lOZ British Ornithologists’ Club THE NATURAL history museum -6 JUN 2011 presented tring library Volume 131 No. 2 June*201 1 MEETINGS are open to all, not just BOC members. There is no charge to attend the talk but it is necessary to register at least one day in advance of the meeting. Meetings are usually held on the ground floor of the Sherfield Building of Imperial College, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ. The suite is called the Tower Rooms and meetings take place in Section A with the entrance opposite the Queen's Tower in the main quadrangle. The nearest Tube station is at South Kensington. For maps, see: http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/ campusinfo/southkensington. (Limited car parking facilities can be reserved at a special reduced charge of £5.00, on prior application to the Chairman.) The evening will commence with a talk at 6.00 pm. Thereafter the cash bar will open so that attendees can socialise. At c.7.30 pm there will be a light buffet supper (sandwiches etc.) costing £15 per person for those who have ordered it at least two weeks in advance. Vegetarian and gluten-free options will be available for those who have requested them when booking. FORTHCOMING MEETINGS See also BOC website: http://www.boc-online.org 14 June 5.40 pm — Annual General Meeting in room SALC3 on 5th floor of Sherfield Building 6.00 pm — Short talks in Section A of the Tower Rooms (see above) Nigel Redman — W/mf is Sharpe's Lark? and Species, races or morphs: taxonomic confusion in the Tropical Bonbon complex Clive Mann — Tzi’o tropical cuckoo problems David Fisher— TBC Douglas Russell — CoH artist or inifairh/ malii^netl collector— the rediscover}/ of William Fanxm's Black Woodpecker L’l^gs from the Nezo Forest Robert Prys-Jones— Ti/pc specimens of the Imperial Woodpecker: co)ifnsion resolved? Ani/one z(’/s///;;y to place a late order for the buffet supper should contact the Chairman (address below) no later than Thursday 9 June 2011 To compi}/ with Imperial College requirements, those wishin^t to attend the talks must notif}/ the Chairman no later than Monday 13 June 2011 11 October— Rachel Bristol — Buck front the brink: translocations of threatened endemic birds in the Sei/chelles Abstract: Following initial failures in the 1970s, translocations (reintroductions and conservation introductions) of threatened endemic birds have more recently had great success in increasing the numbers, range and conservation status of five of the eight Seychelles threatened endemic bird species. Methods have been refined with time and trial and, although still learning, we now have consistent translocation success. Keys to success in Seychelles have been: ensuring all of the species' habitat rec^uirements are provided in the new environment (e.g., habitat rehabilitation prior to release, predator management, provision of nest boxes), translocating only wild birds, and tailoring the release methods to the species. Bio^raph}/: Rachel Bristol has worked for the last 20 years to conserve threatened endemic birds in New Zealand, Hawaii, Mauritius and, for the past 14 years, the Seychelles, where she has led several avian con.servation introductions. She is currently undertaking a Ph.D. in the ecology, conservation genetics and restoration of the Seychelles Paradise Flycatcher Terpsiphonc corvitm, and a comparison of the evolutionary history of Indian Ocean flycatchers, at the Durrell Institute of Conservafion and Ecology, Unix ersity of Kent. Those wishiti;,; to order the buffet supper should apph/ to the Chairman (address below) In/ 21 September 201 1 to eompi}/ with Imperial Colle/^/e reqnirenients, those wishin/,/ to attend the talk itnist nolifi/ the Chairman no later than Monday 10 October 2011 Saturday 29 October 201 1 — />/cds<’ note chaiif'e of date — Birds of South and Middle America — recent advances in knowledge. Please see C Inb Annonncenients, opposite, for details of this one-ilaq siiniposinni to be held at the Natural Uistorq Museum. Ihe Chairman: 1 lelen Baker, W) lownfield, Rickmansworth, I lerts. VVD3 7DD UK. lel. 04 (D)I923 772441. I'.-mail: hi'len.bakerOlbi'tiscali.co.uk Club Announcements Bulletin of the BRITISH ORNITHOLOGISTS’ CLUB Vol. 131 No. 2 Published 6 June 201 1 73 history museum -6 JUN 2011 PRESENTED tring library Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) CLUB ANNOUNCEMENTS Chairman's message Please note that, in order to book the speakers we wanted, it has been necessary to bring forward the joint meeting with the Neotropical Bird Club and the Natural History Museum to Saturday 29 October 2011. The provisional programme is given below. Full details will be made available at www.boc-online.org and www.neotropicalbirdclub.org/ from 1 July. Helen Baker Birds of South and Middle America — recent advances in knowledge Joint British Ornithologists' Club / Neotropical Bird Club / Natural History Museum one-day symposium, 29 October 2011 at the Flett Theatre, Natural History Museum, London SW7 5BD 10.30- 11.00 Coffee / tea 11.00- 11.45 Why birds sing at dawn Nathalie Seddon (Edward Grey Institute, Oxford University) Communal displays of acoustically and visually signalling animals include some of the great spectacles of the living world. Many of these spectacles involve large communities of different species signalling in concert, often just before sunrise. Though perhaps best documented in birds, dawn choruses occur in a wide diversity of other animals, from primates and frogs, to lizards and insects. These signalling events have long fascinated humans, but despite a century of speculation, there is little consensus as to their adaptive significance. Drawing on a recent study of the largest dawn chorus of all, that of the singing birds of upper Amazonia, I will discuss how ecology, social interactions and evolutionary history drive birds to synchronise their songs at daybreak. 11.45-12.30 Conservation of high- Andean forest birds in Peru Huw Lloyd (Manchester Metropolitan University) The loss and degradation of high-Andean Polylepis woodland is of particular international concern because of its highly fragmented distribution, the inadequacy of its protection within national reserves, and the high levels of habitat-restricted endemism among its threatened bird communities. I will discuss some of the recent ornithological findings from southern Peru, which could lead to the development of realisfic habitat restoration strategies for populations of these severely threatened bird species. 12.30- 13.15 Wildlife of the Pantanal, South America's Serengeti James Lowen (Bradt Travel Guides) The world's largest wetland and the aquatic heart of South America showcases some of the most breathtaking gatherings of birds, mammals and reptiles you could ever hope to see. The author of a recently published book to Pantanal wildlife and travel treats us to a visual celebration of the region's wildlife spectacles, with a particular focus on its avian specialities and their conservation. 13.15- 14.15 Lunch 14.15- 15.00 The Mexican Bird Atlas : a collaborative approach for the study of biodiversity Adolfo Navarro (Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico) Bird specimens and their associated data are essential tools in the study of many biological disciplines. I will present an overview of an effort lasting almost 20 years to compile information on Mexican bird specimens in natural history museums worldwide, and the diverse ways in which this 'Atlas' project has helped advance ornithological knowledge in such diverse areas as taxonomy, biogeography, conservation biology and biodiversity informatics. 15.00- 15.45 Project BioMap: documenting the global museum resource of Colombian birds for research and conservation Robert Prys-Jones (Natural History Museum) Project BioMap, a tri-national initiative between British, Colombian and US institutions, began in late 2001. The project aim was to digitise and verify all Colombian bird specimens deposited in natural history museums around the world. A total of 217,802 Colombian bird specimens in 88 museums were databased and georeferenced (whenever possible) and made available online (http://biomap.net). I will present a temporal and spatial breakdown of the information available, highlighting strengths and weaknesses, and discuss its use in research and conservation. Club Announcements 74 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) 15.45-16.15 Coffee /tea 16.15-17.00 Exploring, studying and protecting the world's most diverse national avifauna Thomas Donegan (ProAves) The publication in 2010 of a new field guide for Colombia offers a good point to take stock of recent advances in knowledge in the world's most diverse country for birds. Explorations and discoveries facilitated by the improving security situation and the increasing capacity of national researchers and institutions have resulted in significant recent findings (new species, splits, lumps, new records, etc.), many of which will be discussed. An illustrated discussion of some of the steps being taken to conserve Colombia's birds and their habitats will also be presented. The 961st meeting of the Club was held on Tuesday 27 April 2010 in the Sherfield Building, Imperial College, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ. Eighteen members and seven guests were present. Members attending were: Miss H. BAKER (Chairman), D. R. CALDER, Cdr. M. B. CASEMENT, RN, Prof. R. A. CHEKE, D. J. FISHER, F. M. GAUNTLETT, D. GRIFFIN, K. HERON JONES, R. H. KETTLE, R. R. LANGLEY, D. J. MONTIER, R. C. PRICE, Dr R. P. PRYS-JONES, P. J. SELLAR, S. A. H. STATHAM, C. W. R. STOREY, M. J. WALTON and P. J. WILKINSON. Guests attending were: Mrs M. H. GAUNTLETT, Mrs ]. HERON JONES, J. LOWEN, Mrs M. MONTIER, Mrs A. J. McDonald, Mrs H. PRICE and E. PRICE. After dinner a series of short talks was given. Prof. Robert A. Cheke spoke on An indigenous trap for mass capture of Red-billed Quelea. He described a basket trap that he was shown by Richard N. Magoma, James Mabuga and Boaz Mtobesya of the Tanzanian Ministry of Agriculture, Food Security and Co-operatives, which is used by bird trappers in the Kondoa area of Tanzania to catch Red-billed Quelea Quelea quelea aethiopica in the dry season. The traps are woven from African Star Grass Cynodon nlemfluensis into torus-shaped structures, resembling a wheel, c.60 cm in diameter, 20 cm deep and 2 m in circumference, with central holes that serve as entrances for birds. The hole on one side (15 cm) is larger than on the other (10 cm), with the latter tapered inwards. Two methods are used: one in water and one on land, with a decoy bird inside from the outset in both. When trapping at drinking sites, the basket is partially submerged with the large hole uppermost, and grasses then conceal much of the basket. Birds lured into the entrance to drink become trapped. Similarly, when used on land, the basket is baited with a panicle of bulrush millet or millet seeds, and placed in a feeding zone with the smaller hole uppermost and the larger hole underneath blocked. A trapper deploys 5-10 traps from which 500-1,000 birds can be caught per day. Any surplus to the trappers' requirements are sold, providing much-needed income for the trappers and protein for the buyers. Different ways in which the birds are cooked were described and the results of experiments by B. Mtobesya using similar traps made of wire mesh discussed as a means of localised pest control, with care taken to release any non-target birds caught. Dr Robert Prys-Jones' talk was entitled The case of the Large-hilled Reed Warbler: museum collections shed light on an unknown species. Following its description in 1867, from a specimen taken in north-west India, the Large-billed Reed Warbler Acrocephalus orinus led a twilight existence for 135 years, with no further specimens discovered and an increasing tendency to consider it either an unusual specimen of a known species or a hybrid. However, in 2002 a re-analysis that included a molecular study demonstrated that it was a distinct species, and in 2006 a live bird was discovered in Thailand. Subsequent intensive museum study turned up sufficient overlooked specimens to provide an overview of its annual cycle, suggesting that it bred in south-central Asia, migrated across India and wintered in south-east Asia. Breeding in north-east Afghanistan and Tajikistan has now been confirmed. More detail, including references, can be found at http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/species-of-the-day/collections/our-collections/acrocephalus-orinus/ index.html. David Fisher showed photographs of hummingbirds taken on three-week trips to Ecuador in 2009 and Mexico in 2010. In Ecuador he had seen 58 species and photographed 34 of them reasonably well, in Mexico he had seen 26 species but only managed to photograph three. He explained that this was due to the different views in the tw'o countries concerning hummingbird feeders. In Ecuador they are commonplace at every lodge, whereas in Mexico they simply don't exist. David had been informed that there are no feeders in Mexico because several years ago an influential biologist suggested that they might be harmful to hummingbirds, and this view spread rapidly with the result that feeders are not used at all — which is quite remarkable given how common they are in the USA, Costa Rica, Ecuador and other countries. David explained that at Umbrellabird Lodge, run by the Jocotoco Foundation, feeding has reached a new level, with large salad trays being used rather than commercial flower-like feeders. Fhese attract dozens of hummingbirds at a time, and 200-300 individuals of ten species were simultaneously present on the lodge veranda or waiting in the surrounding bushes. He showed photographs of each of the species present. Martin Gauntlett addressed the question I tow many species of extant birds are there? The first edition of Howard & Moore appeared in 1980 and listed 8,984 species. At the time, I’ink-kioted Goo.se A)iser biaihyrhymhus was still considered a subspecies of Bean Goose A. fabalis. Fen years later, when Sibley & Monroe put the DNA cal among the taxonomic pigeon.s, the number hail grown to 9,598. BirdLife International lakes its own line on species-level splits and its June 2009 posting listed 9,803, plus 126 Club Announcements 75 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) under review. Many of the latter will probably be accepted. Clements follows the AOU. Its 6.4 version in December 2009 listed 9,888 species. The third edition of Howard & Moore appeared in 2003 and took a rather conservative approach, requiring peer-reviewed literature to accept a change, and listed 9,593 species. Now there is HBW, which is likely to total 9,692 species. Its earlier volumes were more conservative and a taxonomic round-up at the end of the series is anticipated. Comparing their lists, the four 21st century sources agree on just 9,359 species (assuming HBW agrees for all species treated in forthcoming volumes) but between them they cover 10,172 species, a difference of 813. Finally, there is the IOC English names committee. In December 2009 it listed 10,366 species. In March 2010 this had increased 10,384, an additional 18 species in three months. Thus, the answer to the question is that (in April 2010) there were between 9,351 and nearly 10,500 extant species, and the list was growing by six species per month. In pursuit of a dream to observe Steller's Sea Eagles Haliaeetus pelagicus on the sea-ice off Hokkaido, Richard Price, and his wife Helen, travelled to Japan in February 2009. In addition to realising his dream, with the Steller's jousting with White-tailed Eagles Haliaeetus albicilla, they also saw Japanese (Red-crowned) Cranes Griis japonensis dancing in the snow. A bonus was a detour on the way to Hokkaido via Kyushu, the southernmost large island in Japan. Here they saw up to 10,000 Hooded Cranes G. monacha and White-naped Cranes G. vipio, together with small numbers of Sandhill Cranes G canadensis and European Cranes G. grus, and two Siberian White Cranes G. leucogeramis. The 965th meeting of the Club was held on Tuesday 29 March 2011 in the Sherfield Building, Imperial College, South Kensington, London SW7 2AZ. Thirteen members and nine non-members were present. Members attending were: Miss H. BAKER {Chairman), Cdr. M. B. CASEMENT, RN, S. E. CHAPMAN, D. J. FISHER, A. GIBBS, K. HERON JONES, C. F. MANN, D. J. MONTIER, R. C. PRICE, Dr R. P. PRYS-JONES, N. J. REDMAN, S. A. H. STATHAM and C. W. R. STOREY. Non-members attending were: Mrs C. R. CASEMENT, Ms P. ESTLER, Mrs B. HAMMOND-GIBBS, Mrs J. HERON JONES, G. JAMIE, Mrs M. MONTIER, P. RUDGE, Dr J. TOBIAS {Speaker) and Dr T. TOEPFER. Joe Tobias spoke about the Neotropical ornithology research programme he is currently developing at the Edward Grey Institute in the Zoology Department at Oxford University. He commenced with a quick 'tour' to depict a representative sample of Amazonian bird diversity, including endemic families such as trumpeters (Psophiidae) and Hoatzin Opisthocomus hoazin (Opisthocomidae), and other key components of Neotropical avian communities such as guans (Cracidae), motmots (Momotidae), toucans (Ramphastidae) and jacamars (Galbulidae). He then reviewed current efforts to understand the ecology and behaviour of Amazonian birds, and to explain Amazonian diversity, which ranks as the highest in the world in terms of the number of species co-existing at single localities. Turning to research on antbirds (Thamnophilidae) he discussed recent findings from field observations and experiments that males and females sing year-round, often in duets, and that the function of male and female songs varies with context, sometimes reflecting cooperation and at other times conflict between the sexes. He also described how strong competition between antbird species has driven convergence in songs in some closely related species-pairs. At a regional scale, recent studies of Amazonian bird ranges provide support for Alfred Russel Wallace's hypothesis that riverine barriers help to explain the divergence of avian lineages in the Amazon basin, and ultimately shape the patterns of diversity found today. New Associate Editor The Hon. Editor and BOG Committee are pleased to welcome Frank D. Steinheimer to the newly created post of Associate Editor of the Bulletin, commencing with the September 2011 issue. Among his many other duties, Frank is a mainstay of the Handbook of the birds of the world project, wherein he has gradually assumed a scientific consultant role, as well as being a member of the Standing Committee on Ornithological Nomenclature, and the head of one of the largest nahiral history collections, Halle, in his native Germany. His knowledge of ornithological nomenclature and bibliography, in particular, will be of ineshmable value to the Bulletin. Socotra Buzzard Buteo socotraensis — an addendum In Porter & Kirwan (2010: 118) we stated: '...in the Kruckenhauser et al. (2004) analysis of morphological and morphometric characters, Socotran and Cape Verdean buzzards grouped with B. b. rothschildi of the Azores, presumably as a result of convergent adaptation to dry-country habitats', a view we repeated directly from the paper just mentioned. Kees Hazevoet has pointed out that the Azores present an extremely wet environment and his view is that phylogeny would be a much more logical explanation than convergent adaptation. We also remarked that RFP had never seen Socotra Buzzard hovering. This needs correcting for, during a three-week visit to the island, in February-March 2011 he observed three individuals (two adults and a juvenile) persistently hovering amid a total of 32 sightings. It is noteworthy that he was concentrating on studying the buzzard and that the days he observed birds hovering were especially windy. Richard Porter & Guy Kirwan Guy M. Kirwan 76 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) External characters suggest that Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis is monotypic by Guy M. Kirivan Received 21 Februanf 2010; final revision accepted 10 March 2011 Summary.— Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis has long been considered a polytypic species, with C. /. linearis in the north of the range (southern Mexico to Guatemala) and C. /. fastiiosa in the south (from El Salvador to northern Costa Rica). Despite that no biogeographical barriers are known in the central region of the species' range and that monotypy has already been suggested, this treatment has persisted for almost 90 years. A morphological investigation (plumage and mensural data) reported here suggests that C. linearis is better treated as a monotypic species. Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis (C. L. Bonaparte, 1838), which ranges from southern Mexico (in eastern Oaxaca and Chiapas) south almost exclusively over the Pacific slope to northern Costa Rica (AOU 1998), is generally considered to be polytypic, with two subspecies recognised by most recent works (Snow 1979, Dickinson 2003, Snow 2004). Despite that Lesson (1842: 174) had already recognised southern populations separately, under the name Pipra fastiiosa (type locality Nicaragua), the keynote reviews of American birds in the first third of the 20th century, Ridgway (1907) and Hellmayr (1929), both treated C. linearis as monotypic. Lesson's diagnosis alone, in fact, contains nothing on which to base recognising more than one taxon within C. linearis. However, Bangs & Peters (1928: 397) promulgated that two subspecies should be recognised, based on the length of the central rectrices (shorter in northern populations) and the larger (presumably longer) and relatively broader bill of northern birds, which differences Ridgway (1907) had already noted but had chosen not to recognise nomenclaturally. Subsequently, most authors have been content to subdivide the species into C. /. linearis in the north of the range, from southern Mexico to Guatemala, with C. 1. fastiiosa (Lesson, 1842) from El Salvador south to Costa Rica, despite the lack of any obvious geographical 'divide' between the two populations. Monroe (1968), however, refuted the notion that bill length or width should be considered a valid subspecific character in C. linearis, and pointed to extensive overlap in measurements between birds from Oaxaca (Mexico) and Costa Rica in bill sizes. Monroe (1968) also questioned whether the purported difference in tail-feather length was real, noting 'considerable overlap in measurements between Oaxacan and Costa Rican populations'. During work on Pipridae for a forthcoming monograph (Kirwan & Green in press), I re-evaluated Monroe's (1968) recommendation to return the species to monotvpy based on material held at The Natural History Museum (NHM), Tring, UK, the Cambridge University Mu.seum of Zoology (CUMZ), Cambridge, UK, the Field Museum of Natural History (FMNH), Chicago, USA, and the Museo Nacional (MNCR), San Jose, Costa Rica, from across the species' entire range. For fully adult males held in the four institutions visited, 1 can find no obvious difference in bill length (or in any other mensural character .sampled; see Appendix), whilst in respect of the length of the central rectrices in C. /. linearis (124-165 mm, mean = 148.22 mm; n = 19) vs. C. 1. fastiiosa (1 12-172 mm, mean = 149.33 mm; n = 34), the purported difference also appears insignificant (.see Fable 1, Fig. 1). Bill width was not sampled as it Guy M. Kirwan 77 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 1 Morphometries (in mm) of male Long-tailed Manakins Chiroxiphia 1. linearis and C. l.fastuosa. Mean is given, followed by standard deviation and complete range, and comparison t-tests. For measuring protocols see the Appendix. N Wing length Tail length Bill length C. l.fastuosa 25 70.08 ± 1.41 150.6 ± 16.9 11.023 ± 0.542 (68.0-72.5) (112.0-182.0) (10.32-12.01) C. 1. linearis 10 68.55 ±1.14 146.8 + 14.3 11.415 ±0.635 (67.0-70.0) (124.0-165.0) (10.61-12.43) Comparison t-test P=0.005 NS NS NS = not significant, the null hypothesis of equal means could not be rejected. PCA loadings Variable PCI PC 2 PC 3 Wing -0.7089 0.6767 -0.1989 Tail -0.7051 0.6877 0.173 Bill 0.01966 -0.2629 -0.9646 Variance explained 1.30705 0.714897 0.399954 % of variance 53.968 29.518 16.514 PAC 1 Figure 1. Scatter plot diagram of first (PCI) and second (PC2) principal components for a Principal Components Analysis of three morphometric measurements from both described taxa of Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis. is a relatively difficult character to sample consistently and accurately; furthermore, even using a distinctly less rigorous application of the Biological Species Concept than favoured by this author, it would be somewhat marginal to uphold a taxonomic unit on the basis Guy M. Kirwan 78 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 2 Morphometries (in mm) of male Long-tailed Manakins Chiroxiphia 1. linearis and C. 1. fastuosa, with specimens from El Salvador excluded (see text). Mean is given, followed by standard deviation and complete range, and comparison t-tests. For measuring protocols see the Appendix. N Wing length Tail length Bill length C. /. fastuosa 19 70.34 ± 1.44 151.1 ±17.9 10.963 ± 0.533 (68.0-72.5) (112.0-182.0) (10.32-11.70) C. 1. linearis 10 68.55 ±1.14 146.8 ± 14.3 11.415 ±0.635 (67.0-70.0) (124.0-165.0) (10.61-12.43) Comparison t-test P=0.002 NS NS NS = not significant, the null hypothesis of equal means could not be rejected. Variable PCA loadings PCI PC 2 PC 3 Variable PCI PC 2 PC 3 Wing -0.7056 0.6962 -0.1321 Tail -0.7084 -0.6885 0.1552 Bill -0.0171 -0.2031 -0.979 Variance explained 1.28704 0.728131 0.362004 % of variance 54.142 30.63 15.228 Figure 2. Scatter plot diagram of first (PCI) and second (PC2) principal components for a Principal Components Analysis of three morphometric measurements from both described taxa of Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis; specimens from El Salvador are excluded from this analysis. of SO minor a character. (Specimens of C. /. //nttins are from Mexico and Guatemala, and specimens of C. /. fnstnosn are from El Salvador, Nicaragua and Costa Rica; measuring protocols are described in the Appendix.) A random subset of 3S males held at FMNH was subjected to a morphometric analysis anci Principal Components Analysis, which revealed no significant variation between males of the two subspecies in tail (central rectrices) or bill Guy M. Kirwan 79 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) lengths (Table 1, Fig. 1). Because the El Salvador specimens (six included within the FMNH subset) might be construed to represent a transition zone between the two 'populations', their localities were investigated. The six males pertain to the following localities: Parque Nacional El Imposible, Ahuachapan (n = 1), Laguna Olomega, San Miguel (n = 2), Puerto del Triunfo, Usulutan (n = 1) and Los Blancos, north-east of San Miguel (n = 2). The first-named locality is in westena El Salvador, whereas the other three are all in the eastern third of the country, which might be considered less likely to be sited within a transition zone between the two subspecies. Again, no significant variation between males of the two subspecies was found in tail (central rectrices) or bill lengths (Table 2, Fig. 2). In both cases, variation in wing length was uncovered, but was not highly significant. It is worth remarking that an additional factor that needs to be considered in attempting to divine geographic variation in tail length is that this character apparently decreases with age once males have achieved fully adult plumage (Arevalo & Heeb 2005), which could easily 'cloud' efforts to distinguish inter-populational differences. C. 1. fastuosa has, more recently, also been stated to differ from C. 1. linearis in being overall brighter, with the red hindcrown feathers forming a short crest (Snow 2004), which my examination of the material at the four museums visited again suggests is impossible to validate. I can recognise no evidence of overall (consistent) differences in coloration between northern and southern populations, or that males in the south of the species' range possess a greater tendency to show a crest-like effect on the hindcrown. And, no other author (of which four, Ridgway, Flellmayr, Bangs & Peters, and Monroe, might have been expected to notice them) has suggested that such characters may be used to delimit two races in C. linearis. Whether molecular data might yet shed fresh light on this manakin's taxonomy must remain an open question for now, but McDonald (2003) already uncovered evidence for asymmetric gene flow between two nominally disjunct populations of Long-tailed Manakins in north-west Costa Rica. For now, I postulate that the available (morphological) evidence favours returning C. linearis to monotypy just as Burt Monroe recommended over 40 years ago. Acknowledgements I thank Mark Adams and Robert Prys-Jones for their tireless assistance at Tlie Natural History Museum, Tring. For similar courtesies I am grateful to Ghisselle Alvarado and Silvia Elena Bolahos at the Museo Nacional de Costa Rica, San Jose, Costa Rica, Michael Brooke at the Cambridge University Museum of Zoology, and David Willard, Mary Hennen and John Bates at the Field Museum of Natural History. Finally, but certainly not least, I thank my referees, David Anderson and Oliver Komar, for their valuable contributions to the manuscript. References: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edn. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington DC. Arevalo, J. E. & Heeb, P. 2005. Ontogeny of sexual dimorphism in the Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiphia linearis: long maturation of display trait morphology. Ibis 147: 697-705. Bangs, O. & Peters, J. L. 1928. A collection of birds from Oaxaca. Bull. Mas. Comp. Zool. Harvard 68: 385-404. Dickinson, E. C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Third edn. Christopher Helm, London. Hellmayr, C. E. 1929. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and related islands, pt. 6. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., Zool. Ser. 13(6). Kirwan, G. M. & Green, G. in press. Cotingas and manakins. Christopher Helm, London. Lesson, R. P. 1842. Species avium novae aut minus cognitae. Rev. Zool. 5: 174-175. McDonald, D. B. 2003. Microsatellite DNA evidence for gene flow in Neotropical lek-mating Long-tailed Manakins. Condor 105: 580-586. Monroe, B. L. 1968. A distributional survey of the birds of Honduras. Orn. Monogr. 7. Ridgway, R. 1907. The birds of North and Middle America. Part IV. Bull. US Natl. Mus. 50: 1-973. Guy M. Kirwan 80 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Snow, D. W. 1979. Family Pipridae, manakins. Pp. 245-280 in Traylor, M. A. (ed.) Check-list of the birds of the world, vol. 8. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Snow, D. W. 2004. Family Pipridae (manakins). Pp. 110-168 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 9. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Address: 74 Waddington Street, Norwich NR2 4JS, UK, e-mail: GMKirwan@aol.com. Appendix: mensural data for Chiroxiphia linearis. Measurements were taken using a metal wing rule and digital callipers, and for males were based on fully adult-plumaged birds with apparently full central rectrices (for which see the text); here, tail refers to the length of the main tail, not the central rectrices. Value ranges are complete. A random subset of 35 males held at the Field Museum of Natural Ffistory (FMNFf) was subjected to a morphometric analysis using three characters (see Table 1, Fig. 1). Mean values are rounded up or down to the nearest 0.1 mm or 0.01 mm. For other museum acronyms see main text. Chiroxiphia 1. linearis (BMNH; CUMZ; FMNIT: Mexico and Guatemala): wing of male {n = 20) 67-74 mm (mean = 68.6 mm), wing of female (n = 6) 68-72 mm (mean = 69.5 mm); tail of male {n = 12) 27-35 mm (mean = 32.7 mm), tail of female (n = 6) 30.5-36.0 mm (mean = 33.6 mm); bill of male (n = 20) 10.56-12.43 mm (mean = 11.41 mm), bill of female (n = 5) 11.47-12.44 mm (mean = 11.82 mm); tarsus of male (n = 12) 17.78-19.67 mm (mean = 18.67 mm), tarsus of female (n = 6) 15.91-18.36 mm (mean = 17.34 mm). Chiroxiphia 1. fastuosa (BMNH; CUMZ; FMNH; MNCR: Costa Rica, El Salvador and Nicaragua): wing of male {n = 37) 68-74 mm (mean = 70.1 mm), wing of female (?; = 6) 62.5-72.0 mm (mean = 67.4 mm); tail of male {n = 13) 29-34 mm (mean = 32.1 mm), tail of female {n = 6) 30.5-37.0 mm (mean = 34.0 mm); bill of male (n = 37) 10.04-12.01 mm (mean = 10.94 mm), bill of female (n = 8) 10.75-11.80 mm (mean = 11.39 mm); farsus of male (n = 12) 16.48-19.14 mm (mean = 18.04 mm), tarsus of female (n = 6) 16.84-18.18 mm (mean = 17.35 mm). © Brifish Ornithologists' Club 2011 Paul J. Leader 81 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Taxonomy of the Pacific Swift Apus pacificus Latham, 1802, complex by Paul J. Leader Received 26 August 2010 Summary.— This paper considers the taxonomic implications of morphological differences within the Pacific Swift Apus pacificus complex. Specimens of the four currently recognised subspecies (nominate, kanoi, cooki and leuconyx) were examined, plus kurodae (currently treated as a synonym of pacificus) and salimali (currently treated as a synonym of kanoi). Consistent plumage and structural differences indicate that the current taxonomy of the complex is untenable. It is proposed that salimali is a valid taxon but that kanoi is not (and should be treated as a junior synonym of kurodae) and that pacificus, salimali, leuconyx and cooki merit species stahis. Pacific Swift Apus pacificus is widely distributed, breeding from Siberia east to Kamchatka and Japan, south through China to Vietnam, Thailand and Myanmar, and Tibet, the outer Himalayas and Assam Hills (Chantler 1999). Four subspecies are generally recognised (Chantler & Driessens 1995, Chantler 1999, Dickinson 2003): A. p. pacificus Latham, 1802, A. p. kanoi Yamashina, 1942, A. p. cooki Harington, 1913, and A. p. leuconyx Blyth, 1845. This paper reviews structural amd plumage differences between these taxa (the 'pacificus complex') based on an examination of specimen material and considers the taxonomic implications of these differences. Comparison is made with Dark-rumped Swift A. acuticauda where relevant. Material and Methods A total of 146 Apus pacificus specimens was examined at the Natural History Museum, Tring, UK (BMNH), Museum fur Naturkunde, Berlin, Germany (ZMB), the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology, Tokyo, Japan (YIO), and the Institute for Zoology, Chinese Academy of Science, Beijing, People's Republic of China (lOZ). These specimens included 44 nominate, 47 kanoi, 24 cooki and 13 leuconyx. Twelve A. p. kurodae Domaniewski, 1933, and six A. p. salimali Lack, 1958, specimens were also examined. The former is generally treated as a synonym of pacificus and salimali as a synonym of kanoi (Vaurie 1965, Chantler & Driessens 1995, Chantler 1999, Dickinson 2003). The holotypes of kanoi, cooki and salimali were included in my analyses. One specimen of A. acuticauda was examined and to supplement this, data and photographs pertaining to 18 A. acuticauda specimens were also provided (J. Hinshaw pers. comm.). The following measurements were taken: wing length (maximum chord), length of the longest and shortest tail feathers measured from the tail base (from which depth of tail fork was calculated) and distance between the tips of the two longest primaries (measured on the closed wing). All measurements were recorded to the nearest 0.5 mm. Plumage differences were assessed in detail, with consideration given to those attributable to age class (adult or juvenile), specimen condition and wear. Primaries are numbered from the outermost (pi) inwards. Paul j. Leader 82 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Results Plumage differences.— The key plumage differences proved to be the size of the rump patch, extent of pale fringes on the underparts, the depth and width of the throat patch, the ground colour of the underparts and upperparts, and the colour of the underwing-coverts. I found these to vary between taxa more than is generally indicated in most of the literature (though see Rasmussen & Anderton 2005), and I found consistent plumage differences between most of the taxa examined. These differences are summarised in Table 1. Structural differences.— I found that size and structure varied between taxa and consider that for most taxa there exist consistent differences from other taxa for one or more of the parameters measured (see Table 2). There was little difference with regard to the distance between the two longest primaries, except in the case of cooki, which is discussed below. When combined, structural and plumage differences permitted most taxa examined to be readily differentiated. Diagnoses.— A. p. pacificus: in plumage and structure, pacificus is very similar to both kurodae and kanoi (Figs. 1-4). There is extensive overlap in wing length between these three taxa, although in pacificus the tail is longer than in kurodae or kanoi (mean 75.1 mm for pacificus vs. 71.1 mm and 72.4 mm for kurodae and kanoi, respectively), although values for tail fork depth were similar (mean 32.8 mm for pacificus vs. 29.8 mm and 30.4 mm for kurodae and kanoi, respectively), as was relative depth of the tail fork expressed as a percentage of tail length (mean 43.3% for pacificus vs. 42.0% and 41.8% for kurodae and kanoi, respectively). Plumage differences from kurodae and kanoi are limited to a tendency for pacificus to exhibit a cleaner, whiter throat patch and a slightly broader rump patch than kurodae and kanoi, although many kurodae and kanoi possess a rump patch comparable to that of typical pacificus. Kurodae: for separation from pacificus, see that taxon. I found this taxon inseparable in terms of both plumage and structure from kanoi, even when comparing the holotype of kanoi to a series from Japan (Figs. 3^) (see Discussion concerning the type locality of kurodae). Kanoi: for separation from pacificus, see that taxon. As discussed above, 1 found kanoi and kurodae inseparable. Salimali: whilst wing length of salimali is similar to that of pacificus, kurodae and kanoi (179.8 mm vs. 179.9 mm, 182.3 mm and 181.4 for pacificus, kurodae and kanoi, respectively), it is distinctly longer tailed (mean 79.0 mm vs. 75.1 mm, 71.1 mm and 72.4 mm for pacificus, kurodae and kanoi, respectively). Tail fork depth is similar in all four taxa, and as a consequence the relative depth of the tail fork expressed as a percentage of tail length is notably different, averaging 37.4% for salimali vs. 43.3%, 42.0 % and 42.0 % for pacificus, kurodae and kanoi, respectively. The similar wing length yet longer tail results in a lower wing-tail ratio for salimali, 2.28 vs. 2.40, 2.57 and 2.51 for pacificus, kurodae and kanoi, respectively. In plumage, salimali differs notably from all taxa examined in the pattern of the throat patch, which forms a narrow pale strip on the centre of throat and is narrowest at the base of the bill, where it tapers to a neat point (Fig. 5). (One leuconi/x specimen was examined which had been over-stretched during preparation. As a result the throat patch was rather elongated and superficially similar to that of salimali but this specimen was otherwise typical of leuconyx.) The throat patch is less than half the width of other taxa. The rump patch is consistently narrow (c.10 mm wide) and the crown and nape are mid brown, contrasting conspicuously with the mantle which is glossy black (Fig. h). The pale tips to the underparts are much reduced compared tt) pacificus, kurodae and ka)ioi, and more comparable to leuconyx in this character. TABLE 1 Key plumage differences in adult plumage of members of the Apus pacificus complex and closely related taxa. Paul J. Leader 83 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) 3 'T3 C n3 C/5 a> _ > D- O — u I s c/2 f'3 O g s: o s 'g 1-^ 6 to B ^ ^ CD t— ' J V U -Q 15 cu ^ ^ c: o ^ ^ b H3 -T3 v: I ^ 6 § o d . c ^ o o 0> •£ (i; 5-( c/2 cn CU 0> cn T3 • ^ C CD d; 2 S CD Xt i c: m ^ 2 ^ 3^ ^ O QJ 03 "TD O) E .o» ^ B ''^ S E : Sol™ ™ S' g o ^ rs ^ 2> ^ > o CD r- ^ **“^ Vh OJ 03 Vh CQ ro -C CD I ^ E J-H CD ^ _ o; -1^ S ■£ -^ 03 . .'ii *-< Qj Cj > OJ V-I ^ ^ to ^ Q A o 72 £ ^ Cl. a- E csi *-> fO O CD CD at J-i QJ E •- . 1-1 o ^ > -o S ^ I ^ I !> g s ■ 'dj *H cu -c ^ AS ^ C r j — ^ O 2 cu CD ^ 03 P-i .w o-t a "ai S G S 5 ^ s § CD 03 QJ u. ^ fc o *0 g d 03 at J= O cu Cl- =3 CI- OS 3 CJ US "S ^ I ^ O) C y iii zz: X zz cu o S S •£ c S CD at 60 -g "H S ^ O ti ^ vh o 5 e s I OJ caS e $ - O aS -6 ™ g S.I s -a ri ^ .&- Ci- -•-' 03 d "S -£ -o S2 u 2S . 2 -a a eg a 'O -§ 0 -S 'g'S s s 1 c/T g -O a: ™ M ro 13 Qj g QJ Cl. S £ D- =f S p 111 ^ C ^ > cu o eD ° c % o o Cl- J- 03 c, -73 cu at Ci- iS d cu -2 Vh T3 at . . +-. CD t- ^ o 03 at C 03 c ejZ at O) .ti 03 T3 X O I ►i. J-H X f X cu X > X 'o— >00 o o. cu d Ci--^ 02 Uh - ?-t ■ X ^ CD CU o ^ E- '— ' rt 1 TZ 02 . r n 5 ^ X c "O cu O) O ^X D CD C -X X w O EG ^ X* r“ c^ .* . S S ' X X 2 x QJ "g at eg ^ 0-1 _ y c ^ X .S CJ c T3 at o x X cu -o 0 ^ 60 at at X ^ ^ .S ^ o,-^" ^ ^.S2 “C3 X d at X CJ 2 Cl- X o >-i X at Jz 03 0--5 QJ *^'T3 V- O ca at 0 >1 O X -B CD X 03 0- 03 O x*^ ’i CD "O :2 60 u ^ ^ 0 JS ^ 03 X X i s s ^ B -2 E CJ 0 8 60 E 0' o X 'O 60 at . Ci-^Z S S CD -a bo'^ S .s g 6 0 O . § ^ u 8 3 at 0 0- at 03 0 cu 60 ' CU "2 at *r S ^ ^ s s c s E g E 2 :2 5 I S « O X O S CD fc; tu Dh ^ -C 3 .S g; 2 E "g A ^ c"^ ™s w .S 3 .ti at X u > 0 VC X m 03 0 »- ■a o 3 g c ■g o E Px'g E 0 O 0 O Vh CU X Um CD 03 g X a: g 3 3 •0 J- E 60 E ' — ) -B ^ 0 X ^ CD CD 0 i4. £ £ £ ^3 E 3 3 U g g3 - 0 0 C X 45 o X T3 CD Id 0. M Ot Cl. 0- D T3 ^ C 8 S X at AS S 'o X ^ ^ d >2 5P X at O •; > 0-v o ^ ° cj at -'-' 0 2> eD X 0 at s 2 ^ 6 a| 1h C6 CD 03 03 -O EG 8 60 cu ^ .B ^ d E “:S I T3 at cu XJ o x O 03 0-^ 0- ^ X X CD u. 03 "B 0- 03 u CD 03 0 O 0, V-< X '0 c\3 at X % at 60 ■B cu 0- 0 ~0 > at 2 ^ ^ X ±3 cC "3 U.ii ^ 13 o £ £ 3 S M) M-( r* ■£:§ p s at 60 •B 0 X 03 X 0 S eg ^ at ix P OJ X -E zS ^ , at ( ~o E v-i O 0 ll ■S;S E ^ 0 D "O at 0 X ix i I OJ 60 0 at 60 0 o at Eh 0-> d X >= ^ 0 ^ X o 03 0- Vh cu XJ 0 D 60 o 6X -0 .0 2 0 X CD '0 03 CD QJ ;5 ™ g ^ c CQ 8 S § r- ttO •S C 03 CD 0- 0H X at T 'X -B 0 03 0 0- E *x .0 r- cD g Cji '- ■ I « ° c $ S ■- o o Eh -4-« X tH X ^ ic o 03 -7=: Q 8 60 60 ■B .B "cD ^ CQ Eh Eh cu ■g "B 8 3 s ° C6 CD X g U ^ 03 CU ■ X X CD X O “o cu -o X 0 P d O c P X ^ g o 2 -S o 1h CD at 60 II E- CC ,0 d _E 0 X Q "cD ■0 g g g I O ^ O .0 Eh at 0 D .B 0 60 •B Eh at ~a 0 B Eh ^ cn CD £ bP c ll ^ -o _o -o Q g 8 § Zh t-* 0 at 0 g r- ■"“ CD r Eh at ^ 0^0-^ -s.i 3 g ^ P CD ^ T3 O T3 n S "o £ X 03 (J 0 60 .5 i. s at eh T3 ^ 0 ^ ^ P Paul J. Leader 84 Bull. B.O.C 2011 131(2) TABLE 2 Summary of key structural differences between members of the Apiis pacificus complex and closely related taxa. Wing length (mm) Tail length (mm) Tail fork depth (mm) Wing/tail ratio Tail fork as % of fail length Max. 190.0 83. 42.0 2.80 51.6 Min. 170.0 64.0 25.5 2.20 37.28 padficus Mean 179.9 75.1 32.7 2.40 43.3 SD 4.63 4.47 3.6 0.13 3.89 n 43 42 42 42 42 Max. 188.0 77.0 34.0 2.79 49.2 Min. 174.0 66.0 24.5 2.40 34.0 kurodae Mean 182.3 71.1 29.8 2.57 42.0 SD 4.54 3.4 3.3 0.12 4.86 n 12 12 11 11 11 Max. 191.5 78.5 37.5 2.85 52.3 Min. 171.5 63.50 21.0 2.34 33.1 kanoi Mean 181.4 72.4 30.4 2.51 42.0 SD 4.07 3.25 3.25 0.11 3.50 n 46 47 47 46 46 Max. 183.0 85.0 35.0 2.46 41.2 Min. 177.0 72.0 24.0 2.14 31.2 salimali Mean 179.8 79.0 29.6 2.28 37.4 SD 2.3 4.24 4.39 0.11 4.7 It 6 6 6 6 6 Max. 170.0 73.0 27.0 2.66 39.1 Min. 151.0 61.0 16.0 2.18 25.8 kuconxjx Mean 161.1 67.9 23.5 2.38 34.6 SD 5.43 3.97 3.44 0.14 4.40 n 13 13 13 13 13 Max. 181.5 82.0 28.0 2.67 38.4 Min. 162.0 65.0 15.0 2.17 21.7 cooki Mean 172.4 73.0 21.5 2.37 29.3 SD 5.05 3.99 3.32 0.12 3.7 n 18 16 17 16 16 Max. 181.6 75.1 27.2 2.79 37.8 Min. 166.3 60.2 16.2 2.27 26.9 acuticaudn* Mean 173.4 69.1 22.2 2.57 32.2 SD 4.55 4.98 3.72 0.17 3.53 16 15 16 16 15 data for all but one specimen provided by lanet llinshaw (Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor) Paul J. Leader 85 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Figure 1. Ventral view of specimens of Pacific Swift Apiis p. pacificiis (Paul J. Leader / Yamashina Institute for Ornithology) m i Figure 2. Dorsal view of specimens of Pacific Swift Apus p. pacificiis (Paul J. Leader / Yamashina Instihite for Ornithology) Paul J. Leader 86 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Figure 3. Ventral view of five specimens of Pacific Swift Apiis pacificus kanoi on left and type specimen of 'kurodae' on right (Paul J. Leader / Yamashina Institute for Ornithology) Figure 4. Dorsal view of five specimetis ol Pacific Swill Apii^ pacifiai^^ kmioi on lefi and type specimen ol kurodae on right (Paul |. Leailer / Yamashina Inslilute tor Ornitlu)logy) Paul J. Leader 87 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Cooki: at 172.4 mm, cooki has the second shortest mean wing length after leuconyx (161.1 mm) and a tail length similar to that of kurodae and kanoi (73.0 mm vs. 71.1 mm and 72.4 mm). It has the shallowest tail fork (mean 21.5 mm vs. 23.5 mm for leuconyx and 29.6-32.7 mm for all ofher taxa), and the shortest relative depth of the tail fork expressed as a percentage of tail length (mean 29.3% vs. 34.6% for leuconyx and 37.4^3.3% for all other taxa). Perhaps most importantly, whilst in all other taxa the longest primary was p2 in all individuals: pacificus (p2 1. 1-8.5 mm longer than pi; n = 19), kurodae (2.1-6.1 mm longer; n = 11), kanoi (1. 0-7.4 mm longer; n = 32), salimali (0. 6-4.9 mm longer; n = 6) and leuconyx (1 -3-4.8 mm longer; n = 9), of 18 cooki the longest primary is pi on 13 (72%) being l.O^.O mm longer than p2, the other five have p2 longest by 0.7-2. 3 mm, which is at the lower end of fhe range for the other taxa. I found cooki to be distinctive in plumage and readily separable from all other taxa using a number of criteria. The rump patch is narrow (c.lO mm wide) with conspicuous dark shaft-streaks which typically broaden near the feather tip to form broad, club-shaped dark marks (Fig. 8), rather than the, at most, narrow, dark shaft-streaks (usually none) of all other taxa. The upperparts and underparts are black and very different from all other taxa, which have dark brown upper- and underparts (or in the case of salimali and leuconyx black on the upperparts is restricted to the mantle). The underparts have broad, well-defined white fringes that approach those of A. acuticauda rather than any of the taxa in the pacificus complex (Fig. 8). The throat patch is off-white with well-defined black shaft- streaks (more pronounced than in other taxa) and extends onto the upper breast (Fig. 9). The upperparts possess an extensive green iridescence and often show narrow white fringes to the scapulars in fresh plumage. Finally, the underwing-coverts are black and contrast with the rest of the underwing, whereas in all other taxa the underwing-coverts are dark brown and hence similar to the rest of the underwing. It should be noted that the holotype is a very worn breeding adult (collected 2 June 1912) and that the rest of a series at BMNH from the type locality (Gokteik Caves, eastern Myanmar) are juveniles lacking fully grown wings. As such they appear, superficially at least, smaller, duller and browner (especially the juveniles) than specimens of cooki from elsewhere. Flowever, they all share a comparable rump patch size and patterning with other cooki specimens, and the adult, once the effects of wear are considered, is comparable with other cooki specimens I have examined. Leuconyx: much the smallest of fhe taxa examined; mean wing length is 161.1 mm vs. 172.4 mm to 182.3 for all other taxa. Mean wing length is closest to that of cooki, from which it differs notably in other respects, especially plumage (see cooki for defails). Mean tail length is also shortest; 67.9 mm vs. 72.4-79.0 mm in all other taxa. In plumage leuconyx is most similar to salimali in that the rump patch is consistently narrow (c.lO mm wide) and the crown and nape are mid brown and contrast conspicuously with the mantle, which is glossy black (Fig. 10). However, the throat patch pattern is distinctly different, being broad (covering the entire throat), off-white with fine dark shaft streaks, while the lower border is ill-defined and typically extends onto the upper breast with some mottling within the throat patch, especially at the sides and towards the lower border (Fig. 9). The upper breast is mid brown, paler than in other taxa, becoming darker over the lower breast and the rest of the underparts. Distribution and breeding ecology Pacificus breeds from Siberia east to Kamchatka and northern Japan, south to northern China. It breeds from sea level to 3,000 m in Japan and nests on cliff faces and in caves, and on buildings. It is primarily a long to very long-distance migrant, with birds wintering Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Paul Leader Right, top to bottom; Figure 5. Ventral view of specimens of Salim All's Swift Apiis salimali (Paul J. Leader / © The Natural History Museum, Tring) Figure 6. Dorsal view of specimens of Salim All's Swift Apiis salimali (Paul J. Leader / © The Natural History Museum, Tring) Figure 7. Ventral view of specimens of Cook's Swift Apus cooki (Paul J. Leader / © The Natural History Museum, Tring) in Indonesia, Melanesia, Australia and Tasmania. Kurodae and its junior synonym kanoi (see below) breed across much of eastern China, southern Japan and Taiwan. In China, it breeds commonly in eastern Guangdong province, but its status further west is unclear and demands additional research (particularly in western Guangdong and eastern Guangxi with regard to the distribution of cooki). I have examined one kauoi specimen at ZMB collected on 15 May 1929 at Yao Shan, Guangxi, which was perhaps a local breeder. It nests on cliff faces, including sea cliffs (Lack 1956a) and in caves, and winters in Malaysia, the Philippines and Indonesia. Salimali breeds at very high altitudes (above 3,400 m) and is restricted to the east Tibetan Plateau and adjacent high- altitude western Sichuan. It habitually nests on buildings, perhaps most famously in the Potala Palace, Lhasa. Its winter distribution is apparently unknown but, at the very least, it must be an altitudinal migrant. Cooki is restricted to lowland Myanmar, northern Thailand, Vietnam and Guangxi province, China. Based on the available information, the taxon is restricted as a breeder to limestone caves (Smythies 1986, Wells 1999, Ngonjun & SitasLiwan 2001; P. D. Round /;; lilt. 2009) and it appears that this is the only member of the pacificus complex that habitually breeds in limestone habitat.s, although this n*i|uires confirmation. It is Paul J. Leader 89 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Right, top to bottom: Figure 8. Dorsal view of specimens of Cook's Swift Apus cooki (Paul J. Leader / © The Natural History Museum, Tring) Figure 9. Ventral view of specimens of Blyth's Swift Apus leuconyx (Paul J. Leader / © The Natural History Museum, Tring) Figure 10. Dorsal view of specimens of Blyth's Swift Apus leuconyx (Paul J. Leader / © The Natural History Museum, Tring) a short-distance migrant or near-resident and I have examined winter-collected specimens from Laos (November— YIO), Vietnam (January— BMNH), Cambodia (January — BMNH), the northern Shan States, Myanmar (January— BMNH), and there are two February Thai specimens (P. D. Round in litt. 2009). Leuconyx is a mid to high-altitude breeder, occurring at 1,300-3,800 m in Pakistan, Nepal, Bhutan and north- east India. Presumably facilitated by its smaller size, this is the only member of the pacificus complex recorded utilising the nests of other birds, including those of hirundines (Lack 1956b). It is resident or partially migratory, wintering at lower altitudes in Nepal (Inskipp & Inskipp 1985) and peninsular India (Vaurie 1965). There is much variation in the timing of the breeding between the various taxa, which is unsurprising given the large range of the pacificus complex and the marked differences in migratory behaviour. The southernmost taxon cooki is generally on eggs in Myanmar in May (Smythies 1986) or even early March in northern Thailand (Ngonjun & Sitasuwan 2001) while leuconyx breeds March-May in Nepal (Chantler 1999). However, most pacificus are just returning to the breeding grounds in May, with breeding in some areas commencing in June (Brazil 1991, Chantler & Driessens 1995). Paul J. Leader 90 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) ♦ pad ficus Ukurodae A kauoi Figure 11. Scatter plot of wing and tail lengths (in mm) of pacificits, kurodae and kanoi. Discussion Based upon a combination of plumage and structure, I found each specimen of salimali, cooki and leuconyx to be readily separable, and that pacificus, kanoi ancd kurodae whilst separable from the other taxa were very similar to each other. Both kurodae and kauoi are separable from pacificus when compared as a series on the basis of the cleaner, white throat patch and broader rump patch of pacificus, but there is substantial overlap in the size of the rump patch in these three taxa. I compared the holotype of kanoi to a series of kurodae from Japan and found them to be inseparable, being unable to detect any of the differences (darker body, stronger greenish gloss, narrower throat patch and rump patch) identified by Yamashina (1942). The type locality of kurodae is stated to be 'japan' although the holotype was apparently lost during World War II (Mlikovsky 2007), making a comparison of the holotypes of kanoi and kurodae impossible. In size (wing and tail length) there is overlap between all three, but with most overlap between kurodae and kanoi and a very clear tendency for larger individuals to be pacificus (Fig. 11). Vaurie (1959, 1965) considered kajioi separable from pmcificus based on differences in the upperparts and possibly the throat ('the white area of the throat is usually more restricted and less pure'), a feature which 1 found differentiated salimali from pacificus (and other taxa). However, given that Vaurie (1959, 1965) treated salimali as a synonym of kanoi and examined specimens that included material from within the range of salimali but not, apparently, the type of kanoi 1 find his diagnosis of kanoi and treatment of salimali unconvincing. Based upon these findings, rather than treat kurodae as a synonym of pacificus 1 consider kurodae and kanoi to be synonyms, and as it predates kanoi by nine years, kurodae has precedence. Despite frequently being treated as a junior synonym of kanoi (Vaurie 1959, 1965, Chantler 1995, 1999, Dickinson 2003), 1 found salimali to be a highly diagnosable taxon, with all individuals examined separable from all other taxa, including pacificus, in both structure and plumage. As noted above. Lack (1959, 1965) and Vaurie (1959) differed in their treatment of salimali, despite considering the same five specimens at BMNH collected in south-east Tibet. 1 also examined these five specimens, plus a further specimen frtim Sichuan at RfZ. Paul J. Leader 91 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Lack (1958), in describing salimali, noted that the specimens were very similar to leuconyx in plumage but differed in being larger, however he did not make mention of the distinctly different throat pattern. Vaurie (1959, 1965) attached greater significance to the similar size of salimali to kanoi, but as discussed above, based on an examination of the holotypes of both taxa, I find his conclusion that salimali and kanoi are similar in terms of plumage unconvincing. It should also be noted that Vaurie (1959, 1965) used only wing length to assess size, and did not consider differences in tail length or tail structure. As demonstrated above, these are also important in the diagnosis of salimali. It is noteworthy that Deignan (1956) considered 17 specimens from western Sichuan collected during July, August and October inseparable from a series of nine kanoi collected on the Batanes Islands, in the northern Philippines, and a further specimen from Fujian province, China. These Sichuan specimens may be salimali, which was described in the same year and of which Deignan was probably unaware at the time (his manuscript was submitted in April 1955), or they could indeed be kanoi, which may breed at lower altitudes in the region, although this scenario seems unlikely given that western Sichuan is generally much higher than other parts of the province. It should be noted that his August and October specimens are almost certainly migrants. Unfortunately, Deignan (1956) does not state in which collection(s) his Sichuan specimens are housed, as they clearly merit re-examination. Ali & Ripley (1970) somewhat surprisingly and without explanation, treated birds in south-east Tibet as kanoi, noting breeding in the Tsango Po Valley, which is the type locality of salimali (Lack 1958). Of the taxa examined, cooki is by far the most distinctive in plumage, and has a distinctly different wing structure. The glossy black plumage and heavier rump patch streaking led Lack (1956b) to remark that cooki resembles Dark-rumped Swift A. acuticauda more that it resembles pacificus, and considered that 'cooki completely bridges the [morphological] gap' between pacificus and acuticauda. This formed a large part of his argument that acuticauda should be treated as a subspecies of pacificus. Lack (1956b) noted the distinct wing structure of cooki, and commented: 'In some other species of Apus, as mentioned later, the difference between the first and second primary is a valuable aid in the determination of species, but in A. pacificus it varies within the species'. Vaurie (1959), by contrast, was unequivocal in his treatment of acuticauda as a valid species citing the all dark rump and distinct differences in tail feather shape (with acuticauda having highly attenuated outer tail feathers), and the close proximity (50 km) to breeding acuticauda and the nearest breeding leuconyx as evidence, but did not comment on differences in wing structure; his treatment of acuticauda has been widely adopted since. Like Lack (1956b), I consider cooki to resemble acuticauda more than other members of the pacificus complex, being black above and below, and in the very broad white fringes to the underparts. It is also very similar in overall structure (Table 2) to acuticauda, to which it may prove to be more closely related. It should be noted that most data for acuticauda presented in Table 2 were not collected by the author, and as such I am reluctant to discuss the relationship between cooki and acuticauda in more detail. However, I consider it to be plausible that both taxa are not members of the pacificus complex (which may only comprise nominate pacificus, kurodae, salimali and leuconyx), and that the pacificus complex as currently recognised may be polyphyletic. Conclusions Given that Apus swifts are profoundly adapted to an aerial existence, it has been argued elsewhere (e.g. Brooke 1971) that consistent structural differences between apparently closely related taxa are of taxonomic significance (e.g. Fry et al. 1988). Such an approach Paul J. Leader 92 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) has led to a substantial revision of the genus Apus (primarily within the dark-rumped African taxa). Of the 17 species currently recognised by Gill & Donsker (2010), Lack (1956b) recognised just seven (Lack recognised ten species in the genus, but three of these are no longer placed in Apus by Gill & Donsker 2010). There has been no systematic review of the pacificus complex since Lack (1956b) and Vaurie (1965), and based on my findings above I consider it clear that structural differences that have subsequently led to extensive taxonomic revision of congenerics are also evident in the pacificus complex. The taxonomic importance of these structural differences is further supported by consistent plumage differences, as well as by differences in migration strategies and breeding ecology. When both measurements and plumages are assessed, pacificus, salimali, cooki and leuconyx all satisfy the diagnosibility requirements of the Phylogenetic Species Concept. Satisfying the non-interbreeding requirement of the Biological Species Concept (BSC) is problematic given that all four possess allopatric breeding ranges. However, it could be argued that the marked differences in the timing and altitude of breeding, migration strategy and, in the case of cooki, breeding habitat are effective isolating mechanisms and that some members of the pacificus complex meet the requirements of the BSC (perhaps most robustly in respect of cooki). Molecular studies and research into potential vocal differences (a review of a small number of recordings suggests clear differences between taxa) could further the taxonomic status of these taxa. I consider the present taxonomic arrangement of the pacificus complex untenable and that the complex is best treated as four separate species. Accordingly, 1 propose the following taxonomic treatment: Pacific Swift Apus pacificus Latham, 1801 subspecies kiirodae Domaniewski, 1933 Salim Ali's Swift Apus salimali Lack, 1958 Blyth's Swift Apus leuconyx Blyth, 1845 Cook's Swift Apus cooki Harington, 1913 The English names chosen recognise the predominately far easterly distribution of pacificus (including kanoi) and avoid further use of the name 'Fork-tailed Swift' which 1 consider to be a distinctly inappropriate name given the structural characteristics of most members of the genus. With the exception of pacificus, I have shied away from geographical monikers, to avoid introducing the potentially confusing name Himalayan Swift for leuconyx (vs. Himalayan Swiftlet Collocalia brevirostris) and to commemorate some 'giants' of Asian ornithology. Acknowledgements Yoshimitsu Shigeta (YIO), Fu Min-Lei (lOZ), Robert Prys-Jones and Mark Adams (BMNH), and Sylke Frahnert (ZMB) kindly permitted access to specimens in these collections. Yoshimitsu Shigeta and Peter Kennerley assisted in tracing references, and Philip Round provided valuable information, including photographs and measurements of Thai cooki specimens and on the status of the complex in Thailand. Janet Hinshaw was especially helpful in providing measurements and photographs of A. naitiaiuda specimens at the Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, anci also provided useful references. Michael Leven proffered helpful comments on the draft pre-submission. Finally, 1 thank Pamela Rasmussen and David Wells whose comments greatly improved the quality of this paper. References: Ali, S. & Ripley, S. D. 1970. Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, vol. 4. (Oxford Univ. Pres.s, New Delhi. Brazil, M. A. 1991. The birds of Japan. Christopher Helm, London. Brooke, R. K. 1971. Geographical variation in the Little Swift Afws affinis (Aves: Apodidae). Durban Mus. Novit. 9(7): 93-103. Paul J. Leader 93 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Chantler, P. 1999. Family Apodidae (swifts). Pp. 388-157 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 5. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Chantler, P . & Driessens, G. 1995. Swifts: a guide to the swifts and treeswifts of the world. Pica Press, Robertsbridge. Dickinson, E. C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Third edn. Christopher Helm, London. Deignan, H. G. 1956. Eastern races of the White-rumped Swift, Apus pacificus (Latham). Bull. Raffles Mus. TJ-. 147-149. Fry, C. H., Keith, S. & Urban, E. K. (eds.) 1988. The birds of Africa, vol. 3. Academic Press, London. Gill, F. & Donsker, D. (eds.) 2010. IOC world bird names (version 2.5). http://www.worldbirdnames.org/ (accessed September 2010). Inskipp, C. & Inskipp, T. 1991. A guide to the birds of Nepal. Christopher Helm, London. Lack, D. 1956a. A review of the genera and the nesting habits of swifts. Auk 73: 1-32. Lack, D. 1956b. The species of Apus. Ibis 98: 34-61. Lack, D. 1958. A new race of the White-rumped Swift. /. Bombay Nat. Hist. Soc. 55: 160-161. Mlikovsky, J. 2007. Types of birds in the collections of the Museum and Institute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences, Warszawa, Poland. Part 2: Asian birds. /. Natl. Mus. (Prague), Nat. Hist. Ser. 176(4): 33-79. Ngonjun, P. & Sitasuwan, N. 2001. [Breeding behaviour and post-hatching development of Apus pacificus]. ]. Wildl. Hiailand 9(1): 18-22. [in Thai.] Rasmussen, P. C. & Anderton, J. C. 2005. Birds of south Asia: the Ripley guide, vol. 2. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC & Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Smythies, B. E. 1986. The birds of Burma. Nimrod Press, Liss & Silvio Mattacchione, Pickering, ON. Vaurie, C. 1959. Systematic notes on Palearctic birds. No. 38 Alcedinidae, Meropidae, Upupidae, and Apodidae. Amer. Mus. Novit. 1971: 1-20. Vaurie, C. 1965. The birds of the Palearctic fauna. Non-Passeriformes. H. F. & G. Witherby, London. Wells, D. R. 1999. The birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula, vol. 1. Academic Press, London. Yamashina, Y. 1942. On a new subspecies of Micropus pacificus residing in Formosa and Botal Tobago. Bull. Biogeogr. Soc. Japan 12: 79-80. Address: c/o Asia Ecological Consultants Ltd., 127 Commercial Centre, Palm Springs, New Territories, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China, e-mail: pjleader@asiaecol.com.hk © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 Buttu Madika et al. 94 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) An undescribed Ninox hawk owl from the highlands of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia? by Buttu Madika, Dadang Dwi Putra, J. Berton C. Harris, Ding Li Yong, Fachry Nur Mallo, Abdul Rahman, Dewi M. Prawiradilaga & Pamela C. Rasmussen Received 27 September 2010 Summary.— The Indonesian island of Sulawesi is a globally important hotspot of avian endemism, yet its birds are little studied and new species are still being discovered in the region. We present observations and photographs of an apparently undescribed taxon of Ninox hawk owl from 2,250 m on Gunung Rorekatimbu, Central Sulawesi. We reviewed specimens of all known South-East Asian Ninox owls and concluded that this bird's white-spotted underparts and pale supercilia are not shared by any other Nuiox hawk owl in the region. Recordings attributed to it are strikingly similar to Ninox ios, but consistently have a longer inter-note interval between the paired main notes, and may be slightly lower in frequency. We believe it either represents a new subspecies of N. ios in Central Sulawesi, or it is a new species closely related to N. ios. If shown to be of species rank, we suggest the common name White-spotted Hawk Owl for it. Photographs of the unknown owl were taken in 1999 and a published photograph from 2007 likely pertains to it, but the bird's taxonomic status remains unresolved, and no specimens are known. Montane forest at the site is relatively intact and we are planning further work to address this problem. Sulawesi, the largest landmass within the biodiversity hotspot of Wallacea, is a globally important centre of avian endemism with 42 endemic bird species. This is more than one- third of all species endemic to the Sulawesi region (Coates & Bishop 1997, Stattersfield et al. 1998, Mittermeier et al. 2004) and about one-sixth of its resident avifauna. Despite its biological richness, Sulawesi is ornithologically one of the most unfamiliar regions on Earth, and new species are still being described from the island and its satellites (Coates & Bishop 1997). Recently described species include Cinnabar Hawk Owl Ninox ios from mainland Sulawesi (Rasmussen 1999), Sangihe Scops Owl Otus collar i from Sangihe Island (Lambert & Rasmussen 1998) and Togian Hawk Owl Ninox burhani and Togian White-eye Zosterops somadikartai from the Togian Islands in the Gulf of Tomini (Indrawan & Somadikarta 2004, Indrawan et al. 2008). Avian rediscoveries are also relatively frequent; for example, Banggai Crow Corvus iinicolor, previously known only from two specimens of uncertain prov'cnance, was recently rediscovered on Peleng Island in the Banggai archipelago (Mallo et al. 2010). Much of Sulawesi is mountainous, with an estimated 20% of its land area over 1,000 m elevation. Unsurprisingly, many of the island's endemic birds (e.g. Ceomalia Geoinalia lieinriclii. Sombre Pigeon Cri/ptophaps poecilorrhoa) are restricted to the highlands (Whitten et al. 2002). Although Sulawesi's mountains have been explored to varying extents in the past century, few high-elevation areas have been visited recently and thus the montane avifauna is still poorly known (White & Bruce 1986, Collar 2009). Disconcertingly, accelerating habitat loss both outside and inside protected areas is threatening Sulawesi's avian diversity even before all of its species are described (King et al. 1999, Sodhi el al. 2005, Waltert et al. 2005, Cannon et al. 2007). Buttu Madika et al. 95 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Wallacea supports an exceptionally diverse owl community with six Tyto barn owls, at least nine Ninox hawk owls and six Otus scops owls (Coates & Bishop 1997, BirdLife International 2009a). These nocturnal birds are even more poorly known than the region's diurnal avifauna. At least four new owl species have been described from Wallacea in the last two decades, namely two hawk owls and a scops owl from the Sulawesi region (Lambert & Rasmussen 1998, Rasmussen 1999, Indrawan & Somadikarta 2004) and a hawk owl in the Lesser Sundas (Olsen et al. 2002). The taxonomy and distribution of many Wallacean owl taxa is not well known and subject to revision. For example, recent evidence shows that the geographically variable Moluccan Hawk Owl Ninox sqiiamipila probably involves a complex of three morphologically, vocally and genetically distinct species (Norman et al. 1998, Rasmussen 1999), yet their taxonomy remains unresolved. In the case of N. ios, the species is still known from only a single specimen, although there are now many photographs and sound-recordings from North Sulawesi, and putative records from Central Sulawesi (e.g., Lee & Riley 2001, Mauro 2001). A new Ninox Here we present observations and photographs of a distinctive medium-sized Ninox owl, which differs markedly in plumage from all other known Indonesian owls and is thus likely to represent an undescribed taxon. The owl was photographed by BM in July 1999 during the day, on the Anaso track on the east slope of Gunung Rorekatimbu (c.01°16.07'S, 120°19.02'E; c.2,250 m) in Central Sulawesi (Fig. 1). Tebb et al. (2008) also photographed and discussed a bird at c. 1,700 m on Rorekatimbu that appears to be the same taxon. Much of Gunung Rorekatimbu lies within Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP), a 217,991- ha protected area that supports c.78% of Sulawesi's endemic birds, as well as important populations of threatened endemic mammals (Coates & Bishop 1997, Prawiradilaga et al. 2006, Lee et al. 2007). LLNP is a key area for the conservation of threatened and range- restricted birds such as Maleo Macrocephalon maleo (Endangered), Snoring Rail Aramidopsis plateni (Vulnerable), Blue-faced Rail Gymnocrex rosenbergii (Vulnerable), Minahassa Owl Tyto inexspectata (Vulnerable), Cinnabar Hawk Owl (Vulnerable; see comments below concerning status in LLNP), Heinrich's Nightjar Eurostopodus diabolicus (Vulnerable) and Geomalia (Near Threatened) (Mauro 2001, Mauro & Drijvers 2000, Riley & Wardill 2003, BirdLife International 2009a,b). Most of LLNP is mountainous and habitats and rainfall are variable (TNC 2004); annual rainfall in the north of the park, where Gunung Rorekatimbu is located, is 2,000-3,000 mm (SNRI 2008). The national park is under considerable pressure from increasing human population due to transmigration, expansion of cacao agriculture and illegal logging (Weber et al. 2007, Glough et al. 2009, Lee et al. 2009). In the early 1990s a logging company constructed a road and selectively logged montane forest from the Palu-Wuasa road to Puncak Dingin and Anaso. There are still many open areas along the road (now called the Anaso track), but the canopy is starting to close in places. In addition, most areas of the mountain away from the road are primary and mature secondary forest, from c.1,250 m to the summit of Gunung Rorekatimbu at 2,520 m. Forest on the mountain at c.1,500-2,000 m is up to 25 m tall and dominated by oaks such as Castanopsis acwninatissima (Fagaceae) and dammar {Agathis sp., Araucariaceae; Whitten et al. 2002). At c.2,250 m where the owl was photographed, the forest is lower in stature with abundant epiphytes. Dominant trees in this area include Leptospermum sp. (Myrtaceae) and Dacrycarpus sp. (Podocarpaceae), while Rhododendron and Vaccinium (Ericaceae) are common in the understorey (Whitten et al. 2002). Buttu Madika et al. 96 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) : — ■ Legend ★ Owl sighting • Towns ^ _ Lore Undo National Park boundary Elevation (m) Wuasa IB PufKa*fto«Mllmt>u« toAnaso ^ Puncak Dingtn Tongoa Danau Tambing , ^Helipad Legend ir ^aigtibng • Pontofinterai — ftoed ..■Trwi* Eievaaon(m} 1.000-1^ I — 1 1.250-1.500 r — I1.S00-1 750 I — 11750-2000 t— 1 2.000 - 2.250 ■12^-2.500 H 2.500 -2,750 Figure lA. Lore Lindu National Park region in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Elevation data are from World Clim, www.worldclim.org. Figure IB. Gunung Rorekatimbu area, showing the Anaso track and points of interest. Elevation data are from World Clim, www.worldclim.org. Figure 2. Photograph of the apparently undescribed taxon from 1999 showing the spotted underparts (Buttu Madika) Figure 3. Photograph of the apparently undescribed taxon from 1999 showing the pale supercilium (Buttu Madika) In July 1999 BM & FNM (hereafter 'we') spent e. 14 days on the Anaso track observing and photographing birds. Between one and two km from Puncak Dingin towards Anaso, we encountered an owl roosting in a c.6 m tall tree. We were able to approach it to within 3 m and take several photographs (Figs. 2-3). The owl displayed plumage characteristics that differed from other Niiiox species found on Sulawesi with which we are familiar (Ochre- bellied N. ochracca. Speckled N. piiiictulata and Cinnabar Hawk Owls). The bird showetl a Buth.1 Madika et al. 97 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) unique combination of two characteristics: large white spots on the underparts, and bold white supercilia. Four Ninox hawk owls (three endemic residents and one winter visitor) are already known from LLNP. The endemics are Ochre-bellied Hawk Owl, found from the lowlands to 800 m (Coates & Bishop 1997, Rasmussen 1999), Speckled Hawk Owl found from the lowlands to 1,100 m (rarely to 2,300 m; Coates & Bishop 1997), and Cinnabar Hawk Owl found on Gunung Rorekatimbu, Gunung Rano Rano, Gunung Nokilalaki and Gunung Dali at 1,630—2,260 m (pers. obs.). The migratory Brown Hawk Owl has been recorded from sea level to 800 m (Coates & Bishop 1997). Two species from adjacent islands must also be considered: Togian Hawk Owl, recorded to 400 m in the Togian Islands (Indrawan & Somadikarta 2004) and the highly polytypic Moluccan Hawk Owl which is found from sea level to 1,750 m in the Moluccas (Coates & Bishop 1997). If confirmed as a new species, the undescribed taxon would increase the known resident Ninox species of Sulawesi to four, making the island home to the richest hawk owl assemblage in the world. Diagnosis For the unknown owl, the following diagnosis is based solely on three available photographs of the same individual showing the front of the bird, and therefore specimen material will be required to validate some of the taxon's characteristics, parhcularly those involving size and structure. Comparative material of other taxa used was primarily an extensive reference collection of specimen photographs taken at many museums, as well as photographs of several taxa available on Oriental Bird Images (OBI; http:// orientalbirdimages.org/, accessed 6 April 2010) and elsewhere. Our photographs show an earless, rufous owl almost certainly belonging to the genus Ninox, with boldly spotted underparts and prominent whitish supercilia extending from the base of the bill and ending above the eyes. The crown appears dark, but resolution of the photographs is insufficient to determine whether patterning is present on the crown. The feathers of the pale supercilium appear to be somewhat upstanding, above the plane of the crown feathers. The supercilia form a shallow 'V' shape with the forecrown, and are bordered below (above the eye) by distinct zones of dark russet-brown feathers narrowest medially and broadest laterally. The irides appear to be pale yellow, lacking a narrow black ring on the exterior edge of the iris itself, but with a variably narrow dark eye-ring of bare skin, broadest and darkest over the anterior lateral half of the eye. The bill and cere are pale, and the nares are prominent. The ear-coverts are fairly uniform dark russet-brown, although they are palest below and behind the eye, and darkest to the sides of the bill, and they terminate in thin extensions beyond the rim of the facial disk. The feathers of the entire underparts from the lower breast to vent have large white or whitish spots, prominent white shaft-streaks, and strongly contrasting dark brown chevron-shaped tips. It appears probable from the photographs that the feathers of the upper breast have only small whitish spots and are mostly dark. The photographs do not show the dorsal surface. In comparison with N. ios from North Sulawesi, our photographs appear to show that the putative new owl is more heavily built, with a relatively smaller head; a longer bill with relatively larger more prominent nares and with the cere more exposed; a relatively longer body; a relatively squarer tail; and heavier toes. It is possible that postural differences play a role in some of these perceived differences, but the overall shape of the unknown bird appears quite distinct from N. ios. In soft parts, the unknown owl appears to have paler yellow irides without the surrounding black iris ring or (as far as can be determined from photographs) narrow pinkish bare eye-ring, both present in N. ios, while being similar in the Buttu Madika et al. 98 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) colour of bill, toes and claws. Given that the photographs of the unknown bird were taken in daylight, while those of N. ios we have seen were taken with flash in darkness, these putative distinctions require substantiation. In ventral plumage, the unknown owl differs strikingly from North Sulawesi N. ios in its strong face pattern (vs. no apparent pattern in N. ios); the large white-spotted feathers over the entire underparts from breast to vent; and its less narrowly banded tail (hence with fewer visible tails bands). In addition, its feathering appears more compact, less full and fluffy, with the exception of the apparent ear-covert tufts. Note that there is only a single specimen of N. ios, the holotype held in Naturalis (Leiden), and the above comparisons were made with photographs of it and several photographs from Gunung Ambang, North Sulawesi on OBI and avocet.zoology.msu.edu. Most of the above-noted differences, which are based on comparisons of photographs, require further substantiation. The type specimen and all photographs available in the above-mentioned photo archives of N. ios from North Sulawesi show fairly uniform rufous underparts, with at most subtle barring and / or speckling. However, a bird photographed in Lore Lindu in September 2007 and identified as N. ios appears very similar to our photographs (Tebb et al. 2008). The bird's voice was said to be similar to N. ios from North Sulawesi but its plumage shows the same bold, pale spots below and pale supercilium. Tebb et al. (2008) observed similarly marked birds in Lore Lindu in September 2004 and October 2006, although no photographs of these birds were published. A photograph of putative N. ios from Lore Lindu on OBI (taken by E. Collaerts on 18 August 2008) has large pale (but not white) spots below, with dark brown chevron-like borders on the feather edges, and there appear to be fewer tail bands than in the North Sulawesi form of N. ios. Unfortunately the face of this individual is tilted away in the photograph, as it was taken from below, making it impossible to determine the degree of face patterning. Another photograph of putative N. ios from LLNP (by T. Sawbridge, September 2009, available at www.birdtourasia.com/sulawesireportsept09.html), shows a bird with similar, although more subtle, markings on the underparts. The face is partially obscured in the photograph but the supercilium appears pale, although not bright whitish as in our photographs. More tail bands are visible in the Sawbridge bird than in the Collaerts bird or our unknown owl, but this could be an artefact of the photograph. The birds photographed by Collaerts and Sawbridge are more subtly marked than our unknown owl, but it is still possible that these photographs represent the same taxon. It now appears that the Central Sulawesi population previously assumed to be N. ios is actually the unknown owl, in which case it must be highly variable in plumage (unlike N. ios from North Sulawesi). We have considered the possibility that the unknown owl represents juvenile Ninox ios. Although, as far as we are aware, no data are available on the juvenile plumage of N. ios, this seems unlikely given the apparent difference in tail banding, the fact that the unknown owl appears no more and probably less fluffy and with more distinct markings (exactly the opposite of what would be expected based on juveniles of other Ninox species; PCR unpubl.), and the apparent differences in structure. The unknown owl differs strongly from Ochre-bellied Hawk Owl N. ochracca in coloration, being largely russet with strong white spots below (vs. brown with an entirely or nearly unmarked ochraceous-buff belly in N. ochracea). Note also that although N. ochracca has a prominent white supercilium, it is narrow and runs into the pale feathering at the sides of the bill, forming an 'X' shape. It also has a mostly dark bill and its tail has very narrow pale bands and very broad dark ones. Juveniles of N. ochracca are similar to adults but fluffier and slightly duller below. Buttu Madika et al. 99 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Compared to Brown Hawk Owl N. scutulata (all forms except the almost all dark N. [s.] obscura of the Andamans, considered a distinct species by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005), and including forms raudi and japonica sometimes split on the basis of vocalisations), the unknown owl has much more extensive pale supercilia (vs. a small white triangle between the eyes, not extending above the eye in N. scutulata)', an entirely pale (vs. largely dark) bill; dark bristles surrounding the bill (vs. whitish); a more russet-brown face (vs. largely dark grey in most N. scutulata)) a very different underparts pattern with each feather primarily white surrounded by dark (vs. distinct large dark brown or rufescent heart- or chevron- shaped marks surrounded by white and forming stripes on the lower underparts, and more typical dark central feather streaking on the breast); and much narrower tail banding. In addition, the unknown bird appears to be distinct in shape from N. scutulata, having a less markedly small head and less compact plumage. Compared to Andaman Hawk Owl N. ajfinis, the unknown bird differs in much the same ways as for N. scutulata, except that N. ajfinis has even paler feathering around the bill and typical dark central feather streaking on the lower underparts. In comparison to Hume's Hawk Owl N. [scutidata] obscura, the unknown bird is much paler and more russet overall, with very different markings and aspect. The recently described Togian Hawk Owl N. burhani of the Togian Islands has a very different plumage pattern and colour to that of the unknown Lore Lindu owl. It is largely drab brown with a narrow white 'X' on the face, small white speckles on the brown crown and breast, and white lower underparts with dark brown streaking. There are three poorly known large Ninox taxa in the Moluccas generally united under the name Moluccan Hawk Owl N. squamipila. However, these taxa are all so markedly different from each other that their taxonomy clearly requires revision (Rasmussen 1999, Rheindt & Hutchinson 2007). Nominate N. s. squamipila from Seram has a dark brown head with a whitish 'X' facial pattern; rufous-brown underparts, the lower underparts narrowly dark-banded, with broader white bands; and a strongly banded tail with narrow dark and broader pale bands. The form on Halmahera, N. s. hypogramma, is rather similar in plumage to N. s. squamipila but is darker especially on the head and has equal-width, narrow dark and light bands below, and the undertail is at most obscurely banded. The Bum form N. s. bantu appears much more similar to the unknown owl because it is largely rufescent, but it has narrowly dark-banded underparts with slightly broader rufescent bands, and a rather faintly banded undertail. None of the heterogeneous taxa currently comprising N. squamipila are at all similar to the unknown Ninox. The recently described Little Sumba Boobook N. sumbaensis (Olsen et al. 2002) is also very different in plumage from our unknown owl, being generally dull brown with fine wavy black lines over the underparts. It does have well-marked white supercilia, but these are smaller and less distinct than in the Lore Lindu owl. Ninox philippensis is another heterogeneous grouping of taxa, which fall into three major groups on plumage type, none of which resemble our Lore Lindu owl. The unknown owl also differs greatly from the following species, which will therefore not be considered here: Speckled Boobook N. punctulata, Sumba Boobook N. rudolfi, the several forms of Southern Boobook N. boobook and Barking Boobook N. connivens. Finally, none of the Ninox species from outside the Oriental region are similar to the unknown Lore Lindu owl. Discussion The photographs described above and our preliminary diagnosis suggests that there is a probable new taxon of Ninox hawk owl in Lore Lindu National Park (LLNP). The status of Ninox species in LLNP is confused and it now appears likely that some or all birds assumed Buttu Madika et al. 100 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) to be N. ios in Central Sulawesi pertain to the new taxon. Alternatively, the strongly marked unknown owl could be an undescribed species, even though its voice is apparently similar to North Sulawesi N. ios. If the owl is shown to be of species rank, we propose the English name White-spotted Hawk Owl to highlight its unique, boldly spotted underparts. The two records come from montane forest (at c.1,700 m: Tebb et al. 2008, and c. 2,250: this paper). We are unable to speculate further on possible habitat preferences. We compared nine recordings (by JBCH, YDL on AVoCet, www.avocet.zoology.msu. edu, and by R. Hutchinson) believed to be N. ios from Lore Lindu with recordings and vocal descriptions of N. ios from Gunung Ambang, North Sulawesi (two recordings on www. xeno-canto.org, five on AVoCet, and one by R. Hutchinson; King 2005, Hutchinson et al. 2006). Although Lore Lindu birds possess vocalisations strikingly similar in quality and pattern to Gunung Ambang birds, inter-note intervals between the couplets that comprise each song strophe are consistently longer in Lore Lindu birds. In addition, the apparent frequency is slightly lower in each of the available samples from AVoCet and xeno-canto of Lore Lindu birds than in those from Gunung Ambang. The vocal evidence strengthens the case for the occurrence of N. ios in Central Sulawesi. One published paper also suggests, based on a sight record without photographic documentation, that N. ios (with North Sulawesi-like plumage) occurs in LLNP (Mauro 2001). Clearly, more research is needed to clarify the systematics, distribution and ecology of Sulawesi's Ninox owls. On several occasions since 1999, we have unsuccessfully searched the area at 660- 2,520 m for any owl differing from those already known in the LLNP. In 2006 we listened for owls at Danau Tambing (01°19.06'S, 120°18.05'E; 1,675 m) and Kamarora (01°11.05'S, 120°08.02'E; 660 m) (Eig. 1). In 2007 we conducted nocturnal searches from Danau Tambing, to Puncak Dingin, to Anaso at 1,675-2,315 m. In 2009 we performed night surveys and daylight searches for roosting birds from 2-5 November and 4-8 December in the same areas as 2007, and continued to Puncak Rorekatimbu at 2,520 m. The forest in these areas is maturing since the selective logging of the early 1990s and the habitat appears to be improving over time with the current levels of minimal disturbance. We are planning further surveys targeted towards resolving the mystery concerning the identity and status of this bird, and invite anyone with relevant data to contact us. Acknowledgements We thank Navjot Sodhi for valuable guidance. We are grateful to Kelvin Lim of the NUS ZRC, Singapore, for facilitating access to the hawk owl specimens deposited there. We thank Robert Hutchinson for sharing N. ios recordings, Philippe Verbelen, Frank Lambert and Bram Demeulemeester for providing recordings of N. ios on AVoCet, and Paul Noakes and George Wagner for posting their recordings on xeno-canto. We thank Tony Sawbridge for his photograph at www.birdtourasia.com, and Erwin Collaerts for his photograph on OBI. Nigel Collar, Robert Hutchinson, and two anonymous reviewers provided excellent comments on the manuscript. JBCH thanks the Loke Wan Tho Memorial Foundation and the FJPRS at the University of Adelaide, Australia, for funding. JBCH thanks RISTEK, Indonesia for issuing the Surat Izin Penelitian permit No. 0212/FRP/SM/1X/2009 and Lore Lindu National Park for issuing the SlMAKSl (No. S 36/lV-'F. 13/ TK/2009). References; Birdl.ife International. 2009a. Species factshects. www.birdlife.org/datazone (accessed 18 February 2010). BirdLife International. 2009b. Important Bird Area factsheet: Lore Lindu, Indonesia, wvvw.birdlife.org/ datazone/sites/index.html?action=Sitl Ft MlX'tails.asp&sid=l6370&m=0 (accessed 5 June 2010). Cannon, C. 1 1., Summers, M., Harting, J. R. & Kessler, P. J. A. 2007. Developing conservation priorities based on forest type, condition, and threats in a poorly known ecoregion: Sulawesi, Indonesia. Biotrovicii .39: 747-7.S9. Clough, Y., Faust, II. & Tscharntke, F. 2009. Cacao boom and bust: sustainability of agroforests and opportunities for biodiversity conservation. Coiiscri’. Letters 2: 197-20,3. Coates, B. J. & Bishop, K. 1). 1997. A ^iiide to the hinis ofWnllneen. Dove Publications, Alderley. Collar, N. J. 2009. Pioneer ot Asian ornithology: Gerd Heinrich. Hin/b/y Asia 1 1: 3.3-40. Buttu Madika et al. 101 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Hutchinson, R., Eaton, J. & Benstead, P . 2006. Observations of Cinnabar Hawk Owl Ninox ios in Gunung Ambang Nature Reserve, North Sulawesi, Indonesia, with a description of a secondary vocalisation Forktail 22: 120-121. ^ Indrawan, M. & Somadikarta, S. 2004. A new species of hawk-owl from the Togian Islands, Gulf of Tomini, central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 124: 160-171. Indrawan, M., Rasmussen, P. C. & Sunarto. 2008. A new white-eye (Zosterops) from the Togian Islands, Sulawesi, Indonesia. Wilson ]. Orn. 120: 1-9. King, B. 2005. The song of Cirmabar Hawk Owl Ninox ios in North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Forktail 21: 173-174. King, B., Rostron, P., Luijendijk, T., Bouwman, R. & Quispel, C. 1999. An undescribed Muscicapa flycatcher on Sulawesi. Forktail 15: 104. Lambert, F. R. & Rasmussen, P. C. 1998. A new scops owl from Sangihe Island, Indonesia. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 118: 204-217. Lee, R. J. & Riley, J. 2001. Morphology, plumage, and habitat of the newly described Cinnabar Hawk-Owl from North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Wilson Bull. 113: 17-22. Lee, T. M., Sodhi, N. S. & Prawiradilaga, D. M. 2007. The importance of protected areas for the forest and endemic avifauna of Sulawesi (Indonesia). Ecol. Appl. 17: 1727-1741. Lee, T. M., Sodhi, N. S. & Prawiradilaga, D. M. 2009. Determinants of local people's attitude toward conservation and the consequential effects on illegal resource harvesting in the protected areas of Sulawesi (Indonesia). Environ. Conserv. 36: 157-170. Mallo, F. N., Putra, D. D., Rasmussen, P. C., Herlina, Somadikarta, S., Indrawan, M., Darjono, Mallo, I. N., Sweet, P., Rahman, A., Rahaijaningtrah, W., Masala, Y. & Verbelen, P. 2010. Rediscovery of the Critically Endangered Banggai Crow Corvus unicolor on Peleng Island, Indonesia, part 2: taxonomy. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 130: 166-180. Mauro, 1. 2001. Cinnabar Hawk Owl Ninox ios at Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, in December 1998. Forktail 17: 118-119. Mauro, I. & Drijvers, R. 2000. Minahassa Owl Tyto inexspectata at Lore Lindu National Park, Sulawesi, Indonesia in December 1998. Forktail 16: 180-182. Mittermeier, R. A., Gil, P. R., Hoffmann, M., Pilgrim, J., Brooks, T., Mittermeier, C. G., Lamoreux, J. & da Fonseca, G. A. B. 2004. Hotspots revisited. Earth's biologically richest and most endangered terrestrial ecoregions. GEMEX International, New York. Norman, J. A., Christidis, L., Westerman, M. & Hill, F. A. R. 1998. Molecular data confirms the species status of the Christmas Island Hawk-Owl Nmox natalis. Emu 98: 197-208. Olsen, J., Wink, M., Sauer-Giirth, H. & Trost, S. 2002. A new Ninox owl from Sumba, Indonesia. Emu 102: 223-231. Prawiradilaga, D. M., Tinulele, I., Mallo, F. N., Putra, D. D., Yahya, M. & Rahman, A. 2006. Mengenal burung di Taman Nasional Lore Lindu, Sulawesi Tengah [Guide to the birds of Lore Lindu National Park, Central Sulawesi]. Pusat Penelitian Biologi-LIPI & Celebes Bird Club, Bogor, Indonesia. [In Indonesian.] Rasmussen, P. C. 1999. A new species of hawk-owl Ninox from North Sulawesi, Indonesia. Wilson Bull. Ill: 457-164. Rasmussen, P. C. & Anderton, J. C. 2005. Birds of South Asia: the Ripley guide, vol. 1. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC & Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Rheindt, F. E. & Hutchinson, R. O. 2007. A photoshot odyssey through the confused avian taxonomy of Seram and Burn (southern Moluccas). Bir ding Asia 7: 18-38. Riley, J. & Wardill, J. C. 2003. The status, habitat and nest of the Satanic Nightjar Eurostopodus diabolicus. Kukila 12: 3-11. Sekretariat Negara Republik Indonesia (SNRl). 2007. Taman Nasional Lore Lindu [Lore Lindu National Park]. Portal Nasional Republik Indonesia [National Portal of the Republic of Indonesia], www. indonesia.go.id/id/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4617<emid=1504 (accessed 12 February 2010). [In Indonesian.] Sodhi, N. S., Koh, L. P., Prawiradilaga, D. M., Tinulele, L, Putra, D. D. & Tan, T. H. T. 2005. Land use and conservation value for forest birds in Central Sulawesi (Indonesia). Biol. Conserv. 122: 547—558. Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, N. J., Long, A. J. & Wege, D. C. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the world: priorities for bird conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Tebb, G., Morris, P. & Los, P. 2008. New and interesting bird records from Sulawesi and Halmahera, Indonesia. Birding Asia 10: 67-76. The Nature Conservancy (TNC). 2004. Lore Lindu National Park management plan 2004-2029. The Nature Conservancy Indonesia Program, Manado. Waltert, M., Mardiastuti, A. & Muhlenberg, M. 2005. Effects of deforestation and forest modification on understorey birds in Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Bird Conserv. Intern. 15: 2S7—2U2>. Weber, R., Eaust, H., Schippers, B., Shohibuddin, M., Mamar, S., Sutarto, E. & Kreisel, W. 2007. Migration and ethnicity as cultural driving forces of land use change in the rainforest margin of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia. Pp. 415—434 w Tscharntke, T., Leuschner, C., Guhardja, E. & Buttu Madika et al. 102 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Zeller, M. (eds.) The stability of tropical rainforest margins: linking ecological, economic and social constraints of land use and conservation. Springer Verlag, Berlin. White, C. M. N. & Bruce, M. D. 1986. The birds of Wallacea (Sulawesi, the Moluccas and Lesser Sunda Islands, Indonesia): an annotated check-list. BOU Check-list no. 7. British Ornithologists' Union, London. Whitten, T., Henderson, G. S. & Mustafa, M. 2002. The ecology of Sulawesi. The ecology of Indonesia series, vol. 4. Periplus Editions, Hong Kong. Addresses: Buttu Madika, Dadang Dwi Putra, Fachry Nur Mallo and Abdul Rahman, Celebes Bird Club, Jl. Thamrin 63A, Palu, Central Sulawesi, Indonesia, e-mail; dadang_cbc@yahoo.com. J. Berton C. Harris, Environment Institute and School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia, e-mail: aramidopsis@gmail.com. Ding Li Yong, Department of Biological Sciences, National University of Singapore, 14 Science Drive 4, Singapore 117543, Singapore, e-mail; zoothera@ yahoo.com. Dewi M. Prawiradilaga, Division of Zoology, Research Centre for Biology-LIPI, Jl. Raya Bogor km 46, Cibinong-Bogor, 16911, Indonesia, e-mail: dmprawiradilaga@gmail.com. Pamela C. Rasmussen, Michigan State University Museum and Department of Zoology, West Circle Drive, East Lansing, Michigan 48824, USA, e-mail; rasmus39@gmail.com © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 Normand David & Michel Gosselin 103 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Article 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code by Normand David & Michel Gosselin Received 23 September 2010 Summary. The present article examines the nature of several species-group names that are grammatically nouns as well as adjectives, as covered by Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN (1999) Code. We looked at 139 avian species-group names, 69 of which proved to be nouns and 70 adjectives. Of these 139 names, 18 would need to be corrected in the reference lisf thaf we followed (Dickinson 2003). They are: Leptoptilos crumenifer (adjective), Threskior7tis moluccus (adjective), Aramid.es cajaiieus (adjective). Porphyria martmicus (adjective), Tur^nx sylvaticus lepurana (noun), Diicula aenea vicmus (noun), Amazona mercenarius (noun), Otus choliba cruciger (adjective), Aegotheles bennettii plumifer (adjective), Pogoniulus coryphaea (noun), Schijfornis turdina amazonum (noun), Frederickena unduliger (noun), Preitmornis guttidiger (adjective), Monarcha vidua (noun), Calyptocichla serinus (noun), Turdus libonyana (noun), Erythrura trichroa sigillifer (noun) and Thraupis episcopus nesophila (adjective). In an earlier assessment of the gender agreement of avian species names (David & Gosselin 2002a), we pointed out that scientific names that are grammatically nouns as well as adjectives are covered by Art. 31.2.2 of the ICZN (1999) Code and must be evaluated on an ad hoc basis. Here we review avian names that fall in that category. Art. 31.2.2 (ICZN 1999) and its accompanying example state: 'Where the author of a species-group name did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective, and where it may be regarded as either and the evidence of usage is not decisive, it is to be treated as a noun in apposition to the name of its genus (the original spelling is to be retained, with gender ending unchanged; see Article 34.2.1). Example. Species-group names ending in -fer and -ger may be either nouns in apposition, or adjectives in the masculine gender. Cephenemyia phobifer (Clark) has often been used as C. phobifera, but the original binomen was Oestrus phobifer; since Oestrus is masculine, phobifer in that binomen may be either a masculine adjective or a noun in apposition; hence it is to be treated as a noun in apposition and not changed when combined with the feminine generic name Cephenemyia.' Therefore, a species-group name must be treated as a noun in apposition when the three following conditions are all met: (1) where the author did not indicate whether he or she regarded it as a noun or as an adjective; (2) where the name may be regarded as a noun as well as an adjective; and (3) where there is no decisive evidence of usage as an adjective. (1) An author 'indicates' how he regards a name when he 'makes it known or shows (more or less distinctly)' (Little et al. 1973). An indication may be a formal statement specifying that the name is a noun or an adjective, or any sort of relevant information. In other words, one must determine if the original work contains an indication that provides a conclusion. Normand David & Michel Gosselin 104 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) (2) Many classical Latin words are formed from the verbs ferre [to carry] or gerere [to bear]: some are nouns {crucifer, furcifer, etc.), most are adjectives {armifer, ensifer, criniger, flammiger, plumiger, squaniiger, etc.), and a few {armiger, liicifer, etc.) may be nouns or adjectives (Glare 1982). In the example quoted above, a newly derived word, such as phobifer, should be regarded as a noun or an adjective. (3) The word 'usage' has different meanings: 'established practice' and 'action of using' are two of them (Little et al. 1973). It must be emphasised that Art. 31.2.2 avoids the term 'prevailing usage', which is defined in the ICZN (1999) glossary, where it applies to subsequent spellings other than mandatory changes to the gender endings of names (see Arts. 33 and 34). The French text of Art. 31.2.2 (which is equivalent in force, meaning, and authority— Art. 86.2) is structured differently than the English one, and helps interpreting the meaning of 'evidence of usage'. It states: 'Si une epithete pent etre consideree indijferemment comme un substantif on comme uu adjectif, sans que I'usage qui en estfait ne permette de conclure, et si son auteur n'a pas tranche la question, elk doit etre traitee comme un substatitif en apposition.' A direct translation into English gives: 'If an epithet may be considered indifferently as a noun or as an adjective, without the use that it is put to permitting a conclusion, and if its author did not settle the matter, it must be treated as a noun in apposition.' The phrase 'sans que I'usage qui en estfait ne permette de conclure / without the use that it is put to permitting a conclusion' makes clear that 'usage' relates first of all to use by the author in the original publication. So the word 'decisive', in the English text, means conclusive, and the noun vs. adjective status must be determined from the original publication, not from random subsequent use. The example included under Art. 31.2.2 states clearly that phobifer (a newly derived Latin word) in the original combination Oestrus phobifer, where the genus is masculine, is to be treated as a noun in apposition even though the subsequent combination Cephenemyia phobifera has often been used. This is because there was no decisive evidence of its use as an adjective in the original work. It must be noted, however, that the gender ending of some genuine adjectives is occasionally incorrect in the original combination itself, and must then be corrected according to Art. 34.2 of the Code (ICZN 1999). The present article uses Dickinson (2003) as its baseline for assessing species-group names. Correct spellings that differ from those used by Dickinson (2003) are presented in bold type. In order to make it easier to follow changes in gender agreement when an adjective is moved from one genus to another, the gender of each genus is indicated in square brackets [M = masculine, F = feminine, N = neuter] in the tables. In the tables, we indicate the current spelling (Dickinson 2003) as well as the correct spelling (in bold type) when it differs. Names ending in -fer, -fera or -ger, -gem As stated above, many classical Latin words ending in -fer or -ger are formed from the verbs ferre (to carry) or gerere (to bear): some are nouns, most are adjectives, and a few are nouns as well as adjectives (Glare 1982). It must be noted that there are no classical Latin nouns ending in -ferns and -gerus, and these can therefore only be adjectives, on the model of the participle nwrigerus, -a, -urn (or on the model of words where the adjectival suffix -us, -a, -urn is added to a noun ending with a consonant ]such as r]: Woods 1944). According to Art. 31.2.2 (ICZN 1999), newly derived names, such as phobifer, are nouns in apposition unless the original work includes an indication of their use as adjectives. On Normand David & Michel Gosselin 105 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) th6 other hand, given their grammatical properties, newly derived names originally ending in -fera, -ferum or -gera, -gerum may be taken as indicative of adjectival use. Among the avian species-group names in the present category, some are solely adjectives or solely nouns in classical Latin (Glare 1982) and are not addressed here. Table 1 shows only those that can be either nouns or adjectives under Art. 31.2.2 (ICZN 1999) and is split according to which must be treated as nouns and which must be considered as adjectives. The six names marked for correction in Table 1 warrant comments in reference to the spellings used by Dickinson (2003): Strix crucigera von Spix, 1824, in which crucigera is adjectival, must be spelled Otus choliba cruciger or Megascops choliba cruciger (not crucigerus) because -ger and -fer are the usual masculine forms of -gera and -fera (as noted in the example of Art. 31.2.2, above). Ciconia crumenifera Lesson, 1831, in which crumenifera is adjectival, must be spelled Leptoptilos crumenifer (not crumeniferus) because -fer is the usual masculine form of -fera. Note: Leptoptilos crumenifer was used by Reichenow (1900). In his symonymy, he lists a majority of Leptoptilos / Leptoptilus crumenifer, several L. crumeniferus, and two or three L. crumenifera. Leptoptilos crumeniferus has been used since Peters (1931). Thripophaga guttuligera P. L. Sclater, 1854, in which guttuligera is adjectival, must be spelled Premnornis guttuliger. Aegotheles plumifera Ramsay, 1883, in which plumifera is adjectival, must be spelled Aegotheles bennettii plumifer (not plumiferus) because -fer is the usual masculine form of -fera. Lobospingus sigillifer DeVis, 1897, in which sigillifer has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Erythrura trichroa sigillifer. Thamnophilus unduliger von Pelzeln, 1869, in which unduliger must be treated as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Frederickena unduliger. Note: this combination was used from 1869 to 1914, followed by Taraba [M] unduliger (Chapman 1917). Mackenziaena [F] unduliger was used by Cory & Hellmayr (1924), but Frederickena unduligera has been in use since Peters (1951). Classical Latin words that are nouns as well as adjectives Some species-group names are classical Latin words that are nouns as well as adjectives (Table 2), and must be treated under Art. 31.2.2 (ICZN 1999). We examined 23 cases and conclude from their original grammatical properties that all must be treated as nouns, and that the gender ending of three of them was changed unduly because nothing in the original description indicates that any are adjectives. Consequently: Psittacus mercenarius von Tschudi, 1844, in which mercenarius has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Amazona mercenarius. Muscadivores aeneus vicinus Riley, 1927, in which vicinus has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Ducula aenea vicinus. Piezorhynchus vidua Tristram, 1879, in which vidua has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Monarcha vidua. The adjective nesophilus, -a, -um In listing Thraupis episcopus nesophilus Riley, 1912, Storer (1970: 319, foohiote) states that '^words compounded with the root —philus may be treated as nouns or as adjectives and that 'nesophilus in this instance stands in apposition and is to be written as a masculine noun^. However, the final component —philus is the Latinized Greek adjective c))lAoc (philos: fond of) (Liddell & Scott 1996). Once Latinized, compound species-group names ending in Normand David & Michel Gosselin 106 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 1 Status of original species-group names ending in -fer, -ger, -fera or -gera. Original combination Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Tetraogallus [M] tibetanus aquilonifer R. & A. Meinertzhagen, 1 926 Noun Tetraogallus [M] tibetanus aquilonifer Accipiter [M] guttifer Hellmayr, 1917 Noun Accipiter [M] bicolor guttifer Caprimidgus [M] pectoralis guttifer Grote, 1921 Noun Caprimidgus [M] ruwenzorii guttifer Picunmus [M] guttifer Sundevall, 1866 Noun Picunmus [M] albosquamatus guttifer Tarsiger [M] guttifer Reichenow & Neumann, 1895 Noun Pogonocichla [F] stellata guttifer Totanus [M] guttifer von Nordmann, 1835 Noun Tringa [F] guttifer Dendrocolaptes [M] lacrymiger de Lafresnaye, 1849 Noun Lepidocolaptes [M] lacrymiger Myrmelastes [M] exsul maculifer Hellmayr, 1906 Noun Myrmeciza [F] exsul maculifer Dimorpha [F] monileger Hodgson, 1845 Noun Ficedula [F] monileger Batrachostomus [M] moniliger Blyth, 1846 Noun Batrachostomus [M] moniliger Dendrexetastes [M] rufigula moniliger Zimmer, 1934 Noun Dendrexetastes [M] rufigula moniliger Formicarius [M| moniliger P. L. Sclater, 1857 Noun Formicarius [M] analis moniliger Cephalopterus [M] penduliger P. L. Sclater, 1859 Noun Cephalopterus [M] penduliger Nystactes [M] tamatia punctuliger Todd, 1943 Noun Bucco [M] tamatia punctuliger Thamnophilus [M] punctuliger von Pelzeln, 1869 Noun Thamnophilus [M] aethiops punctuliger Edolius [M] rcm/fcr Temminck, 1823 Noun Dicrurus [M] remifer Cinclosoma [N] setafer Hodgson, 1836 Noun Garrulax [M] lineatus setafer Lobospingus |M] sigillifer De Vis, 1897 Noun Erythrura [F] trichroa sigillifera [should be sigillifer] Oriolus [M] chlorocephalus speculifer Clancey, 1969 Noun Oriolus [M] chlorocephalus speculifer Anthipes [M] submoniliger Hume, 1877 Noun Ficedula [F] solitaris submoniliger Tyrannus [M] tuberculifer de Lafresnaye & d'Orbigny, 1837 Noun Myiarchus [M] tuberculifer Thamnophilus [M] unduliger von Pelzeln, 1869 Noun Frederickena [F] unduligera [should be unduliger] Trochilus [M] violifer Gould, 1846 Noun Coeligena [F] violifer Aedicnemus [M] vocifer I'Herminier, 1837 Noun Burhinus [M] bistriatus vocifer Falco [M] vocifer Daudin, 1800 Noun Haliaeetus [M[ vocifer Strix [F] crucigera von Spix, 1824 Adjective Otus [Mj choliba crucigerus [should be cruciger] Ciconia [F] crumenifera Lesson, 1831 Adjective Leptoptilos [M] crumeniferus [should be crumenifer] Hirundo [F]filifera Stephens, 1825 Adjective Hirundo [F] smithii filifera Ptilotis [M\filigera Gould, 1851 Adjective Xanthotis ]M] flaviventer filiger Thripophaga [F] guttuligera P. L. Sclater, 1854 Adjective Premnornis [M] guttuligera [should be guttuliger] Calliste [F) lunigera P. L. Sclater, 1851 Adjective Tangara [F[ parzudakii lunigera Cinclosoma [N] monilegera Hodgson, 1836 Adjective Garrulax [Mj monileger Aegotheles [M] plumifera Ramsay, 1883 Adjective Aegotheles [M[ bennettii plumiferus [should be plumifer] Ortyx [F| plumifera Gould, 1837 Adjective Oreortyx [M| pictus plumifer Geophaps |F] plumifera Gould, 1842 Adjective Geophaps [Fj plumifera Numida (F| plumifera Cassin, 1857 Adjective Guttcra [F[ plumifera Thalurania [F] coiombica rosirifera W. H. Phelps & W. H. Phelps, Jr. 1956 Adjective Thalurania [Fj coiombica rostrifera Embcriza (F| speculifera de Lafresnaye & d'Orbighy, 1837 Adjective Diuca [F| speculifera Schistochlamys (F] speculigera Gould, 1855 Adjective Conothraupis [Fj speculigera Muscicapa (F| speculigera Bonaparte, 1851 Adjective Ficedula [Fj hypoleuca speculigera Synallaxis |F| sulphurifera Burmeister, 1868 Adjective Cranioleuca jFj sulphurifera Normand David & Michel Gosselin 107 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 2 Status of original species-group names that are classical Latin nouns as well as adjectives. Original combination Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Psittacus [M] mercenarius von Tschudi, 1844 Noun Amazona [F] mercenaria [should be mercenarius] Alauda [F] (Megalophonus) plebeja Cabanis, 1875 Noun Mirafra [F] sabota plebeja Phrygilus [M] plebejus von Tschudi, 1844 Noun Phrygilus [M] plebejus /a:os plebejus [M] Cretzschmar, 1828 Noun Turdoides [F] plebejus Turdus [M] plebejus Cabanis, 1861 Noun Turdus [M] plebejus Lnrus [M] (Dominicanus) vetula Bruch, 1853 Noun Larus [M] dominicanus vetula Muscipiprn [F] vetula M. H. C. Lichtenstein, 1823 Noun Muscipipra [F] vetula Penelope [F] vetula Wagler, 1830 Noun Ortalis [F] vetula Cuculus [M] Vetula Lirmaeus, 1758 Noun Saurothera [F] vetula Cercomacra [F] tyrannina vicina Todd, 1927 Noun Cercomacra [F] tyrannina vicina Muscadivores [M] aeneus vicinus Riley, 1927 Noun Ducula [F] aenea vicina [should be vicinus] Cinnyris [M]' sericea vicina Mayr, 1936 Noun Leptocoma [F] sericea vicina Ptilotis [M]^ analoga vicina Rothschild & Hartert, 1912 Noun Meliphaga [F] vicina Halcyon [F] chloris vicina Mayr, 1931 Noun Todiramphus [M] chloris vicina Chordeiles [M] virginianus vicinus Riley, 1903 Noun Chordeiles [M] gundlachii vicinus Dicrurus [M] hottentottus vicinus Rensch, 1928 Noun Dicrurus [M] hottentottus vicinus Passer [M] melanurus vicinus Clancey, 1958 Noun Passer [M] melanurus vicinus Ptilopus [M] lewisii vicinus Hartert, 1895 Noun Ptilinopus [M] viridis vicinus Harpactes [Mj vidua Ogilvie-Grant, 1892 Noun Harpactes [M] orrhophaeus vidua Hypocnemis [F] vidua Hellmayr, 1905 Noun Hylophylax [M] poecilinotus vidua Motacilla [F] vidua Sundevall, 1850 Noun Motacilla [F] aguimp vidua Rhipidura [F] vidua Salvador! & Turati, 1874 Noun Rhipidura [F] rufiventris vidua Piezorhynchus [M] vidua Tristram, 1879 Noun Monarcha [M] viduus [should be vidua] ' Cinnyris was treated as feminine by Mayr (1936), but it is now masculine according to the ICZN (1999) Code— see David & Gosselin (2002b). 2 Ptilotis was treated as feminine by Rothschild & Hartert (1912), but it is now masculine according to the ICZN (1999) Code. -philus and -phila are to be treated as adjectives only (ICZN 1999: Art. 31.2, 34.2) and do not fall under Art. 31.2.2. It is thus apparent that Riley (1912) used nesophilus because he thought Thraupis was masculine on account of the masculine ending of episcopus. However, episcopus is a noun in apposition. Consequently: Thraupis [F] episcopus nesophilus Riley, 1912, must be corrected to Thraupis episcopus nesophila. The species-group names phoenicurus and phoenicura The three original species-group names phoenicura in Dickinson (2003) are the Latinized feminine form of the properly formed Greek adjectival c})olvlkouqo<; (phoinikouros: red- tailed), and their current combinations reflect this (Table 3). On the other hand, the five original phoenicurus are either the Latin noun phoenicurus (redstart) or the Latinized masculine Greek adjectival (|)oivlkouqo(;. Except for Gallinula phoenicurus Pennant, 1769, and Motacilla Phoenicurus Linnaeus, 1758, where phoenicurus was originally combined with a feminine genus, and hence treated as a noun, all other authors quoted in Table 4 specifically referred to the red / ferruginous / chestnut tail of the species in question, an indication of the 'red-tailed' adjectival meaning. Normand David & Michel Gosselin 108 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 3 Status of the species-group name phoenicura. Original combination Mirafra [F] phoenicura Franklin, 1831 Rhipidura [F] phoenicura Muller, 1843 Tyrannula [F] phoenicura P. L. Sclater, 1855 Status Adjective Adjective Adjective Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Ammomanes [F] phoenicura Rhipidura [F] phoenicura Myiotriccus [M] ornatus phoenicurus TABLE 4 Status of the species-group name phoenicurus. Original combination Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Attila [M] phoenicurus von Pelzeln, 1868 Adjective Attila [M] phoenicurus Conurus [M] phoenicurus Schlegel, 1864 Adjective Pyrrhura [F] molinae phoenicura Eremobius [M] phoenicurus Gould, 1839 Adjective Eremobius [M] phoenicurus Gallinula [F] phoenicurus Pennant, 1769 Noun Amaurornis [F] phoenicurus Motacilta [F] Phoenicurus Linnaeus, 1758 Noun Phoenicurus [M] phoenicurus The species-group names coryphaea and coryphaeus / coryphaeus In the combination Barbatula [F] coryphaea Reichenow, 1892, the word coryphaea is either the Latinized Greek noun KOQUcj^aia (koruphaia: tuft on the crown) or the Latinized feminine form of the Greek adjective KOQUc|)aioc; (koruphaios: at the top). In the original description, Reichenow did not indicate that he was using the adjectival form, therefore coryphaea is here a noun. Consequently: Barbatula coryphaea Reichenow, 1892, in which coryphaea is to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Pogoniuliis con/phaea. The Karoo Scrub Robin has long been known as Erythropygia [F] coryphaeus (e.g. Ripley 1964) or Cercotrichas [F] coryphaeus (e.g. Wolters 1982, Keith et al. 1992), from Sylvia [F] coryphaeus Lesson, 1831. Lesson's coryphaeus is the Latin noun coryphaeus (chief of chorus) used as a noun in apposition, as indicated by its combination with the feminine genus Sylvia. However, Clancey & Brooke (1990: 143) showed that the original description is to be cited as Sylvia coryphoeus Vieillot, 1817. Lesson's coryphaeus differs in spelling from Vieillot's coryphoeus, but whether the correct spelling is taken to be coryphaeus or coryphoeus, there is no evidence of an adjectival use in the original description. The species-group names amazonus, amazona, arnazonum The nouns 'amazonus' and 'amazona' do not exist in classical Latin. Thus the epithets amazonus and amazona are the adjectival form of Amazon (classical Latin noun), where the adjectival suffixes -us, -a are added to a noun ending with a consonant (Woods 1944). The original (and proper) combinations (Table 5) all represent variable adjectives. However, the plural genitive of the Greek noun 'Amazon' (Ap(XCtOv), declined like 'daimon', is Amazonon, Latinized as Arnazonum. Since there is no clear evidence of an adjectival use in the original combinations, all arnazonum must be treated as a noun in the genitive case (Table 5), the default conclusion of the ICZN Code (1999) in the case of non- existent or conflicting evidence. Consequently: I leteropelma arnazonum F. L. Sclater, 1861, in which arnazonum has to be taken as a noun in the genitive case, must be spelled Schilfornis tunlina amnzonum {contra David & Gosselin 2002b: 280). Normand David & Michel Gosselin 109 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 5 Status of the species-group names amazonus, amazona and amazonum. Original combination Alcedo [F] amazona Latham, 1790 Capsiempis [¥]flaveola amazona Zimmer, 1955 Pipromorpha [F] macconneUi amazona Todd, 1921 Pachyramphus [M] castaneiis amazonus Zimmer, 1936 Sittasomus [M] amazonus de Lafresnaye, 1850 Terenotriccus [M] erythrurus amazonus Zimmer, 1939 Ateleodacnis [F] speciosa amazonum ITellmayr, 1917 Heteropelma [N] amazonum P. L. Sclater, 1860 Pyrrhura [F] picta amazonum Hellmayr, 1906 Ramphocaenus [M] melanurus amazonum Hellmayr, 1907 Urogalba [F] amazonum P. L. Sclater, 1855 Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Adjective Chloroceryle [F] amazona Adjective Capsiempis [F] flaveola amazona Adjective Mionectes [M] macconneUi amazonus Adjective Pachyramphus [M] castaneus amazonus Adjective Sittasomus [M] griseicapillus amazonus Adjective Terenotriccus [M] erythrurus amazonus Noun Conirostrum [N] speciosum amazonum Noun Schijfornis [F] turdina amazona [should be amazonum] Noun Pyrrhura [F] picta amazonum Noun Ramphocaenus [M] melanurus amazonum Noun Galbula [F] dea amazonum TABLE 6 Status of original species-group names established by Smith (1836, 1838^9). Original combination Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Mirafra [F] cheniana A. Smith, 1843 Noun Mirafra [F] cheniana Drymoica [FI chiniana A. Smith, 1843 Noun Cisticola [M] chiniana Drymoica [F] cherina A. Smith, 1843 Noun Cisticola [M] cherina Alauda [F] chuana A. Smith, 1836 Noun Certhilauda [F] chuana Ortygis [M]’ Lepurana A. Smith, 1836 Noun Turnix [M] sylvaticus lepuranus [should be lepurana] Merula [F] Libonyana A. Smith, 1836 Noun Turdus [M[ libonyanus [should be libonyana] ' Although Ortygis is masculine according to the ICZN (1999) Code, it was sometimes treated as feminine in the past. Six names established by Andrew Smith Smith (1836) established Ortygis lepurana, Alauda chuana and Merula libonyana. In his work (p. 57), he writes 'The names given by the Natives to the objects above described, I have adopted as the trivial ones...', thus indicating that they are nouns in apposition. Smith (1838^9) subsequently confirmed this treatment by using the combinations Hemipodius lepurana and Turdus libonyana. He also established the names Drymoica cherina, Drymoica chiniana and Mirafra cheniana (Smith 1838-1849). As there is not the slightest indication in his work for considering these names as possibly adjectival (let alone solely adjectival), they must be taken as nouns in apposition (Table 6). Consequently: Ortygis Lepurana A. Smith, 1836, in which lepurana has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Turnix sylvaticus lepurana. Merula Libonyana A. Smith, 1836, in which libonyana has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Turdus libonyana. The species-group name serinus The name serinus is Latinized from the French noun 'serin', which dates back to 1478 {Tresor de la langue frangaise 1971-94) and has been used in English since 1530 (Little et al. 1973). When establishing Fringilla [F] Serinus, Linnaeus (1766: 320) cited the generic name Serinus of Gessner, Aldrovandi, Brisson, Willughby and Ray. There is therefore no doubt that Linnaeus used serinus as a noun in apposition. Normand David & Michel Gosselin 110 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 7 Status of the species-group names garruliis and garrula. Original combination Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Coracias [M]' Garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 Noun Coracias [M] garrulus Lanius [M] Garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 Noun Bombycilla [F] garrulus Psittacus [M] garrulus Linnaeus, 1758 Adjective Lorius [M] garrulus Phasianus [M] garrulus von Humboldt, 1805 Adjective Ortalis [F] garrula Certhilauda [F] garrula A. Smith, 1846 Adjective Chersomanes [F] albofasciata garrula In the original description of Criniger [M] serinus J. & E. Verreaux, 1855, there is no indication that serinus was used adjectivally. Therefore, it is a noun in apposition, the default conclusion of the ICZN Code (1999) in the case of non-existent or conflicting evidence. Consequently: Criniger serinus J. & E. Verreaux, 1855, in which serinus has to be taken as a noun in apposition, must be spelled Calyptocichla serinus. The species-group names garrulus and garrula Garrulus is a classical Latin adjective, but when Linnaeus (1758) used the combination Coracias Garrulus, he based it on the pre-Linnaean generic name of the Garrulus argentoratensis of Ray and Edwards. Both this indication and Linnaeus' use of the masculine word Garrulus (note the upper case) in combination with the feminine genus Coracias^ indicate that he regarded Garrulus as a noun. Similarly, Linnaeus' Lanins Garrulus (note the upper case) was also based on a pre- Linnaean generic name, Garrulus bohemicus of Gessner, Aldrovandi, Willughby, Ray, Albin and Frisch (see also David & Gosselin 2000). See Table 7. Some Linnaean and post-Linnaean geographical names This group consists of 40 geographical names (toponyms) that have been treated in various ways over the years (Table 8). Thirty-one were established by Linnaeus, seven by his immediate successors (Statius Muller, Hermann, Latham, Cuvier), and two by modern authors (Lynes, Zimmer & W. H. Phelps). Many of these names are problematic because the same word (e.g. Guyana, Dominica) was sometimes used as both a place name and a geographical adjective. A simplistic approach would be to regard as adjectives the species- group names where Linnaeus used a tower case initial, an 'indication' that he considered them adjectives (Parkes 1982). However, a closer look has shown that occasionally some of these words are not adjectival (David & Gosselin 2000). Pre-Linnaean generic names hengalus and canaria.— Two species names introduced by Linnaeus, Fringilla bcngalus Linnaeus, 1766, and Fringilla Canaria Linnaeus, 1758, may look like geographical adjectives at first, but are in fact generic bird names quoted by Linnaeus from previous authors (Brisson, Gessner, Aldrovandi). Canaria has the capital initial letter generally used by Linnaeus for nouns, while boigalus does not agree in gender with Fringilla, two supplementary Coracias was treatfd as femiiiino by I.innaeiis (17.38) but it is now masciilino bocau.so of an ICZN Ruling (Hemming 1936). Normand David & Michel Gosselin in Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) TABLE 8 Status of some Linnaean and post-Linnaean geographical species-group names, Original combination Fringilla [F] bengalus Linnaeus, 1766 Fringilla [F] Canaria Linnaeus, 1758 Cisticola [M]' ruficeps guinea Lynes, 1930 Columba [F] guinea Linnaeus, 1766 Fringilla [F] jamaica Linnaeus, 1766 Loxia [F] malacca Linnaeus, 1766 Tanagra [F] bresilia Linnaeus, 1766 Fulica [F] Cajanea Statius Muller, 1776 Picus [M] carolinus Linnaeus, 1758 Rallus [M] carolinus Linnaeus, 1758 Turdus [M] Carolinus Statius Muller, 1776 Ampelis [F] cayana Linnaeus, 1766 Motacilla [F] cayana Linnaeus, 1766 Tanagra [F] cayana Linnaeus, 1766 Charadrius [M] cayanus Latham, 1790 Corvus [M] cayanus Linnaeus, 1766 Cuculus [M] cayanus Linnaeus, 1766 Lanius [M] cayanus Linnaeus, 1766 Anas [F] dominica Linnaeus, 1766 Motacilla [F] dominica Linnaeus, 1766 Tanagra [F] dominica Linnaeus, 1766 Colymbus [M] dominicus Linnaeus, 1766 Trochilus [M] dominicus Linnaeus, 1766 Charadrius [M] Dominicus Statius Muller, 1776 Turdus [M] Guajanus Statius Muller, 1776 Columba [F] martinica Linnaeus, 1766 Fulica [F] martinica Linnaeus, 1766 Muscicapa [F] martinica Linnaeus, 1766 Hirundo [F] martinica Hermann, 1783 Loxia [F] molucca Linnaeus, 1766 Ibis [F] molucca Cuvier, 1829 Fringilla [F] Senegala Linnaeus, 1766 Parra [F] senegalla Linnaeus, 1766 Lanius [M] Senegalus Linnaeus, 1766 Psittacus [M] Senegalus Linnaeus, 1766 Tetrao [M] senegallus Linnaeus, 1771 Aratinga [F] pertinax surinama Zimmer & W. H. Phelps, 1951 Muscicapa [F] surinama Linnaeus, 1766 Turdus [M] surinamus Linnaeus, 1766 Turdus [M] zeylonus Linnaeus, 1766 Status Current combination (Dickinson 2003) Noun Uraeginthus [M] bengalus Noun Serinus [M] canaria Noun Cisticola [M] ruficeps guinea Noun Columba [F] guinea Noun Euphonia [F] jamaica Noun Lonchura [F] malacca Adjective Ramphocelus [M] bresilius Adjective Aramides [M] cajanea [should be cajaneus] Adjective Melanerpes [M] carolinus Adjective Porzana [F] Carolina Adjective Euphagus [M] carolinus Adjective Cotinga [F] cayana Adjective Dacnis [F] cayana Adjective Tangara [F] cayana Adjective Vanellus [M] cayanus Adjective Cyanocorax [M] cayanus Adjective Piaya [F] cayana Adjective Tityra [F] cayana Adjective Nomonyx [M] dominicus Adjective Dendroica [F] dominica Adjective Dulus [M] dominicus Adjective Tachybaptus [M] dominicus Adjective Anthracothorax [M] dominicus Adjective Pluvialis [F] dominica Adjective Pitta [F] guajana Adjective Geotrygon [F] montana martinica Adjective Porphyrio [M] martinica [should be martinicus] Adjective Elaenia [F] martinica Adjective Chaetura [F] martinica Adjective Lonchura [F] molucca Adjective Threskiornis [M] molucca [should be moluccus] Adjective Lagonosticta [F] senegala Adjective Vanellus [M] senegallus Adjective Tchagra [M] senegalus Adjective Poicephalus [M] senegalus Adjective Pterocles [M] senegallus Adjective Aratinga [F] pertinax surinama Adjective Pachyramphus [M] surinamus Adjective Tachyphonus [M] surinamus Adjective Telophorus [M] zeylonus Cisticola was treated as feminine by Lynes (1930) but it is now masculine according to the ICZN (1999) Code. Normand David & Michel Gosselin 112 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) indications that we are indeed dealing with nouns in apposition, the default conclusion of the ICZN Code (1999) in the case of non-existent or conflicting evidence. Unmodified place names guinea. — In Columba guinea Linnaeus, 1758, the author used an unmodified modern place name {cf. 'Habitat in Guinea' in Linnaeus' account (p. 175) of Loxia melanocephala). Contrarily to guineensis (e.g. in Ovis guineensis Linnaeus, 1758), there is no adjectival suffix in guinea, which is the English place name used by Albin and Edwards when they originally reported the species. Guinea is derived from the vernacular African word 'Aguinaw' (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2010). The same conclusion applies to Cisticola ruficeps guinea Lynes, 1930. jamaica. — When Linnaeus (1766) established Fringilla jarnaica, he used an unmodified modern place name {cf. 'Habitat in Jamaica') instead of an adjectival form (as in Columba jamaicensis Linnaeus, 1766). There is no adjectival suffix in the word Jamaica, which is the English place name used by Sloane when he originally reported the species. Jamaica is derived from the Arawak word 'Xaymaca' (Encyclopaedia Britannica 2010). malacca.— For Loxia malacca Linnaeus, 1766, the internal evidence {'Habitat in ... Malacca'), together with the fact that Linnaeus coined the adjectival malaccensis elsewhere in his work (p. 75), indicate a modern place name for this word. There is no adjectival suffix in the word malacca, which is the Erench (and Latin) place name used by Seba (1734), the source for Erinaceus malaccensis Linnaeus, 1766. The place name Malacca is apparently derived from the Malay tree name 'melaka' (Bosworth 2007). Properly formed adjectives bresilia.—The Tanagra bresilia of Linnaeus (1766) was founded in great part on the Merida bresilica of previous authors, and based on the 'Merle de bresil' of Belon (1555: 319). The bresilia of Linnaeus is thus a variant of bresilica, with a different adjectival ending {-ia instead ot -ica (Woods 1944)) added to the word 'bresil'. 'Bresilia' is nowhere used as a place name by Linnaeus. cajanea.— This word, in Statius Muller (1776), is a geographical adjective based on the Latinized root of Statius Muller's place name 'Cajenne', with the addition of the adjectival suffix -eus, -ea (Woods 1944). This interpretation is confirmed by the matching German name ('Das cajennische Wasserhuhn Fulica Cajanea') and the clearly adjectival use of the same word elsewhere in the work ('Die cajennische Merle Turdus Cajaneus'). Statius Muller (1776) used capital initial letters for all of his species-group names, so this fact has no special significance here. surinamus, -a. —In Muscicapa surinama Linnaeus, 1766, and Turdus surinamus Linnaeus, 1766, the species-group name is a Latinized geographical adjective, derived from the place name 'Suriname' {cf. 'Habitat Surinami' [ablative]) or 'Surinam' {cf. 'Merle de Surinam' in Brisson (1760), the basis for Linnaeus' Turdus surinamus). Linnaeus used the adjectival surinamus, -a in proper gender agreement with the matching genera. Since Suriname ends in a mute 'e', an adjectival suffix -us, -a after a consonant is an appropriate interpretation of surinamus, -a {cf. Woods 1944). Aratinga pertinax surinama Zimmer & W. H. Phelps, 1951, is based on the cited place name 'Surinam', again with the adjectival suffix -us, -a after a consonant. Adjectives resembling Latinized place names carolinus. — As used by Linnaeus (1758) and Statius Miiller (1776), carolinus is a Latin adjective, ct)ined on the same pattern and with the same etymology as the modern place name 'Garolina'. Normand David & Michel Gosselin 113 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) cayanus, -a.— As used by Linnaeus (1766), this is a geographical adjective and, like the Latinized place names 'Cayana' and 'Cayania', it is derived from the French place name 'Cayenne' (of Brisson 1760, the source for Linnaeus' names). Linnaeus used the adjectival cayamis, -a in proper gender agreement with the matching genera. Since Cayenne ends in a mute 'e', an adjectival suffix -us, -a after a consonant is an appropriate interpretation of cayanus, -a {cf. Woods 1944). dominicus, -a.— This word is a Latin adjective. When Linnaeus (1766) created Tanagra dominica and Motacilla dominica, he surprisingly referred to 'Dominica' as a place name {'Habitat in Dominica'). However, this is an idiosyncratic application because the locality he referred to (and which his source (Brisson 1760) called 'Dominicensi Insula') has been universally known as 'Saint-Domingue' or 'Santo Domingo'. The 'Dominica' of Linnaeus is thus an abbreviated place name that has no link with present-day Dominica. We conclude that Linnaeus' usage of dominica in Tanagra and Motacilla is indeed adjectival, since dominicus is an adjective used elsewhere by Linnaeus (1766) in a similar context {cf. Colymbus dominicus, Trochilus dominicus, Turdus dominicus). guajanus. — As used by Statius Muller (1776), this is a geographical adjective, and like the Latinized place name 'Guajana', it is derived from the French name 'Guiane' (of Buffon, cf. Mayr 1979). Statius Muller's proper gender agreement for this word, and the fact that Guiane (like Cayenne) ends in a mute 'e', sanctions the presence of the suffix -us, -a after a consonant as an appropriate interpretation of guajanus (Woods 1944). Statius Muller (1776) used capital initial letters for all of his species-group names, so this fact has no special significance here. martinica.— As used by Linnaeus (1766), this is a geographical adjective, and like the Latinized place name 'Martinica', it is derived from the French name 'Martinique' (of Brisson 1760, the source of Linnaeus' name). Linnaeus' proper gender agreement for this word, and the fact that Martinique (like Cayenne and Guiane) ends in a mute 'e', sanctions the presence of the suffix -us, -a after a consonant as an appropriate interpretation of martinica (Woods 1944). molucca.—ln Loxia molucca Linnaeus, 1766, molucca, like the Latinized place name 'Moluccae' {cf. 'Habitat in ... Moluccis' [ablative]) and similar words in many languages, is derived from the Arabic root 'Muluk' (Gray 1887). Here again, the Latin adjectival suffix -us, -a after a consonant is an appropriate interpretation of molucca (Woods 1944). Ibis molucca Cuvier, 1829, is similar and is therefore also adjectival. Mees (1982) treated Cuvier's molucca as adjectival, but Sibley & Monroe (1990: 313) and Andrew (1992: 45) proposed, without explanation, that the name was a noun in apposition. zeylonus.— This geographical adjective, like the Latinized place name 'Zeylona', is derived from a Germanic form of the word Ceylan (Zeylon), with the adjectival suffix -us, -a after a consonant (Woods 1944). Senegallus, -a and senegalus, -a senegallus, -a.— This word is used by Linnaeus (1766, 1771) as a geographical adjective derived from the Latinized place name 'Senegallia' {cf. 'Habitat in ... Senegallia') in the same way as the classical noun / adjective gallus, -a is derived from 'Gallia' (Gaul). Linnaeus used lower case initial letters for senegallus, -a, contrarily fo Senegalus, -a (see below). senegalus, -a.— This adjective is derived from the place name 'Senegal' {cf. 'Habitat in ... Senegal') with the addition of the adjectival suffix -us, -a after a consonant (Woods 1944). For unstated reasons, Linnaeus (1766) used capital initial letters for tlois word. For Fringilla Senegala Linnaeus, 1766, he quoted Brisson's (1760) generic name 'Senegallus' (actually spelled Senegalus by Brisson) as a source for the taxon, yet he modified the word and its Normand David & Michel Gosselin 114 BuIl.B.O.C 2011 131(2) ending to match the gender of Fringilla. The species-group names Senegalus and Senegala of Linnaeus are to be treated as adjectives because of their grammatical properties and because Linnaeus modified each of them to agree in gender with its matching generic name. Given the above, three spellings of geographical names need to be modified; Fulica Cajanea Statius Muller, 1776 must be spelled Aramides cajaneus {contra David & Gosselin 2002b: 276). Ibis molucca Cuvier, 1829 must be spelled Threskiornis moluccus. Fulica martinica Linnaeus, 1766 must be spelled Porphyria martinicus. Acknowledgements We thank Edward C. Dickinson, Steven Gregory and James Jobling for their useful comments on earlier versions of this article. In addition, Richard C. Banks, Murray Bruce, Robert J. Dowsett, Alan P. Peterson and J. Van Remsen provided very helpful information. References; Andrew, P. 1992. The birds of Indonesia - a checklist. Indonesian Orn. Soc., Jakarta. Belon, P. 1555. L'histoire de la nature des oyseaux. G. Cavellat, Paris. Bosworth, C. E. 2007. Flistoric cities of the Islamic world. Brill, Leiden. Brisson, M. 1760. Ornithologia / Ornithologie. 6 vols. J.-B. Bauche, Paris. Chapman, F. M. 1917. The distribution of bird-life in Colombia. Bull. Ainer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 36. Clancey, P. A. & Brooke, R. K. 1990. Avian nomenclatural issues arising from the publication of Rookmaaker's The zoological exploration of southern Africa 1650-1790. Ostrich 61: 143-145. Cory, C. B. & Hellmayr, C. E. 1924. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and adjacent islands, pt. 3. Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ., Zool. Ser. 13(3). David, N. & Gosselin, M. 2000. The supposed significance of originally capitalized species-group names. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 120: 261-266. David, N. & Gosselin, M. 2002a. Gender agreement of avian species names. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 122: 14^9. David, N. & Gosselin, M. 2002b. The grammatical gender of avian genera. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 122: 257-282. Dickinson, E. C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Third edn. Christopher Helm, London. Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2010. Encyclopaedia Britannica online, www.britannica.com. Glare, P. G. W. 1982. Oxford Latin dictionary. Oxford Univ. Press. Gray, A. 1887. The voyage of Franqois Pyrard of Laval to the East Indies, the Maldives, the Moluccas and Brazil. Hakluyt Soc., London. Hemming, F. 1956. Opinion 404. Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 13(5): 87-106. International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth edn. International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, London. Keith, S., Urban, E. K. & Fry, C. H. (eds.) 1992. The birds of Africa, vol. 4. Academic Press, London. Lesson, R. P. 1831. Trade d'ornithologie, livre 6. Levrault, Paris. Linnaeus, C. 1758. Systema naturae, vol. 1. Tenth edn. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm. Linnaeus, C. 1766. Systema naturae, vol. 1. Twelfth edn. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm. Linnaeus, C. 1771. Ma)itissa pla)jtarum. Laurentius Salvius, Stockholm. Liddell, H. G. & Scott, R. 1996. A Greek-English lexicon / with a revised supplement. Oxford Univ. Press. Little, W., Fowler, H. W. & Coulson, J. (eds.) 1973. The shorter Oxford English dictionary. Oxford Univ. Press. Lynes, H. 1930. Review of the genus Cisticola. Ibis (12)6 Suppl. Mayr, E. 1936. New subspecies of birds from the New Guinea region. Amer. Mus. Novit. 869; 1-8. Mayr, E. 1979. Family Pittidae. Pp. 310-329 in Traylor, M. A. (ed.) Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 8. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Mees, G. F. 1982. Bird records from the Moluccas. Zool. Mcdcd. Leiden 56: 91-1 11. Peters, J. L. 1931. Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 1. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Peters, J. L. 1951. Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 7. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Reichenow, A. 1900. Die Viigel Afrikas, Bd. 1. J. Neuman, Neudamm. Riley, J. H. 1912. A new name for Tanagra sclateri Berlepsch. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 25: 185. Ripley, S. D. 1964. Subfamily Turdinae. Pp. 13-227 /» Mayr, E. & Paynter, R. A. (eds.) Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 10. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Rothschild, W. & 1 lartert, E. 1912. List of a collection of birds made by Mr. Albert Meek t>n the Kumusi River, north-eastern British New Guinea. Novit. Zool. 19; 187-206. Normand David & Michel Gosselin 115 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Seba, A. 1734. Description exacte des principales curiositez naturelles du magriifique cabinet d' Albert Seba, vol. 1. Wetstein, Smith & Jansson de Waesberge, Amsterdam. Sibley, C. G. & Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of the birds of the world. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Smith, A. 1836. Report of the expedition for exploring central Africa, from the Cape of Good Hope. Government Gazette, Cape Town. Smith, A. 1838^9. Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa. 28 parts. Smith, Elder & Co., London. Statius Muller, P. L. 1776. Des Ritters Carl von Linne / vollstdndiges Natursystems Supplements - und Register - Band iiber alle sechs Theile oder Classen des Thierreichs. G. N. Raspe, Niirnberg. Storer, R. W. 1970. Subfamily Thraupinae. Pp. 246-408 in Paynter, R. A. (ed.) Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 13. Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Tresor de la langue frangaise. 1971-94. 16 vols. Editions du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris. http://atilf.atilf.fr. Wolters, H. E. 1982. Die Vdgelarten der Erde. Paul Parey, Hamburg & Berlin. Woods, R. S. 1944. The naturalist's lexicon. Abbey Garden Press, Pasadena. Addresses: Normand David, 10385A Clark Street, Montreal, Quebec, H3L 2S3, Canada, e-mail: normanddavid® videotron.ca. Michel Gosselin, Canadian Museum of Nature, P.O. Box 3443, Station D, Ottawa, Ontario, KIP 6P4, Canada, e-mail: mgosselin@mus-nature.ca © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 Peter Pyle 116 Bull. B.O.C 2011 131(2) Nomenclature of the Laysan Honeycreeper Himatione [sanguinea] fraithii by Peter Pyle Received 21 May 2010 The Apapane Himatione sanguinea is the most abundant extant species of Hawaiian finch (Fringillidae, Drepanidinae) (Pratt 2005, Pyle & Pyle 2009). It occurs throughout high islands of the south-east Hawaiian Islands, where it shows little to no inter-island variation. On Laysan Island, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, a resident Himatione was first encountered on 3 April 1828 by the naturalist C. Isenbeck (von Kittlitz 1834) and named much later from specimens collected by H. Palmer and G. Munro in June 1891 (Rothschild 1892). While Palmer and Munro were on Laysan they were assisted by George D. Freeth, manager of a guano-mining operation there and an amateur naturalist. In acknowledgement, Rothschild named the new bird Himatione fraithii, based evidently on a miscommunication from Palmer or Munro or an erroneous assumption concerning the spelling of Freeth's name, which is not mentioned in the description. This taxon, widely known as the Laysan Honeyeater and, later, the Laysan Honeycreeper, became extinct in 1923 (Ely & Clapp 1975, A. Wetmore in Olson 1996). Walter Rothschild was a well-known British zoologist with an avid interest in the birdlife of islands (Rothschild 1983, Olson 2008). He had sent Palmer and other collectors to procure specimens from the Hawaiian Islands in 1890-93 for his private museum in Tring, England. Based upon this collection he published Avifauna of Laysan and the neighbouring islands, with a complete history to date of the birds of the Hawaiian possession in three parts. Part I in August 1893, Part II in November 1893 and Part III in December 1900 (Rothschild 1893- 1900; see Olson 2003). By publication of Part I, Rothschild recognised that he had previously misspelled Freeth's name and emended the specific name of the Laysan Honeyeater to freethi (pp. v, x and 3), but by publication of Part III he had returned, in part, to fraithi (pp. xvii, xix, 131, 305) and also used a fourth spelling, /rccf/7n, on Plate 82 showing morphology of bird beaks. Although each of the four above names, fraithii, freethi, fraithi and freethii, have been used multiple times for the Laysan Honeyeater (see synonymies in Pyle & Pyle 2009), since the original description only Hartert (1919) and Bryan & Greenway (1944) have used fraithii. All other authors since 1944, including the AOU (1998) have used freethii or freethi. The taxon was considered a full species until Hartert (1919) demoted it to a subspecies of Apapane, an opinion followed by most taxonomists through the 1900s (including AOU 1998). Based on osteological evidence, Olson & James (1982) proposed it as a full species, and this was followed by Pratt & Pratt (2001), James (2004) and Pratt (2005) based on this and other evidence. Amadon (1950) and Pratt (2005) justified the use of freethii by regarding fraithii as a lapsus calami that Rothschild had 'corrected,' in the same publication according to Pratt, as permitted by the rules of nomenclature (ICZN 1999, Art. 32.5.1.1). This is incorrect, however, as the original description was published in July 1892 in the A)inals and Magazine of Natural History (Rothschild 1892) and the emendation was not made until August 1893 in Part I of Rothschild's (1893-1900) monograph. Furthermore, Rothschild seemed to have realised that changing his original spelling was inappropriate, as he reverted to fraithi in Part 111 of his monograph (1900). Because change of the original spelling is unjustified, and Peter Pyle 117 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) the use of either fraithii or fraithi would be admissible, the original spelling should not be emended (ICZN 1999, Arts. 31.1.2 and 33.4), and fraithii should be retained as the correct name for the Laysan Honeyeater. Acknowledgements I thank Storrs Olson and Richard Pyle for assistance with the rules of nomenclature, and H. Douglas Pratt, Alan Peterson, Dick Schodde, and Edward Dickinson for suggestions on the manuscript. This is contribution no. 395 of The Institute for Bird Populations. References; Amadon, D. 1950. The Hawaiian honeycreepers (Aves, Drepaniidae). Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 95: 151-262. American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edn. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington DC. Bryan, E. H. & Greenway, J. C. 1944. Contribution to the ornithology of the Hawaiian Islands. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 94; 79-142. Ely, C. A. & Clapp, R. B. 1973. The natural history of Laysan Island, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 171: 1-361. Hartert, E. 1919. Types of birds in the Tring Museum. B. Types in the general collection. I. Corvidae to Meliphagidae. Novit. Zool. 26: 123-178. * International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1999. International code of zoological nomenclature. Fourth edn. The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature, c/o The Natural History Museum, London. James, H. F. 2004. The osteology and phylogeny of the Hawaiian Finch radiation (Fringillidae: Drepanidini) including extinct taxa. Zool. ]. Linn. Soc. 141; 207-255. von Kittlitz, F. H. 1834. Nachricht von den Briiteplatzen einiger tropischen Seevogel im stillen Ocean. Mus. Senkenbergianum Abhand. aus dem Gebiete der beschreibenden Naturgesch. 1: 115-126. Olson, S. L. 1996. History and ornithological journals of the Tanager Expedition of 1923 to the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, Johnston, and Wake Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 433: 1-210. Olson, S. L. 2003. On the history and importance of Rothschild's avifauna of Laysan. Smithsonian Institution Libraries Digital Edition. http://www.sil.si.edu/digitalcollections/nhrarebooks/rothschiId/ Olson, S. L. 2008. Falsified data associated with specimens of birds, mammals, and insects from the Veragua Archipelago, Panama, collected by J. H. Batty. Amer. Mus. Novit. 3620: 1-37. Olson, S. L. & James, H. F. 1982. Prodromus of the fossil avifauna of the Hawaiian Islands. Smithsonian Contrib. Zool. 365: 1-59. Pratt, H. D. 2005. The Hawaiian honeycreepers. Oxford Univ. Press. Pratt, H. D. & Pratt, T. K. 2001. The interplay of species concepts, taxonomy, and conservation: lessons from the Hawaiian avifauna. Stud. Avian Biol. 22: 68-80. Pyle, R. L. & Pyle, P. 2009. The birds of the Hawaiian Islands; occurrence, history, distribution, and status. Bishop Museum, Honolulu, HI. Version 1 (31 December 2009) http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/birds/rlp- monograph Rothschild, M. 1983. Dear Lord Rothschild: birds, butterflies, and history. Balaban Publishers, Philadelphia, PA. Rothschild, W. 1892. Descriptions of seven new species of birds from the Sandwich Islands. Ayin. & Mag. Nat. Hist. (6)10: 108-112. Rothschild, W. 1893-1900. Avifauna of Laysan and the neighbouring islands, with a complete history to date of the birds of the Hawaiian possession. R. H. Porter, London. Address: The Institute for Bird Populations, P.O. Box 1346, Point Reyes Station, CA 94956, USA. © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 Markus Handschuh et al. 118 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) First confirmed record and first breeding record of Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata in Indochina by Markus Handschuh, Robert N. van Zalinge, Urban Olsson, Phok Samphos, Hong Chamnan & Tom D. Evans Received 9 ]uly 2010 Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata was long treated as a subspecies of Lesser Spotted Eagle A. pomarina (e.g. Grimmett et al. 1998). However, Parry et al. (2002) made the now widely accepted case for recognising resident populations of A. pomarina in the Indian subcontinent specifically, A. hastata, which was subsequently corroborated by a phylogenetic analysis based on mitochondrial DNA sequences (Vali 2006). To date only Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga has been confirmed in Cambodia, but A. hastata has been suspected to occur. Greater Spotted Eagle breeds from Eastern Europe to eastern Russia and is a regular winter visitor to Cambodia (Thomas & Poole 2003, Robson 2008). Birds similar to Indian Spotted Eagle were seen and photographed in Cambodia in 2003 (Goes & Davidson 2003) and on several occasions since (J. C. Eames, J. Eaton, J. Pilgrim, P. Round, H. Wright et al. pers. comm.), but due in part to doubt over the field identification, none of the observations has been published in a scientific journal. In mid-June 2009, a darkish eagle in juvenile plumage with fully feathered tarsi was found, with clipped wing feathers, in Thnal village, Prasat Balang District, Kampong Thom Province, Cambodia (12‘59'10"N, 104°56'47"E). According to the villagers who kept the eagle, it had been collected as a chick from a nest in deciduous forest nearby, in May 2008. We immediately identified the bird as a 'spotted eagle' as it had rounded nostrils and extensive whitish spotting on the crown, scapulars and wing-coverts, but the specific identity was harder to establish due to the morphological similarities between spotted eagles. The bird was handed to officials of the Forestry Administration and subsequently transferred to the Angkor Centre for Conservation of Biodiversity (a wildlife rescue centre). For species confirmation, morphological features were examined and DNA testing Linciertaken (the latter also for sex determination). The bird was not suitable for release and at the time of writing remains alive at the centre. Methods Plumage features were examined and selected biometrics of the captive bird were taken in August 2010 using callipers (for culmen chord from tip of bill to skull, mandibular symphysis length, gape length, and gape breadth including the fleshy flange) and a zero- stop wing rule (for maximum tarso-metatarsus length). These features were compared with Forsman (1991), Parry et al. (2002) and Rasmussen & Anderton (2005). DNA was extracted from a sample of breast feathers, using QIA Quick DNEasy Kit (Qiagen Inc., Hilden, Germany) according to the manufacturer's instructions, but with 30 pi DTT added to the initial incubation step. Amplification and sequencing followed the protocols described in Olsson et al. (2005). Reference sequences for the following eight eagle taxa were obtained from GenBank: Aquila rapax viudhiana, A. [pomarina] pomarina, A. [/>. | hastata, A. clanga, A. heliaca heliaca, A. nipalensis nipalensis, A. chrysaetos daphanes and Spizaetus cirrhatus (= Niseatus cirrhatus). Sequences were aligned using MegAlign 4.03 in the DNAstar package (DNAstar Inc., Madison, Wl, USA). We performed both an exhaustive search and bootstrapping in PAUP* (Swofford 2001). The settings for the parsimony bootstrap were Markus Handschuh et al. 119 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) heuristic search strategy, 10,000 replicates, starting trees obtained by stepwise addition (random addition sequence, ten replicates), TBR branch swapping, MulTrees option not in effect (only one tree saved per replicate). Results Plumage.— Greater Spotted Eagle was excluded by the generally dull brown rather than blackish-brown or dark rufous-brown plumage both above and below, the pronounced dark-barred flight feathers, and the overall less pronounced pale spotting above (Forsman 1991, Rasmussen & Anderton 2005). The Cambodian bird showed all of the five plumage features listed by Parry et al. (2002) that distinguish juveniles of Indian Spotted Eagle from Lesser Spotted: no rufous nape patch; spots only on tips of upperwing-coverts, not on shafts; tertials pale brown with diffuse white tips; uppertail-coverts very pale brown with Figure 1. Underside of the captive female Indian Spotted Eagle A. hastata in Cambodia. Note the dull brown rather than blackish-brown or dark rufous-brown plumage, and the pronounced dark-barred flight feathers below that distinguish it from juvenile Greater Spotted Eagle A. clanga. At the time (March 2010), the bird had already moulted most body feathers below (Markus Handschuh / Angkor Centre for Conservation of Biodiversity) 56 100 98 100 ^^.Aquila pomahna hastata Genbank AY987286 L_ Aqulla pomarina hastata Cambodia __ Aquila pomahna pomahna Aquila clanga Aquila heliaca heliaca ___ Aquila rapax vindhiana . Aquila nipalensis nipalensis . Aquila chrysaetos daphanes ______ Nisaetus cinhatus 10 changes Figure 2. Phylogram of the most parsimonious tree. Bootstrap support values are given above the branches. All relevant nodes receive strong support. Markus Handschuh et al. 120 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) white barring; and underparts pale yellowish brown with darker streaks. Fig. 1 illustrates some of these features. Biometrics.— Table 1 shows selected biometrics of the Cambodian bird compared to museum specimens measured by Parry et al. (2002). Using DNA sexing, the sex was found to be female. Three of five measurements match the biometrics of specimens of Indian Spotted Eagle. However, three of five measurements fall outside the range for female Indian Spotted Eagle as follows. (1) Gape length was below the 95% confidence range for female Indian Spotted Eagle, but within the range for male Indian Spotted and outside the ranges for Lesser Spotted and Greater Spotted. (2) Gape breadth was above the ranges for all species, but is only 0.8 mm above the 95% confidence range given for female Indian Spotted Eagle; and (3) tarso-metatarsus length falls above the ranges given for Indian Spotted and Lesser Spotted, but within the 95% confidence range for Greater Spotted Eagle. TABLE 1 Biometrics of the Cambodian spotted eagle compared with biometrics of museum specimens taken from Parry et al. (2002). All measurements are in mm. For the captive bird, callipers were used to measure culmen chord (from tip of bill to skull), mandibular symphysis length, gape length, and gape breadth (including the fleshy Tips'); tarso-metatarsus length was measured as maximum length using a zero-stop wing rule. Parry et al. (2002) did not present absolute minimum and maximum values or details of the measuring techniques used. 95% confidence interval for measurements by Parry et al. (2002) Captive Indian Indian Lesser Lesser Greater Greater female (this study) Spotted male Spotted female Spotted male Spotted female Spotted male Spotted female Culmen chord 45.1 42.1M3.8 43.4-45.7 39.7-42.9 42.1M4.1 45.0M7.3 49.4-51.3 Mandibular symphysis length 14.4 13.0-13.7 13.7-14.7 14.4-15.8 15.4-16.4 15.6-16.7 17.1-18.0 Gape length 57.9 56.3-59.5 58.8-61.4 48.4-52.2 51.2-53.4 55.0-57.7 59.4-61.4 Gape breadth 49.5 45.2M7.0 46.2-48.7 35.2-38.6 36.3-38.4 39.5-42.1 42.0-43.9 Tarso-metatarsus length 105.0 93.9-98.0 94.2-99.5 90.5-97.7 93.8-98.4 101.8-107.2 103.5-107.5 Genetics. — For species confirmation, we obtained a contiguous 1,041 base pair portion of the cytochrome-lr gene from the captive eagle. The aligned cytochrome-ft sequences contain 1,038 characters, of which 105 (10%) are parsimony informative. The exhaustive search resulted in a single most parsimonious tree (Fig. 2), which is congruent with Helbig et al. (2005), Lerner & Mindell (2005) and Vali (2006). The secquence is most similar to the published sequence of A. [p.] hastata (specimen UMMZ 78272, male, collected on 1 May 1933 by W. N. Koelz at Bhadwar, Kangra District Himachal Pradesh, India) from which it differs by 0.3% (uncorrected p). This is clearly within the range of normal intraspecific variation. Differences between the GenBank reference sample for hastata and those of both A. [/).] pomarina and A. clanga were 4%. Differences between A. [/r] pomarhia and A. clanga were 1.7%. Discussion On plumage and genetics, as well as several biometrics, in particular the striking bill morphology with an unusually broad gape, the Cambodian bird matches Indian Spotted Eagle more closely than any other species, making this the first confirmed record for Cambodia and Indochina. Differences were noted from published descriptions in respect of gape length and breadth, and tarso-metatarsus length. The longer tarsus and in particular the slightly broader gape, which included the fleshy flange in the Cambodian bird, are Markus Handschuh et al. 121 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) probably explained by the well-documented post-mortem shrinkage in museum specimens (e.g. Winker 1993); all three biometric differences may also be due to individual variation and potential differences in measuring techniques. Parry et al. (2002) do not give absolute maximum and minimum values for these taxa, or details of how the measurements were taken. Review of a larger number of Cambodian individuals should be undertaken to look for potential subspecific differences, and this need is supported by unconfirmed reports from the field of consistent plumage differences between Cambodian and Indian populations. To complement this, the sequence of immafure plumages of the captive bird is being recorded as it matures. Indian Spotted Eagle is an uncommon and local resident in India and southern Nepal, with records from south-west and south Myanmar, which are thought perhaps to be of winter migrants (Rasmussen & Anderton 2005, Robson 2008). It is considered extinct in Bangladesh (Robson 2008). The Cambodian record reported here extends the breeding range by c. 2,000 km. Indian Spotted Eagle should be sought in extensive tracts of open lowland deciduous dipterocarp forests in intervening areas of Myanmar and Thailand, and m southern Vietnam and southern Laos. A reassessment of specimens and photographs of Aquila eagles from these areas might also reveal previously overlooked records of Indian Spotfed Eagle. This record suggests that at least some, if not all, of the suspected Indian Spotted Eagles recorded in Cambodia by various observers since 2003 were probably correct. A detailed collaborative review of past records of Aquila eagles in Cambodia is underway, as is an analysis of plumage features of Indian Spotted Eagles in Cambodia and the field identification of this population. To facilitate this, MH would be grateful to receive previously unpublished records of Aquila eagles from Cambodia or adjacent areas. Reports of Indian Spotted Eagle have come from several localities in deciduous dipterocarp forest in Preah Vihear and Stung Treng provinces (J. Eames, J. Eaton, J. Pilgrim, P. Round, H. Wright et al. pers. comm.) and include displaying birds (P. Round pers. comm.), suggesting the presence of a significant breeding population of A. hastata in Cambodia. There are also records of Greater Spotted Eagle from the same areas and habitats, both historical (Delacour 1929) and recent (Goes & Davidson 2003, Robson 2008), indicating the need for great caution in identifying spotted eagles (and indeed any Aquila eagle) in Indochina. Indian Spotted Eagle appears to occur at very low densities throughout its range and is largely restricted to lowland deciduous dipterocarp forests. The species is currently considered globally Vulnerable to extinction (BirdLife International 2010). Cambodia is one of the few countries in tropical Asia where large tracts of suitable forest remain, and significant opportunities for the conservation of this species may exist there. However, as elsewhere, land use is changing rapidly: for example, the nest site from where the Cambodian juvenile had been taken has since been deforested for a paper pulp plantation. Indian Spotted Eagle may occur regularly within some of Cambodia's protected areas and nest surveys are planned in areas from which convincing sight records are available. Acknowledgements We thank Bill Clark, Will Duckworth, James Eaton, Colin Poole, Pamela Rasmussen and Phil Round for comments. We also thank Duckworth, Eaton, Round, Jonathan Eames, Dave Gandy, Frederic Goes, John Pilgrim, Edward Pollard, Hugo Rainey and Hugh Wright for their records and / or photographs. References: BirdLife International. 2010. Species factsheet: Aquila hastata. www.birdlife.org (accessed 10 August 2010). Delacour, J. 1929. On the birds collected during the fourth expedition to French Indochina. Ibis 5: 193-220. Dickinson, E. C. (ed.) 2003. The Hoimrd and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Third edn. Christopher Helm, London. Markus Handschuh et al. 122 Bull. B.O.C 2011 131(2) Forsman, D. 1991. Die Bestimmung von Schell- Aquila clanga, Schrei- A. pomaritm und Steppenadler A. nipalensis. Limicola 5; 145-185. Goes, F. & Davidson, P. (compilers) 2003. Recent sightings. Cambodia Bird News 11: 41^9. Grimmett, R., Inskipp, C. & Inskipp, T. 1998. Birds of the Indian subcontinent. Christopher Helm, London. Helbig A. ]., Kocum, A., Seibold, I. & Braun, M. J. 2005. A multi-gene phylogeny of aquiline eagles (Aves: Accipitriformes) reveals extensive paraphyly at the genus level. Mol. Phyl. & Evol. 35: 147-164. Lerner, H. R. L. & Mindell, D. P. 2005. Phylogeny of eagles. Old World vultures, and other Accipitridae based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA. Mol. Phyl. & Evol. 37: 327-346. Olsson, U., Alstrom, P., Ericson, P. G. & Sundberg, P. 2005. Non-monophyletic taxa and cryptic species- evidence from a molecular phylogeny of leaf-warblers (Phylloscopus, Aves). Mol. Phyl. & Evol. 36: 261-276. Parry, S. J., Clark, W. S. & Prakash, V. 2002. On the taxonomic status of the Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata. Ibis 144: 665-675. Rasmussen, P. C. & Anderton, J .C. 2005. Birds of South Asia: the Ripley guide. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC & Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Robson, C. 2008. A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia. New Holland, London. Swofford, D. L. 2001. PAUP’^: phylogenetic analysis using parsimony (*and other methods). Version 4.08b. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. Thomas, W. W. & Poole, C. M. 2003. An annotated list of the birds of Cambodia from 1859 to 1970. Forktail 19: 103-127. Vali, U. 2006. Mitochondrial DNA sequences support species status for the Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 126: 238-242. Winker, K. 1993. Specimen shrinkage in Tennessee Warblers and "Traill's" Flycatchers. /. Field Orn. 64: 331-336. Addresses: Markus Handschuh (corresponding author) and Phok Samphos, Angkor Centre for Conservation of Biodiversity, P.O. Box 93 054, Siem Reap, Cambodia, e-mail: markus.handschuh@accb-cambodia.org. Robert N. van Zalinge and Tom D. Evans, Wildlife Conservation Society Cambodia Program, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. Urban Olsson, Department of Zoology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. Hong Chamnan, Department of Wildlife and Biodiversity, Forestry Administration, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 The type locality of the Olive Warbler (Peucedramidae) by Richard C. Banks Received 13 August 2010 Lowery & Monroe (1968: 78) correctly stated that the original type locality (Mexique = Mexico) of Sylvia taeniata Du Bus, 1847 (now Peucedramus taeniatus) was restricted to San Cristobal, Chiapas, by Brodkorb (1944). But, they added that Zimmer (1948a) had shown that the type probably came from San Pedro, Oaxaca. Perhaps they intended the latter statement to be accepted as a correction to Brodkorb's designation, but it seems instead to have resulted in uncertainty and taxonomic confusion (Lowther & Nocedal 1997, Curson 2010). The two suggested type localities are on opposite sides of the Isthmus of Tehuantepec, which may (or may not) be the boundary of subspecific populations, one of which would be the nominate subspecies. Hellmayr (1935: 360) may have been the first to restrict the type locality of Syh'ia tacuiata Du Bus, in the synonymy of Peucedramus olivaccus (Giraud, 1841), suggesting that 'Mexique' was 'probably the state of Vera Cruz, where some of the other new Mexican birds described by Du Bus came from.' Information in van Rossem (1942) shows that cannot be correct. Van Rossem (1942) examined the type specimens of both Cya)HHvrax uuicolor and Sylvia tacuiata of Du Bus (1847) in the Brussels mu.seum in 1939. Both specimens were collected by Richard C. Banks 123 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Auguste Ghiesbreght, supposedly in Tabasco, Mexico, with a specimen of Turdus rufitorques. Hellmayr (1934) bad previously pointed out that Tabasco was an unlikely locality for tbe montane Cyanocorax, and van Rossem (1942) cited evidence from P. Brodkorb and E. A. Goldman that there are no mountains in Tabasco bigb enough to accommodate these species. The assumption was that Ghiesbreght had gone from Tabasco into neighbouring Chiapas, perhaps without being aware of it. Van Rossem (1942) indicted that 'it is certain that Chiapas, not Tabasco, is the type region of both the above birds [C. unicolor and S. taeniata] . . . ' and 'a spot as close as possible to the Tabasco boundary should be selected . . . ' but left the definite selection to Brodkorb 'in view of his extensive work in Chiapas.' Relative to Sylvia taeniata, van Rossem (1942) stated: 'Incidentally, Bonaparte's statement (Consp. Gen. Avium, 1, 1850: 309) that the subsequent plate (Esq. Orn. Livr. 6, 1850: pi. 28) was from a specimen from San Pedro, Oaxaca, is not correct. The type is the basis of the plate and I may add that Wilhelm Meise made a similar notation on the tag in 1938.' Brodkorb (1944) expanded on van Rossem's comments and noted that Chiapas is the only Mexican state in which the three species {Cyanocorax unicolor, Turdus rufitorques and Sylvia taeniata) attributed to Tabasco by Du Bus occur. He restricted the type locality of C. unicolor [now Apheloconia unicolor] 'to San Cristobal, or as it is now called Ciudad de Las Casas, since this, the largest town in Chiapas, is the locality nearest Tabasco from which the species has been reported.' He further stated: 'For the reasons given under Cyanocorax unicolor, I restrict the type locality of S. taeniata to San Cristobal, Chiapas.' Zimmer (1948a) established that Sylvia taeniata of Du Bus was the name properly applied to the Olive Warbler, the name formerly in use {Sylvia olivacea Giraud) being preoccupied. Without mentioning Brodkorb's paper of 1944, Zimmer (1948a) attempted to fix the type locality of S. taeniata Du Bus or, more precisely, to determine to which named subspecies it applied. At his request, R. Verheyen of the Brussels museum and J. Delacour examined the type specimen. Zimmer (1948a) wrote: 'It is an old mounted bird and greatly faded, and in its present condition agrees best, according to Captain Delacour, with jaliscensis. If allowance is made, however, for considerable fading that must have taken place during the last century, I believe that assignment to aurantiacus is more strongly indicated.' Citing the Bonaparte (1850) work that van Rossem (1942) had discredited, Zimmer placed the type locality of taeniata at an indefinite San Pedro, Oaxaca. Zimmer did not indicate whose subspecific treatment he was following. The most recently preceding was that of Hellmayr (1935), who did not recognise jaliscensis, and he may have been following Miller & Griscom (1925), who saw no Oaxaca specimens and who did not mention that state in the range of any subspecies. Hellmayr (1935) included at least part of Oaxaca in the range of then nominate olivacea (which Zimmer renamed giraudi); aurantiacus was found in Guatemala (Miller & Griscom 1925) or Guatemala and Chiapas (Hellmayr 1935). Zimmer's placement of the type locality of Sylvia taeniata Du Bus in Oaxaca and his subspecific allotment of the type specimen to a subspecies found in Chiapas and Guatemala are seemingly incompatible. Van Rossem (1948) pointed out that Zimmer (1948a) had overlooked earlier statements by himself (1942) and Brodkorb (1944). Zimmer (1948b) disputed van Rossem's (1942) claim that Bonaparte (1850) was wrong, and continued to follow Bonaparte's indication of San Pedro, Oaxaca, as the type locality until proven otherwise. Webster (1958) was perhaps the first to give an ambivalent statement of the type locality: 'San Pedro, Oaxaca, or Chiapas, near Tabasco border.' Phillips (1966), when describing a new subspecies, P. t. georgei, said the adult male was 'similar to P. t. taeniatus (DuBus), 1847: Mexique' = 'Tabasco' {i.e. Jitotol, Chiapas, or a bit north); cf. Rovirosa, 1889', apparently introducing a new statement of the origin of Du Bus's type specimen based on the itinerary of Auguste Ghiesbreght, the collector of the type specimen. Richard C. Banks 124 Bull. B.O.C 2011 131(2) Lowery & Monroe (1968: 78) mentioned the locality designations by Brodkorb (1944) and Zimmer (1948a), but not that of Phillips (1966). AOU (1983: 532) accepted Brodkorb's designation of San Cristobal, Chiapas, without comment. Binford (1989: 344) agreed with AOU (1983), indicating that the type locality of Peucedramus taeniatiis was in Chiapas rather than Oaxaca. Phillips (1991: 10) equated Mexique of Du Bus to 'NEn [Northeastern] Oaxaca?' He further stated (p. 11) that 'Although most of Ghiesbreght's collecting was done in Tabasco and Chiapas, examination of the type he collected indicates the need of comparison with NEn Oaxaca birds, as above.' This statement, in effect, reflects Zimmer (1948a). Finally, Lowther & Nocedal (1997) noted the two possible type localities of Brodkorb and Zimmer, as given by Lowery & Monroe (1968), and analysed the possible taxonomic scenarios that might result from one or the other type localities being accepted, dependant on how much morphological variation is recognised, stating again that 'Review of the type and additional material from this region is again necessary.' Once again, this suggests that if the type can be identified to a recognisable population, the type locality can be fixed to within the range of that population. This ignores the fact that the badly faded type has been of no taxonomic value since at least the 1940s. According to Rovirosa (1891), the Belgian collector Auguste Ghiesbreght traveled to Tabasco in 1839. He and his companions worked actively in Tabasco, especially in the vicinity of Teapa, and in the mountains of Chiapas until March 1840 and amassed significant collections. There is no indication in Rovirosa's (1891) account of Ghiesbreght's activities that he was in or near Oaxaca in that period. Several years later, after 1855, he did work at or near Jitotol, Chiapas, the locality mentioned by Phillips (1966), but that was well after the description of Peucedramus taeniatus. It seems certain that the type specimens of both Cyanocorax unicolor and Sylvia taeniata described by DuBus (1847), collected by Ghiesbreght in 'Tabasco,' must have come from the nearby mountains of Chiapas, as already stated by van Rossem (1942) and Brodkorb (1944). The type localities as restricted by Brodkorb (1944) to San Cristobal, Chiapas, must stand, although perhaps better stated as San Cristobal de las Casas, Chiapas, as presently indicated on many maps. Thus, the nominate subspecies, Peucedramus t. taeniatus includes the birds of the mountains of Chiapas, Mexico, and Guatemala, and P. t. aurantiacus Ridgway, 1896, is a synonym. The western population, in Guerrero and Oaxaca, Mexico, is P. t. georgei Phillips, 1966. Acknowledgements I thank Martha Rosen of the US National Museum of Natural History Library for assistance in locating tlie work by Rovirosa (1891), Mercedes S. Foster for assisting with translation of that from Spanish, and D. D. Gibson for helpful comments on a draft of this paper. References: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1983. Check-list of North Atneriam birds. Sixth edn. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington DC. Binford, L. C. 1989. A distributional survey of the birds of the Mexican state of Oaxaca. Oni. Moiioyr. 43. Brodkorb, P. 1944. The type localities of some Mexican birds of the genera Aphclocoma, Cyimocitta, and Peucedramus. Auk 61: 400-403. Curson, J. M. 2010. Family Peucedramidae (Olive Warbler). Pp. 660-66S iu del 1 loyo, ]., Flliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.) ! hmdbook of the birds of the loorld, vol. 15. Lynx F.dicions, Barcelona. 1 lellmayr, C. F. . 1934. Catalogue t)f birds of the Americas and the adjacent islands, pt. 7. Pield M»s. Nat. I list. Publ., Zool. Ser. 13(7). I lellmayr, C. F. 1935. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and the adjacent island.s, pt. 8. Field Mas. Nat. I list. Publ., Zool. Ser. 13(8). Donald A. Turner et al. 125 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Lowery, G. H. & Monroe, B. L. 1968. Family Parulidae. Pp. 1-93 in Paynter, R. A. (ed.) Check-list of birds of the world, vol. 14. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. Lowther, P. E. & Nocedal, J. 1997. Olive Warbler. In Poole, A. & Gill, F. B. (eds.) Birds of North America No. 310. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia & American Ornithologists' Union, Washington DC. Miller, W. de W. & Griscom, L. 1925. Notes on Central American birds, with descriptions of new forms. Amer. Mus. Novit. 183. Phillips, A. R. 1966. Further systematic notes on Mexican birds. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 86: 125-131. Phillips, A. R. 1991. The known birds of North and Middle America, pt. 2. Privately published, Denver, CO. van Rossem, A. J. 1942. Du Bus' types of Cyanocorax unicolor and Sylvia taeniata. Wilson Bull. 54: 212-213. van Rossem, A. J. 1948. The type locality of the Olive Warbler. Auk 65: 598. Rovirosa, D. J. N. 1891. Vida y trabajos del naturalista Belga Augusto B. Ghiesbreght, explorador de Mexico. La Naturaleza 2(1), ahos de 1887, 1888, 1889, 1890. Webster, J. D. 1958. Systematic notes on the Olive Warbler. Auk 75: 469M73. Zimmer, J. T. 1948a. 'The specific name of the Olive Warbler. Auk 65: 126-127. Zimmer, J. T. 1948b. untitled footnote. Auk 65: 598. Address: Division of Birds, US National Museum of Natural History, P.O. Box 37012, Washington, DC, USA, e-mail banksr@si.edu © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 * Remarks concerning the all-black coastal bonbons {Laniarius spp.) of Kenya and sonthern Somalia by Donald A. Turner, Brian W. Finch & Nigel D. Hunter Received 31 August 2010 Following the recommendation of Nguembock et al. (2008) that three races of the Tropical Boubou complex be treated specifically, namely Laniarius {aethiopicus) major, L. (a.) sublacteus and L. (a.) erlangeri, attention is now drawn to the taxonomic position of the all-black bonbons occnrring from the Tana Delta, Kenya, north to the Jnba and Shabeelle valleys in sonthern Somalia, which most anthorities have treated as rare black morphs of L. (a.) sublacteus and L. (a.) erlangeri (White 1962, Ash & Miskell 1998, Fry et al. 2000). With no all-black birds sampled in the Ngnembock et al. (2008) stndy, the possibility of a major re-appraisal in onr nnderstanding of these coastal bonbons has been missed. On 15 Jnly 1878 Gnstav Fischer collected an all-black bonbon at Kipini (Tana Delta) which Reichenow (1879) named Dryoscopus nigerrimus. In 1905, Reichenow named two fnrther bonbons, from the collections of Baron von Erlanger, both from the Jnba Valley in sonthern Somalia. An all-black specimen was named Laniarius erlangeri, whilst a more typical black-and-white bird was named Laniarius aethiopicus somaliettsis. Van Someren (1922: 116, 1932; 307), after comparing topotypes of Reichenow's two described forms (erlangeri and somaliensis) with his own material from Kipini, Manda, Lamn and Jnba, serionsly qnestioned the validity of erlangeri and nigerrimus. Grant & Mackworth- Praed (1944), making no mention of any all-black birds, recognised L. ferrugineus somaliensis and L. f. sublacteus as the two coastal forms of Tropical Bonbon, and Stresemann (1947) having examined nigerrimus argned it was jnst a morph of the sympatric black-and-white L. f. sublacteus, despite that van Someren (1922) considered that his specimens from Lamn exhibited intermediate featnres. Snbseqnently, White (1962), Ash & Miskell (1998), Fry et al. (2000) and Dickinson (2003) also recognised L. aethiopicus sublacteus aiad L. a. erlangeri as the two East African coastal bonbons, althongh White (1962) failed to mention either nigerrimus Donald A. Turner et al. 126 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Figure 1. Sonogram of the explosive two-noted call produced by the all-black boubou, recorded on Manda Island, Lamu District, Kenya, on 25 April 2010, by Brian W. Finch, using a Sony TCM 200DV recorder and Sennheiser directional microphone. Sonogram created using Raven Lite 1.0 for Windows, and background subsequently cleaned in Photoshop. Figure 2. Sonogram of the three-noted 'bell-like' calls of the coastal Tropical Boubou Laniarius aethiopicus sublacteus, recorded on Manda Island, Lamu District, Kenya, on 25 April 2010, by Brian W. Finch, using a Sony TCM 200DV recorder and Sennheiser directional microphone. Sonogram created using Raven Lite 1.0 for Windows, and background subsequently cleaned in Photoshop. or somaliensis. Mackworth-Praed & Grant (1955) had treated nigerrimus as a black morph of L.f. sublacteus and somaliensis as a synonym of L. /. erlangeri. Recent sound-recordings from Manda Island, Lamu District, north-east Kenya, have revealed that glossy all-black birds occurring alongside typical black-and-white Tropical Boubous (L. a. sublacteus) possess a vastly different vocal repertoire, making them surely worthy of more critical examination and comparison with old specimens of Laniarius nigerrimus and L. erlangeri. Four different calls were recorded, three of which were loud, ringing and explosive with an almost 'gonolek-like' quality to them, and totally unlike either Slate-coloured Boubou Laniarius funebris or any form of Tropical Boubou L. aethiopicus, as follows. Firstly, a repeated loud ivee-ooo delivered from a high exposed perch at a rate of slightly more than one per second. Secondly, a loud double weeerk-zveeerk also from a high exposed perch, lasting little more than a second, but spaced by a slightly longer interval (Fig. 1). Thirdly, a throaty four-note jhi-jhi-jhi-jhi lasting little more than a second with a c.l second pause between each set of calls. The female would join the male in a duet with a throaty soft churr commencing almost simultaneously with the male's uve-ooo call, and lasting fractionally longer. The term 'gonolek-type' is used to indicate a certain similarity between the calls of all-black birds and the two species of gonolek in western Kenya (Black- headed Gonolek Laniarius erythrogaster and Papyrus Gonolek L. mufumbiri), both of which are noted for their loud explosive calls from deep cover. Fourteen playback experiments were performed, and playback of calls of the coastal L. a. sublacteus taken in situ only attracted identical pairs of other black-and-white L. a. sublacteus, while the all-black birds exhibited no respon.se. Similarly, playback of calls of the all-black birds would immediately attract identical pairs of other all-black birds, but were ignored by black-and-white L. a. sublacteus. However, when we interchanged the calls of each of the two all-black pairs, the results were dramatic, with each becoming highly vocal and aggressive. The parachute display of the all-black male bird.s, with deep wingbeats, fully fanned tail and raised mantle feather.s, reminded BWl’ of a similar display-flight of .Sooty Boubou L. Donald A. Turner et al. 127 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) leucorhynchus that he has witnessed several times in the Mabira Forest of southern Uganda, whilst the churring notes of the female in duet, together with the males' use of high exposed perches from which to vocalise further reminded BWF of Red-naped Bushshrike L. ruficeps. Although there are no recordings of any southern Somalia birds, J. Miskell (pers. comm.) noted that in 1979 when travelling in the Shabeelle Valley with J. Mwaki, an experienced field observer and technician from the National Museums of Kenya, Mwaki commented that the call of an all-black boubou had a distinct 'gonolek-type' quality to it, rather than the bell-like quality of Tropical Boubou calls he was familiar with in Kenya. Similarly, throughout their recent stay on Manda Island, BWF & NDH were equally struck by the loud, ringing, explosive calls of all-black birds as opposed to the three-noted 'bell-like' calls of L. a. sublacteus (Fig. 2). Given that all earlier authorities have treated the all-black boubous on Manda Island as a dark morph of the coastal Tropical Boubou L. a. sublacteus, consideration must also be given to Slate-coloured Boubou. The last-named species, with which we are all very familiar, inhabits dry to semi-arid scrub, and while it was not encountered on either Manda or Lamu islands, it does occur in dry scrub on the adjacent mainland, especially at Kipini in the Tana Delta, where Fischer originally collected nigerrimus. Throughout its range. Slate-coloured Boubou is immediately recognised by its diagnostic tonk-tonk-coco-wheet call. Furthermore, its dull matt black and grey plumage is strikingly different to the glossy black with violet / green iridescence of the Manda birds. Similarly, the single specimen of nigerrimus in Berlin and the five all-black specimens in Nairobi are obviously glossy black and easily distinguishable from any Slate-coloured Boubou. The all-black Manda birds occupy tall scrubby woodland, i.e. a much 'richer' habitat than that preferred by Slate-coloured Boubou, which shuns forests of all types and on the coast is restricted to dense low semi-arid Croton thickets. That three boubous, one all glossy black, one matt black and grey, and one black and white, have been recorded within a relatively small area of coastal East Africa from the Shabeelle and Juba valleys in southern Somalia south to Manda and Kipini in north-east Kenya is remarkable. Should these all- black boubous be deemed worthy of a higher taxonomic status (which the vocal evidence from Manda suggests), rather than merely races of Tropical Boubou, the nomenclature of East African birds will require revision. (1) The all-black birds may revert to Laniarius nigerrimus, while (2) the black-and-white birds in southern Somalia would revert to L. aethiopicus somaliensis, as the taxonomic status of erlangeri as defined by Nguembock et al. (2008) would require re-evaluation because that name was originally employed by Reichenow for an all-black bird. We hope that any future critical re-examination of these coastal boubous will include samples of the all-black birds. It is abundantly clear that a thorough molecular and vocal study of all relevant populations of these confusing coastal boubous is urgently needed. Acknowledgements DAT is grateful to Dr Sylke Frahnert, Curator at the Museum fiir Naturkunde Berlin, for permitting examination of the type specimen of Dryoscopiis nigerrimus from Kipini. Similarly, NDH is grateful to the National Museums of Kenya for allowing him to examine the five all-black specimens from Manda Island and the Juba Valley in their collections. We thank David Pearson and Peter Kennerley for their assistance in preparing the sonograms, as well as Nik Borrow, Ron Demey, Fran^oise Dowsett-Lemaire and Robert Dowsett for their comments and recommendations that have greatly improved the content of the note. References: Ash, J. S & Miskell, J. E. 1998. Birds of Somalin. Pica Press, Robertsbridge. Dickinson, E. C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard and Moore complete checklist of the birds of the world. Third edn. Christopher Helm, London. Fry, C. H., Keith, S. & Urban, E. K. (eds.) 2000. The birds of Africa, vol. 6. Academic Press, London. Olivier Claessens et al. 128 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Grant, C. H. B. & Mackworth-Praed, C. W. 1944. Notes on eastern African birds. (2) On the races of Laniarius ferrugineiis ferrugineus (Gmelin) occurring in eastern Africa; and the type locality of Laniarius ferrugineiis siiblacteus (Cassin). Brit. Bull. Oni. Cl. 64; 45^8. Mackworth-Praed, C. W. & Grant, C. H. B. 1955. Birds of eastern and north eastern Africa. African handbook of birds, vol. 2. Longmans, London. Nguembock, B., Fjeldsa, J., Couloux, A. & Pasquet, E. 2008. Phylogeny of Laniarius: molecular data reveal L. liberatus synonymous with L. erlangeri and "plumage coloration" as unreliable morphological characters for defining species and species groups. Mol. Phyl. & Evol. 48: 396^07. Reichenow, A. 1879. Neue Vogel aus Ost-Afrika. Orn. Centralblatt. 4: 114. Stresemann, E. 1947. Laniarius nigerrimus (Rchw.): a mutation of Laniarius ferrugineus sublacteus (Cassin). Ibis 89: 518-519. Van Someren, V. G. L. 1922. Notes on the birds of East Africa. Novit. Zoo/. 29: 1-246. Van Someren, V. G. L. 1932. Birds of Kenya & Uganda, being addenda and corrigenda to my previous paper in Novitates Zoologicae XXIX, 1922. Novit. Zoo/. 37: 252-380. White, C. M. N. 1962. A revised check list of African shrikes, orioles, drongos, starlings, crows, waxwings, cuckoo- shrikes, bulbuls, accentors, thrushes and babblers. Government Printer, Lusaka. Addresses: Don A. Turner, P.O. Box 1651, Naivasha 20117, Kenya, e-mail mat$'wananchi.com. Brian W. Finch, P.O. Box 15568, Mbagathi, Nairobi 00503, Kenya, e-mail birdfinch@gmail.com. Nigel D. Hunter, P.O. Box 24803, Karen, Nairobi 00502, Kenya, e-mail nigelhunter@timbale.org © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 First documented records of Pearly-breasted Cuckoo Coccyztis eiileri for French Guiana, and an overlooked specimen from Ecuador by Olivier Claessens, Frederik P. Brammer, Tanguy Deville & Alexandre Renaudier Received 2 September 2010 Of the eight Coccyzus cuckoos resident in or visitors to continental South America, Pearly-breasted Cuckoo C. euleri is one of the rarest and least known. Although it is reported across most of South America east of the Andes, the species' breeding range is poorly known (Payne 1997). Breeding has been reported in northern Argentina, in Paraguay, in southern and eastern Brazil, and as far north as Roraima in northern Brazil (Payne 1997, 2005). The latter is based on a female (FMNH 343751) collected in October with an ovary measuring 14 X 10 mm, two exploded follicles and an enlarged oviduct. Northern Brazil lies far from other known breeding areas and, although a migrant could possess developed gonads prior to reaching its breeding grounds, these data prove breeding (S. W. Cardiff, M. A. Echeverrv- Galvis, A. Jones, J. V. Remsen, D. Willard iti litf. 2010). Elsewhere, Pearly-breasted Cuckoos are probably only austral migrants, as suggested by dates and the paucity of records. Only two records are known in Bolivia, both from dpto. Santa Cruz (Vidoz cl al. 2010). Two specimens and a presumed sight record are available from Esmeraldas, Pichincha and Napo provinces in northern Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001; R. S. Ridgely in liti. 2008). The species has been reported from just two localities in northern and eastern Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986). Pearly-breasted Cuckoo is uncommon and irregular in Venezuela, where the species has been reported in the Distrito Federal and from Isla Margarita, Merida, Amazonas, Apure and Bolivar, but its status in the country is unclear (1 lilty 2003, Payne 2005). A vagrant collected on Sombrero Island, the northernmost of the Lesser Antilles, is the only validated record for North America (Banks 1988, AOU 1998). Two claims in central Olivier Claessens et al. 129 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Panama, in June 2007 and June 2009 (Anon. 2009a, 2009b), were rejected by the Panama Records Committee (D. Montanez & G. Berguido in litt. 2010). However, records outside the species' usual range should be treated cautiously, due to the risk of confusion with Yellow-billed Cuckoo C. americanus, and the species may be overlooked for the same reason. Moreover, poor descriptions in field guides and the relative lack of available photographs of C. euleri do not facilitate its identification by observers unfamiliar with it, making the species' true range difficult to divine. Pearly-breasted Cuckoo is a rare austral migrant to the Guianas. In Guyana, it is scarce in lowland forests (Braun et al. 2007), while in Surinam the species is known from three specimens collected on the coastal plain in Para district, one on 28 August 1905 and two on 20 September 1964 (Ottema et al. 2009). Until recently, there was no proof of its occurrence in French Guiana. Tostain et al. (1992) mentioned one in riparian swamp forest by the Counama River on 26 July 1990, but the species was subsequently removed from the country's bird list due to lack of evidence (Claessens & Renaudier in prep.). Here we describe the first confirmed records in French Guiana. Simultaneously, a check of the bird .collection of the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN) revealed a misidentified specimen of C. eiileri from Ecuador, which is the only specimen of this species at MNHN. First records in French Guiana On 9 August 2009, TD photographed a Coccyzus cuckoo in the canopy of a Sterculia (Malvaceae) tree at Saut Parare on the Arataye River, in Nouragues Nature Reserve, in central west French Guiana (04°02'N, 52°41'W). The bird was present for c.2 minutes on the same perch before disappearing. Unfortunately, TD did not see the bird in flight, so was unable to attest to the presence or absence of any rufous in the primaries. However, the photograph (Fig. 1) shows the slim and elongated body, long tail held closed and in line with the back, and long, pointed, somewhat drooping wings; bicoloured, pointed and slightly hooked bill, the mandible yellow with a black tip and the maxilla mainly black; grey (not yellow) eye-ring; uniform brown upperparts, including the head, mantle and uppertail; pale grey breast with no salmon tinge, and whitish undertail-coverts; no mask around the eye and no grey line on the cheeks; and no rufous in the primaries. Among Coccyzus potential in the region, only C. americanus and C. euleri exhibit a combination of bicoloured bill and whitish or greyish underparts. The pearl grey instead of whitish breast, grey not yellow eye-ring, and lack of rufous in the primaries are usually considered key features to distinguish euleri from americanus (Hilty 2003, Restall et al. 2006). However, none of these characters is absolute. C. americanus with a grey eye-ring are not rare; most are first-years, but a few adults lack the yellow eye-ring typical of the species (Payne 2005). The colour of the underparts varies in americanus from pure white to pale grey, and any shadow can make them appear darker, making this character difficult to judge in the field. Furthermore, the extent of rufous in the wings is highly variable. On some specimens at MNHN it is restricted to the inner web of the primaries, making the rufous hardly visible on the closed wing. However, the colour is usually obvious, even when perched and should have been visible on the drooping wings of the French Guiana bird, if present. In any case, a combination of these three characters in C. americanus would be highly unlikely. Date, habitat and locality reinforce the identification as C. euleri. All 21 records of C. americanus in French Guiana have been in mid September to late May (GEPOG 2010, Renaudier et al. 2010, Claessens & Renaudier in prep.). In Surinam, the 24 published records are in October-November and late March-early June (Ottema et al. 2009). Early August would be very early for C. americanus in French Guiana, but a normal date for an austral Olivier Claessens et al. 130 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) migrant like C. euleri. Furthermore, C. americamis regularly occurs in semi-open anti bushy habitats in coastal French Guiana. There is just one, recent, record, on 21 April 2010, by L. Epelboin et al., in forest, in the Montagne de Kaw in north-east French Guiana, i.e. near the coastal plain. There was an unusual influx of the species into French Guiana during spring 2010 (data from Comite d'Flomologation de Guyane), which might explain this observation away from 'typical' habitat. C. americamis is an uncommon visitor to Amazonian Brazil, where it occurs in vdrzea and open habitats (Stotz et al. 1992; M. Cohn-ITaft iu litt. 2009). In contrast, C. euleri is a regular migrant to Amazonian Brazil and a canopy-dwelling species, favouring primary terra firme (M. Cohn-Flaft in litt. 2009). An observation in the canopy of primary forest in French Guiana conforms much more to euleri than americamis. The French Guiana Rarities Committee (CHG) has accepted the record as the first confirmed record of C. euleri in the country. Subsequently, on 15-17 September 2010, AR observed and tape-recorded at least seven cuckoos at two sites c.20 km apart between Roura (04°43'N, 52°19'W) and Regina (04°18'N, 52°08'W), in north-east French Guiana, including five at one site. Both sites were in forest c.45 km inland and comprised a primary forest edge along a road and a low (25 m tall) dense secondary forest, respectively, both adjacent to the primary forest that covers the interior of French Guiana. All of the birds were in the canopy, sometimes just a few hundred metres apart. One cuckoo sang spontaneously, another emitted a rattling call. All responded to playback of a recording of the song of C. euleri (XC6036, from Brazil, by C. Albano; www.xeno-canto.org) by singing or calling instantly and repeatedly. Recordings made by AR are also deposited at www.xeno-canto. org (XC721 05-109). One bird flew over the observer in response to playback, but the others did not approach and even moved away while calling or singing. Songs and rattling calls were similar to those of C. euleri on www.xeno-canto.org. Visual observation was difficult. However, those birds which were seen were rather small Coccyzus with a noticeably slim body, large white terminal spots on the underside of the long tail, brownish upperparts, a black mask, a black bill with a yellow mandible, all-whitish underparts and no rufous in the wings. However, these records were validated by the CHG based on the following: (1) location well inside forest, and habitat, i.e. canopy; (2) the large number of birds involved on a date very early for migrant C. americamis, but consistent with the occurrence of C. euleri; (3) the lack of any other records of C. americamis during the same period (there was none during the entire autumn migration); (4) the birds' strong reaction to playback of the song of C. euleri; and (5) intense vocal activity which is more likely in C. euleri pre-breeding than for C. americamis during autumn migration. Voice and plumage characters reinforced the identification of these birds as C. euleri. Overlooked specimen from Ecuador While checking the bird collection at the Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (MNHN), OC examined Coccyzus specimens looking for specific distinctive characters and variation. The collection contained no C. euleri but 30 C. americamis from North America, the Antilles and northern South America. One (MNHN 1937-76; Fig. 2) from Ecuador and labelled ‘Cocci/zus americamis? subsp.' instead showed characters consistent with C. euleri. Its wings had no trace of any rufous in the primaries, even on their inner webs. C. americamis usually shows prominent rufous in the wings (Hilty 2003, Restall 2006), which becomes paler over the primary- and greater coverts. However, in a few individuals (e.g. MNHN 1922-51) the rufous is restricted to the inner webs of the primaries and is hardly visible in the clo.sed wing. It is, however, always present and conspiciu>us in the open wing, e.g. in flight. Narrow and inconspicuous rufous fringes to the greater primary-coverts of MNHN 1937-76 might indicate a juvenile despite the annotation 'cr ad.' in the CataU^gue Olivier Claessens et al. 131 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Figure 1. Pearly-breasted Cuckoo Coccyzus euleri, Saut Parare, Nouragues Nature Reserve, French Guiana, 9 August 2009 (Tanguy Deville / ECOBIOS) Figure 2. Pearly-breasted Cuckoo Coccyzus euleri, specimen MNHN 1937-76 from north-west Ecuador, Collection Mammiferes et Oiseaux, Museum National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris (Olivier Claessens) General. In any case, this is not a specific character of americanus, as in C. americanus this colour is never restricted to the covert fringes but extends mainly over the inner webs of the primaries becoming paler on the outer webs and the wing-coverts. Its breast was greyer than that of americanus specimens, which difference was slight but obvious. The breast colour in euleri is not always as dark as in some photographs or illustrations (M. Cohn-Haft in litt. 2009) making this character the least useful for identifying C. euleri. Nonetheless, a bird with a contrasting grey breast is probably this species, and in combination with other characters strongly points to C. euleri (M. Cohn-Haft in litt. 2009). MNHN 1937-76 is slightly but obviously smaller than most americanus specimens, with a noticeably slimmer body, although size and shape in specimens greatly depends on preparation techniques, making this an unreliable character. Measurements were as follows: wing 136 mm (chord) / 137 mm (stretched), tail 120 mm, bill depth 7.6 mm, bill length 18.5 mm (nostrils to tip), 21.3 mm (feathers to tip) and 27.5 mm (skull to tip). Wing length is longer than the range given by Banks (1988) and at the upper limit given by Payne (2005) for C. euleri. The bicoloured bill is shared by both species, and eye-ring colour could not be judged. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) mention that the latter is not a reliable character, which point merits further investigation. The tail feathers showed pronounced wear and were typical of a juvenile Coccyzus (Payne 2005). They were noticeably narrower and more pointed than those of C. americanus specimens examined, possibly all of which were adults; the undertail was duller than that of americanus, and the large pale terminal spots, which were narrower and elongate, appeared also duller and less 'neat'. The bird had extensive ochraceous on the belly, but this is due to the persistence of fat in the poorly prepared skin (K. Voisin pers. comm.). This combination of characters identifies the specimen as a Pearly-breasted Cuckoo, which becomes the only C. euleri specimen held at MNHN and only the fourth published record for Ecuador. The Catalogue General at MNHN contains the following details regarding this specimen and the circumstances of its collection (translated): 'Collection of birds from Ecuador (Esmeralda area), bought from Mr Olalla, naturalist at Quito. Coccyzus americanus Olivier Claessens et al. 132 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) (L.)? subsp. Adult male'. It was registered together with 170 other specimens probably collected in north-west Ecuador, such as Pallid Dove Leptotila pallida, Bronze-winged Parrot Pioniis chalcopterus, Black-cheeked Woodpecker Melanerpes pucherani, Scarlet-backed Woodpecker Veniliornis callonotus, Red-rumped Woodpecker V. kirkii cecilii, Guayaquil Woodpecker Campephilus gayaquilensis and Lineated Woodpecker Dryocopns lineatus fiiscipennis. In Ecuador, C. eideri was known from two specimens, singles taken in prov. Esmeraldas (held at the Academy of Natural Sciences Philadelphia, ANSP 185132) and at Mindo, prov. Pichincha (now in the Mejia collection, Quito), and a sight record at Jatun Sacha, prov. Napo (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001; R. S. Ridgely in litt. 2008). The C. euleri specimen at MNHN thus constitutes an additional record for north-west Ecuador. The label states that it was collected at San Mateo, Esmeraldas, on 30 September 1936, indicating that the bird was taken pre-breeding. San Mateo (00^’58'S, 80^’50'W) is a coastal village south- west of Manta, in central Manabi (Paynter 1993). The specimen's label makes no mention of age and the indication 'adult' in the Catalogue General is erroneous, as the shape and colour of the tail feathers, and the dull tail spots, indicate that the bird is a juvenile (Pyle 1997, Payne 2005), as might also the rufous fringes to the primary-coverts. Sex was presumably deducted from a gonadal inspection, as there are no plumage differences between the sexes. Berlioz (1937) reported an 'immature' male C. a. americanus collected at San Mateo, Esmeraldas, on 30 September 1936. He noticed 'obvious traces of immaturity on tail fathers' together with the 'total absence of rufous tinge on the underwing and on flight feathers', which he interpreted as being indicative of an immature. Although Berlioz did not mention the specimen's number, we are confident that he was referring to MNHN 1937-76, because its measurements, description, locality, date and collector ('a well-known professional collector from Quito') perfectly fit this specimen. It seems unsurprising that both its collector Olalla and Berlioz misidentified it as C. americanus, considering the rarity of C. euleri in Ecuador and the poor knowledge of the species' identification and taxonomy at that time. The taxonomic status of C. euleri has long been controversial, complicated by its synonymy with Coccyzus julieni Lawrence, 1864. The latter, described from a Sombrero Island specimen, was often considered a subspecies of C. americanus (e.g., by Cory 1919). Although some earlier authors (e.g. Peters 1940) recognised South American euleri as specifically distinct from americanus, the 'euleri / julieni / americanus complex' remained diversely treated until Banks (1988) showed that euleri and julieni were synonyms and should be treated as a species apart from americanus. The name euleri was then definitively established against julieni (ICZN 1992). The history of this case was synthesised by Willis & Oniki (1990). Thus, the label of the MNHN specimen 'Coccyzus americanus (L.)? subsp.' also reflects the uncertain taxonomy of the time. Acknowledgements We warmly thank Mario Cohn-llaft for help with C. euleri identification and information concerning its status around Manaus. We are grateful to Robert Ridgely for information as to the species' status in Ecuador, to the CEPOC (Croupe d'Etude et de Protection des Oiseaux en Cuyane) for records from its ilatabase ALAPl, to the Comite d'l lomologation de Cuyane (CHG) for validating I'D and AR's rect'rds of C. euleri and for permission to mention records of C. americmius, some awaiting validation, and to the birdwatchers who contribute to these databases. I D's work was on behalf of the Cabinet EXC'fBlCLS; I D thanks Nouragues Nature Reserve for access to the reserve. AR's work for CE.POC was funded by the Direction Regionale de I'Environnement, de I'Amenagement et du I.ogement. OC thanks Jacques Cuisin for permitting access to the MNI IN collection, and Marie Portas anti Kristoff Voisin for comments concerning taxidermy. Rasmus Boglr, Steven W. Cardiff, Maria A. Echeverry-Calvis, Aiuly Jone.s, I'tKld Mark, Van Remsen and David Willard contributed profitable discussions during this paper's preparation. Cuillaume I.eotard helped with tree Olivier Claessens et al. 133 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) identification. Johan Ingels commented on earlier drafts and helped translate the paper to English. Guy M. Kirwan kindly made many corrections to our English. References: American Ornithologists' Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American birds. Seventh edn. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington DC. Anon. 2009a. Mystery cuckoo, revisited. Xenornis June 9 (www.xenornis.eom/2009/06/mystery-cuckoo- revisited.html). Anon. 2009b. Mystery cuckoo in Las Macanas. Xenornis July 4 (www.xenomis.eom/2009/07/mystery-cuckoo- in-las-macanas.html) . Banks, R. C. 1988. An old record of the Pearly-breasted Cuckoo in North America and a nomenclatural critique. Bull. Brit. Orn. Cl. 108: 87-90. Berlioz, J. 1937. Notes sur quelques oiseaux rares ou peu connus de I'Equateur. Bull. Mus. Nat. Hist. Nat. Paris, ser. 2 9: 114-118. Braun, M. J., Finch, D. W., Robbins, M. B. & Schmidt, B. K. 2007. A field checklist of the birds of Guyana. Second edn. Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC. Claessens, O. & Renaudier, A. in prep. Checklist of the birds of French Guiana. Croupe d'Etude et de Protection des Oiseaux en Guyane. Cory, C. B. 1919. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and related islands, pt. 2(2). Field Mus. Nat. Hist. Publ, Zool. Ser. 13(6). Hilty, S. L. 2003. Birds of Venezuela. Christopher Helm, London. Hilty, S. L. & Brown, W. L. 1986. A guide to the birds ofGolombia. Princeton Univ. Press. International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN). 1992. Opinion 1688. Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): specific name conserved. Bull. Zool. Nomenclature 49: 178-179. Ottema, O. H., Ribot, J. H. & Spaans, A. L. 2009. Annotated checklist of the birds of Suriname. WWF Guianas, Paramaribo. Payne, R. B. 1997. Family Cuculidae (cuckoos). Pp. 508-610 in del Hoyo, J. Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 4. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Payne, R. B. 2005. The cuckoos. Oxford Univ. Press. Paynter, R. A. 1993. Ornithological gazetteer of Ecuador. Mus. of Comp. Zool., Cambridge, MA. Peters, J. L. 1940. Check-list of the birds of the world, vol. 4. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, MA. Pyle, P. 1997. Identification guide to North American birds. Part I: Columbidae to Ploceidae. Slate Creek Press, Bolinas, CA. Renaudier, A., Claessens, O. & Comite d'Homologation de Guyane 2010. Les oiseaux rares en Guyane en 2008 et 2009. Rapport du Comite d'Homologation de Guyane (http://pagesperso-orange.fr/GEPOG/ CHG/). Restall, R., Rodner, C. & Lentino, M. 2006. Birds of northern South America. Christopher Helm, London. Ridgely, R. S. & Greenfield, P. J. 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Christopher Helm, London. Stotz, D. F., Bierregaard, R. O., Cohn-Haft, M., Petermann, P., Smith, J., Whittaker, A. & Wilson, S. V. 1992. The status of North American migrants in central Amazonian Brazil. Condor 94: 608-621. Tostain, O., Dujardin, J. L., Erard, C. & Thiollay, J. M. 1992. Oiseaux de Guyane. Societe d'Etudes Ornithologiques, Brunoy, France. Vidoz, J. Q., Jahn, A. E. & Mamani, A. M. 2010. The avifauna of Estacion Biologica Capani, Bolivia. Gotinga 32: 5-22. Willis, E. O. & Oniki, Y. 1990: Case 2727. Coccyzus euleri Cabanis, 1873 (Aves, Cuculiformes): proposed conservation of the specific name. Bull. Zool. Nomenclature 47: 195-197. Addresses: Olivier Claessens, 31 rue Bernard Palissy, F-77210 Avon, France, e-mail: oclaessens@wanadoo. fr. Frederik P. Brammer, Rua Rui Coelho de Oliveira Filho 51 apto. 31, Sorocaba, SP 18030-163, Brazil, e-mail: frebram@gmail.com. Tanguy Deville, c/o Sonia Malatre, chemin Montravel, F-97354 Remire- Montjoly, France, e-mail: semilimax@no-log.org. Alexandre Renaudier, rue Aliluwai, bourg d'Awala, F-97319 Awala-Yalimapo, France, e-mail: alex.renaudier@wanadoo.fr © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 Marluci Muller Rebelato et al. 134 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) First documented record of Sharp-billed Canastero Asthenes pyrrholeuca in Brazil by Marluci Muller Rebelato, Carla Suertegaray Fontana, March Repenning & Paulo Afonso Hartmann Received 30 September 2010 Sharp-billed Canastero Asthenes pyrrholeuca breeds principally in Argentina, with smaller populations in Chile, Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay (Ridgely & Tudor 1994). Two subspecies are recognised. A. p. sordida breeds in central-south Chile and central-east Argentina. It is considered partially resident with unknown numbers migrating north in the austral winter, when it reaches northern and north-west Argentina, and southern Bolivia. A. p. pyrrholeuca breeds in central-south Argentina with some birds reaching northern and north-east Argentina as well as southern Paraguay (Hayes et al. 1994, Remsen 2003, Di Giacomo 2005). In Brazil, it was first recorded in extreme south-west Rio Grande do Sul state, near the border with Argentina (Uruguaiana), on 31 May 2001, in marshy habitat, and at the Uruguayan border (Quarai), on 9 May 2005, in dry tall grasses among Acacia caven trees (Bencke et al. 2002, Repenning & Fontana 2007; Fig. 1). However, because of the lack of documentation in both cases, the species resides on the secondary list of Brazilian birds (CBRO 2009). 53° 51° 48° l igurc' I. Map showing nil known roconls of Shnrp-bilk'd Cnnnstoro Astlu'iu's p\/nholi'iiai from Brn/il: (I) Near thu rio Uruguay, Uruguaiana municipality (29"55'S, 57°IB'W), (2) Areal district, Quarai municipality (30"25'S, 56°23'W) and (3) Sao (iabriel municipality (3(ri8'S, 54°24'W). Marluci Muller Rebelato et al. 135 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Figure 2. Ventral and lateral views of adult male Sharp-billed Canastero Asthenes p. pyrrholeiica (MCP 2804) found dead in Sao Gabriel municipality, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, on 9 March 2010 (Marcio Repenning) We conducted observations on road-killed birds over 4 km of the BR-290, in May 2009-May 2010, in Sao Gabriel municipality in the centre-west of Rio Grande do Sul (Fig. 1). Natural vegetation in the area is a mosaic of grassland and scrub (Teixeira et al. 1986, Leite & Klein 1990). In the morning of 29 May 2009, a freshly dead bird was found at km 427 (30°18'S, 54°24'W). The bird probably collided with a car when flying across the road, suggesting that it was perhaps foraging in the surrounding grassland and marshy vegetation with low and sparse bushes. The specimen was sent to the Laboratory of Ornithology at the Museu de Ciencias e Tecnologia, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), and was identified as A. p. pyrrholeuca {sensii Vaurie et al. 1980, Remsen 2003) based on the dark brown upperparts. It was prepared as a specimen and deposited in the collection of the same institution (MCP 2804). It was a male: testes (left) 2.0 x 1.0 mm and (right) 1.5 x l.O mm, weight 12.1 g, total length 162 mm, culmen length 13.80 mm and tail length 84 mm. Soft parts colours: bill Sepia with base of mandible Light Drab and tarsus Blackish Neutral Gray (Smithe 1975) (Fig. 2). These features and measurements distinguished the specimen from Short-billed Canastero Asthenes baeri, which is known to breed in Rio Grande do Sul (Remsen 2003). This record and the previous two Brazilian observations (Bencke et al. 2002, Repemaing & Fontana 2007) confirm that A. p. pyrrholeuca does migrate north (Palerm 1971, Remsen 2003), even as far as Brazil. Our May specimen confirms the hypothesis that the species is present in southern Brazil in autumn (Repenning & Fontana 2007). This first Brazilian specimen means that the species can be added to the primary list of Brazilian birds and is probably a winter visitor to far southern Brazil. Acknowledgements We thank Vinicius Bastazini, Giovanni Mauricio and Rafael Dias for English revision and literature support. Ismael Franz, Guy Kirwan and two referees, Jose Fernando Pacheco and Andrew Whittaker, provided Marluci Muller Rebelato et al. 136 Bull. B.O.C 2011 131(2) valuable suggestions on the manuscript. Field assistance was provided by Baresi Freitas Delabary and Liliana Mendes Mainardi. References: Bencke, G. A., Fontana, C. S. & Lima, A. M. 2002. Registro de dois novos passeriformes para o Brasil; Serpophaga griseiceps (Tyrannidae) e Asthenes pyrrholeuca (Furnariidae). Ararajuba 12: 266-269. Comite Brasileiro de Registros Ornitologicos (CBRO). 2009. Lista das aves do Brasil. Versao 09/08/2009. www.cbro.org.br (accessed 13 March 2010). Di Giacomo, A. G. 2005. Aves de la Reserva El Bagual. Pp. 201^05 m Di Giacomo, A. G. & Krapovickas, S. F. (eds.) Temas de mtiiraleza y consenmcion, vol. 4. Asociacion Ornitologica del Plata, Buenos Aires. Hayes, F. E., Scharf, P. A. & Ridgely, R. S. 1994. Austral bird migrants in Paraguay. Condor 96: 83-97. Hellmayr, C. E. 1925. Catalogue of birds of the Americas and the adjacent islands, pt. 4. Field Miis. Nat. Hist. Pitbl., Zoo/. Ser. 13(4). Leite, P. F. & Klein, R. M. 1990. Vegetagao. Pp. 113-150 in Mesquita O. V. (ed.) Geografia do Brasil: regido sul. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatisfica, Rio de Janeiro. Palerm, E. 1971. El genero Asthenes (Passeriformes, Furnariidae) en el Uruguay, con mencion de una nueva especie para nuestro territorio. Bol. Soc. Zool. Uruguay 1: 45^7. Remsen, J. V. 2003. Family Furnariidae (ovenbirds). Pp. 162-357 in del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Christie, D. A. (eds.) Handbook of the birds of the world, vol. 8. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona. Repenning, M. & Fontana, C. S. 2007. Novos registros de aves raras e/ou amea(;adas de extin(;ao na Campanha do sudoeste do Rio Grande do Sul, Brasil. Rev. Bras. Orn. 16: 58-63. Ridgely, R. S. & Tudor, G. 1994. The birds of South America, vol. 2. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin. Smithe, F. B. 1975. Naturalist's color guide. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist, New York. Teixeira, M. B., Coura-Neto, A. B., Pastore, U. & Rangel Filho, L. R. 1986. Vegeta^ao. Pp. 541-632 in Levantamento de recursos naturais, vol. 33. Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatisfica, Rio de Janeiro. Vaurie, C. 1980. Taxonomy and geographical distribution of the Furnariidae (Aves, Passeriformes). Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 166: 1-357. Addresses: Marluci Miiiler Rebelato, Universidade Federal do Pampa, Campus Sao Gabriel, Sao Gabriel, RS, Brazil, e-mail: mmrebelato^^yahoo. com.br. Carla Suertegaray Fontana and Marcio Repenning, Laboratorio de Ornitologia, Museu de Ciencias e Tecnologia e Programa de Pos Gradua<;ao em Biociencias-Zoologia, Pontificia Universidade Catolica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, e-mails: carla®'pucrs.br (corresponding author), mrepenning®>gmail.com. Paulo Afonso Harfmann, Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, Campus Erechim, Erechim, RS, Brazil, e-mail; hartmann.paulo@gmail.com © British Ornithologists' Club 2011 BOC Office P.O. Box 417, Peterborough PE7 3FX, UK E-mail: boc.office@bou.org.uk. Website: www.boc-online.org Tel. & Fax: +44 (0)1733 844 820. MEMBERSHIP Subscriptions were due for renewal on 1 January 2011. If you have not already paid, please do so immediately. Please note that a single subscription rate of £20 applies regardless of whether the subscriber is a member of the BOU or not. The US$ alternative is no longer available. All paid-up members receive (postage free) four issues of the Bulletin (including index). Membership correspondence and applications for membership, changes of address and all other membership related items should be addressed to the BOC Office (above). No registered items should be sent to the P.O. Box. Contact BOC Office for direct mail of such items. For general Club correspondence see below. » INSTITUTIONAL SUBSCRIBERS & APPLICATIONS FOR BACK NUMBERS OR OTHER CLUB PUBLICATIONS The Bulletin, together with armual index, may be purchased (postage free) by Institutional Subscribers, on payment of an annual subscription of £50 to the BOC Office (above) or via the BOC website (www.boc-online. org). Please note that the US$ option is no longer available. Back issues of the Bulletin are available from the BOC Office (above). BOC Occasional Publications and other BOC publications are available from the BOC Office or online from the BOC website (www.boc-online.org). Ideas for future publications should be referred direct to: Dr D. R. Wells, BOU/BOC Commissioning Editor, do BOC Office, P.O. Box 417, Peterborough, PE7 3FX, UK. PAYMENTS All amounts quoted are net, should be paid in £ Sterling and sent to the BOC Office (above). Other currencies are not accepted. Other currency users can pay by credit card from which the Sterling amount will be deducted and the amount in your local currency will be indicated on your card statement. All cheques or drafts should be made payable to British Ornithologists' Club. Direct bank transfers can be made to CAF Bank Ltd, 25 Kings Hill Avenue, Kings Hill, West Mailing, Kent, MEW 4JQ. Sort Code: 40-52-40. Account no: 00018536, with confirmation to the BOC Office (above). CLUB CORRESPONDENCE Correspondence on all general Club matters should be addressed to the acting Hon. Secretary, Dr R. P. (Robert) Prys-Jones, Bird Group, Dept, of Zoology, Nahiral History Museum, Akeman Street, Tring HP236AP, UK (e-mail: r.prys-jones@nhm.ac.uk). See inside front cover for details of Club meetings. COMMITTEE Miss H. Baker (Chninnan) (2009) Dr R. P. Prys-Jones {acting Hon. Secretary from Jan. 2011) S. A. H. Statham {Hon. Secretary 2004-Dec. 2010) D. J. Montier {Hon. Treasurer) (1997) D. J. Fisher {acting Vice Chairman from Jan. 2011) S. M. S. Gregory (2009) K. Heron Jones (2009) C. W. R. Storey (2009) M. J. Walton (2008) Ex-officio members Hon. Editor: G. M. Kirwan (1 January 2004) Chairman of BOU/BOC Joint Publications Committee (JPC): S. P. Dudley Administration Manager: S. P. Dudley (2005) BOU/BOC Commissioning Editor: Dr D. R. Wells (2009) Registered Charity No. 279583 Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club ISSN 0007-1595 Edited by Guy M. Kirwan Volume 131, Number 2, pages 73-136 CONTENTS Club Announcements 73 KIRWAN, G. M. External characters suggest that Long-tailed Manakin Chiroxiplua linearis is monotypic 76 LEADER, P. J. Taxonomy of the Pacific Swift Apus pacificus Latham, 1802, complex 81 MADIKA, B„ PUTRA, D. D., HARRIS, J. B. C., YONG, D. L., MALLO, F. N„ RAHMAN, A., PRAWIRADILAGA, D. M. & RASMUSSEN, P. C. An undescribed Ninox hawk owl from the highlands of Central Sulawesi, Indonesia? 94 DAVID, N. & GOSSELIN, M. Gender agreement of avian species-group names under Article 31.2.2 of the ICZN Code 103 PYLE, P. Nomenclature of the Laysan Honeycreeper Himatione lsanguinea]fraithii 116 HANDSCHUH, M., VAN ZALINGE, R. N., OLSSON, U., SAMPHOS, P., CHAMNAN, H. & EVANS, T. D. First confirmed record and first breeding record of Indian Spotted Eagle Aquila hastata in Indochina 118 BANKS, R. C. The type locality of the Olive Warbler (Peucedramidae) 122 TURNER, D. A., FINCH, B. W. & HUNTER, N. D. Remarks concerning the all-black coastal boubous (Laniarius spp.) of Kenya and southern Somalia 125 CLAESSENS, O., BRAMMER, F. P., DEVILLE, T. & RENAUDIER, A. First documented records of Pearly-breasted Cuckoo Coccyzus euleri for French Guiana, and an overlooked specimen from Ecuador 128 MULLER REBELATO, M., FONTANA, C. S., REPENNING, M. & HARTMANN, P. A. First documented record of Sharp-billed Canastero Asthenes pyrrholeuca in Brazil 134 EDITORIAL BOARD Murray Bruce, R. T. Chesser, Edward C. Dickinson, Francjoise Dowsett-Lemaire, Steven M. S. Gregory, Jose Fernando Pacheco, Robert B. Payne, Pamela C. Rasmussen, Cees Roselaar, Thomas S. Schulenberg, Lars Svensson Authors are invited to submit papers on topics relating to the broad themes of taxonomy, nomenclature and distribution of birds. Descriptions of new species are especially welcome and will be given priority to ensure rapid publication, subject to successful passage through the normal peer review procedure, and wherever possible should be accompanied by colour photographs or paintings. On submission, manuscripts, double- spaced and with wide margins, should be sent to the Editor, Guy Kirwan, by e-mail, to GMKirwan@aol.com. Alternatively, two copies of manuscripts, typed on one side of the paper, may be submitted to the Editor, 74 Waddington Street, Norwich NR2 4JS, UK. Where appropriate half-tone photographs may be included and, where essential to illustrate important points, the Editor will consider the inclusion of colour figures (if possible, authors should obtain funding to support the inclusion of such colour illustrations). Review, return of manuscripts for revision and subsequent stages of the publication process will be undertaken electronically. For instructions on style, see the inside rear cover of Bulletin 131(1) or the BOC website. Registered Charity No. 279583 © British Ornithologists' Club 2010 www.boc-online.org Printed on acid-free paper. Published by the British Ornithologists' Club Typeset by Alcedo Publishing of Arizona, USA, and printed by Latimer Trend, UK