Recognize the parulid genus Leiothlypis
Proposal (453x) to South American
Classification Committee
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 Leiothylpis
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 Oreothylpis:
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.”