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="Murray Lord" data-source="post: 1718479" data-attributes="member: 49730">I read that article a few weeks ago and it made a lot of sense to me.  Here in Australia our official checklist has adopted a radical taxonomic order (i.e. it goes waterbirds, pigeons, frogmouths, swifs, then seabirds).  Should new Australian guides follow that order?  The latest edition of the Slater guide decided not to, and pretty much made up its own order, not dissimilar to what that article was suggesting.  Unfortunately they did it in a strange way, that included putting in some species multiple times, and one plate (cormorants) appears in its entirety twice, once to be with seabirds and once with waterbirds.  The taxonomic order of the current Australian checklist may not be followed elsewhere as new evidence will have come out by the time other checklists are updated.  So it would just serve to confuse visiting birders (not to mention us Australians) to have followed it.Mind you, whether it makes sense to come up with a new order, or just to follow an existing old taxonomy (say a pre Sibley and Ahlquist one), I don't know.</blockquote>