Richard Klim
-------------------------
Away birding for the last month, but just noticed that the latest IOC update (V1.7) is now available at http://www.worldbirdnames.org
Richard
Richard
-
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.
IOC World Bird List V1.7 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
colonelboris
Right way up again
Anyone else in the UK feel mildly miffed when looking at this list?
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
A very thorough job was performed by David Matson and Dave Sargeant to compare the IOC list vs Clements (6e) – see the above website.
Do you know whether somebody has embarked on a similar work between the IOC and H&M 3 lists ?
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Daniel, I've not encountered such a comparison - it would be very useful.
But presumably Gill, Wright and colleagues must have generated such a cross-reference during the preparation of the IOC list, given that the introduction states: "it supplements the third edition (Dickinson 2003) of Howard and Moore's (H&M) Checklist of the Birds of the World. ... we adopted H&M as the taxonomic reference for this work."
Richard
PS Does anyone have an update on when H&M 4 is expected to appear?
PPS Sally, Frank - belated apologies for missing, and therefore unnecessarily duplicating, your original timely announcement (3 weeks earlier!) of the release of V1.7.
Last edited:
Acanthis
Well-known member
I find the ordering of the species in Fringillidae in this list perplexing. |
|
It looks to me as if the whole of Euphonia/Chlorophonia has been randomly 'shovelled' into the middle of the carduelines. Plus Drepanidae is treated as a separate family. Fair enough, but surely they're closer to the regular carduelines than say the Chaffinches or Euphonias.
|It looks to me as if the whole of Euphonia/Chlorophonia has been randomly 'shovelled' into the middle of the carduelines. Plus Drepanidae is treated as a separate family. Fair enough, but surely they're closer to the regular carduelines than say the Chaffinches or Euphonias.
Take a look at http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline11.html (search for Euphonia within page), and look at footnote 1. More details in http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop29.html. This only covers South America, of course.
Niels
Niels
Mysticete
Well-known member
Out of curiosity, does the IOC list in general "miff" you, or is it something particular about this update. If it's this update, what changes are there you don't like. As a predominantly ABA area birder, I am unlikely to notice significant changes to European bird names that might vex others.
Richard Klim
-------------------------
From a European perspective, the most relevant name changes in V1.7 are the re-instatement of the traditional Eastern (rather than Asian) Imperial Eagle for Aquila heliaca, and Long-tailed Tit (rather than Bushtit) for Aegithalos caudatus. There was no way that the latter would ever find general acceptance!
So although some of the originally proposed names were rather strange (eg Roughleg, Common Black-headed Gull, Stone Chat, Madeiracrest), the IOC team appears to be quite responsive to criticism/suggestions.
Of course it will never be possible to keep everyone happy with decisions on perennial clashes such as goosander/merganser, diver/loon, skua/jaeger, guillemot/murre etc. Maybe they could alternate on a 10-year cycle...
Richard
Acanthis
Well-known member
Thanks Niels,
I accept they ought to be placed in Fringillidae and at least for the time being should be in their own subfamily. But I've seen no published justification for placing them in the centre of what I believe is a well supported canary/goldfinch clade.
Acanthis
Well-known member
Pity. I liked it as a group name. Though it would've taken me a fair amount of brain-retraining for it to stick when referring to our local european birds.
l_raty
laurent raty
I concur - they should at the very least appear ahead of the canaries in the present sequence.
(Although this would at best make the sequence marginally more correct, in fact... There is no "well supported clade" grouping only the canaries and golfinches to the exclusion of other carduelines - the clade that has a good support also [unambiguously] includes Loxia, as well as [most likely - this is currently based on the results of a single research group] Linurgus and Rhodospiza. And these genera are currently spread all over the cardueline finches...)
Acanthis
Well-known member
Laurent
Here's an interesting Fringillidae list with some recent changes based on research by Nguembock et al:
http://jboyd.net/Taxo/List29.html#fringillidae
I haven't read the paper yet as it's still 'in press' but here's the reference anyway:
Nguembock, B., J. Fjeldså, A. Couloux, and E. Pasquet (2008), Molecular phylogeny of Carduelinae (Aves, Passeriformes, Fringillidae) proves polyphyletic origin of the genera Serinus and Carduelis and suggests redefined generic limits, Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=0d814638479fd8fe13e9aabd2cf3f7f6
Orchidzrule
Member
Perhaps surprisingly, I, as an ABA area birder, rather like many of the European names. Goosander is wonderful, diver is certainly acceptable, and I'm totally at home with either guillemot & murre. Now calling Bank Swallow, Riparia riparia (Latin for bank), a "Sand Martin" *IS* an abomination! <grin>
Cheers,
Rob
colonelboris
Right way up again
I'm also a little sceptical of the use of 'red' where we would use 'rufous' in some instances - despite what TV would have us believe, the majority of Americans can understand what rufous means, so I can't see why they feel the need to change it.
l_raty
laurent raty
I've always presumed it was the opposite - i.e., 'rufous' a mainly American English word, that could cause problems to European English-speakers...
Is this incorrect?
(This word is certainly much, much more frequent in American bird names than in Old World bird names. And some of the OW bird names that include it, such as 'Rufous-tailed Shrike', I suspect were actually coined by Sibley & Monroe - i.e., Americans...)
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Perhaps splitting hairs, but 'red' and 'rufous' are anyway not strictly interchangeable. 'Rufous' means reddish, rather than red, and is most often used to describe reddish-brown (or brownish-red!).
Also, I think it's a little unfair to imply that the IOC World Bird List has been created for (or by) Americans - many of the 28 contributing committee members are from Europe and elsewhere.
Richard
Mysticete
Well-known member
Hah, I am exactly the opposite. I am fine with Sand Martin and Gray Plover for instance, but completely HATE the term Diver, since it's so bland and would fit so many other bird groups. Goosander just strikes me as incredibly bizarre.
l_raty
laurent raty
Agreed - in theory, at least. But in practice, very many birds are called 'red' (kite, grouse, phalarope...), or 'red-'something (-headed, -crested, -throated, -breasted, -tailed, -rumped, -flanked, etc...), while they do not show any real red in their plumage (but rather, arguably, rufous).
I can find 'russet' and 'rusty' in the two French-English dictionaries I have at hand (Harrap's and Larousse - both European, but not 'big ones'); but 'rufous' is absent from both. Does this word appear in genuine British English dictionaries?
Laurent -
Similar threads
