Systematics and Taxonomy of Australian Birds presents an up-to-date classification of Australian birds. Building on the authors’ 1994 book, The Taxonomy and Species of Birds of Australia and its Territories, it incorporates the extensive volume of relevant systematic work since then. The findings of these studies are summarised and evaluated in the explanations for the taxonomic treatments adopted, and with the extensive citations, the book serves as a comprehensive introduction to the recent systematic literature of Australian birds. All species of birds that have been recorded from the Australian mainland, Tasmania, island territories and surrounding waters are treated and listed. Along with extant native species, all accepted vagrants, recently extinct (since 1800) native species and established introduced species are included.

Summary1. Expert knowledge is used routinely to inform listing decisions under the IUCN Red List criteria. Differences in opinion arise between experts in the presence of epistemic uncertainty, as a result of different interpretations of incomplete information and differences in individual beliefs, values and experiences. Structured expert elicitation aims to anticipate and account for such differences to increase the accuracy of final estimates. 2. A diverse panel of 16 experts independently evaluated up to 125 parameters per taxon to assess the IUCN Red List category of extinction risk for nine Australian bird taxa. Each panellist was provided with the same baseline data. Additional judgments and advice were sought from taxon specialists outside the panel. One question set elicited lowest and highest plausible estimates, best estimates and probabilities that the true values were contained within the upper and lower bounds. A second question set elicited yes ⁄ no answers and a degree of credibility in the answer provided. 3. Once initial estimates were obtained, all panellists were shown each others' values. They discussed differences and reassessed their original values. Most communication was carried out by email. 4. The process took nearly 6 months overall to complete, and required an average of 1 h and up to 13 h per taxon for a panellist to complete the initial assessment. 5. Panellists were mostly in agreement with one another about IUCN categorisations for each taxon. Where they differed, there was some evidence of convergence in the second round of assessments, although there was persistent non-overlap for about 2% of estimates. The method exposed evidence of common subjective biases including overconfidence, anchoring to available data, definitional ambiguity and the conceptual difficulty of estimating percentages rather than natural numbers. 6. This study demonstrates the value of structured elicitation techniques to identify and to reduce potential sources of bias and error among experts. The formal nature of the process meant that the consensus position reached carried greater weight in subsequent deliberations on status. The structured process is worthwhile for high profile or contentious taxa, but may be too time intensive for less divisive cases.

COMMENT © 2 0 1 7 M a c m i l l a n P u b l i s h e r s L i m i t e d , p a r t o f S p r i n g e r N a t u r e . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . the International Council for Science, the highest-level organization for global scientific governance. MIX 'N' MATCH FREE-FOR-ALLThe lack of universal rules for taxonomy has many consequences. A major issue is differences in tradition between classes. Many mammalian taxonomists use the phylogenetic species concept (PSC): two populations are listed as distinct species if they have a common ancestor but differ physically or genetically 2 . Meanwhile, many bird taxonomists favour the more conservative biological species concept -the idea that true species should not normally produce fertile hybrids 2 . An estimate published last year suggests that the number of bird species would more than double were bird taxonomists to adopt the PSC 3 .Depending on which species concept is used, one class can seem more threatened than another, and so receive a bigger slice of conservation funding. In 2012, for instance, roughly the same amount of spending was dedicated to birds and mammals, per species, under the US Endangered Species Act 4 . But if mammals are more finely split than birds, that means more money is being funnelled towards the protection of mammalian genetic diversity overall. Paradoxically, finer splitting could also make certain species more vulnerable. Safari hunters currently achieve the 'spiral horned grand slam' by killing just nine types of antelope. Recent developments in taxonomy could see them wanting to kill 25, and targeting smaller populations to do so.A second issue is that conservation legislation often fails to keep pace with changes to how animals and plants are classified. For example, changes to taxonomy since Chinese wildlife legislative lists were last updated in 1989 have left 25 species listed under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES) exposed to illegal trade 5 . It can also affect countries' biodiversity tallies under the Convention on Biological Diversity. Splitting species into smaller units means that more are likely to meet the definitions of being threatened, and so may increase a country's overall count of threatened species. The application of the PSC to the 'near threatened' central Asian argali wild sheep (Ovis ammon), turned one species into nine, and overnight Kazakhstan had five mountain sheep species in need of protection, not just one 6 . Nationally, the splitting or lumping of species protected by law can affect investment and land use, and even foster doubts about science among the public and policymakers. In an ongoing battle, developers seeking access to valuable land are proposing that a bird, the coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), does not warrant protection. They argue that DNA evidence indicates that it is not a valid taxon.More broadly, a single taxonomic paper can affect whole conservation programmes, tourist enterprises and emplo...

The importance of ecological management for reducing the vulnerability of biodiversity to climate change is increasingly recognized, yet frameworks to facilitate a structured approach to climate adaptation management are lacking. We developed a conceptual framework that can guide identification of climate change impacts and adaptive management options in a given region or biome. The framework focuses on potential points of early climate change impact, and organizes these along two main axes. First, it recognizes that climate change can act at a range of ecological scales. Secondly, it emphasizes that outcomes are dependent on two potentially interacting and countervailing forces: (1) changes to environmental parameters and ecological processes brought about by climate change, and (2) responses of component systems as determined by attributes of resistance and resilience. Through this structure, the framework draws together a broad range of ecological concepts, with a novel emphasis on attributes of resistance and resilience that can temper the response of species, ecosystems and landscapes to climate change. We applied the framework to the world’s largest remaining Mediterranean-climate woodland, the ‘Great Western Woodlands’ of south-western Australia. In this relatively intact region, maintaining inherent resistance and resilience by preventing anthropogenic degradation is of highest priority and lowest risk. Limited, higher risk options such as fire management, protection of refugia and translocation of adaptive genes may be justifiable under more extreme change, hence our capacity to predict the extent of change strongly impinges on such management decisions. These conclusions may contrast with similar analyses in degraded landscapes, where natural integrity is already compromised, and existing investment in restoration may facilitate experimentation with higher risk options