• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Puna Hawk (1 Viewer)

Richard Klim

-------------------------
A proposal to AOU-SACC (#398) by Gary Stiles to re-split Buteo poecilochrous Puna Hawk from B polyosoma Variable Hawk was posted today:
http://www.aou.org/checklist/south.php3 [> Proposal Tracking]

B poecilochrous is/was recognised by (at least) BirdLife, Dickinson 2003 (H&M 3), Monroe & Sibley 1993, Thiollay 1994 (HBW 2), Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001 (Raptors of the World), de la Peña & Rumboll 1998 (Birds of Southern S America & Antarctica), Narosky & Yzurieta 2003 (Birds of Argentina & Uruguay), and Pugnali 2008 (Checklist of the Birds of Argentina, Antarctica & S Atlantic Is);
but not by Jaramillo 2003 (Birds of Chile), Marín 2004 (Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Chile), or Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001 (Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Argentina); and not currently by IOC, Cornell/Clements, or AOU (SACC lumped B poecilochrous with B polyosoma in June 2008 - proposal 317).

The new proposal also notes that ssp exsul might warrant species status. (B exsul Juan Fernández Hawk is recognised by Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2001.)

[Can anyone confirm whether Ferguson-Lees & Christie 2005 (Raptors of the World: A Field Guide) continued to maintain both splits?]

Richard
 
Last edited:
Restall in the Birds of N South America has followed AOU (1998), Ferguson-Lees (2001), and H&M in keeping the two different. He also has a nice figure showing differences in size and wing formula of the "lowland Red-backed Hawk and the highland Puna Hawk".

Niels

Of course, reading the SACC account to some extent disqualifies the wing formula -- Duhhh
 
Last edited:
The following was posted yesterday afternoon/last night (depends on where you are...) on NEOORN. The server of the PUCE doesn't seem to work for me now, though. (Google suggests that more publications by T. de Vries should be accessible from here.)

L -

**********

Subject: Controversy Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma
From: Tjitte De Vries <tjittewillemsz AT YAHOO.COM>
Date: Thu, 7 May 2009 16:44:52 -0700

Dear Birdwatchers,

THE MORE YOU LOOK THE MORE YOU SEE

May I present to you my nice little novel entitled
“El Teatro Ecológico y el Concepto de la Especie en Cuatro Gavilanes”,
published in Nuestra Ciencia 11: 41-44, 2009. I do not have the email
directions of members of the South American Classification Committee (SACC),
but I would like that yes-voters (amongst them : Clark, Jaramillo, Remsen,
Stotz, Pacheco, Nores, Cadena, Schulenberg) on the Proposal number 317 could
have access to the information here provided.


I think it was Dobshansky who in 1959 mentioned “a hundred year without
Darwin is enough”. Continuing this line of thinking I would say “a fifty
years after Vaurie the controversy between Buteo poecilochrous and B. polyosoma
also is enough”


http://www.biologia.puce.edu.ec/imagesFTP/10695.Nuestra_Ciencia_No__11_Teatro_ecologico.pdf


Con mis mejores saludos, Tjitte de Vries



Dr. Tjitte de Vries
Profesor de Ecología
Escuela de Ciencias Biológicas
Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador
Apartado: 17-01-2184
Quito-Ecuador
 
The server of the PUCE doesn't seem to work for me now, though. (Google suggests that more publications by T. de Vries should be accessible from here.)

Works now. (Over 9 a.m. in Ecuador - probably the server is simply switched off during the night...)
 
Quite a clash of minds. It'll be very interesting to see the comments and voting in this round...

But full marks to SACC for operating such a transparent and accountable system.

Who said taxonomy was dull? ;)

Richard
 
Last edited:
Quite a clash of minds. It'll be very interesting to see the comments and voting in this round...

...Clark, Seipke & Farquhar have provided a robust argument for rejection:
http://www.aou.org/checklist/south.php3 [> Proposal Tracking > 398]

PS: With effect from the recent (14 May) IUCN Red List 2009 revisions, BirdLife International no longer recognises Buteo poecilochrous.

Richard
 
Last edited:
...Clark, Seipke & Farquhar have provided a robust argument for rejection:
http://www.aou.org/checklist/south.php3 [> Proposal Tracking > 398]

I'm not sure I would follow the first point of the rebuttal down to its conclusion ("all of the discussions in this proposal and by Cabot and de Vries (2004) on ages and plumages are without substance"), even if the fact that the plumage of captive birds can evolve at a slower pace than normal is certainly thought-provoking.
I can understand that maturation may be delayed by captivity, but I have more difficulties with the notion that captivity could elicit plumage shifts that would not exist at all in the wild. If, f.i., all red-backed captive males birds can be shown to finally evolve a gray back, I see no really good reason to assume that the same does not happen in the wild. And if so, the fact would remain that red-backed and gray-backed males are not "distinct morphs" in the classical sense.
I also note that Cabot & de Vries (2004:283) do not actually claim that sexual maturity itself is delayed in this/these species - on the contrary, they do accept the notion that birds can breed in a plumage that is not what they call "adult". IOW, what they suggest might perhaps be better described by saying that plumage continues to evolve after sexual maturity has been reached.
As an aside, I do not see at all how any analysis based on the molt of the remiges of museum specimens could prove or disprove this...

I also have some problems understanding the fourth point:
"Fourth, we find issue with the use of Cabot and de Vries (2003) result that discriminant function analysis (DFA) supported distinct taxa because in that paper it was apparent that the authors used a priori diagnostic criteria to place the birds into separate groups which were then validated by the very statistical technique (DFA) used to determine group membership; this is circular and erroneous for that technique. CCF (in prep.) re-analyzed data from Farquhar (1998) using principal components analysis (PCA) on correlation matrices of several morphometric variables (culmen chord, P8, P7, P6, tail, and tarsus) [...]"​
Cabot & de Vries (2003) presented two distinct analyses - one DFA in which birds were indeed placed a priori into separate groups, and one PCA in which all of their birds were pooled together; these are shown on Fig. 2 and 3 of the paper, respectively. Thus I'm not sure to understand what would make this new analysis by Craig Farquhar more justifiable than that shown on Fig. 3 of the 2003 paper... ?

The histograms on the attached file are derived directly from Fig. 4 of Farquhar (1998). They show the frequency distribution of wing lengths in the data set that was used to recommend the lump, at two distinct elevation ranges. I have dismissed birds taken below 700m when I built them, mainly because there are too many points at these elevations on the published graphs, and counting them becomes simply impossible. A few large birds are evidently present in the data set at these lowest elevations, and it would certainly be interesting to know where these came from exactly (*). The two age classes considered in the paper are pooled. Between 700m and 2800m (the lower limit for B. poecilochrous according to Fjeldså & Krabbe, 1990), wing length is clearly unimodal for each sex. Above this, it becomes bimodal, with a lower mode fitting the birds found at lower elevations, and a higher mode being "added". In other words, at the lower elevations, you apparently have one thing; at the higher elevations, you still appear to have this thing, but with something else besides it, that is clearly bigger. In any case, this is not really the type of result that I would expect from a mere "clinal variation"...
These data are actually remarkably similar to those shown on Fig. 4 of Cabot & de Vries (2003).
Any comments?

(*) It is tempting to speculate that these birds might be from what Cabot & de Vries (2003) call the "southern zone", where they report larger B. polyosoma than on the Bolivian altiplano. Of course, the existence of these larger birds could be viewed as bridging the two forms that are found further north. But on the other hand, if the birds of the smaller form are still smaller in the area of sympatry, this could also be interpreted as character displacement...

Best,
Laurent -
 

Attachments

  • Variable Hawks - wing lengths.jpg
    Variable Hawks - wing lengths.jpg
    84.3 KB · Views: 97
There is further discussion of altitude and wing form here:
http://www.puce.edu.ec/zoologia/vertebrados/publicaciones/CabotDevries2006.pdf .
Other than that I have no intelligent comment. Here is a few links to the Literature cited by Clark et al:

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v076n02/p0121-p0137.pdf .

Additional observations on winter Bald Eagle populations: including remarks on biotelemetry techniques and immature plumages.

Aging Black-chested Buzzard-Eagle.

Abstract:
Most raptors have different age-related plumages that are usually replaced in annual molts. First
pennaceous plumage (juvenile) is called Basic I, 2nd plumage is Basic II, 3rd is Basic III, and so on. I studied wave molt in primaries, and replacement of tail and secondary feathers from museum specimens and pictures of wild hawks to determine the sequence and timing of immature plumages of Black-chested Buzzard-Eagles (Buteo melanoleucus). Juveniles (<1 year-old birds) have distinctive buff to tawny chests, pale and heavily-streaked heads, and upperwing coverts with noticeable buff to whitish tips (abraded after winter). One-year- to two-year-old birds are Basic II. They are overall dark with a brown vent that is barred black. A paler, short eyeline stands out on the darker head. Lesser upperwing coverts show tawny tips. Longer, new secondaries project beyond the trailing edge of wings in flying birds, and a few brown, juvenile tail feathers can be retained for the first year and a half of life. Basic III birds (roughly two-years- to three-years-old) have whitish bellies barred with black, gray upperwing coverts, and adult-like tail feathers. Some Basic II and most Basic III show black or slate breasts with a rufous median area. Basic III or younger birds show pale eyelines. Basic III or older show grey upperwing coverts. Basic IV birds look very much like adults but show some darker feathers in the belly and underwing coverts. Their chest and back are darker. Basic V birds are adult in plumage but a few tawny contour feathers might be retained.

The significance of molt centers among the secondary remiges in the Falconiformes.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v043n02/p0113-p0115.pdf .

Molting sequence and aging of Bald Eagles.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Wilson/v101n01/p0001-p0010.pdf .

Molecular phylogenetics of the buteonine birds of prey (Accipitridae). Auk

http://research.calacademy.org/research/bmammals/Mindell/Lerner_et_al_2008_AUK.pdf .

Abstract
William S. Clark (Oral)
Wave Moult of the Primaries in Accipitrid Raptors and its Use in Ageing
Stresemann and Stresemann in 1966 described the wave moult for the Common Buzzard (Buteo buteo). However, this has since been largely ignored. Primaries of Accipitrid raptors are replaced from P1 (inner) sequentially outward. Waves are formed when not all ten primaries are replaced in any annual moult cycle, as the next moult begins anew at P1, as well as continuing with the next feather from where it left off in the last cycle. As many as three wave fronts of new primaries can be seen in some raptors, especially larger ones, e.g. eagles. Knowledge of wave moult can ascertain the ages of immature raptors in those species that take three or four years to attain adult plumage, since these species typically do not replace all the primaries in any one moult cycle. Juvenile eagles show all primaries the same age. Second plumage eagles show two ages of primaries, newer inner and older retained juvenile outer ones. Third plumage eagles show two waves, with the first wave proceeding to P8 to P10, and the second to P3 to P6. Fourth plumage eagles usually show new outer P10 from the first wave, new P5 to P7 from the second wave, and new P1 to P3 from the most recent wave. Fifth plumage eagles are essentially in adult plumage. I have verified wave moult in 39 species, mostly eagles, but also many buzzards.
2301 S. Whitehouse Circle, Harlingen, Texas 78550, USA
Tel: + 1-956-364-0415 • Email: [email protected]
Primaries of Accipitrid raptors are replaced sequentially outward from the inner P1 to the outer P10, forming a wave. Many species in this family do not replace all ten primaries during the annual molt cycle. They begin the next molt cycle by continuing where the molt left off on the last cycle, AND, importantly, beginning a new wave of primary molt at P1. Knowledge of primary molt can be an important aid in ageing raptors that take more than one year to reach Definitive plumage, e.g., eagles, and in determining the first adult plumage of species that usually do not replace all primaries in the first molt, e.g., Red-tailed Hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) and Rough-legged Hawk (B. lagopus). Juveniles always show all primaries the same age. Many first adult plumage buzzards show one to three retained juvenile outer primaries. Basic I eagles replace fewer primaries and show from three to six new inner primaries and the rest retained faded juvenile outer primaries. Basic II eagles show new inner primaries (from one to four), some new primaries farther out on the wing, beginning where the last wave of molt left off, in many cases, new P6 to P8. They usually show retained juvenile outer primary P10. Basic III eagles show three waves of new primaries: inner, midprimary, and outer new. I have noted wave molt in more than 75 species of Accipitrid raptors, including some as small as Broad-winged Hawk (Buteo platypterus) and Black-shouldered Kite (Elanus caerulus).


Molecular phylogeny of the genus Buteo (Aves: Accipitridae) based on mitochondrial marker sequences.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...serid=10&md5=77e033b36f54bceef1704154f48dc38e .
 
...to further muddy the waters: Dan Lane has now suggested that the type specimen of poecilochrous may not actually be a Puna Hawk.
http://www.aou.org/checklist/south.php3 [> Proposal Tracking > 398]

This is based on the fact that this bird does not conform with Stresemann's formula. But as this formula is regarded as flawed by both camps in the present debate, this in itself is no real reason to reject the ID of the specimen. However, this indeed potentially places us on muddy ground.

The original description of poecilochrous is here : http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/35127, pages 176-178.
The relative lengths of the six outermost primaries are given on p. 177 and indeed clearly indicate that the bird would have to be polyosoma, should Stresemann's formula hold true.
But Gurney of course did not base his description on Stresemann's formula - he described this bird as a new species mainly because of its extremely large size (p. 176).
The wing length given on the p. 177 clearly excludes anything but one of the largest females of the larger form encountered on the altiplano (19.0 inches = 483 mm; this is above the second mode on the female part of the graph I attached to my previous post; compare also to Fig. 4 in Cabot & de Vries (2003)). The measurements of the type specimen are also directly compared to those of a series of B. erythronotus (= B. polyosoma) and another series of B. hypospodius (= B. albicaudatus), and they clearly exceed them.

It could be better to re-check the specimen itself for security (it should be at the British Museum, Reg. no. 1887.5.1.330), but for now I don't see any objective reason to doubt the ID of this bird.

I agree that discussing genetic data is academic at best for now. Even assuming that the very few specimens that have been sequenced up to now are all correctly identified, the data only prove a close relationship, that's all. Perfectly similar results could undoubtedly be obtained with, f.i., B. buteo and B. rufinus, as these, based on the same markers that have been used for polyosoma and poecilochrous, do not appear to have reciprocally monophyletic mtDNAs.

L -
 
Bits of info on the type locality of poecilochrous

YANAYACU Not located Buckley (Sclater & Salvin, 1878:439, it is a common Quichua name
meaning “black river and a common name for rivers, quebradas, and haciendas but which one visited by Buckley is unknown.
Ornithological gazetteer of Ecuador; (1977) by Raymond A. Paynter, Melvin Alvah Traylor
According to a local Ecuadorian (Eduardo Uzcategui, pers. comm.) “Yanayacu” is an Indian name used only on locations in the highlands of Ecuador and accordingly would not be a location in the extensive Oriente region or western coastal regions. There is, however, a small river in the highlands called Rio “Yanayacu” that enters Rio Cutuchi near San Miguel de Salcedo (E. Uzcategui, pers. comm.). The Rio Cutuchi enters Rio Patate that in turn enters Rio Pastaza. As reported by Sclater and Salvin (1880). Bucklev spent 4 Years in Ecuador with the greater part of the time on the upper reaches of the Rio Pastaza (drains eastward through the Oriente) and an area between Rio Pastaza and the Rio Bobonaza. The upper reaches of the Rio Pastaza flow through mountainous country that looks almost identical to that near Guavllabamba. The “upper reaches” of Rio Pastaza-Rio Bobonaza country could put that region in foothills/mountainous areas in excess of 100 km SSE of Quito.

http://elibrary.unm.edu/sora/Condor/files/issues/v091n04/p0995-p0997.pdf .

http://books.google.com/books?id=-K0CAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA991&dq=Yauayacu&lr=&client=firefox-a .

Seventeen different Yanayacu place names in Peru.

Clarence Buckley was the collector of the hawk and the butterfly people know he was less than exact with his place names. He would use a village as a staging area, and say the butterfly was from the village when it could be from areas some kilometers away and very different altitude.

http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/butterflies/neotropica/reprints/2008WV_TN.pdf .
Taxonomic notes on Napeogenes from Ecuador and Colombia, with
the description of ten new subspecies
(Lepidoptera: Numphalidae: Ithomiinae)
Keith R. Willmott & Fabio Vitale

Napeogenes larilla was described by Hewitson (1877) from a male specimen
or specimens from “Jima” [= Gima], a small village in the dry highlands of Azuay
province in southern Ecuador. Unfortunately, this village is clearly not where the type
specimen(s) originated, but represented a base for their collector, Clarence Buckley…. Finally, we note that the remaining two Hewitson males of N. larilla represent either
the central or perhaps the northern subspecies, since the only Hewitson female, in the
BMNH from “Ecuador”, certainly represents the latter, perhaps having been collected by
Buckley at Yanayacu, Napo.

Veladyris pardalis aurea
Holotype male, Ecuador, [Napo], Yanayacu (C. Buckley),

http://sisbib.unmsm.edu.pe/bibvirtualdata/publicaciones/rev_ciencias/v72 _n1/a05.pdf .

So people now assume Yanayuca, Napo district Ecuador for the type??
A taste of On the type locality of the Cordilleran Buzzard Buteo poecilochrous
http://artigocientifico.uol.com.br/uploads/artc_1185983692_57.pdf . Scroll down to the last page.

An ad in the 1894 Auk from Mr. Gurney looking for a B. poecilochrous skin.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Fg...=poecilochrous&lr=&client=firefox-a#PPA374,M1 . Evidence here also that Gurney considered that the type was from Ecuador not Peru like Vaurie thought.

Evidence Norwich Museum had in 1884 the (a?) type of B. varius Gould but not B. poecilochrous :
http://books.google.com/books?id=aw...ould+varius&lr=&client=firefox-a#PRA1-PA69,M1 . I just think this is odd since Gurney was benefactor for Norwich Museum and he named the species.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 15 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

Back
Top