restricted to breeding in New Zealand. Why should we tinker with NZ names any more than we do for British names, these both being English-speaking countries with taxonomic bodies that make decisions on these matters?
YES, for reasons given in proposal.
YES. I prefer Black Petrel for the name (follow the New Zealanders).
YES.
YES.