After DQP and Ockham, two more principles (from the birds)

[Chris J. Durden]

For me the difference in habitat preference, implying difference of niche 
is significant. I would favor specific distinction for this pair, pending 
information indicating otherwise.
    Then I tend to be a splitter in practice. To me the concept of 
"conservative" implies conservation of information. Split data may always 
be later lumped. Lumped data cannot be split, but the work must be done 
over. Of course no damage is done if the two are considered merely 
subspecies. This too is conservative. The truly radical approach is to do 
away with subspecies and a large portion of data that goes along with it. I 
prefer to be a conservative splitter.
..................Chris Durden

At 11:11 PM 2/13/2002 -0500,  Gochfeld wrote:

- - -

>In 1999 Klicka et al. (a group of five authors from UNLV, Bell Museum
>(Minn), Royal Ontario Mus, Alberta Mus (Edmonton), and a National
>Wildlife Refuge) proposed that an isolated population of sparrows from
>Yukon and BC, previously considered to be a subspecies of Brewer's
>Sparrow (Spizella breweri), was actually a distinct species (S.
>taverneri) which they called the Timberline Sparrow.  I remember reading
>at the time that the habitat and altitude were distinctive, the voice
>different, and the molecular data supported divergence sufficient to
>convince them (and the referees), but not me,  that it was a species.
  - - -


 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl