IOC 13.1 Updates point towards convergence. (1 Viewer)

[Jon.Bryant]

Just worked through the IOC 13.1 updates and compared to 12.2 there are 198 changes to taxa - these changes are either newly recognised species or subspecies, subspecies reassignments (lumps/splits) or changes to the spelling of Latin genus or given names.

Interestingly, I has always thought that IOC was pioneering, with Clements more conservative. BirdLife originally seemed quite conservative, until they made the big shake up in 2016/2017 when their taxonomy seemed a bit 'too radical'.

Of the recent IOC changes, 151 (76.3%) result in species level alignment with both Clements and BirdLife, so a great step towards convergence - in this group there are still however a few differences in spelling of a species name or the number of subspecies recognised. Interestingly, of these 151 changes, quite a number of the taxa were changed by Clements in October 2022, with BirdLife being the early adopter/trail blazer. There may therefore be merit in keeping abreast of the BirdLife list, as it may indicate what is around the corner.

A further 31 changes relate to alignment with Clements (with BirdLife now the outlier), and 11 changes relate to alignment with BirdLife (with Clements the outlier).

Only 5 changes appear to be 'pioneering' and a departure from the other lists, namely;

• Perhaps not pioneering, but 'different', subspecies amabilis is asigned to Cyclopsitta nigrifrons. Clements perhaps conservatively do not split Cyclopsitta gulielmitertii and therefore threat amabilis as a subspecies of that species. BirdLife recognise Cyclopsitta nigrifrons but treat it as monotypic. BirdLife split Cyclopsitta amabilis as a further species assigning amabilis (and ramuensis - not recognised by IOC) to that species instead.
• Loriculus bonapartei is split as a separate species. Clements and BirdLife both treat bonapartei as a subspecies of Loriculus philippensis.
• Otus bikegila is a newly recognised species (not recognised in other lists).
• Aphrastura spinicauda subantarctica is a newly recognised subspecies (not recognised in other lists).
• Zosterops paruhbesar is a newly recognised species (not recognised in other lists).

So, rather a modest lists of departures from other lists, although perhaps substantiating my view that IOC is a quick adopter of newly recognised taxa - although this does not necessarily mean they are an early adopter of splits and lumps of known taxa.

Rather annoyingly (at least in my opinion), the changes introduce a few inconsistencies that seem more to do with grammar than taxonomy. A case in point is the reassignment of some Bubo owls by Clements (in 2022) and now IOC to the genus Ketupa. We know have (Ketupa lactea and Ketupa lacteus), (Ketupa sumatrana and Ketupa sumatranus), (Ketupa coromanda and Ketupa coromandus) and finally (Ketupa leucosticta and Ketupa leucostictus). I am sure that one Authorities Latin is probably correct, but would it not have been better and more pragmatic to ignore the grammatical errors and followed the lead publisher?

 

[l_raty]

We know have (Ketupa lactea and Ketupa lacteus), (Ketupa sumatrana and Ketupa sumatranus), (Ketupa coromanda and Ketupa coromandus) and finally (Ketupa leucosticta and Ketupa leucostictus). I am sure that one Authorities Latin is probably correct, but would it not have been better and more pragmatic to ignore the grammatical errors and followed the lead publisher?

Feminine (lactea, sumatrana, coromanda, leucosticta) is correct.
(Ketupa is a Javanese word witch had its ending changed to -a; the author did not indicate a gender; the name is feminine because of its ending, under Art. 30.2.4 of the ICZN.)
Any suggestion of the opposite should be ignored (by anyone using these names).

 

[Paul Clapham]

So, rather a modest lists of departures from other lists, although perhaps substantiating my view that IOC is a quick adopter of newly recognised taxa - although this does not necessarily mean they are an early adopter of splits and lumps of known taxa.

Remember that IOC publishes twice a year whereas Clements publishes once a year. So even in an environment where the two are converging, there are still changes being generated by scientists in the field. So you can see those changes being reported earlier in IOC (on average) just because of the schedules.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Feminine (lactea, sumatrana, coromanda, leucosticta) is correct.
(Ketupa is a Javanese word witch had its ending changed to -a; the author did not indicate a gender; the name is feminine because of its ending, under Art. 30.2.4 of the ICZN.)
Any suggestion of the opposite should be ignored (by anyone using these names).

So IOC are correct and Clements incorrect. I didn't realise Art 30.2.4 existed, but if there is such explicit guidance why do taxonomic authorities keep getting names wrong?

For me spelling inconsistencies are a frustration as they make automating taxonomic updates a largely manual and laborious process - it is very obvious for a human to see that Ketupa lactea and Ketupa lacteus are one and the same species, but much harder for a computer to reach this same conclusion.

I think I am in danger of upsetting readers, but I would argue that the real use of a Latin name is as a unique identifier for a species or subspecies, but we don't live in a time of hand written lists - the unique identifier should be good for humans and electronic systems. Disagreement or inconsistency in spelling of the Latin name completely undermine the use in an electronic system. Given we are in an electronic age, it seems wrong to me that we cannot make Latin a universal system for both people and databases. Changes to genus names of course can cause problems, but is is much easier to program a system to look for a specific genus change and align records, than it is to look for spelling variations. We could of course progam a system to follow Article 30.2.4, so change a genus and the given name also may change, but if we as humans don't follow the rules then....

Not all changes are in fact even obvious to humans, for example IOC has just changed Platycercus elegans fleurieuensis to Platycercus elegans adelaidae - well at least I assume they have, as one has disappeared and the other appeared in the latest list (I seem to recall also the BirdLife in their taxonomic notes stated that adelaidae should take precedents, but I would need to (manually) double check to confirm this statement). Perhaps not very respectful to the authority who originally discovered the subspecies, but I would prefer if we treated given names as immutable once assigned, regardless of precedence or error in gender.

 

[Mysticete]

Just worked through the IOC 13.1 updates and compared to 12.2 there are 198 changes to taxa - these changes are either newly recognised species or subspecies, subspecies reassignments (lumps/splits) or changes to the spelling of Latin genus or given names.

Interestingly, I has always thought that IOC was pioneering, with Clements more conservative. BirdLife originally seemed quite conservative, until they made the big shake up in 2016/2017 when their taxonomy seemed a bit 'too radical'.

Of the recent IOC changes, 151 (76.3%) result in species level alignment with both Clements and BirdLife, so a great step towards convergence - in this group there are still however a few differences in spelling of a species name or the number of subspecies recognised. Interestingly, of these 151 changes, quite a number of the taxa were changed by Clements in October 2022, with BirdLife being the early adopter/trail blazer. There may therefore be merit in keeping abreast of the BirdLife list, as it may indicate what is around the corner.

A further 31 changes relate to alignment with Clements (with BirdLife now the outlier), and 11 changes relate to alignment with BirdLife (with Clements the outlier).

I don't think you could consider the vast majority of any of these changes now either more conservative or less so. They are all a result of WGAC decisions almost certainly. It's really just differences in when either checklist publishes there updates. I bet IOC will have a lot of "proposed/accepted splits" over the next half year that then will be followed by Clements, when they do there October update. It's down to who publishes when, not differences in opinion.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Remember that IOC publishes twice a year whereas Clements publishes once a year. So even in an environment where the two are converging, there are still changes being generated by scientists in the field. So you can see those changes being reported earlier in IOC (on average) just because of the schedules.

Yes agreed. Clements and BirdLife only update once a year, so should be behind for that reason.

I just thought it was interesting that quite a few of the lumps and splits follow changes that were adopted by BirdLife some time ago. Take for instance the split of Comoros Blue Vanga and Madagascar Blue Vanga. This change was adopted by IOC in 2023 and by Clements in 2022. I can find this split in the HBW/BirdLife Checklist version 2, so the split was recognised by them pre December 2017! This is just one example, where I have tried to trace back, but there are quite a few changes made by BirdLife 2021 (or before) and adopted by Clements in 2022 and IOC in 2023.

I think it is interesting that splits and lumps made by HBW and BirdLife in 2016/2017, and which I thought at the time were rather radical, are in some cases starting to trickle through to IOC and BirdLife. Perhaps this is just because further study has now been concluded verifying the position that BirdLife originally adopted?

 

[pbjosh]

I think it is interesting that splits and lumps made by HBW and BirdLife in 2016/2017, and which I thought at the time were rather radical, are in some cases starting to trickle through to IOC and BirdLife. Perhaps this is just because further study has now been concluded verifying the position that BirdLife originally adopted?

Essentially the WGAC is addressing every case of incongruence between at least the three major lists (I don’t recall if they are also including H&M).

They simply vote on which stance to take on all points where different lists present different taxonomic arrangements. Clements and IOC are adopting all of these changes, at least in theory.

So essentially BLI/HBW put forward a huge set of taxonomic changes a few years ago. With time they are being borne out more often than not though of course not in all cases. This WGAC great revision is forcing the issue on all these revisions - should Clements and IOC adopt them or not? Simple majority vote of a group of top world taxonomic experts.

In many cases there will be new research that hasn’t yet been published, or work in progress, or just greater knowledge available that might affect a vote as they don’t seem to hold themselves to only published studies and only opinions of regional taxonomic bodies, as shown by WGAC making decisions in South America that were viewed as long overdue but that, for various reasons including a lack of published new work, hadn’t been adopted by SACC.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

It's down to who publishes when, not differences in opinion.

Perhaps. But my gut feeling from doing recent updates, is that Clements and IOC are moving more towards BirdLife's position rather than all three are circling and following each others updates. BirdLife in fact made a very modest number of changes in 2022. As per my message above, some of the changes now being made were adopted by BirdLife several years ago. To get the blood boiling, BirdLife has only recognised one species of Redpoll for a long time! It will be interesting to see where that one ends up!

That said, there is also still a lot of differences to bring together. I reckon as of today, there are 2200 differences at species level between Clements, IOC and BirdLife!. Admittedly some of these 'differences' are purely nomenclature, so Anser cygnoides or Anser cygnoid. However a lot are lumps and splits - for example BirdLife does not recognize Anser serrirostris as separate from Anser fabalis or Anas diazi as separate from Anas fulvigula and Clements do not recognise Anas carolinensis as separate from Anas crecca etc....

 

[pbjosh]

I suspect BLI is right about the Redpolls- research certainly points that way, and it is my impression that it is inertia and entrenched positions that have us still recognizing multiple species, rather than science.

As of the Clements 2022 update WGC had gotten through about 1/2 of the original list of outstanding issues. As I understand it in about a year the bill of the reconciliation should be done.

The fact that so many BLI splits are being adopted sort of points at their approach, despite being critiqued as inexact, has proven to have been pretty prescient and spotlighted a lot of points of taxonomic interest.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

As of the Clements 2022 update WGC had gotten through about 1/2 of the original list of outstanding issues. As I understand it in about a year the bill of the reconciliation should be done.

I understand that the WGC will be a separate list. In correspondence with Birdlife, the suggestion was that once established, authorities may deem it unnecessary to keep and maintain their own lists. It will be interesting to see is the WGC ‘committee’ which I believe are a panel formed by members from various Authorities, is maintained to form a joint opinion on future taxonomic developments - in a sense a new (joint) Authority is born.

It is not clear whether the WGC is being incorporated fully into BirdLife, IOC and Clements in updates, or will stand alone. As you say, 1/2 the differences are now meant to have been dealt with. However, if you map the three world taxonomies, you cannot see that 1/2 the differences have now disappeared. As an indication, in the mapping I have maintained, in 2021 in needed about 2700 identifiers to map species differences. I now need 2200. These are not all true differences, and some purely relate to nomenclature, but true differences also seem to persist through many Families, so it is not as if resolution of ducks say, has been incorporated in to IOC, Birdlife and Clements.

It seems to me that the lists are nudging towards each other, but not apparently at the rate WGC are working. Perhaps the various Authorities are drip feeding agreements to prevent the upheaval created by one or two massive updates. Or perhaps they are holding back where they have ‘agreed’, but still actually retain reservations about the proposals. The latter would be bad news as we would then be heading for a situation with four regularly updated world taxonomies - the existing plus the WGC.

 

[pbjosh]

WGC, as far as I understand, is addressing primarily (or only? or initially?) species level differences, without a focus on naming discrepancies or subspecies. I don't know or recall what, if any, plans they have for subspecies and naming issues in the future.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

That said, there is also still a lot of differences to bring together. I reckon as of today, there are 2200 differences at species level between Clements, IOC and BirdLife!. Admittedly some of these 'differences' are purely nomenclature, so Anser cygnoides or Anser cygnoid. However a lot are lumps and splits - for example BirdLife does not recognize Anser serrirostris as separate from Anser fabalis or Anas diazi as separate from Anas fulvigula and Clements do not recognise Anas carolinensis as separate from Anas crecca etc....

Replying to my own thread, I suppose that it also depends on how half is measured by the WGAC. Looking at their website WGAC, they state that by June 2022 they had dealt with 178 families covering 5585 species (so roughly half the species in the world). However, when you look at the family listed on the page, this includes many families where there were no differences in the first place - say Magpie-geese (Family Anseranatidae). This is a poor example, as it only covers one extant species, so has negligible impact. But it does indicate that they are not working through the list in systematic order - they have for instance not resolved Anatidae (sequentially close to Anseranatidae), but have resolved some more distant passerine families. If they are measuring progress by species covered, they will have had an apparent head start, in the case where no differences exist at a family level in the first place.

It is interesting that resolution may not extend to nomenclature or subspecies. For example Acanthizidae are stated to have been resolved, but Rusty Mouse-warbler is called Origma murina by IOC and BirdLife (genus amended in 2022) and Crateroscelis murina by Clements - surely they could have easily incorporated this change in their October 2022 revision if 'agreement' was made pre June 2022? Also when looking at the subspecies of Rusty Mouse-warbler, Clements and BirdLife recognise the subspecies fumosa, whereas IOC does not. Again another change that could have easily been incorporated into the latest amendments if recognition or otherwise of this subspecies had been resolved earlier.

Perhaps more worringly, some families that are stated to be agreed, but do not align at species level in the three lists. As a quick example Accipitridae is stated as resolved, but there remain differences in the lists, namely

• Legge's Hawk Eagle Nisaetus kelaarti is still split from Mountain Hawk Eagle Nisaetus nipalensis by IOC and Clements, but not BirdLife,
• there is still confusion as to whether unduliventer is a subspecies of African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro or Red-chested Goshawk Accipiter toussenelii,
• Lesser Sundas Goshawk Accipiter sylvestris is split by BirdLife (but not IOC or Clements) from Variable Goshawk Accipiter hiogaster,
• White-breasted Hawk Accipiter chionogaster, Plain-breasted Hawk Accipiter ventralis and Rufous-thighed Hawk Accipiter erythronemius are split from Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus by IOC, but not BirdLife or Clements.
• Chilean Hawk Accipiter chilensis is split from Bicolored Hawk Accipiter bicolor by IOC and Clements but not BirdLife.
• Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius is split from Black Kite Milvus migrans by IOC and BirdLife but not Clements
• Cape Verde Buzzard Buteo bannermani is split from Common Buzzard Buteo buteo by IOC but not Clements or BirdLife.

My hopes that the lists are converging as fall-out from the WGAC work, would seem a tad premature.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

WGC, as far as I understand, is addressing primarily (or only? or initially?) species level differences

This is my conclusion, but also a slight worry. If changes are not being adopted by IOC, BirdLife and Clements in their own lists (see comment above), and the WGAC output is yet another list, then it will live or die by users uptake. I personally think the BirdLife lost a lot of ground to IOC and Clements, by originally not including subspecies in their list and still not including range information.

 

[njlarsen]

The people behind the Clements list stated directly that a lot of changes in the 2022 list is a result of the WGAC work. There has also been a statement here in Birdforum from IOC that they are committed to the WGAC.

Already today, the Ebird version of the Clements list can show the same species with different names whether you choose British or American English as your base. Therefore, I expect that different names and spellings of the same species will continue.
Niels

 

[pbjosh]

• Legge's Hawk Eagle Nisaetus kelaarti is still split from Mountain Hawk Eagle Nisaetus nipalensis by IOC and Clements, but not BirdLife,
• there is still confusion as to whether unduliventer is a subspecies of African Goshawk Accipiter tachiro or Red-chested Goshawk Accipiter toussenelii,
• Lesser Sundas Goshawk Accipiter sylvestris is split by BirdLife (but not IOC or Clements) from Variable Goshawk Accipiter hiogaster,
• White-breasted Hawk Accipiter chionogaster, Plain-breasted Hawk Accipiter ventralis and Rufous-thighed Hawk Accipiter erythronemius are split from Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus by IOC, but not BirdLife or Clements.
• Chilean Hawk Accipiter chilensis is split from Bicolored Hawk Accipiter bicolor by IOC and Clements but not BirdLife.
• Yellow-billed Kite Milvus aegyptius is split from Black Kite Milvus migrans by IOC and BirdLife but not Clements
• Cape Verde Buzzard Buteo bannermani is split from Common Buzzard Buteo buteo by IOC but not Clements or BirdLife.

My hopes that the lists are converging as fall-out from the WGAC work, would seem a tad premature.

A lot of this could probably be a result of BLI not having incorporated some of the voting results. I also don't recall whether Accipitridae was one of the families treated before the Clements update... they have been continuing to make progress since.

The Cape Verde Buzzard was already a proposed lump from IOC, no? Perhaps just not finalized yet, or perhaps something happened in the background with the voting that we are not privy to?

 

[Mysticete]

This is my conclusion, but also a slight worry. If changes are not being adopted by IOC, BirdLife and Clements in their own lists (see comment above), and the WGAC output is yet another list, then it will live or die by users uptake. I personally think the BirdLife lost a lot of ground to IOC and Clements, by originally not including subspecies in their list and still not including range information.

They have directly stated that the new checklist will include subspecies.

My understanding is that at the moment they are focusing on differences between checklists at the species level. I don't think they ever stated that they are currently in the processing of reconciling subspecies (or generic taxonomy). Since they seem to be using some sort of internal proposal system and voting to address changes, they are prioritizing there work there. It might also be that they will just be using the IOC baseline for both subspecies and higher level taxonomy. Variation in this level is considered to probably be less significant, as ebird typically doesn't allow one to record subspecies (just groups), subspecies are not prioritized for conservation often times, and few birders care. The same thing could be said about genus-level taxonomy. And as you mention, Birdlife doesn't even include subspecies.

Which isn't to say that the list won't be making changes to subspecies, it just might be work dealt with by different folks later in the process, or even a focus of the list AFTER the release of version 1.0 of the new list.

 

[Mysticete]

A lot of this could probably be a result of BLI not having incorporated some of the voting results. I also don't recall whether Accipitridae was one of the families treated before the Clements update... they have been continuing to make progress since.

The Cape Verde Buzzard was already a proposed lump from IOC, no? Perhaps just not finalized yet, or perhaps something happened in the background with the voting that we are not privy to?

Yeah...my thought here is that Jon is reading far far too much into variation in implementation. I think a lot of the variation in groups that are "finished" can probably be summed up to:

Differences in when different lists update, or if they are even choosing to have any significant update prior to the WGAC list being published.
A internal proposal system that might be allowing some matters to be voted on again and folks holding off publishing changes until they are certain.
Waiting to hear news from proposals submitted to other regional taxonomic committees, such as NACC. Which in turn operates at its own pace that seems to be much slower than WGAC.
Attempts to minimize instability for certain regions in the short term. IF WGAC (and thus ebird) departs significantly from AOS for example, that is going to have a significant impact on the ABA birding community, who are a hefty chunk of the ebird user base. In such a case they might want to work with that organization and release all of the changes at once, rather than a piecemeal slow release of changes.

 

[Xenospiza]

Based on recent work (2021, see "Accipitridae" thread), IOC's treatment of the Sharp-shinned Hawk complex is also more wrong than lumping them all (Clements, BLI).
Splits would still be justified, just different ones!

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I also don't recall whether Accipitridae was one of the families treated before the Clements update... they have been continuing to make progress since.

I chose this family as it was listed as complete in the WGAC June 2022 update. Since then Clements updated in October 22 (a tad later than their normal August update), BirdLife updated in December 2022 and IOC Updated in Jan 2023. It is therefore surprising to me that whatever resolution was reached, the conclusions are not fully incorporated in the updates. It is also not just a case of BirdLife playing catchup as you suggest - the lumps and splits are variously adopted, so it is not a pattern of a single party being slow. For example the Cape Verde Buzzard is only recognised by IOC, so either IOC are slow in dropping it, or BirdLife and Clements are slow in accepting it - Yellow-billed Kite is not recognised by Clements, so again either they are slow, or IOC and BirdLife both need to update.

The full list of families agreed by WGAC (as of June 2022) is as follows (it would take quite some time fish though and list where agreement has not been included in the latest updates, which have occurred 'post agreement') - particularly as my mapping table does not currently include family names!

Families reviews completed: Acanthisittidae, Acanthizidae, Accipitridae, Acrocephalidae, Aegithinidae, Alaudidae, Alcedinidae, Alcidae, Alcippeidae, Anatidae, Anhimidae, Anhingidae, Anseranatidae, Apterygidae, Aramidae, Atrichornithidae, Balaenicipitidae, Bernieridae, Bombycillidae, Brachypteraciidae, Bucconidae, Bucorvidae, Buphagidae, Burhinidae, Calcariidae, Callaeidae, Calyptomenidae, Calyptophilidae, Capitonidae, Cariamidae, Casuariidae, Cathartidae, Certhiidae, Cettiidae, Chaetopidae, Chionidae, Ciconiidae, Cinclidae, Cisticolidae, Climacteridae, Coliidae, Columbidae, Conopophagidae, Coraciidae, Corcoracidae, Cracidae, Dasyornithidae, Donacobiidae, Dromadidae, Dulidae, Elachuridae, Erythrocercidae, Eulacestomatidae, Eupetidae, Eurypygidae, Falcunculidae, Formicariidae, Fregatidae, Galbulidae, Gaviidae, Gruidae, Heliornithidae, Hemiprocnidae, Hyliidae, Hyliotidae, Hylocitreidae, Hypocoliidae, Ibidorhynchidae, Icteriidae, Ifritidae, Indicatoridae, Jacanidae, Laniidae, Leptosomidae, Locustellidae, Machaerirhynchidae, Macrosphenidae, Malaconotidae, Megapodiidae, Menuridae, Meropidae, Mesitornithidae, Mimidae, Mitrospingidae, Modulatricidae, Mohoidae, Mohouidae, Momotidae, Muscicapidae, Neosittidae, Nesospingidae, Nicatoridae, Notiomystidae, Numididae, Nyctibiidae, Oceanitidae, Odontophoridae, Opisthocomidae, Oreoicidae, Orthonychidae, Pandionidae, Panuridae, Paradoxornithidae, Pardalotidae, Pedionomidae, Pelecanidae, Peucedramidae, Phaenicophilidae, Phaethontidae, Phasianidae, Philepittidae, Phoenicopteridae, Phoeniculidae, Phylloscopidae, Picathartidae, Pipridae, Pityriasidae, Platysteiridae, Ploceidae, Pluvianellidae, Pluvianidae, Pnoepygidae, Podicipedidae, Promeropidae, Prunellidae, Pteroclidae, Ptiliogonatidae, Regulidae, Rhagologidae, Rheidae, Rhodinocichlidae, Rhynochetidae, Rostratulidae, Sagittariidae, Sapayoidae, Sarothruridae, Scopidae, Scotocercidae, Semnornithidae, Spheniscidae, Spindalidae, Steatornithidae, Stenostiridae, Strigidae, Strigopidae, Struthionidae, Sturnidae, Sulidae, Sylviidae, Teretistridae, Thinocoridae, Threskiornithidae, Tichodromidae, Timaliidae, Tinamidae, Todidae, Trochilidae, Turdidae, Tytonidae, Upupidae, Urocynchramidae, Vangidae, Viduidae, Vireonidae, Zeledoniidae

 

[Jon.Bryant]

And as you mention, Birdlife doesn't even include subspecies.

They do include subspecies and have done so since version 5 (December 2020).