Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Vítor de Queiroz Piacentini
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Doctoral Thesis |
| Press: | São Paulo. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Instituto de Biociências (IBIOC/SB) |
| Defense date: | 2011-09-23 |
| Examining board members: |
Luis Fábio Silveira;
Alexandre Luis Padovan Aleixo;
Marcelo Rodrigues de Carvalho;
Luiz Antonio Pedreira Gonzaga;
Miguel Trefaut Urbano Rodrigues
|
| Advisor: | Luis Fábio Silveira |
| Abstract | |
Phaethornis Swainson is the genus with the second highest number of taxa within the family Trochilidae (hummingbirds) and currently includes 55 taxa belonging to 25 species. Historically, there hasn\'t been a consensus on Phaethornis taxonomy, and some taxa remain controversial because they were treated as either hybrids or synonyms. Likewise, the treatment of some taxa as subspecies rather then full species is still debatable. The uncertainty about the species limits within Phaethornis makes it difficult to establish the geographic distribution of each taxon. Thus, to review the taxonomy of the genus, I analyzed the external morphology (plumage and morphometry) of 9,578 specimens housed in 33 museums worldwide. In total, herein 55 taxa are treated as valid, including the inclusion of \"Anopetia\" gounellei in Phaethornis. The purported taxa paraguayensis, hyalinus, zonura, riojae, insolitus, and cephalus, which were all treated as subspecies in the most recent revision by C. Hinkelmann, presented no valid diagnosis, and therefore were all lumped with other taxa. However, five distinct populations were split from their sister populations, requiring the resurrection of the names huallagae, maranhaoensis, insignis, camargoi, and aethopyga (previously treated as hybrid). The new Phaethornis species limits have changed the known geographic distributions of several taxa, such as P. amazonicus, P. striigularis complex, P. ruber-stuarti complex, and P. superciliosus complex. Analysis of the extant type specimens and all original descriptions indicated that the name Trochilus ruber Linnaeus has been wrongly applied during the last century. It further allowed the rediscovery of two names overlooked after their publication: Trochilus maxillosus Nordmann, 1835 and Phaethornis lodoicae Eudes-Deslongchamps, 1879. Lastly, two populations known by a single specimen each (groups guy and superciliosus) may represent new taxa, but their taxonomic status awaits the collection of additional material. (AU) | |