Proposal
(136) to South
American Classification Committee
Elevate Phaethornis
longirostris baroni to species rank
Described as a separate species
(under the splitting tendencies of the time) by Hartert (1897), this form was
lumped into longirostris by Cory (1918) and has been considered a
subspecies of this group by nearly all subsequent authors (though the species
name has gone through several changes). It differs from other races in its
greyer overall coloration with paler underparts, white lower tail-coverts and
margins to the lateral rectrices, and slightly smaller size. It was considered
a subspecies of superciliosus by Peters (1945) and Meyer de Schauensee
(1966) and of malaris by Zimmer (1950), whose rearrangement of this
complex was not generally followed. Hinkelmann (1996) and HBW considered baroni
a well-differentiated race of longirostris, and suggested that "future
studies may result in specific separation".
Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
split baroni off as a distinct species based upon plumage differences
and different lek vocalizations (not described in detail).
The plumage differences, although
suggestive, do not seem sufficient to justify a split given the variation in
such characters among the races of superciliosus and malaris as
currently recognized. I am very hesitant to make a split based upon unspecified
differences in lek vocalizations (song??) since song learning in this group is
well established (Stiles & Wolf 1979 and unpubl. data), and we have found
very different-sounding songs within and between leks in Costa Rica, as well as
significant size differences in populations in different parts of this country.
Hence, until a careful study of lek vocalizations and courtship behavior is
done with results justifying such a split, I recommend continuing to recognize baroni
as a subspecies of longirostris, i.e., NO on this proposal.
Literature
Cited:
Hartert
1897, Ibis
Cory 1918, Catalogue
of Birds of the Americas, Part II no. 1.
Peters
1945, Checklist of Birds of the World, vol. 5
ZIMMER, J.
1950a. Studies of Peruvian birds, No. 55. The hummingbird genera Doryfera,
Glaucis, Threnetes, and Phaethornis. American Museum Novitates 1449:
1-51.
Stiles
& Wolf 1979, AOU Monographs no. 28
Meyer de
Schauensee 1966, Species of Birds of South America
HINKELMANN,
C. 1996. Systematics and geographic variation in long-tailed hermit
hummingbirds, the Phaethornis superciliosus-malaris-longirostris
species group (Trochilidae), with notes on their biogeography. Ornitologia
Neotropical 7: 119-148.
Schuchmann
1999, HBW vol. 5
Ridgely
& Greenfield 2001, Birds of Ecuador
Gary
Stiles, November 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Remsen: "NO.
Additional data must be published to justify this split."
Comments from Stotz:
"NO. There is insufficient data for
this split. It seems to me that the whole malaris/superciliaris/longirostris/baroni
complex (as well as other pieces of Phaethornis) would be well served by
a genetic study. I really find it hard to believe that Hinklemann's treatment
(which we follow implicitly) of cis-Andean birds is correct."
Comments from Pacheco: "NO.
Concordo com Stiles, que alegadas
diferenças nas vocalizações emitidas nos 'leks' não podem servir como argumento
válido para separar populações de Phaethornis. Diferenças percebidas nos
tais repertórios vocais, muitas vezes, não acompanham diferenças na morfologia.
Em suma, a sugestão de Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) carece de melhores argumentos."
Comments from Jaramillo: "NO.
Good data for split is lacking. In this
case, where vocal learning occurs, it is important to conduct a comprehensive
study of geographic variation in voice before determining if it is a useful
taxonomic character. Macro-geographic vocal differences could be used to
support other data for a split, but no such vocal analysis exists."
Comments from Nores: "NO, no veo azones de peso
para hacer el cambio. Las características de plumaje responden bien a una subespecie,
y en lo que respecta al canto, no hay indicaciones (sonogramas, etc.)
como para tomar una decisión al respecto."
Comments from Zimmer: "NO.
This whole complex needs a thorough analysis incorporating vocal, morphological
and molecular data. Until then, I'm inclined to stick with the status quo, even
if it too, seems flawed. Splitting baroni may be the right course, but I
don't think there has been anything published that makes a compelling case for
it."