• 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.

Wish list for Clements update 2017 (1 Viewer)

G

gusasp

Well-known member
Hi all! Clements yearly update coming up. What do you hope and wish for? Here's my list of updates/corrections I want to see (apart from the expected from the AOS update & I ignore actions in SACC area as well). Beware of long list!

* Recognize
Bunch of post-1500 extinctions!

* Split species
Tibetan Eared & Green Pheasant
Comoros Green & Yellowish Imperial Pigeon
Green Malkoha, Rusty-breasted Cuckoo
Bornean Frogmouth
Albatross splits
Desertas Petrel, Bannerman's & Subantarctic Shearwaters
Malagasy Sacred Ibis
Philippine Honey Buzzard
Iberian Green Woodpecker
Ouvea Parakeet
Trichoglossus splits
Flame Bowerbird
Western Fieldwren
Brown-headed Jewel-babbler
Jerdon's Minivet, Comoros Cuckooshrike, Cicadabird splits
Papuan Sittella
Variable Pitoui splits
Western Black-headed & Reichenow's Batises
Growling Riflebird
Violet Crow
North Island & Norfolk Robins
Cinnamon-breasted Tit
Highland Rush Warbler
Papuan Grassbird
Stierling's Wren-Warbler, Hartert's Camaroptera
Yellow-throated, Namuli, Taita & Kabobo Apalises
Luapula, Ethiopian & Coastal Cisticolas
Pale Crag Martin
Cinereous & Aceh Bulbuls
Kikuyu, Taita, Mbulu, Kenya, South Pare, Kilimanjaro & Dark-eyed White-eye
Siberian Nuthatch
Fire-crested Alethe
Chinese & Tanahjampea Blue Flycatcher
Chinese Rubythroat
Red-tailed Wheatear
Grey-throated Sunbird, Usambara & Forest Double-collared Sunbird
Aldabra Fody
Angolan Waxbill
Zarudny's Sparrow
Gran Canaria Blue Chaffinch, African Crimson-winged Finch
Arabian Golden-winged Grosbeak, West African Seedeater

* Split genera
Tetrastes
Oreolais
Lyurus
Heterotetrax & Lophotis
Rallicula
Paragallinula
Spilopelia
Alopectroenas
Chrysophlegma
Psephotellus
Neopsephotus
Traversia
Sarcophanops
Chlorophoneus
Phragmacia
Campicoloides
Gymnoris
Lepidopygia
Agraphospiza
Procarduelis
Linaria
Melophus
Latoucheornis

* Lump species
Barbary Falcon
Restinga Antwren
Teneriffe Goldcrest
Lord Howe White-eye
Western Olive Sunbird
New Hanover Munia
Quailfinch back into one
Lesser Redpoll
Damara Canary
Vincent's Bunting

* Fold genera
Dryotriorchis into Circaetus
Stiltia into Glareola
Woodfordia into Zosterops
Nesocichla into Turdus
Cercomela into Oenanthe, Pinarochroa & Emarginata
Haematospiza, Uragus, Chauncoproctus into Carpodacus
Alario into Serinus

* Move
Gallirallus striatus to Lewinia
Streptopelia picturata to Nesoenas
Vasa Parrots back to Coracopsis
Onychorhynchus, Myobius & Terenotriccus to new family or Tityridae
Piprites to new family or Tyrannidae
Hylia & Pholidornis to new family or Cettiidae
Laticilla (recognize!) to Pellorneidae
Alcippe variegaticeps to Schoeniparus & Pellorneidae
Alcippe ludlowi to Fulvetta & Sylviidae
Sphenocichla roberti to Stachyris
Grandala to thrushes
Cinclidium leucurum & diana to Myiomela
Brachypteryx major & albiventris to Sholicola
Thamnolaea semirufa to Monticola
Oenanthe monticola to Myrmecocichla
Myrmecocichla albifrons to Oenanthe
Pinicola subhimachala to Carpodacus

* Correct to
Porphyrio martinica
Ceyx flumenicola
Calorhamphus
Guaruba guarobus
Sylviorthorhynchus desmurii
Foulehaio taviunensis
Tachycineta leucopyga
Cholornis paradoxus
Salpornis spilonota
Saroglossa spilopterus
Buphagus erythrorynchus
Monticola cinclorhyncha
Cinclus schulzii
Leptocoma aspasia
Ramphocelus bresilia
Poospiza hypocondria
Sicalis uropigyalis
 
A recognition that their hyphenation policy is awful, and get rid of it.

And to stop imposing American spellings on birds that are not American.
 
Nutcracker said:
And to stop imposing American spellings on birds that are not American.
Click to expand...

The idea that they "impose" American spellings on non-"American" birds is in your mind. The list simply uses consistent spellings of certain common English words to avoid the oddity of spelling the same words different ways in the same list, without purporting to dictate that "gray" or "grey," for example, is correct. (IOC appears to do exactly the same; except they use current British spellings--even on non-"British" birds).

Moreover, even if English language bird nomenclature committees were to get involved in the dubious practice of deciding which spelling should be applied to birds occurring in which areas, why would it be more appropriate to employ current British spellings (which I believe came into use only post-18th-century, by the way) to birds that were in many cases named before that time, and for which, in almost all cases, the majority of the range extends outside of Britain? Are you claiming that all the birds that occur outside of America ought to be spelled according to current British norms? By what reasoning are you claiming the rest of the world for Britain and only Britain? Seems to harken back to the days of British imperialism/colonialism.

In any event, I much prefer the current state of affairs. Let the committees use a consistent spelling for the common words. Let individual authors and birders themselves employ their own preferences with respect to the spelling of those words. There's no need to have it be dictated from on high, and really, who wants to have to perpetually check a list to remember whether a certain species is spelled with “gray” or “grey”. (The current eBird platform, by the way, allows just what I am suggesting. It let's the user select American, British, Filipino, Australian, IOC, Indian, Kenyan, etc. for his or her English common name preferences. I know you are offended by the default being American; but so far as I'm aware, you are the only one who is.)
 
Last edited:
Jim M. said:
The idea that they "impose" American spellings on non-"American" birds is in your mind. The list simply uses consistent spellings of certain common English words to avoid the oddity of spelling the same words different ways in the same list, without purporting to dictate that "gray" or "grey," for example, is correct. (IOC appears to do exactly the same; except they use current British spellings--even on non-"British" birds).

Moreover, even if English language bird nomenclature committees were to get involved in the dubious practice of deciding which spelling should be applied to birds occurring in which areas, why would it be more appropriate to employ current British spellings (which I believe came into use only post-18th-century, by the way) to birds that were in many cases named before that time, and for which, in almost all cases, the majority of the range extends outside of Britain? Are you claiming that all the birds that occur outside of America ought to be spelled according to current British norms? By what reasoning are you claiming the rest of the world for Britain and only Britain? Seems to harken back to the days of British imperialism/colonialism.

In any event, I much prefer the current state of affairs. Let the committees use a consistent spelling for the common words. Let individual authors and birders themselves employ their own preferences with respect to the spelling of those words. There's no need to have it be dictated from on high, and really, who wants to have to perpetually check a list to remember whether a certain species is spelled with “gray” or “grey”. (The current eBird platform, by the way, allows just what I am suggesting. It let's the user select American, British, Filipino, Australian, IOC, Indian, Kenyan, etc. for his or her English common name preferences. I know you are offended by the default being American; but so far as I'm aware, you are the only one who is.)
Click to expand...

Well put, Jim, except at some point we at Bird Forum are going to have to learn to stop taking the bait on this tired but admittedly amusing argument. :eat:

I feel like there isn't a real need to invoke "American Imperialism" in every single English names thread. If its really that much of an issue, maybe its own thread can be started, rather than being the topic on which the sun never sets.
 
Kirk Roth said:
Well put, Jim, except at some point we at Bird Forum are going to have to learn to stop taking the bait on this tired but admittedly amusing argument. :eat:

I feel like there isn't a real need to invoke "American Imperialism" in every single English names thread. If its really that much of an issue, maybe its own thread can be started, rather than being the topic on which the sun never sets.
Click to expand...

I think there has been dedicated threads to this topic in the past as well. I agree we have all heard these rumblings ad nauseam

Niels
 
@ Jim M

Take the case for example of a British scientist writing a paper on Ardea cinerea. He will use the name Grey Heron in the title. Then the journal editors insist that it be changed to 'Gray Heron' to conform to the journal's policy of using the Clements list as its taxonomic/nomenclatural authority. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

As for English usage, the vast majority of the English-speaking world (the Commonwealth: Australia, Gambia, India, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, etc., etc., etc.) uses the same spellings as in Britain; it is just the USA which changed spellings, as a conscious decision made by Noah Webster in his advocation for 'spelling reform' to separate the USA from Britain.
 
gusasp said:
Hi all! Clements yearly update coming up. What do you hope and wish for? Here's my list of updates/corrections I want to see (apart from the expected from the AOS update & I ignore actions in SACC area as well). Beware of long list!

Philippine Honey Buzzard
[/I]
Click to expand...

But hopefully not with this name, which invites future confusion should the distinctive P. ptilorhynchos philippensis be split.

Also ditch many of the names with the prefix Visayan, which also causes frequent confusion.

Des
 
Nutcracker said:
Take the case for example of a British scientist writing a paper on Ardea cinerea. He will use the name Grey Heron in the title. Then the journal editors insist that it be changed to 'Gray Heron' to conform to the journal's policy of using the Clements list as its taxonomic/nomenclatural authority. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

Quelle horreur! The blood runs cold at the very thought of such an indignity. . .. ;)

Nutcracker said:
As for English usage, the vast majority of the English-speaking world (the Commonwealth: Australia, Gambia, India, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, etc., etc., etc.) uses the same spellings as in Britain; it is just the USA which changed spellings, as a conscious decision made by Noah Webster in his advocation for 'spelling reform' to separate the USA from Britain.
Click to expand...

True, but the vast majority of native English speakers follows American spelling conventions (hardly surprising since they all live in the US ;)). And, of course, the fact that English is spoken at all in the countries you list is the result of past British "imperialism" of a particularly brutal kind.
 
Last edited:
Western Cattle Egret and Eastern Cattle Egret.

White-breasted Hawk and Plain-breasted Hawk split from Sharp-shinned Hawk.

Gray-headed Goldfinch split from European Goldfinch. (Oops, maybe I should have spelled [spelt?] it Grey-headed Goldfinch? I don't want to be accused of being an American imperialist after all).

Dave
 
Last edited:
My experience is that the majority scientific journals don't really care about common names. Yes if you submit to an AOS publication you are going to be expected to use AOU names. I imagine if I submit to a BOU publication I would need to use British names. Outside of a handful of Ornithology publications, no one cares about common names...at all. So it's not like someone who INSISTS on using Gray or Grey Heron suddenly will find he has no publication avenues.
 
Nutcracker said:
It is. It's telling you that you - and all your countrymen - are such stupid, ignorant backward savages that you can't be trusted to spell your own mother tongue properly, and have to be told by a wiser foreigner how to spell correctly.
Click to expand...

Wow, what brought that on? Such passion over nothing! Or maybe you just forgot the smiley? Yes, that must be it. . .. ;)

In either case I think we've exhausted this topic.
 
Last edited:
For me:
Splits
Tibetan and Mongolian Sandplovers (split Lesser SP)
Eastern Oystercatcher (split osculans from Eurasian)
Hainan Laughingthrush (split monachus from Black-throated)
Ryukyu Flycatcher (split owstoni from Narcissus)

Lumps
Two-barred Warbler/Greenish Warbler - at least until a reassessment of this complex looks in more depth at the relationships between all taxa, not just viridanus/plumbeitarsus
Japanese/Cinereous Tit - again, at least until a study looks in depth at the relationships of all taxa, including commixtus, nigriloris, etc.
 
on original topic, I wouldn't really expect any split/lump that hasn't been endorsed by at least IOC on the checklist. I expect it will be mostly recent SACC/NACC changes from the last year, and revision of a handful of complexes for the rest of the world.
 
Nutcracker said:
@ Jim M

Take the case for example of a British scientist writing a paper on Ardea cinerea. He will use the name Grey Heron in the title. Then the journal editors insist that it be changed to 'Gray Heron' to conform to the journal's policy of using the Clements list as its taxonomic/nomenclatural authority. That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

As for English usage, the vast majority of the English-speaking world (the Commonwealth: Australia, Gambia, India, Kenya, New Zealand, Nigeria, South Africa, etc., etc., etc.) uses the same spellings as in Britain; it is just the USA which changed spellings, as a conscious decision made by Noah Webster in his advocation for 'spelling reform' to separate the USA from Britain.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the first example is a fiction. It's never happened and makes no sense. As I've already indicated, the Clements list doesn't dictate spelling of the common words you mention–the mere fact that it uses one spelling does not mean it is dictating that spelling; any more than the fact that it uses a particular font means that it is requiring that you use that font to spell bird names. The famous Nigel Wheatley “Where to Watch Birds…" books are a case in point. He chose to follow the Clements list throughout that series. Yet he also uses British spellings of "grey" repeatedly.

Your second point is both wrong and misleading. The so-called American spellings were in use in Britain in the 18th century. Here is what Wikipedia says about English vs. American spelling:
Many of the differences between American and British English date back to a time when spelling standards had not yet developed. For instance, some spellings seen as "American" today were once commonly used in Britain and some spellings seen as "British" were once commonly used in the United States. A "British standard" began to emerge following the 1755 publication of Samuel Johnson's A Dictionary of the English Language, and an "American standard" started following the work of Noah Webster and in particular his An American Dictionary of the English Language, first published in 1828
​
It is misleading because most of the world does not speak English at all. Your position is that British spelling govern in vast non-English speaking regions, such as most of Asia, and Russia, to name only a few.

Kirk Roth said:
Well put, Jim, except at some point we at Bird Forum are going to have to learn to stop taking the bait on this tired but admittedly amusing argument.
Click to expand...

I think it's important to respond to Nutcracker's complaints periodically. There will always be those unfamiliar with past discussions. And this discussion has in fact raised some aspects of this issue not discussed before.

What I'm most tired of reading about is the hyphenation debate. But to each his own and each has the same ability to skip over topics they are not interested in.
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 7 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.

Similar threads

Gashead
2007 World list
Replies
3
Views
3K
Gashead
Gashead
Nightjar61
Nightjar61's 2007 Year List
Replies
0
Views
6K
Nightjar61
Nightjar61
MarcellC
My Africa List
Replies
13
Views
5K
MarcellC
MarcellC
Rich Bonser
Israel December 2005
Replies
2
Views
17K
Bubbs
B

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top