Howard and Moore downloadable spreadsheet (1 Viewer)

[Earnest lad]

Having recently gotten interested in keeping a proper life list for birds seen, I found out there are four main checklists, IOC, Clements, HBW, and, latterly Howard and Moore.
I have compiled my lists for the first three using spreadsheets I downloaded from the internet.
However I have not been able to find a dedicated spreadsheet for Howard and Moore.
Actually, there is one spreadsheet available which is a comparision of all the four, but that one doesnt give common names of birds (only latin names)
Therefore please does anyone know whether there is a spreadsheet for Howard and Moore I can obtain anywhere? (assuming that having one would not breach any copyright issues).
Many thanks

 

[jts1882]

They used to have two excel files available for download. I think version 4.0 was as in the printed form and 4.1 had some corrections. However, they removed these from the website a year or so ago.

The information is all available from their website, with pages on each family. This includes all the footnotes.

H&M4 Checklist family by family - The Trust for Avian Systematics

H&M4 Checklist family by family

www.aviansystematics.org

 

[Kirk Roth]

The H+M Checklist availability touches on some overall concerns with that checklist. In their own words (unedited here):

"Importantly, the Trust has an obligation to protect the Trust’s Intellectual Property, and it has in recent years received an income from the publisher for licencing the checklist. Despite the need, now accepted, to make much of the list Open Access and to place it on-line, which we are acting on, the Trust is wholly dependent on financial support from the community (including a few trustees who over the years have kindly made donations - notwithstanding the fact that they are or were already donating their time). Going forward, the obvious costs to be met are database design and maintenance, website design and maintenance, recurring domain name usage costs etc. That, of course, assumes that the list authors are willing to accept the way that placement on-line eliminates the potential for royalties to be shared. Putting aside costs now being incurred - supported by donations - the Trust’s annual running costs are currently estimated to be no more than £2500 per annum.

For all these reasons the Trust may wish to not participate or may wish to limit the scope of participation in any ’unified list’ - which may or may not really unite all the lists that the unifiers claimed they woud unite (a task demanding carefully-built concensus). This will be re-examined in due course: meanwhile the Trust has some catching up to do.

Whether there will be any Howard and Moore Complete Checklist in 15 to 20 years’ time will depend on how it is received and valued by its users and thus whether there is a sufficient demand for it. "

While I do concede that each checklist system may have incentives other than pure taxonomy at work, the admission of the Trust's link between list distinctiveness and money is fairly intentional and blunt.

 

[njlarsen]

Whether there will be any Howard and Moore Complete Checklist in 15 to 20 years’ time will depend on how it is received and valued by its users and thus whether there is a sufficient demand for it.

The above really was from what Kirk quoted from H&M.

The question is which value H&M would bring above and beyond a unified list? I am not sure that having a few less (or more) splits or lumps would be seen as sufficient additional value.

Niels

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Kirk’s quotation includes reference to a unified list. I was in email correspondence with IOC, BirdLife and Clements recently regarding the merits of a unified taxonomy, and was pleased that work is already well underway on this project. Taxonomists from all these organisations are involved in the work. It was explained that the end objective would be a collectively agreed list - the individual lists may then be phased out, or at least may cease to be maintained.

If you wait a couple of years or so, you may therefore only have to keep one list and avoid all the extra work of keeping three (or four). Until that time I would pick one and be done with it - I would like to say HBW/BirdLife, but I think the lack of range information in their list is a dissapointment. It seems that the general consensus is Clements for Americans and IOC for citizens of other countries (but this is a gross generalisation - many EBird users choose Clements for the convenience).

I have actually been working on mapping the three main lists accurately within a database system, and I would advise against it - it takes considerable effort - especially as IOC is updated twice a year, Clements once and BirdLife/HBW once, sometimes twice - with each organisation providing updates at different times of year! Each list currently has differences of opinion on recognised species (including splits and lumps and newly described species), species boundaries (i.e Pallas’s and Common Reed Bunting where some subspecies are considered as the alternative species in different lists), genus names, Latin names, acknowledged subspecies etc. I personally think it is better to spend the time you save by using one list, by being out in the field and perhaps increasing your total.

I personally would forget H&M. It has not been updated since 2016, so has none of the more recent taxonomic discoveries (Spectacled Flowerpecker, Blue-throated Hillstar etc.). The lack of regular updates and a free electronic version, means that the user base is declining. The last update was a mammoth exercise, and I know some people who worked on it, who suggest ‘never again’ - they could of course get replacement contributors. The H&M position on a unified list verses protecting their copyright seems a tad unco-operative, especially as I understand they were asked if they wanted to be involved. A unified list must surely be the way forward and would mean that conservationists, ornithologists and birdwatchers would enjoy a common language - for a short period of time I was surprised to note that two of the main checklists used the same Latin name, but for two different species of Tanager - how confusing could that end up being for conservation work!

 

[Mike Earp]

They used to have two excel files available for download. I think version 4.0 was as in the printed form and 4.1 had some corrections. However, they removed these from the website a year or so ago.

In fact, the two Excel files were linked to from the Links page of the TAS website but not hosted there. The link is still there but the hosting site is no longer accessible:

H&M4 Excel downloads​

From here you can download the original spreadsheet that was provided on the companion CD of Volume 2 of H&M4, which included the family names, genus, species and subspecies names as well as subspecies groups; there is also an updated and expanded version that includes updated taxonomy, family, subfamily and tribe names, genus names, authors and dates, species names, authors, dates and distribution ranges and subspecies names, groups, authors, dates, distribution ranges

 

[Earnest lad]

In fact, the two Excel files were linked to from the Links page of the TAS website but not hosted there. The link is still there but the hosting site is no longer accessible:

In fact, the two Excel files were linked to from the Links page of the TAS website but not hosted there. The link is still there but the hosting site is no longer accessible:

I am sad it doesnt seem to allow a download. I am beginning to think it might be all right for me to stick with just three for now.

 

[Earnest lad]

I am so grateful for everyone that took the trouble to reply to my query. I am thinking it might not be worth having a Howard and Moore list, and just stick to the other three. I will also have a composite of the three to obtain a maximal species list and a composite of the three that provides a miminal list (if that makes sense)

 

[njlarsen]

I am not sure to what extent it would meet your need, but there is a file in the IOC website making comparisons with other checklists.
Niels

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Being a kill-joy, I am not sure it is that simple. If I understand you right, you could try to create a combined list incorporating all the splits (max total) then another with all the lumps (min list), but both would be a mishmash of taxonomic opinion. This reconning would also be somewhat unique, and not directly comparable with others, which may be important if you are into listing and comparison with others. The big listers seem to generally have one or more totals, based on a taxonomic list.

More problematic there are quite a few species pairs where the subspecies are treated differently in different lists. I gave the example of Common Reed and Pallas’s Reed Buntings, but there are quite a few others. In the three main lists these species pairs are recognised, but the split of subspecies is different. This means that just because you have seen Pallas’s Reed Bunting as defined in one list, you cannot conclude you can count Pallas’s Reed in another - depending on the race you saw, it may be that you have seen just another race of Common Reed Bunting. You would need to take these problematic pairs into consideration (and determining what subspecies you have seen) to refine your max and min numbers.

 

[Mysticete]

I'd hate to see Howard and Moore go away entirely: at present, I think they are the only taxonomic checklist that seems to be really interested in above genus level taxonomic levels. I don't think any of the other lists for instance include tribes and subfamilies, which I find to be useful for organization. Now if the unified checklist also puts effort into these taxonomic levels, I will be more than happy (and I think there has been at least a suggestion of this might be the case), but I'd actually like to see it implemented.

 

[Mysticete]

Being a kill-joy, I am not sure it is that simple. If I understand you right, you could try to create a combined list incorporating all the splits (max total) then another with all the lumps (min list), but both would be a mishmash of taxonomic opinion. This reconning would also be somewhat unique, and not directly comparable with others, which may be important if you are into listing and comparison with others. The big listers seem to generally have one or more totals, based on a taxonomic list.

More problematic there are quite a few species pairs where the subspecies are treated differently in different lists. I gave the example of Common Reed and Pallas’s Reed Buntings, but there are quite a few others. In the three main lists these species pairs are recognised, but the split of subspecies is different. This means that just because you have seen Pallas’s Reed Bunting as defined in one list, you cannot conclude you can count Pallas’s Reed in another - depending on the race you saw, it may be that you have seen just another race of Common Reed Bunting. You would need to take these problematic pairs into consideration (and determining what subspecies you have seen) to refine your max and min numbers.

That's going to depend a lot on how big his lifelist is though, right? I mean here in the taxonomic forum we tend to obsess over these sorts of differences, but IIRC it really only effects a small proportion of birds. My life list is north of 1400, but not counting trivial things like common names, I think my adherence to IOC only gives me something like 6 more species (Yellow-rumped Warbler, Herring Gull, and Fox Sparrow splits, off the top of my head). Might be one or two others from the Old World I can't recall.

Obviously this starts adding up at 5,000 or more, but for small lists, probably not too much.

 

[dlepage]

I should point out that the taxonomic cross walk between all major lists (and more) already exists. This is something that I have been maintaining for quite a while as part of Avibase. Every taxon concepts has been assigned a unique taxonomic ID (called Avibase ID), which allows to uniquely tie concepts across the lists. Doing this properly for all taxa is a LOT of work, so I would suggest relying on the work that I have done to get your started. This paper explains the basic fundamentals of the approach I used: Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts. A unique ID thus allows to recognize taxonomic synonyms among lists, regardless of the scientific name used (due to changes of genus, for instance) or the taxonomic level (e.g. species vs. species group, etc.)

As part of the unification effort, I have been generating a grid that compares the 4 different lists, so we can focus on resolving the differences. I am looking at making this as available as a downloadable file soon through the Avibase site. There are indeed restrictions that make H&M more complicated for reasons outlined above, and it will likely not be available in a public output. Note that the unification effort has generally considered that H&M was falling too far behind in most cases (nearing on 10 years now), and many of the differences are due to recent changes that have not been incorporated into H&M.

All of those comparisons are also available on the Avibase web site already, but only for related taxonomic concepts at the same time, and not in an easily downloadable format. Here is an example involving all concepts tied to the Parus major complex, so the 3 recent versions of the current lists (IOC, Clements and Birdlife/HBW).

Parus major (Eurasian Great Tit) - Avibase

avibase.bsc-eoc.org

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Speaking of grid lists, I have attached my mapping, which may be of help for the three lists. Hopefully I am not breaking any rules - I note that xls files are not permitted.

This mapping has relied heavily on the notes in the IOC taxanomic list, the separate BirdLife Taxonomic Notes document and the Avibase Website to try to resolve differences in the published lists.

The mapping is not that user friendly as is has been developed for a computer programme to read, so that a set of database tables can be generated. Square brackets indicate that a species or subspecies is not recognised in that list. The numbers down the right side are to assist a computer programme in understanding species assignments, but indicate where there are issues with species names, splits, lumps or tears (species pairs where subspecies are differently assigned to species in different lists). 0 indicates a full species match across all lists and across all subspecies.

If this list is a bit confusing the list to be published by Avibase may be more help.

In order to maintain a checklist that can be mapped three ways, you really need to start recording birds at sub species level. This is not the case for all birds, but would need to be done where it impacts on a species mapping - it is easy to map a split to a lump subspecies, but impossible to map a lump to a split, unless you record the lumped at a finer granularity than species level in the first place (or course this can be done in retrospect by looking at subspecies range, but not all splits are geographically isolated). As an example if you only recorder Herring Gull, have you seen the smithsonianus race (split in BirdLife) or both the smithsonioanus and vega races split by IOC? I am working on a critical level of 'granularity' for each list, which would ensure you can map to the other two and I could post this when complete. What would be perfect, would be if work in progress splits could be identified, but this is beyond me. I recall being told by Jasper Hornskov of potential phyllocopus split prior to my travels in Yunan, which made in much easier to accurately record birds and subsequently to update my list when the splits later occurred!

In response to Mysticete, you are correct that the problem becomes more difficult the larger your list (but also where you are based geographically). I would say however, that the mapping I have created shows that 25% of the mapped taxa have issues either with species name spelling, splits, lumps or tears. This is potentially quite a high percentage and a lot of work to maintain. Roll on the unified list!

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Forgot to mention that the mapping is not quite up to date - BirdLife/HBW 6b is not included, but I had already spotted and amended the minor errors corrected in this version of the list. In fact I think some of the corrections are things I had flagged to BirdLife when I updated my mapping.

Of course the mapping will be out of date when Clements publish in October and then further out of date when BirdLife publish in December and IOC in January - and so it goes on!

 

[Paul Clapham]

In order to maintain a checklist that can be mapped three ways, you really need to start recording birds at sub species level. This is not the case for all birds, but would need to be done where it impacts on a species mapping...

Subspecies level is going a bit far. Consider Horned/Shore Lark, which has (according to Wikipedia anyway) 42 subspecies. Rumoured future splits suggest four or six new species. So I don't need to keep track of whether I saw one in Saskatchewan or Texas, for example. I just need to pay attention to potential future splits and record my sightings accordingly.

Or what I actually do, wait until the splits actually occur and then go back and look at the sightings for the unsplit species and reallocate them to the new split species based on their location. (eBird does just that for you.)

This does require keeping track of your sightings in detail, though. If you just have checkmarks on a list of species, as I see an earlier poster does, then you have a problem.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Just to explain, I wasn't saying it should be subspecies level, but below species level at times. In the case of Horned Lark, you are right, you would only need to record at the granularity of the subspecies groups that form a split in another list. With Horned Lark you can probably work out which subspecies you have seen based on range as some races are resident (I have seen them in the Atlas Mountains, Texas, Qinghai, UK etc. so I think I could work out what was what). This could indeed be done when the split occurs - but the leg work still takes time. If you have a case like Golden-spectacled Warbler, which was split in the 90's the situation is much worse, as the species breed at different altitudes but are not necessarily geographically isolated in winter. I cannot with certainty say which species I saw in Thailand in the early early 1990's, but do know what I saw in Yunnan in the mid 1990's after being prewarned of the split (so paid special attention to call).

EBird (and Clements) includes groups, which helps. I understand that these groups are based on morphologically distinct subspecies groups, rather than species mapping. It would be nice if EBird expanded these groups, and flagged the groups necessary for exporting sightings to an alternative list. For instance, no real need (at the moment) to record Goosander (Eurasian) and Goosander (American), but yes to Common Gull (Common) or Common Gull (Short-billed).

Cheers

Jon Bryant

 

[jts1882]

I am not sure to what extent it would meet your need, but there is a file in the IOC website making comparisons with other checklists.
Niels

The list is available here: Master Lists – IOC World Bird List

This list only compares the scientific names, but covers subspecies

Another comparison feature on Avibase alllows you to easily find difference in species scientific name, common name or family placement between two lists (including H&M versions). It only outputs the differences. It can make global, regional or country lists. It doesn't cover subspecies but those are compared in more detail in the Avibase taxon grid described in the post above.

I'd hate to see Howard and Moore go away entirely: at present, I think they are the only taxonomic checklist that seems to be really interested in above genus level taxonomic levels. I don't think any of the other lists for instance include tribes and subfamilies, which I find to be useful for organization. Now if the unified checklist also puts effort into these taxonomic levels, I will be more than happy (and I think there has been at least a suggestion of this might be the case), but I'd actually like to see it implemented.

The Birdlife list has subfamilies and tribes, but I don't know if keeping them updated is a priority.

 

[Mono]

It all reminds me of this xkcd cartoon.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Avibase does amazing work, but the scale of the task is immense. This means it is normally a bit behind. For instance, on the Great Tit Link above I could only select Clements 19, and IOC 12.1, which are both out of date.

The work is far more onerous for maintaining their regional lists. For instance create a list for Jilin in Northeast China and we get Hodgson’s Hawk and Oriental Cuckoos. Are these remnants from a previous split (probably), normally occurring species or vagrants (not flagged as such) - the list actually includes Himalayan and Oriental Cuckoo - do both really occur this far northeast, or is it just a case that both species have been added, and that one now needs to be deleted? I would take Avibase as a great tool, but perhaps use the lists with a touch of caution and recognise the fact, that checklists may not be entirely accurate, particularly for recent splits and lumps.