sign in sign up
<<
Home , Dendrortyx, Falcipennis, Guineafowl, Meleagridinae, Ocellated turkey, Phasianinae

CHECK-LIST

OF

NOgTH AMERICAN

The Speciesof Birds of North America from the Arctic through Panama, Including the and Hawaiian Islands

PREPARED BY

THE COMMITTEE ON CLASSIFICATION AND NOMENCLATURE

OF THE

AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION

SEVENTH EDITION

1998

Zo61ogical nomenclature is a means, not an end, to Zo61ogical Science

PUBLISHED BY THE

AMERICAN ORNITHOLOGISTS' UNION

1998 Copyright 1998 by The American Ornithologists' Union All rights reserved, except that pages or sections may be quoted for research purposes.

ISBN Number: 1-891276-00-X

Preferred citation:

American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th edition. American Ornithologists' Union, , D.C.

Printed by Allen Press, Inc. Lawrence, Kansas, U.S.A. CONTENTS

DEDICATION ...... viii PREFACE ...... ix LIST OF ...... xvii THE CHECK-LIST ...... 1 I. Tinamiformes ...... 1 1. Tinamidae: ...... 1 II. ...... 3 1. Gaviidae: ...... 3 III. Podicipediformes...... 5 1. Podicipedidae: ...... 5 IV. ...... 9 1. Diomedeidae: ...... 9 2. : Shearwaters and Petrels ...... 12 3. Hydrobatidae:Storm-Petrels ...... 22 V. ...... 26 1. Phaethontidae: ...... : ...... 26 2. Sulidae: Boobies and Gannets ...... 28 3. Pelecanidae: Pelicans ...... /...... 30 4. Phalacrocoracidae: Cormorants ...... 32 5. Anhingidae:Darters ...... 34 6. Fregatidae:Frigatebirds ...... 35 VI. Ciconiiformes ...... 36 1. Ardeidae: Herons, Bitterns, and Allies ...... 36 2. Threskiornithidae:Ibises and Spoonbills ...... 47 A. Threskiornithinae: Ibises ...... 47 B. Plataleinae:Spoonbills ...... 50 3. Ciconiidae: ...... 50 4. Cathartidae: New World Vultures ...... 51 VII. ...... 54 1. Phoenicopteridae: ...... 54 VIII. ...... 54 1. : , Geese, and ...... 55 A. Dendrocygninae:Whistling-Ducks and Allies ...... 55 B. : Geese and Swans ...... 56 C. : and Allies ...... 64 D. : True Ducks ...... 64 IX. ...... 86 1. Accipitridae:Hawks, Kites, Eagles, and Allies ...... 86 A. Pandioninae:Ospreys ...... 86 B. Accipitrinae:Kites, Eagles,and Hawks ...... 87 2. Falconidae: Caracaras and Falcons ...... 105 A. Micrasturinae: Forest-Falcons ...... 105 B. Caracarinae: Caracaras ...... 106 C. Falconinae:True Falconsand LaughingFalcons ...... 107

111 X. ...... 112 1. : and Guans ...... 112 2. :, , Turkeys, and Old World ...... 114 A. :Partridges and ...... 114 B. Tetraoninae: Grouse ...... 118 C. :Turkeys ...... 122 D. Numidinae: ...... 123 3. Odontophoridae: ...... 123 XI. Giniformes ...... 129 1. Rallidae: Rails, Gallinules, and Coots ...... 129 2. Heliomithidae:Sungrebes ...... 139 3. Eurypygidae:Sunbitterns ...... 139 4. Aramidae: Limpkins ...... 139 5. Gmidae: Cranes ...... 140 A. Gminae: Typical Cranes ...... 140 XII. ...... 141 1. Burhinidae: Thick-knees ...... 141 2. Charadriidae:Lapwings and Plovers ...... 142 A. Vanellinae:Lapwings ...... 142 B. Charadriinae: Plovers ...... 142 3. Haematopodidae:Oystercatchers ...... 149 4. Recurvirostridae: Stilts and Avocets ...... 150 5. Jacanidae: Jacanas ...... 152 6. Scolopacidae:Sandpipers, Phalaropes, and Allies ...... 152 A. Scolopacinae:Sandpipers and Allies ...... 152 B. Phalaropodinae:Phalaropes ...... 179 7. Glareolidae: Coursers and Pratincoles ...... 180 A. Glareolinae: Pratincoles ...... 180 8. Laridae: Skuas, Gulls, , and Skimmers ...... 181 A. Stercorariinae:Skuas and Jaegers ...... 181 B. Larinae: Gulls ...... 184 C. Steminae: Terns ...... 196 D. Rynchopinae:Skimmers ...... 208 9. Alcidae: Auks, Murres, and Puffins ...... 208 FAMILY INCERTAE SED1S ...... 1. Pteroclididae: ...... 217 XIII. Columbiformes ...... 218 1. :Pigeons and Doves ...... 218 XIV. Psittaciformes ...... 232 1. Psittacidae: Lories, Parakeets, Macaws, and ...... 232 A. Platycercinae:Australian Parakeets and Rosellas ...... 232 B. Psittacinae:Typical Parrots ...... 232 C. Arinae: New World Parakeets, Macaws, and Parrots .... 233 XV. Cuculiformes ...... 246 1. Cuculidae: , Roadrunners, and Anis ...... 246 A. Cuculinae: Old World Cuckoos ...... 246 B. Coccyzinae:New World Cuckoos ...... 246 C. Neomorphinae:Ground-Cuckoos and Roadrunners...... 250 D. Crotophaginae:Anis ...... 252

iv XVI. Strigiformes ...... 253 1. Tytonidae:Barn ...... 253 2. Strigidae:Typical Owls ...... 253 XVII. ...... 267 1. Caprimulgidae:Goatsuckers ...... 267 A. Chordeilinae:Nighthawks ...... 267 B. Caprimulginae:Nightjars ...... 268 2. Nyctibiidae: Potoos ...... 273 3. Steatornithidae: ...... 274 XVIII. ...... 275 1. Apodidae:Swifts ...... 275 A. Cypseloidinae:Cypseloidine Swifts ...... 275 B. Chaeturinae: Chaeturine Swifts ...... 277 C. Apodinae:Apodine Swifts ...... 280 2. Trochilidae: ...... 282 A. Phaethornithinae: Hermits ...... 282 B. Trochilinae:Typical Hummingbirds...... 284 XIX. Trogoniformes...... 314 1. Trogonidae: ...... 314 A. Trogoninae:Trogons ...... 314. XX. Upupiformes...... 319 1. Upupidae:Hoopoes ...... 319 XXI. ...... 319 1. Todidae: Todies ...... 319 2. Momotidae: Motmots ...... 320 3. Alcedinidae:Kingfishers ...... 322 A. Cerylinae:Typical Kingfishers...... 322 XXII. ...... 324 1. Bucconidae: Puffbirds ...... 324 2. Galbulidae: Jacamars ...... 327 3. Ramphastidae:New World Barbetsand Toucans ...... 328 A. Capitoninae:New World Barbets ...... 328 B. Semnomithinae: Toucan-Barbets ...... 328 C. Ramphastinae:Toucans ...... 329 4. Picidae:Woodpeckers and Allies ...... 331 A. Jynginae:Wrynecks ...... 331 B. Picumninae: Piculets ...... 331 C. Picinae:Woodpeckers ...... 332 XXIII. Passeriformes ...... 347 1. Furnariidae: Ovenbirds ...... 347 2. Dendrocolaptidae:Woodcreepers ...... 354 3. Thamnophilidae:Antbirds ...... 361 4. Formicariidae:Antthrushes and Antpittas ...... 370 5. Rhinocryptidae:Tapaculos ...... 372 6. Tyrannidae:Tyrant Flycatchers ...... 373 A. Elaeniinae:Tyrannulets, Elaenias, and Allies ...... 373 B. Platyrinchinae:Tody-Tyrants and Flatbills ...... 381 C. Fluvicolinae:Fluvicoline Flycatchers ...... 386 D. Tyranninae:Tyrannine Flycatchers ...... 402 Genera lncertae $edis ...... 416 7. Cotingidae:Cotingas ...... 420 8. Pipridae:Manakins ...... 423 9. Oxyruncidae:Sharpbills ...... 426 10. Meliphagidae:Honeyeaters ...... 427 11. Laniidae: Shrikes ...... 428 12. Vireonidae: Vireos ...... 429 13. Corvidae:Crows and Jays ...... 441 14. Monarchidae: Monarchs ...... 452 15. Alaudidae: Larks ...... 453 16. Hirundinidae: Swallows ...... 454 A. Hirundininae:Typical Swallows ...... 454 17. Paridae: Chickadees and Titmice ...... 463 18. Remizidae: Penduline Tits and Verdins ...... 467 19. Aegithalidae:Long-tailed Tits and Bushtits ...... 467 20. $ittidae: Nuthatches ...... 468 A. Sittinae: Nuthatches ...... 468 21. Certhiidae:Creepers ...... 470 A. Certhiinae:Northern Creepers ...... 470 22. Troglodytidae:Wrens ...... 471 23. Cinclidae:Dippers ...... 486 24. Pycnonotidae:Bulbuls ...... 486 25. Regulidae:Kinglets ...... 487 26. Sylviidae: Old World Warblersand Gnatcatchers...... 489 A. Sylviinae:Old World Warblers ...... 489 B. Polioptilinae:Gnatcatchers and Gnatwrens...... 491 27. Muscicapidae:Old World Flycatchers ...... 494 28. Turdidae: Thrushes ...... 495 29. Timaliidae: Babblers ...... 513 30. Zosteropidae:White-eyes ...... 515 31. Mimidae: Mockingbirdsand Thrashers ...... 515 32. Sturnidae:Starlings ...... 523 33. Prunellidae: Accentors ...... 524 34. Motacillidae: Wagtails and Pipits ...... 525 35. Bombycillidae:Waxwings ...... 529 36. Ptilogonatidae:Silky-flycatchers ...... 530 37. Dulidae: Palmchats ...... 532 38. Peucedramidae: Olive Warbler ...... 532 39. Parulidae: Wood-Warblers ...... 532 40. Coerebidae:Bananaquits ...... 569 41. Thraupidae:Tanagers ...... 569 42. Emberizidae: Emberizids ...... 591 43. Cardinalidae: Cardinals, Saltators, and Allies ...... 631 44. Icteridae: Blackbirds ...... 639 45. Fringillidae:Fringilline and CarduelineFinches and Allies .. 658 A. Fringillinae: Fringilline Finches ...... 658 B. Carduelinae: Cardueline Finches ...... 659 C. Drepanidinae:Hawaiian Honeycreepers ...... 671 46. Passeridae:Old World Sparrows...... 679 47. Ploceidae: Weavers ...... 679 A. Ploceinae:Typical Weavers...... 679 48. Estrildidae: Estrildid Finches ...... 680 A. Estrildinae: Estrildine Finches ...... 680 B. Viduinae:Whydahs ...... 684

vi APPENDIX ...... 685 PART 1. Speciesreported from the A.O.U. Check-listarea with insufficientevidence for placementon the main list ...... 685 PART2. Formsof doubtfulstatus or of hybridorigin that havebeen given a formal scientificname ...... 698 LIST OF FRENCH NAMES ...... 705 LIST OF SUPPLEMENTS TO THE CHECK-LIST ...... 731 LITERATURE CITED ...... 733 INDEX ...... 769

vii DEDICATION

BURT L. MONROE, JR. 1930-1994

To Dr. Burt L. Monroe, Jr., Past Chairman of the Committee on Classification and Nomenclature, whose encyclopedic knowledge of avian , nomenclature,and distribution were indispensable in thepreparation of theinitial draft of the presentvolume. As Chair,he led the Committeewith patienceand efficient diplomacy, gaining our friendship and deep respect. A skilled communicator,he correspondedglobally with both scientistsand amateursin a highly productiveeffort to standardizeEnglish names, a task in which he enthusiasticallywelcomed the views of everyone.During the waning months of his tenure,while enduringthe constantpain and fatigue of terminalillness, Burt laboredselflessly toward the completionof this Check-list,a significant portionof whichrepresents one of his manylasting contributions to .

VIII PREFACE TO THE SEVENTH EDITION

Background Soon after publicationof the sixth edition of the Check-list in 1983, membersof the reconstitutedCommittee on Classificationand Nomenclaturebegan preparing this seventh edition.A primary goal of the Committeewas to producea volumethat would emphasize informationon the natureand extentof geographicvariation in eachincluded species and relate that variation to subspecificnomenclature. Each Committeemember accepted re- sponsibilityfor particulargroups of birds. Draft speciesaccounts were sentto Chairman Butt L. Monroe,Jr., for compilationand distribution to othercommittee members for review. Althoughsubspecies-level accounts were written for almosthalf of the speciesin the Check- list area, it eventuallybecame clear that a volumeat that level would not be completed within acceptabletime limits. In 1991, the Committeereluctantly decided to postponethat editionand insteadto work towarda new editionat the specieslevel. Concurrentlywith work on the subspeciesedition, the Committee pursued two othergoals: (1) to maintainthe currencyof the sixth edition by evaluatingnewly publishedstudies in taxonomyand nomenclature,accepting those recommendations or findingsbased on sound data analysis,and (2) to maintainthe accuracyof distributionaldata for speciesknown to occurin North Americaas definedin the Check-listor in particularpolitical subdivisions (countries,states, or provinces)thereof. Beginning in 1984, the Committeemet twice an- nually, in mid-winter(a few meetingsskipped) and at the annualA.O.U. meeting.In prep- arationfor a meeting,a memberof the Committeewould distributea detailedanalysis of publishedevidence for proposedchanges in existingclassification or for range extensions that addedspecies to the A.O.U. area or to North Americanorth of . In December 1995, the Committeebegan a seriesof ballotsby mail, after distributionof suchanalyses. When a vote from either a meetingor a mail ballot resultedin a changein specieslimits or nomenclature,or the additionof a speciesto the known avifaunaof the Check-listarea or to the geographicarea of the fifth and earlier editionsof the Check-list(thus requiring the assignmentof an A.O.U. or World number),the decisionwas includedin a Supplement to the Check-list.Supplements were publishedin the July issueof The Auk in eachodd- numberedyear after the publicationof the sixthedition until the publicationof the seventh. A list of all Supplementsto the Check-listsince the first editionin 1886 appearsat the end of this volume. Proposalsnot adoptedby the Committeeat any given meetingremained availablefor future considerationand reanalysis.Unresolved matters generally are reflected by alternativetreatments mentioned with citationsin "Notes" at the endof speciesaccounts in thisedition. On a few occasions,the Committee generated proposals on its own,concerning reevaluationsof previouslypublished analyses. These generally were reviewsof decisions madefor the sixth edition,and they usuallyresulted in the reversalof earlierdecisions that had been made without adequatedocumentation. In 1992,Monroe sent copies of a revisedspecies-level manuscript to regionaldistributional authoritiesin statesand provinces, Mexico, CentralAmerica, and the Caribbean.When most of thoseauthorities had reviewedthe manuscriptfor speciesin their areas,Monroe sentthe updatedmanuscript to the Committeemembers for taxonomicreview and refinement.Com- mittee members,each concentratingon particulartaxonomic groups of birds, sent their commentsor revisionsto Monroe, who maintainedthe mastermanuscript in a computer file. Monroe'shealth was failing in this period,and productionof the revisededition went very slowly.When Burt Monroe died in May 1994 (Able 1996),Committee members became acutelyaware of their dependenceon him to carry the burdenof the new edition. In 1994, the A.O.U. Council authorizedfunds for the Committeeto employAndrew J. Kratter to assumethe responsibilityof maintainingthe manuscriptas memberssubmitted new information and the Committee made taxonomic decisions. Kratter remained under contract,on a parttime basis,from January1995 until May 1996,after which the manuscript file and the responsibilityof maintainingit were transferredto J. V. Remsen. This editionincludes taxonomic decisions made by the Committeeup to March 1997. In general,taxonomic and systematicliterature published after 1996 has not been reviewed. An importantexception to thatcutoff date is OrnithologicalMonographs no. 48, the contents of which were well known to the Committeebecause of editorialoverlap. No new distri-

ix butional information was included after about 31 December 1996. Because of the consid- erablegap between return of the reviewsof distributionalinformation by regionalauthorities and the publicationof this volume, it is likely that someimportant distributional records have been overlooked. This editionof the Check-listcontains 2,008 species,a significantincrease from the 1,913 in the sixth edition. Of the total, 991 are nonpasserines;of the 1,017 ,254 are suboscinesand 763 are oscines.Of the latter, 315 are nine-primariesoscines. There are 83 additionalspecies in part 1 of the Appendix,and 34 in part 2.

TaxonomicPhilosophy Sincepublication of the sixthedition of this Check-list,the Committeehas studieda flood of new publicationson the systematicstatus and taxonomicrelationships of birds. Much of this literaturehas involved the examinationof traditionalmorphologic data throughthe applicationof phylogeneticsystematic or cladisticapproaches. Increasingly, molecular sys- tematictechniques, such as DNA-DNA hybridization,allozyme electrophoresis, restriction fragmentlength polymorphisms (RFLP), and direct sequencingof DNA bases,have been broughtto on long-standingproblems in classificationand relationships,from subspe- cific to ordinal levels. The addition of moleculardata to traditionalinformation not only has provideda healthymultidisciplinary perspective heretofore lacking but alsohas given results that are basedon independentdata sets.In manyinstances the new techniqueshave provided conclusionsentirely supportiveof traditionaltaxonomies. In other examples,conflicting findingspoint to the needfor furtherinvestigation. Throughout the speciesaccounts of this check-list,we cite literaturepertinent to our decisionson changein classification.Conse- quently,the LiteratureCited is a reasonablycomprehensive bibliography of recentliterature on the systematicsand taxonomyof North Americanbirds and thus a major resourcenot found in previouseditions of the Check-list. As an official sourceon the taxonomyof North Americanbirds, the Check-listof the AmericanOrnithologists' Union is reliedon by a varietyof professionalbiologists, including museumcurators, journal editors, state, provincial, and federal government wildlife managers and scientists,law enforcementpersonnel, and ornithologistsin general.In addition,the Check-listis a basic resourcefor most of the technicaland semi-popularreferences used by watchers.Because of wide acceptanceof the Check-listas an authoritativestandard, the Committeeresponsible for its preparationfeels it necessaryto avoidhasty decisions that risk quick reversal,thereby fostering instability. Following the time-honoredtradition of previousCommittees, our generalstance has been conservativeand cautiouswhen judging recentlypublished proposals for novel classifications,schemes of relationship,and species limits. We routinely have tabled recommendationsfor which supportingdata were incon- clusive and that lacked a consensusamong the Committee.Such proposalscan be recon- sideredlater in the light of additionalrelevant information.

Changesfrom the Sixth Edition Higher-levelclassification.--The Committee established a policy for this editionwhereby changesin classificationof major groupsrequire concordantevidence from two or more independentdata sets.Among the moreimportant changes in nonpasserinesare the transfer of the family Cathartidaefrom the Falconiformesto the Ciconiiformes,the elevationof the New World Quail to the level of family (Odontophoridae),the removal of the family Pter- oclididaefrom the Columbiformesto a positionincertae sedis between the Charadriiformes and the Columbiformes,removing the family Upupidaefrom the Coraciiformesand raising it to the level of (Upupiformes),and the separationof Old World and New World barbets(Capitonidae), with the latter placed as a subfamily (Capitoninae)in the family Ramphastidae. In the suboscinepasserines, the subfamilyThamnophilinae is elevatedto the level of family (Thamnophilidae).In the Tyrannidae,we recognizea subfamilyPlatyrinchinae but not the subfamilyTityrinae. Several genera formerly scatteredamong the familiesTyran- nidae,Cotingidae, and Pipridae are removed from theirformer respective families and placed togetherincertae sedis before the Cotingidae. In the oscinepassefines, major changesinclude recognition of a corvine assemblage(the parvorderCorvida of Sibleyand Ahlquist [1990]) of primarilyAustralasian families separate from otheroscines. The Family Pycnonotidaeis movedto follow the familiesTroglodytidae and Cinclidae,rather than precedethem. The family Sturnidaeis moved to a positionfol- lowing the Mimidae. The subfamiliesof the sixth edition'sMuscicapidae and Embefizidae are returnedto their former rank as families; the kinglets, Regulus, are removedfrom the Muscicapidaeand elevatedto the rank of family (Regulidae).The genusPeucedramus is removed from the Parulidaeand placed in a monotypicfamily (Peucedramidae),ahead of the Parulidae. The many changesat lower taxonomiclevels are summarizedin Supplementspublished since the sixth edition. A.O.U. numbers.--A systemof numberingthe speciesin the Check-listwas established in the first edition and carried through,with necessarymodifications, into the sixth. That systemwas appliedonly to thosespecies that occurredin the geographicarea coveredby the first five editions,Canada and the continentalUnited Statesplus Baja California,Mexico, and Greenland.Species in the sixth edition that occurredonly in Hawaii, the Caribbean, Mexico, or Central America remainednumberless. When an "extralimital" specieswas documentedas occurringin the old Check-listarea, the Committeeassigned it a number. Any originalsignificance of the sequenceof numberswas lost as the classificationchanged over the yearsand as new specieswere interspersed.The originalA.O.U. numbersretained usefulnessin markingand organizing collections and other data sets or in administrative recordkeeping, but to an extentmuch limited by the geographiccoverage. In 1990, Sibley and Monroe useda World List numberingsystem originally devisedby P. William Smith, basedon the old A.O.U. numbersbut expandedto provide a numberfor each speciesof bird in the world. In the 38th Supplementto the Check-list(A.O.U. 1991), the Committee announcedthat it would adoptthe World List numberingsystem in this seventhedition. Difficultiesin applyingthat systemas specieswere split or lumpedover the next several yearsled the Committeeto reevaluatewhat by defaulthad becomea commitmentto maintain the systemfor a significantportion of the avian world. In 1995, the Committeedecided to abandonany numberingsystem in the seventhedition, a decisionnoted in the 41st Supple- ment (A.O.U. 1997). The A.O.U. numbersfor North American speciesin the sixth edition are still availableand usefulfor thosewho seea needfor a numberingsystem, as are those for the world in Sibley and Monroe (1990, 1993). Statementsof habitat.--Descriptionsof habitat in the sixth edition were inconsistentand generalized,particularly for Neotropicalspecies with which the Committeewas less familiar. For the presentedition we haveadopted the standardizednomenclature for tropicalAmerican habitatsused by Storzet al. (1996) to compileecological databases for all Neotropicalbird species.Habitat terms that are initially capitalizedhere are from Storzet al. (1996), andwe refer readersto that publicationfor detailedbotanical descriptions of thosehabitats. Citations to literature.--As mentioned several times herein, the "Notes" sectionsat the endsof manyspecies accounts have been expanded. We haveattempted to providereferences to documentstatements on alternativesystematic treatments or nomenclature.We assume thatmost users of the Check-listare familiar with thehistorical literature on aviansystematics, and will automaticallyrefer to the classiccompendia by Ridgway,Hellmayr, and Peters(as theseseries are generallyknown, although other authors also were involved).Those works, and the major scientificbooks on birds of the variousCentral American countries,may not always be cited in this Check-list, but they should always be consultedby researchers initiatingtaxonomic or distributionalstudies. $ibley and Ahlquist(1990) providedthorough historicalreviews of the historyof higher-levelclassification, which shouldbe consultedby anyoneinterested in the classificationof birds.That resourcepermits our "Notes" sections for higher-levelcategories to be brief. French names.--A new feature of this edition is a list of French names for all included species.The Frenchnames used are derived from "NomsFran•ais des Oiseaux du Monde," 1993, Commissioninternationale des noms franqaisdes oiseaux,Sainte-Foy, Canada, Edi- tionsMultiMondes. Additional or modifiedFrench names necessitated by taxonomicchanges adoptedin the Check-listsince 1993 were providedby the North Americanrepresentatives of the International Committee on French names. Appendix.--The three major appendices(A, B and C) of the sixth edition have been

xi combinedinto a single Appendix for this volume. The Appendix includesspecies of birds whosenames have beenmentioned in the literaturein a way suggestingthat they are a part of the avifauna of the area covered but that the Committee finds inadmissible to the main list for reasonsindicated. The Appendix consistsof two parts--speciesreported with in- sufficientevidence, and namedforms of doubtful statusor origin. Appendix D of the sixth edition, unestablished introductions, has been omitted.

TaxonomicCategories In general, our classificationscheme uses only the familiar formal categoriesof Order, Suborder,Superfamily, Family, Subfamily,Tribe, Genus,and Species.We do not use the Superspeciesas a taxonomiccategory as advocatedby Amadon(1966) andas used by Sibley andMonroe (1990). In Notesat the end of many accounts,however, we indicatethat species have been consideredor treated as allospeciesof superspeciesby some authorities.The Committeebelieves that many such treatments are more conjectural than factual. An informal categorythat we invokeis thatof Group,also used extensively by Sibleyand Monroe (1990). A Group typically is a geographicportion (one or more subspecies)of a polytypic species that was previouslytreated as a separatespecies but that has been mergedwith another Groupunder the biologicalspecies concept (BSC). The useof the Groupconcept is helpful in tracingthe nomenclaturalhistory of a speciesand in manyinstances provides names for use if and when the speciesis redivided.Many mergersin the early daysof the biological speciesconcept were not basedon strongbiological evidence. We haveretained the merged speciesbecause in most instancesstrong evidence for re-divisionhas not been presented. In a few instances,recent studies have suggested, without thorough analysis, that populations long consideredto be conspecificshould perhaps be split into two or morespecies. We have in somesuch instances used the term Group prospectivelyrather thanretrospectively. In a sense,each mentionof a Group is an invitationfor researchinto the relationshipsof the populationsinvolved. Recognitionof subspecies.--Asin the sixth edition, for reasonsof expediency,the Com- mittee reluctantlyexcluded treatment of subspeciesin the currentvolume. Their omission shouldnot be interpretedas a devaluationof the importanceof that taxonomicrank. To the contrary,the Committeestrongly and unanimously continues to endorsethe biological reality andpractical utility of subspecies.Subspecies names denote geographic segments of species' populationsthat differ abruptlyand discretely in morphologyor coloration;these differences often correspondwith differencesin behaviorand habitat.Such populations are thusflagged for the attentionof evolutionists,ecologists, and conservationists.Some subspecies also are "species-in-the-making"and thereforeconstitute a significantelement of newly evolving biodiversity.The Committee'sendorsement of subspeciesas entitiesworthy of scientific inquiry carries with it our realization that an uncertainnumber of currentlyrecognized subspecies,especially those formally namedearly in this century,probably cannot be val- idated by rigorousmodern techniques.The oppositeis also true; after careful study an unknownnumber of presentsubspecies probably will be unmaskedas cryptic biological species.This point furtheremphasizes the importantrole of this taxonomicrank in calling attentionto examplesof avian diversitydeserving additional investigation.

GeographicCoverage The geographicarea coveredby this edition is the sameas that in the sixth edition-- North and Middle America including the adjacentislands under the jurisdiction of the includednations; the Hawaiian Islands;Clipperton Island; Bermuda;the West Indies, in- cluding the Bahama Islands, the Greater Antilles, Leeward and Windward islandsof the Lesser Antilles; and , Providencia, and San Andr6s islands in the Gulf of Mexico. In the Bering Sea the boundaryis that delimitingthe United Statesfrom Russia,which is also the InternationalDate Line. To the eastthe boundaryis the boundarybetween Canada and Greenland.The southernboundary in Middle America is the borderbetween Panama and Colombia; in the Lesser Antilles, Grenada is the southernmostisland included. Records of occurrencewithin 160 kilometers(100 miles) offshorefrom any coastin the Check-listarea are includedunless the locality of the recordslies outsidethe specifiedlimits in that region (e.g., an internationalboundary).

xii Criteria for Inclusion

All speciesfor which thereis a publishedrecord or reportof occurrencewithin the Check- list area are included,either in the main list or in the Appendix. For inclusionin the main text, recordsof occurrencemust be documentedby a specimenor an unequivocallyiden- tifiable photograph.A recordingof vocalizationsdiagnostic for a speciescould constitute equally valid documentation,but no speciesare includedon that basis.Properly labeled specimensdeposited in a public museumprovide the best evidenceof occurrencebecause they can be reexaminedand verifiedin many ways (seebeyond). Identifiable photographs, preferablypublished, that are depositedin a museumor photographicarchive are the next bestkind of evidence,and severalspecies are includedon the basisof suchevidence. Once a speciesis admittedto the Check-list area, additionaldistributional data may be basedon sightreports, but if the occurrencewould constitutean additionto a nationallist, especially for the or Canada, documentation must be as firm as for addition to the entire list. For statesand provincesin the United Statesand Canada,and for other political units where it might apply, this Committeehas cooperatedextensively with the Check-listCom- mittee of the American Birding Association,which also is stringentin its assessmentof the documentationof records.We note that a properlyverified record of a speciesdoes not validateeither earlier or later poorly documentedor undocumentedsight reports. Speciesthat have been introducedby humans,either deliberatelyor accidentally,are consideredto be establishedif there are persistentrecords for at least ten yearsand satis- factory evidencethat they are maintaininga reasonablystable or increasingpopulation throughsuccessful reproduction. Ornithologists and birdersare urgedto pay closeattention to speciesintroduced in their areasand to documentconstancy of occurrenceand changes in populationsize. Introduced species often are neglected,although they provideopportunity for fascinatingresearch.

Format

Scientific names.--The Check-list follows the third edition of the International Code of ZoologicalNomenclature, published in 1985, and decisionsof the InternationalCommission on Zoological Nomenclatureas publishedin the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. Citation.mEach genericand specificscientific name is followedby the nameof the author (original describer)of the name. If the author'sname is in parentheses,the specieswas originallydescribed in a genusdifferent from that to which it is currentlyassigned. Each genericor specificname is furtherfollowed by the date (year,occasionally month and year) in which it was first publishedand the nameof the publicationin which the nameappeared. This is followedby a statementof the type species(of a genus)or type locality(of a species). Wheremore than one year is given,the onein parenthesesis theostensible date of publication, usually as on the cover or title page, and the one without parenthesesis the actual date of publicationas determinedby other evidence. Some publicationdates have been changed from the sixth edition becauseof the studiesof Browning and Monroe (1991) or others.In a few instances,the changeof a date has necessitatedthe change(from previouseditions) of a citationor even of the name itself becauseof the Law of Priority as set forth in the Code.We are especiallygrateful to Alan P.Peterson for assistancein obtainingcorrect dates of publication. Englishnames.--We have followed the guidelineson Englishnames set forth in thePreface to the sixth edition, with some exceptions.For speciesof primarily Eurasiandistribution that are on the Americanlist as a result of vagrancy,we have acceptedthe English name usedby the B.O.U. (1992). An extensivesuite of changeswas publishedin the 40th Sup- plement(A.O.U. 1995). When a specieswas divided into two or more distinctspecies, we have used former English names,if available, for the resultanttaxa. In general, we have followed the policy that no Englishname shouldbe usedfor both a combinedspecies and one of the components(Groups). However, we often have retaineda well-known English name for a widespreadNorth American form when a taxon that is either extralimital or restrictedin distributionis separatedfrom it. An exampleis the retentionof the name Red- wingedBlackbird for Agelaiusphoeniceus when the Cubanpopulation was separatedas A. assimilis and named the Red-shouldered Blackbird.

xiii SpeciesConcepts The Committeestrongly and unanimouslycontinues to endorsethe biological species concept(BSC), in which speciesare consideredto be geneticallycohesive groups of pop- ulationsthat are reproductivelyisolated from other such groups.According to the BSC, geographicisolation leads to geneticchange and potentiallyto the reproductiveisolation of sister taxa. If and when these closely related forms later coexist, reproductiveisolating mechanismssuch as distinctivedisplays and vocalizationsserve to maintainthe essential geneticintegrity of the newly formed biological species.In recent decadesthe BSC has beencriticized because of severalpurported weaknesses (Cracraft 1983, McKitrick andZink 1988). Theseproblems fall into threecategories (Zink 1996): interpretationof hybridization, the supposedrecognition of nonhistoricalgroups, and the treatmentof allopatricpopulations. Althoughspace does not permit a thoroughanalysis of therelevant issues here, the Committee believesthat the supposedweaknesses of the BSC have been overstated,as the following brief commentsexplain. Regardingthe interpretationof hybridization,we emphasizethat a significantnumber of undisputedbiological speciesof birds long retain the capacity for at least limited inter- breedingwith otherspecies, even non-sister taxa (Pragerand Wilson 1975, Grantand Grant 1992). Therefore, the occasionaloccurrence of hybridization,even betweentaxa that the Committee has long recognizedas species,by no meansdiminishes the biologicalreality of their essentialreproductive isolation. In practice,interbreeding has not been the ironclad determinateof conspecificitythat somewould believe. Thus, essential(lack of free inter- breeding)rather than completereproductive isolation has been and continuesto be the fundamentaloperating criterion for speciesstatus by workersadhering to the BSC. In par- ticular,hybridization of two formsacross narrow and stablecontact zones-once viewed as a sufficientcriterion for treatmentas one species-isnow viewed as evidencefor lack of free interbreeding.As a consequence,many pairs of sistertaxa that were mergedin the sixth editionhave beenresplit in this edition of the Check-list. The BSC also has been criticized becauseit supposedlycannot correctly reflect the his- toricalrelationships of taxa. Admittedly,occasional examples of massivehybridization have led this Committeeand previousones (prior to the availability of molecularphylogenetic information)improperly to combineinto singlespecies probable non-sister taxa. Nonetheless, the BSC can readily accommodatenew data on historicalrelationships of taxa as better estimatesbecome available. Such estimates are now commonplacefor many taxa, reflecting the widespreadapplication of molecularsystematic techniques appropriate to phylogenetic recovery. Finally, the subjectivetreatment of allopatricpopulations,which by definitioncannot pass the test of sympatryby proving their reproductiveisolation, has been claimed to be a weaknessof the BSC. In fact, moderu technologyhas removed much of the taxonomic treatmentof suchpopulations from the realm of subjectivityand opinion.Quantified study of vocalizationsand detailedinvestigation of geneticdistances of allopatricpopulations, for example,provide data for quantitativecomparison with levelsof differenceseen in the same featuresamong sympatric biological species. When allopatrictaxa demonstrateeither sim- ilarities or differencesin featuresrelated to reproductiveisolation, such as songand genetic distance,taxonomic rank can be assignedby appropriate,objective criteria rather than through guessesas to their capacityfor interbreedingwith allopatricrelatives. Cracraft(1983) proposeda "phylogeneticspecies concept" (PSC) for ornithology,which narrowlydefines species as "the smallestdiagnosable cluster of individualorganisms within whichthere is a parentalpattern of ancestryand descent." Using this definition,many groups of populationsrecognized as subspeciesunder the BSC would becomespecies under the PSC. For stronglycharacterized subspecies or "near species"under the BSC, diagnosisas phylogeneticspecies presents no seriousproblem. But to elevateto speciesstatus the plethora of subspeciesof birds exhibiting distinct but trivial, or geographicallychaotic, variation would representextreme retrogression to the typologicalspecies concepts of more than a centuryago. The PSC would be reducedto absurditywhen speciesstatus is grantedto tiny clustersof individualsnow diagnosablethrough sophisticated molecular approaches. Fur- thermore,use of diagnosticcharacters does not necessarilyguarantee accurate phylogenetic construction.Moreover, we regardas indefensiblethe identificationof speciesby what are

xiv essentiallyphenetic criteria. A final major problemwith the PSC is its lack of a distinctly biologicalfoundation. This is revealedclearly by the fact that the PSC can apply equally well to either animateor inanimateobjects, both categoriesof which includemembers that are diagnosableat somelevel and also have a history. The Committeerecognizes that essentialgenetic isolation is the indispensablefeature of biological speciesand that this independencefrom all other living genetic systemsis a consequenceof reproductiveisolation. The latter is, therefore,the main enginethat propels the evolutionof biodiversity,including that of birds. That one can observedirectly and measurethe reproductiveisolating mechanisms that protectthe essentialgenetic integrity of biologicalspecies of birds in naturalenvironments is furtherreason to apply the BSC to membersof this . Application of the BSC has the undeniablebiological appeal of allowing the behaviorof the populationsthemselves to determinetaxonomic rank.

Collectionof Specimens The Committeestrongly and unanimouslysupports the judicious and ethicalcollection of birdsfor scientificpurposes. Specimens are indispensablefor the investigationof a multitude of unsolvedproblems of relationship,evolutionary history, structure,and geographicoc- currence.Existing collectionsare an irreplaceablefoundation for presenttaxonomy and distribution.Nonetheless, most specimensin such collectionswere obtaineddecades ago when standardsfor systematicanalysis were different from those at present.Because of discolorationresulting from age,inadequate reproductive data, and poor initial preparation- as well as ongoingevolutionary change-present collections, even when consideredtogether, nearlyalways must be supplementedby new materialfor comprehensivesystematic studies (Winker 1996). Furthermore,most current collectionseither lack or have an inadequate representationof preservedtissue necessary for the applicationof molecularsystematic approaches. We emphasizethat the recognition,description, and conservationof all biodiversity,in- cludingthat of birds,depends ultimately on propertaxonomic analyses. The latter,in turn, cannotbe conductedwithout adequatescientific collections of specimens(Remsen 1995). The Committeeunanimously recognizes the contributionsof an increasingnumber of serious amateurs and other workers with excellent skills in field identification who continue to add significantdistributional information for the large numberof easilyidentifiable kinds of birds.Despite such contributions, however, scientific collecting continues to play a crucial role in the proper documentationof arian distribution.Many speciesof birds in some ,and some speciesin all plumages,cannot be identified safely in the field, the increasedsophistication of field skillsnotwithstanding. The Committeedeplores the invasion of the primarydistributional literature by an increasingvolume of poorlydocumented reports of the latter two categoriesof species,resulting in a significantgeneral decline in quality of the scientificdatabase for arian distribution.For many taxa of birds,judicious scientific collectingis necessaryto providefull andproper documentation for dependabledistributional records.

Acknowledgments It is difficult to think of an ornithologistor birderwho is interestedin arian systematics or distributionwho has not helpedus in someway, directly or indirectly, in the preparation of this volume. Jon L. Dunn provideddetailed reviews of the distributionsections for many families.M. Ralph Browning, StevenW. Cardiff, Roger B. Clapp, Donna L. Dittmann, and Curtis A. Marantz reviewedearly draftsof many family accounts.The Committeewishes to acknowl- edge its great debt to the following additionalindividuals for providingdiverse kinds of importantassistance: John Arvin, G. C. Banks,Jon C. Barlow, JohnM. Bates,Louis Bevier, Paul A. Buckley,R. Wayne Campbell,Carla Cicero, Jos6A. Colon, Paul A. DeBenedictis, Richard A. Erickson, Ted Eubanks, Robert C. Fleischer, Kimball Garrett, John A. Gerwin, Daniel D. Gibson,Helen F. James,Greg W. Lasley,Paul Lehman,Joe T. Marshall,Jr., Joseph Moran, StorrsL. Olson, Michael A. Patten, Alan P. Peterson,H. Douglas Pratt, Robert L. Pyle, Mark B. Robbins,Kenneth V. Rosenberg,Thomas S. Schulenberg,P. William Smith, Ted Snetsinger,Douglas F. Stotz, JohnTomer, Philip Unitt, and Robert M. Zink.

xv Becauseof the untimely death of Burt Monroe, we were unableto constructa complete list of thosewho contributedor correcteddistributional information in early reviews of the manuscript.We apologizeto any who were omittedfrom the followinglist: GordonBerkey (North Dakota), LaurenceC. Binford (California, Illinois, , Oaxaca), Eriik A. T Blom (Delaware,Maryland), StevenW. Cardiff (Louisiana),Charles M. Carlson(), Paul A. DeBenedictis (New York), JamesJ. Dinsmore (Iowa), Donna L. Dittmann (Loui- siana),David O. Eastefta(Missouri), Charles Ely (Kansas),Richard A. Erickson(California), Kimball L. Garrett (California), Orlando Garrido (Cuba), Sidney A. Gauthreaux(South Carolina),Daniel D. Gibson(), Bernie Gollop (Saskatchewan),Joseph A. Grzybowski (Oklahoma), George A. Hall (West Virginia), C. Stuart Houston(Prairie provinces),S. N. G. Howell (, Mexico), John P. Hubbard (New Mexico), Thomas A. Imhof (Ala- bama), RossD. James(Ontario), Robert B. Janssen(), Charles E. Keller (Indiana), Allan A. Keith (LesserAntilles), Rudolf E Koes (Manitoba), Ed Kurac (Texas), Greg W. Lasley(Texas), Catherine Levy (Jamaica),Curtis A. Marantz (Louisiana),Bruce McGillivray (Alberta), J. Michael Meyers (Puerto Rico), Russell E. Mumford (Indiana), Robert Nero (Manitoba),Blair Nikula (New England),Robert L. Norton (WestIndies), Michael A. Patten (California), Dennis Paulson (, , , Washington),Robert B. Payne (Michigan), Raul Perez-Rivera (Puerto Rico), Bruce Peterjohn(Ohio), H. Douglas Pratt (Hawaii), Jack Redall (Colorado),Robert R. Reid (Alabama), Robert S. Ridgely (Pan- ama), Chandler S. Robbins (Delaware, D.C., Maryland), W. B. Robertson(Florida), Gary H. Rosenberg(Arizona, Costa Rica), Ella Sorenson(Utah), Max C. Thompson(Kansas), Walter Thurber (El Salvador),Nathaniel R. Whitney (South Dakota), Morris D. Williams (Tennessee),Sartor O. Williams, III (New Mexico), Glen E. Woolfenden(Florida), andPhillip L. Wright (Montana).

Committee: Richard C. Banks, Chairman, 1995-1998 John W. Fitzpatrick Thomas R. Howell Ned K. Johnson ? Burt L. Monroe, Jr., Chairman, 1983-1994 Henri Ouellet J. V. Remsen, Jr. Robert W. Storer

Deceased

xvi 118 FAMILY PHASIANIDAE

Within the colchicusgroup, the Asiatic complex may be a species,P. torquatusGmelin, 1789 [Ring-neckedPheasant], distinct from the more westernP. colchicus[Common or English ];most North American populationsare from torquatusstock, although birds from Europeancolchicus are mixed with torquatusin many areas.

Genus Linnaeus

Pavo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156. Type, by tautonymy,Pavo cristatus Linnaeus(Pavo, prebinomialspecific name, in synonymy).

Pavo cristatus Linnaeus. Common .

Pavo cristatusLinnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156. (in orientali,Zeylona -- India.) Habitat--Open forest,forest edge, second growth, scrub, open areas with scatteredtrees, and cultivated lands. Distribution.--Resident throughoutIndia and on Sri Lanka. Introducedin the Hawaiian Islands (initially in 1860, now establishedon Oahu, Maui, and Hawaii) and the Bahamas (Exuma); local, semi-domesticatedpopulations also have persistedfor yearsin variousparts of the North American continent.

Subfamily TETRAONINAE: Grouse Notes.--Sometimesregarded as a family, the Tetraonidae(e.g., A.O.U. 1957). The tax- onomicarrangement is basedon Ellsworthet al. (1995, 1996).

GenusBONASA Stephens BonasaStephens, 1819, in Shaw, Gen. Zool. 11(2): 298. Type, by subsequentdesig- nation (A.O.U. Comm., 1886), Tetrao umbellusLinnaeus.

Bonasa umbellus (Linnaeus). . Tetrao urnbellusLinnaeus, 1766, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1: 275. Based on "The Ruffed Heath-cockor Grous" Edwards,Glean. Nat. Hist. 1: 79, pl. 248. (in Pensylvania= easternPennsylvania.) Habitat.--Forest, mainly mixed deciduous-coniferousand deciduous,in both wet and relatively dry situations,from boreal forest and northernhardwood-ecotone to easternde- ciduous forest and oak-savanna woodland. Distribution.--Resident from central Alaska, northern Yukon, southwesternMackenzie, northern Saskatchewan,northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, southern Quebec, southern Labrador, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and Nova Scotia south to northwestern California, northeasternOregon, central and easternIdaho, centralUtah, northwesternCol- orado, westernand northernWyoming, southernAlberta, southernSaskatchewan, southern Manitoba(absent from prairieregions of threepreceding provinces), northern North Dakota, central and southeasternMinnesota, Iowa, northern Illinois (at least formerly), central In- diana,Ohio, in the Appalachiansto northernGeorgia, western South Carolina, and western North Carolina, and to northeasternVirginia; also locally southto westernSouth Dakota (Black Hills), northeasternKansas, northern Arkansas, central Missouri, westernTennessee, and northeastern Alabama. Introduced and established on Anticosti Island and in Newfoundland.

Genus Swainson

Centrocercus[subgenus] Swainson, 1832, in Swainsonand Richardson,Fauna Bor.- Amer. 2 (1831): 358, 496. Type, by originaldesignation, Tetrao urophasianusBon- aparte. FAMILY PHASIANIDAE 119

Centrocercusurophasianus (Bonaparte). Sage Grouse. Tetrao urophasianusBonaparte, 1827, Zool. J. 3: 213. (Northwesterncountries beyond the Mississippi,especially on the Missouri = North Dakota.) Habitat.--Foothills, plains,rocky plateaus, and mountain slopes where sagebrush is pres- ent. Distribution.--Residentlocally (formerly widespread)from centralWashington, Mon- tana, southeasternAlberta, southwesternSaskatchewan, southwestern North Dakota, western South Dakota, and extreme northwesternNebraska southto easternCalifornia, south-central Nevada,southern Utah, andwestern Colorado, formerly north to southernBritish Columbia, south to northern New Mexico and southeast to extreme western Oklahoma. Notes.--The isolatedpopulations of the GunnisonBasin of Coloradorepresent a distinct unnamedspecies (Hupp and Braun 1991, Young et al. 1994).

Genus Elliot FalcipennisElliot, 1864, Proc.Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia16: 23. Type,by monotypy, Falcipennishartlaubi Elliot = Tetraofalcipennis Hartlaub. CanachitesStejneger, 1885, Proc.U.S. Natl. Mus. 8: 410. Type, by originaldesignation, Tetrao canadensis Linnaeus. Notes.--Canachiteshas been consideredgenerically distinct (Peters 1934, A.O.U. 1957, Ellsworth et al. 1995) or mergedwith (Short 1967, A.O.U. 1983); the latter treatmentwould makeDendragapus paraphyletic (Ellsworth et al. 1996). Yamashina(1939) recommendedits mergerwith Falcipennis,as have Dickermanand Gustafson(1996).

Falcipenniscanadensis (Linnaeus). . Tetrao canadensisLinnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1' 159. Basedon "The Black and SpottedHeath-cock" Edwards, Nat. Hist. Birds 3:118, pl. 118. (in Canada = Churchill,Manitoba; restricted by Todd, 1963, Birds LabradorPeninsula, p. 252.) Habitat.-•Coniferousforest, primarily spruce and pine, especiallywith denseunderstory of grassesand shrubsor regeneratingburns. Distribution.--Resident[canadensis group] from northernAlaska, northern Yukon, north- em Mackenzie, southwesternKeewatin, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Que- bec, and Labrador southto coastal and south-centralAlaska, central British Columbia, central Alberta, central Saskatchewan, southernManitoba, northern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, central Michigan, southernOntario, northernNew York, northernVermont, northernNew Hampshire,and easternMaine; and [franklinii group] from southeasternAlaska (west to base of the Alaska Peninsula),central British Columbia and west-centralAlberta south to northernOregon, central and southeasternIdaho, and westernMontana. Introducedand established[canadensis group] in Newfoundland. Notes.--Groups:F. canadensis[Spruce Grouse] and F. franklinii (Douglas,1829) [Frank- lin's Grouse].Formerly placed in Dendragapusor Canachites.

Genus Brisson LagopusBrisson, 1760, Ornithologie1: 26, 181. Type, by tautonymy,Lagopus Brisson -- Tetrao lagopusLinnaeus.

Lagopus lagopus (Linnaeus).. TetraoLagopus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 159.(in Europa•alpinis = Swedish Lapland.) Habitat.--Open tundra,especially in areasheavily vegetated with grasses,mosses, herbs, and shrubs,less frequently in openingsin boreal coniferousforest. Distribution.--Breeds [lagopusgroup] in North Americaacross the Arctic from northern Alaskaeast through Banks, southern Melville, andBathurst islands to westernBaffin Island, and south to the central and eastern Aleutian Islands, southern Alaska, northwestern and 120 FAMILY PHASIANIDAE east-central British Columbia, extreme west-central Alberta, central Mackenzie, southern Keewatin, northeasternManitoba, extreme northern Ontario, the Twin Islands (in James Bay), central Quebec, Labrador, and Newfoundland;and in Eurasia from Greenland and Scandinaviaeast acrossRussia and Siberia,and south(except the British Isles) to Mongolia, Ussuriland, and Sakhalin. Resident[scoticus group] in the British Isles, Orkney Islands,and Hebrides. Winters [lagopusgroup] mostly in the breedingrange, in North America wanderingir- regularly (or casually)south to Montana (formerly), North Dakota, Minnesota,Wisconsin, centralOntario, and ; and in Eurasiasouth to northernEurope. Introduced[lagopus group] and established(in 1968, from the Newfoundlandpopulation) on Scatarie Island in Nova Scotia. Accidental [lagopusgroup] in Nova Scotia before introduction. Notes.--In the Old World known as Willow Grouse. Groups:L. lagopus[Willow Ptar- migan] and L. scoticus(Latham, 1789) [].

Lagopus mums (Montin). . Tetrao mutusMontin, 1776, Phys. S•ilskap.Handl. 1: 155. (Alpibus lapponicus= Sweden.) Habitat.--Open tundra,barren and rocky slopesin Arctic and alpine areas;in winter, some movementto thickets and forest edge. Distribution.--Breeds in North Americafrom northernAlaska east through the Canadian Arctic islands to Ellesmere and Baffin islands, and south to the Aleutians, southernAlaska (includingKodiak Island), westernand northern British Columbia,central Mackenzie, central Keewatin, SouthamptonIsland, northern Quebec, northern Labrador, and Newfoundland; and in the Palearctic from Greenland, Iceland, Scotland, and Scandinavia east acrossnorthern Russiaand northernSiberia to Kamchatka,and at high elevationsin the Pyreneesand Alps of southernEurope, the mountainranges of centralAsia, and in the Kuril Islandsand Japan (Honshu). Wintersregularly in North Americafrom the breedingrange south to southernMackenzie, northern Saskatchewan,northern Manitoba, northwestern Ontario, and central Quebec, ca- sually to coastal British Columbia (the Queen Charlotte Islands); and in the Palearctic primarily residentin the breedingrange. Accidental in northern Minnesota. Notes.--Known in Old World literatureas the Ptarmigan.

Lagopus leucurus (Richardson).White-tailed Ptarmigan. Tetrao (Lagopus) leucurus "Swains." Richardson, 1831, in Wilson and Bonaparte, Amer. Ornithol.(Jameson ed.) 4: 330. (,lat. 54ø N.) Habitat.--Alpine tundra,especially in rocky areaswith sparsevegetation; in winter,moves slightly lower, to areaswhere vegetationprotrudes above snow. Distribution.--Resident from south-centralAlaska (Alaska Range), northernYukon, and southwestern Mackenzie south to southern Alaska (west to the Kenai Peninsula and Lake Clark), southernBritish Columbia(including Vancouver Island), and the CascadeMountains of Washington,and along the Rocky Mountains (locally, mostly on alpine summits)from southeasternBritish Columbia and southwesternAlberta south through central southern Wyoming and Coloradoto northernNew Mexico. Introducedand establishedin northeasternUtah (Uinta Mountains) and California (central SierraNevada); introduced also in northeasternOregon (Wallowa Mountains) with unknown success.

Genus DENDRAGAPUS Elliot

DendragapusElliot, 1864, Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Philadelphia 16: 23. Type, by sub- sequentdesignation (Baird, Brewer,and Ridgway, 1874), Tetrao obscurusSay. FAMILY PHASIANIDAE 121

Dendragapusobscurus (Say). Blue Grouse. Tetrao obscurusSay, 1823, in Long, Exped. Rocky Mount. 2: 14. (near Defile Creek = about20 miles north of ColoradoSprings, Colorado.) Habitat--Coniferous and coniferous-deciduousforest, often adjacentto open country; in winter,more restricted to denseconiferous forest [obscurus group]; open coniferous forest [fuliginosusgroup]. Distribution.--Resident[obscurus group] from southeasternAlaska (except coastal areas), southernYukon, and extremesouthwestern Mackenzie souththrough the mountainsof in- terior BritishColumbia (except coastal, southwestern, and south-central areas), southwestern Alberta, easternWashington, and the Rocky Mountainsto easternNevada, northernand eastern Arizona (south to White Mountains), southwesternand north-central New Mexico, westernand centralColorado and (formerly)western South Dakota; and [fuliginosusgroup] from coastalsoutheastern Alaska (north to Yakutat)and coastal British Columbia (including the Queen Charlotteand Vancouverislands) south in coastalranges and the Cascadesto northwesternCalifornia, the Sierra Nevada, and (at least formerly) to southernCalifornia (Ventura County) and extremewestern Nevada. Notes.--Groups:D. obscurus[] and D. fuliginosus(Ridgway, 1874) [].

GenusTYMPANUCHUS Gloger TyrnpanuchusGloger, 1841, Gemein. Handb. und Hilfsb. Naturgesch.,p. 396. Type, by monotypy, Tetrao cupido Linnaeus. PedioecetesBaird, 1858, in Baird, Cassin,and Lawrence,Rep. Explor. Surv. R. R. Pac. 9: xxi, xliv. Type, by monotypy,Tetrao phasianellusLinnaeus. Notes.--For commentson relationshipswithin this genus,see Ellsworth et al. (1994).

Tympanuchusphasianellus (Linnaeus).Sharp-tailed Grouse. Tetrao PhasianellusLinnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 160. Basedon "The Long- tailed Grous from Hudson's-Bay"Edwards, Nat. Hist. Birds 3: 117, pl. 117. (in Canada = HudsonBay.) Habitat.--Grasslands,especially with scatteredwoodlands, arid sagebrush,brushy hills, oak savanna,edges of riparian woodland,muskeg, and bogs;in winter, more restrictedto areas with shrub or tree cover. Distribution.--Resident,at leastlocally, from centralAlaska, central Yukon, northwestern Mackenzie, northern Saskatchewan,northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, and west-central Quebecsouth to easternWashington, southern Idaho, northernUtah, southwestern,central and northeasternColorado, western and north-central Kansas, central Nebraska, easternSouth Dakota,eastern North Dakota,northern Minnesota, central Wisconsin, central Michigan, and southernOntario; formerly occurred south to southernOregon, northeastern California, north- easternNevada, northeasternNew Mexico, southernIowa and northernIllinois, probably also northern Texas. Notes.mSee commentsunder T. cupido.

Tympanuchuscupido (Linnaeus).Greater Prairie-. Tetrao CupidoLinnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 160. Basedon "Le Cocq de bois d'Am6rique" Catesby,Nat. Hist. Carolina 2 (app.): 1, pl. 1. (in Virginia = Penn- sylvania.) Habitat--Tall-grass prairie, occasionallyfeeding in adjacentcultivated lands; formerly in eastern(fire-produced) grassland and blueberrybarrens. Distribution.--Resident locally andin muchreduced numbers from easternNorth Dakota, northwesternand central Minnesota, and northern Wisconsin south to southeasternWyoming, northeasternColorado, Kansas (except southwestern),northeastern Oklahoma, central Mis- souri, and southernIllinois; also in southeasternTexas. Formerly occurred(now extirpated 122 FAMILY PHASIANIDAE or nearly so) from east-centralAlberta, centralSaskatchewan, southern Manitoba, and south- ern Ontario south,east of the Rocky Mountains,to easternTexas, southwestern Louisiana, east-centralArkansas, central Indiana, western Kentucky, and westernOhio; andin the east from Massachusettssouth to Maryland, after 1835 confinedto the island of Martha'sVine- yard, Massachusetts(where last reportedin 1932). Notes.--The extinct easternpopulation was called . This speciesand T. pal- lidicinctusconstitute a superspeciesand are consideredto be conspecificby someauthors (e.g., Johnsgard1983); with this concept,Prairie Chicken or PinnatedGrouse may be used. Tyrnpanuchuscupido and T. phasianellushybridize sporadically, but occasionallythey in- terbreedextensively on a local level (Johnsgardand Wood 1968). l•mpanuchus pallidicinctus (Ridgway). LesserPrairie-Chicken. Cupidoniacupido var. pallidicinctus Ridgeway [sic], 1873, For. Stream1: 289. (Prairie of Texas [near lat. 32ø N.J.) Habitat.--Dry short-grassprairie, often interspersed with shrubsand short trees, regularly feeding in adjacentcultivated lands. Distribution.--Resident locally and in reducednumbers from southeasternColorado, south-central Kansas, and western Oklahoma to extreme southeastern New Mexico and northernTexas (Panhandle), formerly north to southwesternNebraska. Notes.--See commentsunder T. cupido.

Subfamily MELEAGRIDINAE: Turkeys Notes.--Sometimesregarded as a family, the Meleagrididae(e.g., A.O.U. 1957).

Genus MELEAGRIS Linnaeus MeleagrisLinnaeus, 1758, Syst.Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156. Type, by tautonymy,Meleagris gallopavoLinnaeus (Meleagris, prebinomial specific name, in synonymy). AgriocharisChapman, 1896, Bull. Amer.Mus. Nat. Hist. 6: 287, 288. Type, by mono- typy, Meleagris ocellata "Temminck" [-- Cuvier]. Notes.--Osteologicalstudies by Steadman(1980) haveshown that the genusAgriocharis shouldnot be separatedfrom Meleagris.

Meleagris gallopavoLinnaeus. Wild . MeleagrisGallopavo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 156. Basedmainly on the "" Catesby,Nat. Hist. Carolina1' 44, pl. 44. (in Americaseptentrionali -- Mirador, Veracruz.) Habitat.--Forest and openwoodland, deciduous (particularly oak) or mixeddeciduous- coniferous,especially with adjacentclearings or pastures(Subtropical and Temperate zones). Distribution.--Residentlocally andgenerally in reducednumbers (formerly widespread) from northern Arizona, New Mexico, Kansas,eastern Nebraska, southeasternSouth Dakota, northernIowa, southernand eastern Wisconsin, southern Ontario (formerly), extreme south- ern Quebec,northern New York, southernVermont, southern New Hampshire,and south- westernMaine southto Guerrero(at least formerly), Veracruz, southernTexas, the Gulf coast, and Florida. Reintroducedwidely throughits former breedingrange north of Mexico, and established locally northto southernBritish Columbia,Washington, Idaho, southernAlberta, southern Saskatchewan,southern Manitoba, southeastern Minnesota, northern Michigan, and southern Ontario, and in the Hawaiian Islands(initially in 1788, now on Niihau, Lanai, Maui, and Hawaii) and New Zealand.

Meleagris ocellata Cuvier.. Meleagrisocellata Cuvier, 1820, M•m. Mus. Hist. Nat. 6: 1, 4, pl. 1. (Gulf of Honduras = .) FAMILY ODONTOPHORIDAE 123

Habitat. TropicalLowland EvergreenForest Edge, TropicalDeciduous Forest (Tropical Zone). Distribution.--Resident in southeasternMexico ( and the Yucatan Peninsula), northern Guatemala (Pet6n), and northern Belize. Notes.--Formerly placedin the genusAgriocharis.

Subfamily NUMIDINAE: Guineafowl

Genus NUMIDA Linnaeus Numida Linnaeus,1766, Syst. Nat., ed. 12, 1, p. 273. Type, by monotypy,Numida meleagris Linnaeus = Phasianusmeleagris Linnaeus.

Numida meleagris (Linnaeus). . PhasianusMeleagris Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.Nat., ed. 10, 1, p. 158 (in = Nubia, upper Nile.) Habitat.--Open woodland,cultivated lands, and grasslands. Distribution.--Resident [galeata group] in westernAfrica east to westernZaire; [rnele- agris group] in Arabia and northeasternAfrica southto northeasternZaire; and [mitrata group] in south-centraland southernAfrica. Widely domesticatedthroughout the world, and escapedindividuals are frequently re- ported.Introduced and establishedin the Hawaiian Islands(in 1874 on Hawaii and possibly othermain islands,perhaps not well established),,in the WestIndies (on Cuba,Isle of Pines, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, and Barbuda), and on Ascension,Trinidad, and the Cape Verde Islands. Notes.--The three groupsare sometimesregarded as separatespecies, N. galeata Pallas, 1767 [WestAfrican Guineafowl],N. rneleagris[Helmeted Guineafowl], andN. rnitrata Pallas, 1767 [Tufted Guineafowl], althoughthey all intergradewhere their rangesmeet (seeCrowe 1978).

Family ODONTOPHORIDAE: New World Quail Notes.--Formerly considereda subfamily of Phasianidae,the Odontophoridaeare given family statusbecause of evidencefrom skeletal(Holman 1961) andDNA-DNA hybridization studies(Sibley and Ahlquist 1990).

Genus Gould Dendrortyx Gould, 1844, Monogr. Odontoph.1: pl. [3] and text. Type, by monotypy, Ortyx rnacroura Jardineand Selby.

Dendrortyx barbaras Gould. BeardedWood-. Dendrortyxbarbatus (Lichtenstein MS) Gould, 1846, Monogr.Odontoph. 2: pl. [2] and text. (Jalapa,Veracruz.) Habitat.--Montane EvergreenForest, Pine Forest(950-1550 m; SubtropicalZone). Distribution.--Resident in easternSan Luis Potosf,eastern Hidalgo, easternPuebla, and central Veracruz.

Dendrortyx macroura (Jardineand Selby). Long-tailed Wood-Partridge. Ortyx rnacrouraJardine and Selby, 1828, Illus. Ornithol. 1: text to pl. 38 (in "Ortyx synopsisspecierum"), and pl. 49 and text. (Mexico = mountainsabout valley of M6xico.) Habitat.--Montane Evergreen Forest, Pine-Oak Forest (1800-3700 m; Subtropicaland Temperatezones). Distribution.--Resident in the mountains of Jalisco, Michoacfin, M6xico, Distrito Federal, Morelos, Guerrero, Puebla, Veracruz, and Oaxaca.