Proposal
(282) to South American Classification Committee
Merge Geranoaetus
into Buteo
Effect on SACC: This would merge monotypic Geranoaetus
into Buteo.
Background & New information: Wetmore (1933) merged Geranoaetus
into Buteo because he could find no way to diagnose the genus other
than size. This was followed by some classifications (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950). Thus its close relationship to that genus had
been recognized previously.
Geranoaetus melanoleucus has been maintained in a
monotypic genus in recent classifications largely on the basis of Amadon
(1963), who argued that it should be maintained as a separate genus because of
its (1) relatively short ("although no more so than in one or two species
of Buteo") and graduated tail, (2) somewhat unusual plumage, and
(3) lengthened nape feathers. He concluded with "Although none of the
characters mentioned is in itself decisive, taken together they make it
desirable, or so it would seem, to keep Geranoaetus separate from Buteo.
An equally important consideration is, as implied previously, that Geranoaetus may
be closer to other South American buteonine genera, notably Buteogallus and
Leucopternis, than it is to Buteo proper."
Riesing et al.'s (2004) analysis of mtDNA sequences placed Geranoaetus
well within Buteo, in fact as the sister to Buteo polyosoma/poecilochrous
(which makes some biogeographic sense). Although sampling additional genes
and taxa may change the branching pattern somewhat, it seems unlikely that it
will bounce Geranoaetus out of Buteo. Certainly, Amadon's hypothesis about a relationship to Buteogallus
etc. is falsified.
Clark (2006) also favored a merger into Buteo, noting that
is superficially similar to Old World Buteo rufofuscus and B. augur,
and that historically, the main reason for maintaining it as a separate genus
was its large size (hardly a genus-level criterion).
Analysis and Recommendation:
With the sole basis of maintaining this monotypic genus Amadon's
statements, which he himself admitted are weak and represent a subjective
opinion, and with genetic data placing it deep within Buteo, I see no
reason to perpetuate this monotypic genus.
References:
AMADON, D. 1963. Comparison
of fossil and recent species: some difficulties. Condor 65: 407-409.
CLARK, W. S. 2006.
Melanistic specimen of Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle, (Geranoaetus
melanoleucus) with comments on the species' taxonomic position. J. Raptor
Research 40: 86-88.
RIESING, M. J., L.
KRUCKENHAUSER, A. GAMAUF, AND E. HARiNG. 2003. Molecular phylogeny of the genus
Buteo (Aves: Accipitridae) based on mitochondrial marker sequences. Molecular
Phylogenetics & Evolution 27: 328-342.
WETMORE, A. 1933. Status of
the genus Geranoaëtus. Auk 50: 212.
Van Remsen,
June 2007
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles: "YES. A mite sad to see Geranoaetus go,
but there seems no valid reason to continue to recognize it with the solid
evidence available that it's nested well within Buteo."
Comments from Robbins: "YES. Data are strong for
placing Geranoaetus in Buteo."
Comments from Zimmer: "YES. Data seem clear,
although I too will be sad to see Geranoaetus go."
Comments from Laurent Raty: "I would actually wait a bit before acting this move, for two
main reasons:
"1) There is apparently a paper in press on this group (see
http://www.lsa.umich.edu/eeb/people/mindell/publications.html).
"2) I'm not convinced this case is that straightforward.
"Riesing et al identified Geranoaetus as part of a
group including B. polyosoma, B. poecilochrous and B.
albicaudatus; in their tree, this group formed the most divergent branch of
their "clade II", to which they attached the name Buteo.
Among the taxa represented in the study, this clade included only 2 non-Buteo species... However, the study did
not include any Leucopternis.
"In Lerner & Mindell (2005 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.04.010), Fig
1 (cyt-b + nd2), Geranoaetus formed a trichotomy with Leucopternis
albicollis, and a strongly supported clade grouping 2 other Leucopternis spp.
(incl. melanops - the type of the genus) with two derived Buteo spp.
(buteo and jamaicensis); in Fig 2 (cyt-b + nd2 + b-fib7), in the
absence of a derived Buteo, Geranoaetus appeared basal
to L. albicollis and L. melanops, suggesting it was the
most divergent in the trichotomy of Fig 1.
"In Raposo et al. (2006 - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2148-6-10), B.
albicaudatus (a member of the Geranoaetus group identified by
Riesing et al) appeared more distant to B. buteo (a
derived Buteo) than two clades of Leucopternis, each
one including 3 spp.; melanops was, again, part of the clade
closest to the derived Buteo.
"Based on this, under Riesing et al.'s definition of Buteo, not
only Geranoaetus, but also these 6 Leucopternis spp. (melanops,
kuhli, semiplumbeus, albicollis, occidentalis, and polionotus)
should all most likely be transferred to Buteo. And Leucopternis as
a genus should simply disappear - *before* Geranoaetus, actually - because
both studies indicate clearly that its type species is closer to that
of Buteo than that of Geranoaetus... This may of course
prove to be the best solution... But is it?
"It seems also possible, that an alternative solution might exist: restricting
Buteo a bit more, e.g. to Riesing et al's "clade III", to keep
all these Leucopternis out of it. This would bounce the whole Geranoaetus
group out of Buteo (without actually affecting the branching
pattern itself) but, based on present data, it is completely unclear
that this would necessarily imply more moves than the first solution."
Comments solicited from Mike Braun: "I would agree with Laurent Raty's analysis. Although Geranoaetus
will undoubtedly not survive, it is early yet to just lump it into Buteo.
Better to wait to see a densely sampled and well-resolved multi-gene phylogeny.
I predict we'll see a number of other New World buteonine genera come into play
in deciding how best to treat this group taxonomically."
Comments solicited from
Fabio Raposo: "I agree with
Laurent and Mike`s points. Although there is no doubt that Geranoaetus is
much closer to the more derived Buteo
species than to the basal Buteogallus, the Leucopternis problem
definitely brings some difficulties to this question. The evidence in Riesing
et al 2003, Lerner and Mindell 2005 and in our 2006 paper taken together
suggest that despite some of the Leucopternis species are basal and more
closely related to "Buteogallus" (which also does not seem to
be a good genus as currently recognized), two lineages appear nested within Buteo
before Geranoaetus - as well stated by Laurent – the albicollis/polionotus/occidentalis
clade and a second one including the Leucopternis type species (Leucopternis
melanops). My concern about including Geranoaetus in Buteo
is that automatically it would be necessary to include the entire above cited
clades of "Leucopternis" within Buteo too - and
forget Leucopternis completely, making Buteo a pretty large and
heterogeneous genus. Although I fully agree that the genus Geranoaetus lacks
a clear-cut diagnosis, definitely most non-monotypic Buteonine genera as
currently recognized too – including Buteo. The bottom line is that
including Geranoaetus melanoleucus in Buteo would require
moving all the derived Leucopternis species to Buteo (changes in
at least 6 species), while retaining Geranoaetus and keeping melanops/semiplumbeus/kuhli
as Leucopternis would imply acting on Buteo albicaudatus and Buteo
polyosoma, besides changing the Leucopternis albicollis/occidentalis/polionotus clade
to another genus (at least 5 changes). Following any direction will
require a lot of changes, but although we cannot be guided by clear diagnostic
characters, restricting Buteo would at least make some biogeographic
sense in my opinion - a mainly Nearctic and Old World Buteo, and the
mostly Neotropical and basal species in their own genera."
Additional Comments from Remsen: "NO. The additional
comments above lead me to change my recommendation and vote. Geranoaetus into
Buteo would force the merger of so many genera into that genus that it
would become disproportionately heterogeneous relative to other accipitrid
genera."
Additional Comments from Robbins: "After reading Mike
Braun and Fabio Raposo's comments I change my vote from "yes" to
"no" for subsuming Geranoaetus into a catch-all Buteo."
Comments from Nores: "NO. Esto parecía fácil hasta que apareció el comentario de Raty y
posteriormente los de Braun y Raposo. Por esta razón, pienso que hay que
esperar a que aparezca el paper de Auk que está en prensa. Además, como sugerí
en el caso de Paroaria, la propuesta debería haber incluido también
el paso de Buteo leucorrhous a Percnohierax y Buteo
magnirostris a Rupornis."
Comments from Jaramillo: "NO - Not yet at least,
given the available evidence and opinions to do this now would create a
veritable "lump fest" which would probably be undone with further
data. I think we should wait and get more information on this issue.
Nevertheless it is clear that Geranoaetus will be subsumed, but how the
rest of the relationships within Buteo and Leucopternis amongst
others are determined is key here."
Comments from Pacheco: "NO. Diante dos argumentos expostos por Raty, Braun e
Raposo eu estou submetendo o caso para uma rediscussão também no CBRO. Por ora,
com o presente cenário, eu creio ser prematuro a subordinação de Geranoaetus
em Buteo."