Provisional classifications v standard avian sequences: heuristics and communication in ornithology

Abstract

The past decades have been exciting ones for ornithologists interested in avian macrosystematics with many new ideas being proposed for consideration and further study. But this excitement should not blind ornithologists to the important distinction between the provisional classifications proposed by specialists in macrosystematics, no matter how convincing they may appear at first glance, and the standard sequence needed to maintain optimal communication among all students of avian biologists. An excellent standard sequence for Recent birds exists in Peters' Check‐list. We urge that all ornithologists, authors and editors use this sequence until the time arrives, as it undoubtedly will, when enough is known about avian relationships to permit agreement on a new and better standard sequence.

Are relations in thesauri “context‐free, definitional, and true in all possible worlds”?

“…One reason that this may seem so is that many (or most) documents in the collection classified by the obsolete system are themselves based on the same obsolete nomenclature. But the reason may also be a lack of ambition to serve front‐line users with up‐to‐date knowledge (although KOS should of course not adopt new scientific classifications before a certain consensus has been reached, as argued by Mayr and Bock, ).…”

A phylogenetic analysis of modern sheldgeese and shelducks (Anatidae, Tadornini)

“…The primary goal of this classification is the optimal preservation of hierarchical information provided by the phylogenetic analysis, with a secondary goal of minimizing changes in currently accepted classifications. The priority of phylogenetic content relative to stability of classification contrasts with the precedence given classificatory invariance by Mayr and Bock (1994). Any poorly resolved sections of the tree are indicated through annotation at the affected taxonomic ranks by sedis mutabilis to indicate the arbitrary ordering of taxa included in a polychotomy (Wiley 1981).…”

Ernst Mayr, the tree of life, and philosophy of biology

“…Cladists cared only about genealogy, he claimed, and not biological similarity (1982, 1998a). Their focus on branches, rather than on a Darwinian understanding of the characteristics of groups, led the cladists to do unhelpful things such as refusing the category of reptiles and thus putting birds and dinosaurs together (Mayr 1998a;Mayr and Bock 1994). While Mayr accepted the need to determine ancestry, he thought it was impossible to construct meaningful classifications without assessing degrees of similarity.…”