Hmm, I wonder if you record at a "higher taxon" level (i.e. anything that is not at the bottom level in the tree, including species in this case), then they should be included in reports where the taxa beneath them are designated. A poor example, but if someone records a mammal, how do you know it is not designated because it is a bat?

John / Charlie

I think you've missed my point - I give an example for Lagopus lagopus (Willow Grouse/Red Grouse)
L.lagopus scoticus - Red Grouse occurs in UK might be endemic
L.lagopus lagopus - Willow Grouse (s.s.) does not occur in UK

BirdGuides class the species as sedentary, i.e. doesn't migrate so in UK ...
Lagopus lagopus scoticus = Lagopus lagopus for recording purposes, so why only include L.l.scoticus on the BAP list - I know I could change all my L.l. records to L.l.scoticus, but that would be inferring a precision not present in the original record.

I know in other species the continental variety comes into the UK occasionally, but with regard to BAP or NERC their presence is insignificant in comparision with the population of the native birds, so again I do not see the point of only listing the sub-species.

Even worse is the example of Linnet:

the aggregate Carduelis cannabina subsp. autochthona/cannabina is listed on the NERC list, but neither Carduelis c.subsp. autochthona nor Carduelis c. subsp. cannabina is! And that isn't the only one!

John, the BAP designation is unnecessarily at sub-species level in most cases. For red grouse the footnote to the birds list in the UKBAP Review 2007 states that all UK birds are in the sub-species scoticus. There are similar comments for most of the birds listed as sub-species, although some exclude wintering continental migrants and Scottish island races, but it appears that these footnotes were ignored in the creation of the dictionary which appears to be a simple import of the list.

Surely it is better and easier to include all potentially listed records and know that some might need to be excluded than to have to hunt the missing ones down. If this is the list which is going to have top be used for at least the next 5-10 years then it at least needs to be made fit for purpose. There is the potential situation where, come the next review, there are no records for half the birds that need to be reported on because of a defective list.

Gordon

I think that approach is right for some cases - I think putting a catch-all designation against Chiroptera has been suggested in the past and is probably the best example where you are unable to fully identify something that may be important. I am not sure it would work in this case, as part of the problem is that the poorly constructed sub-species aggregates in the designation checklists are not children of the taxa that would be recorded against in the BIRDS or Recorder 3.3 checklists, or if done in a way that would work, would probably be the more complicated solution. Alternatively we are both saying the same thing in most respects and just have mild differences on the details.

I suppose that if we all agree that something needs to be done to correct this then it could just be passed to whoever needs to do it, to work out the details, not sure whether that would be you, John, or Lynn or even Charles Hussey (or does he only deal with the preferred lists?), as long as it all filters through to the dictionaries in both Recorder and NBN Gateway.

G