Ornithologists have largely embraced the molt terminology of Humphrey and Parkes (1959) as modified by Howell et al. (2003; the H-P-H system). In a recent commentary, Wolfe et al. (2014) summarized the derivation and benefits of H-P-H terminology, suggested slight modifications, and promoted analyses on the evolution of molts using H-P-H nomenclature. We appreciate the timeliness of Wolfe et al.'s review and agree with most of their conclusions and modifications. We disagree, however, with Wolfe et al.'s proposal for introducing a new and restricted use of the term “definitive” in H-P-H nomenclature. To avoid confusion, we recommend that definitive plumage and definitive molt cycle continue to be used as defined by Humphrey and Parkes (1959) and Howell et al. (2003), respectively, as terms indicating that plumage appearance and molt cycle have achieved stasis. We also recommend that the term “plumage” can be used more widely than the definition proposed by Humphrey and Parkes (1959), and that the term “juvenal” can henceforth be replaced by “juvenile” in molt and plumage literature.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.
Vol. 132 • No. 2