A Classification of the Bird Species of South America
South American Classification Committee
Web site hosted by:
The South American Classification Committee was founded in 1998. Its mission is to create a standard
classification, with English names, for the bird species of South America. This
classification is subject to constant revision by the proposal system established
in 2000 to allow incorporation of new data.
Eventually, a hard-copy version will be published.
SACC became affiliated with the American Ornithological Society in
August 2002, but is no longer affiliated with the AOS, as of 1 November 2023,
when the AOS leadership decided that all eponymous names were to be purged and that
the South American Classification Committee would no longer be in charge of
English names. SACC is now affiliated
with the International
Ornithologists’ Union as a regional committee working
with the IOU’s Working Group Avian Checklists (WGAC), whose
goal is to produce a global classification of birds.
The classification below changes several times each year through
Committee action; therefore, be certain to cite it as "Version
[date]." Suggested citation:
Remsen, J.
V., Jr., J. I. Areta, E. Bonaccorso, S. Claramunt, G. Del-Rio, A. Jaramillo, D.
F. Lane, M. B. Robbins, F. G. Stiles, and K. J. Zimmer. Version [date]. A
classification of the bird species of South America. Museum of Natural Science,
Louisiana State University. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm
VERSION: 5 December 2024
Most recent changes to the
classification, updated 18 November 2024
This list is open to proposals for change from the ornithological
community as a whole. Proposals
for changes must be based on previously published data, information, or
analyses. See Proposal Roster page for examples of previous
proposals and commentary from SACC members and others on each proposal
submitted so far; that page also has a link to a spreadsheet that itemizes
issues in need of proposals. Send
proposals or comments on existing ones to Remsen. Proposals may be in English, Spanish, or Portuguese
(we apologize that most of us are not proficient in reading French or Dutch). All aspects of the classification are subject
to modification through the proposal system (species limits, boundaries of
orders, families, and genera, linear sequences, English names, etc.).
The footnotes are also obviously preliminary (some are no more
than reminders to ourselves), in "working draft" stage, inconsistent
in style, and will be modified extensively; many have yet to be added. Most footnotes have been modified
chronologically as new information is added, and thus read as compilations
rather than syntheses. [Errors in
numbering them are frequent as we continue to add new notes.] The primary goal is to provide references for
all changes from Meyer de Schauensee's (1966, 1970) foundational
classification, as well as the "Peters Checklist" series and the
"Cory-Hellmayr" series, so that the user can determine how and why
(if known) changes were made; citations to alternative treatments are also
provided. Also, the notes are intended
to signal phylogenetic relationships among taxa that might not be evident from
the linear sequence. The notes also
indicate where SACC proposals for change have been acted upon (in blue), where
SACC proposals are pending (in magenta), and
where proposals are needed (in red).
If you spot typographical errors, missing taxa, or mistakes of any
kind, please let Remsen know. If your research is not cited herein, it is
unlikely we are ignoring it -- we just have not yet had time to incorporate it
into the notes or proposals; nonetheless, please let Remsen know if you see
published information that we have overlooked or incorrectly cited.
Taxonomy: The starting point for the
classification was a pre-publication draft of Dickinson (2003); the published
version differed in a few minor ways from the version used for the starting
point (as noted in the Notes sections below). The classification herein consists mainly of
the ranks Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Most traditional subfamilies are omitted
unless supported by multiple independent data sets that mark major, deep
branches within a family. Subspecies are
omitted for now; a future edition will also include the Subspecies rank as
designating diagnosable populations (equivalent to phylogenetic species sensu
Cracraft) within taxa accorded species rank, as well as synopses of
distribution. We recognize the
importance of this level of classification for many kinds of analyses but are
unable to provide a comprehensive evaluation of which currently recognized
subspecies represent valid taxonomic units in terms of diagnosability. See Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and
Dickinson & Christidis (2014) for a preliminary assessment of valid
subspecies of South American birds, as well as various volumes of the Handbook
of the Birds of World (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona).
Linear sequencing:
Presenting a
classification as a linear list of taxa cannot adequately reflect phylogenetic
relationships. Nonetheless, to maximize
proximity of close relatives in a linear sequence, we use the following
conventions. For groups for which robust
phylogenetic data are available we derive a linear sequence from the
“ladderization” of the phylogenetic tree. Ladderization consists of rearranging the
phylogenetic diagram by rotating each node so the clade with fewer species is
placed first (on top, on a rightwise-oriented tree, to the left in an
upwards-oriented tree) and the clade with more species is placed last. Ladderization is performed by considering all
extant species and not only the ones included in a particular phylogenetic
diagram. For pairs of sister species,
the one with the most northwesterly geographic range is listed first. For polytomies or nodes that are not strongly
supported (by having either low statistical support or conflicting with other
studies or datasets) a traditional sequence may be favored (Dickinson 2003). In particular, in the case of “superspecies,”
which are defined as a monophyletic group of closely related parapatric or
slightly allopatric species, taxa may be listed using the widespread geographic
convention, from northwest to southeast, if relationships among the component
species are not well supported.
Geographical scope: The region covered by the list
is: (1) continental South America and all islands within 1200 km of its shores
eastward into the Atlantic and westward into the Pacific oceans (including
Malpelo, the Galapagos islands, San Felix and San Ambrosio, the Juan Fernandez
islands, Fernando de Noronha, Trindade, Martin Vaz, São Pedro and São Paulo
Archipelago, and the Falklands/Malvinas); (2) islands in the Caribbean Sea
close to South America and not covered by the AOU’s NACC Checklist (including
Netherlands Antilles, Trinidad and Tobago); and (3) waters within 200 nautical
miles of the coasts of these land areas, including the islands.
For lists of species recorded from each country and territory
(using SACC classification and criteria) within the SACC region, including
downloadable EXCEL file, see SACC Country Lists.
Criteria for inclusion: a species is included on
the list if the evidence for its occurrence in the area is supported by
tangible evidence that is available for verification, namely a museum specimen
or an archived or published photograph, videotape, or sound recording. The main
list currently includes 3,486 species, as follows:
a. 3221
native breeding species (4 of which are extinct)
b. 144 nonbreeding residents (1 of
which is extinct)
c. 104 vagrants
d. 17 established, introduced
species
See the SACC Country Lists page for
definitions of status designations.
Of the breeding species, 141 are newly discovered species since
the publication of Meyer de Schauensee’s (1970) classic compilation of the
species of birds of South America (i.e., at a rate of 2.6 species per year). Species for which their presence is supported
only by sight records, or by unpublished or non-archived tangible evidence, are
placed on the Hypothetical List.
English names: The English names used by SACC
follow those in Dickinson (2003), which in turn generally followed those used
by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and AOU (1998) for New World species. Several, however, have been changed
subsequently from Dickinson (2003) through the proposal mechanism. Alternative English names are given if they
have appeared in reference literature since 1900. SACC follows the published guidelines for
English names and their orthography as noted in AOU (1983: xxi-xxii) and
references therein. See SACC
policy on use diacritical marks (accents, cedillas, tildes). A SACC proposal passed to adopt NACC guidelines on English
names. Those slightly modified guidelines will be
considered in any proposals to modify existing English names.
For comments on the controversy over whether to hyphenate certain
bird group-names, click here.
The SACC is not involved in producing a list of standardized
Spanish names. Click here for rationale. However, the SACC hopes to produce Spanish and
Portuguese versions of the Notes once the English version reaches the stage at
which the classification is ready for publication as a printed document.
Current SACC membership:
Juan
Ignacio Areta (Associate
Chair), Instituto de Bio y
Geociencias del Noroeste Argentino, Salta
Elisa
Bonaccorso, Universidad San Francisco de Quito
Santiago
Claramunt, Royal Ontario Museum and University of Toronto
Glaucia
Del-Rio, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, and Museu de Zoologia da
Universidade de São Paulo
Alvaro
Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
Daniel F.
Lane,
Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University
J. V. Remsen,
Jr. (Acting Chair), Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State
University
Mark
B. Robbins, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas
F.
Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá
Kevin
J. Zimmer, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Voting members on English names:
David B.
Donsker
(of Gill, Donsker, and Rasmussen (Eds), IOC World Bird List)
Pamela
C. Rasmussen, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, and of Gill, Donsker, and
Rasmussen (Eds),
IOC
World Bird List)
Technical Advisors for
Vagrant and Hypothetical Species:
Juan
Freile,
Comité Ecuatoriano de
Registros Ornitológicos (CERO)
Jhonathan
Miranda, Comité de Registros de las Aves de
Venezuela, Unión Venezolana de Ornitólogos
Technical Advisor on
Nomenclature:
Vitor de
Q. Piacentini, Working Group on Avian Nomenclature,
International Ornithologists’ Union
Technical Advisor for
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa:
Gary R.
Graves, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
Technical Advisors:
Steven L.
Hilty, Victor Emanuel Nature Tours, Inc., & Museum of Natural
History, University of Kansas
José
Fernando Pacheco, Comitê
Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos
Mark
Pearman, Mardel Pelagics and Birdquest
Jorge
Pérez-Emán, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas
Thomas
S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Douglas
F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History
Bret M.
Whitney, Field Guides & Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State
University
Data-base Advisor:
Steve
Olesen
Editorial Advisors:
Craig
Caldwell
Paul
Clapham
Alan
Grenon
Past Committee Members: C. Daniel
Cadena, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá; Manuel
Nores, Centro de Zoología Aplicada, Córdoba; Richard
O. Prum, Yale University; José Maria Cardoso da Silva,
Conservation International - Brasil
&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
Abbreviations:
NB = nonbreeding resident
V = vagrant
IN = introduced species*
EX = extinct (within last 200 years)
* SACC proposal for adopting BOU-like guidelines on defining
"introduced" species did not pass, but the committee is strongly in
favor of developing formal guidelines.
Meanwhile, we follow AOS/NACC criterion: “Species that have been introduced by humans, either
deliberately or accidentally, are considered to be established if there are
persistent records for at least ten years and satisfactory evidence that they
are maintaining a reasonably stable or increasing population through successful
reproduction.”
Composite List created by Duncan
Ritchie (Classification + status only; no footnotes) [continuing the work of Sjoerd Maijer, In Memoriam]
EXCEL file of SACC
list
[Please report bad links to Remsen]
Romanian translation: http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/saccbaseline-museum-rm
Higher-level Classification1: To help
navigate the linear sequence of orders, below we here provide a condensed classification
at the level of order. A linear sequence
can only partially convey the branching patterns of the avian tree of life, so
see proposal 723 and
references therein for details:
PALEOGNATHAE
RHEIFORMES
TINAMIFORMES
NEOGNATHAE
GALLOANSERES
ANSERIFORMES
GALLIFORMES
NEOAVES
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES
PODICIPEDIFORMES
COLUMBIFORMES
CUCULIFORMES
STEATORNITHIFORMES
NYCTIBIIFORMES
CAPRIMULGIFORMES
APODIFORMES
OPISTHOCOMIFORMES
GRUIFORMES
CHARADRIIFORMES
EURYPYGIFORMES
PHAETHONTIFORMES
SPHENISCIFORMES
PROCELLARIIFORMES
CICONIIFORMES
SULIFORMES
PELECANIFORMES
CATHARTIFORMES
ACCIPITRIFORMES
STRIGIFORMES
TROGONIFORMES
CORACIIFORMES
GALBULIFORMES
PICIFORMES
CARIAMIFORMES
FALCONIFORMES
PSITTACIFORMES
PASSERIFORMES
___________________________________________________________
1 With passage of proposal 723, the
linear sequence of orders in this classification now greatly differs from the
traditional sequence with which most users are familiar, particularly the
sequence between the traditional beginning (ratites) and the end (passerines). Multiple independent data sets indicate that
the traditional division between waterbirds and landbirds has little
phylogenetic basis, with some of the nonpasserine “landbird” orders more
closely related to “waterbird” orders than to other “landbird” orders, and vice
versa. To perpetuate the traditional
sequence misleads ornithologists into thinking that waterbirds, for example,
form a monophyletic group.
___________________________________________________________
Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes (below)
Part
2. Columbiformes to
Caprimulgiformes
Part
3. Apodiformes
Part
4. Opisthocomiformes to
Strigiformes
Part
5. Trogoniformes to
Psittaciformes
Part
6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to
Formicariidae)
Part
7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)
Part
8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Pipridae to Tyrannidae)
Part
9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)
Part
10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Ploceidae to Passerellidae)
Part
11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Icteridae to end)
PALEOGNATHAE
RHEIFORMES 1
RHEIDAE
(RHEAS)
Rhea americana
Greater Rhea 2
Rhea
pennata Lesser Rhea 2, 3, 4
1. The relationships among,
and classification of, the five families of living ratites are controversial
and beyond the geographic scope of this classification. The Rheidae are here
treated as a family within the broadly defined ratite order Struthioniformes,
following the classification in Folch (1992) and Dickinson (2003); other
classifications retain only the ostriches (Struthionidae) and the Rheidae in
the Struthioniformes. See (REFS) for
evidence that supports a sister relationship between the Rheidae and
Struthionidae, but see also Cooper et al. (1992, 2001), Lee et al. (1997), van
Tuinen et al. (1998), and Haddrath and Baker (2001). Recent genetic data
(Harshman et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010, Smith et al. 2013, Prum et al.
2015) indicate that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the
Tinamiformes. Cracraft (2013) elevated
the rheas to ordinal rank, Rheiformes, as in some older classifications. SACC proposal passed to recognize
Rheiformes.
2. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia into Rhea.
3. The montane subspecies tarapacensis
(with "garleppi") may deserve recognition as a
separate species from lowland nominate pennata (Blake 1977, Fjeldså
and Krabbe 1990, Folch 1992), and was treated as such by Jaramillo (2003) and
del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Proposal needed.
4. Called "Darwin's
Rhea" in Johnson (1965), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Gill
& Wright (2006), but this is the name associated with the nominate,
Patagonian subspecies (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or when the Andean
forms are considered a separate species, with "Puna Rhea" reserved
for the Andean species (e.g., Jaramillo 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014).
Virtually all other modern literature on South American birds uses "Lesser
Rhea" for P. pennata.
TINAMIFORMES 1
TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS) 1a
Nothocercus julius Tawny-breasted
Tinamou
Nothocercus bonapartei Highland
Tinamou 2a
Nothocercus nigrocapillus Hooded
Tinamou 2a
Tinamus tao Gray
Tinamou
Tinamus solitarius Solitary Tinamou 2
Tinamus osgoodi Black
Tinamou 3
Tinamus major Great
Tinamou 1b
Tinamus guttatus White-throated
Tinamou
Crypturellus berlepschi Berlepsch's
Tinamou 4
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous
Tinamou 4
Crypturellus soui Little
Tinamou
Crypturellus ptaritepui Tepui
Tinamou 4a
Crypturellus obsoletus Brown
Tinamou 5
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated
Tinamou
Crypturellus transfasciatus Pale-browed
Tinamou 6, 6a
Crypturellus strigulosus Brazilian
Tinamou
Crypturellus duidae Gray-legged
Tinamou 7
Crypturellus erythropus Red-legged
Tinamou 7, 8
Crypturellus noctivagus Yellow-legged
Tinamou 7, 7a
Crypturellus atrocapillus Black-capped
Tinamou 7
Crypturellus kerriae Choco
Tinamou 7
Crypturellus variegatus Variegated
Tinamou
Crypturellus brevirostris Rusty
Tinamou 9
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's
Tinamou 9
Crypturellus parvirostris Small-billed
Tinamou 10
Crypturellus casiquiare Barred
Tinamou 11
Crypturellus tataupa Tataupa
Tinamou 10
Rhynchotus rufescens Red-winged
Tinamou 12
Rhynchotus maculicollis Huayco
Tinamou 12
Nothoprocta taczanowskii Taczanowski's
Tinamou 16a
Nothoprocta ornata Ornate
Tinamou 13
Nothoprocta perdicaria Chilean Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta cinerascens Brushland
Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta pentlandii Andean
Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta curvirostris Curve-billed
Tinamou 14
Nothura boraquira White-bellied
Nothura 15
Nothura minor Lesser
Nothura 15
Nothura darwinii Darwin's Nothura 16
Nothura maculosa Spotted
Nothura 16
Taoniscus nanus Dwarf
Tinamou 16a
Eudromia elegans Elegant
Crested-Tinamou 17
Eudromia formosa Quebracho
Crested-Tinamou 17, 18
Tinamotis pentlandii Puna
Tinamou 19
Tinamotis ingoufi Patagonian
Tinamou 19
1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously
questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in
Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et
al. 2000, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the
Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that
these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds,
the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et
al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi
2007). However, recent genetic data (Hackett et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010,
Prum et al. 2015) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with
respect to the Tinamiformes. SACC proposal passed to change SACC classification to reflect this.
1a. The Tinamidae was divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae
(Tinamus, Nothoprocta, and Crypturellus) and the
Nothurinae (all other genera) by Miranda-Ribeiro (1938). The Nothurinae was
designated as the Rhynchotinae by Cabot (1992). The subfamily name that has
priority, however, is Eudromiinae Bonaparte, 1854. Morphological data (Bertelli
et al. 2002, Silveira & Höfling 2007) support the monophyly of the two
subfamilies, but combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli
& Porzecanski 2004) do not, primarily because of conflicting positions
of the genus Rhynchotus. Morphological (Bertelli et al. 2002) and
molecular data generally support the traditional among-genera and among-species
relationships implied by traditional linear sequences except that Crypturellus
and Tinamus are
proposed as sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of some genera.
1b. Pinto (1938) treated the Amazonian subspecies serratus (with
peruvianus, then known as ruficeps) as a separate species
from Tinamus major.
2. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) suggested that Tinamus
solitarius was probably better treated as a subspecies of T. major,
but Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) proposed that it is the sister species to
T. tao.
2a. Nothocercus bonapartei and N. nigrocapillus were
considered to form a probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Bertelli et
al. (2002) and Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) also found them to be
sisters. SACC proposal passed to change
linear sequence.
3. An analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that T.
osgoodi does not belong in that genus and is embedded within Crypturellus (Bertelli
et al. 2002); however, combined analyses of morphological and genetic data
(Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) indicate that osgoodi does belong in Tinamus.
4. Crypturellus cinereus and C. berlepschi were
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
considered conspecific, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley &
Monroe 1990) follow Blake (1977), who noted that "the longer toes of berlepschi
in proportion to the tarsus, the heavier and usually longer bill, and the
conspicuous differences in coloration strongly support the concept of mutually
exclusive species." The two species are sisters (Bertelli et al. 2002)
that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
4a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that C. ptaritepui
might be the sister to C. berlepschi + C. cinereus.
5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Cabot (1992)
noted that the subspecies traylori possibly deserves recognition as
separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus. Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found
that vocal differences among subspecies suggests that as many as five species
should be recognized. Proposal needed.
6. Bertelli et al. (2002) proposed that C. transfasciatus and
Middle American C. cinnamomeus are sister species.
6a. "Crypturellus rubripes," described from
northwestern Peru and treated as a species by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr &
Conover (1942), is now known to be the male plumage of C. transfasciatus
(Koepcke 1962a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
7. Species limits in this complex (Crypturellus duidae
through C. kerriae, also probably including Middle American C.
cinnamomeus and C. boucardi) are poorly understood and weakly
justified, and a thorough study, especially of voice, is badly needed.
Species-level taxonomy and allocation of subspecies to species has been
exceptionally labile, perhaps more so than any other species complex in the New
World. For example, within subspecies included here in C. erythropus,
Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that cursitans was actually a
subspecies of C. duidae. Blake (1977) suggested that columbianus was
possibly a distinct species (as treated by Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or
"perhaps a very distinct Colombian isolate of ... C. boucardi."
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered saltuarius as a distinct species,
and Blake (1977) suggested that saltuarius might be a subspecies C.
kerriae (but that kerriae might also be a subspecies of Middle
American C. boucardi). The
subspecies idoneus and spencei were treated as subspecies of
Middle American C. cinnamomeus in [early Peters]. Thus, Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that
the taxa columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius, treated
here as subspecies of erythropus, may deserve species rank or may
belong in other species. Crypturellus
erythropus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. atrocapillus or of
C. noctivagus (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), but is here treated as a
species following Blake (1977, 1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Cabot (1992),
and Davies (2002). The taxon garleppi,
here treated as a subspecies of C. atrocapillus (following Blake
1977, 1979; also followed by del Hoyo & Collar 2014) was
formerly considered a subspecies of C. noctivagus (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1942, Peters?) and perhaps merits species rank (Cabot 1992). Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered C. kerriae and C. erythropus,
along with Middle American C. boucardi, to form one superspecies,
and C. duidae, C. noctivagus, and C. atrocapillus
to form a separate superspecies. Bertelli
et al.'s (2002) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated that C. boucardi
and C. kerriae are sister species, but otherwise found little
support for the monophyly of this complex.
SACC proposals to rank columbianus,
idoneus, and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of insufficient
published data. Laverde-R.
& Cadena (2014) found that vocal differences among these taxa are minimal
and that perhaps all should be treated as conspecific. Proposal needed.
7a. Tomotani and Silveira (2016) provided evidence that the
subspecies zabele might merit
treatment as a separate species from Crypturellus noctivagus. SACC proposal to treat zabele as a
separate species did not pass.
8. Called "Red-footed Tinamou" by Davies (2002).
9. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) treated C. bartletti as a
subspecies of Crypturellus brevirostris, and they are certainly sister
taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Sibley &
Monroe (1990) considered C. bartletti and C. brevirostris
to form a superspecies, but they seem to overlap in portions of western
Amazonia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Fieldwork is needed to clarify the taxonomic
status of C. bartletti, which is so similar to C. brevirostris that
true syntopy seems unlikely. <or some similar statement>.
10. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that C. tataupa
and C. parvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
11. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that the
traditional placement of C. casiquiare near C. parvirostris and C.
tataupa is not correct, and this it is most closely related to C.
brevirostris/C. bartletti (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli &
Porzecanski 2004).
12. Rhynchotus maculicollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992,
Monroe & Sibley 1993, Davies 2002) considered a subspecies of R. rufescens. Maijer (1996) provided evidence that maculicollis
differs substantially in vocalizations from R. rufescens. The two
species form a superspecies. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculicollis as a separate species.
13. Blake (1977) suggested that Nothoprocta kalinowskii
might be better treated as a subspecies of N. ornata; Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; analysis of
phenotypic characters supports their treatment as sister taxa (Bertelli et al.
2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Krabbe and Schulenberg (2005) have
shown that N. kalinowskii is a junior synonym of N. ornata
branickii. SACC proposal passed to remove kalinowskii
from list.
14. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cabot (1992) considered Nothoprocta
perdicaria, N. pentlandii, and N. cinerascens to form a
superspecies. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, considered this group to
include N. curvirostris and not N. cinerascens. Analysis of
phenotypic characters indicates that N. perdicaria and N.
curvirostris might be sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
15. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that N.
boraquira and N. minor are sister species (Bertelli et al.
2002), but genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) changed this
conclusion.
16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nothura darwinii,
N. maculosa, and N. chacoensis to form a superspecies; they form
a monophyletic group (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Nothura darwinii was formerly
(e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa,
but they are locally sympatric, and their voices differ (Fjeldså and Krabbe
1990, Cabot 1992). Nothura chacoensis
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Blake 1979) considered a
subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are sympatric in Paraguay and
northern Argentina (Blake 1977, Cabot 1992). However, the degree of hybridization between
the two is uncertain, and Short (1975) and Hayes (1995) treated chacoensis
as a subspecies of N. maculosa.
Hayes et al. (2018) provided evidence from plumage and voice that chacoensis
should be treated as a subspecies
of N. maculosa. SACC proposal passed to treat chacoensis as a
subspecies of N. maculosa.
16a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that Taoniscus
and Nothoprocta are sister genera.
17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eudromia elegans and
E. formosa to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1942) considered conspecific, but see Conover (1950), Olrog (1959),
Blake (1977), Navas & Bó (1981), and Bertelli et al. (2002).
18. The Paraguayan subspecies mira was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1942) considered a separate species from Eudromia elegans,
but it either merely represents an extreme in clinal variation in (Blake 1977),
or a weakly diagnosable subspecies of E. elegans (Blake 1979, Cabot
1992).
19. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Tinamotis pentlandii
and T. ingoufi to form a superspecies.
NEOGNATHAE
GALLOANSERES
ANSERIFORMES 1
ANHIMIDAE (SCREAMERS)
Anhima cornuta Horned
Screamer
Chauna torquata Southern
Screamer 1a
Chauna chavaria Northern
Screamer 1a
ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1b, 2
Dendrocygninae
Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous
Whistling-Duck 3, 3a
Dendrocygna viduata White-faced
Whistling-Duck 3
Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied
Whistling-Duck 3
Anatinae
Anser anser Graylag
Goose (IN) 3b
Cygnus melancoryphus Black-necked
Swan 4
Coscoroba coscoroba Coscoroba
Swan 4a
Oressochen jubatus Orinoco
Goose 5, 5a
Oressochen melanopterus Andean
Goose 5
Chloephaga picta Upland
Goose 4a
Chloephaga hybrida Kelp
Goose
Chloephaga poliocephala Ashy-headed
Goose
Chloephaga rubidiceps Ruddy-headed
Goose
Cairina moschata Muscovy
Duck
Sarkidiornis sylvicola Comb Duck 6, 6a
Callonetta leucophrys Ringed
Teal 7, 7a
Amazonetta brasiliensis Brazilian
Teal 7a, 8, 8a
Merganetta armata Torrent
Duck 8b
Tachyeres patachonicus Flying
Steamer-Duck 8
Tachyeres pteneres Flightless
Steamer-Duck 9, 10
Tachyeres brachypterus Falkland
Steamer-Duck 9, 9a
Tachyeres leucocephalus White-headed
Steamer-Duck 9, 11
Lophonetta specularioides Crested
Duck 8, 12
Speculanas specularis Spectacled
Duck 8, 13
Spatula puna Puna Teal
22, 22b
Spatula versicolor
Silver Teal 22
Spatula platalea
Red Shoveler 22b
Spatula clypeata
Northern Shoveler (NB) 22b
Spatula discors
Blue-winged Teal (NB) 22a
Spatula cyanoptera
Cinnamon Teal 22a
Mareca penelope Eurasian
Wigeon (V) 14, 14a, 14b
Mareca americana American
Wigeon (NB) 14, 14a
Mareca sibilatrix Chiloe
Wigeon 14, 14a, 15
Anas bahamensis White-cheeked
Pintail 19, 21b, 21c
Anas acuta Northern Pintail (NB) 19, 19a,
20
Anas georgica Yellow-billed
Pintail 19, 19a, 21, 21a
Anas crecca Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16,
17
Anas andium Andean
Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas flavirostris Yellow-billed
Teal 7a, 16, 18
Netta erythrophthalma Southern
Pochard 22c
Netta peposaca Rosy-billed
Pochard 22d
Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck (V) 23
Aythya affinis Lesser
Scaup (NB)
Mergus octosetaceus Brazilian
Merganser
Heteronetta atricapilla Black-headed
Duck
Nomonyx dominicus Masked
Duck 24
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 25
Oxyura vittata Lake Duck 26
1. Galliformes +
Anseriformes, collectively called Galloanseres, are placed in the linear
sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show
that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the
neognath birds. Click here for details, as well as see Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain &
Houde (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), Hackett et al. (2008), Eo et al. (2009),
and Prum et al. (2015). See Zusi & Livezey (2000), Sorenson et al. (2003),
Cracraft et al. (2004), and Eo et al. (2009) for support for the traditional
monophyly of the Anseriformes. Cracraft
(2013) divided the family into four subfamilies: Dendrocygninae, Oxyurinae,
Anserinae, and Anatinae.
1a. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered the two species of Chauna to form a superspecies.
2. [within-family
relationships] <incorp Johnson & Sorensen 1998, 1999, Livezey 1997,
Donne-Gousse et al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005, Eo et al. 2009 etc.,
Sun et al. 2017>. The Dendrocygna
whistling-ducks were considered a separate family from Anatidae by [REFS]; they
are the outgroup to all other Anatidae except Anseranas [REFs, Fain
& Houde (2004)]. The monophyly of the group was questioned by Eo et al.
(2009).
3. Whistling-Ducks were
formerly called "Tree-Ducks" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake
1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
3a. Dendrocygna bicolor
and Australasian D. arcuata were considered to form a superspecies by Mayr
& Short (1970), Johnsgard (1979), and Carboneras (1992f).
3b. Anser anser is
introduced and established on the Falklands Islands (Fjeldså & Krabbe
1990). Small feral population in Bogotá,
Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to transfer from Hypothetical List to Main List, based on the situation in
the Falklands.
4. Correct spelling for
species name is melancoryphus (David & Gosselin 2002a), not "melanocoryphus"
or "melanocorypha."
4a. Woolfenden (1961)
proposed that Coscoroba is more closely related to other swans (Cygnus)
than to any other waterfowl despite some unusual behavioral and morphological
characters.
4b. Bulgarella et al. (2014)
found that Neochen jubatus was the
sister species to Chloephaga melanoptera; they also found that C. rubidiceps and C. poliocephala
were sisters, and that C. picta and C. hybrida were sisters. SACC proposal needed
to transfer Chloephaga melanoptera to Neochen.
4bb. Jaramillo (2003)
suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species. Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that the
Falkland Islands population and mainland populations formed distinct genetic
groups.
5. Genetic data (mtDNA only;
Bulgarella et al. 2014) suggest that Neochen
jubatus is the sister species to Chloephaga
melanoptera, and thus is likely embedded in Chloephaga as currently
circumscribed. SACC
proposal passed to treat Chloephaga
melanoptera and Neochen jubatus as congeners; Oressochen Bannister 1870 becomes the
name for these two when treated in a separate genus.
5a. Neochen is
feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is jubata when
that genus is used (David & Gosselin 2002b); Oressochen is masculine, however, requiring
masculine endings to variable species names.
6. New World sylvicola
was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from
Old World Sarkidiornis melanotos. Delacour and Amadon (1945) treated them as
conspecific because of hybridization in aviaries. This treatment was followed by Meyer de
Schauensee (1966, 1970), Blake (1977), AOU (1998), Dickinson & Remsen
(2013), and others, but not by Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa), Wetmore
(1965), and Kear
(2005). <check
Sibley-Monroe, HBW> SACC proposal passed to treat as separate
species.
6a. Formerly known as American Comb-Duck
(e.g., AOU 1998), but Chesser et al. (2020) followed many sources and changed
to “Comb Duck”, the name often used when S. sylvicola and S. melanotos were treated as
conspecific; see Note 6. SACC proposal passed to change English name to Comb Duck.
7. Callonetta leucophrys
was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in the genus
Anas, but see Johnsgard (1960) and Woolfenden (1961).
7a. Callonetta
leucophrys, Amazonetta brasiliensis, Anas crecca/carolinensis, and A.
flavirostris/andium were formerly (e.g., AOU 1932, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr
& Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Nettion, but Peters
(1931) included them in Anas, and this has been followed in most
subsequent classifications.
8. Amazonetta was
placed in Anas by Peters (1931) and subsequent authors, but see Woolfenden
(1961) and Johnsgard (1965). Johnson & Sorenson (1999) found that its
sister species was likely Speculanas specularis, and that these two plus
Lophonetta and Tachyeres formed a monophyletic group; Eo et al.
(2009) also found support, based in part on Johnson and Sorenson (1999), for
the relationship Lophonetta (Amazonetta + Speculanas). Sun et al. (2017) also found that these four
genera formed a monophyletic group.
8a. Called "Brazilian
Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
8b. Hellmayr & Conover
(1948aa) treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenis as
separate species from Merganetta armata, following Conover (1943), but
they were considered conspecific by Peters (1931), Meyer de Schauensee (1966),
Johnsgard (1978), and most recent classifications. See also Gutiérrez-Pinto et al. (2019).
9. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) and Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus,
and T. brachypterus to form a superspecies. <incorp. Livezey
1986>
9a. Called "Falkland
Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978). Fulton et al. (2012) found
that the individuals of T. patachonicus on the Falklands are actually
flying individuals of T. brachypterus.
10. Called "Magellanic
Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978), "Magellanic
Steamer-Duck" in Carboneras (1992f) and "Fuegian Steamer-Duck"
in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
11. Described since Meyer de
Schauensee (1970): Humphrey & Thompson (1981). Called "Chubut
Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
12. Lophonetta
specularioides is often (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard
1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) and Eo
et al. (2009) for return to monotypic Lophonetta, as in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
13. Speculanas specularis
is often (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Livezey
(1991, 1997), Johnson & Sorenson (1999), and Eo et al. (2009).
14. Livezey (1991) advocated
resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera
and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the
classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Phelps
& Phelps (1958a). Mareca was
merged into Anas following Peters (1931), Delacour & Mayr (1945),
and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data
(Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca is monophyletic but
also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might make Anas a
paraphyletic genus (see also Eo et al. 2009). Peters et al. (2005) found that A.
sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in traditional and
morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the sister to A.
americana. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed
by del Hoyo & Collar (2014), resurrected Mareca based on the data in Gonzalez et al. (2009). Chesser et al. (2017) recognized Mareca.
SACC proposal passed to recognize Mareca.
14a. Carboneras (1992f)
considered Mareca penelope, M. americana and M. sibilatrix to
form a superspecies; Eo et al. (2009) found that the three formed a
monophyletic group.
14b. Photographed on Tobago,
2 Jan. 2016 (Johnson 2018). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
15. Called "Southern
Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere.
16. AOU (1931, 1957) treated
North American carolinensis as a separate species from Old World A.
crecca. Peters (1931), Delacour
& Mayr (1945), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Johnsgard (1965) treated
carolinensis as a subspecies of A. crecca, and was followed by
most recent classifications (e.g. AOU 1983, 1998, Dickinson & Remsen 2013). Johnson and Sorenson (1999) interpreted mtDNA
trees to indicate that carolinensis was more closely related to A.
flavirostris than either was to Old World A. crecca. Genetic data
from the contact zone in the Bering Sea (Peters et al. 2012, 2014) indicate
fairly high rates of gene flow between the two taxa, and Spaulding et al.
(2023) found that nuclear DNA showed that crecca and carolinensis,
not flavirostris and carolinensis, contra Johnson and Sorenson
(1999), and also found high rates of gene flow between crecca and carolinensis. SACC proposal to treat carolinensis
as a separate species did not pass; see that proposal for a more comprehensive history.
17. Recorded from n.
Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>).
Photographed in French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010). At least three sight
records, one actually a non-archived video record, for Trinidad (ffrench 1973, White
& Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003).
One sight record for Aruba (Mlodinow 2004).
18. Hellmayr & Conover
(1948a) and many earlier classifications treated andium as a separate
species from A. flavirostris. Following <find first author to
lump>, many authors, from Meyer de Schauensee (1970) to Dickinson (2003),
have treated andium as a subspecies of A. flavirostris. Anas andium was considered a
separate species from Anas flavirostris by Ridgely & Greenfield
(2001), and this was followed by Hilty (2003).
SACC
proposal passed to recognize andium as separate species. This treatment was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014). Jaramillo (2003) further suggested that the subspecies oxyptera
may also deserve recognition as a separate species from A. flavirostris.
19. Anas acuta, A.
georgica, and A. bahamensis form a monophyletic group (Johnson
& Sorenson 1999) ; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
treated in a separate genus, Dafila, but most authors have followed
Peters (1931) in including them in Anas.
Anas bahamensis and A. georgica spinicauda were formerly
(e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in a separate genus, Paecilonitta, but see
<REF>.
19a. Johnsgard (1979) and
Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anas acuta and A. georgica
to form a superspecies; their sister relationship was supported by Eo et al.
(2009).
20. Called "Common
Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in
Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
21. As noted by Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001), no rationale has ever been published for the merger
(by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) of mainland Anas spinicauda with A.
georgica from South Georgia Island, which was treated as separate species
by Hellmayr & Conover (1948a); see also Jaramillo (2003). Proposal needed.
21a. The Colombian
subspecies niceforoi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover
1948a) considered a separate species from Anas georgica, but REFs, Meyer
de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), and Johnsgard (1979) treated them as
conspecific.
21b. Delacour and Mayr
(1945) considered Anas bahamensis to form a superspecies with
African A. erythrorhyncha, but see Eo et al. (2009).
21c. Formerly known as
"Bahama Pintail" (e.g., REFS) or "Bahama Duck" (AOU 1957).
22. Anas puna and A.
versicolor are sometimes (e.g., <?> Peters 1931, Johnsgard 1979,
Carboneras 1992f, Dickinson 2003) considered conspecific, but most
classifications (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Dickinson & Remsen 2013, del Hoyo & Collar 2014) consider them to be separate species. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990), and genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are
sister species. SACC proposal to treat puna as conspecific with versicolor
did not pass. Johnsgard (1965) proposed that these two species were most
closely related to African A. hottentota; genetic data (Johnson &
Sorenson 1999) suggest that this is correct.
22a. Anas puna and A.
versicolor were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in
a separate genus, Punanetta, but see <REF>.
22a. Anas discors and
A. cyanoptera were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover
1948a) placed in a separate genus, Querquedula, but see Delacour &
Mayr (1945) and McKinney (1970). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999)
confirm that they are sister species (as did Eo et al. 2009).
22b. Anas platalea and
A. clypeata were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in
a separate genus, Spatula, but see <REF>. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014),
resurrected Spatula for this group as well as A.
discors and A. cyanoptera based on the data in Gonzalez et
al. (2009), which indicated that inclusion of this group in Anas makes it paraphyletic with respect
to Lophonetta, Tachyeres, Amazonetta,
and Speculanas (see Note 8).
Chesser et al. (2017) recognized Spatula. Sun et al. (2017) found
additional support for recognition of Spatula to maintain the monophyly
of Anas. SACC
proposal passed to recognize Spatula.
22c. Netta
erythrophthalma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed
the genus Aythya, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22d. Netta peposaca was
formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate
monotypic genus, Metopiana, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22e. Called
"Rosybill" in Johnsgard (1978), Madge & Burn (1988), Dickinson
(2003) and elsewhere.
23. Recorded from northern
Venezuela (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>).
Published photos and several sight records for Trinidad &
Tobago (ffrench & White 1999, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench &
Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004, 2012).
24. Nomonyx dominicus was
formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, 1983, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee
1966, 1970) placed in the genus Oxyura. See Livezey (1995) and
[McCracken REFS] for resurrection of Nomonyx as genus separate from Oxyura,
a return to the classification of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover
(1948a). Eo et al. (2009) did not find
support for inclusion of Nomonyx in Oxyura.
25. Andean populations have
often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried 1976, Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Jaramillo 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014) been treated as a separate species, O. ferruginea ("Andean
Duck" or "Andean Ruddy-Duck"). However, see Adams and Slavid (1984), Fjeldså
(1986), McCracken & Sorenson (2005), and Donegan et al. (2015) for rationale
for treating them as conspecific, as done previously (e.g., Blake 1977,
Johnsgard 1979), and then followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Carboneras
(1992f), and Dickinson & Remsen (2013).
Siegfried (1976) and Livezey (1995) considered ferruginea to be more
closely related to O. vittata than to O. jamaicensis,
but McCracken & Sorenson (2005) showed that this is incorrect.
26. Called "Argentine
Blue-billed Duck" in Johnsgard (1978) and Carboneras (1992f).
GALLIFORMES 1
CRACIDAE (GUANS) 1a
Chamaepetes goudotii Sickle-winged
Guan 21
Penelope argyrotis Band-tailed
Guan 8
Penelope barbata Bearded
Guan 8
Penelope ortoni Baudo
Guan 9
Penelope montagnii Andean
Guan 9
Penelope marail Marail
Guan 10
Penelope superciliaris Rusty-margined
Guan 10, 15
Penelope dabbenei Red-faced
Guan 10a, 10b
Penelope jacquacu Spix's
Guan 11, 12, 12a
Penelope purpurascens Crested
Guan 11
Penelope perspicax Cauca
Guan 11, 13
Penelope albipennis White-winged
Guan 11, 14
Penelope bridgesi Yungas
Guan 11, 14a
Penelope obscura Dusky-legged
Guan 11, 14a
Penelope pileata White-crested
Guan 15
Penelope ochrogaster Chestnut-bellied
Guan 15
Penelope jacucaca White-browed
Guan 15
Pipile pipile Trinidad
Piping-Guan 8, 16, 17
Pipile cumanensis Blue-throated
Piping-Guan 17, 18
Pipile cujubi Red-throated
Piping-Guan 17, 19
Pipile jacutinga Black-fronted
Piping-Guan 17
Aburria aburri Wattled
Guan 8, 16
Ortalis cinereiceps Gray-headed
Chachalaca 2
Ortalis garrula Chestnut-winged
Chachalaca 2
Ortalis ruficauda Rufous-vented
Chachalaca 3
Ortalis erythroptera Rufous-headed
Chachalaca
Ortalis canicollis Chaco
Chachalaca
Ortalis columbiana Colombian
Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis guttata Speckled
Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis araucuan East
Brazilian Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis squamata Scaled
Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis motmot Variable
Chachalaca 4, 6, 7
Ortalis ruficeps Chestnut-headed
Chachalaca 4, 6, 7
Ortalis superciliaris Buff-browed
Chachalaca 4, 4a
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal
Curassow 22
Crax rubra Great
Curassow 22, 30, 30a
Crax alberti Blue-billed
Curassow 30, 30aa, 30c
Crax daubentoni Yellow-knobbed
Curassow 30, 31
Crax alector Black
Curassow 30, 30b
Crax globulosa Wattled
Curassow 30
Crax fasciolata Bare-faced
Curassow 30, 32
Crax blumenbachii Red-billed
Curassow
Mitu tomentosum Crestless
Curassow 22 23, 25, 26
Mitu salvini Salvin's
Curassow 23
Mitu tuberosum Razor-billed
Curassow 23, 27
Mitu mitu Alagoas
Curassow 23, 27 (EX)
Pauxi pauxi Helmeted
Curassow 22, 29a
Pauxi koepckeae Sira
Curassow 29a, 29b
Pauxi unicornis Horned
Curassow 29a, 29b
1. Galliformes + Anseriformes
are placed in linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a
wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they
are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details. The monophyly of the Galliformes has never been
seriously questioned and has been confirmed by Eo et al. (2009. [relationships
among families]
1a. Vaurie (1968) recognized
three major divisions within the family based on morphological criteria: the
guans and chachalacas (tribe Penelopini), the curassows (Cracini), and the
(extralimital) Horned Guan (Oreophasini). Delacour & Amadon (1973) considered
the latter to be part of the chachalaca-guan group and recognized only two
major divisions, (a) the curassows and (b) everything else. Del Hoyo (1994)
recognized two subfamilies, Cracinae for the four genera of curassows and
Penelopinae for everything else. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) identify
two main groups, one consisting of del Hoyo's Cracinae as well as Ortalis and
Oreophasis, and the other consisting of the guan genera Aburria, Pipile,
Penelope, Penelopina (extralimital), and Chamaepetes;
however, support was weak for the nodes that include Ortalis and Oreophasis
with the curassows. A more comprehensive analysis (Crowe et al. 2006) also
supports treating these two groups as subfamilies. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence
of genera. SACC proposal to add subfamilies did not
pass. A more recent analysis that combined genetic
and phenotypic data (Pereira et al. 2009) found strong support for the two main
groups above, with Ortalis and Oreophasis members of the group
that includes the curassows; Eo et al. (2009), however, were unable to find
support for these relationships. A proposal
passed to recognize subfamilies, while but awaiting ICZN
ruling on correct formulation of the subfamily for Ortalis group (see David 2014, Donegan 2105), Hosner et al. (2016)
found that all extant taxa diverged within the last 10 million years or so,
thus making the three lineages of very recent origin (and that Oreophasis is as old as the three other
lineages). Proposal to recognize subfamilies in the Cracidae did not pass.
2. Ortalis cinereiceps
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Vaurie 1965b, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific with O. garrula, but
see Delacour & Amadon (1973); Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo
(1994) considered them to form a superspecies.
3. The subspecies ruficrissa
was considered a separate species from Ortalis ruficauda by Peters
(1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), but it intergrades with ruficauda
in northern Colombia and Venezuela (Phelps 1943, Phelps and Phelps 1958, Vaurie
1965b, del Hoyo 1994).
4. Ortalis guttata (including
O. columbiana) and O. superciliaris have been treated as
conspecific with O. motmot (see Delacour & Amadon [1973] for
rationale); they are considered to form a monophyletic group (Vaurie 1965) that
form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994).
4a. Ortalis superciliaris
was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as O. spixi, but see
Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
5. The geographically
isolated races columbiana, araucuan, and squamata have
sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Miller 1947, Sick 1993, 1997, Ridgely
& Greenfield 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis guttata;
they have generally been treated as subspecies of O. guttata following
Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1965). SACC proposal passed to treat columbiana
as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat araucuan and squamata as separate
species from Ortalis guttata. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014) adopted these new species limits.
5a. Ortalis guttata
remota Pinto, 1960, was treated by Vaurie (1965a) as a synonym of Ortalis
[guttata] squamosa, and this was followed by all subsequent classifications. However, Silveira et al. (2017)
proposed that remota is a separate species from O. guttata or O.
squamata. SACC proposal to treat remota as a species did not pass.
6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated
ruficeps of eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmot. SACC proposal to treat ruficeps as a separate species did not pass. Tomotani et al. (2020) presented new evidence
in favor of treating ruficeps as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat ruficeps
as a separate species.
7. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) called
"Little Chachalaca."
8. Vuilleumier (1965) merged
Pipile and Aburria into Penelope, but this has not been followed
by subsequent authors.
8a. Penelope barbata was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Vaurie 1966a, Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. argyrotis, but see
Delacour & Amadon (1973), who treated them as sister species (Delacour
& Amadon 1973) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Parker
et al. (1985) proposed that they might form a superspecies with P. montagnii. Hosner et al. (2016), however, found that
these three taxa might not be closely related, but the tree topology was weakly
supported.
9. Vuilleumier (1965)
treated Penelope ortoni as a subspecies of P. montagnii,
but see Vaurie (1966b). Eley (1982)
presented evidence that its closest relative was P. marail.
10. Penelope marail and
P. superciliaris were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1987)
and del Hoyo (1994); Hosner et al. (2016) corroborated that they are sister
taxa.
10a. Penelope dabbenei
was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934) known as P. nigrifrons, but see
Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
10b. Olrog (1960) suggested
that Penelope dabbenei might best be treated as a subspecies of P.
montagnii, but see Vaurie (1966a).
Hosner et al. (2016) corroborated that they are sister taxa.
11. Haffer (1987), Sibley
& Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1994) considered Penelope purpurascens,
P. perspicax, P. albipennis, P. jacquacu, and P.
obscura to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by
Vuilleumier (1965), but see Vaurie (1966b), Delacour & Amadon (1973), and
Eley (1982). Hosner et al. (2016),
however, found that they do not form a monophyletic group. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear
sequence of species in Penelope.
12. Penelope jacquacu
has been considered conspecific with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P.
purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but see Vaurie (1966a), Meyer de
Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973). Hosner et al. (2016) found
that P. jacquacu is sister to P.
dabbenei + P. montagnii. SACC
proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.
12a. The granti subspecies
group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps
1958a) considered a separate species from Penelope jacquacu,
but see Vaurie (1966b). The Bolivian subspecies speciosa was treated as
a subspecies of P. obscura by Peters (1934).
13. Penelope perspicax
was considered a subspecies of P. jacquacu by Vaurie (1966b), Meyer de
Schauensee (1966), and Blake (1977), or of P. purpurascens by Peters
(1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Meyer de Schauensee (1970); for
treatment as separate species, see Delacour & Amadon (1973).
14. Penelope albipennis
has been considered an aberrant or albinistic form or morph of P. ortoni
(Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but Vaurie (1966a)
and Eley (1982) provided evidence that it is a valid species-level taxon, as
treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour
& Amadon (1973). Hosner et al.
(2016) found that it is the sister to P. argyrotis. SACC
proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.
14a. Evangelista-Vargas & Silveira (2018) treated
the subspecies bridgesi of Bolivia
and Argentina as a separate species but based on PSC rationale; however, no
explicit rationale has ever been presented for keeping them as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to recognize bridgesi as a separate species.
15. Delacour & Amadon
(1973) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Penelope pileata,
P. ochrogaster, and P. jacucaca to form a superspecies; they
were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Vuilleumier 1965). They form a
monophyletic group (Hosner et al. 2016).
Pinto (1938) considered P. jacucaca to be a subspecies of P.
superciliaris.
16. The genus Pipile is
merged by some (Delacour & Amadon 1973, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) into Aburria. Pipile is currently treated as a
separate genus in most classifications. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002,
Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Aburria and Pipile are
sister taxa, and this is supported by morphological data (Grau et al. 2005a).
New genetic data (Grau et al. 2005a) indicate that Aburria aburri is
embedded within Pipile, thus forcing the merger of Pipile into Aburria. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria
did not pass. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007)
presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Pipile
into Aburria. Eo et al. (2009) were unable
to support the monophyly of Pipile + Aburria because A.
jacutinga fell outside the group. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass.
Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014)
maintained the two as separate genera.
Hosner et al. (2016) showed that Aburria is sister to all Pipile.
17. As noted by Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001), evidence for species rank for the four species of Pipile
is weak, and various authors have used just about every possible permutation of
species limits. Many authors (e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Hilty 2003)
continue to treat them as a single species, Pipile pipile ("Common
Piping-Guan"), whereas others (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de
Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994) consider all four
major groups as separate species, the treatment followed here. Sibley &
Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered P. pipile, P.
cumanensis, and P. cujubi to form a superspecies, but
excluded P. jacutinga. Although the latter has been considered
sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977), del Hoyo
& Motis (2004) noted that the evidence for sympatry is weak. Meyer de
Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977) considered cumanensis to be
conspecific with P. pipile, but considered cujubi and jacutinga
to be separate species. Peters (1934) considered the genus to contain three
species: P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. jacutinga. Pinto
(1938) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. pipile (and cumanensis,
grayi, and jacutinga as species), but later (Pinto 1964) treated cujubi
as a subspecies of P. jacutinga. Where P. cujubi nattereri and P.
cumanensis grayi meet in eastern Bolivia, they interbreed freely, forming a
hybrid swarm (del Hoyo and Motis 2004) <track down original reference>,
and so this suggests that species limits should be re-evaluated and returned to
those of Delacour & Amadon (1973), who considered the genus to contain two
species: P. pipile (including cumanensis, cujubi, etc.)
and P. jacutinga. Proposal needed. [incorp. Vaurie (1967a)]
18. The subspecies grayi
was considered a separate species from Pipile cumanensis by Pinto
(1938), but they intergrade in southeastern Peru (REF). <incorp.
Gyldenstolpe 1945> However, del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated grayi as a separate species, “White-throated
Piping-Guan.”
19. The subspecies nattereri
is usually considered a subspecies of Pipile cumanensis (e.g., Pinto
1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); however, it is perhaps sympatric with P.
cumanensis grayi on the lower Rio Madeira (Vaurie 1967a), and if this
is verified, the two deserve treatment as separate species (Blake
1977). <needs to be reconciled with previous note - need to see Del
Hoyo-Motis 2004; <track down original reference>
21. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii to form a
superspecies with Middle American C. unicolor.
22. Generic limits in the
curassows are controversial. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Mitu, Pauxi,
and even Nothocrax into Crax, and this was followed by Delacour
& Amadon (1973). Vaurie (1967d), however, outlined rationale for
maintaining the four genera as separate, and also pointed out that Nothocrax
was a strong outlier in the group, a prediction subsequently verified by
genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004, Hosner et al. 2016). Most subsequent treatments have followed
Vaurie (1967d). However, Frank-Hoeflich
et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of
Mitu into Pauxi. SACC proposal to merge Mitu into Pauxi did not pass.
Hosner et al. (2016) also found that Pauxi
is embedded in Mitu. See
Note 29a.
23. Vaurie (1967d), Haffer
(1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered
all species of Mitu to form a superspecies. <check overlap
salvini-tuberosum>; genetic data support the genus as a monophyletic
group if the genetic similarity between M. tuberosum and Pauxi
unicornis is due to hybridization (Pereira & Baker 2004). However, see Note 22.
25. Mitu is neuter,
so the correct spellings of the species names are tuberosum and tomentosum
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
26. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) called "Lesser Razor-billed Curassow."
27. Mitu tuberosum
was formerly (e.g., Vaurie 1967d, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered
conspecific with M. mitu, but most recent classifications (e.g.,
Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed del Hoyo (1994) in treating it as a
separate species. See Silveira et al. (2004) for history of the taxon and a
summary of its unique characters and rationale for considering it and tuberosum
as a separate species. <incorp.
Grau et al. 2005b> Pereira & Baker (2004) found that M. tuberosum
and M. mitu are not sister taxa and are not particularly closely
related, but more complete genetic sampling found that they were indeed sister
taxa (Hosner et al. 2016).
27a. Although Mitu mitu
is considered extinct in the wild, with no confirmed sightings since the late
1980s. two captive breeding populations exist, and the potential for
reintroduction into the wild exists (BirdLife International).
29a. Pauxi pauxi
and P. unicornis (then including P. koepckeae) were considered to
form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994); they
were considered conspecific by Wetmore & Phelps (1943), but see Vaurie
(1967d). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004), however, indicated
that P. unicornis was more similar in its mtDNA sequence to Crax
tuberosum than to P. pauxi or other curassows, but the authors
suspected that this was a consequence of past hybridization between P. unicornis
and C. tuberosum and recommended not changing generic limits without
further analyses. Aleixo & Rossetti (2007) also suspected that the result
might be due to a lab error. See also Eo et al. (2009). Hosner et al. (2016) also found that the two
species of Pauxi were not
particularly closely related.
29b. Gastañaga et al. (2011)
found strong vocal differences between the subspecies koepckeae and
nominate unicornis and proposed that they be treated as separate
species. SACC proposal passed to elevate koepckeae to species rank.
This treatment was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014). Hosner et al. (2016) also found that the two species of Pauxi were not particularly closely
related.
30. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered the seven species of Crax to form
a superspecies. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) support the genus as a
monophyletic group of parapatric taxa; see also Eo et al. (2009). However, see Note 22.
30a. <Crax globicera
(e.g. Chapman 1926) syn. of C. rubra>
30aa. "Crax annulata,"
described from northern Colombia and treated as a species by Hellmayr &
Conover (1942) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered to be female
plumage of barred morph of C. alberti (Peters 1934, Vaurie (1967c), del
Hoyo 1994). "Crax viridirostris"
refers to an aviary bird for which the mother was C. daubentoni (Joseph
et al. 1999); see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
30b. Crax alector was
formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see
Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
30c. "Crax
estudilloi," known from a single aviary specimen from Bolivia, was
considered a probable hybrid (C. fasciolata and Crax sp.)
by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987); however, Joseph et al. (1999) found that its
mtDNA was identical to that of C. alberti; see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
31. Peters (1934) considered
Crax daubentoni as a subspecies C. alberti, but see Vaurie
(1967c). Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with their
treatment as sister taxa.
32. The northeastern
subspecies pinima was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) treated
as a separate species from Crax fasciolata; they have generally been
treated as conspecific following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie
(1967c). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated it
as a separate species based on female plumage, “Belem Curassow”.
ODONTOPHORIDAE (NEW WORLD QUAILS) 1
Rhynchortyx cinctus Tawny-faced
Quail 6, 6a
Colinus cristatus Crested
Bobwhite 2
Callipepla californica California
Quail (IN)
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled
Wood-Quail
Odontophorus capueira Spot-winged
Wood-Quail
Odontophorus atrifrons Black-fronted
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus erythrops Rufous-fronted
Wood-Quail 4
Odontophorus hyperythrus Chestnut
Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus melanonotus Dark-backed
Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus speciosus Rufous-breasted
Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus dialeucos Tacarcuna
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus strophium Gorgeted
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus columbianus Venezuelan
Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus balliviani Stripe-faced
Wood-Quail
Odontophorus stellatus Starred
Wood-Quail
PHASIANIDAE (PHEASANTS)
Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant (IN) 7
Lophura nycthemera Silver Pheasant (IN) 8
1. The New World Quails were
treated as a separate family from Old World quails, partridges, and pheasants
(Phasianidae) by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Whether these families are sister
taxa within the Galliformes was formerly regarded as uncertain (Armstrong et
al. 2001, Dimcheff et al. 2002), but genetic data (Cox et al. 2007, Eo et al.
2009, Kimball & Braun 2014) confirm that the New World quail are the sister
taxon to a group that includes turkeys, pheasants, partridges and Old world
quail (Phasianidae), but not the guineafowl (Numididae). Recognition of
Odontophoridae as a separate family has also been adopted by Carroll (1994),
AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003). Eo et al. (2009) found support for the
monophyly of the family. Given that the
original rationale for treating the New World quail as a separate family was
based in part on concern that their inclusion in Phasianidae would make that
group non-monophyletic, and given that two African taxa (Ptilopachus petrosus and “Francolinus”
nahani) are now members of the
Odontophoridae (Crowe et al. 2006, Kimball et al. 2011, Cohen et al. 2012,
Dickinson & Remsen 2013), family rank should be reconsidered. Proposal needed.
2. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered Colinus cristatus to form a superspecies with
North and Middle American C. virginianus and Middle American
C. nigrogularis. Some authors (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered Central
American C. leucopogon to be conspecific with C. cristatus; they
form a superspecies (Stiles & Skutch 1989).
REFS and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) treated leucopogon as a
subspecies of C. cristatus. SACC proposal needed.
3. Species limits and
relationships within montane Odontophorus are complex and are currently
maintained largely by historical momentum rather than analysis or data. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus dialeucos and O.
strophium to form a superspecies. Carroll (1994) suggested that these two
and also O. columbianus, O. atrifrons, and Central American O.
leucolaemus could be considered conspecific. However, the traditional
placement of O. atrifrons in linear sequences is next to members of
other groups, e.g., O. erythrops or O. hyperythrus. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) maintained columbianus
as a separate species but stated that it was almost certainly conspecific
with O. strophium.
4. Odontophorus erythrops
forms a superspecies with Middle American melanotis (Sibley &
Monroe 1990); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942,
Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Blake 1977, AOU 1983) have considered them
conspecific.
5. Blake (1977) and Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus hyperythrus O.
melanonotus, and O. speciosus to form a superspecies; Carroll
(1994) suggested that they all could be treated as conspecific, as they were
formerly by (REF).
6. Hosner et al. (2015)
found that Rhynchortyx was the
sister to all other New World Odontophoridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of genera.
6a. Called "Banded Wood
Quail" in Wetmore (1965) and "Long-legged Colin" in Ridgway
& Friedmann (1946).
7. A population of Phasianus
colchicus has become established in
Aisen and Capitan Prat, Chile (Barros 2015).
SACC proposal passed to add this to the
Main List.
8. A population of Lophura nycthemera has
become established in Neuquén, Argentina.
SACC
proposal passed to add this to the Main List.
NEOGNATHAE
NEOAVES 1
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES
1a
PHOENICOPTERIDAE
(FLAMINGOS)
Phoenicopterus
chilensis Chilean Flamingo 3
Phoenicopterus
ruber American Flamingo 2, 3
Phoenicoparrus
andinus Andean Flamingo 4
Phoenicoparrus
jamesi James's Flamingo 4, 5
1. The linear sequence of orders in the Neoaves
is maintained in part from historical momentum and tradition rather than
phylogenetic data. Although the
branching sequence deep within the Neoaves tree has been difficult to resolve,
new, concordant data sets (REFS) allow increasing confidence with respect to
some of the deep nodes. Chesser et al.
(2016) revised the sequence of orders of the Neoaves based on these new
data. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence of orders.
1a. Various evidence has been interpreted to
support treatment of the flamingos within or closest to the Ciconiiformes
(Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2007), Anseriformes (Hagey et
al. 1990), and Charadriiformes (Olson & Feduccia 1980). However, all recent data support a sister
relationship to the grebes (Podicipediformes; see below). SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence to move next to Podicipediformes. The
monophyly of the Phoenicopteriformes has never been questioned; they are so
similar that they were treated in a single genus by Sibley and Monroe (1990). Frias-Soler et al. (2022) found that the two
species of Phoenicoparrus are sister to Old World Phoeniconaias minor;
and confirmed that the three species of Phoenicopterus, including Old
World P. roseus, form a monophyletic group. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.
2. The Old World subspecies roseus had
been recognized as a separate species by some authors (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), with the English name "Greater
Flamingo" applied to the Old World species, and either "Caribbean
Flamingo" or "American Flamingo" (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Hilty 2003) used for the New World species. Sangster (1997)
reviewed the evidence for species rank of roseus and recommended it be
returned to species rank. This was
followed by NACC (Banks et al. 2008), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar
(2014). <incorp. Knox et al. 2002> SACC proposal passed to return roseus to
species rank. Torres et al. (2014)
found that at the loci sampled, roseus and ruber are as divergent as andinus and jamesi. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.
3. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered Phoenicopterus ruber and P. chilensis to form a
superspecies; they were treated as conspecific by Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr
& Conover (1948a).
4. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) merged Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus based on small
genetic distances among all flamingos as measured by DNA-DNA hybridization
(Sibley & Ahlquist 1990); further, the distinctions between the genera are
based on bill morphology. Kahl (1979b),
Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), del Hoyo (1992), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) maintained Phoenicoparrus as a separate genus. Torres et al. (2014) Phoenicoparrus and Phoenicopterus represented two
divergent lineages. SACC proposal to merge Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus did not pass.
5. Called "Puna Flamingo" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley and Monroe
(1990), del Hoyo (1992), and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal did not pass to change
English name.
PODICIPEDIFORMES
1
PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBES) 1a, 1b, 1c
Rollandia rolland White-tufted
Grebe 2, 3
Rollandia microptera Titicaca
Grebe 4, 4a
Tachybaptus dominicus Least
Grebe 5
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed
Grebe
Podiceps major Great
Grebe 6
Podiceps andinus Colombian
Grebe (EX) 7
Podiceps occipitalis Silvery
Grebe 8, 9
Podiceps taczanowskii Junin
Grebe 10
Podiceps gallardoi Hooded
Grebe 11
1. The grebes constitute a distinctive lineage
with no close relatives (other than flamingoes – see below), and the monophyly
of the order has never been questioned. Morphological
similarities to the loons (Gaviiformes) have been interpreted as reflecting
relatedness (e.g., Cracraft 1982, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi
2007) and has led to their traditional placement next to each other in most
linear classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but genetic data strongly suggest that
these morphological similarities are purely due to convergence (Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al.
2006). Van Tuinen et al. (2001) suggested that the closest living relatives of
the grebes are the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes), and this has been confirmed
by all subsequent genetic data (Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et
al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015, Suh et al.
2015); this hypothesis also has morphological support (Mayr & Clarke 2003,
Mayr 2004, Manegold 2006; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007), and the ischnoceran
lice of the two groups are also sisters (Johnson et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Jarvis et
al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) also suggest that both orders are part of an early
radiation that does not include their traditional close relatives such as
Ciconiiformes or Gaviiformes.
1a. The sequence of genera and species in this
classification follows Storer (1979). [incorporate Simmons 1962,
Storer 1963, Bochenski 1994]
1b. All of the New World
grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in one genus, Colymbus,
but see Salomonsen (1951) and Hemming (1952).
1c. For use of Podicipedidae over Podicipitidae, see ICZN (1972).
2. Rollandia rolland was formerly
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Podiceps, but recent
classifications usually follow Storer's (1963) analysis of morphology and
display behavior in use of Rollandia for this species and microptera.
3. The subspecies of continental South America, Rollandia
r. chilensis, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938; see also Fjeldså
& Krabbe 1990) considered a separate species from nominate rolland of
the Falkland Islands.
4. Rollandia microptera was formerly
(e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the
monotypic genus Centropelma; Simmons (1962) provided rationale for its
merger into Podiceps. Recent
classifications usually follow Storer (1963, 1967) in placing this species in Rollandia
(see Note 2).
4a. Called "Titicaca
Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Llimona & del
Hoyo (1992), and "Short-winged Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970)
and Blake (1977). SACC proposal passed to change from
"Short-winged Grebe" (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970) to
"Titicaca Grebe." The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).
5. Tachybaptus dominicus
was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Podiceps, but recent
classifications usually follow Storer (1976) in the use of Tachybaptus for
this species and its Old World relatives; Pinto (1938) placed it in the
genus Poliocephalus.
6. Podiceps major was
formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed
in the genus Aechmophorus, but see Wetmore & Parkes (1954). Bochenski (1994) proposed that this species be
placed in a monotypic genus (Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994) based on
morphological differences; see also Storer (1963, 1996), who noted that it has
a behavioral display unlike that of any other grebe. Proposal needed.
7. Podiceps andinus was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Storer 1979)
considered a subspecies of mostly N. Hemisphere P. nigricollis, but see
Fjeldså (1982a, 1985), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Hilty & Brown
(1986); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ogawa et al. (2015) found that P.
andinus is more closely
related to New World P. n. californicus than either are to the nominate Podiceps
nigricollis group of the Old World.
8. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Jaramillo
(2003) suggested that the northern Andean subspecies, juninensis, might
merit recognition as a separate species from Podiceps occipitalis. Del
Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated them as separate species. The gene tree in Ogawa
et al. (2015) is consistent with treating juninensis as a
separate species. SACC proposal to treat as a separate
species did not pass.
9. Storer (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990)
included Podiceps occipitalis in a superspecies with P. andinus and
P. nigricollis; Llimona & del Hoyo (1992) also included P.
taczanowskii in that superspecies, but the latter is syntopic with P.
occipitalis.
10. Called "Puna Grebe" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere; called "Junin Flightless
Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change to
"Junin Grebe”. The latter was adopted by
Schulenberg et al. (2007) and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014).
11. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970):
Rumboll (1974).
Part 2. Columbiformes
to Caprimulgiformes