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 sequźncia deva refletir as últimas e bem testadas informaćões. 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."