Splitting madness of birds (1 Viewer)

[jurek]

I found it on the internet:

Why avian systematics are no longer scientific?

http://dinets.travel.ru/birdsys.htm

The article is provisional, but I agree with central point: bird taxonomy is driven by mad obsession to split (when you have last seen two bird species LUMPED?), and this is no science anymore.

"It's almost impossible to find a professional who doesn't maintain a life list. Since everybody wants to have a long life list, a strong bias towards splitting easy-to-see species exists. "Splitting" papers are immediately recognized without necessary skepticism, while "lumping" papers are often ignored."

The author compares it to mania of inventing tens of nonexisting species of butterflies 100 years ago, when butterly collectors wanted to have as big collection as possible.

P.S. I am NOT Vladimir Dinets!

 

[London Birder]

seems to me there were far more recognised forms in previous centuries ... inevitably there will be people pushing for splits to boost their lists (human nature, mine's bigger than yours etc) but I imagine most serious-minded bird people are more interested in the taxonomic revelations for the sake of it rather than the listing aspect (though I know exceptions)

 

[Keith Dickinson]

Glad to see that you have got into the Christmas spirit with your avatar 'London' :-O

 

[London Birder]

lol, blame my pre-pubescent daughter ... she thought it was 'cute'

 

[cuckooroller]

I don't buy Mr. Dinets prevision of bird taxonomy rushing inexorably to some type of abyss of ever-increasing confusion. There seems to be some type of ill-concealed bias in his viewpoint.

It is true that we are in a phase of having to redefine the parameters on which present and future avian phylogenetics should be reasonably grounded. It is, however, also true that we are only about 25 years into the ever increasing use of analyses of informational macromolecules and the accruent techniques whereby to interpret correctly the information and its' application to cladistics.

Most attempts to coerce a universal acceptance of the PSC based determinations for phylogenetics have failed, or are in the process of failing. Personally, I believe the current situation is a period of feeling our way around the new techniques and their intrepretation. Sooner or later, a certain modicum of order will be re-inserted into the situation. That said, there are numerous avian genera that are over-lumped. It is just that now we have the tools to quantify the differences and make reasoned judgments.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Oriental birds are certainly over lumped and a good deal of splitting is required esp when compared to the South American avifauna

Pam Rasmussen outlined several new splits in her recent guide, there will be lots to follow

likewise in S. Am. there must be several dozen or more potential splits waiting to be discovered

but maybe some of the Euro splits recently are a little excessive...

Tim

 

[Docmartin]

To be fair, the article does start off
'Names, dates, grammar, logic, political correctness, overall accuracy and other secondary details have not been checked.'

So I guess it's tongue in cheek.

Notable recent European lumps (or at least non-splits)...

Caspian Reed Warbler Acrocephalus scirpaceus fuscus - split by CSNA, then relumped
Baltic Gull L. fuscus fuscus, split by many, now relumped.
Tundra Swan Cygnus columbianus - confirmed lump
Greenish Warbler Ph. viridanus - split by many, BOU confirmed lump wih plumbeitarsus.

 

[Hidde Bruinsma]

Strange. Mr. Dinets appears to be well informed on the science called taxonomy. But he just doesn't want to acknowledge it as such, does he ? His choice of words speaks volumes: "low-IQ", "insane", "frenzy". Quite unscientific descriptions in themselves, if you ask me.
First he compares splitting of bird species with the splitting of Lepidoptera a century ago. This doesn't make sense. The taxonomy of butterflies was then, as the writer states correctly, determined by commercial reasons, combined by a monopoly in literature. As everyone knows this has NEVER been the case in ornithological taxonomy of the last 25 years at all. It IS the case in Cowry (seashells) taxonomy for exactly the same reasons as was the case with the butterflies systematics: trade and only one collecting/writing "authority" who trades !
The fact that professional ornithologists have life lists is something I can only praise. I would abhore the image of a professional who is only able to see a bird as a table or diagram in his paper. To state that they let their work being led by their wish to increase their list is something I would like to see scientifically proved. Yes, there are people who split and even describe new species in a very sloppy way. But not everyone who writes is actually an ornithologist. And I mean of the qualified type.
Of course, mistakes were, are and will be made as far as splitting of bird species is concerned. But taxonomy is getting more and more complete in judging what is and what isn't. And so is the discussion that follows the findings. That makes taxonomy a living science, with madness being limited to a few followers perhaps.

 

[Edward woodwood]

A reasoned position, well expressed Hidde. Covers it all for me I think

as an aside, Vlad Dinetz sure has seen some good stuff and his tales are already legendary. I started a thread on him a while back...

Tim

 

[Edward woodwood]

here it is... http://www.birdforum.net/showthread.php?t=20107&highlight=dinets

 

[James Eaton]

As Tim says, you have to read his exploits, legendary stuff and the most interesting website by some distance that I've come across. He's recently posted the first ever photos of a melanstic Jaguar, where he hid a hollow tree for 48 hours until he got his shot! Quite tame compared to his Amazonian and Indian exploits though, but his Snow Leopard tales are just out of this world. Not sure if I could handle him on a trip though, a bit too crazy!

On splitting, I agree with Hidde. I'm sure I would come out with all kind of mistakes and errors if I ever had the fortunate opportunity to describe a new taxon to science. There is still many many cases in, especially, Asia for splitting due to vocalisations and plumage, though I fear many of these 'potential' splits will have become extinct before something is done about protecting the subspecies initially.

Splitting isn't a recent thing, wasn't there once a higher majority of taxon split, well over 10,000 species, and then many of them just got 'lumped' without much justification?

 

[jurek]

Vladimir Dinets travels and observations are just incredible. I understood that this 'memorandum' is on a side of his main interest in travel so he did not finish it with citations etc. But his observations on bird taxonomy are as worrying as on big cats. I noticed similar things.

I agree with you, Hidde and all that taxonomy always will be complex, with new data coming and opinion changing. This is normal to any science. But Dinets points that on top of it, the rules of science are being bent.

He is right that birds are treated differently from other organisms - PSC is more popular and they are oversplit. He is right that species are often split basing on very provisional data, like DNA research on only one gene. That two forms are sometimes declared as species on partial data, like different calls without checking if this means no interbreeding.

He also points to a general weakness of cladistics. Trying to make groups monophyletic (all descendants of ancestor must be in one group), makes taxonomy impractical to everyday use. There is often one descendant which evolved quickly into different form (Dinets gives example of Parus tits and Tibetian Groundpecker). To make this one separate, the whole group must be broken. This creates very many small groups which are otherwise almost identical.

He is right that there are political and ambitional biases. One example he doesn't mention is Scottish Crossbill, which was debated on BF some time ago.

 

[Hidde Bruinsma]

Having graduated on Salvador Dali I think I can take my share of excentric people.
The question one can always ask with many of Dinets objections is: What is the actual balance ?
When he writes that the PSC is more popular in ornithology than in any other fields of zoological interest one can wonder:
a) How (un-)popular is this concept really in these fields today ? I don't know and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt in this. But I'm sure that at least one person who wanted the PSC to rule in ornithology quoted one or more of these fields as living with it as the number one system.
b) How popular is the PSC really in ornithology today ? We can all safely answer that question: not very. It was proposed by a handful of people to begin with. Now it is only mentioned by some but hardly actually used by anyone other than the few initiators. The newly described or split species proposed by these people therefore can not be large in number (apart from the fact of course that the entire bird world would increase enormously in amount of species IF this system would rule). The thing is that most of these proposed splits and newly described birds are treated as subspecies not species by other ornithologists. To give a famous exemple. The splitting of the Bird of Paradise family in single species units by Cracraft. Compare his list with the one (published years later) by Frith and Beehler. And by the way, the birds of Cape Verde split by Hazevoet were treated as such not to get the PSC in ornithology. These birds actually form the best exemple of splits done on political grounds ! Hazevoet is so passionate about this avifauna that he uses the PSC to get them protected, as species (and not subspecies) will (possibly).
How often were species split on so called very provisional data ? And were these scant data really not backed up by additional information ? What about vocal differences as single proof for splitting ? I think the general consensus in ornithology is that difference in voice IS a very good indication of species boundaries. Even if hybridisation occurs. If we are going to doubt that then we are really undermining taxonomy here. And how does the amount of species split on so called flimsy grounds relate to the amount of species split on well worked out reasons ?
The "weakness" of the monophyletic concept as far as species are concerned is non-existent. This concept refines and so breaks up a genus not a species.
As far as political (read conservational) reasons to split are concerned I wonder what Nigel Collar would say about this. I think he already has done so somewhere. Some of his splits may be invalid but knowing his approach to this matter I think that most of these are quite well founded.
In short, I get the strong notion that Dinets emphasises a problem which in fact is far outweighed by the number of birds being correctly split on correct grounds.

 

[Edward woodwood]

Nigel Collar published a great piece on how many asian species there are, in OBC Bulletin no 38. Asian avifauna is way overlumped, even after Birds of South Asia there are several more splits coming. Javan Frogmouth is surely 4 different sp based on call etc... article is based on mountain, island, and vocalisations as means of separation. A very clever and thorough chap is Nigel and i certainly take notice when he comments on taxonomy...

Tim

may be almost 600 new species to come

 

[Terry O'Nolley]

I don't believe anyone would go through the process of documenting, studying, submitting, arguing, etc. - all of the stuff that would need to be done to have a species "officially" split just to raise their life-list by 1.

 

[cuckooroller]

Tim,
I also perk up my ears when Nigel Collar pronounces. There is one that always has had me scratching my head though, the Sulu Woodpecker.

 

[James Blake]

Oriental birds are certainly over lumped and a good deal of splitting is required esp when compared to the South American avifauna

I suspect species concepts can be argued over indefinitely.

But consistency certainly seems to be something to aim for - so we can meaningfully say "there are X species on South America and Y species in tropical Asia."

Consistency between different groups would be good too, so we can compare numbers of, say, mammals, birds, flowering plants. Suspect this may be harder.

James

 

[Xenospiza]

And by the way, the birds of Cape Verde split by Hazevoet were treated as such not to get the PSC in ornithology. These birds actually form the best example of splits done on political grounds ! Hazevoet is so passionate about this avifauna that he uses the PSC to get them protected, as species (and not subspecies) will (possibly).

Hazevoet gets very annoyed when people interpret his rendition of Puffinus boydi (Cape Verde Little Shearwater) by leaving out the "assimilis" as "treated as a good species". He just did not believe it should be in the assimilis-clade when lherminieri was treated separately. Turns out he was right!
I don't believe at all that the PSC is more popular in birds than in other groups: I would guess it's the other way round with the shadow of Mayr hanging over bird taxonomy. Certainly, taxonomy in a group where there are 10 specialists in the world and no "hobbyists" will be treated differently than birds where there are hundreds of specialists and millions of hobbyists, who get annoyed when something happens to their Herring Gull.
Remember in general it's the hobbyists that make the field guides, the checklists and the HBW…

 

[Edward woodwood]

I don't believe at all that the PSC is more popular in birds than in other groups: I would guess it's the other way round with the shadow of Mayr hanging over bird taxonomy.

agree with that...

although the PSC is certainly becoming rather popular in bird circles these days

personally i think i'll always be an unreconstituted BSC'er

 

[jurek]

And by the way, the birds of Cape Verde split by Hazevoet were treated as such not to get the PSC in ornithology. These birds actually form the best exemple of splits done on political grounds !

I think much of 'political' splitting comes from decision of BirdLife about ten years (?) ago, which announced that it will list threatened species but not subspecies.

At that time it seemed sensible and practical - BirdLife didn't have resources to follow situation of all forms, so it chosen only the species, which seemed more distinctive.

Nobody predicted than that subspecies in birds will become practically neglected for conservation. So people responded by changing subspecies into species to give them protection.

Perhaps treatment of mammals is better from this point of view. They protect species, subspecies and distinctive populations (eg. siberian tigers, amur leopards) and there is no visible trend to split forms. For big cats, more subspecies were actually lumped than split.