NEWS AND NOTES by Paul Hess cise knowledge of just how Zino’s and Fea’s can be sep - Fea’s or Zino’s Petrel? arated.” (April 2000, pp. 110–112) Official uncertainty persists. Fea’s Petrel remains “hypo - • In an extensive assessment of gadfly petrels off North thetical” in the American Ornithologists’ Union Check-list Carolina, J. Brian Patteson and Edward S. Brinkley re - of North American Birds , and “Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel” remains a port that “we are able to confirm at least some of these single tick in the ABA Checklist . Thus, a long-standing con - as Fea’s Petrels.” (December 2004, pp. 586–596) troversy still shadows dozens of observations off our At - A new analysis may not dispel doubts about identification lantic Coast: Can Fea’s Petrel and Zino’s Petrel be separated at sea, but that is not the authors’ goal. Rather, Francis at sea, even in good photographs? Zino, Ruth Brown, and Manuel Biscoito want to reaffirm in The quarrel has played out colorfully in Birding , having 2008 that Zino’s Petrel is a distinct species warranting con - been addressed both in several ABA Checklist Committee tinued conservation efforts to protect the endangered reports <aba.org/checklist/reports.html> and in various ar - breeding population estimated at 65–80 pairs endemic to ticles and letters to the editor. Here are highlights: Madeira Island ( Ibis 150:326–334). • The ABA decides not to accept Fea’s, then known as Cape Verde Islands Petrel, because “the probability of resolving the identity of these birds beyond question appears to be low.” (Oc - tober 1996, pp. 399–405) • In a two-part treatise detailing Fea’s taxonomy, distribution, and identification, Michael H. Tove asserts that “Fea’s is the species being seen in the ABA Area.” (June 1997, pp. 206–219; August 1997, pp. 309–315) • After seeing Tove’s articles and new documenta - tion from North Carolina, the ABA promises to reconsider adding Fea’s . (December 1997, pp. 486–490) • In a letter, seabird expert W. R. P. Bourne criti - cizes Tove’s suggestion that Fea’s and Zino’s wing Whether Fea’s Petrel and Zino’s Petrel can be identified at sea has long shapes differ—pointed in Fea’s, rounded in been a matter of contention. The two species differ significantly in bill Zino’s. Tove replies that the difference appears to size, and this individual’s large bill may be evidence that it is a Fea’s. Off Hatteras, North Carolina ; 20 May 2007 . © George Armistead . be meaningful and calls for its verification as a field mark. (April 1998, p. 98) The study confirms substantial genetic distinction be - • The ABA announces “New Species Accepted: tween Zino’s and a Fea’s population nesting on Bugio Island Fea’s/Zino’s Petrel ( Pterodroma feae/madeira ),” believ - 40 kilometers away. Mitochondrial DNA sequences in 15 ing that Fea’s is “overwhelmingly likely” but that dis - birds from Madeira and 11 from Bugio show mutually ex - tinguishing the two “remains at this stage conjectural.” clusive differences suggesting that they do not interbreed. (December 1999, pp. 518–524) Morphologically, the populations divide completely in a • Letter-writers respond heatedly. Tove asks, “Why can’t principal components analysis of nine measurements in the ABA committee wake up to the incredibly obvi - samples of 71 adults from Madeira and 338 from Bugio. The ous?” Harry LeGrand, former chairman of the North Zino’s are consistently smaller. In relative primary lengths, Carolina Bird Records Committee, declares that “there four of eight Zino’s measured also have more rounded out - is no controversy about all the birds which have been erwings, as Tove had suggested. seen and photographed well. These are Fea’s.” ABA But Zino, Brown, and Biscoito express a caveat: “From the member Todd Myers believes the two-species unit vio - biometrics analyzed, the bill is by far the easiest form of dif - lates ABA listing rules. In a reply, ABA Checklist Com - ferentiating the two species, but for an observer in the field mittee Chair Jon L. Dunn points again to a “lack of pre - this is difficult... [It] is still nearly impossible to differenti - 28 BIRDING • NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2008 ate between P. madeira and P. feae in flight.” The AOU and ABA checklist committees are vir - tually alone in reluctance to list Fea’s. Based on pho - tographs, this species is on the checklists of North Carolina, Virginia, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, and Great Britain . The ABA committee is currently re - considering whether to accept Fea’s based on docu - mentation from North Carolina [see ABA Checklist Committee Report in this issue, p. 32 ]. No one sug - gests that Zino’s has been definitively photographed at sea anywhere away from Madeira. Tanager Taxonomy Of all the puzzles that vex avian taxonomists, one of the most troublesome involves tanagers. The tanager family, Thraupidae, contains a hodge - podge of 104 genera and 413 species in the Sibley and Monroe classification ( Distribution and Taxon - A recent genetic analysis suggests that tanagers in the genus Tangara , includ - omy of the Birds of the World , 1990). Among them ing this Golden-hooded Tanager (T. larvata ), should remain classified in the family Thraupidae, whereas North America’s breeding Piranga tanagers should are the genus Piranga of North America’s breeding not. La Selva Biological Station, Costa Rica ; January 2006 . © Glenn Bartley . tanagers , as well as diverse Central American and South American taxa , including bush-tanagers, chat-tan - agers) and Chlorothraupis (several Central and South agers, shrike-tanagers, ant-tanagers, and Neotropical hon - American tanagers) from the Thraupidae; Granatellus eycreepers. These groups’ taxonomic relationships within (tropical chats, which do not include Yellow-breasted the Thraupidae and with other families have long been Chat) from the Parulidae; and Amaurospiza concolor (Blue questioned. In 1969, Robert W. Storer summarized the Seedeater) from the Emberizidae. The report also indicates problem in the title of his article: “What is a tanager?” ( Liv - that several taxa now classified in the Cardinalidae , includ - ing Bird 8:127–136). ing the genus Saltator , do not belong in the family, al - The American Ornithologists’ Union Committee on though where they should be placed is uncertain. Classification and Nomenclature (the “AOU Check-list Two AOU check-list committees took note of the evi - Committee”) addressed the situation in 2003 ( Auk dence in 2008. The South American committee voted to 114:542–552). Based on genetic research, the committee move Piranga , Habia , Chlorothraupis , Granatellus , and transferred the genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia from Amauropiza to the Cardinalidae. A similar proposal is pend - Thraupidae to Fringillidae—thus relating those tropical ing in the North and Middle American committee, among and subtropical birds more closely to crossbills, redpolls, many family-level changes being considered in the Thraup - and other finches than to tanagers. idae, Emberizidae, and Cardinalidae. Meanwhile, several genetic analyses have placed Piranga , The new study by Klicka, Burns, and Spellman is the including Hepatic, Summer, Scarlet, Western, and Flame- most complete taxonomic analysis to date of New World colored Tanagers, in a close alliance with cardinals and birds in the families Parulidae, Thraupidae, Emberizidae, grosbeaks in the family Cardinalidae. New evidence sup - Cardinalidae, and Icteridae. Relationships among these porting that view emerges from research by John Klicka, families remain uncertain, but the authors offer a “best es - Kevin Burns, and Garth Spellman published in 2007 ( Mol - timate” that thraupids and cardinalids may be each other’s ecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 45:1014–1032). Using closest relatives, and that parulids (wood-warblers), em - mitochondrial DNA sequences from the cytochrome- b and berizids (sparrows), and icterids (blackbirds and allies) the ND2 genes, the authors assessed which genera belong form a separate assemblage that is closely related to the tan - in the family Cardinalidae. ager-cardinal group. Better evidence awaits analysis of ad - The results suggest that four genera besides Piranga ditional genetic markers and complete sampling of taxa in should be transferred to the Cardinalidae: Habia (ant-tan - all the families. WWW.ABA.ORG 29 NEWS AND NOTES Red Crossbill Diversity During two decades of investigations, Craig W. Benkman and his associates have uncovered a remarkable variety of evolutionary interactions involving Red Crossbills in North America’s coniferous forests. The species’ bill structure varies among different populations in relation to the types of cones they must pry open, and specialization on certain conifers has led to adaptive radiation of crossbills with di - verse bill morphology. Contributing to this diversification has been reciprocal selection leading to coevolutionary “arms races” between crossbills and conifers. For example, Julie W. Smith and Benkman demonstrated in 2007 that coevolution with lodgepole pine is promoting local adaptation and repro - ductive isolation—thus, ecological speciation—of a resi - dent Red Crossbill population in the South Hills of south- central Idaho ( American Naturalist 169:455–465). Key to evolution of the South Hills crossbill is the ab - sence of tree squirrels. The presence or introduction of these squirrels can alter the evolutionary outcome. The ef - fect of introducing tree squirrels to areas where crossbills and conifers have coevolved is highlighted by Benkman, Adam M. Siepielski, and Thomas L. Parchman in 2008 (Molecular Ecology 17:395–404). Since red squirrels were introduced to Newfoundland in 1963, the island’s endemic, Various Red Crossbill populations differ in bill size as a result of large-billed Red Crossbill subspecies (named pusilla or per - coevolution with the cones of different conifer species. Recent cna by various authorities) has declined severely and may studies show that the presence or absence of squirrels can in - be extinct. Jon L. Dunn tells Birding that crossbills with fluence the coevolutionary process.