Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

A new AOU?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 10th August 2011, 16:06   #1
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,521
A new AOU?

Saw this today:

http://www.nabirding.com/2011/08/09/a-new-aou/

Does anyone have more info on this merger? The author of the blog speculates a merger of the NACC and SACC. Obviously that is going to have major consequences to taxonomy, and I can't help but think it might slow down the implementation of changes.
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th August 2011, 16:14   #2
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,521
official press release:

http://ornithologyexchange.org/artic...rnithology-r46
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th August 2011, 16:19   #3
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2018

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,253
The vote was “unanimous”, I notice, so the motive for a merger must be a powerful one. A matter of economics, I suppose?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 10th August 2011, 16:52   #4
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mysticete View Post
The author of the blog speculates a merger of the NACC and SACC. Obviously that is going to have major consequences to taxonomy, and I can't help but think it might slow down the implementation of changes.
NACC and SACC are already separate committees of the AOU. So I don't see why merging with other societies necessarily suggests that the two committees should merge. But it would certainly resolve the increasing number of conflicts in taxonomy, particularly at generic level...
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 10th August 2011, 16:55   #5
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,521
yeah my first thought was to consider it idle speculation.
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 11th August 2011, 15:25   #6
AlexC
Opus Editor
BF Supporter 2018
 
AlexC's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Los Angeles, CA, USA
Posts: 5,181
They're forming an alliance against the IOCxis of evil!
__________________
My Gallery | My Life List of Life | My eBird | #s Format: (Total / Area Accepted / Non-Intro).
Latest Lifer: ‘I‘iwi (968 World, 620/608/583 ABA).
Latest CA: Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (354/338/331 CA, 315/299/292 LA Co.).
Latest 2018: Long-billed Curlew (376 World, 286/280/262 ABA, 226/218/212 CA, 204/196/190 LA Co.).
AlexC is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 11th August 2011, 18:55   #7
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 1,877
"They're forming an alliance against the IOCxis of evil" Which side should Frank Gill support? Shot by both sides indeed. i always support the rebel alliance. Does anyone else think "Society for ornithology" sounds orwellian? Should not it mention Amurica or Western hemisphere or new world or something geographic??

Last edited by mb1848 : Friday 12th August 2011 at 00:07.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 13th August 2011, 10:24   #8
chris butterworth
aka The Person Named Above
 
chris butterworth's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Wirral / Naha-shi
Posts: 13,349
Getting rid of 'The Auk' sounds a bit drastic - I suppose it's all down to politics. As an aside the possible merging of NACC and SACC ( speculated by Morgan ) gave me a bit of a chuckle, but I'm known for having a rather basic sense of humour.

Chris
__________________
Chris

"Before the internet, this was all fields."
chris butterworth is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 14th August 2011, 07:15   #9
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexC View Post
They're forming an alliance against the IOCxis of evil!
Alex,
Maybe not, given that Michele Bachmann has just won the key Republican (non-binding) Iowa straw poll - her views on Darwinism might just make AOU obsolete!
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 13th May 2016, 17:05   #10
Richard Klim
-------------------------
 
Richard Klim's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Somerset, UK
Posts: 12,792
Progress report: May 2016

Beissinger, Lanyon, Pruett-Jones, Martin, Raphael, Sullivan & Wolf 2016. Report of the joint AOU-COS Merger Working Group. [pdf]
Richard Klim is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 07:57   #11
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 325
It is quite surprising that the organisations are not using this opportunity to reform the terms of reference of AOU taxonomic committees. This may be among the most serious of the various governance issues facing the organisation, and one which has potential external impacts beyond the AOU itself. A few provisions restricting members from voting through proposals based on their own research, a requirement to comply with the ICZN code and provisions addressing other conflicts of interest would be a good start. Doing so may reduce the likelihood of occurrence of the regularly "interesting" taxonomic decisions they make and reduce perceptions of bias that are sometimes commented upon in this forum.

Last edited by thomasdonegan : Thursday 26th May 2016 at 11:33.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 12:43   #12
Mysticete
Registered User
 
Mysticete's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 3,521
"lifts head out of foxhole"

Err...IIRC most of those complaints on the forum stem solely from you? How significant an issue is this for other members of the AOU?

"ducks back down"
__________________
World: 1193, ABA: 626
Last Lifer: Louisiana Waterthrush
Last ABA:Louisiana Waterthrush
Mammal: 228 Herp: 174
Mysticete is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 13:01   #13
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 325
Not wishing to reopen old wounds and topics, but quite a number of people commented on the voting patterns of a certain Prof. FG Stiles in this proposal:
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCprop479.html

For example, here, see comments of Richard Klim #8, Global Birder #14:
http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=204478
(It looks really bad for an "editor" (and more?) of a paper to vote through his side of a big controversy this way.)

I think Shakespeare rather than Magna Carta first came up with the idea that "one should not be a judge in one's own cause", a concept lost on AOU but not on most of the rest of the world. This applies to all proposals where a committee member is an author of the proposal or the scientific paper underlying it. Would it not be a good idea for AOU to sort this out? I could just grumble here each time they do something strange; this is a suggestion for improvement!
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 13:41   #14
Kratter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 2,328
For most proposals, the writer is often not connected to the research that prompted the proposal. For example, I wrote two proposals this year, one on storm-petrels and one on swamphens. I have not written about either subject otherwise and have no stake on the outcome. For some proposals, the writer recommends a no vote. And for almost all proposals , the work is already published and the writer's stake in the Committee outcome is rather small. For academics (including most members of the SACC and NACC), it is much more important for job security, raises, tenure and such to get papers published. The administrators and colleagues that decide our fates usually have little or no idea what these Committees even do and could not care less whether one of our proposals passes through the Committee.

Anyway, I think the Committee works best when it makes it informed decisions. If the proposal is written by someone who is involved in the research, then they are likely the most informed and I value their opinion. As it takes a super-majority for proposals to pass, the vanity of one Committee members is not going to outweigh the sanity of the rest of the Committee. For all these reasons, I see no reason to bar votes from those involved in the research or proposal writing.

Since you like drawing analogies, in the US congress, a bill sponsor (often the writer) may still vote on their proposal. Not sure what they do in the UK parliament.


Andy
Kratter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 15:10   #15
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kratter View Post
For most proposals, the writer is often not connected to the research that prompted the proposal. For example, I wrote two proposals this year, one on storm-petrels and one on swamphens. I have not written about either subject otherwise and have no stake on the outcome. For some proposals, the writer recommends a no vote. And for almost all proposals , the work is already published and the writer's stake in the Committee outcome is rather small.
Sure; with committees generally in the corporate world, those with an interest in the outcome either declare it or recuse themselves, or both. Where someone brings a proposal to the committee in these situations you describe,you are doing the world a favour with no interest that is of concern, but that is not always the case.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kratter View Post
For academics (including most members of the SACC and NACC), it is much more important for job security, raises, tenure and such to get papers published. The administrators and colleagues that decide our fates usually have little or no idea what these Committees even do and could not care less whether one of our proposals passes through the Committee.
Not always. The Grallaria case was quite special, peculiar and hopefully won't happen again on lots of levels and ways. But it is not a lone example as regards the committee behaviour point. The Brazilian tapaculo proposal at AOU is another one where it is difficult for a bystander (like me, with no particular interest in the outcome) to work out how they ended up taking their decision. It seems to defy the ICZN Code and also the committee's own practices on status quo treatments having precedence. Until you consider who the authors of one side of the arguments are, that is... (The AOU/LSU view on Brazilian tapaculos may actually prevail over time if molecular data is forthcoming, but you can't get there under the ICZN Code, as concluded by Nemesio et al in a Zootaxa paper, because the type locality has to stand as the one specified in the original description.

https://www.researchgate.net/publica...Brazilian_bird)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kratter View Post
Since you like drawing analogies, in the US congress, a bill sponsor (often the writer) may still vote on their proposal. Not sure what they do in the UK parliament.
UK house of parliament has 650+ members, not 10.

You can draw analogies here with courts, parliaments or corporate structures, but almost all of them have rules on conflicts of interest.

Last edited by thomasdonegan : Thursday 26th May 2016 at 15:50.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 15:29   #16
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,811
With every committee or board of directors I've served on, the member or director who makes a motion is allowed to vote on it. The only exception I recall is when an individual has a personal financial interest in the outcome.
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 17:11   #17
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 21,235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
With every committee or board of directors I've served on, the member or director who makes a motion is allowed to vote on it. The only exception I recall is when an individual has a personal financial interest in the outcome.
I sit on a committee that votes on exam questions. I am barred from voting on questions I wrote.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean

Temporarily living in Tennessee
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 17:41   #18
Jim M.
Choose Civility

 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 6,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
I sit on a committee that votes on exam questions. I am barred from voting on questions I wrote.

Niels
Seems a pointless restriction, and not one you will find in general use in boards or committees that follow rules for presentation of motions and the like. Why should your judgment be discounted simply because you took the time to author a proposal?
Jim M. is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 26th May 2016, 21:30   #19
DLane
Registered User

 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by thomasdonegan View Post
The Grallaria case was quite special, peculiar and hopefully won't happen again on lots of levels and ways.
Not to reopen old wounds, as you say, but certainly Stiles' behavior pales in comparison to the Condor editor's report (see Neo-orn post) that an unnamed higher-up from ProAves was a Condor reviewer of the Caranton and Certuche description and was the cause of that paper's rejection and subsequent delay to publish while the competing ProAves description was written and published in-house? Surely, that is a flagrant conflict of interest that supersedes any that Stiles may have had!
DLane is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 27th May 2016, 09:14   #20
thomasdonegan
Former amateur ornithologist

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
With every committee or board of directors I've served on, the member or director who makes a motion is allowed to vote on it. The only exception I recall is when an individual has a personal financial interest in the outcome.
The ones I've been on or seen usually refer to any conflict, including non-monetary interests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim M. View Post
Seems a pointless restriction, and not one you will find in general use in boards or committees that follow rules for presentation of motions and the like. Why should your judgment be discounted simply because you took the time to author a proposal?
The reason for most organisations having rules on conflicts is so that, if there is some perceived bad or strange outcome, it can be said that it was an honest outcome. Otherwise, bad or strange outcomes start looking a lot like biased or corrupt ones. AOU don't have rules on conflicts, ICZN don't either. I think it would be better if they did. Maybe a judicial (no conflicts at all, cannot participate if any interest) or more corporate (disclosure and consider whether recusal from voting is appropriate) standard is best, who knows, but having nothing looks odd and does not enhance the reputation of AOU.

With reference to Dan's message, I am not sure that pointing the finger at someone else is relevant to this discussion. ProAves' version of the Condor review process differed from the "ornithologists' outrage" camp:
http://iczn.org/node/40380 and search for "Patten".
Moreover, the reviewer pointing to the conflict or issue then recusing themselves from substantive review sounds like the right thing to do?

Last edited by thomasdonegan : Friday 27th May 2016 at 10:26.
thomasdonegan is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AOU 2010 Proposals B Mysticete Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 17 Wednesday 25th May 2011 05:12
AOU 51st supplement Snapdragyn Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 132 Tuesday 8th March 2011 14:49
First of the AOU pending proposals up Mysticete Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 25 Saturday 28th February 2009 17:26
Aou 2008-b AlexC Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature 4 Tuesday 18th November 2008 16:06
New AOU Supplement KC Foggin Birds & Birding 1 Saturday 8th July 2006 05:35

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.24881601 seconds with 32 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 02:43.