IOC British list
Obvious question, will we be able to transfer our British list to the new adapted version very soon?
BOURC have announced that the changes of the taxonomic treatment of the British list to follow IOC won't take effect until 1st Jan 2018. So we'll update the list at that point.
Sorry hadn't appreciated that.
Sorry to hassle.
Kind regards, Nick
Could you confirm what effect the changes you will be making to your British List on 1/1/18 will have on previous years' lists on your site. For example, I currently have Hudsonian whimbrel on my 2015 year list, as it was countable under the taxonomy in use in 2015. Will it self destruct from this list on 1/1/18 or will it remain?
I'm afraid it will 'destruct'! Unless IOC changes its mind by next January of course.
So far as I can see, if nothing changes in next 12 months, the changes for British listers are as follows:
Split of Bean Goose into Tundra/Taiga
Loss of Fea's Petrel (following split with Desertas Petrel, not identifiable in the field yet???)
Lump of Hudsonian Whimbrel
Split of Thayer's Gull
Split of Least Tern
Split of Turkestan/Daurian (i.e. Isabelline) Shrike
Split of Two-barred Greenish Warbler
Split of Stejneger's Stonechat
Split of Eastern Yellow Wagtail
Lump of Lesser and Common/Mealy Redpoll
So a net gain of 4. If anyone else spots anything I've missed, please let me know.
This seems a little odd to me. After the offside rule was introduced in football in 1891, no-one went back and looked at the 1890 FA cup matches and changed the results because the goals would be offside under the new rules. No one suggests stripping Torville and Dean of their 1984 ice dance gold because the dance included lifts ovewr the head, which have since been forbidden. In every other sport, results are judged by the rules in force at the time of the competition; why make an exception for twitching? Surely for Year Listing, the birds countable should be according to the list in force at the time.
The American position accords with mine; the ABA rules are quite clear on the subject ( listing.aba.org/big-year-rules/ ). No American birders would have dreamed of dragging out previous Big Year lists when the Times Square Ball fell at midnight on 1/1/17 and starting to shove Hawaiian birds on it...
A very valid point and elegantly put Elizabeth.
Sorry if it'll cause you problems. But that's the way it works - all lists refer to an underlying master list in the database. If that changes, they all have to as a result. Just the way it works.
Perhaps the BOU list could be kept as an option within your lists, but closed to amendments/additions from the point it is replaced?
Would that appease people?
Personally it doesn't bother me, the new adopted list could have been a far worse one in my eyes, and I think in the eyes of most birders. I think the most painful split is Desertas and Fea's Petrel to species, as people cannot say which they have seen. Ouch! My sympathies.
As Andy mentioned, the underlying base list when taxonomic updates are processed will apply to all existing lists. This is the way it has always worked, e.g. when we update IOC or Clements you get prompted to review all existing lists you have using that taxonomy, whether a current life list or an old year list. Whilst we could consider doing something different in this case, it would be inconsistent and require development effort, for which we don't really have available time.
The new list doesn't come into effect until 2018, so we won't be making any changes until the end of this year.
-- Mike --
Want a signature like this?
Thank you, Andy and Mike (you guys are doing a fine job by the way), for further clarification on this matter. I understand and appreciate some of the technical limitations and constraints of databases here on BuboListing. I was merely supporting, in my previous posting, the rationale that Elizabeth Watts expressed, from an academic standpoint.
Of course I don't know exactly how it works, but according to what you have said, would this not be a possible solution?
You could perhaps leave BOU as an Authority that can be selected for year lists up to 2017, and leave it as it currently stands, making no future updates to the species on the List.
Since, to all intents and purposes, BOU will no longer exist as a separate Authority, you could then not include it as an option to choose for 2018 Year Lists and subsequent years; allow only IOC and UK400 as options to pick from. The current year lists would stay unaltered, but all new ones would be under the new rules.
Wouldn't that work, and require minimum or practically nil development time (just defining the accepted Authorities when you open the 2018 Year List category)?
It could work, but I have to say I'm a little confused what the problem is here. Every year, BOURC has announced some changes and every year we've implemented them in BUBO. There's never been any suggestions that we should keep the BOU 2013, 2014, 2015, etc lists in perpetuity, for example.
Next year, there will still be a BOURC list. It will have some splits and lumps as usual, and the odd new species (e.g. presumably Siberian Accentor!) will have been added. We'll implement these changes too.
There will be no change over what's always happened. There will still be a BOURC list. The only difference is around the group of people whose advice BOURC follows on splits and lumps.
Sorry if I'm missing something.
Andy, if you get a chance, the UK400 Club list requires updating. I believe I emailed you or Mike with the most recent December 2016 edition. Very best wishes, Lee
Thanks Lee. Could you send again, I don't seem to have it. I'll try to get any updates sorted soon for you