raymie
Well-known member
No they weren't. Prior to these changes there was no functionality in eBird tracking non-native species.
-
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.
Changes in how Ebird treats non-natives (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Mysticete
- Start date
? how could these be in the database ? Surely the database just consisted of bird + location. I'm unclear that there was any indicator of introducid-ness, and how would you do that anyway?
This is a new, additional thing crudely layered on top of the basic what, where info that ebird collects.
[To work it out, you'd have to have detailed polygon maps + geoqueries or crude statements relating to some administrative boundary or other—the latter's the very thing we see for the crazy mute swan map.]
(From memory, don't think there's the distinction in BoW, and/or introduced range isn't shown. For example, the BoW map for mandarin duck just shows the "natural" range in E Asia.)
Except it (also) creates new mistakes. Compare the distribution of the feral pigeon and the distribution of the rock dove, and notice how even one (erroneous) record of a rock dove (which should have been logged in as a feral pigeon) invalidates all sightings of feral pigeons and turns a dark orange cell into a light purple area, which totally belies the actual frequency (see the square covering Warsaw, for example). By the way, now that all the old mistakes you mentioned in your post have become visible, why wouldn't they just fix them?
Last edited:
In line with the new taxonomy update 'Muscovy Duck (Established Feral)' is being discontinued, but apparently bar charts for the feral pigeon got the axe, as well. I don't think they plan to introduce 'Rock Dove (Domestic type)', at any rate. Collateral damage?
Mysticete
Well-known member
more like temporary instability as they are going through the process of getting the next update ready. They have mentioned that folk's lists may temporarily change as things get ready.
Sooo much wish they were not so opinionated wrt taxonomy. There are probably a few taxa which don't nest (=taxon definition in one taxonomy overlaps with taxon in another), but broadly, if you define things at a low enough level (subspecies, perhaps form) then you should be able to construct any of the major species-level taxonomies from those records. And that's the right way to do it.
Otherwise you get nonsense like this:
https://ebird.org/species/blkkit3?siteLanguage=en_GB
[there is a broadly correct distribution map, but the count for ebird records is zero—as is my personal count even though I recently saw loads.] This is for a well-supported split which will doubtless get ported to ebird / Clements eventually.
If conducting science, ideally I'd want to know that my analysis is robust to differences in taxonomic opinion / [future] changes in taxonomy through time. One way to do this is to repeat the analysis using different taxonomies (Clements, IOC etc) and see if I get the same results. Can't easily do with ebird...
avibase is better...
27 out of 32 records of Papuan hanging-parrots in West Papua are marked as escapees
Well it's possible. The Papuans do like to keep pets... [I remember seeing an adult cassowary in a pen.]
... occuring next to records of legitimately native parrots in the species' natural range, and yet considered escapees by default (photos & comments notwithstanding) in a way that suggests most of the population of Indonesian Papuan hanging-parrots descend from pets in contrast to the Papuan population of Papuan hanging-parrots?
Mysticete
Well-known member
I suspect having multiple taxonomies is one of those things that "sounds easy" to implement but would actually be a huge pain, and would cause all sorts of confusion, especially for casual users. People already get confused by the option to change out common names for different reasons, now imagine if the species contained within vary based on which taxonomy
It's a moot point however, as IOC, Birdlife, Ebird, and Clements are all effectively merging into a single checklist, so they won't need multiple taxonomies.
Paul Chapman
Well-known member
My recent experience of this in Europe is that it is pretty confusing and chaotic at the moment. I wonder whether it will settle down. Examples from Croatia, Spain and United Kingdom when I look at the Targets functionality. Essentially, it makes the numbers and the targets rather random with no real consistency and no ability to ask questions that I found on queries. Three of the naturalized species in Spain are not on Category C for instance as far as I can ascertain.
In addition, various personal records of mine appear as Exotic Escapes despite the fact that they are clearly the records or populations for which the species appears in the Targets as Provisional...
I suspect that it will put off some from using the excellent system.
All the best
Paul
In addition, various personal records of mine appear as Exotic Escapes despite the fact that they are clearly the records or populations for which the species appears in the Targets as Provisional...
I suspect that it will put off some from using the excellent system.
All the best
Paul
Attachments
Last edited:
