Proposal
(9) to South American Classification
Committee
Continue to recognize Otus roboratus, Otus petersoni, and Otus
marshalli as species
Because vocalizations are so important to understanding
relationships within this order (at least until there are reliable molecular
data), I refer committee members to the latest version of Hardy et al.'s (1999
edition), Voices of the New World Owls. You will need to listen to that
publication to follow what I'm presenting below.
I propose that we recognize Otus roboratus and Otus
petersoni based on the publications that covered those species. In the
description of petersoni Fitzpatrick and O'Neill (Wilson Bull.
98:1-14, 1986) considered the possibility that petersoni might be a
smaller, allopatric population of O. [ingens] colombianus.
However, when I recorded and collected colombianus in northwestern
Ecuador in 1988 (on Hardy et al. 1999), it immediately was clear that Traylor (Natural
History Miscellanea, no. 99, 1952) correctly allied colombianus with
ingens. This leads to the question whether colombianus should be
recognized as a species. Fitzpatrick and O'Neill recommended species status,
which was followed by Kong et al. (Owls, A guide to the Owls of the World,
1999); however, Hardy et al. (1999) and Ridgely and Greenfield (The Birds of
Ecuador, 2001) elected to rank it as a subspecies of ingens. There
are morphological differences (measurements and plumage characteristics;
Traylor [1952]; König et al. [1999]) and colombianus is allopatric from ingens
(so if you invoke the phylogenetic species concept it is an easy decision), but
their voices are quite similar. Without any other information this comes down
to a judgment call. To be consistent with what I propose we do for the guatemalae
complex (see below), then we should probably treat colombianus as a
subspecies of ingens.
One final comment regarding petersoni: Marshall,
Behrstock, and König (review of the 1990 version of Hardy et al.'s owl tape, Wilson
Bull. 103:311-315, 1991) considered petersoni as a subspecies of marshalli,
despite the fact that marshalli appears fairly distinct from petersoni
in plumage. In an apparent reversal, König et al. (1999) recognized both as
species. There still is no unequivocal recording of marshalli I
recommend that we treat marshalli as a species.
Mark B.
Robbins, Dec. 2001
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Schulenberg: "YES. This ignores (for now) the notion that petersoni
is the same thing as was described earlier as Otus huberi Kelso (or
Kelso and Kelso), described from (if faulty memory serves me)
"Bogota".
“I know that Marshall was (still is?) pushing the huberi-has-priority
(and is the same thing as petersoni) idea, but I am not certain that he ever
got this into print.
“I guess it's a moot point for now: if someone believes in
the notion and wants to run with it, they can write their own proposal. For me,
I don't have any idea if Marshall was right or not, and it is easier to let
sleeping types lie.
Comments from Alvaro Jaramillo: "YES,
lets continue to recognize those species. I guess a yes vote lumps colombianus
into ingens? Is a separate proposal needed to do that, or have we just
done it?”