A plea for a common sequence of birds in all future bird field guides (7 Viewers)

[chris butterworth]

I can place Seriemas before Falcons. If I use a utilitarian approach, where do I put them? near gamebirds? Screamers? Rails? Wading birds (they do have long legs!)

....or Ratites, which also "look similar"? Taxonomic order ( in line with the authority of the country covered ) is really the only way to go. Alright, there will be differences but, until one universal taxonomic system is adopted throughout the world ( :eek!: ), we'll have to live with it.

Chris

( Sorry about the Ratite thingie Morgan. "I can resist anything but temptation". Oscar Wilde )

C

 

[MJB]

I think one might equally complain that those insisting on a rigorous 'scientific' approach in this age of taxonomic instability seem to take for granted that theirs is the only permissible view.

John,
If a reasonably rigorous scientific view is applied consistently, then that means that any date-sequence of field guides should include all the changes generally agreed at the time the text was finalised. Inevitably, the present pace of changes would mean that each guide ought to be different from its predecessor. Science works by discovering and explaining the changes, and so with a sequence of published field guides as described above, we would have a series of islands of stability that would reflect current knowledge at the time. The misleading phrase 'taxonomic instability' could equally be applied if a new common sequence, as wished for in this post, remained in place for, say twenty years, because it would not reflect the current state of knowledge for that period.

That's not to say that a fieldguide shouldn't slavishly follow taxonomic sequence if that helps birders, but I think some of the claims made above are less problematical than stated; for example, plates scanned at very high resolution produce images that can be swapped from one to another electronically, to suit either the taxonomic or the 'common sequence' case...:eek!:
MJB
PS What about using only scientific names? Birders from every country would be able to converse in birdish everywhere!:-O

 

[njlarsen]

PS What about using only scientific names? Birders from every country would be able to converse in birdish everywhere!:-O

If you can understand their pronunciation of the latin :eek!:

Niels

 

[Swissboy]

......At some stage, someone must grasp the nettle and propose a definitive, enduring, non-systematic world sequence (as Steve Howell & Co have already suggested for the ABA area).
......The resulting sequence could be presented on BirdForum for initial comment and review. After a period of iterative refinement, there could be an online poll to establish BF members' preference for the non-systematic sequence over the current taxonomic approach. If a majority supported the final sequence, then it would clearly be a credible proposition to put to the wider birding community and to ornithological publishers.

Any volunteers?

That is exactly what I had been trying to avoid, creating some sort of debating forum or committee that will only put the solution far into the future. That's why I suggested HBW. But anything along the lines of Howell et al is just as fine. The point is to get this sequence FIXED in its basics, not to species or genera though.

As for the advocates of keeping the strict taxonomic approach, or fugl's point of the names' history, these are all valid points, and most interesting. But not when it comes to field guides. For those, there need to be other priorities.

The whole thing reminds me a lot of the problem with Latin in high schools (at least here in Switzerland). For centuries, it was considered all important for any proper education. Those who felt what the heck, I'd rather learn modern languages that will serve me better, were snubbed. Meanwhile, it's only a very small minority that thinks Latin (or even the ancient Greek) languages are essential for everybody with a so-called higher education. But the debates ran along very similar lines as we experience here. I don't want to call it a backward orientation, but holding on to something that, in a way (here due to the flux), has lost its usefulness.

A word to the proposals for something like individualized FGs. That is again exactly what defeats the purpose. How does one quickly compare notes if everybody follows his own sequence? Even if everybody uses a different edition of a present-day FG with a different sequence? Even for historic purposes, things get complicated. And having books with a number of scientific names for the same species is simply a horror to use. I know some from botany that had such a cumbersome organisation. The main problem is simply that scientific insight needs to become unlinked from field guides. Because, at best, these field guides can only reflect the scientific knowledge in a very limited way. But the constant changes impede the purpose that FGs are actually made for.

By the way, I'm just glad we at least agree - I hope - on the sequence of the alphabet to have to be fixed. And I dread the day that some insightful historian or linguist would want to try to revert to the sequence of the Greek alphabet as it would have priority or whatever. I'm just using this comparison half-jokingly, as it illustrates more clearly, maybe, the necessity for having fixed sequencies for certain purposes.

 

[Mysticete]

I think the Latin metaphor here is faulty

No one speaks Latin anymore, or at least original Latin.

In contrast, the organization of taxonomy is still used. I am not aware of any scientific body, at least in regards to birds, that doesn't use the taxonomic sequence to arrange their checklist. Taxonomy is still an important "language" you could say in science, and scientists at all levels refer to families, genera, species, etc.

Also, what Richard is saying (I think...feel free to correct me if I am wrong), is that a common sequence that isn't attached to taxonomy, like Howell's, doesn't exist for the world. Sure it might make sense for NA, but then again we don't have ovenbirds, pittas, barbets, toucans, seriemas, or ostriches in North America. To create a universal system that could apply worldwide would necessitate creating something that could incorporate all taxa. Employing the HBW as the sequence is also problematic...since it IS a taxonomic sequence, just one that is not updated anymore.

As a side tangent or corollary, how problematic are splits and lumps for people? Should we as birders "freeze" the list of countable birds to only those recognized by HBW? After all, keeping up with changes in low level taxonomy is also difficult. Would people be supportive of this? I would guess not, because we are in a "splitting phase" and people don't want to miss out on armchair ticks. I think if birders can keep up this information, they can probably keep up with changes in higher level taxonomy as well.

 

[cuckooroller]

Employing the HBW as the sequence is also problematic...since it IS a taxonomic sequence, just one that is not updated anymore.

As a side tangent or corollary, how problematic are splits and lumps for people? Should we as birders "freeze" the list of countable birds to only those recognized by HBW? After all, keeping up with changes in low level taxonomy is also difficult. Would people be supportive of this? I would guess not, because we are in a "splitting phase" and people don't want to miss out on armchair ticks. I think if birders can keep up this information, they can probably keep up with changes in higher level taxonomy as well.

Not even the people at Lynx have ever promoted the idea that their working taxonomy list constituted something to be emulated for higher avian phylogeny. They have always been limited by the fact that each volume as published constituted a "temporal snapshot" of phylogeny in a field that was, and is rapidly changing. It is enough to read through the comments made by them in the text of the last volume where they realized that much of the phylogeny used by them in the volume was already out of date.

It is my understanding that the work now being done by Gill, et al (pers.comm.) is morphing in its original scope (limited to English Common Names) and they intend becoming a bona fide taxonomic list in the manner of the HM, and the Clements lists. They intend setting up an accessible website in which the problem of rapidly changing taxonomic treatments (also as to higher avian phylogeny) should be addressed. I believe that a similar approach will be taken in web-available resources starting next April with the HBW-Birdlife International partnering in HBW Alive.

 

[Richard Klim]

Also, what Richard is saying (I think...feel free to correct me if I am wrong), is that a common sequence that isn't attached to taxonomy, like Howell's, doesn't exist for the world.

That's right, Morgan. If people want a standardised Howell-style non-taxonomic sequence for all field guides, then someone needs to define it! Otherwise it would just be a free-for-all, and the desired commonality would never materialise.

eg, would buttonquails, Plains-wanderer, seedsnipes and sandgrouse be placed in sequence with Galliformes (not that any single field guide would have them all!), woodcreepers with treecreepers, etc...? It would be particularly challenging to arrive at the best overall compromise for passerines and near-passerines, given the large number of families and subfamilies concerned.

 

[MJB]

If you can understand their pronunciation of the latin :eek!: Niels

Indeed, Niels, but getting an agreed pronunciation would be simpler and quicker than any agreed sequence!:-O
MJB
PS Latin, of course, is only the major basis of scientific names - many other languages have also been raided...

 

[MJB]

As a side tangent or corollary, how problematic are splits and lumps for people? Should we as birders "freeze" the list of countable birds to only those recognized by HBW? After all, keeping up with changes in low level taxonomy is also difficult. Would people be supportive of this? I would guess not, because we are in a "splitting phase" and people don't want to miss out on armchair ticks. I think if birders can keep up this information, they can probably keep up with changes in higher level taxonomy as well.

I like tangents! I'm sure I've read, either on the Lynx website, or even in a later volume of HBW, that the HBW team intend to address the subject of taxonomic changes since the HBW inception, and their effect on HBW (Hard Copy). I infer that this will produce HBW (Soft Copy) taxonomy and sequence, which will differ radically, and in complex fashion, from HBW (Hard Copy) t & s. Which 'common' sequence' will birders worldwide agree upon for stability?
MJB

 

[Richard Klim]

I'm sure I've read, either on the Lynx website, or even in a later volume of HBW, that the HBW team intend to address the subject of taxonomic changes since the HBW inception, and their effect on HBW (Hard Copy). I infer that this will produce HBW (Soft Copy) taxonomy and sequence, which will differ radically, and in complex fashion, from HBW (Hard Copy) t & s. Which 'common' sequence' will birders worldwide agree upon for stability?

That's correct, Mike. On the original (Birds of India) thread, I commented on the suggestion that the HBW sequence should be adopted as the standard for all future field guides...

The HBW suggestion is particularly ironic, given that even Lynx Edicions will this year abandon the HBW sequence (Morony et al 1975) in the forthcoming HBW/BLI Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World.

 

[njlarsen]

Indeed, Niels, but getting an agreed pronunciation would be simpler and quicker than any agreed sequence!:-O
MJB
PS Latin, of course, is only the major basis of scientific names - many other languages have also been raided...

I was aware of that, but I believe that even the Greek words are supposed to be pronounced as if they were Latin (though in grammar they do not necessarily follow Latin!).

Niels

 

[Richard Klim]

Howell et al: global version

At some stage, someone must grasp the nettle and propose a definitive, enduring, non-systematic world sequence (as Steve Howell & Co have already suggested for the ABA area).

Not much longer to wait...

Birdwatch 239 (May 2012), on sale 26 Apr 2012:

FIELD GUIDES: A NEW WORLD ORDER
Radical changes to avian taxonomy, driven largely by genetic research, have led to the once-familiar sequence of bird families becoming unrecognisable. An unexpected side effect of this is to make new field guides difficult to use. Steve N G Howell, Pete Morris, Nigel Redman, Richard Crossley and Robert Kirk lament the loss of standardisation and propose a radical alternative.

 

[Swissboy]

Not much longer to wait...

Birdwatch 239 (May 2012), on sale 26 Apr 2012:

Looks like some light at the end of the tunnel. Hope it's not just a Fata Morgana. At any rate, it will be interesting to see this proposal.

 

[Mysticete]

hopefully some sort of version will be available for those of us who don't subscribe to Birdwatch (or they will do a version for ABA...)

 

[GMK]

As I understand it (e-mail from SNGH c.1 week ago) this Birdwatch article will only cover a proposed order for field guides covering Palearctic birds (not that this will make it uninteresting to North Americans). Steve tells me that he's working on another article to cover the Neotropics sans Caribbean.

 

[Richard Klim]

As I understand it (e-mail from SNGH c.1 week ago) this Birdwatch article will only cover a proposed order for field guides covering Palearctic birds (not that this will make it uninteresting to North Americans).

So, "Field Guides: A New World Order" is a slight exaggeration. [Although the title might be an editorial choice, rather than the authors'.]

SNGH & Co have already 'done' North America (the ABA area, anyway): Howell et al 2009, p49.

 

[jedigrant]

I'm curious how this will go over. Although, I really haven't heard much feedback (except for these threads on BF!) on their ABA proposal.

 

[Richard Klim]

Actually, the Howell et al proposed ABA Area sequence is conceptually similar to the WBSJ Field Guide to the Birds of Japan. Japanese-language field guides and photographic guides typically group species into waterbirds and landbirds.

 

[Mysticete]

I don't see their proposals getting accepted until:

The field guide that Howell and others are writing comes out

And it manages to be more successful than the two leading US guides, Nat Geo and Sibley

And that the success or a major component of the success of the field guide is demonstratively proven to result from the organization and not from some other factor.

I don't see different publishers and authors uniting behind a format (especially when many of those authors have a taxonomic background to some extent) until a strong economic incentive exists.

 

[fugl]

I wonder what will be the fate of checklists under the new dispensation? Will they be in "taxonomic" (latest flavor of) or field guide order? Or maybe some of each, the big official ones (surely) in taxonomic order, the little nature reserve ones in field guide order? That will be convenient!.