The ornithological world has 4 global checklists (as of early 2020). While 3 follow the results of peer-reviewed research at varying pace and conservatism, the HBW/BirdLife checklist, which is adopted by the global Red List authority, has implemented Tobias et al.’s (2010) 7-point scoring system to overhaul global ornithological treatment. Critically received in some academic quarters, this scoring system is lauded by other ornithologists for its simplicity and reproducibility, a claim that remains to be tested. We subjected 26 ornithologists to a set of 48 bird skins belonging to 20 controversial taxonomic complexes and observed a wide variance in scoring results, in most cases straddling anywhere from far below to above the species threshold of the 7-point rule and casting doubt on claims of high reproducibility. For a detailed assessment of genuine taxonomic discord, we compared the taxonomic coverage of the avifauna of the Indonesian Archipelago (comprising ~1,400 species) between the HBW/BirdLife checklist, other major authorities, and the peer-reviewed literature. We detected that controversial treatments supported by the 7-point rule but at odds with the peer-reviewed literature predominantly refer to lumps, not splits, which are the usual subject of modern taxonomic quarrels. Notably, the method tends to unite morphologically (and sometimes vocally) cryptic forms into single larger species because of its inability to accommodate molecular and massive bioacoustic datasets that would indicate otherwise. On the other hand, the 7-point rule has produced numerous novel proposals for splits that may or may not be corroborated by future peer-reviewed inquiry. We recommend the 7-point rule as one of the multiple unofficial exploratory tools to flag cases of potentially cryptic species requiring further inquiry, but we advise against its adoption by other taxonomic authorities and the ornithological community.

中文翻译：

---

动荡中的鸟类分类学：7 点规则的可重复性很差，可能会忽略大量神秘的多样性

鸟类学世界有 4 个全球清单（截至 2020 年初）。虽然 3 以不同的速度和保守主义遵循同行评议的研究结果，但全球红色名录权威机构采用的 HBW/BirdLife 检查表已实施 Tobias 等人 (2010) 的 7 分评分系统进行全面检查全球鸟类学治疗。该评分系统在一些学术领域受到好评，因其简单性和可重复性而受到其他鸟类学家的称赞，这一说法仍有待检验。我们让 26 名鸟类学家对属于 20 个有争议的分类复合体的 48 张鸟皮进行了调查，并观察到评分结果存在很大差异，在大多数情况下，跨越远低于 7 点规则的物种阈值到高于物种阈值的任何地方，并对索赔提出质疑具有高重现性。为了详细评估真正的分类不和谐，我们比较了 HBW/BirdLife 清单、其他主要权威机构和同行评审文献对印度尼西亚群岛鸟类（包括约 1,400 种）的分类覆盖率。我们发现，7 点规则支持但与同行评审文献不一致的有争议的治疗主要指的是肿块，而不是分裂，这是现代分类学争论的常见主题。值得注意的是，该方法倾向于将形态学（有时是声音）的隐蔽形式统一为单个较大的物种，因为它无法容纳分子和大量的生物声学数据集，而这些数据集会表明并非如此。另一方面，7 点规则产生了许多新的拆分建议，这些建议可能会或可能不会被未来的同行评审调查证实。我们建议将 7 点规则作为多种非官方探索工具之一，以标记需要进一步调查的潜在神秘物种的案例，但我们建议其他分类当局和鸟类学界不要采用它。