Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

[Melanie]

What about Nystalus obamai. It is mentioned as subspecies of Nystalus striolatus or it is not mentioned at all?

 

[andrew147]

'Nystalus obamai' is treated as a ssp of N. striolatus

 

[martin_WA]

Geophaps plumifera (with ssp plumifera & leucogaster) includes "proposed race proxima (SW Kimberley region of Western Australia) [which] is intermediate between nominate race of present and N population of G. ferruginea "

Geophaps ferruginea (monotypic) includes "population between Kimberleys and Great Sandy Desert described as race mungi"

The lapwings are "usually considered conspecific... owing to intergrades in at least two areas of overlap, N Queensland and L Eyre catchment area" but are separated on morphological grounds.

Thanks for that Andrew. This points to a bit of creative accounting at the Kimberley boundary! Interesting that they have used Mayr's old proxima - here's what Mayr's paper actually says (1951):
"new subspecies proxima is not very striking. The reason it is included is to call attention to the fact that together with mungi it forms such a nice bridge between ferruginea and plumifera. The intergradation between the forms is perfect so far as the upper parts are concerned. There is however no sign of intergradation of the underparts".
However HANZAB partly contradicts this and says at Fitzroy Crossing [=proxima], "vary considerably" and some have very little white.

So if following Tobias methodology (which says that the phenoptypically closest taxa should be compared) how convenient that proxima and mungi are only 'races'!!! Lets you compare ferruginea to plumifera and ignore an almost perfect intergrade, documented 60 years ago, along the Fitzroy River! Some shoehorning going on there.

Lapwings - now I'm really confused! "usually considered conspecific" - but we'll split them anyway because they seem different enough???!!! I thought they would justify that as a broad hybrid zone (+1 Tobias point - BINGO!) - but if it's an intergrade how can these be good species???

 

[andrew147]

"That makes absolutely no sense at all"...

Aah - sorry - my fault. I transposed the species names! I'll correct it in the original post.

 

[Richard Klim]

Striolated Puffbird

'Nystalus obamai' is treated as a ssp of N. striolatus

...but obamai and torridus are not even highlighted as named subspecies groups...

New taxon obamai identified by vocal distinctiveness supported by genetic evidence plus a minor morphological character, and consequently judged to be a full species, with lesser vocal but slightly greater morphological distinctiveness plus similar genetic distinctiveness cited for the specific separation also of torridus (HBW SV). Under the scoring system used herein, however, these two taxa reach no more than 4 and 3 respectively, and they are here treated as subspecies; describers of obamai mention that torridus and obamai respond to each other's songs, even if not so vigorously as to their own.

[All three sspp are illustrated.]​

 

[thyoloalethe]

I hope some of these names don't have legs.

Agreed - and I propose to rename the rather unimaginative "Northern Festive Amazon" and "Southern Festive Amazon" with the geographically inspired "Orinoco Amazon" and "Amazon Amazon" (respectively)

 

[Richard Klim]

Tobias criteria scores

Btw, I'd earlier worried that the Tobias criteria scores might only be published in the Illustrated Checklist...

It's a pity that the justification isn't included in the BirdLife Species factsheet (which instead just cites the [very expensive] Illustrated Checklist), but perhaps the justifications will be included in the open-access taxonomy sections of the HBW Alive (and IBC?) species accounts when HBW Alive automatically transitions to the new HBW/BirdLife taxonomy...?

I should have acknowledged that BirdLife later clarified...

...detailed taxonomic notes (including details of scores for all non-passerine taxa assessed against the Tobias et al. criteria) are published in the Illustrated Checklist and will soon also be made available to non-subscribers on the open-access pages of HBW Alive.

 

[Melanie]

Well, I think there are more than 50 extinct birds illustrated (because there are several e.g. Ivory-billed woodpecker, Imperial woodpecker, New Caledonian lorikeet, Eskimo curlew etc which are possibly extinct). But what arbout extinct subspecies (e.g. the heath hen). Are they illustrated?

 

[Richard Klim]

Extinct taxa

Well, I think there are more than 50 extinct birds illustrated (because there are several e.g. Ivory-billed woodpecker, Imperial woodpecker, New Caledonian lorikeet, Eskimo curlew etc which are possibly extinct). But what arbout extinct subspecies (e.g. the heath hen). Are they illustrated?

Melanie, yes, all species categorised as CR (eg, Ivory-billed Woodpecker), CR(PE) (eg, Imperial Woodpecker), CR(PEW) (eg, Spix's Macaw) or EW (eg, Guam Kingfisher) are included and illustrated in the main checklist section.

Concerning your example of Greater Prairie Chicken, nominate cupido is listed as an extinct monotypic subspecies group (but named 'Eastern Prairie-Chicken' rather than the more usual 'Heath Hen'). However, as in HBW 2, only sspp pinnatus and attwateri are illustrated and mapped.

(It must be very frustrating that you're still waiting for your copy. I even received a replacement for my original defective copy on Tuesday this week!)

PS. Meanwhile, HBW Alive is increasingly looking more like HBW Deceased wrt the taxonomic revisions...

 

[njlarsen]

PS. Meanwhile, HBW Alive is increasingly looking more like HBW Deceased wrt the taxonomic revisions...

Do we know that they are planning to do anything before volume 2 is out? I have heard that they will do the transfer eventually.

Niels

 

[Richard Klim]

HBW 'Alive'

Do we know that they are planning to do anything before volume 2 is out? I have heard that they will do the transfer eventually.

Lynx earlier stated...

The taxonomy presently employed in HBW Alive is identical to that of the HBW volumes but will change automatically following the publication, planned for July 2014, of the HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World, to which all HBW Alive treatments of taxonomy and classification will be permanently linked.

But hopefully the automatic change will happen before the planned publication of Vol 2 (2016).

The changeover is obviously a complex operation. But given that HBW Alive now has numerous paying subscribers, Lynx could better manage their expectations very easily by providing more detailed information on the plan for the taxonomic update of HBW Alive (eg, via the 'News, Updates, What's New' section).

In the current information vacuum, subscribers must check on a regular basis (with increasing frustration) to see whether the promised changeover has yet been implemented. It's quite ironic that the "Alive" online version should lag so far behind the print publication.

 

[Ben Wielstra]

Can I find a list somewhere of all the new splits in the Birdlife/HBW checklist?

 

[Richard Klim]

Can I find a list somewhere of all the new splits in the Birdlife/HBW checklist?

My earlier summary (attached) includes splits, lumps, additions and deletions in BirdLife Checklist v7 (Jul 2014) wrt v6.1 (Feb 2014), but not wrt HBW 1992–2011.

But Peter Kovalik's very useful Comparison of IOC 4.3 with other world lists allows comparision of HBW 1992+, BirdLife v6.1 and BirdLife v7 (= HBW/BirdLife Illustrated Checklist).

 

[Ben Wielstra]

Thanks Richard, very helpful.

 

[Richard Klim]

Extinct species

MONGABAY.COM, 18 Aug 2014: 13 newly-discovered birds declared extinct.

PS. They missed Columba thiriouxi, Dryolimnas augusti and Porphyrio paepae.

 

[sicklebill]

Just going through my copy of the new checklist and what a stimulating and impressive piece of work it is. Did find one horrible mix-up though, caused I suspect by the American propensity to confuse English names- they have Papuan Hawk Owl Sceloglaux down as Papuan Boobook, with boobooks often called hawk-owls and causing much confusion. Papuan Boobook has always been Ninox theomacha, Papuan Boobook or (if you are American) Jungle Hawk Owl, it has never been used for Papuan Hawk Owl which is not a Ninox anyway. You have Papuan Boobook down as Jungle Boobook- I am glad to see it being called a boobook but not very happy with a fairly useless descriptive when a good and well-established common name already exists.
Just one to note for the next edition anyway, great to find so few errors!

 

[lewis20126]

Just going through my copy of the new checklist and what a stimulating and impressive piece of work it is. Did find one horrible mix-up though, caused I suspect by the American propensity to confuse English names- they have Papuan Hawk Owl Sceloglaux down as Papuan Boobook, with boobooks often called hawk-owls and causing much confusion. Papuan Boobook has always been Ninox theomacha, Papuan Boobook or (if you are American) Jungle Hawk Owl, it has never been used for Papuan Hawk Owl which is not a Ninox anyway. You have Papuan Boobook down as Jungle Boobook- I am glad to see it being called a boobook but not very happy with a fairly useless descriptive when a good and well-established common name already exists.
Just one to note for the next edition anyway, great to find so few errors!

Phil, I noticed that one too but wondered if it was a deliberate naming to align Sceloglaux (Uroglaux to me!) more closely with Ninox rather than the Holarctic "Hawk Owl"? There is however no explanation and you may be right that this is a mistake.

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

Uroglaux dimorpha

It's notable that the HBW 5 species account for Papuan Hawk-owl Uroglaux dimorpha (Olsen 1999) commented "Other common names: Papuan Boobook(!)", suggesting that the author considered the latter to be inappropriate/misleading.

 

[mb1848]

This owl was described as Athene dimorpha in 1874:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/40858#page/326/mode/1up .
In 1875 Ibis Sharpe called it Ninox dimorpha, but later in the Catalogue of Birds he questioned that saying it was like a gigantic Glaucidium. Mayr proposed the new genus in 1937. So for many years it was considered a Ninox so a boobook?

 

[sicklebill]

This owl was described as Athene dimorpha in 1874:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/40858#page/326/mode/1up .
In 1875 Ibis Sharpe called it Ninox dimorpha, but later in the Catalogue of Birds he questioned that saying it was like a gigantic Glaucidium. Mayr proposed the new genus in 1937. So for many years it was considered a Ninox so a boobook?

Interesting, but it was treated as Papuan Hawk Owl (Uroglaux- sorry for the earlier typo!) in all the relatively recent bird refs. and I have certainly never heard it referred to as Papuan Boobook, this is a major confusion; I believe both the upcoming New Guinea Field Guides, Pratt and Beehler's imminent one and my own not quite so imminent (but in draft one) will treat it as Papuan Hawk Owl. I'm my case at least I plan to maintain the status quo with Papuan Boobook, an appropriate and well-established name.