Brainwashed

(own report)

Wikipedia and falconry literature show mistakes
Online encyclopedia Wikipedia is known for including partly insufficient information, in particular with regards to bad research. Its authors also access available technical literature, of course. That is where one should be able to expect proper information. However, that is not the case. The ”Schöneberg” (Falknerei: Leitfaden für Prüfung und Praxis) does not meet its requirements by including the Barbary Falcon Falco pelegrinoides and its subspecies pelegrinoides and babylonicus as Falco peregrinus pelegrinoides and Falco peregrinus babylonicus in its list of Peregrine Falcons. This classification is wrong. A list analogous to this one can also be found on wikipedia.org. Even though this article also includes a remark for existing divergent opinions on this subject matter, presenting this recited classification tempts people to misleading assumptions. The use of the literature mentioned above in falconers’ examinations (examinees as well as examiners) reflects an utterly wrong, scientifically unproven attitude. Whether or not this is done purposely or frivolously shall be disregarded at this point.

The incidence: In ”Schöneberg” - Falknerei: Leitfaden für Prüfung und Praxis (Publisher: Peter N. Klüh, Darmstadt, edition 2009) on page 294, it says ”Answers to questions on birds of prey-lore”. Answer 284 to the question ”Subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus)” lists F.p. pelegrinoides on number 8.) and F.p. babylonicus on number 12.). Relevant remarks can be found on pages 62 and 63 under the title ”Subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon” (!), where it states that up until recently (!?) one of the subspecies (F.p. pelegrinoides) used to be seen as a nominotypical taxon, the other one (F.p. babylonicus) as an eastern subspecies of the Barbary Falcon. Not to forget: ”Subspecies of the Peregrine Falcon”. The commonly used notation of the Barbary Falcon (F.p. pelegrinoides) is similarly used for the Peregrine Falcon (F.p. peregrinus). This is not admissible.

It is a biological fact that 1., the Barbary Falcon has a different breeding cycle than the Peregrine Falcon, 2., both exist (and also breed) in parallel, 3., the very slim and long breast bone of the Barbary Falcon clearly differs from the broad and short one of the Peregrine Falcon, 4., the common sexual dimorphism has really been carried to the exremes here, and 5., crossings between both species (barbary and Peregrine Falcon) only occurs as an exceptional (for example between the prairie falcon Falco mexicanus, which is closely related to the Peregrine Falcon, and the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus in North America) if mating partners of the same species are scarce due to very low population density of both species (just like the prairie and the Peregrine Falcon). Cross breedings between the Barbary and Peregrine Falcons are actually not wide-spread. Similar problems are known for the so-called hierofalcons (Gyr-, Saker-, Lanner-, and Laggar Falcon). A division between species has also been made here, even though natural hybrids between each other along the borders of their areas of occurrence could technically occur and possibly do exist in reality. The relative distance between Barbary and Peregrine Falcons is around 0.6 - 0.7%, the one between Saker Falcons and Gyrfalcons is only around 0.4% (at obviously natural hybridization, c.f. Nittinger). However, Saker Falcons and Gyrfalcons are still divided into two different species.

Let’s keep in mind: Solely the Latin nomenclature is of crucial importance, since it evaluates the biological facts, and is therefore used for the reference guide SIBLEY & MONROE (1990, 1993), as well as for the current (since the CITES-contracting states conference 2007 of Den Haag) reference guide DICKINSON (2003). Therefore, the following is scientifically correct:

The Barbary Falcon Falco pelegrinoides with its subspecies Falco pelegrinoides pelegrinoides and Falco pelegrinoides babylonicus does not belong to the species of Peregrine Falcons.

On demand of our consultant Horst Stamm, this fact has recently been approved by the Federal Agency for Nature Conservation (German: Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BnF)) as the highest advising agency. The agency’s statement also indicates that the two taxa Falco pelegrinoides and Falco peregrinus represent two independent species. In so far, the Falco pelegrinoides is not a domestic species (contrary to the Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus). Therefore, hybrids between Falco pelegrinoides and e.g. Falco rusticolus (Gyrfalcon), in contrast to crossings between a Gyrfalcon and a Peregrine Falcon, are not hybrids in terms of the birds of prey hybrid regulation in the Bundesartenschutzverordnung (BArtSchV) of the Federal Republic of German.

The partly-used names Falco peregrinus and Falco peregrinus babylonicus are indubitably wrong and possibly only serve to abet uncertainty about the hybrid notation; it might also be the attempt to transport personal wishful thinking. This circumstance is very questionable.

Incidents such this case or the case of Saker Falcon are not adequate to establish faith - neither among falconers nor within the relationship between falconers, bird rights activists, and politicians. The ”list of domestic birds of prey according to BNatSchG (2005)”, which for the first time includes the Saker Falcon, has not been legitimatized by the parliament; the categorization of the Barbary Falcon as a Peregrine Falcon is not covered scientifically and blatantly contradicts the custom of acknowledging works of reference, which form the bases of WA, EU-VO, or also CITES.

Terminator