New Clements checklist update (1 Viewer)

I am fairly sure the Clements checklist is geared towards birders, and not biologists.

Also, it is possible that the Cornell was concentrating on the NACC and SACC changes with this update, and perhaps will look concentrate on other regions for the next go around.

Although I agree, field guides (or for that matter any non peer-reviewed book) are bad things to base your taxonomy on.

I agree that fieldguide taxonomy can leave a lot to be desired but I regard the Rasmussen southern Asia guide - and the second volume - rather more seriously as Pamela is a proper taxonomist and makes many sensible changes tha do deserve serious consideration.

Personally I have more faith in what she proposes than many of the splits in the Konig owls book.

Steve

Mr. Philippe:
Why could dichrous be invalid? Is it not the oldest name for those birds out on the pacific islands and atolls? The book that described dichrous in 1867 was called Fauna Centralpolynesiens Ornithologie des Viti- Samoa- und Tonga-Inseln. Later Finsch named P. dichrous for the birds around Palau: Zur Ornithologie der Siidsee-Inseln. I. Die Vogel der Palau-Gruppe. 1875 Journ. Mus. Godeffroy. The name bailloni is older but does it describe those birds. Austin, Pasquet et al 2004 and Olney & Scofield 2007 use dichrous to describe the Pacific birds (s.sp.?) of the Tropical Shearwater, P. bailloni correct? What am I missing?
M

mb1848 said:

Why could dichrous be invalid?

Click to expand...

I read lately that dichrous should be replaced by the younger name polynesiae. However I do not remember where I read that and what was the reason given by the author. I amended my checklist accordingly, so it certainly was from a reliable source. I hope I will find it soon and let you know.

Steve Lister said:

I agree that fieldguide taxonomy can leave a lot to be desired but I regard the Rasmussen southern Asia guide - and the second volume - rather more seriously as Pamela is a proper taxonomist and makes many sensible changes tha do deserve serious consideration.

Personally I have more faith in what she proposes than many of the splits in the Konig owls book.

Click to expand...

Few people know more about owls than König and many of his recent - and earlier - findings may well end up being proven (though I agree entirely with SACC in that the argument for Glaucidium sicki is questionable). And that is also the case with the south Asia guide splits. On that level, the two works are entirely comparable. Nevertheless, in the south Asia guide they often provided less evidence than what was provided for some of the splits suggested in the Ecuador guide by Ridgely & Greenfield. Indeed, in some cases the south Asia guide barely provided more evidence than what was presented for certain splits in Birds of Africa south of the Sahara by Sinclair & Ryan. In their region, these people are at level with Rasmussen. However, as Rasmussen knows well (considering her work with e.g. AOU), you do not (at least not in scientific circles) get scientific ideas accepted based on your position, but based on the evidence you provide.

Mysticete said:

The grouping of subspecies groups is interesting, although personally I think if you can group them so, we should just consider them new species

Click to expand...

Why do they often use a subspecies name that is not the name of the eldest taxon of the group ?

For instance for the Red-eyed Vireo, the sequence is:

species Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo
group Vireo olivaceus olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo (Red-eyed)
group Vireo olivaceus [griseobarbatus Group] Red-eyed Vireo (resident Chivi)
subspecies Vireo olivaceus caucae
subspecies Vireo olivaceus griseobarbatus
subspecies Vireo olivaceus pectoralis
subspecies Vireo olivaceus solimoensis
subspecies Vireo olivaceus vividior
subspecies Vireo olivaceus tobagensis
subspecies Vireo olivaceus agilis
group Vireo olivaceus [chivi Group] Red-eyed Vireo (migratory Chivi)
subspecies Vireo olivaceus diversus
subspecies Vireo olivaceus chivi

Which means, if I understand correctly, that V. o. agilis (M. H. K. Lichtenstein, 1823) belongs in the [griseobarbatus Group]; however V. o. griseobarbatus (Berlepsch & Taczanowski, 1883) is younger.

Daniel Philippe said:

Why do they often use a subspecies name that is not the name of the eldest taxon of the group ?

Click to expand...

Such mistakes would be much less likely if authors and dates were included. There is plenty of unused space available within the print layout adopted - Dickinson/H&M manages to include this information (plus footnotes/references) within a smaller page size & lighter overall weight.

A similar error (although not associated with the latest update) that would have been obvious if dates were listed is the inclusion of ssp stracheyi (1856) within Emberiza godlewskii (1874) [stracheyi is more usually retained within E cia].

Richard

I've been looking over the list over the last few days, and have been reading all the posts here. I have to agree this latest revision is like a duplicate AOU list. I was always impressed with Clements' (or Clements's?) approach. He always seemed to try to balance all authorities in his decisions. He certainly did adopt the Sibley & Monroe classification quickly. The AOU resisted it. Ironically, Clements moved away from that about the time the AOU did make some moves toward S&M. The Cornell approach is a sharp departure.

Another thing already stated by many above that I have to agree with was what an exercise in lumping this update was. I know a lot of people who this will hurt!

That does bring up one other point, though. It's been suggested this is aimed mainly at recreational listing birders. Well, perhaps, but aren't most checklists really of more interest to the birder than to the ornithologist? Most ornithologists I've known have their area of special expertise and are not so concerned by checklist order, and what level any particular form is treated as--species, subspecies, variety. (The obvious exceptions being those whose area of expertise is taxonomoy & nomenclature.) Yes, more citations would be desirable, but Clements was an ornithologist, and the team now responsible for it are also ornithologists and they are surely aware of studies out there. I do hope, however, that when (I hope it is *when* and not *if*) they deal with areas beyond the Americas, they do pay some attention to authorities of those areas. A complaint I have with Americans in general is they are way too self-focused and are unaware of the rest of the world. American birders are much better in this respect than other Americans, but that navel gazing seems to be a bit inherent in their psyche.

Cheers,

Rob

I can't remember where I read it, but apparently the next update is going to tackle and largely focus on changes in taxonomy for Asian birds. So, it might just be that the the choice of talking the New World first gave the checklist an "overally" American feel.

As far as being overly self-concerned, I don't think that is the case so much as the AOU is very very conservative in approach. As explained to me by one of my former ornithology professors, checklist committee members get elected "for life" (or at least as long as they want to participate), and get to choose there own successors. That leads to an easily abused system, and one reason why the AOU is both conservative and overly dedicated to the BSC, which explains apprehension on recognizing splits in the Herring Gull complex and other groups.

Groups

I’ve started to review the ‘groups’ defined by Cornell in V6.3 of the Clements Checklist.

My understanding from the example (Junco hyemalis) given in the overview of the latest updates is that any subspecies records listed immediately following a group record are members of that group.

Where a group is monotypic, a single record identifies the group and subspecies. But there is inconsistency in the presentation of polytypic groups. Often there is a separate group definition record, followed by a record for each member subspecies (including the nominate). But in many other cases the group nominate subspecies record also serves as the group definition record, eg Branta bernicla bernicla, B hutchinsii minima, Melanitta fusca deglandi, Mergus merganser merganser, Cyrtonyx montezumae montezumae & C m sallei etc etc.

The presentation of group scientific names is unnecessarily cumbersome, and takes three forms:

• the obvious trinomial ‘Genus species subspecies’ for monotypic groups (and for polytypic groups in those cases where a separate group record has not been provided)
• ‘Genus species subspecies1/subspecies2’ for groups with two subspecies
• ‘Genus species [subspecies Group]’ for other polytypic groups

It would be clearer and more scientific and consistent to simply use the trinomial of the senior subspecies in all cases.

A quick check of the first part of the checklist reveals a rather confused and unreliable picture. A few examples:

• Group Anser albifrons flavirostris is followed by subspecies gambelli (H&M3/HBW/BNA: gambeli), albifrons & frontalis, suggesting that they are members of that group. Presumably they should belong to an unnamed group, A a albifrons.
  
• Group Branta hutchinsii minima is followed by subspecies asiatica. Part of group minima? (If asiatica is recognised, possibly better grouped with leucopareia?)
  
• Subspecies Cyrtonix montezumae mearnsi is listed after species C montezumae but before group C m montezumae. Presumably it should be a member of that group. [PS Just noticed that this particular problem is rectified in spreadsheet V6.3.2 (Dec 2008)]
• Group Puffinus lherminieri dichrous apparently includes subspecies bailloni (senior).
  
• Phaethon lepturus includes two named groups, but subspecies lepturus, fulvus & europae are listed immediately after the species record (so presumably comprising an implicit group P l lepturus).
  
• Group Phalacrocorax carbo novaehollandiae is followed by subspecies sinensis, hanedae, maroccanus & lucidus, suggesting that they are members of that group. Presumably they belong to an unnamed group, P c carbo.

While such grouping may be a good idea in principle, this version would clearly benefit from further careful review, particular of the formatting employed.

Richard

For Anser albifrons, the taxon that is singled out there is the Tule Goose (elgasi), which appears to fall somewhat outside the main trends of geographical variation in the species, if memory serves me well. The Greenland/Siberian dichotomy is a quite typically European view, I think - has a lot to do with us seeing only the two extremes of the geographical variation (i.e., Greenland is the easternmost taxon, Siberian is the westernmost, the taxa in between never reach us).

For Phalacrocorax carbo, there is a named Ph. c. carbo group, that includes only the nominate race. Thus here the dichotomy could be between the Atlantic, mainly marine taxon and all the others, that are largely fresh water birds. But indeed, if so, the fresh water group should obviously be called sinensis, not novaehollandiae.

On the other hand, I'm not actually sure that these 'groups' are really intended as reciprocally exclusive subdivisions of species - at least not in their current implementation. I.e., very often a single race is flagged as a 'group', but this doesn't seem to have necessary implications about the others races that precede or follow in the list forming one (or more) 'groups'.

L -

l_raty said:

For Anser albifrons, the taxon that is singled out there is the Tule Goose (elgasi)...

Click to expand...

Flavirostris is also singled out as a group. But the other ssps are left 'in between'. [Incidentally, I'm not generally commenting on the validity of particular groups, just the method of their definition within the checklist.]

l_raty said:

For Phalacrocorax carbo, there is a named Ph. c. carbo group, that includes only the nominate race. Thus here the dichotomy could be between the Atlantic, mainly marine taxon and all the others, that are largely fresh water birds. But indeed, if so, the fresh water group should obviously be called sinensis, not novaehollandiae.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

l_raty said:

On the other hand, I'm not actually sure that these 'groups' are really intended as reciprocally exclusive subdivisions of species - at least not in their current implementation. I.e., very often a single race is flagged as a 'group', but this doesn't seem to have necessary implications about the others races that precede or follow in the list forming one (or more) 'groups'.

Click to expand...

I came to the same conclusion. My concern is that the current loose and varied structuring within the spreadsheet does not always allow a user to come to an unambiguous understanding of the intended grouping (without a priori knowledge of the taxa concerned).

Richard

Richard Klim said:

I’ve started to review the ‘groups’ defined by Cornell in V6.3 of the Clements Checklist.

Richard

Click to expand...

Richard,

I just want to make sure you are using the latest version 6.3.2 - posted within the last couple days.

There were a lot of revisions made to groups between 6.3 and 6.3.2 as a result of comments made by users (or potential users).

Unfortunately, I do not have access at the moment, so I cannot tell if any of your issues were resolved.

SteveO43 said:

Richard,

I just want to make sure you are using the latest version 6.3.2 - posted within the last couple days.

Click to expand...

Steve,

Yes, I noticed the availability of 6.3.2 shortly after my posting - and updated it to acknowledge the correction of the Cyrtonix montezumae problem. Good to see that some of these teething problems are being swiftly addressed.

Richard

Richard Klim said:

Steve,
Good to see that some of these teething problems are being swiftly addressed.

Richard

Click to expand...

However, I received notification from Tom Schulenberg that additional changes will have to wait until the next update - and I am not sure of the current schedule for that.

Tom is receptive to constructive comments, and I am sure that they will be incorporated in the future.

Clements families - updated

Murray Lord said:

There are a few errors in that list, with a couple of families appearing more than once.

Also the summary of changes does not appear to show that gulls and terns have been merged into one family, as have grouse, turkeys, pheasants and guineafowl (unless they were done in previous updates and I missed them). Those former families are all shown as subfamilies in the spreadsheet.

So I think the family level changes are:

• split barbets into 4 families
• split antpittas from antthrushes
• add crescentchests
• add sharpbill (having lumped them in a supplement to the previous edition)
• add tityridae
• add donacobius
• add cnemophiline birds of paradise
• lump sapayoa into broadbills (a crushing blow to the Panamanian tourist industry, that one)
• lump gulls and terns
• lump the four families mentioned above into a broader family of pheasants and related birds

Other birds have been moved around (eg Pittasoma antpittas).

By my count there are now 207 extant listed families (plus dodos).

Click to expand...

When I posted this I overlooked that they had also lumped Skimmers in with Gulls and Terns. So it's 206 extant families plus dodos.

The first version of the spreadsheet that they posted in November incorrectly lumped screamers with waterfowl but that was an error that has now been corrected in the December version.