A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

South American Classification Committee

American Ornithologists' Union

(Part 4)

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes (below)_______________________________________________________

Part 1. Rheiformes to PodicipediformesPart 2. Columbiformes to CaprimulgiformesPart 3. ApodiformesPart 5. Trogoniformes to PsittaciformesPart 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae)Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae)Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae)Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end)

Hypothetical ListHybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

OPISTHOCOMIFORMES 1OPISTHOCOMIDAE (HOATZIN)

Opisthocomus hoazin Hoatzin

1. The placement of this order is highly controversial, and its placement here in the linear sequence of orders should be treated as Incertae Sedis. Some genetic data have indicated that it is closely related to the Cuculiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1973, 1990) or Musophagiformes (Hughes & Baker 1999). De Queiroz and Good (1988), Mayr & Clarke (2003), and Livezey & Zusi (2007) found morphological evidence consistent with its placement near Cuculiformes or Musophagiformes. [add Hedges et al. ref] Previous classifications have included it within the Galliformes (e.g., Pinto 1938) or Gruiformes (REF). However, a recent genetic data set (Sorenson et al. 2003) failed to find support for a relationship to any of these groups, but found weak support for a relationship to the Columbiformes. Other genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) also suggest that Opisthocomus is perhaps a member of a group of orders that also includes the Columbiformes. However, the most comprehensive genetic data set (Hackett et al. 2008) was unable to resolve its relationships, with no evidence for close relationship to any order within the Neoaves. Jarvis et al. (2014) found weak support for it as sister to Charadriiformes + Gruiformes. In contrast, Prum et al. (2015) found that it was the basal member of a group of lineages that includes all other landbird lineages.

_______________________________________________________

GRUIFORMES 1_______________________________________________________

1. The extreme morphological heterogeneity among the families of the Gruiformes has always made the monophyly of this order suspicious (see Cracraft 1981, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990). Although Sibley & Ahlquist's DNA-DNA hybridization data provided support for a monophyletic Gruiformes, subsequent genetic data have failed to do so. Although genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) strongly support the monophyly of a core group of gruiform families that consists of the Gruidae, Aramidae, Psophiidae, Rallidae, and Heliornithidae, support for

inclusion of other traditional gruiform families is weak or nonexistent. The Psophiidae is sister to Gruidae + Aramidae (Krajewski et al. 2010). Concerning families found in South America, Fain & Houde (2004) and Ericson et al. (2006) found that the Eurypygidae does not belong in the Gruiformes but rather in a major, separate radiation of the Neoaves, with the Rhynochetidae the likely sister family of the Eurypygidae (see also Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Hackett et al. 2008, Suh et al. 2015), and that the Cariamidae (and also the Old World Otididae) is in an altogether different branch of the Neoaves than are the true Gruiformes (see also Livezey & Zusi 2001, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Suh et al. 2015). SACC proposal passed to treat Cariamidae in their own order, Cariamiformes, now placed to preceded Falconiformes and Psittaciformes; see SACC proposal. Chesser et al. (2010) removed the Eurypygidae from the Gruiformes and placed them in their own new order. SACC proposal passed to create a new order, Eurypygiformes, for Eurypygidae. Recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the monophyly of the traditional Gruiformes except that the Rallidae (represented only by Porphyrula) and Heliornithidae (and Old World Turnicidae and Mesitornithidae) might belong in the Charadriiformes.

_______________________________________________________

ARAMIDAE (LIMPKIN) 1Aramus guarauna Limpkin 1a

PSOPHIIDAE (TRUMPETERS)Psophia crepitans Gray-winged Trumpeter 2Psophia leucoptera Pale-winged Trumpeter 2, 3Psophia viridis Dark-winged Trumpeter 2, 4

_______________________________________________________

1. The sister family of the Aramidae is likely the Gruidae (Houde et al. 1997, Livezey 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain and Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Fain et al. 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Mayr 2008, Hackett et al. 2008), not the Heliornithidae, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990).

1a. The species name for Aramus guarauna was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) scolopaceus, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

2. The species of Psophia form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Sherman 1996).

3. The subspecies ochroptera has been placed in Psophia crepitans rather than P. leucoptera by some authors (REFS), and genetic data (Ribas et al. 2012)

indicate that it is more closely related to P. crepitans. Reports of sympatry of ochroptera and P. c. napensis without interbreeding repeated in Sherman (1996) are evidently based on reports from local hunters and should be considered as hearsay <REF>. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated ochroptera as a separate species, “Ochre-winged Trumpeter”.

4. Oppenheimer & Silveira (2009) found no evidence of intergradation near potential contact areas between the nominate subspecies and P. v. dextralis, or between the latter and P. v. obscura; they recommended, therefore, that dextralis and obscura be ranked as separate species from nominate viridis. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated dextralis and obscura as separate species, “Olive-winged Trumpeter” and “Black-winged Trumpeter”, respectively. SACC proposal passed to modify species limits by moving subspecies ochroptera from P. leucoptera to P. crepitans.

_______________________________________________________

RALLIDAE (RAILS) 1Coturnicops notatus Speckled Rail 1a, 1bMicropygia schomburgkii Ocellated Crake 2Rallus longirostris Mangrove Rail 3Rallus wetmorei Plain-flanked Rail 3Rallus limicola Virginia Rail 4, 4a, 5Rallus semiplumbeus Bogota Rail 5, 6Rallus antarcticus Austral Rail 5Aramides ypecaha Giant Wood-Rail 5aAramides wolfi Brown Wood-RailAramides mangle Little Wood-RailAramides cajaneus Gray-necked Wood-Rail 5b, 5c, 5dAramides axillaris Rufous-necked Wood-Rail 6aAramides calopterus Red-winged Wood-RailAramides saracura Slaty-breasted Wood-RailAmaurolimnas concolor Uniform Crake 7Anurolimnas castaneiceps Chestnut-headed CrakeAnurolimnas viridis Russet-crowned Crake 8Anurolimnas fasciatus Black-banded Crake 8, 9Laterallus levraudi Rusty-flanked Crake 10Laterallus melanophaius Rufous-sided Crake 10, 11Laterallus albigularis White-throated Crake 11Laterallus exilis Gray-breasted Crake 11aLaterallus spilonota Galapagos Rail 12, 12aLaterallus jamaicensis Black Rail 12, 13, 13a

Laterallus leucopyrrhus Red-and-white CrakeLaterallus xenopterus Rufous-faced Crake 14Crex crex Corn Crake (V) 14a Porzana flaviventer Yellow-breasted Crake 15Porzana spiloptera Dot-winged Crake 16Porzana carolina Sora (NB) 17Porphyriops melanops Spot-flanked Gallinule 23Mustelirallus albicollis Ash-throated Crake 16aMustelirallus colombianus Colombian Crake 18, 19, 19aMustelirallus erythrops Paint-billed Crake 18Pardirallus maculatus Spotted Rail 20Pardirallus nigricans Blackish Rail 20, 21Pardirallus sanguinolentus Plumbeous Rail 20, 21Gallinula galeata Common Gallinule 22, 22aGallinula angulata Lesser Moorhen (V) 22bPorphyrio martinica Purple Gallinule 24, 25, 26, 27, 27aPorphyrio flavirostris Azure Gallinule 24Fulica armillata Red-gartered Coot Fulica rufifrons Red-fronted Coot 24aFulica gigantea Giant CootFulica cornuta Horned CootFulica americana American Coot 28, 29Fulica ardesiaca Slate-colored Coot 29, 30, 31Fulica leucoptera White-winged Coot 29

1. <relationships of family to other families; within-family relationships; incorp. Olson 1973, Ripley 1977, Livezey 1998 etc.>. García-R et al. (2014) found eight major divisions in the Rallidae, with the group including Rallus the sister to all other lineages. SACC proposal pending to revise linear sequence of genera.

1a. [note on notata, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ripley (1977)].

1b. Called "Speckled Crake" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

2. Micropygia schomburgkii was placed in Coturnicops by Ripley (1977), but differences in voice, nest type, and morphology have lead others to maintain it in a monotypic genus (REF, Taylor 1996, 1998).

3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Rallus longirostris and R. wetmorei, along with North American R. elegans, to form a superspecies. Ripley (1977)

considered R. longirostris and R. elegans to be conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that wetmorei might better be treated as a subspecies of R. longirostris, but they are evidently sympatric in Carabobo, Venezuela (Blake 1977).

3a. Maley & Brumfield (2013) found that Rallus longirostris group is paraphyletic with respect to North American Rallus elegans, requiring a major revision of species limits. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits and change English name.

4. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the South American resident forms of Rallus limicola as a separate species, R. aequatorialis, based on differences in vocalizations (but no analysis published).

4a. Called "Lesser Rail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Rallus limicola, R. semiplumbeus, and R. antarcticus to form a superspecies. Rallus antarcticus and R. limicola were considered conspecific by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Blake (1977), and Ripley (1977), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), who suspected that R. antarcticus might be more closely related to R. semiplumbeus, and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Taylor (1996, 1998).

5a. Ripley (1977) merged Aramides with Old World Eulabeornis, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.

5b. "Aramides gutturalis," known from a single specimen from Peru and treated as a distinct species by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now considered to be a badly prepared specimen of A. cajanea (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Taylor 1996). However, Thomas Brooks has recently suggested that this taxon needs re-evaluation: http://www.redlist.org. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5c. Marcondes & Silveira (20015) found evidence that the Middle American albiventris group warranted treatment as separate species from A. cajaneus. <wait NACC>.

5d. David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the correct spelling of the species name is cajaneus. SACC proposal passed to change the name.

6. The subspecies peruvianus, known only from type specimen from uncertain locality, may deserve recognition as separate species from Rallus semiplumbeus (Taylor 1996, 1998); it was treated as a subspecies of R. limicola by Peters (1934), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), Ripley (1977), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).

6a. Called "Rufous-crowned Wood Rail" in Wetmore (1965).

7. Some authors (REF) have merged Amaurolimnas into Aramides; they are presumably sister genera (Taylor 1998, García-R et al. 2014); Ripley (1977) merged Amaurolimnas into the Old World genus Rallina.

8. Anurolimnas viridis and A. fasciatus were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977) placed in the genus Laterallus, but morphology and molt pattern suggest that they belong in Anurolimnas (Stresemann & Stresemann 1966, Olson 1973, Storer 1981); this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), and Dickinson (2003). Sick (1993) suggested resurrecting the monotypic genus Rufirallus for viridis. Most authors, however, continue to include these in Laterallus, and Taylor (1998) and Ridgely et al. (2001) noted that both of these species are, by voice, Laterallus. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) transferred fasciatus to Porzana, based on Slikas et al. (2002). García-R et al. (2014) found that Laterallus is polyphyletic, but fasciatus is sister to Laterallus melanophaius, the type species for the genus. Proposal badly needed.

9. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Anurolimnas fasciatus was hauxwelli, but see Ripley (1977).

10. Many species previously treated in genus Creciscus, but Peters (1932) showed that this was actually predated by Laterallus.

10a. Storer (1981) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus levraudi and L. melanophaius to form a superspecies, but see next Note.

11. Laterallus albigularis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of L. melanophaius, but see Wetmore (1965); Storer (1981) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered L. albigularis to be more closely related to L. exilis.

11a. Called "Temminck's Rail" by Ridgway & Friedmann (1941).

12. Fjeldså (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Laterallus jamaicensis and L. spilonota to form a superspecies; some authors (e.g., Fjeldså 1983b) have considered them conspecific.

12a. Species name frequently given as “spilonotus”, but the name is a noun in apposition and thus not variable; see Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

12aa. Called "Darwin's Rail" by Ridgway & Friedmann (1941).

13. Fjeldså (1983a) proposed that the South American form tuerosi, and usually treated as, and described by Fjeldså (1983b) as, a subspecies of Laterallus jamaicensis, should be recognized as a separate species; this was followed by Collar et al. (1992) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Jaramillo (2003) also suggested that the southern subspecies salinasi might also warrant recognition as a separate subspecies from L. jamaicensis. SACC proposal to elevate tuerosi to species rank did not pass.

13a. Called "Black Crake" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), but that name is usually applied to the African Amaurornis flavirostris.

14. Called "Horqueta Crake" in Ripley (1977).

14a. Photographed on Fernando de Noronha, Brazil, 28 November 2012 (Burgos and Olmos 2013). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

15. Porzana flaviventer has been placed by some authors (Olson 1970, 1973) in a separate genus Poliolimnas, along with P. cinereus of the East Indies and Australasian region, but see Mees (1982) as cited by Walker (1998). Slikas et al. (2002) showed that it is not closely related to Old World P. cinereus, but rather is sister to Anurolimnas + Porzana. Therefore, Dickinson & Remsen (2013) resurrected the monotypic genus Hapalocrex for this species, and this was followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014). García-R et al. (2014) found that it was sister to a group of species currently placed in Laterallus; however, these species are not sister to the type species (melanophaius) for the genus Laterallus. SACC proposal to place in Laterallus did not pass.

16. Porzana spiloptera was formerly placed by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) in the genus Laterallus, the genus in which it was described, but see <> and Storer (1981) for transfer to Porzana. However, García-R et al. (2014) found that it is the sister species to Laterallus jamaicensis. SACC proposal to place in Laterallus did not pass.

16a. “Porzana” albicollis is only distantly related to true Porzana and is the sister to Neocrex; see García-R et al. (2014). SACC proposal passed to resurrect Mustelirallus for this species and to include Neocrex in Mustelirallus.

17. Called "Sora Rail" in Blake (1977) and REFS.

18. Neocrex colombiana was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as conspecific with N. erythrops, but they are sympatric in Panama (Ridgely & Gwynne 1989); they are considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996).

19. Neocrex is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is colombiana (David & Gosselin 2002b); note the typographical error "columbiana" in David & Gosselin (2002a), corrected in David & Gosselin (2002b); this typographical error had been perpetuated in numerous references since Peters (1934).

19a. Neocrex was formerly (e.g., Ripley 1977) included in Porzana, but see Slikas et al. (2002), who found that it is likely the sister to Aramides, and García-R et al. (2014), who with broader taxon-sampling showed that it was sister to “Porzana” albicollis, and together they were the sister group to Pardirallus. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.

20. Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Ripley 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in genus Rallus, but see Olson (1973) for separation of Pardirallus from Rallus; this was followed by Taylor (1996, 1998) and AOU (1998). For further confirmation, see García-R et al. (2014). Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans were also sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) placed in separate genus Ortygonax, but see Olson (1973).

21. Pardirallus sanguinolentus and P. nigricans form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (REFS) have considered them conspecific.

22. Formerly known as "Common Moorhen" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). Hilty & Brown (1986), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), and Ridgely et al. (2001) continued to use "Common Gallinule." Long known by this name in the New World (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), the AOU (1983) switched to "Moorhen" to conform to Old World usage. SACC proposal passed to change to "Common Gallinule." SACC proposal to add "Common Moorhen" as an alternative name did not pass.

22a. Vocal, plumage, and genetic data suggest that New World populations of widely distributed Gallinula chloropus should be treated as a separate species (Constantine 2006, Groenenberg et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to treat New World populations as a separate species, Gallinula galeata, from Old World populations.

22b. Recent specimen record from off Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

22c. Genetic data (García R et al. 2014) indicate that Gallinula angulata is sister to Gallinula + Fulica, and Sangster et al. (2015) thus named a new genus, Paragallinula, for this species.

23. Gallinula melanops was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in the genus Porphyriops, but Olson (1973) and Ripley (1977) merged this into Gallinula, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications. Livezey (1998, 2003, 2007) retained Porphyriops based on morphological characters. García-R et al. (2014) found that melanops was not a member of Gallinula but was sister to Porzana. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Porphyriops.

24. Porphyrio martinicus and P. flavirostris were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Friedmann & Ridgway 1941, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998) usually placed in the genus Porphyrula; for the merger of Porphyrula into Porphyrio, see Olson (1973); now followed in most classifications, e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Taylor (1996, 1998), Banks et al. (2002). Ripley (1977) placed Porphyrula in Gallinula while maintaining Porphyrio as separate, but Gallinula is not closely related to Porphyrio (García-R et al. 2014).

24a. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) used for Porphyrio flavirostris was parva, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

25. Called "American Purple Gallinule" by Taylor (1996, 1998).

26. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Taylor (1996) considered Porphyrio martinicus and African P. alleni to form a superspecies.

27. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the species epithet to be an adjective and this changed its ending (from martinica to martinicus) to agree in gender with Porphyrio. David & Gosselin (2011) concluded that the correct name is indeed martinicus. SACC proposal passed to change name. Schodde & Bock (2016), however, provided evidence that the species epithet is a noun in apposition and should revert to its original formulation, i.e. martinica. SACC proposal passed to revert to martinica.

28. Whether Fulica caribaea is a valid species, or a subspecies or color morph of F. americana, is controversial (e.g. see Roberson and Baptista 1988, McNair & Cramer-Burke 2006). Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) and Donegan et al. (2015) treated it as a morph of F. americana. SACC proposal passed to treat them as conspecific.

29. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Fulica caribaea, F. americana, and F. leucoptera to form a superspecies with Old World F. atra and Hawaiian F. alai; they excluded F. ardesiaca from that group because of its sympatry with F. leucoptera. Taylor (1996) included F. ardesiaca and African F. cristata in this superspecies. García-R et al. 2014 (2014) found that F. rufifrons was the sister to all other Fulica sampled. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

30. Fulica ardesiaca was once considered a color morph (Gill 1964, Blake 1977) or subspecies (e.g., Ripley 1977) of F. americana; for continued treatment of as a species separate from F. americana, see Fjeldså (1982b, 1983) and García-R et al. (2014), who found that it was the sister species to F. leucoptera. Fjeldså (1983) also noted that two subspecies of ardesiaca differ in many aspects of their biology and mate assortatively where sympatric, yet concluded that they should be considered conspecific.

31. Called "Andean Coot" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Taylor (1996), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Ridgely et al. (2001).

_______________________________________________________

HELIORNITHIDAE (FINFOOTS) 1Heliornis fulica Sungrebe 2

_______________________________________________________

1. Genetic data (Fain et al. 2007) confirm the monophyly of the traditional family Heliornithidae; however, their data suggest that Heliornithidae is nested within Rallidae, with the African flufftails (Sarothrura) sister to "Heliornithidae." Hackett et al. (2008) confirmed this finding with a more comprehensive data set.

2. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "American Finfoot."

_______________________________________________________

CHARADRIIFORMES 1_______________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Charadriiformes is well established (e.g., REFS, Paton et al. 2003, Hackett et al. 2008) except for whether the Old World Pteroclididae should be included (REFS, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003). Within the order, the relationships of the families have been controversial (e.g., Strauch 1978, Mickevich & Parenti 1980, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Christian et al. 1992, Ward 1992, Björklund 1994, Chu 1994, 1995, REFS, Livezey 2010). The most recent genetic data confirm (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) the genetic data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) in that the order consists of three major groups: (1) the Scolopaci [Scolopacidae, Thinocoridae, Pedionomidae, Rostratulidae, and Jacanidae]; (2) the Charadrii [Charadriidae, Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae, Burhinidae, and Chionidae]; and (3) the Lari [Laridae, Rynchopidae, Stercorariidae, Alcidae, Dromadidae,

and Glareolidae]. SACC proposal passed to recognize three suborders. Four recent studies (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain and Houde 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) differ from Sibley & Ahlquist in identifying the Charadrii as basal (rather than sister to Lari). Ericson et al. (2003) and Paton et al. (2003) also agree (using overlapping genetic data) on identifying the following sister relationships: (1) Burhinidae + Chionidae, (2) Haematopodidae + Recurvirostridae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007); (3) Rostratulidae + Jacanidae (also identified as sisters by Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Livezey & Zusi 2007, Livezey 2010); and (4) Rynchopidae + Laridae (including Sterninae) (also identified as sisters by Livezey & Zusi 2007). Fain and Houde (2007), however, recovered Rynchopidae as sister to Sterninae within Laridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families. For an analysis of phenotypic characters that produces a different classification of the Charadriiformes in several ways, see Livezey (2010).

_______________________________________________________

CharadriiCHARADRIIDAE (PLOVERS) 1

Pluvialis dominica American Golden-Plover (NB) 5Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden-Plover (V) 5aPluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover (NB) 5b, 6Oreopholus ruficollis Tawny-throated Dotterel 17Vanellus cayanus Pied Lapwing 1aVanellus chilensis Southern Lapwing 2, 3Vanellus resplendens Andean Lapwing 4Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover (NB) 7, 7aCharadrius melodus Piping Plover (V) 8Charadrius wilsonia Wilson's Plover 9, 9aCharadrius vociferus Killdeer 9bCharadrius nivosus Snowy Plover 10, 11Charadrius collaris Collared Plover 12Charadrius alticola Puna Plover 13Charadrius falklandicus Two-banded Plover 13Charadrius modestus Rufous-chested Dotterel 14, 14aPhegornis mitchellii Diademed Sandpiper-Plover 15, 16

_______________________________________________________

1. <note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b). <incorp. Livezey 2010>. Sequence of genera follows Baker et al. (2012). Many classifications (mostly

recently Cracraft 2013) divide the family into two subfamilies, Vanellinae and Charadriinae.

1a. Vanellus cayanus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in monotypic genus Hoploxypterus, but see Bock (1958) for placement in Vanellus. However, Strauch (1978) and Fjeldså and Nielsen (1989) provided rationale for retention in monotypic genus, in part because it might be closer to Charadrius than to Vanellus. Ridgely et al. (2001) retained Hoploxypterus for that reason. Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that cayanus is the sister to all Vanellus and recommended resurrection of monotypic Hoploxypterus.

1b. Formerly known as "Cayenne Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919).

2. Vanellus chilensis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Belonopterus, but see Bock (1958).

2a. Vanellus chilensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) known as V. cayennensis, but see Peters (1934).

3. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Wiersma (1996) suggested that Vanellus chilensis might consist of more than one species but also noted that data so far suggest intergradation between the two subspecies groups <REF - Neotropical reference in Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990>; see also Jaramillo (2003).

4. Vanellus resplendens was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) placed in the monotypic genus Ptiloscelys, but see Bock (1958).

5. Some data indicated that Pluvialis might not belong in the Charadriidae but rather (Ericson et al. 2003) sister to the Charadriidae + (Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae) or (Baker et al. 2007, Fain & Houde 2007) sister to Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae. The distinctiveness of Pluvialis compared to other plover-like birds was first elucidated by Christian et al. (1992). However, Baker et al. (2012), with much improved gene sampling than in previous studies, found that Pluvialis is indeed in the Charadriidae, sister to other plover genera. Proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera in Charadriidae.

5a. Sight record from Ecuador (26 Apr. 1991; Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). [Hayman et al. ("Shorebirds"; 1986) listed records, presumably sight records, from Chile and Galapagos Islands; original references needed; perhaps regular on Galapagos?]. Haase (2011) reported that one was photographed in the Galapagos Islands, but the accompanying photograph is not labeled as

referring to that individual. Subsequent information confirmed that the photograph was not taken in Ecuador (Freile et al. 2013). One subsequently photographed on 16 February 2008 by R. Ahlman in the Galapagos on Isabela Is. (Freile et al. 2013). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

5b. Pluvialis squatarola was formerly placed (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) in the monotypic genus Squatarola, but see Bock (1958) and Jehl (1968b).

6. Called "Grey Plover" in Old World and some New World (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) literature.

7. Charadrius semipalmatus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) considered conspecific with Old World C. hiaticula, but see Bock (1959).

7a. Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) indicate that Charadrius contains two major divisions, with (of the taxa occurring in South America sampled) C. semipalmatus, C. vociferus, and C. modestus in one group, and C. falklandicus, C. alexandrinus, and C. collaris in the other. Dos Remedios et al. (2015) also found these two major divisions. Proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

8. Specimen from Guayas, Ecuador, on 15 October 1955 (Marchant 1956); sight record from Bonaire (Voous 1983). Six individuals captured in northeastern Brazil (Azevedo et al. 2003).

9. Formerly called "Thick-billed Plover" in many references (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely 1976, Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps 1978, Hilty and Brown 1986, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

9a. Charadrius wilsonia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the monotypic genus Pagolia.

9b. Charadrius vociferus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in the monotypic genus Oxyechus.

10. New World populations of the Charadrius alexandrinus complex were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as a separate species, C. nivosus, from Old World populations but were treated as a subspecies of C. alexandrinus by Peters (1934) and most subsequent classifications. Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that New World nivosus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Old World taxa because of vocal and plumage differences. Recent data (Küpper et al. 2009) support this view. SACC proposal passed to elevate nivosus group to species rank.

11. Snow (1978) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Charadrius alexandrinus to form a superspecies with Old World C. marginatus and C. ruficapillus; genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999) confirm the traditional (Bock 1958) view that C. alexandrinus and C. ruficapillus are closely related.

12. Formerly (e.g. Ridgway 1919) known as "Azara's Ring Plover."

13. Charadrius alticola and C. falklandicus have been considered conspecific (REFS), as suggested by Bock (1958); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Published rationale for either treatment is weak.

14. Charadrius modestus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Zonibyx, but see Bock (1958). Genetic data (Joseph et al. 1999, Dos Remedios et al. 2015) indicate that recognition of Zonibyx would make Charadrius paraphyletic with respect to Old World Eudromias. Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters placed modestus outside Charadrius and as the sister to Old World Eudromias.

14a. Called "Rufous-chested Plover" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal needed.

15. Whether Phegornis belongs in the Charadriidae or the Scolopacidae has been controversial (Bock 1958); most recent classifications follow Zusi & Jehl (1970) in placing it in the Charadriidae, and this is supported by genetic data (Paton et al. 2003, Baker et al. 2007). Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that it is most closely related to a group of Australasian dotterels.

16. Called “Diademed Plover” in Dickinson (2003) and thus original SACC list. However, called "Diademed Sandpiper-Plover" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990), and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change English name.

17. Some authors follow Bock (1958) in merging Oreopholus into Eudromias when that genus considered separate from Charadrius. Baker et al. (2007) indicate that Oreopholus is the sister to a group of genera that includes Phegornis and Charadrius. Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic characters supports retention of a monotypic genus for ruficollis. Baker et al. (2012) found that Oreopholus was sister to Vanellus + Charadrius. Proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera in Charadriidae.

_______________________________________________________

HAEMATOPODIDAE (OYSTERCATCHERS) 1

Haematopus palliatus American Oystercatcher 2, 3Haematopus ater Blackish Oystercatcher Haematopus leucopodus Magellanic Oystercatcher

RECURVIROSTRIDAE (AVOCETS and STILTS) 1Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt 4, 4aRecurvirostra americana American Avocet (V) 5Recurvirostra andina Andean Avocet

_______________________________________________________

1. Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, 2007) and recent analyses of morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support the hypothesis (REFS) that the Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae are sister families; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) also indicate that these two families form the sister group to the Charadriidae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Cracraft (2013) and others recognize separate subfamilies for stilts and avocets, Himantopinae and Recurvirostrinae.

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Haematopus palliatus to form a superspecies with North American H. bachmani and several Old World species; some authors (e.g., Peters 1934) have considered palliatus to be conspecific with Old World H. ostralegus, but see Wetmore (1965). Species limits in Haematopus are complex, with varying degrees of hybridization where ranges overlap (Hockey 1996).

3. The subspecies galapagoensis differs from Haematopus palliatus in several features that suggest that it might deserve recognition as a separate species (Hockey 1996), but see Jehl (1985).

4. Himantopus mexicanus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Vaurie 1965c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered a subspecies of Old World H. himantopus ("Common Stilt") and was so treated by Dickinson (2003). Many authors continue to treat them as conspecific, e.g., Pierce (1996), Christidis & Boles (2008), and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). Some authors have treated southern South American melanurus as a separate species (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). The six taxa in the genus Himantopus form a near-globally distributed superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Pierce 1996), and with from one to six species-level taxa recognized by various authors. Virtually no data are available relevant to taxon-ranking of allopatric populations. The contact between mexicanus and melanurus in South America, where at least some hybridization occurs, affords one of the best opportunities for such study. Dickinson & Remsen

(2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated all New World taxa as subspecies of a broadly distributed species, H. himantopus (as “Black-winged Stilt”). SACC proposal needed.

4a. Formerly known (e.g., Ridgway 1919) as "American Stilt."

5. One specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

_______________________________________________________

BURHINIDAE (THICK-KNEES) 1Burhinus bistriatus Double-striped Thick-knee 2Burhinus superciliaris Peruvian Thick-knee 2

_______________________________________________________

1. Genetic data (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003) indicate that the Burhinidae is more closely related to Chionidae + Pluvianellidae than they are to Charadriidae or other Charadriiformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

2. The name formerly used for this genus was Oedicnemus (e.g., Ridgway 1919), but see (ICZN 1955).

_______________________________________________________

CHIONIDAE (SHEATHBILLS) 1, 2Chionis albus Snowy Sheathbill (NB) 3, 4

_______________________________________________________

1. Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Chionidae closer to Pluvianellidae than to its typical position in the larid radiation of the Charadriiformes, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

2. Family name given as Chionididae in many references; see Burger (1996).

3. Chionis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is albus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

4. Called "Pale-faced Sheathbill" in Burger (1996).

_______________________________________________________

PLUVIANELLIDAE (MAGELLANIC PLOVER) 1Pluvianellus socialis Magellanic Plover

_______________________________________________________

1. Pluvianellus was formerly placed in the Charadriidae, but Jehl (1975) elucidated its many unusual characters that indicated that it was not a plover. Treated as a subfamily within Charadriidae in Wiersma (1996). Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) placed Pluvianellus closer to Chionidae than to its typical position in Charadriidae, based on analysis of morphological characters; genetic data (Paton et al. 2003, Paton & Baker 2006, Baker et al. 2007) support this relationship and thus also the treatment of Pluvianellus as a monotypic family separate from Charadriidae. The supertree of Thomas et al. (2004) also placed Pluvianellus as sister to Chionis. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Family rank is also supported by analysis of phenotypic characters (Livezey 2010), although Livezey’s analysis specifically ejected the sister relationship to Chionidae. Reduced to a subfamily of Chionidae by Cracraft (2013). SACC proposal to reduce to subfamily rank did not pass.

_______________________________________________________

ScolopaciSCOLOPACIDAE (SANDPIPERS) 1

NumeniinaeBartramia longicauda Upland Sandpiper (NB) 12cNumenius borealis Eskimo Curlew (NB, EX?) 11aNumenius phaeopus Whimbrel (NB) 12, 12aNumenius americanus Long-billed Curlew (V) 12b

LimosinaeLimosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit (V) 10a, 11Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit (V) 10Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit (NB) 10aLimosa fedoa Marbled Godwit (NB) 10a

ArenariinaeArenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone (NB) 19Arenaria melanocephala Black Turnstone (V) 19, 20Calidris canutus Red Knot (NB) 21aCalidris virgata Surfbird (NB) 21Calidris pugnax Ruff (V) 27b, 28

Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper (NB) 27Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper (V) 24, 26Calidris alba Sanderling (NB) 22Calidris alpina Dunlin (V) 24, 25, 25aCalidris bairdii Baird's Sandpiper (NB) 24Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper (NB) 24Calidris fuscicollis White-rumped Sandpiper (NB) 24Calidris subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper (NB) 27aCalidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper (NB) 24, 24aCalidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper (NB) 23Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper (NB) 23

ScolopacinaeLimnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher (NB) 9aLimnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher (V) 9bGallinago imperialis Imperial Snipe 5, 8Gallinago jamesoni Jameson’s Snipe 5, 6, 7Gallinago stricklandii Fuegian Snipe 5, 6Gallinago nobilis Noble SnipeGallinago undulata Giant SnipeGallinago delicata Wilson's Snipe (NB) 1a, 2, 3Gallinago paraguaiae South American Snipe 3, 4Gallinago andina Puna Snipe 3, 4

TringinaePhalaropus tricolor Wilson's Phalarope (NB) 29, 30Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope (NB) 29, 31, 32Phalaropus fulicarius Red Phalarope (NB) 29, 33Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper (V) 17, 18Actitis macularius Spotted Sandpiper (NB) 15, 16Tringa solitaria Solitary Sandpiper (NB)Tringa incana Wandering Tattler (NB) 14Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs (NB) 13Tringa semipalmata Willet 13bTringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs (NB) 13Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper (V) 13a

_______________________________________________________

1. <note on genera, linear sequence> Jehl (1968b). The family Scolopacidae is traditionally split into five or more subfamilies and additional tribes (e.g., AOU 1998). Livezey (2010) recognized four subfamilies (Arenariinae, Calidrinae, Tringinae, Scolopacinae) and maintained the phalaropes as a separate family. Genetic data (e.g. Gibson & Baker 2012), however, provide very weak support for the monophyly of these groups, and although the phalaropes are monophyletic, they are deeply embedded in the Scolopacidae and sister to the tringines. Gibson & Baker (2012) identified five major lineages in the family, and Cracraft (2013) recognized five subfamilies: Numeniinae, Limosinae, Calidrinae, Scolopacinae, and Tringinae. SACC proposal passed to recognize five subfamilies. See Banks (2012) for use of Arenariinae over Calidrinae for the group name.

1a. The name formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) used for Gallinago was Capella, but see Mayr (1963) and Banks & Browning (1995).

2. Gallinago delicata is here treated as a separate species from Old World G. gallinago following Banks et al. (2002), based in part on lack of evidence in support of the original demotion of delicata to subspecies rank and in part on differences in their displays (Thönen 1969, Tuck 1972, Miller 1996); treating delicata as a separate species represents a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919), Peters (1934), and Pinto (1938).

3. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered Gallinago paraguaiae and G. andina to form a superspecies with G. delicata (which they reluctantly considered a subspecies of G. gallinago) as well as African G. nigripennis and G. macrodactyla.

4. Species limits in New World Gallinago have been fluid and controversial, and not based on explicit analyses. Many authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) have considered paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina to be conspecific. Additionally, Gallinago paraguaiae was considered conspecific with G. [gallinago] delicata by Phelps & Phelps (1958a), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Blake (1977). Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990) placed magellanica with paraguaiae, but erred in calling this species G. magellanica because paraguaiae is the earlier name. Any arrangement of species limits in these taxa is based largely on anecdotal data, and this group is badly in need of formal study, especially given that differences in displays and vocalizations among paraguaiae, magellanica, and andina have been reported (Jaramillo 2003). Proposal needed.

5. Gallinago stricklandii, G. jamesoni, and G. imperialis were formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948) placed in a separate genus, Chubbia, but recent authors have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in merging this into Gallinago. Gibson & Baker (2012) found that imperialis was the sister to

extralimital Coenocorypha, not to other Gallinago. SACC proposal to resurrect Chubbia did not pass.

6. Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific ("Cordilleran Snipe"), but most recent authors have followed Hellmayr & Conover (1948b) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in considering them separate species; other than plumage differences and disjunct distribution, no rationale has been published either way.

7. When Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated Gallinago stricklandii and G. jamesoni as separate species, they used the English name "Andean Snipe" for the latter, which was used Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in referring to jamesoni, perhaps a lapsus by Meyer de Schauensee; this created perpetual confusion with G. andina, instead of using "Jameson's” as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948). SACC proposal passed to change English name to Jameson’s Snipe.

8. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) known as "Banded Snipe”.

9a. Called "Common Dowitcher" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

9b. Specimens from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2006, Putnam et al. 2009). SACC proposal passed to move to Main List. Also, at least five unpublished photos from Netherlands Antilles (Voous 1983, 1985; photos examined by J. R. Jehl) and at least one from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier). There also are specimens, collected in Colombia (Hellmayr and Conover 1948, Naranjo 1991) and in Peru (unpublished, but mentioned in Schulenberg et al. 2007), that have been identified as scolopaceus, as well as possible sight records from Ecuador [REF], Peru [REF], and Argentina (see compilation in Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, none regarded by those authors as referable with certainty to L. scolopaceus). A specimen reported from Argentina (Zotta 1942), responsible for the subsequent listing of that species for Argentina in many references, is a misidentified specimen of L. griseus hendersoni (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).

10. Photographed in 2000-2001 in Trinidad (Hayes & Kenefick 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).

10a. Limosa haemastica, L. lapponica, and L. fedoa were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Vetola, but this group is likely paraphyletic with respect to L. limosa (see Gibson & Baker 2012).

11. One photograph from northern Venezuela (Mercier et al. 1987), and one published photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010). Sight

record for Fernando de Noronha, Brazil (Antas et al. 1992); and two published photos, Ceará, Brazil (Girão et al. 2006).

11a. Numenius borealis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Mesoscolopax.

12. Zink et al. (1995) proposed a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) that considered New World hudsonicus to be a separate species from Old World populations based on genetic distance. Although plumage pattern also differs substantially, vocalizations are evidently very similar, in contrast to the many allotaxa in the Scolopacidae treated as separate species.

12a. Numenius phaeopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Phaeopus.

12b. One record documented by archived photograph from northern Venezuela (McNeil et al. 1985); other undocumented sight records from Venezuela (see Hilty 2003). One record <> for French Guiana (Ingels et al. 2003). Record from Tobago now considered dubious (ffrench 1973).

12c. Formerly known as "Upland Plover" (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957), but see REFS.

13. Tringa melanoleuca and T. flavipes were formerly placed in a separate genus, Neoglottis (e.g., Ridgway 1919) or Totanus (e.g., REFS), but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b). <sort these out with respect to Old World taxa and Gibson & Baker (2012)>.

13a. Photographed on Tobago (Kenefick & Hayes 2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

13b. Vaurie (1965c) merged Catoptrophorus into Tringa, but this had not been followed by other authors. Genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005, Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Catoptrophorus is indeed embedded within Tringa and sister to T. flavipes. SACC proposal passed to merge Catoptrophorus into Tringa.

14. Vaurie (1965c), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Heteroscelus into Tringa, but this had not been followed by most authors. Genetic data (Pereira and Baker 2005, Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Heteroscelus is indeed embedded within Tringa. SACC proposal passed to merge Heteroscelus into Tringa.

15. Vaurie (1965c), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Actitis into Tringa, but most authors have not followed this. They are almost certainly sister genera (Gibson & Baker 2012).

16. Actitis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is macularius, not macularia (David & Gosselin 2002b).

17. Vaurie (1965c) merged Xenus into Tringa, but most authors have not followed this. Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) provide no support for that relationship and weak support for Xenus as sister to Phalaropus.

18. One at Punta Rasa, Buenos Aires, Argentina, from Dec.1977 to Jan. 1988, with photograph archived in the Aves Argentinas/ A.O.P. library (Pugnali et al. 1988). Additional sight records for Argentina (Narosky & Di Giacomo 1993), Brazil (Mazar Barnett 1997), and several from Trinidad & Tobago (Taylor 2001, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).

19. Arenaria was formerly placed in its own family Arenariidae (e.g., Oberholser 1920a) or the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm that it is embedded within the Scolopacidae. Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated them as a separate family, Arenariidae.

20. [REF needed on records]

21. Calidris virgata was for most of its history treated in the monotypic genus Aphriza and was formerly placed in the Charadriidae in some classifications (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Jehl (1968a). Some earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated it in a separate monotypic family, Aphrizidae. Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Aphriza is embedded within broadly defined Calidris and is sister to C. canutus. Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged into Calidris, and this was adopted by Chesser et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

21a. Calidris canutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in the monotypic genus Canutus.

22. Calidris alba was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Crocethia (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), based largely on its lacking a hind toe, but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b).

23. Calidris pusilla and C. mauri were formerly placed in the genus Ereunetes (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Vaurie (1965c) and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in almost all subsequent classifications. Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm that they are sister species.

24. Calidris minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, C. melanotos, C. alpina, and C. ferruginea were formerly placed in the genus Erolia (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Holmes & Pitelka (1964), Vaurie (1965c), and Jehl (1968b); this treatment has been followed in almost all subsequent classifications. Calidris minutilla, C. fuscicollis, C. bairdii, and C. melanotos were previously (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Pisobia, from Erolia. Neither Erolia or Pisobia conform to monophyletic groups (see Gibson & Baker 2012).

24a. Calidris melanotos was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as C. maculata, but see <REF>.

25. Specimen from Cayenne, French Guiana, 15 January 1926 (Greenwood 1983). [check Kieser 1982] See Lesterhuis & Clay (2003) for a summary of sight records from South America.

25a. Calidris alpina was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in the monotypic genus Pelidna, but it is deeply embedded in broadly defined Calidris (see Gibson & Baker 2012).

26. Specimen from Peru (Graves & Plenge 1978). Photos from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Purported specimen from 18th Century from Argentina now lost (Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). Sight record from Trinidad (Kenefick 2004, Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Photographs published for Brazil (Musher et al. 2016).

27. Calidris himantopus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in a monotypic genus, Micropalama, based largely on relative tarsus length, but morphological (Jehl 1968b) and genetic data (Dittmann and Zink 1991) indicate that it is embedded within Calidris and sister to C. ferruginea (Gibson & Baker 2012); yet many authors continue to maintain Micropalama (Sibley & Monroe 1990, van Gils & Wiersma 1996, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Livezey 2010).

27a. Calidris subruficollis was placed in the monotypic genus Tryngites for most of its history. Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Tryngites is embedded within broadly defined Calidris and is sister to C. melanotos + [C. mauri + C. pusilla]. Banks (2012) recommended that it be merged into Calidris, and this was adopted by Chesser et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

27b. Calidris pugnax was placed in the monotypic genus Philomachus for most of its history. Genetic data (Gibson & Baker 2012) indicate that Philomachus is embedded within broadly defined Calidris. Banks (2012) recommended that

it be merged into Calidris and as first reviser chose Calidris as having priority; this was followed by Chesser et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

28. One specimen from "Bogotá" (Hellmayr & Conover 1948b). One sight record from Peru (Oatman et al. 1980). Several sight records and photos for Trinidad & Tobago (Gochfeld 1973, ffrench 1991, ffrench & White 1999, Kenefick 2004, Kenefick & Hayes 2006.). One sight record from Venezuela (Altman and Parrish 1978) and one from Brazil (Sick 1993, 1997, Pacheco 2000). At least five sight records and one unpublished photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).

29. The three species of Phalaropus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in their own family, the Phalaropodidae, but see Jehl (1968b). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Gibson & Baker 2012) confirm that they are embedded within the Scolopacidae, but Livezey (2010) resurrected family rank for them based on phenotypic characters.

30. Phalaropus tricolor was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in monotypic genus Steganopus, maintained by some classifications (e.g., Stiles & Skutch 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, van Gils & Wiersma 1996, Livezey 2010, del Hoyo & Collar 2014), but see Dittmann & Zink (1991). <van Gils & Wiersma 1996 stated genetically close to Tringa -- misinterpretation of genetic data>

31. Phalaropus lobatus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) placed in a monotypic genus, Lobipes, but see REFs.

32. Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919, AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Northern Phalarope."

33. Correct spelling for species name is fulicarius (David & Gosselin 2002a), not fulicaria as in most recent classifications.

_______________________________________________________

THINOCORIDAE (SEEDSNIPES) 1Attagis gayi Rufous-bellied Seedsnipe 2Attagis malouinus White-bellied SeedsnipeThinocorus orbignyianus Gray-breasted SeedsnipeThinocorus rumicivorus Least Seedsnipe

_______________________________________________________

1. Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) indicate that Thinocoridae is the sister taxon to the Australian Pedionomidae (formerly placed in the Gruiformes), and that these in turn are members of the scolopacine radiation of the Charadriiformes (including Scolopacidae, Jacanidae, and Rostratulidae). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence to move Thinocoridae to position next to Jacanidae + Rostratulidae. Recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007) support a sister relationship to the Scolopacidae.

2. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the northern subspecies latreillii might deserve recognition as a separate species from Attagis gayi.

_______________________________________________________

JACANIDAE (JACANAS) 1Jacana jacana Wattled Jacana 2, 3

ROSTRATULIDAE (PAINTED-SNIPES) 1, 1aNycticryphes semicollaris South American Painted-snipe 4, 5

_______________________________________________________

1. Genetic (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) and morphological (Livezey & Zusi 2007) data support the hypothesis (REFS) that the Jacanidae and Rostratulidae are sister families.

1a. SACC proposal passed to change to lower case the "s" in "Painted-snipe." SACC proposal to delete hyphen in English name did not pass.

2. Jacana jacana forms a superspecies with Middle American J. spinosa (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Jenni 1996); they hybridize to a limited degree in western Panama, and some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) have considered them conspecific. Wetmore (1965) stated that they were evidently locally syntopic without interbreeding, but Miller et al. (2014) found that they form a narrow hybrid zone in western Panama, but no hybrid swarm and indirect evidence against free interbreeding.

3. Called "Black Jacana" in Ridgway (1919).

4. Nycticryphes has often (e.g., <REFS>) been included in Rostratula, but see Kirwan (1996).

_______________________________________________________

LariSTERCORARIIDAE (SKUAS) 1

Stercorarius skua Great Skua (V) 2, 3, 4, 5Stercorarius chilensis Chilean Skua 2, 5Stercorarius maccormicki South Polar Skua (NB) 2, 5Stercorarius antarcticus Brown Skua 2, 5, 6Stercorarius pomarinus Pomarine Jaeger (NB) 7, 8Stercorarius parasiticus Parasitic Jaeger (NB) 9Stercorarius longicaudus Long-tailed Jaeger (NB) 10

_______________________________________________________

1. This family ranked as a subfamily within Laridae in some classifications (e.g., REFS, Blake 1977), but recent genetic data indicate that the Stercorariidae is the sister to the Alcidae (Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2007). Livezey & Zusi’s (2007) analysis of morphological data does not recover these relationships.

2. The merger of Catharacta into Stercorarius follows from several recent papers (Cohen et al. 1997, Braun & Brumfield 1998) that show that pomarinus is more closely related to Catharacta than to other Stercorarius, as had been suggested by several earlier studies (REFS). Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered all of the original Catharacta group to form a superspecies. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) continued to treat Catharacta as separate despite acknowledging the sister relationship of S. pomarinus to Catharacta. Carlos (2016) outlined the rationale for restoring Catharacta and including pomarinus in Catharacta. SACC proposal needed <but wait for NACC>.

3. The name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) used for Catharacta was Megalestris, but Catharacta Brünnich, 1864, has priority over Megalestris Bonaparte, 1956 (e.g., see Hellmayr & Conover 1948).

4. Specimen from Pará, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1986) and other specimens and band recoveries from northeastern coastal Brazil (Sick 1997, Olmos 2002). Sight reports from Venezuela (Hilty 2003) and off Curaçao-Bonaire (Voous 1983).

5. Although some classifications have considered Stercorarius skua, S. chilensis, S. maccormicki, and S. antarcticus as a single species (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Blake 1977), see Devillers (1978), Parmelee (1988), and Furness (1996) for evidence for ranking each as a separate species based on limited hybridization where in contact and on major biological differences

among them. All skua taxa of the southern oceans are very closely related with at least some gene flow among several populations (Ritz et al. 2008).

6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) ranked the subspecies lonnbergi as a separate species, but substantiating details have not been published. Most classifications (e.g., Furness 1996, Malling Olsen & Larsson 1997) continue to treat lonnbergi as a subspecies of S. antarcticus.

7. Stercorarius pomarinus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed treated in the monotypic genus Coprotheres, but this was merged in Stercorarius by Peters (1934) and subsequently followed by most classifications, but see Braun & Brumfield (1998).

8. Known as "Pomarine Skua" in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Pomarine Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Pomarine Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.

9. Known as "Arctic Skua" in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Arctic Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Arctic Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.

10. Known as "Long-tailed Skua' in Old World literature. SACC proposal to change to "Long-tailed Skua" did not pass. SACC proposal to add "Long-tailed Skua" as an alternative name did not pass.

_______________________________________________________

LARIDAE (GULLS) 1Larinae

Creagrus furcatus Swallow-tailed Gull 9Rissa tridactyla Black-legged Kittiwake (V) 8Xema sabini Sabine's Gull (NB) 8aChroicocephalus philadelphia Bonaparte's Gull (V) 8bChroicocephalus serranus Andean Gull 6aChroicocephalus maculipennis Brown-hooded Gull 6a, 6bChroicocephalus cirrocephalus Gray-hooded Gull 6, 6aChroicocephalus ridibundus Black-headed Gull (V) 6aa, 6aaaHydrocoloeus minutus Little Gull (V) 7, 7aLeucophaeus scoresbii Dolphin Gull 1aLeucophaeus modestus Gray Gull 1bLeucophaeus atricilla Laughing Gull 6aLeucophaeus pipixcan Franklin's Gull (NB) 6aLeucophaeus fuliginosus Lava Gull 6c, 6d

Larus belcheri Belcher's Gull 2, 3, 6cLarus atlanticus Olrog's Gull 2, 6cLarus delawarensis Ring-billed Gull (V) 4Larus californicus California Gull (V) 4aLarus marinus Great Black-backed Gull (V) 4bLarus dominicanus Kelp Gull 4cLarus fuscus Lesser Black-backed Gull (V) 5Larus argentatus Herring Gull (NB) 4d

Sterninae 10aAnous stolidus Brown Noddy 10aAnous minutus Black Noddy 18, 19, 19aProcelsterna albivitta Gray Noddy 20Gygis alba White Tern 10a, 21Onychoprion fuscatus Sooty Tern 16bOnychoprion anaethetus Bridled Tern 16bSternula antillarum Least Tern 16, 16a, 16aaSternula superciliaris Yellow-billed Tern 16aSternula lorata Peruvian Tern 16aPhaetusa simplex Large-billed Tern 17Gelochelidon nilotica Gull-billed Tern 10b, 10c, 10dHydroprogne caspia Caspian Tern (NB) 11Larosterna inca Inca TernChlidonias niger Black Tern (NB) 16c, 16dChlidonias leucopterus White-winged Tern (V) 16ddSterna hirundo Common Tern (NB) 13aSterna dougallii Roseate Tern 13aSterna paradisaea Arctic Tern (NB) 13aSterna hirundinacea South American Tern 13aSterna vittata Antarctic Tern (NB) 13aSterna forsteri Forster's Tern (V) 13a, 14, 14aSterna trudeaui Snowy-crowned Tern 13a, 14a, 15Thalasseus elegans Elegant Tern (NB) 12, 12aThalasseus sandvicensis Sandwich Tern 12, 12a, 13, 13bThalasseus maximus Royal Tern 12, 12a

_______________________________________________________

1. [note on monophyly; within-family relationships.] <incorp. Moynihan 1959, Chu 1998, Crochet papers> Baker et al. (2007) found that Anous and Gygis are

sister to (Rynchopidae + (Larinae + Sterninae)) <wait NACC etc.>. Cracraft (2013) treated the Laridae as consisting of five subfamilies: Anoinae, Gyginae, Rhynchopinae, Larinae, and Sterninae; see Note 10a. The genetic data of Pons et al. (2005) suggest that Larus is polyphyletic and that genera such as Creagrus and Xema are basal within the group, which requires an inversion of the linear sequence presented here. SACC proposal passed to alter limits of genera and linear sequence. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) retained broadly defined Larus based on unpublished data.

1a. Placement in the monotypic genus Leucophaeus follows Ridgway (1919), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Burger and Gochfeld (1996), and is based on unique behaviors and plumage patterns of chicks; many authors include Leucophaeus in Larus (e.g., Blake 1977). Also placed by some authors (REFS) in genus Gabianus, with Australian L. pacificus, but this is based on bill shape, a notoriously variable character that is usually unreliable in predicting phylogenetic relationships (e.g., see Bock REF). Genetic data (Pons et al. 2005) indicate that Leucophaeus is embedded within Larus, and that its sister species is L. modestus; however, the same genetic data suggest that Leucophaeus represents a distinct group from the other Larus and that it should be expanded to include four other species, all occurring in South America. SACC proposal passed to alter limits of genera and linear sequence; also followed by Banks et al. (2008).

1b. Often considered closely related to Larus heermanni (e.g., Howell et al. 1974) but see Pons et al. (2005).

2. Larus belcheri and L. atlanticus were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific, but Devillers (1977) provided rationale for treatment as separate species [check], and this treatment has been followed by most authors, e.g., Sibley & Monroe (1990), Burger & Gochfeld (1996), and AOU (1998); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

3. The AOU (Banks 2003) recently adopted proposal to change English name to "Belcher's Gull"; SACC proposal passed to change the name of Larus belcheri from "Band-tailed" to "Belcher's."

4. Specimen from Tefé, Amazonas, Brazil, 23 Nov. 1968 (Sick 1979). check Udvardy & Sall (1987). Photographed in Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick 2010). At least four records from the Netherlands Antilles; all photographed (Voous 1983; photographs examined by Voous, but photographs evidently not archived). Sight records from Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000, Fairbank 2002, Hilty 2003), and Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986, Downing 2005). <perhaps regular NB on Galapagos?>

4a. One in Prov. Imbabura, Ecuador, on 14 February 2014 and remained until 5 March; documented with photos (Nilsson et al. 2014). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Previous sight record from Guayas, Ecuador, 8 Feb. 1980 (Ridgely 1980, Ridgely and Greenfield 2001).

4b. Three published photos from Trinidad (Kenefick 2010, 2012). SACC proposal passed to move to main list. Also, One unpublished photograph and one sight record from Aruba (Voous 1977, 1983) and one unpublished photo from French Guiana (fide A. Renaudier); sight record from northwestern Venezuela (Casler 1996); sight record from w. Colombia (Naranjo & Franke 1995).

4c. Larus dominicanus was considered a subspecies of boreal L. marinus by Hellmayr & Conover (1948b).

4d. Crochet et al. (2002) proposed recognizing New World smithsonianus as a separate species from Old World Larus argentatus.

5. Specimen from prov. Buenos Aires, Argentina (Steullet & Deautier 1939, as cited by Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, but identification queried by Post and Lewis 1995). Photos from Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Numerous records from Trinidad & Tobago including published photographs (Hayes et al. 2002a, b, Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Several sight records and unpublished photographs from Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000, Fairbank 2002, Hilty 2003). At least eight records from Netherlands Antilles, many based on unpublished photographs (Voous 1983). Photos from Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). <check Tostain & Dujardin 1989 for photos/# records>

6. Called "Gray-headed Gull" in Burger & Gochfeld (1996).

6a. The genetic data of Crochet et al. (1999) and Pons et al. (2005) indicate that Larus as formerly constituted was polyphyletic, and that resurrection of Chroicocephalus for a group of species that includes L. cirrocephalus, L. serranus, L. ridibundus, and L. maculipennis was necessary to maintain Larus as monophyletic; this would represent a partial return to the classification of Ridgway (1919), which also included Leucophaeus pipixcan and L. atricilla in Chroicocephalus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Chroicocephalus.

6aa. Photos from French Guiana published in Tostain & Dujardin (1989) and from Trinidad & Tobago published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). Additional sight records and unpublished photos from Trinidad & Tobago (Fisher 1978, ffrench & White 1999, Kenefick 2012), Surinam (Davis 1979), and Bonaire (Voous 1983, 1985; photograph examined by Voous). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

6aaa. Formerly listed as "Common Black-headed Gull." SACC proposal passed to change English name to "Black-headed Gull."

6b. Larus maculipennis has been considered (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) a subspecies of Old World L. ridibundus.

6c. Larus belcheri, Larus atlanticus, Leucophaeus modestus, and Leucophaeus fuliginosus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) treated in a separate genus, Blasipus.

6d. Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) called "Sooty Gull."

7. [reference needed for records]

7a. The genetic data of Crochet et al. (1999) and Pons et al. (2005) indicate that Larus as formerly constituted was polyphyletic, and that resurrection of Hydrocoloeus for L. minutus was necessary to maintain Larus as monophyletic; this represents a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919). SACC proposal passed to recognize Hydrocoloeus.

8. Photographed in Peru (Haase 1993). Sight record off Suriname (van Halewijn 1973) and sight records from Trinidad & Tobago (Kenefick 2010, 2012).

8a. Some authors (e.g., Vaurie 1965c, Blake 1977, Cramp & Simmons 1983) merge Xema into Larus.

8b. One in southwestern Ecuador, 12 November 2013, documented with photos (Nilsson et al. 2014). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Sight record from Bonaire (Voous 1983).

9. Reasons for placement of this taxon in the monotypic genus Creagrus are based on skeletal morphology (REF), and unusual tail shape and plumage pattern (Ridgway 1919); some classifications (e.g., Blake 1977) included this species in Larus. Genetic data (Pons et al. 2005) confirm that continued treatment in a monotypic genus is warranted, and that it is a basal taxon within the Laridae.

10a. Sterninae (terns) is given family rank in a few classifications (e.g., Oberholser 1920a, Gochfeld & Burger 1996), and recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) would support this ranking if Rynchopidae is also treated as family. <wait for better taxon- and gene-sampling for proposal to elevate Sterninae to family rank?> Recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that the genus Anous is basal in the group, followed by Gygis; the rest of the terns form a strongly supported monophyletic group (Sterna + Phaetusa + Larosterna + Chlidonias), but see remarks below on lack of monophyly in broadly defined Sterna. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence, as did Banks et al. (2006). Baker et al. (2007) found that both Anous and Gygis were outside all

gulls + terns + skimmers, but Jackson et al. (2012) found that Gygis (Anous not sampled) was sister to all terns sampled.

10b. Many classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994, Gochfeld & Burger 1996) have used the monotypic genus Gelochelidon for this species, based largely on its somewhat unusual bill shape and behavior, but see (REFS, Randi & Spina 1987) for its merger into Sterna (followed by Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003); <incorp Hackett 1989. McKitrick 1991, Chu 1995>. Recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) provide support for maintaining the monotypic genus Gelochelidon, in that to keep this taxon in Sterna would force the merger of Larosterna and Chlidonias into Sterna. SACC proposal passed to recognize Gelochelidon; see also Banks et al. (2006).

10c. The species name used for Sterna nilotica by Hellmayr & Conover (1948b) was anglica, because nilotica was for a time considered doubtfully applicable to this species (Oberholser 1920a), but see (REF).

10g. Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) treated the Australian subspecies macrotarsa as a separate species from Gelochelidon nilotica based on published differences in bill shape and behavior.

11. Many classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Gochfeld & Burger 1996) maintained this species in the monotypic genus Hydroprogne based mainly on its unusually heavy bill. Many classifications (e.g., Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003) have followed Moynihan (1959), Vaurie (1965c), and Mayr & Short (1970) in merging Hydroprogne into Sterna. However, recent genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) provide support for maintaining the monotypic genus Hydroprogne, in that to keep this taxon in Sterna would force the merger of Larosterna and Chlidonias into Sterna. SACC proposal passed to recognize Hydroprogne; see also Banks et al. (2006).

11a. The species name of Hydroprogne caspia was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b) tschegrava, but see Blake (1977).

12. Thalasseus elegans, T. sandvicensis, and T. maxima have traditionally (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) been placed in a separate genus from Sterna, but see Moynihan (1959) and <<> Hackett (1989) for their inclusion in Sterna, as in Blake (1977), AOU (1983, 1998), Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), and Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data strongly support the monophyly of Thalasseus and indicate that its resurrection as a genus is warranted (at least until further data support the monophyly of Thalasseus + true Sterna). SACC proposal passed to recognize Thalasseus; see also Banks et al. (2006).

12a. REFS and Gochfeld & Burger (1996) considered Thalasseus elegans and T. sandvicensis, along with Old World T. bengalensis, to form a superspecies. However, genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that these three do not form a monophyletic group: although elegans and sandvicensis are sister taxa, the sister taxon to T. bengalensis is T. maximus.

13. Thalasseus eurygnathus ("Cayenne Tern") is here considered conspecific with sandvicensis following most recent treatments (e.g., Blake 1977); it is often considered a separate species (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely et al 2001). [elaborate on complexity of situation] <interbreeding REFS = Junge & Voous 1955, Voous 1983, Buckley & Buckley 1984, Norton 1984>. Field observations from the Virgin Islands are consistent with non-assortative mating (Hayes 2004), and the two are extremely similar genetically (Efe et al. 2009). Populations of eurygnathus breeding in southern South America may deserve separate taxonomic treatment from Caribbean populations (Voous 1968, Escalante 1973). Efe et al. (2009) found some evidence that New World populations (T. s. acuflavidus and T. s. eurygnathus) might be more closely related to T. elegans than to Old World (nominate) T. s. sandvicensis, but this was based on small sample sizes and limited geographic sampling, and was treated as inadequate evidence by Chesser et al. (2013).

13a. Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate that S. dougallii, S. hirundinacea, S. vittata, S. paradisaea, and S. hirundo form a monophyletic group that also includes Old World S. striata and S. sumatrana; S. forsteri and S. trudeaui may also be part of this group.

13b. Formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) known as "Cabot's Tern."

14. [reference needs on records; check: van Halewign (1973)]. [Meyer de Schauensee (1966) stated that it had been recorded 200-300 miles off Pernambuco, Brazil, but did not provide a reference -- beyond the geographic limits of this list. According to J. F. Pacheco in Sick (1997), the record mentioned by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) comes from Sclater & Salvin (1871)]

14a. Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) support the suggestion (Schnell 1970b, Gochfeld & Burger 1996, McNicholl et al. 2001) that S. forsteri and S. trudeaui are sister species.

15. Called "Trudeau's Tern" in Ridgway (1919), Gochfeld & Burger (1996), and Dickinson (2003).

16. Differences in vocalizations (Massey 1976) have led most recent classifications to treat New World antillarum group as a separate species from

Old World Sternula albifrons. They were previously (e.g., Ridgway 1919) considered separate species, but were then treated as conspecific by Peters (1934), and this was followed by most subsequent classifications (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

16a. REFS and Gochfeld & Burger (1996) considered Sternula antillarum, S. superciliaris, and S. lorata, along with Old World S. albifrons and S. saundersi, to form a superspecies.

16aa. Genetic data (Bridge et al.) indicate that the genus Sternula Gould, 1843, should be resurrected for this group of terns, including Old World S. nereis, representing a return to the classification of Ridgway (1919). SACC proposal passed to recognize Sternula; see also Banks et al. (2006).

16b. Mayr & Short (1970) considered O. anaethetus and O. fuscatus to form a superspecies, but they are not sister species (Bridge et al. 2005). Genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005) indicate O. anaethetus and O. fuscatus form a monophyletic group with Pacific Ocean O. lunatus and O. aleuticus, and that these four are the outgroup to all other Sterna (broadly defined) + Chlidonias + Phaetusa. Bridge et al. (2005) recommended resurrection of the genus Onychoprion Wagler, 1832, for this group, formerly included in Sterna (e.g., Ridgway 1919, Blake 1977, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize Onychoprion; see also Banks et al. (2006).

16c. Some classifications (e.g., Moynihan 1959, Blake 1977) merge Chlidonias into Sterna, and this would have to be done to maintain a broadly defined Sterna as in the current classification; see Bridge et al. (2005).

16d. Earlier classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1919) used the name Hydrochelidon for this Chlidonias, but see <REF>.

16dd. Published photo from Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil (Aldabe et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to main list. Published photo from French Guiana (Renaudier & Claessens 2014).

17. Phaetusa is included in Sterna in some classifications (e.g., Blake 1977), and this would have to be done to maintain a broadly defined Sterna as in the current classification; see Bridge et al. (2005).

17a. Phaetusa simplex was formerly known as P. chloropoda (or P. chloripoda [sic]; Ridgway 1919), but simplex has priority, and the species is now considered monotypic (Hellmayr & Conover 1948); Ridgway (1919) considered simplex to be of dubious application to this species, but see (REF?).

18. Anous minutus is considered by some authors (e.g., Vaurie 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) to be conspecific with A. tenuirostris of the Indian Ocean; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Gochfeld & Burger 1996).

19. Moynihan (1959) merged Gygis and Procelsterna into Anous, but subsequent authors have not followed this; genetic data (Bridge et al. 2005, Baker et al. 2007) do not support the inclusion of Gygis in Anous.

19a. Anous minutus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) placed in a separate genus, Megalopterus.

20. Procelsterna albivitta has often been considered conspecific (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1993) with P. cerulea (and known as "Blue-gray Noddy"); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

21. Many classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998) consider the subspecies micorhyncha of the Indian Ocean to represent a separate species from Gygis alba, based largely on Holyoak & Thibault (1976) and Pratt et al. (1987), but see Gochfeld & Burger (1996) and Yeung et al. (2009).

_______________________________________________________

RYNCHOPIDAE (SKIMMERS) 1Rynchops niger Black Skimmer 2, 3, 4

_______________________________________________________

1. Ranked in some classifications as a subfamily (e.g., Cracraft 2013) or tribe (Sibley & Monroe 1990) of the Laridae; recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) would support this ranking unless the terns are also treated as a separate family from Laridae. Comparative growth patterns (Cane 1994) suggest that the Rynchopidae are more closely related to the terns (here Sterninae) than to the gulls (Larinae).

2. The species name was formerly given as nigra (e.g., Peters 1934), but Rynchops is now considered masculine, thus forcing the change in ending to agree in gender (Zusi 1996).

3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Zusi (1996) considered Rynchops niger to form a superspecies with African R. flavirostris and Asian R. albicollis; justification for treatment as separate species is weak; in fact, Jaramillo (2003) pointed out that the differences between the Amazonian subspecies cinerascens and nominate niger are as great as those between R. flavirostris and nominate niger.

4. The subspecies cinerascens, of most of South America, was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1919) considered a separate species from R. nigra, but Peters (1934) treated them as conspecific; this treatment has been followed in most subsequent classifications.

EURYPYGIFORMESEURYPYGIDAE (SUNBITTERN) 1

Eurypyga helias Sunbittern

1. The Eurypygidae has been traditionally included in the Gruiformes, but recent genetic data do not support their inclusion in that order or any existing orders, and their sister group is the Rhynochetidae. See Note 1 under Gruiformes.

PHAETHONTIFORMESPHAETHONTIDAE (TROPICBIRDS) 1, 1a, 1b

Phaethon aethereus Red-billed TropicbirdPhaethon rubricauda Red-tailed Tropicbird (V) 1cPhaethon lepturus White-tailed Tropicbird

1. The Phaethontidae were traditionally placed in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) are consistent in showing that the Phaethontidae are not at all closely related to other families in that order. See Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Chesser et al. (2010) placed the Phaethontidae in their own order, Phaethontiformes, as did Cracraft (2013). SACC proposal passed to remove Phaethontidae from Pelecaniformes and place in its own order. Jarvis et al. (2014) and Prum et al. (2015) found that they are sister to the Eurypygiformes. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of orders.

1a. <Phaethontidae vs. Phaethonidae>

1b. Genetic data (Kennedy and Spencer 2004) indicate that Phaethon aethereus is sister to the ancestor of the other two species, and this supports the linear sequence used here.

1c. Specimens recorded from "off" Chile (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Blake 1977). <possibly unpublished specimens -- no real citation provided, nor how close to mainland - trace>. Published photographs from Brazil (off Bahia; Couto et al. 2001). Sight record from Peru (Hogsås 1999).

SPHENISCIFORMESSPHENISCIDAE (PENGUINS) 1

Aptenodytes patagonicus King PenguinAptenodytes forsteri Emperor Penguin (V) 2Pygoscelis papua Gentoo Penguin 3Pygoscelis antarcticus Chinstrap Penguin (NB) 3Eudyptula minor Little Penguin (V) 11Spheniscus humboldti Humboldt Penguin 12Spheniscus mendiculus Galapagos PenguinSpheniscus magellanicus Magellanic Penguin 12Eudyptes sclateri Erect-crested Penguin (V) 6, 7Eudyptes chrysolophus Macaroni Penguin 10, 10aEudyptes moseleyi Tristan Penguin 8, 8a (V)Eudyptes chrysocome Rockhopper Penguin 8, 9Eudyptes robustus Snares Penguin (V) 5

1. Mayr and Clarke's (2003) analysis of morphological characters suggested that the Sphenisciformes were the sister to Gaviidae + Podicipedidae, but Mayr (2005) proposed that the penguins were closer to some Pelecaniformes. However, genetic data (e.g., van Tuinen et al. 2001, Gibb et al. 2007, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Ericson et al. 2006) indicate that the Sphenisciformes and Procellariiformes are sister taxa. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned (and see Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, and Giannini & Bertelli 2004 for recent support). Analyses of morphological and behavioral characters (Schreiweis 1982, O'Hara 1989, McKitrick 1991, Giannini & Bertelli 2004) suggest that traditional genera are monophyletic, recently confirmed by genetic data (Baker et al. 2005); however, these analyses each produce different linear sequences, none of which is consistent with the molecular data of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) or Baker et al. (2006). The classification and sequence here follows Falla & Mougin (1979), but recent genetic data (Baker et al. 2006) indicate that this requires revision to reflect their phylogenetic data. Also, an analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Bertelli &

Giannini 2005) produced a phylogenetic hypothesis very similar to that of Baker et al. (2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

2. Unpublished photographic records from the Falklands in 1936 and 1954 (Hamilton 1954) and sight records in 1987 (Wolsey 1987, Curtis 1988), 1996 (Brown 1996), and 1999 (Gates 2001), although evidence for the 1936 record is archived with a photograph at the Scott Polar Research Institute, Cambridge, U.K. A specimen collected at the first narrows of the Magellan Straits near Punta Delgada, Chile, is housed at the Univ. of Magallanes, Punta Arenas (Venegas 1978, 1982) and was possibly collected in 1978 (Marín 2004). From Argentina, one of two specimens mentioned by Venegas (1982) is still housed at the Museo Mayorino Borgatello, Punta Arenas, collected from the Mitre Peninsula, Tierra del Fuego, Argentina. There are also vague sight records from elsewhere in Tierra del Fuego (Chebez & Bertonatti 1994) and at-sea off Buenos Aires (Jehl & Rumboll 1977).

3. Pygoscelis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is antarcticus; papua, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

4. [deleted]

5. Three photographic records from the Falklands: Dec. 1988 (Lamey 1990) and Nov.-Dec. 2008 (Demongin et al. 2010).

6. Five Falklands records include one from 1961 to 1966 (Napier 1968), one in the 1980-1981 austral summer (Strange 1992), one during each austral summer from 1997 to at least 2006 (Morrison et al. 2006), another in spring 2003 (Black et al. 2005), and another in 2005 (Morrison et al. 2006). Photographic documentation appeared in Birding World (11: 158, 1998) and White & Henry (2001).

7. Called "Erect-crested Penguin" in Martínez (1992), Williams (1995), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), etc. SACC proposal passed to change English name from Big-crested to Erect-crested.

8. Jouventin (1982), Jouventin et al. (2006), and Banks et al. (2006) demonstrated that moseleyi, traditionally treated as a subspecies of E. chrysocome, differs in voice and mating signals from, and is moderately differentiated genetically from, chrysocome. SACC proposal passed to treat moseleyi as a separate species. For English names for this species pair, see SACC Proposal 516. The two species were called “Northern Rockhopper Penguin” (moseleyi) and “Southern Rockhopper Penguin” (chrysocome) in Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014),

8a. Published photos from Falklands (Matias et al. 2009).

9. Formerly known as E. crestatus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) but see Serventy & Whittell (1952) and Falla & Mougin (1979).

10. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Martínez (1992) considered Eudyptes chrysolophus to form a superspecies with E. schlegeli of Macquarie Island; the latter was formerly (e.g., Falla & Mougin 1979) treated as a subspecies of E. chrysolophus but has been treated recently as separate species (Martínez 1992, Gill et al. 2010), but see Christidis & Boles (2008) for return to subspecies rank, as followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

10a. Vagrants to Argentina supported by specimens in MACN, BM(NH), and FML.

11. Wilson et al. (2000) reported a specimen from Chile. Three previous records from Chile, one backed by unpublished photo (Valverde & Oyarzo 1996). Proposal passed to add to main list. Proposal passed to change name from "Little Blue Penguin" to "Little Penguin."

12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Spheniscus humboldtii and S. magellanicus to form a superspecies with African S. demersus; genetic differences among them are low (REF), and some authors consider them conspecific (REF). Baker et al. (2006) found that S. mendiculus is likely the sister to S. humboldtii; therefore, it should also be included in the superspecies.

PROCELLARIIFORMES 1DIOMEDEIDAE (ALBATROSSES) 2

Phoebastria irrorata Waved Albatross 3, 4Diomedea epomophora Royal Albatross (NB) 3, 5Diomedea exulans Wandering Albatross (NB) 6Phoebetria fusca Sooty Albatross (V) 7Phoebetria palpebrata Light-mantled Albatross (NB) 8Thalassarche chlororhynchos Yellow-nosed Albatross (NB) 3, 9Thalassarche melanophris Black-browed Albatross 10, 11Thalassarche chrysostoma Gray-headed Albatross Thalassarche bulleri Buller's Albatross (NB) 12Thalassarche cauta White-capped Albatross (NB) 13,14Thalassarche salvini Salvin's Albatross (NB) 13Thalassarche eremita Chatham Albatross (NB) 13

1. The monophyly of the Procellariiformes has never been seriously questioned, and modern analyses (e.g., Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey and Zusi 2007, Hackett et al. 2008) support the traditional view. The Procellariiformes are likely sister to the Sphenisciformes (see Note 1 under that order). [note on relationships among families] <incorp Penhallurick & Wink (2004); cf Rheindt & Austin (2005).

2. The monophyly of the Diomedeidae has never been questioned seriously. The linear sequence of genera used here was modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support.

3. Phoebastria and Thalassarche were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Alexander et al. 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992a) placed in the genus Diomedea, but see Nunn et al. (1996) and Penhallurick & Wink (2004).

4. Formerly known as "Galapagos Albatross" (e.g., Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Tickell 2000).

5. Diomedea epomophora was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), with the subspecies sanfordi considered a separate species. Both taxa occur in South American waters. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)]. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment. Proposal badly needed.

6. Diomedea exulans treated as consisting of five species by Tickell (2000) and four by Onley & Scofield (2007). Of these, at least three occur in South American waters: nominate exulans, dabbenena, and antipodensis. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004]. SACC proposal to recognize multiple species did not pass. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment.

7. See Willis & Oniki (1985, 1993) for Brazil record (cf. Teixeira et al. 1988); also see Lima et al. (1997) for a second record from Brazil. <Blake (1977) reported specimen off Cape Horn>

8. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Light-mantled Sooty Albatross."

9. Thalassarche chlororhynchos has been considered to consist of two species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this treatment has been followed by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), with carteri of the Indian Ocean treated as a separate species. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment. Proposal badly needed. Nominate chlororhynchos is the form that typically occurs in South American

waters. Lima & Grantsau (2005) reported four specimens from Brazil of the form carteri, but that identification was challenged by Carlos (2008).

10. Thalassarche melanophris was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), Onley & Scofield (2007), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) with the Campbell Islands subspecies impavida treated as a separate species. [species limits: Robertson & Nunn 1998, Burg & Croxall 2001]. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment. Proposal needed. Only nominate melanophris has been recorded from South America.

11. The species name is also frequently given as melanophrys. Carlos and Voisin (2008) have published a proposal to conserve the original spelling in the type description, melanophris. This has been formally endorsed (ICZN 2010).

12. Thalassarche bulleri was treated as consisting of two species by Tickell (2000), but see Brooke (2004) and Onley & Scofield (2007). [species limits: Robertson & Nunn (1998)].

13. Thalassarche cauta has been considered to consist of four separate species by Robertson & Nunn (1998), and this was followed by Tickell (2000). See, however, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) for continued treatment of all as conspecific. <incorp. Abbott & Double 2003a, b, Double et al. 2003, Rheindt & Austin 2005> SACC proposal passed to split into two or three species. SACC proposal to reverse this decision did not pass. Brooke (2004) treated eremita and salvini as separate species from T. cauta. Subsequent SACC proposal passed to split into three species. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also treated them as separate species. See Penhallurick (2012) for rationale for maintaining single species treatment.

14. Called "Shy Albatross" in Onley & Scofield (2007), del Hoyo & Collar (2014), and elsewhere.

PROCELLARIIDAE (SHEARWATERS) 1Macronectes giganteus Southern Giant-Petrel 2, 3Macronectes halli Northern Giant-Petrel (NB) 2Fulmarus glacialoides Southern Fulmar (NB) 2aThalassoica antarctica Antarctic Petrel (V) 2bDaption capense Cape Petrel (NB) 4Pagodroma nivea Snow Petrel (V) 4aAphrodroma brevirostris Kerguelen Petrel (NB) 5Pterodroma leucoptera Gould's Petrel (V) 5aPterodroma macroptera Great-winged Petrel (V) 5b, 5c

Pterodroma mollis Soft-plumaged Petrel (NB)Pterodroma hasitata Black-capped Petrel (NB)Pterodroma incerta Atlantic Petrel (NB) 6Pterodroma lessonii White-headed Petrel (NB)Pterodroma cookii Cook's Petrel (NB) 7, 10Pterodroma nigripennis Black-winged Petrel (V) 7aPterodroma defilippiana Masatierra Petrel 8, 9, 10Pterodroma longirostris Stejneger's Petrel 10Pterodroma ultima Murphy’s Petrel (V) 10bPterodroma neglecta Kermadec Petrel 10a, 10cPterodroma arminjoniana Trindade Petrel 10a, 12, 12aPterodroma inexpectata Mottled Petrel (V) 11Pterodroma phaeopygia Galapagos Petrel 13Pterodroma externa Juan Fernandez Petrel 14Pterodroma feae Fea's Petrel 14aHalobaena caerulea Blue Petrel 14bPachyptila turtur Fairy PrionPachyptila vittata Broad-billed Prion (V) 15, 15aPachyptila desolata Antarctic Prion (NB) 15, 16Pachyptila belcheri Slender-billed Prion 17Bulweria bulwerii Bulwer's Petrel (V) 18, 18aProcellaria cinerea Gray Petrel (V) 18a, 19Procellaria aequinoctialis White-chinned Petrel 20, 21Procellaria conspicillata Spectacled Petrel (NB) 20, 21, 21aProcellaria parkinsoni Parkinson's Petrel (NB) 21, 22Procellaria westlandica Westland Petrel (NB) 21Calonectris diomedea Cory's Shearwater (NB) 23, 24, 24aCalonectris edwardsii Cape Verde Shearwater (V) 23, 24Ardenna pacifica Wedge-tailed Shearwater (NB) 23a, 23bArdenna bulleri Buller's Shearwater (NB) 25Ardenna tenuirostris Short-tailed Shearwater (V) 25bArdenna grisea Sooty Shearwater 25aArdenna gravis Great Shearwater 26Ardenna creatopus Pink-footed Shearwater 27Ardenna carneipes Flesh-footed Shearwater (NB) 27, 27aPuffinus puffinus Manx Shearwater (NB) 28, 28aPuffinus subalaris Galapagos Shearwater 31Puffinus assimilis Little Shearwater (NB) 29, 28aPuffinus lherminieri Audubon's Shearwater 28a, 29, 30, 31Pelecanoides garnotii Peruvian Diving-Petrel 32, 33

Pelecanoides urinatrix Common Diving-Petrel 34, 35, 36Pelecanoides georgicus South Georgia Diving-Petrel (V) 33, 37Pelecanoides magellani Magellanic Diving-Petrel 33

1. The monophyly of the family has never been questioned seriously, with the recent exception of possible inclusion of Pelecanoides within the Procellariidae (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson 2006). Linear sequence of genera modified from Kennedy & Page (2002), wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the treatment of Macronectes, Fulmarus, Thalassoica, Daption, and Pagodroma as forming a monophyletic group; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated tribe rank (Fulmarini) for this group, but see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.

2. Macronectes giganteus and M. halli were formerly considered conspecific, and often (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) called "Giant Fulmar." See Bourne & Warham (1966), Hunter (1987), and references therein for treatment of the two as separate species. However, lack of interbreeding where sympatric is achieved primarily through temporal segregation rather than any other barriers to gene flow; see summary of evidence for treating them as conspecific in Penhallurick & Wink (2004), but see also Rheindt & Austin (2005) for support of the two species treatment. Brown et al. (2015) found that the percentage of mixed pairs is usually below 2% and that reproductive success of mixed pairs was lower than that of pure pairs (and 0% success on Marion and Macquarie islands).

2a. Fulmarus glacialoides was considered a subspecies of boreal F. glacialis by (REF), although formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate monotypic genus, Priocella; for placement in same genus, see Voous (1949). The two species constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998).

2b. Typically considered part of the Chilean and Argentine avifauna, but those countries include the Antarctic Peninsula in their checklist area. Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from off Cape Horn, Chile, from 2009. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

3. Called "Antarctic Giant-Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).

4. Formerly called "Pintado Petrel" (e.g. REF) or "Cape Pigeon" (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a).

4a. At least five birds have been found dead and one alive on the Falkland Islands (Salvin 1896, R. Woods, pers. comm.). However, only three of the specimens, including one of the two from 1979 mentioned by Peatfield (1981), can now be located; they are in the British Museum (R. Woods, pers. comm.).

5. Aphrodroma brevirostris was formerly placed in the genus Pterodroma (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992b). Placed in monotypic genus Lugensa by Imber (1985), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Kennedy & Page (2002), and others, because inclusion in that genus would make Pterodroma paraphyletic. Olson (2000) proposed a new genus Aphrodroma for this species, because Lugensa cannot be applied to brevirostris. Bourne (2001) provided rationale for why Lugensa should apply to brevirostris, and this was accepted by Penhallurick & Wink (2004). However, Olson showed that there is no confirmable evidence linking the type species of Lugensa to the Kerguelen Petrel, in the absence of which Aphrodroma must stand (R. Schodde, in litt.). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) not only support treatment of brevirostris in a separate genus, but also indicate that it is more closely related to the Puffinus group of shearwaters than to Pterodroma; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a reinterpretation of those data.

5a. Specimen record from near Galapagos Islands may not be within the official boundaries of the area, and sight records from there are undocumented (Wiedenfeld 2006). Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from 2004 from near Isla Robinson Crusoe, Juan Fernandez Archipelago. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

 5b. Reported for Brazil, Chile, Argentina, and the Falklands (e.g., Gregory 1994)

but based only on sight records. Teixeira et al. (1985) showed that the two reported specimens from Brazil were actually Puffinus griseus, leaving only sight reports from Brazil. Bugoni (2006) reported a specimen from Fernando de Noronha Island, Brazil. SACC proposal passed to move to main list.

5c. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Gray-faced Petrel."

6. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support Pterodroma as a monophyletic group (once brevirostris is removed; see Note 5). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) used genetic distance data to propose that Pterodroma was best subdivided into four monophyletic groups, ranked at the subgenus level: (1) subgenus Pterodroma, which of the species recorded from South America includes P. hasitata, P. incerta, P. lessonii, and P. mollis as well as several extralimital species; (2) subgenus Hallstroma, which includes P. neglecta (and thus presumably P. arminjoniana), P. externa, P. phaeopygia (and extralimital P. sandwichensis), and P. inexpectata; (3) subgenus Cookilaria, which includes P. longirostris, P. cookii (and thus presumably P. defilippiana), and extralimital P. hypoleuca; and (4) subgenus "?Proaestrelata" for some

extralimital species including P. axillaris and P. nigripennis. However, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.

6a. Formerly known as "Hooded Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "Schlegel's Petrel" (REF).

7. Formerly known as "Blue-footed Petrel" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977).

7a. Barros & Schmitt (2015) published a photo from 177 miles N of the Desventurada Islands (San Felix and San Ambrosio), Chile. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

8. Pterodroma defilippiana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. cookii.

9. Called "Mas a Tierra Petrel" in Murphy (1936) and Carboneras (1992b). Called "Defilippe's Petrel" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Defilippi's Petrel" in Stattersfield (REF), and "De Filippi's" Petrel in Onley & Scofield (2007). Also, Howell et al. (1996) noted that the species is named for F. de Filippi, so the name should be "de Filippi's Petrel". The latter, however, is difficult to spell correctly, and certainly confuses Chileans who know the Philippis as the ornithologists that had a large influence in Chile. SACC proposal to change English name to "De Filippi's Petrel" did not pass.

10. Pterodroma defilippiana, and P. longirostris are members of the "Cookilaria" species group, also including extralimital P. cookii, P. hypoleuca, P. nigripennis, P. axillaris, and P. leucoptera; they are considered to be each others' closest relatives (Jouanin and Mougin 1979). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) restricted this group; see Note 6 above.

10a. Pterodroma neglecta and P. arminjoniana were considered to form a superspecies with P. alba by Jouanin and Mougin (1979); P. arminjoniana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of P. neglecta.

10b. Three photographed off Juan Fernandez Islands in 2014 (Flood et al. 2016). SACC proposal passed to add to Main list.

10c. Pterodroma neglecta was recently discovered to breed on Ilha Trindade (Imber 2004), but see Tove (2005).

11. [Reference needed for records] <Meltofte & Horneman 1995>.

12. Some authors (REFS) consider the subspecies heraldica to deserve recognition as a separate species from Pterodroma arminjoniana, but see

Murphy & Pennoyer (1952). Also, dark birds have been recognized as a separate species, P. atrata (Brooke & Rowe 1996, Dickinson 2003, Dickinson & Remsen 2013). SACC proposal passed to recognize extralimital P. heraldica and P. atrata as separate species. This treatment also followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

12a. Occasionally called “Trinidade Petrel”. “Trinidade” is either an incorrect spelling or a botched Anglicization of the Brazilian Portuguese name for the island, which is “Trindade”, as is the official international name. Formerly also occasionally listed as “South Trinidad Petrel” (e.g. AOU 1957).

13. Pterodroma phaeopygia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) considered to consist of two subspecies, nominate phaeopygia, which breeds in the Galapagos Islands, and sandwichensis, which breeds in Hawaii. Although Jouanin & Mougin (1979) and Carboneras (1992b) questioned the validity of sandwichensis as a recognizable taxon, Tomkins & Milne (1991), Browne et al. (1997) and Welch et al. (2011) provided rationale for considering Pterodroma sandwichensis a separate species from P. phaeopygia based on vocal and genetic differences between them comparable to those between other species-level pairs in Pterodroma. The AOU (Banks et al. 2002) recognized them both as species: P. phaeopygia (Galapagos Petrel) and P. sandwichensis (Hawaiian Petrel); SACC proposal passed to recognize P. sandwichensis as a species.

14. Some treatments (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Jouanin & Mougin 1979) have considered extralimital Pterodroma cervicalis to be a subspecies of P. externa, with the composite name "White-necked Petrel," but they are evidently not sister taxa (Imber 1985). 

14a. Ramírez et al. (2013) found using geolocators that part of the nonbreeding distribution of Pterodroma feae includes Brazilian waters, with some occurrences off French Guiana and Suriname. SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.

14b. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Halobaena is more closely related to Pachyptila, as proposed by Imber 1985), than to any other genus; Marchant & Higgins (1990) had proposed that Halobaena and Pterodroma were sister genera.

15. Recorded in Peru (Hughes 1982, Hidlago-Aranzamendi et al. 2010).

15a. Species limits in the genus Pachyptila are controversial, with most recent classifications recognizing six species in the genus (e.g., Marchant & Higgins 1990, Carboneras 1992b) <incorp. Bretagnolle et al. 1990>; see summary in Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Pachyptila desolata was considered a

subspecies of P. vittata by Cox (1980), and Penhallurick & Wink (2004) considered it and P. belcheri conspecific with P. vittata; see, however, Rheindt & Austin (2005) and references therein. Proposal needed?

15b. [note on use of forsteri as species name, as in Pinto (1938), Blake (1977)]

16. Called "Dove Prion" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and may other references. SACC proposal passed to change English name from Dove Prion to Antarctic Prion.

17. Called "Thin-billed Prion" in Murphy (1936), Harrison (1983), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and elsewhere.

18. Recorded once near Trinidad (ffrench & ffrench 1966). <check documentation> Sight record off Curaçao (Voous 1983). <check Bourne 1995>

18a. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that Bulweria and Procellaria are sister genera, contrary to previous assessments of morphology that suggested that Bulweria was closest to or embedded within Pterodroma (Olson 1975a, Marchant & Higgins 1990). Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed recognizing Bulweria + Procellaria at the tribe level (Procellariini); however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank.

19. Procellaria cinerea was formerly (e.g., (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Adamastor, but most recent classifications have followed (REF), Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Procellaria.

19a. [need records list for each country]

20. Procellaria conspicillata was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Carboneras (1992b), Dickinson 2003) treated as a subspecies of P. aequinoctialis. Ryan (1998) proposed that the conspicillata should be treated as a separate species from Procellaria aequinoctialis based mainly on vocal differences. SACC proposal passed to treat P. conspicillata as a separate species.

21. Procellaria parkinsoni and P. westlandica have been considered conspecific with P. aequinoctialis (e.g., REFS); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), which would also include P. conspicillata. Procellaria westlandica is considered regular off Chile and Argentina following Brinkley et al. (2000).

21a. See Olmos (2001) for a summary of records and status off Brazil, and Savigny (2002) for a sight record off Argentina.

22. Called "Black Petrel" in (REFS), Carboneras (1992b), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). See Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale against use of "Black Petrel."

23. Calonectris was formerly included in genus Puffinus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), but most recent classifications have followed Alexander et al. (1965) and Jouanin and Mougin (1979) in treating it as a separate genus. Genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) also support treatment of Calonectris as a separate genus, sister genus to Puffinus. Other analyses of the same groups (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) found that Calonectris formed a distinct group for which the relationship to the two major groups of Puffinus could not be resolved; see Note 23a.

23a. Based on genetic data, Penhallurick & Wink (2004) proposed that Puffinus be subdivided into two genera: (1) Ardenna for creatopus/carneipes, gravis, griseus, tenuirostris, pacifica, and bulleri; and (2) Puffinus for all other taxa. However, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank. SACC proposal to split Ardenna from Puffinus did not pass. Other genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et al. 2011) have confirmed these findings, and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) adopted this classification. SACC proposal passed to recognize Ardenna and to modify linear sequence of species.

23b. Puffinus pacificus and P. bulleri were formerly placed in the genus Thyellodroma; see Oberholser (1917) for rationale. Peters (1931) treated Thyellodroma as a subgenus of Puffinus, and this has been followed in subsequent classifications.

24. Some authors (Bannerman and Bannerman 1968, Patteson and Armistead 2004, Onley & Scofield 2007) have recognized the subspecies edwardsii and borealis as separate species from Calonectris diomedea, but see Penhallurick & Wink (2004). Banks et al. (2006) formally recognized edwardsii as a separate species. Proposal passed to treated edwardsii as a separate species. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) recognized both edwardsii and borealis as separate species. At least two specimens of edwardsii have been collected in Brazil (Lima et al. 2002), and borealis is known from Trinidad (Collins 1969), but majority of records are not assigned to subspecies; evidently, no certain record of nominate diomedea exists for South America <?>.

24a. Calonectris diomedea was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) known as Puffinus kuhli, but see REFS, Jouanin and Mougin (1979).

25. Formerly called "Gray-backed Shearwater" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) or "New Zealand Shearwater" (e.g., AOU 1957).

25a. <incorp. Austin (1996)?>

25b. Recent specimen record from Brazil (Souto et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Records from Peru and Chile refer to misidentified specimens of Ardenna grisea (Eisenmann & Serventy 1962).

26. Formerly know as "Greater Shearwater" in most New World literature, but Chesser et al. (2010) changed the name to Great Shearwater to conform to usage elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change English name.

27. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support the traditional treatment of Ardenna creatopus and A. carneipes as sister taxa. Some authors (e.g., REFS, Penhallurick & Wink 2004) consider them to be conspecific.

27a. The status of Ardenna carneipes in South American waters is under review and may be downgraded to "V".

28. Called "Common Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

28a. Jouanin and Mougin (1979) considered Puffinus puffinus (broadly defined), P. assimilis, and P. lherminieri, along with extralimital P. gavia and P. huttoni, to be members of the subgenus Puffinus and thus are considered each other's closest relatives. Genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are consistent with treatment of the subgenus as monophyletic (if the Galapagos taxon subalaris is removed; see Note 31). Species limits in this complex are controversial, including within the taxa currently or previously treated as subspecies of P. puffinus. As far as can be determined <check>, South American records all pertain to nominate P. puffinus. <incorp. Wink et al. 1993, Heidrich et al. 1998>

29. Puffinus assimilis and P. lherminieri were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered conspecific; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Some genetic data (Austin et al. 2004) are not consistent with their treatment as sister taxa, but other genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) support this treatment. More recent genetic data (Pyle et al. 2011) are ambiguous concerning their relationship and also indicate that P. lherminieri may consist of several species, as had been indicated by studies of the populations breeding in the eastern Atlantic. Nonbreeding specimens from South America need to be re-examined with this in mind.

30. Called "Dusky-backed Shearwater" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

31. The taxon subalaris of the Galapagos Islands is traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lherminieri. However, genetic data (Austin et al. 2004, Pyle et

al. 2011) strongly indicate that subalaris is a species-level taxon closely related to P. nativitatis and only distantly related to P. lherminieri. Murphy (1927) long ago noted the morphological distinctiveness of this taxon. SACC proposal passed to recognize subalaris as a species. Pyle at al. (2011) found that subalaris fell outside the main group of Puffinus shearwaters that includes P. lherminieri, P. assimilis, extralimital P. puffinus, etc. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

32. The species in the genus Pelecanoides were traditionally placed in their own family, Pelecanoididae. Livezey and Zusi (2007) even treated them in their own suborder, as sister to all other Procellariiformes. However, genetic data (Nunn & Stanley 1998, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006) had previously indicated that they might be embedded within the Procellariidae, as suggested by Cracraft (1981). Hackett et al. (2008) found a strongly supported sister relationship between the Pelecanoididae and Procellariidae, but with very limited taxon-sampling. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families. Christidis and Boles (2008) and Cracraft (2013) included them within the Procellariidae without even subfamily rank. Prum et al. (2015) found that Pelecanoides was embedded in the Procellariidae. SACC proposal passed to remove Pelecanoididae and to treat Pelecanoides as a genus in Procellariidae.

33. Carboneras (1992b) considered Pelecanoides garnotii, P. georgicus, and P. magellani to form a superspecies [but not reflected in his linear sequence or Kennedy-Page -- check latter].

34. Correct spelling for species name is urinatrix, not "urinator" (David & Gosselin 2002a, Dickinson & Remsen 2013).

35. Called "Subantarctic Diving-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

36. (REFS) recognized the subspecies berard of the Falkland Islands as a separate species from Pelecanoides urinatrix.

37. Gregory (1994) reported that a specimen was salvaged on the Falkland Islands on 31 March 1990 (and specimen "sent to BAS" - track down to verify).

HYDROBATIDAE (STORM-PETRELS) 1, 1aOceanitinae

Fregetta grallaria White-bellied Storm-Petrel 2Fregetta tropica Black-bellied Storm-Petrel (NB) 2Oceanites oceanicus Wilson's Storm-Petrel 2a

Oceanites gracilis Elliot's Storm-Petrel 3, 3aGarrodia nereis Gray-backed Storm-PetrelPelagodroma marina White-faced Storm-Petrel (NB)

HydrobatinaeOceanodroma microsoma Least Storm-Petrel (NB) 4Oceanodroma tethys Wedge-rumped Storm-Petrel 4, 5Oceanodroma castro Band-rumped Storm-Petrel 5a, 5bOceanodroma leucorhoa Leach's Storm-Petrel (NB) 6, 6aOceanodroma markhami Markham's Storm-Petrel 6a, 7, 7a, 8, 9Oceanodroma hornbyi Ringed Storm-Petrel 10, 10aOceanodroma melania Black Storm-Petrel (NB) 4, 11, 12

1. Linear sequence of genera is modified from Kennedy & Page (2002) wherever their nodes received high bootstrap support. Many classifications (e.g., Carboneras 1992c) divide the family into two subfamilies. Recent genetic data supports recognition of these two subfamilies (Penhallurick & Wink 2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize two subfamilies. Until recently, the monophyly of the family had never been questioned seriously, but Hackett et al. (2008) found that the southern storm-petrels, Oceanitinae, were sister to all other procellariiforms, and thus Cracraft (2013) elevated them to family rank, Oceanitidae. Prum et al. (2015) found that they were sister to Hydrobatidae + Procellariidae. Proposal badly needed. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) revised generic limits in the Hydrobatinae, e.g., based on their finding that Oceanodroma is paraphyletic; they resurrected and the genera Cymochorea, Halocyptena, and Thalobata. SACC proposal to recognize these genera did not pass. SACC proposal to merge Oceanodroma into Hydrobates did not pass. See Rheindt & Austin (2005) for a critique of those data and their taxonomic interpretation. Robertson et al. (2011) confirmed the paraphyly of Oceanodroma with respect to Hydrobates. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) merged Oceanodroma with Hydrobates (the latter name has priority). Proposal badly needed. <wait NACC proposal> Most species were formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called simply "Petrel" rather than "Storm-Petrel."

1a. SACC proposal to change to lower case the "p" in "Storm-Petrel" did not pass.

2. Fregetta grallaria and F. tropica were considered conspecific by (REFS).

2a. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies exasperatus might be a separate species from nominate Oceanites oceanicus.

3. A new species, Oceanites pincoyae, “Pincoya Storm-Petrel”, has been described from Chilean waters (Harrison et al. 2013). Recognized by del Hoyo and Collar (2014). SACC proposal pending.

3a. Called "White-vented Storm-Petrel" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty and Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Schulenberg et al. (2007), and elsewhere. Proposal needed.

4. Oceanodroma microsoma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Jouanin and Mougin 1979, Carboneras 1992c) placed in the monotypic genus Halocyptena, evidently based mostly on tail shape and body size, but most recent classifications have followed (REF, AOU 1983) in merging this into Oceanodroma. Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) suggest that this species is sister to Oceanodroma tethys, and that they are the sister to O. melania, and O. matsudairae; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocated resurrection of Halocyptena for these four species. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.

5. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) known as "Galapagos Storm-Petrel."

5a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Harcourt's Storm-Petrel."

5b. Mayr & Short (1970) considered O. castro to form a superspecies with O. leucorhoa, but Penhallurick & Wink (2004) and Robertson et al. (2011) found that O. castro was sister to all other Oceanodroma + extralimital Hydrobates. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) thus advocated resurrection of the monotypic genus Thalobata for O. castro. SACC proposal to recognize Thalobata did not pass.

5c. Recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2007) suggest that Oceanodroma castro consists of two or more species. Proposal needed.

6. Oceanodroma leucorhoa may actually consist of two or more species (Ainley 1980, 1983; cf. Bourne & Jehl 1982). The form that occurs off the Galapagos Islands, here treated as the subspecies socorroensis, was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) treated as a separate species ("Dusky-rumped Storm-Petrel") or (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) as a subspecies of O. monorhis of the eastern Pacific Ocean. Howell et al. (2009) split O. leucorhoa into three species. Proposal needed.

6a. Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocated resurrection of the genus Cymochorea for O. leucorhoa and O. markhami, along with extralimital O. monorhis and O. tristrami; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank. SACC proposal to recognize Cymochorea did not pass.

7. Supposed specimens of Oceanodroma markhami from the Atlantic side of South America are misidentified O. leucorhoa (Teixeira et al. 1986).

7a. Called "Madeiran Storm-petrel" in Carboneras (1992c).

8. Oceanodroma markhami was considered conspecific with O. tristrami of the eastern Pacific Ocean by <?> Austin (REF).

9. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Sooty Storm-Petrel."

10. Called "Hornby's Storm-Petrel" in Carboneras (1992a), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Onley & Scofield (2007), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal to standardize as Ringed Storm-Petrel passed. SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

10a. Oceanodroma hornbyi is treated here as breeding in South America based on the assumption that it breeds somewhere near its nonbreeding grounds, which are exclusively off the southern Pacific coast of South America; its breeding grounds, however, are unknown.

11. Oceanodroma melania was formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1965) placed, sometimes also with O. matsudairae of the eastern Pacific Ocean and Indian Ocean, in a separate genus, Loomelania, but see Austin (1952) and Palmer (1962). The two species might be better treated as conspecific (Carboneras 1992c), as they were until Austin (1952). Recent genetic data (Penhallurick & Wink 2004) indicate that O. melania forms a group with O. microsoma and O. tethys; Penhallurick & Wink (2004) advocate recognizing this relationship (including O. matsudairae) by placing them in the genus Halocyptena; however, see Rheindt & Austin (2005) on use of genetic distances for assigning taxon rank; see also Note 4. SACC proposal to recognize Halocyptena did not pass.

12. Oceanodroma melania forms a superspecies with extralimital O. matsudairae (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered conspecific, but see Austin (1952).

CICONIIFORMES 1CICONIIDAE (STORKS) 1

Ciconia maguari Maguari Stork 2Jabiru mycteria JabiruMycteria americana Wood Stork 3

1. This order traditionally also included the Ardeidae and the Threskiornithidae, but neither genetic data (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) or recent analyses of morphological data (Mayr & Clarke 2003) could confirm the monophyly of a group that consists of Ardeidae, Threskiornithidae, and Ciconiidae. See also Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes. SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the Pelecaniformes. Cracraft (2013) reduced the Ciconiiformes to a suborder of the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of the Ciconiidae itself is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS).

2. Ciconia maguari was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Euxenura, but see Kahl (1971a, 1971b, 1972a, 1972b) and Wood (1983, 1984) for behavioral and morphological reasons for its merger into Ciconia; followed by Kahl (1979a), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Elliot (1992), and Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

3. Formerly known as "Wood Ibis" (e.g., AOU 1957) or "American Wood-Ibis" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970); called "American Wood Stork" in Hancock et al. (1992).

SULIFORMES 1FREGATIDAE (FRIGATEBIRDS) 16

Fregata ariel Lesser FrigatebirdFregata magnificens Magnificent Frigatebird 17Fregata minor Great Frigatebird

SULIDAE (BOOBIES) 3aMorus capensis Cape Gannet (V) 4, 5Morus serrator Australasian Gannet (V) 4, 6Sula nebouxii Blue-footed BoobySula variegata Peruvian BoobySula dactylatra Masked Booby 7, 7aSula granti Nazca Booby 7Sula sula Red-footed BoobySula leucogaster Brown Booby

PHALACROCORACIDAE (CORMORANTS) 8Phalacrocorax gaimardi Red-legged CormorantPhalacrocorax harrisi Flightless Cormorant 9Phalacrocorax brasilianus Neotropic Cormorant 9, 10, 10aPhalacrocorax magellanicus Magellanic Cormorant 11Phalacrocorax bougainvillii Guanay Cormorant 12Phalacrocorax atriceps Imperial Cormorant 13, 13a, 14

ANHINGIDAE (ANHINGAS)Anhinga anhinga Anhinga 15

1. The families in this order are traditionally included in the Pelecaniformes, but genetic data indicate that that traditional group is not monophyletic; see Note 1 under Pelecaniformes. Support is strong, however, for the monophyly of a group that includes Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Harshman 1994, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Kennedy & Spencer 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). Chesser at al. (2010) removed Sulidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae from the Pelecaniformes and placed them in their own new order, Suliformes. SACC proposal passed to remove these from Pelecaniformes and place in their own order. Cracraft (2013) reduced the Suliformes to a suborder, Suloidea, of the Pelecaniformes. The monophyly of each family has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by or corroborated with genetic data for the Sulidae (Friesen & Anderson 1997), the Phalacrocoracidae (Kennedy et al. 2000), and the Fregatidae (Kennedy & Spencer 2004). The sequence of genera and species within each family follows Dorst and Mougin (1979).

3a. <sequence within Sulidae; incorp. Friesen & Anderson (1997)>

4. Carboneras (1992e) and other references followed the merger (e.g., Dorst and Mougin 1979) of Morus into Sula; see Olson & Warheit (1988) and Van Tets et al. (1988) for reasons for maintaining Morus as a separate genus.

5. SACC proposal passed to add to main list; based upon photograph taken at Macabí Island, n. Peru, on 22 July 1999, published in García-Godos (2002). In Argentina, an earlier photograph was published from the Beagle Channel taken on 21 Jan. 1995 (Ramírez Llorens 1996); there are three additional sight records from Río Negro province Nov. 1992, Nov. 1995, and Oct. 1996 (Bergkamp 1995, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001). The species was also recorded off Rio Grande do Sul, se. Brazil, from Jul. to Aug 1992 (unpublished photographs) and in Apr. 1983 (Vooren 2004; published photograph).

6. Specimen from Santa Catarina, Brazil (Bege & Pauli 1986).

7. Sula granti was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) considered a subspecies of S. dactylatra, but Pitman and Jehl (1998) presented evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; genetic data are also consistent with this treatment (Friesen et al. 2002). SACC proposal to change the English name to "Grant's Booby" did not pass.

7a. Formerly (e.g., REFS) known as "Blue-faced Booby."

8. Although the monophyly of the Phalacrocoracidae has never been questioned, treatment within the family has ranged from subfamilies and multiple genera, e.g., Hypoleucus, Stictocarbo, Leucocarbo, Notocarbo (Siegel-Causey 1988) to all species in a single genus, Phalacrocorax (e.g. Dickinson 2003). Kennedy et al. (2009) showed that the subfamilies and most genera of Siegel-Causey were not monophyletic. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), using the data in Kennedy et al. (2000, 2009), resurrected Microcarbo for a group of five Old World species, but all New World species remained in Phalacrocorax. Kennedy and Spencer (2014), using additional new genetic data, split Phalacrocorax into seven genera, restricting Phalacrocorax to a group of Old World species, and placing South American taxa into Nannopterum (for brasilianus and harrisi), Poikilocarbo (for gaimardi), and Leucocarbo (for magellanicus, bougainvillii, atriceps). SACC proposal to revise classification of genera did not pass. SACC proposal to revise linear sequence of species passed.

9. Phalacrocorax harrisi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the monotypic genus Nannopterum, but recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a) have usually followed Dorst and Mougin (1979) in merging this into Phalacrocorax. [note needed on the lump, Causey REFS?]. Genetic data (Kennedy et al. 2009) support a close relationship between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus + North American P. auritus (contra van Tets [1976] and Siegel-Causey [1988]). Murphy (1936) had previously noted the morphological similarities between P. harrisi and P. brasilianus. Kennedy and Spencer (2014) confirmed the close relationship of these three species and resurrected Nannopterum for them. See Note 8.

10. See Browning (1989) for use of brasilianus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), instead of olivaceus, as in Pinto (1938), AOU (1957), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), etc.

10a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1983) known as "Olivaceous Cormorant." SACC proposal did not pass to change spelling of English name to "Neotropical."

11. Called "Magellanic Cormorant" in Hellmayr & Conover (1948), "Rock Shag" in Murphy (1936), Johnson (1965), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Orta (1992a), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), and "Rock Cormorant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and Blake (1977) Jaramillo (2003), and Marín (2004), and "Magellan Cormorant" in Howard & Moore (1994). SACC proposal passed to change from Magellan Cormorant to Magellanic Cormorant.

12. Called "Guanay Shag" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

13. Phalacrocorax atriceps here includes P. albiventer, formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Dorst and Mougin 1979) treated as a distinct species ("King Cormorant"). Devillers & Terschuren (1978) considered albiventer to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, and Siegel-Causey (1986) considered it to be a color morph of atriceps. [incorp. Rasmussen 1991].

13a. Called "Imperial Shag" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).

14. Some recent authors (e.g., Siegel-Causey 1988, Siegel-Causey & Lefrevre 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Orta 1992a, Jaramillo 2003) have considered the subspecies bransfieldensis of Antarctica and South Shetland Island to deserve recognition as a separate species from Phalacrocorax atriceps. At least one record of bransfieldensis for South America (Brazil; Lima et al. 2002). Proposal needed.

15. Anhinga anhinga was considered to form a superspecies with Old World A. rufa, A. melanogaster, and A. novaehollandiae by Mayr & Short (1970); the Old World taxa are treated as conspecific by Orta (1992b) and Dickinson (2003).

16. Genetic data (Kennedy & Spencer 2004) indicate that Fregata ariel is basal to all other species in the genus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

17. Morphological and genetic data indicate that the Galapagos population of Fregata magnificens may merit rank as a separate species (Hailer et al. 2010). Proposal badly needed.

PELECANIFORMES 1PELECANIDAE (PELICANS)

Pelecanus occidentalis Brown Pelican 2Pelecanus thagus Peruvian Pelican 2

1. The order Pelecaniformes traditionally also included the families Phaethontidae, Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae. Studies using genetic and morphological data have questioned the monophyly of the order (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007, Mayr 2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007). To restore the monophyly of the Pelecaniformes, the Phaethontidae has been removed and elevated to the rank of order (see Note 1 under Phaethontiformes), and the Phalacrocoracidae, Sulidae, Anhingidae, and Fregatidae and have been removed and placed in their own order, Suliformes (see Note 1 under that order). Two Afrotropical families, Balaenicipitidae and Scopidae, are the most likely sister taxa to the Pelecanidae (Hedges & Sibley 1994, Siegel-Causey 1997, van Tuinen et al. 2001, Fain and Houde 2004, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Prum et al. 2015; cf. Mayr 2003, Mayr and Clarke 2003). Two other families, the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae, are traditionally placed in the Ciconiiformes, but genetic data (Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) indicate that that group is not monophyletic and that the Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae form a monophyletic group with the Pelecanidae. Chesser at al. (2010) removed Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from the Ciconiiformes and placed them in the Pelecaniformes. SACC proposal passed to remove Ardeidae and Threskiornithidae from Ciconiiformes and to place them in the Pelecaniformes.

2. Although treated as a subspecies of P. occidentalis in most classifications since Peters (1931) and Wetmore (1945), some authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) recognized South American thagus as a separate species from Pelecanus occidentalis. SACC proposal passed to treat thagus as separate species. This treatment was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and Banks et al. (2008).

ARDEIDAE (HERONS) 1Tigrisoma lineatum Rufescent Tiger-Heron 2aTigrisoma fasciatum Fasciated Tiger-Heron 2aTigrisoma mexicanum Bare-throated Tiger-Heron 2bAgamia agami Agami Heron 3Cochlearius cochlearius Boat-billed Heron 4, 4aZebrilus undulatus Zigzag Heron 7Botaurus pinnatus Pinnated Bittern 8Ixobrychus exilis Least Bittern 9

Ixobrychus involucris Stripe-backed BitternNycticorax nycticorax Black-crowned Night-Heron 5Nyctanassa violacea Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 6Butorides virescens Green Heron 10, 11Butorides striata Striated Heron 10, 12, 13Ardeola ralloides Squacco Heron (V) 13aBubulcus ibis Cattle Egret 14Ardea cinerea Gray Heron (V) 15, 16Ardea herodias Great Blue Heron 16Ardea cocoi Cocoi Heron 16, 17Ardea purpurea Purple Heron (V) 17aArdea alba Great Egret 18, 18aSyrigma sibilatrix Whistling Heron 19Pilherodius pileatus Capped Heron 20Egretta tricolor Tricolored Heron 21, 21aEgretta rufescens Reddish Egret 21, 22Egretta gularis Western Reef-Heron (V) 23, 25Egretta garzetta Little Egret (V) 24, 25Egretta thula Snowy Egret 25, 25aEgretta caerulea Little Blue Heron 21, 26

1. The monophyly of the family Ardeidae has never been seriously questioned other than the treatment of Cochlearius in a separate, monotypic family. Bock (1956) divided the family into two subfamilies, Botaurinae (Botaurus and Ixobrychus) and Ardeinae (all other genera), and further divided the Ardeinae into three tribes: Ardeini (Ardea, Egretta, Agamia, Butorides, Ardeola), Nycticoracini (Nycticorax, Cochlearius, Gorsachius), and Tigriornithini (Zebrilus, Tigrisoma, Zonerodius, Tigriornis). Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered all four groups as subfamilies. Genetic data, however, have shown that none of these groupings are monophyletic other than the sister relationship between Botaurus an Ixobrychus (but these genera are not sister to all other herons). The sequence of genera (and some species within genera) used here derives from the phylogeny of Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), Sheldon et al. (2000), and some unpublished data from Fred Sheldon.

2a. Tigrisoma fasciatum was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a subspecies of T. lineatum, and the subspecies salmoni was considered a separate species (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965); REFS, and Eisenmann (1965) provided rationale for why T. fasciatum should

be considered a separate species and why salmoni should be considered a subspecies of T. fasciatum.

2b. Tigrisoma mexicanum was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1965) placed in a monotypic genus, Heterocnus.

2c. The species name formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) used for mexicanum was cabanisi, but see Blake (1977).

3. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) known as "Chestnut-bellied Heron."

4. Cochlearius was formerly placed in a monotypic family Cochleariidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Bock (1956), Payne & Risley (1976), Sheldon (1987), and Sheldon et al. (2000). Plumage and skeletal characters have often been interpreted as suggesting as close relationship to Nycticorax (Bock 1956, Cracraft 1967). Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) placed it in a tribe, Cochlearini, related to but separate from night-herons, based on a combination of morphological and plumage characters. Genetic data, however, do not confirm a close link between Cochlearius and night-herons (Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000), but perhaps a closer relationship to Tigrisoma (Sheldon 1987). Scofield et al.'s (2010) analysis of skeletal characters suggested a closer relationship to Botaurus and Ixobrychus.

4a. The subspecies zeledoni of Middle America and northwestern South America may deserve treatment as a separate species from Cochlearius cochlearius (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see (REFS).

5. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Nycticorax nycticorax to form a superspecies with Old World N. caledonicus.

6. Nyctanassa has been included in Nycticorax in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, AOU 1983), but Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) retained Nyctanassa on the basis of skeletal differences <check Adams 1955>. Genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) also indicate substantial divergence between these taxa, consistent with treatment as separate genera; furthermore, it is not yet certain that the two are sister genera (Sheldon et al. 2000).

7. The relationship of Zebrilus to other herons has been controversial. In terms of some details of egg color, nest placement, plumage features, and some morphological characters as well as overall skeletal morphology, it is like the bitterns, but in terms of other plumage and morphological characters, it is like

the tiger-herons (see Bock 1956, Payne & Risley 1976, Sheldon et al. 1995). Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 1995), however, place it with the bitterns.

8. Mayr & Short (1970) considered all species of Botaurus to form a superspecies. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. pinnatus to form a superspecies with North American B. lentiginosus and Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus. Payne & Risley (1976), however, note that New and Old World Botaurus differ substantially in skeletal structure, and that pinnatus also differs from lentiginosus in skeletal features; they suggest that the only candidates for superspecies designation are Old World B. stellaris and B. poicilopterus.

9. Mayr & Short (1970), Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ixobrychus exilis to form a superspecies with Old World I. minutus and I. sinensis, and including I. novaezelandiae when given species rank.

10. Butorides virescens and B. striata are often considered conspecific (e.g., Payne 1979, Hancock & Kushlan 1984, Martínez-Vilata and Motis 1992), based mainly on Payne (1974), who reported extensive interbreeding where their ranges meet. Recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1998) have followed Monroe & Browning (1992), who interpreted specimen data to indicate that the two taxa seldom hybridized (see also Voous 1986), thus representing a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). More recently, Hayes (2002) provided evidence of frequent hybridization as well as competitive exclusion and assortative mating, and Hayes (2006) found that on Tobago, where both occur, hybridization is rare and assortative mating predominates.

11. Payne & Risley (1976) merged Butorides into Ardeola based on skeletal similarities.

12. SACC proposal to split Butorides sundevalli from B. striatus did not pass, which found the analysis by Payne (1974) sufficient to place burden-of-proof on recognizing sundevalli as a species on obtaining new data. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and AOU (1998) recognized sundevalli as a species implicitly, but it was treated as conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) and elsewhere. <incorp. Snow 1975> (Beyond scope of this work is the problem that current classifications consider Neotropical and all Old World taxa as conspecific, separate from B. virescens, which would seem difficult to defend given what we know about limited gene flow between parapatric virescens and Neotropical striatus).

13. Butorides is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is striata (David & Gosselin 2002b).

13a. Photograph from Fernando de Noronha island (Silva-e-Silva and Olmos 2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Previous sight record also from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989).

14. Bubulcus is included in the genus Ardeola in some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), but Wetmore (1965) and Payne & Risley (1976) listed many characters of Bubulcus that differ from other species in Ardeola. Payne & Risley (1976) and Payne (1979) merged Bubulcus into Egretta based mainly on morphometric data, and this was followed by Haverschmidt & Mees (1994). Genetic data, however, do not support a close relationship between Bubulcus and Egretta, but suggest a close relationship to Ardea (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000, McCracken & Sheldon 1998).

15. Band recovery from Trinidad, 27 Aug 1959 (Baudouin-Bodin 1960) and published photo from Trinidad (Kenefick & Hayes 2006); also additional sight records for Trinidad and Tobago accepted by Trinidad & Tobago Rare Birds Committee (White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Kenefick 2012). Sick (1993) cited another band recovery from Capitao Poco, Ourem, Pará, in Dec 1975.

16. Payne & Risley (1976), Payne (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992) considered Ardea cinerea, A. herodias, and A. cocoi to form a superspecies.

17. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "White-necked Heron," but this name is also used (e.g., Martínez-Vilata & Motis 1992) for Old World Ardea pacifica.

17a. One photographed on Trinidad 24 Sept.-10 Oct. 2002 (Kenefick 2004) and published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Additional bird photographed on Tobago in 2010 (Kenefick 2012). Also, one sight record from Fernando de Noronha island, Brazil (Teixeira et al. 1987, Nacinovic & Teixeira 1987, 1989).

18. Ardea alba was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983) placed in monotypic genus Casmerodius, but morphometric (Payne and Risley 1976), vocal (McCracken & Sheldon 1987), and genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, McCracken & Sheldon 1998) do not support recognition of this as a separate genus from Ardea. Some classifications (e.g., Bock 1956, Blake 1977) have placed Ardea alba in Egretta, but see Sheldon (1987), Sheldon et al. (1995), McCracken & Sheldon (1998), and Sheldon et al. (2000). Some recent genetic data (Chang et al. 2003) support resurrection of Casmerodius.

18a. Formerly known as "Common Egret" (e.g., AOU 1957, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994); called "Great White Egret" in Voous (1983), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

19. Genetic data indicate that Syrigma, whose relationships have long been considered uncertain, is the sister genus to Egretta (McCracken & Sheldon 1988, Sheldon et al. 2000).

20. Bock (1956) included Pilherodius in Nycticorax based on plumage similarities, but morphometric data (Payne & Risley 1976) do not support this.

21. Egretta tricolor was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Hydranassa. Bock (1956) also placed E. rufescens and E. caerulea in Hydranassa. Neither morphometric (Payne & Risley 1976) or genetic data (Sheldon 1987, Sheldon et al. 1995, 2000) support this group as monophyletic.

21a. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Louisiana Heron."

22. Egretta rufescens was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Dichromanassa, but see Bock (1956).

23. Recorded from Trinidad (Murphy & Nanan 1987, Kenefick & Hayes 2006) and Tobago (ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick & Hayes 2006).

24. Egretta garzetta has been recorded many times in Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & Hayes 1998, ffrench & White 1999, Hayes & White 2001, White & Hayes 2002, Kenefick & Hayes 2006), including a specimen (Downs 1959). There is a band recovery from Suriname (Haverschmidt & Mees 1994), and a photograph from Brazil (Bencke et al. 2005). There are sight reports from Guyana (Ryan 1997) and Aruba (Mlodinow 2004) and an unpublished photograph from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).

25. Egretta gularis and E. garzetta were considered conspecific in Martínez-Vilata and Motis (1992); Payne & Risley (1976) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered E. gularis, E. garzetta, and E. thula to form a superspecies.

25a. Egretta thula was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the monotypic genus Leucophoyx, but see Bock (1956), Wetmore (1956), and Dickerman & Parkes (1968).

26. Egretta caerulea was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Florida, but see Bock (1956), Dickerman & Parkes (1968), Payne & Risley (1976), and McCracken & Sheldon (1998).

THRESKIORNITHIDAE (IBISES) 1, 1aEudocimus albus White Ibis 2, 3, 3aEudocimus ruber Scarlet Ibis 2Plegadis falcinellus Glossy Ibis 4Plegadis chihi White-faced Ibis 4Plegadis ridgwayi Puna Ibis 5Cercibis oxycerca Sharp-tailed IbisMesembrinibis cayennensis Green Ibis 6Phimosus infuscatus Bare-faced Ibis 7Theristicus caerulescens Plumbeous Ibis 8, 8aTheristicus caudatus Buff-necked Ibis 9Theristicus melanopis Black-faced Ibis 9Platalea leucorodia Eurasian Spoonbill (V) 10Platalea ajaja Roseate Spoonbill 11

1. The monophyly of the Threskiornithidae has never been seriously questioned. Two subfamilies are traditionally (e.g., Matheu & del Hoyo 1992) recognized: Threskiornithinae for ibises and Plataleinae for spoonbills; genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Fleischer & McIntosh 2001, Chesser et al. 2010), however, indicate that the "Threskiornithinae" as traditionally defined is paraphyletic with respect to "Plataleinae."

1a. For use of Threskiornithidae over Plataleidae and Eudicimidae, see ICZN (1992).

2. Eudocimus albus and E. ruber have similar displays, interbreed to a limited degree, and are interfertile, but nonetheless mate assortatively in Venezuela, with the overwhelming majority of breeding birds phenotypically "pure" rather than intermediate (Ramos & Busto 1983, 1985, 1987); they constitute a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were considered conspecific by Hancock et al. (1992) because of the frequent interbreeding; see their extensive discussion. Proposal?

3. The name formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) used for the genus Eudocimus was Guara, but see Parkes (1951).

3a. Called "American White Ibis" in Hancock et al. (1992) and Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) to distinguish it from "Australian White Ibis" (Threskiornis molucca), which is elsewhere called “Australian Ibis” (e.g. Dickinson & Remsen 2013).

4. Plegadis falcinellus and P. chihi form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990). They were formerly considered conspecific by some (e.g., Parkes 1955, Palmer 1962), but they breed sympatrically in Louisiana and Alabama, USA (Ryder 1967, Duncan & Johnson 1977).

5. Plegadis ridgwayi was considered part of the P. falcinellus superspecies by REF, but see Short (1975).

6. Called "Cayenne Ibis" in Wetmore (1965).

7. Called "Whispering Ibis" in Matheu & del Hoyo (1992) and elsewhere.

8. Theristicus caerulescens is often (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Short 1975, Hancock et al. 1992) placed in monotypic genus Harpiprion, but most authors have followed (REF) and Steinbacher (1979) in merging this genus into Theristicus. Proposal needed. <Hancock et al. 1992 suggested that no data support this lump>

8a. David & Dickinson (2016) presented evidence that the original spelling of the species name is coerulescens. SACC proposal to change to coerulescens did not pass.

9. Theristicus melanopis is often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Hancock et al. 1992) considered conspecific with T. caudatus. However, it (with branickii) was considered a separate species by Steinbacher (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Matheu & del Hoyo (1992), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), etc., but no explicit rationale has been published [?]; they form a superspecies (Steinbacher 1979). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered branickii as separate species ("Andean Ibis") from melanopis; anecdotal observations (Vizcarra 2009) suggest that the two taxa segregate where they occur sympatrically during nonbreeding season. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated branickii as a separate species. Proposal needed.

10. Photo from Tobago published in Kenefick & Hayes (2006). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Also, one was photographed on Fernando de Noronha island in Jan.-Feb. 1999 (Dutch Birding 24: 205).

11. Platalea ajaja was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1998) placed in monotypic genus Ajaia, but see Amadon & Woolfenden (1952), Snow (1978), Hancock et al. (1992), Banks et al. (2002), and Chesser et al. (2010) for inclusion in Platalea, as it is now typically treated (e.g., Mayr and Short 1970, Steinbacher 1979 <check citation>, Matheu & del Hoyo 1992, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

CATHARTIFORMES 1CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURES) 1

Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture 2Cathartes burrovianus Lesser Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 4Cathartes melambrotus Greater Yellow-headed Vulture 3, 5Coragyps atratus Black Vulture 6Sarcoramphus papa King VultureVultur gryphus Andean Condor

1. Ligon (1967) summarized previous evidence and presented new evidence on skeletal morphology, myology, and natal plumage that suggested that the Cathartidae were more closely related to the Ciconiidae than to other Falconiformes. <summarize subsequent evidence/against ciconiiform relationship, Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Avise et al. (1994), Griffiths (1994), Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain & Houde (2004) etc., >. Recent genetic data strongly refute a cathartid-stork relationship (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2006, Slack et al. 2007, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015). SACC proposal passed to remove from Ciconiiformes. The monophyly of the Cathartidae is strongly supported by multiple data sets (e.g., REFS, Johnson et al. 2016), and the family is sufficiently distinctive that fossil cathartids can be recognized as far back as the middle Eocene (e.g., Cracraft & Rich 1972). SACC proposal passed for placement in separate order, Cathartiformes. Johnson et al. (2016) found that the family consists of two major lineages, one with Coragyps and Cathartes, and the other with Sarcoramphus, Vultur, and extralimital Gymnogyps. SACC proposal pending to modify linear sequence.

2. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the resident tropical subspecies ruficollis and the southern subspecies group (jota and "falklandica") might merit recognition as separate species from the northern Cathartes aura group.

3. Cathartes melambrotus was confused with and considered conspecific with C. burrovianus until Wetmore (1964) described it and showed that it was a valid species, sympatric with C. burrovianus. Amadon & Bull (1988) considered Cathartes burrovianus and C. melambrotus to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric. Genetic data (Johnson et al. 2016) show that these two species are probably sister species.

4. Cathartes burrovianus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as C. urubutinga, but burrovianus has priority (Stresemann & Amadon 1979).

5. Correct spelling of species name is melambrotus, not "melambrotos" (as, e.g., in Meyer de Schauensee 1970).

6. Called "American Black Vulture" in Houston (1994) to distinguish it from Palearctic Aegypius monachus ("Eurasian Black Vulture"); the latter is called “Cinereous Vulture” in Dickinson (2003) and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). SACC proposal to change to American Black Vulture did not pass. Although del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also called Aegypius monachus “Cinereous Vulture”, they continued to call Coragyps atratus "American Black Vulture".

ACCIPITRIFORMES 1PANDIONIDAE (OSPREY) 2

Pandion haliaetus Osprey (NB)

ACCIPITRIDAE (HAWKS) 3Elaninae

Elanus leucurus White-tailed Kite 5b, 5cGampsonyx swainsonii Pearl Kite 5a, 5c

GypaetinaeChondrohierax uncinatus Hook-billed Kite 4bLeptodon cayanensis Gray-headed Kite 3a, 4, 3cLeptodon forbesi White-collared Kite 3c, 4, 4aElanoides forficatus Swallow-tailed Kite 3c, 5

AccipitrinaeMorphnus guianensis Crested Eagle 27, 27a, 27bHarpia harpyja Harpy Eagle 27aSpizaetus tyrannus Black Hawk-Eagle 30Spizaetus melanoleucus Black-and-white Hawk-Eagle 30Spizaetus ornatus Ornate Hawk-Eagle 28, 30Spizaetus isidori Black-and-chestnut Eagle 29, 30, 30aBusarellus nigricollis Black-collared Hawk 17aRostrhamus sociabilis Snail Kite 6, 6aHelicolestes hamatus Slender-billed Kite 7

Harpagus bidentatus Double-toothed Kite 6a, 7cHarpagus diodon Rufous-thighed Kite 6aIctinia mississippiensis Mississippi Kite (NB) 6a, 7a, 7bIctinia plumbea Plumbeous Kite 6a, 7aCircus cyaneus Northern Harrier (NB) 8a, 8bCircus cinereus Cinereous Harrier 8bCircus buffoni Long-winged Harrier 8cAccipiter poliogaster Gray-bellied Hawk 9, 9aAccipiter superciliosus Tiny Hawk 9aaAccipiter collaris Semicollared Hawk 9aaAccipiter striatus Sharp-shinned Hawk 10, 10aAccipiter cooperii Cooper's Hawk (V) 11, 11aAccipiter bicolor Bicolored Hawk 11a, 12Milvus migrans Black Kite (V) 11fGeranospiza caerulescens Crane Hawk 11b, 11c, 11d, 11eCryptoleucopteryx plumbea Plumbeous Hawk 12b, 12cButeogallus schistaceus Slate-colored Hawk 12b, 12cButeogallus anthracinus Common Black Hawk 14, 14aButeogallus aequinoctialis Rufous Crab Hawk 14Buteogallus meridionalis Savanna Hawk 15Buteogallus lacernulatus White-necked Hawk 12b, 12dButeogallus urubitinga Great Black Hawk 14bButeogallus solitarius Solitary Eagle 16, 16bButeogallus coronatus Chaco Eagle 16, 17Morphnarchus princeps Barred Hawk 12bbRupornis magnirostris Roadside Hawk 20, 20aParabuteo unicinctus Harris's Hawk 19, 19a, 19bParabuteo leucorrhous White-rumped Hawk 21Geranoaetus albicaudatus White-tailed Hawk 23, 23aGeranoaetus polyosoma Variable Hawk 23a, 24, 25Geranoaetus melanoleucus Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle 18,

18aPseudastur polionotus Mantled Hawk 12b, 12ePseudastur albicollis White Hawk 12ePseudastur occidentalis Gray-backed Hawk 12eLeucopternis semiplumbeus Semiplumbeous Hawk 12b, 12dLeucopternis melanops Black-faced Hawk 12dLeucopternis kuhli White-browed Hawk 12dButeo nitidus Gray-lined Hawk 13, 13aButeo platypterus Broad-winged Hawk (NB)

Buteo albigula White-throated Hawk 22Buteo brachyurus Short-tailed Hawk 22, 22aButeo swainsoni Swainson's Hawk (NB) 23Buteo galapagoensis Galapagos Hawk 23Buteo albonotatus Zone-tailed HawkButeo ventralis Rufous-tailed Hawk 26

1. The traditional Falconiformes is not a monophyletic group. Recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Hackett et al. 2008) refute any close relationship between the Falconidae and other families included in the traditional Falconiformes, which are here placed in a separate order, Accipitriformes. Although Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) found support for the monophyly of broadly defined Falconiformes, subsequent genetic studies (REFs, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006; cf. Mayr and Clarke 2003, Gibb et al. 2007) generally found that the Falconidae are not particularly closely related to the rest of the families in the order. Morphological analyses (Livezey & Zusi 2001, 2007, Mayr & Clarke 2003) that may be driven by convergence on raptorial morphology are the sole support for monophyly. SACC proposal passed to separate Accipitriformes from Falconiformes. Also followed by Chesser et al. (2010). Ericson et al. (2006) and Hackett et al. (2008) found that the Falconiformes are actually more closely related to the Psittaciformes and Passeriformes than to any other orders. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of orders.

2. The Pandionidae has been treated as a subfamily of the Accipitridae by many (e.g., Pinto 1938, Stresemann & Amadon 1979, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003). Although most available data (e.g., Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007) indicate that it is the sister taxon to the hawks and eagles (but see Livezey & Zusi 2007 for possible sister relationship to Falconidae), the rank at which it is treated is rather arbitrary. Given its unique karyotype [REF] (which differs from that known for other hawks and eagles), its unique pterylosis (more similar to Cathartidae than to Accipitridae; Compton 1938), and given that Pandion haliaetus can be recognized as a species in the fossil record as far back as the Miocene [REF], family rank may be more appropriate (as in Friedmann 1950, Wetmore 1965, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Poole 1992, Lerner & Mindell 2005). Although some earlier genetic data (Mindell et al. 1997) suggested that it is the sister to the Old World kite genus Pernix, comprehensive data sets (Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al. 2007, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that it is the sister to all other accipitrids. Chesser et al. (2010) elevated the group from subfamily to family rank.

3. The monophyly of the Accipitridae has never been seriously questioned, and recent comprehensive genetic analyses (Lerner & Mindell 2005, Griffiths et al.

2007, Lerner et al. 2008) confirm the monophyly of the family. Lerner & Mindell (2005) found that the Accipitridae consisted of fourteen principle lineages, which they designated with subfamily rank. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that the family consists of eight major lineages, which they designated using tribe, subtribe, and infratribe ranks; none of Peters (1931) subfamilies was found to be monophyletic. SACC proposal passed to recognize three subfamilies.

3a. Leptodon cayanensis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938) known as Odontriorchis palliatus.

3b. Called "Cayenne Kite" in Wetmore (1964).

3c. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Leptodon and Elanoides were members of a largely Old World group of kites that were basal to all other Accipitridae except for Elanus and Gampsonyx; see Note 5c. Lerner et al. (2008) also found that Elanus was the sister to all other accipitrids sampled. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

4. Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Stresemann and Amadon (1979), and Sick (1993) treated Leptodon forbesi as an aberrant plumage L. cayanensis, but following Teixeira et al. (1987), it was recognized as a species by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), thus returning to the treatment of Peters (1931), Pinto (1938), and Hellmayr & Conover (1949). Recent photographic evidence is also consistent with treatment as a valid species-level taxon (Pereira et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to recognize L. forbesi as a species. Dénes et al. (2011) presented additional evidence that L. forbesi is a valid species.

4a. Called "Forbes's Kite" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

4b. "Chondrohierax megarhynchus" refers to large-billed individuals that were formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) treated as a separate species from C. uncinatus; see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and Amadon (1964). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5. Called "American Swallow-tailed Kite" in Thiollay (1994) to distinguish from "African Swallow-tailed Kite" (Chelictinia riocourii), but the latter is called "Scissor-tailed Kite" in many other places (e.g., Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001).

5a. Gampsonyx swainsonii was formerly placed in the Falconidae (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949), but see Friedmann (1950), Plótnik (1956), Stresemann (1959a), and Brodkorb (1960).

5b. Elanus leucurus has been considered conspecific with Old World E. caeruleus ("Black-shouldered Kite") by some authors (e.g., AOU 1983), but see <> Parkes

(1958) and Clark & Banks (1992); they form a superspecies that includes Australian E. axillaris (Stresemann & Amadon 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Thiollay 1994).

5c. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Elanus and Gampsonyx were sister taxa and that together they were basal to all other Accipitridae. Lerner & Mindell (2005) also found that Elanus was basal in the family (Gampsonyx not sampled). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

6. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Everglade Kite."

6a. Griffiths et al. (2007) found that Rostrhamus, Ictinia, and Harpagus are not closely related to other "kites", but are embedded within a large assemblage of "buteonine" genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

7. This species was treated in the monotypic genus Helicolestes by many authors earlier in the 20th century (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but then many recent authors (e.g., Stresemann & Amadon 1979) followed Amadon (1964) in merging Helicolestes into Rostrhamus; see Wetmore (1965) and Thiollay (1994) for an opposing view. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Helicolestes. Banks et al. (2008) also resurrected Helicolestes.

7a. Ictinia mississippiensis and I. plumbea form a superspecies (Stresemann & Amadon 1979, Amadon & Bull 1988, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Thiollay 1994).

7b. Spelled "misisippiensis" in Peters (1931), but see Blake (1977).

7c. [Amadon 1961b)

8a. Called "Hen Harrier" in Old World literature.

8b. Mayr & Short (1970), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Circus cyaneus and C. cinereus to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) considered conspecific. <incorp. Simmons 2000>

8c. Circus buffoni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) known as C. brasiliensis, but see Amadon (1954) and Stresemann and Amadon (1979).

8d. Lerner et al.’s (2008) genetic data indicate that Circus may be embedded within Accipiter.

9. Called "Grey-bellied Goshawk" in Thiollay (1994) and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001). Thiollay (1994) also placed this species at the beginning of the genus in

his linear sequence, distant from any New World Accipiter; <was this based on any evidence>?

9a. "Accipiter pectoralis," long thought to be a distinct species (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), represents the immature plumage of A. poliogaster (Partridge 1961). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

9aa. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Accipiter superciliosus and A. collaris to form a superspecies; see Amadon (1964) for rationale for considering them as sister species. However, Olson (2006) found evidence from skeletal morphology that Accipiter superciliosus does not belong in that genus and proposed resurrecting the genus Hieraspiza for it. Genetic data (as cited by Kocum 2008) also found that this species is not closely related to Accipiter. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) stated that Hieraspiza was not available because Kaup designated Old World Accipiter virgatus as the type species; this is incorrect, however, and Hieraspiza is available (N. Bahr, pers. comm.). Proposal badly needed. <wait Bahr MS>

10. Accipiter striatus was treated as four species in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Thiollay (1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001): velox of N. America, chionogaster of Middle America, ventralis of the Andes, erythronemius of lowland southern South America); Peters (1931), Pinto (1938), and Hellmayr & Conover (1949) considered erythronemius (including ventralis) to be a separate species from A. striatus, and Friedmann (1950) and Stiles & Skutch (1989) considered chionogaster and erythronemius as separate species from A. striatus. [According to HBW account author Rob Bierregaard, through correspondence with Tom Schulenberg, no published data support this split and he was basically forced to comply with species taxonomy given to him.] Storer (1952) outlined the rationale for keeping them all as one species, and none of the above sources have provided counterarguments. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) did not follow this split and provided rationale against following it. Proposal needed.

10a. "Accipiter salvini," treated by some as a distinct species (e.g., Friedmann 1950), is now considered to be a pale morph of A. striatus ventralis. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

11. One specimen from northern Colombia (Cundinamarca; Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

11a. Amadon (1964), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Accipiter cooperii and A. bicolor, along with Cuban A. gundlachi, to form a superspecies.

11b. The genus name formerly and sometimes still used, Ischnosceles Strickland, 1844, is not invalidated by Ischnoscelis Burmeister (Hellmayr and Conover

1949) and was used by Wetmore (1965) for Geranospiza Kaup, 1847, but see (Monroe 1968).

11c. The subspecies nigra of Middle America and northwestern South America was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) considered a separate species from Geranospiza caerulescens, but intergradation between the two is extensive (Amadon 1982, Thiollay 1994). The subspecies gracilis of the Atlantic Forest region was also formerly (e.g., Peters 1931) considered a separate species from G. caerulescens.

11d. Geranospiza was formerly (e.g., Friedmann 1950) considered closely related to harriers (Circus spp.) but see <REF> and Lerner et al. (2008).

11e. David & Dickinson (2016) presented evidence that the original spelling of the species name is coerulescens. SACC proposal on similar case did not pass.

11f. One photographed in April and May 2014 on the St. Peter and St. Paul Archipelago off Brazil (Nunes et al. 2015). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

12. Thiollay (1994) treated the subspecies chilensis as separate species from Accipiter bicolor based on difference in habitat preference and disjunct distribution; see also Jaramillo (2003). See Conover (1946) and Amadon (1964) for rationale for treating them as conspecific (e.g., subspecies pileatus is intermediate in plumage between nominate bicolor and chilensis). Proposal needed.

12a. Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that the genus Leucopternis, as traditionally defined, was polyphyletic; “Leucopternis” included at least three distinct groups that are not each others' closest relatives: (1) L. melanops, L. kuhli, and L. semiplumbeus; (2) L. albicollis, L. occidentalis, and L. polionotus; (3) L. plumbeus, L. schistaceus, L. lacernulatus, which are intermingled within a group with Buteogallus and Harpyhaliaetus; and (4) L. princeps, whose placement is uncertain. Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended placing princeps in a monotypic genus Morphnarchus, plumbeus in a new monotypic genus Cryptoleucopteryx, schistaceus in Buteogallus, and lacernulatus in a new monotypic genus Amadonastur. SACC proposal passed to restrict Leucopternis to group 1 above, and to resurrect Pseudastur for group 2. SACC proposal passed to recognize a new genus, Cryptoleucopteryx Raposo do Amaral et al., for “L.“ plumbeus and to transfer schistaceus and lacernulatus to Buteogallus.

12b. Leucopternis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are semiplumbeus and polionotus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

12bb. Called "Black-chested Hawk" in (REFS), Stiles & Skutch (1989).

12c. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Amadon & Bull (1988), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cryptoleucopteryx plumbea and Buteogallus schistaceus to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949). Genetic data, however, indicate that not only are they not sister taxa but also they are not congeneric (Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009).

12d. Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Haffer (1987), and Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Thiollay (1994) considered Leucopternis melanops and L. kuhli to form a superspecies; they have occasionally been considered conspecific (e.g., REF). Genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) corroborates their sister relationship, and also indicates that their closest relative is L. semiplumbeus. Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended that Leucopternis be circumscribed to include these three species only. SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits in this group. Hellmayr & Conover (1949), Amadon (1982), and Thiollay (1994) proposed a close relationship between L. lacernulatus and melanops/kuhli; genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009), however, do not corroborate this but suggest a relationship between L. lacernulatus and Buteogallus/Heterospizias meridionalis. Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended treating lacernulatus in a monotypic genus Amadonastur.

12e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994) considered Leucopternis albicollis, L. occidentalis, and L. polionotus to form a superspecies; L. occidentalis has been considered a subspecies of L. albicollis (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Stresemann & Amadon 1979; cf. Chapman 1926, Amadon 1964), and genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) support this view, with occidentalis more closely related to three subspecies of albicollis than either is to nominate albicollis. See Amadon (1964) for inclusion of L. polionotus in this group, as confirmed by genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008). However, Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) found that albicollis is actually paraphyletic with respect to polionotus. Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended that these three species be placed in a separate genus, Pseudastur.

13. AOU (1998) followed Peters (1931), Pinto (1938), Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Amadon (1982), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in using the monotypic genus Asturina for this species, rather than including in Buteo (as in e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); Amadon (1982) provided reasons why Asturina might be closer to Leucopternis than to Buteo. However, this is generally not followed (e.g., Thiollay 1994, Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001) because of this species' proposed close relationship to Buteo magnirostris and other buteos. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that Asturina is nested within Buteo (but not at all close to B.

magnirostris). Banks et al. (2006) recently merged Asturina into Buteo. SACC proposal passed to merge Asturina into Buteo.

13a. Miller & Griscom (1921) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the Middle American subspecies plagiatus to deserve recognition as a separate species from Buteo nitidus, but this treatment has not been widely accepted; see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) for rationale for treating them as conspecific, although numerous authors have mentioned that they might be best treated as separate species. Millsap et al. (2011) provided morphological, vocal, and plumage (for all age categories) evidence for treatment as separate species. SACC proposal passed to treated extralimital plagiatus as separate species.

14. Evidence for treating Buteogallus subtilis as a species separate from Buteogallus anthracinus is weak. It was treated as a full species by Stresemann & Amadon (1979), Thiollay (1994), AOU (1998), and Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), following Amadon (1961) and Monroe (1963, 1968); see Howell & Web (1995), Stiles & Skutch (1989), and Ridgely et al. (2001), and especially Clark (2007) for opposing view. It was considered a synonym of B. anthracinus by Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and as a subspecies of B. anthracinus by Friedmann (1950). SACC proposal passed to remove species rank for subtilis. The two were treated as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994). Stresemann & Amadon (1979) suspected that Buteogallus subtilis and B. aequinoctialis form a superspecies.

14a. Called "Lesser Black Hawk" in Wetmore (1965).

14b. Buteogallus urubitinga was formerly treated in the monotypic genera Urubitinga (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) or Hypomorphnus (Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), but see Amadon (1949) and Amadon & Eckelberry (1955) for rationale for placement in Buteogallus. Genetic data (Lerner & Mindell 2005), however, indicate that Buteogallus urubitinga and B. anthracinus are not sisters and that the former is more closely related to two species, B. solitarius and B. coronatus, formerly placed in Harpyhaliaetus (see also Amadon 1949, Raposo et al. 2006). Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended that they be treated in the genus Urubitinga. SACC proposal to revise generic limits in Buteogallus and relatives did not pass. SACC proposal passed to recognize broadly defined Buteogallus. SACC proposal passed to remove hyphen from “Black-Hawk.”

15. Buteogallus meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Heterospizias, but most recent classifications follow Stresemann & Amadon (1979) and Amadon (1982) in merging this into Buteogallus. <incorp. Griffiths (1994)> Recent genetic data (Raposo et al. 2006, 2009, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that Buteogallus is paraphyletic with respect to Harpyhaliaetus and certain Leucopternis. SACC

proposal to revise generic limits in Buteogallus and relatives did not pass. SACC proposal passed to recognize broadly defined Buteogallus. Buteogallus meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) placed in the subfamily Accipitrinae, but Plótnik (1956a) showed that morphological data favored placement in the Buteoninae, as confirmed by genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009).

16. Buteogallus solitarius and B. coronatus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered conspecific by some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949). Genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) confirm their status as sister taxa. They were formerly placed in a separate genus, Harpyhaliaetus, but see Raposo et al. (2006, 2009) and Lerner et al. (2008). They were also formerly placed in separate genera, with Harpyhaliaetus for coronatus and Urubitornis for solitarius (e.g., Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950, Wetmore 1965).

16b. Called "Black Solitary-Eagle" in Thiollay (1994), Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

17. Called "Crowned Harpy Eagle” in Hellmayr and Conover (1949) and "Crowned Solitary-Eagle" in Amadon and Brown (1968), Thiollay (1994), Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), Dickinson and Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal passed to change English name (to avoid same name as African species Stephanoaetus coronatus).

17a. Olson (1982) found morphological evidence that Busarellus may be more closely related to a group of largely Old World genera (Milvus, Haliastur, Haliaetus, Ichthyophaga) than to the New World genera with which is traditionally associated in linear sequences (e.g., Friedmann 1950, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), and this is reflected in the linear sequence of the AOU (1998). Genetic data (Griffiths et al. 2007, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) also indicate that it is not closely related to any buteonine genera, where traditionally placed, but rather closer to kites. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

18. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) indicate that Geranoaetus is the sister taxon to Buteo polyosoma/B. poecilochrous and that maintenance of a monotypic genus is not warranted; it had been placed in Buteo formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1933, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950), but recent authors have generally followed Amadon (1963), who suggested that it might be closer to Buteogallus or Leucopternis than to Buteo. Clark (2006) disputed Amadon's rationale for maintaining it is a genus separate from Buteo. SACC proposal to merge Geranoaetus into Buteo did not pass. New genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008) provide even stronger evidence for merger of Geranoaetus, at least as currently defined, because it is the sister species to B. polyosoma. SACC proposal to merge Geranoaetus into Buteo did not pass. Raposo do Amaral et

al. (2009) further confirmed that Geranoaetus is the sister to Buteo polyosoma sensu lato. SACC proposal passed to expand Geranoaetus to include polyosoma and B. albicaudatus.

18a. Geranoaetus melanoleucus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) known as Buteo fuscescens.

18b. Geranoaetus has priority over Tachytriorchis; see Raposo do Amaral et al. (2010).

19. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006, 2009, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that Parabuteo may be sister taxon to Buteo/Percnohierax leucorrhous and that it lies outside main group of true buteos. SACC proposal passed to include leucorrhous in Parabuteo.

19a. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that northern harrisi group might warrant recognition as a separate subspecies from the nominate Parabuteo unicinctus group.

19b. Called "Bay-winged Hawk" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Brown and Amadon (1968), Meyer de Schauensee and Phelps (1978), Stiles and Skutch (1989), Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001), and elsewhere.

20. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that this B. magnirostris is basal to all buteos and would require merger of Parabuteo and Geranoaetus into Buteo to keep latter monophyletic; Riesing et al. (2003) and Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) recommended the resurrection of monotypic genus Rupornis, widely used for this species in earlier literature (e.g., Pinto 1938). The genus Buteo as currently broadly defined is almost certainly polyphyletic (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009). SACC proposal passed to resurrect Rupornis for magnirostris.

20a. Called "Large-billed Hawk" in Wetmore (1965).

21. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Raposo et al. 2006, Lerner et al. 2008) indicate that Buteo leucorrhous is probably the sister taxon to Parabuteo and recommended resurrection of monotypic genus Percnohierax for this aberrant species. Raposo do Amaral et al. (2009) found the same relationship but recommended including it in Parabuteo. SACC proposal passed to include leucorrhous in Parabuteo. It was placed in the genus Rupornis, along with B. magnirostris, by Pinto (1938).

22. Buteo albigula was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949) treated as a synonym of B. brachyurus, or even considered a dubious taxon (Peters 1931). It was treated as a subspecies of B. brachyurus by Amadon (1964), Blake

(1977), and Stresemann & Amadon (1979), following Rand (1960); however, they are elevationally parapatric, perhaps sympatric (Lehman & Haffer 1960), and hybridization has not been reported (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Thiollay (1994) considered B. albigula and B. brachyurus to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009), however, indicate that they are not sister species. <incorp. Stresemann 1959, Hoy 1969>

22a. Buteo brachyurus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in the <monotypic?> genus Buteola.

23. Voous (1968) and Voous & De Vries (1978) proposed that B. albicaudatus and B. galapagoensis were sister taxa, and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies. Stresemann & Amadon (1979) suspected that B. galapagoensis was closer to and might even form a superspecies with Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma. In fact, genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Hull et al. 2008, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) indicate that Buteo swainsoni and B. galapagoensis are sister taxa; in fact, in terms of mtDNA, B. swainsoni is paraphyletic with respect to B. galapagoensis in spite of major morphological and plumage differences (Hull et al. 2008).

23a. Amadon (1964) considered Buteo albicaudatus to form a superspecies with B. poecilochrous and B. polyosoma. Although genetic data (Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) confirm that they are closely related, Geranoaetus is more closely related to polyosoma/poecilochrous than the latter is to albicaudatus.

24. Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001) considered the subspecies exsul of the Juan Fernandez Islands as a separate species from Buteo polyosoma based on the sexes being monomorphic and having no rufous in plumage. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003), however, indicate very low sequence divergence.

25. Farquhar (1988) concluded that Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma are conspecific, as they were formerly treated (REF); he was unable to find any way to reliably diagnose the two forms using plumage characters or measurements. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Schulenberg et al. (2007) followed this treatment and suggested "Variable Hawk" be retained for the composite species. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003) are consistent with hypothesis that B. polyosoma and B. poecilochrous are conspecific. [incorp. Cabot & De Vries 2003, Vaurie 1962]. SACC proposal passed to treat as conspecific. Cabot & de Vries (2003, 2004, 2010) presented additional data that support their recognition as separate species. SACC proposal to re-elevate poecilochrous to species rank did not pass.

26. Genetic data (Riesing et al. 2003, Lerner et al. 2008, Raposo do Amaral et al. 2009) support the traditional view (e.g., Amadon 1964) that Buteo ventralis and

North American B. jamaicensis are sister taxa that form a superspecies (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990); in fact, the genetic data suggest that they are better treated as subspecies, as they were once treated by (REF, <+ citation in Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990>). Hellmayr & Conover (1949) tentatively considered it to be a synonym of B. jamaicensis costaricensis. <Inc. Clark (1986)>. Peters (1931) and Hellmayr (1932) considered it to be a color morph of B. polyosoma, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1949) and Amadon (1964).

27. Called "Guiana Crested Eagle" in Thiollay (1994).

27a. Genetic data (Helbig et al. 2005) indicate that Morphnus and Harpia are sister genera. Justification for retention of two monotypic genera seems weak. Proposal needed?

27b. "Morphnus taeniatus," treated as a valid species by REFS and Friedmann (1950), represents a dark morph of M. guianensis with heavily banded underparts (Lehman 1943, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Thiollay 1994). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

28. Called "Barred Hawk-Eagle" in Wetmore (1965).

29. Called "Isidor's Eagle" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

30. Three independent analyses of DNA sequence data (Helbig et al. 2005, Lerner & Mindell 2005, Haring et al. 2007) indicate that Spizaetus ornatus and Oroaetus isidori are sister species, that Spizastur melanoleucus is the sister to this pair, and that Spizaetus tyrannus is basal to these three species; also Old World "Spizaetus" are not the sister group to the New World Spizaetus. Helbig et al. (2005) proposed that the four New World taxa should be included in a single genus, Spizaetus, and they were so treated by Haring et al. (2007). SACC proposal passed to merge Oroaetus and Spizastur into Spizaetus.

30a. "Spizaetus devillei," described from two specimens from Ecuador, was treated as a valid species by Hellmayr & Conover (1949); it is now considered to be an immature plumage of Spizaetus isidori (Amadon 1950). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

STRIGIFORMES 1TYTONIDAE (BARN OWLS) 1a

Tyto alba Barn Owl 1b, 1c, 1d

STRIGIDAE (OWLS)Megascops choliba Tropical Screech-Owl 2, 2a

Megascops roboratus Peruvian Screech-Owl 2b, 2c, 2dMegascops koepckeae Koepcke's Screech-Owl 3Megascops clarkii Bare-shanked Screech-OwlMegascops colombianus Colombian Screech-Owl 4Megascops ingens Rufescent Screech-Owl 4, 4aMegascops petersoni Cinnamon Screech-Owl 5, 6Megascops marshalli Cloud-forest Screech-Owl 5a, 6, 6aMegascops watsonii Tawny-bellied Screech-Owl 7Megascops guatemalae Vermiculated Screech-Owl 8, 8aMegascops hoyi Montane Forest Screech-Owl 6, 8, 10,11Megascops atricapilla Black-capped Screech-Owl 8a, 9Megascops sanctaecatarinae Long-tufted Screech-Owl 8aMegascops albogularis White-throated Screech-OwlLophostrix cristata Crested OwlPulsatrix perspicillata Spectacled Owl 12Pulsatrix koeniswaldiana Tawny-browed Owl 12aPulsatrix melanota Band-bellied Owl 12aBubo virginianus Great Horned Owl 13Strix hylophila Rusty-barred OwlStrix chacoensis Chaco Owl 14Strix rufipes Rufous-legged OwlCiccaba virgata Mottled Owl 15, 15aCiccaba nigrolineata Black-and-white Owl 15bCiccaba huhula Black-banded Owl 15bCiccaba albitarsis Rufous-banded Owl 16Glaucidium nubicola Cloud-forest Pygmy-Owl 17, 17aGlaucidium jardinii Andean Pygmy-Owl 18Glaucidium bolivianum Yungas Pygmy-Owl 19Glaucidium parkeri Subtropical Pygmy-Owl 20Glaucidium griseiceps Central American Pygmy-Owl 22, 22aGlaucidium hardyi Amazonian Pygmy-Owl 21, 22, 22aGlaucidium mooreorum Pernambuco Pygmy-Owl 22bGlaucidium minutissimum Least Pygmy-Owl 22, 22cGlaucidium brasilianum Ferruginous Pygmy-Owl 18, 23Glaucidium peruanum Peruvian Pygmy-Owl 24, 24aGlaucidium nana Austral Pygmy-Owl 25, 25aXenoglaux loweryi Long-whiskered Owlet 26Athene cunicularia Burrowing Owl 27Aegolius harrisii Buff-fronted Owl 27aAsio clamator Striped Owl 28, 29

Asio stygius Stygian OwlAsio flammeus Short-eared Owl 30

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

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

1b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Bruce (1999) suggested that the Galapagos subspecies punctatissima might deserve recognition as a separate species from Tyto alba, as it was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated and is now treated by Weick (2006), König & Weick (2008), and Wink et al. (2008). Proposal needed. Aliabadian et al. (2016) recommended treating New World populations as a separate species, T. furcata, from Old World T. alba based on degree of genetic and ecological differences,

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

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

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

2. Recent analyses of genetic and vocal differences (König et al. 1999, Wink et al. 2008) confirm a major division of the screech-owls into New World Otus (except O. flammulatus) and Old World groups, as noted by Amadon & Bull

(1988). <incorp. Van der Weyden 1975> Consequently, the AOU (Banks et al. 2003) placed all New World Otus (except flammulatus) in the genus Megascops. SACC proposal passed to place South American Otus in Megascops. Genetic data (Dantas et al. 2015) indicate that Megascops includes three major clades, one of which includes M. albogularis, M. choliba, and M. koepckeae, and another of which includes all other South American species. SACC proposal pending to modify linear sequence.

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

2b. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) followed Hekstra (1982) based on a purported intermediate specimen in treating Megascops roboratus as a subspecies of M. choliba. SACC proposal passed to continue to recognize roboratus as a separate species. Dantas et al. (2015) found that M. roboratus (as represented by subspecies pacificus) was more closely related to M. watsonii. SACC proposal pending to modify linear sequence.

2c. König et al. (1999) suggested that the subspecies pacificus (described by Hekstra 1982 as a subspecies of M. guatemalae, but see Johnson & Jones 1990) might deserve recognition as a separate species from Megascops roboratus; see also König (2000), Restall et al. (2006), and König & Weick (2008). Proposal needed.

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

3. Megascops koepckeae was originally described as a subspecies of M. choliba and treated as such in Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Recent authors have considered it to be a distinct species following Amadon & Bull (1988). For justification for species rank see Fjeldså et al. (2012); they are sister taxa (Dantas et al. 2015). Called "Maria Koepcke's Screech-Owl" in König et al. (1999).

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

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

5. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Fitzpatrick & O'Neill (1986). SACC proposal passed for continued recognition of this species.

5a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Weske & Terborgh (1981).

6. König et al. (1999) proposed that Megascops marshalli was most closely related to M. petersoni; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies. Dantas et al. (2015), however, found that the sister taxon to M. marshalli was M. hoyi, with M. petersoni sister to that pair. SACC proposal pending to modify linear sequence.

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

7. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and König et al. (1999) treated usta as a separate species from Megascops watsonii based on vocal differences, but this was not followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to recognize usta as a separate species from M. watsonii was rejected because of inadequate geographic sampling and analysis. Dantas et al. (2015) found that M. watsonii was paraphyletic with respect to M. sanctaecatarinae and that the subspecies usta itself is a paraphyletic taxon.

7a. Haverschmidt & Mees (1994) followed Hekstra (1982) in treating M. watsonii as conspecific with M. atricapilla, but this has not been followed by other authors. Wink et al. (2008) and Dantas et al. (2015) found that M. atricapilla and M. watsonii (represented by usta) are sisters.

8. Species limits in broadly defined Megascops guatemalae are controversial, and their resolution will require a thorough analysis of vocal and genetic data. Cory (1918), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Marks et al. (1999), and Dickinson (2003) split Megascops guatemalae into two, with M. guatemalae (Mexico to Costa Rica) and M. vermiculatus for all South American taxa. König et al. (1999) also treated the Tepui region subspecies roraimae ("Roraiman Screech-Owl", "Tepui Screech-Owl," or "Foothill Screech-Owl") and the Andean foothill species napensis ("Rio Napo Screech Owl" -- an inappropriate name) as separate species. Hardy et al. (1989), based on voice, also recognized Pacific slope centralis as a separate species; this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Freile & Castro (2013) found additional vocal evidence for treatment as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to retain broad M. guatemalae until thorough, formal analysis of entire complex is published. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated extralimital guatemalae (Mexico to Nicaragua) as a separate species from M. vermiculatus.

8a. Megascops sanctaecatarinae was formerly considered a subspecies (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or a synonym (Peters 1940) of M. atricapilla, with the composite English name "Long-tufted Screech-Owl”. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered M. sanctaecatarinae and M. hoyi (see Note 6) conspecific with M. atricapilla, along with M. guatemalae (but treated vermiculatus as a separate species). König (1994), Heidrich et al. (1995a), König et al. (1999), and Marks et al. (1999) considered them to be separate species based on <voice> and to form a superspecies with M. hoyi. Wink et al. (2008) found that

sanctaecatarinae is not the sister to M. atricapilla. SACC proposal to lump hoyi and sanctaecatarinae into M. atricapilla did not pass. Dantas et al. (2015) found that M. atricapilla and M. sanctaecatarinae are not sisters, and that neither one is part of the guatemalae- vermiculatus complex. SACC proposal pending to modify linear sequence.

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

10. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Koenig & Straneck (1989).

11. Called "Hoy's Screech-Owl" in Marks et al. (1999).

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

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

13. Traylor (1958b) analyzed geographic variation in South American populations, which he treated as conspecific with B. virginianus, and noted that they fall into three groups: (1) nigrescens of the northern Andes, (2) nacurutu of the tropical lowlands north and south of the Amazon, and (3) magellanicus of the southern Andes and temperate lowland. König et al. (1996, 1999), followed by Marks et al. (1999), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Wink et al. (2008), recognized B. magellanicus as separate from B. virginianus based primarily on vocal differences; critical intermediate populations, however, have yet to be sampled. SACC proposal to recognize as separate species did not pass. NACC also rejected a proposal to recognized magellanicus as a species pending more thorough study, including sampling of critical intermediate populations. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) continued to treat magellanicus as a separate species

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

15. Many authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Howell & Webb 1995, König et al. 1999, Marks et al. 1999, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Dickinson 2003) merge Ciccaba into Strix, but published evidence not convincing (although published evidence for recognition of Ciccaba also not convincing; see Banks et al.

2003); proposal needed. [wait for ongoing projects on phylogeny of Strigidae]. <incorp. Peters 1938, Voous 1964, Norberg 1977>

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

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

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

17. Genetic data (Wink et al. 2009) confirm the monophyly of Glaucidium and support a major division between New World and Old World species.

17a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Robbins and Stiles (1999); possibly more closely related to Glaucidium gnoma/G. costaricanum of Middle America than to G. jardinii.

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

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

20. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Robbins & Howell (1995); separated from Glaucidium hardyi from Amazonian lowlands based on vocalizations.

21. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Vielliard (1989).

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

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

22b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Silva et al. (2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize this newly described species. König & Weick (2005) proposed that the type of minutissimum is actually mooreorum, therefore leaving the southeastern Brazilian population without a name; they proposed sicki as the new name for this population. SACC proposal to follow König & Weick did not pass.

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

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

24. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): König (1991); separated from Glaucidium brasilianum based primarily on vocalizations.

24a. Called "Pacific Pygmy-Owl" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

25. Glaucidium nana has sometimes been considered a subspecies of G. brasilianum (Marín et al. 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but see König (1991), Jaramillo (2003), and Wink et al. (2008).

25a. The correct name is nana (fide N. David), not nanum, as in most literature.

26. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): O'Neill & Graves (1977).

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

27a. Aegolius harrisii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Gisella. Wink et al. (2008) found that it is the sister species to North American A. acadicus, and that Holarctic A. funereus is sister to these two. The species name formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) used for A. harrisii was iheringi; this subspecies might merit treatment as a separate species (König 1999).

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

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

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

Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes