Latest IOC diary updates (1 Viewer)

[Mysticete]

Also, I favor keeping this thread for all IOC update changes, not just for splits and lumps. I think many here are interested in taxonomic changes that don't simply fall into that category. I don't think its a horrible idea however to have a separate thread to discuss splits and lumps, especially if its not just IOC changes.

I'm hoping at least that the subspecies group file I have been working on will be helpful in that regard as well, once I manage to get through all of the birds...which obviously will take awhile. each potential subspecies group that could be potentially split off includes range information, alongside whether the split is recognized by any other authority, citations for important papers/sources, and possible common names, and a broad categorization of the level of evidence.

 

[Mysticete]

In some other post someone pointed out that all other groups (insects, reptiles, whatevers) just do it alphabetically. That's the correct approach. Not least it's predictable and, thanks to training from your earliest years, you can actually find things.

That requires to freeze the taxonomy to whatever it was when you started. genera change all the time: using those systems means that suddenly a bird could go from "page 2" of the checklist to "page 80", and requires you to actually know the change. At least with a taxonomy that reflects phylogeny, you know the herons are going to be with the herons, the gulls with the gulls, etc. It's not like reordering alcids being in a different order in the list provides some insurmountable problem. I should also point out that lists for other groups lack a lot of features that you probably wouldn't be happy with. The reptile database, which is as far as I can tell the only easily accessible and updated checklist of reptiles of the world, has an excel list that doesn't have a single common name or bit of range information. So I am not seeing a checklist format ornithology should emulate.

Any TAXONOMIC checklist (which is what IOC, Clements, Howard and Moore, etc) that abandons phylogeny as a guiding principle is useless.

 

[Paul Clapham]

Guys, again, a polite request, open a new thread for such deep conversations, that isn't why I started this thread.

Every time you do this, actual decisions on splits and lumps, are lost in pages of debate and discussion which is beyond most non professionals..

Perhaps I should start a new thread, simply 'IOC splits and lumps' which is what I intended and you guys can keep this one?

I generally sympathize with that idea, but we are in the "Taxonomy and Nomenclature" forum. So it's hard to keep the taxonomists and nomenclaturists out.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

In some other post someone pointed out that all other groups (insects, reptiles, whatevers) just do it alphabetically.

It's me

 

[THE_FERN]

That requires to freeze the taxonomy to whatever it was when you started. genera change all the time:

Any TAXONOMIC checklist (which is what IOC, Clements, Howard and Moore, etc) that abandons phylogeny as a guiding principle is useless.

I think this misses my point in several ways. You can (e.g.) arrange species within genera alphabetically at any time and regardless of splits, lumps and reassignments. The same is true for taxa within any taxonomic level (genera within families etc).

No list order can reproduce the relationships within all but the most trivial phylogeny. Taxonomies and phylogenies are 2 different things with different purposes. A taxonomy should be congruent with a phylogeny: in effect it's as if you reduced the phylogeny's resolution by introducing polytomies (a genus containing more than 2 species for example). Having reduced the resolution in this way, you cannot recreate the original phylogeny just by rearranging the order of taxa within the polytomies and nor should you try: just arrange the species within the genus etc alphabetically. The same goes for other levels.

I say again: having "flattened" or polytomised a phylogeny by converting it into a taxonomy you cannot recover the phylogeny by rearranging the order of its taxa for any except the most trivial branching pattern. And it's stupid to try. If you want or need a phylogeny then use that.

Edit: I should just add that fussing about order in lower levels like genera is especially pointless as there's usually little or no strong evidence of which things are most closely related. Just serves to irritate

 

[Swindon Addick]

The IOC diary is intended for people who see changes to taxonomic order as important and changes to English names as less so. Otherwise they wouldn't mention the changes in order. Personally I would have no objection to having two threads one for taxonomic order changes and the other for splits and lumps, if that was what people wanted, and I would definitely only read on of the two threads. We'd need to decide which thread a species being moved from genus X to genus Y and having its specific name changes from masculine to feminine belonged in though and I suspect we'd end up arguing about that...

One plea I'd make as a non-taxonomist is that I find the changes to English names useful, including those where there's no split or lump and therefore it doesn't get mentioned in the diary. That's purely self-interest on my part - I started monitoring this thread when I took on the updating of the spreadsheet for the Name A Bird You've Seen game, for which splits, lumps and name changes are relevant and taxonomic order (or even what genus species are placed in) isn't. I completely understand why the IOC can't give us a running commentary on name changes in dozens of languages without their team being left with no time to do their actual jobs, but the English names being added to this thread despite not being in the diary is useful here, IMHO.

 

[MJB]

It's me

L'état...?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

L'état...?

?

 

[MJB]

?

I was back-translating your "It's me" post as "C'est moi..", a reference to the likely apocryphal statement of Louis XIV...🧐
MJB

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I was back-translating your "It's me" post as "C'est moi..", a reference to the likely apocryphal statement of Louis XIV...🧐
MJB

I don't have the ref

 

[DDonsker]

Jha et al 2021 recovered this species as the sister group of a clade made of Hemixos, Hypsipetes and Ixos.

(To be frank, this looks like a wholly unnecessarily disruptive move to me. The species was described in Ixos in 1836, but had not been placed in this genus for ages. Up to now, searching on two different combinations (Pycnonotus, Hemixos) was necessary to find modern data relating to it -- from now on, three will be needed. For what gain ? If a "place holder" was needed, why not use one of the two genera in which it had been recently placed ?)

It would appear that the WGAC committee was unaware of the Iha et al. (2021) paper when they took their action to tentatively place leucogrammicus in Ixos. At least I can't find it mentioned in their analysis and discussion. We certainly were unaware of it. The IOC WBL team will discuss your excellent point, Laurent, which will also be passed on the WGAC committee. My own inclination is to restore it back to Hemixos for now and not further add to the confusion (although the Clements list has adopted Ixos for their 2023 update following WGAC, so the horse is out of the barn, so to speak). But surely there is an opportunity for someone to describe and publish an appropriate genus novum for this species.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

But surely there is an opportunity for someone to describe and publish an appropriate genus novum for this species.

Would you be ready for? 😏

 

[DDonsker]

I don't know what IOC have decided (the wording seems to hint it's not identical to Clements) but here's what Clements 2023 says for what it's worth (I think 6215 is a typo for 6315 or possibly 6314):

IOC WBL has taken a different route and simply followed the linear sequence derived from the phylogeny of Černý and Natale (2022) which amazingly works, even though we've retained the original genera that are in our current version of the list. But further generic revision would be desirable. Note however, that the Černý and Natale phylogeny does differ from that of Cohen (2011) but, as a matter of simplicity, we made no attempt to try to merge these two phylogenies as did Boyd.

More work is certainly needed.

 

[l_raty]

You can (e.g.) arrange species within genera alphabetically at any time and regardless of splits, lumps and reassignments. The same is true for taxa within any taxonomic level (genera within families etc).

You can, of course, but with a drawback -- namely that the sequence in your list will then be affected by which taxonomic levels you decide to recognize. The sequence of species in a list in which (e.g.) genera are ordered alphabetically within families, is not at all the same as in a list with subfamilies ordered alphabetically within families, and genera ordered alphabetically within subfamilies...
(I think it's helpful for users -- us, human beings, who still happen to flip through a book, trying to locate a particular species account -- to have a sequence as stable as possible. I.e., at the very least, a sequence that does not change dramatically unless data make it necessary.)

 

[THE_FERN]

The sequence of species in a list in which (e.g.) genera are ordered alphabetically within families, is not at all the same as in a list with subfamilies ordered alphabetically within families, and genera ordered alphabetically within subfamilies...

No because the taxonomies are different. But there are a restricted set of "official" taxonomic levels so this shouldn't be a problem

to have a sequence as stable as at the very least, a sequence that does not change dramatically unless data make it necessary.)

Precisely. The "linear sequence" gets changed every time there's a new Clements, IOC etc but not in any predictable way. There will always be new studies, new data: and in any case taxonomy is subjective so opinions can and should differ. Unless you adopt a neutral approach (alphabetic ordering) you get a mess. No-one can seriously tell me that they know the evolutionary "order" within genera with any degree of certainty. Neither can they persuade me that changing this each year adds anything sensible. Even if they could, it's not possible to represent this as a linear sequence for any but the most trivial cases. New data/studies/whims which lead to changes in membership of taxa have to be accommodated. Other things not so much.

Elsewhere we've discussed what practical benefits the linear sequence brings. No-one has presented me with anything I consider close to being a convincing argument. In contrast, the drawbacks are pretty obvious. Once again with feeling: if you need a phylogeny use a phylogeny.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No because the taxonomies are different. But there are a restricted set of "official" taxonomic levels so this shouldn't be a problem

Precisely. The "linear sequence" gets changed every time there's a new Clements, IOC etc but not in any predictable way. There will always be new studies, new data: and in any case taxonomy is subjective so opinions can and should differ. Unless you adopt a neutral approach (alphabetic ordering) you get a mess. No-one can seriously tell me that they know the evolutionary "order" within genera with any degree of certainty. Neither can they persuade me that changing this each year adds anything sensible. Even if they could, it's not possible to represent this as a linear sequence for any but the most trivial cases. New data/studies/whims which lead to changes in membership of taxa have to be accommodated. Other things not so much.

Elsewhere we've discussed what practical benefits the linear sequence brings. No-one has presented me with anything I consider close to being a convincing argument. In contrast, the drawbacks are pretty obvious. Once again with feeling: if you need a phylogeny use a phylogeny.

This is how the species are presented in my list: the genera are grouped according to their relationship but in alphabetical order, and within the genera, the species are listed in alphabetical order. In this way, I don't betray the systematics and what's more, it simplifies things for me.

 

[gusasp]

Is there any way to make linear rearrangements visible before the release of the final version?

 

[DDonsker]

Is there any way to make linear rearrangements visible before the release of the final version?

Sorry, not really.

Generally, we do release a draft copy of the spreadsheet for the new version with changes highlighted in red font about a week before the release of the final version in spreadsheet format. That allows a bit of time for comments. But we fully expect that any version of the IOC WBL is simply part of a dynamic process. We welcome comments and suggested corrections for inclusion in the next version at any time.

For anyone interested, the methodology that we follow for sequencing genera, species and subspecies in the IOC WBL can be found under the "Classification→Species" tab of the website. Not mentioned in that statement is a recent decision to disrupt the sequencing, where necessary, to cluster taxa into "subspecies groups" to align with Clements. That will be a long process.

Also, it's best to keep in mind that until the final copy of the upcoming version is actually released, any "update" that we post on our website is subject to alteration if corrections are required or are desirable.

 

[Taphrospilus]

Based on what finding is the decisoon for Otus podarginus Owls – IOC World Bird List versus Pyrroglaux podargina Pyrroglaux podargina (Palau Owl) - Avibase ?

 

[l_raty]

Based on what finding is the decisoon for Otus podarginus Owls – IOC World Bird List versus Pyrroglaux podargina Pyrroglaux podargina (Palau Owl) - Avibase ?

Salter et al 2019 Extensive paraphyly in the typical owl family (Strigidae)

Edit -

Taxonomic Updates – IOC World Bird List

"Formerly in Pyrroglaux, but that genus is embedded in Otus (Salter et al. 2019). Note gender agreement."