How do birders want species-definition to be determined? Via Morphology, assortative breeding, or DNA analysis? (1 Viewer)

[jurek]

100% the opposite - birders should put species and names as they want it, and a very simple software code would change it to whatever species is the current version of any current lists, for their internal use. It should be possible to easily customize e.g. eBird to show either British or American names and IOC, Cornell or whatever taxonomic order, just like it has Chinese and Polish versions.

This would lay bare the fact that splits are uninteresting to 90% of birders and ornithologists, and a sort of a hobby pseudoscience of the few. There is very little left to discover in bird taxonomy at the species level.

This would avoid the hopeless crusades to eliminate common names and shorthand like Bonxie or Mipit, which have been going for decades.

This would also avoid a peculiar error recently introduced by ornithologists - changing names so that people enter splits correctly, e.g. Common vs Mew vs Short-billed Gull. This ignores that 99% of such identifications are done by exclusively by location, not by subtle and changing field characteristics. And likely 90% of possible vagrants are entering a different name.

BTW, most recent splits are local races raised by lowering the border of a species. So discussion about cryptic species like co-occurring Marsh and Willow Tits is simply not about the topic.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

100% the opposite - birders should put species and names as they want it, and a very simple software code would change it to whatever species is the current version of any current lists, for their internal use. It should be possible to easily customize e.g. eBird to show either British or American names and IOC, Cornell or whatever taxonomic order, just like it has Chinese and Polish versions.

Jurek, I am not sure we are in disagreement with the names issue. As you say it is simple to create a cross reference to whatever name you want. You mention a database, but this requires that every species (and subspecies) is given a unique identifier. For the system to work globally, this would need to be established internationally. There is discussion about using ZooKeys (as per Avibase) for the unique reference. This is a hexadecimal unique key as it is argued that the Latin Name is less useful as it can change over time (see Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts for discussion on this). The problem is that a hexadecimal key is not that great for non-electronic systems. I would not be that impressed with a book with a species account 'Bonxie 1F67A4321FC2' - the latter part is a fabricated hexadecimal unique key just to illustrate the point. For mere humans 'Mipit (Athus pratensis)' is much easier (but at the article states the Latin could unfortunately change over time - e.g. 'PG Tips Locustella certiola' becoming 'PG Tips Helopsaltes certiola'). For printed articles this is something we probably just have to live with.

Historically there has been some argument that birds should have a unique English name (presumably as English is the most widely spoken language), but this idea has not gone anywhere and tended to frustrate birdwatchers - As you say choice should be up to the individual - I may want to use 'Grey Plover', and not 'Black-bellied Plover', whereas someone else may use the latter (particularly in the US as non breeding AGP's can be quite grey! - but then again how many months of the year do Grey Plovers have black bellies, and don't Pacific, European and American Golden Plovers have black bellies in breeding plumage as well?). But naming is a different issue to the thread, which was a question about how birders want species concepts to be defined - to which my response is 'left to the expertise of taxonomists and hopefully defined under a single global taxonomic list (which I understand is currently in preparation)'.

You state

BTW, most recent splits are local races raised by lowering the border of a species. So discussion about cryptic species like co-occurring Marsh and Willow Tits is simply not about the topic.

I am not sure that there has been a lowering of the border for a species, or whether we just have better tools to apply more scrutiny. This was really the point of mentioning Marsh and Willow Tit - what appears obvious now, may not have been so obvious when we had poorer tools to study birds. I was not trying to argue that Marsh and Willow are cryptic, but that they are surprising 'un-cryptic' when we are aware of vocal differences. It is therefore surprising that not that long ago the vocal differences were unknown to ornithologists (or at least ignored in the UK) - but then at the time the recording of any sound (let alone birds) was in its infancy. Perhaps a similar case for DNA testing or even high resolution photography can be argued now.

Splits are indeed the elevation of a subspecies, but as I stated in an earlier post, the recently proposed splits in Birding Asia Number 36 December 2021 (not Asian Bird Journal as I incorrectly mentioned previously) all had described plumage and/or vocal differences (though some where subtly) - there were no cases for splitting a subspecies that varied in biometrics only - nor for that matter was there a case made for splitting a species that was truly cryptic and could only be identified through DNA. For the described splits the clues were there, although DNA and evaluation of the time period for diversification, may have been deciding point for the argument for elevation to species rank. Presumably ornithologist/birdwatchers were previously just not looking hard enough to see the clues, or weren't interested in the differences as they related to 'mere' subspecies - I actually am in favour of field guides that cover identifiable subspecies and keen to try and ID birds to that level if I can, provided differences are apparent and not clinal. The case of ignoring the quite obvious was definitely true for the 'Pallas's' and 'Golden-spectacled Warbler complexes' (no intended slur on the amazing work of Martens, Per Alström and others, who shone a light on the subject, pointing out obvious vocal differences and subtle plumage ones). I still recall being told in the mid 1990's to listen out for the vocal differences of Golden-spectacled Warblers during my journey to Yunnan, as a split was probably coming; and being excited to see and hear Chinese Leaf Warbler during the trip - although as it came to pass, I had probably already overlooked the later as a mere Pallas's Warbler during an earlier trip to Thailand!

I am not sure I really agree that 'There is very little left to discover in bird taxonomy at the species level'. The main global lists (Clements, IoC, and BirdLife) vary a reasonable amount - but this is not because of the adoption of radically different species concepts (say BSC versus PSC, where adoption of the latter would result in a significant increase in the number of species to >c20,000). Look into the taxonomic notes of BirdLife and we get some insight into the differences of opinion - non-adoption of proposed split may be because some piece of information such as vocal analysis was missing from the proposal paper, because of unresolved questions on the boundaries of the proposed species and interbreeding, or because the tentative species is known from limited data, so hybrid origin or a plumage anomaly has not been ruled out (think Liberian Greenbul and Vaurie's Nightjar). These notes seem to indicate that there is still plenty to be learnt and resolved in order to reach common ground on decisions impacting a startling 10% of global species. A common global list should bring taxonomists together, so that they reach the same decisions based on review of the available data - it will not however, mean that there are no knowledge gaps, that things cannot be learnt and decisions reassessed. The problem of resolution is much larger if we consider subspecies - the current global lists vary at a species or subspecies level in about 25% of species. Is for instance Corn Bunting monotypic or polytypic? - taxonomies differ in opinion, but on what grounds, and who is right? Can birdwatchers, ringers or even sound recordists provide the data to resolve the question?

The article in Birding Asia mentions seven birds new to science - not splits. The 'discovery' or Myzomela prawiradilagae, Myzomela wahe, Rhipudura habibiel, Locustella portenta, Phylloscopus suaramerdu and Phylloscopus emilsalimi in Asia alone, suggests there is still much to be discovered. Remarkable many of the species are quite distinct - for instance Peleng Leaf Warbler (Phylloscopus suaramerdu) differs form other 'Wallacean members of the P.poliocephalus species complex in a number of plumage features, including its white (not yellowish) supercillium and throat, and by its grey-and-white mottled ear coverts (yellow-and-grey or unmottled in other taxa).... The species is unusual in its behaviour of frequently climbing up large branches and trunks of trees in the manner of a treecreeper (Certhia). The song also appears to differ from that of P.nesophillus to the west and P.emilsalimi to the east, although this was not analysed quantitatively'. The same types of discoveries have been happening in South America (Antpittas and Tapaculos to name but two), Australasia (Shrike-thrushes) and to a lesser extent in Africa (e.g. Ruvu Weaver). There may be 'little left to discover' in Europe and North America, where ornithology has been well established and species well studied for a long period of time.

The limited amount to be discovered in Europe and North America, is probably the reason why there can be so much frustration with splits and lumps impacting these regions- for instance why has it taken so long to make decisions on Hudsonian Whimbrel, Thayer's Gull and Steppe Grey Shrike (to name but three)? I think if we consider the globally situation, and the large amount of work to define new species that is still going on (Howard & Moore estimated they have over 2000 scientific papers to review covering 2014 to 2020), then the state of flux is understandable and reasonable. I think change at a global level needs to be embraced, otherwise we are at the risk of scientific stasis. Species status is also of fundamental importance to conservation, as general only species have legal status, with ramifications for protection. Getting species level decisions right, therefore can have important political and conservation implications - to me it is less about ticking and more to do with hopeful benefits regarding conservation and protection. It is definitely not a 'hobby pseudoscience' for me - let experts do the science and I will just follow their work and enjoy watching and trying to identify the birds, whether they be species of subspecies.

Cheers

Jon Bryant

 

[Mysticete]

Jurek, I am not sure we are in disagreement with the names issue. As you say it is simple to create a cross reference to whatever name you want. You mention a database, but this requires that every species (and subspecies) is given a unique identifier. For the system to work globally, this would need to be established internationally. There is discussion about using ZooKeys (as per Avibase) for the unique reference. This is a hexadecimal unique key as it is argued that the Latin Name is less useful as it can change over time (see Avibase – a database system for managing and organizing taxonomic concepts for discussion on this). The problem is that a hexadecimal key is not that great for non-electronic systems. I would not be that impressed with a book with a species account 'Bonxie 1F67A4321FC2' - the latter part is a fabricated hexadecimal unique key just to illustrate the point. For mere humans 'Mipit (Athus pratensis)' is much easier (but at the article states the Latin could unfortunately change over time - e.g. 'PG Tips Locustella certiola' becoming 'PG Tips Helopsaltes certiola'). For printed articles this is something we probably just have to live with.

Historically there has been some argument that birds should have a unique English name (presumably as English is the most widely spoken language), but this idea has not gone anywhere and tended to frustrate birdwatchers - As you say choice should be up to the individual - I may want to use 'Grey Plover', and not 'Black-bellied Plover', whereas someone else may use the latter (particularly in the US as non breeding AGP's can be quite grey! - but then again how many months of the year do Grey Plovers have black bellies, and don't Pacific, European and American Golden Plovers have black bellies in breeding plumage as well?). But naming is a different issue to the thread, which was a question about how birders want species concepts to be defined - to which my response is 'left to the expertise of taxonomists and hopefully defined under a single global taxonomic list (which I understand is currently in preparation)'.

You state



I am not sure that there has been a lowering of the border for a species, or whether we just have better tools to apply more scrutiny. This was really the point of mentioning Marsh and Willow Tit - what appears obvious now, may not have been so obvious when we had poorer tools to study birds. I was not trying to argue that Marsh and Willow are cryptic, but that they are surprising 'un-cryptic' when we are aware of vocal differences. It is therefore surprising that not that long ago the vocal differences were unknown to ornithologists (or at least ignored in the UK) - but then at the time the recording of any sound (let alone birds) was in its infancy. Perhaps a similar case for DNA testing or even high resolution photography can be argued now.

Splits are indeed the elevation of a subspecies, but as I stated in an earlier post, the recently proposed splits in Birding Asia Number 36 December 2021 (not Asian Bird Journal as I incorrectly mentioned previously) all had described plumage and/or vocal differences (though some where subtly) - there were no cases for splitting a subspecies that varied in biometrics only - nor for that matter was there a case made for splitting a species that was truly cryptic and could only be identified through DNA. For the described splits the clues were there, although DNA and evaluation of the time period for diversification, may have been deciding point for the argument for elevation to species rank. Presumably ornithologist/birdwatchers were previously just not looking hard enough to see the clues, or weren't interested in the differences as they related to 'mere' subspecies - I actually am in favour of field guides that cover identifiable subspecies and keen to try and ID birds to that level if I can, provided differences are apparent and not clinal. The case of ignoring the quite obvious was definitely true for the 'Pallas's' and 'Golden-spectacled Warbler complexes' (no intended slur on the amazing work of Martens, Per Alström and others, who shone a light on the subject, pointing out obvious vocal differences and subtle plumage ones). I still recall being told in the mid 1990's to listen out for the vocal differences of Golden-spectacled Warblers during my journey to Yunnan, as a split was probably coming; and being excited to see and hear Chinese Leaf Warbler during the trip - although as it came to pass, I had probably already overlooked the later as a mere Pallas's Warbler during an earlier trip to Thailand!

I am not sure I really agree that 'There is very little left to discover in bird taxonomy at the species level'. The main global lists (Clements, IoC, and BirdLife) vary a reasonable amount - but this is not because of the adoption of radically different species concepts (say BSC versus PSC, where adoption of the latter would result in a significant increase in the number of species to >c20,000). Look into the taxonomic notes of BirdLife and we get some insight into the differences of opinion - non-adoption of proposed split may be because some piece of information such as vocal analysis was missing from the proposal paper, because of unresolved questions on the boundaries of the proposed species and interbreeding, or because the tentative species is known from limited data, so hybrid origin or a plumage anomaly has not been ruled out (think Liberian Greenbul and Vaurie's Nightjar). These notes seem to indicate that there is still plenty to be learnt and resolved in order to reach common ground on decisions impacting a startling 10% of global species. A common global list should bring taxonomists together, so that they reach the same decisions based on review of the available data - it will not however, mean that there are no knowledge gaps, that things cannot be learnt and decisions reassessed. The problem of resolution is much larger if we consider subspecies - the current global lists vary at a species or subspecies level in about 25% of species. Is for instance Corn Bunting monotypic or polytypic? - taxonomies differ in opinion, but on what grounds, and who is right? Can birdwatchers, ringers or even sound recordists provide the data to resolve the question?

The article in Birding Asia mentions seven birds new to science - not splits. The 'discovery' or Myzomela prawiradilagae, Myzomela wahe, Rhipudura habibiel, Locustella portenta, Phylloscopus suaramerdu and Phylloscopus emilsalimi in Asia alone, suggests there is still much to be discovered. Remarkable many of the species are quite distinct - for instance Peleng Leaf Warbler (Phylloscopus suaramerdu) differs form other 'Wallacean members of the P.poliocephalus species complex in a number of plumage features, including its white (not yellowish) supercillium and throat, and by its grey-and-white mottled ear coverts (yellow-and-grey or unmottled in other taxa).... The species is unusual in its behaviour of frequently climbing up large branches and trunks of trees in the manner of a treecreeper (Certhia). The song also appears to differ from that of P.nesophillus to the west and P.emilsalimi to the east, although this was not analysed quantitatively'. The same types of discoveries have been happening in South America (Antpittas and Tapaculos to name but two), Australasia (Shrike-thrushes) and to a lesser extent in Africa (e.g. Ruvu Weaver). There may be 'little left to discover' in Europe and North America, where ornithology has been well established and species well studied for a long period of time.

The limited amount to be discovered in Europe and North America, is probably the reason why there can be so much frustration with splits and lumps impacting these regions- for instance why has it taken so long to make decisions on Hudsonian Whimbrel, Thayer's Gull and Steppe Grey Shrike (to name but three)? I think if we consider the globally situation, and the large amount of work to define new species that is still going on (Howard & Moore estimated they have over 2000 scientific papers to review covering 2014 to 2020), then the state of flux is understandable and reasonable. I think change at a global level needs to be embraced, otherwise we are at the risk of scientific stasis. Species status is also of fundamental importance to conservation, as general only species have legal status, with ramifications for protection. Getting species level decisions right, therefore can have important political and conservation implications - to me it is less about ticking and more to do with hopeful benefits regarding conservation and protection. It is definitely not a 'hobby pseudoscience' for me - let experts do the science and I will just follow their work and enjoy watching and trying to identify the birds, whether they be species of subspecies.

Cheers

Jon Bryant

Keep in mind that Jurek has a rather extreme anti-splitting bias.

At any rate, I think there are ways that you could set up a database that simply used the genus-species-subspecies as your unique identifier. I think the biggest challenge is that subspecies have been sort of a garbage bin taxonomic unit, with many poorly defined. I think their is potential to make them useful, but it would require many many more studies to work that system out with widely distributed forms.

I could see a listing approach that advocated for listing at the subspecies level if subspecies actually were field identifiable forms for the most part.

 

[jurek]

requires that every species (and subspecies) is given a unique identifier. For the system to work globally, this would need to be established internationally.

As Mysticete said, this is simple using genus, species and subspecies.

I am not sure that there has been a lowering of the border for a species, or whether we just have better tools to apply more scrutiny.

For the majority of recent splits, the core justification of split was lower criteria. Although many papers list some new differences, they are minor. Worse are cases of cherry-picking arguments and publications favoring splits, e.g. in case of keeping Redpoll as multiple species.

The article in Birding Asia mentions seven birds new to science - not splits.

Truly new bird species discovered in understudied regions indeed happen, however they qualify as separate species under any possible criteria. Therefore they are really not a subject of a debate over criteria of splitting species.

for instance why has it taken so long to make decisions on Hudsonian Whimbrel, Thayer's Gull and Steppe Grey Shrike (to name but three)?

I am not sure I understand you here. These forms were proposed as species decades ago, and every ornithologist over decades was aware of it and made a decision to retain them as subspecies. So it sounds like a complaint that the situation was stable for a long time.

Species status is also of fundamental importance to conservation, as general only species have legal status, with ramifications for protection.

This is a repeated argument among bird taxonomists, however appears to be untrue. Global conservation treaties and conservation laws of many individual countries do list separately subspecies and local populations.
From the top of my head, global CITES lists separately subspecies of mammals and marine life stocks from different ocean regions*, Natura2000 in Europe contains subspecies*, U.S. Endangered Species Act listed grey wolves separately in Alaska and lower 48 states*.
*https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2021/E-Appendices-2021-06-22.pdf
*List of species with Natura 2000 codes and EUNIS links
*Gray wolf listing reinstated under Endangered Species Act - The Wildlife Society

Keep in mind that Jurek has a rather extreme anti-splitting bias.

Nope, Mysticete, unless you can counteract that majority of birders are less than impressed by little splits (and especially by constant changes themselves), it is you who has a pro-splitting bias. I am happy however, that you failed to bring arguments to your opinion.

 

[Mysticete]

As Mysticete said, this is simple using genus, species and subspecies.



For the majority of recent splits, the core justification of split was lower criteria. Although many papers list some new differences, they are minor. Worse are cases of cherry-picking arguments and publications favoring splits, e.g. in case of keeping Redpoll as multiple species.



Truly new bird species discovered in understudied regions indeed happen, however they qualify as separate species under any possible criteria. Therefore they are really not a subject of a debate over criteria of splitting species.



I am not sure I understand you here. These forms were proposed as species decades ago, and every ornithologist over decades was aware of it and made a decision to retain them as subspecies. So it sounds like a complaint that the situation was stable for a long time.



This is a repeated argument among bird taxonomists, however appears to be untrue. Global conservation treaties and conservation laws of many individual countries do list separately subspecies and local populations.
From the top of my head, global CITES lists separately subspecies of mammals and marine life stocks from different ocean regions*, Natura2000 in Europe contains subspecies*, U.S. Endangered Species Act listed grey wolves separately in Alaska and lower 48 states*.
*https://cites.org/sites/default/files/eng/app/2021/E-Appendices-2021-06-22.pdf
*List of species with Natura 2000 codes and EUNIS links
*Gray wolf listing reinstated under Endangered Species Act - The Wildlife Society



Nope, Mysticete, unless you can counteract that majority of birders are less than impressed by little splits (and especially by constant changes themselves), it is you who has a pro-splitting bias. I am happy however, that you failed to bring arguments to your opinion.

You constantly state baseless accusations that the majority of splits are just people recognizing trivial differences that people didn't care about before, rather than taking account other factors, such as playback studies, detailed vocal analyses, genetic data showing very little gene flow between populations, etc. All of which are frequently cited in reasonings for resplitting taxa, taxa I might add which usually were lumped often simply due to biased assumptions and lack of evidence.

Check out any of the IOC diary or related threads in the taxonomy forum. Unless the bird is a crossbill or similar finch, or MAYBE a seabird, you never really see birders particularly aggravated that some species has been split. I favor taxonomic changes based on evidence, which is why I have been pro-lump for things like Redpoll, Northwestern Crow, Thayer's Gull, Some Darwin's finch forms, etc.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

At any rate, I think there are ways that you could set up a database that simply used the genus-species-subspecies as your unique identifier.

The problem with this is that Latin names are unfortunately not static. Look at IoC taxonomic updates and there are changes to genus and names, some of which stem from quite small issues - say the gender of a noun (ornatus or ornata). I have been trying to develop my own database and I all I can say is that use of Latin names is not straightforward. In fact for a period of time two of the world lists used the same name for completely different species - all to do with the change in genus of a Tanager species and naming conventions!

I am not sure I understand you here. These forms were proposed as species decades ago, and every ornithologist over decades was aware of it and made a decision to retain them as subspecies. So

Not quite, in the U.K. Hudsonian Whimbrel was recognised as a subspecies, then a species, then demoted to a subspecies, and finally promoted to a species. So quite a bit of back and forth, which I imagine could annoy birdwatchers.

For the majority of recent splits, the core justification of split was lower criteria.

I am still not clear if this is correct. Taking for example the split of Rheinardia ocellated nigrescens to R.nigrescens, Birding Asia states ‘nigrescens differs by yellower bill with blackish nares, buffier supercilium, throat and breast, differently coloured and structured crest, differently patterned upperparts and tail, purer, more fluent, longer, lower ‘short call’ (used by advertising males) and more loud notes in the long call’. The two forms are disjunct so interbreeding is not an issue. All sounds quite compelling to me.

Then we have the new tools of DNA. It is estimated using mtDNA for instance that Carpodacus sibiricus split into two different lineages (a Northern and a Southern clade) 1.36 million years ago, and these two classes are now proposed as species based on morphology and mtDNA analysis. This information on timescales was something we could have never even contemplated before DNA sequencing. Presumably such a distant split of the clades is a strong indicator of speciation, and more compelling than simply morphology. In this case I would argue that the split is based on better data and not a lower criteria.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Global conservation treaties and conservation laws of many individual countries do list separately subspecies and local populations.

Interesting. This is a debate that I had with a taxonomists who wrote an article for BTO News stating the it has to be a species to count. My point was that Britain has the most depleted wildlife in Europe, but also has many unique subspecies. If we made a song and dance about protection of British Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers, Red Grouse (possibly a species in any case) etc, We could have had greater levels of protection and less depletion of wildlife. This could however, be slightly politically unfair - Britain as an island nation has a larger number of indigenous subspecies than other European countries, so to ensure subspecies survival would place additional onus on the U.K.

Anyway forgetting politics, BirdLife provide a status for each species and this must be of benefit to conservation work - say the global targeting of protection to the critically endangered Spoon-billed Sandpiper. But BirdLife do not provide a status for subspecies - is Red Grouse (the British race of Willow Grouse) limited concern, or critically endangered? Whereas the UK has a red list, I am not sure this has global reach. For instance Herring Gull is red listed, but we do not make a song and dance about U.K. being a major breeding ground for the argenteus race, so potentially important for subspecies survival. Is there any global pressure for the UK to protect a major breeding area for this subspecies? - Not that I know of. In the U.K. the public is blissfully unaware of the status of Herring Gull and more likely to moan about harrassment and gulls stealing chips - whereas people in wilder places contend with bears, tigers elephants etc.

The reply from the taxonomist, was it was a big enough task to protect species - they simply don’t have the resource to extend to subspecies level.

I think the exception may be for certain iconic species, such as wolves as per your example, but I can’t think or many subspecies conservation programmes.

Interesting that Red Grouse was chosen by British Birds as its emblem as at the time it was our only indigenous species. And now after a long period of demotion to subspecies it may be on the way back!

 

[jurek]

taking account other factors, such as playback studies, detailed vocal analyses, genetic data showing very little gene flow between populations

Some of these arguments are poor science (playback studies show territorial behavior not mating behavior), other are cherry-picking (detailed vocal analysis is finding more small differences, while ignoring that it also finds overwhelmingly more similarities, which results in lowering border of difference), other are ambiguous (little gene flow between isolated populations does not mean reproductive isolation). Plus a lots of cherry-picking, e.g. picking vocal differences but ignoring the gene flow, or vice versa.

you never really see birders particularly aggravated that some species has been split

I think you may be mistaking apathy and ignoring for support.

The problem with this is that Latin names are unfortunately not static.

Since the key functions only as a key, this is not a problem.

I am still not clear if this is correct. Taking for example the split of Rheinardia ocellated nigrescens to R.nigrescens,

I am talking about the most, but you are quoting a single example.

My point was that Britain has the most depleted wildlife in Europe

It is possible that British law is unusual in granting protection only to species. However most splits don't affect Britain at all.

What you describe about protection of Red Grouse, as an example, is essentially internal advocacy within conservation community, rather than advocacy from conservation community towards wider public, lawmakers etc. So the conservation result can be made by conservationists pressing externally from any other reasons. Arguably, actually more effective would be popularity, charisma of the animal etc.

We could go deeper into individual birds, when it turns things are difficult. For example whether Red Grouse is a sister form to other Willow Grouse worldwide, or splitting it would result in 10 or more identical grouse species abroad? Is decline of Herring Gull a problem outside the internal criteria of RSPB, if it increased artificially few decades ago due to feeding on rubbish dumps, and is likely to remain common anyway?

 

[Mysticete]

I've used online databases (not for birding, but for research purposes), which get around the whole changing taxonomy issue by essentially creating "links" between different combinations, so older or less population/recognized name combinations are key to the same critter . Obviously, as taxonomy is changed, you would have to up add in new names, but I don't think its possible to create a perfect database that never needs changing: your example of completely new species still being named is proof of that.

I would agree that there is a general sense that subspecies are lower conservation focus than full species, and there are ways that prioritize conservation goals (like evolutionary distinctiveness), that would keep them low. Wolves are in my mind a poor example of a critter where certain populations have heightened protection, just because wolfs are sort of a special case where many have some strong emotional connection with the species (whether hate or adoration), that LBJs, minnows, or beetles might not induce for most people.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I am talking about the most, but you are quoting a single example

Can you give some examples (apart from the arguments over Redpoll and Red Crossbill)? Birding Asia has semi regularly papers on taxonomic updates and I would argue that the proposed splits are presented on good grounds and new research. I have given a couple of examples (not one), but on all the other evidence I have seen, I cannot support the argument for a lowering of core criteria.

It is possible that British law is unusual in granting protection only to species. However most splits don't affect Britain at all.

This is kind of missing the point. There are about 10,700 species in the world, but a further circa 25,000 subspecies. Extending the conservation works to cover all subspecies would increase workload c 250%. Law isn't necessarily the issue, but how conservation is focused. In all the accounts I have read on conservation work, It is very rare that subspecies are mentioned at all. The sole example I can bring to mind is also from Birding Asia December 2021, to quote - 'In 2019, the IUCN SSC Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group (ASTSG) and European Association for Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) Silent Forest Group agreed that a breeding programme should be established to secure the survival of Barusan Shama... Burusan Shama is considered seriously threatened with extinction (Lee et al. 2016, Rheidt et al 2019). However, the taxon is currently considered a subspecies of the widespread White-rumped Shama on the IUCN Red List, which remains classified as Least Concern. As a result, the conservation of this taxon was not prioritised until recently.' I think the last sentence says it all, and makes it clear that species status, with accompanied IUCN classification, is a significant focus for conservation work. Troll through a global list and there are not too many extinct species, but a surprising number of extinct subspecies - even a Grey Partridge subspecies from Italy. I am not suggesting that all subspecies should be elevated for conservation purposes, but given the obvious globally focus on species, surely it is a sound argument that we need to make sure that decisions on specification are up to date and correct?

There are grounds for saying that even if decisions are based on a lower of standards, and it leads to conservation of those psuedo-species then what's the harm - personal inconvenience and frustration that lists change? Surely any improvement in conservation (no matter how small you think this may be), trumps mere self interest?

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Troll through a global list and there are not too many extinct species, but a surprising number of extinct subspecies

Sorry, just checking my facts and I was wrong about the balance of extinct species and subspecies - 160 extinct species verses only 93 extinct subspecies according to IoC 12.1.

Still, given the small range of many subspecies, I wonder how many subspecies would be categorised as endangered or critically endangered. Low lying island and isolated high altitude subspecies, would seem obvious areas of concern.

 

[ZanderII]

100% the opposite - birders should put species and names as they want it, and a very simple software code would change it to whatever species is the current version of any current lists, for their internal use. It should be possible to easily customize e.g. eBird to show either British or American names and IOC, Cornell or whatever taxonomic order, just like it has Chinese and Polish versions.

it is easy to toggle between vernacular names - including between US and UK English names but you can't toggle between taxonomies as that would require restructuring the entire database, eBird, BOTW and Merlin accounts for all the different taxa etc etc. Better to continue moving towards a unified taxonomic hypothesis.

 

[Andy Adcock]

Keep in mind that Jurek has a rather extreme anti-splitting bias.

At any rate, I think there are ways that you could set up a database that simply used the genus-species-subspecies as your unique identifier. I think the biggest challenge is that subspecies have been sort of a garbage bin taxonomic unit, with many poorly defined. I think their is potential to make them useful, but it would require many many more studies to work that system out with widely distributed forms.

I could see a listing approach that advocated for listing at the subspecies level if subspecies actually were field identifiable forms for the most part.

Agreed.

 

[jurek]

Birding Asia has semi regularly papers on taxonomic updates and I would argue that the proposed splits are presented on good grounds

The opposite is true in Europe, especially the notorious Dutch Birding Association.

Extending the conservation works to cover all subspecies would increase workload c 250%.
(...)
There are grounds for saying that even if decisions are based on a lower of standards, and it leads to conservation of those psuedo-species then what's the harm

I think this argument is self-contradictory, which is summed in above two sentences. In theory, species have priority over subspecies to protect more distinct units of biodiversity given limited resources. Making a subspecies into a pseudo-species jumps the queue to the Noahs Ark, figuratively speaking, wasting effort and funds on less distinct rather than more distinct forms.

In reality, however, conservation is prioritized by popularity among the active conservationists and secondarily among public. So the Barusan Shama was protected primarily because it is a well-singing songbird in a country of avid cagebird keepers, not so much because it was turned into a species. Crested Argus receives surprisingly little real protection as either one or two species, because large mammals like tigers channel conservation interest in its range.

I see a taxonomic elevation as much more a byproduct of conservation interest, than an effective method to increase practical conservation. This is especially clear if we look at charismatic mammals like subspecies of tigers or leopards.

By the way, few years ago there was an initiative called evolutionary distinct and endangered, from the Zoological Society of London. It basically given conservation priority given how evolutionary unique is the form, not whether it is a species. So a very isolated taxonomically species, like Rail-Babbler or Osprey would trump a species with lots of close relatives, say one of the white-eyes. This made lots of sense, pity that it did not caught up.

 

[Mysticete]

By the way, few years ago there was an initiative called evolutionary distinct and endangered, from the Zoological Society of London. It basically given conservation priority given how evolutionary unique is the form, not whether it is a species. So a very isolated taxonomically species, like Rail-Babbler or Osprey would trump a species with lots of close relatives, say one of the white-eyes. This made lots of sense, pity that it did not caught up.

It's still around, and I have seen papers use its arguments to advocate conservation for some critters.

EDGE of Existence :: Evolutionarily Distinct & Globally Endangered

Edge species are truly one of a kind. If they disappear there will be nothing similar left on the planet. Two-thirds are receiving little or no conservation attention. Help save these remarkable species.

www.edgeofexistence.org

 

[Mysticete]

Can you give some examples (apart from the arguments over Redpoll and Red Crossbill)? Birding Asia has semi regularly papers on taxonomic updates and I would argue that the proposed splits are presented on good grounds and new research. I have given a couple of examples (not one), but on all the other evidence I have seen, I cannot support the argument for a lowering of core criteria.


This is kind of missing the point. There are about 10,700 species in the world, but a further circa 25,000 subspecies. Extending the conservation works to cover all subspecies would increase workload c 250%. Law isn't necessarily the issue, but how conservation is focused. In all the accounts I have read on conservation work, It is very rare that subspecies are mentioned at all. The sole example I can bring to mind is also from Birding Asia December 2021, to quote - 'In 2019, the IUCN SSC Asian Songbird Trade Specialist Group (ASTSG) and European Association for Zoos and Aquaria (EAZA) Silent Forest Group agreed that a breeding programme should be established to secure the survival of Barusan Shama... Burusan Shama is considered seriously threatened with extinction (Lee et al. 2016, Rheidt et al 2019). However, the taxon is currently considered a subspecies of the widespread White-rumped Shama on the IUCN Red List, which remains classified as Least Concern. As a result, the conservation of this taxon was not prioritised until recently.' I think the last sentence says it all, and makes it clear that species status, with accompanied IUCN classification, is a significant focus for conservation work. Troll through a global list and there are not too many extinct species, but a surprising number of extinct subspecies - even a Grey Partridge subspecies from Italy. I am not suggesting that all subspecies should be elevated for conservation purposes, but given the obvious globally focus on species, surely it is a sound argument that we need to make sure that decisions on specification are up to date and correct?

There are grounds for saying that even if decisions are based on a lower of standards, and it leads to conservation of those psuedo-species then what's the harm - personal inconvenience and frustration that lists change? Surely any improvement in conservation (no matter how small you think this may be), trumps mere self interest?

I think the underlying issue is that subspecies haven't gotten the critical appraisal that species have, with many subspecies based on minimal data, so then you get into the issue of what EXACTLY the subspecies is. It's hard to make conservation goals towards a form that you are not even really sure exists or how widespread it is. That doesn't even get into the fact that many people don't think subspecies are worth even recognizing.

There has been some minimal efforts to try to deal with that. Remsen had a pretty good paper arguing for treating PSC species (monophyletic diagnostic groups that are not reproductively isolated from other forms) as subspecies. But compared to the almost annual deluge of theoretical papers rehashing species concepts, subspecies are barely discussed.

 

[Mysticete]

The opposite is true in Europe, especially the notorious Dutch Birding Association.

Scanning through the Dutch Birding Checklist, I see about 7 or so splits that most folks currently would consider controversial and which are not widely followed, with White and Western Yellow Wagtail and Brant probably the most radical. Seven out of I think 518 doesn't strike as terribly ridiculous.

 

[D Halas]

I see a taxonomic elevation as much more a byproduct of conservation interest, than an effective method to increase practical conservation. This is especially clear if we look at charismatic mammals like subspecies of tigers or leopards.

Recent genetic studies have in fact lumped the nine tiger subspecies previously recognized on morphological grounds into only two, one on the mainland and one on the Sunda Islands, so that example actually supports the opposite argument to the one you're making.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

Making a subspecies into a pseudo-species jumps the queue to the Noahs Ark, figuratively speaking, wasting effort and funds on less distinct rather than more distinct forms.

I think this argument is false. Species are allocated an IUCN classification. A least concern 'psuedo-species' would not jump the queue to the Noah's arc, but a critically endangered 'pseudo-species' may get more attention than a near-threatened 'true' species (disregarding how one may define or quantify a 'pseudo' and 'true' species, 'less distinct', 'more distinct' etc). The IUCN classification should be the driver for conservation priorities and not necessarily the fact that it is species. Unfortunately IUCN status is only currently provided for bird species, hence critically endangered subspecies are generally left out of the arc altogether. Study of distinctive subspecies to determine if they are in fact species is therefore important

So the Barusan Shama was protected primarily because it is a well-singing songbird in a country of avid cagebird keepers, not so much because it was turned into a species

Not so. None of the main taxonomies treat it as a species. It is a rare case of protection of a subspecies that is clearly on the brink of extinction.

It dawned on me that why do you think that species decisions were previously made on rational and reasonable ground, but that splits are now on tenuous grounds. Were taxonomists somehow previous empowered with some ability to divine and separate species from subspecies which how now been lost - and all this prior to the potentially revealing science of DNA? It has been argued in this thread that species definition is rather arbitrary. If this is true then hasn't this always been the case - and then isn't every list past, present, or future marred by arbitrary decisions, with every list already containing psuedo-species potentially jumping the queue to the arc? The argument against splitting (or lumping) is then less about standards and getting it right, and more about objection to change.

I suppose that the other option would be to believe in some conspiracy that standards are being lowered, but I am not one for conspiracies, particularly without obvious motive - I can't believe that there are an evil group of taxonomists, gleeful that they are bringing confusion to our life lists. You could argue that scientists are seeking glory by proposing unmerited splits, but then taxonomic panels are the judge and jury, assessing the validity of the science. The taxonomists do not share the glory - they are not named as the 'Authority/Discoverer' - so I cannot see why they would be in on the act.

The opposite is true in Europe, especially the notorious Dutch Birding Association.

I think this is mixing principles. The Dutch Birding Association taxonomy states it is 'based on the principles of phylogenetic theory and methodology. A phylogenetic approach to species-level taxa is adopted. In contrast to the 'Biological Species Concept'' I think it is fair to say that you can't compare lists that are based on different species concepts, or really be surprised or annoyed when different concepts create different results.

As stated previously, I would prefer that local lists didn't exist and that a single global taxonomy was adopted. I think it would bring obvious advantages - but if the Dutch are happy with their adopted philosophy and their list, it is a free world.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

But compared to the almost annual deluge of theoretical papers rehashing species concepts, subspecies are barely discussed

Do you mean species concepts (e.g. BSC, PSC etc) or papers proposing new species?

As part of work to create a database, I mapped the three current world taxonomies for birds (IoC, Clements and BirdLife, and I can say that for most differences this is relatively straightforward - a subspecies or group of subspecies maps to a species in another list. On this basis, I would say the subspecies are being recognized, 'discussed', and then promoted or demoted by particular authorities. There are relatively few cases where you cannot map species in lists, and this is generally for either long extinct taxa (some lists exclude these) or newly described forms, where I think the issue is one of catch-up (e.g. it took Birdlife until last year to recognise Blue-throated Hillstar, so 4 years after discovery - Clements and IOC recognised it two years earlier).

If you are only looking strictly at subspecies, then mapping is harder, as less distinct subspecies are often merged in another list - this relates to the issue you mention about lack of definition. The result is that the mapping is then a many to one relationship. Some subspecies are also simply not recognised, generally on the basis of lack of information (e.g. single specimen from unknown place etc.), so can't be mapped. That said the three main up to date global lists agree totally at species and subspecies level for 8034 species! (about 75% of the total). This suggests that subspecies are not quite as poorly defined as you suggest.

What is not apparent to me, is whether researchers are targeting distinctive and isolated subspecies for potential elevation to species level, targeting areas of high biodiversity and species divergence, or studying the familiar. Perhaps a mix of all three.

I think in the UK (at least some) birders are quite pro subspecies, and would get excited about finding a Black Brant, Steppe Grey Shrike, Mandt's Black Guillemot, Iberian Wagtail etc, despite the fact that according to IoC these are untickable.