Neotropical ornithology: Reckoning with historical assumptions, removing systemic barriers, and reimagining the future

Abstract

Resumen

INTRODUCTION

Roughly a third of all bird species occur in the Neotropics (Mexico, Central and South America, and the Caribbean; Newton 2003), yet these birds are under-represented by an order of magnitude in scientific studies (Ducatez and Lefebvre 2014), leading many to call for increased research in Neotropical ornithology (Ramos 1988, Naranjo et al. 1992, Estades 2002, Freile et al. 2006, 2014, Alves et al. 2008, Freile and Córdoba 2008, Latta 2012). These calls were recently reiterated in a Special Feature entitled Advances in Neotropical Ornithology, published in The Auk: Ornithological Advances and The Condor: Ornithological Applications (Lindell and Huyvaert 2020), which included a roadmap for identifying and filling shortfalls in Neotropical ornithology (Lees et al. 2020). The framework for this roadmap was the idea that biological knowledge shortfalls, grouped in seven domains (systematics, biogeography, population biology, evolution, functional ecology, abiotic tolerance, and biotic interactions) limit large-scale comprehension of biodiversity (Hortal et al. 2015). However, knowledge—and knowledge gaps—look different depending on where we are standing, our lived experiences, our assumptions, and what we perceive to be our objectives (Naranjo et al. 1992). In this paper, we use “Global North” to indicate wealthier, geopolitically dominant regions (i.e. Canada, USA, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan), and “Global South” for the rest of the world (Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, most of Asia). Of course, the world is much more nuanced than this binary, but we chose “Global North” and “Global South” for simplicity of communication, and to avoid the negative implications of alternate terms (Khan et al. 2022).

The roadmap by Lees et al. (2020) aimed to “take stock of the last 25 years of Neotropical ornithological work since the untimely death of Ted Parker” (Lees et al. 2020,1). It was initially invited as the first chapter of a (second) special volume honoring Theodore A. Parker III, which, like the special volume of Ornithological Monographs edited by Remsen (1997), would pay homage to Parker’s legacy (A. C. Lees in litt. 2020). Parker was a field ornithologist from the USA, who specialized in the Neotropics and died tragically in a plane crash while conducting fieldwork in 1993 (Remsen 1997). His contributions, and those of his colleagues, sparked important lines of research in the Neotropics, and some of our own work builds on their publications (e.g., González-García 1994, 1995, Bonaccorso 2009, Mata et al. 2009, Areta and Cockle 2012, Ruelas Inzunza et al. 2012, Borges et al. 2019, Martínez-Medina et al. 2021).

While admiring Parker’s work and understanding the context of the invited contribution by Lees et al. (2020), we think it is problematic to build a roadmap for Neotropical ornithology based primarily on a foreign perspective. The review by Lees et al. (2020) cites literature from only three of the many ornithological journals based in the Neotropics (Table 1). It focuses quite extensively on contributions of foreign scientists (including quotes and photos), which creates the unfortunate impression that Neotropical ornithology advances primarily in response to a northern research agenda, led by ­short-term visitors who conduct fieldwork in the region, but produce, analyze, and disseminate knowledge elsewhere (e.g., see Monge-Nájera 2002, Adame 2021, Haelewaters et al. 2021, Asase et al. 2022). Our critique is not aimed at the authors of the Lees et al. (2020) roadmap, their collaborations, or their research programs. Nor do we aim to provide an alternative roadmap. Before we can define where we each want to be in terms of knowledge about birds, and build roadmaps to get there, we need policy and cultural changes that interrupt the status quo of research agendas for the Neotropics, decided by researchers in the USA and Europe. The Lees et al. (2020) paper ignited our critique, but all of our authors and readers have likely contributed, inadvertently, to perpetuating systems of exclusion through our research practices.

The Neotropical region stretches from central Mexico to the southern tip of South America (Sclater 1858, Newton 2003). Although frequently imagined, from outside, as a rather homogenous monolith (Strahl 1992), the Neotropical ­region is a complex mosaic, culturally, linguistically, socially, racially, and economically. It encompasses biomes from tropical to sub-polar, with more than 40 countries and political units, and a human population comparable to that of Europe with twice its area. Yet, of the 10 papers published in the Special Feature Advances in Neotropical Ornithology, only three included authors affiliated with a Neotropical institution, and only one of them was listed as first author. In fact, 77% of the contributors to the special feature, and all six contributors to the Lees et al. (2020) roadmap, were primarily affiliated with institutions in the USA, Europe, or Canada; Supplementary Material Table S1). Foreign-based scientists unquestionably contribute to the development of Neotropical ornithology, but exclusion of the Latin American and Caribbean scientific community is a long-standing ­pattern with deep roots in the scientific colonialism of the 19th and 20th centuries (Raby 2017a, Mohammed et al. 2022). Today, it is still common for high-impact reviews, proposals, and research articles focused on the Neotropics to neglect contributions, perspectives, and goals from within the region, often overlooking important developments and key barriers to advancing knowledge. This pattern is visible not just in Neotropical ornithology but across academic disciplines and across the Global South (Cusicanqui 2012, McKechnie and Amar 2018, Adame 2021, de Gracia 2021, Trisos et al. 2021, Asase et al. 2022).

People in the Neotropics share a responsibility for how ornithology is conceived and practiced, and we posit that effective strategies to further develop Neotropical ornithology require a critical review of research practices and perspectives that have long been taken for granted. Here, we explore current strengths and challenges of Neotropical ornithology in a global context, contrast our assessment with prevailing views expressed or implied in the roadmap by Lees et al. (2020), explore some of the consequences for ornithology, and propose systemic changes to reduce inequities and advance Neotropical ornithology. We do not represent all Neotropical ornithologists, and we recognize that our authorship remains biased (e.g., 58% cis men, 39% white or ethnically European, 96% able-bodied, 64% based in Argentina, Mexico, or Brazil). However, we made intentional efforts and took extra time to ensure that we included and highlighted voices from a breadth of regions, races, ethnicities, gender identities, disciplines, career paths, and stages (Supplementary Material Table S2). In our citations, we prioritized literature by Neotropical-based authors, where appropriate. We recognize that some of the terms that are commonly used in the literature on colonialism in science will be uncomfortable to some readers. However, we believe this discomfort is a necessary stage in confronting the history of our discipline (and our own participation in that history), so that we can grow and change as researchers and institutions. Some excellent examples of scientists confronting difficult histories can be found in the recent special feature on Nature, Data, and Power, at American Naturalist (Kamath 2022).

NEOTROPICAL ORNITHOLOGY TODAY

Strengths

Ornithology in Latin America and the Caribbean is underpinned by regional institutions, conservation programs, and a rapidly growing cadre of students, professionals, and non-academics based in this region, who creatively propel the ­discipline despite numerous challenges. Today, ornithological research in the Neotropics is made possible by a combination of locally driven and government-funded research, scientific societies, universities, scientific collections, non-governmental organizations, citizen-science (=community science) projects, international collaborations, and highly significant contributions from independent naturalists, birding clubs, tour guides, environmental licensing studies, Indigenous communities, and park rangers. Ornithological societies within and beyond the Neotropics provide funding to attend professional meetings. Beyond the USA-backed programs and research stations most visible to researchers in the Global North, many well-established Latin American and Caribbean groups are powerhouses of research focused on Neotropical birds, with long-term programs in the Caribbean, Mesoamerica, the Andes, the sub-Antarctic ­region, the Amazon basin, and the Atlantic Forest, to name a few (Table 2). Regional strengths extend to the fields of avian paleontology, ethno-ornithology, and behavior, mostly overlooked by Lees et al. (2020), but crucial for filling gaps in knowledge about the systematics, evolution, biogeography, mutualistic interactions, abiotic tolerance, and natural history of Neotropical birds (e.g., Cohn-Haft et al. 1997, Ornelas et al. 2013, Tambussi and Degrange 2013, Navarro-Sigüenza et al. 2014, Vizentin-Bugoni et al. 2014, Ibarra and Pizarro 2016, Reboreda et al. 2019).

Across Latin America and the Caribbean, hundreds of graduate programs offer master’s and doctoral degrees with theses in ornithology (Paynter 1991, Alves et al. 2008, Freile et al. 2014). In some countries, notably Argentina, Mexico, and Brazil, public universities offer free undergraduate or graduate training. Many undergraduate programs require theses, which can result in publications in regional or global-scope journals. In several countries, ornithological research is government-funded, with agencies providing salaries, fellowships, and grants for research and graduate studies (e.g., CONICET in Argentina, CONACYT in Mexico, ANID in Chile, MINCIENCIAS in Colombia, CNPq and CAPES in Brazil). In many cases, free and paid training opportunities in Latin America are extended to foreigners, such that a Colombian student can receive 5 years of full-time salary from CONICET to obtain a PhD in Argentina, or a Brazilian student can attend a free week-long statistics course in Uruguay. Organizations within and beyond the Neotropics have provided specialized training courses in ornithology, for example in banding, study design, and advanced data analysis.

The wealth of regionally produced knowledge in Neotropical ornithology has been increasingly accessible, largely resulting from the growth of our professional societies since the 1980s (e.g., Neotropical Ornithological Society, the Brazilian Society of Ornithology, Asociación Colombiana de Ornitología, Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution, and Sociedad para el Estudio y Conservación de las Aves de México A.C. [CIPAMEX]). Many of these societies regularly organize professional meetings (e.g., Congreso de Ornitología Neotropical, Congreso para el Estudio y Conservación de las Aves en México, Congreso Colombiano de Ornitología, BirdsCaribbean meetings) and publish peer-reviewed scientific journals in Spanish, Portuguese, and English. Regional journals (Table 1) are the main outlets for publications on natural history and bird distributions in the Neotropics and have contributed greatly to advancing knowledge of avian ecology (Vuilleumier 2003, Levy 2008, Freile et al. 2014, Devenish-Nelson et al. 2017, Bugoni 2020). At least 21 regional journals focus on Neotropical ornithology; most of them are Diamond Open Access (free to readers and free to authors; Table 1). The oldest, El Hornero, dates to 1917 (Lopez de Casenave 2017).

Challenges: Systems of Exclusion

Despite the many strengths mentioned above, one of the most pervasive shortfalls in Neotropical ornithology is the systemic exclusion of Neotropical ornithologists, and their research, from the global scientific context (Duffy 1988, Strahl 1992, Valenzuela-Toro and Viglino 2021, Khelifa and Mahdjoub 2022, Table 3). Within and beyond the Neotropics, the current academic system rewards fast-paced science that reinforces existing inequalities and racial disparities, disfavoring under-represented groups (Leite and Diele-Viegas 2021). For a variety of reasons we discuss below, Neotropical researchers often ask different kinds of questions; use different study designs, sampling protocols, and tools; and disseminate our research at a different pace and in different outlets than colleagues who work at institutions in the Global North. For example, in the face of chronic and severe funding scarcity, we may prioritize our insufficient funds for training students and involving local communities (vs. purchasing imported technology). Current systems in academia (within and beyond the Neotropics) allow and even encourage ornithologists to overlook research contributions of colleagues based in the Neotropics (Table 3), and these systems of exclusion extend well beyond ornithology (Gibbs 1995, Campos-Arceiz et al. 2018, Minasny et al. 2020, Nuñez et al. 2021).

Dominance of the northern lens.

Reviewers and editors rarely ask scholars from Europe, Canada, or the USA to translate, learn, or cite theory and case studies from Latin America or Africa, but they routinely expect scholars from the Global South to frame their work in the context of citations, theory, and case studies from the Global North (Cusicanqui 2012, Monjeau et al. 2013, Rau et al. 2017, Pérez and Radi 2019). Whereas studies from Europe or North America are interpreted as being globally representative (de Gracia 2021), similar studies from the Neotropics are often rejected as “too locally focused”. In Canada or the USA, students studying Nearctic bird species stand on the shoulders of decades of research into their study systems, summarized, for example, in Pyle’s (2008) guide to molt, extensive and well-researched species accounts in Birds of North America (https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home), and annual data from the Breeding Bird Survey (https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/). They can, and usually must, focus their research questions to ensure that their thesis represents an advance in knowledge, often with several other labs working on the same species and similar questions, concurrently. In contrast, students in the Neotropics are often the first to publish on the basic biology of their study system or species, which can include globally threatened and undescribed or newly described species (e.g., Sanabria Mejía 2010, Repenning 2012). These students must learn all about their system from their own field observations (e.g., molt patterns, distribution, diet, phenology, reproductive behavior, vocalizations, and subspecies identification) as a first step in their research. In such a context, descriptive studies (as opposed to hypothesis testing) can be the most appropriate way to move knowledge forward and address regional priorities for bird conservation. Nevertheless, the contributions of these students to ornithology are overwhelmingly assessed using whatever standards and values are current in the Global North. They must publish (in foreign journals, in English, using foreign theoretical frameworks and case studies from the Global North) “or perish”. In this way, the northern lens is a self-perpetuating system that excludes certain types of research and researchers.

Parachute science.

When researchers (including students) from the Global North conduct short-term projects in countries of the Global South, they may hope for meaningful long-term collaborations, but institutional policies and academic culture can be a major disincentive to investing the necessary time and energy, and can steer them away from the research questions most important for advancing science and conservation locally. Parachute science occurs when foreigners (usually from a wealthier region) lead projects without including local researchers in authorship, planning, and decision-making roles (de Vos 2022). It has resulted in many papers in high-impact journals, by authors from the Global North, but it can slow or obstruct the growth of research capacity in the Global South (Asase et al. 2022). Parachute science leaves researchers based in Latin America and the Caribbean under-represented in ­research networks, publications, professional societies, editorial boards, priority-setting groups of funders, taxonomic authorities, awards, and citations (Espin et al. 2017, Dada et al. 2022). This exclusion is especially acute for those Neotropical researchers who are historically, systemically, and persistently excluded from science because of marginalized identities (e.g., Black, Brown, and Indigenous women). Beyond its serious ethical implications, the self-perpetuating system of parachute science is a barrier to achieving conservation goals. For the many species of long-distance migratory birds in steep decline (Rosenberg et al. 2019), analysis of citizen-science and tracking data [solutions recommended by Lees et al. (2020)] by northern researchers will be insufficient to understand and reverse stressors on the non-breeding grounds (Faaborg et al. 2010, Buxton et al. 2021). Conservation efforts for migratory birds in the Americas can only succeed if a diversity of people based in the Neotropics are involved in leadership, planning, and implementation.

Language hegemony.

Modern science is, in the words of Gordin (2015:2), “the most resolutely monoglot international community”. Few people in Latin America and the Caribbean are native speakers of English, and in most countries only a privileged minority can afford to learn English as a second language (e.g., about 5% of the population of Bolivia, Brazil, or Ecuador, vs. 38% of the European Union; European Commission 2006, British Council 2015, Sevy-Biloon et al. 2020). Many journals (including Ornithology and Ornithological Applications) explicitly ask authors whose primary language is not English to have their work edited by an English-speaking colleague or professional editing service (Instructions for Authors: Ornithology and Ornithological Applications, 21 December 2021). However, English-speaking colleagues are rarely available for free editing of manuscripts, and professional editing services cost ~US$600 for a 6,000-word manuscript—more than a month’s salary for many scientists in Latin America and the Caribbean. Disseminating and integrating the knowledge generated by non-English speakers is a justice issue critical to both the inclusiveness and the quality of science (Ramírez-Castañeda 2020, Amano et al. 2021). Non-English journals are critical to disseminating ornithological research by, and to, groups under-represented in science. However, global reviews frequently overlook research that is not in English, which lowers impact factors and pushes Latin American students and researchers to publish in English when possible (Di Bitetti and Ferreras 2017, Konno et al. 2020). Even researchers based in the Neotropics may often prioritize citing work in English, led by scientists from wealthier regions, in an attempt to increase the chances their manuscripts will be accepted in global-scope journals (Meneghini et al. 2008, MacGregor-Fors et al. 2020). In many cases these citations are imposed by reviewers and editors during the review process.

Language hegemony also extends to bird names. Journals and international meetings often require the use of English common names, rather than the scientific (Latin) names that are supposed to be a global standard and are used by ornithologists throughout the Neotropics. To communicate their research, Neotropical researchers and students must re-learn avian taxonomy. Similarly, birdwatchers, birding guides, eBirders, and guidebooks in Latin America and the Caribbean routinely use English birdwatching terms and English ­common names for birds. This habit helps when guiding English-speaking groups, but it is also a powerful sign of cultural assimilation (Rozzi 2013, Cantú et al. 2020). Whereas English names were often generated in museums and refer to the bird’s appearance, indicate a geographic location, or honor a notable person, local names more often recognize birds by their vocalizations, behavior, cultural significance, the time of year they are present, or their habitat (Ibarra et al. 2020b). In La Araucanía Region of Chile, for example, Mapuzugun bird names include the onomatopoeic fío-fío (Elaenia albiceps), chuncho (Glaucidium nana), and pitío (Colaptes pitius), and the behaviorally derived küchag (which leaves waste after eating; Phrygilus patagonicus), which carry important local information about how the birds are experienced (Ibarra et al. 2020b). For comparison, their English names are White-crested Elaenia, Austral Pygmy-Owl, Chilean Flicker, and Patagonian Sierra Finch, which focus on the type of information that interests foreign ornithologists. The dominance of English terms can erroneously signal that the enjoyment and knowledge of birds is for the English-speaking (i.e. educated or wealthy) classes, and that bird identification occurs primarily through appearance (which requires purchase of binoculars) rather than vocalizations or other cues. The spread of nomenclatural standardization from English to Spanish (e.g., Bernis et al. 1994 and subsequent) has resulted in the use of standardized names in citizen-science and field guide projects that further erase the rich cultural legacy and understanding of bird behavior reflected in local names (e.g., Navarro 2015).

CONTRASTING PERSPECTIVES ON NEOTROPICAL ORNITHOLOGY

The Problem of Discovery Narratives

Short-term expeditionists from Europe and the USA contributed to the development of ornithology in the Neotropics, particularly in taxonomy and systematics (e.g., Alexander Wetmore, Frank Chapman, and Storrs Olson; Freile and Córdoba 2008, Levy 2008, Hume 2021). However, to ­access research sites, expeditionists frequently aligned themselves with imperial or commercial interests (such as territorial acquisition and resource extraction; Naranjo 2008, Raby 2017a). Their research practices generally followed the same unequal exchange model as the economy: foreign companies exported raw materials northward, to be returned to Latin America as finished products; foreign researchers exported bird specimens northward, where they served to formulate theories that were sent back to Latin America for “consumption” (Quintero 2011). The more significant, long-term contributions to Neotropical ornithology came from people (whether local- or foreign-born) who lived in the Neotropics and invested in local capacity, often by founding schools, ornithological collections, or long-term research programs (e.g., among those now deceased, Juan Gundlach in Cuba; James W. Wiley in Cuba, Puerto Rico, and elsewhere in the Caribbean; Gustavo Kattan in Colombia; William H. Phelps, William H. Phelps Jr., and Adolfo Pons in Venezuela; Helmut Sick, Emilie Snethlage, William Belton, and Fernando Novaes in Brazil; Miguel Lillo, Roberto Dabbene, Claes Christian Olrog, and Eduardo Tonni in Argentina; Maria Koepcke in Peru; Allan R. Phillips, Miguel Álvarez del Toro, and Mario A. Ramos in Mexico; and Daniel González Acuña in Chile, to name just a few; Vuilleumier 1995,Cuarón 1997, Silva et al. 2005, Di Giacomo and Di Giacomo 2008, Levy 2008, Junghans 2009, Voss 2009, López Ordóñez et al. 2014, Snyder et al. 2019, Pizarro et al. 2020, Gomez et al. 2022).

Discovery narratives centered on foreign researchers are common across scientific disciplines, and they perpetuate the colonialist discourse that phenomena and species remain “unknown” until they are “discovered” or named (by the right person). For example, Ted Parker is remembered for his “singular skills of observation” (Lees et al. 2020:10) leading to the description of 10 taxa, and his popularization of vocalizations as a critical tool for surveying birds in tropical forests, at a time (the 1970s) when “the voices of most Neotropical birds were unknown” (Remsen and Schulenberg 1997:10). However, it is critical to recognize that long before Europeans colonized the Americas, Indigenous Peoples had already identified, named, and catalogued, through oral tradition, thousands of bird vocalizations, often experiencing and identifying birds more by ear than visually (Berlin 1981, Cebolla Badie 2000, 2013, Ibarra and Pizarro 2016, Madroño 2016, Ibarra et al. 2020b). For example, Chachugi (2013) explains how the Aché Indigenous language (in the region currently known as Paraguay) includes specific words that represent types of bird sounds associated with specific contexts (e.g., lek, alarm, mixed-species flock) and environmental conditions (e.g., open understory at display arenas). Chachugi and other Aché adults recall how, in their childhood, they were instructed by their grandparents to imitate the vocalizations of a wide diversity of bird species, from the tiny kwi’i (Olivaceous Woodcreeper, Sittasomus griseicapillus) to the djaku (Black-fronted Piping-Guan, Pipile jacutinga). The Aché people exhibit an extraordinary ability (by the standards of western scientists) to remember and reproduce these sounds, using them as “playback” to attract and hunt adult birds, and to find nests. Parker played an important role in popularizing the use of bird vocalizations among ornithologists, but for the Aché and many other Indigenous Peoples of the Americas, the use of bird vocalizations was already an integral part of their daily lives.

Among western scientists, too, knowledge of bird vocalizations in the Neotropics was and is constructed collectively, and the story is much more complex and interesting than a simple discovery narrative would have us believe. The use of bioacoustics to identify Neotropical birds dates at least to 1831 in Brazil (Toledo and Araujo 2017). Johan Dalgas Frisch released his first record (Cantos das Aves do Brasil) simultaneously in Rio, New York, and London in 1962 (Gorgulho et al. 2005), and Jacques Vielliard recorded and described birds by sound as early as 1974 (e.g., Vielliard 1983). In Venezuela, Paul A. Schwartz recorded around 800 species by the 1970s, nearly 1/4 of all South American birds (Gorton 2010). In Argentina, Roberto Straneck began recording birds in 1964, contributed to the archive of natural audio recordings of the Museo Argentino de Ciencias Naturales and, in 1990, published popular guides to bird sounds of Argentina that were critical to expanding knowledge of bird distributions and abundance in the Southern Cone (e.g., Straneck 1990, Fernández Balboa 2016). Schwartz, Straneck, and Vielliard pioneered the use of bioacoustics as a taxonomic tool (Schwartz 1968, 1972, Straneck 1987, 1993, 2007, Vielliard 1990, Straneck and Vidoz 1995).

Although discovery narratives are part of the colonialist scientific legacy we have inherited, we must conceptualize an ornithological future without them. It is worthwhile to question our own roles as authors in perpetuating the idea that phenomena remain “unknown” until they are popularized in North America and Europe (see Bauer et al. 2018). Breaking our reliance on discovery narratives also means acknowledging the role of colonialism in the ongoing suppression of ancestral knowledge (Barreau et al. 2016). For those of us ­working in the Neotropics, it means justifying our research in ways that acknowledge the work already done in the region, rather than citing studies from the Global North and then stating that “little is known” about our topic in the Neotropics. We can all highlight the collective process of building knowledge, taking into account not only research that is of interest to the scientific community of Europe and the USA, but also, critically, contributions that advance local and regional agendas.

The Natural History Gap

Building on the framework of seven biological shortfalls laid out by Hortal et al. (2015), Lees et al. (2020) proposed an eighth “Parkerian Shortfall,” a gap in knowledge of natural history. They justified this proposal on the basis of missing information about foraging behavior, diet, nesting, and vocalizations, primarily in English-language resources, especially the Birds of the World platform (https://birdsoftheworld.org). Birds of the World is a highly used and cited online resource maintained by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and a result of the fusion of the Handbook of the Birds of the World Alive (del Hoyo 2015), Birds of North America (https://birdsna.org/, a domain redirecting users to Birds of the World), Neotropical Birds Online (http://neotropical.birds.cornell.edu/ formerly freely accessible resource now redirecting users to Birds of the World), and other resources. As an example of the natural history gap, Lees et al. (2020) stated that even basic nest descriptions are not listed for 328 of a sample of 1,018 Neotropical species across nine families in Birds of the World. However, Birds of the World (and other such compilations) are not reliable yardsticks by which to assess recent advances in Neotropical ornithology. In November 2021, we conducted a cursory review of Neotropical species whose nests were described up to 2017, and we found that Birds of the World continued to list 59 of these species without nesting information, despite the published descriptions (Table 4). The primary publications arose in online searches and were freely available to download (unlike the species accounts in Birds of the World, which are behind a paywall). According to Fierro-Calderón et al. (2021), in the past 20 years, research teams in Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Ecuador, Colombia, and Peru have presented the first descriptions of the nests of over 100 species. We infer that Birds of the World may, at present, omit about half of the Neotropical literature presenting new nest descriptions in the last two decades.