| Author |
Messages |
|
Vireo 
Posts:66
 |
| 09/29/2006 3:18 PM |
 Alert
|
I have been working on updating a couple of checklists for my own personal use, one for Ecuador and one for Oregon. One option for creating a checklist for Ecuador is to take Ridgley and Greenfield's 2001 The Birds of Ecuador as a point of departure. The authors treat Choco Screech-Owl (Megascops centralis) as a species separate from Vermiculated Screech-Owl (Megascops vermiculatus centralis). The problem is that Choco Screech-Owl does not appear in any of the available taxonomies in BD (Clements does not even accept it as a subspecies of Vermiculated S.-O. or any other owl as far as I can tell).
My question is this: It seems like creating a checklist for Ecuador also requires creating a taxonomy separate from those available in BD. Is that correct, or am I missing something?
By the way, a similar issue appear when updating the Checklist for Oregon. Juan Fernandez Petrel appears on the Oregon checklist but the record has not (yet?) been accepted by the ABA. Thus producing a checklist for Oregon that accords with the Oregon Bird Records Committee requires me to modify the ABA taxonomy supplied by BD (or create some other taxonomy).
So, in cases such as these, does creating a checklist also require creating an underlying taxonomy?
|
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5332
|
| 09/29/2006 3:57 PM |
Alert
|
Posted By Vireo on 09/29/2006 3:18 PM
I have been working on updating a couple of checklists for my own personal use, one for Ecuador and one for Oregon. One option for creating a checklist for Ecuador is to take Ridgley and Greenfield's 2001 The Birds of Ecuador as a point of departure. The authors treat Choco Screech-Owl (Megascops centralis) as a species separate from Vermiculated Screech-Owl (Megascops vermiculatus centralis). The problem is that Choco Screech-Owl does not appear in any of the available taxonomies in BD (Clements does not even accept it as a subspecies of Vermiculated S.-O. or any other owl as far as I can tell).
My question is this: It seems like creating a checklist for Ecuador also requires creating a taxonomy separate from those available in BD. Is that correct, or am I missing something?
Hi Lars,
My suggestion is this:
1) I have "Choco Screech-Owl" as a thing, in my master database. If you do not, create a new thing on your copy of BD by the same name.
2) Add it to your Ecuador checklist.
When users import your checklist, if they do not have this thing in their database, they will be asked to create/assign/ignore. Takes care of itself.
If it is not in any tax list currently in use for BD, then few people are concerned about counting it based on these authorities. If they want to, then can certainly edit their tax list(s) and add this thing.
Instead of making BD a one-size-fits-all product, I designed it this way for reasons such as this. There simply is no way to get everyone on the same page. So BD is infintely extensible in this way.
By the way, a similar issue appear when updating the Checklist for Oregon. Juan Fernandez Petrel appears on the Oregon checklist but the record has not (yet?) been accepted by the ABA. Thus producing a checklist for Oregon that accords with the Oregon Bird Records Committee requires me to modify the ABA taxonomy supplied by BD (or create some other taxonomy).
So, in cases such as these, does creating a checklist also require creating an underlying taxonomy?
Exact same answer here. Do not create an underlying tax list.
This thing exists in BD already and is referenced by Clements. Your checklist will simply show that this thing is found in Oregon. If users import your Oregon checklist and use ABA to produce a checklist, it will correctly not display this bird. However, if they user Clements, it will.
In addition, if they do not want to agree with ABA, they can modify their copy of the tax list. But all of this is independent of whether that thing has shown up in Oregon.
This is, in part, the reason for the indirection of BD internal things.
Good question, as it gave me the chance to explain.
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
Vireo
Posts:66
|
| 09/30/2006 5:19 PM |
Alert
|
Thanks, Jeff, for the usual quick response. By the way, I really love the new capabilities in BD (especially the handling of subspecies). The more I use the program and learn how to use it, the more I like it.
I do have Choco Screech-Owl in my master database as well (if I remember correctly, I had to add Ecuador as a location for Choco Screech-Owl). i just wanted to make sure that that I correctly understand how the program works to get the bird to show up on a printed checklist for Ecuador you had to add it to some taxonomy (say by modifying an already existing BD taxonomy).
As for the Oregon checklist, yes, you can use Clements to make it show Juan Fernandez petrel, but then you end up losing other species (I don't know which and why). Unless you also use a modified taxonomy, using a updated checklist will in this case not give you the correct number of species for Oregon (currently 498 as of May 2006). This is not meant as a criticism but it does show a limitation of the program, it seems to me. But that may be the price we pay for the flexibility the program has in other areas. Or is there something I am still not understanding?
|
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5332
|
| 10/01/2006 7:46 AM |
Alert
|
Posted By Vireo on 09/30/2006 5:19 PM
As for the Oregon checklist, yes, you can use Clements to make it show Juan Fernandez petrel, but then you end up losing other species (I don't know which and why). Unless you also use a modified taxonomy, using a updated checklist will in this case not give you the correct number of species for Oregon (currently 498 as of May 2006). This is not meant as a criticism but it does show a limitation of the program, it seems to me. But that may be the price we pay for the flexibility the program has in other areas. Or is there something I am still not understanding?
Hi Lars,
Well - I guess I disagree. We define a checklist as "the list of things, as classified by a given taxonomy, that occur at a location".
You'll notice that in the reporting section, you cannot print a checklist report without specifying a location and a taxonomy.
Now, the checklist editor, for purposes of flexibility, can operate on the underlying things without specifying a taxonomy. But, if you do specify a taxonomy in the checklist editor, you will only get the things classified by that tax list.
So, BD knows that your Juan Fernandez Petrel occurs in Oregon, because you have told it.
This is intended, and as far as I can see, correct behavior. According to the ABA, the JF Petrel has not been accepted in Oregon, and therefore, should not show up on a checklist of Oregon when using the ABA tax list.
Not sure why using Clements to produce a checklist of Oregon gives you a different list, except that perhaps, for some species Clements classifies them differently.
Jeff
|
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
Vireo
Posts:66
|
| 10/01/2006 11:29 AM |
Alert
|
Hi Jeff,
I don't think we disagree. My point was simply that if you want to produce a report (checklist) of the birds found in Oregon as specified by the Oregon Bird Records Committee and you specify the ABA 2005 tax list as the underlying taxonomy, then you will get a list that deviates by one species (Juan Fernandez petrel). The report will say 497 species occur in Oregon and not the "correct" 498 (correct as defined by the Oregon committee and not the ABA). |
|
|
|
|
jjones
Posts:5332
|
| 10/01/2006 11:41 AM |
Alert
|
Agreed Lars.
If that is important, I recommend quickly creating a "Oregon Bird Records Committee", taxonomic list.
This can be done in seconds.
1) Create a new tax list
2) Select the COPY option on the Tax Viewer window
3) copy ABA's tax list to it using the location filter set to Oregon
4) Add the extra species.
Done. I just did it in < 60 seconds!
Now you have your own list that agrees with the OBRC.
Jeff |
|
Birder's Diary Technical Support |
|
|
Vireo
Posts:66
|
| 10/02/2006 11:34 AM |
Alert
|
| Thanks, Jeff. I had in fact done just what you suggested. I agree, it is no big deal in the case of Oregon. |
|
|
|
|
|