New species of Meadowlark Strunella lilianae

[mb1848]

From the newest Auk:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~barke042/pdfs/Barker.et.al08-2.pdf .
Believed for years to be so, but finally the genetic work was done.

Sorry that is Sturnella

[njlarsen]

Thanks, even though it makes me cautious to see the much talk about using "a lineage concept".

As someone who wonders about what I have seen: are birds in Arizona of several types, or would my observation of a bird in the Sulphur Springs Valley in SE Arizona by chance be a liliana?

Thanks
Niels

[J. Moore]

Thanks, even though it makes me cautious to see the much talk about using "a lineage concept".

As someone who wonders about what I have seen: are birds in Arizona of several types, or would my observation of a bird in the Sulphur Springs Valley in SE Arizona by chance be a liliana?

Thanks
Niels

I wondered that also. Current guides indicate that both Western Meadowlark and Eastern Meadowlark are found in southeast Arizona. My current thinking is that if you saw a Meadowlark in that region and identified it as Eastern, then I think you could safely assume it was quite likely a Lillian's Meadowlark. But if you did not identify it as Eastern or Western, then I think you are out of luck. It could have been Western or Lillian's.

Incidentally, Sibley's states that Western prefers wetter habitats than Lillian's, which prefers desert grasslands. But he also says there is much overlap.

Best,
Jim

[njlarsen]

Thanks Jim,
I have my meadowlark written down as an Eastern. The valley is mostly grasslands, some of it with irrigation.

Niels

[stephennj]

Thanks for sharing MB .
I just heard a 'Tick' sound ... and I think it came from Neils' armchair

[Richard Klim]

From Tucson Audubon Society's Finding Birds in Southeast Arizona (2004):


Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna lilianae. Common permanent resident in pure grassland, mesquite grassland and agricultural fields generally south and east of the Tucson region. During migration and winter, it is uncommon in agricultural fields and grassy areas not occupied by this species during the breeding season.

Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta. Irregularly rare summer resident, especially in wet years, in fields and pastures north of Tucson, and possibly in the Altar Valley. A common transient and winter resident in fields, desert grassland, and other open areas nearly throughout.

S lilianae.]

Richard

[njlarsen]

Thanks for sharing MB .
I just heard a 'Tick' sound ... and I think it came from Neils' armchair

Not quite ;) I normally wait untill a species appears in the Clements checklist, but it doesn't harm to be prepared (that is the second species now that I feel prepared for thanks to this forum, I have also seen/heard the north-western version of winter wren).

Niels

[Mysticete]

Thanks for the distribution info...looks Like I am safe for Lillian's, since I "ticked" mine during summer in SE Arizona, southeast of Tucson.

[Tero]

The latest National Geographic West has the picture as a subspecies. The map refers to Eastern Meadowlark and there is some text. But they will have to have new maps. Magna is listed in Colorado.

Smithsoninan, in the new photo field guide, has a good photo of it. Very pale, should be easy to distinguish.

[Russlac123]

Hi there, I visited Lake Balmorhea in Western Texas and identified some Meadowlarks as Western which are the rarer species in Texas. I now believe these may have been Lillians. Does anyone know the range of this new species as a whole in the US?

[Richard Klim]

Does anyone know the range of this new species as a whole in the US?
BNA Online:

"Desert grassland of nw. and central Arizona east to s. New Mexico and w. Texas, and south at least to ne. Sonora and n. Chihuahua; winters north to central Arizona."

Jaramillo & Burke 1999 (New World Blackbirds - The Icterids):

"Breeds from C and SE Arizona, west to S and C New Mexico, and W Texas west of the Llano Estacado and Edwards Plateau. Also extends to NE Sonora and N and C Chihuahua in Mexico."

Lockwood & Freeman 2004 (TOS Handbook of Texas Birds):

"...an uncommon resident in the mid- and upper elevation grasslands of the central Trans-Pecos west to northeastern El Paso County and has been documented in Kinney and Val Verde Counties in the winter."

[The above refer to ssp lilianae. S (m) lilianae also includes Mexican ssp auropectoralis.]

Richard

[Orchidzrule]

And based on the range information Richard quotes, it appears as though Russlac123 could get an armchair tick! You don't say what time of year you were there. In winter, all bets are off (did you hear the birds?) as far as probability goes, but if you heard the diagnostic call note, or even the song (not absolutely diagnostic because meadowlarks occasionally learn each others songs, but it's still highly reliable), then you should be OK.

Cheers,

Rob

[Steve Lister]

S lilianae.]

Richard

Sibley and Monroe had it already split back in 1990.

Steve

[Orchidzrule]

There is a nice site showing comparisons of several lists, including IOC, Sibley & Monroe, Clements (only to 2007, so far the newly updated list is not there), Howard & Moore (3rd edition), both the North & South American Checklist Committees, and the Commission internationale pour les noms francais d'oiseaux. Simply click on the appropriate link at the top to see the list in the checklist order you wish.

The site is Avibase - Bird Checklists of the World and the link is:

http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=EN&region=index&list=clements

one can also limit it to just the holarctic:

http://avibase.bsc-eoc.org/checklist.jsp?lang=EN&region=hol&list=clements

One can quickly compare the lists using it. If this site is well known to users of this site, please forgive me for being repetitive.

Cheers,

Rob

P.S. The links appear to have been truncated, and appear to be the same, but if you point your cursor over them, I think the integrity of the links is preserved

[Richard Klim]

The site is Avibase...
Rob,

Avibase is indeed a useful resource - often my first on-line port of call when investigating a taxonomic issue.

Denis Lepage's work is greatly appreciated.

Richard

[Richard Klim]

From the newest Auk:
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~barke042/pdfs/Barker.et.al08-2.pdf .
Believed for years to be so, but finally the genetic work was done.
...and belatedly reported in the Nov 2009(!) issue of Birding (41/6):
http://www.aba.org/birding/v41n6p34.pdf

Richard

[tomjenner]

It seems from this paper and posts above that S. lilianae only reaches down into northern Mexico. Further south in northern Central America we also have "Eastern" Meadowlarks. Does anyone know where they now lie after this split? Am I right in saying there was also some discussion about splitting the Caribbean ones?

Tom

[Richard Klim]

It seems from this paper and posts above that S. lilianae only reaches down into northern Mexico. Further south in northern Central America we also have "Eastern" Meadowlarks. Does anyone know where they now lie after this split?
The discussion of variation within S magna (ss) on p876 notes a divergence between North American and Middle/South American forms, but concludes that available data are consistent with recognition of a single polytypic species.

Am I right in saying there was also some discussion about splitting the Caribbean ones?
The same section comments that future work may lead to recognition of the Cuban form (hippocrepis) at species level, but available data are insufficient to support such an argument.
Richard

[l_raty]

If you refer to the paper, all of the continental lowland populations around the Gulf of Mexico (samples from Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Veracruz, Yucatan) belong in a single, very homogeneous group, which also includes the populations from further N (nominate magna). One sample from the Chiapas highlands was sister to this group, but very close to it. Samples from Panama and S America formed the sister group of the above. And then came the Cuban samples, that were sister to all of these.

Between Chiapas and Panama are several highland populations that are typically placed in the same ssp as the Chiapas birds (alticola), and an additional Caribbean lowland population (Belize to Nicaragua - inexpectata) that appears morphologically close to the lowland populations of Veracruz (albeit the birds are distinctly smaller). The odds that any of these belongs in the lilianae group seem rather remote - thus the transition between the two groups most likely lies entirely in interior/Pacific Mexico. Unfortunately, the situation there seems quite complex and unclear...

(One traditional reference seems to be Miller et al. 1957 (http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/cooper/pca_033.pdf), who recognised 6 races in Mexico.
As far as I can judge, modern checklists [H&M, Clements...; but I have not seen - and would actually be interested to know - how BNA Online deals with the problem] show an arrangement that is very close to that of Miller et al., bar the recognition of an additional, seventh race that was separated by Dickerman & Phillips, 1970 (http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v072n03/p0305-p0309.pdf). In the very same paper, however, Dickerman & Phillips also largely questioned/rejected several of the other traditional subspecies limits, albeit without providing a definitive nomenclatural solution for some populations. [This was supposed to be addressed later but, if this happened, I failed to trace the publication.] If some of what they suggested in this paper was correct, it is not unconceivable that a major transition could lie in the middle of one [or more] of the traditional races...)

Incidentally, I was amazed to find out that Saunders 1934 (http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Auk/v051n01/p0042-p0045.pdf), when he described auropectoralis, quite unambiguously identified lilianae as its closest relative - this race ending up in the lilianae group may not be that unconventional after all...


The main problem with the Cuban Meadowlark, is that it seems quite clearly differentiated vocally on one hand, but is morphologically extremely close to (and probably not fully diagnosable from) Florida argutula on the other (see Chapman 1900 (http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/782), Todd 1916 (http://www.archive.org/stream/annalsofcarnegie10carn#page/272/mode/1up/), Helmayr 1937 (http://www.archive.org/stream/catalogueofbirds1310hell#page/209/mode/1up)). The taxonomic significance of vocalisations being more or less questionable in oscines, more importance has usually been given to morphology. E.g., Chapman 1900 (http://digitallibrary.amnh.org/dspace/handle/2246/782) (p.309.) wrote:
"In Cuba, however, although the Cuban bird so closely resembles the southern Florida form, the Meadowlark song is only a wheezy chuckle, resembling more the song of a Dickcissel than that of a Meadowlark, though, as I have lately been informed by Mr. William Palmer, it improves toward midsummer.
If we were to rely on song, therefore, we should suppose the southern Florida and Cuban birds to be widely separated, whereas they are closely related."
Against this, the mtDNA evidence now suggests that they are indeed quite significantly separated, in agreement with vocalisations, but contradicting morphology. On balance, though, the distance between Cuban and the rest of Eastern ML remains far from huge.

L -

[Richard Klim]

...but I have not seen - and would actually be interested to know - how BNA Online deals with the problem
Laurent, here's the BNA online subspecies account (Lanyon 1995)...

"Geographic Variation; Subspecies

Polytypic, wide-ranging species. Nominate subspecies of U.S. and Canada is treated under Appearance. See Appendix for comparative measurements.

Other subspecies in U.S., Cuba, and n. Mexico (Am. Ornithol. Union 1957, Miller et al. 1957, Dickerman and Phillips 1970) include the following.

S. m. argutula: smaller than S. m. magna, somewhat deeper yellow below, darker above, and rectrices with less white. Se. Kansas, e. Oklahoma, Arkansas, se. Missouri, s. Illinois, sw. Indiana, sw. Kentucky, Tennessee, Georgia, S. Carolina, ne. and s.-central N. Carolina south through e. Texas to Gulf Coast and s. Florida; clinal intergradation with S. m. magna to north and with S. m. hoopesi to southwest. Type from Dunedin, FL (Bangs 1899, Hamilton and Klimstra 1985).

S. m. hippocrepis: most similar to S. m. argutula but much smaller, more conspicuously streaked below. Cuba, including Isle of Youth (Wagler 1832).

S. m. hoopesi: grayer and generally paler above than S. m. magna and S. m. argutula, with black bars on wing and tail narrower and less confluent; averages smaller than S. m. magna but larger than S. m. argutula. Se. Texas south to n. Coahuila, Nuevo León, and n. Tamaulipas. Intergrades with S. m. mexicana to south and with S. m. lilianae to southwest (hoopesi-lilianae complex of interior semiarid plains of Tlaxcala, Puebla, adjacent areas of Veracruz, and northward needs critical examination). Type from Brownsville, TX (Stone 1897).

S. m. lilianae: most distinctive subspecies; similar to S. m. hoopesi but barring on wings and tail still narrower; wing slightly longer, tail shorter; paler and grayer above and more white in tail than any other subspecies; nearly as large as S. m. magna, but tail much shorter. Separable from sympatric S. neglecta by third from outside rectrix essentially white (mostly dark in S. neglecta). Desert grassland of nw. and central Arizona east to s. New Mexico and w. Texas, and south at least to ne. Sonora and n. Chihuahua; winters north to central Arizona. Apparently isolated from nominate subspecies, although possibly separated by only 50 km in sw. Texas (J. Barlow pers. comm.). Intergradation with S. m. hoopesi in ne. Mexico needs further study. See Rohwer (1972a) for canonical analysis of S. m. magna in central Texas and S. m. lilianae in w. Texas and e. New Mexico, showing 2 forms to be > 60% different from each other as either is from sympatric S. neglecta. Rohwer (1976) suggests that further study might show 2 forms deserving of specific status. Genetic data and analysis of primary song further suggest full species status (J. Barlow pers. comm.). Type from Huachuca Mtns., AZ (Oberholser 1930, Phillips et al. 1964).

For Middle American Atlantic coastal and lowland forms, see Griscom 1934, Hellmayr 1937, Miller et al. 1957, Blake 1968, and Dickerman and Phillips 1970. Includes S. m. mexicana, S. m. inexpectata, and S. m. griscomi.

S. m. mexicana: similar to hoopesi but smaller and darker above (as in argutula); tarsus long relative to short wing. Atlantic coastal lowlands from n.-central Veracruz south and eastwards, extending across Isthmus of Tehuántepec to at least 4 km south of Sarabia, Oaxaca; through Tabasco and adjacent lowlands of Chiapas, across base of Yucatán peninsula and Petén of Guatemala and into Belize. Intergrades with hoopesi in n. Veracruz and adjacent Tamaulipas and with paler hoopesi-lilianae complex in Puebla. Type from Dos Ríos, Veracruz, 18 km east of Jalapa, fide Dickerman and Phillips 1970 (Sclater 1861).

S. m. inexpectata: smallest subspecies; black areas of crown, interscapular, and rump average more extensive, so appears darker. Restricted to pineland savannas of Camarca del Cabo region of Nicaragua and adjacent Honduras. Probably intergrades with mexicana in Belize and Petén of Guatemala. Type from Segovia River, Honduras (Ridgway 1888).

S. m. griscomi: larger than other lowland forms (mexicana and inexpectata), tending toward less reddish coloration; crown stripes essentially black, with brown edgings reduced or absent. Isolated population of arid coast of n. Yucatán. Type from Progreso, Yucatán (Van Tyne and Trautman 1941).

For Middle American interior and Pacific lowland forms, see Griscom 1934, Hellmayr 1937, Miller et al. 1957, Blake 1968, Dickerman and Phillips 1970. Includes S. m. auropectoralis, S. m. saundersi, S. m. alticola, and S. m. subulata.

S. m. auropectoralis: large; similar to magna above but with more orange wash on breast. Extreme s. Sinaloa and coastal Nayarit across Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt eastward to upper Río Lerma drainage in state of México. Intergrades with hoopesi-lilianae complex in Distrito Federal and eastwards in Volcanic Belt, and with saundersi in Valley of Oaxaca. Type from Tuxpan, Jalisco (Saunders 1934).

S. m. saundersi: similar to auropectoralis in size but paler and somewhat less rufescent dorsally and on flanks, paler and less ochraceous-yellow on breast. Pacific lowlands of se. Oaxaca from Niltepec west to at least 10 mi east of Juchitán. Type from 9 km south of Niltepec, Oaxaca (Dickerman and Phillips 1970).

S. m. alticola: medium-size, with edges of dorsal feathers predominantly grayish-brown and flanks grayer; lacks depth of color of mexicana or warm brown tones of saundersi. Highlands of Chiapas southward through highlands of Central America; populations of Central American highlands need critical examination. Type from Ocuilapa, Chiapas (Nelson 1900).

S. m. subulata: similar to alticola in coloration but averages smaller. Pacific slope of Panama. Type from Boquete (Griscom 1934).

South American forms (Chapman 1931, Hellmayr 1937, Blake 1968, Dickerman 1989): S. m. meridionalis, S. m. paralios, S. m. praticola, S. m. monticola, and S. m. quinta.

S. m. meridionalis: longest wing of South American subspecies; averages longest bill within species; dark, similar to alticola and monticola. Subtropical and temperate zones of Eastern Andes of Colombia and nw. Venezuela. Type from "Bogotá," fide Hellmayr 1937 (Sclater 1861).

S. m. paralios: nearly as large as meridionalis, but somewhat paler with more white in tail; grayer-brown above and larger than praticola. Tropical and subtropical zones of Santa Marta Mtns. southward to western base of Eastern Andes of Colombia, and savannas of n. and central Venezuela except in Andes. Type from San Sebastian, Santa Marta Mtns. (Bangs 1901).

S. m. praticola: similar to paralios but smaller, warmer-brown above. Eastern llanos of Colombia and se. Venezuela and adjacent Guyana. Type from Abary River, Guyana (Chubb 1921).

S. m. monticola: similar to meridionalis but smaller. Highlands of se. Bolivar and adjacent Guyana. Hellmayr (1937) doubted it separable from praticola and Blake (1968) combined them. Type from Mt. Roraima, Guyana (Chubb 1921).

S. m. quinta: most similar to paralios in being grayer-brown above than praticola; edges of secondaries and coverts grayer-brown than either paralios or praticola. Suriname and ne. Brazil range separated from most similar paralios by ranges of praticola and monticola. Type from Frechal, Rio Surumu, Brazil (Dickerman 1989)."

Richard

[Mysticete]

I wonder if information on Cuban and Panamanian forms is what might be holding up an AOU proposal?

[l_raty]

Laurent, here's the BNA online subspecies account (Lanyon 1995)...

Thanks for this, Richard.
Lots of presumed intergradation... ;) (Although at least one additional case was apparently overlooked - Dickerman & Phillips 1970 also suggested that mexicana approaches saundersi in E Oaxaca, where it extends S across the Isthmus of Tehuántepec.)

Of course the very notion of a "hoopesi-lilianae complex" is a bit disturbing in the context a split, hoopesi being an Eastern and lilianae, obviously, a Lilian's. (Also, in this context: it seems a bit unfortunate that Barker et al. did not get sequences of their nuclear gene for hoopesi.)