[orebird] Re: A start on the path towards consistency in the treatment of subspecies and recognizable taxa
- From: David Irons <llsdirons@xxxxxxx>
- To: "orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 4 Mar 2015 08:49:32 +0000
Matt,
I like the idea of your companion table. It might be helpful to flesh out this
table and then as we discuss and decide on what we want to include where, we
can check it off in the table.
As for you first question. I think this occurs to everyone. It certainly has to
me. Like you, I have to wonder how much value there is in having both Mallard
and Mallard (Northern) in the default checklist when only the Mallard
(Northern) is occurring here. Even sillier is when there is but one form and
the filter settings for the base species and more refined subspecies
designation aren't the same. I just look through the Canada Goose and Canada
Goose (moffitti/maxima) filter settings for all 36 of Oregon's counties. They
are a complete mess. I will be posting a short note on that momentarily.
Dave Irons
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2015 21:16:42 -0800
Subject: [orebird] Re: A start on the path towards consistency in the treatment
of subspecies and recognizable taxa
From: matthewghunter@xxxxxxxxx
To: orebird@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC: mji26@xxxxxxxxxxx; bls42@xxxxxxxxxxx; clw37@xxxxxxxxxxx; id99@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dave, :-) Thanks. ... I feel like I'm thanking the guy who carried his own
backpack AND mine up the hill. ha ha... Seriously, knowing the mental
triathlon that is required to make it through there in one piece... I
appreciate your work.
A couple questions and suggestions:
1) Help me wrap my head around why we need to include the "American" or
"Northern" forms of things, or even the "Pacific Northwest" forms of things on
Oregon checklists if that is the only type normally expected here? It seems
that if some of these taxa are "split" eventually, it seems the eBird data
managers are going to "convert" all of these anyway. Thoughts? I suppose it
doesn't "hurt" anyway (see #2 below). Seems like we don't want people choosing
Mallard (Northern) if they really don't know how to tell that one from any
other one; in other words, an eBird point including Mallard (Northern) wouldn't
be a reliable indicator of the occurrence of that type of Mallard, it would
just be that someone said "I'm here in Nevada so it must be a Northern
Mallard." If the EPMs want Mallard (Northern) included in the list, what is the
point then of having the plain old "Mallard"? ... except that your average
person would become confused at the disappearance of "Mallard" and the only
choice being "Mallard (Northern)"). I don't feel settled on the
usefulness/purpose of this or how to best implement it or think about it.
2) I tend to think "minimize the number of subpopulation choices" just to
minimize clutter in the list. However, at least when entering directly into
eBird, one can uncheck "show subspecies" and the list is quickly "uncluttered."
So, maybe it doesn't really matter? I use BirdLog for 99.99% of my data entry,
so it doesn't really matter to me much either since I just type in 4-letter
codes and choose the correct designation.
3) I think your annotated list is fantastic Dave, and as we wade through it, it
seems we can just make comments, either to the group or directly to you. I
want to offer a "companion" table. I have created a suggested format, attached.
This one is just for western Oregon Counties. A similar one could be made for E
OR Counties (just delete the counties and enter the E OR ones, which thankfully
are also 18 in number). I think a table such as this would more quickly
communicate the final suggested inclusion or not for each county (e.g. put an x
in counties that are recommended to include the subpopulation). And, once
completed it would be easy for someone in a county to go through and see what
is suggested for their county. I would suggest filling this out after
completing your narrative and getting some feedback, but use it however,
whenever, you feel it useful.
Matt
On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 1:34 PM, Jay Withgott <withgott@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:
