Additional comments from Jaramillo: “I realized that in my comments post Howell and Schmitt, I may have given too much detail and perhaps hid some key issues (buried the lead!). Perhaps the most important is this one:
Although we do not have the exact breeding areas yet, as they are unknown, we are certain of the following based on birds found inland during the nesting season. Typical dark bellied birds (Wilson’s Storm-Petrel) obviously nest to the south of the range of pincoyae, but they also nest to the NORTH of pincoyae. So, this oddball, and I should repeat, most distinctive of ALL Oceanites, is sandwiched between populations of typical looking Wilson’s. So, if anyone is considering that this may be a clinal oddity in the north of the distribution of Wilson’s, it is not. If anyone is considering that this may be clinal with the similarly white-bellied gracilis (Elliot’s SP) of the north, it is not. It is a unique-looking form that remains largely in the sounds and fjords of Chile particularly inside of Chiloe Island, unlike the more truly pelagic Wilson’s. It is sandwiched to the north and south by dark bellied (Wilson’s SP). Although there are few (now four) specimens, 12 birds were captured and measured. Hundreds have been photographed in the core range, and there, variation is minimal as Mark mentions.
Additional comments from Areta: “"After reading through the publication by Howell & Schmitt (2016) and additional comments by Mark and Alvaro, I still think that pincoyae must be afforded full species status. While H&S found more variation than hitherto recognized in several birds (including pincoyae and oceanicus), I do not find a convincing explanation in their work to account for it. Both Mark and Alvaro point out how birds are, so far, known to be structured geographically and indicate the consistent features of pincoyae in its core area. This might be a good chance to show pictures of birds in the hand that were measured by Harrison et al., to clarify the amount of variation seen locally (I am surprised that reviewers of the original description of pincoyae did not ask for this, or if they did, that the editor did not enforce this need). A massive supplementary material section would have been very helpful. Finally: if pincoyae is not a valid species, then what is it?"
Comments from Robbins: “After getting clarifications and additional information from both Alvaro and Mark Pearman, I’m changing my vote from No to YES in recognizing pincoyae as a species.”
Comments from Remsen: “After going through Mark and Alvaro’s comments, I am also changing my vote to YES, but with strong reservations.”