• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

BOU TSC disbanded (1 Viewer)

Laurent

Thanks, I had not seen this.

"Factors to be considered will include the regularity of updates to the taxonomy, and the extent to which the process for decision making is open and transparent, as well as being scientifically valid and consistent. The major current global taxonomies (Bird-Life International/HBW, Clements, IOC, Howard and Moore) will be contacted shortly and invited to provide information relating to these criteria."

Regularity of updates presumably excludes Howard and Moore, unless I am missing something, whilst Clements / Cornell is annual. Birdlife / HBW has an unknown frequency of update but once the second checklist is published you would imagine online reviews via HBW online could be regularly implemented. I imagine this might point to IOC or Birdlife (tbc, as previous comment which would also score heavily on transparency.

cheers, alan
 
Has Birdlife taxonomy just been updated? If so how would how would latest changes effect a British list if this was chosen by BOU? Heard some stories regarding Shrikes,Redpolls etc but not clear on what would change.
 
If so how would latest changes effect a British list if this was chosen by BOU?
For categories A/B, at first sight and without guaranteeing that I did not overlook something, the BirdLife checklist differs from the BOURC-TSC taxonomy as follows -

Species-level taxonomy:
  • Anas carolinensis lumped with A crecca (both are on the list: -1 sp)
  • (Melanitta stejnegeri split from M deglandi (not [yet] on the list, though))
  • Pterodroma deserta split from P feae (P feae currently on the list as "race undetermined": no record accepted as either)
  • Puffinus baroli lumped with P lherminieri (only baroli is on the list: simple name change)
  • Butorides virescens lumped with B striata (only virescens is on the list: simple name change)
  • Numenius hudsonicus lumped with N phaeopus (both are on the list: -1 sp)
  • Sternula antillarum split from S albifrons (both are on the list: +1 sp)
  • Sterna acuflavida lumped with Thalasseus sandvicensis (both are on the list: -1 sp)
  • Larus thayeri split from L glaucoides (both are on the list: +1 sp)
  • Lanius phoenicuroides split from L isabellinus (both are on the list: +1 sp)
  • Lanius meridionalis pallidirostris moved to L excubitor (both are on the list: -1 sp)
  • Corvus cornix lumped with C corone (both are on the list: -1 sp)
  • Phylloscopus plumbeitarsus split from Ph trochiloides (both are on the list: +1 sp)
  • Phylloscopus tristis split from Ph collybita (both are on the list: +1 sp)
  • Zoothera aurea split from Z dauma (only aurea is on the list: simple name change)
  • Catharus swainsoni split from C ustulatus (C ustulatus currently on the list as "race undetermined": no record accepted as either)
  • Saxicola maurus (incl. variegatus and stejnegeri) and S rubicola all lumped with S torquatus (S maurus and S rubicola are on the list: -1 sp)
  • Motacilla tschutschensis split from M flava (consequences currently unclear; the [range of M tschutschensis] as per IUCN website does not coincide at all with the known range of eastern-haplotype birds [the limit is off by 2,500 (two thousand five hundred ;)) km -- birds from as far W as the Ob are known to have eastern mtDNA, see Pavlova et al 2003]; the BirdLife range looks like it excludes plexa entirely; if this range reflects the accepted concept, mtDNA-based genetic identification of this 'species' is certainly impossible, and I'm unclear on which base it would stand on any European list; if it doesn't, I'd be most interested to learn how the Tobias criterion might possibly ever lead to the recognition of a species limit drawn between plexa and thunbergi)
  • Acanthis cabaret and A hornemanni (incl. exilipes) lumped with A flammea (all 3 are on the list: -2 spp)
  • Setophaga auduboni split from S coronata (S coronata currently on the list as "race undetermined but unlikely to have been other than coronata (Linnaeus)": strictly speaking, no record accepted as either)
Genus-level taxonomy:
  • Mareca split from Anas (penelope, americana, strepera)
  • Sibirionetta split from Anas (formosa)
  • Spatula split from Anas (querquedula, discors, clypeata)
  • Lyrurus split from Tetrao (tetrix)
  • Ardenna split from Puffinus (gravis, grisea)
  • Oceanodroma lumped with Hydrobates (leucorhous, monorhis)
  • Clanga split from Aquila (clanga)
  • Antigone split from Grus (canadensis)
  • Eudromias split from Charadrius (morinellus)
  • Anarhynchus is lumped with Charadrius (asiaticus, leschenaultii, mongolus, alexandrinus)
  • Steganopus split from Phalaropus (tricolor)
  • Catharacta split from Stercorarius (skua)
  • Thalasseus split from Sterna (sandvicensis, [elegans,] maximus, bengalensis)
  • Chroicocephalus lumped with Larus (genei, philadelphia, ridibundus)
  • Arundinax split from Iduna (aedon)
  • Cyanecula split from Luscinia (svecica)
  • Erythrina lumped with Carpodacus (erythrinus)
Nomenclature:
  • Poecile treated as masculine (montana => 'montanus')
  • Original spelling: Sylvia rueppelli => S ruppeli
 
Last edited:
For categories A/B, at first sight and without guaranteeing that I did not overlook something, the BirdLife checklist differs from the BOURC-TSC taxonomy as follows -

Species-level taxonomy:
  • Circus hudsonius split from C cyaneus (both are on the list: +1 sp)

Isn't this already split by BOURC? Thought it was.

EDIT: yep, Circus hudsonius in the latest BBRC report, and they follow BOU taxonomy :t:

  • Thalasseus split from Sterna (sandvicensis, [elegans,] maximus, bengalensis)
  • Chroicocephalus lumped with Larus (genei, philadelphia, ridibundus)
Very odd they split one but then lump the other! If I recall rightly, it was the same set of papers that split both genera.

  • Poecile treated as masculine (montana => 'montanus')
Good! Never liked BOU's going against the flow on this (IOC also uses ♂ montanus, so same change if they select IOC)
 
Last edited:
EDIT: yep, Circus hudsonius in the latest BBRC report, and they follow BOU taxonomy :t:
Yes, right: the latest TSC report was obviously never incorporated in the British list as can be downloaded from the BOU website. Albeit it should have, as the changes were indeed accepted in the 45th BOURC report -- presumably nobody bothered doing it because the TSC had already been declared dead when this appeared in press.
That also changes a few things re. genus-level taxonomy:
  • Zapornia is split from Porzana by both TSC and BirdLife
  • Anarhynchus, split by TSC, is lumped with Charadrius by BirdLife (asiaticus, leschenaultii, mongolus, alexandrinus)
  • Dryocopus is split from Dendrocopos/Picoides by both TSC and BirdLife
Very odd they split one but then lump the other! If I recall rightly, it was the same set of papers that split both genera.
No, the works were different (and even came from different continents). The genetic divergences are significantly deeper in terns than in gulls, and the initial argument that keeping Choicocephalus lumped with Larus makes the latter paraphyletic is not supported when more data are included in the analyses. But, OTOH, it remains somewhat unclear that Sterna is really monophyletic without Thalasseus (the forsteri-trudeaui pair is more or less as divergent from other Sterna as is Thalasseus).
Good! Never liked BOU's going against the flow on this
Dissentio, valde. ;)
In my view, they were right (even if possibly not for the exact correct reason); it's 'the flow' that is just plain wrong.
 
Last edited:
This will be interesting to follow. Historically, the AOU (now AOS...stupid name change) traditionally follows IOC for English names and also often references this list for taxonomic proposals. And in turn, Clements follows AOU/AOS. So...there is now some weird looping situation where Clements could be following IOC?

I mean I know it won't really go down like that, but I still find it endlessly amusing.
 
So how many people gained birds from this changeover? I know ABA switching to IOC (a move I would not advocate) would give me a few extra ticks, although differences are decreasing over time.
 


A new thread with most of the discussion (on the Rare Bird section, oddly), here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=338269

This will be interesting to follow. Historically, the AOU (now AOS...stupid name change) traditionally follows IOC for English names and also often references this list for taxonomic proposals. And in turn, Clements follows AOU/AOS. So...there is now some weird looping situation where Clements could be following IOC?

I mean I know it won't really go down like that, but I still find it endlessly amusing.
Nice!! That was one of the whole reasons for the BOU's decision, to head towards a single unified global bird list, rather than lots of confusingly different local lists. For starters, let's hope the AOU/AOS start ditching some of all those awful capitals-after-hyphens (those execrable grammatic monstrosities like "Golden-Plover") :t:

Hadn't heard about the AOU → AOS, where was that proposed?
 
Not so odd: apart from academics who do you think most takes an active interest in possible changes to their lists arising from taxonomy?

John
But most of the keen listers know about, and are regular on, this forum ;)

It has been ongoing for a couple of years at least, it is part of the joining of AOU with Cooper OS: http://www.americanornithology.org/

They originally imagined all new world societies joining and still has that as a possible future outcome I think.

Niels
Thanks!

Hallelujah!
Yep! :clap::clap::clap:
 
Quoting Steve Preddy on the other side: "That's a big relief. It was a close-run thing however: there were two tied votes between IOC and Birdlife, and IOC was only adopted because Andrew Harrop gave it his casting vote. That four members of BOURC think that the Birdlife list could have been a serious contender for adoption, given all that is wrong with its approach to taxonomic decision-making is incredible, and casts serious doubt in my mind on their credentials for membership of the body that maintains our national list. Now, if only they had a subcommittee of expert taxonomists who could help them understand why the Birdlife list is so flawed..."
and "It's not really about preferences, it's about whether the system meets the fundamental requirement of being scientifically defensible."

Andrew Harrop (Rutland & Shetland), Chairman
Chris McInerny (University of Glasgow), Secretary
Dawn Balmer (BTO)
Andy Brown (Natural England)
Steve Dudley (ex officio, BOU Senior Administrator)*
Paul French (ex officio, BBRC Chairman)
James Gilroy (Norfolk)
Andy Musgrove (BTO)
Jimmy Steele (Northumberland)
Andrew Stoddart (Norfolk)

* does not vote on files
Would it be helpful to identify the post-truth four? Two words Richard Klim.
 
. So...there is now some weird looping situation where Clements could be following IOC?

I'm the press release they talk about Clement's and IOC as if they're the same thing, as they are expecting then to almost me at the conference in 2018. To me that was the most interesting part. Is it a forgone conclusion?
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top