Which bird authorities exist? (1 Viewer)

[Earnest lad]

I am doing my bird list for every authority eg IOC, Clements, HBW, Howard.
These are the four I have heard of.
Please can anyone advise if there are others to consider and if so which ones?
With many thanks

 

[Paul Clapham]

I am doing my bird list for every authority eg IOC, Clements, HBW, Howard.
These are the four I have heard of.
Please can anyone advise if there are others to consider and if so which ones?
With many thanks

That's what I have done, those four. See my signature for how it worked out for me.

You should probably ignore "All The Birds Of The World" though, it doesn't claim to be a taxonomic authority. It's a book which depicted every bird which had been described as a species by any of the four authorities you named. So you could think of it as the intersection of the four, except that time has moved on and splitting has happened, whereas the book is not going to be updated to keep up with that.

 

[Earnest lad]

That's what I have done, those four. See my signature for how it worked out for me.

You should probably ignore "All The Birds Of The World" though, it doesn't claim to be a taxonomic authority. It's a book which depicted every bird which had been described as a species by any of the four authorities you named. So you could think of it as the intersection of the four, except that time has moved on and splitting has happened, whereas the book is not going to be updated to keep up with that.

Thank you that is most helpful. I have found a spreadsheet I downloaded which is IOC v other lists and there are numerous lists-about 9 in total. I am somewhat confused. I see you have five in your signature unless I am mistaken. Is the one you say should be given a miss is HBW/Birdlife please? And should any of the others be considered please?
The others in the spreadsheet seem to be (a) Peters , Harvard (b) boyd, (c) Monroe, yale (d) Gaudin
Please do you know do I need to consider any of these latter ones?
Thank you

 

[Paul Clapham]

Thank you that is most helpful. I have found a spreadsheet I downloaded which is IOC v other lists and there are numerous ones. I am somewhat confused. I see you have five in your signature unless I am mistaken. Is the one you say should be given a miss is HBW please?

No, the HBW (Handbook of the Birds of the World) list is no longer maintained under that name, but its data continues under the auspices of BirdLife International (BLI), the conservation organization which ranks species on a scale of how endangered they are. They have a downloadable spreadsheet or two on their site.

 

[Earnest lad]

No, the HBW (Handbook of the Birds of the World) list is no longer maintained under that name, but its data continues under the auspices of BirdLife International (BLI), the conservation organization which ranks species on a scale of how endangered they are. They have a downloadable spreadsheet or two on their site.

Thank you so much. I have now downloaded a couple of files from BLI. So I shall go with the four mentioned. Please do you know do I need to consider the others (a) Peters , Harvard (b) boyd, (c) Monroe, yale (d) Gaudin
or can they be safely disregarded ?

 

[Paul Clapham]

Thank you so much. I have now downloaded a couple of files from BLI. So I shall go with the four mentioned. Please do you know do I need to consider the others (a) Peters , Harvard (b) boyd, (c) Monroe, yale (d) Gaudin
or can they be safely disregarded ?

Peters dates back as far as 1931, so it's of historical interest only. Boyd's "Taxonomy in Flux" means just that, it changes frequently on an unpredictable schedule. Sibley and Monroe hasn't been updated since 1993, so again historical interest only. Gaudin... well, I think he may be one of the regular posters in this forum but I've never seen his checklist available online.

But you don't "need" to consider any of them. It just depends how much of your life you want to spend on this project. I would recommend starting with maybe two and see how you get on.

One thing I should mention... it helps if your checklists go down to the subspecies level. (Another reason I have ignored Boyd.) Then if X's "Eurasian Three-toed Woodpecker" doesn't match Y's "Three-toed Woodpecker", you can see which subspecies go where in which list and see how it affects your bird list.

 

[njlarsen]

One easy tool to consider: Scythebill, which is a bird recording app that you can download. It keeps the data updated for IOC and Clements with a little input from you now and again.
Niels

 

[Earnest lad]

Peters dates back as far as 1931, so it's of historical interest only. Boyd's "Taxonomy in Flux" means just that, it changes frequently on an unpredictable schedule. Sibley and Monroe hasn't been updated since 1993, so again historical interest only. Gaudin... well, I think he may be one of the regular posters in this forum but I've never seen his checklist available online.

But you don't "need" to consider any of them. It just depends how much of your life you want to spend on this project. I would recommend starting with maybe two and see how you get on.

One thing I should mention... it helps if your checklists go down to the subspecies level. (Another reason I have ignored Boyd.) Then if X's "Eurasian Three-toed Woodpecker" doesn't match Y's "Three-toed Woodpecker", you can see which subspecies go where in which list and see how it affects your bird list.

Thank you so much.
The info on those other lists helps me see I dont need to use them.
The spreadsheet here
ioc_12.1_vs_other_lists I downloaded it here and it has a column for them all including the Gaudin. I expect you have seen that one.
I will heed your wise advice. I am cogniscent of how time-consuming it might become. Having said that my species list is far far smaller than yours as it is mainly birding at home with some from the occasional foreign holidays I have been fortunate to go on.
I appreciate also your comments and info about the "all the birds of the world" one being merely a composite of the other three. I guess that though, gives one the biggest total.
I understand what you mean about the benefit of being able to go to subspecies level, as otherwise confusion between different bird might occur. I will heed that.
Finally please may i enquire, notwithstanding your comment, if there is a downloadable list for "all the birds of the world" from lynx please?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Thank you so much.
The info on those other lists helps me see I dont need to use them.
The spreadsheet here
ioc_12.1_vs_other_lists I downloaded it here and it has a column for them all including the Gaudin. I expect you have seen that one.
I will heed your wise advice. I am cogniscent of how time-consuming it might become. Having said that my species list is far far smaller than yours as it is mainly birding at home with some from the occasional foreign holidays I have been fortunate to go on.
I appreciate also your comments and info about the "all the birds of the world" one being merely a composite of the other three. I guess that though, gives one the biggest total.
I understand what you mean about the benefit of being able to go to subspecies level, as otherwise confusion between different bird might occur. I will heed that.
Finally please may i enquire, notwithstanding your comment, if there is a downloadable list for "all the birds of the world" from lynx please?

Gaudin is mine. I'm Jimmy Gaudin

 

[Paul Clapham]

Finally please may i enquire, notwithstanding your comment, if there is a downloadable list for "all the birds of the world" from lynx please?

No. It's mostly a coffee-table book because it is full of professional-grade drawings of birds. But it's different from most coffee-table books in that it has an enormous amount of detailed information about those birds. It's not cheap either, I wouldn't recommend buying it unless you really really get deeply involved in this project. And maybe not even then, as it gets more out of date every year.

 

[Earnest lad]

Gaudin is mine. I'm Jimmy Gaudin

Hello. It is a privilege to speak. I have been enquiring about expanding my life list of birds seen. As you are aware some birds appear as full species on one list and only subspecies on other lists. I have decided to keep a list of species seen one for each current checklist of world birds similar to the gentleman here Paul Clapham. I do not profess to have ornithological expertise or professional status, being merely a hobbyist birder albeit for a good number of years. I saw your list in the spreadsheet of "IOC v other lists" and was wondering whether including that one in my "project" would be a positive contribution to the other four (IOC, BLI, Howard & Moore, eBird).

 

[Earnest lad]

No. It's mostly a coffee-table book because it is full of professional-grade drawings of birds. But it's different from most coffee-table books in that it has an enormous amount of detailed information about those birds. It's not cheap either, I wouldn't recommend buying it unless you really really get deeply involved in this project. And maybe not even then, as it gets more out of date every year.

Thank you for that kindly advice. I will stick to individual lists rather than this one then .

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Hello. It is a privilege to speak. I have been enquiring about expanding my life list of birds seen. As you are aware some birds appear as full species on one list and only subspecies on other lists. I have decided to keep a list of species seen one for each current checklist of world birds similar to the gentleman here Paul Clapham. I do not profess to have ornithological expertise or professional status, being merely a hobbyist birder albeit for a good number of years. I saw your list in the spreadsheet of "IOC v other lists" and was wondering whether including that one in my "project" would be a positive contribution to the other four (IOC, BLI, Howard & Moore, eBird).

Hi. I may be digressing from your main comment, but all I can say is that your list should reflect your point of view, while taking into account recently published work. It doesn't have to be identical to ours. Anyway, each list presented in the file is different and the taxonomy adopted diverges (a species recognized by one list is considered a subspecies by another, and vice versa). Also, each list is good since they are held by professionals much more qualified than me 😂, but I consider mine to be the most coherent and the most up to date. Unlike other lists that update annually or periodically, mine is constantly modified with each published study (phylogenetic in particular). That said, I decide on the organization of the genera, which I find the most coherent because it takes into account both phylogenetic relationships and morphology. However, for the species, my list follows both IOC (of course, clearly) and HBW (to inflate the numbers of species, you see) but I can delete or add some according to the taxonomic revisions (e.g.: see the species of the genus Pseudopipra). Hence the fact that my list is far ahead of the others because my changes are made immediately. Originally, before owning a PC, I was very inspired by TiF checklist for its avant-garde and I decided to do the same.

Some lists will never be updated for obvious reasons (Peter's checklist), while others, more recent, seem to be behind the others, it's curious (H&M).

And I'm an amateur too, not professional. Its my passion, not my job x)

 

[THE_FERN]

Hi. I may be digressing from your main comment, but all I can say is that your list should reflect your point of view,

Exactly. Taxonomy, especially above the species level (but there too) is subjective. How much difference is enough for things to be different?

There is no right answer. So your choice is either a) make your own decisions or b) abdicate that responsibility in favour of one particular list or c) some mix of a) and b). You'll definitely gain more by reading up on the diversity within taxa even if you decide they are just "forms" or "morphs" (redpolls, crossbills etc)

 

[McMadd]

No. It's mostly a coffee-table book because it is full of professional-grade drawings of birds. But it's different from most coffee-table books in that it has an enormous amount of detailed information about those birds. It's not cheap either, I wouldn't recommend buying it unless you really really get deeply involved in this project. And maybe not even then, as it gets more out of date every year.

Give yourself a break and exclude the extinct taxa from your totals...inflates the percentages and you ain't gonna see them...ever

 

[Mysticete]

Probably worth pointing out that IOC, Clements/ebird, Birdlife, and at least some of the people behind Howard and Moore are all collaborating on one common checklist. That's probably some years out but work is actively ongoing on this (You can see several taxonomic committees/checklists have already begun the work of reconciliation). It's unclear what is going to happen to these existing checklists after that comes online.

So any massive effort in gathering all the checklists could be rendered moot soon.

 

[MJB]

Gaudin is mine. I'm Jimmy Gaudin

Zorro unmasked!
MJB

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Zorro unmasked!
MJB

Yes, I admit it, it's me. Good game Scooby gang !

 

[Paul Clapham]

Give yourself a break and exclude the extinct taxa from your totals...inflates the percentages and you ain't gonna see them...ever

This is mostly true. But to do that I would have to add "extinct" as a new attribute in my database, which would then have to be maintained and taken account of. I could certainly do that, I have lots of time on my hands these days.

But on the other hand (sorry) since I live in North America, I follow the lists published by the AOU and ABA. They aren't world lists but they are widely used here. So beyond "extinct" there's "extirpated". I'm kind of attached to the Crested Myna, which used to be common where I live, but now it's extirpated. Because it was an introduced species, the AOU has removed it entirely from its list and the ABA has moved it to an obscure appendix and doesn't include it in its species count. I'm including it in my species count regardless.

The British List is a bit more nuanced, I believe. For example Lady Amherst's Pheasant is not an A-lister any more but it's still visible in the list. Instead of just extant/extinct there's a larger set of attributes which one might consider. I prefer that approach but it makes it less likely for me to implement it in my system.

 

[Kirk Roth]

This is mostly true. But to do that I would have to add "extinct" as a new attribute in my database, which would then have to be maintained and taken account of. I could certainly do that, I have lots of time on my hands these days.

But on the other hand (sorry) since I live in North America, I follow the lists published by the AOU and ABA. They aren't world lists but they are widely used here. So beyond "extinct" there's "extirpated". I'm kind of attached to the Crested Myna, which used to be common where I live, but now it's extirpated. Because it was an introduced species, the AOU has removed it entirely from its list and the ABA has moved it to an obscure appendix and doesn't include it in its species count. I'm including it in my species count regardless.

The British List is a bit more nuanced, I believe. For example Lady Amherst's Pheasant is not an A-lister any more but it's still visible in the list. Instead of just extant/extinct there's a larger set of attributes which one might consider. I prefer that approach but it makes it less likely for me to implement it in my system.

Paul, if the myna is much of a concern to you I might have good news - it is ABA "countable" as of 2014 when they changed the rules on this. The ABA Recording Standards and Ethics Committee website has a link to this website/post:

News from the ABA Recording Standards and Ethics Committee, Supplemental

This blog post supplements the RSEC report, “News from the ABA Recording Standards and Ethics Committee”, published in the October 2014 issue of Birder’s Guide. Many of the recent changes made to t…

blog.aba.org

You will want to check the bit about Rule 2.B(iii)

Also important if you've seen a Budgerigar in Florida, if it was from the feral population.