Jump to content

Horned curassow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suicidalhamster (talk | contribs) at 10:49, 30 November 2010 (→‎Taxonomy and systematics: revert spelling in quote - follow original). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Southern Helmeted Curassow
Scientific classification
Kingdom:
Phylum:
Class:
Order:
Family:
Genus:
Species:
P. unicornis
Binomial name
Pauxi unicornis
Bond & Meyer de Schauensee, 1939
  • P. u. unicornis
  • P. u. koepckeae
Synonyms

Crax unicornis (Bond & Meyer de Schauensee, 1939)

The Southern Helmeted Curassow or Horned Curassow (Pauxi unicornis) is a species of bird in the Cracidae family. It is found in Bolivia and Peru. Its natural habitats are subtropical or tropical moist lowland forests and subtropical or tropical moist montanes. It is threatened by habitat loss.

Until 2004 the Southern Helmeted Curassow was classified as Vulnerable by the IUCN Red List due to a small and declining population, but was changed to Endangered in 2005 due to an estimated smaller range and greater rinsk from human activities.[1] In Bolivia the potential habitat of subspecies P. unicornis unicornis may cover an area of 4,000km2 including the national parks: Amboró, Carrasco and Isiboro Sécure. Despite concentrated fieldwork there are many parts of this potential habitat in which no individuals have found, for example the most north west 2,000km2.[1]

Taxonomy and systematics

In 1937 while in Bolivia Mr M. A. Carriker found two birds, a male and female, which were in the cracid family. The specimens were subsequently described as a new species by James Bond and Rodolphe Meyer de Schauensee in 1939 and given the scientific name Pauxi unicornis placing it in a genus Pauxi alongside the species P. pauxi.[2] In 1969 another two birds, again a male and female were discovered which resembled those found by Mr. Carriker in 1937. However this time they were found in Peru a long way from the previous P. unicornis discoveries in Bolivia. These peruvian specimens were described by John Weske and John Terborgh in 1971 as a new subspecies of P. unicornis which they named in honour of Maria Koepcke.[2] The two subspecies of the Southern Helmeted Curassow are therefore:

Although the current consensus is for P. unicornis to be a species with two subspecies in the genus Pauxi, many different suggestions have been made since their discovery. Some suggestions relate to the grouping of species and subspecies within the genus Pauxi. In 1943 Wetmore and Phelps described a new subspecies of the closely related P. pauxi called P. p. gilliardi. When Wetmore and Phelps looked at the three Pauxi forms known at the time, they conluded that P. p. gilliardi was an intermediate form between P. pauxi and P. unicornis. As a result of this they grouped all three forms into a single species with unicornis becoming a subspecies of pauxi.[3][4] This position was subsequently rejected by Charles Vaurie who argued that P. pauxi and P. unicornis were not conspecific. When Weske and Terborgh discovered the subspecies koepckeae they concluded pauxi and unicornis should be considered separate species, which has been followed by all subsequent authors.[2][4]

"Through an unfortunate misunderstanding, the female was plucked and prepared for the stewpot by our Peruvian assistants, who did not realize that we wished to preserve both birds as skins."[2]
— The unfortunate turn of events after two birds of P. unicornis koepckeae were discovered for the first time.

Other taxonomic suggestions discuss whether the genus Pauxi should stand alone or be grouped with other genera. In 1965 François Vuilleumier suggested the two Pauxi species should be moved into a single genus alongside all the other species in the closely related genera Mitu, Crax and Nothocrax. Just two years later Charles Vaurie opposed this 'lumping' of species and argued that Pauxi, Mitu, Crax and Nothocrax should each be their own genera.[3] Not content with either of these two options Delacour and Amadon suggested that Pauxi and Mitu should indeed be grouped with Crax, but that Nothocrax was distinct enough to be its on genus. Many subsequent authors followed Vaurie, Delacour and Amadon in having Nothocrax as a sister clade to Pauxi, Mitu and Crax, while most have followed Vaurie in having the three other clades as three distinct genera.[5][2][4]

Recent mitochondrial analysis suggests that P. unicornis is a sister species to Mitu tuberosum, while the other Pauxi species, P. pauxi, is sister to the combined Mitu and P. unicornis clade. This means the genus Pauxi is not monophyletic but paraphyletic.[5] The paraphyly of Pauxi could be due to incomplete lineage sorting, where a gene tree is inconsistent with its species tree, however it is less important for deep phyolenetic splits. Because of this, Pereira et al conclude incomplete lineage sorting is unlikely to account for the paraphylic Pauxi genera because, according to their own analysis, Mitu and Pauxi diverged approximately 6.5mya.[5]

P. u. koepckeae is only known from a very small geographic area and a small number of specimens. Urgent work is needed to study the population, as it is thought that it may deserve to be elevated to species level, which would result in it being critically endangered.[6]

Description

The Southern Helmeted Curassow is among the largest cracid species with a body length of 85-90cm. It has a distinctive horn or casque on the forehead which projects for over 6cm. The plummage is generally black, but lacks a blue sheen in primary feathers, and has a white belly, thigh tufts and under-tail coverts. The tail also has white tips.[4]

In the subspecies koepckeae the casque is less erect and more rounded (ellipsoidal instead of elongated cone). Additianally the outer tail feathers have narrower white tips and the four central tail feather completely lack white colouring.[2]

Notes

  1. ^ a b MacLeod 2006
  2. ^ a b c d e f Weske & Terborgh 1971
  3. ^ a b Vaurie 1967
  4. ^ a b c d Cox et. al. 1997
  5. ^ a b c Pereira 2004
  6. ^ MacLeod et. al. 2006, p.61

References