| 1 All recent sources
agree that there are two major basal lineages: Palaeognathae (ratites
and tinamous) and Neognathae (all others). Within the Paeaeognathae,
Dickinson (2003) places Tinamiformes before Struthoniformes but both
HBW and SACC have the opposite arrangement; I follow the latter
approach. The arrangement within the Struthoniformes (Ostriches through
Kiwis) is the same in all recent sources.
2 Within the Neognathae
there are also two basal lineages: Galloanserae (gamebirds and
waterfowl) and Neoaves (all others). This means that the gamebirds and
waterfowl must be placed next in the list (after ratites and
tinamous); this was recently done in the AOU checklist (2002). Whether
gamebirds (megapodes through quail) or waterfowl (screamers through
ducks) are listed next is a matter of style. Dickinson (2003) puts the
gamebirds first but AOU and SACC put the waterfowl first, and this fits
better with the traditional arrangement (as in HBW).
3 Splitting
the Magpie-Goose as a separate family is a Sibley-Ahlquist (1990)
innovation based on DNA hybridization; they also split the
Whistling-Ducks [Dendrocygnidae] as a family. Dickinson (2003) elevates
Magpie-Goose to family status but not the Whistling-Ducks; this was
supported by Livesey (1997). SACC and AOU also do not elevate the
Whistling-Ducks (at least for now).
4 The order I use within
the Galliformes [Megapodes through Pheasants] is from Dickinson (2003).
HBW lists New World Quail between Grouse and Pheasants but it is beyond
dispute that Grouse and Pheasants are more closely related to each
other than to New World Quail, and most now merge Grouse into the Phasianidae (see next footnote).
5 Dickinson
(2003) and AOU (1998) consider turkeys and grouse to be subfamilies of
Phasianidae, as the biochemical evidence shows these lineages are
embedded within the larger pheasant/partridge assemblage (e.g.,
Dimcheff et al. 2002). In prior lists I had followed HBW in retaining
each group as a 'traditional' family, each of which is easily
recognized and each of which is a monophyletic group. Now I have
followed the recent evidence, and merge turkeys and grouse into the
Phasianidae. I have given them separate 'subfamily' web pages, though,
for convenience.
6 There
is as yet no agreement as to the relationships of those birds listed
between Loons and Diving-Petrels. The sequence here generally follows
HBW, but this is then varied to follow SACC in moving penguins next to
procellarids and flamingos next to grebes; e.g., van Tuinen et al.
(2001).
The sequence in the
Pelecaniformes (Tropicbirds through Frigatebirds) follows traditional
sequences (e.g., HBW, AOU, SACC) but there is growing evidence (e.g.,
van Tuinen et al. 2001) that Hamerkop and Shoebill evolved from the
pelican lineage. I now follow Dickinson (2003) in placing these two
families [Scopidae, Balaenicipitidae] next to the Pelicans
[Pelicanidae] even though I do not follow the rest of his sequence
within the Pelecaniformes.
7 Christidis
& Boles (2008) split the storm-petrels into two families:
Hydrobatidae (northern storm-petrels) and Oceanitidae (southern
storm-petrels). Most others (e.g., SACC) consider these two lineages to
be subfamilies. The Christidis & Boles (2008) approach relied
heavily on Nunn & Stanley (1998) and Penhallurick & Wink
(2004), which argued that the storm-petrels were not monophyletic when
compared to albatrosses (Diomedeidae). Penhallurick & Wink (2004)
has been the subject to compelling criticism (Rheindt & Austin
2005), and the entire system of attempting to date divergence is deeply
flawed (Graur & Martin 2004). Thus I do not split the storm-petrels
at this time. It seems best to await a worldwide consensus on the
families within the Procellariiformes.
8 The sequence in the
Ciconiiformes (herons through storks) and the placement of the
flamingos [Phoenicopteriformes] follows AOU and SACC (and is close to
HBW) but I do not include the New World vultures [Catharidae] within
this order; see note #9.
9 AOU (1998),
Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) put
the New World vultures with storks. This was based primarily on early
DNA evidence but, as Joel Cracraft says in Dickinson (2003), "the
evidence supporting the various alternative hypotheses has not been very
compelling." Morphological evidence (e.g., Griffiths 1994) supports the
traditional placement of the catharids within the Falconidae. I follow
HBW and Dickinson (2003) in placing the New World Vultures as the first
family in the Falconidae.
10 Osprey has been treated
as a subfamily of the Accipitridae by many (e.g., Sibley & Monroe
1990, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003) but I follow HBW in retaining
traditional family status. The footnote on the SACC web site says
"Although all available data indicate that it is the sister taxon to
the hawks and eagles, the rank at which it is treated is rather
arbitrary. Given its unique karyotype, which differs from that known
for other hawks and eagles, and given that Pandion haliaetus can be recognized as a species in the fossil record as far back as the
Miocene, family rank may be more appropriate." To continue to give
Pandionidae family status also fits well with my belief that
distinctive and unique genera are often best handled as monotypic
families. See the next note.
11 Dickinson (2003)
reduces Secretarybird to a subfamily of the Accipitridae without any
comment. Yet even Sibley & Monroe (1990) continued family status,
as did the Birds of Africa handbook (Brown et al. 1982) and, more
recently, HBW. To me this is an "obvious" family — an exceptionally
unique and distinctive species that deserves its traditional family
rank, as it is not embedded within other lineages.
12 The sequence of the
Gruiformes (mesites through bustards) follows HBW. Dickinson (2003) has
a different sequence (it starts with bustards and ends with
buttonquail) but it is admitted that many points are still uncertain.
It seems better at this point to stick with a traditional
sequence among these enigmatic set of birds. There is still some
question as to whether the Gruiformes are a monophyletic group. There
is evidence that Mesites, for example, are more closely related to
Cuckoos than any of the Gruiformes (Mayr & Ericson 2004).
13 The sequence of the
Charadriiformes follows SACC (2006). Somewhat different sequences are
in Sibley & Monroe (1990), AOU (1998), HBW, and Dickinson (2003).
Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et
al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004) support the hypothesis that the
Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae are sister families and that these
two families form the sister group to the Charadriidae. Likewise,
genetic evidence shows that indicate that the Thinocoridae are the
sister taxon to the Pedionomidae, and that these in turn are members of
the scolopacine radiation of the Charadriiformes (including
Scolopacidae, Jacanidae, and Rostratulidae).
14 Although Sibley &
Monroe (1990) lumped the Ibisbill with Stilts & Avocets (they did
not even give in 'subfamily' or 'tribe' status!), both HBW and
Dickinson (2003) retain it as a separate family. I agree. It is a
unique bird that is highly sought be world birders. I'm pleased that
current evidence considers to support family status.
15 The taxonomic status of
Magellanic Plover Pluvianellus socialis is uncertain. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) and Sibley 1996) considered it a monotypic family
on initial DNA hybridization results, but admitted their conclusion was
to stimulate further research, rather than a well-supported decision.
Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) used an analysis of morphological
characters to argue that it was more closely related to the Chionidae
than in its traditional place among the plovers [Charadriidae]. Recent
genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship. SACC (2006)
now considers this a monotypic family. Dickinson (2003) provisionally
includes Magellanic Plover within the Chionidae. I have waffled on how
to treat this for years. It is still uncertain, but I now tentatively
raise this taxon to family level status, following the SACC, as this
approach is consistent with my treatment of separate family status for
both Rockjumpers and Rockfowl.
16 Everyone now agrees
that Plains-wanderer is properly in the Charadriiformes (shorebirds)
rather than a Gruiformes (cranes & allies). Recent genetic data
(Paton et al. 2003) indicates that it a sister taxon to the Seedsnipes.
Fortunately, HBW places them next to each other.
17 My
sequence and family-level approach follows HBW. There is still little
agreement on the best arrangement. AOU (1998) follows Sibley &
Ahlquist (1990) in reducing skuas, gulls, terns, and skimmers to
subfamilies to the Laridae. Dickinson (2003) resurrects the Skuas
[Stercorariidae] to family status but rearranges the sequence; I have
done so as well. Dickinson (2003) also maintains Skimmers
[Rynchopidae], leaving only the terns behind. I prefer the traditional
approach. It is reasonably clear that each group (gulls, terns,
skimmers, skuas) is a monophyletic group that is distinctive in the
field. I retain them all as separate families.
18 Sibley & Ahlquist
(1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) raised the Cockatoos to family
level distinct from the other Parrots. HBW took this approach, and I
follow them here. But Dickinson (2003) combined them again into a
single Psittacidae noting, in footnotes, that various other groups
(e.g., Kakapo Strigops habroptila, the hanging-parrots Loriculus
et al.) could also qualify for family status. Christidis & Boles
(2008) reviewed the evidence and now split the psittaciformes into
three families: Cockatoos, Typical Parrots (Psittacidae), and New
Zealand Parrots (Nestoridae, which includes Kakapo). I now follow this
new arrangement.
19 To quote a footnote in
the SACC: "The placement of this order [Opisthocomiformes] is highly
controversial. Genetic data have indicated that it is closely related
to the Cuculiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) or Musophagiformes
(Hughes & Baker 1999). De Queiroz and Good (1988) found
morphological evidence consistent with its placement near Cuculiformes
or Musophagiformes.... However, the most recent genetic analysis
(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." Dickinson (2003) also takes the approach used by SACC:
Hoatzin is placed just before the Cuculiformes. I now follow them;
there is no support for the HBW sequence that places it near Gruiformes.
20 Sibley & Monroe
(1990) split the cuckoos into four families — based on DNA divergence —
but most other recent checklists continue to place them all (Old World
cuckoos, New World cuckoos, anis, and ground-cuckoos) within a single
family [Cuculidae]. This is the approach of AOU, SACC, HBW and
Dickinson (2003).
21 The
sequence in the Caprimulgiformes (oilbirds through nightjars) follows
HBW. Dickinson (2003) has a somewhat different sequence. Christidis
& Boles (2008) pointed to evidence that owlet-nightjars may be
grouped with the Apodiformes. I don't know yet whether that will be
widely accepted, but have moved owlet-nightjars to a position between
the Caprimulgiformes and Apodiformes.
22 Sibley
& Ahlquist (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) split frogmouths
into two families: Australian frogmouths [Podargidae] and Asian
frogmouths [Batrachostomidae]. Neither HBW nor Dickinson (2003) follow
this approach — they consider the two different sets to be subfamilies.
However, Holyoak (2001) acknowledges that they differ not only
biochemically, but also in nest structure, and could be separate
families, and that split is implied in Christidis & Boles (2008).
My personal experience suggests that they are two different sets of
birds, so while one could go either way, I lean toward the split.
23 Having
split the two frogmouths into families, as suggested initially by
Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), one must question whether to do the same
with the nightjars, as Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) also split the
Eared-Nightjars from the rest of the caprimulgids. Christidis &
Boles (2008) summarize recent molecular studies that found
eared-nightjars to be the sister group to the rest of them, so I now
follow them with this split.
24 The
sequence within the Coradiiformes (kingfishers through hornbills)
follows HBW; Dickinson (2003) has a slightly different sequence. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) divided the kingfishers into three families
[Alcedinidae, Dacelonidae, and Cerylidae] but some of the recent major
checklists (HBW, Dickinson 2003) consider these groups to be
subfamilies. Christidis & Boles (2008) reviewed the evidence, and
adopted the three-way split. Since this change affects Australasia much
more heavily than the New World, it seems best to follow the approach
of Christidis & Boles (2008).
25 This web-based
checklist had elevated the Ground-Hornbills to family rank several
editions ago, following the persuasive argument by Kemp (1995), and the
arrangement of Sibley & Monroe (1990). HBW did not do so, even
though Alan Kemp authored the family account for all hornbills (a case
where editorial preference trumped the author of the family account). It
is thus very encouraging to find that Dickinson (2003) also elevates
the Ground-Hornbills to family status. However, I place them before the
Bucerotidae on the grounds that they represent an ancient and likely
more basal lineage. Dickinson says that is their approach also by they
list the typical hornbills first for unknown reasons.
26 Biochemical evidence
supports the concept that jacamars and puffbirds are sister groups, but
whether they should have their own Order [Galbuliformes] has been
controversial. I follow HBW and SACC in considering them an Order and
placing them here before the Piciformes (barbets through woodpeckers).
Dickinson (2003) places them within the Picidae and at the end of that
Order.
The barbets and
relatives have been a problem ever since Prum (1988) showed that the
traditional classification of Barbets [Capitonidae] and Toucans
[Ramphastidae] as separate families was not supported by biochemical
evidence. The toucans were more closely related to other New World
barbets than the New World barbets were to any of the Old World
barbets. Sibley & Monroe (1990) proposed to lump toucans into New
World barbets and separate Old World barbets into two different
families: Megalaimidae [Asian Barbets] and Lybiidae [African Barbets].
HBW followed the old traditional approach but acknowledged the problem.
Dickinson (2003) and AOU (1998) just lumped them all within a single
family [Ramphastidae]. This would mean the loss of toucans as a
distinctive family, and disguise the significant biodiversity within
the group.
In my view, the SACC has
adopted a better approach. It divides these birds into five separate
families, explaining: "The families Capitonidae, Semnornithidae, and
Ramphastidae are each other's closest relatives
with respect to Old World barbets (Burton 1984, Prum 1988, Sibley and
Ahlquist 1990, Lanyon & Hall 1994, Barker & Lanyon 2000,
Johansson et al. 2001, Johansson & Ericson 2003, Moyle 2004). Old
Word barbets are here tangentially treated as separate families, Asian
Megalaimidae and African Lybiidae; recent genetic data (Moyle 2004)
support the monophyly of the barbet radiations within each region. To
emphasize the close relationships among New World taxa, these three
families were treated as subfamilies of a single family, Ramphastidae,
by AOU (1998). SACC proposal passed to treat these taxa at family rank. Semnornis [Toucan-Barbets] is treated as
separate family until affinities resolved. . . Genetic data indicate
that Semnornis may be basal to both families (Barker and Lanyon
2000); Moyle (2004) found weak support for that relationship, but also
weak support for a sister relationship to Ramphastidae."
27 Barker et al. (2004)
showed that the New Zealand Wrens were a very early offshoot, basal to
all other passerines, so I place it first, following Dickinson (2003).
The sequence of the Suboscine Passerines (pittas
through lyrebirds) generally follows HBW (except for placing pittas
first among the Suboscines and for the addition of Sapayoa; see note
29).
28 Prum (1993) concluded,
on the basis of syringeal and osteological characters, that the Asities
were embedded within the Broadbill clade and merged them together, but
this was challenged on DNA sequence data by Irestedt et al. (2001).
That study lacked, however, some broadbill genera. HBW took the more
conservative and traditional approach in maintaining the Asities as a
family.
Moyle et al. (2006a)
provided the necessary new research to sort this all out. They showed
that there were two major clades within the Broadbills — (1) a grouping
of the Calyptomenna broadbills of Asia (these are the green
broadbills) and the Smithornis broadbills of Africa (these are
the lowland forest broadbills in Africa), and (2) a grouping of the
remaining Asian broadbills (5 genera) plus Grauer's Broadbill Pseudocalyptomena
graueri (a montane species which is an Albertine Rift endemic),
plus Asities in Madagascar and the Sapayoa of the New World (see note
29). The Broadbills as a traditional family are only monophyletic if
one considers Asities and Sapayoa to be broadbills. The situation
is comparable to the barbet/toucan conundrum in which the options are
either to lump all toucans/barbets together or separate them into
5 families, including elevating Toucan-Barbet to family status. The
SACC chose the batter option with the barbet/toucan assemblage.
The DNA evidence in the
broadbills best supports (in my view) creating two families of
broadbills — the Calyptomenid Broadbills [genera Calyptomena and Smithornis] and the Eurylaimid Broadbills [all other
genera, including Pseudocalyptomena]
— and retaining the Asities and the Sapayoa as separate families. No
authoritative source yet does this, though, so this is quite tentative.
29 Lanyon (1985) and
Sibley & Monroe (1990) found biochemical evidence that Sapayoa Sapayoa
aenigma was related to Old World suboscines, and may be the only
relict of an ancient lineage left in the Neotropics. Both SACC and
Dickinson (2003) consider it a monotypic family. AOU (1998) relegated
it to incertae sedis (=unknown taxonomic position), awaiting
more evidence. That new evidence is now available in Moyle et al.
(2006); see note 28.
30
Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a) indicates that
the woodcreepers, traditionally considered a family [Dendrocolapidae]
are embedded within the Furnariidae, and within that large group, Geositta and Sclerurus
are sister genera that are basal to all Furnariidae (including
dendrocolaptids). The SACC (2008) has lumped the woodcreepers with the
ovenbirds; I simply follow suit here.
31
Recent genetic work (e.g., Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004b, and
others) showed that there were three distinct lineages in the
"Formicariidae." The South American and North American checklist
committees have handled this by restricting Formicariidae to just two
genera of antthrushes [Formicarius, Chamaeza]; created the family Grallariidae for all antpittas except the genus Pittasoma;
and assigned the two species of Pittasoma antipitta to the Gnateater
family [Rhincocryptidae]. This seems like only a temporary solution to
me — the two Pittasoma antipittas are huge compared to the tiny
gnateaters; they don't behave like granteaters; and they may deserve
their own family.
32
The crescentchests of central & southern South America are not
closely related to the tapaculos, where they have been traditionally
placed (Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004b). The South American
Checklist Committe has created a new family for this group, the
Melanopareiidae.
33 The problematic group that includes tityras, becards, mourners and
others has been handled many different ways in recent decades (e.g.,
Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Ericson et al. 2006 proposes the family name
Tityridae for the "Schiffornis assemblage," and they also
include Sharpbill Oxyruncus cristatus in this new family. Barber & Rice (2007) confirmed the monophyly of
the primary elements of this group and also proposed elevation to
family rank. The SACC (2008) has accepted this proposal, and so do I.
However, there is still uncertainty about Sharpbill and SACC (2008) has
provisionally retained it as a family. I merge it with the Tityridae,
following Ericson et al. (2006), as that evidence looks persuasive to
me at this point.
34 The sequence of the
Oscine Passerines (all the rest of the families) is perhaps the most
problematic of all issues. As an American, I am most comfortable with
the general arrangement of AOU (1998), which has also been generally
adopted by SACC. These checklists deal only with the New World and do
not address the myriad of problems in arranging the Old World families.
The proposals of Sibley & Monroe (1990) — wrongly adopted by some
field guides — have proved to be partly right but quite wrong in
others. The idea of a monolithic Corvidae that arose solely in
Australasia is both partly right and partly wrong. Nuclear gene
sequencing (Barker et al. 2002) provides some potential directions but
is still preliminary. It is, however, now quite apparent that the
sequence adopted by HBW (and by me in the 5th edition of this web-based
list) was quite out-of-sync with reality.
Alas, there will
probably be more revisions to come in the future. For the moment, I
adopt most of the Oscine Passerine sequence of Dickinson (2003) but
with modifications. It seems to me, however, that certain decisions are
not well supported — and in all those cases the Dickinson (2003) family
sequence (actually drafted by Joel Cracraft) fails to explain its
decisions. For example, waxwings, silky-flycatchers, and Hypocolius are
all lumped by Cracraft (Dickinson 2003) in the Bombycillidae. My own
brief field experience suggests that Hypocolius is related to bulbuls,
not waxwings/silky-flycatchers. Likewise, some biochemical evidence
suggest Bornean Bristlehead [Pityriaseidae] is related to butcherbirds
[Cracticidae] but the Cracraft list has it between Ioras and
Cuckoo-shrikes. For now, I deviate from the Cracraft/Dickinson sequence
on a case-by-case basis. Further, I have juggled the
'back-end' of the list to essentially reflect the AOU/SACC sequence
(generally nuthatches through waxbills).
In addition, the
Cracraft/Dickinson (2003) list has 35 genera listed as incertae
sedis; in other words, a cop-out for now. Alas, I want a complete
list even if we have to make our best guesses at this point in time). I
have provisionally elevated three of those genera to family status.
Others may warrant similar treatment although, for the most part, it
seems likely that most of the 'difficult' genera will eventually go
into established families.
For the moment, I include as a family within the oscine
Passerines any group currently listed as a family by HBW or Dickinson
(2003), except where the evidence is overwhelming that they are
embedded within other families (e.g., the Grallinidae [Magpie-lark
& Torrent-lark] are embedded within the Monarchs and the
parrotbills [Paradoxornithidae] are embedded within the Babblers); e.g.
Sibley & Monroe (1990), Dickinson 2003. The Cracraft/Dickinson
(2003) list has its own innovations, elevating the Shrike-Tits
[Falcunculidae], Bristlebirds [Dasyornithidae],
Whipbirds/Jewel-Babblers [Eupetidae], Boatbills [Machaerirhynchidae],
and Shrike-Thrushes & Allies [Colluricinclidae] without discussion.
I had previously anticipated (in the 5th edition of this list) the
elevation of the Cnemophilines (or Satinbirds) as a family
[Cnemophilidae].
35 Many lists (e.g.,
Sibley & Monroe 1990, Christidis & Boles 1994) placed the 3
bristlebirds within a broad Pardalotidae that also includes\d the
Australasian warblers [Acanthizinae]. Schodde & Mason (1999)
explained why the Pardalotidae should be a family, separate from the
Acanthizidae (contra Sibley & Monroe 1990); Dickinson (2003)
agreed with this separation and further elevated the Bristlebirds
[Dasyornithidae] to family status. Christidis & Boles (2008) also adopt this approach.
Pilotbird Pycnoptilus
floccosus, Rockwarbler Origma solitaria, and Fernwren Oreoscopus
guttaralis are all now placed within the Acanthizidae [Australasian
Warblers]. Dickinson (2003) takes the same approach to the three
whitefaces Aphelocephala, as well as the New Zealand endemics
Yellowhead Mohoua ochrocephala and Pipipi Finschia
novaeseelandiae that are sometimes placed with whistlers.
36 Sibley
& Monroe (1990, Christidis & Boles (1994, 2008), and Dickinson
(2003) all lump the Australian Chats with the honeyeaters; so do I. HBW
may maintain the Australian Chats as a separate family but the DNA
evidence is that that they deeply embedded within the Honeyeaters. I
have provided a separate subfamily page for the Australian chats.
37 Cracraft &
Feinstein (2000) published biochemical and morphological evidence that
the three cnemophiline birds-of-paradise (genera Cnemophilus and Lobparadisea) are not closely related to other
birds-of-paradise at all, but are quite removed and somewhere near the
base of the corvoid phylogenetic tree. This persuaded me to elevate
them as a family in my 5th edition on-line family list. Dickinson
(2003) now does this in print and places them here, very far removed
from the birds-of-paradise.
38 Stitchbird Notiomystis cincta, a New Zealand endemic and an
endangered species, has long been considered a Honeyeater. New
molecular evidence shows that it is not related to Honeyeaters; the
closest relatives are the New Zealand Wattlebirds (the Callaeidae). It
has been proposed as a distinct family (Driskell et al. 2007) and I
find the evidence compelling.
39 Elevating the
berrypeckers to family status, and then making them into two separate
families [Melanocharitidae and Paramythiidae], is a Sibley &
Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990) innovation based on DNA-DNA
hybridization studies. The first Passerine volume of HBW states that
they plan to follow this approach — so I have the two separate families
here. Dickinson (2003) merges all the berrypeckers into one family
[Melanocharitidae] but there is no explanation. Data published in
Barker et al. (2004) suggests that the two berrypecker groups may not
be closely related.
40
The Vireonidae was formerly placed in or next to the nine-primaried
oscines in linear sequences (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Genetic
data (e.g., Barker et al. 2002, 2004) have confirmed Sibley &
Ahlquist's (1990) once-controversial finding that the Vireonidae is
part of the Corvida lineage.
On a level equivalent to the finding that Donacobius was an Old World megalurid isolated in the Amazon was the finding that Erpornis zantholeuca (White-bellied
'Yuhina') of Asia is an Old World relict in a clade
with New World vireos (Cibois 2003, Alström et al. 2006). Like
Donacobius and Olive Warbler, I tentatively treat it as a Family-level
taxon.
41 Sibley & Ahlquist
(1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) had the whipbirds, wedgebills,
jewel-babblers, rail-babbler, quail-thrushes, and Blue-capped Ifrit Ifrita
kowaldi all within the subfamily Cinclosomatinae in their broad
Corvidae assemblage. HBW will presumably consider them all part of one
family [Cinclosomatidae]. Dickinson (2003), presumably on unpublished
DNA sequencing, splits most of these into two families: the five
species of quail-thrush Cinclosoma within one family
[Cinclosomatidae] with the whipbirds, wedgebills, jewel-babbler and
rail-babbler in the other family [Eupetidae]. Dickinson (2003) also
notes that the Rail-Babbler Eupetes macrocerus
may deserve status as a monotypic family, in which case the remaining
genera would be in the Psophodidae. [New evidence suggests that
Rail-Babbler is related to Rockjumpers; see footnote 46]. The Ifrit
from New Guinea is considered by these authors as incertae sedis and
placed (with the two melampittas Melampitta) next to the Birds
of Paradise. Because I have to place it somewhere, Ifrit is included
within the Psophodidae.
42
Dickinson (2003), presumably on unpublished DNA sequencing, created
these new families. Christidis & Boles (2008) did not accept the
Falcunculidae, as the genetic evidence is still unpublished.
Nonetheless, it seems wise for world birders to seek out members of
these sets; presumably the evidence will appear in due course.
43
Ioras are not allied with Leafbirds or Fairy-Bluebirds, as they have
traditionally been handled. Dickinson (2003) puts them in approximately
this position, and although my sequence is a bit different than his, it
is pretty close. The Leafbirds and Fairy-Bluebirds are now well back in
the listing, about the sequence location of Jønsson &
Fjeldså (2006).
44
Moyle et al. (2006b) published genetic evidence that Bornean
Bristlehead is an isolated relict from the diversification of
shrike-like birds across the Old World tropics. It is in the radiation
that includes vangas, bush-shrikes, helmet-shrikes and allies. I place
it next to (and in front of) this group; Dickinson (2003) put it
between the Ioras and Cuckoo-Shrikes.
45
The 'core' lineages appear to be: (a) the core bush-shrikes, (b) the
batises and wattle-eyes, and (c) the rest of them. The helmet-shrikes,
vangas, and shrike-flycatchers are all on the same evolutionary branch.
One approach would be to lump them all in the third group in a single
family. But there is evidence that the vangas are a separate family
that arose in Madagascar (e.g., Dickinson (2003) split them). If we
split those out, the remaining species are left in the Prionopidae.
Further research will likely refine this situation, but there we are
for today.
46
The Magpie-lark and Torrent-lark, formerly considered a separate family
Grallinidae [Mudnest-Builders] are embedded within the Monarchs
(Baverstock et al. 1992, Christidis & Boles 2008). They no longer
warrant even subfamily rank (Dickinson 2003). Other birds thought to be
Monarchs, including the Elminia crested-flycatchers of Africa, the African Erythrocercus flycatchers, the Asian genus Philentoma, the Australasian boatbills in genus Machaerirhynchus
and others are not. These now appear in other families [e.g.,
Machaerirhynchidae, Stenostiridae]; Barker et al. (2004), Beresford et
al. (2005), Filardi & Moyle (2005).
47
Rockfowl and Rockjumpers are early relict offshoots in the passerine
assemblage; Cracraft et al. (2004), Jønsson et al. (2007). Each
group is exceptional and unique. HBW has given Rockfowl family status.
I believe the evidence of early divergence and a long history of
isolation and evolution into unique groups, warrants family status for
each.
48
The enigmatic Rail-Babbler is most closely related to the Rockfowl and
Rockjumpers; Jønsson et al. (2007). Its divergence from them was
so long ago that I believe it warrants family status. It is a unique
taxon.
49
When HBW began production in the 1990s, there was no intent to list the
Kinglets as a family. The evidence that they are a distinct lineage
developed, though, and by Vol. 11 the HBW series had a family chapter
for them. This is their approximate location near the base of the
passerine tree; Alström et al. (2006), Jønsson &
Fjeldså (2006), Barker et al. (2004).
50
Fuchs et al. (2006) showed that the Hyliotas were an early radiation at
the base of the passerine tree. I give family rank to each of these
early lineages, pending more thorough analysis. Whether this status
will survive will depend upon future studies. This and the next family
are very tentative.
51 Initial genetic evidence suggests that Bearded Reedling Panurus biarmicus
was not closely related to the parrotbills with which it has been
traditionally placed; Alström et al. (2006), Jønsson &
Fjeldså (2006), Barker et al. (2004), Cibois (2003). Pending
further evidence, I place it tentatively in its own family. I expect
that this will not be the permanent solution, though, so this is likely
quite transitory.
52 The Elminia crested-flycatchers and Erythrocercus flycatchers of Africa, two Asian canary-flycatchers in the genus Culicicapa,
and a few other genera, have been proposed to form the family
Stenostiridae [Fairy-Flycatchers]; Beresford et al. (2005). Whether
this becomes widely accepted is yet to be seen, but I use that approach
here.
53 The enigmatic Hume's Groundpecker Pseudopodoces humilis, traditionally considered a jay, is a terrestrial tit; James et al. (2003), Gill et al. (2005). Many now call it Ground-Tit.
54
The Sylviettidae is my name for a lineage that includes crombecs and
certain African warblers, a group described recently by Beresford et
al. (2005). This has not yet been widely accepted, and more research is
needed.
55
Beresford et al. (2005) showed that the Nictators were a separate
lineage that diverged long ago. This enigmatic group has been variously
placed in bulbuls or babblers; I tentatively consider it a family,
pending further evidence.
56 The break-up of the Old World Warblers is discussed in a separate three-page web set; Alström
et al. (2006) formally proposed a number of the new family names used
here. I follow their names and sequence, as has Christidis & Boles
(2008) to the extent it affected Australia.
57 Cibois
et al. (1999, 2001) showed that there was a distinct radiation of
warbler-like birds in Madagascar eons ago. For the moment, I call them
the Bernieridae [Malagasy Warblers], but this is tentative and
preliminary. Further research is needed.
58 The genus Donacobius ("Black-capped
Mockingthrush") of South America is an ancient offshoot of the megalurid warbler group
(Barker 2004, Alström et al. 2006). Some prefer to include Donacobius within the Grassbirds to emphasize its closest relatives, but it has
evolved in isolation for so long that I think it should be considered
it own family [Donacobidae], consistent with the treatment of
other similar situations (for example, the A.O.U. treats the Olive
Warbler as a family, although its closest relatives are the Accentors).
59 Some of the "Old World Warblers" [the previous Sylviidae] are actually babblers, including the Sylvia 'warblers'. This has implication for the proper use of the "Sylviidae" name. This is discussed in a separate three-page web set that is based
largely on the findings in Alström et al. (2006) and
Jønsson & Fjeldså (2006). The babblers themselves are
an eclectic group of birds that can be handled taxonomically various
ways. I chose to split them into two families, which are two
monophyletic clades. The parrotbills, traditionally considered a
separate family, are embedded within the first group, which includes
the Sylvia warblers. The white-eyes, also traditionally considered a separate family, are embedded with the typical babblers.
60
Wallcreeper is allied with Nuthatches; e.g., Jønsson &
Fjeldså (2006). Whether to lump them with Nuthatches or maintain
their traditional family status is a matter of opinion, not science. I
prefer the traditional family rank; HBW will maintain that as well.
61
Hypocolius is traditionally given family rank. Genetic evidence
confirms that its closest relatives are waxwings, silky-flycatchers,
and the Palmchat (anonymous pers. com.). It is equally appropriate to
put all these groups into one family, with multiple subfamilies, or to
maintain separate family rank for each group. I prefer the latter
course, and HBW does as well.
62
The Muscicapidae includes not only the traditional Old World
Flycatchers, but numerous Old World chats and redstarts that are often
been placed with Thrushes. It is now a huge assemblages containing all
these birds; Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Dickinson (2003),
Jønsson & Fjeldså (2006). It does not, however,
include the canary-flycatchers in the genus Culicicapa, and a few other genera, that belong to the family Stenostiridae or other families; e.g., Barker et al. 2004.
63
The Oxpeckers have long been considered aberrant Starlings, but they
diverged quite some time ago and are only rather distantly related;
Cibois & Cracraft (2004). Fry & Keith (2000) gave them family
rank, and I followed them several editions ago in this on-line list.
This still seems to be the preferred treatment; e.g., Zuccon et al.
(2006).
64 The exact relationships of the Philippine endemic genus Rhabdornis
is not yet known, but they are more closely related to Starlings than
are, for example, Oxpeckers; Cibois & Cracraft (2004), Zuccon et
al. 2006. I leave them as a traditional family for the present; I
understand that HBW is also taking this position.
Setting
aside the Rhabdornis, the Sturnidae have two clades (Zuccon et al.
2006) and it is possible that they could be split into two families in
the future.
65
The A.O.U. (1998) considers Olive Warbler a family. It is an Old World
relict, most closely allied to Accentors, that is isolated in the New
World; Jønsson & Fjeldså (2006).
66 The Chinese endemic Pink-tailed 'Bunting' Urocynchramus pylzowi
is not closely related to buntings or finches; Groth (2001). It is
placed in a separate clade by Jønsson & Fjeldså
(2006), and in about this sequence position. I give it preliminary
family status.
67 The exact parameters of the Thraupidae [Tanagers] are not yet known, but it no longer includes the genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia, which have been transferred to the Fringillidae, nor Piranga, Habia, and Chlorothraupis, which belong in the Cardinalidae; e.g., Klicka et al. 2007. The Conirostrum conebills and Diglossa flower-piercers do belong this family.
The sequence of families from here to the end generally follows SACC (2008).
68
A clade containing Longspurs & Snow Bunting, split from the
emberizids, was among the findings set out by Jønsson &
Fjeldså (2006). This has not been accepted by any authorities as
a family-level taxa, so should be considered entirely preliminary and
tentative. In addition, the boundaries of the Emberizidae are not well
understood, and it may be that Old World and New World representatives
should not be in the same family. Much more research is needed.
69
The exact parameters of the Cardinalidae [Cardinals, Grosbeaks &
allies] are not yet known, but it seems that the 'traditional' set of
species assigned to this family is non-monophyletic. Genetic data
published by Klicka et al. (2007) showed that a monophyletic
Cardinalidae would require removal of Saltator and Parkerthraustes and inclusion of Amaurospiza, Granatellus, Piranga, Habia, and Chlorothraupis. This means moving various 'warblers' and 'tanagers' to this group, including the North American 'tanagers' in Piranga
[e.g., Summer, Hepatic, Scarlet & Western Tanagers] and moving the
Saltators and others elsewhere (but where?). Much is left unsettled at
the present time (2008). It is even possible that another family will
need to be erected for some of these odds and ends.
70 The traditional Tanager genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia
have been moved from the Thraupidae to the Fringillidae and the SACC
and AOU now list them as a subfamily of Finches. This was based on the
genetic data work of Klicka et al. (2000, 2005), Yuri & Mindell
(2002), and others. It is consistent with aspects of the biology of the
euphonias and chlorophonias with respect to voice, diet, and nesting
biology.
|
