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 peoples 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 it’s 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 1900’s?! 
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.