Proposal
(453x) to South American Classification Committee
Recognize
the parulid genus Leiothlypis
NOTE: This is a resubmission of the
rejected proposal 453 (to recognize broad Oreothlypis) in such a way
that 453x is now Dick Bank’s original proposal to NACC, namely recognize Leiothlypis
for the ex-Vermivora that occurs in our area, namely “V.” peregrina
(thus restricting Oreothlypis to the Middle American species removed
from Vermivora).
____________________________________________________________________
NB: This
proposal was rejected by the AOU-CLC-N&MA because of the comment added here
at the end. The separation was accepted
but the species were merged into Oreothlypis. The latter treatment was (or soon will be)
published by Lovette et al., and is in the 51st Supplement to the
AOU Check-list, Auk 2010,127:726-744.
Recognize the Parulid genus Leiothlypis
Sangster (2008) pointed out that
“three independent molecular phylogenetic studies indicated that Vermivora,
as presently constituted, is polyphyletic.”
The relevant studies, known to all of us, are Avise et al. 1980, Klein
et al. 2004, Lovette and Hochachka 2006, and Lovette and Bermingham 2002. The division of the genus is supported by
vocal and skeletal characters (Webster 1997).
Lovette (pers. comm.) says that his data support this and associated
proposals.
The genus Vermivora now has
as its type species Certhia pinus Linnaeus, the Blue-winged Warbler, and
includes its sister species chrysoptera, the Golden-winged Warbler, and
presumably bachmani, Bachman’s Warbler, not included in the molecular
studies. These three species continue to
constitute Vermivora. But see a
separate proposal on the name of V. pinus.
The other species now in Vermivora
form a closely related group and constitute a separate genus. No generic name has been based on any of
these species, but Sangster now proposes Leiothlypis, with the type
species Sylvia peregrina Wilson, the Tennessee Warbler. Acceptance of this work means that the
included species will be listed as:
Leiothlypis
peregrina (Wilson, 1811)
L. celata (Say,
1823)
L.
ruficapilla (Wilson, 1811)
L.
virginiae (Baird, 1860)
L.
crissalis (Salvin and Godman, 1889) and
L. luciae (Cooper,
1861).
I recommend adoption of this new
generic classification and the heading,
Genus Leiothlypis
Sangster
Leiothlypis Sangster,
2008, Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 128: 210.
Type, by original designation, Sylvia peregrina Wilson.
LITERATURE
Avise et
al. 1980. J. Heredity 71:303-310.
Klein et
al. 2004. J. Carib. Ornithology
Lovette and
Bermingham 2002. Auk 119:695-714.
Lovette and
Hochachka 2006. Ecology 87;S14-S28.
Sangster,
G. 2008.
A revision of Vermivora
(Parulidae), with the description of a new genus. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club
128: 207-211.
Richard C.
Banks
10 Nov.
2009
Comment by Lovette, accepted by
majority of committee:
“YES to the idea that this group
should be split from Vermivora,
but a weak NO vote to the name Leiothlypis
for reasons related to the following proposal. The evidence for separating Leiothlypis from Vermivora
is sound, but there is a pure judgment call to be made relating to the name for
the new group. One reasonable possibility is to recognize Leiothlypis, as proposed
here. There is good evidence that these species form a monophyletic group. The alternative
possibility is to recognize a slightly more inclusive monophyletic group
comprised of these “Leiothlypis”
taxa plus their sister lineage, which comprises the taxa we currently know as Parula superciliosa (Crescent-chested
Warbler) and P. gutturalis
(Flame-throated W.); this is also a well-supported clade. Under this second
scenario, the genus name with precedence is Oreothlypis,
as described in proposal 2009-B-04 below. There is really no right or wrong
here, just a judgment call on whether genera should be more or less inclusive,
and on whether the morphological distinctiveness of these erstwhile Parula are enough to
separate them from these erstwhile Vermivora.
I lean, but only slightly, toward lumping them together in Oreothlypis.”
I now recommend that SACC follow
the N&MA CLC.
Richard C.
Banks, August 2010
_____________________________________________________________
These were the comments on the
proposal to recognize broad Oreothlypis:
Comments from Stotz: “YES. I originally voted on the NA committee for Leiothlypis
for the dull ex-Vermivora, with Oreothlypis restricted to the ex-Parula
(gutturalis and superciliosa).
I still feel like that is the best treatment. However, with the North American committee
going with Oreothlypis for the whole unit, it seems inappropriate
for SACC to go in a different direction for only one of the species, which
furthermore is a vagrant to South America.”
Comments from Remsen: “YES, but
like Doug, only to go along with NACC – I like the solution proposed by Doug
much better. Phenotypically, the Leiothlypis
group makes sense to separate as a separate genus.” [but see comments
below]
Comments from Robbins: “YES. It makes sense to follow the North American
committee on this for the sake of being consistent.”
Comments from Zimmer: “NO. Much as I would like to go along with the
NACC, and realizing that I am swimming against the tide, I have to state my
preference for treating Parula superciliosa and P. gutturalis in
a separate genus from “Leiothlypis”.
The vocal and morphological cohesiveness of superciliosa and gutturalis
fit my concept of a genus. If you throw
them into the stew with the “Leiothlypis” group, the resulting group
seems like a broadly defined mush, with little vocal or morphological
cohesion.”
Additional comments from Remsen: After reading Kevin’s and Doug’s comments,
I’m changing my vote to NO. The three
NACC people with arguably the most experience with warblers, Doug, Jon Dunn
(author of the Peterson guide to North American warblers), and myself were the
three NACC people who voted for separating out the Leiothlypis group
(vs. 8 in favor). Even Irby Lovette,
warbler phylogeny mastermind, only slightly favored the broadly defined Oreothlypis
– see his comments above. These birds
are endemic breeders to the NACC area, so it’s awkward going against the NACC
vote; but it won’t be the first or last time.”
Comments from Pérez-Emán: “NO. As
Irby Lovette pointed out in the proposal (and in Lovette et al. 2010), a
decision of recognizing Oreothlypis was slightly supported favoring a
more inclusive genus. However, as shown
in Lovette et al (2010), some molecular datasets do not clearly show monophyly Parula-Leiothlypis
and, together with morphological and vocal information commented by Kevin, I
would favor keeping both Parula and Leiothlypis.”
Comments from Nores: “NO.
Although it is evident from the molecular analysis that this group
of species do not belong to Vermivora, I am not in agreement with creating
a new genus because there is a previous one available: Helminthophila Ridgway
1882, which has been employed as since 1899 (e.g. Hollister 1901, Ridgway 1902,
Bishop 1905, Meeker 1905, Eayne 1907, Hellmayr 1920). Moreover, based on the
number of nodes I would change the position of crissalis, so the order
of taxa would be as follows:
Helminthophila
peregrina (Wilson, 1811)
H. celata (Say,
1823)
H.
crissalis (Salvin and Godman, 1889)
H.
ruficapilla (Wilson, 1811)
H.
virginiae (Baird, 1860) and
H. luciae (Cooper,
1861)
Genus Helminthophila Ridgway
Helminthophila Ridgway
1882. New name for Helminthophaga Cabanis, preoccupied. Bull. Nutt. Orn.
Cl. 7:53.
Additional comments from Remsen: According
to Hellmayr’s “Catalogue”, the type species of Helminthophila is chrysopterus
and therefore unavailable because that species remains in true Vermivora,
so Manuel’s point is not relevant to a Yes/No decision on this proposal.”
Comments from Jaramillo: “NO. I must admit that I felt that the prudent thing
in order to cause little commotion here would be to go with the NACC, and to
recognize the expanded genus Oreothlypis. However, as two separate genera these stand
out as quintessentially good genera, Leiothlypis with the dull species,
vocal similarities etc. Similarly, superciliosa and gutturalis in
a genus makes great sense. Although this
may cause some friction with the NACC, it also may create a situation for them
to reassess if we can point out that this two-genus arrangement actually makes
more sense due to the greater information content (meaning) of two versus one
expanded genus.”
Comments from Stiles: “YES on the new proposal. I think that there is more information
obtained by splitting Oreothlypis and Leiothlypis.”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. Voto pelo reconhecimento de Leiothlypis Sangster para o arranjo delineado aqui.”