-
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.
Four World Checklists compared. (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter jmorlan
- Start date
MJB
Well-known member
The statement about the separation of Lesser and Margelanic Whitethroat being accepted only by Clements isn't quite right. IOC9.1 does split, but places margelanica under S. minula...
The trouble with such comparisons is that they are outdated almost immediately. For example, the likely inevitable adoption of Curruca as the genus to which most Sylvia warblers belong...:eek!:
MJB
Larry Sweetland
Formerly 'Larry Wheatland'
Interesting stuff. I guess the most interesting list from a rabid lister's perspective, would be a list of all accepted species, with a letter or number after each species denoting each authority that accepts it.....updated each time any of the 4 lists are updated!
Acrocephalus
Well-known member
That’s the exact approach adopted by the late Richard Klim in his Holarctic Checklist. He included all major international checklists plus a number of regional ones as well (e.g. Dutch Birding,…). I still have the last updated list in my PC.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
I can barely keep up with one list!
Peter Boesman
Well-known member
The author suggests in his introduction that differences in the taxonomies at species level are the result of differences in opinion of the scientists.
This is only part of the truth.
If one would categorize the species differences as follows:
1. Different taxonomies have looked at the same published information and reached different conclusions. (This can be because of different criteria, or simply because a vote within each taxonomic team was slightly different)
2. Different taxonomies did not use the same published information, and as a consequence have a different result. (This can be as simple as recently published information which one taxonomy has looked at, another not (yet). It may however also be that a taxonomic team expects a formal proposal before looking at the case, a peer-reviewed paper as such doesn't trigger an action. Etc.)
3. Some taxonomies have not looked at the case for ages because there has not been a peer-reviewed publication, and as a consequence result is different (This can be because there is information publicly available, but it has not been published in a peer-reviewed paper. I believe only HBW/Birdlife took initiative here (?)).
Unfortunately, my bet is that case 2+3 are the majority of differences. The famous backlog, which is much bigger in some taxonomies than in others…
This is only part of the truth.
If one would categorize the species differences as follows:
1. Different taxonomies have looked at the same published information and reached different conclusions. (This can be because of different criteria, or simply because a vote within each taxonomic team was slightly different)
2. Different taxonomies did not use the same published information, and as a consequence have a different result. (This can be as simple as recently published information which one taxonomy has looked at, another not (yet). It may however also be that a taxonomic team expects a formal proposal before looking at the case, a peer-reviewed paper as such doesn't trigger an action. Etc.)
3. Some taxonomies have not looked at the case for ages because there has not been a peer-reviewed publication, and as a consequence result is different (This can be because there is information publicly available, but it has not been published in a peer-reviewed paper. I believe only HBW/Birdlife took initiative here (?)).
Unfortunately, my bet is that case 2+3 are the majority of differences. The famous backlog, which is much bigger in some taxonomies than in others…
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
I agree with Peter.
We discussed this issue at length from a S American perspective at pp36-40 of this paper:
http://www.proaves.org/wp-content/u...-y-Splits-Conservacion-Colombiana-23-3-48.pdf
Even taking into account the "scoring system" of HBW, the biggest difference between committees can be analysed in terms of proactiveness (which can be looked at from a 'glass half empty' perspective as laziness). But in fact, they are all pretty much the same in coming to a list and being broadly very poor at updating that when new research comes along. All of them....
The least proactive of them all is H&M, in the sense that it is published irregularly on paper, although that may change in future.
The most questionable of them all from a birder and conservationist perspective - in terms of the committee wasting huge amounts of time and proposals on utter trivia (vernacular name hyphens, subfamilies, splitting hairs on Latin name spellings etc) whilst being essentially pretty lazy on more pressing issues (e.g. peer reviewed papers proposing changes to species limits) is AOU, and especially SACC.
The laziest of them all - in terms of online lists - are then Clements, who wait for the rather priority-misguided SACC or annually updated NACC before acting themselves.
IOC are the best at keeping up to date with latest papers. However, it's quite odd and entirely inconsistent, when you think of all the edgy calls and novel taxonomies that IOC took up when originally established, that they have essentially ignored HBW splits and called their list sacrosanct on that front.
And it's not like HBW have done a good job at all at correcting the multiple unjustifiable splits in their list that have been widely written about in groups such as Ramphastos, Aulacorhynchus, Coeligena and Oxyura. Again, they came to a final list and when that has been shown to be wrong, continue to cling to unjustified dodgy splits in the same way that SACC [and, therefore, by extension H&M and Clements] have such a strong track record of clinging desperately to unjustified dodgy lumps.
When looked at in those terms, all the lists suffer from too much pride in a product as at a particular point in time and a lack of openness or energy to do the best possible job at keeping a rational taxonomy, in all cases hiding behind spurious arguments about either being conservative or waiting for new data (or in the case of "the rest vs HBW", attacking the process as a tool conveniently to ignore the mostly correct outcomes). Promoting conservatism in checklists is promoting irrationality since it promotes ignoring new published research or new ideas. We have a situation where IOC, for example, broadly accepted most field guide splits when established but has broadly rejected all HBW splits which have the same status. It is difficult to come up with a rationale for that.
We really need one checklist, not four, which has its sole mission of promoting rationality and currency based on latest research, analysed on an objective basis. Currently, efforts are split across unnecessarily numerous incompletely updated and sub-optimal taxonomies, which serves no one any good.
We discussed this issue at length from a S American perspective at pp36-40 of this paper:
http://www.proaves.org/wp-content/u...-y-Splits-Conservacion-Colombiana-23-3-48.pdf
Even taking into account the "scoring system" of HBW, the biggest difference between committees can be analysed in terms of proactiveness (which can be looked at from a 'glass half empty' perspective as laziness). But in fact, they are all pretty much the same in coming to a list and being broadly very poor at updating that when new research comes along. All of them....
The least proactive of them all is H&M, in the sense that it is published irregularly on paper, although that may change in future.
The most questionable of them all from a birder and conservationist perspective - in terms of the committee wasting huge amounts of time and proposals on utter trivia (vernacular name hyphens, subfamilies, splitting hairs on Latin name spellings etc) whilst being essentially pretty lazy on more pressing issues (e.g. peer reviewed papers proposing changes to species limits) is AOU, and especially SACC.
The laziest of them all - in terms of online lists - are then Clements, who wait for the rather priority-misguided SACC or annually updated NACC before acting themselves.
IOC are the best at keeping up to date with latest papers. However, it's quite odd and entirely inconsistent, when you think of all the edgy calls and novel taxonomies that IOC took up when originally established, that they have essentially ignored HBW splits and called their list sacrosanct on that front.
And it's not like HBW have done a good job at all at correcting the multiple unjustifiable splits in their list that have been widely written about in groups such as Ramphastos, Aulacorhynchus, Coeligena and Oxyura. Again, they came to a final list and when that has been shown to be wrong, continue to cling to unjustified dodgy splits in the same way that SACC [and, therefore, by extension H&M and Clements] have such a strong track record of clinging desperately to unjustified dodgy lumps.
When looked at in those terms, all the lists suffer from too much pride in a product as at a particular point in time and a lack of openness or energy to do the best possible job at keeping a rational taxonomy, in all cases hiding behind spurious arguments about either being conservative or waiting for new data (or in the case of "the rest vs HBW", attacking the process as a tool conveniently to ignore the mostly correct outcomes). Promoting conservatism in checklists is promoting irrationality since it promotes ignoring new published research or new ideas. We have a situation where IOC, for example, broadly accepted most field guide splits when established but has broadly rejected all HBW splits which have the same status. It is difficult to come up with a rationale for that.
We really need one checklist, not four, which has its sole mission of promoting rationality and currency based on latest research, analysed on an objective basis. Currently, efforts are split across unnecessarily numerous incompletely updated and sub-optimal taxonomies, which serves no one any good.
Last edited:
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
In regard to HBW splits, It's very easy as a layman, to be sceptical of the rafts of splits we get that seem to coincide with a book release, it all seems a bit cash driven maybe?
'incompletely updated' lists, Who has the man power, the sheer number of qualified people, to work to the exact same criteria and who would keep an eye on those criteria being consistently applied?
What is the 'optimal' taxonomy, has that ever, even been agreed on, isn't it in fact why we have so many conflicting lists?
'incompletely updated' lists, Who has the man power, the sheer number of qualified people, to work to the exact same criteria and who would keep an eye on those criteria being consistently applied?
What is the 'optimal' taxonomy, has that ever, even been agreed on, isn't it in fact why we have so many conflicting lists?
Agreed. But in practice that would just lead to another list, five "standards" instead of four to chose from.
Here at BirdForum the Opus section uses a complex consensus system of taxonomy between three major lists, Clements, IOC and H&M4. This system has become somewhat unwieldy as there are significant areas where there is no consensus at all. E.g. try to come up with a consensus list of Middle American screech-owls. We have considered adopting just one list which would make our lives much easier but I think there is fear that any change would alienate a good percentage of our contributors no matter which list was chosen.
Attachments
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
I think this point is over-played by checklist operators as an excuse. I have been involved in the Colombian checklist (over 1900 species) for a while and have a full time job doing something else as do other contributors. We manage broadly to keep up to date. Sometimes we get things wrong, sometimes we reverse changes but most of them stick.
Speaking for S America, the list of "not done" SACC proposals is here. If you export to XL and filter for "species limits" you get 87 entries.
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCProposalDoList.htm
There are 10 committee members, so that's 8-9 proposals each. I have written a number of SACC proposals: arguably largely a waste of time but gives some basis for the following comment. On a full-time equivalent basis, I would have thought writing 9 proposals is probably about 3 days' work. It involves a short summary of a paper and minor literature search. Supposedly those involved are experts.
To illustrate what actually happened last year, in 2018, they were 47 SACC proposals. 24 were on species limits issues. The other half (23) were on "other stuff". Of the ten committee members, only three of them (Remsen 1, Stiles 4, Pacheco 1) authored any proposals on species limits. The others (18) were by external authors and 4 of those were rejected. A large batch of splits from 2017 is "up for rejection" still with no outcome:
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop754.htm
Some of these splits are supported by multiple published studies, at least one of them has been around and widely accepted for decades, yet the instinct on the part of several committee members is to be as lazy and/or hostile as possible, to ignore the large body of literature that supports some of these proposals and come up with a daft reason of principle to say "no". Just to show what a hardcore stickler for detail people are, surely not to make a better list.
So to summarise, 7 of 10 persons who are part of possibly the most widely cited publication in Neotropical ornithology (the SACC list) saw fit to author no proposals on species limits; and some of that number saw fit to essentially ignore or vote down without thinking about an important 2017 set of proposals.
Everyone leads busy lives of course.
Meanwhile, Clements and H&M and in fact the publishers of our latest Colombia field guide regard SACC as some sort of golden record and demand that everyone follows their (in some cases) 1970s taxonomies.
Last edited:
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist
I would refer you to Peter's comment on this - actual differences of view apply only in a handful of borderline situations. American Herring Gull, Hooded Crow and Green-winged Teal are genuine examples of controversies where the facts and data are resplendent but can be interpreted in different ways, but those are outliers in my view. In reality, none of the "big lists" apply PSC concepts actively - now that BOU are defunct. Universal BSC methods also reduce scope for real conflicts, although that situation is itself noteworthy.
Last edited:
jurek
Well-known member
My feeling is that the differences are more related on how close is the list to a birding/conservation community and how interested it is to produce maximum splitting and general fuss.
On the far side of this spectrum is Dutch Birding list of West Palearctic birds which every years seems to find new differences.
(Another topic is whether majority of birders really care about new splits, and whether splitting extra species genuinely helps conservation of their habitats. My impression is not much. However, since the cost of producing a split or a difference is very low, then proposing a split is almost always a good idea).
On the far side of this spectrum is Dutch Birding list of West Palearctic birds which every years seems to find new differences.
(Another topic is whether majority of birders really care about new splits, and whether splitting extra species genuinely helps conservation of their habitats. My impression is not much. However, since the cost of producing a split or a difference is very low, then proposing a split is almost always a good idea).
awiner
Well-known member
It most definitely makes a difference in bird tour itineraries. "We will spend a day visiting an island with 5 endemic subspecies" vs. "We will spend a day visiting an island with 5 endemic species" is a very different thing.
Andy Adcock
Worst person on Birdforum
Correct Adam and as stated many times by myself and others, it also sells books.
Last edited:
