Classification of birds of South America Part 01

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, M. B. Robbins, T. S. Schulenberg, 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 Tracking 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) 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).

Geographical scope: The region covered by the list is: (1) continental South America and all islands within 1200 km of its shores in the Atlantic and 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 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, click 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 3,260 species (3036 native breeding species, 1 of which is extinct; 147 nonbreeding residents; 65 vagrants; 12 established, introduced species). Of these, 94 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. For SACC policy on use diacritical marks (accents, cedillas, tildes), 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 Pacheco, Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos

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

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

Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

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 Advisors:

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

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

Richard O. Prum, Yale University

Robert S. Ridgely, World Land Trust - US

José Maria Cardoso da Silva, Conservation International - Brasil

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

Data-base Advisor:

Steve Olesen

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

Abbreviations:

NB = nonbreeding resident; V = vagrant; IN = introduced species*; EX = extinct (within last 200 years)

* 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.

[VERSION: 14 May 2008]

[Most recent changes to the classification, updated 8 May (click)]

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Ciconiiformes (below)

Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Pipridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

Composite List created by Sjoerd Mayer (Scientific and English names only) (click)

EXCEL file of SACC list (click)

Hypothetical List (click)
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa (click)
Literature Cited (click)
Proposal Tracking page (click)

STRUTHIONIFORMES 1

RHEIDAE (RHEAS)
Rhea americana Greater Rhea 2
Pterocnemia 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).
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal pending 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)
Nothocercus julius Tawny-breasted Tinamou
Nothocercus bonapartei Highland Tinamou 2a
Nothocercus nigrocapillus Hooded Tinamou 2a
Tinamus tao Gray Tinamou
Tinamus solitarius Solitary Tinamou 1a
Tinamus osgoodi Black Tinamou 3
Tinamus major Great Tinamou 2
Tinamus guttatus White-throated Tinamou
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou 4
Crypturellus berlepschi Berlepsch's Tinamou 4
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou
Crypturellus ptaritepui Tepui Tinamou
Crypturellus obsoletus Brown Tinamou 5
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou
Crypturellus transfasciatus Pale-browed Tinamou 6
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
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
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). The Tinamidae are often (e.g., Cabot 1992) divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae (Tinamus, Nothoprocta, and Crypturellus) and the Rynchotinae (all other genera), based primarily on location of nares; analyses of morphological data (Bertelli et al. 2002) support the monophyly of Rynchotinae, but the Tinaminae may be paraphyletic; genetic data are not yet available. Morphological (Bertelli et al. 2002) and molecular data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) 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.
1a. 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.
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, genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski, in press) indicate that osgoodi does belong in Tinamus.
4. Crypturellus cinereus and C. berlepschi 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).
5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Cabot (1992) noted that the subspecies traylori possibly deserves recognition as separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus.
6. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that C. transfasciatus and Middle American C. cinnamomeus are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
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 C. erythropus, 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 C. boucardi). 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 C. boucardi, 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 columbianius, idoneus, and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data.
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). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. bartletti and C. brevirostris 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).
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). Proposal needed.
12. Rhynchotus maculicollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992, Monroe & Sibley 1993) 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). 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).
16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nothura darwinii, N. maculosa, and N. chacoensis to form a superspecies; analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that they do form a monophyletic group (Bertelli et al. 2002). 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).
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 & Bo (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 (Blake 1979, Cabot 1992), E. elegans.
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
Chauna chavaria Northern Screamer

ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1a
Dendrocygninae 2
Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous Whistling-Duck 3, 3a
Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling-Duck 3
Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied Whistling-Duck 3
Anatinae
Cygnus melancoryphus Black-necked Swan 4
Coscoroba coscoroba Coscoroba Swan
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
Tachyeres pteneres Flightless Steamer-Duck 9, 10
Tachyeres brachypterus Falkland Steamer-Duck 9
Tachyeres leucocephalus White-headed Steamer-Duck 9, 11
Lophonetta specularioides Crested Duck 12
Speculanas specularis Spectacled Duck 13
Anas americana American Wigeon (NB) 14
Anas sibilatrix Chiloe Wigeon 14, 15
Anas crecca Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16, 17
Anas flavirostris Speckled 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 versicolor Silver Teal 22
Anas puna Puna 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) and Livezey and Zusi (2007). See Zusi & Livezey (2000), Sorenson et al. (2003), and Cracraft et al. (2004), for support for the traditional monophyly of the Anseriformes.
1a. [within-family relationships] <incorp Johnson-Sorensen REFs, Livezey REFs, Donne-Gousse et al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005 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)].
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).
4. Correct spelling for species name is melancoryphus, not "melanocoryphus" or "melanocorypha" (David & Gosselin 2002a).
4a. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species.
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>.
7. Callonetta leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in genus Anas, but see [REF].
7a. Callonetta leucophrys, Amazonetta brasiliensis, Anas crecca, and A. flavirostris 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 (REFS).
8a. Called "Brazilian Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
8b. Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa) treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenys as separate species from Merganetta armata, but they were considered conspecific by REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
9. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus, and T. brachypterus to form a superspecies. <incorp. Livezey 1986>
10. Called "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). Proposal needed?
12. Lophonetta specularioides is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) 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 1979) placed in Anas, but see Livezey (1991, <?>1997) and Johnson & Sorenson (1999).
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).
14a. Carboneras (1992f) considered Anas americana and A. sibilatrix to form a superspecies with Old World A. penelope.
15. Called "Southern Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere. Proposal needed.
16. [reference needed on species rank, paraphyly of A. crecca, relationship to A. flavirostris]. <incorp Delacour & Mayre 1945, Johnsgard 1965>
17. Recorded from n. Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). 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. The subspecies andium was considered a separate species from Anas flavirostris by Ridgely et al. (2001), as they were treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), based on differences in bill and plumage color; followed by Hilty (2003). Proposal needed. 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>. 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.
20. Called "Common Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
21. As noted by Ridgely et al. (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 nicefori 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.
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). Proposal needed.
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).
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>). Several sight records for Trinidad & Tobago accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (ffrench & White 1999, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004).
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).
25. Andean populations have often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried 1976, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely et al. 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 guttata Speckled 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 30, 30a
Crax alberti Blue-billed Curassow 30
Crax daubentoni Yellow-knobbed Curassow 30, 31
Crax alector Black Curassow 30, 30b, 30c
Crax globulosa Wattled Curassow 30
Crax fasciolata Bare-faced Curassow 30, 30c, 32
Crax blumenbachii Red-billed Curassow
Mitu tomentosum Crestless Curassow 23, 24, 25, 26, 28
Mitu salvini Salvin's Curassow 23, 24
Mitu tuberosum Razor-billed Curassow 23, 24, 27
Mitu mitu Alagoas Curassow 23, 24, 27
Pauxi pauxi Helmeted Curassow 28, 29
Pauxi unicornis Horned Curassow 28, 29

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. [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. <incorp. Amadon 1970>.
2. Ortalis cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Freidmann 1946, Vaurie 1965, 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. Proposal needed.
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 (Vaurie 1965<?>, del Hoyo 1994).
4. Ortalis guttata and O. superciliaris have been treated as conspecific with O. motmot (see Delacour & Amadon [1973] for rationale); they are considered to 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 sqaumata have sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Sick 1993, 1997, Ridgely et al. 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis guttata. Proposal needed.
6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated ruficeps of eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmot. Proposal 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, Gr) do not provide support for their merger.
8a. Penelope barbata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Vaurie REF, 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 P. montagnii, but its mostly lowland distribution and local sympatry would argue against such a treatment. <incorp. Vaurie 1966> Eley (1982) presented evidence that its closest relative was P. marail.
10. Penelope marail and P. superciliaris form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, 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.
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 Delacour & Amadon (1973). [ incorp. Eley 1982.]
12. Penelope jacquacu has been considered conspecific with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (REF), but see 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 <REF>. 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 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 REFs), but 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 REFS). 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. Proposal badly needed. <Remsen will draft one>
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 P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. cujubi to form a superspecies, but excluded P. jacutinga. Although the latter has been considered sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977), del Hoyo & Motis (2004 REF) 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), 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). <inc. 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).
20.
21. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii to form a superspecies with Middle American C. unicolor.
22. Nothocrax was merged into a broadly defined Crax by Delacour & Amadon (1973), but this merger has seldom been followed; see also Pereira & Baker (2004).
23. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered all species of Mitu to form a superspecies. <check overlap salvini-tuberosa>
24. Some authors (e.g., Delacour & Amadon 1973, REFS) merge Mitu into Crax. Most authors, however, continue to maintain them as separate genera, and genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with this treatment.
24a. The four species of Mitu were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990); 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., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with M. mitu, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed (REF); the rediscovery of M. mitu has allowed documentation of its unique characters that provide rationale for considering it and tuberosum as separate species (REFS). Furthermore, genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that M. tuberosa and M. mitu are not sister taxa and are not particularly closely related.
28. Some authors (Delacour & Amadon 1973, REFS) merge Pauxi into Crax; this merger has seldom been followed, but see Note 29. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Mitu into Pauxi. Proposal badly needed.
29. Pauxi pauxi and P. unicornis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994); they were considered conspecific by (REF). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) 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.
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
30a. <Crax globicera (e.g. Chapman 1926) syn, of C. rubra>
30b. Crax alector was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
30c. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Crax alector and C. fasciolata are sister species. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.
31. Peters (1934) considered Crax daubentoni as a subspecies C. alberti. 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 <check Pinto & Camargo 1948, Pap. Avulsos 8, p. 249> and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

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

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 recent genetic analyses (Cox et al. 2007) confirm that the New World quail are likely 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 from the Phasianidae is thus largely arbitrary, but has also been adopted by Carroll (1994), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003). <Incorp Crowe et al. 2006>
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 & Freidmann 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 & Freidmann (1946).

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; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007) and additional genetic support (Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006), 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 micoptera.
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 Greater 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; 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 has been 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 (in prep). <incorp. Knox et al. 2002> SACC proposal pending to return species rank to roseus.
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 flamingoes 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 adeliae Adelie Penguin (V) 4
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
Eudyptes chrysocome Rockhopper Penguin 8, 9
Eudyptes robustus Snares Penguin (V) 5

1. Some studies [REFs, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007] 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. (2005). The classification and sequence here follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker et al. 2005) 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. (2005). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Recorded on the Falkland Islands (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). [original reference for records needed].
3. Pygoscelis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is antarcticus; papua, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
4. [reference for records needed].
5. A bird was allegedly photographed on Falkland Islands (Gregory 1994), but the photo is not evidently archived or published. If this is the only record for the area, then this species should go to Hypothetical List. <But check Lamey (1990). Notornis 37:78, as cited by Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001>
6. Photos in Birding World (11: 158, 1998) documented the extended presence of an individual on the Falkland Islands, Jan. 1997, and Nov. 1997 to Jan. 1998 (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).
7. Called "Erect-crested Penguin" in Martínez (1992), Williams (1995), etc. Proposal needed.
8. Eudyptes chrysocome may consist of more than one species (see Jaramillo 2003).
9. [Note needed on old name E. crestatus, as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977].
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., REF) treated as a subspecies of E. chrysolophus. <incorp. Warham (1980)?>
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 humboldti 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).

PROCELLARIIFORMES 1

DIOMEDEIDAE (ALBATROSSES) 1a
Phoebastria irrorata Waved Albatross 2, 3
Diomedea epomophora Royal Albatross (NB) 4
Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross (NB) 4a
Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross (V) 5
Phoebetria palpebrata Light-mantled Albatross (NB) 6
Thalassarche chlororhynchos Yellow-nosed Albatross (NB) 2, 2a
Thalassarche melanophrys Black-browed Albatross 7, 7a
Thalassarche chrysostoma Gray-headed Albatross
Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross (NB) 7b
Thalassarche cauta White-capped Albatross (NB) 8, 9
Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross (NB) 8
Thalassarche eremita Chatham Albatross (NB) 8

1. The monophyly of the Procellariiformes has never been seriously questioned, and modern analyses (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey and Zusi 2007) support the traditional view. Sister relationships of the Procellariiformes are controversial and unresolved (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006). [note on relationships and monophyly of Procellariiformes, and relationships among families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf Rheindt & Austin (2005).
1a. 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.
2. Phoebastria and Thalassarche were formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed in the genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick & Wink (2004).
2a. Thalassarche chlororhynchos has been considered to consist of three separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by <REF>. Lima & Grantsau (REF) have found four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri, treated as a species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), Onley & Scofield (2007), and others.
3. Formerly known as "Galapagos Albatross" (e.g., Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
4. Treated as consisting of two species by Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998), Tickell etc., ] proposal needed.
4a. Treated as consisting of four species by Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998), Burg & Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink (2004)] proposal needed.
5. 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>
6. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Light-mantled Sooty Albatross."
7. [melanophrys vs. melanophris, as in Pinto (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Carboneras (1992a), AOU (1998).] proposal needed.
7a. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001] proposal needed.
7b. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)] proposal needed.
8. Thalassarche cauta has been considered to consist of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998). See, however, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) for continued treatment of all as conspecific. <incorp. Abbott & Double 2003a, b, Double et al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005> SACC 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. cauta. Subsequent SACC proposal passed to split into 3 species.
9. Called "Shy Albatross" in Onley & Scofield (2007).

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 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 Herald Petrel 10a, 12
Pterodroma inexpectata Mottled Petrel (V) 11
Pterodroma phaeopygia Galapagos Petrel 13
Pterodroma externa Juan Fernandez Petrel 14
Halobaena caerulea Blue Petrel 14a
Pachyptila turtur Fairy Prion
Pachyptila vittata Broad-billed Prion (V) 15, 15a
Pachyptila desolata Dove 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
Puffinus pacificus Wedge-tailed Shearwater (NB) 23a
Puffinus bulleri Buller's Shearwater (NB) 25
Puffinus griseus Sooty Shearwater 25a
Puffinus gravis Greater 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 a monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated tribe rank (Fulmarini) for this group.
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 it was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Priocella; the two species constitute a superspecies (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.).
4b. Treated as consisting of two separate species by Onley & Scofield (2007).
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). Proposal needed. 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?
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) subgen