Robertson, C. J. R. and Nunn, G. B. (1998) Towards a new taxonomy for albatrosses In 'Albatross biology and conservation' (Eds. G. Robertson and R. Gales) pp. 13-19 (Beatty and Sons, Chipping Norton.)
proposed 23 species of albatrosses (as opposed to the 13 or 14 species traditionally recognised. But they did explicitly state that they were following the phylogenetic species concept (PSC), according to which there are no subspecies.
I find it somewhat surprising that such an analysis has been widely accepted by Australian ornithologists and birdwatchers, most of whom are not followers of the PSC.
Last year, I suggested to Van Remsen, the chair of the South American Checklist Committee, that his committee would benefit from the adoption of guidelines. He replied in an email of 18 Nov. 2005 "
Helbig, A. J., Knox, A. G., Parkin, D. T., Sangster, G. and Collinson, M. (2002) Guidelines for assigning species rank. Ibis144, 518-525.
Not everyone will agree with everything in these guidelines, but at least they set a common basis for discussion.
I note that at the First meeting of the Advisory Committee in relation to the Agreement on the conservation ofalbatrosses and petrels (Available at http://www.acap.aq/index.php/content/download/482/1525/file/ACAP%20AC1%20Doc%2012%20Taxonomy.pdf) Accessed 01/11/05. In the section on Proposed Action, point 1 reads:" Consider adopting the model presented by Helbig et al. (2002) ‘Guidelines for assigning species rank’ to the taxa listed in the ACAP agreement."
Point 2 was :"Propose modifications to the Helbig model (perhaps to assist the decision-making process for allopatric seabird taxa). Discuss the desirability of using the taxonomic category of ‘superspecies’."
I suspect that Point 2 was made to avoid the conclusions that Michael Wink and I have come to, fully in accordance with the Helbig guidelines, that there are only 13 species of Albatross. (The Amsterdam Albatross turns out to be very clearly a subspecies of Diomedea exulans.) One suspects that they want to say that cauta is a "superspecies", thus allowing them to claim that salvini and eremita are good species. However, we see salvini and eremita as semi-species. One can sympathise with analyses driven by non-scientific factors such as legislation relation only to species.But to my mind this is not a justification for distorting the science.
Without a set of agreed guidelines, we are like blind men in a tunnel.
What do you think?
John Penhallurick