taxonID	type	description	language	source
8D5487F99C6DFFF6FCC5FAFA4B742890.taxon	description	Aside from the extinct Miocene Nelepsittacus (see Worthy et al., 2011), the low-diversity superfamily Strigopoidea consists of three extant and two recently extinct, large-bodied Cacatuidae Psittacidae Psittrichasidae Psittaculidae Family values bootstrap Neophemini tr .. nov, ultrafast tr. Calyptorhynchinae Nymphicinae Microglossinae Cacatuinae Psittacinae Arinae Psittrichasinae Coracopseinae Psittaculinae Psittacellinae Platycercinae Agapornithinae Loriinae Subfamily other have nodes nodes; all Brotogerini. Androglossini Strigopidae Nestoridae Touitini Amoropsittacini Forpini Brotogerini Androglossini Arini Micropsittini Polytelini Psittaculini Pezoporini Neophemini Platycercini Bolbopsittacini Loriculini Agapornithini Cyclopsittini Melopsittacini Loriini Tribe = * unsupported. and, Amoropsittacini families, Touitini Strigops Nestor Zanda Calyptorhynchus Nymphicus Probosciger Callocephalon Eolophus Lophochroa Licmetis Cacatua Psittacus Poicephalus Touit Psilopsiagon Nannopsittaca Bolborhynchus Forpus Myiopsitta Brotogeris Pionopsitta Triclaria Pyrilia Hapalopsittaca Amazona Pionus Graydidascalus Alipiopsitta Pionites Deroptyus Rhynchopsitta Pyrrhura Enicognathus Cyanoliseus Anodorhynchus Eupsittula Psittacara Ognorhynchus Leptosittaca Thectocercus Guaruba Diopsittaca Conuropsis Gymnopsittacus Aratinga Cyanopsitta Orthopsittaca Primolius Ara Psittrichas Coracopsis Micropsitta Alisterus Polytelis Aprosmictus Prioniturus Eclectus Geo royus Psittinus Himalayapsitta Palaeornis Tanygnathus Psittacula Psittacella Pezoporus Neopsephotus Neophema Lathamus Prosopeia Eunymphicus Cyanoramphus Platycercus Barnardius Psephotus Northiella Purpureicephalus Clarkona Psephotellus Bolbopsittacus Loriculus Agapornis Suavipsitta Psittaculirostris Cyclopsitta Melopsittacus Oreopsittacus Charminetta Hypocharmosyna Charmosynopsis Vini Charmosynoides Synorhacma Charmosyna Neopsittacus Lorius Psitteuteles Parvipsitta Chalcopsitta Pseudeos Cardeos Glossoptilus Trichoglossus Glossopsitta Saudareos Eos 0, tribes:, subfamilies, Microglossinae to right names 20 10) (MYA AGO Left of. Psittaciformes of family-group herein. described YEARS phylogeny nomenclature are nov. 30 MILLION tr. Generic-level text discusses. 1 Main Bolbopsittacini 40 FIGURE %. ≥ 95 nov,. and parrots that are endemic to New Zealand and surrounding islands. It was sister to the rest of the entire parrot radiation. One species, Strigops habroptilus (Family: Strigopidae; see Savage and Digby, 2023, for orthography of the epithet habroptilus), is monotypic and flightless, and two extant species, Nestor notabilis and N. meridionalis (Family: Nestoridae), are diurnal and volant. The three species’ positions are stable and well resolved in our phylogenomic tree (fig. 1). This is in agreement with previous work. The ages of Strigopoidea and the families Strigopidae and Nestoridae have varied across studies, but a consensus has emerged in more recent work. Using a calibration of the splitting of New Zealand from Gondwana to date the split between Strigopoidea and all other parrots, Wright et al. (2008) dated the crown age of Strigopoidea to 81.91 Mya and 49.84 Mya for the split of Strigopidae and Nestoridae. We stress, however, that later work (e. g., reviewed in Worthy et al., 2017) has cautioned use of the 82 Mya split of New Zealand. The opportunity probably existed until about 55 Mya for taxa to join the Zealandian terrestrial biota by overland dispersal. Subsequent studies using fossil calibrations beyond Psittaciformes or secondary calibrations have found progressively younger ages for dates within the clade. Schweizer et al. (2011) estimated that Strigopoidea, which was represented in their taxon sampling by Nestor, diverged from other parrots 58.6 Mya (95 % highest posterior density [HPD]): 44.9 – 72). Rheindt et al. (2014) estimated that this same divergence time had a mean of 49 or 42 Ma, depending on the type of calibration. Within the Strigopoidea, the divergence of Strigopidae and Nestoridae was dated to 28 – 29 Mya (95 % HPD: 18 – 38 Mya) by Rheindt et al. (2014). We found that the stem and crown splits for Strigopoidea occurred at 40 and 35 Mya (figs. 1, 2), dates that are similar to the conclusions of another phylogenomic study using a reduced number of taxa (Huang et al., 2022). Divergences within Nestor range from the late Miocene to early Pleistocene. We estimated the divergence of N. notabilis and N. meridionalis at 2.6 Mya (fig. 2), similar to the age determined by Rheindt et al. (2014), whereas Wood et al. (2014) dated the split to ~ 5 Mya. An extinct species, Nestor productus from Norfolk Island, is known from only 16 museum specimens and went extinct in the 1840 s (Holdaway et al., 2001). It has yet to be placed in a molecular phylogeny. Also extinct, the Chatham Island Kaka (Nestor chathamensis) was found to be sister to N. meridionalis and molecular dating based on 571 bp of mtDNA estimated the split between the two taxa at 1.74 Mya (Wood et al., 2014). Although not directly related to systematics, recent efforts to produce genomic resources for the three species in Strigopoidea have served both applied and basic science purposes. For example, extensive species management of the critically endangered Strigops habroptilus has led to whole genome sequencing of all individuals in the population (N = 169), an unprecedented resource for mitigating genetic associations with disease risk and low reproductive output (Guhlin et al., 2023). Genomic data for Nestor has indicated that N. notabilis, which occurs in the alpine zone of New Zealand, exhibits the same adaptive signatures of high-elevation habitation as the forest-adapted N. meridionalis (Martini et al., 2021).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C73FFEBFF9EFEDF4E9429C9.taxon	description	In the Calyptorhynchinae, relationships among the five conventionally recognized species are stable and well supported across phylogenomic trees and a previously inferred species tree (White et al., 2011). We support the generic placement of the species funerea, baudinii, and latirostris in Zanda Mathews, 1913. Zanda was in synonymy with Calyptorhynchus for most of the 20 th century, but its reinstatement began with Schodde’s (1997) recognition of it at subgeneric rank within Calyptorhynchus. Following White et al. ’ s (2011) molecular study, its elevation to genus level has become conventional (Gill et al., 2023; Dickinson and Remsen, 2013). Saunders and Pickup (2023 a) have revisited and reinforced support for the recognition of Zanda based on morphological and vocalization data. Divergence between Zanda and Calyptorhynchus dates to 19.2 Mya and divergences within each genus date to 0.6 – 2 Mya and 8.4 Mya, respectively (fig. 2). Turning to species-level systematics, we note that an analysis of genome-wide single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) (Ewart et al., 2020) found that the Red-tailed Black Cockatoo (Calyptorhynchus banksii) comprises five evolutionarily significant units, the corresponding species-group epithets of which are banskii, graptogyne, naso, escondidus, and samueli. Unsurprisingly, some uncertainties remain in relationships among these five taxa, given their shallow divergence times. Ewart et al. (2020), however, made two taxonomic recommendations: (1) synonymy of banksii and macrorhynchus in nominotypical banksii and (2) that samueli, the three isolated populations of which did not form a single monophyletic group, should be broken into eastern and central populations, samueli, which did form a single monophyletic group, and western population, escondidus, which was sister to naso and which they newly described at subspecies rank. Saunders and Pickup (2023 a) elevated the five subspecies to species rank. Key elements of their decision were morphometric analyses, the time of divergence (latter half of the Pleistocene; Ewart et al., 2020), and their allopatry. Presentday geographic interactions and gene flow between banksii and samueli in eastern Australia seem highly probable, however, and warrant further study regardless of their taxonomic status (see maps in Saunders and Pickup, 2023 a). Similarly, but perhaps with a lower probability, escondidus and banksii may be in geographic and genetic contact in northwestern Australia. One species with five subspecies or five monotypic species are among equally plausible arrangements in light of the data available: five geographical units appear monophyletic, but their divergences are shallow relative to many other species and there is no extensive sympatry to affirm species status by that criterion. The shallow divergence between Z. latirostris and Z. baudinii warrants discussion. This pair is among the most notable examples in ornithology of cryptically differentiated sibling species (White et al., 2014). Saunders (1974, 1979) elegantly showed on morphological grounds that the two taxa are distinct, primarily in bill morphology. This work led to the removal of latirostris from synonymy of baudinii and recognition of the two taxa at species rank. Next, White et al. (2011) presented a multilocus phylogenetic analysis arguing that radiation within Zanda into three species happened relatively recently, within the last 1.3 million years. White et al. (2014) pursued genetic differentiation between Z. latirostris and Z. baudinii with microsatellite data. They suggested that the differentiation between the two taxa started during anthropogenic land clearing in the 20 th century. They also remarked that some gene flow is still occurring between the two but estimated that fewer than 10 individuals per generation are moving between regions separated by an anthropogenically generated barrier of unsuitable habitat. Saunders and Pickup (2023 a) presented an updated synthesis of all data concerning this pair. They disputed White et al. ’ s (2014) claim of differentiation within the past ~ 100 years, a finding that was corroborated with our phylogenomic data that dates the split at 0.6 Mya (0.2 – 1) (fig. 2). Further, they found no morphological indication of hybridization and stressed the overlapping breeding ranges of the two taxa, surely here a gold standard for species-level recognition. On adding our data to these syntheses, we conclude that while population-level sampling of Z. latirostris and Z. baudinii with genomic methods now available is likely to be highly rewarding, the optimal taxonomic conclusion at this point is that they indeed represent two species. Taxonomic subdivision of Z. funerea, in contrast, has become far more contentious since Saunders and Pickup (2023 a, 2003 b) proposed that the three taxa at best tentatively recognized as subspecies within it by earlier treatments (Schodde and Mason, 1997; Forshaw and Cooper, 2002) should be elevated to species rank. Our sampling has not addressed variation within Z. funerea. We are highly skeptical of Saunders and Pickup’s (2023 a, 2023 b) proposal to elevate three questionably recognizable subspecies within Z. funerea to species rank but will address this in more detail elsewhere.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C72FFEBFF9EF98E4B9A28D2.taxon	description	Although monotypic Nymphicus has unquestionably been recognized for decades as within the Cacatuoidea and essentially a diminutive cockatoo (see Adams et al., 1984, and Schodde and Mason, 1997, for brief reviews of morphological, karyological, behavioral, and allozyme data), its precise relationships have remained unclear. Adams et al. (1984) in an allozyme study found its position ambiguous depending on the analysis, either aligning it with the Calyptorhynchus black cockatoos or the Cacatua sensu lato white cockatoos. Brown and Toft’s (1999) results based on mitochondrially encoded 12 S sequence data and reanalysis of allozyme data were similarly ambiguous. A consensus of their results was that it aligned with Calyptorhynchus as one of the “ more basal cockatoo species. ” A multilocus analysis led White et al. (2011) to place it as the sister group to the rest of the Cacatuoidea. Our phylogenomic data strongly place Nymphicus as the sister to all non-calyptorhynchine cockatoos, and not as the sister to all cockatoos or indeed to the calyptorhynchines, diverging 24.8 Mya (16.2 – 30.4; fig. 2). We argue that all lines of data fully support retention of Nymphicus in a monogeneric subfamily, Nymphicinae, which was sister to the Cacatuinae. Similarly, it is usually treated as a monotypic species given its almost continentwide range and high vagility.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C75FFEEFEDEFCF94D222E2B.taxon	description	Callocephalon is a monotypic genus of medium-sized cockatoo, predominantly gray in plumage and having a distinctive, forward-curving crest of filamentous feathers. It is sexually dimorphic in its head plumage, red in males, gray in females. It is endemic to wetter forests and woodlands in southeastern Australia. Eolophus is also a monotypic, medium-sized cockatoo with three recognized subspecies. It is distinctively gray dorsally and pink ventrally with a backward-curving pink to whitish crest having a “ split ” appearance in some populations. It has bare, carunculated periophthalmic skin varying subspecifically from white to shades of pink. It is one of the most familiar of all Australian birds occurring across the continent in all but the wettest forests and woodlands. Lophochroa comprises one species with two currently recognized subspecies. Resembling in overall morphology the large Cacatua galerita, it differs in having salmon-pink underparts and a similarly pink and yellow crest, and a pale bill. It primarily inhabits arid- and semiarid woodlands. All three of these genera have distinctive vocalizations. We discuss the taxonomic implications of the phylogenomic data in light of the two phenotypically distinct groups within Cacatua sensu lato that the data in turn mostly affirm. The first of these is Cacatua sensu stricto having mostly forward-curving, yellow or white to orange crests, broad wings, naked white to bluish ocular skin, usually concentric with the eye itself, black bills, and characteristically as well as extraordinarily harsh shrieks. The second is Licmetis, the corellas, having vestigial, backward-curving crests, slender wings, milky to leaden blue ocular skin extending below the eye in an oval shape, white bills and a distinctive yodel or crying vocalizations (see Forshaw, 1973; Schodde et al., 1979; Schodde and Mason, 1997; Forshaw and Knight, 2010). Relationships within Cacatuinae are the most unstable and taxonomically challenging within Cacatuoidea. This is largely due to lower-quality samples for some taxa (e. g., Cacatua ophthalmica) and gene tree – species tree discordance reported in Smith et al. (2023). Phylogenetic patterns within Cacatuinae are represented by a series of well-supported and consecutive nodes, then nodes leading to each of the three monotypic genera Callocephalon, Eolophus, and Lophochroa, and a final node subtending a clade comprising white cockatoos long treated within the genus Cacatua (fig. 2). Previous multilocus work found weak evidence of Callocephalon fimbriatum and Eolophus roseicapilla as sister taxa (White et al., 2011), but we found them diverging on successive branches with 100 % bootstrap support. They are each phenotypically unique, and this includes their vocalizations as well as plumage patterns. Generic-level divergences span 9.3 – 22.6 Mya (fig. 2). We first examine genus-level divergences before discussing species-level issues. We fully support the retention of Callocephalon, Eolophus, and Lophochroa as monotypic genera. Notably, Lophochroa was sister to a clade comprising Cacatua sensu stricto and the Licmetis corellas, not just the former with which it has long been placed in Cacatua and with some species of which it shares the phenotypic trait of a forward-curving crest. We favor the retention of Lophochroa at generic rank because of its phylogenomic separation from Cacatua and this includes the age of its lineage coupled with its utterly distinct phenotypic traits including bicolored crest and unique vocalizations. There was topological discordance between the concatenated and species tree topologies for Cacatua. The bulk of the discordance was within the two main clades corresponding to Cacatua sensu stricto and Licmetis, and often involved lower-quality historical samples and nodes with low support, but there are also likely cases of phylogenetic conflict. We find it puzzling that these two groups have for so long been unquestioningly placed in one genus, Cacatua Vieillot, 1817. This treatment has prevailed in Australian literature at least since RAOU (1926); it is difficult to determine why it was introduced and why it has prevailed despite the obvious phenotypic differences just outlined. Further, it has prevailed despite several demonstrations of substantial genetic divergences (Adams et al., 1984; Brown and Toft, 1999). We now address in more detail the merit of breaking of Cacatua sensu lato into these two genera. For ease of discussion, we anticipate our recognition of Licmetis at rank of genus. One source of uncertainty in our analysis is the generic placement of haematuropygia. It is either sister to the remaining Licmetis (concatenated tree) or the clade composed of Cacatua / Licmetis (species tree). Morphologically, haematuropygia would appear to belong in Licmetis in that it is similar in size, shape, and bill color to L. goffiniana, a taxon firmly nested within the corellas (but we note its white ocular skin concentric with the eye). From our additional MAST analysis on Cacatua we found that the concatenated phylogeny, which has a monophyletic Licmetis, was the predominant topology (tree weight: 0.87) across the alignment versus the topology with L. haematuropygia as sister to all other Licmetis and Cacatua as the minor tree (tree weight: 0.13). These results confirm the analyses of this clade by Smith et al. (2023), where there was more signal for the concatenated topology. Given haematuropygia ’ s morphological affinities with Licmetis and the overriding phylogenomic signature that indicates it is sister to the other corellas, the best evidence supports the recognition of Cacatua and Licmetis. We do not advocate a new genus for L. haematuropygia. There were also several cases of gene tree – species tree discordance within both groups. Relationships among the corellas (L. sanguinea, L. tenuirostris, L. pastinator, and L. goffiniana) varied among the phylogenomic trees. Similarly, there was such discordance in Cacatua sensu stricto (C. sulphurea, C. moluccensis, and C. ophthalmica). Divergence times within Cacatua and Licmetis ranged from 2.3 to 5.8 Mya and 3.4 to 8.2, respectively (fig. 2). We are confident that the combined weight of our genomic data, uncertainties within the two strongly supported clades notwithstanding, and the phenotypic differentiation in body and wing morphologies generally, crest morphology in particular and vocalizations, all combine to provide strong support for the breakup of Cacatua sensu lato and the reinstatement of Licmetis Wagler, 1832, for the corellas. Indeed, we argue that this situation strongly parallels the basis for recognition of Calyptorhynchus and Zanda, the separation of which is now accepted and entrenched such that treating them as congeneric is considered little more than bad taxonomic habit. A similarly prevalent generic separation of sister clades is that of Platycercus and Barnardius. We acknowledge the call made by Adams et al. (1984) for detailed comparative study of any social function of crests and bare facial skin in these cockatoos to test whether contrasting combinations of these traits may have arisen through character displacement. Phylogeographic work in Cacatuinae has been limited to a few species. Engelhard et al. (2015) found that phylogeographic structure in Eolophus roseicapilla broadly corresponds with eastern, western, and northern subspecies recognized by morphological traits. Future work should examine phylogeographic variation in Callocephalon, Cacatua, and Licmetis. In the widely distributed Australian endemic Lophochroa leadbeateri, SNP data identified contains 2 – 3 genetic groups corresponding with a break across the Eyrean Barrier and in central Queensland (Ewart et al., 2021). This break corresponds to the subspecies L. l. leadbeateri and L. l. mollis, but interestingly, the genetic structuring among these groups was not observed in mtDNA. Cacatua galerita and the Licmetis sanguinea complex are both of particular interest given their uncertain subspecific taxonomy and their widespread distributions.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C77FFEFFD5EFC0B4E762950.taxon	description	Pioneering molecular work on Poicephalus (Massa et al., 2000) was based on random amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD). While one of its findings, a sister-group relationship between P. cryptoxanthus and P. meyeri, may have reflected plesiomorphy or homoplasy, many of their results are supported broadly here. The radiation of Poicephalus had a crown age of 7.5 Mya and the majority of the species had divergences in the Pliocene (fig. 3). The topology within Poicephalus was less robust due to low-quality samples and nodes with low support. The issues likely stemmed from the P. flavifrons and P. rueppellii samples coming from historical samples that produced limited data, making them harder to place in the tree. Poicephalus fuscicollis also had lower-quality data and did not meet more stringent filters of quality control of Smith et al. (2023); it was, however, sister to P. robustus in the phylogenomic trees. This result was consistent with previous phylogenetic work based on mtDNA but inconsistent with a phylogeny inferred from concatenated nuclear and mtDNA, which found P. robustus to be more closely related to P. gulielmi (Coetzer et al., 2015). Poicephalus crassus is known from few museum specimens and has not been sequenced. Given the close similarity in plumage in P. crassus and P. cryptoxanthus, they are likely closely related. The positions of P. rufiventris and P. senegalus varied between estimated trees, but the species tree had a better phylogenetic resolution. Recent work describes an unrecognized subspecies in P. rueppellii that differs in size and plumage color across populations in Angola (Hubers et al., 2023).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C77FFEEFEDCFA214CEF2D34.taxon	description	The Psittacinae is a low-diversity radiation endemic to Africa comprising two genera, Psittacus and Poicephalus. The Psittacinae split from their sister clade, the Arinae in the early Oligocene (~ 30 Mya; fig. 1) well after the proposed split between Africa and South America in the Middle Cretaceous age, about 115 – 125 Mya (Valencio and Vilas, 1969).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C76FFEFFEBDFA7D4CB429D4.taxon	description	For discussion of the often contentious topic of extinct parrots in the Caribbean region, in particular species of the genera Ara and Amazona, we refer the reader to Williams and Steadman (2001), Olson and López (2008), Gala and Lenoble (2015), Forshaw and Knight (2017), and Oswald et al. (2023).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C76FFE1FD5EF98C4ED12ACD.taxon	description	Forpus modestus LSUMZB 9635 Forpus cyanopygius UWBM 82383 Forpus crassirostris LSUMZB 7373 Forpus xanthopterygius LSUMZB 6612 Forpus spengeli AMNH 133024 Forpus passerinus LSUMZB 48518 Forpus conspicillatus AMNH 793356 Forpus xanthops FMNH 395954 Forpus coelestis LSUMZB 5221 5 0 MILLION YEARS AGO MYA FIGURE 4. Time-calibrated phylogeny of Forpini. Support values come from the maximum likelihood tree. Nodes have ultrafast bootstrap values of ≥ 95 % otherwise noted. ters in a table with an accompanying legend explaining the meaning of the symbols and letters in words. Schodde et al. (2013) accepted this as validating the names. Sangster et al. (2023) nevertheless disputed it, claiming that Brereton’s descriptions did not conform to the requirements of the current edition of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN, 1999), and replaced Brereton’s names with their own. Schodde et al. (submitted) have since applied to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to conserve Forpini and Amoropsittacini as published by Brereton (1963). The details of these nomenclatural arguments are to be explained fully in that paper but hinge on due and fully appropriate detail having been given by Brereton (1963). Until this is settled, we consider Forpini and Amoropsittacini as valid family-group names. The Forpini contains nine small, stockybodied, sexually dimorphic, and largely green species in the genus Forpus. Forpus is currently distributed from Mexico to Argentina, but the fossil record suggests that it occurred in the Bahamas up until at least the Late Pleistocene (Steadman and Franklin, 2020). Recent molecular (Smith et al., 2013) and morphological (Bocalini and Silveira, 2015) data were used to elevate F. spengeli of northwest Colombia and F. crassirostris of western Amazonia to species rank. Bocalini and Silveria (2015) assessed phenotypic variation within F. xanthopterygius and synonymized the remaining taxa (crassirostris, flavissimus, flavescens, and olallae) within monotypic F. xanthopterygius due to high morphological variation among localities and because plumage patterns did not conform to described subspecies limits. This finding has important implications for species limits in the genus and highlights the limits of using morphological data to assign taxonomic ranks. As recovered in previous work (Smith et al., 2013), our phylogenomic tree had F. crassirostris as sister to a clade containing all other Forpus except F. modestus and F. cyanopygius. The timing of this divergence (approximately 3.8 Mya; fig 4) was similar to the age estimated using a small number of mtDNA and nuclear DNA loci (Smith et al., 2013). This deep intraspecific divergence, which was not reflected in the high number of specimens examined by Bocalini and Silveria (2015), indicates that morphological evolution is not tracking population history and is thus not a reliable data source for species delimitation. The opposite is true for F. passerinus. Forpus spengeli was originally treated at species rank until at least Cory (1918). To the best of our knowledge, it was then placed in F. passerinus by Peters (1937), without comment. At a later date, it was transferred to F. xanthopterygius (Forshaw, 1973). Smith et al. (2013) found that spengeli was nested within passerinus differing by only a few base pairs in mtDNA, whereas Bocalini and Silveria (2015) found spengeli to be distinct given its clearly diagnostic turquoise rump on males. They restored the taxon to species rank as F. spengeli. Bocalini and Silveria (2015) included F. passerinus in their study, but did not consider that F. spengeli could be a geographical variant within F. passerinus or, alternatively, its mtDNA may have been introgressed and / or captured by the nearest population of F. passerinus, i. e., F. passerinus cyanophanes. Forpus passerinus, which exhibits a wide variation in rump color in males, ranging from blue to green even with excluding F. spengeli. The molecular changes that result in a shift from a green to turquoise feather patch may be simple, as observed in captive Melopsittacus undulatus, in which a single base-pair change expresses tryptophan, blocking expression of yellow pigment, and so changes green feathers to blue (Cooke et al., 2017). The identical mutation was also found to produce blue feathers in captive Agapornis (Ke et al., 2024), suggesting there may be a single genetic mechanism underlying the green to blue color shift in parrots. While the phylogenomic tree here strongly shows a deep divergence between F. passerinus and F. spengeli (fig. 4), caution is warranted when interpreting this divergence in light of previously characterized shallow mtDNA divergence. The phylogenomic tree is either reflecting discordance between nuclear and mtDNA, possibly due to mitochondrial introgression, or the branch length is artificially long due to the high number of singletons in phylogenomic data. Population-level sampling is necessary to distinguish these scenarios.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C78FFE5FD5EF9D54B222E2B.taxon	description	Turning to species-level relationships, we first report the relationships inferred from the concatenated tree. Touit stictopterus of central Colombia to northern Peru diverged from the remaining Touit at 10.1 Mya (5.9 – 13.1; fig. 5). The next divergence represents a mostly eastwest break across the Andes. The clade comprising sister species T. dilectissimus and T. costaricensis diverged across the Andes at 5.5 Mya (3.1 – 7.6) from the other clade entirely east of the Andes (T. surdus, T. purpuratus, T. batavicus, T. melanotus, and T. huetii; fig. 5). The divergence across the Isthmus of Panama between T. dilectissimus and T. costaricensis occurred 1.1 Mya. This timeframe aligns with other humid forest birds that colonized North America (Smith et al., 2012). The first divergence in the clade east of the Andes was between T. huetii and the other taxa (fig. 5). Touit huetii is widespread across Amazonia in relatively small allopatric populations. Touit melanonotus of southern Brazil and T. batavicus of northern Colombia, Venezuela, Suriname, the Guianas, and northern Brazil are highly disjunct with respect to each other, separated by the Amazon Basin and the South American dry diagonal, including the Caatinga and Cerrado Biomes. That disjunction dates to the late Pliocene – early Pleistocene. A second large disjunction is between sister species T. purpuratus of northern Amazonian and T. surdus of southeastern Brazil. In contrast, the species tree found notable differences in relationships. However, some taxa (T. costaricensis, T. melanonotus, and T. surdus) with lower-quality samples could not be accurately placed in the species tree. The most notable difference was the placement of T. huetii, which was sister to T. purpuratus in the species tree. The species in the other three genera occur primarily in montane regions, except Nannopsittaca dachilleae of lowland western Amazonia. The traditionally recognized genera Bolborhynchus and Nannopsittaca, however, are not monophyletic. That is, two of three nominal species within Bolborhynchus (B. ferrugineifrons and B. orbygnesius) and the two species of Psilopsiagon (P. aymara and P. aurifrons) comprise a clade that represents a radiation across the high Andes, with its species-level divergences ranging from 3.6 – 7.6 Mya (fig. 5). The concatenated and species trees represented here are mostly concordant. Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons was accurately placed in the same clade in both phylogenomic trees but had a significant amount of missing data at parsimony informative sites. The order of P. aymara and P. aurifrons also differed in the species tree, but they were still paraphyletic with respect to each other, a result that we note with much caution. Although B. lineola and the two species in Nannopsittaca form a clade, they are biogeographically less cohesive. Nannopsittaca panychlora occurs disjunctly in small, restricted parts of Venezuela in the tepui region from 750 to 1850 m (Forshaw and Knight, 2010). Bolborhynchus lineola is widely distributed in montane regions from Mexico to Peru. Nannopsittaca panychlora was sister of N. dachilleae and B. lineola, and so Nannopsittaca was paraphyletic. We consider five alternative taxonomic scenarios for addressing the paraphyly within Bolborhynchus, Nannopsittaca, and potentially Psilopsiagon (see fig. 5). They are: 1. Most expediently, all species could be placed in the oldest of the three generic names, Bolborhynchus Bonaparte, 1857. Previous authors have indeed treated Psilopsiagon aymara and P. aurifrons within Bolborhynchus (De Schauensee and Eisenmann, 1966, Forshaw and Knight, 2010). This would produce a genus with high interspecies morphological disparity reflected temporally in the clade dating to the mid-Miocene. Conversely, there is no precedent elsewhere within Psittaciformes for a genus having a crown age as deep as 16.9 Mya, which reflects a timespan encompassing substantial evolutionary divergence. Recalling Ford’s (2006) suggestion that a genus should make sense to someone not familiar with it, we reject this option. 2. Given that Bolborhynchus lineola (Cassin, 1853) = Psittacula lineola Cassin, 1853, is the type species of Bolborhynchus (and, parenthetically, of Grammopsittaca Ridgway, 1912), the two species of Nannopsittaca Ridgway, 1912, although paraphyletic with respect to each other, could be placed in Bolborhynchus with B. lineola. This is consistent with O’Neill et al. ’ s (1991) case that they are congeneric notwithstanding that we here advocate placing them in the same genus as B. lineola. Two other species currently in Bolborhynchus (ferrugineifrons, orbygnesius) could then be placed in Psilopsiagon with P. aymara and P. aurifrons. However, this option also produces genera with species that are morphologically disparate albeit less so than the previous option. 3. As option 2 but reinstating monotypic Amoropsittaca Richmond, 1915, only for aymara. 4. Retention of N. panychlora in monotypic Nannopsittaca, although counter to O’Neill et al. ’ s (1991) view that Nannopsittaca is ditypic, opens this fourth option. Notwithstanding the superficial similarity in gross morphology of the two species usually placed in Nannopsittaca (e. g., fig. 5), we find this a reasonable option for two main reasons: (1) N. panychlora diverged from N. dachilleae / B. lineola at 7.5 Mya (4.2 – 9.8), a depth of divergence that was similar to deeper intra- and intergeneric splits within Psittaciformes, and (2) it was the only Neotropical parrot endemic to the Pantepui region of northern South America (e. g., Mayr and Phelps, 1967). By this option, B. ferrugineifrons and B. orbygnesius and aymara and aurifrons could be placed in Psilopsiagon as already suggested, and N. dachilleae would be moved to Bolborhynchus because it was sister to the type species of that genus, B. lineola. Bolborhynchus lineola and N. dachilleae are strongly associated with bamboo albeit of different genera, i. e., Chusquea spp. and Guadua spp., respectively (O’Neill et al., 1991; del Hoyo et al., 1997; Harvey et al., 2014). 5. As option 4 but with aymara in Amoropsittaca. Choosing among these options inevitably becomes subjective. We favor option 4, arguing that retention of aymara in Psilopsiagon is prudent until its position relative to the other species in that genus is clarified. Similarly, the position of aurifrons was poorly supported (UFBS = 74 %). This is consistent with our generic decisions made elsewhere to convey as accurately as possible well-supported phylogenomic diversity (e. g., Licmetis vs. Cacatua; Zanda vs. Calyptorhynchus; Psephotellus vs. Clarkona; Aratinga vs. Nandayus), regardless of the patterns of phenotypic diversity among the various species. Further, it retains all three recognized genera albeit with some inevitable but minimal disruption to their usage, and it presents no conflict between classification and phylogeny. Although it places in the same genera species that are somewhat different in gross morphology, e. g., relative tail length and shape, this is common to either of the arrangements we discussed (see fig. 6). The difficulty of discerning phenotypic traits in diagnosing the three genera as so circumscribed) LSUMNS (lineola AMNH.) 44744 Pho- Science 156199; AMNH Natural of Museum LSUMNS ferrugineifrons dachilleae; and University (168922 State Bolborhynchus AMNH Louisiana, 324136 and orbygnesius) AMNH AMNH 151238; (History panychlora AMNH Natural Museum of): Nannopsittaca; aurifrons 136906 right American (left to AMNH the for aymara. from groupings Psilopsiagon (Bello Robles Specimens proposed Sahid 6. and: FIGURE showing 820295,) tographs warrants brief comment. We suggest that this likely arises from very strong selective pressures on these species for cryptic, largely green plumage (see fig. 6). This could feasibly apply to either species inhabiting and primarily foraging in lowland or upland rainforest canopies, such as dachilleae and panychlora, respectively, or to those foraging in other montane habitats such as lower, scrubby hillside vegetation and terrestrial bogs, as in most of the other species. We stress that the need for recognition of these three genera and their circumscriptions as we have suggested have arisen largely from our concerns with reflecting the phylogenomic data and structure among them. In summary, we advocate the following taxonomy with phenotypic notes (fig. 6):	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C7FFFD8FF05FC4F4D27287E.taxon	description	org: pub: 3 BFB 5 FD 8 - 9 DDC- 4419 - 9 EEF- D 41 AFBB 2 E 9 B 1	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C7FFFD8FF05FC4F4D27287E.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS: In accordance with Article 13.1.1, we note that Brotogerini differs from the members of the Androglossini (in the sense used above) from which it is separated principally in the morphology of the tail, which relative to the body is long and attenuated in Brotogeris and Myiopsitta rather than short and rounded in all other genera in Androglossini. In accordance with Article 13.1.2, we note that this difference has been well illustrated and described on many occasions in the literature, citing as examples reference works on the world’s parrots: e. g., Forshaw and Knight (2010); Juniper and Parr (1998). Type genus Brotogeris Vigors, 1825, Zoological Journal 2: 400, by original designation. Type species Psittacus pyrrhopterus Latham 1801, Supplementum Indicis Ornithologici, 1801: xxii. TAXONOMIC POSITION OF TRIBE: Subfamily Arinae of family Psittacidae.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C7FFFD8FF05FC4F4D27287E.taxon	description	COMPONENT GENERA: Brotogeris Vigors, 1825, and Myiopsitta Bonaparte, 1854. Myiopsitta Bonaparte, 1854. Revue et magasin de zoologie pure et appliquée. (2), 6, 1854: 150. Type, by subsequent designation, Psittacus monachus Boddaert (G. R. Gray, Catalogue of the Genera and Subgenera of Birds Contained in the British Museum, 1855: 87) GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION: Endemic from South America to Mexico. Brotogeris Brotogeris are smaller, largely green parrots with pointed, graduated tails varying in relative proportion to body size, however. Relationships among the eight recognized species in the genus are strongly supported and concordant across molecular phylogenies (e. g., Ribas et al., 2009). General tail morphology does not conform neatly to phylogenetic groups. The three longertailed species (B. tirica, B. versicolurus, and B. chiriri) are in one clade with shorter-tailed B. sanctithomae of the Amazonian floodplain. The other clade contains B. pyrrhoptera, B. jugularis, B. cyanoptera, and B. chrysoptera. The majority of the species are distributed east of the Andes in the Amazon Basin. There was a cross-Andes divergence (1.3 – 3.7 Mya) represented by the split between B. pyrrhoptera / B. jugularis and B. cyanoptera / B. chrysoptera. Brotogeris jugularis is the only species in Central America, so dispersal out of South America occurred over the Panamanian land bridge. No study to date has sampled across the range of B. jugularis, which spans from Mexico to Venezuela, but northward dispersal most likely occurred within the Pleistocene, the time frame after B. pyrrhoptera and B. jugularis split. Myiopsitta Myiopsitta are midsized parrots with pointed, attenuate tails. Uniquely among all parrots it nests not in hollows in trees, cliffs, or rock faces, but in nests of sticks constructed by the birds and placed in trees, cliffs, or in more anthropogenic environments on poles and near buildings (see Agapornis below for other parrots that construct smaller nests). They occur in southern South America and have a number of naturalized populations around the globe (Edelaar et al., 2015). Myiopsitta monachus occurs in southern Brazil through northern Argentina and Uruguay, and M. luchsi is distributed in the Andean valleys of Bolivia. Myiopsitta luchsi has long been a subspecies of M. monachus and is still treated by some as such (e. g., South American Checklist Committee) whereas others have elevated it to species rank (e. g., IOC). The rationale that has been given for species-rank recognition of M. luchsi is in its genetic and phenotypic distinctiveness, ecological divergence in occupying higher elevations, and obligatory cliff-nesting, as opposed to nest construction in trees (Russello et al., 2008). The South American Checklist Committee (proposal 503) rejected these arguments based on the limited mtDNA differentiation of luchsi from other taxa, and the lack of both a formal vocal analysis and a published description of how their nesting ecology differs. The phylogenomic molecular dating provides new temporal context for the debate on species limits in Myiopsitta, the divergence likely more than a million years (1.7 Mya: 0.8 – 2.6).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C41FFD9FD5EFB754E1C289B.taxon	description	Eberhard and Bermingham, 2005). The distinctiveness of Pionopsitta was further reflected by its deep split from the rest of Androglossini at 20.2 Mya (13.3 – 24.1).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C40FFDAFD5EFB584EF6283C.taxon	description	The phylogenomic concatenated and species trees differ in the placement of P. caica amongst the trees and with previous studies based on mitochondrial DNA and plumage characters (Ribas et al., 2005, Eberhard and Bermingham, 2005). In the phylogeny by Ribas et al. (Ribas et al., 2005), which includes subspecific sampling, P. caica was sister to P. vulturina / P. aurantiocephala. The phylogenomic species tree, however, had P. caica as sister to P. barrabandi, and they were in turn sister to P. vulturina / P. aurantiocephala. The phylogenomic concatenated tree had P. caica as sister to the clade containing P. barrabandi, P. vulturina, and P. aurantiocephala. These alternative topologies support different biogeographic sequences of divergence. The species tree sister relationship between P. caica and P. barrabandi supports an initial break across the Rio Negro, whereas the concatenated and prior mtDNA trees support alternative scenarios involving the initial divergence across the Amazon river and Andes. None of the trees support a clade (P. haematotis, P. pulchra, and P. pyrilia) distributed west of the Andes indicating there were multiple crossings over or around the Andes. The time-calibrated phylogenomic tree supported a relatively shallow temporal scale for the diversification of Pyrilia (crown age 4.5 Mya [2.6 – 6.5]).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C46FFD1FD5EFA594D7E2EC1.taxon	description	Similar to Amazona, Pyrrhura is among the most speciose genera of Neotropical parrots. We estimate that its species diversity arose via rapid radiation within 7.1 Mya (2.2 – 10.6; fig. 9). Relationships within Pyrrhura, however, are among the most poorly resolved across the entire parrot phylogeny. This is due to Pyrrhura ’ s rapid radiation, the use of degraded DNA from museum skins for several species and, potentially, extensive introgression and incomplete lineage sorting (see Ribas et al., 2006; Somenzari and Silveira, 2015; Urantowka et al., 2016). Although the most stringently filtered concatenated and species trees yielded a moderately well-resolved topology, there was high discordance in species-level relationships of the trees. Despite most recognized species having been sampled except P. pfrimeri, more phylogenetic work is still needed to resolve finer-scale relationships and species limits within the genus. Our phylogenomic tree (fig. 9) is concordant with the membership of the three main evolutionary lineages identified by Joseph (2000, 2002) and Ribas et al. (2006), but some species-level relationships within these clades vary among phylogenies. Clade 1 comprises only P. cruentata of the Atlantic Forest, Brazil. Clade 2 is the picta-leucotis complex and clade 3 comprises the remaining species. Forshaw and Knight (2010) described three major groups: species with (1) barring on breast; (2) scalloping on breasts; and (3) neither breast barring nor scalloping. These three groups are not monophyletic in the phylogenomic tree, although some phylogenetic signal is apparent in these traits. Clade 1 (P. cruentata) has neither breast barring or scalloping. The difference has been illustrated in Joseph (2000, 2002: see figs. 2, 3 in both papers). Clade 2, which was sister to P. cruentata (fig. 9), includes representatives with breast barring or scalloping. For example, clade 2 taxa include P. leucotis and P. griseipectus of eastern Brazil, which have breast barring, and P. picta and P. amazonum that have scalloping. Clade 3 also contains the majority of Forshaw and Knight’s third group, species without barring or scalloping on breast. The remaining species, without barring or scalloping, do not form a monophyletic group within clade 3. Clade 3 also contains P. rupicola of western Amazonia, whose plumage Forshaw and Knight described as a special case of scalloping on the breast, and several species with barring (e. g., P. frontalis; P. devillei). Despite the presence of some phylogenetic signal in barring, scalloping, or the absence of either, the phylogeny shows this trait should not be used to define taxonomic groups. Further genomic work to clarify relationships and species limits within Pyrrhura ideally would use fresh, wild-collected material of all taxa, many of which remain unsampled. A focus of such effort should be thorough population-level sampling across the geographical ranges of all nominal species but especially for the taxonomically complex and contentious groups, foremost of which is the P. picta and P. leucotis sensu lato (i. e., sensu Peters, 1937) complex. Here we also note others such as the P. melanura complex. Population-level sampling is especially relevant in a radiation as rapid as that of Pyrrhura. It is critical to understand how diversity within and among populations, as well as patterns of introgression and gene flow among them, can improve decisions about species limits and relationships. Concerning P. picta and P. leucotis sensu lato, we note that our data at best provide weak support for the taxa subsumed under the name P. picta by Peters (1937) as monophyletic, noting that Peters’ (1937) long since entrenched view had no accompanying support. This in turn suggests the merit of earlier suggestions to revisit the breaking up of P. picta and P. leucotis (Joseph, 2000, 2002; Ribas et al., 2006). Concomitantly, it questions the persistent recognition of P. picta as polytypic and inclusion of such divergent taxa as caeruleiceps within it at subspecies rank by, for example, Gill et al. (2021) and Remsen et al. (2024). Similarly, and strictly speaking, our data offer ambiguous support for P. leucotis as Peters (1937) construed it, i. e., despite being closely related we do not find strong support for P. leucotis and P. griseipectus as sister taxa. We do nonetheless see strong support for a geographical grouping of western Amazonian taxa (roseifrons, peruviana) in our data and much weaker support for other geographical groupings such as that of northwestern South America-Central America (eisenmanni, subandina, caeruleicep s) and, potentially, northern South America (picta, emma) and central Amazonia (lucianii, amazonum). Determining whether these geographical patterns also correspond to phylogenetic and taxonomic groupings warrants specific attention in future work. Compounding the issue is the recognition of more taxa within the group in recent decades, some of which we have included but many we have not (Delgado, 1985; Ridgely and Gwynne, 1989; Joseph, 2002; Gaban-Lima and Raposo, 2016; Arndt and Wink, 2017).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C48FFD3FD5EFA544EEC2D55.taxon	description	Psittacara Psittacara comprises medium- to small-sized parakeets with long, attenuated tails and are mostly green. They are remarkable among parrots and indeed all birds for the highly irregular “ scattered ” distribution of red in their plumage, mostly about the head, tibial feathering (thighs), underwing coverts, and particularly their contour plumage. Some species also have yellow in the underwing. Attempts to delimit species using plumage color (e. g., Arndt, 2006), particularly the extent of red plumage on the head, are now understood to produce paraphyletic species. Relationships among the species were poorly resolved but nonetheless suggest geographically cohesive clades with varying levels of support. There are three clades of note: (1) P. mitrata and P. frontatus, species distributed from Peru to Argentina that occur up to 3500 m; (2) P. wagleri, P. finschi, P. mitratus, P. erythrogenys, and P. leucophthalmus, a widely distributed clade east and west of the Amazon; and (3) P. chloropterus, P. euops, P. holochlorus, P. brevipes, P. rubritorquis, and P. strenuus of the Caribbean, Central America, and Mexico. Given the strong geographic adjacency of species in this clade, it is most likely that the extinct P. maugei, formerly of Puerto Rico, was closely related to P. chloropterus and P. euops of Hispaniola and Cuba, respectively. The whole radiation was dated to have occurred within 0.6 – 6.7 Mya (fig. 9). This includes multiple colonization events of Central America dated to 2.2 and 3.1 Mya and dispersal into the Caribbean at 1 – 5.1 Mya (fig. 9). Given the number of poorly resolved nodes and nonmonophyly of traditionally recognized species, which we discuss in more detail below, Psittacara is a high priority for a more detailed study. Peters (1937) considered P. frontatus conspecific with P. wagleri, and Collar (1997) suggested that P. wagleri and P. mitrata may be conspecific. Both are inconsistent with the phylogeny (see also Collar et al., 2020). Psittacara frontatus was formerly recognized as a subspecies of P. wagleri and, based on our analyses, they are not closely related. Psittacara frontatus of the Pacific slope and central Andes of Peru and Bolivia and P. mitratus of the southern Andes, branch sequentially at the base of the Psittacara clade although their relationship had 78 % ultrafast bootstrap support (fig. 9). Moreover, all nodes in the clade of South and Central American Psittacara (clade 2, above) had low support values. The resolution of relationships within clade 3 containing taxa in Central America, Mexico, and Cuba / Hispaniola was better, but there were several key nodes that were not also strongly supported (fig. 9). The clade containing the four species of Psittacara (P. holochlorus, P. strenuus, P. rubritorquis, and P. brevipes) from Mexico and northern Central America had high support. Within this clade, only the placement of P. brevipes of Socorro Island was weakly supported as sister to P. strenuus of southern Mexico to Guatemala and P. rubritorquis of Central America. The clade also included P. holochlorus of Mexico (and extreme southeastern Texas where the origin of its populations is unclear; Uehling et al., 2019) as sister to the other three species. However, this relationship could not be confirmed because of low support for the placement of P. brevipes (fig. 9). Within clade 3, the Psittacara of Mexico and Central America are sister to the two Caribbean species, P. chloropterus of Hispaniola and P. euops of Cuba, but this relationship was poorly supported (UFBS = 61 %).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C4AFFD3FF9EFE6A4EF129E7.taxon	description	The monotypic genera Thectocercus, Diopsittaca, Guaruba, Leptosittaca, and Ognorhynchus are recovered as a clade, which was sister to Psittacara. Relationships within the clade have biogeographical cohesion. The sister pair of Ognorhynchus and Leptosittaca are relatively restricted-range species endemic to midmontane parts of the northern to western Andes. Sister to them are the other three genera, which form a subclade, mainly in lowlands east of the Andes. Overall, the latter three are more widespread than Leptosittaca and Ognorhynchus, notwithstanding Guaruba being fragmented and rare. Each is as phenotypically unique as might be expected. We recommend no changes to generic taxonomy and in particular we reject synonymy of Leptosittaca within Aratinga as is occasionally proposed (e. g., Forshaw and Knight, 2010). Of the five, only Diopsittaca nobilis and Thectocercus acuticaudatus have described subspecies, but we know of no suggestions to recognize any of these at species rank. Although both species have subspecies with large disjunctions that warrant phylogeographic investigations. Maximum likelihood estimates of node ages in this clade range from 2.5 – 6.4 Mya (fig. 9).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C4AFFD5FD5EFB584B1F2F85.taxon	description	The impetus to move nenday to Aratinga involved a further species, weddellii. That is, although nenday is sister to the core A. solstitialis group (Ribas and Miyaki, 2004; this study), weddellii is in turn that larger group’s sister (see South American Checklist Committee [SACC] proposal 578). Retaining all these species in Aratinga is simple and expedient (e. g., Remsen et al., 2013); it even has biogeographic cohesion in that the group is distributed around the lowland periphery of most of Amazonia. It obviates the need to recognize three genera, which is necessitated if nenday, nested within the group, is assigned to monotypic Nandayus. However, we do recommend assigning weddellii to its own genus (see below), so the issue returns to one of whether to generically recognize the two sister lineages, i. e., nenday and the core A. solstitialis group. Like so many similar decisions involving sister lineages, this ultimately is arbitrary. How might we resolve it here? The divergence between A. nenday and the core A. solstitialis group had a mean estimate of 3.2 Mya (1.1 – 4.8; fig. 9). This age was younger than the majority of intrageneric divergences in parrots (only the Diopsittaca and Guaruba split at 2.5 Mya [0.9 – 3.8] was younger), and it is comparable with that of intraspecific divergences frequently observed within Neotropical birds (Smith et al., 2017). We conclude that relative to the core A. solstitialis group, phenotypic differences of nenday have evolved rapidly while plumage similarities (Silveira et al., 2005) likely are synapomorphic. We advocate retention of nenday in Aratinga. Further research might usefully focus on the evolution of plumage color in the core A. solstitialis group complex, which presumably uses blue structural color and psittacofulvins to produce the greens and yellows in plumage of the entire head (reviewed in Berg and Bennett, 2010), whereas nenday has a melanin-producing pathway in its dark crown. Mutations in the gene SLC 45 A 2 in captive color morphs of Psittacula sensu lato parakeets were shown to lead to a loss of melanin and produce a yellow phenotype (Roy et al., 2024). Identifying the reverse molecular pathway, a gain in melanin production, would help clarify the taxonomic relevance of the dark crown in nenday. Qualitatively, evolution to melanin-producing plumage color was infrequent in parrots, but it has independently evolved multiple times outside of nenday. The final species to be discussed in the genus is A. weddellii of western lowland Amazonia. In our analyses, it is strongly supported as sister to all other Aratinga and on a relatively long branch (fig. 9), corroborating previous work (Kirchman et al., 2012). The disparity in plumage and skin color and patterning between A. weddellii and all other Aratinga is striking. It is reflected in the deep split at 6.6 Mya (2.7 – 9.4; fig. 9), separating these two lineages. The estimated timing of this divergence is largely overlapping with the split of the extinct Conuropsis carolinensis from the whole subclade (fig. 9). The combined phenotypic and phylogenetic distinctiveness of Aratinga weddellii strongly suggests the merit of its generic separation (cf. distinctiveness of Psephotellus varius relative to other Psephotellus spp.). A genus group name, Gymnopsittacus Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920, is available for A. weddellii. We advocate for and suggest the reintroduction of its status as a monotypic genus. Miranda-Ribeiro (1920) designated Aratinga weddellii (see note below on orthography) as the type species and Eupsittula cactorum as what he termed a cotype species. Peters (1937) as first reviser fixed Conurus weddellii Deville, 1851, as the type species of Gymnopsittacus. Further, Miranda-Ribeiro (1920) included a third taxon, aeruginosa, in Gymnopsittacus but it has long since been recognized as a subspecies within the polytypic Eupsittula pertinax complex. Similarly, Eupsittula also holds E. cactorum. It is beneficial to reiterate the diagnostic phenotypic traits of Gymnopsittacus as follows: rosepink (côr de carne = color of flesh sensu Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920) colored nares and lateral gular skin along the base of the bill; frequently very pale iris, albeit possibly bicolored; large, broadly circular area of naked, pale periophthalmic skin that is proportionally larger relative to the eye than in closely related Aratinga sensu stricto but that resembles in its extent that of Thectocercus acuticaudata, for example; the highly variable dusky blue-gray coloring of the feathering of the head that results from individual feathers being brownish proximally and bluish gray distally. The overall color of the head is thus highly variable due, we posit, to combined factors of wear and perhaps individual variation; we know of no evidence that there are sexual differences in its intensity, although this may warrant study. Lastly, we note that Miranda-Ribeiro (1920) consistently misspelled the epithet weddellii as weddelli. The orthography introduced by Deville (1851) was indeed the former, i. e., weddellii, having double d, double l, and double i.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C4CFFD6FD5EFC424E86281B.taxon	description	Lastly, here, we make a nomenclatural note about this species. Whitney’s (1996) reinstatement of monotypic Orthopsittaca Ridgway, 1912, for this species has since become conventional. When Ridgway (1912) introduced Orthopsittaca, however, he cited Orthopsittaca manilata as the type species, implying that manilata was adjectival and feminine. Dickinson and Remsen (2013), in contrast, argued that usage should return to the masculine form manilatus of the species epithet, i. e., Orthopsittaca manilatus, noting that the name manilatus was invariable. We have been advised (see Acknowledgments) that in Boddaert’s (1783: 52) naming of the bird as Psittacus manilatus, the specific epithet manilatus means “ broad hand. ” We are further advised that under Article 31.2.1 of ICZN (1999) Orthopsittaca manilatus would be the correct nomenclature. Patterns of usage also argue that despite a long familiarity of the feminine manilata when the species was in Ara and since Orthopsittaca was reinstated by Whitney (1996), the masculine manilatus has prevailed since Dickinson and Remsen (2013). A cursory “ Catalog ” search of the Biodiversity Heritage Library on 19 March 2024 returned 52 instances of Orthopsittaca manilata, only two of which were later than 2013, and eight instances of O. manilatus all of which were after 2013. Further, other global checklists (e. g., Clements et al., 2022; Gill et al., 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024) have used manilatus. Given the apparent trend toward the use of manilatus since 2013, we concede, albeit reluctantly, that usage of Orthopsittaca manilatus should remain.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C4EFFC8FF9EF9AD4D7329EA.taxon	description	Psittrichas fulgidus has an elongate bill, is among the largest parrots, and is utterly unlike any other parrot in its distinctive black and red plumage and black facial skin (Forshaw and Knight, 2010). It occurs widely across montane forests in New Guinea and has no described subspecies.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C50FFCAFD5FFD4B4B562DC8.taxon	description	Previous multilocus phylogenetic studies analyzed only two of the three species, P. anthopeplus and P. alexandrae, and not P. swainsonii (Wright et al., 2008; Schweizer et al., 2010, 2011). Further, these earlier multilocus studies sampled only single individuals each of P. anthopeplus and P. alexandrae that, moreover, had been reared in captivity either in Europe or North America and presumably were descended from many generations bred in captivity. Wild-collected specimens of Polytelis alexandrae are rare in museum collections, and we know of no cryofrozen tissue samples of it from natural populations. Given that background and taxon sampling, we note that the earlier multilocus studies consistently and unexpectedly found that P. anthopeplus and P. alexandrae were not each other’s closest relatives. In particular, P. alexandrae consistently was more closely related to Aprosmictus erythropterus than to P. anthopeplus (reviewed in Provost et al., 2018). In an ongoing phylogenomic study of this unexpected result, we have sequenced all three species using multiple samples, whether toe pads of older museum specimens or cryofrozen tissue samples, from the natural ranges of all species, as well as captive-bred samples of P. alexandrae (note again that there are no cryofrozen tissue samples of wild P. alexandrae). We specifically probed the unexpected paraphyly of Polytelis. We wished to test, for example, whether it was due to the use in earlier work of captive birds in Europe and North America. Specifically, such birds could have been descended, albeit by many generations, from well-known hybridization between P. alexandrae and A. erythropterus in captivity, although there is no evidence of backcrossing after such hybridization (Forshaw, 2002; Sindel and Gill, 2003) during the 20 th century. The concatenated tree found that P. alexandrae was sister to P. anthopeplus and P. swainsonii with 93 % UFBS (fig. 10). In contrast, the species tree affirmed earlier multilocus work showing P. alexandrae as sister to Aprosmictus with 100 % support. The divergence time estimate for P. alexandrae was approximately 7.9 Mya (4.7 – 11). This phylogenetic discordance could indicate several possibilities: ancient introgression occurred between between P. alexandrae and A. erythropterus (or their ancestral lineages); P. alexandrae is of hybrid origin; or P. alexandrae warrants full generic, not subgeneric, separation from Polytelis. Concerning the last alternative, we note that Spathopterus North, 1895, was erected solely for this species based on the spatulate tip of one primary feather in males. Mathews (1912) noted, however, that the name is preoccupied by Spathoptera Audinet-Serville, 1835, in the Coleoptera (see Schodde and Mason, 1997). Northipsitta Mathews, 1912, is available for it if Spathoptera is truly unavailable. Currently, we do not favor its generic separation from Polytelis (pace Provost et al., 2018). We instead argue that ancient introgression within the past natural ranges of these birds, not in captive populations, is potentially an equally good explanation of the data bearing on this problem. We are planning a separate publication specifically to address this surprisingly intransigent conundrum in more detail and our approach to its resolution.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C55FFCCFF9EFF0C4EF0290E.taxon	description	Nonmonophyly of Psittacula has been reported in several studies, which have all found Tanygnathus to be nested within it (Groombridge et al., 2004; Kundu et al., 2012; Jackson et al., 2015; Podsiadlowski et al., 2017). However, taxonomic recognition of Psittacula sensu lato has persisted despite its established nonmonophyly for two decades. Braun et al. (2019) proposed a major taxonomic revision of a subclade within Psittaculini (Tanygnathus, Psittinus, Psittacula, and Prioniturus) to recognize only monophyletic genera as follows († denoting extinct species): Himalayapsitta (himalayana, finschii, roseata, cyanocephala), Nicopsitta (columboides, calthrapae), Belocercus (longicauda), Psittacula (alexandri, derbiana), Palaeornis († wardi, eupatria; see Hume, 2007, and Podsiadlowski et al., 2017, for placement of † Mascarinus Lesson, 1831, within this group), and Alexandrinus (krameri, † exsul, and eques including echo).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C55FFCFFF9EFADC4B732EE1.taxon	description	The phylogenomic trees show discordance between the concatenated and species tree topologies, but the trees certainly support the need for a taxonomic revision. A prominent difference between the Braun et al. (2019) tree and both the phylogenomic trees was in the placement of Psittinus. Braun et al. (2019) found that Psittinus was sister to a clade containing Tanygnathus, Psittacula longicauda, Psittacula alexandri, and Psittacula derbiana. In contrast, the phylogenomic tree showed that Psittinus was strongly supported as sister to the entire clade containing Psittacula / Tanygnathus (fig. 10), and that pattern was also recovered in the species tree. These two basal lineages shared a common ancestor 10.5 Mya (6.2 – 13.7; fig. 10). The position of Psittinus does not impact the proposed generic revision of Braun et al. (2019), but it is important for understanding the evolutionary history of the clade. For the remaining lineages, the phylogenomic tree favors fewer new monophyletic genera. It supports Himalayapsitta (roseata, cyanocephala, himalayana, and finschii) as represented by a clade stemming from the basal node in the entire Psittacula-Tanygnathus group 10 Mya (5.9 – 13; fig. 10). Braun et al. (2019) further proposed Nicopsitta, Palaeornis, and Alexandrinus to account for the nonmonophyly among the group more broadly. Our phylogenomic analyses place all the species that would be subsumed in the first two of these genera (calthrapae, columboides, wardi, eupatria) as well as eques in a clade for which we advocate recognition under the oldest available name, Palaeornis Vigors, 1825. The generic variation characterized by Braun et al. (2019) was reflected in the relatively deep crown age of Palaeornis at 8.2 Mya (4.8 – 10.8; fig. 10). Note that if the phylogenetic position of extinct Mascarinus mascarinus (Linnaeus, 1771) found by Podsiadlowski et al. (2017) is confirmed then this species would also be placed and rounded tails of these birds are likely derived within Palaeornis, which is the older generic name. traits, but this depends on the position of Psitti- Braun et al. (2019) inferred longicauda with weak nus. Tanygnathus gramineus occurs only on Buru support to be sister species to derbiana / alexandri (Moluccas, Indonesia). It is monotypic and and accordingly suggested placing longicauda in a extremely rare in collections and we have been monotypic genus, Belocercus S. Muller, 1847. We unable to sample it. The other species all show have found support for that relationship among geographic variation expressed with up to six these species in the phylogenomic tree (UFBS = described subspecies. 94 %; fig. 10). This includes caniceps, which was not Provost et al. (2018) and Braun et al. (2019) sampled in Braun et al. (2019), as sister to longi- each inferred relationships for Tanygnathus, but cauda in our tree. We dated the basal divergence each of those studies drew on samples of two of Psittacula sensu stricto (derbiana, alexandri, lon- species (T. sumatranus, T. megalorhynchos), gicauda, caniceps) at 6.8 Mya (3.8 – 9.4; fig. 10). whereas Arndt et al. (2019) and the present study Accordingly, we favor retention of the two sister included T. sumatranus. The best estimation of species pairs that comprise there four taxa, (longi- phylogenetic relationships among the other specauda, caniceps, alexandri, and derbiana) within cies based on our analyses and that of morphol- Psittacula Cuvier, 1800 (type species is Psittacus ogy (plumage, iris color) and mitochondrial alexandri Linnaeus, 1758; see Schodde et al., 2012; DNA sequences (Arndt et al., 2019) was that T. ICZN, 2014), rendering Belocercus synonymous megalorhynchos and T. lucionensis were sister with it. However, the species tree has longicauda species, and that T. sumatranus sensu lato was and caniceps (the latter not sampled by Braun et al., sister to both (fig. 10). This topology was not 2019) as sister to Tanygnathus (LPP = 1.0). This comparable to other trees. The position of T. relationship, if eventually confirmed, could be lucionensis in the species tree was unreliable expressed by the adoption of Belocercus to avoid a because the sample was of lower quality. Despite paraphyletic Psittacula, but we do not recommend the lower diversity of Tanygnathus, the clade had its adoption yet. a crown age of 6.0 Mya (3.4 – 7.9; fig. 10). Braun et al. (2019) also found some cases of Arndt et al. (2019) argued on grounds of morparaphyletic species, derbiana being nested phology (plumage, iris color) and cytochrome b within alexandri, and echo within krameri. sequences from mitochondrial DNA that Philip- Because the sampling of the entire group has pine populations of T. sumatranus should be relied on using captive birds, samples from wild elevated to species rank as T. everetti. We agree birds will be required to verify these patterns. We that further work is needed to accurately place T. do not yet advocate placing derbiana within alex- e. burbidgii (Sulu Islands) and T. s. sangirensis andri but urge closer study. (Talaud Islands) before species limits in T. sumatranus sensu lato are resolved. Tanygnathus Tanygnathus are predominantly green, round- Psittacellinae tailed parrots with large or massive bills, and in most species, at least partly red. The four usually recognized species (see below) are distributed in Psittacella the Philippines and Indonesia. The genus is nested The tiger parrots (Psittacella) are stocky, small deeply within Psittacula sensu lato, so the large bill to midsized with short round tails (Forshaw and Knight, 2010). The English name tiger-parrot is derived from the yellow-and-black barring in the chest (upper ventral) plumage in females of three of the four species. There are two small and two larger species, clearly forming two species pairs that were reflected in our phylogeny (fig. 11). The clade is on a deep branch, sharing a common ancestor with the clade containing the subfamilies Platycercinae, Loriinae, and Agapornithinae 20.6 – 33.5 Mya (fig. 1). Across this relatively long evolutionary period, there are only four species that diversified in the mountains of New Guinea. Phylogenetic relationships are stable and consistent across concatenated and species tree approaches in the phylogenomic data. Prior phylogenetic work only sampled P. brehmii and P. picta (Provost et al., 2018). Psittacella modesta and P. madaraszi are sister and have olive-brown heads with green backs. The other sister pair, P. brehmii and P. picta, have black barring on their backs. The crown age of Psittacella, 11.3 Mya (6.8 – 14.5; fig. 11), was among the oldest of all parrot genera, as are the species-level divergence time estimates. One subspecies of P. picta, P. p. lorentzi, has occasionally been elevated to species rank (Mayr, 1941; del Hoyo and Collar, 2014) based on plumage differences, Mayr (1941) only further noting that they “ form a superspecies. ” Gregory (2017) commented that they differ “ significantly in plumage, ” lorentzi seeming “ as distinct from Painted [P. picta] as Modest [P. modesta] and Madarasz’s Tiger-Parrots [P. madaraszi] are from each other. ” More recently, Collar et al. (2020) imply that they will retain the two species arrangement, although at the time of our writing (11 May 2024) had not yet not employed it. We agree with Beehler and Pratt (2016) in stressing that this is premature until the nature of any contact where P. p. lorentzi and P. p. excelsa meet is explored, especially with genetic data. Beehler and Pratt (2016) noted that the likely area of contact, near the Strickland River gorge, is a barrier for a number of montane species. The details of this case, to reiterate, need further study. We know of no proposal to separate the large- and small-bodied species pairs of Psittacella into two genera (fig. 12). Given their ages, this is not without merit. That differently sized but otherwise extraordinarily similar species with a sister-group relationship should be placed in different genera finds support elsewhere in Aves, e. g., the meliphagid genera Entomyzon and Melithreptus. In that case, there is no extant species of clearly intermediate size whereas in Psittacella the four species more smoothly intergrade in size between extremes. Further, subclades in Psittacella cannot be diagnosed by yellow-and-black barring in the chest of females because three out of four of the species have the character state. We refrain from breaking up Psittacella here primarily for those reasons.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C56FFC1FC9EFCCA4EC8287E.taxon	description	The Pezoporini are restricted to Australia. The phylogenomic trees confirm the results of Joseph et al. (2011) that Neopsephotus, Neophema, and Pezoporus form a clade, the Pezoporini, and that Pezoporus is monophyletic. Estimated divergence times among these three genera are deep. Neopsephotus and Neophema share a common ancestor 16.9 Mya (11.2 – 20.7), and this lineage coalesces with Pezoporus 23.8 Mya (16.7 – 28.5; figs. 1, 11). Both the concatenated and species trees inferred from phylogenomic data are topologically concordant for higher-level and the majority of species-level relationships within the Pezoporini. Our data affirm that Melopsittacus undulatus is not closely related to Pezoporini as had been thought prior to the advent of molecular studies. Lastly, here, we argue that Pezoporini warrants being broken into two tribes, monogeneric Pezoporini and a second tribe for Neophema and Neopsephotus. We name that tribe below after closer review of our data and the biology of these birds. Pezoporus Pezoporus contains three midsized and highly terrestrial species with varying tail lengths relative to body size. They are either nocturnal (P. occidentalis) or active at dawn and dusk (P. wallicus, P. flaviventris). They are essentially green, finely mottled black and yellow, having very few other differences in plumage (e. g., red frons absent in P. occidentalis but present in the other two; yellower belly in P. flaviventris relative to P. wallicus). Their plumage pattern is strikingly convergent with that of Strigops. the and. show) Bello ♀ to 622039 Robles Psittacella of AMNH Sahid:, species Ƌ 419599 Photographs recognized. AMNH species) ♀ traditionally picta. P 622057; ♀ four 339594 AMNH, the Ƌ of) AMNH 419061 AMNH, Ƌ (293610 AMNH History AMNH madaraszi Natural. of brehmii P; ♀ Museum. P (622046 larger American of AMNH pairs, Ƌ the sister 339630 from the Specimens AMNH between. modesta 12 difference. P FIGURE (size smaller The estimated split of Pezoporus wallicus and P. flaviventris was 3.8 Mya (2.1 – 5.2; fig. 11), which is older but overlaps with the level divergence in mtDNA that was used to elevate the two to species rank (Murphy et al., 2011). The enigmatic and recently rediscovered P. occidentalis diverged from the ground parrots early in their history at 7.5 Mya (4.4 – 10). Shute et al. (2023) have reexamined the cranial osteology of the arid zone, nocturnal P. occidentalis. They summarize its osteological distinctiveness in the title of their paper as adaptive and also note it as an evolutionary trade-off between the need for species to have good hearing and vision in its largely nocturnal biology. Taxonomically, they raised the specter of reinstating monotypic Geopsittacus for P. occidentalis. As their work clearly suggests adaptive differentiation relative to the other two Pezoporus species, we do not advocate breaking up Pezoporus.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C58FFC2FF9EFB7B4ED12E0A.taxon	description	Among the six species remaining in Neophema, four are strictly or partially migratory, although the scale of movements varies. Neophema chrysostoma of southeastern Australia and the critically endangered N. chrysogaster are typical long-distance migrants crossing Bass Strait between Tasmania and the Australian mainland, N. chrysostoma migrating still further north deep into arid central Australia. As some of these movements occur at night, we reiterate the observation of Joseph et al. (2011) that crepuscular or nocturnal activity characterizes a number of species in Pezoporini as currently construed, suggesting its early origin in the tribe’s history. Neophema elegans in the west of its range is partially migratory with at least a part of its population regularly migrating seasonally up to several hundred kilometers between the arid and temperate zones (Davis and Burbidge, 2008). Neophema elegans in eastern Australia moves locally with some suggestion of seasonality (Collar and Boesman, 2020) and N. petrophila certainly undergoes pronounced postbreeding dispersal and probably some seasonal movement (Baxter and Parker, 1981; Higgins, 1999). The sister species N. splendida and N. pulchella are in turn sister to the preceding four species and geographically replace each other in low woodlands in arid central-southern Australia and mesic southeastern Australia, respectively. Wolters (1975) introduced Neophemini at tribal rank to accommodate the genera Neopsephotus and Neophema. He gave neither a description nor a reference to one as is required for new family-group names introduced after 1930. Therefore, his name is a nomen nudum and unavailable. Our colleagues R. Schodde and I. Mason have independently concluded that there is merit in recognizing Neophema and Neopsephotus at tribal or subtribal rank. We here join with them in introducing a family-group name to accommodate the genera Neopsephotus and Neophema either at tribal rank or as a subtribe within Pezoporini. We introduce a new family-group name at the rank of tribe as:	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5BFFC2FF85FDD34B802935.taxon	description	ZooBank registration: urn: lsid: zoobank. org: act: 7156 B 56 E- 42 BF- 4410 - AAB 4 - 2 C 3 A 84628231	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5BFFC2FF85FDD34B802935.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS: Small, usually plain-plumaged parrots without transverse barring or black chevroning, e. g., dorsal feathers in Pezoporus are transversely barred black and yellow in their centers but broadly fringed with green, whereas in Neophema and Neopsephotus the dorsal feathers are plain green or dusky brown, respectively; unmarked outer rectrices with extensive yellow (or white) tips and dark bases; remiges with white to yellowish white bar on inner vanes evanescent, earliest in adult males, hardly extending on to outer vanes and usually obscure on upper surface of wing; pale “ submissive ” spot present in nape down; underwing coverts rich dark blue, often brighter on bend of wing; hypotarsal flexor tendon arrangement approaching ancestral condition: deep flexor tendons enclosed in separate bony canals, superficial tendon musculus flexor perforatus digiti II enclosed in a separate canal, and remaining superficial tendons external and separated in two separated shallow grooves on plantar wall; usually colonial, in small groups; foraging on ground and low shrubs and nesting in tree hollows (scrapes under rocks in Neophema petrophila); nestling begging call a husky quavering note that increases in time-frequency with age developing into bursts of brief whistles. In accordance with Article 13.1.2, we note that gross phenotypic differences have been well-illustrated and described on many occasions in the literature and we cite as examples reference works on the world’s parrots (e. g., Forshaw and Knight, 2010; Juniper and Parr, 1998). This tribe comprises the genera Neophema and Neopsephotus. TYPE GENUS: Neophema Salvadori, 1891, Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum 20: 539, 569, by original designation. Type species: Psittacus pulchellus Shaw, 1792 = Nephema (Neophema) pulchella (Shaw, 1792). TAXONOMIC POSITION OF THE TRIBE: Subfamily Platycercinae in the Family Psittaculidae. COMPONENT GENERA: Neopsephotus and Neophema.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5BFFC2FF85FDD34B802935.taxon	description	Euphema bourkii Gould, 1841 = Neopsephotus bourkii (Gould, 1841), by monotypy.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5BFFC2FF85FDD34B802935.taxon	description	1790 = Neophema (Neonanodes) chrysogaster (Latham, 1790), by monotypy. GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION: Australia and some of its offshore islands including Tasmania.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5BFFC3FC86FA994CC32D55.taxon	description	Our concatenated tree was concordant with previous phylogenies (Boon et al., 2008; Joseph et al., 2011) showing that Eunymphicus and Cyanoramphus are sister lineages, and that Prosopeia was sister to both. Some of the species trees had Cyanoramphus and Prosopeia as sister with strong support. However, interpreting the robustness of this alternative relationship will require new genetic data because the Eunymphicus samples were dropped in the most stringent data-retention filter.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5DFFC4FD5FFE8B4B4A2A3A.taxon	description	Notably, the P. elegans group has long been a focus of work in speciation and systematics particularly after it was proposed by Cain (1955) as an example of a ring species. Our sampling was not designed to address these issues, but genomic testing of earlier work by Joseph et al. (2008) rejecting the ring species hypothesis is long overdue.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5FFFC7FF9FF9B24D4929EA.taxon	description	If the pattern of relationships recovered in our study and by Christidis and Norman (1996) is confirmed, then it would imply that P. dissimilis diverged first from the common ancestor of P. chrysopterygius and P. pulcherrimus through vicariance across the Carpentarian Barrier. Next, divergence within eastern Australia led to separation of P. pulcherrimus and P. chrysopterygius (see Bryant and Krosch, 2016, for relevant biogeography). Psephotellus pulcherrimus was extinct by 1930, but genomic analyses show no evidence of a bottleneck prior to its extinction (Irestedt et al., 2019). Given the discordance just noted between color of wing coverts and relationships, it is notable that the reduced wing-covert patch is sexually dimorphic in C. varia, yellow in males and red in females and younger males. Lastly, we note that the plumage patterning of adult male P. dissimilis and P. chrysopterygius is, at least within the constraints of natural selection, broadly similar to that of several species of African Poicephalus most especially Poicephalus meyeri (fig. 13) in showing dark upperparts, prominent yellow about the greater wing coverts, and a similarly unusual shade of green on the underparts. Study of the drivers of this convergence in the high-intensity light, mostly tropical savannas that these species inhabit would surely be rewarding.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5EFFB8FCD0FC6D4D6B2935.taxon	description	org: act: 6 CB 65343 - DA 33 - 4016 - BE 31 - B 8348 E 1813 A 8	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5EFFB8FCD0FC6D4D6B2935.taxon	diagnosis	DIAGNOSIS: In accordance with Article 13.1.1, we note that diagnostic traits of Bolbopsittacini — the same as those of its sole genus and species, the Guaiabero Bolbopsittacus lunulatus — include the combination of the following: a small (~ 15 cm) parrot with a very short tail; proportionally broad, bicolored bill that is black distally and bluish gray proximally; predominantly green in plumage but with light blue around the face and a sexually dimorphic collar uniquely in parrots located across the mantle, which in males is blue concolorous with or slightly darker than blue of the face and in females is yellow with a black terminal band; yellow rump edged with black in females of B. l. mindanensis. We note convergent similarities in plumage with Cyclopsitta diophthalma, especially in the tone of blue about the face. In accordance with Article 13.1.2, we note that these differences have been well illustrated and described on many occasions in the literature and we cite as examples reference works on the world’s parrots (e. g., Forshaw and Knight, 2010; Juniper and Parr, 1998).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C5EFFB8FCD0FC6D4D6B2935.taxon	description	COMPONENT GENERA: Monospecific including only Bolbopsittacus lunulatus (Scopoli, 1786). GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION: Philippines.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C20FFB9FF9EFA514B2F29EA.taxon	description	The topology of Provost et al. (2018) is concordant with the phylogenomic tree for nodes with common sampling except A. personatus and A. fischeri were found not to be sisters. The whole genome phylogeny Huynh et al. (2023) also recovered the same topology as our concatenated tree except it had lower support for nodes lilianae / nigrigenis and personatus / fischeri. Maximum likelihood estimates of species-level divergences cover a large timeframe, ranging from 0.7 Mya to 10.8 Mya (fig. 11). We advocate retention of one genus, Agapornis, for all of these species.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C23FFBAFF9EFE404C2D289F.taxon	description	Two genera, Cyclopsitta and Psittaculirostris, are currently recognized. We recognize longrunning, contentious debate about whether Cyclopsitta should be used instead of Opopsitta (e. g., Mathews, 1916; Holyoak, 1970; Storr, 1973, Schodde, 1978; Schnitker, 2014) but follow the decision to use Cyclopsitta. Previous work by Mitchell et al. (2021) and phylogenomic trees show that Cyclopsitta was paraphyletic (fig. 14), and Psittaculirostris, while monophyletic, was nested within Cyclopsitta. The complexes of taxa long treated as subspecies of C. gulielmitertii and C. diophthalma have not been completely sampled for molecular data. With that caveat, C. gulielmitertii emerged as sister to a clade comprising Psittaculirostris and the similarly diverse, polytypic C. diophthalma complex. Note that this is based on the limited taxon sampling that has been done in a mitochondrial genome analysis (Mitchell et al., 2021) and in our phylogenomic analysis. In our study, as iterated before, we sampled only one individual per species. In contrast, Mitchell et al. (2021) sampled several but not every subspecies in C. diophthalma, and in C. gulielmitertii they sampled just one individual of C. gulielmitertii melanogenia. It is worth noting that the same C. gulielmitertii sample (ANWC B 56211) was used here and by Mitchell et al. (2021). Within Psittaculirostris, P. edwardsii and P. salvadorii diverged 0.8 Mya (0.4 – 1.6) and the ancestor of these taxa diverged from P. desmarestii 1.8 Mya (0.7 – 2.8; fig. 14). A case to break up Cyclopsitta had been made on morphological and ecological grounds (Schnitker, 2014), reinforcing the molecular data that show the genus to be paraphyletic. Suavipsitta Mathews, 1917, is available for all taxa within the polytypic gulielmitertii complex (see Mathews 1917 b), whether ascribed species or subspecies rank (see summary in Beehler and Pratt, 2016) in the recent trend to recognize more than one species within the gulielmitertii complex). The only alternative to not recognizing Suavipsitta would appear to be placing all these birds — including Psittaculirostris — in one genus. We argue that this would unhelpfully obscure the group’s phenotypic and phylogenetic diversity. It also simply repeats the recognition of the group at tribe level in Cyclopsittini. We therefore endorse the recognition of Suavipsitta. Satisfactory species-level taxonomies for both the C. diophthalma and S. gulielmitertii complexes await molecular studies with full taxon sampling.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C23FFBDFC62F9F64EF52D13.taxon	description	within the clade to align with phylogenetic history. This revision resulted in the splitting of sev- Oreopsittacus eral nonmonophyletic genera (Trichoglossus; Oreopsittacus is monotypic with geographic Charmosyna; Psitteuteles). There are three main variation across the New Guinea highlands. Oreclades in the Loriini: (1) the monotypic and opsittacus arfaki is a small green lorikeet, with a small-bodied Oreopsittacus; (2) includes diminu- long tail, and a distinct facial pattern of purple tive to small lorikeets with long tails: Charmo- cheek patches and a broken “ spotted ” white syna, Vini, Charminetta, Hypocharmosyna, malar stripe. As sister to all other lorikeets, it is Charmosynopsis, Synorhacma, and Charmosynoi- on a long branch stemming from the basal diverdes; and (3) species with a broad range in body gence of the radiation dating to 14.2 Mya (6 – 19.5; size (small to large) and tails varying from short fig. 14). Despite the significance of its evolution- and square to long and attenuated: Neopsittacus, ary position in the lorikeet phylogeny, it is Glossopsitta, Lorius, Parvipsitta, Psitteuteles, unclear how Oreopsittacus may inform the evolu- Pseudeos, Chalcopsitta, Glossoptilus, Eos, Tricho- tion of traits in the clade. Body size and plumage glossus, and Saudareos. Clade 1 was sister to evolution are labile in lorikeets (Merwin et al., clades 2 and 3. The origin of the deepest clades 2020). From a biogeographic perspective Oreop- FIGURE 14. Time-calibrated topology of Loriinae. Support values come from the maximum likelihood tree. Support values come from the maximum likelihood tree. Nodes have ultrafast bootstrap values of ≥ 95 % otherwise noted. Gray bars represent divergence time ranges were estimated from 100 bootstrap trees. * denotes an unsupported node where the topology of the presented time-calibrated phylogeny differs from that of the maximum likelihood tree. sittacus helps reinforce the hypothesis that lorikeets originated in New Guinea.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C24FFBEFF9FFED04D042D13.taxon	description	Charminetta comprises one New Guinean species, C. wilhelminae. It is a very small lorikeet with distinctive red underwings and rump and a blue hindcrown, presumably a plesiomorphic trait in lorikeets similar to the maroon belly plumage of Arini. Hypocharmosyna comprises two very similar species with sexually dichromatic elongated ear-covert feathers (blue in males, yellow in females) and red flanks or sides of the underparts. They occur on New Guinea and satellite islands. Charmosynopsis comprises two phenotypically disparate species, C. pulchella of New Guinea, largely red below and green above; and the other, C. toxopei, of Buru in Maluku, Indonesia, almost entirely green but for its blue frond and forecrown. Synorhacma of New Guinea although generally green shows yellow striations on its underparts, a patterning that is most unusual among all parrots, and uniquely in lorikeets, a bicolored bill. Charmosyna, which formerly was a large paraphyletic assemblage, now comprises just three New Guinean species that are largely red below and green above with blue hindcrowns posteriorly edged with black. Two of the species, C. stellae and C. papou, have extraordinarily long central tail feathers. The third species, C. josefinae, resembles the other two but with nonelongated central tail feathers. The phylogenetic pattern of elevational preference is interesting in that there have been multiple colonizations of the highlands and lowlands, where the number and directionality of the transition would be dependent on the ancestral state that is assigned. The sister to all remaining taxa in clade 2 was the smallest lorikeet Charminetta wilhelminae, which is a monotypic genus of the New Guinea highlands with no recognized geographic variation. There are then four subclades that reflect transitions between elevations. Hypocharmosyna (H. rubronotata and H. placentis) occur in the lowlands of New Guinea and surrounding islands. The widely distributed Hypocharmosyna placentis has deep phylogeographic structure that includes both mainland and insular forms (Smith et al., 2020; Joseph et al., 2020). More detailed populational-level sampling would be required to fully understand the evolutionary history of this taxon. Vini and Charmosynoides primarily occur in lower elevation habitats, but it is worth noting that montane conditions can be present at low elevations on Pacific islands (e. g., see V. palmarum in Gaua Island, Vanuatu; Andersen et al., 2017). Charmosynopsis toxopei occurs on Buru Island from 600 – 1000 m (Forshaw and Knight, 2010), Indonesia, and Charmosynopsis pulchella is another endemic species of the New Guinea highlands. Monotypic Synorhacma containing only S. multistriata occurs on the southern slopes of the central range in western New Guinea, occurring up to 1800 m (Forshaw and Knight, 2010).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C27FFBEFF9EFED14BBC2E0A.taxon	description	Vini as now construed exhibits high morphological diversity as it includes species formerly assigned to Vini, Charmosyna, and Phigys. It includes taxa with either short rounded tails (e. g., V. solitarius) through longer attenuated tails (e. g., V. meeki), species that are predominantly green with minimal red about the face and remarkably colored species with much red or blue, or both, in their plumage. Charmosynoides was erected for the Solomon Islands endemic C. margarethae. Although C. margarethae certainly resembles the red and green species now placed in Charmosyna sensu stricto, traits such as its broad yellow pectoral band and its biogeographic distinctiveness were highlighted by placement in a monotypic genus. Charmosynoides and Vini are sister taxa that shared a common ancestor 7.7 Mya (2.7 – 11.2; fig. 14). The more basal nodes in the radiation gave rise to mostly green birds, whereas more brilliantly and multicolored species (e. g., V. peruviana; V. ultramarina) stem from more derived nodes. This pattern of plumage evolution mainly follows a west-east expansion from Melanesia into Polynesia that occurred within the past 6.1 Mya (2.1 – 8.9; fig. 14). A still unresolved systematic puzzle within this clade is the placement of extinct V. diadema, which is known from a single specimen at the Paris Natural History Museum. Vini diadema was not included in Smith et al. (2020), but Joseph et al. (2020) advocated for its placement in Vini given its phenotypic similarity and geographic proximity to other small-bodied, green Vini.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C26FFB0FF9EFE504B74289F.taxon	description	Psitteuteles now comprises just one species, Ps. versicolor, of tropical northern Australia. Predominantly green, it has a mauve chest and red crown, striated underparts, and a prominent naked, white periophthalmic ring.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C26FFB0FF9EFE504B74289F.taxon	description	Chalcopsitta are large lories with midlength tails and atypical colors. The three species in Chalcopsitta (atra, scintillata, and duivenbodei) occur in the New Guinea lowlands and some adjacent islands. We follow Beehler and Pratt (2016) in using the emended spelling of the epithet scintillata despite its introduction as Psittacus sintillatus. Chalcopsitta scintillata has generally green body plumage that is heavily striated yellowish, similar to Synorhacma multistriata and Psitteuteles versicolor. Apart from a red forecrown in adults, however, its head plumage is largely dark to black. Apart from the black crown of some Lorius and melanic individuals of Charmosyna stellae, this is not observed in the Loriini outside Chalcopsitta. Even more distinct is the nearly entirely black C. atra (save for yellow and red undertail in some populations) and the brown, yellow, and purple C. duivenbodei (which has very prominent yellow underwings). Relationships among the three species are consistent and well supported (fig. 14). Chalcopsitta duivenbodei was sister to C. atra and C. scintillata. The crown age of Chalcopsitta is 3.7 Mya (0.9 – 6.0; fig. 14). Pseudeos and Cardeos both comprise single species and have been recently treated as congeneric (Joseph et al., 2020). We will argue below that separation into two genera can be justified. They are both characterized by extensive red or orange in their plumage. Prior molecular work showed that Pseudeos cardinalis, long placed without comment in Chalcopsitta, is more closely related to Pseudeos fuscata than to the three species of its former genus, Chalcopsitta (Schweizer et al., 2015). Our phylogenomic work confirms this result, but the species tree showed Pseudeos cardinalis as sister to Chalcopsitta, and P. fuscata as sister to the whole clade (fig. 14). The phylogenetic discordance can be explained in part by the short internodal distance spanning the mean divergence between Chalcopsitta and Pseudeos at just 0.6 Mya with almost largely overlapping temporal ranges from the bootstrapped trees. The split between Chalcopsitta and Pseudeos was estimated at 6.7 Mya (2 – 10.3) and the divergence within Pseudeos was 6.1 Mya (1.9 – 9.5; fig. 14). Concerning plumage traits in these five species, we stress the caveat of not giving undue taxonomic significance to similarities and differences. A general pattern of evolution in parrots, especially “ radiations ” of closely related species, is that relatively high diversity can evolve quickly under a range of evolutionary forces (Merwin et al., 2020). With that proviso, we make the following observations. Pseudeos show atypical plumage patterns and indeed colors not only for lorikeets but for parrots generally (e. g., the peculiar light greenish rump color in Pseudeos fuscata unique in all Psittaciformes except perhaps a similar but not necessarily homologous color in Poicephalus meyeri, Psephotellus dissimilis, and P. chrysopterygius). The more uniformly “ cardinal ” red species cardinalis, recently transferred to Pseudeos but whose generic status we investigate here, is distinct from all species within the Chalcopsitta / Pseudeos clade, most strikingly from its closest relative, P. fuscata. The most common plumage in P. fuscata is a combination of brown, black, and orange, but it has a polymorphic plumage in which yellow largely replaces orange. Research into the pigment (s) underlying these colors in the two species of Pseudeos would be most interesting, e. g., are they all due to modified expression of psittacofulvins, the pigment underlying pigment-based red-to-yellow hues in parrots (McGraw and Nogare, 2004)? Striated plumage patterning is absent in Pseudeos whereas in Chalcopsitta all three species share unique nuchal streaking. Further, among all five of these species only C. scintillata is ventrally streaked, the ventral barring in the other four presumably an ancestral trait. Figure 15 illustrates these traits. Concerning other characters, we note that in Pseudeos (including cardinalis) bill color is orange, or orange and black, whereas in Chalcopsitta it is black. The species cardinalis has an apparently autapomorphic trait of bare yellow skin around the base of the mandible. This skin of course is dark in museum specimens (fig. 15). Gross body size is disparate within both Chalcopsitta and Pseudeos sensu lato, with P. fuscata and C. scintillata the smaller species in their respective genus and the other three (atra, duivenbodei, and cardinalis) similarly large (see fig. 15). Lastly here, we note that P. cardinalis is endemic to a major center of avian endemism, the Solomon Islands. In contrast to our earlier position (Provost et al., 2018; Joseph et al., 2020), we here acknowledge the collective weight of available genomic data coupled with biogeographic evidence and phenotypic data (notwithstanding the lability of color evolution in lorikeets) that warrants placement of cardinalis in monotypic Cardeos Verheyen, 1956. We acknowledge that the temporal divergence between Cardeos cardinalis and Pseudeos fuscata closely matches that between the two species of Parvipsitta, but we do not advocate generic separation of the latter. Very different biogeographical patterns and contexts apply in the two groups and we argue that the generic taxonomy should capture this.	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
8D5487F99C29FFB2FD5EF9AC4D472A0B.taxon	description	616728; and, side AMNH, Ventral atra. (217110 Chalcopsitta AMNH to assigned cardinalis species Cardeos the and, AMNH of () 339121 AMNH Bello Robles. History fuscata Sahid: Natural of Pseudeos,) Photographs Museum American 339804 discussion. AMNH for from the duivenbodei See text right. Specimens 425529; left to 15. AMNH from FIGURE lata images present in many forms. Narrow, dark terminal barring is on underparts’ plumage. The reconfigured Trichoglossus sensu Joseph et al. (2020) brought morphological homogeneity to the clade in that it now comprises species of similar size and gross morphology and that are also biogeographically cohesive, albeit occurring over a large geographic area. Despite improved circumscription of Trichoglossus, its extraordinary color variation still presents challenges in understanding species limits within it. Most of the current uncertainty lies with the Rainbow Lorikeet (Trichoglossus haematodus) complex, long considered one of the most polytypic bird species. Recent taxonomic revisions have led to recognition of 10 species, mostly from elevating variants of typically “ rainbow ” plumaged T. haematodus to species rank (haematodus, rosenbergii, moluccanus, rubritorquis, capistratus, and forsteni), as well as the yellow-billed and yellow-tailed but otherwise almost uniformly maroon-plumaged species usually treated at species rank (rubiginosus) and taxa that are mostly green-plumaged birds (chlorolepidotus, euteles, and weberi). Based on subspecific sampling and phylogenomic data it is unclear whether these currently recognized species limits define monophyletic groups (Smith et al., 2020; Joseph et al., 2020). Both rubiginosus and chlorolepidotus appear to be outside the main Rainbow Lorikeet radiation, although their exact relationships to each other and Trichoglossus was not stable. For this reason, we refrain from using Oenopsittacus Reichenbach, 1913, of which T. rubiginosus is the type species for either or both of these species. We are currently employing an approach that uses whole-genome data and population-level sampling to further attempt to differentiate relationships and species limits in Trichoglossus. The extraordinary Trichoglossus radiation has a crown age 4.6 Ma (1.2 – 7.4; fig. 14).	en	Smith, Brian Tilston, Thom, Gregory, Joseph, Leo (2024): Revised Evolutionary And Taxonomic Synthesis For Parrots (Order: Psittaciformes) Guided By Phylogenomic Analysis. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 2024 (468): 1-87, DOI: 10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1, URL: https://doi.org/10.1206/0003-0090.468.1.1
