Proposal (774) to South American Classification Committee
Split Schistes geoffroyi into two species
This
split was recently advocated by del Hoyo & Collar (2014) and somewhat
amplified by Donegan et al. (2015).
The taxa involved are nominate S.
geoffroyi, which occurs in the Eastern Andes of Colombia and predominantly
on the eastern slope of the Andes southward to Bolivia, and S. g. albogularis of the Western Andes
and the western slope of the Central Andes of Colombia, south on the Pacific
slope to SW Ecuador. Historically, these
had been considered separate species by almost all authors until they were
lumped without explanation by Peters (sound familiar?). Although Schuchmann (1999) mentions a “zone
of intergradation” in W Ecuador, Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) intimate that
there is a large gap between the known distribution of albogularis and extreme SW Ecuador, where perhaps the nominate race
occurs, and they suggest that two species may be involved. Although sharing a similar altitudinal range,
the preferred habitat of albogularis is
much more humid and appears to represent a typical Chocó distribution. Del Hoyo
& Collar base their recommendation for the split entirely upon differences
in plumage color, but Donegan et al.
added information on vocalizations.
The
following table gives the details of their plumage evaluations, amplified and
amended by my examination of series of specimens of both in the ICN collection.
Character |
Sex |
geoffroyi |
albogularis |
Upperparts |
♂ |
Green to bronze-green, passing to bright bronzy to
coppery-bronze on rump and upper tail coverts |
Uniform dark green (more emerald-green); at most
slightly more bronze-green on lower back |
Crown |
“ |
Concolor with back or tinged bronzy, sometimes
strongly |
Contrasting, brilliant green forecrown or
“frontlet”; rest of crown like back |
Central rectrices |
“ |
Bronze-green to dull dark green, tip tinged bluish
in some |
Concolor with back or slightly more bluish,
especially distally |
Lateral rectrices |
“ |
Green with broad subterminal band dark blue; tips
broadly fringed white (1-2 mm) |
Similar but white fringe narrower (< 1 mm),
grayish white |
Throat and chin |
“ |
Bright green, the feathers with grayish-white bases
and fringes giving densely spotted pattern |
Brilliant green, the feathers with extensive white
bases giving spotted effect, lateral feathers often mostly white |
Side of neck |
“ |
Patch of brilliant purple, passing to bright dark
blue laterally |
Purple patch smaller, more violet, also passing
laterally to dark blue |
Lower throat |
“ |
Broad white diagonal band on each side interrupted
medially by green |
White band continuous across throat, broadest
medially: chevron-shaped |
Side of head |
“ |
Small white postocular spot, prolonged posteriorly
into a narrow stripe in some |
Small white postocular spot, often lacking and never
prolonged into a stripe |
Breast |
“ |
Uniform pale green |
Uniform darker green |
Posterior underparts |
“ |
Green feathers with pale grayish fringes that become
broader on abdomen, especially medially giving blotchy effect |
Green feathers continue posteriorly, on lower medial
abdomen with inconspicuous dark gray fringes |
Under tail coverts |
“ |
Green with broad pale gray bases and fringes |
Green with narrower, paler grayish fringes |
Throat |
♀ |
Pale green with broader grayish-white fringes, looks
more densely spotted |
Entirely immaculate white |
Lower throat |
“ |
Diagonal band like ♂, green medially |
Diagonal band confluent with white of throat |
Sides of neck |
“ |
Purple patch smaller, passing laterally to bright
greenish blue |
Similar but laterally darker blue |
Breast and abdomen |
“ |
Grayish white fringes more obvious, especially
posteriorly, center of lower abdomen often plain grayish white |
Feathers of medial
lower breast and abdomen green with inconspicuous dark gray fringes ,
medial abdomen grayish-white |
Donegan et al. also documented vocal differences with
multiple sonograms, pursuing a difference in song between males of the two taxa
first noticed by Ridgely & Greenfield: more rapid and less varied in geoffroyi, slower and more lilting and
varied in albogularis.
A striking feature, not noted by either del Hoyo &
Collar or Donegan et al. and also not
correctly illustrated in Schuchmann (1999), is the rather conspicuous
difference in the green body color between the two taxa, obvious in good light
even from several meters away: the green of geoffroyi,
especially on the breast, looks pale and “washed-out”; that of albogularis is very much darker, which
greatly enhances the contrast with the white of the throat and with the
frontlet. A second feature not noticed
by these authors is that sex for sex, albogularis
is appreciably larger in most dimensions, especially bill length
and wing length – but actually has a shorter tail. The differences in
wing length in particular are very highly significant (p<0.001 in males,
p<0.01 in females), in bill length highly significant (p<0.01) in males,
and the wing of albogularis is not
only longer but also significantly narrower (p<0,01)in both sexes. The
difference in tail length (in the opposite direction) is significant
(p<0.01) only in females (see table below).
Measurements of S.
g. geoffroyi and S. g. albogularis,
with p values from t-tests
Parameter |
S. g. geoffroyi ♂♂ (n=7) |
S. g. albogularis ♂♂ (n=10) |
p |
S. g. geoffroyi ♀♀ (n=6) |
S. g. albogularis ♀♀ (n=5) |
P |
Body mass |
3.67±0.29 |
3,71±0.21 |
0.81 |
3.25±0.17 |
3.42±0.10 |
0,18 |
Total culmen |
15.00±0.76 |
16.43±0.75 |
0.0016 |
15.88±0.96 |
17.18±0.99 |
0.055 |
Folded wing chord |
51.46±1.10 |
55.38±1.23 |
<<0.001 |
47.02±1.61 |
50.72±0.95 |
0.0014 |
Extended wing length |
57.36±1.41 |
60.20±0,99 |
0.0002 |
51.98±1.99 |
55.38±0.85 |
0.0056 |
Tail length |
33.61±0.82 |
32.69±0.96 |
0.096 |
31.27±0.78 |
28.84±1.39 |
0.0053 |
Wing form (L/W) |
2.998±0.099 |
3.259±0.076 |
<<0.001 |
2.930±0.111 |
3.223±0.075 |
0.0006 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specimen photos:
In terms of distribution, albogularis is restricted to the Western Andes in Colombia and is
found, at least locally, on both slopes; geoffroyi
occurs on both slopes of the Eastern and Central Andes. Thus, the two forms
are isolated by the middle and upper Cauca River valley, with its hot, dry climate;
the distance between the ranges of the two is thus quite narrow, especially in
the middle Cauca valley, where the two ranges are easily within sight of one
another. This narrow divide also separates two related species of Scytalopus (stilesi and alvarezlopezi),
among others; it comes as close to parapatry as the middle-to-upper elevation
habitats of the two permit.
Within S. geoffroyi a southern subspecies, S. g. chapmani, differs in that the
white 'half-collar' is reduced or lacking in southern Peru (Schulenberg et al.
2009) and apparently lacking in Bolivia, suggesting intergradation; in any
case, it differs much less from the nominate than does albogularis.
Taken together, I find that the differences between
these two taxa are actually greater in several respects than had been adduced
by previous authors and are comparable to or greater than those between the
green species of Colibri, the sister
genus of Schistes. Hence, I recommend
a YES on this split. I also agree that the English names proposed by Donegan et
al. could be adopted: Geoffroy’s Wedgebill and White-throated Wedgebill for geoffroyi and albogularis, respectively.
F.
Gary Stiles
References
Del
Hoyo, J. & N.J. Collar. 2014. Illustrated checklist of Birds of the world,
vol. 1 (non-Passerines). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, Spain and BirdLife
International, Cambridge, UK.
Donegan,
T., A. Quevedo, J.C. Verhelst, O. Cortés-Herrera, T.
Ellery & P. Salaman. 2015. Revision of the status of Bird species occurring
in Colombia, with discussion of BirdLife International’s new taxonomy.
Conservación Colombiana 23:3-48.
__________________________________________________________
Comments from Zimmer:
“YES. Given the number of consistent
morphological differences between geoffroyi
and albogularis, and given that the
two were historically treated as separate species until lumped without
justification by Peters, I would say that the burden of proof falls on those
who would maintain them as a single species.
As Gary notes, using the sister genus Colibri as a yardstick for interspecific morphological differences,
the two Schistes show at least a
comparable or greater degree of morphological differentiation than the various
green Colibri species.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“YES. This seems clear cut, particularly
since these were separate species lumped without any clear reasoning by Peters.”
Comments
from Robbins:
“YES, for elevating albogularis to
species status, as the morphological characters, especially dorsally are
dramatic.”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. A very convincing and illustrated proposition.”
Comments from Areta: “YES. The marked morphological differences, lack of
evidence of any interbreeding and differences in vocalizations support the
recognition of Schistes albogularis as a species.”
Comments from Remsen: “YES. These two
seem to differ about as much or more from each other as do the two taxa of Heliothryx treated traditionally as
separate species (and in the same subfamily as Schistes), so strictly from a comparative standpoint, I see no
reason why these two were lumped by Peters.
Vocal differences detected by Ridgely and documented by Donegan seal the
deal for me.
“Gary
did not mention English names. HBW used
“Western Wedge-billed Hummingbird” and “Eastern Wedge-billed Hummingbird, which
are accurate, but dull as dirt and cumbersome.
Donegan et al. (2015) put in a plug for names they said were used by
Gould, i.e. “White-throated Wedgebill” and “Geoffroy’s Wedgebill.” I like those much better, although “Wedgebill”
is already in use for Australian species in genus Psophodes. Also, I don’t
think Schistes uses its bill as a
wedge per se --- more like knife. Knifebills? Daggerbills? Regardless, we need a separate proposal on
English names.”
Comments
from Stotz:
“YES. On the English name question, I would go with the Geoffroy’s and
White-throated Wedgebill.””