viator
Well-known member
LikewiseSeen it on Flores but not Sumba, damn it!
LikewiseSeen it on Flores but not Sumba, damn it!
With this recent deluge of proposals, the timing of JAE's 2nd ed, Indonesian Archipelago book would seem a bit odd, why wouldn't you wait for the decisions because we don't look like being at the end of the submissions yet?
Over to you James.
Well Eaton et al. doesn't even remotely follow 'IOC' taxonomy, so I don't see how it is relevant?With this recent deluge of proposals, the timing of JAE's 2nd ed, Indonesian Archipelago book would seem a bit odd, why wouldn't you wait for the decisions because we don't look like being at the end of the submissions yet?
Over to you James.
What does it follow then because AFAIK, 'Eaton et al' is not a recognised listing authority.Well Eaton et al. doesn't even remotely follow 'IOC' taxonomy, so I don't see how it is relevant?
Exactly my point, a short wait for all these latest decisions to be ratified would have made the book more up to date, a field guide cannot 'explicitly' or otherwise, split anything.Without checking, didn't the 1st edition have all of these explicitly listed as splits or in the text stated they were likely?
Not sure what's in the 2nd edition awaiting delivery of my order!
That was my understandingMay 2 Restore Yunnan Parrotbill Sinosuthora ricketti from AS to PS status pending further analysis of the S. brunnea complex.
Do I understand correctly that the split of 30th April has been at least temporarily overturned ?
As Alex says that is exactly the case. The first edition does not follow IOC - it's James's taxonomy, and I must say I agree with most of the 'splits' therein irrespective of what any official taxonomy statesExactly my point, a short wait for all these latest decisions to be ratified would have made the book more up to date, a field guide cannot 'explicitly' or otherwise, split anything.
That will be fun then when every book adopts it's own taxonomy, we may as well scrap every taxonomic authority and do away altogether with threads such as this?As Alex says that is exactly the case. The first edition does not follow IOC - it's James's taxonomy, and I must say I agree with most of the 'splits' therein irrespective of what any official taxonomy states
I would agree with you for regions of the world with established committees that regularly update taxonomy (although recent frustrations have tested my patience), but is there one for Indonesia? If not, than I see no reason a field guide should follow a global checklist. Global checklists often act upon the literature, including field guides, for other chunks of the world. I'd rather Eaton propose taxonomic changes for birds he is no doubt familiar with and let IOC evaluate them after the fact, which I believe they have done for other books.That will be fun then when every book adopts it's own taxonomy, we may as well scrap every taxonomic authority and do away altogether with threads such as this?
Most authors will pin their colours to one authority or another, at least loosely.
IIRC, the Mark Brazil field guide for Japan also has its own taxonomy, although since then many of the novel splits that book made have since been adopted.There is nothing new in field guides presenting the authors' views of taxonomy (just think about Howell and Webb for Mexico, where most of the splits have been recognized later (and one of them within the last two years!)).
There has been a move away from it, but in certain instances it does make sense to do it still.
Niels
Exactly this, all I said was that it might have been better for the purposes of the 2nd ed of the book, with this flood of proposals, to wait for them all to be addressed before putting the book out, after all, the 1st ed isn't that old!I would agree with you for regions of the world with established committees that regularly update taxonomy (although recent frustrations have tested my patience), but is there one for Indonesia? If not, than I see no reason a field guide should follow a global checklist. Global checklists often act upon the literature, including field guides, for other chunks of the world. I'd rather Eaton propose taxonomic changes for birds he is no doubt familiar with and let IOC evaluate them after the fact, which I believe they have done for other books.
I know as a birder that I would rather be in a situation where I saw a species that IOC doesn't recognize yet, than be in a situation where I neglected to look for/at a bird because a book didn't recognize it as distinct. The former problem is just book-keeping, and I can keep it in a list if the split is someday made so I have record of it. The latter may result in a birder having to spend a large chunk of money on a repeat trip just to tick the bird they didn't go after.