Latest IOC Diary Updates (1 Viewer)

[Andy Adcock]

Apr 23 Post relisting of Kai Coucal as a proposed split from Pheasant Coucal.

I presume that this has previously be rejected so what has changed to deem it worthy of recondiseration, simply criteria, e.g application of Tobias?

 

[Mysticete]

I do agree that there is currently a ratchet effect at work which can lead to over-splitting, and I think that at some point birders might consider creating a sort of "checklist taxonomy" that re-lumps certain superspecies, for example treat the N Atlantic Pterodromas as a single species "tick".

Folks already do this...at one point I think Fea's/Zino's was one sort of line on the ABA checklist. Nothing really stops one from already doing this.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I presume that this has previously be rejected so what has changed to deem it worthy of recondiseration, simply criteria, e.g application of Tobias?

The code in the latest IOC spreadsheet next to C. p. spilopterus is "AL" meaning "Approved Lump", so apparently spilopterus was treated as a separate species at some time in the past. But I went through their old spreadsheets back to IOC 2.1 and couldn't find that anywhere, so it looks like the lump took place prior to 2009. Of course I don't know what has changed but it's been over 12 years so there's a lot that could have changed.

 

[viator]

The code in the latest IOC spreadsheet next to C. p. spilopterus is "AL" meaning "Approved Lump", so apparently spilopterus was treated as a separate species at some time in the past. But I went through their old spreadsheets back to IOC 2.1 and couldn't find that anywhere, so it looks like the lump took place prior to 2009. Of course I don't know what has changed but it's been over 12 years so there's a lot that could have changed.

Reason given on the proposed splits page doesn't contain anything that would have changed any time recently i.e. plumage and distribution so presumably just Tobias.

Kai Coucal Centropus spilopterus is relisted as a proposed split from Pheasant Coucal C. phasianinus based on its distinctive plumage and allopatric distribution (Eaton et al. 2021; HBW/Birdlife)

 

[Paul Clapham]

Reason given on the proposed splits page doesn't contain anything that would have changed any time recently i.e. plumage and distribution so presumably just Tobias.

Kai Coucal Centropus spilopterus is relisted as a proposed split from Pheasant Coucal C. phasianinus based on its distinctive plumage and allopatric distribution (Eaton et al. 2021; HBW/Birdlife)

The proposed splits page contains 67 proposals for 11.2 with "HBW/Birdlife" in the comments. This is out of 88 "PS 11.2" in total. So yes, you could draw some conclusions about the focus of this version. Although there's still three months to go.

 

[viator]

The proposed splits page contains 67 proposals for 11.2 with "HBW/Birdlife" in the comments. This is out of 88 "PS 11.2" in total. So yes, you could draw some conclusions about the focus of this version. Although there's still three months to go.

And no guarantee any of them will actually be accepted though... It could just be a case of recording the fact that HBW has split them and thereby documenting in IOC the differences through the use of a PS

 

[Mysticete]

Yep....the proposed change listing are full of rejected splits and lumps. No guarantee that all or even most of these will pass.

 

[jts1882]

The code in the latest IOC spreadsheet next to C. p. spilopterus is "AL" meaning "Approved Lump", so apparently spilopterus was treated as a separate species at some time in the past. But I went through their old spreadsheets back to IOC 2.1 and couldn't find that anywhere, so it looks like the lump took place prior to 2009. Of course I don't know what has changed but it's been over 12 years so there's a lot that could have changed.

I have an old excel file without a version number that says "Generated on 2008-01-17" and includes the Kai Coucal after Centropus phasianinus and Centropus andamanensis. As a version 2.0 would be inconsistent with later releases I assume this is version 1.

Kai Coucal

Centropus spilopterus

AU

se Moluccas

Edit. On further research the conclusion that my file is version one is correct but the assumption that there is no version 2.0 is wrong. My file predates version 1.6. The Kai Coucal is included in versions 1.6 (2008-06-28), 1.7 (2008-10-02) and 2.0 (2009-01-19), although between Centropus phasianinus and Centropus andamanensis rather than after, and is dropped in version 2.1 (2009-05-12).

Strangely the species updates for version 1.6 suggest it should have been deleted then:

62	Neumann’s Coucal	Centropus neumanni	DELETE	AL	Payne 2005
62	Burchell’s Coucal	Centropus burchelli	DELETE	AL	Payne 2005
62	Kai Coucal	Centropus spilopterus	DELETE	AL	Payne 2005

Source: https://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/archives/

 

[Andy Adcock]

62	Kai Coucal	Centropus spilopterus	DELETE	AL	Payne 2005

Source: https://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/archives/

Does this mean that it wasn't even recognised racially, in it own right?

 

[jts1882]

Does this mean that it wasn't even recognised racially, in it own right?

The IOC didn't list subspecies in the early lists (3.3 has them, 3.1 doesn't).

 

[Andy Adcock]

The IOC didn't list subspecies in the early lists (3.3 has them, 3.1 doesn't).

Thanks.

 

[jurek]

I do agree that there is currently a ratchet effect at work which can lead to over-splitting, and I think that at some point birders might consider creating a sort of "checklist taxonomy" that re-lumps certain superspecies, for example treat the N Atlantic Pterodromas as a single species "tick".

Practically, there is going to be a bazaar of proposed splits, lumps and name changes, because while superficially they look scientific, they are in fact purely opinions which everybody can propose. And there is little cost of proposing something rejected, and a rejected change could be proposed again and again.

Practical advise for birdwatchers and ornithologists is: be aware that most changes will be ephemeral. This can make your hard work useless to you and others in a few years time, because nobody will know anymore what species you meant. Be sure to hold to some stable reference, for example use several names plus geographic location.

 

[pbjosh]

Really agree with you, Jurek, regarding using multiple names and being clear about how you apply the names. I think it goes beyond just being unequivocal, it also has real implications for the accessibility of your work. I don't think there's a taxonomist alive who knows ever species in the world, and I would wager most ornithologists and dedicated hardcore birders who learn a lot of scientific names still don't know a good fraction of them. So when papers only use scientific names, when they aren't clear about how they define / delineate their boundaries, etc, it reduces accessibility of the information. Sure, we can all go look up the names. But if vulgar and scientific names are given and clear definitions of how they are applied, it just makes it easier for everyone not intimately invested in that particular group.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Really agree with you, Jurek, regarding using multiple names and being clear about how you apply the names. I think it goes beyond just being unequivocal, it also has real implications for the accessibility of your work. I don't think there's a taxonomist alive who knows ever species in the world, and I would wager most ornithologists and dedicated hardcore birders who learn a lot of scientific names still don't know a good fraction of them. So when papers only use scientific names, when they aren't clear about how they define / delineate their boundaries, etc, it reduces accessibility of the information. Sure, we can all go look up the names. But if vulgar and scientific names are given and clear definitions of how they are applied, it just makes it easier for everyone not intimately invested in that particular group.

In the US, there is a concerted effort to remove all eponyms (and it looks like it will happen ) and it seems as if they want to remove those eponyms where they appear in the scientific part of the name too. This would make it interesting if they manage change both common and scientific names.

 

[Mysticete]

In the US, there is a concerted effort to remove all eponyms (and it looks like it will happen ) and it seems as if they want to remove those eponyms where they appear in the scientific part of the name too. This would make it interesting if they manage change both common and scientific names.

Actually, ICZN regulates scientific nomenclature, and there are very narrow criteria to discard an existing scientific name, none of which deal with issues like a species being named after someone, or even being accurate. I don't see any real avenue for removing eponyms from scientific names without scientific nomenclature collapsing entirely. The advocates for changing common names have mostly been careful not to hitch their cause to scientific nomenclatural change.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Actually, ICZN regulates scientific nomenclature, and there are very narrow criteria to discard an existing scientific name, none of which deal with issues like a species being named after someone, or even being accurate. I don't see any real avenue for removing eponyms from scientific names without scientific nomenclature collapsing entirely. The advocates for changing common names have mostly been careful not to hitch their cause to scientific nomenclatural change.

I watched the AOS meeting you posted and it's definitely something on the minds of the 'Bird names for birds' people but it was pointed out to them that it wouldn't be easy / possible.

Did you see my pm?

 

[DMW]

One of the hallmarks of a Maoist cultural revolution is that it is very difficult to control where it will lead. As far as I am concerned, the deliberate extirpation of well-established patronyms in common names, for no reason other than political correctness, is a deliberate act of cultural vandalism. Anybody who thinks they can throw away "problematic" common names but keep the exact same patronyms/"offensive" words in binomials, because the scientific nomenclature is a sacred cow that cannot be touched, is both a hypocrite and very naive. There is always somebody who has more extreme views (or a greater propensity to be offended) than you, and when there is a race to extremism, nothing is safe.

 

[Andy Adcock]

One of the hallmarks of a Maoist cultural revolution is that it is very difficult to control where it will lead. As far as I am concerned, the deliberate extirpation of well-established patronyms in common names, for no reason other than political correctness, is a deliberate act of cultural vandalism. Anybody who thinks they can throw away "problematic" common names but keep the exact same patronyms/"offensive" words in binomials, because the scientific nomenclature is a sacred cow that cannot be touched, is both a hypocrite and very naive. There is always somebody who has more extreme views (or a greater propensity to be offended) than you, and when there is a race to extremism, nothing is safe.

Have yo seen anything of Douglas Murray?

Some very sensible things to say on the PC issue across the whole of society.

 

[Snapdragyn]

One of the hallmarks of a Maoist cultural revolution is that it is very difficult to control where it will lead. As far as I am concerned, the deliberate extirpation of well-established patronyms in common names, for no reason other than political correctness, is a deliberate act of cultural vandalism. Anybody who thinks they can throw away "problematic" common names but keep the exact same patronyms/"offensive" words in binomials, because the scientific nomenclature is a sacred cow that cannot be touched, is both a hypocrite and very naive. There is always somebody who has more extreme views (or a greater propensity to be offended) than you, and when there is a race to extremism, nothing is safe.

That's quite a slippery slope argument there. I suppose by this logic Germany should still retain whatever monuments to Hitler had been erected before WWII?

 

[DMW]

That's quite a slippery slope argument there. I suppose by this logic Germany should still retain whatever monuments to Hitler had been erected before WWII?

What a meretritious argument. I live on an island that was occupied by Nazi Germany during WW2. It is covered in concrete bunkers built by the German occupying forces using slave labour. I suppose by your logic we should destroy all these Nazi structures. Or should we maintain them as an important part of our history, warts and all.