Proposal (998) to South American Classification Committee

Treat Psittacara frontatus as a separate species from P. wagleri

Note:: This is one of several situations that the IOU Working Group on Avian Checklists has asked us to review because published treatments of the species differ, and WGAC has to pick one. BirdLife International (del Hoyo & Collar 2014) now treat these two as separate species, as does IOC. EBird, although nominally (formerly?) committed to following SACC, also treats the two as separate species.

Background: As currently treated (e.g. Dickinson & Remsen 2013), Psittacara wagleri (Scarlet-fronted Parakeet) consists of two subspecies groups: (1) a northern group (nominate wagleri of the Andes of Colombia and w. Venezuela + transilis of the Coastal Range of n. Venezuela), and (2) a southern group (frontatus of sw. Ecuador and w. Peru and minor of the Marañon valley). The two groups differ in plumage in the following ways that are important within the narrow range of variation among Psittacara species: (1) facial aspect: frontatus has a large whitish eyering compared to the small gray one of wagleri, and frontatus has a pale iris whereas wagleri has a dark one; and (2) the bend of the wing of frontatus shows a conspicuous area of red. Both differences are conspicuous in the photos and plate below:

Del Hoyo & Collar’s assessment using the Tobias et al. point scheme is as follows (courtesy M. Iliff):

Commonly treated as conspecific with P. wagleri, but differs in its large white vs fairly small dull grey periorbital patch (3); pale grey vs dark brownish iris (2); red on crown running from just above commissure (so including lores) back to meet periorbital ring vs running from above green lore back to above periorbital ring (leaving supercilium green) (2); more red on carpal area (ns[2]); considerably larger size (even when including the smaller minor) (on basis of published values (1) at least 2); habitat consisting of dry forest and open country vs moist and humid forest (2) (1). Form minor is notably smaller and darker green than frontatus, and its taxonomic status requires study (2). Two subspecies recognized. https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/historic/hbw/scfpar2/1.0/introduction

Psittacara w. wagleri, Magdalena, Colombia, by Stephen Johnson, Macaulay Library ML 566227981, slightly cropped:

Psittacara w. frontatus, La Libertad, Peru, by Luis Enrique Pollack Velásquez, Macaulay Library MLS115343373, slightly edited:

Here is the illustration in del Hoyo & Collar, by Ångels Jutglar:

Here is our current SACC note:

7. The southern subspecies frontatus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Psittacara wagleri, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) noted that frontatus (with minor) of Ecuador and Peru might deserve recognition as a separate species. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated frontatus as a separate species (“Cordilleran Parakeet”) based on differences in plumage and habitat, and this was supported by Donegan et al. (2016).

Discussion and recommendation: Without doing the homework required to state this with certainty, I suspect that the differences between the two groups are consistent with species-level differences in the genus (and “Aratinga” as previously broadly defined) rather than with subspecies differences. In fact, I see no reason to assume that they are even sister species. They were treated as separate species (e.g. by Cory 1918) until lumped by Peters (1937) without even a footnote of rationale. I can sort-of see where Peters was going – the two are reasonably similar in color pattern and might superficially appear to be allopatric replacement taxa. However, a substantial gap exists between their two distributions despite seemingly suitable Psittacara habitat in the gap. Also, likely unknown to Peters, the two differ fairly strongly in habitat. Peters would have been on stronger grounds if the two were parapatric replacements in similar habitat. Their distributions are anomalous for putative sister taxa. As is, given the differences in plumage, habitat, and distribution, I will bet that they are not even sister species. Thus, I consider this to be an unjustified Petersian lump with weaker rationale than most of his lumps. Therefore, I would favor returning to the original, pre-Peters classification.

Concerning voice, my copy of Bret Whitney’s Neotropical parrot tape and its valuable guide book is currently packed away, waiting for an office restoration project, but if someone could check that for any comments on these taxa, that would be great.

English names: Ridgely & Greenfield (2003) suggested “Cordilleran Parakeet” for frontatus, and this has been used by del Hoyo & Collar (2014) and other classifications that treated them as separate species. This name dates from Cory (1918; as “Cordilleran Parrot or Paroquet”), so has plenty of traction. Cory’s “Cordilleran” probably derives from comparison to Psittacara erythrogenys (Red-masked Parakeet), which is more restricted the lowlands of the same general region, but it doesn’t really make sense in comparison to P. wagleri. Regardless, given its use in association with frontatus for more than a century, I don’t think it’s worth considering a change, even if a “better” name were immediately obvious. Also, passage of this proposal would represent a return to a previous classification that should not have been changed, we do not have to coin novel names for both of the newly circumscribed species as we would normally do if this were a true parent-daughter split – see our SACC guidelines on English names. In fact, we do not yet know whether these two are sister species. What all this means is that we can keep Scarlet-fronted Parakeet for narrowly defined P. wagleri by following our guidelines. If anyone objects to this, please speak up in your comments – we could do a separate English names proposal if the taxonomy proposal passes.

Lit Cited: See SACC Bibliography for citations.

Van Remsen, June 2024

Addendum 29 June 24: Joseph et al. (2024) found that frontatus and wagleri are not sisters; in fact, frontatus is sister to all other Psittacara!:

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Comments from Del-Rio: “YES, treat them as different species. Not only different in plumage, but also in eye color and bare face. Above that, habitat differences could indicate different ecological requirements and different evolutionary trajectories.”

Comments from Lane: “YES. Having had a fair amount of experience with the frontatus/minor birds in Peru over the years, I finally got to experience Colombian wagleri recently in the Santa Martas and the Eastern Cordillera of Colombia. I find the two groups to be distinctive enough (within the spectrum of the Psittacara group as a whole) that I would say YES to this split without any reservation. Vocally, I find few members of this complex to be very distinctive (e.g., see my comments under Proposal 473), so I don't think voice would be very useful here in deciding this split, but frontatus/minor are largely birds of arid or semi-arid habitats (with other Psittacara replacing them in more humid habitats nearby), whereas wagleri seems to be very much a humid forest species. That habitat distinction in conjunction with soft-part color and plumage distinctions makes me wonder how this lump was justified to start with.”

Comments from Stiles: “YES to splitting Psittacara frontalis from P. wagleri, thus returning to the pre-Peters classification and E-names (though I note that Scarlet-fronted is something of a misnomer for wagleri: its forehead is definitely black, in strong contrast to its scarlet crown).”

Comments from Areta: “YES. It is indeed surprising that these were considered conspecific for so long given their ecological, bare parts and plumage differences. Smith et al. (2022) included some data on frontatus, but not on wagleri.”

Comments from Claramunt: “YES. I totally agree with the proposal. In the context of the phenotypic variation in Psittacara, these two taxa are very different. I would be shocked if they turn out to be sister taxa. A sloppy decision by the Peters team.”

Comments from Robbins: “YES. There is a good argument for treating these as separate species and given the morphology and habitat differences, Van may be correct in that they might not even be sister taxa.”

Comments from Jaramillo: “YES – It seems so illogical to actually have lumped these two to begin with. I do believe that these differences in bare parts are important in parrots, but it is easier to deal with this situation given the genetic data. It appears quite clear cut to separate these two based on what we know now.”