The taxonomic and conservation status of Chapin’s Crombec Sylvietta (leucophrys) chapini

2006·3.4 MB·

by  Lincoln D C Fishpool

i
The taxonomic and conservation status of Chapin’s Crombec
Sylvietta leucophrys chapin
( )
L. D. C. FishpoolaandN.J. Collarb
Le statut taxonomique et de conservation du Crombec de Chapin Sylvietta leucophrys chapi-
( )
ni. Le Crombec de Chapin Sylvietta leucophrys chapini est connu de seulement trois specimens
collectes dans les annees 1940 sur le Plateau de Lendu, dans le nord-est de la Republique
DemocratiqueduCongo. Bienqu’originalementdecritcommeespece, ilageneralementetetraite
depuis comme unesous-espece du Crombecasourcils blancs S. leucophrys. Dans un certainnom-
bred’ouvragesrecents, ilatoutefoisdenouveaueteconsiderecommeespece, nousincitantareex-
aminerson statut. Latetede chapiniestuniformementmarronvif, sans lesourcilblancbienmar-
que des deuxautres sous-especes de S. leucophrys. Al’exception du brun de latete, qui est un peu
plusvifchezchapini le taxon ressemblefortementaleucophryset, enl’absencedepreuvesvocales,
,
nous estimons qu’il vaut mieux le maintenir comme une sous-espece distincte. Obtenir des
preuves vocales sera problematique, non seulement parce que les troubles civils qui se poursui-
vent dans la region empechent tout travail sur le terrain, mais egalement parce que des doutes
existent concernant la survie de chapini la crainte etant que le defrichement de la foret sur le
,
PlateaudeLendupuisseavoircausesonextinction. Des informationsdatantdumilieudes annees
1990 indiquent que de la foret subsistait en ce temps-la, mais des travaux surle terrain devraient
etre menes d’urgence, des que les circonstances le permettent, car le Crombec de Chapin merite
fortement d’etre protege, irrespectivement de son rang taxonomique.
Summary. Chapin’s CrombecSylviettaleucophryschapiniisonlyknownfromthreespecimenscol-
lected in the 1940s on the Lendu Plateau, north-eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
Although originally described as a species, it has since commonly been treated as a subspecies of
White-browed Crombec S. leucophrys. In a number ofrecent works, however, it has again been
recognised specifically, thus prompting this reviewofits status. The head ofchapiniis uniformly
bright chestnut and lacks the conspicuous white eyebrow ofthe other two races ofS. leucophrys.
Apartfromthebrownoftheheadbeingsomewhatbrighterin chapini, itotherwisecloselyresem-
bles leucophrysand, in the absence ofvocal evidence, webelieve the taxon is best retainedas adis-
tinct subspecies. Obtaining such evidence will be problematic: not only does continuing civil
unrest in the region prevent any field work, but there is also doubt as to whether chapini still
exists, as it is feared forest clearance on Lendu may have led to its extinction. Information from
the mid 1990s indicated thatsome forest did then remain but furtherwork, when circumstances
permit, is urgentlyneededas, irrespectiveofits taxonomicrank, Chapin’s Crombecstronglymer-
its conservation.
T
he White-browed Crombec Sylvietta leu- replaced by chloronota, (including arileuca Parkes
cophrys of East Africa occurs in montane 1987) which occurs from Kigezi, south-western
DR
forests, mainly at 1,550-2,600 m, rarely slightly Uganda, and Kivu, eastern Congo, south to
lower, and up to 3,000 m in bamboo in someareas the highlands north-west and east of Lake
(Urban etal. 1997). S. leucophrys is generally con- Tanganyika (Urban et al. 1997, Carswell et al.
sidered to comprise three subspecies (Urban etal. 2005).
K1e9n9y7a,,Dwihcekriensiotnis2w0i0d3)e.spTrehaednaocmroisnsatmeucohccuorfsthien theTLheendtuhiPrldatfeoarum,,nocrhtahp-ienais,tiesrnknDoRwnCoonngloy,fraonmd
highlands, in Uganda, on Mt Elgon in theeastand differs markedly from the other races in having a
in Kibale Forest in the west, as well as on the complete chestnut cap which extends over the
slopes of Rwenzori, in both Uganda and the cheeks; it thus lacks their conspicuous eponymous
Democratic RepublicofCongo.To thesouth, it is white eyebrows. It was originally described as a
130-BullABCVol13No2(2006) TaxonomicandconservationstatusofChapins Crombec:Fishpool&Collar
)
species, Sylvietta chapini by Schouteden (1947) Monroe (1990) in recognising S. chapini specifi-
,
on the basis of three individuals collected on cally, whilst the Red List programme, implicitly
Lendu in the early 1940s by J.M. Vrijdagh and treating it as a subspecies of S. leucophrys not a
,
since housed at the Royal Museum for Central species of global conservation concern, did not
Africa (RMCA), Tervuren, Belgium. It was not have occasion to consider its threat status.
long, however, before the specific status ofchapini We therefore seek to address this discrepancy
was questioned, thefirstto do so apparentlybeing through reassessment ofthe taxonomic and con-
Chapin himself (1953), who wrote ‘the grayish servation status of Sylvietta leucophrys chapini
( )
underparts, with yellow tibial feathering and and, in so doing, we hope to raise its profile. We
under tail-coverts, suggest close relationship to S. are acutely conscious that there appear to have
leucophrys. Despite the difference in head colour, been no further records ofchapinisinceVrydagh’s
chapini may yet prove to be only a race’. White 1942 specimens, whilst loss ofhabitat within its
(1962) decided that the subspecific status ofchap- known range has been s—uch that, even over 15
ini was indeed proven and formally reduced it, years ago, Louette (1989) based on information
without comment, to a race of leucophrys. This provid—ed byUpoki A’genonga (M. Louette in litt.
treatment was followed by most subsequent 2006) wrote that ‘the forest on Lendu plateau is
authorities, including Hall & Moreau (1970), gone’, andspeculatedthatchapinimightnolonger
Wolters (1975-82) (who admitted some uncer- exist.
&
tainty), Lippens Wille (1976), Louette (1989),
&
Dowsett Forbes-Watson (1993), Urban et al. Morphology
RMCA
(1997), Clements (2000) and Dickinson (2003). During a visit to in December 2003,
The main exceptions, in addition to those men- LDCF was able to examine the three chapini syn-
tioned above, are Schouteden (1957, 1963), types and reconfirmed the features identified in
& &
Mackworth-Praed Grant (1973), Sibley the original diagnosis. Briefly, these comprise: top
Monroe (1990) and Sinclair & Ryan (2003); the and sides ofhead and nape rich chestnut-brown,
latter three all afford it the English vernacular mantle and back brownish with grey bases to
name ofChapin’s Crombec. feathers, rest of upperparts olive-green with grey
BirdLife International has responsibility for feather bases, flight-feathers brown conspicuously
maintaining, on behalfofIUCN, the Red List of fringed bright yellowish green; chin, throat and
globally threatened bird species. Since its publica- midline of abdomen white, rest of underparts
&
tion, the Red Data Book for Africa (Collar brownish grey, underwing-coverts, undertail-
Stuart 1985) has provided the justificatory back- coverts and thighs lemon-yellow, undertail brown.
bonefortheAfrotropicalcomponentofthislist.A According to the label data and type description,
few years later, BirdLife International adopted the bill is greyish pinkorflesh-coloured, darker or
Sibley & Monroe (1990, 1993) as its standard brownish below, the irides pale brown or chestnut
global taxonomic source (although this is no and legs greyish pink to flesh, colours evident
longer the case), and this formed the basis for from specimen labels to be equally applicable to
BirdLife’s Endemic Bird Area analysis nominate leucophrys.
(Stattersfieldetal. 1998). Sinceits adoption, how&- Oneofthethreesyntypes ofchapini, amale, is
ever, there were numerous cases where Sibley shown in Figs. 1-3, photographed alongside a
Monroe (1990, 1993) taxonomy was not fol- male of the nominate race from Ruwenzori, the
lowed. The majority ofsuch exceptions stemmed population nearest to Lendu, at its closest c.l° to
from studies associated with threat status assess- the south-west. In addition to the difference in
&
ments, including those in Collar Stuart (1985), head pattern, the nominate appears in the photo-
which in some cases indicated different taxonom- graph to be much larger. This is not however
ic treatments. Although strenuous attempts were borne out by measurement. Thus, Schouteden’s
made to reconcile the taxonomies followed by the type description gives the following for the three
Red List and Endemic Bird Area programmes, chapini: wing56-58 mm, tail21-23 mm, bill7-9
there are a few discrepancies. Sylvietta leucophrys mm, tarsus 18-19 mm. Re-measurement largely
(
chapiniis one such; Stattersfield etal. (1998), and confirmed these values (one specimen has a dam-
& &
Fishpool Evans (2001), followed Sibley aged bill and a second has broken tarsi), and
TaxonomicandconservationstatusofChapins Crombec:Fishpool&Collar BullABCVol13No2(2006)-131
Figures 1-3. Dorsal, lateral andventralviews ofChapin’s CrombecSylviettaleucophryschapini(RMCAspecimenno.
42313, malesyntype, Djugu, Lendu Plateau, north-eastern DRCongo) andWhite-browedCrombecS. 1. leucophrys
(RMCAspecimen no. 29830, male, Ruwenzori, north-eastern DRCongo). S. 1. chapini isontheleftin thedorsaland
lateralviews andon the rightintheventralview(L. D. C. Fishpool). © RoyalMuseumforCentralAfrica,Tervuren,
Belgium.
Vues dorsales, laterales etventrales duCrombecde ChapinSylviettaleucophryschapini(MuseeRoyaldel’Afrique
Centrale, specimenno. 42313, malesyntype, Djugu, Plateaude Lendu, nord-estdelaRD Congo) etCrombecasour-
cils blancsS. 1. leucophrys(MRAC, specimenno. 29830, male, Ruwenzori, nord-estdelaRD Congo). S. 1. chapiniesta
gaucheenvueslateraleetdorsaleetadroiteenvueventrale (L. D. C. Fishpool). © MuseeRoyaldel’AfriqueCentrale,
Tervuren, Belgique.
showed that the bill-length in the type description or by the specimens (Fig. 3). This character may
is ofexposedculmen. Equivalentdatafor 13 nom- be attributable to an anonymous, undated note
inate specimens (five male, six female and two accompanying two slides of a male from Djugu
unknown) from RuwenzoriintheNatural Fiistory held in the NHM. Part of this note reads
Museum (NHM),Tring, UK, (measured byNJC) ‘No.42513 Tervuren. ? Djugu Forest 26/11/42
were: wing 33-61 mm, tail 23-26 mm, bill from coll. Vrydagh. Above a close match with [NHM
skull 12.3-13 mm, bill from nares 6.7-7.3 mm specimen] S. leucophrys 1910.12.26.273 from Mt
and tarsus 21-23 mm. These suggest that chapini Elgonon mantle &below, exceptforayellow-buff
may have rather shorter legs, but the difference is wash on the tummy. Head richer brown with no
not striking. white eye-stripe’.The two slides showlateralviews
An additional character by which chapini is ofthe specimen in which little ofthe belly can be
said, by Urban et al. (1997), to differ from other seen. Fortuitously, however, a ventral view ofthe
races is in—havingayellow-buffwash to the greyof same chapinispecimen appears in Fig. 3 and, as is
&
the belly a difference which in Sinclair Ryan apparent, any yellow wash on the belly is exceed-
(2003)—becomes yellowish (not dark grey) under- ingly faint; it seems improbable that post-mortem
parts’ but this is not supported either by effects could account for a loss of colour, since
Schouteden’s type description, subsequently sum- Schouteden’s type description would surely have
marised by him as underparts brownish grey, chin, mentioned the character had it been apparent.
throat and centre ofbelly white; undertail-coverts The only major morphological diff—erence
lemon-yellow (Schouteden 1957; our translation), between chapini and nominate leucophrys and
or by the quote from Chapin (1953) given above, indeed chloronota, which differs from the latter
132-BullABCVol13No2(2006) TaxonomicandconservationstatusofChapins Crombec:Fishpool&Collar
onlyin its rathergreener upperparts and in having the branches ofa Eucalyptus outside the hotel in
slightl—y more brown on the ear-coverts and Nioka. Later in his short account, however,
cheeks therefore resides in the uniform chestnut Vrijdagh says that this and the secondNiokaspec-
head of the former: the lack of the broad white imen were shot in gallery forest. The Djugu indi-
supercilium makes it appear strikingly different. vidual was taken in forest, where he saw two fur-
The head colour of chapini is also richer and ther individuals in dense undergrowth, in flight
brighter than in most leucophrys including that and foraging for insects on branches, around
,
shown in Fig. 1, andwhilstthere is somevariation which theyworked rapidly.
betweennominateleucophrysspecimens in intensi-
ty ofhead colour, in none ofthose examined is it Discussion
as deep as chapini. Sibley & Monroe (1990), whilst acknowledging
that chapini was ‘usually considered a race of S.
Locality data and field observations leucophrys\ treated it as a species because they felt
The Lendu Plateau is alarge massifsituated at the that the ‘differences in face pattern suggest
northern end ofthe Albertine Rift, west ofLake allospecies status.’ However, having had the bene-
DR
Albert, in north-eastern Congo, bordered to fit ofbeing able to examine the skins, and whilst
thenorthbytheUgandan frontier.The altitudeof recognising that chapini differs stron—gly in head
theplateauvaries between 1,700 and2,000 m, ris- pattern—and, to a lesser extent, colour but in lit-
ing along its eastern edge to a number of cone- tle else we do not feel that such differences are
shaped mountains, of which the highest is Mt sufficient to merit this treatment and prefer, on
Aboro at 2,455 m. The plateau is predominantly present evidence, to retain chapiniprovisionallyas
grassland with isolated trees; montane forest for- a distinctive subspecies ofleucophrys.
merlyoccurred in patches above 1,500 m, but has Part ofour reluctance in this matter relates to
now largely been destroyed. The forest near the fact that the head pattern ofchapiniis not dis-
Djugu, in the valley ofthe Nizi River, is thought similar to the juvenile plumage ofthe other races.
tobethemostimportantremnant (Vrydagh 1949, Louette (1989), who asserted that ‘without doubt
Demey & Louette 2001). Indeed, this forest was the chapinispecimens areadults’ (notwithstanding
the source ofone ofVrydagh’s three specimens: an that one is indeed labelled juvenile [Louette etal.
adult male collected on 26 November 1942 2002]), pointed out that ‘immatures’ ofchloronota
(RMCA 42513), whilst the other two, an adult ‘lack the white superciliary stripe ofthe adult or
male and a ‘juvenile’ (but see below) female, came onlyshowafaintindication ofit’.Thiswas ampli-
from Nioka on 24 November 1942 (RMCA fied byZimmerman etal. (1996), who wrote that
42512) and 24July 1941 (RMCA42511) respec- ‘juvenile’ nominate leucophrys has, on leaving the
tively. These collection dates and genders differ nest, a chocolate-brown crown with no trace of
slightly from those given by Schouteden (1947) superciliary stripes as well as a pale yellow lower
andVrydagh (1949), which are themselves incon- breast and belly and a brown chin and upper
sistent; the data given here are taken from the breast, whereas the ‘immature’ has pale greenish-
specimen labels and also those that appear in yellowsuperciliarystripes, whilst the brown ofthe
Louetteetal. (2002). Chapin (1953) gives thealti- underparts extends in a point onto the throat.
tude for Djugu (01°55’N 30°30’E) as 5,400 ft Allowing for the difference in terminologyhere, it
{c.1,800 m) and Nioka (02°09’N 30°40’E) as seems clear that what Zimmerman et al. (1996)
5,700 ft (c.1,900 m). calledjuvenileleucophrysappears to resembleadult
All thatis known ofchapiniinlife comes from chapiniin headpattern, even ifthe colouris rather
the few observations by Vrijdagh (1949), who darker.
reportedthatitbehavedas others ofthegenus. He The case for or against species status for chap-
thoughtitreasonablycommononLendu, sincehe ini could be resolved most usefully by vocal evi-
saw several others in addition to those he collect- dence (we are less comfortable in saying the same
DNA
ed. Whilst Vrijdagh considered it unquestionably for evidence, since views vary considerably
a forest bird, he found that it was not exclusively as to the appropriatelevels ofmoleculardifferenti-
so, since the first individual to be collectedwas in ation for allocating species rank). If it proved to
TaxonomicandconservationstatusofChapins Crombec:Fishpool&Collar BullABCVol13No2(2006)-133
call and/or sing in ways—significantly different from the massif(Plumptre etal. 2003). The range
from the other two races which are reported to of chapini limited to a restricted outlier at the
& ,
differ—somewhat vocally (Stevenson Fanshawe northern end ofthe Albertine Rift (possibly little
2002) then we would recommend opting for more 100 km north-east of the nearest popula-
species status for the taxon. The combination of tions ofthe nominate subspecies in Ruwenzori), is
the head coloration and pattern with such vocal therefore unusual and, at least among birds,
distinctiveness would strongly vouch for such a appears unique. Although nominate leucophrys is
treatment. replaced south ofRuwenzori by (the not very dif-
Obtaining such vocal evidence will, however, ferent) chloronota, which occupies the rest ofthe
be problematic, partly because of the political Albertine Rift, it reappears on Mt Elgon in
instability of the region and partly for a more extreme eastern Uganda and thence extends
immediate consideration: does Chapin’s Crombec throughout much of the central Kenyan
still survive? All reports indicate that there has highlands.
been large-scale clearance of forest on Lendu, to Whether chapiniis, orwas, always so confined
the extent that, as Louette’s (1989) comment is perhaps open to question. Prigogine (1983)
RMCA
quoted above indicates, the three speci- pointedoutthatsomemontaneforestoccurred, or
mens may be all that remain of this bird. The at least used to do so, to the west of the Lendu
observations ofPedersen (1997), however, suggest Plateau, on MtWago (01°44’N 30°49’E), around
that such an assessment may be unduly pes- Mongbwalu (01°56’N 30°02’E) and at Bondo
simistic. Hewas able to overflythe Lendu Plateau Mabe (02°36’N 29°34’E); these forests, if still
in 1993 and reported seeing two areas of forest, extant, remain as unexplored ornithologicallynow
one at Djugu, and a sec—ond east ofNioka close to astheywerewhen Prigoginecalledfor urgent’ sur-
the edge ofthe plateau significantly at, or close veys of them over 20 years ago. Whilst it is
to, the original collecting localities. He estimated unknown what effect the protracted political
each then to cover an area approximately equiva- unrest which continues to afflict Ituri and the
lent to ten football pitches. Together with Marc Lendu Plateau area has had on the remaining
Languy and Laurent Esselen, Tommy Pedersen forests ofthe region, it is certain that the lack of
subsequently visited Lendu for two days in security rules out any imminent prospect ofsur-
February 1994 andspent time in the remnantfor- veys or, indeed, of conservation work in the
est at Djugu. Although they were unable to find region. As andwhen circumstances do permit, we
chapini they did rediscover the globally threat- sincerely hope that Chapin’s Crombec will be
,
ened Prigogine’s Greenbul Chlorocichlaprigoginei found to have survived for, irrespective of taxo-
,
known only from Lendu and also from the nomic rank, it unarguablymerits conservation.
Beni-Butembo region, to the south-west.
Pedersen (1997) also reported several other mon- Acknowledgements
taneforestspeciesstillpersistingatDjugu, butsaw We thank Michel Louette (RMCA, Tervuren) and
evidence everywhere of logging by the local Robert Pr^s-Jones (NHM, Tring) for access to skins
human population. Despite both this and their andforprovidingadditionaldata,AndrewPlumptre,
lack ofsuccess with chapini the fact that suitable Wildlife Conservation Society, for information on
,
habitat remained on Lendu up until at least 12 Lendu andAlison Stattersfield for comments on the
years ago must give some hope that reports ofthe text.
demiseofchapinimaybepremature. On theother
hand, the comment ofZimmerman etal. (1996) References &
thatleucophrysformerlyoccurredin theforestsand Carswell, M., Pomeroy, D., Reynolds,J. Tushabe, H.
suburbs ofNairobi, Kenya, but no longer does so, 2Or0n0i5t.holTohgeisBtisr’dCAtlluabs o&fUgBraintdias.h OOxrfnoirtdho:loBgriisttiss’h
suggests that the species is perhaps rather intoler-
Union.
ant ofdisturbance and fragmentation.
Chapin’s Crombec is the only avian taxon Chapin,J. P. 1953. Birds ofthe Belgian Congo. Part3.
Bull. Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. 75A: 1-821.
e1n9t8i3re)lyancdonfnionesdtritcottehnedeLmeincdsuiPnlaottehaeur(vPerritgeobgriantee Clements, J. F. 2000. Birds ofthe World: A Checklist.
Robertsbridge: PicaPress.
groups, at least at species level, have been reported
134-BullABCVol13No2(2006) TaxonomicandconservationstatusofChapins Crombec:Fishpool&Collar
Collar, N.J. & Stuart, S. N. 1985. ThreatenedBirdsof Schouteden, H. 1947. UnnouveauSylviettadelafaune
Africa and Related Islands. Cambridge, UK: congolaise (Aves, Sylviidae). Rev. Zool. Bot. Afr. 40:
International CouncilforBird Preservation. 193-194.
Demey, R. & Louette, M. 2001. Democratic Republic Schouteden, H. 1957. Faune du Congo Beige et du
ofCongo. In Fishpool, L. D. C. & Evans, M. I. Ruanda-Urundi. IV. Oiseaux passereaux (1). Ann.
(eds.) ImportantBirdAreas inAfrica andAssociated Mus. Roy. CongoBeige, Ser. 8, Zool. 57: 1-314.
Islands: Priority Sites for Conservation. Newbury: Schouteden, H. 1963. La faune ornithologique du dis-
Pisces Publications & Cambridge, UK: BirdLife trict de l’lturi. Doc. Zool. Mus. Roy. Afr. Centr. 5:
International. 1-144.
Dickinson, E. C. (ed.) 2003. The Howard & Moore Sibley, C. G. & Monroe, B. L. 1990. Distribution and
Complete Checklist ofthe Birds ofthe World. Third Taxonomy ofBirds ofthe World. New Haven &
edn. London, UK: ChristopherHelm. London, UK: Yale UniversityPress.
Dowsett, R.J. &Forbes-Watson,A. D. 1993. Checklist Sibley, C. G. & Monroe, B. L. 1993. A Supplementto
ofBirds ofthe Afrotropical and Malagasy Regions. Distribution and Taxonomy ofBirds ofthe World.
Vol. 1. Liege:Tauraco Press. NewHaven & London, UK: Yale UniversityPress.
Fishpool, L. D. C. & Evans, M. I. (eds.) 2001. Sinclair, I. & Ryan, P. 2003. BirdsofAfricaSouthofthe
ImportantBirdAreasinAfricaandAssociatedIslands: Sahara. CapeTown: Struik.
Priority Sites for Conservation. Newbury: Pisces Stattersfield, A. J., Crosby, M. J., Long, A. J. &Wege,
Publications & Cambridge, UK: BirdLife D. C. 1998. Endemic Bird Areas of the World:
International. Prioritiesfor Biodiversity Conservation. Cambridge,
Hall, B. P. &Moreau, R. E. 1970.AnAtlasofSpeciation UK: BirdLife International.
inAfrican PasserineBirds. London, UK: Brit. Mus. Stevenson, T. & Fanshawe, J. 2002. Field Guide to the
(Nat. Hist.). Birds ofEast Africa. London, UK: T. & A. D.
&
Lippens, L. Wille, H. 1976. Les Oiseaux du Zaire. Poyser.
&
Tielt: Lannoo. Urban, E. K., Fry, C. H. Keith, S. (eds.) 1997. Birds
Louette,M. 1989.Additionsandcorrectionstotheavi- ofAfrica. Vol. 5. London, UK:Academic Press.
fauna of Zaire (4). Bull. Brit. Orn. Club 109: Vrijdagh,J. M. 1949. Observations ornithologiques en
217-225. region occidentale du LacAlbert etprincipalement
&
Louette,M.,Meirte,D.,Louage,A. Reygel,A.2002. delaplaine d’Ishwa. Gerfaut39: 1-115.
Type specimens ofbirds in the Royal Museum for White, C. M. N. 1962. A check list ofthe Ethiopian
CentralAfrica,Tervuren. Doc. Zool. (Mus. Roy. Afr. Muscicapidae (Sylviinae). Part II. Occas. Pap. Natl.
Centr.)26: 1-105. Mus. SouthernRhodesia26B: 653-738.
Mackworth-Praed, C. W. & Grant, C. H. B. 1973. Wolters, H. E. (1975-1982) DieVogelartederErde:eine
Birds ofWest Central and Western Africa. Vol. 2. systematische Liste mit Verbreitungsangaben sowie
London, UK: Longmans. deutschen und englischen Namen. Hamburg &
Parkes, K. C. 1987. Taxonomic notes on someAfrican Berlin: Paul Parey.
warblers (Aves: Sylviinae). Ann. CarnegieMus. 56: Zimmerman, D. A., Turner, D. A. & Pearson, D. J.
231-243. 1996. Birds of Kenya and Northern Tanzania.
Pedersen, T. 1997. New observations of a Zairean London, UK: Helm.
endemic: Prigogine’s Greenbul Chlorocichla pri-
goginei. Bull. ABC4: 109-110. aCBaimrdbLriifdegIenternatCiBon3al, WelOlNbAr,ookCouUrtK,.GirtoEn-Rmoaaidl,:
Plumptre, A. J., Behangana, M., Ndomba, E., [email protected]
Davenport,T., Kahindo, C., Kityo, R., Ssegawa, P.,
Eilu, G., Nkuutu, D. & Owiunji, I. 2003. The b Conservation Biology Group, DepartmentofZoology,
University ofCambridge, DowningStreet, Cambridge
BiodiversityoftheAlbertineRift.AlbertineRiftTech.
Rep. No. 3. New York: Wildlife Conservation CB23EJ, UK, andBirdLife International, Wellbrook
Court, Girton Road, Cambridge CB3 ONA, UK. E-
Society.
Prigogine,A. 1985. Conservationoftheavifaunaofthe mail: [email protected]
forests oftheAlbertine Rift. In Diamond,A.W. & Received 23 March 2006; revision accepted 22 May
Lovejoy, T. E. (eds.) Conservation ofTropicalForest 2006
Birds. Cambridge, UK: International Council for
BirdPreservation.
TaxonomicandconservationstatusofChapins Crombec:Fishpool&Collar BullABCVol13No2(2006)-135