[orebird] Re: A start on the path towards consistency in the treatment of subspecies and recognizable taxa
- From: Jay Withgott <withgott@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2015 13:34:34 -0800
Thanks very much, Dave. This is exactly what we need to get started on this
process.
Perhaps we should proceed thusly?:
(1) Each person who wants to contribute comments enter his/her notes
underneath each species one at a time, using a different color or font (one
color or font per person), and with last name or initials at the end.
(2) Said person saves document, and then posts it to the Google document
site where Greg Haworth had placed our eBird reviewing team list.
(3) As next person gets time to add comments (allowing for 2 or more tries
to avoid excessive head pain), this next person downloads latest version of
document from that Google site, adds his or her comments in a new color or
font, and then saves and re-posts this newest version.
Will this work?
Or should we just email our revised versions to the group by this listserv?
That's perhaps easier.
And shall we wait on Part Two, or go ahead with Part One?
Thanks again Dave (and eBird Central, of course),
Jay
On Mar 1, 2015, at 10:30 PM, David Irons wrote:
> Greetings All,
>
> If the attached document makes your head hurt, feel free to blame Matt
> Hunter, who suggested that we create a list of the subspecies and
> sub-population groupings that we want to include in our default checklists
> for Oregon's counties. Using an expansive draft document of all of the
> potential North American taxonomic delineations, I have created an annotated
> list that includes the recognizable and the presumptive forms of Oregon
> species with monotypic representation (i.e. Great Egret – American). For
> each, I have included my own thoughts about why and how we may go about
> including them in our default checklists. Please understand that the draft
> document that I used was sent to me by Marshall Iliff for review. He would be
> the first to tell you, it needs some tweaking, but it did provide me with a
> good base list to work from, anticipating of course that most of what is in
> there will make it into the final version. That document makes my head hurt,
> but reviewing it in the context of how it applies to Oregon helped me get
> through it. When I first looked at it, I was so overwhelmed that I had to
> close the file and walk away. Now it makes much more sense.
>
> There are number of reasons why this taxonomic review (for Oregon) is
> something we should be thinking about. First, there is the obvious.
> Taxonomies are subject to change and some birds that are treated as
> recognizable subspecies today may be full species tomorrow. We need to be
> forward thinking and seek to capture data (when we can) so that when and if
> the anticipated splits come, we will already have a set of pre-sorted reports
> that can be appropriately slotted in the new taxonomy
>
> Secondly, ongoing climate changes are likely to radically rearrange the
> distribution of birds that we now believe will never occur in Oregon. When I
> started birding in Oregon (1970), I had no reason to believe that I would
> ever see a Red-shouldered Hawk or a Barred Owl in the state. Both species are
> now fully established in Oregon and they continue to expand their range and
> fill in parcels of suitable habitat. In 1970, Eurasian Collared-Dove was not
> remotely on my radar, as it didn't appear in my Golden Guide to North
> American Birds. I hardly go a day without seeing one now.
>
> Lastly, the combination of improving field guides and ID resources along with
> digital cameras have allowed us to sort individual birds at a much higher
> resolution rate than we once could. Many birders seek to learn the subspecies
> of their local area and having done so want to report them in their eBird
> checklists. Further, they would love to have range maps showing where they
> might expect to find the various subspecies depicted in their field guides.
> Obviously, eBird is at the front of the line in terms of its potential to
> provide this sort of resource.
>
> I spent most of today cranking out the attached document, which is part one
> of two. It covers the species from waterfowl up through falcons. It is not
> intended to be the last word on this topic, only a document that we can use
> as a launch point for arriving at some sort of consensus and consistency in
> our approach to making default checklist decisions. Right now, it's the world
> according to me. What is needed most is the feedback and refinement that can
> only come from the rest of the Oregon Review Team and the eBird staffers who
> oversee this project.
>
> Enjoy,
>
> Dave Irons
>
>
> <OReBirdsubspecies.doc>
Other related posts:
