Has the WGAC published a list? (1 Viewer)

[Jon.Bryant]

Just looking at Avibase and in (some?) species drop down's they have 'Working Group of Avian Checklists, version 0.01, v.0' and '... version 0.02, v.0'

Has WGAC published anything yet (apart from the update on their website), or does the administrator of Avibase have an inside track to work in progress?

I know that IOC and Clements have been working to align and adopt the WGAC 'agreed' taxonomy, but I think it would be wrong if Avibase has assume that all recent changed and alignments in IOC and Clements, indicate full and final WGAC 'approval'. I understand that there are voting rounds and that agreements can be 'overturned' and revisited - hopefully the WGAC has some process for this, and some timescales for revisiting a decision, so that there can be eventually be a final decision leading to a published list (or an end point for other taxonomies to converge on).

As I have stated in previous posts, BirdLife will be slow to implement the WGAC (and may choose not to - which would be a shame), so the update to their taxonomy (in December) may not shine much light on progress of the WGAC.

I note that you cannot currently create checklists in Avibase using the WGAC taxonomy, so perhaps this implies that the Avibase WGAC list it is not a full list, but a work in progress. Also the version number V.0 may also imply that it is not an official release.

A shame that the WGAC website now hasn't been updated for 16 months - I know it is volunteer work, but it would be nice to have an idea on progress. I really hope that the project is alive and kicking and can be expected to deliver in the next few years. I hope that it wasn't a nice idea during Covid lockdown, which is now stumbling, given that life is back to normal and the volunteers busy.

 

[Jacana]

As far as I'm aware, nothing has been directly published by them. Their thinking can be pieced together by following IOC etc. My assumption is that they'll publish the full "one list to rule them all" when they've finished going through the avian tree of life.

 

[Mysticete]

Just looking at Avibase and in (some?) species drop down's they have 'Working Group of Avian Checklists, version 0.01, v.0' and '... version 0.02, v.0'

Has WGAC published anything yet (apart from the update on their website), or does the administrator of Avibase have an inside track to work in progress?

I know that IOC and Clements have been working to align and adopt the WGAC 'agreed' taxonomy, but I think it would be wrong if Avibase has assume that all recent changed and alignments in IOC and Clements, indicate full and final WGAC 'approval'. I understand that there are voting rounds and that agreements can be 'overturned' and revisited - hopefully the WGAC has some process for this, and some timescales for revisiting a decision, so that there can be eventually be a final decision leading to a published list (or an end point for other taxonomies to converge on).

As I have stated in previous posts, BirdLife will be slow to implement the WGAC (and may choose not to - which would be a shame), so the update to their taxonomy (in December) may not shine much light on progress of the WGAC.

I note that you cannot currently create checklists in Avibase using the WGAC taxonomy, so perhaps this implies that the Avibase WGAC list it is not a full list, but a work in progress. Also the version number V.0 may also imply that it is not an official release.

A shame that the WGAC website now hasn't been updated for 16 months - I know it is volunteer work, but it would be nice to have an idea on progress. I really hope that the project is alive and kicking and can be expected to deliver in the next few years. I hope that it wasn't a nice idea during Covid lockdown, which is now stumbling, given that life is back to normal and the volunteers busy.

I might be mistaken, but if IIRC the Avibase folks are directly involved with the WGAC process, and have played an important role in helping outline the points of contention between the various lists.

While there hasn't been an update through the website, there was in a newsletter that the organization puts out (I am sure someone can post the link). They are aiming to be finished next year. Now whether that means "formerly published on a new website" or "exists but might take longer to get online", I have no idea. But at any rate it seems work has continued at a relatively steady rate and they are nearing completion.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Thanks for that. The newsletter would be interesting to read.

Now whether that means "formerly published on a new website" or "exists but might take longer to get online"

When I last spoke to BirdLife on the WGAC, it was a bit unclear as to whether the WGAC would publish a list - after all, if they are not careful, this could just mean that you end up with four current global taxonomies (IOC, Clements, BirdLife and a new WGAC list). The purpose of the project, I understand, is to try and habour the benefits of a 'unified' global taxonomy - not to give birdwatchers, conservationists, ornithologists etc, yet another taxonomic option.

It was suggested by a guy at BirdLife, that taxonomies should gravitate towards WGAC 'agreements' and therefore all end up being the same. On full convergence, IOC would be the same as Clements and BirdLife (and presumably also NACC, SACC etc). At this point, each individual 'authority' would then have to decide whether it was necessary to maintain their own works or to cede their authority to a single party. If all list had fully converged, in theory there would be no point is publishing separate lists, and all parties could cede authority to say Clements (or any other). Perhaps the WGAC would me maintained and jointly agree new and emerging decisions, so that the current participants have a say in future decisions - who knows, but unless the WGAC tries to enforce common ground, it would seem a possibility that when unification is achieved, it may be temporary, with lists slowly start to diverge again with every new 'independent' decision.

It will be interest to see what happens, as I imagine ceding authority to another will take a big leap of faith, particularly to Authorities that have systems based on their taxonomies (say Clements and BirdLife).

 

[mb1848]

Page 16 of: https://www.internationalornithology.org/PDF/IOU_flutter_5-3.pdf .

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Their thinking can be pieced together by following IOC

Not 100% sure this is the case. As I say, the WGAC has a process of review and reassessment, so decisions can be legitimately overturned, and take some time to become final.

I would argue that IOC with 2 updates a year, is more leading edge. For instance, has the WGAC agreed on the IOC 13.2 split of Northern Goshawk? With all the work in hand sorting out the current differences, I am not entirely sure that WGAC can also review emerging changes on the fly.

IOC is quick to make decisions, but perhaps this doesn't always lead to the end point - Whimbrel is a good example - In IOC we first had Whimbrel, then the split into Hudsonian and Eurasian, then the re-lump, then the re-split. In the meantime Clements and BirdLife still just have Whimbrel, so it will be interesting to see the WGAC decision on this one. If Clements split it this month, then odds are WGAC has ruled on the split and BirdLife should follow suit later, but at the moment it is two-to-one against IOC's view.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Page 16 of: https://www.internationalornithology.org/PDF/IOU_flutter_5-3.pdf .

Thank you for this. I look forward to release planned for the end of next year.

It is interesting that a new list will indeed be published and that the author also thanks those parties agreeing to adopt the new list as the new standard. It is also interesting that the new list will be publishes on the IOU and Cornell websites. I am sure I am reading too much into things, but do I see the distant demise of IOC and Clements (who I understand have already committed to adopt the new taxonomy)?

I understand from correspondence with BirdLife that they have not committed to the new list and are reserving their position, so their list will be around for a while, but let's hope they also choose to follow the same path and adopt the new standard.

The forthcoming Clements update will be very interesting, as there are still plenty of differences that need to start to come together, if convergence is getting closer - the update could be a biggy, unless all parties are looking to squeeze alignment into some massive updates in 2024.

A possible issue to resolve will be subspecies. I understand from the WGAC webpage, that they are not looking at subspecies, so I presume that their list will be down to species level only - perhaps IOC and Clements remain and be based on WGAC, but with their understanding of subspecies (and groups, as used by EBird).

 

[Jacana]

Not 100% sure this is the case. As I say, the WGAC has a process of review and reassessment, so decisions can be legitimately overturned, and take some time to become final.

I would argue that IOC with 2 updates a year, is more leading edge. For instance, has the WGAC agreed on the IOC 13.2 split of Northern Goshawk? With all the work in hand sorting out the current differences, I am not entirely sure that WGAC can also review emerging changes on the fly.

IOC is quick to make decisions, but perhaps this doesn't always lead to the end point - Whimbrel is a good example - In IOC we first had Whimbrel, then the split into Hudsonian and Eurasian, then the re-lump, then the re-split. In the meantime Clements and BirdLife still just have Whimbrel, so it will be interesting to see the WGAC decision on this one. If Clements split it this month, then odds are WGAC has ruled on the split and BirdLife should follow suit later, but at the moment it is two-to-one against IOC's view.

I should have been a bit clearer. You can piece together a lot of their thinking, if not all of it. Especially in the most recent updates, where WGAC is specifically cited as a reason for a given decision. In previous updates, they've made large changes to certain families in a short period of time, which has coincided with when WGAC have been inspecting said families.

That's not to say that all WGAC decisions have been adopted fully (several likely candidates are still in the "pending" column) or that the IOC hasn't been making their own independent decisions that haven't been covered yet by the WGAC. But it's enough to gain heavy insight into what might be happening behind the scenes.

 

[mb1848]

Please read page 15 for more about the WGAC inner workings . They hope for conceptual governance through allowing a small set of "experts" to vote to a limited set of choices.
https://www.internationalornithology.org/PDF/IOU_flutter_5-3.pdf .
https://www.researchgate.net/public...bout_ranks_in_gray-area_taxa_A_vignette_study .
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365849560_Resolving_conceptual_conflicts_through_voting .

 

[Kirk Roth]

It is interesting that a new list will indeed be published and that the author also thanks those parties agreeing to adopt the new list as the new standard. It is also interesting that the new list will be publishes on the IOU and Cornell websites. I am sure I am reading too much into things, but do I see the distant demise of IOC and Clements (who I understand have already committed to adopt the new taxonomy)?

I don't understand the speculation here. Minutia aside, aren't IOU and IOC the same, and aren't Cornell's system and Clements the same? What am I missing?

My supposition is just the opposite - I view this (among other things) as evidence of the strengthening of IOC and Clements, and the danger of the AOS being marginalized.

 

[TomDerutter]

I noticed this on the last entry in IOC updates:

Campethera cailliautii and its three subspecies is a proposed lump with Campethera maculosa based on similar vocalizations, shallow genetic divergence, and hybridization at the contact zone (Prigogine 1988; Fuchs et al. 2017; WGAC 784). The English name of the lumped species is proposed as Green-backed Woodpecker).

WGAC must have a proposal system in place.
I hope the proposals will (eventually) be public, as SACC does. Always very interesting to see the reasoning behind a decision.

 

[Mysticete]

Thanks for that. The newsletter would be interesting to read.


When I last spoke to BirdLife on the WGAC, it was a bit unclear as to whether the WGAC would publish a list - after all, if they are not careful, this could just mean that you end up with four current global taxonomies (IOC, Clements, BirdLife and a new WGAC list). The purpose of the project, I understand, is to try and habour the benefits of a 'unified' global taxonomy - not to give birdwatchers, conservationists, ornithologists etc, yet another taxonomic option.

It was suggested by a guy at BirdLife, that taxonomies should gravitate towards WGAC 'agreements' and therefore all end up being the same. On full convergence, IOC would be the same as Clements and BirdLife (and presumably also NACC, SACC etc). At this point, each individual 'authority' would then have to decide whether it was necessary to maintain their own works or to cede their authority to a single party. If all list had fully converged, in theory there would be no point is publishing separate lists, and all parties could cede authority to say Clements (or any other). Perhaps the WGAC would me maintained and jointly agree new and emerging decisions, so that the current participants have a say in future decisions - who knows, but unless the WGAC tries to enforce common ground, it would seem a possibility that when unification is achieved, it may be temporary, with lists slowly start to diverge again with every new 'independent' decision.

It will be interest to see what happens, as I imagine ceding authority to another will take a big leap of faith, particularly to Authorities that have systems based on their taxonomies (say Clements and BirdLife).

It should be stated that SACC and NACC have never ever made any statement that they plan on merging with the WGAC. In fact a clear annoyance can be seen in some recent commentary on NACC proposals. They are going to keep chugging along doing their own thing, but obviously NACC and SACC will lose some influence if Clements favors WGAC.

As for a published list, it was clear from the start for me that was going to be a thing that existed. For one, they have an entire team focused on the checklist's bibliography: there would be no purpose in doing so if there wasn't idea that a formerly published, whether as a website, excel file, or dead tree publication, wasn't going to be produced.

But yeah, I don't know what the status of the IOC list at least will be going forward. Clearly they continue to update, so if dissolution was the eventual goal why bother doing so? I am sure some IOC folks who do monitor this website could chime in, assuming they themselves know and its not confidential. Clements will almost certainly exist in some form, if only as a reference document for ebird.

 

[Mysticete]

I don't understand the speculation here. Minutia aside, aren't IOU and IOC the same, and aren't Cornell's system and Clements the same? What am I missing?

My supposition is just the opposite - I view this (among other things) as evidence of the strengthening of IOC and Clements, and the danger of the AOS being marginalized.

Where ebird goes, so goes the vast majority of folks who use this information.

I still think its telling that we have yet to see any example of either IOC reversing course on a decision not accepted by NACC/SACC, nor have we seen Clements accept those differences. My personal conspiracy theory might be that those changes will only be incorporated in the final version, as a "rip the band-aid off" moment. Since its going to have a major impact on ABA area birding and bird reporting.

The changes that ABA has made to there checklist also sort of seem to suggest it

 

[njlarsen]

One reason to perhaps still have independent lists: WGAC is not working on common names, only using scientific names. So IOC and Clements might recognize the same species containing the same subspecies but with different common names.
Niels

 

[mb1848]

The International Ornithological Congresses or COI constitute one of the oldest and most international meetings between ornithologists . (BOU 1858, AOU 1883) Organized by Gustave von Hayek (Grandfather of economist Fred von Hayek) and Rudolf, Crown Prince of Austria, stay away from gothic looking hunting lodges. The first congress dates from 1884. August 21, 2010, the International Ornithological Committee becomes the International Ornithologists ' Union ( IOU) The Working Group Avian Checklist is a specialized organ of the IOU given independence to work on one problem.

 

[Paul Clapham]

It should be stated that SACC and NACC have never ever made any statement that they plan on merging with the WGAC. In fact a clear annoyance can be seen in some recent commentary on NACC proposals. They are going to keep chugging along doing their own thing, but obviously NACC and SACC will lose some influence if Clements favors WGAC.

There's certainly a space in the bird-listing ecosystem for organizations like NACC and SACC, who specialize in specific geographic areas. But that really implies that the rest of the world needs more such organizations. Asia, I think, particularly needs a group to work on its birds.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

aren't IOU and IOC the same

I don't think they are the same organisation, although they have similar initials.

The WGAC has been arranged by IOU and I suspect it would be a bit off, if the organised and a main contributor were one and the same.

Interestingly the IUCN tasked BirdLife with defining the conservation status of all bird species, and BirdLife define their own taxonomy (stemming from Handbook of the Birds of the World). In a way, BirdLife is probably the closest we have to a list with the actually backing of an existing and recognised international body.

So Clements is maintained by Cornell University, IOC is a independent group of experts, and BirdLife is backed by IUCN. But Clements and IOC are signed up to adopting the WGAC decisions, so therefore one-day should be the same, leaving the WGAC and BirdLife taxonomies standing - and BirdLife may yet also adopt the WGAC, but are reserving their position at the moment.

It is just a bit of fun to speculate how this alignment will come about - IOC may go the way of Sibley & Monroe, Clements the way of Peters, of perhaps more probably they will all carry on ticking along, but hopefully one day repeating the WGAC verbatim. After all the purpose of the WGAC is to bring the benefits of a single taxonomy to be used by conservationists, ornithologists, birdwatchers, authors, recorders etc. etc. right across the globe.

With regard to the AOS, I think that we had this debate before, but some time ago the British Ornithological Union decided to drop their own taxonomy and use IOC. If the crusty old Brits can drop their regional taxonomy, perhaps there is a chance that all regional taxonomic committees can follow suit and adopt an IOU backed taxonomy. In the UK, I suspect that BOU had little choice - I (and all birders I know) had already adopted IOC, and were scouting the updates for armchair ticks, when BOU made their decision, so they already had little public backing. I somehow feel though that US birders are perhaps a bit more patriotic to their local authority. If EBird follows WGAC, but AOS stays apart, then perhaps this loyalty will be tested.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I don't think they are the same organisation, although they have similar initials.

I take it back

The International Ornithological Congresses or COI constitute one of the oldest and most international meetings between ornithologists

And on the IOC website it does actually state - 'The IOC has since reorganized itself into a nonprofit membership organization, the International Ornithologists’ Union (IOU), which is setting new goals and priorities.'

So IOC and the IOU are the same and it is a recognized internal organisation... Presumably as IOC and WGAC are under the same roof, this will make transfer that much simpler, and the process assured.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Asia, I think, particularly needs a group to work on its birds.

The OBC used to do this, and publish a taxonomic list on their website (but have since dropped this). They still produce some very good taxonomic summaries for emerging issues in their area. Interestingly South East Asia is probably the main area of the world where there are major conservation projects to conserve subspecies.

I still would argue (as I stated in a letter to IOC, BirdLife and Clements many moons ago) that there is far more benefit is a single unified list, and for me this goes against the argument for localized specialist committees (unless feeding into the whole). Most committees are making a decision on exactly the same research and most committees (well at least IOC) has regional experts on board, so I am not sure the local specialist knowledge argument for regional committees holds

 

[Paul Clapham]

I still would argue (as a started in a letter to IOC, BirdLife and Clements many moons ago) that there is far more benefit is a single unified list, and for me this goes against the argument for localized specialist committees (unless feeding into the whole).

I agree that the recommendations of local committees should feed into the work of the central organization. That's how NACC and SACC work today.

But it's the old management problem -- centralize or decentralize? One might ask whether a regional committee should produce a list for their region, or just produce change recommendations for the centre. However I don't see any such major reorganization happening. You could look at this like a corporate takeover, for example; in this case there isn't a mandate for radical restructuring.