Is the IOC “the” Authoritative Source for Bird Names? (1 Viewer)

[DriftlessRoots]

EDIT: I've clarified my question in another reply below.

I’ve undertaken a project to get my life list and other lists tidied up and standardized before they get too big to do so. For reference I’m using an IOC names list from here:
Master Lists – IOC World Bird List

Now that I’ve gotten far enough along that starting over would be a huge pain 😅, I’m wondering if that’s really the list I should be using. I know pretty much zero about world ornithological authorities and only landed on IOC because it was the first result when I googled for lists of all the birds in the world. Also, I have no idea how I’m going to deal with (further) taxonomic updates but I’ll deal with that later, if at all.

Don’t know if this is the right area to ask this so I can move it if it’s not.

 

[JLRamos]

I have the same question, or almost the same

I recently had the first news that there is a difference between commonly used English bird names and IOC list names.

For me it is interesting to know both the validity of using the IOC nomenclature, and if it is useful in order to talk about birds with non-Spanish speakers or even for possible bird watching trips.

@DriftlessRoots, not only do I not respond to whether the message is in the right place, but I also divert even more the topic regarding "lists"

Greetings

 

[Jim M.]

There isn't a single authoritative source--there are several authorities. If you plan to use eBird, it may be more convenient to follow the eBird/Clements nomenclature/taxonomy that eBird employs. But in recent years they have taken steps to minimize the differences between them and IOC, so I don't think it's a major issue.

 

[Farnboro John]

There is also local usage - or in some circumstances national usage that differs from IOC. It doesn't matter. Keep your list in the most convenient way and annotate it with whatever etymological interest you like.

John

 

[dantheman]

It used to be said that using/learning the latin binomial was good for being able to communicate with eg European birders. Has that changed?

Are more European websites etc tending to include/use anglicised bird names??? (Would make some sense having a 'common language' eg as used in Air Traffic Control, although balanced against America/English taking over the world lol)

 

[Mysticete]

There really is no authoritative list. If you are a US-based birder, Clements may be easier to follow. This is the checklist followed by ebird, and in turn this checklist follows much more closely the North American checklist committee, both on taxonomy and common names. IOC does have some differences from Clements, although they are decreasing. Examples off the top of my head are some differences in common names (I think Gray/Grey Plover is used instead of Black-bellied, and Yellow-rumped Warbler and Fox Sparrow are split).

I personally just keep a separate ABA area list (US and Canada) and use IOC for my life list. I feel IOC are a bit more open about there update process and are a nice middle ground between the conservative Clements and the more radical Birdlife.

Although all of this may be moot. The different checklists are currently working to create a unified single checklist, with the Clements, Birdlife, and IOC people all involved. Presumably this ONE TRUE CHECKLIST will end up taking the place of these three checklists which will no longer be updated (maybe?). No clue on when this is going to happen, but probably not for a few more years at least.

 

[DriftlessRoots]

Thank you, everyone for your replies and especially @dantheman. You've made me realize I didn't ask the question I was looking for an answer to. Now the first pot of tea is finished and I'm a little sharper. I believe I was looking for the authoratative taxonomic list. A big inspiration for this project was to assign the Latin binomials* so I could suss out duplicates with differing common names and to be able to keep track of subspecies. As for the English (and probably Spanish down the line) names, I'm keeping separate columns of what I originally called each one linked to the name IOC uses. I figure that's how I can find things when I'm referring to old field notes that use what was written on the spot. I intend to use the ol' Latbins as the primary key going forward when I actually record sightings. For now I'll pause what I'm doing and take a look at Clements, etc.

*I really struggle with some of the scientific names of birds while a previous career had me learning plant scientific names to the extent that a lay person would ask me what something was and I'd just have to stare at them for a minute while I tried to think of the common name to not sound snooty. Arisaema just seems to roll of the tongue more easily than Leiothlypis.

 

[kb57]

I use IOC for my life and year lists, for similar reasons to @Mysticete - and eBird will show iOC common names if you set it up to do so, although the species splits follow Clements.
In everyday conversation with predominantly British birders I'll use common English names - there's little point in saying you've seen a European Greenfinch when there are no other greenfinches likely in this part of the world. But many of the IOC English names are IMHO improvements on those used at national level - Black-bellied Plover is a good example - other plovers with black bellies are available on both sides of the Atlantic....conversely the British usage of 'grey phalarope' is inferior to Red Phalarope - all phalaropes are grey in winter after all...
I've used scientific names to communicate with other European birders (and botanists) but this is not without its pitfalls - 'English' latin and 'Polish' latin is pronounced very differently for example, and I'm guessing neither are close to what the Romans intended!

 

[kb57]

*I really struggle with some of the scientific names of birds while a previous career had me learning plant scientific names to the extent that a lay person would ask me what something was and I'd just have to stare at them for a minute while I tried to think of the common name to not sound snooty. Arisaema just seems to roll of the tongue more easily than Leiothlypis.

I know what you mean - although I'm not too bad with scientific bird names, I recognised Arisaema straightaway, but will have to look up Leiothlypis!

 

[raymie]

There are four major bird taxonomies: IOC, Clements, Birdlife, and Howard & Moore.

Of these four, Birdlife and Howard & Moore are the most radical, in opposite directions. Birdlife seems to split everything and Howard & Moore seems to lump everything. There are lots of birds only split by Birdlife or only lumped by Howard & Moore. Not many birders seem to keep their lists using either of these taxonomies simply because they are so radical.

IOC and Clements are the most commonly followed bird taxonomies. IOC is generally used by European birders, while Clements is usually used by North American birders, although there are certainly plenty of exceptions to both of those. There are a few notable differences between IOC and Clements, but every year they become closer and closer to the same thing - rumor has it they are actually slowly in the process of merging into the same checklist.

Clements is the taxonomy used by sites like eBird and iNaturalist, so if syncing your life list with either of those two sites is important to you, use Clements. If that doesn't matter to you, IOC is an equally good option.

 

[DriftlessRoots]

Of these four, Birdlife and Howard & Moore are the most radical, in opposite directions. Birdlife seems to split everything and Howard & Moore seems to lump everything. There are lots of birds only split by Birdlife or only lumped by Howard & Moore. Not many birders seem to keep their lists using either of these taxonomies simply because they are so radical.

These are good details to know. Thank you.

 

[Mysticete]

Thank you, everyone for your replies and especially @dantheman. You've made me realize I didn't ask the question I was looking for an answer to. Now the first pot of tea is finished and I'm a little sharper. I believe I was looking for the authoratative taxonomic list. A big inspiration for this project was to assign the Latin binomials* so I could suss out duplicates with differing common names and to be able to keep track of subspecies. As for the English (and probably Spanish down the line) names, I'm keeping separate columns of what I originally called each one linked to the name IOC uses. I figure that's how I can find things when I'm referring to old field notes that use what was written on the spot. I intend to use the ol' Latbins as the

I think my answer still applies...neither checklist is more "authoritative" than another. IOC is a bit more ahead of the curve than Clements, so that might be a better option if you want to minimize future changes. However even then you will probably have to continually be revising the taxonomy, as the taxonomy is very much a work in progress.

 

[Farnboro John]

I use IOC for my life and year lists, for similar reasons to @Mysticete - and eBird will show iOC common names if you set it up to do so, although the species splits follow Clements.
In everyday conversation with predominantly British birders I'll use common English names - there's little point in saying you've seen a European Greenfinch when there are no other greenfinches likely in this part of the world. But many of the IOC English names are IMHO improvements on those used at national level - Black-bellied Plover is a good example - other plovers with black bellies are available on both sides of the Atlantic....conversely the British usage of 'grey phalarope' is inferior to Red Phalarope - all phalaropes are grey in winter after all...
I've used scientific names to communicate with other European birders (and botanists) but this is not without its pitfalls - 'English' latin and 'Polish' latin is pronounced very differently for example, and I'm guessing neither are close to what the Romans intended!

Trouble is with Red Phalarope that much the most likely phalarope to see in Britain is that species but grey. Hands up those who've seen one in Britain that looks like the picture below (which was taken in Britain, and I twitched it as if it was a tick!)

John

 

[THE_FERN]

On "Latin" names. These aren't more stable, mostly because of the big uptick in molecular studies which has been occurring. After each you can be sure the generic name at least will change.

There isn't and I hope never will be a single list because taxonomy will never be anything other than a subjective exercise.

From a practical point of view, the biggest differences tend to be between the names in regional checklists or field guides and other sources (I'd add taxa in flux, TIF to the 4 mentioned so far).

There's a useful XL which compares many of these lists, and of course avibase (although this still has no API I think). These will help you resolve identities.

Of course, you'll face exactly the same problems with Spanish common names. In South America at least, Spanish speakers are often familiar with (some or other) scientific name in preference

 

[James Lowther]

Of these four, Birdlife and Howard & Moore are the most radical, in opposite directions. Birdlife seems to split everything and Howard & Moore seems to lump everything. There are lots of birds only split by Birdlife or only lumped by Howard & Moore. Not many birders seem to keep their lists using either of these taxonomies simply because they are so radical.

There are I think fewer species total on the birdlife list cf IOC, birdlife’s approach to which splits it adopts is very different from IOC though, so I guess you could describe it as radical. But Howard and Moore is conservative, not radical, it doesn’t really lump species, it just doesn’t split them as freely as IOC
Cheers
James