Howard and Moore downloadable spreadsheet (1 Viewer)

[Jon.Bryant]

For grouping and listing purposes, isn’t Order, Family and Genus enough without subfamilies and tribes. It is pretty easy to split the Genus name from the full Latin name in Excel in any list.

First use the formula =Find(“ “,A1) where A1 should be replaced by the cell reference of the name you want to split.
This gives a number representing the location of the space, then use =Left(A1,B1-1) where B1 is the cell reference of the number calculated in step 1.

I do wish however, that IOC would stop putting extinct signs in their species names and flag species and subspecies as extinct in a separate column. Otherwise (assuming you are interested in extinct Genus) you also need to do two search and replace actions - one for “_TT” followed by one for “ __T” with “” as the replacement text (where T should actually be the extinct cross character and _ a space.). This will delete all extinct signs from the names, the downside is then that you won’t know which birds are extinct!

 

[jts1882]

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 For instance, on the Great Tit Link above I could only select Clements 19, and IOC 12.1, which are both out of date.

I think that is a an oversight on that page, where the dropdown boxes options haven't been updated. You can edit the URL to get Clements 2021, as in the following link:

Parus major (Eurasian Great Tit) - Avibase

avibase.bsc-eoc.org

Clements 22 also seems to be loaded. The following link seems to compare Clements 21 and Clements 22:

Avibase - The World Bird Database

avibase.bsc-eoc.org

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Thanks for this advice on changing the URL.

You mention Clements 22, but I thought release date has been delayed from August to October 25. Do Avibase get a preview?

 

[jts1882]

Denis Lepage is involved in coordinating the checklists, so it seems likely.

I should add that the comparison of Clements 2021 and 2022 above used the options available in the dropdown list so isn't showing something that isn't meant to be public.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I do wish however, that IOC would stop putting extinct signs in their species names and flag species and subspecies as extinct in a separate column.

The Howard and Moore 4.1 spreadsheet identified extinct species and subspecies names by giving them a grey background, which was way worse.

 

[Mysticete]

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

Well the common gull split is already accepted by Clements, so no issues there

Do we know if the unified list will be using subspecies groups? I assume so if Ebird is involved, but it would be nice to know for certain. The groups themselves do need quite a bit revision, as some diagnostically different groups, like some of the ptarmigan "groups", are not recognized, while other birds like sandhill cranes seem to be parsed up into groups that are not really field identifiable and are unlikely to be split.

 

[Mysticete]

For grouping and listing purposes, isn’t Order, Family and Genus enough without subfamilies and tribes. It is pretty easy to split the Genus name from the full Latin name in Excel in any list.

First use the formula =Find(“ “,A1) where A1 should be replaced by the cell reference of the name you want to split.
This gives a number representing the location of the space, then use =Left(A1,B1-1) where B1 is the cell reference of the number calculated in step 1.

I do wish however, that IOC would stop putting extinct signs in their species names and flag species and subspecies as extinct in a separate column. Otherwise (assuming you are interested in extinct Genus) you also need to do two search and replace actions - one for “_TT” followed by one for “ __T” with “” as the replacement text (where T should actually be the extinct cross character and _ a space.). This will delete all extinct signs from the names, the downside is then that you won’t know which birds are extinct!

well, subfamilies are a useful placeholder, in that subfamilies sometimes get turned into families. For instance, I think there is a strong possibility that many of the subfamilies within Scolopacidae may be eventually raised to family level, given how old these clades are. So for those of us keeping track of families, it's useful to have this information. Hell, often times subfamilies are used for group that people think actually are distinct enough to warrant families, but in which we lack the confidence in the phylogeny to feel comfortable.

Also, I think if you are trying to create a standardized taxonomic list, it's useful to have all the widely used ranks identified. Remember the list isn't just for birders keeping life-lists. It's also for researchers, and having specific names to use for smaller clades than families can be helpful. In my own research, I commonly refer to subfamilies of dolphin, like Delphininae or Lissodelphinae, because they are distinctive and diagnostic groups that have discrete features that distinguish them.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Interesting comments about dolphins.

From a birdwatching point of view, from my own experience people will refer to having seen a Empid(onax) or a Locustella (sorry Helopsaltes/Locustella - add growl of annoyance), but I think use of subfamilies or tribes is rare, even in books, reports etc - perhaps this is why lists don't include this information.

Slightly off theme, from a none taxonomists point of view, I also wonder what the changes to grouping actually achieve? To anyone who has seen a Thick-billed Warbler it was always an odd Acro. Have the two subsequent changes in Genus added anything to our ornithological understanding - identification, behaviour, conservation etc? Same goes for Baikal Teal etc, etc. Sorry but you have raised my bug bear of grouping things (and constantly regrouping things) purely on taxonomic grounds, when my (probably ill-informed) view is that the constant flux in nomenclature is a hinderance rather than an aid to field ornithology - plus I have just been for a lunch time beer!

 

[awiner]

Slightly off theme, from a none taxonomists point of view, I also wonder what the changes to grouping actually achieve? To anyone who has seen a Thick-billed Warbler it was always an odd Acro. Have the two subsequent changes in Genus added anything to our ornithological understanding - identification, behaviour, conservation etc? Same goes for Baikal Teal etc, etc. Sorry but you have raised my bug bear of grouping things (and constantly regrouping things) purely on taxonomic grounds, when my (probably ill-informed) view is that the constant flux in nomenclature is a hinderance rather than an aid to field ornithology - plus I have just been for a lunch time beer!

Not always but sometimes absolutely. A particularly good example is the discovery that Black and Bare-headed "Laughingthrush" are closely related to Scimitar-babblers. Lets you rethink everything about the bird! That's more dramatic than most such changes, admittedly.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Not always but sometimes absolutely. A particularly good example is the discovery that Black and Bare-headed "Laughingthrush" are closely related to Scimitar-babblers. Lets you rethink everything about the bird!

I think the beer was talking in my earlier message. Fascinating stuff about the Laughingthrushes, which is obviously interesting

I suppose what I don’t know is whether people studying a species go ‘that taxonomic reassignment explains everything’, or if the field ornithologist say ‘if it’s closely related to X, does it also exhibit Y’. i.e does classification lead to new field observations, or explain what has already been observed?

 

[Mysticete]

Well, new classifications are the result of new phylogenies, and phylogenies can dramatically alter our ideas of how things evolved, where they evolved, and what they evolved from.

 

[pbjosh]

Not always but sometimes absolutely. A particularly good example is the discovery that Black and Bare-headed "Laughingthrush" are closely related to Scimitar-babblers. Lets you rethink everything about the bird! That's more dramatic than most such changes, admittedly.

Similarly, Yellow-green Bush-Tanager moved from Chlorospingus to Bangsia was perhaps not anticipated but does make sense once pointed out, a really cool result.