• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Lynx joins with Cornell (1 Viewer)

Not sure if this solves your subspecies problem but there is a checkbox for showing subspecies on the input page.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 12.48.46 pm.jpg
    Screen Shot 2019-03-17 at 12.48.46 pm.jpg
    33.7 KB · Views: 52
Ebird uses the group concept, where subspecies need some degree of diagnosability in the field. Even though at first glance it might seem stupid, I believe that it's actually quite good. Did you really identify any of the mentioned birds to subspecific level? Or did you just assume their ID on range? I have hundreds of subspecies on my HBW list, that I have absolutely no clue about how to distinguish them from the other subspecies I have, e.g. Blue Tit in different parts of Europe. The ID was always assumed on range, never ever did I think "Oh, this one looks different"... You get my point?!

The "show subspecies" checkbox therefore only works for subspecies groups...
 
Ebird uses the group concept, where subspecies need some degree of diagnosability in the field. Even though at first glance it might seem stupid, I believe that it's actually quite good. Did you really identify any of the mentioned birds to subspecific level? Or did you just assume their ID on range? I have hundreds of subspecies on my HBW list, that I have absolutely no clue about how to distinguish them from the other subspecies I have, e.g. Blue Tit in different parts of Europe. The ID was always assumed on range, never ever did I think "Oh, this one looks different"... You get my point?!

The "show subspecies" checkbox therefore only works for subspecies groups...

This can lead to difficulties where a species is split. Take "Golden Spectacled" Warbler for example: the ebird records are a complete dog's dinner, as most older records would have had no sub-species attached to them. The database now seemingly contains a mix of P.burkii s.l. and s.s.
 
Golden-spectacled warbler is not a very good example, because before the split almost nobody had a clue about their variation and the taxons involved, and especially, because there are several sympatric species almost almost everywhere in the distribution area, so no specific identification can be based on locality.

It is easy to find better examples, like Eastern and Western Yellow Wagtail. But here we see another problem - subspecies are often separable, but very often no. Then there would have to be a "unidentified eastern subspecies" even before the split, and nobody could have anticipated the split that way. But of course, there are plenty of examples where this split anticipation worked very well, with allopatric resident birds, which were described as separate subspecies before the split.

An additional important point. If McMadd's Jackdaws from his apartment were in Tampere, then the birds had a very variable looking mix of nominate monedula and soemmeringii characters. Intergradation is typical for many pairs of subspecies.

eBird is very good for watching photographs of birds, much better than IBC, for example. I have not used it much for entering my observations. I tried once. One problem was that with the mobile app it was not possible to enter anything about age, sex and plumage of birds. Another was that even with web page it was possible to use category "female-type", which is very much needed with ducks, some raptors and so on. I tried to check how eBird users managed with that, and noted that not many separated any plumages, even such very easily separable as adult male harriers, adult male mergansers and so on. (And of course, in the countries where I do most of my birdwatching there are their own country-specific databases and it is very natural to use them). One thing which should definitely be better in eBird is reporting identification mistakes - it is very easy to find them, and some are very obvious.

By the way - did somebody understand what really happened with this Lynx - Cornell thing? HBW Alive and IBC were obviously bought by Cornell. But what about HBW the book, the new identification guide series, and other Lynx projects, like HMW?
 
Golden-spectacled warbler is not a very good example, because before the split almost nobody had a clue about their variation and the taxons involved, and especially, because there are several sympatric species almost almost everywhere in the distribution area, so no specific identification can be based on locality.

It is easy to find better examples, like Eastern and Western Yellow Wagtail. But here we see another problem - subspecies are often separable, but very often no. Then there would have to be a "unidentified eastern subspecies" even before the split, and nobody could have anticipated the split that way. But of course, there are plenty of examples where this split anticipation worked very well, with allopatric resident birds, which were described as separate subspecies before the split.

An additional important point. If McMadd's Jackdaws from his apartment were in Tampere, then the birds had a very variable looking mix of nominate monedula and soemmeringii characters. Intergradation is typical for many pairs of subspecies.

eBird is very good for watching photographs of birds, much better than IBC, for example. I have not used it much for entering my observations. I tried once. One problem was that with the mobile app it was not possible to enter anything about age, sex and plumage of birds. Another was that even with web page it was possible to use category "female-type", which is very much needed with ducks, some raptors and so on. I tried to check how eBird users managed with that, and noted that not many separated any plumages, even such very easily separable as adult male harriers, adult male mergansers and so on. (And of course, in the countries where I do most of my birdwatching there are their own country-specific databases and it is very natural to use them). One thing which should definitely be better in eBird is reporting identification mistakes - it is very easy to find them, and some are very obvious.

By the way - did somebody understand what really happened with this Lynx - Cornell thing? HBW Alive and IBC were obviously bought by Cornell. But what about HBW the book, the new identification guide series, and other Lynx projects, like HMW?[/QUOTE]

I think Lynx have offloaded their least profitable branch, I think they're making a lot of money from books.
 
Golden-spectacled warbler is not a very good example, because before the split almost nobody had a clue about their variation and the taxons involved, and especially, because there are several sympatric species almost almost everywhere in the distribution area, so no specific identification can be based on locality.

This is a fair point, but what seems to have happened with Golden-spectacled Warbler is that the undifferentiated legacy records (as in "s.l.") remain, while observers are still (incorrectly) entering records of what are now considered different species (e.g. birds from Sichuan) under Golden-spectacled Warbler s.s.

I did write to ebird to draw attention to this issue, but never received a response.
 
I'm a bit surprised by the many negative comments here. Two providers of some of the very best services to birders decide to cooperate and the reponse is a collective moaning... really?

Of course not much is clear how the result will look like and what will be the conditions attached, but why should the integration of ebird and HBW alive into a single platform be necessarly a bad thing? Same for IBC and the Macaulay databases, not sure what is the problem.

HBW alive can certainly benefit from better IT implementation, ideally also in smartphone apps. And I'd certainly prefer to browse a single database for images and videos, rather than two.

Also all the complaints about "monetising" and "cashing in", I don't really get it. I've never paid a cent for ebird, and there is no advertisement on it, so they certainly do not have a history of too much "monetising". As for the HWB alive, the yearly subscription is simply fantastic value to me (I understand if those who bought the books think differently, but still), and I would not mind to pay somewhat more if the offered content improves.

I'm curious indeed how they will deal with the two taxonomies, and what the new partnership with Cornell means for the Lynx-Birdlife cooperation.
 
One thing which should definitely be better in eBird is reporting identification mistakes - it is very easy to find them, and some are very obvious.

If you see a photo in an eBird checklist which you think is an identification mistake, there's a "Report" link right under the photo.
 
If you see a photo in an eBird checklist which you think is an identification mistake, there's a "Report" link right under the photo.

Unfortunately, that only helps for sightings with photos. There's plenty of "that bird just isn't here at all" errors, like the aforementioned Golden-spectacled Warbler post-split, many of which have no photos or even explanatory text. Submitting feedback for these is possible but much more tedious.

In practice, a lot seems (from the outside) to depend on the quality (and availability) of able regional reviewers. The data is pretty good in the US, for example, and much weaker in other places (e.g., lots of errors in Laos last I checked).
 
I'm a bit surprised by the many negative comments here. Two providers of some of the very best services to birders decide to cooperate and the reponse is a collective moaning... really?

Of course not much is clear how the result will look like and what will be the conditions attached, but why should the integration of ebird and HBW alive into a single platform be necessarly a bad thing? Same for IBC and the Macaulay databases, not sure what is the problem.

HBW alive can certainly benefit from better IT implementation, ideally also in smartphone apps. And I'd certainly prefer to browse a single database for images and videos, rather than two.

Also all the complaints about "monetising" and "cashing in", I don't really get it. I've never paid a cent for ebird, and there is no advertisement on it, so they certainly do not have a history of too much "monetising". As for the HWB alive, the yearly subscription is simply fantastic value to me (I understand if those who bought the books think differently, but still), and I would not mind to pay somewhat more if the offered content improves.

I'm curious indeed how they will deal with the two taxonomies, and what the new partnership with Cornell means for the Lynx-Birdlife cooperation.

If BNA will be included in HBW Alive and the price will be the same as with the HBW Alive subscription alone I will be satisfied. If the price will increase I would think twice to renew my subscription.
 
In practice, a lot seems (from the outside) to depend on the quality (and availability) of able regional reviewers. The data is pretty good in the US, for example, and much weaker in other places (e.g., lots of errors in Laos last I checked).

I can't argue with that; the more eBird data from a country, the more birders there are and the more reviewers.

But I'm unfamiliar with HBW and My Birding: was there review of sightings built into that system?
 
I can't argue with that; the more eBird data from a country, the more birders there are and the more reviewers.

But I'm unfamiliar with HBW and My Birding: was there review of sightings built into that system?

As best I can see, the intent of HBW's My Birding is to let birders store their own sightings, not to build up a scientifically meaningful database. Whereas eBird is just the opposite - the goal is getting useful data, and any bird-listing-centric features are pure gamification to encourage more data entry.

Accordingly, a lot of the eBird friction I've seen is around cases where people really do want their list - with totals neither increased incorrectly by escapees nor decreased with unaccepted and unacceptable records omitted. (I've certainly got a few records in my past that would not and should not ever pass snuff with a records committee, but I'd certainly like to remember them!)
 
(I've certainly got a few records in my past that would not and should not ever pass snuff with a records committee, but I'd certainly like to remember them!)

Indeed! That's why I use Scythebill :t:

Awiner, in Scythebill, I can eeasily switch betwen IOC and Clements, seems to work quite well. Do you think Cornell will do the same, a parallel use of Clements and HBW?
 
Does anyone know what this means for the HBW-BirdLife checklist? Will BirdLife go back to carrying it forward on their own, or will they continue to base it on HBW's checklist?



I follow BirdLife's list because no other taxonomic checklist has the conservation status integrated.
 
So having a play with eBird as I already have an account (had some checklists shared with me so signed up to view them).

Tried adding some observations from my apartment earlier this month: 3 species: Eurasian Jackdaw, Great Tit and Eurasian Greenfinch.

In HBW I can assign them each to the particular sub-species I want. In eBird...not the case apparently: Jackdaw is only available at the species level; my Parus major major Great Tit has to go in as Great Tit (major group) and the Greenfinch also stops at the species binomial.

What use is that? All I see is dumbing down. Wouldn't mind so much if I couldn't follow links from eBird to the inferior Clements (I favour IOC) where all it's recognised sub-species are shown!

My only immediate solution is to use the "detail" field to manually add the sub-species which is both tedious and unnecessary (if HBWs database can carry all the subspecies then so can eBird surely?)

Anyone more familiar with eBird able to correct/convince me this is progress or shall I just focus my efforts to Scythebill in future? No evangelism from eBird lovers please...you know you exist...

Screenshots: HBW; eBird; Clements excel accessed from eBird

As others have mentioned, there is a subspecies "mode" that you can click on such that the field-identifiable subspecies show up in the checklist entry.

It is very important to understand that the mission of eBird is not to provide checklisting tools for everyone, despite the fact that hundreds of thousands of people use it that way. It is a database for data collected via citizen science, meaning people of variable skill level. Speaking as a reviewer, the inclusion of every subspecies of Song Sparrow, for example, would be a complete nightmare. Its easy enough for laypersons to note that it is an "eastern type" or "pacific type" but if even the researchers haven't nailed down where atlantica and melodia start, stop, and intergrade, then we don't have a chance, nor realistically does the lister who is so certain based on their geographic location. If someone has taken the time to do the bill and primary measurements on a Song Sparrow, then certainly those comments are welcome in the details section and very far from unnecessary!

I can't speak much regarding the so-called "merger" as I never used HBW except to glance at the occasional website - however based on some of the reactions here it seems that some expect eBird to be a replacement for it, and perhaps it isn't that. However, eBird has worked well for a great many people for a lot of years and continuously works hard to improve its accuracy. But again - its goals are to be a data collection system and that is important to understanding how it operates.
 
Indeed! That's why I use Scythebill :t:

Awiner, in Scythebill, I can eeasily switch betwen IOC and Clements, seems to work quite well. Do you think Cornell will do the same, a parallel use of Clements and HBW?

That's a good question. Right now all Cornell has is the ability to switch to IOC but it functions more closely to a language filter than actual taxonomic conversion. I'm sure this is all just as new to the eBird programmers as it is to us - we will have to see if the inclusion of HBW spurs more checklist functionality.

But as you well point out - Scythebill is already available....
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top