• 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.

Scrambling of bird family ordering (1 Viewer)

dantheman

dantheman

Bah humbug
Don't know if this has been discussed on here much - apologies if so and scrap this one!

Anyway, Falcons are no longer birds of prey, along with many other lesser changes/regroupings apparently (like flycatchers jumping around). Just wondering what people think of the taxonomy side of things dictating birding and groupings (eg in field guides) and whether this leads to unnecessary confusion.

And whether a strict taxonomic approach has to be followed in lists from a birding aspect, or a more pragmatic approach is to be recommended.
 
I've mentioned it in passing when commenting on the new English version of the Lynx guide to birds of Spain. As I commented then, in my view the new taxonomic order is counterintuitive and whilst it may be scientifically 'pure' it's entirely dysfunctional in a field guide. There's a BF thread on the matter at http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=162356. Howell et al are recommended reading on the matter https://www.aba.org/birding/v41n6p44.pdf
 
dantheman said:
Don't know if this has been discussed on here much - apologies if so and scrap this one!

Anyway, Falcons are no longer birds of prey, along with many other lesser changes/regroupings apparently (like flycatchers jumping around). Just wondering what people think of the taxonomy side of things dictating birding and groupings (eg in field guides) and whether this leads to unnecessary confusion.

And whether a strict taxonomic approach has to be followed in lists from a birding aspect, or a more pragmatic approach is to be recommended.
Click to expand...

There was a thread on this subject some years ago; when I get a moment, I'll see if I can't locate it. And (pardon the niggle) falcons are still "birds of prey" under the new classification, they're just not grouped with other birds of prey on taxonomic lists.
 
dantheman said:
Anyway, Falcons are no longer birds of prey,
Click to expand...
They're now militant parrots instead ;)

Personally, I prefer a taxonomic order in guides/other literature that's as scientifically accurate as possible. I can see how an argument can be made for sorting more similar groups together strictly for ID and comparison purposes, though. As long as you don't sort them by colour...
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking along the lines that there should be a bit of a delay in producing lists when out in the field based purely on taxonomy to give a bit of reflection time (so maybe it's been a few years and I largely missed it!)

So when out in the field, looking at a field guide or writing up a day list I should encounter/write (if all were encountered) - eg

Song Thrush
Spotted Flycatcher
Robin
Nightingale
Pied Flycatcher
Black Redstart
back to Rock Thrush

... oh well.
 
dantheman said:
I'm thinking along the lines that there should be a bit of a delay in producing lists when out in the field based purely on taxonomy to give a bit of reflection time (so maybe it's been a few years and I largely missed it!)
Click to expand...

Yep, there is a bit of a delay - much of the research is from 2008-2013 period. Still odd surprises coming up, but the bulk of the major changes are around 5 years old now :t:
 
dantheman said:
I'm thinking along the lines that there should be a bit of a delay in producing lists when out in the field based purely on taxonomy to give a bit of reflection time (so maybe it's been a few years and I largely missed it!)

So when out in the field, looking at a field guide or writing up a day list I should encounter/write (if all were encountered) - eg

Song Thrush
Spotted Flycatcher
Robin
Nightingale
Pied Flycatcher
Black Redstart
back to Rock Thrush

... oh well.
Click to expand...

You mean you don't list them in your field notebook in the order you see them? How does that work?

A day list looks like this (from today):

Greylag Goose
Little Egret
Sedge Warbler
Moorhen
Mallard
Willow Warbler
Blackcap
Swallow
Little Ringed Plover
Lapwing
Reed Bunting
Chiffchaff
Cetti's Warbler
Red Kite
Buzzard
Grasshopper Warbler
LBBG
Gadwall

I don't use a field guide in the UK and even if I write the day up later (I tend not to) I still want to know what order I saw the birds, not what order they are classified by. So the taxonomists may do as they please - my only contact with them is national and world lists, and as long as those are indexed I can usually manage.

John
 
fugl said:
There was a thread on this subject some years ago; when I get a moment, I'll see if I can't locate it. And (pardon the niggle) falcons are still "birds of prey" under the new classification, they're just not grouped with other birds of prey on taxonomic lists.
Click to expand...

the problem with birds is that convergent evolution has been rampant, and it's only recent DNA studies that have managed to disentangle some of the true relationships - i know it's a bit a wrench, but in the end there's no point pretending that falcons and eagles are closely related, and neither are herons and storks

there have been fairly recent studies in Nature (A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing) and Science (Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds) - they may not be the final word on bird classification, but it appears to show the way forward
 
marnixR said:
the problem with birds is that convergent evolution has been rampant, and it's only recent DNA studies that have managed to disentangle some of the true relationships - i know it's a bit a wrench, but in the end there's no point pretending that falcons and eagles are closely related, and neither are herons and storks

there have been fairly recent studies in Nature (A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing) and Science (Whole-genome analyses resolve early branches in the tree of life of modern birds) - they may not be the final word on bird classification, but it appears to show the way forward
Click to expand...

Agree, and I personally find the new work both intellectually gratifying and fascinating and would hate to see old classifications based on superficial traits forever fossilized in field guides and local checklists. It's not as if things aren't already easy enough for newbies and the tick-and-move-on brigade, after all: smart phone apps (more and better every day); continual (and truly staggering) photographic advances; and almost daily increases in birding-related on-line resources in general.
 
Farnboro John said:
You mean you don't list them in your field notebook in the order you see them? How does that work?

A day list looks like this (from today):

Greylag Goose
Little Egret
Sedge Warbler
Moorhen
Mallard
Willow Warbler
Blackcap
Swallow
Little Ringed Plover
Lapwing
Reed Bunting
Chiffchaff
Cetti's Warbler
Red Kite
Buzzard
Grasshopper Warbler
LBBG
Gadwall

I don't use a field guide in the UK and even if I write the day up later (I tend not to) I still want to know what order I saw the birds, not what order they are classified by. So the taxonomists may do as they please - my only contact with them is national and world lists, and as long as those are indexed I can usually manage.

John
Click to expand...

;)

I only tend to list birds seen on a day in rough taxonomic order (Heinzel, Fitter and Parslow - guess that would be Voous?) by memory at the end of the day. I'm not going to waste daylight time if in the field scrunched over a notebook and miss something flying over ... so keeping similarly named birds and similarly looking birds together makes sense when doing a mental checklist at days end.

So yes, maybe just carry on as was ...

(Wonder how new birders are coping, and which fieldbooks they will enjoy using the most ... hmmm ... maybe they're happy with it, and their Red-knobbed Coots and all. Hurummph.)
 
Sangahyando said:
They're now militant parrots instead ;)

Personally, I prefer a taxonomic order in guides/other literature that's as scientifically accurate as possible. I can see how an argument can be made for sorting more similar groups together strictly for ID and comparison purposes, though. As long as you don't sort them by colour...
Click to expand...

Indeed! Not to mention that if I were a falcon I'd sure as hell rather be affiliated with masterminds like parrots than with the lamebrains at the other end of the taxonomy: cormorants, herons, coots. . .. ;)
 
Farnboro John said:
I don't use a field guide in the UK and even if I write the day up later (I tend not to) I still want to know what order I saw the birds, not what order they are classified by. So the taxonomists may do as they please - my only contact with them is national and world lists, and as long as those are indexed I can usually manage. John
Click to expand...

John,
It might be me and not you, but more and more often, you're making non-contentious and positively pellucid responses! What are we grumpy old codgers to do?
MJB;)
 
Pleased to see the just published "Australian Bird Guide" has used a field friendly order (broadly based on the work of Howell et rather than the current taxonomic order which, however scientifically rigorous, is increasingly impractical for field use. Everything's there pretty much as you'd expect minimising time spent thumbing the index.
 
I prefer the taxonomic ordering system. Most other systems I have seen used (color, habitat, gross morphology) have to much a sense of arbitrariness to them, that makes it difficult for me to use. Also, by arranging things in taxonomic order you sometimes can get a better sense of structural or behavioral differences in a group of birds you are still learning that may not be apparent if everything is lumped together.
 
Also, we are reaching a point pretty soon where, at least at the family level, taxonomy should be pretty much locked down. So future birders will have less to worry about as stuff is moved around.
 
Mysticete said:
Also, we are reaching a point pretty soon where, at least at the family level, taxonomy should be pretty much locked down. So future birders will have less to worry about as stuff is moved around.
Click to expand...

That will be a relief ... until the next set of criteria for re-ordering emerges ;)

No problem with a general following of taxonomy (certainly not suggesting habitat or iris colour for proper fieldguides), but that morphologically similar birds like crests and warblers suddenly become widely separated within everything from county lists to fieldguides. Or that birds with their name ending in eg 'Flycatcher' get separated.
 
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

J
My First Experience Purchasing Birding Binoculars
Replies
11
Views
2K
tenex
tenex
wolfbirder
Morocco Marvels and Meanderings 21 - 28 March 2023
2 3
Replies
41
Views
5K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder
lgonz1008
Birding the Yucatan Peninsula in July, 2021 (4th of July Weekend)
Replies
15
Views
4K
lgonz1008
lgonz1008
Troubador
  • Sticky
Interview with Gerry Dobler: Product Development at Zeiss and SF Binoculars
Replies
0
Views
4K
Troubador
Troubador
wolfbirder
Category:Israel
Replies
0
Views
2K
wolfbirder
wolfbirder

Users who are viewing this thread

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