A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

 

South American Classification Committee

 

American Ornithologists' Union

 

 

(Part 2)

 

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (below)

_______________________________________________________

 

Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes

Part 3. Apodiformes

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes

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)

 

Hypothetical List

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

 


 

COLUMBIFORMES 1

COLUMBIDAE (PIGEONS)

Columbinae

Columba livia Rock Pigeon (IN) 23, 24

Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon 25, 26, 27

Patagioenas speciosa Scaled Pigeon 27

Patagioenas squamosa Scaly-naped Pigeon 27, 28

Patagioenas picazuro Picazuro Pigeon 27

Patagioenas corensis Bare-eyed Pigeon 27

Patagioenas maculosa Spot-winged Pigeon 27, 29

Patagioenas fasciata Band-tailed Pigeon 30, 31

Patagioenas araucana Chilean Pigeon 30

Patagioenas cayennensis Pale-vented Pigeon 32, 33

Patagioenas oenops Peruvian Pigeon 34, 35

Patagioenas plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon 36, 36a

Patagioenas subvinacea Ruddy Pigeon 36, 37, 38

Patagioenas nigrirostris Short-billed Pigeon 36

Patagioenas goodsoni Dusky Pigeon 36, 39

Geotrygon purpurata Purple Quail-Dove 59, 61, 62, 63, 72

Geotrygon saphirina Sapphire Quail-Dove 59, 61, 62, 63

Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove 71

Geotrygon violacea Violaceous Quail-Dove 71

Leptotrygon veraguensis Olive-backed Quail-Dove 64, 65, 72

Leptotila verreauxi White-tipped Dove 49, 50, 51

Leptotila cassinii Gray-chested Dove 54, 54a

Leptotila conoveri Tolima Dove 54, 55

Leptotila ochraceiventris Ochre-bellied Dove 54, 56

Leptotila plumbeiceps Gray-headed Dove 53

Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove 53

Leptotila pallida Pallid Dove 53

Leptotila megalura Large-tailed Dove 49, 52

Zentrygon frenata White-throated Quail-Dove 68, 69, 70, 71, 72

Zentrygon linearis Lined Quail-Dove 66, 66a, 67

Zentrygon goldmani Russet-crowned Quail-Dove 57, 59, 60

Zenaida meloda West Peruvian Dove 40, 41, 42, 43, 57

Zenaida galapagoensis Galapagos Dove 44

Zenaida asiatica White-winged Dove (V) 43a

Zenaida auriculata Eared Dove 45, 46

Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove (V) 45, 47, 48

 

Peristerinae

Columbina passerina Common Ground Dove 2, 3, 4, 4a

Columbina minuta Plain-breasted Ground Dove 2, 3

Columbina talpacoti Ruddy Ground Dove 2, 5

Columbina buckleyi Ecuadorian Ground Dove 2, 5, 6

Columbina squammata Scaled Dove 7, 8, 9

Columbina picui Picui Ground Dove 10, 11

Columbina cruziana Croaking Ground Dove 10, 12

Columbina cyanopis Blue-eyed Ground Dove 13

Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground Dove

Claravis mondetoura Maroon-chested Ground Dove 14, 15

Claravis geoffroyi Purple-winged Ground Dove 14, 16, 16a

Metriopelia ceciliae Bare-faced Ground Dove 17

Metriopelia morenoi Bare-eyed Ground Dove 17, 18

Metriopelia melanoptera Black-winged Ground Dove

Metriopelia aymara Golden-spotted Ground Dove 19, 20

Uropelia campestris Long-tailed Ground Dove 21, 22

 


 

1. Jarvis et al. (2014) and Prum et al. (2015) found that the Columbiformes were sister to Old World Pterocliformes + Mesitornithiformes. The monophyly of the Columbiformes has never been seriously questioned.  Traditional classifications (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2001) treat the huge, extinct flightless pigeons of the Mascarene Islands as a separate family, Raphidae, but recognition of this family would certainly make both families paraphyletic because it would seem impossible that the three species of "Raphidae" are each others' closest relatives, but instead represent three independent colonizations of separate islands with subsequent convergent evolution <find citation, if one exists>. Within the Columbidae, Goodwin (1983) recognized five subfamilies, only one of which, Columbinae, occurs in the Western Hemisphere. These subfamily designations do not correspond to deep splits in the family. In fact, genetic data (Johnson 2004) indicate that the New World ground-doves are a distinctive group that are the sister group to a large sample of Old World and New World genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera to placed ground doves first.  Pereira et al. (2007) confirmed the distinctiveness of the New World ground doves but did not find that they were the sister to all other columbids, but rather that the Columba group was; they also found strong support for the sister relationship between Columbina and Metriopelia.  Gibb and Penny (2010) also found that the Columba group was sister to all other pigeons.  Cracraft (2013) and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) placed the pigeons in three subfamilies: Columbinae, Peristerinae, and Raphinae (extralimital).  SACC proposal passed to recognize two subfamilies and to modify sequence of genera.  Dickinson & Raty (2015) determined that Claravinae or Claraviinae, not Peristerinae, is the correct subfamily name.  SACC proposal needed.

 

2. Columbina passerina, C. minuta, C. talpacoti, and C. buckleyi were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the genus Columbigallina, as was C. cruziana (e.g., Peters 1937), but this was merged into Columbina by Goodwin (1959b) and Johnston (1961); most subsequent authors have followed this merger.

 

3. Goodwin (1983) considered Columbina passerina and C. minuta to be sister species based on plumage similarities; genetic data (Johnson 2004) supports their close relationship.

 

4. Called "Scaly-breasted Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

 

4a. The English names of the ground doves were formerly hyphenated as “Ground-Dove”, but because they do not constitute a monophyletic group (including not only Scaled Dove but also extralimital Gallicolumba), the hyphens have been removed.  See SACC proposal.

 

5. Columbina buckleyi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. talpacoti, but most classifications (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have treated it as a separate species; they form a superspecies (Goodwin 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Baptista et al. 1997). [incorp. Dorst 1957, Koepcke 1962, as cited by Meyer de Schauensee 1966]

 

6. Called "Buckley's Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

7. Columbina squammata, along with northern C. inca, were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Goodwin 1983) treated in the genus Scardafella, but genetic data (Johnson and Clayton 2000a, Johnson 2004) show that it is embedded within Columbina, as proposed by Johnston (1961) based on morphology and behavior. Vocal and display differences from other Columbina continue to be cited by recent authors (e.g., Baptista et al. 1997, Gibbs et al. 2001, Hilty 2003) in support of recognition of Scardafella.

 

8. Goodwin (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Columbina squammata and Middle and North American C. inca to form a superspecies; they have been considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Mayr & Short 1970), and genetic data confirm that they are sister taxa (Johnson and Clayton 2000a, Johnson 2004); see Goodwin (1983) for rationale for continued treatment as separate species.

 

9. Called "Scaly Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

10. Goodwin (1983) considered Columbina picui and C. cruziana to be sister species based on plumage and morphology.

 

11. Called "Picui Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997).

 

12. Columbina cruziana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Eupelia; see Goodwin (1959b) and Johnston (1961) for rationale for its merger into Columbina.

 

13. Columbina cyanopis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in a monotypic genus Oxypelia; most authors have followed Goodwin (1959b) in merging it into Columbina, but see Johnston (1961); it differs from other Columbina species and is similar to Claravis in having an attenuated first primary (Baptista et al. 1997).

 

14. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Claravis mondetoura and C. godefrida to form a superspecies.

 

15. Called "Purple-breasted Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

16. Called "Purple-barred Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

16a. Formerly known as Claravis godefrida, the correct name is Claravis geoffroyi (David et al. 2010).  SACC proposal passed to change name.

 

17. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Metriopelia ceciliae and M. morenoi to be sister species; they were formerly placed in a separate genus, Gymnopelia (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942).

 

18. Called "Moreno's Bare-faced Ground-Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and "Moreno's Ground-Dove" in Baptista et al. (1997), Gibbs et al. (2001), and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). SACC proposal to change English name to "Moreno's Ground-Dove" did not pass.

 

19. Metriopelia aymara was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Leptophaps, but see [REF = Goodwin?].

 

20. Called "Bronze-winged Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

21. Uropelia is sometimes (e.g., REF) merged into Columbina; Goodwin (1983) noted that it also shares characters with Claravis and thus supported continued recognition of this monotypic genus.

 

22. Called "Mauve-spotted Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

23. Populations in South America are feral or semi-feral derivatives of domesticated stock.

 

24. Previously known as "Rock Dove”. SACC proposal passed to change English name to follow current usage in Old World and international literature (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, BOU <REF>, Gibbs et al. 2001), as well as some recent South American literature (e.g., Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003).  However, use of unmodified Rock Pigeon is incorrect according to general principles of English name usage because the Australian pigeons in the genus Petrophassa are also called “Rock Pigeon” (Chestnut-quilled Rock Pigeon, White-quilled Rock Pigeon). SACC proposal needed. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) reverted to “Rock Dove” as primary name, and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) used “Rock Dove” as the only name.

 

25. Johnson & Clayton (2000a), Johnson et al. (2001), and Johnson (2004) found strong evidence that Columba is paraphyletic, with Old World Columba more closely related to Streptopelia than to New World "Columba." This is consistent with previously recognized differences between New World and Old World Columba in terms of morphology (Ridgway 1916), serology (Cumley & Irwin 1944), and behavior (Johnston 1962, <?> Goodwin 1959a). Johnston (1962), however, considered the P. fasciata superspecies to be more closely related to Old World Columba than to New World species due to plumage characters (but see Goodwin 1983); genetic data (Johnson et al. 2001) indicate that fasciata is basal to other New World, but that they still form a monophyletic group. <incorp. Goodwin 1959>. The New World taxa are here placed in the genus Patagioenas. SACC proposal passed to recognize Patagioenas.  Subsequent genetic data (Soares et al. 2016) are consistent with recognition of Patagioenas.

 

26. Patagioenas leucocephala was only recently confirmed as occurring in Colombia, on islands off Sucre and Bolívar (Moreno et al. 1999).

 

27. Goodwin (1983) considered Patagioenas leucocephala, P. squamosa, P. speciosa, P. picazuro, P. corensis, and P. maculosa to form a monophyletic group. Within that group, Goodwin (1983) considered P. speciosa and P. corensis to form a superspecies and P. picazuro and P. maculosa to be sister species. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Patagioenas speciosa and P. squamosa to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Johnson 2004) indicate that P. leucocephala and P. squamosa are closely related if not sisters, but that they are not at all closely related to P. speciosa.

 

28. Called "Red-necked Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

 

29a. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated the Andean subspecies albipennis as a separate species (“White-winged Pigeon”) based on plumage differences.

 

29b. Called "Spotted Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

 

30. Goodwin (1983), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Patagioenas fasciata, P. araucana, and West Indian P. caribaea to form a superspecies; Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded P. caribaea from that superspecies.

 

31. The albilinea subspecies group, from Central America and South America, was considered a separate species from northern Patagioenas fasciata by Peters (1937); Hellmayr & Conover (1942) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications until del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated it as a separate species (“Southern Band-tailed Pigeon”) based on color differences.

 

32. Called "Rufous Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

 

33. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937) used for Patagioenas cayennensis was rufina, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

 

34. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Patagioenas oenops to form a superspecies with Middle American P. flavirostris and West Indian P. inornata. Genetic data (Johnson 2004) confirm the close relationship between P. flavirostris and P. oenops.

 

35. Called "Salvin's Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983). Called "Marañon Pigeon" in Gibbs et al. (2001) and Ridgely et al. (2001). SACC proposal to change English name to "Marañon Pigeon" did not pass.

 

36. Patagioenas plumbea, P. subvinacea, P. nigrirostris, and P. goodsoni are generally considered to be each others' closest relatives (e.g., Goodwin 1983) and were formerly (REF) placed in a separate genus Oenoenas.  Johnston (1962) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Patagioenas nigrirostris and P. goodsoni to form a superspecies; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.

 

36a. Donegan et al. (2007) noted differences in song between the Choco (chapmani), Magdalena valley (bogotensis) and Amazonian (delicata) populations. Whittaker (2009) also noted vocal differences among delicata, P. p. pallescens, and P. p. plumbea.  Multiple species may be involved.

 

37. Wetmore (1968) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that the subspecies berlepschi of the Chocó region might deserve recognition as a separate species from Patagioenas subvinacea.

 

38. The subspecies purpureotincta of the Guianan Shield region was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Patagioenas subvinacea; Hellmayr & Conover (1942) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications.

 

39. Called "Goodson's Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

 

40. The linear sequence of species in Zenaida was adapted from Johnson & Weckstein (2011).

 

41. Zenaida meloda was formerly (e.g., Peters, 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of Zenaida asiatica. Treatment here as a separate species follows Baptista et al. (1997), Johnson & Clayton (2000b), and Gibbs et al. (2001); they form a superspecies. SACC proposal to lump Z. meloda and Z. asiatica did not pass.

 

42. Called "Pacific Dove" in Baptista et al. (1997).

 

43. Baptista et al. (1997) noted that the displays and voices of Zenaida asiatica and Z. meloda differed strongly from those of other Zenaida and suggested that these two might be more closely related to Patagioenas than to Zenaida. Johnson & Clayton (2000b), however, showed that Zenaida, as traditionally constituted, is indeed monophyletic, although Z. asiatica and Z. meloda are sister to all other species in the genus.

 

43a. Early sight records from Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986) are now considered likely to have been of Bare-eyed Pigeon Patagioenas corensis.  One photographed in Dpto. Magdalena, Colombia, on 22 April 2009 (Strewe et al. 2015).  SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

 

44. Zenaida galapagoensis was formerly (Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Nesopelia; see Goodwin (1958) for rationale for merging this into Zenaida. Although Baptista et al. (1997) implied that the distinctive features of this species might warrant reconsideration of recognition of Nesopelia, Johnson & Clayton (2000b), Johnson (2004), and Johnson & Weckstein (2011) showed that Z. galapagoensis is nested within Zenaida (i.e., most likely the sister species to the common ancestor of Z. auriculata, Z. macroura, and Z. graysoni), but not the sister species to West Indian Z. aurita, as proposed by Goodwin (1983).

 

45. Mayr & Short (1970), Goodwin (1983), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Zenaida auriculata and Z. macroura, along with Z. graysoni, to form a superspecies; these three species were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in a separate genus, Zenaidura, but most subsequent authors have followed Goodwin (1958) for its merger into Zenaida. Although genetic data (Johnson & Clayton 2000b) confirm that they form a monophyletic group, recognition of Zenaidura would make Zenaida paraphyletic, thus supporting Goodwin's (1958) merger of Zenaidura into Zenaida. Although some genetic data (Johnson 2004) suggested recognition of Zenaidura may be required, because "true" Zenaida may be more closely related to some Geotrygon species, subsequent sampling (Johnson & Weckstein 2011) confirmed the monophyly of Zenaida.

 

46. The northern subspecies ruficauda (with jessieae) was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) treated as a separate species from Zenaida auriculata; Peters (1937) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.

 

47. One record for Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986). <get original citation>

 

48. Called "American Mourning Dove" in Baptista et al. (1997) to distinguish it from "African Mourning Dove" Streptopelia decipiens; Goodwin (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Gibbs et al. (2001) called S. decipiens "Mourning Collared-Dove" to avoid the problem.

 

49. Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that Leptotila verreauxi might include two or more species-level taxa, due primarily to differences in eye-ring color.

 

50. Goodwin (1983) considered Leptotila verreauxi and L. megalura to be sister species; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but they are sympatric (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), and are not sister taxa (Johnson 2004); in fact, L. megalura is the sister to L. rufaxilla (Johnson & Weckstein 2011).  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

 

51. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Goodwin 1983) known as "White-fronted Dove."

 

52. Called "White-faced Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997), and called "Yungas Dove" in Gibbs et al. (2001) and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

 

53. Goodwin (1983) considered Leptotila pallida, L. plumbeiceps, L. rufaxilla, and West Indian L. jamaicensis and L. wellsi to form a superspecies. Goodwin (1983) reluctantly treated L. plumbeiceps as a separate species from L. rufaxilla, and AOU (1983, 1998) lumped Leptotila plumbeiceps into L. rufaxilla. Although this is not followed by most authors, the differences between the two in voice seem very small from published descriptions. On the other hand, Johnson's (2004) genetic results indicate that L. plumbeiceps and L. cassinii are more closely related to each other than either is to L. rufaxilla. SACC proposal to lump L. plumbeiceps and L. rufaxilla did not pass. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered L. plumbeiceps, L. rufaxilla, and L. wellsi (of Grenada) to form a superspecies, but did not include L. pallida or L. jamaicensis. Leptotila pallida was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937) considered a subspecies of L. rufaxilla.

 

54. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Leptotila cassinii, L. conoveri, and L. ochraceiventris to form a superspecies.

 

54a. Species name frequently given as “cassini” but see Dickinson & Remsen (2013).  SACC proposal passed to change to cassinii.

 

55. Called "Conover's Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

56. Called "Buff-bellied Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

57. Goodwin (1958, 1983) proposed that Geotrygon and Zenaida are closely related genera, if not sisters, based on shared, unique facial markings, and that is also suggested by genetic data (Johnson 2004), which also indicates that Geotrygon itself may not be monophyletic.  All South American species of Geotrygon except saphirina were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the genus Oreopelia; see REF for inclusion of Oreopelia in Geotrygon.  Recent data (Johnson & Weckstein 2011) confirm that Geotrygon is polyphyletic, but the West Indian group, which includes the type species, G. versicolor, was not sampled.  South American frenata and goldmani are members of a monophyletic group that also consists of Middle American chiriquensis, albifacies, and lawrencii, and this group is sister to Zenaida.  Banks et al. (2013) confirmed the paraphyly of Geotrygon with respect to Zenaida, and described two new genera to retain monophyly of more narrowly defined Geotrygon.  SACC proposal passed to modify classification.  See also Notes 59, 61, and 64.

 

59. Goodwin (1983) proposed that Geotrygon goldmani is most closely related to Middle American G. costaricensis and G. lawrencii, and that G. saphirina shared a common ancestor with this group, but this is refuted by the data of Johnson & Weckstein (2011).

 

60. Called "Goldman's Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

61. Geotrygon saphirina was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Osculatia, but see Goodwin (1958) for its merger into Geotrygon.  Recent data (Johnson & Weckstein 2011) indicate that saphirina (with purpurata) is the sister to G. montana + G. violacea and that they are not closely related to the other “Geotrygon”, and Banks et al. (2013) proposed a new classification to constrain Geotrygon to these four species plus extralimital G. chrysia and G. versicolor.  SACC proposal passed to modify classification.

 

62. Called "Purple Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

63. Gibbs et al (2001) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated purpurata of the Chocó as a separate species from Geotrygon saphirina, as it had been in the past (e.g. Hellmayr & Conover 1942). SACC proposal to recognize this split did not pass because of insufficient published data.  Donegan & Salaman (2012) provided additional evidence for species rank for purpurata.  SACC proposal passed to treat them as separate species.  SACC proposal to change English name of G. purpurata did not pass.

 

64. Goodwin (1983) proposed that Geotrygon veraguensis was most closely related to West Indian G. caniceps and G. versicolor, but genetic data (Johnson & Weckstein 2011) indicate that this is incorrect and that “Geotrygon” veraguensis is sister to Leptotila.  Banks et al. (2013) named a new genus, Leptotrygon, for veraguensis.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Leptotrygon.

 

65. Called "Veragua Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

66. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Geotrygon linearis to form a superspecies with Middle American G. albifacies and G. chiriquensis; Goodwin (1983) considered them conspecific. Goodwin (1983) considered G. linearis and G. frenata to be sister species.

 

66a. Mlíkovský (2016) proposed that the subspecies trinitatis of Trinidad and adjacent Venezuela should be treated as a separate species from Zentrygon linearis based on differences in size and plumage.  SACC proposal pending.

 

67. Called "White-faced Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

68. Called "Pink-faced Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

 

69. Geotrygon erythropareia, known from three specimens, has been considered a distinct (Peters 1937) or dubious species (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). Chapman (1926), Hellmayr and Conover (1942), Blake et al. (1961), and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered this to be a dark color phase or variant of G. frenata. Sibley & Monroe (1990), however, considered it to be a valid subspecies, from Ecuador, of G. frenata.

 

70.  The subspecies subgrisea of sw. Ecuador was treated as a separate species from Geotrygon frenata by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Restall et al. (2006).

 

71. Goodwin (1983) considered Geotrygon montana and G. violacea to form a monophyletic group that includes West Indian G. chrysia and G. mystacea.  Genetic data (Johnson & Weckstein 2011, Banks et al. 2013) corroborate their relationship as a monophyletic group (mystacea not sampled), and Banks et al. named a new genus, Zentrygon, for the group.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Zentrygon.

 

72. Although “Quail-Dove” no longer marks a monophyletic group, the hyphen is retained because “bird-bird” names retain hyphens regardless.

 


 

CUCULIFORMES 1

CUCULIDAE (CUCKOOS)

Crotophaginae 7a

Guira guira Guira Cuckoo

Crotophaga major Greater Ani

Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani

Crotophaga sulcirostris Groove-billed Ani

 

Neomorphinae

Tapera naevia Striped Cuckoo 8, 8a

Dromococcyx phasianellus Pheasant Cuckoo 8a

Dromococcyx pavoninus Pavonine Cuckoo 8a

Neomorphus geoffroyi Rufous-vented Ground-Cuckoo 9, 10

Neomorphus squamiger Scaled Ground-Cuckoo 11

Neomorphus radiolosus Banded Ground-Cuckoo

Neomorphus rufipennis Rufous-winged Ground-Cuckoo 12

Neomorphus pucheranii Red-billed Ground-Cuckoo

 

Cuculinae

Coccycua minuta Little Cuckoo 2, 6, 7

Coccycua pumila Dwarf Cuckoo 2

Coccycua cinerea Ash-colored Cuckoo 2

Piaya cayana Squirrel Cuckoo 6, 6a

Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo 6

Coccyzus melacoryphus Dark-billed Cuckoo 2a

Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo (NB) 2a, 3

Coccyzus euleri Pearly-breasted Cuckoo 2a, 3, 4

Coccyzus minor Mangrove Cuckoo 2a, 5

Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo (NB) 2a

Coccyzus lansbergi Gray-capped Cuckoo 2a

 

 


 

1. Jarvis et al. (2014) found that the Cuculiformes were the sister to Old World Musophagiformes + Otidiformes; Prum et al. (2015) found a sister relationship between Cuculiformes and Otidiformes, with Musophagiformes sister to those two.  The monophyly of the Cuculiformes has never been seriously questioned, but their relationships to other birds has been considered uncertain (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006); previous inclusion of the Afrotropical Musophagidae in the Cuculiformes (e.g., REF) is not supported by recent analyses (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008). Hackett et al. (2008) found support for a sister relationship to a narrowly defined Gruiformes. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the family to consist of several family-level taxa based on strong genetic differences among them; the New World taxa were: Coccyzidae, Neomorphidae, and Crotophagidae. These three groups were treated as subfamilies by the AOU (1998), but Coccyzidae was included within the Cuculinae in Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data (Sorenson & Payne 2005) found strong support for the monophyly and recognition of these three subfamilies for New World taxa; the phylogeny of Hackett et al. (2008) was consistent with these groupings.<incorp. Payne 1997>.  Posso & Donatelli (2006) treated Tapera and Dromococcyx in their own subfamily, Taperinae, based on morphological characters, which they interpreted as indicating that these genera were not members of the Neomorphinae.  Cracraft (2013) recognized reduced Neomorphinae to tribe status within Crotophaginae.  Proposal needed to add subfamilies.  SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence to conform to recent genetic data.

 

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Payne (1997) considered Coccyzus pumilus and C. cinereus to form a superspecies. They were treated in a separate genus, Micrococcyx, by Ridgway (1916) and Pinto (1937). Peters (1945) merged Micrococcyx into Coccyzus, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. However, Sorenson & Payne (2005) and Hughes (2006) found that inclusion of these two species in Coccyzus would make that genus paraphyletic with respect to Piaya. Sorenson & Payne (2005) also found strong support for a sister relationship between Piaya minuta and these two species, and treatment of these three in a separate genus, Coccycua, is the only way that Coccyzus and Piaya can remain monophyletic. SACC proposal passed to recognize Coccycua. Banks et al. (2006) recognized Coccycua.

 

2a. Sorenson & Payne's (2004) genetic data revealed the following phylogenetic relationships among Coccyzus: (1) C. americanus and C. euleri are sister species, supporting their traditional placement together in linear sequences; (2) C. minor and extralimital C. ferrugineus are sister species (see Note 5); (3) the preceding two pairs are each others' sisters, with C. melacoryphus sister to the group that includes these four; and (4) C. erythropthalmus and C. lansbergi are more closely related to the West Indian genera Saurothera and Hyetornis than to other Coccyzus. SACC proposal passed to reflect these relationships through a change in linear sequence.

 

3. Mayr & Short (1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Payne (1997) considered Coccyzus americanus and C. euleri to form a superspecies; before it was realized that julieni and euleri were synonyms, julieni was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a subspecies of Coccyzus americanus.

 

4. Banks (1988) showed that the name julieni has priority over euleri, but the ICZN (1992) suppressed its use; see Willis and Oniki (1990) for conservation of euleri over julieni.

 

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Payne (1997) considered Coccyzus minor and C. ferrugineus of Cocos Island to form a superspecies; they have been considered conspecific by some (e.g., REF).

 

6. This species was treated in the genus Coccycua by Ridgway (1916) and others (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937), but Peters (1945) merged Coccycua minuta into Piaya, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. However, Sorenson & Payne (2005) found that minuta is not closely related to the other two Piaya (but that P. cayana and P. melanogaster are sisters); see also Note 2. Hughes (2000) retained Coccycua for minuta based on osteological characters. SACC proposal passed to recognize Coccycua.

 

6a. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated the extralimital subspecies mexicana of western Mexico as a separate species from P. cayana based on plumage differences and parapatric distribution.  Although Ridgway (1916) treated mexicana as a separate species, Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific, and this treatment has been followed subsequently in almost all classifications.  <wait NACC>

 

7. The species name for Coccycua/Piaya minuta was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) rutilus, but see Zimmer (1930).

 

7a. Recent genetic data (Sorenson & Payne 2005) confirmed that Guira and Crotophaga are sister genera, and that C. major is sister to the sister species C. ani and C. sulcirostris.

 

8. Called "American Striped Cuckoo" by Payne (1997, 2005), but that would seem unnecessary in that the African species, Clamator levaillanti, that is sometimes called "Striped Cuckoo" was called "Levaillant's Cuckoo" by Payne (1997, 2005).

 

8a. Recent genetic data (Sorenson & Payne 2005) confirmed that Dromococcyx is monophyletic and that Tapera and Dromococcyx are sister genera, thus supporting the traditional classification.

 

9. [need note on Haffer superspecies designations?]

 

10. The Central American subspecies salvini was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Neomorphus geoffroyi, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in most subsequent classifications (e.g., Payne 1997, 2005).

 

11. Neomorphus squamiger was treated as subspecies of geoffroyi by Payne (1997, 2005), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014); they were treated as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).  See also Firme et al. (2014). Proposal needed.

 

12. The southern subspecies nigrogularis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Neomorphus rufipennis, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 


 

STEATORNITHIFORMES 1

STEATORNITHIDAE (OILBIRD) 1

Steatornis caripensis Oilbird

 

NYCTIBIIFORMES 1

NYCTIBIIDAE (POTOOS) 2

Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo

Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo 3

Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo 4, 6

Nyctibius maculosus Andean Potoo 5, 6

Nyctibius leucopterus White-winged Potoo 5

Nyctibius bracteatus Rufous Potoo 7

 

 


 

1 . Most recent analyses indicate that the Caprimulgiformes as traditionally defined (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) is not a monophyletic group.  The Old World Aegothelidae are more closely related the Apodiformes (e.g., Mayr 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Barrowclough et al. 2006, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Mayr 2009; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007, Braun & Huddleston 2009, Prum et al. (2015); cf. Fain & Houde 2004) and have been transferred there in some recent classifications (e.g., Dickinson & Remsen 2014).  That the Old World Podargidae are members of the Caprimulgiformes has been questioned (e.g., Mayr 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004), but see <>Dumbacher et al. (2003), Fidler et al. (2004), Barrowclough et al. (2006), and Hackett et al. (2008).  Within the Neotropical families, some morphological data suggest that the Steatornithidae and the Trogoniformes might be sister taxa (Mayr 2003b, Mayr & Clarke 2003; cf. Mayr 2009), but genetic data do not support this (Barrowclough et al. 2006, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). Some genetic data (e.g., Fidler et al. 2004) are consistent with a sister relationship between the Caprimulgidae and Nyctibiidae, as is also suggested by some morphological data (Mayr 2002, 2009; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007). Some evidence suggests that the Caprimulgiformes and Apodiformes are sister taxa (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey & Zusi 2007); however, the most comprehensive genetic data sets (Hackett et al. 2008, Prum et al. 2015) indicates that the Caprimulgiformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Apodiformes, even if Aegothelidae included in the latter; however, they found strong support for the monophyly of a composite group that includes all traditional members of both orders, with Steatornis or Nyctibiidae likely basal to the rest; see also Mayr (2009). Proposal passed to treat Steatornithidae and Nyctibiidae in their own orders.

 

2. Genetic data (Braun & Huddleston 2009) confirm that the Nyctibiidae as traditionally defined is monophyletic.  Within the Nyctibiidae, Mariaux and Braun (1996) and Brumfield et al. (1997) did not find consistent evidence for strong relationships among any of the species except N. griseus, N. maculosus, and N. leucopterus. [incorp Cohn-Haft 1999].  Holyoak (2001) inverted the linear sequence of species to correspond with that used by Hartert in the 1800s to reflect the superficial similarity of N. bracteatus to other caprimulgiform genera such as Batrachostomus.  Costa and Donatelli (2009) found that interspecific variation in cranial morphology was so extensive that inclusion of all species in a single genus was misleading.

 

3. The subspecies longicaudatus (with chocoensis) may merit recognition as a separate species from Nyctibius aethereus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Whittaker & Oren 1999, Holyoak 2001); in fact, it was long treated as a separate species (e.g., REFS) and was lumped into aethereus with little evidence (Cohn-Haft 1999); vocalizations, however, are evidently similar (see Holyoak 2001).

 

4. Nyctibius griseus is considered a separate species from Middle American N. jamaicensis (Northern Potoo) based on vocal differences (Davis 1978, Hardy et al. 1988, Stiles & Skutch 1989, Cohn-Haft 1999); they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

5. Nyctibius maculosus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Peters 1940, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of N. leucopterus, but see Schulenberg et al. (1984) and Cohn-Haft (1999) for a return to the classification of Cory (1919) and for rationale that maculosus is more closely related to N. griseus than to N. leucopterus, contra Chapman (1926) and subsequent authors. Mariaux and Braun (1996) and Brumfield et al. (1997) found that N. maculosus, N. griseus, and N. leucopterus were closely related.

 

6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nyctibius griseus and N. maculosus, along with northern N. jamaicensis, to form a superspecies.

 

7. Costa and Donatelli (2009) suggested that N. bracteatus differed so much in cranial morphology from other Nyctibius that it should be placed in its own genus.

 


 

CAPRIMULGIFORMES

CAPRIMULGIDAE (NIGHTJARS) 1

Chordeiles nacunda Nacunda Nighthawk 3e

Chordeiles pusillus Least Nighthawk 2a

Chordeiles rupestris Sand-colored Nighthawk

Chordeiles acutipennis Lesser Nighthawk

Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk (NB) 3b

Chordeiles gundlachii Antillean Nighthawk (V) 3c, 3d

Lurocalis semitorquatus Short-tailed Nighthawk 1a

Lurocalis rufiventris Rufous-bellied Nighthawk 2

Nyctiprogne leucopyga Band-tailed Nighthawk 3a

Nyctiprogne vielliardi Bahian Nighthawk 3, 3aa

Nyctipolus nigrescens Blackish Nightjar 14, 14a

Nyctipolus hirundinaceus Pygmy Nightjar 14a

Systellura longirostris Band-winged Nightjar 9a, 9b,

Systellura decussata Tschudi’s Nightjar 9a

Nyctidromus albicollis Common Pauraque 4, 4a, 4b

Nyctidromus anthonyi Scrub Nightjar 12

Eleothreptus candicans White-winged Nightjar 10, 9b

Eleothreptus anomalus Sickle-winged Nightjar 10

Uropsalis segmentata Swallow-tailed Nightjar 16, 17

Uropsalis lyra Lyre-tailed Nightjar

Setopagis heterura Todd's Nightjar 11, 11a

Setopagis parvula Little Nightjar 11, 12, 12a

Setopagis whitelyi Roraiman Nightjar 14, 14a

?Setopagis maculosa Cayenne Nightjar 13

Hydropsalis cayennensis White-tailed Nightjar 9b, 9c

Hydropsalis maculicaudus Spot-tailed Nightjar 10a

Hydropsalis climacocerca Ladder-tailed Nightjar 14b

Hydropsalis torquata Scissor-tailed Nightjar 14c, 15

Macropsalis forcipata Long-trained Nightjar 17, 18

Nyctiphrynus rosenbergi Choco Poorwill 5

Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill 5b

Antrostomus sericocaudatus Silky-tailed Nightjar 6b, 8, 9

Antrostomus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow (NB) 6, 6a, 6b

Antrostomus rufus Rufous Nightjar 6, 6b, 7

 


 

1. Although many classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) divide the Caprimulgidae into two subfamilies, Chordeilinae and Caprimulginae, Barrowclough et al. (2006) and Han et al. (2010) found that this creates paraphyletic groupings, with "Chordeilinae" embedded with Caprimulginae. Sibley and Ahlquist (1990), Barrowclough et al. (2006), and Han et al. (2010) found that Australasian Eurostopodus was basal to all other caprimulgid genera sampled. Barrowclough et al. (2006), Larsen et al. (2007), Han et al. (2010), and Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) also found that Caprimulgus, as currently constituted, is highly polyphyletic; for example, New World taxa sampled so far indicate that northern “C.” carolinensis and “C.” vociferus fall within a group that includes Phalaenoptilus (extralimital), Nyctiphrynus, and Otophanes, whereas “C. longirostris, “C. maculicaudus, and “C. parvulus fall within a group that includes Hydropsalis, Uropsalis, Nyctidromus, Nyctiprogne, and Lurocalis. Han et al. (2010), with broader taxon and gene sampling, proposed some major revisions to the classification of the Caprimulgidae.  SACC proposal for major changes in boundaries of genera did not pass.  New SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in nightjars.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014), with extensive taxon-sampling, found that the family consists of seven major clades, three of which occur in South America: a “poorwill” clade (which includes Antrostomus and Nyctiphrynus), a “nighthawk” clade, and a “South American” clade (all other genera); see also White et al. (2016).  Proposal needed for new linear sequence.

 

1a. The subspecies nattereri was considered a separate species from Lurocalis semitorquatus by Hardy et al. (1989). However, vocalizations appear to be the same, and the degree of chestnut on the underparts of nattereri is variable (N. Cleere, pers. comm.), and nattereri is genetically indistinguishable from, semitorquatus at the loci sampled so far (Sigurdsson & Cracraft 2014).

 

2. Lurocalis rufiventris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered a subspecies of L. semitorquatus, but see Parker et al. (1991), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for a return to the classification of Cory (1918); Cleere (1998, 1999) and AOU (1998) recognized this split. Lurocalis rufiventris and L. semitorquatus presumably form a superspecies.

 

2a. Chordeiles pusillus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a monotypic genus, Nannochordeiles, but Peters (1940) merged this into Chordeiles.

 

3. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Lencioni-Neto (1994).

 

3a. Friedmann (1945) and Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) treated the subspecies latifascia of extreme s. Venezuela as a separate species from N. leucopyga.  SACC proposal passed to recognize two species rank, but implementation on hold until nomenclature resolved.

 

3aa. Cleere (1999) suspected that although a valid species, vielliardi was more closely related to Nyctiprogne than to Chordeiles.  Whitney et al. (2003) provided evidence that this species should indeed be placed in Nyctiprogne. SACC proposal passed to reassign to Nyctiprogne.  Whitney et al. (2003) also suggested the English name “Plain-tailed Nighthawk” for this species.  Proposal needed.

 

3b. Chordeiles minor was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as Chordeiles virginianus but see <REF>.

 

3c. Two specimens from Curaçao (Voous 1982, 1985); true status uncertain.

 

3d. Chordeiles gundlachii was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. minor, but see Eisenmann (1962b) and Stevenson et al. (1983); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

3e.  Traditionally treated In the monotypic genus Podager, but genetic data (Han et al. (2010) indicate that it is embedded in Chordeiles and sister to C. pusillus.  SACC proposal passed to reassign to Chordeiles.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) confirmed the sister relationship of nacunda and pusillus, but redefined Podager to include C. pusillus.  SACC proposal to revive Podager did not pass.

 

4. Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) found that Nyctidromus was embedded within Caprimulgus, but see Barrowclough et al. (2006), who found that Nyctidromus was basal to a group that included Uropsalis, Hydropsalis, and some New World "Caprimulgus."  See also a Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014).

 

4a. Called "Pauraque" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Holyoak (2001).

 

4b. Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) treated Nyctidromus albicollis as consisting of three phylogenetic species.

 

5. Nyctiphrynus rosenbergi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of N. ocellatus, but strong vocal and plumage differences indicate that it should be treated as a separate species (Robbins and Ridgely 1992), a return to the classification of Cory (1918); this treatment was followed by Cleere (1997), AOU (1998), Holyoak (2001), and Dickinson (2003).

 

5b. [need to outline history of Otophanes]

 

6. Antrostomus carolinensis and A. rufus form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Cleere 1999).

 

6a. New World Caprimulgus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) not included in that genus, which was restricted to Old World taxa; see details below; they were all transferred to Caprimulgus by Peters (1940). Barrowclough et al. (2006), Larsen et al. (2007), and Han et al. (2010) found that Peters' broadly defined Caprimulgus is a highly polyphyletic group; thus, Cory's original groupings may better reflect phylogeny. SACC proposal for enlarged Hydropsalis did not pass.  New SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in nightjars.

 

6b. Antrostomus carolinensis, A. rufus, and A. sericocaudatus were traditionally (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in Antrostomus, along with several Middle American species, and Pinto (1937) treated them in the genus Setochalcis. Peters (1940) merged these into Caprimulgus. See Note 6a. SACC proposal passed to transfer these species to resurrected Antrostomus.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) confirmed that Antrostomus is not part of Caprimulgus.

 

7. The subspecies otiosus from Lesser Antilles has been treated as a separate species from Antrostomus rufus by some (Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore & Phelps 1953), but see Robbins & Parker (1997).

 

8. Antrostomus sericocaudatus does not include saltarius Olrog, 1979, now considered a subspecies of A. rufus (Cleere 1999) or a synonym of A. rufus rutilus (Holyoak 2001).

 

9. Antrostomus sericocaudatus forms a superspecies with Middle American A. salvini and A. badius (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly treated as conspecific by some (e.g., Peters 1940), but see Hardy & Straneck (1989).  For inclusion in Antrostomus, see Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014).

 

9a. Davis (1979) considered the subspecies ruficervix of the northern Andes to be a separate species from Caprimulgus longirostris based on vocal differences; ruficervix was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Systellura, but Peters (1940) treated ruficervix as conspecific with Caprimulguslongirostris. (See also Notes 1 and 6a.) Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) elevated ruficervix and the subspecies roraimae to species rank based on PSC rationale.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated roraimae as a separate species (“Tepui Nightjar”) based on vocal differences.  SACC proposal to recognize roraimae and ruficervix as separate species did not pass.  The subspecies decussata of western Peru was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from “C. longirostris, but Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) showed that decussata (of coastal Peru and Chile) is only distantly related to S. longirostris despite morphological similarities.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated decussatus as a separate species.  SACC proposal passed to treat decussata as a separate species.  Proposal needed for generic allocation of decussata.

 

9b. Systellura longirostris, Hydropsalis cayennensis, and Eleothreptus candicans were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Thermochalcis, but this was merged into Caprimulgus by Peters (1940). Larsen et al. (2007) found weak support that longirostris and candicans were closely related (cayennensis not sampled), but see also Notes 1 and 6a.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) and White et al. (2016) expanded Hydropsalis to include Systellura and Eleothreptus.  Proposal badly needed.

 

9c. Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) treated the subspecies albicauda (with apertus and insularis) as a separate species from H. cayennensis based on PSC rationale.

 

10. Although formerly thought to be closely related to or form superspecies with C. cayennensis (Sibley & Monroe 1990), Cleere (2002) presented evidence that C. candicans should be transferred to genus Eleothreptus. SACC proposal to move to Eleothreptus did not pass. Larsen et al. (2007) found strong genetic support that C. candicans and E. anomalus were sister species, but that they are embedded in a group that consists of "C." longirostris, "C." maculicaudus, Hydropsalis brasiliana, and Uropsalis segmentata.  SACC proposal for enlarged Hydropsalis did not pass.  New SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in nightjars, including placement of candicans in Eleothreptus.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) expanded Hydropsalis to included Eleothreptus and Uropsalis.  Proposal badly needed.

 

10a. Hydropsalis maculicaudus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in separate genus, Antiurus, but this was merged into Caprimulgus by Peters (1940). See Notes 1 and 6a. Larsen et al. (2007) found strong genetic support that maculicaudus was not a Caprimulgus but was a member of a group that includes Hydropsalis, Uropsalis, Eleothreptus, "C." longirostris, and "C." candicans; the genetic data of Barrowclough et al. (2006) are largely consistent with this as well. SACC proposal for enlarged Hydropsalis did not pass.  New SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in nightjars, including placement of maculicaudus in Hydropsalis.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) also placed maculicaudus in Hydropsalis.

 

11. The taxon heterura was treated as a separate species by Cory (1918), but it was considered conspecific with Setopagis parvula by Peters (1940). Schwartz (1968) also considered heterurus to be a subspecies of S. parvula based solely on plumage. Davis (1979) considered heterura to be a separate species from S. parvula based on vocal differences, and Hilty (2003) noted that more than one species are almost certainly involved. SACC proposal passed to treat heterura as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to change English name to "Todd's Nightjar" because the former one, Santa Marta Nightjar, was misleading.

 

11a. Setopagis is feminine (Dickinson & Remsen 2013; N. David, pers. comm.), so variable species endings adjusted accordingly.

 

12. “Caprimulgus anthonyi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of “C.” parvulus, but plumage and vocal differences indicate that it should be treated as a separate species (Schwartz 1968, Robbins et al. 1994); they were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but Han et al. (2010) found that they are members of different lineages; in fact, “C.” anthonyi is the sister species to Nyctidromus albicollis.  SACC proposal passed to include Caprimulgus anthonyi in Nyctidromus.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) confirmed the reassignment of anthonyi to Nyctidromus.

 

12a. Setopagis parvula was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in Setopagis, but Peters (1940) merged this into Caprimulgus. Barrowclough et al. (2006) and Han et al. (2010) found that Peters' broadly defined Caprimulgus is a highly polyphyletic group, and that "C." parvulus is a member of a group that includes Hydropsalis, "C." longirostris, and "C." maculicaudus; thus, Cory's original groupings better reflect phylogeny. SACC proposal for enlarged Hydropsalis did not pass.  New SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in nightjars.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) expanded Hydropsalis to include the species here included in Setopagis.  Proposal badly needed.

 

13. Setopagis maculosa is known only from the type specimen.  Its placement in Setopagis is entirely tentative.

 

14. Nyctipolus nigrescens and Setopagis whitelyi were considered to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cleere 1999) because they were formerly (e.g., Peters 1940) treated as conspecific.  <REF> proposed that whitelyi deserved species rank; this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.  Nyctipolus nigrescens, Setopagis whitelyi, and Nyctipolus hirundinaceus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in Nyctipolus, but Peters (1940) merged this into Caprimulgus.  O’Shea et al. (2007) suspected that nigrescens and whitelyi were unrelated due to strong vocal differences, and in fact Han et al. (2010) found that that nigrescens and whitelyi were not even part of the same lineage (hirundinaceus not sampled).  Placement of hirundinaceus in Nyctipolus is tentative.  Sigurdsson & Cracraft (2014) found that nigrescens and hirundinaceus are sister species and that they are sister to Nyctidromus as currently defined; they included nigrescens and hirundinaceus in Nyctidromus.  Proposal badly needed.

 

14a. Misspelled as “whiteleyi” in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and elsewhere <track down>.

 

14b. The Guianan Shield subspecies schomburgki was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Hydropsalis climacocerca, but Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific.

 

14c. The southern subspecies furcifer was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, where given as furcifera) considered a separate species from Hydropsalis torquata, but Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific.

 

15. For use of torquata rather than brasiliana for this species, see Teixeira (1992), Pacheco and Whitney (1998), and Cleere (1999).

 

16. The southern subspecies kalinowskii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a separate species and in a separate genus, Macropsalis, from Uropsalis segmentata, but see Peters (1940).

 

17. Holyoak (2001) merged Uropsalis into Macropsalis, noting that the characters used to distinguish the two genera, mainly tail shape, are not appropriate for generic distinction. SACC proposal for enlarged Hydropsalis did not pass.

 

18. Formerly known as M. creagra. Pacheco & Whitney (1998), followed by Cleere (1999), proposed that correct species name for this is Macropsalis forcipata, as in Pinto (1937) etc.; this was followed by Holyoak (2001). SACC proposal passed to adopt the name M. forcipata.

 


 

Part 3. Apodiformes