4 thoughts on “Cuban Solitaire (Myadestes elisabeth)”
I consider the proposal to be inappropriate. As is evident from the data provided, there is little information about this species in the wild. The fact that it is only known from two populations—one in the eastern part of the island and the other in the west, both in very specific habitats—raises concerns, especially since these habitats are being significantly reduced due to indiscriminate logging and consequent habitat loss, along with pressures from persecution by “birdtrappers” who sell the birds at high prices to be kept as pets due to their beautiful song.
I have witnessed the population decline in western Cuba due to habitat loss, and although it remains relatively common in specific localities, it does not have a uniform distribution, but rather a patchy one, depending on habitat availability and nesting sites. It is worth noting that this species once inhabited the Isla de la Juventud and is now considered extinct there due to the same habitat loss processes, which serves as a warning for what could happen to the remaining populations.
Therefore, I suggest maintaining the NT (Near Threatened) status, considering that this will serve as a safeguard for the species in conservation programs, as well as in strategies to combat illegal birdtrapping and trafficking. I also recommend considering the most up-to-date reference on its status in Cuba, Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Cuba, 8, 2024 (Navarro Pacheco, N, 2024). https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389174939_ANNOTATED_CHECKLIST_OF_THE_BIRDS_OF_CUBA_2025_Number_8
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
We thank all contributors for their comments. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
To ensure acceptance by the IUCN Red List Unit, our assessments must strictly adhere to the IUCN Red List guidelines.
The national assessment of the species (listed in Alonso et al. 2012; and apparently followed in Navarro 2024) lists the species as Vulnerable under Criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii). This cannot be upheld however, because the EOO threshold for listing as Vulnerable under Criterion B1 is 20,000 km2. The calculated EOO of this species using a minimum convex polygon (as required by IUCN) is 140,000 km2. In this regard, the species cannot be listed as threatened under Criterion B1.
Based on a density of 0.38-0.75 birds/ha (equivalent to 38-75 birds/km2) (from Alonso et al. 2012), the population size in the above proposal was estimated as 25,000-100,000 (assuming 25-50% occupancy of the 5,000 km2 of suitable habitat). In response to the suggestion that this species is more patchily distributed, and that the density may be too high (/not representative for most of the species’ range), this is now reduced to a population size of 10,000-50,000. However, this still exceeds the initial threshold for listing a species as threatened under Criterion C. Moreover, the subpopulation structure is such that there are neither fewer than 1,000 mature individuals in the largest subpopulation, nor are 100% of mature individuals in a single subpopulation. Accordingly, the species does not meet or approach the thresholds for listing as threatened under Criterion C.
There is no evidence that Cuban Solitaire meets or approaches the thresholds for listing as threatened under any of the IUCN Red List Criteria and the proposal therefore remains the same to list the species as Least Concern. Note that this status also finds support in Kirkconnell et al. (2020) (initially overlooked in the proposal) who write that the species’ national and global statuses as VU and NT respectively are ‘unduly pessimistic’ and that this species ‘is entirely restricted to areas of low human population density that are often comparatively inaccessible and in some cases protected as conservation units. Moreover, despite being one of Cuba’s most remarkable songsters in the wild, this species has been subject to remarkably little trapping for the cagebird trade not least because it does not survive in captivity.’
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
References:
Kirkconnell, A., Kirwan, G.M., Garrido, O.H., Mitchell, A., Wiley, J.W. 2020. The Birds of Cuba An Annotated Checklist. British Ornithologists’ Club, London.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
I consider the proposal to be inappropriate. As is evident from the data provided, there is little information about this species in the wild. The fact that it is only known from two populations—one in the eastern part of the island and the other in the west, both in very specific habitats—raises concerns, especially since these habitats are being significantly reduced due to indiscriminate logging and consequent habitat loss, along with pressures from persecution by “birdtrappers” who sell the birds at high prices to be kept as pets due to their beautiful song.
I have witnessed the population decline in western Cuba due to habitat loss, and although it remains relatively common in specific localities, it does not have a uniform distribution, but rather a patchy one, depending on habitat availability and nesting sites. It is worth noting that this species once inhabited the Isla de la Juventud and is now considered extinct there due to the same habitat loss processes, which serves as a warning for what could happen to the remaining populations.
Therefore, I suggest maintaining the NT (Near Threatened) status, considering that this will serve as a safeguard for the species in conservation programs, as well as in strategies to combat illegal birdtrapping and trafficking. I also recommend considering the most up-to-date reference on its status in Cuba, Annotated Checklist of the Birds of Cuba, 8, 2024 (Navarro Pacheco, N, 2024).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389174939_ANNOTATED_CHECKLIST_OF_THE_BIRDS_OF_CUBA_2025_Number_8
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank all contributors for their comments. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
To ensure acceptance by the IUCN Red List Unit, our assessments must strictly adhere to the IUCN Red List guidelines.
The national assessment of the species (listed in Alonso et al. 2012; and apparently followed in Navarro 2024) lists the species as Vulnerable under Criterion B1ab(i,ii,iii). This cannot be upheld however, because the EOO threshold for listing as Vulnerable under Criterion B1 is 20,000 km2. The calculated EOO of this species using a minimum convex polygon (as required by IUCN) is 140,000 km2. In this regard, the species cannot be listed as threatened under Criterion B1.
Based on a density of 0.38-0.75 birds/ha (equivalent to 38-75 birds/km2) (from Alonso et al. 2012), the population size in the above proposal was estimated as 25,000-100,000 (assuming 25-50% occupancy of the 5,000 km2 of suitable habitat). In response to the suggestion that this species is more patchily distributed, and that the density may be too high (/not representative for most of the species’ range), this is now reduced to a population size of 10,000-50,000. However, this still exceeds the initial threshold for listing a species as threatened under Criterion C. Moreover, the subpopulation structure is such that there are neither fewer than 1,000 mature individuals in the largest subpopulation, nor are 100% of mature individuals in a single subpopulation. Accordingly, the species does not meet or approach the thresholds for listing as threatened under Criterion C.
There is no evidence that Cuban Solitaire meets or approaches the thresholds for listing as threatened under any of the IUCN Red List Criteria and the proposal therefore remains the same to list the species as Least Concern. Note that this status also finds support in Kirkconnell et al. (2020) (initially overlooked in the proposal) who write that the species’ national and global statuses as VU and NT respectively are ‘unduly pessimistic’ and that this species ‘is entirely restricted to areas of low human population density that are often comparatively inaccessible and in some cases protected as conservation units. Moreover, despite being one of Cuba’s most remarkable songsters in the wild, this species has been subject to remarkably little trapping for the cagebird trade not least because it does not survive in captivity.’
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
References:
Kirkconnell, A., Kirwan, G.M., Garrido, O.H., Mitchell, A., Wiley, J.W. 2020. The Birds of Cuba An Annotated Checklist. British Ornithologists’ Club, London.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.