Classification of birds of South America Part 02

A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee
American Ornithologists' Union
(Part 2)

Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Ciconiiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Pipridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

Hypothetical List (click)
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa (click)
Literature Cited (click)

FALCONIFORMES 1

PANDIONIDAE (OSPREY) 2
Pandion haliaetus Osprey (NB)

ACCIPITRIDAE (HAWKS) 3
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite 3a, 4, 3c
Leptodon forbesi White-collared Kite 4, 4a, 3c
Chondrohierax uncinatus Hook-billed Kite 4b
Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite 5, 3c
Gampsonyx swainsonii Pearl Kite 5a, 5c
Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite 5b, 5c
Rostrhamus sociabilis Snail Kite 6, 6a
Helicolestes hamatus Slender-billed Kite 7
Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite 6a, 7c
Harpagus diodon Rufous-thighed Kite 6a
Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite (NB) 6a, 7a, 7b
Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite 6a, 7a
Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier (NB) 8a, 8b
Circus cinereus Cinereous Harrier 8b
Circus buffoni Long-winged Harrier 8c
Accipiter poliogaster Gray-bellied Hawk 9, 9a
Accipiter superciliosus Tiny Hawk 9aa
Accipiter collaris Semicollared Hawk 9aa
Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 10, 10a
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk (V) 11, 11a
Accipiter bicolor Bicolored Hawk 11a, 12
Geranospiza caerulescens Crane Hawk 11b, 11c
Leucopternis plumbeus Plumbeous Hawk 12b, 12c
Leucopternis schistaceus Slate-colored Hawk 12b, 12c
Leucopternis princeps Barred Hawk 12bb
Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk 12d
Leucopternis kuhli White-browed Hawk 12d
Leucopternis lacernulatus White-necked Hawk 12b, 12d
Leucopternis semiplumbeus Semiplumbeous Hawk 12b, 12d
Leucopternis albicollis White Hawk 12e
Leucopternis occidentalis Gray-backed Hawk 12e
Leucopternis polionotus Mantled Hawk 12b, 12e
Buteogallus anthracinus Common Black-Hawk 14, 14a
Buteogallus aequinoctialis Rufous Crab-Hawk 14
Buteogallus urubitinga Great Black-Hawk 14b
Buteogallus meridionalis Savanna Hawk 15
Harpyhaliaetus solitarius Solitary Eagle 16, 16a, 16b
Harpyhaliaetus coronatus Crowned Eagle 16, 17
Busarellus nigricollis Black-collared Hawk 17a
Geranoaetus melanoleucus Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle 18, 18a
Parabuteo unicinctus Harris's Hawk 19, 19a, 19b
Buteo magnirostris Roadside Hawk 20, 20a
Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk (NB)
Buteo leucorrhous White-rumped Hawk 21
Buteo nitidus Gray Hawk 13, 13a, 13b
Buteo brachyurus Short-tailed Hawk 22, 22a
Buteo albigula White-throated Hawk 22
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk (NB) 23
Buteo galapagoensis Galapagos Hawk 23
Buteo albicaudatus White-tailed Hawk 23, 23a
Buteo polyosoma Variable Hawk 23a, 24, 25, 25a
Buteo albonotatus Zone-tailed Hawk
Buteo ventralis Rufous-tailed Hawk 26
Morphnus guianensis Crested Eagle 27, 27a, 27b
Harpia harpyja Harpy Eagle 27a
Spizaetus melanoleucus Black-and-white Hawk-Eagle 30
Spizaetus tyrannus Black Hawk-Eagle 30
Spizaetus ornatus Ornate Hawk-Eagle 28, 30
Spizaetus isidori Black-and-chestnut Eagle 29, 30, 30a

1. That the traditional Falconiformes is monophyletic group is highly unlikely. Recent genetic studies (REFs, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr and Clarke 2003, Gibb et al. 2007) indicate that the Falconidae are not particularly closely related to the rest of the families in the order. In fact, we are unaware of any comprehensive genetic data to support the monophyly of the order other than those of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), thus leaving morphological analyses (Livezey & Zusi 2001, 2007, Mayr & Clarke 2003) that may be driven by convergence on raptorial morphology as the sole support for monophyly. Recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Hackett et al. 2008) refute any close relationship between the two groups. Proposal badly needed to separate Accipitriformes from Falconiformes.
2. The Pandionidae has been treated as a subfamily of the Accipitridae by many (e.g., Pinto 1938, Stresemann & Amadon 1979, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003). Although most available data indicate that it is the sister taxon to the hawks and eagles (but see Livezey & Zusi 2007 for possible sister relationship to Falconidae), the rank at which it is treated is rather arbitrary. Given its unique karyotype [REF], which differs from that known for other hawks and eagles, and given that Pandion haliaetus can be recognized as a species in the fossil record as far back as the Miocene [REF], family rank may be more appropriate (as in Friedmann 1950, Wetmore 1965, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Poole 1992, Lerner & Mindell 2005). Although some earlier genetic data (Mindell et al. 1997) suggested that it is the sister to the Old World kite genus Pernix, comprehensive data sets (Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007) indicate that it is the sister to all other accipitrids.
3. The monophyly of the Accipitridae has never been seriously questioned, and recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007) confirm the monophyly of the family. Lerner & Mindell (2005) found that the Accipitridae consisted of fourteen principle lineages, which they designated with subfamily rank. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that the family consists of eight major lineages, which they designated using tribe, subtribe, and infratribe ranks; none of Peters (1931) subfamilies was found to be monophyletic.
3a. Leptodon cayennensis was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) known as Odontriorchis palliatus.
3b. Called "Cayenne Kite" in Wetmore (1964).
3c. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Leptodon and Elanoides were members of a largely Old World group of kites that were basal to all other Accipitridae except for Elanus and Gampsonyx; see Note 5c. Proposal badly needed to change linear sequence.
4. Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Stresemann and Amadon (1979), and Sick (1993) treated Leptodon forbesi as an aberrant plumage L. cayanensis, but following Teixeira et al. (1987), it was recognized as a species by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), thus returning to the treatment of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1949). Recent photographic evidence is also consistent with treatment as a valid species-level taxon (Pereira et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to recognize it as a species.
4a. Called "Forbes's Kite" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
4b. "Chondrohierax megarhynchus," refers to large-billed individuals that were formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) treated as a separate species from C. uncinatus; see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and Amadon (1964). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
5. Called "American Swallow-tailed Kite" in Thiollay (1994) to distinguish from "African Swallow-tailed Kite" (Chelictinia riocourii), but the latter is called "Scissor-tailed Kite" in many other places (e.g., Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001).
5a. Gampsonyx swainsonii was formerly placed in the Falconidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949), but see Friedmann (1950), Plotnik (1956), Stresemann (1959a), and Brodkorb (1960).
5b. Elanus leucurus has been considered conspecific with Old World E. caeruleus ("Black-shouldered Kite") by some authors (e.g., AOU 1983), but see <> Parkes (1958) and Clark & Banks (1992); they form a superspecies that includes Australian E. axillaris (Stresemann & Amadon 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Thiollay 1994).
5c. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Elanus and Gampsonyx were sister taxa and that together they were basal to all other Accipitridae. Lerner & Mindell (2005) also found that Elanus was basal in the family (Gampsonyx not sampled). Proposal badly needed to change linear sequence.
6. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Everglade Kite."
6a. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Rostrhamus, Ictinia, and Harpagus are not closely related to other "kites", but are embedded within a large assemblage of "buteonine" genera. Proposal badly needed to change linear sequence.
7. This species was treated in the monotypic genus Helicolestes by many authors earlier in the 20th century (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but then many recent authors (e.g., Stresemann & Amadon 1979) followed Amadon (1964) in merging Helicolestes into Rostrhamus; see Wetmore (1965) and Thiollay (1994) for an opposing view. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Helicolestes. Banks et al. (2008) also resurrected Helicolestes.
7a. Ictinia mississippiensis and I. plumbea form a superspecies (Stresemann & Amadon 1979, Amadon & Bull 1988, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Thiollay 1994).
7b. Spelled "misisippiensis" in Peters (1931), but see Blake (1977).
7c. [Amadon 1961b)
8a. Called "Hen Harrier" in Old World literature.
8b. Mayr & Short (1970), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Circus cyaneus and C. cinereus to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) considered conspecific. <incorp. Simmons 2000>
8c. Circus buffoni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) known as C. brasiliensis, but see Amadon (1954) and Stresemann and Amadon (1979).
9. Called "Grey-bellied Goshawk" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), which is puzzling in that "goshawk" has no phylogenetic significance within the genus. Thiollay (1994) also placed this species at the beginning of the genus in his linear sequence, distant from any New World Accipiter; <was this based on any evidence>?
9a. "Accipiter pectoralis," long thought to be a distinct species (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), represents the immature plumage of A. poliogaster (Partridge 1961). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
9aa. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Accipiter superciliosus and A. collaris to form a superspecies; see Amadon (1964) for rationale for considering them as sister species.
9b. Olson (2006) found evidence from skeletal morphology that Accipiter superciliosus does not belong in that genus and proposed resurrecting the genus Hieraspiza for it. <proposal rejected by NACC; get Auk citation.>
10. Accipiter striatus was treated as four species in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001): velox of N. America, chionogaster of Middle America, ventralis of the Andes, erythronemius of lowland southern South America); Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1949) considered erythronemius (including ventralis) to be a separate species from A. striatus, and Friedmann (1950) and Stiles & Skutch (1989) considered chionogaster and erythronemius as separate species from A. striatus. [split almost certainly good, but no published data support this split; check Storer (1952). [According to HBW account author Rob Bierregaard, through correspondence with Tom Schulenberg, no published data support this split and he was basically forced to comply with species taxonomy given to him.] Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) did not follow this split and provided rationale against following it. Proposal needed.
10a. "Accipiter salvini," treated by some as a distinct species (e.g., Friedmann 1950), is now considered to be a pale morph of A. striatus ventralis. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
11. One specimen from northern Colombia (Cundinamarca; Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
11a. Amadon (1964), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Accipiter cooperii and A. bicolor, along with Cuban A. gundlachi, to form a superspecies.
11b. The genus name formerly sometimes (e.g., REFS) used for Geranospiza was Ischnosceles, but see <REF>.
11c. The subspecies nigra of Middle America and northwestern South America was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) considered a separate species from Geranospiza caerulescens, but intergradation between the two is extensive (Amadon 1982, Thiollay 1994). The subspecies gracilis of the Atlantic Forest region was also formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) considered a separate species from G. caerulescens.
11d. Geranospiza was formerly (e.g., Friedmann 1950) considered closely related to harriers (Circus spp.) but see <REF>.
12. Thiollay (1994) treated the subspecies chilensis as separate species from Accipiter bicolor based on difference in habitat preference and disjunct distribution; see also Jaramillo (2003). See Conover (1946) and Amadon (1964) for rationale for treating them as conspecific (e.g., subspecies pileatus is intermediate in plumage between nominate bicolor and chilensis). Proposal needed.
12a. Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006) indicate that the genus Leucopternis is polyphyletic; as currently defined, Leucopternis includes at least three distinct groups that are not each others' closest relatives: (1) L. melanops, L. kuhli, and L. semiplumbeus; (2) L. albicollis, L. occidentalis, and L. polionotus; and (3) L. plumbeus, L. schistaceus, L. lacernulatus, and possibly also L. princeps within a group that also includes Buteogallus and Harpyhalieatus.
12b. Leucopternis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are schistaceus, plumbeus, lacernulatus, semiplumbeus, and polionotus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
12bb. Called "Black-chested Hawk" in (REFS), Stiles & Skutch (1989).
12c. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Amadon & Bull (1988), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Leucopternis plumbeus and L. schistaceus to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949). Support for their close relationship, however, is weak (Raposo et al. 2006).
12d. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Haffer (1987), and Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Leucopternis melanops and L. kuhli to form a superspecies; they have occasionally been considered conspecific (e.g., REF). Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006) corroborates their sister relationship, and also suggests that their closest relative is L. semiplumbeus. Hellmayr & Conover (1949), Amadon (1982), and Thiollay (1994) proposed a close relationship between L. lacernulatus and melanops/kuhli,; genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006), however, do not corroborate this but suggest a relationship between L. lacernulatus and Buteogallus/Heterospizias meridionalis.
12e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994) considered Leucopternis albicollis, L. occidentalis, and L. polionotus to form a superspecies; L. occidentalis has been considered a subspecies of L. albicollis (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Stresemann & Amadon 1979; cf. Chapman 1926, Amadon 1964). See Amadon (1964) for inclusion of L. polionotus in this group. Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006) corroborates the close relationship of these three, with L. albicollis and L. occidentalis sister species.
13. AOU (1998) followed Pinto (1938), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Amadon (1982), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in using the monotypic genus Asturina for this species, rather than including in Buteo (as in e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); Amadon (1982) provided reasons why Asturina might be closer to Leucopternis than to Buteo. However, this is generally not followed (e.g., Thiollay 1994, Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001) because of this species' proposed close relationship to Buteo magnirostris and other buteos. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) indicate that Asturina is nested within Buteo (but not at all close to B. magnirostris); unfortunately, no Leucopternis were included in that analysis. Banks et al. (2006) recently merged Asturina into Buteo. SACC proposal passed to merge Asturina into Buteo.
13a. <REFS> and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the Middle American subspecies plagiata to deserve recognition as a separate species from Asturina nitida, but in part because no rationale was published, this treatment has not been widely accepted; see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) for rationale for treating them as conspecific. <incorp. Riesing et al. 2003>
13b Called "Grey-lined Hawk" by some (e.g., Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001).
14. Evidence for treating Buteogallus subtilis as a species separate from Buteogallus anthracinus is weak. It was treated as a full species by Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Thiollay (1994), AOU (1998), and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), following Amadon (1961) and Monroe (1963, 1968); see Howell & Web (1995), Stiles & Skutch (1989), and Ridgely et al. (2001), and especially Clark (2007) for opposing view. It was considered a synonym of B. anthracinus by Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and as a subspecies of B. anthracinus by Friedmann (1950). SACC proposal passed to remove species rank for subtilis. The two were treated as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994). Stresemann & Amadon (1979) suspected that Buteogallus subtilis and B. aequinoctialis form a superspecies.
14a. Called "Lesser Black Hawk" in Wetmore (1965).
14b. Buteogallus urubitinga was formerly treated in the monotypic genera Urubitinga (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) or Hypomorphnus (Pinto 1938, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Amadon (1949) and Amadon & Eckelberry (1955) for rationale for placement in Buteogallus. Genetic data (Lerner & Mindell 2005), however, indicate that Buteogallus urubitinga and B. anthracinus are not sisters and that the former is more closely related to Harpyhaliaetus (see also Amadon 1949, Raposo et al. 2006). Proposal badly needed.
15. Buteogallus meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Heterospizias, but most recent classifications follow Stresemann & Amadon (1979) and Amadon (1982) in merging this into Buteogallus. <incorp. Griffiths (1994)> Recent genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006) indicate that Buteogallus is paraphyletic with respect to Harpyhaliaetus and certain Leucopternis, with meridionalis more closely related to Leucopternis lacernulatus than to B. urubitinga (B. anthracinus not sampled). Proposal needed. Buteogallus meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) placed in the subfamily Accipitrinae, but Plótnik (1956a) showed that morphological data favored placement in the Buteoninae.
16. Harpyhaliaetus solitarius and H. coronatus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered conspecific by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949).
16a. The genus name formerly sometimes (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950, Wetmore 1965) used for Harpyhaliaetus was Urubitornis, but see <REF>.
16b. Called "Black Solitary-Eagle" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
17. Called "Crowned Solitary-Eagle" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
17a. Olson (1982) found morphological evidence that Busarellus may be more closely related to a group of largely Old World genera (Milvus, Haliastur, Haliaeetus, Ichthyophaga) than to the New World genera with which is traditionally associated in linear sequences (e.g., Friedmann 1950, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), and this is reflected in the linear sequence of the AOU (1998). Proposal needed.
18. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al., in press) indicate that Geranoaetus is the sister taxon to Buteo polyosoma/B. poecilochrous and that maintenance of a monotypic genus is not warranted; it had been placed in Buteo formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1933, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950), but recent authors have generally followed Amadon (1963), who suggested that it might be closer to Buteogallus or Leucopternis than to Buteo. Clark (2006) disputed Amadon's rationale for maintaining it is a genus separate from Buteo. SACC proposal to merge Geranoaetus into Buteo did not pass.
18a. Geranoaetus melanoleucus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) known as Buteo fuscescens.
19. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006) indicate that Parabuteo may be sister taxon to Buteo/Percnohierax leucorrhous and that it lies outside main group of true buteos.
19a. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that northern harrisi group might warrant recognition as a separate subspecies from the nominate Parabuteo unicinctus group.
19b. Called "Bay-winged Hawk" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Brown and Amadon (1968), Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps (1978), Stiles and Skutch (1989), Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), and elsewhere. Proposal needed?
20. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) indicate that this species is basal to all buteos and would require merger of Parabuteo and Geranoaetus into Buteo to keep latter monophyletic; Riesing et al. (2003) lobbied for resurrection of monotypic genus Rupornis, widely used for this species in earlier literature (e.g., Pinto 1938). The genus Buteo as currently broadly defined is almost certainly polyphyletic (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006). Proposal needed.
20a. Called "Large-billed Hawk" in Wetmore (1965).
21. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006) indicate that Buteo leucorrhous is probably the sister taxon to Parabuteo and recommended resurrection of monotypic genus Percnohierax for this aberrant species. Proposal needed. It was placed in the genus Rupornis, along with B. magnirostris, by Pinto (1938).
22. Buteo albigula was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) treated as a synonym of B. brachyurus. <check Peters 1931> It was treated as a subspecies of B. brachyurus by Amadon (1964), Blake (1977) and Stresemann & Amadon (1979), following Rand (1960); however, they are elevationally parapatric, perhaps sympatric (Lehman & Haffer 1960), and hybridization has not been reported (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994) considered B. albigula and B. brachyurus to form a superspecies. <incorp. Stresemann 1959, Hoy 1969>
22a. Buteo brachyurus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in the <monotypic?> genus Buteola.
23. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) indicate that Buteo swainsoni and B. galapagoensis are sister taxa; Voous (1968) and Voous & De Vries (1978) had proposed that B. albicaudatus and B. galapagoensis were sister taxa, and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; Stresemann & Amadon (1979) suspected that B. galapagoensis was closer to and might even form a superspecies with Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma.
23a. Amadon (1964) considered Buteo albicaudatus to form a superspecies with B. poecilochrous and B. polyosoma.
24. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) considered the subspecies exsul of the Juan Fernandez Islands as a separate species from Buteo polyosoma based on the sexes being monomorphic and having no rufous in plumage. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003), however, indicate very low sequence divergence. Proposal needed?
25. Farquhar (1988) concluded that Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma are conspecific, as they were formerly treated (REF); he was unable to find any way to reliably diagnose the two forms using plumage characters or measurements. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Schulenberg et al. (2007) followed this treatment and suggested "Variable Hawk" be retained for the composite species. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) are consistent with hypothesis that B. polyosoma and B. poecilochrous are conspecific. [incorp. Cabot & De Vries 2003] [incorp. Vaurie 1962]. SACC proposal passed to treat as conspecific.
25a. Called "Gurney's Hawk" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
26. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) support the traditional view (e.g., Amadon 1964) that Buteo ventralis and North American B. jamaicensis are sister taxa that form a superspecies (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990); in fact, the genetic data suggest that they are better treated as subspecies, as they were once treated by (REF, <+ citation in Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990>). Hellmayr & Conover (1949) tentatively considered it to be a synonym of B. jamaicensis costaricensis. <Inc. Clark (1986)>. Peters (1931) and Hellmayr (1932) considered it to be a color morph of B. polyosoma, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and Amadon (1964).
27. Called "Guiana Crested Eagle" in Thiollay (1994).
27a. Genetic data (Helbig et al. 2005) indicate that Morphnus and Harpia are sister genera. Justification for retention of two monotypic genera seems weak. Proposal needed?
27b. "Morphnus taeniatus," treated as a valid species by REFS and Friedmann (1950), represents a dark morph of M. guianensis with heavily banded underparts (Lehman 1943, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Thiollay 1994). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
28. Called "Barred Hawk-Eagle" in Wetmore (1965).
29. Called "Isidor's Eagle" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
30. Three independent analyses of DNA sequence data (Helbig et al. 2005, Lerner & Mindell 2005, Haring et al. 2007) indicate that Spizaetus ornatus and Oroaetus isidori are sister species, that Spizastur melanolecus is the sister to this pair, and that Spizaetus tyrannus is basal to these three species; also Old World "Spizaetus" are not the sister group to the New World Spizaetus. Helbig et al. (2005) proposed that the four New World taxa should be included in a single genus, Spizaetus, and they were so treated by Haring et al. (2007). SACC proposal passed to merge Oroaetus and Spizastur into Spizaetus.
30a. "Spizaetus devillei," described from two specimens from Ecuador, was treated as a valid species by Hellmayr & Conover (1949); it is now considered to be an immature plumage of Spizaetus isidori (Amadon 1950). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

FALCONIDAE (FALCONS) 1

Herpetotherinae
Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon
Micrastur ruficollis Barred Forest-Falcon
Micrastur plumbeus Plumbeous Forest-Falcon 8
Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon 8, 9, 10a
Micrastur mintoni Cryptic Forest-Falcon 10, 10a
Micrastur mirandollei Slaty-backed Forest-Falcon
Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon
Micrastur buckleyi Buckley's Forest-Falcon 10b

Falconinae
Spiziapteryx circumcincta Spot-winged Falconet 11, 11a
Caracara cheriway Crested Caracara 2, 3b, 6, 7
Caracara plancus Southern Caracara 6, 7
Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara 2
Phalcoboenus carunculatus Carunculated Caracara 2, 3, 3a 3b
Phalcoboenus megalopterus Mountain Caracara 3, 3a
Phalcoboenus albogularis White-throated Caracara 3, 4
Phalcoboenus australis Striated Caracara 3, 5
Daptrius ater Black Caracara 2
Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara 2, 7b
Milvago chimango Chimango Caracara
Falco tinnunculus Eurasian Kestrel (V) 10c
Falco sparverius American Kestrel 11b
Falco columbarius Merlin (NB)
Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon 11c, 12
Falco deiroleucus Orange-breasted Falcon 12
Falco femoralis Aplomado Falcon 12a
Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 12, 12b

1. Although the monophyly of the Falconidae seems well supported (REFS, Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al. 2004), its relationships to the rest of the "Falconiformes" is controversial (see above). Genetic and morphological data (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al. 2004) indicate that there are three major, deep divisions in the Falconidae: (1) the caracaras and Spiziapteryx, (2) the falcons (Falco plus extralimital Polihierax and Microhierax), and (3) the forest-falcons (Micrastur and Herpetotheres), with the latter group basal to the other two. SACC proposal passed to add subfamily ranks and change in linear sequence.
2. Ibycter americanus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Stresemann & Amadon 1979. Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in genus Daptrius, but Griffiths (1994, 1999) and Griffiths et al. (2004) showed that americanus was more closely related to Milvago and Phalcoboenus than to D. ater, therefore requiring the resurrection of Ibycter, as proposed by Brown & Amadon (1968). Griffiths et al. (2004) also found that Caracara was basal in the caracara group. SACC proposal passed to change in linear sequence of genera.
3. Amadon & Bull (1988), ?Vuilleumier REF) considered the four species of Phalcoboenus to form a superspecies; Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded P. australis from the superspecies. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Stresemann & Amadon 1979) have considered P. carunculatus and P. megalopterus conspecific with P. albogularis, but most authors have followed Amadon (1964) in treating all four as separate species.
3a. Poulsen (1993) showed that there is no evidence, contrary to earlier claims, for hybridization between Phalcoboenus megalopterus and P. carunculatus.
3b. Vuilleumier (1970) proposed that Phalcoboenus be merged into Polyborus (= Caracara), but subsequent authors have not followed this. Genetic (Griffiths et al. 2004) and morphological (Griffiths 1994<check> data indicate that Phalcoboenus and Caracara are not sister genera.
4. Called "Darwin's Caracara" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
5. Called "Forster's Caracara" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).
6. The name formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Stresemann & Amadon 1979) used for Caracara was Polyborus, following Amadon (1954), but see Wetmore (1965) and Banks & Dove (1992) for the use of Caracara instead of Polyborus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1949).<check Peters 1931>
7. Caracara cheriway and C. plancus were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), sometimes also including C. lutosus of Guadalupe Island (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Stresemann and Amadon 1979), but the ranges of cheriway and plancus are nearly parapatric with no sign of intergradation, contrary to earlier interpretations (see Banks REF); they constitute a superspecies. The three forms had previously been considered separate species by REFS, Pinto (1938), and Friedmann (1950).
7a. Caracara cheriway and C. plancus were called "Northern Crested-Caracara" and "Southern Crested-Caracara" respectively in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed?
7b. Vuilleumier (1970) proposed that Milvago be merged into Polyborus (= Caracara), but subsequent authors have not followed this <check Griffiths phylogeny>.
8. Micrastur plumbeus has been treated as a subspecies of M. gilvicollis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Stresemann & Amadon 1979); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; see Amadon (1964) for rationale treating them as sister taxa. <any vocal evidence either way?> Proposal needed?
9. Schwartz (1972a) confirmed that Micrastur gilvicollis is a valid species, separate from M. ruficollis; although treated as separate species by Pinto (1938, 1947), Hellmayr & Conover (1949), Friedmann (1950), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a), they were treated as conspecific by Amadon (1964), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Blake (1977).
10. Recently described: Whittaker (2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize newly described Micrastur mintoni as a species.
10a. Micrastur gilvicollis and M. mintoni form a superspecies.
10b. Micrastur buckleyi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950) considered a variant or subspecies of M. semitorquatus, but see Traylor (1948) and Amadon (1964) for evidence for considering it a separate species. [incorp. Peters 1931]
10c. Recent record from São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago off Brazil with published photographs (Bencke et al. 2005). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Photographed in Trinidad in 2003 (Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Previous sight record from French Guiana (Tostain et al. 1992).
11. [relationships to other falcons]. Although morphological data (Griffiths 1994) suggested that Spiziapteryx was most closely related to falcons (Falco etc.), genetic data (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al. 2004) indicate that it is closest to the caracaras.
11a. Spiziapteryx is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is circumcincta (David & Gosselin 2002b).
11b. Falco sparverius was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in the monotypic genus Cerchneis, but see <REF>.
11c. The species name formerly (e.g., Chapman 1926, Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) used for Falco rufigularis was albigularis, but see Eisenmann (1966) for use of rufigularis.
12. Stresemann & Amadon (1979) proposed that Falco deiroleucus and F. peregrinus might form a superspecies; plumage and vocal similarities, however, suggest that F. rufigularis and F. deiroleucus are sister species (Thiollay 1994).
12a. Falco femoralis was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as F. fuscocaerulescens, but see Peters & Griswold (1943) and Blake (1977).
12b. Falco peregrinus includes "Falco kreyenborgi", formerly considered a distinct species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Stresemann & Amadon 1979); here treated as a color phase of F. peregrinus, following Ellis & Grant (1983); it was considered to be a color phase of F. peregrinus cassini by Peters <?1931> and Hellmayr & Conover (1949). <incorp. Amadon & Stresemann 1963> See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

GRUIFORMES 1

1. The extreme morphological heterogeneity among the families of the Gruiformes has always made the monophyly of this order suspicious (see Cracraft 1981, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990). Although Sibley & Ahlquist's DNA-DNA hybridization data provided support for a monophyletic Gruiformes, subsequent genetic data have failed to do so. Although genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) strongly support the monophyly of a core group of gruiform families that consists of the Gruidae, Aramidae, Psophiidae, Rallidae, and Heliornithidae, support for inclusion of other traditional gruiform families is weak or nonexistent. Concerning families found in South America, Fain & Houde (2004) and Ericson et al. (2006) found that the Eurypygidae does not belong in the Gruiformes but rather in a major, separate radiation of the Neoaves, with the Rhynochetidae the likely sister family of the Eurypygidae (see also Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Hackett et al. 2008), and that the Cariamidae (and also the Old World Otididae) is in an altogether different branch of the Neoaves than are the true Gruiformes (see also Livezey & Zusi 2001, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to treat Cariamidae in their own order, Cariamiformes. Recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the monophyly of the traditional Gruiformes except that the Rallidae (represented only by Porphyrula) and Heliornithidae (and Old World Turnicidae and Mesitornithidae) might belong in the Charadriiformes.

ARAMIDAE (LIMPKIN) 1
Aramus guarauna Limpkin 1a

PSOPHIIDAE (TRUMPETERS)
Psophia crepitans Gray-winged Trumpeter 2
Psophia leucoptera Pale-winged Trumpeter 2, 3
Psophia viridis Dark-winged Trumpeter 2

1. The sister family of the Aramidae is likely the Gruidae (Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Mayr 2007, Hackett et al. 2008), not the Heliornithidae, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990).
1a. The species name for Aramus guarauna was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) scolopaceus, but see <REF>.
2. The species of Psophia form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Sherman 1996).
3. The subspecies ochroptera has been placed in Psophia crepitans rather than P. leucoptera by some authors (REFS). Reports of sympatry of ochroptera and P. c. napensis without interbreeding repeated in Sherman (1996) are evidently based on reports from local hunters and should be considered as hearsay <REF>.

RALLIDAE (RAILS) 1
Coturnicops notatus Speckled Rail 1a, 1b
Micropygia schomburgkii Ocellated Crake 2
Rallus longirostris Clapper Rail 3
Rallus wetmorei Plain-flanked Rail 3
Rallus limicola Virginia Rail 4, 4a, 5
Rallus semiplumbeus Bogota Rail 5, 6
Rallus antarcticus Austral Rail 5
Aramides ypecaha Giant Wood-Rail 5a
Aramides wolfi Brown Wood-Rail
Aramides mangle Little Wood-Rail
Aramides cajanea Gray-necked Wood-Rail 5b
Aramides axillaris Rufous-necked Wood-Rail 6a
Aramides calopterus Red-winged Wood-Rail
Aramides saracura Slaty-breasted Wood-Rail
Amaurolimnas concolor Uniform Crake 7
Anurolimnas castaneiceps Chestnut-headed Crake
Anurolimnas viridis Russet-crowned Crake 8, 9
Anurolimnas fasciatus Black-banded Crake 8, 9a
Laterallus levraudi Rusty-flanked Crake 10
Laterallus melanophaius Rufous-sided Crake 10, 11
Laterallus albigularis White-throated Crake 11
Laterallus exilis Gray-breasted Crake 11a
Laterallus spilonotus Galapagos Rail 12, 12a
Laterallus jamaicensis Black Rail 12, 13, 13a
Laterallus leucopyrrhus Red-and-white Crake
Laterallus xenopterus Rufous-faced Crake 14, 14a
Porzana flaviventer Yellow-breasted Crake 15
Porzana spiloptera Dot-winged Crake 16
Porzana albicollis Ash-throated Crake
Porzana carolina Sora (NB) 17
Neocrex colombiana Colombian Crake 18, 19, 19a
Neocrex erythrops Paint-billed Crake 18
Pardirallus maculatus Spotted Rail 20
Pardirallus nigricans Blackish Rail 20, 21
Pardirallus sanguinolentus Plumbeous Rail 20, 21
Gallinula chloropus Common Gallinule 22
Gallinula angulata Lesser Moorhen (V) 22a
Gallinula melanops Spot-flanked Gallinule 23
Porphyrio martinica Purple Gallinule 24, 25, 26, 27
Porphyrio flavirostris Azure Gallinule 24
Fulica armillata Red-gartered Coot
Fulica rufifrons Red-fronted Coot
Fulica gigantea Giant Coot
Fulica cornuta Horned Coot
Fulica caribaea Caribbean Coot 28, 29
Fulica americana American Coot 29
Fulica ardesiaca Slate-colored Coot 29, 30, 31
Fulica leucoptera White-winged Coot 29

1. <relationships of family to other failies; within-family relationships; incorp. Olson 1973, Ripley 1977, Livezey 1998 etc.>.
1a. [note on notata, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ripley (1977)].
1b. Called "Speckled Crake" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001),
2. Micropygia schomburgkii was placed in Coturnicops by Ripley (1977), but differences in voice, nest type, and morphology have lead others to maintain it in a monotypic genus (REF, Taylor 1996, 1998).
3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Rallus longirostris and R. wetmorei, along with North American R. elegans, to form a superspecies. Ripley (1977) considered R. longirostris and R. elegans to be conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that wetmorei might better be treated as a subspecies of R. longirostris, but they are evidently sympatric in Carabobo, Venezuela (Blake 1977).
4. Ridgely et al. (2001) treated the South American resident forms of Rallus limicola as a separate species, R. aequatorialis, based on differences in vocalizations (but no analysis published) . Proposal needed?
4a. Called "Lesser Rail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).
5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Rallus limicola, R. semiplumbeus, and R. antarcticus to form a superspecies. Rallus antarcticus and R. limicola were considered conspecific by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Blake (1977), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), who suspected that R. antarcticus might be more closely related to R. semiplumbeus, and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990); R. antarcticus and R. limicola were considered conspecific by Ripley (1977).
5a. Ripley (1977) merged Aramides with Old World Eulabeornis, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.
5b. "Aramides gutturalis," known from a single specimen from Peru and treated as a distinct species by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now considered to be a badly prepared specimen of A. cajanea (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Taylor 1996). However, Thomas Brooks has recently suggested that this taxon needs re-evaluation: http://www.redlist.org. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
6. The subspecies peruvianus, known only from type specimen from uncertain locality, may deserve recognition as separate species from Rallus semiplumbeus (Taylor 1996, 1998); it was treated as a subspecies of R. limicola by Peters (1934), but see REFS, Blake (1977), Ripley (1977), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).
6a. Called "Rufous-crowned Wood Rail" in Wetmore (1965).
7. Some authors (REF) have merged Amaurolimnas into Aramides; they are presumably sister genera (Taylor 1998); Ripley (1977) merged Amaurolimnas into the Old World genus Rallina.
8. Anurolimnas viridis and A. fasciatus were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977) placed in the genus Laterallus, but morphology and molt pattern suggest that they belong in Anurolimnas (Stresemann & Stresemann 1966, Olson 1973, Storer 1981); this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), and Dickinson (2003). Most authors, however, continue to include these in Laterallus, and Taylor (1998) and Ridgely et al. (2001) noted that both of these species are, by voice, Laterallus. Proposal badly needed. <incorp. Penhallurick 2003, Rufirallus>
9. Sick (1993) suggested resurrecting the monotypic genus Rufirallus for Laterallus viridis.
9a. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Anurolimnas fasciatus was hauxwelli, but see Ripley (1977).
10. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus levraudi and L. melanophaius to form a superspecies, but see next Note.
11. Laterallus albigularis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of L. melanophaius, but see Wetmore (1965); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered L. albigularis to be more closely related to L. exilis.
11a. Called "Temminck's Rail" by Ridgway & Freidmann (1941).
12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus jamaicensis and L. spilonotus to form a superspecies; some authors (e.g., REF) have considered them conspecific.
12a. Called "Darwin's Rail" by Ridgway & Freidmann (1941).
13. Fjeldså (1983a) proposed that the South American form tuerosi, usually treated as subspecies of Laterallus jamaicensis, should be recognized as a separate species; this was followed by Collar et al. (1992). Jaramillo (2003) also suggested that the southern subspecies salinasi might also warrant recognition as a separate subspecies from L. jamaicensis. Proposal needed.
13a. Called "Black Crake" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), but that name is usually applied to the African Amaurornis flavirostris.
14. [incorporate Storer paper for notes on other Laterallus]
14a. Called "Horqueta Crake" in Ripley (1977).
15. Porzana flaviventer has been placed by some authors (Olson 1970, 1973) in a separate genus Poliolimnas, along with P. cinerea of the East Indies and Australasian region, but see Mees (1982) as cited by Walker (1998).
16. Porzana spiloptera has been placed by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) in the genus Laterallus, but see REF.
17. Called "Sora Rail" in Blake (1977) and REFS.
18. Neocrex colombiana was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as conspecific with N. erythrops, but they are sympatric in Panama (Ridgely & Gwynne 1989); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Taylor 1996).
19. Neocrex is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is colombiana (David & Gosselin 2002b); note the typographical error "columbiana" in David & Gosselin (2002a), corrected in David & Gosselin (2002b); this typographical error had been perpetuated in numerous references since Peters (1934).
19a. Neocrex was formerly (e.g., Ripley 1977) included in Porzana, but see REF.
20. Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in genus Rallus, but see Olson (1973) for separation of Pardirallus from Rallus; this was followed by Taylor (1996, 1998), AOU (1998). Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were also sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) placed in separate genus Ortygonax, but see Olson (1973).
21. Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (REFS) have considered them conspecific.
22. Formerly known as "Common Moorhen" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). Hilty & Brown (1986), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), and Ridgely et al. (2001) continued to use "Common Gallinule." Long known by this name in the New World (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) , the AOU (1983) switched to "Moorhen" to conform to Old World usage. SACC proposal passed to change to "Common Gallinule."
22a. Recent specimen record from off Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
23. Gallinula melanops was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in the genus Porphyriops, but see Ripley (1977) for inclusion in Gallinula.
24. Porphyrio martinica and P. flavirostris were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Friedmann & Ridgway 1941, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998) usually placed in the genus Porphyrula; for the merger of Porphyrula into Porphyrio, see Olson (1973); now followed in most classifications, e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), Banks et al. (2002). Ripley (1977) placed Porphyrula in Gallinula while maintaining Porphyrio as separate.
24a. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Porphyrio flavirostris was parva, but see <REF> and Ripley (1977).
25. Called "American Purple Gallinule" by Taylor (1996, 1998).
26. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Porphyrio martinica and African P. alleni to form a superspecies.
27. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the species epithet to be an adjective and this changed its ending to agree in gender with Porphyrio. However, according to Norman David (pers. comm.): "The name martinica was not treated decisively as adjective by past usage (ICZN Code Art. 31.2.2), and the original spelling is to be retained".
28. Whether Fulica caribaea is a valid species, or a subspecies or color morph of F. americana, is controversial (e.g. see Roberson and Baptista 1988).<check>
29. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Fulica caribaea, F. americana, and F. leucoptera to form a superspecies with Old World F. atra and Hawaiian F. alai; they excluded F. ardesiaca from that group because of its sympatry with F. leucoptera. Taylor (1996) included F. ardesiaca and African F. cristata in this superspecies.
30. Fulica ardesiaca was once considered a color morph (Gill 1964, Blake 1977) or subspecies (e.g., Ripley 1977) of F. americana; for continued treatment of as a species separate from F. americana, see Fjeldså (1982b, 1983). Fjeldså (1983) also noted that two subspecies of ardesiaca differ in many aspects of their biology and mate assortatively where sympatric, yet concluded that they should be considered conspecific. Proposal needed.
31. Called "Andean Coot" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Taylor (1996), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Ridgely et al. (2001). Proposal needed?

HELIORNITHIDAE (FINFOOTS) 1
Heliornis fulica Sungrebe 2

EURYPYGIDAE (SUNBITTERN)
Eurypyga helias Sunbittern

1. Genetic data (Fain et al. 2007) confirm the monophyly of the traditional family Heliornithidae; however, their data suggest that Heliornithidae is nested within Rallidae, with the African flufftails (Sarothrura) sister to "Heliornithidae." Hackett et al. (2008) confirmed this finding with a more comprehensive data set.
2. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "American Finfoot."

CARIAMIFORMES 1

1. The Cariamidae have been traditionally included in the Gruiformes, but recent genetic and morphological data do not support their inclusion in that order or any existing orders. See Note 1 under Gruiformes.

CARIAMIDAE (SERIEMAS)
Cariama cristata Red-legged Seriema
Chunga burmeisteri Black-legged Seriema

CHARADRIIFORMES 1

1. The monophyly of the Charadriiformes is well established (e.g., REFS, Paton et al. 2003, Hackett et al. 2008) except for whether the Old World Pteroclididae should be included (REFS, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003). Within the order, the relationships of the families has been controversial (e.g., Strauch 1978, Mickevich & Parenti 1980, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Christian et al. 1992, Ward 1992, Björklund 1994, Chu 1994, 1995, REFS). The most recent genetic data confirm (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) the genetic data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) in that the order consists of three major groups: (1) the Scolopaci [Scolopacidae, Thinocoridae, Pedionomidae, Rostratulidae, and Jacanidae]; (2) the Charadrii [Charadriidae, Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae, Burhinidae, and Chionidae]; and (3) the Lari [Laridae, Rynchopidae, Stercorariidae, Alcidae, Dromadidae, and Glareolidae]. SACC proposal passed to recognize three suborders. Four recent studies (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain and Houde 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) differ from Sibley & Ahlquist in identifying the Charadrii as basal (rather than sister to Lari). Ericson et al. (2003) and Paton et al. (2003) also agree (using overlapping genetic data) on identifying the following sister relationships: (1) Burhinidae + Chionidae, (2) Haematopodidae + Recurvirostridae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007); (3) Rostratulidae + Jacanidae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007); and (4) Rynchopidae + Laridae (including Sterninae) (also identified as sisters by Livezey & Zusi 2007). Fain and Houde (2007), however, recovered "Rynchopidae" as sister to Sterninae within Laridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families.

Charadrii

CHARADRIIDAE (PLOVERS) 1
Vanellus cayanus Pied Lapwing 1a
Vanellus chilensis Southern Lapwing 2, 3
Vanellus resplendens Andean Lapwing 4
Pluvialis dominica American Golden-Plover (NB) 5
Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover (NB) 5a, 6
Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover (NB) 7, 7a
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover (V) 8
Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's Plover 9, 9a
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer 9b
Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy Plover 10, 11, 12
Charadrius collaris Collared Plover 12a
Charadrius alticola Puna Plover 13
Charadrius falklandicus Two-banded Plover 13
Charadrius modestus Rufous-chested Dotterel 14, 14a
Phegornis mitchellii Diademed Plover 15, 16
Oreopholus ruficollis Tawny-throated Dotterel 17

1. <note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b).
1a. Vanellus cayanus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in monotypic genus Hoploxypterus, but see Bock (1958) for placement in Vanellus. However, Strauch (1978) and Fjeldså and Nielsen (1989) provided rationale for retention in monotypic genus, in part because it might be closer to Charadrius than to Vanellus. Ridgely et al. (2001) retained Hoploxypterus for that reason.
1b. Formerly known as "Cayenne Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919).
2. Vanellus chilensis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Belonopterus, but see Bock (1958).
2a. Vanellus chilensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) known as V. cayennensis, but see Peters (1934).
3. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Wiersma (1996) suggested that Vanellus chilensis might consist of more than one species but also noted that data so far suggest intergradation between the two subspecies groups <REF - Neotropica reference in Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990>; see also Jaramillo (2003).
4. Vanellus resplendens was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) placed in the monotypic genus Ptiloscelys, but see Bock (1958).
5. Genetic data suggest that Pluvialis might not belong in the Charadriidae but rather (Ericson 2003) basal to the Charadriidae + (Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae) or (Fain & Houde 2007) sister to Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae. Fain and Houde (2007) considered Charadriidae to be paraphyletic to Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae.
5a. Pluvialis squatarola was formerly placed (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) in the monotypic genus Squatarola, but see Bock (1958), and Jehl (1968b).
6. Called "Grey Plover" in Old World and some New World (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) literature. proposal needed?
7. Charadrius semipalmatus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) considered conspecific with Old World C. hiaticula, but see <REFS>.
7a. Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) indicate that Charadrius contains two major divisions, with (of the taxa occurring in South America sampled) C. semipalmatus, C. vociferus, and C. modestus in one group, and C. falklandicus, C. alexandrinus, and C. collaris in the other. Proposal needed to move modestus in linear sequence.
8. Specimen from Guayas, Ecuador, on 15 October 1955 (Marchant 1956); sight record from Bonaire (Voous 1983). Six individuals captured in northeastern Brazil (Azevedo et al. 2003).
9. Formerly called "Thick-billed Plover" in many references (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely 1976, Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps 1978, Hilty and Brown 1986, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
9a. Charadrius wilsonia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the monotypic genus Pagolia.
9b. Charadrius vociferus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the monotypic genus Oxyechus.
10. New World populations of Charadrius alexandrinus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as a separate species, C. nivous, from Old World populations. Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that New World nivosus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Old World taxa because of vocal and plumage differences.
11. Snow (1978) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Charadrius alexandrinus to form a superspecies with Old World C. marginatus and C. ruficapillus; genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) confirm the traditional (Bock 1958) view that C. alexandrinus and C. ruficapillus are closely related.
12. Called "Kentish Plover" in most Old World literature.
12a. Formerly (e.g. Ridgway 1919) known as "Azara's Ring Plover."
13. Charadrius alticola and C. falklandicus have been considered conspecific (REFS), as suggested by Bock (1958); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Published rationale for either treatment is weak. Proposal?
14. Charadrius modestus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Zonibyx, but see [REF]. Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) indicate that recognition of Zonibyx would make Charadrius paraphyletic.
14a. Called "Rufous-chested Plover" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
15. Whether Phegornis belongs in the Charadriidae or the Scolopacidae has been controversial (Bock 1958); most recent classifications follow Zusi & Jehl (1970) in placing it in the Charadriidae, and this is supported by recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003).
16. Called "Diademed Sandpiper-Plover" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley and Monroe (1990), and elsewhere. Proposal?
17. [note needed on recognition of Oreopholus.] Some authors (REFS) merge Oreopholus into Eudromias when that genus considered separate from Charadrius.

HAEMATOPODIDAE (OYSTERCATCHERS) 1
Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher 2, 3
Haematopus ater Blackish Oystercatcher
Haematopus leucopodus Magellanic Oystercatcher

RECURVIROSTRIDAE (AVOCETS and STILTS) 1
Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt 4
Recurvirostra americana American Avocet (V) 5
Recurvirostra andina Andean Avocet

1. Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, 2007) and recent analyses of morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the hypothesis (REFS) that the Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae are sister families; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) also indicate that these two families form the sister group to the Charadriidae. Proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Haematopus palliatus to form a superspecies with North American H. bachmani and several Old World species; some authors (e.g., Peters 1934) have considered palliatus to be conspecific with Old World H. ostralegus, but see Wetmore (1965). Species limits in Haematopus are complex, with varying degrees of hybridization where ranges overlap. <REFs>
3. The subspecies galapagoensis differs from Haematopus palliatus in several features that suggest that it might deserve recognition as a separate species (Taylor 1996).
4. Himantopus mexicanus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Vaurie 1965c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered a subspecies of Old World H. himantopus ("Common Stilt") and was so treated by Dickinson (2003). Some authors have treated southern South American melanurus as a separate species (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). The six taxa in the genus Himantopus form a near-globally distributed superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Pierce 1996), and with from one to six species-level taxa recognized by various authors. Virtually no data are available relevant to taxon-ranking of allopatric populations. The contact between mexicanus and melanurus in South America, where at least some hybridization occurs, affords one of the best opportunities for such study.
5. Formerly known (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as "American Stilt."
5. One specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

BURHINIDAE (THICK-KNEES) 1
Burhinus bistriatus Double-striped Thick-knee 2
Burhinus superciliaris Peruvian Thick-knee 2

1. Genetic data (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003) indicate that the Burhinidae is more closely related to Chionidae + Pluvianellidae than they are to Charadriidae or other Charadriiformes. SACC Proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. The name formerly used for this genus was Oedicnemus (e.g., Ridgway 1919), but see (REF).

CHIONIDAE (SHEATHBILLS) 1, 2
Chionis albus Snowy Sheathbill (NB) 3, 4

1. Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Chionidae closer to Pluvianellidae than to its typical position in the larid radiation of the Charadriiformes, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship. Proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Family name given as Chionididae in many references; see Burger (1996).
3. Chionis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is albus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
4. Called "Pale-faced Sheathbill" in Burger (1996). proposal needed?

PLUVIANELLIDAE (MAGELLANIC PLOVER) 1
Pluvianellus socialis Magellanic Plover

1. Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Pluvianellus closer to Chionidae than to its typical position in Charadriidae, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship and thus also the treatment of Pluvianellus as a monotypic family separate from Charadriidae. Proposal passed to change linear sequence. Treated as a subfamily within Charadriidae in Wiersma (1996). [Jehl REFs]

Scolopaci

SCOLOPACIDAE (SANDPIPERS) 1
Gallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe (NB) 1a, 2, 3
Gallinago paraguaiae South American Snipe 3, 4
Gallinago andina Puna Snipe 3, 4
Gallinago nobilis Noble Snipe
Gallinago undulata Giant Snipe
Gallinago jamesoni Andean Snipe 5, 6, 7
Gallinago stricklandii Fuegian Snipe 5, 6
Gallinago imperialis Imperial Snipe 5, 8
Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher (NB) 9a
Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher (V) 9b
Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit (V) 10
Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit (NB) 10a
Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit (V) 10a, 11
Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit (NB) 10a
Numenius borealis Eskimo Curlew (NB, EX?) 11a
Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel (NB) 12, 12a
Numenius americanus Long-billed Curlew (V) 12b
Bartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper (NB) 12c
Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper (V) 17, 18
Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper (NB) 15, 16
Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs (NB) 13
Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs (NB) 13
Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper (V)
Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper (NB)
Tringa semipalmata Willet 13b
Tringa incana Wandering Tattler (NB) 14
Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone (NB) 19
Arenaria melanocephala Black Turnstone (V) 19, 20
Aphriza virgata Surfbird (NB) 21
Calidris canutus Red Knot (NB) 21a
Calidris alba Sanderling (NB) 22
Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper (NB) 23
Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper (NB) 23
Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper (NB) 24
Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper (NB) 24
Calidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper (NB) 24
Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper (NB) 24, 24a
Calidris alpina Dunlin (V) 24, 25, 25a
Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper (V) 24, 26
Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper (NB) 27
Tryngites subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper (NB)
Philomachus pugnax Ruff (V) 28
Phalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope (NB) 29, 30
Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope (NB) 29, 31, 32
Phalaropus fulicarius Red Phalarope (NB) 29, 33

1. <note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b). The family Scolopacidae is traditionally split into five or more subfamilies and additional tribes (e.g., AOU 1998); recognition of these is withheld here pending genetic data that confirm these groupings as real and as deep splits. Proposal needed?
1a. The name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) used for Gallinago was Capella, but see Mayr (1963) and Banks & Browning (1995).
2. Gallinago delicata is here treated as a separate species from Old World G. gallinago following Banks et al. (2002), based in part on lack of evidence in support of the original demotion of delicata to subspecies rank and in part on differences in their displays (Thönen 1969, Tuck 1972, Miller 1996); treating delicata as a separate species represents a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919), Peters (1934), and Pinto (1938).
3. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered Gallinago paraguaiae and G. andina to form a superspecies with G. delicata (which they reluctantly considered a subspecies of G. gallinago) as well as African G. nigripennis and G. macrodactyla.
4. Species limits in New World Gallinago have been fluid and controversial, and not based on explicit analyses. Many authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) have considered paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina to be conspecific. Additionally, Gallinago paraguaiae was considered conspecific with G. [gallinago] delicata by Phelps & Phelps (1958a), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Blake (1970). Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990) placed magellanica with paraguaiae, making this species G. magellanica. Any arrangement of species limits in these taxa is based largely on anecdotal data, and this group is badly in need of formal study, especially given that differences in displays and vocalizations among paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina have been reported (Jaramillo 2003). proposal badly needed.
5. Gallinago stricklandii, G. jamesoni, and G. imperialis were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934) placed in a separate genus, Chubbia, but recent authors have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in merging this into Gallinago.
6. Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific ("Cordilleran Snipe"), but most recent authors have followed Hellmayr & Conover (1948b) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in considering them separate species; other than plumage differences and disjunct distribution, no rationale has been published. Proposal?
7. When Sibley & Monroe (1990) <trace earlier split?> treated Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni as separate species, they used the English name "Andean Snipe" for the latter, thereby creating perpetual confusion with G. andina. proposal needed <return to "Cordilleran" for jamesoni or use "Jameson's">.
8. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) known as "Banded Snipe." Proposal needed?
9a. Called "Common Dowitcher" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
9b. Specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2006). SACC proposal passed to move to Main List. Also, at least five unpublished photos from Netherlands Antilles (Voous 1983, 1985; photos examined by J. R. Jehl) and at least one from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier). There also are specimens, collected in Colombia (Hellmayr and Conover 1948, Naranjo 1991) and in Peru (unpublished, but mentioned in Schulenberg et al. 2007), that have been identified as scolopaceus, as well as possible sight records from Ecuador [REF], Peru [REF], and Argentina (see compilation in Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, none regarded by those authors as referable with certainty to L. scolopaceus). A specimen reported from Argentina (Zotta 1942), responsible for the subsequent listing of that species for Argentina in many references, is a misidentified specimen of L. griseus hendersoni (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).
10. Photographed in 2000-2001 in Trinidad (Hayes & Kenefick 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
10a. Limosa haemastica, L. lapponica, and L. fedoa were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Vetola.
11. One record, documented by photograph, for northern Venezuela (Mercier et al. 1987). Sight record for Fernando de Noronha, Brazil (Antas et al. 1990).
11a. Numenius borealis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Mesoscolopax.
12. Zink et al. (1995) proposed a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) that considered New World hudsonicus to be a separate species from Old World populations based on genetic distance. Although plumage pattern also differs substantially, vocalizations are evidently very similar, in contrast to the many allotaxa in the Scolopacidae treated as separate species.
12a. Numenius phaeopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Phaeopus.
12b. One record documented by archived photograph from northern Venezuela (McNeil et al. 1985); other undocumented sight records from Venezuela (see Hilty 2003). One record <> for French Guiana (Ingels et al. 2003). Record from Tobago now considered dubious (ffrench 1973).
12c. Formerly known as "Upland Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957), but see REFS.
13. Tringa melanoleuca and T. flavipes were formerly placed in a separate genus, Neoglottis (e.g., Ridgway 1919) or Totanus (e.g., REFS), but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b).
13a. Photographed on Tobago (Kenefick & Hayes 2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
13b. Vaurie (1965c) merged Catoptrophorus into Tringa, but this had not been followed by other authors. Recent genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005) indicate that Catoptrophorus is indeed embedded within Tringa. SACC proposal passed to merge Catoptrophorus into Tringa.
14. Vaurie (1965c), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Heteroscelus into Tringa, but this had not been followed by most authors. Recent genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005) indicate that Heteroscelus is indeed embedded within Tringa. SACC proposal passed to merge Heteroscelus into Tringa.
15. Vaurie (1965c), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Actitis into Tringa, but this has not been followed by most authors.
16. Actitis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is macularius, not macularia (David & Gosselin 2002b).
17. Vaurie (1965c) merged Xenus into Tringa, but this has not been followed by most authors.
18. One at Punta Rasa, Buenos Aires, Argentina, from Dec.1977 to Jan. 1988, with photograph archived in the Aves Argentinas/ A.O.P. library (Pugnali et al. 1988). Additional sight records for Argentina (Narosky & Di Giacomo 1993), Brazil (Mazar Barnett 1997), and several from Trinidad & Tobago (Taylor 2001, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
19. Arenaria was formerly placed in the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003) confirm that it is embedded within the Scolopacidae. Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated them as a separate family, Arenariidae.
20. [REF needed on records]
21. Aphriza virgata was formerly placed in the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated it in a separate monotypic family, Aphrizidae.
21a. Calidris canutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in the monotypic genus Canutus.
22. Calidris alba was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Crocethia (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), based largely on its lacking a hind toe, but see Holmes & Pitelka (1964), Vaurie (1965c), and Jehl (1968b).
23. Calidris pusilla and C. mauri were formerly placed in the genus Ereunetes (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Holmes & Pitelka (1964), Vaurie (1965c), and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in almost all subsequent classifications.
24. Calidris minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, C. melanotos, C. alpina, and C. ferruginea were formerly placed in the genus Erolia (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Holmes & Pitelka (1964), Vaurie (1965c), and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in almost all subsequent classifications. Calidris minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, and C. melanotos were previously (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Pisobia, from Erolia.
24a. Calidris melanotos was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as C. maculata, but see <REF>.
25. Specimen from Cayenne, French Guiana, 15 January 1926 (Greenwood 1983). [check Kieser 1982] See Lesterhuis & Clay (2003) for a summary of sight records from South America.
25a. Calidris alpina was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in the monotypic genus Pelidna.
26. Specimen from Peru (Graves & Plenge 1978). Photos from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Purported specimen from 18th Century from Argentina now lost (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). Sight record from Trinidad (Kenefick 2004, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
27. Calidris himantopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in a monotypic genus, Micropalama, based largely on relative tarsus length, but morphological (Jehl 1968b) and genetic data (Dittmann and Zink 1991) indicate that it is embedded within Calidris; many authors continue to maintain Micropalama (Sibley & Monroe 1990, van Gils & Wiersma 1996, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).
28. One specimen from "Bogotá" (Hellmayr & Conover 1948b). One sight record from Peru (Oatman et al. 1980). Several sight records and photos for Trinidad & Tobago (Gochfeld 1973, ffrench 1991, ffrench & White 1999, Kenefick 2004, Kenefick & Hayes 2006.). One sight record from Venezuela (Altman and Parrish 1978) and Brazil (Pacheco 2000).
29. The three species of Phalaropus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in their own family, the Phalaropodidae, but see (REFs). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003) confirm that they are embedded within the Scolopacidae.
30. Phalaropus tricolor was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977