-
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.
AOU-NACC Proposals 2011 (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Subspecies
checklist.aou.org/taxa
Just noticed that all subspecies info has subsequently been removed from the online checklist (except via the Avibase links)...
checklist.aou.org/taxa
Last edited:
mb1848
Well-known member
I just noted the comments being added. Sorry in advance if others have already noticed it. I have no idea when it was added??
http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2011_A_votes_web.php .
My favorite proposal:
2011-A-1
Set a minimum standard for the designation of a holotype for extant avian species
YES - 2 without comment.
YES. My understanding of the Code is that its primary value, and the expertise of those who have written it is, with respect to matters of priority, gender agreement, and other aspects of nomenclature, not science per se. This proposal has to do with minimum acceptable scientific standards that virtually all professional ornithologists with a background in taxonomy and systematics would endorse; it even has a proviso concerning rare species that allows some wiggle room in extreme cases. If the ICZN does not adopt such scientific minimum standards, I see no reason to follow them with respect to anything but matters of strict nomenclature.
YES in principle, but I prefer alternate wording and also inclusion of subspecies (as suggested by another committee member):
Recommendation 73A (AOU). Designation of holotype. An author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should designate a holotype represented by an entire specimen housed in a museum and available for study, so that subsequent recognition and long-term scientific value of the holotype is maximized.
We note for clarification that by ICZN (1999:48) definition, "The species group encompasses all nominal taxa at the ranks of species and subspecies..."
NO. I do not think that we should adopt practices that may lead us to use a classification that differs from most others. I think this could be a slippery slope, when we, standing alone by this principal, cease to be the standard bearer for the nomenclature used in journals, governmental agencies, field guides, etc. We have already seen this by the Wilson Bulletin adopting IOC names.
NO. Reasoning given in 2010-C vote for 2010-C15, which was the same proposal. I recommend that we take the reworded resolution and work with the authors of this proposal to arrive at a draft we can all accept.
NO. The Check-list is the wrong place to do this. I am strongly sympathetic to the argument, but any modification to ICZN language we make has no force. We should see if we can get the weight of the society (and others?) behind a proposal to revise the ICZN itself.
NO. I agree with the concept that new species-level taxa should have as their holotype a full specimen, but I am having trouble really understanding the results of the proposal. Would we not accept a name that is valid and available under the code, but for which there was only type material that didn’t meet these requirements? I would be uncomfortable with this, even though I didn’t approve of the type material.
ABSTAIN, at least temporarily. I agree with the idea and the need, but I am not sure this is the proper way to go about it.
ABSTAIN. A standard should be set, but perhaps I am not the one to articulate it. I'd like a full specimen from a series used in the original description. A drop of blood or some tissue without a voucher specimen is not enough.
If I might emphasize:
"Reasoning given in 2010-C vote for 2010-C15". 2010-C15 not listed in 2010 proposals.
http://www.aou.org/committees/nacc/proposals/2011_A_votes_web.php .
My favorite proposal:
2011-A-1
Set a minimum standard for the designation of a holotype for extant avian species
YES - 2 without comment.
YES. My understanding of the Code is that its primary value, and the expertise of those who have written it is, with respect to matters of priority, gender agreement, and other aspects of nomenclature, not science per se. This proposal has to do with minimum acceptable scientific standards that virtually all professional ornithologists with a background in taxonomy and systematics would endorse; it even has a proviso concerning rare species that allows some wiggle room in extreme cases. If the ICZN does not adopt such scientific minimum standards, I see no reason to follow them with respect to anything but matters of strict nomenclature.
YES in principle, but I prefer alternate wording and also inclusion of subspecies (as suggested by another committee member):
Recommendation 73A (AOU). Designation of holotype. An author who establishes a new nominal species-group taxon should designate a holotype represented by an entire specimen housed in a museum and available for study, so that subsequent recognition and long-term scientific value of the holotype is maximized.
We note for clarification that by ICZN (1999:48) definition, "The species group encompasses all nominal taxa at the ranks of species and subspecies..."
NO. I do not think that we should adopt practices that may lead us to use a classification that differs from most others. I think this could be a slippery slope, when we, standing alone by this principal, cease to be the standard bearer for the nomenclature used in journals, governmental agencies, field guides, etc. We have already seen this by the Wilson Bulletin adopting IOC names.
NO. Reasoning given in 2010-C vote for 2010-C15, which was the same proposal. I recommend that we take the reworded resolution and work with the authors of this proposal to arrive at a draft we can all accept.
NO. The Check-list is the wrong place to do this. I am strongly sympathetic to the argument, but any modification to ICZN language we make has no force. We should see if we can get the weight of the society (and others?) behind a proposal to revise the ICZN itself.
NO. I agree with the concept that new species-level taxa should have as their holotype a full specimen, but I am having trouble really understanding the results of the proposal. Would we not accept a name that is valid and available under the code, but for which there was only type material that didn’t meet these requirements? I would be uncomfortable with this, even though I didn’t approve of the type material.
ABSTAIN, at least temporarily. I agree with the idea and the need, but I am not sure this is the proper way to go about it.
ABSTAIN. A standard should be set, but perhaps I am not the one to articulate it. I'd like a full specimen from a series used in the original description. A drop of blood or some tissue without a voucher specimen is not enough.
If I might emphasize:
"Reasoning given in 2010-C vote for 2010-C15". 2010-C15 not listed in 2010 proposals.
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Mark, you were a bit slow on the draw there...
But it was worth it to see the comments on THAT proposal again! :t:21st July 2012: Comments & outcomes
Now posted: Pending Proposals, 2011.
PS. It's always fun trying to match the anon comments/votes to individual Committee members...
...the original April 1st (!) proposal that did a mysterious disappearing act:
www.birdforum.net/showpost.php?p=2144118&postcount=14
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Incidentally, that proposal was clearly a reaction to the controversial Grallaria antpitta description(s), on which there will soon be two significant published opinions:
- HBW Special Volume: Will presumably recognise fenwickorum, given the Lynx-BirdLife checklist relationship?
- H&M4 Vol 2: With Van Remsen (SACC Chair) as co-editor and one of the regional consultants for the Americas, it seems likely that urraoensis will be recognised. But Edward Dickinson is meticulous when determining Priority!...
