For example, SACC seem to be on the cusp of rejecting the
split of Splendid Woodpecker, based on their favourite criterion, 'not enough data'. Most committee member comments imply that this determination was based on a cursory inspection of sonograms done in their spare time or vague allegations about the drumming of species that do not share the same habitat and do not seem relevant. There is no evidence from committee member comments that any of them read our paper concerning this split, which is available
here at pp.22-26, or other papers in which it has been concluded that diagnosable differences in drumming in woodpeckers are a good benchmark for species rank in this group. Our 2015 paper is the only detailed analysis of the situation, but is also the only literature reference that was not hyperlinked in the proposal, implying an attempt to draw attention to other publications, none of which are on point.
I think most of the other checklist authorities accepted this split some years ago, since its proposal in DH&C 2014 and our publication in 2015, although e-bird still lumps them. What will IOC, BirdLife, IUCN or WGAC think about SACC coming along 9 years later and declaring there not to be enough data?
A new proposal to SACC yesterday by
Rafael Lima on antbirds includes this gem of a gambit: "Similar proposals ... have not passed because several people prefer to wait for more comprehensive analyses to avoid changing the taxonomy .... I prefer to see species limits as hypotheses formulated within the context of currently available evidence." Unfortunately, avian taxonomy is governed by people who seem to prefer "whatever was in the Peters Checklist" to absolutely anything else, and an assumption that all new (i.e. post-1960s) proposals are incorrect, unless supported by a publication in Auk by committee members themselves.