I might stick with the IOC list. I already have to battle with two lists, as
the software I use to keep my list uses Clements. The listing software gives me
a right pain sometimes due to common name conflicts. Confucius is supposed to
have said "The beginning of wisdom, is to call things by their right names".
He obviously had not had any contact with taxonomists.
Won't the H&M taxonomy follow the IOC?
> On 8 Dec 2014, at 10:12 pm, Joseph Morlan <> wrote:
> If all you want is the new HBW list, it is available for free online at...
> The free version includes the new taxonomy for the non-passerines and also
> provides the Tobias scoring rationale for each species. I personally find
> their scoring system to be idiosyncratic at best. It is explained here..
> The IOC list is okay, but they tend to jump the gun on new split proposals
> without additional peer review or deliberation. They also include some new
> splits for which there has not been a published study. It is available for
> free as a downloadable spreadsheet.
> My preference is Clements, which is much slower to adopt proposed changes
> until they have been thoroughly peer reviewed by an appropriate committee.
> They are more conservative than either HBW or IOC and the clear choice for
> North and South America. It is also available for free in spreadsheet
> I have the new Howard & Moore on order, but it is not available in a free
> My classmate, Andrew Tanenbaum famously said, "The nice thing about
> standards is there are so many from which to choose."
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2014 21:47:00 +1100, Carl Clifford <>
>> It is a lot of money for two books that will be partially out of date by the
>> time they are printed. I think I will stick to the IOC list. Much more
>> portable and better priced, as well as being constantly updated.
> Joseph Morlan, Pacifica, CA
> "It turns out we're very good at not seeing things" - Jack Hitt
<BR> Birding-Aus mailing list
<BR> To change settings or unsubscribe visit: