IOC British list

HI,

Obvious question, will we be able to transfer our British list to the new adapted version very soon?

Thanks Andy

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?

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.

Jeremy Hurley.

Hi Andy,

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.

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.

Regards,

Jeremy Hurley.

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)?

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

With the new BOU/IC list I see that some birders are ticking off birds that have not been accepted by the BOU as a particular species.

For example, Turkestan Shrike. As far I am aware BOU are at present only allowing adults e.g. 3rd June 2003, Porlock Marsh, Somerset, e.g. July 1998, Cemlyn Bay. First-winters at the moment are not accepted.

For example, Daurian Shrike. As far I am aware BOU are at present only allowing adults e.g. Nene Washes Sept 2000. First-winters at the moment are not accepted.

For example, Eastern Yellow Wagtail are only accepted on DNA or voice analysis. For example, Colyford, Devon, Dec 2010 on DNA.

For example, the only accepted Indigo Bunting on the BOU list is the Ramsey Island. The 1988 Norfolk bird was not accepted on to Category A.

Since the inception of the newly adopted IOC taxonomy by the BOURC, there will be a number of pluses and minuses to sort with birders' personal lists and consciences.

With that issue in mind, I have reluctantly removed any representative of the formerly lumped Isabelline Shrike on my BOU list on the basis of the only two I have seen in Britain, i.e. two first-winter individuals encountered in my home county of Essex in October of 1988 and 2016, having not yet been attributed to contemporary species status.

Furthermore, with no other personal sightings of either Daurian or Turkestan Shrikes globally, a similarly applied discipline will impact as a "triple whammy", with commensurate removals on both my IOC and Clements world lists!

There appears to have been a ruthless revision by the BOURC of all previously accepted records by the British Birds Rarities Committee (BBRC) of both adult and first-winter individuals (even those trapped) that were considered to be either Daurian or Turkestan races at the time.

To date then, it appears the BOURC have not counted any "Isabelline Shrikes" to species level prior to 1995 and have cited just five accepted as Daurian and eight as Turkestan (A Checklist of Birds of Britain, 9th edition, Dec 2017).

It is hoped that, with the splitting of Isabelline Shrike, all previous records will be further scrutinised in an attempt to hone in to species status, although many may never be named with certainty. It is my own view, however, that the majority of first-winter "Isabelline Shrike" type individuals occurring in Britain are probably Daurian.

Steve

You do realise that you have done exactly that with Siberian Stonechat and included an individual not accepted to species by BBRC/BOURC?

Personally, I'll clearly mark my list so it can be analysed if others wish and follow the BOU taxonomy on a BOU list but I'll follow my own judgement on the identification of individuals to species. I no longer hold the BBRC in the same esteem as I did (and have found a couple of their recent published statements to be odd). They could have been far more proactive in the last year between announcement and adoption.

I certainly would not criticise individuals for following their own judgements on non-assigned Stonechats and Isabelline Shrikes and indeed, I intend to resurrect my original Western Bocelli 's Warbler.

Interesting times.

All the best

Paul

Hi Paul,

I made a mistake on the Siberian Stonechat so I have deleted it from the list. I will investigate which ones are acceptable.

Cheers
Steve

Steve

For your information, the following ten are the accepted records:-

1913 - Fair Isle (maurus)
1985 - Porthgwarra (variegatus)
1993 - Landguard (variegatus)
2006 - Virtue (variegafus)
2013 - Agnes (variegatus)
2014 - Fair Isle (variegatus)
2015 - Orfordness (maurus)
2016 - Titchfield Haven (variegatus)
2016 - Fair Isle (maurus)
2016 - St Mary's (variegatus)

So I suspect that if you want to only tick accepted records to species, you should tick the St Agnes variegatus.

However, personally, I find c400 non-assigned Stonechats as vaguely farcical. Hence my personal position.

As you will imagine, I've spent some time staring at Stonechats and Isabelline Shrikes etc and pondering what I feel is right personally.

I suppose having got my head around others for years accepting seawatched Fea's/Zino's as Fea's, I got more relaxed over such things and as I say, I find the implementation of the changes as symptomatic of the divergence between taxonomists/the BBRC from birders/listers.

All the best

Paul