• 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.
Feel the intensity, not your equipment. Maximum image quality. Minimum weight. The new ZEISS SFL, up to 30% less weight than comparable competitors.

AOU-NACC Proposals 2022 (1 Viewer)


Well-known member
United States
If that is the case then why not explain it. As it is, they simply look deliberately obtuse: why not go with what every other country (where it occurs) has called it for years and then if changes come along amend it then - as everyone else will.

Experts, hey...

Well, they very likely will whenever the voting commentary is published on the NACC checklist. That used to be within a week or so of the proposals if not same day, but lately its months later.


Well-known member
United States
I am no longer the least surprised by NACC decisions but it is interesting to see them.

Shame Spot-crowned Woodcreeper, Whimbrel, Sharp-shinned Hawk, and Elegant Trogon were not passed. The non-passing of House Wren doesn’t surprise at all, though I should think/hope that many of the members can recognize how obviously different they are. shrug

I do wish names and votes were published along with the comments… quite anachronistic how it functions in comparison with SACC even.
My sense is that the reason for the House Wren proposal was that there was no formal peer-reviewed paper. I don't really agree with this sort of rejection, since I think it sort of renders the whole proposal system pointless. Why bother writing detailed proposals when really you can just go "X paper says this, what do we think?"

Probably also worth pointing out this reminder: The committee isn't a monolithic body, and that proposals need more than a majority to pass. I'd be shocked if the House Wren split wasn't a close vote. There are definitely folks on the committee who probably agree with many of the statements here.

It wouldn't surprise me if most of the complaints might just be down to a couple of specific individuals.

Paul Clapham

Well-known member
Not splitting it should not be based on ability to ID.
I didn't mean to say that it wasn't possible to ID a Fork-tailed-type Swift flying off the Pribilofs to species. On the contrary, observers out there take great care to do that sort of identification for casual Asian birds. However as far as I know that hasn't been done retrospectively for old observations so the best that the NACC could do is to replace "Fork-tailed Swift" by "Fork-tailed type of Swift" in the list. And they don't do that, if it isn't a documented species it doesn't get to be in the list.

(EDIT) There's maybe a dozen species in the NACC list in this situation, Asian birds which have been split by other authorities since being added to the list. Narcissus Flycatcher, Pallas's Leaf Warbler, and so on.
Last edited:

Users who are viewing this thread