Proposal (399) to South American Classification Committee
Waive
“peer-reviewed publication” requirement for online vocal data
Recent proposals and relatively new on-line
resources have precipitated the following proposal. Most committee members have followed the
philosophy of having a peer-reviewed publication before implementing a
taxonomic change. However, with the
advent of readily accessible vocal data, through Xeno-canto and Macaulay
Library of Natural Sounds, I submit that we should change our protocol for
those taxa where the primary characters for making a taxonomic change are
vocalizations. This would be restricted to
those taxa that are named and thus have associated documented morphological
differences. A good example of this was
the recent Dubusia proposal (# 392),
where plumage morphology and distribution have been described and the sole new
information was vocal which was accessible on-line via the above web
sites.
So, what are the advantages to making this
change? Aside from the obvious of
expediting taxonomic changes, this protocol has other advantages over paper
publications: (1) more critical review. For most journals, outside review is limited
to two or three people. Moreover, the
process isn’t always transparent. This
is in sharp contrast to our protocol that has input from a minimum of ten
people and is as transparent as possible; (2) I think everyone would agree that
it is far more elucidating to listen to a vocalization while viewing a
spectrograph, as is the case with on-line vocal data; (3) space limitations in
paper publications vs. unlimited sample sizes on-line. In a typical published
taxonomic note one is limited by space to just a few spectrographs, whereas
on-line resources there are no limitations. Excellent examples for contrasting
these limitations/advantages are two recent proposals: # 387, splitting Poospiza cabanisi from P. lateralis and # 392, elevating Dubusia taeniata stictocephala to
species level. In both cases, names and
plumage morphology were previously described – vocalizations were the new
data. In the Poospiza proposal a single spectrograph of each song and call note
were presented whereas 30 vocalizations could be visualized *and* listened to,
via Xeno-canto and MLNS, for the Dubusia
proposal. The comparison speaks for
itself. Moreover, on the above two
websites the localities are often mapped, whereas one needs to consult a
gazetteer for ascertaining localities in a paper publication. In other words, it doesn’t get any easier in
having all the critical data available.
Thus, I see nothing
but advantages to adopting this new protocol.
Hence, I recommend that we adopt this protocol.
Mark
Robbins, June 2009
Comments from Cadena:
“NO. I see Mark's point regarding the accessibility
of online recordings, which is a lot better than simple verbal descriptions of
vocalizations that have often been used to justify changes in species level
taxonomy (e.g. in field guides). However, I don't think that wide accessibility
over the internet overturns the need for rigorous analyses that are passed
through the peer-review process and published in scientific journals in order
to justify changes to our classification. Online databases such as XenoCanto
are an excellent complement for analyses presented in scientific papers, but
are no substitute for them.”
Comments from Zimmer:
“YES. I’m really torn
on this one. First, I don’t remember
that we, as a committee, had taken a hard-line stance requiring “peer-reviewed
publication”, although that is certainly the way we have leaned in the majority
of cases lacking such published analysis.
I wholeheartedly echo Daniel’s point that there is no substitute for a
rigorous, peer-reviewed, published analysis.
However, there have been a number of cases involving proposals to split
species that were originally described as distinct species, and then
subsequently lumped without comment (particularly by Peters), with the result
that our status quo is reflecting an unsupported, unanalyzed change that is not
founded upon any published evidence – peer-reviewed or otherwise. In such cases, my usual position has been
that any available published evidence (even in the form of field guide vocal
descriptions) supporting the original species-limits treatment trumps a status
quo that lacks any kind of published support other than inertia. To be clear, we are talking about named taxa,
for which morphological differences are documented and published in
peer-reviewed publications. So the
information on vocal differences represents the only “new” or non-vetted
data. As Mark points out, online vocal
collections allow committee members to more readily evaluate anecdotal or
published transcriptions of vocalizations.
They should not be viewed as a substitute for a published analysis,
which I would always consider to be preferable, but I do think that in overturning
some unsupported “lumps” they should be considered adequate, in the interest of
getting things right as opposed to rigidly following a precedent that all
available evidence indicates is wrong.
So, if in fact we do have a “requirement” for peer-reviewed publication
of vocal differences, then I would vote YES for waiving that requirement for
on-line vocal data, but only in cases involving previously named taxa in which
our current species-limits are not based upon any published analysis. If previous published analysis is the basis
for our current treatment, then I think any change demands counter-evidence
subjected to the same level of scrutiny.”
Comments from
Schulenberg: “YES. With enthusiasm. Daniel voices a concern
about the lack of "rigorous analyses" in simply listening to
recordings of various taxa from online, institutional sources (Macaulay
Library, xeno-canto). My response is, there are plenty of cases in which two
taxa really don't sound anything at all alike, the 'whole world' can tell this
with their own ears, and we're just wasting our time (and not looking very
sharp, either, cutting edge transparency notwithstanding) if we have to sit
around for someone to write a paper that says 'these two taxa don't sound
anything at all alike.' In other words, if you listen to the material yourself,
and you are convinced of the differences just by listening, then ... why not go
ahead and allow yourself to vote for a change that you believe in?”
“Obviously
there will be cases, perhaps many of them, where the vocalizations of two or
more taxa are more similar - different, but still recognizably similar. If
you're not certain just by listening, then vote 'no' and wait for the published
rigorous analysis. I don't see how allowing this option does any harm, and it
could do us a great deal of good.
“I'd like to go one farther, and suggest that we take more advantage
of institutional, digitized, online sound recordings as documentation for the
presence of a species in a country for the SACC country lists. As worded, the
criteria (never voted on by SACC? or am I forgetting?) are "Such evidence
may consist of a specimen, a photograph or video, or an audio-recording, as
long as the evidence is archived in an institutional collection, and its
existence is published." I understand the importance of relying on
documentation that is archived. But I don't understand why it is more important
that someone mention in print that a sound recording is archived, than it is
that anyone who cares to can listen to the sound themselves and verify the
identification independently.”
Comments from Remsen: “NO. Why should vocal data and analyses be treated
any differently from any other data? If
we adopt this, then why not just dispense with publication requirements
altogether? Why not just circulate some
unpublished trees to show that a genus is polyphyletic, for example, and the
heck with the formality of getting the data-set and its analyses and
interpretations reviewed and into print.
Hey, we all know supposedly how to tell from a tree whether a genus is
polyphyletic from well-supported nodes on a tree, and so can the ‘whole world’,
right? A parallel case can be made for
almost any sort of data that we examine.
I’m sure that the Peters Checklist-era taxonomists felt the same way –
why bother to publish analyses and rationale when the conclusion is
obvious? And now we are paying the
price.
“Even sticking
strictly to vocal data, the raw data, the sonograms, should be analyzed with
respect to sample size, geography, context (e.g., playback response/not),
season, etc., and the rationale for the change outlined specifically and
quantitatively. To reduce decisions to
“sounds different to me” (or not) represents retrogression in the direction of
the realm of art appreciation. To go
this route represents a threat to our credibility. I’m all for using Xeno-canto, Macaulay, and
any online sources as supplementary material – just not as a substitute for an
analysis.
“Finally,
by the time someone writes a proposal with sufficient rigor to submit to SACC,
they’ve already almost all the work necessary to submit the proposal as a short
note for publication. The current
proposal on Dubusia (392) is a good example – with slightly more
effort, it is publishable in Cotinga
or BBOC. Therefore, pragmatically, going the route of
this proposal really doesn’t reduce the workload much, and the process of
getting that proposal draft published as a short note will only improve the
final product.”
Comments from Stotz: “YES. I have never been as
doctrinaire as some on requiring a peer-reviewed publication for a split or a
lump. We have dozens of cases where the
basis for our current treatment is weak to non-existent. We treat them a
certain way because Peters or Hellmayr or somebody treated them that way. I think that if somebody makes a clear case
why the treatment we currently follow is wrong then we should adopt that new
treatment. Mark makes a good case
here for the advantages of these on-line resources for vocalizations. I am not as convinced as Van is that that it
is trivial to turn a SACC proposal into a paper that would be published
although certainly it would be good to have that occur as much as possible.”
Additional comments from Remsen: “Although I couldn’t agree more
strongly with Doug on the point that the status quo often has little or no
established rationale, this is not an excuse, in my opinion, to revert to
standards of a half-century ago. In
fact, if this proposal passes, I could no longer in good faith support the
mission of SACC and will resign. I also
doubt that the American Ornithologists’ Union would continue its support.”
Comments from Stiles:
“NO. Once again, I will vote NO here because
I believe that the evidence in such cases should appear in a peer-reviewed
publication. Especially when I am not
familiar with the birds in question, I find a published analysis important in
helping me reach a decision. Quite often
the proponents of changes in status based (at least in part) on vocal evidence
that already exists but has not been subjected to a careful analysis could
perform the analyses with relatively little effort and the publication would
almost surely follow. This might mean a
bit of a delay by comparison to Mark’s proposal, but here I think it is worth
it.”
Additional
comments from Robbins:
“Both
Daniel and Tom make good points about the need for revisiting some earlier
proposals. A good example is the very
first proposal that we assessed, as it is germane to the current discussion on
using online information to evaluate species limits for taxa that already have
names. Below I paste in Van’s comments from that proposal. After reading this I pose the question, given
the many shortcomings of the vocal data in this paper (all but one of us
supported the proposal) is it any better than having a minimum of 10 committee
members (remember outside members can comment as well) evaluate a proposal that
has more complete sampling and allows one to analyze every song both aurally
and spectrographically? Given that the
Maijer article was published in the Auk, it is likely there were no more
than two reviewers (there is no mention of any reviewer in the
acknowledgments). Moreover, only a
single spectrogram is presented for each proposed species. In comparison, there are 30 songs from >
25 localities for the Dubusia proposal.
I’m using this not because I was part of the proposal, but because at
present it is our only example of using online vocal data for making a
taxonomic decision. This is just one
example that illustrates the shortcomings of subscribing to a published account
only philosophy of acceptance.
“The online proposal
embraces technology that provides better access, analyses of more data, a more
rigorous review, transparency, and expedites the process. I fail to understand how this is not a vast
improvement over the opaque and often untraceable single-author approach (e.g.,
Peters, Hellmayr, Meyer de Schauensee), which the committee often bemoans. As one final comment, months ago I suggested
that we create an online SACC journal.
Naturally, this would eliminate any concerns about having something
published before it would be considered as a proposal.
SACC
proposal # 1:
New information: Maijer (1996: Auk 113:
695-697), however, provided data on primary vocalizations that suggests that
this taxon merits species rank. His rationale was as follows: (1) songs of
tinamou taxa currently treated as species are surprisingly uniform (citing
Hardy, Veillard, and Straneck ARA cassette); (2) songs of the three lowland
subspecies of R. rufescens differ in only minor ways, perhaps only
individual variation (based on his limited experience); and (3) the difference
between maculicollis and lowland rufescens is substantial; to
quote Maijer: "the song differences between maculicollis and
lowland populations of R. rufescens are as great as between closely
related species in other tinamou genera (pers. obs.)". Maijer compared
tape maculicollis from 5 individuals from 4 widely separated areas of
Bolivia to single representative recordings of lowland rufescens from
the three named subspecies (from Bahia, Huanchaca, and Entre Rios) to
quantitatively demonstrate the differences. Maijer noted that the foothills and
lowlands populations are probably allopatric, separated by unsuitable (forest)
habitat.
Recommendation: We could easily fault Maijer for not having
larger and broader samples, for not evaluating whether the closest rufescens
populations approach maculicollis in voice, and for not quantifying his
statements on within-species vocal variation in other tinamous. However, such
criticisms could be leveled at almost any new data set, and if we set our
standards that high, we might as well endorse 99% of the status quo and all go
home. Furthermore, our current status-quo taxonomy is based on much less. For
example, Peters or whoever started treating maculicollis as a subspecies
probably lumped it into rufescens without so much as a comment. From my
experience on the AOU CLC, this example will be a typical dilemma for us:
retain a status quo often based on unstated rationale or opinions versus accept
a novel change backed by data that is often far below what we'd hope for.
Unfortunately, a dissertation-quality study cannot be undertaken on every
taxonomic problem.”
Additional
comments from Remsen:
“My point is not that print-version data are necessarily better than online
data, nor that being in print guarantees quality. In fact, we’ll soon be dealing with
peer-reviewed online-only journals. My
points are: (1) simply referring to online recordings or any other online raw
data and asking committee members to interpret them as “similar” or “different”
as the basis of a proposal is not the same as an analysis; and (2) as long as
one has to go to the trouble of analyzing and interpreting online raw data for
a proposal, it doesn’t take that much more effort to get that proposal into
publication draft form, e.g., the current Dubusia
proposal, which by using and referring to Xeno-canto and other online
resources, which I strongly support, would be a better paper than Maijer’s
published note. Further, before I am
dismissed as a fuddy-duddy for not favoring the proposal, note that I hope I
have established some degree of non-fuddy-duddyhood in terms of developing
internet-based tools (e.g., SACC is entirely internet-based). However, I am still concerned about the
fundamentally ephemeral nature of web pages and their content (thus, eager to
get a print-version of SACC classification); the content and availability of
any online pages are potentially fluid, whereas that in Maijer (1996: Auk 113: 695-697) are
fixed.”
Comments from Nores:
“NO. Yo
no veo porqué tengamos que hacer excepciones con vocalizaciones a lo que ha
sido la política desde el primer momento. Al contrario, pienso que con vocalizaciones y análisis
moleculares hay que ser más exigente que con otros aspectos, ya que los
principales cambios en la taxonomía clásica están basados en estos dos
aspectos. Además, esto no significa que uno no pueda usar lo que aparece
en Xeno-canto and Macaulay Library como
complemento de los papers, una cosa no elimina la otra. Yo coincido plenamente
con Daniel que los database online son excelentes complementos para análisis
presentado en papers científicos, pero no son substituto de ellos. Aunque
Douglas tiene razón de que nosotros tenemos docenas de casos donde la base del
tratamiento es liviana o no existente, eso no significa para mí que tengamos
que fomentar ese tipo de tratamiento. Considero que tendríamos que ser más
exigentes no sólo para las vocalizaciones sino para todos los otros aspectos. Pienso
que sería importante, como ya ha sido señalado por otros miembros de SACC,
re-visitar alguna propuestas hechas al principio.”
Comments
from Pacheco:
“YES. Minha opinião é
semelhante, ou possivelmente idêntica, à do Kevin. Eu tenho para mim que o SACC
poderia utilizar desses bancos de vozes online nos casos nos quais o
tratamento taxonômico vigente foi arbitrado sem considerar (sequer de forma
rudimentar) informações oriundas do repertório vocal dos táxons implicados
(e.g. Hellmayr, Peters, etc). Em suma, esse uso não deve ser visto como
um substituto de uma análise publicada, mas um recurso preferível em lugar da
“inércia” referida por Kevin.”