AviList taxonomic decisions relevant to British birders and the British list 2024-2025 (1 Viewer)

[wolfbirder]

Apologies for this post with relevance only to the British list, as I am sure much of the information is buried deep in many posts on this sub-forum already.

Having just received my February copy of Birdwatch, there is a summarising article by Alex Berryman. With a stunning Hornemann's Arctic Redpoll adorning the front cover of this month's magazine, it truly guts me that this lump has been implemented, but I was interested by the latter part of his comment about 'Redpoll': - "Recent genetic data have found weak evidence for population structure despite morphological differences (which are not always consistent). It is very possible that new data will change this interpretation".

I wonder therefore if we have heard the end of the Redpoll conundrum yet? Thoughts? Surely it would be absolutely ludicrous to lump then split again? If there is any new data, any split would surely be premature. Maybe he was just hypothesising.

Anyway, as we already know, these are the key decisions: -

KEY DECISIONS (* = awaiting IOC implementation)

Arctic, Common, Lesser Redpoll lumped into Redpoll
Red Grouse has been split from Willow Ptarmigan
Hudsonian Whimbrel remains split from Whimbrel
European Red-rumped Swallow split from Eastern Red-rumped Swallow
American Herring Gull, Mongolian, and Vega Gull split from European Herring Gull
[*]Hooded Crow to be lumped with Carrion Crow
[*]Green-winged Teal to be lumped with Eurasian Teal
[*]Amur Stonechat to be lumped with Siberian Stonechat
[*]Cabot's Tern to be lumped with Sandwich Tern
Cory's and Scopoli's Shearwater remain split
Fea's and Desertas Petrel remain split
Taiga and Tundra Bean Geese remain split

P.S. Scottish Crossbill remains split - (this taxa not voted on and remains safe for now).

I appreciate most British birders will be aware of these changes anyway, but based on this summary, what has happened to Yelkouan Shearwater? Does this mean it has not been voted on for now? Rumours were strong that it was being imminently lumped with Balearic Shearwater (or with both now being called Mediterranean Shearwater).

Thoughts on the Redpoll comment are welcome.

 

[Mysticete]

I think it's very unlikely the redpolls will be split again. To me the evidence seems pretty solid that they are one species. Not sure why they hedged there bets with that one, and not some of the other lumps such as the teal or crow, which I feel like occupy a more gray area between species and subspecies and are more likely to be reversed.

 

[Farnboro John]

I think it's very unlikely the redpolls will be split again. To me the evidence seems pretty solid that they are one species. Not sure why they hedged there bets with that one, and not some of the other lumps such as the teal or crow, which I feel like occupy a more gray area between species and subspecies and are more likely to be reversed.

Birdwatch is a more populist magazine than BB and opinions expressed whether editorially supported or not are unserious.

John

 

[James Lowther]

Apologies for this post with relevance only to the British list, as I am sure much of the information is buried deep in many posts on this sub-forum already.

Having jut received my February copy of Birdwatch, there is a summarising article by Alex Berryman. With a stunning Hornemann's Arctic Redpoll adorning the front cover of this month's magazine, it truly guts me that this lump has been implemented, but I was interested by the latter part of his comment about 'Redpoll': - "Recent genetic data have found weak evidence for population structure despite morphological differences (which are not always consistent). It is very possible that new data will change this interpretation".

I wonder therefore if we have heard the end of the Redpoll conundrum yet? Thoughts? Surely it would be absolutely ludicrous to lump then split again? If there is any new data, any split would surely be premature.

KEY DECISIONS (* = awaiting IOC implementation)

Arctic, Common, Lesser Redpoll lumped

Thoughts on the Redpoll comment are welcome.

One thing to remember in terms of the redpolls is that as with all the cases covered as part of this harmonisation process there was a pre-existing difference between the lists I.e. birdlife international treated them as a single species. Therefore maintaining the status quo in case new evidence crops up in the future is incompatible with harmonising the lists. The WGAC had to make an assessment on the case, and the best evidence at the moment seems to be in favour of a lump.
It’s not impossible that this decision could be reversed in the future (although doesn’t seem particularly likely) but the alternative to lumping them is either
A) Birdlife adopt the split despite the evidence suggesting it is the wrong decision
B) they don’t bother with the whole harmonisation process

Not sure of the state of play with Balearic shearwater, it has been on the IOC updates page as a proposed lump for a few years. However, the species is currently split by all 3 lists therefore it has presumably been put on ice to enable them to deal with the harmonisation. Once the 3 lists are harmonised they can move on to “new” decisions

Cheers

James

 

[wolfbirder]

Thanks all three.

I do acknowledge that Birdwatch is a populist magazine, I think its more my level than British Birds John -.

Thanks James, again I think I just struggle with all this conceptually. I understand what is happening (I think), but I do find any clarity I think I have becomes muddled with the process evolving. Appreciate your attempts to explain.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Birdwatch is a more populist magazine than BB and opinions expressed whether editorially supported or not are unserious.

John

Why do you say it is populist?

 

[Farnboro John]

Why do you say it is populist?

Because it puts in things like suggesting the redpoll complex might be split again. This is likely to be popular with its readership regardless of its truth or otherwise.

It also contains really quite a lot of simple articles designed to appeal to those who are never going to spend a lot of effort either finding birds or improving their skills, rather than encouraging them to deepen their interest or stretch their abilities and knowledge. I took it briefly years ago then dropped it. A minute's flip of the odd issue since has not encouraged me to resume.

I suppose it's driven by the need to maintain or increase its readership despite the steady or decreasing number of "proper" birders in the hobby.

BB by contrast I would regard as a specialist publication with standards. (But I don't take that either.)

John

 

[Paul Chapman]

I had been told by a friend that Yelkouan Shearwater will be lumped in the new shared list which would bring to fruition the longstanding IOC Proposed Lump. We will see I suppose.

I know little about the author as a scientist or indeed tour leader or the Redpoll complex. I have not read the article.

All the best

Paul

 

[wolfbirder]

I had been told by a friend that Yelkouan Shearwater will be lumped in the new shared list which would bring to fruition the longstanding IOC Proposed Lump. We will see I suppose.

I know little about the author as a scientist or indeed tour leader or the Redpoll complex. I have not read the article.

All the best

Paul

Thanks Paul, so it looks like the article omitted Yelkouan.

Maybe I am just reading too much into a single comment about Redpolls, but I just thought it was a strange thing to say without some material knowledge or information.

 

[Richard Prior]

Why do you say it is populist?

In the current geopolitical climate, perhaps 'non-scientific' rather than 'populist' is a better way of describing the magazine

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

In the current geopolitical climate, perhaps 'non-scientific' rather than 'populist' is a better way of describing the magazine

Reading populist, I imagined it in the demagogic sense x)

 

[Paul Chapman]

I imagine that John meant popularist more than populist but both perhaps fit.

Popularist - designed for the general public; non-specialist; non-intellectual.

Populist - relating to or characteristic of a political approach that strives to appeal to ordinary people who feel that their concerns are disregarded by established elite groups.

All the best

Paul