• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Nicéforo's (Yellow-billed) Pintail (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

Richard Klim

-------------------------
Carboneras & Kirwan 2014 (HBW Alive)...
Subspecies niceforoi, described in 1946, had been considered to be extinct by 1956, but was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)].

... very rare race niceforoi reportedly larger than spinicauda, with less pointed tail and longer, less upturned bill [Kear (2005)].

... Race niceforoi of E Andes of Colombia described as recently as 1946 was already considered to be extirpated in Cundinamarca by 1948 and had been lost from principal locality in Boyacá, L Tota, by mid 1950s, but it was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 and a group of more than 40 birds was observed subsequently, in Cauca [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)]; overhunting and wetland drainage considered to be principal causes of decline, but introduction of exotic trout into this taxon’s range may not have been involved [Kear (2005)].

Ayerbe-González, S. & Lehmann-Albornoz, P. (2005). Redescubrimiento del Pato Pico de Oro de Nicéforo (Anas georgica niceforoi). Novedades Colombianas 8(1): 45–52.

Kear, J. ed. (2005). Ducks, geese and swans. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Click to expand...
[Considered to be extinct by Hume & Walters 2012 (Extinct Birds), HBW/BirdLife 2014, H&M4, IOC, eBird/Clements.]
 
[Ayerbe-González, S. & Lehmann-Albornoz, P. (2005). Redescubrimiento del Pato Pico de Oro de Nicéforo (Anas georgica niceforoi). Novedades Colombianas 8(1): 45–52.
Click to expand...
Intriguing... I haven't seen the description of the subspecies by Wetmore & Borrero, and (most worryingly) it is not referenced at all in the paper claiming this "rediscovery".
Madge & Burn 1988 suggest "Race niceforoi: Wing 226-230, tarsus 39-41, bill 50-54." The scan of the paper is terrible enough that I can't be 100% sure of what I read in "Tabla N°1". But what I think I see is Ala 234, 260, 260; Tarso 48.79, 49.36, 51.65; Pico 44.85, 54.41, 44.55. Thus the wing is too long, the tarsus is too long, and, except for one individual, the bill is too short.
Why exactly would these birds be A. g. niceforoi?
 
l_raty said:
Madge & Burn 1988 suggest "Race niceforoi: Wing 226-230, tarsus 39-41, bill 50-54." The scan of the paper is terrible enough that I can't be 100% sure of what I read in "Tabla N°1". But what I think I see is Ala 234, 260, 260; Tarso 48.79, 49.36, 51.65; Pico 44.85, 54.41, 44.55. Thus the wing is too long, the tarsus is too long, and, except for one individual, the bill is too short.
Why exactly would these birds be A. g. niceforoi?
Click to expand...
Yes, the male wing lengths are at the upper limit for male spinicauda, and the female wing length is within the range for female spinicauda. (But it's interesting that niceforoi is reportedly the larger form according to Kear 2005.) The tarsi seem much too long for either form (probably reflecting a different measuring technique?).

Madge & Burn also note that niceforoi was "distinctly darker, with head and neck quite strongly streaked and the crown dark brown" – not mentioned or depicted by Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz.

Perhaps the birds were assumed to be niceforoi primarily on the basis that they were seen in the area described as the type locality...
 
Last edited:
This "rediscovery" is unfortunately bogus. A nice record but not of niceforoi.

I have not seen a formal rebuttal but Gary Stiles doubted the record here:
http://asociacioncolombianadeornitologia.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/notaeditor1.pdf

In our 2014 Colombia field guide, which illustrates ranges of all subspecies, we map subsp. spinicauda in Cauca.

Cauca is not close to the type locality.

BirdLife and others are correct. I discussed this record with them when they were compiling their list of extinct taxa.
 
The OD is [here].
(Server maybe down at times? I had already tried yesterday and this morning without obtaining any answer. But right now it works.)

(Bill length given in M&B (226-230) is apparently for females only, the three males in the type series were 240-242 (recent birds still all too large for their sex). The other M&B figures seem correct, albeit values are rounded. Bill shape on the recent specimens also looks more like spinicauda to me than like the niceforoi on Fig.4 of the OD. If the authors had checked the OD, they would presumably have illustrated the bills from above...)
 
Last edited:
If someone has interest in the scientific description by Wetmore and Borrero (1946). I have this article.
 
Carboneras & Kirwan 2014 (HBW Alive): updated (Oct 2014)...
Subspecies niceforoi, described in 1946, had been considered to be extinct by 1956, but was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)]; however, claim is undocumented and comes from outside the known distribution of the subspecies.

... Race niceforoi of E Andes of Colombia described as recently as 1946 was already considered to be extirpated in Cundinamarca by 1948 and had been lost from principal locality in Boyacá, L Tota, by mid 1950s, but it was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 and a group of more than 40 birds was observed subsequently, albeit outside this subspecies' known distribution in Cauca [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)]; ...
Click to expand...
(The claim is documented, albeit unconvincing.)​
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
Subspecies niceforoi, described in 1946, had been considered to be extinct by 1956, but was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)]; however, claim is undocumented and comes from outside the known distribution of the subspecies.

... Race niceforoi of E Andes of Colombia described as recently as 1946 was already considered to be extirpated in Cundinamarca by 1948 and had been lost from principal locality in Boyacá, L Tota, by mid 1950s, but it was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 and a group of more than 40 birds was observed subsequently, albeit outside this subspecies' known distribution in Cauca [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)]; ...
Click to expand...
(The claim is documented, albeit unconvincing.)
Click to expand...
The holotype is from Laguna de Tota, Boyaca, which is thus the type locality. However, what the original publication [pdf] said of the range was:
Apparently widely distributed through central Colombia. Recorded from Laguna de Tota (3070 m.) and Laguna de Fuquene '(2430 m.), Boyaca, the Bogota Savanna (2600 m.), Cundinamarca, and near Cali (1000 m.), Valle del Cauca.
Click to expand...
Thus the claim actually also did come from within the "known distribution" of the ssp. Albeit of course it is conceivable that this distribution was wrong from the beginning--and that the birds seen near Cali have always been spinicauda.​
 
Last edited:
Carboneras & Kirwan 2014 (HBW Alive): updated (14 Oct 2014)...
Subspecies niceforoi, described in 1946, had been considered to be extinct by 1956, but was reportedly rediscovered in Jan 2003 [Ayerbe-González & Lehmann-Albornoz (2005)]; however, claim is not convincingly documented, has been questioned [Stiles (2008)] and comes from a region (Cauca) over which disagreement apparently exists as to the subspecies that occurs there.

Stiles, F.G. (2008). Nota del Editor. Orn. Colombiana 6: 1–2.
Click to expand...
Guy is convincingly Alive! :t:
 
Warning! This thread is more than 11 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top