Taxonomy

[AlexC]

I realize this is a pretty loaded question, but I have been delving into taxonomy of late, comparing different classifications with others, and I don't really know what to make of it. I guess my question is: what is correct? What system do we as birders follow (and in that case, what system does this site use)?

[Rasmus Boegh]

I guess my question is: what is correct?

You'd be a rich man if you could find one solution that dealt with and solved all the problems. Taxonomy is, as is becomming more and more obvious, artificial groupings made to please human beings! Nature quite simply doesn't work that way, which is why people can (and likely will) continue discussing e.g. how many species of gulls exists in the northern Hemisphere. Anyway, disregarding the obvious problems, most biologists follow a modified version of the biological species concept (BSC). As most guide books are written by biologists or at least people with a biological background, most birders follow these standards, too. So, if you pick up e.g. Sibley's field guide(s) it'll mainly be based on the BSC. However, there is a growing number of people who prefer the phylogenetic species concept (PSC). Among biologists mainly people working in genetics as it is much easier to adapt to this branch of biology than e.g. the BSC. Birders that follow the PSC are mainly people who, for one reason or another, want their lifelist to grow rapidly.

[njlarsen]

Rasmus,
wasn't there a long discussion about similar topics around 1-2 years ago?

Anyway, let me as a geneticist <grin> try to remind us all about a couple of problems with the pure BSC that cause us to make the modifications mentioned. The first is the problem with populations that dont overlap: would they interbreed if given the chance? Second problem is with narrow hybridization zones between populations, where is looks like the hybrids even though they are produced has a lower fitness than the parental forms, and the hybridization zone therefore does not widen. This is an example of the problem when nature does not fit with our artificial groupings, as Rasmus writes

Cheers
Niels

[njlarsen]

One more answer to Alex: an easy way out is to say that you believe in one particular authority, e.g., the AOU or the Sibley & Monroe checklist or the Clements checklist. In practical terms that is what I have done, when I count up my species total for the World I use Clements and for Western Palearctic I use the list on www.netfugl.dk.

Niels

[AlexC]

...for the World I use Clements...

Hi Niels - thanks to both you and Rasmus for responding. I was wondering where you would find a copy (preferably online) of Clement's. Up until now I've used the AOU list, but that's because I've only birded in the Americas. This summer I will be heading to Europe - the spark that fed this firey question originally.

Again, thanks, and please, if anyone else has anything to add / any other P.O.V., please share.

EDIT: More questions about hybridization. How do scienticists (e.g. geneticists like yourself, Niels) account for hybridization? I was always told (until I entered the birding world) that a species is defined as having within it organisms that could reproduce to create fertile young. I soon found out that hybrid birds (e.g. American Black Duck x Mallard, Blue-winged Warbler x Golden-winged Warbler) are often fertile. How does that stand against the definition of species? Or better yet, how DO scientists define a species (again, VERY loaded question - I realize that humans bringing order and classification into biology is "unnatural" and just because of the way we think, but it's an interesting topic to discuss...)?

[Rob Stroker]

Another quoestion, why is it the scandanavians dominate birding? Better education?

[Dave B Smith]

overworked,

Here is a link to the Ornitaxa Site (http://www.ornitaxa.com/SM/TaxChanges.html) where you can download a world list that is up to date thru 2003 that follows Sibley- Monroe.

Hope this helps. Browsing the same website you can also find lots more info on your questions of taxonomy.

[Colin]

Adding to what Rasmus has said about species concepts. The bottom line is the question - what is the definition of a species. Now that is a question. I have a scientific paper somewhere which itself is devoted to this very question. There are literally tens of definitions of the concept of what is a species. Thus if the basic 'unit' is the species, and that is open to debate, and this 'unit' is open to varying definitions, there follows that there must be many variations of classification. You pays your money and you take your choice. :stuck:

[Dave B Smith]

Here's a link to a site where you can find other downloadable checklists:
Checklists (http://diary.jonestc.com/downloads.htm)

[cuckooroller]

Alex,
Here is a link on this site to the Sibley-Monroe, it is the same list that Dave mentioned from Ornitaxa but different in that it includes the updates to 2003 which the zipped file on Ornitaxa does not: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?p=126864#post126864

There is no electronic list (Excel) for the Clement's List on the web that I know of.

There does exist an Excel for the Howard & Moore, 3°Ed. 2003, updated to July, 2005, but not on the web. I made it up myself and if interested shoot me a PM with your e-mail.

[cuckooroller]

Dave,
Thanks for the link. The first time I have seen any type of Clement's list. I must say exceedingly cluttered and hard to use, but nonetheless a list.

[Rasmus Boegh]

The first is the problem with populations that dont overlap: would they interbreed if given the chance?

... and it's actually even more problematic for the strict form of BSC, as the question isn't if they would interbreed, but if they could. This is why taxonomy in e.g. tapaculos largely is based on modification version of the BSC that includes parts taken from the recognition species concept (RSC). Basically, many species of Tapaculos possibly could interbreed (in most cases we really don't know), but they won't as they have different voices and therefore are unable to recognize each other as possible partners. On the contrary a problem specific to the PSC is that many "species" will disappear due to reductive speciation, which would lead to a completely new situation. Further problems are things like clines and ring-species, but I'm not aware of any species concept that has been able to solve these in a satisfying way.

[Rasmus Boegh]

I was always told (until I entered the birding world) that a species is defined as having within it organisms that could reproduce to create fertile young. I soon found out that hybrid birds (e.g. American Black Duck x Mallard, Blue-winged Warbler x Golden-winged Warbler) are often fertile. How does that stand against the definition of species?

Strictly speaking, the question isn't if the offspring is fertile, but rather if a population is reproductively isolated. However, it is much easier to teach the former, which is why e.g. biology classes in highschool often just teach that "if the offspring is infertile, they're different species". That's only one extreme of reproductive isolation and there are several others options, e.g. reduced survivability and reduced fertility. This is why you often can see rather narrow hybrid zones between closely related species, even if the hybrid offspring actually is fertile. This obviously becomes more complicated when an endangered species suddenly is "swamped" by a common closely related species. This often means that the the hybrid offspring, even if it has a lowered fertility, is able to survive as the "pure individuals" of the endangered species are having difficulties finding other "pure" partners. Furthermore, the endangered species may itself have reduced fertility due to the genetic bottleneck most such species will experiance when there is a sudden crash in the population size. So yes, there certainly are some interesting problems with these issues - even more so when entering the World of plants where reductive speciation is relatively frequent in species with a sexual reproduction, while other species of plants have asexual reproduction (as in e.g. bacteria).

[Tim Allwood]

there is a great article for birders on species concepts (PSC, BSC, recognition, and some less well known ones too) in a British Birds from the last few years. I'll dig out the reference this afternoon.

[Docmartin]

there is a great article for birders on species concepts (PSC, BSC, recognition, and some less well known ones too) in a British Birds from the last few years. I'll dig out the reference this afternoon.

Why thank you Tim. I'm absolutely certain ;) you're referring to

Collinson, M. 2001. Shifting sands: taxonomic changes in the world of the field ornithologist. Brit. Birds 94: 2-27.

[Docmartin]

ooh, and another thing.... in some ways it doesn't matter which taxonomy you choose, because we know enough to know they're all wrong!

[gloygum]

Rasmus or anyone else,

could you just give us a quick paragraph on the phylogenetic species concept. What it is & what it's limitations are.

thanks

[Rasmus Boegh]

could you just give us a quick paragraph on the phylogenetic species concept. What it is & what it's limitations are.


As defined by J. Cracraft:

"The smallest diagnosable cluster of individual organisms within which there is a parental pattern of ancestry and descent"

If above is too cryptic it basically means that subspecies would become superfluous as they'd be species if following the PSC. Strictly speaking the PSC actually goes even further in that the so-called subtle forms (populations that only differ from other populations in a statistical sense, i.e. not even subspecies if following the BSC) are recognized as species, too. However, people that use the PSC usually limit it and don't recognize the subtle forms as species. So, if following the BSC it can be said that ca. 10000 species of birds with almost 25000 subspecies (incl. nominal forms) are recognzied today. If following the PSC it could be said that almost 25000 species (and no subspecies) of birds are recognized today.

[gloygum]

thanks Rasmus,

Sounds like the situation before the BSC was introduced where every slight variation was a new 'type' & thus new species. Obviously, a that's theoretically defensible position, --- it's just pretty tedious.

[njlarsen]

RE the Clements list: I use that one because at one time I made the choise to purchase the birding software from Santa Barbara Software Productions, which happens to be based on Clements. Link: http://members.aol.com/sbsp/

The software has some strange parts but also some good, and it does get the work done. With currently 12000 observations of about 1200 species entered already, there has to be pretty convincing reasons to switch <grin>

Niels


Niels

[mrpjdavis]

With currently 12000 observations of about 1200 species entered already, there has to be pretty convincing reasons to switch <grin>


OOOh, I'm so jealous! <grin>

[AlexC]

Strictly speaking, the question isn't if the offspring is fertile, but rather if a population is reproductively isolated.

Hey, just found this topic after recent conversations I've had with people about taxonomy. Rasmus - what about the "Italian Sparrow"? Passer domesticus italiae? Isn't that a reproductively isolated population that came into being through hybridization (House x Spanish)?

[njlarsen]

Not Rasmus, but: Beaman and Madge (at least in the Danish version with KM Olsen) says that Italian sparrow hybridizes with House sparrow in the southern Alps, and in S Italy, and with Spanish Sparrow in Rhodos. The population of some mediterranean islands, e.g., Malta, is said to have its origin in a hybrid population. The question therefore becomes: is the zone of hybridization narrow enough to argue for reproductive isolation, or is it wide enough for continued treatment as subspecies. This is a thing you can expect continued fights over just like some of the centuries old political disagreaments in Europe ;)

Cheers
Niels

[jocateme]

The Brazilian checklist I use is this one (http://www.cbro.org.br/CBRO/listabras.htm) from Brazilian Ornithological Records Committee (CBRO). As seen in the 4th paragraph, they follow the "GLC – General Lineage [Species] Concept (de Queiroz, 2005. PNAS 102: 6600-6607)". What does that mean (forgive me if it's a silly question)?

And after all, what checklist does BirdForum use? What is the most recommended? I could see most of birders follow the Biological Species Concept, but what what checklist is the best in your opinion. Sorry if I'm not aware of the subject.

P.S.: Just realised the thread is older than I thought.

[Xenospiza]

Birdforum uses the Howard and Moore list if I'm not mistaken.

The following is all tough philosophical stuff... I'm not saying I understand it!
De Queiroz' species concept means "all separately evolving metapopulation lineages would be species". So the question isn't silly at all – but I cannot really explain the answer. The article is available here:
http://www.nmnh.si.edu/vert/reptiles/Publications/2005deQueirozPNAS.pdf
You could also try http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/species/

[cuckooroller]

Birdforum uses the Howard and Moore list if I'm not mistaken.

JH,
I wish! Unfortunately, it uses the Sibley-Monroe, though I have tried to modify and update it at least in part. Perhaps, one day they will change over. It would be better to switch to that list in my view. I guess it might be better to wait on that until the new 4° Edition comes out and I can put it into Excel.

[jocateme]

I know Sibley-Monroe checklist has many modifications in higher taxa in comparison to the tradicional taxonomy, especially in orders (e.g. the expansion of Ciconiiformes, the new Craciformes, Turniciformes, Bucerotiformes etc.), but what were the changes in the species? What concept do it follow? I'm little confused about this.

[Xenospiza]

The Sibley and Monroe list follows the BSC. There are a few species they accepted that others do not (in a 1997 version I have Grey-lined Hawk, Jungle Crow and a rather surprising amount of African songbirds).

[cuckooroller]

João,
There used to be a sticky in the Photos and Corrections for Database Forum. I don't know what happened to that. It would be hard for me to remember what I did do as far as changes at the species level where I made any discretional changes. I mostly went through the whole Database and weeded out any generic and specific names not conformant to the latest Sibley-Monroe list that I have which is that updated to September, 2003 and still available on www.ornitaxa.com Once I got finished with the weeding out and changing generic and specific names then I did make some discretional changes at the specific level updating certain species beyond that of the September 2003 list when I felt that if the Sibley-Monroe still had a taxonomic group behind it (which it does not, by the way) that they would have probably allowed the same changes to the list that I was making at my discretion. Pyrrhura taxonomy comes to mind, I allowed a change in the Crescentchests I believe, but for me to recall now after nearly two years and without the aid of that sticky that I mentioned is a tough call. I would have to go through all of the Database taxonomy and compare to the original list.

[jocateme]

Thanks very much, Xenospiza and Steve, for the clarification! Taxonomy is certainly not an easy subject to understand.
Oh, and shouldn't some new species, like Bugun Liocichla (Liocichla bugunorum), be now included in the Database?

[Xenospiza]

I just sent someone an overview of new species in the last two years, but did not save it (but wikipedia is quite complete here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_species_new_to_science_described_in_the_2000s ).
I had a few interesting splits as well... Taiwan Hwamei and Eastern Riflebird (albeit not accepted by all yet) spring to mind!

[jocateme]

Thanks, Xenos!

[cuckooroller]

Thanks very much, Xenospiza and Steve, for the clarification! Taxonomy is certainly not an easy subject to understand.
Oh, and shouldn't some new species, like Bugun Liocichla (Liocichla bugunorum), be now included in the Database?

Hi Joao,
Yes, I guess I could just throw them in. Actually, I have kind of been waiting on considering any changes to be made for a few things to happen. The next time the database must be updated it will probably have to be a very large and comprehensive update for several reasons, some of which might be intuited by reading this: http://www.simplybirding.co.za/forum/viewtopic.php?p=2626#2626

I would like to see what the new Clements looks like. I want to see a finalized SACC Baseline List for the Neotropicals. I will have to buy the upcoming Indonesian Country List when it finally comes out (should be this year) and have a good hard look at it. Lastly, the most screwy problem right now is trying to figure out what some of the Oriental bird groups will look like, especially the Babblers.

[jocateme]

A last question (a little late): do Howard & Moore and Clements checklist differ in the ordo taxa?

[cuckooroller]

João,
Yes, to a certain extent. The list that you have of the HM faithfully follows the listing sequence of the text volume Howard & Moore.

[jocateme]

Thank you, Steve.

[Ian Hamiltan]

hi everyone
i might be slow on the uptake here but what does taxonomy mean im getting
confused between that and taxadermy.

[AlexC]

Courtesy of Dictionary.com:

Taxidermy - the art of preparing and preserving the skins of animals and of stuffing and mounting them in lifelike form.

Taxonomy - a) the science or technique of classification. b) the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms.

[Ian Hamiltan]

Courtesy of Dictionary.com:

Taxidermy - the art of preparing and preserving the skins of animals and of stuffing and mounting them in lifelike form.

Taxonomy - a) the science or technique of classification. b) the science dealing with the description, identification, naming, and classification of organisms.
thanks alex,i knew what taxidermy meant but taxonomy is a word
ive never heard beforeB (: