Aracaris

[Daniel Philippe]

Here is a new paper on Pteroglossus aracaris: http://individual.utoronto.ca/sergiolp/pdf/GMB2008.pdf

with expected splits, but I cannot find where the Azara Aracari, P. azara has gone |8||

[l_raty]

but I cannot find where the Azara Aracari, P. azara has gone |8||

Synonymized with flavirostris?
This treatment is nomenclaturally incorrect (azara has priority), but has been applied in the past. See e.g. note #9a in the SACC checklist, family Ramphastidae:
http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline05.html

Laurent -

Edit - See also Eberhard & Bermingham 2005 (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ympev.2005.01.022; pdf : http://striweb.si.edu/publications/PDFs/EB_Avian_toucans_parrots_MPE2005.pdf), p.291.
This study produced most of the sequences on which the new Pereira & Wajntal paper is based.

[Daniel Philippe]

Synonymized with flavirostris?


Well may be, but this would be rather strange as in Kimura et al. 2004 (GENETIC DISTANCES AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS SUGGEST THAT BAILLONIUS CASSIN, 1867 IS A PTEROGLOSSUS ILLIGER, 1811 (PICIFORMES: RAMPHASTIDAE), where Sérgio Luiz Pereira and Anita Wajntal are also co-authors: http://individual.utoronto.ca/sergiolp/pdf/ON2004.pdf, both P. azara and P. flavirostris were acknowledged.

Could it be because they did not find samples of azara in Genbank and simply ignored it ?

[l_raty]

Well may be, but this would be rather strange as in Kimura et al. 2004 (GENETIC DISTANCES AND PHYLOGENETIC ANALYSIS SUGGEST THAT BAILLONIUS CASSIN, 1867 IS A PTEROGLOSSUS ILLIGER, 1811 (PICIFORMES: RAMPHASTIDAE), where Sérgio Luiz Pereira and Anita Wajntal are also co-authors: http://individual.utoronto.ca/sergiolp/pdf/ON2004.pdf, both P. azara and P. flavirostris were acknowledged.

Could it be because they did not find samples of azara in Genbank and simply ignored it ?
Hard to be sure - although, indeed, I can't find any sample of azara sensu stricto in GenBank, thus they probably had no other choice but to ignore it.

Kimura et al. 2004 seem to 'acknowledge' P. azara and P. flavirostris, yes - but in a rather odd way, which makes me wonder whether some misunderstanding could not have been at play there. E.g.:
"Among the vocal repertoires of Baillonius, one was considered to be similar to that of P. azara (Short & Horne 2001, 2002). However, Haffer (1974), analyzing vocalizations recorded by Paul Schwartz, considers that the vocalization of B. bailloni reminds that of P. flavirostris[...]"

I don't have Short & Horne 2001 at hand right now, but P. flavirostris sensu Haffer 1974 and P. azara sensu Short & Horne 2002, in any case, are exactly the same taxon - a species including flavirostris, azara and mariae. Thus the "However" in Kimura et al.'s text seems to be unjustified...