• 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.

A few more from Khor Fakkan, UAE (1 Viewer)

Deb335077

Well-known member
A few more taken in Khor Fakkan, UAE, (north)

Thanks for any help given
Debbie
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1787.JPG
    IMG_1787.JPG
    44.3 KB · Views: 44
  • IMG_1788.JPG
    IMG_1788.JPG
    71.1 KB · Views: 30
  • IMG_1789.JPG
    IMG_1789.JPG
    76.2 KB · Views: 49
  • IMG_1790.JPG
    IMG_1790.JPG
    52.9 KB · Views: 58
  • IMG_1792.JPG
    IMG_1792.JPG
    51 KB · Views: 88
Has this been split Andy?

HBW is a bit of a nuisance now, it provides yet another, standalone, taxonomic authority to confuse.

Many field guides adopt the odd split which doesn't get widely applied, why are people suddenly using this work as the basis for their lists?

Especially when answering ID queries, I think it better to stick to establisged authorities?






A
 
Last edited:
Has this been split Andy?

HBW is a bit of a nuisance now, it provides yet another, standalone, taxonomic authority to confuse.

Many field guides adopt the odd split which doesn't get widely applied, why are people suddenly using this work as the basis for their lists?

Especially when answering ID queries, I think it better to stick to established authorities? A

BirdLife Data Zone also splits, but the bonus is that it also provides maps.
MJB
 
BirdLife Data Zone also splits, but the bonus is that it also provides maps.
MJB

So what we have now then instead of the most common choice of Clements or IOC is Clements, IOC, HBW or Birdlife!!!

IMHO, People should stick to the recognised authorities until or indeed if, splits are adopted. People are only citing these works to enhance their own lists and it's just made a complicated situation a unneccessry mess.

A
 
Oh dear, I seem to have opened a can of worms here. I thought the split was more or less universally adopted - I remember my guide in Sri Lanka telling me so last year. I know that in Sri Lanka they have a vested interest in splitting as many island endemics as possible.

Re field guides, many of the splits adopted by Rasmussen have since been accepted more widely. It's still quite a minefield though.

HBW will be shaking up taxonomy even more when they publish revisions to their species list. Among the changes that caught my eye are lumping Hooded and Carrion Crow, all forms of Southern Grey Shrike (except nominatemeridionalis) with Great Grey and all forms of Lesser Whitethroat, including Hume's. Arabia is not spared, with Arabian Accentor being lumped with Radde's (!), although to make up for it, we're getting a new endemic in Arabian Sunbird, split from Shining. As far as I can see, I'll be losing as much as I'm gaining in terms of my life list!
 
Last edited:
I know that in Sri Lanka they have a vested interest in splitting as many island endemics as possible.

The same applies to books, it's a selling point, the Illustrated checklist from HBW contains over 600 splits, far fewer lumps.

Re field guides, many of the splits adopted by Rasmussen have since been accepted more widely. It's still quite a minefield though.

So wait for that to happen in due course if ever, no issue with that

HBW will be shaking up taxonomy even more when they publish revisions to their species list. Among the changes that caught my eye are lumping Hooded and Carrion Crow, all forms of Southern Grey Shrike (except nominatemeridionalis) with Great Grey and all forms of Lesser Whitethroat, including Hume's. Arabia is not spared, with Arabian Accentor being lumped with Radde's (!), although to make up for it, we're getting a new endemic in Arabian Sunbird, split from Shining. As far as I can see, I'll be losing as much as I'm gaining in terms of my life list!

My point is that this is not a taxonomic authority so it shouldn't be shaking anything up. Let the scientists do the work and wait for things to be accepted in the already established way, we don't need yet another 'authority'!


In posting ID's based on the HBW which many don't have anyway, you're creating confusion. Why not just point to race and state 'split by some as......'.



Andy
 
Together with Bird Life International, it IS an authority. This is taken from the IOC website:

The IOC World Bird List complements three other primary world bird lists that differ slightly in their primary goals and taxonomic philosophy, i.e. The Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World, The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, 4th Edition, and HBW Alive/BirdLife International.

Obviously it's an issue that these checklists differ from each other in terms of species treatment and the website mentions that the International Ornithologists's Union will try to bring them into closer alignment.

By the way, I don't have a subscription to HBW Alive - I just use the free functionality of the website. And here in the UAE we use IOC.

In future I'll try to avoid confusion.
 
Together with Bird Life International, it IS an authority. This is taken from the IOC website:

The IOC World Bird List complements three other primary world bird lists that differ slightly in their primary goals and taxonomic philosophy, i.e. The Clements Checklist of the Birds of the World, The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, 4th Edition, and HBW Alive/BirdLife International.

Obviously it's an issue that these checklists differ from each other in terms of species treatment and the website mentions that the International Ornithologists's Union will try to bring them into closer alignment.

By the way, I don't have a subscription to HBW Alive - I just use the free functionality of the website. And here in the UAE we use IOC.

In future I'll try to avoid confusion.


Andy,
HBW are the only ones with a major financial interest in producing a list, I'm always sceptical of such and maybe I'm just a dinosaur, birders quoting them as a listing authority is fairly new to me!

I'm not so desperate to elevate my World list by incorporating a mish mash of lists so I stick ridgidly to the IOC, it's all too much trouble to start cross checking to eek out a couple of new birds, especially as they don't even all use the same names!




Andy
 
HBW are the only ones with a major financial interest in producing a list, I'm always sceptical of such and maybe I'm just a dinosaur, birders quoting them as a listing authority is fairly new to me!

I think this is perhaps a bit harsh on BirdLife International, who are collaborating with HBW on this list. They are not doing so with a financial interest (although it could be argued that they could have more of a conservation bias rather than scientific, compared to IOC or Clements).

The BirdLife/HBW checklist is the basis for conservation assessments by IUCN, and I think it's valid to recognise this as a taxonomic authority.
 
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.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top