• 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)

mb1848 said:
What list should the BOU pick? ... Here is a list of lists from the IOC website:
http://www.internationalornithology.org/birdlist.html.
Click to expand...
Mark, re the IOU list of lists...
  • Peters, and Sibley & Monroe are 'historical' lists.
  • Alan Peterson's Zoonomen project is primarily concerned with nomenclature, rather than following developments in systematics/classification.
  • Denis Lepage's Avibase is essentially a database of other major lists rather than a list per se.
So effectively that just leaves the four candidates that I've already highlighted (IOC, eBird/Clements, H&M, BirdLife).
 
Last edited:
I think you will find that quite a few contributors to the taxonomy subforum have higher degrees, though not all in ornithology.

Niels
 
mb1848 said:
If the deletion of the TSC was not on the Notice?
Click to expand...
Such a notice is required for general meetings only. (To advise members that a particular subject will be debated, as to give each member the opportunity to attend if the subject is of particular importance to him.) Here the decision was taken by the council, ie., in a meeting of Trustees where no simple members are present. Unlike simple members, Trustees would probably be expected to attend whatever the debated subjects, hence a notice detailing the subjects in advance doesn't seem necessary. See 18.(4): "Any meeting of Trustees at which a quorum is present at the time the relevant decision is made may exercise all the powers exercisable by the Trustees."
 
at which a quorum is present at the time the relevant decision is made may exercise all the powers exercisable by the Trustees.
Click to expand...

So the only remaining legalistic angle is whether this decision is within the "powers exercisable by the trustees"

Niels
 
Richard Klim said:
Mark, re the IOU list of lists...
  • Peters, and Sibley & Monroe are 'historical' lists.
  • Alan Peterson's Zoonomen project is primarily concerned with nomenclature, rather than following developments in systematics/classification.
  • Denis Lepage's Avibase is essentially a database of other major lists rather than a list per se.
So effectively that just leaves the four candidates that I've already highlighted (IOC, eBird/Clements, H&M, BirdLife).
Click to expand...

It could be argued that TIF is a roguish and unlikely fifth option.
 
Kirk Roth said:
It could be argued that TIF is a roguish and unlikely fifth option.
Click to expand...
John Boyd's (excellent) TiF usually leads the way, rapidly prototyping the taxonomic implications of new studies, and giving us all a well-considered preview of the probable shape of things to come. But, as you suggest, perhaps unlikely to be adopted as the taxonomic baseline for a national records committee... (And doesn't address subspecific taxonomy.)
 
njlarsen said:
I think you will find that quite a few contributors to the taxonomy subforum have higher degrees, though not all in ornithology.

Niels
Click to expand...

And not all taxonomists have relevant academic backgrounds. Vaurie was a dentist. Nigel Collar's PhD was on the works of George Orwell.

Richard Klim said:
John Boyd's (excellent) TiF usually leads the way, rapidly prototyping the taxonomic implications of new studies, and giving us all a well-considered preview of the probable shape of things to come. But, as you suggest, perhaps unlikely to be adopted as the taxonomic baseline for a national records committee... (And doesn't address subspecific taxonomy.)
Click to expand...

And John Boyd is an economist.
 
Last edited:
"Nigel Collar's PhD was on the works of George Orwell." That actually sounds useful in the taxonomic wars. Jon L. Dunn he of ABA & AOU checklist committee service; I am reliably informed that his education is non-biological. All that is really needed is clear thinking and sharp elbows. I think birdlife and ebird are too american. Two of the TSC are advisors to IOC so H&M it is. Laurent your legal analysis sounds right and the council can create or destroy any committee at its will.
 
"Birdlife is too American" :eek!: :eek!: :eek!: That sounds opposite of the reaction to Birdlife I have read from anyone I know to be American.

Your proposal of H&M as the solution (are you aware that one of the main authors is American?) sounds good right now, but the problem with past versions of this list has been lack of updates as new data become available. I have yet to see any real update to the last version.

That to me leaves IOC and Clements as the two lists that are viable. Clements might be seen as too American, so for me, IOC would be the default option?

Niels
 
I would imagine most people would prefer the IOC, I know I would. Not just because of the regular updates but also for the higher list count! I fear though that we will be burdened with Birdlife...
 
Birdlife is too American? That's hilarious; I am not sure I know of anyone on this side of the pond that particularly like or endorses that checklist.
 
Mysticete said:
Birdlife is too American? That's hilarious; I am not sure I know of anyone on this side of the pond that particularly like or endorses that checklist.
Click to expand...

Indeed, I can't think of any U.S/Canadian researcher I know personally who endorses or praises it. And amongst birders, very few are even aware of it.

If I were to "vote," I feel that IOC paints a more accurate picture of European bird species than Clements when one considers the list details. But more importantly, Clements is so prominently America-centric, stating that "our first authority" is the AOU, that it would seem much less palatable. I agree that IOC is closer to a "default" option, but prediction is a fool's game anyway.

Regardless, it is interesting to see whether and how Clements/eBird reacts to the BOURC disbandment. From their "Methods" website, they state that "we shall adhere as closely as possible to the taxonomy and nomenclature published by regionally recognized scientific bodies (e.g., British Ornithological Union for European birds..." and "We also try to minimize departures from other global taxonomies, such as the IOC World Bird List and the Handbook of Birds of the World series (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona). We believe that even when different systems exist, consistency is important where it can be achieved, as that minimizes confusion for birders and data errors within eBird."

So it is conceivable that, with the BOURC list gone, Clements would adopt IOC in cases where IOC differed from BOURC. If so, adopting Clements would be adopting IOC... except where it contradicts AOU.
 
Kirk Roth said:
If I were to "vote," I feel that IOC paints a more accurate picture of European bird species than Clements when one considers the list details. But more importantly, Clements is so prominently America-centric, stating that "our first authority" is the AOU, that it would seem much less palatable. I agree that IOC is closer to a "default" option, but prediction is a fool's game anyway.
Click to expand...
IOC and eBird/Clements both seem close to the general ethos of BOURC TSC – essentially 'BSC lite' (and, importantly, take due account of molecular studies!). There appears to be an increasing convergence in approach between IOC and eBird/Clements: after a period when eBird/Clements followed AOU/GB/Australia/NZ taxonomy (Five Eyes?! ;)) but seemed reluctant to adopt taxonomic changes in the rest of the world, it's been much more proactive in recent years. Nevertheless, I'd favour IOC for the following reasons (some perhaps unimportant to BOURC):
  • IOC includes authors and dates, making it a more-complete, self-standing classification.

  • Subspecific taxonomy, originally based upon H&M, takes recent literature into account to reassess subspecies validity. (eBird/Clements seems rather weak in this area, with very little movement since Jim Clements's original compilation.)

  • It's impossible to please everyone with common names, but IOC's are at least based upon the results of a worldwide consultation process (and comment is still welcomed).

  • Proposed and forthcoming updates are posted online in advance, allowing and encouraging comment from the ornithological community.

  • The list is updated more frequently (quarterly, rather than annually).

  • Presentation of the list is superior (both online and in downloadable spreadsheets), and includes comments tracing past changes, with references.
[In contrast, adoption of BirdLife's 2016 taxonomy (with its low regard for the value of molecular data) would be in direct conflict with BOURC TSC's approach until now, and would surely be indicative of a highly political decision (although it probably wouldn't actually have much impact on the British List)…]
 
Last edited:
If the BOU is longer the keeper and the gate keeper on the British List. What is the function of the BOU ! surely it has just voted itself out of existence and plunged the whole of the British birding community confusion. I feel that I have been sold down the river.
 
RichardBaatsen said:
If the BOU is longer the keeper and the gate keeper on the British List. What is the function of the BOU !
Click to expand...
BOURC will presumably continue to be the gatekeeper of the British List (responsible for the acceptance of species/subspecies into Categories A–C), but in future will be required to use an off-the-shelf global taxonomy to be chosen/imposed by the BOU Council (motives still very unclear), rather than following the (widely-respected) recommendations of the now-disbanded TSC.
 
Last edited:
This is probably a really stupid question, as I have no idea how various countries maintain their lists, but presumably those European countries which don't maintain their own national taxonomy must each follow one of the other authorities? If so, and assuming they don't all follow BOU (which would be kind of embarrassing), the logic of the BOU's position would be to follow whichever of the global taxonomies is the most widely followed elsewhere in Europe? Since this change is supposed to be a step towards making national lists more consistent?

Or have I completely misunderstood?
 
Swindon Addick said:
...I have no idea how various countries maintain their lists, but presumably those European countries which don't maintain their own national taxonomy must each follow one of the other authorities?
Click to expand...
European/WP national records committees often follow AERC TAC, whose WP List is based upon Voous 1973/1977 as modified as a result of subsequent voting by the five member taxonomic committees (France, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden and, previously, GB).
 
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.

Similar threads

T
.BOU The British List (10th Edition)………
Replies
2
Views
736
twentywell
T
C
Son Bou, Menorca – October 2023
Replies
3
Views
554
Calamity Jane
C
Mysticete
Taxonomy in-flux updates
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
11K
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
G
blue tits breeding season
Replies
17
Views
693
Christine 42
C
Dorna Mojab
Thrush ID. NE Iran
Replies
1
Views
235
Butty
B

Users who are viewing this thread

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