Proposal (347) to South American Classification Committee
Cambiar la secuencia lineal de órdenes y familias en la "Main
List", siguiendo los tomos aparecidos y en preparación del Handbook of the
Birds of the World
SACC corrientemente sigue aproximadamente la
Check-list of North American Birds en el ordenamiento de órdenes y familias,
por lo que la secuencia es la siguiente:
Rheidae
Tinamidae
Anhimidae
Anatidae
Cracidae
Odontophoridae
Podicipedidae
Phoenicopteridae
Spheniscidae
Diomedeidae
Procellariidae
Hydrobatidae
Pelecanoididae
Phaethontidae
Pelecanidae
Sulidae
Phalacrocoracidae
Anhingidae
Fregatidae
Ardeidae
Threskiornithidae
Ciconiidae
Cathartidae
Pandionidae
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Aramidae
Psophiidae
Rallidae
Heliornithidae
Eurypygidae
Cariamidae
Charadriidae
Haematopodidae
Recurvirostridae
Burhinidae
Chionidae
Pluvianellidae
Scolopacidae
Thinocoridae
Jacanidae
Rostratulidae
Stercorariidae
Laridae
Rynchopidae
Columbidae
Psittacidae
Opisthocomidae
Cuculidae
Tytonidae
Strigidae
Steatornithidae
Nyctibiidae
Caprimulgidae
Apodidae
Trochilidae
Trogonidae
Alcedinidae
Momotidae
Galbulidae
Bucconidae
Capitonidae
Ramphastidae
Picidae
Furnariidae
Thamnophilidae
Formicariidae
Grallariidae
Conopophagidae
Rhinocryptidae
Tyrannidae
Oxyruncidae
Cotingidae
Pipridae
Vireonidae
Corvidae
Alaudidae
Hirundinidae
Troglodytidae
Polioptilidae
Cinclidae
Bombycillidae
Turdidae
Mimidae
Sturnidae
Motacillidae
Thraupidae
Emberizidae
Cardinalidae
Parulidae
Icteridae
Fringillidae
Estrildidae
Ploceidae
Passeridae
Sin embargo, esta secuencia aparece como
muy poco lógica, especialmente en los primeros órdenes, y no es seguida por
ningún autor que se refiera a la avifauna sudamericana: Hilty (Birds of Colombia,
Birds of Venezuela), Ridgely and Greenfield (Birds of Ecuador), Clements and
Shany (Birds of Peru), Stotz et al. (Neotropical Birds), Rodríguez Mata (et al.
Birds-South America), sino que en general siguen el ordenamiento propuesto en
el HBW, que con los cambios realizados en la SACC-Main List, sería la
siguiente:
Rheidae
Tinamidae
Spheniscidae
Podicipedidae
Phoenicopteridae
Diomedeidae
Procellariidae
Hydrobatidae
Pelecanoididae
Phaethontidae
Pelecanidae
Sulidae
Phalacrocoracidae
Anhingidae
Fregatidae
Ardeidae
Ciconiidae
Threskiornithidae
Anhimidae
Anatidae
Cathartidae
Pandionidae
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Cracidae
Odontophoridae
Aramidae
Psophiidae
Rallidae
Heliornithidae
Eurypygidae
Cariamidae
Jacanidae
Rostratulidae
Haematopodidae
Recurvirostridae
Burhinidae
Charadriidae
Pluvianellidae
Scolopacidae
Thinocoridae
Chionidae
Stercorariidae
Laridae
Rynchopidae
Columbidae
Psittacidae
Opisthocomidae
Cuculidae
Tytonidae
Strigidae
Steatornithidae
Nyctibiidae
Caprimulgidae
Apodidae
Trochilidae
Trogonidae
Alcedinidae
Momotidae
Galbulidae
Bucconidae
Capitonidae
Semnornithidae
Ramphastidae
Picidae
Sapayoidae (o Eurylaimidae)
Furnariidae
Thamnophilidae
Formicariidae
Grallariidae
Conopophagidae
Rhinocryptidae
Melanopareiidae
Cotingidae
Pipridae
Tityridae
Tyrannidae
Oxyruncidae
Alaudidae
Hirundinidae
Motacillidae
Bombycillidae
Cinclidae
Troglodytidae
Donacobiidae
Mimidae
Turdidae
Polioptilidae
Corvidae
Sturnidae
Passeridae
Estrildidae
Vireonidae
Fringillidae
Parulidae
Cardinalidae
Thraupidae
Emberizidae
Icteridae
Recomendaciones: yo voto SI a esta propuesta.
Manuel
Nores, May 2008
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Remsen: "NO. The SACC and AOU
sequences are based on recent phylogenetic data. Manuel evidently is not aware
of the large data set, clearly referenced in our classification, that puts
Galloanseres first, for example. That certain field guides and so on do not use
this simply reflects that they were published largely before those data were published.
Likewise, our placement of Polioptilidae reflects recent data that show them to
be close to Troglodytidae, Sturnidae and Mimidae are sisters, Vireonidae is
part of the corvid group, etc.. References for all these changes are in the
Notes under the various families."
Comments from Cadena: "NO. Our classification is
obviously and improvement in comparison to that of HBW in the sense that it
incorporates what we know about the deep phylogenetic relationships of
birds."
Comments from Stiles: "NO. I agree with Van that
we are striving to advance the classification of South American birds and that
our classification should reflect recent increases in knowledge. The HBW is not
primarily a taxonomic work - that is not its objective, and such taxonomic
contributions as it makes are at the level of species and subspecies - it is
basically an attempt to describe and illustrate all currently recognized (at
least, by some authors) species of birds and at the level of families and above
it generally follows the traditional standards - i.e., those most widely
accepted when the series was begun (although it does accommodate or at least
mention some new changes as it goes along). Hence, ignoring recent work is
really a step backwards from our objective of representing the current state of
the art for South American birds. Again, I lament the lack of good diagnoses of
redefined taxa, but this is beyond our mandate in SACC."
Comments from Pacheco: "NO. Defendo que a sequência deva refletir as últimas e bem
testadas informações. Ainda que uma tradicional "work sequence",
meramente arbitrada, possa ser útil em alguns sentidos eu penso que AOU, SACC,
mas também o CBRO traduza o nível de conhecimento disponível."
Comments from Stotz: "NO. In Neotropical Birds,
we followed the Traditional Basel sequence essentially (actually Morony, Bock
and Farrand). The reason for that was that the book is not a taxonomic work,
and it seemed to us that trying to "fix" the taxonomy of Neotropical
Birds would either be half-hearted at best, or a complete distraction from the
message of the book. I think it is well within SACC's mission to think about
higher-level relationships and reflect those in our sequence. I should note
that personally I tend to believe that there is little information that can be
discerned from sequence, so I actually favor alphabetical listing by order,
family, genus and species as is done for most other taxonomic groups. The
sequence used by HBW is an arbitrary one that no longer represents current
thinking on relationships, and lacks the advantage of alphabetical in making
locating taxa in a list easy. It is in many ways the worst of both
worlds."
Additional comments from Nores: "Teniendo en cuenta la aclararación hecha por Remsen y
otros integrantes del Committee, yo cambio mi voto a un NO a esta
propuesta."
Comments from Zimmer: "NO, for reasons already
stated by Van and others."
Comments from Jaramillo: "NO - Our order is based on newer data,
and is therefore more up to date that the HBW linear sequence."