Latest IOC Diary Updates (5 Viewers)

[wolfbirder]

I hate all this lumping. Its taking fun out of the hobby.

Who cares about bloody DNA. Arctic Redpolls are not Lesser Redpolls for me. Red Backed Shrikes and Daurian Shrikes are not the same.

 

[Myornis]

Proposed lumps; some selected views based on situations I've looked into before:

Get on with it
Ramphocelus icteronotus
Anas carolinensis
Aulacorhynchus wagleri
Aulacorhynchus caeruleogularis
Aulacorhynchus atrogularis
Pteroglossus sanguineus
Ramphastos citreolaemus

Meh / whatever
Accipiter chionogaster
Accipiter ventralis
Piranga lutea
Piranga hepatica
Lagopus scotica
Numenius hudsonicus
Turdus daguae
Pionus seniloides
Pyrrhura emma
Sakesphorus pulchellus
Pyrrhura subandina

Bad idea, why is this on the list even?
Vireo approximans
Myiopsitta luchsi
Dacnis egregia
Setophaga petechia
Campephilus splendens
Cacicus microrhynchus
Amazona lilacina

You must be kidding me!
Zimmerius minimus
Dubusia stictocephala
Dubusia carrikeri
Atlapetes meridae
Atlapetes nigrifrons

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

You must be kidding me!
Zimmerius minimus
Dubusia stictocephala
Dubusia carrikeri
Atlapetes meridae
Atlapetes nigrifrons

These birds are proposed to split 🤔🧐

 

[l_raty]

At least vocally, differences between the pair Chaco/Caatinga Puffbird are as large as between the pair Eastern/Western Striolated Puffbird. Maintaining the latter and lumping the former doesn't seem very consistent

Lumping Anas crecca and A. carolinensis because the "high frequency of hybrids [has become] jaw-droppingly obvious", while keeping the Mareca penelope and M. americana split is completely inconsistent as well.

https://ebird.org/species/gnwtea1

https://ebird.org/species/x00421

But of course, consistency was never part of what the current process is trying to achieve.

 

[l_raty]

I hate all this lumping.

To be frank, I hate the loosing of three checklists.

 

[opisska]

It would be great to have different checklist to see what different ways of thinking there are. But only upon a condition that everything that actually uses taxonomy for something uses the same list and all the others exist only for intellectual curiosity.

 

[l_raty]

It would be great to have different checklist to see what different ways of thinking there are. But only upon a condition that everything that actually uses taxonomy for something uses the same list and all the others exist only for intellectual curiosity.

Where there are "different ways of thinking", this must be made obvious. Everything that actually uses taxonomy for something should take the different interpretations into account.
Hiding the differences in interpretation is lying.

 

[gusasp]

Proposed lumps; some selected views based on situations I've looked into before:

Get on with it
Ramphocelus icteronotus
Anas carolinensis
Aulacorhynchus wagleri
Aulacorhynchus caeruleogularis
Aulacorhynchus atrogularis
Pteroglossus sanguineus
Ramphastos citreolaemus

Meh / whatever
Accipiter chionogaster
Accipiter ventralis
Piranga lutea
Piranga hepatica
Lagopus scotica
Numenius hudsonicus
Turdus daguae
Pionus seniloides
Pyrrhura emma
Sakesphorus pulchellus
Pyrrhura subandina

Bad idea, why is this on the list even?
Vireo approximans
Myiopsitta luchsi
Dacnis egregia
Setophaga petechia
Campephilus splendens
Cacicus microrhynchus
Amazona lilacina

You must be kidding me!
Zimmerius minimus
Dubusia stictocephala
Dubusia carrikeri
Atlapetes meridae
Atlapetes nigrifrons

These are all not lumped by the WGAC, there's a misunderstanding. As per the original list I posted, of the above mentioned, only the following appear to be lumped vs present IOC (or used to be, since the WGAC standpoints have disappeared from AviBase):
Anas carolinensis
Aulacorhynchus wagleri
Aulacorhynchus caeruleogularis
Aulacorhynchus atrogularis
Pteroglossus sanguineus
Ramphastos citreolaemus
Zimmerius minimus
Accipiter chionogaster
Accipiter ventralis
Atlapetes meridae
Piranga lutea
Piranga hepatica
Ramphocelus icteronotus

The following in your list appear/appeared to be split:
Numenius hudsonicus
Campephilus splendens
Pionus seniloides
Pyrrhura emma
Pyrrhura subandina
Amazona lilacina
Sakesphorus pulchellus
Turdus daguae
Atlapetes nigrifrons
Cacicus microrhynchus
Setophaga petechia
Dubusia stictocephala
Dubusia carrikeri

Vireo approximans is already gone. Lagopus scotica was recently split by IOC, which means that it most certainly will stay so. Both Myiopsitta luchsi and Dacnis egregia, lumped by WGAC, are likely to remain split since SACC have accepted them.

Oh, just realized I'd forgotten a bunch in the original list, namely relump of the Purple Swamphen!

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Lumping Anas crecca and A. carolinensis because the "high frequency of hybrids [has become] jaw-droppingly obvious", while keeping the Mareca penelope and M. americana split is completely inconsistent as well.

https://ebird.org/species/gnwtea1

https://ebird.org/species/x00421

But of course, consistency was never part of what the current process is trying to achieve.

Do you understand why I don't take it into account sometimes ?

 

[jts1882]

Such a waste of money. People have spent thousands of dollars to see birds that now get lumped.
Perhaps the splitting was all a plot to stimulate "growth"!

I hate all this lumping. Its taking fun out of the hobby.

Who cares about bloody DNA. Arctic Redpolls are not Lesser Redpolls for me. Red Backed Shrikes and Daurian Shrikes are not the same.

I don't have a personal list, so perhaps I don't understand, but it seems to me that the pleasure of seeing a new bird is irreversible. You have the memory of seeing a new bird and that doesn't change if someone later decides that that bird is not sufficiently different from another.

 

[YuShan]

I don't have a personal list, so perhaps I don't understand, but it seems to me that the pleasure of seeing a new bird is irreversible. You have the memory of seeing a new bird and that doesn't change if someone later decides that that bird is not sufficiently different from another.

I thought its was quite obvious that I was joking, but at least two people apparently took it serious

 

[James Lowther]

Stejneger’s and Siberian Stonechat was mooted as a forthcoming WGAC lump in the doom-laden British focussed articles a couple of months ago, but I can’t see it appearing in this list.
I can’t see WGAC predictions on avibase any more to check (unless I am looking in the wrong place).
Anyone able to provide illumination?
Thanks
James

Checking back Balearic shearwater and Hooded Crow were also mooted as possible lumps in the Birdguides article but don’t appear in Gusasp’s master list?

James

 

[bonxie birder]

I’m still banging my teal drum. Two species from two different hemispheres that a novice can tell apart. Don’t care about the inbreeding. They deserve their own status.

 

[Farnboro John]

I’m still banging my teal drum. Two species from two different hemispheres that a novice can tell apart. Don’t care about the inbreeding. They deserve their own status.

How does a novice distinguish females?

John

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Pteroglossus sanguineus

To which species will sanguineus be attached?

 

[l_raty]

To which species will sanguineus be attached?

Presumably erythropygius, as this is supposed to remain split (although Clements has not aligned on this yet -- they include both in an apparently paraphyletic torquatus).

I've seen nothing about species limits in Picoides -- any insight ? (BLI split funebris, but not dorsalis.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Presumably erythropygius, as this is supposed to remain split (although Clements has not aligned on this yet -- they include both in an apparently paraphyletic torquatus).

I've seen nothing about species limits in Picoides -- any insight ? (BLI split funereus, but not dorsalis.)

Ok, because torquatus and (torquatus) erythropygius and (t.) sanguineus are paraphyletic with frantzii and if sanguineus had eventually become a subspecies of torquatus, frantzii would have had to be included among these subspecies

 

[bonxie birder]

How does a novice distinguish females?

John

As well as I do 😀

 

[gusasp]

Checking back Balearic shearwater and Hooded Crow were also mooted as possible lumps in the Birdguides article but don’t appear in Gusasp’s master list?

You’re right, missed those. Thanks!

 

[James Lowther]

You’re right, missed those. Thanks!

So you think you missed Balearic shearwater, hooded crow and Stejneger’s stonechat? Or maybe these lumps aren’t decided yet?
Now the WGAC listings are removed from Avibase I guess there is no way to check so we just have to wait?
James