Common moorhen = Common gallinule. It's the same species, Gallinula chloropus, and it occurs indeed in US (Gallinula chloropus ssp. cachinnans) as well as in other parts of America (six more subspecies), Eurasia (three more subspecies) and Africa (two more subspecies).
For every taxonomic opinion in the world in all animal (and plant, fungus, etc etc) kingdom, the checklist that I always use is my brain and memory ;-) (for that reason is why I tend to find more acceptable the changes in those groups that I have little knowlegde about (such as lichens).
The 99% of all what is "generally split these days" or "formerly included" are things that I not see the least reason for accept. While every one is free to accept any taxonomic change and follow it as it's an opinion, the really wrong thing is to aseverate that a "former" taxonomic according for any taxa is incorrect (most of times I find it as the only correct one, except in those cases that once analized I find reasonable, such as the lumping of the previously various ratites orders in only one).
The link I have provided has references for the work. This isn't just cooked-up opinion - people have studied these things and drawn conclusions based on the evidence.
It's one thing for you to say that you don't see a reason to accept this but if you're going to tell other members that what they have posted is incorrect, despite being in line with scientific consensus (as you have now done twice in two comments on this photo!) you could at least explain that that is your opinion and why you hold it, rather than just flat out saying they're wrong. Scientific consensus opinion currently is that the two are separate species.
Why you are able to assert without evidence that the old taxonomic view is automatically correct, while when I provide a link with references to support the modern consensus I am 'really wrong'? Why does the older view get an automatic pass in your eyes?
@drill It's Common Gallinule (G. galeata), which under older taxonomic schemes was considered to be the same species as the Common Moorhen, but is not generally any longer.
@Kakapo: Why do you feel justified repeatedly peddling nonsense as fact, when you can't even give ZooChatters who expose you the courtesy of a reply?
As you have been told multiple times, proposed taxonomic (i.e. evolutionary) relationships aren't all equally valid opinions; you're often just wrong. And, as @Maguari says (again), you don't state your own views as opinions anyway, which makes the quasi-relativist defence just pathetic.
Needless to say, this wash/rinse/repeat has long since become tiresome. Obtuseness is, of course, your prerogative, but please stop wasting everyone else's time.
