New unified list of birds - Avilist (4 Viewers)

[Jon.Bryant]

I am usually the only one who knows what might be going on in this area

Probably all nonsense, but I wonder if we take things a bit more (and too) seriously in the UK (of perhaps just my old circle of friends did - I say 'old' circle as now the 'grapevine' [and the need to network] is dead, and BirdForum exists, I see less interaction and debate with local birders - and when we do occasionally get together, it just seems to be discussions on what people have found).

I think that most 'serious' birders in the UK probably still will have reasonable knowledge of changes likely to impact the British list, so will have known about the lump of the Redpolls before it happened officially (and are awaiting the fate for Green-winged and Eurasian Teal).

There is actually a semi regular column on taxonomic change in one of the popular magazines, which comes free with a subscription to a bird information service, so I suppose that the editors at least think it has 'entertainment value'.

I suppose that a bit like politics, a lot of us don't know the fine details of what is going on in the background, but can still have strong opinions when change impact us.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I'm more concerned about the practical aspect of keeping my list, will Scythebill continue as is but with a single list, will there be demand to retain Clements and IOC lists on the platform as they stand, alongside AviList?

As my final Sunday grandstand (and after a glass of wine). I don't think you need to worry about the loss of Scythbill, Clements or IOC - well at least anytime soon.

I think the WGAC started their work in 2020 or 2021. It is reported that they intend to publish their species concepts this year (it was actually meant to be early this year). So four or five years to resolve species. Once this work is complete, I then understand they are to turn their attention to subspecies! The AviList is eventually meant to be THE reference, and therefore will presumable include this information, so the species list to be issued this year, will presumably be a preliminary interim document only.

[EDIT: The WGAC website suggests that they have not started the review of subspecies, but that the draft list will include subspecies largely derived from the IOC taxonomic list].

If we thought species concepts were difficult and a source of debatable, then subspecies are a whole different can of worms. At present there are large differences in the number of subspecies acknowledged in the various lists - more so than at a species level (where at least differences can normally be mapped subspecies to species - for subspecies there are plenty of instances where one list simply considers that a subspecies exists or does not!). I think that there is some acknowledgement that subspecies are somewhat neglected and in need of a good review by all the parties.

So depending on how strongly the various authorities feel about subspecies and how virulently they wish to debate and argue their viewpoint, it would seem that there could be many years to come, before a definitive list materialises and consideration can even start to be given to retiring the existing systems. This is one reason I am still persevering with my database!

 

[Mysticete]

Probably all nonsense, but I wonder if we take things a bit more (and too) seriously in the UK (of perhaps just my old circle of friends did - I say 'old' circle as now the 'grapevine' [and the need to network] is dead, and BirdForum exists, I see less interaction and debate with local birders - and when we do occasionally get together, it just seems to be discussions on what people have found).

I think that most 'serious' birders in the UK probably still will have reasonable knowledge of changes likely to impact the British list, so will have known about the lump of the Redpolls before it happened officially (and are awaiting the fate for Green-winged and Eurasian Teal).

There is actually a semi regular column on taxonomic change in one of the popular magazines, which comes free with a subscription to a bird information service, so I suppose that the editors at least think it has 'entertainment value'.

I suppose that a bit like politics, a lot of us don't know the fine details of what is going on in the background, but can still have strong opinions when change impact us.

I think the UK and ABA/USA are just different beasts. We have lots of birders and lots of hardcore birders, but given the size of the country, outside of your major cities they tend to be more heavily dispersed. San Diego, where I lived for a few years, definitely had a high density of hardcore birders, some of who were well known outside the state. Fox Valley region of Wisconsin, not so much.

 

[vdinets]

Oh come on, the underlying problem is not science complexity vs. supposed intellectual limitations of non-scientists, or pluralism vs. unity, or anything like that. The real root cause of all issues is that biological evolution is a fluid, dynamic process that can't be pressure-packed into a linear checklist. Any attempts to do that result in oversimplifications and loss of information. Listers should simply accept this as inevitable.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

The real root cause of all issues is that biological evolution is a fluid, dynamic process that can't be pressure-packed into a linear checklist

I think taxonomy is the science of trying to put things in a classification system, and I agree that nature may not fit neatly into whatever ‘linear’ system we contrive….but birdwatching would be a tad difficult without an attempt.

If we can accept it is an approximation, and a needs must, surely we can also be relaxed about a process of unification under the WGAC?

 

[Kirk Roth]

Probably all nonsense, but I wonder if we take things a bit more (and too) seriously in the UK (of perhaps just my old circle of friends did - I say 'old' circle as now the 'grapevine' [and the need to network] is dead, and BirdForum exists, I see less interaction and debate with local birders - and when we do occasionally get together, it just seems to be discussions on what people have found).

I think that most 'serious' birders in the UK probably still will have reasonable knowledge of changes likely to impact the British list, so will have known about the lump of the Redpolls before it happened officially (and are awaiting the fate for Green-winged and Eurasian Teal).

There is actually a semi regular column on taxonomic change in one of the popular magazines, which comes free with a subscription to a bird information service, so I suppose that the editors at least think it has 'entertainment value'.

I suppose that a bit like politics, a lot of us don't know the fine details of what is going on in the background, but can still have strong opinions when change impact us.

Jon, you've spelled out most of the issues except this one that you seem to only have hinted at: I believe that one thing that needs to be understood by all of us is that the motivation behind WGAC and the streamlining of lists is all to do with science communication and not having to do with us and our birdlists. They are not the BOU or ABA - so many of the drawbacks we see don't exactly apply to people mostly concerned with international science communication.

Certainly, the impact of chasing shags on remote islands or the +/- aspects of our checklists don't apply to WGAC decision-making. But nor do our opinions here - majority or not, based on whatever philosophies and preferences and traditions and comfort levels. The argument that "multiple checklists inspire debate/discussion" also does not apply - because all of science is debate and discussion. People creating their own checklists is not their concern. Lots of these things are "birder problems" not "ornithologist problems." And as you accurately point out, we birders can get as upset as we want about the "ornithologist solutions" but at the end of the day, we are only harming ourselves if we expect their scientific organization to address our hobbyist gripes - it won't happen.

 

[TicoTyler]

As my final Sunday grandstand (and after a glass of wine). I don't think you need to worry about the loss of Scythbill, Clements or IOC - well at least anytime soon.

I think the WGAC started their work in 2020 or 2021. It is reported that they intend to publish their species concepts this year (it was actually meant to be early this year). So four or five years to resolve species. Once this work is complete, I then understand they are to turn their attention to subspecies! The AviList is eventually meant to be THE reference, and therefore will presumable include this information, so the species list to be issued this year, will presumably be a preliminary interim document only.

If we thought species concepts were difficult and a source of debatable, then subspecies are a whole different can of worms. At present there are large differences in the number of subspecies acknowledged in the various lists - more so than at a species level (where at least differences can normally be mapped subspecies to species - for subspecies there are plenty of instances where one list simply considers that a subspecies exists or does not!). I think that there is some acknowledgement that subspecies are somewhat neglected and in need of a good review by all the parties.

So depending on how strongly the various authorities feel about subspecies and how virulently they wish to debate and argue their viewpoint, it would seem that there could be many years to come, before a definitive list materialises and consideration can even start to be given to retiring the existing systems. This is one reason I am still persevering with my database!

Or a fun one, which species certain subspecies even pertain to. Like how Costa Rica recently lost a regional endemic after it was decided that a couple of subspecies of Golden-crowned Flycatchers from South America were actually Golden-bellied Flycatchers which was previously a CR/Panama endemic.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Or a fun one, which species certain subspecies even pertain to.

Yes. We think of how species are treated by the various current authorities (splits and lumps), but last time I looked there are also quite a lot of 'rips' (for want of a better word). This is where different authorities recognize the same species, but allocate subspecies between them differently. I included these in my 'Messy Taxonomy' post of December 2022, which covered the two flycatchers (see below);

Golden-crowned and Golden-bellied Flycatcher

IOC, Clements and BirdLife recognise Myiodynastes chrysocephalus (Golden-crowned Flycatcher) and Myiodynastes hemichrysus (Golden-bellied Flycatcher). However, the division of these species varies at subspecies level with two subspecies impacted.

Subspecies cinerascens and minor

• IOC treats these subspecies as Myiodynastes chrysocephalus.
• Clements and BirdLife treat these subspecies as Myiodynastes hemichrysus.

Presumably they have now resolved this difference of opinion in later updates.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Lots of these things are "birder problems" not "ornithologist problems." And as you accurately point out, we birders can get as upset as we want about the "ornithologist solutions" but at the end of the day, we are only harming ourselves if we expect their scientific organization to address our hobbyist gripes - it won't happen.

Which lists are compatible with birders 'hobbyist gripes' ? If by 'gripes', you mean complaining about lumping, that has been going on forever, it's nothing new regardless of which 'authority' you use. '

many of the drawbacks we see don't exactly apply to people mostly concerned with international science communication.

Another reason for the retention of a listing authority which is more readily use-able by a broader, mainly 'lay' consumer base? I'd imagine that all lists are utilised by far more birders than scientists.

I think the WGAC started their work in 2020 or 2021. It is reported that they intend to publish their species concepts this year (it was actually meant to be early this year). So four or five years to resolve species. Once this work is complete, I then understand they are to turn their attention to subspecies! The AviList is eventually meant to be THE reference, and therefore will presumable include this information, so the species list to be issued this year, will presumably be a preliminary interim document only.

The only people who will ensure the viability of this and it becoming 'THE' list, on a practical, every day level, are birders. If this list is really, only concerned with professional users, many will find it undesirable and aside from the few who cross check all authorities, most will probably continue with what they currently know and use, I know I will.

Did I see mention somewhere that AviList could possibly end up as a subscription service?

 

[Jon.Bryant]

The only people who will ensure the viability of this and it becoming 'THE' list, on a practical, every day level, are birders. If this list is really, only concerned with professional users, many will find it undesirable?

It will be interesting to see what the list looks like and what format it takes. The WGAC webpage makes reference to a work of Peters. This was a multi volume tome, rather than a checklist.

The WGAC website states that the list will include,

1. classify the Aves from class to subspecies
2. provide authors and references to the original description of all taxa of all ranks covered by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN).
3. provide type localities for species and subspecies
4. provide type taxa for all ranks from subgenus to superfamily.
5. provide references for taxonomic and nomenclatural decisions.
6. provide English names for species
7. synchronise distributions with the Birds of the World project.

and Ultimately

• provide type data and deposition for species-group names
• provide synonyms.

This level of information, may be presented in a webpage (book like structure), rather than as wide spreadsheet, but to be practical I think it would need to be able to extract core data as Excel checklists as well.

So when I say 'THE' reference, I really mean the most informative reference available.

As to adoption by birders, as I have said already, the updates to the world taxonomies are largely been driven in recent years by the WGAC. So whatever list you use, if you keep up to date, you will eventually be aligned with AviList. Clements, IOC and BirdLife have pledged to align with the findings of the WGAC and are already working towards this goal (although on their own timeframes). A bit like Henry Ford, you will be able to have any up to date checklist you like, as long as it is AviList! If you want to stick with what you have, then the only option may be to stop accepting updates - you mentioned Scythbill previously - can you do this with Scythbill, or does it update taxonomy automatically?

On previous posts, I have questioned why it is taking so long for lists to align, and have received valid responses about the difficultly of aligning existing database systems with changes (i.e. Birds of the World, or the BirdLife Datazone). I did think about creating 'a measure' of convergence - but I think the direction is fairly obvious by inspection (consider Clements revision of Albatrosses, Clements and IOC treatment of Redpolls etc.) ... and I spend far too much time on the computer anyway!

 

[Andy Adcock]

As to adoption by birders, as I have said already, the updates to the world taxonomies are largely been driven in recent years by the WGAC. So whatever list you use, if you keep up to date, you will eventually be aligned with AviList. Clements, IOC and BirdLife have pledged to align with the findings of the WGAC and are already working towards this goal (although on their own timeframes). A bit like Henry Ford, you will be able to have any up to date checklist you like, as long as it is Avibase! If you want to stick with what you have, then the only option may be to stop accepting updates - you mentioned Scythbill previously - can you do this with Scythbill, or does it update taxonomy automatically?

No, you have to install updates but with them, the taxonomic changes are automatic, provided that you have input any sub-specific data.

 

[Mysticete]

Which lists are compatible with birders 'hobbyist gripes' ? If by 'gripes', you mean complaining about lumping, that has been going on forever, it's nothing new regardless of which 'authority' you use. '

many of the drawbacks we see don't exactly apply to people mostly concerned with international science communication.

Another reason for the retention of a listing authority which is more readily use-able by a broader, mainly 'lay' consumer base? I'd imagine that all lists are utilised by far more birders than scientists.

The only people who will ensure the viability of this and it becoming 'THE' list, on a practical, every day level, are birders. If this list is really, only concerned with professional users, many will find it undesirable and aside from the few who cross check all authorities, most will probably continue with what they currently know and use, I know I will.

Did I see mention somewhere that AviList could possibly end up as a subscription service?

Howard and Moore was the checklist floating an idea of a subscription service, because if I recall correctly the endowment that supports maintenance of that list has some sort of requirement where everything can't be available for free, although likely some sort of baseline excel type file with the species taxonomy will be.

 

[Mysticete]

The only people who will ensure the viability of this and it becoming 'THE' list, on a practical, every day level, are birders. If this list is really, only concerned with professional users, many will find it undesirable and aside from the few who cross check all authorities, most will probably continue with what they currently know and use, I know I will.

Did I see mention somewhere that AviList could possibly end up as a subscription service?

The thing is....if they don't use Avilist, where will they go? You are pretty much stuck with more regional lists (AOS, SACC, etc), Howard and Moore, private created public lists (UK400, TiF), or creating your own. All of these options have significant downsides and limitations.

 

[Andy Adcock]

The thing is....if they don't use Avilist, where will they go? You are pretty much stuck with more regional lists (AOS, SACC, etc), Howard and Moore, private created public lists (UK400, TiF), or creating your own. All of these options have significant downsides and limitations.

E.g?

IOC works fine for me, my needs are not complex.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Which lists are compatible with birders 'hobbyist gripes' ?

I don't think any taxonomic lists (current or historic) have been targeted towards a birders as a key demographic - unless you count the EBird derivative from Clements, but despite this we have managed. The same people are behind AviList as behind the major taxonomic lists, so the chance that this will end up being something that is a complete mess for birders seems to me very remote.

And if AviList is published in an unfriendly format, I am sure we will find a workaround. I am a bit of a duffer at computing, but when 'HBW Alive' was about to close down, I still managed to write a webscraper and extract all the subspecies, subspecies groups and range information, before it was lost - this was before BirdLife's official list included subspecies (and it still doesn't include range data). So I am sure that the developers of Scythbill etc. will be able to easily extract the 'goodness' from any unfriendly format that AviList may take.

Did I see mention somewhere that AviList could possibly end up as a subscription service?

I have not heard this rumor, but I think this would be a huge mistake, and I would have thought that all parties would have learnt the lesson of Howard and Moore trying to monetarist their intellectual property... a decline into obscurity.

The thing is....if they don't use Avilist, where will they go?

I think we forget, what it used to be like. My first year list is for 1983 - no internet, no electronic lists - in fact computers were a novelty. If you wanted a global taxomomy you basically had to folk out on a hard copy volume and work from that. Dutch Birding used to produce a little checklist for the Western Palearctic (which I loved), with check boxes to physically tick off what you had seen!

...IOC is now version 15.1, so presumably is a mere youth at 15 years old. Clements 6th Edition was the last hard copy edition, published in 2007 (a mere 18 years ago).

So I think we can say that we have been rather spoiled over recent years, by the advent of electronic lists and by three world taxonomies available as user friendly free excel downloads. Perhaps like many other things in life, once we have choice we resent not having it, but to console ourselves, perhaps we just reflect that things will still be a lot better than a mere 20 years ago.... and again like many other things, perhaps less choice is necessarily not a bad thing?

We bird watched and listed in the past, in a world of limited (and expensive) choices, and I am sure we will continue to list and bird watch if we end up with one unifying taxonomy.... but who knows, perhaps even Howard & Moore may be updated as an alternative for those wanting to take a different route (although they may well have to splash the cash).

For me, the biggest train crash for birders is the rapid withdrawal of a used taxonomy or a system. My friends (probably on about 6,000 at the time), were using HBW Alive to record their sightings. They were promised a soft transition when the system was sold to Cornell and thus had to change from BirdLife's to Clement's taxonomy. The way they describe it, it was nothing of the kind, and they spent many hours over several months, checking and re-inputing their data. At least the change to AviList is being done slowly (by IOC, Clements and BirdLife) and so far without crashing whatever systems we like to use. Just imagine you were one of the unlucky ones who way back in the day picked Sibley & Monroe as the way to go! I feel I was a bit unlucky, as my first world taxonomy was this

...long since consigned to the bin, and now selling on the internet from the princely sum of £5.57. Not even worth keeping as a collectors item!

 

[Andy Adcock]

I don't think any taxonomic lists (current or historic) have been targeted towards a birders as a key demographic - unless you count the EBird derivative from Clements, but despite this we have managed. The same people are behind AviList as behind the major taxonomic lists, so the chance that this will end up being something that is a complete mess for birders seems to me very remote.

And if AviList is published in an unfriendly format, I am sure we will find a workaround. I am a bit of a duffer at computing, but when 'HBW Alive' was about to close down, I still managed to write a webscraper and extract all the subspecies, subspecies groups and range information, before it was lost - this was before BirdLife's official list included subspecies (and it still doesn't include range data). So I am sure that the developers of Scythbill etc. will be able to easily extract the 'goodness' from any unfriendly format that AviList may take.

I have not heard this rumor, but I think this would be a huge mistake, and I would have thought that all parties would have learnt the lesson of Howard and Moore trying to monetarist their intellectual property... a decline into obscurity.

I think we forget, what it used to be like. My first year list is for 1983 - no internet, no electronic lists - in fact computers were a novelty. If you wanted a global taxomomy you basically had to folk out on a hard copy volume and work from that. Dutch Birding used to produce a little checklist for the Western Palearctic (which I loved), with check boxes to physically tick off what you had seen!

...IOC is now version 15.1, so presumably is a mere youth at 15 years old. Clements 6th Edition was the last hard copy edition, published in 2007 (a mere 18 years ago).

So I think we can say that we have been rather spoiled over recent years, by the advent of electronic lists and by three world taxonomies available as user friendly free excel downloads. Perhaps like many other things in life, once we have choice we resent not having it, but to console ourselves, perhaps we just reflect that things will still be a lot better than a mere 20 years ago.... and again like many other things, perhaps less choice is necessarily not a bad thing?

We bird watched and listed in the past, in a world of limited (and expensive) choices, and I am sure we will continue to list and bird watch if we end up with one unifying taxonomy.... but who knows, perhaps even Howard & Moore may be updated as an alternative for those wanting to take a different route (although they may well have to splash the cash).

For me, the biggest train crash for birders is the rapid withdrawal of a used taxonomy or a system. My friends (probably on about 6,000 at the time), were using HBW Alive to record their sightings. They were promised a soft transition when the system was sold to Cornell and thus had to change from BirdLife's to Clement's taxonomy. The way they describe it, it was nothing of the kind, and they spent many hours over several months, checking and re-inputing their data. At least the change to AviList is being done slowly (by IOC, Clements and BirdLife) and so far without crashing whatever systems we like to use. Just imagine you were one of the unlucky ones who way back in the day picked Sibley & Monroe as the way to go! I feel I was a bit unlucky, as my first world taxonomy was this
View attachment 1642442
...long since consigned to the bin, and now selling on the internet from the princely sum of £5.57. Not even worth keeping as a collectors item!

My first listing was done in hard copy with a book by Mick Wells, I still have it with all my pencil notes.

https://www.amazon.com/World-Bird-Species-Checklist-Alternative/dp/0953242005

 

[vdinets]

I think taxonomy is the science of trying to put things in a classification system, and I agree that nature may not fit neatly into whatever ‘linear’ system we contrive….but birdwatching would be a tad difficult without an attempt.

If we can accept it is an approximation, and a needs must, surely we can also be relaxed about a process of unification under the WGAC?

My main concern with having one checklist to rule them all is the loss of information - there will be no quick way to know about controversies and alternative views. Ideally I'd like them to be somehow mentioned, like they are on Avibase.

 

[Mysticete]

E.g?

IOC works fine for me, my needs are not complex.

I was assuming we were talking about taxonomies. Going forward probably next year IOC, Clements, and Birdlife will all have identical taxonomies, so what differences exist will be likely in the form of common names and presentation of information/update schedule. If you for some reason don't like the underlying taxonomy (lump something you don't like, too slow to respond to changes, too extreme with splitting), none of these will be meaningful alternatives to Avibase.

As for downsides:
Regional lists: obviously not helpful if you are a world birder, and different regional lists often conflict with each other

Howard and Moore: very conservative on species splits and lumps, may potentially partially paywalled, future still not clear to me

Lists created by solo individuals: updates erratic and there is always a potential for the list to disappear completely. May be influenced heavily by the whims of the person creating it, which could create weirdness

Own personal list: Lots of work to maintain that a lot of folks other than some of us Birdforum weirdos may find intimidating and overwhelming

 

[njlarsen]

The only people who will ensure the viability of this and it becoming 'THE' list, on a practical, every day level, are birders. If this list is really, only concerned with professional users, many will find it undesirable and aside from the few who cross check all authorities, most will probably continue with what they currently know and use, I know I will.

I actually feel that WGAC is driven by catering to regular birders, not catering to the professional taxonomists. This is driven by trying to make citizen science more easily integrated across platforms I believe. If ebird and Observado, iNaturalist, etc use the same taxonomy, then data on distributions can be truly used for big data analysis. Likewise, for scientists working in conservation, having one list most rely on makes it easier in communication with regulators.

The professional taxonomists will know where the uncertainty lies and can still continue their digging into how bird species developed.
Niels

 

[Mysticete]

My main concern with having one checklist to rule them all is the loss of information - there will be no quick way to know about controversies and alternative views. Ideally I'd like them to be somehow mentioned, like they are on Avibase.

Avilist has mentioned that they will be publishing their proposals on their new website, so presumably the major conflicts that existed at the start of the process will have documentation on why they lumped/split the effected taxa.