• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

IOC World Bird List v8.2 (1 Viewer)

Steve Lister said:
Thanks - they have clearly just missed it out of the list of changes.
Click to expand...

I think it might be deliberately missed out of the 'species updates' splits and lumps section, because there are no actual splits or lumps, ie there is not a new species as a result of splits, or a species lost due to it (all subspp) being entirely included within another, so it's passed under the radar. I'd have missed it if it hadn't come up on here!
 
I wish they'd sort out the duplication in the Comments column...many entries have repeated text several times...Ruffed Grouse is a good , random, example

"Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986."

or same information 6 times - some concatenation artefact?

Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.

Only negative I can find by the way (once all you listing authorities use English English spellings and hyphenate harmoniously ;)
 
McMadd said:
I wish they'd sort out the duplication in the Comments column...many entries have repeated text several times...Ruffed Grouse is a good , random, example

"Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986."

or same information 6 times - some concatenation artefact?

Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.
Includes affinis. AOU, 1957; Godfrey, 1986.

Only negative I can find by the way (once all you listing authorities use English English spellings and hyphenate harmoniously ;)
Click to expand...

My copy is clean in this regard; so possibly an issue on your computer?
 
Frank Gill said:
My copy is clean in this regard; so possibly an issue on your computer?
Click to expand...

Hi Frank

Hmm, I'm using OpenOffice (don't want to pollute the Mac with MS stuff :) )

Just tried it in the appalling Apple Number spreadsheet with same result

Well, if nobody else has the same issue I guess it's something to do with my settings but very odd all the same

cheers
Mark
 
McMadd said:
Hi Frank

Hmm, I'm using OpenOffice (don't want to pollute the Mac with MS stuff :) )

Just tried it in the appalling Apple Number spreadsheet with same result

Well, if nobody else has the same issue I guess it's something to do with my settings but very odd all the same

cheers
Mark
Click to expand...

Mark

It works fine for me using Excel and LibreOffice Calc but I get the same issue as you with OpenOffice Calc 4.1.5.

Mike
 
I did not have this problem (LibreOffice, MacOS).

(And as for Andy's question about Scythebill, I'm working on the 8.2 update now, but the funkiness with Manchurian Bush Warbler taxonomy and some related things is making my life a bit harder than it is for most updates.)
 
awiner said:
I did not have this problem (LibreOffice, MacOS).

(And as for Andy's question about Scythebill, I'm working on the 8.2 update now, but the funkiness with Manchurian Bush Warbler taxonomy and some related things is making my life a bit harder than it is for most updates.)
Click to expand...

Fantastic work Adam, amazing tech which makes my listing so simple.

Is there a way to tell easily, which birds in your Scythebill list have been elevated to species status when you incorporate an update?

Sometimes my list will be raised by say three species with an update but it's not always easy to figure out what they were so I usually end up trawling the IOC update page to track them down.


Cheers, Andy
 
I don't yet support that. Wouldn't be so hard to add it for splits (after all, I do know how many species you have at the end of an update), but it's more difficult than one might imagine for lumps.
 
For me the easiest changes to miss, are when there are no splits or lumps, but a subsp has been moved into a different species. It's possible to overlook gaining or loosing a 'tick' like this.
 
In Scythebill and other listing softwares there is a way to handle that: assigning observations to subspecies, so that if the subspecies changes parent species, the observation goes with it. The problem I see with the approach is a philosophical one: subspecies assignment should happen as result of recognizing the plumage to be different, not just due to something being the expected subspecies at a given location. I sometimes violate my own reservations and assign an observation to subspecies anyway ...

Niels

Edit: I should add that I might know what the local bird should look like based on a field guide (for example) but not necessarily know what an alternative subspecies from a different location is expected to look like.
 
njlarsen said:
In Scythebill and other listing softwares there is a way to handle that: assigning observations to subspecies, so that if the subspecies changes parent species, the observation goes with it. The problem I see with the approach is a philosophical one: subspecies assignment should happen as result of recognizing the plumage to be different, not just due to something being the expected subspecies at a given location. I sometimes violate my own reservations and assign an observation to subspecies anyway ...

Niels

Edit: I should add that I might know what the local bird should look like based on a field guide (for example) but not necessarily know what an alternative subspecies from a different location is expected to look like.
Click to expand...


Just try that with Swiftlets!



A
 
One question regarding two references in the latest IOC List, 8.2, June 2018, (also found in earlier, recent versions) ...

In the additional (Comment) column for Coopmans's Elaenia Elaenia brachyptera von Berlepsch, 1907, we find:
Coopmans's Elaenia E. brachyptera is split from Lesser Elaenia (Rheindt et al 2015; SACC 686)
Click to expand...
And in the ditto for Coopmans's Tyrannulet Zimmerius minimus (Chapman, 1912) we find:
Zimmerius minimus (incl cumanensis) is split from Golden-faced Tyrannulet (Z. chrysops) (Rheindt et al. 2013, SACC 686)
Click to expand...
I´ve got the two Rheindt et al Papers (2015 vs 2013), and the SACC 686 proposal (Treat Elaenia brachyptera as a separate species from Elaenia chiriquensis) ...

But the latter only deals with the Elaenia?!?

The Zimmerius taxon isn´t even mentioned in that proposal ...

What SACC document is relevant for the Zimmerius Tyrannulet?

Björn
 
Thanks, "pbjosh", I will read it all. :t:

So the SACC reference for Zimmerius minimus in the IOC List/s is simply; wrong ... !?

If it should have been SACC 550, it sure explains why I couldn't find it in 686 ... ;)

Björn
 
About the Rheindt 2013 paper: I assume it's the one with title: "Rampant polyphyly indicates cryptic diversity in a clade of Neotropical flycatchers (Aves: Tyrannidae)"?

The strange thing is that neither minimus nor cumanensis were actually sampled ?!? It was assumed that 2 samples from Tachira (normally chrysops domain!) were referable to minimus?? Neither do I find a clear recommendation by the authors for splitting these taxa. Or did I miss another paper?

In any case, if it is based on the title mentioned above, distribution of Coopmans's Tyrannulet should include all of the Venezuelan Andes and the Perija mountains. The only problem then is that voice of cumanensis is clearly different from that in the Venezuelan Andes... (surprisingly no day-time calls have been recorded for minimus from the Santa Marta mts., so this part of the puzzle remains to be discovered).

A more likely scenario based on voice, I would think, is that cumanensis (only) is a distinct species. But to obtain more support for this, at least genetic sampling is needed for that taxon...
 
Small correction: There are actually 2 recordings of day-time calls of minimus from Santa Marta mts. in Macaulay (by Paul!) (apparently renamed in Oct. 2017 from Z. viridiflavus).

These confirm that voice of minimus is similar to birds in the Venezuelan Andes (chrysops 'north') and clearly different from cumanensis.
 
I´ve managed to reconstruct most of the SACC 550 proposal (from here and/or here) ...

And it ought to have been something like:

Split Zimmerius minimus from Z. chrysops
[...]
I recommend recognition of Z. minimus from the Venezuelan Andes and the Santa Marta Mountains as an independent species Coopmans' s Tyrannulet, honoring the man who provided some of the earliest sound recordings of topotypical Z. minimus. Based on geographical proximity, the taxon cumanensis would best be recognized as a subspecies of Z. minimus (not Z. chrysops) pending data on its vocalizations and DNA.

[Based on the references:]

Rheindt F.E., Cuervo A.M., Brumfield R.T. Rampant polyphyly indicates cryptic diversity in a clade of Neotropical flycatchers (Aves: Tyrannidae). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, in press. [later published in; Vol. 108, Issue 4, (April 2013), pp. 889-900: [here]

Rheindt F.E., Norman J.A., Christidis L. 2008. DNA evidence shows vocalizations to be a better indicator of taxonomic limits than plumage patterns in Zimmerius tyrant-flycatchers. Mol. Phylogenetics and Evolution 48: 150-156. [here]

Frank Rheindt, September 2012​
Click to expand...
 
Thanks for this reconstruction, Björn! Now I see…

Quite a bold move of Frank Rheindt…
Apparently he was unaware of my recordings of cumanensis, which should have rang an alarm bell.
see e.g.
https://www.xeno-canto.org/232591
https://www.xeno-canto.org/232594
to be compared with birds from the Venezuelan Andes:
https://www.xeno-canto.org/232572
https://www.xeno-canto.org/232570

In any case, if IOC continues to treat Z. minimus as a distinct species, they should at least omit w Venezuela from the range of the remainder of Z. chrysops.
And obviously, the distribution map in XC is wrong...

minimus of the Santa Marta mts. may be closely related to birds of the Venezuelan Andes and Perija mts., may even be the same taxon, but at present I think there is just not enough evidence for such treatment. If this ultimately proves to be the case, and if cumanensis shows some genetic difference (quite likely given they are allopatric with no member of this group in the Coastal cordillera of Venezuela, we may end up with two additional species. Some DNA from museum skins is all it takes...
 
Warning! This thread is more than 6 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Peter Kovalik
IOC World Bird List v11.1
2 3 4
Replies
70
Views
10K
MJB
MJB
S
World list spreadsheets
Replies
1
Views
261
Steve Lister
S
Peter Kovalik
IOC World Bird List v10.2
Replies
9
Views
2K
awiner
awiner
R
Petition to AOS Leadership on the Recent Decision to Change all Eponymous Bird Names
16 17 18
Replies
353
Views
25K
awiner
awiner
K
binomen unchanged, but author in parentheses
Replies
2
Views
509
PScofield
P

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top