IOC 13.1 Updates point towards convergence. (1 Viewer)

[Jon.Bryant]

Interesting that the Subantarctic Rayadito does not fulfill the criteria of a full species.

This is an interesting example. The WGAC website does not list the family Furnariidae as having been completed or that work on the family is in progress.

IoC 13.1 includes the new subspecies Aphrastura spinicauda subantarctica, but this 'subspecies' is currently not recognised by IOC or BirdLife.

From a project management perspective, I would hope that Authorities participating in the WGAC (which includes representatives from NACC and SACC) are implementing some form of change control, so that new decisions are agreed up front, but implemented by the different authorities on their timescale. Without a change control process, the process of 'alignment' will be inefficient and the volunteer WGAC will have a never ending task to complete.

I have asked BirdLife whether participants in the WGAC have agreed to some form of change control when updating their own lists. It would be interesting to understand whether emerging changes in lists can be relied upon to reasonably endure.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

It's used for scientific purposes

I think science has to be based on fact and not conjecture, so lumping the snipe species together (at least on migration) may be a better scientific stance, than splitting them without certainty or at least a high degree of confidence that the decision is 'statistically' correct.

We only have to look at Saunder's Tern to see how wrong our understanding of a birds distribution can be, by making assumptions!

 

[MJB]

I think science has to be based on fact and not conjecture, so lumping the snipe species together (at least on migration) may be a better scientific stance, than splitting them without certainty or at least a high degree of confidence that the decision is 'statistically' correct.

We only have to look at Saunder's Tern to see how wrong our understanding of a birds distribution can be, by making assumptions!

Or even "Saunders's Tern" or (as the elision of the second 's' once was taught in Scotland), "Saunders' Tern". The eponym comes from Howard Saunders (1835-1907)...
MJB

 

[Paul Clapham]

I think science has to be based on fact and not conjecture, so lumping the snipe species together (at least on migration) may be a better scientific stance, than splitting them without certainty or at least a high degree of confidence that the decision is 'statistically' correct.

All I know is what they did with my snipe records. It may have been uncontroversial to assign them to the split species in the locations I saw them and on the dates I saw them. What they did in other areas at other times of year I don't know.

 

[njlarsen]

All I know is what they did with my snipe records. It may have been uncontroversial to assign them to the split species in the locations I saw them and on the dates I saw them. What they did in other areas at other times of year I don't know.

I am not sure but I think this started from a discussion of Ebird. I have seen examples where observations in a given area was not assigned but given a status of "either this or that species". However, to do so with all observations for all splits would be rediculous. If the probability of observing the wrong species is low (whether that is defined as <5% or <1% or even <0.1%) the birds should be assigned to the likely species. Remember that the usual limit for what is considered specific in science is p=0.05 = 5% = a 1/20 probability that it could be wrong.

Niels.

 

[Mike Earp]

Sorry if there is a better place to note this. In the latest annual paper on taxonomic updates to the checklists of birds of India and the South Asian region (here), I spotted this:

The International Ornithologists’ Union (IOU), in 2020, created the WGAC, which sought to align the different world taxonomies of birds (https://www.internationalornithology.org/workinggroup-avian-checklists). During the International Ornithological Congress in August 2022 at Durban, South Africa, the team published the status of their progress in aligning checklists, but it appears that the first formal publication from WGAC is still a year or two away. Until that happens, updates to the India Checklist, based our ‘consensus model’, shall continue. Recommendations from WGAC are already finding their way into IOC and eBird/ Clements and four changes in our update also derive from this alignment.

 

[Mysticete]

Fall 2023 is a pretty ambitious target...surprised the reconcilliation process is progressing that quickly. I would have expected more like Fall 2025.

 

[Mike Earp]

Fall 2023 is a pretty ambitious target...surprised the reconcilliation process is progressing that quickly. I would have expected more like Fall 2025.

Where does a target of fall 2023 come from?

 

[Mysticete]

"During the International Ornithological Congress in August 2022 at Durban, South Africa, the team published the status of their progress in aligning checklists, but it appears that the first formal publication from WGAC is still a year or two away"

Which would be either Fall 2023 or Fall 2024. The "fall" date I simply get from Clements/Ebird, as this is when they do the yearly update, which has been including a lot of WGAC changes. I would assume, pending any newly proposed splits/NACC decisions, that the list in Ebird would be a pretty close copy to what the final list is going to be, in species composition.

Than again, you know what they say about those who assume...

 

[l_raty]

Which would be either Fall 2023 or Fall 2024.

This assumes that the whole quote reflects a 2022 communication of the WGAC. But note "published" is in the past vs. "appears", which is in the present. This suggests the second part of the sentence is an interpretation by the authors of the IB article, i.e., it would be a year or two away from now.