A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee
American Ornithologists' Union

 

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

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

Remsen, J. V., Jr., C. D. Cadena, A. Jaramillo, M. Nores, J. F. Pacheco, M. B. Robbins, T. S. Schulenberg, F. G. Stiles, D. F. Stotz, and K. J. Zimmer. Version [date]. A classification of the bird species of South America. American Ornithologists' Union. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

Criteria for inclusion: a species is included on the list if the evidence for its occurrence in the area is supported by tangible evidence that is available for verification, namely a museum specimen or an archived or published photograph, videotape, or sound recording. The main list currently includes 3,269 species (3043 native breeding species, 1 of which is extinct; 147 nonbreeding residents; 65 vagrants; 14 established, introduced species). Of these, 98 newly discovered species have been described since the publication of Meyer de Schauensee's (1970) classic compilation of the species of birds of South America (i.e., at a rate of 2.5 species per year). Species whose presence is supported only by sight records, or by unpublished or non-archived tangible evidence, are placed on the Hypothetical List.

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

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

 

Current SACC membership =

Carlos Daniel Cadena, Universidad de los Andes

Alvaro Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

Manuel Nores, Centro de Zoolog’a Aplicada, C—rdoba

JosŽ Fernando Pacheco, Comit Brasileiro de Registros Ornitol—gicos

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

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

Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

F. Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia

Douglas F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History

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

 

Technical Advisor for Hybrids and Dubious Taxa:

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

Technical Advisor for Vagrant and Hypothetical Species:

Mark Pearman, Birdquest & Aves Argentinas/Asociaci—n Ornitol—gica del Plata

Technical Advisors:

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

Richard O. Prum, Yale University

Robert S. Ridgely, World Land Trust - US

JosŽ Maria Cardoso da Silva, Conservation International - Brasil

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

Data-base Advisor:

Steve Olesen

 

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

 

Abbreviations:

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

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

 

[VERSION: 9 November 2008]

[Most recent changes to the classification, updated 29 September (click)]

 

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (below)

Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to 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)

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

EXCEL file of SACC list (click)

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


STRUTHIONIFORMES 1

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


1. The relationships among, and classification of, the five families of living ratites are controversial and beyond the geographic scope of this classification. The Rheidae are here treated as a family within the broadly defined ratite order Struthioniformes, following the classification in Folch (1992) and Dickinson (2003); other classifications retain only the ostriches (Struthionidae) and the Rheidae in the Struthioniformes. See (REFS) for evidence that supports a sister relationship between the Rheidae and Struthionidae, but see also Cooper et al. (1992, 2001), Lee et al. (1997), van Tuinen et al. (1998), and Haddrath and Baker (2001). Recent genetic data (Hackett et al. 2008) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. Proposal needed to change SACC classification to reflect this.
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia into Rhea.
3. The montane subspecies tarapacensis (with "garleppi") may deserve recognition as a separate species from lowland nominate
pennata (Blake 1977, FjeldsΠand Krabbe 1990, Folch 1992), and this was followed by Jaramillo (2003).
4. Called "Darwin's Rhea" in Johnson (1965), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Gill & Wright (2006), but this is the name associated with the nominate, Patagonian subspecies (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or when the Andean forms are considered a separate species, with "Puna Rhea" reserved for the Andean species (e.g., Jaramillo 2003). Virtually all other modern literature on South American birds uses "Lesser Rhea" for P. pennata.


TINAMIFORMES 1

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


1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, Garc’a-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Paton et al. 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007). However, recent genetic data (Hackett et al. 2008) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. Proposal needed to change SACC classification to reflect this. The Tinamidae are often (e.g., Cabot 1992) divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae (Tinamus, Nothoprocta, and Crypturellus) and the Rynchotinae (all other genera), based primarily on location of nares; analyses of morphological data (Bertelli et al. 2002) support the monophyly of Rynchotinae, but the Tinaminae may be paraphyletic; genetic data are not yet available. Morphological (Bertelli et al. 2002) and molecular data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) generally support the traditional among-genera and among-species relationships implied by traditional linear sequences except that Crypturellus and Tinamus are proposed as sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of some genera.
1a. Pinto (1938) treated the Amazonian subspecies serratus (with peruvianus, then known as ruficeps) as a separate species from Tinamus major.
2. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) suggested that Tinamus solitarius was probably better treated as a subspecies of T. major.
2a. Nothocercus bonapartei and N. nigrocapillus were considered to form a probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Bertelli et al. (2002) and Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) also found them to be sisters. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
3. An analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that T. osgoodi does not belong in that genus and is embedded within Crypturellus (Bertelli et al. 2002); however, genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski, in press) indicate that osgoodi does belong in Tinamus.
4. Crypturellus cinereus and C. berlepschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) follow Blake (1977), who noted that "the longer toes of berlepschi in proportion to the tarsus, the heavier and usually longer bill, and the conspicuous differences in coloration strongly support the concept of mutually exclusive species." The two species are sisters (Bertelli et al. 2002) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Cabot (1992) noted that the subspecies traylori possibly deserves recognition as separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus.
6. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that C. transfasciatus and Middle American C. cinnamomeus are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
6a. "Crypturellus rubripes," described from northwestern Peru and treated as a species by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now known to be the male plumage of C. transfasciatus (Koepcke 1962).
7. Species limits in this complex (Crypturellus duidae through C. kerriae, also probably including Middle American C. cinnamomeus and C. boucardi) are poorly understood and weakly justified, and a thorough study, especially of voice, is badly needed. Species-level taxonomy and allocation of subspecies to species has been exceptionally labile, perhaps more so than any other species complex in the New World. For example, within subspecies included here in C. erythropus, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that cursitans was actually a subspecies of C. duidae. Blake (1977) suggested that columbianus was possibly a distinct species (as treated by Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or "perhaps a very distinct Colombian isolate of ... C. boucardi." Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered saltuarius as a distinct species, and Blake (1977) suggested that saltuarius might be a subspecies C. kerriae (but that kerriae might also be a subspecies of Middle American C. boucardi). The subspecies idoneus and spencei were treated as subspecies of Middle American C. cinnamomeus in [
early Peters]. Thus, Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that the taxa columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius, treated here as subspecies of erythropus, may deserve species rank or may belong in other species. Crypturellus erythropus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. atrocapillus or of C. noctivagus (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), but is here treated as a species following Blake (1977, 1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Cabot (1992), and Davies (2002). The taxon garleppi, here treated as a subspecies of C. atrocapillus (following Blake 1977, 1979) was formerly considered a subspecies of C. noctivagus (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Peters?) and perhaps merits species rank (Cabot 1992). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. kerriae and C. erythropus, along with Middle American C. boucardi, to form one superspecies, and C. duidae, C. noctivagus, and C. atrocapillus to form a separate superspecies. Bertelli et al.'s (2002) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated that C. boucardi and C. kerriae are sister species, but otherwise found little support for the monophyly of this complex. SACC proposals to rank columbianius, idoneus, and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data.
8. Called "Red-footed Tinamou" by Davies (2002).
9. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) treated C. bartletti as a subspecies of Crypturellus brevirostris, and they are certainly sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. bartletti and C. brevirostris to form a superspecies, but they seem to overlap in portions of western Amazonia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).
Fieldwork is needed to clarify the taxonomic status of C. bartletti, which is so similar to C. brevirostris that true syntopy seems unlikely. <or some similar statement>
10. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that C. tataupa and C. parvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
11. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that the traditional placement of C. casiquiare near C. parvirostris and C. tataupa is not correct, and this it is most closely related to C. brevirostris/C. bartletti (Bertelli et al. 2002). Proposal needed.
12. Rhynchotus maculicollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992, Monroe & Sibley 1993) considered a subspecies of R. rufescens. Maijer (1996) provided evidence that maculicollis differs substantially in vocalizations from R. rufescens. The two species form a superspecies. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculicollis as a separate species.
13. Blake (1977) suggested that Nothoprocta kalinowskii might be better treated as a subspecies of N. ornata; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; analysis of phenotypic characters supports their treatment as sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002). Krabbe and Schulenberg (2005) have shown that N. kalinowskii is a junior synonym of N. ornata branickii. SACC proposal passed to remove kalinowskii from list.
14. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cabot (1992) considered Nothoprocta perdicaria, N. pentlandii, and N. cinerascens to form a superspecies. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), however, considered this group to include N. curvirostris and not N. cinerascens. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that N. perdicaria and N. curvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002). Proposal needed to change linear sequence.
15. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that N. boraquira and N. minor are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nothura darwinii, N. maculosa, and N. chacoensis to form a superspecies; analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that they do form a monophyletic group (Bertelli et al. 2002). Nothura darwinii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are locally sympatric and their voices differ (FjeldsΠand Krabbe 1990, Cabot 1992). Nothura chacoensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Blake 1979) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are sympatric in Paraguay and northern Argentina (Blake 1977, Cabot 1992).
17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eudromia elegans and E. formosa to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered conspecific, but see Conover (1950), Olrog (1959), Blake (1977), Navas & Bo (1981), and Bertelli et al. (2002).
18. The Paraguayan subspecies mira was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a separate species from Eudromia elegans, but it either merely represents an extreme in clinal variation in (Blake 1977), or a weakly diagnosable subspecies of (Blake 1979, Cabot 1992), E. elegans.
19. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Tinamotis pentlandii and T. ingoufi to form a superspecies.


ANSERIFORMES 1

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

ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1a
Dendrocygninae 2
Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous Whistling-Duck 3, 3a
Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling-Duck 3
Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied Whistling-Duck 3
Anatinae
Anser anser Graylag Goose (IN) 3b
Cygnus melancoryphus Black-necked Swan 4
Coscoroba coscoroba Coscoroba Swan 4a
Chloephaga melanoptera Andean Goose
Chloephaga picta Upland Goose 4a
Chloephaga hybrida Kelp Goose
Chloephaga poliocephala Ashy-headed Goose
Chloephaga rubidiceps Ruddy-headed Goose
Neochen jubata Orinoco Goose 5
Cairina moschata Muscovy Duck
Sarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck 6
Callonetta leucophrys Ringed Teal 7, 7a
Amazonetta brasiliensis Brazilian Teal 7a, 8, 8a
Merganetta armata Torrent Duck 8b
Tachyeres patachonicus Flying Steamer-Duck 8
Tachyeres pteneres Flightless Steamer-Duck 9, 10
Tachyeres brachypterus Falkland Steamer-Duck 9, 9a
Tachyeres leucocephalus White-headed Steamer-Duck 9, 11
Lophonetta specularioides Crested Duck 8, 12
Speculanas specularis Spectacled Duck 8,13
Anas americana American Wigeon (NB) 14
Anas sibilatrix Chiloe Wigeon 14, 15
Anas crecca Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16, 17
Anas andium Andean Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas flavirostris Yellow-billed Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas acuta Northern Pintail (NB) 19, 19a, 20
Anas georgica Yellow-billed Pintail 19, 19a, 21, 21a
Anas bahamensis White-cheeked Pintail 19, 21b, 21c
Anas versicolor Silver Teal 22
Anas puna Puna Teal 22
Anas discors Blue-winged Teal (NB) 22a
Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal 22a
Anas platalea Red Shoveler 22b
Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler (NB) 22b
Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard 22c
Netta peposaca Rosy-billed Pochard 22d
Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck (V) 23
Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup (NB)
Mergus octosetaceus Brazilian Merganser
Heteronetta atricapilla Black-headed Duck
Nomonyx dominicus Masked Duck 24
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 25
Oxyura vittata Lake Duck 26


1. Galliformes + Anseriformes, collectively called Galloanseres, are placed in the linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details, as well as see Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain & Houde (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), and Hackett et al. (2008). See Zusi & Livezey (2000), Sorenson et al. (2003), and Cracraft et al. (2004), for support for the traditional monophyly of the Anseriformes.
1a. [within-family relationships] <
incorp Johnson-Sorensen REFs, Livezey REFs, Donne-Gousse et al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005 etc.>
2. The Dendrocygna whistling-ducks were considered a separate family from Anatidae by [REFS]; they are the outgroup to all other Anatidae except Anseranas [REFs, Fain & Houde (2004)].
3. Whistling-Ducks were formerly called "Tree-Ducks"
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
3a. Dendrocygna bicolor and Australasian D. arcuata form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f).
3b. Anser anser is introduced and established on the Falklands Islands (FjeldsŒ & Krabbe 1990). Small feral population in Bogot‡, Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to transfer from Hypothetical List to Main List, based on the situation in the the Falklands.
4. Correct spelling for species name is melancoryphus (David & Gosselin 2002a), not "melanocoryphus" or "melanocorypha."
4a. Woolfenden (1961) proposed that Coscoroba is more closely related to other swans (Cygnus) than to any other waterfowl despite some unusual behavioral and morphological characters.
4b. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species.
5. Neochen is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is jubata (David & Gosselin 2002b).
6. New World sylvicola may be a species distinct from Old World Sarkidiornis melanotos and is treated as such by Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa), and Wetmore (1965). <
cite Livezey if evidence presented other than strict PSC reasoning>.
7. Callonetta leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in genus Anas, but see Johnsgard (1960) and Woolfenden (1961).
7a. Callonetta leucophrys, Amazonetta brasiliensis, Anas crecca, and A. flavirostris/andium were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948aa) placed in a separate genus, Nettion, but see <REF>.
8. Amazonetta was placed in Anas by (REFS), but see Woolfenden (1961) and Johnsgard (1965). Johnson & Sorenson (1999) found that its sister species was likely Speculanas specularis, and that these two plus Lophonetta and Tachyeres formed a monophyletic group.
8a. Called "Brazilian Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
8b. Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa) treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenys as separate species from Merganetta armata, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Johnsgard (1978), and most recent classification.
9. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus, and T. brachypterus to form a superspecies. <
incorp. Livezey 1986>
9a. Called "Falkland Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978).
10. Called "Magellanic Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978), "Magellanic Steamer-Duck" in Carboneras (1992f) and "Fuegian Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). Proposal needed?
11. Recently described: Humphrey & Thompson (1981). Called "Chubut Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
12. Lophonetta specularioides is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) for return to monotypic Lophonetta, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
13. Speculanas specularis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Livezey (1991, 1997) and Johnson & Sorenson (1999).
14. Livezey (1991) advocated resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a). Mareca was merged into Anas following Delacour & Mayr (1945) and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data (Johnson& Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca is monophyletic but also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might make Anas a paraphyletic genus. Peters et al. (2005) found that A. sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in traditional and morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the sister to A. americana.
14a. Carboneras (1992f) considered Anas americana and A. sibilatrix to form a superspecies with Old World A. penelope.
15. Called "Southern Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere.
16. Johnson and Sorenson (1999) found that North American carolinensis was more closely related to A. flavirostris than either was to Old World A. crecca, but NACC delayed treating the two as separate species pending analysis of contact zone in Bering Sea and additional (nuclear) DNA data. <
incorp Delacour & Mayre 1945, Johnsgard 1965>
17. Recorded from n. Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <
get original citations>). At least three sight records, one actually a non-archived video record, for Trinidad (ffrench 1973, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003). One sight record for Aruba (Mlodinow 2004).
18. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and many earlier classifications treated andium as a separate species from A. flavirostris. Following <
find first author to lump>, many authors, from Meyer de Schauensee (1970) to Dickinson (2003), have treated andium as a subspecies of A. flavirostris. Anas andium was considered a separate species from Anas flavirostris by Ridgely et al. (2001), and this was followed by Hilty (2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize andium as separate species. Jaramillo (2003) further suggested that the subspecies oxyptera may also deserve recognition as a separate species from A. flavirostris.
19. Anas acuta, A. georgica, and A. bahamensis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate genus, Dafila, but see <REF>; genetic data (Johnson& Sorenson 1999) suggest that they form a monophyletic group. Anas bahamensis and A. georgica spinicauda were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in a separate genus, Paecilonitta, but see <REF>.
19a. Johnsgard (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anas acuta and A. georgica to form a superspecies.
20. Called "Common Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
21. As noted by Ridgely et al. (2001), no rationale has ever been published for the merger (by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) of mainland Anas spinicauda with A. georgica from South Georgia Island, which was treated as separate species by Hellmayr & Conover (1948a); see also Jaramillo (2003). Proposal needed.
21a. The Colombian subspecies nicefori was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a separate species from Anas georgica, but REFs, Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), and Johnsgard (1979) treated them as conspecific.
21b. Delacour and Mayr (1945) considered Anas bahamensis to form a superspecies with African A. erythrorhyncha.
21c. Formerly known as "Bahama Pintail" (e.g., REFS) or "Bahama Duck" (AOU 1957).
22. Anas puna and A. versicolor are sometimes (e.g., <?> Peters 1931, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f, Dickinson 2003) considered conspecific, but most classifications (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, FjeldsΠ& Krabbe 1990) consider them to be separate species. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species. SACC proposal to treat puna as conspecific with versicolor did not pass. Johnsgard (1965) proposed that these two species were most closely related to African A. hottentota; genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) suggest that this is correct.
22a. Anas puna and A. versicolor were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Punanetta, but see <REF>.
22a. Anas discors and A. cyanoptera were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Querquedula, but see Delacour & Mayr (1945) and McKinney (1970). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species.
22b. Anas platalea and A. clypeata were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Spatula, but see <REF>.
22c.
Netta erythrophthalma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed the genus Aythya, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22d.
Netta peposaca was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Metopiana, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22e. Called "Rosybill" in Johnsgard (1978), Madge & Burn (1988), Dickinson (2003). and elsewhere.
23. Recorded from northern Venezuela (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <
get original citations>). Several sight records for Trinidad & Tobago accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (ffrench & White 1999, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004).
24. Nomonyx dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, 1983, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in the genus Oxyura. See Livezey (1995) and [McCracken REFS] for resurrection of Nomonyx as genus separate from Oxyura, a return to the classification of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a).
25. Andean populations have often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried 1976, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely et al. 2001, Jaramillo 2003) been treated as a separate species, O. ferruginea ("Andean Duck" or "Andean Ruddy-Duck"). However, see Adams and Slavid (1984), FjeldsΠ(1986), and McCracken & Sorenson (2005) for rationale for treating them as conspecific, as done previously (e.g., Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1979), and then followed by FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f). Siegfried (1976) and Livezey (1995) considered ferruginea to be more closely related to O. vittata than to O. jamaicensis, but McCracken & Sorenson (2005) showed that this is incorrect.
26. Called "Argentine Blue-billed Duck" in Johnsgard (1978) and Carboneras (1992f).


GALLIFORMES 1

CRACIDAE (GUANS) 1a

Chamaepetes goudotii Sickle-winged Guan 21
Penelope argyrotis Band-tailed Guan 8
Penelope barbata Bearded Guan 8
Penelope ortoni Baudo Guan 9
Penelope montagnii Andean Guan 9
Penelope marail Marail Guan 10
Penelope superciliaris Rusty-margined Guan 10, 15
Penelope dabbenei Red-faced Guan 10a, 10b
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan 11, 12, 12a
Penelope purpurascens Crested Guan 11
Penelope perspicax Cauca Guan 11, 13
Penelope albipennis White-winged Guan 11, 14
Penelope obscura Dusky-legged Guan 11
Penelope pileata White-crested Guan 15
Penelope ochrogaster Chestnut-bellied Guan 15
Penelope jacucaca White-browed Guan 15
Pipile pipile Trinidad Piping-Guan 8, 16, 17
Pipile cumanensis Blue-throated Piping-Guan 17, 18
Pipile cujubi Red-throated Piping-Guan 17, 19
Pipile jacutinga Black-fronted Piping-Guan 17
Aburria aburri Wattled Guan 8, 16
Ortalis cinereiceps Gray-headed Chachalaca 2
Ortalis garrula Chestnut-winged Chachalaca 2
Ortalis ruficauda Rufous-vented Chachalaca 3
Ortalis erythroptera Rufous-headed Chachalaca
Ortalis canicollis Chaco Chachalaca
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis motmot Variable Chachalaca 4, 6, 7
Ortalis superciliaris Buff-browed Chachalaca 4, 4a
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow 22
Crax rubra Great Curassow 30, 30a
Crax alberti Blue-billed Curassow 30, 30aa
Crax daubentoni Yellow-knobbed Curassow 30, 31
Crax alector Black Curassow 30, 30b, 30c
Crax globulosa Wattled Curassow 30
Crax fasciolata Bare-faced Curassow 30, 30c, 32
Crax blumenbachii Red-billed Curassow
Mitu tomentosum Crestless Curassow 23, 24, 25, 26, 28
Mitu salvini Salvin's Curassow 23, 24
Mitu tuberosum Razor-billed Curassow 23, 24, 27
Mitu mitu Alagoas Curassow 23, 24, 27
Pauxi pauxi Helmeted Curassow 28, 29
Pauxi unicornis Horned Curassow 28, 29

 


1. Galliformes + Anseriformes are placed in linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details. The monophyly of the Galliformes has never been seriously questioned. [relationships among families]
1a. Vaurie (1968) recognized three major divisions within the family based on morphological criteria: the guans and chachalacas (tribe Penelopini), the curassows (Cracini), and the (extralimital) Horned Guan (Oreophasini). Delacour & Amadon (1973) considered the latter to be part of the chachalaca-guan group and recognized only two major divisions, (a) the curassows and (b) everything else. Del Hoyo (1994) recognized two subfamilies, Cracinae for the four genera of curassows and Penelopinae for everything else. Genetic data
(Pereira et al. 2002) identify two main groups, one consisting of del Hoyo's Cracinae as well as Ortalis and Oreophasis, and the other consisting of the guan genera Aburria, Pipile, Penelope, Penelopina (extralimital), and Chamaepetes; however, support was weak for the nodes that include Ortalis and Oreophasis with the curassows. A more comprehensive analysis (Crowe et al. 2006) also supports treating these two groups as subfamilies. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera. SACC proposal to add subfamilies did not pass. <incorp. Amadon 1970>.
2.
Ortalis cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Freidmann 1946, Vaurie 1965b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific with O. garrula, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973); Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered them to form a superspecies.
3. The subspecies ruficrissa was considered a separate species from Ortalis ruficauda by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), but it intergrades with ruficauda in northern Colombia and Venezuela (Phelps 1943, Phelps and Phelps 1958, Vaurie 1965b, del Hoyo 1994).
4. Ortalis guttata and O. superciliaris have been treated as conspecific with O. motmot (see Delacour & Amadon [1973] for rationale); they are considered to form a monophyletic group (Vaurie 1965) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994).
4a. Ortalis superciliaris
was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as O. spixi, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
5. The geographically isolated races columbianus, araucuan, and sqaumata have sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934,
Pinto 1938, Sick 1993, 1997, Ridgely et al. 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis guttata; they have generally been treated as subspecies of O. guttata following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1965). Proposal needed.
6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated ruficeps of eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmot.
Proposal needed.
7
. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) called "Little Chachalaca."
8. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Pipile and Aburria into Penelope, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) do not provide support for their merger.
8a. Penelope barbata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Vaurie REF, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. argyrotis, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973); they are evidently sister species (Delacour & Amadon 1973) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Parker et al. (1985) proposed that they might form a superspecies with P. montagnii.
9. Vuilleumier (1965) treated Penelope ortoni as a subspecies of P. montagnii, but its mostly lowland distribution and local sympatry would argue against such a treatment. <
incorp. Vaurie 1966> Eley (1982) presented evidence that its closest relative was P. marail.
10. Penelope marail and P. superciliaris form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, del Hoyo 1994).
10a. Penelope dabbenei was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934) known as P. nigrifrons, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
10b. Olrog (1960) suggested that Penelope dabbenei might best be treated as a subspecies of P. montagnii.
11. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1994) considered Penelope purpurascens, P. perspicax, P. albipennis, P. jacquacu, and P. obscura to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Vuilleumier (1965), but see Delacour & Amadon (1973). [
incorp. Eley 1982.]
12. Penelope jacquacu has been considered conspecific with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (REF), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Delacour & Amadon (1973).
12a. The granti subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) considered a separate species from Penelope jacquacu, but see <REF>. The Bolivian subspecies speciosa was treated as a subspecies of P. obscura by Peters (1934).
13. Penelope perspicax was considered a subspecies of P. jacquacu by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Blake (1977), or of P. purpurascens by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Meyer de Schauensee (1970); for treatment as separate species, see Delacour & Amadon (1973).
14. Penelope albipennis has been considered an aberrant or albinistic form or morph of P. ortoni (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier REFs), but Eley (1982) provided evidence that it is a valid species-level taxon, as treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973).
15. Delacour & Amadon (1973) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Penelope pileata, P. ochrogaster, and P. jacucaca to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Vuilleumier REFS). Pinto (1938) considered P. jacucaca to be a subspecies of P. superciliaris.
16. The genus Pipile is merged by some (Delacour & Amadon 1973, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) into Aburria. Pipile is currently treated as a separate genus in most classifications. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002, Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Aburria and Pipile are sister taxa, and this is supported by morphological data (Grau et al. 2005). New genetic data (Grau et al. 2005) indicate that Aburria aburri is embedded within Pipile, thus forcing the merger of Pipile into Aburria. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Pipile into Aburria. Proposal badly needed. <
Remsen will draft one>
17. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), evidence for species rank for the four species of Pipile is weak, and various authors have used just about every possible permutation of species limits. Many authors (e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Hilty 2003) continue to treat them as a single species, Pipile pipile ("Common Piping-Guan"), whereas others (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994) consider all four major groups as separate species, the treatment followed here. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. cujubi to form a superspecies, but excluded P. jacutinga. Although the latter has been considered sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977), del Hoyo & Motis (2004 REF) noted that the evidence for sympatry is weak. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977) considered cumanensis to be conspecific with P. pipile, but considered cujubi and jacutinga to be separate species. Peters (1934) considered the genus to contain three species: P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. jacutinga. Pinto (1938) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. pipile (and cumanensis, grayi, and jacutinga as species), but later (Pinto 1964) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. jacutinga. Where P. cujubi nattereri and P. cumanensis grayi meet in eastern Bolivia, they interbreed freely, forming a hybrid swarm (del Hoyo and Motis 2004), and so this suggests that species limits should be re-evaluated and returned to those of Delacour & Amadon (1973), who considered the genus to contain two species: P. pipile (including cumanensis, cujubi, etc.) and P. jacutinga. Proposal needed. [
incorp. Vaurie (1967a)]
18. The subspecies grayi was considered a separate species from
Pipile cumanensis by Pinto (1938), but they intergrade in southeastern Peru (REF). <inc. Gyldenstolpe 1945>
19. The subspecies nattereri is usually considered a subspecies of
Pipile cumanensis (e.g., Pinto 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); however, it is perhaps sympatric with P. cumanensis grayi on the lower Rio Madeira (Vaurie 1967), and if this is verified, the two deserve treatment as separate species (Blake 1977).
20.
21.
Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii to form a superspecies with Middle American C. unicolor.
22. Nothocrax was merged into a broadly defined Crax by Delacour & Amadon (1973), but this merger has seldom been followed; see also Pereira & Baker (2004).
23. Haffer (1987),
Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered all species of Mitu to form a superspecies. <check overlap salvini-tuberosa>
24. Some authors (e.g., Delacour & Amadon 1973, REFS) merge Mitu into Crax. Most authors, however, continue to maintain them as separate genera, and genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with this treatment.
24a.
The four species of Mitu were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990); genetic data support the genus as a monophyletic group if the genetic similarity between M. tuberosum and Pauxi unicornis is due to hybridization (Pereira & Baker 2004).
25. Mitu is neuter, so the correct spellings of the species names are tuberosum and tomentosum (David & Gosselin 2002b).
26. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Lesser Razor-billed Curassow."
27. Mitu tuberosum was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with M. mitu, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed (REF); the rediscovery of M. mitu has allowed documentation of its unique characters that provide rationale for considering it and tuberosum as separate species (REFS). Furthermore, genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that M. tuberosa and M. mitu are not sister taxa and are not particularly closely related.
28. Some authors (Delacour & Amadon 1973, REFS) merge Pauxi into Crax; this merger has seldom been followed, but see Note 29. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Mitu into Pauxi. Proposal badly needed.
29. Pauxi pauxi and P. unicornis
form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994); they were considered conspecific by (REF). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicated that P. unicornis was more similar in its mtDNA sequence to Crax tuberosum than to P. pauxi or other curassows, but the authors suspected that this was a consequence of past hybridization between P. unicornis and C. tuberosum.
30. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered the seven species of Crax to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) support the genus as a monophyletic group
30a. <
Crax globicera (e.g. Chapman 1926) syn, of C. rubra>
30aa. "Crax annulata," described from northern Colombia and treated as a species by Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered to be female plumage of barred morph of C. alberti (REF, del Hoyo 1994). "Crax viridirostris," known from the type specimen, an aviary bird of unknown origin, is now considered to be aberrant C. alberti or a hybrid (C. alberti X Crax sp.) (Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Teixeira REF, del Hoyo 1994). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
30b. Crax alector was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
30c. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Crax alector and C. fasciolata are sister species. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.
30d. "Crax estudilloi," known from a single aviary specimen from Bolivia, was considered a probable hybrid (C. fasciolata and Crax sp.) by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987). <
inc. L. Joseph REF>
31. Peters (1934) considered Crax daubentoni as a subspecies C. alberti. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with their treatment as sister taxa.
32. The northeastern subspecies pinima was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from Crax fasciolata; they have generally been treated as conspecific following <
check Pinto & Camargo 1948, Pap. Avulsos 8, p. 249> and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).


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


1. The New World Quails were treated as a separate family from Old World quails, partridges, and pheasants (Phasianidae) by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Whether these families are sister taxa within the Galliformes was formerly regarded as uncertain (Armstrong et al. 2001, Dimcheff et al. 2001), but recent genetic analyses (Cox et al. 2007) confirm that the New World quail are likely the sister taxon to a group that includes turkeys, pheasants, partridges and Old world quail (Phasianidae), but not the guineafowl (Numididae). Recognition of Odontophoridae as a separate family from the Phasianidae is thus largely arbitrary, but has also been adopted by Carroll (1994), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003). <Incorp Crowe et al. 2006>
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Colinus cristatus to form a superspecies with North and Middle American C. virginianus and Middle American C. nigrogularis. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered Central American C. leucopogon to be conspecific with C. cristatus; they form a superspecies (Stiles & Skutch 1989).
3. Species limits and relationships within montane Odontophorus are complex and are currently maintained largely by historical momentum rather than analysis or data. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus dialeucos and O. strophium to form a superspecies. Carroll (1994) suggested that these two and also O. columbianus, O. atrifrons, and Central American O. leucolaemus could be considered conspecific. However, the traditional placement of O. atrifrons in linear sequences is next to members of other groups, e.g., O. erythrops or O. hyperythrus. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) maintained columbianus as a separate species but stated that it was almost certainly conspecific with O. strophium.
4. Odontophorus erythrops forms a superspecies with Middle American melanotis (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Ridgway & Freidmann 1946, Blake 1977, AOU 1983) have considered them conspecific.
5. Blake (1977) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus hyperythrus, O. melanonotus, and O. speciosus to form a superspecies; Carroll (1994) suggested that they all could be treated as conspecific, as they were formerly by (REF).
6. Called "Banded Wood Quail" in Wetmore (1965) and "Long-legged Colin" in Ridgway & Freidmann (1946).


PODICIPEDIFORMES 1

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


1. The grebes constitute a distinctive lineage with no close relatives, and the monophyly of the order has never been questioned. Morphological similarities to the loons (Gaviiformes) have been interpreted as reflecting relatedness (e.g., Cracraft 1982, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007) and has led to their traditional placement next to each other in most linear classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but genetic data strongly suggest that these morphological similarities are purely due to convergence (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). A recent genetic data set (van Tuinen et al. 2001) suggested that the closest living relatives of the grebes are the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes), a hypothesis that also has recent morphological support (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007) and additional genetic support (Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008), including a sister relationship between their ischnoceran lice (Johnson et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Fain & Houde's (2004) genetic data also suggests that both orders are part of an early radiation that does not include their traditional close relatives such as Ciconiiformes or Gaviiformes. All of the New World grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in one genus, Colymbus, but see <REF>. The sequence of genera and species in this classification follows Storer (1979). [incorporate Simmons 1962, Storer 1963, Bochenski 1994]
2. Rollandia rolland was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer's (1963) analysis of morphology and display behavior in use of Rollandia for this species and micoptera.
3. The subspecies of continental South America, Rollandia r. chilensis, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938; see also FjeldsΠ& Krabbe 1990) considered a separate species from nominate rolland of the Falkland Islands.
4. Rollandia microptera was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Centropelma; Simmons (1962) provided rationale for its merger into Podiceps. Recent classifications usually follow Storer (1963, 1967) in placing this species in Rollandia (see Note 2).
4a. Called "Titicaca Flightless Grebe" in FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Llimona & del Hoyo (1992), and "Short-winged Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977). SACC proposal passed to change from "Short-winged Grebe" (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970) to "Titicaca Grebe." The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).
5. Tachybaptus dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer (1976) in the use of Tachybaptus for this species and its Old World relatives; Pinto (1938) placed it in the genus Poliocephalus.
6. Podiceps major was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the genus Aechmophorus, but see Wetmore & Parkes (1954). Bochenski (1994) proposed that this species be placed in a monotypic genus (Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994) based on morphological differences; see also Storer (1963, 1996), who noted that it has a behavioral display unlike that of any other grebe. Proposal needed.
7. Podiceps andinus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Storer 1979) considered a subspecies of mostly N. Hemisphere P. nigricollis, but see FjeldsΠ(1982a, 1985), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), and Hilty & Brown (1986); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
8. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the northern Andean subspecies, juninensis, might merit recognition as a separate species from Podiceps occipitalis.
9. Storer (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) included Podiceps occipitalis in a superspecies with P. andinus and P. nigricollis; Llimona & del Hoyo (1992) also included P. taczanowskii in that superspecies, but the latter is syntopic with P. occipitalis.
10. Called "Puna Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere; called "Junin Flightless Grebe" in FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change to "Junin Grebe." The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).
11. Recently described: Rumboll (1974).


PHOENICOPTERIFORMES 1

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


1. Various evidence has been interpreted to support treatment of the flamingos within or closest to the Ciconiiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2007), Anseriformes (Hagey et al. 1990), and Charadriiformes (Olson & Feduccia 1980). Given this uncertainty, and recent genetic (Van Tuinen et al. 2001, Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008; see also Fain & Houde 2004) and morphological (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004, Manegold 2006) evidence that their closest relatives are the Podicipediformes, we follow <REFS> and del Hoyo (1992) in treating them in their own order, the monophyly of which has never been questioned. See additional comments under Podicipediformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence to move next to Podicipediformes.
2. The Old World subspecies roseus is recognized as a separate species by some authors (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), with the English name "Greater Flamingo" applied to the Old World species, and either "Caribbean Flamingo" or "American Flamingo" (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty 2003) used for the New World species. Sangster (1997) reviewed the evidence for species rank of roseus and recommended it be returned to species rank. This was followed by NACC (Banks et al. 2008).
<incorp. Knox et al. 2002> SACC proposal passed to return roseus to species rank.
3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phoenicopterus ruber and P. chilensis to form a superspecies; they were treated as conspecific by Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a).
4. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus based on small genetic distances among all flamingoes as measured by DNA-DNA hybridization (Sibley & Ahlquist 1989); further, the distinctions between the genera are based on bill morphology. Kahl (1979b), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), and del Hoyo (1992) maintained Phoenicoparrus as a separate genus. Proposal needed.
5. Called "Puna Flamingo" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), Sibley and Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1992). Proposal needed.


SPHENISCIFORMES 1

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


1. Several studies [REFs, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008] suggest that the Sphenisciformes and Procellariiformes are sister taxa. Mayr and Clarke's (2003) analysis of morphological characters suggested that the Sphenisciformes were the sister to Gaviidae + Podicipedidae, but Mayr (2005) proposed that the penguins were closer to some Pelecaniformes. The most recent analyses of DNA sequence data (Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) are generally ambiguous with respect to relationships of the Sphenisciformes. <incorp. Paterson et al. 1993> The monophyly of the family has never been questioned (and see Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, and Giannini & Bertelli 2004 for recent support). Analyses of morphological and behavioral characters (Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, Giannini & Bertelli 2004) suggest that traditional genera are monophyletic, recently confirmed by genetic data (Baker et al. 2005); however, these analyses each produce different linear sequences, none of which is consistent with the molecular data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) or Baker et al. (2006). The classification and sequence here follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker et al. 2006) indicate that this requires revision to reflect their phylogenetic data. Also, an analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Bertelli & Giannini 2005) produced a phylogenetic hypothesis very similar to that of Baker et al. (2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Unpublished photographic records from the Falklands in 1936 and 1954 (Hamilton 1954) and sight records in 1987 (Wolsey 1987, Curtis 1988), 1996 (Brown 1996), and 1999 (Gates 2001), although evidence for the 1936 record is archived with a photograph at the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, U.K. A specimen collected at the first narrows of the Magellan Straits near Punta Delgada, Chile, is housed at the Univ. of Magallanes, Punta Arenas (Venegas 1978, 1982) and was possibly collected in 1978 (Mar’n 2004). From Argentina, one of two specimens mentioned by Venegas (1982) is still housed at the Museo Mayorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas, collected from the Mitre Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There are also vague sight records from elsewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Chebez & Bertonatti 1994) and at-sea off Buenos Aires (Jehl & Rumboll 1977).
3. Pygoscelis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is antarcticus; papua, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
4.
5. Confirmed by a single record with photograph published from New Island, Falklands, in Dec. 1988 (Lamey 1990).
6. Five Falklands records include one from 1961 to 1966 (Napier 1968), one in the 1980-1981 austral summer (Strange 1992), one during each austral summer from 1997 to at least 2006 (Morrison et al. 2006), another in spring 2003 (Black et al. 2005), and another in 2005 (Morrison et al. 2006). Photographic documentation appears in Birding World (11: 158, 1998) and White & Henry (2001).
7. Called "Erect-crested Penguin" in Mart’nez (1992), Williams (1995), etc. Proposal needed.
8. Eudyptes chrysocome may consist of more than one species (see Jaramillo 2003).
9. [Note needed on old name E. crestatus, as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977].
10. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Mart’nez (1992) considered Eudyptes chrysolophus to form a superspecies with E. schlegeli of Macquarie Island; the latter was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a subspecies of E. chrysolophus. <
incorp. Warham (1980)?>
10a. Vagrants to Argentina supported by specimens in MACN, BM(NH), and FML.
11. Wilson et al. (2000) reported a specimen from Chile.
Three previous records from Chile, one backed by unpublished photo (Valverde & Oyarzo 1996). Proposal passed to add to main list. Proposal passed to change name from "Little Blue Penguin" to "Little Penguin."
12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Spheniscus humboldti and S. magellanicus to form a superspecies with African S. demersus; genetic differences among them are low (REF), and some authors consider them conspecific (REF).


PROCELLARIIFORMES 1

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


1. The monophyly of the Procellariiformes has never been seriously questioned, and modern analyses (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) support the traditional view. The Procellariiformes are likely sister to the Sphenisiciformes (see Note 1 under that order; c.f. Ericson et al. 2006). [note on relationships among families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf Rheindt & Austin (2005).
1a. The monophyly of the Diomedeidae has never been questioned seriously. The linear sequence of genera used here was modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support.
2. Phoebastria and Thalassarche were formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed in the genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick & Wink (2004).
2a. Thalassarche chlororhynchos has been considered to consist of three separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by <REF>. Lima & Grantsau (REF) have found four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri, treated as a species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), Onley & Scofield (2007), and others.
3. Formerly known as "Galapagos Albatross" (e.g., Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
4. Treated as consisting of two species by Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998), Tickell etc., ] proposal needed.
4a. Treated as consisting of four species by Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998), Burg & Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink (2004)] proposal needed.
5. See Willis & Oniki (1985, 1993) for Brazil record (cf. Teixeira et al. 1988); also see Lima et al. (1997) for a second record from Brazil. <
Blake (1977) reported specimen off Cape Horn>
6. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Light-mantled Sooty Albatross."
7. The species name is also frequently given as melanophris. Carlos and Voisin (2008) have published a proposal to conserve the original spelling in the type description, melanophris.
7a. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001] proposal needed.
7b. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)] proposal needed.
8. Thalassarche cauta has been considered to consist of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998). See, however, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) for continued treatment of all as conspecific. <
incorp. Abbott & Double 2003a, b, Double et al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005> SACC proposal passed to split into two or three species. SACC proposal to reverse this decision did not pass. Brooke (2004) treated eremita and salvini as separate species from T. cauta. Subsequent SACC proposal passed to split into 3 species.
9. Called "Shy Albatross" in Onley & Scofield (2007).


 

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


1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned seriously, with the recent exception of possible inclusion of Pelecanoides within the Procellariidae (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006). Linear sequence of genera modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the treatment of Macronectes, Fulmarus, Thalassoica, Daption, and Pagodroma as a monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated tribe rank (Fulmarini) for this group.
2. Macronectes giganteus and M. halli were formerly considered conspecific, and often (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) called "Giant Fulmar." See Bourne & Warham (1966), Hunter (1987), and references therein for treatment of the two as separate species. However, lack of interbreeding where sympatric is achieved primarily through temporal segregation rather than any other barriers to gene flow; see summary of evidence for treating them as conspecific in Penhallurick & Wink (2004), but see also Rheindt & Austin (2005) for support of the two species treatment. Proposal needed?.
2a. Fulmarus glacialoides was considered a subspecies of boreal F. glacialis by (REF), although it was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Priocella; the two species constitute a superspecies (AOU 1998).
3. Called "Antarctic Giant-Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).
4. Formerly called "Pintado Petrel" (e.g. REF) or "Cape Pigeon" (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a).
4a.
At least five birds have been found dead and one alive on the Falkland Islands (Salvin 1896, R. Woods, pers. comm.). However, only three of the specimens, including one of the two from 1979 mentioned by Peatfield (1981), can now be located; they are in the British Museum (R. Woods, pers. comm.).
4b. Treated as consisting of two separate species by Onley & Scofield (2007).
5. Aphrodroma brevirostris was formerly placed in the genus Pterodroma (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992b). Placed in monotypic genus Lugensa by Imber (1985), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Kennedy & Page (2002), and others, because inclusion in that genus would make Pterodroma paraphyletic. Olson (2000) proposed a new genus Aphrodroma for this species, because Lugensa cannot be applied to brevirostris. Bourne (2001) provided rationale for why Lugensa should apply to brevirostris, and this was accepted by Penhallurick & Wink (2004). However, Olson showed that there is no confirmable evidence linking the type species of Lugensa to the Kerguelen Petrel, in the absence of which Aphrodroma must stand (R. Schodde, in litt.). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) not only support treatment of brevirostris in a separate genus, but also indicate that it is more closely related to the Puffinus group of shearwaters than to Pterodroma; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a reinterpretation of those data. Proposal needed to change linear sequence?
6. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support Pterodroma as a monophyletic group (once brevirostris is removed; see Note 5). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) used genetic distance data to propose that Pterodroma was best subdivided into four monophyletic groups, ranked at the subgenus level: (1) subgenus Pterodroma, which of the species recorded from South America includes P. hasitata, P. incerta, P. lessonii, and P. mollis as well as several extralimital species; (2) subgenus Hallstroma, which includes P. neglecta (and thus presumably P. arminjoniana), P. externa, P. phaeopygia (and extralimital P. sandwichensis), and P. inexpectata; (3) subgenus Cookilaria, which includes P. longirostris, P. cookii (and thus presumably P. defilippiana), and extralimital P. hypoleuca; and (4) subgenus "?Proaestrelata" for some extralimital species including P. axillaris and P. nigripennis.
6a. Formerly known as "Hooded Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "Schlegel's Petrel" (REF).
7. Formerly known as "Blue-footed Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977).
8. Pterodroma defilippiana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. cookii.
9. Called "Mas a Tierra Petrel" in Murphy (1936) and Carboneras (1992b). Called "Defilippe's Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Defilippi's Petrel" in Stattersfield (REF), and "De Filippi's" Petrel in Onley & Scofield (2007). Also, Howell et al. (1996) noted that the species is named for F. de Filippi, so the name should be "de Filippi's Petrel". The latter, however, is difficult to spell correctly, and certainly confuses Chileans who know the Philippi's as the ornithologists that had a large influence in Chile. SACC proposal to change English name to "De Filippi's Petrel" did not pass.
10. Pterodroma defilippiana, and P. longirostris are members of the "Cookilaria" species group, also including extralimital P. cookii, P. hypoleuca, P. nigripennis, P. axillaris, and P. leucoptera; they are considered to be each others' closest relatives (Jouanin and Mougin 1979). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) restricted this group; see Note 6 above.
10a. Pterodroma neglecta and P. arminjoniana were considered to form a superspecies with P. alba by Jouanin and Mougin (1979); P. arminjoniana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of P. neglecta.
10b. Pterodroma neglecta was recently discovered to breed on Ilha da Trindade (Imber 2004).
11. [Reference needed for records] <Meltofte & Horneman 1995>.
12. Some authors (REFS) consider the subspecies heraldica to deserve recognition as a separate species from Pterodroma arminjoniana. Also, dark birds have been recognized as a separate species, P. atrata (Brooke & Rowe 1996, Dickinson 2003). proposal needed?
13. Pterodroma phaeopygia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) considered to consist of two subspecies, nominate phaeopygia, which breeds in the Galapagos Islands, and sandwichensis, which breeds in Hawaii. Although Jouanin & Mougin (1979) and Carboneras (1992b) questioned the validity of sandwichensis as a recognizable taxon, Tomkins & Milne (1991) and Browne et al. (1997) provided rationale for considering Pterodroma sandwichensis a separate species from P. phaeopygia based on vocal and genetic differences between them comparable to those between other species-level pairs in Pterodroma; the AOU (Banks et al. 2002) recognized them both as species: P. phaeopygia (Galapagos Petrel) and P. sandwichensis (Hawaiian Petrel); SACC proposal passed to recognize P. sandwichensis as a species.
14. Some treatments (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) have considered Pterodroma cervicalis to be a subspecies of P. externa, with the composite name "White-necked Petrel," but they are evidently not sister taxa (Imber 1985). proposal needed?
14a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Halobaena is more closely related to Pachyptila, as proposed by Imber1985), than to any other genus; Marchant & Higgins (1990) had proposed that Halobaena and Pterodroma were sister genera.
15. Recorded in southwestern Peru (Hughes 1982).
15a. Species limits in the genus Pachyptila are controversial, with most recent classifications recognizing six species in the genus (e.g., Marchant & Higgins 1990,
Carboneras 1992b) <incorp. Bretagnolle et al. 1990>; see summary in Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Pachyptila desolata was considered a subspecies of P. vittata by Cox (1980), and Penhallurick & Wink (2004) considered it and P. belcheri conspecific with P. vittata; see, however, Rheindt & Austin (2005) and references therein. Proposal needed?.
15b. [
note on use of forsteri as species name, as in Pinto (1938), Blake (1977)]
16. Called "Antarctic Prion" in Harrison (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990).
17. Called "Thin-billed Prion" in Harrison (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and elsewhere.
18. Recorded once near Trinidad (ffrench & ffrench 1966). <
check documentation> Sight record off Curaao (Voous 1983). <check Bourne 1995>
18a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Bulweria and Procellaria are sister genera, contrary to previous assessements of morphology that suggested that Bulweria was closest to or embedded within Pterodroma (Olson 1975, Marchant & Higgins 1990). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed recognizing Bulweria + Procellaria at the tribe level (Procellariini).
19. Procellaria cinerea was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Adamastor, but most recent classifications have followed (REF), Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Procellaria.
20. Procellaria conspicillata was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Carboneras (1992b), Dickinson 2003) treated as a subspecies of P. aequinoctialis. Ryan (1998) proposed that the conspicillata should be treated as a separate species from Procellaria aequinoctialis based mainly on vocal differences. SACC proposal passed to treat P. conspicillata as a separate species.
21. Procellaria parkinsoni and P. westlandica have been considered conspecific with P. aequinoctialis (e.g., REFS); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), which would also include P. conspicillata. Procellaria westlandica is considered of regular off Chile and Argentina following Brinkley et al. (2000).
21a. See Olmos (2001) for a summary of records and status off Brazil, and Savigny (2002) for a sight record off Argentina.
22. Called "Black Petrel" in (REFS), Carboneras (1992b). See Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale against use of "Black Petrel."
23. Calonectris was formerly included in genus Puffinus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), but most recent classifications have followed (REF), and Jouanin and Mougin (1979). Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) also support treatment of Calonectris as a separate, monophyletic genus, sister genus to Puffinus.
23a. Based on genetic data, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed that Puffinus be subdivided into two genera: (1) Ardenna for creatopus/carneipes, gravis, griseus, tenuirostris, pacifica, and bulleri; and (2) Puffinus for all other taxa. SACC proposal to split Ardenna from Puffinus did not pass.
24. Some authors (Bannerman and Bannerman 1968, Patteson and Armistead 2004, Onley & Scofield 2007) have recognized the subspecies edwardsii and borealis as separate species from Calonectris diomedea, but see Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Banks et al. (2006) formally recognized edwardsii as a separate species. Proposal badly needed. At least two specimens of edwardsii have been collected in Brazil (Lima et al. 2002), and borealis is known from Trinidad (Collins 1969), but majority of records are not assigned to subspecies; evidently, no certain record of nominate diomedea exists for South America <?>.
24a. Calonectris diomedea was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) known as Puffinus kuhli, but see REFS, Jouanin and Mougin (1979).
25. Formerly called "Gray-backed Shearwater" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "New Zealand Shearwater" (e.g., AOU 1957).
25a. <
incorp. Austin (1996)?>
26. Called "Great Shearwater" in Carboneras (1992b) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
27. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the tradtional treatment of Puffinus creatopus and P. carneipes as sister taxa. Some authors (e.g., REFS, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) consider them to be conspecific.
27a. The status of Puffinus carneipes in South American waters is under review and may be downgraded to "V".
28. Called "Common Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
28a. Jouanin and Mougin (1979) considered Puffinus puffinus (broadly defined), P. assimilis, and P. lherminieri, along with extralimital P. gavia and P. huttoni, to be members of the subgenus Puffinus and thus are considered each others' closest relatives. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are consistent with treatment of the subgenus as monophyletic (if the Galapagos taxon subalaris is removed; see Note 31). Species limits in this complex are controversial, including within the taxa currently or previously treated as subspecies of P. puffinus. As far as can be determined <
check>, South American records all pertain to nominate P. puffinus. <incorp. Wink et al. 1993, Heidrich et al. 1998>
29. Puffinus assimilis and P. lherminieri were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered conspecific; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). However, genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are not consistent with their treatment as sister taxa, but other genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support this treatment.
30. Called "Dusky-backed Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
31. The subspecies subalaris of the Galapagos Islands is traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lherminieri . However, genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) strongly indicate that subalaris is a species-level taxon that is closely related to P. nativitatis and is only distantly related to P. lherminieri. Murphy (1927) long ago noted the morphological distinctiveness of this taxon. SACC proposal passed to recognize subalaris as a species.


 

HYDROBATIDAE (STORM-PETRELS) 1, 1a

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

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

 


1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned seriously. Linear sequence of genera is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002) wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Many classifications (e.g., Carboneras 1992c) divide the family into two subfamilies. Recent genetic data supports recognition of these two subfamilies (Penhallurick & Wink 2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize two subfamilies. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicates a major overhaul of generic limits is needed in the Hydrobatinae, e.g., Oceanodroma is paraphyletic and the genera Cymochorea, Halocyptena, and Thalobata should be resurrected. SACC proposal to recognize these genera did not pass. SACC proposal to merge Ocenodroma into Hydrobates did not pass. However, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a critique of those data and their taxnomic interpretation. Most species were formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called simply "Petrel" rather than "Storm-Petrel."
1a. SACC proposal to change to lower case the "p" in "Storm-Petrel" did not pass.
2. Fregetta grallaria and F. tropica were considered conspecific by (REFS).
2a. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies exasperatus might be a separate species from nominate Oceanites oceanicus.
3. Called "White-vented Storm-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty and Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Schulenberg et al. (2007), and elsewhere; proposal needed.
4. Oceanodroma microsoma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Jouanin and Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992c) placed in the monotypic genus Halocyptena, evidently based mostly on tail shape and body size, but most recent classifications have followed (REF, AOU 1983) in merging this into Oceanodroma. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that this species is more closely related to Oceanodroma tethys, O. melania, and O. matsudairae that any of these are to other Oceanodroma; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocate resurrection of Halocyptena for these four species. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.
5. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "Galapagos Storm-Petrel."
5a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Harcourt's Storm-Petrel."
5b. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of the monotypic genus Thalobata for O. castro. SACC proposal to recognize Thalobata did not pass.
5c. Recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2007) suggest that Oceanodroma castro consists of two or more species. Proposal needed.
6. Oceanodroma leucorhoa may actually consist of two or more species (Ainley 1980, 1983; cf. Bourne & Jehl 1982). The form that occurs off the Galapagos Islands, here treated as the subspecies socorroensis, was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) treated as a separate species ("Dusky-rumped Storm-Petrel") or (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) as a subspecies of O. monorhis of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
6a. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of the genus Cymochorea for O. leucorhoa and O. markhami, along with extralimital O. monorhis and O. tristrami. SACC proposal to recognize Cymochorea did not pass.
7. Supposed specimens of Oceanodroma markhami from the Atlantic side of South America are misidentified O. leucorhoa (Teixeira et al. 1986).
7a . Called "Madeiran Storm-petrel" in Carboneras (1992c).
8. Oceanodroma markhami was considered conspecific with O. tristrami of the eastern Pacific Ocean by <?> Austin (REF).
9. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Sooty Storm-Petrel."
10. Called "Hornby's Storm-Petrel" in Carboneras (1992a), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Onley & Scofield (2007). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
11. Oceanodroma melania was formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) placed, with O. matsudairae of the eastern Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, in a separate genus, Loomelania, but see Austin (1952) and Palmer (1962). The two species might be better treated as conspecific (Carboneras 1992c). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that O. melania forms a group with O. microsoma and O. tethys; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocate recognizing this relationship (including O. matsudairae) by placing them in the genus Halocyptena. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.


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



1. The monophyly of the family, consisting of a single genus, has never been questioned. However, genetic data (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006) indicate that they may be embedded within the Procellariidae. Proposal needed, minimally to move in linear sequence of families. Linear sequence of genera used here is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support.
2. Carboneras (1992b) considered Pelecanoides garnoti, P. georgicus, and P. magellani to form a superspecies [
but not reflected in his linear sequence or Kennedy-Page -- check latter].
3. Correct spelling for species name is urinatrix, not "urinator" (David & Gosselin 2002a).
4. Called "Subantarctic Diving-Petrel" in
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
5. (REFS) recognized the subspecies berard of the Falkland Islands as a separate species from Pelecanoides urinatrix
.
6. Gregory (1994) reported that a specimen was salvaged on the Falkland Islands on 31 March 1990
(and specimen "sent to BAS" - track down to verify).


PELECANIFORMES 1

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

PELECANIDAE (PELICANS) 2
Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican 3
Pelecanus thagus Peruvian Pelican 3

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

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

ANHINGIDAE (ANHINGAS)
Anhinga anhinga Anhinga 15

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



1. The order Pelecaniformes as traditionally constituted is polyphyletic (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007, Mayr 2007, Hackett et al. 2008; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007);
incorp Kennedey et al. 1996?] but is maintained here pending further data. [family sequence (REF)]. Genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) are consistent in showing that the Phaethontidae are not at all closely related to other families in this order, but see Livezey & Zusi (2007) for recent support from morphological data. Proposal badly needed to remove Phaethontidae from Pelecaniformes. Support is strong for the monophyly of a group that includes Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and probably Fregatidae (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Harshman 1994, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008), but not the Pelecanidae. Proposal badly needed to remove all other families from Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of each family has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by or corroborated with genetic data for the Sulidae (Friesen & Anderson 1997), the Phalacrocoracidae (Kennedy et al. 2000), the Phaethontidae (Kennedy & Spencer 2004), and the Fregatidae (Kennedy & Spencer 2004); they are often treated as containing a single genus each. The sequence of genera and species within each family follows Dorst and Mougin (1979).
1a.
<Phaethontidae vs. Phaethonidae>
1b. Genetic data (Kennedy and Spencer 2004) indicate that Phaethon aethereus is basal to the other two species, and this supports the linear sequence used here.
1c. Specimens recorded from "off" Chile (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Blake 1977). <possibly unpublished specimens -- no real citation provided, nor how close to mainland - trace >. Published photographs from Brazil (off Bahia; Couto et al. 2001). Sight record from Peru (HogsŒs 1999).
2. The Pelecanidae are almost certainly not closely related to the other families included in the "Pelecaniformes"; see Note 1 The most likely sister taxon is the Afrotropical Balaeniciptidae (Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Fain and Houde 2004, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr 2003, Mayr and Clarke 2003) and Scopidae (Hackett et al. 2008).
3. Some authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) recognized South American thagus as a separate species from Pelecanus occidentalis. SACC proposal passed to treat thagus as separate species. This treatment was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and Banks et al. (2008). <
incorp. Wetmore 1945>
3a. <
sequence within Sulidae; incorp. Friesen & Anderson (1997)>
4. Carboneras (1992e) and other references followed the merger (e.g., Dorst and Mougin 1979) of Morus into Sula; proposal needed? See Olson & Warheit (1988) and Van Tets et al. (1988) for reasons for maintaining Morus as a separate genus.
5. SACC proposal passed to add to main list; based upon photograph taken at Macab’ Island, n. Peru, on 22 July 1999, published in Garc’a-Godos (2002). In Argentina, an earlier photograph was published from the Beagle Channel taken on 21 Jan. 1995 (Ram’rez Llorens 1996); there are three additional sight records from R’o Negro province Nov. 1992, Nov. 1995, and Oct. 1996 (Bergkamp 1995, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). The species was also recorded off Rio Grande do Sul, se. Brazil, from Jul. to Aug 1992 (unpublished photographs) and in Apr. 1983 (Vooren 2004; published photograph).
6. Specimen from Santa Catarina, Brazil (Bege & Pauli 1986).
7. Sula granti was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) considered a subspecies of S. dactylatra, but Pitman and Jehl (1998) presented evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; genetic data are also consistent with this treatment (Friesen et al. 2002). SACC proposal to change the English name to "Grant's Booby" did not pass.
7a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Blue-faced Booby."
8. <
sequence within family; incorp. Kennedy et al. 2001, Siegel-Causey refs>
8a. Phalacrocorax harrisi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the monotypic genus Nannopterum, but recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a) have usually followed <?> Dorst and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Phalacrocorax. [note needed on the lump, Causey REFS?]
9. [
note needed on Siegel-Causey treatment of genera, Hypoleucus, Stictocarbo, Leucocarbo, Notocarbo]
10. See Browning (1989) for use of brasilianus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), instead of olivaceus, as in Pinto (1938), AOU (1957), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), etc.
10a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1983) known as "Olivaceous Cormorant." SACC proposal did not pass to change spelling of English name to "Neotropical."
11. Called "Rock Shag" in Orta (1992a), and "Rock Cormorant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977). Proposal needed.
12. Called "Guanay Shag" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed.
13. Phalacrocorax atriceps
here includes P. albiventer, formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) treated as a distinct species ("King Cormorant"). Devillers & Terschuren (1978) considered albiventer to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, and Siegel-Causey (1986) considered it to be a color morph of atriceps. [incorp. Rasmussen 1991] .
13a. Called "Imperial Shag" in FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990).
14. Some recent authors (e.g., Siegel-Causey 1988, Siegel-Causey & Lefrevre 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a, Jaramillo 2003) have considered the subspecies bransfieldensis of Antarctica and South Shetland Island to deserve recognition as a separate species from Phalacrocorax atriceps. At least one record of bransfieldensis for South America (Brazil; Lima et al. 2002). Proposal needed.
15. Anhinga anhinga was considered to form a superspecies with Old World A. rufa, A. melanogaster, and A. novaehollandiae by Mayr & Short (1970); the Old World taxa are treated as conspecific by Orta (1992b) and Dickinson (2003).
16. Genetic data (Kennedy & Spencer 2004) indicate that Fregata ariel is basal to all other species in the genus. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.


 

CICONIIFORMES 1

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

 



1. The monophyly of the Ciconiiformes is controversial. Even with the Cathartidae excluded (see below), recent morphological (Mayr & Clarke 2003) and genetic (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004,
Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) are unable to confirm the monophyly of a group that consists of Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae.
2. The monophyly of the family Ardeidae has never been seriously questioned other than the treatment of Cochlearius in a separate, monotypic family. Sequence of genera (and some species within genera) derives from the phylogeny of Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000), and some unpublished data from Fred Sheldon. The family is often (e.g., Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992) subdivided into four subfamilies, but these do not correspond precisely to the branching pattern of the molecular phylogeny of Sheldon et al. (2000), in which there is also some conflict depending on which molecular data-set is used (e.g., whether tiger-herons and Cochlearius are sister groups); thus, no subfamilial divisions are used here.
2a. Tigrisoma fasciatum was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of T. lineatum, and the subspecies salmoni was considered a separate species (e.g.,
Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965); REFS, and <?> Eisenmann (1965) provided rationale for why T. fasciatum should be considered a separate species and why salmoni should be considered a subspecies of T. fasciatum.
2b. Tigrisoma mexicanum was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1965) placed in a monotypic genus, Heterocnus.
2c. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) used for mexicanum was cabanisi, but see Blake (1977)
3. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) known as "Chestnut-bellied Heron."
4. Cochlearius was formerly placed in a monotypic family Cochleariidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Bock (1956), Payne & Risley (1976), and Sheldon (1987). Plumage and skeletal characters have often been interpreted as suggesting as close relationship to Nycticorax (Bock 1956, Cracraft 1967). Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) placed it in a tribe, Cochlearini, related to but separate from night-herons, based on a combination of morphological and plumage characters. Genetic data, however, do not confirm a close link between Cochlearius and night-herons, but perhaps a closer relationship to Tigrisoma (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998).
4a. The subspecies zeledoni of Middle America and northwestern South America may deserve treatment as a separate species from Cochlearius cochlearius (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see (REFS).
5. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Nycticorax nycticorax to form a superspecies with Old World N. caledonicus.
6. Nyctanassa has been included in Nycticorax in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the basis of skeletal differences <
check Adams 1955>. Genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) also indicate substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with treatment as separate genera; furthermore, it is not yet certain that the two are sister genera.
7. The relationship of Zebrilus to other herons has been controversial. In terms of some details of egg color, nest placement, plumage features, and some morphological characters as well as overall skeletal morphology, it is like the bitterns, but in terms of other plumage and morphological characters, it is like the tiger-herons (see Payne & Risley 1976, Sheldon et al. 1995). Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995), however, place it with the bitterns.
8. Mayr & Short (1970) considered all species of Botaurus to form a superspecies. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. pinnatus to form a superspecies with North American B. lentiginosus and Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus. Payne & Risley (1976), however, note that New and Old World Botaurus differ substantially in skeletal structure, and that pinnatus also differs from lentiginosus in skeletal features; they suggest that the only candidates for superspecies designation are Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus. 9. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ixobrychus exilis to form a superspecies with Old World I. minutus and I. sinensis, and including I. novaezelandiae when given species rank.
10. Butorides virescens and B. striata are often considered conspecific (e.g., Payne 1979, Hancock & Kushlan 1984, Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis 1992), based mainly on Payne (1974), who reported extensive interbreeding where their ranges meet. Recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) have followed Monroe & Browning (1992), who interpreted specimen data to indicate that the two taxa seldom hybridized (see also Voous 1986), thus representing a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). More recently, Hayes (2002) provided evidence of frequent hybridization as well as competitive exclusion and assortative mating, and Hayes (2006) found that on Tobago, where both occur, hybridization is rare and assortative mating predominates.
11. Payne & Risley (1976) merged Butorides into Ardeola based on skeletal similarities, but genetic data do not support this (Sheldon et al. 1995, Sheldon et al. 2000).
12. SACC proposal to split Butorides sundevalli from B. striatus did not pass, which found the analysis by Payne (1974) sufficient to place burden-of-proof on recognizing sundevalli as a species on obtaining new data. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and AOU (1998) recognized sundevalli as a species implicitly, but it was treated as conspecific in Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992) and elsewhere. <
incorp. Snow 1975> (Beyond scope of this work is the problem that current classifications consider Neotropical and all Old World taxa as conspecific, separate from B. virescens, which would seem difficult to defend given what we know about limited gene flow between parapatric virescens and Neotropical striatus).
13.
Butorides is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is striata (David & Gosselin 2002b).
13a. Photograph from Fernando de Noronha island (Silva-e-Silva and Olmos 2006). SACC proposal pending to add to main list. Previous sight record also from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989).
14. Bubulcus is included in the genus Ardeola in some classifications (e.g., REF, FjeldsΠ& Krabbe 1990), but Wetmore (1965) and Payne & Risley (1976) listed many characters of Bubulcus that differ from other species in Ardeola. Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) merged Bubulcus into Egretta based mainly on morphometric data, and this was followed by Haverschmidt & Mees (1994). Genetic data, however, do not support a close relationship between Bubulcus and Egretta, but suggest a close relationship to Ardea (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998).
15. Band recovery from Trinidad, 27 Aug 1959 (Baudouin-Bodin 1960) and published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick & Hayes 2006); also additional sight records for Trinidad and Tobago accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Sick (1993) cited another band recovery from Capitao Poco, Ourem, Par‡, in Dec 1975.
16. Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered
Ardea cinerea, A. herodias, and A. cocoi to form a superspecies.
17. Formerly (e.g.,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "White-necked Heron," but this name is also used (e.g., Mart’nez-Vilata & Motis 1992) for Old World Ardea pacifica.
17a. One photographed on Trinidad 24 Sept.-10 Oct. 2002 (Kenefick 2004) and published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Also, one sight record from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989)
18. Ardea alba was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983) placed in monotypic genus Casmerodius, but morphometric (Payne and Risley 1976), vocal (McCracken & Sheldon 1987), and genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) do not support recognition of this as a separate genus from Ardea. Some classifications (e.g., Blake 1977) have placed Ardea alba in Egretta, but see Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), and McCracken & Sheldon (1998) .
18a. Formerly known as "Common Egret" (e.g., AOU 1957, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994); called "Great White Egret" in Voous (1983), FjeldsŒ & Krabbe (1990), and Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992).
19. Genetic data indicate that Syrigma, whose relationships have long been considered uncertain, is the sister genus to Egretta (McCracken & Sheldon 1988, Sheldon et al. 2000).
20. <?Bock (1956)> included Pilherodius in Nycticorax based on plumage similarities, but neither morphometric (Payne & Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) support this; genetic data indicate that it is a member of the Egretta-Syrigma group.
21. Egretta tricolor was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Hydranassa. Bock (1956) also placed E. rufescens and E. caerulea in Hydranassa. Neither morphometric (Payne & Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) support this group as monophyletic.
21a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Louisiana Heron."
22.
Egretta rufescens was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Dichromanassa, but see [REF].
23. Recorded from Trinidad (Murphy & Nanan 1987, Kenefick & Hayes 2006) and Tobago (ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
24. Egretta garzetta has been recorded many times in Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & Hayes 1998, ffrench & White 1999, Hayes & White 2001, White & Hayes 2002, Kenefick & Hayes 2006), including a specimen (Downs 1959). There is a band recovery from Suriname (Haverschmidt & Mees 1994), and a photograph from Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). There are sight reports from Guyana (Ryan 1997) and Aruba (Mlodinow 2004).
25. Egretta gularis and E. garzetta were considered conspecific in Mart’nez-Vilata and Motis (1992); Payne & Risley (1976) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered E. gularis, E. garzetta, and E. thula to form a superspecies.
25a. Egretta thula was formerly (e.g.,
Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Leucophoyx, but see Bock (1956), Wetmore (1956), and Dickerman & Parkes (1968).
26. Egretta caerulea was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Florida, but see Dickerman & Parkes (1968), Payne & Risley (1976), and McCracken & Sheldon (1998).



THRESKIORNITHIDAE (IBISES) 1
Eudocimus albus White Ibis 2, 3, 3a
Eudocimus ruber Scarlet Ibis 2
Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis 4
Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis 4
Plegadis ridgwayi Puna Ibis 5
Cercibis oxycerca Sharp-tailed Ibis
Mesembrinibis cayennensis Green Ibis 6
Phimosus infuscatus Bare-faced Ibis 7
Theristicus caerulescens Plumbeous Ibis 8
Theristicus caudatus Buff-necked Ibis
Theristicus melanopis Black-faced Ibis 9
Platalea leucorodia Eurasian Spoonbill (V) 10
Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill 11

 



1. The monophyly of this family has never been seriously questioned. Two subfamilies are traditionally (e.g., Matheu & del Hoyo 1992) recognized: Threskiornithinae for ibises and Plataleinae for spoonbills; because the main distinction has to do with bill shape, additional information, especially genetic, is required to recognize a major, deep split in the family.
2. Eudocimus albus and E. ruber have similar displays, interbreed to a limited degree, and are interfertile, but nonetheless mate assortatively in Venezuela, with the overwhelming majority of breeding birds phenotypically "pure" rather than intermediate (Ramos & Busto 1983, 1985, 1987); they constitute a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were considered conspecific by Hancock et al. (1992) because of the frequent interbreeding; see their extensive discussion. Proposal?
3. The name formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) used for the genus Eudocimus was Guara, but see (REF>.
3a. Called "American White Ibis" in Hancock et al. (1992) and Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) to distinguish it from "Australian White Ibis" (Threskiornis molucca). Proposal?
4. Plegadis falcinellus and P. chihi form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were formerly considered conspecific by some (e.g., Palmer 1962), but they breed sympatrically in Louisiana, USA (AOU 1983, 1998, <BNA>).
5. Plegadis ridgwayi was considered part of the P. falcinellus superspecies by REF, but see Short (1975).
6. Called "Cayenne Ibis" in Wetmore (1965).
7. Called "Whispering Ibis" in Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) and elsewhere. Proposal?
8. Theristicus caerulescens is often (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Short 1975, Hancock et al. 1992) placed in monotypic genus Harpiprion, but most authors have followed (REF) and Steinbacher (1979) in merging this genus into Theristicus. Proposal needed. <
Hancock et al. 1992 suggest that no data support this lump>
9. Theristicus melanopis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Hancock et al. 1992) considered conspecific with T. caudatus. However, it (with branickii) was considered a separate species by Steinbacher (1979), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), Matheu & del Hoyo (1992), Ridgely et al. (2001), etc., but no explicit rationale has been published [?]; they form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered branickii as separate species ("Andean Ibis") from melanopis. Proposal?
10. Photo from Tobago published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Also, one was photographed on Fernando de Noronha island in Jan.-Feb. 1999 (Dutch Birding 24: 205).
11. Platalea ajaja was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1998) placed in monotypic genus Ajaia, but see Hancock et al. (1992) and Banks et al. (2002) for inclusion in Platalea, as it is now typically treated (e.g., Mayr and Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979 <
check citation>, Matheu & del Hoyo 1992, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) .


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

 



1. [
Note on relationships of the family, monophyly]. (incorp. Mayr & Clarke 2003, Hackett et al. 2008). The monophyly of the Ciconiidae is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS).
2. Ciconia maguari was formerly
(e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Euxenura, but see Kahl (1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b) and Wood (1983, 1984) for behavioral and morphological reasons for its merger into Ciconia; followed by Kahl (1979a), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Elliot (1992), and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
3. Formerly
known as "Wood Ibis" (e.g., AOU 1957) or "American Wood-Ibis" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970); called "American Wood Stork" in Hancock et al. (1992).


CATHARTIFORMES 1

CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURES) 1
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture 2
Cathartes burrovianus Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 4
Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 5
Coragyps atratus Black Vulture 6
Sarcoramphus papa King Vulture
Vultur gryphus Andean Condor


1. Ligon (1967) summarized previous evidence and presented new evidence on skeletal morphology, myology, and natal plumage that suggested that the Cathartidae were more closely related to the Ciconiidae than to other Falconiformes. <summarize subsquent evidence/against ciconiiform relationship, Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Avise et al. (1994), Griffiths (1994), Mayr & Clarke (2003) , Fain & Houde (2004) etc., >. Recent genetic data strongly refute a cathartid-stork relationship (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2006, Slack et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to remove from Ciconiiformes. The monophyly of the Cathartidae is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS), and the family is sufficiently distinctive that fossil cathartids can be recognized as far back as the middle Eocene (e.g., Cracraft & Rich 1972). Proposal passed for placement in separate order, Cathartiformes.
2. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the resident tropical subspecies ruficollis and the southern subspecies group (jota and "falklandica") might merit recognition as separate species from the northern Cathartes aura group.
3.
Cathartes melambrotus
was confused with and considered conspecific with C. burrovianus until Wetmore (1964) described it and showed that it was a valid species, sympatric with C. burrovianus. Amadon & Bull (1988) considered Cathartes burrovianus and C. melambrotus to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric.
4. Cathartes burrovianus was formerly (e.g.,
Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as C. urubutinga, but burrovianus has priority (Stresemann & Amadon 1979).
5. Correct spelling of species name is melambrotus, not "melambrotos" (as, e.g., in Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
6. Called "American Black Vulture" in Houston (1994) to distinguish it from Palearctic Aegypius monachus ("Eurasian Black Vulture"); the latter is called Cinereous Vulture in Dickinson (2003).
SACC proposal to change to American Black Vulture did not pass.


 


 

Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)

 

 

 

 

 

starting 7 June 2002:

</P></BLOCKQUOTE>

 

<script language="JavaScript" type="text/javascript" src="http://pub40.bravenet.com/counter/code.php?id=363423&usernum=3391039029&cpv=2"></script>

 

</BODY>

</HTML>