I, for one will continue using the IOC list, no matter what BLA decides. A large part ofmy list is of species sighted overseas, and I certainly don’t intend using one nomenclature for OS sightings and another for Australian sightings. The IOC list was drawn up to help prevent confusion, I really understand why BLA and BLI have decided to go their own way on nomenclature, when there are already multiple nomenclatures already. Carl Clifford > On 12 Nov 2013, at 11:16, David James <burunglaut07@yahoo.com> wrote: > > Roger, it’s a pertinent question, “what is going on with the > Birdlife Australia Working list versus the BARC IOC Checklist?”. I’m sure there > are plenty of confused people who wish to know more. Since Tony Palliser is > away, I’ll provide some information from my position as a member of BARC. > However, I emphasize that this is only one side of the story, and I do not > represent BARC’s position. > BirdLife Australia Rarities Committee (BARC) needs a checklist > that deals with bird species occurring outside Australia. BARC used to use the Birds > Australia Australian checklists, namely Christidis & Boles 1994 and Christidis > & Boles 2008. However, these never covered birds not yet recorded in > Australia. For those birds, BARC once followed Sibley & Monroe (1993), but in > 2006, during the preparation of C&B 2008, Walter Boles recommended to Tony > Palliser that BARC follow IOC checklist, which is international and online. For > several years BARC followed C&B for most birds but IOC for anything new to > the Australian list. By 2010 this was becoming impossible as the 2 lists were > not close. C&B 2008 was ageing rapidly. Furthermore, the BA’s Taxonomic > Advisory Committee had disbanded and there was no prospect that the Australian > checklist would be revised again in a suitable time frame. After committee discussions and an internal > voting process in late 2011 BARC decided to prepare a checklist of Australian > birds using the IOC taxonomy, nomenclature and sequence. > Before adopting or releasing the BARC checklist we informed > the then CEO of Birds Australia (Graham Hamilton) of our intent, via a detail > memorandum that outlined our reasons and why we had chosen the IOC system over > other options. At that time BARC was aware that the recently published “The Action Plan for Australian Birds 2010” by BA adopted a species list that was based on C&B 2008 with updates from > BLI checklist and exceptions where required. This was addressed in the memo > with the suggestion that “Such a synthetic approach shows that an updated > checklist has been required for some time. It is likely that this sort of > approach cannot provide for consistency in the future”. No immediate response > was received, so BARC released the first version of its checklist in November > 2011, announced primarily via Birding-Aus and the BARC website. > Some months later the memo reached staff members at the BLA > office in Melbourne, who contacted Tony Palliser, but were not encouraging, effectively > saying “we have our own checklist” based on the Action plan list. It suddenly > transpired that before long, different sections of BLA could be using different > checklists. Obviously this was not intended or desirable. After some debate, it > was decided that the issue would be put to the BA Research and Conservation > Committee (RACC). BARC reiterated its case in a revised memo, although we never > saw the arguments or a case for the BLA checklist. Last I heard, perhaps a year > ago or more, it had been raised at the RACC once or twice but there was no > outcome. > Subsequently BLA released its draft checklist announced via > the BLA e-newsletter on 1 July 2013. BARC had not been advised that the > checklist was being released, and were taken by surprise since we were expecting > some resolution from the RACC first. Incidentally, the long-standing Recommended > English Names Committee (RENC) was taken completely unawares, and the large > number of REN changes in the BLA checklist prompted a number of resignations > from that committee. Apparently the RACC will decide whether the BLA draft list > will be adopted by BLA, or perhaps they already have. Meanwhile, BARC has not > heard anything from the RACC. > This has become a frustrating situation. In my view it has arisen > through a lack of communication. I am as eager as anyone to see it resolved. It > is desirable to have only one Australian checklist. It is also desirable that > the one checklist be as good as it can be. Having investigated things in > detail, BARC is of the opinion that the IOC system is superior to the BLI > system and the synthetic BLA system, and we have argued that case strongly. > However, BLA has not responded in substance, except by ignoring BARC’s > communications. > Should BARC abandon the IOC checklist system if the RACC > endorses the BLA checklist, or continue to argue for adoption of the IOC system? > Can we have 2 checklists in Australia and BLA? Can BARC maintain a list of > birds confirmed in Australia in IOC taxonomy even if BLA officially uses its > own taxonomy? Should staff members at BLA take over the traditional roles of > committees such as the Recommended English Names Committee, the Taxonomic > Advisory Committee and BARC? > > 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 > =============================== =============================== 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 ===============================
|
||||
|
Comments are closed. |
||||
