• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Nomenclature burnout (1 Viewer)

Life originated once --- species/taxa split off, and afterward either died or survived. We know it must have happened in a particular way and modern taxonomies try to reflect that historic reality.

Mysticete already mentioned part of it, but it is more extensive.

There are many definitions of species (I head a figure of over 120 mentioned), and virtually every definition has many interpretations (what differences in plumage are big enough? How much hybridization is little enough? etc). Higher taxonomic units, as Mysticete pointed, are almost undefined. Combined with the approximately 10000 'good' bird species, the number of possible human taxonomies matching the biological reality is in the range of millions to billions.

It is a good reason for birdwatchers not to be worried about taxonomies. And, for biologists, make their work taxonomy-independent. One example is evolutionary distinctiveness score developed by the Zoological Society of London.
 
Last edited:
Hopefully this won't happen any time soon. Thankfully, there are other taxonomies apart from these.

As you've pointed out, taxonomies are arbitrary. There are many reasons for this. Some are:
  • Our view changes with technology and other evidence
  • A phylogeny/taxonomy at the level of the individual depends on weighting many different relatedness histories, some of which may be in conflict (different genes, for example). Changing the weights changes the (averaged) outcome.
  • Reconstruction often yields more than one equally probable tree, perhaps because there is not enough evidence to distinguish between them. Which you choose is arbitrary
  • We cut the tree arbitrarily to produce our taxa (whether at species or higher levels)
Since there are so many subjective decisions that go into creating a taxonomy (even "what objective branch cutting method should I use?"), taxonomy should never stop being in flux.

Even if this weren't the case, species are constantly evolving. Sometimes formation of new species can be quite "fast" (https://www.axios.com/2017/12/15/a-new-bird-species-is-seen-emerging-in-real-time-1513307152). Extinction even faster of course.

I don't want a single taxonomy for birds. It would not reflect biological reality. I certainly don't want one which doesn't admit of alternatives.
Well if by "not happen soon" you mean later than 2025, then you will be disappointed, as that is when the final version should be made available. Nearly all of the IOC and Clements taxonomic changes from the last several years are a result of this process. After the transition you will have WGAC effectively, and Howard and Moore as far as international lists that are not just a single person's hobby. I think the other lists will still exist, but I wouldn't expect variance in the species level taxonomy, just matters concerning common names, checklist formats, list focus, etc. Those lists will be following the lead of WGAC

I think you are conflating "one checklist that everyone agrees on" with taxonomic stasis. New studies will still be produced and evaluated going forward. They are not just locking things down and never making any future revisions. Presumably they will also be getting feedback from regional authorities as well. I have concerns myself about opposing viewpoints being given uneven weights and the independence of the taxonomic committee , but I think in the long run there will be a benefit from this.
 
Got it, yeah when I looked for the page it sent me to BOW hence my confusion. I can't speak to how they handled past contributors but anyone who authors content for it now gets free lifetime access. (I am the author for two species.)
I wrote 4 complete family accounts for BoW and I have to pay.....I've also never seen any discount codes, maybe only in North AmericaA?
 
I wrote 4 complete family accounts for BoW and I have to pay.....I've also never seen any discount codes, maybe only in North AmericaA?
Not sure. When I authored the first one in late 2022 they said my account is set to an "author account" so I have free access, and they also gave me 5 codes good for a one year sub that I could share. Maybe the policy changed since you worked on it.
 
BOTW is also offered free to anyone who submits at least 1000 complete checklists in a year. If you want access maybe you should just get out birding more. ;)
 
I wrote 4 complete family accounts for BoW and I have to pay.....I've also never seen any discount codes, maybe only in North AmericaA?
if it was before Cornell took over, you probably slipped through the cracks during the transition. I would email them.
 
[shrugging off scientific opinion]

Your conclusion, 'taxonomies have no basis in science', seems absurd to me.

Coming up in IOC 14.2, 50+ splits, 5 lumps -- all 'no basis in science'?

It seems to me such disengagement from science might indeed be better named 'burnout'.

- kweetal
 
Well if by "not happen soon" you mean later than 2025, then you will be disappointed, as that is when the final version should be made available. Nearly all of the IOC and Clements taxonomic changes from the last several years are a result of this process. After the transition you will have WGAC effectively, and Howard and Moore as far as international lists that are not just a single person's hobby. I think the other lists will still exist, but I wouldn't expect variance in the species level taxonomy, just matters concerning common names, checklist formats, list focus, etc. Those lists will be following the lead of WGAC
The original announcement of the WGAC did say that its purpose was to produce and maintain... a global checklist of birds. Strictly speaking that doesn't imply regular updates but hopefully they will happen.
 
I think you are conflating "one checklist that everyone agrees on" with taxonomic stasis.
No that's a different point.

Even at the whole organism level, each taxonomist weights different phenotypic elements (plumage, song, behaviour etc) differently. We can see this through the Tobias score controversies:- different authorities emphasise or discount that approach to a greater or lesser degree. Even the scoring within it is subjective and open to question. So the same reality of plumage etc can result in very different decisions, outcomes.

That's just an example but applies to all taxonomic debate (e.g. in SACC discussions reported on this forum there is seldom unanimity). Does this just mean that the way to interpret things is unclear, and if we knew we could reconstruct true relatedness easily?

Of course not.

Individuals are mosaics of genes with different evolutionary histories which may often be in conflict with one another. Introgression is just one example. Where signals conflict, an individual-level phylogeny must be some weighted average. Precisely how you weight the constituents is... ...subjective. So it's correct and valid that 2 different workers might come to different conclusions given the same inputs

On top of this you have the entirely subjective decision about how to cut the phylogeny to give you species, genera etc. (witness recent thread about how to produce "objective" families)

So, we can see that even at a given point in time (i.e. with no new information), taxonomy is subjective and open to interpretation.

Elsewhere I explained how having a range of taxonomies/phylogenies lets us perform sensitivity analysis to check that findings are robust to plausible other phylogenetic reconstructions. This is another reason why you don't just want one phylogeny/taxonomy
 
The original announcement of the WGAC did say that its purpose was to produce and maintain... a global checklist of birds. Strictly speaking that doesn't imply regular updates but hopefully they will happen.
Ref: Toward a Unified List of the World’s Bird Species this seems to be the plan.

"As of now, the working group is planning to reach consensus on all the species debates and release a new global avian checklist in early 2025. But even then, the group’s work will continue, with annual reviews similar to the yearly taxonomy update to eBird species lists."
 
It seems to me such disengagement from science might indeed be better named 'burnout'.

You correctly know that differences between individual birds and a history of relatedness between them are science. Then you claim that an arbitrary system built on this 300 years ago is also science - and at this point you yourself disengaged from science.

On top of this you have the entirely subjective decision about how to cut the phylogeny to give you species, genera etc. (witness recent thread about how to produce "objective" families)

So, we can see that even at a given point in time (i.e. with no new information), taxonomy is subjective and open to interpretation.

Just now, on another thread, there is an example how the subjective taxonomy can directly harm or help conservation:

I've discussed with colleagues working with Colombian birds at the El Dorado reserve, numerous times, getting some more data and setting out sonograms and photos as regards this particular situation with Carriker's Mountain Tanager. We always de-prioritised and concluded it was a waste of time, since SACC have rejected it and are set against it. The few who might pay an interest take committee-rejected splits as intransigence, impossibility and rejection, a reason to work on other situations. Not as an encouragement, quite the opposite. This species (and yes, it is a species, its plumage and voice are very distinct) is without a doubt threatened (EN)- like most of the other highest elevation Santa Marta endemics. They are very rarely seen at any easily accessible point and habitats have been decimated by recent forest fires and illegal incursions in the higher parts of the National Park. Birdlife split this quite some years ago (and classify it as EN), so it's already listed as of conservation concern. It's a shame (and a consequence of almost religious SACC-worship among national ornithologists) that the current Colombia list does not split this. But the main game in town nowadays is WGAC and they would be ill-advised to reverse out of this one. Anyway, if a group associated with Proaves / El Dorado reserve were to have published a paper on Carriker's Mountain Tanager and re-proposed to SACC, what would have happened?

I remember that similar problems were faced by ornithologists in Cape Verde islands and Mexico, which have many forms at the borderline of 'distinctive subspecies' and 'weak species'. So conservation priorities and actions shifted drastically depending from arbitrary decisions.

It is a good reason for birdwatchers not to be worried about taxonomies. And, for biologists, make their work taxonomy-independent. One example is evolutionary distinctiveness score developed by the Zoological Society of London.

The said score gives more value to very distinct lifeforms (like a Shoebill has more value than any one of 50+ closely related white-eyes). The advantage is that there is no human decision and no incentive to tamper with the system. There are other such objective systems possible, this one is well formed and backed by a large scientific institution.
 
Is this a diagnosable and potentially treatable condition yet? And if so is it on the rise? Asking because I think a friend might have contracted it, and I'm wondering whether or not they're alone, and what I can do about it. Are there therapy groups to hand? Groups where like minded birders can still understand what each other are on about by saying things like:-

"You know, the one with the dark crown, whatever it's called these days", or "the southern version, whatever you might want to call it" or "You know, the one that last month was called this, but last year it was called that, and depending on what book you've got it's called this or that, or it might not be called that because some people don't like it being called that, although others do, and it doesn't matter what you call it because next week it'll probably be called something else anyway... by some people, but maybe not by the person standing next to you who spots one flying by."

Speaking as someone who has spent most of my life delighting in learning a whole load of bird names, including even a decent chunk of scientific binomials (the understanding of them enriched by me having learnt a bit of latin at school), I've reached the point now where I simply can't keep up without my brain exploding. What must it be like for casual nature-loving people who aren't obsessed by avian taxonomy and linguistics and have an even worse memory than me? 🤯.

What's the point? Am I still expected to believe that at some point it will stabilise and everyone will all agree to call things by the same common names and/or scientific names? Or are more and more of these names just going to continue to change at an ever accelerating rate, as appears to be happening with no end but n sight? Some people are now finally agreeing to split things that other people have now agreed to lump that they agreed to split only a few months ago, and still people are arguing over what to call them to make it more accessible and understandable to "the people"🤣🤣.

Of course it's complicated, and of course it's always going to be changing, but trying to pretend it's actually helpful to get people to engage more with wildlife by naming things appropriately is just a ludicrous joke when you consider that any layperson could look up a scientific name or a common name and come up with progressively more and more options as to what on earth that name might actually mean in terms of a taxon.

Is anyone else experiencing nomenclature burnout? And if so what sedatives do you recommend?
Hi. Firstly, excellent, and enjoyable post!! 👍 I totally agree with your many points! I think things should just be left alone, and only changed, when really needed!! Keep the names - Common, eponymous - then, everyone knows where they are!! As for sedatives....... How long you got!!? 😂.... But, don't mix with alcohol, except, only when you're really at the end of your tether!! 😡 😂.
 
I remember that similar problems were faced by ornithologists in Cape Verde islands and Mexico, which have many forms at the borderline of 'distinctive subspecies' and 'weak species'. So conservation priorities and actions shifted drastically depending from arbitrary decisions.
These problems will always beset conservation. Even if we had an "objective" taxonomy they would still exist. Essentially, it's about how much you value something and that value is subjective (ask any economist).
The said score gives more value to very distinct lifeforms (like a Shoebill has more value than any one of 50+ closely related white-eyes). The advantage is that there is no human decision and no incentive to tamper with the system. There are other such objective systems possible, this one is well formed and backed by a large scientific institution.
Unclear this is any less subjective than any of the other systems. They say "We score every species in a particular taxonomic group (e.g. mammals or amphibians) according to the amount of unique evolutionary history it represents (Evolutionary Distinctiveness, or ED), and its conservation status (Global Endangerment, or GE)"

For this you have to have a phylogeny and there are lots of more or less subjective decisions which go into estimating that. Any "whole organism" phylogeny will be some kind of weighted average, for example [previous post]. You also have to know a species' status (not well known for the majority of life on earth).

Even if this were not the case, just because something is not evolutionarily distinctive (has not been evolving on its own path for a long time) doesn't mean it's not important. An obvious example is "keystone" species which have major impacts on their ecosystems. Neither lions nor wolves are very genetically distinctive (both have close relatives) but they have big impacts on the habitats where they live because of the way they affect herbivore behaviour.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top