Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

[Nutcracker]

Under these proposals, Meadow Pipit would have a higher conservation status than Great Snipe. Does any of this stuff have any real meaning in the real world? I'm really beginning to wonder.

You can always, as they allow, Leave a comment

 

[DMW]

You can always, as they allow, Leave a comment

I have left a number of comments over the years about various (mostly Asian) species. My impression is that BirdLife takes little notice of most comments on the forum (not just mine!).

 

[Valéry Schollaert]

Under these proposals, Meadow Pipit would have a higher conservation status than Great Snipe. Does any of this stuff have any real meaning in the real world? I'm really beginning to wonder.

Nature conservation should not be based on the status of a species anyway, but this is human that should learn to adapt his activities to let space and resources to the ecosystems to develop as they want (and not as we want).

So, honestly, I don't care if one is NT or the other one is CE.

In case you didn't know that the actual strategy is not working...

http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/

Cheers

 

[Richard Klim]

Illustrated Checklist Vol 1

Reviewed (in Dutch) by Garry Bakker: Dutch Birding.

 

[MJB]

Reviewed (in Dutch) by Garry Bakker: Dutch Birding.

At considerable length, too! I wonder if Bird Forum's Dutch members could help in obtaining English version? The Dutch are so good at languages - I think it was Ward Hagemeijer who joked that in order to speak good Dutch, English people needed to practise with pebbles in their mouths!
MJB

 

[lewis20126]

Google transate gives this for the first para on taxonomy:

"The checklist starts with a very detailed and readable introduction which provides an overview of the world called bird taxonomy. I'm trying to give a summary outline because it is important to understand in what way this checklist is primarily content apart from other.
There are several approaches to bombard a bird to species, the so-called type concepts. In recent decades, but especially in recent years, there is clear movement has in the preferred species concept, each concept has its advantages and disadvantages. These are all discussed quite extensively in the introduction. The two most influential types of concepts are the biological species concept, and the phylogenetic species concept. According to the biological species concept consist of a collection of species populations that are distinct from other populations (species) because they can produce fertile offspring themselves. The ability to successful reproduction is here so the criterion. The phylogenetic species concept is looking for unique and consistently present differences between populations and used this as the main argument to define species. Differences can in this connection, both relate to morphological differences, noise, like DNA."

cheers, alan

 

[Mysticete]

hah...I love the translation interpretation of "Bombard a bird to species"

 

[MJB]

hah...I love the translation interpretation of "Bombard a bird to species"

My enjoyment of languages includes how a construct in one language may transfer well (or badly) when used in another. The use of 'bombard' here conveys an unexpected vividness that is unintentionally appropriate in one way.

I've carried out first edits of scientific papers by people whose first language is not English so that when they submit them for publication, the narrative flows, rather than hiccups from sentence to sentence. While doing that, I've been pleasantly surprised by the appearance of words that don't actually exist in English, but ought to! Quite often, draft papers from those whose first language is Dutch or German contained invented words that are entirely appropriate.

Because, for example, many words in English derive from Latin, problems arise because English has evolved to use a range of prepositions to indicate both case and usage, whereas these were inherent in Latin declensions which established case endings.

For example, native Dutch or German speakers may have difficulty determining the correct selection of 'by', 'with' or 'from' in writing English in the ablative case. On the other hand these days, native English speakers, mostly through the endless revamping of how English is taught in the curriculum, don't know what the ablative case is!

All the above illustrates just how complex and complicated language rules are; in English, most rules contain so many exceptions that they present formidable challenges to automatic translation. These problems are better overcome by employing fuzzy logic, rather than linear (Boolean) logic, which tends to demand rule rigidity. That's why I'm lost in admiration of how remarkably well automatic translation systems can perform!
MJB

 

[njlarsen]

As a Danish native who works on a daily basis using the English (American) language, and who at various times have dabbled a little in German, French and Spanish (usually with poor luck), I find that it is always the small words that cause the biggest problems in all languages. In English, I could add "for" and "of" to the above list.

Niels

 

[MJB]

Reviewed (in Dutch) by Garry Bakker: Dutch Birding.

Following that review on the Dutch Birding website is a lengthy critique on the Tobias scoring system from George Sangster (24 July):

"1. Tobias et al. 2010 believe that ‘too many poorly defined species’ are recognised and that this is a major problem. Unfortunately, they do not explain what a poorly 'defined' species is and why it is a problem. Tobias et al. (2010) do not provide any examples of species that have become widely accepted but are too poorly defined to qualify as species. If this has become a major problem, up to the point that ornithology needs new criteria, then where are all these species?

2. With breathtaking abandon, their approach excludes all molecular data. Their rationale: taxonomists have been unable to reach consensus about the degree of genetic divergence sufficient for species rank (as if that were the only evidence to be extracted from DNA sequence data). They consider molecular data to be a mixed blessing for the BSC, yet exactly the same can be said of any line of evidence. No line of evidence is ‘perfect’. For instance, major morphological differences may have a very simple genetic basis (e.g. bananaquit, snow geese, skuas), acoustic differences may represent dialects, and biometric data can be highly dependent on environmental factors, yet these are all uncritically accepted by Tobias et al. 2010 as relevant for species-level taxonomy.

3. The Tobias system combines points from various sources of data. However, they still haven't explained why these are considered equal. I find it very hard to believe that a 2 'point' difference in biometrics contributes equally to reproductive isolation as a 2 point difference in plumage, or that a two-point difference in hybrid zone width is worth the same as a 2 point difference in a song character. It all seems extremely arbitrary and based on wishful thinking.

4. Their approach ignores phylogenetic/phylogeographic analysis. Thus, various species of black oystercatchers, crows, Knipolegus tyrants, etc will almost certainly be treated as the same species even if phylogenetic analysis of DNA has already shown that they are not closely related. Case in point: American Black Oystercather (H. bachmani) is sister to American Oystercatcher (H. palliatus), yet is lumped with Blackish Oystercatcher (H. ater) because both are black and their divergence is judged to be fewer than 7 points.

5. The Tobias criteria are limited to univariate analysis of character differences (each character difference is given a score, which are then added up). This ignores the great value of multivariate analysis (used by taxonomists since the early 1970s). It is easy to see how two taxa with widely overlapping ranges in single characters may show no overlap if two or three characters are plotted on different axes.

6. Their system is supposedly based on the BSC, yet it ignores cline- and hybrid zone theory (Endler 1977, Barton & Hewitt 1985 etc) or indeed anything that happens in a hybrid zone. It pays no attention to the age of a hybrid zone, dispersal distance, generation time, assortative mating, post-mating isolating mechanisms, or introgression. Thus, they simply assign two points to hybrid zones of less than 200 km width, and one point to zones wider than 200 km. If it is discovered that two putative species show widespread interbreeding, this would be a point of concern for traditional taxonomists. Most will want to know about this zone. However, the taxonomist using the Tobias criteria is unconcerned; he would simply see this zone as further *support* for species rank because it adds another point to the score.

7. After 15 years of criticising the PSC (i.e. the diagnosability criterion), which Collar believes leads to too many species that are based on ‘trivial’ differences, his own approach does not even require diagnosability. A character difference may be assigned 2 points using the Tobias criteria, even if the ranges of variation overlap widely. For instance, the diagnostic difference in call duration and the widely overlapping difference in call frequency of Melanitta nigra and M. americana are both assigned 2 points. Thus, the 100s of species that will no doubt be split using the Tobias criteria may not even by fully diagnosable. Ironically, Collar’s own criteria are actually *less* stringent than those of the PSC (full diagnosability) and the BOU Guidelines of Helbig et al. (diagnosability or near-diagnosability in multiple unrelated characters). For instance, two taxa that differ non-diagnosably in three characters (3x2 points) and which mate randomly in a broad hybrid zone (1 point!) would be treated as species by the Tobias system based on a 7 point score but would certainly *not* be species under a PSC, BSC (sensu Mayr), or the BOU Guidelines.

8. Amazingly, even non-significant differences based on small samples may be assigned 2 points. I accidentally discovered this when I applied the Tobias criteria to the hind toe length of a pair of Seicercus warblers.

9. The Tobias approach is extremely wasteful: only three morphological characters, two acoustic, two biometric and one bahavioural character can be used (even if data are available for many more characters and lines of evidence, e.g. calls, mating patterns). Furthermore, instead of using Principal Component Analysis to obtain uncorrelated variables among a large number of variables, the Tobias system dictates that only 1 temporal and 1 frequency character can be used for acoustic data; this is based on the (false) assumption that these characters are not correlated. Clearly, if only two variables can be used, song divergence will be underestimated by the Tobias system if song divergence is based on many variables, each of which differing only slightly but together allowing complete separation.

10. The Tobias criteria are supposed to bring ‘standardisation’ and clarity to species-level taxonomy, yet this requires that taxonomists agree about how to score morphological differences: is the white area on the lores of White-faced Plover ‘distinctly different’ (2 points), ‘contrastingly different’ (3 points), or ‘radically different’ (4 points) from that of Kentish Plover? How can scientists test a claim that a difference in (say) bill colour is worth 3 points? Judging the breadth of hybrid zones can also be problematic. Should the breeding of both pure and mixed pairs of White and Pied Wagtails in Shetland be considered evidence of a hybrid zone, and if so, should this be considered a narrow zone (2 points) or a broad hybrid zone (1 point), even if only very few pairs are involved each year? Clearly, the assignment of points using the Tobias system is little more than personal opinion.

11. Their calibration of the minimum level of divergence required for species rank was based on sympatric species because such species must be reproductively isolated. This may seem reasonable but it overlooks the problem that for sympatry to occur, the pair of species must *also* differ ecologically. However, ecological niche modelling work (e.g. Peterson et al. 1999, Peterson 2003, Kozak & Wiens 2006) shows that ecological niches tend to be rather conserved across evolutionary time periods and that ecological niche differences tend to arise rather late during divergence. This inflates the minimum level of divergence required for species rank.

12. Their calibration of species divergence included numerous (at least 26 of 58) non-sister species! These species pairs are older and thus typically more divergent than sister species. Once again, this may inflate the minimum level of divergence required for species rank. I am amazed that this wasn't picked up during the peer-review process.

13. The 58 reference pairs used in the study by Tobias et al (2010) included only 3 non-passerines (Tauraco, Gymnobucco, Picoides which are all colourful or well-marked taxa). Vocalizations of passerines are typically discrete, whereas those of many non-passerines are graded (see chapter in Kroodsma & Miller 1982/1996). Again, this might represent a bias.

TL;DR. The Tobias-Collar point scoring system abandons (a priori) all major theoretical and technological breakthoughs in species recognition since the 1970s (molecular data, phylogenetic analysis, multivariate analysis and hybrid zone theory); it throws away precious taxonomic data that are already available; it requires subjective assessment of the divergence of morphological characters; it is actually less stringent than the PSC or the BOU Guidelines; and has been calibrated using inappropriate comparisions. "

MJB

 

[Murray Lord]

Following that review on the Dutch Birding website is a lengthy critique on the Tobias scoring system from George Sangster (24 July):

Van Remsen's review (see post #489) is no more enthusiastic. His key complaints:

(1) Parapatry is not treated as sufficient evidence of species rank.

(2) The signal from contact zones is ignored.

(3) Non-assortative and assortative mating are not distinguished.

(4) Variation in important characters as isolating mechanisms is not calibrated for phylogenetic differences.

(5) Phenetic taxonomy has risen from the dead. The Tobias et al. scheme has an eerie spiritual connection to the long-abandoned “phenetic taxonomy” approach to classification in which character similarity was quantified and used as an estimate of relationships among taxa ...

 

[Richard Klim]

So the BirdLife/Tobias species concept has now been comprehensively savaged by key members of AOU NACC/SACC, BOURC TSC, and CSNA.

I wonder if IUCN and/or Lynx might be having any regrets about endorsing/adopting BirdLife's controversial taxonomy...

 

[MJB]

Van Remsen's review (see post #489) is no more enthusiastic:

(5) Phenetic taxonomy has risen from the dead. The Tobias et al. scheme has an eerie spiritual connection to the long-abandoned “phenetic taxonomy” approach to classification in which character similarity was quantified and used as an estimate of relationships among taxa ...

For casual readers, the Wikipedia definition of 'phenetics' (spellcheck keeps changing it to 'phonetics') might help:

"In biology, phenetics /fɨˈnɛtɪks/, also known as taximetrics, is an attempt to classify organisms based on overall similarity, usually in morphology or other observable traits, regardless of their phylogeny or evolutionary relation."

But please don't confuse phenetics with phrenology (again from Wikipedia):

"Phrenology (from Greek φρήν (phrēn), meaning "mind", and λόγος (logos), meaning 'knowledge') is a pseudoscience primarily focused on measurements of the human skull, based on the concept that the brain is the organ of the mind, and that certain brain areas have localized, specific functions or modules."
MJB

 

[Richard Klim]

Tobias et al. 2010 believe that ‘too many poorly defined species’ are recognised and that this is a major problem. Unfortunately, they do not explain what a poorly 'defined' species is and why it is a problem. Tobias et al. (2010) do not provide any examples of species that have become widely accepted but are too poorly defined to qualify as species. If this has become a major problem, up to the point that ornithology needs new criteria, then where are all these species?

eg, in the Western Palaearctic and Nearctic (the regions with the greatest numbers of birders/ornithologists and therefore arguably the greatest local interest in splitting), 11 non-passerine species are recognised by BOU and/or AOU but not by BirdLife. A major problem?

1. Anser [fabalis] serrirostris Tundra Bean Goose (AOU)
2. Anas [crecca] carolinensis Green-winged Teal (BOU)
3. Cuculus [saturatus] optatus Oriental Cuckoo (AOU)
4. Oceanodroma [castro] jabejabe Cape Verde Storm Petrel (BOU)
5. Puffinus [lherminieri] baroli Macaronesian/Barolo Shearwater (BOU/AOU)
6. Butorides [striata] virescens Green Heron (BOU/AOU)
7. Haematopus [ater] bachmani Black Oystercatcher (AOU)
8. Himantopus [himantopus] mexicanus Black-necked Stilt (AOU)
9. Numenius [phaeopus] hudsonicus Hudsonian Whimbrel (BOU)
10. Sterna [sandvicensis] acuflavida Cabot's Tern (BOU)
11. Picoides [tridactylus] dorsalis American Three-toed Woodpecker (AOU)

(Also, Falco [peregrinus] pelegrinoides Barbary Falcon is recognised by Voous 1973/1977 & AERC TAC – and so perhaps implicitly by BOU?)​

 

[lewis20126]

"1. Tobias et al. 2010 believe that ‘too many poorly defined species’ are recognised and that this is a major problem. Unfortunately, they do not explain what a poorly 'defined' species is and why it is a problem. Tobias et al. (2010) do not provide any examples of species that have become widely accepted but are too poorly defined to qualify as species. If this has become a major problem, up to the point that ornithology needs new criteria, then where are all these species?

Presumably it's when any current "species pair", when scored separately, differ by less than the magic 7..

cheers, a

 

[Richard Klim]

Following that review on the Dutch Birding website is a lengthy critique on the Tobias scoring system from George Sangster (24 July): ...

Dutch Birding: George Sangster, 26 Jul 2015...

Comments

Er is een manuscript in voorbereiding waarin de genoemde problemen worden besproken. Er zijn overigens maar weinig professionele systematici die de Tobias criteria, en de taxonomische wijzigingen die Collar daarop baseert, serieus nemen. JV Remsen schreef onlangs al een vernietigende recensie van het HBW boek in Journal of Field Ornithology 86(2): 182-187. Hij pleit voor 'wholesale rejection' van alle in het boek voorgestelde wijzigingen.

There is a manuscript in preparation in which the aforementioned problems are discussed. Moreover, very few professional taxonomists take the Tobias criteria, and the taxonomic changes which Collar bases thereon, seriously. JV Remsen already recently wrote a scathing review of the HBW book in the Journal of Field Ornithology 86(2): 182-187. He argues for 'wholesale rejection' of all proposed changes in the book.

 

[Melanie]

What is the main problem with the Tobias criteria: oversplitting or overlumping?

 

[Richard Klim]

What is the main problem with the Tobias criteria: oversplitting or overlumping?

Both!?

 

[thomasdonegan]

Maybe with criticisms on both the splitters' and lumpers' sides of different committees, this means a semblance of balance has been achieved? We are going through all the splits relevant to Colombia right now and noted a number of good novel insights. Also some stuff (e.g. in toucans especially) that makes little sense. But overall a lot of useful proposals that helps takes things forwards. Watch this space for a discussion based on analysis of actual taxonomic proposals rather than all this rhetoric...

 

[lewis20126]

Without reference to the original paper or the checklist intro, I think one of the main reasons for the establishment of the system was to try and make some progress in defining species in the overlumped (value judgement alert) Asian avifauna, particularly in relation to allospecies across islands groups and indeed remote mountain ranges, where fewer tools, eg contact zones, are available.

I have a reasonable familiarity with the avifauna of the Neotropics and of Asia and there is no doubt at all in my mind, that the premise of relative overlumping in Asia, compared to the Neotropics, is correct.

If this tool is not the correct one to redress the balance (and it may not be) what is the correct one?

cheers, alan