Jon.Bryant
Well-known member
Just worked through the IOC 13.1 updates and compared to 12.2 there are 198 changes to taxa - these changes are either newly recognised species or subspecies, subspecies reassignments (lumps/splits) or changes to the spelling of Latin genus or given names.
Interestingly, I has always thought that IOC was pioneering, with Clements more conservative. BirdLife originally seemed quite conservative, until they made the big shake up in 2016/2017 when their taxonomy seemed a bit 'too radical'.
Of the recent IOC changes, 151 (76.3%) result in species level alignment with both Clements and BirdLife, so a great step towards convergence - in this group there are still however a few differences in spelling of a species name or the number of subspecies recognised. Interestingly, of these 151 changes, quite a number of the taxa were changed by Clements in October 2022, with BirdLife being the early adopter/trail blazer. There may therefore be merit in keeping abreast of the BirdLife list, as it may indicate what is around the corner.
A further 31 changes relate to alignment with Clements (with BirdLife now the outlier), and 11 changes relate to alignment with BirdLife (with Clements the outlier).
Only 5 changes appear to be 'pioneering' and a departure from the other lists, namely;
Rather annoyingly (at least in my opinion), the changes introduce a few inconsistencies that seem more to do with grammar than taxonomy. A case in point is the reassignment of some Bubo owls by Clements (in 2022) and now IOC to the genus Ketupa. We know have (Ketupa lactea and Ketupa lacteus), (Ketupa sumatrana and Ketupa sumatranus), (Ketupa coromanda and Ketupa coromandus) and finally (Ketupa leucosticta and Ketupa leucostictus). I am sure that one Authorities Latin is probably correct, but would it not have been better and more pragmatic to ignore the grammatical errors and followed the lead publisher?
Interestingly, I has always thought that IOC was pioneering, with Clements more conservative. BirdLife originally seemed quite conservative, until they made the big shake up in 2016/2017 when their taxonomy seemed a bit 'too radical'.
Of the recent IOC changes, 151 (76.3%) result in species level alignment with both Clements and BirdLife, so a great step towards convergence - in this group there are still however a few differences in spelling of a species name or the number of subspecies recognised. Interestingly, of these 151 changes, quite a number of the taxa were changed by Clements in October 2022, with BirdLife being the early adopter/trail blazer. There may therefore be merit in keeping abreast of the BirdLife list, as it may indicate what is around the corner.
A further 31 changes relate to alignment with Clements (with BirdLife now the outlier), and 11 changes relate to alignment with BirdLife (with Clements the outlier).
Only 5 changes appear to be 'pioneering' and a departure from the other lists, namely;
- Perhaps not pioneering, but 'different', subspecies amabilis is asigned to Cyclopsitta nigrifrons. Clements perhaps conservatively do not split Cyclopsitta gulielmitertii and therefore threat amabilis as a subspecies of that species. BirdLife recognise Cyclopsitta nigrifrons but treat it as monotypic. BirdLife split Cyclopsitta amabilis as a further species assigning amabilis (and ramuensis - not recognised by IOC) to that species instead.
- Loriculus bonapartei is split as a separate species. Clements and BirdLife both treat bonapartei as a subspecies of Loriculus philippensis.
- Otus bikegila is a newly recognised species (not recognised in other lists).
- Aphrastura spinicauda subantarctica is a newly recognised subspecies (not recognised in other lists).
- Zosterops paruhbesar is a newly recognised species (not recognised in other lists).
Rather annoyingly (at least in my opinion), the changes introduce a few inconsistencies that seem more to do with grammar than taxonomy. A case in point is the reassignment of some Bubo owls by Clements (in 2022) and now IOC to the genus Ketupa. We know have (Ketupa lactea and Ketupa lacteus), (Ketupa sumatrana and Ketupa sumatranus), (Ketupa coromanda and Ketupa coromandus) and finally (Ketupa leucosticta and Ketupa leucostictus). I am sure that one Authorities Latin is probably correct, but would it not have been better and more pragmatic to ignore the grammatical errors and followed the lead publisher?