IOC British list

HI,

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

Hi Nick

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.

Cheers

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?

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.

Jeremy Hurley.

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.

Cheers

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.

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.

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)?

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

Cheers

Andy

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

Obviously Virtue should be Virkie. Autocorrect error!

Hi Paul

Ta for the information. I did not spot that I had a non-accepted bird on my list. I have now updated my list with the 11 May 2016 Titchfield Haven bird (Caspian Stonechat S. m. variegatus)

Cheers
Steve

Confused about the 1985 Portland bird. It's named as Turkestan on RBA
.. ' Portland has two records prior to this week’s bird ~ an adult female Daurian in September 1959 and an adult female Turkestan in September 1985. The only other county records have been a first-winter Turkestan Shrike at Winspit in October 1978 and a first-winter Daurian Shrike at Durlston in October 1988.'[MG] ..
and I have it in my notes as such.
BS also states that it showed features indicating Turkestan. Yet I think it was listed as Daurian in the BBRC review. Is that correct?
Also saw the Scilly and Yorkshire (which was trapped!) '91 birds - even though they are both possible Daurian, and my notes indicate that - they are uncountable (Some people have added them)

What's happening with the 1985 Portland Shrike, RBA have it as Turkestan
.. 'Portland has two records prior to this week’s bird ~ an adult female Daurian in September 1959 and an adult female Turkestan in September 1985. The only other county records have been a first-winter Turkestan Shrike at Winspit in October 1978 and a first-winter Daurian Shrike at Durlston in October 1988.' MG
But I think it was stated as Daurian in the BBRC review
My own notes describe it as Turkestan
Others are also listing 91 Scilly and Yorks(trapped) shrikes as Daurian but to my knowledge neither has been attributed to species - my notes point to them being Daurian.

What indeed has happened to previously accepted records (both adult and trapped individuals) of Daurian and Turkestan Shrikes, as alluded to in my previous recent posting on this thread?

With regards to the formally lumped "Siberian Stonechat", my three previous sightings in Britain i.e. Isles of Scilly in 1985 and 1999 and Norfolk in 1985, were never conclusively attributed to race but were all presumed maurus at the time. Therefore, in keeping with the new BOURC criteria and being purist about such matters, I again reluctantly make a further deduction from my BOU British list total until an officially accepted individual of either maurus or variegatus presents itself in the future.

Likewise, I will also remove Siberian Stonechat from my IOC world list (having not seen any others globally) but will retain Stejneger's Stonechat on the basis of adult males being definitely identified in Hong Kong and Japan.

Whilst first-winter individuals of both S.m. maurus and S.m. stejnegeri can be tricky to distinguish with any certainty (short of DNA analysis) in the field, it is my view that the majority occurring in Britain in that plumage type are probably maurus anyway.

Hi Jeremy

I was thinking a few days ago I wonder if bubo could include some new categories into their BOU/IOC list.

If someone has seen Daurian/Turkestan then there could be slot for that on the list as Daurian/Turkestan. So the bubo list will contain 3 slots:
Daurian
Turkestan
Daurian/Turkestan.

Birders then just choose the slot they wish to use. At least this would keep the birders totals at the correct number.

The same system could be also used for Fea's/Desertas/Zino's. So perhaps have 2 slots
Fea's/Zino's/Desertas Petrel
Fea's Petrel.

The same system could be be used on Sib. Stonechats, Black/White- bellied Storm Petrel, etc.

I hope the above makes sense.

Cheers
Steve

Steve

Your categories on the Petrels are wrong. Fea's is no longer on the list. Presumably you mean two categories:-
Fea's/Desertas/Zino's eg seawatching birds
Fea's/Desertas eg Scillonian Pelagic bird

All the best

Paul

This would be possible, although would be a departure from the basic data model we've pursued ever since setting up BUBO. That is, people tick full species and nothing else. Whilst we could allow ticking of species aggregates like Daurian/Turkestan Shrike, there would be a divergence of opinion between listers as to whether this would count towards the list total. I know some say yes, others say no, and that makes for a pretty messy system. Moreover, if we did allow Daurian/Turkestan to count as "1" on the list, what happens when Daurian is subsequently seen? Clearly you wouldn't want that to count as "2" - would we have to build in functionality that would automatically insist on no aggregates if the underlying species are seen? Starts getting difficult. It's much cleaner to be strict with saying a tick is a full species, simple as that. I'd rather then that people can make their own decision on level of proof they feel comfortable with for saying whether they feel a particularly shrike was actually a Daurian, no matter what BBRC has said about an individual record. IMHO anyway!

Hello Steve,

Thank you for reading my recent posting on this topic and responding.

Your listing ideas for this website seem liberal and flexible. However, as Andy rightly points out, to facilitate such a departure from the established format on BUBO Listing could give rise to ambiguities and muddy the waters with regards to sequential numbering and totals.

For my own part, I would prefer an unsullied BOU British list and an IOC world list for that matter and am prepared to take it on the chin with the recent re-evaluation and pruning down of previously accepted records, now considered indeterminate. "Them's the rules" as they say.

There will be further opportunities in Britain to "tick off" officially ratified examples of Daurian and Turkestan Shrikes and Siberian and Stejneger's Stonechats. Being lackadaisical in the past about seeing formerly nominated sub-species has evidently cost me dear.

As we all know, the pendulum has drastically swung the other way from the predominant lumping ethos
in the 60's and 70's. Remember Common/Spotted Sandpiper and Rock/Water Pipit pairings, which seem just plain wrong now? That said, I am still perplexed as to why both IOC and Clements have not even began to consider Hudsonian Whimbrel as a distinct species.

Needless to say, the ever increasing scientific rigour required in field identification is challenging to say the least but should only enrich our ornithological insights and experiences.

Happy birding.

Jeremy

Andy Musgrove wrote: This would be possible, although would be a departure from the basic data model we've pursued ever since setting up BUBO. That is, people tick full species and nothing else. Whilst we could allow ticking of species aggregates like Daurian/Turkestan Shrike, there would be a divergence of opinion between listers as to whether this would count towards the list total. I know some say yes, others say no, and that makes for a pretty messy system. Moreover, if we did allow Daurian/Turkestan to count as "1" on the list, what happens when Daurian is subsequently seen? Clearly you wouldn't want that to count as "2" - would we have to build in functionality that would automatically insist on no aggregates if the underlying species are seen? Starts getting difficult. It's much cleaner to be strict with saying a tick is a full species, simple as that. I'd rather then that people can make their own decision on level of proof they feel comfortable with for saying whether they feel a particularly shrike was actually a Daurian, no matter what BBRC has said about an individual record. IMHO anyway!

Andy

Of course, if only it were as simple as taking the BBRC's word for it.

Whilst noticing the irony of a proposed puritanical approach to Shrikes when the Stonechat conundrums had slipped by the proposers, what still seems to be unnoticed from a purists' perspective is that the BBRC reports betray a substantial divergence of view between the BBRC's approach and the BOURC's approach on Shrike identification.

Numerous birds have been published as showing characters of the races within BBRC reports including classic first winters whereas the BOURC has stubbornly only been prepared to accept adult males.

So I do not see how taking the BBRC's view on an individual record is a sufficient standard if you wish to be a purist. For instance, the accepted Nene Washes female Daurian Shrike predates the male Daurian that the BOU accepted as a first record by two years. If the BOURC were not prepared to accept it, can it really be counted on a 'pure' list?

Personally, I prefer to try to maintain my sanity and take a sensible approach with the identifications rather than what has become a lottery of standards:-

Fea's/Desertas Petrel - DNA only (presumably?)
Moltoni's Warbler - DNA or call
Eastern Yellow Wagtail - DNA or call
Stejneger;s Stonechat - DNA only (as long as you don't mix up the samples)
'Siberian' Siberian Stonechat - DNA only
'Caspian' Siberian Stonechat - plumage is fine
Daurian/Turkestan Shrikes - BOU adult males only; BBRC at one time at least classic first-winters & older birds but maybe now just adults??

Happy New Year

Paul