656 
THE WILSON JOURNAL OF ORNITHOLOGY • Vol. 123. No. 3. September 2011 
difficulties with the data sets. Garton et al. 
considered 30 populations over the range of the 
species and decided that 23 had sufficient data for 
analysis. They report that at least 13% may 
decline below effective population size (= 50 
individuals) in the next 30 years. I suspect this is 
far less than reality as many populations have 
continued to decline since 2007 (the end of the 
period chosen for analysis). One can dispute an 
effective population size of 50 individuals and 
Garton ct al. also considered an effective 
population size of 500 individuals. However, this 
number also seems less than compelling as 
relatively short-lived bird populations can col¬ 
lapse after 1-2 years of no or poor nest success 
and recruitment of young. 
I would be remiss if I failed to mention Chapter 
2 on the organizational structure of planning 
efforts for Sage-Grouse management. This chap¬ 
ter by S. J. Stiver reviews the structure of a 
‘technical’ committee formed by the Directors of 
western state wildlife agencies starting in 1954. 
This committee went through several stages, 
initially to work with Federal agencies (primarily 
the BLM, and later included the USFS and other 
agencies), then to work against federal agency 
plans to eliminate or greatly reduce sagebrush on 
public lands to the eventual point at one time of 
having only state biologists at meetings. Attitudes 
changed over time but the Western State Directors 
rarely got very involved and even declined at 
times to allow travel for participation in the 
technical committee; there was even a movement 
to combine the committee responsibilities with 
those of another committee (on Pronghorn 
management). The technical committee recog¬ 
nized the problems and sought to get the attention 
of the Directors on multiple issues dealing with 
protocols for collecting useful data and the 
importance of working with Federal agencies. A 
basic problem was that Directors of state wildlife 
agencies frequently changed and their interest was 
placed on higher priorities that directly affected 
agency income (and use of resources). Changes 
were slowly occurring starting in the mid-1990s 
and then went into overdrive after 1998 when it 
became apparent what was likely to happen 
(petitions for listing as T or E). This book is the 
product of those changes in the late 1990s and 
2000-2008 intervals. 
A glaring gap in the book is any commitment 
by Federal agencies, especially the Bureau of 
Land Management (which manages most of the 
public lands that still support Sage-Grouse). U.S. 
Forest Service, and Natural Resources Conserva¬ 
tion Service (which spends Federal funds to 
improve management on private agricultural and 
range lands). The future of both species of Sage- 
Grouse is dependent on these Federal agencies 
working in concert with local county governments 
(in terms of zoning use of private lands useful for 
Sage-Grouse). Slate wildlife agencies should also 
have a role, but seem to be less than effective 
although recent action promoting conservation 
easements is promising. This material should have 
been discussed in the book. 
I fully enjoyed reading all of the chapters multiple 
times and, despite some concern about what was 
included or not included, believe the book is agreat 
step forward. There is something in it for everyone 
interested in the specifics about this particular 
species and its habitat, grouse in general, other 
shrubsteppe avian species, and any avian species 
with very specific habitat requirements. This hook 
should be in every ornithological library and within 
handy reach on your bookshelf. 1 recommend it 
highly.—CLAIT E. BRAUN, Grouse Inc., 5572 
North Ventana Vista Road, Tucson, AZ 85750. 
USA; e-mail: sg-wtp@juno.com 
SYSTEMATIC NOTES ON ASIAN BIRDS 
2010. Edited by David R. Wells. British Orni¬ 
thologists’ Club Occasional Publications Number 
5, 2010: 148 pages. S32.00 (paper).—Taxonomy, 
for most biologists, is an occupation akin to 
watching grass grow. I say this even as a 
systematist. I love to discover how birds are 
related to one another and then draw grand 
conclusions about their evolutionary history 
But, I am not remotely interested in revising the 
names of taxa and all the folderol that goes with it. 
Once I get a ’tree’ and understand a bit more 
about evolutionary dynamics. I dump the hard 
work of revision on others, and mov e to the next 
project. Fortunately, select groups of dedicated 
people derive great pleasure in sifting through 
articles, records, and specimens, documenting the 
idiosyncrasies of collectors and collections io 
assure proper name priority, use of Latin endings, 
and linear sequences of taxa. Thank goodness they 
are willing to do it, because bird research would 
be in chaos and birdwatchers clueless of advances 
in ornithology without their efforts. 
In addition to people like me, who are simply 
lazy, a whole generation of evolutionary biologists 
