Comparison of OBC Checklist and BirdLife taxonomy
Draft 10 November 2009
Information from the highlighted citations has not yet been incorporated. Any help with this would be much appreciated.
Please send comments to email@example.com
OBC Checklist taxonomy
(+) = BirdLife/Sibley & Monroe congruence
OBC Checklist justification
Material from other relevant references
|Megapodius forstenii||<||Megapodius freycinet||Megapodius forstenii was split, with some justification, from M. reinwardt by Jones et al. (1995), of which it has long been treated as a subspecies. However, Jones et al. (1995) also remark that in structure forstenii is "close to M. freycinet and (especially) M. geelvinkianus" but do not develop the point. However, the case for a close relationship between these forms is supported on mensural and distributional grounds and on the molecular evidence of Birks and Edwards (2002). The BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group therefore does not recognise forstenii as a separate species and consider that it probably is best regarded as a subspecies of freycinet.||White & Bruce (1986) treated forstenii as conspecific with reinwardt, but Jones et al. (1995) treated them as separate species because of marked structural and morphological differences.||White and Bruce (1986) treated forstenii as conspecific with reinwardt, despite noting that it, reinwardt and tenimberensis were three well differentiated forms.|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated it as conspecific with Megapodius reinwardt, merely noting that 'The arrangement of species and superspecies in the genus Megapodius follows White and Bruce (1986: 141-144).'
Birks and Edwards (2002)
|Tetrastes bonasia||=||Bonasa bonasia||Short (1967) discussed the use of Tetrastes rather than Bonasa.|
|Tetrastes sewerzowi||=||Bonasa sewerzowi||See above|
|Lagopus mutus||=||Lagopus muta||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Melanoperdix nigra||=||Melanoperdix niger||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Arborophila orientalis||>||Arborophila campbelli||Arborophila orientalis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. orientalis, A. sumatrana, A. rolli and A. campbelli following Mees (1996), given a series of strong character differences between taxa, reviewed on specimens and in photographs by the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group.||Mees (1996)|
|Arborophila orientalis||>||Arborophila rolli||See above|
|Arborophila orientalis||>||Arborophila sumatrana||See above|
|Arborophila charltonii||>||Arborophila chloropus (+)||Arborophila chloropus and A. merlini (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into A. chloropus,contraMcGowan (1994) who reported A. merlini differing from A. chloropus in having yellow not green legs and more distinct black scaling on the flanks and lower breast. At least one skin of chloropus (subspecies cognacqi) in the Natural History Museum, Tring does have yellowish legs (and is described so on the collector's label). The breast and flank scaling, although more consistent in merlini ('A. m. vivida' as no nominate merlini available and published differences negligible such that 'vivida' is not recognised by some authorities), is apparent in some cognacqi, at least on the breast, and any differences on the flanks are hard to detect. The BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group feels, therefore, that the case for specific recognition of merlini is unjustified.||Peters (1934) treated chloropus and merlini as separate species, contra his stated reference, Delacour & Jabouille (1931), who treated them as conspecific. Davison (1982) recognised chloropus as separate from charltonii on morphological grounds, but considered that merlini was insufficiently different to justify treatment as a full species. However, Johnsgard (1988) pointed out that there was no proven sympatry of chloropus and charltonii, and could 'see no compelling reason for accepting more than a single species, considering the variability of various other Arborophila forms'.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated chloropus and merlini as separate species from charltonii, without providing reasons.|
|Caloperdix oculea||=||Caloperdix oculeus||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Bambusicola thoracica||=||Bambusicola thoracicus||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Catreus wallichii||=||Catreus wallichi||The spelling in the original description (Hardwicke 1827) was wallichii and, prior to ICZN (1999), this would have established the spelling to be adopted. However, the revised Code requires an assessment of the frequency of recent usage, which is difficult to establish. Of the references annotated in the Checklist and published in the last 50 years, 16 used wallichii and 14 used wallichi.|
|Lophura imperialis||=||Lophura nycthemera x Lophura edwardsi/hatinhensis||Lophura imperialis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) is considered a hybrid between Silver Pheasant Lophura nycthemera and Edwards's Pheasant L. edwardsi following Rasmussen (1998), Garson (2001) and BirdLife International (2001).||Hennache et al. (2003) treated this as a hybrid between Lophura nycthemera and either L. edwardsi or L. hatinhensis.|
|Polyplectron katsumatae||<||Polyplectron bicalcaratum (+)|
|Peters (1934), and all subsequent authors, treated katsumatae as conspecific with bicalcaratum but no valid reasons for doing so have been found. Beebe (1918-1922) treated it as a separate species because of its small size compared with populations of bicalcaratum, and various plumage differences. Furthermore, Johnsgard (1986) pointed out that the 'short crest and ruff of katsumatae...suggest an intermediate link with germaini'.|
|Polyplectron emphanum||=||Polyplectron napoleonis||The species name emphanum has been in general use but Dickinson (2001) pointed out that it had been misdated and did not have priority over napoleonis.|
|Anser canagicus||=||Chen canagica||AOU (1998) did not provide reasons for the use of the genus Chen, merely noting that 'Most authors, including Livezey (1996a), merge Chen into Anser, where it may be treated as a subgenus'.|
|Anser caerulescens||=||Chen caerulescens||See above|
|Anser rossii||=||Chen rossii||See above|
|Rhodonessa rufina||=||Netta rufina||Livezey (1996) dismantled the genus Netta and placed this species in Rhodonessa, on the basis of a phylogenetic analysis of the Aythyini for 94 morphological characters. The two species of Rhodonessa appear to be more closely related than were many of the species in the genus Aythya to each other.||Inskipp et al. (1996) overlooked the fact that Livezey (1996) incorrectly subsumed Netta in Rhodonessa, having failed to notice the priority of the former.|
|Diomedea immutabilis||=||Phoebastria immutabilis||Onley & Scofield (2007) noted that 'Phylogenetic analyses of mitochondrial DNA sequences (Nunn et al. 1996; Nunn & Stanley 1998) indicate that the albatrosses comprise four major groups, which are best recognised as genera: the great albatrosses (Diomedea), the North Pacific albatrosses (Phoebastria), the mollymawks (Thalassarche) and the sooty albatrosses (Phoebetria).'|
|Diomedea nigripes||=||Phoebastria nigripes||See above|
|Diomedea albatrus||=||Phoebastria albatrus||See above|
|Diomedea chlororhynchos||=||Thalassarche chlororhynchos||See above|
|Diomedea chlororhynchos||>||Thalassarche carteri||Diomedea chlororhynchos (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into chlororhynchos and carteri and both placed in the genus Thalassarche following Brooke (2004).||Robertson & Nunn (1998) raised a number of albatross taxa to the species level, but provided little information in support. They did state that 'Idiosyncratically among birds, the level of mitochondrial DNA sequence divergence between albatross taxa is relatively small compared to their diagnosable morphological and ecological character differences. Reassuringly, traditional taxonomic and novel phylogenetic methods are largely supportive of each other'. Brooke (2004) largely followed these splits but provided no extra information. However, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) noted that 'Robertson and Nunn (1998) did not publish or otherwise provide an input matrix containing the distance data for the proposed new albatross species'; they used these authors' data to calculate them and found that 'pairwise distances among traditionally recognised species within Thalassarche range from 1.66% to 3.15%.' They also found that 'Among the Yellow-nosed Albatross taxa, the distance of 0.35% (0.00%) between T.carteri [was D. bassi Mathews, 1912] and T.chlororhynchos strongly suggests that carteri should also be treated as a subspecies of T. chlororhynchos.'|
|Diomedea melanophris||=||Thalassarche melanophrys||Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered that spelling of the specific name as melanophrys by Temminck (1839) was an unjustified emendation.||Dickinson (2003) considered that melanophrys was in prevailing usage, following Art. 33.2 of ICZN (1999)|
|Pterodroma rostrata||=||Pseudobulweria rostrata||Dickinson (2003) and Brooke (2004) recognized Pseudobulweria for this species, following Imber (1985) and Bretagnolle et al. (1998).|
|Puffinus persicus||<||Puffinus lherminieri||Puffinus bannermani, P. persicus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) and P. subalaris (SACC 2005) are lumped with P. lherminieri following Brooke (2004).||Puffinus persicus was treated as conspecific with lherminieri by Phillips & Sims (1958) owing to some morphological similarities. However, they are here treated as separate species because of structural and morphological differences (see Shirihai et al. 1995b). Dowsett & Dowsett-Lemaire (1993) treated persicus as conspecific with assimilis rather than lherminieri, without giving their reasons.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated persicus and bannermani as separate species from lherminieri, noting under lherminieri that 'The peculiar distribution of morphological types within this complex is somewhat parallel to that of the P. [puffinus] superspecies; treatment of distinct types as allospecies of a superspecies seems a reasonable solution.'|
Brooke (2004) treated persicus as conspecific with lherminieri, noting only that 'it may be wise to delay any taxonomic decision until the group can be revised in its entirety and, in the meanwhile, to accept that some of the above races may indeed turn out to merit specific status.'
Austin et al. (2004) constructed a molecular phylogeny of smaller Puffinus species and concluded that persicus should be regarded as part of Puffinus bailloni (Bonaparte, 1857) Tropical Shearwater, a proposed 'higher-level' taxon — they suggested that additional information (e.g. using vocalizations) would be 'required to fully assess the appropriate taxonomic level of those taxa'.
|Phoenicopterus ruber||>||Phoenicopterus roseus||Phoenicopterus ruber (Sibley and Monroe, 1990, 1993) has been split into P. roseus and P. ruber following Knox et al. (2002), contraSACC (2005 — [now 2006]).||Clay (1975) suggested that the occurrence of unique species of Mallophaga on Phoenicopterus ruber ruber of America and roseus of the Old World may justify their treatment as separate species; the two differ in plumage and bill colouration (Cramp & Simmons 1977). However, Studer-Thiersch (1975) suggested that similarities in the display behaviour and morphology indicate that they should be considered conspecific.||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) treated roseus as a separate species, without giving reasons.|
Knox et al. (2002) noted that 'Greater Flamingo Phoenicopterus ruber roseus, Caribbean Flamingo P. r. ruber and Chilean Flamingo P. r. chilensis are well-marked taxa that show consistent differences in several functional systems: plumage coloration and pattern, coloration of bill and legs (e.g. van den Berg 1987. Dutch Birding9: 2-7; Treep 1994. Dutch Birding13: 17; Sangster 1997. Dutch Birding19: 193-198), displays and vocalizations (Studer-Thiersch 1964. Ornithol. Beob.61: 99-102; Studer-Thiersch 1974.Z. Tierpsychol.36: 212-266; Studer-Thiersch 1975. In Kear, J. & Duplaix-Hall, N. (eds) Flamingos: 150-158. Berkhamsted). These data indicate that Greater Flamingo, Caribbean Flamingo and Chilean Flamingo are best treated as separate species.'
|Phoenicopterus minor||=||Phoeniconaias minor||Dowsett & Dowsett-Lemaire (1993) suggested that minor should be placed in the genus Phoeniconaias, based on its specialized bill structure and distinctive feather-lice fauna. However, Sibley & Monroe (1990) stated that DNA-DNA hybridization data indicated that all flamingos should probably be treated as congeneric.|
|Pseudibis papillosa||>||Pseidibis davisoni (+)||Pseudibis davisoni was placed in a monospecific genus, Graptocephalus, by Elliot (1877) because of its 'trenchant differences' from all other ibises, particularly in the shape of the skull, and davisoni and papillosa have consequently been treated as separate species by most authors. Holyoak (1970a) pointed out that the two forms are morphologically very similar and this, coupled with their apparently allopatric distributions and lack of differences in other respects, led him to treat them as conspecific. This treatment was followed by Hancock et al. (1992).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated davisoni as a separate species, merely noting that it 'May be conspecific with P. papillosa.'|
Sözer et al. (1997) noted that 'In comparison with papillosa (studied at Walsrode Birdpark, Germany), it is clear that davisoni is larger, more robust, and has a longer neck and legs. The tail appears to be relatively shorter, and spreading downwards in contrast to straight, and somewhat downcurved. The conspicuous white spot on the upper wings was seen only in flying birds, never when perched or walking. Most individuals were dark greyish-brown, appearing dull slate or blackish from a distance, with a purple or blue gloss on the wing feathers. In papillosa, the overall colour is browner and less dul.. The feet and legs of all birds studied in Kalimantan were red, and the bill horn to grey. The skin of the head is naked, and very dark grey or almost black. In papillosa, the red patch on the head is limited to the cap and the back of the head, and the entire neck is feathered to the head. The larger size and different body shape of davisoni is quite evident in the field, and the differences in the colour and size of the bald patch are striking. Intraspecific variations of the size and colour of the head patch are described below for davisoni which have never been recorded in papillosa although this taxon is much better known. Young papillosa are stated to be dark brown all over (Hancock et al. 1992). It is concluded that the two taxa should be treated as separate species.'
Dickinson (2003) treated it as a separate species, citing Sözer et al. (1997).
|Pseudibis gigantea||=||Thaumatibis gigantea||Although now commonly treated in the genus Pseudibis, no appropriate comparative or anatomical study has been undertaken, while the species is much the largest and much the dullest of the world's ibises, distinctions which here justify the retention of the monotypic genus Thaumatibis (Elliot 1877; also Hancock etal. 1992) (BirdLife International 2001).|
|Dupetor flavicollis||=||Ixobrychus flavicollis||Payne & Risley (1976) subsumed Dupetor in Ixobrychus because of similar skeletal characteristics and Bock (1956) likewise included it in Ixobrychus as he considered that it differed only in the matter of size, which was a poor generic character. However, it differs in vocalizations (Curry-Lindahl 1971) and is larger than Ixobrychus with distinctive plumage and bill patterns (Hancock & Kushlan 1984).|
|Butorides striatus||=||Butorides striata||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Egretta picata||=||Ardea picata||Marchant & Higgins (1990) preferred to merge Egretta into Ardea because they felt that 'there is no clear distinction between the two'.|
Payne & Risley (1976) described skeletal similarities between picata and the extralimital Egretta ardesiaca Black Heron, and included picata in the genus Egretta.
|Anhinga melanogaster s.l.||>||Anhinga melanogaster s.s. (+)||Peters (1931) treated this genus as comprising four separate species, and Vaurie (1965b) considered that the morphological differences between them precluded conspecific treatment. However, Condon (1975, following G. F. van Tets in litt.) treated novaehollandiae as synonymous with rufa of Africa and rufa as conspecific with melanogaster, but separate from anhinga. This treatment was followed by Dorst & Mougin (1979). Bruce (in White & Bruce 1986, citing Harrison's, 1978, osteological study in support, and contesting Condon's, 1975, placement of novaehollandiae as a synonym of rufa, since he considered that there were great differences in plumage between the two), Marchant & Higgins (1990), Christidis & Boles (1994) and most other recent authors treated novaehollandiae as a race of melanogaster.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated melanogaster, novaehollandiae and rufa as separate species, noting that 'The relationships of the Old World darters are unclear. A. melanogaster is closest to A. novaehollandiae, and the two are often considered conspecific (and sometimes not even subspecifically distinct); A. rufa is the next nearest relative, and the Old World forms may be a single species, A. melanogaster. A. anhinga is the most distantly related, but the whole complex may be a single species. The complex is treated herein as a single superspecies in the Old World (the forms being allospecies).'|
Christidis & Boles (2008) noted that 'Kennedy et al. (2005) used mitochondrial DNA sequence distance data for a selection of darters, cormorants and boobies in a comparison of phylogenetic methods. Although the study was not concerned with relationships in the Anhingidae, the data presented showed that rufa and novaehollandiae had diverged at a level comparable to that between species of cormorants and boobies. Accordingly, each is accepted at specific level. (Although not included in the dataset, melanogaster (sensustricto) presumably is comparably distinct, and is so treated here).'
|Falco peregrinus||>||Falco pelegrinoides (+)|
Vaurie (1961a) considered pelegrinoides and peregrinus as separate species owing to morphological differences and Brosset (1986) and Haffer (1989) referred to the rarity of mixed pairs in contact zones despite an ecological overlap. However, Seibold et al. (1993) carried out a DNA sequence analysis and found that peregrinus and pelegrinoides had diverged very little, certainly less than other closely related falcon species. Clark & Shirihai (1995) referred to some specimens from Morocco with characters intermediate between pelegrinoides and peregrinus.
|Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated pelegrinoides as a separate species, noting that it is 'Often regarded as a race of F. peregrinus, but evidence suggests that pelegrinoides might be a distinct species (Vaurie 1965a: 222).'|
Wink et al. (2000)
Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) treated pelegrinoides as a separate species, and referring to pelegrinoides and babylonicus, noted that '…both are often considered races of Peregrine Falcon, but proportions and build differ to some extent, plumage is distinctly paler and more rufous, and there is now good evidence of sympatry in Morocco, northeast Iran (Khorasan), northwest Indian region and central Asia.'
Dickinson (2003) tentatively treated pelegrinoides as a separate species 'due to distinctiveness, following Vaurie (1961), but although babylonicus is thought to breed more or less sympatrically with nominate peregrinus in NE Iran this needs substantiation.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that babylonicus is 'very close genetically to some races of Peregrine, and evidently does not form a natural group with the western subspecies pelegrinoides (Wink et al. 2000), with which it is often combined as a separate species from Peregrine. Hence probably best treated as a race of Peregrine, but here given a separate account for clarity.'
|Pernis ptilorhynchus||=||Pernis ptilorhyncus||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Original spelling on the wrapper see Froriep (1821) (888), not an emendation contra Orta (1994: 111) (1731): the spelling ptilorhyncus reported by Stresemann & Amadon (1979) (2368) comes from the text issued some time later.'|
|Milvus migrans||>||Milvus lineatus (+)||The form lineatus was accorded specific rank by Sibley & Monroe (1990) based on a pers. comm. from R. Liversidge suggesting that they might be specifically distinct, and reflecting widespread former treatment (e.g. Delacour & Jabouille 1931), as it is much larger and has various differences in plumage (Brown & Amadon 1968). However, many hybrids occur in the wide zone of contact (Vaurie 1965b).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Intergradation between migrans and lineatus has been reported in areas of contact, but R. Liversidge (pers. comm.) suggests that these two forms are specifically distinct.'|
Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) treated lineatus as conspecific with migrans, noting that 'The large eastern Asiatic lineatus has also been considered a separate species, but it has wide zone of intergradation with nominate migrans in western Asia, and much narrower one with govinda in Himalayas, so there is even less justification for that.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to lineatus, noted that 'Many individuals are easily recognised but others (perhaps hybrids) seem intermediate.'
|Gyps indicus||>||Gyps tenuirostris||Gyps indicus (Sibley and Monroe, 1990, 1993) has been split into G. indicus and G. tenuirostris following Rasmussen and Parry (2001).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Tenuirostris is sometimes considered specifically distinct from indicus, but B. King (pers. comm.) indicates that they are similar and probably not worthy of recognition as species.'|
Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) noted that there are 'Two distinct forms — which replace each other geographically and have clear differences in bill structure, and head and thigh covering, as well as in nesting and social behaviour -—have traditionally been treated as conspecific, and it is as races of one species that they are included here. Some authorities have, however, considered them two distinct species in the past, and a stronger case for doing so is now being made (see Rasmussen & Parry).'
Rasmussen and Parry (2001) noted that 'The two taxa presently treated as races of the Long-billed Vulture Gyps indicus were initially described as separate species: Gyps indicus (Scopoli 1786) and G. tenuirostris (Gray 1844). Confusion between the two in nomenclature and identity has existed for a long time (e.g. Sharpe 1874). Early in the 20th Century, indicus and tenuirostris were lumped without careful study, and to add to the confusion, a Pakistani population of Eurasian Griffon Gyps fulvus was mistakenly named as a new race, G. indicus jonesi (Whistler 1927). Since then indicus and tenuirostris have uniformly been treated as conspecific, although Stresemann and Amadon (1979: 306) listed them as "megasubspecies" (p. 273), and Alström (1997) stated that they may "prove to be better considered as separate species". We have now studied as many specimens and photographs as possible, and these wo taxa prove to be extraordinarily distinct (Rasmussen & Parry 2000). …. Our results are somewhat preliminary, but the outcome is entirely clear: no accepted species concept, no matter how broad, can encompass two taxa as distinct as indicus and tenuirostris.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to indicus, noted that 'This and Slender-billed Vulture differ markedly in a great many traits and share only a superficial resemblance; their treatment as conspecific cannot be sustained (Rasmussen & Parry 2001). Indian is much more similar to Griffon, while Slender-billed is highly distinctive, with many unique characters and some seemingly paedomorphic ones (retained juvenile traits).'
Johnson et al. (2006) noted that their 'molecular phylogenies strongly support the treatment of indicus and tenuirostris as separate species, as does morphological data showing that these two taxa of similar overall size differ in proportions, especially in rostral, alar, and pedal characters.'
|Spilornis minimus||<||Spilornis cheela||Spilornis minimus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into S. klossi with the remainder (i.e. nominate minimus) lumped with S. cheela (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) following Rasmussen and Anderton (2005).||Brown & Amadon (1968) treated klossi as a monotypic species and minimus as a race of cheela. Morony et al. (1975) treated minimus and klossi as conspecific with cheela, but they are morphologically more distinct than some other forms currently treated as species in this genus. Following Amadon & Bull (1988) these two pale and diminutive forms are treated as races of one species, minimus. ||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated minimus as a species (including klossi) and noted that 'Amadon and Bull (1988: 311) recognized minimus as an allospecies.'|
Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) treated minimus and klossi as separate species from cheela, noting that 'Amadon & Bull "tentatively" regarded klossi (Great Nicobar Serpent-eagle as conspecific, but that is apparently smaller still, with relatively shorter and legs, and has plain underparts and distinct head and tail patterns. Such differences are recognised by the species status commonly given to klossi, while minimus is often treated as race of Crested Serpent-eagle. These are two of seven small to very small forms endemic to the series of islands that run down the east side of the Bay of Bengal and Indian Ocean from Andaman to Mentawai (off central Sumatra): six are markedly different in various ways from the Crested Serpent-eagles of the adjacent mainland, and fom each other, and have probably evolved from separate colonisations; certainly there is little chance of their mixing, and it seems more realistic and more useful zoogeographically to treat them as distinct species.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that the 'Specific distinctness of klossi is supported by several striking differences from all other Spilornis populations, as well as the sympatry of Crested (in an undescribed race previously attributed to malayensis [Swann, 1920]). Sometimes united in a separate species with the taxon minimus of the central Nicobars, but the latter is closer to the cheela group, and no other cheela occurs with it. Some other extralimital island populations of cheela show trends similar to those of minimus toward small size and having juvenile plumage similar to adult, so the case for species status of minimus is less compelling than for klossi. Most of these distinctive island populations have however recently been proposed as separate species (Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001).'
|Spilornis minimus||>||Spilornis klossi||See above||See above||See above|
|Circus aeruginosus||>||Circus spilonotus (+)||Amadon (1978) treated spilonotus as a separate species from aeruginosus; however, Cramp & Simmons (1980) treated them as conspecific because there is interbreeding where the two forms meet, and some individuals in the western part of the range of aeruginosus show some characters of spilonotus (Vaurie 1965b).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated spilonotus as a separate species, noting that 'C. ranivorus, C. spilonotus, C. approximans and C. maillardi may be conspecific with C. aeruginosus. The extent to which C. aeruginosus and C. approximans [sic, corrected to spilonotus in Sibley & Monroe 1993] interbreed in western Siberia and western Mongolia is uncertain (Vaurie 1965a: 205; Amadon 1978; Baker-Gabb 1979).'|
Sibley & Monroe (1993) added '..although they are considered conspecific by Stepanyan (1990c)' to the above.
Wells (1999) noted that 'Nine apparently adult male aeruginosus from central Thailand vary in dorsal body to upper tail-covert tones and primary-covert pattern, and one has much white on thighs and belly (BMNH), suggestive of intergrades (that could easily have been overlooked also in the Peninsula). Replication of male spilonotus-type plumage in New Guinea, the Malagasy region and N Africa (BMNH, Vaurie 1965) supplies another reason for not recognising separate species.'
Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) treated spilonotus as conspecific with aeruginosus, noting that 'Although spilonotus popularly regarded as separate species, and then sometimes including New Guinea race spilothorax of Australasian Marsh Harrier, it apparently interbreeds with nominate aeruginosus where the two meet in west and north Mongolia, produciing offspring with variably intermediate characters; such intergrades recorded in winter in central Thailand. Otherwise, melanistic and partly melanistic individuals occur throughout much of range, seemingly more common in western and central Asia, but not reported for spilonotus.'
Fefelov (2001) noted that 'New information on the breeding ecology and inter-breeding of Western Circus aeruginosus and Eastern C. spilonotus Marsh Harriers in the Baikal region of Eastern Siberia is presented. Hybridization is relatively common (one of the parents was not "pure" C. spilonotus in six out of 28 nesting cases) in the Irkutsk area, where nests of a mixed pair were found with chicks in 1999 and 2000. …The systematic staus ("species" or "subspecies") of the Western and Eastern Marsh Harriers depends on the systematic approach taken, and existing data seem to be inadequate to resolve this. The Siberian Mongolian zone of contact of these harriers is unique as other marsh harriers of the world are allopatric. More research on ecology, behaviour and molecular systematics is necessary to resolve the situation.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to spilonotus, noted that 'All plumages differ strikingly from Western, with which it hybridises to a limited extent in E Siberia (Fefelov 2001). The taxonomy of the Japanese resident form requires study as it is certainly not racially synonymous with mainland spilonotus.'
|Aquila pomarina||>||Aquila hastata||Aquila pomarina (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. pomarina and A. hastata following Parry et al. (2002).||Parry et al. (2002) detailed many morphological differences between hastata and pomarina and treated these as separate species.|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to hastata, noted that it is 'Morphologically distinct from A. pomarina in numerous characters, and perhaps not more closely related to that species than to A. clanga (Parry et al. 2002).'
Väli (2006) confirmed this treatment by analysis of mitochondrial DNA sequences.
|Hieraeetus morphnoides||>||Hieraeetus weiskei||Hieraaetus morphnoides (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into H. morphnoides and H. weiskei following Bunce et al. (2005) and Lerner and Mindell (2005). The BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group is aware that phylogenetic analyses have been published which have proposed generic rearrangements which may affect this species, but prefers to wait until work by other taxonomists reveals how these changes affect the entire groups involved.|
|Spizaetus cirrhatus||>||Spizaetus floris||Spizaetus cirrhatus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into S. cirrhatus and S. floris following Gjershaug et al. (2004).||King (1997) treated Spizaetus floris Flores Hawk Eagle as a separate species from cirrhatus, because it has only one plumage (unlike other forms of cirrhatus which have distinct juvenile and adult plumages).|
Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), referring to cirrhatus, noted that 'Variation thus complex, so sometimes divided int o two or even three species: (a) crested cirrhatus and ceylanensis; (b) polymorphic and nearly crestless limnaeetus, with monomorphic and crestless vanheurni; and (c) similarly crestless but largely unmarked floris. Short-crested andamanensis, however, is very similar in adult and juvenile plumages to pale-morph limnaeetus, providing link between the two mainland forms. Perhaps floris is most isolated taxon.'
Gjershaug et al. (2004) noted that floris is morphologically very distinct from the widespread limnaeetus. It has diagnostic white patches on the upperside of the inner parts of the primaries, a juvenile-like adult plumage, and it is much larger than limnaeetus. It is allopatric with limnaeetus without any known geographical overlap. The large morphological differences indicate that the two taxa are reproductively isolated.'
|Chlamydotis macqueenii||<||Chlamydotis undulata (+)|
|Gaucher et al. (1996) recommended that macqueenii be separated at the species level from undulata of North Africa, because of striking differences in male display and in the DNA of cytochrome b, and the lack of naturally occurring hybrids.||Dickinson (2003) noted that they 'provisionally accept the suggestion of Gaucher et al. (1996) that macqueenii should be separated.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Regional form macqueenii recently considered a distinct species from C. undulata on basis of differing plumage (especially display plumes), display features and vocalisations. However, further study is required (and is in progress) especially at the presumed contact zone.'
|Sypheotides indica||=||Sypheotides indicus||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Rallus mirificus||=||Lewinia mirifica||The generic allocation of pectoralis and mirificus is uncertain. The species pectoralis resembles Rallus in external appearance and behaviour, but Olson (1973) aligned it with Dryolimnas, based on osteological differences. Sibley & Monroe (1990) placed both species in Lewinia but did not provide reasons for this innovation. They are here maintained in Rallus pending further studies.|
|Amaurornis isabellinus||=||Amaurornis isabellina||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Amaurornis olivaceus||=||Amaurornis olivacea||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Amaurornis olivaceus||>||Amaurornis moluccana (+)||McAllan & Bruce (1988) treated moluccana as an allospecies, stating that it was quite distinct from the Philippine olivacea. However, Marchant & Higgins (1993) treated them as conspecific, noting that the Wallacean populations appear to be intermediate between those of Australia and those of the Philippines.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated moluccana as a separate species, noting that 'Often considered conspecific with A. olivaceus, but see McAllan and Bruce (1988: 27).'|
Taylor (1998) treated moluccana as a separate species, merely noting that it was 'sufficiently distinctive to merit separation' and without discussing the intermediate nature of the Wallacean population, even though this is evident in the illustrations.
Dickinson (2003) referring to moluccana, noted that 'The case for splitting this species needs to be made in more detail.'
|Porzana bicolor||=||Amaurornis bicolor||Ripley (1977) included bicolor in Amaurornis but his definition of the genus Amaurornis ought to exclude bicolor, as pointed out by Inskipp & Round (1989). The latter authors preferred to place bicolor in Porzana rather than Amaurornis, following Olson (1973), who drew attention to the similarities of bicolor and fusca.|
|Turnix sylvatica||=||Turnix sylvaticus||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Turnix maculosa||=||Turnix maculosus||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Turnix ocellata||=||Turnix ocellatus||Spelling of species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Esacus neglectus||=||Esacus giganteus||Peters (1934) used Orthorhamphus magnirostris for this species, but Meinertzhagen (1924), in a review of the family, subsumed Orthorhamphus in Burhinus, thereby placing magnirostris into junior secondary homonymy. According to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN 1985: Article 59b) junior secondary homonyms replaced before 1961 are permanently invalid. Sibley & Monroe (1990) used the name giganteus Wagler 1829, although Meinertzhagen (1924) had treated this name as indeterminable. Even if giganteus were found to be applicable to this species, the name has not been used for more than 50 years and can be considered to be an unused senior synonym. The next available name is neglectus Mathews 1912 (Christidis & Boles 1994).||Dickinson (2003) used magnirostris and noted that 'two alternative names have been proposed for this (giganteus and neglectus). We believe application to the ICZN is needed to resolve this dispute and for now follow Hume (1996: 363) pending a ruling.'|
|Himantopus himantopus||>||Himantopus leucocephalus (+)||Mayr & Short (1970) suggested that treatment of leucocephalus and ceylonensis as separate species from himantopus was preferable to 'dubious lumping'. However, Cramp & Simmons (1983) considered that ceylonensis did not even warrant treatment as a subspecies and that the structural similarities between leucocephalus and nominate himantopus suggest that they are conspecific.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated leucocephalus as a separate species, noting that it 'May be conspecific with H. himantopus', and that 'The relationships within Himantopus are uncertain; most allopatric forms differing in morphology, behavior or vocalizations are here treated as allospecies, although the genus may contain but one polytypic species (Bock and Farrand 1980: 24).'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), referring to leucocephalus, noted that 'Vocal and morphological differences tend to support specific treatment, but evidence of introgression with himantopus in W Indonesia; species limits require further study.'
|Vanellus malabaricus||=||Vanellus malarbaricus||The original spelling of the name was used by Peters (1934), citing the type description of the species as Charadrius malarbaricus Boddaert 1783.||However, only a handful of authors have used this spelling whereas malabaricus has been widely used (e.g. Piersma & Wiersma 1996, Dickinson 2003) and would qualify as in prevailing usage.|
|Pluvialis dominicus||=||Pluvialis dominica||The name dominicus is a noun in apposition, not an adjective, so should not be changed to agree in gender with the generic name (AOU 1995).||Spelling as dominica follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Charadrius morinellus||=||Eudromias morinellus||Nielsen (1975) subsumed Eudromias in Charadrius, based on a study of plumage morphology. He demonstrated that morinellus was closely similar to asiaticus and veredus.|
|Micropalama himantopus||=||Calidris himantopus||Dickinson (2003) noted that AOU (1998) did not recognize the genus Micropalama.|
|Calidris pygmeus||=||Eurynorhynchus pygmeus||Johnsgard (1981) provided morphological and behavioural evidence to justify the inclusion of pygmeus in Calidris. Burton (1971), however, urged that pygmeus be retained in Eurynorhynchus as, despite the similarities with Calidris, the unique feeding adaptation of pygmeus indicates a shift to a new adaptive zone.|
|Phalaropus fulicaria||=||Phalaropus fulicarius||Parkes (1982) demonstrated that the correct spelling of the specific name is fulicaria.||David & Gosselin (2002a) explained that the correct spelling was fulicarius.|
|Larus glaucoides||>||Larus thayeri||Larus glaucoides (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into L. glaucoides and L. thayeri following AOU (1998).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Kumlieni appears intermediate between glaucoides and thayeri, all these forms constituting one continuum of breeding populations representing a single species (Weber 1981, Snell 1989), although R. C. Banks (pers. comm.) suggests that kumlieni (with thayeri) is a distinct polymorphic species more closely related to argentatus than to glaucoides. The reported assortative mating between thayeri and kumlieni on Baffin I. (N. Smith 1966) has been refuted by Snell (1989).'|
AOU (1998) noted that 'L. thayeri was formerly (A.O.U. 1957) regarded as a race of L. argentatus, but it is now generally regarded as a distinct species. However, it is treated as a subspecies of L. glaucoides by Godfrey (1986). Recent studies suggest that L. thayeri and L. glaucoides kumlieni interbreed on Baffin and Southampton islands (Gaston and Decker 1985, Snell 1989). Relationships of these populations require further study.'
|Larus heuglini||<||Larus argentatus (+)|
|Vaurie (1965b) treated heuglini as conspecific with argentatus, whereas Cramp & Simmons (1983) treated it as conspecific with fuscus on morphological and other grounds. However, Filchagov & Semashko (1987) and Filchagov et al. (1992a) refer to apparent absence of interbreeding between heuglini and both argentatus and fuscus where all three forms occur in close proximity in Kola (western Russia); they suggested that heuglini should be treated as a separate species, based on habitat segregation, ecological differences and the historical trends of the populations. Includes taimyrensis Buturlin, 1911 which has been considered to be an intergrade between heuglini and vegae (Johansen 1960, Devillers 1983), but it is morphologically similar to heuglini, and may be sympatric with Larus vegae birulai Pleske, 1928 (Kennerley et al. 1995).||Sibley & Monroe (1990, 1993) treated heuglini as conspecific with argentatus without any discussion.|
Dickinson (2003), referring to heuglini, noted that 'In last Edition treated as part of L. argentatus and perhaps closely related to L. a. vegae, and both heuglini and vegae require further study if either is to be recognised, see Burger & Gochfeld (1996: 611), who include antelius and taimyrensis as synonyms.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The type specimen of heuglini is evidently closer to taimyrensis than to nominate heuglini, and if so the next available name antelius should be used for heuglini, while taimyrensis becomes heuglini (Buzun 2002); however, given the nomenclatural confusion and likelihood of further change before stability is achieved, implementation of this change should await further study.'
Collinson et al. (2008) noted that, although studies had shown a significant, though incomplete, barrier to gene flow between fuscus and heuglini, and behavioural data indicated that there was no hybridisation between these taxa, there was a problem with diagnosibility of heuglini with respect to fuscus, and they maintained that, until further genetic sampling had been undertaken it was more defensible to treat heuglini as conspecific with fuscus.
|Larus vegae||<||Larus argentatus (+)|
|Vaurie (1965b), and most other authors, treated vegae as conspecific with argentatus but vegae is separated from argentatus by smithsonianus which is morphologically very distinct from vegae and unlikely to be closely related. Stepanyan (1990), Filchagov et al. (1992b) and Beaman (1994) treated vegae as conspecific with heuglini because of an apparent continuum from heuglini to vegae. However, the variability of taimyrensis and birulai and their apparent sympatry or parapatry over a huge area suggests that vegae should be treated as a separate species (Kennerley et al. 1995).||Sibley & Monroe (1990, 1993) treated vegae as conspecific with argentatus without any discussion.|
Collinson et al. (2008) aligned vegae and mongolicus with smithsonianus as a species, on the basis of similarities in plumage and lack of diagnosibility.
|Gelochelidon nilotica||=||Sterna nilotica||Moynihan (1959) treated all of the black-capped terns as conspecific in Sterna as he thought that all species were very similar in plumage and behaviour. However, he recognized that nilotica was the most isolated and distinctive species because of its build and gull-like proportions.|
|Chlidonias hybridus||=||Chlidonias hybrida||David & Gosselin (2002a) explained that the correct spelling was hybrida.|
|Gygis alba||>||Gygis microrhyncha (+)||The form microrhyncha was treated as a separate species by Sibley & Monroe (1990), who misquoted Holyoak & Thibault (1976); the latter authors actually stated that treating the complex as one species was appropriate because intermediates were frequent on three small islands in the Marquesas group.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Holyoak and Thibault (1976) and Pratt, Bruner and Berrett (1987: 187) treated G. microrhyncha as a species distinct from G. alba.'|
|Catharacta antarctica||>||Catharacta lonnbergi (+)||Furness (1987) treated lonnbergi, antarctica and skua as conspecific under the latter name because he believed they were all closely related, although he admitted that it was a matter of taste whether they were classed as species or subspecies, and later (1996) recognised antarctica (including lonnbergi) and skua as full species because of the differences in morphology and migration pattern (Devillers 1978). Recent DNA evidence shows that skua is less closely related to any of antarctica, maccormicki and the extralimital chilensis, than are these three to each other (Furness 1996).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'C. antarctica and C. lonnbergi are usually considered conspecific with C. skua, but the degree of difference between these allopatrically breeding populations is comparable to that between C. lonnbergi and C. maccormicki, which breed sympatrically (with some hybridization) in the South Shetland Islands (Parmalee 1988); allospecies treatment seems appropriate.'|
|Brachyramphus marmoratus||>||Brachyramphus perdix||Brachyramphus marmoratus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into B. marmoratus and B. perdix following AOU (1998).||Friesen & Baker (1994) and Piatt et al. (1994) carried out genetic studies that indicated that perdix Long-billed Murrelet is distinct enough from the extralimital marmoratus to warrant specific status. However, Bourne (1994) felt that more research was required.||Gaston & Jones (1998) treated perdix as conspecific with marmoratus, despite noting that 'Recent studies of genetic variation suggest that the divergence between the Asian and North American populations of Marbled Murrelet is greater than that between the North American population of Marbled and Kittlitz's Murrelet (Friesen et al. 1996b) supporting earlier classification of the Long-billed Murrelet as a separate species.'|
AOU (1998) noted that perdix was 'Treated as a species by Ridgway (1919) and AOU (1931), but subsequently (e.g. AOU 1957) generally considered a subspecies of B. marmoratus. Molecular data (Friesen et al. 1996) indicate that B. brevirostris may be more closely related to B. marmoratus than is B. perdix; other molecular data (Zink et al. 1995) also show a degree of differentiation between perdix and marmoratus comparable to that between well-differentiated species.'
Dickinson (2003) treated perdix as a separate species, citing AOU (1998).
|Columba torringtoni||=||Columba torringtoniae||Pittie & Dickinson (2006) drew attention to the correct spelling of the name and the relevant authors.|
|Streptopelia picturata||=||Nesoenas picturata||Columba picturata and C. mayeri (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) were previously transferred to the genus Streptopelia following Johnson et al. (2001), but are now placed in Nesoenas following Cheke (2005).|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) followed Fry et al. (1985) in including picturata in Columba because they considered it to be derived from the Columba delegorguei Delegorgue, 1847 superspecies. However, Dowsett & Dowsett-Lemaire (1993) discussed the colonization of islands by other relatives of C. delegorguei and considered that this treatment was unacceptable. They retained it in Streptopelia.
|Contra BirdLife International (2009) Johnson et al. (2001) did not transfer picturata to Streptopelia, they maintained picturata in Streptopelia and subsumed Nesoenas (only species mayeri) in Streptopelia.|
Cheke (2005) discussed the relationships of picturata & mayeri, and chinensis & senegalensis to other Old World Columba and Streptopelia species and concluded that these two species pairs were each distinct enough to warrant separation in different genera, Nesoenas for the former and Stigmatopelia for the latter.
|Streptopelia chinensis||=||Stigmatopelia chinensis||Streptopelia senegalensis and S. chinensis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) are placed in the genus Stigmatopelia following Cheke (2005).||Cheke (2005) discussed the relationships of picturata & mayeri, and chinensis & senegalensis to other Old World Columba and Streptopelia species and concluded that these two species pairs were each distinct enough to warrant separation in different genera, Nesoenas for the former and Stigmatopelia for the latter.|
|Streptopelia senegalensis||=||Stigmatopelia senegalensis||Streptopelia senegalensis and S. chinensis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) are placed in the genus Stigmatopelia following Cheke (2005).||Cheke (2005) discussed the relationships of picturata & mayeri, and chinensis & senegalensis to other Old World Columba and Streptopelia species and concluded that these two species pairs were each distinct enough to warrant separation in different genera, Nesoenas for the former and Stigmatopelia for the latter.|
|Macropygia amboinensis||>||Macropygia tenuirostris (+)|
The treatment adopted by Peters (1937), where the Australian Macropygia phasianella included the emiliana group from the Greater Sundas and the tenuirostris group from the Philippines, was considered unsatisfactory by Mayr (1944) as it resulted in a markedly disjunct distribution of Macropygia phasianella, with Macropygia amboinensis and Macropygia magna occupying the gap between populations of phasianella. He also referred to the close similarity of amboinensis and phasianella. Goodwin (1967) used the same treatment as Peters, referring to a possible overlap of amboinensis and magna in south-west Sulawesi; he treated amboinensis as a separate species because of some described similarities with Macropygia unchall, but at the same time he could find 'no single character to distinguish all forms of [amboinensis] from all forms of [phasianella].' Condon (1975) treated all forms in the complex as conspecific but provided no justification. White & Bruce (1986) discussed the possible overlap of amboinensis and magna, but did not provide any conclusive evidence of sympatry. The link between amboinensis and phasianella was further strengthened by Schodde's (1988) description of a morphologically intermediate race from northern Queensland.
|Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated tenuirostris, emiliana and magna as species separate from amboinensis noting that 'White and Bruce (1986: 188-189) treated M. tenuirostris and M. emiliana as species distinct from M. phasianella.' |
Baptista et al. (1997) treated amboinensis, phasianella, magna, tenuirostris and emiliana as separate species, noting under each that it 'May form superspecies with M. phasianella, M. magna, M. rufipennis, M. tenuirostris and M. emiliana, and all six sometimes considered conspecific; various other combinations proposed, with M. phasianella and M. magna normally considered to be the forms closest
Schodde & Mason (1997)
Kennedy et al. (2000), referring to Philippine birds, noted that 'Recent authors recognize the Philippine races to be part of the Philippine Cuckoo-Dove Macropygia tenuirostris separated from the Brown Cuckoo-Dove Macropygia phasianella and from the Ruddy Cuckoo-Dove Macropygia emiliana, but differ when treating their limits and affinities. Complex not yet resolved.'
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Baptista et al. (1997: 143) treated amboinensis and phasianella as separate species, but see Schodde & Mason (1997).' He treated tenuirostris as separate noting that 'Specific limits in this genus are still relatively obscure, see Kennedy et al. (2000: 147). The separation of this species and of emiliana (see Sibley and Monroe 1990) from phasianella is less comfortable in light of the apparent conspecificity of amboinensis and phasianella. See also Mayr (1944: 148, 191).'
|Macropygia amboinensis||>||Macropygia emiliana (+)||See above||See above|
|Macropygia amboinensis||>||Macropygia magna (+)||See above||See above|
|Reinwardtoena reinwardtii||=||Reinwardtoena reinwardtsi||Mees (1964b) noted that the spelling of the specific name as reinwardtsi by Temminck (1824) is clearly a lapsus (Temminck emended the name in his Tableau méthodique, 1839: 81, the index to his Planches colouriées), and can be emended validly under the ICZN rules.|
|Geopelia striata||>||Geopelia maugeus (+)||White & Bruce (1986) and Andrew (1992) treated maugeus as a separate species from striata, citing Harrison (1969). However, Harrison who, for maugeus examined only skins, tabulated many shared characters of maugeus and striata, and concluded only that maugeus might possibly be treated as a separate species. Johnstone (1992), in a taxonomic review of populations of the complex in Australia and New Guinea, treated placida Gould, 1844 of Australia and maugeus as conspecific with striata.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that maugeus 'May be conspecific with G. striata, but Wolters (1975: 46) treated it as an allospecies.'|
Schodde & Mason (1997)
|Gallicolumba criniger||=||Gallicolumba crinigera||David & Gosselin (2002a) explained that the correct spelling was crinigera.|
|Phapitreron amethystina||=||Phapitreron amethystinus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Phapitreron cinereiceps||>||Phapitreron brunneiceps||Phapitreron cinereiceps (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. cinereiceps and P. brunneiceps following Collar et al. (1999). Because this split was made in a BirdLife publication, the justification is repeated here in full (but the references are not supplied). The form cinereiceps does not differ from P. brunneiceps in its "redder hindneck" (contradel Hoyo et al. 1997) but possesses a matt grey crown, more olive back, rusty not vinous-grey belly, brown not buff vent, and grey not buff undertail-coverts (as judged from CMNH 91B2583), and on this basis merits specific recognition from P. brunneiceps, with which it has in recent years (despite Manuel 1936a) been united under the name "Dark-eared Brown-dove" (the detailed original descriptions of both forms are adjacent in Bourns and Worcester 1894). It is arguably more distinct from brunneiceps than brunneiceps is from Amethyst Brown-dove P. amethystina, the latter only being recognised as representatives of separate species when their sympatry on Mt McKinley, Mindanao, was noted (Dickinson et al. 1991). Rand (1970b) stated that on Mindanao cinereiceps (i.e. brunneiceps) and amethystina both occur from 900 to 1,350 m, but that only the latter was found at altitudes above this; there may thus be a partial difference in altitudinal preference.|
|Treron bicincta||=||Treron bicinctus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Treron psittacea||=||Treron psittaceus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Treron phoenicoptera||=||Treron phoenicopterus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Treron oxyura||=||Treron oxyurus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Treron sphenura||=||Treron sphenurus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Ptilinopus hyogastra||=||Ptilinopus hyogastrus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a). Dickinson (2003) noted that in the original description it was spelt hyogastra, and that Temminck (1839) emended it to hyogaster.|
|Ptilinopus melanospila||=||Ptilinopus melanospilus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Prioniturus montanus||>||Prioniturus waterstradti (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated waterstradti as a separate species from montanus, and Peters (1937) treated it as a subspecies of flavicans. However, it is very similar in plumage to montanus (Salomonsen 1953), and Dickinson et al. (1991) suggested that further study is needed to elucidate the taxonomy.||White and Bruce (1986) treated waterstradti as a species, within the superspecies P. platenae, and noted that 'Salomonsen (1953: 222-235) reviewed all forms of the genus and presented a new classification, but he applied the superspecies category to only one group (P. platurus and P. mada). Rand, in an unpublished paper (1970a), revised species limits which have been adopted in recent Philippine papers (cf. Bruce 1981; Kennedy 1981). Salomonsen considered Mindanao as the centre of dispersal of Prioniturus, where the taxon waterstradti was regarded as the most primitive (males very similar to female montanus).' |
Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated waterstradti as a separate species merely noting that 'White and Bruce (1986: 224-226) discussed relationships and taxonomy of Prioniturus spp.'
|Prioniturus discurus||>||Prioniturus flavicans (+)||White (in White & Bruce 1986) treated flavicans as a separate species, his justification being 'I prefer to keep P. flavicans as an allospecies'. However, Salomonsen (1953) treated flavicans as conspecific with discurus because he considered that the main difference between them, the presence of a red nuchal patch in flavicans, was not an important specific character in this genus.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated flavicans as a separate species merely noting that 'White and Bruce (1986: 224-226) discussed relationships and taxonomy of Prioniturus spp.'|
|Loriculus amabilis||>||Loriculus sclateri||Loriculus amabilis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into L. amabilis and L. sclateri following Collar (1997).||Collar (1997) treated sclateri as a separate species from amabilis without discussion, but based on several morphological differences.|
Dickinson (2003), referring to the split of sclateri, noted that 'Detailed evidence not seen. We prefer to follow White & Bruce (1986: 220).'
|Cacatua goffini||=||Cacatua goffiniana||The Tanimbar Corella or Goffin's Cockatoo, in recent literature referred to as Cacatua goffini, was re-christened Cacatua tanimberensis by Roselaar & Prins (2000) but is now named Cacatua goffiniana (Roselaar & Michels 2004). The name goffini proved to have been applied to the Solomon Corella C. ducorpsii, while the name tanimberensis was erroneously provided as a "substitute name" ("nom. nov.") for the Tanimbar species when in fact it had never had a name applied to it at all, so under ICZN rules tanimberensis is a synonym of ducorpsii (!)—hence, at last, goffiniana (Collar, 2005).|
|Eos bornea or Eos rubra||=||Eos bornea||Walters (1998) examined the type description of Psittacus borneus and decided that it was not identifiable with any known species, and the name had been misapplied to the Red Lory. The next available name was Psittacus ruber and he recommended that this name should be used for the species.|
|Psittacula intermedia||=||Psittacula cyanocephala x himalayana||Psittacula intermedia (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) is now considered a hybrid of Plum-headed Parakeet P. cyanocephala and Slaty-headed Parakeet P. himalayana following Rasmussen and Collar (1999).||Husain (1959b) treated intermedia as a hybrid between cyanocephala and himalayana. However, it is not intermediate between these two forms (Biswas 1959, 1960, Walters 1985) and Sane et al. (1987) demonstrated that a recently captured bird was biochemically different from cyanocephala, himalayana and krameri.||Rasmussen & Collar (1999) noted that 'The name Psittacula intermedia was attached to seven dataless specimens sent from India to England between 1895 and 1907, six of which are now at the American Museum of Natural History, the other being at The Natural History Museum, Tring, U.K. Their origins and taxonomic standing have long puzzled autthorities, since they look intermediate between male Plum-headed Parakeet P. cyanocephala and Slaty-headed Parakeet P. himalayana, and no definite field records exist. Although a hybrid origin has been suggested, intermedia has recently been considered a valid species on the bases of: (a) uniformity of characters; (b) a single origin; (c) a non-captive origin; (d) an old description of hybrid cyanocephala x himalayana which does not match intermedia; (e) reports of captive intermedia in the 1990s; and (f) biochemical analysis of captive birds. For this study, we examined all published intermedia specimens. For hybrid diagnoses we compared morphology of adult nales qualitatively and mensurally with the putative parental species, including also Grey-headed Parakeet P. finschii and Blossom-headed Parakeet P. roseata. We examined six live adult hybrid cyanocephala x himalayana bred by two different aviculturists, as well as one live bird in India claimed to be intermedia, and we considered published avicultural evidence. Our analyses showed all the defences of the specific status of intermedia to be wanting, as follows: (a) considerable variation exists in the original material; (b) the specimens could not all have had a single origin; (c) six of the seven specimens showed signs of captivity; (d) the 65-year-old account of cyanocephala x himalayana only furnishes passing descriptions of juveniles, and is therefore not comparable with the adult intermedia|
|specimens; (e) all the specimens examined in Bombay are hybrid cyanocephala x krameri, while other captive intermedia in Austria and India are of uncertain provenance (but the former appear to be cyanocephala x finschii); and (f) the biochemical analysis was seriously flawed, most importantly in that the specimens used were not intermedia but hybrid cyanocephala x krameri. Neither cyanocephala nor himalayana shows any morphological characters incompatible with being parent to intermedia, and all features of the latter are explained by a combination of the two former species. Moreover, mensurally the AMNH intermedia fall midway between cyanocephala and himalayana. All known male cyanocephala x himalayana possess plumage features and measurements matching AMNH's five adult male intermedia, while the previously undescribed female hybrid has the head paler than himalayana and drabber than female cyanocephala. This evidence leaves no doubt that intermedia is a hybrid of cyanocephala and himalayana.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'A specimen and captives previously reported as Intermediate Parakeet or Rothschild's Parakeet Psittacula intermedia (Rothschild, 1895) are now known to be hybrids, some between Plum-headed and Rose-ringed, most between Plum-headed and Himalayan (Rasmussen & Collar 1999a, b)'
|Hierococcyx crassirostris||=||Cuculus crassirostris||White & Bruce (1986) retained the hawk cuckoo species in Cuculus, noting that Kuroda (1966) referred to hawk mimicry in other Cuculus species. However, Stresemann & Stresemann (1961), followed by Voous (1977) separated them into the genus Hierococcyx, based on significant morphological differences.||Payne (2005) reported that the results of a molecular genetic analysis showed that crassirostris was 'not closely related to either the H. fugax or H. sparverioides species complexes, but is more closely related to the more typical (non-hawk) Cuculus cuckoos such as C. micropterus and C. canorus. C. crassirostris was originally described as a Hierococcyx and it was long called a "hawk-cuckoo" because it has broad rounded wings and a broadly barred tail (Meyer 1879, Shelley 1891, Baker 1927, Stresemann 1940, Wolters 1975-1982), but its calls are mellow whistles like the calls of Common Cuckoo C. canorus, and its plumage below is barred not streaked; it is better known as Sulawesi Cuckoo.'|
|Hierococcyx sparverioides||=||Cuculus sparverioides||See above||Payne (2005) noted that 'Peters (1940) disregarded the genus Hierococcyx because cuckoos with these characters were not exclusive from other cuckoos that were not considered members of the same set, and the wing shape varied within the set. The secondaries are nearly as long as the primaries, nearly 2/3 the length of the primaries in the folded wing; in contrast to Cuculus where the primaries are longer. The genetic results show that Hierococcyx cuckoos in the sense of H. fugax and allied species, H. sparverioides and allied species and H. vagans together form a monophyletic set.'|
|Hierococcyx varius||=||Cuculus varius||See above||See above|
|Hierococcyx vagans||=||Cuculus vagans||See above||See above|
|Hierococcyx fugax||=||Cuculus fugax||See above||See above|
|Cuculus saturatus||>||Cuculus lepidus||Cuculus saturatus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. saturatus, C. optatus and C. lepidus following Payne (2005).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Lepidus was formerly considered a race of C. poliocephalus but is now regarded as a dimunitive [sic] form of C. saturatus (Wells & Becking 1975; Wells 1982b).'|
Payne (2005) treated lepidus as a separate species from poliocephalus, noting that it differs in juvenile plumage and in song. In comparison with saturatus he noted that it was 'much smaller, plumage darker buff, especially the belly and under tail coverts; song "hoop, hoop-hoop" higher in pitch than Himalayan Cuckoo.'
|>||Cuculus optatus||See above||White and Bruce (1986) noted that 'In view of the clinal variation in China and the probable variation in different parts of the USSR, I suspect that the current convention of 2 forms [i.e. horsfieldi and saturatus] is ill-founded.'|
Dickinson (2003) treated optatus as conspecific with saturatus noting that 'it was treated as a separate species by Payne (1997: 512), but apparently is now considered conspecific (R.B. Payne in litt.).'
Payne (2005) treated optatus as a separate species from saturatus, noting that 'The songs of northern birds are given at a lower pitch than songs of southern birds, the number of notes is less (C. optatus songs are usually a pair of notes) and the song lacks a high-pitched note at the beginning, distinct enough to recognize at the species level. Although plumages are similar, sex for sex the northern optatus are nearly always larger than the southern C. saturatus. C. optatus was regarded as indistinguishable from C. saturatus by White and Bruce (1986), on the basis of birds of intermediate size in India, Russia and China (Wells 1972), and Vaurie (1965) stated that the two intergrade in China, but these sources gave no data. The comments were based in part on misidentified specimens (AMNH 624917, FMNH 229662, USNM 296269, 296261, 269266 and 269263) that are in fact C. canorus, which average intermediate in size between C. saturatus and C. optatus. Nevertheless, there is some overlap in wing lengths of these two cuckoos.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The breeding form of N Eurasia, Oriental (or Horsfield's) Cuckoo C. [saturatus] optatus (= horsfieldi), is sometimes treated as a separate species and differs only in its larger size and relatively longer wing.'
|Chrysococcyx rufomerus||<||Chrysococcyx minutillus||Chrysococcyx minutillus and C. rufomerus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into C. minutillus following Payne (1997).||Peters (1940) treated rufomerus and russatus as conspecific with minutillus, but Parker (1981) treated them as three separate species because of morphological and probably ecological differences. C. rufomerus is sometimes treated as conspecific with crassirostris, but 'the differences between each apparently corresponding phase of crassirostris and rufomerus' are significant, and the evidence for hybridization is limited to a single intermediate specimen (Parker 1981).'||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated rufomerus as a separate species, noting that 'Ford (1982 [sic 1981]) considered C. rufomerus conspecific with C. crassirostris because of one intermediate specimen from Babar.'|
Payne (1997), referring to minutillus, noted that 'Present species might be better considered to constitute more than one species, but the songs of all forms, where known, are apparently identical. While the forms listed are generally allopatric, and all use the same type of host species, the occurrence of two forms (cleis, aheneus) in Borneo suggests possible separate species status; russatus group (aheneus, jungei, misoriensis, poecilurus, russatus and undescribed race from Timor) sometimes treated as a distinct species from minutillus group (peninsularis, albifrons, cleis, minutillus and barnardi) due to apparent sympatry without interbreeding in Borneo, but this may involve migrant birds, and both forms interbreed extensively in N Australia (russatus with barnardi). Races rufomerus and crassirostris are also often treated as two separate full species, or as races of one distinct species, on grounds of claimed morphological and ecological differences; race salvadorii (known only from type specimen) sometimes considered intermediate between these two, and sometimes included within latter race.'
Dickinson (2003) treated rufomerus as conspecific with minutillus citing Payne (1997). He noted that 'Questions remain and previous reports of sympatry should be kept in mind as migrants may not be involved. See also Ford (1981) and Schodde & Mason (1997).'
Payne (2005) noted that 'C. m. rufomerus, sometimes called a distinct species "Gould's Bronze-cuckoo", is intermediate in tail color and sometimes has small white spots on the wing, while the plumage color is like the rufous birds of Sulawesi and Borneo. Ford (1981) suggested that the small white spots on the wing and the dark tail suggest introgression with crassirostris, and the plumage color indicates a close relationship with the other C. minutillus.'
|Eudynamys scolopacea||=||Eudynamys scolopaceus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Eudynamys melanorhyncha||=||Eudynamys melanorhynchus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Eudynamys cyanocephala||=||Eudynamys cyanocephalus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Carpococcyx radiceus||=||Carpococcyx radiatus||Use of radiceus in the plate accompanying the original description was evidently a mistake which was corrected by the use of radiatus in the index (Temminck 1820-1839). Thus radiatus is a valid emendation (Collar & Long 1996).||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'The name radiatus cannot be construed as an emendation, it has a different root meaning. As such radiatus is a junior synonym of radiceus. As radiceus has been in use since 1899 and has priority its use must be maintained, contra Collar & Long (1996). The two conditions that would allow Art. 23.9 of the Code (ICZN, 1999) to apply are not met.'|
|Centropus chlororhynchus||=||Centropus chlororhynchos||Dickinson (2003) noted that the original spelling was chlororhynchos.|
|Tyto capensis||>||Tyto longimembris (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated longimembris as a separate species from the extralimital capensis African Grass Owl, without giving reasons. However, Amadon & Jewett (1946), who thought that the morphological differences were not significant, treated them as conspecific. ||Sibley & Monroe (1990) merely noted that 'May be conspecificwith T. capensis but here regarded as an allospecies.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'A number of marked differences exist between longimembris and capensis, inluding plumage, proportions, egg size and vocalisations (flight song at least). In morphology, capensis has a heavier build and is almost uniformly dark brown above, with indistinct wing-banding, the central tail uniformly dark brown, grading to white and weakly banded dark on outer rectrices; below has has larger dark spots, and stronger legs are more heavily feathered, while longimembris has blotchy brown and golden upperparts, prominent dark wing-banding and essentially white tail strongly banded dark. In flight song, capensis gives repeated series of 4-12 short clicks, followed by short very rapid insect-like trills (pitch 1.4-2.3 kHz, click rate c.6/s, trill d, 0.2 s; Australia-BOC, DS); much drier and less musical, and with different pattern than for longimembris. Full species status for T. longimembris is clearly indicated.'
|Otus magicus||>||Otus enganensis||Otus magicus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into O. alfredi following Widodo et al. (1999), O. siaoensis following Lambert and Rasmussen (1998), O. enganensis following Andrew (1992), O. insularis and O. beccarii following Holt et al. (1999) and O. magicus (with species limits accordingly revised).||Marshall & King (1988), contra Marshall (1978) (see above under O. umbra) treated enganensis as conspecific with magicus, a position that was apparently supported by recent data provided by J. T. Marshall to Sibley & Monroe (1993).||van Marle & Voous (1988) noted that 'Could be treated as conspecific with Otus umbra (see Marshall 1979 [sic 1978]: 14), but seems to have notably different song (BK, DY).'|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated enganensis as a separate species, noting that 'K. H. Voous (pers. comm.) considers enganensis a distinct species.'
Andrew (1992) treated enganensis as a separate species, noting merely 'Otus enganensis as a species (Marle & Voous 1988).'
However, Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated it as conspecific with Otus magicus.
König et al. (1999) noted that enganensis was 'A more or less unknown bird which requires study. Its relationship with other scops owls of the region is unclear. We treat it as a valid species.'
|Otus magicus||>||Otus siaoensis||See above||Lambert and Rasmussen (1998), discussing Sangihe Otus collari, noted that '…a single specimen obtained in 1866 was described as Scops siaoensis on the basis of its exceptionally small size (Schlegel 1873). That name was later synonymised with manadensis (Meyer, 1884, Meyer & Wiglesworth 1898), a treatment followed uncritically by most subsequent authors. In Marshall's (1978) treatise on Asian Otus, no firm decision was taken on the systematic position of either siaoensis or the Sangihe population due to the lack of data on vocalisations. Marshall (1978) mentioned unspecified differences in colouration and tarsal feathering between manadensis and populations from islands off Sulawesi, including Sangihe, but he apparently examined no specimens from the Sangihe group. This led to his very tentative allocation of all these populations to the widely distributed, highly variable Moluccan Scops Owl Otus magicus (sensu Marshall 1978, Marshall & King 1988). Bruce (in White & Bruce 1986) thought specimens from Sangihe showed affinities with manadensis, but the population was nevertheless allocated (op. cit.) with a query to magicus. In 1985, F. G. Rozendaal heard an Otus calling on Sangihe and collected a single specimen, noting that its call was "the same whistle as heard on 'mainland' Sulawesi" (F. G. Rozendaal, in litt. 1998). On this basis, the Sangihe bird was placed in manadensis by Marshall & King (1988), who reasoned (apparently without reference to specimens or recordings) that all taxa from islands closer to Sulawesi than is Sangihe (including siaoensis, mendeni of Peleng I., and kalidupae of Tukangbesi Is.) should also belong with manadensis. …. Differences between Otus collari and other taxa in manadensis superspecies: …The present taxonomic placement of certain other taxa is dubious, and work in progress is targeted toward resolving these problems, in particular the status of siaoensis (Rasmussen & Lambert, unpubl. data). …Otus [m.] siaoensis, despite its provenance, differs more strongly from manadensis and collari than the latter two do from each other…. Nevertheless, siaoensis and collari appear to share a pattern of shortfalls of primaries from the wingpoint that differs from that of all the Moluccan and Lesser Sundas taxa of magicus, as well as manadensis, the following three taxa from islands to the east of Sulawesi, and the more distantly related beccarii and insularis (Rasmussen 1998). The apparent similarity in wing shape notwithstanding, collari differs greatly from siaoensis in numerous characters.'|
|Bubo bubo||>||Bubo bengalensis (+)||Dement'ev & Gladkov (1966-1970), Amadon & Bull (1988) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated bengalensis as a separate species from bubo, without providing reasons. Vaurie (1960b, 1965b) treated them as conspecific because they replace each other geographically, have the same colour pattern, and seem to have more or less similar habits.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated bengalensis as a separate species, noting that 'Amadon and Bull (1988: 336) recognized bengalensis as a species distinct from B. bubo.'|
Dickinson (2003), referring to bengalensis, noted that 'Ripley (1982: 180) retained this in B. bubo. It is perhaps premature to separate this as not all subspecies have known DNA profiles.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The specific status of B. bengalensis is not fully established; it is highly distinctive through most of its range but there may be some intergradation with B. bubo in NW Himalayas (or perhaps local adaptation to similar environmental conditions)'
|Nyctea scandiaca||=||Bubo scandiaca||Nyctea scandiaca is transferred to the genus Bubo following Wink, M. and Heidrich, P. (1999) Molecular evolution and systematics of the owls (Strigiformes) in König et al. (1999)Owls: a guide to the owls of the world.||The genus Bubo is masculine according to Dickinson (2003) so if scandiaca is transferred to Bubo the correct spelling would be scandiacus.|
König et al. (1999) also recommended merging Ketupa and Scotopelia in Bubo to avoid paraphyly but BirdLife International (2009) have not followed or discussed this action.
|Athene blewitti||=||Heteroglaux blewitti||Dickinson (2003) treated blewitti in the genus Heteroglaux citing Rasmussen & Collar (1999).|
|Ninox squamipila||>||Ninox natalis||Ninox squamipila (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into N. squamipila and N. natalis following Norman et al. (1998).||B. King (pers. comm. 1994) treats natalis Christmas Island Hawk Owl as a separate species from squamipila, stating that it is vocally distinct; this is supported by Olsen & Stokes (1989) who found that natalis was morphologically quite distinct, although they retained it within squamipila.||Sibley & Monroe (1993) noted that 'Although morphological differences between squamipila and natalis are slight, they differ vocally and probably represent distinct species (B. King, P. Snetsinger, pers. comm.).'|
King (1997) treated natalis Christmas Island Hawk Owl as a separate species from squamipila, stating that it is vocally distinct; this is supported by Olsen & Stokes (1989) who found that natalis was morphologically quite distinct, although they retained it within squamipila.
Norman et al. (1998) noted that 'DNA sequences from the mitochondrial ND2 gene were used to assess the taxonomic status of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Ninox natalis. Sequence variation was examined across 17 specimens representing 9 species and subspecies within the genus Ninox. The comparisons revealed a correlation between taxonomic level and genetic divergence with a clear separation between the levels of sequence observed in comparisons involving individuals, subspecies and species. These observations provided strong endorsement for the use of DNA sequence data to assess the taxonomic status and phylogenetic relationships of N. natalis. Levels of sequence divergence recorded between the three forms of the N. squamipila complex examined (squamipila, hypogramma and natalis) ranged from 4.0% to 4.8%. These were comparable to the levels of divergence observed between obviously distinct species such as N. rufa and N. strenua (5.4%) and were consistently greater than observed among subspecies within the monophyletic N. novaeseelandiae complex (1.5% to 2.3% between novaeseelandiae, leucopsis and undulata). The genetic distinctiveness of all three forms of squamipila was also apparent from phylogenetic analysis of the data. Distance and parsimony methods both failed to identify any of the three forms of
|squamipila as forming a monophyletic assemblage. Based on the combined evidence (sequence divergence and phylogenetic position) it is concluded that squamipila, hypogramma and natalis each represent separate species in the genus Ninox. These findings have implications for conservation efforts in the region'. |
Dickinson (2003) treated natalis as a separate species, citing Norman et al. (1998).
|Batrachostomus poliolophus||>||Batrachostomus mixtus (+)||Batrachostomus mixtus was tentatively separated from poliolophus by Stresemann (1937) but, in the absence of conclusive evidence, it is treated as conspecific following Marshall (1978).||Marshall (1978) made no mention of mixtus but, since he gave the distribution of poliolophus as Borneo and Sumatra, he was clearly including mixtus in the latter.|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) merely noted 'Often treated as a subspecies of B. poliolophus.'
Cleere (1998) described differences in vocalizations between poliolophus and mixtus, but this was based on very limited information, particularly for poliolophus.
Holyoak (2001) noted that Stresemann (1937: 322) tentatively retained mixtus (of Borneo) as a separate species from poliolophus (of Sumatera), partly because ♂ ♂ of the latter form were at that time unknown and partly because of differences between them in wing-length and wing/tail ratio. Peters (1940) evidently hesitated between treating mixtus as a subspecies of B. poliolophus or as a separate species. However, the ♂ of poliolophus had been described by Bartels (1938), and found to be much like that of mixtus. Furthermore, additional measurements now show that extreme measurements of each form for wing, tail, and wing/tail ratio closely approach those of the other form. Hence, Marshall (1978), Mackinnon & Phillipps (1993), and Inskipp et al. (1996: 66) appear to be correct in regarding these forms as conspecific. Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993) treat them as allospecies, but no justification is given for that arrangement which is apparently based on Peters'. However, recent descriptions of the vocalisations of the two forms (in Cleere 1998a: 130-131) suggest they have different songs: if this is confirmed by fuller study, arguments for recognition of two species will be strengthened.'
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'May represent two species see Peters (1940). So treated by Marshall (1978), but no acoustic evidence then available..'
|>||Batrachostomus affinis (+)||Batrachostomus affinis has sometimes been treated as a separate species (Stresemann 1937), but Wells & Medway (1976) showed that this was based on insufficient data. Marshall (1978) gave vocal evidence supporting treatment of these forms as conspecific. Despite this Sibley & Monroe (1990) continued to treat affinis as a separate species and P. Morris (pers. comm. 1996) considered that calls from birds in Java are distinct from those in mainland South-East Asia. The race chaseni Stresemann, 1937 from Palawan is vocally distinct (P. Morris pers. comm. 1995) and may be a distinct species or a race of cornutus (Dickinson et al. 1991), but its calls resemble those of javensis more than those of cornutus.||Marshall (1978) noted that 'Confusing individual variation in size and local differences in color and voice prevented my understanding Batrachostomus javensis until recently when I found vocal evidence proving that Wells and Medway (1976) are right in uniting Batrachostomus affinis with B. javensis. I apologize for insisting that Dr. Boonsong (Lekagul and Cronin 1974) and Ben King et al. (1975) include affinis as a species in their field guides.'|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated affinis as a separate species, noting that 'Wells and Medway (1976: 25) discussed the B. [javensis] superspecies and B. cornutus.'
Sibley & Monroe (1993) added '..and Marshall (1978: 28-30)' to the above.
Wells (1999) noted that 'A recently discovered nest is unexpectedly different from one of nominate javensis, leaving open the possibility that inclusive treatment of this difficult group (MBP%, Marshall 1978) might still be up for review.'
Cleere (1998) described differences between the vocalisations of all four subspecies of javensis but, nevertheless, treated tham all as conspecific.
Holyoak (2001) noted that 'There was much confusion over taxonomic treatment of the small frogmouths affinis, javensis, and cornutus, until Marshall (1978) provided a satisfactory arrangement after combining field studies of their vocalisations with investigation of museum specimens. He confirmed the conclusion of Wells and Medway (1976) that B. cornutus should be regarded as a distinct species from B. javensis, not a subspecies as in Stresemann (1937) and Peters (1940). Nevertheless, muddled treatments of the group have continued into some of the more recent literature, as pointed out below and by Inskipp et al. (1996; 66). Hachisuka (1934) reported the occurrence of both "B. javensis adspersus" and "B. affinis" on Palawan (Philippines), but this was corrected by Stresemann (1937: 326). Nevertheless, Stresemann (1937) and Peters (1940) continued to treat affinis as a species distinct from javensis (apparently because they regarded cornutus as the Bornean representative of javensis). Marshall (1978) showed they are best regarded as conspecific because of their allopatry, vocal similarities, and because a population
|intermediate in coloration between affinis and B. j. continentalis exists around Khao I Phrom in c. Thailand. A few years earlier, Lekagul and Cronin (1974) and King and Dickinson (1975:198) treated affinis and javensis as separate species on the basis of Marshall's advice, but he later revised his Opinion (see Marshall (1978: 28). Sibley and Monroe (1990) appear to have overlooked Marshall's paper; they regard affinis and javensis as allospecies (citing Wells and Medway (1976: 25), but the latter authors anyway regard them as conspecific). Among the many corrections to their book, Sibley and Monroe (1993: 33) add a reference to Marshall (1978: 28-30), but without altering their systematic treatment to that which he advocates.'|
Dickinson (2003) treated affinis as conspecific with javensis but (incorrectly) cited Marshall (1978) as a source of information on the treatment of affinis as a separate species and Wells (1999) for an opposing view.
|Hydrochrous gigas||=||Hydrochous gigas||The generic name was incorrectly spelt in Inskipp et al. (1996).|
|Collocalia esculenta||>||Collocalia linchi (+)||Somadikarta (1986) treated linchi as a separate species from esculenta, based on its lack of white tail spots, glossy green plumage and naked hind toe (as opposed to esculenta which has white tail spots in eastern races, glossy blue plumage and a feather tuft on the hind toe) and the sympatry of the two forms in the mountains of Borneo and Sumatra. However, Somadikarta (1986) noted that western races of esculenta lack white tail spots, and that Collocalia esculenta natalis Lister, 1889 and C. e. neglecta G. R. Gray, 1866 are green rather than blue. In addition, some specimens of C. e. stresemanni Rothschild & Hartert, 1914 lack the feather tuft on the hind toe (Rothschild & Hartert 1914). Given the variation in all the differentiating characters, linchi is treated as conspecific with esculenta pending further studies.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that linchi was 'Formerly considered part of C. esculenta but occurs sympatrically with the latter; Somadikarta (1986) treated it as a species.'|
Wells (1999) noted that 'Local field and laboratory studies have advanced understanding of the relationship between green- and blue-gloosed forms, commonly believed to replace each other in the Sunda Region. Somadikarta (1986) showed them sympatric in the highlands of Sumatra and Borneo and on the basis of a supposed mixed colony in SE Sumatra raised green linchi Horsfield and Moore 1854 (TL Java) to species rank. He speculated linchi had died out in mainland Asia, but Lim (1994) found both green and blue birds, and a high proportion of colour-mixes, in breeding-colonies of the Selangor plain and adjacent Main Range. Electrophoresis of tissue enzyme extracts showed good samples of all these forms to be genetically uniform. Javan topotypes have not been tested but, evidently, no taxonomic split is justified by geographical arguments put forward to date. As shown for other swift groups by Delacour and Mayr (1945a), gloss-tone may vary with the extent of wear of individual feathers.'
Thomassen et al. (2003) reconstructed swiftlet phylogeny using mitochondrial cytochrome-b DNA sequence data. 5 specimens of linchi and 10 specimens of esculenta were analysed and the results showed that the two species represented separate clades. However, no information on the geographical origin of these specimens, or on how they were identified, was provided, leaving open the possibility that more extensive sampling might show less clear-cut results.
Thomassen et al. (2005) clarified that the esculenta specimens were all from Borneo, and the linchi specimens were all from Java, confirming that the geographical spread of the samples was too narrow to provide a complete picture.
Moyle et al. (2008) reiterated the morphological differences between linchi and esculenta, without discussing the
|intraspecific variation of the latter. They also indicated that 'Molecular data indicate the monophyly of C. linchi populations embedded within C. esculenta (Thomassen et al. 2003, 2005; this study).'|
|Collocalia brevirostris||>||Collocalia rogersi (+)||Deignan (1955) described rogersi as a subspecies of brevirostris, despite noting that the tarsi were typically unfeathered and apparently overlooking the lack of white barbs at the base of the back feathers. Medway (1962) noted that winter-caught Malayan specimens assigned to rogersi by Deignan (1955b) show wide variation and may comprise more than one species. Sibley & Monroe (1990), quoting M. R. Browning (pers. comm.), suggested a closer affinity of rogersi with unicolor but, as there is as yet no published justification for this treatment, rogersi is provisionally left as conspecific with brevirostris.||Wells (1999) under Group Relations for Himalayan Swiftlet Aerodramus brevirostris noted 'Uncertain. Outstanding issues include the placing of short-winged continental populations relative to species such as A. unicolor (Indian Swiftlet). A. (b.) rogersi Deignan 1955, the so-called Indochinese Swiftlet described from Kanchanaburi province, SW Thailand, and identified in the Peninsula but of unknown status (Deignan 1963), is one of these. Said to be pale-rumped like northwestern nominate brevirostris, but classical Himalayan Swiftlet features - feathered tarsus and white basal barbs on back-feathers - are not among its listed characters. Wing-length variation (116-128 mm) is enough to suggest it might even include more than one taxon (cf. Medway 1962, 1966a).'|
Dickinson (2003), referring to rogersi, described it as 'An enigmatic and unresolved form (or forms) see Wells (1999: 455).'
|Collocalia vanikorensis||>||Collocalia amelis (+)||Oberholser (1906) described Collocalia unicolor amelis but various authors, including McGregor (1909), have confused whiteheadi and amelis, and mearnsi and amelis have also been thoroughly confused in the literature. Peters (1940) treated amelis as conspecific with inexpectata, along with fuciphaga. Medway (1966) treated amelis as conspecific with vanikorensis because of similarities in morphology and nest structure, and Dickinson (1989a) followed this treatment and clarified the confusion between the various Philippine forms. His key finding was that McGregor had misled everyone because he never saw a skin of true whiteheadi.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated amelis as Collocalia [fuciphaga] amelis, but later (1993) changed it to Collocalia [vanikorensis] amelis, noting that 'C. amelis has most frequently been associated with the C. [fuciphaga] superspecies, but both palawanensis and amelis are part of the C. vanikorensis complex and may be races of the latter, as treated by Dickinson (1989: 27-36).'|
|Collocalia vanikorensis||>||Collocalia palawanensis (+)||Stresemann (1914) described palawanensis as a subspecies of lowi (= maxima), noting that it had unfeathered tarsi like whiteheadi, but unlike lowi. Later Stresemann (1926) placed both whiteheadi and palawanensis in brevirostris. Hachisuka (1934) continued to treat palawanensis as a subspecies of lowi but, stating that the tarsus was partly feathered, named similar examples with unfeathered tarsi Collocalia whiteheadi tsubame Stresemann, 1926. This treatment was followed by Peters (1940) and Delacour & Mayr (1946). Medway (1966), followed by duPont (1971), made tsubame a synonym of palawanensis and treated the latter as a subspecies of brevirostris. Dickinson (1989a) treated palawanensis and amelis as subspecies of vanikorensis, based on morphological similarity.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'R. S. Kennedy (pers. comm.) indicates palawanensis is probably a good species; it has been classified in the past in C. whiteheadi, and sometimes considered to be the same as C. amelis.'|
Sibley & Monroe (1993) added that 'both palawanensis and amelis are part of the C. vanikorensis complex and may be races of the latter, as treated by Dickinson (1989: 27-36).'
|Apus affinis||>||Apus nipalensis (+)||Brooke (1971) treated nipalensis as a separate species because of possible sympatry in Nepal; however, this remains unproven, and morphological differences between the two are slight and subject to variation. ||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that nipalensis is 'Sometimes considered conspecific with affinis, but they show no sign of intergradation in the area of close approach; allospecies treatment is suggested (Snow 1978: 287).'|
Chantler (1995) noted that 'The ranges of the two species meet without any signs of intergrading (Snow 1978) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggest that they are treated as allospecies.'
Wells (1999) noted that nipalensis was 'Separated from Afro-Indian A. affinis on the basis that no intergradation has been reported between its dark, fork-tailed population found along the E Himalayn foothills and the closely approaching, pale, square-tailed Indian bird. This may be premature (cf. Brooke 1971), but accords with treatment of A. pacificus and acuticauda in the same area. Habitat selection and similarity of nesting behaviour, vocalizations, etc., imply nipalensis and affinis are not more than allospecies.'
Dickinson (2003) treated nipalensis as a separate species but, referring to affinis, noted that 'Two groups, this and nipalensis, identified by Brooke (1971), the latter since usually treated as a species (but evidence not yet wholly convincing).'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The split of Apus nipalensis advocated by Sibley & Monroe (1990) is not adopted here, as there is a continuum of racial characters from west to east, a trend echoed from north to south in Indian Subcontinent. Vocalisations of all forms studied seem very similar. However, evidence for sympatry between affinis and nipalensis in Himalayas requires study.'
|Harpactes reinwardti||>||Apalharpactes mackloti||Harpactes reinwardtii (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split (and generic attribution revised) into Apalharpactes reinwardtii and A. mackloti following Collar and van Balen (2002).||Collar and van Balen (2002) treated mackloti as a separate species, noting '(1) statistically highly significant morphometric differences suggesting at least 33% greater weight in reinwardtii, (2) a maroon-chestnut rump-band in male mackloti plus minor differences in female wing-panel colour and pattern, and (3) the apparently exclusive possession by mackloti of a particular (and un-trogon-like) song.'|
|Harpactes reinwardti||=||Apalharpactes reinwardti||See above|
|Halcyon capensis||=||Pelargopsis capensis||Fry (1980) subsumed Pelargopsis in Halcyon owing to biological similarity and because they differ only in size and trivial characters.|
|Halcyon melanorhyncha||=||Pelargopsis melanorhyncha||See above|
|Halcyon amauroptera||=||Pelargopsis amauroptera||See above|
|Todiramphus chloris||>||Todiramphus enigma (+)||White & Bruce (1986) treated enigma as a separate species, based on its small size and assumed sympatry. However, Fry et al. (1992) pointed out that sympatry remains unproven and that the size difference is insignificant in relation to the total variation shown by the species.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'White and Bruce (1986: 277) recognized enigma as a species distinct from T. chloris'.|
Riley et al. (1998) demonstrated that enigma and chloris almost certainly breed sympatrically on Talaud, and they are clearly separated ecologically.
|Todiramphus saurophaga||=||Todiramphus saurophagus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Ceyx erithacus||=||Ceyx erithaca||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2000).|
|Ceyx erithacus||>||Ceyx rufidorsa (+)||Ripley (1942), Voous (1951) and Ripley & Beehler (1987b) treated rufidorsa as a separate species, suggesting that over most of the range there is assortative mating. However, Sims (1959) referred to frequent intergradation between them, and Fry et al. (1992) stated that 'the two forms hybridise widely in Borneo, where there is every gradation between rufous- and black-backed forms. There is also some hybridisation in Sumatra and Peninsular Malaysia, and for that reason we treat these kingfishers as a single dimorphic species; all the same north of about Kuala Lumpur black-backed populations are migratory, red-backed ones are sedentary, there is but little hybridisation, and the two forms behave as distinct species'.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'C. erithacus and C. rufidorsa are often considered one species, but limited hybridization in areas of overlap suggests allospecies treatment (White and Bruce 1986: 280; Ripley and Beehler 1987b)'.|
Wells (1999) noted that 'Lower-order relationships are still in dispute. A one-species arrangement assumes northern black-backed and southern red-backed isolates have re-met and are merging. Ripley and Beehler (1987) analysed a range of characters to test the smoothness of their intergradation through the Peninsula and Sumatra, and found some distributions to be skewed. This evidence of impeded gene-flow suggested hybridization rather than full integration. However, results may not have been free of the influence of a large flow of winter migrants into the area from the north — over 350 intercepted at floodlights on Fraser's Hill and elsewhere since ringing began in the 1960s, exclusively of pure black-backed stock. In summer, such birds have been confirmed south only as far as Ranong where, from timing of wing-moult, they appear to be resident. Red-backs are certainly also resident. Were they hybridizing species, they would have been expected to show a relatively restricted zone of intergradation. In effect, a mix of intermediates fills the whole of the rest of the Peninsula, and beyond, outnumbers pure red-backs more or less everywhere and is certainly self-sustaining. The zone of interaction is much as between northern and southern Oriental Pied Hornbills, and the preferred interpretation must also be that it is between two formerly isolated populations of a single species.'
Dickinson (2003) explained that 'We prefer to interpret variation in this species as relating to primary differentiation with geographic separation and subsequent reoccupation of territory with introgression, showing full speciation was not achieved. In this arrangement the name rufidorsa applied to rufous-backed individuals, is a synonym of erithaca the population of the Malay Pen. including such birds among the intergrades
|Alcedo cyanopecta||=||Alcedo cyanopectus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Anorrhinus tickelli||>||Anorrhinus austeni||Anorrhinus tickelli (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. tickelli and A. austeni following Rasmussen and Anderton (2005).||Kemp (1988, 1995) treated austeni as a separate species, based on the difference in bill colour of adult females and head colour of males. He added that 'there may also be differences in calls and softpart colours but these remain to be clarified'. ||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Recent treatment as a distinct species from tickelli is supported by the broader, higher, truncate casque and white throat of male austeni, and the all-pale bill and (usually all-dark tail of female austeni (vs. blackish bill and large white tail-corners in tickelli.' However, Peters (1945) and Sanft (1960) treated them as conspecific, based on morphological similarity; C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1996) found that vocalizations of the two forms were very similar.|
|Buceros bicornis||=||Rhinoplax vigil||Kemp & Crowe (1985) and Kemp (1988) carried out a numerical cladistic analysis of 40 hornbill species and the results indicated that Rhinoplax should be ascribed to the genus Buceros. This arrangement was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990).|
|Penelopides affinis||>||Penelopides samarensis (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated samarensis as an additional species, but without providing reasons.|
|Megalaima oorti||>||Megalaima faber||Megalaima oorti (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into M. oorti, M. faber and M. nuchalis following Collar (2006).||Goodwin (1964) suggested that faber from Hainan might be treated as a separate species from oorti because the morphological differences are 'comparable to those between many related forms that are sympatric and must be treated as species'.||Lewthwaite (1996) noted that 'When recent recordings of birds singing in Guangxi, Guangdong, Taiwan and South Annam… were compared with published recordings from Malaysia…, the songs of sini and nuchalis were found to differ from each other and from those of annamensis and oorti, which in turn resembled each other.'|
Short and Horne (2002) noted that 'Very well-marked races sini and faber could prove specifically distinct; nuchalis also sometimes thought possibly to be a distinct species, but tends to bridge the gap between these two races and nominate oorti and annamensis; thus, all are considered better treated as races of present species.'
Collar (2006) made detailed measurements of all the forms and compared the plumage patterns; in combination with Lewthwaite's information on vocalizations, heconsidered that the differences between oorti, faberand nuchalis were great enough to treat them as three separate species.
|Megalaima oorti||>||Megalaima nuchalis||See above||See above|
|Megalaima rubricapilla||=||Megalaima rubricapillus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Calorhamphus fuliginosus||=||Caloramphus fuliginosus||Spelling of the generic name follows Howard and Moore corrigenda 8.|
|Dendrocopos maculatus||>||Dendrocopos ramsayi||Dendrocopos maculatus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into D. maculatus and D. ramsayi following Collar et al. (1999), who initially placed it in the genus Picoides. Subsequently, the genus Dendrocopos has been used, following Winkler and Christie (2002). Because this split was made in a BirdLife publication, the justification is repeated here in full (but the references are not supplied). Both Hachisuka (1931-1935) and Voous (1947) treated ramsayi as a separate species, and indeed it is so distinctive as to be arguably closer to Sulawesi Woodpecker P. temminckii than it is to P. maculatus (this view is also expressed, with the comment that ramsayi is "the ancestor common to both", by White and Bruce 1986), and given the evident morphological proximity of Brown-capped P. moluccensis, Grey-capped P. canicapillus and Pygmy Woodpeckers P. kizuki to both maculatus (non-Sulu forms) and ramsayi, there is no compelling reason to combine the latter two as a single species. Sulu birds differ from other Philippine forms in: replacing all black or dark brown with a mid-brown; lacking virtually all white spotting on wings and coverts; lacking black or dark brown spotting or streaking on the undersides; showing an ill-defined yellow or yellowish-orange breast-band, plus (in the male) a far more strongly developed red area on the nape. The specific separation of ramsayi is all the more arguable for the|
|geographically closest representative of maculatus - fulvifasciatus of Mindanao and Basilan showing the strongest pied effect. The notion that these two forms are "bridged" by maculatus, with a throw-away description of ramsayi as "aberrant" (Salomonsen 1953), not only fails to deal with the suggestion of Voous (1947) that ramsayi represents an early invasion of the Philippines, but also misses the point that maculatus is not geographically interposed between the two forms it is supposed to bridge. It is worth noting that in the paper in which both ramsayi and fulvifasciatus were first established, the formal description of ramsayi compared it to temminckii rather than to maculatus (Hargitt 1881).|
|Picus miniaceus||=||Picus mineaceus||Spelling of the species name follows Dickinson (2003).|
|Sapheopipo noguchii||=||Dendrocopos noguchii||Sapheopipo noguchii (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) is placed in the genus Dendrocopos following Winkler et al. (2005)|
|Pitta arquata||=||Pitta arcuata||The original spelling was arquata, which was amended unjustifiably to arcuata by Salvadori (1874).Sibley & Monroe (1990) adopted the latter spelling, noting that it has 'stood for more than 100 years'; however, this is contrary to the ICZN (1985) rules.|
|Pitta ussheri||<||Pitta granatina|
|Mayr (1979) treated ussheri as conspecific with venusta, but Rozendaal (1994) treated them as separate species on the basis of structural and plumage characters. Andrew (1992) treated ussheri as conspecific with granatina on the basis of one apparent hybrid. However, Lambert & Woodcock (1996) considered that the continued existence of two parapatric forms virtually without hybridization is suggestive of specific status.|
|Myzomela dibapha||>||Myzomela chloroptera (+)|
McAllan (1990) argued that sanguinolenta was indeterminate and suggested the adoption of dibapha; Schodde (1992) considered that sanguinolenta was identifiable, but Andrew (1992) is followed in the use of dibapha. There is currently no published justification for separating chloroptera, wakoloensis and boiei from the extralimital dibapha, although White & Bruce (1986) described some morphological differences and suggested that they may be better treated as allospecies.
|Bruce in White and Bruce (1986) noted that sanguinolenta 'Forms a superspecies with M. cardinalis (Gmelin) 1788 (Salomonsen 1967a). Salomonsen also divided M. sanguinolenta into 5 subspecies groups (3 in Wallacea) that may be allospecifically separable: 1, chloroptera (with juga, eva and batjanensis); 2, wakoloensis (with elisabethae); 3, boiei (with annabellae); 4, sanguinolenta (Australia); and 5, caledonica Forbes 1879 (New Caledonia). The subspecies groups could be considered megasubspecies (cf. Amadon & Short 1976) but as noted under Spilornis (q.v.), allospecific separation may be a more practical treatment, as with the Philemonmoluccensis superspecies. I would prefer a larger superspecies in this case, but have tentatively retained the more conventional arrangement. McKean (1982) has already treated chloroptera as a separate species and Wolters (1982: 262) has separated the 3 Wallacea groups as M. boiei.'|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'White and Bruce (1986: 402) discussed treatment of allospecies in this superspecies.'
Dickinson (2003) used the name sanguinolenta, noting that 'The name dibapha was used by some authors, such as Mathews, who believed sanguinolenta to be indeterminate. See McAllan (1990).' He also treated boiei as a separate species, stating that 'We follow Wolters (1979: 262) in separating the Wallacean forms from M. sanguinolenta and like him see three groups of subspecies; three species may be correct, but we have seen no published detailed proposal.'
Rheindt & Hutchinson (2007) noted that Coates & Bishop (1997) retained a broad view of sanguinolenta but noted that 'a better course might be to split all the remaining Wallacean members of M. sanguinolenta off into three additional species (see also Andrew 1993), namely M. chloroptera (centred around Sulawesi), M. wakoloensis (from Buru and Seram) and M. boiei (from Tanimbar and the Banda Sea). We fully endorse this latter treatment and think it better reflects species diversity within the
|Scarlet Myzomela, considering that — apart from plumage — these three new species additionally differ in ecological requirements, with M. wakoloensis being a strictly montane species, while M. boiei lives on islands that have no mountains. However, this new arrangement may still mask hidden species-level variation within some of its members. The new Wakolo Mayzomela M. wakoloensis from Seram and Buru consists of two taxa (wakoloensis from Buru and elisabethae from Seram) whose distinctness greatly surprised us during a recent field visit to these islands. Contrary to Coates & Bishop (1997), M. w. elisabethae does not merely differ from M. w. wakoloensis in its black (rather than red) vent, but the black stretches far onto the belly and creates a very dark-looking impression on these birds. A few individuals may even have a black lower back that connects the dark area on both wings; however, this requires photographic confirmation. Moreover, although the songs of these two taxa are similar in nature, we taped song variants on Seram that we never heard on Buru (however, this could easily have been due to the brevity of our stay). In light of the unspectacular vocal and plumage differences that characterise two other honeyeaters living on the same mountains (Buru Honeyeater Lichmera deningeri and Seram Honeyeater L. monticola), which have always been considered different species, perhaps variation between M. w. wakoloensis and M. w. elisabethae deserves to be recognised at the biological species level? We hope more rigorous morphological, vocal and DNA data may one day shed light on this question.'|
|Myzomela dibapha||>||Myzomela wakoloensis (+)||See above||See above|
|Myzomela dibapha||>||Myzomela boiei (+)||See above||See above|
|Myzomela dibapha||=||Myzomela sanguinolenta||See above|
|Lichmera indistincta||>||Lichmera limbata (+)||There is currently no published justification for separating limbata and the extralimital indistincta, although some morphological differences were described by Mees (1982a) and White & Bruce (1986).||Mees (1982)|
Bruce in White & Bruce (1986) noted that indistincta 'Forms a superspecies with L. incana (Latham) 1790 (Salomonsen 1967a). Mees (1982a: 146) discussed subspecies and considered limbata "well-marked", the main character being a clear sexual dimorphism, males with a grey chin and throat, females with a yellow chin and throat.'
Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'M. Bruce (pers. comm.) indicates that L. limbata and L. indistincta are allospecies.'
Mees (2006) noted that limbata was a 'not particularly strongly differentiated, subspecies' and that the song was very similar to that of indistincta.
Higgins et al. (2008) treated limbata as a separate species, without providing reasons.
|Genera incertae sedis|
|Tephrodornis gularis||=||Tephrodornis virgatus||Tephrodornis gularis has priority over Tephrodornis virgatus but is preoccupied by Lanius gularis Bechstein 1811.|
|Philentoma pyrhopterum||=||Philentoma pyrhoptera||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Philentoma velatum||=||Philentoma velata||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Lalage atrovirens||>||Lalage moesta (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated moesta as a separate species from the extralimital atrovirens, suggesting that it was morphologically closer to aurea than to atrovirens. However, K. D. Bishop (pers. comm. 1995) recommended that, in the absence of vocal and behavioural data, moesta should be treated as conspecific with atrovirens.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that moesta is 'Here regarded as an allospecies because it may be closer to L. aurea than to L. atrovirens, with which it is usually considered conspecific; White and Bruce (1986: 310) treated atrovirens as an allospecies.'|
Coates & Bishop (1997), referring to moesta, noted that 'This well differentiated form is perhaps best treated as a separate species, the Tanimbar Triller L. moesta. Further study is required.'
|Pachycephala grisola||=||Pachycephala cinerea||Mayr (1967a) used the name cinerea Blyth for this species, stating that grisola Blyth 1843 was unidentifiable. However, Mukherjee (1970) confirmed that grisola was an available name; it was also adopted by White & Bruce (1986).||Walters (2003) finally demonstrated that cinerea is the correct name.|
|Pachycephala phaionotus||=||Pachycephala phaionota||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Pachycephala leucogastra||>||Pachycephala arctitorquis (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) regarded arctitorquis as a separate species, presumably as a result of its distinctive female plumage (White & Bruce 1986); White & Bruce (1986) felt that if rufiventris, leucogastra and griseonota were all regarded as separate species, then arctitorquis was probably also an allospecies, separate from leucogastra of New Guinea, although they did not themselves follow that course.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted under rufiventris that 'Some or all forms in this superspecies have sometimes been considered conspecific, but recognition as allospecies seems more appropriate (White and Bruce 1986: 381-382).'|
|Lanius meridionalis||<||Lanius excubitor (+)||Lanius excubitor (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) was split into L. excubitor, 'Northern Grey Shrike' and L. meridionalis, 'Southern Grey Shrike' (including pallidirostris), by AERC TAC (2003) (San[g]ster et al. 2002), but this treatment is not followed by the BirdLife Taxonomic Working Group pending further clarification of the relationships between each of them and also other members of the meridionalis group (sensu Lefranc and other authorities).||Lanius meridionalis (including aucheri Bonaparte, 1853, lahtora (Sykes, 1832) and pallidirostris in the region) is treated as a separate species from excubitor by Isenmann & Bouchet (1993) owing to, in southwest Europe, their parapatric distributions and an absence of hybridization, coupled with morphological, behavioural and ecological differences. Lanius meridionalis pallidirostris and Lanius excubitor mollis Eversmann, 1853 occur sympatrically over much of Mongolia; the two groups differ in several measurements and in juvenile plumage (Panov 1995).||Lefranc & Worfolk (1997) noted that 'The breeding ranges of excubitor and meridionalis nearly touch in south-western France; they may even have overlapped at some time in Aquitaine, but so far the available data remain inconclusive. More interestingly, a definite zone of sympatry exists near the easternmost end of the respective breeding ranges, in Mongolia. There, the race mollis of the Great Grey Shrike and the race pallidirostris of the Southern Grey Shrike coexist geographically and not infrequently syntopically: mollis mainly occupies open mountain forests from the base of the slopes to the alpine zone, wheras pallidirostris is confined to the Caragana steppe. This spatial and ecological segregation is, however, not very strict and pairs of mollis can sometimes be found in typical pallidirostris habitat; even in those cases no mixed pairs have so far been found which, like nominate excubitor and nominate merididionalis in south-west France, show sharp differences in their general appearance (Lefranc 1995, Panov 1995). Recent studies concerning base-sequencings of the cytochrome-b gene of mitochondrial DNA confirm thaqt excubitor and meridionalis are good allospecies. The differences between them is almost as great as between excubitor and ludovicianus. Interestingly, meridionalis seems to be closer to the latter species than to excubitor; this point, however, needs further research (A. J. Helbig in litt.).' |
Sangster et al. (2002), referring to L. excubitor and L. meridionalis, noted that 'The plumage of these two taxa is diagnostically different. They also differ in behaviour and habitat, with excubitor nesting in grassland with scattered trees and meridionalis in dry grassy scrub. They do not interbreed where thay replace one another in southern France and Central Asia (Isenmann & Bouchet 1993, Lefranc 1993, 1995a, 1995b, Panow 1995, 1996, Lefranc & Worfolk 1997).'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that the taxonomy is 'Highly complex and not well understood. The form pallidirostris in
|particular differs from some or all other forms in apparently lacking a flight-display, and in having a harsh double-noted territorial call (Harris & Franklin 2000), and would perhaps be better treated as a separate species.'|
Klassert et al. (2008) made a molecular analysis of several forms of excubitor and meridionalis and found that nominate meridionalis showed no direct relationship with North African, European and western and central Asian subspecies but, instead, formed a clade with Lanius excubitor invictus and Lanius ludovicianus from North America, and with Lanius sphenocercus. A separate clade comprised two groups: nominate excubitor, with the Asian aucheri and pallidirostris, and the North African algeriensis and koenigi.
|Oriolus xanthonotus||>||Oriolus steerii (+)||Dickinson et al. (1991) treated steerii as a separate species from xanthonotus, without providing reasons. Greenway (1962) treated albiloris as a separate species from xanthonotus, also without providing reasons. There are morphological differences between all three forms, but further field studies and a published justification for treating them as separate forms are needed.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated steerii as a separate species, noting that it was 'Often considered conspecific with O. xanthonotus.'|
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Although split from O. xanthonotus by Dickinson et al. (1991) a detailed comparative study of the two has not yet been done.'
Dickinson (2004) reviewed this complex and noted that 'Separated from O. xanthonotus by Dickinson et al. (1991). Inskipp et al. (1996) pointed out that no reasons were given. This so. This was an oversight; the split was actually derived from the Rand MS, mentioned in the introduction to Dickinson et al. (1991) and reference should somehow have been made to that, whence comes the following extract. "Greenway, 1962, includes both the black and grey throated orioles of the Philippines in one species O. xanthonotus, with which I do not agree. There is no doubt that O. xanthonotus (in a restricted sense), steerii and albiloris, which I regard as three species, are closely related and allopatric.' Dickinson examined the morphological differences described by Rand and concluded that steerii was very distinct morphologically and warranted treatment as a separate species; however, he considered that albiloris should be treated as a well-marked geographical race of Oriolus steerii.
|Oriolus xanthonotus||>||Oriolus albiloris (+)||See above||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated albiloris as a separate species, noting that it was 'Sometimes conspecific with O. xanthonotus, but B. King (pers. comm.) suggests it is more closely related to O. isabellae.'|
See also above. See Collar Forktail paper on Isabella oriole
|Colluricincla megarhyncha||>||Colluricincla sanghirensis||Colluricincla megarhyncha (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. megarhyncha and C. sanghirensis following Rozendaal and Lambert (1999).||Rozendaal & Lambert (1999) established sanghirensis as a distinct species, based on differences in voice, behaviour, tarsus length and plumage from megarhyncha.|
|Dicrurus hottentottus||>||Dicrurus sumatranus (+)||The three forms sumatranus, densus and bracteatus have been treated as separate species from hottentottus by several authors following Bruce (in White & Bruce 1986). These three taxa are generally considered as representing three successive waves of colonization, following an hypothesis developed by Vaurie (1949a). Bruce (citing an as yet unpublished study) preferred to treat these waves as allospecies because the most notable differences between the taxa occur at the extremities of their ranges. In the absence of further published data the treatment followed here is that of Vaurie, whereby all allopatric forms in this complex are considered conspecific.||White and Bruce (1986)|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) merely noted that 'White and Bruce (1986: 314-317) discussed relationships and species limits in the D. hottentottus-D. balicassius species group.'
Dickinson (2003) treated bracteatus as a separate species but retained sumatranus and densus in hottentottus, noting that 'The proposal by Bruce in White & Bruce (1986) to split this was not accepted by Dickinson et al. (1991) nor by Inskipp et al. (1996). The species concept used here is zoogeographically more logical.'
Rheindt & Hutchinson (2007) noted that there was no overlap in vocalizations between buruensis E. Hartert, 1919 and amboinensis G. R. Gray, 1861.
|Dicrurus hottentottus||>||Dicrurus densus (+)||See above||See above|
|Dicrurus hottentottus||>||Dicrurus bracteatus (+)||See above||See above|
|Monarcha pileatus||>||Monarcha castus (+)||Monarcha castus is treated as conspecific with pileatus, following White & Bruce (1986), who did not treat them as allospecies contra Sibley & Monroe (1990). The relationships between pileatus, cinerascens and leucotis (from Australia) require further investigation.||White & Bruce (1986) made no mention of even the possibility of treating this as an allospecies.|
Sibley & Monroe (1990), referring to pileatus, noted that 'The three distinct forms in this superspecies, generally regarded as conspecific, are better treated as allospecies (White and Bruce 1986: 367-368).'
|Dendrocitta cinerascens||<||Dendrocitta occipitalis (+)||Blake & Vaurie (1962) treated cinerascens as conspecific with occipitalis because of morphological similarities. However, Goodwin (1976) treated them as separate species because he thought that cinerascens might be derived from formosae rather than occipitalis. Madge & Burn (1993) agreed with that arrangement and referred, additionally, to striking differences in the head pattern compared with occipitalis.||Smythies & Davison (1999) noted that cinerascens was 'Combined with Sumatran birds as a race of D. occipitalis (S. Müller) 1835, by Smythies (1960) and Sibley and Monroe (1990); separated as a Bornean endemic by Goodwin (1976), MacKinnon and Phillipps (1993), and Inskipp et al. (1996).'|
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'For treatment as a separate species from D. occipitalis see Smythies (2000) [= Smythies & Davison 1999] and references therein.'
|Corvus torquatus||=||Corvus pectoralis||Dickinson (2003) noted that the name Corvus torquatus Lesson, 1830, is preoccupied by Corvus monedula torquata Bechstein, 1791 (S. Eck in litt.).|
|Corvus macrorhynchos||>||Corvus levaillantii (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated levaillantii as a separate species from macrorhynchos, based on altitudinal separation where their ranges overlap in the Himalayas, and slight morphological and vocal differences (Glutz & Bauer 1993, Madge & Burn 1993). |
Martens & Eck (1995) treated japonicus as specifically distinct from both macrorhynchos and levaillantii, as japonicus and levaillantii are parapatric in the Himalayas.
|Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that levaillantii was 'Often regarded as conspecific with C. macrorhynchos, but differences in bill morphology and vocalizations suggest treatment as allospecies (Mayr and Meyer de Schauensee 1939: 34).'|
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'There is little doubt that there are two species or more here (see e.g. Martens & Eck, 1995) but the attribution of many races is unclear. We defer a split until more is known.'
Dickinson et al. (2004) provided a detailed analysis of the complex throughout its range and noted that 'Martens et al. (2000) noted that acoustic evidence "clearly separates" levaillantii, japonensis and splendens in the Himalayas and they proposed a "complex" (superspecies) allowing a four way split, of Corvus macrorhynchos s.l., in which 1) all Himalayan, Chinese and Japanese birds are united in a species C. japonensis; 2) C. levaillantii engulfs the lowland forms of the subcontinent, Burma and most of Thailand; 3) C. macrorhynchos of the Greater and Lesser Sundas is seen as reaching further north than Prachuab and east through south-east Thailand into Indochina, and 4) C. philippinus — a rather more tentative split in their text than in their map (for understandable reasons), mainly dependant on the striking but incomplete mallophagan evidence of Klockenhoff (1969a, b) for support. This hypothesis needs refining, with iinputs from specimens, acoustic evidence and molecular studies.' They concluded that 'Here we defer the break up envisaged in Martens & Eck (1995) and by Martens et al. (2000), although we have suggested that in the accompanying paper on types the races be sequenced in accordance with the four groups suggested. This deferment is not because such action is unwarranted. Clearly some action is, and we suggest that separating the Philippine form may be a relatively simple first step if voice recordings can be obtained there. This, of course, will be just a step along the way. As regards mainland Asia there remain too many loose ends. Martens et al. (2000) wrote
|"suppementary analyses of their vocalizations may help to reveal additional species delimitations that we suspect exist within the macrorhynchos complex". It is thus just a matter of time. We anticipate however that from three to seven species should be expected; the mallophagan evidence suggests more still might be expected.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to the Indian subcontinent, noted that 'In the region three major morphological groups correlating with call-types exist within Corvus macrorhynchos sensu lato occurring from C Asia to the Philippines and E Indonesia, indicating that at least three separate species must be involved (doubtless more extralimitally). Earlier divisions into two species do not account for the differences in calls and morphology between levaillantii and culminatus, which assume the latter to be like the former (Martens et al. 2000). Regional birds are therefore separated here into Large-billed, Eastern Jungle and Indian Jungle Crows. However, intermedius and tibetosinensis of Large-billed differ markedly both in call-type and plumage, and themselves may represent two species, although they are said to intergrade in C Himalayas. Note that all forms give a variety of context-specific call-types, but the main call-types of each are highly distinctive. Details of sympatry, intergradation, range limits, etc. require study.'
|Riparia diluta||<||Riparia riparia (+)||Vaurie (1959b) treated diluta as conspecific with riparia, referring to apparently intermediate specimens from the area of overlap. However, Goroshko (1993) treated diluta [including tibetana Stegmann, 1925, indica Ticehurst, 1916, fohkienensis (La Touche, 1908) and transbaykalica Goroshko, 1993] as a separate species from riparia, based on numerous morphological differences (with no intermediates traced in a search of 1150 specimens) and vocal differences. In areas of sympatry, the forms nest in separate colonies in different habitats.||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'For reasons to separate this from R. riparia see Gavrilov & Savtchenko (1991) and Goroshko (1993).' Referring to indica, tibetana and fohkienensis he noted that they require review.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that it was 'Long treated as a single race within Common but Pale and Common are now known to breed sympatrically over a wide area, and both are polytypic (Goroshko 1993, Loskot & Dickinson 2001). The form indica of Pale (sometimes synonymised with nominate) appears to be valid but its allocation as a race of diluta is open to question, as breeding habitat evidently differs from that of the nominate; further study required.'
|Hirundo fuligula||>||Hirundo obsoleta (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated obsoleta as a separate species from the extralimital fuligula stating that their relationships were uncertain. However, Cramp (1988) treated them as conspecific noting that there is a series of intermediate populations across the Saharan region (Hall & Moreau 1970).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that obsoleta was 'Often considered conspecific with H. fuligula because of a series of intermediate populations across the Saharan region, but the relationships are uncertain; in Somalia, populations of obsoleta occur without any sign of intermediacy toward fuligula in neighboring Ethiopia.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The pale northern races may be conspecific with the smaller, darker P. fuligula of sub-Saharan Africa; further study is needed, but we follow Vaurie (1959) and Mayr & Greenway (1960) in treating them as separate species. Some or all vocalisations of fuligula are appreciably higher-pitched and buzzier than those of obsoleta (Africa — GG, CC).'
|Hirundo tahitica||>||Hirundo domicola (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated domicola as a separate species from tahitica, without providing reasons. However, Turner & Rose (1989) treated them as conspecific because the morphological differences between them are relatively minor.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that domicola was 'Often considered conspecific with javanica [sic tahitica], but in view of differences involved and its isolation from H. rustica and H. javanica, it is here regarded as an allospecies.'|
Dickinson (2003), referring to domicola, noted that 'This may well be a separate species, but no thorough study has yet been published.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Morphological, vocal and ecological differences all support treatment of domicola as a distinct species.'
|Hirundo pyrrhonota||=||Petrochelidon pyrrhonota||Sheldon & Winkler (1993) determined the phylogeny of the Hirundinidae, using DNA-DNA hybridization techniques. They found that Petrochelidon was very distinct from Hirundo and recommended it should be treated as a separate genus. Dickinson (2003) included 8 Old World species and 3 New World species in the genus but BirdLife International (2009) restricted it to the 3 New World species, without explanation.|
|Delichon urbica||=||Delichon urbicum||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Delichon nipalensis||=||Delichon nipalense||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Aegithalos bonvaloti||<||Aegithalos iouschistos (+)||Snow (1967c) treated bonvaloti as conspecific with iouschistos. However, they are treated as separate species as they are morphologically distinct and their ranges meet with no evidence of hybridization (Wunderlich 1991); Wunderlich included obscuratus (Mayr, 1940) of central Sichuan as a subspecies of iouschistos but it appears closer to bonvaloti. Martens & Eck (1995) treated bonvaloti, obscuratus and the form sharpei (Rippon, 1904) from Mount Victoria as conspecific with niveogularis, citing the similarity of the latter two.||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Martens & Eck (1995) considered western niveogularis to be conspecific with eastern bonvaloti; however, we do not feel we can unite the taxa, as they did, with iouschistos clearly interposed although it may be morphologically rather distinct.' He further explained that bonvaloti was 'Treated as distinct from niveogularis but conspecific with iouschistos by Harrap (1996), who discussed reports of overlap between the latter and bonvaloti. In the absence of better information the choice seems to be between uniting the three species, as in Snow (1967), or recognising the three, as uniting any two seems to suggest a knowledge we lack. We prefer to recognise three.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Possible range overlap in SE Tibet between iouschistos and bonvaloti ('Black-browed' Tit) requires study. Should bonvaloti require treatment as a separate species, conspecificity of sharpei with bonvaloti also requires re-evaluation.'
Eck & Martens (2006) preferred to maintain the arrangement offered by Martens & Eck (1995) but looked forward to a molecular analysis.
|Mirafra assamica||>||Mirafra affinis||Mirafra assamica (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into M. assamica, M. affinis, M. erythrocephala and M. microptera following Alström (1998).||Vaurie (1951b), following Baker (1926), treated affinis as conspecific with assamica, based on morphological similarities. Whistler & Kinnear (1931-1937) had stated expressly that these two were not conspecific because their colours were too different and the morphological separation between them was too abrupt. They felt that assamica was closer to erythroptera, from which it differed in several structural and plumage features, but at the level of subspecies, with some intermediates being found. Nonetheless, they maintained it as a separate species pending further information on geographical distribution. ||Alström (1998) suggested that affinis, microptera and marionae should be treated as separate species from assamica on the basis of major differences in song, song-flight and plumage. There are also less pronounced differences in habitat and behaviour.|
Dickinson (2003), referring to affinis, microptera and erythrocephala, noted that they were 'tentatively united by Dickinson & Dekker (2001) pending publication of molecular studies. Here they are tentatively split.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to assamica noted that 'Judging from intermediate specimens reported from Orissa, might hybridise with M. affinis in a limited area in NE India. However, M. assamica is highly distinct morphologically, vocally and genetically from M. affinis and the two are clearly good species (Alström 1998, Alström et al. in press).'
|Mirafra assamica||>||Mirafra microptera||See above||See above||See above|
|Mirafra assamica||>||Mirafra erythrocephala||See above||See above||See above|
|Ammomanes cincturus||=||Ammomanes cinctura||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Ammomanes phoenicurus||=||Ammomanes phoenicura||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Alauda arvensis||>||Alauda japonica (+)||C. S Roselaar (in Cramp 1988) treated japonica as a separate species from arvensis because of possible sympatric breeding on an island off north Japan (Vaurie 1959b); its taxonomic status requires further investigation.||Morlan and Erickson (1983) noted that'The population of skylark breeding in Japan is usually considered a subspecies of Eurasian Skylark (Vaurie 1959, Peters 1960). We have treated it here as a subspecies of Oriental Skylark, since it has recently been found that it does not interbreed with Eurasian Skylark where the two nest on Kunashir Island (Nechaev 1969, Stepanian 1980). It is also probable that the breeding range of Eurasian Skylark overlaps that of japonica in southern Sakhalin (Kuroda 1953, Gizenko 1955, Yamashina 1961), and possibly on Yagishiri Island (Udagawa 1953, but cf. Kuroda and Morioka 1974).'|
C. S Roselaar (in Cramp 1988), referring to A. gulgula, noted it was 'Sometimes included in A. arvensis, e.g. by Meinertzhagen (1951a), but the 2 forms differ markedly in structure and overlap widely in Transcaspia and central Asia apparently without interbreeding. However, difference in structure bridged by Japanese Skylark A. japonica from Japan, which is variously considered a race of A. arvensis, a race of A. gulgula, or (as here) a separate species; last course also taken by Stepanyan (1983), who considered the 3 species to form species-group.'
Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'The taxonomic status of A. japonica is uncertain. It is probably a geographical representative (subspecies or allospecies) of A. gulgula, but it is often regarded as conspecific with, or more closely related to, A. arvensis. A. arvensis and A. japonica have been reported breeding on a small island off northern Japan (Vaurie 1959: 57, footnote), but this has not been verified. It seems reasonable to consider A. japonica a separate species.'
OSJ (2000) treated japonica as conspecific with arvensis, noting that 'Vaurie was apparently misled by Udagawa's (1953, Tori 13(63): 77) report of the sympatry of arvensis (A. a. lonnbergi) and japonica on Yagashiri Island, Hokkaido, which has not been substantiated by specimens and is very probably an error.'
Dickinson (2003) treated japonica as conspecific with arvensis, noting that 'Some authors, including CSR, believe that lonnbergi [Hachisuka, 1926] and japonica breed sympatrically in Sakhalin and that japonica must either be placed with gulgula or treated as a third species. Orn. Soc. Japan (2000) did not accept this and considered both forms part of arvensis.'
|Eremopterix grisea||=||Eremopterix griseus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Prinia criniger||=||Prinia crinigera|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).
|Genera incertae sedis|
|Orthotomus cuculatus||=||Orthotomus cucullatus||Correction of the original spelling error of euculatus to cuculatus by Temminck (1839) was valid, but further change to cucullatus by Bonaparte (1850) was an unjustified emendation (Sibley & Monroe 1990).||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'The emended name used here is judged to be in prevailing usage; see Art. 33.2 of the Code (ICZN, 1999).'|
|Orthotomus cuculatus||>||Orthotomus heterolaemus (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated heterolaemus as a separate species from cuculatus, without providing reasons. However, they are treated here as conspecific, although differences in song and behaviour may prove sufficient to consider them as separate species (Dickinson et al. 1991).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated heterolaemus as a separate species, noting that 'Sometimes considered conspecific with O. cuculatus but treated as an allospecies by B. King (pers. comm.).'|
|Orthotomus castaneiceps||>||Orthotomus frontalis (+)|
Dickinson et al. (1991) treated frontalis as conspecific with castaneiceps because no case for treating them as separate has been published.
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Although no thorough review has been published to support the split accepted by Dickinson et al. (1991: 332) we tentatively follow in accepting O. castaneiceps.' Referring to frontalis he noted that 'Dickinson et al. (1991: 332) retained this within the species castaneiceps awaiting good acoustic evidence of all the races before considering a split.'
|Sibley & Monroe (1990) under atrogularis noted that 'Members of this superspecies are often considered conspecific, but treatment as allospecies seems appropriate (B. King, pers. comm.).' Split by HBW based on different vocalisations|
|Hypsipetes mcclellandii or Ixos mcclellandii (revised web version)||=||Hypsipetes mcclellandii||Placement in Ixos follows Gregory (2000).|
|Hypsipetes virescens or Ixos virescens (revised web version)||=||Hypsipetes virescens||Placement in Ixos follows Gregory (2000).|
|Chaetornis striatus||=||Chaetornis striata||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Schoenicola platyura||=||Schoenicola platyurus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Bradypterus seebohmi||>||Bradypterus mandelli||Bradypterusseebohmi (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into B.seebohmi, B. timorensis, B. mandelli and B. montis following Dickinson et al. (2000).||Dickinson et al. (2000) noted that 'The bush-warbler Bradypterus mandelli (Brooks, 1875) was described from Sikkim, and numerous specimens from India were identified with it, but it was synonymised with the brown bush-warbler Bradypterus luteoventris (Hodgson, 1845) in 1881. In 1952, east Asian populations were grouped under the name of the Luzon form of the russet bush-warbler, Bradypterus seebohmi (Ogilvie-Grant, 1895). This taxonomy, however, failed to associate the Indian form and its available name mandelli, which received limited usage until 1919, with seebohmi, a matter reviewed and corrected herein. Specimens prove that mandelli has long been known from India, Bhutan, and Myanmar (Burma). The Thai population, previously placed in idoneus (Riley, 1940), belongs instead with the nominate race mandelli. The eastern Chinese race melanorhynchus (Rickett, 1898) is valid but not very distinctive. The nominate race probably occurs in Laos and northern Vietnam. Vocalisations are stereotyped, being extremely similar across Asia from north-eastern India to eastern China. The name idoneus is herein restricted to the southern Vietnamese population, as this race is evidently somewhat distinct vocally and morphologically. The common name "russet bush-warbler" should continue to be used only for Bradypterus mandelli of mainland Asia. The Luzon form seebohmi was known only from the type specimen, other 20th century reports having been erroneous, until it was rediscovered in February 2000 near the type locality. Its song, while recognisably similar to that of mandelli, has several consistent structural differences, and we tentatively reallocate to it species rank as the "Benguet bush-warbler" B. seebohmi. Both Javan and|
|Timorese forms are morphologically distinct, and are provisionally treated as separate species, the "Javan bush-warbler" B. montis (Hartert, 1896) and the "Timor bush-warbler" B. timorensis (Mayr, 1944). A form on Bali for which no specimen material is available is evidently somewhat different vocally from B. montis.' |
Dickinson (2003) treated seebohmi, montis and timorensis as separate species from mandelli, citing Dickinson et al. (2000).
|Bradypterus seebohmi||>||Bradypterus montis||See above||There is no published justification for treating montis as a separate species from seebohmi, and its song is similar to that of seebohmi (Kennerley 1989, Rozendaal 1989).||See above|
|Bradypterus seebohmi||>||Bradypterus timorensis||See above||See above||See above|
|Locustella pryeri||=||Megalurus pryeri||Morioka & Shigeta (1993), citing differences in structure, wing formula and characteristics of rictal bristles, recommended that this species should be placed in Locustella rather than in Megalurus.||OSJ (2000) noted that 'Locustella pryeri (Seebohm, 1884) was originally described under Megalurus, but it was placed later in Bradypterus (Hartert 1921, Vögel pal. Fauna 3: 2142-2143; OSJ 1942: 60; 1958: 68). Currently this species is included again in Megalurus (Vaurie 1959: 230; OSJ 1974: 257; CBW 1986, 11: 37). However, Megalurus palustris Horsfield, 1821, type-species of the genus, is very different from pryeri both in morphology and behavior and pryeri should not beling to the same genus. Indeed pryeri is much more close, at least superficially, to species of Locustella than to M. palustris. Furthermore, aside from the Palearctic pryeri, Megalurus is an Indomalayan and Australasian genus. Hence pryeri is allocated to Locustella, pending further study of the relationships and limits of Megalurus (Morioka & Shigeta 1993, Bull. Natl. Sci. Mus. Zool. 19: 37-43).' |
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Morioka & Shigeta (1993) suggested this belongs in Locustella. We believe that just moves the problem and we suggest a new genus should be erected.'
Drovetski et al. (2004) found molecular support for the inclusion of this species in Locustella.
|Acrocephalus agricola||>||Acrocephalus tangorum||Acrocephalus agricola (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. agricola and A. tangorum following Alstrom et al. (1991).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated tangorum as a separate species from agricola. However, Alström et al. (1991) treated them as conspecific because of vocal similarities. There are some morphological differences and their ranges are apparently widely allopatric (Kennerley & Leader 1992, Round 1993). Williamson (1960) and Howard & Moore (1991) treated tangorum as conspecific with bistrigiceps but it breeds sympatrically with that species (Alström et al. 1991).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated tangorum as a separate species, noting that it was 'Formerly considered a race of A. agricola but appears to be related to A. bistrigiceps.'|
Alstrom et al. (1991) noted that 'Morphological and vocal characteristics of the Paddyfield Warbler Acrocephalus a. agricola, Black-browed Reed Warbler A. bistrigiceps and Blunt-winged Warbler A. concinens are compared with those of the north-east Chinese taxon tangorum, the taxonomic status of which has been unclear. The results from playback experiments strongly suggest that, in spite of its morphological distinctness, tangorum is best retained as a race of A. agricola.'
Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated it as conspecific with agricola.
Helbig & Seibold (1999) investigated the molecular phylogeny of Acrocephalus and Hippolais warblers and found tangorum was closely related to Agricola, but 'In view of the distinctive phenotypic characters of this form and its large genetic distance from agricola (7.7-7.9%), we recommend that it be treated as a separate allospecies.'
Dickinson (2003), referring to tangorum, noted that it was 'Historically attached to A. agricola (see Vaurie, 1959), but placed in A. bistrigiceps by Watson et al. (1986). Alström et al. (1991) recommended attachment to agricola. Molecular studies show it deserves treatment at specific level (Helbig & Seibold, 1999).'
|Acrocephalus dumetorum||>||Acrocephalus orinus||Acrocephalus stentoreus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. stentoreus and A. orinus following Bensch and Pearson (2002).||Hume (1871) described Acrocephalus macrorhynchus from a single bird collected in Himachal Pradesh, India. Oberholser (1905) found that the name was preoccupied and gave it the new name Acrocephalus orinus. Vaurie (1955d) examined the specimen and concluded that, apart from its large bill, its structure and colouration suggested that it was closely related to agricola and concinens; he dismissed the possibility of Blyth's Reed Warbler because he found the bird to be too small and he thought that the bill was 'broader throughout, much less attenuated, and with shorter and weaker rictal bristles'. Williamson (1960) also examined the specimen and concluded 'Perhaps the best guess is that it represents a rare and isolated form of...A. stentoreus'. Ali & Ripley (1973) quoted from Vaurie and Williamson and apparently agreed with the latter. Watson et al. (1986a) referred to Vaurie and Ali & Ripley and stated that the latter 'suggest more plausibly that it represents a molting individual of a form of stentoreus', and this was repeated by Sibley & Monroe (1993).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted under stentoreus that it 'Includes A. orinus Oberholser 1905, known from a unique specimen from the Himalayas of northern Himachal Pradesh, northern India; it probably represents a rare, isolated population of A. stentoreus.'|
Sibley & Monroe (1993) changed the last phrase above to 'it probably represents a molting individual of A. stentoreus.'
Bensch and Pearson (2002) Noted that 'The Large-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus orinus is known only from the type specimen, collected in Himachal Pradesh, India, in 1867. The specimen is poorly prepared, and it has been suggested that it could represent an isolated form of the Clamorous Reed Warbler A. stentoreus or an aberrant Blyth's Reed Warbler A. dumetorum. We tested the affinity of A. orinus by (1) re-examining thye morphology of the type specimen and (2) amplifying and sequencing a portion of its mitochondrial cytochrome b gene. Both the morphological and the mitochondrial analyses showed the specimen to be similar to dumetorum, but distinct enough to qualify as a species of its own. Relative to dumetorum, it has a more rounded wing, longer bill, longer and more graduated tail with more pointed tail feathers, and larger claws. The divergence in mitochondrial DNA between orinus and dumetorum was 7.8%, well above the value expected between subspecies. A. orinus is smaller than any of the forms of A. stentoreus or the related Australian Reed Warbler A. australis. It has a somewhat longer first primary, more pointed tail feathers and paler, less robust feet and claws. DNA comparison places it in the clade of small unstreaked Acrocephalus warblers, and apart from the clade of large unstreaked warblers that contains stentoreus and australis.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Although said to fit Blyth's in all essential features (Grimmett et al. 1999), the single specimen in fact differs in several characters from any individual of that species, and is genetically distinct (Bensch & Pearson 2002).'
|Acrocephalus orientalis||<||Acrocephalus arundinaceus|
Acrocephalus orientalis was treated as conspecific with Acrocephalus arundinaceus (Hartert 1910-1922, Sibley & Monroe 1993) or even Acrocephalus stentoreus (Hartert 1924), but its wing shape and primary shape are intermediate between arundinaceus and stentoreus and its song appears to be different from both as is its geographical distribution (Stresemann & Arnold 1949). It differs in moult strategy (Svensson 1992). Mitochondrial DNA data suggest that orientalis has diverged to full species status, and is closer to stentoreus than it is to arundinaceus (Shirihai et al. 1995a). This relationship is supported by morphological features (Eck 1994).
|Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'A. orientalis and A. griseldis are often considered conspecific with A. arundinaceus, but orientalis (and probably also griseldis) is a good species; treatment of them as allospecies seems appropriate.'|
However, Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated it as conspecific with arundinaceus, noting that 'Orientalis is considered conspecific with arundinaceus by Stepanyan (1990c), a treatment supoorted by K. Mild (pers. comm.), U. Olsson (pers. comm.) and others'.
Helbig & Seibold (1999) constructed a molecular phylogeny of Acrocephalus and found that 'A. orientalis is more closely related to A. stentoreus than to A. arundinaceus (bootstrap support 92%) and should not, therefore be treated as a subspecies of the latter (contra Cramp, 1992; Sibley and Monroe, 1993). The cyt b sequence data also indicate that A. stentoreus in its current delimitation, which includes the Australasian taxon australis as a subspecies, might be paraphyletic relative to A. orientalis. Therefore, our results on the genetic divergence and phylogenetic relationships would be best reflected by recognizing arundinaceus, stentoreus, orientalis, and australis as four separate species.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that it is 'Highly distinct genetically from A. arundinaceus (Helbig & Seibold 1999).'
|Hippolais caligata||>||Hippolais rama (+)||Hippolais rama was treated as a separate species from caligata by Sibley & Monroe (1993) and Glutz & Bauer (1991) on the basis of morphological and vocal differences. No hybridization is reported in some areas where their ranges overlap, but elsewhere they are connected by apparently secondary hybridization zones where there is a mixed and variable population (Cramp 1992).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated rama as conspecific with caligata.|
However, Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated rama as a separate species, noting that 'K. M. Bauer and J. Haffer, in Glutz von Blotzheim (1991: 541, 556) discussed reasons for regarding H. rama as a species distinct from H. caligata, a treatment supported by Stepanyan (1990c).'
Helbig & Seibold (1999), referring to caligata and rama, noted that 'The sister relationship of these two western Asian taxa, treated as subspecies of H. caligata by most authors, was strongly supported (99-100% bootstrap). They differed by almost the same amount of sequence divergence (6.76%) as the more westerly distributed parapatric species pair icterina, polyglotta.'
Dickinson (2003), referring to rama, noted that 'For separation from I. caligata see Stepanyan (1990: 457).'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), referring to rama, noted that it 'Breeds sympatrically with Booted Warbler in C Asia (Svensson 2001) and genetic distance between the two is relatively large (Helbig & Seibold 1999, AERC TAC 2003). However, some individuals appear intermediate and introgression may occur.'
|Phylloscopus sichuanensis||=||Phylloscopus yunnanensis||Dickinson (2003) used yunnanensis for this species, noting that 'Phylloscopus sichuanensis Alström, Olsson & Colston, 1992 is apparently a junior synonym, see Martens et al. (2000); we understand the holotype in the MCZ has been re-examined, and that this is now confirmed (Martens in litt.).'|
|Phylloscopus proregulus||>||Phylloscopus kansuensis||Phylloscopus proregulus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. proregulus and P. kansuensis following Alström et al. (1997).||Alström et al. (1997) noted that Phylloscopus proregulus kansuensis Gansu Leaf Warbler differs markedly from both proregulus and chloronotus in song and calls and, although it appears to be allopatric with them, playback experiments strongly suggest that it is best considered a separate species.|
|Phylloscopus chloronotus||>||Phylloscopus forresti||Phylloscopuschloronotus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. chloronotus and P. forresti following Martens [et al.] (2004).||Martens et al. (2004) found that the West Chinese population of chloronotus represented a divergent cyt-b lineage (albeit with weak quartet puzzling and bootstrap support) and strongly differed vocally from the western and central Himalayan populations. 'The name Phylloscopus proregulus forresti Rothschild, 1921 (type locality: Lichiang range, North Yunnan, China) may be available to correctly denominate the West Chinese populations. Its type locality is close to two localities in Sichuan where we found the "West Chinese" Pallas's warbler cyt-b haplotypes, thus forresti Rothschild may represent this cyt-b cluster. P. p. forresti is currently synonymised with P. p. chloronotus (Ticehurst 1938; Alström and Olsson 1990; LeCroy and Dickinson 2001). However, the detailed distribution of song/call forms and of cyt-b haplotypes in the Sino-Himalayan area is still under-documented, and no material from the Lichiang range was available to us. However, Alström and Olsson (1990) claim to have recorded at "Lichiang, Yunnan" the "song form A" of P. p. "chloronotus" which, indeed, is strong evidence that the West Chinese cyt-b haplotypes (chl 1-4, Fig. 2) may represent this population as well.'|
|>||Phylloscopus claudiae||Phylloscopus reguloides (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. reguloides, P. claudiae and P. goodsoni following Olsson et al. (2005).||Olsson et al. (2005) noted that 'The avian taxa Cryptigata and Acanthopneuste have been treated either as subgenera within Phylloscopus (leaf-warblers), or as a distinct genus and an informal group, respectively. The circumscriptions of these taxa have varied between authors. We estimated the phylogeny, based on the mitochondrial cytochrome b and 12S genes and the nuclear myoglobin intron II, of all except two of the species placed in the Cryptigata and Acanthopneuste groups, as well as two recently described species and representatives of all subgenera and major clades in Phylloscopus and Seicercus recognized by previous studies. Neither Cryptigata nor Acanthopneuste is found to be monophyletic. The polytypic species P. reguloides and P. davisoni show deep divergences between some of their respective subspecies, and the latter species is non-monophyletic. We propose that the former be split into three species and the latter into two species. Seicercus xanthoschistos is nested in a clade that includes only Phylloscopus, and we recommend that it be placed in Phylloscopus. The rate of morphological divergence varies considerably among the taxa in this study. Our results emphasize the importance of dense taxon sampling in intrageneric phylogenetic studies.'|
|Phylloscopus reguloides||>||Phylloscopus goodsoni||See above||See above|
|Phylloscopus davisoni||>||Phylloscopus ogilviegranti||Phylloscopus davisoni (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. davisoni and P. ogilviegranti following Olsson et al. (2005).||See above|
|Phylloscopus poliocephala||=||Phylloscopus poliocephalus||Spelling of the species name in Inskipp et al. (1996) followed White & Bruce (1986), but the latter did not justify their choice of spelling and the spelling poliocephalus has been adopted by virtually all other authors.|
|Seicercus burkii||>||Seicercus whistleri||Seicercus burkii (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into S. burkii, S. valentini, S. whistleri, S. soror and S. tephrocephalus following Alström & Olsson (1999) and S. omeiensis following Martens et al. (1999).||Alström & Olsson (1999) noted that 'The Golden-spectacled Warbler, usually treated as a single species, Seicercus burkii, is widely distributed in mountains of southern Asia. We argue that it should be treated as five different species, one of which [S. soror] is described here for the first time. Two species occur in sympatry in the Himalayas. The other three species are found in eastern Asia, where all three are sympatric in China, and two of these breed sympatrically also in Vietnam. In Burma and adjacent parts of India, one of the Himalayan species is sympatric with one of the east Asian species. We describe differences in morphology, vocalizations, altitudinal distribution and habitat between these five species, as well as results from playback tests, which show that all sympatric taxa differ and appear to be reproductively isolated from each other.'|
Martens et al. (1999) noted that 'The Golden-spectacled Warbler (Seicercus burkii auct.) of the Himalayas, China and Myanmar is not a uniform species but rather comprises a swarm of at least seven biospecies. These species are sympatric over large areas, but at certain sites have a strict vertically parapatric distribution without interbreeding ("paraspecies"). Hence only the criterion of ecological compatibility, which has long been used to identify independent species, does not apply to these Seicercus species. In China (Emei Shan, Taibai Shan) up to four species can coexist on a single mountain slope, in Myanmar (Mt. Victoria) three, and in Nepal two. The individual species are sharply distinguished by several independent characters in each case (voice, morphology, genetics) but in certain cases the morphological or vocal
|characters are not conspicuous (one case of each). Proportions of the large feathers and coloration and patterning (median and lateral crown-stripes, white markings on the outer rectrices, green and yellow tones on upper and lower surfaces of the body), voice (syntax, element forms and frequency range of the territorial songs, structure of the calls) and molecular genetics (high distance values of cytochrome b, 5-8%) unambiguously distinguish all species. These characters also reveal phylogenetic relationships between the species. Plumage characters are very conservative in the whole species swarm and can be classfied as plesiomorphic with reference to other characters. Territorial songs likewise appear conservative with respect to cytochrome b, but are very similar in two pairs of groups (S. burkii s. str. / S. omeiensis; S. whistleri / S. valentini) and for each of these are synapomorphic. Seicercus omeiensisspec. nov. is newly described here. It is discriminated from S. valentini acoustically and genetically and to a slight extent morphologically; from all other species it is also clearly discriminable morphologically. The following species are distinguished, all by separation from Seicercus burkii auct.: S. burkii (Burton, 1836) s. str. (Himalayas), S. whistleri Ticehurst, 1925 [probably including S. (spec.) nemoralis Koelz, 1954 as a subspecies of the latter (Himalayas, Myanmar)], S. valentini (Hartert, 1907) (central China), S. "latouchei" Bangs, 1929 (central and southeastern China), S. omeiensis spec. nov. (central China), S. distinctus (La Touche, 1922 (central and southern China, northern Indochina), S. (spec?) tephrocephalus (Anderson, 1871) (Myanmar).'|
Alström & Olsson (2000) clarified the differences in the conclusions from the previous two papers, noting that "latouchei"sensu Martens = S. soror, and distinctus is a synonym of tephrocephalus.
|Seicercus burkii||>||Seicercus tephrocephalus||See above||See above|
|Seicercus burkii||>||Seicercis valentini||See above||See above|
|Seicercus xanthoschistos||=||Phylloscopus xanthoschistos||Seicercus xanthoschistos (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) is placed in the genus Phylloscopus following Olsson et al. (2005).|
|Sylvia curruca||>||Sylvia minula (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated minula as a separate species from curruca, mainly because it is paler in colour and has a relatively short bill. However, C. S. Roselaar (in Cramp 1992) treated them as conspecific because they are connected by a very wide zone of intermediate populations in forest-steppe extending from the lower Volga to Mongolia.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated minula as conspecific with curruca, noting that 'There is controversy about the treatment of the three groups as races or as separate species; Watson, in Peters (1986: 275, footnote), summarized the arguments.'|
However, Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated minula as a separate species, mainly because it is paler in colour and has a relatively short bill.
Shirihai et al. (2001) noted that 'The four allospecies and two subspecies of S. [c.] curruca recognised here differ principally in size, wing shape, overall coloration, tail pattern and, in some cases, in vocalisations. Genetic divergence and size differences within the S. [c.] curruca superspecies are almost as large as within the S. [h.] hortensis/S. [h.] crassirostris/S. leucomelaena group (see Shirihai et al. submitted, Helbig et al. submitted). However, with respect to plumage, the S. [c.] curruca complex is poorly differentiated. Martens & Steil (1997) presented bioacoustic evidence to regard S. [c.] curruca, S. [c.] minula and S. [c.] althaea as allospecies. S. [c.] althaea and S. [c.] margelanica are both larger and breed at higher altitudes than S. [c.] minula and S. [c.] curruca. The distinctiveness of S. [c.] margelanica from S. [c.] minula (size and breeding altitude) and from S. [c.] althaea (much paler and sandier plumage) has not previously been fully appreciated. We treat it as a fourth allospecies. Unfortunately, crucial evidence regarding behaviour of all these forms in several potential contact and/or overlap zones is largely lacking. Further field studies are clearly required.'
Dickinson (2003), referring to curruca (including minula but not althaea), noted that 'This complex may represent two or more species; see Martens & Steil (1997) and Shirihai et al. (2001).'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to minula noted that 'Although probably better considered conspecific
|with Lesser owing to widespread intergradation (based on work in progress by L. Svensson), "Desert" S. [c.] minula is here given a separate account fothe sake of clarity.' |
Loskot (2005) noted that 'Individual, sex, age, seasonal and geographic variation of size and plumage coloration of Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca (Linnaeus, 1758) was studied on more than 1100 bird skins from all parts of its breeding range. The results of analysis of birds from the south-eastern part of the breeding range of the species support the validity of five light-coloured subspecies: halimodendri Sushkin, 1904, telengitica Sushkin, 1925, snigirewskii Stachanow, 1929, minula Hume, 1873, and margelanica Stolzmann, 1897. Their diagnosis and ranges are refined and supplemented. Numerous phenotypically intermediate birds from intergradation zones between the subspecies show that these five together with the two northern dark-coloured forms S. c. curruca and S. c. blythi Ticehurst & Whistler, 1933, undoubtedly belong to a single species, and not to three species as in Shirihai et al. (2001).'
|Sylvia curruca||>||Sylvia althaea (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated althaea as a separate species from curruca; they differ in size, morphology, vocalizations and habitat (Cramp 1992). However, C. S. Roselaar (in Cramp 1992) treated them as conspecific because caucasica Ognev & Bankovski, 1910 (the south-eastern race of the curruca group) shows a mixture of characters of nominate curruca and althaea, and northern populations of althaea tend somewhat towards 'blythi' (of curruca group) in colour.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated althaea and minula as conspecific with curruca, noting that 'There is controversy about the treatment of the three groups as races or as separate species; Watson, in Peters (1986: 275, footnote), summarized the arguments.'|
However, Sibley & Monroe (1993) treated althaea and minula as separate species.
Shirihai et al. (2001) — see above.
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to althaea noted that 'Probably better considered a distinct species from S. curruca (based on work in progress by L. Svensson).'
|Pellorneum fuscocapillum||=||Pellorneum fuscocapillus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Pellorneum tickelli||=||Trichastoma tickelli||Pellorneum tickelli (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into tickelli and buettikoferi and both placed in the genus Trichastoma following Wells et al. (2001).||Wells et al. (2001) noted that 'The taxonomy of the jungle babblers, Delacour's tribe Pellorneini, has long been subject to reversals of opinion, suggestive of a still-poor understanding of natural relationships. At the unstable boundary of genera Trichastoma and Pellorneum, groups of taxa usually taken to comprise a continental species tickelli and an insular species pyrrogenys have shifted from positions in separate genera to being neighbours in first one and then the other of these two. A fresh morphological analysis and newly described vocalizations show them to be one another's probable closest relative, potentially conspecific but due to limitations on the allowable use of vocalization evidence among allopatric populations, for the time being at least, kept as separate entities. The Sumatran taxon buettikoferi, long held to be a subspecies of one or other of these two, has unique songs and a sufficient array of other peculiarities to be treated unequivocally as a full species, perhaps not more closely related than as sister species to the whole of the rest of the cluster.'|
|Pellorneum tickelli||>||Trichastoma buettikoferi||See above||D. R. Wells (in Andrew 1992) preferred to treat buettikoferi as an allospecies of pyrrogenys but to subsume tickelli in pyrrogenys.||Wells et al. (2001) noted that 'The Sumatran taxon buettikoferi, long held to be a subspecies of one or other of these two, has unique songs and a sufficient array of other peculiarities to be treated unequivocally as a full species, perhaps not more closely related than as sister species to the whole of the rest of the cluster.'|
Dickinson (2003) treated buettikoferi as a separate species citing Wells et al. (2001).'
|Pellorneum pyrrogenys||=||Trichastoma pyrrogenys||See above|
|Malacocincla sepiarium||=||Malacocincla sepiaria||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Pomatorhinus ruficollis||>||Pomatorhinus musicus||Pomatorhinus ruficollis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. ruficollis and P. musicus following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated musicus as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Pomatorhinus ochraciceps||=||Pomatorhinus ochraceiceps|
Spelling of the species name as ochraciceps in Inskipp et al. (1996) was in error.
|Rimator malacoptilus||>||Rimator albostriatus||Rimator malacoptilus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into R. malacoptilus, R. albostriatus and R. pasquieri following Collar (2006).||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), referring to malacoptilus, noted that it is 'Best considered a separate species from taxa of Sumatra and Tonkin (albostriatus and pasquieri respectively) based on strikingly different plumage and apparently vocalisations.'|
Collar (2006b) noted that it was not clear whether Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) were proposing albostriatus and pasquieri as two species or one; he considered that their separation from each other at species level was tenable.
|Rimator malacoptilus||>||Rimator pasquieri||See above||See above|
|Pnoepyga albiventer||>||Pnoepyga formosana||Pnoepyga albiventer (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. albiventer and P. formosana following Collar (2006).||Harrap (1989) pointed out that formosana Ingram, 1909 should be included in this species, not with pusilla, with which it is included by Meyer de Schauensee (1984), Howard & Moore (1991), King et al. (1975), Wu & Yang (1991) and Cheng (1987, 1994). C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1995) suggested that formosana is sufficiently different in morphology and vocalizations to warrant treatment as a separate species.||Collar (2006b) treated formosana as a separate species, based on morphological and vocal differences.|
|Spelaeornis chocolatinus||>||Spelaeornis oatesi||Spelaeornis chocolatinus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into S. chocolatinus, S. reptatus, S. oatesi and S. kinneari following Collar (2006).|
C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1995) stated that vocalizations and plumage differ significantly between reptatus/kinneari and oatesi; but that of S. c. chocolatinus was not yet analysed. More than one species may be involved.
|Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Marked morphological differences between oatesi, chocolatinus and reptatus, all usually treated as races of Spelaeornis chocolatinus, suggest that species status is warranted for each. The songs of oatesi and reptatus differ significantly, but that of chocolatinus is undocumented; further study needed. Nagaland specimen(s) identified as oatesi perhaps indicate sympatry with chocolatinus.'|
Collar (2006b) treated oatesi, reptatus and kinneari as separate species, based on morphological and vocal differences (although the vocalizations of nominate chocolatinus are still unknown).
|Spelaeornis chocolatinus||>||Spelaeornis reptatus||See above||See above|
|Spelaeornis chocolatinus||>||Spelaeornis kinneari||See above||See above|
|Sphenocichla humei||>||Sphenocichla roberti||Sphenocichla humei (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into S. humei and S. roberti following Collar (2006).||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to roberti noted that it is 'Strikingly different from S. humei in many aspects of plumage, without any evidence of intergradation despite close geographic approach. Doubtless better considered a separate species on basis of morphology; comparative study of vocalisations desirable when recordings of roberti become available.'|
Collar (2006b) treated roberti as a separate species, based on significant morphological and vocal differences.
|Stachyris rodolphei||<||Stachyris rufifrons||Stachyris rufifrons and Stachyris rodolphei (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into Stachyris rufifrons following Robson (2000).||Zimmer & Mayr (1943) gave reasons for treating rodolphei as conspecific with ruficeps, but they were treated as separate species by Deignan (1939) because of apparent sympatry between rodolphei and rufifrons insuspecta Deignan, 1939 on Doi Chiang Dao, north-west Thailand. Deignan (1945) subsequently treated rodolphei as a subspecies of rufifrons, but reallocated insuspecta as a subspecies of Stachyris ruficeps, thus removing the problem of sympatry between rodolphei and rufifrons. Deignan (1964) once more treated rodolphei as a separate species and realigned insuspecta to Stachyris ambigua (which he split from rufifrons). The status of the three known specimens of rodolphei requires reassessment.||Robson (2000) noted merely that rufifrons 'Includes S. rodolphei Deignan's Babbler (NW Thailand [Doi Chiang Dao]), considered here to be synonymous with S. r. rufifrons.'|
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'This species is of doubtful validity, but a detailed review is needed; it is perhaps aberrant rufifrons.'
Collar (2006b) noted that the morphological differences between rodolphei and rufifrons were minor and concluded that 'rodolphei is for the moment better placed in synonymy with rufifrons.
|Stachyris rufifrons||>||Stachyris ambigua (+)||Deignan (1964) treated ambigua as a separate species, without giving reasons. However, it is treated as conspecific with rufifrons because the morphological differences between them are very minor and there is no evidence that they occur sympatrically (Harrison 1984).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that ambigua was 'Sometimes considered conspecific with S. rufifrons.'|
Dickinson (2003) treated ambigua as a separate species, noting that it 'May be conspecific with rufifrons see Robson (2000).'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'Regional form ambigua perhaps better treated as a full species, but further study needed. Songs of regional ambigua and SE Asian races of rufifrons can be very similar, just as can those of ruficeps.'
|Stachyris plateni||>||Stachyris pygmaea||Stachyris plateni (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into S. plateni and S. pygmaea following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated pygmaea as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Stachyris speciosa||=||Dasycrotapha speciosa||C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1995) suggested that speciosa should be removed from Stachyris and placed in the genus Dasycrotapha, because of differences in morphology, structure, behaviour and vocalizations.|
|Stachyris striolata||=||Stachyris strialata||Spelling of the species name as strialata follows Collar & Robson (2007), who noted that 'Species name often spelt "striolata", but there are no grounds for this emendation.'|
|Macronous gularis||>||Macronous bornensis||Macronous gularis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into M. gularis and M. bornensis following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated bornensis as a separate species, including zopherus (Oberholser, 1917), zaperissus (Oberholser, 1932), everetti (E. Hartert, 1894), javanicus (Cabanis, 1851), montanus (Sharpe, 1887), cagayanensis (Guillemard, 1885) and argenteus (Chasen & Kloss, 1930), based on significant morphological differences.|
|Micromacronus leytensis||>||Micromacronus sordidus||Micromacronus leytensis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into M. leytensis and M. sordidus following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated sordidus as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Turdoides caudatus||=||Turdoides caudata||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Turdoides subrufus||=||Turdoides subrufa||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Turdoides striatus||=||Turdoides striata||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Garrulax albogularis||>||Garrulax ruficeps||Garrulax albogularis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. albogularis and G. ruficeps following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated ruficeps as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Garrulax leucolophus||>||Garrulax bicolor||Garrulax leucolophus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. leucolophus and G. bicolor following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated bicolor as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Garrulax lugubris||>||Garrulax calvus (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Andrew (1992) treated calvus as a separate species from lugubris, without giving reasons. However, Chasen (1935) treated them as conspecific because he had detected 'incipient baldness' in lugubris. In addition, Harrap (1992) noted that some of their vocalizations are similar, and juvenile calvus have feathered crowns.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that calvus was 'Often considered conspecific with G. lugubris.'|
Collar (2006b) noted that the auditory evidence was equivocal but concluded that calvus just made the grade for treatment as a separate species, based on morphological differences particularly its baldness.
|Garrulax strepitans||>||Garrulax ferrarius||Garrulaxstrepitans (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. strepitans and G. ferrarius following Collar (2006).||Riley (1930, 1938) described Garrulax ferrarius from south-east Thailand, noting its general similarity to Garrulax milleti. Delacour (1946b) united ferrarius and milleti with strepitans, without reasons other than stating that they were very closely related. Deignan (1964) returned milleti to specific status and treated ferrarius as conspecific with strepitans rather than milleti, without providing reasons. Vaurie (1965a) suggested that ferrarius might constitute a separate species, but gave no reasons other than referring to the large number of accepted species of this genus. The form ferrarius shows a number of plumage characters that are not intermediate between strepitans and milleti and the tail is slightly shorter than that of milleti, but much shorter than that of strepitans (C. R. Robson pers. comm. 1995).||Dickinson (2003), referring to ferrarius, noted that it was 'Treated as a separate species named Cambodian Laughingthrush by Robson (2000). See also Round & Robson (2001), but evidence presented against conspecificity limited.'|
Collar (2006b) summarized the morphological and mensural differences of ferrarius from strepitans and milleti and concluded that it warranted species status.
|Garrulax maesi||>||Garrulax castanotis||Garrulax maesi (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. maesi and G. castanotis following Collar (2006).|
C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1995-1996) suggests that Garrulax (maesi) castanotis Rufous-cheeked Laughingthrush may be a separate species because it is very distinct morphologically and occurs within 50 km of Garrulax maesi maesi in east Tonkin (J. Eames pers comm.). Meinertzhagen (1928) included castanotis and varennei (Delacour, 1926) in ruficollis, whereas Berlioz (1930) referred them to strepitans, before Delacour (1946b) transferred them to maesi. None of these positions was adequately supported with reasons, and this complex of forms clearly requires further review.
|Collar (2006b) found that castanotis and maesi were 'spectacularly different from each other', but that varennei formed 'something of a bridge between them.' He concluded that 'the facial and frontal features of castanotis and varennei are sufficiently distinct from maesi to justify their separation as a polytypic species.'|
|Garrulax galbanus||>||Garrulax courtoisi||Garrulax galbanus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. galbanus and G. courtoisi following Collar (2006).||Garrulax galbanus courtoisi (including simaoensis Cheng & Tang, 1982) is distinctly different in plumage from galbanus but is treated as conspecific pending further study following Long et al. (1994).||Collar (2006b) treated courtoisi as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Garrulax poecilorhynchus||>||Garrulax berthemyi||Garrulaxpoecilorhynchus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. poecilorhynchus and G. berthemyi following Collar (2006).||Sharpe (1881) treated berthemyi as a separate species, and Collar (2006) confirmed that there are significant morphological and mensural differences from poecilorhynchus.|
|Garrulax merulinus||>||Garrulax annamensis||Garrulax merulinus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. merulinus and G. annamensis following Collar (2006).|
C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1995) prefers to treat Garrulax merulinus annamensis of southern Vietnam as a separate species from merulinus because of striking morphological differences.
Dickinson (2003), referring to annamensis, noted that it 'May be a separate species as suggested by Robson (2000). Full review needed.'
|Collar (2006b) treated annamensis as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Garrulax canorus||>||Garrulax taewanus||Garrulax canorus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. canorus and G. taewanus following Collar (2006).||Tu and Severinghaus (2004) analysed the differences between the songs of canorus and taewanus, noting that the songs of the former were far more complex than those of the latter. |
Collar (2006b) treated taewanus as a separate species, based on morphological and vocal differences.
Li et al. (2006) confirmed the differences by sequencing the entire mitochondrial cytochrome b gene for canorus, taewanus and owstoni (Rothschild, 1903) from Hainan. They refrained from recommending that owstoni should be treated as a separate species, despite its diagnosable DNA characters, owing to the small sample size that was available.
|Garrulax lineatus||>||Garrulax imbricatus||Garrulax lineatus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. lineatus and G. imbricatus following Collar (2006).||Vaurie (1954b) suggested that imbricatus 'may possibly be a separate species or a race of Garrulax virgatus.'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), referring to imbricatus, noted that it was 'Considered a distinct species here, as imbricatum is morphologically very distinct from G. [sic] lineatum, evidently not intergrading despite close geographic approach. Most of its vocalisations differ considerably, and tape playback yielded no response (PIH); further study needed.'
Collar (2006b) treated imbricatus as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.
|Garrulax erythrocephalus||>||Garrulax chrysopterus||Garrulaxerythrocephalus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. erythrocephalus, G. chrysopterus, G. melanostigma and G. peninsulae following Collar (2006).||Sharpe (1881) treated chrysopterus, erythrolaemus, melanostigma and ruficapillus as separate species from erythrocephalus, based on morphological differences. However, …|
Oates (1889) also treated chrysopterus, erythrolaemus and melanostigma as separate species, but placed ruficapillus in the synonymy of chrysopterus.
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to chrysopterus noted that 'Striking morphological and consistent vocal differences from other racial groups argue for specific status, as is also the case for two extralimital SE Asian racial groups.'
Collar (2006b) treated chrysopterus [including godwini (Harington, 1914) and erythrolaemus], melanostigma [including connectens (Delacour, 1929), subconnectens Deignan, 1938, schistaceus Deignan, 1938 and ramsayi (Ogilvie-Grant, 1904)] and peninsulae as separate species from erythrocephalus, based on significant morphological differences.
|Garrulax erythrocephalus||>||Garrulax melanostigma||See above||See above|
|Garrulax erythrocephalus||>||Garrulax peninsulae||See above||See above|
|Cutia nipalensis||>||Cutia legalleni||Cutia nipalensis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. nipalensis and C. legalleni following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated legalleni as a separate species based on significant morphological differences, although the alignment of hoae Eames, 2002 with legalleni was equivocal.|
|Gampsorhynchus rufulus||>||Gampsorhynchus torquatus||Gampsorhynchus rufulus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into G. rufulus and G. torquatus following Collar (2006).||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to rufulus noted that it is 'Surely not conspecific with the extralimital Gampsorhynchus [rufulus] torquatus, which has very different vocalisations and several morphological distinctions. At Namdapha (SE Arunachal), G. rufulus did not respond to playback of torquatus tapes (CR).'|
Collar (2006b) treated torquatus as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences between rufulus and saturatior Sharpe, 1888, in the extreme south of the range, and luciae [Delacour, 1926], in the extreme east, although the variability of torquatus clouded the situation. However, vocalizations are apparently constant within the rufulus group and within the remaining subspecies groups, and all are entirely different from each other.
|Alcippe castaneceps||>||Alcippe klossi||Alcippe castaneceps (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. castaneceps and A. klossi following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated klossi as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences.|
|Alcippe cinereiceps||>||Alcippe manipurensis||Alcippe cinereiceps (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. cinereiceps, A. manipurensis and A. formosana following Collar (2006).||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to manipurensis noted that 'Species limits probably best restricted to include only manipurensis and tonkinensis, based on morphology and vocalisations (CR).'|
Collar (2006b) noted that Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) 'did not supply evidence of the different vocalisations to which they referred' but agreed that manipurensis warranted treatment as a separate species, based on significant morphological differences, and an analysis of the morphology of formosana demonstrated that it was worthy of separate species status.
|Alcippe cinereiceps||>||Alcippe formosana||See above||See above|
|Alcippe peracensis||>||Alcippe grotei||Alcippe peracensis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. peracensis and A. grotei following Collar (2006).|
C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1995) suggested that Alcippe peracensis grotei was more closely related to poioicephala than to other subspecies of peracensis. It is sympatric in Vietnam with Alcippe peracensis annamensis in several places and differs in morphology and vocalizations (see also Thewlis et al. 1996 for Laos) and it therefore warrants treatment as a separate species.
|Dickinson (2003), referring to grotei, noted that it was 'Included in peracensis in Deignan (1964) and in our last Edition. Provisionally treated here as in Inskipp et al. (1996). Robson (2000) treated it as a species and included eremita from A. peracensis. His detailed findings, which are important, require publication and will then deserve following.'|
Collar (2006b) confirmed the morphological distinctness of grotei from poioicephala and upheld its specific separation from both poioicephala and peracensis.
Zou et al. (2007)
|Heterophasia annectans||=||Heterophasia annectens||The spelling of the species name as annectans follows Dickinson (2003), who noted that 'The spelling annectens used in Peters Check-list and in our last Edition is now considered an unjustified emendation.'|
|Heterophasia melanoleuca||>||Heterophasia desgodinsi||Heterophasia melanoleuca (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into H. melanoleuca and H. desgodinsi following Collar (2006).||Deignan (1945, 1964) and Delacour (1950) treated desgodinsi as conspecific with melanoleuca, the latter noting that engelbachi (Delacour, 1930) provided a morphological link between them. However, Smythies (1949) described significant vocal differences between them, and they are as different morphologically as are other species in the genus. C. R. Robson (pers. comm. 1996) played the song of Heterophasia desgodinsi robinsoni (Rothschild, 1921) to an individual of melanoleuca in north-west Thailand and found no response, although the bird reacted to its own song. A sample involving several tapes and several birds is necessary to assess the significance of this.||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'The desgodinsi group of forms may well be a separate species as Robson (2000) treated them. However detailed substantiation is needed.'|
Collar (2006b) treated desgodinsi as a separate species based on significant morphological differences, and he reiterated the vocal differences described by Smythies (1949).
|Yuhina castaniceps||>||Yuhina torqueola||Yuhina castaniceps (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into Y. castaniceps and Y. torqueola following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated torqueola as a separate species based on significant morphological and vocal differences.|
|Yuhina zantholeuca||=||Erpornis zantholeuca||Harrison (1986a, b) suggested that zantholeuca would more appropriately be placed in the genus Stachyris, based on its plain plumage and bill structure. However, he felt that field studies were necessary to confirm these suggestions. The most appropriate English name would be White-bellied Babbler.||Dickinson (2003) noted that it was 'Treated in the genus Yuhina by Deignan (1964: 426), but in Stachyris in our last Edition following Harrison (1986). We do not now accept that and prefer to reintroduce this generic name. Molecular evidence supports its separation, but it may not be a babbler (Cibois et al., 2002).'|
|Conostoma oemodium or Conostoma aemodium||=||Conostoma oemodium||The spelling of the species name as aemodium follows Howard and Moore corrigenda 6, who noted that 'Hartert (1907: 413) acted as First Reviser (not noticed by Deignan, 1964)'.|
|Paradoxornis gularis||>||Paradoxornis margaritae||Paradoxornis gularis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into P. gularis and P. margaritae following Collar (2006).||Collar (2006b) treated margaritae as a separate species based on significant morphological differences.|
|Zosterops citrinellus||=||Zosterops citrinella||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Zosterops atrifrons||>||Zosterops stalkeri||Zosterops atrifrons (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into Z. atrifrons, Z. nehrkorni and Z. stalkeri following Rasmussen et al. (2000b).||Rasmussen et al. (2000) noted that 'Field observations of the very rare white-eye Zosterops of Sangihe Island, northern Indonesia, indicated that a reanalysis of its taxonomic status was necessary. Accordingly, an analysis of morphology and vocalizations of the Black-crowned White-eye Zosterops atrifrons (sensu lato) was undertaken, which confirmed that the polytypy of this group far exceeds that of a single biological species. The taxon from Seram is highly distinctive both in morphology and song, and clearly requires treatment as a separate species, the Seram White-eye Zosterops stalkeri. The form from Sangihe differs in numerous respects from all other taxa, most obviously and significantly in its bright pinkish bill and legs, and it evidently differs in ecology and vocalizations as well. It also should be treated as a distinct species, the Sangihe White-eye Zosterops nehrkorni, and requires immediate listing in the threat category of Critically Endangered. All records of this species are reviewed herein. In the Sulawesi sub-region, the race surda of central Sulawesi is clearly a good subspecies, most similar to the nominate of northern Sulawesi; the taxa of the Sula Islands (sulaensis) and of Peleng Island (subatrifrons) form another group, to which an undescribed subspecies of south-central Sulawesi also apparently belongs. The song of sulaensis is distinctly different than for the atrifrons group, and species status is probably warranted for the group that includes sulaensis, in which case subatrifrons would be the name with priority; however, further study is needed. The group of races from the New Guinean region is highly polytypic,|
|but consistently different from the aforementioned races, and pending further study, should be treated (as some authors have recently done) as the Black-fronted White-eye Zosterops minor.|
Dickinson (2003), referring to nehrkorni and stalkeri noted that 'For recognition as species see Rasmussen et al. (2000).' Also, referring to subatrifrons Meyer & Wiglesworth, 1896 and sulaensis Neumann, 1939. He noted that 'Rasmussen et al. (2000) stated that specific status was probably warranted…based on acoustic evidence.'
|Zosterops atrifrons||>||Zosterops nehrkorni||See above||See above||See above|
|Irena cyanogaster||=||Irena cyanogastra||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|>||Certhia hodgsoni||Certhia familiaris (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. familiaris and C. hodgsoni following Tietze et al. (2006).||Tietze et al. (2006) and Martens & Tietze (2006) treated hodgsoni as a separate species, based on a deep molecular genetic difference that separates on the one hand the three Sino-Himalayan subspecies, hodgsoni, mandellii Brooks, 1874, and khamensis Bianchi, 1903, from bianchii Hartert, 1905 (which is also Sino-Himalayan) and the more northerly and eastern forms. Martens & Tietze (2006) noted that the three subspecies of hodgsoni had cytochrome-b differences of 2.0-3.9%, close to that of distinct species, but they are best treated as related subspecies until a detailed field study detects a contact zone between hodgsoni and mandellii.|
|Certhia discolor||>||Certhia manipurensis||Certhia discolor (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C.discolor and C. manipurensis following Tietze et al. (2006).||Tietze et al. (2006) and Martens & Tietze (2006) treated manipurensis as a separate species, based on differences in vocalizations and a cytochrome-b difference of 5.1%. The latter authors noted that manipurensis has not yet been compared with the other three south-eastern subspecies in a molecular study, although their songs are all similar.|
|Basilornis miranda||=||Basilornis mirandus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b ).|
|Acridotheres cinereus||>||Acridotheres grandis (+)||Amadon (1956) treated cinereus and javanicus (but not grandis) as conspecific with fuscus. However, grandis, javanicus and cinereus are apparently more similar morphologically to each other than they are to fuscus, and are here treated as conspecific. Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated grandis as a separate species without providing reasons, and King (1997) went further and elevated all three forms to specific status. The name cinereus takes precedence over javanicus (Sibley & Monroe 1993).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated grandis as a separate species, noting that it was 'Sometimes considered conspecific with A. fuscus, but grandis is more closely related to (and perhaps conspecific with) A. javanicus.'|
Feare & Craig (1998) treated cinereus, grandis and javanicus as separate species in an 'attempt to simplify terminology to what appears sensible at present but we accept that studies of their behaviour, genetics, distribution snd interbreeding, are needed and that these studies might modify our perception of their taxonomy in the future.'
Dickinson (2003) treated grandis, javanicus and cinereus as separate species noting that they 'are treated as allspecies by Feare & Craig (1998); we tentatively accept them at species level, but detailed studies are needed.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) treated grandis as a separate species without giving reasons.
|Sturnus senex||=||Sturnus albofrontatus||Mees (1997) explained that senex was incorrectly applied to this species and that the next available name was albofrontatus.|
|Myophonus glaucinus||>||Myophonus borneensis||Myophonus glaucinus (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into M. glaucinus, M. castaneus and M. borneensis following Collar (2004).||Collar (2004) noted that 'The three races castaneus (Sumatra), glaucinus (Java) and borneensis (Borneo) of Sunda Whistling Thrush Myophonus glaucinus show strong plumage, clear mensural and possible vocal and ecological differences, so are better regarded as three species.'|
|Myophonus glaucinus||>||Myophonus castaneus||See above||van Marle & Voous (1988) suggested, without reasons, that castaneus Brown-winged Whistling Thrush from Sumatra may be a separate species from glaucinus. Delacour (1942) treated them as conspecific, owing to similarities in behaviour and proportions, but the morphological differences (MacKinnon & Phillipps 1993) suggest that this complex, which includes borneensis, warrants further investigation.||van Marle and Voous (1988) noted that 'Though included in M. glaucinus by Delacour (1942), the taxonomic position of castaneus remains enigmatic and it may be a separate species, M. castaneus Ramsay 1880, Brown-winged Whistling Thrush (see also taxonomic note by van Oort 1911: 60).|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Castaneus may be a distinct species (van Marle and Voous 1988: 177).'
Collar (2004) noted that 'The three races castaneus (Sumatra), glaucinus (Java) and borneensis (Borneo) of Sunda Whistling Thrush Myophonus glaucinus show strong plumage, clear mensural and possible vocal and ecological differences, so are better regarded as three species.'
|Zoothera dumasi||>||Zoothera joiceyi||Zoothera dumasi (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into Z. dumasi and Z. joiceyi following Collar (2004).||Collar (2004) noted that 'The subspecies joiceyi (Seram) of Moluccan Thrush Z. dumasi (Buru) diverges from the latter in at least three major and five medium plumage features.'|
|Zoothera interpres||>||Zoothera leucolaema||Zoothera interpres (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into Z. interpres and Z. leucolaema by Collar (2004).||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Junge (1938: 351) recommended that leucolaema be treated as a full species.'|
Collar (2004) noted that 'The subspecies leucolaema (Enggano, off Sumatra) of the widely distributed but morphologically uniform Chestnut-capped Thrush Zoothera interpres is very distinct in both adult and juvenile plumage and in bill size, and faurly distinct in leg and wing size, with voice apparently also significantly different.'
|Zoothera erythronota||>||Zoothera mendeni||Zoothera erythronota (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into Z. erythronota and Z. mendeni following Collar (2004).||King (1997) treated Zoothera mendeni Peleng Thrush as a separate species. However, Zimmer & Mayr (1943) concluded that mendeni was 'a melanistic race of erythronota (Celebes), in which the white marks on wings and under parts have disappeared.'|
Collar (2004) noted that 'The subspecies mendeni (Peleng, off Sulawesi) and a closely related but undescribed taxon on Taliabu of Red-backed Thrush Z. erythronota both differ strikingly from the latter in their all-black underparts and brighter upperparts.'
|Zoothera dauma||>||Zoothera imbricata||Z. imbricata from Sri Lanka, previously considered a subspecies of Z. dauma following Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993), is treated as a distinct species following Rasmussen and Anderton (2005).||The populations in south-west India (neilgherriensis) and Sri Lanka (imbricata) are morphologically distinct from all other populations (Ali & Ripley 1987); an analysis of their vocalizations, and those of affinis from peninsular Thailand and horsfieldi from Indonesia, is required before any taxonomic conclusions can be drawn.||Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The treatment of the three resident (and one presumed vagrant) "scaly thrushes" in the region as races of Z. dauma appears untenable. The four forms are at least as distinct morphologically and (as far as known) vocally as extralimital forms that have elsewhere been given specific status (e.g. in Australia and Amami Is, Japan).'|
|Zoothera major||<||Zoothera dauma||Zoothera major, Z. dauma and Z. horsfieldi (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into Z. dauma following Collar (2004).||Ripley (1952a, 1964a) and Vaurie (1959b) treated major as conspecific with dauma. However, Ishihara (1986) and Brazil (1991) treated it as a separate species, as it differs from dauma in size and, particularly, in vocalizations. The name amami is only applicable if Zoothera is subsumed in Turdus.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Ishihara (1986) recognized major as a species.'|
OSJ (2000) noted that 'Whether or not to raise Z. d. major of Amami-Oshima to species status is largely a matter of opinion, since adaptations to an insular environment often yield very different plumage, bill and wing structure, ecology, voice, etc., within a species (aside from the number of rectrices, major differs from aurea in voice but is very similar in plumage characteristics). The number of rectrices (14 in aurea and 12 in major) is often mentioned as evidence of the specific status of major, but it varies geographically and individually within the Z. dauma population (Deignan 1938, J. Siam Soc. Nat. Hist. Suppl. 11: 119-122). My preference is to regard major, as well as other more or less distinct allopatric forms of Indonesian and Australasian regions, as a subspecies of Z. dauma.'
Collar (2004) noted that 'P. A. J. Morris (verbally 2004) reports that major, whose elevation to species status rests mainly on its very different song from aurea (Ishihara 1986, Brazil 1991), turns out to sing very similarly to dauma.'
|Brachypteryx leucophrys||=||Brachypteryx leucophris||Spelling of the name as leucophris follows Howard and Moore corrigenda 8, where it was stated that it was in line with the original description and HBW (= Collar 2005).|
|Cercotrichas galactotes||=||Erythropygia galactotes||Ripley (1952) treated this species, along with a number of Afrotropical species, in the genus Erythropygia, leaving Cercotrichas as an unrelated monospecific genus, although he mentioned that 'Heim de Balsac and Mayaud (1951) feel that Cercotrichas is very close to Erythropygia galactotes, but the latter is only one species of the genus and a rather aberrant one at that.' He repeated this treatment in Ripley (1964), albeit with the two genera listed close together, and was followed by e.g. Vaurie (1955), Dowsett & Dowsett-Lemaire (1993) [who stated that they 'prefer to keep the genus Cercotrichas for the very distinctive, black-plumaged C. podobe, and to place the very compact group of rufous species in Erythropygia (contra Hall & Moreau 1970)'], and Collar (2005). However, Vaurie (1959) subsumed Erythropygia in Cercotrichas and was followed by the majority of subsequent authors, including Voous (1977) and Sibley & Monroe (1990).|
|Copsychus stricklandii||<||Copsychus malabaricus||Copsychus malabaricus and C. stricklandii (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) have been lumped into C. malabaricus following Collar (2004).|
Ripley (1952a) treated stricklandii as conspecific with malabaricus, without providing reasons. Smythies (1957) followed this arrangement, despite referring to overlap in their ranges in northern Borneo. Ripley (1964a) reverted to treating stricklandii as a separate species, again without providing reasons or references. Given the overlap in range and the morphological distinctness of stricklandii it seems preferable to treat it as a separate species.
|Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'C. stricklandii has been considered conspecific with C. malabaricus, but they are sympatric in northern Borneo.'|
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'Mees (1996) discussed the interbreeding between C. m. suavis and C. s. stricklandii that caused Smythies to treat these two as members of one species. True sympatry seems unproven.' Referring to stricklandii he noted that 'This race and barbouri have striking white crowns and are seen by some authors to comprise a distinct species.'
Collar(2004) noted that 'White-crowned Shama Copsychus stricklandii (northern Borneo) and race suavis of White-rumped Shama C. malabaricus (rest of Borneo) separate on a single character, intergrade in a broad contact zone, and are better treated as conspecific.'
|Trichixos pyrropyga||=||Trichixos pyrropygus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Saxicoloides fulicata||=||Saxicoloides fulicatus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).|
|Phoenicurus erythronota||=||Phoenicurus erythronotus||Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).|
|Phoenicurus coeruleocephalus||=||Phoenicurus caeruleocephala|
|The original spelling of the name (Vigors 1831) was coeruleocephalus.|
Spelling of the species name as caeruleocephala follows David & Gosselin (2002a). However, the alternative spelling of coeruleocephala has not been discussed.
|Phoenicurus erythrogaster||=||Phoenicurus erythrogastrus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).
|Hodgsonius phaenicuroides||=||Hodgsonius phoenicuroides|
Spelling of the species name as phoenicuroides follows Dickinson & Walters (2006) as per the original description.
|Rhyacornis fuliginosus||=||Rhyacornis fuliginosa|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Myiomela leucura||=||Cinclidium leucurum||Ripley (1952a) treated leucura, diana and frontale as congeneric under the name Myiomela, claiming that frontale 'differs from [leucura] only in lacking a white patch at the base of the outer tail feathers'. However, frontale is quite different in structure, as noted by Jerdon (1862-1864) who linked it with Brachypteryx and Hodgsonius in a position quite remote from leucura. In its long tail and tarsus, and terrestrial habits, frontale appears similar to Hodgsonius and it should be separated generically from leucura.|
|Myiomela diana||=||Cinclidium diana||See above|
|Saxicola macrorhyncha||=||Saxicola macrorhynchus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Saxicola torquata||=||Saxicola torquatus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Saxicola leucura||=||Saxicola leucurus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Saxicola ferrea||=||Saxicola ferreus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Oenanthe xanthoprymna||>||Oenanthe chrysopygia||Oenanthe xanthoprymna (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into O. xanthoprymna and O. chrysopygia following AERC TAC (2003).||Nikolaus (1987) treated chrysopygia and xanthoprymna as separate species, but provided no reasons or discussion.|
Dickinson (2003) treated chrysopygia as a separate species, noting that 'For reasons to treat as a species separate from O. xanthoprymna see Bates (1935) and Nikolaus (1987). Reported intergrades have been reidentified as 1st winter xanthoprymna.'
AERC TAC (2003) provided the following summary 'According to the STC, Red-tailed Wheatear is best treated as a separate species based on marked differences in morphology, incl. Absence of sexual dimorphism. Kurdish Wheatear was found breeding in the 1980s in SE Turkey (Helbig 1984, Kumerloeve et al. 1984, Kasparek 1986, and Roselaar 1995); the distinctive male has a dark chestnut rump, white sides to the tail-base and a dark throat, whereas Red-tailed Wheatear from Transcaucasia lacks white on tail and dark throat. Some intergradation is said to occur and measurements and structure are similar, hence Vaurie (1949)Amer. Mus. Novitat. 1425 and C.S. Roselaar in Cramp et al. (1988) included these taxa in a single polytypic species. Dubois (2000) observed an 'intermediate' male on 5 March 2000 in the Hilleh area, Iran. This individual had the black throat of Oe. xanthoprymna, but the 'red-cornered' tail of chrysopygia. Such birds are sometimes separated as 'cummingi' (Withaker 1899) and are stated to occur in the overlap zone, but a rufous tail may be normal for some pure Oe. xanthoprymna (Roselaar in Cramp et al. 1988), so the tail observed by Dubois has limited weight as an argument (L. Svensson pers. comm.). Although they are said to interbreed, the supposed characters of the hybrid are also found in
some first year birds of Oe. xanthoprymna (Bates 1935, Helbig 1984, Roselaar 1995). Ivanov (1941) already advocated splitting the species. See also Stepanyan (1971). Panov (1999) considered them to form a superspecies. L. Svensson commented: 'In my opinion, based on the examination of fairly long series of skins, and of seeing a few of both taxa in the field, these two are much more distinct than the various forms of Oe. lugens, and I maintain that such distinct taxa with so few positively known intermediates should easily qualify as separate species. Due to the fact that some xanthoprymna, notably females and some immature males, have reddish tail base, it is quite possible that the incidence of hybrids or intermediateshas been exaggerated in the past. I think one needs now to take a critical new look at all claimed intergrades.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to chrysopygia noted that it was 'Long considered conspecific with Rufous-tailed Wheatear O. xanthoprymna on the basis of a few apparent hybrids (now reidentified as first-winter xanthoprymna), but chrysopygia differs greatly from xanthoprymna, in which male has black throat, and both sexes have white rather than rufous tail panels. Surely better treated as a full species (see also AERC TAC 2003).'
|Oenanthe alboniger||=||Oenanthe albonigra|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).
|Rhinomyias addita||=||Rhinoyias additus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Rhinomyias brunneata||=||Rhinoyias brunneatus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Rhinomyias olivacea||=||Rhinoyias olivaceus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Muscicapa williamsoni||<||Muscicapa dauurica (+)||Deignan (1957c) described williamsoni as a separate species apparently sympatric with dauurica. Wells (1977, 1982c) and Wells et al. (1986) treated the two forms as conspecific, documenting the weakness of claims for sympatric breeding and the existence of plumage intergrades. Subsequently Boonsong [Lekagul] & Round (1991) treated williamsoni as a separate species; no reasons were given, but the differences in plumage and wing formula, and resident status of williamsoni, suggest that specific status is merited.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'Wells (1977; 1982), Wells and Francis (1984) and Wells, Round and Scharringa (1986) treated williamsoni as a race of M.dauurica.'|
Smythies & Davison (1999) referred to williamsoni as a separate species, following Inskipp et al. (1996) but provided details of one intergrade with dauurica, and noted that it was not strictly resident because migrants had reached Borneo.
|Eumyias sordida||=||Eumyias sordidus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Eumyias thalassina||=||Eumyias thalassinus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Eumyias albicaudata||=||Eumyias albicaudatus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Cyornis rufigastra||>||Cyornis omissus||M. D. Bruce (pers. comm. in Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered omissus of Sulawesi to be a distinct allospecies from rufigastra, a treatment previously adopted by Robinson & Kinnear (1928). However, White & Bruce (1986) treated them as conspecific, because they considered that the slight differences in morphology were not adequate justification for treatment as separate species.||Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that 'M. Bruce (pers. comm.) now considers this a distinct allospecies.'|
Dickinson (2003), referring to omissus, peromissus E. Hartert, 1920, djampeanus and kalaoensis (E. Hartert, 1896), noted that 'This and the next three races form a group sometimes treated as a separate species; but this is a matter of taste rather than proved.'
|Chloropsis cochinchinensis||>||Chloropsis jerdoni||Chloropsis cochinchinensis (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. cochinchinensis, C. kinabaluensis and C. jerdoni following Wells et al. (2003).||Wells et al. (2003) listed many morphological differences between jerdoni and cochinchinensis and noted that 'Geographical ranges of C. cochinchinensis chlorocephala (Walden, 1871a) and C. jerdoni in the NE Indian subcontinent are well separated, but habitat ranges are stated to be different and our preference is to return jerdoni to species rank — a decision already taken independently by Rasmussen & Anderton (in press).'|
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'The numerous consistent differences in morphology and lack of intergradation indicate that specific status is preferable for jerdoni. Among a large sample of recordings of jerdoni, none closely matches the few available for SE Asian cochinchinensis; however, songs of leafbirds are obviously highly plastic and perhaps not especially useful taxonomically, although calls may be of more significance.'
|Chloropsis cochinchinensis||>||Chloropsis kinabaluensis||See above||Smythies (1957), Mees (1986) and MacKinnon & Phillipps (1993) suggested that flavocincta (Sharpe 1887) from Borneo, which is usually treated as a subspecies of cochinchinensis (but was omitted entirely by Delacour 1960), would be treated more appropriately as a separate species. This requires further investigation.||Dickinson (2003), referring to flavocincta, which was replaced by kinabaluensis in later Corrigenda, noted that 'We agree with Mees (1986) that this should be treated as a species (Bornean Montane Leafbird) but, under our own rules, cannot do so until evidence is formally presented.' |
Wells et al. (2003) described numerous morphological differences between kinabaluensis and cochinchinensis, and noted that 'No intergradation has been reported in these or any other characters even though, locally, kinabaluensis and C. c. viridinucha meet in continuous forest cover (Smythies, 1957), or their ranges are separated by no more than a few hundred metres of altitude. We conclude they behave as a classical parapatric species pair (Haffer, 2003), effectively isolated genetically yet excluding one another ecologically.'
|>||Chloropsis media||Chloropsis aurifrons (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into C. aurifrons and C. media following Wells et al. (2003).||Wells et al. (2003) noted that 'Adult C. media agree with other C. aurifrons complex subspecies in size and wing and cap patterns - turquoise lesser wing-covert patch and cap from bill-base to mid eye level yellow (orange in aurifrons) — but media is dimorphic. Males show a typical black mask, females are green-faced, whereas throughout the continental and Sri Lankan range of C. aurifrons both sexes are masked and, per subspecies, diverge only slightly. In addition, the long, narrow, violet jaw-line flash of C. media is discrete, as per southern S Asian C. a. frontalis von Pelzeln, 1856, and C. a. insularis Whistler & Kinnear, 1933, whereas in all populations of continental SE Asia (that on an evolutionary timescale may have retreated away from the range of C. media only recently) the whole area of chin and throat between flashes is in-filled with the same violet. Since the only green-headed cohorts of continental C. aurifrons subspecies are juvenile, exactly as they are in C. kinabaluensis, we come to a parallel conclusion on taxonomy, albeit without the parapatry element. Our recommendation is that C. media be restored to species rank, and we note that its bill is slightly notched and nailed versus not at all in C. aurifrons.'|
|Dicaeum australe||>||Dicaeum haematostictum||Dicaeum australe (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into D. australe and D. haematostictum following Brooks et al. (1992).|
Brooks et al. (1992) suggested that haematostictum should be treated as a separate species, based on morphological and vocal differences, and because it may be more closely related to retrocinctum than to australe. Dickinson et al. (1991) also thought that it might warrant full specific status; however, separation requires a thorough field study, including the collection of tape-recordings.
|Mann (2002), comparing australe and haematostictum, noted that 'The two forms are allopatric. However, difference in bill shape, as well as rather striking plumage differences, would suggest that the two forms are better considered separate monotypic species, closest to D. retrocinctum Gould, 1872. Both are sexually monomorphic.'|
Dickinson (2003) treated haematostictum as a separate species, noting that 'This population is very distinct and has now been separated, see Brooks et al. (1992), Cheke & Mann (2001) and Mann (2002).'
|Dicaeum erythrorynchos||=||Dicaeum erythrorhynchos||The original spelling of the name (Latham 1790) was erythrorynchos.||Spelling of the species name as erythrorynchos has not been discussed.|
|Anthreptes rhodolaema||=||Anthreptes rhodolaemus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Aethopyga primigenius||=||Aethopyga primigenia|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).
|Aethopyga shelleyi||>||Aethopyga bella||Aethopyga shelleyi (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into A. shelleyi and A. bella following Mann (2002).||Mann (2002) treated bella as a separate species from shelleyi, based on a number of significant morphological differences.|
Dickinson (2003), referring to bella, noted that 'Separation from A. shelleyi follows Mann (2002).'
|Aethopyga temminckii||<||Aethopyga mystacalis||Rand (1967) treated temminckii as conspecific with mystacalis. However, Mees (1986) treated them as allospecies because of very distinct morphological differences.|
|Pyrgilauda taczanowskii||=||Montifringilla taczanowskii||The genus Pyrgilauda is separated from Montifringilla on the basis of habitat selection, feeding, social and vocal behaviour (Gebauer & Kaiser 1994).||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'We follow Stepanyan (1990) in accepting this genus [Pyrgilauda].'|
Dickinson (2003) placed this species in Onychostruthus citing Eck (1996).
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) noted that 'This snowfinch exhibits unique behavioural patterns and a distinctive, exceptionally thick furlike plumage without age or sexual variation; it is further set apart from other snowfinches by its lack of seasonal bill-colour changes; highly developed external nasal bristles forming a thick mat; broad outer webs of flight feathers (vs. strongly asymmetrical); distinctive tail shape; and short, heavy, strongly curved claws. We therefore resurrect for it the monotypic genus Onychostruthus (replacement name for original genus Onychospiza).'
|Pyrgilauda davidiana||=||Montifringilla davidiana||See above||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'We follow Stepanyan (1990) in accepting this genus [Pyrgilauda].'|
|Pyrgilauda ruficollis||=||Montifringilla ruficollis||See above||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'We follow Stepanyan (1990) in accepting this genus [Pyrgilauda].'|
|Pyrgilauda blanfordi||=||Montifringilla blanfordi||See above||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'We follow Stepanyan (1990) in accepting this genus [Pyrgilauda].'|
|ESTRILDIDAE||See above||Dickinson (2003) noted that 'We follow Stepanyan (1990) in accepting this genus [Pyrgilauda].'|
|Lonchura malacca||>||Lonchura ferruginosa (+)||Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated ferruginosa as a separate species from malacca, following Wolters (1975-1982), but gave no reasons. Goodwin (1982a) treated them as conspecific because of 'behavioural and other evidence', particularly the similarity in songs, although they are strikingly different morphologically.||Goodwin (1982)|
Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that ferruginosa was 'Often considered conspecific with L. malacca but treated as a species by Wolters (1979: 287).'
Restall (1995) noted that 'Wolters (1979) regarded L. ferruginosa as a good species and Goodwin (1982) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) follow him.'
|>||Lonchura atricapilla||Lonchura malacca (Sibley and Monroe 1990, 1993) has been split into L. malacca and L. atricapilla following AOU (2000).||Restall (1995) noted that 'Goodwin  separated L. malacca into two groups, malacca types and atricapilla types, but retained the concept of a single species. I propose to regard them as distinct and separate species, though they are obviously genetically very close (Kazikawa & Watada1985). My reasoning isw based on both morphological characteristics and behaviour. L. malacca occupies a clearly demarcated range in southern India, separate from that of L. atricapilla to the east, and there are no intergrades nor hybrids recorded (Ali & Ripley 1987). The 250 km of geography that lie between the two distributions appear to do a good job of keeping them apart.'|
AOU (2000) noted that it was 'Formerly merged with L. malacca and known as Chestnut Mannikin, but separated by Restall (1995).'
Dickinson (2003) noted that 'The reasons given by Restall (1995) for recognising malacca and atricapilla as distinct species require further evaluation. We believe molecular studies should soon clarify the situation. For the moment we prefer to retain a broad species including ferruginosa too.'
Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) referring to atricapilla noted that it was 'Considered a distinct species from L. malacca by Restall (1996), a treatment now widely followed. However, a hybrid zone exists in the E Peninsula between the Madras area and Sambalpur, Orissa (BMNH specimens), and further study is required.'
|=||Padda fuscata||Christidis (1987) noted that there were no chromosomal or electrophoretic grounds for separating Padda from Lonchura, and that this was in agreement with the behavioural and morphological similarities referred to by Goodwin (1982a).|
|Lonchura oryzivora||=||Padda oryzivora||See above|
|Motacilla maderaspatensis||=||Motacilla madaraspatensis||Vaurie (1960) spelt the species name as madaraspatensis, perhaps following Dresser (1902-1903), and he was followed by several authors, including Sibley & Monroe (1990); however, Vaurie (1959) spelt it as maderaspatensis, following the original description, and this was followed by the majority of authors, including Dickinson (2003).|
|=||Serinus thibetanus||Wolters (1967), followed by Voous (1977), transferred thibetanus from Carduelis to Serinus, based on similarities in bill-shape and plumage colouration with the European Serinus citrinella Citril Finch. However, it is very similar to Carduelis spinus in vocalizations, behaviour and habitat and seems better placed in Carduelis (Beaman 1994).|
|Rhodopechys sanguinea||=||Rhodopechys sanguineus|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Bucanetes mongolicus||=||Rhodopechys mongolicus|
¶ Vaurie (1949, 1959) subsumed Bucanetes in Rhodopechys but without providing reasons, and was followed by Paynter (1968) and Sibley & Monroe (1990). However, Voous (1977) noted that 'In the recognition of Rhodospiza and Bucanetes I follow Hartert & Steinbacher (1932-1938) and virtually all recent Russian authors'; he was followed by Dickinson (2003).
BirdLife International (2009) included mongolicus in Rhodopechys, but maintained Bucanetes for githagineus, without explanation.
|Rhodospiza obsoleta||=||Rhodopechys obsoletus|
¶ Vaurie (1949, 1959) subsumed Rhodospiza in Rhodopechys but without providing reasons, and was followed by Paynter (1968) and Sibley & Monroe (1990). However, Voous (1977) noted that 'In the recognition of Rhodospiza and Bucanetes I follow Hartert & Steinbacher (1932-1938) and virtually all recent Russian authors'; he was followed by Dickinson (2003).
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002a).
|=||Pinicola subhimachala||Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2001), did not include this species in their molecular studies, but noted that it shared many phenotypic characteristics with Carpodacus and might not be closely related to Pinicola enucleator.|
|Alopochen aegyptiacus||=||Alopochen aegyptiaca|
Spelling of the species name follows David & Gosselin (2002b).
|Pterodroma aterrima||=||Pseudobulweria aterrima||Dickinson (2003) and Brooke (2004) recognized Pseudobulweria for this species, following Imber (1985) and Bretagnolle et al. (1998).|
> = species on right split from species to the left
< = species on left lumped with species to the right
Please send comments to firstname.lastname@example.org
AERC TAC (2003) AERC TAC's taxonomic recommendations. Online version: http://www.aerc.be
Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1973) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, 8. Bombay: Oxford University Press.
Ali, S. and Ripley, S. D. (1987) Compact edition of the handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan 2nd edn. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Alström, P. (1997) Field identification of Asian Gyps vultures. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 25: 32-49.
Alström, P. (1998) Taxonomy of the Mirafra assamica complex. Forktail 13: 97-107.
Alström, P., Mild, K. and Zetterström, B. (in press) Larks of Europe, Asia and North America. London: Christopher Helm.
Alström, P. and Olsson, U. (1999) The Golden-spectacled Warbler: a complex of sibling species, including a previously undescribed species. Ibis 141: 545-568.
Alström, P. and Olsson, U. (2000) Golden-spectacled Warbler systematics. Ibis 142: 495-500.
Alström, P., Olsson, U. and Colston, P. R. (1997) Re-evaluation of the taxonomic status of Phylloscopus proregulus kansuensis Meise. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 117: 177-193.
Alström, P., Olsson, U. and Round, P. D. (1991) The taxonomic status of Acrocephalus agricola tangorum. Forktail 6: 3-13.
Amadon, D. (1956) Remarks on the starlings, family Sturnidae. American Museum Novitates 1803: 41 pp.
Amadon, D. (1978) Remarks on the taxonomy of some Australasian raptors. Emu 78: 115-118.
Amadon, D. and Bull, J. (1988) Hawks and owls of the world. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 3: 297-357.
Amadon, D. and Jewett, S. G., Jr. (1946) Notes on Philippine birds. Auk 63: 541-559.
American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] (1931) Check-list of North American birds. Fourth edition.
American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] (1957) Check-list of North American birds. Fifth edition. Baltimore, Maryland: Lord Baltimore Press.
American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] (1983) Check-list of North American birds. Sixth edition. Washington, D.C.: American Ornithologists' Union.
American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] (1998) Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edition. Washington, D.C.: American Ornithologists' Union.
American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] (2000) Forty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists's Union Check-list of North American Birds. Auk 117: 847-858.
Andrew, P. (1992) The birds of Indonesia, a checklist (Peters' sequence). Jakarta: Indonesian Ornithological Society.
Andrew, P. (1993) The birds of Indonesia Kukila Checklist No. 1. Additions, corrections and notes — 1. Kukila 6: 47-52.
Austin, J. J., Bretagnolle, V. and Pasquet, E. (2004) A global molecular phylogeny of the small Puffinus shearwaters and implications for systematics of the Little-Audubon's complex. Auk 121: 847-864.
Baker, E. C. S. (1926) The fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma. Birds, 3. Second edition. London: Taylor and Francis.
Baptista, L. F. et al. (1997) Family Columbidae (pigeons and doves). Pp. 60-243 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and J. Sargatal, eds. Handbook of the birds of the world, 4. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Bartels, M. Jr (1938) Notizen über einige Batrachostomus-Arten. Journal für Ornithologie 54: 497-519.
Bates, G. L. (1935) On Oenanthe xanthoprymna and O. chrysopygia. Ibis (13)5: 198-201.
Beaman, M. (1994) Palearctic birds: a checklist of the birds of Europe, North Africa and Asia north of the foothills of the Himalayas and the Yangtze River. Stonyhurst: Harrier Publications.
Beebe, W. (1918-1922) A monograph of the pheasants. London: Witherby.
Bensch, S. and Pearson, D. J. (2002) The Large-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus orinus revisited. Ibis 144: 259-267.
Berlioz, J. (1930) Révision systématique du genre Garrulax Lesson. L'Oiseau 11: 1-27, 78-105, 129-159.
Birks, S. M. and Edwards, S. V. (2001) A phylogeny of the megapodes (Aves: Megapodiidae) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 23: 408-421.
Blake, E. R. and Vaurie, C. (1962) Family Corvidae. Pp. 204-282 in E. Mayr and J. C. Greenway, Jr., eds. Check-list of birds of the world, 15. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Bock, W. J. and Farrand, J. Jr (1980) The number of species and genera of recent birds: a contribution to comparative systematics. American Museum Novitates 2703.
Bourns, F. S. and Worcester, D. C. (1894) Preliminary notes on the birds and mammals collected by the Menage Scientific Expedition to the Philippine Islands. Occas. Pap. Minn. Acad. Nat. Sci. 1: 1-64.
Brazil, M. A. (1991) The birds of Japan. London: A. & C. Black.
Brooke, R. K. (1971) Geographical variation in the Little Swift Apus affinis (Aves: Apodidae). Durban Mus. Novit. 9: 93-103.
Brooks, T. M., Evans, T. D., Dutson, G. C. L., Anderson, G. Q. A., Asane, D. C., Timmins, R. J. and Toledo, A. G. (1992) The conservation status of the birds of Negros, Philippines. Bird Conservation International 2: 273-302.
Brosset, A. (1986) Les populations du Faucon Pélerin Falco peregrinus Gmelin en Afrique du nord: un puzzle zoogéographique. Alauda 54: 1-14.
Brown, L. and Amadon, D. (1968) Eagles, hawks and falcons of the world. Two volumes. London: Country Life books.
Bruce, M. D. (1980) A field list of the birds of the Philippines. Sydney: Tradit. Expl. 28 pp.
Bunce, M., Szulkin, M., Lerner, H. R. L., Barnes, I., Shapiro, B., Cooper, A. and Holdaway, R. N. (2005) Ancient DNA provides new insights into the evolutionary history of New Zealand's extinct Giant Eagle. PLoS Biol. 3: 44-46.
Burger, J. and Gochfeld, M. (1996) Family Laridae (gulls). Pp. 572-623 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and J. Sargatal, eds, Handbook of the birds of the world, 3. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Buzun, V. A. (2002) Descriptive update on gull taxonomy: 'West Siberian Gull'. British Birds 95: 216-232.
Chantler, P. and Driessens, G. (1995) Swifts: a guide to the swifts and treeswifts of the world. Mountfield, U. K.: Pica Press.
Chasen, F. N. (1935) A handlist of Malaysian birds. Bulletin of the Raffles Museum 11: 1-389.
Cheke, A.S. (2005) Naming segregates from the Columba-Streptopelia pigeons following DNA studies on phylogeny. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists Club 125: 293-295.
Cheke, R. A. and Mann, C. F. (2001) Sunbirds: a guide to the sunbirds, flowerpeckers, spiderhunters and sugarbirds of the world. London: Christopher Helm.
Cheng Tso-hsin (1987) A synopsis of the birds of China. Beijing: Science Press.
Cheng Tso-hsin (1994) A complete checklist of species and subspecies of the Chinese birds. Beijing: Science Press.
000Christidis, L. and Boles, W. E. (1994) The taxonomy and species of birds of Australia and its territories. Melbourne: Royal Australian Ornithologists' Union (Monograph 2).
Christidis, L. and Boles, W. E. (2008) Systematics and taxonomy of Australian birds. Collingwood, Victoria: CSIRO Publishing.
Clark, W. S. and Shirihai, H. (1995) Identification of Barbary Falcon. Birding World 8: 336-343.
Clay, T. (1975) Feather lice. Pp. 159-161 in J. Kear and N. Duplaix-Hall, eds. Flamingos. Berkhamsted: Poyser.
Cleere, N. (1998) Nightjars. A guide to the nightjars and related nightbirds. Robertsbridge: Pica Press.
Coates, B. J. and Bishop, K. D. (1997) A guide to the birds of Wallacea: Sulawesi, the Moluccas and Lesser Sundas. Brisbane: Dove Publications.
Collar, N. J. (2004) Species limits in some Indonesian thrushes. Forktail 20: 71-87.
Collar, N. J. (2006a) A partial revision of the Asian babblers (Timaliidae). Forktail 22: 85-112.
Collar, N. J. (2006b) A taxonomic reappraisal of the Black-browed Barbet Megalaima oorti. Forktail 22: 170-173.
Collar, N. J. and van Balen, S. (2002) The Blue-tailed Trogon Harpactes (Apalharpactes) reinwardtii: species limits and conservation status. Forktail 18: 121-125.
Collar, N. J., Mallari, N. A. D. and Tabaranza, B. R. J. (1999) Threatened birds of the Philippines: the Haribon Foundation/BirdLife International Red Data Book. Makati City: Bookmark.
Collar, N. J. and Robson, C. (2007) Family Timaliidae (babblers). Pp. 70-291 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott & D. Christie, eds. Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 12. Picathartes to tits and chickadees. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Collinson, J. M., Parkin, D. T., Knox, A. G., Sangster, G. and Svensson, L. (2008) Species boundaries in the Herring and Lesser Black-backed Gull complex. British Birds 101: 340-363.
Condon, H. T. (1975) Checklist of the birds of Australia. Part 1. Non-passerines. Melbourne: Royal Australian Ornithologists' Union.
Cramp, S., ed. (1988) The birds of the Western Palearctic, 5. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cramp, S., ed. (1992) The birds of the Western Palearctic, 6. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cramp, S. and Simmons, K. E. L., eds. (1980) The birds of the Western Palearctic, 2. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cramp, S. and Simmons, K. E. L., eds. (1983) The birds of the Western Palearctic, 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davison, G. W. H. (1982) Systematics within the genus Arborophila Hodgson. Federated Mus. J. 27: 125-134.
Deignan, H. G. (1938) Turdus aureus angustirostris Gyldenstolpe and Oreocincla horsfieldi affinis Richmond. Journal of the Siam Society (Natural History Supplement) 11: 119-122.
Deignan, H. G. (1939) Three new birds of the genus Stachyris. Zool. Ser. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. 24(10): 109-114.
Deignan, H. G. (1945) The birds of northern Thailand. Bulletin U.S. Nat. Mus. 186: 616 pp.
Deignan, H. G. (1955) The races of the swiftlet, Collocalia brevirostris (McClelland). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 75: 116-118.
Deignan, H. G. (1957) A new flycatcher from southeastern Asia, with remarks on Muscicapa latirostris Raffles. Ibis 99: 340-344.
Deignan, H. G. (1963) Checklist of the birds of Thailand. Bulletin U.S. Nat. Mus. 226: 1-263 + x pp.
Deignan, H. G. (1964) Subfamily Timaliinae. Pp. 240-427 in E. Mayr and R. A. Paynter, eds. Check-list of birds of the world, 10. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Delacour, J. (1942) The whistling thrushes (genus Myiophoneus). Auk 59: 246-264.
Delacour, J. (1946) Les timaliinés, L.'Oiseau 16: 7-36.
Delacour, J. (1950) Les timaliines: additions et modifications. L'Oiseau 20: 186-191.
Delacour, J. (1960) Family Irenidae. Pp. 300-308 in E. Mayr & J. C. Greenway, eds., Check-list of birds of the world, 9. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Delacour, J. and Jabouille, P. (1931) Les oiseaux d'Indochine française. 4 vols. Paris: Exposition Coloniale Internationale.
Delacour, J. and Mayr, E. (1946) The birds of the Philippines. New York: Macmillan.
Dement'ev, G. P. and Gladkov, N. A., eds. (1966-1970) The birds of the Soviet Union. 6 vols. English translation. Jerusalem: Israel Program for Scientific Translations.
Devillers, P. (1978) Distribution and relationships of South American skuas. Gerfaut 68: 374-417.
Devillers, P.J. (1983) Geographical variation [of Herring Gull, including (1) nominate argentatus group, (2) cachinnans group and (3) L. a. armenicus]. Pp. 836-837 in S. Cramp and K. E. L. Simmons,eds. The birds of the Western Palearctic, 3. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dickinson, E. C. (1989) A review of larger Philippine swiftlets of the genus Collocalia. Forktail 4: 19-53.
Dickinson, E. C., ed. (2003) The Howard & Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Third edition. London: Christopher Helm.
Dickinson, E. C. (2004) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 42. A preliminary review of the Oriolidae. Zoologische Verhandelingen 350: 47-63.
Dickinson, E. C. and Dekker, R. W. R. J. (2001) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 11. A preliminary review of the Alaudidae. Zoologische Verhandelingen 335: 61-84.
Dickinson, E. C., Eck, S. and Martens, J. (2004) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 44. A preliminary review of the Corvidae. Zoologische Verhandelingen 350: 85-109.
Dickinson, E. C., Kennedy, R. S. and Parkes, K. C. (1991) The birds of the Philippines. Tring: British Ornithologists' Union (Checklist 12).
Dickinson, E. C., Rasmussen, P. C., Round, P. D. and Rozendaal, F. G. (2000) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 1. A review of the Russet Bush-Warbler Bradypterus seebohmi (Ogilvie-Grant, 1895). Zoologische Verhandelingen 331: 11-64.
Dorst, J. and Mougin, J.-L. (1979) Order Pelecaniformes. Pp. 48-121 in E. Mayr and G. W. Cottrell, eds. Check-list of birds of the world, 1. Second edition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
duPont, J. E. (1971) Philippine birds. Greenville, Delaware: Delaware Museum of Natural History.
Dowsett, R. J. and Dowsett-Lemaire, F. (1993) Comments on the taxonomy of some Afrotropical bird species. Tauraco Res. Rep. 5: 323-389.
Dubois, Ph. (2000) Trip Report: Iran, February 20 — March 7. Online version at: http://www.camacdonald.com/birding/tripreports/Iran00.html
Dutson, G. (1993) The birds of the Flores Sea islands. Kukila 7: 129-141.
Eck, S. (1994) Die geographische-morphologische Vikarianz der grossen palaearktischen Rohrsänger (Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae: Acrocephalus [arundinaceus]). Zoologische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde Dresden 48: 161-168.
Eck, S. and Martens, J. (2006) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 49. A preliminary review of the Aegithalidae, Remizidae and Paridae. Zoologische Mededelingen 80: 1-63.
Elliot, D. G. (1877) Review of the Ibidinae, or subfamily of the ibises. Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London '1877': 477-510.
Feare, C. J. and Craig, A. (1998) Starlings and mynas. London: Christopher Helm.
Fefelov, I. V. (2001) Comparative breeding ecology and hybridization of Eastern and Western Marsh Harriers Circus spilonotus and C. aeruginosus in the Baikal region of eastern Siberia. Ibis 143: 587-592.
Ferguson-Lees, I. J. and Christie, D. A. (2001) Raptors of the world. London: Christopher Helm.
Filchagov, A. V. and Semashko, V. Yu. (1987) [Distribution and ecology of the West Siberian Herring Gull (Larus argentatus heuglini Bree 1876) in the Kola Peninsula.] Byull. Mosk. Ova. Ispyt. Otd. Biol. 92(3): 37-42. (In Russian.)
Filchagov, A. V., Yésou, P. and Grabovsky, V. I. (1992) Le Goéland du Taïmyr Larus heuglini taimyrensis: répartition et biologie estivales. L'Oiseau et R.f.O. V 62: 128-148.
Ford, J. (1981) Hybridization and migration in Australian populations of the Little and Rufous-breasted Bronze Cuckoos. Emu 81: 209-222.
Friesen, V., Baker, A. and Piatt, J. F. (1996) Phylogenetic relationships within the Alcidae (Charadriiformes: Aves) inferred from total molecular evidence. Molecular and Biological Evolution 13: 359-367.
Friesen, V., Piatt, J. F. and Baker, J. A. (1996) Evidence from cytochrome-b sequences and allozymes for a 'new' species of alcid: the Long-billed Murrelet (Brachyramphus perdix). Condor 98: 681-690.
Fry, C. H., Fry, K. and Harris, A. (1992) Kingfishers, bee-eaters and rollers. London: Christopher Helm.
Furness, R. W. (1987) The skuas. Calton, U.K.: Poyser.
Furness, R. W. (1996) Family Stercorariidae (skuas). Pp. 556-571 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliot and J. Sargatal (eds) Handbook of the birds of the world vol. 3. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Gaston, A . J. and Decker, R. (1 985) Interbreeding of Thayer's Gulls, Larus thayeri, and Kumlien's Gulls, Larus kumlieni, on Southampton Island, Northwest T erritories. Canadian Field-Naturalist 99: 257-259.
Gaston, A. J. and Jones, I. L. (1998) The auks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gaucher, P., Paillat, P., Chappuis, C., Saint Jalme, M., Lotfikhah, F. and Wink, M. (1996) Taxonomy of the Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata subspecies considered on the basis of sexual display and genetic divergence. Ibis 138: 273-282.
Gavrilov, E. I., and Savtchenko, A. P. (1991) [On species validity pf the Pale Sand Martin (Riparia diluta Sharpe et Wyatt, 1893).] Byull. Mosk. O-va Ispyt. Prir. (Otd. Biol.) 96(4): 34-44. (In Russian.)
Gizenko, A . I. (1955) Ptitsy Sakhalinskoy Oblasti. Moscow: Akadamii Nauk SSSR.
Gjershaug, J. O., Kvaløy, K., Røv, N., Prawiradilaga, D. M., Suparman, U. and Rahman, Z. (2004) The taxonomic status of Flores Hawk Eagle Spizaetus floris. Forktail 20: 55-62.
Glutz von Blotzheim, U. N. and Bauer, K. M. (1991) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, 11/1. Wiesbaden: AULA-Verlag.
Glutz von Blotzheim, U. N. and Bauer, K. M. (1993) Handbuch der Vögel Mitteleuropas, 12. Wiesbaden: AULA-Verlag.
Godfrey, W. E. (1986) The birds of Canada. 2nd ed. Ottawa: National Museum of Natural Sciences.
Goodwin, D. (1967) Pigeons and doves of the world. London: British Museum (Natural History).
Goodwin, D. (1982) Estrildid finches of the world. London: British Museum (Natural History.
Goroshko, O. A. (1993) [Taxonomic status of the Pale (Sand?) Martin Riparia (riparia) diluta (Sharpe et Wyatt 1893).] Russian Journal of Ornithology 2: 303-323. (In Russian.)
Greenway, J. C., Jr. (1962) Family Oriolidae. Pp. 122-137 in E. Mayr and J. C. Greenway, Jr., eds. Check-list of birds of the world, 15. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Gregory, S. M. S. (2000) Nomenclature of the 'Hypsipetes' bulbuls. Forktail 16: 164-166.
Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. and Inskipp, T. (1999) Birds of the Indian subcontinent. London: Christopher Helm.
Hachisuka, M. (1931-1935) The birds of the Philippine Islands with notes on the mammal fauna. 2 vols. London: Witherby.
Haffer, J. (1989) Parapatrische Vögelarten der paläarktischen Region. J. Orn. 130: 475-512.
Haffer, J. (2003) Avian zoogeography, speciation and the museum tradition. Pp. 7-25 in N. J. Collar, C. T. Fisher & C. J. Feare (eds) Why museums matter. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 123A, supplement: 1-360.
Hall, B. P. and Moreau, R. E. (1970) An atlas of speciation in African passerine birds. London: British Museum (Natural History).
Hancock, J. A., Kushlan, J. A. and Kahl, M. P. (1992) Storks, ibises and spoonbills of the world. London: Academic Press.
Hardwicke, T. (1821) On the wild dog of Sumatra, a new species of Viverra, and a new species of pheasant. Transactions of the Linnean Society of London 13(1): 237.
Hargitt, E. (1881) On three apparently new species of Iyngipicus. Ibis (4)5: 598-599.
Harrap, S. (1989) Identification, vocalisations and taxonomy of Pnoepyga wren-babblers. Forktail 5: 61-70.
Harrap, S. (1992) The specific status of the Bare-headed Laughingthrush. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 16: 48.
Harrap, S. ad Quinn, D. (1996) Tits, nuthatches and treecreepers. London: Christopher Helm.
Harris, T. and Franklin, K. (2000) Shrikes and bush-shrikes. London: Christopher Helm.
Harrison, C. J. O. (1969) Some comparative notes on the Peaceful and Zebra Doves (Geopelia striata sspp.) with reference to their taxonomic status. Emu 69: 66-71.
Harrison, C. J. O. (1978) Osteological differences in the leg bones of two forms of Anhinga. Emu 78: 230-231.
Harrison, C. J. O. (1984) The diagnostic plumage characters of the red-headed babblers Stachyris ruficeps and S. rufifrons. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 81: 197-198.
Hartert, E. (1910-1922) Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. 3 vols. Berlin: R. Friedländer.
Hartert, E. (1924) Uber einige neue Vögel aus dem indo-australischen Arcipel. Treubia 6: 20-25.
Helbig, A. J. (1984) Bemerkenswerte ornithologische Beobachtungen in der Türkei im Sommer 1981. Bonner zool. Beitr. 35: 57—69.
Helbig, A. J. and Seibold, I. (1999) Molecular phylogeny of Palearctic-African Acrocephalus and Hippolais warblers (Aves: Sylviidae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 11: 246-260.
Helbig, A. J., Seibold, I. and Shirihai, H. (submitted) Phylogeny and evolution of the genus Sylvia: I. Evidence from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Ibis.
Hennache, A., Rasmussen, P. C., Lucchini, V., Rimondi, S. and Randi, E. (2003) Hybrid origin of the Imperial Pheasant Lophura imperialis (Delacour and Jabouille, 1924) demonstrated by morphology, hybrid experiments, and DNA analyses. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 80: 573-600.
Holt, D. W. et al. (1999) Species accounts within the family Strigidae (typical owls). Pp. 153-242 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and J. Sargatal, eds, Handbook of the birds of the world, 5. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Holyoak, D. T. (1970) Comments on the classification of the Old World ibises. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 90: 67-73.
Holyoak, D. T. (2001) Nightjars and their allies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Holyoak, D. T. and Thibault, J.-C. (1976) La variation géographique de Gygis alba. Alauda 44: 457-473.
Howard, R. and Moore, A. (1991) A complete checklist of the birds of the world. Second edition. London: Academic Press.
del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. and Sargatal, J., eds. (1992-2005) Handbook of the birds of the world. Vols. 1-10. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Hume, A. O. (1871) Stray notes on ornithology in India. No. VI. On certain new or unrecorded birds. Ibis (3)1: 23-38.
Inskipp, T., Lindsey, N. and Duckworth, W. (1996) An annotated checklist of the birds of the Oriental region. Sandy, U.K.: Oriental Bird Club.
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature [ICZN] (1999) International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. Fourth edition. London: ICZN and BM(NH) and Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Isenmann, P. and Bouchet, M.-P. (1993) L'aire de distribution française et le statut taxonomique de la Pie-grièche méridionale Lanius elegans meridionalis. Alauda 61: 223-227.
Isenmann, P. and Lefranc, N. (1994) Le status taxonomique de la Pie-grièche méridionale Lanius meridionalis (Temminck 1820) Alauda 62: 138.
Ishihara, T. (1986) [The Amami Ground Thrush distinct from the White's Ground Thrush.] Strix 5: 60-61. (In Japanese.)
Ivanov, A. I. (1941) Oenanthe chrysopygia de Fil. I O. xanthoprymna Hempr. & Ehrenb. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR 3: 381—384.
Johansen, H. (1960) Die Vogelfauna Westsibiriens. III Teil (Non-Passeres). 9 Forsetzung: Alcidae, Laridae. J. Orn. 101: 316-339.
Johnsgard, P. (1986) The pheasants of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnsgard, P. (1988) The quails, partridges and francolins of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, J. A., Lemer, H. R. L., Rasmussen, P. C. and Mindell, D. P. (2006) Systematics within Gyps vultures: a clade at risk. BMC Evol. Biol. 6: 65-?.
Johnson, K. P., de Kort, S., Dinwoodey, K., Mareman, A. C., Ten Cate, C., Lessells, C. M. and Clayton, D. H. (2001) A molecular phylogeny of the dove genera Streptopelia and Columba. Auk 118: 874-887.
Johnstone, R. E. (1992) Notes on the distribution, ecology and taxonomy of the Peaceful Dove Geopelia striata in Western Australia. West Australian Naturalist 19: 10-17.
Jones, D. N., Dekker, R. W. R. J. and Roselaar, C. N. (1995) The megapodes (Megapodiidae). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Junge, G. C. A. (1938) On a collection of birds from Enggano. Treubia 16: 339-356.
Kasparek, M. (1986) New records of the Red-rumped Wheatear, Oenanthe xanthoprymna, in Turkey. Zool. Middle East 1: 54—56.
Kazakawa, R. and Watada, R. (1985) The evolutionary genetics of the Estrildidae. Journal of the Yamashina Institute of Ornithology 17: 143-158.
Kemp, A. (1995) The hornbills. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kemp, A. C. (1988) The systematics and zoogeography of Oriental and Australasian hornbills (Aves: Bucerotidae). Bonn. Zool. Beitr. 39: 315-345.
Kemp, A. C. and Crowe, T. M. (1985) The systematics and zoogeography of Afrotropical hornbills (Aves: Bucerotidae). Proc. Int. Symp. Afr. Vertebr., Zool. Forsch., Mus. A. Koenig, Bonn: 279-324.
Kennedy, M., Holland, B. R., Gray, R. D. and Spencer, H. G. (2005) Untangling long branches: Identifying conflicting phylogenetic signals a priori using spectral analysis, neighbor-net, and consensus networks. Systematic Biology 54: 620-633.
Kennedy, R. S. (1981) Birds of the Philippine Islands — a checklist. 18 pp. Unpublished.
Kennedy, R. S., Gonzales, P. C., Dickinson, E. C., Miranda, H. C., Jr and Fisher, T. H. (2000) A guide to the birds of the Philippines. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kennerley, P. R. (1989) A record of a Bradypterus warbler probably breeding on Bali. Kukila 4: 155-157.
Kennerley, P. R., Hoogendorn, W. and Chalmers, M. L. (1995) Identification and systematics of large white-headed gulls in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Bird Report 1994: 127-156.
Kennerley, P. R. and Leader, P. J. (1992) The identification, status and distribution of small Acrocephalus warblers in eastern China. Hong Kong Bird Report 1991: 143-187.
King, B. F. (1997) Checklist of the birds of Eurasia.
King, B. F., Dickinson, E. C. and Woodcock, M. W. (1975) A field guide to the birds of South East Asia. London: Collins.
Knox, A. G., Collinson, M., Helbig, A. J., Parkin, D. T. and Sangster, G. (2002) Taxonomic recommendations for British birds. Ibis 144: 707-710.
Kumerloeve, H., Kasparek, M. and Nagel, K.-O. (1984) Der Rostbürzel-Steinschmätzer, Oenanthe xanthoprymna (Hemprich & Ehrenberg 1833), als neuer Brutvogel in östlichen Anatolien (Türkei). Bonner zool. Beitr. 35: 97—101.
Kuroda, N. (1953) Notes on Japanese Skylark. Tori 13(62): 4-17.
Kuroda, N. and Morioka, H. eds. (1974) Check-list of Japanese birds. 5th ed. Ornithol. Soc. of Japan. Tokyo: Gakken.
Lambert, F. and Rasmussen, P. C. (1998) A new scops owl from Sangihe Island, Indonesia. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 118: 204-217.
Lambert, F. R. and Woodcock, M. (1996) Pittas, broadbills and asities. Robertsbridge, U. K.: Pica Press.
Lefranc, N. (1993) Les pies-grièches d'Europe, d'Afrique du Nord et du moyen-Orient. Lausanne: Delachaux et Niestlé.
Lefranc, N. (1995a) Le complexe Pie-grièche grise/Pie-grièche méridionale Lanius (e.) excubitor/L. (e.) meridionalis: des 'groupes' aux espèces. Ornithos 2: 107-109.
Lefranc, N. (1995b) Identification des pie-grièches 'grises' de France et du Paléarctique occidental. Ornithos 2: 110-123.
Lefranc, N. and Worfolk, T. (1997) Shrikes, an identification guide to the shrikes of the world. Robertsbridge: Pica Press.
Boonsong Lekagul and Cronin, E. W. Jr (1974) Bird guide of Thailand. 2nd ed. Bangkok: Association for Conservation of Wildlife.
Boonsong Lekagul and Round, P. D. (1991) A guide to the birds of Thailand. Bangkok: Saha Karn Bhaet.
Lerner, H.R.L. and Mindell, D.P. (2005) Phylogeny of eagles, Old World vultures and other Accipitridae based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37: 327-346.
Lewthwaite, R. W. (1996) Forest birds of southeast China: observations during 1984-1996. Hong Kong Bird Report 1995: 150-203.
Li, S.-H., Li, J.-W., Han, L.-X., Yao, C.-T., Shi, H., Lei, F.-M. and Yen, C. (2006) Species delimitation in the Hwamei Garrulax canorus. Ibis 148: 698-706.
Livezey, B. C. (1996) A phylogenetic analysis of geese and swans (Anseriformes, Anserinae) including selected fossil species. Systematic Biology 45: 414-450.
Long, A., Crosby, M. and Inskipp, T. (1994) A review of the taxonomic status of the Yellow-throated Laughingthrush Garrulax galbanus. Oriental Bird Club Bulletin 19: 41-47.
Loskot, V. M. (2001) Taxonomic revision of the Hume's Whitethroat Sylvia althaea Hume, 1878. Avian Ecol. Behav. 6: 41-42.
Loskot, V. M. (2005) Morphological variation and taxonomic revision of five south-eastern subspecies of Lesser Whitethroat Sylvia curruca (L.) (Aves: Sylviidae). Zool. Meded. 79: 157-165.
Loskot, V. M. and Dickinson, E. C. (2001) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 15. Nomenclatural issues concerning the Common Sand Martin Riparia riparia (Linnaeus, 1758) and the Pale Sand Martin R. diluta (Sharpe & Wyatt, 1893) with a new synonymy. Zool. Verhand. 335: 167-173.
MacKinnon, J. and Phillipps, K. (1993) A field guide to the birds of Borneo, Sumatra, Java and Bali. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Madge, S. and Burn, H. (1993) Crows and jays: a guide to the crows, jays and magpies of the world. London: A. & C. Black.
Manuel, C. G. (1936) Review of Philippine pigeons, I: the genus Phapitreron. Philippine Journal of Science 59: 289-305.
Mann, C. F. (2002) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 28. Taxonomic comments on some south-east Asian members of the family Nectariniidae. Zool. Verhand. 340: 179-189.
Marchant, S. and Higgins, P. (1990) The handbook of Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctic birds, 1. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Marchant, S. and Higgins, P. (1993) The handbook of Australian, New Zealand, and Antarctic birds, 2. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
van Marle, J. G. and Voous, K. H. (1988) The birds of Sumatra. Tring: British Ornithologists' Union (checklist 10).
Marshall, J. T. Jr (1978) Systematics of smaller Asian night birds based on voice. Ornithological Monographs 25: 1-58 + v.
Marshall, J. T. and King, B. F. (1988) Subfamily Striginae: typical owls genus Otus. Pp. 331-336 in D. Amadon and J. Bull, Hawks and owls of the world: an annotated list of species. Proc. Western Found. Vert. Zool. 3: 295-357.
Martens, J., Böhner, J. and Hammerschmidt, K. (2000) Calls of the Jungle Crow (Corvus macrorhynchos s. l.) as a taxonomic character. J. Orn. 141: 275-284.
Martens, J. and Eck, S. (1995) Towards an ornithology of the Himalayas: systematics, ecology and vocalizations of Nepal birds. Bonner Zoologische Mongraphien 38: 1-445.
Martens, J., Eck, S., Päckert, M. and Sun, Y.-H. (1999) The Golden-spectacled Warbler Seicercus burkii — a species swarm (Aves: Passeriformes: Sylviidae), part 1. Zool. Abhandl. Mus. Dresden 50: 281-327.
Martens, J. and Steil, B. (1997) Reviergesänge und Speziesdifferenzierung in der Klappergrasmücken-Gruppe Sylvia [curruca]. J. Orn. 138: 1-23.
Martens, J. and Tietze, D. T. (2006) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 65 A preliminary review of the Certhiidae. Zoologische Mededelingen 80: 273-286.
Martens, J., Tietze, D. T., Eck, S. & Veith, M. (2004) Radiation and species limits in the Asian Pallas's warbler complex (Phylloscopus proregulus s.l.). J. Orn. 145: 206-222.
Mayr, E. (1944) The birds of Timor and Sumba. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 83: 123-194.
Mayr, E. (1979) Family Pittidae. Pp. 310-329 in M. A. Paynter, Jr. ed. Check-list of birds of the world, 8. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Mayr, E. and Greenway, J. C., Jr, eds (1960) Check-list of birds of the world, 9. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Mayr, E. and Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1939) Zoological results of the Denison-Crockett Expedition to the South Pacific for the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, 1937-1938. Part I — the birds of the island of Biak. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 91: 34-?.
Mayr, E. and Short, L. L. (1970) Species taxa of North American birds. Publ. Nuttall Orn. Club, 9.
McAllan, I. A. W. (1990) The Cochineal Creeper and the Fascinating Grosbeak: a re-examination of some names of John Latham. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 110: 153-159.
McAllan, I. A. W. and Bruce, M. D. (1988) The birds of New South Wales. Turramurra: Biocon Research Group.
McGowan, P. (1994) Family Phasianidae (pheasants and partridges). Pp. 434-553 in J. del Hoyo, A. D. Elliot and J. Sargatal. eds. Handbook of birds of the world, 2. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
McGregor, R. C. (1909) A manual of Philippine birds. Manila: Bureau of Science.
Medway, Lord (1962) The swiftlets (Collocalia) of Java and their relationships. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 59: 146-153.
Medway, Lord (1966) Field characters as a guide to the specific relations of swiftlets. Proc. Linn. Soc. Lond. 177: 151-172.
Mees, G. F. (1982) Birds from the lowlands of southern New Guinea (Merauke and Koemba). Zool. Verh. 191: 1-188.
Mees, G. F. (1986) A list of the birds recorded from Bangka Island, Indonesia. Zool. Verh. 232: 176 pp.
Mees, G. F. (1996) Geographical variation in birds of Java. Cambridge: Massachusetts: Nuttall Ornithological Club.
Mees, G. F. (2006) The avifauna of Flores (Lesser Sunda Islands). Zoologische Mededelingen 80: 261 pp.
Meinertzhagen, R. (1928) Some biological problems connected with the Himalaya. Ibis (12) 4: 480-533.
Meinertzhagen, R. (1951) Review of the Alaudidae. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 121: 81-132.
Meyer de Schauensee, R. (1984) The birds of China. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Morony, J. J., Jr, Bock, W. J. and Farrand, J., Jr. (1975) Reference list of birds of the world. New York: American Museum of Natural History.
Moyle, R. G., Hosner, P. A., Nais, J., Lakim, M. and Sheldon, F. H. (2008) Taxonomic status of the Kinabalu 'linchi' swiftlet. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 128: 94-100.
Nechaev, V. A. (1969) Ptitsy Iuzhnykh Kurilskikh Ostrov. Leningrad: Akadamii Nauk SSSR.
Nikolaus, G. (1987) Distribution atlas of Sudan's birds with notes on habitat and status. Bonn. Zool. Monogr. 29: 322 pp.
Norman, J. A., Christidis, L., Westerman, M. and Hill, F. A. R. (1998) Molecular data confirms the species status of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Ninox natalis. Emu 98: 197-208.
Oates, E. W. (1889) Fauna of British India including Ceylon and Burma, birds, 1. London: Taylor and Francis.
Oberholser, H. C. A. (1905) Birds collected by Dr. W. L. Abbott in the Kilimanjaro region, East Africa. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 28: 823-926.
Oberholser, H. C. A. (1906) A monograph of the genus Collocalia. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 58: 177-212.
Olsen, K. M. and Larsson, H. (1997) Skuas and jaegers: a guide to the skuas and jaegers of the world. London: Christopher Helm.
Olsen, P. and Stokes, T. (1989) State of knowledge of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Ninox squampila [sic] natalis. Pp. 411-414 in B.-U. Meyburg and R. D. Chancellor, eds. Raptors in the modern world. Berlin, London and Paris: World Working Group on Birds of Prey.
Olsson, U., Alström, P., Ericson, G. P. and Sundberg, P. (2005) Non-monophyletic taxa and cryptic species — evidence from a molecular phylogeny of leaf-warblers (Phylloscopus, Aves). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 36: 261-276.
van Oort, E. D. (1911) On some new or rare birds from Sumatra, Java, Ceram and the Poeloe Toedjoe Group, north of Ceram. Notes Leyden Museum 34: 59-65.
Ornithological Society of Japan (OSJ) (2000) Check-list of Japanese birds. ?th ed. Tokyo: OSJ.
Panov, E. N. (1995) Superspecies of shrikes in the former USSR. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 6(1): 26-33.
Panov, E. N. (1996) Die Würger Paläarktis. Gattung Lanius. 2nd edition. Magdeburg: Neue Brehm Bücherei.
Panov, E. N. (1999) Kamenki Palearktiki. Ekologiya, povedenie, evolyutsiya [Wheatears of Palearctic. Ecology, behaviour, evolution]. Moscow, KMK Scientific Press. 342 pp. (In Russian.)
Parker, S. A. (1981) Prolegomenon to further studies in the Chrysococcyx `malayanus' group (Aves, Cuculidae). Zool. Verh. 187: 1-56.
Parmalee, D. F. (1988) The hybrid skua: the southern ocean enigma. Wilson Bulletin 100: 345-356.
Parry, S. J., Clark, W. S. and Prakash, V. (2002) On the taxonomic status of the Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata. Ibis 144: 665-675.
Payne, R. B. (1997) Family Cuculidae (cuckoos). Pp. 508-607 in J. del Hoyo, A. D. Elliot and J. Sargatal, eds. Handbook of birds of the world, 4. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Payne, R. B. (2005) The cuckoos. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Peters, J. L. (1931) Check-list of birds of the world, 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Peters, J. L. (1934) Check-list of birds of the world, 2. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Peters, J. L. (1937) Check-list of birds of the world, 3. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Peters, J. L. (1940) Check-list of birds of the world, 4. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Peters, J. L. (1945) Check-list of birds of the world, 5. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Peters, J. L. (1960) Family Alaudidae. Pp. 3-80 in E. Mayr & J. C. Greenway, eds. Check-list of birds of the world, 9. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Phillips, W. W. A. and Sims, R. W. (1958) Some observations on the fauna of the Maldive Islands. Part III - birds. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 55: 195-217.
Piatt, J. F., Friesen, V. and van Vliet, G. (1994) Status of a 'new' rare alcid, the Long-billed Murrelet. Pacific Seabirds 21: 47-48.
Pratt, H. D., Bruner, P. L. and Berrett, D. G. (1987) A field-guide to the birds of Hawaii and the tropical pacific. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Rand, A. L. (1967) Family Nectariniidae. Pp. 208-289 in R. A. Paynter, ed. Check-list of birds of the world, 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Rand, A. L. (1970) An annotated list of Philippine birds. 511 pp. Unpublished.
Rasmussen, P. C. and Anderton, J. C. (2005) Birds of South Asia: the Ripley guide. 2 vols. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Rasmussen, P. C. and Collar, N. J. (1999) On the hybrid status of Rothschild's Parakeet Psittacula intermedia (Aves, Psittacidae). Bulletin Nat. Hist. Mus. London (Zool.) 65: 31-50.
Rasmussen, P. C. and Parry, S. J. (2000) On the specific distinctness of the Himalayan Long-billed' Vulture Gyps [indicus] tenuirostris. Abstract. 118th Stated Meeting of the American Ornithologists' Union, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.
Rasmussen, P. C. and Parry, S. J. (2001) The taxonomic status of the 'Long-billed' Vulture Gyps indicus. Vulture News 44: 18-21.
Rasmussen, P. C., Wardill, J. C., Lambert, F. R. and Riley, J. (2000) On the specific status of the Sangihe White-eye Zosterops nehrkorni, and the taxonomy of the Black-crowned White-eye Z. atrifrons complex. Forktail 16: 69-80.
Restall, R. L. (1995) Proposed additions to the genus Lonchura (Estrildinae). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 115: 140-157.
Restall, R. L. (1996) Munias and mannikins. Robertsbridge, U. K.: Pica Press.
Rheindt, F. E. and Hutchinson, R. O. (2007) A photoshot odyssey through the confused avian taxonomy of Seram and Buru (southern Moluccas). BirdingASIA 7: 18-38.
Ridgway, R. (1919) The birds of North and Middle America. Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum no. 50, pt. 8.
Riley, J. H. (1930) Descriptions of three new birds from Siam. Proc. Biol. Soc. Washington 43: 189-192.
Riley, J. H. (1938) Birds from Siam and the Malay peninsula in the United States National Museum collected by Drs. Hugh M. Smith and William L. Abbott. Bulletin U. S. Nat. Mus. 172: 581 pp.
Riley, J., Hicks, D. and Wardill, J. C. (1998) The taxonomic status of Halcyon enigma on the Talaud islands, Indonesia. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 118: 113-117.
Ripley, S. D. (1942) A revision of the kingfishers Ceyx erithacus and rufidorsus. Zoologica 27: 55-59.
Ripley, S. D. (1952) The thrushes. Postilla 13: 48 pp.
Ripley, S. D. (1964) Subfamily Turdinae. Pp. 13-227 in E. Mayr and R. A. Paynter, eds. Check-list of birds of the world, 10. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Ripley, S. D. (1982) Synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan. Second edition. Bombay: Bombay Natural History Society.
Ripley, S. D. and Beehler, B. M. (1987) Species status of the Malaysian three-toed kingfishers (Ceyx) - a reassessment. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 107: 145-147.
Robinson, H. C. and Kinnear, N. B. (1928) Notes on the genus Cyornis Blyth. Novit. Zool. 34: 231-261.
Robson, C. (2000) A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia. London: New Holland.
Roselaar, C. S. (1995) Songbirds of Turkey. an atlas of biodiversity of Turkish passerine birds. GMB, Haarlem. 240 pp.
Rothschild, W. and Hartert, E. (1914) The birds of the Admiralty Islands, north of German New Guinea. Novit. Zool. 21: 281-298.
Round, P. D. (1993) Winter records of the Manchurian Reed-Warbler Acrocephalus (agricola) tangorum from Thailand. Forktail 9: 83-88.
Round, P. D. and Robson, C. (2001) Provenance and affinities of the Cambodian Laughingthrush Garrulax ferrarius. Forktail 17: 41-44.
Rozendaal, F. (1989) Taxonomic affinities of Bradypterus montis. Dutch Birding 11: 164-167.
Rozendaal, F. (1994) Species limits within Garnet Pitta-complex. Dutch Birding 16: 239-245.
Rozendaal, F. G. and Lambert, F. R. (1999) The taxonomic and conservation status of Pinarolestes sanghirensis, Oustalet, 1881. Forktail 15: 1-13.
SACC (2006) A classification of the bird species of South America. Version 26 October 2006. Washington, DC: American Ornithologists' Union South American Classification Committee. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html.
Salomonsen, F. (1953) Miscellaneous notes on Philippine birds. Vidensk. Medd. Dan. Naturhist. Foren. 115: 205-281.
Sanft, K. (1960) Aves/Upupae: Bucerotidae. Das Tierreich 76: 1-174.
Sangster, G., Knox, A. G., Helbig, A. J. and Parkin, D. T. (2002) Taxonomic recommendations for European birds. Ibis 144: 153-159.
Schodde, R. (1988) New subspecies of Australian birds. Canberra Bird Notes 13: 119-122.
Schodde, R. (1992) Towards stabilizing the nomenclature of Australian birds: neotypification of Myzomela sanguinolenta (Latham, 1801), Microeca fascinans (Latham, 1801) and Microeca leucophaea (Latham, 1801). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 112: 185-190.
Schodde, R. and Mason, I. J. (1997) Aves (Columbidae to Coraciidae). In W. W. K. Houston and A. Wells, eds. Zoological Catalogue of Australia 37(2).
Seibold, I., Helbig, A. J. and Wink, M. (1993) Molecular systematics of falcons (family Falconidae). Naturwissenschaften 80: 87-90.
Sharpe, R. B. (1874) Catalogue of the Accipitres, or diurnal birds of prey, in the collection of the British Museum. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
Sharpe, R. B. (1881) Catalogue of the birds in the British Museum. VI. Catalogue of the Passeriformes, or perching birds, in the collection of the British Museum. Cichlomorphae: Part III containing the first portion of the family Timeliidae (babbling-thrushes). London: British Museum.
Shirihai, H., Gargallo, G. and Helbig, A. J. (2001) Sylvia warblers: identification, taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Sylvia. London: Christopher Helm.
Shirihai, H., Helbig, A. J. and Gargallo, G. (submitted) Phylogeny and evolution of the genus Sylvia: II. Phenotypic characters and taxonomy. Ibis.
Shirihai, H., Roselaar, C. S., Helbig, A. J., Barthel, P. H. and van Loon, A. J. (1995a) Identification and taxonomy of large Acrocephalus warblers. Dutch Birding 17: 229-239.
Shirihai, H., Sinclair, I. and Colston, P. R. (1995b) A new species of Puffinus shearwater from the western Indian Ocean. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 115: 75-87.
Short, L. L. and Horne, J. F. M. (2002) Family Capitonidae (barbets). Pp. 140-219 in J. del Hoyo, A. D. Elliott and J. Sargatal, eds. Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 7. Barcelona: Lynx Edicions.
Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B. L., Jr. (1990) Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B. L., Jr. (1993) Supplement to the distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Sims, R. W. (1959) The Ceyx erithacus and rufidorsus species problem. J. Linn. Soc. London Zool. 44: 212-221.
Smith, N. (1966) Evolution of some Arctic gulls (Larus); an experimental study of isolating mechanisms. Ornithological Monographs 4.
Smythies, B. E. (1949) A reconnaissance of the N'Mai Hka drainage, northern Burma. Ibis 91: 627-648.
Smythies, B. E. (1957) An annotated checklist of the birds of Borneo. Sarawak Mus. J. 7: 523-818.
Smythies, B. E. (1960) The birds of Borneo. Edinburgh and London: Oliver & Boyd.
Smythies, B. E. and Davison, G. W. H. (1999) The birds of Borneo. Fourth edition. Kota Kinabalu: Natural History Publications.
Snell, R. R. (1989) Status of Larus gulls at Home Bay, Baffin Island. Colonial Waterbirds 12: 12-23.
Snow, D. W. (1967) Family Aegithalidae. Pp. 52-61 in R. A. Paynter, ed. Check-list of birds of the world, 12. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Snow, D. W. (ed.) (1978) An atlas of speciation in African non-passerine birds. London: British Museum (Natural History).
Somadikarta, S. (1986) Collocalia linchi Horsfield and Moore - a revision. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 106: 32-40.
Sözer, R. and van der Heijden, A. J. W. J. (1997) An overview of the distribution, staus and behavioural ecology of White-shouldered Ibis in East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Kukila 9: 126-140.
Stepanyan, L. S. (1971) [On the taxonomic position of Oenanthe xanthoprymna Hemprich & Ehrenberg from the Transcaucasus and the Badakshan region.] Nauch. Dokl. vyssh. Shk. Biol. Nauki 6: 26—31. (In Russian.)
Stepanyan, L. S. (1980) [Notes on the birds of Kunashir, Kurile Islands.] Ornitologia 15: 16-25. (In Russian.)
Stepanyan, L. S. (1983) Nadvidy i vidy-dvoniki v avifauna SSSR. Moscow.
Stepanyan, L. S. (1990) [Conspectus of the ornithological fauna of the USSR.] Moscow: Nauka. (In Russian.)
Stresemann, E. (1914) Was ist Collocalia fuciphaga (Thunb.)? Verh. Orn. Ges. Bayern 12: 1-12.
Stresemann, E. (1926) Beiträge zur Ornithologie der indo-australischen Region, II. Bruchstücke einer Revision der Salanganen (Collocalia]. II. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin 12: 349-354.
Stresemann, E. (1937) Kritische Studien über die Gattung Batrachostomus. Mitt. Zool. Mus. Berlin 22: 304-329.
Stresemann, E. (1939-1941) Die Vögel von Celebes. J. Orn. 87: 299-425; 88: 1-135, 389-487; 89: 1-102.
Stresemann, E. and Amadon, D. (1979) Order Falconiformes. In E. Mayr and G. W. Cottrell, eds. Check-list of birds of the world. Vol. 1, 2nd ed. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Stresemann, E. and Arnold, J. (1949) Speciation in the group of Great Reed-Warblers. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 48: 428-443.
Studer-Thiersch, A. (1975) Group display in Phoenicopterus. Pp. 150-158 in J. Kear and N. Duplaix-Hall, eds. Flamingos. Berkhamsted: Poyser.
Svensson, L. (1992) Identification guide to European passerines. 4th ed. Stockholm: published by the author.
Svensson, L. (2001) Identification of the smaller grey Hippolais warblers. Birding World 14: 192-219.
Taylor, B. and van Perlo, B. (1998) Rails, a guide to the rails, crakes, gallinules and coots of the world. London: Christopher Helm.
Thewlis, R. M., Duckworth, J. W., Anderson, G. Q. A., Dvorak, M., Evans, T. D., Nemeth, E., Timmins, R. J. & Wilkinson, R. J. (1996) Ornithological records from Laos, 1992-1993. Forktail 11: 47-100.
Thomassen, H. A., den Tex, R.-J., de Bakker, M. A. G. and Povel, G. D. E. (2005) Phylogenetic relationships amongst swifts and swiftlets: a multi locus approach. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 37: 264-277.
Thomassen, H. A., Wiersema, A. T., de Bakker, M. A. G., de Knijff, P., de Hetebrij, E. and Povel, G. D. E. (2003) A new phylogeny of swiftlets (Aves: Apodidae) based on cytochrome-b DNA. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 29: 86-93.
Tietze, D. T., Martens, J. and Sun, Y.-H. (2006) Molecular phylogeny of treecreepers (Certhia) detects hidden diversity. Ibis 148: 477-488.
Tu, H.-W. and Severinghaus, L. L. (2004) Geographic variation of the highly complex Hwamei (Garrulax canorus) songs. Zoological Studies 43: 629-640.
Turner, A. and Rose, C. (1989) A handbook to the swallows and martins of the world. London: Christopher Helm.
Udagawa, T. (1953) The avifauna of Teuri and Yagishiri Island, Hokkaido. Tori 13(63): 68-85.
Väli, Ü. (2006) Mitochondrial DNA sequences support species status for the Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 126: 238-242.
Vaurie, C. (1949a) A revision of the bird family Dicruridae. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 93: 199-342.
Vaurie, C. (1949b) Notes on the bird genus Oenanthe in Persia, Afghanistan, and India. American Museum Novitates 1425.
Vaurie, C. (1953) A generic revision of flycatchers of the tribe Muscicapini. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 100(4): 457-543.
Vaurie, C. (1954) Systematic notes on Palearctic birds. No. 6. Timaliinae and Paradoxornithinae. American Museum Novitates 1669: 1-12.
Vaurie, C. (1955) Systematic notes on Palearctic birds. No. 16. Troglodytinae, Cinclidae, and Prunellidae. American Museum Novitates 1751: 1-25.
Vaurie, C. (1959) The birds of the Palearctic fauna. Vol. 1: Passeriformes. London: Witherby.
Vaurie, C. (1960) Systematic notes on Palearctic birds. No. 41. Strigidae: the genus Bubo. American Museum Novitates 2000: 1-31.
Vaurie, C. (1961) Systematic notes on Palearctic birds. No. 44. Falconidae: the genus Falco (Part 1, Falco peregrinus and Falco pelegrinoides). American Museum Novitates 2035: 1-19.
Vaurie, C. (1965a) Distribution regionale et altitudinale des genres Garrulax et Babax et notes sur leur systematique. L'Oiseau 35 (Suppl.): 141-152.
Vaurie, C. (1965b) The birds of the Palearctic fauna. Vol. 2: non-passeriformes. London: Witherby.
Voous, K. H. (1947) On the history of the distribution of the genus Dendrocopos. Limosa 20: 1-142.
Voous, K. H. (1951) Distributional and evolutionary history of the kingfisher genus Ceyx in Malaysia. Ardea 39: 182-195.
Watson, G. E., Traylor, M. A., Jr. and Mayr, E. (1986) Family Sylviidae, Old World warblers. Pp. 3-294 in E. Mayr and G. W. Cottrell, eds. (1986) Check-list of birds of the world, 11. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Museum of Comparative Zoology.
Weber, J. W. (1981) The Larus gulls of the Pacific Northwest's interior, with taxonomic comments on several forms (Part 1). Continental Birdlife 2: 1-10.
Wells, D. R. (1972) The genus Cuculus: two amendments to the 'Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan'. Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 69: 179-185.
Wells, D. R. (1977) Muscicapa williamsoni Deignan: a reappraisal. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 97: 83-87.
Wells, D. R. (1982a) Notes on some representatives of the Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris Raffles in southeast Asia. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 102: 148-153.
Wells, D. R. (1982b) A confirmation of the specific relations of Cuculus saturatus insulindae Hartert. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 102: 62-63.
Wells, D. R. (1999) The birds of the Thai-Malay peninsula, 1. London: Academic Press.
Wells, D. R., Andrew, P. and van den Berg, A. B. (2001) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 21. Babbler jungle: a re-evaluation of the 'pyrrogenys' group of Asian pellorneines (Timaliidae). Zoologische Verhandelingen 335: 235-252.
Wells, D. R. and Becking, J. H. (1975) Vocalizations and status of Little and Himalayan Cuckoos, Cuculus poliocephalus and C. saturatus, in southeast Asia. Ibis 117: 366-371.
Wells, D. R., Dickinson, E. C. and Dekker, R. W. R. J. (2003) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 36. A preliminary review of the Chloropseidae and Irenidae. Zoologische Verhandelingen 344: 25-42.
Wells, D. R. and Francis, C. M. (1984) Further evidence of a resident Brown Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris in Borneo. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 104: 125-127.
Wells, D. R. and Medway, Lord (1976) Taxonomic and faunistic notes on birds of the Malay Peninsula. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 96: 20-34.
Wells, D. R., Round, P. D. and Scharringa, J. (1986) New information on the `Brown-streaked' Flycatcher Muscicapa latirostris williamsoni. Forktail 1: 15-20.
Whistler, H. and Kinnear, N. B. (1931-1937) The Vernay Scientific Survey of the Eastern Ghats (Ornithological Section.) Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 35: 505-524, 737-760; 36: 67-93, 334-352, 561-590, 832-844; 37: 96-105, 281-297, 515-528, 751-763; 38: 26-40, 232-240, 418-437, 672-698; 39: 246-263, 447-463.
White, C. M. N. and Bruce, M. D. (1986) The birds of Wallacea. London: British Ornithologists' Union (checklist 7).
Widodo, W., Cox, J. and Sugarjito, J. (1999) Rediscovery of the Flores Scops-Owl Otus alfredi on Flores, Indonesia, and reaffirmation of its specific status. Forktail 15: 15-23.
Williamson, K. (1960) The genera Cettia, Locustella, Acrocephalus and Hippolais. Tring: British Trust for Ornithology.
Wink, M., Döttlinger, H., Nicholl, M. K. and Sauer-Gürth, H. (2000) Phylogenetic relationships between Black Shaheen Falco peregrinus peregrinator, Red-naped Shaheen F. pelegrinoides babylonicus and Peregrines F. peregrinus. Pp. 853-857 in R. D. Chancellor and B.-U. Meyburg, eds. Raptors at risk. Surrey: WWGBP/Hancock House.
Winkler, H. and Christie, D. A. (2002) Family Picidae (woodpeckers). Pp. 296-555 in J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott and J. Sargatal, eds. Handbook of birds of the world, ?. Barcelona, Spain: Lynx Edicions.
Wolters, H. E. (1975-1982) Die Vogelarten der Erde. Hamburg and Berlin: Paul Parey.
Wu Sen-hsiang and Yang Hsio-ying (1991) [A guide to the wild birds of Taiwan.] Taiwan Wild Bird Information Centre and Wild Bird Society of Japan (In Chinese.)
Wunderlich, K. (1991) Aegithalos bonvaloti Oustalet. In E. Stresemann and L. A. Portenko. Atlas der Verbreitung palaearktischer Vögel, 17. Berlin: Academie Verlag.
Yamashina, Y. (1961) Birds in Japan; a field guide. Tokyo: Tokyo News Service.
Zimmer, J. T. and Mayr, E. (1943) New species of birds described from 1938 to 1941. Auk 60: 249-262.
Zink, R. M., Rowher, S., Andreev, A. V. and Dittmann, D. L. (1995) Trans-Beringiacomparisons of mitochondrial D NA differentiation in birds. Condor 97: 639-649.
Zou Fasheng, Lim Haw Chuan, Marks, B. D., Moyle, R. G. and Sheldon, F. H. (2007) Molecular phylogenetic analysis of the Grey-cheeked Fulvetta (Alcippe morrisonia) of China and Indochina: a case of remarkable genetic divergence in a "species". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 44: 165-174.
2009-11-13: Aasheesh Pittie points out that the entry for Columba torringtoniae mentions Pittie & Dickinson (2006), but the corresponding citation was missing from the references section:
Pittie, A. & Dickinson, E. C. 2006. The correct name of the Sri Lankan Woodpigeon and the citation for its original description. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 126 (3): 196—199.