Caloenas maculata

A very interesting paper; although it does make a few claims which are somewhat erroneous. For instance, the validity of the taxon - contrary to the statement that "the
taxon fell into obscurity, as it was regarded as simply an abnormal form of the Nicobar Pigeon" - has never been in any real doubt as far as I have been aware.
 
yeah, same. I've always understood it to be universally regarded as a legitimate species. The paper gives two examples to the contrary but both are from well over 100 years ago.
 
I think Errol Fuller summarised the situation nicely in "Extinct Birds" (2000):

Walter Rothschild, who was so obsessively interested in rare and extinct birds, was rather dismissive of this one and chose to regard it as an aberrant Nicobar pigeon and it is probably his influence that has led to the specimen being overlooked so often. Rothschild is not necessarily to be trusted in such matters, however. He had some very human frailties and was guided by the following rather general rule: if he owned a particular specimen, the importance of the slightest differences or variations in plumage would be trumpeted; if he didn't (and there was no chance of his acquiring it) then these would be downplayed. And the Liverpool pigeon was most definitely not his.​

Fuller also mentions that there was once a second specimen in the collection of Sir Joseph Banks.
 
robmv said:
I think Errol Fuller summarised the situation nicely in "Extinct Birds" (2000):
Click to expand...

A great book, now sadly out of print; I used to read this and Gap In Nature, a similar volume by Tim Flannery released in 2001, quite often in my local library - unfortunately both books were taken off the shelves about 10 years ago and second-hand copies are prohibitively expensive, so it is a long time since I read either.
 
Fascinating stuff. This is a new one for me, not heard of it before. One wonders why a species like this should have become extinct though. Any thoughts?

Presumably the Nicobar pigeon and this 'new' species both share the same/similar relationship to the Dodos/Solitaires.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
A great book, now sadly out of print; I used to read this and Gap In Nature, a similar volume by Tim Flannery released in 2001, quite often in my local library - unfortunately both books were taken off the shelves about 10 years ago and second-hand copies are prohibitively expensive, so it is a long time since I read either.
Click to expand...

Errol Fuller authored the Foreword of one of the volumes of Handbook of the Birds of the World. Before I purchased them I took a quick look at the sample plates and species accounts on their website and I remember a few of the forwards were downloadable as pdf files.

Edit:
I've done a quick search:
Http://www.lynxeds.com/sites/default/files/forewords//foreword-hbw-07.pdf

You can also buy a "new" copy of the book for only £50 from Amazon.
 
TeaLovingDave said:
A great book, now sadly out of print; I used to read this and Gap In Nature, a similar volume by Tim Flannery released in 2001, quite often in my local library - unfortunately both books were taken off the shelves about 10 years ago and second-hand copies are prohibitively expensive, so it is a long time since I read either.
Click to expand...


I bought a copy on Ebay for 12 dollars 2 weeks ago. Shipping it to Europe was more expensive but completely worth it.
 
I had heared from this species before but I can understand why it is so unknown because it's not mentioned in THE bird-bible ( Handbook of the Birds of the World ) and also Derek Goodwin doesn't mention it in his Pigeons and doves of the world.
With the evidence mentioned in the above article it becomes however clear that it is a species on its own and not a freaky form of Nicobar pigeon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top