About Capes

[Rueae]

Cape, uncape, grey headed, brown necked...I'm at a loss. I don't even know what to call them a lot of the time.

Anyway, this topic is really just my asking for help. To my knowledge there are three sub species and I figured this had to be the best place to ask. :P

What are the differences between the three sub species? I can't for the life of me figure this out on my own. D:

Pictures of each sub species would be appreciated, as I can't tell which is which either!

[entrancedbymyGCC]

They all look very much the same, the main difference is in their natural range. This site makes a valiant attempt at describing it: http://www.capeparrot.org/wordpress/

In fact, they are now considered two species, with the Cape that actually naturally lives near the cape being the "true" Cape Parrot and with the other two being considered subspecies of a different species. The "true" Cape is highly endangered in its natural habitat, the other two are not. I actually like the nomenclature suggested on that site, but it will take years for the common usage to settle, I'm guessing.

I would not trust myself to distinguish them on sight, but you will only find the fusicollius species (Grey-necked and Brown-necked) being raised as pets, at least in the US. To my eye they appear nearly identical, but the brown necks are a slightly browner grey. This site has comparative pictures, you tell ME if you can tell them apart:

http://www.wingscentral.org/aps/faqcapes.aspx

[Rueae]

Thank you so much. It's so confusing though, even with all the links out there.

I really can't tell them apart. D:

What confusing birds.

[Michael]

The two Cape Parrot species concept is fairly new, super political, and not widely accepted. The IUCN rejected the proposal and aside from a handful of biased scientists, conservationists, and breeders that can benefit from the split, there is no consensus that they are in fact different species.

The motives of the scientists who support the species split are quite questionable. Not only can they make money by supporting the split, they can also boost their fame and egos. However, the data is hardly convincing at all that Capes cannot interbreed across subspecies. If you look at the largest Congo African Grey and compare it to the smallest Timnehs, you'd be far more convinced that they are different species than any of the most distant Capes. Nonetheless, the unified species of Grey Parrots is not questioned but the South African government along with conservationists and scientists want to benefit from financial grants that endangered species can receive. And since the other two subspecies of Cape Parrots are hardly endangered, they cannot get their money without calling it a separate species first. So if you read the papers supporting speciesation you'll get a strong feeling that they had the end result in mind first and then mangled together every excuse possible to achieve it. Poor science at best.

Therefore, I believe it is safe to say that there is only one species of Cape Parrot, Poicephalus robustus. The Cape Parrot species is divided into 3 subspecies:

P. robustus robustus - This is the nominate, the one that is bordering on extinction, and the only one that comes from anywhere near the cape in South Africa. These are slightly smaller and have a yellower coloration to their plumage.

P. robustus fuscicollis - This is the brown necked Cape Parrot distinguished by a maroon hue in the grey of the neck. This subspecies comes from much the same region as Senegal Parrots in west Africa.

P. robustus suahelicus - Finally this is the grey headed Cape Parrot with a greyer neck plumage and the largest of the Capes. These come from southern to mid-african countries.

Here is a map I made of their distribution in the wild:

[Rueae]

Thank you so much!
That explains a lot, it really does. >>

[entrancedbymyGCC]

Well, I'm a little less cynical than Michael, but I've also studied the issue somewhat less. My understanding is that the international ornithological associations have accepted the split. I do agree it is motivated by a desire to confer protected status to the birds in the southernmost range which likely will disappear from there without protection, leaving the other two subspecies which have more stable populations. However, I think they are quite close genetically and it is perhaps a slight 'cheat' to call them separate species. That said, I don't believe all attempts at getting the south african birds protected are for money and the glorification of scientific egos. I think many of those involved actually think they are worth saving even if they are quite similar to the northern-ranging subspecies.

[Michael]

I do agree it is motivated by a desire to confer protected status to the birds in the southernmost range which likely will disappear from there without protection, leaving the other two subspecies which have more stable populations. However, I think they are quite close genetically and it is perhaps a slight 'cheat' to call them separate species.

Thank you. Look, I have absolutely nothing against the conservation efforts and personally commend the effort. However, to let the end goal dictate the results/conclusions of the research is not science. Let science be science and conservation be conservation. Who cares what the distinction of the Cape Parrot is as a species? If you believe in their conservation, you support it regardless of whether the other subspecies can be categorized under the same species. It doesn't matter if they are the same species or not, it is indisputable that the South African population of Cape Parrots is at great risk of extinction.

In order to support the conservation, I should not have to support the contrived species split. Enough with the political games. Let science say what is and politics decide on what to do about it knowing the complete truth (or our best understanding of it without bias). This would not be so controversial if there were strong scientific evidence that they are different species. We're not debating some obscure fossils of creatures we've never seen, these parrots are still alive. How hard can it be to determine if they are the same species or not? I guess it all depends on your definition of a species.

Entranced, what's a species?

[entrancedbymyGCC]

Well, sure, the original definition of species was "if it can breed and produce viable offspring" it's in the same species.

As I understand it, and my understanding may be imperfect, the way the statutes are worded only a genuine species can be declared endangered and protected. I expect that the pragmatic aspect to this is that it is easier to do DNA profiling and say "aha, these are different enough" than it is to change the various statutes it would be necessary to change such that subspecies would be eligible for protection.

I don't think it is so much the science that is being misrepresented, it's how the conclusion is applied to the taxonomic designation.

I am pretty sure this is not the only modern world case of a species being designated as such that does not meet the original definition of "species". And Pluto isn't a planet anymore either... definitions do change as knowledge -- and politics -- evolve.

IMO if it takes a species designation to get the protections into place, it's not a lot of skin of my teeth. If it's really a misdesignation, someone can fix it in a couple of decades. The only real effect it has, aside from irritating people, is really in the sphere of conservation. Am I wrong?

[Michael]

Yes. Because if we start manipulating science for political purposes (not that it doesn't happen, but it would be much worse if we flat our approved of it), then what will be left of science? We have to separate our bias/desires from achieving a truthful understanding of the world. That is the difference between science and other disciplines. If science rather than conservation dictated the species divergence in Cape Parrots, I would be supportive. However, a biased purpose does not justify impending our understanding of the world.

If the P. r. robustus Cape Parrot can be considered to be a different species from the P. r. fuscicollis based on some discrete differences (such as hue of plumage, weight, and beak size), then we have to entirely rethink the concept of a species. At this rate, we will soon be calling people of different races a different species too. Just because Eskimos are geographically isolated and morphologically different from the Kalahari Bushmen, does that mean they aren't human? Should we designate them a different species to protect their lands from urban development?

I take a strong objection to the proposed Cape Parrot species split (without solid evidence of speciesation) because it sets a precedent that science is not prepared to solve. I have heard a suggestion that there is no such thing as a species, that every individual is their own species. You cannot violate the taxonomic principles by changing the definition of a species but then still labeling it a species. If they want to create a new organization system of categorizing living things where genetics (or something else) rather than reproductive viability defines a species, then they can do so without breaking the existing system. I object on principle and since the species split is not commonly accepted, I will continue referring by the original nomenclature.

I do like the common names proposed though as they do not necessarily imply a taxonomic definition. Just like we have Timneh African Grey and Congo African Grey subspecies, the Cape can be called as follows:

Cape Parrot - P. robustus robustus
Grey Headed Cape Parrot - P. robustus suahelicus
Brown Necked Cape Parrot - P. robustus fuscicollis

BTW I have a strong feeling that Scotty is a Grey Headed Cape Parrot while Truman is a Brown Necked.

[entrancedbymyGCC]

I'm not ignoring this, I'm studying up on modern taxonomy. I think there may now be a DNA based definition for species separation that has been established and overrides the original definition. If that's true, what was done to declare the South African Cape a species would only be questionable if the data had been fiddled, and that I agree would be warping science to suit a political agenda. I don't consider the USE of scientific data to reach a conclusion in the same vein as fudging the results of an experiment or observation. And taxonomy is in my opinion more an issue of filing than science, but perhaps that's my bias as a physical scientist who took a lot of grief from the whole Pluto incident. Seriously, though, that is an example of the accepted definition of something becoming refined and of that having implications with political ramifications. The data on Pluto, its fundamental role in our solar system, never changed, but its label did. Seems much the same here.