Common gallinule

@Maguari
I think you overreacted a lot acting as if I said/done things that I don't said. See:

"if you're going to tell other members that what they have posted is incorrect"
I never said that. Please read again more carefully. What I said is that the former taxonomic opinion cannot be considered incorrect, the incorrect fact is to considere other opinions as incorrect, not to considere one of the opinions as correct! I remark this saying that "everyone is free to choose the taxonomic opinion that they want".

"that is your opinion and why you hold it"
No, it's not my opinion, as I'm not a taxonomist. It's just the opinion of the whole scientific community, based on many, many people that studied these things and drawn conclusions based on evidence (just before few other people did the same and leaded to a different conclusion).

"Why you are able to assert without evidence that the old taxonomic view is automatically correct, while when I provide a link with references to support the modern consensus I am 'really wrong"
Again, same reply than for point 1, you're just puting in my mouth things that I didn't defended or even think in. The only thing in that you're wrong is in thinking that I said that you're wrong! I never said that your option is incorrect. What I said is that other options are as correct as yours. I hope you finally understand now.

P.S. while basically the previous reply about what checklist I use is the correct one (I use my memory), my knowlegde comes from sources, of course. If that's what you're referring, for birds most of my knowlegde comes from Howard & Moore, Checklist of the birds of the world, however I've accepted a number of changes done since it's publication, but of course not all, just a bunch ones that seems reasonable. For other groups and for consulting if I'm in doubt, the basic checklist that I use is a Word document made by myself where I try to list all the "more famous" species of the world - those that count with photographs in Flickr - and that I elaborated during many years tough I stopped in ammonites, they're so tiring. For the taxonomic arrangement of this listing I used Encyclopedia of Life (EOL), a place that gives you the advantage of let you compare the complete current taxonomic tree used for various sources (ITIS, Tree of Life, IUCN, and many other sources specialized in groups (Paleology Database, bird checklists, etc), see for example the comparation of the various currently accepted trees for Gallinula chloropus (and almost all of them includes the american subspecies into G. chloropus!): Common Moorhen - Gallinula chloropus - Classifications - Encyclopedia of Life
I hope that you're happier now that I gave you the references that you talked about, even when it was unnecesary.

About the unrespectful, lying and insulting comment of @Giant Panda, I will just pass to reply. I will not downgrade to his level...

@Kakapo

1) I'm not putting words in your mouth at all. You directly contradicted @birdsandbats in your first post here, you didn't on that occasion use the words 'you're wrong', but you absolutely were saying they were wrong, and unfairly.

2) The opinion you offered is NOT the opinion of the whole scientific community at all. What your own comment above indicates is that it was the prevailing opinion but it no longer is. It seems a bit like you learned the species years ago and don't want them ever to change (I didn't initially say this because that really is putting words in your mouth - but it's how your posts come across when you say your source is your own knowledge). I'm very sorry, but neither your memory nor mine is a taxonomic reference.

3) Yes, you have said are defaulting to the older one being right unless you personally decide otherwise. You did indeed say it was 'really wrong' to contradict someone (straight after you did exactly the same), so again - not putting words in your mouth.

And it's fine to look at all those lists on EoL but remember they are not all equal - they do not update at the same rate to reflect new knowledge and so if you're not very careful you get the same problem of working from an out-of-date list. You need to look for quality, up-to-date lists and take consensus from them. Note that Clements, for instance, also uses G. galeata (and of course, there is also an EoL page for G. galeata: Common Gallinule - Gallinula chloropus galeata - Classifications - Encyclopedia of Life ).

If you insist on using an almost-frozen-in-time Word document you made for yourself with names from Flickr as a major taxonomic source, you can expect to be corrected a lot in the future - sorry!

@Chlidonias
if I may just point out what seems to be a rather substantial flaw in your strategy:
Strategy? I think a strategy is a way for get something... and I don't pretend to get nothing. By the way, what is a flaw? (sorry my English is not perfect)

1) "No, it's not my opinion, as I'm not a taxonomist", followed by, 2) "For other groups and for consulting if I'm in doubt, the basic checklist that I use is a Word document made by myself..."
Are you suggesting that both phrases are contradictory? Because they aren't...

You can make all the checklists you want and pretend they are valid, but if you aren't able to assess taxonomic positions properly
(a thing that I did in the previous comment, even when unnecesary)

then you're just cherry-picking based on what you feel is "right",
Of course! And what every person feel what is "right" is the correct taxonomy for themselves, so what's wrong with this? Scientific publications where a taxon is changed are also based on what these scientific feel that is right... remember that the only universal definition of "species" is "what an expert says that is a species". So when several experts says different things, one must choose one of the currently valid theories! This is what I said since the begin, I hope you understand at some point!

which really in most cases where this sort of discussion has come up seems to be whatever the taxonomic position was several decades ago.
Do you know the phrase "if isn't broken, don't fix it"? An already stabilished and exhaustively scientifically studied taxonomy don't needs to change. In cases where it was just enough knowlegde, it's acceptable... of course it's a very blurry barrier, but the real nonsense would be to just accept every change purposed in the ultrarrecent times by anybody (a person o a small team), as demonstrated by the fact that these changes turn back again or change into a third thing very quickly... obviously it's the conjunction of all the theories recently purposed (in last century or so) the thing that one must use for choose an option.

@Maguari
1) I'm not putting words in your mouth at all.
Yes you did. You said that I said that certain taxonomic point of view is invalid. I didn't said that. Just exposed another valid one.

You directly contradicted @birdsandbats in your first post here,
Not actually. I just wanted to defend the fact that drill put a correct name in his photo, so no need to be corrected. Birdsandbats didn't told a invalid or incorrect thing, he just was incorrect in the way or saying it: "XXX don't occur in USA" instead of "in recent times the American population tend to be considered as a YYY instead XXX as previously, and hence also tend to receive a different usual common name".

but you absolutely were saying they were wrong, and unfairly.
Well if after I even demonstrated that it's not true, even when is enough with reading it for see.. if even then you just continue aseverating that I said something that I didn't, then I let the casse by impossible. One can't discuss about the colours of a picture with a blind person, overall if this blind person is obcecate in affirmating a thing and not opening to whatever other opinion.

And I hasn't been unfairly in this whole discussion (and as fair as I remember, also not in my whole writing in Zoochat...). Others have been unfair with me in this thread, not me.

) The opinion you offered is NOT the opinion of the whole scientific community at all. What your own comment above indicates is that it was the prevailing opinion but it no longer is.

I just will remit to my reply about last phrase for Chlidonias. The reply also applies here.

It seems a bit like you learned the species years ago and don't want them ever to change (I didn't initially say this because that really is putting words in your mouth - but it's how your posts come across when you say your source is your own knowledge).
More or less, yes, this is how it works, with of course exceptions everywhere.

I'm very sorry, but neither your memory nor mine is a taxonomic reference.
Don't be sorry, just accept it. Everyone's memory, feelings, self-made works, analysis, etc,... is the taxonomic reference for THEMSELVES. So if Chesser et al considere from a point that the American populations deserves a different status, then their considerations are a taxonomic reference for Chesser et al. The remaining authors and everyone can follow it or reject it, it's up to anybody.

3) Yes, you have said are defaulting to the older one being right unless you personally decide otherwise.
Not very sure of how to translate this, but of course the older (or newer) one is right for myself unless I personally decide otherwise. And for every zoochatter, scientific or whatever is the same. Everyone choose their personal taxonomic opinion.

You did indeed say it was 'really wrong' to contradict someone (straight after you did exactly the same), so again - not putting words in your mouth.
I didn't contradicted nobody. Is not the same to expose another valid opinion than saying that the first (also valid) opinion is wrong. Gosh I never imagined that defending somebody (Drill in this case) would be seen as an attack or something similar!!

And it's fine to look at all those lists on EoL but remember they are not all equal - they do not update at the same rate to reflect new knowledge and so if you're not very careful you get the same problem of working from an out-of-date list.
That's why I used a source with various listings. In general the most consensed taxa are the most accepted for myself. And a list will be very slightly outdated whitin the life of a person. Can I remind you that evolution works in milleniums, not in years?

You need to look for quality, up-to-date lists and take consensus from them. Note that Clements, for instance, also uses G. galeata

The fact of a small exception contradicting everybody other opinions don't made this small exception the valid one. If you put a drop of water in a dry soil, this soil don't become a wetland.

(and of course, there is also an EoL page for G. galeata: Common Gallinule - Gallinula chloropus galeata - Classifications - Encyclopedia of Life ).
And just you provide the link and even in the same title it gives the status as subspecific of G.chloropus... Sigh.

If you insist on using an almost-frozen-in-time Word document you made for yourself with names from Flickr as a major taxonomic source, you can expect to be corrected a lot in the future - sorry!
These are not corrections, are advises of opinion that pretend to be corrections and the only truth in the world - but they aren't.



And as far as this discussion goes, I'm very tired of it. One can't open the eyes of an obcecate blind world... I will not reply anymore to it, so don't waste your time replying again.