1 Treatment based heavily on Sheldon (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600] and Moyle et al. (2008) [Moyle, 2008 #13441].

2 Sequence of genera follows Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

3 Implicitly includes liberiae see Urban & Keith (1992) [Urban, 1992 #3899].

4 Includes gertrudis; see White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187]. Also includes andrewi Williams, 1966 [Williams, 1966 #4220]; see Dowsett (1972) [Dowsett, 1972 #15314] and Zimmerman et al. (1996) [Zimmerman, 1996 #4328].

5 This is essentially the treatment of White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187], followed by Urban & Keith (1992) [Urban, 1992 #3899]; however, some authors treat as many as seven or eight species. See, for example, Zimmerman et al. (1996) [Zimmerman, 1996 #4328]. The evidence in Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600] points towards various sister relationships with other 'species'. However, all unscreened subspecies need to be sampled.

6 For date correction see Steinheimer (2005) [Steinheimer, 2005 #3709].

7 This name has usually been attributed to Horsfield & Moore but see Dickinson et al. (2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1374], where the name nipalensis is discussed; the same reasoning applies to the generic name.

8 Considered to form a superspecies with D. dasypus; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

9 Dated 1851 by Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017], but see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #4296].

10 This name has usually been attributed to Horsfield & Moore, but see Dickinson et al. (2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1374].

11 For correct date of publication see Dickinson et al. (2011) [Dickinson, 2011 #13287].

12 For reasons to recognise this genus see Sheldon & Winkler (1994) [Sheldon, 1994 #3595].

13 Considered to form a superspecies with P. perdita, P. preussi and P. rufigula; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

14 Considered to form a superspecies with P. fluvicola; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

15 For date and citation correction see McAllan (2004) [McAllan, 2004 #2585].

16 Includes hypopolia and aprophata; see Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

17 For recognition see Browning (1990) [Browning, 1990 #539].

18 Includes minima; see Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

19 Form a superspecies with P. rufocollaris; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636], who treated aequatorialis as a subspecies of P. fulva.

20 We follow A.O.U. (1998) [A.O.U., 1998 #9] in treating Central American taxa as conspecific with pallida (which A.O.U. called pelodoma). Species limits not fully resolved, but see Smith & Smith (1988) [Smith, 1988 #14454], Kirchman et al. (2000) [Kirchman, 2000 #2224] and Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

21 Sometimes called pelodoma Brooke, 1974 [Brooke, 1974 #507], however, Brooke proposed this binomen to use in the genus Hirundo; when pallida Nelson, 1902 is placed in Hirundo it becomes a junior synonym of H. pallida J.F. Naumann, 1833.

22 For recognition of this and poeciloma; see Garrido et al. (1999) [Garrido, 1999 #1678].

23 Date known to be wrong but correct date not yet known; see Dickinson (2011) [Dickinson, 2011 #12761].

24 For recognition see Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

25 For treatment as separate species from P. fulva see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) [Ridgely, 1989 #3271].

26 Parkes (1993) [Parkes, 1993 #2944] has explained why Chapman's name should stand, rather than give way to chapmani Brooke, 1974 [Brooke, 1974 #507].

27 The page containing this name was issued in 1845 not 1847 as given by Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017] see Holthuis & Sakai (1970) [Holthuis, 1970 #1986].

28 Probably comprises two species; see DNA evidence in Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

29 For date correction see Dickinson et al. (2011) [Dickinson, 2011 #12713].

30 Subspecies groups derive from treatment in Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

31 Considered to form a superspecies with C. striolata by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] but biological species limits are unlikely to have been drawn correctly, see Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600]. A comprehensive analysis is overdue.

32 Includes gephyra; see Stepanyan (1990) [Stepanyan, 1990 #3721].

33 For validation of authorship and determination of Laxmann's type locality see Dickinson & Ericson (1998) [Dickinson, 1998 #1362].

34 Both plate and text appeared in 1845; see Holthuis & Sakai (1970) [Holthuis, 1970 #1986] contra Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017]. See also Mlíkovský (2012) [Mlíkovský, 2012 #14172].

35 For recognition as distinctive see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] and Dickinson & Dekker (2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1372]. Treated as a separate species by Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749].

36 For date correction and change of authorship see van den Elzen et al. (2011) [van den Elzen, 2011 #12758].

37 Includes disjuncta; see White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187].

38 Mees (1971) [Mees, 1971 #2616] has shown that Schlegel published this name before the Fauna Japonica appeared.

39 For reasons to treat this at specific level see Dickinson & Dekker (2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1372].

40 Sequence of species drawn from Dor et al. (2010) [Dor, 2010 #12333].

41 Considered to form a superspecies with H. nigrorufa; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

42 This may well be a separate species, but no thorough study has yet been published.

43 For date correction see Dickinson et al. (2004) [Dickinson, 2004 #1390].

44 Includes abbotti; see Ripley (1944) [Ripley, 1944 #3293].

45 For reasons to separate this from tahitica see Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524].

46 Includes parsonsi of Tasmania; see Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524]. For correct date see McAllan (2004) [McAllan, 2004 #2585].

47 For introduction of the name before the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, see McAllan (2004) [McAllan, 2004 #2585].

48 Actually published anonymously.

49 For reasons to date this from 1826 see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #8548] and Dickinson et al. (2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1374].

50 Considered to form a superspecies with H. lucida and H. angolensis; see Dowsett & Forbes-Watson (1993) [Dowsett, 1993 #13856].

51 For Siberian populations we tentatively follow Vaurie (1959) [Vaurie, 1959 #3961] as does Orn. Soc. Japan (2000) [Ornithological Society of Japan, 2000 #2875]; but we recognize mandschurica.

52 Birds with the characters of transitiva have been collected in winter in Kenya, and perhaps further south in central Africa.

53 The treatment of Vaurie (1951, 1954) [Vaurie, 1951 #3949], [Vaurie, 1954 #3952] is in conflict with those of Russian authors, and there is a view that Kamchatka has no permanent breeding form and that opportunistic breeding occurs by sometimes one form sometimes another (Dickinson & Dekker, 2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1372].

54 Includes arcticincta see White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187].

55 Includes clara see White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187].

56 Includes fulvipectus; see White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187].

57 Considered to form a superspecies with H. dimidiata and H. megaensis; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636]. Erroneously referred to as the dimidiata group.

58 For recognition as a full genus see Cramp et al. (1988) [Cramp, 1988 #1087].

59 Implicitly includes theresae; see Cramp et al. (1988) [Cramp, 1988 #1087].

60 If treated in a broad genus Hirundo the name pallida is preoccupied; peloplasta Brooke, 1974 [Brooke, 1974 #507] must then be used.

61 Presumably this range, used by Fry (1992) [Fry, 1992 #1627], includes birwae although this was placed in bansoensis by White (196) [White, 1961 #4187].

62 Includes fusciventris; see Irwin (1977) [Irwin, 1977 #15311]. Within Ptyonoprogne the name rufigula is no longer preoccupied.

63 Genus resurrected to reflect the results of Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

64 Shown not to belong to the genus Riparia; see Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

65 Misspelled maurltanica in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533].

66 For suggestion that paludibula Rüppell, 1835 had priority, see Brooke (1975) [Brooke, 1975 #508] but that author admitted the name had not been in use since 1894 or earlier; we prefer to retain minor as did Cramp et al. (1988) [Cramp, 1988 #1087].

67 For recognition see White (1961) [White, 1961 #4187].

68 For proposed recognition at species level see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749].

69 Considered to form a superspecies with R. paludicola and R. congica by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636]. This would have included the now separated R. diluta; however this probably breeds sympatrically with R. riparia.

70 Evtikhonva & Red'kin (2012) [Evtikhova, 2012 #15310] proposed three new subspecies sibirica, macrorhyncha and goroshkoi in a treatment where they also accepted kolymensis and maximiliani. Their paper depicts clinal variation and further study is needed to establish whether and where significant steps are present.

71 Includes kolymensis see Stepanyan (1990) [Stepanyan, 1990 #3721].

72 Includes dolgushini Gavrilov & Savtchenko, 1991 [Gavrilov, 1991 #1691]; see Loskot & Dickinson (2001) [Loskot, 2001 #4406].

73 For designation of a lectotype see Loskot (2006) [Loskot, 2006 #9477].

74 For recognition see Goroshko (1993) [Goroshko, 1993 #1739] and, tentatively, Dickinson et al. (2001) [Dickinson, 2001 #1374].

75 Type specimen obtained on passage at Eilat (Israel).

76 For reasons to separate this from R. riparia see Gavrilov & Savtchenko (1991) [Gavrilov, 1991 #1691] and Goroshko (1993) [Goroshko, 1993 #1739].

77 Museum specimens of this, tibetana and fohkienensis require re-identification following separation of diluta from riparia if wintering grounds to be elucidated.

78 Linear sequence of species adopted from Cerasale et al. (2012) [Cerasale, 2012 #13720] and Dor et al. (2012) [Dor, 2012 #14697]. Note that T. meyeni of those authors is T. leucopyga herein.

79 Includes Callichelidon and Kalichelidon; see Turner & Rose (1989) [Turner, 1989 #5548] and Whittingham et al. (2002) [Whittingham, 2002 #4211].

80 Includes lepida; see Phillips (1986) [Phillips, 1986 #3071].

81 Treated in the monotypic genus Kalochelidon by Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017].

82 Treated in the monotypic genus Callichelidon by Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017].

83 For treatment as a separate species from T. albilinea; see Robbins et al. (1997) [Robbins, 1997 #3353].

84 Includes rhizophorae; see Turner & Rose (1989) [Turner, 1989 #5548] and Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

85 Considered to form a superspecies with T. stolzmanni and T. albilinea; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] and Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

86 Considered to form a superspecies with T. leucopyga; see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

87 Brooke (1974) [Brooke, 1974 #507] suggested that the name leucopyga Meyen was preoccupied and suggested meyeni be used instead. Mlíkovský & Frahnert (2009) [Mlíkovský, 2009 #11982] showed that Meyen's name was not preoccupied.

88 Sequence of species based on Moyle et al. (2008) [Moyle, 2008 #13441]; however, this is provisional as further taxon-sampling required to resolve apparent introgression.

89 Sherborn (1897) [Sherborn, 1897 #7874] provided dates based on page numbers, but, in this and other cases, a captioned plate could appear earlier. See Steinheimer et al. (2006) for the full information; in this instance a plate appearing with part 3 in July 1838.

90 Forms a superspecies with all other Progne except P. tapera; see Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202]. Species limits controversial within this group.

91 For recognition, see Phillips (1986) [Phillips, 1986 #3071].

92 For treatment as a separate species from P. dominicensis see A.O.U. (1983) [A.O.U., 1983 #8].

93 For treatment as a separate species from P. dominicensis see A.O.U. (1983) [A.O.U., 1983 #8].

94 Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600] and Moyle et al. (2008) [Moyle, 2008 #13441] show that this is a polyphyletic species. The Central American populations of this although associated with 'subspecies' macrorhampus are also paraphyletic, as P. elegans is nested within the complex. Further study is required to determine species limits.

95 For recognition, see Dickerman & Parkes (1997) [Dickerman, 1997 #1353].

96 For reasons to use this name in place of domestica Vieillot see Brooke (1974) [Brooke, 1974 #507]. A new name for Hirundo domestica Vieillot, 1817.

97 For treatment as a separate species from P. modesta; see A.O.U. (1983, 1998) [A.O.U., 1983 #8], [A.O.U., 1998 #9], Wetmore et al. (1984) [Wetmore, 1984 #4154] and Moyle et al. (2008) [Moyle, 2008 #13441].

98 For treatment as a separate species from S. ruficollis; see Stiles (1981) [Stiles, 1981 #14451].

99 Subspecies groups derived from treatment as allospecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] following Phillips (1986) [Phillips, 1986 #3071].

100 Misspelled psammochrous in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533].

101 Doubtfully diagnosable; see Turner (2004) [Turner, 2004 #12202].

102 For date correction see Duncan (1937) [Duncan, 1937 #1442].

103 Treated (with stuarti) as a separate species by Phillips (1986) [Phillips, 1986 #3071]; but see Johnson (1994) [Johnson, 1994 #14452].

104 For recognition see Dickerman & Parkes (1997) [Dickerman, 1997 #1353].

105 Considered to form one broad species by Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017]. Treated as a superspecies including S. serripennis and S. ridgwayi by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636]; however they mention sympatric breeding in Costa Rica reported by Stiles (1981) [Stiles, 1981 #14451].

106 Includes cacabatus; see Haverschmidt (1982) [Haverschmidt, 1982 #1915].

107 For recognition of this genus see A.O.U. (1983, 1998) [A.O.U., 1983 #8] [A.O.U., 1998 #9].

108 Subspecies groups from Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

109 Recognition based on Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600]; thus includes Notiochelidon due to the position of its type species (the remaining species, from a different clade, are placed in Orochelidon).

110 For correction of author and date see Gregory & Dickinson (2012) [Gregory, 2012 #13835].

111 For transfer to this genus from Notiochelidon; see the phylogeny of Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

112 For recognition see Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600]; this includes Haplochelidon.

113 For transfer to this genus from Notiochelidon; see Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

114 For transfer to this genus from Notiochelidon; see Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].

115 For transfer to this genus from Haplochelidon, or from Petrochelidon in Peters (1960) [Peters, 1960 #3017]; see Sheldon et al. (2005) [Sheldon, 2005 #3600].