Revision of the Endemic West Indian Genus Melopyrrha from Cuba and the Cayman Islands
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Orlando H. Garrido et al. 134 Bull. B.O.C. 2014 134(2) Revision of the endemic West Indian genus Melopyrrha from Cuba and the Cayman Islands by Orlando H. Garrido, James W. Wiley, Arturo Kirkconnell, Patricia E. Bradley, Alexandra Günther-Calhoun & Daysi Rodríguez Received 18 September 2013 Summary.—Hartert described the Grand Cayman population of Melopyrrha as separate from the Cuban population, but the two forms were considered conspecifc by Bond and later authors. Based on diferences in body size, plumage and vocalisations, we recommend the two populations be treated as separate endemic species: Cuban Bullfnch Melopyrrha nigra on Cuba, Isla de Pinos and cays of the Cuban archipelago, and Cayman Bullfnch M. taylori for Grand Cayman. We present natural history information for both populations. Cuban Bullfnch Melopyrrha nigra occurs in the Cuban archipelago and on Grand Cayman in the Cayman Islands (Garrido & García Montaña 1975, AOU 1998, 2012, Rafaele et al. 1998, Bradley & Rey-Millet 2013). Bonaparte described the genus Melopyrrha in 1853 based on Loxia nigra named by Linnaeus. Cuban Bullfnch, called Negrito in Cuba and Black Sparrow in the Cayman Islands, was described by Linnaeus in 1758 under the name Loxia nigra, based on material from Cuba. In his earliest works, Gundlach (1856, 1876) was unaware that the bullfnch’s range extended to the Cayman Islands, but mentioned Grand Cayman in a later (1893: 110) publication, as did Cory (1892: 112). The Cayman population was considered the same as the Cuban taxon until Hartert (1896) described the Grand Cayman population as Melopyrrha taylori. For several years, both taxa were treated Figure 1. Distribution of Cuban Bullfnch Melopyrrha nigra in the Cuban archipelago and Cayman Islands, showing distributions of proposed species M. nigra and M. taylori. © 2014 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2014 British Ornithologists’ Club Orlando H. Garrido et al. 135 Bull. B.O.C. 2014 134(2) specifcally (Ridgway 1901: 562–563, Lowe 1910, Bond 1936: 388), but since Bond’s frst check-list (1940: 155) he and others (Hellmayr 1938: 168, Paynter & Storer 1970: 151, Garrido & García Montaña 1975, Sibley & Monroe 1990: 768, AOU 1998: 594, Dickinson 2003: 794) have treated them as conspecifc, Cuban Bullfnch Melopyrrha nigra, with two subspecies, M. n. nigra of Cuba and its satellites and M. n. taylori of Grand Cayman (Fig. 1). Hellmayr (1938) recognised that whereas M. n. taylori was clearly a geographical race of Cuban Bullfnch, it was easily distinguished from birds in Cuba by being larger and having less glossy plumage. Our investigation was stimulated by a birdwatcher who informed AK that he had the impression that Cuban and Grand Cayman bullfnches had diferent songs. His observations were correct, but we learned that not only are the vocalisations diferent, but the birds are morphologically distinct as well. Here, we describe the distinctions between the two populations and present the conclusions we draw based on those diferences. Methods We measured Cuban Bullfnch specimens at nine USA and Cuban institutions (Table 1). All specimens were measured using a ruler and dial calipers to the nearest 0.1 mm, following Baldwin et al. (1931). Chord measurements were made with the wing fatened against the ruler. Culmen measurements are from the tip to the feathers. Only adults (n = 211) were used to compare morphometrics. Mass data were obtained from live (n = 64 individuals) and post-mortem (n = 6) birds. Descriptive statistics include standard deviation as a measure TABLE 1 Mean, standard deviation, range and sample size (in brackets) for measurements of wing, tail, culmen, tarsus, and mass from 211 Melopyrrha nigra specimens from Cuba and Grand Cayman, examined in nine collections in the USA and Cuba1 and live mist-neted birds (mass only). Measurement (mm) Wing Tail Culmen Culmen Culmen Tarsus Mass (g) length width depth Males Cuba 66.1 ± 2.2 (79) 57.6 ± 2.6 (75) 11.3 ± 0.9 (77) 9.8 ± 1.0 (16) 4.9 ± 0.5 (13) 17.6 ± 1.2 (78) 15.6 ± 1.1 (39) 60.5–73.0 52.0–67.0 9.1–14.9 8.5–11.4 4.6–5.6 15.0–21.4 13.4–17.9 Grand Cayman 70.4 ± 2.9 (55) 58.0 ± 3.0 (57) 12.9 ± 0.7 (60) 10.8 ± 0.5 (31) 6.2 ± 0.5 (20) 20.4 ± 1 (47) 17.2 ± 0.8 (7) 65.0–79.0 53.–67.0 10.7–15.0 9.7–11.9 5.6–7.1 18.0–22.8 16.1–18.6 Females Cuba 63.9 ± 2.2 (48) 54.5 ± 3 (49) 10.9 ± 0.6 (48) 8.9 ± 0.6 (10) 4.6 ± 0.5 (6) 17.2 ± 1.1 (49) 14.5 ± 0.6 (31) 59.0–70.0 45.0–63.0 9.6–12.3 8.0–9.9 4.4–4.9 15.0–19.9 13.5–16.0 Grand Cayman 68.0 ± 2.1 (21) 56.4 ± 2 (23) 12.5 ± 0.8 (21) 10.5 ± 0.5 (8) 5.6 ± 0.5 (7) 20.5 ± 0.6 (20) 15.7 ± 0.3 (4) 64.0–72.0 53.0–61.0 11.0–14.0 10.0–11.2 5.3–6.0 19.1–22.0 15.4–16.0 1Collections examined include Louisiana State University Museum of Natural Science, Baton Rouge; Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA; American Museum of Natural History, New York; National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC; Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Philadelphia; Carnegie Museum, Pitsburgh; Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago; and Instituto de Ecología y Sistemática, and Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Cuba, La Habana. © 2014 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2014 British Ornithologists’ Club Orlando H. Garrido et al. 136 Bull. B.O.C. 2014 134(2) of variation about the mean. Comparisons of size between sexes were conducted using unpaired t-tests. A parametric test was used if populations showed normal distribution, whereas non-normally distributed data were analysed using Welch’s approximate t, which assumes Gaussian populations with diferent standard deviations. Signifcance level for all tests was set at 0.05. Data on breeding biology were collected incidental to other studies on Cuba, Isla de Pinos (Isla de la Juventud) and the Caymans. G. B. Reynard provided recordings of bullfnch vocalisations that he made in Cuba using several models of Nagra and Uher reel-to-reel recorders, and a Sony TCM-5000 cassete recorder together with Sony, AKG and Sennheiser microphones, and parabolic refectors with diameters of 43 cm, 61 cm or 91 cm. On Grand Cayman, AG-C used a portable Sony PCM-D50 96 KHz/24-bit Linear Recorder with two built-in microphones set at 90°. Frequency response was set at 20 HZ–20 KHZ, at high sensitivity (-35.0 dB / Pa 1 kHz). Raven (Ver. 1.0) sound analysis software was used to analyse vocalisations. Results Systematics.—We examined 356 bullfnch specimens from Cuba and 83 from Grand Cayman, although a sample of just 211 (all adults) of those was used in our analyses (Table 1). Before comparing populations from Cuba and Grand Cayman, we examined bullfnch populations within Cuban territory. Todd (1916) found no plumage diferences between birds from Cuba and Isla de Pinos, a conclusion with which we agree. Further, we could fnd no diferences in size or coloration within populations on the main island of Cuba. We found some slight diferences (non-signifcant) in size and coloration among birds from diferent Cuban cays. Garrido & Schwart (1969: 38) noted: ‘birds from [Cayo] Cantiles have the same coloration as Cuba and the Isle of Pines, but seem to be a bit larger. The colour is slightly darker in the females from Cantiles than those from Cuba and the Isle of Pines.’ The series from Cayo Cantiles is not large enough for us to determine if these diferences are TABLE 2 Morphometric comparisons between populations of Melopyrrha nigra from Cuba and Grand Cayman, Cayman Islands. Comparisons made with unpaired t-test, with signifcance level set at 0.05. Level of signifcance: ** = < 0.01, and *** = < 0.001; ns = not signifcant. Measurement (mm) Locality Wing Tail Culmen Culmen Culmen Tarsus Mass (g) length width depth length Males Cuba 66.1 ± 2.2 57.6 ± 2.6 11.3 ± 0.90 9.8 ± 1.0 4.9 ± 0.5 17.6 ± 1.2 15.6 ± 1.1 (79) (75) (77) (16) (13) (78) (39) vs. (t [df] P) 9.755 0.8190 11.350 4.594 7.298 13.427 4.81 (132) *** (130) ns (135) *** (45) *** (31) *** (123) *** (10) *** Grand Cayman 70.4 ± 2.9 58.0 ± 3.0 12.9 ± 0.70 10.8 ± 0.5 6.2 ± 0.5 20.4 ± 1.0 17.2 ± 0.8 (55) (57) (60) (31) (20) (47) (7) Females Cuba 63.9 ± 2.2 54.5 ± 3.0 10.9 ± 0.6 8.9 ± 0.6 4.6 ± 0.5 17.2 ± 1.1 14.4 ± 0.6 (48) (49) (48) (10) (6) (49) (31) vs. (t [df] P) 7.219 2.758 9.182 6.040 3.595 12.634 7.25 (67) *** (70) ** (67) *** (16) *** (11) ** (67) *** (7) *** Grand Cayman 68.0 ± 2.1 56.4 ± 2.0 12.5 ± 0.8 10.5 ± 0.5 5.6 ± 0.5 20.5 ± 0.6 15.7 ± 0.3 (21) (23) (21) (8) (7) (20) (4) © 2014 The Authors; Journal compilation © 2014 British Ornithologists’ Club Orlando H. Garrido et al. 137 Bull. B.O.C. 2014 134(2) signifcant. We observed that wing lengths of specimens from Cayo Paredón Grande were substantially less than those of specimens from Cuba but, again, our sample sizes were too small to statistically confrm this.