Clements 2023 Checklist Update (1 Viewer)

[njlarsen]

But is this a ‘standard’ approach?

For example BirdLife split the egrets long ago. In their list and even in the Lynx ‘All the Birds of the World’ published 2020 the names Yellow-billed, Plumed and Intermediate are used. If English names are not standardised (which the aren’t) and not all world taxonomies rename parent species when a split is made, the the approach cannot be relied upon and is flawed. It will be interesting to see what names IOC use!

In fact Clements don’t even stick to the renaming principle you suggest (e.g. Savannah and Chirruping Nightjar, where the former name is retained).

I do not think your reasoning for the rename is correct or ‘a rule’, and that the renaming is probably just down to the ‘feeling’ or judgement of the taxonomic committee. You will probably find some debate somewhere about the differences in dictionary definitions of intermediate and medium, and why the later is more apt for the egret.

Intermediate can be defined as ‘coming between two things in time, place or character, etc.’ so could be argued to be less informative, but this is a rather dry and academic point - and I would prefer that academics don’t tinker with common language usage.

I have read several statements along the lines of not changing the common name if this stays in use for a large part of the pre-split population - I assume that explains the exceptions you mention.

For specifically the former Intermediated Egret, this is the quote from the Clements website:

English names: To minimize confusion, the English name Intermediate Egret is now retired, and we adopt Medium Egret for the Asian species, which occurs widely alongside Little and Great Egrets. African brachyrhyncha has long been also known as Yellow-billed Egret, while the name Plumed Egret has achieved familiarity for Australian plumifera (which typically has longer breeding plumes than the other taxa), so these names are adopted here.

Niels

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I have read several statements along the lines of not changing the common name if this stays in use for a large part of the pre-split population - I assume that explains the exceptions you mention.

There are quite a lot of other examples in the latest Clements update of splits where the ‘original’ species name has not been changed. Most of the time the widespread form retains it’s name (as you suggest), but I am not sure this is a rule, and it still undermines the concept that you can determine references pre and post split by English name.

Reading through the the comments in Clements update, interestingly there is reference to sticking with names already in common use, and also to retaining the common name of the original species - i.e. when Gull-billed Tern was split by others they used Common and Australian Gull-billed, but Clements went against these established names and chose Australian Tern (another horrid name in mu opinion) so that the name Gull-billed Tern did not need modification.

I still think it is a somewhat jumbled, inconsistent and unscientific approach.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Why didn't they think of Asian Egret, because there are other species in Asia?

 

[Farnboro John]

There are quite a lot of other examples in the latest Clements update of splits where the ‘original’ species name has not been changed. Most of the time the widespread form retains it’s name (as you suggest), but I am not sure this is a rule, and it still undermines the concept that you can determine references pre and post split by English name.

Reading through the the comments in Clements update, interestingly there is reference to sticking with names already in common use, and also to retaining the common name of the original species - i.e. when Gull-billed Tern was split by others they used Common and Australian Gull-billed, but Clements went against these established names and chose Australian Tern (another horrid name in mu opinion) so that the name Gull-billed Tern did not need modification.

I still think it is a somewhat jumbled, inconsistent and unscientific approach.

It is only ignorance that makes people believe that applying a modifier to one name means the original also needs one. Gull-billed Tern and Australian Gull-billed Tern would be a perfectly grammatical and understandable combination.

John

 

[johnallcock]

For me, the main problem with either Medium or Intermediate Egret is that it requires comparison with two species. This invites confusion when faced with a lone bird, or with two birds (are they Great/Intermediate or Intermediate/Cattle or Great/Little, etc.)? This is made even worse in Asia by the presence of two sizes of Great Egret (alba and modesta). I think these names confuse people and actually make the species more difficult to ID (and a search of online photos quickly reveals misidentifications).

I think the split was an opportunity to create a novel name that could have made the species seem more distinct. This could perhaps have been based on habitat preference (Paddyfield Egret? Marsh Egret?), structure (Thick-necked Egret? Short-billed Egret?) or appearance (Yellow-lored Egret? Plume-breasted Egret?)

I'm not really convinced about all of these suggestions, just wanting to highlight that with a few minutes thought there are various options that could be more useful than just looking up Intermediate in a thesaurus.

 

[Snapdragyn]

For me, the main problem with either Medium or Intermediate Egret is that it requires comparison with two species. This invites confusion when faced with a lone bird, or with two birds (are they Great/Intermediate or Intermediate/Cattle or Great/Little, etc.)? This is made even worse in Asia by the presence of two sizes of Great Egret (alba and modesta). I think these names confuse people and actually make the species more difficult to ID (and a search of online photos quickly reveals misidentifications).

I think the split was an opportunity to create a novel name that could have made the species seem more distinct. This could perhaps have been based on habitat preference (Paddyfield Egret? Marsh Egret?), structure (Thick-necked Egret? Short-billed Egret?) or appearance (Yellow-lored Egret? Plume-breasted Egret?)

I'm not really convinced about all of these suggestions, just wanting to highlight that with a few minutes thought there are various options that could be more useful than just looking up Intermediate in a thesaurus.

Oh, I quite like Paddyfield Egret, actually. Nice idea.

 

[gusasp]

Oh, I quite like Paddyfield Egret, actually. Nice idea.

Totally agree, wonderful name! In Swedish we’ve reserved that for Indian Pond though, sadly.

 

[Farnboro John]

Oh, I quite like Paddyfield Egret, actually. Nice idea.

Not much help when its standing in a flock of Cattle Egrets in a dry field though. Intermediate Egret is making the best of a bad job and a perfect description of a bird devoid of interest beyond filling a gap in a tick list.

John

 

[MJB]

Intermediate Egret is making the best of a bad job and a perfect description of a bird devoid of interest beyond filling a gap in a tick list.

John

Wagler's Intermediate Egret is one possible solution; it also would have the happy knack of setting the AOS in a tizzy... Another six years will celebrate the bicentenary of the OD...

An alternative would be to peruse a selection of synonyms: Midpoint, Mean, Midway, Centre/Centermost, Equidistant, Innermost, Medial, Mid and Middlemost have varying levels of merit or appeal...
MJB

 

[Farnboro John]

Wagler's Intermediate Egret is one possible solution; it also would have the happy knack of setting the AOS in a tizzy... Another six years will celebrate the bicentenary of the OD...

An alternative would be to peruse a selection of synonyms: Midpoint, Mean, Midway, Centre/Centermost, Equidistant, Innermost, Medial, Mid and Middlemost have varying levels of merit or appeal...
MJB

Midway's out at once - is it even within the bird's distribution? Given the amount of people who don't seem to understand average speed cameras I think Mean must also be ruled out as liable to be misunderstood! We have a Middle Spotted Woodpecker so perhaps Middle Egret.... but having recently mentioned that there's no need for a qualifier just because every near relative has one, perhaps the best way to emphasise the sheer mediocrity of this bird would be to just call it Egret.*

* Maybe Mediocre Egret is an option too?

John

 

[Andrew Spencer]

* Maybe Mediocre Egret is an option too?

I advocated for "Inconvenient Egret" when I was asked.

 

[njlarsen]

There is another thread or two for that discussion. I hope we can have it stay out of this thread.
Niels

 

[jts1882]

I thought I'd compare the higher ranked taxa in the 2023 Clements/BOW list with IOC 13.2 list.

With orders, Clements recognises 41 orders and the IOC 44 orders. The differences are that Clements/BOW recognises Galbuliformes (split from Piciformes) and Cathartiformes (split from Accipitriformes), while the IOC splits Caprimulgiformes and recognises Caprimulgiformes s. str, Steatornithiformes, Nyctibiiformes, Podargiformes, Aegotheliformes and Apodiformes.

With the recognition of Hyliidae and Paradoxornithidae in the latest update, the families are close to alignment. Clements/BOW recognises 251 families and the IOC 253 families. The differences are that Clements/BOW recognises Oxyruncidae and the IOC recognises Alcippeidae, Erythrocercidae, and Cettiidae.

On genera, Clements/BOW recognises 2365 genera and the IOC 2376 genera. Of these 2337 are recognised by both, with one spelt differently (Celebesia in BOW and Celebesica in IOC). 28 genera are recognised only by Clements/BOW and 39 genera only by the IOC. Asterisks mark genera that will be in alignment in IOC 14.1 (changes announed as of Nov 4).

28 genera only recognised by Clements/BOW

38 genera only recognised by IOC

Analisoma Anthropoides Anurolimnas Aplopelia Atlantisia Atronanus Bugeranus Calamornis Calherodius* Cataponera Cholornis Conostoma Crateroscelis Cryptolybia* Eudromias* Hapalocrex Hemimacronyx Hesperoburhinus* Musophaga Oressochen Oroanassa* Pachyphantes Pogonornis* Psittiparus Rhodophoneus Saundersilarus Smutsornis Zonibyx*

Aenigmatolimnas Aphanocrex Aptenorallus Brachypodius Cabalus Ceblepyris Chlorophoneus Coloeus Crecopsis Dessonornis Elseyornis* Empidornis Eulabeornis Euptilotus Gennaeodryas Glycifohia Griseotyrannus Habroptila Hesperiphona Hypotaenidia Ixodia Leuconotopicus Micropygia Milvago Namibornis Neochen Neopsephotus Pardaliparus Peneothello Phalcoboenus Poliolophus Quoyornis Reinwardtipicus* Rhamphocharis Sigelus Thinornis* Tregellasia Tumbezia Veniliornis

 

[Mike Earp]

On genera, Clements/BOW recognises 2365 genera and the IOC 2376 genera. Of these 2337 are recognised by both, with one spelt differently (Celebesia in BOW and Celebesica in IOC). 28 genera are recognised only by Clements/BOW and 39 genera only by the IOC. Asterisks mark genera that will be in alignment in IOC 14.1 (changes announed as of Nov 4).

Given its earlier use in Insecta, why does Clements/BOW use Celebesia? Is there a good reason not to use Celebesica (as also used by H&M)?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Given its earlier use in Insecta, why does Clements/BOW use Celebesia?

Unlike JCVD, they are not aware

 

[l_raty]

For the sake of global awareness, then -

The OD of Celebesia Bolívar 1917 (Orthoptera) is at t. 15 (1916-17) - Revista de la Real Academia de Ciencias Exactas, Físicas y Naturales de Madrid - Biodiversity Heritage Library . This name is currently in use for four species, C. acuticerca Bolívar 1917, C. ferruginata (Brunner von Wattenwyl 1898), C. heinrichi Ramme 1941 and C. linduensis Storozhenko 2020 (see Storozhenko 2020 -- A new species of the genus Celebesia Bolívar, 1917 (Orthoptera: Acrididae, Catantopinae) from Sulawesi Island with notes on composition of the tribe Mesambriini | Zootaxa ).

The OD of Celebesia Riley 1918 (Aves) is at v.31 (1918) - Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington - Biodiversity Heritage Library . Celebisica Strand 1928 is a nomen novum for Celebesia Riley 1918, preoccupied -- OD at https://www.zobodat.at/pdf/Archiv-Naturgeschichte_92A_8_0030-0075.pdf ; "Celebesia Riley, Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 3 1. p. 158 (30. Decbr. 1918) (Type: Celebesia abbotti Riley) (nec Cel. Bolivar) möge Celebesica Strand n. n. heißen."

(Note that the data in the Key are correct -- and, therefore, conflict with the erroneous nomenclature adopted on the BoW website proper.)
(Note also that the circumscription of Celebesia as adopted by BoW and Celebesica as adopted by IOC differ.)

 

[Surreybirder]

Given its earlier use in Insecta, why does Clements/BOW use Celebesia? Is there a good reason not to use Celebesica (as also used by H&M)?

I don't understand the rules on scientific names. I thought that they were meant to be unique. Yet Oenanthe is used for both a genus of birds and the deadly poisonous hemlock family. Or is it the case that there is no communication between botanists and ornithologists?

 

[Mike Earp]

I don't understand the rules on scientific names. I thought that they were meant to be unique. Yes Oenathe is used for both a genus of birds and the deadly poisonous hemlock family. Or is it the case that there is no communication between botanists and ornithologists?

Synonymy is allowed between Zoology and Botany, just not within Zoology

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I don't understand the rules on scientific names. I thought that they were meant to be unique. Yes Oenanthe is used for both a genus of birds and the deadly poisonous hemlock family. Or is it the case that there is no communication between botanists and ornithologists?

There is no homonymy between plants and animals because these two reigns are their own Code

 

[Surreybirder]

Thanks for the clarifications!