A Classification of the Bird
Species of South America
South American Classification Committee
(Part 4)
Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes (below)
_______________________________________________________
Part 1. Rheiformes to
Podicipediformes
Part
2. Columbiformes to
Caprimulgiformes
Part
3. Apodiformes
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)
OPISTHOCOMIFORMES 1
OPISTHOCOMIDAE (HOATZIN)
Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin
1. The placement of this order is highly
controversial, and its placement here in the linear sequence of orders should
be treated as Incertae Sedis. Some
genetic data have indicated that it is closely related to the Cuculiformes
(Sibley & Ahlquist 1973, 1990) or Musophagiformes (Hughes & Baker
1999). De Queiroz and Good (1988), Mayr
& Clarke (2003), and Livezey & Zusi (2007) found morphological evidence
consistent with its placement near Cuculiformes or Musophagiformes. [add Hedges et
al. 1995] Previous
classifications have included it within the Galliformes (e.g., Pinto 1938) or
Gruiformes (REF). However, a recent
genetic data set (Sorenson et al. 2003) failed to find support for a
relationship to any of these groups, but found weak support for a relationship
to the Columbiformes. Other genetic data
(Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) also suggest that Opisthocomus
is perhaps a member of a group of orders that also includes the Columbiformes. However, the most comprehensive genetic data
set (Hackett et al. 2008) was unable to resolve its relationships, with no
evidence for close relationship to any order within the Neoaves. Jarvis et al. (2014) found weak support for
it as sister to Charadriiformes + Gruiformes.
In contrast, Prum et al. (2015) found that it was the basal member of a
group of lineages that includes all other landbird lineages.
_______________________________________________________
GRUIFORMES 1
_______________________________________________________
1. The
extreme morphological heterogeneity among the families of the Gruiformes has
always made the monophyly of this order suspicious (see Cracraft 1981, Sibley
& Ahlquist 1990). Although Sibley & Ahlquist's DNA-DNA hybridization
data provided support for a monophyletic Gruiformes, subsequent genetic data
have failed to do so. Although genetic data (Fain
& Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Hackett et al.
2008) strongly support the monophyly of a core group
of gruiform families that consists of the Gruidae, Aramidae, Psophiidae,
Rallidae, and Heliornithidae, support for inclusion of other traditional gruiform
families is weak or nonexistent. The Psophiidae is sister to Gruidae + Aramidae
(Krajewski et al. 2010). Concerning
families found in South America, Fain & Houde (2004) and Ericson et al.
(2006) found that the Eurypygidae does not belong in the Gruiformes but rather
in a major, separate radiation of the Neoaves, with the Rhynochetidae the
likely sister family of the Eurypygidae (see also Houde et al. 1997, Livezey
1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Hackett et al. 2008, Suh et al. 2015), and that the Cariamidae (and also the Old World
Otididae) is in an altogether different branch of the Neoaves than are the true
Gruiformes (see also Livezey & Zusi 2001, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Ericson
et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Suh et al. 2015). SACC proposal passed to treat Cariamidae
in their own order, Cariamiformes, now placed to precede Falconiformes and
Psittaciformes; see SACC proposal. Chesser et al. (2010)
removed the Eurypygidae from the Gruiformes and placed them in their own new
order. SACC proposal passed to create a new
order, Eurypygiformes, for Eurypygidae. Recent
morphological data (Livezey
& Zusi 2007) support the monophyly of the traditional Gruiformes except
that the Rallidae (represented only by Porphyrula) and Heliornithidae
(and Old World Turnicidae and Mesitornithidae) might belong in the
Charadriiformes. Kirchman et al. (2021)
showed that Heliornithidae were indeed in the Gruiformes.
_______________________________________________________
ARAMIDAE (LIMPKIN) 1
Aramus guarauna Limpkin 1a
PSOPHIIDAE (TRUMPETERS)
Psophia
crepitans
Gray-winged Trumpeter 2
Psophia
leucoptera
Pale-winged Trumpeter 2, 3
Psophia
viridis
Dark-winged Trumpeter 2, 4
_______________________________________________________
1. All recent data indicate that the
sister family of the Aramidae is the Gruidae (Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998,
Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al.
2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Mayr 2008, Hackett et al. 2008, Garcia-R et al.
2020), not the Heliornithidae, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990).
1a. The species name for Aramus
guarauna was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) scolopaceus,
but see Hellmayr
& Conover (1942).
2. The species of Psophia form a
superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Sherman 1996).
3. The subspecies ochroptera has
been placed in Psophia crepitans rather than P. leucoptera by
some authors (REFS), and genetic data (Ribas et al. 2012) indicate that it is
more closely related to P. crepitans.
Reports of sympatry of ochroptera and P. c. napensis without
interbreeding repeated in Sherman (1996) are evidently based on reports from
local hunters and should be considered as hearsay <REF>. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated ochroptera as a separate species, “Ochre-winged
Trumpeter”.
4.
Oppenheimer & Silveira (2009) found no evidence of intergradation
near potential contact areas between the nominate subspecies and P. v. dextralis, or between the latter
and P. v. obscura; they recommended,
therefore, that dextralis and obscura be ranked as separate species
from nominate viridis. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated dextralis and obscura as separate species, “Olive-winged Trumpeter” and
“Black-winged Trumpeter”, respectively. SACC proposal passed to modify species
limits by moving subspecies ochroptera
from P. leucoptera to P. crepitans.
_______________________________________________________
RALLIDAE (RAILS) 1
Crex crex Corn
Crake (V) 14b
Rallus
longirostris
Mangrove Rail 3
Rallus
wetmorei
Plain-flanked Rail 3
Rallus
limicola
Virginia Rail 4, 4a, 5
Rallus
semiplumbeus
Bogota Rail 5, 6
Rallus
antarcticus
Austral Rail 5
Porphyrio
martinica
Purple Gallinule 24, 25, 26, 27, 27a
Porphyrio
flavirostris
Azure Gallinule 24
Anurolimnas
castaneiceps
Chestnut-headed Crake 8a
Anurolimnas
viridis
Russet-crowned Crake 8
Anurolimnas
fasciatus
Black-banded Crake 8, 9
Laterallus
levraudi
Rusty-flanked Crake 10, 10a
Laterallus
melanophaius
Rufous-sided Crake 10, 10a, 11
Laterallus
albigularis
White-throated Crake 11
Laterallus
exilis
Gray-breasted Crake 11a
Laterallus
spilonota
Galapagos Rail 12, 12a
Laterallus
jamaicensis
Black Rail 12, 13, 13a
Laterallus
leucopyrrhus
Red-and-white Crake 14
Laterallus
xenopterus
Rufous-faced Crake 14,14a
Coturnicops
notatus
Speckled Rail 1a, 1b
Micropygia
schomburgkii
Ocellated Crake 2
Mustelirallus
albicollis
Ash-throated Crake 19a
Mustelirallus
colombianus
Colombian Crake 18, 19, 19a
Mustelirallus
erythrops
Paint-billed Crake 18
Pardirallus
maculatus
Spotted Rail 20
Pardirallus
nigricans
Blackish Rail 20, 21
Pardirallus
sanguinolentus
Plumbeous Rail 20, 21
Amaurolimnas
concolor
Uniform Crake 7
Aramides
ypecaha
Giant Wood-Rail 5a, 5aa
Aramides
wolfi
Brown Wood-Rail
Aramides
mangle
Little Wood-Rail
Aramides
cajaneus
Gray-cowled Wood-Rail 5b, 5c, 5d
Aramides
axillaris
Rufous-necked Wood-Rail 6a
Aramides
calopterus
Red-winged Wood-Rail
Aramides
saracura
Slaty-breasted Wood-Rail
Porphyriops
melanops
Spot-flanked Gallinule 23
Porzana
flaviventer
Yellow-breasted Crake 15
Porzana
spiloptera
Dot-winged Crake 16
Porzana
carolina
Sora (NB)
17
Gallinula
galeata
Common Gallinule 22, 22a
Gallinula
angulata
Lesser Moorhen (V)
22b, 22c
Fulica
rufifrons
Red-fronted Coot 24a
Fulica
cornuta
Horned Coot
Fulica
gigantea
Giant Coot
Fulica
armillata
Red-gartered Coot
Fulica
americana
American Coot 28, 29
Fulica
ardesiaca
Slate-colored Coot 29, 30, 31
Fulica
leucoptera
White-winged Coot 29
1. <relationships
of family to other families; within-family relationships; incorp. Olson 1973,
Ripley 1977, Livezey 1998 etc.>. Garcia-R. et al. (2014) found eight major
divisions in the Rallidae, with the group including Rallus the sister to all other lineages. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence
of genera. Garcia-R et al. (2020) corroborated those
relationships with broader genomic data.
Kirchman et al. (2021) <incorp>
1a. Photographed on Fernando
de Noronha, Brazil, 28 November 2012 (Burgos and Olmos 2013). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
1b. Depino
et al. (2023) found that Coturnicops
was not monophyletic and recommended naming a new genus for notatus, as it was a deeply diverged
sister to a "jamaicensis" group
that contains the black Laterallus [Creciscus] crakes, L. spilonotus, Atlantisia rogersi, and Porzana spiloptera [additional note on notata,
as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ripley (1977)].
1c. Called
"Speckled Crake" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
2. Micropygia schomburgkii was
placed in Coturnicops by Ripley (1977), but differences in voice, type,
and morphology have led others to maintain it in a monotypic genus (REF, Taylor
1996, 1998). Genetic data indicate that
it is sister to Anurolimnas (Rufirallus) viridis (Boast et
al. 2019, Garcia-R et al. 2020, Kirchman et al. 2021, Depino et al. 2023).
Kirchman et al. (2021) and Depino et al. (2023) proposed placing viridis and schomburgki in Rufirallus
(see 8). SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence
and generic placement.
3. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Rallus longirostris and R. wetmorei,
along with North American R. elegans, to form a superspecies. Ripley
(1977) considered R. longirostris and R. elegans to be
conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that wetmorei might
better be treated as a subspecies of R. longirostris, but they are
evidently sympatric in Carabobo, Venezuela (Blake 1977, Hilty 2003).
3a. Maley
& Brumfield (2013) found that Rallus
longirostris group is paraphyletic with respect to North American Rallus elegans, requiring a major
revision of species limits. SACC proposal passed to revise species
limits and change English name.
4. Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001) treated the South American resident forms of Rallus
limicola as a separate species, R. aequatorialis, based on
differences in vocalizations (but no analysis published).
4a. Called
"Lesser Rail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990).
5. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Rallus limicola, R.
semiplumbeus, and R. antarcticus to form a superspecies. Rallus
antarcticus and R. limicola were considered conspecific by Peters
(1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Blake (1977), and Ripley (1977), but see
Meyer de Schauensee (1966), who suspected that R. antarcticus
might be more closely related to R. semiplumbeus, and Fjeldså
& Krabbe (1990) and Taylor (1996, 1998).
5a. Ripley
(1977) merged Aramides with Old World Eulabeornis, but this has
not been followed by subsequent authors and was refuted by Garcia-R et al.
(2020).
5aa. Because the species Mentocrex kioloides
is known as Madagascar Wood Rail, hyphens must be removed from our Aramides
wood rails.
5b. "Aramides
gutturalis," known from a single specimen from Peru and treated
as a distinct species by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is
now considered to be a badly prepared specimen of A. cajaneus (Meyer de
Schauensee 1966, Taylor 1996). However, Thomas Brooks has recently suggested
that this taxon needs re-evaluation: http://www.redlist.org. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
5c.
Marcondes & Silveira (2015) found evidence that the Middle American albiventris group warranted treatment as
separate species from A. cajaneus. Chesser et al. (2016) adopted this
change. SACC proposal passed to treat extralimital
albiventris as a separate species and
to follow Chesser et al. (2016) in changing English name of restricted A. cajaneus from Gray-necked Wood-Rail
to Gray-cowled Wood-Rail.
5d. David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the
correct spelling of the species name is cajaneus. SACC proposal passed to change the name.
6. The
subspecies peruvianus, known only from type specimen from uncertain
locality, may deserve recognition as separate species from Rallus
semiplumbeus (Taylor 1996, 1998); it was treated as a subspecies of R.
limicola by Peters (1934), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake
(1977), Ripley (1977), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).
6a. Called
"Rufous-crowned Wood Rail" in Wetmore (1965).
7. Some
authors (REF) have merged Amaurolimnas into Aramides; they are
sister genera (Taylor 1998, Garcia-R. et al. 2014, 2020, Kirchman et al. 2021);
Ripley (1977) merged Amaurolimnas into the Old World genus Rallina,
which is clearly refuted by genetic data.
8.
Anurolimnas viridis and A. fasciatus were formerly
(e.g., Peters 1934, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977) placed
in the genus Laterallus, but morphology and molt pattern suggest that
they belong in Anurolimnas (Stresemann & Stresemann 1966, Olson
1973, Storer 1981); this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor
(1996, 1998), and Dickinson (2003). Sick
(1993) suggested resurrecting the monotypic genus Rufirallus for viridis. Most authors, however, continue to include
these in Laterallus, and Taylor (1998) and Ridgely et al. (2001) noted
that both of these species are, by voice, Laterallus. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) transferred fasciatus to Porzana, based on Slikas et al. (2002), but branch support for this
relationship is poor. Garcia-R. et al.
(2014, 2020) found that Laterallus is polyphyletic, but fasciatus is sister to Laterallus melanophaius,
the type species for the genus.
Depino et al. (2023) indicated that sequences attributed to fasciatus in Garcia-R et al (2014) were
problematic, and found that fasciatus
was a deeply diverged sister to viridis
and schomburgkii in the Laterallini; they
recommended naming a new genus for it. Genetic data indicate that viridis is sister to schomburgkii (Boast
et al. 2019, Garcia-R et al. 2020, Kirchman et al. 2021, Depino et al. 2023). SACC proposal badly needed.
8a. Kirchman et al. (2021) and Depino et
al. (2023) found A. castaneiceps as
sister to the reminder of the Pardirallini. Vocalizations and nesting support
this relationship (Hilty & Brown 1986, Buitrón-Jurado et al. 2011).
9. The
species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Anurolimnas
fasciatus was hauxwelli, but see Ripley (1977).
10. Many species were previously treated
in genus Creciscus, but Peters (1932)
showed that this was actually predated by Laterallus
(see Note 16).
10a. Storer
(1981) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus levraudi and
L. melanophaius to form a superspecies, but see Note 11.
11. Laterallus
albigularis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of L. melanophaius, but
see Wetmore (1965); Storer (1981) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered L.
albigularis to be more closely related to L. exilis, but see Note 11b.
11a. Called
"Temminck's Rail" by Ridgway & Friedmann (1941).
11b. Kirchman
et al. (2021) found exilis as sister
to flaviventer and suggested placing
both in Hapalocrex. Depino et al.
(2023) found flaviventer and exilis as successive sisters to the melanophaius core-clade (ruber, albigularis, melanophaius
and levraudi). See Note 11.
12. Fjeldså
(1983a) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus jamaicensis
and L. spilonota to form a superspecies. Chaves et al. (2020)
found spilonota as sister to nominate
jamaicensis, whereas Depino et al.
(2023) found it sister to tuerosi.
12a. Species name frequently given as “spilonotus”, but the name is a noun in
apposition and thus not variable; see Dickinson & Remsen (2013).
12aa.
Called "Darwin's Rail" by Ridgway & Friedmann (1941).
13. Fjeldså
(1983a) proposed that the South American form tuerosi, which is usually
treated as, and described by Fjeldså (1983b) as, a subspecies of Laterallus
jamaicensis, should be recognized as a separate species; this was
followed by Collar et al. (1992) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal to elevate tuerosi to species rank did not pass. Depino et al. (2023) found tuerosi as sister to spilonota. Jaramillo (2003) suggested
that the southern subspecies salinasi might also warrant recognition as
a separate species from L. jamaicensis
13a. Called
"Black Crake" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990), but that name is usually applied to the African Amaurornis
flavirostris.
14.
Garcia-R et al. (2020) found L. leucopyrrhus as sister to L. melanophaius, but this was based on a
misidentified sample (Depino et al. 2023). Kirchman et al. (2021) found that leucopyrrhus grouped with fasciatus, viridis, and schomburgkii
and suggested placing all in Rufirallus.
Depino et al. (2023) found L. xenopterus
as sister to L. leucopyrrhus in a
clade including also fasciatus, viridis, and schomburgkii and indicated that xenopterus
and leucopyrrhus should be placed in
a yet undescribed genus.
14a. Called
"Horqueta Crake" in Ripley (1977).
15. Porzana
flaviventer has been placed by some authors (Olson 1970, 1973) in a
separate genus Poliolimnas, along with P. cinereus of the East
Indies and Australasian region, but see Mees (1982) as cited by Taylor
(1998). Slikas et al. (2002) showed that
it is not closely related to Old World P.
cinereus, but rather is sister to Anurolimnas + Porzana. Therefore,
Dickinson & Remsen (2013) resurrected the monotypic genus Hapalocrex for this species, and this
was followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
Garcia-R. et al. (2014) found that it was sister to a group of species
currently placed in Laterallus; however, these species are not sister to
the type species (melanophaius) for
the genus Laterallus. SACC proposal to place in Laterallus did not pass. Kirchman et al. (2021) and Depino et
al. (2023) found genetic support for recognition of Hapalocrex. SACC proposal badly needed.
16. Porzana
spiloptera was formerly placed by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) in the genus Laterallus,
the genus in which it was described, but see <REF> and Storer (1981) for
transfer to Porzana. However, Garcia-R. et al. (2014) found that
it is the sister species to Laterallus jamaicensis. SACC proposal to place in Laterallus did not pass.
Kirchman et al. (2021) confirmed that it should be placed in Laterallus.
Depino et al. (2023) found it as part of
the jamaicensis group, and suggested
that the black crakes of the New World, excluding notatus and including spiloptera,
are better placed in the genus Creciscus.
17. Called
"Sora Rail" in Blake (1977) and REFS.
18. Mustelirallus (Neocrex) colombiana was formerly (e.g.,
Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as
conspecific with M. erythrops, but they are sympatric in Panama
(Ridgely & Gwynne 1989); they are considered to form a superspecies by Sibley
& Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996).
19. Neocrex
is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is colombiana
(David & Gosselin 2002b); note the typographical error "columbiana"
in David & Gosselin (2002a), corrected in David & Gosselin (2002b);
this typographical error had been perpetuated in numerous references since
Peters (1934).
19a. Mustelirallus/Neocrex was formerly (e.g., Ripley 1977) included in Porzana,
but see Slikas et al. (2002), who found that it is likely the sister to Aramides, and Garcia-R. et al. (2014),
who with broader taxon-sampling showed that it was sister to “Porzana” albicollis, and together they were the sister group to Pardirallus. See also Kirchman et al. (2021). Proposal needed to
change linear sequence.
20. Pardirallus
sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
& Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977,
Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in genus Rallus,
but see Olson (1973) for separation of Pardirallus from Rallus;
this was followed by Taylor (1996, 1998) and AOU (1998). For further confirmation, see Garcia-R. et al.
(2014) and Kirchman et al. (2021). Pardirallus
sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were also sometimes (e.g.,
Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) placed in separate genus Ortygonax, but see
Olson (1973).
21. Pardirallus
sanguinolentus and P. nigricans form a superspecies (Sibley
& Monroe 1990); some authors (REFS) have considered them conspecific.
22.
Formerly known as "Common Moorhen" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). Hilty
& Brown (1986), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Haverschmidt & Mees
(1994), and Ridgely et al. (2001) continued to use "Common
Gallinule." Long known by this name in the New World (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970), the AOU (1983) switched to "Moorhen" to conform to
Old World usage. SACC proposal passed to change to
"Common Gallinule." SACC proposal to add "Common
Moorhen" as an alternative name did not pass.
22a. Vocal,
plumage, and genetic data suggest that New World populations of widely
distributed Gallinula chloropus
should be treated as a separate species (Constantine 2006, Groenenberg et al.
2008). SACC proposal passed to treat New World
populations as a separate species, Gallinula
galeata, from Old World populations.
22b. Recent
specimen record from off Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). SACC
proposal passed to add to main list.
22c.
Genetic data (García R et al. 2014) indicate that Gallinula angulata is sister to Gallinula
+ Fulica, and Sangster et al. (2015)
thus named a new genus, Paragallinula,
for this species; García R et al. (2020) and Kirchman et al. (2021) confirmed
those relationships. SACC proposal needed to recognize Paragallinula.
23. Gallinula
melanops was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in the genus Porphyriops, but Olson
(1973) and Ripley (1977) merged this into Gallinula, and this has been followed in subsequent
classifications. Livezey (1998,
2003, 2007) retained Porphyriops
based on morphological characters.
Garcia-R. et al. (2014) and Kirchman et al. (2021) found that melanops was not a member of Gallinula but
was sister to Porzana. SACC proposal
passed to resurrect Porphyriops.
24. Porphyrio
martinica and P. flavirostris were formerly (e.g., Peters
1934, Pinto 1938, Friedmann & Ridgway 1941, Hellmayr & Conover 1942,
Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, AOU 1983,
1998) usually placed in the genus Porphyrula; for the merger of Porphyrula
into Porphyrio, see Olson (1973); now followed in most classifications,
e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), Banks et al. (2002). Ripley (1977) placed Porphyrula in Gallinula
while maintaining Porphyrio as separate, but Gallinula is not closely related to Porphyrio
(Garcia-R. et al. 2014). Earlier
classifications (e.g. AOU 1931) used the genus Ionornis for Porphyrula
but see Peters (1934).
24a. The
species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Porphyrio
flavirostris was parva, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
25. Called
"American Purple Gallinule" by Taylor (1996, 1998).
26. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Porphyrio martinica and
African P. alleni to form a superspecies.
27. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered the species epithet to be an adjective and this
changed its ending (from martinica to
martinicus) to agree in gender with Porphyrio. David & Gosselin (2011) concluded that
the correct name is indeed martinicus. SACC proposal passed to change name.
Schodde & Bock (2016), however, provided evidence that the species
epithet is a noun in apposition and should revert to its original formulation,
i.e. martinica. SACC proposal passed to revert to martinica.
Elliott (2020) presented the case for changing the species name back to martinicus. SACC proposal needed.
28. Whether
Fulica caribaea is a valid species, or a subspecies or color morph of F.
americana, is controversial (e.g. see Roberson and Baptista 1988, McNair
& Cramer-Burke 2006). Del Hoyo and
Collar (2014) and Donegan et al.
(2015) treated it as a morph of F. americana. SACC proposal
passed to treat them as conspecific.
29. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Fulica caribaea, F. americana, and
F. leucoptera to form a superspecies with Old World F. atra and
Hawaiian F. alai; they excluded F. ardesiaca from that group
because of its sympatry with F. leucoptera. Taylor (1996) included F. ardesiaca and
African F. cristata in this superspecies. Garcia-R. et al. 2014 (2014, 2020) found that
F. rufifrons was the sister to
all other Fulica sampled. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.
30. Fulica
ardesiaca was once considered a color morph (Gill 1964, Blake 1977) or
subspecies (e.g., Ripley 1977) of F. americana; for continued treatment
of it as a species separate from F. americana, see Fjeldså (1982b, 1983)
and Garcia-R. et al. (2014), who found that it was the sister species to F. leucoptera. Fjeldså (1983) also noted that two subspecies
of ardesiaca differ in many aspects of their biology and mate
assortatively where sympatric, yet concluded that they should be considered
conspecific.
31. Called
"Andean Coot" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Taylor (1996), Mazar
Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Ridgely et al. (2001).
_______________________________________________________
HELIORNITHIDAE (FINFOOTS) 1
Heliornis
fulica
Sungrebe 2
_______________________________________________________
1. Genetic
data (Fain et al. 2007) confirm the monophyly of the traditional family Heliornithidae;
however, their data suggest that Heliornithidae is nested within Rallidae, with
the African flufftails (Sarothrura) sister to
"Heliornithidae." Hackett et al. (2008), Prum et al. (2015), and Kirchman
et al. (2021) confirmed this finding with a more comprehensive data set, and
the flufftails are now treated as a separate family from the Rallidae (e.g.
Dickinson & Remsen 2014).
2. Formerly
(e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "American Finfoot."
_______________________________________________________
CHARADRIIFORMES 1
_______________________________________________________
1. The
monophyly of the Charadriiformes is well established (e.g., REFS, Paton et al.
2003, Hackett et al. 2008) except for whether the Old World Pteroclidae should
be included (REFS, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003). Within the order,
the relationships of the families have been controversial (e.g., Strauch 1978,
Mickevich & Parenti 1980, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Christian et al.
1992, Ward 1992, Björklund 1994, Chu 1994, 1995, REFS, Livezey 2010). The most
recent genetic data confirm (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) the
genetic data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) in that the order consists of
three major groups: (1) the Scolopaci [Scolopacidae, Thinocoridae,
Pedionomidae, Rostratulidae, and Jacanidae]; (2) the Charadrii [Charadriidae,
Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae, Burhinidae, and Chionidae]; and (3) the Lari
[Laridae, Rynchopidae, Stercorariidae, Alcidae, Dromadidae, and Glareolidae]. SACC proposal passed to recognize three
suborders. Four
recent studies (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain and Houde 2007,
Hackett et al. 2008) differ from Sibley & Ahlquist in identifying the
Charadrii as basal (rather than sister to Lari). Ericson et al. (2003) and
Paton et al. (2003) also agree (using overlapping genetic data) on identifying
the following sister relationships: (1) Burhinidae + Chionidae, (2)
Haematopodidae + Recurvirostridae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi
2007); (3) Rostratulidae + Jacanidae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi
2007, Livezey 2010); and (4) Rynchopidae + Laridae (including Sterninae) (also
identified as sisters by Livezey & Zusi 2007). Fain and Houde (2007),
however, recovered Rynchopidae as sister to Sterninae within Laridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of families. For an analysis of phenotypic characters
that produces a different classification of the Charadriiformes in several
ways, see Livezey (2010).
_______________________________________________________
Charadrii
CHARADRIIDAE (PLOVERS) 1
Pluvialinae
Pluvialis
squatarola
Black-bellied Plover (NB) 5b, 6
Pluvialis
dominica
American Golden-Plover (NB) 5
Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden-Plover (V) 5a
Charadriinae
Oreopholus
ruficollis
Tawny-throated Dotterel 17
Hoploxypterus
cayanus
Pied Lapwing 1a, 1b
Phegornis
mitchellii
Diademed Sandpiper-Plover 15, 16
Zonibyx
modestus
Rufous-chested Dotterel 14, 14a
Charadrius
vociferus
Killdeer 9b
Charadrius
semipalmatus
Semipalmated Plover (NB) 7, 7a
Charadrius melodus Piping Plover (V)
8
Vanellus
chilensis
Southern Lapwing 2, 3
Vanellus
resplendens
Andean Lapwing 4
Anarhynchus
mongolus
Lesser Sand-Plover (V)
7a, 13a, 13b
Anarhynchus
wilsonia
Wilson's Plover 9, 9a
Anarhynchus
collaris
Collared Plover 12
Anarhynchus
alticola
Puna Plover 13
Anarhynchus
falklandicus
Two-banded Plover 13
Anarhynchus
nivosus
Snowy Plover 10, 11
_______________________________________________________
1.
<note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b).
<incorp. Livezey
2010>. Sequence of genera follows Baker et al. (2012).
Many classifications (mostly recently Cracraft 2013) divide the family
into two subfamilies, Vanellinae and Charadriinae. New data (Černý & Natale 2022)
indicate that the current linear sequence does not adequately reflect
phylogenetic relationships. SACC proposal passed to alter sequence of
genera. All recent data (e.g. Baker et al. 2012, Černý
& Natale 202 ) suggest a very ancient split between Pluvialis and
all other Charadriidae; and many classifications (e.g. Dickinson & Remsen
2013, REFS) separate these in separate subfamilies. SACC proposal passed to recognize this
division at the subfamily rank.
1a.
The monotypic genus Hoploxypterus cayanus was formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr
& Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in, but Bock (1958)
for placement in Vanellus, and this was followed in several subsequent
classifications (e.g., REF). However,
Strauch (1978) and Fjeldså and Nielsen (1989) provided rationale for retention of
Hoploxypterus, in part because it might be closer to Charadrius
than to Vanellus. Ridgely et al.
(2001) retained Hoploxypterus for that reason. Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated that cayanus
is the sister to all Vanellus and recommended resurrection of monotypic Hoploxypterus. Černý & Natale (2022) found that Hoploxypterus was only
distantly related to Vanellus or Charadrius, and maintained Hoploxypterus
for cayanus. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Hoploxypterus.
1b.
Formerly known as "Cayenne Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919). Called “Pied Plover” by [REF].
2.
Vanellus
chilensis was
formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr
& Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic
genus Belonopterus, but see Bock (1958).
2a. Vanellus
chilensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1948b) known as V. cayennensis, but see Peters (1934).
3. Fjeldså
& Krabbe (1990) and Wiersma (1996) suggested that Vanellus chilensis
might consist of more than one species but also noted that data so far suggest
intergradation between the two subspecies groups (cayennensis + lampronotus
in the north, and nominate chilensis, including “fretensis”), in
Patagonia; see also Jaramillo (2003).
Bukowski et al. (2023) documented vocal differences between the two
groups but confirmed extensive gene flow between them in northern Patagonia.
4.
Vanellus
resplendens was
formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover
1948b) placed in the monotypic genus Ptiloscelys, but see Bock
(1958).
5. Some
data indicated that Pluvialis might not belong in the Charadriidae but
rather (Ericson et al. 2003) sister to the Charadriidae + (Recurvirostridae +
Haematopodidae) or (Baker et al. 2007, Fain & Houde 2007) sister to
Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae. The
distinctiveness of Pluvialis compared
to other plover-like birds was first elucidated by Christian et al. (1992). However, Baker et al. (2012), with much
improved gene sampling than in previous studies, found that Pluvialis is indeed in the Charadriidae,
sister to other plover genera. Proposal passed to change linear
sequence of genera in Charadriidae.
5a. Sight record from Ecuador (26 Apr. 1991; Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). [Hayman et al. ("Shorebirds"; 1986) listed records, presumably sight records, from Chile and Galapagos Islands; original references needed; perhaps regular on Galapagos?]. Haase (2011) reported that one was photographed in the Galapagos Islands, but the accompanying photograph is not labeled as referring to that individual. Subsequent information confirmed that the photograph was not taken in Ecuador (Freile et al. 2013). One subsequently photographed on 16 February 2008 by R. Ahlman in the Galapagos on Isabela Is. (Freile et al. 2013). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
5b. Pluvialis
squatarola was formerly placed (e.g., Ridgway
1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr &
Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) in the monotypic genus Squatarola,
but see Bock (1958) and Jehl (1968b).
Černý & Natale (2022) showed that it was sister to the ancestor of
all other species in the genus. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of species.
6.
Called "Grey Plover" in Old World and some New World (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely &
Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) literature.
7. Charadrius
semipalmatus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) considered
conspecific with Old World C. hiaticula, but see Bock (1959).
7a. Genetic
data (Joseph et al. 1999) indicate that Charadrius contains two major
divisions, with (of the taxa occurring in South America sampled) C.
semipalmatus, C. vociferus, and C. modestus in one group, and
C. falklandicus, C. alexandrinus, and C. collaris in the
other. Dos Remedios et al. (2015) also
found these two major divisions. SACC proposal passed to modify linear
sequence. Černý & Natale (2022) showed that these
two groups were not sisters, requiring a change in generic limits, and they
placed most of the second groups in resurrected Ochthodromus. SACC proposal to place them in Ochthodromus
did not pass. SACC proposal passed to move the second
group to the resurrected genus Anarhynchus.
8. Specimen from Guayas, Ecuador, on 15
October 1955 (Marchant 1956); sight record from Bonaire (Voous 1983). Six
individuals captured in northeastern Brazil (Azevedo et al. 2003), but these were subsequently reexamined and all reidentified as
Semipalmated Plover (Piacentini et al. 2015).
9.
Formerly called "Thick-billed Plover" in many references (e.g., Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely 1976, Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps 1978, Hilty
and Brown 1986, Haverschmidt
& Mees 1994).
9a.
Charadrius wilsonia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the
monotypic genus Pagolia, but it has been included in Charadrius
since Peters (1934).
9b.
Charadrius vociferus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the
monotypic genus Oxyechus but it has been included in Charadrius
since Peters (1934)..
10.
New World populations of the Charadrius alexandrinus complex were
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated as a separate species, C. nivosus,
from Old World populations but were treated as a subspecies of C. alexandrinus by Peters (1934) and
most subsequent classifications. Meyer
de Schauensee (1966), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and
Jaramillo (2003) suggested that New World nivosus might deserve
recognition as a separate species from Old World taxa because of vocal and
plumage differences. Recent data (Küpper
et al. 2009) support this view. SACC proposal passed to elevate nivosus group to species rank.
11. Snow
(1978) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Charadrius alexandrinus to form
a superspecies with Old World C. marginatus and C. ruficapillus;
genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) confirm the traditional (Bock 1958) view that
C. alexandrinus and C. ruficapillus are closely related.
12.
Formerly (e.g. Ridgway 1919) known as "Azara's Ring Plover."
13.
Charadrius
alticola and C. falklandicus
have been considered conspecific (REFS), as suggested by Bock (1958); they form
a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Published
rationale for either treatment is weak.
13a. Published photo from Argentina: Le Nevé
and Manzione (2011). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Published
photo from Peru (Angulo et al. 2022).
Three published photos from French Guiana (Lenrumé et al. 2024).
13b.
Černý & Natale (2022)
placed Anarhynchus mongolus in Eupoda. SACC proposal to place mongolus in Eupoda
did not pass.
14.
Zonibyx modestus was traditionally
(e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr &
Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Zonibyx.
Bock (1958) merged Zonibyx into Charadrius,
and this was followed by several subsequent classifications (REFS). Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999, Dos Remedios
et al. 2015) indicated that recognition of Zonibyx would make Charadrius
paraphyletic with respect to Old World Eudromias. Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters placed modestus
outside Charadrius and as the sister to Old World Eudromias. Černý
& Natale (2022) found that modestus was sister to Phegornis. SACC proposal passed to transfer modestus
to Phegornis did not pass. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Zonibyx
for modestus.
14a.
Called "Rufous-chested Plover" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) and
del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal needed.
15.
Whether Phegornis belongs in the Charadriidae or the Scolopacidae has
been controversial (Bock
1958); most recent classifications follow Zusi & Jehl (1970) in placing it
in the Charadriidae, and this is supported by genetic data (Paton et al. 2003,
Baker et al. 2007). Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that it is most
closely related to a group of Australasian dotterels.
16.
Called “Diademed Plover” in Dickinson (2003) and thus original SACC list. However, called "Diademed
Sandpiper-Plover" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley and Monroe (1990),
Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990), and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change English
name.
17.
Some authors follow Bock (1958) in merging Oreopholus into Eudromias when
that genus considered separate from Charadrius. Baker et al. (2007) indicate that Oreopholus is the sister to a group of
genera that includes Phegornis and Charadrius. Livezey’s
(2010) analysis of phenotypic characters supports
retention of a monotypic genus for ruficollis. Baker et al. (2012) found that Oreopholus was sister to Vanellus + Charadrius. Proposal passed to change linear
sequence of genera in Charadriidae.
_______________________________________________________
HAEMATOPODIDAE (OYSTERCATCHERS)
1
Haematopus
palliatus
American Oystercatcher 2, 3
Haematopus
ater
Blackish Oystercatcher 3a
Haematopus
leucopodus
Magellanic Oystercatcher
RECURVIROSTRIDAE (AVOCETS and STILTS)
1
Himantopus
mexicanus
Black-necked Stilt 4, 4a
Recurvirostra
americana
American Avocet (V)
5
Recurvirostra
andina
Andean Avocet
_______________________________________________________
1. Genetic
data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, 2007) and recent analyses of
morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the hypothesis (REFS) that
the Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae are sister families; genetic data
(Paton et al. 2003) also indicate that these two families form the sister group
to the Charadriidae. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Cracraft (2013) and others recognize separate
subfamilies for stilts and avocets, Himantopinae and Recurvirostrinae.
2.
Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered Haematopus palliatus to form a superspecies with North
American H. bachmani and several Old World species; some authors (e.g.,
Peters 1934) have considered palliatus to be conspecific with Old World H.
ostralegus, but see Wetmore (1965). Species limits in Haematopus are
complex, with varying degrees of hybridization where ranges overlap (Hockey
1996).
3. The
subspecies galapagoensis differs from Haematopus palliatus in
several features that suggest that it might deserve recognition as a separate
species (Hockey 1996), but see Jehl (1985).
3a. Del
Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated H. ater and North American H. bachmani
as separate species based on plumage similarities, but see Murphy (1925). SACC proposal to treat ater and bachmani
as conspecific did not pass.
4.
Himantopus
mexicanus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps
1958a, Vaurie 1965c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake
1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered
a subspecies of Old World H. himantopus ("Common
Stilt") and was so treated by Dickinson (2003). Many authors continue to
treat them as conspecific, e.g., Pierce (1996), Christidis & Boles (2008),
and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). Some
authors have treated southern South American melanurus as a separate
species (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).
The six taxa in the genus Himantopus form a near-globally distributed
superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Pierce 1996), and with from one to six species-level taxa
recognized by various authors. Virtually no data are available relevant
to taxon-ranking of allopatric populations. The contact between mexicanus
and melanurus in South America, where at least some hybridization
occurs, affords one of the best opportunities for such study; preliminary data
indicate substantial hybridization (Harvey et al. 2014). Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo
& Collar (2014) treated all New World taxa as subspecies of a broadly
distributed species, H. himantopus
(as “Black-winged Stilt”). SACC proposal needed.
4a.
Formerly known (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as "American Stilt."
5. One
specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).
_______________________________________________________
BURHINIDAE (THICK-KNEES) 1
Hesperoburhinus
bistriatus
Double-striped Thick-knee 2
Hesperoburhinus
superciliaris
Peruvian Thick-knee 2
_______________________________________________________
1. Genetic
data (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003) indicate that the Burhinidae is
more closely related to Chionidae + Pluvianellidae than they are to
Charadriidae or other Charadriiformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Černý et al. (2023) confirmed the monophyly
of the family and also named a new genus (Hesperoburhinus) for the two
New World species based on morphological and genetic data. SACC proposal passed to recognize Hesperoburhinus.
2. The name
formerly used for this genus was Oedicnemus (e.g., Ridgway 1919), but
see (ICZN 1955).
_______________________________________________________
CHIONIDAE (SHEATHBILLS) 1, 2
Chionis
albus
Snowy Sheathbill (NB)
3, 4
_______________________________________________________
1. Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Chionidae closer to
Pluvianellidae than to its typical position in the larid radiation of the
Charadriiformes, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data
(Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship. SACC
proposal passed to change linear
sequence.
2. Family
name given as Chionididae in many references; see Burger (1996).
3. Chionis
is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is albus
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
4. Called
"Pale-faced Sheathbill" in Burger (1996).
_______________________________________________________
PLUVIANELLIDAE (MAGELLANIC PLOVER) 1
Pluvianellus
socialis
Magellanic Plover
_______________________________________________________
1.
Pluvianellus was formerly placed in
the Charadriidae, but Jehl (1975) elucidated its many unusual characters that
indicated that it was not a plover. Treated
as a subfamily within Charadriidae in Wiersma (1996). Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Pluvianellus closer to Chionidae than to
its typical position in Charadriidae, based on analysis of morphological
characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003, Paton & Baker 2006, Baker et
al. 2007) support this relationship and thus also the treatment of Pluvianellus
as a monotypic family separate from Charadriidae. The supertree of Thomas et
al. (2004) also placed Pluvianellus
as sister to Chionis. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Family
rank is also supported by analysis of phenotypic characters (Livezey 2010),
although Livezey’s analysis specifically rejected the sister relationship to
Chionidae. Reduced to a subfamily of
Chionidae by Cracraft (2013). SACC proposal to reduce to subfamily rank
did not pass.
_______________________________________________________
Scolopaci
SCOLOPACIDAE (SANDPIPERS) 1
Numeniinae
Bartramia
longicauda
Upland Sandpiper (NB)
12d
Numenius
borealis
Eskimo Curlew (NB,
EX?) 11a
Numenius
phaeopus
Whimbrel (NB)
12, 12a
Numenius
americanus
Long-billed Curlew (V)
12b
Numenius
arquata
Eurasian Curlew (V)
12c
Limosinae
Limosa
lapponica
Bar-tailed Godwit (V)
10a, 11
Limosa
limosa
Black-tailed Godwit (V) 10
Limosa
haemastica
Hudsonian Godwit (NB)
10a
Limosa
fedoa
Marbled Godwit (NB)
10a
Arenariinae
Arenaria
interpres
Ruddy Turnstone (NB)
19
Calidris
canutus
Red Knot (NB)
21a
Calidris
virgata
Surfbird (NB)
21
Calidris
pugnax
Ruff (V)
27b, 28
Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed
Sandpiper
(V) 24b
Calidris
himantopus
Stilt Sandpiper (NB)
27
Calidris
ferruginea
Curlew Sandpiper (V)
24, 26
Calidris
alba
Sanderling (NB)
22
Calidris
alpina
Dunlin (V)
24, 25, 25a
Calidris
bairdii
Baird's Sandpiper (NB)
24
Calidris
minuta Little Stint (V) 24c
Calidris
minutilla
Least Sandpiper (NB)
24
Calidris
fuscicollis
White-rumped Sandpiper (NB) 24
Calidris
subruficollis
Buff-breasted Sandpiper (NB) 27a
Calidris
melanotos
Pectoral Sandpiper (NB)
24, 24a
Calidris
pusilla
Semipalmated Sandpiper (NB) 23
Calidris
mauri
Western Sandpiper (NB)
23
Scolopacinae
Limnodromus
griseus
Short-billed Dowitcher (NB) 9a
Limnodromus
scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher (V) 9b
Gallinago
imperialis
Imperial Snipe 5, 8
Gallinago
jamesoni
Jameson’s Snipe 5, 6, 7
Gallinago
stricklandii
Fuegian Snipe 5, 6
Gallinago
nobilis
Noble Snipe
Gallinago
undulata
Giant Snipe
Gallinago
delicata
Wilson's Snipe (NB)
1a, 2, 3
Gallinago
paraguaiae
Pantanal Snipe 3, 4
Gallinago
magellanica
Magellanic Snipe 3, 4
Gallinago
andina Puna Snipe 3, 4
Tringinae
Phalaropus
tricolor
Wilson's Phalarope (NB)
29, 30
Phalaropus
lobatus
Red-necked Phalarope (NB) 29, 31, 32
Phalaropus
fulicarius
Red Phalarope (NB)
29, 33
Xenus
cinereus
Terek Sandpiper (V)
17, 18
Actitis
macularius
Spotted Sandpiper (NB)
15, 16
Tringa
solitaria
Solitary Sandpiper (NB)
Tringa
incana
Wandering Tattler (NB)
14
Tringa
nebularia
Common Greenshank (V)
13a
Tringa
melanoleuca
Greater Yellowlegs (NB)
13b
Tringa
semipalmata
Willet 13c
Tringa
flavipes
Lesser Yellowlegs (NB)
13b
Tringa
erythropus Spotted Redshank (V) 13d
Tringa
totanus Common Redshank (V) 13e
Tringa
glareola Wood Sandpiper (V) 13f
_______________________________________________________
1.
<note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b). The
family Scolopacidae is traditionally split into five or more subfamilies and
additional tribes (e.g., AOU 1998). Livezey (2010) recognized four
subfamilies (Arenariinae, Calidrinae, Tringinae, Scolopacinae) and maintained
the phalaropes as a separate family. Genetic data
(e.g. Gibson & Baker 2012), however, provide very weak support for the
monophyly of these groups, and although the phalaropes are monophyletic, they
are deeply embedded in the Scolopacidae and sister to the tringines. Gibson & Baker (2012) identified five
major lineages in the family, and Cracraft (2013) recognized five subfamilies:
Numeniinae, Limosinae, Calidrinae, Scolopacinae, and Tringinae. SACC proposal passed to recognize five
subfamilies. See Banks (2012) for use of Arenariinae
over Calidrinae for the group name.
1a.
The name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr
& Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) used
for Gallinago was Capella, but see Mayr (1963) and Banks &
Browning (1995).
2.
Gallinago
delicata is here treated as a separate species from Old World G.
gallinago following Banks et al. (2002), based in part on lack of evidence
in support of the original demotion of delicata to subspecies rank and
in part on differences in their displays (Thönen 1969, Tuck 1972, Miller 1996);
treating delicata as a separate species represents a return to the
classification of Ridgway (1919), Peters (1934), and Pinto (1938).
3.
Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered Gallinago paraguaiae and G.
andina to form a superspecies with G. delicata (which they
reluctantly considered a subspecies of G. gallinago) as well as African G.
nigripennis and G. macrodactyla.
4.
Species limits in New World Gallinago have been fluid and controversial,
and not based on explicit analyses. Many
authors have considered paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina
to be conspecific, either as part of widespread Gallinago gallinago
(e.g., Blake 1977) or as components of a single South American species G. andina
(e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Piersma 1996).
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) treated G.
andina as a separate species from paraguaiae and magellanica,
which he treated as subspecies in broadly defined Gallinago gallinago. Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990) split andina from
the others based on rectrix shape, sounds, and counter-Bergmannian size trend,
and placed magellanica with paraguaiae, but erred in calling this
species G. magellanica because paraguaiae
is the earlier name. Any
arrangement of species limits in these taxa was based on unstated rationale or anecdotal
data, and this group was badly in need of formal study, especially given that
differences in displays and vocalizations among paraguaiae, magellanica,
and andina have been reported (Jaramillo 2003). Miller et al. (2019) provided vocal
evidence that magellanica should be treated as a separate species, as
well as the first quantitative justification for treatment of G. andina as a
separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat magellanica
as a separate species. SACC proposal on English name of G.
paraguaiae did not pass. SACC proposal passed to establish English
name of G. paraguaiae sensu stricto as Pantanal Snipe.
5.
Gallinago stricklandii, G. jamesoni, and G. imperialis
were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948) placed in a
separate genus, Chubbia, but recent authors have followed Meyer de
Schauensee (1966) in merging this into Gallinago. Gibson & Baker (2012) found that imperialis was the sister to
extralimital Coenocorypha, not to
other Gallinago. SACC proposal to resurrect Chubbia did not pass.
6. Gallinago
stricklandii and G. jamesoni were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific
("Cordilleran Snipe"), but most recent authors have followed Hellmayr
& Conover (1948b) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in considering them
separate species; other than plumage differences and disjunct distribution, no
rationale has been published either way.
7. When
Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni
as separate species, they used the English name "Andean Snipe" for
the latter, which was used Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in referring to jamesoni,
perhaps a lapsus by Meyer de Schauensee; this created perpetual confusion with G.
andina, instead of using "Jameson's” as in
Hellmayr & Conover (1948). SACC proposal passed to change English
name to Jameson’s Snipe.
8.
Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså &
Krabbe 1990) known as "Banded Snipe”.
9a.
Called "Common Dowitcher" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
9b.
Specimens from
Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2006, Putnam et al. 2009). SACC proposal passed to move to Main List. Also, at least five unpublished photos
from Netherlands Antilles (Voous 1983, 1985; photos examined by J. R. Jehl) and
at least one from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier). There also are specimens, collected in
Colombia (Hellmayr and Conover 1948, Naranjo 1991) and in Peru (unpublished,
but mentioned in Schulenberg et al. 2007), that have been identified as scolopaceus,
as well as possible sight records from Ecuador [REF], Peru [REF], and Argentina
(see compilation in Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, none regarded by those
authors as referable with certainty to L. scolopaceus). A specimen reported from Argentina (Zotta
1942), responsible for the subsequent listing of that species for Argentina in
many references, is a misidentified specimen of L. griseus hendersoni (Mazar
Barnett & Pearman 2001).
10.
Photographed in 2000-2001 in Trinidad (Hayes & Kenefick 2002, ffrench &
Kenefick 2003, Kenefick
& Hayes 2006).
10a.
Limosa haemastica, L. lapponica, and L. fedoa were
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Vetola, but
this group is likely paraphyletic with respect to L. limosa (see Gibson & Baker 2012).
11. One photograph from northern Venezuela
(Mercier et al. 1987), and one published photograph from French Guiana
(Renaudier et al. 2010). Sight record for Fernando de Noronha, Brazil (Antas
et al. 1992); and two published photos, Ceará, Brazil (Girão et al. 2006).
Published photo from Peru: Angulo et al. (2022).
11a. Numenius
borealis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Mesoscolopax, but it has been included in Numenius since Peters (1934).
12. Zink et
al. (1995) proposed a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919)
that considered New World hudsonicus to be a separate species from Old
World populations based on genetic distance. Although plumage pattern also
differs substantially, vocalizations are evidently very similar, in contrast to
the many allotaxa in the Scolopacidae treated as separate species. Sangster et al. (2011) also treated hudsonicus as a separate species based mainly on
genetic distance. Additional genetic
data (Johnsen et al. 2010, Tan et al. 2019) confirmed that Nearctic and
Palearctic populations differ genetically, but the absence of vocal differences
is consistent with their treatment as subspecies (Chesser et al. 2022). There are several records of the Eurasian
taxon in Brazil documented by photos (see WikiAves) and one
from French Guiana ((Lenrumé
et al. 2024).
12a. Numenius
phaeopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Phaeopus, but it has been included in Numenius since Peters (1934).
12b. One
record documented by archived photograph from northern Venezuela (McNeil et al.
1985); other undocumented sight records from Venezuela (see Hilty 2003). One
record <> for French Guiana (Ingels et al. 2003). Record from Tobago now
considered dubious (ffrench 1973).
12c. One
record: a published
photograph from Argentina, 27 Jan. 2010 (Vander Pluym and Sterling 2019).
12d.
Formerly known as "Upland Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957), but
see REFS.
13a. Sight
records from Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench 1991, Kenefick & Hayes 2006,
Kenefick 2010). Published photo from
French Guiana (Claessens et al. 2015). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
13b. Tringa
melanoleuca and T. flavipes were formerly placed in a separate
genus, Neoglottis (e.g., Ridgway 1919) or Totanus (e.g., REFS),
but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b). <sort these
out with respect to Old World taxa and Gibson & Baker (2012)>.
13c. Vaurie
(1965c) merged Catoptrophorus into Tringa, but this had not been
followed by other authors. Genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005, Gibson &
Baker 2012) indicate that Catoptrophorus is indeed embedded within Tringa and sister to T. flavipes. SACC proposal passed to merge Catoptrophorus
into Tringa.
13d. Sight
record for Tobago, 13 February 1983 (Fisher 1998, ffrench & Hayes 1998,
Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Photographed
on Trinidad on 16 June 2022 (Kenefick 2023). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
13e. Photo from São Paulo, Brazil, on 6 Oct. 2013
(Pacheco et al. 2021). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
Previous sight record for Fernando do Noronha, 3 December 1996 (Schulz-Neto
2004).
13f.
Photographed on Tobago (Kenefick & Hayes 2006). SACC
proposal passed to add to main list.
Photographed on Fernando do Noronha (Whittaker et al. 2019). Photographed in French Guiana on 11 Sept.
2019 (Lenrumé et al. 2024).
14. Vaurie
(1965c), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Heteroscelus
into Tringa, but this had not been followed by most authors. Genetic
data (Pereira and Baker 2005, Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Heteroscelus
is indeed embedded within Tringa. SACC proposal passed to merge Heteroscelus
into Tringa.
15. Vaurie
(1965c), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Actitis
into Tringa, but most authors have not followed this. They are almost certainly sister genera
(Gibson & Baker 2012).
16. Actitis
is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is macularius,
not macularia (David & Gosselin 2002b).
17.
Vaurie (1965c)
merged Xenus
into Tringa, but most authors have not followed this. Genetic data (Gibson
& Baker 2012) provide no support for that relationship and weak support for
Xenus as
sister to Phalaropus.
18. One at
Punta Rasa, Buenos Aires, Argentina, from Dec.1977 to Jan. 1988, with
photograph archived in the Aves Argentinas/ A.O.P. library (Pugnali et al.
1988). One published photograph from
2005 from Brazil (White et al. 2006). Additional
sight records for Argentina (Narosky & Di Giacomo 1993), Brazil (Mazar
Barnett 1997), and several from Trinidad & Tobago (Taylor 2001, White &
Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
19. Arenaria was formerly placed in its own family Arenariidae
(e.g., Oberholser 1920a) or the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Genetic data (Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Gibson & Baker 2012)
confirm that it is embedded within the Scolopacidae. Some earlier
classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated them as a separate family,
Arenariidae.
21.
Calidris virgata was for most of its
history treated in the monotypic genus Aphriza and was formerly placed
in the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g.,
AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see
Jehl (1968a). Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated it in a
separate monotypic family, Aphrizidae.
Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Aphriza is embedded within broadly
defined Calidris and is sister to C. canutus. Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged
into Calidris, and this was adopted
by Chesser et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to revise
classification.
21a. Calidris
canutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated
in the monotypic genus Canutus.
22. Calidris
alba was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Crocethia (e.g.,
Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover
1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), based largely on its lacking a hind
toe, but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b).
23. Calidris
pusilla and C. mauri were formerly placed in the genus Ereunetes (e.g.,
Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps
1958a), but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been
followed in almost all subsequent classifications. Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012)
confirm that they are sister species.
24. Calidris
minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, C. melanotos, C.
alpina, and C. ferruginea were formerly placed in the genus Erolia
(e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr &
Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Holmes & Pitelka
(1964), Vaurie (1965c), and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in
almost all subsequent classifications. Calidris minutilla, C.
fuscicollis, C. bairdii, and C. melanotos were previously
(e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Pisobia, from Erolia. Neither Erolia or Pisobia conform to monophyletic groups (see Gibson
& Baker 2012).
24a. Calidris melanotos was formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as C. maculata, but see <REF>.
24b.
Published photograph
from Bolivia (Knowlton 2016). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
24c.
Published photograph
from Fernando de Noronha Island, Brazil (Gussoni 2019). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
25.
Specimen from
Cayenne, French Guiana, 15 January 1926 (Greenwood 1983). Sight record from
Argentina (Kieser 1982). See Lesterhuis & Clay (2003) for a summary of sight records
from South America.
25a. Calidris
alpina was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated
in the monotypic genus Pelidna, but it is deeply embedded in broadly
defined Calidris (see Gibson & Baker 2012).
26.
Specimen from Peru (Graves & Plenge 1978). Photos from Ecuador (Ridgely
& Greenfield 2001). Purported specimen from 18th Century from Argentina now
lost (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). One sight record (Kenefick 2004,
Kenefick & Hayes 2006) and one photograph (Kenefick 2017) from Trinidad. Photographs published for Brazil (Musher et
al. 2016).
27.
Calidris
himantopus was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps
& Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake
1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in a monotypic genus, Micropalama, based
largely on relative tarsus length, but morphological (Jehl 1968b) and genetic
data (Dittmann and Zink 1991) indicate that it is embedded within Calidris and sister to C. ferruginea (Gibson
& Baker 2012); yet many authors continue to
maintain Micropalama (Sibley & Monroe 1990, van Gils & Wiersma
1996, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Livezey 2010).
27a. Calidris subruficollis was placed in the
monotypic genus Tryngites for most of
its history. Genetic data (Gibson &
Baker 2012) indicate that Tryngites
is embedded within broadly defined Calidris
and is sister to C. melanotos + [C. mauri + C. pusilla]. Banks (2012)
recommended that it be merged into Calidris,
and this was adopted by Chesser et al. (2013).
SACC proposal passed to revise
classification.
27b. Calidris pugnax was placed in the
monotypic genus Philomachus for most
of its history. Genetic data (Gibson
& Baker 2012) indicate that Philomachus
is embedded within broadly defined Calidris. Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged
into Calidris and as first reviser
chose Calidris as having priority;
this was followed by Chesser et al. (2013).
SACC proposal passed to revise
classification.
28. One
specimen from "Bogotá" (Hellmayr &
Conover 1948b). One published photograph from Brazil (Dias et al.
2013). One sight record from Peru
(Oatman et al. 1980). Several sight records and photos for Trinidad &
Tobago (Gochfeld 1973, ffrench 1991, ffrench & White 1999, Kenefick 2004, 2017,
Kenefick & Hayes 2006.). One sight record from Venezuela (Altman and
Parrish 1978) and one from Brazil (Sick 1993, 1997, Pacheco 2000). At least five sight records and one
unpublished photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).
29. The
three species of Phalaropus were formerly (e.g.,
Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover
1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in their own family,
the Phalaropodidae, but see Jehl (1968b). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist
1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm
that they are embedded within the Scolopacidae, but Livezey (2010) resurrected
family rank for them based on phenotypic characters.
30.
Phalaropus
tricolor was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934,
Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in monotypic genus Steganopus,
maintained by some classifications (e.g., Stiles
& Skutch 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, van
Gils & Wiersma 1996, Livezey 2010, del Hoyo & Collar 2014), but
see Dittmann & Zink (1991). <van Gils & Wiersma 1996 stated
genetically close to Tringa --
misinterpretation of genetic data>
31. Phalaropus
lobatus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters
1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed
in a monotypic genus, Lobipes, but see REFs.
32.
Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Northern
Phalarope."
33.
Correct spelling for species name is fulicarius (David & Gosselin
2002a), not fulicaria as in most recent classifications.
_______________________________________________________
THINOCORIDAE (SEEDSNIPES) 1
Attagis
gayi
Rufous-bellied Seedsnipe 2
Attagis
malouinus
White-bellied Seedsnipe
Thinocorus
orbignyianus
Gray-breasted Seedsnipe
Thinocorus
rumicivorus
Least Seedsnipe
_______________________________________________________
1. Genetic
data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Paton et al. 2003, Fain
& Houde 2004, 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) indicate that Thinocoridae
is the sister taxon to the Australian Pedionomidae (formerly placed in the
Gruiformes), and that these in turn are members of the scolopacine radiation of
the Charadriiformes (including Scolopacidae, Jacanidae, and Rostratulidae). SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence to move Thinocoridae to position next to Jacanidae + Rostratulidae. Recent morphological data (Livezey
& Zusi 2007) support a sister relationship to the Scolopacidae.
2. Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) suggested that the northern subspecies latreillii
might deserve recognition as a separate species from Attagis gayi.
_______________________________________________________
JACANIDAE (JACANAS) 1
Jacana
jacana
Wattled Jacana 2, 3
ROSTRATULIDAE (PAINTED-SNIPES) 1, 1a
Nycticryphes
semicollaris
South American Painted-snipe 4, 5
_______________________________________________________
1. Genetic (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990,
Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain &
Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) and morphological (Livezey & Zusi
2007) data support the hypothesis (REFS) that the Jacanidae and Rostratulidae
are sister families.
1a. SACC proposal passed to change to lower
case the "s" in "Painted-snipe." SACC proposal to delete hyphen in English
name did not pass.
2. Jacana jacana forms a
superspecies with Middle American J. spinosa (Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Jenni 1996); they hybridize to a limited degree in western Panama, and some
authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) have
considered them conspecific. Wetmore (1965)
stated that they were evidently locally syntopic without interbreeding, but
Miller et al. (2014) found that they form a narrow hybrid zone in western
Panama, but no hybrid swarm and indirect evidence against free interbreeding.
3. Called "Black Jacana" in
Ridgway (1919).
4. Nycticryphes has often (e.g.,
<REFS>) been included in Rostratula, but see Kirwan (1996).
_______________________________________________________
Lari
GLAREOLIDAE (PRATINCOLES) 1
Glareola
pratincola Collared Pratincole (V) 2
_______________________________________________________
1.
<family relationships>
2.
Photographed in Ceará, Brazil, 21 Apr. 2015 by
Ciro Albano (https://ebird.org/view/checklist/S23370444). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
A previous photographic record from Atol das Rocas, Brazil, 9 March 1990
(Antas 1990, as cited by Sick 1993) was published as this species (Soto &
Filippini 2003), but the photograph does not rule out G. maldivarum
(Des Allen, Krys Kazmierczak, pers. comms.).
_______________________________________________________
STERCORARIIDAE (SKUAS) 1
Stercorarius
skua
Great Skua (V)
2, 3, 4, 5
Stercorarius
chilensis
Chilean Skua 2, 5
Stercorarius
maccormicki
South Polar Skua (NB)
2, 5
Stercorarius
antarcticus
Brown Skua 2, 5, 6
Stercorarius
pomarinus
Pomarine Jaeger (NB)
7, 8
Stercorarius
parasiticus
Parasitic Jaeger (NB)
9
Stercorarius
longicaudus
Long-tailed Jaeger (NB)
10
_______________________________________________________
1.
This family ranked as a subfamily within Laridae in some classifications (e.g.,
REFS, Blake 1977), but recent genetic data indicate that the Stercorariidae is
the sister to the Alcidae (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain &
Houde 2007). Livezey
& Zusi’s (2007) analysis of morphological data does
not recover these relationships.
2.
The merger of Catharacta into Stercorarius follows from several
recent papers (Cohen et al. 1997, Braun & Brumfield 1998) that suggest that
pomarinus is more closely related to Catharacta than to other Stercorarius,
as had been suggested by several earlier studies (REFS). Andersson (1999) proposed that these finding
are drive by hybridization between skua and pomarinus. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered all
of the original Catharacta group to form a superspecies. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) continued to treat
Catharacta as separate despite
acknowledging the sister relationship of S. pomarinus to Catharacta. Carlos (2016) outlined the rationale for
restoring Catharacta and including pomarinus in Catharacta. SACC proposal to reinstate Catharacta did not pass.
3.
The name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) used for Catharacta was Megalestris,
but Catharacta Brünnich, 1864,
has priority over Megalestris Bonaparte, 1956 (e.g., see Hellmayr &
Conover 1948).
4.
Specimen from Pará, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1986) and other specimens and band
recoveries from northeastern coastal Brazil (Sick 1997, Olmos 2002). Sight
reports from Venezuela (Hilty 2003) and off Curaçao-Bonaire (Voous 1983).
5.
Although some classifications have considered Stercorarius skua, S.
chilensis, S. maccormicki, and S. antarcticus as a single
species (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Blake 1977), see
Devillers (1978), Parmelee (1988), and Furness (1996) for evidence for ranking
each as a separate species based on limited hybridization where in contact and
on major biological differences among them. All skua taxa of the southern
oceans are very closely related with at least some gene flow among several
populations (Ritz et al. 2008). Mota et
al. (2023) found extensive gene flow between antarcticus and maccormicki
to the extent that they advocated for treating them as the same species; see
Mota et al. (2023) for a thorough review of the complexity in this group. SACC proposal needed.
6.
Sibley & Monroe (1990) ranked the subspecies lonnbergi as a separate
species, but substantiating details have not been published. Most
classifications (e.g., Furness 1996, Malling Olsen & Larsson 1997) continue
to treat lonnbergi as a subspecies of S. antarcticus.
7.
Stercorarius pomarinus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed treated
in the monotypic genus Coprotheres, but this was merged in Stercorarius
by Peters (1934) and subsequently followed by most classifications, but see Braun
& Brumfield (1998).
8.
Known as "Pomarine Skua" in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Pomarine
Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Pomarine
Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.
9.
Known as "Arctic Skua" in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Arctic
Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Arctic
Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.
10.
Known as "Long-tailed Skua' in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to
"Long-tailed Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Long-tailed
Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.
_______________________________________________________
RYNCHOPIDAE
(SKIMMERS) 1
Rynchops
niger
Black Skimmer 2, 3, 4
_______________________________________________________
1. Ranked in some
classifications as a subfamily (e.g., Cracraft 2013) or tribe (Sibley &
Monroe 1990) of the Laridae. Some genetic data (Paton et al. 2003, Jackson et
al. 2012) support this ranking unless the terns are also treated as a separate
family from Laridae; other genetic data (Paton &
Baker 2006, Fain & Houde 2007, Prum et al. 2015), however, indicate that skimmers are sister to terns (Sterninae), thus
making current Laridae paraphyletic with respect to Rynchopidae. Comparative
growth patterns (Cane 1994) suggest that the Rynchopidae are more closely
related to the terns (here Sterninae) than to the gulls (Larinae). SACC proposal did not pass to treat
current Rynchopidae as a subfamily, Rynchopinae, of the Laridae.
2. The species name was
formerly given as nigra (e.g., Peters 1934), but Rynchops is now
considered masculine, thus forcing the change in ending to agree in gender
(Zusi 1996).
3. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) and Zusi (1996) considered Rynchops niger to form a superspecies
with African R. flavirostris and Asian R. albicollis;
justification for treatment as separate species is weak; in fact, Jaramillo
(2003) pointed out that the differences between the Amazonian subspecies cinerascens
and nominate niger are as great as those between R. flavirostris
and nominate niger.
4. The subspecies cinerascens,
of most of South America, was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) considered a separate
species from R. nigra, but Peters (1934) treated them as conspecific;
this treatment has been followed in most subsequent classifications.
_______________________________________________________
LARIDAE (GULLS) 1
Larinae
Creagrus
furcatus
Swallow-tailed Gull 9
Rissa
tridactyla
Black-legged Kittiwake (V) 8
Xema
sabini
Sabine's Gull (NB)
8a
Chroicocephalus
philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull (V) 8b
Chroicocephalus
serranus
Andean Gull 6a
Chroicocephalus
maculipennis
Brown-hooded Gull 6a, 6b
Chroicocephalus
cirrocephalus
Gray-hooded Gull 6, 6a
Chroicocephalus
ridibundus
Black-headed Gull (V)
6aa, 6aaa
Hydrocoloeus minutus Little Gull (V)
7, 7a
Leucophaeus
scoresbii
Dolphin Gull 1a
Leucophaeus
modestus
Gray Gull 1b
Leucophaeus
atricilla
Laughing Gull 6a
Leucophaeus
pipixcan
Franklin's Gull (NB)
6a
Leucophaeus
fuliginosus
Lava Gull 6c, 6d
Ichthyaetus audouinii Audouin's
Gull (V) 6e
Larus
belcheri
Belcher's Gull 2, 3, 6c
Larus
atlanticus
Olrog's Gull 2, 6c
Larus
delawarensis
Ring-billed Gull (V)
4
Larus
californicus California Gull (V) 4a
Larus marinus Great Black-backed Gull (V)
4b
Larus
dominicanus
Kelp Gull 4c
Larus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull (NB)
Larus
argentatus
Herring Gull (NB)
5
Sterninae 10a
Anous
stolidus
Brown Noddy 10a
Anous
minutus
Black Noddy 18, 19, 19a
Anous
albivitta
Gray Noddy 20, 20a
Gygis alba White Tern 10a, 21
Onychoprion
fuscatus
Sooty Tern 16b
Onychoprion
anaethetus
Bridled Tern 16b
Sternula
antillarum
Least Tern 16, 16a, 16aa
Sternula
superciliaris
Yellow-billed Tern 16a
Sternula
lorata
Peruvian Tern 16a
Phaetusa
simplex
Large-billed Tern 17
Gelochelidon
nilotica
Gull-billed Tern 10b, 10c, 10d
Hydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern (NB)
11
Larosterna
inca
Inca Tern
Chlidonias hybrida Whiskered Tern (V) 16ddd
Chlidonias
niger
Black Tern (NB)
16c, 16d
Chlidonias
leucopterus White-winged Tern (V) 16dd
Sterna
hirundo
Common Tern 13a
Sterna
dougallii
Roseate Tern 13a
Sterna
paradisaea
Arctic Tern (NB)
13a
Sterna
hirundinacea
South American Tern 13a
Sterna
vittata
Antarctic Tern (NB)
13a
Sterna forsteri Forster's Tern (V)
13a, 14, 14a
Sterna
trudeaui
Snowy-crowned Tern 13a, 14a, 15
Thalasseus
elegans
Elegant Tern (NB)
12, 12a
Thalasseus
sandvicensis
Sandwich Tern 12, 12a, 13, 13b
Thalasseus
maximus
Royal Tern 12, 12a
_______________________________________________________
1. [note on
monophyly; within-family relationships.] <incorp. Moynihan 1959, Chu 1998, Crochet papers> Baker et al. (2007) found that Anous and Gygis are sister to (Rynchopidae + (Larinae + Sterninae)), a
topology also found by Černý, D., and R. Natale (2022). SACC proposal pending <wait NACC etc.>. Cracraft (2013) treated the Laridae as
consisting of five subfamilies: Anoinae, Gyginae, Rhynchopinae, Larinae, and
Sterninae; see Note 10a. The genetic
data of Pons et al. (2005) suggest that Larus is polyphyletic and that
genera such as Creagrus and Xema are basal within the group,
which requires an inversion of the linear sequence presented here. SACC proposal passed to alter limits of
genera and linear sequence. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) retained broadly
defined Larus based on unpublished
data.
1a. Placement in the monotypic genus Leucophaeus follows Ridgway (1919), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and
Burger and Gochfeld (1996), and is based on unique behaviors and plumage
patterns of chicks; many authors include Leucophaeus in Larus (e.g., Blake 1977). Also placed by some authors (REFS) in genus Gabianus,
with Australian L. pacificus, but this is based on bill shape, a
notoriously variable character that is usually unreliable in predicting
phylogenetic relationships (e.g., see Bock REF). Genetic data (Pons et al. 2005) indicate that Leucophaeus
is embedded within Larus, and that its sister species is L. modestus;
however, the same genetic data suggest that Leucophaeus represents a
distinct group from the other Larus and that it should be expanded to
include four other species, all occurring in South America. SACC proposal passed to alter limits of
genera and linear sequence;
also followed by Banks et al. (2008).
1b. Often considered closely related to Larus heermanni (e.g., Howell et al.
1974) but see Pons et al. (2005).
2.
Larus belcheri and L. atlanticus were formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific, but Devillers (1977)
provided rationale for treatment as separate species [check], and this treatment has
been followed by most authors, e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Burger &
Gochfeld (1996), and AOU (1998); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990).
3.
The AOU (Banks 2003) recently adopted proposal to change English name to
"Belcher's Gull"; SACC proposal passed to change the name of
Larus belcheri from "Band-tailed" to "Belcher's."
4. Specimen
from Tefé, Amazonas, Brazil, 23 Nov. 1968 (Sick 1979). Photographed in the Galapagos (Udvardy
& Säll 1987). Published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick 2010) and many
additional sight records (Kenefick 2017).
At least four records from the Netherlands Antilles; all photographed
(Voous 1983; photographs examined by Voous, but photographs evidently not
archived). Sight records from Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000, Fairbank 2002,
Hilty 2003), and Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986, Downing 2005).
4a. Published
photo from Prov. Imbabura, Ecuador, 14 February 2014, and remained until 5
March (Nilsson et al. 2014). SACC proposal
passed to add to main list. Previous sight record from Guayas, Ecuador, 8 Feb. 1980
(Ridgely 1980, Ridgely and Greenfield 2001).
4b. Three
published photos from Trinidad (Kenefick 2010, 2012). SACC proposal passed to move to main list. Also,
One
unpublished photograph and one sight record from Aruba (Voous 1977, 1983) and
one unpublished photo from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier); sight
record from northwestern Venezuela (Casler 1996); sight record from w. Colombia
(Naranjo & Franke 1995).
4c. Larus dominicanus was considered a subspecies of boreal L. marinus by Hellmayr & Conover (1948b).
5. Crochet
et al. (2002) proposed recognizing New World smithsonianus as a separate
species from Old World Larus argentatus.
6.
Called "Gray-headed Gull" in Burger & Gochfeld (1996).
6a.
The genetic data of Crochet et al. (1999) and Pons et al. (2005) indicate that Larus
as formerly constituted was polyphyletic, and that resurrection of Chroicocephalus
for a group of species that includes L. cirrocephalus, L. serranus,
L. ridibundus, and L. maculipennis was necessary to
maintain Larus as monophyletic; this would represent a partial return to
the classification of Ridgway (1919), which also included Leucophaeus pipixcan and L. atricilla in Chroicocephalus.
SACC proposal passed to recognize Chroicocephalus.
6aa.
Photos from French
Guiana published in Tostain & Dujardin (1989) and from Trinidad &
Tobago published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). Additional sight records and
unpublished photos from Trinidad & Tobago (Fisher 1978, ffrench & White
1999, Kenefick 2012), Surinam (Davis 1979), and Bonaire (Voous 1983, 1985;
photograph examined by Voous). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
Photographed on St. Peter and St. Paul Archipelago, Brazil (De Brum et
al. 2020).
6aaa.
Formerly listed as "Common Black-headed Gull." SACC proposal passed to change English
name to "Black-headed Gull."
6b.
Larus maculipennis has been considered (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) a subspecies of Old World L. ridibundus.
6c.
Larus belcheri, Larus atlanticus, Leucophaeus modestus, and Leucophaeus fuliginosus were formerly (e.g.,
Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Blasipus.
6d.
Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) called "Sooty Gull."
6e.
Published photographs from Trinidad on 10 Dec. 2016 (Kenefick
2017). SACC proposal passed to add to
main list. Published photographs from Suriname
and French Guiana (Lenrumé
et al. 2024).
7.
[reference needed for records]
7a. The genetic data of Crochet et al. (1999) and Pons et al.
(2005) indicate that Larus as formerly constituted was polyphyletic, and
that resurrection of Hydrocoloeus for L. minutus was
necessary to maintain Larus as monophyletic; this represents a return to
the classification of Ridgway (1919). SACC proposal passed to recognize Hydrocoloeus.
8.
Photographed in Peru (Haase 1993). Sight
record off Suriname (van Halewijn 1973) and sight records from Trinidad &
Tobago (Kenefick 2010, 2012).
8a. Some
authors (e.g., Vaurie 1965c, Blake 1977, Cramp
& Simmons 1983) merge Xema into Larus.
8b. One in southwestern
Ecuador, 12 November
2013, documented with photos (Nilsson et al. 2014). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Sight record from Bonaire (Voous 1983).
9. Reasons
for placement of this taxon in the monotypic genus Creagrus are based on skeletal morphology (REF),
and unusual tail shape and plumage pattern (Ridgway 1919); some classifications
(e.g., Blake 1977) included this species in Larus.
Genetic data (Pons et al. 2005) confirm that continued treatment in a monotypic
genus is warranted, and that it is a basal taxon within the Laridae.
10a.
Sterninae (terns) is given family rank in a few classifications (e.g., Oberholser
1920a, Gochfeld & Burger 1996), and recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003)
would support this ranking if Rynchopidae is also treated as family. <wait
for better taxon- and gene-sampling for proposal to elevate Sterninae to family
rank?>
Recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that the genus Anous
is basal in the group, followed by Gygis; the rest of the terns form a
strongly supported monophyletic group (Sterna + Phaetusa + Larosterna
+ Chlidonias), but see remarks below on lack of monophyly in broadly
defined Sterna. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence,
as did Banks et al. (2006). Baker et al.
(2007) and Odeen et al. (2010) found that both Anous and Gygis were
outside all gulls + terns + skimmers, but Jackson et al. (2012) found that Gygis (Anous not sampled) was sister to all terns sampled.
10b. Many
classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps
1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt
& Mees 1994, Gochfeld & Burger 1996)
have used the monotypic genus Gelochelidon for this species, based
largely on its somewhat unusual bill shape and behavior, but see (REFS, Randi
& Spina 1987) for its merger into Sterna (followed by Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990,
Dickinson 2003); <incorp Hackett 1989. McKitrick 1991, Chu 1995>. Recent genetic data (Bridge et al.
2005) provide support for maintaining the monotypic genus Gelochelidon,
in that to keep this taxon in Sterna would force the merger of Larosterna
and Chlidonias into Sterna. SACC proposal passed to recognize Gelochelidon; see also Banks et al. (2006).
10c. The species name used for Sterna nilotica by Hellmayr
& Conover (1948b) was anglica, because nilotica was for a time considered doubtfully applicable to this
species (Oberholser 1920a), but see (REF).
10g.
Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated the Australian subspecies macrotarsa as a separate species from Gelochelidon nilotica based on published
differences in bill shape and behavior.
11.
Many classifications
(e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Gochfeld & Burger 1996) maintained this species in the monotypic
genus Hydroprogne based mainly on its unusually heavy bill. Many
classifications (e.g., Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990,
Dickinson 2003) have followed Moynihan (1959), Vaurie (1965c), and Mayr &
Short (1970) in merging Hydroprogne into Sterna. However, recent genetic data (Bridge et al.
2005) provide support for maintaining the monotypic genus Hydroprogne,
in that to keep this taxon in Sterna would force the merger of Larosterna
and Chlidonias into Sterna. SACC proposal passed to recognize Hydroprogne; see also Banks et al. (2006).
11a.
The species name of Hydroprogne caspia was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr &
Conover 1948b) tschegrava, but see Blake
(1977).
12. Thalasseus
elegans, T. sandvicensis, and T. maxima have traditionally (e.g.,
Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps
1958a) been placed in a separate genus from Sterna, but see Moynihan (1959) and <<> Hackett (1989) for
their inclusion in Sterna, as in Blake (1977), AOU (1983, 1998), Sibley
& Ahlquist (1990), and Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data strongly
support the monophyly of Thalasseus and indicate that its resurrection
as a genus is warranted (at least until further data support the monophyly of Thalasseus
+ true Sterna). SACC proposal passed to recognize Thalasseus; see also Banks et al. (2006).
12a. REFS
and Gochfeld & Burger (1996) considered Thalasseus
elegans and T. sandvicensis, along
with Old World T. bengalensis, to form a superspecies. However,
genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that these three do not form a
monophyletic group: although elegans and sandvicensis are sister
taxa, the sister taxon to T. bengalensis is T. maximus.
13.
Thalasseus eurygnathus ("Cayenne Tern") is here considered
conspecific with sandvicensis following most recent treatments (e.g.,
Blake 1977); it is often considered a separate species (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters
1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely et al
2001). [elaborate on complexity of situation] <interbreeding REFS =
Junge & Voous 1955, Voous 1983, Buckley & Buckley 1984, Norton
1984>. Field observations from the Virgin Islands are consistent with
non-assortative mating (Hayes 2004), and the two are extremely similar
genetically (Efe et al. 2009). Populations of eurygnathus
breeding in southern South America may deserve separate taxonomic treatment
from Caribbean populations (Voous 1968, Escalante 1973). Efe et al. (2009) found some evidence that
New World populations (T. s. acuflavidus
and T. s. eurygnathus) might be more
closely related to T. elegans than to
Old World (nominate) T. s. sandvicensis, but this was based on small sample sizes
and limited geographic sampling, and was treated as inadequate evidence by
Chesser et al. (2013).
13a.
Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that S. dougallii, S.
hirundinacea, S. vittata, S. paradisaea, and S. hirundo
form a monophyletic group that also includes Old World S. striata and S.
sumatrana; S. forsteri and S. trudeaui may also be part of
this group.
13b.
Formerly (e.g., Ridgway
1919) known as "Cabot's Tern."
14.
[reference needs on records; check: van Halewign (1973)]. [Meyer de
Schauensee (1966) stated that it had been recorded 200-300 miles off
Pernambuco, Brazil, but did not provide a reference -- beyond the geographic
limits of this list. According to J. F. Pacheco in Sick (1997), the record
mentioned by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) comes from Sclater & Salvin (1871)]
14a.
Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) support the suggestion (Schnell 1970b, Gochfeld & Burger 1996, McNicholl et al. 2001) that S.
forsteri and S. trudeaui are sister species.
15.
Called "Trudeau's Tern" in Ridgway (1919), Gochfeld &
Burger (1996), and Dickinson (2003).
16.
Differences in vocalizations (Massey 1976) have led most recent classifications
to treat New World antillarum group as a separate species from Old World
Sternula albifrons. They were previously (e.g., Ridgway 1919) considered
separate species, but were then treated as conspecific by Wetmore (1927) and Peters
(1934), and this was followed by most subsequent classifications (e.g., Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
16a.
REFS and Gochfeld & Burger (1996) considered Sternula
antillarum, S. superciliaris, and S. lorata, along with Old
World S. albifrons and S. saundersi, to form a superspecies.
16aa.
Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that the genus Sternula
Gould, 1843, should be resurrected for this group of terns, including Old World
S. nereis, representing a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919).
SACC proposal passed to recognize Sternula; see also Banks et al. (2006).
16b.
Mayr & Short (1970) considered O. anaethetus and O. fuscatus to
form a superspecies, but they are not sister species (Bridge et al. 2005). Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate O.
anaethetus and O. fuscatus form a monophyletic group with Pacific
Ocean O. lunatus and O. aleuticus, and that these four are the
outgroup to all other Sterna (broadly defined) + Chlidonias + Phaetusa.
Bridge et al. (2005) recommended resurrection of the genus Onychoprion
Wagler, 1832, for this group, formerly included in Sterna (e.g., Ridgway
1919, Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize Onychoprion; see also Banks et al. (2006).
16c.
Some classifications (e.g., Moynihan 1959, Blake 1977) merge Chlidonias
into Sterna, and this would have to be done to maintain a broadly
defined Sterna as in the current classification; see Bridge et al.
(2005).
16d.
Earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway
1919) used the name Hydrochelidon for this Chlidonias,
but see Peters (1934: 327).
16dd. Published photo from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Aldabe et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to main list. Published photo from French Guiana (Renaudier & Claessens 2014).
16ddd. Published
photographs from Paraguay (Clay
2016). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
17.
Phaetusa is included in Sterna in some classifications (e.g.,
Blake 1977), and this would have to be done to maintain a broadly defined Sterna
as in the current classification; see Bridge et al. (2005).
17a.
Phaetusa simplex was formerly known as P. chloropoda (or P. chloripoda [sic];
Ridgway 1919), but simplex has priority, and the species is now
considered monotypic (Hellmayr & Conover 1948); Ridgway (1919) considered simplex to be of dubious application to this
species, but see (REF?).
18.
Anous minutus is considered
by some authors (e.g., Vaurie 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) to be
conspecific with A. tenuirostris of the Indian Ocean; they form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Gochfeld & Burger 1996).
19.
Moynihan (1959) merged Gygis and Procelsterna into Anous,
but subsequent authors have not followed this; genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005,
Baker et al. 2007) do not support the inclusion of Gygis in Anous.
19a.
Anous minutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate
genus, Megalopterus.
20.
Procelsterna albivitta has often been considered conspecific (e.g.,
Sibley & Monroe 1993) with P. cerulea (and known as
"Blue-gray Noddy"); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990).
20a.
Cibois et al. (2016) found that Procelsterna
was embedded in Anous and thus Procelsterna should be included in that
genus; this was followed by Chesser et al. (2017). SACC proposal passed to merge Procelsterna into Anous.
21. Many classifications (e.g., Sibley &
Monroe 1990, AOU 1998) consider the subspecies microrhyncha (now
restricted to eastern Pacific Ocean) to represent a separate species from Gygis
alba, based largely on Holyoak & Thibault (1976) and Pratt et al.
(1987), but see Gochfeld & Burger (1996), Yeung
et al. (2009), and Thibault and Cibois (2017).
Steadman (2006) showed widespread sympatry of microrhyncha and G. (alba) candida as
subfossil taxa in the Pacific. Pratt
(2020) summarized vocal and morphological evidence for treating all three taxa
as species (as in Olson 2005, Steadman 2006) as well as the history of the
controversy over species limits in the genus.
SACC
proposal pending to recognize three
species.
EURYPYGIFORMES
EURYPYGIDAE (SUNBITTERN) 1
Eurypyga helias Sunbittern
1.
The Eurypygidae has been traditionally included in the Gruiformes, but recent
genetic data do not support their inclusion in that order or any existing
orders, and their sister group is the Rhynochetidae. See Note 1 under Gruiformes.
PHAETHONTIFORMES
PHAETHONTIDAE (TROPICBIRDS) 1, 2, 3
Phaethon
aethereus Red-billed Tropicbird
Phaethon
rubricauda Red-tailed Tropicbird 4
Phaethon
lepturus White-tailed Tropicbird 5
1. The Phaethontidae were traditionally placed
in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy &
Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al.
2014, Prum et al. 2015) are consistent in showing that the Phaethontidae are
not at all closely related to other families in that order. See Note 1 under
Pelecaniformes. Chesser et al. (2010) placed the Phaethontidae in their own
order, Phaethontiformes, as did Cracraft (2013). SACC proposal passed to remove
Phaethontidae from Pelecaniformes and place in its own order. Jarvis et al. (2014) and
Prum et al. (2015) found that they are sister to the Eurypygiformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of orders.
2. <Phaethontidae vs.
Phaethonidae>
3. Genetic data (Kennedy and
Spencer 2004) indicate that Phaethon aethereus is sister to the ancestor
of the other two species, and this supports the linear sequence used here.
4. Recently found nesting in
the Islas Desventurada archipelago, Chile (Marín & González 2022).
Published photographs from Brazil (off Bahia; Couto et al. 2001). Sight record from Peru (Hogsås 1999).
5. Howell and Zufelt (2019)
treated the N. Atlantic-Caribbean subspecies catesbyi as a separate
species (“Catesby’s Tropicbird”) from the S. Atlantic-Indian Ocean-S. Pacific
nominate form (“Yellow-billed Tropicbird”) based on differences bill color, plumage
color, and call notes. SACC proposal needed.
SPHENISCIFORMES
SPHENISCIDAE (PENGUINS) 1
Aptenodytes
patagonicus King Penguin
Aptenodytes
forsteri Emperor Penguin (V) 2
Pygoscelis
papua Gentoo Penguin 3
Pygoscelis
antarcticus Chinstrap Penguin (NB) 3, 3a
Eudyptula
minor Little Penguin (V) 11
Spheniscus humboldti Humboldt
Penguin 12 12a
Spheniscus
mendiculus Galapagos Penguin
Spheniscus
magellanicus Magellanic Penguin 12
Eudyptes
sclateri Erect-crested Penguin (V) 6, 7
Eudyptes
chrysolophus Macaroni Penguin 10, 10a
Eudyptes
moseleyi Tristan Penguin 8, 8a (V)
Eudyptes
chrysocome Rockhopper Penguin 8, 9
Eudyptes
robustus Snares Penguin (V) 4, 5
1. Mayr and Clarke's (2003)
analysis of morphological characters suggested that the Sphenisciformes were
the sister to Gaviidae + Podicipedidae, but Mayr (2005) proposed that the
penguins were closer to some Pelecaniformes. However, genetic data (e.g., van
Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al.
2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Ericson et al. 2006) indicate
that the Sphenisciformes and Procellariiformes are sister taxa. The monophyly
of the family has never been questioned (and see Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989,
McKitrick 1991, and Giannini & Bertelli 2004 for recent support). Analyses
of morphological and behavioral characters (Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989,
McKitrick 1991, Giannini & Bertelli 2004) suggest that traditional genera
are monophyletic, recently confirmed by genetic data (Baker et al. 2005);
however, these analyses each produce different linear sequences, none of which
is consistent with the molecular data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) or Baker
et al. (2006). The classification and
sequence here follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker
et al. 2006) indicate that this requires revision to reflect their phylogenetic
data. Also, an analysis that combined
genetic and phenotypic data (Bertelli & Giannini 2005) produced a
phylogenetic hypothesis very similar to that of Baker et al. (2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Pan et al. (2019) generally confirmed these
relationships.
2. Unpublished photographic
records from the Falklands in 1936 and 1954 (Hamilton 1954) and sight records
in 1987 (Wolsey 1987, Curtis 1988), 1996 (Brown 1996), and 1999 (Gates 2001),
although evidence for the 1936 record is archived with a photograph at the
Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, U.K.
A specimen collected at the first narrows of the Magellan Straits near
Punta Delgada, Chile, is housed at the Univ. of Magallanes, Punta Arenas
(Venegas 1978, 1982) and was possibly collected in 1978 (Marín 2004). From
Argentina, one of two specimens mentioned by Venegas (1982) is still housed at
the Museo Mayorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas, collected from the Mitre
Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There are also vague sight records from
elsewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Chebez & Bertonatti 1994) and at-sea off
Buenos Aires (Jehl & Rumboll 1977).
3. Pygoscelis is
masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is antarcticus; papua,
however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
3a. Formerly known as
“Ringed Penguin” (e.g. Murphy 1936).
4. Called “Snares Crested
Penguin” in Howell & Zufelt (2019) and <>.
5. Three photographic records from the
Falklands: Dec. 1988 (Lamey 1990) and Nov.-Dec. 2008 (Demongin et al. 2010).
6. Five Falklands records
include one from 1961 to 1966 (Napier 1968), one in the 1980-1981 austral
summer (Strange 1992), one during each austral summer from 1997 to at least
2006 (Morrison et al. 2006), another in spring 2003 (Black et al. 2005), and another
in 2005 (Morrison et al. 2006).
Photographic documentation appeared in Birding World (11:
158, 1998) and White & Henry (2001).
7. Called
"Erect-crested Penguin" in Martínez (1992), Williams (1995), Sibley
& Monroe (1990), Dickinson
& Remsen (2013), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), etc. SACC proposal passed to change English
name from Big-crested to Erect-crested.
8. Jouventin (1982),
Jouventin et al. (2006), and Banks et al. (2006) demonstrated that moseleyi,
traditionally treated as a subspecies of E. chrysocome, differs in voice
and mating signals from, and is moderately differentiated genetically from, chrysocome. SACC proposal passed to treat moseleyi
as a separate species. For English names for
this species pair, see SACC Proposal 516. The two species were called “Northern
Rockhopper Penguin” (moseleyi) and “Southern Rockhopper Penguin” (chrysocome)
in Dickinson &
Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
For additional support for treatment as separate species, see J. Banks et al. (2006), Mays et al. (2019), Fugone
et al. (2021), and references therein. J.
Banks et al. (2006) and Fugone et al. (2021) proposed that the subspecies filholi,
of subantarctic waters of the Eastern Hemisphere, be treated as a separate
species based largely on genetic data. SACC proposal to treat filholi as a
separate species did not pass.
8a. Published photos from
Falklands (Matias et al. 2009).
9. Formerly known as E.
crestatus (e.g., Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) but see Serventy & Whittell (1952) and
Falla & Mougin (1979).
10. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) and Martínez (1992) considered Eudyptes chrysolophus to form a
superspecies with E. schlegeli of Macquarie Island; the latter was
formerly (e.g., Falla & Mougin 1979) treated as a subspecies of E.
chrysolophus but has been treated recently as separate species (Martínez
1992, Gill et al. 2010), but see Christidis & Boles (2008) for return to
subspecies rank, as followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013).
10a. Vagrants to Argentina
supported by specimens in Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales (Buenos Aires),
the British Museum (London), and the Fundación Miguel Lillo.
11. Wilson et al. (2000)
reported a specimen from Chile. Three previous records from Chile, one backed
by unpublished photo (Valverde & Oyarzo 1996). Proposal passed to add to main list.
Proposal passed to change name from
"Little Blue Penguin" to "Little Penguin."
12. Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered Spheniscus humboldtii and S. magellanicus to
form a superspecies with African S. demersus; genetic differences among
them are low (REF), and some authors consider them conspecific (REF). Baker et al. (2006) found that S.
mendiculus is likely the sister to S. humboldtii; therefore, it
should also be included in the superspecies.
12a. Formerly known as
“Peruvian Penguin” (e.g. Murphy 1936).
PROCELLARIIFORMES 1
DIOMEDEIDAE (ALBATROSSES) 2
Phoebastria
irrorata Waved Albatross 3, 4
Diomedea
epomophora Royal Albatross (NB) 3, 5
Diomedea
exulans Wandering Albatross (NB) 6
Phoebetria
fusca Sooty Albatross (V) 7
Phoebetria
palpebrata Light-mantled Albatross (NB) 8
Thalassarche
chlororhynchos Yellow-nosed Albatross (NB) 3, 9, 9a,
9b
Thalassarche
melanophris Black-browed Albatross 10, 11
Thalassarche
chrysostoma Gray-headed Albatross 11a
Thalassarche
bulleri Buller's Albatross (NB) 12, 12a
Thalassarche
cauta White-capped Albatross (NB) 13,14,
14a
Thalassarche
salvini Salvin's Albatross (NB) 13
Thalassarche
eremita Chatham Albatross (NB) 13
1. The monophyly of the
Procellariiformes has never been seriously questioned, and modern analyses
(e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) support
the traditional view. The Procellariiformes are likely sister to the
Sphenisciformes (see Note 1 under that order). [note on relationships among
families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf. Rheindt & Austin
(2005).
2. The monophyly of the
Diomedeidae has never been questioned seriously. The linear sequence of genera
used here was modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes
received high bootstrap support.
3. Phoebastria and Thalassarche
were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Alexander et al. 1965,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed
in the genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick &
Wink (2004) for a return to the classification of Matthews (1934).
4. Formerly known as
"Galapagos Albatross" (e.g., Matthews 1934, Murphy 1936,Wetmore 1965,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Tickell 2000).
5. Diomedea epomophora was treated
as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007),
and del Hoyo &
Collar (2014), with the subspecies sanfordi
considered a separate species. Both taxa occur in South American waters.
[species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)].
See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species
treatment. Proposal badly needed.
6. Diomedea exulans
treated as consisting of five species by Tickell (2000) and four by Onley
& Scofield (2007). Of these, at
least three occur in South American waters: nominate exulans, dabbenena,
and antipodensis. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg &
Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004].
SACC
proposal to recognize multiple
species did not pass. See Penhallurick (2012)
for rationale for maintaining single species treatment.
7. See Willis & Oniki
(1985, 1993a) for Brazil record (cf. Teixeira et al. 1988); also see Lima et
al. (1997) for a second record from Brazil. <Blake
(1977) reported specimen off Cape Horn>
8. Formerly (e.g., Murphy
1936, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Harrison 1983) known as "Light-mantled
Sooty Albatross" and still called that by Howell & Zufelt (2019).
9. Species in the genus Thalassarche
were formerly called “Mollymawks” (e.g. Mathews 1934; e.g., see Note 12a), and
they are often called that informally even today.
9a. Thalassarche
chlororhynchos has been considered to consist of two species by Robertson
& Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by Tickell (2000),
Onley & Scofield (2007), del
Hoyo & Collar (2014), and Abeyrama et al. (2021), with
carteri of the Indian Ocean treated as a separate species. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for
maintaining single species treatment. Proposal badly needed. Nominate chlororhynchos is the form
that typically occurs in South American waters. Lima & Grantsau (2005)
reported four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri, but that
identification was challenged by Carlos (2008).
9b. Placed in the monotypic
genus Nealbatrus by Mathews (1934) ), but this was not followed by
Murphy (1936) or subsequent classifications.
10. Thalassarche
melanophris was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000),
Onley & Scofield (2007), and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014) with the Campbell Islands
subspecies impavida treated as a separate species. [species limits:
Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001]. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for
maintaining single species treatment. Proposal needed. Only nominate melanophris has been
recorded from South America.
11. The species name is also
frequently given as melanophrys.
Carlos and Voisin (2008) have published a proposal to conserve the
original spelling in the type description, melanophris. This has been formally endorsed (ICZN 2010).
11a. Formerly placed in the monotypic
genus Thalassogeron (e.g., Matthews 1934), but this was not followed by
Murphy (1936) or subsequent classifications.
12. Thalassarche bulleri
was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), but see Brooke
(2004) and Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn
(1998)].
12a. Called “Snares Island
Mollymawk” by Matthews (1934).
13. Thalassarche cauta
has been considered to consist of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn
(1998), and this was followed by Tickell (2000). See, however, Penhallurick & Wink (2004)
for continued treatment of all as conspecific. <incorp. Abbott & Double
2003a, b, Double et al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005> SACC proposal passed to split into two or
three species. SACC proposal to reverse this decision did
not pass. Brooke (2004) treated eremita and salvini
as separate species from T. cauta. Subsequent SACC proposal passed to split into three species. Del
Hoyo & Collar (2014) and Chesser et al. (2017) also treated them as
separate species. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining
single species treatment.
14. Called "Shy
Albatross" in Onley & Scofield (2007), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), and elsewhere.
14a. Placed in the monotypic
genus Diomedella by Matthews (1934) ), but this was not followed by
Murphy (1936) or subsequent classifications.
OCEANITIDAE
(SOUTHERN STORM-PETRELS) 1, 1a
Fregetta
grallaria White-bellied Storm-Petrel 2
Fregetta
tropica Black-bellied Storm-Petrel (NB) 2
Oceanites
oceanicus Wilson's Storm-Petrel 2a
Oceanites pincoyae
Pincoya Storm-Petrel 3
Oceanites
gracilis Elliot's Storm-Petrel 3a
Garrodia
nereis Gray-backed Storm-Petrel
Pelagodroma
marina White-faced Storm-Petrel (NB)
HYDROBATIDAE
(NORTHERN STORM-PETRELS) 1, 1a
Hydrobates
microsoma Least Storm-Petrel (NB) 4
Hydrobates tethys
Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel 4, 5
Hydrobates castro
Band-rumped Storm-Petrel 5a, 5b
Hydrobates leucorhous
Leach's Storm-Petrel (NB) 6, 6a
Hydrobates markhami
Markham's Storm-Petrel 6a, 7, 7a, 8, 9
Hydrobates hornbyi
Hornby’s Storm-Petrel 10, 10a
Hydrobates melania
Black Storm-Petrel (NB) 4, 11, 12
1. Linear sequence of genera
is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002) wherever their nodes received high
bootstrap support. Many classifications (e.g., Carboneras 1992c) divide the
family into two subfamilies, subsequently supported by genetic data
(Penhallurick & Wink 2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize two
subfamilies. Until recently, the monophyly of the broadly defined family Hydrobatidae
had never been questioned seriously, but Hackett et al. (2008) found that the
southern storm-petrels, Oceanitinae, were sister to all other procellariiforms,
and thus Cracraft (2013) elevated them to family rank, Oceanitidae. Prum et al. (2015) found that they were
sister to Hydrobatidae + Procellariidae.
Phylogenomic data (Pan et al. 2019) have confirmed the paraphyly of the
storm-petrels. SACC proposal passed to recognize
Oceanitidae as separate family. Penhallurick & Wink
(2004) revised generic limits in the Hydrobatidae, e.g., based on their finding
that Oceanodroma is paraphyletic; they resurrected the genera Cymochorea,
Halocyptena, and Thalobata. SACC proposal to recognize these genera
did not pass. SACC proposal to merge Oceanodroma
into Hydrobates did not pass. See Rheindt & Austin
(2005) for a critique of those data and their taxonomic interpretation. Robertson et al. (2011) confirmed the
paraphyly of Oceanodroma with respect
to Hydrobates. Dickinson
& Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) merged Oceanodroma with Hydrobates
(the latter name has priority). SACC proposal passed to merge Oceanodroma into Hydrobates (this was
passed as a temporary solution until relationships within the genus are fully
resolved; a phylogeny with dense taxon-sampling is still unavailable). Most species were formerly (e.g., AOU 1957)
called simply "Petrel" rather than "Storm-Petrel."
1a. SACC proposal to change to lower case the
"p" in "Storm-Petrel" did not pass.
2. Fregetta grallaria and
F. tropica were considered conspecific by (REFS).
2a. Jaramillo (2003)
suggested that the subspecies exasperatus might be a separate species
from nominate Oceanites oceanicus.
Norambuena et al. (2024) found evidence to support this as well as
elevate the subspecies chilensis and galapagoensis to species
rank. SACC proposal pending. Norambuena et al. (2024)
also described a new species in the O. oceanicus complex, Oceanites
barrosi. SACC proposal pending.
3. A new species, Oceanites pincoyae, “Pincoya
Storm-Petrel”, has been described from Chilean waters (Harrison et al.
2013). Recognized by del Hoyo and Collar
(2014). SACC proposal passed to recognize pincoyae. The validity of pincoyae as a taxon
has been questioned by Howell & Schmidt (2016).
3a. Called
"White-vented Storm-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty and
Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Schulenberg et al. (2007), and
elsewhere. SACC proposal to change English name to
White-vented Storm-Petrel did not pass.
4. Hydrobates microsoma
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Jouanin and Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992c) placed
in the monotypic genus Halocyptena, evidently based mostly on tail shape
and body size, but most recent classifications have followed (REF, AOU 1983) in
merging this into Oceanodroma.
Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) suggest that this
species is sister to Hydrobates tethys, and that they are the sister to H.
melania, and H. matsudairae; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus
advocated resurrection of Halocyptena for these four species. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena
did not pass. Howell & Zufelt
(2019) resurrected Halocyptena for microsoma and melania.
5. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore
1965) known as "Galapagos Storm-Petrel."
5a. Formerly known as
"Harcourt's Storm-Petrel" (e.g., Peterson 1961) and "Madeiran
Storm-Petrel" (e.g., Harrison 1983).
5b. Mayr & Short (1970)
considered H. castro to form a superspecies with H. leucorhoa,
but Penhallurick & Wink (2004) and Robertson et al. (2011) found that H.
castro was sister to all other Hydrobates. Penhallurick & Wink
(2004) thus advocated resurrection of the monotypic genus Thalobata for O.
castro. SACC proposal to recognize Thalobata
did not pass. Howell & Zufelt
(2019) resurrected Thalobata
5c. Recent genetic data
(Smith et al. 2007) suggest that Hydrobates castro consists of two or
more species. Proposal needed.
6. Broadly defined Hydrobates
leucorhoa is now generally treated as consisting of three species (Ainley
1980, 1983, Howell et al. 2009; cf. Bourne & Jehl 1982). The form that
occurs off the Galapagos Islands, here treated as the subspecies socorroensis,
was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) treated as a separate species
("Dusky-rumped Storm-Petrel") or (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
as a subspecies of O. monorhis of the eastern Pacific Ocean, and is now
again generally treated as a separate species (“Townsend’s Storm-Petrel”, e.g. Chesser
et al. 2016, Howell & Zufelt (2019).
SACC
proposal needed.
6a. Penhallurick & Wink
(2004) advocated resurrection of the genus Cymochorea for O.
leucorhoa and O. markhami, along with extralimital O. monorhis
and O. tristrami; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of
genetic distances for assigning taxon rank. SACC proposal to recognize Cymochorea
did not pass.
7. Supposed specimens of Oceanodroma
markhami from the Atlantic side of South America are misidentified O.
leucorhoa (Teixeira et al. 1986).
7a. Called "Madeiran
Storm-petrel" in Carboneras (1992c).
8. Oceanodroma markhami
was considered conspecific with O. tristrami of the eastern Pacific
Ocean by <?> Austin (REF).
9. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) known as "Sooty Storm-Petrel."
10. Called "Hornby's
Petrel" in Murphy (1936), Hellmayr & Conover (1948), Alexander (1963),
and Johnson (1967). Meyer de Schauensee
(1966, 1970) changed it to “Ringed Storm-Petrel”, and this was followed by
Koepcke (1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and AOU (1998). Harrison (1983), Carboneras (1992a), Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001), Jaramillo (2003; with “Ringed” as alternative) Onley
& Scofield (2007), Dickinson
& Remsen (2013), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), and Howell & Zufelt
(2019; with “Ringed” as alternative) used Hornby’s. SACC proposal to standardize as Ringed
Storm-Petrel passed. SACC proposal to change English name to
Hornby’s Storm-Petrel did not pass. SACC proposal passed to change English
name to Hornby’s Storm-Petrel.
10a. Although Hydrobates hornbyi was assumed to breed in South
America based on the assumption that it bred somewhere near its nonbreeding
grounds, which are exclusively off the southern Pacific coast of South America,
the breeding grounds were only recently discovered (Barros et al. 2018).
11. Hydrobates melania
was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Wetmore 1965) placed, sometimes also with O.
matsudairae of the eastern Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, in a separate
genus, Loomelania, but see Austin (1952) and Palmer (1962). Carboneras (1992c)
suggested that the two species might be better treated as conspecific, as they
were until Austin (1952). Recent genetic
data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that H. melania forms a
group with H. microsoma and H. tethys; Penhallurick & Wink
(2004) advocate recognizing this relationship (including H. matsudairae)
by placing them in the genus Halocyptena. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena
did not pass.
12. Oceanodroma melania
forms a superspecies with extralimital O.
matsudairae (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered
conspecific, but see Austin (1952).
PROCELLARIIDAE (SHEARWATERS) 1
Macronectes
giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel 2, 3
Macronectes
halli Northern Giant-Petrel (NB) 2
Fulmarus glacialis Northern Fulmar (V) 2a
Fulmarus
glacialoides Southern Fulmar (NB) 2b, 2bb
Thalassoica antarctica Antarctic
Petrel (V) 2c,
2d, 2e
Daption capense Pintado
Petrel (NB) 4
Pagodroma nivea Snow Petrel (V) 4a
Aphrodroma brevirostris Kerguelen
Petrel (NB) 5
Pterodroma leucoptera Gould's Petrel (V) 5a, 6
Pterodroma macroptera Great-winged
Petrel (V) 5b, 5c
Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged
Petrel (NB)
Pterodroma hasitata Black-capped
Petrel (NB)
Pterodroma incerta Atlantic
Petrel (NB) 6a, 6b
Pterodroma lessonii White-headed
Petrel (NB)
Pterodroma cookii Cook's
Petrel (NB) 7, 10
Pterodroma
nigripennis
Black-winged Petrel
(V) 7a
Pterodroma
defilippiana Masatierra Petrel 8, 9, 10
Pterodroma
longirostris Stejneger's Petrel 10
Pterodroma ultima Murphy’s Petrel (V) 10b
Pterodroma
neglecta Kermadec Petrel 10a, 10c9.
Pterodroma
arminjoniana Trindade Petrel 10a, 12, 12a
Pterodroma
inexpectata Mottled Petrel (V) 11
Pterodroma
phaeopygia Galapagos Petrel 13
Pterodroma
externa Juan Fernandez Petrel 14
Pterodroma
feae Fea's Petrel 14a
Halobaena
caerulea Blue Petrel 14b
Pachyptila
turtur Fairy Prion 15, 15aa
Pachyptila
vittata Broad-billed Prion (V) 15a, 15b
Pachyptila
desolata Antarctic Prion (NB) 15, 16,
16a
Pachyptila
belcheri Slender-billed Prion 17, 17a
Bulweria
bulwerii Bulwer's Petrel (V) 18, 18a
Procellaria
cinerea Gray Petrel (V) 18a, 19a,
19b
Procellaria
aequinoctialis White-chinned Petrel 20, 20a, 21
Procellaria
conspicillata Spectacled Petrel (NB) 20, 21,
21a
Procellaria
parkinsoni Parkinson's Petrel (NB) 21, 22
Procellaria
westlandica Westland Petrel (NB) 21
Calonectris
diomedea Cory's Shearwater (NB) 23, 24,
24a
Calonectris
edwardsii Cape Verde Shearwater (V) 23, 24
Ardenna
pacifica Wedge-tailed Shearwater (V) 23a, 23b,
23c
Ardenna
bulleri Buller's Shearwater (NB) 25
Ardenna
tenuirostris Short-tailed Shearwater (V) 25b
Ardenna grisea Sooty
Shearwater 25a
Ardenna
gravis Great Shearwater 26
Ardenna
creatopus Pink-footed Shearwater 27
Ardenna
carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater (NB) 27, 27a,
27b
Puffinus
puffinus Manx Shearwater (NB) 28, 28a
Puffinus
subalaris Galapagos Shearwater 31
Puffinus
assimilis Little Shearwater (NB) 29, 28a,
31a
Puffinus
lherminieri Audubon's Shearwater 28a, 29, 30, 31, 31a
Pelecanoides
garnotii Peruvian Diving-Petrel 32, 33
Pelecanoides
urinatrix Common Diving-Petrel 34, 35, 36
Pelecanoides
georgicus South Georgia Diving-Petrel (V) 33, 37
Pelecanoides
magellani Magellanic Diving-Petrel 33
1. The monophyly of the
family has never been questioned seriously, with the recent exception of
possible inclusion of Pelecanoides within the Procellariidae (Nunn &
Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006). Linear sequence of genera
modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high
bootstrap support. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support
the treatment of Macronectes, Fulmarus, Thalassoica, Daption,
and Pagodroma as forming a monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink
(2004) advocated tribe rank (Fulmarini) for this group, but see Rheindt &
Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.
2. Macronectes giganteus
and M. halli were formerly considered conspecific, and often
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) called "Giant Fulmar."
See Bourne & Warham (1966), Hunter (1987), and references therein for
treatment of the two as separate species. However, lack of interbreeding where
sympatric is achieved primarily through temporal segregation rather than any
other barriers to gene flow; see summary of evidence for treating them as
conspecific in Penhallurick & Wink (2004), but see also Rheindt & Austin
(2005) for support of the two species treatment. Brown et al. (2015) found that the percentage
of mixed pairs is usually below 2% and that reproductive success of mixed pairs
was lower than that of pure pairs (and 0% success on Marion and Macquarie
islands).
2a. Photographed off Chile, 11 Feb. 2017 (Marín et al. 2017). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
2b. Fulmarus glacialoides
was considered a subspecies of boreal F. glacialis by (REF), although
formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate
genus, Priocella; for placement in same genus, see Voous (1949). The two
species constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998).
2bb. Formerly known as
“Silvery-gray Fulmar” (Murphy 1936).
2c. Typically
considered part of the Chilean and Argentine avifauna, but those countries
include the Antarctic Peninsula in their checklist area. Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo
from off Cape Horn, Chile, from 2009. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
2d.
Formerly placed in the genus Priocella
(e.g. Matthews 1934).
2e. Called “Silver-grey
Petrel” by Matthews (1934).
3. Called "Antarctic
Giant-Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).
4. Formerly called
"Pintado Petrel" (e.g. AOU 1931), just “Pintado” (Matthews 1934), or
"Cape Pigeon" (e.g., Murphy 1936, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a,
Watson 1973). Howell and Zufelt (2019)
used Pintado Petrel. SACC proposal passed to change English
name back to Pintado Petrel.
4a. At least five birds have
been found dead and one alive on the Falkland Islands (Salvin 1896, R. Woods,
pers. comm.). However, only three of the specimens, including one of the two
from 1979 mentioned by Peatfield (1981), can now be located; they are in the
British Museum (R. Woods, pers. comm.).
5. Aphrodroma
brevirostris was formerly placed in the genus Pterodroma (e.g.,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992b). Placed in monotypic genus Lugensa by
Imber (1985), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Kennedy & Page (2002), and
others, because inclusion in that genus would make Pterodroma
paraphyletic. Olson (2000) proposed a
new genus Aphrodroma for this species, because Lugensa cannot be
applied to brevirostris. Bourne (2001) provided rationale for why Lugensa
should apply to brevirostris, and this was accepted by Penhallurick
& Wink (2004). However, Olson showed
that there is no confirmable evidence linking the type species of Lugensa
to the Kerguelen Petrel, in the absence of which Aphrodroma must stand
(R. Schodde, in litt.). Recent genetic
data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) not only support treatment of brevirostris
in a separate genus, but also indicate that it is more closely related to the Puffinus
group of shearwaters than to Pterodroma; however, see Rheindt &
Austin (2005) for a reinterpretation of those data.
5a.
Specimen record from near Galapagos Islands may not be within the official
boundaries of the area, and sight records from there are undocumented
(Wiedenfeld 2006). Barros & Schmitt
(2015) published a photo from 2004 from near Isla Robinson Crusoe, Juan
Fernandez Archipelago. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
5aa. Called “White-winged
Petrel” in Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) and <>.
5b. Reported for Brazil,
Chile, Argentina, and the Falklands (e.g., Gregory 1994) but based only on
sight records. Teixeira et al. (1985)
showed that the two reported specimens from Brazil were actually Puffinus
griseus, leaving only sight reports from Brazil. Bugoni (2006) found that a specimen reported
from Uruguay was actually Pterodroma brevirostris. Bugoni (2006) reported a specimen from
Fernando de Noronha Island, Brazil. SACC proposal passed to move to main list.
5c. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) known as "Gray-faced Petrel."
5d. Wood et al. (2017)
presented evidence that the subspecies gouldi should be treated as a
separate species from Pterodroma macroptera. Chesser et al. (2019) subsequently treated gouldi
as a separate species, as Gray-faced Petrel.
SACC
proposal passed to treat gouldi
as a separate species, but a proposal to add the species to the
main list did not – See Hypothetical List.
6. Genetic data
(Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support Pterodroma as a monophyletic
group (once brevirostris is removed; see Note 5). Penhallurick &
Wink (2004) used genetic distance data to propose that Pterodroma was
best subdivided into four monophyletic groups, ranked at the subgenus level:
(1) subgenus Pterodroma, which of the species recorded from South
America includes P. hasitata, P. incerta, P. lessonii, and
P. mollis as well as several extralimital species; (2) subgenus Hallstroma,
which includes P. neglecta (and thus presumably P. arminjoniana),
P. externa, P. phaeopygia (and extralimital P. sandwichensis),
and P. inexpectata; (3) subgenus Cookilaria, which includes P.
longirostris, P. cookii (and thus presumably P. defilippiana),
and extralimital P. hypoleuca; and (4) subgenus "?Proaestrelata"
for some extralimital species including P. axillaris and P.
nigripennis. However, see Rheindt
& Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.
6a. Formerly known as "Tristan
Petrel" (e.g., Matthews 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a), "Hooded
Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), or "Schlegel's
Petrel" (Harrison 1983).
7. Formerly known as
"Blue-footed Petrel" (e.g., Matthews 1934, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Blake 1977).
7a.
Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from 177
miles N of the Desventurada Islands (San Felix and San Ambrosio), Chile. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
8. Pterodroma defilippiana
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Blake 1977) considered a
subspecies of P. cookii.
9. Called "Mas a Tierra
Petrel" in Murphy (1936) and Carboneras (1992b). Called "Defilippe's
Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Defilippi's Petrel" in
Stattersfield (REF), and "De Filippi's" Petrel in Onley &
Scofield (2007). Also, Howell et al.
(1996) noted that the species is named for F. de Filippi, so the name should be
De Filippi's Petrel"; Howell & Zufelt (2019) used “De Filippi's
Petrel". SACC proposal to change English name to
"De Filippi's Petrel" did not pass.
New
SACC proposal pending to change English name to "De Filippi's Petrel.
10. Pterodroma defilippiana, and P.
longirostris are members of the "Cookilaria" species
group, also including extralimital P. cookii, P. hypoleuca, P.
nigripennis, P. axillaris, and P. leucoptera; they are
considered to be each other’s closest relatives (Jouanin and Mougin 1979).
Penhallurick & Wink (2004) restricted this group; see Note 6 above.
10a. Pterodroma neglecta and P.
arminjoniana were considered to form a superspecies with P. alba by
Jouanin and Mougin (1979); P. arminjoniana was formerly (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of P. neglecta.
10b.
Three photographed
off Juan Fernandez Islands in 2014 (Flood et al. 2016). SACC proposal passed to add to Main list.
10c. Pterodroma neglecta
was recently discovered to breed on Ilha Trindade (Imber 2004), but see Tove
(2005).
11. Apparently, occurred
formerly off Tierra del Fuego, but known recently only from one sight record
(Meltofte & Horneman 1995).
12. Some authors (REFS)
consider the subspecies heraldica to deserve recognition as a separate
species from Pterodroma arminjoniana, but see Murphy & Pennoyer
(1952). Also, dark birds have been
recognized as a separate species, P. atrata (Brooke & Rowe 1996,
Dickinson 2003, Dickinson
& Remsen 2013).
SACC proposal passed to recognize
extralimital P. heraldica and P. atrata as separate species. This
treatment also followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
12a. Occasionally called
“Trinidade Petrel”. “Trinidade” is
either an incorrect spelling or a botched Anglicization of the Brazilian
Portuguese name for the island, which is “Trindade”, as is the official
international name. Formerly also
occasionally listed as “South Trinidad Petrel” (e.g. Matthews 1934, AOU 1957).
13. Pterodroma phaeopygia
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) considered to consist of two
subspecies, nominate phaeopygia, which breeds in the Galapagos Islands,
and sandwichensis, which breeds in Hawaii, where formerly treated as a
separate species "Dark-rumped Petrel" (AOU 1957<check>).
Although Jouanin & Mougin (1979) and Carboneras (1992b) questioned the
validity of sandwichensis as a recognizable taxon, Tomkins & Milne
(1991), Browne et al. (1997) and Welch et al. (2011) provided rationale for
considering Pterodroma sandwichensis a separate species from P.
phaeopygia based on vocal and genetic differences between them
comparable to those between other species-level pairs in Pterodroma. The AOU (Banks et al. 2002) recognized
them both as species: P. phaeopygia (Galapagos Petrel) and P.
sandwichensis (Hawaiian Petrel); SACC proposal passed to recognize P.
sandwichensis as a species.
14. Some treatments (e.g.,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) have considered
extralimital Pterodroma cervicalis to be a subspecies of P. externa,
with the composite name "White-necked Petrel," but they are evidently
not sister taxa (Imber 1985).
14a. Ramírez et al. (2013)
found using geolocators that part of the nonbreeding distribution of Pterodroma
feae includes Brazilian waters, with some occurrences off French Guiana and
Suriname. SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.
14b. Genetic data
(Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Halobaena is more closely
related to Pachyptila, as proposed by Imber (1985), than to any other
genus; Marchant & Higgins (1990) had proposed that Halobaena and Pterodroma
were sister genera.
15. Pachyptila
species were formerly called “Whale-birds” (e.g., Murphy 1936).
15a. Recorded in Peru
(Hughes 1982, Hidalgo-Aranzamendi et al. 2010).
15aa. Formerly placed in the
monotypic genus Pseudoprion (Matthews 1934).
15b. Species limits in the
genus Pachyptila are controversial, with most recent classifications
recognizing six species in the genus (e.g., Marchant & Higgins 1990,
Carboneras 1992b) <incorp. Bretagnolle et al. 1990>; see summary in Penhallurick
& Wink (2004). Pachyptila
desolata was considered a subspecies of P. vittata by Cox (1980),
and Penhallurick & Wink (2004) considered it and P. belcheri
conspecific with P. vittata; see, however, Rheindt & Austin (2005)
and references therein. Proposal needed?
15b. [note on use of forsteri
as species name, as in Pinto (1938), Blake (1977)]
16. Formerly placed in the
monotypic genus Attaprion (e.g., Matthews 1934).
16a. Called "Dove
Prion" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and many other references. SACC proposal passed to change English
name from Dove Prion to Antarctic Prion.
17. Formerly placed in the
monotypic genus Heteroprion (Matthews 1934).
17a. Called
"Thin-billed Prion" in Matthews (1936), Harrison (1983), Sibley &
Monroe (1990), and elsewhere.
18. Recorded once near
Trinidad (ffrench & ffrench 1966). <check
documentation> Sight record off Curaçao (Voous 1983). <check
Bourne 1995>
18a. Genetic data
(Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Bulweria and Procellaria
are sister genera, contrary to previous assessments of morphology that
suggested that Bulweria was closest to or embedded within Pterodroma
(Olson 1975a, Marchant & Higgins 1990).
Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed recognizing Bulweria + Procellaria
at the tribe level (Procellariini).
18b. Called “Soft-nosed
Petrel by Matthews (1934).
19. Procellaria cinerea
was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Murphy 1936, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Adamastor, but most recent
classifications have followed (REF) and Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in merging
this into Procellaria.
19a. [need records list for
each country]
19b.
Formerly known as “Pediunker” (e.g. Murphy 1936).
20. Procellaria
conspicillata was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Blake 1977, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Carboneras 1992b, Dickinson 2003) treated
as a subspecies of P. aequinoctialis.
Ryan (1998) proposed that conspicillata should be treated as
a separate species from Procellaria aequinoctialis based mainly on vocal
differences. SACC proposal passed to treat P.
conspicillata as a separate species.
20a. Formerly known as
“Shoemaker” (e.g., Murphy 1936).
21. Procellaria
parkinsoni and P. westlandica have been considered conspecific with P.
aequinoctialis (e.g., REFS); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990), which would also include P. conspicillata. Procellaria westlandica is considered
regular off Chile and Argentina following Brinkley et al. (2000).
21a. See Olmos (2001) for a
summary of records and status off Brazil, and Savigny (2002) for a sight record
off Argentina.
22. Called "Black
Petrel" in Matthews (1934), Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Carboneras
(1992b), and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014). See Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale
against use of "Black Petrel."
23. Calonectris was formerly included in
genus Puffinus (e.g., Peters 1931, AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Blake 1977), but most recent classifications have followed Alexander et al.
(1965) and Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in treating it as a separate genus.
Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) also support treatment of Calonectris
as a separate genus, sister genus to Puffinus. Other analyses of the
same groups (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) found that Calonectris formed
a distinct group for which the relationship to the two major groups of Puffinus
could not be resolved; see Note 23a.
23a. Based on genetic data,
Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed that Puffinus be subdivided into
two genera: (1) Ardenna for creatopus/carneipes, gravis,
griseus, tenuirostris, pacifica, and bulleri; and
(2) Puffinus for all other taxa. SACC proposal to split Ardenna from
Puffinus did not pass. Other genetic data (Austin
et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) have confirmed these findings, and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014) adopted this classification. SACC proposal passed to recognize Ardenna and to modify linear sequence of
species.
23b. Puffinus pacificus and P.
bulleri were formerly placed in the genus Thyellodroma; see Oberholser (1917) for rationale. Peters (1931) treated Thyellodroma as a subgenus of Puffinus,
and this has been followed in subsequent classifications.
23c. Photographs from
Ecuador (Haase 2019) and Colombia (Marín 2024, which see for general review of
records off northwestern South America.
24. Some authors (Bannerman
and Bannerman 1968, Patteson and Armistead 2004, Onley & Scofield 2007)
have recognized the subspecies edwardsii and borealis as separate
species from Calonectris diomedea, but see Penhallurick & Wink
(2004). Banks et al. (2006) formally
recognized edwardsii as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treated edwardsii
as a separate species. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014) recognized both edwardsii and borealis as separate
species. At
least two specimens of edwardsii have been collected in Brazil (Lima et
al. 2002), and borealis is known from Trinidad (Collins 1969), but
majority of records are not assigned to subspecies; evidently, no certain
record of nominate diomedea exists for South America <?>.
24a. Calonectris diomedea
was formerly (e.g., Matthews 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) known as Ardenna
kuhli or Puffinus kuhli, but see <REFS>, Jouanin and Mougin
(1979).
25. Formerly called
"Gray-backed Shearwater" (e.g., Murphy 1926, Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Blake 1977) or "New Zealand Shearwater" (e.g., Matthews 1934, AOU
1957).
25a. <incorp. Austin
(1996)?>
25b. Recent specimen record
from Brazil (Souto et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Records from Peru and Chile refer to
misidentified specimens of Ardenna grisea (Eisenmann & Serventy
1962).
26. Formerly known as
"Greater Shearwater" in most New World literature, but Chesser et al.
(2010) changed the name to Great Shearwater to conform to usage elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change English
name.
27. Genetic data (Austin et
al. 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the traditional treatment of Ardenna
creatopus and A. carneipes as sister taxa. Some authors (e.g., REFS,
Penhallurick & Wink 2004) consider them to be conspecific.
27a. The status of Ardenna
carneipes in South American waters is under review and may be downgraded to
"V".
27b. Formerly placed in the
monotypic genus Hemipuffinus (e.g. Matthews 1934).
28. Called "Common
Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
28a. Jouanin and Mougin
(1979) considered Puffinus puffinus (broadly defined), P. assimilis,
and P. lherminieri, along with extralimital P. gavia and P.
huttoni, to be members of the subgenus Puffinus. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are
consistent with treatment of the subgenus as monophyletic (if the Galapagos
taxon subalaris is removed; see Note 31). Species limits in this complex are
controversial, including within the taxa currently or previously treated as
subspecies of P. puffinus. As far
as can be determined <check>, South American records all pertain to
nominate P. puffinus. <incorp. Wink et al. 1993, Heidrich et al.
1998>
29. Puffinus assimilis
and P. lherminieri were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a)
considered conspecific; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990). Some genetic data (Austin et al.
2004) are not consistent with their treatment as sister taxa, but other genetic
data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support this treatment. More recent genetic
data (Pyle et al. 2011) are ambiguous concerning their relationship and also
indicate that P. lherminieri may consist of several species, as had been
indicated by studies of the populations breeding in the eastern Atlantic.
Nonbreeding specimens from South America need to be re-examined with this in
mind. Chesser et al. (2024) treated P. lherminieri as consisting of
several separate species. SACC proposal needed. <<NACC
proposal to be relayed>>
30. Called
"Dusky-backed Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake
(1977).
31. The taxon subalaris
of the Galapagos Islands is traditionally treated as a subspecies of P.
lherminieri. However, genetic data
(Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) strongly indicate that subalaris is
a species-level taxon closely related to P. nativitatis and only
distantly related to P. lherminieri.
Murphy (1927) long ago noted the morphological distinctiveness of this
taxon. SACC proposal passed to recognize subalaris
as a species. Pyle at al. (2011) found
that subalaris fell outside the main
group of Puffinus shearwaters that
includes P. lherminieri, P.
assimilis, extralimital P. puffinus, etc. SACC proposal passed to change
linear sequence.
31a. Formerly placed in the
genus Alphapuffinus (e.g., Matthews 1934).
32. The species in the genus
Pelecanoides were traditionally
placed in their own family, Pelecanoididae.
Livezey and Zusi (2007) even treated them in their own suborder, as
sister to all other Procellariiformes.
However, genetic data (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004,
Ericson et al. 2006) had previously indicated that they might be embedded
within the Procellariidae, as suggested by Cracraft (1981). Hackett et al.
(2008) found a strongly supported sister relationship between the
Pelecanoididae and Procellariidae, but with very limited taxon-sampling. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of families. Christidis and Boles
(2008) and Cracraft (2013) included them within the Procellariidae without even
subfamily rank. Prum et al. (2015) found
that Pelecanoides was embedded in the
Procellariidae. SACC proposal passed to remove
Pelecanoididae and to treat Pelecanoides
as a genus in Procellariidae.
33. Carboneras (1992b)
considered Pelecanoides garnotii, P. georgicus, and P.
magellani to form a superspecies [but not reflected in his linear sequence
or Kennedy-Page -- check latter].
34. Correct spelling for
species name is urinatrix, not "urinator" (David
& Gosselin 2002a, Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
35. Called
"Subantarctic Diving-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake
(1977).
36. (REFS) recognized the
subspecies berard of the Falkland Islands as a separate species
from Pelecanoides urinatrix.
37. Gregory (1994) reported
that a specimen was salvaged on the Falkland Islands on 31 March 1990 (and
specimen sent to British Antarctic Survey).
CICONIIFORMES 1
CICONIIDAE (STORKS) 1
Ciconia
maguari Maguari Stork 2
Jabiru
mycteria Jabiru
Mycteria
americana Wood Stork 3
1. This order traditionally
also included the Ardeidae and the Threskiornithidae, but neither genetic data
(e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006,
Hackett et al. 2008) or recent analyses of morphological data (Mayr & Clarke
2003) could confirm the monophyly of a group that consists of Ardeidae,
Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae. See also Note 1 under Pelecaniformes.
Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the
Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes. SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae
and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the
Pelecaniformes. More recent analyses
(Prum et al. 2015, Kimball et al. 2019) show that the former Ciconiiformes was
not monophyletic. Cracraft (2013)
reduced the Ciconiiformes to a suborder of the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of
the Ciconiidae itself is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS).
2. Ciconia maguari
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps &
Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Euxenura,
but see Kahl (1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b) and Wood (1983, 1984) for behavioral
and morphological reasons for its merger into Ciconia; followed by Kahl
(1979a), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Elliot (1992), and Haverschmidt & Mees
(1994).
3. Formerly known as
"Wood Ibis" (e.g., AOU 1957) or "American Wood-Ibis" (e.g.,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970); called "American Wood Stork" in Hancock et
al. (1992).
SULIFORMES 1
FREGATIDAE (FRIGATEBIRDS) 16
Fregata
ariel Lesser Frigatebird 16a
Fregata
magnificens Magnificent Frigatebird 17
Fregata
minor Great Frigatebird
Fregata aquila Ascension
Frigatebird
SULIDAE (BOOBIES) 3a
Morus
capensis Cape Gannet (V) 4, 5
Morus
serrator Australasian Gannet (V) 4, 6
Sula
nebouxii Blue-footed Booby
Sula
variegata Peruvian Booby
Sula
dactylatra Masked Booby 7, 7a
Sula granti Nazca
Booby 7
Sula sula Red-footed
Booby
Sula
leucogaster Brown Booby 7b
ANHINGIDAE (ANHINGAS)
Anhinga
anhinga Anhinga 15
PHALACROCORACIDAE (CORMORANTS) 8
Phalacrocorax
gaimardi Red-legged Cormorant
Phalacrocorax
harrisi Flightless Cormorant 9
Phalacrocorax
brasilianus Neotropic Cormorant 9, 10, 10a
Phalacrocorax
magellanicus Magellanic Cormorant 11
Phalacrocorax
bougainvillii Guanay Cormorant 12
Phalacrocorax
atriceps Imperial Cormorant 13, 13a, 14
1. The families in this
order are traditionally included in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data
indicate that that traditional group is not monophyletic; see Note 1 under
Pelecaniformes. Support is strong, however, for the monophyly of a group that
includes Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae (Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, Harshman 1994, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004,
Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al.
2008). Chesser at al. (2010) removed Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae,
Anhingidae, and Fregatidae from the Pelecaniformes and placed them in their own
new order, Suliformes. SACC proposal passed to remove these from
Pelecaniformes and place in their own order. Cracraft (2013) reduced the Suliformes to a suborder, Suloidea, of
the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of
each family has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by or
corroborated with genetic data for the Sulidae (Friesen & Anderson 1997),
the Phalacrocoracidae (Kennedy et al. 2000), and the Fregatidae (Kennedy &
Spencer 2004). The sequence of genera and species within each family follows
Dorst and Mougin (1979).
3a. <sequence within
Sulidae; incorp. Friesen & Anderson (1997)>
4. Carboneras (1992e) and
other references followed the merger (e.g., Dorst and Mougin 1979) of Morus
into Sula; see Olson & Warheit (1988) and Van Tets et al. (1988) for
reasons for maintaining Morus as a separate genus.
5. SACC proposal passed to add to main list; based upon photograph taken at Macabí Island,
n. Peru, on 22 July 1999, published in García-Godos (2002). In Argentina, an
earlier photograph was published from the Beagle Channel taken on 21 Jan. 1995
(Ramírez Llorens 1996); there are three additional sight records from Río Negro
province Nov. 1992, Nov. 1995, and Oct. 1996 (Bergkamp 1995, Mazar Barnett
& Pearman 2001). The species was also recorded off Rio Grande do Sul, se.
Brazil, from Jul. to Aug 1992 (unpublished photographs) and in Apr. 1983
(Vooren 2004; published photograph).
6. Specimen from Santa
Catarina, Brazil (Bege & Pauli 1986).
7. Sula granti was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979)
considered a subspecies of S. dactylatra, but Pitman and Jehl
(1998) presented evidence that it should be treated as a separate species;
genetic data are also consistent with this treatment (Friesen et al. 2002). SACC proposal to change the English name
to "Grant's Booby" did not pass.
7a. Formerly (e.g., REFS)
known as "Blue-faced Booby."
7b. The Pacific Ocean
subspecies brewsteri was described and treated as a separate species
(Brewster’s Booby) from Atlantic S. leucogaster until treated as
conspecific by Peters (1931) and Wetmore et al. (1944); this was followed in
all subsequent classifications.
VanderWerf et al. (2023) presented evidence of assortative mating
between brewsteri and S. l. plotus and recommended
treating brewsteri as a separate species from S. leucogaster. SACC proposal pending.
8. Although the monophyly of
the Phalacrocoracidae has never been questioned, treatment within the family
has ranged from subfamilies and multiple genera, e.g., Hypoleucus,
Stictocarbo, Leucocarbo, Notocarbo (Siegel-Causey 1988) to all
species in a single genus, Phalacrocorax
(e.g. Dickinson 2003). Kennedy et al.
(2009) showed that the subfamilies and most genera of Siegel-Causey were not
monophyletic. Dickinson & Remsen
(2013), using the data in Kennedy et al. (2000, 2009), resurrected Microcarbo for a group of five Old World
species, but all New World species remained in Phalacrocorax. Kennedy and
Spencer (2014), using additional new genetic data, split Phalacrocorax into seven genera, restricting Phalacrocorax to a group of Old World species, and placing South
American taxa into Nannopterum (for brasilianus and harrisi), Poikilocarbo
(for gaimardi), and Leucocarbo (for magellanicus, bougainvillii,
atriceps). SACC proposal to revise
classification of genera did not pass. SACC proposal
to revise linear sequence of species passed.
9. Phalacrocorax harrisi
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the monotypic genus
Nannopterum, but recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Orta 1992a) have usually followed Dorst and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Phalacrocorax.
[note needed on the lump, Causey REFS?].
Genetic data (Kennedy et al. 2009) support a close relationship between P.
harrisi and P. brasilianus + North American P. auritus
(contra van Tets [1976] and Siegel-Causey [1988]). Murphy (1936) had previously noted the
morphological similarities between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus. Kennedy and Spencer (2014) confirmed the
close relationship of these three species and resurrected Nannopterum for them.
See Note 8.
10. See Browning (1989) for
use of brasilianus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), instead of olivaceus,
as in Pinto (1938), AOU (1957), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Haverschmidt &
Mees (1994), etc.
10a. Formerly (e.g., AOU
1983) known as "Olivaceous Cormorant." SACC proposal did not pass to change
spelling of English name to "Neotropical."
11. Called "Magellanic
Cormorant" in Hellmayr & Conover (1948), "Rock Shag" in
Murphy (1936), Johnson (1965), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Orta (1992a), Mazar
Barnett & Pearman (2001), and del
Hoyo & Collar (2014), and "Rock
Cormorant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and Blake (1977) Jaramillo
(2003), and Marín (2004), and "Magellan Cormorant" in Howard &
Moore (1994). SACC proposal passed to change from
Magellan Cormorant to Magellanic Cormorant.
12. Called "Guanay
Shag" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).
12a. Elliott (2020) noted
that the species name should be emended to bougainvilliorum.
SACC proposal needed.
13. Phalacrocorax
atriceps here includes P. albiventer, formerly (e.g., Hellmayr &
Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979)
treated as a distinct species ("King Cormorant"). Devillers &
Terschuren (1978) considered albiventer to be a subspecies of P. atriceps,
and Siegel-Causey (1986) considered it to be a color morph of atriceps.
[incorp. Rasmussen 1991].
13a. Called "Imperial
Shag" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).
14. Some recent authors
(e.g., Siegel-Causey 1988, Siegel-Causey & Lefrevre 1989, Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a, Jaramillo 2003) have considered the subspecies bransfieldensis
of Antarctica and South Shetland Island to deserve recognition as a separate
species from Phalacrocorax atriceps.
At least one record of bransfieldensis for South America (Brazil;
Lima et al. 2002). Proposal needed.
15. Anhinga anhinga
was considered to form a superspecies with Old World A. rufa, A.
melanogaster, and A. novaehollandiae by Mayr & Short (1970); the
Old World taxa are treated as conspecific by Orta (1992b) and Dickinson (2003).
16. Genetic data (Kennedy
& Spencer 2004) indicate that Fregata ariel is basal to all other
species in the genus. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Martins et al. (2022) found a different
topology but used only a single mitochondrial gene.
16a. Olson (2017) provided
evidence that the subspecies trinitatis
merits species rank. SACC proposal to treat as separate species
did not pass.
17. Morphological and
genetic data indicate that the Galapagos population of Fregata magnificens may merit rank as a separate species (Hailer et
al. 2011), Nuss et al. (2016); the Galapagos population is the nominate form,
so all other populations would become F. rothschildi. SACC proposal to recognize as separate
species did not pass.
18. Williams et al. (2017)
published radio-tracking data that documented the presence of an individual in Brazilian waters. SACC proposal passed to add Fregata
aquila to main list.
PELECANIFORMES 1
PELECANIDAE (PELICANS)
Pelecanus
occidentalis Brown Pelican 2
Pelecanus
thagus Peruvian Pelican 2
1. The order Pelecaniformes traditionally also
included the families Phaethontidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae,
and Fregatidae. Studies using genetic and morphological data have questioned
the monophyly of the order (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Hedges & Sibley
1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain
& Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007, Mayr
2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015; cf.
Livezey & Zusi 2007). To restore the monophyly of the Pelecaniformes, the
Phaethontidae has been removed and elevated to the rank of order (see Note 1
under Phaethontiformes), and the Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and
Fregatidae and have been removed and placed in their own order, Suliformes (see
Note 1 under that order). Two Afrotropical families, Balaenicipitidae and
Scopidae, are the most likely sister taxa to the Pelecanidae (Hedges &
Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Fain and Houde 2004,
Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Prum et al.
2015; cf. Mayr 2003, Mayr and Clarke 2003). Two other families, the Ardeidae
and Threskiornithidae, are traditionally placed in the Ciconiiformes, but
genetic data (Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014,
Prum et al. 2015) indicate that that group is not monophyletic and that the
Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae form a monophyletic group with the
Pelecanidae. Chesser at al. (2010)
removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them
in the Pelecaniformes. SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae
and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the
Pelecaniformes.
2. Although treated as a
subspecies of P. occidentalis in most
classifications since Peters (1931) and Wetmore (1945), some authors (e.g.,
Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) recognized South
American thagus as a separate species from Pelecanus
occidentalis. SACC proposal passed to treat thagus
as separate species. This treatment was
adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and Banks et al. (2008).
ARDEIDAE (HERONS) 1
Tigrisoma
lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron 2a
Tigrisoma
fasciatum Fasciated Tiger-Heron 2a
Tigrisoma
mexicanum Bare-throated Tiger-Heron 2b
Agamia
agami Agami Heron 3
Cochlearius
cochlearius Boat-billed Heron 4, 4a
Zebrilus
undulatus Zigzag Heron 7
Botaurus
pinnatus Pinnated Bittern 8, 8a
Ixobrychus
exilis Least Bittern 8a, 9
Ixobrychus
involucris Stripe-backed Bittern
Nycticorax
nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 5
Nyctanassa
violacea Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 6
Butorides
striata Striated Heron 10, 12, 13
Butorides
virescens Green Heron 10, 11
Ardeola
ralloides Squacco Heron (V) 13a
Bubulcus
ibis Cattle Egret 14, 14a
Ardea
cinerea Gray Heron (V) 15, 16
Ardea
herodias Great Blue Heron 16
Ardea cocoi
Cocoi Heron 16, 17
Ardea
purpurea Purple Heron (V) 17a
Ardea alba Great
Egret 18, 18a
Syrigma
sibilatrix Whistling Heron 19
Pilherodius
pileatus Capped Heron 20
Egretta
tricolor Tricolored Heron 21, 21a
Egretta
rufescens Reddish Egret 21, 22
Egretta
gularis Western Reef-Heron (V) 23, 25
Egretta
garzetta Little Egret (V) 24, 25
Egretta
thula Snowy Egret 25, 25a
Egretta caerulea
Little Blue Heron 21, 26
1. The monophyly of the
family Ardeidae has never been seriously questioned other than the treatment of
Cochlearius in a separate, monotypic family. Bock (1956) divided the
family into two subfamilies, Botaurinae (Botaurus and Ixobrychus)
and Ardeinae (all other genera), and further divided the Ardeinae into three
tribes: Ardeini (Ardea, Egretta, Agamia, Butorides, Ardeola),
Nycticoracini (Nycticorax, Cochlearius, Gorsachius), and Tigriornithini
(Zebrilus, Tigrisoma, Zonerodius, Tigriornis). Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered
all four groups as subfamilies. Genetic
data, however, have shown that none of these groupings are monophyletic other
than the sister relationship between Botaurus an Ixobrychus (but
these genera are not sister to all other herons). The sequence of genera (and some species
within genera) used here derives from the phylogeny of Sheldon (1987), Sheldon
et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000), and some
unpublished data from Fred Sheldon.
Hruska et al. (2023) recommended recognizing 5 subfamilies:
Tigriornithinae (for Tigrisoma and Old World Tigriornis), Cochleariinae
(for Cochlearius), Agamiinae (for Agamia), Botaurinae (for Zebrilus,
Botaurus, and Ixobrychus), and Ardeinae (for all other genera).
2a. Tigrisoma fasciatum
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of T.
lineatum, and the subspecies salmoni was considered a separate
species (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965); REFS, and Eisenmann
(1965) provided rationale for why T. fasciatum should be considered a
separate species and why salmoni should be considered a subspecies of T.
fasciatum.
2b. Tigrisoma mexicanum
was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1965) placed in a monotypic genus, Heterocnus.
2c. The species name
formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) used for mexicanum was cabanisi, but
see Blake (1977).
3. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) known as "Chestnut-bellied
Heron."
4. Cochlearius was
formerly placed in a monotypic family Cochleariidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore
1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Bock (1956), Payne & Risley
(1976), Sheldon (1987), and Sheldon et al. (2000). Plumage and skeletal
characters have often been interpreted as suggesting as close relationship to Nycticorax
(Bock 1956, Cracraft 1967). Payne &
Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) placed it in a tribe, Cochlearini, related to
but separate from night-herons, based on a combination of morphological and
plumage characters. Genetic data,
however, do not confirm a close link between Cochlearius and
night-herons (Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000, Hruska et al. 2023). Scofield et al.'s
(2010) analysis of skeletal characters suggested a closer relationship to Botaurus
and Ixobrychus, but see Hruska et al. (2023)
4a. The subspecies zeledoni
of Middle America and northwestern South America may deserve treatment as a
separate species from Cochlearius cochlearius (Meyer de Schauensee
1966), but see (REFS).
5. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne &
Risley (1976), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992)
considered Nycticorax nycticorax to form a superspecies with Old World N.
caledonicus.
6. Nyctanassa has been included in Nycticorax
in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, AOU 1983), but Payne & Risley
(1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the basis of skeletal
differences <check Adams 1955>.
Genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon
1998) also indicate substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with
treatment as separate genera; furthermore Sheldon et al. (2000) questioned
whether they are sister genera, but see Hruska et al. (2023).
7. The relationship of Zebrilus
to other herons has been controversial. In terms of some details of egg color,
nest placement, plumage features, and some morphological characters as well as
overall skeletal morphology, it is like the bitterns, but in terms of other
plumage and morphological characters, it is like the tiger-herons (see Bock
1956, Payne & Risley 1976, Sheldon et al. 1995). Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995, Hruska et
al. 2020), however, place it with the bitterns.
8. Mayr & Short (1970)
considered all species of Botaurus to form a superspecies. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B.
pinnatus to form a superspecies with North American B. lentiginosus
and Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus. Payne & Risley (1976), however, note that
New and Old World Botaurus differ substantially in skeletal structure,
and that pinnatus also differs from lentiginosus in skeletal
features; they suggested that the only candidates for superspecies designation
are Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus.
8a. Hruska et al. (2023)
found that Botaurus is nested within Ixobrychus and transferred
New World I. exilis and I. involucris to Botaurus. SACC proposal needed.
9. Mayr & Short (1970),
Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and
Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ixobrychus exilis to form a
superspecies with Old World I. minutus and I. sinensis, and
including I. novaezelandiae when given species rank; however, Hruska et
al. (2023) found that they were not closely related.
10. Butorides virescens
and B. striata are often considered conspecific (e.g., Payne 1979,
Hancock & Kushlan 1984, Martínez-Vilata and Motis 1992), based mainly on
Payne (1974), who reported extensive interbreeding where their ranges meet.
Recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) have followed Monroe & Browning
(1992), who interpreted specimen data to indicate that the two taxa seldom
hybridized (see also Voous 1986), thus representing a return to earlier
classifications (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). More recently, Hayes (2002, 2006) and Hayes et al. (2013) provided
evidence of assortative mating where their ranges meet and hybridization occurs
in central Panama and Tobago.
11. Payne & Risley
(1976) merged Butorides into Ardeola based on skeletal
similarities; they are sister taxa (e.g., Hruska et al. 2023)
12. SACC proposal to split Butorides
sundevalli from B. striatus did not pass, which found the analysis
by Payne (1974) sufficient to place burden-of-proof on recognizing sundevalli
as a species on obtaining new data. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and AOU
(1998) recognized sundevalli as a species implicitly, but it was treated
as conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) and elsewhere. <incorp.
Snow 1975> (Beyond scope of this work is the problem that current
classifications consider Neotropical and all Old World taxa as conspecific,
separate from B. virescens, which would seem difficult to defend
given what we know about limited gene flow between parapatric virescens
and Neotropical striatus). Hruska
et al. (2023) recommended treating sundevalli as a species.
13. Butorides is feminine, so the correct
spelling of the species name is striata (David & Gosselin 2002b).
13a. Photograph from
Fernando de Noronha island (Silva-e-Silva and Olmos 2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main
list. Previous sight record also
from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic &
Teixeira 1987, 1989), as well as more recent photographs (Whittaker et al.
2019).
14. Bubulcus is
included in the genus Ardeola in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956,
Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), but Wetmore (1965) and Payne & Risley (1976)
listed many characters of Bubulcus that differ from other species in Ardeola. Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979)
merged Bubulcus into Egretta based mainly on morphometric data,
and this was followed by Haverschmidt & Mees (1994). Genetic data, however, do not support a close
relationship between Bubulcus and Egretta, but indicate a close
relationship to Ardea (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000, McCracken
& Sheldon 1998). Hruska et al.
(2023) found that Bubulcus was nested within Ardea and
transferred ibis to Ardea.
SACC
proposal badly needed. <<wait NACC
results>>
14a. Vaurie (1963) and Payne and
Risley (1976) noted the striking difference in alternate plumage coloration
between the nominate subspecies and the Asian-Australasian subspecies coromandus. McAllan & Bruce (1989) treated them as
separate species without comment.
Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) treated them as separate species based on
differences in alternate plumage and physical proportions of head, neck, and
bill (see also
Ahmed 2011), and this was followed by subsequent IOC
lists. However, Christidis and Boles
(2008) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) continued to treat them as
conspecific. Chesser et al. (2024)
treated them as separate species. SACC proposal
to treat them as separate species did not pass.
15. Band recovery from
Trinidad, 27 Aug 1959 (Baudouin-Bodin 1960) and published photo from Trinidad
(Kenefick & Hayes 2006); also additional sight records for Trinidad and
Tobago accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (White &
Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Kenefick
2012, 2017). Sick (1993) cited another band recovery from Capitão Poco, Ourem,
Pará, in Dec 1975 that was banded in France.
Photographed on Fernando do Noronha (Whittaker et al. 2019).
16. Payne & Risley
(1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis
(1992) considered Ardea cinerea, A. herodias, and A. cocoi
to form a superspecies.
17. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) known as "White-necked Heron," but this name is also
used (e.g., Martínez-Vilata & Motis 1992) for Old World Ardea
pacifica.
17a.
One photographed on Trinidad 24 Sept.-10 Oct. 2002 (Kenefick 2004) and
published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006).
SACC
proposal passed to add to main list. Additional bird photographed on Tobago in
2010 (Kenefick 2012). Also, one sight
record from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic
& Teixeira 1987, 1989) and one photograph (Ferreira et al. 2019). One sight record and one published photograph
from French Guiana (Lenrumé
et al. 2024).
18. Ardea alba was formerly (e.g., Pinto
1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983) placed in monotypic genus Casmerodius, but morphometric
(Payne and Risley 1976), vocal (McCracken & Sheldon 1987), and genetic data
(Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998, Hruska et al.
2023) do not support recognition of this as a separate genus from Ardea. Some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, Blake
1977) have placed Ardea alba in Egretta, but see Sheldon (1987),
Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000),
and Hruska et al. (2023); cf. Chang et al. 2003).
18a. Formerly known as
"Common Egret" (e.g., AOU 1957, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994); called
"Great White Egret" in Voous (1983), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990),
Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
19. Early genetic data
indicated that Syrigma, whose relationships have long been considered
uncertain, is the sister genus to Egretta (McCracken & Sheldon 1988,
Sheldon et al. 2000), but more recent data indicate that its sister is Pilherodius
(Hruska et al. 2023)
20. Bock (1956) included Pilherodius
in Nycticorax based on plumage similarities, but morphometric data
(Payne & Risley 1976) did not support this, and genetic data have indicated
that they are not closely related (e.g. Hruska et al. 2023).
21. Egretta tricolor was
formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps
1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Hydranassa. Bock (1956) also placed E. rufescens
and E. caerulea in Hydranassa. Neither morphometric (Payne &
Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000, Hruska
et al. 2023) support this group as monophyletic.
21a. Formerly (e.g., AOU
1957) known as "Louisiana Heron."
22. Egretta rufescens was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Dichromanassa, but see
Bock (1956).
23. Recorded from Trinidad
(Murphy & Nanan 1987, Kenefick & Hayes 2006) and Tobago (ffrench &
Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Kenefick 2017).
24. Egretta garzetta has
been recorded many times in Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & Hayes 1998,
ffrench & White 1999, Hayes & White 2001, White & Hayes 2002,
Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Kenefick 2017), including a specimen (Downs
1959). There is a band recovery from
Suriname (Haverschmidt & Mees 1994), and two photographs from Brazil
(Bencke et al. 2005, Ferrerira et al. 2019).
There are sight reports from Guyana (Ryan 1997) and Aruba (Mlodinow
2004) and an unpublished photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).
25. Egretta gularis
and E. garzetta were considered conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis
(1992); Payne & Risley (1976) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered E.
gularis, E. garzetta, and E. thula to form a superspecies.
25a. Egretta thula
was formerly often (e.g., Pinto 1938, AOU 1944, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a,
Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Leucophoyx, but
see Bock (1956), Wetmore (1956), and Dickerman & Parkes (1968).
26. Egretta caerulea
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps &
Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Florida,
but see Bock (1956), Dickerman & Parkes (1968), Payne & Risley (1976),
and McCracken & Sheldon (1998).
THRESKIORNITHIDAE (IBISES) 1, 1a
Eudocimus
albus White Ibis 2, 3, 3a
Eudocimus
ruber Scarlet Ibis 2
Plegadis
falcinellus Glossy Ibis 4
Plegadis
chihi White-faced Ibis 4
Plegadis
ridgwayi Puna Ibis 5
Cercibis
oxycerca Sharp-tailed Ibis
Mesembrinibis
cayennensis Green Ibis 6
Phimosus
infuscatus Bare-faced Ibis 7
Theristicus
caerulescens Plumbeous Ibis 8, 8a
Theristicus
caudatus Buff-necked Ibis 9
Theristicus
branickii Andean Ibis 9
Theristicus
melanopis Black-faced Ibis 9
Platalea
leucorodia Eurasian Spoonbill (V) 10
Platalea
ajaja Roseate Spoonbill 11
1. The monophyly of the
Threskiornithidae has never been seriously questioned. Two subfamilies are traditionally
(e.g., Matheu & del Hoyo 1992) recognized: Threskiornithinae for
ibises and Plataleinae for spoonbills; genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist
1990, Fleischer & McIntosh 2001, Chesser et al. 2010, Ramirez et al. 2013),
however, indicate that the "Threskiornithinae" as traditionally
defined is paraphyletic with respect to "Plataleinae." Although Threskiornithidae and Ardeidae have
been considered sister families for over a century, with some genetic support
(Hackett et al. 2008), more recent genetic data shows that they are not sister
taxa, but rather that Threskiornithidae is sister to pelicans + herons. Genetic data (Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al.
2015) are in alignment with fossil data (Mayr 2014) that show that the ibises
are an ancient group, as old or older than most taxa ranked as orders. SACC proposal needed.
1a. For use of Threskiornithidae over Plataleidae
and Eudicimidae, see ICZN (1992).
2. Eudocimus albus
and E. ruber have similar displays, interbreed to a limited
degree, and are interfertile, but nonetheless mate assortatively in Venezuela,
with the overwhelming majority of breeding birds phenotypically
"pure" rather than intermediate (Ramos & Busto 1983, 1985, 1987);
they constitute a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979, Sibley
& Monroe 1990). They were considered
conspecific by Hancock et al. (1992) because of the frequent interbreeding; see
their extensive discussion.
3. The name formerly (e.g.,
Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) used for the genus Eudocimus
was Guara, but see Parkes (1951).
3a. Called "American
White Ibis" in Hancock et al. (1992) and Matheu & del Hoyo (1992)
to distinguish it from "Australian White Ibis" (Threskiornis
molucca), which is elsewhere called “Australian Ibis” (e.g. Dickinson &
Remsen 2013).
4. Plegadis falcinellus
and P. chihi form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979, Sibley &
Monroe 1990). They were formerly considered conspecific by some (e.g., Parkes
1955, Palmer 1962), but they breed sympatrically in Louisiana and Alabama, USA
(Ryder 1967, Duncan & Johnson 1977).
5. Plegadis ridgwayi
was considered part of the P. falcinellus superspecies by REF, but see
Short (1975).
6. Called "Cayenne
Ibis" in Wetmore (1965).
7. Called "Whispering
Ibis" in Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) and elsewhere.
8. Theristicus
caerulescens is often (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Short 1975, Hancock et al. 1992) placed in monotypic
genus Harpiprion, but most authors have followed (REF) and Steinbacher
(1979) in merging this genus into Theristicus. Proposal needed. <Hancock et al. 1992 suggested that no data support this
lump>
8a. David & Dickinson
(2016) presented evidence that the original spelling of the species name is coerulescens. SACC proposal to change to coerulescens did not pass.
9. Theristicus melanopis
is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake
1977, Hancock et al. 1992) considered conspecific with T. caudatus. However, it (with branickii) was
considered a separate species by Steinbacher (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990), Matheu & del Hoyo (1992), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), etc.,
but no explicit rationale has been published; they form a superspecies
(Steinbacher 1979). Sibley & Monroe
(1990) considered branickii as separate species ("Andean
Ibis") from melanopis. Anecdotal
observations (Vizcarra 2009, 2010) suggest that the two taxa segregate where
they occur sympatrically during nonbreeding season and potentially breed
sympatrically. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated branickii as a
separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat branickii as a separate species.
10. Photo from Tobago
published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006).
SACC
proposal passed to add to main list. Also, one was photographed on Fernando
de Noronha island in Jan.-Feb. 1999 (Dutch Birding 24: 205).
11. Platalea ajaja was formerly
(e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1998) placed in monotypic genus Ajaia, but
see Amadon & Woolfenden (1952), Snow (1978), Hancock et al. (1992), Banks
et al. (2002), and Chesser et al. (2010) for inclusion in Platalea, as
it is now typically treated (e.g., Mayr and Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979,
Matheu & del Hoyo 1992, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
CATHARTIFORMES 1
CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURES) 1
Sarcoramphus
papa King Vulture
Vultur
gryphus Andean Condor
Coragyps
atratus Black Vulture 6
Cathartes
aura Turkey Vulture 2
Cathartes
burrovianus Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 4
Cathartes
melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 5
1. Ligon (1967) summarized
previous evidence and presented new evidence on skeletal morphology, myology,
and natal plumage that suggested that the Cathartidae were more closely related
to the Ciconiidae than to other Falconiformes. <summarize subsequent
evidence/against ciconiiform relationship, e.g. Sibley & Ahlquist (1990),
Avise et al. (1994), Griffiths (1994), Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain
& Houde (2004) etc.>. Genetic
data strongly refute a cathartid-stork relationship (Cracraft et al. 2004,
Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2006, Slack et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008,
Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015, Catanach et al. 2024). SACC proposal passed to remove from
Ciconiiformes. The monophyly of the
Cathartidae is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS, Johnson et
al. 2016), and the family is sufficiently distinctive that fossil cathartids
can be recognized as far back as the middle Eocene (e.g., Cracraft & Rich
1972). SACC proposal passed for placement in
separate order, Cathartiformes. Johnson et al. (2016) found that the family
consists of two major lineages, one with Coragyps
and Cathartes, and the other with Sarcoramphus, Vultur, and extralimital Gymnogyps. SACC proposal passed to modify linear
sequence. Subsequent genetic data (Catanach et al.
2024) have confirmed the relationships found by Johnson et al. (2016)
2. Jaramillo (2003)
suggested that the resident tropical subspecies ruficollis and the
southern subspecies group (jota and "falklandica")
might merit recognition as separate species from the northern Cathartes aura
group.
3. Cathartes melambrotus
was confused with and considered conspecific with C. burrovianus until
Wetmore (1964) described it and showed that it was a valid species, sympatric
with C. burrovianus. Amadon &
Bull (1988) considered Cathartes burrovianus and C. melambrotus
to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric. Genetic data (Johnson et al. 2016) show that
these two species are probably sister species.
4. Cathartes burrovianus
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as C.
urubutinga, but burrovianus has priority (Stresemann & Amadon
1979).
5. Correct spelling of
species name is melambrotus, not "melambrotos" (as,
e.g., in Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
6. Called "American
Black Vulture" in Houston (1994) to distinguish it from Palearctic Aegypius
monachus ("Eurasian Black Vulture"); the latter is called
“Cinereous Vulture” in Dickinson (2003) and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). SACC proposal to change to American Black
Vulture did not pass. Although del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also called
Aegypius monachus
“Cinereous Vulture”, they continued to call Coragyps atratus "American Black Vulture".
ACCIPITRIFORMES 1
PANDIONIDAE (OSPREY) 2
Pandion haliaetus Osprey (NB)
ACCIPITRIDAE
(HAWKS) 3
Elaninae
3a
Gampsonyx swainsonii Pearl Kite 5a, 5c
Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite 5b, 5c
Gypaetinae
Chondrohierax uncinatus Hook-billed Kite 4b
Leptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite 3b, 3c, 3d, 4
Leptodon forbesi White-collared Kite 3d, 4, 4a
Elanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite 3d, 5
Accipitrinae
Morphnus
guianensis Crested
Eagle 27, 27a, 27b
Harpia
harpyja Harpy Eagle 27a
Spizaetus
tyrannus Black
Hawk-Eagle 30
Spizaetus
melanoleucus Black-and-white
Hawk-Eagle 30
Spizaetus
ornatus Ornate Hawk-Eagle
28, 30
Spizaetus
isidori Black-and-chestnut
Eagle 29, 30, 30a
Busarellus nigricollis Black-collared Hawk 17a
Rostrhamus sociabilis Snail Kite 6, 6a
Helicolestes hamatus Slender-billed Kite 7
Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite 6a, 7c
Harpagus diodon Rufous-thighed Kite 6a
Ictinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite (NB)
6a, 7a, 7b
Ictinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite 6a, 7a
Circus hudsonius Northern Harrier (NB)
8a, 8aa, 8b
Circus cinereus Cinereous Harrier 8b
Circus buffoni Long-winged Harrier 8c
Accipiter poliogaster Gray-bellied Hawk 9, 9a
Accipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 10, 10a
Accipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk (V)
11, 11a
Accipiter bicolor Bicolored Hawk 11a, 12
Microspizias superciliosus Tiny Hawk 9aa
Microspizias collaris Semicollared Hawk 9aa
Milvus migrans Black Kite (V)
11f
Geranospiza caerulescens Crane
Hawk 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e
Cryptoleucopteryx plumbea Plumbeous Hawk 12b, 12c
Buteogallus schistaceus Slate-colored Hawk 12b, 12c
Buteogallus anthracinus Common Black Hawk 14, 14a
Buteogallus aequinoctialis Rufous Crab Hawk 14
Buteogallus meridionalis Savanna Hawk 15
Buteogallus lacernulatus White-necked Hawk 12b, 12d
Buteogallus urubitinga Great Black Hawk 14b
Buteogallus solitarius Solitary Eagle 16, 16b
Buteogallus coronatus Chaco Eagle 16, 17
Morphnarchus princeps
Barred Hawk 12bb
Rupornis magnirostris Roadside Hawk 20, 20a
Parabuteo unicinctus Harris's Hawk 19, 19a, 19b
Parabuteo leucorrhous White-rumped Hawk 21
Geranoaetus albicaudatus White-tailed Hawk 23, 23a
Geranoaetus polyosoma Variable Hawk 23a, 24, 25
Geranoaetus melanoleucus