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="Richard Klim" data-source="post: 3312526" data-attributes="member: 773">IOC and eBird/Clements both seem close to the general ethos of BOURC TSC – essentially 'BSC lite' (and, importantly, take due account of molecular studies!). There appears to be an increasing convergence in approach between IOC and eBird/Clements: after a period when eBird/Clements followed AOU/GB/Australia/NZ taxonomy (Five Eyes?! <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" />) but seemed reluctant to adopt taxonomic changes in the rest of the world, it's been much more proactive in recent years. Nevertheless, I'd favour IOC for the following reasons (some perhaps unimportant to BOURC):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">IOC includes authors and dates, making it a more-complete, self-standing classification. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Subspecific taxonomy, originally based upon H&M, takes recent literature into account to reassess subspecies validity. (eBird/Clements seems rather weak in this area, with very little movement since Jim Clements's original compilation.) </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">It's impossible to please everyone with common names, but IOC's are at least based upon the results of a worldwide consultation process (and comment is still welcomed). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Proposed and forthcoming updates are posted online in advance, allowing and encouraging comment from the ornithological community. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The list is updated more frequently (quarterly, rather than annually). </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Presentation of the list is superior (both online and in downloadable spreadsheets), and includes comments tracing past changes, with references.</li> </ul>[In contrast, adoption of BirdLife's 2016 taxonomy (with its low regard for the value of molecular data) would be in direct conflict with BOURC TSC's approach until now, and would surely be indicative of a highly political decision (although it probably wouldn't actually have much impact on the British List)…]</blockquote>

Verification