I had already said in post 27 that I knew that visual resemblance didn’t mean anything with regard to genetic similarity - you could have acknowledged that in post 35.
You write
(bolding mine)
So you’re basing possible relationships on geographical proximity, as well as physical similarity; until someone comes up with a genetic analysis you’re speculating as much as I am.
So what exactly was your point in post 33?
Not really. For the most part phylogeographic studes show that species are more closely related to species in the same geographic area than to distant ones. There are exceptions of course.
Sheesh. It was a throwaway remark, made in the context of having already said that I knew physical similarity was to be taken with many grains of salt. You had just shown a picture of a bird that looks even more like a European blackbird than the American robin does - it even seems to have a yellow eye ring. I had been speculating that there might be close links between the EB and the AR (which would not be the most unlikely thing ever to have happened), you were justifiably speculating that there is not. I thought it was worth commenting on the appearance of the Rufous-collared thrush. I was not presenting a paper at the Royal Society.
I know that there are a lot of misconceptions about natural selection, but you didn’t need to suggest that I was labouring under one of the main ones given that I had already said that I knew it wasn’t true.
I might also point out that in post 25 you stated, as if telling me, a fact that the previous post showed I was already aware of.
Sheesh yourself. This is GQ. There’s really no need to get testy merely because I offered a clarification. You didn’t actually say anything about genetics in your post #27; and then you continued to remark on appearances as possibly indicating something about relationships. Try not to be so thin-skinned.
**Bolding added afterwards
I’m sorry I didn’t spell out that it was genetics I was talking about here but I thought that if anyone had followed the discussion this far they would be able to infer it.
The reason I’m getting ‘testy’ is that I feel that if you’re clarifying someone else’s post for others here it’s polite to be sensitive to the risk of making it seem like they know less than they actually do.
I am fully aware of the standards of GQ. In this question we are both talking about probabilities; neither of us has any hard facts, and I acknowledge that what I am suggesting is less likely than what you are.
Not really a reasonable inference. If you don’t want people to misunderstand you, you should be clear about exactly what you mean from the outset.
Sorry, you are being thin-skinned. I do try to be polite here; but I’m not about to take extraordinary efforts to carefully select my words in a effort to divine what some other poster might or might not know. It’s not like you have some well-known record for expertise in genetics here. There was nothing rude in my comment.
Well, that’s subjective. In my opinion there were options other than divination available. Anyway I don’t think this hi-jack will benefit from a hi-jack into the realm of literary analysis.
Those are cardinals. 
My Husband and I saw a Robin today in Cheyenne, Wyoming. I asked him why do they call them “robin red breast” and in the song, “when the rerd red robin goes bob bob bobbin along. . .” As this person quoted below, they are actually orange. Or does it depend upon the region of North America?