What taxonomic authority do your country's authorities follow? (1 Viewer)

Hello,
the portuguese rarities commitee has recently adopted IOC as their taxonomic authority and while pondering whether the german authorities should also consider such a thing, I wondered what authorities are being followed by other countries.

The German rarities committee (Deutsche Avifaunistische Kommission) and the german ornithologists union (Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft) follow the 'List of Birds of Germany' by Barthel & Helbig (2005), but I couldn't find out yet if this is close to any of the worldwide checklist. If anybody knows this, or owns the article about it in Limicola 19, 2 from 2005 I'd be grateful to be contacted!

The other 'authority' in Germany is the Club300.de, which follows Clements checklist.

Whether you prefer one checklist or the other is of course a matter of personal taste and not what I hope to discuss in this thread, rather I'd like to compare the approaches used in other countries.

Cheers Maffong

Britain follows IOC now, having previously had their own list (BOU) :t:

My problem with the D-OG are the German vernacular names. When I see that. e.g. Anthus ruficollis is still regarded as white-eye in German I am asking how long do they need to adapt the nomenclature to taxonomic changes? The IOC or other taxonomic authorities are much faster.

Birdlife Australia keeps the Working List of Australian Birds, which is largely the Birdlife / HBW list.

Maffong said:

The German rarities committee (Deutsche Avifaunistische Kommission) and the german ornithologists union (Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft) follow the 'List of Birds of Germany' by Barthel & Helbig (2005), ...

Click to expand...

Melanie said:

My problem with the D-OG are the German vernacular names. When I see that. e.g. Anthus ruficollis is still regarded as white-eye in German ...

Click to expand...

Didn't know this was on the German list . . are there many records? 🤔
:-O

I read that the European Union follows HBW/birdlife, but I'm not sure exactly what that means. Also, BOU had a tie vote in 2017 between that and IOC, and needed the chair to break the tie in favor of IOC.

Since no one authoritative has chimed in yet about the U.S., I will say that it is my understanding that in the US, the AOS (formerly AOU) makes its own taxonomic decisions about No. Am./U.S. birds, and is generally followed by most organizations and field guides in the states. I believe it is fair to say the SACC (South American Checklist Committee) is also generally followed in the US for South American birds. I'm not aware of a central organization adopting a worldwide taxonomy in the US. But since eBird is widely used, and eBird follows the species-level taxonomy of AOS for U.S. birds (and SACC?), the eBird/Clements taxonomy is arguably the default choice of U.S. birders for birds of the world.

The Czech Republic generally adopted a rather sensible approach: we follow what BOU does, so now we are on IOC in most aspects (with some conflict with some Birdlife activities). In any case, it makes no sense for a small country to make independent taxonomic decisions (as it is the case in a lot of areas of life).