a brief overview of SOlne of the tax­ black beaks elongated first pritnary Reworking Family onomie difficulties that exist for and slnaller overall size and Psitteuteles lories and propose a solution: con- was separated on ilie basis of ilieir pre­ Trees for Lories truction of a molecular (DNA­ dominantly green plumage and differ­ based) phylogeny of the Loriinae. ent color patterns (Mivart 1898). Deborah Wisti-Peterson, PhD Candidate Currently, most taxonornists However, many experts argue about University of Washington Seattle, WA , USA divide lories into 8, 9 11 or 12 genera the validity of Glossopsitta and current- nyneve @ u. washington. edu containing 53 or 55 species. Recently, 1y Psitteuteles is not generally recog­ a combination of traditional and new nized as a separate genus. Furilier, bio­ ories and lorikeets (Loriinae: methodologies indicates these classifi­ chernical work indicates that Psittacidae) are brilliantly col­ cation schemes should be revised. For Glossopsitta and Psitteuteles should L ored parrots that feed primarily example, according to Joshua (1994), boili be included in Tnchoglossus on nectar, fruits , and pollen (Forshaw (Christi dis et al. 1991). Indeed, this 1973, Low 1977, 1998) and probably lories are taxonomic ambiguity extends insects (Low 1977). Their digestive throughout many of the other tract possesses special adaptations for accessible Tnchoglossus as well. For example, a life of nectivory (Richardson & because they are Tnchoglossus haematodus is com­ Wooller 1990), including a remarkable widely bred in prised of so n1any distinct geographi­ blush-tipped tongue (Salvadori 1891). cally isolated varieties that it is the Lories range throughout islands and captivity by zoos most intricate superspecies complex archipelagos of the southern Pacific and private among the psittacines. Ocean, where they are challenging to To n1y knowledge, Chalcopsitta, study in the field due to difficult ter­ aviculturists Eos Lonus and Pseudeos have never rain and remote locations. However, been carefully studied, however, they lories are accessible because they are whose recent taxonomic study of are considered by many to be very widely bred in captivity by zoos and lories was based upon analysis of close. Thi confusion also extends to private aviculturists throughout chromosome structure and nun1ber ilie species level for these genera, America and many parts of the world. (kalyotype data), there are three particularly for Chalcopsitta species. Even though lories are easily major lory lineages. One lineage is According to Diamond (1972), the distinguished from other parrots by comprised of the two genera three Chalcopsitta native to New their brush-tipped tongue, distinct Charmosyna and Vini, while the ec­ Guinea compri e a "superspecies beak hape, and feeding habits, they ond group includes Glossopsitta, ring" of poorly defined taxa ranging are very similar to each other and Trichoglossus, Chalcopsitta, Bos, iliroughout the lowlands. The differ­ may have recently evolved into dis­ Lonus) and Neopsittacus and the third ent forn1s apparently result from tinct species (Chri tidis et al. 1991). distinct kalyotypie forn1 is Pseudeos, a regional contact being broken and Initially, lories were classified into monotypic (single species) genus. reestablished a number of tilnes genera (plural for "genus ') prin1arily Morphological and behavioral between these emispecies: C. duiv­ based upon external feature and sitnilarities suggest that Charmosyna enbodei on the north coast, C. atra in plumage color patterns (Salvadori and Vini could be combined into one tl1e far west and C. scintillata from the 1891). Despite widespread criticism genus (Amadon 1942). Additionally, it souili coast and Aru island. In fact, it of the original falnily tree, this i interesting to note that Phigys and is likely iliat the unique type speci­ arrangement is still used by others Vini share skeletal structure that are men C. spectabilis) is a naturally (Peters 1937, Forshaw 1973). unique from other psittacines, uggest­ occurring hybrid between C. atra However, the lack of tluly definitive ing that Phigys could be subsumed insignis and C. scintillata scintillata characters ha resulted in confusion; into Vini based on these features (Low 1998). The foulth Chalcopsitta some lory species have been placed (Steadman & Zaniello 1987). Furtl1er, species, ilie entirely red C. cardinalis, into 5 or 6 genera during the past kalyotype data, which is lacking for is found on the Sololnon Islands 150 years and, surprisingly, into two Phigys, reveals striking similaritie instead of New Guinea and is often or three genera since Peters' (check­ between Vini and Charmosyna, included in Eos due to sitnilarities in list" (1937) was published. Thus, itnplying early evolution of this lineage karyotype 00shua 1994) or plumage 101Y classification remains a topic of away from other lories 00shua 1994). color and pattern (Forshaw 1973). lively debate among ornithologists The second lineage comprises Sin1ilarly, Eos and Lonus are also and avieulturists. This lack of knowl­ tl1e majority of lory genera and iliere­ poorly defined. These taxa were clas­ edge presents Inany problems for fore, it al 0 is ilie most confusing. sified separately ba ed solely on both conservation and ornithological Traditionally, Glossopsitta was distin­ behavior and plumage pattern: Lonus pursuits. In this article, I will present guished from Tnchoglossus by their are sedentary and lack red on ilieir the AFA WATCHBIRD 39 PHOTO illustr ofth ge © All Photograpl Vini australis Charmosyna papou goliathina Glossopsitta porphyrocephala Chalcopsitta duivenbodei Oreops Chalcopsitta scintillata rubrifrons Chalcopsitta cardinalis Trichog VULERY ng most lLORY ra Cyril Laubscher Pseudeos fuscata Lorius Lori s arfaki Eos bornea Neopsittacus musschenbroekii s goldiei Trichoglossus h. haematodus Trichoglossus h. weberi wings (Low 1998), unlike Bos. Finally, (Trichoglossus) euteles (Smith 1975). differentiation that exist for other despite the name "Pseudo-Bos," chro­ Even though this taxonomic parrots and, indeed, other avian taxa mosome structure indicates that confusion seems almost hopeless, it in the region. Pseudeos may have close links to can be resolved by modern technol­ Additionally, on a practical Chalcopsitta (Joshua 1994). However, ogy. Modern DNA techniques can level, definitive identification of Pseudeos chicks resemble Bos more detect small changes in specific DNA species makes it easier for conserva­ closely than Chalcopsitta (Low 1998). regions contained within birds' chro­ tion organizations to prioritize and In spite of these similarities, Pseudeos mosomes. By identifying, comparing allocate increasingly scarce funds has the fewest chromosomes of any and statistically analyzing these dif­ and will allow zoos and aviculturists parrot studied so far (Joshua 1994), ferences in DNA sequences between to effectively manage limited captive which presumably is the reason for its lory populations, species and gen­ populations of lories. status as a separate lineage. era, we can construct a new family References Amadon. D. 1942. Birds collected during the Perhaps the uncertainty sur­ tree. Whitney South Sea Expedition. rounding lory classification can be This family tree will describe American Museum Novitates, July 24, best illustrated by Goldie's lory, the evolutionary relationships 1942. Christidis L, Schodde R, Shaw DO & Maynes SF. Trichoglossus goldiei. This species between and among lories as 1991. Relationships between the was originally placed into Glossopsitta revealed by their DNA. Recently, Australo-Papuan parrots, lorikeets, and cockatoos (Aves: Psittaciformes): by Salvadori (1891), but was subse­ these technologies have been used to Protein Evidence. Condor 93:302-317. quently reclassified as Psitteuteles by clarify species relationships within Diamond J. 1972. Avifauna of the Eastern Highlands of New Guinea. (Nuttall Peters (1937). Later, Forshaw (1973) many avian taxa, including the Birds Ornithological Club, Cambridge, reluctantly moved this species into of Paradise (Paradisaeidae) (Nunn & Mass). Trichoglossus but stated that further Cracraft 1995), Woodpeckers Forshaw 1973. Parrots cifthe World. (Lansdowne Press, Melbourne, Australia). work may remove T goldiei to a (Picidae) (Prychitko & Moore 2000), Joshua S. The classification of the lories, sub­ monotypic genus. Certainly, its dis­ and Goatsuckers and Nighthawks family: Loriinae. Lori Journaal internationaaI3:19-23. tinctive karyotype and lack of close (Caprimulgidae) (Mariaux & Braun Low R. 1977. Lones and Lonkeets. (Van Nostrand allies in Trichoglossus support reclas­ 1996). However, these same tech­ Reinhold Company New York). Low R. 1998. Encyclopedia of the Lones. sification of T goldiei; shared range nologies have not been applied to (Hancock House Publishers, Inc., and similar plumage patterns hint at a any of the Psittacines, until now. The 1431 Harrison Ave, Blaine WA 98230- possible close relationship with author has begun this work with 5005) Mariaux J & Braun MJ. 1996. A Molecular phylo­ Oreopsittacus arfaki (Joshua 1994). lories at the American Museum of genetic survey of the Nightjars and However, Oreopsittacus, another Natural History in New York City. allies (Caprimulgiformes) with special emphasis on the Potoos (Nyctibiidae). monotypic genus, is distinguished Preliminary results should be forth­ Mol Phylogen Evol 6 (2):228-244. from other lories - indeed, from all coming within one year. Mivart G. 1896.