Latest IOC Diary Updates (8 Viewers)

[YuShan]

The older I’ve got the more I love my lists. Too much time on my hands. I love Update Day!

I regularly spend time just going through my data in Scythebill. It's not so much the lists themselves that I enjoy, but reliving the memories of the trips that I made "collecting" these birds. Many sightings I can still remember (greatly helped by having the list), and many of the "troubles" I had to go through to see the birds and all things surrounding it. And I'm not even that old! One day I won't have the mobility any more to do all these things, but I'll still have my lists and all the great memories, so I can keep enjoying reliving these memories. Or I lose my memory too, but I'll still have the list

 

[Mysticete]

I guess it all depends what matters to you.

I don't really care about 'gains' and 'losses' on personal lists. I'm most interested in discussions but, IMO, no meaningful discussion can be 'allowed' by implementing a change without providing a proper justification.
"It would certainly be more interesting to get the justifications of the changes slowly, allowing for discussion. Imagine a several year hiatus with hundreds of changes implemented but left unjustified, and the sudden release of hundreds of justifications..."
(Oh, wait...)

If the checklists implement the changes, and if there is a justification behind them, why can't they release the justification simultaneously with the implementation ?

IOC, in the updates page, does usually provide a brief sentence or two of justification. Given that the WGAC list isn't even published yet, I think its reasonable that their proposals are also not available yet

 

[l_raty]

Given that the WGAC list isn't even published yet, I think its reasonable that their proposals are also not available yet

I don't disagree but, if so, I do not think it is reasonable, at this point, to implement these proposals in a public list.

 

[sicklebill]

I regularly spend time just going through my data in Scythebill. It's not so much the lists themselves that I enjoy, but reliving the memories of the trips that I made "collecting" these birds. Many sightings I can still remember (greatly helped by having the list), and many of the "troubles" I had to go through to see the birds and all things surrounding it. And I'm not even that old! One day I won't have the mobility any more to do all these things, but I'll still have my lists and all the great memories, so I can keep enjoying reliving these memories. Or I lose my memory too, but I'll still have the list

This last one was a cracker, all the Rufous Fantail, Island Thrush and Cicadabird splits to sort out and perfect timing for me as I near the end of the passerines revision for the second edition of the Lynx Field Guide to the Birds of New Guinea, the Bismarck Archipelago and Bougainville.

A lot of additions and things to work out, and it's great to go back and see what you have seen, I discovered I'd omitted American Pipit on my list so gained a bonus tick. Well done to the IOC folks for masterminding all this.

I am also continuing my campaign to have Surperb Bird of Paradise brought back instead of the hideous Lophorina, now that the mess with the nominate has been thankfully resolved in favour of the original. I am using Vogelkop Superb, Greater Superb for the widely distributed one, and Lesser Superb (or Eastern) for the little-known eastern one. Also lobbying for Bird of Paradise not Bird-of-paradise with those extraneous hyphens, a reversion to an older usage and one that I adopted in my Birds of Paradise and Bowerbirds title.

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

Here are the taxonomic changes:

I think the species remaining in Accipiter are Accipiter rufiventris, Accipiter nisus, Accipiter striatus, Accipiter ovampensis, Accipiter madagascariensis, Accipiter poliogaster.

Accipiter badius, Accipiter butleri, Accipiter brevipes, Accipiter soloensis, Accipiter francesiae, Accipiter trinotatus, Accipiter novaehollandiae, Accipiter hiogaster, Accipiter fasciatus, Accipiter melanochlamys, Accipiter albogularis, Accipiter haplochrous, Accipiter rufitorques, Accipiter henicogrammus, Accipiter luteoschistaceus, Accipiter imitator, Accipiter poliocephalus, Accipiter princeps, Accipiter erythropus, Accipiter minullus, Accipiter gularis, Accipiter virgatus, Accipiter nanus, Accipiter erythrauchen, Accipiter cirrocephalus, Accipiter brachyurus, Accipiter rhodogaster	Shikra, Nicobar Sparrowhawk, Levant Sparrowhawk, Chinese Sparrowhawk, Frances's Sparrowhawk, Spot-tailed Sparrowhawk, Grey Goshawk, Variable Goshawk, Brown Goshawk, Black-mantled Goshawk, Pied Goshawk, White-bellied Goshawk, Fiji Goshawk, Moluccan Goshawk, Slaty-mantled Goshawk, Imitator Goshawk, Grey-headed Goshawk, New Britain Goshawk, Red-thighed Sparrowhawk, Little Sparrowhawk, Japanese Sparrowhawk, Besra, Dwarf Sparrowhawk, Rufous-necked Sparrowhawk, Collared Sparrowhawk, New Britain Sparrowhawk, Vinous-breasted Sparrowhawk	Tachyspiza badia, Tachyspiza butleri, Tachyspiza brevipes, Tachyspiza soloensis, Tachyspiza francesiae, Tachyspiza trinotata, Tachyspiza novaehollandiae, Tachyspiza hiogaster, Tachyspiza fasciata, Tachyspiza melanochlamys, Tachyspiza albogularis, Tachyspiza haplochroa, Tachyspiza rufitorques, Tachyspiza henicogramma, Tachyspiza luteoschistacea, Tachyspiza imitator, Tachyspiza poliocephala, Tachyspiza princeps, Tachyspiza erythropus, Tachyspiza minulla, Tachyspiza gularis, Tachyspiza virgata, Tachyspiza nanus, Tachyspiza erythrauchen, Tachyspiza cirrocephala, Tachyspiza brachyura, Tachyspiza rhodogaster	TAX, PHY	Tachyspiza Kaup 1844 is resurrected as a genus to resolve the non-monophyly in the genus Accipiter demonstrated in phylogenetic analyzes (Lerner & Mindell 2005; Mindell et al. 2018) following Catanach et al. (2024).

I am quoting this reply from early August concerning the Accipiters because there is something puzzling me.

27 species were moved from Accipiter to Tachyspiza and in most cases the gender was changed from masculine to feminine, e.g. fasciatus to fasciata, poliocephalus to poliocephala, minullus to minulla, etc.

In the case of Accipiter nanus (marked red on the above quote) it was not changed to nana and it is now called Tachyspiza nanus. However, as far as I know this word is variable and the feminine form exists, such as in Curruca nana.

It looks like there is a gender mismatch here, but I guess there must be a reason for keeping nanus in this case. Any ideas?

 

[Paul Clapham]

I am quoting this reply from early August concerning the Accipiters because there is something puzzling me.

27 species were moved from Accipiter to Tachyspiza and in most cases the gender was changed from masculine to feminine, e.g. fasciatus to fasciata, poliocephalus to poliocephala, minullus to minulla, etc.

In the case of Accipiter nanus (marked red on the above quote) it was not changed to nana and it is now called Tachyspiza nanus. However, as far as I know this word is variable and the feminine form exists, such as in Curruca nana.

It looks like there is a gender mismatch here, but I guess there must be a reason for keeping nanus in this case. Any ideas?

The standard reason for not having gender agreement is that the name is a noun in apposition. But that pretty clearly is not the case here. Although "Dwarf" can be a noun in English and that might mislead somebody into not realizing it's the Latin name that counts, not the English name. In other words I agree with you -- although I have often been wrong in the past.

 

[James Eaton]

I am quoting this reply from early August concerning the Accipiters because there is something puzzling me.

27 species were moved from Accipiter to Tachyspiza and in most cases the gender was changed from masculine to feminine, e.g. fasciatus to fasciata, poliocephalus to poliocephala, minullus to minulla, etc.

In the case of Accipiter nanus (marked red on the above quote) it was not changed to nana and it is now called Tachyspiza nanus. However, as far as I know this word is variable and the feminine form exists, such as in Curruca nana.

It looks like there is a gender mismatch here, but I guess there must be a reason for keeping nanus in this case. Any ideas?

The Accipter carving-up was already implemented in the Indonesian Archipelago field guide few years ago, and I believe you're correct, as we used Tachyspiza nana in the book.

James

 

[Paul Clapham]

A quick survey of the web reveals that Tachyspiza nana is frequently used, more frequently than nanus. For what it's worth.

 

[l_raty]

The standard reason for not having gender agreement is that the name is a noun in apposition. But that pretty clearly is not the case here. Although "Dwarf" can be a noun in English and that might mislead somebody into not realizing it's the Latin name that counts, not the English name. In other words I agree with you -- although I have often been wrong in the past.

nanus -- a (male) dwarf -- is a noun in (classical) Latin; as is nana -- a female dwarf; no corresponding neuter form is known. This is, indeed, the reason why gender agreement was discontinued for this word, despite it was once widely accepted.
There are other examples -- Cyanolyca (f.) nanus, Glaucidium (n.) nana, Xiphorhynchus (m.) susurrans nana, Cisticola (m.) nana...

 

[thomasdonegan]

In the case of Accipiter nanus (marked red on the above quote) it was not changed to nana and it is now called Tachyspiza nanus. However, as far as I know this word is variable and the feminine form exists, such as in Curruca nana.

nanus -- a (male) dwarf -- is a noun in (classical) Latin; as is nana -- a female dwarf; no corresponding neuter form is known. This is, indeed, the reason why gender agreement was discontinued for this word, despite it was once widely accepted.
There are other examples -- Cyanolyca (f.) nanus, Glaucidium (n.) nana, Xiphorhynchus (m.) susurrans nana, Cisticola (m.) nana...

Also - Grallaricula nana.
Does that name need changing based on this rationale to Grallaricula nanus? It was spelled as 'Grallaria nana' in Lafresnaye's original description, implying that the concept of a female dwarf existed in his mind (as it does in Tolkien's lore, which is based closely upon Norse legend - for what that's worth!).

 

[l_raty]

Also - Grallaricula nana.
Does that name need changing based on this rationale to Grallaricula nanus?

No. If the name is not adjectival, there is no mandatory gender agreement, i.e., the default is that the original spelling prevails.

(In principle, I guess it could be argued that an incorrect gender agreement produces a subsequent spelling, and that the spelling modified by this incorrect agreement must then be preserved if it is in prevailing use... (Thus that, e.g., Glaucidium nanum should have remained Galucidium nanum, because nanum was the only spelling was used during the entire 20th C.) But I'm not aware that such an argument has ever been presented in this context.)

 

[Paul Clapham]

The Howard and Moore checklists include information about whether the specific name is variable (with respect to gender agreement) or invariable. It classifies nanus in genus Accipiter as invariable. And Edward Dickinson is very reliable on these things. Likewise it classifies nana in the (feminine) genus Grallaricula as invariable.

 

[thomasdonegan]

No. If the name is not adjectival, there is no mandatory gender agreement, i.e., the default is that the original spelling prevails.

Thanks Laurent. That makes sense, assuming that nanus (male dwarf) and nana (female dwarf) are only nouns in Latin. The situation in modern English is a bit more murky, since 'dwarf' is also used as a noun-modifier that verges on an adjective, e.g. 'dwarf planet'.

 

[l_raty]

Thanks Laurent. That makes sense, assuming that nanus (male dwarf) and nana (female dwarf) are only nouns in Latin. The situation in modern English is a bit more murky, since 'dwarf' is also used as a noun-modifier that verges on an adjective, e.g. 'dwarf planet'.

There is no doubt that nain can be used as an adjective (agreeing in gender with the noun it modifies) in French. Ditto for enano in Spanish, I believe.

 

[Gonçalo Elias]

There is no doubt that nain can be used as an adjective (agreeing in gender with the noun it modifies) in French. Ditto for enano in Spanish, I believe.

The same in Portuguese: anão and anã.

 

[Peter Boesman]

Mindoro Cuckooshrike	Coracina mindorensis	ADD	AS	Bar-bellied Cuckooshrike	Mindoro Cuckooshrike Coracina mindorensis is split from Bar-bellied Cuckooshrike C. striata based on striking differences in vocalizations and plumage.
Visayan Cuckooshrike	Coracina panayensis	ADD	AS	Mindoro Cuckooshrike	Visayan Cuckooshrike Coracina panayensis is split from Bar-bellied Cuckooshrike C. striata based on differences in morphology and vocalizations (del Hoyo & Collar 2016; Allen 2020; HBW/BirdLife).
Sulu Cuckooshrike	Coracina guillemardi	ADD	AS	Visayan Cuckooshrike	Sulu Cuckooshrike Coracina guillemardi is split from Bar-bellied Cuckooshrike C. striata based on differences in morphology and vocalizations supported by limited mtDNA analysis (Jønsson et al. 2008, 2010),

Apparently this split is partially based on vocal differences.
Anyone who can provide the complete 'Allen 2020' reference, or anything else where this vocal difference is detailed ?

 

[Mike Earp]

Apparently this split is partially based on vocal differences.
Anyone who can provide the complete 'Allen 2020' reference, or anything else where this vocal difference is detailed ?

Presumably Birds of the Philippines (Desmond Allen 2020).

 

[Peter Boesman]

Presumably Birds of the Philippines (Desmond Allen 2020).

Of course... should have thought of that one ! Don't have it in my library. Will have to check what is detailed in there.

 

[kweetal]

In the IOC 14.2 spreadsheet, master_ioc_list_v14.2.xlsx, there are more than 2000 instances of a 'dash' or 'hyphen'.
There are 5 of those that use a different character although that difference is barely visible. Early IOC versions didn't have any; it has slowly grown to 5.

Although those five words are perhaps not 'wrong' (probably copypasted from elsewhere), I'd suggest that it may be better to change those five to the 'normal' dash, for user friendliness, or to be honest, in my case, for better machine-readability.

Just overwriting the offending dash-character should fix it.

These are the 5 cases:

-- in column "Authority" :
Puffinus puffinus canariensis: Garcia‐Porta

-- these names have the rare dash in the "Comment" column:
Hylexetastes uniformis Hellmayr: Azuaje‐Rodríguez
Hylexetastes uniformis brigidai: Azuaje‐Rodríguez
Passer moabiticus moabiticus: Summers‐Smith
Spermestes bicolor nigriceps: Dowsett & Dowsett‐Lemaire

(I can change my files locally of course but I'd prefer to have this fixed upstream)

 

[Maffong]

I can't find any differences between the 'LifeList+' and 'LifeList+full ssp' sheets.