gary

Just a quick look and would have query on 2 things.

1. Why there is a gap in sp. no. 222, supposing left from Rose-ringed Parakeet?

2. Why Grey-cheeked Fulvetta, Azure-winged Magpie and House Crow are not on list?   

Thanks,
Gary

[ Last edited by gary at 9/02/2010 14:25 ]

gary

For my understanding, common name is commonly used name, once you adopt it in significant publication, most people would follow.  Scientific name, taxonomic and nomenclature system is the business of real scientific, not for general birdwatcher’s knowledge. What left for birdwatcher is to decide following which system or which hypothesis. If Record Committee has sufficient reason to support your decision, please go ahead.

However, I would like to raise a concern on the consistency on the use of common name of which Geoff C may have underestimated the importance.
Nowadays, HKBWS’s bird list is more or less the “official” bird list for Hong Kong, including Hong Kong government. Remember a few years ago a Daurian Starling infected with H5N1? If you search <Birds of HK and South China>, you can’t find the bird because it was named Purple-backed Starling.   But the name “Daurian Starling” have been widely adopted in newspaper locally or even internationally.

Further, most of the environmental education material that involve bird name would also follow HKBWS’s list. I foresee that the adoption of the name “Light-vented Bulbul” would cause headache for the staff in say HK Wetland Park or WWFHK.

More, Hong Kong Government, or mainly AFCD, always announce proudly that Hong Kong has more than 480 bird species. Where does the list come from? Definitely from HKBWS, or more precisely HKBWS’s Record Committee. If today RC revises the bird list to make it over 500, the government would love to follow.   

All I want to say is the decision made by RC could affect many parties and people.  If RC makes a decision on the naming, please HKBWS follows it in every publication you involved as far as possible.  Meanwhile, RC should also stick to the standard as far as possible. Having experienced three important publications namely, <bird of HK>, <Avifauna> and <Photo Guide> that were published within 8 years in last decade but using different naming system, the English common name we use today is still far from common.

[ Last edited by gary at 13/02/2010 14:11 ]

gary

Good timing!
Two points we can learn from the CBR checklist:
1.　It mentioned in the introduction that the editorial have spent 10 months doing literature review and discussion before adopting the IOC in view of its regular and systematic update on bird name.
2.　Although it adopted the taxonomic order of IOC, it do preserve some broadly used English name such as Greater Crested Tern and Goodson’s Leaf Warbler (but it prefers to use Light-vented Bulbul!!).
Third point is about Chinese name which I prefer to type in Chinese
驟眼看來，《中國觀鳥年報》的鳥類名錄上的中文名稱似乎較以往的在香港採用的版本較易接受。例如它採用了“金斑鴴”而不是“金鴴”。
既然《中報》的編輯已花了不少心機為雀鳥命名，我們不妨考慮全盤採納。况且香港亦無必要建立一套具香港特色的鳥名，令我們跟大陸的鳥友增添麻煩。