• 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.

AOU-NACC Proposals 2011 (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim said:
Likewise. It'll be fascinating to see the Committee members' comments...
Click to expand...

I fail to see if a painting or a single bone is suffcient to name an extinct species why similar is not sufficient for an extant one. It is of course far from ideal but it is consistent.. If the nonsensical proposal passes, what is to stop AOU then elevating their requirements, say requiring a minimum series of (say 10) specimens. I also agree that AOU have no "juristiction" in this matter.

cheers, alan
 
Even if this passes, it is not clear what effects it would have or if anyone should pay attention. First, how many new species-level taxa remain to be described from the NACC area? Secondly, it should be seen for the political nonsense that it is: basically a bunch of the signatories to the infamous "We don't like the ABC's stance on collecting" letter (which was addressed to a certain Dr. Fenwick) taking a stance about a species named after a certain Dr. Fenwick ...
 
thomasdonegan said:
Even if this passes, it is not clear what effects it would have or if anyone should pay attention.
Click to expand...
Well, as the proposal stands, I think it's actually quite clear. If you replace an ICZN Recommendation with a new, differently worded "NACC-ICZN" Recommendation, you don't touch the legislative text of the Code : hence, as far as binding nomenclatural rules are concerned, there can be no effect, period...
The Committee could as well just issue a casual statement saying something like "We think that it might be better if the holotypes of new avian species-group taxa could, as often as possible, be traditional study skins with appropriate ancillary data", the legislative consequences would be exactly the same.

("Traditional study skins" don't differ that fundamentally from "some feathers and blood", by the way. In particular, a study skin is not a complete animal -- it is only "part of it", exactly as in the case of the feathers or blood. The only difference lies in the nature and size of the parts.
[And I can hardly see the ICZN starting to regulate this type of thing. On one hand, which parts would be best kept will obvioulsly vary widely from one organism group to another --try talking "study skins" to someone studying siphonophores--, hence a rule that would be both general and precise could probably not be devised. On the other hand, the Code is a legislative text, which can't afford being vague and subjectively interpretable [where it is binding, that is] : a name should obviously never have the possibility to be interpreted as available or not, depending on the personnal opinion of a user about what is "enough" to make a "nomenclaturally valid" holotype in a particular group... Thus a general, but less precise rule would probably not do the job.]
Of course, using "traditional study skins" does in no way guarantee a protection from loss of, or damage to type specimens. Damage and loss can (and eventually will) happen with any type of biological sample. Check p.45 in http://featherguide.org/authenticity/FEATHER_ATLAS_WPA_V1_Mini.pdf for a quite striking example involving two study skins...)

L -
 
traditional study skins for birds might be useful, but skins indeed have less utility than other hard parts for mammals. The normal course of action is to have a skull as part of a mammal holotype. Their have been plenty of mammals described off of skins that have later proved to be odd color morphs or hybrids. Cranial material is much more useful.
 
Mysticete said:
traditional study skins for birds might be useful, but skins indeed have less utility than other hard parts for mammals. The normal course of action is to have a skull as part of a mammal holotype. Their have been plenty of mammals described off of skins that have later proved to be odd color morphs or hybrids. Cranial material is much more useful.
Click to expand...

Yes, Morgan, as previously discussed I've yet to see a good series of complete Baleen Whales (of any species)! A disappointing lack of rigour in cetacean taxonomy? ;)

cheers, alan
 
lewis20126 said:
Yes, Morgan, as previously discussed I've yet to see a good series of complete Baleen Whales (of any species)! A disappointing lack of rigour in cetacean taxonomy? ;)

cheers, alan
Click to expand...

And as brought up previously, Most museums lacks the space to store much more than one specimen per species (with the exception of Minke Whales and bowhead whales, which do actually have several series in various collections). Not to mention the difficulty in processing the material of that size.

On the other hand, most odontocetes other than the super rare beaked whales and the giant Sperm whales, do have fairly good series within collections
 
Hmm. If the gender endings proposal passed w/ 7 yes & 3 no votes, why wasn't Savannah Sparrow split on a vote of 7 yes & 3 no? Granted, the yes votes varied on which split they preferred, but didn't each of them support at least a 2-way split? o_0

Edited following proposal review: Aah, I see now - 1 of the yes votes favored a 2-way split (rostratus vs. the rest) different from that favored by the others (sandwichensis vs. the rest).
 
Last edited:
AOU Checklist

The new AOU Checklist database incorporating the 2012 changes (and subspecies!) is now online...
PS. Includes all subspecies for each species, not just those recorded in North and Middle America.

PPS. Do the subspecies recognised follow AOU 1957, or a modern source (IOC, H&M3, Clements, BNA Online, HBW)...?

PPPS. The downloadable species lists seem to be out of sequence, especially towards the end...
 
Last edited:
Not sure where subspecies are coming from. Looking at a favoured can of worms Dark-eyed Junco, this AOU checklist is not following AOU 1957. It includes Guadalupe Junco J. h. insularis. It does not follow BNA Online (includes J.h. mutabilis, treated as an intergrade in BNA online).
Richard Klim said:
PPS. Do the subspecies recognised follow AOU 1957, or a modern source (IOC, H&M3, Clements, BNA Online, HBW)...?
Click to expand...
 
The current version of the page doesn't link to any downloads which include subspecies, and it specifically says "without subspecies".
 
Paul Clapham said:
The current version of the page doesn't link to any downloads which include subspecies, and it specifically says "without subspecies".
Click to expand...

The "Show/Hide Subspecies" line is actually a link, though it's not so styled. Click it once and wait 10-15 seconds and the display should toggle.

And after all these years, the Red-footed Falcon is still not listed as Accidental!

Mike
 
Last edited:
Ah, I see. I was under the misconception that the download files included subspecies at some point in time. Okay, only species. But they aren't even in the same order as the AOU checklist -- not especially useful.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 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.

Similar threads

G
AOU-NACC Proposals 2024
2 3
Replies
42
Views
4K
l_raty
l_raty
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2023
2
Replies
39
Views
7K
Mysticete
Mysticete
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2022
5 6 7
Replies
130
Views
20K
Mysticete
Mysticete
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2021
6 7 8
Replies
153
Views
20K
l_raty
l_raty
Peter Kovalik
AOU-NACC Proposals 2020
3 4 5
Replies
95
Views
20K
Andy Adcock
Andy Adcock

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top