Agree totally John. Good point about lists, you'd spend more time going through old lists updating splits and lumps from different countries (if you had country lists which I don't!!) and it would take up valuable birding time !! Agree too that's it's all man-made, and who's to say the people who decide are correct. As long as we aren't entering into formal contests against others then who cares what we count, I tend not to follow convention anyway
For a hobby, I keep a UK list & a world list, though I'm not sure precisely what the tallies are at the moment. My UK list likely has some dodgy stuff on it, and my world list is out of date with all the splits & lumps - it's hard to keep up. It doesn't really matter, I don't compare the lists with anyone, it's just a nice objective for any trips
Putting my tattered old scientist's (not biology) hat on, I don't have much confidence in the conventional approach to defining a species. The Linnaean system is a little too structured for my liking: Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Then there are Subclasses, subfamilies, subspecies, etc, etc. It doesn't really reflect how evolution is taking place. In fact, a given taxon has a period where it splits into 2 smaller taxa. Nature doesn't know about our curious naming systems
For example, look at the Yellow/Citrine Wagtail group. Currently 3 species (Western Yellow, Eastern Yellow, Citrine). Many subspecies, some quite similar, some farther apart. At what point in evolution did Blue-Headed Wagtail (flava) become a different ssp from Yellow-Crowned Wagtail (the proper name for the British ssp) ? At the time, it was a "work in progress" - as exemplified by "Channel Wagtail", which isn't (yet) considered more than a hybrid
Similarly, consider the Chiffy. Iberian (ibericus) has a slightly greater distinction from our Chiffchaff (collybita) than does Siberian (tristis), so it's a different species rather than subspecies. Maybe its DNA is 2.1% different rather than just 1.9% different
I hope I'm explaining my thoughts clearly. If I'm not, I'm sure Doc will shoot me down
PS, Wikipedia says "there are at least 26 recognized species concepts"
-- Edited by John Watson on Saturday 29th of August 2020 11:47:27 AM
The Siberian Chiffchaff I thought was a separate species to Chiffchaff, and had been considered so for some time, but it seems unclear depending which guide you read.
-- Edited by Rob Creek on Saturday 29th of August 2020 08:31:59 AM
Iberian Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus ibericus) is a seperate species, designated by the binomial scientific name, Siberian Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita tristis) only differs from Common Chiffchaff (Phylloscopus collybita collybita) in the trinomial, therefore a subspecies rather than a species, as treated by BOURC as of now!! Who knows what the future may bring, but as you do Rob, I note ALL birds that are identifiable, Siberian Chiffchaffs, Blue-headed Wagtail, White Wagtail etc, always good to actually note what you've seen. I'm a scientist by training and it's good science to do that.
I say it to all our customers who ask what they can count - it's our hobby, it's personal, we can count what we like, the main thing is to enjoy the birds. Birds sometimes get split, lumped and then re-split (Greenish warbler complex!), so I may my own mind up rather than playing totally by the rules of Listing authorities, again agreeing with Rob, they make their decisions and we make ours - like having Hudsonian Whimbrel written in our notebooks!! (I saw the Cornwall bird too ).
-- Edited by Doc Brewster on Saturday 29th of August 2020 09:35:14 AM
Doesnt really affect me when they do all this splitting and lumping as I dont do listing, but I can totally see where you are both coming from regarding why some are split and others arent etc.
March 2017 I was in Cornwall for a weekend with my best mate and another close pal. We were in the area and I talked them into a brief visit to Perranuthnoe Boat Cove, not too far from Marazion. The Hudsonian Whimbrel hadnt been seen for some days but I thought - while youre here give it a shot at least. Well hardly a soul around and not the easiest of coves to scan, shed loads of rocks and pools, large nooks and crannies, you get the picture! I was on the verge of walking back to the car giving it up as a bad job when movement on a batch of rocks caught my eye. Found it! Instantly identifiable, having a gorgeous bright cinnamon colour to its breast and underparts and the lack of white to the rump when it flitted between the rocks. Being so different in plumage and geographical distribution to Eurasian Whimbrel, this is one I have to ask... why was it lumped? Purely a DNA indifference to Eurasian Whimbrel?
The Redpoll complex is another one that I think (and it is only my view) there are significant differences between Flammea and Rostrata, and between the Arctic Redpolls...Hornemanni and Exilipes.
The Siberian Chiffchaff I thought was a separate species to Chiffchaff, and had been considered so for some time, but it seems unclear depending which guide you read.
-- Edited by Rob Creek on Saturday 29th of August 2020 08:31:59 AM
I think I tend to agree Mike. There are undoubtedly cases where splitting a species is warranted, but it seems that these days everything is up for a split! But, by the same token some of the lumping seems equally as nonsensical. Maybe I'm being a bit biased, but I can understand where a 'species' clearly shows differences that are obvious in the field is then split into two or more species when the science backs it up - Redpoll complex for eg. But some of the other splits based on e.g DNA sequencing where the differences are almost indistinguishable in the field seem a bit over-kill. Scientifically accurate maybe, but little use to birders, and as you say, blurs the lines between races/clines/sub species etc etc, and often the logic makes little or no sense to me at least. One of the most underwhelming 'ticks' I've had recently was Siberian Chiffchaff last year. As I understand it, not a full species yet, but as different in call and looks from a common chiffchaff as it was from a willow warbler. Compared with say, the Eastern Black-eared Wheatear on the Fylde last year, where the defining feature turned out to be the base of a feather that could only be seen in the hand or by a blown up digital photo conveniently catching said feature (and apparently DNA is useless at confirming its true identity) but that has specific status I believe?
I guess it comes down to how important a bird is for a list. If you're a big lister the more ticks the better, especially if they are of the armchair variety.
-- Edited by Craig Higson on Wednesday 26th of August 2020 07:51:16 PM
__________________
No one on their death bed ever said they wished they'd spent more time at work. http://bitsnbirds.blogspot.co.uk
Several weeks ago I received two e-mails in quick succession from a couple of my NE birding pals, (headlined rather in the manner we might expect from the Daily Express) to the effect that Rufous Antpitta had been split into no less than 12 species! One of them (Neil) announced that this had given him an armchair tick, and that of the other creations four were heard only notations; he also asked how this impacted on me. If this process were to carry on, he enthused, he might reach 6,000 without ever having to head off abroad again. He quipped also that a certain Peru based Scandinavian ground agent was already planning a tour to mop up all 12 species; - doubtless aimed at participants with more money than sense; - (I suspect that this was said in jest, but who knows these days)?
Does anyone else bemoan the seemingly relentless trend to promote subspecies to specific status, thus rendering fieldguides and all preceding literature instantly obsolete? Is this pseudo science becoming excessively refined to the point of being in fact pointless?
I contend that evolution does not proceed at a uniform pace and that for example within the subspecies of this particular group, some forms will be nearer specific status than others at any given time, and that to promote so many at one time is too broad brush an approach. Reading further and thumbing through HBW and Clements, I see that both these sources recognised 7 subspecies. Apparently the new splits are said to be for the most part visually indistinguishable, and mainly split on the basis of range and distinct differences in vocalisations. If that were a totally valid set of criteria for separation, how many species of humans could be defined? Imagine the absurdity (and controversy) inherent in such an enterprise!
After mentally parking this for a week or so, I checked up to see if I had ever seen Rufous Antpitta on my travels, and I was able to reply to Neil (almost with relief) that as I suspected, the split didnt impact on my life in the slightest as I had never set eyes on one, anywhere (though on good authority I had heard one in 2001 in Ecuador (now to be known as Equatorial Antpitta) along with another 7 species of Antpitta which I also heard but which refused to show). I did actually see 3 other species of Antpitta on my trip so did not feel totally cursed; - this of course being long before the current set up with feeding stations where sightings of the once impossible Giant Antpitta are now almost guaranteed. Neils response was that splitting was a plus factor in terms of identifying where to focus conservation efforts, but I regard that argument as being laudable, but politically based rather than science based.
Views anyone?
-- Edited by Mike Passant on Wednesday 26th of August 2020 04:29:19 PM
__________________
Challenges are inevitable, but failure is optional.
