A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee


American Ornithologists' Union


(Part 2)

 

Part 2. Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

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

ACCIPITRIFORMES 1


PANDIONIDAE (OSPREY) 2
Pandion haliaetus Osprey (NB)

ACCIPITRIDAE (HAWKS) 3
Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite 5b, 5c
Gampsonyx swainsonii Pearl Kite 5a, 5c
Chondrohierax uncinatus Hook-billed Kite 4b
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite 3a, 4, 3c
Leptodon forbesi White-collared Kite 4, 4a, 3c
Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite 5, 3c
Morphnus guianensis Crested Eagle 27, 27a, 27b
Harpia harpyja Harpy Eagle 27a
Spizaetus tyrannus Black Hawk-Eagle 30
Spizaetus melanoleucus Black-and-white Hawk-Eagle 30
Spizaetus ornatus Ornate Hawk-Eagle 28, 30
Spizaetus isidori Black-and-chestnut Eagle 29, 30, 30a

Busarellus nigricollis Black-collared Hawk 17a
Rostrhamus sociabilis Snail Kite 6, 6a
Helicolestes hamatus Slender-billed Kite 7
Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite 6a, 7c
Harpagus diodon Rufous-thighed Kite 6a
Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite (NB) 6a, 7a, 7b
Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite 6a, 7a
Circus cyaneus Northern Harrier (NB) 8a, 8b
Circus cinereus Cinereous Harrier 8b
Circus buffoni Long-winged Harrier 8c
Accipiter poliogaster Gray-bellied Hawk 9, 9a
Accipiter superciliosus Tiny Hawk 9aa
Accipiter collaris Semicollared Hawk 9aa
Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 10, 10a
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk (V) 11, 11a
Accipiter bicolor Bicolored Hawk 11a, 12
Geranospiza caerulescens Crane Hawk 11b, 11c
Cryptoleucopteryx plumbea Plumbeous Hawk 12b, 12c
Buteogallus schistaceus Slate-colored Hawk 12b, 12c
Buteogallus anthracinus Common Black Hawk 14, 14a
Buteogallus aequinoctialis Rufous Crab Hawk 14
Buteogallus meridionalis Savanna Hawk 15
Buteogallus lacernulatus White-necked Hawk 12b, 12d
Buteogallus urubitinga Great Black Hawk 14b
Buteogallus solitarius Solitary Eagle 16, 16b
Buteogallus coronatus Crowned Eagle 16, 17
Morphnarchus princeps Barred Hawk 12bb
Rupornis magnirostris Roadside Hawk 20, 20a
Parabuteo unicinctus Harris's Hawk 19, 19a, 19b
Parabuteo leucorrhous White-rumped Hawk 21
Geranoaetus albicaudatus White-tailed Hawk 23, 23a
Geranoaetus polyosoma Variable Hawk 23a, 24, 25
Geranoaetus melanoleucus Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle 18, 18a
Pseudastur polionotus Mantled Hawk 12b, 12e
Pseudastur albicollis White Hawk 12e
Pseudastur occidentalis Gray-backed Hawk 12e
Leucopternis semiplumbeus Semiplumbeous Hawk 12b, 12d
Leucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk 12d
Leucopternis kuhli White-browed Hawk 12d
Buteo nitidus Gray-lined Hawk 13, 13a
Buteo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk (NB)
Buteo albigula White-throated Hawk 22
Buteo brachyurus Short-tailed Hawk 22, 22a
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk (NB) 23
Buteo galapagoensis Galapagos Hawk 23
Buteo albonotatus Zone-tailed Hawk
Buteo ventralis Rufous-tailed Hawk 26


1. The traditional Falconiformes is not a monophyletic group. Recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Hackett et al. 2008) refute any close relationship between the Falconidae and other families included in the traditional Falconiformes, which are here placed in a separate order, Accipitriformes.  Although Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) found support for the monophyly of broadly defined Falconiformes, subsequent genetic studies (REFs, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr and Clarke 2003, Gibb et al. 2007) generally found that the Falconidae are not particularly closely related to the rest of the families in the order. Morphological analyses (Livezey & Zusi 2001, 2007, Mayr & Clarke 2003) that may be driven by convergence on raptorial morphology are the sole support for monophyly. SACC proposal passed to separate Accipitriformes from Falconiformes.  Also followed by Chesser et al. (2010).  Ericson et al. (2006) and Hackett et al. (2008) found that the Falconiformes are actually more closely related to the Psittaciformes and Passeriformes than to any other orders.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of orders.

2. The Pandionidae has been treated as a subfamily of the Accipitridae by many (e.g., Pinto 1938, Stresemann & Amadon 1979, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003). Although most available data (e.g., Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007) indicate that it is the sister taxon to the hawks and eagles (but see Livezey & Zusi 2007 for possible sister relationship to Falconidae), the rank at which it is treated is rather arbitrary. Given its unique karyotype [REF], which differs from that known for other hawks and eagles, and given that Pandion haliaetus can be recognized as a species in the fossil record as far back as the Miocene [REF], family rank may be more appropriate (as in Friedmann 1950, Wetmore 1965, Fjelds & Krabbe 1990, Poole 1992, Lerner & Mindell 2005). Although some earlier genetic data (Mindell et al. 1997) suggested that it is the sister to the Old World kite genus Pernix, comprehensive data sets (Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that it is the sister to all other accipitrids.  Chesser et al. (2010) elevated the group from subfamily to family rank.

3. The monophyly of the Accipitridae has never been seriously questioned, and recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007, Lerner et al. 2008) confirm the monophyly of the family. Lerner & Mindell (2005) found that the Accipitridae consisted of fourteen principle lineages, which they designated with subfamily rank. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that the family consists of eight major lineages, which they designated using tribe, subtribe, and infratribe ranks; none of Peters (1931) subfamilies was found to be monophyletic.  SACC proposal pending to consider subfamily structure.

3a. Leptodon cayanensis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938) known as Odontriorchis palliatus.

3b. Called "Cayenne Kite" in Wetmore (1964).

3c. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Leptodon and Elanoides were members of a largely Old World group of kites that were basal to all other Accipitridae except for Elanus and Gampsonyx; see Note 5c. Lerner et al. (2008) also found that Elanus was the sister to all other accipitrids sampled. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

4. Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Stresemann and Amadon (1979), and Sick (1993) treated Leptodon forbesi as an aberrant plumage L. cayanensis, but following Teixeira et al. (1987), it was recognized as a species by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), thus returning to the treatment of Peters (1931), Pinto (1938), and Hellmayr & Conover (1949). Recent photographic evidence is also consistent with treatment as a valid species-level taxon (Pereira et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to recognize L. forbesi as a species.  Dnes et al. (2011) presented additional evidence that L. forbesi is a valid species.

4a. Called "Forbes's Kite" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

4b. "Chondrohierax megarhynchus" refers to large-billed individuals that were formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) treated as a separate species from C. uncinatus; see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and Amadon (1964). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5. Called "American Swallow-tailed Kite" in Thiollay (1994) to distinguish from "African Swallow-tailed Kite" (Chelictinia riocourii), but the latter is called "Scissor-tailed Kite" in many other places (e.g., Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001).

5a. Gampsonyx swainsonii was formerly placed in the Falconidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949), but see Friedmann (1950), Pltnik (1956), Stresemann (1959a), and Brodkorb (1960).

5b. Elanus leucurus has been considered conspecific with Old World E. caeruleus ("Black-shouldered Kite") by some authors (e.g., AOU 1983), but see <> Parkes (1958) and Clark & Banks (1992); they form a superspecies that includes Australian E. axillaris (Stresemann & Amadon 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Thiollay 1994).

5c. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Elanus and Gampsonyx were sister taxa and that together they were basal to all other Accipitridae. Lerner & Mindell (2005) also found that Elanus was basal in the family (Gampsonyx not sampled). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

6. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Everglade Kite."

6a. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Rostrhamus, Ictinia, and Harpagus are not closely related to other "kites", but are embedded within a large assemblage of "buteonine" genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

7. This species was treated in the monotypic genus Helicolestes by many authors earlier in the 20th century (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but then many recent authors (e.g., Stresemann & Amadon 1979) followed Amadon (1964) in merging Helicolestes into Rostrhamus; see Wetmore (1965) and Thiollay (1994) for an opposing view. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Helicolestes. Banks et al. (2008) also resurrected Helicolestes.

7a. Ictinia mississippiensis and I. plumbea form a superspecies (Stresemann & Amadon 1979, Amadon & Bull 1988, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Thiollay 1994).

7b. Spelled "misisippiensis" in Peters (1931), but see Blake (1977).

7c. [Amadon 1961b)

8a. Called "Hen Harrier" in Old World literature.

8b. Mayr & Short (1970), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Circus cyaneus and C. cinereus to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) considered conspecific. <incorp. Simmons 2000>

8c. Circus buffoni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) known as C. brasiliensis, but see Amadon (1954) and Stresemann and Amadon (1979).

8d. Lerner et al.s (2008) genetic data indicate that Circus may be embedded within Accipiter.

9. Called "Grey-bellied Goshawk" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001). Thiollay (1994) also placed this species at the beginning of the genus in his linear sequence, distant from any New World Accipiter; <was this based on any evidence>?

9a. "Accipiter pectoralis," long thought to be a distinct species (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), represents the immature plumage of A. poliogaster (Partridge 1961). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

9aa. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Accipiter superciliosus and A. collaris to form a superspecies; see Amadon (1964) for rationale for considering them as sister species.  However, Olson (2006) found evidence from skeletal morphology that Accipiter superciliosus does not belong in that genus and proposed resurrecting the genus Hieraspiza for it.  Genetic data (Kocum 2008) also found that this species is not closely related to Accipiter.  Proposal badly needed.

10. Accipiter striatus was treated as four species in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001): velox of N. America, chionogaster of Middle America, ventralis of the Andes, erythronemius of lowland southern South America); Peters (1931), Pinto (1938), and Hellmayr & Conover (1949) considered erythronemius (including ventralis) to be a separate species from A. striatus, and Friedmann (1950) and Stiles & Skutch (1989) considered chionogaster and erythronemius as separate species from A. striatus. [According to HBW account author Rob Bierregaard, through correspondence with Tom Schulenberg, no published data support this split and he was basically forced to comply with species taxonomy given to him.]  Storer (1952) outlined the rationale for keeping them all as one species, and none of the above sources have provided counterarguments.  Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) did not follow this split and provided rationale against following it. Proposal needed.

10a. "Accipiter salvini," treated by some as a distinct species (e.g., Friedmann 1950), is now considered to be a pale morph of A. striatus ventralis. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

11. One specimen from northern Colombia (Cundinamarca; Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

11a. Amadon (1964), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Accipiter cooperii and A. bicolor, along with Cuban A. gundlachi, to form a superspecies.

11b. The genus name formerly and sometimes still used, Ischnosceles Strickland, 1844, is not invalidated by Ischnoscelis Burmeister (Hellmayr and Conover 1949) and was used by Wetmore (1965) for Geranospiza Kaup, 1847, but see (Monroe 1968).

11c. The subspecies nigra of Middle America and northwestern South America was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) considered a separate species from Geranospiza caerulescens, but intergradation between the two is extensive (Amadon 1982, Thiollay 1994). The subspecies gracilis of the Atlantic Forest region was also formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) considered a separate species from G. caerulescens.

11d. Geranospiza was formerly (e.g., Friedmann 1950) considered closely related to harriers (Circus spp.) but see <REF> and Lerner et al. (2008).

12. Thiollay (1994) treated the subspecies chilensis as separate species from Accipiter bicolor based on difference in habitat preference and disjunct distribution; see also Jaramillo (2003). See Conover (1946) and Amadon (1964) for rationale for treating them as conspecific (e.g., subspecies pileatus is intermediate in plumage between nominate bicolor and chilensis). Proposal needed.

12a. Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that the genus Leucopternis, as traditionally defined, was polyphyletic; Leucopternis included at least three distinct groups that are not each others' closest relatives: (1) L. melanops, L. kuhli, and L. semiplumbeus; (2) L. albicollis, L. occidentalis, and L. polionotus; (3) L. plumbeus, L. schistaceus, L. lacernulatus, which are intermingled within a group with Buteogallus and Harpyhaliaetus; and (4) L. princeps, whose placement is uncertain.  Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended placing princeps in a monotypic genus Morphnarchus, plumbeus in a new monotypic genus Cryptoleucopteryx, schistaceus in Buteogallus, and lacernulatus in a new monotypic genus Amadonastur.  SACC proposal passed to restrict Leucopternis to group 1 above, and to resurrect Pseudastur for group 2.  SACC proposal passed to recognize a new genus, Cryptoleucopteryx Raposo do Amaral et al., for L. plumbeus and to transfer schistaceus and lacernulatus to Buteogallus.

12b. Leucopternis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are semiplumbeus and polionotus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

12bb. Called "Black-chested Hawk" in (REFS), Stiles & Skutch (1989).

12c. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Amadon & Bull (1988), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cryptoleucopteryx plumbea and Buteogallus schistaceus to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949). Genetic data, however, indicate that not only are they not sister taxa but also they are not congeneric (Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009).

12d. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Haffer (1987), and Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Leucopternis melanops and L. kuhli to form a superspecies; they have occasionally been considered conspecific (e.g., REF). Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) corroborates their sister relationship, and also indicates that their closest relative is L. semiplumbeus. Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended that Leucopternis be circumscribed to include these three species only.  SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in this group.  Hellmayr & Conover (1949), Amadon (1982), and Thiollay (1994) proposed a close relationship between L. lacernulatus and melanops/kuhli; genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009), however, do not corroborate this but suggest a relationship between L. lacernulatus and Buteogallus/Heterospizias meridionalis.  Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended treating lacernulatus in a monotypic genus Amadonastur.

12e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994) considered Leucopternis albicollis, L. occidentalis, and L. polionotus to form a superspecies; L. occidentalis has been considered a subspecies of L. albicollis (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Stresemann & Amadon 1979; cf. Chapman 1926, Amadon 1964), and genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) support this view, with occidentalis more closely related to three subspecies of albicollis than either is to nominate albicollis. See Amadon (1964) for inclusion of L. polionotus in this group, as confirmed by genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008).  However, Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) found that albicollis is actually paraphyletic with respect to polionotus.  Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended that these three species be placed in a separate genus, Pseudastur.

13. AOU (1998) followed Peters (1931), Pinto (1938), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Amadon (1982), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in using the monotypic genus Asturina for this species, rather than including in Buteo (as in e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); Amadon (1982) provided reasons why Asturina might be closer to Leucopternis than to Buteo.  However, this is generally not followed (e.g., Thiollay 1994, Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001) because of this species' proposed close relationship to Buteo magnirostris and other buteos.  Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that Asturina is nested within Buteo (but not at all close to B. magnirostris).  Banks et al. (2006) recently merged Asturina into Buteo. SACC proposal passed to merge Asturina into Buteo.

13a. Miller & Griscom (1921) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the Middle American subspecies plagiatus to deserve recognition as a separate species from Buteo nitidus, but this treatment has not been widely accepted; see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) for rationale for treating them as conspecific, although numerous authors have mentioned that they might be best treated as separate species. Millsap et al. (2011) provided morphological, vocal, and plumage (for all age categories) evidence for treatment as separate species.  SACC proposal passed to treated extralimital plagiatus as separate species.

14. Evidence for treating Buteogallus subtilis as a species separate from Buteogallus anthracinus is weak. It was treated as a full species by Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Thiollay (1994), AOU (1998), and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), following Amadon (1961) and Monroe (1963, 1968); see Howell & Web (1995), Stiles & Skutch (1989), and Ridgely et al. (2001), and especially Clark (2007) for opposing view. It was considered a synonym of B. anthracinus by Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and as a subspecies of B. anthracinus by Friedmann (1950). SACC proposal passed to remove species rank for subtilis. The two were treated as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994).  Stresemann & Amadon (1979) suspected that Buteogallus subtilis and B. aequinoctialis form a superspecies.

14a. Called "Lesser Black Hawk" in Wetmore (1965).

14b. Buteogallus urubitinga was formerly treated in the monotypic genera Urubitinga (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) or Hypomorphnus (Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Amadon (1949) and Amadon & Eckelberry (1955) for rationale for placement in Buteogallus. Genetic data (Lerner & Mindell 2005), however, indicate that Buteogallus urubitinga and B. anthracinus are not sisters and that the former is more closely related to two species, B. solitarius and B. coronatus, formerly placed in Harpyhaliaetus (see also Amadon 1949, Raposo et al. 2006). Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended that they be treated in the genus Urubitinga.  SACC proposal to revise generic limits in Buteogallus and relatives did not pass.  SACC proposal passed to recognize broadly defined Buteogallus.  SACC proposal passed to remove hyphen from Black-Hawk.

15. Buteogallus meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931 ,Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Heterospizias, but most recent classifications follow Stresemann & Amadon (1979) and Amadon (1982) in merging this into Buteogallus. <incorp. Griffiths (1994)> Recent genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, 2009, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that Buteogallus is paraphyletic with respect to Harpyhaliaetus and certain Leucopternis. SACC proposal to revise generic limits in Buteogallus and relatives did not pass.  SACC proposal passed to recognize broadly defined Buteogallus.  Buteogallus meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) placed in the subfamily Accipitrinae, but Pltnik (1956a) showed that morphological data favored placement in the Buteoninae, as confirmed by genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009).

16. Buteogallus solitarius and B. coronatus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered conspecific by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949). Genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) confirm their status as sister taxa.  They were formerly placed in a separate genus, Harpyhaliaetus, but see Raposo et al. (2006, 2009) and Lerner et al. (2008).  They were also formerly placed in separate genera, with Harpyhaliaetus for coronatus and Urubitornis for solitarius (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950, Wetmore 1965).

16b. Called "Black Solitary-Eagle" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

17. Called "Crowned Solitary-Eagle" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).  SACC proposal needed (to avoid same name as African species Stephanoaetus coronatus).

17a. Olson (1982) found morphological evidence that Busarellus may be more closely related to a group of largely Old World genera (Milvus, Haliastur, Haliaetus, Ichthyophaga) than to the New World genera with which is traditionally associated in linear sequences (e.g., Friedmann 1950, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), and this is reflected in the linear sequence of the AOU (1998).  Genetic data (Griffiths et al. 2007, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) also indicate that it is not closely related to any buteonine genera, where traditionally placed, but rather closer to kites.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

18. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) indicate that Geranoaetus is the sister taxon to Buteo polyosoma/B. poecilochrous and that maintenance of a monotypic genus is not warranted; it had been placed in Buteo formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1933, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950), but recent authors have generally followed Amadon (1963), who suggested that it might be closer to Buteogallus or Leucopternis than to Buteo. Clark (2006) disputed Amadon's rationale for maintaining it is a genus separate from Buteo. SACC proposal to merge Geranoaetus into Buteo did not pass. New genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008) provide even stronger evidence for merger of Geranoaetus, at least as currently defined, because it is the sister species to B. polyosoma. SACC proposal to merge Geranoaetus into Buteo did not pass.  Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) further confirmed that Geranoaetus is the sister to Buteo polyosoma sensu lato.  SACC proposal passed to expand Geranoaetus to include polyosoma and B. albicaudatus.

18a. Geranoaetus melanoleucus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) known as Buteo fuscescens.

18b. Geranoaetus has priority over Tachytriorchis; see Raposo do Amaral et al. (2010).

19. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006, 2009, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that Parabuteo may be sister taxon to Buteo/Percnohierax leucorrhous and that it lies outside main group of true buteos.  SACC proposal passed to include leucorrhous in Parabuteo.

19a. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that northern harrisi group might warrant recognition as a separate subspecies from the nominate Parabuteo unicinctus group.

19b. Called "Bay-winged Hawk" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Brown and Amadon (1968), Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps (1978), Stiles and Skutch (1989), Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), and elsewhere.

20. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that this B. magnirostris is basal to all buteos and would require merger of Parabuteo and Geranoaetus into Buteo to keep latter monophyletic; Riesing et al. (2003) and Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended the resurrection of monotypic genus Rupornis, widely used for this species in earlier literature (e.g., Pinto 1938). The genus Buteo as currently broadly defined is almost certainly polyphyletic (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009). SACC proposal passed to resurrect Rupornis for magnirostris.

20a. Called "Large-billed Hawk" in Wetmore (1965).

21. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that Buteo leucorrhous is probably the sister taxon to Parabuteo and recommended resurrection of monotypic genus Percnohierax for this aberrant species.  Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) found the same relationship but recommended including it in Parabuteo.  SACC proposal passed to include leucorrhous in Parabuteo. It was placed in the genus Rupornis, along with B. magnirostris, by Pinto (1938).

22. Buteo albigula was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) treated as a synonym of B. brachyurus, or even considered a dubious taxon (Peters 1931).  It was treated as a subspecies of B. brachyurus by Amadon (1964), Blake (1977), and Stresemann & Amadon (1979), following Rand (1960); however, they are elevationally parapatric, perhaps sympatric (Lehman & Haffer 1960), and hybridization has not been reported (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994) considered B. albigula and B. brachyurus to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009), however, indicate that they are not sister species.  <incorp. Stresemann 1959, Hoy 1969>

22a. Buteo brachyurus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in the <monotypic?> genus Buteola.

23. Voous (1968) and Voous & De Vries (1978) proposed that B. albicaudatus and B. galapagoensis were sister taxa, and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies.  Stresemann & Amadon (1979) suspected that B. galapagoensis was closer to and might even form a superspecies with Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma.  In fact, genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Hull et al. 2008, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that Buteo swainsoni and B. galapagoensis are sister taxa; in fact, in terms of mtDNA, B. swainsoni is paraphyletic with respect to B. galapagoensis in spite of major morphological and plumage differences (Hull et al. 2008).

23a. Amadon (1964) considered Buteo albicaudatus to form a superspecies with B. poecilochrous and B. polyosoma. Although genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) confirm that they are closely related, Geranoaetus is more closely related to polyosoma/poecilochrous than the latter is to albicaudatus.

24. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) considered the subspecies exsul of the Juan Fernandez Islands as a separate species from Buteo polyosoma based on the sexes being monomorphic and having no rufous in plumage. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003), however, indicate very low sequence divergence. Proposal needed?

25. Farquhar (1988) concluded that Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma are conspecific, as they were formerly treated (REF); he was unable to find any way to reliably diagnose the two forms using plumage characters or measurements. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Schulenberg et al. (2007) followed this treatment and suggested "Variable Hawk" be retained for the composite species. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) are consistent with hypothesis that B. polyosoma and B. poecilochrous are conspecific. [incorp. Cabot & De Vries 2003, Vaurie 1962]. SACC proposal passed to treat as conspecific.  Cabot & de Vries (2003, 2004, 2010) presented additional data that support their recognition as separate species.  SACC proposal to re-elevate poecilochrous to species rank did not pass.

26. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) support the traditional view (e.g., Amadon 1964) that Buteo ventralis and North American B. jamaicensis are sister taxa that form a superspecies (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990); in fact, the genetic data suggest that they are better treated as subspecies, as they were once treated by (REF, <+ citation in Fjelds & Krabbe 1990>). Hellmayr & Conover (1949) tentatively considered it to be a synonym of B. jamaicensis costaricensis. <Inc. Clark (1986)>. Peters (1931) and Hellmayr (1932) considered it to be a color morph of B. polyosoma, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and Amadon (1964).

27. Called "Guiana Crested Eagle" in Thiollay (1994).

27a. Genetic data (Helbig et al. 2005) indicate that Morphnus and Harpia are sister genera. Justification for retention of two monotypic genera seems weak. Proposal needed?

27b. "Morphnus taeniatus," treated as a valid species by REFS and Friedmann (1950), represents a dark morph of M. guianensis with heavily banded underparts (Lehman 1943, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Thiollay 1994). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

28. Called "Barred Hawk-Eagle" in Wetmore (1965).

29. Called "Isidor's Eagle" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

30. Three independent analyses of DNA sequence data (Helbig et al. 2005, Lerner & Mindell 2005, Haring et al. 2007) indicate that Spizaetus ornatus and Oroaetus isidori are sister species, that Spizastur melanoleucus is the sister to this pair, and that Spizaetus tyrannus is basal to these three species; also Old World "Spizaetus" are not the sister group to the New World Spizaetus. Helbig et al. (2005) proposed that the four New World taxa should be included in a single genus, Spizaetus, and they were so treated by Haring et al. (2007). SACC proposal passed to merge Oroaetus and Spizastur into Spizaetus.

30a. "Spizaetus devillei," described from two specimens from Ecuador, was treated as a valid species by Hellmayr & Conover (1949); it is now considered to be an immature plumage of Spizaetus isidori (Amadon 1950). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

 

GRUIFORMES 1

1. The extreme morphological heterogeneity among the families of the Gruiformes has always made the monophyly of this order suspicious (see Cracraft 1981, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990). Although Sibley & Ahlquist's DNA-DNA hybridization data provided support for a monophyletic Gruiformes, subsequent genetic data have failed to do so. Although genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) strongly support the monophyly of a core group of gruiform families that consists of the Gruidae, Aramidae, Psophiidae, Rallidae, and Heliornithidae, support for inclusion of other traditional gruiform families is weak or nonexistent. The Psophiidae is sister to Gruidae + Aramidae (Krajewski et al. 2010).  Concerning families found in South America, Fain & Houde (2004) and Ericson et al. (2006) found that the Eurypygidae does not belong in the Gruiformes but rather in a major, separate radiation of the Neoaves, with the Rhynochetidae the likely sister family of the Eurypygidae (see also Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Hackett et al. 2008), and that the Cariamidae (and also the Old World Otididae) is in an altogether different branch of the Neoaves than are the true Gruiformes (see also Livezey & Zusi 2001, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to treat Cariamidae in their own order, Cariamiformes, now placed to preceded Falconiformes and Psittaciformes; see SACC proposal. Chesser et al. (2010) removed the Eurypygidae from the Gruiformes and placed them in their own new order.  SACC proposal passed to create a new order, Eurypygiformes, for Eurypygidae.  Recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the monophyly of the traditional Gruiformes except that the Rallidae (represented only by Porphyrula) and Heliornithidae (and Old World Turnicidae and Mesitornithidae) might belong in the Charadriiformes.

ARAMIDAE (LIMPKIN) 1
Aramus guarauna Limpkin 1a

PSOPHIIDAE (TRUMPETERS)
Psophia crepitans Gray-winged Trumpeter 2
Psophia leucoptera Pale-winged Trumpeter 2, 3
Psophia viridis Dark-winged Trumpeter 2, 4

 

1. The sister family of the Aramidae is likely the Gruidae (Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Mayr 2008, Hackett et al. 2008), not the Heliornithidae, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990).

1a. The species name for Aramus guarauna was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) scolopaceus, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

2. The species of Psophia form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Sherman 1996).

3. The subspecies ochroptera has been placed in Psophia crepitans rather than P. leucoptera by some authors (REFS). Reports of sympatry of ochroptera and P. c. napensis without interbreeding repeated in Sherman (1996) are evidently based on reports from local hunters and should be considered as hearsay <REF>.

4.  Oppenheimer & Silveira (2009) found no evidence of intergradation near potential contact areas between the nominate subspecies and P. v. dextralis, or between the latter and P. v. obscura; they recommended, therefore, that dextralis and obscura be ranked as separate species from nominate viridis.  SACC proposal badly needed.

 

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

1. <relationships of family to other families; within-family relationships; incorp. Olson 1973, Ripley 1977, Livezey 1998 etc.>.

1a. [note on notata, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ripley (1977)].

1b. Called "Speckled Crake" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001),

2. Micropygia schomburgkii was placed in Coturnicops by Ripley (1977), but differences in voice, nest type, and morphology have lead others to maintain it in a monotypic genus (REF, Taylor 1996, 1998).

3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Rallus longirostris and R. wetmorei, along with North American R. elegans, to form a superspecies. Ripley (1977) considered R. longirostris and R. elegans to be conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that wetmorei might better be treated as a subspecies of R. longirostris, but they are evidently sympatric in Carabobo, Venezuela (Blake 1977).

4. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the South American resident forms of Rallus limicola as a separate species, R. aequatorialis, based on differences in vocalizations (but no analysis published) . Proposal needed?

4a. Called "Lesser Rail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjelds & Krabbe (1990).

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Rallus limicola, R. semiplumbeus, and R. antarcticus to form a superspecies. Rallus antarcticus and R. limicola were considered conspecific by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Blake (1977), and Ripley (1977), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), who suspected that R. antarcticus might be more closely related to R. semiplumbeus, and Fjelds & Krabbe (1990) and Taylor (1996, 1998).

5a. Ripley (1977) merged Aramides with Old World Eulabeornis, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.

5b. "Aramides gutturalis," known from a single specimen from Peru and treated as a distinct species by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now considered to be a badly prepared specimen of A. cajanea (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Taylor 1996). However, Thomas Brooks has recently suggested that this taxon needs re-evaluation: http://www.redlist.org. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5c.  David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the correct spelling of the species name is cajaneus.  SACC proposal passed to change the name.

6. The subspecies peruvianus, known only from type specimen from uncertain locality, may deserve recognition as separate species from Rallus semiplumbeus (Taylor 1996, 1998); it was treated as a subspecies of R. limicola by Peters (1934), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), Ripley (1977), and Fjelds & Krabbe (1990).

6a. Called "Rufous-crowned Wood Rail" in Wetmore (1965).

7. Some authors (REF) have merged Amaurolimnas into Aramides; they are presumably sister genera (Taylor 1998); Ripley (1977) merged Amaurolimnas into the Old World genus Rallina.

8. Anurolimnas viridis and A. fasciatus were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977) placed in the genus Laterallus, but morphology and molt pattern suggest that they belong in Anurolimnas (Stresemann & Stresemann 1966, Olson 1973, Storer 1981); this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), and Dickinson (2003). Sick (1993) suggested resurrecting the monotypic genus Rufirallus for viridis.  Most authors, however, continue to include these in Laterallus, and Taylor (1998) and Ridgely et al. (2001) noted that both of these species are, by voice, Laterallus. Proposal badly needed. <incorp. Penhallurick 2003, Rufirallus>

9. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Anurolimnas fasciatus was hauxwelli, but see Ripley (1977).

10. Storer (1981) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus levraudi and L. melanophaius to form a superspecies, but see next Note.

11. Laterallus albigularis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of L. melanophaius, but see Wetmore (1965); Storer (1981) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered L. albigularis to be more closely related to L. exilis.

11a. Called "Temminck's Rail" by Ridgway & Friedmann (1941).

12. Fjelds (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus jamaicensis and L. spilonotus to form a superspecies; some authors (e.g., Fjelds 1983b) have considered them conspecific.

12a. Called "Darwin's Rail" by Ridgway & Friedmann (1941).

13. Fjelds (1983a) proposed that the South American form tuerosi, and usually treated as, and described by Fjelds (1983b) as, a subspecies of Laterallus jamaicensis, should be recognized as a separate species; this was followed by Collar et al. (1992). Jaramillo (2003) also suggested that the southern subspecies salinasi might also warrant recognition as a separate subspecies from L. jamaicensis. SACC proposal pending to elevate tuerosi to species rank.

13a. Called "Black Crake" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), but that name is usually applied to the African Amaurornis flavirostris.

14. Called "Horqueta Crake" in Ripley (1977).

15. Porzana flaviventer has been placed by some authors (Olson 1970, 1973) in a separate genus Poliolimnas, along with P. cinereus of the East Indies and Australasian region, but see Mees (1982) as cited by Walker (1998).  Slikas et al. (2002) showed that it is not closely related to Old World P. cinereus, but rather is sister to Anurolimnas + Porzana.  Proposal badly needed.

16. Porzana spiloptera has been placed by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) in the genus Laterallus, the genus in which it was described, but see Olson (1973) and Storer (1981).

17. Called "Sora Rail" in Blake (1977) and REFS.

18. Neocrex colombiana was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as conspecific with N. erythrops, but they are sympatric in Panama (Ridgely & Gwynne 1989); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Taylor 1996).

19. Neocrex is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is colombiana (David & Gosselin 2002b); note the typographical error "columbiana" in David & Gosselin (2002a), corrected in David & Gosselin (2002b); this typographical error had been perpetuated in numerous references since Peters (1934).

19a. Neocrex was formerly (e.g., Ripley 1977) included in Porzana, but see Slikas et al. (2002), who found that it is likely the sister to Aramides.  Proposal badly needed to change linear sequence.

20. Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977, Fjelds & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in genus Rallus, but see Olson (1973) for separation of Pardirallus from Rallus; this was followed by Taylor (1996, 1998) and AOU (1998). Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were also sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) placed in separate genus Ortygonax, but see Olson (1973).

21. Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (REFS) have considered them conspecific.

22. Formerly known as "Common Moorhen" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). Hilty & Brown (1986), Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), and Ridgely et al. (2001) continued to use "Common Gallinule." Long known by this name in the New World (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), the AOU (1983) switched to "Moorhen" to conform to Old World usage. SACC proposal passed to change to "Common Gallinule." SACC proposal to add "Common Moorhen" as an alternative name did not pass.

22a.  Vocal, plumage, and genetic data suggest that New World populations of widely distributed Gallinula chloropus should be treated as a separate species (Constantine 2006, Groenenberg et al. 2008).  SACC proposal passed to treat New World populations as a separate species, Gallinula galeata, from Old World populations.

22b. Recent specimen record from off Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

23. Gallinula melanops was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in the genus Porphyriops, but see Ripley (1977) for inclusion in Gallinula.  Livezey (2003) retained Porphyriops.

24. Porphyrio martinicus and P. flavirostris were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Friedmann & Ridgway 1941, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998) usually placed in the genus Porphyrula; for the merger of Porphyrula into Porphyrio, see Olson (1973); now followed in most classifications, e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), Banks et al. (2002).  Ripley (1977) placed Porphyrula in Gallinula while maintaining Porphyrio as separate.

24a. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Porphyrio flavirostris was parva, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

25. Called "American Purple Gallinule" by Taylor (1996, 1998).

26. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Porphyrio martinicus and African P. alleni to form a superspecies.

27. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the species epithet to be an adjective and this changed its ending to agree in gender with Porphyrio.  David & Gosselin (2011) concluded that the correct name is indeed martinicus.  SACC proposal passed to change name.

28. Whether Fulica caribaea is a valid species, or a subspecies or color morph of F. americana, is controversial (e.g. see Roberson and Baptista 1988, McNair & Cramer-Burke 2006).

29. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Fulica caribaea, F. americana, and F. leucoptera to form a superspecies with Old World F. atra and Hawaiian F. alai; they excluded F. ardesiaca from that group because of its sympatry with F. leucoptera. Taylor (1996) included F. ardesiaca and African F. cristata in this superspecies.

30. Fulica ardesiaca was once considered a color morph (Gill 1964, Blake 1977) or subspecies (e.g., Ripley 1977) of F. americana; for continued treatment of as a species separate from F. americana, see Fjelds (1982b, 1983). Fjelds (1983) also noted that two subspecies of ardesiaca differ in many aspects of their biology and mate assortatively where sympatric, yet concluded that they should be considered conspecific. Proposal needed.

31. Called "Andean Coot" in Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), Taylor (1996), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Ridgely et al. (2001). Proposal needed?

HELIORNITHIDAE (FINFOOTS) 1
Heliornis fulica Sungrebe 2

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

2. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "American Finfoot."

 

EURYPYGIFORMES 1

1. The Eurypygidae has been traditionally included in the Gruiformes, but recent genetic data do not support their inclusion in that order or any existing orders, and their sister group is the Rhynochetidae.  See Note 1 under Gruiformes.

 

EURYPYGIDAE (SUNBITTERN)
Eurypyga helias Sunbittern

 

CHARADRIIFORMES 1

1. The monophyly of the Charadriiformes is well established (e.g., REFS, Paton et al. 2003, Hackett et al. 2008) except for whether the Old World Pteroclididae should be included (REFS, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003). Within the order, the relationships of the families have been controversial (e.g., Strauch 1978, Mickevich & Parenti 1980, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Christian et al. 1992, Ward 1992, Bjrklund 1994, Chu 1994, 1995, REFS, Livezey 2010). The most recent genetic data confirm (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) the genetic data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) in that the order consists of three major groups: (1) the Scolopaci [Scolopacidae, Thinocoridae, Pedionomidae, Rostratulidae, and Jacanidae]; (2) the Charadrii [Charadriidae, Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae, Burhinidae, and Chionidae]; and (3) the Lari [Laridae, Rynchopidae, Stercorariidae, Alcidae, Dromadidae, and Glareolidae]. SACC proposal passed to recognize three suborders. Four recent studies (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain and Houde 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) differ from Sibley & Ahlquist in identifying the Charadrii as basal (rather than sister to Lari). Ericson et al. (2003) and Paton et al. (2003) also agree (using overlapping genetic data) on identifying the following sister relationships: (1) Burhinidae + Chionidae, (2) Haematopodidae + Recurvirostridae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007); (3) Rostratulidae + Jacanidae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Livezey 2010); and (4) Rynchopidae + Laridae (including Sterninae) (also identified as sisters by Livezey & Zusi 2007). Fain and Houde (2007), however, recovered Rynchopidae as sister to Sterninae within Laridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families.  For an analysis of phenotypic characters that produces a classification of the Charadriiformes in several ways, see Livezey (2010).

 

Charadrii

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

1. <note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b). <incorp. Livezey 2010>.  Sequence of genera follows Baker et al. (2012).

1a. Vanellus cayanus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in monotypic genus Hoploxypterus, but see Bock (1958) for placement in Vanellus. However, Strauch (1978) and Fjelds and Nielsen (1989) provided rationale for retention in monotypic genus, in part because it might be closer to Charadrius than to Vanellus.  Ridgely et al. (2001) retained Hoploxypterus for that reason.  Livezeys (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that cayanus is the sister to all Vanellus and recommended resurrection of monotypic Hoploxypterus.  SACC proposal needed.

1b. Formerly known as "Cayenne Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919).

2. Vanellus chilensis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Belonopterus, but see Bock (1958).

2a. Vanellus chilensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) known as V. cayennensis, but see Peters (1934).

3. Fjelds & Krabbe (1990) and Wiersma (1996) suggested that Vanellus chilensis might consist of more than one species but also noted that data so far suggest intergradation between the two subspecies groups <REF - Neotropical reference in Fjelds & Krabbe 1990>; see also Jaramillo (2003).

4. Vanellus resplendens was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) placed in the monotypic genus Ptiloscelys, but see Bock (1958).

5. Some data indicated that Pluvialis might not belong in the Charadriidae but rather (Ericson et al. 2003) sister to the Charadriidae + (Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae) or (Baker et al. 2007, Fain & Houde 2007) sister to Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae.  The distinctiveness of Pluvialis compared to other plover-like birds was first elucidated by Christian et al. (1992).  However, Baker et al. (2012), with much improved gene sampling than in previous studies, found that Pluvialis is indeed in the Charadriidae, sister to other plover genera.  Proposal pending to change linear sequence of genera in Charadriidae.

5a. Pluvialis squatarola was formerly placed (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) in the monotypic genus Squatarola, but see Bock (1958) and Jehl (1968b).

6. Called "Grey Plover" in Old World and some New World (e.g., Fjelds & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) literature.

7. Charadrius semipalmatus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) considered conspecific with Old World C. hiaticula, but see Bock (1959).

7a. Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) indicate that Charadrius contains two major divisions, with (of the taxa occurring in South America sampled) C. semipalmatus, C. vociferus, and C. modestus in one group, and C. falklandicus, C. alexandrinus, and C. collaris in the other. Proposal needed to move modestus in linear sequence.

8. Specimen from Guayas, Ecuador, on 15 October 1955 (Marchant 1956); sight record from Bonaire (Voous 1983). Six individuals captured in northeastern Brazil (Azevedo et al. 2003).

9. Formerly called "Thick-billed Plover" in many references (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely 1976, Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps 1978, Hilty and Brown 1986, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

9a. Charadrius wilsonia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the monotypic genus Pagolia.

9b. Charadrius vociferus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the monotypic genus Oxyechus.

10. New World populations of the Charadrius alexandrinus complex were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as a separate species, C. nivosus, from Old World populations but were treated as a subspecies of C. alexandrinus by Peters (1934) and most subsequent classifications.  Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that New World nivosus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Old World taxa because of vocal and plumage differences.  Recent data (Kpper et al. 2009) support this view.  SACC proposal passed to elevate nivosus group to species rank.

11. Snow (1978) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Charadrius alexandrinus to form a superspecies with Old World C. marginatus and C. ruficapillus; genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) confirm the traditional (Bock 1958) view that C. alexandrinus and C. ruficapillus are closely related.

12. Called "Kentish Plover" in most Old World literature.

12a. Formerly (e.g. Ridgway 1919) known as "Azara's Ring Plover."

13. Charadrius alticola and C. falklandicus have been considered conspecific (REFS), as suggested by Bock (1958); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Published rationale for either treatment is weak. Proposal?

14. Charadrius modestus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Zonibyx, but see Bock (1958). Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) indicate that recognition of Zonibyx would make Charadrius paraphyletic.  Livezeys (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters placed modestus outside Charadrius and as the sister to Old World Eudromias.  SACC proposal needed.

14a. Called "Rufous-chested Plover" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

15. Whether Phegornis belongs in the Charadriidae or the Scolopacidae has been controversial (Bock 1958); most recent classifications follow Zusi & Jehl (1970) in placing it in the Charadriidae, and this is supported by genetic data (Paton et al. 2003, Baker et al. 2007).  Livezeys (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that it is most closely related to a group of Australasian dotterels.

16. Called Diademed Plover in Dickinson (2003) and thus original SACC list.  However, called "Diademed Sandpiper-Plover" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Fjelds and Krabbe (1990), and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change English name.

17. Some authors follow Bock (1958) in merging Oreopholus into Eudromias when that genus considered separate from Charadrius.  Baker et al. (2007) indicate that Oreopholus is the sister to a group of genera that includes Phegornis and Charadrius.  Livezeys (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters supports retention of a monotypic genus for ruficollis.  Baker et al. (2012) found that Oreopholus was sister to Vanellus + Charadrius.  Proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera in Charadriidae.

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

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

1. Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, 2007) and recent analyses of morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the hypothesis (REFS) that the Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae are sister families; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) also indicate that these two families form the sister group to the Charadriidae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Haematopus palliatus to form a superspecies with North American H. bachmani and several Old World species; some authors (e.g., Peters 1934) have considered palliatus to be conspecific with Old World H. ostralegus, but see Wetmore (1965). Species limits in Haematopus are complex, with varying degrees of hybridization where ranges overlap (Hockey 1996).

3. The subspecies galapagoensis differs from Haematopus palliatus in several features that suggest that it might deserve recognition as a separate species (Hockey 1996), but see Jehl (1985).

4. Himantopus mexicanus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Vaurie 1965c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered a subspecies of Old World H. himantopus ("Common Stilt") and was so treated by Dickinson (2003). Many authors continue to treat them as conspecific, e.g., Pierce 1996, Christidis & Boles 2008.  Some authors have treated southern South American melanurus as a separate species (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). The six taxa in the genus Himantopus form a near-globally distributed superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Pierce 1996), and with from one to six species-level taxa recognized by various authors. Virtually no data are available relevant to taxon-ranking of allopatric populations. The contact between mexicanus and melanurus in South America, where at least some hybridization occurs, affords one of the best opportunities for such study.

4a. Formerly known (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as "American Stilt."

5. One specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

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

 

1. Genetic data (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003) indicate that the Burhinidae is more closely related to Chionidae + Pluvianellidae than they are to Charadriidae or other Charadriiformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

2. The name formerly used for this genus was Oedicnemus (e.g., Ridgway 1919), but see (REF).

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

1. Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Chionidae closer to Pluvianellidae than to its typical position in the larid radiation of the Charadriiformes, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

2. Family name given as Chionididae in many references; see Burger (1996).

3. Chionis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is albus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

4. Called "Pale-faced Sheathbill" in Burger (1996).

PLUVIANELLIDAE (MAGELLANIC PLOVER) 1
Pluvianellus socialis Magellanic Plover

1. Pluvianellus was formerly placed in the Charadriidae, but Jehl (1975) elucidated its many unusual characters that indicated that it was not a plover.  Treated as a subfamily within Charadriidae in Wiersma (1996).  Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Pluvianellus closer to Chionidae than to its typical position in Charadriidae, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship and thus also the treatment of Pluvianellus as a monotypic family separate from Charadriidae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Family rank is also supported by analysis of phenotypic characters (Livezey 2010).

Scolopaci

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

1. <note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b). The family Scolopacidae is traditionally split into five or more subfamilies and additional tribes (e.g., AOU 1998).  Livezey (2010) recognized four subfamilies (Arenariinae, Calidrinae, Tringinae, Scolopacinae) and maintained the phalaropes as a separate family. Genetic data (e.g. Gibson & Baker 2012), however, provide very weak support for the monophyly of these groups, and although the phalaropes are monophyletic, they are deeply embedded in the Scolopacidae and sister to the tringines.  Gibson & Baker (2012) identified five major lineages in the family.  SACC proposal needed to recognize five subfamilies.

1a. The name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) used for Gallinago was Capella, but see Mayr (1963) and Banks & Browning (1995).

2. Gallinago delicata is here treated as a separate species from Old World G. gallinago following Banks et al. (2002), based in part on lack of evidence in support of the original demotion of delicata to subspecies rank and in part on differences in their displays (Thnen 1969, Tuck 1972, Miller 1996); treating delicata as a separate species represents a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919), Peters (1934), and Pinto (1938).

3. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered Gallinago paraguaiae and G. andina to form a superspecies with G. delicata (which they reluctantly considered a subspecies of G. gallinago) as well as African G. nigripennis and G. macrodactyla.

4. Species limits in New World Gallinago have been fluid and controversial, and not based on explicit analyses.  Many authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) have considered paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina to be conspecific.  Additionally, Gallinago paraguaiae was considered conspecific with G. [gallinago] delicata by Phelps & Phelps (1958a), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Blake (1977). Fjelds and Krabbe (1990) placed magellanica with paraguaiae, but erred in calling this species G. magellanica because paraguaiae is the earlier name.  Any arrangement of species limits in these taxa is based largely on anecdotal data, and this group is badly in need of formal study, especially given that differences in displays and vocalizations among paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina have been reported (Jaramillo 2003). proposal needed.

5. Gallinago stricklandii, G. jamesoni, and G. imperialis were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948) placed in a separate genus, Chubbia, but recent authors have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in merging this into Gallinago.  Gibson & Baker (2012) found that imperialis was the sister to extralimital Coenocorypha, not to other Gallinago.  SACC proposal pending to resurrect Chubbia.

6. Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjelds & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific ("Cordilleran Snipe"), but most recent authors have followed Hellmayr & Conover (1948b) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in considering them separate species; other than plumage differences and disjunct distribution, no rationale has been published either way.

7. When Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni as separate species, they used the English name "Andean Snipe" for the latter, which was used Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in referring to jamesoni, perhaps a lapsus by Meyer de Schauensee; this created perpetual confusion with G. andina, instead of using "Jameson's as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948). proposal needed?.

8. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjelds & Krabbe 1990) known as "Banded Snipe.

9a. Called "Common Dowitcher" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

9b. Specimens from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2006, Putnam et al. 2009). SACC proposal passed to move to Main List. Also, at least five unpublished photos from Netherlands Antilles (Voous 1983, 1985; photos examined by J. R. Jehl) and at least one from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier). There also are specimens, collected in Colombia (Hellmayr and Conover 1948, Naranjo 1991) and in Peru (unpublished, but mentioned in Schulenberg et al. 2007), that have been identified as scolopaceus, as well as possible sight records from Ecuador [REF], Peru [REF], and Argentina (see compilation in Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, none regarded by those authors as referable with certainty to L. scolopaceus). A specimen reported from Argentina (Zotta 1942), responsible for the subsequent listing of that species for Argentina in many references, is a misidentified specimen of L. griseus hendersoni (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).

10. Photographed in 2000-2001 in Trinidad (Hayes & Kenefick 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).

10a. Limosa haemastica, L. lapponica, and L. fedoa were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Vetola, but this group is likely paraphyletic with respect to L. limosa (see Gibson & Baker 2012).

11. One photograph from northern Venezuela (Mercier et al. 1987), and one published photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).  Sight record for Fernando de Noronha, Brazil (Antas et al. 1990).

11a. Numenius borealis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Mesoscolopax.

12. Zink et al. (1995) proposed a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) that considered New World hudsonicus to be a separate species from Old World populations based on genetic distance. Although plumage pattern also differs substantially, vocalizations are evidently very similar, in contrast to the many allotaxa in the Scolopacidae treated as separate species.

12a. Numenius phaeopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Phaeopus.

12b. One record documented by archived photograph from northern Venezuela (McNeil et al. 1985); other undocumented sight records from Venezuela (see Hilty 2003). One record <> for French Guiana (Ingels et al. 2003). Record from Tobago now considered dubious (ffrench 1973).

12c. Formerly known as "Upland Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957), but see REFS.

13. Tringa melanoleuca and T. flavipes were formerly placed in a separate genus, Neoglottis (e.g., Ridgway 1919) or Totanus (e.g., REFS), but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b). <sort these out with respect to Old World taxa and Gibson & Baker (2012)>.

13a. Photographed on Tobago (Kenefick & Hayes 2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

13b. Vaurie (1965c) merged Catoptrophorus into Tringa, but this had not been followed by other authors. Genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005, Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Catoptrophorus is indeed embedded within Tringa and sister to T. flavipes. SACC proposal passed to merge Catoptrophorus into Tringa.

14. Vaurie (1965c), Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Heteroscelus into Tringa, but this had not been followed by most authors. Genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005, Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Heteroscelus is indeed embedded within Tringa. SACC proposal passed to merge Heteroscelus into Tringa.

15. Vaurie (1965c), Fjelds & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Actitis into Tringa, but most authors have not followed this.  They are almost certainly sister genera (Gibson & Baker 2012).

16. Actitis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is macularius, not macularia (David & Gosselin 2002b).

17. Vaurie (1965c) merged Xenus into Tringa, but most authors have not followed this.  Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) provide no support for that relationship and weak support for Xenus as sister to Phalaropus.

18. One at Punta Rasa, Buenos Aires, Argentina, from Dec.1977 to Jan. 1988, with photograph archived in the Aves Argentinas/ A.O.P. library (Pugnali et al. 1988). Additional sight records for Argentina (Narosky & Di Giacomo 1993), Brazil (Mazar Barnett 1997), and several from Trinidad & Tobago (Taylor 2001, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).

19. Arenaria was formerly placed in the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm that it is embedded within the Scolopacidae. Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated them as a separate family, Arenariidae.

20. [REF needed on records]

21. Aphriza virgata was formerly placed in the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated it in a separate monotypic family, Aphrizidae.  Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Aphriza is embedded within broadly defined Calidris and is sister to C. canutus.  Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged into Calidris.  Proposal badly needed. <wait for NACC>.

21a. Calidris canutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in the monotypic genus Canutus.

22. Calidris alba was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Crocethia (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), based largely on its lacking a hind toe, but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b).

23. Calidris pusilla and C. mauri were formerly placed in the genus Ereunetes (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in almost all subsequent classifications.  Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm that they are sister species.

24. Calidris minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, C. melanotos, C. alpina, and C. ferruginea were formerly placed in the genus Erolia (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Holmes & Pitelka (1964), Vaurie (1965c), and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in almost all subsequent classifications. Calidris minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, and C. melanotos were previously (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Pisobia, from Erolia.  Neither Erolia or Pisobia conform to monophyletic groups (see Gibson & Baker 2012).

24a. Calidris melanotos was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as C. maculata, but see <REF>.

25. Specimen from Cayenne, French Guiana, 15 January 1926 (Greenwood 1983). [check Kieser 1982] See Lesterhuis & Clay (2003) for a summary of sight records from South America.

25a. Calidris alpina was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in the monotypic genus Pelidna, but it is deeply embedded in broadly defined Calidris (see Gibson & Baker 2012).

26. Specimen from Peru (Graves & Plenge 1978). Photos from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Purported specimen from 18th Century from Argentina now lost (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). Sight record from Trinidad (Kenefick 2004, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).

27. Calidris himantopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjelds & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in a monotypic genus, Micropalama, based largely on relative tarsus length, but morphological (Jehl 1968b) and genetic data (Dittmann and Zink 1991) indicate that it is embedded within Calidris and sister to C. ferruginea (Gibson & Baker 2012); yet many authors continue to maintain Micropalama (Sibley & Monroe 1990, van Gils & Wiersma 1996, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Livezey 2010).

27a.  Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Tryngites is embedded within broadly defined Calidris and is sister to C. melanotos + [C. mauri + C. pusilla].  Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged into Calidris.  Proposal badly needed. <wait for NACC>.

27b.  Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Philomachus is embedded within broadly defined Calidris.  Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged into Calidris and as first reviser chose Calidris as having priority.  Proposal badly needed. <wait for NACC>.

28. One specimen from "Bogot" (Hellmayr & Conover 1948b). One sight record from Peru (Oatman et al. 1980). Several sight records and photos for Trinidad & Tobago (Gochfeld 1973, ffrench 1991, ffrench & White 1999, Kenefick 2004, Kenefick & Hayes 2006.). One sight record from Venezuela (Altman and Parrish 1978) and Brazil (Pacheco 2000).  At least five sight records and one unpublished photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).

29. The three species of Phalaropus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in their own family, the Phalaropodidae, but see Jehl (1968b). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm that they are embedded within the Scolopacidae, but Livezey (2010) resurrected family rank for them based on phenotypic characters.

30. Phalaropus tricolor was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in monotypic genus Steganopus, maintained by some classifications (e.g., Stiles & Skutch 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, van Gils & Wiersma 1996, Livezey 2010), but see Dittmann & Zink (1991). <van Gils & Wiersma 1996 stated genetically close to Tringa -- misinterpretation of genetic data>

31. Phalaropus lobatus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in a monotypic genus, Lobipes, but see REFs.

32. Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Northern Phalarope."

33. Correct spelling for species name is fulicarius (David & Gosselin 2002a), not fulicaria as in most recent classifications.

THINOCORIDAE (SEEDSNIPES) 1
Attagis gayi Rufous-bellied Seedsnipe 2
Attagis malouinus White-bellied Seedsnipe
Thinocorus orbignyianus Gray-breasted Seedsnipe
Thinocorus rumicivorus Least Seedsnipe

1. Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) indicate that Thinocoridae is the sister taxon to the Australian Pedionomidae (formerly placed in the Gruiformes), and that these in turn are members of the scolopacine radiation of the Charadriiformes (including Scolopacidae, Jacanidae, and Rostratulidae). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence to move Thinocoridae to position next to Jacanidae + Rostratulidae. Recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support a sister relationship to the Scolopacidae.

2. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the northern subspecies latreillii might deserve recognition as a separate species from Attagis gayi.

 

JACANIDAE (JACANAS) 1
Jacana jacana Wattled Jacana 2, 3

ROSTRATULIDAE (PAINTED-SNIPE) 1, 1a
Nycticryphes semicollaris South American Painted-snipe 4, 5

 

 

1. Genetic (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) and morphological (Livezey & Zusi 2007) data support the hypothesis (REFS) that the Jacanidae and Rostratulidae are sister families.

1a. SACC proposal passed to change to lower case the "s" in "Painted-snipe."

2. Jacana jacana forms a superspecies with Middle American J. spinosa (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Jenni 1996); they hybridize to a limited degree in western Panama but are evidently locally syntopic without interbreeding (Wetmore 1965); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) have considered them conspecific.

3. Called "Black Jacana" in Ridgway (1919).

4. Nycticryphes has often (e.g., <REFS>) been included in Rostratula, but see Kirwan (1996).

5. SACC proposal to delete hyphen in English name did not pass.

 

Lari

STERCORARIIDAE (SKUAS) 1
Stercorarius skua Great Skua (V) 2, 3, 4, 5
Stercorarius chilensis Chilean Skua 2, 5
Stercorarius maccormicki South Polar Skua (NB) 2, 5
Stercorarius antarcticus Brown Skua 2, 5, 6
Stercorarius pomarinus Pomarine Jaeger (NB) 7, 8
Stercorarius parasiticus Parasitic Jaeger (NB) 9
Stercorarius longicaudus Long-tailed Jaeger (NB) 10

1. This family ranked as a subfamily within Laridae in some classifications (e.g., REFS, Blake 1977), but recent genetic data indicate that the Stercorariidae is the sister to the Alcidae (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2007). A recent analysis of morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) does not recover these relationships.

2. The merger of Catharacta into Stercorarius follows from several recent papers (Cohen et al. 1997, Braun & Brumfield 1998) that show that pomarinus is more closely related to Catharacta than to other Stercorarius, as had been suggested by several earlier studies (REFS). Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered all of the original Catharacta group to form a superspecies.

3. The name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) used for Catharacta was Megalestris, but see <REF>.

4. Specimen from Par, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1986) and other specimens and band recoveries from northeastern coastal Brazil (Sick 1997, Olmos 2002). Sight reports from Venezuela (Hilty 2003) and off Curaao-Bonaire (Voous 1983).

5. Although some classifications have considered Stercorarius skua, S. chilensis, S. maccormicki, and S. antarcticus as a single species (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Blake 1977), see Devillers (1978), Parmelee (1988), and Furness (1996) for evidence for ranking each as a separate species based on limited hybridization where in contact and on major biological differences among them. All skua taxa of the southern oceans are very closely related with at least some gene flow among several populations (Ritz et al. 2008).

6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) ranked the subspecies lonnbergi as a separate species, but substantiating details have not been published. Most classifications (e.g., Furness 1996, Malling Olsen & Larsson 1997) continue to treat lonnbergi as a subspecies of S. antarcticus.

7. Stercorarius pomarinus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed treated in the monotypic genus Coprotheres, but this was merged in Stercorarius by Peters (1934) and subsequently followed by most classifications, but see Braun & Brumfield (1998).

8. Known as "Pomarine Skua" in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Pomarine Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Pomarine Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.

9. Known as "Arctic Skua" in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Arctic Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Arctic Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.

10. Known as "Long-tailed Skua' in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Long-tailed Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Long-tailed Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.

LARIDAE (GULLS) 1
Larinae
Creagrus furcatus Swallow-tailed Gull 9
Rissa tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake (V) 8
Xema sabini Sabine's Gull (NB) 8a
Chroicocephalus serranus Andean Gull 6a
Chroicocephalus maculipennis Brown-hooded Gull 6a, 6b
Chroicocephalus cirrocephalus Gray-hooded Gull 6, 6a
Chroicocephalus ridibundus Black-headed Gull (V) 6aa, 6aaa
Hydrocoloeus minutus Little Gull (V) 7, 7a
Leucophaeus scoresbii Dolphin Gull 1a
Leucophaeus modestus Gray Gull 1b
Leucophaeus atricilla Laughing Gull 6a
Leucophaeus pipixcan Franklin's Gull (NB) 6a
Leucophaeus fuliginosus Lava Gull 6c, 6d
Larus belcheri Belcher's Gull 2, 3, 6c
Larus atlanticus Olrog's Gull 2, 6c
Larus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull (V) 4
Larus marinus Great Black-backed Gull (V) 4a
Larus dominicanus Kelp Gull 4a
Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull (V) 5
Larus argentatus Herring Gull (NB) 4b

Sterninae 10a
Anous stolidus Brown Noddy 10a
Anous minutus Black Noddy 18, 19, 19a
Procelsterna albivitta Gray Noddy 20
Gygis alba White Tern 10a, 21
Onychoprion fuscatus Sooty Tern 16b
Onychoprion anaethetus Bridled Tern 16b
Sternula antillarum Least Tern 16, 16a, 16aa
Sternula superciliaris Yellow-billed Tern 16a
Sternula lorata Peruvian Tern 16a
Phaetusa simplex Large-billed Tern 17
Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern 10b, 10c
Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern (NB) 11
Larosterna inca Inca Tern
Chlidonias niger Black Tern (NB) 16c, 16d
Chlidonias leucopterus White-winged Tern (V) 16dd
Sterna hirundo Common Tern (NB) 13a
Sterna dougallii Roseate Tern 13a
Sterna paradisaea Arctic Tern (NB) 13a
Sterna hirundinacea South American Tern 13a
Sterna vittata Antarctic Tern (NB) 13a
Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern (V) 13a, 14, 14a
Sterna trudeaui Snowy-crowned Tern 13a, 14a, 15
Thalasseus elegans Elegant Tern (NB) 12, 12a
Thalasseus sandvicensis Sandwich Tern 12, 12a, 13, 13b
Thalasseus maximus Royal Tern 12, 12a

1. [note on monophyly; within-family relationships.] <incorp. Moynihan 1959, Chu 1998, Crochet papers> Baker et al. (2007) found that Anous and Gygis are sister to (Rynchopidae + (Larinae + Sterninae)) <wait NACC etc.>.   The genetic data of Pons et al. (2005) suggest that Larus is polyphyletic and that genera such as Creagrus and Xema are basal within the group, which would require an inversion of the linear sequence presented here. SACC proposal passed to alter limits of genera and linear sequence.

1a. Placement in the monotypic genus Leucophaeus follows Ridgway (1919), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Burger and Gochfeld (1996), and is based on unique behaviors and plumage patterns of chicks; many authors include Leucophaeus in Larus (e.g., Blake 1977). Also placed by some authors (REFS) in genus Gabianus, with Australian L. pacificus, but this is based on bill shape, a notoriously variable character that is usually unreliable in predicting phylogenetic relationships (e.g., see Bock REF). Genetic data (Pons et al. 2005) indicate that Leucophaeus is embedded within Larus, and that its sister species is L. modestus; however, the same genetic data suggest that Leucophaeus represents a distinct group from the other Larus and that it should be expanded to include four other species, all occurring in South America. SACC proposal passed to alter limits of genera and linear sequence; also followed by Banks et al. (2008).

1b.  Often considered closely related to Larus heermanni (e.g., Howell et al. 1974) but see Pons et al. (2005).

2. Larus belcheri and L. atlanticus were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific, but Devillers (1977) provided rationale for treatment as separate species [check], and this treatment has been followed by most authors, e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Burger & Gochfeld (1996), and AOU (1998); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

3. The AOU (Banks 2003) recently adopted proposal to change English name to "Belcher's Gull"; SACC proposal passed to change the name of Larus belcheri from "Band-tailed" to "Belcher's."

4. Specimen from Tef, Amazonas, Brazil, 23 Nov. 1968 (Sick 1979). check Udvardy & Sall (1987). Photographed in Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick 2010).  At least four records from the Netherlands Antilles; all photographed (Voous 1983; photographs examined by Voous, but photographs evidently not archived). Sight records from Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000, Fairbank 2002, Hilty 2003), and Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986, Downing 2005). <perhaps regular NB on Galapagos?>

4a. Three published photos from Trinidad (Kenefick 2010, 2012). SACC proposal passed to move to main list.  Also, One unpublished photograph and one sight record from Aruba (Voous 1977, 1983) and one unpublished photo from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier); sight record from northwestern Venezuela (Casler 1996); sight record from w. Colombia (Naranjo & Franke 1995).

4b. Larus dominicanus was considered a subspecies of boreal L. marinus by Hellmayr & Conover (1948b).

4b. Crochet et al. (2002) proposed recognizing New World smithsonianus as a separate species from Old World Larus argentatus.

5. Specimen from prov. Buenos Aires, Argentina (Steullet & Deautier 1939, as cited by Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, but identification queried by Post and Lewis 1995). Photos from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Numerous records from Trinidad & Tobago including published photographs (Hayes et al. 2002a, b, Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Several sight records and unpublished photographs from Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000, Fairbank 2002, Hilty 2003). At least eight records from Netherlands Antilles, many based on unpublished photographs (Voous 1983). Photos from Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). <check Tostain & Dujardin 1989 for photos/# records>

6. Called "Gray-headed Gull" in Burger & Gochfeld (1996).

6a. The genetic data of Crochet et al. (1999) and Pons et al. (2005) indicate that Larus as formerly constituted was polyphyletic, and that resurrection of Chroicocephalus for a group of species that includes L. cirrocephalus, L. serranus, L. ridibundus, and L. maculipennis was necessary to maintain Larus as monophyletic; this would represent a partial return to the classification of Ridgway (1919), which also included Leucophaeus pipixcan and L. atricilla in Chroicocephalus.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Chroicocephalus.

6aa. Photos from French Guiana published in Tostain & Dujardin (1989) and from Trinidad & Tobago published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). Additional sight records and unpublished photos from Trinidad & Tobago (Fisher 1978, ffrench & White 1999, Kenefick 2012), Surinam (Davis 1979), and Bonaire (Voous 1983, 1985; photograph examined by Voous). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

6aaa. Formerly listed as "Common Black-headed Gull." SACC proposal passed to change English name to "Black-headed Gull."

6b. Larus maculipennis has been considered (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) a subspecies of Old World L. ridibundus.

6c. Larus belcheri, Larus atlanticus, Leucophaeus modestus, and Leucophaeus fuliginosus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Blasipus.

6d. Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) called "Sooty Gull."

7. [reference needed for records]

7a. The genetic data of Crochet et al. (1999) and Pons et al. (2005) indicate that Larus as formerly constituted was polyphyletic, and that resurrection of Hydrocoloeus for L. minutus was necessary to maintain Larus as monophyletic; this represents a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919). SACC proposal passed to recognize Hydrocoloeus.

8. Photographed in Peru (Haase 1993).  Sight record off Suriname (van Halewijn 1973) and sight records from Trinidad & Tobago (Kenefick 2010, 2012).

8a. Some authors (e.g., Vaurie 1965c, Blake 1977, Cramp & Simmons 1983) merge Xema into Larus.

9. Reasons for placement of this taxon in the monotypic genus Creagrus are based on skeletal morphology (REF), and unusual tail shape and plumage pattern (Ridgway 1919); some classifications (e.g., Blake 1977) included this species in Larus. Genetic data (Pons et al. 2005) confirm that continued treatment in a monotypic genus is warranted, and that it is a basal taxon within the Laridae.

10a. Sterninae (terns) is given family rank in a few classifications (e.g., Gochfeld & Burger 1996), and recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) would support this ranking if Rynchopidae is also treated as family. <wait for better taxon- and gene-sampling for proposal to elevate Sterninae to family rank?> Recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that the genus Anous is basal in the group, followed by Gygis; the rest of the terns form a strongly supported monophyletic group (Sterna + Phaetusa + Larosterna + Chlidonias), but see remarks below on lack of monophyly in broadly defined Sterna. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence, as did Banks et al. (2006).  Baker et al. (2007) found that both Anous and Gygis were outside all gulls + terns + skimmers, but Jackson et al. (2012) found that Gygis (Anous not sampled) was sister to all terns sampled.

10b. Many classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994, Gochfeld & Burger 1996) have used the monotypic genus Gelochelidon for this species, based largely on its somewhat unusual bill shape and behavior, but see (REFS, Randi & Spina 1987) for its merger into Sterna (followed by Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003); <incorp Hackett 1989. McKitrick 1991, Chu 1995>. Recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) provide support for maintaining the monotypic genus Gelochelidon, in that to keep this taxon in Sterna would force the merger of Larosterna and Chlidonias into Sterna. SACC proposal passed to recognize Gelochelidon; see also Banks et al. (2006).

10c. The species name used for Sterna nilotica by Hellmayr & Conover (1948b) was anglica, but see (REF).

11. Many classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Gochfeld & Burger 1996) maintained this species in the monotypic genus Hydroprogne based mainly on its unusually heavy bill. Many classifications (e.g., Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003) have followed Moynihan (1959), Vaurie (1965c), and Mayr & Short (1970) in merging Hydroprogne into Sterna. However, recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) provide support for maintaining the monotypic genus Hydroprogne, in that to keep this taxon in Sterna would force the merger of Larosterna and Chlidonias into Sterna . SACC proposal passed to recognize Hydroprogne; see also Banks et al. (2006).

11a. The species name of Hydroprogne caspia was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) tschegrava, but see Blake (1977).

12. Thalasseus elegans, T. sandvicensis, and T. maxima have traditionally (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) been placed in a separate genus from Sterna, but see Moynihan (1959) and <<> Hackett (1989) for their inclusion in Sterna, as in Blake (1977), AOU (1983, 1998), Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), and Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data strongly support the monophyly of Thalasseus and indicate that its resurrection as a genus is warranted (at least until further data support the monophyly of Thalasseus + true Sterna). SACC proposal passed to recognize Thalasseus; see also Banks et al. (2006).

12a. REFS and Gochfeld & Burger (1996) considered Thalasseus elegans and T. sandvicensis, along with Old World T. bengalensis, to form a superspecies. However, genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that these three do not form a monophyletic group: although elegans and sandvicensis are sister taxa, the sister taxon to T. bengalensis is T. maximus.

13. Thalasseus eurygnathus ("Cayenne Tern") is here considered conspecific with sandvicensis following most recent treatments (e.g., Blake 1977); it is often considered a separate species (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely et al 2001). [elaborate on complexity of situation] <interbreeding REFS = Junge & Voous 1955, Voous 1983, Buckley & Buckley 1984, Norton 1984>. Field observations from the Virgin Islands are consistent with non-assortative mating (Hayes 2004), and the two are extremely similar genetically (Efe et al. 2009).  Populations of eurygnathus breeding in southern South America may deserve separate taxonomic treatment from Caribbean populations (Voous 1968, Escalante 1973).  Efe et al. (2009) found evidence that New World populations (T. s. acuflavidus and T. s. eurygnathus) might be more closely related to T. elegans than to Old World (nominate) T. s. sandvicensis. Proposal needed. <wait NACC/BOU>

13a. Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that S. dougallii, S. hirundinacea, S. vittata, S. paradisaea, and S. hirundo form a monophyletic group that also includes Old World S. striata and S. sumatrana; S. forsteri and S. trudeaui may also be part of this group.

13b. Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as "Cabot's Tern."

14. [reference needs on records; check: van Halewign (1973)]. [Meyer de Schauensee (1966) stated that it had been recorded 200-300 miles off Pernambuco, Brazil, but did not provide a reference -- beyond the geographic limits of this list. According to J. F. Pacheco in Sick (1997), the record mentioned by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) comes from Sclater & Salvin (1871)]

14a. Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) support the suggestion (Schnell 1970b, Gochfeld & Burger 1996, McNicholl et al. 2001) that S. forsteri and S. trudeaui are sister species.

15. Called "Trudeau's Tern" in Ridgway (1919), Gochfeld & Burger (1996), and Dickinson (2003).

16. Differences in vocalizations (Massey 1976) have led most recent classifications to treat New World antillarum group as a separate species from Old World Sternula albifrons. They were previously (e.g., Ridgway 1919) considered separate species, but were then treated as conspecific by Peters (1934), and this was followed by most subsequent classifications (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

16a. REFS and Gochfeld & Burger (1996) considered Sternula antillarum, S. superciliaris, and S. lorata, along with Old World S. albifrons and S. saundersi, to form a superspecies.

16aa. Genetic data (Bridge et al.) indicate that the genus Sternula Gould, 1843, should be resurrected for this group of terns, including Old World S. nereis, representing a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919). SACC proposal passed to recognize Sternula; see also Banks et al. (2006).

16b. Mayr & Short (1970) considered O. anaethetus and O. fuscatus to form a superspecies, but they are not sister species (Bridge et al. 2005).  Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate O. anaethetus and O. fuscatus form a monophyletic group with Pacific Ocean O. lunatus and O. aleuticus, and that these four are the outgroup to all other Sterna (broadly defined) + Chlidonias + Phaetusa. Bridge et al. (2005) recommended resurrection of the genus Onychoprion Wagler, 1832, for this group, formerly included in Sterna (e.g., Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize Onychoprion; see also Banks et al. (2006).

16c. Some classifications (e.g., Moynihan 1959, Blake 1977) merge Chlidonias into Sterna, and this would have to be done to maintain a broadly defined Sterna as in the current classification; see Bridge et al. (2005).

16d. Earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) used the name Hydrochelidon for this Chlidonias, but see <REF>.

16dd.  Published photo from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Aldabe et al. 2010).  SACC proposal passed to move to main list.

17. Phaetusa is included in Sterna in some classifications (e.g., Blake 1977), and this would have to be done to maintain a broadly defined Sterna as in the current classification; see Bridge et al. (2005).

17a. Phaetusa simplex was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as P. chloripoda, but see <REF>.

18. Anous minutus is considered by some authors (e.g., Vaurie 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) to be conspecific with A. tenuirostris of the Indian Ocean; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Gochfeld & Burger 1996).

19. Moynihan (1959) merged Gygis and Procelsterna into Anous, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors; genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005, Baker et al. 2007) do not support the inclusion of Gygis in Anous.

19a. Anous minutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Megalopterus.

20. Procelsterna albivitta has often been considered conspecific (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1993) with P. cerulea (and known as "Blue-gray Noddy"); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

21. Many classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998) consider the subspecies micorhyncha of the Indian Ocean to represent a separate species from Gygis alba, based largely on Holyoak & Thibault (1976) and Pratt et al. (1987), but see Gochfeld & Burger (1996).

RYNCHOPIDAE (SKIMMERS) 1
Rynchops niger Black Skimmer 2, 3, 4

 

1. Ranked in some classifications as a subfamily (REFS) or tribe (Sibley & Monroe 1990) of the Laridae; recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) would support this ranking unless the terns are also treated as a separate family from Laridae. Comparative growth patterns (Cane 1994) suggest that the Rynchopidae are more closely related to the terns (here Sterninae) than to the gulls (Larinae).

2. The species name was formerly given as nigra (e.g., Peters 1934), but Rynchops is now considered masculine, thus forcing the change in ending to agree in gender (Zusi 1996).

3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Zusi (1996) considered Rynchops niger to form a superspecies with African R. flavirostris and Asian R. albicollis; justification for treatment as separate species is weak; in fact, Jaramillo (2003) pointed out that the differences between the Amazonian subspecies cinerascens and nominate niger are as great as those between R. flavirostris and nominate niger.

4. The subspecies cinerascens, of most of South America, was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) considered a separate species from R. nigra, but Peters (1934) treated them as conspecific; this treatment has been followed in most subsequent classifications.

 

 

Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)