South American Classification Committee

A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

South American Classification Committee

American Ornithological Society

Web site hosted by:

The South American Classification Committee, founded in 1998, is an official committee of the American Ornithological Society. The mission of this committee is to create a standard classification, with English names, for the bird species of South America. This classification is subject to constant revision by the proposal system established in 2000 to allow incorporation of new data. The SACC hopes to have this classification published as a printed document within a year or so.

The classification below is preliminary and is likely to see many changes through Committee action; therefore, be certain to cite it as "Version [date]." Suggested citation:

Remsen, J. V., Jr., J. I. Areta, E. Bonaccorso, S. Claramunt, A. Jaramillo, D. F. Lane, J. F. Pacheco, M. B. Robbins, F. G. Stiles, and K. J. Zimmer. Version [date]. A classification of the bird species of South America. American Ornithological Society. http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm

VERSION: 26 May 2022

Most recent changes to the classification, updated 31 January 2022

This list is open to proposals for change from the ornithological community as a whole. Proposals for changes must be based on previously published data, information, or analyses. See Proposal Roster page for examples of previous proposals and commentary from SACC members and others on each proposal submitted so far; that page also has a link to a spreadsheet that itemizes issues in need of proposals. Send proposals or comments on existing ones to Remsen. Proposals may be in English, Spanish, or Portuguese (we apologize that most of us are not proficient in reading French or Dutch). All aspects of the classification are subject to modification through the proposal system (species limits, boundaries of orders, families, and genera, linear sequences, English names, etc.).

The footnotes are also obviously preliminary (some are no more than reminders to ourselves), in "working draft" stage, inconsistent in style, and will be modified extensively; many have yet to be added. Most footnotes have been modified chronologically as new information is added, and thus read as compilations rather than syntheses. [Errors in numbering them are frequent as we continue to add new notes.] The primary goal is to provide references for all changes from Meyer de Schauensee's (1966, 1970) foundational classification, as well as the "Peters Checklist" series and the "Cory-Hellmayr" series, so that the user can determine how and why (if known) changes were made; citations to alternative treatments are also provided. Also, the notes are intended to signal phylogenetic relationships among taxa that might not be evident from the linear sequence. The notes also indicate where SACC proposals for change have been acted upon (in blue), where SACC proposals are pending (in magenta), and where proposals are needed (in red).

If you spot typographical errors, missing taxa, or mistakes of any kind, please let Remsen know. If your research is not cited herein, it is unlikely we are ignoring it -- we just have not yet had time to incorporate it into the notes or proposals; nonetheless, please let Remsen know if you see published information that we have overlooked or incorrectly cited.

Taxonomy: The starting point for the classification was a pre-publication draft of Dickinson (2003); the published version differed in a few minor ways from the version used for the starting point (as noted in the Notes sections below). The classification herein consists mainly of the ranks Order, Family, Genus, and Species. Most traditional subfamilies are omitted unless supported by multiple independent data sets that mark major, deep branches within a family. Subspecies are omitted for now; a future edition will also include the Subspecies rank as designating diagnosable populations (equivalent to phylogenetic species sensu Cracraft) within taxa accorded species rank, as well as synopses of distribution. We recognize the importance of this level of classification for many kinds of analyses but are unable to provide a comprehensive evaluation of which currently recognized subspecies represent valid taxonomic units in terms of diagnosability. See Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014) for a preliminary assessment of valid subspecies of South American birds, as well as various volumes of the Handbook of the Birds of World (Lynx Edicions, Barcelona).

Linear sequencing: Presenting a classification as a linear list of taxa cannot adequately reflect phylogenetic relationships. Nonetheless, to maximize proximity of close relatives in a linear sequence, we use the following conventions. For groups for which robust phylogenetic data are available we derive a linear sequence from the “ladderization” of the phylogenetic tree. Ladderization consists of rearranging the phylogenetic diagram by rotating each node so the clade with fewer species is placed first (on top, on a rightwise-oriented tree, to the left in an upwards-oriented tree) and the clade with more species is placed last. Ladderization is performed by considering all extant species and not only the ones included in a particular phylogenetic diagram. For pairs of sister species, the one with the most northwesterly geographic range is listed first. For polytomies or nodes that are not strongly supported (by having either low statistical support or conflicting with other studies or datasets) a traditional sequence may be favored (Dickinson 2003). In particular, in the case of “superspecies,” which are defined as a monophyletic group of closely related parapatric or slightly allopatric species, taxa may be listed using the widespread geographic convention, from northwest to southeast, if relationships among the component species are not well supported.

Geographical scope: The region covered by the list is: (1) continental South America and all islands within 1200 km of its shores eastward into the Atlantic and westward into the Pacific oceans (including Malpelo, the Galapagos islands, San Felix and San Ambrosio, the Juan Fernandez islands, Fernando de Noronha, Trindade, Martin Vaz, São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago, and the Falklands/Malvinas); (2) islands in the Caribbean Sea close to South America and not covered by the AOU’s NACC Checklist (including Netherlands Antilles, Trinidad and Tobago); and (3) waters within 200 nautical miles of the coasts of these land areas, including the islands.

For lists of species recorded from each country and territory (using SACC classification and criteria) within the SACC region, including downloadable EXCEL file, see SACC Country Lists.

Criteria for inclusion: a species is included on the list if the evidence for its occurrence in the area is supported by tangible evidence that is available for verification, namely a museum specimen or an archived or published photograph, videotape, or sound recording. The main list currently includes 3,449 species, as follows

a. 3189 native breeding species (3 of which are extinct)

b. 144 nonbreeding residents (1 of which is extinct)

c. 99 vagrants

d. 16 established, introduced species

See the SACC Country Lists page for definitions of status designations.

Of the breeding species, 133 are newly discovered species since the publication of Meyer de Schauensee’s (1970) classic compilation of the species of birds of South America (i.e., at a rate of 2.6 species per year). Species for which their presence is supported only by sight records, or by unpublished or non-archived tangible evidence, are placed on the Hypothetical List.

English names: The English names used by SACC follow those in Dickinson (2003), which in turn generally followed those used by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and AOU (1998) for New World species. Several, however, have been changed subsequently from Dickinson (2003) through the proposal mechanism. Alternative English names are given if they have appeared in reference literature since 1900. SACC follows the published guidelines for English names and their orthography as noted in AOU (1983: xxi-xxii) and references therein. See SACC policy on use diacritical marks (accents, cedillas, tildes). SACC proposal pending to adopt NACC guidelines.

For comments on the controversy over whether to hyphenate certain bird group-names, click here.

The SACC is not involved in producing a list of standardized Spanish names. Click here for rationale. However, the SACC hopes to produce Spanish and Portuguese versions of the Notes once the English version reaches the stage at which the classification is ready for publication as a printed document.

Current SACC membership =

Juan Ignacio Areta (Associate Chair), Instituto de Bio y Geociencias del Noroeste Argentino, Salta

Elisa Bonaccorso, Universidad San Francisco de Quito

Santiago Claramunt, Royal Ontario Museum and University of Toronto

Alvaro Jaramillo, San Francisco Bay Bird Observatory

Daniel F. Lane, Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University

José Fernando Pacheco, Comitê Brasileiro de Registros Ornitológicos

J. V. Remsen, Jr. (Acting Chair), Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University

Mark B. Robbins, Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas

F. Gary Stiles, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá

Kevin J. Zimmer, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County

Technical Advisors for Vagrant and Hypothetical Species:

Juan Freile, Comité Ecuatoriano de Registros Ornitológicos (CERO)

Jhonathan Miranda, Comité de Registros de las Aves de Venezuela, Unión Venezolana de Ornitólogos

Mark Pearman, Birdquest & Aves Argentinas/Asociación Ornitológica del Plata

Technical Advisor on Nomenclature:

Vitor de Q. Piacentini, Working Group on Avian Nomenclature, International Ornithologists’ Union

Technical Advisor for Hybrids and Dubious Taxa:

Gary R. Graves, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution

Technical Advisors:

Carlos Daniel Cadena, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá

David B. Donsker

Steven L. Hilty, Victor Emanuel Nature Tours, Inc., & Museum of Natural History, University of Kansas

Jorge Pérez-Emán, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas

Thomas S. Schulenberg, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

Douglas F. Stotz, Field Museum of Natural History

Bret M. Whitney, Field Guides & Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University

Data-base Advisor:

Steve Olesen

Editorial Advisors:

Paul Clapham

Alan Grenon

Past Committee Members: C. Daniel Cadena, Universidad de Los Andes, Bogotá; Manuel Nores, Centro de Zoología Aplicada, Córdoba; Richard O. Prum, Yale University; José Maria Cardoso da Silva, Conservation International - Brasil

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Abbreviations:

NB = nonbreeding resident

V = vagrant

IN = introduced species*

EX = extinct (within last 200 years)

* SACC proposal for adopting BOU-like guidelines on defining "introduced" species did not pass, but the committee is strongly in favor of developing formal guidelines. Meanwhile, we follow AOS/NACC criterion: “Species that have been introduced by humans, either deliberately or accidentally, are considered to be established if there are persistent records for at least ten years and satisfactory evidence that they are maintaining a reasonably stable or increasing population through successful reproduction.”

Composite List created by Duncan Ritchie (Classification + status only; no footnotes) [continuing the work of Sjoerd Maijer, In Memoriam]

EXCEL file of SACC list

Hypothetical List

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

Proposal Tracking page

[Please report bad links to Remsen]

Romanian translation: http://webhostinggeeks.com/science/saccbaseline-museum-rm

Higher-level Classification¹: To help navigate the linear sequence of orders, below we here provide a condensed classification at the level of order. A linear sequence can only partially convey the branching patterns of the avian tree of life, so see proposal 723 and references therein for details:

PALEOGNATHAE

RHEIFORMES

TINAMIFORMES

NEOGNATHAE

GALLOANSERES

ANSERIFORMES

GALLIFORMES

NEOAVES

PHOENICOPTERIFORMES

PODICIPEDIFORMES

COLUMBIFORMES

CUCULIFORMES

STEATORNITHIFORMES

NYCTIBIIFORMES

CAPRIMULGIFORMES

APODIFORMES

OPISTHOCOMIFORMES

GRUIFORMES

CHARADRIIFORMES

EURYPYGIFORMES

PHAETHONTIFORMES

SPHENISCIFORMES

PROCELLARIIFORMES

CICONIIFORMES

SULIFORMES

PELECANIFORMES

CATHARTIFORMES

ACCIPITRIFORMES

STRIGIFORMES

TROGONIFORMES

CORACIIFORMES

GALBULIFORMES

PICIFORMES

CARIAMIFORMES

FALCONIFORMES

PSITTACIFORMES

PASSERIFORMES

___________________________________________________________

¹With passage of proposal 723, the linear sequence of orders in this classification now greatly differs from the traditional sequence with which most users are familiar, particularly the sequence between the traditional beginning (ratites) and the end (passerines). Multiple independent data sets indicate that the traditional division between waterbirds and landbirds has little phylogenetic basis, with some of the nonpasserine “landbird” orders more closely related to “waterbird” orders than to other “landbird” orders, and vice versa. To perpetuate the traditional sequence misleads ornithologists into thinking that waterbirds, for example, form a monophyletic group.

___________________________________________________________

Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes (below)

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes

Part 3. Apodiformes

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes

Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes

Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae)

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)

Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Pipridae to Tyrannidae)

Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Ploceidae to Passerellidae)

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Icteridae to end)

PALEOGNATHAE

RHEIFORMES 1

RHEIDAE (RHEAS)

Rhea americana Greater Rhea 2

Rhea pennata Lesser Rhea 2, 3, 4

1. The relationships among, and classification of, the five families of living ratites are controversial and beyond the geographic scope of this classification. The Rheidae are here treated as a family within the broadly defined ratite order Struthioniformes, following the classification in Folch (1992) and Dickinson (2003); other classifications retain only the ostriches (Struthionidae) and the Rheidae in the Struthioniformes. See (REFS) for evidence that supports a sister relationship between the Rheidae and Struthionidae, but see also Cooper et al. (1992, 2001), Lee et al. (1997), van Tuinen et al. (1998), and Haddrath and Baker (2001). Recent genetic data (Harshman et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010, Smith et al. 2013, Prum et al. 2015) indicate that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. Cracraft (2013) elevated the rheas to ordinal rank, Rheiformes, as in some older classifications. SACC proposal passed to recognize Rheiformes.

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Pterocnemia into Rhea. SACC proposal passed to merge Pterocnemia into Rhea.

3. The montane subspecies tarapacensis (with "garleppi") may deserve recognition as a separate species from lowland nominate pennata (Blake 1977, Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Folch 1992), and was treated as such by Jaramillo (2003) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Proposal needed.

4. Called "Darwin's Rhea" in Johnson (1965), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), and Gill & Wright (2006), but this is the name associated with the nominate, Patagonian subspecies (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or when the Andean forms are considered a separate species, with "Puna Rhea" reserved for the Andean species (e.g., Jaramillo 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014). Virtually all other modern literature on South American birds uses "Lesser Rhea" for P. pennata.

TINAMIFORMES 1

TINAMIDAE (TINAMOUS) 1a

Nothocercus julius Tawny-breasted Tinamou

Nothocercus bonapartei Highland Tinamou 2a

Nothocercus nigrocapillus Hooded Tinamou 2a

Tinamus tao Gray Tinamou

Tinamus solitarius Solitary Tinamou 2

Tinamus osgoodi Black Tinamou 3

Tinamus major Great Tinamou 1b

Tinamus guttatus White-throated Tinamou

Crypturellus berlepschi Berlepsch's Tinamou 4

Crypturellus cinereus Cinereous Tinamou 4

Crypturellus soui Little Tinamou

Crypturellus ptaritepui Tepui Tinamou 4a

Crypturellus obsoletus Brown Tinamou 5

Crypturellus undulatus Undulated Tinamou

Crypturellus transfasciatus Pale-browed Tinamou 6, 6a

Crypturellus strigulosus Brazilian Tinamou

Crypturellus duidae Gray-legged Tinamou 7

Crypturellus erythropus Red-legged Tinamou 7, 8

Crypturellus noctivagus Yellow-legged Tinamou 7, 7a

Crypturellus atrocapillus Black-capped Tinamou 7

Crypturellus kerriae Choco Tinamou 7

Crypturellus variegatus Variegated Tinamou

Crypturellus brevirostris Rusty Tinamou 9

Crypturellus bartletti Bartlett's Tinamou 9

Crypturellus parvirostris Small-billed Tinamou 10

Crypturellus casiquiare Barred Tinamou 11

Crypturellus tataupa Tataupa Tinamou 10

Rhynchotus rufescens Red-winged Tinamou 12

Rhynchotus maculicollis Huayco Tinamou 12

Nothoprocta taczanowskii Taczanowski's Tinamou 16a

Nothoprocta ornata Ornate Tinamou 13

Nothoprocta perdicaria Chilean Tinamou 14

Nothoprocta cinerascens Brushland Tinamou 14

Nothoprocta pentlandii Andean Tinamou 14

Nothoprocta curvirostris Curve-billed Tinamou 14

Nothura boraquira White-bellied Nothura 15

Nothura minor Lesser Nothura 15

Nothura darwinii Darwin's Nothura 16

Nothura maculosa Spotted Nothura 16

Taoniscus nanus Dwarf Tinamou 16a

Eudromia elegans Elegant Crested-Tinamou 17

Eudromia formosa Quebracho Crested-Tinamou 17, 18

Tinamotis pentlandii Puna Tinamou 19

Tinamotis ingoufi Patagonian Tinamou 19

1. The monophyly of the Tinamiformes has never been seriously questioned. Likewise, multiple independent lines of evidence (see summary in Cabot 1992, and more recently, García-Moreno and Mindell 2000, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Cracraft et al. 2004, Livezey and Zusi 2007) indicate that the Tinamiformes is the sister group to the ratites (Struthioniformes), and that these two groups, the Paleognathae, are the sister to all other living birds, the Neognathae (e.g., Cracraft 1988, Cracraft & Mindell 1989, van Tuinen et al. 2000, Braun & Kimball 2002, Mayr and Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007). However, recent genetic data (Hackett et al. 2008, Phillips et al. 2010, Prum et al. 2015) suggest that the Struthioniformes is paraphyletic with respect to the Tinamiformes. SACC proposal passed to change SACC classification to reflect this.

1a. The Tinamidae was divided into two subfamilies, the Tinaminae (Tinamus, Nothoprocta, and Crypturellus) and the Nothurinae (all other genera) by Miranda-Ribeiro (1938). The Nothurinae was designated as the Rhynchotinae by Cabot (1992). The subfamily name that has priority, however, is Eudromiinae Bonaparte, 1854. Morphological data (Bertelli et al. 2002, Silveira & Höfling 2007) support the monophyly of the two subfamilies, but combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) do not, primarily because of conflicting positions of the genus Rhynchotus. Morphological (Bertelli et al. 2002) and molecular data generally support the traditional among-genera and among-species relationships implied by traditional linear sequences except that Crypturellus and Tinamus are proposed as sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of some genera.

1b. Pinto (1938) treated the Amazonian subspecies serratus (with peruvianus, then known as ruficeps) as a separate species from Tinamus major.

2. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) suggested that Tinamus solitarius was probably better treated as a subspecies of T. major, but Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) proposed that it is the sister species to T. tao.

2a. Nothocercus bonapartei and N. nigrocapillus were considered to form a probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Bertelli et al. (2002) and Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) also found them to be sisters. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

3. An analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that T. osgoodi does not belong in that genus and is embedded within Crypturellus (Bertelli et al. 2002); however, combined analyses of morphological and genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) indicate that osgoodi does belong in Tinamus.

4. Crypturellus cinereus and C. berlepschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) follow Blake (1977), who noted that "the longer toes of berlepschi in proportion to the tarsus, the heavier and usually longer bill, and the conspicuous differences in coloration strongly support the concept of mutually exclusive species." The two species are sisters (Bertelli et al. 2002) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

4a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that C. ptaritepui might be the sister to C. berlepschi + C. cinereus.

5. Blake (1977), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Cabot (1992) noted that the subspecies traylori possibly deserves recognition as separate species from Crypturellus obsoletus. Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found that vocal differences among subspecies suggests that as many as five species should be recognized. Proposal needed.

6. Bertelli et al. (2002) proposed that C. transfasciatus and Middle American C. cinnamomeus are sister species.

6a. "Crypturellus rubripes," described from northwestern Peru and treated as a species by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), is now known to be the male plumage of C. transfasciatus (Koepcke 1962a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

7. Species limits in this complex (Crypturellus duidae through C. kerriae, also probably including Middle American C. cinnamomeus and C. boucardi) are poorly understood and weakly justified, and a thorough study, especially of voice, is badly needed. Species-level taxonomy and allocation of subspecies to species has been exceptionally labile, perhaps more so than any other species complex in the New World. For example, within subspecies included here in C. erythropus, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that cursitans was actually a subspecies of C. duidae. Blake (1977) suggested that columbianus was possibly a distinct species (as treated by Hellmayr & Conover 1942) or "perhaps a very distinct Colombian isolate of ... C. boucardi." Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered saltuarius as a distinct species, and Blake (1977) suggested that saltuarius might be a subspecies C. kerriae (but that kerriae might also be a subspecies of Middle American C. boucardi). The subspecies idoneus and spencei were treated as subspecies of Middle American C. cinnamomeus in [early Peters]. Thus, Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that the taxa columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius, treated here as subspecies of erythropus, may deserve species rank or may belong in other species. Crypturellus erythropus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. atrocapillus or of C. noctivagus (Hellmayr & Conover 1942), but is here treated as a species following Blake (1977, 1979), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Cabot (1992), and Davies (2002). The taxon garleppi, here treated as a subspecies of C. atrocapillus (following Blake 1977, 1979; also followed by del Hoyo & Collar 2014) was formerly considered a subspecies of C. noctivagus (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Peters?) and perhaps merits species rank (Cabot 1992). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. kerriae and C. erythropus, along with Middle American C. boucardi, to form one superspecies, and C. duidae, C. noctivagus, and C. atrocapillus to form a separate superspecies. Bertelli et al.'s (2002) analysis of phenotypic characters indicated that C. boucardi and C. kerriae are sister species, but otherwise found little support for the monophyly of this complex. SACC proposals to rank columbianus, idoneus, and saltuarius each as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data. Laverde-R. & Cadena (2014) found that vocal differences among these taxa are minimal and that perhaps all should be treated as conspecific. Proposal needed.

7a. Tomotani and Silveira (2016) provided evidence that the subspecies zabele might merit treatment as a separate species from Crypturellus noctivagus. SACC proposal to treat zabele as a separate species did not pass.

8. Called "Red-footed Tinamou" by Davies (2002).

9. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) treated C. bartletti as a subspecies of Crypturellus brevirostris, and they are certainly sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. bartletti and C. brevirostris to form a superspecies, but they seem to overlap in portions of western Amazonia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Fieldwork is needed to clarify the taxonomic status of C. bartletti, which is so similar to C. brevirostris that true syntopy seems unlikely. <or some similar statement>.

10. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that C. tataupa and C. parvirostris are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).

11. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that the traditional placement of C. casiquiare near C. parvirostris and C. tataupa is not correct, and this it is most closely related to C. brevirostris/C. bartletti (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004).

12. Rhynchotus maculicollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, 1979, Cabot 1992, Monroe & Sibley 1993, Davies 2002) considered a subspecies of R. rufescens. Maijer (1996) provided evidence that maculicollis differs substantially in vocalizations from R. rufescens. The two species form a superspecies. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculicollis as a separate species.

13. Blake (1977) suggested that Nothoprocta kalinowskii might be better treated as a subspecies of N. ornata; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; analysis of phenotypic characters supports their treatment as sister taxa (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Krabbe and Schulenberg (2005) have shown that N. kalinowskii is a junior synonym of N. ornata branickii. SACC proposal passed to remove kalinowskii from list.

14. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cabot (1992) considered Nothoprocta perdicaria, N. pentlandii, and N. cinerascens to form a superspecies. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, considered this group to include N. curvirostris and not N. cinerascens. Analysis of phenotypic characters indicates that N. perdicaria and N. curvirostris might be sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002).

15. Analysis of phenotypic characters suggested that N. boraquira and N. minor are sister species (Bertelli et al. 2002), but genetic data (Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004) changed this conclusion.

16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Nothura darwinii, N. maculosa, and N. chacoensis to form a superspecies; they form a monophyletic group (Bertelli et al. 2002, Bertelli & Porzecanski 2004). Nothura darwinii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are locally sympatric and their voices differ (Fjeldså and Krabbe 1990, Cabot 1992). Nothura chacoensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Blake 1979) considered a subspecies of N. maculosa, but they are sympatric in Paraguay and northern Argentina (Blake 1977, Cabot 1992). However, the degree of hybridization between the two is uncertain, and Short (1975) and Hayes (1995) treated chacoensis as a subspecies of N. maculosa. Hayes et al. (2018) provided evidence from plumage and voice that chacoensis should be treated as a subspecies of N. maculosa. SACC proposal passed to treat chacoensis as a subspecies of N. maculosa.

16a. Bertelli & Porzecanski (2004) found that Taoniscus and Nothoprocta are sister genera.

17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eudromia elegans and E. formosa to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered conspecific, but see Conover (1950), Olrog (1959), Blake (1977), Navas & Bó (1981), and Bertelli et al. (2002).

18. The Paraguayan subspecies mira was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942) considered a separate species from Eudromia elegans, but it either merely represents an extreme in clinal variation in (Blake 1977), or a weakly diagnosable subspecies of E. elegans (Blake 1979, Cabot 1992).

19. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Tinamotis pentlandii and T. ingoufi to form a superspecies.

NEOGNATHAE

GALLOANSERES

ANSERIFORMES 1

ANHIMIDAE (SCREAMERS)

Anhima cornuta Horned Screamer

Chauna torquata Southern Screamer 1a

Chauna chavaria Northern Screamer 1a

ANATIDAE (DUCKS) 1b, 2

Dendrocygninae

Dendrocygna bicolor Fulvous Whistling-Duck 3, 3a

Dendrocygna viduata White-faced Whistling-Duck 3

Dendrocygna autumnalis Black-bellied Whistling-Duck 3

Anatinae

Anser anser Graylag Goose (IN) 3b

Cygnus melancoryphus Black-necked Swan 4

Coscoroba coscoroba Coscoroba Swan 4a

Oressochen jubatus Orinoco Goose 5, 5a

Oressochen melanopterus Andean Goose 5

Chloephaga picta Upland Goose 4a

Chloephaga hybrida Kelp Goose

Chloephaga poliocephala Ashy-headed Goose

Chloephaga rubidiceps Ruddy-headed Goose

Cairina moschata Muscovy Duck

Sarkidiornis sylvicola Comb Duck 6, 6a

Callonetta leucophrys Ringed Teal 7, 7a

Amazonetta brasiliensis Brazilian Teal 7a, 8, 8a

Merganetta armata Torrent Duck 8b

Tachyeres patachonicus Flying Steamer-Duck 8

Tachyeres pteneres Flightless Steamer-Duck 9, 10

Tachyeres brachypterus Falkland Steamer-Duck 9, 9a

Tachyeres leucocephalus White-headed Steamer-Duck 9, 11

Lophonetta specularioides Crested Duck 8, 12

Speculanas specularis Spectacled Duck 8, 13

Spatula puna Puna Teal 22, 22b

Spatula versicolor Silver Teal 22

Spatula platalea Red Shoveler 22b

Spatula clypeata Northern Shoveler (NB) 22b

Spatula discors Blue-winged Teal (NB) 22a

Spatula cyanoptera Cinnamon Teal 22a

Mareca penelope Eurasian Wigeon (V) 14, 14a, 14b

Mareca americana American Wigeon (NB) 14, 14a

Mareca sibilatrix Chiloe Wigeon 14, 14a, 15

Anas bahamensis White-cheeked Pintail 19, 21b, 21c

Anas acuta Northern Pintail (NB) 19, 19a, 20

Anas georgica Yellow-billed Pintail 19, 19a, 21, 21a

Anas crecca Green-winged Teal (V) 7a, 16, 17

Anas andium Andean Teal 7a, 16, 18

Anas flavirostris Yellow-billed Teal 7a, 16, 18

Netta erythrophthalma Southern Pochard 22c

Netta peposaca Rosy-billed Pochard 22d

Aythya collaris Ring-necked Duck (V) 23

Aythya affinis Lesser Scaup (NB)

Mergus octosetaceus Brazilian Merganser

Heteronetta atricapilla Black-headed Duck

Nomonyx dominicus Masked Duck 24

Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy Duck 25

Oxyura vittata Lake Duck 26

1. Galliformes + Anseriformes, collectively called Galloanseres, are placed in the linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details, as well as see Mayr & Clarke (2003), Fain & Houde (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), Hackett et al. (2008), Eo et al. (2009), and Prum et al. (2015). See Zusi & Livezey (2000), Sorenson et al. (2003), Cracraft et al. (2004), and Eo et al. (2009) for support for the traditional monophyly of the Anseriformes. Cracraft (2013) divided the family into four subfamilies: Dendrocygninae, Oxyurinae, Anserinae, and Anatinae.

1a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered the two species of Chauna to form a superspecies.

2. [within-family relationships] <incorp Johnson & Sorensen 1998, 1999, Livezey 1997, Donne-Gousse et al. 2002., Callaghan & Harshman 2005, Eo et al. 2009 etc., Sun et al. 2017>. The Dendrocygna whistling-ducks were considered a separate family from Anatidae by [REFS]; they are the outgroup to all other Anatidae except Anseranas [REFs, Fain & Houde (2004)]. The monophyly of the group was questioned by Eo et al. (2009).

3. Whistling-Ducks were formerly called "Tree-Ducks" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

3a. Dendrocygna bicolor and Australasian D. arcuata were considered to form a superspecies by Mayr & Short (1970), Johnsgard (1979), and Carboneras (1992f).

3b. Anser anser is introduced and established on the Falklands Islands (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Small feral population in Bogotá, Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to transfer from Hypothetical List to Main List, based on the situation in the Falklands.

4. Correct spelling for species name is melancoryphus (David & Gosselin 2002a), not "melanocoryphus" or "melanocorypha."

4a. Woolfenden (1961) proposed that Coscoroba is more closely related to other swans (Cygnus) than to any other waterfowl despite some unusual behavioral and morphological characters.

4b. Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that Neochen jubatus was the sister species to Chloephaga melanoptera; they also found that C. rubidiceps and C. poliocephala were sisters, and that C. picta and C. hybrida were sisters. SACC proposal needed to transfer Chloephaga melanoptera to Neochen.

4bb. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Chloephaga picta might consist of more than one species. Bulgarella et al. (2014) found that the Falkland Islands population and mainland populations formed distinct genetic groups.

5. Genetic data (mtDNA only; Bulgarella et al. 2014) suggest that Neochen jubatus is the sister species to Chloephaga melanoptera, and thus is likely embedded in Chloephaga as currently circumscribed. SACC proposal passed to treat Chloephaga melanoptera and Neochen jubatus as congeners; Oressochen Bannister 1870 becomes the name for these two when treated in a separate genus.

5a. Neochen is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is jubata when that genus is used (David & Gosselin 2002b); Oressochen is masculine, however, requiring masculine endings to variable species names.

6. New World sylvicola was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from Old World Sarkidiornis melanotos. Delacour and Amadon (1945) treated them as conspecific because of hybridization in aviaries. This treatment was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), Blake (1977), AOU (1998), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and others, but not by Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa), Wetmore (1965), and Kear (2005). <check Sibley-Monroe, HBW> SACC proposal passed to treat as separate species.

6a. Formerly known as American Comb-Duck (e.g., AOU 1998), but Chesser et al. (2020) followed many sources and changed to “Comb Duck”, the name often used when S. sylvicola and S. melanotos were treated as conspecific; see Note 6. SACC proposal passed to change English name to Comb Duck.

7. Callonetta leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in genus Anas, but see Johnsgard (1960) and Woolfenden (1961).

7a. Callonetta leucophrys, Amazonetta brasiliensis, Anas crecca, and A. flavirostris/andium were formerly (e.g., AOU 1932, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Nettion, but Peters (1931) included them in Anas, and this has been followed in most subsequent classifications.

8. Amazonetta was placed in Anas by Peters (1931) and subsequent authors, but see Woolfenden (1961) and Johnsgard (1965). Johnson & Sorenson (1999) found that its sister species was likely Speculanas specularis, and that these two plus Lophonetta and Tachyeres formed a monophyletic group; Eo et al. (2009) also found support, based in part on Johnson and Sorenson (1999), for the relationship Lophonetta (Amazonetta + Speculanas). Sun et al. (2017) also found that these four genera formed a monophyletic group.

8a. Called "Brazilian Duck" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

8b. Hellmayr & Conover (1948aa) treated the subspecies colombiana and leucogenis as separate species from Merganetta armata, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1931), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Johnsgard (1978), and most recent classifications.

9. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Carboneras (1992f) considered Tachyeres pteneres, T. leucocephalus, and T. brachypterus to form a superspecies. <incorp. Livezey 1986>

9a. Called "Falkland Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978). Fulton et al. (2012) found that the individuals of T. patachonicus on the Falklands are actually flying individuals of T. brachypterus.

10. Called "Magellanic Flightless Steamer Duck" in Johnsgard (1978), "Magellanic Steamer-Duck" in Carboneras (1992f) and "Fuegian Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

11. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Humphrey & Thompson (1981). Called "Chubut Steamer-Duck" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

12. Lophonetta specularioides is often (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Johnson & Sorenson (1999) and Eo et al. (2009) for return to monotypic Lophonetta, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977).

13. Speculanas specularis is often (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1978, 1979) placed in Anas, but see Livezey (1991, 1997), Johnson & Sorenson (1999), and Eo et al. (2009).

14. Livezey (1991) advocated resurrection of genus Mareca for the wigeon + Holarctic Anas strepera and Palearctic A. falcata, representing a return to the classification of Pinto (1938), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a). Mareca was merged into Anas following Peters (1931), Delacour & Mayr (1945), and Johnsgard (1965). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that Mareca is monophyletic but also suggest that the resurrection of Mareca might make Anas a paraphyletic genus (see also Eo et al. 2009). Peters et al. (2005) found that A. sibilatrix, not Old World A. penelope as in traditional and morphology-based (e.g., Livezey 1991) classifications, is the sister to A. americana. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014), resurrected Mareca based on the data in Gonzalez et al. (2009). Chesser et al. (2017) recognized Mareca. SACC proposal passed to recognize Mareca.

14a. Carboneras (1992f) considered Mareca penelope, M. americana and M. sibilatrix to form a superspecies; Eo et al. (2009) found that the three formed a monophyletic group.

14b. Photographed on Tobago, 2 Jan. 2016 (Johnson 2018). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

15. Called "Southern Wigeon" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere.

16. AOU (1931, 1957) treated North American carolinensis as a separate species from Old World A. crecca. Peters (1931), Delacour & Mayr (1945), Hellmayr & Conover (1948a), and Johnsgard (1965) treated carolinensis as a subspecies of A. crecca, and was followed by most recent classifications (e.g. AOU 1983, 1998, Dickinson & Remsen 2013). Johnson and Sorenson (1999) found that carolinensis was more closely related to A. flavirostris than either was to Old World A. crecca. but NACC delayed treating the two as separate species pending analysis of contact zone in Bering Sea and additional (nuclear) DNA data to assess whether the original result represents only a gene tree. Genetic data from the contact zone in the Bering Sea (Peters et al. 2012, 2014) indicate fairly high rates of gene flow between the two taxa.

17. Recorded from n. Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Photographed in French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010). At least three sight records, one actually a non-archived video record, for Trinidad (ffrench 1973, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003). One sight record for Aruba (Mlodinow 2004).

18. Hellmayr & Conover (1948a) and many earlier classifications treated andium as a separate species from A. flavirostris. Following <find first author to lump>, many authors, from Meyer de Schauensee (1970) to Dickinson (2003), have treated andium as a subspecies of A. flavirostris. Anas andium was considered a separate species from Anas flavirostris by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and this was followed by Hilty (2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize andium as separate species. This treatment was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Jaramillo (2003) further suggested that the subspecies oxyptera may also deserve recognition as a separate species from A. flavirostris.

19. Anas acuta, A. georgica, and A. bahamensis form a monophyletic group (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) ; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate genus, Dafila, but most authors have followed Peters (1931) in including them in Anas. Anas bahamensis and A. georgica spinicauda were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in a separate genus, Paecilonitta, but see <REF>.

19a. Johnsgard (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anas acuta and A. georgica to form a superspecies; their sister relationship was supported by Eo et al. (2009).

20. Called "Common Pintail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Pintail" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).

21. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), no rationale has ever been published for the merger (by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) of mainland Anas spinicauda with A. georgica from South Georgia Island, which was treated as separate species by Hellmayr & Conover (1948a); see also Jaramillo (2003). Proposal needed.

21a. The Colombian subspecies niceforoi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) considered a separate species from Anas georgica, but REFs, Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Blake (1977), and Johnsgard (1979) treated them as conspecific.

21b. Delacour and Mayr (1945) considered Anas bahamensis to form a superspecies with African A. erythrorhyncha, but see Eo et al. (2009).

21c. Formerly known as "Bahama Pintail" (e.g., REFS) or "Bahama Duck" (AOU 1957).

22. Anas puna and A. versicolor are sometimes (e.g., <?> Peters 1931, Johnsgard 1979, Carboneras 1992f, Dickinson 2003) considered conspecific, but most classifications (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Dickinson & Remsen 2013, del Hoyo & Collar 2014) consider them to be separate species. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species. SACC proposal to treat puna as conspecific with versicolor did not pass. Johnsgard (1965) proposed that these two species were most closely related to African A. hottentota; genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) suggest that this is correct.

22a. Anas puna and A. versicolor were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Punanetta, but see <REF>.

22a. Anas discors and A. cyanoptera were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Querquedula, but see Delacour & Mayr (1945) and McKinney (1970). Genetic data (Johnson & Sorenson 1999) confirm that they are sister species (as did Eo et al. 2009).

22b. Anas platalea and A. clypeata were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in a separate genus, Spatula, but see <REF>. Dickinson & Remsen (2013), followed by del Hoyo & Collar (2014), resurrected Spatula for this group as well as A. discors and A. cyanoptera based on the data in Gonzalez et al. (2009), which indicated that inclusion of this group in Anas makes it paraphyletic with respect to Lophonetta, Tachyeres, Amazonetta, and Speculanas (see Note 8). Chesser et al. (2017) recognized Spatula. Sun et al. (2017) found additional support for recognition of Spatula to maintain the monophyly of Anas. SACC proposal passed to recognize Spatula.

22c. Netta erythrophthalma was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed the genus Aythya, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

22d. Netta peposaca was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Metopiana, but see REFS, Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

22e. Called "Rosybill" in Johnsgard (1978), Madge & Burn (1988), Dickinson (2003) and elsewhere.

23. Recorded from northern Venezuela (Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - <get original citations>). Published photos and several sight records for Trinidad & Tobago (ffrench & White 1999, White & Hayes 2002, ffrench & Kenefick 2003, Kenefick 2004, 2012).

24. Nomonyx dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, 1983, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in the genus Oxyura. See Livezey (1995) and [McCracken REFS] for resurrection of Nomonyx as genus separate from Oxyura, a return to the classification of Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a). Eo et al. (2009) did not find support for inclusion of Nomonyx in Oxyura.

25. Andean populations have often (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Siegfried 1976, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Jaramillo 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014) been treated as a separate species, O. ferruginea ("Andean Duck" or "Andean Ruddy-Duck"). However, see Adams and Slavid (1984), Fjeldså (1986), McCracken & Sorenson (2005), and Donegan et al. (2015) for rationale for treating them as conspecific, as done previously (e.g., Blake 1977, Johnsgard 1979), and then followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Carboneras (1992f), and Dickinson & Remsen (2013). Siegfried (1976) and Livezey (1995) considered ferruginea to be more closely related to O. vittata than to O. jamaicensis, but McCracken & Sorenson (2005) showed that this is incorrect.

26. Called "Argentine Blue-billed Duck" in Johnsgard (1978) and Carboneras (1992f).

GALLIFORMES 1

CRACIDAE (GUANS) 1a

Chamaepetes goudotii Sickle-winged Guan 21

Penelope argyrotis Band-tailed Guan 8

Penelope barbata Bearded Guan 8

Penelope ortoni Baudo Guan 9

Penelope montagnii Andean Guan 9

Penelope marail Marail Guan 10

Penelope superciliaris Rusty-margined Guan 10, 15

Penelope dabbenei Red-faced Guan 10a, 10b

Penelope jacquacu Spix's Guan 11, 12, 12a

Penelope purpurascens Crested Guan 11

Penelope perspicax Cauca Guan 11, 13

Penelope albipennis White-winged Guan 11, 14

Penelope bridgesi Yungas Guan 11, 14a

Penelope obscura Dusky-legged Guan 11, 14a

Penelope pileata White-crested Guan 15

Penelope ochrogaster Chestnut-bellied Guan 15

Penelope jacucaca White-browed Guan 15

Pipile pipile Trinidad Piping-Guan 8, 16, 17

Pipile cumanensis Blue-throated Piping-Guan 17, 18

Pipile cujubi Red-throated Piping-Guan 17, 19

Pipile jacutinga Black-fronted Piping-Guan 17

Aburria aburri Wattled Guan 8, 16

Ortalis cinereiceps Gray-headed Chachalaca 2

Ortalis garrula Chestnut-winged Chachalaca 2

Ortalis ruficauda Rufous-vented Chachalaca 3

Ortalis erythroptera Rufous-headed Chachalaca

Ortalis canicollis Chaco Chachalaca

Ortalis columbiana Colombian Chachalaca 4, 5

Ortalis guttata Speckled Chachalaca 4, 5

Ortalis araucuan East Brazilian Chachalaca 4, 5

Ortalis squamata Scaled Chachalaca 4, 5

Ortalis motmot Variable Chachalaca 4, 6, 7

Ortalis ruficeps Chestnut-headed Chachalaca 4, 6, 7

Ortalis superciliaris Buff-browed Chachalaca 4, 4a

Nothocrax urumutum Nocturnal Curassow 22

Crax rubra Great Curassow 22, 30, 30a

Crax alberti Blue-billed Curassow 30, 30aa, 30c

Crax daubentoni Yellow-knobbed Curassow 30, 31

Crax alector Black Curassow 30, 30b

Crax globulosa Wattled Curassow 30

Crax fasciolata Bare-faced Curassow 30, 32

Crax blumenbachii Red-billed Curassow

Mitu tomentosum Crestless Curassow 22 23, 25, 26

Mitu salvini Salvin's Curassow 23

Mitu tuberosum Razor-billed Curassow 23, 27

Mitu mitu Alagoas Curassow 23, 27 (EX)

Pauxi pauxi Helmeted Curassow 22, 29a

Pauxi koepckeae Sira Curassow 29a, 29b

Pauxi unicornis Horned Curassow 29a, 29b

1. Galliformes + Anseriformes are placed in linear sequence to follow Tinamiformes in accordance with a wealth of data that show that these two orders are sister taxa, and that they are basal within the neognath birds. Click here for details. The monophyly of the Galliformes has never been seriously questioned and has been confirmed by Eo et al. (2009. [relationships among families]

1a. Vaurie (1968) recognized three major divisions within the family based on morphological criteria: the guans and chachalacas (tribe Penelopini), the curassows (Cracini), and the (extralimital) Horned Guan (Oreophasini). Delacour & Amadon (1973) considered the latter to be part of the chachalaca-guan group and recognized only two major divisions, (a) the curassows and (b) everything else. Del Hoyo (1994) recognized two subfamilies, Cracinae for the four genera of curassows and Penelopinae for everything else. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002) identify two main groups, one consisting of del Hoyo's Cracinae as well as Ortalis and Oreophasis, and the other consisting of the guan genera Aburria, Pipile, Penelope, Penelopina (extralimital), and Chamaepetes; however, support was weak for the nodes that include Ortalis and Oreophasis with the curassows. A more comprehensive analysis (Crowe et al. 2006) also supports treating these two groups as subfamilies. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera. SACC proposal to add subfamilies did not pass. A more recent analysis that combined genetic and phenotypic data (Pereira et al. 2009) found strong support for the two main groups above, with Ortalis and Oreophasis members of the group that includes the curassows; Eo et al. (2009), however, were unable to find support for these relationships. A proposal passed to recognize subfamilies, while but awaiting ICZN ruling on correct formulation of the subfamily for Ortalis group (see David 2014, Donegan 2105), Hosner et al. (2016) found that all extant taxa diverged within the last 10 million years or so, thus making the three lineages of very recent origin (and that Oreophasis is as old as the three other lineages). Proposal to recognize subfamilies in the Cracidae did not pass.

2. Ortalis cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Vaurie 1965b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered conspecific with O. garrula, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973); Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered them to form a superspecies.

3. The subspecies ruficrissa was considered a separate species from Ortalis ruficauda by Peters (1934) and Hellmayr & Conover (1942), but it intergrades with ruficauda in northern Colombia and Venezuela (Phelps 1943, Phelps and Phelps 1958, Vaurie 1965b, del Hoyo 1994).

4. Ortalis guttata (including O. columbiana) and O. superciliaris have been treated as conspecific with O. motmot (see Delacour & Amadon [1973] for rationale); they are considered to form a monophyletic group (Vaurie 1965) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994).

4a. Ortalis superciliaris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as O. spixi, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

5. The geographically isolated races columbiana, araucuan, and squamata have sometimes (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938, Miller 1947, Sick 1993, 1997, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) been treated as separate species from Ortalis guttata; they have generally been treated as subspecies of O. guttata following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1965). SACC proposal passed to treat columbiana as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat araucuan and squamata as separate species from Ortalis guttata. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) adopted these new species limits.

5a. Ortalis guttata remota Pinto, 1960, was treated by Vaurie (1965a) as a synonym of Ortalis [guttata] squamosa, and this was followed by all subsequent classifications. However, Silveira et al. (2017) proposed that remota is a separate species from O. guttata or O. squamata. SACC proposal to treat remota as a species did not pass.

6. Sick (1993, 1997) treated ruficeps of eastern Brazil as a separate species from Ortalis motmot. SACC proposal to treat ruficeps as a separate species did not pass. Tomotani et al. (2020) presented new evidence in favor of treating ruficeps as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat ruficeps as a separate species.

7. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) called "Little Chachalaca."

8. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Pipile and Aburria into Penelope, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.

8a. Penelope barbata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Vaurie 1966a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977) considered a subspecies of P. argyrotis, but see Delacour & Amadon (1973), who treated them as sister species (Delacour & Amadon 1973) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Parker et al. (1985) proposed that they might form a superspecies with P. montagnii. Hosner et al. (2016), however, found that these three taxa might not be closely related, but the tree topology was weakly supported.

9. Vuilleumier (1965) treated Penelope ortoni as a subspecies of P. montagnii, but see Vaurie (1966b). Eley (1982) presented evidence that its closest relative was P. marail.

10. Penelope marail and P. superciliaris were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1987) and del Hoyo (1994); Hosner et al. (2016) corroborated that they are sister taxa.

10a. Penelope dabbenei was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934) known as P. nigrifrons, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

10b. Olrog (1960) suggested that Penelope dabbenei might best be treated as a subspecies of P. montagnii, but see Vaurie (1966a). Hosner et al. (2016) corroborated that they are sister taxa.

11. Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and del Hoyo (1994) considered Penelope purpurascens, P. perspicax, P. albipennis, P. jacquacu, and P. obscura to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Vuilleumier (1965), but see Vaurie (1966b), Delacour & Amadon (1973), and Eley (1982). Hosner et al. (2016), however, found that they do not form a monophyletic group. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.

12. Penelope jacquacu has been considered conspecific with P. obscura (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but see Vaurie (1966a), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973). Hosner et al. (2016) found that P. jacquacu is sister to P. dabbenei + P. montagnii. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.

12a. The granti subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) considered a separate species from Penelope jacquacu, but see Vaurie (1966b). The Bolivian subspecies speciosa was treated as a subspecies of P. obscura by Peters (1934).

13. Penelope perspicax was considered a subspecies of P. jacquacu by Vaurie (1966b), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Blake (1977), or of P. purpurascens by Peters (1934), Hellmayr & Conover (1942), and Meyer de Schauensee (1970); for treatment as separate species, see Delacour & Amadon (1973).

14. Penelope albipennis has been considered an aberrant or albinistic form or morph of P. ortoni (Peters 1934) or P. purpurascens (Vuilleumier 1965), but Vaurie (1966a) and Eley (1982) provided evidence that it is a valid species-level taxon, as treated by Hellmayr & Conover (1942), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Delacour & Amadon (1973). Hosner et al. (2016) found that it is the sister to P. argyrotis. SACC proposal needed to rearrange linear sequence of species in Penelope.

14a. Evangelista-Vargas & Silveira (2018) treated the subspecies bridgesi of Bolivia and Argentina as a separate species but based on PSC rationale; however, no explicit rationale has ever been presented for keeping them as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to recognize bridgesi as a separate species.

15. Delacour & Amadon (1973) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Penelope pileata, P. ochrogaster, and P. jacucaca to form a superspecies; they were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Vuilleumier 1965). They form a monophyletic group (Hosner et al. 2016). Pinto (1938) considered P. jacucaca to be a subspecies of P. superciliaris.

16. The genus Pipile is merged by some (Delacour & Amadon 1973, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) into Aburria. Pipile is currently treated as a separate genus in most classifications. Genetic data (Pereira et al. 2002, Pereira & Baker 2004) indicate that Aburria and Pipile are sister taxa, and this is supported by morphological data (Grau et al. 2005a). New genetic data (Grau et al. 2005a) indicate that Aburria aburri is embedded within Pipile, thus forcing the merger of Pipile into Aburria. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass. Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Pipile into Aburria. Eo et al. (2009) were unable to support the monophyly of Pipile + Aburria because A. jacutinga fell outside the group. SACC proposal to merge Pipile into Aburria did not pass. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) maintained the two as separate genera. Hosner et al. (2016) showed that Aburria is sister to all Pipile.

17. As noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), evidence for species rank for the four species of Pipile is weak, and various authors have used just about every possible permutation of species limits. Many authors (e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Hilty 2003) continue to treat them as a single species, Pipile pipile ("Common Piping-Guan"), whereas others (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, del Hoyo 1994) consider all four major groups as separate species, the treatment followed here. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. cujubi to form a superspecies, but excluded P. jacutinga. Although the latter has been considered sympatric with P. p. grayi in eastern Paraguay (Blake 1977), del Hoyo & Motis (2004) noted that the evidence for sympatry is weak. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977) considered cumanensis to be conspecific with P. pipile, but considered cujubi and jacutinga to be separate species. Peters (1934) considered the genus to contain three species: P. pipile, P. cumanensis, and P. jacutinga. Pinto (1938) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. pipile (and cumanensis, grayi, and jacutinga as species), but later (Pinto 1964) treated cujubi as a subspecies of P. jacutinga. Where P. cujubi nattereri and P. cumanensis grayi meet in eastern Bolivia, they interbreed freely, forming a hybrid swarm (del Hoyo and Motis 2004) <track down original reference>, and so this suggests that species limits should be re-evaluated and returned to those of Delacour & Amadon (1973), who considered the genus to contain two species: P. pipile (including cumanensis, cujubi, etc.) and P. jacutinga. Proposal needed. [incorp. Vaurie (1967a)]

18. The subspecies grayi was considered a separate species from Pipile cumanensis by Pinto (1938), but they intergrade in southeastern Peru (REF). <incorp. Gyldenstolpe 1945> However, del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated grayi as a separate species, “White-throated Piping-Guan.”

19. The subspecies nattereri is usually considered a subspecies of Pipile cumanensis (e.g., Pinto 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970); however, it is perhaps sympatric with P. cumanensis grayi on the lower Rio Madeira (Vaurie 1967a), and if this is verified, the two deserve treatment as separate species (Blake 1977). <needs to be reconciled with previous note - need to see Del Hoyo-Motis 2004; <track down original reference>

21. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered Chamaepetes goudotii to form a superspecies with Middle American C. unicolor.

22. Generic limits in the curassows are controversial. Vuilleumier (1965) merged Mitu, Pauxi, and even Nothocrax into Crax, and this was followed by Delacour & Amadon (1973). Vaurie (1967d), however, outlined rationale for maintaining the four genera as separate, and also pointed out that Nothocrax was a strong outlier in the group, a prediction subsequently verified by genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004, Hosner et al. 2016). Most subsequent treatments have followed Vaurie (1967d). However, Frank-Hoeflich et al. (2007) presented morphological and genetic data to support the merger of Mitu into Pauxi. SACC proposal to merge Mitu into Pauxi did not pass. Hosner et al. (2016) also found that Pauxi is embedded in Mitu. See Note 29a.

23. Vaurie (1967d), Haffer (1987), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Del Hoyo (1994) considered all species of Mitu to form a superspecies. <check overlap salvini-tuberosum>; genetic data support the genus as a monophyletic group if the genetic similarity between M. tuberosum and Pauxi unicornis is due to hybridization (Pereira & Baker 2004). However, see Note 22.

25. Mitu is neuter, so the correct spellings of the species names are tuberosum and tomentosum (David & Gosselin 2002b).

26. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Lesser Razor-billed Curassow."

27. Mitu tuberosum was formerly (e.g., Vaurie 1967d, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with M. mitu, but most recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed del Hoyo (1994) in treating it as a separate species. See Silveira et al. (2004) for history of the taxon and a summary of its unique characters and rationale for considering it and tuberosum as a separate species. <incorp. Grau et al. 2005b> Pereira & Baker (2004) found that M. tuberosum and M. mitu are not sister taxa and are not particularly closely related, but more complete genetic sampling found that they were indeed sister taxa (Hosner et al. 2016).

27a. Although Mitu mitu is considered extinct in the wild, with no confirmed sightings since the late 1980s. two captive breeding populations exist, and the potential for reintroduction into the wild exists (BirdLife International).

29a. Pauxi pauxi and P. unicornis (then including P. koepckeae) were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994); they were considered conspecific by Wetmore & Phelps (1943), but see Vaurie (1967d). Recent genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004), however, indicated that P. unicornis was more similar in its mtDNA sequence to Crax tuberosum than to P. pauxi or other curassows, but the authors suspected that this was a consequence of past hybridization between P. unicornis and C. tuberosum and recommended not changing generic limits without further analyses. Aleixo & Rossetti (2007) also suspected that the result might be due to a lab error. See also Eo et al. (2009). Hosner et al. (2016) also found that the two species of Pauxi were not particularly closely related.

29b. Gastañaga et al. (2011) found strong vocal differences between the subspecies koepckeae and nominate unicornis and proposed that they be treated as separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate koepckeae to species rank. This treatment was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Hosner et al. (2016) also found that the two species of Pauxi were not particularly closely related.

30. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo (1994) considered the seven species of Crax to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) support the genus as a monophyletic group of parapatric taxa; see also Eo et al. (2009). However, see Note 22.

30a. <Crax globicera (e.g. Chapman 1926) syn. of C. rubra>

30aa. "Crax annulata," described from northern Colombia and treated as a species by Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered to be female plumage of barred morph of C. alberti (Peters 1934, Vaurie (1967c), del Hoyo 1994). "Crax viridirostris" refers to an aviary bird for which the mother was C. daubentoni (Joseph et al. 1999); see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

30b. Crax alector was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) known as C. nigra, but see Hellmayr & Conover (1942).

30c. "Crax estudilloi," known from a single aviary specimen from Bolivia, was considered a probable hybrid (C. fasciolata and Crax sp.) by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987); however, Joseph et al. (1999) found that its mtDNA was identical to that of C. alberti; see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

31. Peters (1934) considered Crax daubentoni as a subspecies C. alberti, but see Vaurie (1967c). Genetic data (Pereira & Baker 2004) are consistent with their treatment as sister taxa.

32. The northeastern subspecies pinima was formerly (e.g., Peters 1934, Pinto 1938) treated as a separate species from Crax fasciolata; they have generally been treated as conspecific following Hellmayr & Conover (1942) and Vaurie (1967c). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated it as a separate species based on female plumage, “Belem Curassow”.

ODONTOPHORIDAE (NEW WORLD QUAILS) 1

Rhynchortyx cinctus Tawny-faced Quail 6, 6a

Colinus cristatus Crested Bobwhite 2

Callipepla californica California Quail (IN)

Odontophorus gujanensis Marbled Wood-Quail

Odontophorus capueira Spot-winged Wood-Quail

Odontophorus atrifrons Black-fronted Wood-Quail 3

Odontophorus erythrops Rufous-fronted Wood-Quail 4

Odontophorus hyperythrus Chestnut Wood-Quail 5

Odontophorus melanonotus Dark-backed Wood-Quail 5

Odontophorus speciosus Rufous-breasted Wood-Quail 5

Odontophorus dialeucos Tacarcuna Wood-Quail 3

Odontophorus strophium Gorgeted Wood-Quail 3

Odontophorus columbianus Venezuelan Wood-Quail 3

Odontophorus balliviani Stripe-faced Wood-Quail

Odontophorus stellatus Starred Wood-Quail

PHASIANIDAE (PHEASANTS)

Phasianus colchicus Ring-necked Pheasant (IN) 7

Lophura nycthemera Silver Pheasant (IN) 8

1. The New World Quails were treated as a separate family from Old World quails, partridges, and pheasants (Phasianidae) by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Whether these families are sister taxa within the Galliformes was formerly regarded as uncertain (Armstrong et al. 2001, Dimcheff et al. 2002), but genetic data (Cox et al. 2007, Eo et al. 2009, Kimball & Braun 2014) confirm that the New World quail are the sister taxon to a group that includes turkeys, pheasants, partridges and Old world quail (Phasianidae), but not the guineafowl (Numididae). Recognition of Odontophoridae as a separate family has also been adopted by Carroll (1994), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003). Eo et al. (2009) found support for the monophyly of the family. Given that the original rationale for treating the New World quail as a separate family was based in part on concern that their inclusion in Phasianidae would make that group non-monophyletic, and given that two African taxa (Ptilopachus petrosus and “Francolinus” nahani) are now members of the Odontophoridae (Crowe et al. 2006, Kimball et al. 2011, Cohen et al. 2012, Dickinson & Remsen 2013), family rank should be reconsidered. Proposal needed.

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Colinus cristatus to form a superspecies with North and Middle American C. virginianus and Middle American C. nigrogularis. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered Central American C. leucopogon to be conspecific with C. cristatus; they form a superspecies (Stiles & Skutch 1989). REFS and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) treated leucopogon as a subspecies of C. cristatus. SACC proposal needed.

3. Species limits and relationships within montane Odontophorus are complex and are currently maintained largely by historical momentum rather than analysis or data. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus dialeucos and O. strophium to form a superspecies. Carroll (1994) suggested that these two and also O. columbianus, O. atrifrons, and Central American O. leucolaemus could be considered conspecific. However, the traditional placement of O. atrifrons in linear sequences is next to members of other groups, e.g., O. erythrops or O. hyperythrus. Hellmayr & Conover (1942) maintained columbianus as a separate species but stated that it was almost certainly conspecific with O. strophium.

4. Odontophorus erythrops forms a superspecies with Middle American melanotis (Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (e.g., Peters 1934, Hellmayr & Conover 1942, Ridgway & Friedmann 1946, Blake 1977, AOU 1983) have considered them conspecific.

5. Blake (1977) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontophorus hyperythrus O. melanonotus, and O. speciosus to form a superspecies; Carroll (1994) suggested that they all could be treated as conspecific, as they were formerly by (REF).

6. Hosner et al. (2015) found that Rhynchortyx was the sister to all other New World Odontophoridae. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera.

6a. Called "Banded Wood Quail" in Wetmore (1965) and "Long-legged Colin" in Ridgway & Friedmann (1946).

7. A population of Phasianus colchicus has become established in Aisen and Capitan Prat, Chile (Barros 2015). SACC proposal passed to add this to the Main List.

8. A population of Lophura nycthemera has become established in Neuquén, Argentina. SACC proposal passed to add this to the Main List.

NEOGNATHAE

NEOAVES 1

PHOENICOPTERIFORMES 1a

PHOENICOPTERIDAE (FLAMINGOS)

Phoenicopterus chilensis Chilean Flamingo 3

Phoenicopterus ruber American Flamingo 2, 3

Phoenicoparrus andinus Andean Flamingo 4

Phoenicoparrus jamesi James's Flamingo 4, 5

1. The linear sequence of orders in the Neoaves is maintained in part from historical momentum and tradition rather than phylogenetic data. Although the branching sequence deep within the Neoaves tree has been difficult to resolve, new, concordant data sets (REFS) allow increasing confidence with respect to some of the deep nodes. Chesser et al. (2016) revised the sequence of orders of the Neoaves based on these new data. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence of orders.

1a. Various evidence has been interpreted to support treatment of the flamingos within or closest to the Ciconiiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Livezey & Zusi 2007), Anseriformes (Hagey et al. 1990), and Charadriiformes (Olson & Feduccia 1980). However, all recent data support a sister relationship to the grebes (Podicipediformes; see below). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence to move next to Podicipediformes. The monophyly of the Phoenicopteriformes has never been questioned; they are so similar that they were treated in a single genus by Sibley and Monroe (1990).

2. The Old World subspecies roseus had been recognized as a separate species by some authors (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977), with the English name "Greater Flamingo" applied to the Old World species, and either "Caribbean Flamingo" or "American Flamingo" (e.g., AOU 1957, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty 2003) used for the New World species. Sangster (1997) reviewed the evidence for species rank of roseus and recommended it be returned to species rank. This was followed by NACC (Banks et al. 2008), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). <incorp. Knox et al. 2002> SACC proposal passed to return roseus to species rank. Torres et al. (2014) found that at the loci sampled, roseus and ruber are as divergent as andinus and jamesi. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

3. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phoenicopterus ruber and P. chilensis to form a superspecies; they were treated as conspecific by Pinto (1938) and Hellmayr & Conover (1948a).

4. Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus based on small genetic distances among all flamingos as measured by DNA-DNA hybridization (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990); further, the distinctions between the genera are based on bill morphology. Kahl (1979b), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), del Hoyo (1992), Dickinson & Remsen (2013), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) maintained Phoenicoparrus as a separate genus. Torres et al. (2014) Phoenicoparrus and Phoenicopterus represented two divergent lineages. SACC proposal to merge Phoenicoparrus into Phoenicopterus did not pass.

5. Called "Puna Flamingo" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley and Monroe (1990), del Hoyo (1992), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal did not pass to change English name.

PODICIPEDIFORMES 1

PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBES) 1a, 1b, 1c

Rollandia rolland White-tufted Grebe 2, 3

Rollandia microptera Titicaca Grebe 4, 4a

Tachybaptus dominicus Least Grebe 5

Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed Grebe

Podiceps major Great Grebe 6

Podiceps andinus Colombian Grebe (EX) 7

Podiceps occipitalis Silvery Grebe 8, 9

Podiceps taczanowskii Junin Grebe 10

Podiceps gallardoi Hooded Grebe 11

1. The grebes constitute a distinctive lineage with no close relatives (other than flamingoes – see below), and the monophyly of the order has never been questioned. Morphological similarities to the loons (Gaviiformes) have been interpreted as reflecting relatedness (e.g., Cracraft 1982, Mayr & Clarke 2003, Livezey and Zusi 2007) and has led to their traditional placement next to each other in most linear classifications (e.g., AOU 1983), but genetic data strongly suggest that these morphological similarities are purely due to convergence (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). Van Tuinen et al. (2001) suggested that the closest living relatives of the grebes are the flamingos (Phoenicopteriformes), and this has been confirmed by all subsequent genetic data (Chubb 2004a, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015, Suh et al. 2015); this hypothesis also has morphological support (Mayr & Clarke 2003, Mayr 2004, Manegold 2006; cf. Livezey & Zusi 2007), and the ischnoceran lice of the two groups are also sisters (Johnson et al. 2006). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) also suggest that both orders are part of an early radiation that does not include their traditional close relatives such as Ciconiiformes or Gaviiformes.

1a. The sequence of genera and species in this classification follows Storer (1979). [incorporate Simmons 1962, Storer 1963, Bochenski 1994]

1b. All of the New World grebes were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in one genus, Colymbus, but see Salomonsen (1951) and Hemming (1952).

1c. For use of Podicipedidae over Podicipitidae, see ICZN (1972).

2. Rollandia rolland was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer's (1963) analysis of morphology and display behavior in use of Rollandia for this species and microptera.

3. The subspecies of continental South America, Rollandia r. chilensis, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938; see also Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a separate species from nominate rolland of the Falkland Islands.

4. Rollandia microptera was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1948a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Centropelma; Simmons (1962) provided rationale for its merger into Podiceps. Recent classifications usually follow Storer (1963, 1967) in placing this species in Rollandia (see Note 2).

4a. Called "Titicaca Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Llimona & del Hoyo (1992), and "Short-winged Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Blake (1977). SACC proposal passed to change from "Short-winged Grebe" (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970) to "Titicaca Grebe." The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007).

5. Tachybaptus dominicus was formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Wetmore 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Podiceps, but recent classifications usually follow Storer (1976) in the use of Tachybaptus for this species and its Old World relatives; Pinto (1938) placed it in the genus Poliocephalus.

6. Podiceps major was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1948a) placed in the genus Aechmophorus, but see Wetmore & Parkes (1954). Bochenski (1994) proposed that this species be placed in a monotypic genus (Podicephorus Bochenski, 1994) based on morphological differences; see also Storer (1963, 1996), who noted that it has a behavioral display unlike that of any other grebe. Proposal needed.

7. Podiceps andinus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Storer 1979) considered a subspecies of mostly N. Hemisphere P. nigricollis, but see Fjeldså (1982a, 1985), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Hilty & Brown (1986); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ogawa et al. (2015) found that P. andinus is more closely related to New World P. n. californicus than either are to the nominate Podiceps nigricollis group of the Old World.

8. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the northern Andean subspecies, juninensis, might merit recognition as a separate species from Podiceps occipitalis. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated them as separate species. The gene tree in Ogawa et al. (2015) is consistent with treating juninensis as a separate species. SACC proposal to treat as a separate species did not pass.

9. Storer (1979) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) included Podiceps occipitalis in a superspecies with P. andinus and P. nigricollis; Llimona & del Hoyo (1992) also included P. taczanowskii in that superspecies, but the latter is syntopic with P. occipitalis.

10. Called "Puna Grebe" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Blake (1977), and elsewhere; called "Junin Flightless Grebe" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to change to "Junin Grebe”. The latter was adopted by Schulenberg et al. (2007) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

11. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Rumboll (1974).

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes