DOCSLIB.ORG

Descriptions of Thirty-Two New Species of Birds from the Hawaiian Islands: Part Ii. Passeriformes Ornithological Monographs

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Descriptions of Thirty-Two New Species of Birds from the Hawaiian Islands: Part Ii. Passeriformes Ornithological Monographs OrnithologicalMonographs No.45 DescriptionsofThirty-two NewSpecies ofBirds from the HawaiianIslands: PartI. Non-Passeriformes StorrsL. Olsonand Helen F. James OrnithologicalMonographs No.46 DescriptionsofThirty-two NewSpecies ofBirds from the HawaiianIslands: PartII. Passeriformes •y HelenF. Jamesand Storrs L. Olson DESCRIPTIONS OF THIRTY-TWO NEW SPECIES OF BIRDS FROM THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS: PART II. PASSERIFORMES ORNITHOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS Edited by NED K. JOHNSON Museum of Vertebrate Zoology & Department of Integrafive Biology Life SciencesBuilding University of California Berkeley, California 94720 OrnithologicalMonographs, published by the American Ornithologists'Union, hasbeen establishedfor major paperstoo long for inclusionin the Union's journal, The Auk. Publication has been made possiblethrough the generosityof the late Mrs. Carll Tucker and the Marcia Brady Tucker Foundation,Inc. Correspondence and manuscripts proposed for publication should be addressedto the Editor at the above address. Style and format should follow those of previous issues. Copies of Ornithological Monographs may be ordered from the Assistant to the Treasurer of the AOU, Max C. Thompson, Department of Biology, South- western College, 100 College St., Winfield, KS 67156. Price of Ornithological Monographs 45 and 46 bound together (not available separately):$25.00 prepaid ($22.50 to AOU members). Library of CongressCatalogue Card Number 91-72283 Primed by the Allen Press,Inc., Lawrence, Kansas 66044 Issued June 7, 1991 Copyright ¸ by the American Ornithologists'Union, 1991 ISBN: 0-935868-54-2 DESCRIPTIONS OF THIRTY-TWO NEW SPECIES OF BIRDS FROM THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS: PART II. PASSERIFORMES. BY HELEN F. JAMES and STORRS L. OLSON Department of Vertebrate Zoology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC 20560 ORNITHOLOGICAL MONOGRAPHS NO. 46 PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION WASHINGTON, D.C. 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................................5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................7 MATERIALS AND METHODS .........................................................................................................................8 SYSTEMATIC PALEONTOLOGY ................................................................................................................11 ORDER PASSERIFORMES ..........................................................................................................................................11 Family Corvidae ..............................................................................................................................................11 Genus Comus Linnaeus, 1758 ........................................................................11 Comus impluviatus,new species................................................................ 12 Comus viriosus, new species.......................................................................... 19 Family Fringillidae .......................................................................................................................................22 Subfamily Carduelinae ...............................................................................................................22 Tribe Drepanidini ......................................................................................................................22 Genus Telespiza Wilson, 1890 .......................................................................27 Telespizapersecutrix, new species ..........................................................30 Telespiza ypsilon, new species..................................................................... 35 Telespizaaft. ypsilon, Maui .............................................................................35 Genus ChloridopsWilson, 1888 ...................................................................36 Chloridops sp., Kauai ...............................................................................................36 Chloridops wahl new species........................................................................ 36 Chloridops sp., Maui ................................................................................................40 Chloridopsregiskongi, new species........................................................ 40 Genus Incertae Sedis,Unassigned Maui Finch ...........................43 Genus Rhodacanthis Rothschild, 1892 ...............................................44 Rhodacanthisaft. palrneri Rothschild, 1892 .............................44 Rhodacanthisaft. fiaviceps Rothschild, 1892 ...........................45 Orthiospiza, new genus .................................................................................................46 Orthiospiza howarthL new species........................................................ 47 Xestospiza, new genus ...................................................................................................52 Xestospiza conica, new species.................................................................... 53 Xestospizafastigialis,new species......................................................... 55 Genus Incertae Sedis, Additional Oahu Finch ...........................59 Genus Hemignathus Lichtenstein, 1839 ..........................................59 Hemignathus upupirostris,new species............................................ 60 Vangulifer,new genus.................................................................................................... 62 Vangulifermirandus, new species........................................................... 63 Vangulifer neophasis,new species.......................................................... 65 Aidemedia, new genus ....................................................................................................66 Aidemedia chascax, new species .............................................................67 Aidemedia zanclops, new species .............................................................69 Aidemedia lutetiae, new species................................................................ 71 Genus Ciridops Newton, 1892 ......................................................................73 Ciridops tenax, new species............................................................................. 74 Ciridops sp., Oahu .......................................................................................................77 DISCUSSION ...............................................................................................................................................................................78 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................................................................83 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................................................................85 LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................................................................86 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Diagram showing measurementsof the maxilla .................................9 2. Diagram showing measurementsof the mandible ...............................10 3. Skulls and mandibles of Hawaiian Corvus in lateral view ........ 13 4. Skulls of Hawaiian Corvus in dorsal view .......................................................14 5. Skulls of Hawaiian Corvus in ventral view ....................................................15 6. Mandibles of Hawaiian Corvus in dorsal view .........................................17 7. Humeri of Hawaiian Corvus ..............................................................................................20 8. Hindlimb elements of Hawaiian Corvus ...........................................................21 9. The ventral maxillae in finch-billed drepanidines and Loxops virens .................................................................................................................................................................26 10. Box plots of measurementsof the maxilla in Telespiza ............... 31 11. Maxillae of Telespiza ..................................................................................................................32 12. Mandibles of Telespiza in lateral view ................................................................33 13. Mandibles of Telespiza in dorsal view ................................................................34 14. Maxillae of Chloridops............................................................................................................. 37 15. Mandibles of Chloridopsin dorsal view ............................................................38 16. Maxillae and mandibles of Chloridops wahi and C. kona in lateral view ................................................................................................................................................42 17. Maxillae and mandibleof Chloridopsregiskongi in lateralview
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Pu'u Wa'awa'a Biological Assessment
    PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT PU‘U WA‘AWA‘A, NORTH KONA, HAWAII Prepared by: Jon G. Giffin Forestry & Wildlife Manager August 2003 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE TABLE OF CONTENTS TITLE PAGE ................................................................................................................................. i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................. ii GENERAL SETTING...................................................................................................................1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 Land Use Practices...............................................................................................................1 Geology..................................................................................................................................3 Lava Flows............................................................................................................................5 Lava Tubes ...........................................................................................................................5 Cinder Cones ........................................................................................................................7 Soils .......................................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • Mt. Tabor Park Breeding Bird Survey Results 2009
    The Mount Tabor Invasive Plant Control and Revegetation Project and its affects on birds INTRODUCTION In order to reestablish a healthier native forest environment and improve the health of the watershed, a multi-year project is underway at Mt. Tabor Park to remove invasive plants. Actual removal of non-native species, the planting of native species, and other tasks began in September 2010. So as to monitor how these changes would affect the native bird species on Mt. Tabor, breeding bird and area search surveys were begun in 2009. BES created the protocol for the point counts. Herrera Environmental Consultants, Inc. set up 24 avian point count stations and conducted the initial year of surveys. Station 10 was later deemed unsuitable and data was not collected at this location. During years two and three Audubon Society of Portland conducted the surveys (2010 and 2011). Due to the large number of point count stations that had to be surveyed between dawn and midmorning, each survey was conducted over a two-day span. Full surveys were conducted three times per year during the breeding season (May 15-June 31). The following results were based on birds recorded within 50 meters of each Point Count Station. The BES Watershed Revegetation group designated 14 different units to be treated. Revegetation Unit Map: BES 3.14.12 Page 1 Point Count Station Location Map: The above map was created by Herrera and shows where the point count stations are located. Point Count Stations are fairly evenly dispersed around Mt. Tabor in a variety of habitats.
    [Show full text]
  • By Mark Macdonald Bsc. Forestry & Environmental Management A
    PRE-TRANSLOCATION ASSESSMENT OF LAYSAN ISLAND, NORTH-WESTERN HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, AS SUITABLE HABITAT FOR THE NIHOA MILLERBIRD (ACROCEPHALUS FAMILIARIS KINGI) by Mark MacDonald BSc. Forestry & Environmental Management A Thesis, Dissertation, or Report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MSc. Forestry in the Graduate Academic Unit of Forestry Supervisor: Tony Diamond, PhD, Faculty of Forestry & Environmental Management, Department of Biology. Graham Forbes, PhD, Faculty of Forestry & Environmental Management, Department of Biology. Examining Board: (name, degree, department/field), Chair (name, degree, department/field) This thesis, dissertation or report is accepted by the Dean of Graduate Studies THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK 01, 2012 ©Mark MacDonald, 2012 DEDICATION To the little Nihoa Millerbird whose antics, struggles and loveliness inspired the passion behind this project and have taught me so much about what it means to be a naturalist. ii ABSTRACT The critically endangered Nihoa Millerbird (Acrocephalus familiaris kingi), endemic to Nihoa Island, is threatened due to an extremely restricted range and invasive species. Laysan Island once supported the sub-species, Laysan Millerbird (Acrocephalus familiaris familiaris), before introduced rabbits caused their extirpation. A translocation of the Nihoa Millerbird from Nihoa Island to Laysan Island would serve two goals; establish a satellite population of a critically endangered species and restore the ecological role played by an insectivore passerine on Laysan Island. Laysan Island was assessed as a suitable translocation site for the Nihoa Millerbird with a focus placed on dietary requirements. This study showed that Laysan Island would serve as a suitable translocation site for the Nihoa Millerbird with adequate densities of invertebrate prey.
    [Show full text]
  • L O U I S I a N A
    L O U I S I A N A SPARROWS L O U I S I A N A SPARROWS Written by Bill Fontenot and Richard DeMay Photography by Greg Lavaty and Richard DeMay Designed and Illustrated by Diane K. Baker What is a Sparrow? Generally, sparrows are characterized as New World sparrows belong to the bird small, gray or brown-streaked, conical-billed family Emberizidae. Here in North America, birds that live on or near the ground. The sparrows are divided into 13 genera, which also cryptic blend of gray, white, black, and brown includes the towhees (genus Pipilo), longspurs hues which comprise a typical sparrow’s color (genus Calcarius), juncos (genus Junco), and pattern is the result of tens of thousands of Lark Bunting (genus Calamospiza) – all of sparrow generations living in grassland and which are technically sparrows. Emberizidae is brushland habitats. The triangular or cone- a large family, containing well over 300 species shaped bills inherent to most all sparrow species are perfectly adapted for a life of granivory – of crushing and husking seeds. “Of Louisiana’s 33 recorded sparrows, Sparrows possess well-developed claws on their toes, the evolutionary result of so much time spent on the ground, scratching for seeds only seven species breed here...” through leaf litter and other duff. Additionally, worldwide, 50 of which occur in the United most species incorporate a substantial amount States on a regular basis, and 33 of which have of insect, spider, snail, and other invertebrate been recorded for Louisiana. food items into their diets, especially during Of Louisiana’s 33 recorded sparrows, Opposite page: Bachman Sparrow the spring and summer months.
    [Show full text]
  • Non-Native Trees Provide Habitat for Native Hawaiian Forest Birds
    NON-NATIVE TREES PROVIDE HABITAT FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN FOREST BIRDS By Peter J. Motyka A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment Of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science In Biology Northern Arizona University December 2016 Approved: Jeffrey T. Foster, Ph.D., Co-chair Tad C. Theimer, Ph. D., Co-chair Carol L. Chambers, Ph. D. ABSTRACT NON-NATIVE TREES PROVIDE HABITAT FOR NATIVE HAWAIIAN FOREST BIRDS PETER J. MOTYKA On the Hawaiian island of Maui, native forest birds occupy an area dominated by non- native plants that offers refuge from climate-limited diseases that threaten the birds’ persistence. This study documented the status of the bird populations and their ecology in this novel habitat. Using point-transect distance sampling, I surveyed for birds over five periods in 2013-2014 at 123 stations across the 20 km² Kula Forest Reserve (KFR). I documented abundance and densities for four native bird species: Maui ‘alauahio (Paroreomyza montana), ʻiʻiwi (Drepanis coccinea), ʻapapane (Himatione sanguinea), and Hawaiʻi ʻamakihi, (Chlorodrepanis virens), and three introduced bird species: Japanese white-eye (Zosterops japonicas), red-billed leiothrix (Leiothrix lutea), and house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus). I found that 1) native forest birds were as abundant as non-natives, 2) densities of native forest birds in the KFR were similar to those found in native forests, 3) native forest birds showed varying dependence on the structure of the habitats, with ʻiʻiwi and ‘alauahio densities 20 and 30 times greater in forest than in scrub, 4) Maui ‘alauahio foraged most often in non-native cape wattle, eucalyptus, and tropical ash, and nested most often in non-native Monterey cypress, Monterey pine, and eucalyptus.
    [Show full text]
  • Onetouch 4.0 Scanned Documents
    / Chapter 2 THE FOSSIL RECORD OF BIRDS Storrs L. Olson Department of Vertebrate Zoology National Museum of Natural History Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC. I. Introduction 80 II. Archaeopteryx 85 III. Early Cretaceous Birds 87 IV. Hesperornithiformes 89 V. Ichthyornithiformes 91 VI. Other Mesozojc Birds 92 VII. Paleognathous Birds 96 A. The Problem of the Origins of Paleognathous Birds 96 B. The Fossil Record of Paleognathous Birds 104 VIII. The "Basal" Land Bird Assemblage 107 A. Opisthocomidae 109 B. Musophagidae 109 C. Cuculidae HO D. Falconidae HI E. Sagittariidae 112 F. Accipitridae 112 G. Pandionidae 114 H. Galliformes 114 1. Family Incertae Sedis Turnicidae 119 J. Columbiformes 119 K. Psittaciforines 120 L. Family Incertae Sedis Zygodactylidae 121 IX. The "Higher" Land Bird Assemblage 122 A. Coliiformes 124 B. Coraciiformes (Including Trogonidae and Galbulae) 124 C. Strigiformes 129 D. Caprimulgiformes 132 E. Apodiformes 134 F. Family Incertae Sedis Trochilidae 135 G. Order Incertae Sedis Bucerotiformes (Including Upupae) 136 H. Piciformes 138 I. Passeriformes 139 X. The Water Bird Assemblage 141 A. Gruiformes 142 B. Family Incertae Sedis Ardeidae 165 79 Avian Biology, Vol. Vlll ISBN 0-12-249408-3 80 STORES L. OLSON C. Family Incertae Sedis Podicipedidae 168 D. Charadriiformes 169 E. Anseriformes 186 F. Ciconiiformes 188 G. Pelecaniformes 192 H. Procellariiformes 208 I. Gaviiformes 212 J. Sphenisciformes 217 XI. Conclusion 217 References 218 I. Introduction Avian paleontology has long been a poor stepsister to its mammalian counterpart, a fact that may be attributed in some measure to an insufRcien- cy of qualified workers and to the absence in birds of heterodont teeth, on which the greater proportion of the fossil record of mammals is founded.
    [Show full text]
  • The Relationships of the Hawaiian Honeycreepers (Drepaninini) As Indicated by Dna-Dna Hybridization
    THE RELATIONSHIPS OF THE HAWAIIAN HONEYCREEPERS (DREPANININI) AS INDICATED BY DNA-DNA HYBRIDIZATION CH^RrES G. SIBLEY AND Jo• E. AHLQUIST Departmentof Biologyand PeabodyMuseum of Natural History, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut 06511 USA ABSTRACT.--Twenty-twospecies of Hawaiian honeycreepers(Fringillidae: Carduelinae: Drepaninini) are known. Their relationshipsto other groups of passefineswere examined by comparing the single-copyDNA sequencesof the Apapane (Himationesanguinea) with those of 5 speciesof carduelinefinches, 1 speciesof Fringilla, 15 speciesof New World nine- primaried oscines(Cardinalini, Emberizini, Thraupini, Parulini, Icterini), and members of 6 other families of oscines(Turdidae, Monarchidae, Dicaeidae, Sylviidae, Vireonidae, Cor- vidae). The DNA-DNA hybridization data support other evidence indicating that the Hawaiian honeycreepersshared a more recent common ancestorwith the cardue!ine finches than with any of the other groupsstudied and indicate that this divergenceoccurred in the mid-Miocene, 15-20 million yr ago. The colonizationof the Hawaiian Islandsby the ancestralspecies that radiated to produce the Hawaiian honeycreeperscould have occurredat any time between 20 and 5 million yr ago. Becausethe honeycreeperscaptured so many ecologicalniches, however, it seemslikely that their ancestor was the first passefine to become established in the islands and that it arrived there at the time of, or soon after, its separationfrom the carduelinelineage. If so, this colonist arrived before the present islands from Hawaii to French Frigate Shoal were formed by the volcanic"hot-spot" now under the island of Hawaii. Therefore,the ancestral drepaninine may have colonizedone or more of the older Hawaiian Islandsand/or Emperor Seamounts,which also were formed over the "hot-spot" and which reachedtheir present positions as the result of tectonic crustal movement.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 NIHOA ISLAND TRIP REPORT, 21-29 SEPTEMBER 2013 To
    NIHOA ISLAND TRIP REPORT, 21-29 SEPTEMBER 2013 To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hawaiian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Honolulu, Hawai‘i. From: Sheldon Plentovich, Chris Farmer, Joshua Fisher, Holly Freifeld, and Rachel Rounds Recommended Citation: Plentovich, S., C. Farmer, J. Fisher, H. Freifeld, and R. Rounds. 2013. Nihoa Island biological monitoring and management, 21-29 September 2013. Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY We conducted Variable Circular Plot surveys for Nihoa Millerbird (Acrocephalus familiaris) and the Nihoa Finch (Telespiza ultima) 23-28 September 2013 at 60 points. There were 270 Millerbird and 569 Nihoa Finch detections, with a range of 0 - 6 and 1 - 9 respectively. The detection rate of Millerbirds increased sharply between 2012 and 2013, suggesting there might have been an increase in this species. Conversely, the detection rate of Nihoa Finches declined, suggesting this species might have declined. The U.S. Geological Survey Biological Resources Division is completing a report that will compare population estimates from the distance-based strip-transect and variable circular plot methods performed in 2012. Six banded Nihoa Millerbirds were resighted. Fourteen seabird species were observed on Nihoa and 13 of the 14 were nesting or had fledglings. Three species of migratory shorebirds were observed. Fifteen native plant species were found and appeared healthy. A total of 25 grey bird locusts (Schistocerca nitens) were observed during passerine surveys. A single non-native sandbur (Cenchrus echinatus) was detected and removed. The plant was located down slope from Cluster 2, about 100 meters above our campsite, with a little bit of green growth still present.
    [Show full text]
  • Nomenclature of the Laysan Honeycreeper Himatione [Sanguinea] Fraithii
    Peter Pyle 116 Bull. B.O.C. 2011 131(2) Nomenclature of the Laysan Honeycreeper Himatione [sanguinea] fraithii by Peter Pyle Received 21 May 2010 The Apapane Himatione sanguinea is the most abundant extant species of Hawaiian finch (Fringillidae, Drepanidinae) (Pratt 2005, Pyle & Pyle 2009). It occurs throughout high islands of the south-east Hawaiian Islands, where it shows little to no inter-island variation. On Laysan Island, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, a resident Himatione was first encountered on 3 April 1828 by the naturalist C. Isenbeck (von Kittlitz 1834) and named much later from specimens collected by H. Palmer and G. Munro in June 1891 (Rothschild 1892). While Palmer and Munro were on Laysan they were assisted by George D. Freeth, manager of a guano-mining operation there and an amateur naturalist. In acknowledgement, Rothschild named the new bird Himatione fraithii, based evidently on a miscommunication from Palmer or Munro or an erroneous assumption concerning the spelling of Freeth’s name, which is not mentioned in the description. This taxon, widely known as the Laysan Honeyeater and, later, the Laysan Honeycreeper, became extinct in 1923 (Ely & Clapp 1975, A. Wetmore in Olson 1996). Walter Rothschild was a well-known British zoologist with an avid interest in the birdlife of islands (Rothschild 1983, Olson 2008). He had sent Palmer and other collectors to procure specimens from the Hawaiian Islands in 1890–93 for his private museum in Tring, England. Based upon this collection he published Avifauna of Laysan and the neighbouring islands, with a complete history to date of the birds of the Hawaiian possession in three parts, Part I in August 1893, Part II in November 1893 and Part III in December 1900 (Rothschild 1893– 1900; see Olson 2003).
    [Show full text]
  • Palila Loxioides Bailleui
    Forest Birds Palila Loxioides bailleui SPECIES STATUS: Federally Listed as Endangered State Listed as Endangered State Recognized as Endemic NatureServe Heritage Rank G1—Critically Imperiled IUCN Red List Ranking—Critically Endangered Photo: DOFAW Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Forest Birds —USFWS 2006 Critical Habitat Designated 1977 SPECIES INFORMATION: The palila is a finch-billed Hawaiian honeycreeper (Family: Fringillidae) whose life history and survival is linked to māmane (Sophora chrysophylla), an endemic dry-forest tree in the legume family. Males and females are similar, with a yellow head and breast, greenish wings and tail, a gray back, and white underparts. Males have a black mask, and females have less yellow on the back of their heads and a gray mask. Approximately 90 percent of the palila’s diet consists of immature māmane seeds; the remainder consists of māmane flowers, buds, leaves, and naio (Myoporum sandwicense) berries. Caterpillars and other insects comprise the diet of nestlings, but also are eaten by adults. Māmane seeds have been found to contain high levels of toxic alkaloids, and palila use particular trees for foraging, suggesting that levels of alkaloids may vary among trees. Individuals will move limited distances in response to the availability of māmane seeds. Palila form long-term pair bonds, and males perform low advertisement flights, sing, chase females, and engage in courtship feeding prior to breeding. Females build nests, usually in māmane trees, and males defend a small territory around the nest tree. Females mostly incubate eggs, brood nestlings and feed young with food delivered by male. First-year males sometimes help a pair by defending the nest and feeding the female and nestlings.
    [Show full text]
  • SMCSP & SMCSN Wildlife List.Xlsx
    Appendix C: Wildlife list for Six Mile Cypress Slough and Six Mile Cypress North Preserves Designated Status Scientific Name Common Name FWC FWS FNAI MAMMALS Family: Didelphidae (opossums) Didelphis virginiana Virginia opossum Family: Dasypodidae (armadillos) Dasypus novemcinctus nine-banded armadillo * Family: Sciuridae (squirrels and their allies) Sciurus carolinensis eastern gray squirrel Sciurus niger avicennia Big Cypress fox squirrel T G5T2/S2 Family: Muridae (mice and rats) Peromyscus gossypinus cotton mouse Oryzomys palustris marsh rice rat Sigmodon hispidus hispid cotton rat Family: Leporidae (rabbits and hares) Sylvilagus palustris marsh rabbit Sylvilagus floridanus eastern cottontail Family: Talpidae (moles) Scalopus aquaticus eastern mole Family: Felidae (cats) Puma concolor coryi Florida panther E E G5T1/S1 Lynx rufus bobcat Felis silvestris domestic cat * Family: Canidae (wolves and foxes) Urocyon cinereoargenteus common gray fox Family: Ursidae (bears) Ursus americanus floridanus Florida black bear T G5T2/S2 Family: Procyonidae (raccoons) Procyon lotor raccoon Family: Mephitidae (skunks) Spilogale putorius eastern spotted skunk Mephitis mephitis striped skunk Family: Mustelidae (weasels, otters and relatives) Lutra canadensis northern river otter Family: Suidae (old world swine) Sus scrofa feral hog * Family: Cervidae (deer) Odocoileus virginianus white-tailed deer BIRDS Family: Anatidae (swans, geese and ducks) Subfamily: Anatinae (dabbling ducks) Dendrocygna autumnalis black-bellied whistling duck Cairina moschata muscovy
    [Show full text]
  • The Phylogenetic Relationships and Generic Limits of Finches
    Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 62 (2012) 581–596 Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ympev The phylogenetic relationships and generic limits of finches (Fringillidae) ⇑ Dario Zuccon a, , Robert Pryˆs-Jones b, Pamela C. Rasmussen c, Per G.P. Ericson d a Molecular Systematics Laboratory, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden b Bird Group, Department of Zoology, Natural History Museum, Akeman St., Tring, Herts HP23 6AP, UK c Department of Zoology and MSU Museum, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA d Department of Vertebrate Zoology, Swedish Museum of Natural History, Box 50007, SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden article info abstract Article history: Phylogenetic relationships among the true finches (Fringillidae) have been confounded by the recurrence Received 30 June 2011 of similar plumage patterns and use of similar feeding niches. Using a dense taxon sampling and a com- Revised 27 September 2011 bination of nuclear and mitochondrial sequences we reconstructed a well resolved and strongly sup- Accepted 3 October 2011 ported phylogenetic hypothesis for this family. We identified three well supported, subfamily level Available online 17 October 2011 clades: the Holoarctic genus Fringilla (subfamly Fringillinae), the Neotropical Euphonia and Chlorophonia (subfamily Euphoniinae), and the more widespread subfamily Carduelinae for the remaining taxa. Keywords: Although usually separated in a different
    [Show full text]