IOC World Bird List V1.7 (1 Viewer)

[Mysticete]

Not to mention that, as it turns out, New World Sparrows are not particularly all that closely related to buntings, and will mostly likely end up recognized as a new family.

 

[colonelboris]

Yeeees, but going back to the Guillemots, it was mentioned upthread that they were named Murres to reflect taxonomic situation (i.e. Uriae vs. Cepphus). If is was because of taxonomy, then that's odd as they haven't renamed the Med Gull as the Med Marsh-gull (or somthing), seeing as it's now in a different genus to other gull (f'rinstance and all the other points mentioned upthread). If, however, it's just because they wanted to use the American name for it, then that's something else. Unless the poster upthread got that wrong about the taxonomic reason, of course.
That's what's confusing me at the moment. Were a lot of birds given different names when the list was written to reflect taxonomic considerations, or because that was what was name already adopted in the American list that the IOC list was based on?
(this is a separate thing to the use of US bird names over UK ones, btw).

 

[colonelboris]

Not to mention that, as it turns out, New World Sparrows are not particularly all that closely related to buntings, and will mostly likely end up recognized as a new family.

Fairly closely related, apparently.:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_sparrow
And much more closely related to buntings than sparrows. This is what I mean about inconsistency if we're going to change other names because of their taxonomic settings. I guess that would be very unpopular as it would hit US bird names very hard, a good number being named for something they're not.
I wouldn't actually suggest changing them, but then I wouldn't suggest changing a lot of other names either.

 

[Richard Klim]

Yeeees, but going back to the Guillemots, it was mentioned upthread that they were named Murres to reflect taxonomic situation (i.e. Uriae vs. Cepphus). If is was because of taxonomy, then that's odd as they haven't renamed the Med Gull as the Med Marsh-gull (or somthing), seeing as it's now in a different genus to other gull (f'rinstance and all the other points mentioned upthread). If, however, it's just because they wanted to use the American name for it, then that's something else. Unless the poster upthread got that wrong about the taxonomic reason, of course.
That's what's confusing me at the moment. Were a lot of birds given different names when the list was written to reflect taxonomic considerations, or because that was what was name already adopted in the American list that the IOC list was based on?

Well, the IOC list is based taxonomically upon a European, not American, list (Dickinson 2003 - H&M3). But in a number of cases (including guillemots/murres), the IOC team was faced with a situation where different vernacular names have traditionally been used on either side of the Atlantic. In weighing up which of two equally valid alternatives to propose as a standard, they would probably have taken into account the best mapping onto the underlying taxonomy (essentially as a tie-breaker). So in this case, the taxonomy probably just tipped the balance towards 'murre' (although they'll probably always remain guillemots to me in everyday conversation). But that doesn't mean that IOC intends to go back through all the cases where there's no actual disagreement (eg bunting/sparrow, but Mysticete's point taken) and retrospectively propose more taxonomically appropriate vernacular names.

But there are certainly a few instances where I believe that IOC has been a touch over-zealous (eg I strongly disagree with the wholesale adoption of the uniquely-American name 'bushtit' for the predominately Old World Aegithalidae - although at least Long-tailed Bushtit has been swiftly retracted).

Richard

 

[fugl]

As fugl said, sort the taxonomy and then start playing with the names, perhaps. Surely it doesn't make sense to have both vernacular and scientific names in a state of flux? And why the big push to have non-specialist books using the names? If it's for the sake of science, it might be an idea to leave it at just that - a list for scientists.

Actually, to clarify my views, I take an even more extreme position than that, namely that no "official" action should be taken by anyone ever with respect to vernacular names which IMO should simply be left alone, to take their chances as other (non-technical) vocabulary does (& has always done) in the English language wherever spoken. In my view the focus of the IOC list should be on the scientific names (that is on keeping the taxonomy up-to-date) & its only function with respect to the common names (in cases where more than one has appeared in the literature) should be as a kind of concordance, listing all the major alternatives. In other words, I contend that as far as vernacular names are concerned the list should be like a modern dictionary which records usage without attempting to prescribe it.

 

[fugl]

OK, I can see that a major concern of yours is that vernacular names will continue to undergo wholesale changes to reflect the underlying taxonomy more precisely. . . . But I don't think that will happen to any great degree.

I wish I could believe that. I think you underestimate the drive for "consistency" that many people feel, particularly those concerned with "standardizing" things.

 

[colonelboris]

I was wondering if (given the large amount of overlap between the US and UK lists) there was an argument as to listing both variants when a contentious decision would normally have been made? It wouldn't affect all that number of entries and would probably smooth a few feathers. I guess it would also depend on what other nations with English as a first language have in terms of differences - say if there was a big difference between the US, Canadian and UK lists on a certain name.
I suppose if you really wanted to avoid any conflict, each bird could be gven a code instead and each nation gives its own names against this code. Any paper, book or publication could then use the name as they see fit for where the publication is coming out and could include the code to avoid any ambiguity. This would then get round changes in vernacular name in the IOC list as well.
F'rinstance if the Goosander was given a code AB123, then you could happily publish in BOU journals with a paper "Funny calls in the Goosander, Mergus merganser (AB123)" and have a foollow-up paper in an American journal "More funny calls in the Common Merganser, Mergus merganser (AB123)". Then no-one gets out of shape and you then have a list that stands whether you play with vernacular names or not.
Just an idea. It works well in chemistry where different places have different naming criteria for chemicals and they are given a unique CAS number.

 

[Richard Klim]

Actually, to clarify my views, I take an even more extreme position than that, namely that no "official" action should be taken by anyone ever with respect to vernacular names which IMO should simply be left alone, to take their chances as other (non-technical) vocabulary does (& has always done) in the English language wherever spoken.

That's easy - everyone's free to ignore the IOC World Bird List and use whichever vernacular names they want to.

In my view the focus of the IOC list should be on the scientific names (that is on keeping the taxonomy up-to-date)...

The IOC team's initial position was that the list was not primarily a taxonomic work, but focused on the recommendation of standard English names. But given the distinct lack of taxonomic progress by another well-known, regularly updated world checklist in recent years, the IOC team has effectively filled the void by assuming the additional task of reviewing and recording taxonomical changes, and now leads the way in that respect.

OK, I can see that a major concern of yours is that vernacular names will continue to undergo wholesale changes to reflect the underlying taxonomy more precisely...
But I don't think that will happen to any great degree.

I wish I could believe that. I think you underestimate the drive for "consistency" that many people feel, particularly those concerned with "standardizing" things.

I know I could be proven wrong. But the IOC team has probably had to do a helluva lot of arguing, negotiating and soul-searching over many years to achieve the current list. I'm sure that their main goal now must be to achieve stability, and I can't honestly see them having any desire to throw the whole thing back in the air and embark on further wholesale changes to vernacular names.

Richard

 

[colonelboris]

Sorry, a better example of the use of a code:

US: "Short beaks in the Great Egret Casmerodius albus (XY456)"
UK: "Short beaks in the Great White Egret Ardea alba (XY456)"
CH: "Kurze Schnäbel in der Silberreiher Egretta alba (XY456)"

 

[fugl]

That's easy - everyone's free to ignore the IOC World Bird List and use whichever vernacular names they want to.

True but disingenuous since the explicit intent is to achieve uniformity by means of an "official" list. My guess is that the attempt will eventually succeed & that many fine old names will disappear from everyday use as a consequence. Not the end of the world, I suppose, but I object to it, just as you object to "bushtit" (why, by the way--on esthetic grounds?).

The IOC team's initial position was that the list was not primarily a taxonomic work, but focused on the recommendation of standard English names. But given the distinct lack of taxonomic progress by another well-known world checklist in recent years, the IOC team has effectively filled the void by assuming the additional task of reviewing and recording taxonomical changes, and now leads the way in the respect.

And I applaud them for doing so.

I know I could be proven wrong. But the IOC team has probably had to do a helluva lot of arguing, negotiating and soul-searching over many years to achieve the current list. I'm sure that their main goal now must be to achieve stability, and I can't honestly see them having any desire to throw the whole thing back in the air and embark on further wholesale changes to vernacular names.

Maybe--we'll see.

You know, I'm beginning to suspect we could wrangle about this indefinitely without either of us changing his mind.

 

[Richard Klim]

... the explicit intent is to achieve uniformity by means of an "official" list. My guess is that the attempt will eventually succeed & that many fine old names will disappear from everyday use as a consequence.

Maybe. But as an example, in my own Holarctic checklist, for each species I include both the traditional name that I personally use, and the IOC recommended name (so everyone should be able to easily see what I'm talking about).

... you object to "bushtit" (why, by the way--on esthetic grounds?).

Because this is a rare example of mass renaming of an entire family to make a taxonomic point (ie colonelboris's major concern), which the IOC team has mostly resisted elsewhere. I guess that in this case it was calculated that not too many feathers would be ruffled, as the family is: (a) quite small; and (b) most of the species concerned don't occur in western English-speaking areas.

... given the distinct lack of taxonomic progress by another well-known, regularly updated world checklist in recent years, the IOC team has effectively filled the void by assuming the additional task of reviewing and recording taxonomical changes, and now leads the way in that respect.

And I applaud them for doing so.

Agreed!

You know, I'm beginning to suspect we could wrangle about this indefinitely without either of us changing his mind.

You're probably right. But life would be very boring if we all agreed about everything...

Richard

 

[colonelboris]

Just working on something - is there a bird family with more than 1,000 species and a species with more than 100 subspecies? I'm fairly doubtful there is in either case, but best to check...

 

[Daniel Philippe]

is there a bird family with more than 1,000 species and a species with more than 100 subspecies?

No, apart if you consider Emberizidae including all nine primary oscines, but in Hanson, H. C. (2006): "The White-cheeked Geese. Branta canadensis, B. maxima, B. “lawrensis”, B. hutchinsii, B. leucopareia, and B. minima. Taxonomy, Ecophysiographic Relationships, Biogeography, and Evolutionary Considerations", no fewer than 160 new taxa are named and described for the whole complex :eek!:

 

[Richard Klim]

...is there a bird family with more than 1,000 species and a species with more than 100 subspecies?

There's definitely no bird family with more than 1,000 species.

But if Harold Hanson's Canada Goose taxonomy ever becomes widely accepted, he proposed over 200 named subspecies/races!
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5046/is_/ai_n29379105

I've never seen the books, so I don't know how those taxa are distributed in the 6-way split that he proposed - but I suspect that the majority are assigned to Branta (canadensis) canadensis.

Richard

Edit: Daniel, you beat me to that!

 

[Daniel Philippe]

I've never seen the books, so I don't know how those taxa are distributed in the 6-way split that he proposed - but I suspect that the majority are assigned to Branta (canadensis) canadensis.

Me neither, but I understand (from somebody who got access to them) that about 45% of the new taxa go to canadensis, 45% to hutchinsii and the remaining 10% being assigned to maxima, minima and leucopareia.

 

[colonelboris]

Thanks! I'll let you know when I've done a bit of work on it.
Those geese are hard work...

 

[Richard Klim]

Me neither, but I understand (from somebody who got access to them) that about 45% of the new taxa go to canadensis, 45% to hutchinsii and the remaining 10% being assigned to maxima, minima and leucopareia.

So colonelboris, you might just be safe with your 100 subspecies limit.

And there's also 'lawrensis' (monotypic?). From ID-FRONTIERS (Wayne Hoffman):

"The six species are:

• Canada Goose, Branta canadensis. Still has a continent-wide distribution and many races. Including the east-side moffittii group, the Duskies (occidentalis) and Vancouver (fulva).
  
• Giant Prairie Goose, Branta maxima. Formerly known as the Giant Canada Goose: native range was from Ohio west to Montana and Canadian prairie provinces.
  
• Ontario Goose, Branta 'lawrensis'. I think the parentheses mean it has not been formally described, and will not be until Volume II is published. This is a population living in eastern Ontario including along the St. Lawrence River/waterway.
• Arctic Goose, Branta hutchinsii. These breed across the Arctic from Baffin Island to northwestern Alaska. 'Taverner’s' forms are included here.
  
• Aleutian Goose, Branta leucopareia. Bred (formerly) from Commander and Kuril Islands east through the Aleutians to the Alaska Peninsula and Semidi Islands. Includes several extinct forms.
  
• Cackling Goose, Branta minima. These nest only in northwestern Alaska."

Apologies colonelboris for rapidly wandering off-topic (as usual!).

Richard

 

[colonelboris]

No apology needed - it was me who sent it this way, but I assure you, it could well be relevant.

 

[Microtus]

How can anyone take the Hanson book seriously?

 

[fugl]

How can anyone take the Hanson book seriously?

I don't imagine many do. Too bad since 6 species (forget about the 200 subspecies) would make urban birding--sorting through the big winter flocks on golf courses & in city parks--a lot more interesting.