• 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.

IOC combines forces w/ NACC, SACC, Cornell, and more to produce "global checklist" (1 Viewer)

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
But all three of those organizations are represented there.

IOC though has several distinct differences in species recognized versus NACC. For instance, the Fox Sparrows and Yellow-rumped Warblers are split in IOC, but still lumped as single species each by NACC.

So a merger of all of these checklists is GOING to result in some authorities being followed while others are not. Here's hoping they don't lump the Yellow-rumped Warbler, since I think NACC was pretty wrong on that decision.
 

Farnboro John

Well-known member
Here's a piece from Birdguides.

https://www.birdguides.com/news/major-step-towards-single-global-bird-taxonomy-announced/

How do we interpret this...

Although English names for species will be drawn primarily from the IOC World Bird List, modifications to better align with preferences of checklist committees of individual continents, such as the North American Checklist Committee (NACC) and South American Checklist Committee (SACC) will also be incorporated.

Currently, there are some species which retain the English rather than American name, despite appearing on both continents e.g Grey Plover. Does this mean that all, such names will be replaced with the North American preference?

More importantly, will the "North American Checklist Committee (NACC) and South American Checklist Committee (SACC)" members be drawn in sensible proportion from, respectively, the whole of North America and South America: or is this another Trumpian US hegemony grab? If the latter, then nothing they say can possibly be considered valid, which would of course suit "the Old World" - which under normal rules of priority should win every time.....

John
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
More importantly, will the "North American Checklist Committee (NACC) and South American Checklist Committee (SACC)" members be drawn in sensible proportion from, respectively, the whole of North America and South America: or is this another Trumpian US hegemony grab? If the latter, then nothing they say can possibly be considered valid, which would of course suit "the Old World" - which under normal rules of priority should win every time.....

John

I am not even sure what you are trying to imply here. SACC and NACC has been functioning committees a lot longer than the current president of the US, and why he would have any influence on them is beyond me.

Niels
 

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
Here's a piece from Birdguides.

https://www.birdguides.com/news/major-step-towards-single-global-bird-taxonomy-announced/

How do we interpret this...

Although English names for species will be drawn primarily from the IOC World Bird List, modifications to better align with preferences of checklist committees of individual continents, such as the North American Checklist Committee (NACC) and South American Checklist Committee (SACC) will also be incorporated.

Currently, there are some species which retain the English rather than American name, despite appearing on both continents e.g Grey Plover. Does this mean that all, such names will be replaced with the North American preference?

I read this to mainly influence those species where the major part of the population occurs in areas covered by those regional checklists. The UK is out of influence because they chose to disband their regional checklist.

Niels
 

Kirk Roth

Well-known member
I am not even sure what you are trying to imply here. SACC and NACC has been functioning committees a lot longer than the current president of the US, and why he would have any influence on them is beyond me.

Niels

The concept of some sort of “Trumpian Taxonomy” is pure comic gold.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
which would of course suit "the Old World" - which under normal rules of priority should win every time.....

John

John I also don't fully understand your prior post - it reads as if you aren't aware of SACC and NACC?

Regarding the part I've quote above, I'm not sure what rules deem that old world vs new world have priority in anything? It sounds colonial, but again perhaps I'm not understanding.
 

pbjosh

missing the neotropics
Switzerland
As far as languages go, I don't particularly care about English differences, and don't get worked up. British spelling is more elegant, perhaps. Some British names might be better, some American names might be. While a unified list in the end is a good thing, it'll be a bit of a loss of color if it contributes to unification of every last common name. And I fairly doubt it will.
 

Maffong

Well-known member
Funnily enough, every time this (pretty nonsensical) "debate" arises here (almost daily it seems) I feel reminded of Monty Python and the Judean People's Front
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
So this means the end of the silliness of different taxonomies, right? I really couldn't care less about what the English names will be (even thought I am willing to participate in any silly thread about how we could simplify them :)) but this means that we will have ONE list of species and the need to investigate which particular list is a given book, webpage, report or whatever following will end? That would be glorious, no matter what are the details of the given list.
 

Xenospiza

Distracted
Supporter
As an American I think Grey/Gray Plover is a horribly boring name.
Black-bellied Plover is better, but not much. Why not annoy everyone and change it to "Silver Plover" (a literal translation of the Dutch name - it immediately reminds you that it looks like a Golden Plover).
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
Black-bellied Plover is better, but not much. Why not annoy everyone and change it to "Silver Plover" (a literal translation of the Dutch name - it immediately reminds you that it looks like a Golden Plover).

In Czech, it's called "Pale plover". Which may not be the best name, but I can explain why it is really good that it exists: shorebirds, in Czech, are literally "mudbirds", so my wife once said, looking at a "Pale plover", being a "mudbird": have yourself some mud, you look all pale! And that's what we now say each time we see a Gray Plover and it's still funny!
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
Funnily enough, every time this (pretty nonsensical) "debate" arises here (almost daily it seems) I feel reminded of Monty Python and the Judean People's Front

It might be nonsensical to you, it doesn't affect your national list, names.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
So this means the end of the silliness of different taxonomies, right? I really couldn't care less about what the English names will be (even thought I am willing to participate in any silly thread about how we could simplify them :)) but this means that we will have ONE list of species and the need to investigate which particular list is a given book, webpage, report or whatever following will end? That would be glorious, no matter what are the details of the given list.

Again, a non native speaker, telling people they don't care about English names. Many of us have grown up with these names, perhaps if you had, you'd also feel slightly aggrieved if they got changed in order to satisfy another checklist preference?

Non English speakers, seem to be claiming some kind of rights over the issue, simply because they've adopted the English language list for their own use.
 
Last edited:

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
Again, a non native speaker, telling people they don't care about English names. Many of us have grown up with these names, perhaps if you had, you'd also feel slightly aggrieved if they got changed in order to satisfy another checklist preference?

Non English speakers, seem to be claiming some kind of rights over the issue, simply because they've adopted the English language list for their own use.

Well I am not trying to do anything to the English names, I am just saying I don't care, how does that hurt you? I would however be a bit upset if it turns out that the English name debate jeopardizes the convergence on the underlying checklist. Personally, I don't really see why there couldn't just be multiple versions of English nomenclature anyway - there are as many versions as there are other languages, couldn't it be just declared that US and UK English are functionally separate languages and have each of them have their own names?
 

viator

Well-known member
Singapore
So this means the end of the silliness of different taxonomies, right?

It doesn't explicitly say the others will go away just that this will one will be created - drawing on data from the existing various ones.
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
Well I am not trying to do anything to the English names, I am just saying I don't care, how does that hurt you? I would however be a bit upset if it turns out that the English name debate jeopardizes the convergence on the underlying checklist. Personally, I don't really see why there couldn't just be multiple versions of English nomenclature anyway - there are as many versions as there are other languages, couldn't it be just declared that US and UK English are functionally separate languages and have each of them have their own names?[/QUOTE]

This is VERY much what I and a few others would like to see I think but as stated, there is now, no British listing authority so we're at the mercy of who knows who with a definite likelihood that the list will be totally Americanised.
 

Maffong

Well-known member
My point wasn't that I don't care about the English names and their history behind them. I can very much understand your points as some German committee recently decided to change several bird names without anyone ever asking for it and coming up with some horrible names instead.
My point was more along the line, that each and every thread here will sooner or (seldomly) later be inundated with posts about language and naming preferences instead of focusing on all the other aspects of the original topics.
 

DMW

Well-known member
What I do think is silly is believing that taxonomy is an empirical science working towards an objectively correct fixed end-point, and that a single unified global body will result in a more perfect list. In a world that seems fixated on "diversity", it amazes me that anybody is cheering on the loss of diversity of opinion here, and ensuing competition of ideas. There isn't even a universally accepted definition of the concept of what is a species, yet here we are looking to have a single authoritative list of all bird species.

For all the criticisms levelled at the BLI / HBW taxonomy, some valid, at least it shook things up and made people look more closely at both the process of making taxonomic decisions, and at many individual species-level differences. Without the work of BLI, I don't think IOC would have adopted many of its recent decisions.

As a birder, in recent years I have followed IOC taxonomy with a few personal differences where I disagree, but have also made an effort to see taxa recognised as species by other taxonomies.
 

l_raty

laurent raty
So this means the end of the silliness of different taxonomies, right?
If the separate bodies that are combining forces cease to act as separate entities, this will mean a reduction in the number of independent and currently active global checklists. (Which indeed means a loss in the diversity of taxonomic opinions expressed at this level -- a process through which some areas of disagreements might plausibly become artificially 'hidden', despite remaining unresolved. From the viewpoint of 'taxonomy as a science', it's not at all straightforward that the positives of this type of move outweight the negatives.)

Meanwhile, BLI are (so far as I can see) still using their own global taxonomy, even though this taxonomy has now been deprived of its main former online presence (through a commercial (!) deal); H&M have not entered the unification process; many other local taxonomic authorities exist and will continue to do so; TiF is still online, and anyone wishing to start a similar initiative can do it; and most authors of 'books, webpages, reports or whatever' remain free to adopt their own views, wherever these differ from those expressed by any mainstream ('authoritative') body...
 

Andy Adcock

Well-known member
England
What I do think is silly is believing that taxonomy is an empirical science working towards an objectively correct fixed end-point, and that a single unified global body will result in a more perfect list. In a world that seems fixated on "diversity", it amazes me that anybody is cheering on the loss of diversity of opinion here, and ensuing competition of ideas. There isn't even a universally accepted definition of the concept of what is a species, yet here we are looking to have a single authoritative list of all bird species.

For all the criticisms levelled at the BLI / HBW taxonomy, some valid, at least it shook things up and made people look more closely at both the process of making taxonomic decisions, and at many individual species-level differences. Without the work of BLI, I don't think IOC would have adopted many of its recent decisions.

As a birder, in recent years I have followed IOC taxonomy with a few personal differences where I disagree, but have also made an effort to see taxa recognised as species by other taxonomies.

Agree with all this.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top