Following the surprise release of the BirdlifeAustralia Checklist (BLI sequence) today, I thought I should mention that a revised version of the BARC Australian Checklist (IOC sequence) is planned for release late this week or next week. It is not ideal to have different lists, but since this 4th revision of the BARC list is 98% complete we will still release it as planned. We will add an explanation to the introduction about why BARC uses the IOC checklist for its purposes. The BARC checklist will contain 6 new species for Aus (Purple Heron, Eurasian Wigeon, Japanese Sparrowhawk, Chinese Sparrowhawk, Mugimaki Flycatcher and (formally accepted) Lesser Black-backed Gull). Also, Lesser Sooty Owl will be restored to a full species. There are some changes to honeyeater taxonomy and a few minor corrections as well. The BLA Checklist has columns to the right for comparing it with Christidis & Boles 2008, IOC and Clements which is very helpful. At a glance I have noticed about 35 differences at species level between the BLA and BARC checklists. Some of these are related to taxonomy (BLI v IOC), some to acceptance of the establishment of introduced species, and some to the acceptance of records of vagrant species.
Cheers, David James Sydney ============================== ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line) to: birding-aus-request@vicnet.net.au
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Dave, it is good to know I’m not the only one confused. But am I confused about that too? That’s a rhetorical question.
For the sake of those who don’t understand “rhetorical”, of course I am but I agree with everything you have said/written.
But that’s probably confused another set of readers…………
Standing by………….
Bob Inglis Sandstone Point Qld
Sent: Wednesday, July 03, 2013 5:24 PM Cc: Tony Palliser ; Birding-Aus
A few points Bob (not grammar or spelling!):
1.. I don’t know what an “official” list would be. There are no laws in this area! I guess one that government adopts would be closest, but with our multitude of governments what chance they would all agree? 2.. Whilst BirdLife Australia may as you say endorse the BirdLife International taxonomy (I have not checked) as far as I know the list it has produced is not 100% compliant. And furthermore it seems that BARC will stick with IOC….. 3.. I guess we have lived for some years with “international” birders using IOC or Clements or whatever and finding Australia a little strange to have its own taxonomy in C&B. (But I guess we may not be unique in that respect). Now it seems we have just replaced one Aussie taxonomy by another…..
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Hi Bob,
I agree with Dave taxonomy is changing rapidly right now and there is no “official’ list. For the moment I personally think it best to stay with the IOC for the reasons already given, but the time may come one day when BARC will have to change (that doesn’t mean I will need to personally). The BirdLife list too is and will be changing constantly so none of them are (or should be) that stable. For example I heard only yesterday that Western Ground Parrot is about to be lumped again by Birdlife International.
For the moment it is a matter of choice and particular needs. If you look closely at the BirdLife list you will see (to the right) that they have purposely compared their new list with IOC and Clements so that one can readily make the choice. It would be a tough ask to have all websites move across to one standard list. Eremaea for example may choose to stay with Clements. Certainly before the BirdLife Australia list was released BA had no issues with BARC operations or which list we used and for the moment the relationship is still intact and amicable in this regard.
Certainly, if you have a strong interest in Australian birds then you could simply make use of the BirdLife Australia list just released and I would certainly recommend it for conservation use in Australia. But, as already pointed out most birders that I know are either using IOC or Clements and it will likely remain that way for them. Best approach when it comes to labelling your images would be to stick with one that you like.
At the end of the day we all just need to enjoy our wildlife.
Kindest regards,
Tony
PS Who was it that said I accept all splits and reject all lumps LOL?
Sent: Wednesday, 3 July 2013 5:24 PM Cc: Tony Palliser; Birding-Aus
A few points Bob (not grammar or spelling!):
1. I don’t know what an “official” list would be. There are no laws in this area! I guess one that government adopts would be closest, but with our multitude of governments what chance they would all agree? 2. Whilst BirdLife Australia may as you say endorse the BirdLife International taxonomy (I have not checked) as far as I know the list it has produced is not 100% compliant. And furthermore it seems that BARC will stick with IOC….. 3. I guess we have lived for some years with “international” birders using IOC or Clements or whatever and finding Australia a little strange to have its own taxonomy in C&B. (But I guess we may not be unique in that respect). Now it seems we have just replaced one Aussie taxonomy by another…..
Tony, thank you for your considered and comprehensible response to my comment. I do have some more questions but, firstly, I would like to clarify my position on this business of a variety of taxonomies.
Contrary to what other people may think, I consider myself to be only a ‘nominal’ birdwatcher. I don’t know precisely how many bird species I have seen (probably somewhere between 500 and 600); due to being a chronic and untreatable motion sickness sufferer I don’t ‘do’ pelagic trips so I don’t have any ambition to join the 600 or 700 clubs; I don’t keep lists of the birds I have seen or where I have seen them; I don’t remember where I first saw any species and I don’t remember where I last saw most species – especially any species I haven’t seen for more than a week; I don’t keep lists of my sightings.
None of that should be interpreted as my thinking poorly of any one who does do any or all of those things.
My principal birding interest is in photographing birds and particularly those species which, from my personal observations, seem to cause birdwatchers some difficulties in identification or which appear to have been poorly studied. I don’t know, off hand, how many species I have photographed but I can easily interrogate my software archives to see if I have photographed a particular species.
My main interest in taxonomy is involved with the labelling of my bird images. As many of my bird images are on, or destined to be on, my website I would like to be able to label them with the common name and species name. I would like those names to be ones which are considered by the majority of birders to be ‘correct’ or at least ‘acceptable’. I know how annoying I find it when I see a common name or species name which I have never heard of before when the bird looks quite familiar.
I am not a taxonomist and I don’t have any special or higher-level academic interest in any particular taxonomy and I don’t particular want to know the reasons for the classification of any species. I am quite happy to accept the words of the professional taxonomists. For my own purposes I use C&B 2008 principally because that is the taxonomy which has been used, in the main, in the current Australian bird field guides and, therefore, would seem to be the taxonomy most bird watchers who are ‘watching’ Australian birds would be using. I also use C&B 2008 because, until very recently, it seemed to be the taxonomy which Birds Australia/Birdlife Australia was publically approving. At least, that is what appeared to be used on that entity’s website. I am not, and don’t wish to be, a member of Birdlife Australia but I do look to them to lead in this question of taxonomy for Australia’s birds.
I know that many birdwatchers are becoming dissatisfied with C&B 2008 and are looking to other taxonomies for comfort and I won’t go into their possible reasons for doing that. Suffice it to say that C&B 2008 is probably ‘out dated’ and needs to be either updated or replaced. It is not going to be updated so it should be replaced.
This brings me to my further comment and questions.
It would seem to me that Birdlife Australia, as it is a partner with Birdlife International, would naturally go with the Birdlife International Bird List taxonomy. However, Tony, from what you appear to be saying it seems that BA is happy to declare on it’s website its preference for the Birdlife International taxonomy while happily approving the use by BARC of another taxonomy, albeit one which you say causes no conflict.
Tony, you say that Christidis & Boles recommended in 2006 that BA use the IOC taxonomy and yet BA then went ahead and commissioned C&B to produce their 2008 taxonomy for Australian birds. Additionally, BA is currently publically touting the Birdlife International taxonomy on its website. There seems to me to be some inconsistency there. I will take your word that the IOC taxonomy is the most commonly used internationally. However, it would seem to me that, because of the popularity of the Eremaea website, the Clements taxonomy just might be more commonly used in Australia. I will take your word that the IOC list is the most appropriate to use when dealing with new birds for Australia. The Birdlife International list cites data for Australian birds being provided by C & B by way of their 2008 taxonomy and extra information from Les Christidis separately. As for the IOC list being the most dynamic and up to date, it would seem to me that that is being considered a negative by some birdwatchers around the world due to the perceived regular backtracking of decisions. I don’t know the the validity of those claims but they are out there.
My final statement is that I don’t really care which taxonomy is being used but I would prefer to see one being chosen as the “official” taxonomy for the birds of Australia. Which ever one that is I will use it happily but I am currently being regularly confused by birdwatchers who seem to be using taxonomies modified to suit their own purposes. It would be wonderful if we all were singing from the same song book.
Oh…..and for those other respondents to my original comments ……..I do know there will never be just the one taxonomy so I don’t lose any sleep over that sad thought. In my opinion, the ones who need to check their stress levels are those birdwatchers who constantly scan the taxonomy updates for new ‘splits’ and ‘lumps’. But if that’s what makes you happy……………..
Standing by for the spelling and grammar police to descend.
Bob Inglis Sandstone Point Qld
A few points Bob (not grammar or spelling!):
1. I don’t know what an “official” list would be. There are no laws in this area! I guess one that government adopts would be closest, but with our multitude of governments what chance they would all agree? 2. Whilst BirdLife Australia may as you say endorse the BirdLife International taxonomy (I have not checked) as far as I know the list it has produced is not 100% compliant. And furthermore it seems that BARC will stick with IOC….. 3. I guess we have lived for some years with “international” birders using IOC or Clements or whatever and finding Australia a little strange to have its own taxonomy in C&B. (But I guess we may not be unique in that respect). Now it seems we have just replaced one Aussie taxonomy by another…..
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Tony, thank you for your considered and comprehensible response to my comment. I do have some more questions but, firstly, I would like to clarify my position on this business of a variety of taxonomies.
Contrary to what other people may think, I consider myself to be only a ‘nominal’ birdwatcher. I don’t know precisely how many bird species I have seen (probably somewhere between 500 and 600); due to being a chronic and untreatable motion sickness sufferer I don’t ‘do’ pelagic trips so I don’t have any ambition to join the 600 or 700 clubs; I don’t keep lists of the birds I have seen or where I have seen them; I don’t remember where I first saw any species and I don’t remember where I last saw most species – especially any species I haven’t seen for more than a week; I don’t keep lists of my sightings.
None of that should be interpreted as my thinking poorly of any one who does do any or all of those things.
My principal birding interest is in photographing birds and particularly those species which, from my personal observations, seem to cause birdwatchers some difficulties in identification or which appear to have been poorly studied. I don’t know, off hand, how many species I have photographed but I can easily interrogate my software archives to see if I have photographed a particular species.
My main interest in taxonomy is involved with the labelling of my bird images. As many of my bird images are on, or destined to be on, my website I would like to be able to label them with the common name and species name. I would like those names to be ones which are considered by the majority of birders to be ‘correct’ or at least ‘acceptable’. I know how annoying I find it when I see a common name or species name which I have never heard of before when the bird looks quite familiar.
I am not a taxonomist and I don’t have any special or higher-level academic interest in any particular taxonomy and I don’t particular want to know the reasons for the classification of any species. I am quite happy to accept the words of the professional taxonomists. For my own purposes I use C&B 2008 principally because that is the taxonomy which has been used, in the main, in the current Australian bird field guides and, therefore, would seem to be the taxonomy most bird watchers who are ‘watching’ Australian birds would be using. I also use C&B 2008 because, until very recently, it seemed to be the taxonomy which Birds Australia/Birdlife Australia was publically approving. At least, that is what appeared to be used on that entity’s website. I am not, and don’t wish to be, a member of Birdlife Australia but I do look to them to lead in this question of taxonomy for Australia’s birds.
I know that many birdwatchers are becoming dissatisfied with C&B 2008 and are looking to other taxonomies for comfort and I won’t go into their possible reasons for doing that. Suffice it to say that C&B 2008 is probably ‘out dated’ and needs to be either updated or replaced. It is not going to be updated so it should be replaced.
This brings me to my further comment and questions.
It would seem to me that Birdlife Australia, as it is a partner with Birdlife International, would naturally go with the Birdlife International Bird List taxonomy. However, Tony, from what you appear to be saying it seems that BA is happy to declare on it’s website its preference for the Birdlife International taxonomy while happily approving the use by BARC of another taxonomy, albeit one which you say causes no conflict.
Tony, you say that Christidis & Boles recommended in 2006 that BA use the IOC taxonomy and yet BA then went ahead and commissioned C&B to produce their 2008 taxonomy for Australian birds. Additionally, BA is currently publically touting the Birdlife International taxonomy on its website. There seems to me to be some inconsistency there. I will take your word that the IOC taxonomy is the most commonly used internationally. However, it would seem to me that, because of the popularity of the Eremaea website, the Clements taxonomy just might be more commonly used in Australia. I will take your word that the IOC list is the most appropriate to use when dealing with new birds for Australia. The Birdlife International list cites data for Australian birds being provided by C & B by way of their 2008 taxonomy and extra information from Les Christidis separately. As for the IOC list being the most dynamic and up to date, it would seem to me that that is being considered a negative by some birdwatchers around the world due to the perceived regular backtracking of decisions. I don’t know the the validity of those claims but they are out there.
My final statement is that I don’t really care which taxonomy is being used but I would prefer to see one being chosen as the “official” taxonomy for the birds of Australia. Which ever one that is I will use it happily but I am currently being regularly confused by birdwatchers who seem to be using taxonomies modified to suit their own purposes. It would be wonderful if we all were singing from the same song book.
Oh…..and for those other respondents to my original comments ……..I do know there will never be just the one taxonomy so I don’t lose any sleep over that sad thought. In my opinion, the ones who need to check their stress levels are those birdwatchers who constantly scan the taxonomy updates for new ‘splits’ and ‘lumps’. But if that’s what makes you happy……………..
Standing by for the spelling and grammar police to descend.
Bob Inglis Sandstone Point Qld
My take on the list it is very simple. It would be nice to have a standard list so everyone can compare. I’m nowhere near the crazy twitcher I used to be years ago, but knowing what it’s like to be crazy on this list thing the most useful thing is to have something that everyone can use. I guess we can all use different things & modify them to deal with our different choices, but in my opinion it is better to have something that we disagree with, but is a standard, than no standard at all. No matter what happens there are always going to be splits & lumpings that we don’t agree with personally. And, although we all like to think we know what’s a species, & what isn’t, very few of us (myself included) are taxonomists. My answer to that problem is when I’m birdwatching is to look at everything when I’m out in a place that I don’t usually go into. I’ve always enjoyed looking at geographic variation anyway. I guess the standard now is the BARC list? I think I get about a dozen ticks out of that. Doesn’t feel as satisfying at going out & looking at them though!-Kevin Bartram
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Well put John, I agree it is a matter of taste and personal interests. I get the feeling there is a tendency towards the IOC or Clements for those with international interests and those more interested in Australia and conservation may wish to adopt the new Australian BirdLife list. (I was surprised to see that it did not match the International BirdLife list though).
Bob to answer your question as to why BARC is utilizing the IOC is quite easy to answer: (1) Christidis & Boles recommended that we follow it back in 2006 (2) It is the list most commonly used internationally along with Clements (3) It is the list more appropriate to use when dealing with new birds for Australia (4) It is the only international list that has advisors listed from Australia (namely: Phil Gregory, Leo Joseph, Dick Schodde & Murray Lord & Peter Higgins) (5) We had no argument from Birds Australia (as it was then known) when we suggested this is what we were going to do back in 2006 and (6) clearly it remains the most dynamic and up to date, something we have all been longing for.
That said, from a BARC point of view I cannot think of any species right now that would be impacted anyway? So again for the most part this is just personal preference which list you would like to use.
Regards, Tony
Not sure there is much point in stressing about it. The Australian Birding fraternity have always used a variety of taxonomies, for different reasons and with different purposes. The closest we have come to a “unified” list was when many followed C&B (while it was current). As that is no longer being updated, it will become of less and less relevance, and others have ably pointed out many of the competing considerations to take into account in ‘adopting’ another. I suspect we will probably never come as close again to having a ‘standard’ taxonomy, and most will just adopt that which works best for their purposes, and get used to ‘translating’ across lists.
Life is too short – and there are too many birds to enjoy – to stress about it.
Just my thoughts.
Cheers, John Tongue Ulverstone, Tas.
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Poor soles? Perhaps dragging their feet Bob. Chris Charles
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Yes, well, large brandies can do that to you.
Carl Clifford
===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================
Thank you David James.
I have been sitting here (as it were) becoming more and more agitated, frantic, despairing, confused, annoyed, thinking of a large brandy as I have been reading all these postings about the various taxonomies that various birders are using for their own esoteric reasons while, at the same time, wondering just what Birdlife Australia is thinking. I wait with bated (which my much loved and ancient Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary tells me is the same as “Abated” meaning “to lessen; to deduct from; to mitigate; to put an end to [I like that one], do away with, as of an action or a nuisance, to render null, as a writ”) breath to see the “explanation to the introduction about why BARC uses the IOC checklist for its purposes”.
I am also trying to visualise those hardy and much admired soles who are currently working on (at least, I am hoping they are still working on) new “Australian Bird Field Guides” but wondering which taxonomy they should be using. Poor soles. My heart goes out to you.
I could go on but …………
Bob Inglis Sandstone Point Queensland
Sent from my very tolerant and long suffering desktop PC of mongrel design. ===============================
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, send the message: unsubscribe (in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
http://birding-aus.org ===============================