What name to use? (1 Viewer)

I've just started down the rocky road of editting Opus and I'm hitting probs with the names.
I'm using the Collins Bird Guide as the source for WP names but have also got the IOC list of names for non-passerines.
The problem I have hit is some of the names in Opus do not feature in either of these 2 guides. Which do I use?
1: Gavia immer.....Gt Northern Diver to me...but in Collins - Gt Northern Loon, IOC - Gt Northern Loon...yet on Opus it's Common Loon
2: Gavia arctica....Black-throated diver to me...in Collins - Black-throated Loon, and the same in the IOC list...but in Opus it's Arctic Loon
3: Lanius excubitor...Gt grey shrike to me....Collins - Gt Grey Shrike but in Opus it's Northern Shrike
4: Circus cyaneus....Hen harrier to me, and to Collins, but Northern harrier to both IOC and Opus
5: Buteo lagopus...Rough-legged buzzard to me...and Collins, IOC has it as Roughleg, and OPus has it as Rough-legged Hawk..
Help would be appreciated.

Hi Keith,
For a number of years Birdforum has adopted, wrongly or rightly, the Sibley Monroe classification, therefore the names and the scientific names in opus are all correct as far as that is concerned.

Whatever system we use, it will throw up debatable names and classifications... so we may as well carry on as before.

Obviously reference to other names and any taxonomy/nomenclature debates can be made in the species article.

cheers,
Andy

cheers,
Andy

Thanks Andy...I'll use the Opus names as major source then

Opus discussion thread can't be used to express opinion on opus topics? Incidently, if you search opus for (for example) Great Northern Diver, you get a message 'No match' in regard to title finds. Surely a weakness to a resource that I assume many birders from this side of the pond might be attracted to as well? Where two names are in widespread use, is it so difficult to put both in the title, eg Great Northern Diver/Common Loon

Jos Stratford said:

Opus discussion thread can't be used to express opinion on opus topics? Incidently, if you search opus for (for example) Great Northern Diver, you get a message 'No match' in regard to title finds. Surely a weakness to a resource that I assume many birders from this side of the pond might be attracted to as well? Where two names are in widespread use, is it so difficult to put both in the title, eg Great Northern Diver/Common Loon

Click to expand...

Thats more like it... we don't mind posts with constructive criticism in this section.

Could we adopt a Wikipedia-like redirect feature in Opus to solve this problem?

Edit: I see one already exists

Andy Bright said:

Hi Keith,
For a number of years Birdforum has adopted, wrongly or rightly, the Sibley Monroe classification, therefore the names and the scientific names in opus are all correct as far as that is concerned.

Whatever system we use, it will throw up debatable names and classifications... so we may as well carry on as before.

Obviously reference to other names and any taxonomy/nomenclature debates can be made in the species article.

cheers,
Andy

cheers,
Andy

Click to expand...

There is a new publication with recommended English names. Should Birdforum adopt these new names as the standard? (I noticed they claim to have been "selected with deference to long-established names" so they should not be too different).

Niels

njlarsen said:

There is a new publication with recommended English names. Should Birdforum adopt these new names as the standard? (I noticed they claim to have been "selected with deference to long-established names" so they should not be too different).

Niels

Click to expand...

If the list is online, could you post a link to it?

If enough users like the idea, then it might be the way to go.

Ben M said:

If the list is online, could you post a link to it?

If enough users like the idea, then it might be the way to go.

Click to expand...

I am sorry, I meant to do that: http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ ; scroll down a little and hit the link for a downloadable Excel file. The site was announced here: http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=85064

Niels

Personally, I think it premature to think about BirdForum using the Gill suggestions as the authority. My motivations are the following considerations - I would have no existing prejuidicial reason for not wishing that the Gill suggestions may meet favor with the existing world birdlists (speaking of the HM and the Clements basically - the Sibley-Monroe has been a dead letter for many years), but for the Gill suggestions to assume a position of influence in the years to come this can come to pass only if the two major lists in their new editions by and large subscribe to these very suggestions. If the two world birdlists by and large ignore the Gill suggestions, then they will soon lose force and the volume will become just another book in our respective book shelves. All will depend on the upcoming editions of these two world birdlist, and also to a certain extent, the future stance of publications such as HBW in regard.

Secondly, though the Gill that largely follows the Howard & Moore taxonomy, and that has the stated intent to mostly put order in matter of bird nomenclature there are a few things that give me pause, namely, does the Gill wish to advance itself as a propositive taxonomic authority - for example, why do they apparently split as a good species Emerald-bellied Woodnymph - what is their taxonomic justification - is this the province of this volume to make these proposals?

Argument for a New Source for Opus Birds

IMHO, Opus should use either the IOC Birds of the World: Recommended English Names, V2.0 (at http://www.worldbirdnames.org/index.html) or The Clements Checklist of Birds of the World V6.3.2 (from Cornell at http://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist) for the simple reason the they are currently available on line and the latest changes (splits, lumps) will be easily accessible to all the members of Birdforum without have to cough significant money. Plus they are searchable.

Although I currently use the IOC list for my life list, Clements has the advantage of including subspecies.

Sibley & Monroe (1996) is already over 10 years out of date. I haven't found an online, downloadable source for Howard & Moore 3rd Ed. (2003) which is also starting to age a bit.

English names in Opus

The present procedure for species in Opus is to use the Sibley and Monroe (1996) name unless both Howard and Moore (latest update, presently Dickinson 2003) and Clements (latest update) use the same name and it differs from the S&M 96 name. (See this thread). The online source we use is Avibase, which gives a nice summary of different names used by these (and other) authorities for each species - Use the search feature to find the relevant species page (or pages for species with recent splits).

We use a similar process to decide which species get a separate page in Opus.

I agree that S&M96 is outdated, and that at some stage we will need to move to another convention (which may include the IOC (Gill et al) world list). However, the Opus editors have almost completed checking all the names against the above convention, and it would take a huge amount of work to change now. However, the next edition of the Howard & Moore list (to be published fairly soon hopefiully) would require a major re-arrangement in Opus; I suggest that this would be a good time to drop Sibley and Monroe as our 'base' authority and adopt another convention. In another thread Rasmus Boegh has suggested using the best consensus of all three current lists (Clements, Howard&Moore and IOC), and I think that would work (we would need to choose a 'base' list for cases where all three differ).

We also recognise that people will continue to use non-standardized names, and would like to accommodate these as much as possible; we therefore include "Alternative names" (mainly those used in the world lists) under the main headings, and have tried to facilitate the use of a wider variety of alternatives in the search facility, through the use of "redirects".

Edit - This Help page covers most of these issues and others.

CheersB
Alan

Alan Manson said:

The present procedure for species in Opus is to use the Sibley and Monroe (1996) name unless both Howard and Moore (latest update, presently Dickinson 2003) and Clements (latest update) use the same name and it differs from the S&M 96 name.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification of the rules. The "Guideline for Bird Articles" in help does not include the H&M & Clements secondary source guidelines. Perhaps one should update this when you're bored and include the Avibase link. I would, but I'm new to Wiki editing, so need to study up on how it works, and also don't know if I should mess with the Help entries.

And, thanks for the Avibase link, I'd bookmarked it long agon and then forgot about it.