A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee


American Ornithologists' Union


(Part 3)

 

Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (click)
Part 2.
Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

Hypothetical List (click)
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa (click)
Literature Cited (click)


 

COLUMBIFORMES 1

COLUMBIDAE (PIGEONS)
Columbina passerina Common Ground-Dove 2, 3, 4
Columbina minuta Plain-breasted Ground-Dove 2, 3
Columbina talpacoti Ruddy Ground-Dove 2, 5
Columbina buckleyi Ecuadorian Ground-Dove 2, 5, 6
Columbina squammata Scaled Dove 7, 8, 9
Columbina picui Picui Ground-Dove 10, 11
Columbina cruziana Croaking Ground-Dove 10, 12
Columbina cyanopis Blue-eyed Ground-Dove 13
Claravis pretiosa Blue Ground-Dove
Claravis mondetoura Maroon-chested Ground-Dove 14, 15
Claravis godefrida Purple-winged Ground-Dove 14, 16
Metriopelia ceciliae Bare-faced Ground-Dove 17
Metriopelia morenoi Bare-eyed Ground-Dove 17, 18
Metriopelia melanoptera Black-winged Ground-Dove
Metriopelia aymara Golden-spotted Ground-Dove 19, 20
Uropelia campestris Long-tailed Ground-Dove 21, 22
Columba livia Rock Pigeon (IN) 23, 24
Patagioenas leucocephala White-crowned Pigeon 25, 26, 27
Patagioenas speciosa Scaled Pigeon 27
Patagioenas squamosa Scaly-naped Pigeon 27, 28
Patagioenas picazuro Picazuro Pigeon 27
Patagioenas corensis Bare-eyed Pigeon 27
Patagioenas maculosa Spot-winged Pigeon 27, 29
Patagioenas fasciata Band-tailed Pigeon 30, 31
Patagioenas araucana Chilean Pigeon 30
Patagioenas cayennensis Pale-vented Pigeon 32, 33
Patagioenas oenops Peruvian Pigeon 34, 35
Patagioenas plumbea Plumbeous Pigeon 36, 36a
Patagioenas subvinacea Ruddy Pigeon 36, 37, 38
Patagioenas nigrirostris Short-billed Pigeon 36
Patagioenas goodsoni Dusky Pigeon 36, 39
Zenaida meloda West Peruvian Dove 40, 41, 42, 43, 57
Zenaida galapagoensis Galapagos Dove 44
Zenaida auriculata Eared Dove 45, 46
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove (V) 45, 47, 48
Leptotila verreauxi White-tipped Dove 49, 50, 51
Leptotila megalura Large-tailed Dove 49, 52
Leptotila pallida Pallid Dove 53
Leptotila plumbeiceps Gray-headed Dove 53
Leptotila rufaxilla Gray-fronted Dove 53
Leptotila cassini Gray-chested Dove 54
Leptotila conoveri Tolima Dove 54, 55
Leptotila ochraceiventris Ochre-bellied Dove 54, 56
Geotrygon goldmani Russet-crowned Quail-Dove 57, 58, 59. 60
Geotrygon saphirina Sapphire Quail-Dove 59, 61, 62, 63
Geotrygon veraguensis Olive-backed Quail-Dove 64, 65
Geotrygon linearis Lined Quail-Dove 66, 67
Geotrygon frenata White-throated Quail-Dove 68, 69
Geotrygon violacea Violaceous Quail-Dove 70
Geotrygon montana Ruddy Quail-Dove 70



1. Although the monophyly of the Columbiformes has never been seriously questioned, its closest relatives are uncertain and remain unresolved (Cracraft et al. 2004, Hackett et al. 2008). <
incorp. Kaiser & George 1973> Traditional classifications (e.g., Gibbs et al. 2001) treat the huge, extinct flightless pigeons of the Mascarene Islands as a separate family, Raphidae, but recognition of this family would certainly make both families paraphyletic because it would seem impossible that the three species of "Raphidae" are each others' closest relatives, but instead represent three independent colonizations of separate islands with subsequent convergent evolution <find citation, if one exists>. Within the Columbidae, Goodwin (1983) recognized five subfamilies, only one of which, Columbinae, occurs in the Western Hemisphere. Whether these subfamily designations correspond to deep splits in the family is not yet confirmed, and so the subfamily designation is omitted here. In fact, genetic data (Johnson 2004) indicate that the New World ground-doves are a distinctive group that are the sister group to a large sample of Old World and New World genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera to the one used here.

2. Columbina passerina, C. minuta, C. talpacoti, and C. buckleyi were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the genus Columbigallina, as was C. cruziana (e.g., Peters 1937), but this was merged into Columbina by Goodwin (1959b) and Johnston (1961); most subsequent authors have followed this merger.

3. Goodwin (1983) considered Columbina passerina and C. minuta to be sister species based on plumage similarities; genetic data (Johnson 2004) supports their close relationship.

4. Called "Scaly-breasted Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

5. Columbina buckleyi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. talpacoti, but most classifications (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have treated it as a separate species; they form a superspecies (Goodwin 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Baptista et al. 1997). [incorp. Dorst 1957, Koepcke 1962, as cited by Meyer de Schauensee 1966]

6. Called "Buckley's Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

7. Columbina squammata, along with northern C. inca, were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Goodwin 1983) treated in the genus Scardafella, but genetic data (Johnson and Clayton 2000a, Johnson 2004) show that it is embedded within Columbina, as proposed by Johnston (1961) based on morphology and behavior. Vocal and display differences from other Columbina continue to be cited by recent authors (e.g., Baptista et al. 1997, Gibbs et al. 2001, Hilty 2003) in support of recognition of Scardafella.

8. Goodwin (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Columbina squammata and Middle and North American C. inca to form a superspecies; they have been considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Mayr & Short 1970), and genetic data confirm that they are sister taxa (Johnson and Clayton 2000a, Johnson 2004); see Goodwin (1983) for rationale for continued treatment as separate species.

9. Called "Scaly Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

10. Goodwin (1983) considered Columbina picui and C. cruziana to be sister species based on plumage and morphology.

11. Called "Picui Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997).
12. Columbina cruziana was formerly (e.g.,
Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Eupelia see Goodwin (1959b) and Johnston (1961) for rationale for its merger into Columbina.

13. Columbina cyanopis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in a monotypic genus Oxypelia; most authors have followed Goodwin (1959b) in merging it into Columbina, but see Johnston (1961); it differs from other Columbina species and is similar to Claravis in having an attenuated first primary (Baptista et al. 1997).

14. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Claravis mondetoura and C. godefrida to form a superspecies.

15. Called "Purple-breasted Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

16. Called "Purple-barred Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

17. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Metriopelia ceciliae and M. morenoi to be sister species; they were formerly placed in a separate genus, Gymnopelia (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942).

18. Called "Moreno's Bare-faced Ground-Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), and "Moreno's Ground-Dove" in Baptista et al. (1997), Gibbs et al. (2001), and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). SACC proposal to change English name to "Moreno's Ground-Dove" did not pass.

19. Metriopelia aymara was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Leptophaps.

20. Called "Bronze-winged Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

21. Uropelia is sometimes (e.g., REF) merged into Columbina; Goodwin (1983) noted that it also shares characters with Claravis and thus supported continued recognition of this monotypic genus.

22. Called "Mauve-spotted Ground Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

23. Populations in South America are feral or semi-feral derivatives of domesticated stock.

24. Previously known as "Rock Dove." SACC proposal passed to change English name to follow current usage in Old World and international literature (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, BOU <REF>, Gibbs et al. 2001), as well as some recent South American literature (e.g., Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003).

25. Johnson & Clayton (2000a), Johnson et al. (2001), and Johnson (2004) found strong evidence that Columba is paraphyletic, with Old World Columba more closely related to Streptopelia than to New World "Columba." This is consistent with previously recognized differences between New World and Old World Columba in terms of morphology (Ridgway 1916), serology (Cumley & Irwin 1944), and behavior (Johnston 1962, <?> Goodwin 1959a). Johnston (1962), however, considered the P. fasciata superspecies to be more closely related to Old World Columba than to New World species due to plumage characters (but see Goodwin 1983); genetic data (Johnson et al. 2001) indicate that fasciata is basal to other New World, but that they still form a monophyletic group. <incorp. Goodwin 1959>. The New World taxa are here placed in the genus Patagioenas. SACC proposal passed to recognize Patagioenas. The AOU has also made this change (Banks et al. 2003).

26. Patagioenas leucocephala was only recently confirmed as occurring in Colombia, on islands off Sucre and Bol’var (Moreno et al. 1999).

27. Goodwin (1983) considered Patagioenas leucocephala, P. squamosa, P. speciosa, P. picazuro, P. corensis, and P. maculosa to form a monophyletic group. Within that group, Goodwin (1983) considered P. speciosa and P. corensis to form a superspecies and P. picazuro and P. maculosa to be sister species. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Patagioenas speciosa and P. squamosa to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Johnson 2004) indicate that P. leucocephala and P. squamosa are closely related if not sisters, but that they are not at all closely related to P. speciosa.

28. Called "Red-necked Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

29. Called "Spotted Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

30. Goodwin (1983), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Patagioenas fasciata, P. araucana, and West Indian P. caribaea to form a superspecies; Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded P. caribaea from that superspecies.

31. The albilinea subspecies group, from Central America and South America, was considered a separate species from northern Patagioenas fasciata by Peters (1937); Hellmayr & Conover (1942) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications.

32. Called "Rufous Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

33. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937) used for Patagioenas cayennensis was rufina, but see <REF>.

34. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Patagioenas oenops to form a superspecies with Middle American P. flavirostris and West Indian P. inornata. Genetic data (Johnson 2004) confirm the close relationship between P. flavirostris and P. oenops.

35. Called "Salvin's Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983). Called "Mara–on Pigeon" in Gibbs et al. (2001) and Ridgely et al. (2001). SACC proposal to change English name to "Mara–on Pigeon" did not pass.

36. Patagioenas plumbea, P. subvinacea, P. nigrirostris, and P. goodsoni are generally considered to be each others' closest relatives (e.g., Goodwin 1983) and were formerly (REF) placed in a separate genus Oenoenas Johnston (1962) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Patagioenas nigrirostris and P. goodsoni to form a superspecies; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.

36a. Donegan et al. (2007) noted differences in song between the Choco (chapmani), Magdalena valley (bogotensis) and Amazonian (delicata) populations. Whittaker (2009) also noted vocal differences among delicata, P. p. pallescens, and P. p. plumbea.  Multiple species may be involved.

37. Wetmore (1968) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that the subspecies berlepschi of the Choc— region might deserve recognition as a separate species from Patagioenas subvinacea.

38. The subspecies purpureotincta of the Guianan Shield region was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Patagioenas subvinacea; Hellmayr & Conover (1942) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications.

39. Called "Goodson's Pigeon" in Goodwin (1983).

40. The linear sequence of species in Zenaida was adapted from Johnson & Clayton (2002b).

41. Zenaida meloda was formerly (e.g., Peters, 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of Zenaida asiatica. Treatment here as a separate species follows split from Z. asiatica in Baptista et al. (1997) and Johnson & Clayton (2000b), and followed by Gibbs et al. (2001) and Banks et al. (REF); they form a superspecies. SACC proposal to lump Z. meloda and Z. asiatica did not pass.

42. Called "Pacific Dove" in Baptista et al. (1997).

43. Baptista et al. (1997) noted that the displays and voices of Zenaida asiatica and Z. meloda differed strongly from those of other Zenaida and suggested that these two might be more closely related to Patagioenas than to Zenaida. Johnson & Clayton (2000b), however, showed that Zenaida, as traditionally constituted, is indeed monophyletic, although Z. asiatica and Z. meloda are basal in the genus.

44. Zenaida galapagoensis was formerly (Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Nesopelia; see Goodwin (1958) for rationale for merging this into Zenaida. Although Baptista et al. (1997) implied that the distinctive features of this species might warrant reconsideration of recognition of Nesopelia, Johnson & Clayton (2000b) and Johnson (2004) showed that Z. galapagoensis is nested within Zenaida (i.e., most likely the sister species to the common ancestor of Z. auriculata, Z. macroura, and Z. graysoni), but not the sister species to West Indian Z. aurita, as proposed by Goodwin (1983).

45. Mayr & Short (1970), Goodwin (1983), and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Zenaida auriculata and Z. macroura, along with Z. graysoni, to form a superspecies; these three species were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in a separate genus, Zenaidura, but most subsequent authors have followed Goodwin (1958) for its merger into Zenaida. Although genetic data (Johnson & Clayton 2000b) confirm that they form a monophyletic group, recognition of Zenaidura would make Zenaida paraphyletic, thus supporting Goodwin's (1958) merger of Zenaidura into Zenaida. More recent genetic data (Johnson 2004), however, suggest recognition of Zenaidura may be required, because "true" Zenaida may be more closely related to some Geotrygon species.

46. The northern subspecies ruficauda (with jessieae) was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) treated as a separate species from Zenaida auriculata; Peters (1937) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.

47. One record for Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986). <get original citation>

48. Called "American Mourning Dove" in Baptista et al. (1997) to distinguish it from "African Mourning Dove" Streptopelia decipiens; Goodwin (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Gibbs et al. (2001) called S. decipiens "Mourning Collared-Dove" to avoid the problem.

49. Meyer de Schauensee (1966), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that Leptotila verreauxi might include two or more species-level taxa, due primarily to differences in eye-ring color.

50. Goodwin (1983) considered Leptotila verreauxi and L. megalura to be sister species; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but they are sympatric (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), and are not sister taxa (Johnson 2004).

51. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Goodwin 1983) known as "White-fronted Dove."

52. Called "White-faced Dove" in Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997), and called "Yungas Dove" in Gibbs et al. (2001) and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

53. Goodwin (1983) considered Leptotila pallida, L. plumbeiceps, L. rufaxilla, and West Indian L. jamaicensis and L. wellsi to form a superspecies. Goodwin (1983) reluctantly treated L. plumbeiceps as a separate species from L. rufaxilla, and AOU (1983, 1998) lumped Leptotila plumbeiceps into L. rufaxilla. Although this is not followed by most authors, the differences between the two in voice seem very small from published descriptions. On the other hand, Johnson's (2004) genetic results indicate that L. plumbeiceps and L. cassini are more closely related to each other than either is to L. rufaxilla. SACC proposal to lump L. plumbeiceps and L. rufaxilla did not pass. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered L. plumbeiceps, L. rufaxilla, and L. wellsi to form a superspecies, but did not include L. pallida or L. jamaicensis. Leptotila pallida was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937) considered a subspecies of L. rufaxilla.

54. Goodwin (1983) and Baptista et al. (1997) considered Leptotila cassini, L. conoveri, and L. ochraceiventris to form a superspecies.

55. Called "Conover's Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

56. Called "Buff-bellied Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

57. Goodwin (1958, 1983) proposed that Geotrygon and Zenaida are closely related genera, if not sisters, based on shared, unique facial markings, and that is also suggested by genetic data (Johnson 2004), which also indicates that Geotrygon itself may not be monophyletic.

58. All South American species of Geotrygon except saphirina were formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the genus Oreopelia; see <REF> for use of Geotrygon for Oreopelia.

59. Goodwin (1983) proposed that Geotrygon goldmani is most closely related to Middle American G. costaricensis and G. lawrencii, and that G. saphirina shared a common ancestor with this group.

60. Called "Goldman's Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

61. Geotrygon saphirina was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Hellmayr & Conover 1942) placed in the monotypic genus Osculatia, but see Goodwin (1958) for its merger into Geotrygon.

62. Called "Purple Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

63. Gibbs et al (2001) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the subspecies purpurata of the Choc— as a separate species from Geotrygon saphirina. SACC proposal to recognize this split did not pass because of insufficient published data.

64. Goodwin (1983) proposed that Geotrygon veraguensis was most closely related to West Indian G. caniceps and G. versicolor.

65. Called "Veragua Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

66. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Geotrygon linearis to form a superspecies with Middle American G. albifacies and G. chiriquensis ; Goodwin (1983) considered them conspecific. Goodwin (1983) considered G. linearis and G. frenata to be sister species.

67. Called "White-faced Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

68. Called "Pink-faced Quail Dove" in Goodwin (1983).

69. "Geotrygon erythropareia," known from three specimens, was considered to be a distinct but dubious species by REFS and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Chapman (1926) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered this to be a dark color phase of G. frenata, and Hellmayr and Conover (1942) considered it a dubious taxon. Sibley & Monroe (1990), however, considered it to be a valid subspecies, from Ecuador, of G. frenata.

70. Goodwin (1983) considered Geotrygon montana and G. violacea to form a monophyletic group that includes West Indian G. chrysia and G. mystacea.


PSITTACIFORMES 1

PSITTACIDAE (PARROTS)
Psittacula krameri Rose-ringed Parakeet (IN) 1a
Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Hyacinth Macaw
Anodorhynchus glaucus Glaucous Macaw 1b, 1c
Anodorhynchus leari Indigo Macaw 1b
Cyanopsitta spixii Spix's Macaw 1d
Ara ararauna Blue-and-yellow Macaw
Ara glaucogularis Blue-throated Macaw 2
Ara militaris Military Macaw 2b
Ara ambiguus Great Green Macaw 2a, 2b
Ara macao Scarlet Macaw
Ara chloropterus Red-and-green Macaw 2a, 2c
Ara rubrogenys Red-fronted Macaw
Ara severus Chestnut-fronted Macaw 2a
Orthopsittaca manilata Red-bellied Macaw 3
Primolius maracana Blue-winged Macaw 4, 4a, 4b
Primolius couloni Blue-headed Macaw 4, 4a, 4b
Primolius auricollis Yellow-collared Macaw 4, 4a, 4b
Diopsittaca nobilis Red-shouldered Macaw 5
Ognorhynchus icterotis Yellow-eared Parrot
Guarouba guarouba Golden Parakeet 5b, 6, 6c
Leptosittaca branickii Golden-plumed Parakeet 5b, 9g
Aratinga acuticaudata Blue-crowned Parakeet 5b, 6a, 6b, 6d
Aratinga wagleri Scarlet-fronted Parakeet 7, 7a, 7b
Aratinga mitrata Mitred Parakeet 7a, 7b, 8, 8a
Aratinga erythrogenys Red-masked Parakeet 8b
Aratinga leucophthalma White-eyed Parakeet 8c, 9b, 6d
Aratinga auricapillus Golden-capped Parakeet 9a, 9b, 6c
Aratinga jandaya Jandaya Parakeet 9a, 6c
Aratinga solstitialis Sun Parakeet 9a, 10, 6c
Aratinga pintoi Sulphur-breasted Parakeet 10
Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet 6c
Aratinga aurea Peach-fronted Parakeet 9c, 9d, 6c
Aratinga pertinax Brown-throated Parakeet 9e, 6c
Aratinga cactorum Cactus Parakeet 9e
Nandayus nenday Nanday Parakeet 5b, 9f
Cyanoliseus patagonus Burrowing Parakeet 10, 21aa
Pyrrhura cruentata Blue-throated Parakeet 5b, 10a
Pyrrhura devillei Blaze-winged Parakeet 11
Pyrrhura frontalis Maroon-bellied Parakeet 11, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e
Pyrrhura lepida Pearly Parakeet 12a, 12b
Pyrrhura perlata Crimson-bellied Parakeet 12a, 12b
Pyrrhura molinae Green-cheeked Parakeet 12c, 12d
Pyrrhura pfrimeri Pfrimer's Parakeet 14, 14a
Pyrrhura leucotis Maroon-faced Parakeet 14, 14a
Pyrrhura picta Painted Parakeet 14a, 15
Pyrrhura amazonum Santarem Parakeet 15
Pyrrhura lucianii Bonaparte's Parakeet 15
Pyrrhura roseifrons Rose-fronted Parakeet 15
Pyrrhura viridicata Santa Marta Parakeet
Pyrrhura egregia Fiery-shouldered Parakeet
Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet 14a, 16, 16a, 17, 17a
Pyrrhura orcesi El Oro Parakeet 17,18
Pyrrhura rupicola Black-capped Parakeet 19
Pyrrhura albipectus White-necked Parakeet 20
Pyrrhura calliptera Brown-breasted Parakeet 21
Pyrrhura hoematotis Red-eared Parakeet
Pyrrhura rhodocephala Rose-headed Parakeet
Enicognathus ferrugineus Austral Parakeet 5b, 21a
Enicognathus leptorhynchus Slender-billed Parakeet 21aa
Forpus passerinus Green-rumped Parrotlet 22d, 22f
Forpus xanthopterygius Blue-winged Parrotlet 22d, 22g, 23,
Forpus conspicillatus Spectacled Parrotlet
Forpus sclateri Dusky-billed Parrotlet 23a
Forpus coelestis Pacific Parrotlet 23b
Forpus xanthops Yellow-faced Parrotlet 23b
Brotogeris tirica Plain Parakeet 21d, 23c
Brotogeris versicolurus Canary-winged Parakeet 23c, 24, 24a, 24aa
Brotogeris chiriri Yellow-chevroned Parakeet 23c, 24
Brotogeris pyrrhoptera Gray-cheeked Parakeet 24d
Brotogeris jugularis Orange-chinned Parakeet 24b
Brotogeris cyanoptera Cobalt-winged Parakeet 24b, 24c, 24d
Brotogeris chrysoptera Golden-winged Parakeet 24b, 24e, 24f
Brotogeris sanctithomae Tui Parakeet
Myiopsitta monachus Monk Parakeet 21b, 21d
Psilopsiagon aymara Gray-hooded Parakeet 21c
Psilopsiagon aurifrons Mountain Parakeet 22, 22a
Bolborhynchus lineola Barred Parakeet 21e
Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons Rufous-fronted Parakeet 22b
Bolborhynchus orbygnesius Andean Parakeet 22b, 22c, 22cc
Nannopsittaca panychlora Tepui Parrotlet 21e, 24g
Nannopsittaca dachilleae Amazonian Parrotlet 24g, 25
Touit batavicus Lilac-tailed Parrotlet 25b, 25c
Touit huetii Scarlet-shouldered Parrotlet
Touit dilectissimus Blue-fronted Parrotlet 25b, 26, 26a
Touit purpuratus Sapphire-rumped Parrotlet 25b
Touit melanonotus Brown-backed Parrotlet 25b, 25d
Touit surdus Golden-tailed Parrotlet 25b
Touit stictopterus Spot-winged Parrotlet 25b 25dd
Pionites melanocephalus Black-headed Parrot 27, 27b
Pionites leucogaster White-bellied Parrot 27, 27b, 27c
Deroptyus accipitrinus Red-fan Parrot 32c, 40
Pionopsitta pileata Red-capped Parrot 28
Pyrilia haematotis Brown-hooded Parrot 28,
Pyrilia pulchra Rose-faced Parrot 28, 31
Pyrilia pyrilia Saffron-headed Parrot 28
Pyrilia barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot 28
Pyrilia caica Caica Parrot 28
Pyrilia aurantiocephala Bald Parrot 28, 30
Pyrilia vulturina Vulturine Parrot 28, 29, 30
Hapalopsittaca melanotis Black-winged Parrot 31a, 31b
Hapalopsittaca amazonina Rusty-faced Parrot 32
Hapalopsittaca fuertesi Indigo-winged Parrot 32
Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops Red-faced Parrot 32
Graydidascalus brachyurus Short-tailed Parrot 32d
Alipiopsitta xanthops Yellow-faced Parrot 36b
Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot 32a, 32c, 32d, 32e
Pionus sordidus Red-billed Parrot 32b
Pionus maximiliani Scaly-headed Parrot 32f
Pionus tumultuosus Speckle-faced Parrot 33
Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot
Pionus fuscus Dusky Parrot
Amazona tucumana Tucuman Parrot 32d, 34, 34a, 34b
Amazona pretrei Red-spectacled Parrot 34a
Amazona autumnalis Red-lored Parrot 34c
Amazona brasiliensis Red-tailed Parrot 35
Amazona dufresniana Blue-cheeked Parrot 35
Amazona rhodocorytha Red-browed Parrot 35
Amazona festiva Festive Parrot 36
Amazona barbadensis Yellow-shouldered Parrot
Amazona aestiva Blue-fronted Parrot 36c, 37, 37a, 37c
Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Parrot 37a, 37b, 37c
Amazona kawalli Kawall's Parrot 38, 38a
Amazona amazonica Orange-winged Parrot 35
Amazona mercenaria Scaly-naped Parrot
Amazona farinosa Mealy Parrot
Amazona vinacea Vinaceous Parrot 34a, 39
Triclaria malachitacea Blue-bellied Parrot


1.  The monophyly of the Psittaciformes has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by genetic data (e.g., de Kloet & de Kloet 2005, Wright et al. 2008) and recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007).  The relationship of the Psittaciformes to other orders, however, is uncertain (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). Recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Hackett et al. 2008) indicate that the closest relative is most likely the Passeriformes or the Falconidae. <incorp. Smith 1975, Forshaw>.  Within the order, different authors rank various groups as families, subfamilies, or tribes (e.g., see Collar 1998); so far, all data point towards the New World parrots as forming a monophyletic group (e.g., de Kloet & de Kloet 2005, Wright et al. 2008).  Within the New World parrots, Tavares et al. (2006) and Wright et al. (2008) found very strong support for the monophyly of a group that includes the genera in the linear sequence below from Anodorhynchus through Enicognathus but also including Pionites and Deroptyus (Ognorhynchus not sampled).  Tavares et al. (2006) also found moderately strong support for inclusion of Forpus in this group, but Wright et al. (2008) did not.  Tavares et al. (2006) also found very strong support for the monophyly of a group that includes the genera in the linear sequence below from Pionopsitta through Triclaria, excluding Pionites and Deroptyus; Hapalopsittaca was not sampled, but see Ribas et al. (2005) and Wright et al. (2008) for its inclusion in this group.

1a.  Established as a breeding bird locally in Caracas, Venezuela, since the early 1980s (Nebot 1999, Hilty 2003, R. Restall, pers. comm.). Also reported to be established on Cura�ao (Voous 1985).

1b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anodorhynchus leari and A. glaucus to form a superspecies.

1c. Anodorhynchus glaucus may be extinct (BirdLife International 2000).

1d. Cyanopsitta spixii was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937) included in the genus Ara, but see [REF]. The genetic data of Tavares et al. (2006) indicate that Cyanopsitta requires recognition as a separate genus from Ara if Primolius and Orthopsittaca are also recognized as genera.

2. Ara glaucogularis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered an invalid taxon of some sort, e.g., as a color variant of A. ararauna (REF). For recognition of A. glaucogularis as a valid species, see Ingels et al. (1981). This species was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937) known as "Ara caninde", but that name probably referable to A. ararauna.

2a. Ara is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are ambiguus, chloropterus, and severus; ararauna, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

2b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Ara militaris and A. ambigua to form a superspecies; FjeldsΠet al. (1987) suggested that they might be considered conspecific.

2c. Called "Green-winged Macaw" in <REFS> and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

3. Orthopsittaca was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Ara, but see Sick (1990) for a return (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) to the recognition of this monotypic genus; followed by Collar (1997), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Dickinson (2003). Proposal?

4. Primolius/Propyrrhura was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Ara, but see Sick (1990) for a return (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) to the recognition of this genus; this was followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data (Tavares et al. 2004) strongly support recognition of Primolius/Propyrrhura to avoid making Ara polyphyletic.

4a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered the three species of Primolius to form a superspecies. Primolius couloni and P. maracana have been considered conspecific by some authors (REF).

4b. Penhallurick (2001) proposed that the name Primolius has priority over Propyrrhura. SACC proposal passed to use Primolius.

5. Diopsittaca was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Ara, but see Sick (1990) for a return (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) to the recognition of this genus; followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data (Tavares et al. 2004) strongly support recognition of Diopsittaca to avoid making Ara paraphyletic, and that the sister genus to Diopsittaca was Guarouba (see also Tavares et al. 2006, Wright et al. 2008).

5a. The eastern subspecies cumanensis (= "hahni") was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Diopsittaca nobilis.

5b. Species in the genera Guarouba, Aratinga, Leptosittaca, Ognorhynchus, Nandayus, Pyrrhura, and Enicognathus are often called "conures" (e.g., FjeldsΠ& Krabbe 1990, REFS).

6. Guarouba was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Aratinga, but see (REFS), Tavares et al. (2004, 2006), and Wright et al. (2008), whose genetic data indicated that the sister genus to Guarouba is Diopsittaca, thus forcing a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) that treated it in a monotypic genus.

6a. Aratinga acuticaudata was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in a separate genus, Thectocercus, but Peters (1937) merged this into Aratinga.

6b. The northern haemorrhous subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Aratinga acuticaudata, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937).

6c. Guarouba guarouba, Aratinga auricapillus, A. jandaya, A. solstitialis, A. weddellii, A. aurea, and A. pertinax, along with Middle American A. canicularis and A. astec and West Indian A. nana, were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in a separate genus, Eupsittula.

6d. Aratinga acuticaudata and A. leucophthalmus were treated in a separate genus, Psittacara, by Pinto (1937).

7. The southern subspecies frontata was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Aratinga wagleri, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) noted that frontata (with minor) of Ecuador and Peru might deserve recognition as a separate species.

7a. Collar (1997) suggested that Aratinga wagleri and A. mitrata might be conspecific.

7b. Arndt (2006) described a new species, Aratinga hockingi; specimens in museums of this taxon had been identified as A. mitrata, but the new species may be more closely related to A. wagleri. Proposal badly needed. Not recognized by Schulenberg et al. (2007).

8. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that the subspecies alticola of Peru might deserve species rank from Aratinga mitrata. Arndt (2006) provided further rationale for treatment of alticola as a separate species. Proposal badly needed. Not recognized by Schulenberg et al. (2007).

8a. Doug Pratt (pers. comm.) pointed out that in North American English, "mitre" is normally "miter," which would make the name of this species "Mitered Parakeet," which would also reduce chronic mispronunciation. Proposal?

8b. Aratinga erythrogenys was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as A. rubrolarvata, but see Peters (1937).

8c. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Aratinga leucophthalmus to form a superspecies with Central American A. finschi; they have been considered conspecific by many authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Proposal? <trace>

9a. Aratinga jandaya and A. auricapillus were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered subspecies of A. solstitialis, but see (REFS); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997). Proposal? <trace>

9b. Aratinga is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is leucophthalma, not leucophthalmus as is often given; auricapillus, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002a, b).

9c. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Aratinga aurea to form a superspecies with Middle American A. canicularis.

9c. Aratinga aurea was placed in the monotypic genus Eupsitta by (REF).

9e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Aratinga pertinax and A. cactorum to form a superspecies; Collar (1997) suggested that they might be conspecific.

9f. Nandayus is typically considered very closely related to Aratinga (e.g., Collar 1997). Nandayus was included in Aratinga by (REF). This is supported by some genetic data (Tavares et al. 2006) that show that Nandayus was more closely related to A. solstitialis than to the two other Aratinga species sampled; however, Wright et al. (2008) did not find a sister relationship between Nandayus and the one Aratinga in their sample (A. pertinax), but lack of branch support .

9g. Leptosittaca was included in Aratinga by (REF), but genetic data (Wright et al. 2008) indicate that it is part of a group that includes Guarouba and Diopsittaca.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

10. Recently described: Silveira et al. (2005). SACC proposal passed to recognize Aratinga pintoi as a separate species from A. solstitialis.  NemŽsio and Rasmussen (2009) presented evidence that this taxon had been previously described as A. maculata.  Proposal badly needed.

10a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Ochre-marked Parakeet". trace change. proposal?

11. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Pyrrhura devillei and P. frontalis to form a superspecies; Hayes (1995) and Collar (1997) suggested they may be conspecific.

11b. Pyrrhura frontalis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as P. vittata.

11c. "Pyrrhura borellii," formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a species, considered by Peters (1937) to be a synonym of P. f. chiripepe. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

11d. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Reddish-bellied Parakeet", and this was also used by Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). trace change. proposal?

12a. Pyrrhura perlata and P. lepida form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Collar 1997).

12b. Nomenclature of Pyrrhura perlata and P. lepida is confusing and complex. (REF) showed that the original types of perlata were actually referable to the name rhodogaster; thus, rhodogaster, long used as a species name (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), becomes a junior synonym of perlata; the transfer of rhodogaster to the synonymy of perlata thus left the former in need of a name, the next oldest of which is lepida. Adding further confusion, Collar (1997) retained the English name "Pearly Parakeet" for lepida. proposal needed? Arndt REF etc.

12c. "Pyrrhura hypoxantha," formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a valid species, is now considered to represent xanthistic individuals of P. molinae (Arndt 1991, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

13. [Pyrrhura superspecies note 1]  [Note -- Stotz will rewrite Notes 14-14a now that complex Proposal 306 has reached quorum]:

14. [note needed on possible splits]. Olmos et al. (1997). The subspecies emma and griseipectus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered separate species from Pyrrhura leucotis, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937) and Pinto (1937). The subspecies pfrimeri was also formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) treated as a separate species, but was considered conspecific with P. leucotis by Peters (1937). <inc. Joseph 2002, followed by Dickinson 2003.> SACC proposal passed to treat pfrimeri and griseipectus as separate species from P. leucotis. Subsequently, SACC proposal to lump griseipectus into P. leucotis passed. SACC proposal passed to transfer emma from P. leucotis to P. picta.  SACC proposal pending to re-elevate P. griseipectus to species rank. <incorp. Olmos et al. 2005>

14a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Pyrrhura leucotis [including pfrimeri and griseipectus] and P. picta to form a superspecies; Haffer (1987) also included P. melanura in that superspecies. <incorp. Ribas et al. 2006>

14b. <Note needed on P. anaca - see Teixeira 1991>

15. [note needed, and probably a proposal, on possible splits in picta; Joseph REF]. The Colombian subspecies subandina was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pyrrhura picta, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific. Arndt (2008) treated the forms subandina, eisenmanni, caeruleiceps, and peruviana as a species, and described a new species, Pyrrhura parvifrons, from eastern Peru. Proposal badly needed. <summarize. Ribas et al. 2006> SACC proposal passed to separate amazonum (with snethlageae as a subspecies of amazonum) from picta. SACC proposal passed to separate roseifrons (including peruviana as a subspecies of roseifrons) from picta. SACC proposal passed to separate lucianii (including peruviana as a subspecies of roseifrons) from picta. SACC proposals to rank the subspecies eisenmanni, caeruleiceps, and subandina as separate species did not pass.

15b. Proposals needed on English names, here given tentatively, of P. amazonum, P. lucianii, and P. roseifrons. The names for the first two are those used by Cory (1918) and need evaluation. "Santarem" derives from the type locality of amazonum and thus seems appropriate. "Bonaparte's" evidently derives from lucianii, presumably named for Jules Laurent Lucien, aka Prince Bonaparte; Bonaparte was also the author of the genus name Pyrrhura. "Rose-fronted" is merely the translation of the species epithet.

16. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies pacifica of northwestern South America may deserve recognition as a separate species from Pyrrhura melanura.

16a. The subspecies berlepschi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Berlepsch's Parakeet") from Pyrrhura melanura, but most recent classifications have considered them conspecific following <REF>). The Colombian subspecies souancei was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pyrrhura melanura, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) suggested that the montane subspecies chapmani might deserve recognition as a separate species.

17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Pyrrhura melanura and P. orcesi to form a superspecies, based on Ridgely & Robbins (1988). <incorp. Ribas et al. 2006>

18. Recently described: Ridgely & Robbins (1988).

19. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Rock Parakeet", but see [REFS].

20. Collar (1997) suggested that Pyrrhura albipectus might be conspecific with P. melanura. <check Cutucu paper>

20a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "White-breasted Parakeet" . trace change - S&M 1990 used White-necked. proposal?

21. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Flame-winged Parakeet" . trace change -S&M 1990 used Brown-breasted. proposal?

21a. Enicognathus ferrugineus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Microsittace, but see <?> Peters & Blake (1948).

21aa. "Cyanoliseus byroni," treated as a species by Cory (1918) and as a subspecies of Cyanoliseus patagonus by Peters (1937), is now considered a synonym of Enicognathus leptorhynchus (REF, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

21b. Collar (1997) treated Andean luchsi as a separate species from Myiopsitta monachus based on differences in plumage and nest site; this taxon was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a separate species, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific. SACC proposal to treat luchsi as a separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data.

21c. Psilopsiagon aymara was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Amoropsittaca (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937), but was then (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Bolborhynchus; more recently, it has been placed in Psilopsiagon (Collar 1997, Dickinson 2003); <trace>. Proposal?

21d. Tavares et al. (2006) and Wright et al. (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship between Myiopsitta and Brotogeris.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

21e. Tavares et al. (2006) found strong support for a sister relationship between Bolborhynchus lineola and Nannopsittaca, whereas Wright et al. (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship between Touit and Nannopsittaca (Bolborhynchus not sampled).  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

22. Psilopsiagon aurifrons was formerly treated as the only species in the genus (e.g., Peters 1937), but was then (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Bolborhynchus; more recently, it has been returned to Psilopsiagon (Collar 1997, Dickinson 2003); <trace>. Proposal?

22a. The southern subspecies rubrirostris was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Psilopsiagon aurifrons, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific.

22b. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Bolborhynchus orbygnesius and B. ferrugineifrons to form a superspecies.

22c. Bolborhynchus orbygnesius was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937) considered a subspecies of Psilopsiagon aurifrons.

22cc. "Bolborhynchus andicolus," described from Peru, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Peters (1937); it was later found to be a synonym of B. orbygnesius (REF, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

22d. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Forpus passerinus and F. xanthopterygius to form a superspecies; once considered conspecific (e.g., Peters 1937), Gyldenstolpe (1945) provided rationale for treating them as separate species based on near-sympatry and plumage color differences, and this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors.

22f. The genus Forpus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Psittacula, but see Peters (1937).

22g. The northern subspecies spengeli was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Forpus xanthopterygius, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937).

23. Whitney & Pacheco (1999) proposed that the valid name for this taxon is Forpus xanthopterygius, not Forpus crassirostris as proposed by Pinto (1945) and as instituted by Collar (1997) and others, or Psittacula vivida (= Forpus vividus) as in Cory (1919). SACC proposal passed to retain xanthopterygius.

23b. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Forpus sclateri was modestus.

23b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Forpus coelestis and F. xanthops to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Peters (1937).

23c. Brotogeris tirica, B. versicolurus, and B. chiriri were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Tirica, but Peters (1937) merged this into Brotogeris.

24. Brotogeris chiriri was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of B. versicolurus, but see Pinto & Camargo (1957), REFS; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

24a. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Brotogeris versicolurus was virescens, but see Peters (1937).
24aa. AOU (1998) used the English name "White-winged Parakeet" for
Brotogeris versicolurus after B. chiriri was treated as a separate species, but Dickinson (2003), following Collar (1997) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), did not and retained "Canary-winged Parakeet" for B. versicolurus. SACC proposal to change to "White-winged Parakeet" did not pass. New SACC proposal to change to "White-winged Parakeet" did not pass.

24b. Haffer (1987) considered Brotogeris cyanoptera, and B. chrysoptera to form a superspecies; Sibley & Monroe (1990) also included B. jugularis in that superspecies. Collar (1997) was hesitant about the inclusion of B. jugularis, although Peters (1937) wondered whether cyanoptera should be treated as a subspecies of jugularis.

24c. The subspecies gustavi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937) considered a separate species from Brotogeris cyanoptera, but Traylor (1958) indicated that they probably intergrade in the Huallaga valley.

24d. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Brotogeris cyanoptera was devillei, but see Peters (1937).

24e. Brotogeris is feminine, so the correct spellings of the species names are chrysoptera and pyrrhoptera; versicolurus, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

24f. The eastern subspecies tuipara and the western subspecies chrysosema were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Brotogeris chrysoptera, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

24g. Collar (1997) considered Nannopsittaca panychlora and N. dachilleae to form a superspecies.

25. Recently described: O'Neill et al. (1991).

25a. Wright et al. (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship between Nannopsittaca and Touit, consistent with their placement in linear sequences.

25b. Touit is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are batavicus, dilectissimus, purpuratus, melanonotus, surdus, and stictopterus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

25c. The genus Touit was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) known as Urochroma, but see Peters (1937).

25d. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Touit melanonotus was wiedi, but see Peters (1937).

25dd. "Touit emmae," known from "Bogot‡," treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Peters (1937), represents the female plumage of T. stictopterus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

26. Touit dilectissimus forms a superspecies with Central American T. costaricensis (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), but see Wetmore (1968).

26a. Called "Red-winged Parakeet" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but that name typically applied only when dilectissimus and costaricensis are considered conspecific (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

27. Pionites melanocephalus and P. leucogaster form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, 1977, 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997).

27b. Pionites is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is melanocephalus; leucogaster, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

27c. The western subspecies xanthomerius was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pionites leucogaster, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

28. All species of Pionopsitta/Pyrilia except Pionopsitta pileata were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1970, 1974); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered only P. haematotis and P. pulchra to form a superspecies. Pyrilia haematotis, P. pulchra, P. barrabandi, P. pyrilia, and P. caica were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Eucinetus, and P. pyrilia was placed in the monotypic genus Pyrilia. Cracraft & Prum's (1988) analysis of plumage characters suggested that pileata was basal to all other Pionopsitta (then considered to include Gypopsitta), and the following sister relationships: (a) haematotis + pulchra, (b) vulturina + barrabandi, (c) pyrilia + [vulturina + barrabandi], and (d) caica basal to (pyrilia + [vulturina + barrabandi]). Ribas et al. (2005) found that Pionopsitta+Gypopsitta (=Pyrilia) is not monophyletic, with pileata not particularly closely related to the others, and they placed all but pileata in Gypopsitta, the sister genus of which appears to be Hapalopsittaca (see also Note 31a). Tavares et al. (2006) also found that Pionopsitta was paraphyletic. SACC proposal passed to split Gypopsitta from Pionopsitta. SACC proposal passed on use of Pyrilia over Gypopsitta; also followed by Banks et al. (2008). Ribas et al. (2005) also found a different set of relationships within the Pyrilia group than those proposed by Cracraft & Prum (1988). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence within Pyrilia.

28a. Cracraft & Prum (1988) and Ribas et al. (2005) treated the subspecies coccinicollaris of Panama and nw. Colombia as a separate species from nominate haematotis of Middle America. SACC proposal to elevate coccinicollaris to species rank did not pass.

29. Pyrilia vulturina was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as the only member of a monotypic genus Gypopsitta because of featherless head, but see Haffer (1974), REFS, and Collar (1997), and subsequent phylogenetic analyses of Cracraft & Prum (1988) and Ribas et al. (2005).

30. Newly described: Gaban-Lima et al. (2002). This taxon was previously considered an immature plumage of P. vulturina, but see Gaban-Lima et al. (2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize aurantiocephala as a valid new species. "Bald Parrot" temporarily adopted for English name; proposal needed.

31. Pyrilia pulchra was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. haematotis, but see [REFS]. Proposal needed?

31a. Hapalopsittaca melanotis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Pionopsitta, which at that time contained only P. pileata.

31b. Called "Black-eared Parrot" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966,1970) and elsewhere. Proposal needed.

32. Hapalopsittaca fuertesi and H. pyrrhops were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered subspecies of H. amazonina, but see Graves & Restrepo (1989) for a return to the species limits used by Cory (1918) and Peters (1937), as suggested by FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990); they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

32a. The eastern subspecies reichenowi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pionus menstruus, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

32aa. Genetic data (Ribas et al. 2007) indicate that P. menstruus and P. sordidus are not sister species as is implied in traditional linear sequences, but rather that P. menstruus groups with P. chalcopterus, extralimital P. senilis, and P. tumultuosus, and that P. maximiliani and P. sordidus are sisters, with P. fuscus sister to that pair. Proposal needed.

32b. The southern subspecies corallinus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pionus sordidus, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

32c. Tavares et al. (2006) found very strong support for inclusion of Pionites and Deroptyus in a monophyletic group that consists of the genera in the linear sequence above from Anodorhynchus through Enicognathus; they also found very strong support for a sister relationship between Pionites and Deroptyus, as did Wright et al. (2008).  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

32d. Tavares et al. (2006) also found very strong support for the monophyly of a group that consists of Pionus, Graydidascalus, and Amazona.

32e. "Pionus cobaltinus," described from "Colombia" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is now considered a synonym of Pionus menstruus (Peters 1937). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

32f. "Pionus bridgesi," treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is now known to be a synonym of Pionus maximiliani siy (Peters 1937). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

33. The subspecies seniloides was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("White-capped Parrot") from Pionus tumultuosus, but see O'Neill & Parker (1977), who noted that the only differences between the two are the degree of saturation of rosy pigment; this treatment was followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003), but not by Forshaw (1989), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), or Ridgely et al. (2001). There is no evidence of intergradation between the two. SACC proposal to treat seniloides as a species did not pass. Recent genetic data (Ribas et al. 2007) indicate that the genetic distance between them is about the same as other taxa ranked as species in Pionus. Proposal needed? English name "Speckle-faced Parrot" for composite species follows suggestion by FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990).

34. Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) used the avicultural name "Amazon" for the English names of the species in the genus Amazona (but did not use, for example, "Conure" for species of Aratinga). proposal?

34a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Amazona tucumana and A. pretrei to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Peters (1937). Reports of sympatry in northeastern Argentina,(Hornero 6: 535. 1936, as cited by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) are erroneous . Genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004) support their status as sister species, and also suggest that A. vinacea is the sister to that group.

34b. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Alder Parrot," but "Tucuman Parrot" dates back to Cory (1919).

34c. The Ecuadorian subspecies lilacina and the Brazilian subspecies diadema were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) considered separate species from Amazona autumnalis, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated diadema as a separate species but did not provide justification.

35. Amazona dufresniana was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of A. brasiliensis, then called "Blue-cheeked Parrot," but see (REF). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered these two and A. rhodocorytha to form a superspecies. Amazona rhodocorytha was also formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of A. brasiliensis, but see Collar (1997), followed by Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004) support this treatment: Amazona rhodocorytha and A. dufresniana are sister species and are not closely related to A. brasiliensis. The latter is more closely related to A. amazonica than to any other South American Amazona. Proposal needed to alter linear sequence.

36. The northern subspecies bodini was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from, and only distantly related to, Amazona festiva, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

36b. Placement of Amazona xanthops in Amazona has been questioned in virtually every study of the genus (e.g., Ribeiro 1920, Sick 1984, Duarte and Caparroz 1995, Birt et al. 1992, Miyaki et al. 1998, Caparroz and Duarte 2004). Miranda-Ribeiro (1920) named a new genus for it: Salvatoria. Recent genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004, Tavares et al. 2006) indicate that its inclusion in Amazona makes that genus paraphyletic with respect to Pionus and Graydidascalus, and found strong support for a sister relationship between xanthops and Graydidascalus.  SACC proposal passed to remove from Amazona and revive monotypic genus Salvatoria. <check linear sequence>. Caparroz & Pacheco (2006) noted that Salvatoria is preoccupied by an annelid genus, and they proposed a new name, Alipiopsitta, for Salvatoria Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920.  SACC proposal passed to change to Alipiopsitta.

36c. The subspecies xanthopteryx was considered a separate species from Amazona aestiva by (REF).

37. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Turquoise-fronted Parrot" . <trace change>. proposal?

37a. Formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), Amazona ochrocephala was generally treated as including taxa north to Mexico. Following Monroe & Howell (1966), most authors treated Middle American A. oratrix and A. auropalliata as separate species; however, Forshaw (1989), Losada & Howell (1996) and Collar (1997) have raised doubts about ranking these taxa as species. Recent genetic data (Eberhard & Bermingham 2004, Russello & Amato 2004) indicate that ranking of oratrix or auropalliata as species makes A. ochrocephala paraphyletic; also, A. ochrocephala is also paraphyletic with respect to A. aestiva and possibly also A. barbadensis. proposal badly needed.

37b. The southern subspecies nattereri was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazona ochrocephala, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

38. Recently described: Grantsau & Camargo (1989), Collar (1996).  Genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004) are consistent with treatment of Amazona kawalli as a separate species from, but sister species to, A. farinosa, which is sympatric with A. kawalli in southwestern Brazil.  See also Martuscelli & Yamashita (1997).

38a. Called "White-faced Amazon" in Collar (1997).

39. Called "Vinaceous-breasted Parrot" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970). <trace change.>

40. Collar (1997) suggested that the subspecies fuscifrons from south of the Amazon River might deserve recognition as a separate species from Deroptyus accipitrinus.

 


OPISTHOCOMIFORMES 1

OPISTHOCOMIDAE (HOATZIN)
Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin


1. The placement of this order is highly controversial. Some genetic data have indicated that it is closely related to the Cuculiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1973, 1990) or Musophagiformes (Hughes & Baker 1999). De Queiroz and Good (1988), Mayr & Clarke (2003), and Livezey & Zusi (2007) found morphological evidence consistent with its placement near Cuculiformes or Musophagiformes. [add Hedges et al. ref] Previous classifications have included it within the Galliformes (e.g., Pinto 1938) or Gruiformes (REF). However, a recent genetic data set (Sorenson et al. 2003) failed to find support for a relationship to any of these groups, but found weak support for a relationship to the Columbiformes. Other genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) also suggest that Opisthocomus is perhaps a member of a group of orders that also includes the Columbiformes. However, the most comprehensive genetic data set (Hackett et al. 2008) was unable to resolve its relationships, with no evidence for close relationship to any order within the Neoaves.


CUCULIFORMES 1

CUCULIDAE (CUCKOOS)
Cuculinae
Coccycua minuta Little Cuckoo 2, 6, 7
Coccycua pumila Dwarf Cuckoo 2
Coccycua cinerea Ash-colored Cuckoo 2
Piaya cayana Squirrel Cuckoo 6
Piaya melanogaster Black-bellied Cuckoo 6
Coccyzus melacoryphus Dark-billed Cuckoo 2a
Coccyzus americanus Yellow-billed Cuckoo (NB) 2a, 3
Coccyzus euleri Pearly-breasted Cuckoo 2a, 3, 4
Coccyzus minor Mangrove Cuckoo 2a, 5
Coccyzus erythropthalmus Black-billed Cuckoo (NB) 2a
Coccyzus lansbergi Gray-capped Cuckoo 2a

Crotophaginae 7a
Crotophaga major Greater Ani
Crotophaga ani Smooth-billed Ani
Crotophaga sulcirostris Groove-billed Ani
Guira guira Guira Cuckoo

Neomorphinae
Tapera naevia Striped Cuckoo 8. 8a
Dromococcyx phasianellus Pheasant Cuckoo 8a
Dromococcyx pavoninus Pavonine Cuckoo 8a
Neomorphus geoffroyi Rufous-vented Ground-Cuckoo 9, 10
Neomorphus squamiger Scaled Ground-Cuckoo 11
Neomorphus radiolosus Banded Ground-Cuckoo
Neomorphus rufipennis Rufous-winged Ground-Cuckoo 12
Neomorphus pucheranii Red-billed Ground-Cuckoo


1. The monophyly of the Cuculiformes has never been seriously questioned, but their relationships to other birds has been considered uncertain (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006); previous inclusion of the Afrotropical Musophagidae in the Cuculiformes (e.g., REF) is not supported by recent analyses (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008). Hackett et al. (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship to a narrowly defined Gruiformes. Proposal needed to move in linear sequence?. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the family to consist of several family-level taxa based on strong genetic differences among them; the New World taxa were: Coccyzidae, Neomorphidae, and Crotophagidae. These three groups were treated as subfamilies by the AOU (1998), but Coccyzidae was included within the Cuculinae in Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data (Sorenson & Payne 2005) found strong support for the monophyly and recognition of these three subfamilies for New World taxa.<incorp. Payne 1997>.

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Payne (1997) considered Coccyzus pumilus and C. cinereus to form a superspecies. They were treated in a separate genus, Micrococcyx, by Ridgway (1916) and Pinto (1937). Peters (1945) merged Micrococcyx into Coccyzus, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. However, Sorenson & Payne (2005) and Hughes (2006) found that inclusion of these two species in Coccyzus would make that genus paraphyletic with respect to Piaya. Sorenson & Payne (2005) also found strong support for a sister relationship between Piaya minuta and these two species, and treatment of these three in a separate genus, Coccycua, is the only way that Coccyzus and Piaya can remain monophyletic. SACC proposal passed to recognize Coccycua. Banks et al. (2006) recognized Coccycua.

2a. Sorenson & Payne's (2004) genetic data revealed the following phylogenetic relationships among Coccyzus: (1) C. americanus and C. euleri are sister species, supporting their traditional placement together in linear sequences; (2) C. minor and extralimital C. ferrugineus are sister species (see Note 5); (3) the preceding two pairs are each others' sisters, with C. melacoryphus sister to the group that includes these four; and (4) C. erythropthalmus and C. lansbergi are more closely related to the West Indian genera Saurothera and Hyetornis than to other Coccyzus. SACC proposal passed to reflect these relationships through a change in linear sequence.

3. Mayr & Short (1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Payne (1997) considered Coccyzus americanus and C. euleri to form a superspecies; before it was realized that julienne and euleri were synonyms, julieni was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a subspecies of Coccyzus americanus.

4. Banks (1988) showed that the name julieni has priority over euleri, but the ICZN (1992) suppressed its use because <>.

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Payne (1997) considered Coccyzus minor and C. ferrugineus of Cocos Island to form a superspecies; they have been considered conspecific by some (e.g., REF).

6. This species was treated in the genus Coccycua by Ridgway (1916) and others (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937), but Peters (1945) merged Coccycua minuta into Piaya, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. However, Sorenson & Payne (2005) found that minuta is not closely related to the other two Piaya (but that P. cayana and P. melanogaster are sisters); see also Note 2. Hughes (2000) retained Coccycua for minuta based on osteological characters. SACC proposal passed to recognize Coccycua.

7. The species name for Coccycua/Piaya minuta was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) rutilus, but see Zimmer (1930).

7a. Recent genetic data (Sorenson & Payne 2005) confirmed that Guira and Crotophaga are sister genera, and that C. major is sister to the sister species C. ani and C. sulcirostris. Proposal needed (to move Guira first in linear sequence).

8. Called "American Striped Cuckoo" by Payne (1997, 2005), but that would seem unnecessary in that the African species, Clamator levaillanti, that is sometimes called "Striped Cuckoo" was called "Levaillant's Cuckoo" by Payne (1997, 2005).

8a. Recent genetic data (Sorenson & Payne 2005) confirmed that Dromococcyx is monophyletic and that Tapera and Dromococcyx are sister genera, thus supporting the traditional classification.

9. [need note on Haffer superspecies designations?]

10. The Central American subspecies salvini was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Neomorphus geoffroyi, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in most subsequent classifications (e.g., Payne 1997, 2005).

11. Neomorphus squamiger was treated as subspecies of geoffroyi by Payne (1997, 2005); they were treated as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990). proposal needed.

12. The southern subspecies nigrogularis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Neomorphus rufipennis, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 


STRIGIFORMES 1

TYTONIDAE (BARN OWLS) 1a
Tyto alba Barn Owl 1b, 1c, 1d

STRIGIDAE (OWLS)
Megascops choliba Tropical Screech-Owl 2, 2a
Megascops roboratus Peruvian Screech-Owl 2b, 2c, 2d
Megascops koepckeae Koepcke's Screech-Owl 3
Megascops clarkii Bare-shanked Screech-Owl
Megascops colombianus Colombian Screech-Owl 4
Megascops ingens Rufescent Screech-Owl 4, 4a
Megascops petersoni Cinnamon Screech-Owl 5, 6
Megascops marshalli Cloud-forest Screech-Owl 5a, 6, 6a
Megascops watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-Owl 7
Megascops atricapilla Black-capped Screech-Owl 8, 9
Megascops hoyi Montane Forest Screech-Owl 8, 10, 10a
Megascops sanctaecatarinae Long-tufted Screech-Owl 8
Megascops guatemalae Vermiculated Screech-Owl 11
Megascops albogularis White-throated Screech-Owl
Lophostrix cristata Crested Owl
Pulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled Owl 12
Pulsatrix koeniswaldiana Tawny-browed Owl 12a
Pulsatrix melanota Band-bellied Owl 12a
Bubo virginianus Great Horned Owl 13
Strix hylophila Rusty-barred Owl
Strix rufipes Rufous-legged Owl
Strix chacoensis Chaco Owl 14
Ciccaba virgata Mottled Owl 15, 15a
Ciccaba nigrolineata Black-and-white Owl 15b
Ciccaba huhula Black-banded Owl 15b
Ciccaba albitarsis Rufous-banded Owl 16
Glaucidium nubicola Cloud-forest Pygmy-Owl 17, 17a
Glaucidium jardinii Andean Pygmy-Owl 18
Glaucidium bolivianum Yungas Pygmy-Owl 19
Glaucidium parkeri Subtropical Pygmy-Owl 20
Glaucidium griseiceps Central American Pygmy-Owl 22, 22a
Glaucidium hardyi Amazonian Pygmy-Owl 21, 22, 22a
Glaucidium mooreorum Pernambuco Pygmy-Owl 22b
Glaucidium minutissimum Least Pygmy-Owl 22, 22c
Glaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl 18, 23
Glaucidium nanum Austral Pygmy-Owl 24
Glaucidium peruanum Peruvian Pygmy-Owl 25
Xenoglaux loweryi Long-whiskered Owlet 26
Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl 27
Aegolius harrisii Buff-fronted Owl 27a
Pseudoscops clamator Striped Owl 28, 29
Asio stygius Stygian Owl
Asio flammeus Short-eared Owl 30


1. Although the monophyly of the Strigiformes has never been seriously questioned, its relationships to other birds are controversial. Some genetic data (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) sets favor their traditional sister relationship to Caprimulgiformes, some morphological data (e.g., Cracraft 1981, 1988, McKitrick 1991, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey & Zusi 2007) favor a sister relationship to the Falconiformes, or at least consistent with that relationship (Fidler et al. 2004), and yet other data (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) leave their position ambiguous but definitely do not support a relationship to Caprimulgiformes or Falconiformes. Hackett et al.'s (2008) comprehensive analysis refuted any relationship to the Caprimulgiformes, but placed them within a broad group that included most other landbird orders, including Falconiformes. <develop> . <incorp Wink et al. 2004>.

1a. All molecular and morphological analyses to date confirm the monophyly of the Tytonidae and its distinctiveness from the Strigidae. With a fossil record that extends back to the Paleocene (fide Bruce 1999), traditional recognition as a family separate from Strigidae is well justified.

1b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that the Galapagos subspecies punctatissima might deserve recognition as a separate species from Tyto alba, as it was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated and is now treated by Wink et al. (2008).  Proposal needed?

1c. The New World perlata subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Old World Tyto alba.

1d. Called "Common Barn-Owl" in some references (e.g., AOU 1983).

1e.  Some classifications (e.g., Marks et al. 1999) recognize three subfamilies within Strigidae: Striginae, Surniinae, and Asioninae.  Wink et al. (2008) found that Asioninae is embedded within Striginae and that Surniinae, which includes Aegolius, Glaucidium, and Athene, is monophyletic only if Old World Ninox is excluded.  Proposal needed to recognize two subfamilies or at least to modify linear sequence.

2. Recent analyses of genetic and vocal differences (Kšnig et al. 1999, Wink et al. 2008) confirm a major division of the screech-owls into New World Otus (except O. flammulatus) and Old World groups, as noted by Amadon & Bull (1988). <incorp. Van der Weyden 1975> Consequently, the AOU (Banks et al. 2003) placed all New World Otus (except O. flammulatus) in the genus Megascops. SACC proposal passed to place South American Otus in Megascops.

2a. Called "Savanna Screech-Owl" in FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990).

2b. FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) followed Hekstra (1982) based on a purported intermediate specimen in treating Megascops roboratus as a subspecies of M. choliba.

2c. Kšnig et al. (1999) suggested that the subspecies pacificus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Megascops roboratus.

2d. Called "West Peruvian Screech-Owl" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Proposal needed?

3. Megascops koepckeae was originally described as a subspecies of M. choliba and treated as such in Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Recent authors have considered it to be a distinct species following (REF).  Called "Maria Koepcke's Screech-Owl" in Kšnig et al. (1999).

4. Megascops columbianus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of M. ingens, but see Fitzpatrick & O'Neill (1986) for recognition as a separate species; this treatment was followed by Marks et al. (1999), but not Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). They form a superspecies. SACC proposal needed for continued recognition of this species.

4a. "Ciccaba minima," described from Bolivia, is now considered a synonym of Megascops ingens ingens (Bond 1951a, Traylor 1952<>). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5. Recently described: Fitzpatrick & O'Neill (1986). SACC proposal passed for continued recognition of this species.

5a. Recently described: Weske & Terborgh (1981). [Should we hyphenate "Cloud forest" or use as single word, as in Marks et al. (1999)?]

6. Kšnig et al. (1999) proposed that Megascops marshalli was most closely related to M. petersoni; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies.

6a. SACC proposal passed to change spelling of English name to "Cloud-forest."

7. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Kšnig et al. (1999) treated usta as a separate species from Megascops watsonii based on vocal differences, but this was not followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to recognize usta as a separate species from M. watsonii was rejected because of inadequate geographic sampling and analysis.

7a. Haverschmidt & Mees (1994) followed Hekstra (1982) in treating M. watsonii as conspecific with M. atricapilla, but this has not been followed by other authors. Wink et al. (2008) found that M. atricapilla and M. watsonii (represented by usta) are sisters.

8. Megascops sanctaecatarinae was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of M. atricapilla, with the composite English name "Long-tufted Screech-Owl." Heidrich et al. (1995a), Kšnig et al. (1999), and Marks et al. (1999) considered them to be separate species based on <voice> and to form a superspecies with M. hoyi. SACC proposal to lump hoyi and sanctaecatarinae into M. atricapilla did not pass. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered M. sanctaecatarinae and M. hoyi conspecific with M. atricapilla, along with M. guatemalae (but treated vermiculatus as a separate species). Wink et al. (2008) found that sanctaecatarinae is not the sister to M. atricapilla.

9. Correct spelling for species name is atricapilla (David & Gosselin 2002a).

10. Recently described: Koenig & Straneck (1989).

10a. Called "Hoy's Screech-Owl" in Marks et al. (1999). Proposal needed?

11. Cory (1918), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Marks et al. (1999), and Dickinson (2003) split this into two, Megascops guatemalae (Mexico to Costa Rica) and M. vermiculatus. Kšnig et al. (1999) split this species into four: M. guatemalae found from Mexico to Costa Rica; M. vermiculatus ("Vermiculated Screech-Owl") found from Costa Rica to northwestern Colombia; M. roraimae ("Roraiman Screech-Owl", "Tepui Screech-Owl," or "Foothill Screech-Owl") found in the Tepui region; and M. napensis ("Rio Napo Screech Owl" -- an inappropriate name) found in the Andes. Hardy et al. (1999), based on voice, also recognized Pacific slope centralis as a separate species; this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal passed to retain broad M. guatemalae until thorough, formal analysis of entire complex is published.

12. Kšnig et al. (1999) treated the subspecies pulsatrix of southeastern Brazil as a separate species from widespread Pulsatrix perspicillata because of vocal and plumage differences. SACC proposal to recognize pulsatrix as separate species did not pass.

12a. Pulsatrix melanota and P. koeniswaldiana may form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Marks et al. 1999); Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that they may even be best treated as conspecific.

13. Kšnig et al. (1996, 1999), followed by Marks et al. (1999), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Wink et al. (2008), recognized B. magellanicus as separate from B. virginianus based primarily on vocal differences; critical intermediate populations, however, have yet to be sampled. SACC proposal to recognize as separate species did not pass. [NACC rejected a proposal to recognized magellanicus as a species pending more thorough study, including sampling of critical intermediate populations.]

14. Strix chacoensis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of S. rufipes, but it may be more closely related to S. hylophila, to which it is more similar vocally (Straneck and Vid—z 1995, Kšnig et al. 1999, Marks et al. 1999). SACC proposal passed for recognition of this taxon as a species.

15. Many authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Howell & Webb 1995, Kšnig et al. 1999, Marks et al. 1999, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Dickinson 2003, Wink et al. 2008) merge Ciccaba into Strix, but published evidence not convincing (although published evidence for recognition of Ciccaba also not convincing); proposal needed. [wait for ongoing projects on phylogeny of Strigidae].<incorp. Peters 1938, Voous 1964, Norberg 1977>

15a. The South American superciliaris subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Middle American Ciccaba virgata. The southern subspecies borelliana (= "suinda") was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from other South American taxa.

15b. Ciccaba nigrolineata and C. huhula form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); similarity in vocalizations suggests that they may actually be conspecific (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). (incorp. Blake 1958)

16. Correct spelling for species name is albitarsis, not Òalbitarsus" (David & Gosselin 2002a).

17.  Genetic data (Wink et al. 2008) confirm the monophyly of Glaucidium and support a major division between New World and Old World species.

17a. Recently described: Robbins and Stiles (1999); possibly more closely related to Glaucidium gnoma/G. costaricanum of Middle America than to G. jardinii.

18. Kšnig (1991) and Heidrich et al. (1995b) showed that Central American populations formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Glaucidium jardinii are more closely related to North American G. gnoma group. Phelps & Phelps (1958a) treated jardinii as a subspecies of G. brasilianum.

19. Recently described: Kšnig (1991). Glaucidium bolivianum was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included within G. jardinii, but Kšnig (1991) and Heidrich et al. (1995b) provided evidence for treating it as a separate species; genetic data (Wink et al. 2008) confirm their status as sister taxa.

20. Recently described: Robbins & Howell (1995); separated from Glaucidium hardyi from Amazonian lowlands based on vocalizations.

21. Recently described: Vielliard (1989).

22. Howell and Robbins (1995) and Robbins and Howell (1995) supported recognition of hardyi as a species separate from Glaucidium minutissimum, and they also showed that Middle American taxa in this group should also be considered separate species. This treatment has been followed by Kšnig et al. (1999) and Marks et al. (1999).

22a. Called "Brazilian Pygmy-Owl" in Howell and Robbins (1995).

22b. Recently described: Silva et al. (2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize this newly described species. Kšnig & Weick (2005) proposed that the type of minutissimum is actually mooreorum, therefore leaving the southeastern Brazilian population without a name; they proposed sicki as the new name for this population. SACC proposal to follow Kšnig & Weick did not pass.

22c. Glaucidium minutissimum was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) known as G. pumilum.

23. The subspecies tucumanum was treated as a separate species from Glaucidium brasilianum by Heidrich et al. (1995b), Wink and Heidrich (1999), and Wink et al. (2008) based on genetic data and slight vocal differences. Kšnig et al. (1999) followed this treatment, also noting differences in habitat and plumage, as did Marks et al. (1999). Kšnig et al. (1999) also separated G. ridgwayi, of Middle America and NW Colombia, from G. brasilianum. Proposal needed.

24. Glaucidium nanum has sometimes been considered a subspecies of G. brasilianum (Mar’n et al. 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but see Kšnig (1991), Jaramillo (2003), and Wink et al.(2008).

25. Recently described: Kšnig (1991); separated from Glaucidium brasilianum based primarily on vocalizations.

25a. Called "Pacific Pygmy-Owl" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed?

26. Recently described: O'Neill & Graves (1977).

27. Athene cunicularia is placed in the monotypic genus Speotyto by many (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1940, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but see Voous (1960), Amadon & Bull (1988), and (REFs). Wink et al. (2008) found that it is the sister to all Old World Athene sampled.

27a. Aegolius harrisii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Gisella. Wink et al. (2008) found that it is the sister species to North American A. acadicus, and that Holarctic A. funereus is sister to these two.  The species name formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) used for A. harrisii was iheringi.

28. See Olson (1995) for placing this species in Pseudoscops rather than Asio, where usually placed (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Kšnig et al. 1999, Marks et al. 1999) or in the monotypic genus Rhinoptynx (e.g., Pinto 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970).  Genetic data (Wink et al. 2008) indicate that this species is the sister to Asio otus, and that they are in turn sister to A. flammeus and A. capensis.  Proposal badly needed to merge Pseudoscops into Asio.

29. The southern subspecies midas was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a separate species from Pseudoscops clamator.

30. The subspecies galapagoensis of the Galapagos was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a separate species from Asio flammeus.

 


 

CAPRIMULGIFORMES 1

STEATORNITHIDAE (OILBIRD) 1, 1a
Steatornis caripensis Oilbird

NYCTIBIIDAE (POTOOS) 2
Nyctibius grandis Great Potoo
Nyctibius aethereus Long-tailed Potoo 3
Nyctibius griseus Common Potoo 4, 6
Nyctibius maculosus Andean Potoo 5, 6
Nyctibius leucopterus White-winged Potoo 5
Nyctibius bracteatus Rufous Potoo 7


1 . Most recent analyses indicate that the Caprimulgiformes as traditionally defined (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) is not a monophyletic group. The Old World Aegothelidae are almost certainly more closely related to or members of the Apodiformes (e.g., Mayr 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004, Barrowclough et al. 2006, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007, Braun & Huddleston 2009; cf. Fain & Houde 2004). Likewise, whether the Old World Podargidae are members of the Caprimulgiformes has been questioned (e.g., Mayr 2002, Cracraft et al. 2004) but see <>Dumbacher et al. (2003), Fidler et al. (2004), Barrowclough et al. (2006), and Hackett et al. (2008). Within the Neotropical families, some morphological data suggest that the Steatornithidae and the Trogoniformes might be sister taxa (Mayr 2003b, Mayr & Clarke 2003), but genetic data do not support this (Barrowclough et al. 2006, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). Some genetic data (e.g., Fidler et al. 2004) are consistent with a sister relationship between the Caprimulgidae and Nyctibiidae, as is also suggested by some morphological data (Mayr 2002; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007). The Caprimulgiformes and Apodiformes are likely sister taxa (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey & Zusi 2007). The most comprehensive genetic data set (Hackett et al. 2008) indicates that the Caprimulgiformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Apodiformes, even if Aegothelidae included in the latter; however, they found strong support for the monophyly of a composite group that includes all traditional members of both orders, with Steatornis or Nyctibiidae likely basal to the rest. Proposal needed to reflect this in SACC classification <perhaps by elevating Steatornithidae and Nyctibiidae to rank of order>.
1a. With a fossil record that extends to the early Eocene 50 million years ago, and some doubts as to their placement in the Caprimulgiformes, ranking the Oilbird in its own Order, Steatornithiformes, should be considered. Proposal needed (see Note 1).
2. Genetic data (Braun & Huddleston 2009) confirm that the Nyctibiidae as traditionally defined is monophyletic.  Within the Nyctibiidae, Mariaux and Braun (1996) and Brumfield et al. (1997) did not find consistent evidence for strong relationships among any of the species except N. griseus, N. maculosus, and N. leucopterus.
[incorp Cohn-Haft 1999]. Holyoak (2001) inverted the linear sequence of species to correspond with that used by Hartert in the 1800s to reflect the superficial similarity of N. bracteatus to other caprimulgiform genera such as Batrachostomus.  Costa and Donatelli (2009) found that interspecific variation in cranial morphology was so extensive that inclusion of all species in a single genus was misleading.
3. The subspecies longicaudatus (with chocoensis) may merit recognition as a separate species from Nyctibius aethereus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Whittaker & Oren 1999, Holyoak 2001); in fact, it was long treated as a separate species (e.g., REFS) and was lumped into aethereus with little evidence (Cohn-Haft 1999); vocalizations, however, are evidently similar (see Holyoak 2001).
4. Nyctibius griseus is considered a separate species from Middle American N. jamaicensis (Northern Potoo) based on vocal differences (Davis 1978, Hardy et al. 1988, Stiles & Skutch 1989, Cohn-Haft 1999); they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
5. Nyctibius maculosus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Peters 1940, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of N. leucopterus, but see Schulenberg et al. (1984) and Cohn-Haft (1999) for a return to the classification of Cory (1919) and for rationale that maculosus is more closely related to N. griseus than to N. leucopterus, contra Chapman (1926) and subsequent authors. Mariaux and Braun (1996) and Brumfield et al. (1997) found that N. maculosus, N. griseus, and N. leucopterus were closely related.
6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nyctibius griseus and N. maculosus, along with northern N. jamaicensis, to form a superspecies.
7. Costa and Donatelli (2009) suggested that N. bracteatus differed so much in cranial morphology from other Nyctibius that it should be placed in its own genus.


CAPRIMULGIDAE (NIGHTJARS) 1
Lurocalis semitorquatus Short-tailed Nighthawk 1a
Lurocalis rufiventris Rufous-bellied Nighthawk 2
Chordeiles pusillus Least Nighthawk 2a
Chordeiles rupestris Sand-colored Nighthawk
Chordeiles acutipennis Lesser Nighthawk
Chordeiles minor Common Nighthawk (NB) 3b
Chordeiles gundlachii Antillean Nighthawk (V) 3c
Nyctiprogne leucopyga Band-tailed Nighthawk
Nyctiprogne vielliardi Bahian Nighthawk 3, 3a
Podager nacunda Nacunda Nighthawk
Nyctidromus albicollis Common Pauraque 4
Nyctiphrynus ocellatus Ocellated Poorwill
Nyctiphrynus rosenbergi Choco Poorwill 5
Caprimulgus carolinensis Chuck-will's-widow (NB) 6, 6a, 6b
Caprimulgus rufus Rufous Nightjar 6, 6b, 7
Caprimulgus sericocaudatus Silky-tailed Nightjar 6b, 8, 9
Caprimulgus longirostris Band-winged Nightjar 9a, 9b, 9c
Caprimulgus cayennensis White-tailed Nightjar 9b
Caprimulgus candicans White-winged Nightjar 10, 9b
Caprimulgus maculicaudus Spot-tailed Nightjar 10a
Caprimulgus heterurus Todd's Nightjar 11
Caprimulgus parvulus Little Nightjar 11, 12, 12a
Caprimulgus anthonyi Scrub Nightjar 12
Caprimulgus maculosus Cayenne Nightjar 13
Caprimulgus nigrescens Blackish Nightjar 14, 14a
Caprimulgus whitelyi Roraiman Nightjar 14, 14a
Caprimulgus hirundinaceus Pygmy Nightjar 14a
Hydropsalis climacocerca Ladder-tailed Nightjar 14b
Hydropsalis torquata Scissor-tailed Nightjar 14c, 15
Uropsalis segmentata Swallow-tailed Nightjar 16, 17
Uropsalis lyra Lyre-tailed Nightjar
Macropsalis forcipata Long-trained Nightjar 17, 18
Eleothreptus anomalus Sickle-winged Nightjar 10

 


1. Although many classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) divide the Caprimulgidae into two subfamilies, Chordeilinae and Caprimulginae, Barrowclough et al. (2006) found that this creates paraphyletic groupings, with "Chordeilinae" embedded with Caprimulginae. Sibley and Ahlquist (1990) and Barrowclough et al. (2006) found that Australasian Eurostopodus was basal to all other caprimulgid genera sampled. Barrowclough et al. (2006) and Larsen et al. (2007) also found that Caprimulgus, as currently constituted, is highly polyphyletic; for example, New World taxa sampled so far indicate that northern C. carolinensis and C. vociferus fall within a group that includes Phalaenoptilus (extralimital), Nyctiphrynus, and Otophanes, whereas C. longirostris, C. maculicaudus, and C. parvulus fall within a group that includes Hydropsalis, Uropsalis, Nyctidromus, Nyctiprogne, and Lurocalis. As Barrowclough et al. (2006) noted, formal changes to current classification await additional taxon sampling, although a return to Ridgway's more narrowly defined genera would be a more accurate reflection of phylogeny than maintaining the current broadly defined Caprimulgus.
1a. The subspecies nattereri was considered a separate species from Lurocalis semitorquatus
by Hardy et al. (1989). However, vocalizations appear to be the same, and the degree of chestnut on the underparts of nattereri is variable (N. Cleere, pers. comm.). Proposal needed?
2. Lurocalis rufiventris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered a subspecies of L. semitorquatus, but see Parker et al. (1991), FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for a return to the classification of Cory (1918); Cleere (1998, 1999) and AOU (1998) recognized this split. Lurocalis rufiventris and L. semitorquatus presumably form a superspecies.
2a. Chordeiles pusillus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a monotypic genus, Nannochordeiles, but Peters (1940) merged this into Chordeiles.
3. Recently described: Lencioni-Neto (1994).
3a. Cleere (1999) suspected that although a valid species, it was more closely related to Nyctiprogne than to Chordeiles. Whitney et al. (2003) provided evidence that this species should indeed be placed in Nyctiprogne. SACC proposal passed to reassign to Nyctiprogne.
3b. Chordeiles minor was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as C. virginianus.
3c. Two specimens from Cura�ao (Voous 1982, 1985); true status uncertain.
3d. Chordeiles gundlachii was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. minor, but see Eisenmann (1962b) and Stevenson et al. (1983); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
4. Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) found that Nyctidromus was embedded within Caprimulgus, but see Barrowclough et al. (2006), who found that Nyctidromus was basal to a group that included Uropsalis, Hydropsalis, and some New World "Caprimulgus."
4a. Called "Pauraque" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Holyoak (2001). Proposal needed?
5. Nyctiphrynus rosenbergi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of N. ocellatus, but strong vocal and plumage differences indicate that it should be treated as a separate species (Robbins and Ridgely 1992), a return to the classification of Cory (1918); this treatment was followed by Cleere (1997), AOU (1998), Holyoak (2001), and Dickinson (2003).
6. Caprimulgus carolinensis and C. rufus form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Cleere 1999).
6a. New World Caprimulgus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) not included in that genus, which was restricted to Old World taxa; see details below; they were all transferred to Caprimulgus by Peters (1940). Barrowclough et al. (2006) and Larsen et al. (2007) found that Peters' broadly defined Caprimulgus is a highly polyphyletic group; thus, Cory's original groupings may better reflect phylogeny. Proposal badly needed.
<to resurrect Antrostomus and Antiurus>
6b. Caprimulgus carolinensis, C. rufus, and C. sericocaudatus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in a separate genus, Antrostomus, along with several Middle American species, and Pinto (1937) treated them in the genus Setochalcis. Peters (1940) merged these into Caprimulgus. See Note 6a. Proposal badly needed.
7. The subspecies otiosus from Lesser Antilles has been treated as a separate species from Caprimulgus rufus by some (Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore & Phelps 1953), but see Robbins & Parker (1997).
8. Caprimulgus sericocaudatus does not include saltarius Olrog, 1979, now considered a subspecies of C. rufus (Cleere 1999).
9. Caprimulgus sericocaudatus forms a superspecies with Middle American C. salvini and C. badius (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly treated as conspecific by some (e.g., Peters 1940).
9a. Davis (1979) considered the subspecies ruficervix of the northern Andes to be a separate species from Caprimulgus longirostris based on vocal differences; it was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Systellura, but Peters (1940) treated them as congeneric. (See also Notes 1 and 6a.) The subspecies decussatus of western Peru was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from C. longirostris, but Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific.
9b. Caprimulgus longirostris, C. cayennensis, and C. candicans were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918,Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Thermochalcis, but this was merged into Caprimulgus by Peters (1940). Larsen et al. (2007) found weak support that longirostris and candicans were closely related (cayennensis not sampled). See also Notes 1 and 6a. Proposal needed.
10. Although formerly thought to be closely related to or form superspecies with C. cayennensis (Sibley & Monroe 1990), Cleere (2002) presented evidence that Caprimulgus candicans should be transferred to genus Eleothreptus. SACC proposal to move to Eleothreptus did not pass. Larsen et al. (2007) found strong genetic support that C. candicans and E. anomalus were sister species, but that they are embedded in a group that consists of "C." longirostris, "C." maculicaudus, Hydropsalis brasiliana, and Uropsalis segmentata.
10a. Caprimulgus maculicaudus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in separate genus, Antiurus, but this was merged into Caprimulgus by Peters (1940). See Notes 1 and 6a. Larsen et al. (2007) found strong genetic support that maculicaudus is not a Caprimulgus but is a member of a group that includes Hydropsalis, Uropsalis, Eleothreptus, "C." longirostris, and "C." candicans; the genetic data of Barrowclough et al. (2006) are largely consistent with this as well. Proposal needed.
11. The taxon heterurus was treated as a separate species by Cory (1918), but it was considered conspecific with Caprimulgus parvulus by Peters (1940). Schwartz (1968) also considered heterurus to be a subspecies of C. parvulus based solely on plumage. Davis (1979) considered heterurus to be a separate species from C. parvulus based on vocal differences, and Hilty (2003) noted that more than one species are almost certainly involved. SACC proposal passed to treat heterurus as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to change English name to "Todd's Nightjar" because the former one, Santa Marta Nightjar, was misleading.
12. Caprimulgus anthonyi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. parvulus, but plumage and vocal differences indicate that it should be treated as a separate species (Schwartz 1968, Robbins et al. 1994); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
12a. Caprimulgus parvulus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Setopagis, but Peters (1940) merged this into Caprimulgus. Barrowclough et al. (2006) found that Peters' broadly defined Caprimulgus is a highly polyphyletic group, and that "C." parvulus is a member of a group that includes Hydropsalis, "C." longirostris, and "C." maculicaudus; thus, Cory's original groupings may better reflect phylogeny. Proposal needed.
13. Caprimulgus maculosus is known only from the type specimen.
14. Caprimulgus nigrescens and C. whitelyi form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cleere 1999).
14a. Caprimulgus nigrescens, C. whitelyi, and C. hirundinaceus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Nyctipolus, but Peters (1940) merged this into Caprimulgus. Unfortunately, neither Barrowclough et al. (2006) nor Larsen et al. (2007) were able to include these taxa in their sampling.
14b. The Guianan Shield subspecies schomburgki was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Hydropsalis climacocerca, but Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific.
14c. The southern subspecies furcifer was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, where given as furcifera) considered a separate species from Hydropsalis torquata, but Peters (1940) treated them as conspecific.
15. For use of torquata rather than brasiliana for this species, see Teixeira (1992), Pacheco and Whitney (1998), and Cleere (1999). Proposal needed?
16. The southern subspecies kalinowskii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a separate species and in a separate genus, Macropsalis, from Uropsalis segmentata, but see Peters (1940).
17. Holyoak (2001) merged Uropsalis into Macropsalis, noting that the characters used to distinguish the two genera, mainly tail shape, are not appropriate for generic distinction.
Proposal needed.
18. Formerly known as M. creagra
. Pacheco & Whitney (1998), followed by Cleere (1999), proposed that correct species name for this is Macropsalis forcipata, as in Pinto (1937) etc.; this was followed by Holyoak (2001). SACC proposal passed to adopt the name M. forcipata.


 

Part 4. Apodiformes (click)