Has the WGAC published a list? (2 Viewers)

[Mysticete]

Yeah, reading the IOC website, it's clear that it started off as at least a informal outgrowth of the IOU, but with the reorganization (?) of that group, it has splintered off to it own thing. Which means their is no reason to assume IOC's checklist will necessarily "dissolve" with the publication of the WGAC new checklist. That said, I wouldn't mind if the IOC website ended up becoming the new home of the WGAC, since I mostly like there presentation of info. Although if we can get a published archive of those proposals WGAC is evaluating, all the better.

 

[Mysticete]

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 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). 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

I have mixed feelings about region-focused committees.

On the positive side of things, A committee made up of people actually from a region is likely to simply be more informed about the local avifauna. They would potentially have more field experience with the birds, are familiar with the names actually in use or which make sense. Their is quite a bit of unpublished information sitting in the heads of local birders, that a worldwide committee simply is not going to be aware of. Also, the fact that they are covering a smaller area means they might tackle or notice issues that would go under the radar of international groups that otherwise may not have those details prioritized. Also, your risk the development of imperialist mindsets (or complaints of those mindsets) when a group of experts with little actual experience in a given area make declaration on the state of that area's birds.

On the negative side of things, every committee is going to have a different composition of folks who may examine issues differently from the next committee. They may have different criteria when judging recognition of species, different standards (published material versus unpublished) and different voting/decision mechanisms. So should a checklist automatically accept the results of both committees that are stringently conservative, while then accepting what amount to field guide splits from other parts of the world where committees are absent or who use looser criteria. This has always been an issue with NACC I feel, who have stricter requirements than other organizations.

 

[Jacana]

I have mixed feelings about region-focused committees.

On the positive side of things, A committee made up of people actually from a region is likely to simply be more informed about the local avifauna. They would potentially have more field experience with the birds, are familiar with the names actually in use or which make sense. Their is quite a bit of unpublished information sitting in the heads of local birders, that a worldwide committee simply is not going to be aware of. Also, the fact that they are covering a smaller area means they might tackle or notice issues that would go under the radar of international groups that otherwise may not have those details prioritized. Also, your risk the development of imperialist mindsets (or complaints of those mindsets) when a group of experts with little actual experience in a given area make declaration on the state of that area's birds.

On the negative side of things, every committee is going to have a different composition of folks who may examine issues differently from the next committee. They may have different criteria when judging recognition of species, different standards (published material versus unpublished) and different voting/decision mechanisms. So should a checklist automatically accept the results of both committees that are stringently conservative, while then accepting what amount to field guide splits from other parts of the world where committees are absent or who use looser criteria. This has always been an issue with NACC I feel, who have stricter requirements than other organizations.

You could have a situation where a series of regional sub-committees provide recommendations to an overarching committee, who make a final decision. That way, you'd keep the local knowledge, while also maintaining some sort of global standard.

 

[Mysticete]

You could have a situation where a series of regional sub-committees provide recommendations to an overarching committee, who make a final decision. That way, you'd keep the local knowledge, while also maintaining some sort of global standard.

You could, but that strikes me involving ever greater amounts of cat-herding...

 

[Jacana]

You could, but that strikes me involving ever greater amounts of cat-herding...

As we all know, there are very few large egos in academia and even fewer strong opinions about how to chop up the avian tree of life. I don't foresee too many problems with this approach.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

On the negative side of things, every committee is going to have a different composition of folks

I also suspect that experts in avian taxonomy are probably not a common commodity. Regional committees will obviously muster experienced and knowledgeable ornithologists, but whether they can also have people on board versed in the science of avian taxonomy may be another thing.

I also suspect that real experts in the field may also be genus or family focused - in a thread before it was discussed how assessment criteria for various families should differ. Experts may therefore be the authors of research, sitting on global committees and also participating in their regional committee, but depending on the range or the their areas of expertise, it may be a tall order for experts to sit on every committee that happens to need their input.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

You could have a situation where a series of regional sub-committees provide recommendations to an overarching committee, who make a final decision

It just struck me whether regional knowledge is they key to taxonomy? Are we saying the where SACC and NACC vary from IOC and BirdLife (and the emerging WGAC), they must surely be right as they have the local knowledge?

I don't things are that simple. If local knowledge was the key to taxonomy, then surely the SACC and NACC would hold the trump card in all WGAC debates, for species in their regions. Let's wait and see whether this is the case and the WGAC is aligned with their current taxonomies.

If local knowledge has little bearing on 'what is a species' and the field is slipping down the line of genetics, then there would seem little point in creating a system where local opinion feeds into an international decision making process.

 

[Mysticete]

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

My understanding from statements by the group is that they are not going to decide upon a single common name if there is conflict, but rather recognize whatever names in English are the are prevalent for a given region.

 

[Mysticete]

The NACC region (and for that matter Europe and maybe Australia) are weird in the sense that their is such a high density of ornithologists, both professional and amateur, and such a long history of work in these regions, that I don't think any one committee necessarily is going to have a monopoly on knowledge. I was thinking more along the lines of places like many areas in Africa or or Asia.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

The NACC region (and for that matter Europe and maybe Australia) are weird in the sense that their is such a high density of ornithologists, both professional and amateur, and such a long history of work in these regions, that I don't think any one committee necessarily is going to have a monopoly on knowledge. I was thinking more along the lines of places like many areas in Africa or or Asia.

It is interesting that Europe's taxonomy now seems perhaps rather static with few areas of contention. We have had our splits and lumps (e.g. Eastern and Western Olivaceous Warbler, Moltoni's Warbler etc.), and there are a few in progress (proposed lumping of Yelkouan and Balearic Sheawater, the ongoing treatment of Redpolls etc.). However, and perhaps wrongly, it feels that changes in Europe generally reach global consensus quite quickly, whereas taxonomy in the USA has more lingering issues - how long now have IOC now recognised the split of Franklin's Grouse, Green-winged Teal and Audubon's Warblers, in contradiction to Clements?

As you say, with good ornithologist on both sides of the Atlantic, it seems slightly strange that consensus has not been reached on some European and American species - perhaps again local expertise is not the key factor and it is all about scientific principle (and potentially a divide of opinion, or even regional expectations for burden of proof).

If a British Taxonomic Committee existed it would probably have just a few issues to consider - Red Grouse, Scottish Crossbill and those damn Redpolls! Apart from that it would be mainly rarities (Yelkouan Shearwater, Turkestan Short-toed Lark and the like), but I would perhaps argue that a British committee may not be the most versed in central Asian lark taxonomy. I mention the lark in jest, because (following the IOC split of Lesser Short-toed Lark), the BOURC has recently been deliberating on inclusion of Lesser Short-toed Lark on the UK list - the sole record is now judged to not be attributable to any one of the 'new' species, so the species has been removed from the British list. The lucky few who saw the 1-day Dorset bird, will now be cursing the IOC split!

Interesting, that a quick search on the web suggests that to become a taxonomist you first need a relevant degree (biology is a good fit) and then perhaps a PhD majoring in taxonomy. I particularly liked the one website that states 'Taxonomists enjoy a structured and controlled working environment. Most of their day will be spent working in offices or laboratories, with the standard risks associated with desk-based work (such as correct seating and display equipment usage).' A bit different from the tropical disease risk, biting insects, travel risks, slips trips and falls expected by the more intrepid field ornithologist!

A tour guide once told me that you can never get into the mindset of a true taxonomic specialist and that it was a whole different thing to field ornithology. If this is true, filling a local committee with ornithologists will have it's limitations.

 

[Paul Clapham]

Interesting, that a quick search on the web suggests that to become a taxonomist you first need a relevant degree (biology is a good fit) and then perhaps a PhD majoring in taxonomy. I particularly liked the one website that states 'Taxonomists enjoy a structured and controlled working environment. Most of their day will be spent working in offices or laboratories, with the standard risks associated with desk-based work (such as correct seating and display equipment usage).' A bit different from the tropical disease risk, biting insects, travel risks, slips trips and falls expected by the more intrepid field ornithologist!

A tour guide once told me that you can never get into the mindset of a true taxonomic specialist and that it was a whole different thing to field ornithology. If this is true, filling a local committee with ornithologists will have it's limitations.

These days, when scientific papers usually have many authors, you might expect the field workers to include a taxonomist, to keep their published work Code-compliant.

 

[awiner]

It is interesting that Europe's taxonomy now seems perhaps rather static with few areas of contention. We have had our splits and lumps (e.g. Eastern and Western Olivaceous Warbler, Moltoni's Warbler etc.), and there are a few in progress (proposed lumping of Yelkouan and Balearic Sheawater, the ongoing treatment of Redpolls etc.). However, and perhaps wrongly, it feels that changes in Europe generally reach global consensus quite quickly, whereas taxonomy in the USA has more lingering issues - how long now have IOC now recognised the split of Franklin's Grouse, Green-winged Teal and Audubon's Warblers, in contradiction to Clements?

IOC does not recognize Franklin's Grouse, but otherwise yes.

IMO, the reason that "the US has lingering issues" is that the NACC is extremely conservative with changes, and wants the entire situation resolved Once And For All with a truly thorough study, rather than accepting changes which the evidence shows are likely to be closer to the truth than the current state of affairs. Combine that with an insistence on published work in peer-reviewed journals, and the obvious lack of funding for researchers to investigate these problems and get published, and it means that we're just stuck with things we know are wrong.

 

[Mysticete]

IOC does not recognize Franklin's Grouse, but otherwise yes.

IMO, the reason that "the US has lingering issues" is that the NACC is extremely conservative with changes, and wants the entire situation resolved Once And For All with a truly thorough study, rather than accepting changes which the evidence shows are likely to be closer to the truth than the current state of affairs. Combine that with an insistence on published work in peer-reviewed journals, and the obvious lack of funding for researchers to investigate these problems and get published, and it means that we're just stuck with things we know are wrong.

Going along with that, changes are only made if a supermajority agrees, something that I am not sure many other committees that use voting systems (including WGAC?) use.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

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

I had glossed over this as there will always be arguments over common names.

Looking at the WGAC website it states in their January 2021 news

'Building on the IOC World Bird List begun by Frank Gill and David Donsker, the International Ornithologists’ Union (IOU) has formed the Working Group on Avian Checklists (WGAC) with a broadened purpose and function. Its primary purpose will be to produce and maintain on the IOU website an open-access global checklist of birds in the mould of the great Peters-Mayr checklist of the 20th century and intended to serve as the benchmark reference for all taxa of the class Aves. Eminent representatives of the international community of professional avian systematists will compile and maintain it.

It will classify the Aves from class to subspecies based on up-to-date, corroborative information on the phylogeny of birds and the differentiation of species and subspecies. It will also provide authors and references to the original description of all taxa of all ranks covered by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). Type localities for species and subspecies, and type taxa for all ranks from subgenus to superfamily will be specified. Sources for taxonomic and nomenclatural decisions also will be referenced. Although English names for species will be drawn primarily from the IOC World Bird List, modifications to better align with preferences of checklist committees of individual continents, such as the North American Checklist Committee (NACC) and South American Checklist Committee (SACC) will also be incorporated. Geographic distributions will synchronize with those in the Birds of the World project. Ultimately, type data and deposition for species-group names and synonyms are planned for inclusion as well.'

Looks like I will start having to write 'Gray-cheeked Thrush'! Not a biggy, but it will be a bit confusing if Grey becomes Gray, depending on which side of the Atlantic the bird is from, and also a potentially battle when a bird exists in both - say Grey-headed Gull (or do I mean hooded). Toss a coin, or perhaps go with the side of the Atlantic where the bird was first described.

It looks as though the final objective is to create a very thorough document - I think the only pieces of info not specifically mentioned are IUCN conservation status, and alignment with the BirdLife Datazone (which provides comprehensive data relating to population and conservation status) - but they would need BirdLife to sign-up to the alignment process for this to work (which hopefully will still happen). This would be very nice, as I really think that conservation status and the conservation of at risk 'species' is the big issue here, and that mere listing is second fiddle. That said, in South East Asia at least, they are now running captive breeding programs for distinctive subspecies, deemed to be at risk, so there is hope that conservation is not only restricted to concerns at species level.

It is not clear is the end work will be an online reference or also a downloadable list, but I it would seem a great shame if at least simplified data was not presented as the now standard Excel download.

If this does become the comprehensive document described above, with downloadable version (and assuming other lists do align with this master document), then I do think that the end goal must surely be for one day IOC to evolve into the WGAC, for the Cornell systems aligned to the new reference, and for Clements to be withdrawn. Ideally BirdLife's Datazone would also be aligned with the new reference and BirdLife's taxonomy also withdrawn.

But I imagine that we are only at phase 1 of the project, with agreement on 'what constitutes a species' the first step. It would be a truly heroic effort if they managed to get agreement all they way down to subspecies level by the end of next year. I suspect that I will be an old(er) man, by the time this herculean effort is completed, and that Clements and BirdLife (and probably also IOC) will remain for some time to come.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Going along with that, changes are only made if a supermajority agrees

Interesting point - I wonder how IOC etc work?

Looking at the advisors to the IOC, there appear to be specialists in certain fields or regional areas - I won't name them or list my understanding of their expertise, just in case I do them a disservice.

But for an Albatross, does Peter Ryan (who has done extensive work on seabirds) only get the same vote as the other members (and particularly anyone who self professes that seabirds are not there thing)? Do they instead take the council of the expert, which perhaps can only be challenged by a super-majority vote against?

Taking the example of an Albatross above, hopefully the Clements/NACC/SACC failure to split the Albatrosses, has not stemmed by the lack of a super-majority, particularly if those against have limited or indeed no experience of these amazing birds.

 

[Kirk Roth]

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.

We haven't discussed it much on this forum, but something I've wondered about is, after WGAC achieves its "goal" - then what? Judging from what I know of their alignment with the other checklists (admittedly little), especially the "base" IOC that they started from, it seems that in theory they are very welcome to both "bottom up" suggestions from local organizations and "top down" review of newer research... especially in those geographies without a robust advisory effort. It's not necessarily an either/or problem.

BUT, there is something to add to the management problem metaphor here - what if one of your satellite offices has vastly different procedural norms than the rest of your offices? And they don't want to change? And that office happens to cover the entirety of the New World? Do you accept that office doing their own thing, or do you override them at "corporate level?"

 

[Kirk Roth]

Looks like I will start having to write 'Gray-cheeked Thrush'! Not a biggy, but it will be a bit confusing if Grey becomes Gray, depending on which side of the Atlantic the bird is from, and also a potentially battle when a bird exists in both - say Grey-headed Gull (or do I mean hooded). Toss a coin, or perhaps go with the side of the Atlantic where the bird was first described.

I don't have time to look it up, but I recall reading something on the WGAC website regarding their openness to accepting multiple common names (in other words, openness to reality). Even the IOC recommends modifying gray/grey depending on local convention, and if WGAC wants to truly be an international entity, it just makes sense for them to do the same.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

BUT, there is something to add to the management problem metaphor here - what if one of your satellite offices has vastly different procedural norms than the rest of your offices? And they don't want to change? And that office happens to cover the entirety of the New World? Do you accept that office doing their own thing, or do you override them at "corporate level?"

A good metaphor. However, I can't see that any party can ever have authority to dictate procedure. With the WGAC, IOU have no strict mandate, and different parties are simply being asked to participate, and align with the output of their own free will. There are no sanctions if parties do not want to participate, or fail to adopt the new standard.

I still don't really understand the benefit of local taxonomic committees, and tend to ignore them myself - to me it seems like an unnecessary duplication of work (often for a group of volunteers), which may or may not be undertaken by persons with the best credentials, probably using different standards, probably producing conflicting output, and therefore probably creating more confusion than light. I don't really buy into the local knowledge argument - the world experts in Tapaculo taxonomy and genetics may well be South American, but the world experts in large gull taxonomy and genetics may be based almost anywhere (can he or she sit on all regional committees). Also, many local committees are now dabbling in things outside their regional jurisdiction - say the Dutch Taxonomic Committee, which fairly recently judged Thayer's Gull is a proper species.

To try to use a corporate analogy, if you were a local electronics manufacturing company looking to develop a new product, would you think about directly competing with Apple in the cell phone market? If on the other hand you were an early entrant in the cell phone market, would you fight on as the market gets more crowded, wind up the business or plan to diversify (say Blackberry).

I presume that the main reason that local committee exist is because they were early entrants to the market, which have become established, and are now hard to move away from - but unfortunately this doesn't mean that they still have the best product. Unfortunately, committees are not business, and don't need to justify their continued existence. I would say again, that I think it was a brave and correct move for the British Ornithological Union to divest itself of the responsibility to assess taxonomy for UK species, and to follow IOC. It would have been equally valid to have chosen Clements (and given the rise of EBird this may have proven a better choice), but to continue to independently assess Taxonomy was not adding anything.

 

[Mysticete]

I don't have time to look it up, but I recall reading something on the WGAC website regarding their openness to accepting multiple common names (in other words, openness to reality). Even the IOC recommends modifying gray/grey depending on local convention, and if WGAC wants to truly be an international entity, it just makes sense for them to do the same.

From WGAC's website

"English-language names:

English is the language of international communication. English bird names therefore must serve a dual purpose: they must facilitate global communication while – at the same time – satisfying the communication needs of local and regional English-speaking communities. The two purposes are sometimes at loggerheads. Therefore, a sustainable solution will only be achieved if multiple names are permitted. The IOU is committed to supporting regional and national entities which undertake efforts to capture, document, and standardize the English bird names for their respective regions. For instance, the local names of cosmopolitan bird species may well differ among English-speaking communities in North America, South Africa, the British Isles, South and Southeast Asia, Australia and New Zealand. No region or country should be forced to give up names that have been in long-established local or regional usage at the expense of a prescribed global name."

 

[Mysticete]

Interesting point - I wonder how IOC etc work?

Looking at the advisors to the IOC, there appear to be specialists in certain fields or regional areas - I won't name them or list my understanding of their expertise, just in case I do them a disservice.

But for an Albatross, does Peter Ryan (who has done extensive work on seabirds) only get the same vote as the other members (and particularly anyone who self professes that seabirds are not there thing)? Do they instead take the council of the expert, which perhaps can only be challenged by a super-majority vote against?

Taking the example of an Albatross above, hopefully the Clements/NACC/SACC failure to split the Albatrosses, has not stemmed by the lack of a super-majority, particularly if those against have limited or indeed no experience of these amazing birds.

I can't recall if NACC has ever looked at Wandering Albatross. That species is a rare vagrant and probably wouldn't be a high priority species to assess

SACC seemingly rejected the proposal, but the comments section on that proposal is longer than normal and it's not clear if all of the added commentary is from people who are voting members or just experts. I count 6 yes votes and 2 no votes, although its possible some people changed there mind and the results of that change simply weren't added to the page?