Jeff,

Back in 2007 there was a problem with the Stonechat in the ABA, AOU and Clements tax lists which you fixed. I never gave it a second thought until now. Apparently it has dropped off my current ABA 2009 list. What is more intriguing is that it was on the ABA -2009 (Modified Date 12/9/2009) list when I downloaded the file from the BD dowmloads page and ran a Checklist report on 13 Dec 2009. I noticed that Clements -2009 v 6.4.1 (Modifed date 2/18/2010 and rev 2/23/2010) came out after the ABA download. Is it possible that the Clements tax & chklst, which I dwnloaded when it became available, affected the Stonechat data for the other lists? I looked for locations in Checklist for Stonechat and found no North American locations for it. I did find a Saxicola torquatus in the tax lists so it may be a locations issue only.

The reason I made the interagation is because a bird specie has been added to the California bird list so I was comparing my BD list against the Cal Bird Record Committee list and found the Stonechat missing from BD.

The added specie turned out to be a White-chinned Petrel. It is already on all the tax lists so the only requirement is to have California added as a location for the it. See official record below.

http://www.californiabirds.org/mydb.asp?species=white-chinned+petrel&partial=on&sort=date&STARTDATE=&ENDDATE=&county=

Please review what went wrong.

Regards, Al Borodayko

Cypress, CA

Hi Al,

Yes - the ABA 2009 does have the Stonechat - Saxicola torquatus (internal thing == 'Siberian Stonechat') which aligns with Clements 2009 6.4.1 Stonechat (Siberian) maurus - S. t. maurus.

I suspect that the original ABA 2009 checklist data import included correct location data for this. And that the update to Clements overwrote it.

So - is the only correction needed here that of adding both 'Siberian Stonechat' and 'White-chinned Petrel' to California using the Checklist Editor? Or are other locations missing from either that also need to be added. For example, I only currently have India, Iran, Iraq and Russia (Asia) locations for the Stonechat.

Thank,

Jeff

Jeff,

I spoke too soon on the White-chinned Petrel for all lists. It looks like there is a range war between the ABA and AOU as noted below. The AOU vote was 6 to 5 against inclusion back in 2008. The California sighting could change their mind but in the meantime California should be added as a location for the White-chinned Petrel as applicable to the ABA and Clements Checklists.

2008-C-8:
Move White-chinned Petrel (Procellaria aequinoctialis) from Appendix to main list

NO - 3 without comment.

YES - 2 without comment.
 

YES, for consistency with the ABA CLC decision to accept this record.
 

YES, barely. I'm comforted a bit that the bird wasn't actually in the shipping channel or really adjacent to it. Having the two Committees agree is more important in this case. Still, I'd prefer a more acceptable record.

NO. it would be helpful to know if the bird had hook wounds. If it wasn’t hooked, possibly it just followed a ship in and then was starving, which wouldn’t seem to be to be truly ship-assisted. However, in the presumed absence of information on wounds (I don’t have ready access to the paper), I will have to vote No. This is one of the species declining steeply through long-line fishing, and they habitually follow ships but not (in my experience, 4 Drake crossings now) for long periods.

NO. The difference between this record and those of Swallow-tailed Gull and Light-mantled Albatross are: (1) proximity to major shipping channel, even if 20 miles, (2) Gulf of Mexico is one of the least likely regions for pelagic vagrants, and (3) this species puts itself “in harm’s way”: R. C. Murphy (1936) reported that he "captured numerous {WcPs} on fish-hooks" and "The voracious creatures learned nothing by seeing captives drawn on board the 'Daisy'; even victims which had escaped from one hook after being hauled part way in, promptly snapped up another." I would like to wait until we get a free-flying bird in pelagic waters.

YES. I go mainly on the decision of the ABA Checklist committee, in the absence of a compelling reason to make a different decision. However, I am open to arguments as to why we should not include the species.

NO. It is in the Appendix for a reason, and those reasons haven’t changed.

As for the locations for Stonechat, I don't have an unadulterated version of the BD ABA - 2009 Checklist so I don't know what states/provinces were listed. Perhaps someone out there that did not install Clements  can enlighten us.

Regards, Al Borodayko

Cypress, CA

HI Al,

I have updated the master checklist adding these birds to their respective new locations as per above. I added CA, NB and AL to both S. torquatus and S. t. maurus.

Not sure I understand this statement from above:

As for locations outside of North America, I am not expert enough to tell. It would be a great help to get an unadulterated BD location list. Avibase may be a good starting point to start a new list if no one can come up with a prior BD database.

The location list for this species should be good in BD - or if fine-tuning is necessary, using Mal Jenkins web site should clear it up. Is this what you are after?

Thanks again,

Jeff

Hi Al,

That site is listing for Saxicola torquata - an older designation used by taxonomic lists 8+ yrs old. It is also for the entire species. If you look at the range for Clements 2009 S. torquatus, in BD, you will see that it contains 68 locations. The Siberian Stonechat, S. t. maurus, according to Clements/Cornell in the 2009 release says "E Russian to central Asia; > to Iran, Iraq, and n India".

If you look on wikipedia for this species, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberian_Stonechat , it states a much broader range for this bird... but whether this classification is in alignment with Clements siberian stonechat is not easy to decipher.

So, and I would love to hear further input on this if anyone has it, BD does agree with the currently released Clements intent. With the "Russia (Asia)" location taking on a rather vague definition as a child of Asia in the location tree.

Jeff

Jeff,

It's been cloudy and rainy all week in sunny Southern California, so to amuse myself, I took on the task of sorting through the stonechat complex. I used various internet websites to glean throgh lists and sightings. The results and recommendations are provided on the attachments.

Regards, Al Borodayko

Cypress, CA

Jeff,

I didn't know how to add a fifth attachment, so this reply adds the last piece of data.

Regards, Al Borodayko

Hi Al,

I wouldn't get anything done if it weren't for bad weather at times!

Do you have Clements 2009 6.4.1?

• You mention that torquatus and sibilla are treated as one. But in Clements 2009 6.4.1, these are two different ssp under Saxicola torquatus. You do the same thing with maurus and stejnegeri - but they are two different subspecies in Clements. Please help me understand why you are making those statements in your first attachment?

I will review the rest now.

Jeff

Jeff,

It's still raining so here is more data. I downloaded the Clement's 6.4 spreedsheet from their website to see how it looked. Clements also created groups and I unknowingly came up with the same structure and make-up. As for locations, locations expand as birds are sighted, reviewed by bird organizations and added to their country's lists. I doubt if the ABA, AOU, BOU or Clements track sightings after their initial acceptance unless they do a major update and even then in broad terms so it is not surprising that the organizational lists are skimpy. In most cases the subspecies are not discernable to the naked eye so they can be anywhere in the group overall range except for the 2 or 3 unique types like S. t. sibilla, , S. t. jebelmarrae, S.t. voeltzkowi. With the exception of the list below, you can flood the BD checklist with the group locations from the 3 lists I provided for the other subspecies as applicable (i.e., European Stonechat locations for all subspecies that are in the European Stonechat group) or enter one or two representative locations at the subspecie level that would result in a complete group list at the group level.

Subspecies with limited range:

S. t. jebelmarrae - Sudan

S. t. adamauae - Cameroon

S. t. pallidigula - Cameroon

S. t. promiscuus - Tanzania

S. t. sibilla - Madagascar

S. t. voeltzkowi - Comoro Islands

Regardless, at least the three Stonechat Groups should be updated  in BD per my lists.

Regards, Al Borodayko

Hello Al,

Fun stuff.

This is exactly what BD has already done. All the locations should already agree with what you show above. With the following exceptions: S. t. pallidigula also has Guinea.

If you are not showing that for your subspecies, then you may want to re-import the checklist data file again for Clements 6.4.1.

Let me know if you find any specific discrepancies for S. torquatus subspecies. If you do, you can update those subspecies, as you already know, using the checklist editor and modify the list of locations. Then, what works best for me to analyze your changes, is that you export those locations using the "Import/Export" window, Checklists TAB. Then upload the subsequent files here and attach them to your post. I can import and analyze your changes easiest that way. Let me know if this isn't making sense.

Thanks,

Jeff

I also wanted to add... that this is how it should be done. Regardless of whether any organziation etc in the world wants to split or lump, there are breeding populations that most authorities agree on. In Clements/Cornell, more of a lumper, these are the subspecies under S. torquatus. It is those 'breeding populations' that we need to assign locations to. This is the lowest level. So, when thinking about assigning locations and checking their validity, only concern yourself with scientific names of the subspecies in the checklist editor. Entering the 'group names' or any other alias can lead you to incorrect assignments.

fyi

Jeff

Jeff,

I never got into checklists at subspecie level before so was not familiar with how to enter a suspecie name. I did some searching and found the light at the end of the tunnel and was able to view all 25 subspecies of Stonechat through the Checklist Editer. After reviewing them for location and comparing them against Clements, Wikipedia and Audubon the number of changes was considerably reduced. The attachments indicate what changes should be made and justification for them. I don't modify my Birder's Diary Birds Programs except to download updates and corrections directly from BD so am reluctant to make the changes to the program and send it to you for review. I live with what's given. However, the changes are not nearly as extensive as my prior assessment.

Regards, Al Borodayko

Cypress, CA