Proposal
(251) to South American Classification Committee
Split Conopias
parvus from C. albovittatus
Effect on South American CL: This proposal would elevate a
taxon to species rank that we currently treat as a subspecies on our baseline
list.
Background: Pitangus parvus was described by
Pelzeln in 1868 from a specimen collected at Marabitanas, Rio Negro, Brazil. Pitangus
albovittatus had previously been described from the Isthmus of Panama by
Lawrence (1862). Ridgway (1906) erected a new genus Coryphotriccus, to
which parvus and albovittatus were transferred, with albovittatus
designated as the type of the genus. Hellmayr (1927) maintained Coryphotriccus
Ridgway, while recognizing that it was "most nearly allied to Conopias,
but differs by its relatively much larger bill which is both wider and
longer." The type of the genus Conopias was trivirgata,
described in 1831 by Wied. Hellmayr treated parvus and albovittatus as
conspecific, mistakenly granting priority to parvus, an error that
was perpetuated by several subsequent authors.
Coryphotriccus was merged into Conopias without comment by
Traylor (1977), and by Lanyon (1984), who found the syringes of parvus
and trivirgata to be similar. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and
Traylor (1979) treated parvus and albovittatus as subspecies
under the name of Conopias parvus. Pinto (1944), Phelps & Phelps
(1950) and Sibley & Monroe continued to treat the two forms as separate
species. The latter authors cited vocal differences between parvus and albovittata
(based on a personal communication with R. Ridgely) as the reason for
maintaining the two as species. Meanwhile, the 6th Edition of the A.O.U.
Check-list (1983), following Wetmore (1972) maintained the genus Coryphotriccus
and kept albovittatus and parvus as a single species (while
noting that "the two groups are often regarded as distinct species"),
while restoring the priority of albovittatus. Ridgely & Tudor (1994), citing
"marked plumage and vocal differences" and "widely
disjunct" ranges, treated the two as separate species, White-ringed
Flycatcher (Conopias albovittata) and Yellow-throated Flycatcher (Conopias
parvus). This treatment has been followed by most authors of field guides
(e.g. Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) and other popular works (e.g.
Fitzpatrick et al 2004 in Volume 9 HBW), but the A.O.U., in its 7th Edition of
the North American Check-list (1998) continued to treat the two forms as conspecific,
while adapting Conopias as the genus. This is the treatment
followed in our base list.
Analysis: Few taxa have been received such erratic treatment, in terms of
recognized species-limits, nomenclatural priority and generic allocation as
these two. C. albovittatus occurs
from E. Honduras through Panama to W. Colombia and NW. Ecuador, and is found
only west of the Andes (Fitzpatrick et al 2004). C. parvus occurs from extreme E.
Colombia east through S. & E. Venezuela, the Guianas, Amazonian Brazil, and
very locally in NE. Ecuador and extreme NE. Peru (Fitzpatrick et al 2004). Its
range in Amazonian Brazil is now known to be much more extensive than most
published descriptions, with many documented records from widespread localities
south of the R. Solimões/Amazon. The two taxa are ecological counterparts,
being canopy species that travel with mixed-species flocks, and that are
conspicuous by their loud, frequently repeated calls. Morphologically, the two
differ primarily in the color of the throat, which is white in albovittatus
and yellow in parvus.
Vocal differences are pronounced. Although there has never been a
published vocal analysis, there are a number of published qualitative
descriptions of the voices, as well as commercially available recordings (e.g.
Jahn et al 2002 for albovittatus, Marantz & Zimmer 2006 for parvus).
The song of albovittatus is a hard rattle, often preceded by a
differentiated first note with a squealing quality. The song of parvus is
shorter, more musical, with a tremoring or reverberating quality, which sounds,
to my ears like "queveret queveret". Fitzpatrick et al. (2004)
described the voice of albovittatus in this way: "Call very
distinctive, commences with a long note, followed by rapid, rattling or whirring
repetitive trill, "tre-r-r-r-r, tre-r-r-r.",
"kree-ee-ee-eer", or short, slightly nasal and descending
"wheeer" whistle followed by rattling "qua-tre-e-e-e-e",
"wheereeeeee-e-e-e", or "wheeeurrrr-rreek" that
rises in pitch and may slow near end; also gives prolonged, relatively higher
pitched, petulant trill that slows and ends with several discrete notes.
Conversely, they describe the voice of parvus thusly: "Call a
distinctive, quick, rhythmic, petulant sounding, and nearly trilled or ringing
"quee-le-le", "cue-le-le", or "weedle-de,
weedle-de-wee", rather loud and often repeated numerous times. Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) described the voice of albovittatus as: "a
dry, fast, whirring or rattling trill "tree-r-r-r, tree-r-r-r" that
commences with a longer note. They described the voice of parvus as
"a loud, ringing, rhythmic "kluyuyu kluyuyu kluyuyu",
sometimes continued for long periods. Vocal descriptions by other authors are
variations on these common themes. Having extensive personal experience with
both taxa, I have no doubts that a quantitative vocal analysis would reveal
significant species-level differences.
Fitzpatrick et al. (2004) also cited molecular-sequence data
indicating "substantial divergence between them [albovittatus and parvus],
but also that they are closely related and represent a sister-group to a clade
consisting of C. cinchoneti and C. trivirgata." Because of the
lack of direct citation inherent in the HBW series, it is difficult to track
this statement to its source, but I believe the source to be an unpublished PhD
dissertation by Mobley (2002).
Summary & Recommendation: The two forms, albovittatus
and parvus, were described as different species. None of the subsequent
treatments lumping them provided any justification for doing so. The two taxa
are geographically isolated from one another, and exhibit consistent plumage
and vocal differences. The vocal distinctions are extreme, and although no
formal analysis has been published, both detailed qualitative descriptions and
published tape recordings leave no doubt as to the degree of the differences.
On top of this, an unpublished molecular study (cited in HBW) apparently
revealed species-level degree of divergence between the two forms. I would say
that the preponderance of evidence strongly favors treatment as two species,
and that even given the lack of any published analysis, the burden of proof
lies on those that would alter the original taxonomy.
Accordingly, I recommend a "YES" vote for splitting C.
parvus from C. albovittatus. This course has been followed in
most of the field guide literature, which has been consistent in using the
English names of "Yellow-throated Flycatcher" and "White-ringed
Flycatcher" respectively for the two forms. Both names are appropriately
descriptive, and are well established, so I would favor retaining them.
Literature Cited:
AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS'
UNION. 1983. Check-list of North American birds, 6th ed. American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS'
UNION. 1998. Check-list of North American birds, 7th ed. American
Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
FITZPATRICK, J. W. 2004.
Family Tyrannidae (tyrant-flycatchers). Pp. 170-462 in "Handbook
of the Birds of the World, Vol. 9. Cotingas to pipits and wagtails." (J.
del Hoyo et al., eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
HELLMAYR, C. E. 1927.
Catalogue of birds of the Americas. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ., Zool. Ser.,
vol. 13., pt. 5.
HILTY, S. L. 2003. Birds of
Venezuela. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
JAHN, O., J. V. MOORE, P. M.
VALENZUELA, N. KRABBE, P. COOPMANS, M. LYSINGER, AND R.S. RIDGELY. 2002. The
birds of northwest Ecuador, Volume II: The lowlands and lower foothills. John
V. Moore Nature Recordings, San Jose, California.
LANYON, W. E. 1984. A
phylogeny of the kingbirds and their allies. American Museum Novitates
2797:1-28.
LAWRENCE. 1862. Ibis 11 [Pitangus
albovittatus]
MARANTZ, C. M., AND K. J.
ZIMMER. 2006. Bird Voices of Alta Floresta and southeastern Amazonian Brazil.
The Macaulay Library, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York.
MEYER DE SCHAUENSEE, R.
1970. A guide to the birds of South America. Livingston Publishing Co.,
Wynnewood, Pennsylvania.
MEYER DE SCHAUENSEE, R.
1982. A guide to the birds of South America, 2nd edition. Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
MOBLEY, J. A. 2002.
Molecular phylogenetics and the evolution of nest building in kingbirds and
their allies (Aves: Tyrannidae). PhD dissertation, University of California,
Berkeley, California.
PELZELN. 1868. Ornith.
Brasil 2:111, 181 [Pitangus parva].
PHELPS, W. H., AND W. H.
PHELPS, JR. 1950. Lista de las aves de Venezuela con su distribucion. Parte 2.
Passeriformes. Boletín Sociedad Venezolana Ciencias Naturales 12: 1-427.
PINTO, O. M. DE O. 1944.
Catalago das aves do Brasil. Parte 2. Departamento de Zoologia da Agricultura,
Industria e Comercio, São Paulo, Brasil, 700 pp.
RIDGELY , R. S., AND P. J.
GREENFIELD. 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Vol. I. Status, distribution, and
taxonomy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, New York.
RIDGELY, R. S., AND G.
TUDOR. 1994. The birds of South America, vol. 2. Univ. Texas Press, Austin.
RIDGWAY, R. 1906. Coryphotriccus
Ridgway. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash., 19:115._
SIBLEY, C. G., AND B. L.
MONROE, JR. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the World. Yale
University Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
TRAYLOR, M. A., JR. 1977. A
classification of the tyrant flycatchers (Tyrannidae). Bull. Mus. Comparative
Zool. 148: 128-184.
TRAYLOR, M. A., JR. 1979.
Subfamily Tyranninae. Pp. 186- 229 in "Check-list of birds of the World,
Vol. 8" (Traylor, M. A., Jr., ed.). Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.
WETMORE, A. 1972. The birds
of the Republic of Panamá, part 3. Smithsonian Misc. Collect., vol. 150.
Kevin J.
Zimmer, December 2006
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES - It seems like the
evidence available supports the division of these two species, although some
data such as voice have not been published, and neither has the genetic work.
Given that adequate reasons for the original lump have not been detailed, the
available information tips the scale towards splitting these two. Note that
both taxa are represented with recordings on Xeno-canto, and what appear to be
homologous calls are different, although not drastically."
Comments from Robbins: "YES. Long overdue to
"officially" recognize Conopias parvus as a
species!"
Comments from Remsen: "NO. As noted by Kevin and
Alvaro, the vocal differences may be clear-cut, but they have never been
published and analyzed in a comparative setting. I think that as a committee of
scientists, we should maintain the stance that until the data are actually
presented and formally analyzed, status quo stays unchanged, no matter how
painful. Listening to a couple of recordings from a couple of spots within the
reasonably large and perhaps fragmented ranges of these two suggests that two
species are involved but can only be used to spur more analyses, not used as
status-changing evidence. As for the molecular data, not only is it unpublished
(therefore essentially hearsay) but also there is no such thing as
"species level" distances between two sister taxa. I look forward to
changing my vote on this one when data are published."
Comments from Stiles: "YES. Given that the
original lumpings were essentially unsupported, the color difference is
clear-cut, vocal differences appear to be also in spite of a lack of
quantitative analysis, the existence of numerous species pairs
separated by the Andes, and the fact that a number of modern treatments do split
them, I regard the evidence in favor of the split to be much stronger than the
contrary."
Comments from Nores: "YES. A pesar de que comparto el criterio argumentado por Remsen, pienso que en
este caso hay muchas evidencias de que se trata de dos especies distintas,
aunque no esté todo publicado: color, canto, datos moleculares y distribución
geográfica. Además, todas las guías modernas de Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia y
Perú, además del HBW y Birds of SA de Ridgely, los consideran especies
diferentes."
Comments from Cadena: "NO, for reasons outlined by
Van: none of the relevant data have been analyzed in detail in a
publication."
Comments from Pacheco: "YES. Nenhuma análise está disponível para corroborar o
tratamento arbitrário de Conopias parvus e C. albovittatus como
formas de uma única espécie implementado por Hellmayr (1927). As informações
acerca de um distinto repertório vocal são para mim suficientes para a adoção
-- até prova em contrário -- do tratamento de boas espécies para ambas."