Increasing dissent amongst birders regards taxonomic changes and seeking an alternative listing authority? (1 Viewer)

[Peter.home]

Why aren't we encouraged more to list and identify birds at the subspecies level? It'd be harder as a hobby, but we'd be closer to immune from all the splits and lumps.

I wonder if it is possible for us to be working at the sub species level, and ahead of the game.

I guess field guides and listing apps are preventing this to a large extent.

 

[l_raty]

Why aren't we encouraged more to list and identify birds at the subspecies level? It'd be harder as a hobby, but we'd be closer to immune from all the splits and lumps.

Subspecies can be split or lumped too -- it is questionable that this would really make you "immune from all the splits and lumps".
Worse, unlike species, two subspecies that get lumped do not persist in the system as distinct taxa of a lower rank. One of them just vanishes entirely.

 

[Swindon Addick]

an excellent British checklist, where every bird was a full tick - there were no half-and-half categories

This comment from the letter is worrying me, because there are lots of half and half categories in any list, whatever the taxonomy. When birders get together to whinge about "the authorities" and the terrible evils being done to our personal lists, we are mainly talking about the people with the thankless task of working out whether particular birds are wild or not. No amount of taxonomic change is going to make that issue go away, and if I'm being honest it would feel like cheating to count a Red-crested Pochard that I saw a long way from where the self-sustaining population lives so I'm kind of glad there are people who do that.

I'm one of those who follow the principle of "my list, my rules" on issues of counting birds as wild. The only time I stick strictly to category A/C/D definitions is when I'm doing something with agreed rules like the joint BirdForum 1st January lists. At other times, I have no problem with "counting" a monk parakeet on the Isle of Dogs, where I disagree with the BOU's view that they're not self-sustaining. The BOU don't care that I have them on my list, I don't care that they don't have it and everyone's happy.

No reason people couldn't do that for species and "count" easily-distinguishable subspecies. Unless you're being competitive, no-one's harmed by that. But for official lists "my list my rules" doesn't really work and if taxonomic authorities reach a consensus that Arctic Redpoll is a subspecies then it is, whether I personally count it or not.

 

[Frank van Drogen]

Subspecies can be split or lumped too -- it is questionable that this would really make you "immune from all the splits and lumps".
Worse, unlike species, two subspecies that get lumped do not persist in the system as distinct taxa of a lower rank. One of them just vanishes entirely.

Subspecies also hybridize, making IDing quite a challenge. I realized this week, when looking at six White Wagtails on a field, with one of them a darker specimen. We discussed whether that one was a Pied Wagtail or not. In the end couldn’t nail it as such, and assumed that it might be a hybrid.

 

[Mysticete]

Why aren't we encouraged more to list and identify birds at the subspecies level? It'd be harder as a hobby, but we'd be closer to immune from all the splits and lumps.

I wonder if it is possible for us to be working at the sub species level, and ahead of the game.

I guess field guides and listing apps are preventing this to a large extent.

subspecies taxonomy is fairly neglected in comparison to species level taxonomy. There are a lot of subspecies that are not valid or which might not be field identifiable.

A better option would probably be to work at the subspecies group level, which ebird/clements recognizes. Although even there what is or isn't defined as a group can be kind of arbitrary.

 

[Kirk Roth]

(1) While it is indeed good for science to have competing taxonomic viewpoints (DMW's point 4), for birders I think the move to a single taxonomy with AviList should be welcomed - surely it helps if we are speaking the same language by using the same list?

I think this point is important and often overlooked. In science the "competition" for taxonomy is done paper by paper, study by study. I think too often birders view the checklists as the "taxonomic viewpoint" when its really just those committees adopting the viewpoints that pass muster in their opinions. It is a bit of a tail wagging the dog viewpoint when we pretend that "IOC says this or that" etc.

Where checklists do compete and where multiples are more useful is when they have entirely different philosophies, and that will result in wholesale changes, not here and there hand-wringing over whether particular species are different enough.

As has been pointed out by others, BSC is dominant in ornithology and so it makes sense that the BSC checklists would be the ones merging. Checklists based on phylogeny, morphology, genetics, or whatever are understandably not involved. But they are still out there and anyone is free to use Boyd, or the Birdwatch list, or make their own as several on this forum have done.

 

[DMW]

I think this point is important and often overlooked. In science the "competition" for taxonomy is done paper by paper, study by study. I think too often birders view the checklists as the "taxonomic viewpoint" when its really just those committees adopting the viewpoints that pass muster in their opinions. It is a bit of a tail wagging the dog viewpoint when we pretend that "IOC says this or that" etc.

Where checklists do compete and where multiples are more useful is when they have entirely different philosophies, and that will result in wholesale changes, not here and there hand-wringing over whether particular species are different enough.

As has been pointed out by others, BSC is dominant in ornithology and so it makes sense that the BSC checklists would be the ones merging. Checklists based on phylogeny, morphology, genetics, or whatever are understandably not involved. But they are still out there and anyone is free to use Boyd, or the Birdwatch list, or make their own as several on this forum have done.

I'm not sure recent history really bears this out. My perception is that the biggest shake-up in recent decades outside the PSC (which generally doesn't seem to have much traction) came from BirdLife, and more specifically from Nigel Collar literally just rummaging through BMNH specimen drawers and arbitrarily splitting dozens of low-hanging fruit in articles in the Oriental Birding. Very little science was involved.

I believe this approach was put on a more formalised basis by BirdLife with the Tobias criteria, and evolved into the Birdlife / HBW list. This was viewed as really quite radical at the time, and subject of considerable scorn at times, but I think actually provided a stimulus and roadmap for competing taxonomies, which then played catch-up. And this all took place within the BSC.

What if a figure of similar stature to Nigel Collar decides to undertake a similar exercise and decides everything has gone too far and start a radical exercise in wholesale lumping? Will the existence of the One True List make it harder for this to gain traction?

 

[JWN Andrewes]

The issue is that although we are hobbyists, we have become tied to a scientific discipline that was never designed or intended for our use, being carried out by people who, quite rightly, are not concerned about how it might effect us.

The solution would be to disconnect our hobby from the concept of species, and from a listing point of view count geographically consistent forms and call them "ticks" or "types" or something, and not worry about what is or is not a species.

There would still be grey areas, and we'd still have loads to argue about but at least we'd be defining the parameters of the argument, rather than having them defined by others.

 

[raymie]

Why do we think birders making our own lists would have any less problems than a taxonomic list? It's equally arbitrary no matter how you do it. There will always be edge cases. I think it's far easier to use a list that's already made than try to make your own with no clear benefit.

 

[cajanuma]

7. Combining points 5 and 6, I get a sense that the concept of the sub-species is being eroded and that there's a ratchet effect where increasingly small differences are considered "significant". Taking the example of Cory's and Scopoli's Shearwaters, what is gained by treating them as full species rather than sub-species?

This particular example has been brought up a couple of times in this thread, but here the evidence for reproductive isolation is pretty strong. They look (somewhat different), sound different, and most importantly, there's a small degree of overlap in breeding range, and yet there is very little if any hybridization.

9. Perhaps one answer is for birders to adopt the "agg" (aggregate) concept familiar to moth-ers, and give equal weight to aggs as species for listing purposes.

I think Lynx editions found the solution when they published their one-volume birds of the world checklist: anything that was treated as a full species in one of the four main global checklists (even if not recognized as such in the other three) was treated as a full species in the checklist. Wouldn't this be a simple way to solve the problem of which checklist to use for listers?

 

[raymie]

I think Lynx editions found the solution when they published their one-volume birds of the world checklist: anything that was treated as a full species in one of the four main global checklists (even if not recognized as such in the other three) was treated as a full species in the checklist. Wouldn't this be a simple way to solve the problem of which checklist to use for listers?

Isn't that just another taxonomic checklist though? Ironically a current version of that would not include the Redpoll split.

 

[vdinets]

I fully concur. Let scientists use their own woke lists in their ivory towers. The birding community should create the people's checklist, established by online voting. Birders can lump all those boring sandpipers and leaf warblers - you need to be a certified nerd to even consider telling them apart - but recognize all color morphs of ruff, raptors and owls as separate. Also, birds in juv plumages should count as separate species - imagine the boost to life list sizes! Make birding fun again!

 

[cajanuma]

Isn't that just another taxonomic checklist though? Ironically a current version of that would include the Redpoll split.

not really, it's not making any taxonomic decisions of its own, just acknowledging everything that's been treated as a full species by at least one of the main taxonomic authorities. For listers, using that one as the baseline would solve the problem of which taxonomy to follow in the most lister-friendly way: tick everything!

 

[James Lowther]

not really, it's not making any taxonomic decisions of its own, just acknowledging everything that's been treated as a full species by at least one of the main taxonomic authorities. For listers, using that one as the baseline would solve the problem of which taxonomy to follow in the most lister-friendly way: tick everything!

I have done that to an extent with my own lists over the years, e.g. treating Birdlife splits as a kind of half-tick (or pencil tick!) despite following IOC.
However, harmonisation of 3 out of the 4 lists with the ultra conservative Howard and Moore as the outlier means that strategy will be pretty pointless in future. Unless you count historical splits (but then how far back do you go?!)
James

 

[Original PaulE]

Interesting Stephen.

I must admit Arctic Redpoll was one of my favourite birds and my little brain just cannot reconciliate that it is the same as Lesser Redpoll.

It just feels wrong to me, to just say "oh its a Redpoll', but tough I guess.

100% It's still an Arctic Redpoll to me !! looks completely different!!

 

[njlarsen]

I am pretty sure there was a story a few years ago where an American birder described having common and arctic redpoll in his area, as well as all possible types of intergrades. Possibly in an issue of the magazine from ABA?

Anyway, I think there is one big advantage for the world in sticking to the scientific list. That is participation in "citizen science" hinges on a lot of birders using the same list to report their sightings so we can get a handle on where the birds range, how their population changes over time, etc. For that reason, I am going to continue with using the results of the list coordination, and I hope a lot of other people will do the same.
Niels

 

[DMW]

This particular example has been brought up a couple of times in this thread, but here the evidence for reproductive isolation is pretty strong. They look (somewhat different), sound different, and most importantly, there's a small degree of overlap in breeding range, and yet there is very little if any hybridization.


I think Lynx editions found the solution when they published their one-volume birds of the world checklist: anything that was treated as a full species in one of the four main global checklists (even if not recognized as such in the other three) was treated as a full species in the checklist. Wouldn't this be a simple way to solve the problem of which checklist to use for listers?

Maybe Cory's / Scopoli's wasn't the best example to quote, but perhaps the issue of reproductive isolation bears more scrutiny. It's a precursor and pre-requisite to speciation, but not in itself sufficient. Isn't isolation without significant phenotypic differentiation exactly what a subspecies should be?

As for taking a maximalist approach and including all splits, this seems helpful in a publication. I think many of us have made efforts at one time or another to see distinctive taxa that aren't currently recognised by all or even any authorities.

 

[njlarsen]

Isn't isolation without significant phylogenetic differentiation exactly what a subspecies should be?

Did you mean phylogenetic or phenotypic? Not sure i understand what you are trying to say.
Niels

 

[DMW]

Did you mean phylogenetic or phenotypic? Not sure i understand what you are trying to say.
Niels

Yes, I meant phenotypic and have now edited my post, thanks!

 

[Mysticete]

I think that's its been general acknowledged that processes leading to speciation don't necessarily evolve in the same order. You can get reproductive isolation as an initial step in birds like nest parasites, or you can get phenotypic differentation first, or genetic differentiation. and within each of those necessary steps, there is a gradient, from for instance no hybridization to large amounts of hybridization. When separating a species or subspecies, you are creating a arbitrary in some cases dividing line on what is in practice a continuum