Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

[Richard Klim]

Non-passerine taxonomy revisions

BirdLife, 4 Aug 2014: Suggested revisions to HBW/BirdLife non-passerine taxonomy – background and guidelines.
Family-specific pages: www.birdlife.org/globally-threatened-bird-forums/category/taxonomy/

The taxonomy revision guidelines and family-specific comment pages have suddenly been removed from BirdLife's GTB Forums.

Perhaps an alternative approach is to be taken...?

 

[Richard Klim]

HBW Alive

HBW Alive Ornithological News, 21 Aug 2014:

Illustrated Checklist taxonomy

The Taxonomy from the HBW and BirdLife Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World will be incorporated into HBW Alive during September 2014. Apart from the taxonomic changes, we will include all the new maps and figures for each of the species covered in Volume 1.

We will add more information on this page soon.

 

[Richard Klim]

Illustrated Checklist

BirdLife, 22 Aug 2014: BirdLife and Lynx publish first ever illustrated world bird checklist.

I hadn't previously noticed that in early-August Lynx posted some additional sample pages.

 

[Melanie]

HBW Alive Ornithological News, 21 Aug 2014:

Great news. I am curious what will come first, my copy or the update at HBW alive.

 

[jmorlan]

Rainbow Lorikeet split

I found this. But other than Tobias, there is no authority mentioned for this split. John Boyd has a couple of cryptic citations for a three-way split of Rainbow Lorikeet, but not the newer 6 way split. But where is the list of actual publications? What are Schweizer et al. (2013) and Joseph et al. (2011)?

John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html [15 Nov 2012]
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List12.html#psittacidae

With regard to this split...

Originally Posted by Richard Klim

• Trichoglossus (haematodus) rosenbergii - Biak Lorikeet *
• Trichoglossus (haematodus) forsteni - Sunset Lorikeet *
• Trichoglossus (haematodus) capistratus - Marigold Lorikeet *
• Trichoglossus (haematodus) weberi - Leaf Lorikeet *
• Trichoglossus (haematodus) rubritorquis - Red-collared Lorikeet *
• Trichoglossus (haematodus) moluccanus - Rainbow Lorikeet *

 

[Richard Klim]

Rainbow Lorikeet

John Boyd has a couple of cryptic citations for a three-way split of Rainbow Lorikeet, but not the newer 6 way split. But where is the list of actual publications? What are Schweizer et al. (2013) and Joseph et al. (2011)?

Here's the TiF reference list: www.jboyd.net/Taxo/taxo_refs.html.

 

[jmorlan]

Thanks. I checked the two references and neither Schweizer et al. (2013) or Joseph et al. (2011) deal with Trichoglossus sp. Lorikeets. TiF doesn't seem to have any additional citations on the subject. Where is all this coming from?

 

[Richard Klim]

Rainbow Lorikeet

TiF doesn't seem to have any additional citations on the subject. Where is all this coming from?

Fwiw, a summary of some recent treatments...

• One sp [haematodus]: HBW (1997), BirdLife (2007–2013), Clements (2007–2014)
  
  
• Two spp [+ rubritorquis]: Sibley & Monroe (1990–1993), Juniper & Parr (1998/2003)
  
  
• Five spp [+ forsteni, weberi, capistratus]: H&M (2003/2013)
  
  
• Seven spp [+ rosenbergii, moluccanus]: IOC (2006–2014), TiF (2012–2014), BirdLife/HBW (2014)

H&M3/4...

Revised in accordance with Schodde in Schodde & Mason (1997) with five species resulting.
Schodde, R. & I.J. Mason, 1997. Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae), pp. i‐xiii, 1‐436. In: Zoological Catalogue of Australia, 37.2. W.W.K. Houston & A. Wells (Eds.). – C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne.

I don't know the rationale for IOC's 2006 seven-way split (later adopted by TiF), but of course BirdLife justifies it simply on the basis of morphological differences (Tobias criteria).

 

[lewis20126]

I don't know the rationale for IOC's 2006 seven-way split (later adopted by TiF), but of course BirdLife justifies it simply on the basis of morphological differences (Tobias criteria).

I've spent rather more time than I should going through this volume. I rather get the sense that there was insufficient time to apply Tobias et al. to all of the complex groups. There are occaisional statemernts such as "awaits detailed analysis". Well I though that this was the point of the book, i.e. to apply the same criteria to all groups equally?

cheers, alan

 

[Richard Klim]

I've spent rather more time than I should going through this volume. I rather get the sense that there was insufficient time to apply Tobias et al. to all of the complex groups. There are occaisional statemernts such as "awaits detailed analysis". Well I though that this was the point of the book, i.e. to apply the same criteria to all groups equally?

It's notable that the introduction admits that the original HBW plates played a significant role in this first attempt at producing a taxonomically-consistent checklist...

The Tobias criteria: in practice
Identifying candidate taxa
...review of the distinctive subspecies used in illustrations in HBW (which, as mentioned above, were particularly targeted for inclusion in the series). By scrutiny of the HBW plates and other sources we also listed out species whose distinctiveness appeared sufficiently low to call in question their taxonomic rank. ...

So the new taxonomy was particularly influenced by the distinctiveness of individual taxa as perceived/illustrated by the original HBW authors/artists.

PS. This approach also meant that artwork was already available for many/most of the new splits...

 

[lewis20126]

It's notable that the introduction admits that the original HBW plates played a significant role in this first attempt at producing a taxonomically-consistent checklist...

So the new taxonomy was particularly influenced by the distinctiveness of individual taxa as perceived/illustrated by the original HBW authors/artists.

PS. This approach also meant that artwork was already available for many/most of the new splits...

I guess it was easier than opening the drawers again! I wonder if the artists realised that their paintings were the genesis for a new taxonomy? It might explain why there were so few splits in the smaller tubenoses - given that the species are unidentifiable in the plates..

cheers, alan

 

[Mysticete]

So....the taxonomy is based on analysis of....pictures? in a book? Really?

I figured taxonomic appraisal might not be complete given the sheer number of taxa involved, and there would be sampling bias if having to rely on a small number of collections (even relatively massive collections like at Tring). This makes me question what the point of the giant taxonomic review, if ultimately decisions to split have more to do with available or accurate artwork, rather than solely the use of Tobias criteria.

 

[Richard Klim]

So....the taxonomy is based on analysis of....pictures? in a book? Really?

Of course not! But clearly the HBW plates played a part, and I can see that a review of the illustrated differences between taxa would have been a helpful and pragmatic starting point. I have visions of a team with marker pens busily working through a stack of HBW plates – split, split, lump, split...

 

[jmorlan]

I don't know the rationale for IOC's 2006 seven-way split (later adopted by TiF), but of course BirdLife justifies it simply on the basis of morphological differences (Tobias criteria).

So there are no actual published peer reviewed papers to form the basis for these last two splits?

Revised in accordance with Schodde in Schodde & Mason 1997 with five species resulting.
Schodde, R. & I.J. Mason, 1997. Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae), pp. i‐xiii, 1‐436. In: Zoological Catalogue of Australia, 37.2. W.W.K. Houston & A. Wells (Eds.). – C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne.

I do not have access to this book. Are these splits based on peer reviewed published research? Is this research cited somewhere? To better understand Schodde et al., it would be helpful to know what species concept they adopted.

 

[lewis20126]

Of course not! But clearly the HBW plates played a part, and I can see that a review of the illustrated differences between taxa would have been a helpful and pragmatic starting point. I have visions of a team with marker pens busily working through a stack of HBW plates – split, split, lump, split...

There is an important point here though, in that HBW Vols 5 onward were much more thorough in their coverage of "subspecies" both in text and plates. If the plates were a starting point, how might this have biased the follow up work? One could assume there are fewer splits per taxon from Vols 1-4 than Vol 5 onwards...

cheers, a

 

[Richard Klim]

Crested Fireback

BirdLife splits: 13 Nov 2012

• Lophura (ignita) rufa

Forthcoming...

• Collar & Prys-Jones 2014. Lophura ignita macartneyi revisited. Forktail 30.

Presumably the article will support the treatment in the HBW/BirdLife Illustrated Checklist...

Form macartneyi (of which sumatrana is a synonym), from SE Sumatra (from Palembang S to Lampung), is here considered an unstable hybrid between L. rufa and a hypothesized relict (or introduced) population of L. ignita, which is known from Bangka, an island adjacent to the area in which macartneyi-type birds have been found; no two specimens of macartneyi in museums are alike [Collar & Prys-Jones (in press)].

 

[l_raty]

Revised in accordance with Schodde in Schodde & Mason 1997 with five species resulting.
Schodde, R. & I.J. Mason, 1997. Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae), pp. i‐xiii, 1‐436. In: Zoological Catalogue of Australia, 37.2. W.W.K. Houston & A. Wells (Eds.). – C.S.I.R.O., Melbourne

This should be this.

 

[jmorlan]

Thank you very much for the link, Laurent.

It appears this authority (Shodde et al. 1997) follows the biological species concept except prefers to assign full species status to morphologically distinct allopatric populations. The Rainbow Lorikeet complex (Trichoglossus haematodus) is discussed on pages 114 and 115. The main authority for recognizing three of the five species in the split seems to be White & Bruce (1986) which is a B.O.U. published checklist of the birds of Wallacea. The other two are split because of their claimed distinctiveness although I cannot find a clear explanation of what the claimed differences are; presumably one needs to check the type descriptions for that. But there is no analysis of the extent of individual variation within these new species or any extent to which they may overlap morphologically with others in the group. And we are still left with two IOC splits that seem to have no authority at all.

Is this the brave new world of the IOC and now Birdlife and HBW? No original research in the field or in the museum? No genetic data to support the changes? No votes by a committee of peers?

This all strikes me as haphazard at best and grossly unscientific at worst. But perhaps there's something here I'm missing.

 

[Frank Gill]

Thank you very much for the link, Laurent.

It appears this authority (Shodde et al. 1997) follows the biological species concept except prefers to assign full species status to morphologically distinct allopatric populations. The Rainbow Lorikeet complex (Trichoglossus haematodus) is discussed on pages 114 and 115. The main authority for recognizing three of the five species in the split seems to be White & Bruce (1986) which is a B.O.U. published checklist of the birds of Wallacea. The other two are split because of their claimed distinctiveness although I cannot find a clear explanation of what the claimed differences are; presumably one needs to check the type descriptions for that. But there is no analysis of the extent of individual variation within these new species or any extent to which they may overlap morphologically with others in the group. And we are still left with two IOC splits that seem to have no authority at all.

Is this the brave new world of the IOC and now Birdlife and HBW? No original research in the field or in the museum? No genetic data to support the changes? No votes by a committee of peers?

This all strikes me as haphazard at best and grossly unscientific at worst. But perhaps there's something here I'm missing.

Good question here!

The IOC split of haematodus/rosenbergii/moluccanus goes back over 10 years to the "brave new world" of recommended English names in Gill & Wright (2006). Not a proper taxonomic recommendation, it is a carryover that deserves attention.

To the best of our fading recollections, the Rainbow Lorikeet split was based on in litt material from Dick Schodde who chaired the Australasian Committee. We know of no peer-reviewed papers to lean on. I suspect, but need to confirm, that the goal then was to recommend use of "Rainbow" for the Australian populations and "Coconut" for the Papuan populations.

Questions about this taxonomy come in occasionally. The most substantive was from Frank Rheindt in 2010. My only notes from that exchange were that "I checked w Dick and w Leo Joseph, who couldn't offer a basis to revert. Would be eager to revisit, but lumping them as in the conservative stance of Christidis & Boles, seems counterproductive at this stage - given that new studies will likely support some splits and restructured relationships among taxa." Distinction of the "groups" can be traced at least to Cain (1955) Ibis:432-479. Schodde addresses some of this in Schodde & Mason, 1997.

The IOC Master List should have included these notes, which we will add.

Thanks for putting this one back on the table.

f

 

[Peter Kovalik]

HBW Alive

HBW Alive

Site under maintenance

The website is closed for a few hours. Stay in touch for updates in our Facebook page. We will be back with the new taxonomy.