Hi everyone,

I am somewhat 'blown away' by the level of discussion here and very excited by it. 

For some time now, this KenyaBirdsNet group has felt like a slowly stagnating pool, getting ever smaller and less interesting, with Brian's extensive NNP contributions and Fleur's record-breaking walk updates the only regular pulses keeping it alive. As Fleur alludes in her email, the future of this group - and so much more - depends on the contributions of Sidney, Washington and all the up-and-coming Kenyan birders, but where are the experienced voices of Moses, Mwangi, Chege, Zachary, Wilson and Edwin on these matters? I would like to encourage all of you to contribute to such discussions because I truly feel that your voices are missing here. This shouldn't just be a conversation for wazungu - these are YOUR birds! Your perspective is really important and I challenge you to give your opinions on this forum. Nobody expects you to 'compete' with the taxonomic experience of Michael and Don (I certainly cannot, that's for sure) but at least offering your view is so warmly welcomed. Please join in.

Most of us lead wildly different lives outside of the the EA birding scene (I'm currently a software developer in London, for example) and few have the time to commit to such conversations but, when we do, it is a great learning and sharing experience. 

Michael, Brian, Nate and Don - thank you so much for your contributions and insight here, all of which have helped me understand more about the position of Birdlife/ HBW. I think the discussion so far has been helpful in concluding that this is still very much a work in progress. One of the most valuable insights, for me, is that many of these 'new species' are in fact 'old species' that have already been described, only to be lumped and now reinstated to species level. This in itself raises several new questions;

1. Does 'reinstating' remove the need for a new paper or study entirely, or does work still need to be done? 

2. The scientific name of such a 'new-old species' is recorded in history and, therefore, has precedence over any new name but what happens if that name is already in use? 

3. Where a form has been formally described previously, such as Ruvu Weaver Ploceus holoxanthus, is it fair game to be treated as a species within a new field guide (e.g. that of Brian and I) even if it is not yet treated as such by Birdlife/ HBW? We'll be treating it as a species regardless but it is good to get an idea of the issues that this creates.

Any guidance of these questions will be greatly appreciated.

I would also like to point out that the Birdlife/ HBW team are not solely about splitting for the sake of splitting. In some cases, they have been quite reluctant to do so, such as in the case of Willard's Sooty Boubou, a newly-described form from the Albertine Rift, that Birdlife/ HBW have lumped with Mountain Sooty Boubou from West Africa (This is not to be confused with Mountain Black Boubou [as we know it from Stevenson & Fanshawe] which has been renamed as Albertine Sooty Boubou).

Very best to all,

Adam

p.s. an apology from me re: my previous response. It appears that Google autosave didn't save a change as I had expected. So here is the once-truncated sentence from me all put back together again.

With the studies that Alex Kirschel has done on Tinkerbirds, for example, the extensive field research is combined with mDNA to produce a worthwhile reason for the split.

On Sun, 6 Jan 2019 at 10:02, Brian Finch <birdfinch@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Michael, Nate, Don and All,
Thanks so much for your comments. Whilst obviously we are concerned
with our own geographical area, it would not surprise me if this same
scenario is not taking place all around the globe. To answer the
comments as they have arrived;

Michael,
Thanks for all the time that you have given into the very detailed
reply, and taking the trouble to make the Tobias Scoring System more
lucid.
The invaluable work that has gone into producing the BirdLife World
Checklist must have been vast, but surely the findings by the
investigators must have been placed in the public domain, but there
are no such references for many of the “new species.”  I feel that
this shortsightedness leads to much of the doubt cast on the validity
of some of their work. This all relates to the necessity of having
stringent guidelines to formalising the announcement of a new species.
By breaking away from tradition (not always a bad thing), it seemed
retrogressive rather than progressive, as we had drifted away from
what we call the “species concept” which is an intangible anyway, and
through the new principals entered an even greyer area. That saying we
have entered into the era of “shocking revelation” where outrageous
disarrangements of our way of thinking about the taxonomic
classifications don’t in fact shock us anymore!

I think most of us appreciate that the production of the checklist was
intended as a work in progress and not as a fait accompli, but I
cannot help but feel that the forms being elevated to species level,
would not have been better served as “probable species following
further study” rather than jumping in with a new system that had no
genetic backing, and expecting the world to unite and follow it. Had
the suggestions of the new taxa not been set in stone with a probably
misinterpreted arrogance by the birding public at large, then in all
possibility it might have ignited people to become involved to prove
that the Tobias concept did in fact prevail. I am a morphologist
first, and believe that genetic analysis partners to give a near
complete story, but not the morphology standing alone, nor the
laboratory work standing alone either.

I fully understand what you are saying about how taxonomy has evolved,
initially everything was described as a species, then before there was
anything more than morphological data available many forms got lumped
together as belonging to the same species, it is just in the last few
decades that we (at least in East Africa) have been re-examining the
forms and through genetic markers have found that they represent novel
species after all and are reinstating the original stand alone species
status, and in this regard there is still much to come. But what I
think we are realising that the most convincing results are
morphological/genetic analyses. I can’t agree with any genetic
information being excluded so that it levels the playing field for all
birds for that same reason, and believe that if there was such
existing genetic data it should have been integral to the result. It’s
a bit like acknowledging if we do it this way we will get one set of
results but if we do it the other we might get a different set of
results, so for me the only really level playing field is the
combination of the two methodologies.

I want to see BirdLife triumph in uniting the various factions towards
a unified agreement regarding the bird species on the planet, but I
don’t think this will be possible until genetic assessment comes into
the equation, so that the propositions are more solid and convincing.

Nate,
Here in Africa we have regions with regards to which authority we
follow, East Africa and Horn of Africa is unified, Southern Africa is
unified, and West Africa is unified but Africa isn’t completely, and
it would be true to say that there is no overseeing body that is
actively uniting the continent. There has been much progress with
acceptance of both Common and Scientific names and we are fairly much
all speaking the same language ornithologically. However each country
is autonomous when it comes to the preparation of its country
Checklist, and there lies the problem regarding which authority to
follow.
As a country Kenya is very supportive of BirdLife, and just how much
it helps us to protect our birds and habitat, but when it comes to the
BirdLife list the tendency is not to accept these changes at species
level without seeing a peer reviewed paper first. I have no idea how
the different countries on the continent are variously facing the same
situation, perhaps Michael has some inkling here.
What you must remember is that Africa is a vast region and very much
unlike Europe and North America, and with maybe the exception of RSA
there are not more than a few Professional Ornithologists in any of
the remaining countries, and to get groups of Professional
Ornithogists to come together as a committee to sort out taxonomic
issues usually has to involve outside assistance.

Don,
I agree with all you stated,

Best for now
Brian