BIRD FAMILIES OF THE WORLD

BIRD FAMILIES OF THE WORLD

This is the 7th edition of this family list, revised yet again in July 2007

This list has 227 Families

The purpose of this list of Bird Families of the World is as an aid to world birders who desire to maximize their study of avian diversity by observing examples of as many bird families as reasonable within the time and money available for travel, and as a study tool for all interested readers. It is exhilarating to see or learn about unique birds, and bird families structure the avian world into the most discrete and unique groups.

The concept of a bird family has no universal definition and can be arbitrary. Stability had been a goal when I began this project in 1999 [see my old essay on "choosing a family listing"] but since this is my 7th edition in 7 years, it is obvious that we are in a time of rapid change in taxonomic ideas and evidence. Earlier editions had generally followed the Handbook of the Birds of the World (HBW) project but publication of the 3rd edition of Howard & Moore's world checklist (Dickinson 2003) had to be considered, and it very much impacted my 6th edition. More recently, major papers (Jønsson & Fjeldsa 2006, Alstrom et al. 2005) focus on new, broadscale approaches to taxonomy in passerine birds. It is clear to me that it is time to change direction again. Yes, it is 'messy' at the present, and some of the Families accepted in this 7th edition list will not survive indefinitely, but the sooner we face the new evidence, the better off we are.

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES in this 7th edition follow the list of Families. However, the most important impact has been the Break-Up of the Old World Warblers [see an explanation on the 3 web pages that begin at that link]

This site is not affiliated with the Handbook project but I highly recommend the books; click on the banner below]

Those families with links have separate web pages that I created over the years. Some are now dated and need revision but there are still many to create. Each page has photos taken in the wild and extensive text. Here are the Bird Families of the World:

Non-passerine families

Struthionidae Ostrich [1]	Recurvirostridae Stilts & Avocets
Rheidae Rheas	Burhinidae Thick-knees
Casuariidae Cassowaries	Chionidae Sheathbills
Dromaiidae Emu	Pluvianellidae Magellanic Plover [15]
Apterygidae Kiwis	Scolopacidae Sandpipers, Snipes & Phalaropes
Tinamidae Tinamous [1]	Pedionomidae Plains-wanderer [16]
Anhimidae Screamers [2]	Thinocoridae Seedsnipes
Anserantidae Magpie-Goose [3]	Jacanidae Jaçanas
Anatidae Swans, Geese & Ducks [2]	Rostratulidae Painted-snipe
Megapodiidae Megapodes [2] [4]	Stercorariidae Skuas & Jaegers [17]
Cracidae Curassows & Guans	Laridae Gulls [17]
Numididae Guineafowl	Sternidae Terns [17]
Odontophoridae New World Quails	Rynchopidae Skimmers [17]
Phasianidae Pheasants, Partridges, Grouse & Turkeys [5]	Alcidae Auks
Spheniscidae Penguins [6]	Pteroclidae Sandgrouse
Gaviidae Loons	Columbidae Pigeons & Doves
Podicipedidae Grebes	Cacatuidae Cockatoos [18]
Diomedeidae Albatrosses	Psittacidae Parrots [18]
Procellariidae Petrels & Shearwaters	Opisthocomidae Hoatzin [19]
Hydrobatidae Storm-Petrels	Musophagidae Turacos & Allies
Pelecanoididae Diving-Petrels	Cuculidae Cuckoos, Coucals & Anis [20]
Phaethontidae Tropicbirds [7]	Tytonidae Barn & Grass Owls
Scopidae Hamerkop	Strigidae Typical Owls
Balaenicipitidae Shoebill	Steatornithidae Oilbird [21]
Pelecanidae Pelicans	Aegothelidae Owlet-Nightjars
Sulidae Boobies	Podargidae Australasian Frogmouths [22]
Phalacrocoracidae Cormorants	Batrachostomidae Asian Frogmouths [22]
Anhingidae Darters	Nyctibiidae Potoos
Fregatidae Frigatebirds	Caprimulgidae Nightjars & Allies
Ardeidae Herons [8]	Apodidae Swifts
Threskiornithidae Ibises	Hemiprocnidae Treeswifts
Ciconiidae Storks	Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Phoenicopteridae Flamingos	Coliidae Mousebirds
Cathartidae New World Vultures [9]	Trogonidae Trogons [23]
Pandionidae Osprey [10]	Alcedinidae Kingfishers [24]
Accipitridae Hawks & Eagles	Todidae Todies
Sagittariidae Secretarybird [11]	Momotidae Motmots
Falconidae Falcons & Caracaras	Meropidae Bee-eaters
Mesitornithidae Mesites [12]	Coraciidae Rollers
Turnicidae Buttonquails	Brachypteraciidae Ground-Rollers
Gruidae Cranes	Leptosomidae Cuckoo-Roller
Aramidae Limpkin	Upupidae Hoopoes
Psophiidae Trumpeters	Phoeniculidae Wood-Hoopoes & Scimitarbills
Rallidae Rails	Bucorvidae Ground-Hornbills [24]
Heliornithidae Finfoots	Bucerotidae Hornbills
Rhynochetidae Kagu	Galbulidae Jacamars [25]
Eurypygidae Sunbittern	Bucconidae Puffbirds
Cariamidae Seriemas	Megalaimidae Asian Barbets [26]
Otididae Bustards	Lybiidae African Barbets & Tinkerbirds [26]
Charadriidae Plovers [13]	Capitonidae American Barbets [26]
Glareolidae Coursers & Pratincoles	Semnornithidae Toucan-Barbets [26]
Dromadidae Crab Plover	Ramphastidae Toucans [26]
Haematopodidae Oystercatchers	Indicatoridae Honeyguides
Ibidorhynchidae Ibisbill [14]	Picidae Woodpeckers

Passerine families

Acanthisittidae New Zealand Wrens [27]	Chaetopidae Rockjumpers [45]
Pittidae Pittas	Eupetidae Rail-babbler [46]
Calyptomenidae Calyptomenid Broadbills [28]	Regulidae Kinglets [47]
Eurylaimidae Eurylaimid Broadbills [28]	Hyliotidae Hyliotas [48]
Philepittidae Asities [28]	Panuridae Bearded Reedling [49]
Sapayoidae Sapayoa [29]	Remizidae Penduline Tits
Furnariidae Furnarids & Woodcreepers [30]	Stenostiridae Fairy Flycatchers [50]
Thamnophilidae Typical Antbirds	Paridae Tits & Chickadees, including Groundpecker [51]
Formicariidae Ground Antbirds	Alaudidae Larks
Conopophagidae Gnateaters	Macrosphenidae Crombecs & African Warblers [52]
Rhinocryptidae Tapaculos	Nicatoridae Nicators [53]
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers	Hirundinidae Swallows & Martins
Tityridae Tityras, Mourners & allies [31]	Aegithalidae Long-tailed Tits
Cotingidae Cotingas	Cettiidae Cettid Warblers [54]
Pipridae Manakins	Phylloscopidae Leaf-Warblers [54]
Atrichornithidae Scrub-birds	Pycnonotidae Bulbuls
Menuridae Lyrebirds	Cisticolidae Cisticolas & Allies [54]
Ptilonorhynchidae Bowerbirds [32]	Acrocephalidae Acrocephalid Warblers [52]
Climacteridae Australasian Treecreepers	Bernieridae Malagasy Warblers [55]
Maluridae Fairywrens & Grasswrens	Donacobiidae Donacobius [56]
Dasyornithidae Bristlebirds [32]	Megaluridae Megalurid Warblers & Grassbirds [54]
Acanthizidae Australo-Papuan Warblers [33]	'Sylviidae' Sylvid Babblers, Parrotbills & Wrentit [57]
Pardalotidae Pardalotes [33]	Timaliidae Typical Babblers & Laughing-thrushes [57]
Meliphagidae Honeyeaters & Allies [34]	Sittidae Nuthatches
Pomatostomidae Pseudo-babblers	Tichodromidae Wallcreeper [58]
Orthonychidae Logrunners	Certhiidae Creepers
Cnemophilidae Cnemophilines [Satinbirds] [35]	Troglodytidae Wrens
Callaeidae New Zealand Wattlebirds	Polioptilidae Gnatcatchers
Notiomystidae Stichbird [36]	Hypocoliidae Hypocolius [59]
Melanocharitidae Berrypeckers & Longbills [37]	Bombycillidae Waxwings
Neosittidae Sittellas	Ptilogonatidae Silky-flycatchers
Erpornidae Erpornis [38]	Dulidae Palmchat
Vireonidae Vireos [38]	Cinclidae Dippers
Campephagidae Cuckoo-Shrikes	Buphagidae Oxpeckers [60]
Colluricinclidae Shrike-Thrushes & allies [37]	Muscicapidae Old World Flycatchers & Chats [61]
Cinclosomatidae Quail-Thrushes [39]	Turdidae Thrushes
Psophodidae Whipbirds, Wedgebills & Jewel-Babblers [39]	Mimidae Thrashers & Mimids
Falcunculidae Shrike-Tits & Ploughbill [40]	Rhabdornithidae Rhabdornis [Philippine Creepers] [62]
Pachycephalidae Whistlers	Sturnidae Starlings & Mynas [62]
Pitohuidae Pitohuis & allies [40]	Promeropidae Sugarbirds
Paramythiidae Painted Berrypeckers [35]	Dicaeidae Flowerpeckers
Oriolidae Old World Orioles & Figbirds	Nectariniidae Sunbirds & Spiderhunters
Machaerirhynchidae Boatbills [40]	Chloropseidae Leafbirds [42]
Malaconotidae Bush-Shrikes	Irenidae Fairy-Bluebirds [42]
Pityriaseidae Bristlehead [41]	Urocynchramidae Pink-tailed Bunting [63]
Aegithinidae Ioras [42]	Prunellidae Accentors
Platysteiridae Batises, Wattle-eyes, and Allies [43]	Peucedramidae Olive Warbler [64]
Vangidae Vangas [43]	Ploceidae Weavers
Prionopidae Helmet-Shrikes [43]	Estrildidae Waxbills
Cracticidae Butcherbirds & Bellmagpies	Viduidae Indigobirds
Artamidae Woodswallows	Passeridae Old World Sparrows
Paradisaeidae Birds-of-Paradise	Motacillidae Pipits & Wagtails
Corcoracidae Apostlebirds	Fringillidae Finches [65]
Laniidae True Shrikes	Calcariidae Longspurs & Snow Buntings [66]
Corvidae Crows, Jays & Allies	Cardinalidae Cardinals, Grosbeaks & Allies
Monarchidae Monarch-Flycatchers & Allies [44]	Thraupidae Tanagers [67]
Dicruridae Drongos	Parulidae New World Warblers
Rhipiduridae Fantails	Emberizidae Sparrows & Old World Buntings
Petroicidae Australo-Papuan Robins	Icteridae Icterids
Picathartidae Rockfowl [45]

HIGHLIGHTS OF CHANGES IN THIS SEVENTH EDITION: All the HBW families that have been published to date [through Vol. 10] remain except those that new research confirms should be lumped, representing a loss of three previous families. These are: Grouse and turkeys are embedded within the Phasianidae so they are now lumped with pheasants & allies. Woodcreepers are lumped with Furnarids on genetic evidence. Genetic evidence reveals that the Old World Warblers ["Sylviidae"] represent at least 8-10 or more distinctive lineages; Alstrom et al. (2006) proposed formal Family names for five of these: Cisticolidae [Cisticolas, Prinias & Allies; this split had been accepted previously], Megaluridae [Grassbirds & Allies, which include the Bradypterus & Locustella warblers], Acrocephalidae [Acrocephalus & Hippolais warblers], and Phylloscopidae [Phylloscopus & Seicercus warblers]. Further, the Sylvia warblers prove to be closely related to the Babbler assemblage [Timaliidae]. The suppression of "Sylviidae" as a usable taxonomic term must amount action by the ICZN. However, for the moment, I retain "Sylviidae" for Jønsson & Fjeldså's (2006) "clade 12;" Sylvia warblers, parrotbills, some babblaers, and Wrentit. Alström et al. (2006) would apparently lump "clade 12" and "clade 13" (the other babblers) together in one humbe Timaliidae, but for the moment I separate the two sets of lineages. See a discussion of the Break-Up of the Old World Warblers for more details. Some of these changes within the old "Sylvidae" were anticipated; other studes (e.g, Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Cibois 2003) showed that the Parrotbills ["Paradoxornithidae"] and White-eyes ["Zosteropidae"] were actually Babblers. The Babblers now include most of the usual babblers & laughing-thrushes plus most Parrotbills and most White-eyes — so the gain of 4 new 'warbler' families in Alstrom et al. (2006) is offset by the loss of 2 families (White-eyes, Parrotbills) Splitting the Old World Warblers into new families still left several apparent lineages unresolved. For our current listing, I have given names to "clade C" of Alstrom et al. (2006): the Sylviettidae [Crombecs & African warblers], a group described recently by Beresford et al. (2005). Then there is the question of how to deal with lineages that evolved long ago within the Megaluridae clade. One of those is Donacobius ("Black-capped Mockingthrush") of South America — an ancient offshoot of this group (Barker 2004, Alstrom et al. 2006). Some prefer to include Donacobius within the Grassbirds to emphasize its closest relatives, but it has evolved in isolation for so long that I think it should be considered it own family [Donacobidae], consistent with the treatment of other similar situations (for example, the A.O.U. treats the Olive Warbler as a family, although its closest relatives are the Accentors). In addition, Cibois et al. (1999, 2001) showed that there was a distinct radiation warbler-like birds Madagascar eons ago. For the moment, I call them the Bernieridae [Malagasy Warblers] The 5 new Australiasian families added by Dickinson (2003) remain. They were all included in my 6th ed., so no change there. Likewise, all the new studies confirm that Oxpeckers are not closely related to Starlings (e.g., Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Jonsson & Fjeldsa 2006, Zuccon et al. 2006), supporting my split of the Buphagidae in prior editions The South American Checklist Committee has elevated Magellanic Plover [Pluvianellidae] and Toucan-Barbet [Semnornithidae] and so do I (the former is a new innovation in this 7th ed.). Also in South America, a new paper [Ericson et al. 2006] proposes the family name Tityridae for the "Schiffornis assemblage," an enigmatic group includes Tityras, Becards, some Mourners, and a few other oddities. They also include Sharpbill in this new family. Publications in 2007 provided convincing evidence that Stitchbird Notiomystis cincta of New Zealand (Driskell et al. 2007) and Rail-babbler Eupetes macrocerus of southeast Asia (Jønsson et al. 2007) are not related to the families in which they have traditionally been placed (Honeyeaters and Jewel-babblers, respectively). Instead, Stitchbird is most closely related to New Zealand Wattlebirds but diverged nearly 34 million years ago; it has been formally proposed as its own family Notiomystidae (Driskell et al. 2007). Rail-babbler is most closely related to Rockjumpers and Rockfowl of Africa — an ancient relic. Given the long divergence of these three groups, it seems most consistent to consider each a separate family, so Rail-babbler would become the Eupetidae. This change means that the Whipbills, Wedge-bills and Jewel-Babblers become the Psophodidae. In additional to all of the above — which represents a net gain of 4 Families from my 6th edition family listing — the publication of Jønsson & Fjeldsa (2006) gives a good picture of the future (which I use in discussing the break-up of the Old World Warblers). They created a "supertree" of oscine passerine relationships based on an analysis of 99 genetic studies of the passerines, the largest group of birds. A clade represents a distinct evolutionary lineage. Most lineages fall into one of four larger groups: Corvida (a whole bunch of families that arose in Australasia, including crows), and then the three groups at the end of our listings: the Sylvoidea, Muscicapoidea, and Passeroidea. Together there were 42 families in these 3 groups in my 6th ed. list. One of these, the Regulidae (Kinglets) is actually an independent lineage not within any of the 3 big groups. So are the Rockfowl, the Rockjumpers, Australian Robins, and, suprisingly, the genus Hyliota from Africa. Using that work, I make a "best guesstimate" of future family-level split that will ease us towards this eventual transition. Some of my innovations will likely turn out to be wrong (and certainly some Latin names for families will change) but I prefer to look forward. There is travel to be done and I don't want to overlook potential new families! The most important innovation in this 7th edition is this: I assign family rank to every clade recognized by Jonsson & Fjeldsa (2006), with one exception. It seems apparent that most of these independent lineages deserve family rank. Jonsson & Fjeldsa (2006) have 40 clades within Sylvoidea, Muscicapoidea, and Passeroidea. These clades often confirm what are traditional families: larks, swallows, dippers, weavers, and many others. But parts of some current families (e.g., tanagers) appear in 7 different clades. In other situations, what we consider to be separate families are in the same clade. Among those examples are Starlings and Thrashers, or the fact that Wrens, Nuthatches, and Gnatcatchers are all in the same clade. So there are more families than clades. It follows, logically, that, at a minimum, each clade should represent one or more families. Alstrom et al. (2005) have recognized this and proposed formal family names for five clades in the breakup of the Old World Warbler-Babbler group, as discused above. This brings some suprises: Hyliotas become a family [see Fuchs et al. 2006] certain African & Asian flycatchers [Fairy Flycatchers & Allies] become a family [Stenostiridae; as proposed by Beresford et al. 2005] Nicators become a family [proposed by Beresford et al. 2005] Longsuprs & Snow Buntings become a Family [the A.O.U. is awaiting more research before taking this step, I'm told] Bearded Reedling Panurus biarmicus has a separate evolutionary lineage and so, for the moment, is assigned as a family the enigmatic Pink-tailed Bunting Urocynchramus pylzowi is in a separate clade and thus, logically, a new Family (for the moment; see Groth 2001) Erpornis zantholeuca (White-bellied 'Yuhina') of Asia is the only Old World representative in a clade with New World vireos (see Ciblois 2003, Alstrom et al. 2006); like Donacobius and Olive Warbler, I tentatively treat it as a Family-level taxon There is one exceptions to the clade-based approach grounded in Jønsson & Fjeldså (2006). In the Passeroidae, clades 13 through 19 of Jonsson & Fjeldsa (2006) are a monophyletic grouping of various tanaders, seedeaters, saltators, and Plushcap. To not get too far ahead of ourselves, it seems best to retain all these groups within the single family Thraupidae (Tanagers & Allies). This still remains a monophyletic group. Birders should be aware, however, that the North American tanagers in the genus Piranga are not in any of these clades; rather, the Piranga tanagers (e.g., Scarlet, Summer, and Western Tanagers) are allied with the cardinals and grosbeaks in family Cardinalidae. Relying on new biochemical evidence (Moyle et al. 2006), the Broadbills are split into two families — the Calyptomenid Broadbills and the Eurylaimid Broadbills — which permits us to maintain the Asities and the Sapayoa as families [a conservative approach would lump them all in one huge Broadbill assemblage] Finally, I apply this same approach — lineages that are unequivocally long separated from each other, equivalent to the passerine clades, should be Families — to non-passerines. On these grounds I revive the Sibley & Monroe (1990) split of the two frogmouth lineages into two Families: Podargidae [Australasian Frogmouths] & Batrachostomidae [Asian Frogmouths] Some of these changes were anticipated in my 6th ed. listing. The net effect of the approach in this 7th edition is to recognize a total of 227 families, an increase of 9 over my 6th edition. For the moment, this feels like the right approach. At the same time, it is important to "let go" of those previously recognized families that prove to be "nested" within other families and no longer warrant family status. I have done some of this in prior editions of this list; now, relying on new molecular data, it is clear that the Australian chats are simply Honeyeaters, and that the Magpie-Larks are simply Monarchs. For the moment, however, I retain as families the Parrotbills and White-eyes (both could be merged into other families in the future). While each of these groups is within clades with other Sylvioidea species, they are not embedded in a way that would make the clade impossible to separate into two or more families. Of course, additional research will impact this current representation of the avian relationship tree, and there are still taxa that haven't been genetically sequenced (e.g., Hypocolius, Horzorhinus, Malia). For these reasons Jonsson & Fjeldsa (2006) do not make the connection between clades and families, but the writing is on the wall, and we need to adapt. Our 'best guess' family list from this approach will not be entirely correct, but seems to better represent reality than prior lists. We can anticipate that some old families will be lost in the future, subsumed within other groups. Those that may be on the list to 'disappear' as families include the Ibidorhynchidae (Ibisbill), Sternidae (Terns), Tichodromidae (Wallcreeper), Hypocoliidae [Hypocolius], and Rhabdornithidae [Rhabdornis in the Philippines; may be lumped into Starlings]. Also a consensus may form that Donacobius is just a Grassbird stuck in the middle of South America, and Erpornis is a Vireo stuck in Asia. Time will tell. It will all be sorted out by ornithologists within a decade, but as birders, we need something useful now.

There is also the problem of sequencing them. The arrangement of HBW is quite different from Dickinson (2003). Instead of following either, my sequence is based primarily on the current American Ornithologists' Union (AOU), and the web-based South American Checklist Committee (SACC) sequences, plus the new information gleaned from Jonsson & Fjeldsa (2006). Numbered notes throughout my list refer to footnotes found after the list which explain in more detail the choices that were made. [Not all these footnotes are yet written up when this 7th edition was posted on-line.]

FOOTNOTES

1 All recent sources agree that there are two major basal lineages: Palaeognathae (ratities and tinamous) and Neognathae (all others). Within the Paeaeognathae, Dickinson (2003) places Tinamiformes before Struthoniformes but both HBW and SACC have the opposite arrangement; I follow the latter approach. The arrangement within the Struthoniformes (Ostriches through Kiwis) is the same in all recent sources. 2 Within the Neognathae there are also two basal lineages: Galloanserae (gamebirds and waterfowl) and Neoaves (all others). This means that the gamebirds and waterfowl must be placed next in the list (after rarities and tinamous); this was recently done in the AOU checklist (2002). Whether gamebirds (megapodes through quail) or waterfowl (screamers through ducks) are listed next is a matter of style. Dickinson (2003) puts the gamebirds first but AOU and SACC put the waterfowl first, and this fits better with the traditional arrangement (as in HBW). 3 Splitting the Magpie-Goose as a separate family is a Sibley-Ahlquist (1990) innovation based on DNA hybridization; they also split the Whistling-Ducks [Dendrocygnidae] as a family. More recent work (e.g., Livezey 1997) supports the former but not the latter. Dickinson (2003) elevates Magpie-Goose to family status but not the Whistling-Ducks. SACC and AOU also do not elevate the Whistling-Ducks (at least for now). I follow Dickinson (2003) in adding the Anserantidae as a family. 4 The order I use within the Galliformes [Megapodes through Pheasants] is from Dickinson (2003). HBW lists New World Quail between Grouse and Pheasants but it is beyond dispute that Grouse and Pheasants are more closely related to each other than to New World Quail. 5 Dickinson (2003) and AOU (1998) consider turkeys and grouse to be subfamilies of Phasianidae, as the biochemical evidence shows these lineages are embedded within the larger pheasant/partridge assemblage (e.g., Dimcheff et al. 2002). In prior lists I had followed HBW in retaining each group as a 'traditional' family, each of which is easily recognized and each of which is a monophyletic group, but now the weight of the evidence is strong enough to compel the merger of turkeys and grouse into the Phasianidae. 6 There is as yet no agreement as to the relationships of those birds listed between Penguins and Diving-Petrels. The order I use follows HBW. In my 5th edition I had followed SACC in moving penguins next to procellarids but there is now other evidence (e.g., van Tuinen et al. 2001) that suggests that the closest living relatives of the grebes might be the flamingos, which upsets the rest of the arrangement. For now, until better evidence is available, it seems best to use the more traditional HBW sequence here. 7 The sequence in the Pelecaniformes (Tropicbirds through Frigatebirds) follows traditional sequences (e.g., HBW, AOU, SACC) but there is growing evidence (e.g., van Tuinen et al. 2001) that Hamerkop and Shoebill evolved from the pelican lineage. I now follow Dickinson (2003) in placing these two families [Scopidae, Balaenicipitidae] next to the Pelicans [Pelicanidae] even though I do not follow the rest of his sequence within the Pelecaniformes. 8 The sequence in the Ciconiiformes (herons through storks) and the placement of the flamingos [Phoenicopteriformes] follows AOU and SACC (and is close to HBW) but I do not include the New World vultures [Catharidae] within this order, contra AOU and SACC. See note #9. 9 AOU and SACC followed Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in placing the New World vultures with storks. This was based primarily on early DNA evidence but, as Joel Cracraft says in Dickinson (2003), "the evidence supporting the various alternative hyptheses has not been very compelling." Morphological evidence (e.g., Griffiths 1994) supports the tradional placement of the catharids within the Falconidae. I follow HBW and Dickinson (2003) in placing the New World Vultures as the first family in the Falconidae. 10 Osprey has been treated as a subfamily of the Accipitridae by many (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003) but I follow HBW in retaining traditional family status. The footnote on the SACC web site says "Although all available data indicate that it is the sister taxon to the hawks and eagles, the rank at which it is treated is rather arbitrary. Given its unique karyotype, which differs from that known for other hawks and eagles, and given that Pandion haliaetus can be recognized as a species in the fossil record as far back as the Miocene, family rank may be more appropriate." To continue to give Pandionidae family status also fits well with my belief that distinctive and unique genera are often best handled as monotypic families. See the next note. 11 Dickinson (2003) reduces Secretarybird to a subfamily of the Accipitridae without any comment. Yet even Sibley & Monroe (1990) continued family status, as did the Birds of Africa handbook (Brown et al. 1982) and, more recently, HBW. To me this is an "obvious" family — an exceptionally unique and distinctive species that deserves its traditional family rank on those grounds alone. 12 The sequence of the Gruiformes (mesites through bustands) follws HBW. Dickinson (2003) has a different sequence (it starts with bustards and ends with buttonquail) but it is admitted that many points are still uncertain. It seems better at this point to stick with a traditional sequence among these enigmatic set of birds. There is still some question as to whether the Gruiformes are a monophyletic group. There is evidence that Mesites, for example, are more closely related to Cuckoos than any of the Gruiformes (Mayr & Ericson 2004). 13 The sequence of the Charadriiformes follows SACC (2006). Somewhat different sequences are in Sibley & Monroe (1990), AOU (1998), HBW, and Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Ericson et al. 2003, Paton et al. 2003, Fain & Houde 2004) support the hypothesis that the Haematopodidae and Recurvirostridae are sister families and that these two families form the sister group to the Charadriidae. Likewise, genetic evidence shows that indicate that the Thinocoridae are the sister taxon to the Pedionomidae, and that these in turn are members of the scolopacine radiation of the Charadriiformes (including Scolopacidae, Jacanidae, and Rostratulidae). 14 Although Sibley & Monroe (1990) lumped the Ibisbill with Stilts & Avocets (they did not even give in 'subfamily' or 'tribe' status!), both HBW and Dickinson (2003) retain it as a separate family. I agree. It is a unique bird that is highly sought be world birders. I'm pleased that current evidence considers to support family status. 15 The taxonomic status of Magellanic Plover Pluvianellus socialis is uncertain. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Sibley 1996) considered it a monotypic family on initial DNA hybridization results, but admitted their conclusion was to stimulate further research, rather than a well-supported decision. Strauch (1978) and Chu (1995) used an analysis of morphological characters to argue that it was more closely related to the Chionidae than in its traditional place among the plovers [Charadriidae]. Recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) support this relationship. SACC (2006) now considers this a monotypic family. Dickinson (2003) provisionally includes Magellanic Plover within the Chionidae. I have waffled on how to treat this for years. It is still uncertain, but I now tentatively raise this taxon to family level status, following the SACC, as this approach is consistent with my treatment of separate family status for both Rockjumpers and Rockfowl. 16 Everyone now agrees that Plains-wanderer is properly in the Charadriformes (shorebirds) rather than a Gruifomes (cranes & allies). Recent genetic data (Paton et al. 2003) indicates that it a sister taxon to the Seedsnipes. Fortunately, HBW places them next to each other. 17 My sequence and family-level approach follows HBW. There is still little agreement on the best arrangement. AOU (1998) follows Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) in reducing skuas, gulls, terns, and skimmers to subfamilies to the Laridae. Dickinson (2003) resurrects the Skuas [Stercorariidae] to family status but rearranges the sequence; SACC keeps Skuas first among this set but also elevates Skimmers [Rynchopidae], leaving only the terns behind. I much prefer the traditional approach. It is reasonably clear that each group (skuas, gulls, terns, skimmers) is a monophyletic group and it is easy to recognize each distinctive group in the field. I retain them all as separate families. 18 Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) raised the Cockatoos to family level distinct from the other Parrots. HBW took this approach, and I follow them here. But Dickinson (2003) combined them again into a single Psittacidae noting, in footnotes, that various other groups (e.g., Kakapo Strigops habroptila, the hanging-parrots Loriculus et al.) could also qualify for family status. If the Kakapo were to be considered a family, this would mean that it is essentially impossible to see all the families of the world as only researchers are permitted on the New Zealand islet with the last remaining Kakapos. I'm most content to simply follow HBW on the arrangement of parrots. 19 To quote a footnote in the SACC: "The placement of this order [Opisthocomiformes] is highly controversial. Genetic data have indicated that it is closely related to the Cuculiformes (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) or Musophagiformes (Hughes & Baker 1999). De Queiroz and Good (1988) found morphological evidence consistent with its placement near Cuculiformes or Musophagiformes.... However, the most recent genetic analysis (Sorenson et al. 2003) failed to find support for a relationship to any of these groups, but found weak support for a relationship to the Columbiformes." Dickinson (2003) also takes the approach used by SACC: Hoatzin is placed just before the Cuculiformes. I now follow them; there is no support for the HBW sequence that places it near Gruiformes. 20 Sibley & Monroe (1990) split the cuckoos into four families — based on DNA divergence — but most other recent checklists continue to place them all (Old World cuckoos, New World cuckoos, anis, and ground-cuckoos) within a single family [Cuculidae]. This is the approach of AOU, SACC, HBW and Dickinson (2003). 21 The sequence in the Caprimulgiformes (oilbirds through nightjars) follows HBW. Dickinson (2003) has a somewhat different sequence. 22 Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) split frogmouths into two families: Australian frogmouths [Podarginidae] and Asian frogmouths [Batrachostominae]. Neither HBW nor Dickinson (2003) follow this approach — they consider the two different sets to be subfamilies. 23 The sequence within the Coradiiformes (kingfishers through hornbills) follows HBW; Dickinson (2003) has a slightly different sequence. Sibley & Monroe (1990) divided the kingfishers into three families [Alcedinidae, Dacelonidae, and Cerylidae] but the recent major checklists (HBW, Dickinson 2003) consider these groups to be subfamilies. 24 This web-based checklist had elevated the Ground-Hornbills to family rank several editions ago, following the persuasive argument by Kemp (1995), and the arrangement of Sibley & Monroe (1990). HBW did not do so, even though Alan Kemp authored the family account for all hornbills (a case where editorial preference trumped the author of the family account. It is thus very encouraging to find that Dickinson (2003) also elevates the Ground-Hornbills to family status. However, I place them before the Bucerotidae on the grounds that they represent an ancient and likely more basal lineage. Dickinson says that is their approach also by they list the typical hornbills first for unknown reasons. 25 Biochemical evidence supports the concept that jacamars and puffbirds are sister groups, but whether they should have their own Order [Galbuliformes] has been controversial. I follow HBW and SACC in considering them an Order and placing them here before the Piciformes (barbets through woodpeckers). Dickinson (2003) places them within the Picidae and at the end of that Order. 26 The barbets and relatives have been a problem ever since Prum (1988) showed that the traditional classification of Barbets [Capitonidae] and Toucans [Ramphastidae] as separate families was not supported by biochemical evidence. The toucans were more closely related to other New World barbets than the New World barbets were to any of the Old World barbets. Sibley & Monroe (1990) proposed to lump toucans into New World barbets and separate Old World barbets into two different families: Megalaimidae [Asian Barbets] and Lybiidae [African Barbets]. HBW followed the old traditional approach but acknowledged the problem. Dickinson (2003) and AOU (1998) just lumped them all within a single family [Ramphastidae]. This would mean the loss of toucans as a distinctive family, and disguise the significant biodiversity within the group. In my view, the SACC has adopted a better approach. It divides these birds into five separate families, explaining: "The families Capitonidae, Semnornithidae, and Ramphastidae are each other's closest relatives with respect to Old World barbets (Burton 1984, Prum 1988, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990, Lanyon & Hall 1994, Barker & Lanyon 2000, Johansson et al. 2001, Johannson & Ericson 2003, Moyle 2004). Old Word barbets are here tangentially treated as separate families, Asian Megalaimidae and African Lybiidae; recent genetic data (Moyle 2004) support the monophyly of the barbet radiations within each region. To emphasize the close relationships among New World taxa, these three families were treated as subfamilies of a single family, Ramphastidae, by AOU (1998). SACC proposal passed to treat these taxa at family rank. Semnornis [Toucan-Barbets] is treated as separate family until affinities resolved. . . Genetic data indicate that Semnornis may be basal to both families (Barker and Lanyon 2000); Moyle (2004) found weak support for that relationship, but also weak support for a sister relationship to Ramphastidae." 27 Barker et a;/ (1984) showed that the New Zealand Wrens were a very early offshoot, basal to all other passerines, so I place it first, following Dickinson (2003). The sequence of the Suboscine Passerines (pittas through lyrebirds) generally follows HBW (except for placing pittas first among the Suboscines and for the addition of Sapayoa; see note 29). 28 Prum (1993) concluded, on the basis of syringeal and osteological characters, that the Asities were 'nested' within the Broadbill clade and merged them together, but this was challenged on DNA sequence data by Irestedt et al. (2001). That study lacked, however, some broadbill genera. HBW took the more conservative and traditional approach in maintaining the Asities as a family. Moyle et al. (2006) provided the necessary new research to sort this all out. They showed that there were two major clades within the Broadbills — (1) a grouping of the Calyptomenna broadbills of Asia (these are the green broadbills) and the Smithornis broadbills of Africa (these are the lowland forest broadbills in Africa), and (2) a grouping of the remaining Asian broadbills (5 genera) plus Grauer's Broadbill Pseudocalyptomena graueri (a montane species which is an Albertine Rift endemic), plus Asiities in Madagascar and the Sapayoa of the New World (see note 29). The Broadbills as a traditional family are only monophyletic if one considers Asities and Sapayoa to be broadbills. The situation iscomparable to the barbet/toucan connundrum in which the options are either to lump all toucans/barbets together or separate them into 5 families, including elevating Toucan-Barbet to family status. The SACC chose the batter option with the barbet/toucan assemblage. The DNA evidence in the broadbills best supports (in my view) creating two families of broadbills — the Calyptomenid Broadbills [genera Calyptomena and Smithornis] and the Eurylaimid Broadbills [all other genera, including Pseudocalyptomena] — and retaining the Asities and the Sapayoa as separate families. 29 Lanyon (1985) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) found biochemical evidence that Sapayoa Sapayoa aenigma was related to Old World suboscines, and may be the only relict of an ancient lineage left in the Neotropics. Both SACC and Dickinson (2003) consider it a monotypic family. AOU (1998) relegated it to incertae sedis (=unknown taxonomic position), awaiting more evidence. That new evidence is now available in Moyle et al. (2006); see note 28. 30 tba 31 tba 32 The sequence of the Oscine Passerines (all the rest of the families) is perhaps the most problematic of all issues. As an American, I am most comfortable with the general arrangement of AOU (1998), which has also been generally adopted by SACC. These checklists deal only with the New World and do not address the myriad of problems in arranging the Old World families. The proposals of Sibley & Monroe (1990) — wrongly adopted by some field guides — have proved to be partly right but quite wrong in others. The idea of a monolithic Corvidae that arose solely in Australasia is both partly right and partly wrong. Nuclear gene sequencing (Barker et al. 2002) provides some potential directions but is still preliminary. It is, however, now quite apparent that the sequence adopted by HBW (and by me in the 5th edition of this web-based list) was quite out-of-sync with reality. Alas, there will probably be more revisions to come in the future. For the moment, I adopt most of the Oscine Passerine sequence of Dickinson (2003) but with modifications. It seems to me, however, that certain decisions are not well supported — and in all those cases the Dickinson (2003) family sequence (actually drafted by Joel Cracraft) fails to explain its decisions. For example, waxwings, silky-flycatchers, and Hypocolius are all lumped by Cracraft (Dickinson 2003) in the Bombycillidae. My own brief field experience suggests that Hypocolius is related to bulbuls, not waxwings/silky-flycatchers. Likewise, some biochemical evidence suggest Bornean Bristlehead [Pityriaseidae] is related to butcherbirds [Cracticidae] but the Cracraft list has it between Ioras and Cuckoo-shrikes. For now, I deviate from the Cracraft/Dickinson sequence on a case-by-case basis (always footnoted). Further, I have juggled the 'back-end' of the list to essentially reflect the AOU/SACC sequence (generally nuthatches through waxbills). In addition, the Cracraft/Dickinson (2003) list has 35 genera listed as incertae sedis; in other words, a cop-out for now. Alas, I want a complete list even if we have to make our best guesses at this point in time). I have provisionally elevated three of those genera to family status. Others may warrant similar treatment although, for the most part, it seems likely that most of the 'difficlut' genera will eventually go into established families. I include as a family within the oscine Passerines any group currently listed as a family by either HBW or by Dickinson (2003). These include some groups in HBW (e.g., the Grallinidae [Magpie-lark & Torrent-lark] and the parrotbills [Paradoxornithidae]) that most other recent lists (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Dickinson 2003) lump with other families (e.g., Magpie-lark is a now generally considered a Monarch and parrotbills generally considered babblers). The Cracraft/Dickinson (2003) list has its own innovations, elevating the Shrike-Tits [Falcunculidae], Bristlebirds [Dasyornithidae], Whipbirds/Jewel-Babblers [Eupetidae], Boatbills [Machaerirhynchidae], and Shrike-Thrushes & Allies [Colluricinclidae] without discussion. I had previously anticipated (in the 5th edition of this list) the elevation of the Cnemophilines (or Satinbirds) as a family [Cnemophilidae]. 33 Many lists (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Christidis & Boles 1994) placed the 3 bristlebirds within a broad Pardalotidae that also includes\d the Australasian warblers [Acanthizinae]. Schodde & Mason (1999) explained why the Pardalotidae should be a family, separate from the Acanthizidae (contra Sibley & Monroe 1990); Dickinson (2003) agreed with this separation and further elevated the bristebirds [Dasyornithidae] to family status. I presume unpublished genetic data supports this proposal. Since I am including all Cracraft/Dickinson families, this is one of the new families in this edition. Pilotbird Pycnoptilus floccosus, Rockwarbler Origma solitaria, and Fernwren Oreoscopus guttaralis are all now placed within the Acanthizidae [Australasian Warblers]. Dickinson (2003) takes the same approach to the three whitefaces Aphelocephala, as well as the New Zealand endemics Yellowhead Mohoua ochrocephala and Pipipi Finschia novaeseelandiae that are sometimes placed with whistlers. 34 Sibley & Monroe (1990, Christidis & Boles (1994), and Dickinson (2003) all lump the Australian Chats with the honyeaters,; so do I. HBW may maintain the Australian Chats as a separate family but the DNA evidence is that that they deeply imbedded within the Honeyeaters. 35 Cracraft & Feinstein (2000) published biochemical and morphological evidence that the hree cnemophiline birds-of-paradise (genera Cnemophilus and Lobparadisea) are not closely related to other birds-of-paradise at all, but are quite removed and somewhere near the base of the corvoid phylogenetic tree. This persuaded me to elevate them as a family in my 5th edition on-line family list. Dickinson (2003) now does this in print and places them here, very far removed from the birds-of-paradise. 36 Stichbird Notiomystis cincta, a New Zealand endemic and an endangered species, has long been considered a Honeyeater. New molecular evidence shows that it is not related to Honeyeaters; the closest relatives are the New Zealand Wattlebirds (the Callaeidae). It has been proposed as a distinct family (Driskell et al. 2007) and I find the evidence compelling. 37 Elevating the berrypeckers to family status, and then making them into two separate families [Melanocharitidae and Paramythiidae], is a Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990) innovation based on DNA-DNA hybridization studies. The first Passerine volume of HBW states that they plan to follow this approach — so I have the two separate families here. Dickinson (2003) merges all the berrypeckers into one family [Melanocharitidae] but there is no explanation. Data published in Barker et al. (2004) suggests that the two berrypecker groups may not be closely related. 38 tba 39 Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) had the whipbirds, wedgebills, jewel-babblers, rail-babbler, quail-thrushes, and Blue-capped Ifrit Ifrita kowaldi all within the subfamily Cinclosomatinae in their broad Corvidae assemblege. HBW will presumably consider them all part of one family [Cinclosomatidae]. Dickinson (2003), presumably on unpublished DNA sequencing, splits most of these into two families: the five species of quail-thrush Cinclosoma within one family [Cinclosomatidae] with the whipbirds, wedgebills, jewel-babbler and rail-babbler in the other family [Eupetidae]. Dickinson (2003) also notes that the Malay Rail-Babbler Eupetes macrocerus may deserve status as a monotypic family, in which case the remaining genera would be in the Psophodidae. [The Rail-Babbler has since been shown to be related to Rockjumpers; see footnote 46]. The Ifrit from New Guinea is considered by these authors as incertae sedis and placed (with the two melampittas Melampitta) next to the Birds of Paradise. Because I have to place it somewhere, Ifrit is included within the Psophodidae. 38-67 FOOTNOTES TO BE COMPLETED ....

Literature Cited: Alström, P., P.G.P. Ericson, U. Olsson, and P. Sundberg. 2006. Phylogeny and classification of the avian superfamily Sylvioidea. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 38: 381-397. American Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 7th ed. A.O.U., Washington, D. C. Barker, F.K. 2004. Monophyly and relationships of wrens (Aves:Troglodytidae): a congruence analysis of heterogeneous mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 486-504. Barker, F.K., G.F. Barrowclough, and J.G. Groth. 2002. A phylogenetic hypthesis for passerine birds: taxonomic and biogeopgraphic implications of an analysis of nuclear DNA sequence data. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. 269: 295-305 Barker, F.K., A. Cibois, P. Schikler, J. Feinstein, and J. Cracraft. 2004. Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 101: 11040-11045. Barker, F.K., and S.M. Lanyon. 2000. The impact of parsimony weighting schemes on inferred relationships among toucans and Neotropical barbets (Aves: Piciformes). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 15: 215-234. Beresford, P., F.K. Barker, P.G. Ryan, and T.M. Crowe. 2005. African endemics span the tree of songbirds (Passeri): molecular systematics of several evolutionary 'enigmas'. Proc. R. Soc. B 272: 849-858. Brown, L.H., E.K. Urban, and K. Newman, eds. 1982. The Birds of Africa. Vol. 1. Academic Press, London, and following volumes. Burton, P.J.K. 1984. Anatomy and evolution of the feeding apparatus in the avian orders Coraciiformes and Piciformes. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Natural History) 47: 331-441. Christidis, L., and W.E. Boles. 1994. The taxonomy and species of Birds of Australia and its territories. A.A.O.U. Monograph 2: 1-112. Chu, P.C. 1995. Phylogenetic reanalysis of Strauch's osteological data set for the Charadriiformes. Condor 97: 174-196. Cibois, A. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeny of babblers (Timaliidae). Auk 120: 35-54. Cibois, A., and J. Cracraft. 2004. Assessing the passerine "Tapestry": phylogentic relationships of the Muscicapoidea inferred from nuclear DNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 32: 264-273. Cibois, A., E. Pasquet, and T.S. Schulenberg. 1999. Molecular systematics of the Malagasy babblers (Timaliidae) and Warblers (Sylviidae), basid on cytochrome b and 16S rRNA sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 3: 581-595. Cibois, A., B. Slikas, T.S. Schulenberg, and E. Pasquet. 2001. An endemic radiation of Malagasy songbirds is revealed by mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Evolution 55: 1198-1206. Cracraft, J., and J. Feinstein. 2000. What is not a bird of paradise? Molecular and morphological evidence places Macgregoria in the Meliphagidae and the Cnemophilina near the base of the corvoid tree. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 267:233-241. Cracraft, J., F.K. Barker, M. Braun, J. Harshman, G.J. Dyke, J. Feinstein, S. Stanley, A. Cibois, P. Schikler, P. Beresford, J. García-Moreno, M.D. Sorenson, T. Yuri and D.P. Mindell. 2004. Phylogenetic relationships among modern birds (Neornithes): toward an avian tree of life. Pp. 468-489 in J. Cracraft & M. J. Donoghue, eds. Assembling the Tree of Life. Oxford University Press, New York. de Queiroz, K., and D.A. Good. 1988. The scleral ossicles of Opisthocomus and their phylogenetic significance. Auk 105: 29-35. del Hoyo, J., A. Elliott, and J. Sargatal, eds. 1992. Handbook of the Birds of the World. Vol. 1. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona, and following volumes. Dickinson, E., ed. 2003. The Howard & Moore Complete Checklist of the Birds of the World. 3d ed. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J. Dimcheff, D.E., S.V. Drovetski, and D.P. Midnell. 2002. Phylogeny of Tetraoninae and other galliform birds using mitochondrial 12s and ND2 genes. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 24: 203-215. Driskell, A., L. Christidis, B.J. Gill, W.E. Boles, F.K. Barker, and N.W. Longmore. 2007. A new endemic family of New Zealand passerine birds: adding heat to a biodiversity hotspot. Australian J. Zool. 55: 73-78 Ericson, P.G.P., M. Irestedt, and J.S. Johansson. 2003. Evolution, biogeography, and patterns of diversidfication in passerine birds. Jour. Avian Biol. 34: 3-15. Ericson, P.G.P., D. Zuccon, J.I. Ohlson, U.S. Johansson, H. Alvarenga, and R.O. Prum. 2007. Higher level phylogeny and morphological evolution of tyrant flycatchers, cotingas, manakins and their allies (Aves: Tyrannida). Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, in press. Fain, M.G., and P. Houde. 2004. Parallel radiations in the primary clades of birds. Evolution 58: 2558-2573. Fuchs, J., J. Fjeldsa, R.C.K. Bowie, G. Voelker, and E. Pasquet. 2006. The African warbler genus Hyliota as a lost lineage in the Oscine songbird tree: molecular support for an African origin of the Passerida. Molecular Phyolgenetics & Evolution 39: 39: 186-197. Groth, J.G. 2001. Molecular evidence of the systematic position of Urocynchramus pylzowi. Auk 117: 787-791. Griffiths, C.S. 1994. Monophyly of the Falconiformes based on syringeal morphology. Auk 111: 787-805. Holyoak, D.T. 2001. Nightjars and their Allies. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Hughes, J.M., and A.J. Baker. 1999. Phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic Hoatzin (Opithsocomus hoazin) resolved used mitochondrial and nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Biol. Evol. 16: 1300-1307. Irestedt, M., J. Fjeldså, U.S. Johansson, and P.G.P. Ericson. 2001. Phylogeny of major lineages of suboscines (Passeriformes) analysed by nuclear DNA sequence data. J. Avian Biol. 32: 15-25. Johansson, U.S., and P. G.P. Ericson. 2003. Molecular support for a sister group relationship between Pici and Glabulae (Piciformes sensu Wetmore 1960). J. Avian Biology 34: 185-197. Johansson, U.S., T.J. Parsons, M. Irestedt, and P.G.P. Ericson. 2001. Clades within "higher land birds," evaluated by nuclear DNA sequences. J. Zool. Syst. Evol. Research 39: 37-51. Jønsson, K.A., and J. Fjeldsa. 2006. A phylogenetic supertree of oscine passerine birds (Aves:Passeri). Zoologica Scripta 35: 149-186. Jønsson, K.A., J. Fjeldsa, P.G.P. Ericson, and M. Irestedt. 2007. Systematic placement of an enigmatic Southeast Asian taxon Eupetes macrocerus and implications for the biogeography of a main songbird radiation, the Passerida. Roy. Soc. Lond. B. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0054 Kemp, A. 1995. Bird Families of the World: The Hornbills. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford. Lanyon, S.M., and J.G. Hall. 1994. Re-examination of barbet monophyly using mitochondrial-DNA sequence data. Auk 111: 389-397. Livezey, B.C. 1997. A phylogenetic analysis of basal Anseriforms, the fossil Presbyornis, and the interordinal relationships of waterfowl. Zool. J. Linn. Soc. Lond. 121: 361-428. Mayr, G., and P.G.P. Ericson. Evidence ofr a sister group relationship between the Madgascan mesites (Mesitornithidae) and cuckoos (Cuculidae). Senckenbergiana biologica 84: 119-135. Moyle, R.G. 2004. Phylogenetics of barbets (Aves : Piciformes) based on nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequence data. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 30: 187-200. Moyle, R.G., R.T. Chesser, R.O. Prum, P. Schikletr and J. Cracraft. 2006. Phylogeny and evolotionary history of Old World suboscine birds (Aves: Eurylaimides). Amer. Mus. Novitates 3544: 1-22. Moyle, R.G., J. Cracraft, M. Lakim, J. Nais, and F.H. Sheldon. 2006. Reconsideration of the phylogenetic relationships of the enigmatic Bornean Bristlehead (Pityriasis gymnocephala). Molecular Phyolgenetics & Evolution 39: 893-898. Paton, T.A., A.J. Baker, J.G. Groth, and G.F. Barrowclough. 2003. RAG-1 sequences resolve phylogenetic relationships within charadriiform birds. Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 29: 268-278. Prum, R.O. 1988. Phylogenetic interrelationships of the barbets (Aves: Capitonidae) and toucans (Aves: Ramphastidae) based on morphology with comparisons to DNA-DNA hybridization. Zool. J. Linnaean Soc. 92: 313-343. Prum, R.O. 1993. Phylogeny, biogeography, and evolution of the broadbills (Eurylaimidae) and asities (Philepittidae) based on morphology. Auk 110: 304-324. Ridgely, R.S., and G. Tudor. 1989. The Birds of South America. Vol. 1: The Oscine Passerines. Univ of Texas, Austin, and following volumes. Schodde, R., and I.J. Mason. 1999. Directory of Australian Birds. CSIRO Publishing, Canberra. Sibley, C.G. 1996. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. On diskettes, Windows version 2.0. Ibis Publishing, Vista, CA. Sibley, CG., and J.E. Ahlquist. 1990. Phylogeny and Classification of Birds: A Study in Molecular Evolution. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. Sibley, C. G., and B.L. Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and Taxonomy of Birds of the World. Yale Univ. Press, New Haven, CT. South American Checklist Committee (SACC). 2006. Checklist of the Birds of South America. On-line; J.V. Remsen, Jr., et al., eds. Strauch, J.G. 1978. The phylogeny of the Charadriiformes (Aves): a new estimate using the method of character compatibility analysis. Trans. Zool. Soc. London 34: 263-345. van Tuinen, M., D.B. Butvill, J.A.W. Kirsch, and S.B. Hedges. 2001. Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds. Proc. Royal Soc. London (Biol. Sci. ) 268: 1345-1350. Zuccon, D., A. Cibois, E. Pasquet, and P.G.P. Ericson. 2006. Nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data reveal the major lineages of starlings, mynas and related taxa. Molecular Phyolgenetics & Evolution 39: in press. from : http://montereybay.com/creagrus/list.html