King Vulture Sarcoramphus papa
Version: 1.0 — Published December 19, 2014
Account navigation Account navigation
Welcome to Birds of the World!
You are currently viewing one of the free accounts available in our complimentary tour of Birds of the World. In this courtesy review, you can access all the life history articles and the multimedia galleries associated with this account.
For complete access to all accounts, a subscription is required.
King Vulture is monotypic .
From Kirk and Mossman (1998):
Systematic relationship of New World vultures (Cathartidae) still controversial. Traditionally placed in Falconiformes with 4 other families of diurnal birds of prey, with which the cathartids share many ecological and morphological traits (e.g., flight mode, scavenging habits, hooked bill, migration flight mode, and migratory routes). Close relationship with storks (Ciconiidae), long proposed, has more recently been accepted on basis of morphological, behavioral, and molecular studies Phylogenetic analysis, however, based on syringeal morphology and reanalysis of DNA-DNA hybridization data support inclusion of cathartids with Falconiformes. Furthermore, characters thought to be shared only by storks and New World vultures are found in other groups; e.g., urohidrosis also found in boobies (Sulidae) . Some recent studies of molecular data have been unable to resolve relationship with storks, perhaps because of ancient date of divergence on correction of Avise et al. 1994 . Storks and Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex) share unique, derived ear bone morphology, whereas cathartids have primitive condition of this bone, indicating that if New World vultures are related to storks, they diverged long ago from the stork lineage .
Originally described as Vultur gyrphus by Linnaeus (1758), from two captive birds in London. Species name gryphus was subsequently changed to papa (Linnaeus (1758). In 1805 the genus was changed to Sarcoramphus (Dumeril 1805). Zimmermann (in Bartram 1793) proposed a new species [Vultur] Sarcoramphus sacer . The validity of the species has been questioned in recent times (Mlikovsky 2015).