Anybody bored with near-identical B-species? (1 Viewer)

jurek · Dec 10, 2016

I enjoy birding and enjoy seeing as many species and possible. However I found myself uninterested in twitching species which are almost identical to the ones I already seen.

It was no problem where such birds were in minority, and similarities were only broad. But recently there are hundreds new pseudo-species added because of loosening criteria. Some are actually not even recognizable, except by range or only in adult male plumage.

Recently I felt cheated when going to Corsica. Technically, I saw 4 new birds. In practice, only 2 were new. 2 others were just splits - one was differing only by call, another by slightly paler underwing.

I have quite a lot of armchair ticks pending, but I found I cannot be bothered to re-check my list and add armchair ticks.

Anybody else feels the same? Should we develop a list of A-species which are really different, and B-species which are weak splits?

fugl · Dec 10, 2016

Yes, bored to tears. . ..

Mysticete · Dec 10, 2016

Nope. Species are not named simply to add ticks to your life list.

fugl · Dec 10, 2016

Mysticete said:
Nope. Species are not named simply to add ticks to your life list.

Certainly, but jurek is obviously posing the question as a bird watcher, not as a scientist. And from that perspective, nearly identical new species resulting from splits are indeed boring, at least when strictly allopathic (as many are).

Nutcracker · Dec 10, 2016

So what were the two 'boring' and two presumably 'interesting' ones you got in Corsica?

Don't think I agree entirely though, it can be an interesting challenge to e.g. pick out a Green-winged Teal among a flock of 300 Common Teal - Ah, there it is! Nailed it at last!!

Mysticete · Dec 10, 2016

fugl said:
Certainly, but jurek is obviously posing the question as a bird watcher, not as a scientist. And from that perspective, nearly identical new species resulting from splits are indeed boring, at least when strictly allopathic (as many are).

True, but then he talks about developing separate lists of "distinct" versus "weak" taxa.

I mean...I am also super familiar with Jurek's conservative stances on species. He's frequently argued for lumping here and elsewhere. So just heading that discussion at the pass...

Andy Adcock · Dec 10, 2016

I'm extremely sceptical about a lot of the splits in some areas, clearly in the interests of some tour companies or authors to have as many species and endemics on their tours or in their books as possible?

I have no scientific credentials to back me up but neither do some of the names behind the various papers.

A

Mysticete · Dec 10, 2016

andyadcock said:
I'm extremely sceptical about a lot of the splits in some areas, clearly in the interests of some tour companies or authors to have as many species and endemics on their tours or in their books as possible?

I have no scientific credentials to back me up but neither do some of the names behind the various papers.

A

I'd be curious on what exact papers you are referring to. I can certainly attest that non of the recent NA splits were based on work solely performed by field guide authors and tour guides. The vast majority of systematic works published in the peer-review lit are done by researchers associated with some sort of academic institution.

fugl · Dec 11, 2016

Mysticete said:
True, but then he talks about developing separate lists of "distinct" versus "weak" taxa.

I mean...I am also super familiar with Jurek's conservative stances on species. He's frequently argued for lumping here and elsewhere. So just heading that discussion at the pass...

Fair enough...I was unaware of the subtext. . ..

jurek · Dec 11, 2016

I am referring to birding here.

Alexjh1 · Dec 11, 2016

As someone for whom Caspian Gull remains elusive despite several reliable sites for them nearby, I can sympathise with the sentiment.

However, it just feels like it misses the point a little to suggest that validity of species is determined by how easy it is to differentiate it in the field or whether an island endemic is suitably visually different regardless of other factors.

I mean, obviously you are entitled to bird however you like, but what is interesting about different species isn't going to be the same for everyone. If anything, the things that make an island endemic species for instance difference from it's mainland counterpart are interesting in themselves - how did they arrive on that island, what changes has that island wrought on them, assuming the continued survival of both - how separate will they end up and so on.

For me though, if you are going to start quibbling over which species are more interesting, you'd be better off perhaps just coming up with a list of "all-star species" which are for whatever reason interesting, iconic, unique etc and trying to see all of them, rather than approaching it from a flat completionist angle?

jurek · Dec 11, 2016

@Alexjh1 - recent splits are usually not about species visually similar but cryptically different, but bringing the border of difference lower and lower.

About birds in Corsica. Two new ones were Corsican Nuthatch and Marmora Warbler. Two B-birds or half-species were Moltoni's Warbler and Scopoli's Shearwater.

I just realized that I saw also another B-species: Corsican Finch. I heard Citril Finch voice from far away, wondered where a Citril Finch would be in such a place, figured out that in the hot afternoon it would go to the water, went there, and Corsican Finch was there. If it was not identical to the Citril Finch in all aspects but the streaked back, I would likely miss it. I forgot to write about it... perhaps sums the problem.

Alexjh1 · Dec 11, 2016

jurek said:
@Alexjh1 - recent splits are usually not about species visually similar but cryptically different, but bringing the border of difference lower and lower.

The thing to remember though is that taxonomy is a human created system designed to categorize something vague, complicated and fundamentally untidy into something manageable by humans. It's broadly simple in the wide view, but the minutia is always going to be less than convenient because the very concept of a "species" is an artificial one when you get down to it.

To take the infamous Scottish Crossbill as an example - sure the degree of difference is, frankly, negligible. But, that's kind of irrelevant if you've got three populations of Crossbill living in the same place and remaining genetically distinct. Whether any one person believes the differences are enough to justify it being it's own species kind of misses the point - even if it isn't a "species" in a neat and tidy sense if it is functioning as one by not interbreeding and having it's own behavioural patterns in the same habitat.

Obviously that's not going to be to everyone's tastes, but it feels a little like cheating to just ignore populations that may not be convenient unless you are very specifically approaching the hobby with a system which justifies that. For instance I guess if you set out with the aim of seeing all the "superspecies".

etudiant · Dec 11, 2016

Alexjh1 said:
The thing to remember though is that taxonomy is a human created system designed to categorize something vague, complicated and fundamentally untidy into something manageable by humans. It's broadly simple in the wide view, but the minutia is always going to be less than convenient because the very concept of a "species" is an artificial one when you get down to it.

This does indeed seem a theological debate, as the 'species' concept is rubbery at best. We know that the various US warblers interbreed happily, as do most ducks, with fertile offspring. So the cutoff for species status is set by the classifier, but is subject to change, yielding more armchair ticks. :king:

Paul Chapman · Dec 11, 2016

Jurek

Totally in disagreement. It really doesn't bother me much at all how classifications change. Within reason, I enjoy variation within species as much as between species - whether that is attempting to age or sex birds or identify them to subspecies - eg Wrens in the Northern Isles (Somerset & Shetland below) or House Sparrows in Israel (Somerset & two different Israel below). The human classification makes little difference to me. Dead jealous of your Corsican experiences. Hopefully next year.

All the best

Paul

Nutcracker · Dec 11, 2016

etudiant said:
the 'species' concept is rubbery at best.

Ah, got it . . . everything is a subspecies of Hevea brasiliensis o

etudiant · Dec 11, 2016

Nutcracker said:
Ah, got it . . . everything is a subspecies of Hevea brasiliensis o

:t: :t:

jurek · Dec 11, 2016

Alexjh1 said:
The thing to remember though is that taxonomy is a human created system designed to categorize something vague

There is some variability, but birders are in agreement what is near identical.

Re: Corsica - these birds are easy, especially with the excellent information on observado. If you decide to go there, you can see them all in one day. I can however promise that Moltoni Warbler will look exactly like Subalpine Warbler (not that Subalpine itself is much different from other warblers...

dalat · Dec 12, 2016

jurek said:
I can however promise that Moltoni Warbler will look exactly like Subalpine Warbler (not that Subalpine itself is much different from other warblers...

It's more easily heard than seen anyway, and the call is diagnostic, so as a birder I'm perfectly happy with a split like this.

Just because this split is rather new doesn't make it any worse than any of the long established near-identical species pairs (e.g. chiffchaff/willow, willow/marsh tit, treecreepers, reed warblers), in my view.

Where I have some difficulties are the Asian Phyllos warblers, e.g. Arctic used to be one of the warblers I could safely ID in SE Asia, that seems to be impossible now (for me anyway). But these warblers are obviously very facinating, as is the fact that the whole group is still not very well understood and studied. I therefore have no problem to accept that ongoing research leading to better understanding of the realationsships in this group may cause some inconvenience for my list.

Where I'm definitly bored with near-identical species is the gulls. Lumping them into Big Seagulls and Small Seagulls is long overdue. It's really time someone starts a petition.

paul Robinson · Dec 12, 2016

As someone for whom Caspian Gull remains elusive....

Ah now, Caspian is pretty distinctive, especially since I saw one recently...

Paul

Anybody bored with near-identical B-species? (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Stop Brexit!

Well-known member

Worst person on Birdforum

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Registered User

Well-known member

Attachments

Stop Brexit!

Registered User

Well-known member

...

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread