Amazona Vinacea) in Argentina and Paraguay Kristina Cockle,1,6 Gabriel Capuzzi,1,2 Alejandro Bodrati,1,3 Rob Clay,3 Hugo Del Castillo,3 Myriam Velazquez,´ 3,4 Juan I

J. Field Ornithol. 78(1):21–39, 2007 DOI: 10.1111/j.1557-9263.2006.00082.x

Distribution, abundance, and conservation of Vinaceous Amazons (Amazona vinacea) in Argentina and Paraguay Kristina Cockle,1,6 Gabriel Capuzzi,1,2 Alejandro Bodrati,1,3 Rob Clay,3 Hugo del Castillo,3 Myriam Velazquez,´ 3,4 Juan I. Areta,1,5 Nestor Farina,˜ 1 and Rodrigo Farina˜ 1

1Proyecto Selva de Pino Parana,´ Fundacion´ de Historia Natural F´elix de Azara, Departamento de Ciencias Naturales y Antropolog´ıa, Universidad Maimonides,´ Valent´ın Virasoro 732, Buenos Aires, Argentina (C1405BDB) 2Instituto Superior San Pedro, Carrera de Guardaparques Provinciales, Universidad Nacional de Misiones, San Pedro, Misiones, Argentina (3352) 3Guyra Paraguay, Coronel Rafael Franco 381 c/ Leandro Prieto, Asuncion,´ Paraguay 4Fundacion´ Moises Bertoni, Procer´ Arguello 208 c/ Mcal Lopez´ y Boggiani, Asuncion,´ Paraguay 5CICyTTP-CONICET, Materi y Espana˜ 3105, Diamante, Entre R´ıos, Argentina Received 2 July 2006; accepted 27 October 2006

ABSTRACT. Vinaceous Amazons (Amazona vinacea) are endemic to the Atlantic forest of southeastern Brazil, eastern Paraguay, and the province of Misiones in Argentina. We searched for Vinaceous Amazons throughout the western part of its range in Argentina and Paraguay during 1639 days of fieldwork from 1997 to 2006. These parrots have disappeared from most areas where they were historically recorded in these countries, and are now limited to a few sites in northeastern Paraguay and central Misiones (Argentina). We estimate the minimum remaining populations at 220 individuals in Paraguay and 203 individuals in Argentina. Important sites for the species are (1) the farming area from San Pedro to Tobuna (Misiones, Argentina) and (2) the Itaipu´ reserves complex and Reserva Natural Privada Itabo´ (Paraguay). In our surveys, Vinaceous Amazons were absent from the largest tracts of forest in Misiones, and were most often observed feeding, roosting, and nesting in small forest remnants and in agricultural areas that included forest fragments and isolated trees. Threats to amazons in these areas include nest poaching, forest clearing, and being shot as a crop pest. We confirmed 40 Vinaceous Amazons kept as pets in 35 homes between San Pedro and Tobuna. Environmental education and law enforcement are urgently needed to reduce threats in populated areas, and subsistence farmers need technical and logistical support to slow or stop the conversion of forest into cropland. Finally, additional study is needed to determine this amazon’s habitat preferences, nest site requirements, and demography in different habitats. SINOPSIS. Distribucion,´ abundancia y conservacion´ del loro vinoso (Amazona vinacea)en Argentina y Paraguay El loro vinoso (Amazona vinacea)esendemico´ del bosque Atlantico´ del sudeste de Brasil, este de Paraguay, y la provincia de Misiones en Argentina. Buscamos esta especie durante 1639 d´ıas de trabajo de campo de 1997 a 2006, a lo largo de la porcion´ oeste de su distribucion,´ en Argentina y Paraguay. A. vinacea ha desaparecido de la mayor parte de las areas´ donde ha sido registrada historicamente´ en estos paises, y permanece solo´ en algunos pocos sitios del noroeste de Paraguay y del centro de Misiones (Argentina). Estimamos el tamano˜ m´ınimo de las poblaciones remanentes en 220 individuos en Paraguay y 203 individuos en Argentina. Los sitios importantes para la especie son: (1) la zona rural de San Pedro a Tobuna (Misiones, Argentina) y (2) el complejo de reservas de Itaipu´ y la Reserva Natural Privada Itabo´ (Paraguay). A. vinacea no fue encontrada en los tractos mas´ grandes de bosque durante nuestras prospecciones en Misiones. Mayormente fue observada alimentandose,´ durmiendo y nidificando en pequenos˜ remanentes boscosos y en habitats´ antropogenicos.´ Las amenazas en estos habitats´ incluyen robo de pichones de los nidos, deforestacion,´ y cacer´ıa por dano˜ a cultivos. Confirmamos la existencia de 40 ejemplares cautivos como mascotas en 35 hogares de San Pedro y Tobuna. Para reducir las amenazas se requieren urgentemente educacion´ ambiental y fortalecimiento legal en las areas´ pobladas. Es necesario proveer de apoyo tecnico´ y log´ıstico a los agricultores de subsistencia para reducir la conversion´ de bosques a cultivos. Finalmente, estudios futuros deber´ıan tratar la preferencia de habitat´ del loro, sus requerimientos de nidificacion,´ y su demograf´ıa en distintos habitats.´ Key words: Amazona vinacea, Araucaria angustifolia, Argentina, Atlantic forest, conservation, distribution, Paraguay, parrot, poaching, Vinaceous Amazon

6Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

C 2007 The Author(s). Journal compilation C 2007 Association of Field Ornithologists 21 J. Field Ornithol. 22 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 Parrots are among the best loved of all birds, 50% of the original Atlantic forest remains in and, paradoxically, are also among the least two large tracts (about 290,000 and 390,000 known and most endangered (Collar 1997). ha, respectively, and about 10 km apart) and in Over a third of parrot species are threatened partly connected fragments on farms and around or near threatened, a higher proportion than in towns. Nearly all remaining forest has been selec- any other large family of birds (Collar 1997). tively logged. Within the historic range of Vina- Worldwide, parrots suffer from habitat destruc- ceous Amazons, Argentina has 68 protected areas tion, trapping for pets, persecution as pests, and, covering 779,000 ha (Bosso 2005). In Paraguay, in many cases, a combination of two or all three as in Brazil, only about 10% of the original of these factors (Collar 1997). Atlantic forest remains in a few isolated patches The Vinaceous Amazon (Amazona vinacea) that have been selectively logged, with the largest is a medium-sized parrot endemic to the At- patch about 70,000 ha in size. These remnants lantic forest region of southeastern Brazil, east- are surrounded by lands dedicated to either com- ern Paraguay, and the province of Misiones in mercial agriculture or cattle-ranching. Thus, Argentina (Collar 1997). In the last century, Argentina and Paraguay provide a useful contrast this amazon has disappeared from much of for comparing the effects of habitat loss on the northern part of its range in Brazil (Collar Vinaceous Amazons. et al. 1992), and populations have also de- Besides habitat loss, other factors may have clined elsewhere (BirdLife International 2004, contributed to the decline of Vinaceous Ama- 2005). Remaining populations are fragmented zons. The species has suffered from nest poach- and the species is considered globally Vulnerable ing and trapping for pets, and persecution as (BirdLife International 2004, 2005). a pest (Chebez 1987, 1992, Silva 1988, 1989, Among the factors contributing to the de- Collar et al. 1992, Straube et al. 2004), but cline of Vinaceous Amazons, habitat loss is these threats have been dismissed as less im- considered most important. Accordingly, con- portant than habitat loss (Ridgely 1981, Collar servation recommendations have focused on and Juniper 1992). However, BirdLife Inter- protecting forest habitat (Collar et al. 1992, national (2004, 2005) recently reported only BirdLife International 2004, 2005). Within the two populations remaining in Argentina, and no Atlantic forest region, Vinaceous Amazons are populations in Paraguay numbering more than thought to prefer parana pine (Araucaria an- 80 birds. With such small populations, poaching gustifolia) forest, and the destruction of this and persecution could have a major impact on forest is considered the key reason for the de- the species. Thus, our objectives were to (1) decline (Collar et al. 1992). In Argentina, parana termine the historic and current distribution of pine forest once covered about 210,000 ha Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay, (Cozzo 1960), but logging has now reduced it (2) assess the species’ current abundance and to about 2000 ha (Chebez 1994). Neverthe- level of protection, (3) contribute information less, Vinaceous Amazons in both Argentina and about habitat use and natural history, and (4) Paraguay existed historically outside of parana make recommendations for conservation strate- pine forest, in lowland semideciduous Atlantic gies. forest (Collar et al. 1992). Indeed, although Vinaceous Amazons were once widespread in METHODS eastern Paraguay (Bertoni 1914), parana pine only occurred there in one small patch (about To describe the past and present distribu- 500 trees) surrounded by broadleaf forest (Reitz tion of Vinaceous Amazons, we used (1) a et al. 1979). Thus, it is not clear how important review of the literature, (2) specimen collec- parana pine forest is for Vinaceous Amazons, or tions at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Nat- what type of habitat should be protected for this urales Bernardino Rivadavia (MACN), Insti- species. tuto Miguel Lillo (IML), American Museum Although both Misiones (Argentina) and east- of Natural History (AMNH), Museo Provin- ern Paraguay were once covered with Atlantic cial Antonio Serrano (MAS), and Museo de La forest where Vinaceous Amazons were recorded, Plata (MLP), and (3) our own data collected management of Atlantic forest has differed in in the ﬁeld throughout the historic range of important ways between the two countries and Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay created different landscapes. In Argentina, about (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). This range included (1) Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 23

Fig. 1. Maps of Misiones, Argentina, eastern Paraguay, and adjacent Brazil showing original extent of Atlantic forest (Harris and Pimm 2004; palest gray) and parana pine forest (Hueck 1978; medium gray), and remaining forest in 2005 (from LandSat 5 TM satellite images; darkest gray). The patch of parana pine forest at RN Kuri’y in Paraguay is too small to appear on the map. Site numbers correspond to Appendix 1. (A) Compiled localities for Vinaceous Amazons from 1880 to 1939 (triangle), from 1940 to 1989 (square), and from 1990 to 2005 (circle). Recent localities in Brazil are shown for reference; we did not conduct a thorough search for historic records in Brazil. (B) Locations where we searched for Vinaceous Amazons from 1997 to 2006. Dots indicate sites where Vinaceous Amazons were recorded (smallest dots = 1–14 individuals, medium = 15–49 individuals, and largest = 50–200 individuals). J. Field Ornithol. 24 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 highland parana pine forest [mixed forest with the San Pedro-Tobuna area) in Argentina (620 laurel (mostly Nectandra saligna), guatambu´ days). We surveyed the latter area on foot sev- (Balfourodendron riedelianum) and parana pine; eral times, visiting (1) the settlements of San Cabrera 1976] in central Misiones (Argentina), Pedro, Tobuna, Santa Rosa, Cruce Caballero (2) lowland semideciduous forest [mixed forest (26◦33´S53◦56´W) and Paraje Alegr´ıa (26◦31´S with laurel and guatambu,´ and mixed forest with 53◦55´W), (2) two small parks (Parque Provin- laurel, guatambu´ and palo rosa (Aspidosperma cial [PP] Cruce Caballero, 600 ha, near Cruce polyneuron); Cabrera 1976] in most of Misiones Caballero village; and PP de la Araucaria, 92 (Argentina) and eastern Paraguay, (3) ecotone ha, at San Pedro), and (3) the eastern part of between forest and ‘campos’ grasslands (campos Establecimiento La Alegr´ıa (26◦27´S53◦58´W), district; Cabrera 1976) in southern Misiones a large forestry property with scattered farms. (Argentina) and Paraguay, and (4) ecotone be- When Vinaceous Amazons were detected, we tween forest and ‘cerrado’ scrubland in northern recorded the date, time, number of individuals, Paraguay. We chose sites that had some remain- habitat (e.g., forest with parana pine, forest with- ing forest (from LandSat TM satellite images) out parana pine, tree plantation, or town), activ- or historic records of Vinaceous Amazons. We ity (e.g., feeding, roosting, flying-over, perching, searched for Vinaceous Amazons on 1150 days or entering nest hole), and, if applicable and at 28 localities from March 1997 to May 2006 possible, tree species. in Argentina, and on 489 days at 29 localities To estimate the number of Vinaceous Ama- from July 2000 to May 2006 in eastern Paraguay. zons in Argentina, we carried out simultaneous We spent 825 days in small forest fragments roost counts in the San Pedro-Tobuna area ev- (<1000 ha), towns, and farms, and 814 days ery day from 18 March to 2 April 2005 be- in large tracts of natural habitat (1000–387,000 cause roosting flocks were consistently largest ha), including forest tracts and forest/cerrado in March–April (from 2002 to 2005; unpubl. and forest/campos ecotone. In towns, farms, data). Five observers were stationed at key ob- and forest fragments in Argentina, we searched servation points throughout the area for 2 h for Vinaceous Amazons for an average of 3 h each morning and evening. The area is a narrow each morning and 2 h each evening. At mid- strip of farm-forest mosaic along the ridge of day, we conducted interviews (see below). In the Sierra Central, with most of the area visible Paraguay and in large tracts of natural habitat from hilltops. Observation points were selected in Argentina, we searched for an average of to permit monitoring of roost sites based on 4 h each morning and evening. Our searches extensive fieldwork in the area and interviews were conducted on foot, and we tried to cover with local farmers. The sites were (1) San Pedro’s as much terrain as possible. For each location water tower, (2) hilltops in Tobuna, (3) hilltops visited, we determined coordinates using a GPS near Santa Rosa, and (4) a hilltop in Pje. Alegr´ıa. unit. For locations where amazons had been During 620 days of field work throughout the reported previously, we used coordinates pro- San Pedro-Tobuna area, we never observed a vided either in the original records or those given flock of more than 15 Vinaceous Amazons that by Paynter (1985, 1989), Paynter and Tray- would not have been visible from one of these lor (1991), Hayes (1995), and Guyra Paraguay observation points. Observers noted the number (2004). of individuals observed, direction of flight, and Vinaceous Amazons are vocally and visually start and end times of observations (usually conspicuous, but sex and age (with the exception several minutes to an hour). Minimum total of dependent young) cannot be determined in population in the San Pedro-Tobuna area was the field. To determine abundance and small- taken as the sum of simultaneous counts by scale habitat use and identify key food sources observers at different localities, where distance, and roost sites, we spent most of our time flight direction, and simultaneous observations in two areas where these amazons were fairly made overlap impossible. We compared the numerous (Appendix 1): (1) Reserva Natural number of parrots counted at each roost dur- Privada (RNP) Itabo,´ in Paraguay (119 days), ing the simultaneous counts with the number and (2) a 27,000-ha agricultural area between counted at the same roosts at all other times of the town of San Pedro (26◦38´S54◦08´W) the year. Because these numbers were similar, and the villages of Tobuna (26◦28´S53◦53´W) we used our maximum simultaneous count as and Santa Rosa (26◦26´S53◦52´W; hereafter, an estimate of population size. Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 25 In Argentina, to locate nests, investigate species as uncommon in Concepcion.´ In addi- threats to Vinaceous Amazons, and determine tion, we did not record the species during our whether the species was present or absent at visits, and no records have been reported in the historic localities, we conducted interviews at adjacent state of Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil; approximately 150 households from 2002 to Straube et al. 2004). 2005. Most interviews were conducted in the All recent records in Argentina and Paraguay, San Pedro-Tobunaarea, where we made repeated including our own, are from (1) central and visits to about 50 farms every 1–3 months for 3 eastern Misiones (Argentina), mostly in frag- years. On our first visit, we asked subjects how mented parana pine forest between San Pedro many kinds of parrots occurred in the area and and Bernardo de Irigoyen, and a small, iso- asked them to identify the parrots in a field guide lated population at Campo Viera in lowland (Narosky and Yzurieta 1987). We asked how of- semideciduous forest; and (2) a cluster of sites ten, where, and when they observed the different in the lowland semideciduous forest of north- species. Finally, we asked if they knew of any eastern Paraguay in departamento Canindeyu´ nests. On our first visit, many people volunteered and adjacent Alto Parana´ and Caaguazu´ information about species kept as pets and those (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). Vinaceous Amazons they considered crop pests. If not, we asked if have disappeared from central eastern Paraguay, they knew of any pet parrots, and the species they southern Misiones (Argentina), and the River considered to be crop pests. If told of a household Parana´ between Argentina and Paraguay. The with a pet Vinaceous Amazons, we visited that closest modern records from Brazil are in the house with either a local friend or relative of highland parana pine forest in southern Parana,´ the pet owner. Thus, parrots found in captivity western Santa Catarina, and northwestern Rio were not based on a random sample of homes, Grande do Sul (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). but should be considered a minimum estimate In Argentina, there were several flocks of of the number of birds in captivity in the San Vinaceous Amazons in the San Pedro-Tobuna Pedro-Tobuna area. To avoid pseudoreplication, area, but we could not determine the extent of and because our sampling was not random, we interaction between these flocks. We did not find did not analyze our data statistically. Vinaceous Amazons in the two large remaining forest tracts in Misiones (Argentina; Fig. 1), even RESULTS though large parts of these tracts are protected or partially protected in PP Urugua-´ı, Pargue Distribution. Historically, Vinaceous Ama- Nacional (PN) Iguazu,´ and the Yabot´ı Biosphere zons were recorded in a variety of habitats Reserve. throughout Misiones (Argentina) and eastern In Paraguay, the stronghold of Vinaceous Paraguay, including highland parana pine for- Amazons is a small area in eastern departamento est, lowland semideciduous forest, and the eco- Canindeyu´ and adjacent Alto Parana,´ including tones between forest and campos and forest and RNP Itabo´ and the Itaipu´ reserves complex cerrado (Fig. 1, Appendix 1). Bertoni (1914) (Reserva Biologica´ (RB) Carapa,´ RB Limoy, and included Vinaceous Amazons as among the RB Itabo;´ Fig. 1, Appendix 1). These localities species widely distributed on both sides of are more than 150 km from the nearest popula- the River Parana´ in the forest between Encar- tions in Argentina (San Pedro-Tobuna area and nacion´ (27◦20´S55◦54´W) and Guaira´ (Saltos Bernardo de Irigoyen), and a similar distance del Guaira;´ 24◦04´S54◦15´W). This area would from the sites of the nearest modern reports in include eastern Paraguay, Misiones (Argentina), Brazil (Fig. 1). and southwestern Parana´ (Brazil). Vinaceous Abundance. Evidence suggests that Vina- Amazons have also been reported in the depar- ceous Amazons were once common in Ar- tamentos of Misiones and Caazapa´ (Paraguay; gentina and Paraguay. At Concepcion´ and San Podtiaguin 1944) and the province of Corrientes Javier in southern Misiones (Argentina), White (Argentina; Canevari et al. 1991). Sight records (1882) reported “incredible numbers” of Vina- and a lost specimen suggest that the species ceous Amazons feeding in the orange groves may once have been present in departamento where many were shot by local inhabitants. Concepcion´ (Paraguay; Podtiaguin 1944, Lopez´ Bertoni (1914) considered the species “widely 1992). However, these authors described the distributed” on both sides of the River Parana´ J. Field Ornithol. 26 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 and, in Paraguay, reported “flocks of thousands” litt.). However, N. Perez´ (pers. comm.), who has that “began to darken the sky” in the late 1890s lived and worked in these reserves throughout (Bertoni 1927, as cited in Hayes 1995). More this period, indicated that “in the early 1990s recently, at Campo Viera and Montecarlo (Mi- there were hundreds of Vinaceous Amazons; siones, Argentina), local inhabitants, M. Olenuk˜ now there are few.” Because sampling effort and F. Kruse (pers. comm. to Chebez 1992) at the Itaipu´ Reserves Complex was low, and described the species as having been very abun- considering previous observations, we suggest dant in the 1920s when amazons fed on corn that 90 individuals would be a better population crops and were shot and poisoned by farmers. estimate for this area. Although Vinaceous Ama- At Arroyo Urugua-´ı (Misiones, Argentina), at zons might still be found in large forest remnants least 44 skins were collected between 1958 and such as San Rafael National Park and southern 1961 (Collar et al. 1992; Appendix 1) and, RNB Mbaracayu,´ such populations, if they exist, at Colonia Dorada (Paraguay), a local guide, must now number only a few individuals because E. Bazan´ (1988, pers. comm. to Silva 1989), they were not detected during extensive recent reported 8000 or more feeding on mineral- surveys (Appendix 1). Thus, we estimate the rich soil in a swampy area in 1978. When he minimum total population in Paraguay at 220 and Silva returned to the site in 1988, most individuals (167 + 14 + 39). of the forest had been replaced by crops or Habitat and natural history. In Paraguay, pasture, the Vinaceous Amazons population had forest occurs either as isolated fragments or larger been reduced to “about 300,” and local trappers tracts in a matrix of commercial agriculture. reported catching 500 adult birds for export There, we recorded Vinaceous Amazons on 48 through Brazil (Silva 1988, 1989). Finally, at of 410 days (12%) spent in large tracts of natural Puerto Paranambu´ (Paraguay), E. Bazan´ (1988, habitat, and during 49 of 75 days (65%) spent pers. comm. to Silva 1989) observed 3000–4000 in forest fragments, towns, and farms. All indi- individuals in 1978. viduals observed in the latter habitat were either We recorded Vinaceous Amazons on 568 of in the canopy of a shade-grown crop or in trees 1150 days (49%) in Argentina and 94 of 489 in a nearby pasture. days (19%) in Paraguay. Based on the largest In Argentina, there were (1) large tracts of number of birds observed simultaneously at each forest and (2) mosaic landscapes of forest cor- locality, we estimated the minimum populations ridors on small subsistence farms, with many in Argentina and Paraguay. In Argentina, our clumps of trees and capueras (shrubby vegeta- largest simultaneous roost count in the San tion on abandoned agricultural land). There, we Pedro-Tobuna area was 163 individuals on 26 recorded Vinaceous Amazons on 34 of 404 days March 2005. The two remaining populations (8%) spent in large tracts of natural habitat, and in Argentina are small, with approximately 20 on 535 of 750 days (71%) spent in forest frag- amazons at Campo Viera (R. Taron´ pers. comm.) ments, towns, and farms. Vinaceous Amazons and 20 at Bernardo de Irigoyen (pers. obs.; were observed (1) perched in trees in towns, on J. Guerrero and G. Strapazon,´ pers. comm.). subsistence farms, in forest fragments, and in Thus, we estimate the minimum total Argentine large tracts of forest; (2) roosting in trees in forest population at 203 individuals (163 + 20 + 20). fragments and in isolated trees on farms; (3) In Paraguay,the largest numbers were found at feeding in trees in towns, on farms, and in forest RNP Itabo´ where an evening roost count yielded fragments; and (4) nesting in forest fragments 167 individuals on 3 November 2001. Our both on farms and at the town of San Pedro records at other sites in Paraguay involved fewer (Misiones, Argentina). individuals, including 14 at Estancia Golondrina We observed Vinaceous Amazons roosting at and 39 at the Itaipu´ Reserves Complex (six at RB five sites: San Pedro (34 observations of up to Itabo,´ 12 at RB Carapa,´ and 21 at RB Limoy; 76 amazons), Tobuna (five observations of up Appendix 1). At the Itaipu´ Reserves Complex, to 50 amazons), Paraje Alegr´ıa (one observation 70 individuals were observed in 1990 near RB of 36 amazons), Siete Estrellas near San Pedro Limoy (Lopez´ 1992), about 80 were observed (one observation of three amazons) in Argentina, on the shores of the Itaipu´ Dam in 1991 (Nores and RNP Itabo´ (44 observations of up to 167 1992, as cited in Collar et al. 1992), and 49 amazons) in Paraguay. All individuals roosting were observed in 1991 at RB Itabo´ (J. Vielliard in in Argentina were observed in parana pines. Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 27 Many of these trees were isolated (branches not species, including Melia azedarach (N = 31), touching other trees) and in areas where the Eucalyptus sp. (N = 11), Hovenia dulcis (N understory and most trees had been cleared for = 2), Eriobotrya japonica (N = 1), Persea sp. farming. At San Pedro, flocks changed roost (N = 1), and Citrus sp. (N = 1). Similarly, sites frequently, using specific roost trees for other authors have reported Vinaceous Ama- only 1–5 successive days, but often returning zons feeding on fruit and flowers of exotic to them after 1–2 weeks. At RNP Itabo,´ where [e.g., Citrus sp. (White 1882), Melia azedarach there were no parana pines, the amazons roosted (Chebez 1990), Eucalyptus sp. and Pinus sp. from October to December 2001 in isolated (Collar et al. 1992)] and native plants [e.g., pindo´ palms (Syagrus romanzoffiana) in a 500- parana pine (Belton 1984, Prestes and Martinez ha pasture surrounded by secondary forest, and 1996, Abe 2000, Krauczuk and Baldo 2004), from 24 March to 17 April 2002 in unidentified Euterpe edulis (Brooks et al. 1993, Lowen et al. trees (possibly also palms) in secondary forest 1995), Guadua sp. (Lowen et al. 1996), Cedrela about 2 km from the pasture. fissilis (Krauczuk and Baldo 2004) Podocarpus Nests (N = 6) were found at four sites in the lambertii (Prestes and Martinez 1996), Syagrus San Pedro-Tobunaarea and at Campo Viera, and romanzoffiana, Psidium longipetiolatum, Euge- all were located along forest edges or in forest nia uniflora, E. involucrata, Erythrina falcata, fragments ranging in size from 0.5 to 100 ha. Mimosa scabrella, and Laplacea fruticosa (Abe Nest cavities were formed by broken branches 2000)]. When feeding on Eucalyptus fruit, they (N = 4) and woodpeckers (N = 2) and were scraped and mashed the outer skin of the fruit. In 5–20 m high (x = 12.8 ± 6.6 [SD], N = 6) in addition, they were observed chewing Eucalyptus trees 10–25 m tall (x = 18.4 ± 6.7, N = 5), bark (N = 1) and taking unidentified food items including two parana pines and one each of the from nests of tent caterpillars (N = 2). following: Parapiptadenia rigida, Prunus subcori- Current threats–habitat loss. In Paraguay, acea, Cabralea canjerana, and Apuleia leiocarpa. deforestation is a major threat to Vinaceous During interviews, nests (N = 22) were reported Amazons. About 90% of Paraguay’s Atlantic in parana pine (N = 5), Parapiptadenia rigida forest has been replaced by industrial agriculture (N = 4), Ocotea puberula (N = 2), Apuleia (e.g., soybeans and cattle), and most of the leiocarpa (N = 1), Myrocarpus frondosus (N = landscape contains no trees. Vinaceous Ama- 1), Ruprechtia laxiflora (N = 1), Peltophorum zons have disappeared from all but a few lo- dubium (N = 1), and trees of unknown species calities in the last part of Paraguay to expe- (N = 7). rience widespread deforestation. The species’ The earliest date on which we observed signs stronghold, RNP Itabo,´ is on private land with of nesting was 16 September at San Pedro. Resi- only minimal legal protection. dents of the San Pedro-Tobunaarea reported that In Argentina, less than 50% of the Atlantic chicks were traditionally captured from nests just forest has been eliminated, and the landscape prior to fledging “at Christmas.” We observed is a mosaic of large forest tracts, small clear- a fledged chick begging near two adults on 11 ings, and small corridors of forest. In Argentina, March 2005 at San Pedro. Vinaceous Amazons regularly occur only near We observed groups of 1–80 (median = 8) farming areas and towns. There have been no Vinaceous Amazons feeding together, occasion- published reports outside of these habitats since ally with one or more individuals that did not 1983, despite extensive fieldwork by ornithol- feed, but acted as sentinels near the tops of ogists and park rangers in the province’s large trees. The amazons fed mainly on fruits, seeds, protected areas (Benstead et al. 1993, Giraudo leaves, and young shoots of nine native plant et al. 1993, Contreras et al. 1994, Saibene et al. species, including Araucaria angustifolia (N = 1996, Chebez et al. 1998). We found Argentina’s 10), Holocalyx balansae (N = 7), Parapiptade- largest population of Vinaceous Amazons in the nia rigida (N = 6), Matayba eleagnoides (N San Pedro-Tobuna area, where about 7% of = 5), Ateleia glazioveana (N = 5), Syagrus the forest was lost to deforestation from 1997 romanzoffiana (N = 2), Aechmea sp. (N = to 2002 (Benesovsky and Placci 2003). Local- 1), Peltophorum dubium (N = 1), and Allo- scale deforestation threatens this population of phylus edulis (N = 1), and six exotic plant Vinaceous Amazons. Unfortunately, however, J. Field Ornithol. 28 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 protection of large forest tracts such as PN the mosaic landscape of farms with patches of Iguazu´ and PP Urugua-´ı has not prevented the parana pine forest. Importantly, it has disap- local extinction of this species. peared from large protected areas in Argentina, Current threats – nest poaching and per- like PN Iguazu´ and PP Urugua-´ı, where the most secution. We confirmed the presence of 40 forest habitat remains. Given the severe decline Vinaceous Amazons in captivity in 35 homes in in numbers in Argentina, it is not clear that the San Pedro-Tobunaarea (i.e., 25% of the wild protecting forest habitat will be enough to con- birds counted in the same area and 20% of the serve the remaining populations of Vinaceous estimated minimum population in Argentina). Amazons. Several hypotheses, perhaps in com- We were told that many more had died as young bination, might explain the current distribution pets, and many were replaced with new chicks of Vinaceous Amazons and their absence from from the wild. large protected areas in Misiones (Argentina): White (1882) and Chebez (1992) reported that the species was shot regularly in southern (1) The species may never have been common Misiones. In our interviews, we found no ev- in areas where large forest tracts now re- idence of people shooting Vinaceous Amazons main in Argentina. The earliest specimens for food. In addition, few people mentioned this of Vinaceous Amazons from Argentina species as a crop pest, in strong contrast to their and Paraguay were collected from sites comments about shooting and poisoning other in southern Misiones (ecotone between species of parrots (Bodrati et al. 2006). However, lowland semideciduous forest and cam- in March 2005, we received an injured bird that pos) and at Iguazu´ Falls (semideciduous had been shot near San Pedro, and one man forest; now PN Iguazu).´ There are no reported shooting another Vinaceous Amazons historical records of Vinaceous Amazons that he had mistaken for a Scaly headed Parrot from RB Yabot´ı, and only one record from (Pionus maximiliani). This suggests that, in con- the approximate location of PP Urugua- trast to historic times, Vinaceous Amazons are ´ı (Deseado; Navas and Bo´ 1988). How- now rarely shot, and, if so, perhaps by accident. ever, these areas were little explored until recently, probably explaining the lack of DISCUSSION historic records. Further, the current absence of these amazons from PN Iguazuis´ Vinaceous Amazons were once found striking, and cannot be attributed to his- throughout the Atlantic forest of Argentina and toric absence, because Eckelberry (1965) Paraguay, but now appear to be restricted to just reported that the species could be observed a few sites in each country (Fig. 1, Appendix daily. 1). The small numbers we observed at these (2) Lowland semideciduous forest tracts may sites (maximum 167 birds at any single site and have been sink habitats that relied on a total minimum estimate of 423 individuals) source populations in the highland parana contrast starkly with the large numbers reported pine forest. We do not know how far from the late 1800s and early 1900s (Bertoni Vinaceous Amazons move, how metapop- 1927, White 1882, as cited in Chebez 1992, ulations once functioned, or how impor- Hayes 1995), and even the 1970s (Silva 1988, tant parana pine forest was before human 1989). colonization. We did not find strong evi- Although Vinaceous Amazons have disap- dence for historic dependence on parana peared from the most extensively deforested ar- pine forest, but most Vinaceous Amazons eas in both countries, they use different habitats remaining in Argentina are now found at in Argentina than in Paraguay. In Paraguay, sites with parana pines forest where they where there is only one patch of parana pine use parana pines for roosting, feeding, and forest and little mosaic farming/forest habitat, nesting. Despite Sick’s (1993) suggestion they inhabit large tracts of semideciduous forest that parana pines rarely have cavities and and adjacent pasture. In Argentina, where there so do not provide good nest sites, 7 of are both large tracts of semideciduous forest and 22 nests (32%) we found were in parana mosaic farming landscapes with parana pine for- pines. Bencke and Kindel (1999) reported est patches, Vinaceous Amazons are absent from an apparent severe decline of Vinaceous the large forest tracts and principally inhabit Amazons following removal of parana Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 29 pines at a site in Rio Grande do Sul (Brazil), been considered a minor threat to Vinaceous and we can only guess at the source- Amazons (Ridgely 1981, Collar and Juniper sink dynamics and seasonal movements 1992, but see Silva 1988, 1989) and the species of historic populations in Argentina and is rarely found in captivity in the United States Paraguay. In Rio Grande do Sul, Vina- (Wright et al. 2001), an important threat to the ceous Amazons were also collected his- remaining populations may now be nest poach- torically in other habitats, but are now ing for local use as pets. In a recent study com- confined to parana pine forest, perhaps paring 21 species of Neotropical parrots, Vina- because parana pines provides a key re- ceous Amazons, at an unspecified site in Brazil, source (such as seeds) that has allowed A. suffered the highest rate of nest poaching: over Vinacea to survive in this habitat while 80% of nests failed because of poaching (Wright it disappeared elsewhere (G. A. Bencke et al. 2001). Thus, subsistence-farming areas in litt.). This may also explain why the may represent ecological traps—a phenomenon species’ Argentine stronghold is the logged that may affect long-lived animals (such as par- and fragmented parana pine forest in the rots) in rapidly changing landscapes (such as the San Pedro-Tobuna area. western Atlantic forest) if they, paradoxically, (3) Like many other parrots (Bucher 1992), prefer poor quality habitat to good quality habi- Vinaceous Amazons may be attracted to tat (Battin 2004). To test these hypotheses, we farming areas. We frequently found Vina- would need to confirm the habitat preferences of ceous Amazons in highly disturbed habi- Vinaceous Amazons, and compare survival and tats, feeding, nesting, and roosting in forest reproductive success between farming areas (in fragments in towns, farms, and capueras. Argentina) and large forest tracts (in Paraguay). In addition to abundant exotic fruit trees Conservation recommendations. Key that provide food, farming areas provide sites for Vinaceous Amazons are (1) the Itaipu´ Vinaceous Amazons with isolated trees reserves complex and RNP Itabo´ (Paraguay), that they appears to prefer for roosting. and (2) the San Pedro-Tobuna area (Misiones, The natural habitat of Vinaceous Ama- Argentina). In Paraguay, measures are needed zons include the ecotone between Atlantic to ensure the long-term protection of forest at forest and grassland/scrubland, suggesting RNP Itabo.´ At the Itaipu´ reserves and RNP that they may tolerate natural forest edges Itabo,´ further studies are needed to determine and natural forest islands. Thus, subsis- whether Vinaceous Amazons use habitat outside tence farming areas in Argentina may be of the reserves, as do many other parrot species similar to some parts of its native habi- in the Brazilian Atlantic forest (Evans et al. tat. Forest tracts that have been selectively 2005), and Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina logged may now offer lower quality habitat (our study). for Vinaceous Amazons because nest holes In Argentina, Vinaceous Amazons do not and food trees may be rare. occur regularly in any large protected areas (Saibene et al. 1996, Chebez et al. 1998, Di Although Vinaceous Amazons may be flexible Giacomo 2005, our study). Although large pro- in terms of habitat use, occurring in towns, tected forest tracts are important for conserving on farms, and in forest fragments, we cannot many bird species, they are not sufficient for conclude that these are “good” habitats for the conserving species that inhabit an agricultural species. If habitat loss was the main threat, and matrix (Manning et al. 2004), as do Vinaceous if farmland and towns in Argentina provided Amazons in Argentina. The future of Vinaceous good habitat, then the species should not have Amazons in Argentina is intricately linked to the disappeared from so much of its former range farming area from San Pedro to Tobuna, where in this country. Agricultural areas may be at- they share habitat with hundreds of subsistence tractive, but dangerous for Vinaceous Amazons. farmers. Although food may be abundant in agricultural In the San Pedro-Tobuna area, there is an areas, survival and reproductive success may be urgent need to protect remaining forest patches low because birds are shot (White 1882, Chebez and nest trees and to stop nest poaching. To 1992) and nest poaching reduces reproductive protect remaining forest, subsistence farmers success. Although the pet trade has traditionally need logistical and technical support to avoid J. Field Ornithol. 30 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 soil depletion and subsequent clearing of re- (C. S. Fontana, G. A. Bencke, and R. E. Reis, eds.), maining forest patches for crops. To eliminate pp. 189–479. EDIPUCRS, Porto Alegre, Brazil. nest poaching, existing laws (prohibiting nest ——, AND A. KINDEL. 1999. Bird counts along an altitu- dinal gradient of Atlantic forest in northeastern Rio poaching and cutting of natural parana pines) Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ararajuba 7: 91–107. must be enforced, and environmental education BENESOVSKY,V.,AND G. PLACCI. 2003. Relevamiento is urgently needed so that people understand ecologico´ y diseno˜ de paisaje del area´ prioritaria de why these laws exist. Finally, additional study las araucarias de la provincia de Misiones. Technical Report, Fundacion´ Vida Silvestre Argentina, Puerto of Vinaceous Amazons is needed to improve our Iguazu,´ Argentina. understanding of their dispersal behavior, nest BENSTEAD, P. J., R. D. HEARN,C.J.S.JEFFS,D.A. site requirements, and habitat preferences and CALLAGHAN,J.CALO,G.GIL,A.E.JOHNSON, AND suitability. A. R. STAGI NEDELCOFF. 1993. Pato Serrucho 93: an expedition to assess the current status of the Brazilian Merganser Mergus octosetaceus in North-east ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Argentina. TechnicalReport, Wildfowl and Wetlands This study was made possible by the efforts of more Trust, Slimbridge, UK. than a hundred volunteers, colleagues, and friends. We BERTONI, A. 1914. Fauna Paraguaya. Catalogos´ sis- especially thank the families from the San Pedro-Tobuna tematicos´ de los vertebrados del Paraguay. Peces, area, whose efforts contributed to this study and to the batracios, reptiles, aves, y mam´ıferos conocidos hasta conservation of wild Vinaceous Amazons. We are very 1913. Establecimiento Gra´fico M. Brossa, Asuncion,´ grateful to C. Ouellet-Plamondon for helping to collect, Paraguay. organize, and present the data, and to R. Fraga, M. ——. 1927. Notas ornitologicas.´ Nueva forma de Debarba, L. Forte, M. Ruiz Blanco, A. Urben-Filho, F. psitacidos´ del Paraguay. (Descripcion´ y distribucion´ Straube, M. Nunes,˜ G. Carrion,´ A. Nuevo, S. Faegre, de Parakau´ y Paragua).´ Revista de la Sociedad A. Rodr´ıguez, M. Navarro, S. Taylor, the Ministerio de Cient´ıfica del Paraguay 2: 149–150. Ecolog´ıa of the Province of Misiones, Parques Nacionales ——. 1939. Catalogos´ sistematicos´ de los vertebrados Argentina, and Guayak´ı Yerba Mate. Our work was sup- del Paraguay. Revista de la Sociedad Cient´ıfica del ported, in part, by Rufford Small Grants for Nature Con- Paraguay 4: 1–59. servation from the Rufford Whitley Laing Foundation, a BIRDLIFE INTERNATIONAL. 2004. Threatened birds of Flagship Species Grant from Fauna & Flora International the world 2004. CD-ROM. BirdLife International, and DEFRA, Bergstrom Memorial Research Grants from Cambridge, UK. —— [online]. 2005. Species fact sheet: Amazona vinacea. the Association of Field Ornithologists, PGS-A and CGS < > Scholarships from NSERC, an Innovative Research Grant http://www.birdlife.org (3 May 2006). from the Canadian International Development Agency, a BODRATI, A., K. COCKLE,J.I.ARETA,G.CAPUZZI, AND Conservation and Research Small Grant from the Cleve- R. FARINA˜ . 2006. El maracana´ lomo rojo (Primolius land Metroparks Zoo, the Oregon Zoo Future for Wildlife maracana) en la Argentina: de plaga a la extincion´ en Program, the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium Conservation 50 anos?˜ El Hornero 21: 37–43. Fund, and in-kind contributions from Idea Wild, The BOSSO, A. 2005. Conservacion´ de aves en la Provincia Birders’ Exchange, Optics for the Tropics, and Argentina’s de Misiones. In: Areas importantes para la conser- Comision´ Nacional de Actividades Espaciales (CONAE). vacion´ de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion´ de la Biodiversidad. (A. S. Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. 307–308. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservacion´ No. 5. Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ LITERATURE CITED Ornitologica´ del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. BROOKS, T., R. BARNES,L.BARTRINA,S.H.M. ABE, L.M. 2000. Ecologia, distribuiçao˜ e monitoramento BUTCHART,R.P.CLAY,E.Z.ESQUIVEL,N.I. de uma populaçao˜ de papagaio-do-peito-roxo (Ama- ETCHEVERRY,J.C.LOWEN, AND J. VINCENT. 1993. zona vinacea)naRegiaoMetropolitana˜ de Curitiba, Bird surveys and conservation in the Paraguayan Parana.´ In: Ornitologia Brasileira no Seculo´ XX. (F.C. Atlantic forest. Project CANOPY ’92 Final Report. Straube, M.M. Argel-de-Oliveira, and J.F. Candidoˆ Study Report No. 57, BirdLife International, Cam- Jr., eds.), p. 226. Universidade do Sul de Santa Cata- bridge, UK. rina y Sociedade Brasileira de Ornitologia, Curitiba, BUCHER, E. H. 1992. Neotropical parrots as agricultural Brazil. pests. In: New World parrots in crisis. Solutions from BATTIN, J. 2004. When good animals love bad habitats: conservation biology (S. R. Beissinger and N. F. R. ecological traps and the conservation of animal pop- Snyder, eds.), pp. 73–115. Smithsonian Institution ulations. Conservation Biology 18: 1482–1491. Press, Washington, D.C. BELTON, W. 1984. Birds of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. CABANNE,G.S.,AND E. R. KRAUCZUK. 2005. Parque Part 1. Rheidae through Furnariidae. Bulletin of the Provincial Isla Caraguatay. In: Areas importantes para American Museum of Natural History 178: 369– la conservacion´ de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Priori- 636. tarios para la Conservacion´ de la Biodiversidad. (A. S. BENCKE, G. A., C. S. FONTANA,G.N.MAUR´ıCIO, AND J. Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. 305–306. Temasde Naturaleza K. F. MAHLER¨ ,JR. 2003. Aves. In: Livro vermelho da y Conservacion´ No. 5. Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ fauna ameaçada de extinçao˜ no Rio Grande do Sul. Ornitologica´ del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 31

CABRERA, A. L. 1976. Enciclopedia Argentina de agricul- rots in and around an Atlantic forest reserve. Wilson tura y jardiner´ıa. Segunda Edicion.´ Tomo II. Fasci- Bulletin 117: 154–164. culo I. Regiones Fitogeogra´ficas Argentinas. Editorial GIL, G., AND D. CIARMIELLO. 2005. Parque Nacional ACME S.A.C.I., Buenos Aires, Argentina. Iguazu´ y alrededores. In: Areas importantes para la CANEVARI, M., P. CANEVARI,G.CARRIZO,G.HARRIS,J. conservacion´ de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Priori- RODR´ıGUEZ MATA, AND R. STRANECK. 1991. Nueva tarios para la Conservacion´ de la Biodiversidad. (A. S. gu´ıa de las aves Argentinas. Tomo 1. Fundacion´ Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. 278–280. Temasde Naturaleza ACINDAR, Buenos Aires, Argentina. y Conservacion´ No. 5. Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ CHEBEZ, J. C. 1987. Una nota esperanzada. En Peligro de Ornitologica´ del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argen- Extincion´ 2: 2–7. tina. ——. 1990. Los manuscritos de William Henry Partridge. GIRAUDO, A. R., J. L. BALDO, AND R. R. ABRAMSON. Primera Parte. Aves Misioneras (1). Nuestras Aves 22: 1993. Aves observadas en el sudoeste, centro, y este 21–24. de Misiones (Republica´ Argentina), con la mencion´ ——. 1992. Notas sobre algunas aves poco conocidas de especies nuevas o poco conocidas para la provincia. o amenazadas de Misiones (Argentina). APRONA Notulas´ Faun´ısticas 49: 1–13. Bolet´ın Cient´ıfico 21: 12–30. GUYRA PARAGUAY. 2004. Lista comentada de las aves ——. 1994. Los que se van, especies Argentinas en peligro. de Paraguay. Annotated checklist of the birds of Editorial Albatros, Buenos Aires, Argentina. Paraguay. Guyra Paraguay, Asuncion,´ Paraguay. ——. 2005. Campo San Juan. In: Areas importantes para HARRIS, G. M., AND S. L. PIMM. 2004. Bird species’ la conservacion´ de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Priori- tolerance of secondary forest habitats and its ef- tarios para la Conservacion´ de la Biodiversidad. (A. S. fects on extinction. Conservation Biology 18: 1607– Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. 307–308. Temasde Naturaleza 1616. y Conservacion´ No. 5. Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ HAYES, F. E. 1995. Status, distribution and biogeogra- Ornitologica´ del Plata, Buenos Aires, Argentina. phy of the birds of Paraguay. Monographs in Field ——,N.R.REY,M.BABARSKAS, AND A. G. DI GIA- Ornithology No. 1, American Birding Association, COMO. 1998. Las aves de los parques nacionales de Colorado Springs, CO. la Argentina. Editorial Literature of Latin America, ——, AND T. GRANIZO TAMAYO. 1992. Bird densities Buenos Aires, Argentina. along three tributaries of the Parana River in eastern COLLAR, N. J. 1997. Family Psittacidae (parrots). In: Paraguay. El Hornero 13: 254–256. Handbook of the birds of the world. Volume 4. ——, AND P. A. SCHARF. 1995. The birds of Parque Sandgrouse to cuckoos. (J. Del Hoyo, A. Elliott, Nacional Ybycu´ı, Paraguay. Cotinga 4: 14–19. and J. Sargatal, eds.), pp. 280–477. Lynx Edicions, HUECK, K. 1978. As f lorestas da America do Sul: ecolog´ıa, Barcelona, Spain. composiçao e importanciaˆ economica.ˆ Pol´ıgono, Sao˜ ——,L.P.GONZAGA,N.KRABBE,A.MADRONO˜ NI- Paulo, Brazil. ETO,L.G.NARANJO,T.A.PARKER III, AND D.C. KEVE,A.AND A. KOVACS´ . 1973. Einige daten zur ornis WEGE. 1992. Threatened birds of the Americas, the von Missiones (Nordost-Argentinien),¨ II. Opuscula ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book 2, 3rd ed. International Zoologica Budapest 11: 75–77. Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, UK. KRAUCZUK, E. R. 2005. Campo Viera. In: Areas im- ——, AND A. T. JUNIPER. 1992. Dimensions and causes portantes para la conservacion´ de las aves en Ar- of the parrot conservation crisis. In: New World gentina. Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion´ de parrots in crisis. Solutions from conservation biology la Biodiversidad. (A. S. Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. 306– (S. R. Beissinger and N. F. R. Snyder, eds.), pp. 307. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservacion´ No. 5. 1–24. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ Ornitologica´ del Plata, D.C. Buenos Aires, Argentina. CONTRERAS, J. R., E. R. KRAUCZUK,A.R.GIRAUDO, ——, AND J. D. BALDO. 2004. Contribucion´ al A. E. JOHNSON,A.A.GARELLO, AND Y. E. DAVIES. conocimiento de la avifauna de un fragmento de selva 1994. Notas sobre aves de la provincia de Misiones, con araucaria en Misiones, Argentina. Atualidades Republica´ Argentina. I. Notulas´ Faun´ısticas 53: 1– Ornitologicas´ 119: 6. 13. LOPEZ´ , N. 1992. Observaciones sobre la distribucion´ COZZO, D. 1960. Ubicacion´ y riqueza de los bosques de psitacidos´ en el departamento de Concepcion,´ espontaneos´ de “pino” Parana(´ Araucaria angustifolia) Paraguay. Bolet´ın del Museo Nacional de Historia existentes en Argentina. Revista Forestal Argentina 4: Natural de Paraguay 11: 2–25. 46–54. LOWEN, J. C., L. BARTRINA,R.P.CLAY, AND J. A. DI GIACOMO, A. S. 2005. Areas importantes para la TOBIAS. 1996. Biological surveys and conservation conservacion´ de las aves en Argentina. Sitios Prioritar- priorities in eastern Paraguay. The final reports of ios para la Conservacion´ de la Biodiversidad. Temas projects CANOPY ’92 and YACUTINGA ’95. CSB de Naturaleza y Conservacion´ No. 5. Aves Argenti- Conservation Publications, Cambridge, UK. nas/Asociacion´ Ornitologica´ del Plata, Buenos Aires, ——,R.P.CLAY,T.M.BROOKS,E.Z.ESQUIVEL,L. Argentina. BARTRINA,R.BARNES,S.H.M.BUTCHART, AND ECKELBERRY, D. R. 1965. A note on the parrots of N. I. ETCHEVERRY. 1995. Bird conservation in the northeastern Argentina. Wilson Bulletin 77: 111. Paraguayan Atlantic forest. Cotinga 4: 58–64. EVANS, B. E. I., J. ASHLEY, AND S. J. MARSDEN. 2005. MADRONO˜ , A., AND E. Z. ESQUIVEL. 1995. Reserva Nat- Abundance, habitat use, and movements of Blue- ural del Bosque Mbaracayu: su importancia en la winged Macaws (Primolius maracana) and other par- conservacion´ de aves amenazadas, cuasi amenazadas y J. Field Ornithol. 32 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007

endemicas´ del Bosque Atlantico´ del Interior. Cotinga of mainland Neotropical parrots. In: Conservation of 4: 52–57. New World parrots. Proceedings of the International MANNING, A. D., D. B. LINDENMAYER, AND S. C. BARRY. Council for Bird Preservation Parrot Working Group 2004. The conservation implications of bird repro- Meeting, St. Lucia, 1980. (R. F. Pasquier, ed.), pp. duction in the agricultural “matrix”: a case study of 233–384. Technical Publication No. 1, Smithsonian the vulnerable Superb Parrot of south-eastern Aus- Institution Press for the International Council for tralia. Biological Conservation 120: 363–374. Bird Preservation, Washington, D.C. MENEGAUX, A. 1918. Etude´ d’une collection d’oiseaux ROBBINS, M. B., R. C. FAUCETT, AND N. RICE. 1999. faite par M. E. Wagner dans la province des “Mi- Avifauna of a Paraguayan cerrado locality Parque Na- siones” (Republique´ Argentine). Revue Française cional Serran´ıa San Luis, Depto. Concepcion.´ Wilson d’Ornithologie 10: 288–293. Bulletin 111: 216–228. NAROSKY,T.,AND D. YZURIETA. 1987. Gu´ıa para la SAIBENE, C. A., M. A. CASTELINO,N.R.REY,J.HERRERA, identificacion´ de las aves de Argentina y Uruguay. AND J. CALO. 1996. Inventario de las aves del Parque Asociacion´ Ornitologica´ del Plata y Vazquez´ Mazzini Nacional “Iguazu´”, Misiones, Argentina. Monograf´ıa Editores, Buenos Aires, Argentina. No. 9, Editorial Literature of Latin America, Buenos NAVAS, J., AND N. BO´. 1988. Aves nuevas o poco cono- Aires, Argentina. cidas de Misiones, Argentina II. Comunicaciones SALVADORI, T.1895. Viaggio del dott. Alfredo Borelli nella Zoologicas´ del Museo de Historia Natural de Mon- Republica Argentina e nel Paraguay. Uccelli raccolti tevideo 12: 1–9. nel Paraguay, nel Matto Grosso, nel Tucuman e nella NORES, M., AND D. YZURIETA. 1994. The status of Provincia di Salta. Bollettino dei Musei di Zoologia e Argentine parrots. Bird Conservation International di Anatomia Comparativa della Universita di Torino, 4: 313–328. Torino, Italy. ORFILA, R. N. 1938. Los psittaciformes argentinos. El SICK, H. 1993. Birds in Brazil. Princeton University Press, Hornero 7: 1–21. Princeton, NJ. PAYNTER, R. A., JR. 1985. Ornithological gazetteer of Ar- SILVA, T. 1988. Bird watching in Paraguay. Bulletin of the gentina. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard Amazon Society 5: 2–6. University, Cambridge, MA. ——. 1989. A monograph of endangered parrots. Silvio ——. 1989. Ornithological gazetteer of Paraguay, 2nd ed. Mattacchione and Co., Pickering, ON, Canada. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard Univer- STRAUBE, F. C., M. R. BORNSCHEIN, AND P. S CHERER- sity, Cambridge, MA. NETO. 1996. Coletaneaˆ da avifauna da regiao˜ ——, AND M. A. TRAYLOR,JR. 1991. Ornithological noroeste do estado do Paranae´ areas´ lim´ıtrofes. gazetteer of Brazil. Museum of Comparative Zoology, Arquivos de Biologia e Tecnologia 39: 193–214. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. ——,R.KRUL, AND E. CARRANO. 2005. Coletaneaˆ da PODTIAGUIN, B. 1944. Catalogo´ sistematico´ de las aves avifauna da regiao˜ sul do estado do Parana´ (Brasil). del Paraguay. Aumentado por las contribuciones al Atualidades Ornitologicas´ 125: 10. conocimiento de la ornitolog´ıa paraguaya. Revista de ——, AND A. URBEN-FILHO. 2004. Uma revisao˜ cr´ıtica la Sociedad Cient´ıfica de Paraguay 6: 7–120. sobre o grau de conhecimento da avifauna do Parque PRESTES, N.P., AND J. MARTINEZ. 1996. Nota de Nacional do Iguaçu (Parana,´ Brasil) e areas´ adjacentes. ocurrenciaˆ de Amazona vinacea (Kuhl 1820) para os Atualidades Ornitologicas´ 118: 6. estados do Rio Grande do Sul e Santa Caterina. In: ——,A.URBEN-FILHO, AND D. KAJIWARA. 2004. Aves. Ornitologia como Ciencia.ˆ Resumos do V Congresso In: Livro vermelho da fauna ameaçada no estado do Brasileiro de Ornitologia, p. 93. Sociedade Brasileira Parana.´ (S. B. Mikich and R. S. Bernils,´ eds.), pp. de Ornitologia, Brazil. 143–496. Instituto Ambiental do Parana,´ Curitiba, REITZ, R., R. D. H. KLEIN, AND A. REIS. 1979. Madeiras Brazil. do Brasil. Editora Lunardelli, Florianopolis, Brazil. WEGE,D.C.,AND A. J. LONG. 1995. Key areas for threat- REY, N. 2005a. Corredor Urugua-´ı - Foerster. In: Ar- ened birds in the Neotropics. BirdLife Conservation eas importantes para la conservacion´ de las aves en Series No. 5, BirdLife International, Cambridge, UK. Argentina. Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion´ WHITE, E. W. 1882. Notes on the birds collected in the de la Biodiversidad. (A. S. Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. Argentine Republic. Proceedings of the Zoological 284–286. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservacion´ No. Society of London : 591–629. 5. Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ Ornitologica´ del Plata, WRIGHT, T. F., C. A. TOFT,E.ENKERLIN-HOEFLICH, Buenos Aires, Argentina. J. GONZALEZ-ELIZONDO,M.ALBORNOZ,A. ——. 2005b. Parque Provincial Horacio Foerster. In: RODR´ıGUEZ-FERRARO,F.ROJAS-SUAREZ´ ,V.SANZ, Areas importantes para la conservacion´ de las aves en A. TRUJILLO,S.R.BEISSINGER,V.BEROVIDES Argentina. Sitios Prioritarios para la Conservacion´ A.,X.GALVEZ´ A.,A.T.BRICE,K.JOYNER,J. de la Biodiversidad. (A. S. Di Giacomo, ed.), pp. EBERHARD,J.GILARDI,S.E.KOENIG,S.STOLESON, 286–287. Temas de Naturaleza y Conservacion´ No. P. M ARTUSCELLI,J.M.MEYERS,K.RENTON,A.M. 5. Aves Argentinas/Asociacion´ Ornitologica´ del Plata, RODR´ıGUEZ,A.C.SOSA-ASANZA,F.J.VILELLA, AND Buenos Aires, Argentina. J. W. WILEY. 2001. Nest poaching in Neotropical RIDGELY, R. S. 1981. The current distribution and status parrots. Conservation Biology 15: 710–720. Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 33 continued 35 – Search Number observed 19972004 56 5 0 4 2005 2719952002 0 40 119 80 167 1959 ? (18) 20022005 63 620 60 163 – – – – – – – – Year effort (days) (collected) 1949 ? ? Present ´ o 1988, LACM, b ) have been recorded in Argentina, Paraguay, and neighboring areas of Brazil, and locations as cited in Collar et al. 1992 1994 D. Serra in litt.This study 1996 2004 7Lowen et al. 1995This study 0 1992 2001 R. Ridgely 1991 in litt. to ICBP 1977 ? 8 Eckelberry 1965Chebez 1992 in litt. toProyecto Nauta Collar in et litt. al. to 1992 Nores and Yzurieta 1987 ? 1959? Present ? Present Giraudo et al. 1993Krauczuk and Baldo 2004This study 2000 1991 1997 ? 6 Amazona vinacea W IML, as cited in ChebezW 1992W This study BensteadW et al. 1993 MACN, IML, Navas and B 1946W ?W This study 1993 ThisW studyW 2002 ThisW study ThisW study (1) This study 17 ThisW studyW This study Hayes 1991 in litt. to Collar et al. 1992W 5 1987 2001 2005 2004 2003 2003 4 ? 2005 8 2000 5 8 Many 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 12 45 39 51 08 57 47 09 50 40 46 22 37 47 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ S53 S53 S53 S54 S54 S53 S54 S53 S53 S53 S54 S54 S54 Coordinates Source 07 15 15 38 46 03 21 25 30 48 16 28 19 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ (our estimate) nd, the species during our study. 26 26 fi ı ´ ´ a (P-CAN) 24 ´ o, Arroyo Pozuelo 24 a ˜ nalito (A-SP) 26 ˜ nal Seco (A-SP) 26 (A-BE) This study(P-CAN) 2005 Ridgely 1991 in litt. 1 to Collar et al. 1992 1991 0 ? 30 (A-BE) (A-SP) 2. Bernardo de Irigoyen (A-BE)3. Intercontinental Property 26 26 9. Forestal Belga (A-SP) 26 13. Celos Parini (P-CAN) 24 4. San Pedro-Tobuna area 6. Southwest PP Urugua- 7. Pozo Azul (A-SP)8. PP Pi 10. Pi Lowland Semi-deciduous Forest 11. RB Carap 12. RNP 26 Itab Location Highland Parana Pine Forest 1. San Antonio (A-BE) 26 5. RN Kuri-y (P-AP) 25 Appendix 1. Locations wherewhere Vinaceous we Amazons searched ( for, but did not J. Field Ornithol. 34 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 continued ∗ Search Number observed 20052005 ? ? Present Present 2005 20 1 – – – Year effort (days) (collected) b Appendix 1. Continued. ´ ´ ´ erez in litt.erez in litt.erez in litt. 1988 ? 1988 ? Present ´ opez 1992 1990 ? 70 This studyN. P This studyJ. Vielliard in litt.This studyUMMZ, as cited in HayesAMNH, 1995 as cited in CollarRidgely et 1991 al. 2002 in 1992 litt. toSilva Collar 1988, et 1989 al. 1992This study 2000 1991 1977 1950 1940 18 2000 6 ? ? ? 40 0 6 1988 21 Present 45 (6) 1997 (2) ? 6 0 W HayesW and Granizo Tamayo 1992 SalvadoriW 1895, as cited in Hayes 1995 AMNH, as cited in CollarWL et al. 1992 1989 1893WN.P WN.P 1930W 2 ?W This study WegeW and Long ? 1995 12.4/10 km Bertoni 1927, as cited in Collar et al. (1) 1992W ? (1) Hayes in Collar et al. 1992 About 1988 2001 ? ? 1989 Present Common 1 ? 0 4 41 59 02 23 10 42 31 40 37 60 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ S54 S55 S56 S54 S55 S54 S54 S54 S54 S54 Coordinates Source 11 59 26 42 55 02 12 20 33 00 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 25 24 ´ a24 ´ u (A-IG) ´ co M. a a de San 25 ı ´ Puerto ıfi ´ ´ aPyt = u (Brazil) ¸ o Carap ı ´ ´ u / Serran ´ o (P-AP) 25 ´ e, R a ´ u / Estancia It n (P-CAAG) Silva 1989 1988 ? 0 ı ´ (P-CAAG) This study 2001 5 0 Bertoni / Puerto Bertoni (P-AP) / Puerto Iguaz Stroessner / Puerto Gibaja / Monumento Cient / Foz do Iguac (P-CAN) Location 15. Yh Joaqu 17. RB Limoy (P-AP)18. Itakyry (P-AP) 24 20. RB Pikiry (P-AP)21. Hernandarias/RB Tati Yupi(P-AP) 24 22. 25 Ciudad del Este 25 This study 2001 2 0 16. Caaguaz 19. RB Itab 14. Catuet 23. Puerto Barra (P-AP) 26 Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 35 ) continued + Search Number observed 2000s Many 0 ? ? Many 1987 Many2003 158 0 0 1961 ? (44 – – – – – Year effort (days) (collected) 1890 ? ? Present 1948 ? (1) 1958 1980s b ´ o 1988 1955 ? (1) la 1938 1900 ? (1) fi Appendix 1. Continued. ´ ´ an 1988 in litt. to Silva 1989 1978 ? 8,000 an 1988 in litt. to Silva 1989 1978 ? 3,000 Hayes 1995 al. 1992 Urben-Filho 2004 1992; MACN 1998, Gil and Ciarmiello 2005 Silva 1988, 1989 1988 ? 300 MHNCI, as cited in Straube and Rey 2005a,bThis study Recent 2001, 2005 Many 17 0 0 Eckelberry 1965Straneck in litt. to ChebezRidgely 1992 1981Chebez 1992Silva 1989, Saibene et al. 1996, Chebez et al. This study 1983 1959? ? ? 1980 ? 1997 1 ? Daily 0 This study 2001, 2005 2 0 Baz W Various museums, as cited in Collar et al. W MACN, MLPW MACN, Or W 1939, 1948 MLP, Navas and B ? (15) 46 34 26 03 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ S54 S55 S54 S54 Coordinates Source 59 01 41 48 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 25 25 ´ u ¸ o ı ı ´ ´ ´ a (P-?) ? Bertoni 1914; Bertoni 1927, 1939, as cited in ´ u / Mouth of R ´ u / Cataratas de ´ an Meza (P-IT) 27 a ´ u (A-IG) / PN do Iguac ˜ km 10 (A-IG) Silva 1989 1988 ? 0 Segundo / Arroyo Urugua- Nacunday (P-AP) / Puerto Iguaz (Brazil) 28. Cordillera del Paraguay (P-?)29. Yaguarasap ? MACN 1923 ? (1) Location 24. Colonia Dorada (P-AP) ? Baz 25. Comandacay (P-AP)26. Paranamb ? Nores and Yzurieta 1983, as cited in Collar et 30. PN Iguaz 27. Capit 31. Deseado (A-BE) 25 J. Field Ornithol. 36 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 ) ) ” ” continued millions “ thousands “ Search Number observed 1925 ?2005 Many ( 20052005 82005 21 202005 302005 0 2005 27 0 0 6 35 0 0 0 0 2006 Many Several 1963 ? (3) – – – – – – – – – – Year effort (days) (collected) 1984 1921 ? Many ( 1967 ? (1) b ´ o 1988 1962 Appendix 1. Continued. ˜ nuk 1985, pers. comm. to Chebez litt. to Nores and Yzurieta2005 1994; Krauczuk 1992 al. 1992 IML, Collar et al. 1992Cabanne and Krauczuk 2005 ? 1956 ? ? (2) 0 Chebez 1987, 1992, 1994; Proyecto Nauta in This studyThis study 2005 14 2003 0 2 0 This study 2001, 2003 8 14 Keve and Kovacs 1973, as cited in Collar et This study 2002 75 0 WM.Ole W MLP, Navas and B W F. Kruse pers. comm. to Chebez 1992WW This study This studyW 1924 This studyWW This study This studyWW This study Giraudo etW al. 1993W This studyW This studyW This study This 2001 studyW 2005 Podtiaguin 1944 2004 2004 10 2004 Around 1990 10 2001 ? 2002 0 2003 0 1998 1939 2002 0 ? 4 Uncommon 0 02 38 47 51 15 10 16 13 54 54 40 29 59 47 55 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ S55 S54 S54 S54 S54 S54 S54 S54 S53 S53 S54 S54 S54 S54 S57 Coordinates Source 23 24 34 51 50 51 42 56 54 09 00 01 06 05 10 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 25 26 25 ı ´ (A-GU) 26 ´ u (A-CAI) 27 ı ´ ´ u, PP ˜ na Pir ´ a (A-SP) 27 (A-BE) ı ´ a o Apa (P-CON) 22 ı ´ Urugua- (A-GU) (A-IG) Location 35. Estancia Muxfeldt (P-AP) 25 38. RNP Yaguaround 39. Area Experimental Guaran 40. PP Esmeralda (A-SP)41. PP Mocon 42. Dos de Mayo (A-CAI)43. San 26 Vicente (A-GU)44. Valle del Cu 45. Aristobulo del Valle (A-CG) 27 27 27 36. Establecimiento San Jorge 37. Seccional Uruz Lowland Semi-deciduous Forest/Cerrado Scrubland 46. R 32. Campo Viera (A-OB) 27 33. Eldorado (A-EL) 26 34. Montecarlo (A-MO) 26 Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 37 continued Search Number observed 1989 ? Rare 1989 ?19952006 162 Rare 59 3 Occasions 0 2001 12 0 2000 17 0 1994 ? Many – – – – – – – Year effort (days) (collected) 1990 1893, 1907 ? (3) b Appendix 1. Continued. ˜ no and Esquivel 1995 1994 litt. 1992 ´ ´ opez 1992 1988 opez 1992 1988 This study 1999, 2006 8 0 Lowen et al. 1996This study 1992, 1995 59 2000 Rare Madro This study 1999 W This study 1999 7 0 WL WL W P.Scharf 1992 in litt. to Brooks et al. 1993, in W ThisW study Lowen et al. 1996W ThisW study ThisW study ThisW studyW This study ThisW study AMNH, 1992 BMNH, 2000 as cited in Collar et al. 2000 10 5 2002 2002 9 0 2000 0 2000 11 18 0 10 0 0 0 15 31 27 26 22 18 09 23 00 18 58 26 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ S57 S57 S55 S55 S55 S, 57 S56 S56 S57 S56 S55 S56 ’ Coordinates Source 17 40 07 17 35 25 28 31 35 49 45 45 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 25 24 24 23 23 22 o22 ı ´ Kue = ade (P-CON) This study 1999 7 0 ı ´ ´ on / R ı ´ ´ u / Estancia ´ a Campana (P-CON) 22 ı ˆ a de la Sierra / Robbins et al. 1999 1996 22 0 ı ´ a (P-SP) ı ´ ´ u (P-GU) a San Luis / Estancia 22 ı ´ a ´ e / Estancia San Luis / Sait Santa Mar Arroyo Tagatiyam (P-CAAG) This study 2000 7 14 Ybyturuz Jimenez (P-CAN) Tuvy (P-CAN) and 75 (P-SP) and Alegr (P-AM) Arroyo Toro Paso (P-CON) 48. Serran 49. RNB Mbaracay 50. Mbaracayu Chino 57. Yaguarete Forest (P-SP) 23 52. Retiro Sat 51. Estancia Golondrina 24 54. Estancias Guyr 55. Estancias Galive, Don Luis, 56. Laguna Blanca (P-SP)Lowland Semi-deciduous Forest / Campos 58. Villarrica / Serran 23 53. Estancia Arroyo Blanco Location 47. Estancia Centuri J. Field Ornithol. 38 K. Cockle et al. Winter 2007 continued Search Number observed 1992 56 Present 2006 77 0 1932 ?2004 (15) 101994 28 0 20022006 0 60 108 Local report Possibly 4 – – – – – – – Year effort (days) (collected) 1910 la 1938, fi b ˜ no in litt. 1998 15 0 Appendix 1. Continued. Chebez 1992, Collar et al. 1992 V. Piacentini in litt. 2004 ? Various Chebez 2005This studyThis studyLowen et al. 1996This study Recent 2005A. Madro This study ManyA. Esquivel in litt. 2003 3 0 1995 2002 0 4 2003 2000 3 0 0 W MACN, IML, Menegaux 1918, Or W IML, CollarW et al. 1992W White 1882 White 1882WW This study Hayes and Scharf 1995W 1912 Lowen etW al. 1996 Lowen et al. 1996 1881 ? 1881 1987 ? 2000 (2) ? 1995 Incredible numbers 1995 Incredible numbers 2 11 6 0 0 Local report 33 29 08 31 10 48 58 43 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ S55 S55 S55 S55 S57 S56 S55 S55 Coordinates Source 17 29 53 59 55 05 14 24 ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ ◦ 27 ´ e ´ u Cuar Tey ´ a / PN 26 = (B-PA) Straube et al. 2004 Modern ? Present ı (B-PA) Straube et al. 1996, A. Urben-Filho in litt. 1950s ? (1) ´ (P-PA) 26 ı ı ´ ´ o Jordao (B-PA) Straube et al. 2005 1996 34 Present ´ on (A-CO) 27 ı ´ ´ o / Campo San Juan ´ u (P-CAAZ) This study 2000 a o Guaran o Piquir ı ı ´ ´ (A-CA)Caaguaz This study 2001, 2005 4 0 Araucarias (B-SC) (A-SI) / Santa Ana /Santo Loreto Pip / (A-CA) 73. Parque Estadual das 71. Foz do R 72. UHE Segredo (B-PA) Straube et al. 2005 1991 68. PN San Rafael (P-IT) 26 70. R Location 59. Villa Lutecia 61. San Javier (A-SJ) 27 62. Concepci 66. PN Ybycu 60. Bonpland / Cerro Azul 27 63. P-MI64. P-CAAZ65. Cerro Acahay (P-PA)67. Estancia 25 Tapyt Brazil 69. R Podtiaguin 1944 Podtiaguin 1944 ? ? ? ? Present Present Vol. 78, No. 1 Vinaceous Amazons in Argentina and Paraguay 39 ´ a, collection at the , A-OB- Ober ı ´ = ´ a, P-?- department Search Number observed ´ a, B-SC- Santa Catarina, and B-RGS- Rio Year effort (days) (collected) Modern ? Occasional Modern ? Present ´ on, P-AM- Amambay, P-SP- San Pedro, P-CAN- ´ ua, P-MI- Misiones, P-CAAZ- Caazap ´ on; (Brazil) B-PA- Paran b , P-IT- Itap ı ´ and refers to unpublished information communicated in writing. ” collection at the Museo Provincial Antonio Serrano, and MLP collection at the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales Bernardino Rivadavia, = = ´ a, P-PA- Paraguar to Collar et al. 1992, Bencke et al. 2003 to Collar et al. 1992 Appendix 1. Continued. Albuquerque per Varty 1992 pers. comm. Albuquerque per Varty 1992 pers. comm. G. Bencke in litt. 2002 ? 4 in correspondence “ ´ as, A-SJ- San Javier, A-CO- Concepci ´ a, P-GU- Guair ´ u, A-BE- Belgrano, A-EL- Eldorado, A-MO- Montecarlo, A-SP- San Pedro, A-GU- Guaran Coordinates Source (in litteris) means ” in litt. ´ u, P-AP- Alto Paran “ specimen collection at the Instituto Miguel Lillo, MACN collection at the American Museum of Natural History, MAS ´ u, P-CAAG- Caaguaz a = = o da Varcea (B-RGS) ı ´ ˜ ao Miguel do Oeste (B-SC) Bege 1991 in litt. to Collar et al. 1992 1980 ? Present Locality numbers correspond to Fig. 1. Provinces, states and departments: (Paraguay) P-CON- Concepci Probably an escaped cage bird. IML a b ∗ (B-RGS) /R Rural de Braga (B-RGS) Location AMNH 74. S 75. Parque Estadual do Turvo Museo de La Plata. The phrase 76. Reserva Indigena de Nonoai unknown; (Misiones, Argentina) A-IG-A-SI- San Iguaz Ignacio, A-CA- Candelaria, A-CAI- Caingu Canindey 77. Reserva do Asentamento Grande do Sul.