ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Discovery of the Large Blue Flycatcher Cyornis [banyumas]
magnirostris breeding in northern Kachin State (Burma/
Myanmar) and taxonomic implications for the Cyornis-group
Swen C. Renner ? Pamela C. Rasmussen ?
John H. Rappole ? Thein Aung ? Myint Aung
Received: 22 January 2008 / Revised: 8 December 2008 / Accepted: 19 January 2009 / Published online: 19 March 2009

 Dt. Ornithologen-Gesellschaft e.V. 2009
Abstract The little-known taxon Cyornis [banyumas]
magnirostris has long been treated as a race of the wide-
spread Hill Blue Flycatcher C. banyumas, with which it
was thought to be allopatric during the breeding season. On
the basis of morphology, magnirostris has lately been
considered a full species, endemic as a breeder to north-
eastern India. Our recent field work during migration and
the breeding season (September 2005 and June?July 2006)
has, however, resulted in the first records of magnirostris
from northern Burma/Myanmar, establishing that its
breeding range broadly overlaps the range of C. banyumas
whitei. We demonstrate how historical factors, sources of
error, including fraud, errors of omission and commission,
and inferences based on lack of data have all negatively
affected assessment of species limits and conservation
status in this speciose group of flycatchers. We also provide
evidence that the taxon C. [banyumas] lemprieri is highly
distinct and should be treated as a full species.
Keywords Cyornis banyumas 
 Cyornis magnirostris 

Burma 
 Biogeography 
 Flycatcher 
 Myanmar 

SE Aisa 
 Taxonomy
Introduction
The blue flycatchers of the Oriental Region comprise a
speciose assemblage of taxa that are very similar despite
having brilliantly plumaged males, and their taxonomy has
therefore long vexed systematists (at least since Rothschild
1926). Within the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia,
most taxa are relatively well known and common, with the
notable exception of the distinctive and enigmatic Cyornis
[banyumas] magnirostris (Blyth, 1849). Despite its rela-
tively early description, magnirostris has long seemed rare
and hence has remained poorly known. Stresemann (1925)
was the first to place magnirostris as a race of his newly
enlarged C. banyumas ??Formenkreis??, implying that
magnirostris is entirely allopatric with other included taxa.
Although disputed by Robinson and Kinnear (1928),
Stresemann?s (1925) treatment of magnirostris within ba-
nyumas has since been unanimously followed until
Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) considered magnirostris
to be a full species primarily on the basis of its distinctive
morphology, especially in comparison with C. banyumas
whitei, the form geographically nearest to it that Strese-
mann (1925) placed within banyumas, but this treatment
has not been adopted in some subsequent works
(e.g., Wells 2007).
During fieldwork in Putao District, North Burma/
Myanmar, in September 2005, we collected two flycatchers
(an adult male and a juvenile female) that we later deter-
mined to be magnirostris. These are the first records of this
taxon from anywhere in North Burma/Myanmar (Smythies
Communicated by J. Fjeldsa?.
S. C. Renner (&) 
 J. H. Rappole
Conservation and Research Center, National Zoological Park,
Smithsonian Institution, 1500 Remount Road,
Front Royal, VA 22630, USA
e-mail: renners@si.edu
P. C. Rasmussen (&)
Department of Zoology, Michigan State University Museum,
West Circle Drive, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
e-mail: rasmus39@msu.edu
Thein Aung 
 Myint Aung
Department of Forestry,
Nature and Wildlife Conservation Division,
West Gyogone Insein, Yangon, Union of Myanmar
123
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
DOI 10.1007/s10336-009-0395-1
1953, 2001; Robson 2000), but given that these were taken
during the migration period, we could not ascertain whe-
ther they were in transit from the only historically known
breeding grounds of the taxon in Sikkim, or whether they
were on their breeding grounds. However, during further
fieldwork in the same areas in North Burma/Myanmar in
June and July 2006, we found the species to be locally
among the most common understory passerines. We netted
several adult and juvenile magnirostris there, conclusively
demonstrating for the first time that the taxon breeds in
Burma/Myanmar.
We present details of records of magnirostris and whitei,
discuss their implications on the taxonomic status of
magnirostris, and present the first mensural analyses
bearing on its specific status. We demonstrate how histor-
ical factors, fraud, errors of omission and commission, and
inferences based on lack of data have all negatively
impacted assessment of species limits and hence conser-
vation status in this group. In addition, we re-evaluate the
specific status of C. [banyumas] lemprieri of the Palawan
area (treated as specifically distinct by Taylor 2006).
Methods
To conduct an inventory of the birds of the Hkakabo Razi
region (Northern Forest Complex, in northern Kachin
State, Burma/Myanmar; Renner et al. 2007) we undertook
five expeditions to the region, in January?March 2001,
February 2004, September 2005, March 2006, and June?
July 2006. During this field work we mist-netted birds at
selected locations and determined species, body mass, and
where possible sex and age for each captured bird. Indi-
viduals diverging obviously from available sources (King
et al. 1995; Robson 2000; Smythies 2001; Rasmussen and
Anderton 2005) were collected for further analysis in
museum collections. Two magnirostris collected in Sep-
tember 2005 were exported to the NMNH bird collection
(acronyms explained in the Acknowledgments), and 12
magnirostris were netted in June?July 2006, and photo-
graphs, measurements and body mass were taken.
For each specimen, we took the following measurements
with digital calipers to the nearest 0.5 mm: culmen length
from base of skull and from distal-most feathers on culmen
ridge (not narial area); bill width from distal-most feathers
and at proximal end of gape; bill height from feathers;
flattened wing; Kipp?s distance (distance from wingtip to
outermost secondary); alula length (from bend of wing to
distal tip of longest alular feather); shortfall of tip of
primaries 1?10 (P1 being the outermost, measured ascen-
dantly) to tip (longest feather) of folded wing; tarsus
length; hallux phalanx 1 length; hallux claw (unguis)
length; tail length from insertion point between central
rectrices; and tail graduation (distance from longest to
shortest fully grown rectrices). Not all measurements were
taken from all individuals. We also measured specimens
from other institutions for comparison (see Acknowledg-
ments). We used Systat 8.0 for statistical analyses.
Geographic coordinates for the locations were derived
from online resources (http://www.tageo.com/, accessed 5
September 2007), Collar et al. (2001), and The Times Atlas
of the World: Comprehensive Edition (11th Edition, 1999).
We converted all coordinates to decimal degrees if needed
and plotted the location with ArcGIS 9.2 including attri-
butes (taxon, collection date) to further analyze and model
sympatric versus parapatric distribution of whitei and
magnirostris (Fig. 2).
We compared plumage visually. Nomenclature of
plumage parts basically follows Robson (2000). Ideally, we
had specimens in hand and used artificial collection light to
compare plumage colors; we used natural light under shady
conditions in the field.
Results
Morphological analyses
Mensural analyses (Table 1) show that magnirostris is
clearly distinct from all taxa now placed within banyumas
(following the taxonomy of Dickinson 2003). It is larger in
most bill measurements than all other taxa except the
otherwise quite dissimilar lemprieri of Palawan (Table 1),
and is most different from continental taxa including
whitei. It is also significantly longer-winged than all taxa
except lemprieri, and has significantly greater primary
projection (Kipp?s distance) than all taxa in the study.
Although long-winged and large-billed, magnirostris does
not have longer tarsi or tail than most other taxa, and in
fact, it is significantly shorter-tailed than whitei.
Principal component analysis (PCA) likewise shows the
distinctness of magnirostris in comparison with all other
taxa within banyumas (Fig. 1, Table 2). Principal compo-
nent 1 (PC1) is a strong size axis, on which most measures
are strongly positive. Only shortfall of primary 2 from tip,
tarsus length, and tail length are negatively correlated with
the other measures on this axis. On PC1, PC-scores of
individual magnirostris show complete separation from all
specimens of whitei (including lekahuni and deignani), and
they overlap only with lemprieri. This axis shows that
some banyumas (including ligus) and coeruleatus are
almost as large as the smallest magnirostris. PC2 contrasts
mainly shortfalls of primaries 1 and 2, wing, and tail versus
bill width from nares, bill width from feathers, and culmen
hook length; although this axis has a significant eigenvalue,
it does not separate out any of the taxa. PC3, however,
672 J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
123
T
ab
le
1
U
ni
va
ri
at
e
st
at
is
ti
cs
fo
r
ta
xa
of
th
e
C
yo
rn
is
ba
ny
um
as
co
m
pl
ex
V
ar
ia
bl
e
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s
w
hi
te
i
le
ka
hu
ni
de
ig
na
ni
co
er
ul
if
ro
ns
le
m
pr
ie
ri
ba
ny
um
as
li
gu
s
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s
C
ul
m
en
l
fr
om
sk
ul
l
m
19
.3
2
?
0.
43
(2
8)
15
.8
5
?
0.
66
(3
8)
16
.1
0
?
0.
50
(3
)
16
.9
0
?
0.
63
(4
)
16
.3
3
?
0.
82
(4
)
17
.8
4
?
0.
73
(5
)
17
.2
(1
)
16
.3
7
?
0.
55
(8
)
16
.6
7
?
0.
91
(3
)
f
19
.0
1
?
0.
41
(1
4)
15
.5
5
?
0.
89
(2
6)
16
.6
(1
)
16
.5
0
?
0.
20
(3
)
16
.0
7
?
0.
38
(3
)
18
.0
0
?
0.
39
(4
)
15
.5
0
?
0.
71
(2
)
16
.4
0
?
0.
59
(5
)
16
.0
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
0,
1,
0,
3,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
3,
0,
0,
0
3,
3,
1
0,
0
0
C
ul
m
en
l
fr
om
fe
at
he
rs
m
14
.4
4
?
0.
78
(2
9)
11
.6
9
?
0.
80
(3
8)
11
.9
0
?
0.
10
(3
)
13
.2
3
?
0.
31
(3
)
12
.3
0
?
0.
96
(4
)
15
.0
0
?
0.
63
(5
)
13
.5
(1
)
13
.3
6
?
0.
84
(9
)
13
.1
3
?
1.
17
(3
)
f
14
.2
9
?
0.
68
(1
4)
11
.5
0
?
0.
88
(2
6)
10
.7
(1
)
12
.4
7
?
0.
61
(3
)
12
.3
7
?
0.
40
(3
)
15
.0
0
?
0.
79
(4
)
12
.6
5
?
0.
49
(2
)
13
.0
0
?
0.
5
(5
)
12
.2
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
0,
0,
3,
1
0,
1,
0,
3,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
3,
0,
1,
0
0,
3,
0,
0,
0
3,
0,
0,
0
2,
3,
3
0,
0
0
B
il
l
w
fr
om
fe
at
he
rs
m
8.
09
?
0.
40
(3
1)
6.
36
?
0.
57
(3
8)
6.
70
?
0.
14
(2
)
7.
10
?
0.
60
(3
)
6.
95
?
0.
64
(4
)
7.
58
?
0.
48
(6
)
7.
4
(1
)
8.
00
?
0.
41
(9
)
7.
40
?
0.
53
(3
)
f
8.
00
?
0.
36
(1
5)
6.
63
?
0.
53
(2
7)
7.
0
(1
)
7.
13
?
0.
06
(3
)
6.
83
?
0.
65
(3
)
8.
37
?
1.
03
(4
)
6.
70
?
0.
00
(2
)
7.
90
?
0.
41
(5
)
7.
6
(1
)
P
3,
2,
2,
3,
0,
1,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
3,
0,
3,
2
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
2,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
B
il
l
w
fr
om
ga
pe
m
11
.3
0
?
0.
90
(3
1)
9.
25
?
0.
87
(3
7)
9.
55
?
0.
92
(2
)
9.
67
?
0.
29
(4
)
10
.2
3
?
0.
48
(4
)
10
.7
7
?
0.
39
(4
)
9.
8
(1
)
10
.5
9
?
0.
72
(9
)
10
.3
0
?
0.
92
(3
)
f
10
.7
8
?
0.
92
(1
5)
9.
70
?
0.
53
(2
1)
10
.0
(1
)
9.
90
?
0.
66
(3
)
9.
73
?
0.
42
(3
)
10
.8
0
?
0.
66
(4
)
8.
65
?
0.
35
(2
)
10
.3
0
?
0.
35
(5
)
10
.3
(1
)
P
3,
0,
2,
2,
0,
3,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
3,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
B
il
l
h
fr
om
fe
at
he
rs
m
4.
55
?
0.
28
(1
8)
3.
84
?
0.
22
(2
0)
?
?
3.
9
(1
)
4.
1
(1
)
?
4.
19
?
0.
23
(8
)
3.
90
?
0.
28
(2
)
f
4.
66
?
0.
24
(1
1)
3.
89
?
0.
29
(8
)
?
?
?
4.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
?
4.
12
?
0.
29
(5
)
4.
0
(1
)
P
3,
?,
?,
0,
?,
2,
3,
3
?,
?,
0,
?,
0,
2,
0
?,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0
W
in
g
ar
c
m
79
.3
4
?
2.
06
(3
3)
71
.1
6
?
2.
40
(5
4)
70
.3
3
?
0.
58
(3
)
70
.2
5
?
1.
89
(4
)
71
.7
5
?
2.
22
(4
)
77
.8
3
?
1.
72
(6
)
75
(1
)
74
.9
4
?
2.
05
(9
)
72
.6
7
?
2.
31
(3
)
f
76
.6
3
?
1.
69
(1
5)
69
.3
4
?
2.
66
(2
8)
66
(1
)
67
.0
0
?
0.
0
(3
)
67
.6
7
?
1.
15
(3
)
73
.8
8
?
1.
55
(4
)
72
.0
0
?
1.
41
(2
)
71
.3
0
?
2.
44
(5
)
70
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
0,
1,
3,
3
0,
0,
0,
3,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
3,
0,
0,
0
0,
3,
0,
2,
0
3,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
K
ip
p?
s
di
st
an
ce
m
19
.5
9
?
1.
97
(3
0)
14
.1
4
?
1.
39
(4
0)
13
.9
7
?
1.
25
(3
)
13
.3
5
?
1.
78
(4
)
11
.9
0
?
1.
16
(3
)
15
.0
8
?
1.
69
(5
)
14
.7
(1
)
14
.0
2
?
1.
33
(9
)
16
.0
3
?
1.
02
(3
)
f
19
.7
9
?
2.
24
(1
5)
13
.5
9
?
1.
12
(2
8)
15
(1
)
12
.3
3
?
0.
58
(3
)
12
.5
8
?
1.
85
(4
)
12
.9
7
?
2.
56
(3
)
15
.6
0
?
0.
85
(2
)
11
.6
8
?
1.
81
(5
)
12
.8
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
A
lu
la
l
m
27
.3
9
?
3.
38
(1
0)
20
.6
3
?
0.
84
(1
9)
20
.7
7
?
0.
31
(3
)
20
.8
7
?
1.
32
(4
)
21
.7
0
?
0.
83
(4
)
24
.6
2
?
1.
49
(4
)
?
23
.7
8
?
1.
26
(5
)
?
f
24
.9
5
?
2.
13
(4
)
20
.5
9
?
0.
93
(1
4)
20
.2
(1
)
20
.5
3
?
0.
29
(3
)
16
.4
0
?
6.
05
(3
)
26
.2
7
?
4.
52
(3
)
?
22
.7
7
?
1.
57
(3
)
?
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
0,
?,
2,
?
0,
0,
0,
3,
?,
2,
?
0,
0,
2,
?,
0,
?
0,
3,
?,
0,
?
3,
?,
0,
?
?,
0,
?
?
Pr
im
ar
y
1
s
m
40
.9
9
?
1.
85
(2
9)
35
.3
1
?
2.
22
(3
3)
32
.6
7
?
0.
58
(3
)
34
.2
5
?
1.
50
(4
)
34
.2
2
?
1.
46
(4
)
35
.9
5
?
1.
59
(5
)
34
.6
(1
)
34
.7
6
?
2.
42
(8
)
34
.3
0
?
1.
14
(3
)
f
39
.0
5
?
1.
65
(1
5)
34
.0
3
?
1.
79
(2
8)
30
(1
)
31
.0
0
?
1.
00
(3
)
32
.9
?
1.
56
(3
)
33
.3
0
?
2.
56
(3
)
33
.4
5
?
1.
91
(2
)
32
.4
0
?
1.
90
(4
)
31
.3
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
2
s
m
11
.5
6
?
1.
48
(2
9)
11
.4
6
?
1.
52
(3
2)
12
.0
0
?
1.
41
(2
)
12
.2
5
?
0.
96
(4
)
12
.1
0
?
1.
52
(4
)
11
.4
8
?
1.
13
(5
)
11
.5
(1
)
12
.1
0
?
1.
91
(8
)
10
.6
0
?
0.
72
(3
)
f
10
.3
3
?
1.
35
(1
5)
11
.2
1
?
0.
67
(2
8)
10
.0
(1
)
10
.0
0
?
1.
00
(3
)
10
.5
3
?
1.
86
(3
)
10
.5
7
?
1.
25
(3
)
13
.1
0
?
0.
57
(2
)
10
.8
5
?
1.
71
(4
)
10
.2
(1
)
P
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
3
s
m
2.
26
?
0.
65
(2
9)
3.
26
?
0.
71
(3
2)
3.
33
?
1.
15
(3
)
2.
88
?
0.
25
(4
)
3.
95
?
0.
82
(4
)
2.
94
?
0.
72
(5
)
0
(1
)
3.
74
?
0.
73
(8
)
3.
10
?
0.
00
(3
)
f
1.
93
?
0.
50
(1
5)
3.
14
?
0.
67
(2
8)
2.
0
(1
)
2.
67
?
0.
58
(3
)
3.
27
?
0.
46
(3
)
2.
33
?
0.
58
(3
)
4.
40
?
0.
85
(2
)
3.
43
?
1.
22
(4
)
3.
7
(1
)
P
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
4
s
m
0.
00
(2
9)
0.
40
?
0.
53
(3
3)
0.
67
?
0.
29
(3
)
0.
62
?
0.
48
(4
)
0.
80
?
0.
72
(4
)
0.
20
?
0.
45
(5
)
0
(1
)
0.
89
?
0.
54
(8
)
0.
33
?
0.
58
(3
)
f
0.
00
(1
5)
0.
50
?
0.
54
(2
8)
0
(1
)
0.
33
?
0.
29
(3
)
0.
67
?
0.
29
(3
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(3
)
0.
50
?
0.
71
(2
)
0.
62
?
0.
75
(4
)
1.
0
(1
)
P
3,
0,
0,
2,
0,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
1,
0
0,
0
0
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683 673
123
T
ab
le
1
co
nt
in
ue
d
V
ar
ia
bl
e
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s
w
hi
te
i
le
ka
hu
ni
de
ig
na
ni
co
er
ul
if
ro
ns
le
m
pr
ie
ri
ba
ny
um
as
li
gu
s
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s
Pr
im
ar
y
5
s
m
0.
52
?
0.
66
(2
6)
0.
08
?
0.
25
(2
0)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(4
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(4
)
0
(1
)
0.
06
?
0.
18
(8
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
f
0.
67
?
0.
70
(1
5)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(2
6)
0.
00
(1
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(3
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(3
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
0.
00
?
0.
00
(4
)
0.
0
(1
)
P
3,
0,
1,
0,
1,
0,
2,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
6
s
m
4.
03
?
1.
23
(2
6)
2.
16
?
0.
45
(1
7)
1.
67
?
0.
58
(3
)
1.
62
?
0.
25
(4
)
1.
85
?
0.
21
(2
)
1.
13
?
0.
25
(4
)
0
(1
)
1.
25
?
0.
98
(8
)
1.
67
?
0.
58
(3
)
f
4.
21
?
0.
85
(1
5)
1.
76
?
0.
59
(2
1)
0.
5
(1
)
1.
33
?
0.
29
(3
)
1.
17
?
0.
76
(3
)
1.
00
?
0.
00
(2
)
0.
0
(1
)
0.
50
?
0.
71
(4
)
0.
0
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
7
s
m
10
.6
6
?
1.
36
(2
6)
7.
20
?
1.
13
(1
0)
7.
00
?
1.
73
(3
)
6.
87
?
0.
25
(4
)
6.
95
?
1.
34
(2
)
5.
25
?
1.
26
(4
)
4.
3
(1
)
5.
50
?
1.
38
(8
)
7.
17
?
0.
29
(3
)
f
10
.6
3
?
1.
04
(1
5)
6.
87
?
0.
68
(2
1)
2.
5
(1
)
5.
67
?
0.
58
(3
)
5.
67
?
1.
53
(3
)
5.
00
?
1.
41
(2
)
5.
8
(1
)
5.
23
?
0.
85
(4
)
6.
4
(1
)
P
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3,
3
0,
0,
0,
2,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
8
s
m
14
.2
1
?
1.
42
(2
6)
10
.9
9
?
1.
00
(1
7)
10
.0
0
?
1.
00
(3
)
10
.1
2
?
0.
63
(4
)
10
(1
)
9.
33
?
1.
15
(3
)
?
10
.2
9
?
0.
98
(7
)
11
.6
3
?
0.
90
(3
)
f
13
.7
9
?
1.
16
(1
5)
10
.0
0
?
8.
60
(2
1)
?
9.
67
?
0.
58
(3
)
9.
10
?
1.
01
(3
)
8.
50
?
0.
71
(2
)
9.
5
(1
)
8.
43
?
0.
23
(3
)
9.
7
(1
)
P
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
3
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
9
s
m
16
.5
6
?
1.
35
(2
3)
13
.1
6
?
0.
98
(1
6)
12
.6
7
?
0.
58
(3
)
12
.2
5
?
0.
96
(4
)
11
(1
)
12
.2
5
?
0.
96
(4
)
?
12
.6
0
?
0.
74
(6
)
13
.9
0
?
1.
84
(2
)
f
16
.2
8
?
1.
30
(1
4)
11
.8
1
?
1.
44
(2
1)
?
11
.0
?
1.
00
(3
)
10
.1
0
?
0.
14
(2
)
11
.0
0
?
0.
00
(2
)
11
.1
(1
)
10
.5
3
?
0.
71
(3
)
12
.1
(1
)
P
3,
1,
3,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
Pr
im
ar
y
10
s
m
17
.8
1
?
2.
73
(2
2)
15
.1
0
?
0.
84
(1
5)
14
.3
3
?
0.
58
(3
)
14
.0
0
?
1.
00
(3
)
12
(1
)
14
.0
0
?
1.
00
(3
)
?
14
.5
2
?
0.
64
(4
)
15
.6
0
?
1.
13
(2
)
f
18
.0
6
?
1.
32
(1
3)
13
.6
2
?
1.
28
(2
1)
?
13
.0
0
?
1.
00
(3
)
11
.9
0
?
0.
14
(2
)
13
.5
0
?
0.
71
(2
)
13
.2
(1
)
12
.2
0
?
0.
95
(3
)
13
.4
(1
)
P
3,
0,
3,
3,
3,
0,
3,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
T
ar
su
s
l
m
17
.9
0
?
0.
58
(3
5)
17
.4
5
?
0.
86
(5
4)
18
.1
5
?
0.
35
(2
)
17
.8
2
?
0.
33
(4
)
17
.8
2
?
0.
49
(4
)
19
.9
2
?
1.
53
(5
)
20
.1
(1
)
18
.8
2
?
0.
58
(9
)
17
.9
5
?
0.
07
(2
)
f
17
.7
7
?
0.
82
(1
5)
17
.4
6
?
0.
96
(2
7)
17
.4
(1
)
17
.6
7
?
0.
40
(3
)
17
.5
7
?
0.
32
(3
)
17
.7
8
?
0.
87
(4
)
19
.0
0
?
0.
14
(2
)
18
.4
2
?
0.
41
(5
)
16
.6
(1
)
P
0,
0,
0,
0,
2,
0,
1,
0
0,
0,
0,
3,
2,
3,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
H
al
lu
x
l
m
6.
49
?
0.
32
(1
0)
5.
87
?
0.
30
(1
8)
5.
70
?
0.
00
(3
)
5.
32
?
0.
45
(4
)
5.
30
?
0.
29
(4
)
5.
82
?
0.
76
(4
)
?
5.
82
?
0.
40
(5
)5
?
f
6.
70
?
0.
67
(4
)
5.
45
?
0.
39
(1
3)
6.
2
(1
)
5.
23
?
0.
49
(3
)
5.
30
?
0.
30
(3
)
5.
03
?
0.
64
(3
)
?
.9
3
?
0.
45
(3
)
?
P
3,
0,
3,
3,
3,
?,
1,
?
0,
0,
0,
0,
?,
0,
?
0,
0,
0,
?,
0,
?
0,
0,
?,
0,
?
0,
?,
0,
?
?,
0,
?
0,
?
?
H
al
lu
x
un
gu
is
l
m
6.
80
?
0.
28
(1
0)
6.
14
?
0.
36
(1
9)
6.
40
?
0.
46
(3
)
6.
25
?
0.
4
(4
)
5.
75
?
0.
52
(4
)
6.
20
?
0.
39
(4
)
?
6.
28
?
0.
19
(5
)
?
f
6.
72
?
0.
46
(4
)
6.
06
?
0.
35
(1
3)
6.
4
(1
)
6.
00
?
0.
17
(3
)
5.
43
?
0.
51
(3
)
6.
23
?
0.
40
(3
)
?
6.
33
?
0.
23
(3
)
?
P
3,
0,
2,
3,
1,
?,
0,
?
0,
0,
1,
0,
?,
0,
?
0,
0,
0,
?,
0,
?
0,
0,
?,
0,
?
0,
?,
0,
?
?,
0,
?
0,
?
?
T
ai
l
l
m
58
.3
9
?
1.
58
(3
2)
60
.7
7
?
2.
54
(3
9)
60
.0
0
?
0.
00
(2
)
58
.7
5
?
1.
71
(4
)
58
.7
8
?
4.
18
(4
)
64
.2
5
?
3.
30
(4
)
57
.3
(1
)
60
.6
6
?
2.
02
(8
)
54
.2
0
?
1.
93
(3
)
f
55
.8
5
?
2.
11
(1
5)
57
.3
4
?
2.
44
(2
3)
55
.0
(1
)
54
.6
7
?
1.
53
(3
)
57
.3
3
?
1.
53
(3
)
57
.2
0
?
1.
06
(3
)
53
.9
5
?
3.
18
(2
)
57
.2
4
?
0.
51
(5
)
51
.7
(1
)
P
2,
0,
0,
0,
1,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
3
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
1,
0,
3
0,
0
1
T
ai
l
gr
ad
ua
tio
n
m
4.
23
?
0.
99
(2
8)
4.
32
?
1.
24
(2
9)
5.
7
?
1.
21
(3
)
4.
30
?
2.
30
(4
)
4.
53
?
1.
36
(3
)
7.
42
?
0.
51
(4
)
8.
8
(1
)
6.
33
?
1.
71
(7
)
6.
17
?
1.
63
(3
)
f
4.
21
?
1.
33
(1
3)
4.
18
?
1.
05
(2
5)
7
(1
)
4.
25
?
1.
06
(2
)
4.
33
?
0.
58
(3
)
5.
10
?
1.
85
(3
)
5.
25
?
0.
92
(2
)
4.
85
?
0.
53
(4
)
3.
7
(1
)
P
0,
0,
0,
0,
3,
0,
2,
0
0,
0,
0,
3,
0,
1,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0,
0
0,
0,
0
0,
0
0
W
ith
in
ea
ch
ce
ll
,d
at
a
fo
r
m
al
es
pr
es
en
te
d
fir
st
,f
em
al
es
se
co
nd
.S
ig
ni
fic
an
ce
le
ve
ls
be
tw
ee
n
ta
xa
fr
om
A
N
O
V
A
(s
ex
es
co
m
bi
ne
d;
B
on
fe
rr
on
i-
ad
ju
st
ed
;
0
=
no
t
si
gn
ifi
ca
nt
,1
=
P
B
0.
05
,2
=
P
B
0.
01
,
3
=
P
B
0.
00
1)
pr
es
en
te
d
in
ea
ch
ce
ll
fo
r
co
m
pa
ri
so
n
w
it
h
ce
ll
s
to
ri
gh
t
in
or
de
r
of
T
ab
le
(e
.g
.,
un
de
r
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s,
fir
st
is
fo
r
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s
vs
.
w
hi
te
i,
la
st
is
fo
r
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s
vs
.
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s)
l
L
en
gt
h,
w
w
id
th
,
s
sh
or
tf
al
l
fr
om
w
in
gt
ip
,
d
de
pt
h;
fo
r
ex
pl
an
at
io
n
of
ot
he
r
m
ea
su
re
s,
se
e
??M
et
ho
ds
??
674 J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
123
which is also a contrast axis, does segregate most lemprieri
from magnirostris, and most banyumas (including ligus)
from other taxa. This axis is a contrast primarily of culmen
length, culmen hook length, tarsus length, and tail length
versus Kipp?s distance (primary projection) and shortfalls
of primaries 1 and 2. These contrasts largely reflect the
different proportions of the two largest, longest-billed taxa,
magnirostris and lemprieri. While magnirostris has very
long primary projection and a long shortfall of primary 1, it
has a relatively short tail and tarsi compared to lemprieri
and the smaller taxa.
Distributional analysis
Two magnirostris were captured and collected in Sep-
tember 2005, and 12 were netted in June and July 2006. We
did not capture any magnirostris during the January?March
trips despite intensive sampling. These results are consis-
tent with data from elsewhere showing that magnirostris is
highly migratory throughout its range. The fact that 11
individuals of magnirostris were netted at Nam Ti
(2724.610N, 9740.060E; sometimes spelled Nam Hti)
during just 7 days of sampling effort indicates that the
species is actually locally common there at that time of
year. In contrast, only one juvenile male was collected
during 11 days of sampling effort in the Naung Mung
plains (2730.000N, 9748.130E, 570 m a.s.l.; sometimes
spelt Naung Mong or Naun Mong), suggesting that the
species breeds primarily in the lower hills such as Nam Ti
(950 m a.s.l.). We did not encounter any C. [banyumas]
whitei during any of our field trips.
Despite the fact that we did not encounter whitei, speci-
men records (Fig. 2, Table 3) confirm the strongly migratory
habit of magnirostris, and show that magnirostris and whitei
are broadly parapatric at least. If the specimen records of
whitei from northeastern India represent resident popula-
tions (which seems likely but requires further field work), the
two taxa would be sympatric. There is a breeding record of
whitei from as far north as Sinlum, Bhamo (24250N,
97500E), Burma/Myanmar (BMNH 1908.8.2.28, Harring-
ton, ??captured on nest??); in June 1901, a whitei specimen
was collected at Kauri Kachin, Burma/Myanmar (approxi-
mately 25450N, 96520E; BMNH 1905.8.16.236, Rippon);
and the species occurs in northwest Yunnan (Yangtze Val-
ley, 27200N; BMNH 21.7.15.475, 18 September, Clarke) in
summer. Non-breeding season specimen records of whitei
from the north of its range include two specimens from
Htingnan, Burma/Myanmar (26360N, 97520E; BMNH
1939.12.8.105-106, 11, 10 March 1939, Kaulback) and
??Hpunkataung?? (not definitely located, but probably Pum-
kahtawng at 25220N, 97430E, 658 m), northeast of
Myitkyina (BMNH 1937.1.7.132, 25 February 1933, Stan-
ford). Given that the Assam and Htingnan specimens are
from almost as far north as any of the known breeding season
records, whitei is at most a short-distance migrant in the
northern part of its range and may well be resident
throughout its range (Fig. 2).
Comparison of relevant Cyornis taxa in Southeast Asia
To evaluate the relative distinctiveness of magnirostris within
the entire banyumas species complex, we compared plumage
characteristics at BMNH of the seven distinct taxa considered
subspecies by Dickinson (2003). These (with range summaries
from Dickinson 2003) are magnirostris (central and east
Himalayas, Assam to south Burma/Myanmar, and Malay
Peninsular), whitei (north and east Burma/Myanmar, south-
central China, north Thailand, north and central Indochina),
caerulifrons (central and south Malay Peninsular), banyumas
(central and east Java), ligus (west Java), coeruleatus
(Borneo), and lemprieri (Palawan, Balabac).
The remaining two taxa, deignani and lekahuni, both from
southern Thailand, are arguably distinct at the subspecies
level and were not considered here. The summary of plum-
age and other characteristics of these taxa in Table 4 shows
Fig. 1 Principal component analysis of morphometrics of Cyornis
taxa
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683 675
123
that by far the most distinctive form of all those placed within
banyumas in Dickinson (2003) is lemprieri of Palawan and
associated islands. It differs strikingly in bill shape, overall
color, and color pattern, especially in the female, although
most of these differences are not apparent in illustrations
accompanying Taylor (2006). The most distinct taxon in
proportions is magnirostris, which is, however, quite similar
in plumage to whitei. The Peninsular Malaysian form, cae-
rulifrons, is similar to whitei except in its noticeably richer,
deeper plumage overall. The two Javan taxa (banyumas and
ligus) are similar to each other but fairly distinctive from
other taxa, and the Bornean taxon (coeruleatus) is even more
distinctive than the Javan forms, especially in female
plumage.
Discussion
Distribution
Although we have not found whitei in exactly the same
areas as magnirostris, the ranges of the two taxa show at
least substantial overlap. While it remains to be conclu-
sively demonstrated that the two overlap significantly in
the breeding season, this broad geographic overlap of
magnirostris and whitei supports the view of Rasmussen
and Anderton (2005) that magnirostris is a full species.
Stresemann?s (1925) original treatment of magnirostris as a
subspecies of banyumas was almost certainly predicated on
the supposition that it was allopatric with whitei. Further
field work will be needed to determine whether the two
replace each other elevationally, and the fact that only
magnirostris was found at Nam Ti and Naung Mung sug-
gests that this may be the case.
Future research should include sampling at higher ele-
vations to determine the elevational limits of both taxa and
whether they indeed occur together in the breeding season.
In northern Myanmar, magnirostris and whitei differ dis-
tinctly in several aspects, more so than in, for example,
races of banyumas from southern Thailand. Since magni-
rostris and whitei are highly distinct despite being at least
parapatric (if not truly sympatric), it is unlikely that gene
flow occurs at a level that would justify considering mag-
nirostris as a subspecies. Therefore, we consider that,
Table 2 Summary results of principal component analyses (PCA) of taxa of the Cyornis banyumas complex
Factor I Factor II Factor III
Culmen l from skull 0.93 -0.07 0.01
Culmen l from feathers 0.9 -0.15 0.2
Bill w from nares 0.81 -0.3 -0.06
Bill w from feathers 0.82 -0.27 -0.01
Culmen hook l 0.73 -0.21 0.24
Wing l 0.87 0.38 0.03
Kipp?s distance 0.8 0.21 -0.35
Primary 1 shortfall from tip 0.75 0.49 -0.32
Primary 2 shortfall from tip 0.02 0.73 -0.11
Tarsus l 0.27 0.1 0.87
Tail l -0.1 0.75 0.36
Eigenvalues 5.55 1.77 1.22
% variance explained 50.46 16.09 11.07
P levels b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i
a (magnirostris) 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 3, 0
b (whitei) 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 3, 2 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 3, 0, 3, 0
c (lekahunix) 0, 0, 3, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0
d (deignani) 0, 3, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 0, 2, 0, 0, 0
e (coerulifrons) 3, 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 0, 0 1, 0, 0, 0
f (lemprieri) 1, 3, 1 0, 0, 0 0, 0, 3
g (banyumas) 0, 0 0, 0 0, 0
h (ligus) 0 0 0
i (coeruleatus)
Individual scores and group polygons are shown in Fig. 1. For matrix of significance levels (from ANOVA, Bonferroni-adjusted): a = mag-
nirostris, b = whitei, c = lekahuni, d = deignani, e = caerulifrons, f = lemprieri, g = banyumas, h = ligus, i = coeruleatus
676 J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
123
under the Biological Species Concept, the best treatment is
to consider magnirostris as a full species.
Taxonomic re-evaluation of other taxa
in the C. banyumas complex
The form lemprieri has sometimes been considered a full
species, the Palawan Blue Flycatcher Cyornis lemprieri
(e.g., Taylor 2006) and we strongly recommend adopting
this treatment, because the form is far more distinct than
are many other species-level taxa within Cyornis. It is
especially highly differentiated from any of the Sundaic
forms, including the geographically nearest Bornean cae-
rulifrons, and there seems no obvious reason to link it with
banyumas as opposed to several other regional Cyornis
species.
Other taxa currently placed within banyumas are less
obviously different, but still require further study to ensure
that this species constitutes a monophyletic lineage. Those
of particular concern are the two Javan subspecies banyu-
mas and ligus, and the Bornean caerulifrons, which seems
a likely candidate for full species status. Should banyumas
and ligus be shown to be not closely related to the
Southeast Asian taxa, whitei has priority as the species
name for the latter group (when magnirostris is considered
a separate species).
Causes of confusion regarding C. magnirostris
The case of Cyornis magnirostris illustrates many of the
kinds of problems that cloud the understanding of species
limits and therefore accurate estimation of avian diversity.
These problems (summarized below for Cyornis) include
error due to label switching, overlooked material, fraud,
conclusions drawn in the absence of adequate data, misi-
dentification, and mapping error. As for label switching,
shortly after magnirostris was originally described by
Blyth 1849 (date correct according to Dickinson 2004), a
new supposedly African species Muscicapa riisii Hartlaub
1857 was described, but much later this was shown to be
probably a female of C. magnirostris to which the legs and
label of another species had been reattached (Sclater 1924;
Winkler 2003).
Although correctly identified, the Assam specimens of
whitei that suggested breeding season overlap with mag-
nirostris were long overlooked or confounded with
magnirostris. The near-total lack of knowledge of bird
distributions in northern Myanmar, and particularly during
the monsoon, resulted in Stresemann?s (1925) decision?
based on the data available to him?to lump magnirostris
within banyumas. The strongly migratory habit of magni-
rostris, known to or suspected by earlier ornithologists, was
long confounded by specimens Meinertzhagen stole and re-
labeled as having been collected in winter in Sikkim
(Rasmussen and Prys-Jones, manuscript). There are several
recent sight records of magnirostris from Nepal through
Arunachal Pradesh in the Indian subcontinent, but none
have been presented with sufficient detail to allow confi-
dent reassessment, and some are very likely to be whitei,
especially given that it had long been overlooked for the
Indian subcontinent; others (for example those from Nepal)
could be the very similar C. tickelliae, from which iden-
tification of males is difficult under field conditions and
especially before the advent of the modern field guides of
the past decade. Rasmussen and Prys-Jones (manuscript)
found that the only magnirostris specimens purportedly
taken in the winter in Sikkim, which had led others to the
conclusion that it is resident in the Himalayas, were in the
Meinertzhagen collection and clearly bear fraudulent data
Fig. 2 Map of specimen locations of Cyornis banyumas whitei and
magnirostris in Southeast Asia (minimum convex polygons link
outermost localities from both species during breeding and non-
breeding). Only museum specimens with clearly labeled localities
were used. If available, data on specimen sex, age, and capture date is
indicated also. Label numbers refer to localities as mentioned in
Table 3
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683 677
123
Table 3 Specimen localities and dates of Cyornis magnirostris with genuine data and C. banyumas whitei examined in this study
Locality North
(decimal
degree)
East
(decimal
degree)
Month, specimen
was collected
Reference, as
labeled in Fig. 2
C. banyumas whitei
??Upper Burma?? 26.0000 97.0000 January 0
Bampon, Southern Shan States 20.5000 97.7500 July 2
Hpunkatawng, Myitkyina 25.3830 97.4000 February 7
Htingnan, ??Upper Burma?? 26.6000 97.8667 March 8
Kalaw, southern Shan States 20.6330 96.5670 May 10
Karen Hills 18.5000 96.4000 January 11
Karenni 19.2167 97.4000 March 12
Kauri Kachin 25.7500 96.8670 June 13
Kyaukse, Yamethin District 20.4330 96.1500 November 15
Laukkaung 25.4330 96.5830 April 17
Lushai Hills, Mizoram 23.0000 93.0000 February 18
Margherita, Assam 27.2830 95.6830 December 19
Mengtz, Yunnan 23.3620 103.406 September 20
Mogok 17.5330 95.4000 March 23
Mt. Popa 20.8667 95.2333 October 24
Muang Liep, Tonkin 20.5500 104.7830 January 25
Myitkyina 25.3830 97.4000 October 26
Ohngaing, Mogok, Katha 22.9330 96.5000 October 29
Pyinmana, Yamethin Dt. 19.7330 96.2170 November 30
Sadiya 27.8330 95.6670 January 31
Sinlum, Bhamo 24.2500 97.5000 April 33
Southern Shan States 21.2903 99.5998 April 34
Tengyueh Valley 25.0000 98.0000 April, August, September 36
Yamethin 20.4330 96.1500 November 38
Yangtze Valley 27.2000 100.0000 September 39
C. magnirostris
Asalu, Cachar 25.1000 93.1000 No date 1
Bankasoon, Malewoon 10.1500 98.6000 December, February, March 3
Chong, Trang, Peninsular Thailand 7.5000 99.5330 December 4
Fraser?s Hill, Pahang, Peninsular
Malaysia
3.7170 101.7500 November 5
Han Kachin, Tenasserim 12.0000 99.0000 February 6
Hungrum, northern Cachar
(Hungrum Peak)
25.1167 93.2833 May 9
Klong Tung Sai, Junk Seylon,
Peninsular Malaysia
6.6830 101.2830 December 14
Laisung, northern Cachar 25.2000 93.2833 April 16
Mergui Archipelago 12.4330 98.6000 February 21
Miri Hills, Arunachal Pradesh 27.9167 93.9167 No date 22
Nam Ti, Burma/Myanmar 27.4102 97.6677 June, July 27
Naung Mung, Burma/Myanmar 27.5030 97.7942 September 28
Sikkim, Native Sikkim 27.0000 88.2667 April, May, June, July, August,
September
32
Tavoy, Tenasserim 14.0830 98.2000 March 35
Victoria Point, Tenasserim 9.9830 98.5500 March 37
For C. b. whitei, only specimens from localities in India, Myanmar, and China are included herein
678 J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
123
T
ab
le
4
Pl
um
ag
e
co
m
pa
ri
so
ns
be
tw
ee
n
B
M
N
H
sp
ec
im
en
s
of
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s,
w
hi
te
i,
ca
er
ul
if
ro
ns
,
ba
ny
um
as
,
li
gu
s,
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s,
an
d
le
m
pr
ie
ri
T
ax
on
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s
w
hi
te
i
ca
er
ul
if
ro
ns
ba
ny
um
as
li
gu
s
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s
le
m
pr
ie
ri
C
ha
ra
ct
er
(m
)
(w
)
(c
a)
(b
)
(l
i)
(c
o)
(l
e)
M
al
es
(#
#)
ad
ul
t
L
eg
co
lo
r
Pa
le
D
ar
ke
r
th
an
m
D
ar
ke
r
th
an
m
D
ar
ke
r
th
an
w
D
ar
ke
r
th
an
w
D
ar
ke
r
th
an
w
D
ar
ke
r
th
an
w
Si
de
s
of
fa
ce
D
ar
k
bl
ue
D
ar
k
bl
ue
D
ar
k
bl
ue
th
an
m
an
d
w
B
la
ck
is
h-
bl
ue
B
la
ck
is
h-
bl
ue
B
la
ck
is
h-
bl
ue
D
ar
k
bl
ue
th
an
m
an
d
w
B
ri
gh
te
r
bl
ue
sh
ou
ld
er
pa
tc
h
Sm
al
l,
w
ea
kl
y
m
ar
ke
d
Sm
al
l,
w
ea
kl
y
m
ar
ke
d
Sm
al
l,
w
ea
kl
y
m
ar
ke
d
Sm
al
l,
w
ea
kl
y
m
ar
ke
d
Sm
al
l,
w
ea
kl
y
m
ar
ke
d
Sm
al
l,
w
ea
kl
y
m
ar
ke
d
M
uc
h
m
or
e
pr
om
in
en
t,
pa
le
r,
la
rg
er
th
an
ot
he
r
ta
xa
U
pp
er
pa
rt
s
co
lo
r
D
ar
k
vi
ol
et
-b
lu
e
D
ar
k
vi
ol
et
-b
lu
e
R
ic
he
r
bl
ue
ab
ov
e
th
an
m
,
w
,
b
D
ar
k
vi
ol
et
-b
lu
e
D
ar
k
vi
ol
et
-b
lu
e
R
ic
he
r,
da
rk
er
vi
ol
et
th
an
ot
he
rs
Pa
le
r,
co
ld
er
bl
ue
ab
ov
e,
es
pe
ci
al
ly
on
w
in
g
an
d
ru
m
p
C
ol
or
of
su
pe
rc
il
iu
m
/
fr
on
ta
l
ba
nd
Pa
le
r,
co
ol
er
bl
ue
th
an
w
Fa
ir
ly
ri
ch
da
rk
pu
rp
le
-
bl
ue
Pa
le
r,
br
ig
ht
er
,
an
d
m
or
e
pr
om
in
en
t
th
an
in
m
Im
pe
rc
ep
ti
bl
e
in
si
ng
le
m
al
e
st
ud
ie
d
M
uc
h
pa
le
r,
na
rr
ow
er
,
an
d
be
tt
er
-d
efi
ne
d
th
an
in
m
V
er
y
da
rk
lu
st
ro
us
pu
rp
le
-b
lu
e,
no
t
pr
om
in
en
t
In
te
rm
ed
ia
te
be
tw
ee
n
m
an
d
w
,
cl
os
er
to
m
W
id
th
of
bl
ac
k
be
lo
w
ra
m
i
N
ar
ro
w
Sl
ig
ht
ly
br
oa
de
r
th
an
in
m
Sl
ig
ht
ly
br
oa
de
r
th
an
in
m
,
sa
m
e
as
in
w
B
ro
ad
er
th
an
ca
an
d
in
cl
ud
in
g
ch
in
B
ro
ad
er
th
an
ca
an
d
in
cl
ud
in
g
ch
in
B
ro
ad
er
th
an
ca
an
d
in
cl
ud
in
g
ch
in
N
ar
ro
w
,
li
tt
le
bl
ac
k
on
ch
in
Pa
le
th
ro
at
V
er
y
ex
te
ns
iv
e
V
er
y
ex
te
ns
iv
e
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
L
ea
st
ex
te
ns
iv
e
V
er
y
ex
te
ns
iv
e
U
nd
er
pa
rt
s
co
lo
r
B
re
as
t
pa
le
to
m
ed
iu
m
or
an
ge
-r
uf
ou
s,
co
lo
r
ex
te
nd
in
g
do
w
n
fla
nk
s
bu
t
no
t
be
ll
y
M
os
t
m
or
e
ri
ch
ly
co
lo
re
d
an
d
co
lo
r
m
or
e
ev
en
ly
di
st
ri
bu
te
d
th
an
in
m
,
bu
t
be
ll
y/
br
ea
st
co
nt
ra
st
us
ua
ll
y
st
ro
ng
er
A
s
w
bu
ts
li
gh
tl
y
ri
ch
er
an
d
m
or
e
ex
te
ns
iv
e
on
fla
nk
s
R
ic
he
r
ru
fo
us
on
th
ro
at
an
d
br
ea
st
th
an
m
,
w
,
an
d
c;
lo
w
er
un
de
rp
ar
ts
pa
le
r
ru
fo
us
th
an
br
ea
st
,
m
or
e
ex
te
ns
iv
el
y
ru
fo
us
th
an
in
m
,
w
,
c
M
uc
h
ri
ch
er
ru
fo
us
on
th
ro
at
an
d
br
ea
st
,
as
ri
ch
as
m
on
be
ll
y
an
d
fla
nk
s
A
lm
os
t
un
if
or
m
ly
ri
ch
da
rk
ru
fo
us
be
lo
w
ex
ce
pt
pa
le
r
ce
nt
er
of
be
ll
y
M
uc
h
w
hi
te
r
be
lo
w
th
an
ot
he
r
fo
rm
s,
w
it
h
w
hi
te
up
pe
r
th
ro
at
gr
ad
in
g
in
to
lo
w
er
th
ro
at
,
lo
w
er
br
ea
st
th
ro
ug
h
ve
nt
w
hi
te
,
fla
nk
s
na
rr
ow
ly
w
as
he
d
pa
le
ru
fo
us
;
br
ea
st
an
d
lo
w
er
th
ro
at
sa
m
e
pa
le
ru
fo
us
as
m
V
en
t
co
lo
r
W
hi
te
,
oc
ca
si
on
al
ly
pa
le
bu
ff
W
hi
te
,
oc
ca
si
on
al
ly
pa
le
bu
ff
W
hi
te
,
oc
ca
si
on
al
ly
pa
le
bu
ff
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
R
ic
h
ru
fo
us
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
W
hi
te
Fe
m
al
es
($
$)
ad
ul
t
Fa
ce
pa
tt
er
n
Pa
le
ru
fo
us
ey
er
in
g,
ru
fo
us
w
as
h
ab
ov
e
bi
ll
ba
se
Pa
le
ru
fo
us
ey
er
in
g,
ru
fo
us
w
as
h
ab
ov
e
bi
ll
ba
se
so
m
et
im
es
la
ck
in
g
B
uf
fy
-w
hi
te
ey
er
in
g
an
d
ab
ov
e
bi
ll
ba
se
B
uf
fy
-w
hi
te
ey
er
in
g
an
d
ab
ov
e
bi
ll
ba
se
B
uf
fy
-w
hi
te
ey
er
in
g
an
d
ab
ov
e
bi
ll
ba
se
E
ye
ri
ng
an
d
ab
ov
e
bi
ll
ba
se
du
ll
br
ow
ni
sh
-
ru
fo
us
,
sc
ar
ce
ly
di
ff
er
en
t
th
an
he
ad
si
de
s
B
ol
d
w
hi
te
su
pe
rc
il
iu
m
,
la
rg
e
w
hi
te
sp
ot
be
lo
w
ey
e,
sl
ig
ht
da
rk
m
al
ar
st
re
ak
w
it
h
pa
le
sc
al
in
g
ab
ov
e
it
C
ol
or
of
si
de
of
he
ad
M
ed
iu
m
gr
ay
-b
ro
w
n
Sl
ig
ht
ly
br
ow
ne
r
(u
su
al
ly
)
th
an
m
Sl
ig
ht
ly
w
ar
m
er
th
an
w
M
ed
iu
m
gr
ay
M
ed
iu
m
gr
ay
M
uc
h
da
rk
er
w
ar
m
br
ow
n
D
ar
k
ol
iv
e-
br
ow
n
M
an
tl
e
co
lo
r
co
m
pa
re
d
to
cr
ow
n
Sa
m
e
Sl
ig
ht
ly
w
ar
m
er
ol
iv
e-
br
ow
n
Sl
ig
ht
ly
pa
le
r
br
ow
n
Sl
ig
ht
ly
pa
le
r
gr
ay
Sl
ig
ht
ly
pa
le
r
gr
ay
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
pa
le
r
w
ar
m
er
br
ow
n
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
m
or
e
ol
iv
e-
br
ow
n
an
d
pa
le
r
U
pp
er
ta
il
co
ve
rt
s
R
ic
h
ch
es
tn
ut
R
ic
h
ch
es
tn
ut
R
ic
h
ch
es
tn
ut
G
ra
ye
r
br
ow
n
th
an
m
,
w
,
ca
,
le
G
ra
ye
r
br
ow
n
th
an
m
,
w
,
ca
,
le
W
ar
m
da
rk
br
ow
n
(a
s
ta
il
co
lo
r)
R
ic
h
ch
es
tn
ut
U
pp
er
ta
il
su
rf
ac
e
R
uf
es
ce
nt
br
ow
n
at
ba
se
gr
ad
in
g
to
m
or
e
ol
iv
e
at
ti
p
R
uf
es
ce
nt
br
ow
n
at
ba
se
gr
ad
in
g
to
m
or
e
ol
iv
e
at
ti
p
R
uf
es
ce
nt
br
ow
n
at
ba
se
gr
ad
in
g
to
m
or
e
ol
iv
e
at
ti
p
D
ar
ke
r
br
ow
n
w
it
h
m
or
e
ch
es
tn
ut
-t
in
ge
d
ba
se
D
ar
ke
r
br
ow
n
w
it
h
m
or
e
ch
es
tn
ut
-
ti
ng
ed
ba
se
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
da
rk
er
br
ow
n
w
it
h
on
ly
ch
es
tn
ut
ti
ng
e
to
ba
sa
l
ha
lf
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
ri
ch
er
,
br
ig
ht
er
ch
es
tn
ut
on
en
ti
re
ta
il
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683 679
123
T
ab
le
4
co
nt
in
ue
d
T
ax
on
m
ag
ni
ro
st
ri
s
w
hi
te
i
ca
er
ul
if
ro
ns
ba
ny
um
as
li
gu
s
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s
le
m
pr
ie
ri
C
ha
ra
ct
er
(m
)
(w
)
(c
a)
(b
)
(l
i)
(c
o)
(l
e)
W
in
g
ed
gi
ng
s
Pa
le
ol
iv
e
Pa
le
ol
iv
e
W
ar
m
er
Pa
le
ol
iv
e
Pa
le
ol
iv
e
D
ar
k
ol
iv
e
br
ow
n
W
ar
m
er
B
re
as
t
co
lo
r
B
re
as
tp
al
er
ru
fo
us
th
an
in
ot
he
r
ta
xa
B
re
as
t
ri
ch
ru
fo
us
B
re
as
t
ri
ch
ru
fo
us
B
re
as
t
ri
ch
ru
fo
us
B
re
as
t
ri
ch
ru
fo
us
B
re
as
t
ri
ch
ru
fo
us
B
re
as
t
ri
ch
ru
fo
us
T
hr
oa
t
co
lo
r
T
hr
oa
t
us
ua
ll
y
di
st
in
ct
ly
pa
le
r
th
an
br
ea
st
T
hr
oa
t
sl
ig
ht
ly
pa
le
r
th
an
br
ea
st
T
hr
oa
t
no
t
pa
le
r
th
an
br
ea
st
T
hr
oa
t
no
tp
al
er
th
an
br
ea
st
T
hr
oa
t
no
t
pa
le
r
th
an
br
ea
st
T
hr
oa
t
no
t
pa
le
r
th
an
br
ea
st
T
hr
oa
t
di
st
in
ct
ly
pa
le
r
th
an
br
ea
st
U
nd
er
pa
rt
s
co
lo
r
M
os
tl
y
w
hi
ti
sh
,
fla
nk
s
fu
lv
ou
s-
w
as
he
d
O
ft
en
m
or
e
ex
te
ns
iv
el
y
ru
fo
us
-w
as
he
d
th
an
in
m
A
s
m
bu
t
fla
nk
s
br
ig
ht
er
M
uc
h
m
or
e
ev
en
ly
ru
fo
us
-
w
as
he
d
th
an
m
,
w
;
pa
le
r
ar
ea
on
ce
nt
er
of
be
ll
y
on
ly
M
uc
h
m
or
e
ev
en
ly
ru
fo
us
-w
as
he
d
th
an
m
,
w
;
pa
le
r
ar
ea
on
ce
nt
er
of
be
ll
y
on
ly
R
ic
he
r
an
d
m
or
e
ev
en
ly
ru
fo
us
be
lo
w
th
an
in
b,
li
W
hi
te
be
lo
w
w
it
h
sh
ar
pl
y
co
nt
ra
st
in
g
ru
fo
us
br
ea
st
,
fla
nk
s
ol
iv
e-
w
as
he
d
L
eg
co
lo
r
V
er
y
pa
le
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
da
rk
er
th
an
m
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
da
rk
er
th
an
m
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
da
rk
er
th
an
m
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
da
rk
er
th
an
m
M
uc
h
da
rk
er
th
an
ot
he
rs
M
uc
h
da
rk
er
th
an
ot
he
rs
Ju
ve
ni
le
s
H
ea
vi
ly
bu
t
ra
th
er
in
di
st
in
ct
ly
ru
fo
us
-
br
ow
n
sp
ot
te
d
he
ad
an
d
up
pe
r
m
an
tl
e
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
L
ac
ks
sp
ot
ti
ng
on
w
ar
m
bu
ff
cr
ow
n,
ha
s
di
st
in
ct
ru
fo
us
-b
uf
f
sp
ot
ti
ng
on
m
an
tl
e;
he
av
il
y
br
ow
n
st
re
ak
ed
on
br
ea
st
,
m
or
e
li
gh
tl
y
sc
al
ed
br
ow
n
be
lo
w
,
w
it
h
w
hi
ti
sh
lo
w
er
th
ro
at
an
d
be
ll
y
D
is
ti
nc
t
pa
le
bu
ff
sp
ot
ti
ng
ov
er
al
l
ab
ov
e,
fin
e
bu
ff
st
re
ak
in
g
on
cr
ow
n;
si
m
il
ar
to
co
er
ul
ea
tu
s
bu
t
di
st
in
ct
ly
pa
le
r,
bu
ffi
er
be
lo
w
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
N
ot
av
ai
la
bl
e
D
is
ti
nc
t,
la
rg
e
bu
ff
sp
ot
s
on
he
ad
an
d
up
pe
r
m
an
tl
e.
B
ot
h
se
xe
s
(a
d.
)
R
ec
tr
ix
di
st
al
en
ds
C
om
pa
ct
C
om
pa
ct
C
om
pa
ct
L
oo
se
r,
m
or
e
de
co
m
po
se
d
L
oo
se
r,
m
or
e
de
co
m
po
se
d
L
oo
se
r,
m
or
e
de
co
m
po
se
d
C
om
pa
ct
B
il
l
sh
ap
e
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
la
rg
e,
de
ep
,
la
te
ra
ll
y
sw
ol
le
n
M
od
er
at
e
di
m
en
si
on
s
M
od
er
at
e
di
m
en
si
on
s
M
od
er
at
e
di
m
en
si
on
s
M
od
er
at
e
di
m
en
si
on
s
M
od
er
at
e
di
m
en
si
on
s
D
is
ti
nc
tl
y
lo
ng
an
d
de
ep
,
no
t
la
te
ra
ll
y
sw
ol
le
n
680 J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
123
(see also Rasmussen and Anderton 2005). Baker (1933)
also claimed that magnirostris occurs in ??eastern Assam??
in winter, and that it breeds in the hills south of the
Brahmaputra, but this claim must be evaluated in light of
considerable evidence casting doubt on many of Baker?s
records (Rasmussen and Anderton 2005), and misidentifi-
cation is another possibility (see below). All genuine
specimen evidence shows that magnirostris is present in
the Himalayas only during the breeding season, and winters
in Tenasserim and Peninsular Thailand. Hence, migratory
status of magnirostris was suggested by Robinson and
Kinnear (1928), considered established by Stresemann and
Meyer de Schauensee (1936), and followed by, e.g., Riley
(1938), but obscured largely by Meinertzhagen?s frauds in
more recent works (Ali and Ripley 1968, 1983; Ali 1974;
Grimmett et al. 1999; Kazmierczak 2000). The highly
migratory habit of magnirostris therefore contrasts stri-
kingly with the nearly or entirely resident status of whitei
(see next paragraph).
We located two long-overlooked specimens of whitei
collected in December 1901 from Margherita, Assam,
northeastern India (Table 3). These specimens had previ-
ously been correctly listed (Robinson and Kinnear 1928)
and mapped (Stresemann and Meyer de Schauensee 1936)
as whitei, but were erroneously omitted from later influ-
ential regional literature: while Ripley (1961, p. 432) listed
Muscicapa banyumas magnirostris, he did not mention
whitei. The re-location of the Margherita whitei specimens
suggested the possibility that whitei and magnirostris might
be sympatric, but this could not be confirmed, as no
breeding specimens of magnirostris were known from so
far east in Assam. Subsequently, we have located another
certain and two probable Indian specimens of whitei. While
whitei is generally considered non-migratory (e.g., Robson
2000), and we consider this view to be probably correct,
the basis for this assumption is unclear (see above). Despite
clarifying the migratory and taxonomic status of magni-
rostris, Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) mistakenly
mapped the species for Bhutan, although it had not yet
been definitely recorded there. A recent sight and photo-
graphic record from Bhutan (Bishop 2006) is inconclusive,
as the photograph cannot be located (K.D. Bishop, in litt.
30 November 2006). Another recent record (Farrow 2008)
from April 2008, however, seems plausible, being accom-
panied by confirmatory identification details.
Baker?s (1933) report of magnirostris wintering in
Assam probably refers to whitei, because there are no dated
winter specimens of the former from the region, while we
now know of three definite (Margherita and Lushai Hills)
and two further probable (Sadiya and Tenga Pani, Man-
bum, near Sadiya; definitely not magnirostris) whitei
specimens from north-eastern India, all from December to
February. The fact that all are from winter does not prove
the taxon only occurs in India at that time, because most
specimen collection in the region has taken place during
winter months when the climate is far more pleasant.
Although Baker (1933) mentions collecting nests of mag-
nirostris in Margherita, Assam, with H.N. Coltart, Coltart?s
specimens from Assam (AMNH 450724, AMNH 450725)
are whitei, not magnirostris. While this does not prove that
Coltart only collected whitei, it does suggest that Baker
may have been confusing the two taxa. Despite the fact that
several egg sets in the BMNH labeled as magnirostris exist
from the hills south of the Brahmaputra, their specific
identity cannot be validated using currently available
methods, since they are externally indistinguishable from
whitei and rubeculoides, and possibly other species. DNA
techniques that may allow specific identification of small
eggs are in development (R. P. Prys-Jones, personal com-
munication, July 2007). The fact that there are three Cachar
specimens of magnirostris may be taken as evidence that
the species breeds there (as indeed may be the case), but
one is undated, and the other two are from dates consistent
with birds taken in migration (25 April and 3 May). If
magnirostris does indeed breed in Cachar and in the Khasi
Hills, as contended by Baker, it is surprising that Koelz,
who collected extensively there in the summer months
(June?August), did not collect any. As with Baker?s other
nesting records and non-voucher-based observations (some
of which seem extremely improbable), independent cor-
roboration is needed before they can be taken at face value
(see Rasmussen and Anderton 2005).
Much of the confusion surrounding C. magnirostris can
be directly attributed to the fact that very little ornitho-
logical fieldwork has been done during the summer months
because of the unpleasant monsoon conditions and abun-
dant leeches during this time, and thus this species has been
overlooked on its breeding grounds. In fact, no definite
records from the breeding grounds in the Indian subconti-
nent are known from the twentieth Century. However, the
information that several specimens were taken by Mand-
elli?s collectors in Sikkim suggests that it is or was locally
common there during the breeding season, as we have
found to be the case at Nam Ti, Burma/Myanmar. We
expect that further fieldwork at the appropriate elevations
during the monsoon months will result in improved
knowledge of this migratory species? distribution in the
eastern Himalayas, as well as resolving the issue of
breeding sympatry with whitei.
Further taxonomic issues require re-evaluation in this
group. The form occurring in Palawan and Balabac,
C. [banyumas] lemprieri, is particularly distinctive in
several respects and has at times been considered a full
species, a treatment certainly justified. Of the other taxa
recognized by Dickinson (2003) as conspecific, banyumas
and ligus of Java as well as coeruleatus of Borneo, are
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683 681
123
distinctive, and further study including of vocalizations and
genetics may consider it as one or two separate species.
In conclusion, we recommend the treatment of Cyornis
magnirostris as a full species, for which the English name
Large Blue Flycatcher is appropriate. This name was used
in Rasmussen and Anderton (2005) in lieu of the common
name Large-billed Blue Flycatcher used earlier for mag-
nirostris in the twentieth century, because the name Large-
billed Blue Flycatcher is currently widely used as the
common name of Cyornis caerulatus (not C. banyumas
coeruleatus) of Borneo and Sumatra (Dickinson 2003),
even though C. caerulatus has a smaller bill than does
C. magnirostris. We also strongly recommend that the
highly distinctive C. lemprieri once again be treated as
specifically distinct, as was done in Dickinson et al. (1991),
and that the established common name Palawan Blue
Flycatcher again be used (Taylor 2006).
Conservation status of C. magnirostris
Evaluation of the threat status of C. magnirostris is needed,
given that it is so little known and that very few recent
records exist. Due to its apparent scarcity, Rasmussen
(2005) suggested that magnirostris may qualify for treat-
ment as an endangered species. Although our findings from
the breeding season in northern Myanmar show that, at
least in Nam Ti, it is very locally among the most common
forest birds, this may not be the case elsewhere. Further
breeding season surveys in similar areas are needed to
establish the presence and status of this species.
Zusammenfassung
Brutnachweis von Cyornis [banyumas] magnirostris im
Norden von Kachin State (Birma/Myanmar), mit
taxonomischen Betrachtungen zu Cyornis
Das wenig bekannte Taxon Cyornis [banyumas] magni-
rostris wurde lange als Unterart des sehr weit verbreiteten
C. banyumas behandelt und beide galten bislang wa?hrend
der Brutsaison als allopatrisch. C. magnirostris wird aller-
dings oft aufgrund der Morphologie als eigensta?ndige
Art betrachtet und galt bislang als endemischer Brutvogel
im Nordosten Indiens. Unsere Feldarbeit im su?do?stlichen
sub-Himalaja wa?hrend der Zug- und Brutzeit (September
2005 und Juni-Juli 2006) lieferten die ersten Beobach-
tungen von C. magnirostris im Norden Birmas/Myanmars,
so dass jetzt davon ausgegangen werden muss, dass die
Brutgebiete beider Taxa sich deutlich u?berschneiden. Wir
zeigen ferner, wie historische Ereignisse und Fehlerquellen
inklusive Fa?lschungen sowie Fehlschlu?sse aufgrund mangeln-
der Informationen die Artabgrenzung, Taxonomie und
den Schutz der Art und der ganzen Cyornis-Gruppe negativ
beeinflusst haben. Abschlie?end diskutieren wir Unter-
schiede von C. [banyumas] lemprieri von C. banyumas
und schlagen vor, diese Taxon ebenso als vollwertige Art
zu behandeln.
Acknowledgments We thank the Nature and Wildlife Conservation
Division of the Union of Myanmar Forestry Department, and espe-
cially Director U Khin Maung Zaw, for permission to conduct the
study (Myanmar Collection and Export Permit #SI/4697/2004). We
thank U Aung Khin and Daw Thandar Kyi (Myanmar Gateway
Tours) who organized much of the expedition for us. The Smithsonian
Institution, Office of the Undersecretary for Science, provided support
for an expedition through the Abbott Fund. Additional support came
from the Alexander Wetmore Fund, Bird Division, US National
Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, the
National Geographic Society, and the Chapman Collection Study
Grant (AMNH). Animal use activities were cleared by the CRC-
IACUC on 03 January 2002 (IACUC Proposal # 01-34) and 20
December 2006 (# 06-27) as a continuation of our avian inventory in
Myanmar. Field assistants included U Kyaw Lin, U Tu Myint U, U A
Jo, U Myint Kyaw, Bran Shaung, and San Naing Dee. In particular we
thank G.R. Graves, S.L. Olson, J.P. Dean, B.K. Schmidt, and C.M.
Milensky (NMNH); R.P. Prys-Jones and M.P. Adams, The Natural
History Museum (BNHM), Tring, UK; D. Willard, Field Museum of
Natural History (FMNH), Chicago; P.R. Sweet, American Museum of
Natural History (AMNH), New York; J.V. Remsen and S.W. Cardiff,
Museum of Natural Science, Louisiana State University (LSUMNS),
Baton Rouge; and N. Rice and L. Joseph, Academy of Natural Sci-
ences of Philadelphia (ANSP), for assistance, loans, and use of
collections. Information on putative field records of magnirostris and
discussion was provided by K.D. Bishop and M. Catsis, and I. Heynen
provided further discussion on previous versions of the manuscript.
References
Ali S (1974) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan, vol 10.
Oxford University Press, Oxford
Ali S, Ripley SD (1968) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan.
Oxford University Press, New York
Ali S, Ripley SD (1983) Handbook of the birds of India and Pakistan.
Compact edn, Oxford University Press, Bombay
Baker ECS (1933) The nidification of birds of the Indian Empire, vol
II. Turdidae-Sturnidae, Taylor & Francis, London
Bishop KD (2006) The birds and mammals recorded on the 2006
VENT Bhutan tour. http://www.ventbird.com/images/birdlists/
birdlist_478.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2008
Collar NJ, Andreev AV, Chan S, Crosby MJ, Subramanya S, Tobias JA
(2001) Threatened birds of Asia: the BirdLife International red
data book. Part B:1517?3038. BirdLife International, Cambridge
Dickinson EC (ed) (2003) The Howard and Moore complete checklist
of the birds of the world. 3rd edn. Princeton University Press,
Princeton
Dickinson EC (2004) Systematic notes on Asian birds. 47. Blyth?s
??Catalogue of the birds in the Museum Asiatic Society?? and his
1849 supplemental note, with historical comments. Zool Verh
Leiden 350:167?181
Dickinson EC, Kennedy RS, Parkes KC (1991) The birds of the
Philippines, an annotated check-list. Tring: British Ornitholo-
gists? Union (check-list No. 12)
Farrow D (2008) Bhutan. 9?28 April 2008. http://www.birdquest.
co.uk/pdfs/report/BHUTAN%20REP%2008.pdf. Accessed 08
December 2008
682 J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683
123
Grimmett R, Inskipp C, Inskipp T (1999) Birds of India: Pakistan,
Nepal, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Sri Lanka and the Maldives.
Princeton Press, Princeton
Kazmierczak K (2000) Field guide to the birds of the Indian
Subcontinent. Pica Press, Mountfield, Sussex
King B, Woodcock M, Dickinson EC (1995) Birds of Southeast Asia.
Collins, New York
Rasmussen PC (2005) Biogeographic and conservation implications
of revised species limits and distributions of South Asian birds.
Zool Med Leiden 79?3:137?146
Rasmussen PC, Anderton JC (2005) Birds of South Asia: the Ripley
Guide, 2 vols. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona
Renner SC, Rappole JH, Leimgruber P, Kelly DS, Nay Myo Shwe,
Thein Aung, Myint Aung (2007) Land use in the Northern Forest
Complex of Myanmar (Burma)?new insights for conservation.
Oryx 41:27?37
Riley JH (1938) Birds from Siam and the Malay Peninsula. US Natl
Mus Bull 172
Ripley SD (1961) A synopsis of the birds of India and Pakistan.
Bombay Natural History Society, Bombay
Robinson HC, Kinnear NB (1928) Notes on the genus Cyornis, Blyth.
Novit Zool 34:231?261
Robson C (2000) A field guide to the birds of South-East Asia. New
Holland, London
Rothschild L (1926) On the avifauna of Yunnan, with critical notes.
Novit Zool 33:189?343
Sclater (1924) Bulletin of the British Ornithologists? Club CCXCII.
December 29, 1925
Smythies BE (1953) The birds of Burma, 3rd edn. Oliver & Boyd,
Edinburgh
Smythies BE (2001) The birds of Burma, 4th edn. Natural History
Pub, Kota Kinabalu, Borneo
Stresemann E (1925) U?ber einige Cyornis-Arten. Ornithol Monatsberi
33:45?53
Stresemann E, Meyer de Schauensee R (1936) Notes on some South
Asiatic species of the genus Cyornis. Proc Acad Nat Sci
Philadelphia 88:337?351
Taylor PB (2006) Family Muscicapidae (Old World flycatchers),
pp 56?163. In: del Hoyo A, Elliott A, Christie D (eds) Handbook
of the birds of the world, vol 11. Lynx Ediciones, Barcelona
Wells DR (2007) The birds of the Thai-Malay Peninsula, vol 2.
Passerines, Christopher Helm, London
Winkler R (2003) Kommentierte Liste der Typen in der Basler
Vogelsammlung. 9 p. Naturhistorisches Museum Basel, Basel.
http://www.nmb.bs.ch/aves.pdf. Accessed 21 January 2008
J Ornithol (2009) 150:671?683 683
123