• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Lynx-BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist (1 Viewer)

njlarsen

Gallery Moderator
Opus Editor
Supporter
Barbados
Alan, I am not sure there is one right tool for everything. In principle I like the use of a taxonomic committee structure, especially when it functions with free access to comments. But it is one proposal at a time (therefore slow), and it can easily result in different regional standards because different committees consist of different people.

The approach by Birdlife speeds up the process, and because it is done by few people, makes for a more uniform standard. However, the same few people cannot know everything that would be known by the different members of regional committees, and as such, even if their approach was otherwise flawless, there would be problems. A couple of posts in this thread quote strongly worded arguments that the approach is not flawless.

Niels
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
Species concepts, by their very nature, are to some degree arbitrary. I think the issue is that in the existing system when applied to birds, they are in a few key areas. For instance amount of interbreeding and size of hybrid zones for BOU, or amount of genetic distinctiveness or morphological differentiation in PSC.

The Tobias scoring criterion sort of worsens those problems, and makes them in some cases work, by arbitrarily applying numbers to qualitative differences in plumage, and simplifying quantitative differences in call, hybridization etc to a arbitrary number. Basically it simplifies very complex and variable phenomena which exist on a broad continuum, to the point where you lose valuable information. It requires a substanstial more degree of subjective reasoning in an area of research with perhaps a bit too much subjectivity. It also attempts to use the same criteria across all birds, when in fact there are probably very different factors influencing speciation across different bird groups, and a "one size fit all approach" means that some groups won't work "well" under Tobias, while some groups might end up oversplit. Basically...In a group as varied as storm petrels, woodpeckers, flycatchers, and tanagers, do you really think one criteria works equally well for all?
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
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?)​

To be fair to the Tobias criticism...almost all of these splits are not even agreed upon between the BOU and AOU. They are obviously species that exist on the border of being accepted or rejected as "valid" species

Probably more telling would be to look at what is "split" by birdlife and lumped by those respective checklists. Off the top of my head, Northern Flicker is split, something that seems quite weird for a lot of American birders, given the wide hybrid zone and similarity in habits between the red-shafted and yellow-shafted forms.
 
Last edited:

lewis20126

Well-known member
I think a more pragmatic way of using the Tobias et al. system, would, if modified, be as a specialist tool for allopatric forms. The problems will not be that familiar to specialists in the Neotropics - the difficulties associated with (eg) Thistletails and Tyrian Metaltail are replicated many many times across the mountains and islands of Eastern Asia.

cheers, alan
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
To be fair to the Tobias criticism...almost all of these splits are not even agreed upon between the BOU and AOU. They are obviously species that exist on the border of being accepted or rejected as "valid" species
Yes, my point was that although identified as a major problem with existing taxonomies, the number of (poorly defined?) species not recognised by BirdLife actually seems to be quite small.
 

Ben Wielstra

Well-known member
The Tobias method seems to me a quick and dirty approach. As mentioned above particularly the Asian avifauna would greatly benefit. It has to be quick as 'species' are disappearing, but as it is dirty that also means it will be provisional. Not sure if publishing it as a fancy checklist is the best approach in that case...! It is fun though.
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
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?
The Tobias criteria could have been restricted to scoring intraspecific subspecies groups – those with scores of 7+ could still be identified as conservation units and potential species, but promotion to full species would await more detailed studies. It appears that the constraints of the IUCN approach (whereby conservation unit = 'species') have instead encouraged sometimes premature splitting – taxonomy driven by conservation interests. The tail wagging the dog...?
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
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...
Thomas, I certainly don't dispute that application of the Tobias criteria will have given many useful insights into taxa potentially worthy of species status, and will hopefully help to take things forward. But, as discussed earlier, I still believe that this could have been achieved without so divisively bypassing the mainstream (painfully slow and iterative, but ultimately consensual) taxonomic process.

I'm struck by how your own contributions to ornithology/taxonomy have required the meticulous collation of multiple sources of evidence gathered over many years, before publication in typically lengthy and comprehensive peer-reviewed papers, and yet are still sometimes cautiously received by 'the establishment'. By contrast, BirdLife has managed to establish a position where someone sitting at a desk in Cambridge can define a new species on the basis of a single sentence summarising the results of a cursory examination of 1990s HBW artwork (OK, an exaggeration, but I suspect only slightly so in some cases ;)), and the new species is then accepted without question by IUCN (and the conservation world), and permanently enshrined and illustrated in a stunning globally-distributed book by Lynx Edicions! It doesn't seem entirely fair or balanced to me...
 
Last edited:

Richard Klim

-------------------------
I can't help feeling that by the time it takes taxonomists to agree, there may be rather fewer living birds for them to worry about!
Indeed. But science takes time and effort, and shouldn't be artificially rushed (which wouldn't be necessary if conservation efforts weren't so fixated on 'species').
 

Melanie

Well-known member
List of birds of the European Union – August 2015

In November 2014, at the 11th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS COP 11), a resolution was adopted to use the Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW) and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World (Volume 1) (del Hoyo & Collar 2014) as the standard reference for bird taxonomy and nomenclature for non-passerine species. This same reference is used for the updated EU bird list, CMS and the IUCN Red List. Volume 2 (passerines) of the HBW-BirdLife Checklist is expected to be published in late 2016.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/wildbirds/eu_species/index_en.htm
 

Surreybirder

Ken Noble
In this version, a
scoring system described by Tobias
et al.
(2010)
has been adopted for discerning the gratitude of
differences in morphology, vocalizations, ecology
and geographical relationships separately

I wonder what word was intended?
 

Mysticete

Well-known member
United States
In this version, a
scoring system described by Tobias
et al.
(2010)
has been adopted for discerning the gratitude of
differences in morphology, vocalizations, ecology
and geographical relationships separately

I wonder what word was intended?

I would guess magnitude
 

Richard Klim

-------------------------
HBW Alive

Eduardo de Juana, HBW Alive, 8 Oct 2015: The updating process for the "new species" from the HBW-BL Illustrated Checklist is completed!
A little over a year ago, in August, 2014, the HBW Alive Editorial team faced an important challenge: BirdLife International and Lynx Edicions had just published together HBW and Birdlife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World Volume 1: Non-passerines (del Hoyo & Collar 2014), with a large number of taxonomical modifications which had to be incorporated into HBW Alive. In the more than twenty years it took to complete the monumental Handbook of the Birds of the World (1992-2013), there had been a scientific revolution in terms of our conception of the evolution of birds, as much in the understanding of the precise relationships between orders and families as in the delimitation of the advances in the process of speciation among sister taxa. Suffice it to say that the HBW-BL Illustrated Checklist includes 2,126 bibliographical references, most from recent years, so the necessary changes were very numerous.

For HBW Alive, the task of adapting the contents to the new taxonomic sequence was, thanks to information technology, simple and rapid. However the changes arising from the recognition or not of new species was to prove a far greater task. 462 new species appeared almost overnight, the result of splits, whose internet texts only contained the fields corresponding to taxonomy and distribution, with no information about biology, ecology or conservation status, and which lacked links to photos, videos or sound recordings. Moreover the texts of the "old" species, which before included those now recognized as different, had to be modified accordingly. By the same token particular attention had to be paid to the 30 cases in which the HBW-BL Illustrated Checklist suggested lumping forms that were previously considered distinct species.

When modifying the texts of the two or more species resulting from a particular split, there were sometimes considerable difficulties attributing to certain taxa the information in the original text relating to details like, for example, diet, nest construction or the migration calendar, which effectively obliged the editors to carry out new investigative work. Even the assignment of the bibliography to one or another species sometimes required a considerable amount of work. Given the relatively small size of the editorial team – it is to be hoped that an increase in subscriptions will permit us to increase this in the future – we had no choice but to dedicate all our efforts to the new task, leaving aside for the moment, with some exceptions, the routine updating of the species accounts of the rest of the species.

We are pleased finally to be able to announce to our readers that the process has been successfully completed and that all the species in HBW Alive now have their own complete, individual texts. We are very grateful to the various editors, and especially to Guy Kirwan, for their efforts, which have permitted this to be achieved within a reasonable time frame. Within a year, the publication of the HBW-BL Illustrated Checklist volume devoted to the passerines will raise another mountain of work before us. By then, though, we hope to have advanced substantially the updating of the texts of many other species.
 

Melanie

Well-known member
I think the owls are the best example that taxonomists will never find a consensus in the case of splitting. Neither the König & Weick taxonomy (2008) nor the HBW taxonomy (2014) have been really accepted by the main authorities. König & Weick lists douzens of barn-owls (e.g. The Galapagos barn-owl) as distinct species while Collar et al. lists at least three new Ninox species (granti, malaitae and roseoaxillaris) which are only accepted as subspecies.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top