ABA Blog

2013 AOU Check-List Changes

The July issue of The Auk has just been published by the American Ornithologists’ Union, and like every year, it contains a supplement to the AOU Check-List. The ABA Checklist automatically adopts changes in taxonomy adopted by the AOU, so these changes are in effect immediately with regard to the ABA Checklist.

 --=====--

CHANGES THAT AFFECT CANADA AND THE U.S.

The biggest news for ABA Area birders this year is that Sage Sparrow has been split into Sagebrush Sparrow (Artemisiospiza nevadensis) and Bell’s Sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli). The latter species includes the intermediate-looking, interior-California-breeding subspecies called canescens. It is hinted that this population may yet be split from Bell’s Sparrow and become a species of its own. Most if not all vagrant records of “Sage Sparrow” in the central and eastern parts of North America pertain to Sagebrush Sparrow.

The newly split Bell's Sparrow, this one from Baja California, Mexico, photo by Jorge Montejo via flickr

The “Little Shearwater” which occurs off eastern North America is now called Barolo Shearwater (Puffinis baroli). A record of “Little Shearwater” from California is no longer considered to have been identified unequivocally.

 --=====--

That’s it for species splits. Now onto the scientific name and checklist sequence changes.

The following species are now placed within Calidris, and their former monotypic genera disappear.

• Surfbird (Aphriza virgata => Calidris virgata)
• Spoon-billed Sandpiper (Eurynorhynchus pygmeus => Calidris pygmea)
• Broad-billed Sandpiper (Limicola falcinellus => Calidris falcinellus)
• Buff-breasted Sandpiper (Tryngites subruficollis => Calidris subruficollis)
• Ruff (Philomachus pugnax => Calidris pugnax)

 The sequence of species within the genus Calidris changes to the following, keeping in mind the genus’s new members outlined above.

• Great Knot
• Red Knot
• Surfbird
• Ruff
• Broad-billed Sandpiper
• Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
• Stilt Sandpiper
• Curlew Sandpiper
• Temminck’s Stint
• Long-toed Stint
• Spoon-billed Sandpiper
• Red-necked Stint
• Sanderling
• Dunlin
• Rock Sandpiper
• Purple Sandpiper
• Baird’s Sandpiper
• Little Stint
• Least Sandpiper
• White-rumped Sandpiper
• Buff-breasted Sandpiper
• Pectoral Sandpiper
• Semipalmated Sandpiper
• Western Sandpiper

Furthermore, the order Charadriiformes is reorganized, as follows

 Suborder Charadrii

• Family Burhinidae (thick-knees)
• Family Recurvirostridae (avocets and stilts)
• Family Haematopodidae (oystercatchers)
• Family Charadriidae (plovers)

Suborder Scolopaci

• Family Jacanidae (jaçanas)
• Family Scolopacidae (sandpipers)

Suborder Lari

• Family Glareolidae (pratincoles and coursers)
• Family Stercorariidae (skuas and jaegers)
• Family Alcidae (alcids)
• Family Laridae (gulls, terns, and skimmers)

The name for the sandgrouse order was changed from Pteroclidiformes to Pterocliformes.

Flammulated Owl is moved from the genus Otus (that of the Old World scops-owls) and placed in a new, monotypic genus. Its scientific name is now Psiloscops flammeolus.

The scientific names of some of the silky-flycatchers change. Genus Ptilogonys (including Gray Silky-flycatcher) changes to Ptiliogonys. The family, of which Phainopepla is also a member, changes from Ptilogonatidae to Ptiliogonatidae.

The sequence of species in the mimid family changes as follows. Species not currently on the ABA Checklist are marked with an asterisk.

• Blue Mockingbird
• Blue-and-white Mockingbird*
• Black Catbird*
• Gray Catbird
• White-breasted Thrasher*
• Scaly-breasted Thrasher*
• Pearly-eyed Thrasher*
• Brown Trembler*
• Gray Trembler*
• Curve-billed Thrasher
• Ocellated Thrasher*
• Brown Thrasher
• Long-billed Thrasher
• Cozumel Thrasher*
• Bendire’s Thrasher
• Gray Thrasher*
• California Thrasher
• Le Conte’s Thrasher
• Crissal Thrasher
• Sage Thrasher
• Bahama Mockingbird
• Socorro Mockingbird*
• Tropical Mockingbird*
• Northern Mockingbird

The sequence of the three Haemorhous (formerly Carpodacus) finches has changed to the following.

• House Finch
• Purple Finch
• Cassin’s Finch

The subfamily Drepanidinae (Hawaiian honeycreepers) disappears, as it is subsumed into the subfamily Carduelinae. The Hawaiian honeycreepers really just are, it seems, highly-diverged members of the goldfinch clan. Their position in the list changes, now coming immediately after Eurasian Bullfinch, but their internal sequence is unchanged.

Hawaiian Creeper, one of those aforementioned honeycreepers, gets a change of scientific name. It was formerly a member of a monotypic genus: Oreomystis. It is now Loxops mana. It shares this genus with ‘Akeke’e and ‘Ākepa, and it now precedes the former in the checklist sequence.

--=====-- 

IN MIDDLE AMERICA AND THE WEST INDES

The Cuban endemic Bare-legged Owl has its monotypic genus changed. It is now Margarobyas lawrencii. Formerly known as Cuban Screech-Owl.

Green-crowned and Violet-crowned woodnymphs are lumped into Crowned Woodnymph (Thalurania colombica), based on apparent interbreeding in Colombia. In Pamama, however, the two are not known to come into contact.

Western Slaty-Antshrike has its common name changed to Black-crowned Antshrike. Genetic evidence shows it is not related to the South American slaty-antshrikes (sensu stricto).

Zeledon’s Antbird (Myrmeciza zeledoni), found from Costa Rica to Ecuador, is split from Immaculate Antbird (M. immaculata) of Colombia and Venezuela.

Rufous-rumped Antwren has a change of genus. It is now Euchrepomis callinota.

Thrush-like Schiffornis split into four species, among them two are found in North America: the dull, olivaceous Northern Schiffornis (Schiffornis veraepacis) and the more reddish Russet-winged Schiffornis (Schiffornis stenorhyncha). Northern Schiffornis is found from Mexico south into Peru. Russet-winged Schiffornis is found from central Panama to northern Venezuela. Where the two species are in close proximity, Northern is often found at higher elevations (with Cerro Pirre being a notable exception). The two species are visually and vocally distinct.

The genus Chloropipo is dissolved into Xenopipo. This impacts Green Manakin, now Xenopipo holochlora.

Golden-headed and Red-capped manakins are moved to a new genus. Red-capped Manakin changes from Pipra mentalis to Ceratopipra mentalis. and Golden-headed from Pipra erythrocephala to Ceratopipra erythrocephala.

The checklist sequence of the manakins also changes, as follows.

• White-ruffed Manakin
• Lance-tailed Manakin
• Long-tailed Manakin
• Green Manakin
• White-crowned Manakin
• Red-capped Manakin
• Golden-headed Manakin
• White-collared Manakin
• Orange-collared Manakin
• Golden-collared Manakin
• Blue-crowned Manakin

The scientific name of the (almost certainly paraphyletic but not-yet-split) Common Bush-Tanager changes from Chlorospingus ophthalmicus to Chlorospingus. flavopectus.

 --=====--

REJECTED PROPOSALS

A change in genus name for Yellow-crowned Night-Heron from Nyctanassa to Nyctherodius.

Split of American Thalasseus acuflavidus (Cabot’s Tern) from Sandwich Tern.

Split of Guatemalan Pygmy-Owl (Glaucidium cobanense) from Northern Pygmy-Owl.

Split of Velasquez’s Woodpecker (Melanerpes santacruzi) from Golden-fronted Woodpecker.

Split of Myiarchus flavidior (Ridgway’s Flycatcher) from Nutting’s Flycatcher. Ridgway's lives on the Soconusco Plain, on the Pacific slope of Chiapas, Mexico's southermost state. Its range may be similar to that of Giant Wren. 

Further splitting of Canada Goose.

Split of White-breasted Nuthatch.

Lump of the three American-breeding rosy-finches into American Rosy-Finch (L. tephrocotis).

--=====-- 

“OLD NEWS”

As a general policy, the AOU accepts as additions to the checklist, any species the ABA CLC (American Birding Association Checklist Committee) adds to its list which are not already on the AOU’s list. So these actions affect their checklist, not the ABA's. This year, those species include:

Providence Petrel, on the basis on multiple birds photographed off Attu in 2011. Also known as Solander’s Petrel.

Fea’s Petrel

Common Moorhen (sensu stricto), based on 2010 Shemya I. record.

Rosy-faced Lovebird, based on the established population in the Phoenix, AZ area. Also known as Peach-faced Lovebird.

Nanday Parakeet, based on the established population in Florida. Also known as Black-hooded Parakeet.

Asian Rosy-Finch, based on the 2011 Adak record.

Habitat, More than Turbines, Impacts Prairie Chicken Populations

Via DC Birding Blog

photo from USFW, via flickr

In a finding that hopefully will hopefully steer a course towards more responsible management of wind energy interests, the results of a recently released seven year study undertaken by a team of researchers from Kansas State University and financed by a broad array of stakeholders found that wind turbine presence did not strongly affect the nesting success of Greater Prairie-Chickens in a study plot in Kansas. The critical factor impacting the chickens was, as one might expect, the quality of the habitat and the loss of native vegetation cover. 

The findings, published this week in  is perhaps not too surprising, but it does potentially pave the way towards mitigation strategies that could improve the habitat for prairie-chickens around wind turbine sites, which, strangely enough may offer some small advantages for the nesting birds. 

The results are somewhat surprising, especially because similar studies have shown that oil and gas development affect prairie chickens, [Professor of Biology and lead researcher Brett] Sandercock said. With wind power development, the researchers had the unexpected result of female survival rates increasing after wind turbines were installed, potentially because wind turbines may keep predators away from nest sites. Female mortality rates are highest during the breeding season because females are more focused on protecting clutches than avoiding predators, Sandercock said.

"What's quite typical for these birds is most of the demographic losses are driven by predation. We can say that with confidence," Sandercock said. "What's a little unclear from our results is whether that increase in female survivorship was due to the effects of wind turbines on predators."

More work remains to be done, particularly looking at burning and grazing strategies that may provide better quality habitat for these birds, but perhaps we'll see the start of some effective wind energy guidelines, at least on the vast middle of the continent, in the wake of this report. 

More information is available on Science Daily. 

The State of the Birds 2013: Report on Private Lands in the U.S.

When land does well for its owner, and the owner does well by his land; when both end up better by reason of their partnership, we have conservation.
—Aldo Leopold, The Farmer as a Conservationist

Yesterday afternoon the 2013 U.S. State of the Birds Report was released, the nation’s first review of bird distribution and conservation opportunities on private lands. This collaborative effort of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative included partners from across the country and highlights the enormous contributions private landowners make to bird and habitat conservation. In the report you can read about endangered species whose populations are supported almost entirely by private lands, such as the Golden-cheeked Warbler of central Texas. You’ll also learn about innovative win-win solutions for working lands, like the conservation easement on 14,000 acres of shortgrass prairie on the Wineiger-Davis Ranch in Colorado, which both helps sustain the family’s livelihood and also supports Mountain Plover populations.

Private landowners, including two million ranchers and farmers and about 10 million woodland owners, own and manage 1.43 billion acres, roughly 60% of the land area of the United States. Private lands are used by virtually all of the terrestrial and coastal birds of the U.S., 251 of which are federally threatened, endangered or of conservation concern. Many privately owned working lands that produce food, timber, and other resources for society also provide valuable habitat for birds.

 

Percentage of primary habitats on private, public, and tribal lands in the lower 48 states, Alaska, Hawai`i, Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Wetlands are not depicted because of insufficient data.

The scientific data show a very high dependence on private lands among grassland, wetland, and eastern forest birds, as well as the tremendous potential for bird conservation. Half of the more than 200 bird species analyzed in this report have 50% or more of their distributions on private lands in the U.S.

 

• Privately-owned wetlands support more than 75% of the breeding and wintering distributions of waterfowl such as American Black Duck, Blue-winged Teal, Northern Pintail, and Wood Duck.
• Coastal areas constitute only 9% of the total land area of the U.S. (excluding Alaska and Caribbean and Pacific Islands), but 25% of all bird species in North America use coastal habitats for some part of their annual cycle.
• Hawai`i accounts for approximately 0.2% of the area of the U.S., yet it contains 33% of all
  federally endangered bird species.
• Seven breeding obligate grassland bird species, including Eastern Meadowlark and Dickcissel, have more than 90% of their distribution on private lands.

 

With 97% of their distribution on private lands, Eastern Meadowlarks depend on the grassland habitat provided by pastures and farm fields. Six other obligate grassland breeding bird species also have distributions greater than 90% on private lands. Eastern Meadowlark by Joshua Clark, www.momentsinature.com.

 

Success Stories

The report highlights success stories of the real and meaningful conservation impacts that the actions of voluntary private landowners can have on birds and their habitats.

• Through the Farm Bill’s Working Lands for Wildlife Program, more than 700 ranchers in eleven western states are enhancing 2.5 million acres of aridlands habitat for the benefit of sage-grouse.
• The Machias River Project in Maine protected 60,000 acres via purchase and easements, completing a mega block of contiguous habitat for 28 bird species of conservation concern, including Canada Warbler.
• Nearly 250 private landowners in Nebraska and Colorado have protected more than 1,000 nests of the imperiled Mountain Plover as part of the Prairie Partners Mountain Plover Nest Conservation Program.
• In Illinois, regional spring counts of Henslow’s Sparrows are 25 times higher than 30 years ago, prior to the creation of the Farm Bill’s Conservation Reserve Program.
• Following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2012, landowners in 8 southeastern states voluntarily enrolled more than 470,000 acres in Farm Bill conservation programs as part of the Migratory Bird Habitat Initiative, providing habitat for wading birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl.

The report’s take-home message is this: both birds and people rely on private lands, and that reliance is only going to increase as populations grow and our demand for things like food, timber, and energy increase. In order to support these growing needs, we must develop and support the continued use of creative strategies, programs, and partnerships for working landscapes that support not only the people whose livelihoods rely on them, but also the conservation of bird populations.

You can download the complete State of the Birds 2013: Report on Private Lands at http://stateofthebirds.org. You can also view more detailed information about specific habitats, as well as landowner efforts to support bird conservation. Finally, you can view detailed species distribution maps, supported by eBird data.

Mercury Poisoning and its Effects on Birds

John Beetham of DC Birding Blog, whose curation of noteworthy bird notes every week is among the very best of any subject on the web, draws attention to a recent study that offers a great deal of insight into one of the more insidious and quiet killers of wild birds in North America, mercury poisoning.

photo by nebirdsplus via flickr

We're well aware of mercury's effects as a neurotoxin on human populations such that stringent restrictions are placed on its disposal, but methylmercury has been documented in several bird species as well and while we don't know the extent of how it manifests in birds, we do know that it can impact learning and memory (much as it does in humans). This means that birds affected by mercury in their environment can have difficulty memorizing and retaining songs, among other things.

That study Beetham elaborates on was one authored by Sheila Scoville and Oksana Lane and published in the Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology concerning the analysis of the tissues of a young Saltmarsh Sparrow, particularly the bird's brain, which suggested disturbing things about the omnipresence of mercury in many ecosystems.

From John's post:

Based on feather samples taken from adult birds at the study site, it can be inferred that this fledgling's mother had high exposure to mercury at the time that she laid her eggs. This is analogous to in utero exposure in humans. In humans, in utero exposure can lead to brain abnormalities like Minamata Disease. This fledgling Saltmarsh Sparrow showed abnormalities in its cerebellum that would have similar effects on motor control and coordination. Birds with these sorts of defects would have trouble recognizing and escaping danger, thus making them more susceptible to predation and accidental deaths.

While this fledgling Saltmarsh Sparrow is only one data point, the findings have disturbing implications. Since mercury levels among adult birds were so high, many other young Saltmarsh Sparrows are presumably exposed to mercury at the time of egg formation. We cannot know how many of them have brain abnormalities like the one documented in this study, but it seems safe to assume that the problem is widespread.

It's hard to know precisely what to do about this issue. Chief among contributing factors are coal-burning power plants, which are the single greatest source of methylmercury in the environment. In addition to climate concerns, it seems critical that we shift away from coal as an energy source to reduce the amount of mercury entering these ecosystems for the sake of those birds, and other wildlife, that are clearly feeling the stress.

The full paper is available here.

Living With Shorebirds

A review by Rick Wright

Epic Journeys, by Shawn Carey

Migration Productions, 2012

34 minutes, $20.00—DVD

ABA Sales / Buteo Books 13814

The wildest of birds are the shorebirds, long-winged spirits of marsh and beach and prairie. For tens of thousands of years, the lives of migrant waders and the lives of North America's human inhabitants intersected only briefly and casually: Even the devastating slaughters of the nineteenth century, when gunners shipped carloads of plovers, godwits, and tiny short-billed curlews to eastern cities, were limited to those few days a year when the migrants, some of them coming from as far as Tierra del Fuego, paused on their way to the boreal forests and the Arctic.    

Dying at the hands of the market hunters was bad enough, of course, but living with us here in the early twenty-first century is no picnic on the beach, either. Dunes and mudflats, once "wastelands" left to the birds, the crabs, and the goldenrod, are now real estate, and human fishermen even compete for shorebird food in the waters of Delaware Bay. 

Shawn Carey, whose Migration Productions has also given us the fine Looking Skyward, explores these problems in a new and visually spectacular short film, Epic Journeys. Focusing on three signature species of the east coast of the US and Canada, the video asks how we can learn to share the shoreline with its wild inhabitants—and offers some encouragingly hopeful answers.     

The current poster bird for shorebird conservation is the Red Knot, whose west Atlantic population has declined precipitously in just a short generation, victim of a bizarre and human-induced food shortage in Delaware Bay, where most of the birds stage on the northbound flight each May. For millennia, Red Knots, Semipalmated Sandpipers, Sanderlings, Ruddy Turnstones, and Laughing Gulls feasted every spring on the billions and billions of eggs laid by horseshoe crabs, waxing fat for the breeding season ahead. Those same "crabs"—actually more closely related to arachnids than to the familiar fiddlers and ghosts—are also, wouldn't you know it, a convenient source of bait for the eel fishery, and in the 1980s and 1990s, the human harvest began to depress the population, resulting in fewer horseshoe crab eggs, resulting in skinnier shorebirds, resulting in less recruitment, resulting in the loss of up to 90% of the world's population of rufa Red Knots. 

The film rehearses this sad story in short interviews with prominent ornithologists and bird conservationists, many of them well known to ABA birders. Dire as the situation seems, the experts remain hopeful: As more and more people learn about these birds, more and more care about their plight. And the recent strict regulation of crab harvesting, including a moratorium in several states, seems to have had a positive effect already, with this week's counts on the Delaware Bayshore showing notable gains over those from last year.  

Piping Plovers nesting on the coast of eastern Massachusetts face a different challenge. "Pale as a beach flea," these unassuming little shorebirds breed and feed on the same white-sand beaches where people love to play. Ornithologists, conservationists, and hordes of volunteers have dedicated untold days to convincing the taste-like-chicken crowd that there is room for both birds and recreation, and the symbolic fencing and tireless talking have worked. By the late 1980s, careless picknickers, dogwalkers, and beach drivers had reduced the state's entire breeding population to just 126 pairs. Now, thirty-five years later, nearly 1200 birds lay eggs on Massachusetts beaches, proof that people and plovers can indeed co-exist on these narrow strips of sand.

Anyone who has read a newspaper in the past twenty years has heard of knots and plovers. The Semipalmated Sandpiper, on the other hand, is a true birder's bird. Still one of the most abundant shorebirds in the world, this species stages in awesome numbers on the mudflats of the Bay of Fundy, where flocks of up to 300,000—some 75% of the bird's global population—fly to roost in vast rolling waves, then spread out to feed on the wide mudflats exposed by the receding tide. Like the springtime knots of Delaware Bay, the southbound sandpipers are laying on fuel for the long days ahead, which will take them from eastern Canada to the wintering grounds in South America in a single flight.

The sheer size of these dazzling flocks makes it hard to imagine a world without Semipalmated Sandpipers, but we've learned the hard way that mere abundance is no guarantee of survival. New Brunswick conservationists have constructed viewing platforms and visitor centers to educate birders and the curious public about the sandpipers' needs and the harm that even the most innocent disturbance can cause; thanks to their efforts, we can hope to pass one of North America's most captivating wildlife spectacles on to the next generation.

One of the young Canadian biologists in the film explains why we should care about the annual gathering in the Bay of Fundy:

This is a community. Corophium and the snails and the birds and the Peregrine Falcons that come and feed on the birds all live together and they all require each other to survive. If there are no sandpipers, the Peregrine Falcons don't have food. If there's no corophium, the sandpipers can't come and forage here. So any development that takes place that can affect these habitats, anything people do, whether it's going down and disturbing the birds or developing an area and putting in houses, all of these things can affect this habitat, and it's important in the grand scheme of things because it's a whole community.

The great good news in Carey's film is that a little thought and a little caring can make us, too, part of that community. We can learn to co-exist with these wildest and most vulnerable of birds, and our beaches, our mudflats, and our lives can be the richer for it.

Recommended citation:

Wright, R. 2013. Living With Shorebirds [a review of Epic Journeys, by Shawn Carey]. Birding 45(4):68.

2013 AOU Check-list Committee Proposals - Part 3

They're coming fast now. Not much more than a week after the second batch of proposals drops comes the third. Thanks to Morgan Churchill for keeping on top of the AOU's actions and posting them on the ABA's Facebook Discussion Group.

The disclaimers that should be second nature by now apply once more. These are proposals on which the committee has yet to vote, or at least they have yet to make those decisions public. No decisions are official until they are published in The Auk, the journal of the American Ornithologists' Union, this July. The entire list of proposals is available on the AOU's website here (.pdf). We'll focus on those proposals that affect the ABA-Area and Hawaii, which happens to be all of them this time around.

--=====--

Return Hawaii Creeper Oreomystis mana to the genus Loxops

The genus Oreomystis currently consists of two species, the 'Akikiki and the Hawai'i Creeper, which were considered to be closely allied due to similarities in ecology, behavior, and tongue mophology. As it turns out, however, the nuclear DNA suggests that Hawai'i Creeper is actually much more closely related to the honeycreepers in the genus Loxops, which consists of the 'Akeke'e and the 'Akepa, and the similarities between it and the 'Akikiki are the result of convergent evolution. Crazy stuff. Though the proposal places Hawai'i Creeper within Loxops, it may be that the species will actually require its own monotypic genus. Per usual, more study is required.

--=====--

Split White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis into 2, 3, or 4 species

White-breasted Nuthatch has long been on the list of next potential splits based on obvious differences in vocalizations and subtle but consistent differences in plumage and bill size among the various populations. Moreover, those populations shake out in ways similar to established splits like the Solitary Vireos (Blue-headed, Plumbeous, Cassin's) and the sapsuckers (Yellow-bellied, Red-naped, Red-breasted). Recent genetic work bears this out, with an additional fourth clade occupying the southern Rockies south into Mexico.

If we're going to see some sort of split here though, the question of how many species will be pared off of Sitta carolinensis is still wide open. A four species split seems least probable, but three species (which combines the northern Rockies nelsoni and the southern Rockies/Mexico lagunae) would correspond to the three known vocal groups. As work still needs to be done to determine the contact zones between the three western subspecies maybe a simple east/west division is the most likely outcome. Assuming, of course, this proposal passes muster with the majority of the committee.

"Eastern" White-breasted Nuthatch, photo by Mike Bergin/10,000 Birds

--=====--

Adopt new English names for Artemisiospiza belli and A. nevadensis

The presence of this item on the docket, coupled with the first sentence reading, "Now that we have voted to split Sage Sparrow into two species," would seem to strongly imply that the Sage Sparrow split mentioned in the first of these posts is a done deal. New splits usually mean both species get brand new names, but these sparrows are not technically "new" species as they were treated separately by the AOU back in 1931. As such, it has been suggested that the committee buck the trend of proposing two new names and retain the name "Sage Sparrow" to refer to the sageland specialist A. nevadensis. The other can be called "Bell's Sparrow", a name which has long been used to refer to the westernmost subspecies

--=====--

Change the linear sequence of families in the Charadriiformes

More rearrangement here, this time of the various families in Charadriiformes on which there has been a lot of recent genetic work. Among other things this proposal moves the stilts/avocets and oystercatchers ahead of the plovers and places the alcids right between the skuas and the gulls.

--=====--

Transfer Providence Petrel Pterodroma solandri from Appendix to main list

Transfer Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae from Appendix to main list

Add Double-toothed Kite Harpagus bidentatus to the U.S. List

Add Rosy-faced Lovebird Agapornis roseicollis to the main list

Transfer Nandayus nenday from Appendix to main list and change English name to Nanday Parakeet

Add Asian Rosy-Finch Leucosticte arctoa to the main list

The proposals above are consolidated as they are all essentially housekeeping that serves to bring the AOU check-list in line with various recent updates to the ABA checklist. Providence Petrel, Double-toothed Kite, and Asian Rosy-Finch are added based on naturally occurring vagrants in Alaska, Texas, and Alaska again, respectively. Fea's Petrel is finally freed from its slashed purgatory as the species is recorded annually in North American waters and has been determined to be distinguishable from Zino's Petrel in the field. The two species of parrots were recently added to the ABA checklist based on established populations in Arizona (Rosy-faced Lovebird) and Florida (Nanday Parakeet).

--=====--

Update the classification of siskins & goldfinches

Having not that long ago seen our goldfinches and siskins removed from the long-standing Carduelis genus into the old-but-new-again genus Spinus (which re-created the hilarious and fun to say Spinus pinus for Pine Siskin), it looks like they'll be on the move once again. Those South American finches who had retained the genus Carduelis are now being reorganized into a much larger trans-hemispheric goldfinch/siskin group and Sporagra is apparently the oldest available name. It may turn out, however, that the North American goldfinches (American, Lesser, Lawrence's) are distinct enough to get their own genus, which would likely be Astragalinus.

Both are a pale shade of Spinus in this birder's opinion, but we can't have it all.

The full list, including background information and recommendations, is available here (.pdf)

A Tower to Remember

You are forgiven if you can’t guess the purpose of the odd building in this photograph from 90 years ago. You are forgiven, as well, if the name of Althea R. Sherman does not ring an ornithological bell.

She is the woman at the center of the picture, who conceived and designed the building. Her sister, Amelia, is at right, and they are accompanied by a group of neighborhood children in the tiny hamlet of National, Iowa. The photo, probably taken in 1923, is used by permission of the Oberlin College Archives in Oberlin, Ohio, where Sherman studied and taught art for a number of years.

The structure is a fascinating piece of ornithological history that deserves more widespread attention than it has received. The 28-foot-tall, 9-foot-square wooden tower topped by an artificial chimney is ingeniously designed to observe nesting Chimney Swifts. Sherman and other observers climbed stairs winding up three stories through the tower to the chimney.

An extraordinary self-taught ornithologist, Sherman (1853–1943) had the tower constructed to her careful specifications in 1915 at her residence amid the vast farm country of northeastern Iowa. Remarkably, it still exists, and what an achievement it would be to restore it!

That is exactly the goal of a nonprofit organization, the Althea R. Sherman Project, which is campaigning for funds to make it possible. There are good historical and ornithological reasons for the restoration. As leaders of the project note on their website, the tower allowed Sherman to be “the first person ever to witness and record the entire nesting cycle of these birds. Her Chimney Swift journals, covering 18 years and more than 400 pages, may offer the most extensive study of this species in existence.”  

Reading some of Sherman’s minutely detailed day-by-day notes, you will see that the project leaders do not exaggerate. Excerpts from the journals are published as a chapter “The Home Life of the Chimney Swift” in her posthumously published 1952 book Birds of an Iowa Dooryard. A 1996 edition of the book includes a great deal of interesting background on Sherman and her various ornithological projects.

Dilapidated and in storage after many decades of disuse, the rehabilitated tower will be moved to the Cedar County Historical Society’s Bickett-Rate Memorial Preserve near Buchanan, Iowa. The preserve includes a bird sanctuary, a museum, and an environmental education center.

You will not need to go to Buchanan to see the nesting show. The stairs inside will not accommodate visitors, but it will eventually include two webcams and a microphone. If swifts decide to use the beckoning “chimney,” you’ll be able to peep at their domestic life via the Internet. Robert Anderson, executive director of the Raptor Research Project, is donating the webcams.

How soon the restoration will be completed depends on success of the fund-raising campaign. The tower is certified as eligible for status in the National Register of Historic Places, and the State Historical Society of Iowa has awarded the project a matching grant. Now the project leaders are seeking the $87,000 necessary to receive the other half of the grant.

Besides its historical, ornithological, and educational values, the tower will have a third important benefit: conservation. It will call attention to the dire plight of the Chimney Swift, whose relative abundance in the U.S. and Canada has declined 66% from 1966 to 2011, according to the North American Breeding Bird Survey.

That is almost exactly the decline reported for Iowa, which is severe enough to warrant conservation attention there. The plunges in relative abundance are even more severe in southeastern Canada and the northeastern U.S. For example, during the same 1966–2011 period, the survey shows declines of 97% in Nova Scotia and Ontario, and 90% in Maine. Clearly, the Chimney Swift needs all the conservation attention it can get.

An article in my News and Notes column in Birding (July 2011, p. 27) described a combination of dangers contributing to the Chimney Swift’s decline. First is a decrease in acceptable breeding sites as suitable chimneys have dwindled in residential and other architectural designs. Another is a decline in the abundance of flying insects, perhaps because of increased use of pesticides. A third may involve ecological threats in the species’ South American winter range that are not well understood.

It’s worth noting that ABA’s Bird of the Year, the Common Nighthawk, faces the exact same trio of troubles: dwindling nest sites, food shortages, and threats in its South American range. A recent News and Notes article (Birding, March–April 2013, pp. 26–27) reported the nighthawk’s decline, and a feature article in the May/June 2013 Birding will explore the matter in greater detail.

As for the Chimney Swift, there is scarcely a better examination of its breeding behavior than Althea Sherman’s tower and her nearly two decades of observations. One of her comments in Birds of an Iowa Dooryard sounds quaint today, but it represents the feelings she had for the bird:

“During the many summers of intimate living with the Chimney Swift, I have never found it a subject for criticism in any respect—no evil has been detected in its relations with its own or with other species. In short, it appears to be a paragon of perfection—the bird that properly might be chosen as the emblem of peace.”

Yes, quaint, reflecting an almost spiritual relationship between the lady and the bird, but let us not be cynical about the role such statements had in ornithological writing a century ago. They were altogether typical of her time. After all, “modern” bird lovers have a similar feeling about our favorite species, even though we don’t express it in such an old-fashioned way.

The Althea R. Sherman Project is doing its part to help resurrect such personal respect for the Chimney Swift and, in the process, for all of nature. That’s an eminently worthwhile environmental goal.

 

Here We Go Again

The American Ornithologists’ Union’s Committee on Classification and Nomenclature of North and Middle American Birds—the AOU Check-list Committee, for short—sure has been busy of late. Splits (lots) and lumps (not so many), especially those affecting North America north of the U.S.–Mexico border, inevitably elicit the loudest response from birders. But maybe the most substantial changes are the big checklist shuffles, dramatically affecting the linear sequence of bird names across large swaths of the Check-list.

In recent years, the Check-list Committee has massively reorganized such speciose and familiar groups as the gulls, terns, and warblers. Remember all those Larus gulls? Many of them have new scientific names, and new positions on the Check-list. How about the Sterna terns? They were even more drastically overhauled. And, of course, the Dendroica warblers. Birders took that one especially hard, it seems to me. There’s just something really weird, I guess, about seeing the familiar ole Black-throated Green Warbler practically at the bottom of the warblers, with a new name (Setophaga), no less—way, waaay further down the checklist than the Ovenbird, the Northern Waterthrush, and the Connecticut Warbler.

What’s next?

How about a major reorganization of the large sandpiper family, so well represented here in North America.

 

The AOU has already made inroads here. The genus Tringa (the “shanks”) was recently reorganized, with such surprising results as the placement of the distinctive Willet not only within the shanks, but, in fact, between the Greater and Lesser yellowlegs.

Now, Paul Hess reports in the March/April 2013 Birding (“Sorting Out the Shorebirds,” pp. 27–28), a considerably larger overhaul may be in the works. Check out the figure at right, a distillation of a major new analysis by Rosemary Gibson and Allan Baker. In the Gibson–Baker scheme, the phalaropes would be united with the shanks. The godwits and curlews—which I’d always thought of as pretty close—would be quite far apart. Think about it: The Marbled Godwit, in this configuration, is closer to the Ruff and the Broad-billed Sandpiper than it is to the Long-billed Curlew.

Speaking of Ruffs and Broad-billed Sandpipers, the new research—reported by Gibson and Baker in Molecular Genetics and Evolution 64:66–72—proposes genus-level changes that will surprise almost all of us. Check this out: The Ruff, Broad-billed Sandpiper, and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper are closely related to each other, according to the new research. What about the Sharp-tail’s kissing cousin, the Pectoral Sandpiper? In the new arrangement, the Pec goes with Western Sandpiper, Semipalmated Sandpiper, and—wait for it—Buff-breasted Sandpiper.

 

I could go on, but you get the point. If the Gibson–Baker findings are evaluated and accepted by the AOU, our checklists will look very, very different. Which brings me to a question:

Do you like all these changes?

I confess, and I think many of you already know: I love these checklist changes! For me, it’s exhilarating to be a birder in an era of such rapidly evolving knowledge and understanding. At some point in the next few weeks, I’ll be seeing Greater and Lesser yellowlegs, Wilson’s Phalaropes, Willets, Marbled Godwits, and Semipalmated Sandpipers. And I’ll look at them with eyes wide open, wondering anew about their similarities and differences, their behavior and ecology, their vocalizations and plumages.

Offshore, I’ll see some ducks—they’re related to turkeys and chachalacas. A grebe will swim by—apparently, it’s allied with the flamingos. Then, if I’m lucky, a Peregrine Falcon will put up the shorebirds. And check this out: That Peregrine is more closely related to the pipits and swallows along the shore than it is to the Red-tailed Hawk sitting in the tree a bit farther out.

“There is grandeur in this view of life,” Charles Darwin wrote, in the finale to his Origin of Species, “...that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

There is grandeur, too, in the view that human learning and understanding are forever advancing. Wouldn’t it be boring if the state of our knowledge suddenly froze in place? Wouldn’t it be disappointing if our checklists suddenly stabilized, never to change again?

 

 

Open Mic: Never Mind the Bullock's - Taking Molecular Studies with a Grain of Salt

At the Mic: Steve N.G. Howell

Steve is a senior international bird tour leader for WINGS and has written several books including A Guide to the Birds of Mexico and Northern Central America, Gulls of the Americas (with Jon Dunn), and most recently, Petrels, Shearwaters, and Albatrosses of North America.  He lives near Point Reyes, California.

--=====--

There's no denying it: Molecular studies are helping us unravel the mysteries of avian relationships, and quickly. But until we fully understand the finer principles of genetics, the history of genes, and what that all entails, we will continue to make mistakes in our interpretations of the results of molecular studies. Is there anything we can do about this? Perhaps we can start with a grain of salt, and if that doesn't work then it's time to break out the lime and tequila.

A Tale of Two Orioles 

As an example of the tribulations involved in molecular studies, let's review some recent developments with a time-honored favorite in the North American taxonomic arena - the Northern Oriole complex. The taxonomic tale of Baltimore Oriole Icterus galbula and Bullock's Oriole I. bullocki is fairly well known - two species, then one, and now three (what, three?). Less well known to most ABA members, perhaps, is the Mexican cousin of Baltimore and Bullock's - Abeille's Oriole I. abeillei (unhelpfully named Black-backed Oriole by those seemingly unaware that 12 of 16 oriole species in Mexico have black backs, including both Baltimore and Bullock's).

            In 1999, a molecular phylogeny of New World orioles was produced, in which, supposedly, Baltimore Oriole and Abeille's Oriole were closely related, while Bullock's Oriole was more closely related to Streak-backed Oriole I. pustulatus (Omland et al. 1999, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 12:224-239).

            The authors realized how odd this looked, so a fuller genetic analysis was undertaken, which confirmed the earlier result (Kondo et al. 2004, Condor 106:674-680); it was then postulated that this was an amazing example of adult male plumage patterns diverging very quickly in an evolutionary time scale (between Baltimore and Abeille's). A follow-up paper by the same team (Kondo et al. 2008, Evolution 62-5:1182-1191) went on to show that Abeille's Oriole was derived from Baltimore Oriole (Bullock's Oriole was ignored). This was thus a remarkable case of a tropical resident species evolving from a migratory ancestor, contrary to the paradigm of resident tropical avifaunas tending to be the reservoir from which migration flows. Another paper used the new and "robust phylogeny" to explore the evolutionary history of plumage patterns in orioles (Omland & Lanyon 2000, Evolution 54:2119-2133). Another paper using the new phylogeny postulated that orioles colonized mainland South America from Caribbean islands (Sturge et al. 2009, Condor 111:575-579). And so on.

The adult male of Abeille's (or Black-backed) Oriole (shown here) is a striking bird, although the female looks very similar to Bullock's Oriole and the two species can be difficult to separate in female/immature plumage. Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco, Mexico, March 2012. © Steve N. G. Howell.

            Amazing stuff. But this is where the trail of genetic clues led, so how could it not be true? Hence, the AOU (2000, Auk 117:847-858) moved Bullock's Oriole to follow Streak-backed Oriole, and thus separated it from Baltimore Oriole by five other species. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot was the response of many field ornithologists, but what did they know of genetics?

            However, as knowledge of genetics increased, further molecular analyses of these orioles showed that the earlier grouping of Baltimore and Abeille's was in error (Jacobsen et al. 2010, Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 56:419-427; Jacobsen & Omland 2010, Ecology & Evolution 2:2413-2429). Today it is believed that Abeille's is more closely related to Bullock's Oriole, which fits with older conclusions based on morphology, vocalizations, and biogeography. These two orioles are a good example of how messy the progress has been in applying new genetic tools to avian taxonomy, for only a few years ago these two were "among the most closely related of avian species" (Kondo et al. 2008:1183).

            Along with a clearer understanding of "Northern Oriole" relationships, the claims of rapid plumage evolution and of a resident tropical species deriving from a northern migrant are also now debunked. And given that the baseline phylogeny was flawed to an unknown degree, is it still true (as claimed by Omland & Lanyon 2000:2119) that "plumage patterns and colors are highly labile between species of orioles?"  

            Still, after a litany of at least five publications it would appear that we have established something more firmly than before, and hopefully we have a better understanding of the evolutionary history of these three species. But these three species of orioles live in North America, where many people were familiar enough with the birds to notice that the genetic results were incongruous with intuition. For the other species, less familiar to most people, the original results of Omland et al. (1999) appear not to have been questioned. My opinion is that most of their results look reasonable, yet it is entirely possible that some of the other relationships "proven" by genetics and statistics are in error. For example, Orange Oriole I. auratus and Streak-backed Oriole might be closer than reported. Either way, the unfortunate error involving Baltimore Oriole and friends does not instill confidence. Moreover, some well-marked, potentially species-level taxa were omitted from the analysis, despite "the importance of dense taxon sampling" in the title of Omland et al. (1999); an example would be Dickey's Oriole I. [graduacauda] dickeyae of west Mexico.

            These molecular studies on relatively well-sampled orioles exemplify how little scientists really understand/understood about genetics. And these flaws went on to color or discolor a number of ecological and environmental studies and theories. Some might cry: "But that was then, this is now; today we really do understand things." Certainly one would like to think that our knowledge of genetics has improved in the past few years, but how much?

 

What Do We Not Know?

Although some may claim otherwise, avian geneticists are still groping around in a recently tilled but dimly lit field, learning how to use their new tools. Thus it seems only common sense to treat their early harvests as working hypotheses, especially at the taxonomic levels of genus and species. This is particularly true given that ornithologists can't even agree on what constitutes a species. In this regard, check out the eloquent but sobering essay entitled "A species is whatever I say it is" by Nigel Collar in the March 2013 issue of British Birds (vol. 106:130-142), which highlights numerous other examples of the unresolved issues with genetic studies.

            Although problems with genetic analyses may be fewer than those associated with studies based on non-genetic data, they are still problems. Despite this, taxonomic committees appear to have fallen in love with "glamorous" DNA studies, seduced by the promise of ultimate truth. Hence it often seems they are running amok on freshly plowed soil of uncertain viscosity, undervaluing or ignoring non-genetic tools that might help them avoid getting needlessly stuck. One day, who knows, the genetic tools may be so refined that we won't need any other lines of evidence, but there will be years or decades of messiness before we reach that point - if we ever do.

            In the meantime, species and genera are constantly being shifted around hither and thither. Bullock's Oriole is only the tip of the iceberg. Of course, birders only "suffer" from all this if they try to keep up with lists that are changing every week, or with using field guides compelled to adopt the latest and greatest changes - regardless of whether these changes are helpful for somebody trying to identify a bird. I can only think that poor Roger Tory Peterson must be rolling in his grave, now that the new Peterson field guides to birds try to follow taxonomic sequence - which is contrary to the simple brilliance of Peterson's original system.

            One cannot help but wonder how many more taxonomic decisions fueled or driven solely by genetics are simply errors in analyses. The merger of skuas into the genus Stercorarius, because Pomarine Jaeger is supposedly more closely related to Great Skua than to the other jaegers? Putting Willet in between Lesser Yellowlegs and Greater Yellowlegs? Are all the recent wood-warbler genus reshuffles truly accurate, or might some be changed again? And how about them sparrows and towhees? And so on... How many things do we not know that we don't know?       

Thanks to Ned Brinkley, Burr Heneman, Alvaro Jaramillo, Peter Pyle, and Brian Sullivan for comments on an earlier version of this essay.

P.S. As of March 2013, the AOU check-list still separates Bullock's Oriole from Baltimore Oriole by 5 species of orioles: Orange, Jamaican I. leucopteryx, Spot-breasted I. pectoralis, Altamira I. gularis, and Audubon's I. graduacauda. Yet Yellow-backed Oriole I. chrysater is 9 species distant from Audubon's, despite the phylogeny of Omland et al. (1999), which placed Yellow-backed and Audubon's as each other's closest relatives (a view that is supported by morphology, voice, and biogeography, pending analysis of the unsampled taxon dickeyae, mentioned earlier). Time to pass the tequila...

 

Pennsylvania: The Second Snapshot

A review by Troy Corman

Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania, edited by Andrew M. Wilson, Daniel W. Brauning, and Robert S. Mulvihill

Penn State University Press, 2012

586 pages, $64.95—hardcover

ABA Sales / Buteo Books 13906

I was raised in rural south-central Pennsylvania, but moved away before fieldwork began in 1983 for the state’s first breeding bird atlas. Fortunately, though, projects like this are designed to be repeated, and when data collection for the second atlas started, twenty years later, I was able to spend a week or so of several consecutive Junes in the same forests and along the same streams and trails where my passion for the outdoors and birding had first taken flight, a passion that has guided my career path ever since.

Pennsylvania may not be a major U.S. birding destination, but its varied landscapes attract a remarkable selection of both resident and migratory breeding birds—at least 208 native and established exotic species are confirmed to have bred there, among them an amazing 30 species of warblers. That rich species diversity and the commonwealth’s long and impressive history of ornithological investigation is the subject of several books, including the first Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania, published in 1992.

As dedicated atlasers already know, the production of a breeding bird atlas requires monumental effort on the part of hundreds, if not thousands, of skilled volunteer birders and professional ornithologists. And it all has to be repeated. As the North American Ornithological Atlas Committee notes, “The tremendous value of breeding bird atlases will only begin to be realized when each state or province completes their second atlas. At that time, two ‘snapshots’ in time of breeding bird distributions will be available for comparison and conclusions can be reached about the changes in distributions that have occurred.” Repeated atlasing, of course, also provides data on population trends, which can prompt research and conservation efforts for declining species and the habitats on which they depend.

Data for Pennsylvania’s second atlas were collected from 2004 to 2009, and the new book that resulted from that work provides us with an up-to-date overview of the current distribution and status of each breeding species, plus a tremendous amount of insightful analysis.

Early chapters in the Second Atlas discuss the goals and purpose of the project. The project framework and survey methods remained largely the same from the first to the second atlas, though there were efforts made to capture certain aspects missing from the first: For example, field crews were hired this time around to take point counts measuring the geographic variability of species abundance. One of my favorite sections in the new Atlas is the enlightening chapters describing the state’s geography, habitat, and land use. The many color maps and vivid descriptions provide a thorough introduction to the physical aspects of Pennsylvania’s environment that influence the distribution and abundance of the avian life that breeds there. 

Another brief chapter, “Interpreting Species Accounts,” greatly increases the reader’s appreciation of the many fine details to be gleaned from each of the 190 two-page accounts, prepared by no fewer than 52 authors. Those authors and the book’s editors—Andrew M. Wilson, Daniel W. Brauning, and Robert S. Mulvihill—have taken full advantage of technologies and analytical methods that have emerged since publication of the first Atlas, making this second a sharply attractive, revealing, and masterfully prepared book.

Each species account includes a very good to excellent color photo, often, aptly, depicting adults at the nest or engaged in other breeding behavior. As expected, comparison of the data collected for each of the atlases is a significant part of these accounts; distribution changes (or their absence) are noted, and the Pennsylvania information is often compared with that discovered by second atlasing efforts in some adjacent states and provinces, thus placing apparent trends into a regional context.

Understandably, there is an obvious effort to avoid duplicating information already captured in the first Atlas. However, I find it mildly disappointing that so much natural history information has been omitted from the new species accounts. Appendix F in the Second Atlas provides a tabular summary of phenological data for most species; I would have liked to see some explicit discussion of the differences in breeding phenology discovered between the two atlases. Data continues to accumulate suggesting that the average timing of some species’ migration and nesting has already begun to shift, shifts possibly related to climate change.     

The second page of each account features two or three easily interpreted statewide maps. The first and largest depicts where the species was detected during the second atlas. Any changes in distribution between the two atlases are clearly noted on the second map. In the case of more common and widespread species, a third map depicts the geographic density of singing males as determined by point counts.

Each account also includes a table showing the number of blocks in which the species was identified by each atlasing project as a possible, a probable, or a confirmed breeder; changes between the two atlases are expressed as a percentage. Worrisome numbers include those for the Red-headed Woodpecker, which declined by 46 percent, and for the Golden-winged Warbler, down 61 percent between the two atlases. Compare that with the incredible increases in breeding Common Ravens—114 percent—and Bald Eagles—949 percent! These changes are discussed in detail in each account, with insightful suggestions as to why specific species have declined or increased, or why their distribution in the state has shifted.        

Appendix A includes brief accounts for a dozen former nesting species and a table listing ten additional birds that have not been documented nesting in Pennsylvania since the 1970s or before, including the Heath Hen and the Passenger Pigeon. Oddly missing from this list is the Glossy Ibis, noted in the first Atlas as a confirmed breeder on the Susquehanna River in the 1970s.

Few other resources provide so complete a picture of bird distribution over time as a breeding bird atlas, and few are so helpful in the long-term monitoring of avian populations. It is hard to imagine that any birder would not want a copy of the Second Atlas, whether in Pennsylvania or anywhere in the region, a region that stretches as far north as Quebec and as far west as Ontario (both jurisdictions, by the way, with magnificent atlas projects of their own). An exceptional summary of a large amount of data, presented in a sharp and impressive tome, this work sets a new standard for atlases to come.

It may take up a lot of space on your bookshelf, but as an informative and inspiring reference, the Second Atlas of Breeding in Birds in Pennsylvania is a worthy tenant. I am honored to be one of the many who participated in this endeavor. As much as I learned while helping collect data, I continued to be enlightened as I reviewed this fine resource.

Troy Corman is a biologist in the Arizona Game and Fish Department, where he coordinates long-term statewide bird monitoring projects. He coordinated the Arizona breeding bird atlas project and served as co-editor of the Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas (2005). Corman is president and a founding member of the Arizona Field Ornithologists. His interests include the distribution and seasonal status of birds, conservation, and travel.

Recommended citation:

Corman, T. 2013. Pennsylvania: The Second Snapshot [a review of Second Atlas of Breeding Birds in Pennsylvania, edited by Andrew M. Wilson, Daniel W. Brauning, and Robert S. Mulvhill]. Birding 45(3):67.