BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mysticete" data-source="post: 3498135" data-attributes="member: 67784">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.</blockquote>