• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

AOS NACC/SACC taxonomic committee governance and structures (no discussions on patronyms) (1 Viewer)

T

thomasdonegan

Former amateur ornithologist
When the rock band Oasis split up, Noel Gallagher and Liam Gallagher started touring separately. The guitarist and drummer (Gem Archer and Chris Sharrock) kept playing and touring with both of the resulting two bands. Following the patronym-related announcements, something similar seems to be going on with American Ornithological Society taxonomic committees, at least for now:

AOS committee member lists as below, and (now non-AOS) SACC committee lists members also set out below (as currently stated).

Remsen has been removed as NACC member and SACC chair on the AOS website but all the other previous members are still listed. Another listed NACC member (Winker) claims in his own webposts to have resigned and Normand David has passed away, but they are still both listed. SACC has its own website, listing all the same committee members as are stated to be on AOS SACC committee (but also those removed at AOS), but now apparently operating under a governance outside the AOS. AOS website still links to the same old SACC website. The legacy SACC website still lists Alvaro Jaramillo and Daniel Cadena, who are co-authors of the patronyms report which led to this schism, as SACC participants. They were both recently criticised heavily on Remsen listserv posts e.g. here.

Does anyone know what is going on? Are all the former SACC members now on two committees, just like Oasis' drummer and guitarist? Will the new committee have a new website?

Idea of this thread is to track committee changes and the future of taxonomic lists - but not to discuss the merits of patronyms please.

Committees - American Ornithological Society (AOS)

The AOS has many standing committees composed of dedicated volunteers who contribute their time and expertise to the benefit of the Society and ornithology.
americanornithology.org americanornithology.org

Classification and Nomenclature (NACC)​

Co-Chairs: R. Terry Chesser and Carla Cicero

Members: Shawn M. Billerman, Kevin J. Burns, Jon L. Dunn, Blanca E. Hernández-Baños, Rosa Jiménez, Oscar Johnson, Andrew W. Kratter, Nicholas A. Mason, Pamela C. Rasmussen, Kevin Winker

Early Career Systematics Group: Max Kirsch, David Vander Pluym, Nicholas Vinciguerra

Technical Advisors: Normand David, Daniel Gibson, Michel Gosselin, Dan Haig, Marshall J. Iliff, Michael Patten, Thomas S. Schulenberg



Classification and Nomenclature (SACC)​

Acting Chair: Currently open

Members: Juan Ignacio Areta (Argentina), Elisa Bonaccorso (Ecuador), Santiago Claramunt (Uruguay and Canada), Alvaro Jaramillo (USA and Chile), Daniel F. Lane (USA), Jose Fernando Pacheco (Brazil), Mark B. Robbins (USA), F. Gary Stiles (Colombia), Kevin J. Zimmer (USA)

Technical Advisors: C. Daniel Cadena, David Donsker, Jorge Pérez-Emán, Gary R. Graves , Steven L. Hilty, Mark Pearman, Vitor de Q. Piacentini, Thomas. S. Schulenberg, Bret M. Whitney, Juan Freile, Jhonathan Miranda


SACC:

Current SACC membership = Juan Ignacio Areta (Associate Chair), Instituto de Bio y Geociencias del Noroeste Argentino, Salta; Elisa Bonaccorso, Universidad San Francisco de Quito; Santiago Claramunt, Royal Ontario Museum and University of Toronto; Glaucia Del-Rio, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, and Museu de Zoologia da Universidade de São Paulo; Alvaro Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory; Daniel F. Lane, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University;
J. V. Remsen, Jr. (Acting Chair), Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University; Mark B. Robbins, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas; F. Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá; Kevin J. Zimmer, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County.

Technical Advisors for Vagrant and Hypothetical Species: Juan Freile, Comité Ecuatoriano de Registros Ornitológicos (CERO); Jhonathan Miranda, Comité de Registros de las Aves de Venezuela, Unión Venezolana de Ornitólogos.

Technical Advisor on Nomenclature: Vitor de Q. Piacentini, Working Group on Avian Nomenclature, International Ornithologists’ Union

Technical Advisor for Hybrids and Dubious Taxa: Gary R. Graves, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution;

Technical Advisors: David B. Donsker; Steven L. Hilty, Victor Emanuel Nature Tours, Inc., & Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas; José Fernando Pacheco, Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos; Mark Pearman, Mardel Pelagics and Birdquest; Jorge Pérez-Emán, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas; Pamela Rasmussen, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology; Douglas F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History; Bret M. Whitney, Field Guides & Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University;

Data-base Advisor: Steve Olesen

Editorial Advisors: Paul Clapham; Alan Grenon

Past Committee Members: C. Daniel Cadena, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá; Manuel Nores, Centro de Zoología Aplicada, Córdoba; Richard O. Prum, Yale University; José Maria Cardoso da Silva, Conservation International - Brasil
 
Last edited:
I am sure the Winker thing is just down to not updating the webpage. Maybe Remsen has the ability to go in and just edit the webpage himself? Or he made a big enough stink to force them to make a change now.

My question is...are their other changes in committee membership, but those individuals just aren't online enough to make a post or other announcement?
 
Van told me as an aside when discussing a different issue that he had (I am paraphrasing I hope I don’t misquote him or misremember details) informed AOS that SACC would essentially be ending the affiliation with AOS.

So I take it AOS will eventually need to update their webpage to reflect that.

I kind of doubt there will be two SACCs.

What I am curious about is what all the WGAC changes and this AOS dust up on top of it means for SACC’s authority / mandate.

I am friends with and respect people on all sides of these issues (WGAC and the patronyms schism) and I don’t see either of them as black or white, so I keep my comments pretty neutral. However, very personally, it is nice to have eBird (which is the 800lb gorilla these days of course) reflect a bunch of splits that have been known and expected for a decade or longer. On the other hand, there is a lot of value in the measured discussions and proposal process of SACC and it would be a shame if it were to be completely marginalized. So again - I sit on both sides of the fence and can criticize or applaud different aspects all over the place. And I remain genuinely curious to see how this all continues to shake out.
 
The funny thing is that the SACC process, even if they don't agree with all of the WGAC decisions, seem to so far grouse a lot less about them and support the initiative. The last round of proposals from NACC seem to express some irritation on that front.

I do think SACC not being affiliated long-term with AOS will cause its standing to diminish. Pretty much every "official" taxonomic committee has affiliation with some sort of organization, whether its AOS or another professional organization, or groups such as Birdlife International. That's kind of where any sense of authority comes from. Hopefully there is talk of the SACC becoming affiliated with some South American based ornithological group, whether that is a conservation group or local professional organization

I also tend to think that SACC, if they don't join up with anyone else will long-term eventually join up or be associated with the AOS, once certain individuals are non longer out of the picture. Or just dissolve.

Whatever happens, and even if I don't always agree on the decisions, SACC DOES have the most transparent proposal process out there, and it would be a shame if it goes away.
 
My name is in there somewhere but I haven't contacted Remsen to ask where things are going. At this point I expect there's a sort of cooling-off period and eventually clarity will be reached. I don't have any guess as to how it will pan out, although I have the strong impression that none of the members except Remsen has ever touched the SACC website. Which includes the database of proposals. This makes Remsen an essential feature of SACC unless there's been some succession planning taking place.
 
I don't know about the future, but with the death of Canadian technical advisor Normand David, the Classification and Nomenclature Committee (NACC) has unfortunately lost a great deal of expertise. On the other hand, Birds Canada and Québec Oiseaux send a press release announcing that they welcome the announcement of the AOS to rename the species of North American birds that refer to a person.
 
I realize this is extremely cringe-worthy, but the SACC website is my favorite place on the internet. While I might not always agree with their decisions, I learn a huge amount from the proposals and from the comments on them (the same goes for NACC, although their system is not quite as immediate and transparent). There are some really cool anecdotes in the comments as well, such as here: Recognize Micrastur mintoni

Other taxonomies may give me more ticks, but none make me learn nearly as much.
 
Paul Clapham said:
My name is in there somewhere but I haven't contacted Remsen to ask where things are going. At this point I expect there's a sort of cooling-off period and eventually clarity will be reached. I don't have any guess as to how it will pan out, although I have the strong impression that none of the members except Remsen has ever touched the SACC website. Which includes the database of proposals. This makes Remsen an essential feature of SACC unless there's been some succession planning taking place.
Click to expand...

The website is on Remsen's personal space on the LSU servers and looks like a throwback to 1990s HTML websites. Do you think there is a database or just mean it in a non-technical sense?

It does get regular updates, though, which is what counts. The proposal page was updated on 13 Nov.

It's a unique site, by showing the proposals and the discussion, we get an interesting insight to how the decisions are made that isn't available elsewhere, at least those not party to the discussion at other committees and checklists.
 
jts1882 said:
The website is on Remsen's personal space on the LSU servers and looks like a throwback to 1990s HTML websites. Do you think there is a database or just mean it in a non-technical sense?

It does get regular updates, though, which is what counts. The proposal page was updated on 13 Nov.

It's a unique site, by showing the proposals and the discussion, we get an interesting insight to how the decisions are made that isn't available elsewhere, at least those not party to the discussion at other committees and checklists.
Click to expand...
I am assuming by database they simply mean the proposals and votes/responses

The situation does remind me of the Center of North American Herpetology. That was founded by Joseph T. Collins and had a fantastic online pdf library of papers and a well designed constantly updated checklist of North American Reptiles and Amphibians. After Collins died however the checklist stopped being updated and they announced they would switch to following SSAR for checklist purposes. The SSAR checklist hasn't even been updated since 2012 (A update is expected at the end of 2023) and is published in a lengthy PDF which is a nightmare to search. Fast forward to today, and CNAH still has a webpage but it just has the board members and statement of purpose. The checklist is completely gone, as is the library...or well anything of actual use. A similar fate could befall SACC.
 
Mysticete said:
I am assuming by database they simply mean the proposals and votes/responses

The situation does remind me of the Center of North American Herpetology. That was founded by Joseph T. Collins and had a fantastic online pdf library of papers and a well designed constantly updated checklist of North American Reptiles and Amphibians. After Collins died however the checklist stopped being updated and they announced they would switch to following SSAR for checklist purposes. The SSAR checklist hasn't even been updated since 2012 (A update is expected at the end of 2023) and is published in a lengthy PDF which is a nightmare to search. Fast forward to today, and CNAH still has a webpage but it just has the board members and statement of purpose. The checklist is completely gone, as is the library...or well anything of actual use. A similar fate could befall SACC.
Click to expand...

Looks like the old checklists were archived. Some of the pdfs are also archived.

Web Portal - CNAH The Center for North American Herpetology

Promoting the preservation and conservation of North American Amphibians, Crocodilians, Reptiles, and Turtles through education and information.
web.archive.org
 
Yeah...but I mean I would prefer if CNAH still had them and was updating them. I mean I am sure the wayback machine has older versions of SACC, but I think we can all agree we would prefer to see the site maintained?
 
jts1882 said:
The website is on Remsen's personal space on the LSU servers and looks like a throwback to 1990s HTML websites. Do you think there is a database or just mean it in a non-technical sense?
Click to expand...
No, I'm sure there is no SQL involved or anything like that. All of the pages which describe proposals are from Remsen's space too, and there's a link (which doesn't work) to a downloadable Excel file.
 
Yeah, yeah, me too. There's just something about the web page where I first found that link. Anyway, that's the nub of the "database" which I referred to earlier. All other information about the proposals is distributed over a collection of web pages.
 
Mysticete said:
Hopefully there is talk of the SACC becoming affiliated with some South American based ornithological group, whether that is a conservation group or local professional organization

... even if I don't always agree on the decisions, SACC DOES have the most transparent proposal process out there, and it would be a shame if it goes away.
Click to expand...
This was quite an interesting and thought provoking post, and kind of encapsulates everything. The last sentence seems everyone's view (and mine too). Nice process at SACC, shame about so many of the taxonomic decisions.

It would make excellent sense for SACC to join up with S American groups, but I do foresee numerous issues. There is no single organisation involved (perhaps a new one should be created).

1. Will South Americans want English name patronyms? The main reason for the SACC split from AOS, is SACC wanting to keep honorific English names. This is a "meh" issue in South America at best. English names are used by some bird guides, but English names are not a major topic of interest for people who mostly speak Spanish and Portuguese (with apologies to friends in Guyana and Trinidad). Will a South American birding organisation in 2023, after what AOS has done, endorse a bunch of English names using patronyms, given the nature and history of many of those names means that few of them honour South American people? Well, let's see. At least, I will note that S American SACC members or former members (Jaramillo, Cadena) are amongst those now hardest pushing the "Bird Names for Birds" / no patronyms agenda! (Let's not discuss the merits of that again, least it get out of hand again, I am just saying...)

2. Which national committees would join up with SACC? Of those taxonomic committees that do exist, the Brazilian committee is the longest standing and most developed. However, it quite forthrightly adopts a non-SACC taxonomy which is more liberal and up to date, based on the latest research. In Colombia, when I was working on the national checklist, we went for a "half way house" between SACC, IOC and BirdLife. We honestly found SACC the least stomachable in terms of numbers of unsupportable taxonomies (mostly but not exclusively lumps) and out-of-dateness on records. (As well as, TBH, an unusual level of dismissiveness and belief that everything in their list was so totally right "because we say so", that I've not found at all when interacting with those running the other two lists.) We then tried to update SACC by making various proposals, but gave up doing so, since it was clearly a waste of time and they were not interested. A new Colombia list launched recently with national co-authors, which in its 1st edition initially endorsed SACC - and initially asserted SACC to be more "thorough" than ours on launch. However, if you look at their 2nd edition, they already start to deviate from SACC on several matters e.g. not recognising Bogota Sunangel, various records for the country not on the SACC list etc. Ultimately when you start looking at a national list carefully, you will see abounding infelicities and anachronisms in SACC, which need addressing to maintain some sense of local or national credibility. I doubt those running such lists will want to move backwards, so some moving forwards by SACC would be needed which they have so far resisted. Also, these lists are now mostly run by local scientists. Do they want to turn over their national lists to a group historically dominated by North Americans?

3. Compromises and rapproachment? SACC was "neck deep in it" on the "Tapaculo with two names" (Brazil) and "Grallaria with two names" (Colombia) controversies recently - which probably won friends in those camps which were supported, but will have alienated others. On these divisive topics, SACC could have taken the high ground and assessed the proposals objectively, but they did not. And generally speaking, over the years, SACC has given a rough ride to authors of taxonomic proposals who are more associated with conservation NGOs or who publish in national journals in S America (as opposed to those associated with museums and universities and "global North" journals). I've written extensively on this and won't bore you all more... But some compromises and rapproachment would be needed, I suspect.

So let's see what happens..... lots of choices on direction to be made for how the world's most diverse avian fauna gets its checklists administered. Thanks for all the good posts.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

pbjosh
IOC combines forces w/ NACC, SACC, Cornell, and more to produce "global checklist"
4 5 6
Replies
104
Views
17K
Mysticete
Mysticete
Peter Kovalik
Evolution Meetings
Replies
1
Views
1K
Murray Lord
M
Björn Bergenholtz
Some additional etymological information – Part III
2 3 4
Replies
79
Views
16K
James Jobling
J

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top