BOURC 37th Report

[Richard Klim]

BOURC: 37th Report (Oct 2008). Ibis (2009), 151, 224–230.

Now available at:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121577421/PDFSTART

[All taxonomic recommendations of the BOURC-TSC 5th Report (Ibis (2008), 150, 833–835) have been adopted.]

Richard

[njlarsen]

I still find that getting two papers published on how to grade other peoples work, when all of the recommendations in the end becomes accepted, that is somehow too smart (or stupid, whichever you prefer ;) ).

Niels

[Richard Klim]

I still find that getting two papers published on how to grade other peoples work, when all of the recommendations in the end becomes accepted, that is somehow too smart (or stupid, whichever you prefer ;) ).

Niels
I totally agree Niels - I made similar comments about the previous report.

For the 1st-3rd TSC reports it was straightforward - all recommendations were declared to take immediate effect. But the publication of the most recent (4th & 5th) TSC reports has been followed by an uncertain 'limbo' period, pending rubber-stamping of the recommendations in a subsequent BOURC report.

I cannot see any benefit in formally publishing these decisions in two stages, just to reflect BOURC's internal processes. It results in unnecessary duplication, creates inevitable confusion about BOURC's actual position, and leaves an inconcise and fragmented historical record.

It would be interesting to know why BOURC suddenly decided that such an unwieldy approach was now needed...

Richard

PS: It seems too complicated even for BOU to manage effectively - on the BOU website (British List page), the 37th report and the 5th TSC report are not yet available (despite the latter being published in September); and a link to the 36th report is provided but free access is denied. [I've notified BOU of these problems.]

[colonelboris]

I think a lot of the trouble with access to Ibis is due to the change over from Blackwell to Wiley Interscience. They tried fobbing me off when I first contacted them, but eventually they realised a lot of the content is supposed to be open access and then they sorted some of it.

[Richard Klim]

I think a lot of the trouble with access to Ibis is due to the change over from Blackwell to Wiley Interscience. They tried fobbing me off when I first contacted them, but eventually they realised a lot of the content is supposed to be open access and then they sorted some of it.
That may partly explain the continuing problems of denied access when following the links to certain older reports (although I raised this with BOU in September, and surely it would be easy for someone at BOU to occasionally check this).

But it doesn't explain the non-provision of links from the British List page to the latest BOURC and BOURC-TSC reports. As far as I can see, the only way that ordinary birders like me can become aware of the availability of a new report is to regularly monitor Ibis online (at Wiley Interscience) for the publication of each new issue of Ibis, and check the contents (hoping that it is made available for access as a free sample).

[And the link to 'Latest BOURC Report' on the BOU homepage leads not to a BOURC report but to a September news item containing a joint BOURC/BBRC announcement of the admission of Wilson's Snipe to the British List - as do the three other 'British List' links!]

Richard

[colonelboris]

I didn't say it was all of the trouble... ;)
Looks like they could do with a bit of website housekeeping. I'm just sad they didn't review my book in time for the latest issue. sniff.

[Richard Klim]

... on the BOU website (British List page), the 37th report and the 5th TSC report are not yet available (despite the latter being published in September); and a link to the 36th report is provided but free access is denied. [I've notified BOU of these problems.]
BOU's British List page has today been replaced by a completely redesigned (blog-based) version, which now provides access to the 5th BOURC-TSC Report and to the recently published 37th BOURC Report. [BOU has also asked Wiley Interscience to resolve the 36th Report access problem.]

http://thebritishlist.blogspot.com/

Richard

[StarainBoy]

Can anyone tell me how this list relates taxonomically to the IOC list? Or any other? H&M, Clements, HBW? Is it the same as or close to any of them? These are the options that WIldlife Recorder gives me.

[davercox]

Andy
My guess is (the short answer) "NO".
Somewhere out there, some geek-like person (and they have my admiration) is trying to keep some sort of record of differences, reasons for them etc, but (again my guess) it's too much for the human unit.
Pick a list and stick with it.

[Steve Lister]

Can anyone tell me how this list relates taxonomically to the IOC list? Or any other? H&M, Clements, HBW? Is it the same as or close to any of them? These are the options that WIldlife Recorder gives me.

I am not the person to answer (where is Richard?) but the BOU list differs from the others that you mention in that it only deals with the British list as opposed to the world. The BOU taxonomic people will look at the same evidence as all theothers but may come up with different decisions - as they have done several times recently.

Steve

[StarainBoy]

Trying to interpret the Taxonomy section of The British List (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118619822/PDFSTART?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0) in the light of Reactions to the IOC (http://www.worldbirdnames.org/reactions.html), I tentatively suggest that the BOU is following the IOC taxonomy in all but names? I've certainly found no splitting/lumping differences in my own lists (which are all I care about really!)

[StarainBoy]

To clear my head a bit I've written a wee article about bird classification (http://theandygibb.com/blog/index.php/2009/10/26/10347-bird-species-or-thereabouts/) on the blog with the conclusion that IOC seems the way to go.

[Mysticete]

your blog highlights why I choose not to keep my checklist on any official software. I just use a simple excel file, which allows me to use the common names and scientific classification I prefer.

On IOC, I think they make an ok regularly updated checklist for regions without a checklist committee, but I prefer to follow the taxonomy of regional authorities when available (SACC, AOU, BOU, Christidis and Boles 2008, etc).

[njlarsen]

... I prefer to follow the taxonomy of regional authorities when available (SACC, AOU, BOU, Christidis and Boles 2008, etc).

Have you ever birded in Britain and Europe? if so, do you follow BOU or AOU for gulls? That is some of the difficulties one will run into with regional authorities; another from the top of my head is Osprey, which as far as I remember is seen as more than one species in Australia but only one at AOU?

cheers
Niels

[Mysticete]

Oh yeah :P

I was Britain for conference this fall and got my first taste of European birding (all those tits that American birders giggle about) and managed to see both European Herring Gull and Velvet Scoter (BOU accepted splits) and Common Snipe (AOU, but not BOU). I counted all three of them as new, since at least some authorities recognize them as distinct. IN contrast I did not tick Common Gull as a new species, since neither authority treats them as such, although a lot of birders do consider them probably a valid split.

I don't think either the Osprey, or for that matter the barn owl or Great Egret situtation, is necessarily a conflict with AOU, since I don't think any of those potential splits have shown up in North America.

IOC seems to recognize all regional authorities splits, but my bigger beef with is it's treatment sometimes of higher taxonomic categories, and what I feel is a tendency to accept some changes without proper evaluation.

[njlarsen]

...got my first taste of European birding (all those tits that American birders giggle about)

I did not grow up in an English speaking area, but yes, I can see how a pubertal boy can get caught up in birding with those names ;)

More seriously, I have a while back purchased a listing program that is based on Clements (no choises there). If I want to, I can change the taxonomy, but that also means that I would mostly cut myself out of the automated updates to distribution, and it is a pain in a certain place to update those.

Niels