Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

[MJB]

I'd thought of it more as a handy field guide. Just need a birding waistcoat with two extra large pockets...

...or an impecunious Scots caddy to act as bearer..:-O
MJB

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Read this article from the June issue of World Birdwatch for some
insights into the new taxonomy and methodology of the Checklist.

[PDF]

 

[aegithalos]

Read this article from the June issue of World Birdwatch for some
insights into the new taxonomy and methodology of the Checklist.

[PDF]

"Against a baseline of just over 4,000 non-passerine species in HBW, their standardised methodology revealed 462 splits and 30 lumps—a ratio of 15:1. Roughly half of the splits had previously been proposed by others but were verified by the team; the other half were entirely new. The splits are
not evenly distributed across families. Pigeons and doves, woodpeckers, hummingbirds, kingfishers, owls and parrots witness upwards of 20 splits. There are disproportionately high increases of 25% or more for albatrosses, motmots, kingfishers and the three barbet families. Asian and Oceanic taxa proved ‘over-lumped’ relative to the Neotropics, their diversity increasing by 15% and 14% respectively."

Looks like this will be an intriguing read ....

The 'standardised methodology' mentioned is Tobias et al., of course.

Keith

 

[Richard Klim]

Read this article from the June issue of World Birdwatch for some insights into the new taxonomy and methodology of the Checklist. [PDF]

Josep del Hoyo's frustration with the inconsistencies inherent in the taxonomic treatments in the various mainstream checklists (and HBW!) is completely understandable. But I nevertheless still feel slightly uneasy that IUCN is set to adopt a quite radical alternative taxonomy unilaterally proposed by a small UK team (BirdLife Cambridge) using a rather novel methodology.

Presumably IUCN has similarly delegated the taxonomy of other zoological classes to particular specialist groups. Can anyone provide more detail/background on how/why/when the avian taxonomy 'franchise' was originally awarded to BirdLife 'International' (UK)? Is it a permanent arrangement?

 

[njlarsen]

Can anyone provide more detail/background on how/why/when the avian taxonomy 'franchise' was originally awarded to BirdLife 'International' (UK)? Is it a permanent arrangement?

And is that even the correct statement? Birdlife international has their international headquarter in the UK, but is the 'franchise' given to the UK part or to the international office (these differences might be more semantic than anything else, but still).

Niels

 

[Richard Klim]

And is that even the correct statement? Birdlife international has their international headquarter in the UK, but is the 'franchise' given to the UK part or to the international office (these differences might be more semantic than anything else, but still).

But in reality, the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group (currently empowered with defining IUCN avian taxonomy) seems to be a small UK, rather than international, team.

 

[lewis20126]

. Can anyone provide more detail/background on how/why/when the avian taxonomy 'franchise' was originally awarded to BirdLife 'International' (UK)? Is it a permanent arrangement?

My guess is that Nigel and Josep met in a pub, perhaps at the Birdfair and things moved on from there. I suspect there was no formal tendering process!

cheers, alan

 

[Mysticete]

I have a strong suspicion that we might be seeing a string of papers criticizing the Collar approach in the near future.

I will be the first to defend changing taxonomies and splitting where they need to be. And I don't in general have a problem with non-BSC species concepts. But something like this seems like the morphological species concept dressed up as BSC. I also can't help but wonder if the splits going on within some of the groups are not simply due to them being big showy species. How well do these methods work with taxa with more boring plumage? continental forms with integrade zones?

 

[Richard Klim]

My guess is that Nigel and Josep met in a pub, perhaps at the Birdfair and things moved on from there. I suspect there was no formal tendering process!

Alan, that's probably true for Lynx/HBW, but I was referring to BirdLife's ongoing responsibility for IUCN's avian taxonomy.

 

[lewis20126]

Alan, that's probably true for Lynx/HBW, but I was referring to BirdLife's ongoing responsibility for IUCN's avian taxonomy.

My mistake; I should read posts more carefully!

cheers, a

 

[aegithalos]

Presumably IUCN has similarly delegated the taxonomy of other zoological classes to particular specialist groups. Can anyone provide more detail/background on how/why/when the avian taxonomy 'franchise' was originally awarded to BirdLife 'International' (UK)? Is it a permanent arrangement?

I can see what you mean, but 'delegated' may be the wrong word. The Redlist website has a page http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/information-sources-and-quality#standards that lists the authorities used for their taxonomy in different groups. As far as I can tell, there is generally just one authoritative list available, and IUCN are using it (what else would they do). Rather than delegating, IUCN are piggy-backing on someone else's work. Birds are clearly different: there are several authoritative lists, and IUCN have plumped for Birdlife, and appear to have then developed that relationship (or maybe it is the other way round). In one sense it is natural - Birdlife's have created the list to suit their conservation goals, which is a clear match to IUCN goals. In another sense it is not: other lists have purer taxonomic goals, attempting to provide an authoritative list that tells it the way it is, which has the merit of clarity and honesty. Also, most people interested in birds are using a list other than Birdlife's, so the Birdlife/IUCN approach differs from common practice among those interested in birds.

Apart from the much-discussed general concern over the Tobias et al methodology, I think it is also a matter for concern that the world list of birds is diverging into one created to suit conservation goals, and a cluster of others that seek to establish species by the best information available. I can't see that that helps conservation in the long-term.

Keith

 

[Richard Klim]

I can see what you mean, but 'delegated' may be the wrong word. The Redlist website has a page http://www.iucnredlist.org/technical-documents/information-sources-and-quality#standards that lists the authorities used for their taxonomy in different groups. As far as I can tell, there is generally just one authoritative list available, and IUCN are using it (what else would they do). Rather than delegating, IUCN are piggy-backing on someone else's work. ...

This discussion has focused exclusively on IUCN's use of BirdLife's avian taxonomy. But BirdLife also has full responsibilty for the Red List threat assessment of avian species. Again, I'm curious about how this has ended up as a largely UK-driven/based activity, with (eg) little apparent American participation in the process.

At least in the case of birds, IUCN's role seems to be limited to publishing the consolidated list.

 

[lewis20126]

This discussion has focused exclusively on IUCN's use of BirdLife's avian taxonomy. But BirdLife also has full responsibilty for the Red List threat assessment of avian species. Again, I'm curious about how this has ended up as a largely UK-driven/based activity, with (eg) little apparent American participation in the process.

I have always seen American influence in a failure to designate Ivory-billed Woodpecker as CE (PE). Are Birdlife are too concerned in maintaining a working relationship with an unrepentant Cornell that they have avoided stating the obvious?

cheers, alan

 

[lewis20126]

Apart from the much-discussed general concern over the Tobias et al methodology, I think it is also a matter for concern that the world list of birds is diverging into one created to suit conservation goals, and a cluster of others that seek to establish species by the best information available. I can't see that that helps conservation in the long-term.

Keith

Is a checklist based on consistent but relatively arbitrary criteria better or worse than one based on best available information, which, at any point in time, is inconsistently applied across species groups? I'm not sure either way!

cheers, alan

 

[Mysticete]

I have always seen American influence in a failure to designate Ivory-billed Woodpecker as CE (PE). Are Birdlife are too concerned in maintaining a working relationship with an unrepentant Cornell that they have avoided stating the obvious?

cheers, alan

I don't see how Ivory-billed Woodpecker not being considered extinct somehow makes it okay for Birdlife to go ahead and adopt a classification far more radical than any yet proposed for birds, and then use that as criteria for IUCN. Those are not at all comparable situations.

 

[Mysticete]

Is a checklist based on consistent but relatively arbitrary criteria better or worse than one based on best available information, which, at any point in time, is inconsistently applied across species groups? I'm not sure either way!

cheers, alan

I would say worse.

Hey...I applaud attempts to standardize methodologies, since in general standardization improves rigor and improves the quality of science. But when it comes to taxonomy....it's just not a viable goal.

No one scientist or even small set of scientists is going to possess the knowledge base to assess 9,000 species in any sort of timely fashion. That's why most global checklists either rely on the checklist committees of smaller regions (BOU, NACC, SACC, etc), and when those are lacking, the primary literature. Not to mention that different taxonomic groups are going to have their own problems or particulars that won't apply to other taxonomic groups.

 

[lewis20126]

I don't see how Ivory-billed Woodpecker not being considered extinct somehow makes it okay for Birdlife to go ahead and adopt a classification far more radical than any yet proposed for birds, and then use that as criteria for IUCN. Those are not at all comparable situations.

Morgan, I was only making the point about American influence at BLI in relation to the IUCN threat levels, not in relation to the classification system.

cheers, alan

 

[njlarsen]

This discussion has focused exclusively on IUCN's use of BirdLife's avian taxonomy. But BirdLife also has full responsibilty for the Red List threat assessment of avian species. Again, I'm curious about how this has ended up as a largely UK-driven/based activity, with (eg) little apparent American participation in the process.

At least in the case of birds, IUCN's role seems to be limited to publishing the consolidated list.

I think you are correct in calling this UK driven, but not necessarily UK based. For example, BirdsCaribbean (previously SCSCB) have in the past been asked to provide input on conservation status/concerns for the Caribbean birds, and I am sure the same will be the case for other local parts of the Birdlife conglomerate.

Niels

 

[Melanie]

Is there already a final BLI list of all new bird taxa which will be add to the new IUCN red list?

 

[Richard Klim]

IUCN Red List 2014

Is there already a final BLI list of all new bird taxa which will be add to the new IUCN red list?

As far as I'm aware, a final list hasn't been published yet, Melanie.

My summary of splits and lumps disclosed on BirdLife's Globally Threatened Bird Forums is attached – although perhaps not all of these will be implemented in the 2014 BirdLife Checklist/IUCN Red List?

But presumably there will be additional (as yet undisclosed) splits/lumps which don't concern threatened or near threatened species.

PS. Melanie, sorry, I misread your post - which was specifically concerned with newly-described taxa rather than splits.