• 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.

The eBird/Clements checklist v 6.8 (1 Viewer)

We welcome any help in assigning these “hanging subspecies” to groups, especially if it can be supported by published references. Species with partially formulated (“hanging”) groups ...
 
Glaucous Macaw
Revise the range of Glaucous Macaw (Anodorhynchus glaucus) from "Formerly s Brazil and adj. Uruguay. Extinct; last reported 1915" to "formerly southern Brazil, southern Paraguay, northeastern Uruguay, and northern Argentina. Possibly extinct".
Click to expand...

Is this change based on anything substantial or just on formalities?

Niels
 
Parus cinereous and Parus minor split in this version (The reason for highlighting these two is a recent discussion in a thread I cannot find back to in a couple of minutes, and I want to get to bed soon 3:) :eek!: )

Niels
 
HBW Amazonian splits

The treatment of the splits of Nystalus striolatus, Epinecrophylla haematonata, Myrmotherula iheringi, Dendrocolaptes certhia, Campyloramphus procurvoides and Lepidocolaptes albolineatus recently proposed in the HBW Special Volume is very strange. In each case, all splits of previously recognised taxa are treated only as new subspecies groups, whilst the newly described taxa are instead treated as distinct species despite being embedded within the complex concerned. (The proposed lump of Epinecrophylla fjeldsaai hasn't been recognised.)

[See: HBW Special Volume: Amazonian splits.]
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
It's curious that whilst H&M and IOC have recently changed from Falco peregrinus fruitii to F p furuitii (as Mayr & Cottrell 1979 and OSJ 2012), eBird/Clements has instead changed from furuitii (v6.7) to fruitii (v6.8).

[See: Checklist of Japanese Birds (7th ed.).]
Click to expand...

Yeah, and Anisognathus somptuosus flavinucha (not flavinuchus) and Eucometis penicillata spodocephalus (not spodocephala) are not corrected (invariants), although reported to Cornell.

And when I see something like Oedistoma iliolophum iliolophus I give up. Maybe in a couple of years this list is beginning to look like something useful.

Theo
 
I also noticed that the Azure-winged Magpie is finally split.

On a related note, they have the Japanese form as a distinct group. Does anyone know what this is based off of? I remember hearing speculation that the Japanese population might actually be introduced, although perhaps a very very old introduction.
 
Azure-winged Magpie

Mysticete said:
On a related note, they have the Japanese form as a distinct group. Does anyone know what this is based off of?
Click to expand...
Madge & Burn 1994 (Crows & Jays):
In Japan, japonica, is small and quite dark grey compared to mainland forms.
Click to expand...
Madge 2009 (HBW 14):
japonica is smaller and darker, with brighter blue wings and tail.
Click to expand...
[And japonica is allopatric wrt the mainland forms...]
Mysticete said:
I remember hearing speculation that the Japanese population might actually be introduced, although perhaps a very very old introduction.
Click to expand...
Common/Eurasian Magpie Pica pica serica was introduced to Kyushu from Korea in 1598.
 
Last edited:
Pre-2013 Clements splits

I've sometimes wondered about the merits of a few long-standing Clements splits not widely recognised elsewhere (eg, Cercotrichas minor), and perhaps worthy of reassessment by Cornell. With the help of Peter Kovalik's very useful Comparison list, the following is a list of pre-2013 eBird/Clements species not yet recognised by at least IOC, BirdLife or H&M4 (Vol1):
  • Vietnam Partridge - Arborophila (chloropus) merlini
  • Sharpe's Rail - Gallirallus (philippensis) sharpei [colour morph]
  • Forbes's Snipe - Coenocorypha chathamica [subfossil remains]
  • Forest Dove - Columba (larvata) simplex
  • Norfolk Island Pigeon - Hemiphaga (novaeseelandiae) spadicea
  • Brown-breasted Kingfisher - Halcyon (smyrnensis) gularis
  • Rufous-crowned Bee-eater - Merops (viridis) americanus
  • Mallee Ringneck - Barnardius (zonarius) barnardi
  • Alta Floresta Antpitta - Hylopezus (macularius) whittakeri
  • Sanford's Bowerbird - Archboldia (papuensis) sanfordi
  • Silver-backed Butcherbird - Cracticus (torquatus) argenteus
  • Manus Cicadabird - Edolisoma (tenuirostre) admiralitatis
  • Rennell Whistler - Pachycephala (orioloides) feminina
  • Pale-blue Monarch - Hypothymis (azurea) puella
  • Songar Tit - Poecile (montanus) songarus
  • Canary Islands Kinglet - Regulus (regulus) teneriffae
  • Margelanic Whitethroat - Sylvia (curruca) margelanica
  • Lord Howe White-eye - Zosterops (lateralis) tephropleurus
  • African Scrub-Robin - Cercotrichas (galactotes) minor
  • Visayan Shama - Copsychus (luzoniensis) superciliaris
  • Kivu Ground-Thrush - Geokichla (piaggiae) tanganjicae
  • Visayan Rhabdornis - Rhabdornis (inornatus) rabori
  • Western Olive Sunbird - Cyanomitra (olivacea) obscura
  • Jackson's Pipit - Anthus (cinnamomeus) latistriatus
  • Lesser Redpoll - Acanthis (flammea) cabaret
  • Damara Canary - Alario (alario) leucolaemus
 
Last edited:
Richard, several of these stem from Nigel Collar's paper splitting several Philippine forms based on the '7 point system'. Others are Island Collared Dove, Silvery Kingfisher, Sooty Woodpecker. I don't know why these splits are being ignored, but presumably because no DNA has been sampled. The Streptopelia is a no-brainer I would have thought, and the others - probably all - look good after viewing enough photos of them.
 
dnsallen said:
Richard, several of these stem from Nigel Collar's paper splitting several Philippine forms based on the '7 point system'. Others are Island Collared Dove, Silvery Kingfisher, Sooty Woodpecker. I don't know why these splits are being ignored, but presumably because no DNA has been sampled. The Streptopelia is a no-brainer I would have thought, and the others - probably all - look good after viewing enough photos of them.
Click to expand...
Yes, I'm aware of Nigel Collar's proposed Philippine splits, and I omitted the three others you mentioned given that BirdLife will reportedly soon recognise them. I'm not suggesting that most on the list are invalid - perhaps they should be reconsidered by the other checklists. But I suspect that amongst those listed there are a few dating from Jim Clements's days that haven't been re-evaluated and that Cornell probably wouldn't split if they'd been suggested only now (eg, Cercotrichas minor, Poecile songarus).
 
Last edited:
In all fairness, there were a couple of clear errors of a similar vintage that were corrected in this issue of the spreadsheet.

Niels
 
HBW Amazonian splits

Richard Klim said:
The treatment of the splits of Nystalus striolatus, Epinecrophylla haematonata, Myrmotherula iheringi, Dendrocolaptes certhia, Campyloramphus procurvoides and Lepidocolaptes albolineatus recently proposed in the HBW Special Volume is very strange. In each case, all splits of previously recognised taxa are treated only as new subspecies groups, whilst the newly described taxa are instead treated as distinct species despite being embedded within the complex concerned. (The proposed lump of Epinecrophylla fjeldsaai hasn't been recognised.)
[See: HBW Special Volume: Amazonian splits.]
Click to expand...
Richard Klim said:
Detailed list of updates with references now being posted...
Click to expand...
All have the explanation: "This revision of xxx, and the description of yyy as a species, have not yet been reviewed by SACC. Provisionally we recognize yyy as a species but refrain from making further revisions in this complex, pending their acceptance by SACC."

Surely it would have been more consistent to recognise the new taxa as subspecies pending SACC acceptance of the revision of the complex. Why are the newly-described taxa within each complex more deserving of specific recognition?
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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

T
AOS NACC/SACC taxonomic committee governance and structures (no discussions on patronyms)
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Mike Earp
M
pbjosh
IOC combines forces w/ NACC, SACC, Cornell, and more to produce "global checklist"
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
17K
Mysticete
Mysticete
jmorlan
King Penguin subspecies
Replies
5
Views
1K
l_raty
l_raty
jmorlan
Greater Scaup subspecies ranges
Replies
4
Views
876
jmorlan
jmorlan
opisska
Parsiger - analysing the wealth of Tarsiger data
Replies
17
Views
2K
jurek
jurek

Users who are viewing this thread

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