Latest IOC Diary Updates (7 Viewers)

opisska · Jun 20, 2020

andyadcock said:
June 12 Post proposed split of White-faced Plover C. dealbatus from Kentish Plover.

June 12 Post proposed split of Pale-faced Bulbul P. leucops from Flavescent Bulbul. (Borneo)

I'll make four all told, when Adam does his next Scythebill update B

You have White-faced Plover? Seems pretty hard, considering that "proper" Kentish overlaps with it and White-faced is rare (Chandler's Shorebirds of "Northern hemisphere" even says that it's not exactly known where it breeds) and looking at the pictures, one really needs a very good look to ID it.

Nutcracker · Jun 20, 2020

Mysticete said:
yeah no....regional authorities should have authority over the English names of the birds they cover within there territory.

I am surprised some of you are even suggesting otherwise, given how much you complain and moan about every attempt to change a European common name by global checklist.

Unless this is really just Anti-American bias rearing its head

No; it's about species concepts (whether some species should be split or not), not about English names. But it is surely not right that decisions on Old World taxa should be decided by NACC before IOC can accept them or not?

opisska said:
You have White-faced Plover? Seems pretty hard, considering that "proper" Kentish overlaps with it and White-faced is rare (Chandler's Shorebirds of "Northern hemisphere" even says that it's not exactly known where it breeds) and looking at the pictures, one really needs a very good look to ID it.

IIRC, its breeding area(s) have been discovered now, in southern China in a region well south of anywhere that Kentish breed, so it is geographically separated when breeding (though not in winter). Pretty sure the details are all in a thread somewhere in this section of Birdforum.

viator · Jun 20, 2020

opisska said:
You have White-faced Plover? Seems pretty hard, considering that "proper" Kentish overlaps with it and White-faced is rare (Chandler's Shorebirds of "Northern hemisphere" even says that it's not exactly known where it breeds) and looking at the pictures, one really needs a very good look to ID it.

Easy enough to see in Singapore in winter - I can walk from home to do so (although the closest site has been undergoing development making access a somewhat difficult). Easy to id when seen with the nearby Kentish which are usually at the same site in greater numbers.

Paul Clapham · Jun 20, 2020

Nutcracker said:
That's a rather curious way round? Surely the lead should come from the top (IOC), not from lower down (NACC / BOU / SACC / etc.)?

I wouldn't describe it that way. There are thousands of papers written each year about bird taxonomy; you could demand that they all be evaluated by a central authority, in fact it sounds like that's what you're arguing for. But often, as in other fields of human activity, it's better for things to be managed in smaller regions. (PS: I'm not a fan of Brexit either, let's not go there.)

And that's what we have in the Americas. We have committees which review and filter the taxonomic work which gets done in their area, and the world taxonomy writers can accept that as authoritative. Whereas in, say, Asia, they have a lot more work to do. Which is a pity really, what with all of the diversity which needs to be uncovered there.

However. There's a lot of proposals on the SACC site which are waiting for English names to be thought up for newly-discovered South American species. And since the IOC was brought into being in order to produce a list of English names for the birds of the world, it would make sense for them to get involved in that part of the SACC's proposals. I see that David Donsker has done that in the past and I think it's a good trend.

Andy Adcock · Jun 20, 2020

opisska said:
You have White-faced Plover? Seems pretty hard, considering that "proper" Kentish overlaps with it and White-faced is rare (Chandler's Shorebirds of "Northern hemisphere" even says that it's not exactly known where it breeds) and looking at the pictures, one really needs a very good look to ID it.

I never said I did, it's not that tough to see and lot more is known about it since 'Chandler', 2009.

Andy Adcock · Jun 20, 2020

Mysticete said:
yeah no....regional authorities should have authority over the English names of the birds they cover within there territory.

I am surprised some of you are even suggesting otherwise, given how much you complain and moan about every attempt to change a European common name by global checklist.

Unless this is really just Anti-American bias rearing its head

ALSO...FYI, the ABA and many new world birders do not follow IOC, but follow Clements for global checklist purposes. If they were going to give up taxonomic authority, it would be to that checklist, not to IOC. So any way you look at it, you are not going to get your wish.

It's not about names, it's about achieving a standard taxonomy instead of the mish-mash we have now.

Mysticete · Jun 20, 2020

Nutcracker said:
No; it's about species concepts (whether some species should be split or not), not about English names. But it is surely not right that decisions on Old World taxa should be decided by NACC before IOC can accept them or not?

The vast vast majority of decisions both SACC and NACC make concern species limited to that part of the world

And it's not about species concepts at all...by far most folks associated with bird taxonomy, with a few exceptions here and there, rely upon the biological species concept. It's just that in many cases, the criteria used to split species are subjective. How much hybridization is allowed? How distinct should the vocals or morphology be? How much evidence do we need? What are the formally published arguments? Assemble any committee from scientists and you will get drastically different opinions on what is needed for a species to be considered distinct. Trust me...as someone on a (nonbird) taxonomic committee, even straight forward decisions can get complicated fast.

That's incredibly obvious just looking at NACC and SACC votes, as controversial matters often have very divided votes. And even obvious things often have one or two dissenters. The reason there is variance is often a matter of different people on different committees, or lists being updated at different intervals. Not some sort of radically different species concept or criteria.

Andy Adcock · Jun 21, 2020

Mysticete said:
The vast vast majority of decisions both SACC and NACC make concern species limited to that part of the world

And it's not about species concepts at all...by far most folks associated with bird taxonomy, with a few exceptions here and there, rely upon the biological species concept. It's just that in many cases, the criteria used to split species are subjective. How much hybridization is allowed? How distinct should the vocals or morphology be? How much evidence do we need? What are the formally published arguments? Assemble any committee from scientists and you will get drastically different opinions on what is needed for a species to be considered distinct. Trust me...as someone on a (nonbird) taxonomic committee, even straight forward decisions can get complicated fast.

That's incredibly obvious just looking at NACC and SACC votes, as controversial matters often have very divided votes. And even obvious things often have one or two dissenters. The reason there is variance is often a matter of different people on different committees, or lists being updated at different intervals. Not some sort of radically different species concept or criteria.

This may be true of academia but more some authors are abandoning the BSC, the more endemics a region has, the more books will sell, making a region more attractive to tourism.

Aren't vocals and morphology just icing on the cake under the BSC, isn't is simply a matter of DNA difference, a minimum of c2.5%?

To be fair, most 'field' birders are pretty happy with any split as long as it's morphologically identifiable or at least vocally, as a second preference.

I'm past the point of caring about the taxonomic side, I just want a unified, naming system. As I've already said, there are relatively new splits which already have two names.

njlarsen · Jun 21, 2020

andyadcock said:
This may be true of academia but more some authors are abandoning the BSC, the more endemics a region has, the more books will sell, making a region more attractive to tourism.

Aren't vocals and morphology just icing on the cake under the BSC, isn't is simply a matter of DNA difference, a minimum of c2.5%?

To be fair, most 'field' birders are pretty happy with any split as long as it's morphologically identifiable or at least vocally, as a second preference.

I'm past the point of caring about the taxonomic side, I just want a unified, naming system. As I've already said, there are relatively new splits which already have two names.

Let us imagine for a second that there was a frozen taxonomy with a naming system in place. The way for someone to sell a new field guide would be to rename a few percent of the species included and therefore claim that this is a new and improved version. :-O

Best
Niels

D Halas · Jun 21, 2020

andyadcock said:
Aren't vocals and morphology just icing on the cake under the BSC, isn't is simply a matter of DNA difference, a minimum of c2.5%?

DNA difference has nothing to do directly with the BSC. There obviously has to be some DNA difference, in order for there to be some phenotypic difference between populations to stop them interbreeding, but the DNA difference between two good species under the BSC can be extremely small, so long as it prevents them interbreeding, and conversely there can be a fairly large DNA difference among populations of a single species, so long as the differences in DNA aren't at loci that affect how individuals recognize members of their own species.

Mysticete · Jun 21, 2020

andyadcock said:
This may be true of academia but more some authors are abandoning the BSC, the more endemics a region has, the more books will sell, making a region more attractive to tourism.

Aren't vocals and morphology just icing on the cake under the BSC, isn't is simply a matter of DNA difference, a minimum of c2.5%?

To be fair, most 'field' birders are pretty happy with any split as long as it's morphologically identifiable or at least vocally, as a second preference.

I'm past the point of caring about the taxonomic side, I just want a unified, naming system. As I've already said, there are relatively new splits which already have two names.

Authors can split whatever they want, but it doesn't mean scientific bodies, which is what taxonomic committees are, will accept them. A lot of Howell's suggestions from his original Mexican field guide still remain unaccepted, and just look at the recent hoofed mammal book. Nearly everyone criticizes that book with good reason.

Also I think you have the cart before the horse. If two populations are good biological species, than given time genetic differences will accrue. To get those differences however you need some sort of mechanism to prevent the populations from interbreeding, which in highly mobile birds is often related to differences in display or song. When those are not in effect, the populations will merge back together. This is what happened with "California" vs regular ravens, and looks to be the case with Northwestern vs American Crows.

Inversely, you can get good biological species with very little genetic differences (see finches, nest parasites, etc), and reproductive isolation can evolve very very fast if you have a key feature controlled by few genes or requiring little modification to create reproductive incompatibilities.

Nutcracker · Jun 22, 2020

Mysticete said:
... and reproductive isolation can evolve very very fast if you have a key feature controlled by few genes or requiring little modification to create reproductive incompatibilities.

I'd suspect if one got rid of all dogs except for Chihuahuas and Great Danes, they would be two effectively separate species unable to interbreed? :eek!:

JWN Andrewes · Jun 22, 2020

Nutcracker said:
I'd suspect if one got rid of all dogs except for Chihuahuas and Great Danes, they would be two effectively separate species unable to interbreed? :eek!:

No, love would find a way!!

Mysticete · Jun 22, 2020

Nutcracker said:
I'd suspect if one got rid of all dogs except for Chihuahuas and Great Danes, they would be two effectively separate species unable to interbreed? :eek!:

This is basically what keeps some pinniped species separate. Male South American Sea Lions will readily attempt to mate with South American Fur Seals. It just...doesn't end well for the female fur seal...

njlarsen · Jun 22, 2020

Mysticete said:
This is basically what keeps some pinniped species separate. Male South American Sea Lions will readily attempt to mate with South American Fur Seals. It just...doesn't end well for the female fur seal...

The same type of argument was included in the proposal to split Peruvian Pelican.

Niels

Mysticete · Jun 22, 2020

I can't imagine the body size difference is as extreme in the pelicans?

To put it in context, a male Sea lion can weight up to 350 kg. A female fur seal may only weight 30-60 kg. female fur seals understandably don't survive this experience....

opisska · Jun 22, 2020

Animals are weak. In human mating a lot is possible

Nutcracker · Jun 23, 2020

Mysticete said:
I can't imagine the body size difference is as extreme in the pelicans?

To put it in context, a male Sea lion can weight up to 350 kg. A female fur seal may only weight 30-60 kg. female fur seals understandably don't survive this experience....

And even if it did survive, presumably the developing pup would exceed the available exit hole and either die, or kill the mother at birth, or both?

njlarsen · Jun 23, 2020

Mysticete said:
I can't imagine the body size difference is as extreme in the pelicans?

To put it in context, a male Sea lion can weight up to 350 kg. A female fur seal may only weight 30-60 kg. female fur seals understandably don't survive this experience....

No, but a 2x difference in weight is still significant http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop271.htm

Andy Adcock · Jun 23, 2020

From Antwren to Stipplethroat, what's the rationale behind this one?

'July 21 Change English name of all Epinecrophylla species to Stipplethroat.'

Latest IOC Diary Updates (7 Viewers)

rabid twitcher

Stop Brexit!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Worst person on Birdforum

Worst person on Birdforum

Well-known member

Worst person on Birdforum

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Stop Brexit!

Poor Judge of Pasta.

Well-known member

Gallery Moderator

Well-known member

rabid twitcher

Stop Brexit!

Gallery Moderator

Worst person on Birdforum

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread