Updating taxonomy in database? (1 Viewer)

Glen Tepke · Mar 11, 2004

As previously discussed, the list of species used in the bird database is derived from an older version of the Sibley & Monroe taxonomy that has since been updated. My question is whether volunteers working on the database are encouraged or even authorized to make changes to the English and/or scientific names in the list.

For example, Barred Woodcreeper has been split into Northern Barred-Woodcreeper and Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper under all of the major taxonomies, including Sibley & Monroe, but the database still lists only Barred Woodcreeper. As a volunteer, I could edit that entry to change it to Northern, and add a new entry for Amazonian. If that was OK, I would have time to do that only for the occasional entry where I noticed the discrepancy; I certainly don't have the time to update the whole list.

But do we want to do that? The list could be made more up-to-date, but at the risk of creating chaos. If we are going to update the list, we would have to have an agreed-upon standard list to use. Any thoughts on this?

Glen

Steve · Mar 11, 2004

Glen I see what your saying, but it will all have to be done by hand individualy, so when we agree a formula we can make a start.

Glen Tepke · Mar 12, 2004

This site purports to maintain an up-to-date version of Sibley & Monroe, but I don't know if there is a better or more "official" source:

http://www.ornitaxa.com/SM/TaxChanges.html

Perhaps someone who is better versed in Sibley & Monroe could comment (we Yanks usually use Clements). Glen

cuckooroller · Mar 12, 2004

Glen Tepke said:
This site purports to maintain an up-to-date version of Sibley & Monroe, but I don't know if there is a better or more "official" source:

http://www.ornitaxa.com/SM/TaxChanges.html

Perhaps someone who is better versed in Sibley & Monroe could comment (we Yanks usually use Clements). Glen

Glen,

I have never seen an "official" site such as can be seen for the Clement's updates through Ibis Publications. The site that you mention above is, however, widely referred to by many of those versed in avian taxonomy and is in relation to Dutch Birding in some fashion. The website is owned by Rolf de By. As far as I know this is the only good referrent for Sibley-Monroe updates.

:news:

I guess that I should add, in my view, the mentioned site and Rolf de By himself, are undoubtedly in communication with the people that decide the changes for the SM, and as I do not believe that Rolf de By is in the business of making propositive changes that would distance himself from those being decided by the SM people, his site functions as a "de facto" official site for the SM updates.

Michael Frankis · Mar 12, 2004

For example, Barred Woodcreeper has been split into Northern Barred-Woodcreeper and Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper

Also a need to improve on Sibley's and Clement's lack of understanding of English grammar!

Northern Barred Woodcreeper and Amazonian Barred Woodcreeper

Capital letters don't follow a hyphen

Michael

Glen Tepke · Mar 12, 2004

Michael Frankis said:
Also a need to improve on Sibley's and Clement's lack of understanding of English grammar!

Northern Barred Woodcreeper and Amazonian Barred Woodcreeper

Capital letters don't follow a hyphen

Michael

Michael -- I agree, but if you really need to beat that tired old horse, start your own thread!

The updated S&M cited above uses the hyphens, BTW.

Dave B Smith · Mar 12, 2004

I also think the Ornitaxa website is one of the best sites for updates I've found. I used it trying to work out some of the confusion I had between AOU classifications and a world checklist. He also publishes a list of "incipient" species, ie those that may well be split. I use that to note any of the races that I've seen that are likely to be split. The last one I had was Doubleday's Hummer as an incipient species to be split from the Broad-billed here in Mexico. I saw it in Oaxaca and it was a beauty!

robinm · Mar 12, 2004

I had considered using this list for GGBC. However, it does contain some "dubious" splits e.g. Brent Goose is three species. Any views on this?

cuckooroller · Mar 12, 2004

robinm said:
I had considered using this list for GGBC. However, it does contain some "dubious" splits e.g. Brent Goose is three species. Any views on this?

Robin,

Unfortunately, this is at the heart of the problem having so many lists. The big three world lists, SM, Clement's and Howard & Moore are all based on the Biological Species Concept historically initiated from the approach of the now outdated Peter's list. All of these lists have slightly different agendae. The newer HM is more closely related to a strict analysis of scientifically reproducible findings vis-a-vis intragroup relationships and is, of the three, a taxonomist's list and approach to bird classification. The Clement's is definitely a Birder's list and, in my view, much too split-happy without doing more than superficial reviews for their justifications of splits. It would seem to be too influenced by the thrust of those that would want subspecies elevated to specific status for the purposes of their conservation, an aim, which though understandable and desirable, may not have, in many cases, a corresponding basis in fact. The SM is somewhere in between these two opposing agendae. Every list has it's drawbacks, and though, personally, I favor the SM over the Clement's, there are a number of taxonomic treatments which I find questionable. But, I find more cases of this if I consider the Clement's list, in particular, their treatment of late of South American Fringillidae. I guess this means that we just have to pick our poison and at the same time be informed and aware of the drawbacks of each list.

Glen Tepke · Mar 12, 2004

It seems that any list can have splits or lumps that are questionable or not widely accepted. I think the relevant question here is whether the list on ornitaxa is better overall than the 1996 version of S&M currently used in the database. I would define "better" as meaning that a majority of taxonomists would agree with a majority of the changes made in the ornitaxa list. But I don't know enough about taxonomy to be able to answer that question. Glen

cuckooroller · Mar 12, 2004

Glen,

In short, without entering into needless detail. The 2003 updated SM list is much better, to say the least.

Steve Lister · Mar 13, 2004

cuckooroller said:
The Clement's is definitely a Birder's list and, in my view, much too split-happy without doing more than superficial reviews for their justifications of splits.

I would beg to differ with this opinion. I regard Clements' work as balanced and definitely not "split-happy" in the least. You will find that he has not split the different forms of Brents, nor Black and Common Scoter, nor any of the flava and alba wagtail races. And he has already re-lumped Common and Lesser Redpolls. A full comparison with Sibley and Monroe shows not a vast amount of difference.

His latest update, December 2003, does not include a lot of taxonomic revisions proposed for neotropical birds, instead waiting for the imminent publication of a fully revised checklist of neotropical birds, due this year.

Steve

cuckooroller · Mar 13, 2004

Steve,
This is just my opinion. I find drawbacks to both lists and questionable treatments in both. Until such time that the "One List" is born (something that will never happen) we just have to be aware of the relative strengths and shortcomings and varying treatments on the varying world lists (and I am including the HM here). Nothing personal, just my opinion.

Glen Tepke · Mar 13, 2004

Regardless of the merits of the various lists, I was not proposing to replace Sibley & Monroe as the basis for the database, just wondering if it could be updated. There seems to be general agreement that the Ornitaxa site is the best source for updates, even if we do not agree with every update included in that list. So is there agreement that volunteers can edit the English and scientific names, add species, and delete species in the case of lumps, as long as the changes are in conformance with the "up-to-date" list on Ornitaxa?

Updating the database in a piecemeal fashion would mean that the database would not conform to any single published list, but this still seems better than having a static list that grows more and more out of date as time goes by. Ideally, the entire list in the database could be periodically updated by admin, but I assume this would be tricky since so many entries have already been edited with photo URLs, descriptions, etc. Glen

cuckooroller · Mar 13, 2004

Glen,

I agree.

cuckooroller · Mar 13, 2004

Glen,
Is there a limit to the attachment size that I can stick on here. I can just upload the list as it is completely updated which the .zip file is not. Will try with the next after I change the name of the file.

cuckooroller · Mar 13, 2004

Glen,

I guess not. The permitted file extensions don't include .xls

Steve

cuckooroller · Mar 13, 2004

Let's see if this works.

Glen Tepke · Mar 14, 2004

It's not working for me -- I can download and open the zip but nothing is in it. Glen

cuckooroller · Mar 14, 2004

Glen,

That is strange. I downloaded it just after I put it up to my desktop and extracted it with Winzip and everything was all there. I just did the same again with no problem. In any case, this is the same file that I already sent you so you should have it.

Is anyone else having problems with it?

Updating taxonomy in database? (1 Viewer)

Oceanodroma

Member

Oceanodroma

Registered User

conehead

Oceanodroma

Well-known member

Registered User

Registered User

Oceanodroma

Registered User

Senior Birder, ex County Recorder, Garden Moths.

Registered User

Oceanodroma

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Registered User

Attachments

Oceanodroma

Registered User

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread