birding-aus

A moratorium on taxonomic research for Australian birds is desperately n

To: 'Glenn Ehmke' <>
Subject: A moratorium on taxonomic research for Australian birds is desperately needed - a personal opinion
From: Philip Veerman <>
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2016 05:07:57 +0000
A personal rant I would have thought. There might be something in these ideas 
but how is taxonomic research "ivory towers" or doing harm other than seeking 
to clarify and describe the fauna? This below is complete with many spelling 
and word lapses: e.g. "very diligent in suppressing any decent about it." 
Really? I think you mean dissent! And is that even true? And: "yet taxon its 
lobby for their use" Huh? And how can anyone be "mercilessly vindicated"? That 
is an oxymoron. "Today it is largely drowned out or vindicated by academic 
committees". Well if is is "vindicated", then what is your problem? 

I reckon it is fairly self contradictory also. 

Being able to designate subspecies only means that there is sufficient 
variation (usually geographic) between populations that we call one species 
that we can choose to give those variations a name. Species that do not have 
this variation (that we have found) are not in any way superior or not to those 
that do. Giving those with that variation a separate name can only help to 
identify and keep track of these. And yes they are often arbitrary, simply 
because evolution is an ongoing process. Surely it is somewhat nonsensical to 
talk about if "a bird is a species or a subspecies". Subspecies only has 
relevance to that there is a distinction to other subspecies of that species. 
In conservation it simply means that there is a mechanism to give particular 
attention to a particular subspecies if for example it is threatened when the 
greater part of that species is not. But to do so requires that we can identify 
what that target group is. So for example the Helmeted Honeyeater can be given 
special attention, that is not available to be targeted to all other 
populations (subspecies) of the Yellow-tufted Honeyeater.

Philip Veerman


-----Original Message-----
From: Birding-Aus  On Behalf Of 
Glenn Ehmke via Birding-Aus
Sent: Tuesday, 8 November, 2016 10:25 PM
To: 
Subject: A moratorium on taxonomic research for Australian birds is desperately 
needed - a personal opinion

Having tried to work with Australian taxonomists for the last 5+ years (and 
largely failed), and heard the chorus of frustration at the current state of 
taxonomy from almost everyone involved with birds in any way (outside of a 
ivory towers), there is one thing I can say with absolute confidence about 
taxonomy and honestly claim that it is a ubiquitous view among all of the 
hundreds of people I’ve had long conversations or email chains with.
DO NOT get sucked in by academics who push the myth of species or subspecies 
mattering. ALL BIRDS MATTER EQUALLY.
All species and subspecies are unique and irreplaceable parts of our natural 
heritage and they are all equally important. Stop listening to anyone who ever 
says anything to the contrary - they are no friend of birds.
For now thankfully we live in a nation that does not discriminate based on 
taxonomy - species and subspecies are all equal under the law - every law in 
every state, territory and nationally. They are equal in people's hearts and 
minds of many people as well as the thousands of people who dedicate their 
lives to saving birds which happen to be subspecies attest. To say, infer, 
suggest or insinuate to anyone that how many latin names a bird has in its 
scientific name matters in any way in the real world is a disgrace. 
Unfortunately taxonomists (and even more concerningly these days some highly 
influential conservationists) are actively engaged in such undermining of our 
birds and in so doing are putting the fate of hundreds of threatened birds at 
risk. Many claim that species classifications are critical to a birds prospects 
of being saved - some even explicitly claim a taxonomic change is necessary for 
conservation reasons and do so in peer reviewed journals. In spreading this 
facially they normalise the view that we can draw a line on Australia’s 
threatened bird list and just triage anything with 3 latin names… and for what? 
Some theoretical whim they are pursuing for their own edification perhaps?
Taxonomists have a right to do theoretical research of course, there is no 
inherent harm in that. However they also have a responsibility to make sure 
they do not doing harm while they are scratching their theoretical whims. The 
reality is, that while a phylogenetic study may well elucidate new things of 
theoretical interest, the sequence a bird appears on a spreadsheet or whether 
the bird has 2 or 3 latin names is completely totally inconsequential in the 
real world. It matters nothing to the bird itself or its prospects of being 
saved in Australia… at least for now.
What a bird is called (i.e. it’s common name) is highly relevant to the bird - 
after all how would you feel if someone changed your name without asking you or 
anyone you knew? The fact that a bird is classified as a taxon of some sort is 
also of obvious relevance - it cannot be protected otherwise or frankly 
appreciated. But why are we still arguing about the value of species or 
subspecies? are we living in the early 1900s?! 
Lamentably false claims litter the Australian taxonomic literature today and 
Australian taxonomists at large are doing much real harm to birds. In 2010 
CSIRO staff claimed that a controversial paper proposing a “cautious” (in the 
authors own words) revision of Western Ground Parrot back to a species rank 
(Pezoporus flaviventris) - was a discovery of a new species. Obviously the 
CSIRO hadn’t heard of Alfred John North who listed the bird as a species 
(Pezoporus flaviventris) first 100 years earlier in 1911 - fortunate for them 
North was not around to avail himself of plagiarism law. Worse than this though 
was the insistent claim made in the media that a change in taxonomy was needed 
for effective conservation of the bird. The claim is completely without basis, 
is harmful to conservation and was repeated repeated in media for years after - 
it is still affecting conservation today. The fact is that a Western Ground 
Parrot is a Western Ground Parrot. Taxonomists have long debated whether it is 
a species or a subspecies (1911, 1912, the 1960s, 2010 and again in 2012). But 
who cares if one taxonomist thinks it’s a species and another a subspecies? The 
debate has been happening for 100 years, it’s nothing new (despite what the 
taxonomists behind the 2010 work claimed), and it’s completely irrelevant to 
anyone but those sitting in an ivory tower. The angst and falsehoods taxonomist 
have forced on people fighting to save birds which happen to have tricky 
taxonomic providence is completely unforgivable. Instead why not empower people 
with the knowledge and conviction that we care about all birds. Is a Helmeted 
Honeyeater, a Capricorn Yellow Chat or a Grey Range Thick Billed Grasswren not 
deserving of existence compared with an Orange-bellied Parrot or a Regent 
Honeyeater?
Allied to the harmful myths in wide circulation about species and subspecies, 
the sheer level of taxonomic change today, most of it in no reference to a 
coherent definition of what a species is and much of it based on a drop of 
blood from a handful of individual birds with no reference to what the 
inevitably arbitrary genetic distance measure means in the real world, is 
costing the nation enormous (albeit largely hidden) sums of money. The reality 
is each individual change in taxonomy often costs thousands of dollars to make 
- data reassignment, changes in legislation and the huge amount of social 
capital lost when people inevitably roll their eyes at the constant 
roller-coaster change. In many cases these changes have to be replicated by 
multiple organisations and governments and then there are the impossible 
decisions faced by all those organisations and agencies about which which list 
or competing taxonomic proposal to impliment. The cumulative cost is 
inestimable an intolerable. Doubtless the cost would run into the many hundreds 
of thousands of dollars (perhaps millions) in recent years alone and the burden 
is increasing by the month. In some cases changes happen with zero consultation 
of people busting their guts to try and save a bird - people wake up one day to 
hear that the bird they have fought to embed into the conciseness of the public 
they so desperately need to care have changed based on the whim of an academic 
who had never even seen the bird; and Australian taxonomists are often the very 
worst exponents of this arrogance.
In Australia the irrevocable fact is that it does not matter in any way, shape 
or form whether a bird is a species or a subspecies. A threatened bird is a 
threatened bird. How taxonomists treat them is irrelevant. Whether 2 latin 
names or 3, an ‘ultrataxon’ (a terminal taxonomic unit), aka a ‘bird’, is a 
unique and irreplaceable part of our natural heritage all of which need to be 
saved, full stop and of discussion.
But take heart, the next time a taxonomist tells you “the way it is”, simply 
ignore them. If enough of us do this, they may become irrelevant.
This is what those involved in Hooded Plover conservation have done. Eastern 
and Western Hooded Plovers are seperate subspecies and the Eastern Hooded 
Plover conservation programs is amazingly successful despite no Australian 
taxonomist having even bothered to list them as the subspecies they so 
obviously are (Western Hoodie conservation is also in motion despite that 
subspecies not being listed as threatened nationally). Fortunately 
conservationists involved in the fight to save the birds took on the 
responsibility of classifying these two unique, endemic Australian birds and 
today Eastern Hooded Plovers have the protection they so desperately need. 
Eastern and Western Hooded Plovers are conspicuously missing from most 
‘popular’ taxonomic lists, but even this is of no consequence. Certainly not 
one single person out of the thousands and thousands involved in that 
conservation program could care less if Eastern and Western Hooded Plovers are 
seperate species. A geneticist would likely say they are seperate species (they 
are empirically different in genetics and phenotype), but the imminently 
sensible people heading Hoodie conservation realised early on that such debates 
only waste limited resources and would do nothing to help the birds themselves. 
Fortunately in this case taxonomists have not got their hands on the genetic 
data and the conservation program for Hoodies have not had its time wasted with 
irrelevant and harmful debates. 
If you care about the bird you’re trying to save maybe you too should keep 
taxonomists well away from your conservation program?
However it’s not always that easy is it? What about the birds that taxonomists 
are already holding hostage and the ever increasing fog of uncertainty they are 
condemning the Australian populous to. The ever increasing number of bird lists 
and species concepts in use (there are at least 5 national/international lists 
in current use in Australia and who knows how many at state/local government 
level), the decades of wasted time and acrimonious debate around what a species 
is - none of which have resulted in any clarity or done anything for birds. 
Given the now insurmountable, unstable and contradictory classifications of 
what many birds are, the hijacking of the names Australians have known and 
loved for centuries by overseas-based ivory tower committees and the completely 
un-consultative nature of Australian taxonomists, why do those of us at the 
coalface not stand up and say enough is enough? Probably because we are too 
busy trying to save these birds with almost zero resourcing while taxonomists 
sit in their ivory towers?
However there is a solution. A MORATORIUM OF TAXONOMIC RESEARCH IN AUSTRALIA.
Save for un-described ultrataxa (subspecies or monotypic species - e.g. the 
‘Innaminka Ringneck’ - Barnardius zonarius parkeri recently described) - which 
would lack protection of course, a moratorium on taxonomic research in 
Australia for a period (say 5 or even 10 years) would not result in a single 
conceivable, downside for any bird or its conservation. There is equal 
protection afforded to species and subspecies in every single government in the 
land. Recognition of bird subspecies alongside species is increasing by the 
day. There are as many conservation programs for subspecies than species 
(probably more?) and for sure there are more threatened bird subspecies than 
species ion the nation. The only thing a moratorium would do is to save 
millions of dollars, not only in direct funding of unnecessary taxonomic 
research, but more importantly the costs of managing data and legislation. A 
taxonomist makes a claim in a paper for which they get resourced by taxpayers, 
but they then leave everyone else to pick up the pieces from the changes they 
suggest (but usually cannot agree on themselves).
The money spent of taxonomic research into Australian birds could be instead 
devoted to actually helping save the birds, some of which may well go extinct 
while taxonomists are still arguing about what they are. Taxonomists could be 
re-employed to research other groups of biota which are under-researched 
taxonomically and which do actually need to be described in order to be 
protected. 
A moratorium would also mean a stable listing of birds, save much heartache and 
only solidify our collective ability to present a coherent message to the 
Australian people at large.
But people have made careers with this fundamentally divisive field of research 
and they are very, very diligent in suppressing any decent about it. Well 
‘respected’ Australian journals guard against any attempt at pragmatism with an 
iron fist and anyone saying something that might affect the huge sums of money 
from governments taxonomists receive is mercilessly vindicated.
Some of us have spent years trying to get to a situation where birds don’t 
suffer in all of this and have bent over backwards to accomodate taxonomists 
and come up with lists which are complete, uo-to-date, practical, workable and 
scientifically robust. There is only 1 complete list of bird species and 
subspecies in Australia and fortunately it is what has been used for the Action 
Plan for Australian Birds for some decades now - none of the more popular lists 
even classify all of Australia’s threatened birds, yet taxon its lobby for 
their use!
Unfortunately bringing taxonomists into the fold has proven a fools errand and 
today we cannot even say to a member of the general public with any degree of 
confidence, this is what a bird is called. We all have different bird lists now 
and no longer can we even share data effectively among ourselves in order to 
research whether birds are declining without literally months worth of extra 
work to do for each individual research project. Governments (including the 
federal government) and NGOs do not have the resources to manage basic data 
given the level of taxonomic change we are now seeing.
Journals like BirdLife Australia’s Emu celebrate these “revolutions”. They may 
well celebrate it from the comfort of an air-conditioned, university office. 
Few at the coalface have such enthusiasm and birds are most certainly not 
benefiting in any single tangible way.
We now have all sorts of ridiculous proposals for our birds primary identities 
(their common names), adjudicated by overseas committees with scant Australian 
representation and who steadfastly refuse to consult or involve the people who 
work to save birds. The long-standing Australian English Names Committee is the 
one voice which has stood up for Australian Birds and it has a 40 year history 
of practical advice which have served the entire nation very well. Today it is 
largely drowned out or vindicated by academic committees dominated by those who 
have little if any connection to the real world.
The public is sick and tired of it - governments, NGOs and community groups 
gets hundreds of complaints about the havoc taxonomists wreak every year - 
people just want to call a bird so they can try and help it. But why vilify 
NGOs and governments none of whom get a single dollar of support and are just 
trying to clean up the mess taxonomists have made. Send your complaints to the 
taxonomists - they’re the ones getting your tax dollars.
Who will stand up for birds and insist on a moratorium on bird taxonomic 
research in Australia? Probably only those of us who are so fed up by this 
situation we’ve given up on conservation now - but maybe that’s just me.
At least if one person in a position of influence for a single bird realises 
that a perfectly viable alternative is to tell taxonomists to rack-off and 
leave their bird alone, the world will be a slightly better place for birds.


<HR>
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> 
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit:
<BR> http://birding-aus.org/mailman/listinfo/birding-aus_birding-aus.org
</HR>

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Admin

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU