The main objectives of the Nepal National Bird Red Data Book were to provide comprehensive and up-to-date accounts of all the bird species found in Nepal, assess their status applying the IUCN Guidelines at Regional Levels, identify threats to all bird species and recommend the most practical measures for their conservation. It is hoped that the Bird RDB will help Nepal achieve the Convention on Biological Diversity target of preventing the extinction of known threatened species and improving their conservation status. As population changes of Nepal’s birds have been studied for only a few species, assessments of species’ national status were mainly made by assessing changes in distribution. Species distribution maps were produced for all of Nepal’s bird species except vagrants and compared to maps that were produced in 1991 using the same mapping system. Of the 878 bird species recorded, 168 species (19%) were assessed as nationally threatened. These comprise 68 (40%) Critically Endangered species, 38 (23%) Endangered species and 62 (37%) Vulnerable species. A total of 62 species was considered Near Threatened and 22 species Data Deficient. Over 55% of the threatened birds are lowland grassland specialists, 25% are wetland birds and 24% tropical and sub-tropical broadleaved forest birds. Larger birds appear to be more threatened than smaller birds with 98 (25%) non-passerine species threatened and 67 (14%) passerine species. Habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation are the most important threats. Other threats include chemical poisoning, over-exploitation, climate change, hydropower, invasive species, intensification of agriculture, disturbance, and limited conservation measures and research. Measures to address these threats are described. It was also concluded that re-assessments of the status of certain bird groups carried out every five years and the setting up of a national online system for storing and reporting bird sightings would be useful.
British Ornithologists' Union Recora5 Committee he body responsible for maintaining the British List has always been T t h e Records Committee (previously known as List Sub-committee) of the British Ornithologists' Union, which has published its recommendations in 1883, 1915, 1923, 1952 and 1971. A revision of the latest of these, 7he Status OfBirh in Britain and Ireland, is currently in preparation, with publication expected within two or three years. With each new list, the whole range of information concerning British birds is reviewed: relationships and validity of species, which may result in changes in sequence of listing and in scientific names; status within Britain, which usually results in numerous additions to and a small number of deletions from the list; and the English names applied to those species which are accepted on the list.At the time of preparation of the 1952 list, very few British birdwatchers travelled abroad. The change even since 1971 has been remarkable. Nowadays, most British birdwatchers have overseas birdwatching experience, and many habitually travel well beyond Europe. Now, more than ever before, there is a need for standardisation of English names, for most English names of Western Palearctic birdsbirdwatchers (a term used here in contrast to 'ornithologists', who are taken to be primarily professional scientists) do not usually use scientific names in conversation or in the field.The question of revision of English names has already been tackled by, for instance, the Royal Australasian Ornithologists' Union (1978) and the American Ornithologists' Union (1983). In 1985, therefore, the BOURC appointed a small subcommittee to make recdmmendations concerning the principles to be applied in any name changes, and, based upon these, to suggest those which were due for consideration.In 1986, the subcommittee reported to the BOURC. The seven principles set out below were considered by the BOURC and adopted after each one was accepted by a majority of the committee.Principles to be followed in adoption of any changes to English names:1. 2.Unrelated species should never have a common group name which would result in their being indexed together. All species within a natural group (certainly genus and preferably subfamily or even family) should preferabb have a distinctive group name under which they would be indexed together. Each species on the West Palearctic list should have a unique name (i.e. one not shared with another species or with a group: e.g. not Wheatear and wheatear). [In some cases, however, it was considered that a double name did not need a third element to distinguish it from a related species with a three-element name (e.g. Black Tern retained for Chlidoninr niger despite the name White-winged Black Tern for C. leucoptenrs).]When possible, names should accord with those adopted in other countries (particularly those where the species is commoner), but well-known English names should not necessarily change for this reason alone. Ideally, all names should be unique on a ...
No abstract
No abstract
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.