Letter

Published on 13 March 2014 in Letters

As a consequence of our paper on this subject (Brit. Birds 101: 364­375), we have received some feedback from Recorders and from national committees. We therefore suggest that the following conventions might be adopted for the areas named. 39. Yorkshire The Recorders for the Yorkshire Naturalists’ Union would prefer all records to be described simply as `Yorkshire’, leaving the matter of subdivisions to their own discretion. 40. Cleveland Although this remains two Areas of Double Recording (with Co. Durham and Yorkshire), records should be quoted in national summaries simply as `Cleveland’. The other County Recorders have not abandoned their claims to ancient territories, but they can extract such records as they please to satisfy their interest. W2 Glamorgan This area has long been reported on by two societies, with no overlap. Nonetheless, the Welsh Ornithological Society considers it a single area and would prefer that records from one vice-county should not be separated into `Gower’ and `East Glamorgan’. We might also point out that parts of the county are not exactly described by these titles; the citizens of Port Talbot do not live in Gower and those of Porthcawl would be surprised to learn that they were in East Glamorgan.looked for several reasons, including a lack of Defining zoogeographic regions is a complex information on the birds of Iran (since it is issue and there are several possible approaches. familiar to so few western ornithologists) and One is to consider the number of endemic the fact that Iran falls outside

Click here to download the full article.