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

[Larry Sweetland]

To answer the original question - I wouldn't say bored, as I do find it interesting, but it is finally helping me loose interest in listing, which is probably a good thing for my mental and spiritual well being. It's a bit like how I'd feel if I was getting really into a game of pool, and half way through the game someone pours a bucket of balls onto the table. It would be funny for the next couple of shots, then I'd probably get bored and go to the bar and not come back.

 

[Andy Adcock]

To answer the original question - I wouldn't say bored, as I do find it interesting, but it is finally helping me loose interest in listing, which is probably a good thing for my mental and spiritual well being. It's a bit like how I'd feel if I was getting really into a game of pool, and half way through the game someone pours a bucket of balls onto the table. It would be funny for the next couple of shots, then I'd probably get bored and go to the bar and not come back.

Agree,
all this splitting is so hard to keep up with, one reason why I steadfastly, use only one list.

The point was reached quite some time ago when it became advisable to see certain races in the event of a future split.

Under the BSC, wouldn't e.g Spanish and House Sparrow be deemed one species if they produced viable offspring when paired rather than leading to the creation of a new species, Italian Sparrow?

I don't see how science, where most things are absolute and quantifiable, can apply two different concepts dependent on the animals being studied? What is to be gained by such a liberal approach to taxonomy as offered by the PSC, who ultimately benefits from the creation of so many new species, is it really science?

I'm confused most of the time anyway so nothing's new!?


A

 

[Mysticete]

Agree,

I don't see how science, where most things are absolute and quantifiable, can apply two different concepts dependent on the animals being studied? What is to be gained by such a liberal approach to taxonomy as offered by the PSC, who ultimately benefits from the creation of so many new species, is it really science?

I'm confused most of the time anyway so nothing's new!?


A

The thing to keep in mind though is that biology is not physics. A lot of aspects of biology are not quantifiable and absolute, but rather exists as gradients. Species...by there very nature...are human constructs used to bring some sense of order to a very disorderly system. The whole underlying theme of biology is evolution, which is based on species evolving into new species. Because of that, we see a wide range continuum of organisms at different stages of the speciation process, and each group of organisms may or may not acquire the traits that lead to recognition of of being a distinct "species" at different times or in a different order.

The different species concepts get different results simply because they focus on different stages of the speciation concept.

 

[viator]

To answer the original question - I wouldn't say bored, as I do find it interesting

Not remotely boring!

I'm into birding to understand more about birds - and species vs sub-species boundaries are human constructs that the birds couldn't be bothered about. Of course living in SE Asia I see a lot of variation across many 'species' as you traverse islands - sometimes the current taxonomy seems fine other times wrong.

 

[jurek]

Coming to whales and fish: marine biologists could teach ornithologists conservation. They list whales and fish as endangered populations for every part of ocean or every river system. It would be much easier and more flexible if BirdLife did the same for birds without first deliberating whether it is species, subspecies or whatever.

To answer the original question - I wouldn't say bored, as I do find it interesting, but it is finally helping me loose interest in listing, which is probably a good thing for my mental and spiritual well being. It's a bit like how I'd feel if I was getting really into a game of pool, and half way through the game someone pours a bucket of balls onto the table. It would be funny for the next couple of shots, then I'd probably get bored and go to the bar and not come back.

Like I would describe it. :t:

 

[Nutcracker]

... and half way through the game someone pours a bucket of balls onto the table.

See the point, but it's not so bad, it's more like adding one or two new balls every 5th game - not too difficult to keep track of (at least in European birding terms; more complex if you're in SE Asia or tropical South America)

 

[njlarsen]

Coming to whales and fish: marine biologists could teach ornithologists conservation. They list whales and fish as endangered populations for every part of ocean or every river system. It would be much easier and more flexible if BirdLife did the same for birds without first deliberating whether it is species, subspecies or whatever.

That is more like the evolutionary species concept than the biological one if I understand you correctly. And yes, taken to its logical conclusion, there would be more species of for example Geese than we have now.

Niels

 

[Jim M.]

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?

1. I find it fascinating to learn about cryptic bird species, but ticking or seeing them less so.

2. I am sympathetic to the notion that avian taxonomists have become split-happy, perhaps because describing a new species does more for their prestige than describing a subspecies. This article by noted avian molt expert Peter Pyle argues this point at length ("In Memory of the Avian Species"): http://www.birdpop.org/docs/pubs/Pyle_2012_In_Memory_of_Avian_Species.pdf My impression is that the IOC is particularly biased toward splits. That is one reason why I am happy to stay with the more conservative Clements/eBird for my personal global taxonomy.

3. The more different a bird is from what you have seen before, the more exciting it tends to be to see it. That is one reason why I have let family listing guide my selection of global birding destinations rather than simply amassing a large species list. Once I have seen all the families, I may then focus on genera. Perhaps the latter will be the wave of the future.

 

[Mysticete]

Coming to whales and fish: marine biologists could teach ornithologists conservation. They list whales and fish as endangered populations for every part of ocean or every river system. It would be much easier and more flexible if BirdLife did the same for birds without first deliberating whether it is species, subspecies or whatever.

Well "stocks" tend to have more emphasis in marine taxa simply because their is mass harvesting of many fish taxa. You have to consider populations as separate so you can regulate fishing. Although I think the stock concepts gets mostly used in taxa that have or had a fishery (or in the case of some species of dolphin, suffer heavy bycatch). Salmon and baleen whales yes, not so much darters and killifish.

 

[Mysticete]

1. I find it fascinating to learn about cryptic bird species, but ticking or seeing them less so.

2. I am sympathetic to the notion that avian taxonomists have become split-happy, perhaps because describing a new species does more for their prestige than describing a subspecies. This article by noted avian molt expert Peter Pyle argues this point at length ("In Memory of the Avian Species"): http://www.birdpop.org/docs/pubs/Pyle_2012_In_Memory_of_Avian_Species.pdf My impression is that the IOC is particularly biased toward splits. That is one reason why I am happy to stay with the more conservative Clements/eBird for my personal global taxonomy.

I have heard people use the prestige and fame argument, but I have never bought it. A brand new species will get you some media attention (if it's charismatic enough...sorry tapaculos), but most taxonomic splitting is of already described taxa. Generally speaking a good phylogeographic study will get you a publication, regardless of whether it contains taxonomic revisions or not. Splitting a taxa doesn't, at least as far as I can tell, usually lead to a higher impact article than not splitting something.

I mean if you really want to name new taxa, skip ornithology and work in paleontology. My collaborators and I literally have 10+ new fossil whale species, most belonging to new genera, we are currently working on, and that is not unusual for many folks in our field.

 

[Gastronaut]

....it is finally helping me loose interest in listing, which is probably a good thing for my mental and spiritual well being. It's a bit like how I'd feel if I was getting really into a game of pool, and half way through the game someone pours a bucket of balls onto the table. It would be funny for the next couple of shots, then I'd probably get bored and go to the bar and not come back.

:clap::clap:
Absolutely. and boring me too.
And I'll tell you what else gets right up my goat, when within the hobby (not science) of birding people try to impose the latest taxonomic whims on you as a form of oneupmanship, like they're preaching religious dogma. For example, someone banging on and on about the importance of seeing Eastern Yellow Wagtail because it's going to be split, then dismissing Black-headed Wag because it's lumped, when you know full well they couldn't tell one from the other nor find either if it hit them between the eyes - let alone justify the rationale behind either taxonomic decision.

 

[Britseye]

Thanks OP. I was beginning to think I was alone in cutting myself off from all this increasingly tiresome mainstream birding obsession with DNA-based PSC splits and cryptic species detection, finding I was pining for the bygone days when real discoveries were actually made. I see from this thread that there are kindred spirits out there. It was worth coming this late to the party just to find Peter Pyle's commentary in particular.

 

[Sasquatch Fingers]

I like the cryptic splits because it gives room for me to advance into as I become a more discerning/skilled birder.

 

[MJB]

I like the cryptic splits because it gives room for me to advance into as I become a more discerning/skilled birder.

My admiration for the decryption of (previously) cryptic species is exemplified by the many well-illustrated articles in Dutch Birding and by Nils van Duivendijk's books. Remembering the details afterwards is a separate problem!

Ever since I learnt to read, I've been hooked on the idea of learning, and almost 70 years later, it's still my burning enthusiasm. Consequently, the unravelling of bird species' evolutionary histories by molecular and other techniques comprises the expansion of documented knowledge, which when applied at our level, informs our understanding.

It certainly means I have to work harder to to understand the relationships of species within groups or genera, but just because it occasionally means that I won't be able to immediately identify a species seen well, albeit briefly, isn't exactly a life-changing crisis!

It just means I have to investigate further, perhaps taking me outside my comfort zone, but who doesn't love a mystery?
MJB

 

[Andy Adcock]

I like the cryptic splits because it gives room for me to advance into as I become a more discerning/skilled birder.

It also gives a lot more room to be confused and just plain wrong!


A

 

[jurek]

I like the cryptic splits because it gives room for me to advance into as I become a more discerning/skilled birder.

In my experience, however, identification articles about recent splits usually make an U-turn. There is a paper pointing subtle differences, but after several years another paper follows, that there is variation and overlap, and ID marks are unsafe.

It happened to many WP narrow splits, like Manx/Balearic/Yelkouan Shearwaters, Lesser Black-backed/Baltic/Siberian Gulls, Lesser/Common/Arctic Redpolls etc. Probably more than half such splits did an U-turn about the identification.

 

[petemorris]

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

What a bizarre statement. To think that the world list would be adjusted to the needs of tour companies! Quite the opposite in reality. Just back from a Colombia tour where I showed the group 13 species of tapaculos. Probably equates to 24hrs of my life looking for small grey birds in the dark undergrowth!!

Do I believe they are good species? Why not...

Would I have chosen 13 tapaculos to look for on the tour? Probably not...

Cheers

Pete

 

[Strontium Dog]

These minor differences seem important enough to the birds themselves. It seems only right that we should follow their lead.

 

[Jim M.]

Just back from a Colombia tour where I showed the group 13 species of tapaculos. Probably equates to 24hrs of my life looking for small grey birds in the dark undergrowth!!

My sympathies. That does sound a bit brutal. Tapaculos are one of those groups where IMO hearing them should be generally accepted as sufficient for a tick. Wouldn't want to spend that much time looking for them on one tour as a guide or a participant.

 

[KenM]

What a bizarre statement. To think that the world list would be adjusted to the needs of tour companies! Quite the opposite in reality. Just back from a Colombia tour where I showed the group 13 species of tapaculos. Probably equates to 24hrs of my life looking for small grey birds in the dark undergrowth!!

Do I believe they are good species? Why not...

Would I have chosen 13 tapaculos to look for on the tour? Probably not...

Cheers

Pete

Were they all life ticks for you Peter.....?

cheers