viator
Well-known member
Likewise
-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Latest IOC Diary Updates (6 Viewers)
- Thread starter Sally Conyne
- Start date
viator
Well-known member
May 1 Post proposed split of monotypic Southern Sooty Woodpecker Mulleripicus fuliginosus from polytypic Northern Sooty Woodpecker.
May 1 Post proposed split of monotypic Mindanao Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx mindanensis from Luzon Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx melanurus.
May 1 Post proposed split of Sangihe Lilac Kingfisher Cittura sanghirensis from Sulawesi Lilac Kingfisher C. cyanotis.
May 1 Post proposed split of Simeulue Parrot Psittinus abbotti from Blue-rumped Parrot.
May 1 Post proposed split of Tanimbar Monarch Carterornis castus from White-naped Monarch.
May 1 Post proposed split of Palawan Crow Corvus pusillus from Slender-billed Crow.
May 1 Post proposed splits of Camiguin Bulbul and Sulu Bulbul from Yellowish Bulbul.
May 1 Post proposed split of monotypic Mindanao Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx mindanensis from Luzon Dwarf Kingfisher Ceyx melanurus.
May 1 Post proposed split of Sangihe Lilac Kingfisher Cittura sanghirensis from Sulawesi Lilac Kingfisher C. cyanotis.
May 1 Post proposed split of Simeulue Parrot Psittinus abbotti from Blue-rumped Parrot.
May 1 Post proposed split of Tanimbar Monarch Carterornis castus from White-naped Monarch.
May 1 Post proposed split of Palawan Crow Corvus pusillus from Slender-billed Crow.
May 1 Post proposed splits of Camiguin Bulbul and Sulu Bulbul from Yellowish Bulbul.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
With this recent deluge of proposals, the timing of JAE's 2nd ed, Indonesian Archipelago book would seem a bit odd, why wouldn't you wait for the decisions because we don't look like being at the end of the submissions yet?
Over to you James.
Over to you James.
Last edited:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
May 2 Post proposed split of African Woolly-necked Stork from Asian Woolly-necked Stork.
viator
Well-known member
May 2 Restore Yunnan Parrotbill Sinosuthora ricketti from AS to PS status pending further analysis of the S. brunnea complex.
This is pretty ridiculous - Accept a split on April 30 and then reverse on May 2.
Something is seriously wrong in how IOC is processing these for this to happen
This is pretty ridiculous - Accept a split on April 30 and then reverse on May 2.
Something is seriously wrong in how IOC is processing these for this to happen
viator
Well-known member
Without checking, didn't the 1st edition have all of these explicitly listed as splits or in the text stated they were likely?
Not sure what's in the 2nd edition awaiting delivery of my order!
Well Eaton et al. doesn't even remotely follow 'IOC' taxonomy, so I don't see how it is relevant?
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
What does it follow then because AFAIK, 'Eaton et al' is not a recognised listing authority.
There are a lot of splits in the book which have yet to be applied, the last time I looked, the IOC and other offical bodies, were the arbiters, not the field guides.
At least one book recently has expressly avoided the application of what it calls 'field guide taxonomy'.
Last edited:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Exactly my point, a short wait for all these latest decisions to be ratified would have made the book more up to date, a field guide cannot 'explicitly' or otherwise, split anything.
Last edited:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
May 2 Restore Yunnan Parrotbill Sinosuthora ricketti from AS to PS status pending further analysis of the S. brunnea complex.
Do I understand correctly that the split of 30th April has been at least temporarily overturned?
Do I understand correctly that the split of 30th April has been at least temporarily overturned?
Last edited:
viator
Well-known member
That was my understanding
viator
Well-known member
As Alex says that is exactly the case. The first edition does not follow IOC - it's James's taxonomy, and I must say I agree with most of the 'splits' therein irrespective of what any official taxonomy states
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
That will be fun then when every book adopts it's own taxonomy, we may as well scrap every taxonomic authority and do away altogether with threads such as this?
Most authors will pin their colours to one authority or another, at least loosely.
Mysticete
Well-known member
I would agree with you for regions of the world with established committees that regularly update taxonomy (although recent frustrations have tested my patience), but is there one for Indonesia? If not, than I see no reason a field guide should follow a global checklist. Global checklists often act upon the literature, including field guides, for other chunks of the world. I'd rather Eaton propose taxonomic changes for birds he is no doubt familiar with and let IOC evaluate them after the fact, which I believe they have done for other books.
I know as a birder that I would rather be in a situation where I saw a species that IOC doesn't recognize yet, than be in a situation where I neglected to look for/at a bird because a book didn't recognize it as distinct. The former problem is just book-keeping, and I can keep it in a list if the split is someday made so I have record of it. The latter may result in a birder having to spend a large chunk of money on a repeat trip just to tick the bird they didn't go after.
Because I have never heard of most of them, but they now look pretty interesting with all the species scattered around!
There is nothing new in field guides presenting the authors' views of taxonomy (just think about Howell and Webb for Mexico, where most of the splits have been recognized later (and one of them within the last two years!)).
There has been a move away from it, but in certain instances it does make sense to do it still.
Niels
There has been a move away from it, but in certain instances it does make sense to do it still.
Niels
pbjosh
missing the neotropics
I agree with Mysticete here - much rather have FG authors' opinions and expertise reflected in the books rather than resolutely follow taxonomic authorities. Having to track differences between official lists and what the FG says is book-keeping. Omitting possible splits or differing taxa/populations just to be in line with another authority is willfully omitting information in order to submit to an authority that may be less up to date and have less regional and specific knowledge.
I personally care far more about seeing unique forms / subsp / taxa / etc, whatever they end up being, than I do about keeping neat and orderly lists, so I have messy lists and a preference for guides that in whatever way include or at least mention possible splits.
I personally care far more about seeing unique forms / subsp / taxa / etc, whatever they end up being, than I do about keeping neat and orderly lists, so I have messy lists and a preference for guides that in whatever way include or at least mention possible splits.
Steve Lister
Senior Birder, ex County Recorder, Garden Moths.
The Rasmussen field guide for the Indian subcontinent was another good example of one that pushed taxonomy along. I think authors are fine doing it as long as they make clear what they are doing, with a bit of explanation.
Last edited:
Mysticete
Well-known member
IIRC, the Mark Brazil field guide for Japan also has its own taxonomy, although since then many of the novel splits that book made have since been adopted.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Exactly this, all I said was that it might have been better for the purposes of the 2nd ed of the book, with this flood of proposals, to wait for them all to be addressed before putting the book out, after all, the 1st ed isn't that old!
Maybe James has the inside track and has been appraised of the likely outcome of the proposed splits in advanmce?
Similar threads
