| The Lincolnshire Bird Club http://lbcarchive.co.uk/forum/ |
|
| Peregrine http://lbcarchive.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20549 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | John Clarkson [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:28 am ] |
| Post subject: | Peregrine |
This morning there is a Peregrine sitting on the spire of Louth St James Church, as there was yesterday morning. Whilst this is not of massive interest in itself it leads to an interesting discussion. If I were to walk round Louth and assemble a list of all the birds I see today I would later enter this list into BirdTrack as I did yesterday after I'd been looking for Lesser Spotted Woodpeckers in Legbourne Wood. I tried to tick Kestrel but couldn't find it; after searching I located it AFTER the woodpeckers and pigeons and away from other raptors. I reported this to Phil Espin who contacted Nick Moran at BTO. This was his response: Thank you for your email. Bad news I'm afraid - this 'oddity' of species ordering is because these are the latest BOU taxonomic recommendations. As I'm sure you're aware, whichever taxonomy one chooses to follow, there will always be changes as taxonomists discover previously unknown relationship between species / groups. We use the BOU taxonomy, hence are duty bound to incorporate these changes, however incongruous they feel from a birder's perspective. Two of my colleagues are preparing some online documentation to explain the updates. I have forwarded your message to them; hopefully they will be able to send you a link when these are in place and/or a sneak preview of the draft text. I hadn't realised that the changes had already been incorporated into BirdTrack so thanks for drawing this to my attention - that adds a certain urgency to us getting the supporting documentation in place. So falcons no longer birds of prey? Is this taxonomy gone mad? Maybe we should just present our reports in alphabetical order! John |
|
| Author: | Phil Espin [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 10:44 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Peregrine |
Are you sure it was sitting John? perhaps it was drumming or attempting to excavate a nest hole with its formidable stone chisel like beak? |
|
| Author: | John Clarkson [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 12:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Peregrine |
Indeed Phil for as Nick says: as taxonomists discover previously unknown relationship between species / groups Or perhaps the PE now realises how similar it is to the pigeons that inhabit the church? John |
|
| Author: | Andrew Henderson [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 5:53 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Peregrine |
John suggested "Maybe we should just present our reports in alphabetical order!". Well, you can do that by changing your settings in BirdTrack and amazingly enough don't even have to put up with Northern Lapwing, Eurasian Hobby and such stuff. Mind you, you'd also have to think alphabetically rather than in terms of similar species and I doubt I could manage that. I try to convince myself that there is a benefit from taxonomists keeping their publication rates up, and that is: when checking a report for a particular species, I can never find it straight away. As a result, I end up reading about other things and learn something new. Now, where's Starling these days... |
|
| Author: | Grahame Hopwood [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 8:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Peregrine |
To say that avian taxonomy in currently in flux might be an understatement but for those who are interested....... Recent molecular research most notably by Hackett et al 2008 has clarified that parrots are the closest living relatives to the passerines. Remarkably it has also been established that falcons are in fact sister taxa to parrots. Therefore the linear sequence has been altered to reflect this latest discovery and falcons and parrots are now placed between woodpeckers and passerines (Taxonomic recommendations for Western Palearctic; 9th report. Ibis (2013) 155, 898-907). Cheers Grahame |
|
| Author: | Graham Catley [ Fri Mar 21, 2014 11:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Peregrine |
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 |
|
| Author: | Stuart Britton [ Sat Mar 22, 2014 3:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Peregrine |
I know it's nearly 40 years old but nearly everyone is familiar with Voous order. Why not stick to that until the taxonomists produce another fully updated comprehensive list for the next forty years? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|