Abstract

Abstract Howell et al. (2003) argue that the Humphrey-Parkes (H-P) system of molt terminology is flawed because it requires using traditional first prebasic molt as the starting point for plumage succession that results in noncorrespondence between nomenclature and presumed homology in first basic plumages. However, the H-P system does not require this. Second, they argue that plumage color can be a misleading criterion for evaluating plumage homologies. I show, however, that the timing and extent of molts, and thus their homologies, can de documented more accurately by using plumage color than by not doing so. Howell et al. (2003) propose a revised H-P system. To follow their system, one must accept their notion that no first-cycle molts are homologous with prebasic molts in subsequent molt cycles. However, this is not so as many species have a molt in their first cycle that is homologous to definitive prebasic molt. In addition, Howell et al.'s (2003) system does not offer any new or better criteria for...

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.