Thursday, September 20, 2012

Warbler Guy: Among the strangest warbler questions, a leading one must be: Why is the Yellow-breasted Chat still classified a wood-warbler?

Smart question, Andrea (in Spokane, WA).

Because even a quick glance at a chat suggests — even "yells" — the thought: This species is NOT a warbler, given the large bill (in comparison to other wood-warbler species), large size (two inches bigger than many other wood-warbler species), and a mimic-like/Mimidae family member-like song that is unlike the more dainty, plaintive song heard in most other wood-warbler species.
So: Here's why the Yellow-breasted remains in the wood-warbler family (Parulidae), despite considerable mutiny and bounty dialog that seeks to oust it. Note that two respected analyses of this warbler species’ blood anatomy (i.e., its molecular characters) continue to place the species in the wood-warbler family. More specific (for you molecularly-literate warbler fans), based on the analysis of proteins encoded by loci in various wood-warbler species, the chat remains grouped with other wood-warbler family members. 
Other researchers — including David Sibley’s dad, Charles Sibley — concluded, likewise, through blood analysis (i.e., DNA hyridization) that the chat should remain in the warbler family, despite comparisons of it to tanagers, vireos, mimids (Mimidae family members), and other bird groups.  

OK, I'll abide. The taxonomists know a lot more than me. 


But if a chat is a warbler, then Santa Claus needs scuba diving gear.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thnx for the article....

Allan Block said...

Hello John, I had to comment on your good fortune of finding a Yellow-breasted Chat…good catch.
Good find on the background article, too. Very interesting. Allan

Anonymous said...

YB Chat is a nemesis bird sp. for me (!)
Tommy Smarzen, Portland, OR

Anonymous said...

YB Chat is a nemesis bird sp. for me (!)
Tommy Smarzen, Portland, OR

Anonymous said...

Thanks....

Anonymous said...

But the chat should still be considered again for exclusion based on the Biological Species Concept.

Herman V.

Anonymous said...

I agree with Herman on 10/5....Arch