Long-tufted screech owl

The long-tufted screech owl (Megascops sanctaecatarinae) is a species of "typical owl" in the subfamily Striginae. It is found in Argentina, Brazil, and Uruguay.

Taxonomy and systematics
The long-tufted screech owl has had a tortuous taxonomic history. What is currently (2022) accepted as the species' original description was by Osbert Salvin in 1897; he assigned it the binomial Scops sanctae-catarinae. Genus Scops was lumped into Otus in the early 20th century but in the early 21st century the current Megascops was adopted for what are now 23 species of screech owls.

The long-tufted screech owl was at different times treated as a subspecies or a synonym of what is now the black-capped screech owl (Megascops atricapilla). Other authors considered it, the Yungas screech owl (M. hoyi), and what is now the Middle American screech owl (M. guatemalae) all to be conspecific with M. atricapilla. Since then, morphological, vocal, and genetic analyses have determined that they are not only separate species but also not closely related to each other.

Other complications arise because the several populations of genus Megascops found in southern Brazil and Argentina's Misiones Province have not been studied enough to be certain that they are correctly assigned. In addition, the specific epithet argentinus that has been wrongly applied to the southernmost population of M. atricapilla might prove to be the correct epithet for long-tufted screech owl because of the principle of priority. It had been assigned to a specimen that predates Salvin's description and that might be a long-tufted screech owl.

The long-tufted screech owl is monotypic.

Description
The long-tufted screech owl is 25 to 28 cm long. Males weigh 155 to 194 g and females 174 to 211 g. It is a fairly large and bulky member of Megascops, with stronger feet than most others. It occurs in three color morphs of which the brown one predominates over the gray and rufous. It has very prominent "ear" tufts. The upperparts of the common morph's adult are dark brown with pale, coarse, indistinct vermiculation; its crown is somewhat lighter. The brown facial disc has a darker border. The underparts are a mix of irregular bars, streaks, and vermiculation in shades of brown. The eye is pale yellow to orange-yellow, the bill greenish gray, and the feet pale grayish brown. The plumages of the gray and rufous morphs and the juvenile have not been formally described.

Distribution and habitat
The long-tufted screech owl is found in the southeastern Brazilian states of Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul, in Misiones Province of northeastern Argentina, and in adjoining northern Uruguay. It inhabits a variety of open and semi-open landscapes. Examples include sparse woodland, pastures with trees, the edges (but not interior) of dense forest, secondary forest, and woodlots near villages. In elevation it mainly occurs between 300 and 1000 m.

Movement
The long-tufted screech owl is believed to be a year-round resident throughout its range.

Feeding
The long-tufted screech owl is primarily nocturnal. It reportedly hunts by dropping from a perch onto prey. Its diet includes arthropods and small vertebrates; rodents, birds, amphibians, and fish are known among the latter.

Breeding
The long-tufted screech owl's breeding season is not well defined but apparently includes August and September. It nests in tree cavities, either natural or made by woodpeckers. The few known nests fledged one or two young, and the female alone apparently incubates the eggs. Almost nothing else is known about the species' breeding phenology.

Vocalization
The male long-tufted screech owl's primary song is "a guttural, fast trill...lasting from c. 5–10 seconds and ending suddenly". The female's is similar but shorter and higher pitched. The male's secondary song is "short fast notes that become longer and more spaced, in reversed bouncing-ball rhythm". The female's is very different, a "loud, hoarse, extraordinary, 'bababa...'" that is unique among screech owls.

Status
The IUCN has assessed the long-tufted screech owl as being of Least Concern. It has a fairly large range, but its population size is not known and is believed to be decreasing. "Loss of habitat through overgrazing, burning and tree-felling represents [the] greatest threat to [the] species."

Scientific name and conflicting name
The long-tufted screech owl was described as Scops sanctae-catarinae by Osbert Salvin in 1897. Robert Ridgway had previously described a type of S. brasilianus from the "St. Catherine's" range of southern Brazil. Salvin, however, in describing sanctaecatarinae, made no reference to Ridgway's early description.

The first author to recognize its validity was Richard Bowdler Sharpe, and, initially, this form was considered distinct from brasilianus (=choliba) as well as atricapilla, and the name was also employed in Dubois, who listed it as a "variation" of brasilianus. Later authors, including Cory and Peters placed it as a synonym of atricapillus. The opinion had also prevailed, by this time, that Otus should replace Scops as the genus name (though it is also currently recognized in Megascops).

This treatment was largely retained for several decades, with some exceptions, including Kelso and Olrog. Gerrit Hekstra revived recognition of sanctaecatarinae (14.9), listing it separately from atricapillus, (14.7), but as a subspecies, O. a. sanctaecatarinae and listing the name Otus choliba maximus (Sztolcman, 1926) as a synonym. Hekstra's numerated list corresponded to the descriptions of type specimens he had published the same year in his thesis, "A Revision of the American Screech Owls". In this thesis, and not in his published paper, Hekstra explicitly suppressed the scientific names he cited – that use of them was not to be construed as relevant to nomenclatural rules. The distribution of sanctaecatarinae included the states and provinces of São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina (Brazil), and Misiones (Argentina). Further revision determined that sanctaecatarinae represented a distinct species of its own, and its distribution, including and in relation to that of atricapilla, was also revised, incorporating Uruguay, (which was consequently excluded from the distribution of atricapilla). This revision has recently prevailed, and almost all references to the family from the past 25 years, including references to these two species, reflect it.

The revision of the long-tufted screech owl's distribution has brought attention to references relating to a name which had been published 43 years prior to sanctaecatarinae. Martin Heinrich Karl Lichtenstein published a list of type specimens in the Berlin Museum, to which some new names were introduced, but it was simply a list, and all the names therein lacked descriptions. One of these nomen nudum was based upon a screech-owl taken by the collector Sello near the vicinity of Montevideo, Uruguay – Ephialtes argentina. Hermann Schlegel later published a description of this same type, but the description was done in a manner that did not allow for clarity as to whether or not he felt that argentina was a valid species (one recognized for a legitimate taxon). The description was provided as a footnote, not as a synonym, for his entry for Scops brasiliensis. Schlegel did not see how this specimen differed from brasiliensis, and also suggested that it might be compared to Ephialtes Watsonii (another name which was not validly adopted in his review): "''...[n]e se distinguishe Sc. brasiliensis que par une taille un peu plus forte et par ses teintes en general un peu plus claires. Cet oiseau a ete observe daus les environs de Montevideo d'ou M. Sello en a fait parvenir deux individus femelles au Musee de Berlin. Quatrieme remige egalanta a peu pres la cinquieme. Distribution des teintes en tout point semblable a celle du brasiliensis. Il s'agit de savoir si cet oiseau est identique avec l'Ephialtes Watsonii de Cassin. Aile 7 pouces 3 lignes. Pointe d'aile 18 lignes. Queue 3 pouces 9 lignes. Tarse 16 lignes. Doigt du milieu 11 lignes. Aigrettes 15 lignes. Doigts nus." That Schlegel did not place argentina in Scops,'' merely invoking its original genus name, offers the most compelling argument in determining that he did not validly introduce it.

George Robert Gray was the first author to validly use Lichtenstein's name, combining it as entry 493 in the genus Scops of his own list (S. (Megascops) argentinus). However, Gray did not include a description, but cited a vague reference to "Watsonii, p.?, Schlegel." Johann Palacky also validly used argentinus, following Gray's treatment. With exception to these two works, most authors of the 19th and early 20th centuries took heed to Schlegel's assessment, placing the name as a synonym of brasilianus (variably spelled), or of choliba.

Hekstra was the first author after Dubois to make reference to argentina, where he reintroduced it as a valid subspecies Otus atricapillus argentinus. Not consulting Nomenclator, he assumed that the description had been published therein and wrongly cited Lichtenstein as the authority of the name. In his corresponding thesis, Hekstra described argentinus (14.8), the first such description of the type since Schlegel. He also placed the form Otus choliba pintoi (Kelso, 1936) as a synonym of it. This treatment was referenced in Claus Koenig and Roberto Juan Straneck's description of Otus hoyi and in Howard and Moore, where both names were validly used. Holt et al., Dickinson and Weick placed argentinus in the synonymy of atricapilla (variably spelled), the latter author further invoking "Lichtenstein, 1854" as the authority, and also providing wing chord measurements of the type, from Hekstra's description.

The name argentina, if it represents the same taxon as sanctaecatarinae, would take priority over that name, but no author has formally published a revised synonymy. Article 11.5 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (fourth ed., 1999) requires that a "name must be used as valid for a taxon when proposed,..." This provision would not allow for recognition of Schlegel as the authority of the name; however, an exclusionary clause 11.5.1 states that a "name proposed conditionally for a taxon before 1961 is not to be excluded on that account alone." While this wording, particularly "on that account alone," seems ambiguous and allows for further argument, Schlegel did describe argentina in a way that conforms to the Code's definition of "conditional" ("the proposal of a name or a type fixation: one made with stated reservations"), and further, two authors had validly used the name before Salvin described sanctae-catarinae, and its placement in synonymy by numerous others suggests that it had been treated as a valid name.

The possibility that argentina was not made valid in Schlegel also allows for consideration of the argument that the name became available in Hekstra's published report. While Hekstra had made it explicit in his complimentary thesis that names he employed in it were not to be considered with regards to "nomenclatural purposes," a provision of the Code would, if Schlegel is not recognized as the authority, transfer authority to him. Article 13.1.2 of the Code, with its "Requirements" for names published after 1930, mandates that such names "be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently binomial, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission." Under this provision, Hekstra, numerating reference in his formal published report to the description in his thesis, would be construed as the authority. In this case, argentina would be available, but only as a synonym of sanctaecatarinae, including maximus (Sztolcman) and pintoi (Kelso). --> <!--


 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Part of the description from Salvin (pp. 37–38). Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.
 * Second part (of two), p. 38, Salvin. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club.

-->