Ah well, it is not that important.
Carl
On 15/12/2011, at 9:42 PM, Nikolas Haass wrote:
Don't quite understand your point, Carl.
(1) IOC = Gill & Wright
(2) David has created an IOC-based Australian list
Nikolas
----------------
Nikolas Haass
Sydney, NSW
From: Carl Clifford <>
To: David James <>
Cc: Birding Aus <>; Phil & Sue Gregory <
>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 6:31 PM
Subject: Australian list taxonomy
David,
I think I will stick with the IOC list for taxonomy & scientific names
and Gill & Wright for common names. I reckon that I have some ten
years max left before I shuffle of my mortal, and I think I would
rather spend my remaining time chasing birds than getting my knickers
in a knot waiting for someone to update Christidis & Boles work. Too
many birds and too little time.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
On 15/12/2011, at 1:40 PM, David James wrote:
Phil and Carl,
I guess you have both been out of the country and off birding-aus for
a while. There is a push in progress for an Australian online
checklist, updatable and connected to the rest of the world. There is
earlier discussion on birding-aus which I will not repeat. I have been
working on an IOC list (on behalf of BARC) but staff of BA have been
working on a Birdlife International based list.
As for 'official', that, like democracy, is an important facade. RAOU/
BA has maintained an official list since 1916, and I think that
tradition should be maintained. However, it is time for some change,
some international collaboration, and the end of 10-20-year
checklists. There is also much more to checklists than taxonomy,
particularly considering the poor quality of so much taxonomic
research these days. For instance, there were more species changes to
the Aus list of C&B 2008 (vs 1994) by the addition of vagrants
(adjudicated by BARC) than due to taxonomic research (adjudicated by
C&B). English names is a third component. My position is that we need
a checklist committee that represents all 3 interests (previously it
has been taxonomists only with invited input from the other two
sides). However, BA currently does not have a taxonomic committee,
apparently because they see it as unimportant. They recently replaced
the 100 year old taxonomic advisory committee with a taxonomic
adviser, Leo Joseph. Leo does not want to be involved in compiling
checklists, but he he thinks an IOC-based Australian list is
inevitable. The most frustrating thing at present is that to maintain
the 'official' facade, some decisions are needed from BA, and the
relevant committee does not appear to understand or care about the
issue.
David James,
Jakarta
==============================
From: Carl Clifford <>
To: Phil & Sue Gregory <>
Cc: ;
Sent: Wednesday, 14 December 2011 7:23 PM
Subject: Australian list taxonomy
Phil,
I would not hold my breath for a regularly updated "official"
checklist for Australia. It seems to me that trying to get taxonomists
to agree is about as easy as trying to round up cats with Greyhound. I
just use the IOC list and extract those species that are listed as
occurring in Australia. One advantage of the IOC list is that it does
have an Australian input via the Australian representatives to the IOC.
Cheers,
Carl Clifford
On 15/12/2011, at 12:03 PM, Phil & Sue Gregory wrote:
Some good points in your note about taxonomy David, I guess it simply
means that in many cases we simply don't know in which box to place
various taxa, and that there will not be a systematic organized
approach, it just means results and opinions will filter through as
research gets funded and written up.
The Helmeted Friarbird complex is clearly a grab-bag with a number of
pretty distinctive taxa currently subsumed in it, differing in both
voice and morphology and requiring a major analysis of all components
to resolve. I was surprised to see the IOC elevate yorki to species
level, but it is possibly correct, I would have been more
conservative and kept it with New Guinea Friarbird pending proper
analysis of all the components of that group. At least the IOC is open
to debate and input, you can query the rationale and have input about
vernacular names. I have pushed long and hard to get rid of the
imposed Clements names that suddenly appeared on that world checklist
when the push for standardization began, with some degree of success,
but it is a dynamic process and not set in stone, which I find
laudable. Achieving consensus is always tough going, and what is meant
by official Australian input?
I am still hazy about who are the keepers of the Australian Checklist.
I know Christidis and Boles compiled the last one, but is anyone
overseeing/ moderating subsequent changes? The whole taxonomic field
for Australian birds is in a state of flux, and there are already many
changes to the last edition, with more pending, and we surely don't
want to go another decade or more before a new edition gets published.
Having an on-line version with annual updates would be an ideal which
it might be nice to work towards, maybe something like this is in the
works but if so it sure is not well-known.
I agree about having one official list, but it does get frustrating
when one is aware of well-documented changes that are not yet adopted.
Who are the keepers of the Australian list, and how were they
appointed? It'd be nice to see a representative committee of
interested parties with an overall co-ordinator, whjch is the norm in
the UK, the states and much of Europe.
Phil Gregory
www.cassowry-house.com.au
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
unsubscribe
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
to:
http://birding-aus.org
===============================
|
