Number of bird species and genera in different taxonomies? (2 Viewers)

[jurek]

Hello, I am looking for a list with total numbers of bird species, genera and higher taxonomic units recognized by different authors and authorities over the years. Especially more extreme - there were 'lumped' taxonomies with ca 8000 and 'splitted' taxonomies with over 20000 bird species recognized.

 

[THE_FERN]

Hello, I am looking for a list with total numbers of bird species, genera and higher taxonomic units recognized by different authors and authorities over the years. Especially more extreme - there were 'lumped' taxonomies with ca 8000 and 'splitted' taxonomies with over 20000 bird species recognized.

Obvious approach is to download some of the main list spreadsheets. Perhaps the concordance list (comparing about 4/5) would give you what you want. Then a bit of creative spreadsheet manipulation...

 

[jurek]

I am especially looking for one extreme lump approach and one extreme split approach. Perhaps not many versions differing by some species only.

 

[THE_FERN]

The biggest splitter is ioc, perhaps hbw. The biggest lumper Howard and Moore afaik

 

[Mysticete]

If we are talking about mainstream regularly updated lists, then Birdlife/HBW traditionally were the biggest splitters, while Howard and Moore is the biggest lumper. However for the latter, part of that might be the fact that the list until recently hasn't been updated on a annual basis, so it lagged behind. If we are talking about a list which has had constant near annual updates, than Clements would be the most conservative.

I'd actually consider IOC to be sort of right smack in the middle.

 

[l_raty]

Mayr 1946 came up with a total of 8616 species. I don't think the total in the 1st ed of H&M (1980) was much higher than this. (But please don't ask me to count. The foreword alludes to "some 8500 species".)
For a real large list, you'd need a world list applying the PSC... But I'm not sure such a list has ever actually been published.

 

[njlarsen]

I am especially looking for one extreme lump approach and one extreme split approach. Perhaps not many versions differing by some species only.

I do not know if there is an easily available list in a spreadsheet, but the most recent extreme lumping would likely be the Peter's checklist which may have come out in the 1930ties if I recall correctly? (edit, Laurent just pointed to Mayr 1946 ...)

I have not compared, but is taxonomy in flux more split friendly than the major lists? Otherwise, the last list from Birdlife before the WGAC might be the most split friendly out there.
Niels

 

[James Lowther]

If we are talking about mainstream regularly updated lists, then Birdlife/HBW traditionally were the biggest splitters, while Howard and Moore is the biggest lumper. However for the latter, part of that might be the fact that the list until recently hasn't been updated on a annual basis, so it lagged behind. If we are talking about a list which has had constant near annual updates, than Clements would be the most conservative.

I'd actually consider IOC to be sort of right smack in the middle.

I don’t think Jurek is after a comparison of modern lists, more historical ones.

However, based on my experience of figuring out my own list under multiple taxonomies I think the lower number of total species in the H&M list is genuinely reflective of a more conservative approach than simply the fact it is infrequently updated. Even when v4 was brand new it contained fewer species than the other lists. Also the number of species in IOC is somewhat greater than in Birdlife. A lot of splits are unique to Birdlife but it also lumps an awful lot of things compared with IOC and Clements and even frequently compared to H&M. It is overall the most divergent of the 4 lists I would say.

Ignoring the recent WGAC related harmonisation drive, IOC has been the most split-happy checklist overall.

Cheers
James

 

[Mysticete]

TIF is definitely split friendly...there are multiple species split by that list not recognized by others

 

[THE_FERN]

Ze problem is of course to compare like with like. Different update cycles mean this is a bit more difficult than it may at first appear. The very early lists probably don't count because of all the new taxa and information we've discovered. You can't readily take what we know know now and say how (eg) Peters would treat it

And btw TIF rules...

 

[njlarsen]

Ze problem is of course to compare like with like. Different update cycles mean this is a bit more difficult than it may at first appear. The very early lists probably don't count because of all the new taxa and information we've discovered. You can't readily take what we know know now and say how (eg) Peters would treat it

And btw TIF rules...

While I partly agree I also want to comment. We cannot know how a person would change their philosophy (in this case especially regarding what constitutes a species) with time and additional data, but I think we can have an idea of the consequences of the then prevalent species concept by comparing the same taxons in current versus 100 year old lists. I strongly believe that the then prevalent species concepts were more towards lumping than those we see applied today.

Niels

 

[Mysticete]

While I partly agree I also want to comment. We cannot know how a person would change their philosophy (in this case especially regarding what constitutes a species) with time and additional data, but I think we can have an idea of the consequences of the then prevalent species concept by comparing the same taxons in current versus 100 year old lists. I strongly believe that the then prevalent species concepts were more towards lumping than those we see applied today.

Niels

BUT...would those classification philosophies even exist if they had access to the types of data they have now? I don't think you can divorce species concepts and philosophies from the amount and types of data that exist today. I doubt Peters would have been such a lumper if he was alive today, in a era of genetic analysis and large datasets of morphological and vocal data.

 

[njlarsen]

BUT...would those classification philosophies even exist if they had access to the types of data they have now? I don't think you can divorce species concepts and philosophies from the amount and types of data that exist today. I doubt Peters would have been such a lumper if he was alive today, in an era of genetic analysis and large datasets of morphological and vocal data.

But that was not the question Jurek asked. He asked what a list would look like made by an extreme lumper. An extreme lumper would apply a concept similar to what was used then, irrespective of whether the people who applied it then would still do so today given the additional data. At least that’s my interpretation of the question.

None of this should be misinterpreted to say I think the concept applied back then would be correct. But I think Jurek can see through that.
Niels

 

[jts1882]

Avibase must have this information. It has over 200 versions of checklists from over 20 authorities (e..g. 51 IOC, 21 Birdlife, 29 Clements). You can compare any two checklists/versions, but I can't see a way of getting simple total numbers of species.

 

[jurek]

Avibase seems to have a technical glitch. When I try downloading Howard and Moore list of the world, it downloads the list of the 'world oceans'. Anybody knows how to go around it?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

IOC has a comparative multilist sheet 🤨

 

[THE_FERN]

Avibase seems to have a technical glitch. When I try downloading Howard and Moore list of the world, it downloads the list of the 'world oceans'. Anybody knows how to go around it?

I didn't think Howard and Moore was available in electronic form?

 

[Paul Clapham]

Avibase seems to have a technical glitch. When I try downloading Howard and Moore list of the world, it downloads the list of the 'world oceans'. Anybody knows how to go around it?

You are doing this from the Checklists page? There is no "World checklist" available from there; notice that there is no number of species at the right-hand of that line. You want to download the H&M taxonomy, not checklist, but I don't think you can do that either.

 

[Paul Clapham]

I didn't think Howard and Moore was available in electronic form?

If you bought the books, they came with a CD in the back.

 

[Andy Adcock]

If we are talking about mainstream regularly updated lists, then Birdlife/HBW traditionally were the biggest splitters, while Howard and Moore is the biggest lumper. However for the latter, part of that might be the fact that the list until recently hasn't been updated on a annual basis, so it lagged behind. If we are talking about a list which has had constant near annual updates, than Clements would be the most conservative.

I'd actually consider IOC to be sort of right smack in the middle.

Agree but several of their decisions were pretty, quickly reversed.