A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

 

 

South American Classification Committee

 

American Ornithologists' Union

 

 

 

The South American Classification Committee is an official committee of the American Ornithologists' Union whose mission is to create a standard classification, with English names, for the bird species of South America. This classification is subject to constant revision by the proposal system to allow incorporation of new data. The SACC hopes to have this classification published as a printed document within a year or so.

 

The classification below is a preliminary and is likely to see many changes through Committee action; therefore, be certain to cite it as "Version [date]." Suggested citation:

 

Remsen, J. V., Jr., C. D. Cadena, A. Jaramillo, M. Nores, J. F. Pacheco, J. Pérez-Emán, M. B. Robbins, F. G. Stiles, D. F. Stotz, and K. J. Zimmer. Version [date]. A classification of the bird species of South America. American Ornithologists' Union. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html

 

This list is open to proposals for change from the ornithological community as a whole. Proposals for changes must be based on previously published data, information, or analyses. See Proposal Roster page for examples of previous proposals as well as commentary from SACC members and others on each proposal submitted so far. Send proposals or comments on existing ones to Remsen. Proposals may be in English or Spanish (we apologize that many of us are not yet proficient in reading Portuguese or French). All aspects of the classification are subject to modification through the proposal system (species limits, boundaries of orders, families, and genera, linear sequences, English names, etc.).

 

The footnotes are also obviously preliminary (some are no more than reminders to ourselves), in "working draft" stage, inconsistent in style, and will be modified extensively; many have yet to be added. [Errors in numbering them are frequent as we continue to add new notes.] The primary goal is to provide references for all changes from Meyer de Schauensee's (1966, 1970) foundational classification, as well as the "Peters Checklist" series and the "Cory-Hellmayr" series, so that the user can determine how and why (if known) changes were made; citations to alternative treatments are also provided. Also, the notes are intended to signal phylogenetic relationships among taxa that might not be evident from the linear sequence. The notes also indicate where SACC proposals for change have been acted upon (in blue), where SACC proposals are pending (in magenta), and where proposals are needed (in red).

 

If you spot typographical errors, missing taxa, or mistakes of any kind, please let Remsen know. If your research is not cited herein, it is unlikely we are ignoring it -- we just have not yet had time to incorporate it into the notes or proposals.

 

Taxonomy: The starting point for the classification was a pre-publication draft of Dickinson (2003); the published version differed in a few minor ways from the version used for the starting point (as noted in the Notes sections below). The classification herein consists mainly of the ranks Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Most traditional subfamilies are omitted unless supported by multiple independent data sets that mark major, deep branches within a family. Subspecies are omitted for now; a future edition will also include the Subspecies rank as designating diagnosable populations (equivalent to phylogenetic species sensu Cracraft) within taxa accorded species rank, as well as synopses of distribution. We recognize the importance of this level of classification for many kinds of analyses but are unable to provide a comprehensive evaluation of which currently recognized subspecies represent valid taxonomic units in terms of diagnosability. See Dickinson (2003) and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) for a preliminary assessment of valid subspecies of South American birds, as well as various volumes of the Handbook of the Birds of World (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona).

 

Linear sequencing:  Presenting a classification as a linear list of taxa cannot adequately reflect phylogenetic relationships.  Nonetheless, to maximize proximity of close relatives in a linear sequence, we use the following conventions, as outlined in Dickinson & Remsen (2013), for groups in which robust phylogenetic data are available: 1) taxa are listed from the deepest node outward, starting with the branch that has the fewest taxa at the next-lowest taxonomic rank; 2) for pairs of sister taxa, the one with the most northwesterly geographic range is listed first.  The one exception to Convention 1 is in the case of “superspecies,” which are defined as a monophyletic group of parapatric or slightly allopatric taxa that are so similar ecologically that geographic overlap is limited; for superspecies, taxa are listed using the widespread geographic convention of listing them geographically, from northwest to southeast.  For polytomies or or groups for which a strongly supported phylogeny is not available, the sequence follows historical convention, in this case Dickinson (2003).

 

Geographical scope: The region covered by the list is: (1) continental South America and all islands within 1200 km of its shores eastward into the Atlantic and westward into the Pacific oceans (including Malpelo, the Galapagos islands, San Felix and San Ambrosio, the Juan Fernandez islands, Fernando de Noronha, Trindade, Martin Vaz, São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago, and the Falklands/Malvinas); (2) islands in the Caribbean Sea close to South America and not covered by the AOU’s NACC Checklist (including Netherlands Antilles, Trinidad and Tobago); and (3) waters within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of these land areas, including the islands.

 

For lists of species recorded from each country and territory (using SACC classification and criteria) within the SACC region, including downloadable EXCEL file, see SACC Country Lists.

 

Criteria for inclusion: a species is included on the list if the evidence for its occurrence in the area is supported by tangible evidence that is available for verification, namely a museum specimen or an archived or published photograph, videotape, or sound recording. The main list currently includes: 3,351 species (3113 native breeding species, 1 of which is extinct; 147 nonbreeding residents; 76 vagrants; 15 established, introduced species). Of these, 115 newly discovered species have been described since the publication of Meyer de Schauensee's (1970) classic compilation of the species of birds of South America (i.e., at a rate of 2.5 species per year). Species whose presence is supported only by sight records, or by unpublished or non-archived tangible evidence, are placed on the Hypothetical List.

 

English names: The English names used by SACC follow those in Dickinson (2003), which in turn generally followed those used by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and AOU (1998) for New World species. Several, however, have been changed subsequently from Dickinson (2003) through the proposal mechanism. Alternative English names are given if they have appeared in reference literature since Meyer de Schauensee (1970). SACC follows the published guidelines for English names and their orthography as noted in AOU (1983: xxi-xxii) and references therein. See SACC policy on use diacritical marks (accents, cedillas, tildes).

 

For comments on the controversy over whether to hyphenate certain bird group-names, click here.

 

The SACC is not involved in producing a list of standardized Spanish names. Click here for rationale. However, the SACC hopes to produce Spanish and Portuguese versions of the Notes once the English version reaches the stage at which the classification is ready for publication as a printed document.

 

Current SACC membership =

 

Carlos Daniel Cadena, Universidad de los Andes

 

Alvaro Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

 

Manuel Nores, Centro de Zoología Aplicada, Córdoba

 

José Fernando PachecoComitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos

 

Jorge Pérez-Emán, Universidad Central de Venezuela

 

J. V. Remsen, Jr. (Acting Chair), Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University

 

Mark B. Robbins, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas

 

F. Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia

 

Douglas F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History

 

Kevin J. Zimmer, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

 

 

Technical Advisor for Hybrids and Dubious Taxa:

 

Gary R. Graves, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

 

 

Technical Advisor for Vagrant and Hypothetical Species:

 

Mark PearmanBirdquest & Aves Argentinas/Asociación Ornitológica del Plata

 

 

Technical Advisors:

 

Steven L. Hilty, Victor Emanuel Nature Tours, Inc., & Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas

 

Richard O. Prum, Yale University

 

Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

 

Bret M. Whitney, Field Guides & Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University

 

 

Data-base Advisor:

 

Steve Olesen

 

 

Editorial Advisor:

 

Paul Clapham

 

 

Past Committee Members:

José Maria Cardoso da Silva, Conservation International - Brasil

 

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

 

Abbreviations:

 

NB = nonbreeding resident

V = vagrant

IN = introduced species*

EX = extinct (wit

 

SACC proposal for adopting BOU-like guidelines on defining "introduced" species did not pass, but the committee is strongly in favor of developing formal guidelines.

 

Composite List created by Duncan Ritchie (Classification + status only; no footnotes)  [continuing the work of Sjoerd Maijer, In Memoriam]

 

EXCEL file of SACC list

 

Hypothetical List

 

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

 

Literature Cited

 

Proposal Tracking page

 

VERSION: 20 June 2014

 

Most recent changes to the classification, updated 26 May 2014

 

[Please report bad links to Remsen. We are in the process of converting .html extensions to .htm]

 

Romanian translation: http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/saccbaseline-museum-rm

___________________________________________

 

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (below)

 

Part 1. Rheiformes to Cathartiformes
Part 2.
Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes

Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes
Part 4.
Apodiformes
Part 5.
Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes

Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae)

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (
Vireonidae to Sturnidae)

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (
Cardinalidae to end)

 


 

RHEIFORMES 1

RHEIDAE (RHEAS)
Rhea americana Greater Rhea 2
Rhea pennata 
Lesser Rhea 2, 3, 4

 


 

1. The relationships among, and classification of, the five families of living ratites are controversial and beyond the geographic scope of this classification. The Rheidae are here treated as a family within the broadly defined ratite order Struthioniformes, following the classification in Folch (1992) and Dickinson (2003); other classifications retain only the ostriches (Struthionidae) and the Rheidae in the Struthioniformes.  See (REFS) for evidence that supports a sister relationship between the Rheidae and Struthionidae, but see also Cooper et al. (1992, 2001), Lee et al. (1997), van Tuinen et al. (1998), and Haddrath and Baker (2001). Recent genetic data (Harshman et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010, Smith et al. 2012) indicate that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes.  Cracraft (2013) elevated the rheas to ordinal rank, Rheiformes, as in some older classifications.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Rheiformes.

 

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia into Rhea.

 

3. The montane subspecies tarapacensis (with "garleppi") may deserve recognition as a separate species from lowland nominate pennata (Blake 1977, Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Folch 1992), and this was followed by Jaramillo (2003).

 

4. Called "Darwin's Rhea" in Johnson (1965), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Gill & Wright (2006), but this is the name associated with the nominate, Patagonian subspecies (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or when the Andean forms are considered a separate species, with "Puna Rhea" reserved for the Andean species (e.g., Jaramillo 2003). Virtually all other modern literature on South American birds uses "Lesser Rhea" for P. pennata.

 


 

TINAMIFORMES 1

TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS) 1a
Nothocercus julius 
Tawny-breasted Tinamou
Nothocercus bonapartei Highland Tinamou 2a
Nothocercus nigrocapillus 
Hooded Tinamou 2a
Tinamus tao 
Gray Tinamou 
Tinamus solitarius 
Solitary Tinamou 1b
Tinamus osgoodi 
Black Tinamou 3
Tinamus major 
Great Tinamou 2
Tinamus guttatus 
White-throated Tinamou 
Crypturellus berlepschi 
Berlepsch's Tinamou 4
Crypturellus cinereus 
Cinereous Tinamou 4
Crypturellus soui 
Little Tinamou 
Crypturellus ptaritepui 
Tepui Tinamou 4a
Crypturellus obsoletus 
Brown Tinamou 5
Crypturellus undulatus 
Undulated Tinamou 
Crypturellus transfasciatus 
Pale-browed Tinamou 6, 6a
Crypturellus strigulosus 
Brazilian Tinamou 
Crypturellus duidae 
Gray-legged Tinamou 7
Crypturellus erythropus 
Red-legged Tinamou 7, 8
Crypturellus noctivagus 
Yellow-legged Tinamou 7
Crypturellus atrocapillus 
Black-capped Tinamou 7
Crypturellus kerriae 
Choco Tinamou 7
Crypturellus variegatus 
Variegated Tinamou 
Crypturellus brevirostris 
Rusty Tinamou 9
Crypturellus bartletti 
Bartlett's Tinamou 9
Crypturellus parvirostris 
Small-billed Tinamou 10
Crypturellus casiquiare 
Barred Tinamou 11
Crypturellus tataupa 
Tataupa Tinamou 10
Rhynchotus rufescens 
Red-winged Tinamou 12
Rhynchotus maculicollis 
Huayco Tinamou 12
Nothoprocta taczanowskii 
Taczanowski's Tinamou 16a
Nothoprocta ornata 
Ornate Tinamou 13
Nothoprocta perdicaria 
Chilean Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta cinerascens 
Brushland Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta pentlandii 
Andean Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta curvirostris 
Curve-billed Tinamou 14
Nothura boraquira 
White-bellied Nothura 15
Nothura minor 
Lesser Nothura 15
Nothura darwinii 
Darwin's Nothura 16
Nothura maculosa 
Spotted Nothura 16
Nothura chacoensis 
Chaco Nothura 16
Taoniscus nanus 
Dwarf Tinamou 16a
Eudromia elegans 
Elegant Crested-Tinamou 17
Eudromia formosa 
Quebracho Crested-Tinamou 17, 18
Tinamotis pentlandii 
Puna Tinamou 19
Tinamotis ingoufi 
Patagonian Tinamou 19

 


 

1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Paton et al. 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007). However, recent genetic data (Hackett et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. Proposal pending to change SACC classification to reflect this.

 

1a. The Tinamidae was divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae (Tinamus, Nothoprocta, and Crypturellus) and the Nothurinae (all other genera) by Miranda-Ribeiro (1938). The Nothurinae was designated as the Rhynchotinae by Cabot (1992). The subfamily name that has priority, however, is Eudromiinae Bonaparte, 1854. Morphological data (Bertelli et al. 2002, Silveira & Höfling 2007) support the monophyly of the two subfamilies, but combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) do not, primarily because of conflicting positions of the genus Rhynchotus. Morphological (Bertelli et al. 2002) and molecular data generally support the traditional among-genera and among-species relationships implied by traditional linear sequences except that Crypturellus and Tinamus are proposed as sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of some genera.

 

1b. Pinto (1938) treated the Amazonian subspecies serratus (with peruvianus, then known as ruficeps) as a separate species from Tinamus major.

 

2. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) suggested that Tinamus solitarius was probably better treated as a subspecies of T. major, but Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) proposed that it is the sister species to T. tao.

 

2a. Nothocercus bonapartei and N. nigrocapillus were considered to form a probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Bertelli et al. (2002) and Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) also found them to be sisters. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

 

3. An analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that T. osgoodi does not belong in that genus and is embedded within Crypturellus (Bertelli et al. 2002); however, combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) indicate that osgoodi does belong in Tinamus.

 

4. Crypturellus cinereus and Cberlepschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) follow Blake (1977), who noted that "the longer toes of berlepschi in proportion to the tarsus, the heavier and usually longer bill, and the conspicuous differences in coloration strongly support the concept of mutually exclusive species." The two species are sisters (Bertelli et al. 2002) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

4a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that C. ptaritepui is the sister to C. berlepschi + C. cinereusProposal needed to change linear sequence.

 

5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Cabot (1992) noted that the subspecies traylori possibly deserves recognition as separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus.  Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found that vocal differences among subspecies suggests that as many as five species should be recognized.  SACC proposal needed.

 

6. Bertelli et al. (2002) proposed that C. transfasciatus and Middle American C. cinnamomeus are sister species.

 

6a. "Crypturellus rubripes," described from northwestern Peru and treated as a species by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now known to be the male plumage of C. transfasciatus (Koepcke 1962). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

7. Species limits in this complex (Crypturellus duidae through C. kerriae, also probably including Middle American C. cinnamomeus and C. boucardi) are poorly understood and weakly justified, and a thorough study, especially of voice, is badly needed. Species-level taxonomy and allocation of subspecies to species has been exceptionally labile, perhaps more so than any other species complex in the New World. For example, within subspecies included here in Cerythropus, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that cursitans was actually a subspecies of C. duidae. Blake (1977) suggested that columbianus was possibly a distinct species (as treated by Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or "perhaps a very distinct Colombian isolate of ... C. boucardi." Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered saltuarius as a distinct species, and Blake (1977) suggested that saltuarius might be a subspecies C. kerriae (but that kerriae might also be a subspecies of Middle American Cboucardi). The subspecies idoneus and spencei were treated as subspecies of Middle American C. cinnamomeus in [early Peters]. Thus, Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that the taxa columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius, treated here as subspecies of erythropus, may deserve species rank or may belong in other species.  Crypturellus erythropus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. atrocapillus or of C. noctivagus (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), but is here treated as a species following Blake (1977, 1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Cabot (1992), and Davies (2002). The taxon garleppi, here treated as a subspecies of C. atrocapillus (following Blake 1977, 1979) was formerly considered a subspecies of C. noctivagus (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Peters?) and perhaps merits species rank (Cabot 1992). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. kerriae and C. erythropus, along with Middle American Cboucardi, to form one superspecies, and C. duidae, C. noctivagus, and C. atrocapillus to form a separate superspecies. Bertelli et al.'s (2002) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated that C. boucardi and C. kerriae are sister species, but otherwise found little support for the monophyly of this complex. SACC proposals to rank columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data.  Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found that vocal differences among these taxa are minimal and that perhaps all should be treated as conspecific.  SACC proposal needed.

 

8. Called "Red-footed Tinamou" by Davies (2002).

 

9. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) treated C. bartletti as a subspecies of Crypturellus brevirostris, and they are certainly sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. bartletti and Cbrevirostris to form a superspecies, but they seem to overlap in portions of western Amazonia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).  Fieldwork is needed to clarify the taxonomic status of C. bartletti, which is so similar to C. brevirostris that true syntopy seems unlikely. <or some similar statement>.

 

10. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that C. tataupa and C. parvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002). Proposal needed to change linear sequence.

 

11. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that the traditional placement of C. casiquiare near C. parvirostris and C. tataupa is not correct, and this it is most closely related to C. brevirostris/C. bartletti (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Proposal needed to change linear sequence.

 

12. Rhynchotus maculicollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992, Monroe & Sibley 1993, Davies 2002) considered a subspecies of R. rufescens. Maijer (1996) provided evidence that maculicollis differs substantially in vocalizations from R. rufescens. The two species form a superspecies.  SACC proposal passed to recognize maculicollis as a separate species.

 

13. Blake (1977) suggested that Nothoprocta kalinowskii might be better treated as a subspecies of N. ornata; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; analysis of phenotypic characters supports their treatment as sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Krabbe and Schulenberg (2005) have shown that N. kalinowskii is a junior synonym of N. ornata branickii. SACC proposal passed to remove kalinowskii from list.

 

14. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cabot (1992) considered Nothoprocta perdicaria, N. pentlandii, and N. cinerascens to form a superspecies. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, considered this group to include N. curvirostris and not N. cinerascens. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that N. perdicaria and N. curvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002). Proposal needed to change linear sequence.

 

15. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that N. boraquira and N. minor are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002), but genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) changed this conclusion.

 

16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nothura darwinii, N. maculosa, and N. chacoensis to form a superspecies; they form a monophyletic group (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Nothura darwinii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are locally sympatric and their voices differ (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Cabot 1992).  Nothura chacoensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Blake 1979) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are sympatric in Paraguay and northern Argentina (Blake 1977, Cabot 1992). However, the degree of hybridization between the two is uncertain, and Short (1975) and Hayes (1995) treated chacoensis as a subspecies of N. darwinii.  Proposal needed?

 

16a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that Taoniscus and Nothoprocta are sister genera.

 

17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eudromia elegans and E. formosa to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered conspecific, but see Conover (1950), Olrog (1959), Blake (1977), Navas & Bó (1981), and Bertelli et al. (2002).

 

18. The Paraguayan subspecies mira was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a separate species from Eudromia elegans, but it either merely represents an extreme in clinal variation in (Blake 1977), or a weakly diagnosable subspecies of E. elegans (Blake 1979, Cabot 1992).

 

19. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Tinamotis pentlandii and T. ingoufi to form a superspecies.

 


 

ANSERIFORMES 1

ANHIMIDAE (SCREAMERS)
Anhima cornuta Horned Screamer
Chauna torquata Southern Screamer 1a
Chauna chavaria 
Northern Screamer 1a

 

ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1b
Dendrocygninae 2
Dendrocygna bicolor 
Fulvous Whistling-Duck 3, 3a
Dendrocygna viduata 
White-faced Whistling-Duck 3
Dendrocygna autumnalis 
Black-bellied Whistling-Duck 3

Anatinae
Anser anser Graylag Goose (IN) 3b
Cygnus melancoryphus 
Black-necked Swan 4
Coscoroba coscoroba 
Coscoroba Swan 4a
Chloephaga melanoptera 
Andean Goose
Chloephaga picta Upland Goose 4a
Chloephaga hybrida 
Kelp Goose
Chloephaga poliocephala Ashy-headed Goose
Chloephaga rubidiceps Ruddy-headed Goose
Neochen jubata Orinoco Goose 5
Cairina moschata 
Muscovy Duck
Sarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck 6
Callonetta leucophrys 
Ringed Teal 7, 7a
Amazonetta brasiliensis 
Brazilian Teal 7a, 8, 8a
Merganetta armata 
Torrent Duck 8b
Tachyeres patachonicus 
Flying Steamer-Duck 8
Tachyeres pteneres 
Flightless Steamer-Duck 9, 10
Tachyeres brachypterus 
Falkland Steamer-Duck 9, 9a
Tachyeres leucocephalus 
White-headed Steamer-Duck 9, 11
Lophonetta specularioides 
Crested Duck 8, 12
Speculanas specularis 
Spectacled Duck 8,13
Anas americana 
American Wigeon (NB) 14
Anas sibilatrix 
Chiloe Wigeon 14, 15
Anas crecca 
Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16, 17
Anas andium 
Andean Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas flavirostris 
Yellow-billed Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas acuta 
Northern Pintail (NB) 19, 19a, 20
Anas georgica 
Yellow-billed Pintail 19, 19a, 21, 21a
Anas bahamensis 
White-cheeked Pintail 19, 21b, 21c
Anas puna 
Puna Teal 22
Anas versicolor 
Silver Teal 22
Anas discors 
Blue-winged Teal (NB) 22a
Anas cyanoptera 
Cinnamon Teal 22a
Anas platalea 
Red Shoveler 22b
Anas clypeata 
Northern Shoveler (NB) 22b
Netta erythrophthalma 
Southern Pochard 22c
Netta peposaca 
Rosy-billed Pochard 22d
Aythya collaris 
Ring-necked Duck (V) 23
Aythya affinis 
Lesser Scaup (NB)
Mergus octosetaceus 
Brazilian Merganser
Heteronetta atricapilla Black-headed Duck
Nomonyx dominicus Masked Duck 24
Oxyura jamaicensis 
Ruddy Duck 25
Oxyura vittata 
Lake Duck 26

 


 

1. Galliformes + Anseriformes, collectively called Galloanseres, are placed in the linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds.  Click here for details, as well as see Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain & Houde (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), Hackett et al. (2008), and Eo et al. (2009). See Zusi & Livezey (2000), Sorenson et al. (2003), Cracraft et al. (2004), and Eo et al. (2009) for support for the traditional monophyly of the Anseriformes.  Cracraft (2013) divided the family into four subfamilies: Dendrocygninae, Oxyurinae, Anserinae, and Anatinae.

 

1a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the two species of Chauna to form a superspecies.

 

1b. [within-family relationships] <incorp Johnson-Sorensen REFs, Livezey 1997, Donne-Gousse et al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005, Eo et al. 2009 etc.>

 

2. The Dendrocygna whistling-ducks were considered a separate family from Anatidae by [REFS]; they are the outgroup to all other Anatidae except Anseranas [REFs, Fain & Houde (2004)]. The monophyly of the group was questioned by Eo et al. (2009).

 

3. Whistling-Ducks were formerly called "Tree-Ducks" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

 

3a. Dendrocygna bicolor and Australasian D. arcuata form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f).

 

3b. Anser anser is introduced and established on the Falklands Islands (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Small feral population in Bogotá, Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to transfer from Hypothetical List to Main List, based on the situation in the Falklands.

 

4. Correct spelling for species name is melancoryphus (David & Gosselin 2002a), not "melanocoryphus" or "melanocorypha."

 

4a. Woolfenden (1961) proposed that Coscoroba is more closely related to other swans (Cygnus) than to any other waterfowl despite some unusual behavioral and morphological characters.

 

4b.  Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that Neochen jubata was the sister species to Chloephaga melanoptera (but additional loci need to be sampled before any taxonomic changes proposed); they also found that C. rubidiceps and C. poliocephala were sisters, and that C. picta and C. hybrida were sisters.

 

4bb. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species.  Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that the Falkland Islands population and mainland populations formed distinct genetic groups.

 

5. Neochen is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is jubata (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

6. New World sylvicola may be a species distinct from Old World Sarkidiornis melanotos and is treated as such by Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa), and Wetmore (1965). <cite Livezey if evidence presented other than strict PSC reasoning>. Proposal needed.

 

7. Callonetta leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in genus Anas, but see Johnsgard (1960) and Woolfenden (1961).

 

7a. Callonetta leucophrys, Amazonetta brasiliensisAnas crecca, and A. flavirostris/andium were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948aa) placed in a separate genus, Nettion, but see <REF>.

 

8. Amazonetta was placed in Anas by (REFS), but see Woolfenden (1961) and Johnsgard (1965). Johnson & Sorenson (1999) found that its sister species was likely Speculanas specularis, and that these two plus Lophonetta and Tachyeres formed a monophyletic group; Eo et al. (2009) also found support, based in part on Johnson and Sorenson (1999), for the relationship Lophonetta (Amazonetta + Speculanas).

 

8a. Called "Brazilian Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

 

8b. Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa) treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenis as separate species from Merganetta armata, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Johnsgard (1978), and most recent classification.

 

9. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus, and Tbrachypterus to form a superspecies. <incorp. Livezey 1986>

 

9a. Called "Falkland Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978). Fulton et al. (2012) found that the individuals of T. patachonicus on the Falklands are actually flying individuals of T. brachypterus.

 

10. Called "Magellanic Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978), "Magellanic Steamer-Duck" in Carboneras (1992f) and "Fuegian Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). Proposal needed?

 

11. Recently described: Humphrey & Thompson (1981). Called "Chubut Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

 

12. Lophonetta specularioides is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) and Eo et al. (2009) for return to monotypic Lophonetta, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

 

13. Speculanas specularis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Livezey (1991, 1997), Johnson & Sorenson (1999), and Eo et al. (2009).

 

14. Livezey (1991) advocated resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a).  Mareca was merged into Anas following Delacour & Mayr (1945) and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca is monophyletic but also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might make Anas a paraphyletic genus (see also Eo et al. 2009). Peters et al. (2005) found that A. sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in traditional and morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the sister to A. americana.

 

14a. Carboneras (1992f) considered Anas americana and A. sibilatrix to form a superspecies with Old World A. penelope; Eo et al. (2009) found that the three formed a monophyletic group.

 

15. Called "Southern Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere.

 

16. Johnson and Sorenson (1999) found that North American carolinensis was more closely related to A. flavirostris than either was to Old World A. crecca, but NACC delayed treating the two as separate species pending analysis of contact zone in Bering Sea and additional (nuclear) DNA data to assess whether the original result represents only a gene tree. <incorp Delacour & Mayre 1945, Johnsgard 1965>

 

17. Recorded from n. Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Photographed in French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010). At least three sight records, one actually a non-archived video record, for Trinidad (ffrench 1973, White & Hayes 2002,ffrench & Kenefick 2003). One sight record for Aruba (Mlodinow 2004).

 

18.  Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and many earlier classifications treated andium as a separate species from A. flavirostris. Following <find first author to lump>, many authors, from Meyer de Schauensee (1970) to Dickinson (2003), have treated andium as a subspecies of A. flavirostris.  Anas andium was considered a separate species from Anas flavirostris by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and this was followed by Hilty (2003).  SACC proposal passed to recognize andium as separate species. Jaramillo (2003) further suggested that the subspecies oxyptera may also deserve recognition as a separate species from A. flavirostris.

 

19.  Anas acuta, A. georgica, and A. bahamensis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate genus, Dafila, but see <REF>; genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) suggest that they form a monophyletic group.  Anas bahamensis and A. georgica spinicauda were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in a separate genus, Paecilonitta, but see <REF>.

 

19a. Johnsgard (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anas acuta and A. georgica to form a superspecies; their sister relationship was supported by Eo et al. (2009).

 

20. Called "Common Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

 

21. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), no rationale has ever been published for the merger (by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) of mainland Anas spinicauda with A. georgica from South Georgia Island, which was treated as separate species by Hellmayr & Conover (1948a); see also Jaramillo (2003). Proposal needed.

 

21a. The Colombian subspecies niceforoi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a separate species from Anas georgica, but REFs, Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), and Johnsgard (1979) treated them as conspecific.

 

21b. Delacour and Mayr (1945) considered Anas bahamensis to form a superspecies with African A. erythrorhyncha, but see Eo et al. (2009).

 

21c. Formerly known as "Bahama Pintail" (e.g., REFS) or "Bahama Duck" (AOU 1957).

 

22. Anas puna and A. versicolor are sometimes (e.g., <?> Peters 1931, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f, Dickinson 2003) considered conspecific, but most classifications (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) consider them to be separate species. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species.  SACC proposal to treat puna as conspecific with versicolor did not pass. Johnsgard (1965) proposed that these two species were most closely related to African A. hottentota; genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) suggest that this is correct.

 

22a. Anas puna and A. versicolor were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Punanetta, but see <REF>.

 

22a. Anas discors and A. cyanoptera were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Querquedula, but see Delacour & Mayr (1945) and McKinney (1970). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species (as did Eo et al. 2009).

 

22b. Anas platalea and A. clypeata were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Spatula, but see <REF>.

 

22c. Netta erythrophthalma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed the genus Aythya, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

 

22d. Netta peposaca was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Metopiana, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

 

22e. Called "Rosybill" in Johnsgard (1978), Madge & Burn (1988), Dickinson (2003). and elsewhere.

 

23. Recorded from northern Venezuela (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Published photos and several sight records for Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & White 1999, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004, 2012).

 

24. Nomonyx dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, 1983, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in the genus Oxyura. See Livezey (1995) and [McCracken REFS] for resurrection of Nomonyx as genus separate from Oxyura, a return to the classification of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a).  Eo et al. (2009) did not find support for inclusion of Nomonyx in Oxyura.

 

25. Andean populations have often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried 1976, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Jaramillo 2003) been treated as a separate species, O. ferruginea ("Andean Duck" or "Andean Ruddy-Duck").  However, see Adams and Slavid (1984), Fjeldså (1986), and McCracken & Sorenson (2005) for rationale for treating them as conspecific, as done previously (e.g., Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1979), and then followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f). Siegfried (1976) and Livezey (1995) considered ferruginea to be more closely related to O. vittata than to O. jamaicensis, but McCracken & Sorenson (2005) showed that this is incorrect.

 

26. Called "Argentine Blue-billed Duck" in Johnsgard (1978) and Carboneras (1992f).

 


 

GALLIFORMES 1

CRACIDAE (GUANS) 1a

Chamaepetes goudotii Sickle-winged Guan 21
Penelope argyrotis 
Band-tailed Guan 8
Penelope barbata 
Bearded Guan 8
Penelope ortoni 
Baudo Guan 9
Penelope montagnii 
Andean Guan 9
Penelope marail 
Marail Guan 10
Penelope superciliaris 
Rusty-margined Guan 10, 15
Penelope dabbenei 
Red-faced Guan 10a, 10b
Penelope jacquacu 
Spix's Guan 11, 12, 12a
Penelope purpurascens 
Crested Guan 11
Penelope perspicax 
Cauca Guan 11, 13
Penelope albipennis 
White-winged Guan 11, 14
Penelope obscura 
Dusky-legged Guan 11
Penelope pileata 
White-crested Guan 15
Penelope ochrogaster 
Chestnut-bellied Guan 15
Penelope jacucaca 
White-browed Guan 15
Pipile pipile 
Trinidad Piping-Guan 8, 16, 17
Pipile cumanensis 
Blue-throated Piping-Guan 17, 18
Pipile cujubi 
Red-throated Piping-Guan 17, 19
Pipile jacutinga 
Black-fronted Piping-Guan 17
Aburria aburri 
Wattled Guan 8, 16
Ortalis cinereiceps 
Gray-headed Chachalaca 2
Ortalis garrula 
Chestnut-winged Chachalaca 2
Ortalis ruficauda 
Rufous-vented Chachalaca 3
Ortalis erythroptera 
Rufous-headed Chachalaca
Ortalis canicollis Chaco Chachalaca
Ortalis columbiana Colombian Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis guttata 
Speckled Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis araucuan 
East Brazilian Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis squamata 
Scaled Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis motmot 
Variable Chachalaca 4, 6, 7
Ortalis superciliaris 
Buff-browed Chachalaca 4, 4a
Nothocrax urumutum 
Nocturnal Curassow 22
Crax rubra 
Great Curassow 22, 30, 30a
Crax alberti 
Blue-billed Curassow 30, 30aa, 30c
Crax daubentoni 
Yellow-knobbed Curassow 30, 31
Crax alector 
Black Curassow 30, 30b
Crax globulosa 
Wattled Curassow 30
Crax fasciolata 
Bare-faced Curassow 30, 32
Crax blumenbachii 
Red-billed Curassow
Mitu tomentosum Crestless Curassow 22 23, 25, 26
Mitu salvini 
Salvin's Curassow 23
Mitu tuberosum 
Razor-billed Curassow 23, 27
Mitu mitu 
Alagoas Curassow 23, 27
Pauxi pauxi 
Helmeted Curassow 22, 29a
Pauxi koepckeae 
Sira Curassow 29a, 29b
Pauxi unicornis 
Horned Curassow 29a, 29b

 


 

1. Galliformes + Anseriformes are placed in linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds.  Click here for details. The monophyly of the Galliformes has never been seriously questioned and has been confirmed by Eo et al. (2009. [relationships among families]

 

1a. Vaurie (1968) recognized three major divisions within the family based on morphological criteria: the guans and chachalacas (tribe Penelopini), the curassows (Cracini), and the (extralimital) Horned Guan (Oreophasini). Delacour & Amadon (1973) considered the latter to be part of the chachalaca-guan group and recognized only two major divisions, (a) the curassows and (b) everything else. Del Hoyo (1994) recognized two subfamilies, Cracinae for the four genera of curassows and Penelopinae for everything else. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) identify two main groups, one consisting of del Hoyo's Cracinae as well as Ortalis and Oreophasis, and the other consisting of the guan genera Aburria, Pipile, Penelope, Penelopina (extralimital), and Chamaepetes; however, support was weak for the nodes that include Ortalis and Oreophasis with the curassows. A more comprehensive analysis (Crowe et al. 2006) also supports treating these two groups as subfamilies.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera.  SACC proposal to add subfamilies did not pass.  A more recent analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Pereira et al. 2008) found strong support for the two main groups above, with Ortalis and Oreophasis members of the group that includes the curassows; Eo et al. (2009), however, were unable to find support for these relationships.  SACC proposal pending to recognize subfamilies.

 

2. Ortalis cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Vaurie 1965b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific with O. garrula, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973); Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered them to form a superspecies.

 

3. The subspecies ruficrissa was considered a separate species from Ortalis ruficauda by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), but it intergrades with ruficauda in northern Colombia and Venezuela (Phelps 1943, Phelps and Phelps 1958, Vaurie 1965b, del Hoyo 1994).

 

4. Ortalis guttata (including O. columbiana) and O. superciliaris have been treated as conspecific with O. motmot (see Delacour & Amadon [1973] for rationale); they are considered to form a monophyletic group (Vaurie 1965) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994).

 

4a. Ortalis superciliaris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as O. spixi, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

 

5. The geographically isolated races columbianus, araucuan, and squamata have sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Miller 1947, Sick 1993, 1997, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis guttata; they have generally been treated as subspecies of O. guttata following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1965).  SACC proposal passed to treat columbianus as a separate species.  SACC proposal passed to treat araucan and squamata as separate species from Ortalis guttata.

 

6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated ruficeps of eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmotProposal needed.

 

7. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) called "Little Chachalaca."

 

8. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Pipile and Aburria into Penelope, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.  Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) do not provide support for their merger.

 

8a. Penelope barbata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Vaurie 1966a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. argyrotis, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973); they are evidently sister species (Delacour & Amadon 1973) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Parker et al. (1985) proposed that they might form a superspecies with P. montagnii.

 

9. Vuilleumier (1965) treated Penelope ortoni as a subspecies of Pmontagnii, but see Vaurie (1966b). Eley (1982) presented evidence that its closest relative was P. marail.

 

10. Penelope marail and P. superciliaris were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1987) and del Hoyo 1994).

 

10a. Penelope dabbenei was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934) known as P. nigrifrons, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

 

10b. Olrog (1960) suggested that Penelope dabbenei might best be treated as a subspecies of P. montagnii, but see Vaurie (1966a).

 

11. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1994) considered Penelope purpurascens, P. perspicax, P. albipennis, P. jacquacu, and P. obscura to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Vuilleumier (1965), but see Vaurie (1966b), Delacour & Amadon (1973), and Eley (1982).

 

12. Penelope jacquacu has been considered conspecific with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but see Vaurie (1966a), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973).

 

12a. The granti subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) considered a separate species from Penelope jacquacu, but see Vaurie (1966b). The Bolivian subspecies speciosa was treated as a subspecies of P. obscura by Peters (1934).

 

13. Penelope perspicax was considered a subspecies of P. jacquacu by Vaurie (1966b), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Blake (1977), or of P. purpurascens by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Meyer de Schauensee (1970); for treatment as separate species, see Delacour & Amadon (1973).

 

14. Penelope albipennis has been considered an aberrant or albinistic form or morph of P. ortoni (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but Vaurie (1966a) and Eley (1982) provided evidence that it is a valid species-level taxon, as treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973).

 

15. Delacour & Amadon (1973) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Penelope pileata, P. ochrogaster, and P. jacucaca to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Vuilleumier 1965). Pinto (1938) considered P. jacucaca to be a subspecies of P. superciliaris.

 

16. The genus Pipile is merged by some (Delacour & Amadon 1973, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) into Aburria.  Pipile is currently treated as a separate genus in most classifications. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002, Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Aburria and Pipile are sister taxa, and this is supported by morphological data (Grau et al. 2005). New genetic data (Grau et al. 2005) indicate that Aburria aburri is embedded within Pipile, thus forcing the merger of Pipile into Aburria.  SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Pipile into Aburria.  Eo et al. (2009) were unable to support the monophyly of Pipile + Aburria because A. jacutinga fell outside the group.  SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass.

 

17. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), evidence for species rank for the four species of Pipile is weak, and various authors have used just about every possible permutation of species limits. Many authors (e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Hilty 2003) continue to treat them as a single species, Pipile pipile ("Common Piping-Guan"), whereas others (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994) consider all four major groups as separate species, the treatment followed here. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Ppipile, P. cumanensis, and P. cujubi to form a superspecies, but excluded Pjacutinga. Although the latter has been considered sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977), del Hoyo & Motis (2004) noted that the evidence for sympatry is weak. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977) considered cumanensis to be conspecific with P. pipile, but considered cujubi and jacutinga to be separate species. Peters (1934) considered the genus to contain three species: P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. jacutinga. Pinto (1938) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. pipile (and cumanensis, grayi, and jacutinga as species), but later (Pinto 1964) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. jacutinga. Where P. cujubi nattereri and P. cumanensis grayi meet in eastern Bolivia, they interbreed freely, forming a hybrid swarm (del Hoyo and Motis 2004) <track down original reference>, and so this suggests that species limits should be re-evaluated and returned to those of Delacour & Amadon (1973), who considered the genus to contain two species: P. pipile (including cumanensis, cujubi, etc.) and P. jacutinga.  Proposal needed. [incorp. Vaurie (1967a)]

 

18. The subspecies grayi was considered a separate species from Pipile cumanensis by Pinto (1938), but they intergrade in southeastern Peru (REF). <incorp. Gyldenstolpe 1945>

 

19. The subspecies nattereri is usually considered a subspecies of Pipile cumanensis (e.g., Pinto 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); however, it is perhaps sympatric with P. cumanensis grayi on the lower Rio Madeira (Vaurie 1967), and if this is verified, the two deserve treatment as separate species (Blake 1977). <needs to be reconciled with previous note - need to see Del Hoyo-Motis 2004; <track down original reference>

 

21. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii to form a superspecies with Middle American C. unicolor.

 

22. Generic limits in the curassows are controversial. Vuilleumier (1965) merged MituPauxi, and even Nothocrax into Crax, and this was followed by Delacour & Amadon (1973), Vaurie (1967d), however, outlined rationale for maintaining the four genera as separate, and also pointed out that Nothocrax was a strong outlier in the group, a prediction subsequently verified by genetic data Pereira & Baker (2004). Most subsequent treatments have followed Vaurie (1967d).  However, Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Mitu into Pauxi.  SACC proposal to merge Mitu into Pauxi did not pass.

 

23. Vaurie (1967d), Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered all species of Mitu to form a superspecies. <check overlap salvini-tuberosum>; genetic data support the genus as a monophyletic group if the genetic similarity between M. tuberosum and Pauxi unicornis is due to hybridization (Pereira & Baker 2004).

 

25.  Mitu is neuter, so the correct spellings of the species names are tuberosum and tomentosum (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

26. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Lesser Razor-billed Curassow."

 

27.  Mitu tuberosum was formerly (e.g., Vaurie 1967d, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with M. mitu, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed del Hoyo (1994) in treating it as a separate species. See Silveira et al. (2004) for history of the taxon and a summary of its unique characters and rationale for considering it and tuberosum as a separate species. Furthermore, genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that M. tuberosum and M. mitu are not sister taxa and are not particularly closely related.

 

29a.  Pauxi pauxi and P. unicornis (then including P. koepckeae) were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994); they were considered conspecific by Wetmore & Phelps (1943), but see Vaurie (1967d). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004), however, indicated that P. unicornis was more similar in its mtDNA sequence to Crax tuberosum than to P. pauxi or other curassows, but the authors suspected that this was a consequence of past hybridization between P. unicornis and C. tuberosum and recommended not changing generic limits without further analyses. Aleixo & Rossetti (2007) also suspected that the result might be due to a lab error. See also Eo et al. (2009).

 

29b. Gastañaga et al. (2011) found strong vocal differences between the subspecies koepckeae and nominate unicornis and proposed that they be treated as separate species.  SACC proposal passed to elevate koepckeae to species rank.

 

30. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered the seven species of Crax to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) support the genus as a monophyletic group or parapatric taxa; see also Eo et al. (2009).

 

30a. <Crax globicera (e.g. Chapman 1926) syn, of C. rubra>

 

30aa. "Crax annulata," described from northern Colombia and treated as a species by Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered to be female plumage of barred morph of C. alberti (Peters 1934, Vaurie (1967c), del Hoyo 1994).  "Crax viridirostris" refers to an aviary bird for which the mother was C. daubentoni (Joseph et al. 1999); see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

30b. Crax alector was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

 

30c. "Crax estudilloi," known from a single aviary specimen from Bolivia, was considered a probable hybrid (C. fasciolata and Crax sp.) by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987); however, Joseph et al. (1999) found that its mtDNA was identical to that of C. alberti; see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

31. Peters (1934) considered Crax daubentoni as a subspecies C. alberti, but see Vaurie (1967c). Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with their treatment as sister taxa.

 

32. The northeastern subspecies pinima was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from Crax fasciolata; they have generally been treated as conspecific following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1967c).

 


 

ODONTOPHORIDAE (NEW WORLD QUAILS) 1
Callipepla californica 
California Quail (IN)
Colinus cristatus 
Crested Bobwhite 2
Odontophorus gujanensis 
Marbled Wood-Quail
Odontophorus capueira Spot-winged Wood-Quail
Odontophorus atrifrons Black-fronted Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus erythrops 
Rufous-fronted Wood-Quail 4
Odontophorus hyperythrus 
Chestnut Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus melanonotus 
Dark-backed Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus speciosus 
Rufous-breasted Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus dialeucos 
Tacarcuna Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus strophium 
Gorgeted Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus columbianus 
Venezuelan Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus balliviani 
Stripe-faced Wood-Quail
Odontophorus stellatus Starred Wood-Quail
Rhynchortyx cinctus Tawny-faced Quail 6

 

PHASIANIDAE (PHEASANTS) 
Lophura nycthemera Silver Pheasant (IN) 7

 


 

1. The New World Quails were treated as a separate family from Old World quails, partridges, and pheasants (Phasianidae) by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Whether these families are sister taxa within the Galliformes was formerly regarded as uncertain (Armstrong et al. 2001, Dimcheff et al. 2001), but genetic data (Cox et al. 2007, Eo et al. 2009, Kimball & Braun 2014) confirm that the New World quail are the sister taxon to a group that includes turkeys, pheasants, partridges and Old world quail (Phasianidae), but not the guineafowl (Numididae). Recognition of Odontophoridae as a separate family has also been adopted by Carroll (1994), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003). Eo et al. (2009) found support for the monophyly of the family.  Given that the original rationale for treating the New World quail as a separate family was based in part on concern that their inclusion in Phasianidae would make that group non-monophyletic, and given that two African taxa (Ptilopachus petrosus and “Francolinusnahani) are now members of the Odontophoridae (Crowe et al. 2006, Kimball et al. 2011, Chen et al. 2012, Dickinson & Remsen 2013), family rank should be reconsidered.  SACC proposal needed.

 

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Colinus cristatus to form a superspecies with North and Middle American C. virginianus and Middle American C. nigrogularis.  Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered Central American C. leucopogon to be conspecific with C. cristatus; they form a superspecies (Stiles & Skutch 1989).

 

3. Species limits and relationships within montane Odontophorus are complex and are currently maintained largely by historical momentum rather than analysis or data. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus dialeucos and O. strophium to form a superspecies. Carroll (1994) suggested that these two and also O. columbianus, O. atrifrons, and Central American O. leucolaemus could be considered conspecific. However, the traditional placement of O. atrifrons in linear sequences is next to members of other groups, e.g., O. erythrops or O. hyperythrus. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) maintained columbianus as a separate species but stated that it was almost certainly conspecific with O. strophium.

 

4. Odontophorus erythrops forms a superspecies with Middle American melanotis (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Blake 1977, AOU 1983) have considered them conspecific.

 

5. Blake (1977) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus hyperythrus O. melanonotus, and O. speciosus to form a superspecies; Carroll (1994) suggested that they all could be treated as conspecific, as they were formerly by (REF).

 

6.  Called "Banded Wood Quail" in Wetmore (1965) and "Long-legged Colin" in Ridgway & Friedmann (1946).

 

7.  A population of Lophura nycthemera has become established in Neuquén, Argentina.  SACC proposal passed to add this to the Main List.

 


 

PODICIPEDIFORMES 1

PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBES)
Rollandia rolland White-tufted Grebe 2, 3
Rollandia microptera 
Titicaca Grebe 4, 4a
Tachybaptus dominicus 
Least Grebe 5
Podilymbus podiceps 
Pied-billed Grebe
Podiceps major Great Grebe 6
Podiceps andinus 
Colombian Grebe (EX) 7 
Podiceps occipitalis 
Silvery Grebe 8, 9
Podiceps taczanowskii 
Junin Grebe 10
Podiceps gallardoi 
Hooded Grebe 11

 


 

1. The grebes constitute a distinctive lineage with no close relatives, and the monophyly of the order has never been questioned.  Morphological similarities to the loons (Gaviiformes) have been interpreted as reflecting relatedness (e.g., Cracraft 1982, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007) and has led to their traditional placement next to each other in most linear classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but genetic data strongly suggest that these morphological similarities are purely due to convergence (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). A recent genetic data set (van Tuinen et al. 2001) suggested that the closest living relatives of the grebes are the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes), a hypothesis that also has recent morphological support (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004, Manegold 2006; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007) and additional genetic support (Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008), including a sister relationship between their ischnoceran lice (Johnson et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.  Fain & Houde's (2004) genetic data also suggests that both orders are part of an early radiation that does not include their traditional close relatives such as Ciconiiformes or Gaviiformes. All of the New World grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in one genus, Colymbus, but see <REF>. The sequence of genera and species in this classification follows Storer (1979). [incorporate Simmons 1962, Storer 1963, Bochenski 1994]

 

2. Rollandia rolland was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer's (1963) analysis of morphology and display behavior in use of Rollandia for this species and microptera.

 

3. The subspecies of continental South America, Rollandia r. chilensis, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938; see also Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a separate species from nominate rolland of the Falkland Islands.

 

4.  Rollandia microptera was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Centropelma; Simmons (1962) provided rationale for its merger into Podiceps. Recent classifications usually follow Storer (1963, 1967) in placing this species in Rollandia (see Note 2).

 

4a. Called "Titicaca Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Llimona & del Hoyo (1992), and "Short-winged Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).  SACC proposal passed to change from "Short-winged Grebe" (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970) to "Titicaca Grebe." The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).

 

5.  Tachybaptus dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer (1976) in the use of Tachybaptus for this species and its Old World relatives; Pinto (1938) placed it in the genus Poliocephalus.

 

6.  Podiceps major was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the genus Aechmophorus, but see Wetmore & Parkes (1954).  Bochenski (1994) proposed that this species be placed in a monotypic genus (Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994) based on morphological differences; see also Storer (1963, 1996), who noted that it has a behavioral display unlike that of any other grebe. Proposal needed.

 

7.  Podiceps andinus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Storer 1979) considered a subspecies of mostly N. Hemisphere P. nigricollis, but see Fjeldså (1982a, 1985), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Hilty & Brown (1986); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

8. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the northern Andean subspecies, juninensis, might merit recognition as a separate species from Podiceps occipitalis.

 

9. Storer (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) included Podiceps occipitalis in a superspecies with P. andinus and P. nigricollis; Llimona & del Hoyo (1992) also included P. taczanowskii in that superspecies, but the latter is syntopic with P. occipitalis.

 

10. Called "Puna Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere; called "Junin Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change to "Junin Grebe”.  The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).

 

11. Recently described: Rumboll (1974).

 


 

PHOENICOPTERIFORMES 1

PHOENICOPTERIDAE (FLAMINGOS)
Phoenicopterus ruber American Flamingo 2, 3
Phoenicopterus chilensis 
Chilean Flamingo 3
Phoenicoparrus andinus 
Andean Flamingo 4
Phoenicoparrus jamesi 
James's Flamingo 4, 5

 


 

1.  Various evidence has been interpreted to support treatment of the flamingos within or closest to the Ciconiiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2007), Anseriformes (Hagey et al. 1990), and Charadriiformes (Olson & Feduccia 1980). Given this uncertainty, and recent genetic (Van Tuinen et al. 2001, Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008; see also Fain & Houde 2004) and morphological (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004, Manegold 2006) evidence that their closest relatives are the Podicipediformes, we follow <REFS> and del Hoyo (1992) in treating them in their own order, the monophyly of which has never been questioned. See additional comments under Podicipediformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence to move next to Podicipediformes.

 

2.  The Old World subspecies roseus is recognized as a separate species by some authors (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), with the English name "Greater Flamingo" applied to the Old World species, and either "Caribbean Flamingo" or "American Flamingo" (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty 2003) used for the New World species. Sangster (1997) reviewed the evidence for species rank of roseus and recommended it be returned to species rank. This was followed by NACC (Banks et al. 2008). <incorp. Knox et al. 2002SACC proposal passed to return roseus to species rank.

 

3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phoenicopterus ruber and P. chilensis to form a superspecies; they were treated as conspecific by Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a).

 

4. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus based on small genetic distances among all flamingos as measured by DNA-DNA hybridization (Sibley & Ahlquist 1989); further, the distinctions between the genera are based on bill morphology. Kahl (1979b), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and del Hoyo (1992) maintained Phoenicoparrus as a separate genus.  Proposal needed.

 

5. Called "Puna Flamingo" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley and Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1992).  Proposal needed.

 


 

SPHENISCIFORMES 1

SPHENISCIDAE (PENGUINS)
Aptenodytes patagonicus King Penguin
Aptenodytes forsteri Emperor Penguin (V) 2
Pygoscelis papua 
Gentoo Penguin 3
Pygoscelis antarcticus 
Chinstrap Penguin (NB) 3
Eudyptula minor 
Little Penguin (V) 11
Spheniscus humboldti 
Humboldt Penguin 12
Spheniscus mendiculus 
Galapagos Penguin
Spheniscus magellanicus Magellanic Penguin 12
Eudyptes sclateri 
Big-crested Penguin (V) 6, 7
Eudyptes chrysolophus 
Macaroni Penguin 10, 10a
Eudyptes moseleyi 
Tristan Penguin (V)
Eudyptes chrysocome 
Rockhopper Penguin 8, 9
Eudyptes robustus 
Snares Penguin (V) 5

 


 

1. Several studies [REFs, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008] suggest that the Sphenisciformes and Procellariiformes are sister taxa. Mayr and Clarke's (2003) analysis of morphological characters suggested that the Sphenisciformes were the sister to Gaviidae + Podicipedidae, but Mayr (2005) proposed that the penguins were closer to some Pelecaniformes. The most recent analyses of DNA sequence data (Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) are generally ambiguous with respect to relationships of the Sphenisciformes. <incorp. Paterson et al. 1993> The monophyly of the family has never been questioned (and see Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, and Giannini & Bertelli 2004 for recent support). Analyses of morphological and behavioral characters (Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, Giannini & Bertelli 2004) suggest that traditional genera are monophyletic, recently confirmed by genetic data (Baker et al. 2005); however, these analyses each produce different linear sequences, none of which is consistent with the molecular data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) or Baker et al. (2006). The classification and sequence here follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker et al. 2006) indicate that this requires revision to reflect their phylogenetic data. Also, an analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Bertelli & Giannini 2005) produced a phylogenetic hypothesis very similar to that of Baker et al. (2006).  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

 

2. Unpublished photographic records from the Falklands in 1936 and 1954 (Hamilton 1954) and sight records in 1987 (Wolsey 1987, Curtis 1988), 1996 (Brown 1996), and 1999 (Gates 2001), although evidence for the 1936 record is archived with a photograph at the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, U.K. A specimen collected at the first narrows of the Magellan Straits near Punta Delgada, Chile, is housed at the Univ. of Magallanes, Punta Arenas (Venegas 1978, 1982) and was possibly collected in 1978 (Marín 2004). From Argentina, one of two specimens mentioned by Venegas (1982) is still housed at the Museo Mayorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas, collected from the Mitre Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There are also vague sight records from elsewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Chebez & Bertonatti 1994) and at-sea off Buenos Aires (Jehl & Rumboll 1977).

 

3. Pygoscelis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is antarcticuspapua, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

4. [deleted]

 

5.  Three photographic records from the Falklands: Dec. 1988 (Lamey 1990) and Nov.-Dec. 2008 (Demongin et al. 2010).

 

6. Five Falklands records include one from 1961 to 1966 (Napier 1968), one in the 1980-1981 austral summer (Strange 1992), one during each austral summer from 1997 to at least 2006 (Morrison et al. 2006), another in spring 2003 (Black et al. 2005), and another in 2005 (Morrison et al. 2006).  Photographic documentation appears in Birding World (11: 158, 1998) and White & Henry (2001).

 

7. Called "Erect-crested Penguin" in Martínez (1992), Williams (1995), etc. Proposal needed.

 

8. Jouventin (1982), Jouventin et al. (2006), and Banks et al. (2006) demonstrated that moseleyi, traditionally treated as a subspecies of E. chrysocome, differs in voice and mating signals from, and is moderately differentiated genetically from, chrysocome.  SACC proposal passed to treat moseleyi as a separate species.

 

8a. Published photos from Falklands (Matias et al. 2009).

 

9. Formerly known as E. crestatus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) but see Serventy & Whittell (1952) and Falla & Mougin (1979).

 

10. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Martínez (1992) considered Eudyptes chrysolophus to form a superspecies with E. schlegeli of Macquarie Island; the latter was formerly (e.g., Falla & Mougin 1979) treated as a subspecies of E. chrysolophus but has been treated recently as separate species (Martínez 1992, Gill et al. 2010), but see Christidis & Boles (2008) for return to subspecies rank, as followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

 

10a. Vagrants to Argentina supported by specimens in MACN, BM(NH), and FML.

 

11. Wilson et al. (2000) reported a specimen from Chile. Three previous records from Chile, one backed by unpublished photo (Valverde & Oyarzo 1996). Proposal passed to add to main list. Proposal passed to change name from "Little Blue Penguin" to "Little Penguin."

 

12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Spheniscus humboldtii and S. magellanicus to form a superspecies with African S. demersus; genetic differences among them are low (REF), and some authors consider them conspecific (REF).  Baker et al. (2006) found that S. mendiculus is likely the sister to S. humboldtii; therefore, it should also be included in the superspecies.

 


 

PROCELLARIIFORMES 1

DIOMEDEIDAE (ALBATROSSES) 2
Phoebastria irrorata 
Waved Albatross 3, 4
Diomedea epomophora 
Royal Albatross (NB) 3, 5
Diomedea exulans 
Wandering Albatross (NB) 6
Phoebetria fusca 
Sooty Albatross (V) 7
Phoebetria palpebrata 
Light-mantled Albatross (NB) 8
Thalassarche chlororhynchos 
Yellow-nosed Albatross (NB) 3, 9
Thalassarche melanophris 
Black-browed Albatross 10, 11
Thalassarche chrysostoma 
Gray-headed Albatross 
Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross (NB) 12
Thalassarche cauta 
White-capped Albatross (NB) 13,14
Thalassarche salvini 
Salvin's Albatross (NB) 13
Thalassarche eremita 
Chatham Albatross (NB) 13

 


 

1. The monophyly of the Procellariiformes has never been seriously questioned, and modern analyses (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) support the traditional view. The Procellariiformes are likely sister to the Sphenisciformes (see Note 1 under that order; c.f. Ericson et al. 2006). [note on relationships among families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf Rheindt & Austin (2005).

 

2. The monophyly of the Diomedeidae has never been questioned seriously. The linear sequence of genera used here was modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support.

 

3.  Phoebastria and Thalassarche were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Alexander et al. 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed in the genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick & Wink (2004).

 

4. Formerly known as "Galapagos Albatross" (e.g., Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Tickell 2000).

 

5.  Diomedea epomophora was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000) and Onley & Scofield (2007), with the subspecies sanfordi considered a separate species. Both taxa occur in South American waters. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)]. Proposal badly needed.

 

6. Diomedea exulans treated as consisting of five species by Tickell (2000) and four by Onley & Scofield (2007). Of these, at least three occur in South American waters: nominate exulans, dabbenena, and antipodensis. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004].  SACC proposal to recognize multiple species did not pass.

 

7. See Willis & Oniki (1985, 1993) for Brazil record (cf. Teixeira et al. 1988); also see Lima et al. (1997) for a second record from Brazil. <Blake (1977) reported specimen off Cape Horn>

 

8. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Light-mantled Sooty Albatross."

 

9.  Thalassarche chlororhynchos has been considered to consist of two species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by Tickell (2000) and Onley & Scofield (2007), with carteri of the Indian Ocean treated as a separate species.  Proposal badly needed.  Nominate chlororhynchos is the form that typically occurs in South American waters. Lima & Grantsau (2005) reported four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri, but that identification was challenged by Carlos (2008).

 

10.  Thalassarche melanophris was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000) and Onley & Scofield (2007), with the Campbell Islands subspecies impavida treated as a separate species. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001]Proposal needed. Only nominate melanophris has been recorded from South America.

 

11. The species name is also frequently given as melanophrys. Carlos and Voisin (2008) have published a proposal to conserve the original spelling in the type description, melanophris.  This has been formally endorsed (ICZN 2010).

 

12.  Thalassarche bulleri was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), but see Brooke (2004) and Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)].

 

13.  Thalassarche cauta has been considered to consist of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this was followed by Tickell (2000). See, however, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) for continued treatment of all as conspecific. <incorp. Abbott & Double 2003a, b, Double et al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005SACC proposal passed to split into two or three species.  SACC proposal to reverse this decision did not pass.  Brooke (2004) treated eremita and salvini as separate species from T. cautaSubsequent SACC proposal passed to split into 3 species.

 

14. Called "Shy Albatross" in Onley & Scofield (2007) and elsewhere.

 


 

PROCELLARIIDAE (SHEARWATERS) 1
Macronectes giganteus 
Southern Giant-Petrel 2, 3
Macronectes halli 
Northern Giant-Petrel (NB) 2
Fulmarus glacialoides 
Southern Fulmar (NB) 2a
Thalassoica antarctica 
Antarctic Petrel (NB)
Daption capense 
Cape Petrel (NB) 4
Pagodroma nivea 
Snow Petrel (V) 4a
Aphrodroma brevirostris 
Kerguelen Petrel (NB) 5
Pterodroma macroptera 
Great-winged Petrel (V) 5a, 5b
Pterodroma mollis 
Soft-plumaged Petrel (NB)
Pterodroma hasitata 
Black-capped Petrel (NB)
Pterodroma incerta 
Atlantic Petrel (NB) 6
Pterodroma lessonii 
White-headed Petrel (NB)
Pterodroma cookii 
Cook's Petrel (NB) 7, 10
Pterodroma defilippiana 
Masatierra Petrel 8, 9, 10
Pterodroma longirostris 
Stejneger's Petrel 10
Pterodroma neglecta 
Kermadec Petrel 10a, 10b
Pterodroma arminjoniana 
Trindade Petrel 10a, 12, 12a
Pterodroma inexpectata 
Mottled Petrel (V) 11
Pterodroma phaeopygia 
Galapagos Petrel 13
Pterodroma externa 
Juan Fernandez Petrel 14
Pterodroma feae 
Fea's Petrel 14a
Halobaena caerulea 
Blue Petrel 14b
Pachyptila turtur 
Fairy Prion
Pachyptila vittata Broad-billed Prion (V) 15, 15a
Pachyptila desolata 
Antarctic Prion (NB) 15, 16
Pachyptila belcheri 
Slender-billed Prion 17
Bulweria bulwerii 
Bulwer's Petrel (V) 18, 18a
Procellaria cinerea 
Gray Petrel (NB) 18a, 19
Procellaria aequinoctialis 
White-chinned Petrel 20, 21
Procellaria conspicillata 
Spectacled Petrel (NB) 20, 21, 21a
Procellaria parkinsoni 
Parkinson's Petrel (NB) 21, 22
Procellaria westlandica 
Westland Petrel (NB) 21
Calonectris diomedea 
Cory's Shearwater (NB) 23, 24, 24a
Calonectris edwardsii 
Cape Verde Shearwater (V) 23, 24
Puffinus pacificus 
Wedge-tailed Shearwater (NB) 23a
Puffinus bulleri 
Buller's Shearwater (NB) 25
Puffinus griseus 
Sooty Shearwater 25a
Puffinus tenuirostris 
Short-tailed Shearwater (V) 25b
Puffinus gravis 
Great Shearwater 26
Puffinus creatopus 
Pink-footed Shearwater 27
Puffinus carneipes 
Flesh-footed Shearwater (NB) 27, 27a
Puffinus puffinus 
Manx Shearwater (NB) 28, 28a
Puffinus assimilis 
Little Shearwater (NB) 29, 28a
Puffinus lherminieri 
Audubon's Shearwater 28a, 29, 30, 31
Puffinus subalaris 
Galapagos Shearwater 31

 


 

1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned seriously, with the recent exception of possible inclusion of Pelecanoides within the Procellariidae (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006). Linear sequence of genera modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the treatment of Macronectes, Fulmarus, Thalassoica, Daption, and Pagodroma as forming a monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated tribe rank (Fulmarini) for this group, but see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.

 

2.  Macronectes giganteus and M. halli were formerly considered conspecific, and often (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) called "Giant Fulmar." See Bourne & Warham (1966), Hunter (1987), and references therein for treatment of the two as separate species. However, lack of interbreeding where sympatric is achieved primarily through temporal segregation rather than any other barriers to gene flow; see summary of evidence for treating them as conspecific in Penhallurick & Wink (2004), but see also Rheindt & Austin (2005) for support of the two species treatment. Proposal needed?

 

2a. Fulmarus glacialoides was considered a subspecies of boreal F. glacialis by (REF), although formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Priocella; for placement in same genus, see Voous (1949). The two species constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998).

 

3. Called "Antarctic Giant-Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).

 

4. Formerly called "Pintado Petrel" (e.g. REF) or "Cape Pigeon" (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a).

 

4a.  At least five birds have been found dead and one alive on the Falkland Islands (Salvin 1896, R. Woods, pers. comm.). However, only three of the specimens, including one of the two from 1979 mentioned by Peatfield (1981), can now be located; they are in the British Museum (R. Woods, pers. comm.).

 

5.  Aphrodroma brevirostris was formerly placed in the genus Pterodroma (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992b). Placed in monotypic genus Lugensa by Imber (1985), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Kennedy & Page (2002), and others, because inclusion in that genus would make Pterodroma paraphyletic. Olson (2000) proposed a new genus Aphrodroma for this species, because Lugensa cannot be applied to brevirostris. Bourne (2001) provided rationale for why Lugensa should apply to brevirostris, and this was accepted by Penhallurick & Wink (2004). However, Olson showed that there is no confirmable evidence linking the type species of Lugensa to the Kerguelen Petrel, in the absence of which Aphrodroma must stand (R. Schodde, in litt.).  Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) not only support treatment of brevirostris in a separate genus, but also indicate that it is more closely related to the Puffinus group of shearwaters than to Pterodroma; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a reinterpretation of those data.  Proposal needed to change linear sequence?

 

5a. Reported for Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and the Falklands (e.g., Gregory 1994) but based only on sight records. Teixeira et al. (1985) showed that the two reported specimens from Brazil were actually Puffinus griseus, leaving only sight reports from Brazil. Bugoni (2006) reported a specimen from Fernando de Noronha Island, Brazil. SACC proposal passed to move to main list.

 

5b. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Gray-faced Petrel."

 

6. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support Pterodroma as a monophyletic group (once brevirostris is removed; see Note 5). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) used genetic distance data to propose that Pterodroma was best subdivided into four monophyletic groups, ranked at the subgenus level: (1) subgenus Pterodroma, which of the species recorded from South America includes P. hasitata, P. incerta, P. lessonii, and P. mollis as well as several extralimital species; (2) subgenus Hallstroma, which includes P. neglecta (and thus presumably P. arminjoniana), P. externa, P. phaeopygia (and extralimital P. sandwichensis), and P. inexpectata; (3) subgenus Cookilaria, which includes P. longirostris, P. cookii (and thus presumably Pdefilippiana), and extralimital P. hypoleuca; and (4) subgenus "?Proaestrelata" for some extralimital species including P. axillaris and P. nigripennis.  However, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.

 

6a.  Formerly known as "Hooded Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "Schlegel's Petrel" (REF).

 

7.  Formerly known as "Blue-footed Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977).

 

8.  Pterodroma defilippiana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. cookii.

 

9. Called "Mas a Tierra Petrel" in Murphy (1936) and Carboneras (1992b). Called "Defilippe's Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Defilippi's Petrel" in Stattersfield (REF), and "De Filippi's" Petrel in Onley & Scofield (2007). Also, Howell et al. (1996) noted that the species is named for F. de Filippi, so the name should be "de Filippi's Petrel". The latter, however, is difficult to spell correctly, and certainly confuses Chileans who know the Philippis as the ornithologists that had a large influence in Chile.  SACC proposal to change English name to "De Filippi's Petrel" did not pass.

 

10.  Pterodroma defilippiana, and P. longirostris are members of the "Cookilaria" species group, also including extralimital P. cookii, P. hypoleuca, P. nigripennisP. axillaris, and P. leucoptera; they are considered to be each others' closest relatives (Jouanin and Mougin 1979). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) restricted this group; see Note 6 above.

 

10a.  Pterodroma neglecta and P. arminjoniana were considered to form a superspecies with P. alba by Jouanin and Mougin (1979); P. arminjoniana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of P. neglecta.

 

10b.  Pterodroma neglecta was recently discovered to breed on Ilha da ade (Imber 2004), but see Tove (2005).

 

11. [Reference needed for records] <Meltofte & Horneman 1995>.

 

12. Some authors (REFS) consider the subspecies heraldica to deserve recognition as a separate species from Pterodroma arminjoniana, but see Murphy & Pennoyer (1952). Also, dark birds have been recognized as a separate species, P. atrata (Brooke & Rowe 1996, Dickinson 2003).  SACC proposal passed to recognize extralimital P. heraldica and P. atrata as separate species.

 

12a.  Occasionally called “Trinidade Petrel”.  Trinidade” is either an incorrect spelling or an botched Anglicization of the Brazilian Portuguese name name for the island, which is “Trindade”, as is the official international name.  Formerly also occasionally listed as “South Trinidad Petrel” (e.g. AOU 1957).

 

13. Pterodroma phaeopygia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) considered to consist of two subspecies, nominate phaeopygia, which breeds in the Galapagos Islands, and sandwichensis, which breeds in Hawaii. Although Jouanin & Mougin (1979) and Carboneras (1992b) questioned the validity of sandwichensis as a recognizable taxon, Tomkins & Milne (1991), Browne et al. (1997) and Welch et al. (2011) provided rationale for considering Pterodroma sandwichensis a separate species from P. phaeopygia based on vocal and genetic differences between them comparable to those between other species-level pairs in Pterodroma  the AOU (Banks et al. 2002) recognized them both as species: P. phaeopygia (Galapagos Petrel) and P. sandwichensis (Hawaiian Petrel);  SACC proposal passed to recognize P. sandwichensis as a species.

 

14.  Some treatments (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) have considered extralimital Pterodroma cervicalis to be a subspecies of P. externa, with the composite name "White-necked Petrel," but they are evidently not sister taxa (Imber 1985). 

 

14a. Ramírez et al. (2013) found using geolocators that part of the nonbreeding distribution of Pterodroma feae includes Brazilian waters, with some occurrences off French Guiana and Suriname.  SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.

 

14b. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Halobaena is more closely related to Pachyptila, as proposed by Imber1985), than to any other genus; Marchant & Higgins (1990) had proposed that Halobaena and Pterodroma were sister genera.

 

15.  Recorded in Peru (Hughes 1982, Hidlago-Aranzamendi et al. 2010).

 

15a. Species limits in the genus Pachyptila are controversial, with most recent classifications recognizing six species in the genus (e.g., Marchant & Higgins 1990, Carboneras 1992b) <incorp. Bretagnolle et al. 1990>; see summary in Penhallurick & Wink (2004).  Pachyptila desolata was considered a subspecies of P. vittata by Cox (1980), and Penhallurick & Wink (2004) considered it and P. belcheri conspecific with P. vittata; see, however, Rheindt & Austin (2005) and references therein.  Proposal needed?

15b. [
note on use of forsteri as species name, as in Pinto (1938), Blake (1977)]

 

16. Called "Dove Prion" in [REFS].  SACC proposal passed to change English name from Dove Prion to Antarctic Prion.

 

17. Called "Thin-billed Prion" in Murphy (1936), Harrison (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and elsewhere.

 

18. Recorded once near Trinidad (ffrench & ffrench 1966). <check documentation> Sight record off Curaçao (Voous 1983). <check Bourne 1995>

 

18a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Bulweria and Procellaria are sister genera, contrary to previous assessments of morphology that suggested that Bulweria was closest to or embedded within Pterodroma (Olson 1975a, Marchant & Higgins 1990). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed recognizing Bulweria + Procellaria at the tribe level (Procellariini); however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.

 

19.  Procellaria cinerea was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Adamastor, but most recent classifications have followed (REF), Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Procellaria.

 

20. Procellaria conspicillata was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Carboneras (1992b), Dickinson 2003) treated as a subspecies of P. aequinoctialis.  Ryan (1998) proposed that the conspicillata should be treated as a separate species from Procellaria aequinoctialis based mainly on vocal differences.  SACC proposal passed to treat P. conspicillata as a separate species.

 

21.  Procellaria parkinsoni and P. westlandica have been considered conspecific with P. aequinoctialis (e.g., REFS); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), which would also include P. conspicillata.  Procellaria westlandica is considered regular off Chile and Argentina following Brinkley et al. (2000).

 

21a. See Olmos (2001) for a summary of records and status off Brazil, and Savigny (2002) for a sight record off Argentina.

 

22. Called "Black Petrel" in (REFS), Carboneras (1992b). See Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale against use of "Black Petrel."

23.  Calonectris was formerly included in genus Puffinus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), but most recent classifications have followed Alexander et al. (1965) and Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in treating it as a separate genus. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) also support treatment of Calonectris as a separate genus, sister genus to Puffinus. Other analyses of the same groups (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) found that Calonectris formed a distinct group for which the relationship to the two major groups of Puffinus could not be resolved; see Note 23a.

 

23a. Based on genetic data, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed that Puffinus be subdivided into two genera: (1) Ardenna for creatopus/carneipes, gravis, griseus, tenuirostris, pacifica, and bulleri; and (2) Puffinus for all other taxa. However, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.  SACC proposal to split Ardenna from Puffinus did not pass.  Other genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) have confirmed these findings.  Proposal badly needed.

 

24. Some authors (Bannerman and Bannerman 1968, Patteson and Armistead 2004, Onley & Scofield 2007) have recognized the subspecies edwardsii and borealis as separate species from Calonectris diomedea, but see Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Banks et al. (2006) formally recognized edwardsii as a separate species.  Proposal passed to treated edwardsii as a separate species.  At least two specimens of edwardsii have been collected in Brazil (Lima et al. 2002), and borealis is known from Trinidad (Collins 1969), but majority of records are not assigned to subspecies; evidently, no certain record of nominate diomedea exists for South America <?>.

 

24a. Calonectris diomedea was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) known as Puffinus kuhli, but see REFS, Jouanin and Mougin (1979).

 

25. Formerly called "Gray-backed Shearwater" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "New Zealand Shearwater" (e.g., AOU 1957).

 

25a. <incorp. Austin (1996)?>

 

25b. Recent specimen record from Brazil (Souto et al. 2008).  SACC proposal passed to add to main list.  Records from Peru and Chile refer to misidentified specimens of P. griseus (Eisenmann & Serventy 1962).

 

26. Formerly know as "Greater Shearwater" in most New World literature, but Chesser et al. (2010) changed the name to Great Shearwater to conform to usage elsewhere.  SACC proposal passed to change English name.

 

27. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the traditional treatment of Puffinus creatopus and P. carneipes as sister taxa. Some authors (e.g., REFS, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) consider them to be conspecific. 

 

27a.  The status of Puffinus carneipes in South American waters is under review and may be downgraded to "V".

 

28. Called "Common Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

28a.  Jouanin and Mougin (1979) considered Puffinus puffinus (broadly defined), P. assimilis, and P. lherminieri, along with extralimital P. gavia and P. huttoni, to be members of the subgenus Puffinus and thus are considered each other's closest relatives.  Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are consistent with treatment of the subgenus as monophyletic (if the Galapagos taxon subalaris is removed; see Note 31).  Species limits in this complex are controversial, including within the taxa currently or previously treated as subspecies of P. puffinus.  As far as can be determined <check>, South American records all pertain to nominate P. puffinus. <
incorp. Wink et al. 1993, Heidrich et al. 1998>

 

29.  Puffinus assimilis and P. lherminieri were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered conspecific; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).  Some genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are not consistent with their treatment as sister taxa, but other genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support this treatment. More recent genetic data (Pyle et al. 2011) are ambiguous concerning their relationship and also indicate that P. lherminieri may consist of several species, as had been indicated by studies of the populations breeding in the eastern Atlantic. Nonbreeding specimens from South America need to be re-examined with this in mind.

 

30. Called "Dusky-backed Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

 

31. The taxon subalaris of the Galapagos Islands is traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lherminieri.  However, genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) strongly indicate that subalaris is a species-level taxon closely related to P. nativitatis and only distantly related to P. lherminieri.  Murphy (1927) long ago noted the morphological distinctiveness of this taxon.  SACC proposal passed to recognize subalaris as a species.

 


 

PELECANOIDIDAE (DIVING-PETRELS) 1
Pelecanoides garnotii 
Peruvian Diving-Petrel 2
Pelecanoides urinatrix 
Common Diving-Petrel 3, 4, 5
Pelecanoides georgicus 
South Georgia Diving-Petrel (V) 2, 6
Pelecanoides magellani 
Magellanic Diving-Petrel 2

 


 

1. The monophyly of the family, consisting of a single genus, has never been questioned. Livezey and Zusi (2007) treated them in their own suborder, as sister to all other Procellariiformes.  However, genetic data (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) indicate that they may be embedded within the Procellariidae, as suggested by Cracraft (1981). Hackett et al. (2008) found a strongly supported sister relationship between the Pelecanoididae and Procellariidae, but with very limited taxon-sampling.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families.  Christidis and Boles (2008) and Cracraft (2013) included them within the Procellariidae without even subfamily rank.

 

2. Carboneras (1992b) considered Pelecanoides garnotii, P. georgicus, and P. magellani to form a superspecies [but not reflected in his linear sequence or Kennedy-Page -- check latter].

 

3. Correct spelling for species name is urinatrix, not "urinator" (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

4. Called "Subantarctic Diving-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

 

5. (REFS) recognized the subspecies berard of the Falkland Islands as a separate species from Pelecanoides urinatrix.

 

6. Gregory (1994) reported that a specimen was salvaged on the Falkland Islands on 31 March 1990 (and specimen "sent to BAS" - track down to verify).

 


 

HYDROBATIDAE (STORM-PETRELS) 1, 1a

Oceanitinae
Fregetta grallaria White-bellied Storm-Petrel 2
Fregetta tropica 
Black-bellied Storm-Petrel (NB) 2
Oceanites oceanicus 
Wilson's Storm-Petrel 2a
Oceanites gracilis 
Elliot's Storm-Petrel 3
Garrodia nereis 
Gray-backed Storm-Petrel
Pelagodroma marina White-faced Storm-Petrel (NB)

 

Hydrobatinae
Oceanodroma microsoma Least Storm-Petrel (NB) 4
Oceanodroma tethys 
Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel 4, 5
Oceanodroma castro 
Band-rumped Storm-Petrel 5a, 5b
Oceanodroma leucorhoa 
Leach's Storm-Petrel (NB) 6, 6a
Oceanodroma markhami 
Markham's Storm-Petrel 6a, 7, 7a, 8, 9
Oceanodroma hornbyi 
Ringed Storm-Petrel 10, 10a
Oceanodroma melania 
Black Storm-Petrel (NB) 4, 11, 12

 


 

1. Linear sequence of genera is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002) wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Many classifications (e.g., Carboneras 1992c) divide the family into two subfamilies. Recent genetic data supports recognition of these two subfamilies (Penhallurick & Wink 2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize two subfamilies. Until recently, the monophyly of the family had never been questioned seriously, but Hackett et al. (2008) found that the southern storm-petrels, Oceanitinae, were sister to all other procellariiforms, and thus Cracraft (2013) elevated them to family rank, Oceanitidae.  SACC proposal needed.  Penhallurick & Wink (2004) revised generic limits in the Hydrobatinae, e.g., based on their finding that Oceanodroma is paraphyletic; they resurrected and the genera Cymochorea, Halocyptena, and Thalobata.  SACC proposal to recognize these genera did not pass.  SACC proposal to merge Oceanodroma into Hydrobates did not pass.  See Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a critique of those data and their taxonomic interpretation.  Most species were formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called simply "Petrel" rather than "Storm-Petrel."

 

1a.  SACC proposal to change to lower case the "p" in "Storm-Petrel" did not pass.

 

2.  Fregetta grallaria and F. tropica were considered conspecific by (REFS).

 

2a. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies exasperatus might be a separate species from nominate Oceanites oceanicus.

 

3. Called "White-vented Storm-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty and Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Schulenberg et al. (2007), and elsewhere; proposal needed.

 

4.  Oceanodroma microsoma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Jouanin and Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992c) placed in the monotypic genus Halocyptena, evidently based mostly on tail shape and body size, but most recent classifications have followed (REF, AOU 1983) in merging this into Oceanodroma. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) suggest that this species is sister to Oceanodroma tethys, and that they are the sister to O. melania, and O. matsudairae; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocated resurrection of Halocyptena for these four species.  SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.

 

5. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "Galapagos Storm-Petrel."

 

5a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Harcourt's Storm-Petrel."

 

5b. Mayr & Short (1970) considered O. castro to form a superspecies with O. leucorhoa, but Penhallurick & Wink (2004) and Robertson et al. (2011) found that O. castro was sister to all other Oceanodroma + extralimital Hydrobates. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocated resurrection of the monotypic genus Thalobata for O. castro.  SACC proposal to recognize Thalobata did not pass

 

5c.  Recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2007) suggest that Oceanodroma castro consists of two or more species. Proposal needed.

 

6.  Oceanodroma leucorhoa may actually consist of two or more species (Ainley 1980, 1983; cf. Bourne & Jehl 1982). The form that occurs off the Galapagos Islands, here treated as the subspecies socorroensis, was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) treated as a separate species ("Dusky-rumped Storm-Petrel") or (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) as a subspecies of O. monorhis of the eastern Pacific Ocean. Howell et al. (2009) split O. leucorhoa into three species. Proposal needed.

 

6a. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of the genus Cymochorea for O. leucorhoa and O. markhami, along with extralimital O. monorhis and O. tristrami; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank. SACC proposal to recognize Cymochorea did not pass.

 

7. Supposed specimens of Oceanodroma markhami from the Atlantic side of South America are misidentified O. leucorhoa (Teixeira et al. 1986).

 

7a . Called "Madeiran Storm-petrel" in Carboneras (1992c).

 

8. Oceanodroma markhami was considered conspecific with O. tristrami of the eastern Pacific Ocean by <?> Austin (REF).

 

9. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Sooty Storm-Petrel."

 

10.  Called "Hornby's Storm-Petrel" in Carboneras (1992a), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Onley & Scofield (2007).  SACC proposal to standardize as Ringed Storm-Petrel passed.  SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

 

10a. Oceanodroma hornbyi is treated here as breeding in South America based on the assumption that it breeds somewhere near its nonbreeding grounds, which are exclusively off the southern Pacific coast of South America; its breeding grounds, however, are unknown.

 

11.  Oceanodroma melania was formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) placed, sometimes also with O. matsudairae of the eastern Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, in a separate genus, Loomelania, but see Austin (1952) and Palmer (1962). The two species might be better treated as conspecific (Carboneras 1992c), as they were until Austin (1952). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that O. melania forms a group with O. microsoma and O. tethys; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocate recognizing this relationship (including O. matsudairae) by placing them in the genus Halocyptena; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank; see also Note 4.  SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.

 

12.  Oceanodroma melania forms a superspecies with extralimital O. matsudairae (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered conspecific, but see Austin (1952).

 


 

PHAETHONTIFORMES 1

PHAETHONTIDAE (TROPICBIRDS) 1a, 1b
Phaethon aethereus 
Red-billed Tropicbird
Phaethon rubricauda Red-tailed Tropicbird (V) 1c
Phaethon lepturus 
White-tailed Tropicbird

 


 

1.  The Phaethontidae were traditionally placed in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) are consistent in showing that the Phaethontidae are not at all closely related to other families in that order. See Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Chesser et al. (2010) placed the Phaethontidae in their own order, Phaethontiformes, as did Cracraft (2013).  SACC proposal passed to remove Phaethontidae from Pelecaniformes and place in its own order. Its placement here in the linear sequence or orders is tentative pending further data.

 

1a. <Phaethontidae vs. Phaethonidae>

 

1b. Genetic data (Kennedy and Spencer 2004) indicate that Phaethon aethereus is basal to the other two species, and this supports the linear sequence used here.

 

1c. Specimens recorded from "off" Chile (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Blake 1977). <possibly unpublished specimens -- no real citation provided, nor how close to mainland - trace>. Published photographs from Brazil (off Bahia; Couto et al. 2001). Sight record from Peru (Hogsås 1999).

 


 

CICONIIFORMES 1

CICONIIDAE (STORKS) 1
Ciconia maguari 
Maguari Stork 2
Jabiru mycteria 
Jabiru
Mycteria americana Wood Stork 3

 


 

1. This order traditionally also included the Ardeidae and the Threskiornithidae, but recent morphological (Mayr & Clarke 2003) and genetic studies (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) were unable to confirm the monophyly of a group that consists of Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae. See also Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes.  SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the Pelecaniformes.  Cracraft (2013) reduced the Ciconiiformes to a suborder of the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of the Ciconiidae itself is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS).

 

2. Ciconia maguari was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Euxenura, but see Kahl (1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b) and Wood (1983, 1984) for behavioral and morphological reasons for its merger into Ciconia; followed by Kahl (1979a), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Elliot (1992), and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

 

3. Formerly known as "Wood Ibis" (e.g., AOU 1957) or "American Wood-Ibis" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970); called "American Wood Stork" in Hancock et al. (1992).

 


 

SULIFORMES 1

FREGATIDAE (FRIGATEBIRDS) 16
Fregata magnificens 
Magnificent Frigatebird 17
Fregata minor 
Great Frigatebird
Fregata ariel Lesser Frigatebird

 

SULIDAE (BOOBIES) 3a
Morus capensis 
Cape Gannet (V) 4, 5
Morus serrator 
Australasian Gannet (V) 4, 6
Sula nebouxii 
Blue-footed Booby
Sula variegata Peruvian Booby
Sula dactylatra Masked Booby 7, 7a
Sula granti 
Nazca Booby 7
Sula sula 
Red-footed Booby
Sula leucogaster Brown Booby

 

PHALACROCORACIDAE (CORMORANTS) 8
Phalacrocorax harrisi 
Flightless Cormorant 8a
Phalacrocorax brasilianus 
Neotropic Cormorant 8a, 9, 10, 10a
Phalacrocorax gaimardi 
Red-legged Cormorant
Phalacrocorax magellanicus Magellanic Cormorant 11
Phalacrocorax bougainvillii 
Guanay Cormorant 12
Phalacrocorax atriceps 
Imperial Cormorant 13, 13a, 14

 

ANHINGIDAE (ANHINGAS)
Anhinga anhinga Anhinga 15

 


 

1. The families in this order are traditionally included in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data indicate that that traditional group is not monophyletic; see Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Support is strong, however, for the monophyly of a group that includes Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Harshman 1994, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). Chesser at al. (2010) removed Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae from the Pelecaniformes and placed them in their own new order, Suliformes.  SACC proposal passed to remove these from Pelecaniformes and place in their own order. Cracraft (2013) reduced the Suliformes to a suborder, Suloidea, of the Pelecaniformes.  The monophyly of each family has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by or corroborated with genetic data for the Sulidae (Friesen & Anderson 1997), the Phalacrocoracidae (Kennedy et al. 2000), and the Fregatidae (Kennedy & Spencer 2004). The sequence of genera and species within each family follows Dorst and Mougin (1979).

 

3a. <sequence within Sulidae; incorp. Friesen & Anderson (1997)>

 

4. Carboneras (1992e) and other references followed the merger (e.g., Dorst and Mougin 1979) of Morus into Sulaproposal needed? See Olson & Warheit (1988) and Van Tets et al. (1988) for reasons for maintaining Morus as a separate genus.

 

5.  SACC proposal passed to add to main list; based upon photograph taken at Macabí Island, n. Peru, on 22 July 1999, published in García-Godos (2002). In Argentina, an earlier photograph was published from the Beagle Channel taken on 21 Jan. 1995 (Ramírez Llorens 1996); there are three additional sight records from Río Negro province Nov. 1992, Nov. 1995, and Oct. 1996 (Bergkamp 1995, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). The species was also recorded off Rio Grande do Sul, se. Brazil, from Jul. to Aug 1992 (unpublished photographs) and in Apr. 1983 (Vooren 2004; published photograph).

 

6. Specimen from Santa Catarina, Brazil (Bege & Pauli 1986).

 

7. Sula granti was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) considered a subspecies of S. dactylatra, but Pitman and Jehl (1998) presented evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; genetic data are also consistent with this treatment (Friesen et al. 2002). SACC proposal to change the English name to "Grant's Booby" did not pass.

 

7a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Blue-faced Booby."

 

8. Although the monophyly of the Phalacrocoracidae has never been questioned, treatment within the family has ranged from subfamilies and multiple genera. e.g., Hypoleucus, StictocarboLeucocarbo, Notocarbo (Siegel-Causey 1988) to all species in a single genus (Kennedy et al. 2009), who showed that the subfamilies and most genera of Siegel-Causey were not monophyletic.

 

8a. Phalacrocorax harrisi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the monotypic genus Nannopterum, but recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a) have usually followed <?> Dorst and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Phalacrocorax. [note needed on the lump, Causey REFS?] Genetic data (Kennedy et al. 2009) support a close relationship between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus + North American P. auritus (contra van Tets [1976] and Siegel-Causey [1988]). Murphy (1936) had previously noted the morphological similarities between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus.

 

9. [deleted]

 

10. See Browning (1989) for use of brasilianus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), instead of olivaceus, as in Pinto (1938), AOU (1957), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), etc.

 

10a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1983) known as "Olivaceous Cormorant." SACC proposal did not pass to change spelling of English name to "Neotropical."

 

11. Called "Magellanic Cormorant" in Hellmayr & Conover (1948), "Rock Shag" in Murphy (1936), Johnson (1965), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Orta (1992a), and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and "Rock Cormorant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and Blake (1977) Jaramillo (2003), and Marín (2004), and "Magellan Cormorant" in Howard & Moore (1994).  SACC proposal passed to change from Magellan Cormorant to Magellanic Cormorant.

 

12. Called "Guanay Shag" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed.

 

13. Phalacrocorax atriceps here includes P. albiventer, formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) treated as a distinct species ("King Cormorant"). Devillers & Terschuren (1978) considered albiventer to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, and Siegel-Causey (1986) considered it to be a color morph of atriceps. [incorp. Rasmussen 1991].

 

13a. Called "Imperial Shag" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).

 

14. Some recent authors (e.g., Siegel-Causey 1988, Siegel-Causey & Lefrevre 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a, Jaramillo 2003) have considered the subspecies bransfieldensis of Antarctica and South Shetland Island to deserve recognition as a separate species from Phalacrocorax atriceps.  At least one record of bransfieldensis for South America (Brazil; Lima et al. 2002).  Proposal needed.

 

15. Anhinga anhinga was considered to form a superspecies with Old World A. rufa, A. melanogaster, and A. novaehollandiae by Mayr & Short (1970); the Old World taxa are treated as conspecific by Orta (1992b) and Dickinson (2003).

 

16. Genetic data (Kennedy & Spencer 2004) indicate that Fregata ariel is basal to all other species in the genus. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.

 

17. Morphological and genetic data indicate that the Galapagos population may merit rank as a separate species (Hailer et al. 2010).Proposal badly needed.


 

PELECANIFORMES 1

PELECANIDAE (PELICANS) 
Pelecanus occidentalis 
Brown Pelican 2
Pelecanus thagus 
Peruvian Pelican 2

 


 

1.  The order Pelecaniformes traditionally also included the families Phaethontidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae. Studies using genetic and morphological data have questioned the monophyly of the order (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007, Mayr 2007, Hackett et al. 2008; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007). To restore the monophyly of the Pelecaniformes, the Phaethontidae has been removed and elevated to the rank of order (see Note 1 under Phaethontiformes), and the Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae and have been removed and placed in their own order, Suliformes (see Note 1 under that order). Two Afrotropical families, Balaenicipitidae and Scopidae, are the most likely sister taxa to the Pelecanidae (Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Fain and Houde 2004, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008; cf. Mayr 2003, Mayr and Clarke 2003). Two other families, the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae, are traditionally placed in the Ciconiiformes, but genetic data (Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) indicate that that group is not monophyletic and that the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae form a monophyletic group with the Pelecanidae.  Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes.  SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the Pelecaniformes.

 

2. Although treated as a subspecies of P. occidentalis in most classifications since Peters (1931) and Wetmore (1945), some authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) recognized South American thagus as a separate species from Pelecanus occidentalis. SACC proposal passed to treat thagus as separate species.  This treatment was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and Banks et al. (2008).

 


 

ARDEIDAE (HERONS) 1
Tigrisoma lineatum 
Rufescent Tiger-Heron 2a
Tigrisoma fasciatum 
Fasciated Tiger-Heron 2a
Tigrisoma mexicanum 
Bare-throated Tiger-Heron 2b
Agamia agami 
Agami Heron 3
Cochlearius cochlearius 
Boat-billed Heron 4, 4a
Zebrilus undulatus 
Zigzag Heron 7
Botaurus pinnatus 
Pinnated Bittern 8
Ixobrychus exilis 
Least Bittern 9
Ixobrychus involucris 
Stripe-backed Bittern
Nycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 5
Nyctanassa violacea 
Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 6
Butorides virescens 
Green Heron 10, 11
Butorides striata 
Striated Heron 10, 12, 13
Ardeola ralloides 
Squacco Heron (V) 13a
Bubulcus ibis 
Cattle Egret 14
Ardea cinerea 
Gray Heron (V) 15, 16
Ardea herodias 
Great Blue Heron 16
Ardea cocoi 
Cocoi Heron 16, 17
Ardea purpurea 
Purple Heron (V) 17a
Ardea alba 
Great Egret 18, 18a
Syrigma sibilatrix 
Whistling Heron 19
Pilherodius pileatus 
Capped Heron 20
Egretta tricolor 
Tricolored Heron 21, 21a
Egretta rufescens 
Reddish Egret 21, 22
Egretta gularis 
Western Reef-Heron (V) 23, 25
Egretta garzetta 
Little Egret (V) 24, 25
Egretta thula 
Snowy Egret 25, 25a
Egretta caerulea 
Little Blue Heron 21, 26

 


 

1. The monophyly of the family Ardeidae has never been seriously questioned other than the treatment of Cochlearius in a separate, monotypic family. Bock (1956) divided the family into two subfamilies, Botaurinae (Botaurus and Ixobrychus) and Ardeinae (all other genera), and further divided the Ardeinae into three tribes: Ardeini (Ardea, Egretta, Agamia, Butorides, Ardeola), Nycticoracini (Nycticorax, Cochlearius, Gorsachius), and Tigriornithini (Zebrilus, Tigrisoma, Zonerodius, Tigriornis).  Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered all four groups as subfamilies.  Genetic data, however, have shown that none of these groupings are monophyletic other than the sister relationship between Botaurus an Ixobrychus (but these genera are not sister to all other herons). The sequence of genera (and some species within genera) used here derives from the phylogeny of Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000), and some unpublished data from Fred Sheldon.

 

2a. Tigrisoma fasciatum was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of T. lineatum, and the subspecies salmoni was considered a separate species (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965); REFS, and Eisenmann (1965) provided rationale for why T. fasciatum should be considered a separate species and why salmoni should be considered a subspecies of T. fasciatum.

 

2b. Tigrisoma mexicanum was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1965) placed in a monotypic genus, Heterocnus.

 

2c. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) used for mexicanum was cabanisi, but see Blake (1977).

 

3. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) known as "Chestnut-bellied Heron."

 

4. Cochlearius was formerly placed in a monotypic family Cochleariidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Bock (1956), Payne & Risley (1976), Sheldon (1987), and Sheldon et al. (2000). Plumage and skeletal characters have often been interpreted as suggesting as close relationship to Nycticorax (Bock 1956, Cracraft 1967).  Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) placed it in a tribe, Cochlearini, related to but separate from night-herons, based on a combination of morphological and plumage characters. Genetic data, however, do not confirm a close link between Cochlearius and night-herons (Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000), but perhaps a closer relationship to Tigrisoma (Sheldon 1987). Scofield et al.'s (2010) analysis of skeletal characters suggested a closer relationship to Botaurus and Ixobrychus.

 

4a. The subspecies zeledoni of Middle America and northwestern South America may deserve treatment as a separate species from Cochlearius cochlearius (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see (REFS).

 

5.  Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Nycticorax nycticorax to form a superspecies with Old World N. caledonicus.

 

6.  Nyctanassa has been included in Nycticorax in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, AOU 1983), but Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the basis of skeletal differences <check Adams 1955>. Genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) also indicate substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with treatment as separate genera; furthermore, it is not yet certain that the two are sister genera (Sheldon et al. 2000).

 

7. The relationship of Zebrilus to other herons has been controversial. In terms of some details of egg color, nest placement, plumage features, and some morphological characters as well as overall skeletal morphology, it is like the bitterns, but in terms of other plumage and morphological characters, it is like the tiger-herons (see Bock 1956, Payne & Risley 1976, Sheldon et al. 1995). Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995), however, place it with the bitterns.

 

8. Mayr & Short (1970) considered all species of Botaurus to form a superspecies.  Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. pinnatus to form a superspecies with North American B. lentiginosus and Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus.  Payne & Risley (1976), however, note that New and Old World Botaurus differ substantially in skeletal structure, and that pinnatus also differs from lentiginosus in skeletal features; they suggest that the only candidates for superspecies designation are Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus.

 

9. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ixobrychus exilis to form a superspecies with Old World I. minutus and I. sinensis, and including I. novaezelandiae when given species rank.

 

10. Butorides virescens and B. striata are often considered conspecific (e.g., Payne 1979, Hancock & Kushlan 1984, Martínez-Vilata and Motis 1992), based mainly on Payne (1974), who reported extensive interbreeding where their ranges meet. Recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) have followed Monroe & Browning (1992), who interpreted specimen data to indicate that the two taxa seldom hybridized (see also Voous 1986), thus representing a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). More recently, Hayes (2002) provided evidence of frequent hybridization as well as competitive exclusion and assortative mating, and Hayes (2006) found that on Tobago, where both occur, hybridization is rare and assortative mating predominates.