Which taxonomy should we use for Opus? (1 Viewer)

wintibird said:

... we have the policy that two of the Sibley&Monroe, Howard&Moore and Clements trio have to accept a species until we follow ...)

Click to expand...

Mark Bruce said:

Hi André,

I understand where you're coming. However, this is just one of several more recent Asian species that that we don't recognise. The situation in Asia has changed rapidly over the last four years and from about mid 2006 there have been some major shake-ups in this part of the world and the lists have fallen shockingly far behind. A prime example is the revision of Timaliidae. There has been much splitting and lumping going on since 2004/2005 but things have settled down and a pretty clear picture exists of what has been accepted. With the lists being so far behind, early last year, the IUCN and BirdLife had to sit down and decide what they considered a valid species, add them to their database and act on those for conservation purposes.

My point is that if Opus falls behind in what it recognises to the point that it doesn't reflect the generally accepted conservative situation on the ground, then, Opus works against itself as a source of information. I'm not for one moment saying include every split and lump. But when a situation develops like we have in the Orient at present when there have been some major shake-ups and a situation has developed where the IUCN and Birdlife have had to update their lists with the likes of Sibley & Monroe with changes and the new regional field guides are saying Howard & Moore with changes, then, if we stick rigidly to only recognising a split with our two out of three requirement and totally ignore the reality on the ground and create the situation of being even further back than the conservatives are, then, we run the risk of our info being redundant. I'll use Taiwan as an example but this would be true for many other countries like Vietnam, China, and the Philippines.

At present Opus only recognises 15 of Taiwan's endemics. The IUCN/BirdLife recognise 21, which is pretty much what most conservative researchers etc recognise now. The East Asia guide, the OBC, the Gill & Wright and many researchers recognise 24 and list about another 6 likely full species. The debate at present seems largely focused on the difference between these two totals. If we are still stuck on 15 and not even near what the conservatives are recognising at around 20-21 endemics, then, our info has largely become redundant for those species concerned. Species like the Taiwan Hwamei Garrulax taewanus, Chinese Barbet Megalaima faber, and Taiwan Barbet Megalaima nuchalis have really been generally accepted as full species for quite sometime and really should appear as full species if we want Opus to be a credible source of info for birds in the Orient. When we have a situation where the lists are so far behind what's recognised on the ground and the likes of the IUCN/BirdLife have had to make changes with clauses like Sibley & Monroe with changes to their database we may want to consider using their database as a possible guideline source if needed for some species in the interests of our info on the species not becoming redundant.

Click to expand...

Richard Klim said:

When Birds of the World - Recommended English Names was first published in 2006, the focus was firmly on vernacular names and it was made clear that it was not primarily a taxonomic work.

But with the subsequent updates, the list has rapidly evolved to the point where, in my opinion, it has now taken a clear lead amongst the regularly updated online world lists, on matters of taxonomy as well as vernacular names. The latest updates in particular demonstrate a very active review of recent taxonomic developments. And the approach taken to proposed splits for potential later acceptance is very useful.

Click to expand...

Following Gill, Wright and Donsker doesn't mean one accepts ever split they list but it would reflect that Opus is taking recent taxonomic developments into consideration and making people aware of them.

Click to expand...

Sure, I understand it would be more work for those on Opus and thus may be just too much.

Click to expand...

Rasmus Boegh said:

There are some potential pitfalls here: For example Collar's revision of babbler taxonomy has been somewhat dented - see Peterson & Moyle in Forktail #24 (without going into detail, I also mentioned a few issues some time ago - post #6: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=74529). Secondly, a correction to the above: OBC hasn't officially adopted the above mentioned splits. Some of the splits have been adopted on OBI, but not all, and in any case OBI isn't the official OBC list (an updated and more official OBC list by Tim Inskipp is on the way, which in all likelyhood will be adopted by OBI then). It is if course unfortunate that the various other world lists either haven't been updated for quite some time, or have had updates that have been somewhat limited. However, I still think that using the majority and combining it with well-supported updates (as I suggested earlier - post #4: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=124058) is a viable option, and one less likely to lead to too much discussion over which taxonomic authority is right and which is wrong. After all, even when comparing taxonomical lists that have been published more or less simultaneously, they typically differ rather substantially. I strongly disagree with splits primarily for conservation, as they distort the overall picture and easily lead to incorrect judgements in a world where virtually all conservation is economy based, and the availability of funds is an ever present problem. When getting another threatened species due to taxonomy it doesn't automatically result in a comparable increase in the funds available for conservation overall, and for that reason alone taxonomic changes should not be conservation based (more on that in post #27 here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=86417&page=2). Fortunately, in the above mentioned barbet and hwamei the case for a splitting is strong, but that is based on a combination of morphology, voice and biochemistry, not any possible conservation status.

Click to expand...

wintibird said:

But how should we decide which split we follow and which we don't? We have either to follow them entirely or we leave it.

Click to expand...

wintibird said:

That's probably the biggest problem. Right now it's just Alan and me who are working on the taxonomy. We haven't yet finished with the taxonomy templates and we haven't yet finished with implementing the consensus and all potential splits. I'm working through the Passeriformes and hope to be done in June or July!
As long as we don't have a (much) bigger editor team it would take a very long time to change to Gill, Wright and Donsker.

As a birdwatcher with a great affinity to the Oriental region I also see that the taxonomy of the Opus isn't up-to-date. But as long as we include potential splits in the articles, I don't see a big problem. So my vote would go for the status quo.

André

Click to expand...

Mark Bruce said:

The OBC hasn't published a checklist since 2001 if my memory serves me correctly so I'm referring to their OBI database on this. I said the OBC recognises 24 [Taiwan] endemics. Yes, the number is incorrect. It is 23 (Birds of East Asia and Gill et al is 24). They don't list the Taiwan Shortwing but the others are all in the OBI. I used the term recognise, not adopt. I believe there is a difference between recognising and officially accepting or adopting. I think that by including these 23 in their database and by actually stating Split from--following-- under the heading Taxonomic Notes below the photo in their image database that it is fair to say that the OBC are recognising a split.

Click to expand...

Rasmus Boegh said:

Just a brief final note to the above: I doubt Krys would promote OBI as a primary taxonomical reference or for that matter suggest it represents the "official" OBC standpoint; both because of the limited time he has available for implementing changes, and that OBI primarily is a place that can be used as an aid of identification via photos + a showcase with a great potential of making people interested in birds. Since I also am somewhat involved in it, I should add that I have that view, too. This may change, as there are some new things on the way on OBI + the new more official OBC list.

Click to expand...

Mark Bruce said:

I think we're missing each other on this, Rasmus. You're misinterpreting my use of the word recognise. I made it clear in my last post that I believe there is a difference between recognising and officially accepting or adopting. They haven't updated their official list since 2001. The splits are in their database and on images of the splits under the heading Taxonomic Notes they refer to their own journal as a reference for the split. With the absence of a current official list, including the splits in their database does say something and does create the impression that they give the splits some form, level or type of recognition.

Click to expand...