Complete Checklist of Birds of the World, Vol. 2. Passerines. by Aves Press

WELCOME TO A PREVIEW OF THE 4TH EDITION (2013-14) OF

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD, VOLUME 2. PASSERINES Editors: E C Dickinson and L Christidis If you have not bought Volume 1 we recommend you read the preview to that because you will find that the examples in that, of the content of Volume 1, are not the same as those shown here â&#x20AC;&#x201C; sometimes representing sections of Volume 1 not parallelled in Volume 2. Or because the content in the two volumes, being similar in its presentation, a fresh representation here is unnecessary. As in that preview, the pages that follow are partly from the printed book and partly from the CD for Volume 2 which includes a spreadsheet equivalent to 609 wide pages and 298 other pages. To some the content will be of great value; this we believe applies to all who write scientific papers or books on birds because their publishers and their readers expect them to ensure their content is as accurate as possible. Managers of museum collections, biogeographers and conservationists will all see a reason to consider this work as an important tool, perhaps even an indispensable one, especially since it contains the formal introduction of no less than five new family-group names, and other novelties. which change the book from a secondary reference to one that is a primary source for nomenclature. Here are the vital statistics, in each case the first number relates to Vol. 1 and the second to Vol. 2: pages (511, 804), families (100, 134); genera (983, 1357); species (4072, 6063); additional subspecies (7184, 10673); footnotes (4000+, 8000+); references (to main list only) (2807, 3043). Two main principles govern our approach: (1) we publish in print so that everything is able to be checked back to something that is not ephemeral, and (2) we explain, and/or mention alternative views providing references. In the first we differ from the available on-line checklists; in the second we differ from the volumes published by Lynx Edicions where the information given is not evidently linked to a reference. Our Updates will appear in an e-journal with its own ISSN; thus they too will meet the publishing requirements for new zoological names. U.K. e-journals with ISSNs are being archived by the British Library and should be enduringly available. This preview also serves to facilitate book reviews for journals looking to provide a brief review (less than a page). Journals prepared to offer more review space may request a review copy. It is the firm belief of this team, that no university library supporting teaching in zoology and no museum with a collection of birds should be without a hard copy of this work. It will be indispensable for decades to come.

The Howard and Moore

COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD 4th Edition Volume Two Passerines

Edward C Dickinson and L Christidis (editors) Special Adviser Joel Cracraft Assistant editors

Shaun Peters and Marek Kuziemko

Normand David Robert J Dowsett Steven M S Gregory Tim Inskipp

Denis Lepage David Pearson Daniel Philippe Kees Roselaar

Richard Schodde Lars Svensson Dick Watling David R Wells

Database design and management Denis Lepage with special thanks to

Frederik Brammer Aasheesh Pittie

Theo de Kok Tommy Tyrberg

and thanks to the Editorial Advisory Committee Jon Fjeldså Rauri Bowie Alice Cibois

Les Christidis Irby Lovette Jan Ohlson

Martin Päckert Frank E Rheindt Paul Scofield

Published by Aves Press Limited, Eastbourne All rights in the title and front cover design of “The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World” are owned by the Trust for Avian Systematics. Registered charity No. 1014427. Copyright 2014 © Edward C. Dickinson (save to the extent owned by holding trustees for the Trust for Avian Systematics). ISBN 978‐0‐9568611‐2‐2

Printed and bound by Imago in China

Recommended Citation: Dickinson, E.C. & L. Christidis (Eds.). 2014. The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 4th. Edition, Vol. 2, Aves Press, Eastbourne, U.K. Citation to authored content within the book is recommended in the following format: Cracraft, J. 2014. Avian Higher‐level Relationships and Classification: Passeriforms. Pp. xvii‐xlv in: Dickinson, E.C. & L. Christidis (Eds.) 2014. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 4th. Edition, Vol. 2, Aves Press, Eastbourne, U.K.

A CIP catalogue record of this book is available from The British Library All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced or used in any form or by any means, without written permission of the publishers and other owners of intellectual property rights, and this applies to photographic, electronic or mechanical means, including photocopying, recording, taping or information storage and retrieval systems

Data set users for purposes of collection management and providers of collection access and significant support through library and other facilities

Host of on‐line editorial database

Contents

Preface Subscribers Contents Introduction Avian higher level relationships and classification: Passeriformes. By Joel Cracraft Table of contents, links and statistics Making full use of the list as presented The Checklist

v viii ix xi xvii xlvii li 1

Appendix 1. Nomenclature of the higher classificatory ranks of birds. By R. Schodde (Updated)

631 635 635 635 635 635 636 637 637 638 640 640 641 641 641 643 647 649 653 659 735

Appendix 2. Matters of nomenclature and taxonomy 2.1 New nomenclatural acts herein 2.1.1 New ranks proposed 2.1.2 Formal proposals of new family names authored by those credited a) Pygarrichadinae subfam. nov. Moyle, Chesser & Cracraft b) Cettinae subfam. nov. Alström, Olsson & Ericson c)

Hyliotidae fam. nov. Fjeldså

d) Nicatoridae fam. nov. Cracraft, Beresford & Barker e) Pitohuinae subfam. nov. Christidis & Schodde 2.1.3 Nomina nova 2.1.4 First Reviser actions made herein 2.1.5 First Reviser actions made by others mentioned in footnotes 2.1.6 Designations of type species 2.2 Notes on particular nomenclatural issues (background notes) 2.3 Notes on particular taxonomic issues (background notes) Appendix 3. Common names in English. By D.R. Wells, R.J. Dowsett, L. Svensson & L. Christidis Appendix 4. Variable species‐group names. By N. David & M. Gosselin (as in Volume 1) Errata and Corrigenda to Volume 1 Index to scientific names Index to English names

The above list does not include the content of the CD at the back of the volume. See p. x

Contents of the accompanying CD‐ROM List of References Appendix 5. Extinct birds. By T. Tyrberg & E.C. Dickinson Appendix 6. Gazetteer (places names used in this work). By S. Peters Appendix 7. Selected maps (mainly to illustrate taxon ranges) Appendix 8. Species‐group name spellings (conflict cases examined). By N. David & E.C. Dickinson Appendix 9. Dates of Publication (links to “Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology”).

To be made available with a future update issue: Index of synonyms listed in the footnotes of the two volumes (with original and current spellings and genus names). Family‐group names – their authors, dates and citations.

INTRODUCTION See pp. xi‐xx of volume one for an Introduction to this work as a whole. Comments below generally complement, illustrate or emphasise subjects treated therein.

CUT‐OFF DATE We have taken 31 December 2013 as our cut‐off date. However, a few relevant 2013 works have probably escaped us. Where we cite 2014 papers, these should be found to be in ‘2014’ volumes but were reported to be published electronically in 20131. In cases where such papers contain new scientific names, and which met the conditions required for validity as from the date of electronic publication – see I.C.Z.N. (2012) [8] we reflect the 2013 date in the taxon line but 2014 in our list of references. When this applies, we modify the citation in our list of references. Thus, for example: “Bloggs, 2014. A molecular phylogeny of the xybecs with the descriptions of a new species of Xybec from Neutralia. – Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 99: 1‐6 (2013)” would signal early electronic publication, meeting the Code’s requirements, but with a print edition included in a volume dated 2014. This method is based on the idea that interested researchers will be searching based on the volume date. A paper published electronically in 2013 that does not meet the Code’s requirements but includes a new taxon name will be cited in respect of its general content, but the 2014 name does not qualify until the print edition appears (or, if there is no print edition, registration of the taxon name with ZooBank takes place). The only other 2014 papers that we cite are those in which one or more of our team were involved as authors.

METHODOLOGY Interpretation of genetic evidence There is increasingly a welcome and perceptible difference between published studies. Some end with clear taxonomic recommendations which have been considered in depth. Such recommendations may including achieving monophyly by the agglomeration of current genera or by restoring smaller genera. At their best they will have found and discussed cases where taxonomic change has created new homonymy and have made known the replacement names, either from synonymy or as nomina nova. Other such studies have led us, in the course of editing this volume, to complete the interpretation of some phylogenies and occasionally we have discerned, from the published treatment, options that we believe to be preferable. One of our team recently wrote “As for species concept implications, if we are operating under the BSC, then molecular data at the stage it is at now simply provides adjunct information ‐ the signal traits of plumage, morphology, voice and even ecological attributes remain the primary indicators of species status for allopatric taxa.” In other words, the evidence from molecular studies is of very strong importance above the species level but at and below the species level, where the taxa themselves are constantly making decisions on how they will react when meeting near‐relatives, the molecular evidence is just one element in the judgement process. Generating a taxonomy from phylogenetic trees is a process that must allow for the difference between linear presentation on a page and the three‐dimensional reality of tree branches and twigs. Thus at certain points in any tree, the branch or twig can be rotated and may have been rotated by its proponents. In simple terms, our philosophy is to work from the concept that the root of the tree, at its foot (although sometimes presented on the page as at the top) is basal: thus this branch of the tree will have its start closest to the left‐hand margin. Subsequent branches (major clades) will have their start points further right and this progression continues as you climb up from the base. Within these clades there may be minor clades and each endpoint (or twig) will bear a taxon name. In the following chapter the trees deal with relationships above genus level. The value of applying a phylogenetic sequence within a genus is debatable, not least because species within it differ little in their evolutionary age and evidence of the degrees of difference may not be robust. However, the alternative of listing species alphabetically is not compatible with providing information on superspecies – which reflect presumed relatively recent common ancestry – and there has been a convention for about a half century to keep such species together, and this objective is maintained here provided that the superspecies are not contradicted by new phylogenetic evidence.

1 The Code requires works published electronically, that include new names, to have their own date of publication. Unfortunately some publishers, in their final print edition, do not include the date of publication of the electronic forerunner. This will lead to some dates bearing later dates than they may deserve.

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Ordinal ranks Appendix 1 contains one small but important change: in the line for Infraorder the two right hand columns are completed.

Families Readers will find 134 passerine families in this volume compared with 96 passerine families in our 2003 edition, a 40% increase. In addition where in 2003 we had genera incertae sedis outside families such genera are now almost all attached with some degree of certainty to a family, even if their place within, or close to, that family awaits better resolution. A number of new passerine family‐group names have been introduced over the last 20 years, i.e. since Bock (1994) [1]. Some of these, as well as some listed by Bock, and in particular those in Die Vogelarten der Erde by Wolters (1975‐1982), have not been validly introduced, for one reason or another. Too often authors proposing new names have either misread or not read the Code. Every name proposed after 1930, at any rank, must when proposed be accompanied by a description or a diagnosis, see Article 13 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [7]. We have in all cases sought to check on this, and been generous in deciding on whether a diagnosis is or is not present. The consequences of our focus on this have included providing help for several papers in which authors have republished family‐group names in order to comply and the last‐minute inclusion of a few additional family‐ group name introductions in our Appendix 2. Unfortunately in one such case the Principle of Priority forced one such family name to accept validation through usage as a subfamily name. The same pages are used to publish one family group name (PITOHUINAE) for the first time. We are also preparing an extra Appendix listing all those family‐group names that we use, passerine and non‐passerine, with their authors and dates of publication and a list of all the publications involved. This Appendix will appear with our first or second Update.

Genera For genus‐group names: as in Dickinson (2003) [4] we have essentially followed David & Gosselin (2002a, b) [2], [3] but we have not repeated the notes attached to generic names where multiple changes have been needed as those changes are now 10 years old. Nor, in general, have footnotes referring to those two seminal papers been retained in this edition as those were designed to support changes made in 2003.

Species and subspecies As regards recognition of species or subspecies we have retained the same criteria as in Volume 1 but the editors for Volume 2 agreed to revert to the 2003 default method of judgement, i.e. accepting such taxa for listing, except when we can footnote them with a reason for deferment of recognition. There will be no separate journal article explaining further; we consider this to be more properly the responsibility of national ornithological bodies and where we do accept to list such new taxa our decisions should always be considered provisional. In various major works, including the Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW), some authors writing after the appearance of Dickinson (2003) – our previous edition – have accepted subspecies which we listed in 2003. In the 2003 Introduction we tried to explain that the default option, in respect of a subspecies named since the relevant volume of Peters Check‐list, was to list it even if no subsequent evaluation of the hypothesis could be traced. It is to be hoped that the authors in HBW took note of that and did not just accept something that was ‘automatically’ accepted in Dickinson (2003) [4]. Although the species accounts in the monumental HBW have been somewhat uneven in quality, some of the best, e.g. those in the Tyrannidae, contributed to the beginnings of a necessary process of revision that is likely to significantly reduce the number of geographical forms recognised. They included many suggestions that taxa still listed therein, and herein, are doubtfully diagnosable and, in addition, mentioned that a full revision of the subspecies was necessary for some species. Such studies can be complex as individual museum collections may not have fully representative collection material so that specimens must be borrowed or researchers must travel to several museums to amass the body of evidence that is desirable for sound decisions. In some cases additional collection will be needed to allow judgements to be reached. It is due to the perpetuation of the ‘recognition’ of

xii

INTRODUCTION

subspecies that may differ only mildly, and clinally, from their neighbours that proponents of the PSC find fault with the BSC. However, more thoughtful workers see diagnosibility not as a criterion for species, but also for valid subspecies which the BSC accommodates but the PSC equates with species. We predict that over the next 20 years much will change.

Spellings As in Volume 1 we have endeavoured to use consistently spellings that are correct in the light of the Code, without the application of the doctrine of prevailing usage. We have removed most footnotes that dealt with changes made in Dickinson (2003) [4] compared to spellings used in the respective volumes of Peters’ Check‐list, but where such changes have been made they are signalled by the use of the same symbol (α) as the new changes – which do have footnotes. We do not believe that the Code provides a clear enough methodology to justify application of the prevailing usage doctrine, and in particular, at the editorial level, we also believe that it has become a source of major contention by its applications to spelling changes rather than name changes. If and when applied it should only apply to usage of one name over another, rather than be applied to incorrect subsequent spellings. The widespread availability of the original literature, thanks mainly to the Biodiversity Heritage Library, offers a much more stable platform for stability in nomenclature. There has not been uniform agreement in the team on when and how to follow the Code. For example the Code, in the case of eponyms Art. 32.5 can be interpreted to smile on the correction of spellings that misrepresent the persons commemorated – provided there is internal evidence. To many this is a just restoration of recognition. The flip side of the coin is that without internal evidence no change is supported. Within the team two cases reveal the extent to which personal preferences seem to encourage a deliberate avoidance of the Code. In one case, a change from Cinnyris veroxii to Cyanomitra verreauxii – where there is internal evidence present – while supported by those with French blood led to us being told the South Africans would never accept it. In the second the name Lamprolia victoriae klinesmithi must, we were told, be changed to kleinschmidti because it is obvious who was intended – yet there is no internal evidence. What this reveals is a need to put aside preconceptions and to work with the Code, and to do so as consistently as possible. Appendix 8 to this Volume, combined with Appendix 8 to our first Volume represents, we believe, the first serious detailed and non‐partisan approach to the subject and we are grateful to Andy Elliott for his participation as a way to maximise agreement between our spellings and those in HBW. Above all, putting aside preconceptions requires not ignoring prevailing usage but recognising that it makes sense to agree on what the Code requires without that, before considering whether to take each case that is of concern further.

Dates in citations Occasionally we cite works that were not published in the expected year. Typically an issue of say the Auk may have been delayed from the volume year into the following year. In such cases we will always cite the actual year of publication but, in our List of References, we will also add the volume year after we give the pagination. In very recent years papers have been made available on line before being printed and these may precede their ‘volume year’; we try to cite the date or print publication but obviously we do not do so for journals that are e‐ journals with no print edition. I.C.Z.N. (2012) [9] began to permit the dating of new names from their electronic publication, subject to certain conditions. This concerns us only in relation to new names and it poses no problem if there is no print edition, but if there is, and the printed date falls in the next calendar year, then we ought to be signalling both dates (so that precedence is made clear and so that the printed version can be accessed easily). Our intention is to signal e‐dates in such cases by adding a footnote to the taxon name. For a detailed review of some of the issues associated with this see Dubois et al. (2013) [6]. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the great utility of the Zoonomen website, but as this is not a publication, and is ephemeral, we do not cite it in our footnotes and have either found the underlying evidence or authority to cite (much of that having been reported in Dickinson et al. (2011) [5]), or we have stated the nature of the evidence that one of us has examined.

xiii

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Footnotes In Dickinson (2003) [4] there were footnotes reporting names in our synonymy that had been recognised in the various volumes of the Peters Check‐list thus beginning to make clear the complementarity of the Howard and Moore Checklist to the Peters Check‐list. These 2003 footnotes are maintained, except for any that referred to the listing in 2003 of names that were in synonymy in Peters. Instead, a major effort has been made to document cases where and when names that were in synonymy in Peters have been brought into use. However, we believe there are still a few missing footnotes where we should have explained the place in synonymy of names that were seen to apply to valid taxa in that work. We shall welcome any suggested changes of this kind. Where there is a footnote explaining the date, spelling or authorship of a name which is that of a polytypic species, we have attached the footnote to the subspecific name because the author and date appear on that line. Names in synonymy, mentioned in the footnotes, are supposed to be in their original spelling from the original combination, i.e. without correction for gender agreement with their current affinity.

Abbreviations The following are the principal abbreviations used in this book (when used as the authors in citations they may appear with full stops between each letter): AOU BSC ICZN ISS ISSN NACC

PSC SACC SCON

American Ornithologists’ Union Biological species concept International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature Incorrect subsequent spelling International Standard Serial Number ‘North American Checklist Committee’ more formally the “AOU’s Committee on classification and nomenclature – North and Middle America” Phylogenetic species concept ‘South American Checklist Committee’ more formally the “AOU’s Committee on classification – South America” Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature

Updates Fuller details of the Howard and Moore Checklist Update programme will be made available on the Aves Press website www.avespress.com. As this Introduction is being written certain decisions remain to be taken. However, it is expected that there will be an annual Update published in a scientific e‐journal with its own ISSN. Because the two volumes of this edition will have appeared about a year apart the first Update will relate solely to Volume 1. The completion of Volume 2 marks a point at which the underlying database has been completed and the issue of the first Update the point at which the whole database will be broadly up to date. From then on the database will be actively maintained. The basis for the first Update will be the extracted differences between the version of the database archived when the volume was sent to the printers and the archived version approximately 18 months later. This archival date will be recorded in the introduction to the Update.

Literature Cited 1. Bock, W.J., 1994. History and nomenclature of avian family‐group names. – Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 222: 1‐281. 2. David, N. & M. Gosselin, 2002. Gender agreement of avian species names. – Bulletin of the British Ornithologistsʹ Club, 122 (1): 14‐49. 3. David, N. & M. Gosselin, 2002. The grammatical gender of avian genera. – Bulletin of the British Ornithologistsʹ Club, 122 (4): 257‐282. 4. Dickinson, E.C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard & Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Revised and enlarged, 3rd. ed. 1‐1039. – Christopher Helm, London.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

5. Dickinson, E.C., L.K. Overstreet, R.J. Dowsett & M.D. Bruce, 2011. Priority! The dating of scientific names in ornithology. 1‐319. – Aves Press Limited, Northampton. 6. Dubois, A., P.‐A. Crochet, E.C. Dickinson, A. Nemésio, E. Aescht, A.M. Bauer, V. Blagoderov, R. Bour, M.R. de Carvalho, L. Desutter‐Grandcolas, T. Frétey, P. Jäger, V. Koyamba, E.O. Lavilla, I. Löbl, A. Louchart, V. Malécot, H. Schatz & A. Ohler, 2013. Nomenclatural and taxonomic problems related to the electronic publication of new nomina and nomenclatural acts in zoology, with brief comments on optical discs and on the situation in botany. – Zootaxa, 3735 (1): 1‐94. 7. I.C.Z.N., 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed. i‐xxix, 1‐306. – The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. 8. I.C.Z.N., 2012. Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. – Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, 69 (3): 161‐169. 9. I.C.Z.N., 2012. Editorial. Amendment of Articles 8, 9, 10, 21 and 78 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature to expand and refine methods of publication. – Zootaxa, 3450: 1‐7.

Avian Higher‐level Relationships and Classification: Passeriforms Joel Cracraft Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA Resolving the avian tree of life has presented numerous challenges. Two in particular stand out. First is the resolution of the major clades of birds. It is widely agreed that they radiated rapidly around the Cretaceous‐ Paleogene (K‐Pg) boundary, and while there has been substantial progress in deciphering their relationships, major problems still remain (summarized in Cracraft 2013, see also Fjeldså 2013). The second major challenge is unravelling the relationships of the perching birds (Passeriformes), which represent close to 60% of all avian diversity. The primary scientific issue here is not a single rapid radiation, but multiple radiations as well as the relatively poor taxon and character sampling we currently have to resolve them. Fortunately, the last decade has seen a veritable explosion of papers on passeriform systematics, and as a consequence sampling of taxa has increased dramatically compared to the state of knowledge at the time of the previous edition of the Howard & Moore checklist (Dickinson 2003; Cracraft et al. 2003). Because of this increased sampling and because the passeriforms are exceedingly species‐rich, encapsulating our growing phylogenetic knowledge in a traditional classification is virtually impossible due to the insufficiency of available ranks. Thus, in a phylogenetic classification the hierarchy implied by the different Linnean ranks is used to reflect the hierarchy of relationships as depicted on phylogenetic trees (see volume 1 of this Checklist for a more detailed discussion; Dickinson & Remsen 2013). There are many nodes on phylogenetic trees, but relatively few ranks. As a consequence of these classificatory challenges, we are approaching the time when the avian systematic community will need to consider breaking up the “Passeriformes” into multiple orders. In discussing this possibility for volume 1 of this checklist (Dickinson & Remsen 2013; Cracraft et al. 2013) it was decided editorially not to make this change yet and to keep this volume on passeriforms consistent with the 2003 edition. Yet, eventually, if we are to represent 60% of avian diversity and our growing understanding of their relationships, more taxonomic complexity will be required. Within a Linnean context, that means taking advantage of additional hierarchical levels (taxonomic ranks). This chapter takes a step toward this goal by extending the use of the ranks of parvorder and superfamily in new ways, without obscuring general understanding of group names. The sole purpose of this is to reflect new information about well‐supported phylogenetic relationships as much as possible. Despite the goal of having topological isometry between the hierarchies of trees and classification, it is still the case that one can classify phylogenetically within a Linnean context in multiple ways. Prior to the advent of molecular systematics, ranking within “evolutionary classifications” was based on general ideas of relationships with some consideration being placed on relative diversity, but especially ranking was most often determined on morphological and behavioral distinctness: the more distinct a group, the higher the rank. And the same is often true today. No classification will be entirely acceptable to all specialists. Many recent papers have erected new family‐rank taxa for newly discovered clades, many for a single or a few genera, when those taxa form the sister‐ group to a larger, traditionally recognized family. For example, in their study of the emberizines Barker et al. (2013) resurrected the family‐name Icteriidae (Baird 1858) for the monotypic genus Icteria, which is the sister‐ group of the Icteridae. In addition, they also recognized another six monotypic families within the group, two of them new. A similar trend is occurring within the highly diverse sylvioids (e.g., Fregin et al. 2012; Alström et al. 2013) or in other groups (Christidis et al. 2012; Schodde & Christidis 2014). As long as this continues, we will loose hierarchy unless additional ranks are used. If one were to apply this approach consistently across the passeriforms, the number of families might well be doubled without an increase in the information content of the classification itself, for information content only arises when taxa are grouped and more families of birds necessitate more taxonomic groups and ranks. Thus, one could reflect that information by erecting a large number of superfamilial taxa (say a name for Icteridae + Icteriidae), but how many of these superfamilial names (and ranks) would be appropriate is an open question, as is whether an increased understanding is being conveyed to the general user‐community by following this path. There are hundreds of long branches on the passerine tree, reflecting taxa that might be seen as being “old” relative to others, and some of these are morphologically “distinct” from their sister‐group but others are not. It

xvii

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

would be imprudent to elevate all of these to family‐rank, or higher, because then the purpose of ranking under a phylogenetic system —to indicate hierarchy— would be diminished or lost. One way to deal with this classificatory conundrum is to erect names that are rank‐free. Various authors are doing this, and indeed the name of one such group, the Eupasseres (Ericson et al. 2003) is adopted here. All of these potential solutions, from recognizing multiple orders with songbirds or adopting additional rank‐free names for clades, are issues that need more discussion within the avian systematic community. The goal with the classification proposed here is to capture as much of our new understanding of avian relationships as possible. Yet, with copious new studies also comes ambiguity, because in general the large increases in taxon sampling we have seen over the last decade have not yet been matched with parallel increases in data. A consequence of this is that there are many more nodes that are not resolved. Increased taxon sampling also discovers unforeseen relationships, and passerines are replete with these. Thus, there is the temptation to recognize these remarkable discoveries with new higher‐taxon names. As a rule this classification avoids adopting monotypic higher taxa unless there is, minimally, strong evidence of a relationship to a sister‐group. As noted above, there are many long branches across the tree, which in itself should not be the primary or sole reason for erecting a higher taxon. Generally speaking, neither is morphological distinctness as there is little benefit in trying to make higher taxa (e.g., families) “uniform” in their morphological disparity. Indeed, a hallmark of evolution is the presence of significant morphological disparity within closely related taxa (e.g., Vangidae, Paradisaeidae, Icteridae, Thraupidae, and many others). Arguing to exclude a genus, for example, from its close relatives because it is phenotypically distinct is forsaking the power and opportunity of phylogenetic classifications to embrace that disparity.

Recent Advances in Passeriform Relationships The classification that follows is based on a review of the avian systematic literature, primarily after 2003 when the previous edition was published (Dickinson 2003; Cracraft et al. 2003). The discussion treats taxa having ranks of subfamily and above, although the linear list at the end of the chapter also includes tribe‐ranked taxa. The classification is constructed to follow as much as possible the current “moderate” to “well‐supported” relationships that are depicted on the phylogenetic trees accompanying this review (Figures 1‐6). It is important to understand, however, that the designation of a group (clade) as being “well supported” is relative to the taxon and character sampling of a given analysis, how well that study was undertaken methodologically, and how branch support is interpreted (how different systematists think of the notion of “well supported”). All these criteria need to be considered when accepting any proposed hypothesis of relationships. As a general guideline, clades are accepted here as being moderately to strongly supported if (1) the taxon sampling adequately tests the hypothesis being investigated, (2) the character sampling is adequate and the different partitions (generally various genetic loci) of the data are more or less consistent in their signal (that is, there is not a lot of among‐gene conflict for a given node), and (3) a branch, or node, has support from, first, maximum likelihood (ML) bootstrapping above 80%, and a Bayesian posterior probability (BPP) of >0.95 (preferably closer to 1.00). Because values of BPPs tend to be inflated relative to bootstrap values (BS), anything less than 0.95 should be judged as lacking support. Therefore, more emphasis is placed on ML likelihood bootstrap. If the latter values are ~70‐80%, then that is interpreted as weak to moderate. Any value <70% is considered weak (for an analysis of this in a major group of passeriforms, see Tello et al. 2009). Nevertheless, many of these criteria are not straight‐forward to apply. For example, one can see 1.00 BPP in a paper but less than 50% ML BS, in which case one should be skeptical about support. Finally, support values are not always to be believed as different taxon or character samples can radically change those values. All trees for passeriforms shown here have polytomies, that is they are not dichotomously branching. This signifies relationships that are not well‐supported and thus are ambiguous, which is why they are incertae sedis with respect to the other lineages in that polytomy. As an example, in Figure 1 there are several Australian or New Zealand family‐level taxa (Cnemophilidae through Notiomystidae) whose relationships are currently poorly resolved and they have been associated with both the Corvides and Passerides. Here, a polytomy is used to indicate this ambiguity. Moreover, simply because a branch may be next to another in that polytomy, one should not surmise that these therefore have a closer relationship than with a more distant branch in that polytomy.

Passeriformes: large‐scale relationships Suborder Acanthisitti Until recently there was substantial uncertainty about the higher‐level relationships of the perching birds, Passeriformes. Now, large‐scale genomic data have confirmed they are the sister‐group of the parrots (Hackett et al. 2008; Wang et al. 2012; reviewed in Cracraft 2013). This relationship is strongly supported, and these two major groups are the sister‐group of the falcons, and all three of those are sister to the Cariamidae. This clade is related xviii

AVIAN HIGHER‐LEVEL RELATIONSHIPS AND CLASSIFICATION: PASSERIFORMS

more distantly to the higher landbirds, to owls, as well as to accipitriforms. Within the passeriforms themselves, three major clades, here treated as suborders, can be recognized. A large body of work over the past decade has strongly confirmed the overall phylogenetic structure of passeriforms (Barker et al. 2002, 2004; Ericson et al. 2002; Ohlson et al. 2013b, among many others). The New Zealand wrens, Acanthisittidae, are the sister‐group to all other passerines (called Eupasseres, Figure 1). Within the latter, an abundance of molecular and morphological evidence supports a major division between the suboscines (Suborder Tyranni) and the oscines (Suborder Passeri). It is within these major groups, and especially within the Passeri, that uncertainties about relationships among higher taxa become more prevalent. Nevertheless, the message of this chapter is that the field of avian systematics has made remarkable advances over the past decade through the herculean efforts of many avian systematists so that we have an increasingly detailed picture of passeriform phylogeny.

Eupasseres unranked clade The Tyranni and Passeri, here ranked as suborders, are sister‐taxa and thus deserve a joint clade name. Ericson et al. (2003) proposed Eupasseres for this clade, and ranked it at a subordinal level, co‐equal to a suborder called Acanthisittia for the New Zealand wrens. The clade name Eupasseres is adopted here but is unranked. In implementing a phylogenetic classification not all clade names need to be ranked, but when they are those ranks should be consistent with the hierarchical structure of relationships. If Eupasseres were ranked at a suborder, as was done in Ericson et al. (2003), it would require that the ranks of all its included clades be shifted “down” in their named Linnean category across the classification in order to maintain hierarchy. This could mean that widely used names at the superfamily‐ or family‐level would now probably have unfamiliar ranks, which would hinder communication. A specific rank for a taxon is in a sense arbitrary, but familiarity in rank serves a purpose in communication and prediction when expressed within a hierarchical system. Importantly also, many formal names are used extensively even though their rank may vary from classification to classification, and paper to paper (“Aves” is a good example), or they may be rank‐free. Numerous unranked names have been proposed for nonpasseriform clades (see Cracraft 2013).

Suborder Tyranni: suboscine passeriforms The suborder Tyranni includes two well‐supported clades, the Old World suboscines (Infraorder Eurylaimides) and New World suboscines (Infraorder Tyrannides). In the past decade the Tyranni have received a great deal of attention from systematists and consequently their large‐scale relationships (Fig. 2) are moderately well understood (see especially Chesser 2004; Moyle et al. 2006, 2009; Irestedt et al. 2001, 2006a, b; Ericson et al. 2006; Tello et al. 2009; Ohlson et al. 2013a, b). The classification proposed here is based on Tello et al. (2009), Moyle et al. (2009), and Ohlson et al. (2013b).

Infraorder Eurylaimides The Old World suboscines include the pittas, broadbills, Malagasy asities, and the “enigmatic” New World genus Sapayoa, which is found in the Choco of northwestern South America. Using DNA hybridization distances, Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) were the first to suggest that Sapayoa might be close to broadbills, but it was over a decade later before Fjeldså et al. (2003) and Chesser (2004; submitted early in 2003) provided more concrete evidence with sequence data. Both studies confirmed a placement in Eurylaimides, and Fjeldså et al. (2003) found poor support for a relationship of Sapayoa with Calyptomena and Smithornis. Two subsequent studies extended our understanding of Old World suboscine relationships using better taxon and character sampling, and these studies provide the basis for the classification here (Moyle et al. 2006; Irestedt et al. 2006b; Fig. 2). Neither study was able to provide convincing evidence that Sapayoa was related to Calyptomena and Smithornis, although that relationship was very weakly supported in Irestedt et al. (2006b). Both studies suggest that the Eurylaimidae as traditionally recognized is not monophyletic, depending on whether Sapayoa is the sister‐group of one of the two well supported “eurylaimid” clades, sister to both, or sister to all Old World suboscines (Hackett et al. 2008). In any case, the asities are the sister to one of the broadbill clades, which itself renders traditional Eurylaimidae nonmonophyletic. Finally, the pittas are current resolved as either the sister‐ group of all these taxa or in a polytomy with Sapayoa and the two broadbill clades. All of these uncertainties create a need for a conservative classification (Fig. 2).

Infraorder Tyrannides The Tyrannides include the two highly diverse groups of New World suboscines, the antbirds, horneros and

xix

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Table 1. A higher‐level classification of the perching birds (Passeriformes).

Class Aves Subclass Neornithes Infraclass Neognathae Parvclass Neoaves Cohort Coracornithia Superorder Passerimorphae Order Passeriformes Suborder Acanthisitti Family Acanthisittidae Eupasseres unranked name Suborder Tyranni Infraorder Eurylaimides Family Pittidae Family Eurylaimidae Family Philepittidae Family Calyptomenidae Family Sapayoidae Infraorder Tyrannides Parvorder Tyrannida Superfamily Piproidea Family Pipridae Subfamily Neopelminae Subfamily Piprinae Tribe Piprini Tribe Ilicurini Superfamily Cotingoidea Family Cotingidae Subfamily Pipreolinae Subfamily Cotinginae Tribe Phytotomini Tribe Rupicolini Tribe Cotingini Phibalura incertae sedis Superfamily Tityroidea Family Oxyruncidae Family Onychorhynchidae Family Tityridae Subfamily Tityrinae Subfamily Ptilochlorinae Superfamily Platyrinchoidea Family Platyrinchidae Family Pipritidae Family Tachurididae Family Pipromorphidae Subfamily Pipromorphinae Subfamily Rhynchocyclinae Subfamily Triccinae Superfamily Tyrannoidea Family Tyrannidae Subfamily Hirundineinae xxxiv

AVIAN HIGHER‐LEVEL RELATIONSHIPS AND CLASSIFICATION: PASSERIFORMS

Subfamily Elaeniinae Tribe Euscarthmini Tribe Elaeniini Subfamily Muscigrallinae Subfamily Tyranninae Tribe Tyrannini Tribe Myiarchini Subfamily Fluvicolinae Tribe Fluvicolini Tribe Xolmiini Tribe Contopini Parvorder Furnariida Superfamily Thamnophiloidea Family Thamnophilidae Subfamily Euchrepomidinae Subfamily Thamnophilinae Tribe Microrhopiini Tribe Formicivorini Tribe Thamnophilini Tribe Pithyini Tribe Pyriglenini Subfamily Myrmornithinae Family Melanopareiidae Family Conopophagidae Superfamily Furnarioidea Family Grallariidae Family Rhinocryptidae Subfamily Rhinocryptinae Subfamily Scytalopodinae Family Formicariidae Family Scleruridae Family Dendrocolaptidae Subfamily Sittasominae Subfamily Dendrocolaptinae Family Furnariidae Subfamily Xenopinae Subfamily Berlepschiinae Subfamily Pygarrhichadinae Subfamily Furnariinae Subfamily Philydorinae Subfamily Synallaxinae Suborder Passeri Infraorder Menurides Family Menuridae Family Atrichornithidae Infraorder Climacterides Family Ptilonorhynchidae Family Climacteridae Infraorder Meliphagides Family Maluridae Subfamily Malurinae Subfamily Amytornithinae Family Dasyornithidae Family Meliphagidae Family Pardalotidae Family Acanthizidae

xxxv

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Figure 1. Passeriform backbone tree Branch Support Weak to moderate Moderate to strong

Infraorder

Meliphagides

Climacterides Menurides Eurylaimides Tyrannides

Acanthisittidae

Figure 1. Passeriform backbone tree.

Tyranni Acanthisitti

Eupasseres

Corvides (=Corvida) Orthonychides

Passeri

Orthonychidae Pomatostomidae Maluridae Dasyornithidae Meliphagidae Pardalotidae Acanthizinae Acanthizidae Pachycareinae Climacteridae Ptilonorhynchidae Menuridae Atrichornithidae

Suborder

MUSCICAPIDA SYLVIIDA Hyliotidae Passerida Passerides Microecinae Drymodinae Eopsaltriidae Eopsaltriinae Petroicida Petroicinae Amalocichlinae Petroicidae Pachycephalopsinae EUPETIDA Cnemophilidae Melanocharitidae Callaeidae Notiomystidae

AVIAN HIGHER‐LEVEL RELATIONSHIPS AND CLASSIFICATION: PASSERIFORMS

Figure 2. Suborder Tyranni Piproidea

Cotingidae

Cotingoidea

Tityridae Tityroidea Pipromorphidae Platyrinchoidea

Tyrannoidea

Tyrannidae

Furnarioidea

Dendrocolaptidae

Tyranni

Tyrannides

Furnariidae

Furnariida

Rhinocryptidae

Thamnophiloidea Thamnophilidae

Branch Support Weak to moderate

Eurylaimides

Passeri Acanthisittidae

Pipridae

Tyrannida

Piprinae Neopelminae Cotinginae Pipreolinae Ptilochlorinae Tityrinae Onychorhynchidae Oxyruncidae Rhynchocyclinae Triccinae Pipromorphinae Tachurididae Platyrinchidae Pipritidae Hirundineinae Elaeniinae Fluvicolinae Tyranninae Muscigrallinae Synallaxinae Philydorinae Furnariinae Pygarrhichadinae Berlepschiinae Xenopinae Dendrocolaptinae Sittasominae Scleruridae Formicariidae Scytalopodinae Rhinocryptinae Grallariidae Conopophagidae Melanopareiidae Myrmornithinae Thamnophilinae Euchrepomidinae Sapayoidae Calyptomenidae Eurylaimidae Philepittidae Pittidae

Moderate to strong

Figure 2. Suborder Tyranni.

xli

AVIAN HIGHER‐LEVEL RELATIONSHIPS AND CLASSIFICATION: PASSERIFORMS

Figure 6. Muscicapida Branch Support Weak to moderate Moderate to strong

Bombycillidae Dulidae Hylocitrea Hypocoliidae Mohoidae Ptilogonatidae Myadestinae Turdinae Saxicolinae Cossyphinae “Niltavinae” Muscicapinae Cinclidae Mainatinae Rhabdornithinae Sturninae Mimidae Buphagidae Certhiidae Tichodrominae (incertae sedis) Salpornithinae

Bombycilloidea

Turdidae Muscicapidae

Muscicapoidea Sturnidae

Sittidae

Certhioidea

Sittinae Polioptilidae Troglodytidae Regulidae

SYLVIIDA

Figure 6. Parvorder Muscicapida.

xlv

Table of contents, links to past lists, and statistics

Taxon name in the sequence used in this edition PASSERIFORMES

Peters’ Check‐list Vol.

Page

Numbers per taxon H&M 3 (2003) page no.

This edition page no.

Genera

Species (inc. listed extinct).

Extinct Species

Subspecies (inc. listed extinct) [1]

Extinct Subspecies

Acanthisittidae

VIII

331

335

Pittidae

VIII

310

337

Eurylaimidae

VII

335

Philepittidae

VIII

330

337

Calyptomenidae

VII

335

Sapayoidae*

VIII

249

337

Pipridae

VIII

245

339

Cotingidae

VIII

281

343

Oxyruncidae

VIII

308

347

Onychorhynchidae*

VIII

113

364

Tityridae

VIII

229

343

Platyrinchidae*

VIII

106

364

Pipritidae*

VIII

249

349

Tachurididae*

VIII

359

Pipromorphidae*

VIII

357 [2]

101

141

Tyrannidae

VIII

349

306

407

Thamnophilidae*

VII

162

379

232

296

Melanopareiidae*

VII

281

395

Conopophagidae

VII

273

394

Grallariidae*

VII

262

398

Rhinocryptidae

VII

278

395

100

Formicariidae

VII

153

397

104

Scleruridae*

VII

148

418

106

Dendrocolaptidae

VII

419

108

220

Furnariidae

VII

402

118

228

306

Menuridae

VIII

333

426

141

Atrichornithidae

VIII

335

426

141

Ptilonorhynchidae

172

426

141

Climacteridae

XII

162

428

143

Maluridae

390

429

144

Dasyornithidae*

409

443

147

Meliphagidae

XII

338

431

147

178

210

Pardalotidae*

XII

202

444

164

Acanthizidae

409

444

165

143

Orthonychidae

228

450

171

Pomatostomidae*

279

450

171

Melanocharitidae*

XII

167

451

172

Cnemophilidae

181

450

173

Callaeidae

157

452

174

Notiomystidae*

XII

400

431

174

Mohouidae

460

450

174

Neosittidae

XII

145

473

174

Campephagidae

167

465

175

212

Cinclosomatidae*

231

453

184

Pachycephalidae

XII

474

185

145

Falcunculidae*

XII

474

191

Oreoicidae*

XII

490

191

xlvii

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Taxon name in the sequence used in this edition Psophodidae* Eulacestomatidae* Paramythiidae*

Peters’ Check‐list

Numbers per taxon

Vol.

Page

H&M 3 (2003) page no.

This edition page no.

Genera

Species (inc. listed extinct).

Extinct Species

Subspecies (inc. listed extinct) [1]

Extinct Subspecies

229

452

192

XII

474

192

XII

200

452

193

XIV, X

103, 385

481, 617

193

163

Oriolidae

122

486

201

Rhagologidae*

XII

474

205

Machaerirhynchidae*

527

461

205

Artamidae

160

464

205

Platysteiridae

376

454

208

Vangidae

309, 365

456, 461

211

Pityriasidae

364

465

213

Aegithinidae*

300

465

214

Malaconotidae

314

457

214

Dicruridae

137

491

219

Rhipiduridae

530

493

221

104

Laniidae

341

478

226

Corvidae

204

504

229

126

219

Monarchidae

464

497

242

167

Corcoracidae

160

515

250

Melampittidae*

239

515

250

Ifritidae*

239

515

251

183

515

251

238

453

255

Petroicidae*

562

518

255

Promeropidae*

XII

449

715

261

Dicaeidae

XII

166

699

261

100

Nectariniidae

XII

208

703

266

136

252

Irenidae

303

632, 699

278

XIV

266

753

280

737

280

Peucedramidae*

XIV

739

281

Ploceidae

3, 30

719

282

115

118

Estrildidae

XIV

306

726

290

131

189

Viduidae

XIV

390

737

303

Passeridae

715

304

Motacillidae

129

739

308

125

Fringillidae

XIV

202

745

315

221

305

Plectrophenacidae*

XIII

781

336

Rhodinocichlidae*

XIII

279

820

336

Passerellidae*

XIII

781

337

127

358

Emberizidae

XIII

776

353

Phaenicophilidae*

XIII

277

820

357

X, XIV

18, 49

768

358

Parulidae

XIV

759

359

108

191

Icteridae

XIV

81, 138

768

370

105

158

Calyptophilidae*

XIII

278

820

381

Mitrospingidae*

XIII

280

803

381

Cardinalidae

XIII

216

823

381

106

Thraupidae

XIII

246

802

387

371

568

Hyliotidae*

219

587

424

Stenostiridae*

172

693

425

Vireonidae

Paradisaeidae Eupetidae*

Urocynchramidae* Prunellidae

Zeledoniidae*

xlviii

TABLE OF CONTENTS, LINKS TO PAST LISTS, AND STATISTICS

Taxon name in the sequence used in this edition

Peters’ Check‐list Vol.

Page

Numbers per taxon H&M 3 (2003) page no.

This edition page no.

Genera

Species (inc. listed extinct).

Extinct Species

Subspecies (inc. listed extinct) [1]

Extinct Subspecies

Paridae

XII

523

426

198

Remizidae

XII

530

433

Nicatoridae*

274

576

434

Alaudidae

540

435

312

Panuridae

430

622

447

Macrosphenidae*

215

587

447

Cisticolidae*

551

449

139

402

Locustellidae*

583

464

Donacobiidae*

456

642

469

Bernieridae*

263

588

470

Acrocephalidae

583

471

Pnoepygidae*

293

605

475

Hirundinidae

531

476

127

Pycnonotidae

221

565

484

130

227

Phylloscopidae*

221

588

497

Scotocercidae*

125

556

503

Aegithalidae

XII

538

507

X, XI

431, 267

596, 622

509

117

XII

289

625

516

122

173

Sylviidae Zosteropidae Timaliidae

326

609

526

146

Pellorneidae*

240

599

531

133

Leiothrichinae*

381

616

537

125

220

Regulidae*

286

632

548

Dulidae

373

523

549

Bombycillidae

369

522

549

Hypocoliidae

373

523

550

Ptiliogonatidae

371

523

550

Mohoidae*

XII

424

431

550

Certhiidae

XII

150

647

551

Sittidae

XII

125

644

552

Troglodytidae

379

633

555

315

Polioptilidae

443

643

567

Buphagidae

121

659

570

Mimidae

440

648

570

Sturnidae

651

573

114

123

Cinclidae

374

698

583

X, XI

14, 295

674

584

303

490

659

613

159

321

1357

6063

10673

Muscicapidae Turdidae TOTAL

An asterisk * indicates family‐group names not in Petersʹ Check‐list of the birds of the world. Notes: [1]. This number does not include any nominate subspecies. [2]. Type genus not in Dickinson (2003) [717]; in this volume, see footnote 2 on page 25.

xlix

PASSERELLIDAE

ZONOTRICHIA Swainson, 1832 F – Fringilla pennsylvanica Latham, 1790; type by subsequent designation (Bonaparte, 1832, Giornale Arcadico di Scienze Lett. Arti Roma, 52 (1831), p. 206). = Fringilla albicollis J.F. Gmelin, 1789 1 Zonotrichia capensis RUFOUS‐COLLARED SPARROW2 septentrionalis Griscom, 1930 antillarum (Riley, 1916) costaricensis J.A. Allen, 18913

insularis (Ridgway, 1898) venezuelae Chapman, 1939

inaccessibilis Phelps & Phelps Jr., 1955 perezchinchillorum (Phelps Jr. & Aveledo, 1984)4, 5 δ roraimae (Chapman, 1929)

macconnelli Sharpe, 19006 δ capensis (Statius Muller, 1776) bonnetiana Stiles, 19957 tocantinsi Chapman, 1940 novaesi Oren, 19858 matutina (M.H.C. Lichtenstein, 1823)

subtorquata Swainson, 1837

illescasensis Koepcke, 1963 markli Koepcke, 19719 huancabambae Chapman, 1940 peruviensis (Lesson, 1834) pulacayensis (Menegaux, 1909)10 carabayae Chapman, 1940

antofagastae Chapman, 1940 arenalensis Nores, 198611 sanborni Hellmayr, 1932

hypoleuca (Todd, 1915)12

choraules (Wetmore & Peters, 1922) chilensis (Meyen, 1834)

australis (Latham, 1790)

v Highlands of S Mexico (Chiapas) to Honduras, El Salvador Hispaniola (Cordillera Central of Dominican Republic) v El Salvador, Costa Rica and Panama, N Colombia (Santa Marta Mts.), Venezuela (C Lara) to Ecuador v Netherlands Antilles (Curaçao and Aruba) N and C Venezuela (mountains of northern coastal region, NW Bolivar) v S Venezuela (Serranía de la Neblina in S Amazonas) S Venezuela (Cerro Marahuaca in C Amazonas) [2071] C Colombia (Meta, Guaviare); S Venezuela (Amazonas, Bolívar), W Guyana, N Brazil (Roraima) SE Venezuela (summit of Mt. Roraima, in SE Bolívar) v NE French Guiana v S Colombia (Sierra de Chiribiquete) [2642] E Amazonian Brazil (along R. Tocantins in Pará) EC Brazil (Serra dos Carajás in Pará) [1939] v NE and C Brazil (Maranhão to C Mato Grosso, Bahia), E Bolivia (Santa Cruz) v C and S Brazil (from S Mato Grosso, Espírito Santo), E Paraguay, NE Argentina (Misiones), Uruguay v NW Peru (Piura) Lowland NW Peru (Piura) [1452] N and C Peru (Piura to Junín) v W Peru (coast and W slope of Andes from La Libertad to Tacna) v W Bolivia (Oruro) E slope of Andes from C Peru (Junín) to Bolivia (La Paz, Cochabamba) NW Chile (Tarapacá, Antofagasta) v NW Argentina (Catamarca) [1850] High Andes of C Chile (Coquimbo, Valparaíso), W Argentina (San Juan) v E and S Bolivia (Cochabamba to Tarija), N Argentina (to San Luis, S Buenos Aires) WC Argentina (lowlands of Mendoza to Río Negro) v C Chile (Atacama to C Los Lagos), WC Argentina (E slope of Andes from Mendoza to Río Negro) v S Chile (from Aisén), S Argentina (from Neuquén, Río Negro) >> N Bolivia

Zonotrichia querula (Nuttall, 1840) HARRIS’S SPARROW v WC Canada (N British Columbia to NW Ontario) >> W USA (to Texas) Zonotrichia albicollis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) WHITE‐THROATED SPARROW v Canada (east of Rocky Mts.), NE USA (NC North Carolina to N Pennsylvania) >> S USA, N Mexico Zonotrichia leucophrys WHITE‐CROWNED SPARROW13 leucophrys (J.R. Forster, 1772)14

gambelii (Nuttall, 1840)

oriantha Oberholser, 1932

pugetensis Grinnell, 1928

nuttalli Ridgway, 1899

C and E Canada (Manitoba to Newfoundland) >> SE USA (from Kansas, North Carolina), N Mexico (Sonora) Alaska, W Canada (to N Manitoba) >> SW Canada (S British Columbia), W USA (east to Kansas), N Mexico SW Canada (to SW Saskatchewan), W USA (east to Colorado) >> SW USA (to C Texas), Mexico (to Jalisco) v SW Canada (SW British Columbia), coastal W USA (to NW California) >> W USA (to SW California) SW USA (WC California)

Sequence of species follows Zink et al. (1991) [3030]. Revision of subspecies taxonomy needed; see Rising & Jaramillo (2011) [2329]. 3 Includes orestera; see Olson (1981) [1910]. 4 Published as perezchincillae but named for two men; we correct the spelling here, see Art. 31.1.2 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [1274]. 5 For recognition see Hilty (2003) [1203] and Restall et al. (2006) [2262]; but see Rising (2011) [2326]. 6 Correct original spelling. Spelling macconelli in Paynter (1970) [2040] and Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 7 For recognition see Restall et al. (2006) [2262]; but see Rising (2011) [2326]. 8 Not mentioned by Rising (2011) [2326]. 9 Not recognised by Rising (2011) [2326]. 10 The legal deposit date is shown as 1909. 11 For recognition see Piloni (2004) [2109]. 12 Includes mellea, considered doubtfully distinct by Paynter (1970) [2040]; but see Rising (2011) [2326]. 13 May comprise more than one species; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 14 Includes aphaea Oberholser, 1974 [1887]; see Browning (1978) [288]. 1 2

349

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Zonotrichia atricapilla (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) GOLDEN‐CROWNED SPARROW Alaska, W Canada (Yukon), NW USA (NW Washington) >> SW USA, NW Mexico (C Baja California)

PASSERELLA Swainson, 1837 F – Fringilla iliaca Merrem, 1786; type by monotypy 1 Passerella iliaca FOX SPARROW2, 3 1 iliaca (Merrem, 1786) 1 zaboria Oberholser, 19464 2 unalaschcensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789)5 δ 2 insularis Ridgway, 19006 2 sinuosa Grinnell, 1910 2 annectens Ridgway, 1900 2 townsendi (Audubon, 1838) 2 fuliginosa Ridgway, 1899 2 chilcatensis Webster, 19837 3 olivacea Aldrich, 1943 3 altivagans Riley, 1911 3 schistacea S.F. Baird, 1858 3 swarthi Behle & Selander, 1951 3 canescens Swarth, 1918 4 megarhyncha S.F. Baird, 18588 Passerella arborea AMERICAN TREE SPARROW9, 10 ochracea (Brewster, 1882)11 δ

arborea (A. Wilson, 1810)

v E Canada (NE Manitoba to S Newfoundland) >> SE Canada, E USA (S Wisconsin to C Florida) v N and W Alaska, W Canada (to S Manitoba) >> C and S USA (to S Texas, N Georgia) v Alaska (Aleutian Is., Alaska Pen.) >> SW Canada (SW British Columbia), W USA (to California) v Alaska (Kodiak Is.) >> coastal S California v Alaska (Prince William Sound, Middleton I.) >> SW Canada to NW Mexico (NW Baja California) SC Alaska >> SW Canada to California SE Alaska, SW Canada (Queen Charlotte Is.) >> to coastal California v SE Alaska to NW USA (NW Washington) >> to coastal C California v SE Alaska, SW Canada (NE British Columbia) >> coastal Oregon to N California [2859] v SW Canada (British Columbia), NW USA (C and E Washington) >> SW USA, NW Mexico (N Baja California) SW Canada (British Columbia, SW Alberta) >> to California, NW Mexico (NW Baja California) v SW Canada, NC USA (to N Nevada, C Colorado) >> SW USA, NW Mexico (N Baja California) NW USA (SE Idaho, NW Utah) W USA (E California, C Nevada) >> SW USA (California, Nevada), NW Mexico (N Baja California) v W USA (C and SW Oregon to California) >> California, NW Mexico (N Baja California) v Alaska, W Canada (N Yukon, NW Northwest Territories to NW British Columbia) >> W USA (to C Texas) v NC and NE Canada (from C Northwest Territories) >> E USA (to North Carolina)

AMMOSPIZA Oberholser, 1905 [1884] F – Oriolus caudacutus J.F. Gmelin, 1788; type by original designation12, 13 Ammospiza leconteii (Audubon, 1844) LE CONTE’S SPARROW14 α Ammospiza maritima SEASIDE SPARROW15 1 maritima (A. Wilson, 1811)

1 1 1 1 2 3

macgillivraii (Audubon, 1834)16, 17 δ peninsulae (J.A. Allen, 1888)18 fisheri (Chapman, 1899) sennetti (J.A. Allen, 1888) mirabilis (A.H. Howell, 1919) †?nigrescens (Ridgway, 1874)1, 2 α

WC Canada (to Ontario), N USA (Montana to Michigan) >> S USA (Gulf Coast)

v E USA (coastal New Hampshire to N North Carolina) >> S USA (NE Florida) E USA (North Carolina to NE Florida) SE USA (NW and W Florida) S USA (Gulf Coast from SE Texas to SW Alabama) S Texas (Gulf Coast) >> NE Mexico (NE Tamaulipas) v SE USA (SW Florida) SW USA (EC Florida) [105]

For recognition of this genus see A.O.U. (1983, 1998) [2], [3]. May consist of more than one species; see Zink (1994) [3025], Zink & Weckstein (2003) [3034], Zink (2008) [3026] and Rising (2011) [2326]. 3 Subspecies groups follow A.O.U. (1998) [3]. 4 Perhaps not diagnosable from nominate iliaca; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 5 Correct original spelling. Spelling unalaschensis in Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 6 Paynter (1970) [2040] provided the substitute name ridgwayi because insularis is preoccupied in Zonotrichia. 7 For recognition, see Browning (1990) [290], Weckstein et al. (2002) [2861] and Rising (2011) [2326]. 8 Includes fulva, monoensis, brevicauda and stephensi; see Zink (1986) [3023]. But see Weckstein et al. (2002) [2861] and Rising (2011) [2326]. Also includes mariposae, recognised by Weckstein et al. (2002) [2861], but see Rising (2011) [2326]. 9 Formerly placed in Spizella, but see Carson & Spicer (2003) [353], Rising (2011) [2326] and Barker et al. (2013) [136]. 10 Geographical variation weakly marked; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 11 Correct original spelling. Spelling ochracae in Paynter (1970) [2040] and Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 12 Species in this genus derive from subdivision of the genus Ammodramus, see Klicka & Spellman (2007) [1439] and DaCosta et al. (2009) [626]. 13 Sequence of species follows Klicka & Spellman (2007) [1439]. 14 Dated 1843 by Paynter (1970) [2040] but 1844 by A.O.U. (1983, 1998) [2]; [3]. 15 Subspecies groups follow Sibley & Monroe (1990) [2542] and A.O.U. (1998) [3]. 16 Correct original spelling. Spelling macgillivrayi in Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 17 Includes pelonota; see Post & Greenlaw (2009) [2136]. 18 Includes juncicola; see Post & Greenlaw (2009) [2136]. Spelling junicola in Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 1 2

350

PASSERELLIDAE

Ammospiza nelsoni NELSON’S SPARROW3, 4 nelsoni (J.A. Allen, 1875)

altera Todd, 19385 subvirgata (Dwight, 1887)6

Ammospiza caudacuta SALTMARSH SPARROW7 caudacuta (J.F. Gmelin, 1788)

diversa (Bishop, 1901)

W and C Canada (east to C Manitoba), N USA (North Dakota, South Dakota, NW Minnesota) >> S USA, NW Mexico v EC Canada (N Manitoba to W Quebec) >> S USA (Gulf Coast) v SE Canada (from S Quebec), NE USA (to S Maine, N Massachusetts) >> E USA (Atlantic coast)

v NE USA (coastal S Maine to New Jersey) >> SE USA (New Jersey to Florida) v E USA (coastal New Jersey to Delaware) >> SE USA (to Florida)

ARTEMISIOSPIZA Klicka & Banks, 2011 [1435] F – Emberiza belli Cassin, 1850; type by original designation8, 9 Artemisiospiza nevadensis (Ridgway, 1874) SAGEBRUSH SPARROW10, 11 α v W USA (E Washington to N New Mexico) >> SW USA (W Texas), NW Mexico (N Baja California, N Chihuahua) Artemisiospiza belli BELL’S SPARROW canescens (Grinnell, 1905)12

belli (Cassin, 1850)13

cinerea (C.H. Townsend, 1890)

SW USA (C California, W Nevada) >> SW USA, NW Mexico (NE Baja California) SW USA (California incl. San Clemente I.), NW Mexico (N Baja California) v NW Mexico (C Baja California)

POOECETES S.F. Baird, 1858 M – Fringilla graminea J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by monotypy 14 Pooecetes gramineus VESPER SPARROW gramineus (J.F. Gmelin, 1789)

confinis S.F. Baird, 1858

altus A.R. Phillips, 196615 affinis G.S. Miller, 1888

v SE Canada (from NE Ontario), E USA (N Minnesota, Maine to C Missouri, S Virginia) >> Gulf Coast v SW Canada (to W Ontario), W USA (east to W Nebraska) >> SW USA, Mexico (to Oaxaca) v SW USA (S Utah to N Arizona) v W USA (W Washington, W Oregon) >> SW USA, NW Mexico (NW Baja California)

ORITURUS Bonaparte, 1850 M – Oriturus mexicanus Bonaparte, 1850; type by subsequent designation (Bonaparte, 1856, Compt. Rend. Acad. Sci. Paris, 43, p. 413). = Aimophila superciliosa Swainson, 183816 Oriturus superciliosus STRIPED SPARROW17 palliatus (van Rossem, 1938)

superciliosus (Swainson, 1838)

v W Mexico (Sierra Madre Occidental from E Sonora to W Zacatecas) v C and SW Mexico (C plateau from Jalisco to C Oaxaca)

PASSERCULUS Bonaparte, 1838 M – Fringilla savanna A. Wilson, 1811; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1840, A List of the Genera of Birds, p. 46). 18 Passerculus sandwichensis SAVANNAH SPARROW19 1 princeps Maynard, 1872 2 sandwichensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) 2 anthinus Bonaparte, 185320, 1 δ

E Canada (Sable I., off E Nova Scotia) >> E USA (E Massachusetts to S Georgia) v E Aleutian Is., islands off Alaska Pen. >> coastal SW Canada (British Columbia) to W USA (N California) v NE Siberia, Alaska, NW Canada (Yukon, Northwest Territories, N British Columbia) >> SW USA, NW Mexico

For recognition, see Post & Greenlaw (2009) [2136]. For correct date see Banks & Browning (1979) [117]. 3 For treatment as a separate species from A. caudacuta see Greenlaw (1993) [1083]. See also Rising & Avise (1993) [2327]. 4 Possibly monotypic, see Rising & Avise (1993) [2327]; but see Rising (2011) [2326]. 5 Perhaps not diagnosable from nominate nelsoni; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 6 May merit treatment as a separate species; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 7 Possibly monotypic; see Rising & Avise (1993) [2327]. 8 Species in this genus were formerly placed in Amphispiza, but see Carson & Spicer (2003) [353], Klicka & Spellman (2007) [1439] and Chesser et al. (2012) [397]. 9 The name Artemisospiza Klicka & Spellman, 2007 [1439] was invalid as the requirements of Art. 13 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [1274] were not met. 10 For treatment as a separate monotypic species from A. belli, see Cicero & Johnson (2007) [436], Cicero & Koo (2012) [437] and Chesser et al. (2013) [398]. 11 For correct date of publication see Banks & Browning (1979) [117] contra Chesser et al. (2013) [398]. 12 Possibly a separate species; see Rising (2011) [2326] and Chesser et al. (2013) [398]. 13 Includes clementeae; see Patten & Unitt (2002) [2018]. 14 Dual original spellings; see David et al. (2009) [633]. 15 For recognition, see Browning (1990) [290] and Jones & Cornely (2002) [1361]; but see Rising (2011) [2326]. 16 Dated ‘1851?’ by Paynter (1970) [2040], but see Zimmer (1926) [2995]. 17 Possibly monotypic; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 18 For recognition of this genus see A.O.U. (1983, 1998) [2], [3]. Separation from Ammodramus supported by genetic data; see Klicka & Spellman (2007) [1439] and DaCosta et al. (2009) [626]. 19 Subspecies groups and sequence of subspecies follow Wheelwright & Rising (2008) [2889]. For a further reduction in the number of subspecies see Rising (2011) [2329]. See also Rising et al. (2009) [2328]. 20 Correct original spelling. Spelling athinus in Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 1 2

351

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

2 brooksi Bishop, 1915

2 nevadensis Grinnell, 1910

2 labradorius Howe, 19012 2 savanna (A. Wilson, 1811)3

2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 5 5

alaudinus Bonaparte, 1853 brunnescens (A.W. Butler, 1888)4 †?wetmorei van Rossem, 1938 beldingi Ridgway, 1885 anulus Huey, 1930 guttatus Lawrence, 1867 magdalenae van Rossem, 1947 sanctorum Coues, 1884 rostratus (Cassin, 1852)5 atratus van Rossem, 1930

v v v v v

SW Canada (SW British Columbia), NW USA (W Washington to NW California) >> S California, N Baja California C Canada (E British Columbia to Manitoba), WC USA (south to E California and South Dakota) >> SC USA to NW and C Mexico E Canada (Ontario to Labrador) >> SE USA SE Canada (SE Québec to Nova Scotia), NE USA (south to Iowa and New Jersey) >> SE USA SW USA (coastal N and C California) NC and C Mexico (S Chihuahua to Michoacán and Puebla) SW Guatemala SW USA (S California), NW Mexico (N Baja California) NW Mexico (WC Baja California) NW Mexico (C Baja California) NW Mexico (SW Baja California) Islas Benito (off W Baja California) Coastal NW Mexico (NE Baja California, NW Sonora) Coastal NW Mexico (SW Sonora, NW Sinaloa)

CENTRONYX S.F. Baird, 1858 [104] M – Emberiza bairdii Audubon, 1844; type by monotypy6 Centronyx bairdii (Audubon, 1844) BAIRD’S SPARROW

Centronyx henslowii HENSLOW’S SPARROW7 susurrans (Brewster, 1918)

henslowii (Audubon, 1829)8

SW Canada (SE Alberta to SW Manitoba), N USA (Montana to South Dakota) >> SW USA, N Mexico

NE USA (C New York, S New Hampshire to W West Virginia, E North Carolina) >> E USA (to C Florida) C USA (E South Dakota, New York to C Kansas, C West Virginia) >> S USA (Gulf Coast)

XENOSPIZA Bangs, 1931 F – Xenospiza baileyi Bangs, 1931; type by original designation 9 Xenospiza baileyi Bangs, 1931 SIERRA MADRE SPARROW

C Mexico (S Durango; Distrito Federal)

MELOSPIZA S.F. Baird, 1858 F – Fringilla melodia A. Wilson, 1810; type by original designation 10 Melospiza melodia SONG SPARROW11 1 maxima Gabrielson & Lincoln, 1951 1 sanaka McGregor, 190012, 13 1 insignis S.F. Baird, 1869 1 kenaiensis Ridgway, 1900 1 caurina Ridgway, 1899 1 merrilli Brewster, 189614 1 rufina (Bonaparte, 1850) 1 morphna Oberholser, 1899 1 cleonensis McGregor, 1899 2 montana Henshaw, 188415 2 melodia (A. Wilson, 1810)16 2 atlantica Todd, 1924 3 gouldii S.F. Baird, 1858

v SW Alaska (Attu to Atka, in W Aleutian Is.) SW Alaska (Seguam to Unimak, in Aleutian Is., Alaska Pen. and islands south of peninsula) v SW Alaska (Kodiak I., E Alaska Pen.) >> along Alaskan coast v S Alaska (Alaska Pen., islands in Prince William Sound) >> SW Canada (British Columbia) v Coastal SE Alaska >> SW USA (to NW California) SW Canada (E British Columbia) NW USA (SE Washington, NW Montana) >> SW USA (SE California) v SE Alaska (Alexander Arch.), SW Canada (Queen Charlotte Is, off British Columbia) SW Canada (C and SW British Columbia), NW USA (to NW Oregon) v W USA (SW Oregon, NW California) v W USA (Washington, Montana to California, New Mexico) >> N Mexico (Sonora to Coahuila) SE Canada (from Alberta), C and E USA (to N Georgia, except middle Atlantic coast) >> S USA (Texas to Florida) v E USA (Atlantic coast from Long I. to C North Carolina) >> E USA (Maryland to Georgia) SW USA (coastal C California, Santa Cruz I., off S California)

Includes crassus see Wheelwright & Rising (2008) [2889]. Includes oblitus see Wheelwright & Rising (2008) [2889]. 3 Includes mediogriseus see Wheelwright & Rising (2008) [2889]. 4 Includes rufofuscus; see Wheelwright & Rising (2008) [2889]. 5 Separation of this subspecies group as a species was proposed by Zink et al. (2005) [3032]. 6 Species in this genus were formerly placed in Ammodramus, but see Klicka & Spellman (2007) [1439]. 7 Subspecies weakly differentiated; see Rising (2011) [2326]. 8 Includes houstonensis Arnold, 1983 [77]; see Browning (1990) [290]. 9 Placed in Ammodramus by Paynter (1970) [2040] but is sister to Melospiza; see Klicka & Spellman (2007) [1439] and Barker et al. (2013) [136]. 10 For recognition of this genus see A.O.U. (1983, 1998) [2], [3]. Separation from Zonotrichia also supported by genetic data in DaCosta et al. (2009) [626]. 11 Subspecies groups follow Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 12 Includes amaka; see Pruett et al. (2004) [2182] and Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 13 Author’s reprints mailed 25 November 1900. See Paynter (1970) [2040] and Dickinson et al. (2011) [760]. 14 Includes inexspectata; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. Rising (2011) [2326] considered inexspectata as a synonym of morphna. 15 Includes fisherella; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 16 Includes euphonia and juddi, see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]; callima Oberholser, 1974 [1887] and melanchra Oberholser, 1974 [1887], see Browning (1978) [288]. 1 2

352

PASSERELLIDAE, EMBERIZIDAE

3 3 3 3 3

samuelsis (S.F. Baird, 1858) δ maxillaris Grinnell, 1909 pusillula Ridgway, 1899 heermanni S.F. Baird, 18582, 3 δ graminea C.H. Townsend, 18904

4 4 4 5 5 5 5

fallax (S.F. Baird, 1854)5 rivularis W.E. Bryant, 1888 goldmani Nelson, 1899 mexicana Ridgway, 18746 villai Phillips & Dickerman, 1957 adusta Nelson, 18997 zacapu Dickerman, 1963

Melospiza lincolnii LINCOLN’S SPARROW8 lincolnii (Audubon, 1834)

gracilis (von Kittlitz, 1858)

alticola (Miller & McCabe, 1935)

Melospiza georgiana SWAMP SPARROW ericrypta Oberholser, 19389

georgiana (Latham, 1790)

nigrescens G.M. Bond & Stewart, 195110

v v v

SW USA (San Pablo Bay, N San Francisco Bay, in California) SW USA (Suisun Bay, in C California) SW USA (S San Francisco Bay, in C California) SW USA (C and SW California), NW Mexico (NW Baja California) SW USA (Channel Is., off SW California), NW Mexico (Islas Los Coronados, off N Baja California) SW USA (S Nevada, SW Utah to S California, SE Arizona) v NW Mexico (SC Baja California) WC Mexico (W Durango) v SC Mexico (S Hidalgo to N Puebla) SC Mexico (Guanajuato to México) v SC Mexico (Guanajuato to Michoacán) SW Mexico (Jalisco)

Alaska, Canada, extreme N USA >> S USA (from N California to N Georgia), Mexico, Guatemala v S Alaska, SW Canada (C British Columbia) >> SW USA, N Mexico (Baja California, Sonora, Coahuila) W USA (mountains of NC Oregon to California, N New Mexico) >> S USA, Mexico, Guatemala v S Canada (E British Columbia to SE Quebec), NC USA (To N Minnesota) >> S USA, C Mexico (to Veracruz) v SE Canada (Prince Edward I., Nova Scotia), NE USA (E Nebraska to West Virginia) >> S USA (to S Texas) Coastal E USA (New Jersey to SE Maryland)

EMBERIZIDAE ‐ OLD WORLD BUNTINGS (5:41)11 FRINGILLARIA Swainson, 1837 F – Emberiza capensis Linnaeus, 1766; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1840, A List of the Genera of Birds, p. 47). Fringillaria cabanisi CABANIS’S BUNTING cabanisi (Reichenow, 1875) orientalis Shelley, 1882 cognominata Grote, 1931

Sierra Leone to South Sudan, NE DR Congo, NW Uganda v Tanzania, E Zambia, Malawi, E Zimbabwe, N Mozambique v S DR Congo, Angola, W Zambia, N and C Zimbabwe

Fringillaria affinis BROWN‐RUMPED BUNTING nigeriae (Bannerman & Bates, 1926) vulpecula (Grote, 1921) affinis (von Heuglin, 1867) omoensis (Neumann, 1905)12

v v

Fringillaria flaviventris GOLDEN‐BREASTED BUNTING flavigaster (Cretzschmar, 1828) kalaharica (Roberts, 1932)13

princeps (Clancey & Winterbottom, 1960)14 flaviventris (Stephens, 1815)

Senegal to Nigeria, N Cameroon C Cameroon, S Chad, N Central African Republic South Sudan, N Uganda and adjacent NE DR Congo SW Ethiopia

Mauritania to S Sudan, Eritrea v S South Sudan, Uganda, W and C Kenya, E and S DR Congo to E Angola, Botswana, Mozambique, N South Africa SW Angola to C Namibia v S Mozambique (Maputo), E South Africa (KwaZulu‐Natal to Eastern Cape)

Fringillaria poliopleura (Salvadori, 1888) SOMALI BUNTING Fringillaria capensis CAPE BUNTING vincenti P.R. Lowe, 1932 nebularum Rudebeck, 1958

Somalia, E and S Ethiopia, N and E Kenya, NE Tanzania

N Mozambique, S Malawi, E Zambia SW Angola

Original spelling samuelis. Here emended based on ‘Mr. Samuels’ mentioned in the original. Correct original spelling. Spelling heermani in Dickinson (2003) [717] was an ISS. 3 Includes mailliardi and cooperi; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 4 Includes micronyx, clementae and coronatorum; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 5 Includes saltonis; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 6 Includes niceae and azteca; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 7 Includes yuriria; see Patten & Pruett (2009) [2016]. 8 Diagnosibility of subspecies doubted by Rising (2011) [2326]. 9 Doubtfully diagnosable; see Paynter (1970) [2040]. 10 For recognition see Greenberg & Droege (1990) [1081] and Mowbray (1997) [1814]. 11 Treatment follows Alström et al. (2008) [51], with Miliaria and Latoucheornis subsumed. Species sequence based on their treatment with unscreened species interpolated but with distinctive E. koslowi placed at the end of Emberiza. But see Koblik (2007) [1446] for a treatment accepting more small genera. 12 For recognition see White (1963) [2902] under the name E. forbesi omoensis. 13 Treated as a synonym of the nominate by Ryan (2011) [2382]. 14 For recognition see Dean in Hockey et al. (2005) [1209]. 1 2

353

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

bradfieldi Roberts, 1928 smithersii Plowes, 1951 plowesi Vincent, 1950 limpopoensis Roberts, 1924 reidi Shelley, 1902 basutoensis Vincent, 1950 cinnamomea M.H.C. Lichtenstein, 1842 vinacea (Clancey, 1963) capensis (Linnaeus, 1766)

v v v

C and NW Namibia E Zimbabwe, W Mozambique NE Botswana, Zimbabwe plateau SE Botswana, NE South Africa (Limpopo and Gauteng) E South Africa (S Mpumalanga to E Free State, E Eastern Cape) Lesotho highlands C and SE South Africa (S and E Northern Cape to W Free State, W Eastern Cape) v N South Africa (N Northern Cape) v S Namibia, W South Africa (W Northern Cape, Western Cape)

Fringillaria socotrana Ogilvie‐Grant & Forbes, 1899 SOCOTRA BUNTING v Socotra Fringillaria impetuani LARK‐LIKE BUNTING impetuani (A. Smith, 1836)1

sloggetti Macdonald, 19572

Fringillaria tahapisi CINNAMON‐BREASTED BUNTING arabica Lorenz von Liburnau & Hellmayr, 1902 goslingi Alexander, 19063 septemstriata (Rüppell, 1837)4 α tahapisi (A. Smith, 1836)5

nivenorum Winterbottom, 19656

Fringillaria striolata STRIATED BUNTING 1 sahari (Levaillant, 1850)7 2 sanghae Traylor, 19608 2 saturatior (Sharpe, 1901) 2 jebelmarrae (Lynes, 1920) 2 striolata (M.H.C. Lichtenstein, 1823)

v v v v

S Angola, Namibia, Botswana and adjacent W and NW South Africa >> W Zambia (vagrant S DR Congo) W and C South Africa (Western and Northern Cape to Gauteng) SW Arabia to S Oman Senegal and S Mauritania to W Sudan and N DR Congo SE Sudan, N Ethiopia, N Eritrea S South Sudan, S and C Ethiopia, Socotra and East Africa to Gabon, Angola, NE Namibia and E South Africa NW Namibia NW Africa and C Sahara east to N and NE Chad N Senegal, Mauritania, C Mali C and S Sudan, SW Ethiopia, NW Kenya, N Somalia SW Sudan NE Sudan, Eritrea, NE and C Ethiopia; Arabia, Sinai, SE Israel, SW Jordan, S Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, NW India

MELOPHUS Swainson, 1837 M – Emberiza erythropterus Jardine & Selby, 1833; type by monotypy = Emberiza lathami J.E. Gray, 1831 Melophus lathami (J.E. Gray, 1831) CRESTED BUNTING

SE Xizang, SW and S China, Himalayan foothills east from N Pakistan, C to NE India, N continental SE Asia east to NW Vietnam >> W and N Thailand

GRANATIVORA G.R. Gray, 1855 F – Emberiza melanocephala Scopoli, 1769; type by monotypy Granativora bruniceps (von Brandt, 1841) RED‐HEADED BUNTING

Lower R. Volga to NE Iran and Afghanistan, W Turkmenistan to E Kazakhstan, SW Mongolia and NW China in Xinjiang >> India except NE

Granativora melanocephala (Scopoli, 1769) BLACK‐HEADED BUNTING v SE Europe and Caucasus to Iran >> W India

EMBERIZA Linnaeus, 1758 F – Emberiza citrinella Linnaeus, 1758; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1840, A List of the Genera of Birds, p. 47). Emberiza fucata CHESTNUT‐EARED BUNTING arcuata Sharpe, 1888

fucata Pallas, 1776

kuatunensis La Touche, 1925

Emberiza calandra CORN BUNTING9 calandra Linnaeus, 1758

v SW to NC China, N Pakistan, Himalayas east to W Nepal >> N Myanmar v Baikal Mts. and N Mongolia to Sakhalin, Russian Far East, Japan, Korea, NE China >> SE China, NE India, N continental SE Asia v S and SE China, north to Zhejiang

Implicitly includes eremica Clancey, 1989 [525], see Dean in Hockey et al. (2005) [1209]. For recognition see Dean in Hockey et al. (2005) [1209]. 3 For suggested treatment at species rank see Olsson et al. (2013) [1934]. 4 For date correction see Steinheimer (2005) [2614]. 5 Includes insularis see Kirwan (2007) [1423]. 6 For recognition see Dean in Hockey et al. (2005) [1209]. 7 For treatment as a separate species see Kirwan & Shirihai (2007) [1430] and Olsson et al. (2013) [1934]. 8 Not mentioned by Ryan (2011) [2382]. 9 For reasons to retain this in Emberiza rather retain monotypic Miliaria [269] see Lee et al. (2001) [1538]. 1 2

354

Canary Is., N Africa, Europe, Asia Minor, Caucasus area, N Iran

EMBERIZIDAE

buturlini H.E. Johansen, 1907 1

SE Turkey to Iran, N Afghanistan, C Asia to S Kazakhstan, NW China in WC Xinjiang >> SW Asia

S Russian Far East (formerly?), far‐NE China >> Korea

Emberiza jankowskii Taczanowski, 1888 JANKOWSKI’S BUNTING Emberiza cioides MEADOW BUNTING tarbagataica Sushkin, 1925

cioides von Brandt, 1843 weigoldi Jacobi, 1923 castaneiceps F. Moore, 1856 ciopsis Bonaparte, 18502, 3 α

Emberiza godlewskii GODLEWSKI’S BUNTING 4 decolorata Sushkin, 1925 godlewskii Taczanowski, 1874

khamensis Sushkin, 1925 yunnanensis Sharpe, 1902

omissa Rothschild, 1921

v C Asia in SW Altai and S and E Tien Shan, NW China in N Xinjiang SC Siberia to Baikal, Mongolia, NC China in E Qinghai Russian Far East, N Korea, NE China >> C Korea, C China S Korea, EC and E China >> S China, Taiwan S Kuril Is., Japan >> C and S Japan v C Asia in S and E Tien Shan, NW China in W Xinjiang SE Siberia from Baikal to Altai, Mongolia, NC China from N Qinghai to Gansu v S and E Xizang, WC to NC China from SW Sichuan to SE Qinghai v SE Xizang, SW and WC China from Yunnan and S Sichuan to Guizhou and Guangxi, NE India in Arunachal Pradesh v WC to C and EC China from N Sichuan and Shaanxi to Hebei

Emberiza cia ROCK BUNTING cia Linnaeus, 17665 hordei C.L. Brehm, 18316 prageri Laubmann, 19157 par E. Hartert, 1904

stracheyi F. Moore, 1856 flemingorum J. Martens, 1972

Emberiza buchanani GREY‐NECKED BUNTING cerrutii de Filippi, 1863 buchanani Blyth, 18458 α

neobscura Paynter, 19709

C and S Europe to Balkans and N Asia Minor, N Africa Greece, SW and SC Asia Minor, Levant [270] Crimea, Caucasus area, E Turkey, SW and N Iran NE Iran, Afghanistan, C Asia to SW Altai, NW China in N Xinjiang, W Pakistan, Himalayas east to Ladakh, SW Xizang, outer Himalayas east to W Nepal W and C Nepal [1646]

E Turkey and Caucasus to Iran and SW Turkmenistan >> India Afghanistan, C Asia to Pamir and Alai ranges, NW Pakistan >> SE Pakistan, W and C India v C Asia in Kazakhstan and Tien Shan, W Mongolia, NW China in N Xinjiang >> W and C India

Emberiza caesia Cretzschmar, 1827 CRETZSCHMAR’S BUNTING10 α v Greece, W and S Turkey, Cyprus, Levant >> NE Africa (Chad to Eritrea and Djibouti) Emberiza cineracea CINEREOUS BUNTING cineracea C.L. Brehm, 1855 semenowi Sarudny, 1904

v Lesbos, Chios (E Greece), W, SW and SC Asia Minor >> NE Africa SE Turkey, SW Iran >> NE Africa, SW Arabia

Emberiza hortulana Linnaeus, 1758 ORTOLAN BUNTING

Europe to SC Siberia and Mongolia south to NW Africa, Levant and Iran >> N Afrotropics (Senegal to Ethiopia and Yemen), SW Asia

NW Africa, W and S Europe to W and N Asia Minor

Afghanistan, C Asia to Pamir and Alai ranges and W Tien Shan, W Pakistan, Himalayan east to C Himachal Pradesh >> NW and C India

Emberiza cirlus Linnaeus, 1766 CIRL BUNTING11, 12 Emberiza stewarti (Blyth, 1854) WHITE‐CAPPED BUNTING

Emberiza citrinella YELLOWHAMMER/EURASIAN YELLOW BUNTING caliginosa Clancey, 1940 v N and W British Isles citrinella Linnaeus, 175813 W Europe to W Russia, W Balkans and Greece >> N Africa erythrogenys C.L. Brehm, 1855 E Russia and Siberia to Baikal >> SW Asia, west C Asia, Mongolia, Nepal For recognition see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. Includes shiretokoensis Mishima, 1959 [1781] see Orn. Soc. Japan (2000) [1945]. 3 Dated 1851? by Paynter (1970) [2040] but see Zimmer (1926) [2995]. 4 For treatment as a separate species from E. cia see Mauersberger (1972) [1669]; corroborated by Alström et al. (2008) [51]. 5 Includes africana; see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 6 For recognition see Roselaar (1995) [2357]. Not recognised by Copete (2011) [590]. 7 For recognition see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. Not recognised by Copete (2011) [590]. 8 Dated 1844 by Paynter (1970) [2040], but see Dickinson & Pittie (2006) [761]. 9 This name was a nomen novum needed because Emberiza buchanani obscura Sarudny & Korejev, 1903 is a junior primary homonym of Emberiza obscura d’Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837. 10 For date correction see Steinheimer (2005) [2614]. 11 Includes nigrostriata; see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 12 Introduced to New Zealand. 13 Introduced to New Zealand. 1 2

355

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Emberiza leucocephalos PINE BUNTING1 leucocephalos S.G. Gmelin, 17712 δ

Siberia and C Asia south to Tien Shan, Russian Far East, Mongolia, NW to NE China >> SE Europe, SW and C Asia, Japan, N China, Himalayan foothills NC China from N Qinghai to SW Gansu

NC China in SC Qinghai >> E Xizang, SE Qinghai

fronto Stresemann, 1930

Emberiza koslowi Bianchi, 1904 TIBETAN BUNTING

SCHOENICLUS T. Forster, 1817 M – Emberiza arundinacea S.G. Gmelin, 1774; type by monotypy and tautonymy = Fringilla schoeniclus Linnaeus, 1758 Schoeniclus siemsseni (G.H. Martens, 1906) SLATY BUNTING Schoeniclus elegans YELLOW‐THROATED BUNTING elegans (Temminck, 1836)3, 4 α

elegantulus (Swinhoe, 1870)

WC to NC China from Sichuan to Ningxia >> C, S and SE China from Guizhou to Anhui, N Guangdong and NW Fujian

Russian Far East, Korea, Tsushima I. (Korea Strait), NE China >> S Japan, S and E China v C China >> NE Myanmar

Schoeniclus yessoensis JAPANESE REED BUNTING/OCHRE‐RUMPED BUNTING yessoensis (Swinhoe, 1874) v C and S Japan >> S Japan, Korea continentalis (Witherby, 1913) v S Russian Far East, NE China >> S Korea, E China Schoeniclus pallasi PALLAS’S REED BUNTING pallasi (Cabanis, 1851) minor (von Middendorff, 1853)5 polaris (von Middendorff, 1853)6 α

lydiae (Portenko, 1928)7 α

Schoeniclus schoeniclus EURASIAN REED BUNTING8 1 schoeniclus (Linnaeus, 1758) 1 passerinus (Pallas, 1771) 1 parvirostris (Buturlin, 1910) 1 pyrrhulinus Swinhoe, 1876 1 pallidior (E. Hartert, 1904) 1 ukrainae (Sarudny, 1917) 2 incognitus (Sarudny, 1917) 2 pyrrhuloides (Pallas, 1811) 2 harterti (Sushkin, 1906)9

2 3 3 3 3

centralasiae (E. Hartert, 1904)10 zaidamensis (Portenko, 1929) witherbyi (von Jordans, 1923)11 stresemanni (F. Steinbacher, 1930)12 intermedius (Degland, 1849) tschusii (Reiser & Almásy, 1898)13

3 reiseri (E. Hartert, 1904) 3 caspius Ménétries, 1832 3 korejewi (Sarudny, 1907)

SW Baikal to Altai and Sayan ranges, NW Mongolia v N and E Baikal to Russian Far East [2835] v NE Russia to extreme NE Siberia >> Russian Far East and Korea to E China SC Siberia in Tuva Republic, N and C Mongolia W, N and NC Europe to N Russia >> S Europe, N Africa, SW Asia v NW Siberia >> Iran, NW Mongolia and NW China in N Xinjiang v Siberia from mid‐Yenisey valley to Yakutia, south to SW Baikal >> Mongolia, NW China east to Qinghai v Baikal east to Kamchatka, Sakhalin and Russian Far East, Kuril Is., Hokkaido, NE Mongolia, NE China >> C Japan, Korea, E China v SW and SC Siberia east to Altai foothills >> SW and C Asia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, NW India Moldova and Ukraine to C Russia >> Black Sea basin v S Urals and C Asia (north of pyrrhuloides), east to NE Kazakhstan >> Caspian and NW China in Xinjiang N Caspian east through C Asia to SE Kazakhstan and C Tien Shan C Asia in E Kazakhstan, W and S Mongolia, NW China in NW Xinjiang NW China in Tarim basin (SW Xinjiang) v NW China in Qaidam basin (SE Xinjiang, N Qinghai) Iberia, S France, Sardinia, Balearic Is. E Austria, Hungary, N Serbia, NW Romania v Italy to coastal Croatia and NW Albania N Bulgaria, S and E Romania, shores of N Black Sea and Sea of Azov SE Albania, Macedonia, Greece, W and C Turkey v E Turkey, E Transcaucasia, NW and N Iran SE Turkey, Syria, SW and E Iran, S Turkmenistan

Considered to be either a separate species from E. citrinella with secondary interaction, see Irwin et al. (2009) [1303]; or as a second subspecies group of E. citrinella that has not yet achieved species rank, see Tietze et al. (2012) [2712]. 2 The spelling leucocephala in Paynter (1970) [2040] was an ISS. 3 Includes ticehursti; see Stepanyan (1990) [2627]. 4 Livr. 98 must be dated from 1836 see Dickinson (2001) [716]. 5 For transfer to this species see Stepanyan (1990) [2627]; treated as subspecies schoeniclus by Paynter (1970) [2040] and by Copete (2011) [590]. 6 For correct date see Dickinson et al. (2011) [760]. 7 The issue title page is dated October 1928. 8 Revision based on Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 9 For recognition see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 10 For recognition see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 11 Includes lusitanica; see Vaurie (1959) [2794] which was found genetically distinct by Kvist et al. (2011) [1485]. 12 For recognition see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 13 For recognition see Cramp et al. (1994) [612]. 1

356

EMBERIZIDAE, PHAENICOPHILIDAE

Schoeniclus spodocephala BLACK‐FACED BUNTING spodocephala (Pallas, 1776)

personatus (Temminck, 1836)1 α sordidus (Blyth, 1845)

Siberia from mid‐Yenisey valley to Yakutia, south to Altai, Baikal, Sakhalin and Russian Far East, N Korea, N Mongolia, NE China >> S and E China v S Sakhalin, S Kurils, N and C Japan >> S Japan v WC, NC and C China from N Yunnan, W Sichuan and NE Qinghai to Hubei >> Himalayan foothills east from Nepal, NE India, N continental SE Asia

Schoeniclus sulphuratus (Temminck & Schlegel, 1848) JAPANESE YELLOW BUNTING2 v Honshu (C Japan), S Korea >> S Japan, E China, N Philippines Schoeniclus rusticus (Pallas, 1776) RUSTIC BUNTING3 v N Europe and Siberia east to Sakhalin, south to Altai and N Baikal >> Japan, Korea, E China to Taiwan Schoeniclus rutilus (Pallas, 1776) CHESTNUT BUNTING v Siberia from mid‐Yenisey valley to Yakutia, south to Baikal and E Russian Far East, N Mongolia, extreme NE China >> far‐NE India (Manipur, Mizoram), S China, W and N continental SE Asia Schoeniclus pusillus (Pallas, 1776) LITTLE BUNTING v NE Europe to NE Siberia >> S China, Himalayas east from Nepal, NE India, NE Bangladesh, N continental SE Asia Schoeniclus aureolus YELLOW‐BREASTED BUNTING aureolus (Pallas, 1773)

ornatus (Shulpin, 1928)

v NE Europe and Siberia east to Kolyma basin, south to Baikal, W and C Mongolia >> S China, mainland SE Asia v Siberia (east of aureolus) to Anadyrland and Kamchatka, south to Sakhalin, E Russian Far East, Hokkaido, N Korea, far‐NE China >> S China, NE India, mainland SE Asia

Schoeniclus chrysophrys (Pallas, 1776) YELLOW‐BROWED BUNTING Schoeniclus variabilis GREY BUNTING variabilis (Temminck, 1836)4 α musicus (von Kittlitz, 1858)5

C Siberia (mid Yenisey valley) east to Yakutia and south to Baikal >> SC and SE China

v Sakhalin, S Kuril Is., N and C Japan >> C Japan to Ryukyu Is. v S Kamchatka >> C and S Japan [1432]

Schoeniclus tristrami (Swinhoe, 1870) TRISTRAM’S BUNTING

Russian Far East, Korea, NE China >> S and SE China, N continental SE Asia

PHAENICOPHILIDAE ‐ WARBLER TANAGERS (5:9)6 PHAENICOPHILUS Strickland, 1851 M – Turdus palmarum Linnaeus, 1766; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1855, Cat. of the Genera and Subgenera of Birds, p. 74). Phaenicophilus palmarum (Linnaeus, 1766) BLACK‐CROWNED WARBLER TANAGER7 Hispaniola incl. Isla Saona Phaenicophilus poliocephalus GRAY‐CROWNED WARBLER TANAGER poliocephalus (Bonaparte, 1851) v S peninsular Haiti, incl. Grande Cayemite I., SW Dominican Republic coryi Richmond & Swales, 1924 Ile de la Gonâve (off Hispaniola) tetraopes Wetmore & Lincoln, 19328 Ile‐à‐Vache (off Hispaniola)

XENOLIGEA J. Bond, 1967 F – Microligea montana Chapman, 1917; type by original designation Xenoligea montana (Chapman, 1917) WHITE‐WINGED WARBLER TANAGER v Mountains of Hispaniola

Livr. 98 must be dated from 1836 see Dickinson (2001) [716]. Dual original spellings; see David et al. (2009) [633]. 3 For treatment as monotypic see Stepanyan (1990) [2627]. However a subspecies latifascia was recognised by Vaurie (1959) [2794] and by Copete (2011) [590]. 4 Livr. 98 must be dated from 1836 see Dickinson (2001) [716]. 5 For recognition see Stepanyan (1990) [2627]; not accepted by Orn. Soc. Japan (2000) [1945]. 6 For recognition see Barker et al. (2013) [136]. Component species derive from the Parulidae (two) and the Thraupidae (seven). 7 Forms a superspecies with P. poliocephalus; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [2542], Sly et al. (2010) [2571] and Hilty (2011) [1204]. 8 For recognition see Schwartz & Klinikowski (1963) [2462], Keith et al. (2003) [1392] and Hilty (2011) [1204]. 1 2

357

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

MICROLIGEA Cory, 1884 F – Ligea palustris Cory, 1884; type by original designation Microligea palustris GREEN‐TAILED WARBLER TANAGER palustris (Cory, 1884) vasta Wetmore & Lincoln, 1931

v Highlands of Hispaniola v SW Dominican Republic

GENERA INCERTAE SEDIS NESOSPINGUS P.L. Sclater, 1885 M – Chlorospingus speculiferus Lawrence, 1875; type by monotypy 1 Nesospingus speculiferus (Lawrence, 1875) PUERTO RICAN TANAGER v Puerto Rico

SPINDALIS Jardine & Selby, 1837 M – Spindalis bilineatus Jardine & Selby, 1837; type by monotypy = Tanagra nigricephala Jameson, 1835 2, 3 Spindalis zena WESTERN SPINDALIS4 townsendi Ridgway, 1887 zena (Linnaeus, 1758) pretrei (Lesson, 1832)5 salvini Cory, 1886 benedicti Ridgway, 1885

N Bahamas C and S Bahamas [1564] Cuba, Isla de la Juventud Grand Cayman I Isla de Cozumel, off Yucatan Pen.

Spindalis dominicensis (H. Bryant, 1867) HISPANIOLAN SPINDALIS6, 7 v Hispaniola, Gonâve I Spindalis portoricensis (H. Bryant, 1866) PUERTO RICAN SPINDALIS8 v Puerto Rico Spindalis nigricephala (Jameson, 1835) JAMAICAN SPINDALIS9

Jamaica

ZELEDONIIDAE ‐ WRENTHRUSH AND ALLIES (2:3) ZELEDONIA Ridgway, 1889 F – Zeledonia coronata Ridgway, 1889; type by monotypy 10 Zeledonia coronata Ridgway, 1889 WREN‐THRUSH v Costa Rica, W Panama

GENUS INCERTAE SEDIS TERETISTRIS Cabanis, 1855 M – Anabates fernandinae Lembeye, 1850; type by original designation 11 Teretistris fernandinae (Lembeye, 1850) YELLOW‐HEADED TERETISTRIS Teretistris fornsi ORIENTE TERETISTRIS fornsi Gundlach, 1858 turquinensis Garrido, 200012

W Cuba, Isla de la Juventud

E Cuba (Oriente, west to Matanzas) v SE Cuba (Pico Turquin) [1009]

Placed by Barker et al. (2013) [136] in a new monotypic family Nesospingidae but can be included here. Placed by Barker et al. (2013) [136] in a new monotypic family Spindalidae but can be included here. 3 Plate 9 refers and is in “New Series” part 2; evidence that this appeared in early 1837 is given by Zimmer (1926) but see Sherborn (1899) [2507]. 4 Forms a superspecies with S. dominicensis, S. portoricensis and S. nigricephala; see Garrido et al. (1997) [1011] and Hilty (2011) [1204]. 5 For correct date see Dickinson et al. (2011) [760]. 6 For treatment as a separate species from S. zena, see Garrido et al. (1997) [1011] and Banks et al. (2000) [120]. 7 Erroneously dated 1866 by Storer (1970) [2652] but see Bangs (1930) [113]. 8 For treatment as a separate species from S. zena, see Garrido et al. (1997) [1011] and Banks et al. (2000) [120]. 9 For treatment as a separate species from S. zena, see Garrido et al. (1997) [1011] and Banks et al. (2000) [120]. 10 Placed by Barker et al. (2013) [136] in its own family; the genus had been listed in the Turdidae by Ripley (1964) [2310]. 11 For placement of this genus close to Zeledonia see Barker et al. (2013) [136]; although he did not include it in this family it is judged to be best placed here. 12 Treated as a synonym of nominate fornsi by Curson (2010) [620]; but more study needed. 1 2

358

Appendix 1: Nomenclature of the higher classificatory ranks of birds Richard Schodde Australian National Wildlife Collection, CSIRO Ecosystem Sciences, GPO Box 1700, Canberra, ACT, Australia 2601. Australian Biological Resources Study, GPO Box 787, Canberra, ACT, Australia 2601. The objective of grouping living birds in a hierarchy of higher classificatory ranks here is to represent, as far as known, their relationships and phylogeny. If subspecies, species and genera are the leaves, twigs and branchlets on the avian phylogenetic tree, then tribes and families are the minor branches, orders the major branches, and cohorts and classes the primary limbs.

The Ranks The ranks used here are conventional, and cover all levels above genus, from tribe through family and order to cohort and class (Table 1). Among them, the categories of order and family are focal because of their familiarity in ornithology, but others have had to be incorporated as well to reflect growing confidence in the branching pattern of the phylogeny of birds. Expansion of ranks for such purposes is not new. Mayr (1969), for example, listed just six ranks between class and family, whereas Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) used nine and Livezey & Zusi (2007) fourteen. Such developments, in fact, began soon after Linnaeus introduced his simple classificatory system of species‐genus‐order in the mid 18th century. Fathered by Illiger (1811), the ranks of family, tribe and their divisions between genus and order came into wide use in 19th century ornithology, led by W.E. Leach, N.A. Vigors, G.R. Gray and C.L. Bonaparte (Bock 1994). They were then enshrined by the 27 volume Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum at the end of the 19th century, and maintained through the 20th into the 21st by the higher rank classifications and global checklists of Wetmore (1930, 1960), Peters et al. (1931‐1986), Stresemann (1934), Mayr & Amadon (1951), Cracraft (1981), Bock (1982), Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cracraft in Dickinson (2003). Today, family‐group ranks, including tribes, are so widely used in zoology that their nomenclature has come under regulatory control by an International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, hereafter the Code (I.C.Z.N. 1961, 1999). Above the rank of order to the level of subclass – which, by convention, includes all modern birds – there are as many ranks as below in modern zoology (see Blackwelder 1967: 448, table 1). Far fewer ranks at those levels have been used with any consistency however, and, to keep classification as uncomplicated as possible, they are kept to a minimum here until the higher group relationships among birds are better understood (compare Fain & Houde 2004; Ericson et al. 2006; Hackett et al. 2008). The higher ranks chosen here, namely the subordinate categories of class and the cohort, are the most widely used at higher classificatory levels in ornithology today (Table 1). The category of cohort, applied to the first or only rank between parvclass and superorder by Blackwelder (1967), Mayr (1969), Voous (1985), Mayr & Ashlock (1991) and Livezey & Zusi (2007), has been renamed legion (from the Latin legio) by Dubois (2006). His reason was that it conflicts with the rank of cohort in botany. The category of legion has rarely been employed in ornithology (e.g. Gadow 1893), and then at a rank not necessarily equivalent to cohort. Until such time as zoological and botanical nomenclature may come under common governance, we prefer to maintain the cohort at its accustomed rank in zoological nomenclature, and to avoid such militaristic terms as “legion”, “brigade” and “battalion” generally (cf. Gadow 1893). Dubois (l.c.) also introduced “hypo‐” to replace the categorical prefix “parv‐”, which had been used in ornithology for the lowest ranks in class‐ and order‐ groups by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Livezey & Zusi (2007). His reason: the Latin “parv‐”, which indicates size, is inconsistent in conceptual meaning with the other, better established Latin prefixes for categories of rank such as “super‐”, “sub‐” and “infra‐”, which indicate hierarchy. Yet “hypo‐” has its own difficulties, namely novelty and varied spellings, as in “hypoclass” but “hyporder”. Accordingly, “parv‐” is kept here.

The Names of Ranks The names of family‐group taxa, from tribe to superfamily, are regulated by the Code (I.C.Z.N.1999). They are based on the accepted name of a component genus, and applied according to the principles of priority (first publication) and coordination (nomenclatural linkage through ranks by type genus). Those used here are drawn substantially from Bock’s (1994) comprehensive compilation. In cases in which a senior family‐group name is based on a generic name now synonymised, it can be replaced by a new, junior family‐group name based on the 631

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

presently valid generic name – but only if the replacement was enacted before 1961 and if the replacement name is in prevailing use today (Article 40.2 of the Code). Such replacements have been accepted where both requirements of that article are met. Table 1. Sequential ranks (highest at top, lowest at bottom) and their identificatory suffixes used to classify the higher ranks of birds in zoological literature over the last 50 years, from selected sources. The acronym ICZN = the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Note that some sources use diverse suffixes for the same rank, presumed as the nominative plural of the name used. Widespread usage is indicated by the term “general literature”; usage of little known ranks by relatively few sources is referenced. For reasons why previously used suffixes for the ranks of infraclass, parvclass and cohort are not necessarily followed here, see text. Supra‐generic ranks used for modern birds Subclass

Infraclass

Parvclass

Cohort

Subcohort

Division

Subdivision Section Subsection

Superorder

Source general literature Blackwelder (1967); Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007) Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007) Blackwelder (1967); Mayr (1969); Cracraft (1981); Voous (1985); Livezey & Zusi (2007) Livezey & Zusi (2007) Cracraft (1981, above rank of cohort); Livezey & Zusi (2007) Livezey & Zusi (2007) Livezey & Zusi (2007) Livezey & Zusi (2007) Blackwelder (1967); Mayr (1969); Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Suffixes for relevant rank

Source

Ranks used in this work

Suffixes used in this work

‐es

general literature

Subclass

‐es

Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Infraclass

‐ae

‐es, ‐ae

Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Parvclass

‐es

‐es, ‐ae

Cracraft (1981); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Cohort

‐ia

‐i, ‐ae, ‐es

Livezey & Zusi (2007)

–

‐es

Livezey & Zusi (2007)

–

‐es, ‐ae ‐es ‐es

Livezey & Zusi (2007) Livezey & Zusi (2007) Livezey & Zusi (2007)

‐imorphae, ‐omorphae, ‐es

Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Superorder

‐imorphae

Order

general literature

‐iformes

general literature

Order

‐iformes

Suborder

general literature

‐i, ‐ae, ‐es

general literature

Suborder

‐i

‐ides or ‐i, ‐ae and ‐es

Cracraft (1981); Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Infraorder

‐ides

‐ida

Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Parvorder

‐ida

Infraorder

Parvorder

Blackwelder (1967); Cracraft (1981); Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007) Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); Livezey & Zusi (2007)

Superfamily

ICZN (1999)

‐oidea

ICZN (1999)

Superfamily

‐oidea

Family

ICZN (1999)

‐idae

ICZN (1999)

Family

‐idae

Subfamily

ICZN (1999)

‐inae

ICZN (1999)

Subfamily

‐inae

Tribe

ICZN (1999)

‐ini

ICZN (1999)

Tribe

‐ini

Subtribe

ICZN (1999)

‐ina

ICZN (1999)

–

632

APPENDIX 1

The names for orders and ranks above are not regulated by the Code – for good reasons. By tradition, the different class disciplines of zoology – mammalogy, ornithology, ichthyology and entomology, among many others – have handled the names of such higher taxa differently. To institute a strict code for their nomenclature across zoology would thus create nomenclatural chaos. In ornithology, nevertheless, it has become customary since Gadow (1893), Wetmore (1930) and Peters (1931) to base names in the order‐group (superorder to parvorder) on the name of an included genus, and to coordinate names across order‐group ranks by reference to that genus. This practice parallels coordination in family‐group names, and it is followed here. In most cases, the root generic name for an order is the same as the root generic name for a senior included family. Examples are Procellariiformes (order) and Procellariidae (family) for the petrels and allies, and Psittaciformes (order) and Psittacidae (family) for the parrots. But there are also divergences. Here Anseriformes is employed as the ordinal name for ducks and geese even though Anatidae is the correct senior familial name, and Anserinae no more than a subfamily name for the geese and swans alone. Galliformes as the ordinal name and Phasianidae as the familial name for the land‐fowl is a parallel case. Wherever such usage has been sanctioned by custom, it has been kept. Above the ranks of the order‐group in birds, there is no formal tradition for sourcing names. Here prevailing usage over the last half century has been our guide. For the subclass including all modern birds, H&M4 has adopted Neornithes, following Gadow (1893), Wetmore (1930, 1960), Peters (1931), Cracraft (1981), Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and Livezey & Zusi (2007, at parvclass rank). Furthermore, for its two infraclasses, one comprising the ratites and tinamous and the other all remaining modern birds, the name Palaeognathae (ancient palate) is accepted and Neognathae (modern palate), after Pycraft (1900), Wetmore & Miller (1926, at superorder rank), Peters (1931, at superorder rank) and Livezey & Zusi (2007, at cohort rank), but not Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) who used other names. Then for the two parvclasses of remaining modern birds – the water‐ and land‐ fowl assemblage and other modern birds – Galloanseres and Neoaves are both used, after Sibley & Ahlquist (1990, pro parte) and Livezey & Zusi (2007, at subcohort rank). The category of cohort has offered scope for innovation, yet preference has been given to employing names already used for the groups involved or that are familiar. For the waterbird assemblage that includes the petrels, penguins, loons, pelecaniform and ciciconiiform birds, H&M4 has adopted “Aequornithia”, after Mayr (2010), and for the shorebirds, alcids and gulls, has introduced “Charadriia” which is derived from their ordinal name. Coracornithia, after Fürbringer (1888), has in turn been employed for a terminal or crown cohort that includes the raptors, coraciiforms, woodpeckers, parrots and passerines.

The Suffixes of Ranks To distinguish ranks for family‐group names based, through the principle of coordination, on the same generic name, the Code (I.C.Z.N 1999) has officially designated discriminating name‐endings (suffixes). They are – oidea for superfamily, ‐idae for family, ‐inae for subfamily, ‐ini for tribe and –ina for subtribe. There are no regulations governing the suffixes names of higher ranks at order‐group and above, other than a general convention that the names should be latinised nouns in the nominative plural (Blackwelder 1967: 439; Mayr & Ashlock 1991: 395). For order‐group names in ornithology, nevertheless, use of differentiating suffixes for each rank has been consistent because of the coordinated use of generic names as their base. It parallels practice in family‐group names, and is followed here for the same reason, namely that standardised suffixes improve communication in automatically signalling the rank of the group. Consistency is greatest at the rank of order itself, for which the suffix “‐iformes” has been adopted almost universally through the 20th century, following Gadow (1893), Wetmore & Miller (1926), Wetmore (1930, 1960) and Peters (1931). The suffixes “‐imorphae”, “‐ides” and “‐ida” have also firmed for the ranks of superorder, infraorder and parvorder respectively, after leads from Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Livezey and Zusi (2007). Only among suborders have suffixes been inconsistent. Although Sibley & Ahlquist (l.c.) and Sibley & Monroe (l.c.) fixed on the masculine plural suffix “‐i” alone for all subordinal names, most other global lists have simply added plural endings – “‐es”, “‐i” or “‐ae” – to generic name stems according to their gender, i.e. Pelecani, Galbulae and Ciconiae (Peters 1931; Wetmore 1960; Cracraft 1981; Livezey & Zusi 2007). H&M4 usage follows Sibley & Ahlquist (1990: 254) for all ordinal ranks, noting that consistent use of the suffix “‐i” for suborders helps to avert confusing their names with other ranks and from confounding them within. Suffixes for taxa at the rank of cohort and above follow no convention in ornithology. Whether they should be standardised to identify rank is arguable because names are so few at these levels and often so well established that regulation can bring more disruption than clarification. Even so, judged by the number of unallocated orders in the classification here, taxa in the cohort‐group and others between parvclass and superorder are likely to increase as the phylogeny of birds continues towards resolution (e.g. Hackett et al. 2008, fig. 3). Because of this, consistent, differentiating suffixes at these ranks, have been felt justified, wherever serious nomenclatural disruption can be averted. Accordingly, the suffixes for the subclass name Neornithes, and infraclass names Palaeognathae and Neognathae, are kept because they are consistent for rank and otherwise distinct among suffixes for the higher 633

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

ranks of birds. At the rank of parvclass, the two in‐use names, Galloanserae and Neoaves (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990; Livezey & Zusi 2007; Hackett et al. 2008) differ in their suffixes. Here the suffix “‐ae” in Galloanserae has been changed to “‐es” (Galloanseres) for consistency and to distinguish names of parvclass rank from those in ranks immediately above and below. The spelling Galloanseres is not novel, having been used, for example, by Ericson et al. (2006). The relatively new category of cohort has been introduced with the unique suffix of “‐ia”, from the nominative plural for many neuter Latin nouns in the third declension. It replaces the variable suffixes used for this category by Cracraft (1981) and Livezey & Zusi (2007) – see Table 1. The H&M4 approach throughout has been to treat all higher category names above the order‐group as being arbitrarily formed latinised nouns that may take any gender ending in any declension, providing it is in the nominative plural and fixed for rank.

References Blackwelder, R.E. 1967. Taxonomy A text and reference book. i‐xiv, 1‐698. – J. Wiley, New York. Bock, W.J. 1982. Aves. Pp. 967‐1015. In Parker, S.R. (ed.), Synopsis and Classification of Living Organisms. – McGraw‐Hill, New York. Bock, W.J. 1994. History and nomenclature of avian family‐group names. – Bulletin of the American museum of Natural History 222: 1‐281. Cracraft, J.L. 1981. Toward a phylogenetic classification of the recent birds of the world. (Class Aves). – Auk 98 (4): 681‐714. Dickinson, E.C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, edn. 3, 1‐1039.– Christopher Helm, London. Dubois, A. 2006. Proposed Rules for the incorporation of nomina of higher‐ranked zoological taxa in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 2. The proposed Rules and their rationale. – Zoosystema 28: 165‐258. Ericson, P.G.P., Anderson, C.L., Britton, T., Elzanowski, A., Johansson, U.S., Källersjö, M., Ohlson, J.I., Parsons, T.J., Zuccon, D., Mayr, G. 2006. Diversification of Neoaves: integration of molecular sequence data and fossils. – Biology Letters 2: 543‐547. Fain, M.G. & Houde, P. 2004. Parallel radiations in the primary clades of birds. – Evolution 58: 2558‐2573. Fürbringer, M. 1888. Untersuchungen zur Morphologie und Systematik der Vögel, vols. 1 and 2. 1‐1751. – T.J. Van Holkema, Amsterdam. Gadow, H. 1893. Vögel. II.‐ Systematischer Teil. Pp. 1‐303. In Bronn, H.G. (ed.), Klassen und Ordnungen des Their‐Reichs, vol. 6. – C.F. Winter, Leipzig. Hackett, S.J., Kimball, R.T., Reddy, S., Bowie, R.C.K., Braun, E.L., Braun, M.J., Chojnowski, J.L., Cox, W.A., Han K.‐L., Harshman, J., Huddleston, C.J., Marks, B.D., Miglia, K.J., Moore, W.S., Sheldon, F.H., Steadman, D.W., Witt, C.W., Yuri, T. 2008. A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history. – Science 320: 1763‐1768. I.C.Z.N. (International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature). 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, edn. 4, i‐ xxix, 1‐306 pp. – International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, London. Illiger, C. 1811. Prodromus systematis mammalium et avium. i‐xviii, 1‐301 pp. – C. Salfeld, Berlin. Livezey, B.C. & Zusi, R.L. 2007. Higher‐order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion. – Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 149: 1‐95. Mayr, E. 1969. Principles of Systematic Zoology. McGraw‐Hill, New York. Mayr, E. & Amadon, D. 1951. A classification of recent birds. American Museum Novitates 1496: 1‐42. Mayr, E. & Ashlock, P. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd edn., i‐xx, 1‐475. –McGraw‐Hill, New York. Mayr, G. 2010. Metaves, Miranornithes, Strisores and other novelties – a critical review of the higher‐level phylogeny of neornithine birds. – Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 49: 58‐76. Peters, J.L. 1931. Check‐List of Birds of the World, vol. 1, i‐xviii, 1‐345. – Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Peters, J. L. et al. 1931‐1986. Check‐List of Birds of the World, vols. 1‐15. Museum of Comparative Zoology and Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts Pycraft, W.P. 1900. On the morphology and phylogeny of the Palaeognathae (Ratitae and Crypturi) and Neognathae (Carinatae). – Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 15: 149‐290. Sibley, C.G. & Ahlquist, J.E. 1990. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds A study in molecular evolution. i‐xxiii, 1‐976. – Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Sibley, C.G. & Monroe, B.L., Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. i‐xxiv, 1‐1111. – Yale University Press, New Haven & London. Stresemann, E. 1934. Sauropsida: Aves. Bd. 7, Hf. 2. In: Kükenthal, W. & Krumbach, T. (eds.). Handbuch der Zoologie Eine Naturgeschichte der Stämme des Tierreiches. – W. de Gruyter, Berlin. Voous, K.H. 1985. Classification. Pp. 89‐90. In: Campbell, B. & Lack, E. (eds.), A Dictionary of Birds. – Buteo Books, Vermillion, South Dakota. Wetmore, A. 1930. A systematic classification for the birds of the world. – Proceedings of the United States National Museum 76 (24): 1‐8. Wetmore, A. 1960. A classification for the birds of the world. – Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 139 (11): 1‐37. Wetmore, A. & Miller, W. deW. 1926. The revised classification for the fourth edition of the A.O.U. check‐list. – Auk 43 (3): 337‐ 346.

634

Appendix 2. Notes on taxonomy and nomenclature1 2.1

New nomenclatural acts herein: 2.1.1 New ranks proposed herein: Superfamily Platyrinchoidea

See p. xx

Parvorder Petroicida

See p. xxiv

Superfamily Paroidea

See p. xxvi

Superfamily Alaudoidea

See p. xxvi

Superfamily Locustelloidea

See p. xxvii

Superfamily Aegithaloidea

See p. xxvii

2.1.2 Formal proposals of new family‐group names authored here by those mentioned and not by the editors of this volume2 2.1.2.1 Pygarrichadinae Moyle3, Chesser4 & Cracraft5. Subfam. Nov. In Moyle et al. (2009) we used the name Pygarrhichinae Wolters and we provided a diagnosis in accordance with the general structure of the paper and we gave the type genus – Pygarrhichas Burmeister, 1837. Our diagnosis was: “The most inclusive crown clade that contains Pygarrhichas albogularis, Chilia melanura, and Microxenops milleri but not Furnarius rufus, Philydor pyrrhodes, Synallaxis albescens, Berlepschia rikeri, or Xenops minutus. No morphological synapomorphies are known, but the clade has strong molecular support.” We did not insert “Fam. Nov.” because we were under the impression that the name had been formally introduced by Wolters (1977). However, it has been drawn to our attention that Wolters provided no description or diagnosis and thus did not comply with Art. 13 of the Code (ICZN, 1999), and that the name was thus not made available. We now understand that the root generic name Pygarrichas – extensively discussed in our 2009 paper – should be modified by using a terminal –asinae or –adinae. Thus we now formally propose the name Pygarrichadinae subfam. nov. as this was the spelling used by Bock (1994) which gave the impression that the name had been validly introduced, although, for lack of a description of diagnosis, it had not. References: Bock, W.J., 1994. History and nomenclature of avian family‐group names. – Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 222: 1‐281. I.C.Z.N., 1999. International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. 4th ed. i‐xxix, 1‐306. – The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, London. Moyle, R.G., R.T. Chesser, R.T. Brumfield, J.G. Tello, D.J. Marchese & J. Cracraft, 2009. Phylogeny and phylogenetic classification of the antbirds, ovenbirds, woodcreepers, and allies (Aves: Passeriformes, infraorder Furnariides). – Cladistics, 25: 386‐405.

In this appendix when we use “the Code” without a date it refers solely to the 1999 Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [12]. In the separately authored sections making up 2.1.2 the authors provide their own lists of references. 3 Robert G. Moyle, Biodiversity Institute and Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS 66045‐7561, U.S.A. 4 R. Terry Chesser, USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC 20013, U.S.A. 5 Joel Cracraft, Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, NY 10024, U.S.A. 1 2

635

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Christidis, L., P.R. Leeton & M. Westerman, M. (1996). Were bowerbirds part of the New Zealand fauna? Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences, USA, 93: 3898‐3901. Johansson, U.S., E. Pasquet & M. Irestedt (2011). The New Zealand thrush: An extinct oriole. PlosOne, 6 (9): e24317 Jønsson, K.A., R.C.K Bowie, J.A. Norman, L. Christidis & J. Fjeldså (2008).Polyphyletic origin of toxic Pitohui birds suggests a wider occurrence of toxicity in corvoid birds. Biology Letters, 4: 71‐ 74. Jønsson, K.A., R.C.K. Bowie, R.G. Moyle, L. Christidis, J.A. Norman, B. Bentz & J. Fjeldså (2010a). Historical biogeography of an Indo‐Pacific passerine bird family (Pachycephalidae): different colonization patterns in the Indonesian and Melanesian archipelagos. Journal of Biogeography, 37: 245‐257. Jønsson, K.A., R.C.K. Bowie, R.G. Moyle, M. Irestedt, L. Christidis, J.A. Norman & J. Fjeldså (2010b). Phylogeny and biogeography of Oriolidae (Passeriformes). Ecography 33: 232‐241. Mayr, E. (1941). List of New Guinea Birds. i‐ix, 1‐260. – American Museum of Natural History, New York. Mayr, E. (1967). Subfamily Pachycephalinae, pp. 3‐51. In: Check‐list of Birds of the World A continuation of the work of James L. Peters, 12. R.A. Paynter, Jr. (Ed.) – Museum of Comparative Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Olson, S.L., K.C. Parkes, M.H. Clench & S.R. Borecky (1983). The affinities of the New Zealand passerine genus Turnagra. Notornis, 30: 319‐336. Schodde, R. & L. Christidis (2014). Relicts from Tertiary Australasia: undescribed families and subfamilies of songbirds (Passeriformes) and their zoogeographic signal. Zootaxa, 3786 (5): 501‐ 522. Schodde, R. & I.J. Mason (1999). The Directory of Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne. Wolters, H.E. (1975‐1982). Die Vogelarten der Erde. Eine systematische List mit Verbreitungsangaben sowie deutschen und englischen Namen. Paul Parey, Hamburg. Zuccon, D. & P.G.P. Ericson (2012). Molecular and morphological evidence places the extinct New Zealand endemic Turnagra capensis in the Oriolidae. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 62: 4143‐426.

The importance of full compliance with the Code when giving a new taxon a family‐group, genus‐group or species‐group name. A number of family names have been introduced into the literature which, at the time, did not meet the strict requirements of the Code. Such names should not be used until made available. Most usually, up to 1999, the criterion overlooked was the need for a diagnosis or description (Art. 13 in the Code). Since then an extra requirement, to make clear that the name is being proposed as new, has been overlooked once or twice. In several such cases have been made available by follow‐up publications, e.g. Loynes, Joseph & Keogh (2011), Christidis et al. (2012). Others have been dealt with above. In these cases an opportunity was given to their original proposers to validate those names. We have made one of very few exceptions to our literature cut‐off date to permit us to use names found to need action and Schodde & Christidis (2014).

2.1.3 Nomina nova: Seicercus presbytes floresianus Seicercus klossi muleyitensis

See p. 503 See p. 503

2.1.4 First Reviser actions made herein:

640

Choice of Pachycareinae over Oreoscopinae

See p. xxxvi

Emberizoidea selected over Icteroidea

See p. xxxvii

Seleucidis over Seleucides

See footnote on p. 252

APPENDIX 2

Name panafidicus over ponafidicus

See footnote on p. 506

Geokichla S. Müller, 1835 [=1836] selected over Geocichla Gould, 1836 See footnote on p. 619 Scotocercidae over Erythrocercidae

See p. 636

2.1.5 First Reviser actions by others mentioned in the footnotes (as a contribution to a list of First Reviser actions in ornithological nomenclature) A careful search of the footnotes will reveal quite a number of mentions of First Reviser actions. In a coming Update (or as a separate publication) a list of these will be published taken from both volumes.

2.1.6 Designations of type species: Genus Phyllergates (p. 505) in the type designation note we designated the type species.

2.2

Notes on particular nomenclatural issues (background issues) 2.2.1 Ordinal names: Of the ranks explained in appendix 1 of volume 1, where several ranks were deliberately not used, it became necessary in dealing with the single order Passeriformes to employ the extra rank of Infraorder and of the four historic suffixes that have been used we chose the suffix ‘–ides’.

2.2.2 Family‐group names: The rules that govern the application of family‐group names (including superfamily, subfamily and tribe names – and potentially other ranks used that have been judged to fall below ordinal level and above genus level) relate to name formation and to choice. Formation begins with an appropriate stem, which has to be derived from a valid genus‐group name, and is completed by a grammatically appropriate suffix (on which guidance was provided in an appendix to the 3rd edition of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1985), which although not reprinted with the current Code is still the source to check. Choice arises when a family name has two or more subordinated subfamily names and a similar choice may be apparent at the higher level (superfamily, choice from subordinated family names) or at the lower level (subfamily, choice from subordinated tribe names). No up‐to‐date list of family group names is generally available and despite certain problems the work of Bock (1994) is an invaluable starting point. Bock explains, by example, why some family‐group names are based on generic names not now in use and how historical synonymisation (pre 1961) may have made old family names lose precedence to younger names. If these exceptional situations are put aside however the choice focuses on the earliest‐dated of the choices. In most cases that criterion suffices. However, a new rule introduced in 1999 provides that where, amongst the choices, it is quickly apparent that two or more of them have been used and one clearly has been used more widely than any other contender the Code (Art. 35.5) requires that the most‐used name be employed. We have found it necessary to rely on Art.35.5 in cases such as the selection of Corvidae over Laniidae for the derivation of a superfamily name; but if a contending name has not been in use for any length of time, as in the case of Calcariidae, we have based our choice of date precedence (in this instance choosing Plectrophenacidae).

2.2.3 Homonymy: The different way the Code deals with primary homonyms versus secondary homonyms has not been well understood, and only late in our own work on this volume have we had thorough and helpful advice from Bruce Halliday, an I.C.Z.N. Commissioner. The key difference is that restoration of rejected secondary homonyms is generally encouraged (although usually not when the replacement took place before 1961) based on Arts. 57.3 and 59 of the Code, but this is not the case with primary homonyms – even if they may seem to have later become secondary homonyms – 641

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

these are governed by Art. 57.2. An example of a case where we have needed to consult on this is that of Ficedula hypoleuca tomensis (q.v.); there is little doubt that overwhelming, but not exclusive, usage of Khakhlov’s name sibirica in Russia15, and its restoration by Vaurie (1959), ensured that the latter name has been in prevailing usage but that does not provide a valid basis on which to retain it without an application to the Commission and a favourable decision.

2.2.4 Electronic publication: The amendments to the 4th edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature announced in Zootaxa 3450 in 2012, designed to allow names to be accepted as valid from an electronic publication (I.C.Z.N., 2012a), with a date consonant with that, have begun to affect ornithology. However, the new wording adopted is unlikely to be satisfactory to at least some of those concerned with the accuracy of citation – and with long term availability of the original publication – as illustrated by the case of the article discussed below. The published rules (see I.C.Z.N., 2012b) include, inter alia, the following requirements for an electronic publication to qualify as available: Widely accessible electronic copies with fixed content and layout (Art. 8.1.3.2) The date of publication must be stated in the work itself (Art. 8.5.2) The entry in the Official Register ... must give ... an ISSN for the journal containing the work (but this need not appear in the work itself) Mahood et al. (2013) named Orthomus chaktomuk in Forktail (the primary journal of the Oriental Bird Club) in what was to be the August 2013 issue, but in late June the authors distributed PDFs and links to on‐line material making the PDF available from a website. However, at this point Forktail was still awaiting its usual publication in August. It was not being, and has not been, published as a separate electronic journal with its own ISSN. Have the above criteria been met? It is evident from a comparison between the printed work and the PDF that was made available that there were changes made both in layout and in content. The date of publication given in the PDF is simply ‘2013’ (the Code nowhere says that the Official Register can contain a date that a lone PDF was placed on website rather than the date that is given in the PDF), thus, under Art. 21 of the Code, the Register should have contained the date December 31, 2013. More pedantically the ISSN number supplied is that to be used on complete issues of a print journal it is not a number permitted to be used for a single isolated part of the journal appearing ahead of the rest. All of these matters could have led to different responses by the official registrars (managing ZooBank), who saw no problem with the June ‘publication’. However, one of the criteria set out above quite clearly requires a different view to be taken; this is the modification to layout and content apparent in the print edition because Art. 9.9 and Art. 21.8.3 explicitly provide that any such case be excluded from qualification. The print edition of the completed issue of Forktail carries the date “September, 2013” although this editor’s copy was actually only received on 7 November. It would seem therefore that the earliest acceptable date of publication is from the print edition of Forktail and must date from 30 September, 2013 or, should delay be admitted, later. It is hoped that ZooBank, which must surely want to demonstrate that it is applying the Code to the letter, changes the recorded date and other entry data based on the print edition. News of the discovery of this taxon, with a name and a depiction of the new bird, was carried in British Birds in its August, 2013 issue but this does not obtain precedence as there is no holotype given.

2.2.5

Ornithological names in palaeontology

It is important to be aware that work in the field of palaeontology can have an immediate bearing on the scientific names of extant birds. For example – and the case derives from a molecular study – after discovering a new Miocene fossil of a grebe in Nevada and naming that, Ksepka et al. (2013) created a revised phylogenetic tree and, based on that, proposed that Tachybaptus dominicus be 15 The name tomensis was used in works about Russia by Johansen (1954) [15] and by Portenko (1960) [28+1] as kindly determined for us by Vladimir Loskot.

642

Appendix 3: Common names in English – Volume 2 update D.R. Wells, R.J. Dowsett, L. Svensson and Les Christidis Drawn up late in the production of Volume 1 of this edition and launched as Appendix 3, the series scheme for handling common names of species arrived too late to be implemented fully across the non‐passerines. Apart from experimental testing and an early explanation of why it would include a conservation (‘cop‐out’) clause (Rule 7; see paragraph (7) on page 404 of Volume 1) the protocol reached the passerines more or less untried in the field. As had been expected, Volume 2 has given it a searching reality check. The working version that emerged features a retreat from some of the earlier, straight‐jacketed decision‐making in favour of increased flexibility. Compromises involved now include some reliance placed on case‐by‐case judgement, against the spirit of the original but still managing to hold to the wording of its Rules (implying this wording had either not been tight enough in the first instance or has been kept usefully interpretable, depending on one’s viewpoint!). At least some of the reasons for all of this were anticipated in Volume 1. Now with hindsight, these are explained again below. Not every loosening of control will be seen by every user as progressive. All that may be said of them is that they make things work by addressing the reality of attitudes on the ground, are by no means a collapse, and will at some point be reverted back to the rule of law – if not at a stroke then progressively as regional attitudes, especially to common name familiarity evolve.

The main adjustments A procedure for constructing (or ‘repairing’) and applying names in English that focuses primarily on collective names formed the core of the naming system laid out in Volume 1. Rules to govern name construction and re‐construction (numbers 2, 3, 5 and 6, covering hyphen usage, case, and opportunities for elision of compound names) have stood up solidly thus far, with no reason found to interfere with their wording or meaning. The main change made, and from which others proceed, affects the setting out of the system’s name eligibility parameters in Rule 1. The latter’s principle of cutting opportunities for gratuitous name‐coining by allowing new collective names in English to be assigned at only above genus level stands unaffected, but its second plank – restricting each collective to a family to provide a unique identity in English at that level – has been shelved. The chief and obvious reasons for this have been the level of cross‐family collective name‐sharing that already exists among passerines, the rate at which this is being added to from family‐level reassignments, splits and other boundary shifts uncovered by molecular taxonomy, and the mayhem that the amount of name changing (including name coining) needed to catch up and keep abreast would inflict on user communities. Add to these (a) resistance, apparent still at all levels, to the proposal that substitutes be found for traditional group names carried from Europe and misapplied historically to unrelated endemics encountered by English‐speaking settlers elsewhere in the world, mainly in the Americas and Australasia; and (b) an associated lack of enthusiasm (yet) for dual, but ultimately convergent, nomenclatures serving popular regional needs alongside a system of collective names unique to families that would be agreed for international publishing purposes (as proposed in Volume 1). The upshot has been a replacement of the fixing of a collective name to a family in the second sentence of Rule 1 by a limits‐to‐sharing concept that permits the spreading of a name across families up to the level of Parvorder (i.e. among families that belong in the same Parvorder) – a seemingly huge but, from recent experience, practical leap. Step one of name‐fixing then becomes a matter of checking availability via the taxonomic validity of sharing. Such a move affects Rule 4 but, arguably, this liberalising of the fixing procedure will have had no impact on that rule’s example of Owlet‐nightjars. Were it to be shown that aegothelids belong in the same Parvorder as nightjars, on the other hand, the previously automatic use of a hyphen and lower‐case ‘n’ for nightjar is compromised. As a capitalized name ‘Nightjar’ would then become sharable, nothing in the current wording of Rule 4 implies that application of two unhyphenated, capitalized words for aegothelids would not be equally valid. Here, common‐ sense steps in to judge (albeit subjectively) that these two different kinds of birds deserve their wholly distinguishable family epithets. Not ideal, but the value of recognizing Parvorder‐level sharing among passerines came into its own with treatment of groupings such as the tanager complex and Old World warblers where molecular taxonomy has carved new families out of what until recently had all been thraupids or all acrocephalids, and which more or less

647

Errata and Corrigenda to Volume 1 Those from outside of the team who have kindly contributed are listed here: AE = Andy Elliott; AG Arthur Grosset; DD = David Donkser; AE = Andy Elliott; DT = Don Turner; KG = Kimball Garrett; KK = Krys Kasmierczak; PK = Peter Kovalik; MP = Manuel Plenge; TdK = Theo de Kok; TK Thomas Kuenzel; CFM = Clive Mann.

List of Subscribers: Marcus Lagerqvist should be Markus Lagerqvist; R. Woods should be Robin Woods. Acknowledgements: Justin Jensen should be Justin Jansen. Page xvi Page xxv Page xxvi

“For over one hundred years and a bit …” read “For over two hundred years and a bit …” Treat the flamingos and grebes as one order (as in pp. xxxvi, xlii and xlv) Under Cuculiformes in line 4 insert a full stop between ‘classification’ and ‘Hackett’. [TK]; and where, in the last line the words “into the Couinae and the Cuculinae” change to read “into the Centropodinae and the Cuculinae”. [TK] Page xxxvi (Table 1) In subfamily Apodinae, tribe Cypseloidini should be deleted. Page xlii (Fig. 1) : Diomediidae should read Diomedeidae. Saurothruridae should read Sarothruridae. Podicepedidae should read Podicipedidae. Tinamiformes should read Rheiformes. Rheiformes should read Tinamiformes. Page xxxvi Opsithocomidae should read Opisthocomidae. [TK] Page xxxvii Himanotornithidae should read Himantornithinae.[TK] Page xxxix Jygninae should read Jynginae. [TK] Note: in a few cases subfamilies were inserted in the main work after Cracraft’s chapter had been finalised. This applies to the three subfamilies in the Musophagidae (pp. 167‐168); the two in the Alcidae (pp. 220‐221) and the two in the Tytonidae (p. 255).[TK] Page xlvii Page xlix Page liii

Correct LEPTOSOMATIFORMES to LEPTOSOMIFORMES see Opinion 1068 (I.C.Z.N., 1977) – see References below. Footnote to Columba torringtoniae should have begun “Original spelling torringtonii …”. Leptosomatiformes should read Leptosomiformes.

Page 4: Nothoprocta pentlandii patriciae – add G before Hoy. [PK] Page 5: Eudromia formosa mira – add ‘v’ for variable. Page 10: Anser canagicus – spelling of author’s name changed to Sevastianov. [PK] Page 18: Biziura lobata Shaw, 1796 – should be Biziura lobata (Shaw, 1796) described in Anas. Page 21: Megapodius freycinet buruensis should have been treated as a subspecies of M. forsteni see Jones et al. (1995). Page 21: Megapodius geelvinkianus – add ‘v’ for variable. Page 22: Penelope argyrotis albicauda – to range statement add a tag for ref. to Phelps & Gilliard (1940). [not in CD] [see below]. Page 28: Colinus virginianus mexicanus – to range statement a tag. [1435] Page 29: Odontophorus capueira von Spix, 1825 should be Odontophorus capueira (von Spix, 1825) described in Perdix. Page 30: Odontophorus hyperythrus – symbol should signal date change not spelling change. [TdK] Page 31: authorship of the species name Xenoperdix udzungwensis should be Dinesen, Hansen, Lehmberg, Svendsen & Fjeldså (as in our 2003 edition and differing from the authorship of the genus‐group name. Page 33: Pavo muticus muticus: range statement should read “SE Myanmar (S Tenasserim), Java. Formerly Thai‐Malay Pen.” Page 37: Perdicula asiatica ceylonensis – authorship Whistler alone; not Whistler & Kinnear; see Pittie & Dickinson (2010). [DD] Page 40: Peliperdix albogularis meinertzhageni – insert C.M.N. before White. [PK] Page 40: Scleroptila levaillantii momboloensis – insert C.M.N. before White. [PK] Page 44: Lophura bulweri Sharpe, 1874 should be Lophura bulweri (Sharpe, 1874) described in Lobiophasis.

653

List of References 1 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.

29.

A.O.U., 1957. Check‐list of North American birds. i‐xiii, 1‐691. ‒ American Ornithologists’ Union, Baltimore, Maryland. A.O.U., 1983. Check‐list of North American birds. i‐xxix, 1‐877. ‒ American Ornithologists’ Union, Lawrence, Kansas. A.O.U., 1998. Check‐list of North American birds. i‐liv, 1‐829. ‒ American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C. Abalos, R. & J.I. Areta, 2009. Historia natural y vocalizaciones del Doradito Limón (Pseudocolopteryx cf. citreola) en Argentina. ‒ Ornitologia Neotropical, 20: 215‐230. Abdulali, H., 1959. A new white‐throated race of the babbler Dumetia hyperythra. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 56 (2): 333‐335. Abdulali, H., 1964. Four new races of birds from the Andaman and Nicobar islands. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 61 (2): 410‐417. Abdulali, H., 1967. More new races of birds from the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 63 (2): 420‐422 (1966). Abdulali, H., 1967. A new race of Aplonis panayensis (Scopoli) based on eye colour. ‒ Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 87 (2): 33‐34. Abdulali, H., 1976. On a new subspecies of the skylark Alauda gulgula Franklin in Gujarat. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 72 (2): 448‐449 (1975). Abdulali, H., 1977. A new name for the Andaman Blackheaded Oriole. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 73 (2): 395 (1976). Abdulali, H., 1982. On a new subspecies of Pellorneum ruficeps (Swainson) in peninsular India. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 79 (1): 152‐154. Abdulali, H., 1983. A catalogue of the birds in the collection of the Bombay Natural History Society ‐ 25. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 79 (2): 336‐360 (1982). Abdulali, H., 1984. A catalogue of the birds in the collection of the Bombay Natural History Society ‐ 28. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 80 (2): 349‐369 (1983). Abdulali, H. & S. Unnithan, 1986. On the identity of the easternmost race of Prinia criniger (Hodgson) in Indian limits. ‒ Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 83 (1): 206‐207. Adkisson, C.S., 1996. Red Crossbill (Loxia curvirostra). No. 256. In: The birds of North America, A. Poole (Ed.). ‒ The birds of North America, Inc, Philadelphia. Adkisson, C.S., 1999. Pine Grosbeak (Pinicola enucleator). No. 456. In: The birds of North America, A. Poole & F. Gill (Eds.). ‒ The birds of North America, Inc, Philadelphia. Aggerbeck, M., J. Fjeldså, L. Christidis, P.‐H. Fabre & K.A. Jønsson, 2014. Resolving deep lineage divergences in core corvoid passerine birds supports a proto‐Papuan island origin. ‒ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 70: 272‐285. Agne, C.E.Q. & J.F. Pacheco, 2007. A homonymy in Thamnophilidae: a new name for Dichropogon Chubb. ‒ Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 15 (3): 484‐485. Ahlquist, J.E., F.H. Sheldon & C.G. Sibley, 1984. The relationships of the Bornean Bristlehead (Pityriasis gymnocephala) and the Black‐collared Thrush (Chlamydochaera jefferyi). ‒ Journal für Ornithologie, 125: 129‐140. Aidala, Z., N. Chong, M.G. Anderson, L. Ortiz‐Catedral, I.G. Jamieson, J.V. Briskie, P. Cassey, B.J. Gill & M.E. Hauber, 2013. Phylogenetic relationships of the genus Mohoua, endemic hosts of New Zealand’s obligate brood parasitic Long‐ tailed Cuckoo (Eudynamys taitensis). ‒ Journal of Ornithology, 154: 1127‐1133. Alcasid, G.L. & P. Gonzales, 1968. A new race of the Naked‐faced Spider‐hunter (Arachnothera clarae) from Luzon. ‒ Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 88 (7): 129‐130. Aleixandre, P., J.H. Montoya & B. Milá, 2013. Speciation on oceanic islands: rapid adaptive divergence vs. cryptic speciation in a Guadalupe Island songbird (Aves: Junco). ‒ PLoS One, 8 (5): 1‐12. Aleixo, A., 2002. Molecular systematics and the role of the “várzea”‐”terra firme” ecotone in the diversification of Xiphorhynchus woodcreepers (Aves: Dendrocolaptidae). ‒ Auk, 119 (3): 621‐640. Aleixo, A., T.C. Burlamaqui, M.P.C. Schneider & E.C. Gonçalves, 2009. Molecular systematics and plumage evolution in the monotypic army‐ant‐following genus Skutchia (Thamnophilidae). ‒ Condor, 111 (2): 382‐387. Aleixo, A., S.M.S. Gregory & J. Penhallurick, 2007. Fixation of the type species and revalidation of the genus Dendroplex Swainson, 1827 (Dendrocolaptidae). ‒ Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 127 (3): 242‐246. Aleixo, A., E. Guilherme & K.J. Zimmer, 2008. First records of Yellow‐cheeked Becard Pachyramphus xanthogenys for Brazil, with comments on the validity of P. x. peruanus. ‒ Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 128 (4): 263‐267. Aleixo, A. & J.F. Pacheco, 2006. A family name for the monotypic oscine passerine genus Donacobius. ‒ Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia, 14 (2): 172‐173. Aleixo, A., C.E.B. Portes, A. Whittaker, J.D. Weckstein, L.P. Gonzaga, K.J. Zimmer, C.C. Ribas & J.M. Bates, 2013. Molecular systematics and taxonomic revision of the Curve‐billed Scythebill complex (Campylorhamphus procurvoides: Dendrocolaptidae), with description of a new species from western Amazonian Brazil, pp. 253‐257. In: Handbook of the birds of the world. Special volume: new species and global index. J. del Hoyo, et al. (Eds.). ‒ Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Aleixo, A. & B.M. Whitney, 2002. Dendroplex (=Xiphorhynchus) necopinus Zimmer 1934 (Dendrocolaptidae) is a junior synonym of Dendrornis kienerii (=Xiphorhynchus picus kienerii) Des Murs 1855. ‒ Auk, 119 (2): 520‐523.

Because this work doubles as a nomenclator, dates given are intended to be those of publication; thus, if the work was delayed beyond the volume year, the volume date appears last in brackets. See Ref. 7 for example. 1

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

3017. 3018. 3019. 3020. 3021.

3022. 3023. 3024. 3025. 3026. 3027. 3028. 3029. 3030. 3031. 3032.

3033. 3034. 3035. 3036. 3037. 3038. 3039. 3040. 3041. 3042. 3043. 3044. 3045.

Zimmer, K.J. & A. Whittaker, 2000. The Rufous Cachalote (Furnariidae: Pseudoseisura) is two species. ‒ Condor, 102 (2): 409‐422. Zimmer, K.J. & A. Whittaker, 2000. Species limits in Pale‐tipped Tyrannulets (Inezia: Tyrannidae). ‒ Wilson Bulletin, 112 (1): 51‐66. Zimmer, K.J. & A. Whittaker, 2009. Observations of the enigmatic Grey Wren Thryothorus griseus from the Rio Javarí, Brazil, including the first reported nest. ‒ Cotinga, 31: 80‐85. Zimmer, K.J., A. Whittaker & D.C. Oren, 2001. A cryptic new species of flycatcher (Tyrannidae: Suiriri) from the Cerrado region of central South America. ‒ Auk, 118 (1): 56‐78. Zimmer, K.J., A. Whittaker, C.H. Sardelli, E. Guilherme & A. Aleixo, 2013. A new species of Hemitriccus tody‐tyrant from the state of Acre, Brazil, pp. 292‐296. In: Handbook of the birds of the world. Special volume: new species and global index. J. del Hoyo, et al. (Eds.). ‒ Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Zimmerman, D.A., D.A. Turner & D.J. Pearson, 1996. Birds of Kenya and northern Tanzania. 1‐752. ‒ Christopher Helm, London. Zink, R.M., 1986. Patterns and evolutionary significance of geographic variation in the schistacea group of the Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca). – Ornithological Monographs, 40: i‐viii, 1‐119. Zink, R.M., 1988. Evolution of brown towhees: allozymes, morphometrics and species limits. ‒ Condor, 90: 72‐82. Zink, R.M., 1994. The geography of mitchondrial DNA variation, population structure, hybridization, and species limits in the Fox Sparrow (Passerella iliaca). ‒ Evolution, 48: 96‐111. Zink, R.M., 2008. Microsatellite and mitochondrial DNA differentiation in the Fox Sparrow. ‒ Condor, 110 (3): 482‐492. Zink, R.M., G.F. Barrowclough, J.L. Atwood & R.C. Blackwell‐Rago, 2000. Genetics, taxonomy and conservation of the threatened California Gnatcatcher. ‒ Conservation Biology, 14: 1394‐1405. Zink, R.M. & R.C. Blackwell‐Rago, 2000. Species limits and recent population history in the Curve‐billed Thrasher. ‒ Condor, 102 (4): 881‐886. Zink, R.M., R.C. Blackwell & O.R. Rojas‐Soto, 1997. Species limits in the Le Conte’s Thrasher. ‒ Condor, 99 (1): 132‐138. Zink, R.M., D.L. Dittman & W.L. Rootes, 1991. Mitochondrial DNA variation and the phylogeny of Zonotrichia. ‒ Auk, 108 (3): 578‐584. Zink, R.M., S.V. Drovetski & S. Rohwer, 2006. Selective neutrality of mitochondrial ND2 sequences, phylogeography and species limits in Sitta europaea. ‒ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 40: 679‐686. Zink, R.M., J.D. Rising, S. Mockford, A.G. Horn, J.M. Wright, M. Leonard & M.C. Westberg, 2005. Mitochondrial DNA variation, species limits, and rapid evolution of plumage coloration and size in the Savannah Sparrow. ‒ Condor, 107 (1): 21‐28. Zink, R.M., S. Rohwer, A.V. Andreev & D.L. Dittmann, 1995. Trans‐Beringia comparisons of mitochondrial DNA differentiation in birds. ‒ Condor, 97 (3): 639‐647. Zink, R.M. & J.D. Weckstein, 2003. Recent evolutionary history of the Fox Sparrows (genus: Passerella). ‒ Auk, 120 (2): 522‐527. zu Wied, Prince Maximilian, 1831. Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien. 3 (2). 637‐1277. ‒ Verlage des Gr. H.S. priv. Landes‐Industrie‐Comptoirs, Weimar. Zuccon, D., 2011. The case of Lepidothrix and Neolepidothrix: the importance of the original literature in taxonomic decisions. ‒ Zoosystematics and Evolution, 87 (2): 379‐382. Zuccon, D., 2011. A new name for the Montserrat Forest Thrush. ‒ Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 131 (3): 199‐200. Zuccon, D., 2011. Taxonomic notes on some Muscicapidae. ‒ Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 131 (3): 196‐199. Zuccon, D. & P.G.P. Ericson, 2010. The Monticola rock‐thrushes: phylogeny and biogeography revisited. ‒ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 55: 901‐910. Zuccon, D. & P.G.P. Ericson, 2010. A multi‐gene phylogeny disentangles the chat‐flycatcher complex (Aves: Muscicapidae). ‒ Zoologica Scripta, 39 (3): 213‐224. Zuccon, D. & P.G.P. Ericson, 2010. The phylogenetic position of the Black‐collared Bulbul Neolestes torquatus. ‒ Ibis, 152 (2): 386‐392. Zuccon, D. & P.G.P. Ericson, 2012. Molecular and morphological evidences place the extinct New Zealand endemic Turnagra capensis in the Oriolidae. ‒ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 62: 414‐426. Zuccon, D., É. Pasquet & P.G.P. Ericson, 2008. Phylogenetic relationships among Palearctic‐Oriental starlings and mynas (genera Sturnus and Acridotheres: Sturnidae). ‒ Zoologica Scripta, 37: 469‐481. Zuccon, D., R.P. Prŷs‐Jones, P.C. Rasmussen & P.G.P. Ericson, 2012. The phylogenetic relationships and generic limits of finches (Fringillidae). ‒ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 62: 581‐596. Zwiers, P.B., G. Borgia & R.C. Fleischer, 2008. Plumage based classification of the bowerbird genus Sericulus evaluated using a multi‐gene, multi‐genome analysis. ‒ Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution, 46: 923‐931.

Appendix 5: Extinct species Tommy Tyrberg and Edward C. Dickinson Introduction The decision to include extinct taxa in Dickinson (2003) was something of a step in the dark. This is a topic for experts and, recognising that, the text stated “We make no claim that our information about whether or not each is actually extinct is up to date.” Consequently we sought the help of BirdLife International so that we might do a better job in this edition. We are pleased to acknowledge the help provided. This included a specially arranged review by BirdLife of extinct subspecies; this being an area where it was agreed information might be lacking. Despite this the topic remained something of a poor relation to the main project; our liaison with BirdLife was spasmodic and lacked focus; the excitement of revising our work in the context of the huge flow of new molecular studies kept “our eye on that ball”. Soon after the appearance of Volume 1 in May 2013 the weakness of our offering on this subject in that volume was exposed. Tommy joined the team in September 2013 and sorted us out. As we write this for Volume 2, we are in possession of much better information because Tommy took on the communication with BirdLife leveraging his own extensive database and his deep understanding of the subject. So, while we can now clarify what was confused in Volume 1 we have reached that point rather too late. Although it is likely we shall integrate all ”post 1500” species into the list itself in due course we have not fully satisfied ourselves over attributions to genera, spellings and vernacular names and we may need to address these matters in an Update. Looking to the future we might ultimately decide to separate all the extinct taxa, although if we do so the sequence will necessarily be that dictated by the families and genera in the checklist itself. The decision to have one integrated list or to segregate the extinct taxa affects database development, and will be made jointly with Les Christidis to whom the Managing Editorship is passing. Our problems began with the time line. In 2003 we followed Clements (2000) in taking 1600 AD as the earliest date for any record to be considered. Now we are agreed that that date should be 1500 AD. In our Volume 1, too late to modify the database that controls our production process, we simply listed 48 species that we said had to be treated as outside the scope of the main list. Tommy soon pointed out that there were problems with that list and these have been discussed with BirdLife and the agreed list differs somewhat (see eventual Update).

A) NON‐PASSERINE SPECIES (NOT INSERTED IN VOLUME 1) ANSERIFORMES Alopochen mauritiana MAURITIUS SHELDUCK (Newton & Gadow 1893)1 v Mauritius Alopochen kervazoi REUNION SHELDUCK (Cowles 1994)2 Réunion Anas theodori MASCARENE TEAL Newton & Gadow 18933 Mauritius, Réunion

COLUMBIFORMES Nesoenas duboisi REUNION PINK PIGEON Rothschild 19074 Réunion Nesoenas cicur MAURITIUS TURTLE DOVE Hume 20115 Mauritius Nesoenas rodericana RODRIGUES TURTLE DOVE (A. Milne‐Edwards 1874)6 v Rodrigues Subfossils only. Mentioned in 1668 and 1681. Mistakenly spelled mauritianus in Vol. 1 (p. 398) Subfossils only. Mentioned in only one report, in 1672‐73. 3 Subfossils only. Several reports, the last in 1700 (Mauritius) and 1710 (Réunion). 4 Subfossils only. Mentioned in 1672‐3 and 1704. 5 Subfossils only. Last mentioned in 1730. 6 Subfossils only. Mentioned 1691‐3 and 1726. Apparently extinct by 1761. 1 2

Appendix 6: Gazetteer (place names used in this work) Shaun Peters This covers all the place names used in the range statements in this edition of The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World, and together with the maps that accompany it, may help birders seeking to locate particularly scarce birds that they want to see. It may also help them to plan long distance travel without need of a detailed atlas. Many public libraries keep The Times Comprehensive Atlas in their Reference section, and, as fresh editions appear every few years, secondhand copies of earlier editions are inexpensive (and most information although taken from the 12th edition is little different from prior editions). Locality names used in the range statements are generally those used in The Times Comprehensive Atlas of the World 12th edition (Reprinted with changes 2008, Times Books Group Ltd, London). Thus among major changes readers will find we use Myanmar instead of Burma, Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo in the ranges) instead of Zaire, People’s Republic of Congo1 (PR Congo in the range statements) instead of Congo and the provinces of South Africa have been renamed. Also newly independent South Sudan gets its own recognition. In some cases we have diverged from the name used in the Times Atlas. Most such cases are those in which we have used an anglicized version of the name, although we have retained quite a number of Spanish, Portuguese and French names (particularly in Middle and South America and island groups in the Indian and Pacific Oceans) because these are the names the birder in the field will need. The selection of what to change has been rather eclectic, and reflects consultation within our team and making best use of the preferences expressed by our Regional Consultants. As in Dickinson (2003) the Russian Federation can usefully be visualized as four regions: a) European Russia lying west of the Ural Mts. (in this edition of the Checklist simply referred to as Russia), b) Siberia stretching across the north from the Ural Mts. to the Bering Sea, c) Transbaikalia, essentially from Lake Baikal to Mongolia, and d) the Russian Far East, in the south‐east of the country. In South and South‐east Asia we have used S Asia as shorthand for the Indian subcontinent when most of its area and all of its countries, including Sri Lanka, are involved, the same applies to Mainland SE Asia for the whole of South‐east Asia including the Thai‐Malay Peninsula, and to Continental SE Asia for South‐east Asia excluding the Thai‐Malay Peninsula. The regional boundaries of the Lesser Sundas and Moluccas are taken from Coates & Bishop A guide to the birds of Wallacea (1997, Dove Publications, Alderley) but make an exception by the inclusion of Gebe in the Moluccas (for faunistic reasons). We have treated the island of New Guinea as a single geographical area dividing it into seven regions, i.e. NW, N, WC, EC, SW, SC and SE (see map 5 on this CD). The use of the name Solomons is geographical rather than political, i.e. the North Solomons (Buka, Bougainville and nearby islands) which are politically part of Papua New Guinea are included. The same applies to the Comoros (we use in its geographic context, thus including Mayotte) and to Netherlands Antilles (i.e. Aruba, Bonaire and Curaçao). This version of the Gazetteer includes all the names used in both volumes of the Checklist. It also includes a few corrections to entries included in the Volume 1 Gazetteer, as well as localities accidentally omitted from it. It lists localities in the form they appear in the book, their location (i.e. island group that an island belongs to, or the country or state of which it is a part), plus the plate number (map number), grid reference and name used in the Times Atlas. Occasionally alternative or historical names are added under Alternate Name. Where a locality is not shown in the Times Atlas reference is made to one of the eleven maps on the CD (see below) or a description or co‐ordinates (in decimal format) are given under Comments. The choice of maps to include is focused on areas where birding hotspots are not on the usual run of maps and thus the places shown relate to historic locations for expeditions that collected many of the birds upon which our specimen‐based knowledge is founded. In other cases maps are provided to help with geographic borders at state level (as in Costa Rica and Panama).

We have really used PR Congo (not the current name) to contrast with DR Congo. 1

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

Locality

Type

Location

Alternate name

Xizang Yadua

autonomous region island

China Fiji

Yaeyama Is.

islands

Japan

Yaku‐shima

island

Osumi Is.

Yakutia

autonomous republic

Russian Federation

Yamal Pen.

peninsula

Russian Federation

Yana basin

basin

Russian Federation

Yandé

island

New Caledonia

Yangtze valley

river valley

China

Yap

island

Caroline Is.

Yapen I.

island

New Guinea

Jobi, Japen

Yaqanga

island

Fiji

Yaracuy

state

Venezuela

Yasawa Group

islands

Fiji

Ycacos Lagoon

lagoon

Belize

Icacos Lagoon

Yellow Sea

sea

Asia

Huang Hai

Yemen

country

Arabian Pen.

Yenisey valley

river valley

Russian Federation

Yeppoon

town

Australia

Yorke Pen.

peninsula

Australia

Yos Sudarso Bay

bay

New Guinea

Humboldt Bay

Yucatán

state

Mexico

Yucatan Pen.

Mexico

Yukon

peninsula administrative

Canada

Yukon delta

delta

Alaska

Yunaska

island

Aleutian Is.

Yunnan

province

China

Zacapa

department

Guatemala

Zacatecas

state

Mexico

Zagros Mts.

mountains

Iran

Zambezi valley

river valley

Africa

Zambia

country

Africa

Zamboanga Pen.

peninsula

W Mindanao

Zamora‐Chinchipe

province

Ecuador

Zaña valley

river valley

Peru

Zanzibar

island

Tanzania

Zapata Pen.

peninsula

Cuba

Zapata Swamp

swamp

Cuba

Zaysan Basin

basin

Kazakhstan

Zhejiang

province

China

Chekiang

Zimbabwe

country

Africa

Zulia

state

Venezuela

104

APPENDIX 6

Times Atlas 12th ref

Times Atlas 12th name

Comments

30 K2 4 inset 11

Xizang Zizhiqu (short. Xizang) Yadua

20 inset A22

Yaeyama‐rettō

20 inset H16

Yaku‐shima

39 H4

Respublica Sakha (conv. Yakutia)

40 I2

Poluostrov Yamal (conv.Yamal Peninsula)

39 K2

Yana River

Not in Times Atlas

off NW New Caledonia at 20.05°S 163.81°E

25 J4

Yangtze River

4 inset 4

Yap

12 D4

Yapen

Not in Times Atlas

see map 8

116 I3

Yaracuy

4 inset 11

Yasawa Group

Not in Times Atlas

in S Belize at 16.27°N 88.60°W

18 L4

Yellow Sea

33 G8

Yemen

40 M4

Yenisey River

10 M7

Yeppoon

8 F5

Yorke Peninsula

Not in Times Atlas

see map 5

112 O7

Yucatán

112 N8

Yucatán Peninsula

95 N3

Yukon Territory

95 F3

Yukon Delta

95 E5

Yunaska Island

24 C6

Yunnan

Not in Times Atlas

in E Guatemala at approx. 14.97°N 89.53°W

113 E2

Zacatecas

34 G1

Kūhhā‐ye Zagros (conv. Zagros Mountains)

89 F12

Zambezi River

89 B11

Zambia

15 D8

Zamboanga Peninsula

116 D11

Zamora‐Chinchipe

Not in Times Atlas

in W Cajamarca at 7.08°S 79.72°W

89 I7

Zanzibar Island

114 C2

Península de Zapata

114 C2

Península de Zapata

occupies the whole of the peninsula

41 T3

Ozero Zaysan (conv. Lake Zaysan)

region around Lake Zaysan in E Kazakhstan

25 I6

Zhejiang

89 D13

Zimbabwe

116 H3

Zulia

105

Appendix 8: Changes in the spellings of scientific names: Vol. 2 Normand David and Edward C. Dickinson Introduction Dickinson (2003), able to use the electronic file used for production of Howard & Moore (1994), made a number of changes to spellings used there, mainly based on spellings in the volumes of Peters’ Check‐list (which were footnoted), but also retained unnoticed errors and made a few new mistakes. It is remarkably easy to get spellings wrong! Some of the changes made in Dickinson (2003) were explained in pp. 827‐829, where it was suggested that the contentious subject of prevailing usage could be tamed by the availability of a simplified methodology. That trial balloon did not stay aloft long, and rightly so because the table listed a mixed bag of cases involving original spellings and cases involving subsequent spellings. The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (I.C.Z.N., 1999; hereinafter “the Code”)1 treats these very differently; in most instances original spellings (Art. 32) have enduring protection and unless they have dropped out of use altogether we believe they should prevail. By contrast subsequent spellings (Art. 33) are intrinsically unavailable if they were accidental (i.e. incorrect subsequent spellings), but if deliberate (emendations) they take the place of the original spellings if they are justified emendations (Art. 33.2) and even if unjustified may become accepted due to prevailing usage. In this edition of the Howard and Moore Checklist we have focussed on establishing correct original spellings in all cases where we are aware of more than a single spelling being used when the spellings in the volumes of Peters Check‐list are brought together with those in Dickinson (2003). We recognise that a subset of the names we have examined will fit the definitions of Art. 33.2.3.1 or Art. 33.3.1., and in such cases our usage may be challenged by those who elect to apply the general definition (I.C.Z.N., 1999: Glossary, p. 121 “usage, prevailing”). Such cases require much deeper searches of the literature to establish the extent of usage of the original spelling compared to the unjustified emendation (and whether the latter has been attributed to the author and date of the original spelling – since only then do Arts. 33.2.3.1 and 33.3.1. permit an unjustified emendation to prevail). Note that this stipulation removes from consideration all works that do not cite the authors and the dates of names. The more precise, although demanding, definition set out in Art. 23.9 of the Code is evidently provided specifically and only for the reversal of precedence. That this is so is evident from the important distinctions between that definition and that in the Glossary. In the Glossary there is mention • of “a substantial majority” (clearly more than a simple majority of 50% plus 1, but how much more substantial?), • of “authors concerned with the relevant taxon” (this would appear to exclude all general works such a field guides, illustrated monographs of whole groups of taxa for the general public and perhaps even global checklists) , and • of “no matter how long ago” as compared to “the immediately preceding 50 years”. We do not feel that this vague platform provides a basis for assessing prevailing usage; furthermore the Code makes no provision for formally retaining any spelling judged to be in prevailing usage and as we all easily make mistakes, and have multiple supposedly authoritative sources to draw upon, what prevails may well change and a fresh judgement be made. This, in our view, is not a recipe for stability; it is a recipe for instability. As stated by the editors in Volume 1 (p. xvi) a better basis for stability derives from the original spelling and the application of the Code’s articles and the rulings of the I.C.Z.N. That said we do not deny anyone the right to try to apply the Glossary definition of “usage, prevailing” to cases qualifying for that treatment. Those who complain about instability of scientific names often fail to analyse what changes occur. The vast proportion of all such change is either driven by taxonomy – because a species has been moved from one genus to another (see Olson, 1987), or by gender agreement, or both. As long as the ICZN requires gender agreement (Art. 31.2) we support it. Because we support it we have gone to extra lengths in this edition to help others to apply it – see the insertions of “v” for variable which, in combination with the genders signalled for each genus name, go a long way to facilitating observance of the rules. Indeed David & Gosselin in Appendix 4, pp. 649‐652 in this Volume, set out, unchanged from Volume 1, the rules or steps to be followed. 1

The acronym ICZN when used in the text refers to the Code, not to the Commission; to distinguish the two we cite the Commission, as authors of the Code, in the form “I.C.Z.N.”. 1

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD

What then are the Articles that must be followed, apart from gender agreement? First, the original name may actually have been incorrect, quite apart from gender issues (taken up in Art. 34.2), in which case it must be corrected (Art. 32.5). Second, when there are two or more original spellings the selection of a First Reviser must be followed. Third, the Commission may have ruled on a spelling and then should be followed 2. In working towards the decisions covered by this appendix, we consulted with Andy Elliott of Lynx Publications, because one of us (ND) was advising the editors of the Handbook of birds of the world on these very same spellings. Our focus for this exercise was emendations and whether they were justified or unjustified. We thank Andy for his reasoned and helpful participation in this process which led to almost all decisions being made unanimously. We now report on the whole exercise under four headings, here providing details mainly on passerine cases; the non‐passerines were dealt with in the appendix to the first Volume of this checklist. All names in the body of the Checklist which have changed either since the relevant volume of Peters Check‐list 3 or since Dickinson (2003) display the symbol δ after their ‘name string’ (i.e. after the author and date); many such names have footnotes attached to them. This appendix treats those and a few others. We do not discuss cases such as that of Indicator archipelagicus where Peters (1948) miscited the original spelling as archipelagus and used the incorrect subsequent spelling that he had ‘cited’. This was, of course, footnoted in Volume 1.

Section 1: Conservation of spellings only exceptionally4 subject to potential change on account of prevailing usage 1.1 Mandatory changes to adjectival names under Arts. 31.2 and 34.2 In this edition, we have flagged with “v” (for variable) each declinable Latin or latinized adjectival or participial species‐group name. The endings (suffixes) of all such names must agree in gender with that of the generic name with which each is combined. The specific examples and general instructions provided by David & Gosselin (2000, 2002a, 2002b) allowed many changes to be made in Dickinson (2003). However, during this fresh process we noticed that that edition contained a number of adjectival epithets that did not agree in gender and that were not covered by the above mentioned references and which have been examined since. There are listed below and take account of the findings of David & Gregory (2008). Spelling in Dickinson (2003)

Page

Spelling in this edition (2014)

Page

Anairetes [M] agraphia squamigera Muscisaxicola [M] cinereus argentina

353 370

Uromyias [M] agraphia squamiger Muscisaxicola cinereus argentinus

46 60

Ochthoeca [F] rufipectoralis rubicundulus

373

Ochthoeca rufipectoralis rubicundula

Myrmoborus [M] myotherinus ochrolaema

390

Myrmoborus myotherinus ochrolaemus

Synallaxis [F] scutatus scutatus

407

Synallaxis scutata scutata

137

Premnornis [M] guttuligera venezuelana

413

Premnornis guttuliger venezuelanus

120

Xiphorhynchus [M] picus phalara

423

Dendroplex [M] picus phalarus

115

Lichenostomus [M] flavescens germana

433

Ptilotula [F] flavescens germana

150

Lichenostomus [M] fuscus subgermana

433

Ptilotula [F] fusca subgermana

150

Cnemophilus [M] loriae inexpectata

450

Cnemophilus loriae inexpectatus

173

Cnemophilus [M] loriae amethystina

451

Cnemophilus loriae amethystinus

173

Ptilorrhoa [F] castanonota pulcher

453

Ptilorrhoa castanonota pulchra

184

Cinclosoma [N] cinnamomeum tirariensis

453

Cinclosoma cinnamomeum tirariense

185

Vireo [M] flavoviridis perplexa

485

Vireo flavoviridis perplexus

198

Rhipidura [F] fuliginosa penitus

495

Rhipidura fuliginosa penita

225

Cyanocorax [M] melanocyanea melanocyanea

506

Cyanocorax melanocyaneus melanocyaneus

241

Although here we make a distinction; we follow Art. 80.8 as regards the veracity of a spelling in the Official List of Available Names in Zoology only if the Commissioners rendering their Opinion were actually ruling on the spelling of the name as opposed, say, to its precedence. For example, Opinion 409 (I.C.Z.N., 1956) suppressed seven specific names for the purposes of the Law of Priority; the suppression of Pelecanus cirrhatus J.F. Gmelin led to the placement on the Official List of the name albiventor Lesson, 1831 “as published in the combination Carbo albiventor”; however Lesson, 1831 actually spelled the name albiventer and the spelling in Opinion 409 is a lapsus calami and an incorrect subsequent spelling. Repeated requests to the Secretariat of the Commission to correct this under Art. 80.4 have been disregarded, no doubt due to more pressing matters. Similarly, the Official List (p. 312) lists “yeltonensis, Alauda“ when Forster’s original spelling, which we follow, was yeltoniensis. This appears to be no more than a typographical error. 3 Which, in the case of volume 1 of which there were two editions, implies the later (1979) edition. 4 These are exceptions arising solely under Arts. 33.2.3.1 and 33.3.1. 2

F A M I L Y

ROW SCIENTIFIC NAME

ENGLISH NAME

SPECIES

G E N U S

GENUS NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

SUBSPECIES

ENGLISH NAME

NAME

GROUP

Grey rows indicate confirmed extinct species and subspecies. See Appendix 5 9429 9430 9431 9432 9433 9434 9435 9436 9437 9438 9439 9440 9441 9442 9443 9444 9445 9446 9447 9448 9449 9450 9451 9452 9453 9454 9455 9456 9457 9458 9459 9460 9461 9462 9463 9464 9465 9466 9467 9468 9469 9470 9471 9472 9473 9474 9475 9476 9477 9478 9479

PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE PITTIDAE

PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS PITTAS

PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA PITTA

Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta erythrogaster Pitta kochi Pitta venusta Pitta arquata Pitta granatina Pitta granatina Pitta granatina Pitta phayrei Pitta oatesi Pitta oatesi Pitta oatesi Pitta oatesi Pitta nipalensis Pitta nipalensis Pitta soror Pitta soror Pitta soror Pitta soror Pitta soror Pitta caerulea Pitta caerulea Pitta schneideri Pitta cyanea Pitta cyanea Pitta cyanea Pitta gurneyi

Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Red‐bellied Pitta Whiskered Pitta Graceful Pitta Blue‐banded Pitta Garnet Pitta Garnet Pitta Garnet Pitta Eared Pitta Rusty‐naped Pitta Rusty‐naped Pitta Rusty‐naped Pitta Rusty‐naped Pitta Blue‐naped Pitta Blue‐naped Pitta Blue‐rumped Pitta Blue‐rumped Pitta Blue‐rumped Pitta Blue‐rumped Pitta Blue‐rumped Pitta Giant Pitta Giant Pitta Schneider's Pitta Blue Pitta Blue Pitta Blue Pitta Gurney's Pitta

erythrogaster thompsoni propinqua inspeculata caeruleitorques palliceps celebensis dohertyi rufiventris cyanonota obiensis bernsteini rubrinucha piroensis kuehni aruensis macklotii loriae finschii digglesi habenichti extima splendida novaehibernicae gazellae meeki

coccinea ussheri granatina castaneiceps oatesi bolovenensis deborah nipalensis hendeei tonkinensis douglasi petersi soror flynnstonei caerulea hosei cyanea willoughbyi aurantiaca

1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 7 7 7 8