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 Ornithologists'
Union. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm
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 residents
c. 86 vagrants
d. 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 resident
V = vagrant
IN = 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
VERSION:
18 December 2016
Most recent changes to the classification, updated
20 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 Classification1: To help navigate the
linear sequence of orders, 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:
PALEOGNATHAE
RHEIFORMES
TINAMIFORMES
NEOGNATHAE
GALLOANSERES
ANSERIFORMES
GALLIFORMES
NEOAVES
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES
PODICIPEDIFORMES
COLUMBIFORMES
CUCULIFORMES
STEATORNITHIFORMES
NYCTIBIIFORMES
CAPRIMULGIFORMES
APODIFORMES
OPISTHOCOMIFORMES
GRUIFORMES
CHARADRIIFORMES
EURYPYGIFORMES
PHAETHONTIFORMES
SPHENISCIFORMES
PROCELLARIIFORMES
CICONIIFORMES
SULIFORMES
PELECANIFORMES
CATHARTIFORMES
ACCIPITRIFORMES
STRIGIFORMES
TROGONIFORMES
CORACIIFORMES
GALBULIFORMES
PICIFORMES
CARIAMIFORMES
FALCONIFORMES
PSITTACIFORMES
PASSERIFORMES
___________________________________________________________
1 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, for example, form a
monophyletic group.
___________________________________________________________
Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes (below)
Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes
Part 3. Apodiformes
Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes
Part 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)
PALEOGNATHAE
RHEIFORMES 1
RHEIDAE (RHEAS)
Rhea
americana Greater Rhea 2
Rhea pennata Lesser Rhea 2, 3, 4
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 1
TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS) 1a
Nothocercus julius Tawny-breasted Tinamou
Nothocercus
bonapartei Highland Tinamou 2a
Nothocercus nigrocapillus Hooded Tinamou 2a
Tinamus tao Gray Tinamou
Tinamus solitarius Solitary Tinamou 1b
Tinamus osgoodi Black Tinamou 3
Tinamus major Great Tinamou 2
Tinamus guttatus White-throated Tinamou
Crypturellus berlepschi Berlepsch's Tinamou 4
Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou 4
Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou
Crypturellus ptaritepui Tepui Tinamou 4a
Crypturellus obsoletus Brown Tinamou 5
Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou
Crypturellus transfasciatus Pale-browed Tinamou 6, 6a
Crypturellus strigulosus Brazilian Tinamou
Crypturellus duidae Gray-legged Tinamou 7
Crypturellus erythropus Red-legged Tinamou 7, 8
Crypturellus noctivagus Yellow-legged Tinamou 7, 7a
Crypturellus atrocapillus Black-capped Tinamou 7
Crypturellus kerriae Choco Tinamou 7
Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou
Crypturellus brevirostris Rusty Tinamou 9
Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou 9
Crypturellus parvirostris Small-billed Tinamou 10
Crypturellus casiquiare Barred Tinamou 11
Crypturellus tataupa Tataupa Tinamou 10
Rhynchotus rufescens Red-winged Tinamou 12
Rhynchotus maculicollis Huayco Tinamou 12
Nothoprocta taczanowskii Taczanowski's Tinamou 16a
Nothoprocta ornata Ornate Tinamou 13
Nothoprocta perdicaria Chilean Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta cinerascens Brushland Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta pentlandii Andean Tinamou 14
Nothoprocta curvirostris Curve-billed Tinamou 14
Nothura boraquira White-bellied Nothura 15
Nothura minor Lesser Nothura 15
Nothura darwinii Darwin's Nothura 16
Nothura maculosa Spotted Nothura 16
Nothura chacoensis Chaco Nothura 16
Taoniscus nanus Dwarf Tinamou 16a
Eudromia elegans Elegant Crested-Tinamou 17
Eudromia formosa Quebracho Crested-Tinamou 17, 18
Tinamotis pentlandii Puna Tinamou 19
Tinamotis ingoufi Patagonian Tinamou 19
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.
NEOGNATHAE
GALLOANSERES
ANSERIFORMES 1
ANHIMIDAE (SCREAMERS)
Anhima cornuta Horned Screamer
Chauna
torquata Southern Screamer 1a
Chauna chavaria Northern Screamer 1a
ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1b
Dendrocygninae 2
Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous Whistling-Duck 3, 3a
Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling-Duck 3
Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied Whistling-Duck 3
Anatinae
Anser anser Graylag Goose (IN) 3b
Cygnus melancoryphus Black-necked Swan 4
Coscoroba coscoroba Coscoroba Swan 4a
Oressochen jubatus Orinoco Goose 5, 5a
Oressochen melanopterus Andean Goose 5
Chloephaga picta Upland Goose 4a
Chloephaga hybrida Kelp Goose
Chloephaga poliocephala Ashy-headed Goose
Chloephaga rubidiceps Ruddy-headed Goose
Cairina moschata Muscovy Duck
Sarkidiornis melanotos Comb Duck 6
Callonetta leucophrys Ringed Teal 7, 7a
Amazonetta brasiliensis Brazilian
Teal 7a, 8, 8a
Merganetta armata Torrent Duck 8b
Tachyeres patachonicus Flying Steamer-Duck 8
Tachyeres pteneres Flightless
Steamer-Duck 9, 10
Tachyeres brachypterus Falkland
Steamer-Duck 9, 9a
Tachyeres leucocephalus White-headed
Steamer-Duck 9, 11
Lophonetta specularioides Crested
Duck 8, 12
Speculanas specularis Spectacled Duck 8,13
Anas americana American Wigeon (NB) 14
Anas sibilatrix Chiloe Wigeon 14, 15
Anas crecca Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16, 17
Anas andium Andean Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas flavirostris Yellow-billed Teal 7a, 16, 18
Anas acuta Northern Pintail (NB) 19, 19a, 20
Anas georgica Yellow-billed Pintail 19, 19a, 21, 21a
Anas bahamensis White-cheeked
Pintail 19, 21b, 21c
Anas puna Puna Teal 22
Anas versicolor Silver Teal 22
Anas discors Blue-winged Teal (NB) 22a
Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal 22a
Anas platalea Red Shoveler 22b
Anas clypeata Northern Shoveler (NB) 22b
Netta erythrophthalma Southern
Pochard 22c
Netta peposaca Rosy-billed Pochard 22d
Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck (V) 23
Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup (NB)
Mergus octosetaceus Brazilian
Merganser
Heteronetta atricapilla Black-headed Duck
Nomonyx dominicus Masked Duck 24
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 25
Oxyura vittata Lake Duck 26
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. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): 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).
GALLIFORMES 1
CRACIDAE (GUANS) 1a
Chamaepetes goudotii Sickle-winged Guan 21
Penelope argyrotis Band-tailed Guan 8
Penelope barbata Bearded Guan 8
Penelope ortoni Baudo Guan 9
Penelope montagnii Andean Guan 9
Penelope marail Marail Guan 10
Penelope superciliaris Rusty-margined Guan 10, 15
Penelope dabbenei Red-faced Guan 10a, 10b
Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan 11, 12, 12a
Penelope purpurascens Crested Guan 11
Penelope perspicax Cauca Guan 11, 13
Penelope albipennis White-winged Guan 11, 14
Penelope obscura Dusky-legged Guan 11
Penelope pileata White-crested Guan 15
Penelope ochrogaster Chestnut-bellied Guan 15
Penelope jacucaca White-browed Guan 15
Pipile pipile Trinidad Piping-Guan 8, 16, 17
Pipile cumanensis Blue-throated Piping-Guan 17, 18
Pipile cujubi Red-throated Piping-Guan 17, 19
Pipile jacutinga Black-fronted Piping-Guan 17
Aburria aburri Wattled Guan 8, 16
Ortalis cinereiceps Gray-headed Chachalaca 2
Ortalis garrula Chestnut-winged Chachalaca 2
Ortalis ruficauda Rufous-vented Chachalaca 3
Ortalis erythroptera Rufous-headed Chachalaca
Ortalis
canicollis Chaco Chachalaca
Ortalis
columbiana Colombian Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis araucuan East Brazilian Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis squamata Scaled Chachalaca 4, 5
Ortalis motmot Variable Chachalaca 4, 6, 7
Ortalis superciliaris Buff-browed Chachalaca 4, 4a
Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow 22
Crax rubra Great Curassow 22, 30, 30a
Crax alberti Blue-billed Curassow 30, 30aa, 30c
Crax daubentoni Yellow-knobbed Curassow 30, 31
Crax alector Black Curassow 30, 30b
Crax globulosa Wattled Curassow 30
Crax fasciolata Bare-faced Curassow 30, 32
Crax blumenbachii Red-billed Curassow
Mitu
tomentosum Crestless Curassow 22 23, 25, 26
Mitu salvini Salvin's Curassow 23
Mitu tuberosum Razor-billed Curassow 23, 27
Mitu mitu Alagoas Curassow 23, 27
Pauxi pauxi Helmeted Curassow 22, 29a
Pauxi koepckeae Sira Curassow 29a, 29b
Pauxi unicornis Horned Curassow 29a, 29b
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 might not be closely related, but the tree topology was weakly
supported.
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”.
ODONTOPHORIDAE (NEW WORLD QUAILS) 1
Rhynchortyx cinctus Tawny-faced Quail 6, 6a
Colinus cristatus Crested Bobwhite 2
Callipepla californica California Quail (IN)
Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail
Odontophorus
capueira Spot-winged Wood-Quail
Odontophorus
atrifrons Black-fronted Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus erythrops Rufous-fronted Wood-Quail 4
Odontophorus hyperythrus Chestnut Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus melanonotus Dark-backed Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus speciosus Rufous-breasted Wood-Quail 5
Odontophorus dialeucos Tacarcuna Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus strophium Gorgeted Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus columbianus Venezuelan Wood-Quail 3
Odontophorus balliviani Stripe-faced Wood-Quail
Odontophorus
stellatus Starred Wood-Quail
PHASIANIDAE (PHEASANTS)
Phasianus colchicus
Ring-necked
Pheasant (IN) 7
Lophura nycthemera Silver
Pheasant (IN) 8
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.
NEOGNATHAE
NEOAVES 1
PHOENICOPTERIFORMES 1a
PHOENICOPTERIDAE
(FLAMINGOS)
Phoenicopterus chilensis
Chilean
Flamingo 3
Phoenicopterus ruber American Flamingo 2, 3
Phoenicoparrus andinus Andean Flamingo 4
Phoenicoparrus jamesi James's Flamingo 4, 5
1.
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 passed to revise linear sequence of orders.
1a.
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 below). 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 had been 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.
PODICIPEDIFORMES 1
PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBES) 1a, 1b, 1c
Rollandia rolland White-tufted Grebe 2, 3
Rollandia microptera Titicaca Grebe 4, 4a
Tachybaptus dominicus Least Grebe 5
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe
Podiceps major Great Grebe 6
Podiceps andinus Colombian Grebe (EX) 7
Podiceps occipitalis Silvery Grebe 8, 9
Podiceps taczanowskii Junin Grebe 10
Podiceps gallardoi Hooded Grebe 11
1. 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.
1a. The sequence of
genera and species in this classification follows Storer (1979). [incorporate
Simmons 1962, Storer 1963, Bochenski 1994]
1b. All of the
New World grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in
one genus, Colymbus, but see Salomonsen (1951) and ICZN (1951).
1c.
For use of Podicipedidae over Podicipitidae, see ICZN (1971).
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).
11. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970):
Rumboll (1974).
Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes