[AlexC]

Discussion thread for Hooded Crow. If you would like to add a comment, click the Post Reply button.

-----------

Per S&M and H&M, this should be merged into Carrion Crow, C. corone.

[njlarsen]

As per our consensus, that is correct. (and if Clements agree after next revisions, I will loose a "tick").

Niels

[AlexC]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

As per our consensus, that is correct. (and if Clements agree after next revisions, I will loose a "tick").

Niels

As will I (got both in one trip - Hooded in northern Italy, crossed through the Alps for Carrion in Austria). I know it's a sore spot across the pond - there seems to be continued reluctance to accept this lump.

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by AlexC

it's a sore spot across the pond - there seems to be continued reluctance to accept this lump.

There has hardly been time for 'continued reluctance' to accept this lump, the split has only been adopted by the BOU since 2002!

Given that all British go by the BOU and that Britain is at the core of its range, Opus will certainly be ignored by all or most over here with regard this.

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by AlexC

Per S&M and H&M ...

Since everything in Opus seems to revolve around S&M, is this the Sibley Monroe dating from 1996? If so, that is ignoring the last 12 years of developments - shouldn'd Opus not reflect (referenced naturally) the latest works and data?

Thus, with the current question, of course S&M does not list the split of Hooded and Carrion Crows - it had not even been proposed back in those Stone Age times!

[AlexC]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

There has hardly been time for 'continued reluctance' to accept this lump, the split has only been adopted by the BOU since 2002!

Given that all British go by the BOU and that Britain is at the core of its range, Opus will certainly be ignored by all or most over here with regard this.

What can I say? I'm a young guy! 6 years is a sizable fraction of my 20!

Either way, "ignored" by Brits or not, the Opus doesn't dictate its own taxonomy. *Shrug* As a world database, I think it's reasonable that we concede to world taxanomic authorities (as we've done uniformly throughout the Opus). If C. corone vs. cornix is the worst of our worries, I'd say we're in pretty good shape.

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by AlexC

I think it's reasonable that we concede to world taxanomic authorities (as we've done uniformly throughout the Opus).

Even relying on a database 12 years old (*), disregarding authorities that have developed understanding of certain species groups?


(*) as an indication of how antique it is, it dates from an era over half of your total age ago!

[AlexC]

Well, I mean, we look to a consensus between a 2003 source (H&M) and 2007 source (Clements). When we don't have that, basically S&M is the tiebreaker (being the only other relatively recent world taxonomic source. The IOC (G&W) is strictly a non-taxonomic self-proclaimed authority - like us - though they have taken a lot of liberties and seem to pretty much favor any split proposed (no disrespect). C. corone/cornix is one of these "tiebreaker" cases where yes we turn to an older source, but remember, we only do so because more modern sources conflict.

I do sympathize when it comes to out-of-date world sources. I proposed a similar idealogy to yours in this thread:
http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=117995
...but it all came to Niels important point that we are not a taxonomic authority and have neither the knowledge nor the expertise to make our own evaluations:
http://birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=117995#6

A new H&M should be out next year, think you can hold your fire 'til then? It would give me an extra tick, so a year from now I'll happily eat crow - in this case, more figurative than usual!

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by AlexC

...but it all came to Niels important point that we are not a taxonomic authority and have neither the knowledge nor the expertise to make our own evaluations

Quite, Opus does not seek to be a taxonomic authority, but it should reflect the latest that is out there. Not an argument relating to the crow question in particular, but if sources are quoted, I fail to see the logic of not following the latest developments where respected authorities have researched and accepted updates to literature preexisting.

An opening paragraph can easily state 'This species is recognised by xxx, following papers published in 2005. Earlier sources, such as S&M, treat the bird as conspecific with xyz'. . By not listening to latest documentation, the bird is basically 'lost' within the text of another'.

Originally Posted by AlexC

It would give me an extra tick, so a year from now I'll happily eat crow - in this case, more figurative than usual!

Given that I don't keep lists, plus one or minus one is of no consequence to me. (Mind you I am half tempted to add up my world list one day, purely out of mild interest).

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

Quite, Opus does not seek to be a taxonomic authority, but it should reflect the latest that is out there. Not an argument relating to the crow question in particular, but if sources are quoted, I fail to see the logic of not following the latest developments where respected authorities have researched and accepted updates to literature preexisting.

In most of the cases you mention, two different authorities have evaluated the published papers and reached opposite conclusions, so the newest might not be the greatest. If Clements and H&M both disagree with S&M, then the changes are made in Opus.

An opening paragraph can easily state 'This species is recognised by xxx, following papers published in 2005. Earlier sources, such as S&M, treat the bird as conspecific with xyz'. . By not listening to latest documentation, the bird is basically 'lost' within the text of another'.
.

The redirect system ensures that anyone typing in the other name for the proposed split will also get to the correct place in Opus, where they should then be met with a first line saying "Includes ..." and further down with something along the lines of what you say.

Niels

[Jos Stratford]

Originally Posted by njlarsen

In most of the cases you mention

Most cases? Did I mention more than one case?

[AlexC]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

An opening paragraph can easily state 'This species is recognised by xxx, following papers published in 2005. Earlier sources, such as S&M, treat the bird as conspecific with xyz'. . By not listening to latest documentation, the bird is basically 'lost' within the text of another'.

I fail to understand why the opposite is not more desirable - text within Carrion Crow - particularly because we've done it with every other species over which sources conflict. As Niels says, "Hooded Crow" would redirect to Carrion (once we act on the merge). I just included this in the Carrion Crow Taxonomy section:

Clements (2007) treats Hooded Crow (C. (corone?) cornix, including sharpii, pallescens, and capellanus) as a full species, citing the recommendation of Parkin et al. (2003). However, Howard & Moore (2003) and Sibley & Monroe (1996) retain the Hooded Crow cornix complex within Carrion Crow (C. corone) and the Opus awaits further clarification. See BirdForum threads discussing this taxonomic discrepancy here and here.

As you see we are displaying the latest information on this taxa, while also not jumping out of our league to make possibly inappropriate taxonomic assumptions. Remember, when it comes to taxonomic publications, "latest" doesn't necessarily mean "correct."

The multitude of BirdForum's British readers in conjunction with the BOU's stance should not bias this particular case (or any case). The UK is not an exception to the process we've used uniformly in all other Opus lumps and splits. In terms of regional authorities, it's misleading to reference only the BOU's split and not other committees' retained lump. The UK is not the only European country with both Carrions and Hoodeds - Italy, too, has both, and contrary to the BOU, Centro Italiano Studi Ornitologici (CISO)'s checklist - updated to 2005 - does not recognize C. cornix, noting:

Il Taxonomic Advisory Commettee dell'AERC non ha ancora preso una posizione definitiva sulla separazione specifica tra C. corone e C. cornix.
----------------
The AERC Taxonomic Advisory Committee has not yet taken a definitive position on the specific separation between C. corone and C. cornix.

See it here:
http://www.ciso-coi.org/COImateriale/ListaCISO-COI.pdf

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Jos Stratford

Most cases? Did I mention more than one case?

I did notice the smiley , but just for completeness, let me restate: in most of the cases where we go with the S&M plus one later source, there have been two authorities that have looked at the information and reached opposite conclusions. Occationally, the later data are so new that it is uncertain that even the Clements list has reviewed it yet.

Niels

[Marmot]

Can I point out as the main keeper of the Database that Hooded Crow is a seperate species in there and has been so since 2005. The main person who was the knowledge of the database "cukooroller" was always up to date with the SM which the DB is based on and I thought it was supposed to be the one that opus went by as well.

http://www.birdforum.net/bird_view.php?bid=9978

[njlarsen]

Originally Posted by Marmot

Can I point out as the main keeper of the Database that Hooded Crow is a seperate species in there and has been so since 2005. The main person who was the knowledge of the database "cukooroller" was always up to date with the SM which the DB is based on and I thought it was supposed to be the one that opus went by as well.

http://www.birdforum.net/bird_view.php?bid=9978

There are things in the DATAbase as well as in Opus that went beyond the published S&M lists (last one published in 1996). I think (but cannot prove it) that Cuckooroller changed certain entries based on published reports that he believed in, but did not change certain other things because he did not like the papers. The split of European crow is one such thing that went beyond the published S&M.

When Opus started, there was a long discussion of if and how we could make changes to the species present. The consensus reached was that changes could be made if there was consensus of the two taxonomic sources that still are in production, H&M and Clements. We were very specifically told not to make changes based on individual papers that we judge ourselves. There is no doubt that some way or other, Opus will have to move beyond the static 1996, and waiting on a new S&M will be forever, no new S&M will come. I personally think that the way we are currently treating the issue is quite good, but having a baseline that is the consensus of Clements with H&M, unless these disagree, where S&M then is the tiebreaker.

Niels