Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World
Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World
EUGENE M. McCARTHY
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World This page intentionally left blank Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World
EUGENE M. MC CARTHY
3
2006 3
Oxford University Press, Inc., publishes works that further Oxford University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education.
Oxford New York Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices in Argentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugual Singapore South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Copyright © 2006 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Published by Oxford University Press, Inc. 198 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016 www.oup.com
Oxford is a registered trademark of Oxford University Press
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of Oxford University Press.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data McCarthy, Eugene M. Handbook of avian hybrids of the world/Eugene M. McCarthy. p. cm. ISBN-13 978-0-19-518323-8 ISBN 0-19-518323-1 1. Birds—Hybridization. 2. Birds—Hybridization—Bibliography. I. Title. QL696.5.M33 2005 598′.01′2—dc22 2005010653
987654321 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper For Rebecca, Clara, and Margaret This page intentionally left blank For he who is acquainted with the paths of nature, will more readily observe her deviations; and vice versa, he who has learnt her deviations, will be able more accurately to describe her paths.
—Francis Bacon, Novum Organum (1620) This page intentionally left blank Preface
his book is intended to provide basic information about each of the thousands Tof types of reported avian crosses, to provide access to documenting literature, and to familiarize readers with the nature of avian hybridization. I have long been interested in hybridization, especially its role in evolutionary processes. I began this book because I wanted to make a thorough survey of hybridization within the con- text of a well-studied class of organisms. I thought birds would be ideal. There was plenty of data available, much as yet ungathered. Available surveys were far out of date. Moreover, more information on geographic distribution is available for birds than for almost any other major group of organisms. Detailed information on spa- tial distribution greatly facilitates the identification of hybrid zones. My general approach to the subject has been exploratory. I therefore often include not only prima facie evidence, but also facts merely suggesting the occurrence of hybridiza- tion. My intention in writing this book was to learn more about the subject myself, and to help and encourage others to study it, too. The construction of a reference on avian hybridization is an enterprise fraught with hazard. There are many pitfalls related to spelling, nomenclature, and classifi- cation, as well as an ever-present risk of factual error, often exacerbated by con- flicting reports. For each cross, various details must be accurately determined, to the extent that information is available: Are the hybrids fertile? Are they viable? What do they look like? Do the birds participating in the cross come into natural contact? If so, where? Are there additional reports of the cross that have been omit- ted? While I have done my utmost to eliminate mistakes, any book dealing with a subject of such complexity is liable to error. In addition, the literature on avian hybridization is so vast that I am sure that I have inadvertently omitted some reported crosses. The bibliography lists more than 5,000 references, but some for- eign language publications and articles in out-of-the-way breeding journals have no doubt escaped my attention. Nevertheless, I believe this book does constitute a step forward in the understanding of avian hybridization. This page intentionally left blank Acknowledgments
arious portions and drafts of the manuscript were circulated for comments and VI am grateful here to my fellow University of Georgia scientists Paul Mack and J. P. Schmidt. I also appreciate the helpful suggestions of two anonymous review- ers, and the validation reviewer, W. S. Moore. The reference staff at the University of Georgia Science Library, Lucy Rowland, Diana Hartle, and Monica Pereira in par- ticular, have provided unstinting and invaluable assistance, as has our Computer Services Specialist, Dave Brown, here in the Genetics Department. I am indebted to many people for their generosity in answering correspondence and supplying information and articles relevant to this work, namely: Bill Aragon, Curator of Birds, Albuquerque Biological Park; Jonathan Barnaby, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK; Mark Bremer, National Aviary; Michael Brooks, SAFRING Avian Demography Unit; Nick Fox, International Wildlife Consultants Ltd.; Anthony Ganesh, Singapore Zoological Gardens; Jim Granlund, Michigan Audubon Society; Holly Green, Registrar, Indianapolis Zoo; Kai Grosch, Max-Planck-Forschungsstelle für Ornithologie; David Hancock, Hancock Wildlife Research Center; Johan Ingels; Laszlo Janossy, Curator, Budapest Zoo; James Kamstra; Daisy Ling, Dep. Exec. Director, Jurong Bird Park, Singapore; Tim Melling, British Ornithological Union; Jemima Parry-Jones, National Birds of Prey Centre, UK; Lucia Liu Severinghaus, Academica Sinica, Taipei; Daniel Shearing, Editor, Foreign Bird League 1991–2003; Michael Sorenson, Boston University; Per Gustav Thingstad, Museum of Natural History and Archaeology, Trondheim; William Todd, Assistant Curator of Birds, Houston Zoo; Francis Toldi; Ülo Väli, Estonian Agricultural University; Renate van den Elzen, Alexander Koenig Research Institute and Museum of Zoology; Vince Walkosak, Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum; Carolyn Walsh, Memorial University of Newfoundland. My good friend Stuart Katz has read numerous draft manuscripts and provided me with many keen insights and valuable suggestions. Finally I thank my wife, Rebecca, who throughout has provided me with her advice, criticism, encour- agement, and patience, as well as editorial assistance. This page intentionally left blank Contents
Introduction Rollers 117 Courol 117 Using this Book 3 Motmots 117 Identifying Hybrids 14 Todies 118 Hybrid Zones 18 Kingfishers 118 Hybrid Populations and Taxa 27 Kookaburras 119 Causes of Hybridization 31 Bee-eaters 119 Underreporting 33 Mousebirds 120 Future Research 37 Cuckoos and Coucals 120 Parrots and Their Allies 121 Cross Accounts Cockatoos 141 Ostriches, Rheas, and Kiwis 39 Swifts 143 Tinamous 39 Crested-Swifts 143 Brush-turkeys and Scrubfowls 39 Hummingbirds 144 Upland Game Birds 41 Turacos 155 New World Quails 65 Barn Owls 155 Screamers 67 Typical Owls 156 Swans, Geese, and Ducks 67 Nightjars, Frogmouths, Honeyguides 102 and Nighthawks 158 Woodpeckers 102 Pigeons and Doves 158 Barbets and Tinkerbirds 110 Bustards 165 Toucans and Aracaris 112 Cranes 165 Jacamars 114 Rails 167 Puffbirds 114 Sandgrouses 168 Hornbills 114 Plovers, Sandpipers, and Their Allies 169 Hoopoes 115 Jacanas 171 Woodhoopoes 115 Oystercatchers 171 Scimitar-bills 116 Stilts and Avocets 172 Trogons 116 Pratincoles 172 xiv Contents
Jaegers and Skuas 173 Cuckoo-shrikes 233 Gulls, Terns, and Noddies 173 Fantails and Drongos 233 Alcids 179 Ioras 234 Eagles, Hawks, and Old World Bushshrikes and Helmetshrikes 234 Vultures 180 Waxwings 235 Falcons 184 Thrushes 235 Grebes 187 Old World Flycatchers 241 Boobies and Gannets 188 Starlings and Mynas 243 Cormorants 188 Mimids 245 Herons and Egrets 189 Nuthatches 246 Flamingos 192 Wrens, Tree-Creepers, Ibises and Spoonbills 192 and Gnatcatchers 247 Pelicans 193 Tits, Chickadees, and Their Allies 248 New World Vultures 194 Swallows 253 Storks 194 Regulids 255 Penguins 194 Bulbuls and Greenbuls 255 Loons 195 Cisticolids 258 Shearwaters, Petrels, and Prions 196 White-eyes 260 Albatrosses 198 Old World Warblers 261 Pittas 199 Larks 265 Asities 199 Sunbirds and Their Allies 266 Tyrant Flycatchers 199 Old World Sparrows 268 Manakins 204 Pipits and Wagtails 270 Ovenbirds and Their Allies 205 Weavers and Their Allies 272 Australo-Papuan Treecreepers 210 Estrildine Finches 275 Lyrebirds 210 Indigobirds and Whydahs 294 Bowerbirds 211 Fringillid Finches 295 Fairywrens 211 Hawaiian Finches 307 Honeyeaters 212 Wood Warblers 307 Pardalotids 214 Tanagers, Cardinals, and Australo-Papuan Robins 215 Their Allies 316 Australo-Papuan Babblers 216 New World Blackbirds 333 Shrikes 216 Vireos and Greenlets 219 Appendices Quail-thrushes 220 1 Canary Crosses 339 Sittellas 220 2 Dubious Reports 345 Whistlers and Shrike-thrushes 221 3 Internet Citations 349 Jays and Magpie-Jays 221 Crows, Ravens, Magpies, Works Cited 355 and Nutcrackers 224 Birds of Paradise 228 Artamids 232 Index of English and Scientific Figbirds and Orioles 233 Names 515 Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World This page intentionally left blank Introduction
andbook of Avian Hybrids of the World attempts to list all avian crosses reported Hin the scientific literature and/or on the Internet (the vast majority of the documentation is of the former type). Quite a few personal communications are also included. It is the broadest survey of its kind to date, listing not only crosses occur- ring under natural conditions, but also those obtained in captivity. No general refer- ence on this subject has been published in English since 1958 (A. P. Gray’s Bird Hybrids). Since that time, interest in avian hybridization has been steadily rising, especially with regard to the fields of taxonomy, conservation, and evolutionary biology. In recent years, reports of hybrids have been far more frequent than in the past (Randler 1998). The increase is probably due to a large rise in the number of field observers, better optical equipment, and an enhanced awareness of the exis- tence of avian hybrids. Unusual hybrids are now often prominently featured in bird- ing magazines and are puzzled over by birders in chat rooms on the Internet. Gray’s book continues to be cited, but mostly for lack of anything more up-to-date. There has been a need for a new reference that takes into account the last half century of data. Moreover, although often cited by academics, Gray’s book has a decidedly utilitarian perspective, slanted toward the concerns of the breeder rather than the professional biologist. A more recent work on the topic, written for biologists rather than breeders, is E. N. Panov’s Natural Hybridization and Etholog- ical Isolation in Birds (1989). It is also widely cited, but is still 17 years out of date, written in Russian, and covers only natural hybrids. Data on hybrids produced in captivity can also be important to naturalists. Crosses produced in aviaries often allow identification of specimens obtained in the wild. This book represents an effort to fill these gaps in the literature.
Using This Book There are various uses for a book of this kind. Hybridization is a phenomenon of basic relevance in biology, whether one is interested in taxonomy, conservation,
3 4 Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World evolution, birding, or commercial breeding. What a reader might gain from a reference work on avian hybrids depends on his or her individual interests. A taxonomist might be interested in accessing information on hybridization within a particular group of birds. A conservation biologist might wish to know whether an introduced bird is likely to hybridize with native ones. A zookeeper could have similar concerns if she planned to place a new bird in a mixed flock. There is great interest among birders because of identification problems and potential confusion of hybrids with vagrants. A museum worker, too, might consult such a reference to identify an unusual specimen. Many evolutionary biologists are interested in hybrid zones as important factors in the evolution of natural populations. A breeder might wish to know what crosses have been attempted and what might be likely ones to try. Since the potential applications of the information contained in this book are so varied, the present section will provide only a description of the nature of that information and how it is organized. It is followed by a brief survey of other topics of biological interest. Some crosses are poorly known, but to the extent that data is available, for each cross this book provides information about (1) the fertility of the hybrids; (2) whether the cross occurs naturally, in captiv- ity, or both; (3) geographic regions where contact between hybridizing popula- tions occurs; and (4) rates at which it occurs. For many of the better-studied crosses, additional details are provided, such as brief descriptions of the hybrids, their behavior, or historical information about the cross. Major Divisions. For the most part, crosses are grouped into major divisions in terms of the families to which the hybridizing pairs belong (see Table of Contents). For each there is a “cross account” providing information about the cross. Within each major division, cross accounts are listed in alphabetical order. Note that many well-documented crosses are between birds that are frequently treated as being in separate families, for example, ducks (Anatidae) and geese (Anseridae). Where numerous crosses link two families together, as in the case just mentioned, the families are listed together in a single division. The ordering of major divisions follows Sibley and Monroe (1990), except in those cases where families have been combined within a single division. Finding a Cross. The main body of this book is composed of accounts of the various crosses. A cross account lists information for a cross that may interest bio- logists, birders, or researchers. Within each major division, cross accounts are listed in alphabetical order by the scientific names of the birds participating in the crosses. For a given pair of birds, the order is based on whichever of the two scientific names comes first in the alphabet. Thus, information about hybridization between North- ern Parula and American Redstart is listed under Parula americana, not Setophaga ruticilla (under Setophaga ruticilla a note is included to look under Parula ameri- cana). To find information about hybridization involving a particular bird, look in the index under the appropriate name (both scientific and English names are listed). Next, turn to the indicated page and look under the scientific name of the bird. Listed there will be information about crosses with any birds having scientific names Introduction 5 that come after the scientific name of that bird. Information about hybridization between it and birds having scientific names that precede it will be listed under the names of those birds. Thus, since the scientific name of the Tropical Parula (Parula pitiayumi) comes before that of the Crescent-chested Warbler (Parula superciliosa), information about crossing between the two is listed under the heading of Parula pitiayumi:
Parula pitiayumi [Tropical Parula] See also: Parula americana. × Parula superciliosa [Crescent-chested Warbler] NHR (Texas, U.S.). BRO: high- lands of Cen. America. Rappole and Blacklock 1994; Thornton and Thornton 1999. Internet: TXB. For this poorly studied cross, little information is listed, beyond the fact that natural hybridization has been reported (NHR = natural hybridization reported) from Texas, and that breeding ranges of the birds in question overlap in Central America (BRO = breeding range overlap). The note to “See also: Parula americana” indicates that additional information about hybridization of Parula pitiayumi can be found under the heading Parula americana, which has alphabetic precedence. Information under that heading looks like this (here ENHR means extensive natural hybridization reported):
Parula americana [Northern Parula] See also: Dendroica cerulea; D. coronata; D. dominica; D. magnolia. × Parula pitiayumi [Tropical Parula] ENHR (s U.S.). Mixed nesting pairs and numerous hybrids are reported in ext. s Texas (cen. Val Verde Co.). Apparently, no formal study has been made of this contact region, but distribution data and Internet reports suggest that the hybrid zone is narrow. These birds are sometimes lumped. Lockwood and Freeman 2004 (p. 171); Rappole and Blacklock 1994; Thornton and Thornton 1999. Internet: WFR. Note that some pairs of birds are listed which have not actually been reported to hybridize. These are cases in which there is only reason to suspect hybridization. For example, the observation of mixed pairs in a natural setting is often taken as a strong indication that actual hybridization may be occurring. In fact, initial reports of mixed pairing are commonly followed by reports of hybrids. Mixed pairs are also often reported in captivity. The policy in listing such cases is to state the nature of the evidence, but to append the statement “No hybrids as yet reported.” 6 Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World
Works on hybridization will sometimes list a cross without apparent substanti- ation from primary reports. A few crosses listed in modern reviews of hybridization were last observed and reported in the 19th century. Some apparently have never been observed at all. Yet, when one author after another cites earlier authors for a cross, who in their turn cite yet earlier authors, the long chain of claims lends the cross an air of veracity not borne out by the evidence. In some cases, these chains of citations can be traced back to an initial report that was quite vague or even mis-cited. In order to terminate such chains, such crosses are listed also in this book, but the cross is struck through to indicate that previous authors appear to have reported it in error. The reason for rejecting the cross is also given. Thus, the fact that various modern authors incorrectly cite Gray as listing hybridization between Hermit and Cape May warblers is indicated as follows:
Dendroica occidentalis [Hermit Warbler] × Dendroica tigrina [Cape May Warbler] Some authors incorrectly cite Gray (1958) as list- ing this cross. However, she doesn’t. A reciprocal cross is one that occurs between the same types of birds, but with sexes reversed. For example, a rooster crossing with a pheasant hen is the reciprocal cross of a chicken crossing with a pheasant cock. In many cases, the direction of the cross cannot be reversed, that is, the reciprocal cross does not occur. When known, the direction of a cross is given in the cross account. It is sufficient to specify sex for only one of the participants in the cross, which is done by inserting either a male ( ) or female ( ) symbol after its scientific name in the cross heading. For example, in the following cross heading, it can be understood that male Great Black-backed Gulls hybridize with female Herring Gulls even though a sexual status in the cross is specified only for L. marinus:
Larus argentatus [Herring Gull] × Larus marinus ( ) [Great Black-backed Gull] When a cross is reversible, the symbol ↔ is inserted in the same position. Thus, the fact that both male and female Red-headed Finches are known to cross with the Cut-throat is indicated as follows:
Amadina erythrocephala [Red-headed Finch] × Amadina fasciata (↔) [Cut-throat] After further study a cross may turn out to be reversible, even though initial reports give it in only one direction. Directions listed for crosses in this book that are attested by relatively few citations, then, should be viewed as indicating only that the specified direction has been observed, not that the cross is known to be irreversible. Type and Frequency of Cross. Each cross is classified as to whether it is reported to have occurred in captivity, in a natural setting, or both. In the cross accounts, Introduction 7 these three possible classifications are indicated by acronyms, respectively, CHR, NHR, and CANHR (see the Abbreviation Key, inside the front cover), which appear in each cross account immediately after the names of the hybridizing pair. In the case of naturally occurring crosses, an effort has been made to indicate the frequency with which hybridization occurs. However, exact rates of occurrence are known for relatively few crosses. Intensive study is required to obtain accurate estimates of hybridization rates. Especially in the case of those crosses for which only a few hybrids have been reported, hybridization rates are difficult to judge. When a hybrid of a particular type has been rarely reported, it may be that the cross actually does occur rarely. On the other hand, many crosses involve birds that are poorly studied and/or difficult to observe, such as nocturnally active birds or ones residing in tropical rainforests and other inaccessible locations. In general, avian hybridization is probably underreported, a matter discussed in a later section. For natural crosses, this book provides only a crude measure of the rate of hybridization, indicated by one of the following acronyms:
NHR (natural hybridization reported): This rating indicates that natural hybridization has been reported and that the cross either occurs rarely or has been reported rarely, perhaps due to a lack of study. Since these two cases are difficult to distinguish, an NHR classification is best interpreted as indicating a general lack of specific information concerning rates at which a cross occurs. ONHR (ongoing natural hybridization reported): “Ongoing” indicates either that (1) multiple reports exist of the cross occurring in a natural setting or (2) at least one report indicates that natural hybrids are observed on an ongoing basis (at relatively low levels). ENHR (extensive natural hybridization reported): “Extensive” indicates either that (1) many reports exist of the cross occurring in a natural setting or that (2) at least one report indicates that many natural hybrids are observed on an ongoing basis.
Additional acronyms are constructed by combining the basic types. For example, CAENHI means “captive and extensive natural hybridization inferred” (again, see the Abbreviation Key). A question mark is used to express doubt (or in cases of marked doubt, two question marks). Thus, the following cross has been reported, but is of dubious validity:
Turdus merula [Common Blackbird] × Turdus viscivorus [Mistle Thrush] NHR?? Old reports. BRO: Eurasia. Ackermann 1898; Suchetet 1897a. As might be expected, some crosses are better documented than others. This book lists many crosses, but in the case of some, evidence does not seem to 8 Handbook of Avian Hybrids of the World indicate that hybrids have been produced. Such crosses fall into three categories: ones listed by other authors which seem insufficiently documented, ones that involve reports of mixed courting or nesting (without known production of hybrids), or geographic distributions that suggest, but do not confirm the occur- rence of hybridization (parapatric contact zones, altitudinal contact zones). There are also some crosses listed in which the identity of the hybrid is not specifically known. For example, a hybrid can be thought to be the product of one of two pos- sible parental pairs even though it is unknown which of the two pairs were the actual parents. Fertility and Sterility. A review of published reports of avian hybridization reveals a general tendency toward what might be called dichotomous assessment of hybrid fertility. If an investigator doesn’t observe offspring from a hybrid of a particular type, she will likely conclude all hybrids of that type are sterile. If another observer looks at a hybrid of the same type and finds it does produce some offspring, he will likely express the opinion that all such hybrids are fertile. However, the actual ability of hybrids to produce offspring varies from cross to cross, and, for a partic- ular cross, from individual to individual. Although most types of hybrids are less fertile than the parental types that produced them, the degree of fertility varies widely, from crosses producing very infertile hybrids, unknown to produce offspring, to crosses producing progeny appearing to be as fertile as either parent. The degree of fertility varies, too, with age, with gender, and with the direction of the cross. It can often be improved in successive generations by selection and back- crossing. Given this variability, the failure of one, or even several, individuals to produce offspring does not guarantee that another hybrid produced from the same cross will also be unsuccessful. To some extent, hybrids are subject to the same con- straints as other birds. For example, they can be too young, or too old, to breed. They can also refuse to breed because of stress induced in captivity. Some evidence even suggests that immunological factors affect a female’s ability to conceive (Billingham et al. 1961; Haley and Abplanalp 1970; Vojtiskova 1958). Olsen (1972) found that turkey hens produced fewer fertile hybrid eggs as they developed anti- bodies to chicken spermatozoa. McGovern (1973) says more goat × sheep hybrid embryos die when mother goats have received skin grafts from sheep and injections of ram leukocytes. As just mentioned, the sex of a hybrid has a bearing on its fertility. Among the hybrids produced by a cross, when one sex is absent, rare, infertile, or inviable, it will virtually always be the heterogametic sex (Haldane’s Rule), which in birds is the female (Haldane 1922). Thus, in avian crosses, females are much more likely than males to be sterile or inviable, and if one sex is absent, or rare, it seems always to be the female. However, there is a continuum of cases. In some crosses, females are as common as males and lay fertile eggs. In others, they lay sterile ones. In still others, they lay no eggs at all. And in some, no females occur. Haldane’s Rule can therefore be used as a clue in certain cases. For example, if all, or even the vast majority, of available specimens on which an avian taxon is based are male, Introduction 9 investigators should consider the possibility that the taxon is of hybrid origin (i.e., whether the specimens on which the taxon is based might be hybrid). When two natural populations hybridize on an ongoing basis, but the two types of mtDNA characteristic of the two parental populations remain spatially segregated, the female hybrids will usually be sterile (because mtDNA is maternally inherited). Although fertility in hybrids does appear to be a matter of degree, reports for most crosses offer no exact quantification of this characteristic. Ideally, studies would examine relative percentages of viable gametes, rates of egg fertilization, and hatchability. But for the most part such exact information is available only for crosses involving domestic birds. Wherever possible, such information is included in the cross account, but for those crosses where it is not, it has been necessary to assess fertility in more general terms. Abbreviations used to describe the fertility of hybrids produced by a given cross—HPF, HPF( ), HPF( &