A Classification of the Bird Species of South America South American Classification Committee American Ornithologists' Union The South American Classification Committee is an official committee of the American Ornithologists' Union . The mission of this committee is to create a standard classification, with English names, for the bird species of South America. This classification is subject to constant revision by the proposal system to allow incorporation of new data. The SACC hopes to have this classification published as a printed document within a year or so. The classification below is preliminary and is likely to see many changes through Committee action;
Transcript
A Classification of the Bird Species of South America
South American Classification Committee
American Ornithologists' Union
The South American Classification Committee is an official committee of the American Ornithologists' Union . The mission of this committee is to create a standard classification, with English names, for the bird species of South America. This classification is subject to constant revision by the proposal system to allow incorporation of new data. The SACC hopes to have this classification published as a printed document within a year or so.
The classification below is preliminary and is likely to see many changes through Committee action; therefore, be certain to cite it as "Version [date]." Suggested citation:
Remsen, J. V., Jr., J. I. Areta, C. D. Cadena, S. Claramunt, A. Jaramillo, J. F. Pacheco, J. Pérez-Emán, M. B. Robbins, F. G. Stiles, D. F. Stotz, and K. J. Zimmer. Version [date]. A classification of the bird species of South America. American
This list is open to proposals for change from the ornithological community as a whole. Proposals for changes must be based on previously published data, information, or analyses. See Proposal Roster page for examples of previous proposals as well as commentary from SACC members and others on each proposal submitted so far. Send proposals or comments on existing ones to Remsen. Proposals may be in English, Spanish, or Portuguese (we apologize that most of us are not proficient in reading French or Dutch). All aspects of the classification are subject to modification through the proposal system (species limits, boundaries of orders, families, and genera, linear sequences, English names, etc.).
The footnotes are also obviously preliminary (some are no more than reminders to ourselves), in "working draft" stage, inconsistent in style, and will be modified extensively; many have yet to be added. [Errors in numbering them are frequent as we continue to add new notes.] The primary goal is to provide references for all changes from Meyer de Schauensee's (1966, 1970) foundational classification, as well as the "Peters Checklist" series and the "Cory-Hellmayr" series, so that the user can determine how and why (if known) changes were made; citations to alternative treatments are also provided. Also, the notes are intended to signal phylogenetic relationships among taxa that might not be evident from the linear sequence. The notes also indicate where SACC proposals for change have been acted upon (in blue), where SACC proposals are pending (in magenta), and where proposals are needed (in red).
If you spot typographical errors, missing taxa, or mistakes of any kind, please let Remsen know. If your research is not cited herein, it is unlikely we are ignoring it -- we just have not yet had time to incorporate it into the notes or proposals.
Taxonomy: The starting point for the classification was a pre-publication draft of Dickinson (2003); the published version differed in a few minor ways from the version used for the starting point (as noted in the Notes sections below). The classification herein consists mainly of the ranks Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Most
traditional subfamilies are omitted unless supported by multiple independent data sets that mark major, deep branches within a family. Subspecies are omitted for now; a future edition will also include the Subspecies rank as designating diagnosable populations (equivalent to phylogenetic species sensu Cracraft) within taxa accorded species rank, as well as synopses of distribution. We recognize the importance of this level of classification for many kinds of analyses but are unable to provide a comprehensive evaluation of which currently recognized subspecies represent valid taxonomic units in terms of diagnosability. See Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014) for a preliminary assessment of valid subspecies of South American birds, as well as various volumes of the Handbook of the Birds of World (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona).
Linear sequencing: Presenting a classification as a linear list of taxa cannot adequately reflect phylogenetic relationships. Nonetheless, to maximize proximity of close relatives in a linear sequence, we use the following conventions, as outlined in Dickinson & Remsen (2013), for groups for which robust phylogenetic data are available: 1) taxa are listed from the deepest node outward, starting with the branch that has the fewest taxa at the next-lowest taxonomic rank; 2) for pairs of sister taxa, the one with the most northwesterly geographic range is listed first. The one exception to Convention 1 is in the case of “superspecies,” which are defined as a monophyletic group of parapatric or slightly allopatric taxa that are so similar ecologically that geographic overlap is limited; for superspecies, taxa are listed using the widespread geographic convention of listing them geographically, from northwest to southeast, regardless of sister relationships among each species. For polytomies or groups for which a strongly supported phylogeny is not available, the sequence follows historical convention, in this case Dickinson (2003).
Geographical scope: The region covered by the list is: (1) continental South America and all islands within 1200 km of its shores eastward into the Atlantic and westward into the Pacific oceans (including Malpelo, the Galapagos islands, San Felix and San Ambrosio, the Juan Fernandez islands, Fernando de Noronha, Trindade, Martin Vaz, São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago, and the Falklands/Malvinas); (2) islands in the Caribbean Sea close to South America and not covered by the AOU’s NACC Checklist (including Netherlands
Antilles, Trinidad and Tobago); and (3) waters within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of these land areas, including the islands.
For lists of species recorded from each country and territory (using SACC classification and criteria) within the SACC region, including downloadable EXCEL file, see SACC Country Lists .
Criteria for inclusion: a species is included on the list if the evidence for its occurrence in the area is supported by tangible evidence that is available for verification, namely a museum specimen or an archived or published photograph, videotape, or sound recording. The main list currently includes 3,376 species, as follows
a. 3127 native breeding species (1 of which is extinct)b. 146 nonbreeding residentsc. 86 vagrantsd. 16 established, introduced species
Of the breeding species, 121 are newly discovered species since the publication of Meyer de Schauensee’s (1970) classic compilation of the species of birds of South America (i.e., at a rate of 2.6 species per year). Species for which their presence is supported only by sight records, or by unpublished or non-archived tangible evidence, are placed on the Hypothetical List.
English names: The English names used by SACC follow those in Dickinson (2003), which in turn generally followed those used by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and AOU (1998) for New World species. Several, however, have been changed subsequently from Dickinson (2003) through the proposal mechanism. Alternative English names are given if they have appeared in reference literature since Meyer de Schauensee (1970). SACC follows the published guidelines for English names and their orthography as noted in AOU (1983: xxi-xxii) and references therein. See SACC policy on use diacritical marks (accents, cedillas, tildes).
For comments on the controversy over whether to hyphenate certain bird group-names, click here.
The SACC is not involved in producing a list of standardized Spanish names. Click here for rationale. However, the SACC hopes to produce Spanish and Portuguese versions of the Notes once the English version reaches the stage at which the classification is ready for publication as a printed document. Current SACC membership =
Juan Ignacio Areta, Instituto de Bio y Geociencias del Noroeste Argentino, Salta
Carlos Daniel Cadena, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá
Alvaro Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory
Santiago Claramunt, American Museum of Natural History
José Fernando Pacheco, Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos
J. V. Remsen, Jr. (Acting Chair), Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University
Mark B. Robbins, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas
F. Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá
Douglas F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History
Kevin J. Zimmer, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County
Technical Advisor for Vagrant and Hypothetical Species:
Mark Pearman, Birdquest & Aves Argentinas/Asociación Ornitológica del Plata
Technical Advisor on Nomenclature:
Vitor de Q, Piacentini, Working Group on Avian Nomenclature, International Ornithological Committee
Technical Advisor for Hybrids and Dubious Taxa:
Gary R. Graves, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution
Technical Advisors:
Steven L. Hilty, Victor Emanuel Nature Tours, Inc., & Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas
Jorge Pérez-Emán, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas
Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Bret M. Whitney, Field Guides & Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University
Data-base Advisor:
Steve Olesen
Editorial Advisor:
Paul Clapham
Past Committee Members: Manuel Nores, Centro de Zoología Aplicada, Córdoba; Richard O. Prum, Yale University; José Maria Cardoso da Silva, Conservation International - Brasil &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Abbreviations:
NB = nonbreeding residentV = vagrantIN = introduced species*EX = extinct (within last 200 years)
* SACC proposal for adopting BOU-like guidelines on defining "introduced" species did not pass, but the committee is strongly in favor of developing formal guidelines. Meanwhile, we follow AOU/NACC criterion: “Species that have been introduced by humans, either deliberately or accidentally, are considered to be established if there are persistent records for at least ten years and satisfactory evidence that they are maintaining a reasonably stable or increasing population through successful reproduction.”
Composite List created by Duncan Ritchie (Classification + status only; no footnotes) [continuing the work of Sjoerd Maijer, In Memoriam ]
EXCEL file of SACC list
Hypothetical List
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa
Literature Cited
Proposal Tracking page VERSION: 18 November 2016
Most recent changes to the classification, updated 2 November 2016
[Please report bad links to Remsen. We are in the process of converting .html extensions to .htm] Romanian translation: http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/saccbaseline-museum-rm
Higher-level Classification: With passage of proposal 723, the linear sequence of orders in this classification now greatly differs from the traditional sequence with which most users are familiar, particularly the sequence between the traditional beginning (ratites) and the end (passerines). Multiple independent data sets indicate that the traditional division between waterbirds and landbirds has little phylogenetic basis, with some of the nonpasserine “landbird” orders more closely related to “waterbird” orders than to other “landbird” orders, and vice versa. To perpetuate the traditional sequence misleads ornithologists into thinking that waterbirds form a phylogenetic group. To help navigate this new linear sequence, below we here provide a condensed classification at the level of Order. A linear sequence can only partially convey the branching patterns of the avian tree of life, so see proposal 723 and references therein for details:
Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (below)
Part 1. Rheiformes to PodicipediformesPart 2. Accipitriformes to Charadrii formes Part 3. Columbiformes to CaprimulgiformesPart 4. ApodiformesPart 5. Trogoniformes to PsittaciformesPart 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae)Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae)Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae)Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end)
1. The relationships among, and classification of, the five families of living ratites are controversial and beyond the geographic scope of this classification. The Rheidae are here treated as a family within the broadly defined ratite order Struthioniformes, following the classification in Folch (1992) and Dickinson (2003); other classifications retain only the ostriches (Struthionidae) and the Rheidae in the Struthioniformes. See (REFS) for evidence that supports a sister relationship between the Rheidae and Struthionidae, but see also Cooper et al. (1992, 2001), Lee et al. (1997), van Tuinen et al. (1998), and Haddrath and Baker (2001). Recent genetic data (Harshman et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010, Smith et al. 2012, Prum et al. 2015) indicate that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. Cracraft (2013) elevated the rheas to ordinal rank, Rheiformes, as in some older classifications. SACC proposal passed to recognize Rheiformes.
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia into Rhea.
3. The montane subspecies tarapacensis (with "garleppi") may deserve recognition as a separate species from lowland nominate pennata (Blake 1977, Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Folch 1992), and was treated as such by Jaramillo (2003) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Proposal needed.
4. Called "Darwin's Rhea" in Johnson (1965), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Gill & Wright (2006), but this is the name associated with the nominate, Patagonian subspecies (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or when the Andean forms are considered a separate species, with "Puna Rhea" reserved for the Andean species (e.g., Jaramillo 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014). Virtually all other modern literature on South American birds uses "Lesser Rhea" for P. pennata.
TINAMIFORMES 1TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS) 1aNothocercus julius Tawny-breasted Tinamou
1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Paton et al. 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007). However, recent genetic data (Hackett et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010, Prum et al. 2015) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. SACC proposal passed to change SACC classification to reflect this.
1a. The Tinamidae was divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae (Tinamus, Nothoprocta, and Crypturellus) and the Nothurinae (all other genera) by Miranda-Ribeiro (1938). The Nothurinae was designated as the Rhynchotinae by Cabot (1992). The subfamily name that has priority, however, is Eudromiinae Bonaparte, 1854. Morphological data (Bertelli et al. 2002, Silveira & Höfling 2007) support the monophyly of the two subfamilies, but combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) do not, primarily because of conflicting positions of the genus Rhynchotus. Morphological (Bertelli et al. 2002) and molecular data generally support the traditional among-genera and among-species relationships implied by traditional linear sequences except that Crypturellus and Tinamus are proposed as sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of some genera.
1b. Pinto (1938) treated the Amazonian subspecies serratus (with peruvianus, then known as ruficeps) as a separate species from Tinamus major.
2. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) suggested that Tinamus solitarius was probably better treated as a subspecies of T. major, but Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) proposed that it is the sister species to T. tao.
2a. Nothocercus bonapartei and N. nigrocapillus were considered to form a probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Bertelli et al. (2002) and Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) also found them to be sisters. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
3. An analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that T. osgoodi does not belong in that genus and is embedded within Crypturellus (Bertelli et al. 2002); however, combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) indicate that osgoodi does belong in Tinamus.
4. Crypturellus cinereus and C. berlepschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) follow Blake (1977), who noted that "the longer toes of berlepschi in proportion to the tarsus, the heavier and usually longer bill, and the conspicuous differences in coloration strongly support the concept of mutually exclusive species." The two species are sisters (Bertelli et al. 2002) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
4a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that C. ptaritepui might be the sister to C. berlepschi + C. cinereus.
5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Cabot (1992) noted that the subspecies traylori possibly deserves recognition as separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus. Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found that vocal differences among subspecies suggests that as many as five species should be recognized. Proposal needed.
6. Bertelli et al. (2002) proposed that C. transfasciatus and Middle American C. cinnamomeus are sister species.
6a. "Crypturellus rubripes," described from northwestern Peru and treated as a species by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942),
is now known to be the male plumage of C. transfasciatus (Koepcke 1962). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
7. Species limits in this complex (Crypturellus duidae through C. kerriae, also probably including Middle American C. cinnamomeus and C. boucardi) are poorly understood and weakly justified, and a thorough study, especially of voice, is badly needed. Species-level taxonomy and allocation of subspecies to species has been exceptionally labile, perhaps more so than any other species complex in the New World. For example, within subspecies included here in C. erythropus, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that cursitans was actually a subspecies of C. duidae. Blake (1977) suggested that columbianus was possibly a distinct species (as treated by Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or "perhaps a very distinct Colombian isolate of ... C. boucardi." Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered saltuarius as a distinct species, and Blake (1977) suggested that saltuarius might be a subspecies C. kerriae (but that kerriae might also be a subspecies of Middle American C. boucardi). The subspecies idoneus and spencei were treated as subspecies of Middle American C. cinnamomeus in [early Peters]. Thus, Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that the taxa columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius, treated here as subspecies of erythropus, may deserve species rank or may belong in other species. Crypturellus erythropus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. atrocapillus or of C. noctivagus (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), but is here treated as a species following Blake (1977, 1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Cabot (1992), and Davies (2002). The taxon garleppi, here treated as a subspecies of C. atrocapillus (following Blake 1977, 1979; also followed by del Hoyo & Collar 2014) was formerly considered a subspecies of C. noctivagus (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Peters?) and perhaps merits species rank (Cabot 1992). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. kerriae and C. erythropus, along with Middle American C. boucardi, to form one superspecies, and C. duidae, C. noctivagus, and C. atrocapillus to form a separate superspecies. Bertelli et al.'s (2002) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated that C. boucardi and C. kerriae are sister species, but otherwise found little support for the monophyly of this complex. SACC proposals to rank columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data. Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found that
vocal differences among these taxa are minimal and that perhaps all should be treated as conspecific. Proposal needed.
7a. Tomotani and Silveira (2016) provided evidence that the subspecies zabele might merit treatment as a separate species from Crypturellus noctivagus. Proposal needed.
8. Called "Red-footed Tinamou" by Davies (2002).
9. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) treated C. bartletti as a subspecies of Crypturellus brevirostris, and they are certainly sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. bartletti and C. brevirostris to form a superspecies, but they seem to overlap in portions of western Amazonia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Fieldwork is needed to clarify the taxonomic status of C. bartletti, which is so similar to C. brevirostris that true syntopy seems unlikely. <or some similar statement>.
10. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that C. tataupa and C. parvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
11. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that the traditional placement of C. casiquiare near C. parvirostris and C. tataupa is not correct, and this it is most closely related to C. brevirostris/C. bartletti (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004).
12. Rhynchotus maculicollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992, Monroe & Sibley 1993, Davies 2002) considered a subspecies of R. rufescens. Maijer (1996) provided evidence that maculicollis differs substantially in vocalizations from R. rufescens. The two species form a superspecies. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculicollis as a separate species.
13. Blake (1977) suggested that Nothoprocta kalinowskii might be better treated as a subspecies of N. ornata; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; analysis of phenotypic characters supports their treatment as sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Krabbe and Schulenberg (2005) have
shown that N. kalinowskii is a junior synonym of N. ornata branickii. SACC proposal passed to remove kalinowskii from list.
14. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cabot (1992) considered Nothoprocta perdicaria, N. pentlandii, and N. cinerascens to form a superspecies. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, considered this group to include N. curvirostris and not N. cinerascens. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that N. perdicaria and N. curvirostris might be sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).
15. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that N. boraquira and N. minor are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002), but genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) changed this conclusion.
16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nothura darwinii, N. maculosa, and N. chacoensis to form a superspecies; they form a monophyletic group (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Nothura darwinii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are locally sympatric and their voices differ (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Cabot 1992). Nothura chacoensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Blake 1979) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are sympatric in Paraguay and northern Argentina (Blake 1977, Cabot 1992). However, the degree of hybridization between the two is uncertain, and Short (1975) and Hayes (1995) treated chacoensis as a subspecies of N. darwinii. Proposal needed?
16a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that Taoniscus and Nothoprocta are sister genera.
17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eudromia elegans and E. formosa to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered conspecific, but see Conover (1950), Olrog (1959), Blake (1977), Navas & Bó (1981), and Bertelli et al. (2002).
18. The Paraguayan subspecies mira was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a separate species from Eudromia elegans, but it either merely represents an extreme in clinal variation in (Blake 1977), or a weakly diagnosable subspecies of E. elegans (Blake 1979, Cabot 1992).
19. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Tinamotis pentlandii and T. ingoufi to form a superspecies.
1. Galliformes + Anseriformes, collectively called Galloanseres, are placed in the linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details, as well as see Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain & Houde (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), Hackett et al. (2008), Eo et al. (2009), and Prum et al. (2015). See Zusi & Livezey (2000), Sorenson et al. (2003), Cracraft et al. (2004), and Eo et al. (2009) for support for the traditional monophyly of the Anseriformes. Cracraft (2013) divided the family into four subfamilies: Dendrocygninae, Oxyurinae, Anserinae, and Anatinae.
1a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the two species of Chauna to form a superspecies.
1b. [within-family relationships] <incorp Johnson-Sorensen REFs, Livezey 1997, Donne-Gousse et al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005, Eo et al. 2009 etc.>
2. The Dendrocygna whistling-ducks were considered a separate family from Anatidae by [REFS]; they are the outgroup to all other Anatidae except Anseranas [REFs, Fain & Houde (2004)]. The monophyly of the group was questioned by Eo et al. (2009).
3. Whistling-Ducks were formerly called "Tree-Ducks" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
3a. Dendrocygna bicolor and Australasian D. arcuata form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f).
3b. Anser anser is introduced and established on the Falklands Islands (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Small feral population in Bogotá, Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to transfer from Hypothetical List to Main List, based on the situation in the Falklands.
4. Correct spelling for species name is melancoryphus (David & Gosselin 2002a), not "melanocoryphus" or "melanocorypha."
4a. Woolfenden (1961) proposed that Coscoroba is more closely related to other swans (Cygnus) than to any other waterfowl despite some unusual behavioral and morphological characters.
4b. Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that Neochen jubata was the sister species to Chloephaga melanoptera; they also found that C. rubidiceps and C. poliocephala were sisters, and that C. picta and C. hybrida were sisters. SACC proposal pending to transfer Chloephaga melanoptera to Neochen.
4bb. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species. Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that the
Falkland Islands population and mainland populations formed distinct genetic groups.
5. Genetic data (mtDNA only; Bulgarella et al. 2014) suggest that Neochen jubata is the sister species to Chloephaga melanoptera, and thus is likely embedded in Chloephaga as currently circumscribed. SACC proposal passed to treat Chloephaga melanoptera and Neochen jubata as congeners; Oressochen Bannister 1870 becomes the name for these two when treated in a separate genus.
5a. Neochen is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is jubata when that genus is used (David & Gosselin 2002b); Oressochen is masculine, however, requiring masculine endings to variable species names.
6. New World sylvicola may be a species distinct from Old World Sarkidiornis melanotos and is treated as such by Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa), Wetmore (1965), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). <cite Livezey if evidence presented other than strict PSC reasoning>. Proposal needed.
7. Callonetta leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in genus Anas, but see Johnsgard (1960) and Woolfenden (1961).
7a. Callonetta leucophrys, Amazonetta brasiliensis, Anas crecca, and A. flavirostris/andium were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948aa) placed in a separate genus, Nettion, but see <REF>.
8. Amazonetta was placed in Anas by (REFS), but see Woolfenden (1961) and Johnsgard (1965). Johnson & Sorenson (1999) found that its sister species was likely Speculanas specularis, and that these two plus Lophonetta and Tachyeres formed a monophyletic group; Eo et al. (2009) also found support, based in part on Johnson and Sorenson (1999), for the relationship Lophonetta (Amazonetta + Speculanas).
8a. Called "Brazilian Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
8b. Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa) treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenis as separate species from Merganetta armata, but they
were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Johnsgard (1978), and most recent classification.
9. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus, and T. brachypterus to form a superspecies. <incorp. Livezey 1986>
9a. Called "Falkland Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978). Fulton et al. (2012) found that the individuals of T. patachonicus on the Falklands are actually flying individuals of T. brachypterus.
10. Called "Magellanic Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978), "Magellanic Steamer-Duck" in Carboneras (1992f) and "Fuegian Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
11. Recently described: Humphrey & Thompson (1981). Called "Chubut Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
12. Lophonetta specularioides is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) and Eo et al. (2009) for return to monotypic Lophonetta, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
13. Speculanas specularis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Livezey (1991, 1997), Johnson & Sorenson (1999), and Eo et al. (2009).
14. Livezey (1991) advocated resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a). Mareca was merged into Anas following Delacour & Mayr (1945) and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca is monophyletic but also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might make Anas a paraphyletic genus (see also Eo et al. 2009). Peters et al. (2005) found that A. sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in traditional and morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the sister to A. americana. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed by
del Hoyo & Collar (2014), resurrected Mareca based on the data in Gonzalez et al. (2009).
14a. Carboneras (1992f) considered Anas americana and A. sibilatrix to form a superspecies with Old World A. penelope; Eo et al. (2009) found that the three formed a monophyletic group.
15. Called "Southern Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere.
16. Johnson and Sorenson (1999) found that North American carolinensis was more closely related to A. flavirostris than either was to Old World A. crecca, but NACC delayed treating the two as separate species pending analysis of contact zone in Bering Sea and additional (nuclear) DNA data to assess whether the original result represents only a gene tree. <incorp Delacour & Mayre 1945, Johnsgard 1965>
17. Recorded from n. Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Photographed in French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010). At least three sight records, one actually a non-archived video record, for Trinidad (ffrench 1973, White & Hayes 2002,ffrench & Kenefick 2003). One sight record for Aruba (Mlodinow 2004).
18. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and many earlier classifications treated andium as a separate species from A. flavirostris. Following <find first author to lump>, many authors, from Meyer de Schauensee (1970) to Dickinson (2003), have treated andium as a subspecies of A. flavirostris. Anas andium was considered a separate species from Anas flavirostris by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and this was followed by Hilty (2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize andium as separate species. This treatment was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Jaramillo (2003) further suggested that the subspecies oxyptera may also deserve recognition as a separate species from A. flavirostris.
19. Anas acuta, A. georgica, and A. bahamensis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate genus, Dafila, but see <REF>; genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) suggest that they form a monophyletic group. Anas bahamensis and A. georgica
spinicauda were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in a separate genus, Paecilonitta, but see <REF>.
19a. Johnsgard (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anas acuta and A. georgica to form a superspecies; their sister relationship was supported by Eo et al. (2009).
20. Called "Common Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
21. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), no rationale has ever been published for the merger (by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) of mainland Anas spinicauda with A. georgica from South Georgia Island, which was treated as separate species by Hellmayr & Conover (1948a); see also Jaramillo (2003). Proposal needed.
21a. The Colombian subspecies niceforoi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a separate species from Anas georgica, but REFs, Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), and Johnsgard (1979) treated them as conspecific.
21b. Delacour and Mayr (1945) considered Anas bahamensis to form a superspecies with African A. erythrorhyncha, but see Eo et al. (2009).
21c. Formerly known as "Bahama Pintail" (e.g., REFS) or "Bahama Duck" (AOU 1957).
22. Anas puna and A. versicolor are sometimes (e.g., <?> Peters 1931, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f, Dickinson 2003) considered conspecific, but most classifications (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Dickinson & Remsen 2013, del Hoyo & Collar 2014) consider them to be separate species. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species. SACC proposal to treat puna as conspecific with versicolor did not pass. Johnsgard (1965) proposed that these two species were most closely related to African A. hottentota; genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) suggest that this is correct.
22a. Anas puna and A. versicolor were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Punanetta, but see <REF>.
22a. Anas discors and A. cyanoptera were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Querquedula, but see Delacour & Mayr (1945) and McKinney (1970). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species (as did Eo et al. 2009).
22b. Anas platalea and A. clypeata were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Spatula, but see <REF>. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014), resurrected Spatula for this group as well as A. discors and A. cyanoptera based on the data in Gonzalez et al. (2009). Proposal needed.<<wait NACC>>
22c. Netta erythrophthalma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed the genus Aythya, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22d. Netta peposaca was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Metopiana, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
22e. Called "Rosybill" in Johnsgard (1978), Madge & Burn (1988), Dickinson (2003) and elsewhere.
23. Recorded from northern Venezuela (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Published photos and several sight records for Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & White 1999, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004, 2012).
24. Nomonyx dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, 1983, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in the genus Oxyura. See Livezey (1995) and [McCracken REFS] for resurrection of Nomonyx as genus separate from Oxyura, a return to the classification of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a). Eo et al. (2009) did not find support for inclusion of Nomonyx in Oxyura.
25. Andean populations have often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried 1976, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Jaramillo 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014) been treated as a separate species, O. ferruginea ("Andean Duck" or "Andean Ruddy-Duck"). However, see Adams and Slavid (1984), Fjeldså (1986), McCracken & Sorenson (2005), and Donegan et al. (2015) for rationale for treating them as conspecific, as done previously (e.g., Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1979), and then followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Carboneras (1992f), and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). Siegfried (1976) and Livezey (1995) considered ferruginea to be more closely related to O. vittata than to O. jamaicensis, but McCracken & Sorenson (2005) showed that this is incorrect.
26. Called "Argentine Blue-billed Duck" in Johnsgard (1978) and Carboneras (1992f).
1. Galliformes + Anseriformes are placed in linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details. The monophyly of the Galliformes has never been seriously questioned and has been confirmed by Eo et al. (2009. [relationships among families]
1a. Vaurie (1968) recognized three major divisions within the family based on morphological criteria: the guans and chachalacas (tribe Penelopini), the curassows (Cracini), and the (extralimital) Horned
Guan (Oreophasini). Delacour & Amadon (1973) considered the latter to be part of the chachalaca-guan group and recognized only two major divisions, (a) the curassows and (b) everything else. Del Hoyo (1994) recognized two subfamilies, Cracinae for the four genera of curassows and Penelopinae for everything else. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) identify two main groups, one consisting of del Hoyo's Cracinae as well as Ortalis and Oreophasis, and the other consisting of the guan genera Aburria, Pipile, Penelope, Penelopina (extralimital), and Chamaepetes; however, support was weak for the nodes that include Ortalis and Oreophasis with the curassows. A more comprehensive analysis (Crowe et al. 2006) also supports treating these two groups as subfamilies. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera. SACC proposal to add subfamilies did not pass. A more recent analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Pereira et al. 2008) found strong support for the two main groups above, with Ortalis and Oreophasis members of the group that includes the curassows; Eo et al. (2009), however, were unable to find support for these relationships. A proposal passed to recognize subfamilies, while but awaiting ICZN ruling on correct formulation of the subfamily for Ortalis group (see David 2014, Donegan 2105), Hosner et al. (2016) found that all extant taxa diverged within the last 10 million years or so, thus making the three lineages of very recent origin (and that Oreophasis is as old as the three other lineages). Proposal to recognize subfamilies in the Cracidae did not pass.
2. Ortalis cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Vaurie 1965b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific with O. garrula, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973); Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered them to form a superspecies.
3. The subspecies ruficrissa was considered a separate species from Ortalis ruficauda by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), but it intergrades with ruficauda in northern Colombia and Venezuela (Phelps 1943, Phelps and Phelps 1958, Vaurie 1965b, del Hoyo 1994).
4. Ortalis guttata (including O. columbiana) and O. superciliaris have been treated as conspecific with O. motmot (see Delacour & Amadon [1973] for rationale); they are considered to form a monophyletic
group (Vaurie 1965) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994).
4a. Ortalis superciliaris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as O. spixi, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
5. The geographically isolated races columbiana, araucuan, and squamata have sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Miller 1947, Sick 1993, 1997, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis guttata; they have generally been treated as subspecies of O. guttata following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1965). SACC proposal passed to treat columbiana as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat araucan and squamata as separate species from Ortalis guttata. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) adopted these new species limits.
6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated ruficeps of eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmot. SACC proposal pending.
7. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) called "Little Chachalaca."
8. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Pipile and Aburria into Penelope, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.
8a. Penelope barbata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Vaurie 1966a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. argyrotis, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973), who treated them as sister species (Delacour & Amadon 1973) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Parker et al. (1985) proposed that they might form a superspecies with P. montagnii. Hosner et al. (2016), however, found that these three taxa are not particularly closely related. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.
9. Vuilleumier (1965) treated Penelope ortoni as a subspecies of P. montagnii, but see Vaurie (1966b). Eley (1982) presented evidence that its closest relative was P. marail.
10. Penelope marail and P. superciliaris were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1987) and del Hoyo (1994); Hosner et al. (2016) corroborated that they are sister taxa.
10a. Penelope dabbenei was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934) known as P. nigrifrons, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
10b. Olrog (1960) suggested that Penelope dabbenei might best be treated as a subspecies of P. montagnii, but see Vaurie (1966a). Hosner et al. (2016) corroborated that they are sister taxa.
11. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1994) considered Penelope purpurascens, P. perspicax, P. albipennis, P. jacquacu, and P. obscura to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Vuilleumier (1965), but see Vaurie (1966b), Delacour & Amadon (1973), and Eley (1982). Hosner et al. (2016), however, found that they do not form a monophyletic group. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.
12. Penelope jacquacu has been considered conspecific with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but see Vaurie (1966a), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973). Hosner et al. (2016) found that P. jacquacu is sister to P. dabbenei + P. montagnii. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.
12a. The granti subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) considered a separate species from Penelope jacquacu, but see Vaurie (1966b). The Bolivian subspecies speciosa was treated as a subspecies of P. obscura by Peters (1934).
13. Penelope perspicax was considered a subspecies of P. jacquacu by Vaurie (1966b), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Blake (1977), or of P. purpurascens by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Meyer de Schauensee (1970); for treatment as separate species, see Delacour & Amadon (1973).
14. Penelope albipennis has been considered an aberrant or albinistic form or morph of P. ortoni (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens
(Vuilleumier 1965), but Vaurie (1966a) and Eley (1982) provided evidence that it is a valid species-level taxon, as treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973). Hosner et al. (2016) found that it is the sister to P. argyrotis. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.
15. Delacour & Amadon (1973) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Penelope pileata, P. ochrogaster, and P. jacucaca to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Vuilleumier 1965). They form a monophyletic group (Hosner et al. 2016). Pinto (1938) considered P. jacucaca to be a subspecies of P. superciliaris.
16. The genus Pipile is merged by some (Delacour & Amadon 1973, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) into Aburria. Pipile is currently treated as a separate genus in most classifications. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002, Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Aburria and Pipile are sister taxa, and this is supported by morphological data (Grau et al. 2005). New genetic data (Grau et al. 2005) indicate that Aburria aburri is embedded within Pipile, thus forcing the merger of Pipile into Aburria. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Pipile into Aburria. Eo et al. (2009) were unable to support the monophyly of Pipile + Aburria because A. jacutinga fell outside the group. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) maintained the two as separate genera. Hosner et al. (2016) showed that Aburria is sister to all Pipile.
17. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), evidence for species rank for the four species of Pipile is weak, and various authors have used just about every possible permutation of species limits. Many authors (e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Hilty 2003) continue to treat them as a single species, Pipile pipile ("Common Piping-Guan"), whereas others (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994) consider all four major groups as separate species, the treatment followed here. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. cujubi to form a superspecies, but excluded P. jacutinga. Although
the latter has been considered sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977), del Hoyo & Motis (2004) noted that the evidence for sympatry is weak. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977) considered cumanensis to be conspecific with P. pipile, but considered cujubi and jacutinga to be separate species. Peters (1934) considered the genus to contain three species: P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. jacutinga. Pinto (1938) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. pipile (and cumanensis, grayi, and jacutinga as species), but later (Pinto 1964) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. jacutinga. Where P. cujubi nattereri and P. cumanensis grayi meet in eastern Bolivia, they interbreed freely, forming a hybrid swarm (del Hoyo and Motis 2004) <track down original reference>, and so this suggests that species limits should be re-evaluated and returned to those of Delacour & Amadon (1973), who considered the genus to contain two species: P. pipile (including cumanensis, cujubi, etc.) and P. jacutinga. Proposal needed. [incorp. Vaurie (1967a)]
18. The subspecies grayi was considered a separate species from Pipile cumanensis by Pinto (1938), but they intergrade in southeastern Peru (REF). <incorp. Gyldenstolpe 1945> However, del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated grayi as a separate species, “White-throated Piping-Guan.”
19. The subspecies nattereri is usually considered a subspecies of Pipile cumanensis (e.g., Pinto 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); however, it is perhaps sympatric with P. cumanensis grayi on the lower Rio Madeira (Vaurie 1967), and if this is verified, the two deserve treatment as separate species (Blake 1977). <needs to be reconciled with previous note - need to see Del Hoyo-Motis 2004; <track down original reference>
21. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii to form a superspecies with Middle American C. unicolor.
22. Generic limits in the curassows are controversial. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Mitu, Pauxi, and even Nothocrax into Crax, and this was followed by Delacour & Amadon (1973). Vaurie (1967d), however, outlined rationale for maintaining the four genera as separate, and also pointed out that Nothocrax was a strong outlier in the group, a prediction subsequently verified by genetic data (Pereira & Baker
2004, Hosner et al. 2016). Most subsequent treatments have followed Vaurie (1967d). However, Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Mitu into Pauxi. SACC proposal to merge Mitu into Pauxi did not pass. Hosner et al. (2016) also found that Pauxi is embedded in Mitu. See Note 29a.
23. Vaurie (1967d), Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered all species of Mitu to form a superspecies. <check overlap salvini-tuberosum>; genetic data support the genus as a monophyletic group if the genetic similarity between M. tuberosum and Pauxi unicornis is due to hybridization (Pereira & Baker 2004). However, see Note 22.
25. Mitu is neuter, so the correct spellings of the species names are tuberosum and tomentosum (David & Gosselin 2002b).
26. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Lesser Razor-billed Curassow."
27. Mitu tuberosum was formerly (e.g., Vaurie 1967d, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with M. mitu, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed del Hoyo (1994) in treating it as a separate species. See Silveira et al. (2004) for history of the taxon and a summary of its unique characters and rationale for considering it and tuberosum as a separate species. Pereira & Baker (2004) found that M. tuberosum and M. mitu are not sister taxa and are not particularly closely related, but more complete genetic sampling found that they were indeed sister taxa (Hosner et al. 2016).
29a. Pauxi pauxi and P. unicornis (then including P. koepckeae) were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994); they were considered conspecific by Wetmore & Phelps (1943), but see Vaurie (1967d). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004), however, indicated that P. unicornis was more similar in its mtDNA sequence to Crax tuberosum than to P. pauxi or other curassows, but the authors suspected that this was a consequence of past hybridization between P. unicornis and C. tuberosum and recommended not changing generic limits without further analyses. Aleixo & Rossetti (2007) also suspected that the result might be due
to a lab error. See also Eo et al. (2009). Hosner et al. (2016) also found that the two species of Pauxi were not particularly closely related.
29b. Gastañaga et al. (2011) found strong vocal differences between the subspecies koepckeae and nominate unicornis and proposed that they be treated as separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate koepckeae to species rank. This treatment was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Hosner et al. (2016) also found that the two species of Pauxi were not particularly closely related.
30. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered the seven species of Crax to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) support the genus as a monophyletic group of parapatric taxa; see also Eo et al. (2009). However, see Note 22.
30a. <Crax globicera (e.g. Chapman 1926) syn. of C. rubra>
30aa. "Crax annulata," described from northern Colombia and treated as a species by Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered to be female plumage of barred morph of C. alberti (Peters 1934, Vaurie (1967c), del Hoyo 1994). "Crax viridirostris" refers to an aviary bird for which the mother was C. daubentoni (Joseph et al. 1999); see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
30b. Crax alector was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).
30c. "Crax estudilloi," known from a single aviary specimen from Bolivia, was considered a probable hybrid (C. fasciolata and Crax sp.) by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987); however, Joseph et al. (1999) found that its mtDNA was identical to that of C. alberti; see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
31. Peters (1934) considered Crax daubentoni as a subspecies C. alberti, but see Vaurie (1967c). Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with their treatment as sister taxa.
32. The northeastern subspecies pinima was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from Crax fasciolata;
they have generally been treated as conspecific following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1967c). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated it as a separate species based on female plumage, “Belem Curassow”.
1. The New World Quails were treated as a separate family from Old World quails, partridges, and pheasants (Phasianidae) by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Whether these families are sister taxa within the Galliformes was formerly regarded as uncertain (Armstrong et al. 2001, Dimcheff et al. 2001), but genetic data (Cox et al. 2007, Eo et al. 2009, Kimball & Braun 2014) confirm that the New World quail are the sister taxon to a group that includes turkeys, pheasants, partridges and Old world quail (Phasianidae), but not the guineafowl (Numididae). Recognition of Odontophoridae as a separate family has also been adopted by Carroll (1994), AOU (1998), and Dickinson
(2003). Eo et al. (2009) found support for the monophyly of the family. Given that the original rationale for treating the New World quail as a separate family was based in part on concern that their inclusion in Phasianidae would make that group non-monophyletic, and given that two African taxa (Ptilopachus petrosus and “Francolinus” nahani) are now members of the Odontophoridae (Crowe et al. 2006, Kimball et al. 2011, Chen et al. 2012, Dickinson & Remsen 2013), family rank should be reconsidered. Proposal needed.
2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Colinus cristatus to form a superspecies with North and Middle American C. virginianus and Middle American C. nigrogularis. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered Central American C. leucopogon to be conspecific with C. cristatus; they form a superspecies (Stiles & Skutch 1989).
3. Species limits and relationships within montane Odontophorus are complex and are currently maintained largely by historical momentum rather than analysis or data. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus dialeucos and O. strophium to form a superspecies. Carroll (1994) suggested that these two and also O. columbianus, O. atrifrons, and Central American O. leucolaemus could be considered conspecific. However, the traditional placement of O. atrifrons in linear sequences is next to members of other groups, e.g., O. erythrops or O. hyperythrus. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) maintained columbianus as a separate species but stated that it was almost certainly conspecific with O. strophium.
4. Odontophorus erythrops forms a superspecies with Middle American melanotis (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Blake 1977, AOU 1983) have considered them conspecific.
5. Blake (1977) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus hyperythrus O. melanonotus, and O. speciosus to form a superspecies; Carroll (1994) suggested that they all could be treated as conspecific, as they were formerly by (REF).
6. Hosner et al. (2015) found that Rhynchortyx was the sister to all other New World Odontophoridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera.
6a. Called "Banded Wood Quail" in Wetmore (1965) and "Long-legged Colin" in Ridgway & Friedmann (1946).
7. A population of Phasianus colchicus has become established in Aisen and Capitan Prat, Chile (Barrios 2015). SACC proposal passed to add this to the Main List.
8. A population of Lophura nycthemera has become established in Neuquén, Argentina. SACC proposal passed to add this to the Main List.
1a. The linear sequence of orders in the Neoaves is maintained in part from historical momentum and tradition rather than phylogenetic data. Although the branching sequence deep within the Neoaves tree has been difficult to resolve, new, concordant data sets (REFS) allow increasing confidence with respect to some of the deep nodes. Chesser et al. (2016) revised the sequence of orders of the Neoaves
based on these new data. SACC proposal pending to revise linear sequence of orders.
1b. The grebes constitute a distinctive lineage with no close relatives (other than flamingoes – see below), and the monophyly of the order has never been questioned. Morphological similarities to the loons (Gaviiformes) have been interpreted as reflecting relatedness (e.g., Cracraft 1982, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007) and has led to their traditional placement next to each other in most linear classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but genetic data strongly suggest that these morphological similarities are purely due to convergence (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). Van Tuinen et al. (2001) suggested that the closest living relatives of the grebes are the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes), and this has been confirmed by all subsequent genetic data (Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015, Suh et al. 2015); this hypothesis also has morphological support (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004, Manegold 2006; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007), and the ischnoceran lice of the two groups are also sisters (Johnson et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) also suggest that both orders are part of an early radiation that does not include their traditional close relatives such as Ciconiiformes or Gaviiformes. All of the New World grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in one genus, Colymbus, but see <REF>. The sequence of genera and species in this classification follows Storer (1979). [incorporate Simmons 1962, Storer 1963, Bochenski 1994]
2. Rollandia rolland was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer's (1963) analysis of morphology and display behavior in use of Rollandia for this species and microptera.
3. The subspecies of continental South America, Rollandia r. chilensis, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938; see also Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a separate species from nominate rolland of the Falkland Islands.
4. Rollandia microptera was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Centropelma; Simmons (1962) provided rationale for its merger into Podiceps. Recent classifications usually follow Storer (1963, 1967) in placing this species in Rollandia (see Note 2).
4a. Called "Titicaca Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Llimona & del Hoyo (1992), and "Short-winged Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977). SACC proposal passed to change from "Short-winged Grebe" (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970) to "Titicaca Grebe." The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).
5. Tachybaptus dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer (1976) in the use of Tachybaptus for this species and its Old World relatives; Pinto (1938) placed it in the genus Poliocephalus.
6. Podiceps major was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the genus Aechmophorus, but see Wetmore & Parkes (1954). Bochenski (1994) proposed that this species be placed in a monotypic genus (Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994) based on morphological differences; see also Storer (1963, 1996), who noted that it has a behavioral display unlike that of any other grebe. Proposal needed.
7. Podiceps andinus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Storer 1979) considered a subspecies of mostly N. Hemisphere P. nigricollis, but see Fjeldså (1982a, 1985), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Hilty & Brown (1986); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
8. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the northern Andean subspecies, juninensis, might merit recognition as a separate species from Podiceps occipitalis. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated them as separate species. Proposal needed.
9. Storer (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) included Podiceps occipitalis in a superspecies with P. andinus and P. nigricollis;
Llimona & del Hoyo (1992) also included P. taczanowskii in that superspecies, but the latter is syntopic with P. occipitalis.
10. Called "Puna Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere; called "Junin Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change to "Junin Grebe”. The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
1. Various evidence has been interpreted to support treatment of the flamingos within or closest to the Ciconiiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2007), Anseriformes (Hagey et al. 1990), and Charadriiformes (Olson & Feduccia 1980). However, all recent data support a sister relationship to the grebes (Podicipediformes; see above). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence to move next to Podicipediformes. The monophyly of the Phoenicopteriformes has never been questioned; they are so similar that they were treated in a single genus by Sibley and Monroe (1990).
2. The Old World subspecies roseus is recognized as a separate species by some authors (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), with the English name "Greater Flamingo" applied to the Old World species, and either "Caribbean Flamingo" or "American Flamingo" (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty 2003) used for the New World species. Sangster (1997) reviewed the evidence for species rank of roseus and recommended it be returned to species rank. This was followed by NACC (Banks et al. 2008),
Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). <incorp. Knox et al. 2002> SACC proposal passed to return roseus to species rank. Torres et al. (2014) found that at the loci sampled, roseus and ruber are as divergent as andinus and jamesi. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.
3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phoenicopterus ruber and P. chilensis to form a superspecies; they were treated as conspecific by Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a).
4. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus based on small genetic distances among all flamingos as measured by DNA-DNA hybridization (Sibley & Ahlquist 1989); further, the distinctions between the genera are based on bill morphology. Kahl (1979b), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), del Hoyo (1992), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) maintained Phoenicoparrus as a separate genus. Torres et al. (2014) Phoenicoparrus and Phoenicopterus represented two divergent lineages. SACC proposal to merge Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus did not pass.
5. Called "Puna Flamingo" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley and Monroe (1990), del Hoyo (1992), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal did not pass to change English name.
1. Mayr and Clarke's (2003) analysis of morphological characters suggested that the Sphenisciformes were the sister to Gaviidae + Podicipedidae, but Mayr (2005) proposed that the penguins were closer to some Pelecaniformes. However, genetic data (e.g., van Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Ericson et al. 2006) indicate that the Sphenisciformes and Procellariiformes are sister taxa. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned (and see Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, and Giannini & Bertelli 2004 for recent support). Analyses of morphological and behavioral characters (Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, Giannini & Bertelli 2004) suggest that traditional genera are monophyletic, recently confirmed by genetic data (Baker et al. 2005); however, these analyses each produce different linear sequences, none of which is consistent with the molecular data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) or Baker et al. (2006). The classification and sequence here follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker et al. 2006) indicate that this requires revision to reflect their phylogenetic data. Also, an analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Bertelli & Giannini 2005) produced a phylogenetic hypothesis very similar to that of Baker et al. (2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Unpublished photographic records from the Falklands in 1936 and 1954 (Hamilton 1954) and sight records in 1987 (Wolsey 1987, Curtis 1988), 1996 (Brown 1996), and 1999 (Gates 2001), although evidence for the 1936 record is archived with a photograph at the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, U.K. A specimen collected at the first narrows of the Magellan Straits near Punta Delgada, Chile, is housed at the Univ. of Magallanes, Punta Arenas (Venegas 1978, 1982) and was possibly collected in 1978 (Marín 2004). From Argentina, one of two specimens mentioned by Venegas (1982) is still housed at the Museo Mayorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas, collected from the Mitre Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There are also vague sight
records from elsewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Chebez & Bertonatti 1994) and at-sea off Buenos Aires (Jehl & Rumboll 1977).
3. Pygoscelis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is antarcticus; papua, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
4. [deleted]
5. Three photographic records from the Falklands: Dec. 1988 (Lamey 1990) and Nov.-Dec. 2008 (Demongin et al. 2010).
6. Five Falklands records include one from 1961 to 1966 (Napier 1968), one in the 1980-1981 austral summer (Strange 1992), one during each austral summer from 1997 to at least 2006 (Morrison et al. 2006), another in spring 2003 (Black et al. 2005), and another in 2005 (Morrison et al. 2006). Photographic documentation appeared in Birding World (11: 158, 1998) and White & Henry (2001).
7. Called "Erect-crested Penguin" in Martínez (1992), Williams (1995), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), etc. SACC proposal passed to change English name from Big-crested to Erect-crested.
8. Jouventin (1982), Jouventin et al. (2006), and Banks et al. (2006) demonstrated that moseleyi, traditionally treated as a subspecies of E. chrysocome, differs in voice and mating signals from, and is moderately differentiated genetically from, chrysocome. SACC proposal passed to treat moseleyi as a separate species. For English names for this species pair, see SACC Proposal 516. The two species were called “Northern Rockhopper Penguin” (moseleyi) and “Southern Rockhopper Penguin” (chrysocome) in Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014),
8a. Published photos from Falklands (Matias et al. 2009).
9. Formerly known as E. crestatus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) but see Serventy & Whittell (1952) and Falla & Mougin (1979).
10. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Martínez (1992) considered Eudyptes chrysolophus to form a superspecies with E. schlegeli of Macquarie Island; the latter was formerly (e.g., Falla & Mougin 1979) treated as a subspecies of E. chrysolophus but has been treated recently as separate species (Martínez 1992, Gill et al. 2010), but see Christidis & Boles (2008) for return to subspecies rank, as followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013).
10a. Vagrants to Argentina supported by specimens in MACN, BM(NH), and FML.
11. Wilson et al. (2000) reported a specimen from Chile. Three previous records from Chile, one backed by unpublished photo (Valverde & Oyarzo 1996). Proposal passed to add to main list. Proposal passed to change name from "Little Blue Penguin" to "Little Penguin."
12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Spheniscus humboldtii and S. magellanicus to form a superspecies with African S. demersus; genetic differences among them are low (REF), and some authors consider them conspecific (REF). Baker et al. (2006) found that S. mendiculus is likely the sister to S. humboldtii; therefore, it should also be included in the superspecies.
1. The monophyly of the Procellariiformes has never been seriously questioned, and modern analyses (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) support the traditional view. The Procellariiformes are likely sister to the Sphenisciformes (see Note 1 under that order). [note on relationships among families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf Rheindt & Austin (2005).
2. The monophyly of the Diomedeidae has never been questioned seriously. The linear sequence of genera used here was modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support.
3. Phoebastria and Thalassarche were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Alexander et al. 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed in the genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick & Wink (2004).
4. Formerly known as "Galapagos Albatross" (e.g., Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Tickell 2000).
5. Diomedea epomophora was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), with the subspecies sanfordi considered a separate species. Both taxa occur in South American waters. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)]. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment. Proposal badly needed.
6. Diomedea exulans treated as consisting of five species by Tickell (2000) and four by Onley & Scofield (2007). Of these, at least three occur in South American waters: nominate exulans, dabbenena, and antipodensis. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004]. SACC proposal to recognize multiple species did not pass. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment.
7. See Willis & Oniki (1985, 1993) for Brazil record (cf. Teixeira et al. 1988); also see Lima et al. (1997) for a second record from Brazil. <Blake (1977) reported specimen off Cape Horn>
8. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Light-mantled Sooty Albatross."
9. Thalassarche chlororhynchos has been considered to consist of two species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), with carteri of the Indian Ocean treated as a separate species. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment. Proposal badly needed. Nominate chlororhynchos is the form that typically occurs in South American waters. Lima & Grantsau (2005) reported four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri, but that identification was challenged by Carlos (2008).
10. Thalassarche melanophris was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) with the Campbell Islands subspecies impavida treated as a separate species. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001]. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment. Proposal needed. Only nominate melanophris has been recorded from South America.
11. The species name is also frequently given as melanophrys. Carlos and Voisin (2008) have published a proposal to conserve the original spelling in the type description, melanophris. This has been formally endorsed (ICZN 2010).
12. Thalassarche bulleri was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), but see Brooke (2004) and Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)].
13. Thalassarche cauta has been considered to consist of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this was followed by Tickell (2000). See, however, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) for continued treatment of all as conspecific. <incorp. Abbott & Double 2003a, b, Double et al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005> SACC proposal passed to split into two or three species. SACC proposal to reverse this decision did not
pass. Brooke (2004) treated eremita and salvini as separate species from T. cauta. Subsequent SACC proposal passed to split into three species. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also treated them as separate species. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment.
14. Called "Shy Albatross" in Onley & Scofield (2007), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), and elsewhere.
1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned seriously, with the recent exception of possible inclusion of Pelecanoides within the Procellariidae (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006). Linear sequence of genera modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the treatment of Macronectes, Fulmarus, Thalassoica, Daption, and Pagodroma as forming a monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated tribe rank (Fulmarini) for this group, but see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.
2. Macronectes giganteus and M. halli were formerly considered conspecific, and often (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977)
called "Giant Fulmar." See Bourne & Warham (1966), Hunter (1987), and references therein for treatment of the two as separate species. However, lack of interbreeding where sympatric is achieved primarily through temporal segregation rather than any other barriers to gene flow; see summary of evidence for treating them as conspecific in Penhallurick & Wink (2004), but see also Rheindt & Austin (2005) for support of the two species treatment. Brown et al. (2015) found that the percentage of mixed pairs is usually below 2% and that reproductive success of mixed pairs was lower than that of pure pairs (and 0% success on Marion and Macquarie islands).
2a. Fulmarus glacialoides was considered a subspecies of boreal F. glacialis by (REF), although formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Priocella; for placement in same genus, see Voous (1949). The two species constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998).
2b. Typically considered part of the Chilean and Argentine avifauna, but those countries include the Antarctic Peninsula in their checklist area. Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from off Cape Horn, Chile, from 2009. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
3. Called "Antarctic Giant-Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).
4. Formerly called "Pintado Petrel" (e.g. REF) or "Cape Pigeon" (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a).
4a. At least five birds have been found dead and one alive on the Falkland Islands (Salvin 1896, R. Woods, pers. comm.). However, only three of the specimens, including one of the two from 1979 mentioned by Peatfield (1981), can now be located; they are in the British Museum (R. Woods, pers. comm.).
5. Aphrodroma brevirostris was formerly placed in the genus Pterodroma (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992b). Placed in monotypic genus Lugensa by Imber (1985), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Kennedy & Page (2002), and others, because inclusion in that genus would make Pterodroma paraphyletic. Olson (2000) proposed a new genus Aphrodroma for this species, because Lugensa cannot be applied to brevirostris.
Bourne (2001) provided rationale for why Lugensa should apply to brevirostris, and this was accepted by Penhallurick & Wink (2004). However, Olson showed that there is no confirmable evidence linking the type species of Lugensa to the Kerguelen Petrel, in the absence of which Aphrodroma must stand (R. Schodde, in litt.). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) not only support treatment of brevirostris in a separate genus, but also indicate that it is more closely related to the Puffinus group of shearwaters than to Pterodroma; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a reinterpretation of those data.
5a. Specimen record from near Galapagos Islands may not be within the official boundaries of the area, and sight records from there are undocumented (Wiedenfeld 2006). Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from 2004 from near Isla Robinson Crusoe, Juan Fernandez Archipelago. SACC proposal passed to add to main list. 5b. Reported for Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and the Falklands (e.g., Gregory 1994) but based only on sight records. Teixeira et al. (1985) showed that the two reported specimens from Brazil were actually Puffinus griseus, leaving only sight reports from Brazil. Bugoni (2006) reported a specimen from Fernando de Noronha Island, Brazil. SACC proposal passed to move to main list.
5c. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Gray-faced Petrel."
6. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support Pterodroma as a monophyletic group (once brevirostris is removed; see Note 5). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) used genetic distance data to propose that Pterodroma was best subdivided into four monophyletic groups, ranked at the subgenus level: (1) subgenus Pterodroma, which of the species recorded from South America includes P. hasitata, P. incerta, P. lessonii, and P. mollis as well as several extralimital species; (2) subgenus Hallstroma, which includes P. neglecta (and thus presumably P. arminjoniana), P. externa, P. phaeopygia (and extralimital P. sandwichensis), and P. inexpectata; (3) subgenus Cookilaria, which includes P. longirostris, P. cookii (and thus presumably P. defilippiana), and extralimital P. hypoleuca; and (4) subgenus "?Proaestrelata" for some extralimital species including P.
axillaris and P. nigripennis. However, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.
6a. Formerly known as "Hooded Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "Schlegel's Petrel" (REF).
7. Formerly known as "Blue-footed Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977).
7a. Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from 177 miles N of the Desventurada Islands (San Felix and San Ambrosio), Chile. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
8. Pterodroma defilippiana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. cookii.
9. Called "Mas a Tierra Petrel" in Murphy (1936) and Carboneras (1992b). Called "Defilippe's Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Defilippi's Petrel" in Stattersfield (REF), and "De Filippi's" Petrel in Onley & Scofield (2007). Also, Howell et al. (1996) noted that the species is named for F. de Filippi, so the name should be "de Filippi's Petrel". The latter, however, is difficult to spell correctly, and certainly confuses Chileans who know the Philippis as the ornithologists that had a large influence in Chile. SACC proposal to change English name to "De Filippi's Petrel" did not pass.
10. Pterodroma defilippiana, and P. longirostris are members of the "Cookilaria" species group, also including extralimital P. cookii, P. hypoleuca, P. nigripennis, P. axillaris, and P. leucoptera; they are considered to be each others' closest relatives (Jouanin and Mougin 1979). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) restricted this group; see Note 6 above.
10a. Pterodroma neglecta and P. arminjoniana were considered to form a superspecies with P. alba by Jouanin and Mougin (1979); P. arminjoniana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of P. neglecta.
10b. Pterodroma neglecta was recently discovered to breed on Ilha Trindade (Imber 2004), but see Tove (2005).
11. [Reference needed for records] <Meltofte & Horneman 1995>.
12. Some authors (REFS) consider the subspecies heraldica to deserve recognition as a separate species from Pterodroma arminjoniana, but see Murphy & Pennoyer (1952). Also, dark birds have been recognized as a separate species, P. atrata (Brooke & Rowe 1996, Dickinson 2003, Dickinson & Remsen 2013). SACC proposal passed to recognize extralimital P. heraldica and P. atrata as separate species. This treatment also followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
12a. Occasionally called “Trinidade Petrel”. “Trinidade” is either an incorrect spelling or an botched Anglicization of the Brazilian Portuguese name name for the island, which is “Trindade”, as is the official international name. Formerly also occasionally listed as “South Trinidad Petrel” (e.g. AOU 1957).
13. Pterodroma phaeopygia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) considered to consist of two subspecies, nominate phaeopygia, which breeds in the Galapagos Islands, and sandwichensis, which breeds in Hawaii. Although Jouanin & Mougin (1979) and Carboneras (1992b) questioned the validity of sandwichensis as a recognizable taxon, Tomkins & Milne (1991), Browne et al. (1997) and Welch et al. (2011) provided rationale for considering Pterodroma sandwichensis a separate species from P. phaeopygia based on vocal and genetic differences between them comparable to those between other species-level pairs in Pterodroma. The AOU (Banks et al. 2002) recognized them both as species: P. phaeopygia (Galapagos Petrel) and P. sandwichensis (Hawaiian Petrel); SACC proposal passed to recognize P. sandwichensis as a species.
14. Some treatments (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) have considered extralimital Pterodroma cervicalis to be a subspecies of P. externa, with the composite name "White-necked Petrel," but they are evidently not sister taxa (Imber 1985).
14a. Ramírez et al. (2013) found using geolocators that part of the nonbreeding distribution of Pterodroma feae includes Brazilian
waters, with some occurrences off French Guiana and Suriname. SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.
14b. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Halobaena is more closely related to Pachyptila, as proposed by Imber 1985), than to any other genus; Marchant & Higgins (1990) had proposed that Halobaena and Pterodroma were sister genera.
15. Recorded in Peru (Hughes 1982, Hidlago-Aranzamendi et al. 2010).
15a. Species limits in the genus Pachyptila are controversial, with most recent classifications recognizing six species in the genus (e.g., Marchant & Higgins 1990, Carboneras 1992b) <incorp. Bretagnolle et al. 1990>; see summary in Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Pachyptila desolata was considered a subspecies of P. vittata by Cox (1980), and Penhallurick & Wink (2004) considered it and P. belcheri conspecific with P. vittata; see, however, Rheindt & Austin (2005) and references therein. Proposal needed?
15b. [note on use of forsteri as species name, as in Pinto (1938), Blake (1977)]
16. Called "Dove Prion" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and may other references. SACC proposal passed to change English name from Dove Prion to Antarctic Prion.
17. Called "Thin-billed Prion" in Murphy (1936), Harrison (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and elsewhere.
18. Recorded once near Trinidad (ffrench & ffrench 1966). <check documentation> Sight record off Curaçao (Voous 1983). <check Bourne 1995>
18a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Bulweria and Procellaria are sister genera, contrary to previous assessments of morphology that suggested that Bulweria was closest to or embedded within Pterodroma (Olson 1975a, Marchant & Higgins 1990). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed recognizing Bulweria + Procellaria at the tribe level (Procellariini); however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.
19. Procellaria cinerea was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Adamastor, but most recent classifications have followed (REF), Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Procellaria.
20. Procellaria conspicillata was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Carboneras (1992b), Dickinson 2003) treated as a subspecies of P. aequinoctialis. Ryan (1998) proposed that the conspicillata should be treated as a separate species from Procellaria aequinoctialis based mainly on vocal differences. SACC proposal passed to treat P. conspicillata as a separate species.
21. Procellaria parkinsoni and P. westlandica have been considered conspecific with P. aequinoctialis (e.g., REFS); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), which would also include P. conspicillata. Procellaria westlandica is considered regular off Chile and Argentina following Brinkley et al. (2000).
21a. See Olmos (2001) for a summary of records and status off Brazil, and Savigny (2002) for a sight record off Argentina.
22. Called "Black Petrel" in (REFS), Carboneras (1992b), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). See Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale against use of "Black Petrel."
23. Calonectris was formerly included in genus Puffinus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), but most recent classifications have followed Alexander et al. (1965) and Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in treating it as a separate genus. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) also support treatment of Calonectris as a separate genus, sister genus to Puffinus. Other analyses of the same groups (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) found that Calonectris formed a distinct group for which the relationship to the two major groups of Puffinus could not be resolved; see Note 23a.
23a. Based on genetic data, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed that Puffinus be subdivided into two genera: (1) Ardenna for creatopus/carneipes, gravis, griseus, tenuirostris, pacifica, and bulleri; and (2) Puffinus for all other taxa. However, see Rheindt &
Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank. SACC proposal to split Ardenna from Puffinus did not pass. Other genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) have confirmed these findings, and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) adopted this classification. SACC proposal passed to recognize Ardenna and to modify linear sequence of species.
23b. Puffinus pacificus and P. bulleri were formerly placed in the genus Thyellodroma; see Oberholser (1917) for rationale. Peters (1931) treated Thyellodroma as a subgenus of Puffinus, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications.
24. Some authors (Bannerman and Bannerman 1968, Patteson and Armistead 2004, Onley & Scofield 2007) have recognized the subspecies edwardsii and borealis as separate species from Calonectris diomedea, but see Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Banks et al. (2006) formally recognized edwardsii as a separate species. Proposal passed to treated edwardsii as a separate species. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) recognized both edwardsii and borealis as separate species. At least two specimens of edwardsii have been collected in Brazil (Lima et al. 2002), and borealis is known from Trinidad (Collins 1969), but majority of records are not assigned to subspecies; evidently, no certain record of nominate diomedea exists for South America <?>.
24a. Calonectris diomedea was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) known as Puffinus kuhli, but see REFS, Jouanin and Mougin (1979).
25. Formerly called "Gray-backed Shearwater" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "New Zealand Shearwater" (e.g., AOU 1957).
25a. <incorp. Austin (1996)?>
25b. Recent specimen record from Brazil (Souto et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Records from Peru and Chile refer to misidentified specimens of Ardenna grisea (Eisenmann & Serventy 1962).
26. Formerly know as "Greater Shearwater" in most New World literature, but Chesser et al. (2010) changed the name to Great Shearwater to conform to usage elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change English name.
27. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the traditional treatment of Ardenna creatopus and A. carneipes as sister taxa. Some authors (e.g., REFS, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) consider them to be conspecific.
27a. The status of Ardenna carneipes in South American waters is under review and may be downgraded to "V".
28. Called "Common Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
28a. Jouanin and Mougin (1979) considered Puffinus puffinus (broadly defined), P. assimilis, and P. lherminieri, along with extralimital P. gavia and P. huttoni, to be members of the subgenus Puffinus and thus are considered each other's closest relatives. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are consistent with treatment of the subgenus as monophyletic (if the Galapagos taxon subalaris is removed; see Note 31). Species limits in this complex are controversial, including within the taxa currently or previously treated as subspecies of P. puffinus. As far as can be determined <check>, South American records all pertain to nominate P. puffinus. <incorp. Wink et al. 1993, Heidrich et al. 1998>
29. Puffinus assimilis and P. lherminieri were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered conspecific; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Some genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are not consistent with their treatment as sister taxa, but other genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support this treatment. More recent genetic data (Pyle et al. 2011) are ambiguous concerning their relationship and also indicate that P. lherminieri may consist of several species, as had been indicated by studies of the populations breeding in the eastern Atlantic. Nonbreeding specimens from South America need to be re-examined with this in mind.
30. Called "Dusky-backed Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
31. The taxon subalaris of the Galapagos Islands is traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lherminieri. However, genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) strongly indicate that subalaris is a species-level taxon closely related to P. nativitatis and only distantly related to P. lherminieri. Murphy (1927) long ago noted the morphological distinctiveness of this taxon. SACC proposal passed to recognize subalaris as a species. Pyle at al. (2011) found that subalaris fell outside the main group of Puffinus shearwaters that includes P. lherminieri, P. assimilis, extralimital P. puffinus, etc. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
32. The species in the genus Pelecanoides were traditionally placed in their own family, Pelecanoididae. Livezey and Zusi (2007) even treated them in their own suborder, as sister to all other Procellariiformes. However, genetic data (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) had previously indicated that they might be embedded within the Procellariidae, as suggested by Cracraft (1981). Hackett et al. (2008) found a strongly supported sister relationship between the Pelecanoididae and Procellariidae, but with very limited taxon-sampling. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families. Christidis and Boles (2008) and Cracraft (2013) included them within the Procellariidae without even subfamily rank. Prum et al. (2015) found that Pelecanoides was embedded in the Procellariidae. SACC proposal passed to remove Pelecanoididae and to treat Pelecanoides as a genus in Procellariidae.
33. Carboneras (1992b) considered Pelecanoides garnotii, P. georgicus, and P. magellani to form a superspecies [but not reflected in his linear sequence or Kennedy-Page -- check latter].
34. Correct spelling for species name is urinatrix, not "urinator" (David & Gosselin 2002a, Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
35. Called "Subantarctic Diving-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).
36. (REFS) recognized the subspecies berard of the Falkland Islands as a separate species from Pelecanoides urinatrix.
37. Gregory (1994) reported that a specimen was salvaged on the Falkland Islands on 31 March 1990 (and specimen "sent to BAS" - track down to verify).
1. Linear sequence of genera is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002) wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Many classifications (e.g., Carboneras 1992c) divide the family into two subfamilies. Recent genetic data supports recognition of these two subfamilies (Penhallurick & Wink 2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize two subfamilies. Until recently, the monophyly of the family had never been questioned seriously, but Hackett et al. (2008) found that the southern storm-petrels, Oceanitinae, were sister to all other procellariiforms, and thus Cracraft (2013) elevated them to family rank, Oceanitidae. Prum et al. (2015) found that they were sister to
Hydrobatidae + Procellariidae. Proposal badly needed. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) revised generic limits in the Hydrobatinae, e.g., based on their finding that Oceanodroma is paraphyletic; they resurrected and the genera Cymochorea, Halocyptena, and Thalobata. SACC proposal to recognize these genera did not pass. SACC proposal to merge Oceanodroma into Hydrobates did not pass. See Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a critique of those data and their taxonomic interpretation. Robertson et al. (2011) confirmed the paraphyly of Oceanodroma with respect to Hydrobates. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) merged Oceanodroma with Hydrobates (the latter name has priority). Proposal badly needed.<wait NACC proposal> Most species were formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called simply "Petrel" rather than "Storm-Petrel."
1a. SACC proposal to change to lower case the "p" in "Storm-Petrel" did not pass.
2. Fregetta grallaria and F. tropica were considered conspecific by (REFS).
2a. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies exasperatus might be a separate species from nominate Oceanites oceanicus.
3. A new species, Oceanites pincoyae, “Pincoya Storm-Petrel”, has been described from Chilean waters (Harrison et al. 2013). Recognized by del Hoyo and Collar (2014). SACC proposal pending.
3a. Called "White-vented Storm-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty and Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Schulenberg et al. (2007), and elsewhere. Proposal needed.
4. Oceanodroma microsoma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Jouanin and Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992c) placed in the monotypic genus Halocyptena, evidently based mostly on tail shape and body size, but most recent classifications have followed (REF, AOU 1983) in merging this into Oceanodroma. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) suggest that this species is sister to Oceanodroma tethys, and that they are the sister to O. melania, and O. matsudairae; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocated
resurrection of Halocyptena for these four species. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.
5. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "Galapagos Storm-Petrel."
5a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Harcourt's Storm-Petrel."
5b. Mayr & Short (1970) considered O. castro to form a superspecies with O. leucorhoa, but Penhallurick & Wink (2004) and Robertson et al. (2011) found that O. castro was sister to all other Oceanodroma + extralimital Hydrobates. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocated resurrection of the monotypic genus Thalobata for O. castro. SACC proposal to recognize Thalobata did not pass.
5c. Recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2007) suggest that Oceanodroma castro consists of two or more species. Proposal needed.
6. Oceanodroma leucorhoa may actually consist of two or more species (Ainley 1980, 1983; cf. Bourne & Jehl 1982). The form that occurs off the Galapagos Islands, here treated as the subspecies socorroensis, was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) treated as a separate species ("Dusky-rumped Storm-Petrel") or (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) as a subspecies of O. monorhis of the eastern Pacific Ocean. Howell et al. (2009) split O. leucorhoa into three species. Proposal needed.
6a. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of the genus Cymochorea for O. leucorhoa and O. markhami, along with extralimital O. monorhis and O. tristrami; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank. SACC proposal to recognize Cymochorea did not pass.
7. Supposed specimens of Oceanodroma markhami from the Atlantic side of South America are misidentified O. leucorhoa (Teixeira et al. 1986).
7a. Called "Madeiran Storm-petrel" in Carboneras (1992c).
8. Oceanodroma markhami was considered conspecific with O. tristrami of the eastern Pacific Ocean by <?> Austin (REF).
9. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Sooty Storm-Petrel."
10. Called "Hornby's Storm-Petrel" in Carboneras (1992a), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Onley & Scofield (2007), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal to standardize as Ringed Storm-Petrel passed. SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
10a. Oceanodroma hornbyi is treated here as breeding in South America based on the assumption that it breeds somewhere near its nonbreeding grounds, which are exclusively off the southern Pacific coast of South America; its breeding grounds, however, are unknown.
11. Oceanodroma melania was formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) placed, sometimes also with O. matsudairae of the eastern Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, in a separate genus, Loomelania, but see Austin (1952) and Palmer (1962). The two species might be better treated as conspecific (Carboneras 1992c), as they were until Austin (1952). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that O. melania forms a group with O. microsoma and O. tethys; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocate recognizing this relationship (including O. matsudairae) by placing them in the genus Halocyptena; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank; see also Note 4. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.
12. Oceanodroma melania forms a superspecies with extralimital O. matsudairae (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered conspecific, but see Austin (1952).
1. The Phaethontidae were traditionally placed in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) are consistent in showing that the Phaethontidae are not at all closely related to other families in that order. See Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Chesser et al. (2010) placed the Phaethontidae in their own order, Phaethontiformes, as did Cracraft (2013). SACC proposal passed to remove Phaethontidae from Pelecaniformes and place in its own order. Jarvis et al. (2014) and Prum et al. (2015) found that they are sister to the Eurypygiformes. SACC proposal pending to change linear sequence of orders.
1a. <Phaethontidae vs. Phaethonidae>
1b. Genetic data (Kennedy and Spencer 2004) indicate that Phaethon aethereus is sister to the ancestor of the other two species, and this supports the linear sequence used here.
1c. Specimens recorded from "off" Chile (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Blake 1977). <possibly unpublished specimens -- no real citation provided, nor how close to mainland - trace>. Published photographs from Brazil (off Bahia; Couto et al. 2001). Sight record from Peru (Hogsås 1999).
1. This order traditionally also included the Ardeidae and the Threskiornithidae, but neither genetic data (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) or recent analyses of morphological data (Mayr & Clarke 2003) were able to
confirm the monophyly of a group that consists of Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae. See also Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes. SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the Pelecaniformes. Cracraft (2013) reduced the Ciconiiformes to a suborder of the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of the Ciconiidae itself is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS).
2. Ciconia maguari was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Euxenura, but see Kahl (1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b) and Wood (1983, 1984) for behavioral and morphological reasons for its merger into Ciconia; followed by Kahl (1979a), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Elliot (1992), and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
3. Formerly known as "Wood Ibis" (e.g., AOU 1957) or "American Wood-Ibis" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970); called "American Wood Stork" in Hancock et al. (1992).
SULIFORMES 1FREGATIDAE (FRIGATEBIRDS) 16Fregata ariel Lesser FrigatebirdFregata magnificens Magnificent Frigatebird 17Fregata minor Great Frigatebird
1. The families in this order are traditionally included in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data indicate that that traditional group is not monophyletic; see Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Support is strong, however, for the monophyly of a group that includes Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Harshman 1994, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). Chesser at al. (2010) removed Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae from the Pelecaniformes and placed them in their own new order, Suliformes. SACC proposal passed to remove these from Pelecaniformes and place in their own order. Cracraft (2013) reduced the Suliformes to a suborder, Suloidea, of the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of each family has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by or corroborated with genetic data for the Sulidae (Friesen & Anderson 1997), the Phalacrocoracidae (Kennedy et al. 2000), and the Fregatidae (Kennedy & Spencer 2004). The sequence of genera and species within each family follows Dorst and Mougin (1979).
3a. <sequence within Sulidae; incorp. Friesen & Anderson (1997)>
4. Carboneras (1992e) and other references followed the merger (e.g., Dorst and Mougin 1979) of Morus into Sula; see Olson & Warheit (1988) and Van Tets et al. (1988) for reasons for maintaining Morus as a separate genus.
5. SACC proposal passed to add to main list; based upon photograph taken at Macabí Island, n. Peru, on 22 July 1999, published in García-Godos (2002). In Argentina, an earlier photograph was published from the Beagle Channel taken on 21 Jan. 1995 (Ramírez Llorens 1996); there are three additional sight records from Río Negro province Nov. 1992, Nov. 1995, and Oct. 1996 (Bergkamp 1995, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). The species was also recorded off Rio Grande do Sul, se. Brazil, from Jul. to Aug 1992 (unpublished photographs) and in Apr. 1983 (Vooren 2004; published photograph).
6. Specimen from Santa Catarina, Brazil (Bege & Pauli 1986).
7. Sula granti was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) considered a subspecies of S. dactylatra, but Pitman and Jehl (1998) presented evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; genetic data are also consistent with this treatment (Friesen et al. 2002). SACC proposal to change the English name to "Grant's Booby" did not pass.
7a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Blue-faced Booby."
8. Although the monophyly of the Phalacrocoracidae has never been questioned, treatment within the family has ranged from subfamilies and multiple genera, e.g., Hypoleucus, Stictocarbo, Leucocarbo, Notocarbo (Siegel-Causey 1988) to all species in a single genus, Phalacrocorax (e.g. Dickinson 2003). Kennedy et al. (2009) showed that the subfamilies and most genera of Siegel-Causey were not monophyletic. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), using the data in Kennedy et al. (2000, 2009), resurrected Microcarbo for a group of five Old World species, but all New World species remained in Phalacrocorax. Kennedy and Spencer (2014), using additional new genetic data, split Phalacrocorax into seven genera, restricting Phalacrocorax to a group of Old World species, and placing South American taxa into Nannopterum (for brasilianus and harrisi), Poikilocarbo (for gaimardi), and Leucocarbo (for magellanicus, bougainvillii, atriceps). SACC proposal to revise classification of genera did not pass. SACC proposal to revise linear sequence of species passed.
9. Phalacrocorax harrisi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the monotypic genus Nannopterum, but recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a) have usually followed Dorst and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Phalacrocorax. [note needed on the lump, Causey REFS?]. Genetic data (Kennedy et al. 2009) support a close relationship between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus + North American P. auritus (contra van Tets [1976] and Siegel-Causey [1988]). Murphy (1936) had previously noted the morphological similarities between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus. Kennedy and Spencer (2014) confirmed the close relationship of these three species and resurrected Nannopterum for them. See Note 8.
10. See Browning (1989) for use of brasilianus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), instead of olivaceus, as in Pinto (1938), AOU (1957), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), etc.
10a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1983) known as "Olivaceous Cormorant." SACC proposal did not pass to change spelling of English name to "Neotropical."
11. Called "Magellanic Cormorant" in Hellmayr & Conover (1948), "Rock Shag" in Murphy (1936), Johnson (1965), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Orta (1992a), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), and "Rock Cormorant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and Blake (1977) Jaramillo (2003), and Marín (2004), and "Magellan Cormorant" in Howard & Moore (1994). SACC proposal passed to change from Magellan Cormorant to Magellanic Cormorant.
12. Called "Guanay Shag" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).
13. Phalacrocorax atriceps here includes P. albiventer, formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) treated as a distinct species ("King Cormorant"). Devillers & Terschuren (1978) considered albiventer to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, and Siegel-Causey (1986) considered it to be a color morph of atriceps. [incorp. Rasmussen 1991].
13a. Called "Imperial Shag" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).
14. Some recent authors (e.g., Siegel-Causey 1988, Siegel-Causey & Lefrevre 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a, Jaramillo 2003) have considered the subspecies bransfieldensis of Antarctica and South Shetland Island to deserve recognition as a separate species from Phalacrocorax atriceps. At least one record of bransfieldensis for South America (Brazil; Lima et al. 2002). Proposal needed.
15. Anhinga anhinga was considered to form a superspecies with Old World A. rufa, A. melanogaster, and A. novaehollandiae by Mayr & Short (1970); the Old World taxa are treated as conspecific by Orta (1992b) and Dickinson (2003).
16. Genetic data (Kennedy & Spencer 2004) indicate that Fregata ariel is basal to all other species in the genus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
17. Morphological and genetic data indicate that the Galapagos population of Fregata magnificens may merit rank as a separate species (Hailer et al. 2010). Proposal badly needed.
PELECANIFORMES 1PELECANIDAE (PELICANS)Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican 2Pelecanus thagus Peruvian Pelican 2
1. The order Pelecaniformes traditionally also included the families Phaethontidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae. Studies using genetic and morphological data have questioned the monophyly of the order (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007, Mayr 2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007). To restore the monophyly of the Pelecaniformes, the Phaethontidae has been removed and elevated to the rank of order (see Note 1 under Phaethontiformes), and the Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae and have
been removed and placed in their own order, Suliformes (see Note 1 under that order). Two Afrotropical families, Balaenicipitidae and Scopidae, are the most likely sister taxa to the Pelecanidae (Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Fain and Houde 2004, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Mayr 2003, Mayr and Clarke 2003). Two other families, the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae, are traditionally placed in the Ciconiiformes, but genetic data (Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) indicate that that group is not monophyletic and that the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae form a monophyletic group with the Pelecanidae. Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes. SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the Pelecaniformes.
2. Although treated as a subspecies of P. occidentalis in most classifications since Peters (1931) and Wetmore (1945), some authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) recognized South American thagus as a separate species from Pelecanus occidentalis. SACC proposal passed to treat thagus as separate species. This treatment was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and Banks et al. (2008).
Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron (V) 13aBubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 14Ardea cinerea Gray Heron (V) 15, 16Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 16Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron 16, 17Ardea purpurea Purple Heron (V) 17aArdea alba Great Egret 18, 18aSyrigma sibilatrix Whistling Heron 19Pilherodius pileatus Capped Heron 20Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron 21, 21aEgretta rufescens Reddish Egret 21, 22Egretta gularis Western Reef-Heron (V) 23, 25Egretta garzetta Little Egret (V) 24, 25Egretta thula Snowy Egret 25, 25aEgretta caerulea Little Blue Heron 21, 26
1. The monophyly of the family Ardeidae has never been seriously questioned other than the treatment of Cochlearius in a separate, monotypic family. Bock (1956) divided the family into two subfamilies, Botaurinae (Botaurus and Ixobrychus) and Ardeinae (all other genera), and further divided the Ardeinae into three tribes: Ardeini (Ardea, Egretta, Agamia, Butorides, Ardeola), Nycticoracini (Nycticorax, Cochlearius, Gorsachius), and Tigriornithini (Zebrilus, Tigrisoma, Zonerodius, Tigriornis). Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered all four groups as subfamilies. Genetic data, however, have shown that none of these groupings are monophyletic other than the sister relationship between Botaurus an Ixobrychus (but these genera are not sister to all other herons). The sequence of genera (and some species within genera) used here derives from the phylogeny of Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000), and some unpublished data from Fred Sheldon.
2a. Tigrisoma fasciatum was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of T. lineatum, and the subspecies salmoni was considered a separate species (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965); REFS, and Eisenmann (1965) provided rationale for why T. fasciatum should be considered a separate
species and why salmoni should be considered a subspecies of T. fasciatum.
2b. Tigrisoma mexicanum was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1965) placed in a monotypic genus, Heterocnus.
2c. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) used for mexicanum was cabanisi, but see Blake (1977).
3. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) known as "Chestnut-bellied Heron."
4. Cochlearius was formerly placed in a monotypic family Cochleariidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Bock (1956), Payne & Risley (1976), Sheldon (1987), and Sheldon et al. (2000). Plumage and skeletal characters have often been interpreted as suggesting as close relationship to Nycticorax (Bock 1956, Cracraft 1967). Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) placed it in a tribe, Cochlearini, related to but separate from night-herons, based on a combination of morphological and plumage characters. Genetic data, however, do not confirm a close link between Cochlearius and night-herons (Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000), but perhaps a closer relationship to Tigrisoma (Sheldon 1987). Scofield et al.'s (2010) analysis of skeletal characters suggested a closer relationship to Botaurus and Ixobrychus.
4a. The subspecies zeledoni of Middle America and northwestern South America may deserve treatment as a separate species from Cochlearius cochlearius (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see (REFS).
5. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Nycticorax nycticorax to form a superspecies with Old World N. caledonicus.
6. Nyctanassa has been included in Nycticorax in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, AOU 1983), but Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the basis of skeletal differences <check Adams 1955>. Genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) also indicate substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with treatment
as separate genera; furthermore, it is not yet certain that the two are sister genera (Sheldon et al. 2000).
7. The relationship of Zebrilus to other herons has been controversial. In terms of some details of egg color, nest placement, plumage features, and some morphological characters as well as overall skeletal morphology, it is like the bitterns, but in terms of other plumage and morphological characters, it is like the tiger-herons (see Bock 1956, Payne & Risley 1976, Sheldon et al. 1995). Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995), however, place it with the bitterns.
8. Mayr & Short (1970) considered all species of Botaurus to form a superspecies. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. pinnatus to form a superspecies with North American B. lentiginosus and Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus. Payne & Risley (1976), however, note that New and Old World Botaurus differ substantially in skeletal structure, and that pinnatus also differs from lentiginosus in skeletal features; they suggest that the only candidates for superspecies designation are Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus.
9. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ixobrychus exilis to form a superspecies with Old World I. minutus and I. sinensis, and including I. novaezelandiae when given species rank.
10. Butorides virescens and B. striata are often considered conspecific (e.g., Payne 1979, Hancock & Kushlan 1984, Martínez-Vilata and Motis 1992), based mainly on Payne (1974), who reported extensive interbreeding where their ranges meet. Recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) have followed Monroe & Browning (1992), who interpreted specimen data to indicate that the two taxa seldom hybridized (see also Voous 1986), thus representing a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). More recently, Hayes (2002) provided evidence of frequent hybridization as well as competitive exclusion and assortative mating, and Hayes (2006) found that on Tobago, where both occur, hybridization is rare and assortative mating predominates.
11. Payne & Risley (1976) merged Butorides into Ardeola based on skeletal similarities.
12. SACC proposal to split Butorides sundevalli from B. striatus did not pass, which found the analysis by Payne (1974) sufficient to place burden-of-proof on recognizing sundevalli as a species on obtaining new data. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and AOU (1998) recognized sundevalli as a species implicitly, but it was treated as conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) and elsewhere. <incorp. Snow 1975> (Beyond scope of this work is the problem that current classifications consider Neotropical and all Old World taxa as conspecific, separate from B. virescens, which would seem difficult to defend given what we know about limited gene flow between parapatric virescens and Neotropical striatus).
13. Butorides is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is striata (David & Gosselin 2002b).
13a. Photograph from Fernando de Noronha island (Silva-e-Silva and Olmos 2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Previous sight record also from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989).
14. Bubulcus is included in the genus Ardeola in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), but Wetmore (1965) and Payne & Risley (1976) listed many characters of Bubulcus that differ from other species in Ardeola. Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) merged Bubulcus into Egretta based mainly on morphometric data, and this was followed by Haverschmidt & Mees (1994). Genetic data, however, do not support a close relationship between Bubulcus and Egretta, but suggest a close relationship to Ardea (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000, McCracken & Sheldon 1998).
15. Band recovery from Trinidad, 27 Aug 1959 (Baudouin-Bodin 1960) and published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick & Hayes 2006); also additional sight records for Trinidad and Tobago accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Kenefick 2012). Sick (1993) cited another band recovery from Capitao Poco, Ourem, Pará, in Dec 1975.
16. Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ardea cinerea, A. herodias, and A. cocoi to form a superspecies.
17. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "White-necked Heron," but this name is also used (e.g., Martínez-Vilata & Motis 1992) for Old World Ardea pacifica.
17a. One photographed on Trinidad 24 Sept.-10 Oct. 2002 (Kenefick 2004) and published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Additional bird photographed on Tobago in 2010 (Kenefick 2012). Also, one sight record from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989).
18. Ardea alba was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983) placed in monotypic genus Casmerodius, but morphometric (Payne and Risley 1976), vocal (McCracken & Sheldon 1987), and genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) do not support recognition of this as a separate genus from Ardea. Some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, Blake 1977) have placed Ardea alba in Egretta, but see Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), and Sheldon et al. (2000). Some recent genetic data (Chang et al. 2003) support resurrection of Casmerodius.
18a. Formerly known as "Common Egret" (e.g., AOU 1957, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994); called "Great White Egret" in Voous (1983), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).
19. Genetic data indicate that Syrigma, whose relationships have long been considered uncertain, is the sister genus to Egretta (McCracken & Sheldon 1988, Sheldon et al. 2000).
20. Bock (1956) included Pilherodius in Nycticorax based on plumage similarities, but morphometric data (Payne & Risley 1976) do not support this.
21. Egretta tricolor was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Hydranassa. Bock (1956) also placed E. rufescens and E. caerulea in Hydranassa. Neither morphometric (Payne & Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000) support this group as monophyletic.
21a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Louisiana Heron."
22. Egretta rufescens was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Dichromanassa, but see Bock (1956).
23. Recorded from Trinidad (Murphy & Nanan 1987, Kenefick & Hayes 2006) and Tobago (ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).
24. Egretta garzetta has been recorded many times in Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & Hayes 1998, ffrench & White 1999, Hayes & White 2001, White & Hayes 2002, Kenefick & Hayes 2006), including a specimen (Downs 1959). There is a band recovery from Suriname (Haverschmidt & Mees 1994), and a photograph from Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). There are sight reports from Guyana (Ryan 1997) and Aruba (Mlodinow 2004) and an unpublished photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).
25. Egretta gularis and E. garzetta were considered conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992); Payne & Risley (1976) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered E. gularis, E. garzetta, and E. thula to form a superspecies.
25a. Egretta thula was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Leucophoyx, but see Bock (1956), Wetmore (1956), and Dickerman & Parkes (1968).
26. Egretta caerulea was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Florida, but see Bock (1956), Dickerman & Parkes (1968), Payne & Risley (1976), and McCracken & Sheldon (1998).
1. The monophyly of the Threskiornithidae has never been seriously questioned. Two subfamilies are traditionally (e.g., Matheu & del Hoyo 1992) recognized: Threskiornithinae for ibises and Plataleinae for spoonbills; genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Fleischer & McIntosh 2001, Chesser et al. 2010), however, indicate that the "Threskiornithinae" as traditionally defined is paraphyletic with respect to "Plataleinae."
2. Eudocimus albus and E. ruber have similar displays, interbreed to a limited degree, and are interfertile, but nonetheless mate assortatively in Venezuela, with the overwhelming majority of breeding birds phenotypically "pure" rather than intermediate (Ramos & Busto 1983, 1985, 1987); they constitute a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were considered conspecific by Hancock et al. (1992) because of the frequent interbreeding; see their extensive discussion. Proposal?
3. The name formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) used for the genus Eudocimus was Guara, but see Parkes (1951).
3a. Called "American White Ibis" in Hancock et al. (1992) and Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) to distinguish it from "Australian White Ibis" (Threskiornis molucca), which is elsewhere called “Australian Ibis” (e.g. Dickinson & Remsen 2013).
4. Plegadis falcinellus and P. chihi form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were formerly considered conspecific by some (e.g., Parkes 1955, Palmer 1962), but they breed sympatrically in Louisiana and Alabama, USA (Ryder 1967, Duncan & Johnson 1977).
5. Plegadis ridgwayi was considered part of the P. falcinellus superspecies by REF, but see Short (1975).
6. Called "Cayenne Ibis" in Wetmore (1965).
7. Called "Whispering Ibis" in Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) and elsewhere.
8. Theristicus caerulescens is often (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Short 1975, Hancock et al. 1992) placed in monotypic genus Harpiprion, but most authors have followed (REF) and Steinbacher (1979) in merging this genus into Theristicus. Proposal needed. <Hancock et al. 1992 suggested that no data support this lump>
8a. David & Dickinson (2016) presented evidence that the original spelling of the species name is coerulescens. SACC proposal to change to coerulescens did not pass.
9. Theristicus melanopis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Hancock et al. 1992) considered conspecific with T. caudatus. However, it (with branickii) was considered a separate species by Steinbacher (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Matheu & del Hoyo (1992), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), etc., but no explicit rationale has been published [?]; they form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered branickii as separate species ("Andean Ibis") from melanopis; anecdotal observations (Vizcarra 2009) suggest that the two taxa segregate where they occur sympatrically during nonbreeding
season. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated branickii as a separate species. Proposal needed.
10. Photo from Tobago published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Also, one was photographed on Fernando de Noronha island in Jan.-Feb. 1999 (Dutch Birding 24: 205).
11. Platalea ajaja was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1998) placed in monotypic genus Ajaia, but see Amadon & Woolfenden (1952), Snow (1978), Hancock et al. (1992), Banks et al. (2002), and Chesser et al. (2010) for inclusion in Platalea, as it is now typically treated (e.g., Mayr and Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979 <check citation>, Matheu & del Hoyo 1992, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).
CATHARTIFORMES 1CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURES) 1Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture 2Cathartes burrovianus Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 4Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 5Coragyps atratus Black Vulture 6Sarcoramphus papa King VultureVultur gryphus Andean Condor
1. Ligon (1967) summarized previous evidence and presented new evidence on skeletal morphology, myology, and natal plumage that suggested that the Cathartidae were more closely related to the Ciconiidae than to other Falconiformes. <summarize subsequent evidence/against ciconiiform relationship, Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Avise et al. (1994), Griffiths (1994), Mayr & Clarke (2003) , Fain & Houde (2004) etc., >. Recent genetic data strongly refute a cathartid-stork relationship (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2006, Slack et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015). SACC proposal passed to remove from Ciconiiformes. The monophyly of the Cathartidae is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS, Johnson et al.
2016), and the family is sufficiently distinctive that fossil cathartids can be recognized as far back as the middle Eocene (e.g., Cracraft & Rich 1972). SACC proposal passed for placement in separate order, Cathartiformes. Johnson et al. (2016) found that the family consists of two major lineages, one with Coragyps and Cathartes, and the other with Sarcoramphus, Vultur, and extralimital Gymnogyps. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.
2. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the resident tropical subspecies ruficollis and the southern subspecies group (jota and "falklandica") might merit recognition as separate species from the northern Cathartes aura group.
3. Cathartes melambrotus was confused with and considered conspecific with C. burrovianus until Wetmore (1964) described it and showed that it was a valid species, sympatric with C. burrovianus. Amadon & Bull (1988) considered Cathartes burrovianus and C. melambrotus to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric. Genetic data (Johnson et al. 2016) show that these two species are probably sister species.
4. Cathartes burrovianus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as C. urubutinga, but burrovianus has priority (Stresemann & Amadon 1979).
5. Correct spelling of species name is melambrotus, not "melambrotos" (as, e.g., in Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
6. Called "American Black Vulture" in Houston (1994) to distinguish it from Palearctic Aegypius monachus ("Eurasian Black Vulture"); the latter is called “Cinereous Vulture” in Dickinson (2003) and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). SACC proposal to change to American Black Vulture did not pass. Although del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also called Aegypius monachus “Cinereous Vulture”, they continued to call Coragyps atratus "American Black Vulture".
