next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
<a href="http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/WestHantsSt
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--Boundary_(ID_TT57oeCdbkQ+3RsIHsC7MQ)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Hi Patrick and others interested,
The revised taxonomic ordering of birds must have been accepted by the AOU at least two years ago. To my knowledge, the only field guide in print which uses this new order is the 5th edition of the National Geographic "Field Guide to the Birds of North America", published in 2006. It became available through the ABA in November 2006 and is now widely available locally. I presume that other guides will reflect the new ordering in their updated editions.
The most recent NSBS checklist (the blue 50th Anniversary Edition) uses this revised taxonomic order; the first species on the list is Snow Goose. It was published in May 2005 so this new order has been known for some time now and essentially the NSBS switched to the new ordering at that time.
The problem is that there are still lots of databases around with the older order and it takes a while for these to be updated. Of course, none of this explains the problems with order of the species on the checklist we used in the West Hants tally on Saturday (I believe that all of our warblers should be together).
Best wishes and a Happy New Year to all.
Bob McDonald
Halifax
----- Original Message -----
From: Patrick Kelly
To: naturens@chebucto.ns.ca
Sent: Monday, January 01, 2007 11:03 PM
Subject: Re: [NatureNS] Taxonomic Order for Birds
Hi Richard, et. al.
I have written to Dick Cannings about the mixup in the list. I was going to make a spreadsheet to enter the data from all of the participants and have it do the adding for me, and it would be nice to get them in the same order!
Thanks for the clarification on the toxonomy.
Has this change been recent? I received a text listing of the AOU list for all birds seen in Nova Scotia from either Lance or Blake (I can't recall of the top of my head) in February of 2006. It still had loons at the top of the list.
I guess if there will soon be new edition of field guides with the new ordering?
I wonder if Nova Scotia Birds will switch to the new ordering?
Pat
On Jan 1, 2007, at 7:19 PM, Richard Stern wrote:
Hi,
I suspect that the peculiar situation where Herons etc. seemed to
appear in the middle of Warblers is some kind of error. The correct
new taxonomic order is the most recent AOU one - found here -
http://www.aou.org/checklist/index.php3. Olive warbler is placed in
its own Order before the other Warblers, which are otherwise all
together, and waterfowl, pheasants etc. are now at the beginning
before loons etc. You might want to check with Dick Cannings about
what's going on with the CBC lists.
Richard
On 1/1/07, Patrick Kelly <patrick.kelly@dal.ca> wrote:
Hello everyone:
Having been a CBC compiler for the first time, I have been a bit
puzzled by the order in which birds are listed in guidse, checklists,
etc.
The form that was given to me to complete was a Microsoft Word document
which contained a list of birds that started with geese, rather that
the expected loons. (Since Peterson's, National Geographic, Collins
Guide to Europe, the AOU checklist, and Nova Scotia Birds, all use an
order that starts with loons, I was puzzled as to why the list for
filling out the CBC uses a different order.
I made a PDF files from the Word document (that is formatted properly
on screen but has some small glitches as a PDF file, but I don't have
time for the usual anti-Microsoft rant!). It is at
http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/BirdList1.pdf
I reformatted it in AppleWorks to get three columns so that it would
fit on two pages with some room for extra info to distribute to
participants:
http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/BirdList2.pdf
At the count wrap-up, it was noted that the warblers had been split
into two groups, separated by other bird types. (Look for the common
yellowthroat.). I originally thought that I had made a mistake in the
reformatting but that does not seem to be the case.
I have tried to check to see if the data entry on the web site also
uses this order, but cannot get in as of yet as I have no idea what the
password is!
Is there any reason why the CBC would distribute a list with this type
of ordering?
Pat
I
On Dec 29, 2006, at 8:56 PM, Bob McDonald wrote:
> Hi Pat,
>
> Regarding the order of the species in your listing, this is the
> currently accepted taxonomic order - starts with the geese and ducks,
> etc. So it's OK but takes some getting used to.
>
> Hope to see you tomorrow at the Woolavers.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Bob
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: Patrick Kelly
>> To: Bob McDonald
>> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 8:08 PM
>> Subject: West Hants Maps
>>
>> Yes, We Have Maps: Several year ago' George Alliston made up a new
>> set of maps of the circle and each of its six regions. I have placed
>> them on my web site as follows:
>>
>> The entire circle (a low resolution) with the area boundaries is at:
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Low-resolution.jpg
>>
>> A larger high-reolution file (over 2 megabytes) with the area
>> boundaries is at:
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_High-resolution.jpg
>>
>> High resolution maps or each area are at:
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Area1.jpg
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Area2.jpg
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Area3.jpg
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Area4.jpg
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Area5.jpg
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/NSWH_Area6.jpg
>>
>> I have put two more files on my web site.
>>
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/WestHantsStreets.pdf
>> This is a large (1 Megabyte) map of all of the streets in West Hants,
>> with enlargements of areas like Falmouth, Brooklyn, etc.
>>
>> http://myweb.dal.ca/pmkelly/WestHantsTallySheet.pdf
>> This is the form that you can use to add up your data and time at the
>> end of the day. The order of the species is the same as the order on
>> the "master" list that I have to submit, and it does not follow the
>> usual taxonomical order. I will have to ask why when I submit it.
>>
>> Pat
>>
>>
>> ======================================================================
>> ====