New unified list of birds - Avilist (5 Viewers)

[TicoTyler]

You are probably right that the majority can be assumed, but there must be a few more examples from Costa Rica where this is not the case - Yellow Warbler (Northern) and Yellow Warbler (Mangrove)? There was an recent article in British Birds that made the case for us all being more interested in subspecies - a subspecies at a strange location or at a strange time of year, of no less impressive than a species - just we can't tick it. And I thought the whole point of EBird Groups (we are not really recording to subspecies level) was based on identifiable taxa, so is there a reason we should abandon the use?

I am surprised that the reviewers configure the filters. So how does this get passed back up into the filters in the phone app, or is this why spurious races can be selected at time of input?

I would suggest that reviewers should be encourages to properly set the filters - they will be be helping themselves in the long run, and protecting themselves from being swamped by records from annoying people like me that try to use the groups, even when common and expected.

Yes and those cases where multiple subspecies overlap usually show up in the filters, although some still need to be searched for. One example being Volcano Hummingbird, when they do their non-breeding dispersal and torridus individuals show up on the volcanoes of the cordillera central that was not previously displaying by default and you had to search all birds to find any of the subspecies, but aff after I kept reporting those to ssp. level they updated the filters.

Conversely, I live on the Caribbean side where Scarlet-rumped Tanager occurs and the subspecies does show up in eBird (Passerini's). But that's the subspecies to be expected so listing it to subspecies level doesn't really add much useful data. If I saw an out of range Cherrie's then listing the subspecies would be useful data.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I don't really understand what you're talking about.

I just opened EBird and the subspecies do look reasonable for where I am in Surrey, but there are a few strange things Goosander is an Infrequent bird, but Goosander (Eurasian) is unreported. Whereas, in UK all birds will be the Eurasian subspecies. What I was trying to say, is that I am unsure the filters are correct for all locations - if they do work correctly everywhere, then as John said earlier, why are people ‘accidentally’ selecting Purple Heron (Cape Verde) in Hong Kong? You don’t accidentally enter a subspecies venturing away from the filtered species and selecting something off menu do you?

I do have subspecies turned on in settings, but all this does is display subspecies groups recognised by EBird. That is fine, as they are identifiable taxa. But for example I think Great Spotted Woodpecker (Great Spotted) covers the whole of the major group - not just a single subspecies.

Going back to what I said to Tico, it is a bit confusing and perhaps pointless to have Common Wood Pigeon and Common Wood Pigeon (White-necked) or Gadwall and Gadwall (Common) - any where in the U.K. these will be the same thing, and nobody in the UK refers to birds as White-necked or Common in any case.

 

[Paul Chapman]

I just EBird and the subspecies do look reasonable for where I am in Surrey, but there are a few strange things Goosander is an Infrequent bird, but Goosander (Eurasian) is unreported. Whereas, in UK all birds will be the Eurasian subspecies. What I was trying to say, is that I am unsure the filters are correct for all locations - if they do work correctly everywhere, then as John said earlier, why are people ‘accidentally’ selecting Purple Heron (Cape Verde) in Hong Kong? You don’t accidentally enter a subspecies venturing away from the filtered species and selecting something off menu do you?

I do have subspecies turned on in settings, but all this does is display subspecies groups recognised by EBird. That is fine, as they are identifiable taxa. But for example I think Great Spotted Woodpecker (Great Spotted) covers the whole of the major group - not just a single subspecies.

Going back to what I said to Tico, it is a bit confusing and perhaps pointless to have Common Wood Pigeon and Common Wood Pigeon (White-necked) or Gadwall and Gadwall (Common) - any where in the U.K. these will be the same thing, and nobody in the UK refers to birds as White-necked or Common in any case.

John's issue sounds like a problem that I have had where because I have Data Roaming turned off on trips between WiFi etc, I may have a disconnect between choices on the App & my actual location & end up with for instance rare triggers on common Tasmanian birds despite being on Tasmania. In such circumstances, you can get fed up with triggers & not flag up or realise when you are making inappropriate choices & cause challenges for reviewers. It is one of those things & if the Review process was streamlined to a degree & a bit more simplified central guidance was given, the dataset could be improved & things made easier more quickly.

All the best

Paul

 

[Jon.Bryant]

And what they configure in eBird is what you see in your app.

Presumably they sync with the next download of the app. But I can use EBird without a mobile signal, and still get filters based on my GPS location, so I cannot be seeing ‘live’ any filters set by the reviewer.

Picking on my Gadwall example the groups are very odd. The race strepera is given the name Gadwall (Common) and the race couesi is given the name Gadwall (Coues’s). The two groups are very distinct, with Common, Mallard sized and Coues’s, Teal sized, but they are geographically isolated and more important Coues’s is thought extinct as it has not been recorded since 1874! In this case there seems little point in confusing people with Gadwall and Gadwall (Common). In reality they are equal and very probably the only option.

 

[njlarsen]

So my concern that EBird does not filter groups properly for a location seems correct (see post above). If the Ebird phone app can provide a list of probably and scarce species by location why can't it do this for groups. It would make sense that when I am in Hong Kong, I am not even given the option for the Cape Verde subspecies of Purple Heron, and that I would have to deliberately search for this subspecies, if by some miracle I was confident I found one there.

All I can think is that the back end regional filters in the online database are more robust than the filters in the phone app - there must be filters in the phone software, as you can use the app without signal and with gps only. But there are not that many groups, and I cannot believe that improving the filters on the phone software is impossible.

I think you are making a wrong assumption regarding how this appears in the review list. I think most likely, someone was using a different recording system, made a wrong selection of subspecies in there, and then made a bulk import to eBird of the list. The import system is not nearly as good at user feedback as the more direct input options as far as I know.
Niels

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I think you are making a wrong assumption regarding how this appears in the review list. I think most likely, someone was using a different recording system, made a wrong selection of subspecies in there, and then made a bulk import to eBird of the list. The import system is not nearly as good at user feedback as the more direct input options as far as I know.

Maybe. I just tried turning off my SIM, turning off WiFi and starting a list without GPS tracking. I can select to generate a UK list, but then everything is marked as unrecorded. So perhaps I was wrong and you do need mobile data to get proper filters - and Paul's explanation of connection lag on trips is the reason for my confusion/doubt that the system works.

I am off to Inner Mongolia on Wednesday (and have a Local E-SIM), so will try to put EBird again to the test!

 

[Paul Chapman]

Enjoy your trip. 😀

 

[johnallcock]

So my concern that EBird does not filter groups properly for a location seems correct (see post above). If the Ebird phone app can provide a list of probably and scarce species by location why can't it do this for groups. It would make sense that when I am in Hong Kong, I am not even given the option for the Cape Verde subspecies of Purple Heron, and that I would have to deliberately search for this subspecies, if by some miracle I was confident I found one there.

All I can think is that the back end regional filters in the online database are more robust than the filters in the phone app - there must be filters in the phone software, as you can use the app without signal and with gps only. But there are not that many groups, and I cannot believe that improving the filters on the phone software is impossible.

I think you are making a wrong assumption regarding how this appears in the review list. I think most likely, someone was using a different recording system, made a wrong selection of subspecies in there, and then made a bulk import to eBird of the list. The import system is not nearly as good at user feedback as the more direct input options as far as I know.
Niels

The filters are set up correctly (as reviewer I have control over the local filters). If you enter data using the phone app you would need to deliberately search for these unusual subspecies. Maybe Niels is correct that these records are imported from another recording system.

But what it highlights to me is that some people enter the subspecies without thinking about it - they identify the species but make an assumption about subspecies. For example, maybe 90% of our White Wagtails are leucopsis and it's easy to assume that a flyover White Wagtail is leucopsis, but I would still advise that you don't do this unless you have confirmed that it is not ocularis. Most people wouldn't assume a flyover wagtail is White Wagtail without considering whether it is another species but will still assume the subspecies without checking. It's fine to enter a record as White Wagtail without entering any subspecies if you didn't check.

 

[jts1882]

I suspect that when Carl Linnaeus created the Binomial Nomenclature, his intent was to have a unique system to index all species. If he knew that various authorities were developing their own variations, and in a way corrupting the indexing system, I am sure he would be turning in his grave. If we never changed or had variations in Latin Order, Family, Genus, Species and Subspecies names, but merely added and deleted names, then his system would be a good primary key system for any modern database!

I suppose at the end of the day, the debate over having differing taxonomies comes down to whether you are a fan of 'freedom of opinion' or a fan of 'functionality over freedom of opinion'. I am the latter and therefore strongly believe there should only be one indexing system.

As I see it, the debate rather comes down to whether you regard taxonomy as a scientific endeavour or, as you put it, as a mere "indexing system".

If taxonomy is a scientific endeavour you have to accept that there will be different taxonomies. Science is built on testable hypotheses and any particular taxonomy is essentially a hypothesis. In reality a taxonomy of birds will be built on many hypotheses. This is incompatible with the taxonomy being an indexing system, as even the most stable taxonomy should be open to revision when more information is available.

Linnaeus developed the binomial system before there were good scientific theories of evolution, but the fact of evolution (that it occurred) was known, even if the mechanisms proposed were off-base. Linnaeus also included higher classification in his system, so I not sure we can say he intended it as a unique index. He revised the system substantially in different editions, which suggests he thought it an ongoing endeavour. Perhaps he wrote about his intent somewhere.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

This is incompatible with the taxonomy being an indexing system, as even the most stable taxonomy should be open to revision when more information is available.

I have long thought that ideally there should be disconnect between the update of taxonomic lists and some level of implementation - In effect a regularly updated taxonomy, but a semi-frozen version that forms a stable categorization system for Ornithological purposes. The semi-frozen one could be added to or deleted from, but latin names could not be changed or taxonomic sequence altered for a period of time - say a quarter century. This would ensure that ornithological reports, books etc, would have largely the same naming system and sequence over a given period. It would also assist 'dyed in the wool' birdwatchers like me - for the life of me I can't get out of the habit of saying genus names long established in my mind - such as 'Sylvia' for 'Curruca' or 'Locustella' for a generic 'Locustella/Helopsaltes' warbler. It may be interesting that a taxonomic sequence requires amendment to a taxonomist, but from a practical and Ornithological point of view, it seems less so. By implementing a type of change control, the taxonomists would be happy that their taxonomy is current and correct, and Ornithologists & birdwatchers would be happy that they had something more practical and semi-stable - although we would be aggrieved without updates and the fun of splits and lumps.

If taxonomy is a scientific endeavour you have to accept that there will be different taxonomies.

Well it seems that at least IOC, BirdLife and Clements (who maintain the only current and regularly updated world Taxonomies) agree to differ - assuming they achieve their stated objective and converge on AviList. I am sure that someone at sometime will proffer an alternative and opposed Taxonomy - after all history has not been short of authorities to do so. But I think that if this is after AviList has become established, even if an alternative was arguable more accurate, it will end up being an obscure and rarely referenced document.

 

[Mysticete]

Personally, I and I think many biologists, probably most who do any work in evolutionary biology, have no interest in a static taxonomy that maintains status quo just to maintain status quo. A name should reflect evolutionary relationships, and in the long run not doing so will cause more confusion than doing so. If you want to stabilize common names (which don't need to and often don't reflect evolutionary history), that is of course another story.

 

[l_raty]

'Freezing' science is obviously not an acceptable option.

 

[l_raty]

Did you read this thread (and the papers referenced in it), Jon ?

 

[Jon.Bryant]

'Freezing' science is obviously not an acceptable option.

Sorry, If I made you angry - this is the first angry face I have ever had!

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. I was not suggesting 'freezing' science, but merely having a separate categorization system with stability for ornithologists. Taxonomists would be free to continue their scientific endeavors, but equally Ornithologists (including authors of books, reports etc.) would also have alternative more static categorization system on which to develop their works. Of course Ornithologists could cross reference the latest taxonomy if they wished and it was important to their work.

I have sometimes considered how we will reference historic works in the future. This is not an idle issue, as I read an article about early explanation in South China, where we can no longer understand which species they are referring to - the Latin names are not in use nowadays, and there is no 'audit' trail to determine how this name changed over time. I suspect that we are past that with modern computer system and electronic archive, but it will be interesting to be a fly on the fall and see whether future generations are equally confused by taxonomic names in historic Ornithological references.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Did you read this thread (and the papers referenced in it), Jon ?

No. But the opening reference you provided does suggest that others are concerned about the same issues I have highlighted.... and as I said before (but perhaps less directly) does it really matter what we think in this forum, if the major taxonomies have set out their intent to form a consensus opinion. I admit that this consensus opinion will be subject to yearly update, but nevertheless, it will go a long way towards reducing different taxonomies.

I notice the mention of species and importance to conservation. I have in the past become quite heated in correspondence with BirdLife, following an article in the BTO Magazine, where they state 'to be of conservation significance it has to be a species'. In Britain we have the most impoverished wildlife in Europe, but probably the most endemic subspecies - why can't subspecies be used as a stick to bash our government and improve species wildlife protection. The answer from BirdLife gave multiple reasons, but a key one was that they simple did not have the resource to categorize conservation concern status for circa 30,000 subspecies.

We also get into very dodge discussions about whether the pressures and demands of conversation weigh on the shoulders of some countries more than others, and whether this is fair and equitable - An Indonesian Island (say the size of Belgium) may have substantially higher number of unique species, than Belgium, forming part of the European Land mass, and not isolated by geographic features. Even the UK (which physically split from Europe 450,000 years ago) seems to have got off lightly, with the recently reclassified Red Grouse, as it's only endemic species (or do we still have Scottish Crossbill?). As you can see, I do find the link between a species and the driver for conservation rather frustrating.

We also get into the arguments as to whether BirdLife Taxonomy is then the most important and ultimate taxonomy. They define their own species list, and are also responsible for defining the conservation concern for those birds. The BirdLife website states;

'BirdLife International is the IUCN Red List Authority for birds, so the list of species recognised by BirdLife forms the list of bird species in the IUCN Red List. BirdLife’s taxonomic list is also followed by a number of international conservation agreements, such as the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS), the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agreement (AEWA) and the EU Birds Directive. BirdLife therefore has an international obligation to maintain an up-to-date list and to communicate it.'

Should all of us in Europe be following a taxonomy used by the EU Birds Directive? If harmonisation is achieved, one day we will be!

 

[TicoTyler]

Maybe. I just tried turning off my SIM, turning off WiFi and starting a list without GPS tracking. I can select to generate a UK list, but then everything is marked as unrecorded. So perhaps I was wrong and you do need mobile data to get proper filters - and Paul's explanation of connection lag on trips is the reason for my confusion/doubt that the system works.

I am off to Inner Mongolia on Wednesday (and have a Local E-SIM), so will try to put EBird again to the test!

The filters are pulled from the bird pack you download into eBird (different and much smaller than the one for Merlin). The first time you use it in a location it will generally prompt you to download the local pack; I usually pre-emptively download the different packs before I am doing a trip as internet can be spotty at the destination. I do not know if they automatically pull in filter updates when you have internet or not but I assume so.

 

[Paul Chapman]

The filters are pulled from the bird pack you download into eBird (different and much smaller than the one for Merlin). The first time you use it in a location it will generally prompt you to download the local pack; I usually pre-emptively download the different packs before I am doing a trip as internet can be spotty at the destination. I do not know if they automatically pull in filter updates when you have internet or not but I assume so.

Thank you. I suspect that this probably explains a bunch of my challenges on trips. Time to work out what packs I need to download for this year.

All the best

Paul

 

[Kirk Roth]

Interesting.

The WGAC website states 'Heading the project are Les Christidis, WGAC Chair and former co-editor of the passerine volume of the Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World edition 4; Frank Rheindt, WGAC deputy chair and ICZN Commissioner; and David Donsker from the IOC World Bird List, who will coordinate the bibliographic entry program. Members of checklist committees of individual continents are also included, such as the NACC and SACC.'

I have seen statements now from IOC, BirdLife and Clements that they are committed to aligning with Avibase. I haven't seen a similar statement from NACC. But why is the NACC on the WGAC if they follow ABA, which follows Cornell, which is committed to AviList? This would be a bit like inviting the British Ornithological Union, who used to maintain their own taxonomic opinion, but decided some time ago to follow IOC.

I've seen the WGAC statement and I believe it is very dated (as evidenced by the use of WGAC instead of the more newly adopted AviList).

To clarify, based on the best of my knowledge:

- WGAC/AviList did coordinate with NACC in the past few years and this was evidenced by NACC entertaining some proposals to line up with AviList (some of which did not pass). I don't think the coordination effort stuck - as there are several differences between NACC treatment and AviList/IOC/Birdlife/Clements - most notably the NACC's nonacceptance of the Herring Gull split, for which they stand alone now. Whether or not members of NACC are "on" AviList, the two entities are unaligned, and that differs from all the rest. Maybe there was an intention in years past that they would be aligned but it is not currently the case.

- NACC does not follow ABA. ABA formerly followed NACC, but for the past few years ABA has followed Clements. NACC "follows" itself, and as far as I know practically nobody follows NACC except their own publications, many state bird record committees, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and small entities here and there.

- That said, NACC does have seem to have some influence toward the others - perhaps in a sense that the main checklists don't want to rock the boat too much if they can help it. "Cocos Booby" was an invention of the NACC that was adopted by checklists worldwide.

 

[Mysticete]

My understanding is that there was never any sort of commitment from NACC (and SACC originally...not sure where that stands) to go along with WGAC decisions. Having members from NACC is not the same as NACC being onboard with every decision.

I expect (based on the proposed lumps that have been rumored for IOC) when it comes to North American focused taxonomic changes Avilist will still mostly follow NACC. I only expect variance in situations like the Herring Gull complex, where a species has a distribution that extends well beyond the borders of North America.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

where a species has a distribution that extends well beyond the borders of North America.

We have discussed the case for different taxonomic systems, but it has occurred to me that we are generally tribal and loyal in the selection of a taxonomic list. Very few of us will consider reassessing the pros and cons of a particular taxonomy, or consider changing our alliance.

I note that many people list their NACC total, so for the tribe of North American competitive lister, NACC will presumably remain important. Hopefully the differences will not be too great from EBird and this group can therefore use the app, but do a simple hand calc adjustment to determine their NACC total.

As a member of the tribe of non-competitive world lister, who long gave up on his U.K. list, I am actually not strongly wedded to any taxonomy. I fell into IOC largely because it was one of the first comprehensive taxonomies to be issued free on the Web, but would have preferred to use BirdLife - they were just too late to the table in providing a taxonomy with subspecies, and I still find the lack of range info in their list detracts from use. But with hindsight I probably should have selected Clements, as the EBird app is now ‘the’ global birdwatching software, significantly simplifying record keeping. My lack of regional and competitive interest, and weak alliance to any taxonomy, perhaps explains why I find competing taxonomies a distraction and needlessly confusing, and hanker for unification.