|
For about 50 years we had a stable list that everyone understood. In the last 5 years we seem to have fallen under the dictat of a small number of taxonomists who think they know where species should be in a list. I say think because no one actually knows or there would be no need to constantly fiddle with lists and disturb the status quo. Surely the main purpose of a list is to be easily understood and remembered in order for the majority of people to be able to quickly locate what they are looking for not for an incredibly small minority of people to mess around with for no actual useful purpose. For my part if I am researching a species like Kestrel in 40 years of bird reports I need to know its near other raptors but if it moves more than a few times in those 40 years it is easy to overlook records, ok not with Kestrel, but with something that may not occur every year. I have long held the opinion, totally non scientific, that at some future time people will realise that taxonomy based on DNA is simply incorrect; the rush by organisations to simply adopt taxonomic recomendations without question seems totally at odds with the behaviour of the other part of the BOURC in relation to the occurrence of some extralimital species in Britain.
Rant over for my part my lists will remain in the same order they were in 2000!
In essence what I was trying to say late a night was that birds have not changed in the last 70 years, or at least very little, evolution is not that quick; what is changing is a list that a small minority of human beings have created; now my opinion of this list was that its purpose was to produce a standardised order that would be familiar to and used by people all around the world to avoid confusion in giving a species different bird names etc; what we have now is a seemingly over-frequent tinkering with the order to satisfy the PHD's or academic status of a few people while confusing the majority.
On a personal basis a quick example; I produce annual reports for certain clients -- these people do not know a Hobby from a Gadwall BUT what they do know is where the species is in the list every year for their reference; shift Hobby somewhere else in the list and there is an obvious danger that they will assume the species was not recorded in that year; and to what end? Hobbies are still Hobbies their relationship with Swallows has not changed, they eat them;
I am no molecular scientist and fail to understand the finer details of the papers clarifying species limits and why some birds that look totally different can have a difference of 1 or less and yet species that are clearly much closer and interbreed freely are apparently split by 5 or more (excuse the lack of details!) simply because someone has come up with a theory based on chemical analysis rather than observable details in structure, plumage, behaviour and voice; it seems that findings are used to justify the results that have already been proposed rather than results reflecting known characteristics.
It is not that long since human beings thought male and female Hen Harriers were separate species and times do move on but is it not time to take stock and ask the majority what lists are used for ? maybe we should have a list for the purists who want to move things around at will and another for the people who use common sense and want a stable list that is transferable and memorable -- the content will be the same its just like shuffling a pack of cards and playing 52 card pick up
|
Login
FAQ
Search
