Talk:Bird species new to science described in the 2000s

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on cryptozoology and cryptids on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

The Wikipedia page "bird species new to science described in the 2000s" contains a number of inconsistencies regarding the treatment of taxa as "new species" or "new splits". The taxonomic act of naming a species refers to the assignment of a new scientific name to a type, while "splitting" refers to the upgrading of a taxon presviously named as a subspecies to species rank.

Therefore, Gunnison Sage Grouse (Centrocercus minimus) is not a new split, but a new species, as the name minimus was newly bestowed. Since this gamebird was previously unnamed, it doesn't matter that some of its populations had previously been considered as C. urophasianus. Otherwise, many other genuine new bird species that had previously been considered to belong to a closely related species would have to be considered mere splits as well (such as Taiwan Bush Warbler, which was known to exist many decades before its description, but was subsumed under another species).

Similarly, Planalto Tapaculo (Scytalopus pachecoi) is currently listed as a new split on this page, even though it constitutes a genuine new species.

On the other hand,the Solomon Frogmouth (Rigidipenna inexpectata) is here listed as a new species, even though it was described by Hartert in 1901 (as a species), and later (in 1927) lumped by Mathews into Podargus ocellatus. Recently, it was again split, this time into a new genus Rigidipenna, however the description of a new genus name does not constitute - in my opinion - the naming of a new species (since the taxon inexpectata had been known for 100 years).