taxonomic references

["Geoffrey Dabb" <>]

The BOU was formed in 1858 as a scientific organisation.  The RSPB (founded 1889) is essentially a conservation organisation.  The British Trust for Ornithology dates from 1932.  The BOU for more than a century has been the custodian of the British bird list.

 

Only the most learned students of the arcane world of bird organisations will be able to tell you why there is both a British Ornithologists Union Rarities Committee and a British Birds Rarities Committee.  

 

From: Philip Veerman [
Sent: Friday, 13 August 2010 11:20 AM
To:
Subject: [canberrabirds] taxonomic references

 

Interesting and I fully agree with both comments. Sometimes we are trying too hard to understand species. The natural world is not so clear cut that we know the answers and the situation changes. I think it interesting though that Martin mentions "a group called the British Ornithologists Union and not the British Trust for Ornithology or the RSPB". That is not something I was aware of. It seems odd to me to have a British Ornithologists Union and a British Trust for Ornithology and that these would be separate organisations (in such a small geographic area). Would that not be more confusing than the situation in Australia? I think RSPB has a different focus.

 

Philip

 

-----Original Message-----From: martin butterfield [ Sent: Friday, 13 August 2010 7:15 AM
To: Mark Clayton   Cc: John Layton; Canberra Birds   Subject: Re: [canberrabirds] Stockdill Drive and taxonomic references

Mark

Thank you for a very helpful outline of the situation.

I think the range of choices is nicely illustrated by the way Avibase lists the "authorities recognising a particular taxonomic concept".  See http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/species.jsp?lang=EN&avibaseid=BB0363BD6A5F4B77 for an example of this using what Birds Australia have adopted as Eastern Barn Owl.  Clements is not in this list.

A key point is that there is an official list of birds in Australia: that is the list provided by Birds Australia and is the C&B flavour.  Many other countries have similar lists with the content varied to suit their needs.  It is interesting that the official list of British Birds is compiled by a group called the British Ornithologists Union and not the British Trust for Ornithology or the RSPB.  Their list is at http://www.bou.org.uk/recbrlst1.html and also includes the "International name" as defined by Gill and Wright (and some of these are different to the Clements name) where this differs from their endorsed British name.

In some other fields in which i am interested -fungi and orchids there doesn't appear to be any official vernacular name (probably reflecting the grater number of species in those groups.  The scientific name is nearly always used. and even they are much more variable than for birds.

Martin

On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Mark Clayton <> wrote:

John and all,

It was probably a comment I made about Christidis and Boles (C&B) some time back that John Layton is referring to. I was not denigrating C&B, rather I was pointing out that taxonomic lists such as C&B, the CSIRO book that I co-authored and other such lists that are, given the constant and ever changing advances in research, virtually out of date the day they are published. The original C&B was published in 1994 and not revised until 2008. When it will be revised again is anyone’s guess. The same happened with the two editions of the CSIRO list that I was involved with. In the meantime advances in DNA etc have led to splitting, and lumping, of species. Unless you are following the scientific journals, and this could be from anywhere in the world, you will not know what is happening in the bird world.

The one list that I am aware of that does try and keep up to date with WORLD taxonomy is that put out by the IOC titled “Birds of the World: Recommended English Names” – if you want a copy, it is downloadable as an Excel spreadsheet. All you need to do is Google it and select what you want. It is usually updated about 3 or 4 times a year. Currently they are up to version 2.5 (July 2010) and are working on a draft of version 2.6. In each version they list what is currently being considered for inclusion and what potentially will be deleted, among other things. This is the list I personally use for my list keeping, including for Australia. It has some species that are not recognised in C&B but that is taxonomy at work. Taxonomists will never agree on all species. There is a book version available that as far as I am aware records subspecies, something that I did with the CSIRO list for Australia and its territories, but C&B does not include. It is often these subspecies that are elevated to full specific status and if you know that you have seen them, can give you an “armchair“ tick.

I know from a birding friend in Sweden that the majority of Swedes use the Clements checklist of world birds; it also includes subspecies names in its book form. This again is different to the IOC list. I am sure there are other lists out there that people use.

What it all boils down to is personal choice – use whatever you think suits your needs.

Mark

---

From: John Layton [ Sent: Wednesday, 11 August 2010 12:48 PM   To: Canberra Birds
Subject: [canberrabirds] Stockdill Drive

.................

Several weeks ago mention was made that Christidis and Boles was out of date. Not surprising, But what is the informed birder-around-town referring to now that C & B is yesterday’s news?

 

John Layton.