DOCSLIB.ORG

The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Systematic Position of the Surfbird, Aphriza Virgata THE SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD, APHRIZA VIRGATA JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104 The taxonomic relationships of the Surfbird, ( 1884) elevated the tumstone-Surfbird unit Aphriza virgata, have long been one of the to family rank. But, although they stated (p. most controversial problems in shorebird clas- 126) that Aphrizu “agrees very closely” with sification. Although the species has been as- Arenaria, the only points of similarity men- signed to a monotypic family (Shufeldt 1888; tioned were “robust feet, without trace of web Ridgway 1919), most modern workers agree between toes, the well formed hind toe, and that it should be placed with the turnstones the strong claws; the toes with a lateral margin ( Arenaria spp. ) in the subfamily Arenariinae, forming a broad flat under surface.” These even though they have reached no consensuson differences are hardly sufficient to support the affinities of this subfamily. For example, familial differentiation, or even to suggest Lowe ( 1931), Peters ( 1934), Storer ( 1960), close generic relationship. and Wetmore (1965a) include the Arenariinae Coues (1884605) was uncertain about the in the Scolopacidae (sandpipers), whereas Surfbirds’ relationships. He called it “a re- Wetmore (1951) and the American Ornithol- markable isolated form, perhaps a plover and ogists ’ Union (1957) place it in the Charadri- connecting this family with the next [Haema- idae (plovers). The reasons for these diverg- topodidae] by close relationships with Strep- ent views have never been stated. However, it silas [Armaria], but with the hind toe as well seems that those assigning the Arenariinae to developed as usual in Sandpipers, and general the Charadriidae have relied heavily on their appearance rather sandpiper-like than plover- views of tumstone relationships, because schol- like. Aphriza might go under Haematopodi- ars who have paid particular attention to the dae next to Strepsilas [he considered the turn- Surfbird alone have concluded (1) that it is stones a subfamily of the oystercatchers] or, closely related to the Scolopacidae’ (Shufeldt perhaps better, Aphriza and Strep&m might 1888), (2) that it is an offshoot of the sub- together constitute a family Aphrizidae, next to, family Calidridinae* (Lowe 1931)) or (3) that but apart from, Haematopodidae.” Although there is no evidence against its inclusion in he adopted the latter course ( 1903), his result- the Scolopacidae (Bock 1958). In this paper ing classification was one of convenience, since I wish to review and extend the evidence that he stated (p. 783) “there is probably no better supports the inclusion of the Surfbird in the way of arranging these two unconformable Scolopacidae. genera.” Coues also thought these genera had “much in common,” but noted only (p. 784) HISTORY OF SURFBIRD TAXONOMY that they “agree in structure of feet, which are Described as Tringa virgutu by Gmelin in 4-toed, with anterior toes cleft to base and 1789, the Surfbird was placed in a new genus, tarsi scutellate in front.” By these criteria the Aphriza, by Audubon ( 1839 ) , who took no Aphrizidae has much in common with many definite stand on its relationships. Yet, he did families. note (p. 249) that it bore “a considerable re- Shufeldt (1888) made the first serious at- semblance to the Knot” as well as to the turn- tempt to determine the Surfbirds’ relationships stones, and that it differed from the latter in by comparing its skeleton with those of other bill morphology, tail shape, and tarsal scutel- Charadrii, including Arenuriu, Chad&q and lation. Sclater and Salvin ( 1873:143), without Haematopus. He concluded (p. 337) that the stated reasons, united the Surfbird, turnstones, “sum total of skeletal characteristics place . and Pluvi~ndlus sociulis as a subfamily of the [Aphriza] nearer the Tringeae [ Scolopacidae] Charadriidae. Baird, Brewer, and Ridgway . * . than it does to the plovers; less to Arenaria, and far less to Haematopm.” He placed * The name of this subfamily has been spelled “Cali- Aphriza and Arena&z in separate families. dridiinae” (e.g., A.O.U. 1957) and Calidritinae (e.g., Ridgway (1919:57), who followed Shufeldt, Lowe 1931). According to Brown ( 1954: 724) the genitive singular of the feminine Greek word skalidris characterized these families as follows: (ca1idri.sL.) is skaltiridos. Thus, the stem of the a. Bill distinctly convex terminally and constricted word is skalidrid-, and the name of the subfamily subterminally, neither the maxilla nor man- should become Calidridinae. dible depressed terminally; lateral grooves of TheCondor, 70:206-210, 1968 f2061 SYSTEMATIC POSITION OF THE SURFBIRD 207 bill extending to base of convex terminal por- ment of the Arenariinae. It seems obvious tion; legs and feet much more robust, the lat- from the foregoing review that the cause of eral membrane of anterior toes more strongly this disagreement is the tacit assumption that developed, distinctly roughened or serrate; transverse scutella of acrotarsium broken into Aphrixa is most closely related to Arenuria hexagonal scales on upper and lower portions; and, therefore, that both genera must be clas- planta tarsi reticulate; tail emarginate sified together. A consideration of the rela- __.._____.._.______.-.----_.-.__-------...-..--..---.-.-...-.Aphrizidae. tionships of the turnstones is beyond the scope aa. Bill tapering to the acute tip, not constricted of this paper, but it must be emphasized that subterminally, both maxilla and mandible flat- tened at tip; lateral grooves of bill extending no evidence yet offered strongly supports the not more than half way to tip; legs and feet Arenariinae as a natural taxon. more slender, the lateral margin of anterior toes less developed, smoother; transverse scu- RELATIONSHIP OF THE SURFBIRD tella of acrotarsium continuous; planta tarsi TO THE CALIDRIDINE SANDPIPERS scutellate; tail truncate . Arenariidae. Lowe ( 1931:747-50) not only claimed that Note that the differences that Ridgway used the Surfbird was a sandpiper, but he also to separate these families include character- postulated that it was most closely related to istics of foot structure that Baird, Brewer, and the Knot (Calidris can&us) and the Red- Ridgway (1884) and Coues (1884; 1903) had backed Sandpiper (Erolia alpina). Skull previously used to unite Aphriza and Arena& morphology provided the major support for in a single family. his position. Other evidence further indicates From studies of myology, pterylography, the Surfbirds’ affinity to the calidridine sand- color pattern, and skull morphology, Lowe pipers, and particularly to the Knot and the ( 1931: 747-50) concluded that Arena& and Great Knot (C. tenuirostris). Aphrixa were closely related, and that both were specialized calidridine sandpipers. How- EXTERNAL MORPHOLOGY ever, his myologic and pterylographic studies In a separate study (Jehl 1967) it was shown were inconclusive, and merely showed that that downy plumages offer a highly reliable both forms were waders. Furthermore, his index to relationships in the waders (Suborder remark (p. 749) that “the colour-pattern of Charadrii). The Surfbird chick is typically Aphriza and Arenariu present points of such calidridine in color, pattern, and feather struc- obvious resemblance that . it can hardly ture, and is completely distinct from chicks of fail to suggest a genetic basis of community” turnstones, plovers, or other groups of waders. was clearly an overstatement. The only “ob- An excellent photograph of newly hatched vious” resemblance is between the nonbreed- Surfbirds may be found in Wetmore ( 1965b: ing plumages of the Surfbird and Black Tum- 324). The only specimen known to me (U.S. stone (Arena& melunocephulu) , and this may Natl. Mus. no. 286741; description in Bent be due to convergence, since both species in- 1929:273) is of a chick approximately one habit rocky coasts in winter (cf. also the rather week old, in which the primaries, scapulars, similar nonbreeding plumages of other rock- and some of the flank feathers had begun to inhabiting waders, e.g., Eroliu muritimu, E. erupt. This chick is shown with chicks of ptilocnemis, Heteroscelus incanus, and Hae- Calidris canutus and Arena&z interpres in fig- matopus bachmuni) . Skull morphology did ure 1. Although it is not evident in the photo- support his view. He showed (1925) that the graph, owing to the age of the chick and the morphology of the quadrate was useful in preparation of the skin, the Surfbird chick is distinguishing sandpipers from plovers, and nearly identical to that of the Knot, even to ( 1931) that the structure of the maxillo-pala- details of face pattern; moreover, it is more tine strut could be used to separate the major similar to Knot chicks than to those of other scolopacidine groups. In Aphriza and Are- calidridine sandpipers. Portenkos’ plate ( 1933: n&a “the quadrato-tympanic morphology . , opp. p. 96) shows that chicks of the Great is scolopacidine” and “the morphology of the Knot are like those of the Knot. The turnstone maxillary-palatine angle is . eroliine” (Lowe downy plumage is not calidridine, but has 1931: 748 ) . probably been derived from that of the tringine Bock (1958:86) confirmed that the palate sandpipers (Jehl 1967). structure in these genera was like that of the The breeding plumage of the Surfbird, calidridine sandpipers; yet, he considered the which is totally unlike that of the plovers and Arenariinae “Incertae Sedis.” turnstones, is similar to that of several cali- In summary, although the only substantial dridine sandpipers, but most closely resembles evidence that has been presented to date indi- that of the Great Knot. The pattern and color- cates that Aphrixa, at least, is a sandpiper, ation on the head, neck, and back of these taxonomists continue to disagree on the place- species are nearly identical. The heart-shaped 208 JOSEPH R. JEHL, JR. FIGURE 3. Ventral view of Aphriza uirgccta (left) and C&u!& tenuirostris (right) in breeding plumage. Aphriza is scutellate to reticulate anteriorly, FIGURE 1.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Table 7: Species Changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015)
    IUCN Red List version 2015.4: Table 7 Last Updated: 19 November 2015 Table 7: Species changing IUCN Red List Status (2014-2015) Published listings of a species' status may change for a variety of reasons (genuine improvement or deterioration in status; new information being available that was not known at the time of the previous assessment; taxonomic changes; corrections to mistakes made in previous assessments, etc. To help Red List users interpret the changes between the Red List updates, a summary of species that have changed category between 2014 (IUCN Red List version 2014.3) and 2015 (IUCN Red List version 2015-4) and the reasons for these changes is provided in the table below. IUCN Red List Categories: EX - Extinct, EW - Extinct in the Wild, CR - Critically Endangered, EN - Endangered, VU - Vulnerable, LR/cd - Lower Risk/conservation dependent, NT - Near Threatened (includes LR/nt - Lower Risk/near threatened), DD - Data Deficient, LC - Least Concern (includes LR/lc - Lower Risk, least concern). Reasons for change: G - Genuine status change (genuine improvement or deterioration in the species' status); N - Non-genuine status change (i.e., status changes due to new information, improved knowledge of the criteria, incorrect data used previously, taxonomic revision, etc.); E - Previous listing was an Error. IUCN Red List IUCN Red Reason for Red List Scientific name Common name (2014) List (2015) change version Category Category MAMMALS Aonyx capensis African Clawless Otter LC NT N 2015-2 Ailurus fulgens Red Panda VU EN N 2015-4
    [Show full text]
  • Nordmann's Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi
    Final Report Nordmann’s Greenshank Population Analysis, at Pantai Cemara Jambi Cipto Dwi Handono1, Ragil Siti Rihadini1, Iwan Febrianto1 and Ahmad Zulfikar Abdullah1 1Yayasan Ekologi Satwa Alam Liar Indonesia (Yayasan EKSAI/EKSAI Foundation) Surabaya, Indonesia Background Many shorebirds species have declined along East Asian-Australasian Flyway which support the highest diversity of shorebirds in the world, including the globally endangered species, Nordmann’s Greenshank. Nordmann’s Greenshank listed as endangered in the IUCN Red list of Threatened Species because of its small and declining population (BirdLife International, 2016). It’s one of the world’s most threatened shorebirds, is confined to the East Asian–Australasian Flyway (Bamford et al. 2008, BirdLife International 2001, 2012). Its global population is estimated at 500–1,000, with an estimated 100 in Malaysia, 100–200 in Thailand, 100 in Myanmar, plus unknown but low numbers in NE India, Bangladesh and Sumatra (Wetlands International 2006). The population is suspected to be rapidly decreasing due to coastal wetland development throughout Asia for industry, infrastructure and aquaculture, and the degradation of its breeding habitat in Russia by grazing Reindeer Rangifer tarandus (BirdLife International 2012). Mostly Nordmann’s Greenshanks have been recorded in very small numbers throughout Southeast Asia, and there are few places where it has been reported regularly. In Myanmar, for example, it was rediscovered after a gap of almost 129 years. The total count recorded by the Asian Waterbird Census (AWC) in 2006 for Myanmar was 28 birds with 14 being the largest number at a single locality (Naing 2007). In 2011–2012, Nordmann’s Greenshank was found three times in Sumatera Utara province, N Sumatra.
    [Show full text]
  • Birds of Chile a Photo Guide
    © Copyright, Princeton University Press. No part of this book may be 88 distributed, posted, or reproduced in any form by digital or mechanical 89 means without prior written permission of the publisher. WALKING WATERBIRDS unmistakable, elegant wader; no similar species in Chile SHOREBIRDS For ID purposes there are 3 basic types of shorebirds: 6 ‘unmistakable’ species (avocet, stilt, oystercatchers, sheathbill; pp. 89–91); 13 plovers (mainly visual feeders with stop- start feeding actions; pp. 92–98); and 22 sandpipers (mainly tactile feeders, probing and pick- ing as they walk along; pp. 99–109). Most favor open habitats, typically near water. Different species readily associate together, which can help with ID—compare size, shape, and behavior of an unfamiliar species with other species you know (see below); voice can also be useful. 2 1 5 3 3 3 4 4 7 6 6 Andean Avocet Recurvirostra andina 45–48cm N Andes. Fairly common s. to Atacama (3700–4600m); rarely wanders to coast. Shallow saline lakes, At first glance, these shorebirds might seem impossible to ID, but it helps when different species as- adjacent bogs. Feeds by wading, sweeping its bill side to side in shallow water. Calls: ringing, slightly sociate together. The unmistakable White-backed Stilt left of center (1) is one reference point, and nasal wiek wiek…, and wehk. Ages/sexes similar, but female bill more strongly recurved. the large brown sandpiper with a decurved bill at far left is a Hudsonian Whimbrel (2), another reference for size. Thus, the 4 stocky, short-billed, standing shorebirds = Black-bellied Plovers (3).
    [Show full text]
  • Tasmanian Bird Report 38
    Tasmanian Bird Report 38 July 2017 BirdLife Tasmania, a branch of BirdLife Australia Editor, Wynne Webber TASMANIA The Tasmanian Bird Report is published by BirdLife Tasmania, a regional branch of BirdLife Australia Number 38 © 2017 BirdLife Tasmania, GPO Box 68, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia 7001 ISSN 0156-4935 This publication is copyright. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may, except for the purposes of study or research, be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of BirdLife Tasmania or the respective paper’s author(s). Acknowledgments NRM South, through funding from the Australian Government’s National Landcare Programme, has provided financial assistance for the publication of this report. We thank them both for this contribution. Contents Editorial iv Wynne Webber State of Tasmania’s terrestrial birds 2014–15 1 Mike Newman, Nick Ramshaw, Sue Drake, Eric Woehler, Andrew Walter and Wynne Webber Risk of anticoagulant rodenticides to Tasmanian raptors 17 Nick Mooney Oddities of behaviour and occurrence 26 Compiler, Wynne Webber When is the best time to survey shorebirds? 31 Stephen Walsh A Eurasian Coot nests in Hobart 32 William E. Davis, Jr Changes in bird populations on Mt Wellington over a 40-year period 34 Mike Newman 2016 Summer and winter wader counts 44 (incorporating corrected tables for 2015 summer counts) Eric Woehler and Sue Drake Editorial In this Tasmanian Bird Report we institute what is hoped to be a useful and ongoing enterprise, which replaces the systematic lists of earlier years: a report on ‘The state of Tasmania’s birds’.
    [Show full text]
  • Pages 345–366850.31 KB
    Conservation Science W. Aust. 8 (3) : 345–366 (2013) Wader numbers and distribution on Eighty Mile Beach, north-west Australia: baseline counts for the period 1981–2003 CLIVE MINTON 1, MICHAEL CONNOR 2, DAVID PRICE 3, ROSALIND JESSOP 4, PETER COLLINS 5, HUMPHREY SITTERS 6, CHRIS HASSELL 7, GRANT PEARSON 8, DANNY ROGERS 9 1 165 Dalgetty Road Beaumaris, Victoria 3193 2 19 Pamela Grove Lower Templestowe, Victoria 3107 [email protected] 3 8 Scattor View Bridford, Exeter, Devon EX6 7JF, UK 4 Phillip Island Nature Park, PO Box 97 Cowes, Victoria 3922 5 214 Doveton Crescent Soldiers Hill, Ballarat, Victoria 3350 6 Higher Wyndcliffe Barline, Beer, Seaton, Devon EX12 3LP, UK 7 PO Box 3089 Broome, Western Australia 6725 8 Western Australian Department of Parks and Wildlife, PO Box 51 Wanneroo, Western Australia 6065 9 340 Ninks Road St Andrews, Victoria 3761 ABSTRACT This paper analyses ground counts and aerial surveys of high-tide wader roosts conducted over the 23-year period from 1981 to 2003, at Eighty Mile Beach, north-west Australia. It provides a baseline data set with which later count data can be compared. Over the study period, Eighty Mile Beach held a maximum of around 470,000 waders in any given year. This represented around 20% of the total number of migratory waders visiting Australia each year and around 6% of the total East Asian – Australasian Flyway migratory wader population. The most numerous species were great knot (169,000), bar-tailed godwit (110,000), greater sand plover (65,000) and oriental plover (58,000).
    [Show full text]
  • List of Species Likely to Benefit from Marine Protected Areas in The
    Appendix C: Species Likely to Benefit from MPAs andSpecial-Status Species This appendix contains two sections: C.1 Species likely to benefit from marine protected areas in the MLPA South Coast Study Region C.2 Special status species likely to occur in the MLPA South Coast Study Region C.1 Species Likely to Benefit From MPAs The Marine Life Protection Act requires that species likely to benefit from MPAs be identified; identification of these species will contribute to the identification of habitat areas that will support achieving the goals of the MLPA. The California Marine Life Protection Act Master Plan for Marine Protected Areas (DFG 2008) includes a broad list of species likely to benefit from protection within MPAs. The master plan also indicates that regional lists will be developed by the MLPA Master Plan Science Advisory Team (SAT) for each study region described in the master plan. A list of species likely to benefit for the MLPA South Coast Study Region (Point Conception in Santa Barbara County to the California/Mexico border in San Diego County) has been compiled and approved by the SAT. The SAT used a scoring system to develop the list of species likely to benefit. This scoring system was developed to provide a metric that is more useful when comparing species than a simple on/off the list metric. Each species was scored using “1” to indicate a criterion was met or “0” to indicate a criterion was not met. Species on the list meet the following filtering criteria: they occur in the study region, they must score a “1” for either
    [Show full text]
  • YELLOW THROAT the Newsletter of Birdlife Tasmania: a Branch of Birdlife Australia Number 110, Winter 2020
    YELLOW THROAT The newsletter of BirdLife Tasmania: a branch of BirdLife Australia Number 110, Winter 2020 Welcome to all our new readers (supporters and new Contents members) to the Winter edition of Yellow Throat. Masked Lapwing—Is it breeding earlier this year…..2 Normally we would be letting you know when the Concern for Tasmania’s woodland birds………………...3 next BirdLife Tasmania General Meeting will be held and who will be speaking. Alas, we are still under More of the same—windfarms gaining approval through archaic assessment……………………………………..4 COVID-19 restrictions for now, and are unsure when the next meeting will take place, but it will not be be- Birdata is easy to use and helps our birdlife!...............7 fore September. Beneath the radar…………………………………………………….8 We will continue to provide updates in the e-bulletin What Happens to Out-of-Range Records in on the resumption of meetings, and also, of course, Birdata?.................................................................... .10 outings. At this stage, outings will hopefully resume in Any more oddities?....................................................11 August. In the meantime, enjoy the many interesting Bird - safe architecture…………………………………………. .12 articles we have in this issue of Yellow Throat; we South-east Tasmanian KBA report indicates climate - hope you are making the most of the birds in your related concern for some species………………………… ..14 local area. Birding in backyards initiative………………………………. ..17 In this issue of Yellow Throat, two programs are out- lined that allow the community to participate in bird Is your cat a killer?......................................................18 surveys. General Birdata surveys and Birds in Back- Cat management in Tasmania………………… .19 yards surveys are two different ways that people who Letter from the Raptor Refuge………………………………..20 love birds can record what they see.
    [Show full text]
  • First Record of Long-Billed Curlew Numenius Americanus in Peru and Other Observations of Nearctic Waders at the Virilla Estuary Nathan R
    Cotinga 26 First record of Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus in Peru and other observations of Nearctic waders at the Virilla estuary Nathan R. Senner Received 6 February 2006; final revision accepted 21 March 2006 Cotinga 26(2006): 39–42 Hay poca información sobre las rutas de migración y el uso de los sitios de la costa peruana por chorlos nearcticos. En el fin de agosto 2004 yo reconocí el estuario de Virilla en el dpto. Piura en el noroeste de Peru para identificar los sitios de descanso para los Limosa haemastica en su ruta de migración al sur y aprender más sobre la migración de chorlos nearcticos en Peru. En Virilla yo observí más de 2.000 individuales de 23 especios de chorlos nearcticos y el primer registro de Numenius americanus de Peru, la concentración más grande de Limosa fedoa en Peru, y una concentración excepcional de Limosa haemastica. La combinación de esas observaciones y los resultados de un estudio anterior en el invierno boreal sugiere la posibilidad que Virilla sea muy importante para chorlos nearcticos en Peru. Las observaciones, también, demuestren la necesidad hacer más estudios en la costa peruana durante el año entero, no solemente durante el punto máximo de la migración de chorlos entre septiembre y noviembre. Shorebirds are poorly known in Peru away from bordered for a few hundred metres by sand and established study sites such as Paracas reserve, gravel before low bluffs rise c.30 m. Very little dpto. Ica, and those close to metropolitan areas vegetation grows here, although cows, goats and frequented by visiting birdwatchers and tour pigs owned by Parachique residents graze the area.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Birds of the Estero Bay Area
    Common Birds of the Estero Bay Area Jeremy Beaulieu Lisa Andreano Michael Walgren Introduction The following is a guide to the common birds of the Estero Bay Area. Brief descriptions are provided as well as active months and status listings. Photos are primarily courtesy of Greg Smith. Species are arranged by family according to the Sibley Guide to Birds (2000). Gaviidae Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata Occurrence: Common Active Months: November-April Federal Status: None State/Audubon Status: None Description: A small loon seldom seen far from salt water. In the non-breeding season they have a grey face and red throat. They have a long slender dark bill and white speckling on their dark back. Information: These birds are winter residents to the Central Coast. Wintering Red- throated Loons can gather in large numbers in Morro Bay if food is abundant. They are common on salt water of all depths but frequently forage in shallow bays and estuaries rather than far out at sea. Because their legs are located so far back, loons have difficulty walking on land and are rarely found far from water. Most loons must paddle furiously across the surface of the water before becoming airborne, but these small loons can practically spring directly into the air from land, a useful ability on its artic tundra breeding grounds. Pacific Loon Gavia pacifica Occurrence: Common Active Months: November-April Federal Status: None State/Audubon Status: None Description: The Pacific Loon has a shorter neck than the Red-throated Loon. The bill is very straight and the head is very smoothly rounded.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Breeding Stopover Sites of Waders in the Estuaries of the Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya Rivers, Western Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, 2010–2012
    Post-breeding stopover sites of waders in the estuaries of the Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya rivers, western Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, 2010–2012 Dmitry S. Dorofeev1 & Fedor V. Kazansky2 1 All-Russian Research Institute for Nature Protection (ARRINP), Znamenskoe-Sadki, Moscow, 117628 Russia [email protected] 2 Kronotsky State Biosphere Reserve, Ryabikova St. 48, Elizovo, Kamchatskiy Kray, 68400 Russia. [email protected] Dorofeev, D.S. & Kazansky, F.V. 2013. Post-breeding stopover sites of waders in the estuaries of the Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya rivers, western Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia, 2010–2012. Wader Study Group Bull. 120(2): 119–123. Keywords: East Asian–Australasian Flyway, Kamchatka, waders, stopover site, resightings During the northern summer and autumn seasons of 2010–2012 we collected data on the numbers of waders that stop on the estuaries of the rivers Khairusovo, Belogolovaya and Moroshechnaya on the west-central coast of the Kamchatka Peninsula, Russia. Among known wader stopovers on the west coast of Kamchatka, this is the area that supports the largest numbers. We found that the most abundant species were Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris, Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica, Black-tailed Godwit L. limosa and Red-necked Stint C. ruficollis. Two globally-threatened species were also recorded: Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascarensis and Spoon-billed Sandpiper Eurynorhynchus pygmeus. At least 35 Great Knots colour-marked in NW Australia, one from South Australia and two from China were recorded in the area. We also observed several colour- marked Bar-tailed Godwits, Red-necked Stints and a Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres marked in different areas of Australia and in China.
    [Show full text]
  • EPBC Act Referral Is Complete, Current and Correct
    Submission #2895 - Robbins Island Renewable Energy Park, Robbins Island, Tasmania Title of Proposal - Robbins Island Renewable Energy Park, Robbins Island, Tasmania Section 1 - Summary of your proposed action Provide a summary of your proposed action, including any consultations undertaken. 1.1 Project Industry Type Energy Generation and Supply (renewable) 1.2 Provide a detailed description of the proposed action, including all proposed activities. Please see letter for detailed description of the proposed action, attached at 1.4. 1.3 What is the extent and location of your proposed action? Use the polygon tool on the map below to mark the location of your proposed action. Area Point Latitude Longitude Robbins Island 1 -40.674899476105 145.00381304524 Robbins Island 2 -40.678232305635 145.00655962727 Robbins Island 3 -40.68156496855 145.01397539038 Robbins Island 4 -40.684689176792 145.02660966353 Robbins Island 5 -40.68427259873 145.03155351957 Robbins Island 6 -40.68427259873 145.03484940962 Robbins Island 7 -40.682606387569 145.03924395764 Robbins Island 8 -40.682189796489 145.0417158647 Robbins Island 9 -40.680315231537 145.04528642972 Robbins Island 10 -40.680106929163 145.04858231978 Robbins Island 11 -40.680106929163 145.04968095678 Robbins Island 12 -40.682189796489 145.04775835774 Robbins Island 13 -40.68156496855 145.04611041271 Robbins Island 14 -40.683231205745 145.04446244673 Robbins Island 15 -40.684689176792 145.04501177571 Robbins Island 16 -40.685522261546 145.04720902876 Robbins Island 17 -40.686147084167 145.0447371217
    [Show full text]
  • SIS) – 2017 Version
    Information Sheet on EAA Flyway Network Sites Information Sheet on EAA Flyway Network Sites (SIS) – 2017 version Available for download from http://www.eaaflyway.net/about/the-flyway/flyway-site-network/ Categories approved by Second Meeting of the Partners of the East Asian-Australasian Flyway Partnership in Beijing, China 13-14 November 2007 - Report (Minutes) Agenda Item 3.13 Notes for compilers: 1. The management body intending to nominate a site for inclusion in the East Asian - Australasian Flyway Site Network is requested to complete a Site Information Sheet. The Site Information Sheet will provide the basic information of the site and detail how the site meets the criteria for inclusion in the Flyway Site Network. When there is a new nomination or an SIS update, the following sections with an asterisk (*), from Questions 1-14 and Question 30, must be filled or updated at least so that it can justify the international importance of the habitat for migratory waterbirds. 2. The Site Information Sheet is based on the Ramsar Information Sheet. If the site proposed for the Flyway Site Network is an existing Ramsar site then the documentation process can be simplified. 3. Once completed, the Site Information Sheet (and accompanying map(s)) should be submitted to the Flyway Partnership Secretariat. Compilers should provide an electronic (MS Word) copy of the Information Sheet and, where possible, digital versions (e.g. shapefile) of all maps. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [Show full text]