4th Edition Preview of Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World

WELCOME TO A PREVIEW OF

THE 4TH EDITION (2013) OF

THE HOWARD AND MOORE COMPLETE CHECKLIST

OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD,VOLUME I. NON-PASSERINES

Editors: E C Dickinson and J V Remsen, Jr.

This preview allows us to give potential readers an idea of the detailed contentbrought together in this work and how some of the less obvious content may berelevant to the readers’ needs of interests.

No book developed a team as large as the team here assembled should be expectedto be low-priced. To some the content will be of great value; this we believe appliesto all who write scientific papers or books on birds because their publishers and theirreaders expect them to ensure their content is as accurate as possible. Managers ofmuseum collections, biogeographers and conservationists will all see a reason toconsider this work an important tool, perhaps even an indispensable one.

In its original edition in 1980 this book was designed for the birder (or if your preferthe “twitcher”). Many birders are or become pioneering field ornithologists andfrom their experience flows much of the clarification of our perceptions of avianrelationships, distributions, migrations and ecological needs. We still seek to servethis audience although a two volume work has become necessary to serve bothaudiences (and as these audiences should be using the same languages of names asingle book that provides for both is needed).

Innovations in this Edition respond to the wishes expressed by both groups as willthe promised Updates.

Most of the pages that follow are simple extracts from the book. A few pages, which,like this one lack page numbers are insertions to provide some explanations andinsights into what is offered and why.

ECD/March 2013

The pre-publication discount offer is open until April 30th.Buyers choosing that offer secure a guarantee

that volume 2 will cost them the same price as volume 1.

This preview also serves to facilitate book reviews for journals looking to providea brief review (less than a page). Journals prepared to offer more review space willbe offered a review copy.

The Howard and Moore COMPLETE CHECKLIST OF THE BIRDS OF THE WORLD 4th Edition Volume One Non–passerines

Edward C Dickinson and J V Remsen Jr. (editors)

Special Adviser Joel Cracraft

Normand David Marek Kuziemko Richard Schodde Robert J Dowsett David Pearson Lars Svensson Steven M S Gregory Shaun Peters Dick Watling Tim Inskipp Daniel Philippe David R Wells

Kees Roselaar

Database design and management Denis Lepage

with acknowledgements to Norbert Bahr and special thanks to

Jon Fjeldså Les Christidis Martin Päckert Rauri Bowie Irby Lovette Frank E Rheindt Alice Cibois Jan Ohlson 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 2013 © Edward C. Dickinson (save to the extent owned by holding trustees

for the Trust for Avian Systematics).

ISBN 978‐0‐9568611‐0‐8

Printed and bound by Imago in China

Recommended Citation:

Dickinson, E.C. & J.V. Remsen Jr. (Eds). 2013. The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 4th. Edition, Vol. 1, Aves Press, Eastbourne, U.K.

Citation to authored content within the book is recommended in the following format:

Cracraft, J. 2013. Avian Higher‐level Relationships and Classification: Nonpasseriforms. Pp. xxi‐xli in: Dickinson, E.C. & J.V. Remsen Jr. (Eds) 2013. The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 4th. Edition, Vol. 1, 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

v

PREFACE

THE TITLE

Until recently the ownership of the goodwill in the title of this book belonged to the individual editor of the succeeding editions. It now belongs to the Trust for Avian Systematics (“the Trust”) (U.K. Registered Charity No. 1014427); which will also own the intellectual property rights to the database created to facilitate the production of this and future editions. These steps are being taken to increase the potential for the title to appear again in future years. The Trust, in licencing the use of its title, places obligations on the Managing Editor which include the updating of that database and recruiting successors. It is partly thanks to the existence of this editorial database that our publishers, together with the Trust, have plans in place for an update process. Every copy of this work contains, near the back, a registration form with a unique number (that may not be shared). This may be sent by post or scanned and e‐mailed to the publishers. This will entitle the owner to a period of free access to the updates as downloads (which will be included in a journal with an ISSN and which will qualify as an e‐publication under the recently revised articles of International Code of Zoological Nomenclature). These updates will thus be citable.

THE LIST CONCEPT AND THE FUTURE

With the third Edition in 2003 The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World began to evolve to better serve the academic community. In the light of the way publication and information provision is being changed by the Internet this was the right decision. Competing lists are available free on the web and these suffice for the needs of many birders. By contrast the academic community and those who write scientific papers need a work that can be cited in the knowledge it can be checked. Web‐based lists are ephemeral; they change quietly and what was there to be cited may have changed when next checked. They also do not qualify as a publication in the eyes of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

While the appearance of the list in this Edition may look very similar, changes have been made to enhance its utility and in part we see it as an increasingly reliable nomenclator (although only for currently accepted taxa). This is expanded on in the Introduction.

THE TEAM

This book is the work of a dedicated team whose roles in the current edition are set out below. Those involved in the team for the preceding edition are asterisked, but some others listed were already helping.

The bulk of the revision of the list, including decisions on taxonomic issues up to generic level, rests with one or more of the Regional Consultants. These are:

Europe: Kees Roselaar* and Lars Svensson

Africa: David Pearson* and Bob Dowsett

Asia: Edward Dickinson*, David Wells and Tim Inskipp

Australasia: Richard Schodde*

Western Pacific Islands: Dick Watling

The Americas: James Remsen, Jr.*, Daniel Philippe, Shaun Peters

The ordinal and familial sequence of the list finalised as late as possible (in early November 2012), comes from Joel Cracraft, who, in his chapter, includes his own acknowledgements of help.

Essential support for the team of Regional Consultants has come (in alphabetical order) from:

Normand David: scientific name spellings/ the genders of genera and signals, footnotes and appendixes relating to these

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

vi

Steven Gregory: generic names citations and type designation notes

Marek Kuziemko: general support to the Editors and the Assistant Editor

Denis Lepage: database development and management

Shaun Peters: Assistant Editor (range statement formatting, geographic terms, gazetteer and maps) and general support to the Editors

Daniel Philippe: literature collection and support of the bibliographic database, ably assisted by Marek Kuziemko

Norbert Bahr*: collection and analysis of new publications (to early 2010)

The Americas benefit from the work and published reports of the North American Check‐list Committee of the American Ornithologists’ Union and from parallel work by the South American Check‐list Committee. For Europe note is, of course, taken of the reports of the Taxonomic Sub‐Committee of the British Ornithologists’ Union Records Committee, but especially for the rest of the Eastern Hemisphere it was realised that the team required expert help to evaluate the substantial flow of molecular studies. In consequence an independent Editorial Advisory Committee was established comprising:

Jon Fjeldså (Chairman), Rauri Bowie, Alice Cibois, Les Christidis, Irby Lovette, Jan Ohlson, Martin Packärt, Frank E. Rheindt and Paul Scofield.

Our grateful thanks are due to them for their extensive work.

The editors, Edward and ‘Van’, while being entirely clear that the responsibility for all that we publish rests with them, would like to acknowledge the huge debt owed to all these colleagues without whom this volume of the new (4th) edition could not have been completed.

Edward, as Managing Editor, would also like to thank the Trustees of the Trust for Avian Systematics, previously the Trust for Oriental Ornithology (and by extension to Thomas Donegan and colleagues at Shearman Sterling (UK) LLP for extensive legal support geared to establishing the various formal legal relationships put into place); also to George Finney at Bird Studies Canada for his interest and encouragement and for making the participation of Denis Lepage possible, and finally to Richard Howard who still takes a considerable interest in the work bearing his name as well as that of the late Alick Moore.

We acknowledge the help and support of many others on the following pages.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The most speciose families dealt were sent for comment, particularly on generic sequence and our references to molecular studies, to the following specialists in their fields:

Bill Clark (Accipitridae) Kevin Johnson (Columbidae) Clive Mann (Cuculidae) Pierre‐André Crochet (Laridae) Leo Joseph (Psittaciformes) Philip McGowan (Phasianidae) Thomas Donegan (Cracidae) Jeremy Kirchman (Rallidae) Karja Somadikarta (Apodidae) Carole Griffiths (Falconidae) Helen Lerner (Accipitridae)

We are also pleased to acknowledge collaboration with BirdLife International (Stuart Butchart and Nigel Collar) on our treatment of Extinct taxa (discussed further in the Introduction and also the subject of a brief appendix).

The photograph of the Colorful Puffleg which appears on our back cover, is by Luis Mazariegos who very kindly gave us permission to use it; colour maps in the CD are the work of Rob Still; to both these friends we are most grateful.

PREFACE

vii

Many other people have helped us with all sorts of task ranging from questioning apparent errors in our 3rd edition, supplying requested PDFs, to actually working quite extensively for us on special tasks. With apologies to anyone omitted the list includes:

Jane Acred, Mark Adams, Alexandre Aleixo, Pekka Alestalo, Des Allen, Miguel Alonso‐Zarazaga, Per Alström, Nacho Areta, Ramana Athreya, Neil Baker, Richard Banks, Alexander Bardin, Juan Mazar Barnett, Ian Barr, Nicolas Barre, Christine Barthel , John Bates, Ernst Bauernfeind, Bruce Beehler, Keith Betton, Mike Blair, Walter Bock, Walter Boles, Enrico Borgo, Patrice Bouchard, Frederik Brammer, Axel Braunlich, Vincent Bretagnolle, Lynda Brooks, Ralph Browning, Murray Bruce, Rémy Bruckert, Don Buden, John Terry Burridge, Ingvar Byrkjedal, Nicholas Carlile, Clair Castle, Roger Charlwood, Anthony Cheke, Pengjun Cheng, Terry Chesser, Alice Cibois, Paul Clapham, Stephanie Clarke, Nigel Cleere, Ed Colijn, Nigel Collar, Martin Collinson, Katrina Cook, John Cooper, Paul Coopmans, Gill Cornelius, Gathorne Cranbrook, João Crawford‐Cabral, Fergus Crystal, Andres Cuervo, Mikhail Daneliya, Ann Datta, Greg Davies, Richard Dean, Devashish Deb, René Dekker, Theo de Kok, Ramil del Rosario, Ron Demey, Bob Dickerman, Philip Dickinson, Ding Chang‐qing, Lisa di Tommaso, Gunthard Dornbusch, Will Duckworth, Diana Duncan, Jon Dunn, Guy Dutson, Pascal Eckhoff, Andy Elliott, Ian Endersby, Neal Evenhuis, He Fen‐qi, Tobias Fendt, Clem Fisher, Dana Fisher, John Fitzpatrick, Joseph Forshaw, Alain Fossé, Rosendo Fraga, Sylke Frahnert, Johan Fromholtz, Ross Galbreath, Anita Gamauf, Christine Giannoni, Dan Gibson, Frank Gill, Tom Gilissen, Thomas Gladwin, Michel Gosselin, Jon S. Greenlaw, Marcel Guntert, Martin Haasse, Alison Harding, Frank Hawkins, Gillian Hawkins, He Fen‐qi, Alain Hennache, Graham Higley, Christoph Hinkelmann, Janet Hinshaw, Tony Holcombe, Jesper Hornskov, Julian Hume, Valentin Ilyashenko, Carol Inskipp, Michael Stuart Irwin, Helen James, Alvaro Jamarillo, Karsten Jedlitschka, Justin Jensen, James Jobling, Carl Jonas, Colin Jones, Peter Kaestner, Mikhail Kalyakin, Krys Kazmierczak, Robert S Kennedy, Rebecca Kimball, Ben King, Ragnar Kinzelbach, Guy Kirwan, Richard Klim, Alan Knox, Evgeny Koblik, Claus König, Margaret Koopman, Peter Kovalik, Andrew W. Kratter, Jörg Kretzschmar, Alain Lebossé, Mary LeCroy, Françoise Lemaire, Leone Lemner, Michèle Lenoir, Helen Lerner, David Lohman, Murray Lord, Vladimir Loskot, Michel Louette, Mathew Louis, Chris Lyal, Clive Mann, Roy MacDiarmid, Eleanor MacLean, Judith Magee, Stephanie Marshall, Jochen Martens, Eileen Matthias, Gerald Mayr, Bob McGowan, Gerlof Mees, Eberhard Mey, Ellinor Michel, Pawel Mielczarek, Danny Mierte, J. Pieter Michels, Helen Millington, Hector Miranda, Jiri Mlíkovsky, Blaise Mulhauser, Yang Nan, Rishad Naoroji, Adolfo Navarro‐Sigüenza, Alex Nazarenko, Bernd Nicolai, Svetlana Nikolaeva, Storrs Olson, Ronald Orenstein, Dieter Oschadleus, Leslie Overstreet, Fernando Pacheco, Martin Päckert, Thomas Pape, David Parkin, Didier Partouche, Eric Pasquet, Michael Patten, Robert Payne, Mark Peck, John Penhallurick, Alan Peterson, Vitor Piacentini, Florence Pieters, Alison Pirie, Aasheesh Pittie, Manuel Plenge, Roberto Poggi, Eugene Potapov, Roald Potapov, Doug Pratt, David Priddell, Robert Prŷs‐Jones, Peter Pyle, Christiane Quaisser, Mike Ramos, Fabio Raposo, Pamela Rasmussen, Laurent Raty, Matt Rayner, Yaroslav Red’kin, Michael Reiser, Swen Renner, Robin Restall, Clive Reynard, Nate Rice, Adam Riley, Mark Robbins, Clemencia Rodner, Françoise Romagné, Kees Rookmaaker, Gary Rosenberg, Travis Rosenberry, Katja Rosvall, Philip Round, Ronald de Ruiter, Douglas Russell, Simon Rycroft, Roger Safford, Svenja Sammler, George Sangster, Karl‐Ludwig Schuchmann, Tom Schulenberg, Sylvia Schwenke, Paul Scofield, Lucia Liu Severinghaus, Françoise Sevre, Fred Sheldon, Jay Sheppard, Jevgeni Shergalin, Hadoram Shirihai, Vladimir Shishkin, Alan Sieradzki, Luís Fabio Silveira, Jane Smith, Tadeusz Stawarczyk, Frank Steinheimer, Gary Stiles, Ante Strand, Andy Swash, Paul Sweet, Ann Sylph, Hiraka Takashi, Barry Taylor, Alan Tennyson, Jean‐Claude Thibault, Dieter Tietze, Joe Tobias, Pavel Tomkovich, Till Töpfer, Stephen Totterman, Steven Tracey, Thomas Trombone, Don Turner, Risto Väisänen, Arnoud van den Berg, Renate van den Elzen, Kirsten van den Veen, Steven van der Mije, Hein van Grouw, Mariijn van Hoorn, Oscar van Rootselaar, Carlo Violani, Ruud Vlek, Claire Voisin, Jean‐François Voisin, Anne‐Claire Volongo, Michael Walters, David Weidenfeld, Francisco Welter‐Schultes, Sophie Wilcox, Mike Wilson, Daria Wingreen‐Mason, Raffael Winkler, Judith White, Trevor Worthy, Takeshi Yamasaki, Zhang Zhengwang, Zheng Guang‐mei, Dario Zuccon.


viii

SUBSCRIBERS

Allen, Philip Guimond, Alain Round, Philip Backhurst, Graeme Hale, Allen Rudd, Jane [Leo Joseph] Bailey, Stephen F. He Fen‐Qi Rumsey, Stephen Baker, Helen Hennache, Alain Sage, Bryan Barnes, Stuart Hinkelmann, Christoph Sangster, George Beehler, Bruce Hiraoka Takashi Schulenberg, Tom Bennett, Keith Howe, William Schweizer, Manuel Blair, Mike Jirle, Erling Severinghaus, Lucia Bock, Walter Johansson, Ulf Sheldon, Fred Borgo, Enrico Jornvall, Hans Sheppard, Jay Braunlich, Axel Kazmierczak, Krys Shigeta, Yoshimeta Burridge, John T. Kirwan, Guy Silveira, Luis F Capek, Miroslav Koopman, Margaret Smart, Mary (Te Papa) Carnegie Museum, Pittsburgh Kristensen, Jan Springer, Heinrich Cheke, Anthony Krueper, David Stawarczyk, Tadeusz Clapham, Paul Lagerqvist, Marcus Steinheimer, Frank Cuervo, Andres Lebossé, Alain Switzer, Melissa [= John Fitzʹ] Daniels, Brian Lei Fu‐min Sypniewski, Ted Davison, Geoff Leven, Michael Tertitsky, Grigory Dean, Richard Longmore, Wayne Tom Gladwin Deb, Devashish Maley, James Tomkovich/Koblik Demey, Ron Manegold, Albrecht Tsurumi, Miyako Derryberry, Liz Martens, Jochen Turner, Don Dickson, Paul McGhie, Henry Tyrberg, Tommy DiCostanzo, Joseph Mendoza, Claudia van Balen, Bas Dumbacher, John Mey, Eberhard Van Bambeke, Joelle Duncan, Alex Mlikovsky, Jiri van den Berg, Arnound Dunn, John Nicolia, Bernd van den Elzen, Renate Eggenkamp, H.H. Nikolaus, Gerhard van Loon, A.J. Elliott, Andy Nishiumi, Isao Voelker, Gary Elphick, Jonathan Nores, Manuel White, Clayton Endersby, Ian Oliveros, Carl Winker, Kevin Erritzoe, Johannes Olsson, Urban Winkler, Raffael Escalante, Patricia Pacheco, J.F. Witt, Chris Fisher, Clem Patten, Michael Woods, R. Fisher, Clemency Payne, Bob Worthy, Trevor Fishpool, Lincoln Penhallurick, John Woxvold, Iain Fossé, Alain Perron, Richard Zhang, Zheng Wang Fuisz, Tibor Pittie, Aasheesh Zheng, Guang‐mei Gamauf, Anita Plenge, Manuel Zhu Lei Garrett, Kimball Reiser, Michael Zou, Fasheng Geneva Mus. Nat. Hist. Robbins, Mark Zuccon, Dario Roberson, Don

THE TRUST FOR AVIAN SYSTEMATICSU.K. REGISTERED CHARITY NO. 1014427

The Trust is the owner of the Intellectual Property in the title The Howard and Moore CompleteChecklist of the Birds of the World and of the content of the database through which the work isproduced. This database is maintained by all members of the team assembled by a ManagingEditor. All of them assign non-exclusive rights in perpetuity to the Trust for what they contributeto that database. This places the Trust in a position to assure, in so far as it is reasonably possible,that, based on this resource and a trusted title, successive editors will be able to create editions foras far into the future as this reference work is considered valuable. Primary responsibility for theselection of a new Managing Editor lies with the existing Managing Editor and the Trust seessuccession planning as important. The Trust also has the power to prevent a Managing Editorfrom continuing in office if the quality of the work fails to reach the standard the Trust expectsfrom the work. For this service the Trust receives a fee for licensing the one-time use of the title toa combination of a Managing Editor and a sympathetic publisher (one who will accept somesignificant contractual restrictions on the rights normally vested in a publisher, in particular asingle-edition contract for print entirely separate from any contract for electronic publication).

The Trust is not a membership organisation; there are some important advantages of this thatoutweigh the opportunity to seek membership subscriptions. The principal advantage lies in nothaving to find suitable member-candidates willing to stand for periodic election by members whomay have other agendas which cause them to share only incompletely the aspirations of a tightly-focussed Trust. However, the Trust is not a “closed shop”. It is intended that all interested aviansystematists may build a relationship with the Trust, preferably perhaps as members of a nationalornithological society (or union) willing to encourage a subset of its members to become honoraryaffiliates of the Trust and to provide the appropriate liaison.

The Trust’s objectives include restoring balance to the relationship between those establishingmolecular phylogenies and those reviewing and revising taxonomies so that the there is mutualunderstanding and a clear goal of informing the public through the use of the appropriatelanguage for scientific names as laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.The Trust’s approach to this will be to seek ambassadors country by country who can promotethis vision of collaboration. It will also work, perhaps in conjunction with the Standing Committeeon Ornithological Nomenclature, to help journal editors understand the requirements of the Code.

The Trust also recognises that there are problems in providing the knowledge needed by studentsin this field and hopes to stimulate the development of course modules offering the extra contentneeded.

The Trust may be contacted through the Hon. Secretary (Hein van Grouw), c/o The NaturalHistory Museum, Tring, Hertfordshire, HP23 6AP

NOTE TO BROWSERS I

ix

Contents

Preface v Subscribers viii Contents ix Introduction xi Avian higher level relationships and classification. By Joel Cracraft xxi Table of contents, links and statistics xlv Making full use of the list as presented xlix The Checklist 1 Appendix 1. Nomenclature of the higher classificatory ranks of birds. By R. Schodde 387 Appendix 2. Matters of nomenclature and taxonomy 391

2.1 New nomenclatural acts herein (First Reviser actions) 391 2.2 Deferred actions 391 2.3 New taxa in the Branta canadensis complex 394 2.4 Names given to other extinct taxa 399 2.5 Notes on particular nomenclatural issues (background notes) 400 2.6 Notes on particular taxonomic issues (background notes) 401

Appendix 3. English names. By D.R. Wells, R.J. Dowsett & L. Svensson 403 Appendix 4. Variable species‐group names. By N. David & M. Gosselin 405 Index to scientific names 409 Index to English names 453 Tear‐out Registration Request for free on‐line updates.

The above list does not include the contents of the accompanying CD; for that see next page.

x

Contents of the accompanying CD‐ROM

List of References Appendix 5. I.C.Z.N. Decisions and Opinions (Ornithology) Appendix 6. Gazetteer (place 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 come in the CD with vol. 2:

Index of synonyms listed in the footnotes of the two volumes (with original and current spellings and genus names)

xi

INTRODUCTION

With the universal recognition that phylogenetic relationships affect analyses of comparative biology, and with the consequent dramatic increase in data on those phylogenetic relationships using techniques that directly compare DNA sequences, a classification that reflects these data becomes a useful tool for those interested in evolutionary processes. The objective of the 2003 edition of the Howard and Moore Checklist (Dickinson 2003; hereinafter H&M3) was to provide a comprehensive, conservative classification of birds of the world that was based on research on avian systematics and to set a high standard of nomenclatural accuracy. For this edition this objective is unchanged, but to this we have added the goal of directly linking this classification, through footnotes, to the research on which it is based. Simply put, our objective is to provide a complete list of valid taxa of birds presented as a classification in a phylogenetic framework and using the hierarchical Linnaean system. We have also made a major effort to upgrade the accuracy and detail of the distribution statements for each taxon because understanding bird biogeography is critical to understanding bird classification.

The Peters Check‐list series is usually regarded as the foundation for bird classification for the 20th century. However, many names treated therein as valid taxa, from family to subspecies, are no longer in use for a variety of reasons that range from research‐driven changes in classification to new findings in nomenclature. In our footnotes, we provide citations leading to the rationale for why some “Peters’ names” are no longer used in this classification, thus linking the monumental Peters Check‐list series to our current classification.

The explosion of research on the phylogeny of birds in the last decade, more than in any other in history, has led to dramatic changes in our understanding of the relationships among birds. This revolution means that the classification in H&M3 is not just badly out of date but in many places virtually obsolete. From relationships among orders of birds, to composition of families and genera, to many revelations of hidden species diversity, the classification of birds of the world has undergone major changes. This explosion has been ignited by the widespread use of techniques, particularly DNA sequencing, that allow direct assessment of the genetic signature of the phylogeny of birds. Therefore, a major task for this edition of the Howard and Moore Checklist (Dickinson and Remsen 2013; hereinafter H&M4) was to integrate this research into the classification of birds. Our classification is referenced explicitly to original research papers whenever possible, or to syntheses of that research, so that the user can determine the source for the changes; consequently, we have also generated an extensive bibliography on avian phylogeny and classification.

However, rather than automatically incorporate every published opinion or result into our classification, we have attempted to evaluate published evidence at all levels, from higher‐level taxonomy to issues of nomenclature. The literature on birds, particularly field guides, is filled with assertions and opinions on bird relationships, particularly with respect to species limits. Although many of these opinions, typically from astute field ornithologists, will sooner or later be shown to be correct, our conservative approach is to wait until actual data or explicit rationale has been published in technical literature. Even the technical literature often contains results that, in our opinion, require independent confirmation, particularly if based on small sample sizes with respect to genes, populations, or taxa. Because taxonomic decisions are sometimes subjective, interpretations or opinions of others are alternative hypotheses and so many are cited in the footnotes so that they are not lost to view.

During the last ten years we have continued to work hard to improve the accuracy of spellings of taxon names and dates of publication. We have evaluated all cases known to us (in mid 2011) in which dates or spellings were matters of dispute 1. See Methodology below.

During the same period, we have also overhauled nearly completely the range statements from previous editions, in this edition giving particular attention to the Western Hemisphere.

METHODOLOGY

Interpretation of genetic evidence In 2003 we had relatively few such studies to consider. How the world has changed! The following table,

which tabulates the number of papers addressing the phylogeny of birds using molecular techniques, is instructive:

1 Those that have come to our notice later will be researched when time permits and will be published.


xii

Interpretation of genetic data for implementation into a classification is a rapidly evolving field. Many early and some recent studies suffer from lack of statistical rigour, poor sampling in terms of taxa and genes, and failure to consider the issue of gene trees vs. species trees and consequent problems of incomplete lineage‐sorting. Interpretations of genetic distance as measures of taxon rank are particularly problematic, because they are typically based on percent differences in DNA sequences of only one or two genes from a genome of perhaps 25,000 genes, an unknown percentage of which are also variable. This is not the place for a full review of such problems. We do not use genetic distance to assign taxon rank. The potential for objective, quantitative assignment of taxon rank using genetic distance has obvious appeal, and has catalyzed, for example, the Barcode Initiative (e.g., Hebert and Gregory 2005). However, the conceptual flaws of such a system are well known (e.g. Moritz & Cicero 2004, Will et al. 2005).

We are also wary of the use of single gene trees, i.e., a phylogenetic hypothesis derived from the analysis of a single locus, for assignment of taxon rank at the species/population level. A consequence of the mechanics of evolution at the population level is that two different genes may show conflicting results in terms of which species are most closely related. Thus, a “gene tree” may not reflect the true historical branching pattern of relationships, i.e. the “species tree”. Although this problem has been known for many years (e.g., Pamilo & Nei 1988, Page & Charleston 1997), ornithologists have often ignored it, and some continue to do so in determining species relationships using genetic data.

For the Western Hemisphere, we have been able to benefit from reviews of papers based on genetic data undertaken by the classification committees of the American Ornithologists’ Union. The North American Classification Committee (hereafter NACC) publishes such evaluations annually in The Auk (e.g., Chesser et al. 2012). The South American Classification Committee’s (hereafter SACC) evaluations are not published in printed form but appear on‐line (see Remsen et al. 2013).

For the Eastern Hemisphere, such independant evaluations tend to be restricted to individual countries. See for example the reports of the Taxonomic Sub‐Committee of the British Ornithologists’ Union’s Records Committee (e.g., Sangster et al. 2012). However, many countries are not within the scope of such reports. To remedy this, an independent Editorial Advisory Committee was appointed (see title page) with an Eastern Hemisphere remit. The EAC evaluates papers with respect to taxon sampling, insufficient resolution of the alternative interpretations, procedural problems, or absence of formal taxonomic recommendations. The EAC’s views have been considered by our Regional Consultants (RCs), and if they affect two or more areas and if agreement among RCs was not rapid, then also by one or both editors. The EAC knew that its advice might not always be followed and was assured of its independence by the right given its Chair to make known any disagreement with decisions we have chosen to make. Thus the ultimate responsibility is always ours.

General matters of classification

In the footnotes, we cite published sources for our treatment wherever possible. For taxa from the Western Hemisphere, we typically start with NACC or SACC classifications as the foundation although neither deal with subspecies. For the Eastern Hemisphere, we typically start with the classifications from the Handbook of the Birds of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (also known as The Birds of the Western Palearctic) (Oxford University Press), the Birds of Africa (Academic Press) and the Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds (Oxford University Press), plus recent national or regional checklists (e.g. Gill et al. 2010). For both hemispheres the

Year Global Old World New World Total2001 23 18 37 78 2002 22 27 45 94 2003 29 27 49 105 2004 42 43 45 130 2005 28 44 56 128 2006 33 31 67 131 2007 32 62 69 163 2008 40 59 86 185 2009 44 48 68 160 2010 39 62 98 199 2011 50 61 100 211 2012 36 71 92 199

INTRODUCTION

xiii

Handbook of the Birds of the World series (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona) has also been consulted. If recent comprehensive papers are available, then we also cite those for baseline family classifications. We recognize that much of bird classification has not been analyzed under a modern phylogenetic framework and that linear sequences are maintained largely by historical momentum. Fortunately, the number of families lacking a modern analysis is dwindling rapidly although sufficient screening of the genera is often still lacking (and too often genus representation is not based on the type species2, and generic names in synonymy, which that should be screened if any attempt is to be made to subdivide a genus, are neglected).

For almost all taxa treated as valid in the Peters Check‐list series that are no longer used in H&M4, we provide footnotes to explain the fate of those names3. However, if the Peters Check‐list placed a name in synonymy that is also treated as a synonym in H&M4, we do not repeat that information. In the course of our research, we have discovered a number of subspecies names, validly described, that were overlooked by the Peters Check‐list volume in which they should have appeared, and these are also footnoted. To the best of our knowledge, we have included herein all new genera, species, and subspecies validly described after publication of the Peters Check‐list volume for the families in which they are placed4. Please alert the editors to any omissions. Those we consider valid are listed in the classification. Those that we do not list are set out in Appendix 2.2 with an assurance that our reasons for deferring or denying recognition will be published in a peer‐reviewed journal.

Orders and Families

No objective definition exists as to what constitutes an order or family other than the criterion of monophyly. We note, however, that monophyletic groups of living birds traditionally ranked as orders have fossil records that typically extend as far back as the Eocene, often to the Palaeocene, and occasionally to the Cretaceous. Likewise, nonpasserine taxa ranked as families typically have fossil records that extend as far back as the Oligocene or Eocene. Although no formal scheme exists for determining lineage ranks based on age, we note that there is at least a rough relationship between rank and lineage age that offers hope for a future, more textured delimitation of higher taxon categories. Meanwhile, our ranking of higher taxa, as well as the relationships among them, has been supplied by Joel Cracraft whose chapter follows.

We are often asked how family names are chosen. We recommend the treatment of this subject by Bock (1994) based on the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature5. The key point is that the dates of the names of the genera within the family are not the basis for a choice. In other words the Principle of Priority applies to the family group‐name itself (i.e., which family, subfamily or tribe name first appeared first in the literature). In fact, the generic name from which the family or other group name is derived is itself sometimes now only used as a subgenus or in synonymy. For example, this rule means that the subfamily name for the group that includes the New World ground doves is PERISTERINAE even though the root of that name is not reflected in the name of any currently used genus6. Our use of the name IERAGLAUCINAE is a further example.

Our list, as in H&M3, is organised by family; however, unlike H&M3, the families are linked to higher‐level taxa in the chapter by Cracraft (pp. xix‐xli). And, because the timing is appropriate to bring such names back and to standardise, for the Class Aves, the suffixes that should be common to the various ranks, we include an historical appraisal of the use of such suffixes (see Appendix 1).

Genera

As with orders and families, no modern, objective definition exists for what constitutes a Genus other than the criterion of monophyly. The traditional concept of a “genus” in ornithology involves morphological continuity. In other words, even if no single diagnostic character for the genus exists, species included within a genus typically share morphological themes. Herein, we maintain traditional generic limits whenever the criterion of monophyly is verified or strongly suspected from indirect evidence (as noted in footnotes). We look forward to the development of more objective criteria for future classifications. Naturally the root concept requiring the type species will remain. Given the importance of these higher ranks in comparative biology, the absence of formal or

2 It is rarely necessary to take a sample from a type specimen. Any reliably identified specimen of that species, or, if polytypic, of the nominate subspecies, is sufficient. 3 Some were only noticed late in the process; see Appendix 2.2. 4 Again a few have recently been brought to our attention and these are in the same appendix; see Appendix 2.2. 5 However, as a reference list it is incomplete. It also lists a few family‐group names, all post 1930, that were not published with descriptions, as required by Article 13 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (the Code), and are therefore not available for use from the cited sources. 6 See also Art. 40.2 of the Code, which serves to protect the effects of certain nomenclatural acts prior to 1961.

INTRODUCTION

xvii

This work revealed that there has been no safe repository for decisions made by First Revisers under Art. 24.2 of the Code; this needs rectification and, because ZooBank8 intends to register these, we have begun to collect them (David et al., 2009). We would greatly welcome inputs from readers.

Dates of publication

Accurate dates of publication are critical for establishing the correct name for a taxon under the Principle of Priority, which is explained in the Code (Art. 23). The goal of this principle is to ensure that the first author to validly name an animal receives the appropriate credit.

The practices of printers and of distribution of books were so different in the early years of Linnean nomenclature due in part to the cost of type that many early works appeared in parts that may or may not have been dated. In addition, printed dates when present can be shown to be wrong.

Our research in this area has been detailed in Dickinson et al. (2011) and the CD in that work included a table that listed all the names for which a date change in H&M4 then seemed likely. That table is being updated, and the passerine part of it appears updated on our CD as Appendix 9 with a brief introduction. A few errors in that table and elsewhere in Dickinson et al. (2011) have been described and corrected by Dickinson & Jones (2012). Names with such date changes, whether footnoted or not, have the symbol δ at the end of the name string. A few footnotes explain date changes recommended elsewhere.

Because we use accurate dates of publication the citations in our List of References, on our CD, use these dates – despite conventions to the contrary – and place the volume date after the pagination.

English names

We distinguish between the name and how it is spelled or formatted. To accommodate American English spelling, the names of Western Hemisphere birds use American spellings (e.g. color not colour). For a variety of reasons, not least indexing, we choose to avoid using hyphenated two word “genus” names when both have meaningful initial capital letters. We acknowledge that this is a widespread American practice, but it is not widely shared in the rest of the world. This change is the main feature of a broader policy set out in Appendix 3.

Otherwise our policy on English names is to follow recognized regional authorities, e.g the North American Classification Committee and the South American Classification Committee of the American Ornithologists’ Union. In the Eastern Hemisphere we follow a variety of lists based on the preferences and advice of our Regional Consultants. Although we see the appeal of ultimate standardisation, a concept promoted by Gill & Wright (2006), we think that a settled methodology has yet to be broadly agreed – as is reflected by our removal of hyphens – and English names should be a matter of regional choice with change through convergent evolution not abrupt dictation. Thus, when two regions use different English names for the same species, we list both. We think that, for the tiny number of species for which this is the case, ornithologists and birders are able to cope with the use of different names in different regions; indeed they need to as the local field guides often retain the local preferences. Indeed, occasional cultural differences add texture rather than confusion to ornithology. Despite this, in some cases, we have modified English names to follow Gill & Wright (2006) or one of their subsequent updates.

Extinct taxa

In this edition we have ‘subcontracted’ all decisions on extinction or near extinction to BirdLife International, and we are very grateful for their help. Thus a species coded as “extinct” (†) in H&M4 is one that the editorial team of H&M4 and BirdLife International have agreed to list so (only in footnotes do we sometimes suggest that there may be an issue). BirdLife also supplied us with the list of names with which to use the combination †? to indicate ‘probably extinct’ although hope is kept alive.

There is always a gray area where the line is drawn to exclude fossils and subfossils. Peters (1931) judged it best to require there to be “at least a fragment of the skin and feathers”; this has been relaxed by us, and others before us, to allow a few taxa that were well depicted without specimens being safely preserved. The BirdLife International criteria include more such borderline cases than we do; thus in Appendix 2.4 we provide a complementary list giving full equivalence with the BirdLife documents supplied to us. However, there are a few minor problem cases, mainly of nomenclature, never fully discussed with BirdLife.

8 ZooBank is the new registry of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

xxi

Avian Higher‐level Relationships and Classification: Nonpasseriforms Joel Cracraft

Department of Ornithology, American Museum of Natural History Central Park West at 79th Street, New York, New York 10024, USA

Biological classifications are evolving information systems. The information they carry is the hierarchical pattern of evolutionary relationships that has resulted from the unfolding of the great Tree of Life. Knowledge about those relationships keeps being refined and classifications consequently change to accommodate that new understanding. Classifications are generally seen as being less important than the phylogenies on which they are based, and although that will always be the case, classifications are essential frameworks for multiple user‐communities just because names and classificatory hierarchies do convey information about levels of relationship. Thus, classifications that mirror the relationships of organisms are of great significance for the general biological community undertaking comparative studies, as well as for audiences who use checklists, field guides, biotic surveys, and other materials that rely on taxonomic names.

In the previous edition of the Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World (Dickinson 2003), an introductory chapter reviewed recent advances in avian phylogenetics (Cracraft et al. 2003). In that edition a decision was made to include only a minimal amount of hierarchical detail in the classification, and thus only the ranks of family, genus, species, and subspecies were used. Since then, understanding about the higher‐level relationships of birds has expanded significantly. Data produced from these studies, primarily from molecular systematic analyses, have begun to clarify the relationships among and within the major groups of birds. Therefore, in order to enhance the informativeness of the Checklist, this edition expands the use of hierarchical levels to better reflect this growth in knowledge. It is still the case, however, that the phylogenetic placement of many groups remains poorly resolved, hence care has been taken to reflect phylogenetic findings that are well‐supported, preferably by large amounts of data or across multiple independent studies.

As was noted in the review in the previous edition, this volume is not the place to debate the science but to summarize emerging consensuses about relationships. Although there is considerable debate in the scientific literature over the ability of the Linnaean hierarchy to reflect relationships as organismal phylogenies keep dramatically expanding, it is important to use group‐names that are, first, familiar to contemporary systematic ornithology; second, historical names that generally circumscribe clades revealed by new evidence; and third, names that facilitate communication (see Livezey & Zusi, 2007, p. 87). At the same time, stability is not always possible because many traditional group‐names (e.g. Ciconiiformes) may apply to groups that are now known to have included families that are not related. In such cases, an effort has been made to apply names in a manner that least disrupts communication about groups, that adheres to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1999), and that minimizes the number of new names that have to be introduced to specify hierarchical relationships. There has been considerable debate in zoology and in ornithology on the rules that govern “family‐group” names (superfamily down to, but not including, the genus level) (see Bock 1994). Above that level, over the years many ornithologists have used the ordinal‐ending “‐iformes” but that has not always been the case (see Mayr & Amadon 1951 and Stresemann 1959 for exceptions). The names for taxa ranked above the ordinal‐level, in contrast, have not been uniform in ending. We would predict that as relationships become more strongly supported, newly introduced names for clades will become more widely accepted and some of those names (e.g. such as Neoaves) are used here.

Systematic and taxonomic terminology

This chapter discusses phylogenetic relationships and their implications for classification and for the names of groups, therefore it is appropriate to review terminology commonly used within systematic ornithology. In attempting to reconstruct relationships among birds, systematists collect data from species and those data can take the form of morphological (e.g. skeletal or muscular system), or increasingly they extract DNA from tissues, including from museum specimens, and determine their nucleotide sequence. Most of the work discussed here is based on these newer molecular data. Once comparable DNA sequences are gathered for a set of taxa, algorithms are used to analyze the data and build phylogenetic trees. These trees are described by the pattern of branches (lineages) that connect to one another at nodes (internodes) thus signifying a pattern of relationships. Given a specific tree we say that two branches — they may be species or groups of species (e.g. genera, families) — are


xxii

sister‐groups if they share a more recent common ancestor with each other than either does with a third taxon. Depending on the quality and quantity of data for a particular question, relationships may be fully resolved into two descendant branches (dichotomous) or they may be unresolved with three or more descendant branches from a given node (polytomous). In building trees the algorithms also evaluate statistically the degree to which the data support the relationships specified by each node on the tree. The more data employed in the analysis, the more we expect or hope that support for relationships will increase, although this is not always the case.

Within taxonomy, we say a group is monophyletic if all the members of that named group share a more recent common ancestor with each other than any has to another outside group (e.g. the perching‐birds, Passeriformes, are monophyletic). In contrast, a taxonomic group is said to be non‐monophyletic or polyphyletic when one or more of its members are related to others outside the group. The classical waterbird orders Pelecaniformes and Ciconiiformes are no longer considered to be monophyletic, consequently this requires changes in classification in order to maintain the principle of recognizing only monophyletic groups.

In this classification widely‐used higher‐taxon names are maintained as much as possible, especially for names ranked at order level and below. When major changes in relationships require a name to recognize new phylogenetic knowledge, new names are not proposed here. Instead, use is made of pre‐existing names from the older literature. Most of these names are applied above the level of superfamily and are not (currently) governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Nevertheless, in applying these names, and choosing among alternatives, we have selected the oldest family‐group name available, and in order to facilitate the use of this classification, a consistent ending for each rank above the level of superfamily is used. At the same time, this chapter does introduce ranks that will be unfamiliar to some readers, even though many of those ranks are well‐known within ornithology (e.g. Sibley & Monroe 1990).

Phylogenetic Relationships and the Checklist Sequence

Translating a complex phylogenetic tree into a linear classification is an inexact science in as much as there are many more hierarchical relationships (groups within groups) than there are Linnaean ranks that can be used to represent them. As a consequence one must adopt various “conventions” within that linear classification (see the suboscine classifications of Moyle et al. 2009 and Tello et al. 2009 for details). The most important, and often used, convention is that of “phyletic sequencing” in which a linear sequence of taxa having the same taxonomic rank is taken to specify a set of phylogenetic relationships, with the first taxon in the sequence interpreted to be the sister‐group of all the subsequent taxa at that same rank. For example, using this “sequencing convention,” the classification Order Galliformes Family Megapodiidae (megapodes) Family Cracidae (guans, curassows) Family Numididae (guineafowl) Family Odontophoridae (New World quails) Family Phasianidae (partridges, pheasants)

would imply that, within the Galliformes, the family Megapodiidae is the sister‐group of all four families below it in the list; that Cracidae is the sister‐group of Numididae + Odontophoridae + Phasianidae; and that Numididae is the sister‐group of Odontophoridae + Phasianidae. Thus, the classification specifies the set of hierarchical relationships: (Megapodiidae (Cracidae (Numididae (Odontophoridae + Phasianidae)))). This example is straight‐forward because we have strong evidence for the hierarchical relationships of these five families.

There are also many nodes on the avian tree for which there is little or no support, and it is has been difficult for classifications to reflect this ambiguity. This classification therefore introduces another convention: in a list of names at a given rank, if those names are preceded by an asterisk (*), then the relationships among those taxa, at that rank, are ambiguous or uncertain. Thus the classification Infraclass Palaeognathae Superorder Struthionimorphae *Superorder Rheimorphae *Superorder Tinamimorphae *Superorder Apterygimorphae

implies that the Struthionimorphae (ostriches) are the sister‐group of Rheimorphae + Tinamimorphae + Apterygimorphae, but that relationships among the latter three higher taxa are ambiguous given current evidence.


xlii

Figure 1A. Phylogenetic tree to family level exluding cohorts Charadriia and Coracornithia.

Sulidae

Ardeidae

Gaviidae

Gruidae

Rallidae

Phasianidae

Cracidae

Anatidae

Rheidae

AnhingidaePhalacrocoracidae

Fregatidae

ThreskiornithidaeBalaenicipitidaeScopidae

Ciconiidae

Diomediidae

Procellariidae

OceanitidaeSpheniscidae

Musophagidae

Aramidae

PsophiidaeHeliornithidae

Cuculidae

Otididae

OpisthocomidaeAegothelidaeApodidaeTrochilidaeCaprimulgidae

PodargidaeNyctibiidae

Steatornithidae

EurypygidaeRhynochetidae

Columbidae

MesitornithidaePteroclidae

Phaethontidae

PhoenicopteridaePodicepedidae

Megapodiidae

Odontophoridae

Numididae

AnseranatidaeAnhimidaeApterygidaeCasuariidaeTinamidae (+moas)

Struthionidae

Pelecanidae

Procellariimorphae

Suloidea

Pelecanoidea

Ciconioidea

Eurypygiformes

Columbiformes

PALAEOGNATHAE

NEOGNATHAE

NEOAVES

GALLOANSERES

Opisthocomiformes

Ardeoidea

Phoenicopteriformes

Caprimulgiformes

MesitornithiformesPterocliformes

Phaethontiformes

Galliformes

Anseriformes

Tinamiformes

Gruiformes

MusophagiformesGaviiformesSphenisciformes

Procellariiformes

Cuculiformes

Trochiloidea

Pelecaniformes

Otidiformes

AEQ

UO

RNITH

IA

Gruoidea

Ralloidea

to Fig. 1B

Rheiformes

Struthioniformes

ApterygiformesCasuariiformes

Saurothruridae

Hydrobatidae

Columbimorphae

Pelecani

Ciconii

1A

PHYLOGENETICS AND LINNEAN NOMENCLATURE

In the last edition (2003) the Howard & Moore Checklist working with Joel Cracraftchose to emphasize the degree to which the historically accepted relationships ofbirds were in dispute. That list contained no ranks above the level of family (becausewhich families attached to which Order was then the focus of many studies seekinggreater certainty) and indeed, at and below the rank of family, various groups ofbirds were declared “incertae sedis” (relationships uncertain).

Ten years later there is more certainty, enough that this list comes with a totally newchapter by Joel Cracraft illustrating, by a “tree” (see preceding page for half of thattree), a reasonable hypothesis of the branching of avian evolution based onnumerous published studies. And with this he provides an ordered sequence, whichhe explains, while at the same time placing non-passerine families, howevertentatively (for in many areas hypotheses still need corroboration) within orders,and orders within broader groupings. And this, of course, provides the list sequence.

There tends to be a certain disconnect in name use reflecting the flexibility ofphylogenetics where trees can sprout small branches at multiple points along amajor branch, or along the trunk, and the constrained, rather rigid approach ofnomenclatural rules which provide – in a beneficially simple way -- for only threegroups of ranks (family-group, genus-group and species-group): a simplificationrooted in the Linnean binomial system.

At the familial level the suffix –idae is well understood to signal that rank. Abovethat rank, where the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not yetprovide for conformity in the suffix to be used at given higher ranks, the generalizedaccepted use of the suffix –iformes is an uncontested signal of ordinal rank, whereasat other ranks suffix choice has not helped to achieve standard endings (as one ofour appendices – by Richard Schodde, Chair of the Standing Committee onOrnithological Nomenclature, illustrates). This situation is unhelpful and it is timelyto propose, adopt and explain standard suffixes, which we do. Standard suffixes canbring with them a framework that can be applied by students of phylogeny, byworking taxonomists, and by all authors needing to use names for higher ranks ofbirds.

No-one should be surprised if the molecular community still find too few ranks toplease them and they propose to insert others, but please let them too recognise thevalue to common understanding of adopting the concept of standard suffixes.

Note finally that the ranks that seem to be needed for birds may not suit those whostudy other branches of zoology.

NOTE TO BROWSERS II.

Table of contents, links to past lists, and statistics

xlv

Peters’ Check‐list Numbers per taxon

Taxon name in the sequence

used in this edition 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

STRUTHIONIFORMES Struthionidae I 3 34 1 1 2 0 4 1

RHEIFORMES Rheidae I 5 35 1 1 2 0 8 0

TINAMIFORMES Tinamidae I 12 31 1 9 47 0 125 0

APTERYGIFORMES Apterygidae I 10 35 6 1 5 0 2 0

CASUARIIFORMES Casuariidae I 5 35 6 2 6 2 4 1

ANSERIFORMES Anhimidae I 505 61 7 2 3 0 0 0 Anseranatidae I 426 61 7 1 1 0 0 0 Anatidae I 427 61 7 53 159 2 131 4

GALLIFORMES Megapodiidae II 3 35 20 7 22 0 32 0 Cracidae II 9 37 22 11 54 1 54 0 Numididae II 133 40 26 4 6 0 18 1 Odontophoridae II 42 41 27 10 33 0 118 0 Phasianidae II 24, 42 44 31 52 178 1 466 3

PHOENICOPTERIFORMES Phoenicopteridae I 269 80 49 3 6 0 0 0 Podicipedidae I 140 79 50 6 22 3 43 0

COLUMBIFORMES Columbidae III 11 157 52 46 313 9 607 7

PTEROCLIFORMES Pteroclidae III 3 156 81 2 16 0 31 1

MESITORNITHIFORMES Mesitornithidae II 141 116 82 2 3 0 0 0

EURYPYGIFORMES Eurypygidae II 215 117 82 1 1 0 3 0 Rhynochetidae II 215 116 82 1 1 0 0 0

PHAETHONTIFORMES Phaethontidae I 155 88 83 1 3 0 13 0

CAPRIMULGIFORMES Steatornithidae IV 174 238 83 1 1 0 0 0 Podargidae IV 175 237 83 3 13 0 24 0 Nyctibiidae IV 179 238 85 1 7 0 12 0 Caprimulgidae IV 184 238 85 20 92 2 180 0 Aegothelidae IV 181 245 94 1 11 0 13 0 Apodidae IV 220 246 95 20 99 0 242 0 Trochilidae V 3 255 105 105 338 3 531 1

OPISTHOCOMIFORMES Opisthocomidae II 141 205 136 1 1 0 0 0

CUCULIFORMES Cuculidae IV 12 207 136 36 140 1 216 1

1 This number does not inclued the nominate subspecies.

CONNECTIVITY, CROSS-REFERENCES AND NUMBERSThe three pages preceding this one are first and foremost a list of contents; a quickreference to the first page on which each family appears. The headers to the right-hand pages in any two-page spread will also help here. If searching for a genuswithout knowing its family use the index. The index to scientific names lists everysubspecies, species and genus that we list; it does not include scientific names in thefootnotes – and index to these will be placed on the CD to volume 2.

Science progresses through publication of ideas and their acceptance or rejection.Historians and others often wish to examine what has changed and for this reasonwe provide not only a guide to where to find the start point of families as they arelisted in this edition, but also where that point was in last edition, and where it wasin the seminal Peters’ Check-list series which, despite its shortcomings – such astaxonomic decisions made by the editors with no explanation, nor, usually, any priorpeer-reviewed publication, and limited provision of synonymies in some parts, wasrobust enough to command admiration and a wide degree of respect for most of thecontent – as a basis in which to build. In the table of contents quick cross-referencesare given for each recognised family to where they are found in both these works.

In 2003 our 3rd edition tabulated the number of genera and species per family; inthis edition we also include subspecies and show, with the help of BirdLifeInternational, how many species or subspecies are considered extinct.

If we compare the numbers from the 2003 edition and this one the comparison is asfollows:

2003 2013

Non-passerine genera 936 983

Non-passerine species 3752 4072

The increased numbers of species come from new species described since mid 2001,additional compelling evidence for separating species and, sometimes, a re-evaluation of our previous judgements.

Since this work was sent to the printers more new species have been named!

NOTE TO BROWSERS III

xlix

MAKING FULL USE OF THE LIST AS PRESENTED

Below are some selected, cut‐down and non‐consecutive portions of the list:

ANATIDAE ‐ DUCKS, GEESE, SWANS (53:159)1

ANATINAE – TRIBE: ANATINI

PTERNISTIS Wagler, 1832 M – Tetrao capensis J.F. Gmelin, 1788; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1841, A List of the Genera of Birds, ed. 2, p. 79). = Tetrao afer Statius Muller, 1776 2

Columba torringtoniae (Blyth & Kelaart, 1853) SRI LANKA PIGEON3 α δ Sri Lanka [186]

†Ectopistes migratorius (Linnaeus, 1766) PASSENGER PIGEON v C and E North America >> S and SE USA to NE Mexico

Patagioenas fasciata BAND‐TAILED PIGEON4 1 monilis (Vigors, 1839)5 v Mountains of SW British Columbia to W Nevada and S California

[2649] 1 fasciata (Say, 1822)6,7 α v Mountains of SW USA (SC Utah and NC Colorado) to N

Nicaragua 1 vioscae (Brewster, 1888) NW Mexico (Sierra de San Lázaro in S Baja California) 2 crissalis (Salvadori, 1893) v Mountains of Costa Rica and W Panama (Chiriquí, Veraguas) 2 albilinea (Bonaparte, 1854)8 Santa Marta Mts.; Coastal Range of Venezuela; Trinidad; Andes

from Venezuela to NW Argentina 2 roraimae (Chapman, 1929) Tepuis of S and SE Venezuela

GENUS INCERTAE SEDIS

Gallirallus calayanensis Allen, Oliveros, Española, Broad & Gonzalez, 2004 CALAYAN RAIL v Calayan (Babuyan Is.) [28]

1 Composition and sequence of subfamiles, tribes and genera largely derived from Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931]. See also Bulgarella et al. (2010) [320] and Fulton et al. (2012) [863]. 2 Includes ovambensis, bradfieldi and crypticus Stresemann, 1939 [2474]; see R.M. Little in Hockey et al. (2005) [1112]. 3 Original spelling torringtoniae. Previously correctly emended based on internal information see Pittie & Dickinson (2006) [1974]. 4 The albilinea group was formerly treated as a separate species but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942) [1087]. 5 For continued recognition see Gibson & Kessel (1997) [903]. 6 Includes letonai; see Monroe (1968) [1683]. Includes parva; see Brodkorb (1943) [268] but see also Monroe (1968) [1683]. 7 For date correction see Woodman (2010) [2822]. 8 Includes tucumana; see Hellmayr & Conover (1942) [1087].

The selected elements above allow a fairly full explanation of the presentation of the list. Each family name in scientific form is followed by the English group name or a number of group names that figure in the family. The figures in parentheses, in the example above, reports that the family contains 159 species divided into 53 genera. A footnote attached to the family usually provides references to the authorities for taxon composition; if not subdivided then a family footnote will be concerned with the linear sequence of genera (which may be only partly resolved, such that there are genera that need to be distinguished from their better understood fellows, giving a first necessary reason to use the term Incertae Sedis: see below). We employ sub‐family and tribe names only where agreed with Joel Cracraft seeking to use both terms at broadly equivalent ranks as their names imply, and only when sufficiently justified by broad taxon‐sampling; thus some tribe names that might be expected are not used. When we do use them, footnotes there may have similar content to that given elsewhere at family level.

The generic name (in italic capitals) is provided with author and date. Following this is one of three letters M, F or N. These indicate the gender (masculine, feminine or neuter) of the generic name. For more information on the importance and significance of the gender see Appendix 4. Following the gender, in this edition, for the first time is listed the type species and the method by which the type has been selected. If the selection is by subsequent designation or subsequent monotypy (see I.C.Z.N. 1999 for definitions) the work in which the selection was made is cited. If the type species is now considered to be a junior synonym or otherwise invalid (e.g. due to homonymy), the senior equivalent is listed last, preceded by an equals sign.

l

The first species listed above is monotypic, the second is preceded by the † symbol, implying that it is considered to be extinct. When †? is used there is doubt about extinction (but see Introduction). The third species is polytypic, when the author of the species is also the author of the nominate (i.e. the oldest) subspecies. Every subspecies is provided with an author and date, and where a species or subspecies was described as being in a different genus from that now used, the author’s name and date appear in parentheses. In the case of the last species above (Gallirallus calayanensis), five authors are listed, this is the maximum number that we list before resorting to listing only the senior author, followed by et al. (Latin et alia = and others). In our List of References the authors of scientific papers and books are all set down; be warned however, the author(s) of a name in that paper may be fewer in number or may have their names in a different sequence.

In three cases above number (186, 2649 and 28) appear in square brackets after the range statement. These numbers are those attached governing the sequence in the List of References, in alphabetical order by the name of the senior author of the work in which the original description is to be found. Very occasionally similar bracketted numbers, present for the same reason, will be found in the genus name line before the M, F or N. Do not be surprised if the reference you are led to seems to be by a senior author not the author of the taxon name (who may or may not have been a co‐author of the paper).

The subspecies listed under Patagioenas fasciata are grouped into two subspecies groups, indicated by preceding numerals, i.e. the first group of three by a ‘1’, and the second group by a ‘2.’

When a species‐group name is followed by a ‘v’ in the centre column the specific epithet (the second element of a species name, or the subspecies name is variable, that is it’s terminatation changes with the gender of the genus name with which it is currently associated. Beware that the species name and the subspecies name may each be variable. By implication all other names are invariable, and do not change when species are transferred from one genus to another. For a full explanation see Appendix 4).

The last species is preceded by Genus Incertae Sedis (which can be Genera Incertae Sedis i.e. plural), meaning that they are of uncertain taxonomic position. Some species are judged to be close to, but not members of, a particular family. This can be for a variety of reasons, more usually these days because they have not been sampled for molecular analysis, or because the results are statistically low in confidence. In the case of the example shown, molecular evidence suggests that the generic name used – within which it was first quiet recently – is due for replacement. It does not belong with the other species called Gallirallus.

Finally the two lower‐case Greek letters (α, δ) that can be seen following various names have the following significance:

α implies that the date of publication differs either from that given in H&M3 or from that in the Peters Check‐list series (or from both); such differences are due to focussed research which led to the publication of Priority! The Dating of Sciemtific Names in Ornithology (Aves Press; Dickinson, Overstreet, Dowsett & Bruce, 2011). An order form for that is available at the back of this volume offering H&M4 readers a 50% discount: see also www.avespress.com for more details.

δ implies that the spelling of the species or subspecies scientific name has been researched because of the occurrence of different forms of the spelling. In important cases there is also a case‐specific explanatory footnote attached to the taxon name. However, see also Appendix 8 on our CD.

xlix

MAKING FULL USE OF THE LIST AS PRESENTED

Below are some selected, cut‑down and non‑consecutive portions of the list:

ANATIDAE ‑ DUCKS, GEESE, SWANS (53:159)1


PTERNISTIS Wagler, 1832 M – Tetrao capensis J.F. Gmelin, 1788; type by subsequent designation (G.R. Gray, 1841, A List ofthe Genera of Birds, ed. 2, p. 79). = Tetrao afer Statius Muller, 1776 2

Columba torringtoniae (Blyth & Kelaart, 1853) SRI LANKA PIGEON3 α δSri Lanka [186]

†Ectopistes migratorius (Linnaeus, 1766) PASSENGER PIGEONv C and E North America >> S and SE USA to NE Mexico

Patagioenas fasciata BAND‑TAILED PIGEON4

1 monilis (Vigors, 1839)5 v Mountains of SW British Columbia to W Nevada and S California[2649]

1 fasciata (Say, 1822)6,7 α v Mountains of SW USA (SC Utah and NC Colorado) to NNicaragua

1 vioscae (Brewster, 1888) NW Mexico (Sierra de San Lázaro in S Baja California)2 crissalis (Salvadori, 1893) v Mountains of Costa Rica and W Panama (Chiriquí, Veraguas)2 albilinea (Bonaparte, 1854)8 Santa Marta Mts.; Coastal Range of Venezuela; Trinidad; Andes

from Venezuela to NW Argentina2 roraimae (Chapman, 1929) Tepuis of S and SE Venezuela

GENUS INCERTAE SEDIS

Gallirallus calayanensis Allen, Oliveros, Española, Broad & Gonzalez, 2004 CALAYAN RAILv Calayan (Babuyan Is.) [28]

1 Composition and sequence of subfamiles, tribes and genera largely derived from Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931]. See also Bulgarella et al. (2010) [320] and Fulton et al. (2012) [863].2 Includes ovambensis, bradfieldi and crypticus Stresemann, 1939 [2474]; see R.M. Little in Hockey et al. (2005) [1112].3 Original spelling torringtoniae. Previously correctly emended based on internal information see Pittie & Dickinson (2006) [1974].4 The albilinea group was formerly treated as a separate species but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942) [1087].5 For continued recognition see Gibson & Kessel (1997) [903].6 Includes letonai; see Monroe (1968) [1683]. Includes parva; see Brodkorb (1943) [268] but see also Monroe (1968) [1683].7 For date correction see Woodman (2010) [2822].8 Includes tucumana; see Hellmayr & Conover (1942) [1087].

The selected elements above allow a fairly full explanation of the presentation of the list. Each family name in scientific formis followed by the English group name or a number of group names that figure in the family. The figures in parentheses, inthe example above, reports that the family contains 159 species divided into 53 genera. A footnote attached to the familyusually provides references to the authorities for taxon composition; if not subdivided then a family footnote will beconcerned with the linear sequence of genera (which may be only partly resolved, such that there are genera that need to bedistinguished from their better understood fellows, leading a first necessary reason to use the term Incertae Sedis: seebelow). We employ sub‑family and tribe names only where agreed with Joel Cracraft seeking to use both terms at broadlyequivalent ranks as their names imply, and only when sufficiently justified by broad taxon‑sampling; thus some tribe namesthat might be expected are not used. When we do use them, footnotes there may have similar content to that givenelsewhere at family level.

The generic name (in italic capitals) is provided with author and date. Following this is one of three letters M, F or N.These indicate the gender (masculine, feminine or neuter) of the generic name. For more information on the importance andsignificance of the gender see Appendix 4. Following the gender, for the first time in this edition, is listed the type speciesand the method by which the type has been selected. If the selection is by subsequent designation or subsequent monotypy(see I.C.Z.N. 1999 for definitions) the work in which the selection was made is cited. If the type species is now considered tobe a junior synonym or otherwise invalid (e.g. due to homonymy), the senior equivalent is listed last, preceded by an equalssign.

Each family heading tellsyou how many genera and

species it contains

NEW IN THIS EDITION

Every genus -group name iscomplemented by a type

species note as shown here

See notes on next page to explain the α and δ symbols

V is for variable; see Appendix 4 for a briefing on such names

Small numbers tothe left of

subspecific namessignal the

subspecies groupto which each

belongs

Incertae sedis means “relationships uncertain”; in this example the taxon, described in Gallirallus does not fit there if thatis treated as a narrow genus, as it is here. This species appears to need its own genus; none has yet been proposed.

Numbers in square brackets arecitations; see references on CD.

NOTES TO BROWSERS IV

ANATIDAE

15

Aythya marila GREATER SCAUP marila (Linnaeus, 1761) N Europe and NW Asia >> W and S Europe, NW India nearctica Stejneger, 18851 v NE Siberia (east of R. Lena), Alaska and N Canada >> coastal

China, Japan, Korea; W and E USA

Aythya affinis (Eyton, 1838) LESSER SCAUP v C Alaska to NW and N USA >> S USA, Central America and West

Indies

RHODONESSA Reichenbach, 1853 F – Anas caryophyllacea Latham, 1790; type by original designation

Rhodonessa caryophyllacea (Latham, 1790) PINK‐HEADED DUCK v Nepal, E and NE India, Bangladesh, Myanmar


TACHYERES Owen, 1875 M – Anas brachyptera Latham, 1790; type by monotypy

Tachyeres patachonicus (P.P. King, 1831) FLYING STEAMER DUCK2, 3 v Coastal S Chile and S Argentina [1337]

Tachyeres pteneres (J.R. Forster, 1844) MAGELLANIC STEAMER DUCK Coastal S Chile (south from Los Lagos) and extreme S Argentina

(Tierra del Fuego and Isla de los Estados)

Tachyeres brachypterus (Latham, 1790) FALKLAND STEAMER DUCK v Falkland Is.

Tachyeres leucocephalus Humphrey & Thompson, 1981 WHITE‐HEADED STEAMER DUCK v Coastal S Argentina (Chubut) [1156]

LOPHONETTA Riley, 1914 F – Anas cristata J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by original designation = Anas specularioides P.P. King, 1828 4

Lophonetta specularioides CRESTED DUCK alticola (Menegaux, 1909) Andes from C Peru (Ancash) to C Chile (Maule) and WC

Argentina (Mendoza) specularioides (P.P. King, 1828) S Chile, WC and S Argentina; Falkland Is.

SPECULANAS von Boetticher, 1929 F – Anas specularis P.P. King, 1828; type by original designation 5

Speculanas specularis (P.P. King, 1828) SPECTACLED DUCK v Andean valleys of S Chile (south from Bíobío) and S Argentina

(south from Neuquén) >> WC Argentina

AMAZONETTA von Boetticher, 1929 F – Anas brasiliensis J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by original designation 6

Amazonetta brasiliensis BRAZILIAN TEAL brasiliensis (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) v E Colombia, Venezuela and Guyana south to SC Brazil (Mato

Grosso and São Paulo) ipecutiri (Vieillot, 1816) E Bolivia and S Brazil (S Mato Grosso and São Paulo) to NE

Argentina (Entre Ríos) and Uruguay

SPATULA Boie, 1822 F – Anas clypeata Linnaeus, 1758; type by monotypy 7

Spatula querquedula (Linnaeus, 1758) GARGANEY W Europe to Japan >> Africa, SW and S Asia, S China, SE Asia,

New Guinea, N Australia, central Pacific Ocean

Spatula hottentota (Eyton, 1838) HOTTENTOT TEAL8, 9 v N Nigeria to Eritrea south to E and S Africa, Madagascar

Spatula puna (von Tschudi, 1844) PUNA TEAL10 Andes from C Peru (Junín) to N Chile (Antofagasta) and NW

Argentina (Jujuy)

1 The name mariloides Vigors, 1839, sometimes applied to all or part of this population, is unavailable because it was attached to specimens of the Lesser Scaup; see Banks (1986) [84]. Its type locality

has been corrected to San Francisco Bay. 2 The prior name Oidemia patachonica King, 1828, thought to have been provided for a different species, has been suppressed in relation to priority; see Opinion 1648 (I.C.Z.N., 1991) [1193]. 3 Birds on the Falklands previously thought to be this species are actually a flying population of T. brachypterus; see Fulton et al. (2012) [863]. 4 For continued recognition as separate from Anas see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) [1255] and Eo et al. (2009) [777]. 5 For treatment as separate from Anas, see Livezey (1991, 1997) [1440] [1442], Johnson & Sorenson (1999) [1255], and Eo et al. (2009) [777]. 6 For continued recognition as separate from Anas see Kear (2005) [1302]. 7 Recognition based on molecular distance in Fig. 1 in Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931]. 8 For suppression of Anas punctata Burchell, 1822, see Opinion 1078 (I.C.Z.N., 1977) [1190]. 9 For close relationship to S. puna and S. versicolor, see Johnsgard (1965) [1243] and Johnson & Sorenson (1999) [1255]. 10 For treatment as a separate species from A. versicolor see Hellmayr & Conover (1948) [1088] and Blake (1977) [171].


16

Spatula versicolor SILVER TEAL versicolor (Vieillot, 1816) S Bolivia and Paraguay to C Argentina (Río Negro), also C Chile

(Santiago to Araucanía) fretensis (P.P. King, 1831) v C Chile (Los Lagos) and C Argentina (Chubut) south to Tierra del

Fuego >> NE Argentina, Uruguay and SE Brazil; Falkland Is

Spatula platalea (Vieillot, 1816) RED SHOVELER C Chile and S Brazil to Tierra del Fuego; Andes of SE Peru

(Cuzco, Puno)

Spatula smithii E. Hartert, 1891 CAPE SHOVELER S Angola to W Zimbabwe and S South Africa

Spatula rhynchotis AUSTRALASIAN SHOVELER rhynchotis (Latham, 1801) α v S Australia, Tasmania variegata Gould, 1856 v New Zealand

Spatula clypeata (Linnaeus, 1758) NORTHERN SHOVELER v N Eurasia; North America >> N and E Africa, SW and S Asia,

China, mainland SE Asia; Mexico

Spatula cyanoptera CINNAMON TEAL septentrionalium (Snyder & Lumsden, 1951) W North America (S British Columbia and S Alberta to N Baja

California and C Mexico) >> Central America and NW South America

tropica (Snyder & Lumsden, 1951) δ v NW Colombia (Cauca and Magdalena valleys) †?borreroi (Snyder & Lumsden, 1951) E Andes of Colombia orinoma (Oberholser, 1906) δ v Andes of Peru (Cajamarca) to N Chile (Antofagasta) and NW

Argentina (Jujuy) cyanoptera (Vieillot, 1816) v Lowlands of coastal S Peru, Paraguay and SE Brazil south to

Tierra del Fuego

Spatula discors (Linnaeus, 1766) BLUE‐WINGED TEAL1 S Canada and USA >> Central America, West Indies, South

America S to C Argentina

SIBIRIONETTA von Boetticher, 1929 F – Anas formosa Georgi, 1775; type by original designation 2

Sibirionetta formosa (Georgi, 1775) BAIKAL TEAL v E Siberia >> Japan, Korea, E China

MARECA Stephens, 1824 F – Mareca fistularis “Stephens”; type by subsequent designation (Eyton, 1838, Monograph on the Anatidae, p. 33). = Anas penelope Linnaeus, 1758 3

Mareca falcata (Georgi, 1775) FALCATED DUCK v E Siberia, Mongolia, NE China >> Japan, Korea, S China, NE India,

N continental SE Asia

Mareca strepera GADWALL strepera (Linnaeus, 1758) v N and C Eurasia; North America >> SC and SE Eurasia, Africa; C

North America †couesi (Streets, 1876) Tabuaeran (Line Is.)

Mareca penelope (Linnaeus, 1758) EURASIAN WIGEON4 N Eurasia >> N, NE Africa, S Asia, China, Japan, Philippines

Mareca americana (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) AMERICAN WIGEON v Alaska, Canada, N USA >> coasts of North America to Costa Rica,

West Indies

Mareca sibilatrix (Poeppig, 1829) CHILOE WIGEON C and S Chile (south from Coquimbo) and S Argentina (south

from Córdoba and Buenos Aires) >> S Paraguay and SE Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul); Falkland Is.

ANAS Linnaeus, 1758 F – Anas boschas Linnaeus, 1766; type by subsequent designation (Lesson, 1828, Manuel d’Ornithologie, 2, p. 417). = Anas platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 1758

Anas sparsa AFRICAN BLACK DUCK leucostigma Rüppell, 18455 SE Guinea; SE Nigeria to S Gabon; South Sudan and Ethiopia to

Tanzania and Angola

1 Includes orphna; see Palmer (1976) [1832]. 2 Recognition based on molecular distance in Fig. 1 in Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931]. 3 Recognition based on molecular distance in Fig. 1 in Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931]. 4 Forms a superspecies with M. americana and M. sibilatrix; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [2354]. 5 Includes maclatchyi; see Johnsgard (1979) [1247].

ANATIDAE

17

sparsa Eyton, 1838 v Zimbabwe, E Botswana, Namibia, South Africa

Anas undulata YELLOW‐BILLED DUCK ruppelli Blyth, 18551 δ E Nigeria and C Cameroon (subsp.?); Ethiopia, N Kenya undulata C.F. Dubois, 1839 v S Kenya to Angola and South Africa

Anas melleri P.L. Sclater, 1865 MELLER’S DUCK2 E Madagascar

Anas superciliosa PACIFIC BLACK DUCK superciliosa J.F. Gmelin, 17893 v Sumatra, Java, Bali, Kangean Is., Sulawesi, S Moluccas, W and C

Lesser Sundas (east to Timor), S New Guinea, Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand

pelewensis Hartlaub & Finsch, 18724 v Micronesia to N New Guinea, Bismarck Arch., Solomons, C and E Melanesia and W Polynesia to Iles Australes

Anas luzonica Fraser, 1839 PHILIPPINE DUCK v Philippines

Anas laysanensis Rothschild, 1892 LAYSAN DUCK v Laysan (NW Hawaiian Is.)

Anas zonorhyncha Swinhoe, 1866 CHINESE SPOT‐BILLED DUCK5 SE Siberia, Japan, Korea, E China >> S China, Taiwan

Anas poecilorhyncha INDIAN SPOT‐BILLED DUCK poecilorhyncha J.R. Forster, 1781 v S Asia haringtoni (Oates, 1907) SW China, N continental SE Asia

Anas platyrhynchos MALLARD6 platyrhynchos Linnaeus, 17587, 8 Europe, Asia; North America >> south to N Africa, Europe, SW, S

and E Asia; south to Mexico conboschas C.L. Brehm, 1831 Coasts of SW and SE Greenland diazi Ridgway, 18869 SC USA (SE Arizona, S New Mexico, SW Texas) to C Mexico

(Jalisco and México)

Anas rubripes Brewster, 1902 AMERICAN BLACK DUCK10 E Canada and NE USA >> E USA

Anas fulvigula MOTTLED DUCK fulvigula Ridgway, 1874 SE USA (Florida Pen.) maculosa Sennett, 1889 v Coastal SC USA (Louisiana, Texas) and NE Mexico (Tamaulipas)

Anas wyvilliana P.L. Sclater, 1878 HAWAIIAN DUCK v Hawaiian Is. (Kauai and Niihau, reintroduced to Oahu, Hawaii

and Maui)

Anas gibberifrons GREY TEAL11 1 albogularis (Hume, 1873) v Andamans 2 gibberifrons S. Müller, 1842 S Sumatra, Java, Bali, Sulawesi, W and C Lesser Sundas (east to

Timor and Wetar) 3 gracilis Buller, 186912 v New Guinea, Australia, New Caledonia, Vanuatu, New Zealand 3 †remissa Ripley, 194213 v Rennell (S Solomons)

Anas castanea (Eyton, 1838) CHESTNUT‐BREASTED TEAL/CHESTNUT TEAL14 v S Australia, Tasmania

Anas aucklandica NEW ZEALAND TEAL15 chlorotis G.R. Gray, 1845 v New Zealand; formerly Chatham Is. aucklandica (G.R. Gray, 1844) v Auckland Is. nesiotis (J.H. Fleming, 1935) Campbell I.

Anas bernieri (Hartlaub, 1860) MADAGASCAR TEAL/BERNIER’S TEAL W Madagascar

1 Correct original spelling. Spelling rueppelli in Johnsgard (1979) [1247] an unjustified emendation. 2 Introduced to Mauritius. 3 Includes rogersi because its type locality lies within Australia; see Marchant & Higgins (1990) [1497]. 4 Includes rukensis Kuroda, Sr., 1939 [1389]; see Baker (1951) [76]. 5 For separation from A. poecilorhyncha, see Leader (2006) [1410]. 6 For comments on the relationships of this and the next three species, see A.O.U. (1998) [3]. 7 Includes neoborea Oberholser, 1974 [1772]; see Browning (1978) [294] and David et al. (2009) [576]. 8 Introduced to South Africa, Mauritius, S Australia, New Zealand, Chatham Is., New Caledonia and C Vanuatu. 9 Small samples with limited geographic and gene sampling (McCracken et al. 2001 [1569], Kulikova et al. 2004 [1384], Gonzalez et al. 2009 [931]) suggest that this should be treated as a separate

species. However, see Hubbard (1977) [1142] for evidence of widespread gene flow between this and A. p. platyrhynchos. 10 Treated as a separate species from A. platyrhynchos despite frequent hybridization because mating mostly assortative, see e.g., Brodsky & Weatherhead (1984) [269]. 11 For comments on relationship to A. castanea, see Kennedy & Spencer (2000) [1319]. 12 Treated as a species (with remissa in synonymy) by Marchant & Higgins (1990) [1497] and Kear (2005) [1302], but see Mees (2006) [1614]. 13 For recognition see Mayr & Diamond (2001) [1557]. Not recognised by Kear (2005) [1302]. 14 For close relationship to A. gibberifrons gracilis, see Joseph et al. (2009) [1276]. 15 For treatment as three separate species; see Marchant & Higgins (1990) [1497], Kennedy & Spencer (2000) [1319] and Kear (2005) [1302].


18

Anas capensis J.F. Gmelin, 1789 CAPE TEAL v Chad to Ethiopia, E Africa, Angola, Botswana and South Africa

Anas bahamensis WHITE‐CHEEKED PINTAIL bahamensis Linnaeus, 1758 v West Indies; Netherlands Antilles; coastal N South America from

Colombia to N Brazil (Belém) rubrirostris Vieillot, 1816 v E Bolivia, W Paraguay, N and C Argentina (south to Buenos

Aires) and Uruguay; coastal Ecuador, Peru and C Chile galapagensis (Ridgway, 1890) α v Galapagos Is.

Anas erythrorhyncha J.F. Gmelin, 1789 RED‐BILLED TEAL v Ethiopia to E and S Africa, Madagascar

Anas acuta Linnaeus, 1758 NORTHERN PINTAIL1 v (a) N Europe, N Asia >> N tropical and E Africa, India, China,

Philippines; (b) N North America >> Central America

Anas georgica YELLOW‐BILLED PINTAIL †niceforoi Wetmore & Borrero, 1946 Andes of EC Colombia (Boyacá and Cundinamarca) spinicauda Vieillot, 18162 Andes from S Colombia to Tierra del Fuego, into lowlands of

Chile and Argentina >> Uruguay and SE Brazil; Falkland Is. georgica J.F. Gmelin, 1789 v South Georgia I.

Anas eatoni KERGUELEN PINTAIL/EATON’S PINTAIL3 eatoni (Sharpe, 1875) Iles Kerguelen drygalskii Reichenow, 1904 Iles Crozet

Anas crecca COMMON TEAL/GREEN‐WINGED TEAL4 crecca Linnaeus, 17585 N Eurasia, Aleutian Is. >> C and S Europe, N Africa, SW, S and E

Asia carolinensis J.F. Gmelin, 17896 v N North America >> W and S North America, Central America,

West Indies

Anas andium ANDEAN TEAL7 altipetens (Conover, 1941) Andes of SW Venezuela (Trujillo) to NE Colombia (Bogotá) andium (Sclater & Salvin, 1873) Andes of C Colombia (Caldas and Tolima) to S Ecuador (Azuay)

Anas flavirostris SPECKLED TEAL oxyptera Meyen, 1834 v Andes of N Peru (Cajamarca) to N Chile (Atacama) and NW

Argentina (Catamarca) flavirostris Vieillot, 1816 v Lowlands from C Chile (Coquimbo) and C Argentina (Córdoba)

south to Tierra del Fuego >> Paraguay and SE Brazil; Falkland Is.; South Georgia I.

ANATINAE – GENERA INCERTAE SEDIS8

THALASSORNIS Eyton, 1838 M – Thalassornis leuconotus Eyton, 1838; type by original designation

Thalassornis leuconotus WHITE‐BACKED DUCK leuconotus Eyton, 18389 δ v N Benin, E Cameroon to S Ethiopia and south to S South Africa insularis Richmond, 1897 v Madagascar

STICTONETTA Reichenbach, 1853 F – Anas naevosa Gould, 1841; type by original designation

Stictonetta naevosa (Gould, 1841) FRECKLED DUCK v Inland S Australia

BIZIURA Stephens, 1824 F – Biziura novaehollandiae Stephens, 1824; type by monotypy = Anas lobata Shaw, 1796 10

Biziura lobata MUSK DUCK lobata Shaw, 179611 v SW Australia menziesi Mathews, 191412 C South Australia to SE Australia, Tasmania [1526]

1 Considered to form a superspecies with A. georgica and A. eatoni by Johnsgard (1979) [1247] and Sibley & Monroe (1990) [2354]. 2 May merit treatment as a separate species (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) [2096]; in fact, no real rationale has ever been published for its treatment as conspecific with A. georgica. 3 For treatment as a separate species from A. acuta see Stahl et al. (1984) [2417]. 4 Forms a superspecies with A. andium and A. flavirostris; see Johnsgard (1979) [1247]. 5 Includes nimia; see Gibson & Byrd (2007) [901]. 6 Treated as a separate species by Sangster et al. (2001, 2002) [2233] [2235], but see Peters et al. (2012) [1908]. 7 For treatment as a separate species from A. flavirostris see Hellmayr & Conover (1948) [1088] and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) [2096]. 8 Genera placed here either await molecular screening or have emerged from that with conflicting results; morpho‐behavioural evidence is not seen as determinant. 9 Correct original spelling. Spelling leuconotos in Dickinson (2003) [692] an ISS. 10 Formerly considered closely related to Oxyura and related genera, but see McCracken et al. (1999) [1568]; see also Gonzalez et al. (1999) [931]. 11 Circumscription follows Guay et al. (2010) [1021]. 12 For recognition see Guay et al. (2010) [1021].

ANATIDAE

19

PLECTROPTERUS Stephens, 1824 M – Anas gambensis Linnaeus, 1766; type by subsequent designation (Eyton, 1838, Monograph on the Anatidae, p. 10).

Plectropterus gambensis SPUR‐WINGED GOOSE gambensis (Linnaeus, 1766) v Senegal to Sudan, south to C and E Africa niger P.L. Sclater, 1877 v Southern Africa

HYMENOLAIMUS G.R. Gray, 1843 M – Anas malacorhynchos J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by monotypy 1

Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) BLUE DUCK C North Island and montane W South Island (New Zealand)

MERGANETTA Gould, 1842 F – Merganetta armata Gould, 1842; type by monotypy

Merganetta armata TORRENT DUCK colombiana Des Murs, 1845 v Andes of W Venezuela to S Ecuador leucogenis (von Tschudi, 1843) v Andes of N and C Peru (Amazonas to Junín) turneri Sclater & Salvin, 1869 Andes of S Peru (Cuzco) to extreme N Chile (N Tarapacá) garleppi von Berlepsch, 1894 Andes of N and C Bolivia (La Paz to Chuquisaca) berlepschi E. Hartert, 1909 Andes of S Bolivia (Tarija) to NW Argentina (N La Rioja) armata Gould, 18422 v Andes of C and S Chile (south from Atacama) and S Argentina

(south from C San Juan)

SALVADORINA Rothschild & Hartert, 1894 F – Salvadorina waigiuensis Rothschild & Hartert, 1894; type by monotypy 3

Salvadorina waigiuensis Rothschild & Hartert, 1894 SALVADORI’S TEAL4 v Montane New Guinea

SARKIDIORNIS Eyton, 1838 M – Anser melanotos Pennant, 1769; type by original designation

Sarkidiornis melanotos COMB DUCK melanotos (Pennant, 1769) Sub‐Saharan Africa, Madagascar, Pakistan, India, SE China,

continental SE Asia sylvicola H. & R. von Ihering, 19075 N Colombia E to E Brazil and S to N Argentina (Córdoba) and

Uruguay

CAIRINA J. Fleming, 1822 F – Anas moschata Linnaeus, 1758; type by monotypy 6

Cairina moschata (Linnaeus, 1758) MUSCOVY DUCK v C Mexico to E Peru, east to E Brazil and south to NE Argentina

and N Uruguay

AIX Boie, 1828 F – Anas sponsa Linnaeus, 1758; type by subsequent designation (Eyton, 1838, Monograph on the Anatidae, p. 35). 7

Aix galericulata (Linnaeus, 1758) MANDARIN DUCK v SE Siberia, Japan, Korea, E China, >> south of 40° N

Aix sponsa (Linnaeus, 1758) WOOD DUCK S Canada and W, SC and E USA; Cuba

CHENONETTA von Brandt, 1836 F – Anser lophotus von Brandt, 1836; type by monotypy = Anas jubata Latham, 1801

Chenonetta jubata (Latham, 1801) MANED DUCK α v Australia, Tasmania

NETTAPUS von Brandt, 1836 M – Anas madagascariensis J.F. Gmelin, 1789; type by monotypy = Anas aurita Boddaert, 1783

Nettapus auritus (Boddaert, 1783) AFRICAN PYGMY GOOSE v Senegal to Ethiopia south to South Africa; Madagascar

Nettapus coromandelianus ASIAN PYGMY GOOSE/COTTON TEAL coromandelianus (J.F. Gmelin, 1789) v S Asia, S China, mainland SE Asia, Greater Sundas, Philippines, N

Sulawesi, lowland N New Guinea albipennis Gould, 1842 v NE Australia (E Queensland)

1 For possible relationships see Worthy (2009) [2824] and Robertson & Goldstein (2012) [2158]. 2 Includes fraenata; see Johnsgard (1979) [1247]. 3 For reasons to retain this genus see Mlíkovsky (1989) [1669]. 4 Not known to occur on Waigeo. 5 Includes carunculatus; see Hellmayr & Conover (1948) [1088] and Johnsgard (1979) [1247]. 6 Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931] suggested a close relationship with shelducks. Corroboration needed. 7 For sister relationship to Cairina, see Gonzalez et al. (2009) [931].

MOLECULAR PHYLOGENIES : GAINS AND GAPSThis family is a good example of the insights gained from published molecularstudies. Here is a comparison between this edition and that previous one;

2003 2013

Subfamilies and tribes

Dendrocygninae YES YES

Oxyurinae YES

Anserinae YES YES

Malacorhynchini YESCereopsini YESCygnini YESAnserini YES

Stictonettinae YES NO

Tadorninae YES NO

Anatinae YES YES

Mergini YESTadornini YESAythyini YESAnatini YESGenera Sedis Incertae YES

Genera 49 158

Species 53 159

You will observe: (1) that evidence of the detail in the tapestry of life, although stillincomplete allows the suggestion of tribes within the true geese and within the trueducks and that the genus Oxyura moves from the Anatinae to a sub family to itself,while the shelducks and the genus Stictonetta cannot be treated as subfamilies: theformer are well sampled and become a tribe, while Stictonetta is unresolved, as arethe genera Thalassornis, Biziura, Plectopterus, Hymenolaimus, Merganetta, Salvadorina,Sarkidiornis, Cairina, Aix, Chenonetta and Nettapus; these all require corroborativefindings prior to their being placed as determined. For a well-known family a gap of12 genera out of 53 is striking evidence of how much remains to be done. (2) thatAnatid genera used in the past (e.g. Mareca, Spatula and Sibirionetta) also begin to re-emerge from a genus Anas that, as recently used, is now seen not to be monophyleticand may require further subdivision as more species are sampled.

NOTE TO BROWSERS V

405

Appendix 4: Variable species‐group names and their gender endings

Normand David 1 and Michel Gosselin 2

1 202‐53 Hasting, Dollard‐des‐Ormeaux, Québec, Canada. H9G 3C4. 2 Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443 Station D, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. K1P 6P4.

In Latin, as in Greek and a number of other languages, all nouns have a gender (masculine, feminine, or neuter), and adjectives have to match the gender of the noun they qualify. Generally, the ending (the last few letters) of an adjective will vary according to the gender. Likewise, in zoological nomenclature each genus has a gender, and species‐group names (i.e. the species and subspecies epithets) that are adjectives or participles may need to have their endings modified when they are moved between genera of different genders (ICZN 1999: Art. 31.2, 34.2). Since Latin grammar is increasingly unfamiliar to scientists of the 21st century, basic information on Latin gender endings is provided here.

The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World (4th ed.) includes some 30,000 species‐group names, of which about 54% are adjectival, and potentially variable. The rest (46%) are nouns, noun phrases or are words that are neither Latin nor latinized, and are therefore invariable according to the ICZN (1999) Code [Art. 31.2.1, 31.2.3]. In the main body of the Howard & Moore Checklist, epithets that are variable according to the ICZN rules are flagged with a “v” to indicate that they may need to have their ending modified if they are moved to a different genus. Some Latin adjectives (such as bicolor [bicoloured], pugnax [combative], velox [swift], etc.) have the same ending whether they are masculine, feminine, or neuter, and are therefore not marked as variable.

It must be remembered that sub‐specific epithets may be variable even though the species’ epithet is not, and conversely, a variable species epithet may be followed by sub‐specific epithets that are invariable.

Although the requirements of the ICZN Code and the relevant rules of Latin grammar apply to all zoological names, for reasons of practicality the names and examples quoted in the present Appendix draw only from the Howard & Moore Checklist nomenclature.

Procedure

The key piece of information needed to provide for gender agreement on variable species‐group names is the gender of each genus. This is generally easy to find (ICZN 1999: Art. 30), but challenging situations sometimes occur (see David & Gosselin 2002b, 2008). To facilitate this exercise, every genus in the present work has had its gender verified according to the ICZN (1999) Code, and marked as masculine [M], feminine [F] or neuter [N]. About 51% of the generic names in the Howard & Moore Checklist are masculine, 46% feminine, and 3% neuter.

When a taxon needs to be moved to a different genus, the first step, as far as gender agreement is concerned, is to verify whether the epithet is variable (flagged with a “v”) and whether the new genus and the current genus have different genders. Only when these conditions are both met does gender agreement become a requirement. In all other cases the species‐group name will remain as is.

The most common set of Latin adjectival endings is ‐us [M], ‐a [F], ‐um [N]. It accounts for about 62% of all variable endings in the present work, and occurs in classical Latin adjectives (either simple or compounded), in latinized Greek adjectives, and in newly derived epithets created by appending Latin adjectival suffixes to Latin or foreign words (such as in americanus, which is obviously a word that did not exist in classical Latin). The next most common set of adjectival names ends in ‐is [M], ‐is [F], ‐e [N], and accounts for about 35% of the variable species‐group names in the present work. Again, these occur mostly in classical Latin adjectives, latinized Greek adjectives, and newly derived epithets created by appending a Latin adjectival suffix to a Latin or a foreign word (such as in canadensis). Together, these two groups account for about 97% of the adjectival endings and are relatively easy to deal with. It is the more unusual epithets that need our attention.

Three tables are presented below, one for each “starting gender”: they show the sets of variable endings that apply, and how these relate to alternative genders. As mentioned above, 97% of the variable avian names will fall in the standard ‐us, ‐a, ‐um or ‐is, ‐is, ‐e groups, so the tables will be of most use in relation to the other, less frequent endings (e.g. a seemingly standard but actually exceptional ‐a feminine ending that requires an ‐er masculine counterpart).

If, for example, Eos rubra [variable] was to be moved to a masculine genus, such as Trichoglossus, the first step would be to note the current gender of Eos, which is feminine. Since the change of gender would then be from feminine to masculine, the ending of the corrected epithet will be found in Table 2 [feminine endings]. Because rubra ends in ‐a (and yet not in ‐fera or ‐gera), the expected masculine ending would be ‐us, but since rubra appears among the exceptions to the ‐us ending [where its masculine counterpart is shown as being, in fact, ruber], the


406

taxon would thus be named Trichoglossus ruber. Exceptions such as this one normally arise only with names that are (or are composites that end in) classical Latin words, and are therefore clearly mentioned in Latin dictionaries.

The present Appendix was created to facilitate the work of avian systematists, but in case of doubt the final word always rests with the ICZN rules, as well as with classical Latin dictionaries. Authoritative on‐line Latin and Greek dictionaries are available at www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/resolveform?&lang=Latin. Other classical dictionaries include Glare (1982), Lewis & Short (1991) and Liddell & Scott (1996), while useful information can also be found in David & Gosselin (2002a, 2011).

We thank Edward C. Dickinson and Miguel A. Alonso‐Zarazaga for comments on earlier versions of this Appendix.

Literature Cited

David, N. & M. Gosselin. 2002a. Gender agreement in avian species names. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 122:14‐49. David, N. & M. Gosselin. 2002b. The grammatical gender of avian genera. Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 122: 257‐282. David, N. & M. Gosselin. 2008. The grammatical gender of Poecile and Leptopoecile. Dutch Birding 30: 19. David, N. & M. Gosselin. 2011. Gender agreement of avian species‐group names under Article 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code. Bull.

Brit. Orn. Club 131: 103‐115. Glare, P. G. W. 1982. Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford University Press. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. International Trust for

Zoological Nomenclature, London. Lewis, C. T. & C. Short. 1991. A Latin dictionary. Clarendon Press, Oxford. Liddell, H. G. & R. Scott. 1996. A Greek‐English lexicon / with a revised supplement. Oxford University Press.

Table 1. Expected feminine and neuter endings of variable species‐group names derived from their current masculine ending. The endings presented in the table show the exact letters to be substituted. Words that are not found in the masculine form in the Howard & Moore Checklist are not treated here.

MASCULINE ending

expected FEMININE

expected NEUTER

‐fer

Exceptions: afer | African cafer | south African caffer | south African

‐fera

Exceptions: = afra = cafra = caffra

‐ferum

Exceptions: = afrum = cafrum = caffrum

‐ger

Exceptions: aeger | feeble (‐)niger | black(‐) * piger | sluggish impiger | active

‐gera

Exceptions: = aegra = (‐)nigra * = pigra = impigra

‐gerum

Exceptions: = aegrum = (‐)nigrum * = pigrum = impigrum

‐er (other than ‐fer or ‐ger)

Exceptions: acer | sharp (‐)alter | another * celer | swift dexter | skilful paluster | of marshes tener | delicate

‐ra

Exceptions: = acris = (‐)altera * = celeris = dextra = palustris = tenera

‐rum

Exceptions: = acre = (‐)alterum * = celere = dextrum = palustre = tenerum

‐is ‐is ‐e

‐or ‐or ‐us

‐us ‐a ‐um

APPENDIX 4

407

Table 2. Expected neuter and masculine endings of variable species‐group names derived from their current feminine ending. The endings presented in the table show the exact letters to be substituted. Words that are not found in the feminine form in the Howard & Moore Checklist are not treated here.

FEMININE ending

expected NEUTER

expected MASCULINE

‐fera ‐ferum ‐fer

Exceptions 1

‐gera ‐gerum ‐ger

Exceptions 2

‐a (other than ‐fera or ‐gera)

Exceptions: aegra | feeble afra | African (‐)altera | another * (‐)atra | dark(‐) * caffra | south African dextra | skilful (‐)nigra | black(‐) * pulchra | beautiful (‐)rubra | red(‐) * sacra | sacred vafra | cunning

‐um ‐us

Exceptions: = aeger = afer = (‐)alter * = (‐)ater * = caffer = dexter = (‐)niger * = pulcher = (‐)ruber * = sacer = vafer

‐is

Exceptions: acris [F] | sharp alacris [F] | sharp‐winged celeris [F] | swift incelebris [F] | not famous

‐e ‐is

Exceptions: = acer = alacer = celer = inceleber

‐or ‐us ‐or

1 Names that were originally coined with a masculine –ferus ending, such as Florisuga mellivora flabellifera (from Trochilus flabelliferus Gould, 1846), should revert to their original –ferus ending when combined with a masculine genus. See David & Gosselin (2011).

2 Names that were originally coined with a masculine –gerus ending, such as Campethera punctuligera (from Picus punctuligerus Wagler, 1827), should revert to their original –gerus ending when combined with a masculine genus. See David & Gosselin (2011).

* Also applies to any compound word that ends with this adjective.


408

Table 3. Expected masculine and feminine endings of variable species‐group names derived from their current neuter ending. The endings presented in the table show the exact letters to be substituted. Words that are not found in the neuter gender in the Howard & Moore Checklist are not treated here.

NEUTER ending

expected MASCULINE

expected FEMININE

‐e ‐is ‐is

‐ferum ‐fer ‐fera

‐gerum ‐ger ‐gera

‐um (other than ‐ferum or ‐gerum )

‐us ‐a

‐us ‐or ‐or

409

aalge, Uria 223 abbotti, Cacatua sulphurea 355 abbotti, Dryolimnas cuvieri 155 abbotti, Megapodius nicobariensis 21 abbotti, Nesoctites micromegas 298 abbotti, Nyctibius jamaicensis 85 abbotti, Papasula 194 abbotti, Psittacula alexandri 374 abbotti, Psittinus cyanurus 373 abbotti, Spilornis cheela 237 abbotti, Threskiornis bernieri 191 abbreviatus, Ramphastos ambiguus 323 abdimii, Ciconia 182 abdulalii, Accipiter virgatus 246 abeillei, Abeillia 123 ABEILLIA 123 abessinicus, Mesopicos goertae 313 abieticola, Dryocopus pileatus 303 abingoni, Campethera 299 ablectaneus, Agapornis canus 385 abnormis, Sasia 295 aburri, Aburria 23 ABURRIA 23 abyssinicus, Asio 268 abyssinicus, Bucorvus 282 abyssinicus, Coracias 333 abyssinicus, Dendropicos 312 abyssinicus, Falco biarmicus 352 abyssinicus, Phoeniculus somaliensis 287 abyssinicus, Todiramphus chloris 344 abyssinicus, Turtur 72 abyssinicus, Urocolius macrourus 278 acadicus, Aegolius 264 ACCIPITER 244 accipitrinus, Deroptyus 363 accrae, Caprimulgus natalensis 93 ACEROS 285 achrustera, Callipepla californica 28 acis, Tanysiptera galatea 345 ACRYLLIUM 26 ACTENOIDES 342 acteon, Halcyon leucocephala 342 actites, Calidris alpina 212 ACTITIS 216 actophila, Butorides striata 187 ACTOPHILORNIS 209 acuflavidus, Thalasseus sandvicensis 232 acuminata, Calidris 211 acuta, Anas 18 acuticauda, Apus 103 acuticauda, Sterna 232 acuticaudatus, Psittacara 368 acutipennis, Chordeiles 87 adalberti, Aquila 242 adamauae, Lybius leucocephalus 330 adamsii, Gavia 170 adansonii, Synoicus 35 addae, Ocreatus underwoodii 120 addendus, Cacomantis variolosus 147 adela, Oreotrochilus 114 adeliae, Pygoscelis 170 ADELOMYIA 113 adiantus, Cepphus columba 222 admiralitatis, Alopecoenas beccarii 66 admiralitatis, Hypotaenidia philippensis 155 admiralitatis, Macropygia amboinensis 58 admiralitatis, Todiramphus saurophagus 345 adorabilis, Lophornis 113 adscitus, Platycercus 376 adspersus, Crypturellus undulatus 3 adspersus, Pternistis 37 adustus, Phalaenoptilus nuttallii 90 AECHMOPHORUS 51 AEGOLIUS 264 AEGOTHELES 94 AEGYPIUS 239 aegyptiaca, Alopochen 13 aegyptiaca, Streptopelia senegalensis 56

aegyptius, Caprimulgus 91 aegyptius, Centropus senegalensis 139 aegyptius, Milvus migrans 250 aegyptius, Pluvianus 200 aenea, Chloroceryle 340 aenea, Ducula 73 aeneicauda, Chalybura buffonii 125 aeneocauda, Metallura 116 aeneosticta, Adelomyia melanogenys 113 aeneus, Glaucis 106 aenigma, Aerodramus vanikorensis 100 AEPYPODIUS 20 aequabilis, Caprimulgus atripennis 92 aequatoriale, Apaloderma 279 aequatorialis, Androdon 109 aequatorialis, Campylopterus largipennis 124 aequatorialis, Chordeiles acutipennis 87 aequatorialis, Eubucco bourcierii 323 aequatorialis, Falco sparverius 350 aequatorialis, Gallinago nigripennis 215 aequatorialis, Heliodoxa rubinoides 120 aequatorialis, Jynx ruficollis 295 aequatorialis, Momotus 336 aequatorialis, Neomorphus geoffroyi 137 aequatorialis, Penelope purpurascens 23 aequatorialis, Pogonornis bidentatus 330 aequatorialis, Rallus limicola 152 aequatorialis, Tachymarptis 103 aequatorius, Micronisus gabar 243 aequinoctialis, Buteogallus 252 aequinoctialis, Procellaria 178 aereus, Ceuthmochares 140 aerobates, Apus affinis 104 AERODRAMUS 100 AERONAUTES 102 aerophilus, Aerodramus salangana 102 aeroplanes, Hemiprocne mystacea 95 aeruginosa, Eupsittula pertinax 366 aeruginosus, Cacomantis sepulcralis 147 aeruginosus, Circus 243 aeruginosus, Colaptes rubiginosus 307 aesalon, Falco columbarius 351 aestiva, Amazona 362 aethereus, Aglaiocercus coelestis 113 aethereus, Nyctibius 85 aethereus, Phaethon 83 aetherodroma, Chaetura spinicaudus 97 AETHIA 221 aethiopicus, Eurystomus glaucurus 333 aethiopicus, Threskiornis 191 aethopygus, Phaethornis 106 afer, Eurystomus glaucurus 333 afer, Pternistis 38 afer, Turtur 72 affinis, Accipiter virgatus 246 affinis, Aegotheles 94 affinis, Apus 104 affinis, Aythya 15 affinis, Batrachostomus javensis 84 affinis, Caprimulgus 93 affinis, Ceyx azureus 338 affinis, Colius striatus 277 affinis, Collocalia esculenta 99 affinis, Coracias benghalensis 333 affinis, Gelochelidon nilotica 230 affinis, Haplophaedia assimilis 116 affinis, Ithaginis cruentus 49 affinis, Milvus migrans 250 affinis, Ninox 259 affinis, Penelopides panini 286 affinis, Pogoniulus pusillus 329 affinis, Sarothrura 163 affinis, Tanygnathus megalorynchos 373 affinis, Treron pompadora 69 affinis, Tricholaema leucomelas 329 affinis, Veniliornis 319 affinis, Zapornia pusilla 158 afra, Afrotis 167

afra, Scleroptila 40 afraoides, Afrotis 167 africana, Aquila 242 africana, Coturnix coturnix 34 africana, Upupa epops 287 africana, Verreauxia 295 africanus, Actophilornis 209 africanus, Bubo 276 africanus, Gyps 239 africanus, Microcarbo 195 africanus, Rhinoptilus 219 africanus, Tachymarptis melba 103 AFROPAVO 33 AFROTIS 167 agami, Agamia 184 AGAMIA 184 AGAPORNIS 385 agassizii, Nothura darwinii 5 AGELASTES 26 agilis, Amazona 360 agilis, Veniliornis passerinus 319 AGLAEACTIS 117 AGLAIOCERCUS 113 agricola, Streptopelia orientalis 55 ahantensis, Pternistis 38 aheneus, Chalcites minutillus 145 aigneri, Vanellus indicus 206 aikeni, Megascops kennicottii 269 AIX 19 ajaja, Platalea 191 akeleyorum, Bostrychia olivacea 192 akool, Zapornia 158 alagoensis, Penelope superciliaris 22 alai, Fulica 162 alaris, Gallicolumba rufigula 68 alascensis, Buteo jamaicensis 254 alascensis, Lagopus lagopus 46 alaschanicus, Phasianus colchicus 43 alba, Ardea 189 alba, Cacatua 355 alba, Calidris 212 alba, Gygis 224 alba, Lagopus lagopus 46 alba, Platalea 191 alba, Pterodroma 177 alba, Tyto 257 albaria, Ninox novaeseelandiae 258 albatrus, Phoebastria 172 albellus, Mergellus 12 albeola, Bucephala 11 albeolus, Melanerpes formicivorus 310 albertaensis, Larus californicus 227 alberti, Crax 25 alberti, Eudynamys orientalis 144 alberti, Lewinia pectoralis 153 alberti, Todiramphus chloris 344 albertinum, Glaucidium capense 261 albertisi, Aegotheles 95 albertisii, Gymnophaps 80 albescens, Dendrocopos himalayensis 315 albescens, Rhea americana 1 albescens, Tachybaptus ruficollis 50 albicapilla, Macropygia amboinensis 57 albicauda, Hydropsalis cayennensis 89 albicauda, Lybius leucocephalus 330 albicauda, Penelope argyrotis 22 albicaudata, Coeligena violifer 118 albicaudatus, Geranoaetus 252 albiceps, Eolophus roseicapilla 354 albiceps, Macropygia amboinensis 58 albiceps, Vanellus 206 albicilla, Haliaeetus 249 albicilla, Todiramphus chloris 344 albicincta, Streptoprocne zonaris 96 albiclunis, Pelagodroma marina 172 albicollis, Leucochloris 126 albicollis, Merops 331 albicollis, Nyctidromus 88

Index of Scientific Names

453

Adjutant Greater 182, Lesser 182 Albatross Black‐browed 173, Black‐

footed 172, Bullerʹs 173, Grey‐headed 173, Laysan 172, Light‐mantled 173, Royal 173, Short‐tailed 172, Sooty 173, Wandering 173, Waved 172, White‐capped 173, Yellow‐nosed 173

Anhinga 198 Ani Greater 136, Groove‐billed 136, Smooth‐

billed 136 Aracari Black‐necked 326, Chestnut‐

eared 326, Collared 326, Curl‐crested 326, Green 326, Ivory‐billed 326, Lettered 326, Many‐banded 326, Red‐necked 326

Argus Crested 33, Great 33 Auk Great 222, Little 222 Auklet Cassinʹs 221, Crested 221, Least 221,

Parakeet 221, Rhinoceros 220, Whiskered 221

Avocet American 201, Andean 201, Pied 201, Red‐necked 201

Avocetbill Mountain 114 Awlbill Fiery‐tailed 110 Barbet Acacia Pied 329, Anchietaʹs 328,

Banded 329, Bearded 330, Black‐backed 330, Black‐banded 320, Black‐billed 330, Black‐breasted 330, Black‐browed 320, Black‐collared 330, Black‐girdled 322, Black‐spotted 322, Black‐throated 329, Blue‐eared 321, Blue‐throated 321, Bornean 321, Bristle‐nosed 327, Brown 321, Brown‐breasted 330, Brown‐chested 322, Brown‐headed 320, Brown‐throated 320, Chaplinʹs 330, Chinese 320, Coppersmith 321, Crested 327, DʹArnaudʹs 327, Double‐toothed 330, Fire‐tufted 319, Five‐colored 322, Flame‐fronted 321, Gilded 322, Golden‐naped 321, Golden‐throated 320, Gold‐whiskered 320, Great 320, Green 327, Green‐eared 320, Grey‐throated 327, Hairy‐breasted 329, Lemon‐throated 323, Lineated 320, Malabar 321, Miombo Pied 329, Mountain 321, Moustached 321, Naked‐faced 327, Orange‐fronted 322, Prong‐billed 322, Red‐and‐yellow 327, Red‐crowned 320, Red‐faced 330, Red‐fronted 329, Red‐headed 323, Red‐throated 320, Red‐vented 320, Scarlet‐banded 322, Scarlet‐crowned 322, Scarlet‐hooded 323, Sira 322, Sladenʹs 327, Spot‐crowned 322, Spot‐flanked 329, Sri Lankan Small 321, Taiwan 320, Toucan 322, Versicolored 323, Vieillotʹs 330, White‐cheeked 320, White‐eared 328, White‐headed 330, White‐mantled 322, Whyteʹs 328, Yellow‐billed 330, Yellow‐breasted 327, Yellow‐crowned 321, Yellow‐fronted 320, Yellow‐spotted 327

Barbthroat Band‐tailed 106, Pale‐tailed 106, Sooty 106

Bateleur 238 Baza Black 236, Jerdonʹs 236, Pacific 236 Bee‐eater Black 333, Black‐headed 331, Blue‐

bearded 331, Blue‐breasted 332, Blue‐cheeked 332, Blue‐headed 333, Blue‐moustached 333, Blue‐tailed 332, Blue‐throated 332, Böhmʹs 332, Chestnut‐headed 332, Cinnamon‐chested 332, European 332, Green 331, Little 332, Northern Carmine 331, Olive 332, Purple‐bearded 331, Rainbow 332, Red‐bearded 331, Red‐throated 331,

Rosy 331, Somali 331, Southern Carmine 331, Swallow‐tailed 332, White‐fronted 331, White‐throated 331

Besra 246 Bittern American 185, Australasian 185,

Black 186, Cinnamon 186, Dwarf 186, Eurasian 185, Forest 184, Least 185, Little 185, New Zealand 186, Pinnated 185, Schrenckʹs 186, Stripe‐backed 185, Yellow 186

Bleeding‐heart Luzon 68, Mindanao 68, Mindoro 68, Negros 68, Sulu 68

Blossomcrown 124 Bluebonnet 375 Bobwhite Black‐throated 29, Crested 29,

Northern 28 Boobook Andaman 259, Barking 258,

Bismarck 260, Brown 259, Camiguin 259, Cebu 259, Christmas Island 260, Cinnabar 259, Halmahera 259, Hantu 259, Jungle 260, Least 259, Luzon 259, Manus 260, Mindanao 259, Mindoro 259, Northern 258, Ochre‐bellied 259, Papuan 260, Philippine 259, Red 258, Romblon 259, Russet 260, Solomon Islands 260, Southern 258, Speckled 260, Spotted 258, Sulu 259, Sumba 258, Tanimbar 260, Togian 259

Booby Abbottʹs 194, Blue‐footed 195, Brown 195, Masked 195, Nazca 195, Peruvian 195, Red‐footed 194

Brant 9 Brilliant Black‐throated 120, Empress 120,

Fawn‐breasted 120, Green‐crowned 120, Pink‐throated 120, Rufous‐webbed 120, Velvet‐browed 120, Violet‐fronted 121

Brolga 165 Bronzewing Brush 67, Common 67,

Flock 67, Harlequin 67, New Britain 66, New Guinea 66

Brush‐turkey Australian 20, Black‐billed 20, Brown‐collared 20, Bruijnʹs 20, Red‐billed 20, Wattled 20

Budgerigar 383 Bufflehead 11 Bush‐hen Isabelline 159, Plain 159, Rufous‐

tailed 159, Talaud 159 Bustard Arabian 166, Australian 166,

Black 167, Black‐bellied 165, Blue 167, Buff‐crested 166, Denhamʹs 166, Great 167, Great Indian 166, Hartlaubʹs 166, Heuglinʹs 166, Houbara 167, Kori 166, Little 166, Little Brown 165, Ludwigʹs 166, Macqueenʹs 167, Nubian 166, Red‐crested 167, Rüppellʹs 165, Savileʹs 166, Vigorsʹs 165, White‐bellied 167, White‐quilled 167

Buttonquail Barred 218, Black‐breasted 218, Black‐rumped 218, Buff‐breasted 218, Chestnut‐backed 218, Common 217, Little 218, Madagascar 218, Painted 218, Red‐backed 217, Red‐chested 218, Spotted 218, Sumba 218, Worcesterʹs 218, Yellow‐legged 218

Buzzard Augur 254, Barred Honey 235, Black Honey 236, Black‐breasted 235, Eurasian 255, European Honey 235, Forest 255, Grasshopper 250, Grey‐faced 250, Himalayan 255, Jackal 254, Japanese 255, Lizard 242, Long‐legged 255, Long‐tailed Honey 236, Madagascar 255, Mountain 255, Oriental Honey 235, Philippine Honey 235 Red‐necked 254, Rough‐legged 254, Rufous‐winged 250, Upland 255, White‐eyed 250

Canvasback 14 Capercaillie Black‐billed 47, Western 47 Caracara Black 349, Carunculated 348,

Chimango 348, Crested 348, Guadalupe 348, Mountain 348, Red‐throated 348, Southern 348, Striated 348, White‐throated 348, Yellow‐headed 348

Carib Green‐throated 111, Purple‐throated 111

Cassowary Dwarf 6, Northern 6, Southern 6 Chachalaca Buff‐browed 25, Chaco 24,

Chestnut‐winged 24, Colombian 24, East Brazilian 24, Gray‐headed 24, Plain 24, Rufous‐bellied 24, Rufous‐headed 24, Rufous‐vented 24, Scaled 24, Speckled 24, Variable 24, West Mexican 24, White‐bellied 24

Chicken Greater Prairie 48, Lesser Prairie 48 Chuck‐willʹs‐widow 90 Cockatiel 353 Cockatoo Blue‐eyed 355, Gang‐gang 354,

Glossy Black 353, Long‐billed Black 354, Major Mitchellʹs 354, Palm 354, Philippine 355, Red‐tailed Black 353, Salmon‐crested 355, Short‐billed Black 354, Sulphur‐crested 355, White 355, Yellow‐crested 355, Yellow‐tailed Black 353

Cocquette Short‐crested 112 Colasisi 384 Comet Bronze‐tailed 114, Gray‐bellied 114,

Red‐tailed 114 Condor Andean 233, California 233 Coot American 162, Caribbean 162,

Common 161, Giant 162, Hawaiian 162, Horned 162, Red‐fronted 162, Red‐gartered 162, Red‐knobbed 161, Slate‐colored 162, White‐winged 162

Coquette Black‐crested 113, Dot‐eared 112, Festive 112, Frilled 112, Peacock 113, Racket‐tailed 112, Rufous‐crested 112, Spangled 112, Tufted 112, White‐crested 113

Corella Little 354, Long‐billed 354, Solomon Islands 355, Tanimbar 355, Western 354

Cormorant Bank 197, Black‐faced 197, Brandtʹs 196, Cape 197, Crowned 195, Double‐crested 196, Flightless 196, Great 197, Great Pied 197, Guanay 196, Imperial 196, Indian 197, Japanese 197, Little 195, Little Black 197, Little Pied 195, Long‐tailed 195, Magellanic 196, Neotropic 196, Pelagic 197, Pygmy 195, Red‐faced 197, Red‐legged 196, Socotra 197, Spectacled 197

Corncrake 155 Coronet Buff‐tailed 119, Chestnut‐

breasted 119, Velvet‐purple 119 Coua Blue 138, Coquerelʹs 137, Crested 138,

Giant 137, Red‐breasted 138, Red‐capped 138, Red‐fronted 138, Running 138, Snail‐eating 137, Verreauxʹs 138

Coucal African Black 139, Bay 139, Biak 138, Black‐faced 138, Black‐hooded 138, Black‐throated 139, Blue‐headed 139, Buff‐headed 138, Coppery‐tailed 139, Gabon 139, Goliath 139, Greater 139, Greater Black 138, Green‐billed 138, Javan 139, Lesser 140, Lesser Black 140, Madagascar 139, Pheasant 140, Philippine 140, Pied 138, Rufous 138, Senegal 139, Short‐toed 138, Violaceous 140, Violet 140, White‐browed 139

Index of English Names

1

List of References 1 1. A.O.U., 1957. Check‐list of North American Birds. i‐xiii, 1‐691. – American Ornithologists’ Union, Baltimore,

Maryland. 2. A.O.U., 1983. Check‐list of North American Birds. i‐xxix, 1‐877. – American Ornithologists’ Union, Lawrence, Kansas. 3. A.O.U., 1998. Check‐list of North American Birds. i‐liv, 1‐829. – American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington D.C. 4. Abbott, C.L. & M.C. Double, 2003. Phylogeography of Shy and White‐capped albatrosses inferred from mitochondrial

DNA sequences: implications for population history and taxonomy. – Molecular Ecology, 12: 2747‐2758. 5. 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. 6. Abdulali, H., 1965. Notes on Indian birds 3 ‐ the Alpine swift, Apus melba (Linnaeus), with a description of one new

race. – Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 62 (1): 153‐160. 7. 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). 8. Abdulali, H., 1979. The birds of Great and Car Nicobars with some notes on wildlife conservation in the islands. –

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 75 (3): 744‐772 (1978). 9. Abdulali, H. & R. Reuben, 1965. The Jungle Bush‐Quail Perdicula asiatica (Latham): a new record from south India. –

Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 61 (3): 698‐691 (1964). 10. Adamowicz, M.A.P., 1858. Note nécrologique sur le Comte Constantin Tyzenhauz. – Revue et Magasin de Zoologie pure

et appliquée, 9 (12): 591‐604 (1857). 11. Adams, J. & E.R. Slavid, 1984. Cheek plumage pattern in Colombian Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis. – Ibis, 126 (3):

405‐407. 12. Agne, C.E.Q. & J.F. Pacheco, 2011. Um novo nome para Chordeiles nacunda minor (Cory, 1915). – Revista Brasileira de

Ornitologia, 19 (1): 80. 13. Ahmed, R., 2011. Subspecific identification and status of Cattle Egret. – Dutch Birding, 33 (5): 294‐304. 14. Ainley, D., D.A. Manuwal, J. Adams & A.C. Thoresen, 2011. Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus). No. 50. In: The

Birds of North America2 Online. A. Poole, (Ed.). – Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Retrieved from The Birds of North America Online. doi. 10.2173/bna/50

15. Ainley, D.G., 1980. Geographic variation in Leach’s Storm‐Petrel. – Auk, 97 (4): 837‐853. 16. Ainley, D.G., 1983. Further notes on variation in Leach’s Storm‐Petrel. – Auk, 100 (1): 200‐233. 17. Aldrich, J.W., 1942. New Bobwhite from northeastern Mexico. – Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 55:

67‐70. 18. Aldrich, J.W., 1946. New subspecies of birds from western North America. – Proceedings of the Biological Society of

Washington, 59: 129‐136. 19. Aldrich, J.W., 1946. The United States races of the Bobwhite. – Auk, 63 (4): 493‐508. 20. Aldrich, J.W., 1972. A new subspecies of Sandhill Crane from Mississippi. – Proceedings of the Biological Society of

Washington, 85: 63‐70. 21. Aldrich, J.W., 1981. Geographic variation in White‐winged Doves with reference to possible source of new Florida

population. – Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 94 (3): 641‐651. 22. Aldrich, J.W. & B.P. Bole, Jr., 1937. Birds and mammals of the western slope of the Azuero Peninsula (Republic of

Panama). – Science Publications / Cleveland Museum of Natural History, 7: 1‐196. 23. Aldrich, J.W. & A.J. Duvall, 1958. Distribution and migration of races of the Mourning Dove. – Condor, 60 (2): 108‐128. 24. Aldrich, J.W. & H. Friedmann, 1943. A revision of the Ruffed Grouse. – Condor, 45 (3): 85‐103. 25. Ali, S., 1943. The birds of Mysore. – Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society, 44 (2): 206‐220. 26. Ali, S. & S.D. Ripley, 1983. Handbook of the Birds of India and Pakistan. 2nd. ed. 4. i‐xvi, 1‐267. – Oxford University

Press, Bombay. 27. Allen, D., C. Espanola, G. Broad, C. Oliveros & J.C.T. Gonzales, 2006. New bird records for the Babuyan islands,

Philippines, including two first records for the Philippines. – Forktail, 22: 57‐70. 28. Allen, D., C. Oliveros, C. Española, G. Broad & J.C.T. Gonzales, 2004. A new species of Gallirallus from Calayan island,

Philippines. – Forktail, 20: 1‐7. 29. Allen, G.A., Jr., G.A. Allen, III. & L. Allen, 1977. New species of curassow discovered. – Game Bird Breeders,

Aviculturists, Zoologists and Conservationists’ Gazette, 26 (6): 6. 30. Allison, A., 1946. Note d’Ornithologie No. 2. – Notes d’Ornithologie. Musée Heude, Université de l’Aurore. Shanghai, 1 (2):

1‐7. 31. Alvarenga, H.M.F., E. Höfling & L.F. Silveira, 2002. Notharchus swainsoni (Gray, 1846) (Bucconidae) é uma espécie

válida. – Ararajuba, 10: 73‐77. 32. Alviola, P.L., 1997. A new species of frogmouth (Podargidae ‐ Caprimulgiformes) from Busuanga Island, Palawan,

Philippines. – Asia Life Sciences, 6 (1/2): 51‐55.

1 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.

2 See note at the end of this list for limitations of responsibility in respect of all refernces to this publication whether to printed issues or online.

LIST OF REFERENCES

85

2871. Zink, R.M., S. Rohwer, S.V. Drovetski, R.C. Blackwell‐Rago & S.L. Farrell, 2002. Holarctic phylogeography and species limits of Three‐toed Woodpeckers. – Condor, 104 (1): 167‐170.

2872. Zino, F., R. Brown & M. Biscioto, 2008. The separation of Pterodroma madeira (Zino’s Petrel) from Pterodroma feae (Fea’s Petrel) (Aves: Procellariidae). – Ibis, 150 (2): 326‐334.

2873. Zonfrillo, B., 1988. Notes and comments on the taxonomy of Jouanin’s Petrel Bulweria fallax and Bulwer’s Petrel Bulweria bulwerii. – Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 108 (2): 71‐75.

2874. Züchner, T., 1999. Species accounts within the family Trochilidae (hummingbirds), pp. 549‐680. In: Handbook of the Birds of the World, 5. Barn‐Owls to Hummingbirds. J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & J. Sargatal (Eds.). – Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

2875. Zusi, R. & J.T. Marshall, Jr., 1970. A comparison of Asiatic and North American sapsuckers. – Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society, 23 (3): 393‐407.

2876. Zusi, R.L. & J.R. Jehl, 1970. The systematic position of Aechmorhynchus, Prosobonia and Phegornis (Charadriiformes: Charadrii). – Auk, 87 (4): 760‐780.

2877. Zyskowski, K., A.T. Peterson & D.A. Kluza, 1998. Courtship behaviour, vocalizations, and species limits in Atthis hummingbirds. – Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 118 (2): 82‐90.

Notice: Searches in issues of the series The Birds of North America have been conducted partly in printed copies and partly online. When compiling our final reference list in was realised that we did not always know which had ben consulted and also that we had not noted date of access to the online issues. It is thus possible that we cite a paper issue which has been updated since. It is also possible that we have cited editors for an issue not bearing the date we give. Furthermore the places of publication and the institution responsible as we give them may not accord with the version we examined or with what the website now suggests be cited. We have given a “doi” for each issue we cite but these links will probably only give limited access unless you are a subscriber and we accept no responsibility for whether you gain access or not. These limitations to our responsibility apply to all other on‐line documenttion we cite. Note too that the latest modification of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature while making it possible to publish a new name or a new nomenclatural act in an e‐journal or an e‐book, subject to certain conditions, almost certainly does not extend this freedom to certain forms of distribution through the Internet.

1

Appendix 5: I.C.Z.N. Directions and Opinions (Ornithology) up to 2012 Edward C. Dickinson

The two tables that are presented here, one listing Directions, the other listing Opinions of the International Commission for Zoological Nomenclature have been prepared with the encouragement and assistance of Ellinor Michel and Svetlana Nikolaeva.

We have not found a similar list to be readily available and it was felt to be a useful addition to this work. The lists are perhaps not entirely comprehensive and if any reader finds that a relevant Direction or Opinion

has been omitted please do notify [email protected] so that the relevant list can be corrected. We would also welcome suggested contents summaries; the task of inserting these was only acted on where an Opinion was consulted.

References

Bock, W.J., 1994. History and nomenclature of Avian Family‐group Names. – Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, 222: 1‐281.

Dickinson, E.C., 2011. Vieillotʹs Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de lʹAmerique septentrionale, depuis Saint Dominique jusquʹà la baie de Hudson; contenant un grand nombre dʹespèces deécrites ou figurées pour la première fois. – Zoological Bibliography, 1 (3): 136.

Mathews, G.M., 1934. A new Fork‐tail Petrel and proposals of new names. – Bulletin of the British Ornithologistsʹ Club, 55 (ccclxxx): 23‐24.

Salomonsen, F., 1967. Passeriformes: suborder Oscines, family Meliphagidae. Pp. 338‐450. 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.

Steinheimer, F.D., E.C. Dickinson & M. Walters, 2006. The zoology of the HMS Beagle. Part III. Birds: new avian names, their authorship and dates. – Bulletin of the British Ornithologistsʹ Club, 126 (3): 171‐193.

Watson, G.E., M.A. Traylor, Jr. & E. Mayr, 1986. Passeriformes: suborder Oscines, family Muscicapidae (sensu stricto). Pp. 295‐375. In: Check‐list of Birds of the World. A continuation of the work of James L. Peters, 11. E. Mayr & G.W. Cottrell (Eds.). – Mus. Comp. Zoology, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

APPENDIX 5

5

Direction Date Content summary (usually brief, or not needed if title is clear) Case No.

115

MEROPIDAE (Aves): attributed to Rafinesque, 1815 (Correction to entry No. 1 in the Official List of Family‐group names in Zoology). – Bull. Zool. Nomen. 41 (1): 41‐42.

1984 2286

122 Bubo Duméril, 1806, and Surnia Duméril, 1806 (Aves). Official list entries completed. – Bull. Zool. Nomen., 45: 87‐88.

1988 Type species of Surnia is Strix capensis Statius Muller p. 69.

Table 2. Summary of ICZN opinions that seem to affect ornithology.

Opinion Date Content summary (usually brief, or not needed if title is clear)

Case No.

8 Rentention of ‐ii or ‐i in specific patronymic names. – pp. 11‐12 in Opinions 1‐25. – Smithsonian Institution (Publ. No. 1938).

1910

26 Cypsilurus vs. Cypselurus. – pp. 63‐64 in Opinions 26‐29. – Smithsonian Institution (Publ. No. 1989). 1910 Cypsilurus should be corrected to

Cypselurus.

30 Swainson’s bird genera of 1827. – pp. 69‐72 in Opinions 30‐37 pp. 69‐88] Smithsonian (Publ. No. 2013).

1911

Swainson’s bird genera in the Philosophical Magazine of 1827 are monotypic, and according to Article 30c the species mentioned are the types of their respective genera. Therefore, these types must take precedence over the designated types of Swainson which occurred later, in the Zoological Journal of 1827.

31 Columbina vs. Chaemepelia. Pp. 73‐75 in Opinions 30‐37. – Smithsonian Institution (Publ. No. 2013). 1911

In 1840 [G.R.] Gray designated as type of Columbina Spix, Columba passerina Linn. As this species is not one of the original species of Columbina Spix, Gray’s type designation is not valid and Columbina* remains without a designated type. [* Footnote by Commissioner L. Stejneger: “At the time of the writting of Opinion 31, the second edition of Gray’s list of the Genera of Birds, published 1841, had not been seen by the writer, nor was the point bought out clearly in the documents submitted, and hence escaped notice, that Columbina strepitans Spix was designated by Gray in 1841, p. 75, as the type of Columbina. This action of Gray is undoubtedly valid and the type of Columbina is therefore C. strepitans Spix. In view of this fact bought to the attention of the Commission by Mr. W.E.Clyde Todd, Opinion 31 is hereby changed accordingly, and will be submitted to the members of the Commission for approval.”] The valid type of Chaemepelia Swainson is Columba passerina Linn., designated by Gray, 1841.

37 Shall the genera of Brisson’s Ornithologia, 1760, be accepted? – pp. 87‐88 in Opinions 30‐37 pp. 69‐88. [Smithsonian Publ. 2013].

1910 Brisson’s (1760) generic names of birds are available under the Code.

THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION FOR ZOOLOGICALNOMENCLATURESome years before the middle of the 19th century, and getting on for 100 years afterLinnaeus proposed binomial nomenclature, it became clear to natural historians thatonly by having rules of nomenclature could communication between scientists bebased on the sender and receiver each knowing, with certainty, the object ofdiscussion. As the rules were developed it was recognised that binomial scientificnames should have authors and that the first author to use a name should becredited for it, and that by adding both an author and a date to a name the resultshould be a unique “name string” defendable, against later coiners of the same namefor some other organism, by the recognition of Priority as a fundamental principleon which rules of nomenclature could and should be based.

The rules that began to take shape in the 1830s have become more elaborate asreasons were found to widen their scope to further improve uniformity ofapplication and by 1895 a Commission was established to take responsibility forzoological nomenclature. There was at this point not one Code but a number and itwas 1901 before an outline of a uniform Code was agreed, and that, after editingappeared in 1905 becoming the Règles Internationales: the forerunner of theInternational Code of Zoological Nomenclature (1961). The Code reached its fourthedition in 1999 evolving through those years to give almost as much importance toStability as to Priority, and recently came to grips with the difficult issue ofelectronic publication. A fifth edition of the Code is in the making.

Such is the breadth of zoology that most zoologists will never know if zoologists inanother branch of zoology are using the same name. In this checklist we have putaside a number of names because they prove to have had prior use in anotherdiscipline. The authority to which one appeals, if one feels that priority is unclear orworks to the detriment of stability, is the Commission. After due process by itsCommissioners, the Commission’s Secretariat publishes the decisions reached. Thisseriously underfunded body is the firm skeleton on which all our scientific namesrest. If the skeleton crumbles the result will be nomenclatural anarchy. Taxonomistsare well served by the guardians of nomenclature, not least because they knowwhere nomenclature stops and taxonomy begins (and vice versa); whether theypersonally seek to understand the rules of nomenclature or not, they recognisethe value of the framework and the need to respect it. They need to go furtherand to lobby their fellow zoologists who also benefit from this framework to seethat the Commission is regularly sustained with funding sufficient to do its job.

NOTE TO BROWSERS VI

1

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 Gazetteer may be found incomplete when applied to volume 2 but on the CD with that volume it is intended to include an updated version of this one that will also include all names treated in volume 2. 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).

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


2

Locality Type Location Alternate name ‘Abd al Kuri I. island Yemen Acre state Brazil Adak island Aleutian Is. Adelbert Range mountains New Guinea Adélie Land region Antarctica Admiralty Is. islands New Guinea Adriatic Sea sea Europe Afghanistan country Asia Africa continent n/a Aguascalientes state Mexico Aguijan island Northern Mariana Is. Agiguan Ailinglaplap atoll Marshall Is. Lambert Aïr Massif mountains Niger Aisén administrative region Chile Aitape town New Guinea Aitutaki island Cook Is. Alabama state USA Alagoas state Brazil Alai Range mountains Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and China Alamagan island Northern Mariana Is. Alaska state USA Alaska Pen. peninsula USA Albania country Europe Albano town Amazonas (Brazil) Alberta province Canada Alcester I. island New Guinea Aldabra atoll Seychelles Aldabra Is. islands Seychelles Aleutian Is. islands USA Alexander Arch. islands SE Alaska Algarrobo town Chile Algeria country Africa Alofi island Wallis and Futuna Is. Alor island Lesser Sundas Alpine New Guinea region New Guinea Alps mountains Europe Altai Mts. mountains Russian Federation, Mongolia and China Altayskij Krebet Altun Shan mountains Xinjiang Amak I. island Alaska Amami Is. islands Japan Amapá state Brazil Amazonas state Brazil Amazonas department Colombia Amazonas department Peru Amazonas state Venezuela Amazonia region South America Amazonian Brazil region Brazil Ambae island Vanuatu Aoba, Omba Ambon island Moluccas

APPENDIX 6

3

Times Atlas 12th ref Times Atlas 12th name Comments 33 K9 ‘Abd al Kūrī 120 G5 Acre 94 A4 Adak Island 12 H6 Adelbert Range 122 J2 Adélie Land 12 I4 Admiralty Islands 75 H5 Adriatic Sea 32 K5 Afghanistan 82 Africa 113 E4 Aguascalientes 4 inset 1 Aguijan 4 inset 3 Ailinglaplap 86 F2 Massif de lʹAïr 121 D11 Aisén 12 G5 Aitape 6 inset 2 Aitutaki 107 J9 Alabama 117 N9 Alagoas 41 N8 Alai Range 4 inset 1 Alamagan 95 L3 Alaska 95 G5 Alaska Peninsula 80 E3 Albania 117 D6 Albano 96 R5 Alberta 12 L8 Alcester Island 92 inset 9 Aldabra Atoll 92 inset 9 Aldabra Islands 95 inset C5 Aleutian Islands 95 M4 Alexander Archipelago 121 E4 Algarrobo 83 I5 Algeria 4 inset 9 Île Alofi 15 J8 Alor Not in Times Atlas Not in Times Atlas areas above 3000 metres asl ‐ see map 5 75 A4 Alps 26 H2 Altai Mountains 26 H8 Altun Shan 95 G5 Amak Island 20 inset G18 Amami‐Ō‐shima 117 G4 Amapá 117 B7 Amazonas 116 H9 Amazonas 120 C3 Amazonas 116 J7 Amazonas Not in Times Atlas Not in Times Atlas See map 10 Not in Times Atlas Not in Times Atlas See map 10 4 inset 10 Aoba 15 L5 Ambon

1

Appendix 8: Changes in the spellings of scientific names: Vol. 1 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 old 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 definiton (I.C.Z.N., 1999: Glossary, p. 121 “usage, prevailing”). Such cases requires 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 for 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 (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 (although we are unlikely to oppose change to that rule). 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 (2013), in this volume, pp. 405‐407, set out 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.”.


2

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, providing details mainly on non‐passerine cases; the passerines will be dealt with in the appendix to the second volume of this work. 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 list 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’.

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 it 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).

Name in Dickinson (2003) Name in this edition (2013) Page Anas [F] cyanoptera orinomus Spatula [F] cyanoptera orinoma 16 Anas [F] cyanoptera tropicus Spatula [F] cyanoptera tropica 16 Tetrastes bonasia rhenana Tetrastes bonasia rhenanus 45 Tetrastes sewerzowi secunda Tetrastes sewerzowi secundus 45 Ptilinopus subgularis epia Ptilinopus subgularis epius 76 Alectroenas nitidissima Alectroenas nitidissimus 79 Alectroenas pulcherrima Alectroenas pulcherrimus 80 Tachymarptis melba nubifuga Tachymarptis melba nubifugus 103 Charadrius hiaticula psammodroma Charadrius hiaticula psammodromus 202 Tringa totanus eurhinus Tringa totanus eurhina 216 Otus [M] albogularis macabrum Megascops [M] albogularis macabrus 272 Ceyx lepidus gentiana Ceyx lepidus gentianus 338 Actenoides princeps erythrorhampha Actenoides princeps erythrorhamphus 342 Falco araea araea Falco araeus 350 Touit surdus chryseura Touit surdus chryseurus 357 fn Northiella haematogaster haematorrhous Northiella haematogaster haematorrhoa 375

2 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.

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.

1

Appendix 9: Dates of publication (links to Priority! The Dates of Scientific Names in Ornithology). Edward C. Dickinson

Introduction

Since 2003 there has been a very considerable effort made to correct those dates of publication which have been found to be wrong in the volumes of Peters Check‐list and also to correct mistakes in dates used in Dickinson (2003). Much help was received from Alan Peterson and Colin Jones.

However, the bulk of this work was summarised in the above‐mentioned book by Dickinson et al. (2011) and in the many pages of tables supplied in a CD with it. The work for that was a planned component of the overall task of making The Howard and Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World as reliable a source of information as possible for any author writing scientific papers about birds where name spellings, authors and dates of publication are all data which deserve particular attention.

After that book went to press it was finally possibly, thanks to the help of Alain Lebossé, to resolve the issues surrounding names introduced by Temminck in the wrappers which accompanied the first twenty livraisons of the Nouveaux recueil de planches coloriées d’oiseaux, pour servir de suite et de complément aux planches enluminées de Buffon. When dated by Sherborn (1898) only two of the twenty wrappers could be traced so that the original scientific names, given on the wrappers, for the birds depicted in 108 plates were spelled either on the basis of bibliographic reviews or on the spellings used in the texts that appeared months or even years after the plates. It is important to realise, in the context of Art. 8 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999), that Temminck originally did not intend to issue any text so that it is reasonable to believe that the wrappers respond perfectly to the question of whether they were “issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record.” All 18 remaining wrappers have been located and images of the essential texts from the back of each one have been published in the pages of Zoological Bibliography by Lebossé & Bour (2011) and Dickinson (2012).

As in other parts of science definite proof is not always available and when it is lacking there may be differing views on whether or not to make a change. In general, by not quite always, the temptation to make a change in a date based on probability has been resisted.

Mlíkovsky (2012a) has found proof that the first volume of Museum Heineanum by Cabanis was published in 1853 and not as previously argued in 1851 (or partly in 1850 and mainly in 1851). He has recommended that this date change not be implemented yet because priority given to names in this volume over names used by Reichenbach, and perhaps others, may prove to be prior names. Here his suggestion to defer any change is accepted; so too are changes to dates for some names in Fauna Japonica: Aves by Temminck & Schlegel where again Mlíkovsky (2012b) has found undiscovered information that ties certain plates to particular livraisons where previously it was not certain which livraison held them. Other recent papers by this author (e.g. Mlíkovsky, 2012c) also await review.

Legend:

• In columns B, C and D names spelled in red reflect taxonomic changes such as movement to a different genus (since Dickinson, 2003) and Dickinson et al. (2011), or the uniting of two species, or separation into two species, in this edition (sometimes with consequential changes to the suffix of the species‐group name).

• In column E red is used for names of authors when the authorship has been revised (the previous author is listed first and the one given in this edition is listed second.

• In columns J and L dates shown in red represent changes; in the first case since that date in Peters (col. H), and in the second case since 2003.

• Gray shading in the cells from column I to M implies that some evidence for a date change was available and was considered but not accepted as determinative.

• In the case of Latham (1801) the red date for 1802 was a change made in Dickinson (2003) which as anticipated has been shown to have been mistaken. See Schodde, Dickinson, Steinheimer & Bock (2010).

4th Edition Preview of Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World

Documents

Transcript of 4th Edition Preview of Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World