A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

 

South American Classification Committee

 

American Ornithologists' Union

 

Description: auk(Part 3)

 

Part 3. Apodiformes (below)

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes

Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes

Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae)

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)

Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae)

Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae)

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end)

 

Hypothetical List

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

 


 

APODIFORMES 1

APODIDAE (SWIFTS) 1a

Cypseloides cherriei Spot-fronted Swift

Cypseloides cryptus White-chinned Swift 2

Cypseloides niger Black Swift (NB) 3, 4

Cypseloides lemosi White-chested Swift 3

Cypseloides rothschildi Rothschild's Swift 2, 5

Cypseloides fumigatus Sooty Swift 3

Cypseloides senex Great Dusky Swift 3a

Streptoprocne rutila Chestnut-collared Swift 6

Streptoprocne phelpsi Tepui Swift 6

Streptoprocne zonaris White-collared Swift 6aa

Streptoprocne biscutata Biscutate Swift 6aa

Chaetura spinicaudus Band-rumped Swift 7, 8

Chaetura cinereiventris Gray-rumped Swift 8a

Chaetura egregia Pale-rumped Swift 9

Chaetura vauxi Vaux's Swift 10, 10a, 10b, 10c

Chaetura pelagica Chimney Swift (NB) 10a, 10c

Chaetura chapmani Chapman's Swift 10a, 10c

Chaetura viridipennis Amazonian Swift 11

Chaetura meridionalis Sick's Swift 12

Chaetura brachyura Short-tailed Swift 13

Aeronautes montivagus White-tipped Swift 13a

Aeronautes andecolus Andean Swift 13a

Tachornis furcata Pygmy Swift 14

Tachornis squamata Fork-tailed Palm-Swift 15, 16

Panyptila cayennensis Lesser Swallow-tailed Swift

 

 


 

1.  For continuing support for monophyly of the Apodiformes, see Kitto & Wilson (1966), Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Bleiweiss et al. (1994), Johansson et al. (2001), Livezey & Zusi (2001), Mayr (2003), Fain & Houde (2004), Ericson et al. (2004), and Hackett et al. (2008). The Apodiformes and Caprimulgiformes are likely sister taxa (Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Livezey & Zusi 2007), at least if Caprimulgiformes is narrowly defined to include only Caprimulgidae (Hackett et al. 2008).

 

1a. Most classifications use three or more subfamily designations within the Apodidae, based on Brooke et al. (1972) and references therein, e.g., for New World taxa (e.g., REFs, AOU 1998), Cypseloidinae (Cypseloides, Streptoprocne), Chaeturinae (Chaetura), and Apodinae (Aeronautes, Panyptila, Tachornis). <incorp Lack 1956, Orr 1963>  Price et al. (2004, 2005) corroborated those divisions.  Cracraft (2013) recognized three subfamilies: Hemiprocninae (extralimital), Cypseloidinae, and Apodinae.  SACC proposal needed to add subfamilies.

 

2. Cypseloides cryptus likely forms a superspecies with Middle American C. storeri (REFS, Chantler 1999); some authors (REFS) propose that C. cryptus is more closely related to, or conspecific with, C. rothschildi/C. fumigatus.

 

3. Cypseloides niger, C. lemosi, C. rothschildi, and C. fumigatus are considered to form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Chantler 1999).

 

3a. Cypseloides senex was placed in the genus Aerornis by Peters (1940).

 

4. Cypseloides niger was formerly placed in monotypic genus Nephoecetes by many authors (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1940, AOU 1957) but see Zimmer (1945a) and AOU (1998).

 

5. Cypseloides rothschildi was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1945a, 1953, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with C. fumigatus, but see Rogers (1939) and Short (1975). Cypseloides rothschildi was formerly known as "Cypseloides major," but that name is preoccupied by a synonym of C. senex (Zimmer 1953).

 

6. Streptoprocne rutila was placed in the genus Chaetura by Peters (1940), but see Zimmer (1953) for the transfer to Cypseloides, a restoration of the classification of Cory (1918), and this was followed in most subsequent classifications (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Howell & Webb 1995, Chantler 1999, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Streptoprocne phelpsi was also generally placed in Cypseloides following its original description. However, the breeding biology and plumage pattern of both these species indicate that they belong in Streptoprocne (Marín and Stiles 1992); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Chantler 1999).

 

6aa. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) considered Streptoprocne zonaris and S. biscutata to form a superspecies, but they are evidently sympatric in southeastern Brazil.

 

6b. The Middle American and Andean brunneitorques subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Streptoprocne rutila, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1940).

 

7. Central American Chaetura fumosa was formerly considered a subspecies of C. spinicaudus (<?>) or of C. cinereiventris (e.g., Cory 1918, REFS), but see Marín (2000).

 

8. The correct spelling of the species name is spinicaudus (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

8a. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that the subspecies sclateri might deserve consideration as a separate species from Chaetura cinereiventris.

 

9. Chaetura egregia was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940) considered conspecific with C. cinereiventris, but see Pinto & Camargo (1954) for treating them as separate species, a return to the classification of Cory (1918). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered it and C. cinereiventris, along with West Indian C. martinica, to form a superspecies; others (REF), however, consider C. egregia and C. cinereiventris unlikely to even be sister species.

 

10. Chaetura vauxi here includes C. andrei ("Ashy-tailed Swift"), following Marín (1997), but see also Note 12.

 

10a. Mayr & Short (1970) considered Chaetura vauxi, C. pelagica, and C. chapmani to form a superspecies.

 

10b. The richmondi subspecies group, which includes the South American subspecies aphanes, was formerly (e.g., Peters 1940) considered a separate species from Chaetura vauxi. <check Marin 1997>

 

10c. Lack (1956) suggested that Chaetura vauxi, C. pelagica, and C. chapmani might be conspecific, but see Wetmore (1957).

 

11. Chaetura viridipennis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. chapmani, but Marín (1997) provided the rationale for treating viridipennis as a separate species.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) returned to earlier classifications in treating viridipennis as a subspecies of C. chapmani.

 

12. Chaetura meridionalis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered a subspecies of “C. andrei; Marín (1997), however, showed that andrei was indistinguishable from C. vauxi aphanes, but that meridionalis warranted treatment as a separate species. This species is presumably closely related to C. pelagica; the two are nearly indistinguishable except by wing formula (Chantler 1999). Called "Ashy-tailed Swift" by Hilty (2003).

 

13. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the subspecies ocypetes as a distinct species from Chaetura brachyura based on morphology and (anecdotal descriptions of) voice.

 

13a. Aeronautes montivagus and A. andecola were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in a separate genus, Micropus, but Peters (1940) merged this into Aeronautes, but placed andecolus in the genus Apus.

 

14. Tachornis furcata was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Peters 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Micropanyptila, or (with T. squamata) in genus Reinarda, but see (REFS, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Called "Pygmy Palm-Swift" in Hilty (2003) [and elsewhere?].

 

15. Tachornis squamata was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Reinarda, sometimes including T. furcata, but see (REFS, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Called "Neotropical Palm-Swift" in Hilty (2003) [and elsewhere?].

 

16. SACC proposal did not pass to remove hyphen from “Palm-Swift”.

 

 


 

TROCHILIDAE (HUMMINGBIRDS) 1

Florisuginae

Topaza pella Crimson Topaz 25

Topaza pyra Fiery Topaz 25

Florisuga mellivora White-necked Jacobin

Florisuga fusca Black Jacobin 22

 

Phaethornithinae 1, 2

Eutoxeres aquila White-tipped Sicklebill

Eutoxeres condamini Buff-tailed Sicklebill

Ramphodon naevius Saw-billed Hermit 2a

Glaucis dohrnii Hook-billed Hermit 3, 3a

Glaucis aeneus Bronzy Hermit 4, 4b

Glaucis hirsutus Rufous-breasted Hermit 4, 4b

Threnetes ruckeri Band-tailed Barbthroat 3a, 6

Threnetes leucurus Pale-tailed Barbthroat 6, 7, 7a, 7b

Threnetes niger Sooty Barbthroat 5, 6, 7, 7c

Anopetia gounellei Broad-tipped Hermit 8

Phaethornis squalidus Dusky-throated Hermit 8a

Phaethornis rupurumii Streak-throated Hermit 9, 9a

Phaethornis longuemareus Little Hermit 9, 9b, 9bb

Phaethornis aethopygus Tapajos Hermit 9bb, 9bbb

Phaethornis idaliae Minute Hermit 9b, 9c

Phaethornis nattereri Cinnamon-throated Hermit 9c, 10

Phaethornis atrimentalis Black-throated Hermit 11

Phaethornis striigularis Stripe-throated Hermit 12

Phaethornis griseogularis Gray-chinned Hermit 12a

Phaethornis ruber Reddish Hermit 9c

Phaethornis stuarti White-browed Hermit 12b

Phaethornis subochraceus Buff-bellied Hermit

Phaethornis augusti Sooty-capped Hermit 13, 13c

Phaethornis pretrei Planalto Hermit 13, 13a

Phaethornis eurynome Scale-throated Hermit 13b

Phaethornis anthophilus Pale-bellied Hermit 13d

Phaethornis hispidus White-bearded Hermit

Phaethornis yaruqui White-whiskered Hermit

Phaethornis guy Green Hermit 13c

Phaethornis syrmatophorus Tawny-bellied Hermit

Phaethornis koepckeae Koepcke's Hermit 14, 14a

Phaethornis philippii Needle-billed Hermit 14a, 15, 15a

Phaethornis bourcieri Straight-billed Hermit 15a

Phaethornis longirostris Long-billed Hermit 16, 16a, 17a

Phaethornis superciliosus Long-tailed Hermit 16, 16a

Phaethornis malaris Great-billed Hermit 16, 17b

 

Trochilinae 1

Doryfera ludovicae Green-fronted Lancebill 18, 18a, 18b

Doryfera johannae Blue-fronted Lancebill 18

Schistes geoffroyi Wedge-billed Hummingbird 18, 69, 69a

Augastes scutatus Hyacinth Visorbearer 68, 68a

Augastes lumachella Hooded Visorbearer 68

Colibri delphinae Brown Violetear 22c

Colibri thalassinus Green Violetear 22a

Colibri coruscans Sparkling Violetear 22b, 22d

Colibri serrirostris White-vented Violetear

Androdon aequatorialis Tooth-billed Hummingbird 17c

Heliactin bilophus Horned Sungem 18, 71d

Heliothryx barroti Purple-crowned Fairy 18, 70

Heliothryx auritus Black-eared Fairy 70, 70b

Polytmus guainumbi White-tailed Goldenthroat 37f

Polytmus milleri Tepui Goldenthroat 37ff, 42a

Polytmus theresiae Green-tailed Goldenthroat 37g

Avocettula recurvirostris Fiery-tailed Awlbill 24

Chrysolampis mosquitus Ruby-topaz Hummingbird 26, 26a, 26b, 26c

Anthracothorax viridigula Green-throated Mango 23

Anthracothorax prevostii Green-breasted Mango 23a

Anthracothorax nigricollis Black-throated Mango 23b

Heliangelus mavors Orange-throated Sunangel 55

Heliangelus amethysticollis Amethyst-throated Sunangel 55a, 55b

Heliangelus strophianus Gorgeted Sunangel 55c

Heliangelus exortis Tourmaline Sunangel

Heliangelus micraster Little Sunangel 56, 56a

Heliangelus viola Purple-throated Sunangel 56b

Heliangelus zusii Bogota Sunangel 57

Heliangelus regalis Royal Sunangel 58

Sephanoides sephaniodes Green-backed Firecrown 54c

Sephanoides fernandensis Juan Fernandez Firecrown

Discosura conversii Green Thorntail 29

Discosura popelairii Wire-crested Thorntail 29

Discosura langsdorffi Black-bellied Thorntail 29, 29a

Discosura letitiae Coppery Thorntail 29, 30

Discosura longicaudus Racket-tailed Coquette 31

Lophornis ornatus Tufted Coquette 28

Lophornis gouldii Dot-eared Coquette 27b

Lophornis magnificus Frilled Coquette 28

Lophornis delattrei Rufous-crested Coquette 28a

Lophornis stictolophus Spangled Coquette 28, 28b

Lophornis chalybeus Festive Coquette 28, 28aa, 28b

Lophornis pavoninus Peacock Coquette 28, 28aa

Phlogophilus hemileucurus Ecuadorian Piedtail

Phlogophilus harterti Peruvian Piedtail

Adelomyia melanogenys Speckled Hummingbird 47f

Anthocephala floriceps Santa Marta Blossomcrown 47c, 47cc

Anthocephala berlepschi Tolima Blossomcrown 47c, 47cc

Aglaiocercus kingii Long-tailed Sylph 62cc, 66a, 67, 67a, 67b

Aglaiocercus coelestis Violet-tailed Sylph 67a

Aglaiocercus berlepschi Venezuelan Sylph 67a

Sappho sparganurus Red-tailed Comet 62e, 62f, 62ff, 66a

Polyonymus caroli Bronze-tailed Comet 66a

Taphrolesbia griseiventris Gray-bellied Comet 66, 66a

Oreotrochilus chimborazo Ecuadorian Hillstar 50, 66a

Oreotrochilus estella Andean Hillstar 51, 51a

Oreotrochilus leucopleurus White-sided Hillstar 51b

Oreotrochilus melanogaster Black-breasted Hillstar

Oreotrochilus adela Wedge-tailed Hillstar

Opisthoprora euryptera Mountain Avocetbill

Lesbia victoriae Black-tailed Trainbearer 62b, 62c, 62cc, 66a

Lesbia nuna Green-tailed Trainbearer 62c, 62d

Ramphomicron dorsale Black-backed Thornbill

Ramphomicron microrhynchum Purple-backed Thornbill 62cc

Chalcostigma ruficeps Rufous-capped Thornbill 62g, 63, 64c

Chalcostigma olivaceum Olivaceous Thornbill

Chalcostigma stanleyi Blue-mantled Thornbill

Chalcostigma heteropogon Bronze-tailed Thornbill

Chalcostigma herrani Rainbow-bearded Thornbill 62cc

Oxypogon stubelii Buffy Helmetcrest 62g, 62h, 63

Oxypogon cyanolaemus Blue-bearded Helmetcrest 62g, 62h, 63

Oxypogon lindenii White-bearded Helmetcrest 62g, 62h, 63

Oxypogon guerinii Green-bearded Helmetcrest 62g, 62h, 63

Oreonympha nobilis Bearded Mountaineer 62g, 63

Metallura tyrianthina Tyrian Metaltail 63, 63a, 63b

Metallura iracunda Perija Metaltail 63, 63a

Metallura williami Viridian Metaltail 63, 64, 64a

Metallura baroni Violet-throated Metaltail 64

Metallura odomae Neblina Metaltail 64, 65

Metallura theresiae Coppery Metaltail 64, 64bb

Metallura eupogon Fire-throated Metaltail 64

Metallura aeneocauda Scaled Metaltail 64, 64b

Metallura phoebe Black Metaltail 64

Haplophaedia aureliae Greenish Puffleg 60, 60c, 61a

Haplophaedia assimilis Buff-thighed Puffleg 61

Haplophaedia lugens Hoary Puffleg 61a

Eriocnemis nigrivestis Black-breasted Puffleg 58a, 58e

Eriocnemis isabellae Gorgeted Puffleg 58c

Eriocnemis vestita Glowing Puffleg 58b, 58d

Eriocnemis derbyi Black-thighed Puffleg

Eriocnemis godini Turquoise-throated Puffleg 59

Eriocnemis cupreoventris Coppery-bellied Puffleg 58d

Eriocnemis luciani Sapphire-vented Puffleg 58e, 60d, 60b

Eriocnemis mosquera Golden-breasted Puffleg

Eriocnemis glaucopoides Blue-capped Puffleg

Eriocnemis mirabilis Colorful Puffleg 60a

Eriocnemis aline Emerald-bellied Puffleg 60a, 60aaa

Loddigesia mirabilis Marvelous Spatuletail 70c, 70d

Aglaeactis cupripennis Shining Sunbeam 49aaa, 49b, 49c, 49d

Aglaeactis castelnaudii White-tufted Sunbeam 49b, 49d

Aglaeactis aliciae Purple-backed Sunbeam 49d

Aglaeactis pamela Black-hooded Sunbeam 49d

Coeligena coeligena Bronzy Inca 53a

Coeligena wilsoni Brown Inca 53a, 53f

Coeligena prunellei Black Inca 53a, 53f, 53ff

Coeligena torquata Collared Inca 52, 52a, 53a, 53b

Coeligena violifer Violet-throated Starfrontlet 53a, 53c, 53d

Coeligena iris Rainbow Starfrontlet 53a, 53e

Coeligena phalerata White-tailed Starfrontlet

Coeligena orina Dusky Starfrontlet 53a, 54

Coeligena lutetiae Buff-winged Starfrontlet 52a, 53a, 53d

Coeligena bonapartei Golden-bellied Starfrontlet 53, 53a, 54

Coeligena helianthea Blue-throated Starfrontlet 53a

Lafresnaya lafresnayi Mountain Velvetbreast 51c

Ensifera ensifera Sword-billed Hummingbird 53g

Pterophanes cyanopterus Great Sapphirewing 54a, 54b

Boissonneaua flavescens Buff-tailed Coronet 49aaa

Boissonneaua matthewsii Chestnut-breasted Coronet

Boissonneaua jardini Velvet-purple Coronet

Ocreatus underwoodii Booted Racket-tail 62a

Urochroa bougueri White-tailed Hillstar 49aa, 49aaa

Urosticte benjamini Purple-bibbed Whitetip 62

Urosticte ruficrissa Rufous-vented Whitetip 62

Heliodoxa xanthogonys Velvet-browed Brilliant

Heliodoxa gularis Pink-throated Brilliant 48a

Heliodoxa branickii Rufous-webbed Brilliant 48b

Heliodoxa schreibersii Black-throated Brilliant 48c, 48cc

Heliodoxa aurescens Gould's Jewelfront 49

Heliodoxa rubinoides Fawn-breasted Brilliant 49a

Heliodoxa jacula Green-crowned Brilliant

Heliodoxa imperatrix Empress Brilliant 48d

Heliodoxa leadbeateri Violet-fronted Brilliant

Clytolaema rubricauda Brazilian Ruby 48

Patagona gigas Giant Hummingbird 48f

Sternoclyta cyanopectus Violet-chested Hummingbird 71

Hylonympha macrocerca Scissor-tailed Hummingbird 71

Heliomaster longirostris Long-billed Starthroat 71, 71a

Heliomaster squamosus Stripe-breasted Starthroat 71b

Heliomaster furcifer Blue-tufted Starthroat

Myrtis fanny Purple-collared Woodstar 71e

Eulidia yarrellii Chilean Woodstar 73

Rhodopis vesper Oasis Hummingbird 71c

Thaumastura cora Peruvian Sheartail

Chaetocercus mulsant White-bellied Woodstar 74, 75, 75b

Chaetocercus bombus Little Woodstar 74

Chaetocercus heliodor Gorgeted Woodstar 74, 75b

Chaetocercus astreans Santa Marta Woodstar 74, 76

Chaetocercus berlepschi Esmeraldas Woodstar 74

Chaetocercus jourdanii Rufous-shafted Woodstar 77

Myrmia micrura Short-tailed Woodstar

Microstilbon burmeisteri Slender-tailed Woodstar 72a

Calliphlox amethystina Amethyst Woodstar 34b, 36aaaa

Calliphlox mitchellii Purple-throated Woodstar 72

Chlorostilbon melanorhynchus Western Emerald 33, 34

Chlorostilbon gibsoni Red-billed Emerald 33, 33a

Chlorostilbon mellisugus Blue-tailed Emerald 33, 33b

Chlorostilbon olivaresi Chiribiquete Emerald 34a

Chlorostilbon lucidus Glittering-bellied Emerald 34b, 34bb

Chlorostilbon russatus Coppery Emerald

Chlorostilbon stenurus Narrow-tailed Emerald 35, 35a

Chlorostilbon alice Green-tailed Emerald 36, 36a, 36aaaa

Chlorostilbon poortmani Short-tailed Emerald 35a, 36aa, 36aaa, 36aaaa

Chlorestes notata Blue-chinned Sapphire 32, 32a, 32b

Klais guimeti Violet-headed Hummingbird

Stephanoxis lalandi Green-crowned Plovercrest 27, 27a

Stephanoxis loddigesii Purple-crowned Plovercrest 27, 27a

Phaeochroa cuvierii Scaly-breasted Hummingbird 19

Campylopterus largipennis Gray-breasted Sabrewing 19a

Campylopterus hyperythrus Rufous-breasted Sabrewing 19b

Campylopterus ensipennis White-tailed Sabrewing

Campylopterus falcatus Lazuline Sabrewing

Campylopterus phainopeplus Santa Marta Sabrewing

Campylopterus villaviscensio Napo Sabrewing

Campylopterus duidae Buff-breasted Sabrewing 19a

Eupetomena macroura Swallow-tailed Hummingbird 20

Chalybura buffonii White-vented Plumeleteer 47d

Chalybura urochrysia Bronze-tailed Plumeleteer 47d, 47e

Thalurania colombica Crowned Woodnymph 37, 37aa

Thalurania furcata Fork-tailed Woodnymph 32b, 37b, 37bb

Thalurania watertonii Long-tailed Woodnymph

Thalurania glaucopis Violet-capped Woodnymph

Aphantochroa cirrochloris Sombre Hummingbird 21, 21a

Taphrospilus hypostictus Many-spotted Hummingbird 38

Leucochloris albicollis White-throated Hummingbird 38a

Leucippus fallax Buffy Hummingbird

Leucippus baeri Tumbes Hummingbird

Leucippus taczanowskii Spot-throated Hummingbird 37h

Leucippus chlorocercus Olive-spotted Hummingbird 37i

Amazilia chionogaster White-bellied Hummingbird 39, 39a, 39aa, 39b

Amazilia viridicauda Green-and-white Hummingbird 39a

Amazilia tzacatl Rufous-tailed Hummingbird 40a

Amazilia castaneiventris Chestnut-bellied Hummingbird 40a

Amazilia amazilia Amazilia Hummingbird 41

Amazilia leucogaster Plain-bellied Emerald 42, 42a

Amazilia versicolor Versicolored Emerald 42, 42a, 43, 43a, 44a

Amazilia brevirostris White-chested Emerald 42, 42a, 44, 44a

Amazilia franciae Andean Emerald 42, 43b, 43c, 43d, 43f

Amazilia fimbriata Glittering-throated Emerald 42a, 45, 46, 46a, 46aa

Amazilia lactea Sapphire-spangled Emerald 42a, 45, 45a

Amazilia amabilis Blue-chested Hummingbird 45, 45b, 46aa

Amazilia rosenbergi Purple-chested Hummingbird 45

Amazilia saucerottei Steely-vented Hummingbird 47, 47aaa, 47aaaa

Amazilia cyanifrons Indigo-capped Hummingbird 47

Amazilia edward Snowy-bellied Hummingbird 47, 47a, 47aa

Amazilia viridigaster Green-bellied Hummingbird 40, 47, 47b

Amazilia tobaci Copper-rumped Hummingbird 47

Chrysuronia oenone Golden-tailed Sapphire

Goethalsia bella Pirre Hummingbird 47g

Goldmania violiceps Violet-capped Hummingbird

Lepidopyga coeruleogularis Sapphire-throated Hummingbird 36c

Lepidopyga lilliae Sapphire-bellied Hummingbird 37e

Lepidopyga goudoti Shining-green Hummingbird

Damophila julie Violet-bellied Hummingbird 36b, 36bb, 36bbb

Hylocharis eliciae Blue-throated Goldentail 36bbbb

Hylocharis sapphirina Rufous-throated Sapphire

Hylocharis cyanus White-chinned Sapphire 32b, 37c, 37cc

Hylocharis chrysura Gilded Hummingbird 37j, 37k

Hylocharis humboldtii Humboldt's Sapphire 37d

Hylocharis grayi Blue-headed Sapphire 37d, 37dd

 

 


 

1. The monophyly of the Trochilidae has never been questioned. The use of the subfamily level of classification marks the major, deep division of the lineage that is supported by many data sets (e.g., Zusi & Bentz 1982, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Bleiweiss et al. 1994, 1997, Altshuler et al. 2004).  However, recent genetic data (Altshuler et al. 2004) indicate that Topaza and Florisuga are basal to the two traditional subfamilies.  Altshuler et al. (2004) found strong support for at least four major groups within the traditional Trochilinae, with formal recognition awaiting additional taxon-sampling; those groups are congruent with the groups found by Bleiweiss et al. (1997).  McGuire et al. (2007, 2008, 2014) updated the phylogeny presented in Altshuler et al. (2004). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera.  Cracraft (2013) recognized six subfamilies: Florisuginae, Phaethornithinae, Polytminae, Lesbiinae, Patagoninae, and Trochilinae.  Proposal needed to add subfamilies.

 

2. Classification of the Phaethornithinae follows Hinkelmann and Schuchmann (1997). [Sibley & Monroe 1990 removed Ramphodon from subfamily based on pers comms. -- trace] SACC proposal to return to classification of Meyer de Schauensee did not pass.

 

2a. Genetic data (Bleiweiss et al. 2003, McGuire et al. 2014) and morphology (Fristch & Schuchmann 1988) confirm that Ramphodon is a member of the Phaethornithinae, where traditionally placed.  Fristch & Schuchmann (1988) p proposed that its sister genus is Eutoxeres, but McGuire et al. (2014) found that Eutoxeres is sister to all other genera in the subfamily.

 

3. Glaucis dohrnii was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in genus Ramphodon, but see Hinklemann & Schuchmann (1997) [check] for a return to the classification of Cory (1918) and Peter (1945).

 

3a. Glaucis and Threnetes are sister genera (Gill & Gerwin 1989, Altshuler et al. 2004, McGuire et al. 2014).

 

4. Glaucis aeneus and G. hirsutus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

4b. Glaucis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are aeneus and hirsutus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

4b. "Threnetes grzimeki," is now considered an immature plumage of Glaucis hirsutus (Vuilleumier & Mayr 1987, Hinklemann 1988a, Schuchmann et al. 1999).

 

5. Threnetes niger was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as T. antoniae, but see Peters (1945).

 

6. Threnetes ruckeri, T. leucurus, and T. niger form a superspecies.

 

7. Threnetes leucurus is traditionally (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species from T. niger ("Sooty Barbthroat"), but Hinkelmann and Schuchmann (1997) provided evidence that T. niger and T. leucurus are conspecific; unfortunately, niger has priority over leucurus, the widespread and familiar form. SACC proposal passed to recognize T. leucurus as a separate species from niger because of insufficient published evidence for their treatment as conspecific, thus returning to the traditional classification.

 

7a. The northwestern subspecies cervinicauda was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926) considered a separate species from Threnetes leucurus, but Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1950a) treated them as conspecific.

 

7c. Threnetes loehkeni ("Bronze-tailed Barbthroat") was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species, but see Hinkelmann (1988a) for rationale for treating it as a subspecies of T. niger (and also for treating "Threnetes cristinae" as a synonym of T. l. loehkeni). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

8. Anopetia gounellei was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Phaethornis. Hinkelmann & Schuchmann (1997) and Schuchmann (1999) resurrected monotypic genus Anopetia for this species; see also "Threnetes longicauda" (Hybrids and Dubious Taxa).

 

8a. Hinkelmann and Schuchmann (1997) divided Phaethornis into three subgenera based on plumage and morphology, but genetic data (McGuire et al. 2008, 2014) indicate that two of the three subgenera are not monophyletic.

 

9. Phaethornis rupurumii was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. squalidus, but Hinkelmann and Schuchmann (1997) provided evidence for why it should be considered a separate species, as it was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Peters 1945, Phelps & Phelps 1958a).

 

9a. Called "Rupurumi Hermit" by Hilty (2003).

 

9b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phaethornis longuemareus and P. idaliae to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1950a).

 

9bb.  Hinkelmann (1996) proposed that the subspecies P. l. aethopygus represented hybrids between P. ruber and P. rupurumii amazonicus.  Piacentini et al. (2009) showed that aethopygus was not only a valid taxon but also probably worthy of species rank.  SACC proposal passed to recognize aethopygus as a separate species.

 

9bb.  Formerly spelled P. aethopyga, but the species name is variable and must be changed to the masculine form; see Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

 

9c. Phaethornis idaliae, P. nattereri, P. ruber, and <> were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Pygmornis, but this was merged into Phaethornis by Peters (1945). Subsequent studies have supported the monophyly of this group, but it is nested within Phaethornis (McGuire et al. 2008, 2014) and thus would make the latter paraphyletic if recognized as a separate genus.

 

10. "Phaethornis maranhaoensis," treated as a species by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987), represents the adult male plumage of P. nattereri (Hinkelmann 1988a, b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

11. Phaethornis atrimentalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Zimmer 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. longuemareus, but see Hinkelmann (1990).

 

11a. The southern subspecies riojae was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Phaethornis atrimentalis, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific; Zimmer (1950a) further considered riojae not distinguishable from atrimentalis, but see Schuchmann (1999).

 

12. Phaethornis striigularis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Zimmer 1950a, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of Phaethornis longuemareus, but see Hinkelmann (1990) for a return to the classification of Cory (1918) and Chapman (1926), and see McGuire et al. (2014) for genetic confirmation that they are not sister taxa.

 

12a. The subspecies porcullae and zonura were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) each considered separate species from Phaethornis griseogularis, but see Zimmer (1950a) for rationale for treatment of all as conspecific.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated porcullae as a separate species (“Porculla Hermit”) based on plumage differences.

 

12aa. "Phaethornis apheles," known from "northern Peru" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered a probable synonym of P. [griseogularis] zonura by Peters (1945). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

12b. Peters (1945) questioned whether Phaethornis stuarti was a species or just a subspecies of P. ruber, but they are clearly separate species (e.g., Zimmer 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Schuchmann et al. 1999).

 

13. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phaethornis augusti and P. pretrei to form a superspecies; McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed that they are sister species.

 

13a. Phaethornis pretrei was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) placed in a separate <monotypic?> genus, Anisoterus, but this was merged into Phaethornis by Peters (1945).

 

13b. "Phaethornis nigrirostris," is now considered a synonym (aberrant black-billed individuals) of P. eurynome (Hinkelmann 1988a, Schuchmann et al. 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

13c. "Phaethornis fumosus," known from "Colombia" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was treated as a synonym of P. guy apicalis by Peters (1945); now considered to be melanistic individuals of P. augusti (Schuchmann et al. 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

13d. "Phaethornis fuliginosus," known from the type specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered a subspecies of P. anthophilus by Peters (1945); now considered to be a melanistic individual of an uncertain species of Phaethornis (Hinkelmann 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

14. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Weske & Terborgh (1977).

 

14a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phaethornis koepckeae and P. philippii to form a superspecies; McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed that they are sister species.

 

15. Here listed as philippii as in Peters (1945), Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Schuchmann (1999); given as philippi in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).  Mark Brown (pers. comm.) has proposed that the single “i” is correct, and will hopefully submit a formal proposal.

 

15a. Phaethornis philippii and P. bourcieri were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Ametrornis, but this was merged into Phaethornis by Peters (1945).

 

16. Phaethornis longirostris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as conspecific with P. superciliosus; Hinkelmann (1996), followed by Hinkelmann and Schuchmann (1997), provided evidence that it should be treated as separate species, a return to the classification of Cory (1918), namely a three-species classification: (1) P. longirostris of Middle America and northwestern South America; (2) P. malaris of western Amazonia, the eastern Guianan Shield, and southeastern Brazil; and (3) P. superciliosus (with muelleri) of the Guianan Shield and eastern Brazil.  Thus, taxa from western Amazonia formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as subspecies of P. superciliosus are considered subspecies of P. malaris. Phaethornis longirostris and P. superciliosus form a superspecies (Schuchmann 1999). SACC proposal did not pass to return to species limits of Meyer de Schauensee. McGuire et al. (2014) found that P. longirostris is sister to extralimital P. mexicanus (formerly also included in broadly defined P. superciliosus) and that narrowly defined P. superciliosus and P. malaris are more closely related to P. guy and P. yaruqui than they are to P. longirostris, thus confirming treatment of P. longirostris as a separate species.

 

16a. Banks et al. (2002) used "Long-billed Hermit" for longirostris and "Rusty-breasted Hermit" for superciliosus to avoid longer names and to avoid the implication that longirostris and superciliosus were more closely related to each other than either is to Great-billed Hermit (P. malaris). SACC proposal passed to change English names from "Western Long-tailed Hermit" to "Long-billed Hermit for P. longirostris and from "Eastern Long-tailed Hermit" to "Long-tailed Hermit" for P. superciliosus.

 

17a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered the subspecies baroni of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru to deserve recognition as a separate species from Phaethornis longirostris based on vocal and plumage differences. SACC proposal to recognize baroni as a separate species did not pass.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated baroni as a separate species (“Ecuadorian Hermit”).

 

17b. See Hinkelmann (1988a) for rationale for considering Phaethornis margarettae Ruschi tentatively as a subspecies of P. malaris. <incorp Hinkelmann 1989>

 

17c. Androdon was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a member of the Phaethornithinae, closely related to Ramphodon, but genetic data indicate (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Bleiweiss et al. 1994, 1997, 2003, Altshuler et al. 2004, McGuire et al. 2008, 2014) that Androdon belongs in the Trochilinae and is not closely related to Ramphodon. Schuchmann (1995) showed that this was also consistent with behavioral information. Schuchmann (1995) also proposed that Androdon and Doryfera could be placed in their own subfamily, but this is not consistent with recent phylogenetic data (McGuire et al. 2007, 2008, 2014).

 

18. Doryfera was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the Phaethornithinae, but see Bleiweiss et al. (1994, 1997), Altshuler et al. (2004), and McGuire et al. (2008, 2014). Zusi & Bentz (1982), Bleiweiss et al. (1997), and McGuire et al. (2008, 2014) found that Doryfera is a member a monophyletic group, the "mangoes," that includes the genera in this linear sequence through Anthracothorax, including genera placed at opposite ends of the traditional linear sequence (Schistes, Heliactin, and Heliothryx). We also include Augastes in this group based on Ruschi (1963) and Schuchmann (1999) (see Note 69).

 

18a. The Central American subspecies veraguensis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Doryfera ludovicae, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

18b. The species name was given as "ludoviciae" by Cory (1918) and Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970), but all indications are that ludovicae is correct, certainly by the criterion of prevailing usage (N. David, pers. comm.)

 

19. Stiles & Skutch (1989) noted that the monotypic genus Phaeochroa perhaps could be merged into Campylopterus; Schuchmann (1999) merged Phaeochroa into Campylopterus, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal passed to split Phaeochroa from Campylopterus, thus restoring the traditional classifications (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) that recognize this monotypic genus.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that Phaeochroa is not particularly closely related to Campylopterus but instead is the sister to Leucippus fallax.

 

19a. The obscurus subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Campylopterus largipennis, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945).

 

19b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Campylopterus hyperythrus and C. duidae to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) considered conspecific; Schuchmann et al. (1999) did not consider them even to be sister species (but no rationale provided). <need to track down authority for the split>  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed that they are very closely related sister taxa.

 

20. Schuchmann (1999) merged Eupetomena into Campylopterus, but little justification provided. SACC proposal to merge Eupetomena into Campylopterus did not pass.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that Eupetomena is only distantly related to Campylopterus (and is the sister to Aphantochroa.)

 

21. Schuchmann (1999) merged Aphantochroa into Campylopterus, but little justification provided.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that Aphantochroa is only distantly related to Campylopterus (and is the sister to Eupetomena.)

 

21a. Species name occasionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) misspelled as "cirrhochloris."

 

22. Florisuga fusca was formerly (e.g., <check Cory 1918,>Pinto 1937, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Melanotrochilus, which Schuchmann (1999) merged into Florisuga, following Zimmer (1950b).

 

22a. The Central and South American cyanotus subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926) treated as a separate species from Mexican Colibri thalassinus, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945).

 

22b. The Tepui region subspecies germana was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Colibri coruscans, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

22c. SACC proposal passed to remove hyphen in the English names of the "Violet-ears".

 

22d. Colibri coruscans was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as C. iolatus, but see Peters (1945).

 

23. [note on superspecies?]

 

23a. <check>The subspecies iridescens of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru has been treated (e.g., Zimmer 1950c, Schuchmann 1999) as a subspecies of Anthracothorax prevostii, but see Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for inclusion in A. nigricollis, as in Peters (1945) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014); iridescens itself may deserve recognition as a separate species Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

 

23b. Anthracothorax nigricollis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as A. violicauda, but see Peters (1945).

 

24. Avocettula recurvirostris was merged into Anthracothorax by Schuchmann (1999), pointing out that unusual bill shape is the only difference between it and Anthracothorax. SACC proposal passed to recognize monotypic genus Avocettula.

 

25. Schuchmann (1982, 1999) considered Topaza pyra conspecific with T. pella, but see Hu et al. (2000); the two species are nearly parapatric in southern Venezuela with no sign of intermediacy. SACC proposal to lump these two species did not pass. The two species of Topaza form a superspecies (REF).  Schmitz-Ornés & Schuchmann (2011) provided new information suggesting that the two species are conspecific.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated the two as a separate species.

 

26. Called "Ruby Topaz" in Schuchmann (1999).

 

26a. Chrysolampis mosquitus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) known as C. elatus.

 

26b.  Schuchmann (1999) considered Chrysolampis to be closely related to and possibly congeneric with Caribbean Orthorhynchus; genetic data, however, indicate they not even in the same tribe (McGuire et al. 2009).

 

26c. "Chrysolampis chlorolaemus," known only from the type specimen and treated as a valid species and in the monotypic genus Crinis by Cory (1918) and Pinto (1937), is now considered a hybrid (Anthracothorax nigricollis X Chrysolampis mosquitus) (Peters 1945). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

27. The southern subspecies loddigesii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Stephanoxis lalandi, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.  Cavarzere et al. (2014) provided evidence that loddigesii merits species rank.  Del Hoyo and Collar (2014) also independently treated them as separate species based on plumage differences.  SACC proposal passed to elevate loddigesii to species rank and SACC proposal passed to endorse English names.

 

27a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Black-breasted Plovercrest."

 

27b. The subspecies verreauxi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Lophornis chalybeus, but Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1950c) treated them as conspecific.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated verreauxi as a separate species (“Butterfly Coquette”) based on plumage differences; see also Donegan et al. (2015).  Proposal needed.

 

28. Lophornis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species' names are ornatus, magnificus, stictolophus, chalybeus, and pavoninus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

28a. "Lophornis regulus," known from Peru and Bolivia, was treated as a separate species from L. delattrei by Cory (1918); it is now treated as a synonym of the latter (Peters 1945, Zimmer 1950c). "Lophornis melaniae," known from one specimen from "Colombia" (Meyer de Schauensee 1970) and treated as a questionable species by Peters (1945) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is probably an aberrant individual or faded skin of L. delattrei (Schuchmann et al. 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

28aa. Lophornis chalybeus and L. pavoninus were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) placed in a separate genus, Polemistria, but see Zimmer (1950c) for rationale for its merger into Lophornis.

 

28b. "Lophornis insignibarbis," known from one specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered a questionable taxon by Peters (1945) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966); it is possibly a hybrid (L. stictolophus X L. chalybeus) (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann et al. 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

 

29. Discosura popelairii, D. langsdorffi, D. letitiae, and D. conversii were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in genus Popelairia, but most recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1998, Schuchmann 1999) merge this into Discosura. proposal needed? Zimmer (1950c) further merged Discosura into Lophornis, and this was followed by Phelps & Phelps (1958a).

 

29a. Discosura popelairii was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) placed in the <monotypic?> genus Gouldomyia, but this was merged into Popelairia by Peters (1945).

 

30. Discosura letitiae is known from only two old specimens from Bolivia without precise locality. Although there has been some question concerning the validity of this taxon, Graves (1999) showed that all evidence favors its continued treatment as a valid species.

 

30a. Graves (1999) proposed changing the English name of Discosura letitiae to "Letitia's Coquette."

 

31. Correct spelling for species name is longicaudus (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

32. Chlorestes notata traditionally (e.g., Peters 1945, Zimmer 1950c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) has been treated in the monotypic genus Chlorestes; Schuchmann (1999) merged Chlorestes into Chlorostilbon based on morphology and voice, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal passed to restore Chlorestes. McGuire et al. (2014) found that Chlorestes was only distantly related to Chlorostilbon (and was the sister to Juliamyia).

 

32a. See David & Gosselin (2002b) for use of notata instead of notatus.

 

32b. "Chlorestes subcaerulea," known only from the type specimen and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Pinto (1937), is probably an aberrant C. notata (Schuchmann 1999). "Eucephala hypocyanea," known only from the type specimen and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Pinto (1937), is probably an aberrant Chlorostilbon notata or a hybrid (C. notata X Hylocharis cyanus) (Griscom & Greenway 1941, Peters 1945, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann 1999). "Eucephala scapulata," known only from the type specimen and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is suspected to be a hybrid (Thalurania furcata X Chlorestes notata) (Berlioz 1932<check>, Peters 1945, Schuchmann 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

33. Species limits in the mellisugus group of taxa in Chlorostilbon are complex. At one extreme, Zimmer (1950d) and Schuchmann (1999) considered them all conspecific, including the canivetii group of Middle America. Chlorostilbon gibsoni (including nitens) was usually (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Red-billed Emerald") from C. mellisugus, as was C. canivetii. Stiles (1996a) proposed that C. mellisugus should be treated as at least three separate species within South America: melanorhynchus (of western Colombia and Ecuador), gibsoni (northern and central Colombia, NW Venezuela), and mellisugus (rest of South America); this represents a partial return to the classification of Cory (1918) and was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Together, these taxa would form a superspecies with recently described olivaresi. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. mellisugus to form a superspecies with Middle American Chlorostilbon species but not with C. gibsoni, because the two were thought to be sympatric [are they? breeding?] in the Magdalena Valley, Colombia. SACC proposal passed to follow species limits proposed by Stiles (1996a).

 

33a. The subspecies chrysogaster (= "haeberlini") and pumilus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered separate species from Chlorostilbon gibsoni, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945).

 

33b. Chlorostilbon mellisugus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Peters 1945) known as C. prasinus, but see Zimmer (1950d) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

 

33c. The subspecies napensis (= "vitticeps") was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) considered a separate species from Chlorostilbon mellisugus, but they were treated as conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and as synonyms of C. m. phoeopygus by Schuchmann (1999). The subspecies peruanus was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Chlorostilbon mellisugus, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

34. McGuire et al. (2008) found that the genera in this sequence from Chlorostilbon through Hylocharis form a monophyletic group, the "emeralds," that also includes Middle American Elvira, Eupherusa, and Microchera and West Indian Orthorhynchus; they also tentatively placed unsampled Eupetomena, Leucippus, Leucochloris, Phaeochroa, and Stephanoxis in this group based on their placement in traditional linear sequences.  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed that all these genera belonged with the emeralds (Trochilini, sensu Dickinson and Remsen 2013).

 

34a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Stiles (1996a).

 

34b. "Smaragdochrysis iridescens," known only from the type specimen and treated as a valid species and monotypic genus by Cory (1918) and Pinto (1937), is now regarded as a hybrid (Chlorostilbon aureoventris X Calliphlox amethystina) (Butler 1931, Peters 1945, Graves 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

34bb. Formerly known as Chlorostilbon aureoventris, but Pacheco & Whitney (2006) showed that lucidus is the valid name for this taxon.  SACC proposal passed to change to lucidus.  For additional comments on why lucidus must be applied to this taxon, see Piacentini & Pacheco (2014).

 

35. Correct spelling for species name is stenurus (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

35a. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that Chlorostilbon stenurus might best be considered a subspecies of C. poortmani.

 

36. Hilty (2003) suspected that Chlorostilbon alice should be considered a subspecies of C. stenurus.

 

36a. "Chlorostilbon micans," known only from the type specimen and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is probably an aberrant C. alice (Peters 1945, Schuchmann et al. 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

36aa. The Colombian subspecies euchloris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) considered a separate species from Chlorostilbon poortmani, but Cory (1918) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) treated them as conspecific, and Zimmer (1950d) questioned whether euchloris was a diagnosable taxon. Schuchmann (1999) treated it as a subspecies of C. poortmani.

 

36aaa. "Chlorostilbon inexpectatus," known only from the type specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and as a questionable species by Peters (1945), is probably an aberrant C. poortmani (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Schuchmann 1999). "Chlorostilbon auratus," known only from the type specimen from "Peru," was treated as a questionable species by Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1950d); Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and Schuchmann et al. (1999) considered it likely to be an aberrant C. poortmani, but that would mean that the locality is wrong. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

36aaaa. "Ptochoptera iolaima," known only from the type specimen from Ypanema, São Paulo, Brazil, was treated as a valid species and monotypic genus by Cory (1918), Pinto (1937), and Peters (1945); Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) suspected that it was an "artifact", and Berlioz (1938) considered it to be a probable hybrid (Calliphlox amethystina and some other species); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered it a probable hybrid; Schuchmann et al. (1999) considered it to be a probable hybrid (C. alice X C. poortmani), but that would mean that the locality is wrong. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

36b. The subspecies panamensis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Damophila julie, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

36bb. David and Peterson (2010) confirmed that julie is the correct name (versus juliae, as in Cory [1918] and elsewhere).

 

36bbb. Özdikmen (2012) pointed out that Damophila is preoccupied in Lepidoptera and provided a replacement name, Neodamophila.  However, the name Juliamyia is available.  Proposal needed.

 

36bbb.  Hylocharis is not monophyletic (Hernández-Blancos et al. 2014, McGuire et al. 2014).

 

36c. The subspecies coelina was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Lepidopyga coeruleogularis, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

37. Thalurania colombica and T. fannyae were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Zimmer 1950d, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered conspecific with T. furcata, but Escalante-Pliego & Peterson (1992) showed that the three taxa are essentially parapatric with no signs of gene flow; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). They had been treated as separate species from T. furcata by Cory (1918) and AOU (1983, 1998).  Donegan (2012a), however, found new evidence for gene flow between these populations.  SACC proposal passed to treat fannyae and colombica as conspecific.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that fannyae and colombica were genetically indistinguishable at the loci sampled.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) followed this treatment and called the composite species “Crowned Woodnymph”; see Note 37aa.  Proposal badly needed.

 

37a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) recognized the subspecies hypochlora of southwestern Ecuador as a separate species from Thalurania fannyae because its plumage differences from other Trans-Andean/Middle American Thalurania treated as species by Escalante-Pliego & Peterson (1992) were of similar or greater magnitude; hypochlora had previously (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926) been treated as a species. SACC proposal to recognize hypochlora as a separate species did not pass.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) continued to treat hypochlora as a subspecies.

 

37aa. Called "Crowned Woodnymph" in Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983), Hilty (1986), Ridgely & Gwynne (1989), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Howell & Webb (1995), and Del Hoyo & Collar (2014); called "Violet-crowned Woodnymph" in AOU (1998), Rodner et al. (2000), Hilty (2003), and Jones (2003); called "Blue-crowned Woodnymph" in Eisenmann (1955) and Sibley & Monroe (1993). Dickinson (2003) followed Schuchmann's (1999) evidently novel "Purple-crowned Woodnymph," and this is why SACC started with "Purple-crowned." SACC proposal passed to change to "Violet-crowned."

 

37aaa.  Valdés-Velásquez and Schuchmann (2009) described a new species, Thalurania nigricapilla, from the Western Andes of Colombia.  SACC proposal to recognize this species did not pass.

 

37b. The subspecies nigrofasciata, jelskii, simoni, balzalni, and eriphile were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926, Pinto 1937) each considered separate species from Thalurania furcata, but Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1950d) treated them as conspecific.

 

37bb. "Thalurania lerchi," known only from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and as a questionable species by Peters (1945), is suspected to be a hybrid (Thalurania furcata X Chrysuronia oenone) (Berlioz 1937, 1965, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, and Schuchmann 1999). "Thalurania tschudii," was treated as a species by Cory (1918), but Peters considered it a synonym of T. f. jelskii. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

37c. Correct spelling for species name is cyanus (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

37cc. "Hylocharis pyropygia," known from five specimens from "Bahía" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered a probable hybrid (H. cyanus X Chlorostilbon aureoventris pucherani) by Berlioz (1938) and Schuchmann (1999). However, Berlioz (1951), Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered it possibly a valid species. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

337d. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) recognized the subspecies humboldtii of the Chocó region as a separate species from Hylocharis grayi because of plumage and habitat differences, and because the lumping of humboldtii by Peters (1945), previously treated as a separate species (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926), was never justified.  Stiles (2003) provided additional evidence for treatment of humboldtii as a separate species.  SACC proposal passed to recognize humboldtii as a separate species.

 

37dd. Hylocharis grayi was called “Gray’s Hummingbird” in del Hoyo & Collar (2014) and Donegan et al. (2015). Proposal needed.

 

37e. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that Lepidopyga lilliae might be a plumage stage of L. coeruleogularis; Peters (1945) treated it as a subspecies of L. coeruleogularis.

 

37ee. The subspecies luminosa was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) treated (with phaeochroa) as a separate species from Lepidopyga goudoti, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent authors.

 

37f. Polytmus guainumbi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as Polytmus thaumantias.

 

37ff. Peters (1945) placed Polytmus milleri in the monotypic genus Waldronia; Zimmer (1950e) provided rationale for merger of Waldronia into Polytmus, which was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications..

 

37g. Cory (1918) and Pinto (1937) placed Polytmus theresiae in the monotypic genus Psilomycter; Peters (1945) placed it in the monotypic genus Smaragdites, which predated Psilomycter; Zimmer (1950e) provided rationale for merger of Smaragdites into Polytmus, which was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.

 

37h. Leucippus taczanowskii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Thaumasius, but Peters (1945) merged this into Talaphorus, which was then merged into Leucippus by Zimmer (1950e); this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.

 

37i. Leucippus chlorocercus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Talaphorus, but this was merged into Leucippus by Zimmer (1950e); this merger was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.

 

37j. Hylocharis chrysura was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as H. ruficollis, but see Peters (1945).

 

37k. Called "Gilded Sapphire" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

 

38. Taphrospilus hypostictus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) treated in the genus Talaphorus; Zimmer (1950e) merged Talaphorus into Leucippus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) followed the merger of Talaphorus into Leucippus, but resurrected the monotypic genus Taphrospilus for this species; Schuchmann (1999) followed Zimmer (1950e) in merging Taphrospilus into Leucippus.

 

38a. "Leucochloris malvina," known only from the type specimen, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Pinto (1937); possibly a hybrid (L. albicollis X Chlorostilbon aureoventris) (Berlioz 1938, Schuchmann 1999).

 

39. McGuire et al. (2008) found that Amazilia as traditionally defined is not monophyletic: Chrysuronia, Damophila, Lepidopyga caeruleocauda, and three species of Hylocharis (which has priority over Amazilia) are all nested with Amazilia; they recommended, however, retaining the traditional, broadly defined Amazilia pending further analyses.  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed that Amazilia is highly polyphyletic.

 

39a. Amazilia chionogaster and A. viridicauda were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Peters 1945) placed in Leucippus, but Zimmer (1950e) transferred these two species to Amazilia, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and most subsequent classifications. Schuchmann (1999), however, transferred these two species back to Leucippus.

 

39aa. The subspecies hypoleuca may merit treatment as a separate from the nominate Amazilia c. chionogaster (Robbins et al. 2013).

 

39b. "Leucippus pallidus," known from central Peru and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered a synonym of nominate Amazilia chionogaster by Peters (1945). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

40. Amazilia cupreicauda was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of A. viridigaster; Schuchmann (1999) treated it as a separate species, based on plumage differences; Weller (2000) provided rationale for this change. SACC proposal passed to lump cupreicauda and viridigaster.

 

40a. Schuchmann (1999) considered Amazilia tzacatl and A. castaneiventris to form a superspecies.

 

41. Schuchmann (1999) treated the subspecies alticola of southern Ecuador as a separate species from Amazilia amazilia, representing a return to the classification of Cory (1918). Not followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Rationale now published by Weller (2000b), and Dickinson (2003) treated it as a separate species. SACC proposal to recognize alticola as a separate species did not pass. Krabbe & Ridgely (2010) noted extensive intergradation between alticola and considered the vocal differences reported by Weller (2000b) to represent individual variation.  The subspecies dumerilii and leucophoea were both also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered separate species from Amazilia amazilia, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

42. Schuchmann (1999) resurrected the genus Agyrtria for these species. SACC proposal passed to continue to recognize broad Amazilia pending publication of data and rationale to support the fragmentation. McGuire et al. (2008, 2014) found that Agyrtria was not monophyletic.

 

42a. Polytmus milleri and Amazilia leucogaster, A. versicolor, A. brevirostris, A. fimbriata, and A. lactea were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Agyrtria; Peters (1945) merged this into Amazilia and placed milleri in Polytmus.

 

43. Schuchmann (1999) treated Amazilia rondoniae as a species separate from Amazilia versicolor on basis of sympatry, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal passed to continue to treat rondoniae as a subspecies of A. versicolor.

 

43a. The subspecies milleri, hollandi, and nitidifrons were each formerly (e.g., Cory 1918,) considered separate species from Amazilia versicolor; Peters (1945) treated milleri and nitidifrons as subspecies of Amazilia versicolor, but retained hollandi as a separate species; Phelps & Phelps (1958) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) treated hollandi as a subspecies of A. versicolor, and most classifications have followed this.  Schuchmann (1999) suggested that hollandi might merit restoration to species rank.

 

43b. The subspecies viridiceps was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazilia franciae, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

43c. Amazilia franciae was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in a separate genus, Uranomitra, but Peters (1945) merged this into Amazilia.

 

43d. The Peruvian subspecies cyanocollis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazilia franciae, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

43f. "Amazilia veneta," known only from the type specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a questionable species by Peters (1945), is perhaps a melanistic A. franciae (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Schuchmann 1999).

 

44. Amazilia brevirostris was formerly known as A. chionopectus (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Schuchmann (1999), Chebez et al. (2008), and Weller & Schuchmann (2009), a return to the species name of Bangs & Penard (1918) and Pinto (1937).

 

44a. Weller & Schuchmann (2009) proposed that A. brevirostris and A. versicolor form a superspecies, but McGuire et al. (2014) found that they are not sister species.

 

45. Schuchmann (1999) resurrected the genus Polyerata for these species, a return to the classification of Cory (1918). SACC proposal passed to continue to recognize broad Amazilia pending publication of data and rationale to support the fragmentation. McGuire et al. (2008, 2014) found that Polyerata was not monophyletic.

 

45a. The subspecies bartletti was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazilia lactea, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated bartletti as a separate species (“Spot-vented Emerald”) based on plumage differences.

 

45b. The Central American subspecies decora was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazilia amabilis, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed by some recent authors (e.g., Schuchmann 1999, Dickinson 2003) but not by Wetmore (1968), AOU (1983, 1998), Ridgely & Gwynne (1989) or Stiles & Skutch (1989). See Wetmore (1968) for rationale for treating decora as a separate species.

 

46. "Amazilia distans" ("Tachira Emerald"), formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a valid species, is a hybrid between Amazilia fimbriata and Hylocharis cyanus (Weller & Schuchmann 1997, Graves 1998). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

46a. The subspecies maculicauda, apicalis, tephrocephala, and fluviatilis were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926, Pinto 1937) each considered separate species from Amazilia fimbriata, but Peters (1945) treated them all as conspecific.

 

46aa. "Amazilia cyaneotincta," known from two "Bogotá" specimens (Meyer de Schauensee 1970) was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Peters (1945); it is probably an aberrant Amazilia fimbriata or A. amabilis (Schuchmann 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

 47. Schuchmann (1999) resurrected the genus Saucerottia for these species, a return to the classification of Cory (1918). SACC proposal passed to continue to recognize broad Amazilia pending publication of data and rationale to support the fragmentation.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that this was not a monophyletic group and that it was embedded in broadly defined Amazilia.

 

47a. Amazilia edward was only recently recorded for the first time from South America, with published photographs from northwestern Colombia (Colorado & Pulgarín 2003); previous reports from Ecuador (in Chapman 1926) refer to mislabeled specimens.

 

47aa. Proposal passed to change English name to "Snowy-bellied" (as in AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely & Gwynne 1989, and Stiles & Skutch 1989), from "Snowy-breasted" (as in Ridgway 1911, Eisenmann 1955, Slud 1964, Wetmore 1968, Ridgely 1976, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann 1999, Dickinson 2003).

 

47aaa. Stiles & Skutch (1989) noted that the Central American subspecies (formerly bearing the name sophiae but now hoffmani) differs in voice and behavior from South American A. saucerrottei and probably deserves recognition as a separate species.

 

47aaaa.  Species name changed to “saucerottei” by Dickinson & Remsen (2013), based on Article 32.5.  The spelling “saucerrottei” in the original description (and in almost all recent literature, including Ridgway (1911) and Peters (1945), must be treated as a lapsus because Trochilus saucerrottei Delattre & Bourcier, 1847, was named for M. Saucerotte, correctly spelled in the same description. SACC proposal passed to change to saucerottei.

 

47b. The Venezuelan subspecies iodura, often overlooked completely (e.g. Peters 1945), was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazilia viridigaster; Weller (1999) treated it as a valid taxon, but a subspecies of A. viridigaster. The taxon inculta was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from A. viridigaster, but Peters (1945) considered it a synonym of A. v. viridigaster.

 

47c. The genus Anthocephala was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as Simonula, but see Peters (1945).  Schuchmann (1999) proposed a possible relationships to Adelomyia or extralimital Microchera.  McGuire et al. (2014) showed that it is the sister to Stephanoxis.

 

47cc. Lozano-Jaramillo et al. (2014) found that the two subspecies are strongly differentiated not only genetically but also in climatic niche space, and suggested that the subspecies berlepschi of the Andes may warrant treatment as a separate species from the nominate subspecies of the Santa Martas. SACC proposal passed to elevate berlepschi to species rank.  SACC proposal passed to establish English names for the two species.

 

47d. The subspecies intermedia of southwestern Ecuador was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926) considered a separate species, but Peters (1945) tentatively treated it as a subspecies of Chalybura buffonii.  Schuchmann (1999) treated it as a subspecies of C. urochrysia.  Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that intermedia might deserve recognition as a separate species. The subspecies caeruleogaster of the Eastern Andes of Colombia was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Chalybura buffonii, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that caeruleogaster might also deserve recognition as a separate species.

 

47e. The Central American subspecies isaurae and melanorrhoa were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered separate species from Chalybura urochrysia, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific; they intergrade in western Panama (Eisenmann & Howell 1962).

 

47f. The Bolivian subspecies inornata was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Adelomyia melanogenys, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

47g. Called "Rufous-cheeked Hummingbird" in AOU (1983, 1998), Ridgely & Gwynne (1989), and Sibley & Monroe (1990). SACC proposal to change to Rufous-cheeked did not pass.

 

48. Clytolaema rubricauda is sometimes (e.g. REF <fide Schuchmann 1999>) placed in the genus Heliodoxa.  McGuire et al. (2014) showed that Clytolaema is deeply embedded in Heliodoxa.  Proposal needed.

 

48a. Heliodoxa gularis was treated in the monotypic genus Agapetornis by Cory (1918) and Agapeta by Peters (1945); Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for the merger of Agapeta into Heliodoxa, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and most subsequent classifications.  McGuire et al. (2014) showed that it was the sister species to H. branickii, and that they are both embedded in Heliodoxa.

 

48b. Heliodoxa branickii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) treated in a monotypic genus, Lampraster; Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for the merger of Lampraster into Heliodoxa, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and most subsequent classifications.  McGuire et al. (2014) showed that it was the sister species to H. gularis, and that they are both embedded in Heliodoxa.

 

48c. Heliodoxa schreibersii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Peters 1945) treated in a monotypic genus, Ionolaima; Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for the merger of Ionolaima into Heliodoxa, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and most subsequent classifications.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that H. schreibersii was sister to all other Heliodoxa.

 

48cc. The Peruvian subspecies whitelyana was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Heliodoxa schreibersii, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated whitelyana as a separate species (“Black-breasted Brilliant”) from nominate schreibersii.

 

48d. Heliodoxa imperatrix was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) treated in a monotypic genus, Eugenia; Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for the merger of Eugenia into Heliodoxa, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and most subsequent classifications.  McGuire et al. (2014) showed that it was the sister species to H. rubinoides, and that they are both embedded in Heliodoxa.  Proposal needed to revise linear sequence.

 

48f. Although Patagona is traditionally placed next to Andean genera in the "coquettes" or "brilliants" groups (see Notes 55 and 60), and Schuchmann (1999) thought that it could be merged into Coeligena, McGuire et al. (2009, 2014) could not place this monotypic genus within any other group of hummingbirds within the Trochilinae, and Dickinson & Remsen (2013) placed it in its own subfamily Patagoninae.

 

49. Heliodoxa aurescens was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Polyplancta. Gerwin and Zink (1989) found that Polyplancta is embedded within Heliodoxa, as anticipated by Zimmer (1951a). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Schuchmann (1999) placed Polyplancta in Heliodoxa (alluding to additional supportive but evidently unpublished morphological, and behavioral data). Altshuler et al.'s (2004) and McGuire et al.'s (2008, 2014) genetic data confirm that recognition of Polyplancta would make Heliodoxa paraphyletic.

 

49a. Heliodoxa rubinoides was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated in a monotypic genus, Phaiolaima; Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for the merger of Phaiolaima into Heliodoxa, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and most subsequent classifications.  McGuire et al. (2014) showed that it was the sister species to H. imperatrix, and that they are both embedded in Heliodoxa. 

 

49aa. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies leucura of the eastern slope of the Andes might deserve recognition as a separate species from Urochroa bougueri.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated it as a separate species (“White-tailed Hillstar”) from nominate bougueri (“Rufous-gaped Hillstar”).  Donegan et al. (2015) also treated them as separate species based on additional vocal differences.  Proposal needed.

 

49aaa. Schuchmann et al. (2001a) proposed that plumage and vocal similarities indicated that Urochroa, Boissonneaua, and Aglaeactis formed a monophyletic group; although members of the Brilliant group (sensu Bleiweiss et al. 1997), they are not each others' closest relatives (McGuire et al. 2009, 2014). Schuchmann (1985) proposed that morphology and behavior indicated a close relationship between Aglaeactis, Pterophanes, and Chalcostigma, but genetic data (McGuire et al. 2009, 2014) show that they are only distantly related.

 

49b. Aglaeactis cupripennis caumatonotus and A. castelnaudii castelnaudii hybridize to an uncertain degree in depto. Cuzco, Peru (Zimmer 1951b).

 

49c. The southern subspecies caumatonotus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Aglaeactis cupripennis, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

49d. Zimmer (1951b) suggested that A. aliciae could be treated as a subspecies of Aglaeactis cupripennis; Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) considered all the Aglaeactis to form a superspecies.

 

50. Oreotrochilus chimborazo was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a subspecies of O. estella, but see Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for rationale for species rank, representing a return to the classification of Cory (1918) and Peters (1945).

 

51. Peters (1945) and Schuchmann (1999) treated stolzmanni of northern Peru as a separate species from Oreotrochilus estella, but this has not been followed by most authors, including Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).  McGuire et al. (2014) found that stolzmanni is the sister to O. melanogaster.  Proposal badly needed.

 

51a. The subspecies bolivianus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) considered a separate species from Oreotrochilus estella, but Zimmer (1951a) considered bolivianus not to be a diagnosable taxon and considered it a synonym of estella.  Schuchmann (1999) treated bolivianus as a valid subspecies.

 

51b. Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for why O. leucopleurus is best treated as subspecies of Oreotrochilus estella, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors because of the latitudinal overlap in their ranges.

 

51c. The subspecies liriope and saul were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) both considered separate species from Lafresnaya lafresnayi, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

52. The southern subspecies inca was formerly (Cory 1918) treated as a separate species from C. torquata; see Zimmer (1948a) for rationale for treating them as conspecific. Schuchmann (1999) again treated the southern inca subspecies group as a separate species, but provided little rationale. SACC proposal to recognize inca as a separate species did not pass.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that inca is more differentiated from torquata than are many taxa treated as species in this genus.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated inca as a separate species (“Gould’s Inca”), and this was followed by Donegan et al. (2015).  Proposal needed.

 

52a. "Coeligena traviesii," known from several "Bogotá" specimens that show substantial individual variation, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and tentatively by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); it is probably a hybrid (C. torquata X C. lutetiae) (Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann 1999).

 

53. The Venezuelan subspecies eos was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) considered a separate species from Coeligena bonapartei, but Wetmore & Phelps (1952) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) treated them as conspecific. Schuchmann (1999) returned to the earlier classifications and treated C. eos as a separate species. SACC proposal to recognize eos as a separate species did not pass.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated eos as a separate species (“Golden Starfrontlet”) from nominate bonapartei, and they also treated the subspecies consita as a separate species (“Perija Starfrontlet”).  Donegan et al. (2015) also followed this treatment.  Proposal needed.

 

53a. All species of Coeligena except for C. iris were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Helianthea, and C. iris was placed in a separate genus, Diphogena; these were both merged into Coeligena by Peters (1945).  McGuire et al. (2014) found that C. iris was embedded within Coeligena.

 

53b. The subspecies conradii, fulgidigula, and insectivora were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered separate species from Coeligena torquata, but Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1948) treated them all as conspecific.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated conradii (“Green Inca”) and eisenmanni (“Vilcabamba Inca”) as separate species.  Donegan et al. (2015) also treated conradii as a separate species.  Proposal needed.

 

53c. The northern subspecies dichroura and osculans were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) both considered separate species from Coeligena violifer, but Peters (1945) treated them all as conspecific.

 

53d. Coeligena lutetiae and C. violifer were considered to form a superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); Schuchmann (1999) also proposed that C. bonapartei and C. helianthea should also be included in this superspecies. The latter two species may interbreed to an uncertain extent (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990).  Parra et al. (2009) found that C. lutetiae and C. violifer were not sister species and that the former is the sister taxon to a group related as follows: C. iris + (C. phalerata + ((C. orina + (((C. lutetiae +((((C. helianthea + C. bonapartei)))))).  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

 

53e. The subspecies hesperus, aurora, and eva were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered separate species from Coeligena iris, but Peters (1945) treated them all as conspecific.

 

53f. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) considered Coeligena wilsoni and C. prunellei to form a superspecies; however, McGuire et al. (2014) found that they are not sister taxa, and that C. wilsoni and C. coeligena are sister species.

 

53ff. "Coeligena assimilis," known only from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was tentatively considered a synonym of Coeligena prunellei by Peters (1945) because Berlioz (REF) considered this to represent individual variation in C. prunellei. Schuchmann (1999) echoed Peters (1945) in wondering whether it might not be a valid subspecies of C. prunellei. "Coeligena purpurea," Gould, known only from two specimens from Colombia, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918). Graves (2001) showed that it was Coeligena prunellei X C. coeligena. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

53g. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that Ensifera should probably be merged into Coeligena, but they are distantly related (McGuire et al. 2009, 2014).

 

54. Coeligena orina was traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species; however, it was then known from a single specimen, and its validity as a species-level taxon was uncertain.  Bleiweiss (1988a) suggested that Coeligena orina was a subspecies of C. bonapartei, and this was tentatively followed by Schuchmann (1999) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990). Krabbe et al. (2005) reported additional specimens and concluded that it is a valid species-level taxon. SACC proposal passed to recognize orina as a valid species.  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed this by finding that C. orina is the sister to C. lutetiae.

 

54a. Pterophanes cyanoptera was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as P. temmincki, but see Peters (1945).

 

54b. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Schuchmann (1999) suggested that Pterophanes should probably be merged into Coeligena, but McGuire et al. (2009, 2014) showed that they are not closely related.

 

54c. The name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) used for the genus Sephanoides was Eustephanus, but see Peters (1945).  The spelling of the species name is frequently misspelled as “sephanoides.”

 

55. McGuire et al. (2008, 2009) found that the most of the genera in this linear sequence from Heliangelus through Metallura are members of a monophyletic group, the "coquettes," and also proposed that unsampled Polyonymus, Sappho, and Taphrolesbia be placed in this group in accord with their traditional placement in linear sequences; we tentatively include Anthocephala in this group for similar reasons.  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed that Polyonymus, Sappho, and Taphrolesbia are members of the group, but found that Anthocephala was a member of the emeralds (Trochilinae sensu Dickinson & Remsen 2013).  Proposal needed.

 

55a. Species limits in the Heliangelus amethysticollis complex have been fluid. The subspecies spencei, clarisse (= "clarissae"), and laticlavius (= "laticlavus") were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered a separate species from H. amethysticollis; Peters (1945) treated laticlavius as conspecific with H. amethysticollis, but maintained clarisse as a separate species, with spencei as a subspecies of H. clarisse. Zimmer (1951b) provided rationale for why clarisse should be considered a subspecies of H. amethysticollis and for treatment of spencei as a separate species, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and Sibley & Monroe (1990). Schuchmann (1999) returned to the classification of Peters (1945), with H. clarisse treated as a species and spencei as a subspecies of H. clarisse; this was followed by Hilty (2003). SACC proposal to recognize clarisse as a separate species did not pass.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated both clarisse (“Longuemare’s Sunangel”) and spencei (“Merida Sunangel”) as separate species based on plumage differences; Donegan et al. (2015) followed this, also adding vocal differences.  Proposal needed.

 

55b. "Heliangelus dubius," known from two "Bogotá" specimens and treated provisionally as a valid species by Cory (1918), is possibly a melanistic Heliangelus amethysticollis (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Schuchmann 1999). "Heliangelus claudia," known only from "Bogotá" specimens and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is considered an aberrant Heliangelus amethysticollis clarisse (Peters 1945, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). "Heliangelus squamigularis," known Colombia and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918; but as "Heliangelus barrali"; squamigularis has priority), Hartert (1922), and Peters (1945), was determined by Graves (1990) to be a hybrid, Heliangelus amethysticollis X Eriocnemis cupreoventris. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

55c. "Heliangelus violicollis," known from only two specimens from uncertain localities in Ecuador, was treated provisionally as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Chapman (1926). Graves (2001) concluded that it was a color variant of H. strophianus. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

56. Zimmer (1951b) provided rationale for why Heliangelus micraster should be treated as subspecies of H. exortis, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), but their ranges approach in central Ecuador without intergradation (Bleiweiss 1992, Ridgely et al. 2001). SACC proposal to treat H. micraster and H. exortis as conspecific did not pass.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that H. exortis was paraphyletic with respect H. micraster and H. viola.

 

56a. Called "Flame-throated Sunangel" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

 

56b.  Weller (2011) described a new species, Heliangelus splendidus, based on overlooked geographic variation within H. viola.  SACC proposal to recognize splendidus did not pass.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also did not recognize splendidus as a taxon.

 

57. Recently described (from unique type): Graves (1993). Not recognized as a valid species by Schuchmann (1999). SACC proposal to place this taxon on "Hybrids and Dubious Taxa" list did not pass. SACC proposal to move to Hypothetical List on the basis of uncertain geographic origin did not pass.  DNA extracted from the unique specimen show conclusively that not only is it a valid species but that it is not a Heliangelus but a member of a group that includes Aglaiocercus, Taphrolesbia, and Adelomyia (Kirchman et al. (2009).

 

58. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Fitzpatrick et al. (1979).

 

58a. Using plumage characters, Schuchmann et al. (2001b) proposed that Eriocnemis consisted of 3 species groups ([a] E. vestita, E. godini, E. nigrivestis; [b] E. luciani, E. cupreoventris, with E. sapphiropygia also ranked as a species; [c] E. aline, E. mirabilis), and three species of uncertain affinities (E. glaucopoides, E. mosquera, E. derbyi).  The phylogenetic results of McGuire et al. (2014) were largely consistent with these groupings.

 

58aa. The name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) used for the genus Eriocnemis was Vestipedes, but see Peters (1945).

 

58b. Eriocnemis is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is vestita (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

58c. Newly described: Cortés-Diago et al. (2007). SACC proposal passed to recognize as a species.

 

58d. "Eriocnemis ventralis," known from only from the type specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918); was considered by Peters (1945) to be an aberrant specimen of Eriocnemis vestita vestita, and by Schuchmann et al. (2000) a probable hybrid between E. vestita and E. cupreoventris. "Eriocnemis berlepschi," known from the type specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered by Peters (1945) to be a synonym of Eriocnemis v. vestita. "Eriocnemis chrysorama," known only from the type specimen from "Colombia" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), was considered by Peters (1945) to be a melanistic specimen of Eriocnemis cupreoventris. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

58e. "Eriocnemis soderstromi," known from one specimen from western Ecuador and treated as a questionable species by Peters (1945), was determined by Graves (1996) to be a hybrid (E. nigrivestis X E. luciani). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

59. Recognition of Eriocnemis godini as a species is controversial (Hilty & Brown 1986, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Graves (1996) suggested that godini represents a hybrid population. Schuchmann et al. (2001) treated it as a valid species that might now be extinct.  Also, suspected as being a subspecies of vestita (by whom?) according to Ridgely et al. (2001).  SACC proposal needed.

 

60. McGuire et al. (2008) found that the most of the genera in this sequence from Haplophaedia to Heliodoxa form a monophyletic group, the "brilliants," and they also tentatively placed unsampled Clytolaema in this group (see Note 48).  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed the monophyly of this group.

 

60a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eriocnemis aline and E. mirabilis to form a superspecies, and Schuchmann et al. (2001b) considered them to be sister species. Berlioz (1971), however, thought that the plumage was so unusual that the species did not belong in Eriocnemis.

 

60aa. The Peruvian subspecies dybowskii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Eriocnemis aline, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific. For continued ranking of dybowskii as a subspecies, see Schuchmann et al. (2001b).

 

60aaa.  David and Peterson (2010) established that Eriocnemis aline is the correct name for Eriocnemis alinae.  SACC proposal passed to change to aline.

 

60b. The subspecies paramillo of the Western Andes was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Eriocnemis vestita, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific. For continued ranking of paramillo as a subspecies, see Schuchmann et al. (2001b).

 

60c. Cory (1918) included Haplophaedia in Eriocnemis. They have always been considered as sister genera because of plumage and morphological similarities (e.g., Schuchmann et al. (2000).  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed their sister relationship.

 

60d. The southern subspecies sapphiropygia was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Eriocnemis luciani, but Peters (1945) and most subsequent classifications treated them as conspecific; Schuchmann (1999), however, treated it as a separate species from E. luciani, and Schuchmann et al. (2001) provided evidence for this treatment. SACC proposal to recognize sapphiropygia as separate species did not pass. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated sapphiropygia as a separate species (“Coppery-naped Puffleg”).  The subspecies catharina was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Eriocnemis luciani, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

61. Haplophaedia assimilis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of H. aureliae, but Schuchmann et al. (2000) provided rationale for treating it as a separate species, representing a return to the classification of Cory (1918). Proposal needed (to assess validity of this split). The Ecuadorian subspecies russata was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Haplophaedia aureliae, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

61a. Zimmer (1951b) provided rationale for treatment of H. lugens as a subspecies of Haplophaedia aureliae, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors; see Schuchmann et al. (2000).

 

62. Cory (1918), Peters (1945), Hilty & Brown (1986), Sibley and Monroe (1990), Schuchmann (1999), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated eastern slope taxon ruficrissa as separate species from Urosticte benjamini. Zimmer (1951a) provided rationale for treating them as conspecific, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), but not by Hilty & Brown, Sibley & Monroe (1990), Schuchmann (1999), or Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal passed to recognize ruficrissa as a separate species.  The Peruvian subspecies intermedia was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Urosticte benjamini, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.  Stiles et al. (2006) provided additional support for treating benjamini and ruficrissa as separate species (and concluded that intermedia referred to variation within ruficrissa).

 

62a. The two southern subspecies, annae and addae, were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered a separate species from Ocreatus underwoodii, but they were all treated as conspecific by Peters (1945). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that addae might deserve recognition as a separate species. The subspecies peruana was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from O. underwoodii, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945); Cory (1918) used "cissiurus" for the species name, but not only does peruana have priority but Peters (1945) considered "cissiurus (= cissiura)" a synonym of peruana.  Schuchmann et al. (2016) provided evidence from plumage and behavior that Ocreatus underwoodii should be treated as four species, with the subspecies addae, annae, and peruana elevated to species rank.  SACC proposal needed.

 

62b. The name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) used for the genus Lesbia was Psalidoprymna, but see Peters (1945).

 

62c. The taxon eucharis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a distinct species of uncertain origin; Peters (1945) treated it as subspecies of Lesbia victoriae but noted that it might only be a "variant" of that species; Zimmer (1951b), however, concluded that it belongs with L. nuna, not L. victoriae, but did not treat it as a valid taxon. Schuchmann (1999) treated it as a Peruvian subspecies of L. nuna, but subsequent analyses by Weller & Schuchmann (2004) considered eucharis to most likely represent hybrids between L. gouldii (see Note 62d) and L. victoriae that came from somewhere in the northern Andes (not Peru).  See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.  The southern subspecies berlepschi was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from L. victoriae, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

62cc. "Lesbia ortoni," described from Ecuador and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Chapman (1926), is probably a hybrid Lesbia victoriae X Ramphomicron microrhynchum (Graves 1997). "Zodalia glyceria," was described from Colombia and treated as a valid species (and genus) by Cory (1918) and Peters (1945). Graves (1999b) demonstrated that it was a hybrid, between Lesbia victoriae X Chalcostigma herrani. "Zodalia thaumasta," known only from the type specimen from Ecuador and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Chapman (1926), is probably a hybrid (Aglaiocercus kingii X Lesbia victoriae) (Berlioz REF, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

62d. The subspecies pallidiventris of northern Peru was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Lesbia nuna, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific. The northern gouldii subspecies group (including gracilis and "chlorura") was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Lesbia nuna, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945). Recently, the gouldii subspecies group was again considered a separate species from L. nuna by Weller & Schuchmann (2004) based on plumage and morphology. SACC proposal to recognize gouldii as a separate species did not pass. The form "chlorura" was considered a synonym of Lesbia nuna eucharis by Schuchmann (1999), following Zimmer (1951b), but see also Note 62c.

 

62e. Sappho sparganurus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Lesbia, but see Peters (1945).

 

62f. The southern subspecies sapho was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Sappho sparganurus, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific; see Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1952a) for the complex nomenclature of this species.

 

62ff.  The correct species name is sparganurus (not “sparganura”, as in Peters [1945] and elsewhere); see Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

 

62g. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Oreonympha and Oxypogon were sister taxa based on plumage, as is suggested by their traditional placement in linear sequences. Genetic data (McGuire et al. 2009), however, indicate that although closely related, they are nested within Chalcostigma, and that C. stanleyi is likely be the sister taxon to Oxypogon.

 

62h. The subspecies lindenii, cyanolaemus, and stubelii were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered separate species from Oxypogon guerinii, but Peters (1945) treated them all as conspecific.  Collar & Salaman (2013) provided rationale for returning all three to species rank.  SACC proposal passed to recognize four species of Oxypogon.

 

63. Schuchmann & Heindl (1997) and Heindl & Schuchmann (1998) proposed that Metallura and Chalcostigma were sister genera, based in part on the similarities in plumage and morphology between C. ruficeps and Metallura; in fact, C. ruficeps was placed in Metallura by Peters (1945).  See also Note 64d. McGuire et al. (2008) found that Chalcostigma itself is paraphyletic with respect to Oxypogon and Oreonympha, but if Chalcostigma was expanded to include those two monotypic genera, then Metallura and Chalcostigma would be sister taxa.

 

63a. Metallura iracunda and M. tyrianthina were considered to form a superspecies by Heindl & Schuchmann (1998), but they are sympatric (Schuchmann 1999).

 

63b. The subspecies chloropogon of the Coastal Range of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Metallura tyrianthina, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific. The southern smaragdinicollis subspecies group was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from M. tyrianthina, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945).

 

64. Metallura williami, M. baroni, M. odomae, M. theresiae, M. eupogon, and M. aeneocauda form a superspecies (Zimmer 1952a, Graves 1980, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Heindl and Schuchmann 1998), although there is some limited geographic overlap where some species come in contact (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Their close relationship is supported by genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 1999a), with the northern species group (M. williami, M. baroni, M. odomae) almost certainly forming a monophyletic group. García-Moreno et al. (1999a), however, found that M. phoebe was nested within this superspecies, contrary to Heindl & Schuchmann (1998), who considered it as the sister taxon to that superspecies. McGuire et al. (2008, 2014), however, found that M. phoebe not only was not part of the M. aeneocauda superspecies but also that it was basal to all other Metallura. Metallura baroni was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945) treated as a subspecies of distant Metallura eupogon, but Zimmer (1952a) provided rationale for treatment of baroni as a separate species; this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.

 

64a. The subspecies primolina and atrigularis were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) each considered a separate species from Metallura williami, but Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1952a) treated them as conspecific.  García-Moreno et al.'s (1999a) genetic data suggest that primolina is more closely related to M. odomae or M. phoebe than it is to atrigularis (nominate subspecies and M. w. recisa not sampled).  Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the southernmost subspecies atrigularis might deserve recognition as a separate species from Metallura williami.

 

64b. The southern subspecies malagae was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) treated as a separate species from Metallura aeneocauda, but see Zimmer (1952a) for rationale for considering conspecific, which was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and subsequent classifications.

 

64bb. "Metallura rubriginosa," known only from the type specimen from northern Peru, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918); Peters (1945) treated it without comment as a synonym of Metallura theresiae. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

64c. Schuchmann & Heindl (1997) proposed that Chalcostigma consisted of two species groups: (a) C. olivaceum + C. stanleyi, and (b) C. ruficeps + (C. herrani + C. heteropogon).  McGuire et al. (2014) found that these are not monophyletic groups; see also Note 63.

 

64d. Chalcostigma ruficeps was placed in the genus Metallura by Peters (1945), but most classifications followed Zimmer (1952a) in keeping it in Chalcostigma (see also Note 63).  McGuire et al. (2014) confirmed its placement in Chalcostigma.

 

65. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Graves (1980).

 

66. Occasionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) given as "Tephrolesbia," but "Tephrolesbia Simon 1919 is an unjustified emendation" (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

66a. Taphrolesbia griseiventris was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Polyonymus.  Their relationships to other hummingbirds are uncertain, but Schuchmann (1999) noted that plumage and morphology suggest a relationship to Sappho or Lesbia.  Genetic data (Kirchman et al. 2009, McGuire et al. 2014) indicate that Taphrolesbia is probably sister to Aglaiocercus, but (McGuire et al. 2014) placement of Polyonymus is uncertain.

 

67. The name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) used for the genus Aglaiocercus was Cyanolesbia, but see Peters (1945).

 

67a. Species limits in the genus Aglaiocercus have been fluid and controversial. At one extreme, Cory (1918) considered almost all taxa to represent separate species, and at the other extreme, Hartert (1922) and Zimmer (1952) considered them all to be conspecific. Berlioz (1940) treated berlepschi and the coelestis group as separate species from the A. kingii group, and this is the treatment followed here. Aglaiocercus coelestis and A. kingii are syntopic in western Colombia (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), and so must be treated as separate species. Although Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and others treated berlepschi of the Coastal Range of Venezuela as conspecific with A. kingii, Schuchmann & Duffner (1993) and Schuchmann (1999) treated berlepschi as a separate species; this was also followed by Hilty (2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize berlepschi as a separate species. The taxon emmae of the Western Andes of Colombia and Ecuador has been treated (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1964, Salaman & Mazariegos 1998) as a separate species from Aglaiocercus kingii, but see Zimmer (1952a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). The taxa caudata and mocoa were also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered separate species, but see Zimmer (1952a) for rationale for treating them as subspecies of A. kingii.

 

67b.  The correct species name is kingii, not “kingi” as in Peters (1940) and all subsequent literature; see Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

 

68. Augastes is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is scutatus; lumachella, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002a, b).

 

68a. Pinto (1937) listed this as A. superbus, but see Cory (1918) and Peters (1945).

 

69. Schuchmann (1999) merged Schistes into Augastes, following Ruschi (1963). SACC proposal to merge the two genera did not pass.  Schuchmann (1999) proposed that the expanded Augastes was closely related to Colibri, and this was followed by Dickinson & Remsen (2013).

 

69a. The western subspecies albogularis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Schistes geoffroyi, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.  Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that albogularis might indeed deserve recognition as a separate species.  Treated as a separate species (“White-throated Wedgebill”) by del Hoyo & Collar (2014) and Donegan et al. (2015).  Proposal needed.

 

70. Heliothryx barroti and H. aurita form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Zimmer (1953a) considered them conspecific and provided rationale for that treatment. SACC proposal to treat them as conspecific did not pass.

 

70b. Heliothryx is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is auritus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

70c. McGuire et al. (2014) found that Loddigesia is embedded in Eriocnemis.  Proposal needed.

 

70d. Cory (1918) used the name Loddigiornis for the genus Loddigesia.

 

71. Bleiweiss et al. (1997) and McGuire et al. (2008) found that Heliomaster forms a monophyletic group with Middle American Eugenes, Lampornis, and Panterpe, the "mountain gems" (Lampornithini in Dickinson & Remsen 2013), and also proposed that unsampled Sternoclyta and Hylonympha be placed in this group, following Renner and Schuchmann (2004), who merged these two into Eugenes based on plumage and morphology. SACC proposal to merge Sternoclyta and Hylonympha into Eugenes did not pass. 

 

71a. Heliomaster longirostris was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Anthoscenus, but Peters (1945) merged this into Heliomaster.

 

71a. Heliomaster squamosus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Lepidolarynx, but Cory (1918) and Peters (1945) merged this into Heliomaster.

 

71c. The southern subspecies atacamensis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Rhodopis vesper, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 

71d. Schuchmann (1999) stated that bilophus has priority over cornuta, as in Pinto (1938).  Although Heliactin is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is bilophus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

71e. Bleiweiss et al. (1997) and McGuire et al. (2008, 2014) found that the genera in this linear sequence from Myrtis to Chaetocercus formed a monophyletic group, the "bees" (Mellisugini in Dickinson & Remsen 2013) that also includes the Middle American and North American genera Calypte, Archilochus, Selasphorus, and Stellula.

 

72. Calliphlox mitchellii was formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in the genus Philodice; Philodice was merged into Calliphlox by AOU (1983) and Schuchmann (1999).  SACC proposal to split Philodice from Calliphlox did not pass.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that Calliphlox is not monophyletic.  SACC proposal badly needed.

 

72a. Microstilbon burmeisteri was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in Chaetocercus in part because it was not realized that Microstilbon insperatus Todd was a synonym; recent classifications have followed Peters (1945) in recognition that they are synonyms and in recognition of monotypic Microstilbon for burmeisteri.  McGuire et al. (2014) found that Microstilbon and Chaetocercus form a monophyletic group, but that recognizing Microstilbon might make Chaetocercus paraphyletic.  SACC proposal badly needed.

 

73. Eulidia yarrellii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in Myrtis, but see Peters (1945).  Schuchmann (1999) again merged Eulidia into Myrtis, but no evidence provided.  McGuire et al. (2014) found no support for such a merger.

 

74. Chaetocercus mulsant, C. bombus, C. heliodor, C. astreans, and C. berlepschi were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Acestrura, but Schuchmann (1999) merged this into Chaetocercus. SACC proposal to split Acestrura from Chaetocercus did not pass.

 

75. The species name of Chaetocercus mulsant was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) given as "mulsanti" but see Zimmer (1953a), and the statement in Dickinson (2003) that the latter is in general usage is incorrect.  David and Peterson (2010) further established that mulsant is the correct name.

 

75b. "Chaetocercus decorata," known from the type specimen from "Bogotá" specimen and treated as a questionable species by Peters (1945), was considered a probable a hybrid, C. mulsant X C. heliodor (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann 1999), and this was confirmed by Graves (1997c). "Chaetocercus harterti," known only from the type specimen from the Central Andes of Colombia and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Peters (1945), is probably a hybrid (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Schuchmann 1999). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

76. Chaetocercus astreans was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of C. heliodor.  Graves (1986) provided rationale for treatment of astreans as a separate species, and this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Schuchmann (1999); they form a superspecies (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

77. The western subspecies rosae was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Chaetocercus jourdanii, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

 


 

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes