Latest taxonomic recommendations etc

[Harry Hussey]

Hi all,
This may be of interest to some:
http://aerc.be/aerc_tac.htm
A few interesting points that I could make out(haven't read it all yet):
-the suggestion that the redpoll split may have been premature(we haven't adopted it here in Ireland,despite the stated position of the IRBC that,in the absence of our own taxonomic committee,they will follow the BOU.This was due to the lack of agreement between the different European taxonomic committees.)
-moving Snowy Owl and Brown Fish Owl to Bubo
-more talk of the possibility of splitting American Herring Gull(incidentally,two new papers in press,including one on how to seperate adults from argenteus)
and much much more besides!
Harry H

[Jane Turner]

I couldn't agree more about the Redpolls. Let me know if there is anything about hooded/carrion Crow too!

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Jane,
Re the crows,there is still much to be discussed.Some recommend a two-way split between corone and cornix/orientalis,some favour a three-way split of these taxa(after all,why split one "black" crow from Hoodie and keep the other lumped?),while yet more are in favour of retaining the status quo!Some even make a case for capellanus("Iraq Crow") being treated as a full species.It seems that this is every bit as complex a situation as the "Yellow Wagtail complex"....;)
Harry H
I couldn't agree more about the Redpolls. Let me know if there is anything about hooded/carrion Crow too!

[robinm]

Let me know if there is anything about hooded/carrion Crow too!
I have just had a look and there is section on crows under "Pending decisions". Not had time to read it and after a hard days work my brain isn't up to it.

The whole document is 108 pages!!!

[steve_nova]

Goodness, theres a lot to read there. I'll have a good mull later!

Thanks Harry.

[Michael Frankis]

Whooof!

Just had a quick scan through - there seems to me to be as much left out, as there is included.

Stilt Sandpiper they agree should be returned to Calidris - seems sensible, as there's nothing to suggest that it is less closely related to the other Calidris, than say Knot is to Little Stint. But they say next to nothing about the same arguments about Broad-billed Sandpiper, Buff-breasted Sandpiper or Ruff.

Gannets - why the continued treatment as Morus, when the type species of Sula, by clear derivation of the name, is Sula bassana? ('Sula' is Old Norse for S. bassana, not for any booby).

And some obvious candidates for examination are not mentioned at all (well I suppose I could have missed something hidden among the 108 pages, but I don't think so!):
Anser albifrons / A. (a.) flavirostris
Eremophila alpestris / E. (a.) penicillata
Pica pica / P. (p.) hudsonia

And if the redpolls are to be lumped again, what of Arctic Redpoll? - separating Arctic from Common (Mealy) is a harder i.d. task than separating Common from Lesser; possible intergrades/hybrids are mentined for the latter pair, but nothing is mentioned about unidentifiable Arctic/Common individuals.

[logos]

The AERC TAC will examine any case where someone puts up a sound argument indicating that that particular case requires examination.

Perhaps you could prepare a paper outlining your views on the generic affinities of Broad-billed sandpiper etc, Michael? So long as this was well referenced and you had a sound basis for feeling the existing classification was flawed it would no doubt be raised at the next meeting, circulated to the various taxonomic authorities and given proper consideration. I hardly think it reasonable to suggest that the AERC TAC actively seek to find issues when they are snowed under with consideration of existing issues!

These people, mostly working in a voluntary capacity and against a backdrop of often crass amateur taxonomy, have produced a 108 page document on some of the most vexing issues in modern ornithology but some people feel the need to immediately jump on what is not there rather than considering what is.

Taxonomy ebbs and flows, at the moment we are going through a splitting phase, when everything has been split people in search of PHD subjects will start lumping again - it's as much an academic game as anything but birders do like their lists to be neat and tidy...

Spud

[Michael Frankis]

Hi Spud,

The Broad-billed Sandpiper problem was actually mentioned by Voous in his original West Pal list (Ibis 115: 629, 1973) - that's why I was surprised it didn't get discussed, particularly as they did discuss the related thorny problem of how many gull genera should be accepted (related in that both Larus and Calidris, as currently circumscribed, do not appear to be monophyletic).

Fair comment on their being over-worked volunteers, though!

Michael

[logos]

Michael,

The members of the various taxonomic committees and sub-committees are to some extent concerned with scientific investigation of particular issues which interest them but most of the issues addressed are based on the work of others. If nobody has investigated BB Sands since the comments of Voous (and they were just comments inviting further scientific investigation) then no progress will be made. Many people are working on the gull problems and publishing (sometimes contradictory) results. It falls upon someone who actually has an interest in this topic to make the running....Just as someone has taken up the issue of the Stilt Sand, had their work reviewed and acted upon.

There is not a pool of even professional taxonomists hanging around waiting for something to do.

Why not take up the challenge set by Voous and do the work that nobody else has the time or inclination to do? The obvious starting place would be to find out why BB Sand was originally treated the way it currently is and then to test the validity of that treatment using whatever means are appropriate.

Spud

[Michael Frankis]

Why not take up the challenge set by Voous and do the work that nobody else has the time or inclination to do? The obvious starting place would be to find out why BB Sand was originally treated the way it currently is and then to test the validity of that treatment using whatever means are appropriate.Hi Spud,

Would be nice to, but it is one thing to observe the obvious, and another altogether to prove it - I just don't have the wherewithall to do the necessary DNA testing!

I don't think things are quite as badly off for avian taxonomy as you suggest, there are quite a few professionals in universities paid, and with the facilities, to do this sort of research. Amateurs like you and me (at least I assume you're an amateur??) can suggest ideas for research, but we can't actually do the research, that has to be done by those with access to £10m DNA laboratories, research grants, collecting permits, etc, etc, etc.

Michael

[Jane Turner]

Just waded through the document. I found this scary

Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca to be treated as two species:
·Atlas Flycatcher Ficedula speculigera (monotypic)
·Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca (polytypic: F. h. iberiae, hypoleuca, sibirica)

A few years back I spent an early autumn on Lesvos practising on non-male Black and White Flycatchers. At the start I was quite confident. I was pretty certain on the id, once I'd got them aged ok. Then there was a fall. 200 or so assorted birds and there was a good percentage I couldn't do... I got less and less confident. Then at Filey, when the Spectacled warbler was there, there was a male flycatcher in Arndale. It had a huge primary patch, larger than normal forehead patch, a grey rump and a grey collar. I watched it for a couple of hours...then caught it. It was a strange bird. It didn't help that it was missing an outer tail feather. On one side there was a lot of white on T5, while on the other side, the one missing the outer, the feather was all black (yes I checked the number of feathers about 20 times). Wing fomula was ok for Pied. At the time I thought it might have been speculigera/iberiae.

[CGK]

[QUOTE=Jane Turner]Just waded through the document. I found this scary

Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca to be treated as two species:
·Atlas Flycatcher Ficedula speculigera (monotypic)
·Pied Flycatcher Ficedula hypoleuca (polytypic: F. h. iberiae, hypoleuca, sibirica)

'A few years back I spent an early autumn on Lesvos practising on non-male Black and White Flycatchers. At the start I was quite confident. I was pretty certain on the id, once I'd got them aged ok. Then there was a fall. 200 or so assorted birds and there was a good percentage I couldn't do... I got less and less confident. '

Jane, I am sure all will agree that there is no shame in being confused by non-male Black and White Fly's in autumn, spring males are bad enough. I have been among falls on Lesvos, Cyprus and Catalonia, and when birds are darting here there and everywhere they are firstly difficult to pin down and then when you eventually get views ,it is obvious that here is a variable group of birds.
With regards to taxonomy and ID of F.Speculigera Graham Etherington and Brian Small produced a very interesting paper in Birding World [VOL 16, NO 6 JUNE 2003] suggesting that this possible split could occur in Britain as a spring overshoot - it would probably have to be at this time of year, autumn birds must be a nightmare.

[logos]

CGK,

That paper is referenced by the AERC TAC.

Clearly these people base there decisions on a broad range of material.

Spud

[CGK]

CGK,

That paper is referenced by the AERC TAC.

Clearly these people base there decisions on a broad range of material.

Spud

:clap:

Good grief, you have read the references as well, Iam still on page 45 !!!

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Spud,
"These people, mostly working in a voluntary capacity and against a backdrop of often crass amateur taxonomy, have produced a 108 page document on some of the most vexing issues in modern ornithology but some people feel the need to immediately jump on what is not there rather than considering what is."
While I agree that some amateur taxonomy is,for want of a better word,crass,I would be slow to condemn all contributions by amateurs(speaking as one myself!).
There was a debate a while back which gave the impression that only data collected by professional taxonomists was of any relevance to working out the classifications of a taxon,whereas Brian Small rightly pointed out that responsible observations,such as his own with regard to cachinnans in the UK and the ID of this form,can complement the work of taxonomists,and indeed there is still surely room for major contributions by amateurs:while we don't have access to state-of-the-art laboratories and most of us know very little about DNA sequencing,there are still many taxa of which very little basic information is known(for example,what extent of interbreeding occurs between both taxa of "Dark-throated Thrush",which could be determined by simple field observation,and there's more that could be found out in a similar fashion:after all,the best splits are always detectable by means other than DNA analysis!)
I apologise if I misunderstood the tone of your post,but I got the impression that you were tarring all amateurs with the one brush due to some examples of "popular" taxonomy?
Harry H

[logos]

Hi Harry,

The fault is probably mine for not expressing myself clearly. I would baulk at the idea that only professionals can make a contribution to the field of taxonomy - that is clearly not the case. A certain Mr Svensson is not a professional for example, or at least wasn't last I heard.

What I do find crass is the assumption by some list orientated people that anything that seems to look different must be a separate and therefore tickable species. In some cases this will be true but the failure of some of these people to even acknowledge the concept of clinal relationships really p*****s me off.

the purpose of taxonomy is to try to establish the best system for classifying what is essentially an ever changing phenomenon - i.e. nature/evolution.

The best amateurs are equally willing to accept that some splitting may conceal the bigger evolutionary picture as they are keen to demonstrate that some subspecies can be justifiably treated as species in their own right.

Some amateurs have made a huge contribution while some others have just muddied the waters.

Hope that makes my comment clearer.

Spud

[Harry Hussey]

Hi Harry,

The fault is probably mine for not expressing myself clearly. I would baulk at the idea that only professionals can make a contribution to the field of taxonomy - that is clearly not the case. A certain Mr Svensson is not a professional for example, or at least wasn't last I heard.

Seem to recall that he used to be a taxonomist?

What I do find crass is the assumption by some list orientated people that anything that seems to look different must be a separate and therefore tickable species. In some cases this will be true but the failure of some of these people to even acknowledge the concept of clinal relationships really p*****s me off.

I agree,despite being an avid Irish lister!Still unsure about the Green-winged Teal split,despite it being adopted in most(all?) European countries.I personally feel that a taxon that looks different,has different calls/song,breeds sympatrically with a related taxon etc. has more of a "feel-good factor" as a potential split(i.e. Yellow-legged and Caspian Gull OK,but lay off the three-way Brent split!),but realise that such decisions shouldn't be made lightly.

the purpose of taxonomy is to try to establish the best system for classifying what is essentially an ever changing phenomenon - i.e. nature/evolution.

The best amateurs are equally willing to accept that some splitting may conceal the bigger evolutionary picture as they are keen to demonstrate that some subspecies can be justifiably treated as species in their own right.

Some amateurs have made a huge contribution while some others have just muddied the waters.

I agree completely.

Harry H

[Michael Frankis]

.... there are still many taxa of which very little basic information is known (for example,what extent of interbreeding occurs between both taxa of "Dark-throated Thrush",which could be determined by simple field observation, .... Hi Harry,

Must admit, I don't think this one would be very easy for an amateur! - at least not without a hefty research grant, to spend 4 or 5 full breeding seasons travelling along a thousand miles of their boundary in Russia. And once you've got the research grant, you're a pro ;)

The YL Gull one is a tricky one to do too - descriptions, however detailed, of vagrant or winter gulls in Britain are not a huge amount of use, when you don't know where the birds were bred. You might think they are cachinnans from the Caspian Sea, but can you prove it?

I'm certainly forever saying that such-and-such is, or isn't, a likely split in my opinion, but they're all only hunches and guesses. Which is why I put them in forums like this where they can get tossed around by others to think further on, but I don't try to get them published in British Birds, because I have no way of gathering the necessary data to provide adequate scientific proof

Michael

PS agreed on GW Teal and the Brents not for splitting, and the gulls (probably) for ;)

[logos]

Yes, it looks like the teal thing might be unravelling somewhat, I wonder if anyone in the supposedly old fashioned AOU is smirking?.

These decisions should not be rushed to appease the listing fraternity or academics with career plans!

Of interest in relation to a recent thread on eastern Chiffchaffs is a note in the AERC document on the discovery of a population of seemingly intermediate singers some way east of the Urals (hardly a surprise) and serious queries about whether the supposedly diagnostic call of tristis is actually confined to birds from the range of that form.

All good fun if you approach it in the right way!

Spud

[Jane Turner]

I think I shall stick to my decidedly amateur interest in recording identifiable forms...regardless of whether they be species, semi-species or sub species. Accept that many will have to be left at showing characteristics of...possibly of eastern origin... etc and leave the taxonomy decisions to the experts....

...and of course ignore the ones I don't like.... eg redpolls, carrion/hooded crows and most things wildfowl.

[logos]

I think I shall stick to my decidedly amateur interest in recording identifiable forms...regardless of whether they be species, semi-species or sub species.

This is probably the ideal approach to take, you could find yourself inadvertently contributing to the wider taxonomic debates through rigorous fieldwork and dilligent recording!

Accept that many will have to be left at showing characteristics of...possibly of eastern origin... etc

While I accept that a fair number of individuals can never be pinned down, especilly those in which relationships are obviously clinal I'm not sure about the continued validity of the notion of 'showing characters of', at least not in many cases. Where clinally related forms are dealt with I prefer 'tending towards x or x etc...'

'Showing characters of...' sometimes seems a bit like code for 'yes it was one but I'll refrain from stating it so bluntly'!. Where does it leave us when something is split? Does it then translate to 'looked a bit like' or 'it was one, but only because it's been elevated to species status now'?

Spud

[Jane Turner]

'Showing characters of...' sometimes seems a bit like code for 'yes it was one but I'll refrain from stating it so bluntly'!. Where does it leave us when something is split? Does it then translate to 'looked a bit like' or 'it was one, but only because it's been elevated to species status now'?

Spud

To me it means much the same... perhaps I'd use showing characteristics of for a Chiff that was grey, had a wing bar and was pleeping, tending towards (probably in my parlance ) for a silent one, or a pleeper that didn't look quite so "good". The doubt in the former case is more about the validity status of the subspecies than the lack of observable details.

The strange thing is...and it shouldn't be so, I feel more confident claiming sub-species than species. I was really happy with my Hume's YBW in Cheshire before it was split and rather wish I could go back and take some pics now! I believe its now pended by BBRC and me!