Proposal (773) to South American Classification Committee
Split Glaucidium
tucumanum from G. brasilianum
Effect
on AOU SACC classification: Adjust the species level taxonomy of a population
currently recognized as a subspecies under Glaucidium
brasilianum.
Background: From the SACC footnote
under the name Glaucidium brasilianum:
The subspecies tucumanum
was treated as a separate species from Glaucidium
brasilianum by Heidrich et al. (1995b), Wink and Heidrich (1999),
and Wink et al. (2008) based on genetic data
and slight vocal differences. König et al. (1999)
followed this treatment, also noting differences in habitat and plumage, as did
Marks et al. (1999). Proposal badly needed.
All this
goes back to a paper by Heidrich et al. (1995) that provided a phylogenetic and
voice analysis of American Glaucidium.
One of the outcomes was the discovery that the sample used for G. b. tucumanum was not monophyletic
with respect to the rest of G.
brasilianum, but rather embedded within a clade containing G. bolivianum and G. hardyi. The authors noted that the crown of a specimen
identified as “tucumanum” appeared
more spotted, and that recordings identified as that taxon were minutely
different from other populations of G.
brasilianum. Although the authors suggested that further taxonomic
assessment was necessary, they did not recommend splitting tucumanum from brasilianum
in the paper. König et al. (1999) then went the extra step, apparently
convinced by Heidrich et al. (1995), and split G. tucumanum, a taxonomy also used by Marks et al. (1999) and König
and Weick (2008). Finally, the recent taxonomy of HBW Alive/Birdlife
International has retained this split, but has increased the size of the
distribution of G. tucumanum well
into the lowlands of the Chaco (see below).
So, let’s
look at the situation a bit more carefully: Chapman (1922) described G. b. tucumanum based on specimens from
Salta (!), Argentina, using AMNH material. His characters outlining the taxon
were:
“Resembling the black and white-barred tail phase of Glaucidium brasilianum brasilianum
but upperparts, wings and streaks below fuscous with (in one specimen) a barely
perceptible tinge of brown; the crown with small, inconspicuous whitish spots
or shaft-streaks; broken nuchal band, white; back with practically no white
markings. d1; Wing, 90; tail, 65; tarsus, 16 mm. 9: Wing, 95; tail, 65; tarsus,
16 mm.”
He also
stated:
“While I have no doubt of the distinctness of the form here
described, I do not know whether it should be accorded specific or subspecific
rank.”
The specimen from which the “tucumanum”
sample was taken by Heidrich et al. (1995) was from “El
Tala, Salta, Argentina (SMNS 63625)
[SMNS = Staatliches Museum für Naturkunde Stuttgart, Stuttgart, Deutschland]; I presume that this means the tissue
specimen has a voucher skin. Heidrich et al. (1995) reported a “large brown
morph” and a “small gray morph,” for which sonograms were also provided, from this
locality, the latter is what was considered “tucumanum” by the
authors, implying that two taxa of Glaucidium
are syntopic in the Tucuman yungas, and therefore one
must be a species separate from G.
brasilianum. Another paper by Wink et al. (2008) provided another
phylogenetic tree for the Glaucidium,
and reaffirmed the species status of G.
tucumanum.
Analysis:
Given the anomalous result (that tucumanum was not part of the brasilianum
clade) in the phylogenetic analysis of Heidrich et al. (1995), my first
inclination would be to question the identity of the samples. Note that G. bolivianum is known from the yungas of Argentina (despite the name, the type locality is
in Jujuy!), which gives me reason to believe that the sample used for “tucumanum” was, in fact, a misidentified
G. bolivianum! Even if the tissue
sample wasn’t mislabeled, and the specimen used was not of G. bolivianum, then one
must compare it to the holotype of G. b.
tucumanum to be sure they represent the same taxon. Furthermore, unless the
vocalizations reported by Heidrich et al. (1995) were reliably vouchered to
birds (and sample sizes are large enough), it would seem premature to suggest
that tucumanum has an identifiably
different voice from other G. brasilianum
populations. Again, according to Heidrich et al. (1995), the differences in
voice were not enough for them to propose species status by that character
alone. Here
are the trees published in Heidrich et al. (1995):
By
contrast, the tree presented in Wink et al. (2008) disagrees with the tree
topologies of Heidrich et al. (1995) in that it does not show tucumanum
embedded within a clade with bolivianum/hardyi, but rather, the sample
labeled “tucumanum” is sister to one labeled “brasilianum,” and
is embedded in a clade that is largely comprised with other samples of the brasilianum
group (with an anomalus G. griseiceps
also included… again, a misidentified sample?). To me, this implies that the tucumanum
sample used by Heidrich et al. (1995) was almost surely a misidentified bolivianum
(and perhaps this accounted for the “two morphs” reported in that paper?).
Strangely, the disagreement of the trees was not acknowledged by Wink et al.
(2008), in fact, they still cited Heidrich et al. (1995) as the basis for
considering tucumanum a separate species from the remainder of the brasilianum
group (although only mentioning “voice and size” as the evidence, nothing
about phylogenetic placement). Conveniently, Wink et al. (2008) do not
provide the sources of their samples, so we cannot know if they are the same as
those used by Heidrich et al. (1995) or not. See the screengrabs of the Wink et
al. (2008) tree below (first the larger figure, then a blow up of the relevant
clade. Note weak node support within the G.
brasilianum clade):
Furthermore, König and Weick (2008) absorbed G. b. pallens (type locality: western Paraguay) into G. tucumanum, and suggested the name
“Chaco Pygmy-Owl” for this species (never mind the fact that tucumanum, sensu stricto, is from arid Andean slopes, not the Chaco), a
taxonomic move that has not been followed by other authors.
König et
al. (1999), and König and Weick (2008) have been rather reckless, to be kind,
in some of the novel taxonomies they have presented, this being an excellent
example. An apparent misidentified sample, published without being questioned,
has provided the impetus for the splitting of a taxon
from G. brasilianum, and even though
follow-up publications authored by the same lab suggest that the initial result
was, indeed, erroneous, they have not amended their taxonomy accordingly
(presumably because it agreed with “field observations” that may or may not
actually involve the taxon in question). That their taxonomy has influenced HBW
Alive/Birdlife International is rather alarming. HBW Alive/Birdlife
International (https://www.hbw.com/species/tucuman-pygmy-owl-glaucidium-tucumanum)
have taken a strange hybrid route in their taxonomy of the form, accepting G. tucumanum as a species separate from G. brasilianum. However, in their range
map, they include the Chaco, but they *exclude pallens* from tucumanum!
This scenario has invited quite some confusion on the HBW website and other
websites (e.g., Xeno-canto.org) about what names to put on birds from Bolivia,
Paraguay, and Argentina.
Recommendation: Suffice it to say, I am rather
unimpressed by the evidence presented by Heidrich et al. (1995), König et al. (1999),
Wink et al. (2008), and König and Weick (2008), in support of species status
for G. tucumanum. To me, this
taxonomy is a series of errors that some (e.g., HBW Alive) have taken on faith
without really reviewing the evidence. If the steps outlined above were taken
to confirm that the tissues, specimens, and voice of König et al.’s “G. tucumanum” truly refer to that taxon,
and that the two published phylogenies—that disagree with one another in
topology—really do support species status for G. tucumanum, these data
have yet to be convincingly published. Until this is done, I must recommend a
strong NO vote on this one.
Literature
cited:
Chapman, F. M. 1922. Descriptions
of apparently new birds from Colombia, Ecuador, and Argentina. American Museum Novitates 31: 1-8.
Heidrich, P., C. König, and M. Wink. 1995.
Bioakustik, Taxonomie und molekulare Systematik amerikanischer Sperlingskäuz (Strigidae: Glaucidium spp.). Stuttgarter Beiträge
zur Naturkunde, Ser. A, 534: 1-47.
König, C., F. Weick,
and J.-H. Becking. 1999. Owls, a guide to the owls of
the world. Yale Press, New Haven.
König, C, and F. Weick. 2008. Owls of the World
(second edition). Yale Press, New Haven.
Marks, J. S., R. J.
Cannings, and H. MIkkola. 1999. Family Strigidae
(typical owls). Pp. 76-243 in
Handbook of birds of the world. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Wink, M., P. Heidrich,
H. Sauer-Gürth, A.-A. Elsayed,
and G. Gonzalez. 2008. Molecular phylogeny and systematics of owls
(Strigiformes). Pp. 42-63 in König,
C, and F. Weick. 2008. Owls of the world (second edition). Yale Press, New
Haven.
Dan Lane, January 2018
__________________________________________________________
Comments
by Robbins:
"NO, for reasons underscored by Dan Lane."
Comments from Stiles: "NO. I
fully agree with Dan that there is too much uncertainty regarding specimen
identifications and disagreements in genetic data to accept tucumanum as a valid species as things
stand."
Comments
from Areta:
"NO. As pointed out by Dan, evidence is meager and inconsistent. The
phylogenetic placement of tucumanum
as sister to bolivianum and hardyi in Heidrich et al. (1995) cannot
be attributed to the sampling of a bolivianum
from the series of Calamuchita specimens that MAY be
the source of the sample: there is no bolivianum
in the Sierras de Córdoba. However, it may be the case that they have sampled
another bolivianum from somewhere
else. Without more knowledge on the provenance of this sample, there is little
hope to understand what the Heidrich et al. (1995) tree shows and so the
placement of tucumanum must be
regarded as dubious in this work. The sample of tucumanum from Wink et al. (2008) [and the 2009 Ardea paper] comes
from IPMB 6310, but I am unable to find where that voucher is from, except from
knowing that it came from Argentina. Placement of tucumanum as sister to brasilianum
from Argentina is more appealing than the result of Heidrich et al. (1995).
However, without knowing where this sample came from, we cannot be sure that it
does pertain to tucumanum (perhaps I
am missing something on the collecting locality of IPMB 6310?).
"The type of tucumanum comes from Rosario de Lerma, Salta, Argentina, at 4800ft
(1600m) asl (Chapman 1922). Based on other specimens collected by Miller and
Moyle within two days of the date of collection of this specimen (10 Jan 1916),
it must have been collected in some fairly open interface between the humid
Yungas and the drier woodland that contacts with the Andean foothill. The area
of collection is not an arid slope (it becomes arid above ca. 2500m), but
rather an area with rainforest and somewhat drier forest segments at the base
of the mountains. Many species found in this interface extend to the Sierran
Chaco, while others do not. Around Salta city in the Lerma Valley and its
surroundings (i.e., some 30-40 km N of where the type of tucumanum was collected), I have always heard typical brasilianum vocalizations and my
recordings from this area show that there is no obvious way to distinguish
vocalizations of tucumanum from brasilianum. At higher elevation in
wetter places in the Lerma Valley, bolivianum
is very local. The differences in vocalizations between bolivianum and brasilianum
are obvious and immediate, unlike those between tucumanum and brasilianum
that seem undistinguishable. I would also argue that in comparison to other Glaucidium species comparisons, the pair
tucumanum-brasilianum would not meet the standard level of differentiation
between good species.
"Although formal vocal analyses
are still lacking and genetic data is scarce, available data is not enough to
favor recognizing Glaucidium tucumanum
as a separate species from Glaucidium
brasilianum."
Comments from Zimmer:
“NO. Vocal differences between tucumanum and brasilianum appear to be minimal at best, which, combined with the
uncertainty regarding specimen provenance and inconsistencies in the genetic
data sets, is enough to make this one a non-starter in my opinion.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“NO. Dan and Nacho do a wonderful job of
capturing all the inconsistencies in this situation. For my Master’s, the Lerma
Valley, Salta, was part of where I did my field studies. I don’t recall any
pygmy owl there sounding anything other than a standard brasilianum.”
Comments from Pacheco: “NO. For all that was presented by Dan it is quite
suggestive that there was a wrong original labeling of genetic samples that
contaminated this split. I also appreciated Nacho's and Alvaro´s comments.”