• 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.

AOU 53rd Supplement now available on line (1 Viewer)

MJB said:
American nightjars in Pteroclidae (Sandgrouse)?
Click to expand...
It's unsurprising that AOU-NACC's presentation of changes to the Check-list gives rise to such potential confusion. Whilst such a comprehensive and prescriptive approach might be essential for important legal documents, I don't understand the need for such lengthy and repetitive page-by-page change instructions in the annual AOU Check-list supplements. [eg, the recognition of Puffinus bryani is addressed separately on p573, p574, p576 and p584 of the supplement.] Is there really anyone out there who, each July, physically marks up their original printed version of the 1998 7th Edition on a page-by-page basis (surely impracticable given the wholesale restructuring often required)?

I'm guessing: "It's always been done that way..."

BOURC's approach seems more sensible and realistic - concisely describing the annual decisions/changes, but assuming that any reader with minimal intelligence could determine the impact on the last published version of the checklist.

[Both AOU and BOU provide fully updated online sequences, making complicated resequencing instructions redundant.]

PS. Many thanks for posting, Parulini. :t:
 
Last edited:
MJB said:
American nightjars in Pteroclidae (Sandgrouse)?
MJB
Click to expand...

NO.

From p.574:
"Insert the following names in the proper position as indicated by the text of this supplement:"

There then follows a list of names to be inserted followed by a list of names to be deleted.

Thus Pteroclididae is replaced by Pteroclidae (see page 579 para 3).

Shaun
 
recbirds said:
NO.

From p.574:
"Insert the following names in the proper position as indicated by the text of this supplement:"

There then follows a list of names to be inserted followed by a list of names to be deleted.

Thus Pteroclididae is replaced by Pteroclidae (see page 579 para 3).

Shaun
Click to expand...

I had missed the ponderous arrangement and instructions, so thank you Shaun. I must align with Richard Klim, though.

From my experience, the Royal Air Force gave up amending its publications in AOU fashion in the late 1960s...
MJB
 
Richard Klim said:
.... Whilst such a comprehensive and prescriptive approach might be essential for important legal documents, I don't understand the need for such lengthy and repetitive page-by-page change instructions in the annual AOU Check-list supplements. ...QUOTE]

Hear, hear! Confusing & a complete waste of paper.
Click to expand...
 
I think that the only complaint so far is "lengthy and repetitive page-by-page change instructions" can only mean that they did a good job on all the important stuff. Looking at the 42nd supplement I can not see a plan as to when the 8th version of the check-list occurs?? But I did notice that the current supplement has many more changes, some momentous, some nit picky but all well thought out and researched. I commend the committee on this mature and muscular supplement.
 
Last edited:
mb1848 said:
I think that the only complaint so far is "lengthy and repetitive page-by-page change instructions" can only mean that the did a good job on all the important stuff. Looking at the 42nd supplement I can not see a plan as to when the 8th version of the check-list occurs?? But I did notice that the current supplement has many more changes, some momentous, some nit picky but all well thought out and researched. I commend the committee on this mature and muscular supplement.
Click to expand...
Agreed, Mark. My comment was directed only at the update method (which must be a chore for NACC), not the updates per se (which this year include some bold revisions).

NACC's and SACC's openness to outside proposals, and transparent voting processes, compare very favourably to European national practice (change by decree, following undisclosed committee discussion) and definitely outweigh any concerns that I may have about presentational aspects!
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Is there really anyone out there who, each July, physically marks up their original printed version of the 1998 7th Edition on a page-by-page basis (surely impracticable given the wholesale restructuring often required)?
Click to expand...

Well, since the 7th Edition is available as a PDF, it would be conceivably possible to do a digital update, rather than marking up the paper version.

However it's obvious that nobody at the AOU is actually doing that, since doing so would change the page numbering, and all of the updates refer to the page numbers of the original document.

Besides which, it would be pointless to do that. Paper versions are so 20th-century, I'm sure that's why the SACC has never got round to publishing their checklist in hard copy. In fact the NACC should seriously consider making the 8th Edition digital-only.
 
my question is where are the comments for the proposal? Reading the individual votes is far more interesting usually than the rather dry supplement.
 
Paul said: “Paper versions are so 20th-century, I'm sure that's why the SACC has never got round to publishing their checklist in hard copy.”

I think the SACC intended to publish a hard copy version: “The SACC is not involved in producing a list of standardized Spanish names. Click here for rationale. However, the SACC hopes to produce Spanish and Portuguese versions of the Notes once the English version reaches the stage at which the classification is ready for publication as a printed document.” But like you said they have not published it as a printed check-list yet.

Mysticete: “my question is where are the comments for the proposal? Reading the individual votes is far more interesting usually than the rather dry supplement.” Amen. And I was sure they provided this in the past. The AOU NACC says “the outcome of proposals is not final until published in the annual supplement to the Check-list of North American Birds (July issue of The Auk).”. I want to know what happened to 2011 A-1 and would love to read the comments. I did not see a reference to it in the supplement.
 
I haven't had a chance to look over the supplement (in the midst of a San Fran research trip), but all the commentary for past proposals is still up.
 
"the very last sentence before references states that the holotype proposal failed FYI"
Thanks Morgan. Also my favorite proposal failed so no Aztec Dove.
 
In the absence of any statement to the contrary, I guess Common Rosefinch remains in Carpodacus according to the AOU (versus Erythrina). Just an oversight, or a taxonomic opinion?
 
Proposal 2011-C-12

Jim Mountjoy said:
In the absence of any statement to the contrary, I guess Common Rosefinch remains in Carpodacus according to the AOU (versus Erythrina). Just an oversight, or a taxonomic opinion?
Click to expand...
I wondered about that.

Perhaps the implicit arrangement is Haemorhous alongside a revised Carpodacus (comprising erythrinus, Haematospiza, Chaunoproctus, and Carpodacus sensu Zuccon et al 2012 (see Fig 1, p586-587))?

Hopefully the comments to the proposal (when posted) will help to explain the wider treatment adopted by AOU.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I guess if they are accepting Lerner et al. 2011, they should have done away with the Drepanidinae and stuck the Hawaiian honeycreepers next to Carpodacus, not Haemorhous. Maybe next time...
 
Falcons (& parrots) between woodpeckers & songbirds miles & miles from the nearest accipitrine hawk! Wow! Once the proponents of an unchanging field guide order get wind of that, there'll be blood on the floor for sure!

How nice to be alive in such interesting times! ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 12 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

jmorlan
59th Supplement AOS checklist pdf
2 3
Replies
58
Views
9K
Nightjar61
Nightjar61
wolfbirder
GRAN CANARIA - 2- 6th February 2024
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Mike Crawley
Mike Crawley
rollingthunder
Malaga Jan 2023.....
Replies
4
Views
2K
rollingthunder
rollingthunder
Taphrospilus
Accipiter gundlachi wileyi Wotzkow, 1991
Replies
0
Views
411
Taphrospilus
Taphrospilus
D
Sky Rover Banner Cloud 8x42 APO Review
2
Replies
29
Views
4K
dries1
dries1

Users who are viewing this thread

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