Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Discover the ZEISS Digital Nature Hub

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Cinclodes

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 3rd December 2014, 21:32   #1
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Cinclodes

Rader, Dillon, Chesser, Sabat & Martínez del Rio 2015. Morphological divergence in a continental adaptive radiation: South American ovenbirds of the genus Cinclodes. Auk 132(1): 180–190. [abstract]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 30th January 2015, 07:16   #2
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Chile

Vielma & Medrano 2015. Identificación y ecología de los Churretes (Cinclodes) de Chile. Chiricoca 19: 28–35. [pdf]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 30th January 2015, 17:57   #3
Melanie
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Kassel, Germany
Posts: 2,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Klim View Post
Rader, Dillon, Chesser, Sabat & Martínez del Rio 2015. Morphological divergence in a continental adaptive radiation: South American ovenbirds of the genus Cinclodes. Auk 132(1): 180–190. [abstract]
Interesting that C. espinhacensis is considered as full species despite the fact that it is only accepted as subspecies by the SACC.
Melanie is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 30th January 2015, 19:13   #4
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Cipo Cinclodes

Quote:
Originally Posted by Melanie View Post
Interesting that C. espinhacensis is considered as full species despite the fact that it is only accepted as subspecies by the SACC.
BF thread: Cipo Cinclodes.
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th July 2019, 09:50   #5
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,234
Proposal (838) to SACC

Treat Cinclodes olrogi as conspecific with Cinclodes oustaleti
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th July 2019, 10:00   #6
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
 
Larry Sweetland's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Bristol
Posts: 7,912
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Proposal (838) to SACC

Treat Cinclodes olrogi as conspecific with Cinclodes oustaleti
They can't do that! Olrog's Cinclodes is one of my favourite ever bird names!
Larry Sweetland is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th July 2019, 13:17   #7
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 18,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Sweetland View Post
They can't do that! Olrog's Cinclodes is one of my favourite ever bird names!
Ocellated Tapaculo has to be up there with it......
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th July 2019, 14:59   #8
James Jobling
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 815
My favourites, from days of yore, are Oleaginous Pipromorph and Blue-wreathed Ifrit.
James Jobling is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th July 2019, 22:27   #9
sicklebill
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Topaz, Queensland
Posts: 919
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Jobling View Post
My favourites, from days of yore, are Oleaginous Pipromorph and Blue-wreathed Ifrit.
Classic! I have a priceless one from mammals too-Paucident Planigale
sicklebill is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 07:21   #10
Peter Kovalik
Registered User
 
Peter Kovalik's Avatar

 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Sp. Hrhov
Posts: 3,234
Cinclodes lopezlanusorum

Proposal (846) to SACC

Accept Cinclodes lopezlanusorum as a valid species


Quote:
Literature Cited:

LÓPEZ-LANÚS, B. 2019. Una nueva especie de remolinera (Furnariidae: Cinclodes) de la región Andino-Patagónica, endémico-reproductiva de bosques de lenga (Nothofagus pumilio) con morfotipo arbóreo. En pp.475-509: López-Lanús, B. Guía Audiornis de las aves de Argentina, fotos y sonidos; identificación por características contra puestas y marcas sobre imágenes. Tercera edición. Audiornis Producciones. Buenos Aires, Argentina. 544 págs. ISBN 978-987-783-666-0 (2019). Pdf downloadable at https://archive.org/details/cinclode...lopezlanus2019

Last edited by Peter Kovalik : Friday 31st January 2020 at 07:24.
Peter Kovalik is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 08:02   #11
LeNomenclatoriste
Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
 
LeNomenclatoriste's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: France
Posts: 913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Kovalik View Post
Proposal (846) to SACC

Accept Cinclodes lopezlanusorum as a valid species
A journal kept by a single author and publisher, I don't want to create controversy but it looks a lot like a taxonomic vandalism, no?
LeNomenclatoriste is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 11:53   #12
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: St. James, Barbados
Posts: 23,787
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeNomenclatoriste View Post
A journal kept by a single author and publisher, I don't want to create controversy but it looks a lot like a taxonomic vandalism, no?
I find the choice of words a bit strong, as after all,
Quote:
writers characterized the Vandals as barbarians, "sacking and looting" Rome
Taxonomic vandalism would be relevant if someone replaced the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and started randomly replacing the code with other wordings.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean

Recently moved to Barbados
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 31st January 2020, 12:18   #13
Kirk Roth
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
I find the choice of words a bit strong, as after all,
Taxonomic vandalism would be relevant if someone replaced the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and started randomly replacing the code with other wordings.

Niels
"Taxonomic Vandalism" is an already used term, albeit not yet well defined and more often used in popular media than actual scientific literature (perhaps for obvious reasons). It roughly means an act of taxonomic description that involves some sort of misconduct, resulting in the publication of taxa names that are somewhat dubious. As a long-time user of this forum, I'm certain you can easily think of examples of such accusations even if this particular term wasn't used! It is widely familiar in herpetology due to some fairly infamous and certainly dubious acts by a few people. It also crops up in taxa with less formal nomenclature processes - insects and tropical plants come to mind. Ornithology has relatively rigorous and well-checked taxonomic authorities, so it not surprising to me that this term would not be widely used or recognized in our "sphere" here.

Which is my long way of saying that our friend here isn't necessarily being harsh, at least not because of word choice - the term was already "chosen" by the masses!

For some articles that use this term:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...omy-180964629/

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...idae_Rutelinae

http://www.africanherpetology.org/taxonomy.php
Kirk Roth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 12:32   #14
Kirk Roth
Registered User

 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 284
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
... if someone replaced the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature and started randomly replacing the code with other wordings.
All above said, doesn't the Code prevent an author from naming a species after himself? Am I misunderstanding something here?
Kirk Roth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 13:17   #15
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,898
Does seem a direct correlation is often present between people trying to name things after themselves and the concept of taxonomic vandalism...
__________________
World: 1195, ABA: 628
Last Lifer: Connecticut Warbler
Last ABA: Connecticut Warbler
Mammal: 233 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 13:25   #16
opisska
Jan Ebr
 
opisska's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 1,939
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeNomenclatoriste View Post
A journal kept by a single author and publisher, I don't want to create controversy but it looks a lot like a taxonomic vandalism, no?
It also looks like a dream come true for a scientists :)
__________________
Birds: world 2170, WP 565, gWP 602, bird photos | Mammals: 259, mammal photos | Herps: 103, herp photos
opisska is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 13:33   #17
Mike Earp
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sanderstead
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kirk Roth View Post
All above said, doesn't the Code prevent an author from naming a species after himself? Am I misunderstanding something here?
From the English version of the paper:
Etymology. The specific name lopezlanusorum (=de los López-Lanús) is not in recognition of its discoverer, Bernabé López-Lanús, but of his family, who acted as “sponsor” for six years, financing the field trips to the study sites, providing logistical support and places in both Saladillo and Buenos Aires to advance this study.
But is the name validly published under the Code? Is the journal only online?
Mike Earp is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 13:45   #18
James Jobling
Registered User

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 815
Mike beat me to it; here is the full English dedication; "The specific name lopezlanusorum (= de los López-Lanús) is not in recognition of its discoverer, Bernabé López-Lanús, but of his family, who acted as "sponsor" for six years, financing the field trips to the study sites, providing logistical support and places in both Saladillo and Buenos Aires to advance this study. That is why the author dedicates the species to his family, López-Lanús, both to his parents Bernabé Francisco and Ana Inés, and to his brothers, especially Sebastián López-Lanús; and with the same strength to the author's son, Máximo B. López-Lanús, who tolerates his father's absences on his long field trips." (B. López-Lanús 2019)
James Jobling is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 14:07   #19
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 343
This paper and the SACC proposal illustrate various things which are broken in modern bird taxonomy practice.

1. It should be prohibited to name a new species after yourself (or in a way that achieves the same thing, e.g. for your parents). It's not prohibited in the Code, but it still remains the height of bad taste and bad manners, reflecting worst of all on the author. It also produces a conflict of interest: if the author so wants immortality, he may cast aside objectivity in analysing the taxonomic proposal.

2. Peer review versus non-peer review, The original description here is self -published, without the rigour of the peer review process of journals. People discuss whether this should be allowed for naming organisms, but it remains possible under the Code. I am not convinced publication venues should be restricted too drastically. Whilst peer review generally means that only good papers tend to be published, many other good papers are sacrificed along the way, and many journals and reviewers are affected by conflicts of interest themselves. But there are a few instances now of self-publication creating serious problems, especially in herptiles and Canada Geese.

3. Questionable "medicine" being meted about by ornithologists, via SACC, to address these issues. We now have a non-peer reviewed, non-objective, chatty, vitriolic, entirely critical piece as a SACC proposal to address the problems raised by the non-peer reviewed, non-objective paper. Pots and kettles, calling each other different colours. The proposal makes no effort whatsoever to make the positive case for the taxonomic proposal being reviewed and seems only intended to grandstand, flag-wave, criticize, express disgust and achieve an objective of having the work rejected.

Unfortunately, SACC has an illustrious and long history of trashing external works in one-sided, myopic, uninformative, often (as here) vitriolic, unpublicable proposals. In some cases, they have been proven wrong. See this (non-peer reviewed, self published) open letter:

Donegan TM 2019. On conflicts of interest, bias and deviations from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in a taxonomic committee, the South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithologists' Society: an analysis of previous cases, with recommendations for reform. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35777.51047
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Ornithologists'

4. That leaves the rest of us wondering what to do. I am sure the description leaves a lot to be desired; the conflict with molecular results is probably very informative. However, when I see pieces like this, and not knowing the birds at all, the only thing you can do is say "meh" and remain to be convinced either way. The SACC proposal ticks the box on pretty much every indicator of "pseudo-scepticism" discussed in the above-mentioned paper, continuing a long tradition of such SACC behaviour. That something is pseudosceptic does not make it incorrect. However, just like the description of lopezlanusi, there is no objective way for the reader to have any positive conclusions about such a piece.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 14:12   #20
andyadcock
Registered User
 
andyadcock's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK and Occasionally St Petersburg, Russia
Posts: 18,841
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasdonegan View Post
This paper and the SACC proposal illustrate various things which are broken in modern bird taxonomy practice.

1. It should be prohibited to name a new species after yourself (or in a way that achieves the same thing, e.g. for your parents). It's not prohibited in the Code, but it still remains the height of bad taste and bad manners, reflecting worst of all on the author. It also produces a conflict of interest: if the author so wants immortality, he may cast aside objectivity in analysing the taxonomic proposal.
I'm no scientist or taxonomist but this is exactly what I understood to be the case.
__________________
Andy A
andyadcock is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 14:23   #21
opisska
Jan Ebr
 
opisska's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Warszawa
Posts: 1,939
I have nothing to do with taxonomy, but maybe I could weigh in on the scientific process. These days, peer-review per se doesn't mean much, because the process is done in a badly organized and inefficient way. It is also quite hard to assess what should count as "good" publication and making a distinction between "online" and "printed" has been silly since the century started and nobody really cares anyway.

In the parts of science where I move about, the only reasonable measure of "good" science is the citations. I can imagine this can also be different in something like taxonomy where I can see a lot of valid research simply not attracting much attention, because there is a plenty of species and the research will be heavily fragmented and if you happen to study something that's not popular, you might find yourself ignored. Thus really the only way to go is independent replication - simply, taxonomical decisions should not be made based on a single work. After all, where is the harm from the decision being delayed a few years (unless the taxa in question are endangered and splitting would aid conservation, but that should be probably dealt with separately anyway).
__________________
Birds: world 2170, WP 565, gWP 602, bird photos | Mammals: 259, mammal photos | Herps: 103, herp photos
opisska is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 15:00   #22
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 343
For those who don't have RG access:

""pseudo-scepticism" may involve:
7. Denying, when only doubt has been established.
8. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof for counterclaims, e.g. counter-claims based on plausibility
rather than empirical evidence.
9. Asserting insufficiency of proof without explanation or specifying what the required standard is.
10. Implying that unconvincing evidence provides grounds for dismissing a claim.
11. Ad hominem attacks or double-standards.
12. Vitriolic tone.
13. False metaphors.
14. Contradiction with history or basic principles of science.
15. Non-specific or superficial commentaries.
16. Going straight to publication without giving those criticised the chance to respond or comment.
17. Aim not of finding the truth, but to discredit.
18. Ideological or faith-based interpretations (Truzzi 1987, Cabbolet 2016, Torcello 2016). "
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 15:27   #23
Neomorphus
Registered User

 
Join Date: Feb 2018
Location: nsa
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasdonegan View Post
This paper and the SACC proposal illustrate various things which are broken in modern bird taxonomy practice.

1. It should be prohibited to name a new species after yourself (or in a way that achieves the same thing, e.g. for your parents). It's not prohibited in the Code, but it still remains the height of bad taste and bad manners, reflecting worst of all on the author. It also produces a conflict of interest: if the author so wants immortality, he may cast aside objectivity in analysing the taxonomic proposal.

2. Peer review versus non-peer review, The original description here is self -published, without the rigour of the peer review process of journals. People discuss whether this should be allowed for naming organisms, but it remains possible under the Code. I am not convinced publication venues should be restricted too drastically. Whilst peer review generally means that only good papers tend to be published, many other good papers are sacrificed along the way, and many journals and reviewers are affected by conflicts of interest themselves. But there are a few instances now of self-publication creating serious problems, especially in herptiles and Canada Geese.

3. Questionable "medicine" being meted about by ornithologists, via SACC, to address these issues. We now have a non-peer reviewed, non-objective, chatty, vitriolic, entirely critical piece as a SACC proposal to address the problems raised by the non-peer reviewed, non-objective paper. Pots and kettles, calling each other different colours. The proposal makes no effort whatsoever to make the positive case for the taxonomic proposal being reviewed and seems only intended to grandstand, flag-wave, criticize, express disgust and achieve an objective of having the work rejected.

Unfortunately, SACC has an illustrious and long history of trashing external works in one-sided, myopic, uninformative, often (as here) vitriolic, unpublicable proposals. In some cases, they have been proven wrong. See this (non-peer reviewed, self published) open letter:

Donegan TM 2019. On conflicts of interest, bias and deviations from the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature in a taxonomic committee, the South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithologists' Society: an analysis of previous cases, with recommendations for reform. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.35777.51047
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Ornithologists'

4. That leaves the rest of us wondering what to do. I am sure the description leaves a lot to be desired; the conflict with molecular results is probably very informative. However, when I see pieces like this, and not knowing the birds at all, the only thing you can do is say "meh" and remain to be convinced either way. The SACC proposal ticks the box on pretty much every indicator of "pseudo-scepticism" discussed in the above-mentioned paper, continuing a long tradition of such SACC behaviour. That something is pseudosceptic does not make it incorrect. However, just like the description of lopezlanusi, there is no objective way for the reader to have any positive conclusions about such a piece.

You could defend the proposal with a NEW COMMENT if you feel so strongly.

I didn't think Krabbe was ever a SACC member btw (maybe I'm wrong?), and you seem to be ranting at him, as well as SACC, (NACC) and the A.O.U./ A.O.S. Is Bernabe Lopez-Lanus a friend of yours? Or what got the bee in your bonnet this time... just the mere mention of a SACC proposal on a new species?

I think the downfall of this paper is the lack of a diagnosis, as was the case in the two other new species descriptions by the same author, beyond all the other perceived problems whether or not they are admissible by the Code.
Neomorphus is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 15:37   #24
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neomorphus View Post
You could defend the proposal with a NEW COMMENT if you feel so strongly.
Presumably this is in jest. Not on good terms with that lot these days...! And anyway, I don't defend the description, I criticise the SACC proposal critique of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neomorphus View Post
I didn't think Krabbe was ever a SACC member btw (maybe I'm wrong?), and you seem to be ranting at him, as well as SACC, (NACC) and the A.O.U./ A.O.S. Is Bernabe Lopez-Lanus a friend of yours?
It's odd you would think that, as the message accuses BLL of doing something that is in bad taste and bad manners, conflicted and ought to be prohibited! [For what it's worth, I've met BLL a few times when he worked in Colombia over a decade ago, and corresponded extensively with NK in the past.]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neomorphus View Post
Or what got the bee in your bonnet this time.
(1) A description that should not have been published like that and (2) SACC yet again forgetting the "two wrongs don't make a right" mantra and repeating poor behaviours. I think that is clear, no?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neomorphus View Post
I think the downfall of this paper is the lack of a diagnosis, as was the case in the two other new species descriptions by the same author, beyond all the other perceived problems whether or not they are admissible by the Code.
OK.

Last edited by thomasdonegan : Friday 31st January 2020 at 15:40.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st January 2020, 17:01   #25
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 343
As above, don't support the description at all but ... going through that SACC proposal:

"Undoubtedly inspired by the splitting of Upucerthia saturatior from Upucerthia dumetaria (Areta and Pearman 2009), López-Lanús (2019) wrote a paper"
- Aim not of finding the truth, but to discredit.
- Ad hominem attack up front: making aspersions about past behaviour to discredit current proposal without addressing any of the facts.

"It is extremely tedious to work through the 34 pages of the paper. It almost seems as if the author has deliberately both convoluted and stretched the relevant data into a nearly unreadable form and then used a rare font (Agency FB) that makes one feel like being in a labyrinth."
- Vitriolic tone
- Non-specific or superficial commentaries.
- Relevant?

"It appears that the approach is to come up with possible ways of making data fit the initial theory (that two species are involved), rather than focusing on the likeliness of alternative explanations. "
- Vitriolic tone
- Speculation.
- Aim not of finding the truth, but to discredit.

"...the description of Cinclodes lopezlanusorum has not been through a critical reviewer process. Two anonymous reviewers are thanked in the acknowledgments section, but as the author and the editor are one and the same, there is no guarantee that the reviewers’ recommendations were followed. In fact, I strongly suspect that they were not."
- Accusation of dishonesty
- Speculation
- Aim not of finding the truth, but to discredit.
- Going straight to publication without giving those criticised the chance to respond or comment (you would have thought, speculating here!).

There is also some good information and interesting observations and proper critique in the SACC proposal by Krabbe, presenting helpful analytical discussions and the author's own experiences with this and related species, of course, but why does it let itself down with all the other stuff?

I call again to play the ball and not the man in taxonomic discourse!!
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Cinclodes, Patagonia opisska Bird Identification Q&A 2 Saturday 13th April 2013 10:36
Bar-winged Cinclodes Richard Klim Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 13 Thursday 18th March 2010 07:34
Cinclodes Help Robert D. Bird Identification Q&A 7 Wednesday 31st October 2007 10:56
What Cinclodes is this? nigelgharris Bird Identification Q&A 2 Tuesday 2nd November 2004 23:24

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24833298 seconds with 37 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14.