Unified taxonomy (1 Viewer)

In the discussion about Birds of the World merging with ebird and adopting Clements, I've seen comments favouring the idea of a single unified avian taxonomy.

The attraction of The One True List is obvious, but I wonder whether this is really a desirable goal? The simple reality is that species-level taxonomy is ultimately based on subjective opinion (even if objective data is used to support such opinion), and the idea that there should be a single "correct" taxonomy is not only flawed, but in a sense quite despotic.

There seems to be a sort of taxonomic Muller's Ratchet effect at the moment, as less and less distinct sub-species get hived-off and promoted to species level.

Even if it is messy, isn't it better to have a diversity of competing taxonomies making decisions independently, rather than seeking to align?

I agree. We currently have 4 separate global taxonomies taking 4 more or less distinct approaches. A split that is recognised by all 4 carries more weight for me psychologically than a split recognised by just one.
Get rid of 3 of the taxonomies and who knows what to think. Unless you’re a bona fide expert in bird speciation you will just have to go along.

Also, the existence of more radical/adventurous lists gives those of us who follow more conservative taxonomies a good heads up in terms of potential future armchair ticks.

Cheers
James

But with Cornell (eBird/Clements) now owning the HBW/Birdlife taxonomy it must be a cert that the two will have to combine. No easy task as the two are a long way apart, with IOC somewhere in the middle.

DMW said:

In the discussion about Birds of the World merging with ebird and adopting Clements, I've seen comments favouring the idea of a single unified avian taxonomy.

The attraction of The One True List is obvious, but I wonder whether this is really a desirable goal? The simple reality is that species-level taxonomy is ultimately based on subjective opinion (even if objective data is used to support such opinion), and the idea that there should be a single "correct" taxonomy is not only flawed, but in a sense quite despotic.

There seems to be a sort of taxonomic Muller's Ratchet effect at the moment, as less and less distinct sub-species get hived-off and promoted to species level.

Even if it is messy, isn't it better to have a diversity of competing taxonomies making decisions independently, rather than seeking to align?

Click to expand...

They should aim for a unified nomenclature more urgently.

Lists have one name and field guides another, even with newly split species. You'd think that authors and listing authorities would speak to each other before the publication of a new book, it would surely be in all our interests?

DMW said:

In the discussion about Birds of the World merging with ebird and adopting Clements, I've seen comments favouring the idea of a single unified avian taxonomy.

The attraction of The One True List is obvious, but I wonder whether this is really a desirable goal? The simple reality is that species-level taxonomy is ultimately based on subjective opinion (even if objective data is used to support such opinion), and the idea that there should be a single "correct" taxonomy is not only flawed, but in a sense quite despotic.

There seems to be a sort of taxonomic Muller's Ratchet effect at the moment, as less and less distinct sub-species get hived-off and promoted to species level.

Even if it is messy, isn't it better to have a diversity of competing taxonomies making decisions independently, rather than seeking to align?

Click to expand...

Completely agree. Differing opinions and discussion will lead to a better outcome in the long run.

DMW said:

The simple reality is that species-level taxonomy is ultimately based on subjective opinion (even if objective data is used to support such opinion)

Click to expand...

The part between brackets is an important condition! A considerable part of the differences between the 4 taxonomies is because not all have looked at the available objective data. Very simplified we could say that NACC/SACC (feeding Clements) exclusively looks at cases that are presented to them, IOC looks at (most) peer-reviewed papers and (HBW/)Birdlife also proactively looks at (some) cases even in the absence of published material.

I personally have no problem at all with different taxonomic treatments provided they are supported by clear arguments (on the contrary, this interestingly illustrates the cases in the 'grey zone'! SACC/NACC is best in terms of consultable argumentation, IOC weakest), but I have less understanding for the years of delay between availability of data and decision making. Even team members that work largely on a voluntary basis should be aware that with membership comes a responsibility.

This would be at least one reason to merge some taxonomic teams: if resources seemingly are too scarce to have an up to date taxonomy all the time, then maybe joining resources is the way to go.
Given this is apparently not considered, indicates reasons other than scientific ones are playing. They may be at the level of different opinions about criteria and procedures, which is still acceptable, but they may also be of a different nature...
Often I hear the argument 'evolution is a slow process, there is no need to take hurried decisions'. I can only say: knowledge about evolution is a fast process (look at what we have learnt the last 50 years!), and deliberately not using that knowledge is not to be applauded.

A few years ago 'working towards unification' was agreed. I assume this mainly meant: 'let's have a look at the differences, consult new available data and take a renewed decision independently' and 'if we have no clear arguments to have a different opinion, we can as well go for the same taxonomic treatment'. It probably meant less 'let's discuss our different opinions, and see if we can reach a single taxonomic treatment'. That first part seems like a no-brainer, but time has passed and progress is slow...

Unification of taxonomy IS pretty much the ultimate goal. All researchers aim to produce a unified, accepted scientific taxonomy. That it isn't yet has more to do with time, research focus, and the subjectivity of the process, with many issues being down to personal opinion.

However I would bet if you actually took a survey year by year of the different major checklists, you would see they are converging more than they are diverging.

Also, when I say unified taxonomy, I am only referring to scientific nomenclature and species boundaries. Convergence in English names is probably impossible. Common names are more about feelings and nostalgia than any sort of objective criteria. Although I guess you can say some divergence is even happening here, what with widespread species getting split and each population retaining its local name (Common Moorhen vs Common Gallinule, Northern Harrier vs Hen Harrier, etc).

Mysticete said:

Unification of taxonomy IS pretty much the ultimate goal. All researchers aim to produce a unified, accepted scientific taxonomy. That it isn't yet has more to do with time, research focus, and the subjectivity of the process, with many issues being down to personal opinion.

However I would bet if you actually took a survey year by year of the different major checklists, you would see they are converging more than they are diverging.

Also, when I say unified taxonomy, I am only referring to scientific nomenclature and species boundaries. Convergence in English names is probably impossible. Common names are more about feelings and nostalgia than any sort of objective criteria. Although I guess you can say some divergence is even happening here, what with widespread species getting split and each population retaining its local name (Common Moorhen vs Common Gallinule, Northern Harrier vs Hen Harrier, etc).

Click to expand...

This alone, has been the topic of seemingly partizan debate very recently, I thought science was supposed to be dispassionate? With the trend for eponymous naming having fallen by the wayside, perhaps this penchant for waxing lyrical in common names should be dropped too?

Northern Harrier v Hen Harrier or Common Moorhen v Common Gallinule aren't valid comparisons as many consider them seperate species. Better might be Boreal v Tengmalm's Owl or Lapland Bunting v Lapland Longspur and of course Loon v Diver.

andyadcock said:

This alone, has been the topic seemingly partizan debate very recently, I thought science was supposed to be dispassionate?

Click to expand...

Yeah... but once the scientists have got past the issue of scientific names, which is all hedged around with arcane rules, it often falls to them to provide vernacular names for the taxa they just described. Some of them are happy to oblige, and others dislike the task.

For example have a look at Recent Changes of the South American Classification Committee. The group has agreed on several taxonomic changes, but they haven't got around to providing English names to go with those changes. Of course I can't speak for any of the committee members but it does suggest reluctance, or uninterest, in that part of the job.

Paul Clapham said:

Yeah... but once the scientists have got past the issue of scientific names, which is all hedged around with arcane rules, it often falls to them to provide vernacular names for the taxa they just described. Some of them are happy to oblige, and others dislike the task.

For example have a look at Recent Changes of the South American Classification Committee. The group has agreed on several taxonomic changes, but they haven't got around to providing English names to go with those changes. Of course I can't speak for any of the committee members but it does suggest reluctance, or uninterest, in that part of the job.

Click to expand...

They also did not offer Dutch names, neither Chinese.
What are they doing?

Fred

Paul Clapham said:

Yeah... but once the scientists have got past the issue of scientific names, which is all hedged around with arcane rules, it often falls to them to provide vernacular names for the taxa they just described. Some of them are happy to oblige, and others dislike the task.

For example have a look at Recent Changes of the South American Classification Committee. The group has agreed on several taxonomic changes, but they haven't got around to providing English names to go with those changes. Of course I can't speak for any of the committee members but it does suggest reluctance, or uninterest, in that part of the job.

Click to expand...

Are you sure it isn't just a question of "democracy takes time"?

Niels

andyadcock said:

This alone, has been the topic seemingly partizan debate very recently, I thought science was supposed to be dispassionate? With the trend for eponymous naming having fallen by the wayside, perhaps this penchant for waxing lyrical in common names should be dropped too?

Northern Harrier v Hen Harrier or Common Moorhen v Common Gallinule aren't valid comparisons as many consider them seperate species. Better might be Boreal v Tengmalm's Owl or Lapland Bunting v Lapland Longspur and of course Loon v Diver.

Click to expand...

Naming vernacular names does not have really anything to do with Science. Even if some that eventually undertake that job/task are scientists.

andyadcock said:

This alone, has been the topic seemingly partizan debate very recently, I thought science was supposed to be dispassionate? With the trend for eponymous naming having fallen by the wayside, perhaps this penchant for waxing lyrical in common names should be dropped too?

Northern Harrier v Hen Harrier or Common Moorhen v Common Gallinule aren't valid comparisons as many consider them seperate species. Better might be Boreal v Tengmalm's Owl or Lapland Bunting v Lapland Longspur and of course Loon v Diver.

Click to expand...

Scientists are human beings. Pride has caused some very ugly scenes among scientists in the past ....

Niels

The best way to come up with new common names would be to ask the birding public for suggestions and have us vote to arrive at the winner. I'm serious. Since we are all going to have to use these names, it would be nice if we got to choose them rather than have the foibles of one or two authors foisted on us. This can be done for any language.

However, nomenclature isn't the issue at hand, but the framework within which taxonomic proposals are "accepted". Perhaps a popular voting system would work here, too? Having seen the voting for some SACC decisions, it would probably be no more arbitrary.

DMW said:

The best way to come up with new common names would be to ask the birding public for suggestions and have us vote to arrive at the winner. I'm serious. Since we are all going to have to use these names, it would be nice if we got to choose them rather than have the foibles of one or two authors foisted on us. This can be done for any language.

However, nomenclature isn't the issue at hand, but the framework within which taxonomic proposals are "accepted". Perhaps a popular voting system would work here, too? Having seen the voting for some SACC decisions, it would probably be no more arbitrary.

Click to expand...

I agree but who would decide the shortlist for the names to be voted on?

RafaelMatias said:

Naming vernacular names does not have really anything to do with Science. Even if some that eventually undertake that job/task are scientists.

Click to expand...

It does when the scientist involved will often decide upon the vernacular name as outlined above in other posts. How can what is a new species, have two common names already?

Here's just one example Pachycephala fulvotincta formerly under Common Golden Whistler. It's Rusty-breasted Whistler on the IOC yet it's Tenggara Whistler in the latest fieldguide.

I don't care which is used in this particular but please, just agree on one!

andyadcock said:

I agree but who would decide the shortlist for the names to be voted on?

Click to expand...

Nobody... invite submissions before a certain date, and so long as certain criteria are met (profanity, political, commercial promotion etc), every name proposed can be voted for.

Proposals should come with a short explanation describing the rationale for the name.

DMW said:

Nobody... invite submissions before a certain date, and so long as certain criteria are met (profanity, political, commercial promotion etc), every name proposed can be voted for.

Proposals should come with a short explanation describing the rationale for the name.

Click to expand...

So when we were in Borneo and the call went up for 'F****** Nicobar Pigeon!', that would be out then

DMW said:

The best way to come up with new common names would be to ask the birding public for suggestions and have us vote to arrive at the winner. I'm serious. Since we are all going to have to use these names, it would be nice if we got to choose them rather than have the foibles of one or two authors foisted on us. This can be done for any language.

However, nomenclature isn't the issue at hand, but the framework within which taxonomic proposals are "accepted". Perhaps a popular voting system would work here, too? Having seen the voting for some SACC decisions, it would probably be no more arbitrary.

Click to expand...

Look what happened the last time the public was asked to vote on something... o

James Eaton said:

Look what happened the last time the public was asked to vote on something... o

Click to expand...

I know, democracy is such a terrible idea! 8-P