Lesser Sunda Islands)

The avifauna of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands) G.F. Mees Mees, G.F. The avifauna of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands). Zool. Med. Leiden 80-3, 25.viii.2006: 1-261, fi gs. 1-18. ISSN 0024-0672. G.F. Mees, Nationaal Natuurhistorisch Museum, Leiden, The Netherlands. Present address: 31 West Street, Busselton 6280, Western Australia, Australia. Key words: Indonesia; Flores; avifauna; birds; zoogeography. The avifauna of the island of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands) is reviewed. Introductory sections, which include a chapter on the history of ornithological discovery, are followed by the main part, a systematic account in which each species and subspecies known from Flores is treated separately. A discussion of the zoogeography, a gazetteer, a list of references and an index complete the volume. At present 214 forms (210 species) are accepted as having been reliably recorded. Of these, ca. 160 are, or may be as- sumed to be, residents, and of ca. 100 the eggs have been collected and are described. The balance con- sists of visiting sea and freshwater birds, migrants from the North and migrants from the South. It is likely that few additions remain to be made to the list of residents, but migrants from the North and visiting seabirds have obviously been under-recorded, and in these two categories another 20 to 25 species are to be expected as regular visitors. Lonchura punctulata insulicola subspec. nov. is described from Mauritius, Réunion and Mahé (Seychelles Is.). Contents 1. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 2. Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................................ 3 3. Topography ......................................................................................................................................................... 4 4. Adjacent smaller islands .............................................................................................................................. 5 5. History of ornithological exploration .................................................................................................. 9 6. The egg collection (see also pp. 254-261) ........................................................................................ 19 7. Forsten’s collection from Bima, Sumbawa .................................................................................... 22 8. Systematic account ....................................................................................................................................... 22 9. Unconfi rmed and erroneous records .............................................................................................. 219 10. Species and subspecies with type-locality Flores .................................................................... 222 11. Zoogeography ............................................................................................................................................... 223 12. List of localities ............................................................................................................................................. 228 13. Postscript .......................................................................................................................................................... 230 14. Bibliography and references ................................................................................................................ 233 15. Systematic index .......................................................................................................................................... 250 1. Introduction That the Lesser Sunda Islands, forming a connecting link between the strikingly different faunas of Asia and Australia, belong to the zoogeographically most fascinat- ing regions of the world, is no news. Important zoogeographical studies have been based on their avifauna (particularly Rensch, 1928d, 1930, 1936; Stresemann, 1939; Mayr, 1944a, 1944b). Yet, in spite of an early start, and of their acknowledged crucial 2 Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) importance for an understanding of the zoogeographical relationship between Asia and Australia, most islands are at present no more than moderately well-known ornithologically. Collections have been made during (usually short) visits by professional collectors, heavily relying on native helpers, rather than by ornithologists, and much of the collect- ing has been rather haphazard. For Flores, this situation has now been changed through the efforts of two long-time residents, the Fathers J.A.J. Verheijen, SVD, and E. Schmutz, SVD, who, during their stay, devoted much time to ornithological investigations. It has been my privilege to receive and study the collections resulting from their activities, and the paper here pre- sented is the outcome of my involvement. This paper is far less comprehensive than I should have liked it to be. Many species, dealt with only superfi cially, require a revision before their zoogeographical signifi - cance in the fauna can be evaluated properly, but any work is a compromise between time and means available, and the desired result. As in the preparation of their admirable work on the birds of Wallacea, White & Bruce (1986) have had free access to all the material and notes brought together by the Fathers Verheijen and Schmutz, one might wonder, and indeed I have wondered, whether after the appearance of their publication, there was still any need, or even justifi cation, for a separate paper on Flores. However, it will be evident that a paper exclu- sively on the birds of Flores, can go into much greater detail than a work covering the whole of Wallacea, and therefore deserves publication. In addition, there was the obli- gation to the collectors, who were entitled to see the published result of all their work. Finally, it seems worth publishing these collections for their own sake. Complaints have repeatedly been made, that collections present in the Leiden museum remained unpublished. The truth is that, for the size and importance of its collections, the museum has always been understaffed and that the complaint was justifi ed. Catalogues of the collections were begun by Schlegel, and anew by Finsch, but they never got very far. To save the Flores collections made by the Fathers from oblivion, a paper was evidently required. Authors of faunistic and systematic works aspiring to scientifi c accuracy are in- creasingly confronted with the question of what to do with fi eld observations. At present the ornithologically more sophisticated countries even have panels of special- ists sitting in judgement over observations made by others, at best a risky matter. There is a danger here of taking ourselves too seriously. When, however, birdwatchers and ‘ticklisters’ from the above-mentioned countries, where they would not hesitate to sub- ject their unusual observations to the whole rigmarole, travel abroad, they suddenly shed this serious approach and seem to believe that a cross on their pre-printed ticklist should be all the documentation required to have their observations accepted. Thus the acceptance of such records, for which there is no tangible evidence, becomes guesswork or a matter of faith. When my interest in the avifauna began, in the mid-nineteen sixties, the problem did not yet exist as the Lesser Sunda Islands, even Bali, were well outside the range of ornithotourism, which at that time was only just beginning to develop. This situation is now changing rapidly. A comparatively recent development, of which the region has not remained entirely free, is that of multi-author papers, combining observations made by different observers Mees. Avifauna of Flores. Zool. Med. Leiden 80 (2006) 3 at different times. Superfi cially this may seem rational, but frequently it is impossible to distil from these texts, who is responsible for certain records and observations, so that in practice these are anonymous. The custom, also becoming popular, of referring to unpublished notes and reports, irritates: one tries to check a statement made in the text with a reference, and fi nds it to be based on unpublished notes, and therefore of no help at all. Another aspect has to be mentioned: several recent visits to the Lesser Sunda Islands have been made under the auspices of conservation organizations. Nothing wrong with that, but in a few instances I got from the text of their reports the impression that actu- ally bird material had been collected, but is not clearly mentioned, or glossed over (as confl icting with the avowed purpose of these visits?). This means that important documentation is withheld: a report should clearly state what has been collected, and in which institution such material is held, so that other students will know where to go for further information. Originally I had not intended to include in this report any species not based on collected material, but gradually this has been relaxed, with the inclusion of Fregata ariel, Pandion haliaetus, Hieraaetus kieneri and Phalaropus lobatus. This relaxation has also in- duced me to list some (not all) of my own fi eld observations made on Sumba and Sum- bawa, as far as they are relevant to the avifauna and understanding of the zoogeographical position of Flores. 2. Acknowledgements From the introduction, my

Load more