Sira curassow
The Sira curassow ("Pauxi koepckeae") is a species of bird in the family Cracidae. It is found in the Cerros del Sira in central Peru. Its natural habitat is tropical, moist, montane cloud forest. It was first discovered in 1969, when a male and female were recovered (unfortunately the female specimen was accidentally eaten), and was not recorded by scientists again until 2000 and 2003, when local Asháninka people were shown pictures of the birds and respectively 1 and 14 people recalled having seen or hunted them in the past few years. The name 'Sira curassow' was proposed  as a new English common name in 2011 by Gastañaga "et al." to replace the previous 'horned curassow', in 2012 this proposal was adopted by most of her colleagues. In the Asháninka language of the area the bird is known as "quiyuri" according to Weske & Terborgh , "piyori" according to the report 'Nombres Asháninka de las Aves en la Cordillera el Sira' by González , or "piuri" according to Gastañaga . Taxonomy and systematics. In 1969 two birds, a male and female, were discovered in Peru which resembled horned curassow. However they were found a long way from the previous  P. unicornis discoveries in Bolivia. These Peruvian specimens were described by John Weske and John Terborgh in 1971 as a new subspecies of "P. unicornis" which they named in honour of Maria Koepcke. Many different suggestions have been regarding species status since their discovery. Some suggestions relate to the grouping of species and subspecies within the genus "Pauxi". In 1943 Wetmore and Phelps described a new subspecies of the closely related "P. pauxi" called "P. p. gilliardi". When Wetmore and Phelps looked at the three "Pauxi" forms known at the time, they concluded that "P. p. gilliardi" was an intermediate  form between "P. pauxi" and "P. unicornis". As a result of this they grouped all three forms into a single species with "unicornis" becoming a subspecies of "pauxi". This position was subsequently rejected by Charles Vaurie who argued that "P. pauxi" and "P. unicornis" were not conspecific. When Weske and Terborgh discovered the subspecies "koepckeae" they concluded "pauxi" and "unicornis" should be considered separate species, which has been followed by all subsequent authors. Other taxonomic suggestions discuss whether the genus "Pauxi" should stand alone or be grouped with other genera. In 1965 François Vuilleumier suggested the two "Pauxi" species should  be moved into a single genus alongside all the other species in the closely related genera "Mitu", "Crax" and "Nothocrax". Just two years later Charles Vaurie opposed this 'lumping' of species and argued that "Pauxi", "Mitu", "Crax" and "Nothocrax" should each be their own genera. Not content with either of these two options Delacour and Amadon suggested that "Pauxi" and "Mitu" should indeed be grouped with "Crax", but that "Nothocrax" was distinct enough to be its on genus. Many subsequent authors followed Vaurie, Delacour and Amadon in having "Nothocrax" as a sister clade to "Pauxi", "Mitu" and "Crax", while most  have followed Vaurie in having the three other clades as three distinct genera. Mitochondrial analysis conducted in 2004 suggests that "P. unicornis" is a sister species to "Mitu tuberosum", while the other "Pauxi" species, "P. pauxi", is sister to the combined "Mitu" and "P. unicornis" clade. This means the genus "Pauxi" is not monophyletic but paraphyletic, and to resolve this parsimoniously the genus "Pauxi" should be sunk into synonymy with "Mitu". The paraphyly of "Pauxi" could be due to incomplete lineage sorting, where a gene tree is inconsistent with its species tree, however this phenomenon should be less prevalent in  deep phylogenetic splits (i.e. between genera). Because of this, Pereira "et al." conclude incomplete lineage sorting is unlikely to account for the paraphyletic genus "Pauxi" because, according to their own analysis, "Mitu" and "Pauxi" diverged approximately 6.5mya. Note that Pereira "et al." were not working with any samples of "P. koepckeae". A study from 2011 suggests that "P. koepckeae" be raised to species status as opposed to subspecies based on vocal, behavioural, ecological, and morphological differences. "P. koepckeae" is only known from a very small geographic area and a small number of specimens (only 3, as of 2009). According to  a website, as of 2015, there are only two photos of the birds in existence, although this is incorrect. Description. According to Weske "et al.", based on a single individual bird, the Sira curassow is very similar morphologically to the horned curassow, however the casque is less erect and more rounded (ellipsoidal instead of elongated cone). Additionally the outer tail feathers have narrower white tips and the four central tail feather completely lack white colouring, although this last characteristic appears to be very variable and perhaps not diagnostic. Conservation. The Sira curassow is listed as critically endangered by BirdLife International  for the IUCN as they believe it is threatened by habitat destruction and is hunted for meat. The birds population is believed by BirdLife International in 2016 to be below 250 individuals, citing the 2014 IUCN assessment by Gastañaga for BirdLife International (no longer available online). In the 2016 IUCN assessment by BirdLife International Gastañaga in her 2011 study is said to have estimated the population to be 400. This is not actually stated in her report, instead it is estimated that outside of breeding season the birds occur at a density of less than one bird per over an  area encompassing at least the four known areas of occurrence, within of each other (thus a minimum of , thus maximum of 900 birds). The 2016 IUCN assessment estimates that the extent of occurrence is (apparently all within the El Sira Communal Reserve), although it is unclear where this number comes from. Because of the difference between the stated populations in 2011 and 2014, the 2016 IUCN assessment assumes the population is experiencing a 'decreasing trend'. According to BirdLife International, the greatest threat to the species is occasional traditional hunting by the local Asháninka people.