Talk:Tasman Booby
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Tasman Booby is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. |
| Stub | This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale. |
|
WikiProject Birds To-do:
|
|
 |
Tasman Booby is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Assessment comments
|
|||
[edit] Species or subspecies?
This bird should have a link from at least Booby. It is described with a as a subspecies there and also on the Masked Booby page, I don't know how to resolve this but something is wrong somewhere. JohnCastle 18:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have added links from the two aforementioned pages. I believe there is still some doubt as to whether it is a full species or not. Maias 23:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have also added a reference and some clarification. If taxonomic consensus is that it is a subspecies it may be appropriate to merge this article with 'Masked Booby'. Maias 02:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, it raises its head every now and then as a species, but almost everybody accepts subspecies status. The IUCN hasn't reviewed it since 2004, which has given some longevity to the taxon as a species.
- On the other hand, it might be that there was an endemic species close to Masked on LHI and/or NI that differed in breeding season, as well as the extant subspecies initially called fullagari. This is the most extreme and most unlikely scenario. Nonwithstanding the validity of tasmani vs fullagari, S. d. tasmani would seem to be the correct taxon. The differences are about in the league of Papasula abbotti costelloi which is biogeographically far more distant from the living bird.
- As there is some extent of literature on the taxon (including historic accounts) and the local seabirds played some role in the island's history (see the Providence Petrel, though "epicurean" is probably wrong...), I don't think it should be merged. 2 of the references should be online now, so that people can read for themselves, and there is a number of historic accounts that weigh in on the question and which probably would be overkill for the main Masked page. Dysmorodrepanis 19:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
