-
Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.
Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Search results
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
The recent posts above just reinforce the point for me: stop messing with common names. They do not and should not slavishly reflect current ideas of phylogeny. That is the job of the scientific name.- THE_FERN
- Post #2,364
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
No because the taxonomies are different. But there are a restricted set of "official" taxonomic levels so this shouldn't be a problem Precisely. The "linear sequence" gets changed every time there's a new Clements, IOC etc but not in any predictable way. There will always be new studies, new...- THE_FERN
- Post #2,296
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
I think this misses my point in several ways. You can (e.g.) arrange species within genera alphabetically at any time and regardless of splits, lumps and reassignments. The same is true for taxa within any taxonomic level (genera within families etc). No list order can reproduce the...- THE_FERN
- Post #2,286
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
In some other post someone pointed out that all other groups (insects, reptiles, whatevers) just do it alphabetically. That's the correct approach. Not least it's predictable and, thanks to training from your earliest years, you can actually find things.- THE_FERN
- Post #2,281
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
Why not start a new thread for in-depth and then link to it here... (Meanwhile, in case someone's listening... just to say linear sequences are pointless, and please stop randomly changing English names: they do/should not have to reflect taxonomy)- THE_FERN
- Post #2,277
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
And less completely disruptive. If you're really keen to know relationships below the recognised taxonomic divisions (and believe these are known), then for goodness sake use a phylogeny. If you want it 1d, use newick format and leave the rest of us alone!- THE_FERN
- Post #2,183
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
Yes you can bring some arbitrary rules to bear in this way. And you'd do that... ...why? Since taxonomy keeps (and will keep) changing so will your sequence. The changes in the sequence will amplify the inevitable changes in the taxonomy The taxonomy already encodes relatedness: the sequence...- THE_FERN
- Post #2,168
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
No it's the linear sequence I take issue with. Super massively pointless exercise obviously doomed to failure that tells you nothing very useful. You cannot condense any bifurcating or polytomous tree into a single linear sequence and it's silly to try. All you do by rearranging the sequences...- THE_FERN
- Post #2,165
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
Super massively annoying and pointless exercise which serves to confuse everyone for years to come...- THE_FERN
- Post #2,157
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature
-
T
Latest IOC Diary Updates
One might wish that (e.g.) SACC remember this before making wholesale changes to established common names...- THE_FERN
- Post #1,962
- Forum: Bird Taxonomy and Nomenclature