Introduction to Volume 1

Introduction Why a new checklist? This work has several features—other than the length of its introduction—that set it somewhat apart from other checklists. It illustrates each Checklists of birds of the world are not particularly strong on introduc- species in colour; it updates as accurately as space allows the written ranges tions. Of 12 that we have examined, the mean number of pages devoted of both species and subspecies, and provides a newly revised map; it gives to introducing the work is 4.9 (range 2–10). Each of these studies—all of French, German and Spanish as well as common alternative English them, with the exception of Peters (1931), dating from 1974 or later (and names; and where appropriate it offers some information about the taxo- of course “Peters” was only nished in 1986)—has its value and place, and nomic relationships of particular species. The combination of image, map several of them (Peters 1931–1986, Morony et al. 1975, Sibley & Monroe and text in a double-page spread is, we hope, a powerful and convenient 1990, Dickinson 2003) represent major successive building-blocks of mod- way of encapsulating key data on a species, and by this means we hope to ern ornithology. Even so, the modesty with which they have announced bring each bird more to life than would be the case were it just a dry string themselves to the world is notable. There are usually some extremely of names occupying a single line of text across a page, and thereby increase simple statements of intent, usually some explanation of the taxonomy fol- the level of engagement with it that each user of the book may have. lowed and associated issues, and various items of house-keeping relating Nevertheless, for us the most distinctive feature of the book—and this to such matters as ranges and sources; and then the list begins. is simply an observation, not a claim for its importance—is the approach If the introduction to this new checklist runs on out of all proportion to it adopts to species-level taxonomy. Checklists are typically conservative, in precedent, we hope it will not be—and not be thought to be—from lack that they make secondary use of existing lists, taking rapid decisions over of modesty. On the contrary, we want the vision we have in this book to particular taxonomic problems but certainly not exploring and resolving be immediately apparent to its users, which is to involve them, stimulate issues as in a primary text. Here, however, we have been motivated to dare them, and make them part of the process by which it can be constantly im- to attempt something more. From over 20 years of work to produce the proved. This cannot perhaps be as interactive as HBW Alive or the BirdLife Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW), and from over 30 years engaged discussion forums (birdlife.org/globally-threatened-bird-forums), but it in evaluating the conservation status of all bird species, our two organiza- nonetheless offers the opportunity for ornithologists around the world to tions, Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, albeit from rather differ- contribute fact and opinion by way of feedback to the evidence the book ent perspectives, have become acutely sensitized to the issues and prob- provides, whether directly to Lynx or to BirdLife, or indirectly through lems surrounding modern species-level taxonomy. Given that conservation separate publications (see The future of the Checklist below). very largely takes the species as its unit of concern, and that the future of © Jorma Luhta/naturepl.com © Jorma Figure 1 – Ever since the introduction of a trinomial system in Ridgway’s list of North American birds (1880), and particularly since Mayr’s formula- tion of the Biological Species Concept (1942), reproductive isolation has been the decisive criterion in the human classiﬁcation of birds into differ- ent species. This has the advantage of accounting for not just how we humans see birds but also how they see each other. Even so, processes in nature are always under varying evolutionary pressures, and avian recognition systems can sometimes malfunction, as when Western Capercaillies Tetrao urogallus, pictured here at a lek, cross-breed with Black Grouse Lyrurus tetrix. 01_Introduction.indd 19 23/06/2014 12:07:43 20 Introduction G. cristata G. theklae both species [A] Sympatry [B] © Rui Caratão © Rui Figure 2 – Reproductive isolation is easy to prove when two species live side by side, i.e. in sympatry. Usually such species possess characters that are relatively obvious to the human eye, as they must be to the birds themselves. Rarely, however, the differences are disarmingly subtle, as in the case illustrated by this photograph of the Alentejo, Portugal, involving Crested Galerida cristata (with territory at A) and Thekla Larks G. theklae (territory at B). There are no known genetically proven hybrids between these two taxa and their differences remain constant: thus we can say with conﬁ dence that, on the basis of current knowledge and according to the BSC, they are two species. many taxa might in part depend on their recognition or not as species nature, the “tree of life” eventually arose, branched and budded into all (but see the subsection Subspecies, populations and conservation below), it has the dazzlingly intricate forms we know today—and into many others, we become increasingly frustrating to have to wait—frequently in vain—for can be sure, that we have yet to come to know. authoritative decisions from other sources over whether form A or form Blind adaptation to environmental conditions in this self-replication B is a species or subspecies. Taxonomy proceeds through the endeavours process is the driver of the variation in this unimaginably giant tree. of individual biologists working on whatever interests them, for whatever Adaptation itself, like the rst life on earth, results from entirely random reason, rather than to any all-embracing plan; and the resulting piecemeal circumstances. Biotic and abiotic conditions in one part of an organism’s patchwork has been, and remains, what the compilers of world lists have range encourage a particular slight variation in that organism where con- had to cope with as best they can. ditions in another part of the range do not; both variants thus adapt to— Lynx on its own or BirdLife on its own could not conceivably have increase their resource-use ef ciency in—their individual circumstances, attempted a project that seeks to be proactive in addressing a signi cant and in the process begin their slow trajectory towards independent number of the more salient issues in species-level taxonomy at the global existence. But because conditions are always changing at a great range of scale. However, by pooling our various resources we felt we might gener- scales from global to local, these organisms remain under constant (and ate a synergy which could serve our common interests and needs. We constantly changing) pressure to adapt further in order to survive and began discussions in 2009, and it has taken ve years to reach this seeming self-replicate, and the process—which, because it involves advantages and half-way stage, although in fact we plan to issue the passerine volume as therefore disadvantages, is necessarily conceived as a competition, a strug- soon as possible, in 2016 (since the size of the book would require two vol- gle for existence—thus never ends. It can be seen in life-forms separated umes, and since the non-passerines and passerines form two roughly equal by the splitting of continents under tectonic effects; but it can be seen, groups in terms of species numbers, we long ago decided that a two-step too, in life-forms separated by a few metres and by a few hours every day in approach to publication was appropriate). In briefest outline this is the rock-pools along a sea-shore. story behind the HBW–BirdLife Checklist; however, we feel it incumbent to At a certain point in the divergence of the organisms that make up ani- go into considerably more detail in order to justify our venture more fully, mal life (the life of plants is considerably more complicated) their differ- although to do so we have to go back to the very beginning. ences—their degrees of adaptation to their environment—reach the point at which recombination with their closest relatives represents a disadvan- tage to their ability to survive and self-perpetuate. These disadvantages The speciation process and the species problem mean that recombining populations are outperformed by those that stay separate. This “natural selection” of the separate populations (abetted by Evolutionary theory holds that all life on earth can be traced back to an ill- “sexual selection”, in which males compete with males and females choose de ned moment in time when certain compounds (methane, ammonia, among them on the basis of traits that are not necessarily adaptive) also phosphate), under certain in uences (heat, electricity, radiation), began drives the evolution of mechanisms such as colour patterns, sounds and to form self-replicating acids. From a biogenesis so far back in the history shapes that help block any further wasteful co-mingling between them. of the planet that dozens of ideas have been put forward concerning its This is the point—complete reproductive isolation—at which biologists 01_Introduction.indd 20 23/06/2014 12:07:46 Introduction 21 can judge with certainty that a species has been born (Figure 1): a new and distinctive leaf on the tree of life has unfurled. Unfortunately, in reality the situation is not always so clear-cut.

Load more