New unified list of birds - Avilist (2 Viewers)

[Earnest lad]

I have heard about the prospective new list and would like to enquire please as follows:
1. When is it due out
2. Will the other lists eg IOC, HBW, Clements; etc be discontinued
3. Will there be a free download eg a spreadsheet.
4. Will most birders abandon the old authorities aforementioned and move over to the new list

Many thanks

 

[Mono]

Can't help with any of the questions but these endeavours always remind me of this XKCD strip...

 

[TicoTyler]

There's always a relevant XKCD.

 

[kweetal]

Quoting from Taxonomy - BirdLife Data Zone as of 2024.11.28 (i.e., from HBW / BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist v9.0):

I have heard about the prospective new list and would like to enquire please as follows:
1. When is it due out

"This new checklist, called AviList, will be published early in 2025."

2. Will the other lists eg IOC, HBW, Clements; etc be discontinued

"Over the next few years, BirdLife, along with Cornell and others, will be aligning fully with AviList" --- Once lists are /really/ identical it wouldn't make sense to have several sources.

3. Will there be a free download eg a spreadsheet.

"BirdLife will continue to make the list of bird species assessed in each annual Red List update available in spreadsheet format."

4. Will most birders abandon the old authorities aforementioned and move over to the new list

I think so. It depends on how far the unification succeeds, I suppose. There may be some pockets of resistance.

 

[TicoTyler]

Quoting from Taxonomy - BirdLife Data Zone as of 2024.11.28 (i.e., from HBW / BirdLife Taxonomic Checklist v9.0):


"This new checklist, called AviList, will be published early in 2025."

"Over the next few years, BirdLife, along with Cornell and others, will be aligning fully with AviList" --- Once lists are /really/ identical it wouldn't make sense to have several sources.

"BirdLife will continue to make the list of bird species assessed in each annual Red List update available in spreadsheet format."

I think so. It depends on how far the unification succeeds, I suppose. There may be some pockets of resistance.

I could definitely see BN4B generating those pockets of resistance. We already have SACC being part of WCAG and splitting from the AOS specifically due to disagreements over BN4B and I'm not sure how other non US-based authorities are feeling on the subject. Although at least in those cases the disagreements should be semantic rather than systematic.

 

[kweetal]

disagreements semantic rather than systematic.

Yeah. I'd say these good old quabbles over vernacular names are unimportant, at least compared to systematic delineation of taxa.

 

[jts1882]

The current situation with competing lists is good, as you get alternative points of view, some debate between splitters and lumpers, and those with different emphasis on genetic, morphological and behavioural data. The reconciliation is also good as the differences get debated and minimised. Both processes are beneficial.

Going forwards, the alternative lists could adopt the commonly agreed list but continue to propose changes independently. Alternatively the WCAG could increasingly rely on regional authorities (e.g. SACC), although then different points of view might be more difficult

 

[Kirk Roth]

I could definitely see BN4B generating those pockets of resistance. We already have SACC being part of WCAG and splitting from the AOS specifically due to disagreements over BN4B and I'm not sure how other non US-based authorities are feeling on the subject. Although at least in those cases the disagreements should be semantic rather than systematic.

Herring Gulls, though... I think the systematic disagreements have already started.

 

[Mysticete]

I have heard about the prospective new list and would like to enquire please as follows:
1. When is it due out
2. Will the other lists eg IOC, HBW, Clements; etc be discontinued
3. Will there be a free download eg a spreadsheet.
4. Will most birders abandon the old authorities aforementioned and move over to the new list

Many thanks

A lot of these, other than 1, we don't really know the answer for, so this is at least somewhat speculative

2: No. Birdlife and Clements both serve different purposes, Birdlife being focused on conservation and Clements being used for ebird. Howard and Moore are not even formerly part of the process, so they will continue to do there own thing, as will AOS at least and possibly other regional committees. IOC might be the list most likely to be redundant, but I have heard no move on discontinuing the list. The big difference is that they will generally agree on taxonomic questions.

3. I would presume so

4. Who knows. Unless folks go rogue I assume most birders will probably follow along, because they mostly just will keep using whatever they have always used, or whatever ebird follows.

 

[Jon.Bryant]

I am now even more perplexed. The latest Birdguides magazine has an article saying what is and isn't in Avilist, but as I don't think it has been published, how do they know - do they have an inside source? Also, if Birdquides are correct, I am surprised that IOC isn't already aligned with the coming publication (as they seem to be leading the way) - an example that springs to mind is the mooted lumping of Green-wined and Eurasian Teal - IOC list them as separated species and a future lump is not even mentioned in the draft 15.1 list.

Does anyone know where information on what is in and out of AviList may have come from?

While on the issue of the AviList, the following BirdLife Statement is interesting. In previous correspondence I had with them, they were not committed to aligning their list with the (now called) Avilist, so this commitment is a major plus from the WGAC.

'Over the next few years, BirdLife, along with Cornell and others, will be aligning fully with AviList (i.e. using it as the taxonomic basis for our work) so that in future the species displayed in Birds of the World (and used in eBird) will largely match those on the BirdLife DataZone and the IUCN Red List. However, this alignment will take some time because every taxonomic change requires considerable further work, particularly in assessing the IUCN Red List status of newly ‘split’, ‘lumped’ or revised species. BirdLife will continue to make the list of bird species assessed in each annual Red List update available in spreadsheet format.'

...as highlighted it is perhaps a bit odd to say it 'will be aligned', but will only 'largely match'.... it is either aligned or it isn't! Or perhaps they are just referring to the fact that time frames will prevent BoW and BirdLife Taxonomic List (and Datazone) from being perfectly up to date and synced as all times.

If we do reach perfect alignment with Clements, IOC and BirdLife in due course, I personally think it will be a major achievement. BirdLife has previously advised me that there is a question as to what will happen to the individual lists if alignment is achieved.... it is already recognized that it would be a needless administrative burden for IOC, Clements and BirdLife to keep updating and publishing their lists, if this ends up just repeating the published AviList. It is also hoped that AviList will eventually have far more information other lists, so why have the definitive references, and also have some less definitive copies?

To me the eventually scrapping of IOC, BirdLife and Clements taxonomies would be the perfect solution... the production of AviList negates the need for separate IOC, BirdLife and Clements lists, which in time cease to exist. If birdwatchers and ornithologists are not given a choice, then everything ornithological has to be aligned! And if we all use Birdtrack, EBird etc. which in turn are based on the same list, then regional authorities like the NACC and SACC will need to like it and lump it! Sorry, but as I have said many time on this forum, the definition of a species is woolly, and no authority will be 100% right - but having one truth will resolve a lot of confusion, and one authorities truth is as good as another (especially if the new truth is a bringing together of taxonomic opinion through the WGAC)!

 

[James Lowther]

There is a huge amount of information on this in the IOC thread, you should read that. Harmonisation is still a work in progress however WGAC decisions on all taxa were provisionally released on the avibase website (they have now disappeared) so we have an idea of the endpoint.
So for GWT the lump has not been announced by IOC but we believe it is coming down the track, no idea whether Birdguides have an inside track or not

Cheers
James

 

[njlarsen]

The ebird checklist contains rows specifically aimed at the function as a listing app, for example containing spuhs and slashes (where an observation is good enough to say this was a Giant Petrel but not positively say northern vs southern, or a male martin could be either purple or Cuban, just to mention two examples). Therefore, the ebird checklist will need to continue to exist, even if the level of what is a species becomes identical to the published avilist.
Niels

 

[Paul Chapman]

There is a huge amount of information on this in the IOC thread, you should read that. Harmonisation is still a work in progress however WGAC decisions on all taxa were provisionally released on the avibase website (they have now disappeared) so we have an idea of the endpoint.
So for GWT the lump has not been announced by IOC but we believe it is coming down the track, no idea whether Birdguides have an inside track or not

Cheers
James

In general, organisations are made up of people & birders are made up of people. Sometimes indeed, they are the same people & they talk to each other either in person when they come into contact with other birders or virtually. There is a lot of quiet time on trips & twitches or between good birds turning up.

On Green-winged Teal, it is understood that there was a vote which originally was in favour of a continued split but that was re-tabled following the paper relating to gene flow across the Bering Strait & the unanimous vote by NACC not to split them. The second vote ended up with a lump.

Having worked in professional areas that do require a degree of secrecy, in areas like this & record consideration, I think that openness over both processes & outcomes are really positive as they improve processes & correct outcomes more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

Generally, I have found people to embrace that & respond to questions like - what is happening on ....? 👍

All the best

Paul

 

[Paul Chapman]

The ebird checklist contains rows specifically aimed at the function as a listing app, for example containing spuhs and slashes (where an observation is good enough to say this was a Giant Petrel but not positively say northern vs southern, or a male martin could be either purple or Cuban, just to mention two examples). Therefore, the ebird checklist will need to continue to exist, even if the level of what is a species becomes identical to the published avilist.
Niels

Can you download your data to subspecific level where you have recorded that? I am being lazy. I should play around a bit to find out.

Many thanks

Paul

 

[njlarsen]

Can you download your data to subspecific level where you have recorded that? I am being lazy. I should play around a bit to find out.

Many thanks

Paul

To be honest, I don't know.
Niels Larsen

 

[Paul Chapman]

To be honest, I don't know.
Niels Larsen

I will have a play. 👍

 

[Paul Clapham]

Can you download your data to subspecific level where you have recorded that? I am being lazy. I should play around a bit to find out.

Short answer: no. Long answer: you can use "subspecific groups", which are supposed to be recognizable forms of a particular species.

For example Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris (as eBird calls it) has 41 named subspecies. People are unlikely to be able to recognize all of those in the field and attempts to do so would just muddy the waters. However they have collected those 41 into 11 named groups, which you could conceivably (depending on skill level) identify in the field. That's likely what you have recorded anyway.

You can download one of the checklist spreadsheets from here: 2024 Citation & Checklist Downloads – Clements Checklist and look through it for the subspecies you had in mind.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Short answer: no. Long answer: you can use "subspecific groups", which are supposed to be recognizable forms of a particular species.

For example Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris (as eBird calls it) has 41 named subspecies. People are unlikely to be able to recognize all of those in the field and attempts to do so would just muddy the waters. However they have collected those 41 into 11 named groups, which you could conceivably (depending on skill level) identify in the field. That's likely what you have recorded anyway.

You can download one of the checklist spreadsheets from here: 2024 Citation & Checklist Downloads – Clements Checklist and look through it for the subspecies you had in mind.

Many thanks. I was rather referring to the data that I had entered to subspecies grouping. I can see it if I go through my records of each species but I wondered if there was a shorthand route to check what Ashy Drongo subspecies groups I had recorded or Blue Rock Thrush etc.

All the best

Paul

 

[njlarsen]

Many thanks. I was rather referring to the data that I had entered to subspecies grouping. I can see it if I go through my records of each species but I wondered if there was a shorthand route to check what Ashy Drongo subspecies groups I had recorded or Blue Rock Thrush etc.

All the best

Paul

Use the functionality of downloading all your observations, which comes in a spreadsheet. Once you have it, expand column C to show the full length. Then you can see those cases where you added this information. If you did not add the information at the time of recording the observation, then the column will only show the scientific binomial.
Niels

 

[Mysticete]

I am now even more perplexed. The latest Birdguides magazine has an article saying what is and isn't in Avilist, but as I don't think it has been published, how do they know - do they have an inside source? Also, if Birdquides are correct, I am surprised that IOC isn't already aligned with the coming publication (as they seem to be leading the way) - an example that springs to mind is the mooted lumping of Green-wined and Eurasian Teal - IOC list them as separated species and a future lump is not even mentioned in the draft 15.1 list.

Does anyone know where information on what is in and out of AviList may have come from?

While on the issue of the AviList, the following BirdLife Statement is interesting. In previous correspondence I had with them, they were not committed to aligning their list with the (now called) Avilist, so this commitment is a major plus from the WGAC.

'Over the next few years, BirdLife, along with Cornell and others, will be aligning fully with AviList (i.e. using it as the taxonomic basis for our work) so that in future the species displayed in Birds of the World (and used in eBird) will largely match those on the BirdLife DataZone and the IUCN Red List. However, this alignment will take some time because every taxonomic change requires considerable further work, particularly in assessing the IUCN Red List status of newly ‘split’, ‘lumped’ or revised species. BirdLife will continue to make the list of bird species assessed in each annual Red List update available in spreadsheet format.'

...as highlighted it is perhaps a bit odd to say it 'will be aligned', but will only 'largely match'.... it is either aligned or it isn't! Or perhaps they are just referring to the fact that time frames will prevent BoW and BirdLife Taxonomic List (and Datazone) from being perfectly up to date and synced as all times.

If we do reach perfect alignment with Clements, IOC and BirdLife in due course, I personally think it will be a major achievement. BirdLife has previously advised me that there is a question as to what will happen to the individual lists if alignment is achieved.... it is already recognized that it would be a needless administrative burden for IOC, Clements and BirdLife to keep updating and publishing their lists, if this ends up just repeating the published AviList. It is also hoped that AviList will eventually have far more information other lists, so why have the definitive references, and also have some less definitive copies?

To me the eventually scrapping of IOC, BirdLife and Clements taxonomies would be the perfect solution... the production of AviList negates the need for separate IOC, BirdLife and Clements lists, which in time cease to exist. If birdwatchers and ornithologists are not given a choice, then everything ornithological has to be aligned! And if we all use Birdtrack, EBird etc. which in turn are based on the same list, then regional authorities like the NACC and SACC will need to like it and lump it! Sorry, but as I have said many time on this forum, the definition of a species is woolly, and no authority will be 100% right - but having one truth will resolve a lot of confusion, and one authorities truth is as good as another (especially if the new truth is a bringing together of taxonomic opinion through the WGAC)!

A few points I want to bring up.
"Largely match" could refer to several things. One, because of the need to do conservation assessments, Birdlife will probably take longer to to change things, just because its more work for them then other checklists. Two, they will be aligned in scientific taxonomy, but there are areas not covered by that. For instance, I expect there will still be differences in common names, as Avilist, at least as originally described, was going to list multiple names. It could also represent differences in presentation, for instance if Avilist uses subspecies groups and Birdlife continues to not do so. So it's a vague enough phrase that could refer to multiple things

Second, as I mentioned above in another comment, I don't see clements and birdlife lists going away, as I think they have purposes each is suited before, namely organizing ebird and having a convenient list to refer to status updates and changes. For those reasons I don't think maintenance of those lists is much of an extra burden. NACC and SACC certainly are not going to give up the ghost, nor do I see them passively caving to any change made in Avilist.