Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

[Richard Klim]

No, Richard, you didn't give that impression at all. I'm just puzzled about this whole approach of making taxonomic changes first and promising justification later. To me, conclusions are justified by the testable argument presented, tested as required, then accepted, and not the other way round - the latter guarantees an absence of clarity.
MJB

As discussed before, this seems to be taxonomy at least partly influenced by conservation politics. BirdLife is trumpeting the recognition of 350+ 'new' avian species, on the basis of a pseudo-scientific algorithm carefully designed to make numerous well-known and long-established taxa more visible to the artificially-defined 'conservation radar' by declaring them to be full species.

 

[dnsallen]

As discussed before, this seems to be taxonomy driven by conservation politics. BirdLife is trumpeting the recognition of 350 'new' avian species, on the basis of a pseudo-scientific algorithm carefully designed to make numerous well-known and long-established taxa more visible to the artificially-defined 'conservation radar' by declaring them to be full species.

Taking the Philippines as an example of an area with multiple allopatric taxa that came to be lumped and are now being split: these were originally described as separate species and were then lumped some time in the twentieth century, the most important reason apparently being their geographical proximity. Of the subspecies whose DNA has been analysed to date by eg Kansas Uni, pretty much all of them have been shown to be distinct enough to be species in their own right. I think this new list may even have missed one or two splits.
The 7 point split regime is often trying to assess those subspecies that have not yet had DNA analysis. Given the track record for Philippine birds so far, I would definitely put my money on the Tobias et al type splits becoming widely recognised in the future rather than the other way around. There may be a few that have gone too far but it looks a better picture to me than that currently recognised by IOC, for example. I do agree that the algorithm is a bit iffy. I think it could be improved by weighting more heavily features that are likely to be important in mate choice and signalling.

As for birds with similar DNA but distinct morphology and vocalisations I'd also agree with the split, on the assumption that the 2 forms had not had time to diverge much since speciating.

I can imagine that, as with Rasmussen and Anderton's Birds of India guide, there has been a lot of pressure to get this list published and on the shelves, and the niceties of pre-publishing details of the splits in peer-reviewed journals have thus been foregone.

I don't know if conservation politics has played a part. There is a very strong tendency of many birders who are in the field and might gather information on a taxon to pay little attention to one that does not have a special name attached to it. Subspecies all too easily get ignored until it may be too late. Never mind the taxa that get lumped into a more widespread subspecies and hence disappear off the map altogether.
Des

 

[DMW]

I don't know if conservation politics has played a part. There is a very strong tendency of many birders who are in the field and might gather information on a taxon to pay little attention to one that does not have a special name attached to it. Subspecies all too easily get ignored until it may be too late. Never mind the taxa that get lumped into a more widespread subspecies and hence disappear off the map altogether.
Des

I agree with all Des's points, and in particular I think that as birders we tend to focus on sub-species with a common English name, probably in the expectation that they are more likely to produce a tick in future!

I do wonder whether Jurek is correct, that the species level is the wrong unit of currency in bird conservation, and that it makes more sense to work at the sub-species level. Of course, this raises its own problem of agreeing on what is or isn't a good a sub-species, but this seems far less contentious than species-level taxonomy. More importantly, sub-species are the ultimate taxonomic units of biodiversity. Is it really rational to put conservation resources into a 'species' which scraped through the Tobias test by 1 point, and not to a 'sub-species' which failed by 1 point?

 

[Nutcracker]

I do wonder whether Jurek is correct, that the species level is the wrong unit of currency in bird conservation, and that it makes more sense to work at the sub-species level. Of course, this raises its own problem of agreeing on what is or isn't a good a sub-species, but this seems far less contentious than species-level taxonomy. More importantly, sub-species are the ultimate taxonomic units of biodiversity. Is it really rational to put conservation resources into a 'species' which scraped through the Tobias test by 1 point, and not to a 'sub-species' which failed by 1 point?

But where would one then stop? The WWT for example base conservation on distinct population units which are not necessarily subspecies (e.g. Svalbard-Solway Barnacle Geese, Greenland-Islay Barnacle Geese). Ideally, all such populations should be conserved; problem though is that conservation funding is often very limited, and priorities have to be made and funding decisions taken.

 

[Richard Klim]

I agree with Des that most of BirdLife's taxonomic changes will probably prove to be valid. Nevertheless, I feel slightly uneasy that this signals another era of rather casual splitting and lumping.

To take a recent contrasting example, consider Thomas Donegan's paper in the latest issue of Bull BOC proposing a split of Three-striped Warbler (based upon morphology and voice). Thomas's work is always impressive, and the 31 pages include dozens of spectrograms supported by tabulated vocal data, biometric data derived from large numbers of specimens, photographs, and comprehensive documentation of the materials examined. It's clearly the result of a huge amount of meticulous research. For one proposed split, there's probably as much detail as BirdLife has published to support the recognition of 361 new species! Thomas also notes that the differences in voice and plumage meet the Tobias criteria. So does the paper represent a waste of time and effort? Would it have been adequate to provide a single statement summarising the Tobias scores (but based upon unpublished data)?

I suspect that, when the dust settles, the ornithological community will mostly respect BirdLife's judgement in making these wholesale splits and lumps. But independent authors will no doubt still be expected to provide conclusive peer-reviewed evidence to support proposed taxonomic changes. Interesting times…

 

[SzimiStyle]

I do wonder whether Jurek is correct, that the species level is the wrong unit of currency in bird conservation, and that it makes more sense to work at the sub-species level. Of course, this raises its own problem of agreeing on what is or isn't a good a sub-species, but this seems far less contentious than species-level taxonomy. More importantly, sub-species are the ultimate taxonomic units of biodiversity. Is it really rational to put conservation resources into a 'species' which scraped through the Tobias test by 1 point, and not to a 'sub-species' which failed by 1 point?

I agree in that a subspecies doesn't need to be elevated to species level to put more focus on its conservation. I think a species survival doesn't simply depend on the conservation effort on subspecies level. It rather depends on the conservation of sub geographic populations. Of course, it in many cases covers a whole subspecies range.

 

[DMW]

But where would one then stop? The WWT for example base conservation on distinct population units which are not necessarily subspecies (e.g. Svalbard-Solway Barnacle Geese, Greenland-Islay Barnacle Geese). Ideally, all such populations should be conserved; problem though is that conservation funding is often very limited, and priorities have to be made and funding decisions taken.

A valid point, but ultimately there are insufficient funds available to protect even highly distinctive and charismatic monotypic species, let alone cryptic obscurities that may or may not be valid species depending on who you ask.

A number of rather distinct sub-species have been lost perhaps because they didn't meet the taxonomic threshold required to warrant official protection (Dusky Seaside Sparrow comes to mind). If conservation action was calibrated to the sub-species level, additional funding and protection might be made available, and some of these taxa might still be extant.

 

[Richard Klim]

A number of rather distinct sub-species have been lost perhaps because they didn't meet the taxonomic threshold required to warrant official protection (Dusky Seaside Sparrow comes to mind). If conservation action was calibrated to the sub-species level, additional funding and protection might be made available, and some of these taxa might still be extant.

In the USA, taxa listed under the Endangered Species Act include subspecies (eg, Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow) as well as species...

• USFWS: Endangered Species: Birds

 

[DMW]

In the USA, taxa listed under the Endangered Species Act include subspecies (eg, Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow) as well as species...

• USFWS: Endangered Species: Birds

Indeed, so the question is whether BirdLife should take the same approach on a global basis, and work at the same taxonomic level.

As far as Dusky Seaside Sparrow is concerned, I doubt the ESA itself had much relevance, since I believe it was pretty much functionally extinct by the year of enactment.

 

[Mysticete]

I agree with a lot of posts here.

I think the Tobias scoring system is interesting and worthwhile to do, in a scientific study, alongside phylogenetic analysis and rigorous examination of ecology, behavior, and vocalizations. I also feel that quite a few of the birdlife splits will eventually receive mainstream acceptance.

My big problem is that I don't think it works by itself as the sole criteria, to apply across all bird species. Different bird groups, due to differences in ecology and behavior, as well as phylogenetic constraint, are going to have different degrees of plumage variation.

Swifts are good example...consider that for the most part, swifts tend to have subtle color differences and a lack really large differences in coloration and plumage. So of course the Tobias criteria found more evidence for lumps than splits. Is that because Swifts were oversplit, or is it because its not calibrated correctly for the group? I could say the same thing about Woodpeckers. The species with flashy color differences were the ones who faced the greatest taxonomic revision, including at least one species which shows extensive hybridization (flickers). However a lot of woodpeckers are variations on a black and white theme, and these tended to be lumped in at least one case (Three-toed). I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more cryptic species within the group. Even in NA, there seems to be interesting differences between Downy and Hairy based on geographic location. Cuckoos again could be another example. Oriental was lumped with European, but practically every checklist recongizes these as different species, in part due to sympatry and vocal differences. Just because they don't show huge differences in plumage doesn't mean they are not a valid species.

In summary...it's a useful informal measure of species diversity, but it oversimplifies things, and basically amounts to a rough eyeballing of species limits based on features that are dramatic to humans.

 

[Mysticete]

oh and as others have mentioned...yeah I do feel like this is throwing out the Biological Species Concept and Phylogenetic Species Concept, and going back to turn of last century typology. Another reason to be concerned, and a good reason to suspect that these splits will not go over well in the New World.

And I can't help but wonder how well the Tobias criteria are going to work on Empidonax flycatchers and Phylloscopus leaf warblers...

 

[njlarsen]

And I can't help but wonder how well the Tobias criteria are going to work on Empidonax flycatchers and Phylloscopus leaf warblers...

Is there more than one species of each? :eek!: :eek!:


8-P

 

[MJB]

I agree with a lot of posts here.

I think the Tobias scoring system is interesting and worthwhile to do, in a scientific study, alongside phylogenetic analysis and rigorous examination of ecology, behavior, and vocalizations. I also feel that quite a few of the birdlife splits will eventually receive mainstream acceptance.

My big problem is that I don't think it works by itself as the sole criteria, to apply across all bird species. Different bird groups, due to differences in ecology and behavior, as well as phylogenetic constraint, are going to have different degrees of plumage variation.

Swifts are good example...consider that for the most part, swifts tend to have subtle color differences and a lack really large differences in coloration and plumage. So of course the Tobias criteria found more evidence for lumps than splits. Is that because Swifts were oversplit, or is it because its not calibrated correctly for the group? I could say the same thing about Woodpeckers. The species with flashy color differences were the ones who faced the greatest taxonomic revision, including at least one species which shows extensive hybridization (flickers). However a lot of woodpeckers are variations on a black and white theme, and these tended to be lumped in at least one case (Three-toed). I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't more cryptic species within the group. Even in NA, there seems to be interesting differences between Downy and Hairy based on geographic location. Cuckoos again could be another example. Oriental was lumped with European, but practically every checklist recongizes these as different species, in part due to sympatry and vocal differences. Just because they don't show huge differences in plumage doesn't mean they are not a valid species.

In summary...it's a useful informal measure of species diversity, but it oversimplifies things, and basically amounts to a rough eyeballing of species limits based on features that are dramatic to humans.

What you've neatly encapsulated here demonstrates (in my opinion) why the Tobias system, if applied and argued on a case-by-case basis, would emerge much stronger if it became clear that the many of the weightings it applies had a range or spectrum dependent on factors such as you have mentioned. In other words, the Tobias system is most likely a very worthwhile hypothesis that, when tested, may need modification dependent upon the falsification tests that individual/genus/family et seq cases presented.
MJB

 

[Mysticete]

Yeah...I think if you could create a separate system that calibrates the scores based on sister species for a specific clade of birds, it would produce better results.

So if swifts had their own scoring system, or shorebirds, than you would probably get more "accurate" results than trying to make one system for everything.

Although even then some groups are going to be a challenge. Flycatchers would be especially difficult to apply a scoring system, since they have flashy species like Vermillion flycatcher and Kiskadees, alongside species complexes that have good species that just are extraordinally difficult to tell apart in the field (Thinking of my most recent experiences with Willow and Alder Flycatchers at Magee Marsh).

 

[njlarsen]

When there are enough different Kiskadee-like species around, that also becomes a problem, and don't get me started on Myiarchus.

Niels

 

[Richard Klim]

Subspecies

I'd hoped that the new checklist would take an axe to some of the questionable subspecies recognised in the early HBW volumes (especially given that Guy Kirwan is undertaking many of the updates ). But working through the species accounts, first impressions are rather disappointing – many subspecies synonymised elsewhere are still recognised.

eg, Rock Ptarmigan Lagopus muta:

• HBW 2 (1994): 30 sspp
• H&M3 (2003): 24 sspp
• H&M4 (2013): 23 sspp
• IOCv4.2 (2014): 25 sspp
• HBW/BirdLife Checklist (2014): 31 sspp

But, as with the original species accounts, it's presumably dependent upon the opinions/decisions of individual authors/revisers.

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Taking the Philippines as an example of an area with multiple allopatric taxa that came to be lumped and are now being split: these were originally described as separate species and were then lumped some time in the twentieth century
Des

This is irrelevant, just for interest'sake, HBW volumes includes over 10000 species of birds but only cca 2.5 percent originally were described as subspecies.

 

[dnsallen]

This is irrelevant, just for interest'sake, HBW volumes includes over 10000 species of birds but only cca 2.5 percent originally were described as subspecies.

Sorry but I don't get your point...

 

[Peter Kovalik]

Sorry but I don't get your point...

I meant nothing bad by it. I sent my post just for interest and as irrelevant to the theme.

 

[Richard Klim]

...ie, of the 10,000+ species recognised in HBW 1–16, ~97.5% were originally described as species, and (remarkably) only ~2.5% result from subsequent splits (although many others have been lumped and re-split since description).