IOC combines forces w/ NACC, SACC, Cornell, and more to produce "global checklist" (1 Viewer)

[Paul Clapham]

For an organization that ostensibly follows AOS by default, it is interesting that they bracketed the AOS classification rather than Clements...

I would guess that a large percentage of ABA members are using eBird to store their records, probably an increasing percentage, which would explain that choice.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I am not sure I am understanding this completely, but while there are members of the WGAC who are involved with SACC or NACC, my impression is that WGAC have there own voting system in place. They are not "waiting" for something to pass from either committee, although I am sure they will weigh the results during the final pass once they have gone through everything.

I'm curious to see what management structure will be in place when the work of the WGAC is complete. Yes, I know that life goes on in the bird taxonomy business but let's assume that someone in WGAC finally says "Yes, we're done". Then what? Do the existing groups take it from there and change their copies of WGAC based on their processes? Or do they fold up their tents, or at least the taxonomy parts, and restructure themselves as suppliers of proposals to the continuing WGAC? Or even as just receivers of new WGAC versions?

I'm still fearing the process whereby the world tries to unify a group of N standards and ends up with a group of N+1 standards.

 

[Mysticete]

I'm curious to see what management structure will be in place when the work of the WGAC is complete. Yes, I know that life goes on in the bird taxonomy business but let's assume that someone in WGAC finally says "Yes, we're done". Then what? Do the existing groups take it from there and change their copies of WGAC based on their processes? Or do they fold up their tents, or at least the taxonomy parts, and restructure themselves as suppliers of proposals to the continuing WGAC? Or even as just receivers of new WGAC versions?

I'm still fearing the process whereby the world tries to unify a group of N standards and ends up with a group of N+1 standards.

I can't imagine a scenario where the WGAC will just decide..."well that's it, taxonomy is solved". There are decades of taxonomic work left simply at the species level, and subspecies are barely touched.

I'd imagine that the WGAC, once the list is formerly released, will go to an annual update model like Clements, with the taxonomic committee responding to changes instigated by regional checklists or based on new papers.

It's still possible that internal divisions could form among the committee and a new checklist is created or one of the existing ones decides to continuing going its own way. But we will just have to wait and see....

 

[Paul Clapham]

I'd imagine that the WGAC, once the list is formerly released, will go to an annual update model like Clements, with the taxonomic committee responding to changes instigated by regional checklists or based on new papers.

I think that's probable (and it's what I would prefer to see). But I didn't see anything in their terms of reference which suggested either that they should synchronize all of the lists and then declare victory and quit, or that they should switch into maintenance mode after completing the synchronization.

 

[Mysticete]

I think that's probable (and it's what I would prefer to see). But I didn't see anything in their terms of reference which suggested either that they should synchronize all of the lists and then declare victory and quit, or that they should switch into maintenance mode after completing the synchronization.

I think it is basically implicit that if you are creating a new checklist, that you are also going to maintain it once the initial version goes online. Because otherwise what's the point?