A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee
American Ornithologists' Union
(Part 6)

Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Ciconiiformes (click)
Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Pipridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

Hypothetical List (click)
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa (click)
Literature Cited (click)

PASSERIFORMES 1
Suborder TYRANNI (SUBOSCINES) 2

1. Virtually all morphological and genetic data support the monophyly of the order Passeriformes. Within the Passeriformes, genetic data support (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Edwards et al. 1991, Mindell et al. 1997, García-Moreno & Mindell 2000, Lovette & Bermingham 2000, Irestedt et al. 2001, Prychitko & Moore 2003) the traditional division of the order based on morphology (e.g., Ames 1971) into suboscines (here Dendrocolaptidae through Sapayoidae) and oscines (the rest of the families).
2. The division of the Passeriformes into two major lineages, the suboscines and the oscines, is strongly supported by genetic data <REFS> that are consistent with morphological data that date back to the 1800s (see Ames 1971, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990). Within the suboscines, suborder Tyranni, two major divisions are traditionally recognized and are supported by genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1985, 1990, Chesser 2004): (1) the New World families ("Tyrannides" of Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) and (2) the Old World families (broadbills, pittas, and asities). Recent genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2003, Chesser 2004) confirm that the Neotropical species Sapayoa aenigma is the only New World member of the otherwise strictly Old World group (see below). Within the New World "Tyrannides," two major divisions are traditionally recognized and supported by genetic data (e.g., Chesser 2004): (1) the the woodcreepers, ovenbirds, antbirds, gnateaters, and tapaculos, and (2) the tyrant-flycatchers, manakins, and cotingas. For relationships among members within these two groups, see appropriate family sections below.

EURYLAIMIDAE (Sapayoa) 1
Sapayoa aenigma Sapayoa 2

---

FURNARIIDAE (OVENBIRDS) 1

Sclerurinae
Sclerurus mexicanus Tawny-throated Leaftosser 1a, 99b
Sclerurus rufigularis Short-billed Leaftosser
Sclerurus guatemalensis Scaly-throated Leaftosser
Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser
Sclerurus albigularis Gray-throated Leaftosser
Sclerurus scansor Rufous-breasted Leaftosser
Geositta peruviana Coastal Miner 3b
Geositta cunicularia Common Miner 3, 3a
Geositta tenuirostris Slender-billed Miner 4
Geositta antarctica Short-billed Miner 3a
Geositta isabellina Creamy-rumped Miner
Geositta saxicolina Dark-winged Miner
Geositta maritima Grayish Miner 3b
Geositta punensis Puna Miner 3c
Geositta rufipennis Rufous-banded Miner 3c, 4a
Geositta poeciloptera Campo Miner 1a, 2, 2a
Geositta crassirostris Thick-billed Miner

Furnariinae
Ochetorhynchus andaecola Rock Earthcreeper 5a
Ochetorhynchus ruficaudus Straight-billed Earthcreeper 5a, 6
Ochetorhynchus phoenicurus Band-tailed Earthcreeper 5a, 9, 9a, 9b
Ochetorhynchus melanurus Crag Chilia 7, 9
Upucerthia dumetaria Scale-throated Earthcreeper 4b
Upucerthia albigula White-throated Earthcreeper
Upucerthia jelskii Plain-breasted Earthcreeper 5
Upucerthia validirostris Buff-breasted Earthcreeper 5
Upucerthia serrana Striated Earthcreeper 5a
Cinclodes excelsior Stout-billed Cinclodes 10, 10a, 10b
Cinclodes aricomae Royal Cinclodes 10a, 10b, 11
Cinclodes fuscus Bar-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b
Cinclodes comechingonus Cordoba Cinclodes 12, 13a
Cinclodes pabsti Long-tailed Cinclodes 13, 13a
Cinclodes olrogi Olrog's Cinclodes 14, 14a
Cinclodes oustaleti Gray-flanked Cinclodes 14a, 14c
Cinclodes patagonicus Dark-bellied Cinclodes 15b
Cinclodes taczanowskii Surf Cinclodes 15, 15a
Cinclodes nigrofumosus Seaside Cinclodes 15, 15a
Cinclodes antarcticus Blackish Cinclodes 10a, 15b
Cinclodes atacamensis White-winged Cinclodes 15c
Cinclodes palliatus White-bellied Cinclodes 15c
Furnarius figulus Wing-banded Hornero 16
Furnarius leucopus Pale-legged Hornero 17, 18
Furnarius torridus Pale-billed Hornero 18, 18a
Furnarius minor Lesser Hornero
Furnarius rufus Rufous Hornero
Furnarius cristatus Crested Hornero
Limnornis curvirostris Curve-billed Reedhaunter 19
Limnoctites rectirostris Straight-billed Reedhaunter 19
Phleocryptes melanops Wren-like Rushbird 19
Aphrastura spinicauda Thorn-tailed Rayadito 19a
Aphrastura masafuerae Masafuera Rayadito
Leptasthenura fuliginiceps Brown-capped Tit-Spinetail 19a
Leptasthenura yanacensis Tawny Tit-Spinetail 19b
Leptasthenura platensis Tufted Tit-Spinetail 19b, 19c
Leptasthenura aegithaloides Plain-mantled Tit-Spinetail 19c, 19d
Leptasthenura striolata Striolated Tit-Spinetail
Leptasthenura pileata Rusty-crowned Tit-Spinetail 20
Leptasthenura xenothorax White-browed Tit-Spinetail 20
Leptasthenura striata Streaked Tit-Spinetail 21, 21a
Leptasthenura andicola Andean Tit-Spinetail
Leptasthenura setaria Araucaria Tit-Spinetail 22
Spartonoica maluroides Bay-capped Wren-Spinetail 22a, 22b
Sylviorthorhynchus desmursii Des Murs's Wiretail 22c
Schizoeaca perijana Perija Thistletail 23, 24
Schizoeaca coryi Ochre-browed Thistletail 24
Schizoeaca fuliginosa White-chinned Thistletail 24, 25
Schizoeaca griseomurina Mouse-colored Thistletail 24
Schizoeaca palpebralis Eye-ringed Thistletail 24
Schizoeaca vilcabambae Vilcabamba Thistletail 24, 26
Schizoeaca helleri Puna Thistletail 24
Schizoeaca harterti Black-throated Thistletail 24
Oreophylax moreirae Itatiaia Spinetail 27
Schoeniophylax phryganophilus Chotoy Spinetail 28, 28b
Synallaxis ruficapilla Rufous-capped Spinetail 29
Synallaxis whitneyi Bahia Spinetail 29, 30
Synallaxis infuscata Pinto's Spinetail 29, 31
Synallaxis cinerascens Gray-bellied Spinetail
Synallaxis subpudica Silvery-throated Spinetail
Synallaxis frontalis Sooty-fronted Spinetail 32
Synallaxis azarae Azara's Spinetail 33
Synallaxis courseni Apurimac Spinetail 34
Synallaxis albescens Pale-breasted Spinetail 34a
Synallaxis albigularis Dark-breasted Spinetail 34a
Synallaxis spixi Spix's Spinetail 35
Synallaxis hypospodia Cinereous-breasted Spinetail 36
Synallaxis rutilans Ruddy Spinetail
Synallaxis cherriei Chestnut-throated Spinetail
Synallaxis unirufa Rufous Spinetail 37
Synallaxis castanea Black-throated Spinetail 37
Synallaxis fuscorufa Rusty-headed Spinetail 37
Synallaxis brachyura Slaty Spinetail
Synallaxis tithys Blackish-headed Spinetail
Synallaxis propinqua White-bellied Spinetail
Synallaxis macconnelli McConnell's Spinetail 39, 40
Synallaxis moesta Dusky Spinetail 39, 38
Synallaxis cabanisi Cabanis's Spinetail 39
Synallaxis maranonica Marañon Spinetail 41
Synallaxis gujanensis Plain-crowned Spinetail 41
Synallaxis albilora White-lored Spinetail 41, 42
Synallaxis scutata Ochre-cheeked Spinetail 43
Synallaxis candei White-whiskered Spinetail 43
Synallaxis kollari Hoary-throated Spinetail 43
Synallaxis cinnamomea Stripe-breasted Spinetail
Synallaxis zimmeri Russet-bellied Spinetail
Synallaxis stictothorax Necklaced Spinetail 44, 44a
Siptornopsis hypochondriaca Great Spinetail 45, 45b
Gyalophylax hellmayri Red-shouldered Spinetail 46
Hellmayrea gularis White-browed Spinetail 47
Cranioleuca marcapatae Marcapata Spinetail 48, 49
Cranioleuca albiceps Light-crowned Spinetail 49
Cranioleuca vulpina Rusty-backed Spinetail
Cranioleuca vulpecula Parker's Spinetail 50
Cranioleuca sulphurifera Sulphur-throated Spinetail
Cranioleuca subcristata Crested Spinetail
Cranioleuca pyrrhophia Stripe-crowned Spinetail 51
Cranioleuca henricae Bolivian Spinetail 51, 52
Cranioleuca obsoleta Olive Spinetail 51, 53
Cranioleuca pallida Pallid Spinetail
Cranioleuca semicinerea Gray-headed Spinetail
Cranioleuca albicapilla Creamy-crested Spinetail
Cranioleuca erythrops Red-faced Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca demissa Tepui Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca hellmayri Streak-capped Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca curtata Ash-browed Spinetail 54, 54a, 55
Cranioleuca antisiensis Line-cheeked Spinetail 51, 54
Cranioleuca baroni Baron's Spinetail 51, 54, 56
Cranioleuca gutturata Speckled Spinetail
Cranioleuca muelleri Scaled Spinetail
Certhiaxis cinnamomeus Yellow-chinned Spinetail 57, 58, 58a
Certhiaxis mustelinus Red-and-white Spinetail 57
Thripophaga macroura Striated Softtail 59, 59a
Thripophaga cherriei Orinoco Softtail
Thripophaga fusciceps Plain Softtail 60
Thripophaga berlepschi Russet-mantled Softtail 60
Asthenes pudibunda Canyon Canastero 61, 61a
Asthenes ottonis Rusty-fronted Canastero 61a
Asthenes heterura Maquis Canastero 61a
Asthenes modesta Cordilleran Canastero 62
Asthenes cactorum Cactus Canastero 62
Asthenes humilis Streak-throated Canastero
Asthenes wyatti Streak-backed Canastero 63
Asthenes sclateri Puna Canastero 63, 64
Asthenes anthoides Austral Canastero 63
Asthenes hudsoni Hudson's Canastero
Asthenes urubambensis Line-fronted Canastero
Asthenes flammulata Many-striped Canastero 65
Asthenes virgata Junin Canastero 65
Asthenes maculicauda Scribble-tailed Canastero 65
Asthenes pyrrholeuca Sharp-billed Canastero 66, 66a, 67
Asthenes humicola Dusky-tailed Canastero 67
Asthenes dorbignyi Creamy-breasted Canastero 67, 68
Asthenes berlepschi Berlepsch's Canastero 67, 69
Asthenes steinbachi Steinbach's Canastero 67, 70
Asthenes baeri Short-billed Canastero 66a, 67
Asthenes luizae Cipo Canastero 67, 71
Asthenes patagonica Patagonian Canastero 67
Phacellodomus rufifrons Rufous-fronted Thornbird 72, 72a, 72b
Phacellodomus sibilatrix Little Thornbird 72b
Phacellodomus striaticeps Streak-fronted Thornbird
Phacellodomus maculipectus Spot-breasted Thornbird 73
Phacellodomus striaticollis Freckle-breasted Thornbird 73
Phacellodomus dorsalis Chestnut-backed Thornbird
Phacellodomus ruber Greater Thornbird
Phacellodomus erythrophthalmus Red-eyed Thornbird 74, 74a
Clibanornis dendrocolaptoides Canebrake Groundcreeper 75
Anumbius annumbi Firewood-gatherer 74b
Coryphistera alaudina Lark-like Brushrunner 74b
Siptornis striaticollis Spectacled Prickletail
Metopothrix aurantiaca Orange-fronted Plushcrown 75a, 75b
Acrobatornis fonsecai Pink-legged Graveteiro 76
Xenerpestes minlosi Double-banded Graytail 76a, 76b, 76c
Xenerpestes singularis Equatorial Graytail 76a, 76b
Premnornis guttuligera Rusty-winged Barbtail 78a
Premnoplex brunnescens Spotted Barbtail 78a, 77
Premnoplex tatei White-throated Barbtail 78a, 77
Roraimia adusta Roraiman Barbtail 78b
Margarornis stellatus Fulvous-dotted Treerunner 79
Margarornis squamiger Pearled Treerunner 79a
Pseudoseisura cristata Caatinga Cacholote 80
Pseudoseisura unirufa Rufous Cacholote 80
Pseudoseisura lophotes Brown Cacholote
Pseudoseisura gutturalis White-throated Cacholote
Pseudocolaptes lawrencii Buffy Tuftedcheek 81, 81a, 81b
Pseudocolaptes boissonneautii Streaked Tuftedcheek 81
Tarphonomus harterti Bolivian Earthcreeper 7, 8
Tarphonomus certhioides Chaco Earthcreeper 7, 8
Berlepschia rikeri Point-tailed Palmcreeper
Anabacerthia variegaticeps Scaly-throated Foliage-gleaner 82, 82a, 83, 83a, 85a
Anabacerthia striaticollis Montane Foliage-gleaner 82, 82a, 82b
Anabacerthia amaurotis White-browed Foliage-gleaner 82, 82c
Syndactyla guttulata Guttulate Foliage-gleaner 84, 85, 85aa
Syndactyla subalaris Lineated Foliage-gleaner 85, 85a
Syndactyla rufosuperciliata Buff-browed Foliage-gleaner
Syndactyla ruficollis Rufous-necked Foliage-gleaner 86
Syndactyla dimidiata Russet-mantled Foliage-gleaner 90, 90b, 92, 92a
Simoxenops ucayalae Peruvian Recurvebill 87
Simoxenops striatus Bolivian Recurvebill 87
Ancistrops strigilatus Chestnut-winged Hookbill 88
Hyloctistes subulatus Striped Woodhaunter 85a, 89, 89a, 89b
Philydor ruficaudatum Rufous-tailed Foliage-gleaner 85a, 90, 90aa
Philydor fuscipenne Slaty-winged Foliage-gleaner 90, 91, 90aaa
Philydor erythrocercum Rufous-rumped Foliage-gleaner 90, 90a, 90bb
Philydor erythropterum Chestnut-winged Foliage-gleaner 90
Philydor lichtensteini Ochre-breasted Foliage-gleaner
Philydor novaesi Alagoas Foliage-gleaner 90c, 90d
Philydor atricapillus Black-capped Foliage-gleaner 90d
Philydor rufum Buff-fronted Foliage-gleaner 90
Philydor pyrrhodes Cinnamon-rumped Foliage-gleaner 90b
Anabazenops dorsalis Dusky-cheeked Foliage-gleaner 92c, 93, 93a
Anabazenops fuscus White-collared Foliage-gleaner
Cichlocolaptes leucophrus Pale-browed Treehunter 93b
Thripadectes ignobilis Uniform Treehunter 85a
Thripadectes melanorhynchus Black-billed Treehunter
Thripadectes holostictus Striped Treehunter
Thripadectes virgaticeps Streak-capped Treehunter
Thripadectes flammulatus Flammulated Treehunter 94
Thripadectes scrutator Rufous-backed Treehunter 94, 95
Automolus ochrolaemus Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner 85a
Automolus infuscatus Olive-backed Foliage-gleaner 96, 96a
Automolus paraensis Para Foliage-gleaner 96, 96a
Automolus leucophthalmus White-eyed Foliage-gleaner 96a, 96b
Automolus melanopezus Brown-rumped Foliage-gleaner
Automolus roraimae White-throated Foliage-gleaner 97a, 97b
Automolus rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner 97c
Automolus rufipileatus Chestnut-crowned Foliage-gleaner
Hylocryptus erythrocephalus Henna-hooded Foliage-gleaner 98
Hylocryptus rectirostris Chestnut-capped Foliage-gleaner 99, 99a
Lochmias nematura Sharp-tailed Streamcreeper 100, 100a, 100b
Heliobletus contaminatus Sharp-billed Treehunter 101
Megaxenops parnaguae Great Xenops 103
Pygarrhichas albogularis White-throated Treerunner 104
Xenops milleri Rufous-tailed Xenops 102, 102a
Xenops tenuirostris Slender-billed Xenops
Xenops minutus Plain Xenops
Xenops rutilans Streaked Xenops

Dendrocolaptinae 105
Dendrocincla tyrannina Tyrannine Woodcreeper
Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain-brown Woodcreeper 106, 107
Dendrocincla merula White-chinned Woodcreeper 108
Dendrocincla homochroa Ruddy Woodcreeper
Deconychura longicauda Long-tailed Woodcreeper 109
Deconychura stictolaema Spot-throated Woodcreeper 109, 110
Sittasomus griseicapillus Olivaceous Woodcreeper 111
Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper 112, 113, 114
Drymornis bridgesii Scimitar-billed Woodcreeper 115
Nasica longirostris Long-billed Woodcreeper
Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper 116, 117
Hylexetastes stresemanni Bar-bellied Woodcreeper 118
Hylexetastes perrotii Red-billed Woodcreeper 118
Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus Strong-billed Woodcreeper 119, 120
Xiphocolaptes falcirostris Moustached Woodcreeper 119, 121
Xiphocolaptes albicollis White-throated Woodcreeper 119, 122
Xiphocolaptes major Great Rufous Woodcreeper
Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae Northern Barred-Woodcreeper 123, 124
Dendrocolaptes certhia Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper 123, 125
Dendrocolaptes picumnus Black-banded Woodcreeper 126, 127
Dendrocolaptes hoffmannsi Hoffmanns's Woodcreeper 126
Dendrocolaptes platyrostris Planalto Woodcreeper 126
Dendroplex picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper 128, 129
Dendroplex kienerii Zimmer's Woodcreeper 128, 130
Xiphorhynchus obsoletus Striped Woodcreeper
Xiphorhynchus fuscus Lesser Woodcreeper 131
Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper 132, 134
Xiphorhynchus elegans Elegant Woodcreeper 133, 134
Xiphorhynchus spixii Spix's Woodcreeper 133, 134
Xiphorhynchus pardalotus Chestnut-rumped Woodcreeper 134
Xiphorhynchus susurrans Cocoa Woodcreeper 135
Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper 135
Xiphorhynchus lachrymosus Black-striped Woodcreeper
Xiphorhynchus erythropygius Spotted Woodcreeper 136
Xiphorhynchus triangularis Olive-backed Woodcreeper 136
Lepidocolaptes souleyetii Streak-headed Woodcreeper
Lepidocolaptes angustirostris Narrow-billed Woodcreeper
Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger Montane Woodcreeper 137
Lepidocolaptes squamatus Scaled Woodcreeper
Lepidocolaptes falcinellus Scalloped Woodcreeper 138
Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Lineated Woodcreeper 139
Campylorhamphus pucherani Greater Scythebill
Campylorhamphus trochilirostris Red-billed Scythebill 140
Campylorhamphus falcularius Black-billed Scythebill 140
Campylorhamphus procurvoides Curve-billed Scythebill 141
Campylorhamphus pusillus Brown-billed Scythebill 142

1. This classification treats the woodcreepers (formerly Dendrocolpatidae) and the ovenbirds (Furnariidae) as members of a single family. Whether the two groups are sister taxa has never seriously been questioned (see Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Marantz et al. 2003, Remsen 2003). Historically, the controversy centered around the taxonomic ranking of the two groups, with some authors treating them as subfamilies of the same family, whereas ohers treated them each as separate families. Feduccia (1973) proposed that the woodcreepers were embedded within the Furnariidae, thus making that family paraphyletic. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a, Fjeldså et al. 2005) strongly support the latter, with the genera Geositta and Sclerurus basal to all other ovenbirds plus woodcreepers. SACC proposal passed to merge Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae into single family without subfamily rankings. If family or subfamily ranks are retained within this group, then a third group, Geositta plus Sclerurus, must also be accorded taxonomic rank; the linear sequence here simply places the woodcreepers at the end. SACC proposal passed to add subfamily ranks.
1a. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a) indicate that Geositta and Sclerurus are sister genera that are basal to other Furnariidae (including dendrocolaptids). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
2. Vaurie (1980) proposed that Geositta consisted of three major groups based on bill shape and distribution. Cheviron et al. (2005) found that none of these groups is monophyletic, but that within the genus, there are two main groups: (1) cunicularia + tenuirostris + peruviana, and (2) all other species. Within the second group, Cheviron et al. (2005) found strong support for two groups: (3) antarctica + isabellina + saxicolina + maritima, and (4) punensis + rufipennis + poeciloptera + crassirostris. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of species.
2a. Geositta poeciloptera was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in the monotypic genus Geobates, but see Vaurie (1980) and Remsen (2003). Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) indicate that poeciloptera is embedded within Geositta.
3. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that vocal differences between lowland nominate cunicularia and Andean subspecies indicate that at least two species are involved in Geositta cunicularia. Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) also suggest that more than one species is involved.
3a. Vaurie (1980) tentatively considered Geositta maritima and G. peruviana to be sister species because of their lowland distribution, small size, and plumage similarities, but he also suspected that these similarities might be due to convergence. Cheviron et al. (2005) corroborated the convergence hypothesis; these two species belong in different clades within the genus.
3b. Geositta cunicularia and G. antarctica have been considered to be closely related because of their similarity in plumage (Vaurie 1980, Vuilleumier 1991), but genetic data indicate that they are only distantly related within the genus (Cheviron et al. 2005).
3c. Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) indicate that Geositta punensis and G. rufipennis are sister species.
4. Geositta tenuirostris is traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed near the end of the linear sequence of species in the genus because of its unusually long and decurved bill. However, bill curvature and length are notoriously labile characters; the plumage pattern of tenuirostris suggests a close relationship to G. cunicularia (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) indicate that G. tenuirostris and G. cunicularia are sister species.
4a. Geositta rufipennis may consist of more than one species (Jaramillo 2003, Remsen 2003).
4b. Esteban (1951) provided rationale for considering the subspecies saturatior a separate species from Upucerthia dumetaria, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors.
5. Although Upucerthia jelskii is considered separate species from U. validirostris in most recent classifications (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994), evidence for their treatment as such is weak (Remsen 2003), and perhaps a return to earlier classifications that treated them as conspecific (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) is warranted. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). A report of sympatry in southern Bolivia (Cabot 1990) is based on a misidentification (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa. proposal needed?
5a. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Upucerthia serrana and U. andaecolus were sister species, based on plumage and voice, and that they formed a monophyletic group with U. ruficaudus and Eremobius phoenicurus, despite the unusual nest of the latter that has led in part to its placement in a monotypic genus. Chesser et al. (2007) and Fjeldså et al. (2007), however, found that serrana is not closely related to andaecolus, or to other species currently placed in Upucerthia. See also Notes 7 and 9.
6. Correct spelling for species name is ruficaudus, not ruficauda (David & Gosselin 2002a).
7. The genus Ochetorhynchus was used for U. harterti and U. certhioides by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) to recognize the distinctiveness of these two species from other Upucerthia (especially with respect to nest type); however, the type species of Ochetorhynchus is ruficaudus, making that name unavailable for harterti + certhioides unless ruficaudus is also included (Remsen 2003). Peters (1951) treated those three species in Ochetorhynchus. The genus Upucerthia is highly polyphyletic (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007), with (a) harterti and certhioides in a group with Pseudocolaptes and Premnornis, (b) andaecola and ruficaudus in a group with Eremobius and Chilia [see Note 9] , (c) serrana basal to a group that includes Cinclodes and the remaining Upucerthia (dumetaria, albigula, jelskii, and validirostris) . Chesser and Brumfield (2007) named a new genus Tarphonomus for certhioides + harterti. SACC proposal passed to recognize Tarphonomus.
8. Vaurie (1980) considered harterti and certhioides as conspecific, but see Kratter et al. (1993) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for maintaining as separate species until more data are available; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003) and are sister taxa (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007).
9. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that Eremobius is probably more closely related to Upucerthia than to the genera near which often placed in linear sequences, but nest structure much more like synallaxine spinetails (Zyskowski and Prum 1989). Chesser et al. (2007) and Fjeldså et al. (2007) found that Eremobius is the sister taxon to U. ruficaudus. Chesser et al. (2007) further recommended that Ochetorhynchus be revived for ruficaudus and that Eremobius be merged into it, as well as Chilia. See also Notes 5a and 7. SACC proposal passed to reinstate Ochetorhynchus.
9a. Eremobius phoenicurus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated in the genus Enicornis.
9b. Called "Band-tailed Eremobius" in " in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
10. Chesser's (2004b) phylogeny indicates that the traditional linear sequence within Cinclodes requires modification. Proposal needed. <Remsen working on one>
10a. Cinclodes excelsior and C. aricomae were placed by Vaurie (1980) in Geositta, which is certainly incorrect (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Likewise, Cory & Hellmayr's (1925) placement of excelsior in Upucerthia is almost certainly incorrect.
10b. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Cinclodes antarcticus is the sister taxon to C. excelsior and C. aricomae, based on plumage similarities. Genetic data, however, indicate that C. antarcticus and C. fuscus are sister species (Chesser 2004).
11. Cinclodes aricomae is often considered conspecific with C. excelsior (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), and evidence for treating them as separate species (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Remsen 2003) is weak. Proposal needed.
12. Cinclodes comechingonus is considered by some (e.g., Mayr 1957<?>, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Navas & Bo 1987) to be a subspecies of C. fuscus; sympatry is only during nonbreeding season; they were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Genetic data, however, indicate that C. fuscus and C. antarcticus are sister species, and that C. comechingonus is the sister to C. olrogi + C. oustaleti (Chesser 2004); therefore, treatment as a species-level taxon is strongly supported.
13. Recently described: Sick (1969).
13a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cinclodes pabsti to form a superspecies with C. fuscus and C. comechingonus. Genetic data, however, indicate that C. pabsti is basal in the genus and not particularly closely related to any other Cinclodes species.
14. Recently described: Nores & Yzurieta (1979).
14a. Nores (1986) considered Cinclodes olrogi to be a subspecies of C. fuscus; others (Olrog 1979, Navas & Bó 1987, Vuilleumier & Mayr 1987, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001) considered it more likely to be closely related to C. oustaleti. Genetic data support the latter relationship (Chesser 2004).
14b. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the albiventris group might warrant recognition as a separate species from Cinclodes fuscus. Unfortunately, Chesser's (2004) sampling did not include populations of C. fuscus from the Andes north of Argentina.
14c. Called "Oustalet's Cinclodes" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
15. Cinclodes taczanowskii and C. nigrofumosus were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), although previously (e.g., Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) considered separate species; justification for treating them as separate species is weak (Remsen 2003); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003), and genetic data (Chesser 2004) show that they are weakly differentiated sister taxa. SACC proposal to lump these two species did not pass because of insufficient published data.
15a. Called "Peruvian Seaside-Cinclodes" and "Chilean Seaside-Cinclodes" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Proposal to change English names did not pass.
15b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that Cinclodes antarcticus may be part of a superspecies with C. taczanowskii and C. nigrofumosus, but genetic data show that they are not closely related and that their maritime habits have evolved independently (Chesser 2004). Cinclodes patagonicus is the sister species to C. taczanowskii + C. nigrofumosus.
15c. Genetic data (Chesser 2004) show that C. atacamensis and C. palliatus are sister species, consistent with their traditional classification.
16. Called "Band-tailed Hornero" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
17. The subspecies cinnamomeus of W. Ecuador and NW. Peru may deserve recognition as a separate species from F. leucopus (Ridgely & Tudor 1994) and was treated as such by Parker & Carr (1992) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). The subspecies longirostris was also treated as a separate species by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003). Although vocal and behavioral differences have been reported, no real analysis has been published to support these splits. SACC proposal to elevate cinnamomeus to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.
18. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) considered Furnarius torridus to be a subspecies of F. leucopus, and Vaurie (1973) considered F. torridus to be a color morph of F. leucopus. Zimmer (1936) presented evidence that torridus was a separate species, and this has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric.
18a. Called "Bay Hornero" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
19. Vaurie (1980) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Limnoctites into Limnornis; this was followed by Dickinson (2003), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). Olson et al. (2005) have shown that Limnornis and Limnoctites are not particularly closely related, with Limnoctites embedded within Cranioleuca, and with Limnornis closely related to Phleocryptes (see also Irestedt et al. 2006). However, taxon-sampling still so incomplete within the genus that although C. sulphurifera and Limnoctites are almost certainly sisters, their inclusion together in Cranioleuca is uncertain. SACC proposal to merge Limnoctites into Cranioleuca did not pass.
19a. Vaurie (1980) and Fjeldså (1992) proposed that morphological similarities indicate that Aphrastura and Leptasthenura are sister genera.
19b. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura fuliginiceps and L. yanacensis were sister species, based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences.
19c. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura platensis and L. aegithaloides were sister species, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences.
19d. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Leptasthenura aegithaloides might consist of more than one species.
20. Leptasthenura xenothorax was considered a subspecies of L. pileata by Vaurie (1980); they are generally considered to be sister species (e.g., Fjeldså 1992) and form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003).
21. Called "Streak-backed Tit-Spinetail" by <REF>.
21a. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura striata was the sister taxon to L. pileata/L. xenothorax, based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences.
22. Leptasthenura setaria was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) treated in the monotypic genus Dendrophylax.
22a. Spartonoica was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) inlcuded in Asthenes.
22b. Spartonoica was misspelled (as "Spartanoica") in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and elsewhere.
22c. Remsen (2003) noted that similarities in general morphology and tail structure suggested a possible relationship of Sylviorthorhynchus to Schizoeaca. Recent genetic data (Gonzalez and Wink 2008) indicate a close relationship to Leptasthenura.
23. Recently described: Phelps (1977).
24. Vaurie (1980) considered all Schizoeaca conspecific, but see Remsen (1981), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Remsen (2003) for maintaining traditional species limits, as, for example, in Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
25. It seems likely that Schizoeaca fuliginosa is a paraphyletic species with respect to S. griseomurina, whose range interrupts the two northern subspecies, nominate fuliginosa and fumigata, and the two southern subspecies, peruviana and plengei (Remsen 2003).
26. Recently described (as subspecies of S. fuliginosa): Vaurie et al. (1972).
27. The genus Oreophylax was included in Schizoeaca by Vaurie (1980) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Recent genetic data confirm that they are closely related and probably sister taxa (Irestedt et al. 2006).
28. Vaurie (1980) included Schoeniophylax in Synallaxis, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). Recent genetic data confirm that they are closely related and probably sister taxa (Irestedt et al. 2006).
28b. Schoeniophylax is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is phryganophilus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
29. Synallaxis ruficapilla, S. cinerea, and S. infuscata form a superspecies (Pacheco & Gonzaga 1995).
30. Synallaxis whitneyi/cinerea was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970 <trace>) considered a junior synonym of S. ruficapilla. Pacheco and Gonzaga (1995) showed that this population merits species rank, which they named S. whitneyi. Whitney & Pacheco (2001) then showed that whitneyi was a synonym of cinerea. More recently, however, Stopiglia and Raposo (2006) proposed that whitneyi is indeed the correct name. SACC proposal passed to change back to S. whitneyi.
31. Synallaxis infuscata was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. ruficapilla, but see Vaurie (1980) and Pacheco & Gonzaga (1995) for evidence for treating as a separate species.
32. The taxon Synallaxis poliophrys ("Gray-browed Spinetail"), long treated as a species (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is a synonym of S. frontalis (Vaurie 1971b).
33. The superciliosa subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Buff-browed Spinetail") from S. azarae, but see Remsen et al. (1988). Vaurie (1980) treated the elegantior subspecies group as a species separate from S. azarae, and this was followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990); see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for a return to the treatment of the elegantior group as conspecific with S. azarae.
34. Recently described: Blake (1971). Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990) noted that Synallaxis courseni is most closely related to S. azarae and perhaps best considered a subspecies of S. azarae; it was originally thought to be closest to S. brachyura.
34a. Synallaxis albigularis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) considered conspecific with S. albescens, but see Chapman (1931) and Zimmer (1936b).
35. Synallaxis spixi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) known as "Chicli Spinetail," but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
36. Synallaxis hypospodia was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a subspecies of S. spixi, but see Zimmer (1936b).
37. Synallaxis castanea was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. unirufa, but see Vaurie and Schwartz (1972) for rationale for considering it a separate species; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990) that presumably also includes S. fuscorufa (Remsen 2003).
38. The subspecies brunneicaudalis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Synallaxis moesta.
39. Synallaxis macconnelli was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1936b, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. cabanisi, but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating macconnelli as a separate species; Synallaxis macconnelli, S. cabanisi, and S. moesta form a superspecies.
40. English name often given incorrectly as "MacConnell's Spinetail"; it was named for F. V. McConnell.
41. Synallaxis maranonica and S. albilora were formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1936b, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. gujanensis, but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating them as separate species (as presaged by Meyer de Schauensee 1966). Cory & Hellmayr (1925) considered maranonica to be a separate species from S. gujanensis, but not albilora. These three taxa constitute a superspecies, although Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded maranonica. The boundary between albilora and gujanensis, based on plumage, does not correspond to the boundary in vocal types (Remsen 2003). SACC proposal to treat albilora as conspecific with S. gujanensis did not pass.
42. Called "Ochre-breasted Spinetail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
43. The genus Poecilurus (for candei, kollari, and scutatus) was merged into Synallaxis by Vaurie (1980), and this merger has been followed by some (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Hilty 2003) but not others (Ridgely & Tudor 1994). Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) recognized Poecilurus for candei and kollari, but placed scutatus in Synallaxis. In terms of voice and plumage at least, P. scutatus is certainly well within the range of variation of Synallaxis, and the nests of P. candei are essentially identical to those of S. erythrothorax; there is no way to characterize Poecilurus as a genus other than as a composite of the plumage features of the component species, and it is not certain whether the three species form a monophyletic group (Remsen 2003). [If anyone wants to resurrect the genus, make a proposal].
44. Synallaxis stictothorax may be more closely related to Siptornopsis or Cranioleuca than to other Synallaxis; see Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Remsen (2003).
44a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered the upper Marañon population chinchipensis as a separate species, but no analysis or data published. SACC proposal to elevate chinchipensis to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.
45. Vaurie (1980) merged Siptornopsis into Cranioleuca.
45b. Siptornopsis is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is hypochondriaca (David & Gosselin 2002b), as in Cory & Hellmayr (1925).
46. Vaurie (1980) merged Gyalophylax into Synallaxis; Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) included it in Asthenes. See Whitney & Pacheco (1994) for continued recognition as monotypic genus until relationships clarified.
47. Hellmayrea was formerly included in Synallaxis (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or in Cranioleuca (Vaurie 1980). Braun and Parker (1985) provided evidence for why Hellmayrea should be maintained as a monotypic genus, as in Phelps & Phelps (1950a) and Peters (1951). Recent genetic data confirm that Hellmayrea is not closely related to Synallaxis (Irestedt et al. 2006).
48. Sequence of species in Cranioleuca incorporates the genetic data from García-Moreno et al. (1999b). Vaurie (1980) included Cranioleuca in Certhiaxis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., see Wetmore 1972, Fitzpatrick REF).
49. The superspecies relationship proposed for Cranioleuca marcapatae and C. albiceps (e.g., Remsen 1984) is corroborated by genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 1999b); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that they might be best treated as conspecific.
50. Cranioleuca vulpecula was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of C. vulpina, but see Zimmer (1997) for evidence for treating C. vulpecula as a separate species.
51. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 1999b) are consistent with the proposal that Cranioleuca henricae, C. pyrrhophia, and C. obsoleta form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Maijer and Fjeldså 1997). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that C. pyrrhophia might form a superspecies with C. antisiensis/C. baroni.
52. Recently described: Maijer and Fjeldså (1997).
53. Belton (1985) suggested that Cranioleuca obsoleta was a subspecies of C. pyrrhophia based on specimens from Rio Grande do Sul that he considered intermediate. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) acknowledged specimens showing some intermediate characters, but continued to recognize obsoleta as a distinct species, as do other authors. Claramunt (2002) showed that evidence for free interbreeding between the two was weak at best.
54. Cranioleuca hellmayri and C. demissa were once considered conspecific (e.g., REF), but recent authors have followed Vaurie (1971b) in treating them as separate species; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), which may also include Cranioleuca erythrops, C. curtata, C. antisiensis, and C. baroni (REF). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that C. curtata might be best treated as conspecific with C. erythrops.
54a. The subspecies cisandina was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Cranioleuca curtata, but Peters (1951) treated them as conspecific; this has been followed by all subsequent authors.
55. As suspected by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), the taxon "Cranioleuca furcata," formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) considered a valid species, has been shown to be a juvenal/immature plumage of C. curtata (Graves 1986b), despite earlier claims to the contrary (Vaurie 1971c, 1980).
56. Cranioleuca baroni was considered conspecific with C. antisiensis by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), following Koepcke (1961a); it had formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) been considered a separate species. Although most current references (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994) treat baroni as a species, evidence for considering this species separate from C. antisiensis is exceptionally weak; as noted by Koepcke (1961), the closest populations, geographically, of antisiensis and baroni are more similar to one another than they are to other subspecies within their respective "species", and drawing a line between these two is arbitrary, even though the extremes differ radically (Remsen 2003).
57. Certhiaxis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are cinnamomeus and mustelinus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
58. Recent genetic data indicate that Certhiaxis is closely related to and probably the sister taxon to Synallaxis + Schoeniophylax (Irestedt et al. 2006).
58a. Certhiaxis cinnamomea was called "Yellow-throated Spinetail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994).  SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
59. The genus Thripophaga is suspected by several authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994) of being a non-monophyletic genus.
59a. SACC proposal to hyphenate the English name to make it "Soft-tail" did not pass.
60. Vaurie (1980) considered Thripophaga fusciceps and T. berlepschi to belong in Phacellodomus. check
61. Recent genetic data suggest that Asthenes is a polyphyletic genus (Irestedt et al. 2006).
61a. Asthenes heterura was considered a subspecies of A. pudibunda by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) , but see Vaurie (1971a, 1980) for treatment as a separate species, as was done previously by Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Peters (1951); it is more likely to be closer to A. ottonis (Vaurie 1971a, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), which was considered a subspecies of A. pudibunda by Cory & Hellmayr (1925). Called "Iquico Canastero" in Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Asthenes pudibunda, A. ottonis, and A. heterura are considered to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
62. Asthenes cactorum was considered a subspecies of A. modesta by REF; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
63. Species limits in this group have been fluid and confusing and have spanned virtually every permutation of combinations of taxa. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) recognized three species, Asthenes wyatti, A. punensis (including subspecies cuchacanchae and lilloi), and A. anthoides, and considered A. sclateri to be a synonym of A. hudsoni. Peters (1951) considered the punensis subspecies group to be conspecific with A. wyatii, and elevated sclateri to species rank, but considered it (by implication) not closely related to A. wyatti. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) followed Peters (1951) except that he considered the punensis group to be conspecific with A. anthoides based on tail patterns. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated the four major groups as four species: Asthenes wyatti, A. punensis, A. sclateri, and A. anthoides. Navas & Bo (1982) followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) except that they treated the punensis group to be conspecific with A. sclateri rather than A. anthoides; this treatment, the one used here, was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). However, evidence for considering Asthenes wyatti as separate species from A. sclateri is weak; they may intergrade in Titicaca basin (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), and the northern group of subspecies differs more in plumage from southern group than the latter does from adjacent A. sclateri subspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1994). Asthenes wyatti and A. sclateri form a superspecies, in which A. anthoides is presumably also included (Olrog REF, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (check Olrog REF) consider them all conspecific.
64. See Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for the use of "Puna Canastero" for this species.
65. Asthenes virgata was considered a subspecies of A. flammulata by Vuilleumier (1968), but see Vaurie (1980); evidence for either treatment is weak. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that A. maculicauda might be considered a subspecies of A. flammulata. Asthenes flammulata, A. virgata, and A. maculicauda form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that all three could be considered cospecific.
66. Called "Lesser Canastero" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
66a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Asthenes pyrrholeuca and A. baeri to form a superspecies, but no other authors consider this likely.
67. Asthenes dorbignyi presumably forms a superspecies with A. berlepschi, A. baeri, and perhaps A. steinbachi, A. luizae, and A. patagonica; except for their throat patches, they are closer to the smaller Phacellodomus in several aspects of plumage, voice, and nest structure than they are to other Asthenes; A. pyrrholeuca and A. humicola may also belong in this group (Fjeldså 1992, Whitney et al. [REF], Remsen 2003). Asthenes steinbachi and A. baeri are close enough that A. b. neiffi was initially described as a subspecies of A. steinbachi (Navas and Bó 1987). Asthenes steinbachi has laso been considered conspecific with A. dorbignyi (e.g., Olrog 1963), but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
68. The subspecies huancavelicae and arequipae were considered separate species ("Pale-tailed Canastero" and " Dark-winged Canastero") from Asthenes dorbygnyi by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to recognize huancavelicae and arequipae as separate species did not pass because published data are incomplete and insufficient.
69. Asthenes berlepschi may best be treated as a subspecies of A. dorbygnyi (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Remsen 2003); it differs less in plumage from A. dorbignyi than do taxa treated as subspecies within A. dorbignyi do from one another.
70. Called "Chestnut Canastero" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970).
71. Recently described: Vielliard (1990).
72. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered northern inornatus (with castilloi) a separate species from Phacellodomus rufifrons, and this was followed by and Hilty (2003); vocalizations are reported to differ, but no analysis or data have been published. SACC proposal to recognize inornatus as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) also suggested that the subspecies peruvianus of the Marañon valley deserved recognition as a separate species.
72a. Called "Common Thornbird" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
72b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phacellodomus rufifrons and P. sibilatrix to form a superspecies.
73. Phacellodomus maculipectus was formerly (e.g., Peters, 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. striaticollis. Ridgely & Tudor (1994), based on Nores and Yzurieta, considered the subspecies maculipectus to be a separate species from striaticollis. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculipectus as a separate species. They presumably constitute a superspecies.
74. Phacellodomus erythrophthalmus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Drioctistes, but this was merged into Phacellodomus by Peters (1951). Given distinctions in voice, plumage and nest architecture compared to other Phacellodomus, it may merit such separation (Ridgely & Tudor 1994).
74a. The southern race ferrugineigula has recently been shown to be a separate species from Phacellodomus erythrophthalmus by the discovery of their sympatry (Minns et al. REF). Proposal needed <wait for copies of recent papers>.
74b. Recent genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006) support the close relationship, presumably sister taxa, between Coryphistera and Anumbius.
75. Vaurie (1980) included Clibanornis in Phacellodomus.
75a. The coloration of Metopothrix is so unusual that it was long questioned whether it belonged it the Furnariidae (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see Feduccia (1970), <>Traylor (1972).
75b. Metopothrix is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is aurantiaca (David & Gosselin 2002b).
76. Recently described: Pacheco et al. (1996).
76a. Whether Xenerpestes belongs in the Furnariidae has been questioned (Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see Vaurie (1971d).
76b. Xenerpestes minlosi and X. singularis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
76c. Called "Double-banded Soft-tail" in Wetmore (1972).
77. Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), Peters (1951), and Vaurie (1980) treated tatei as a subspecies of Premnoplex brunnescens, but Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) elevated it to species rank, as it was originally described; published evidence for treatment as separate species is weak (Remsen 2003); they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998).
78a. Vaurie (1980) included Premnornis and Premnoplex in Margarornis. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006), however, indicate that Premnornis is not closely related to Premnoplex + Margarornis, but may be the sister taxon to Pseudocolaptes.
78b. Vaurie (1980) included Roraimia in Margarornis; see Rudge & Raikow (1992) for maintaining it as a monotypic genus.
79. Margarornis stellatus was called "Star-chested Treerunner" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Considered to form a superspecies with Middle American M. rubiginosus by AOU (1983). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
79a. Margarornis squamiger forms a superspecies with M. bellulus of Darién, Panama (AOU 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003); reasons for maintaining bellulus as a separate species are weak (Remsen 2003).
80. Pseudoseisura unirufa was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters, 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of P. cristata, but see Zimmer & Whittaker (2000) for evidence for considering P. unirufa as a separate species; they form a superspecies (Remsen 2003).
81. Pseudocolaptes lawrencii and P. boissonneautii form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003); they were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered conspecific, but Peters (1951) and subsequent authors treated them as separate species.
81a. The subspecies johnsoni may deserve recognition as a separate species from Pseudocolaptes lawrencii (Robbins and Ridgely 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994); see Zimmer (1936c) for recognition of johnsoni as a distinct taxon and its presumed relationship to P. lawrencii. SACC proposal to recognize johnsoni as a separate species did not pass because published data are insufficient.
81b. Formerly known as "Lawrence's Tuftedcheek" (e.g., Wetmore 1972).
82. Vaurie (1980) included Anabacerthia in Philydor; Hilty (2003) suspected that Anabacerthia may belong even in narrowly defined Philydor.
82a. Anabacerthia variegaticeps and A. striaticollis have been considered conspecific (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951), but most authors have followed Wetmore (1972) in treating them as separate species, based mainly on differences in plumage pattern; they constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Remsen 2003).
82b. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) used for Anabacerthia striaticollis was montanus, but striaticollis has priority (Peters 1951).
82c. Anabacerthia amaurotis was considered more closely related to Philydor sensu stricto, especially P. lichtensteini, than to the other two Anabacerthia species by Vaurie (1980), and was treated in Philydor by Sibley & Monroe (1990).
83. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies temporalis of the Western Andes should be recognized as a separate species from Anabacerthia variegaticeps, as it had been previously treated by Peters (1951).
83a. Called "Spectacled Foliage-gleaner" in <REF>, but see Remsen (1997a).
84. Vaurie (1980) included Syndactyla in Philydor; the former name for the genus was Xenoctistes (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925), but see Zimmer (1935).
85. Syndactyla guttulata and S. subalaris constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Remsen 2003).
85a. Wetmore (1972) used "Leaf-gleaner" as the English name for species in the genera Anabacerthia, Syndactyla, Hyloctistes, Philydor, Automolus, and Thripadectes.
85aa. Formerly known as "Guttulated Foliage-gleaner." There is no such word as "Guttulated", and the proper adjectival form is "guttulate." SACC proposal passed to change English name.
86. Syndactyla ruficollis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Automolus, but see Parker et al. (1985) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
87. Vaurie (1980) included Simoxenops in Philydor.
87a. Some authors (REFS) have considered Simoxenops ucayalae and S. striatus to be conspecific; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; substantial differences in bill shape and habitat (Remsen 2003), however, make this unlikely.
88. Vaurie (1980) included Ancistrops in Philydor.
89. Vaurie (1980) included Hyloctistes in Philydor.
89a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that Trans-Andean populations (virgatus group) and Amazonian populations may merit species rank based on vocal differences; Ridgely & Tudor (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated them as separate species. SACC proposal to elevate virgatus to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.
89b. Called "Striped Foliage-gleaner" in REFS and Stiles & Skutch (1989).
90. Philydor is neuter, so the correct spelling of the species names are ruficaudatum, fuscipenne, erythrocercum, erythropterum, rufum, and dimidiatum (David & Gosselin 2002b).
90a. The montane subspecies ochrogaster is likely a separate species from Philydor erythrocercum, and were treated that way by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but the contact with lowland populations needs to be investigated in greater detail. See Zimmer (1935) for rationale for treatment of ochrogaster as subspecies of P. erythrocercum.
90aa. Zimmer (1935) considered Philydor ruficaudatum to have no close relatives in the genus and that it shared some characters with Anabacerthia.
90aaa. The subspecies erythronotum was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as separate species from Philydor fuscipenne/P. erythrocercum, but see Zimmer (1935).
90b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Philydor pyrrhodes and "P." dimidiatum to form a superspecies, but other authors consider this unlikely. In fact, Robbins & Zimmer (2005) provided evidence that "Philydor" dimidiatum should be transferred to the genus Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Syndactyla. Pinto (1937) placed dimidiatum in the genus Pseudoxenops Pinto, 1932.
90bb. The subspecies subfulvum was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as separate species from Philydor erythrocercum, but see Zimmer (1935).
90c. Recently described: Teixeira & Gonzaga (1983a).
90d. Philydor novaesi and P. atricapillus are considered to form a superspecies (Teixeira & Gonzaga 1983a, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
91. Philydor fuscipenne was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore 1972, AOU 1983) considered conspecific with P. erythrocercum, but see Hilty & Brown (1986) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating it as a separate species, thus returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1925).
92. Called "Planalto Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Proposal needed.
92a. The subspecies baeri was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) considered a separate species from Philydor dimidiatum,; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. <incorp. Pinto & Camargo 1955>
92c. Anabazenops was included in Philydor by Vaurie (1980).
93. Anabazenops dorsalis (e.g., Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) was formerly placed in Automolus, but see Kratter & Parker (1997) for including dorsalis in Anabazenops.
93a. Called "Crested Foliage-gleaner" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Hilty & Brown (1986), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Called "Bamboo Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
93b. Cichlocolaptes was included in Philydor by Vaurie (1980).
94. Thripadectes flammulatus and T. scrutator form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they should be considered conspecific.
95. Thripadectes scrutator was called "Buff-throated Treehunter' in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Peruvian Treehunter" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
96. Zimmer (2002) provided evidence, mainly vocal, that the taxon paraensis of southeastern Amazonia should be ranked at the species level. SACC proposal passed to recognize paraensis as separate species based on Zimmer (2002). They form a superspecies.
96a. Automolus infuscatus, A. paraensis, and A. leucophthalmus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer 2002, Remsen 2003).
96b. Zimmer (2008) presented data on vocalizations that suggest that the subspecies lammi should be ranked as a separate species from Automolus leucophthalmus. Proposal badly needed.
97. Automolus roraimae was listed as A. albigularis by Peters (1951), but see Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Vaurie (1980).
97a. "Philydor hylobius," formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a valid species ("Neblina Foliage-gleaner"), and even treated as a subspecies of Philydor atricapillus by Vaurie (1980), has been shown to be based on the juvenal plumage of Automolus roraimae (Dickerman et al. 1986).
97b. Called "Tepui Foliage-gleaner" in Hilty (2003). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
97c. Automolus rubiginosus likely includes several species-level taxa (AOU 1998, Hilty 2003, Remsen 2003). The subspecies nigricauda (with saturatus) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951) and all subsequent authors.
98. Vaurie (1980) included Hylocryptus in Automolus.
99. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) included Hylocryptus rectirostris in Automolus (while recognizing Hylocryptus as a monotypic genus for erythrocephalus), but noted the possibility that rectirostris was most closely related to H. erythrocephalus; see Zimmer (1936c) for rationale for the transfer of rectirostris to Hylocryptus.
99a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) called this species "Henna-capped Foliage-gleaner." SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
99b. Species in the genus Sclerurus were formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) known as "Leaf-scrapers."
100. The relationships of Lochmias within the family are controversial; general morphology has usually (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore 1972) led to its placement in linear sequences near Sclerurus, but see Vaurie (1971a). Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006) indicate that Sclerurus and Lochmias are in separate branches of the Furnariidae, with Lochmias clustering with a group of genera that includes Furnarius, Cinclodes, Upucerthia, Phleocryptes, and Limnornis.
100a. [potential Lochmias species split]
100b. Called "Sharp-tailed Creeper" in Wetmore (1972) and "Streamside Lochmias" in AOU (1983).
101. Vaurie (1980) included Heliobletus in Xenops; plumage pattern of this species remarkably similar to that of X. milleri. However, genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006) indicate that Heliobletus and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae, with Heliobletus clustering with Philydor.
102. Xenops milleri was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in monotypic genus Microxenops; it lacks wedge-shaped bill and complex tail pattern of congeners. Peters (1951) merged it into Xenops, and this has been followed by subsequent authors.
102a. Genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2005, Irestedt et al. 2006) indicate that Xenops may be the sister taxon to the dendrocolaptid woodcreepers.
103. Foraging behavior suggests that Megaxenops is not closely related to Xenops, and that bill shape similarity is due to convergence (Remsen 2003). In fact, genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006) indicate that Megaxenops and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae, with Megaxenops clustering with Syndactyla and Anabacerthia.
104. Traditional linear sequences place Pygarrhichas at the end, near Xenops, but this placement is almost certainly due to convergence on climbing behavior -- otherwise, nothing supports this relationship, which seems highly unlikely biogeographically (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2005, Irestedt et al. 2006) indicate that Pygarrhichas and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae, with Pygarrhichas clustering with Margarornis and Premnoplex.
105. Although the monophyly of the former Dendrocolaptidae seems reasonably well-established (Feduccia 1973, Raikow 1994, Clench 1995, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Marantz et al. 2003), whether it is embedded within the Furnariidae (as proposed by Feduccia 1973) or sister to all Furnariidae (Clench 1995, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) has been controversial. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004, Fjeldså et al. 2005) data strongly support the former, with the genera Geositta and Sclerurus basal to all other ovenbirds plus woodcreepers. Some authors had previously treated the Dendrocolaptidae as a subfamily of the Furnariidae (e.g., REFS <check Mayr & Amadon, 1951, AMNov1496.> <incorp. Irestedt et al. 2004>. If family or subfamily ranks are retained within this group, then a third group, Geositta plus Sclerurus, must also be accorded taxonomic rank. SACC proposal passed to merge Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae into single family without subfamily rankings.
105a. <relationships among genera in dendrocolaptids; incorp. Aleixo 2002, Irestedt et al. 2006>
106. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) treated the subspecies turdina and atrirostris each as separate species from Dendrocincla fuliginosa; Pinto (1937) treated turdina as a separate species but not atrirostris; Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered them all conspecific. Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Marantz et al. (2003) treated turdina as a separate species ("Plain-winged Woodcreeper") based largely on Willis (1983); proposal badly needed. <check Todd (1948) for treatment of meruloides as species, formerly placed in merula; Marantz et al. 2003>
107. Called "Brown Woodcreeper" in Wetmore (1972).
108. Marantz et al. (2003) noted that differences in voice and iris color between nominate merula (with obidensis) and the rest of the subspecies suggested that more than one species might be involved; see also Hilty (2003).
109. The subspecies typica was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated (with minor) as a separate species from Deconychura longicauda. Marantz et al. (2003) indicated that vocal differences among populations suggest that more than one species might be involved, with the typica group possibly more closely related to D. stictolaema than to Amazonian longicauda group.
110. The subspecies secunda was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Deconychura stictolaema.
111. Sittasomus griseicapillus almost certainly consists of multiple species (Hardy et al. 1991, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Parker et al. 1995, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003), with at least five subspecies groups possibly deserving separate species status (Marantz et al. 2003).
112. Marantz et al. (2003) noted that vocal differences among populations of Glyphorynchus spirurus suggest that more than one species might be involved.
113. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004) suggest that Glyphorynchus is the basal taxon in the family. Proposal needed to change linear sequence. <wait until Aleixo Evolution paper published.>
114. Glyphorynchus is regularly misspelled as "Glyphorhynchus."
115. Drymornis bridgesii differs from all other woodcreepers in syringeal structure (Ames 1971), mallophagans (Kudon 1982), and foraging behavior (semiterrestrial), and Raikow (1994) suggested that it and Nasica might be the outgroup taxa to all other Dendrocolaptidae. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004), however, indicate that the traditional placement of Drymornis with a group of genera that includes Nasica, Hylexetastes, Hylexetastes, Xiphocolaptes, and Dendrocolaptes (Aleixo 2002) is correct; its sister genus is likely Campyloramphus.
116. Raikow (1994) proposed that Dendrexetastes is closely related to Campyloramphus, contrary to their traditional placements in linear sequences, but this is not corroborated by genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004).
117. The subspecies devillei was considered a separate species from Dendrexetastes rufigula by REF, but their voices are similar (Marantz et al. 2003).
118. The two species of Hylexetastes form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Marantz et al. (2003) suggest that vocal similarities and intermediate plumage of subspecies insignis suggests that they could be considered conspecific, as suspected by Zimmer (1934c). The subspecies uniformis was treated as a species separate from H. perrotii by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Silva (1995) found no evidence for hybridization among various Hylexetastes taxa in areas where potentially parapatric and thus ranked all four taxa, including newly described brigidai (Silva et al. 1995), as species. Marantz et al. (2003), however, noted that voices of perrotii, uniformis, and brigidai are all quite similar. Proposal badly needed.
119. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered X. promeropirhynchus and X. albicollis to form a superspecies; X. falcirostris should perhaps be included (?REF).
120. The orenocensis subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, AOU 1983) treated as a separate species from Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus, and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that this would be found to be the correct treatment. The emigrans subspecies group of Middle America was also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1911) considered a separate species. Zimmer (1934c), however, was unable to find a clear demarcation in plumage between the two groups, and Marantz et al. (2003) noted that voices were remarkably similar among these forms, given their pronounced plumage differences; clearly, a thorough analysis is required. Proposal needed?
121. The taxon franciscanus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species ("Snethlage's Woodcreeper"); here it is treated as subspecies of X. falcirostris, following Teixeira et al. (1989), Teixeira (1990), and Silva and Oren (1997); see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Marantz et al. (2003). Pinto (1952) suggested that franciscanus was a subspecies of X. albicollis.
122. Here villanovae treated as subspecies of Xiphocolaptes albicollis, following Marantz et al. (2003), but it may warrant species rank (Pinto & Camargo 1961); villanovae is not a subspecies of X. falcirostris, where placed by Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Clements (2000).
123. Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with D. certhia, but Willis (1992) and Marantz (1997) provided evidence that they should be treated as separate species; they constitute a superspecies.
124. Marantz et al. (2003) noted that the southeastern subspecies punctipectus might also deserve treatment as a separate species from Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae.
125. The taxon concolor was formerly (e.g., Todd 1948, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species ("Concolor Woodcreeper"); here it is treated as subspecies of D. certhia, following Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Pinto (1937), Willis & Oniki (1978), Willis (1992), Marantz (1997), and Marantz et al. (2003). <incorp. Ridgely & Tudor 1994>
126. The relationships of Dendrocolaptes picumnus, D. hoffmannsi, and D. platyrostris are controversial. Pinto (1937) treated D. hoffmannsi as a subspecies of D. picumnus, but subsequently (Pinto 1978) considered D. hoffmannsi to be a subspecies of D. pallescens, a taxon usually treated as a subspecies of D. picumnus (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970). Willis (1982) suggested that D. hoffmannsi and D. platyrostris were perhaps best treated as conspecific with D. picumnus (followed by AOU 1983). The three species presumably form a superspecies (Marantz et al. 2003); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered D. picumnus and D. platyrostris to form a superspecies but did not include D. hoffmannsi. Raikow (1994) and Marantz (1997) proposed that D. hoffmannsi was closer to D. sanctithomae/D. certhia than to D. picumnus/D. platyrostris, but vocal characters and biogeography suggest that this is not correct (Marantz et al. 2003).
127. The subspecies pallescens and transfasciatus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) each considered separate species from Dendrocolaptes picumnus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951).
128 Xiphorhynchus picus and X. kienerii (= necopinus) were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Zimmer 1934c, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated in a separate genus, Dendroplex, but this was merged into Xiphorhynchus by Peters (1951). Wetmore (1972), however, maintained Dendroplex as a separate genus based not only on bill shape but on (unstated) cranial characters. Aleixo et al. (2007) summarized rationale for validity of Dendroplex and for its usage for these two species. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Dendroplex for these two species.
129. The northern picirostris subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Xiphorhynchus picus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951).
130. Aleixo & Whitney (2002) showed that kienerii is a synonym of, and has priority over, necopinus. SACC Proposal passed to change name from X. necopinus to X. kienerii.
131. Xiphorhynchus fuscus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered to be a member of the genus Lepidocolaptes, but genetic and morphological data clearly place it within Xiphorhynchus (Raikow 1994, García-Moreno & Silva 1998, Aleixo 2002, Irestedt et al. 2004).
132. The subspecies chunchotambo of the Andean foothills was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Xiphorhynchus ocellatus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951). Aleixo (2002) found that Xiphorhynchus ocellatus is paraphyletic with respect to X. pardalotus, and suggested that X. chunchotambo of the foothills of the Andes be recognized as a separate species from lowland X. ocellatus; this was followed by Marantz et al. (2003), who treated chunchotambo (with napensis and brevirostris) as a separate species ("Tschudi's Woodcreeper"). <incorp. Aleixo 2004> Proposal badly needed.
133. Zimmer (1934d), Pinto (1937), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered Xiphorhynchus elegans and X. spixii conspecific, but see Haffer (1997) for rationale for treating them as separate species, as in Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Aleixo (2002) also found molecular support for treating nominate spixii as a separate species from all other taxa in the group; they constitute a superspecies. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) treated the subspecies juruanus and insignis as separate species from X. spixii, and Pinto (1947) also maintained juruanus as a separate species; but they were considered conspecific by Zimmer (1934d) and Peters (1951). <incorp. Aleixo 2004>
134. Genetic data (Aleixo 2002) indicate that Xiphorhynchus pardalotus, sometimes considered a member of the X. spixii superspecies, and X. ocellatus are sister species, as proposed by Zimmer (1934d); Aleixo (2002) found that pardalotus is embedded within taxa currently treated under X. ocellatus; see Note 21), and this should be reflected in linear sequence: Proposal badly needed.
135. The relationships among taxa included in Xiphorhynchus susurrans and X. guttatus are complex and need much additional work. Xiphorhynchus susurrans was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1934d, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with X. guttatus, but Willis (1983) provided evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; this treatment was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and AOU (1998); they constitute a superspecies. Xiphorhynchus susurrans had previously been treated as a species by Cory & Hellmayr (1925), who also treated the subspecies polystictus (= sororius) as a separate species; this was considered conspecific with X. guttatus by Zimmer (1934d) and Peters (1951). However, Aleixo (2002) found that treating X. susurrans at the species level makes Xiphorhynchus guttatus paraphyletic with respect to Amazonian guttatoides group of western and southwestern Amazonia (guttatoides, dorbignyianus, eytoni, and vicinalis) and eastern Amazonian guttatus group (guttatus, polystictus, and provisionally, connectens). Marantz et al. (2003) also emphasized that the current assignment of subspecies to either X. susurrans or X. guttatus does not correspond to the boundaries in vocalizations. Furthermore, the eytoni subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Todd 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a separate species ("Dusky-billed Woodcreeper") from X. guttatus; here it is treated as subspecies of guttatus following Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Zimmer (1934d), Pinto (1937), Peters (1951), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994), but Marantz et al. (2003) noted that this group differed in vocalizations from other taxa included in X. guttatus. Proposal needed? <to lump all into broad guttatus until relationships worked out>
136. Xiphorhynchus erythropygius and X. triangularis were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered conspecific; they were treated as separate species by Peters (1951). Wetmore (1972) summarized the strong plumage differences between the two and noted sympatry in depto. Antioquia, Colombia; see also Marantz et al. (2003) for synopsis of evidence for considering them as separate species; they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
137. Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered conspecific with Middle American L. affinis (Spot-crowned Woodcreeper), but recent treatments (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Hilty 2003) usually follow Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Zimmer (1934c), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a) in treating them as separate species. Their vocalizations differ strongly, although a formal analysis has not been published; they constitute a superspecies.
138. Lepidocolaptes falcinellus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of L. squamatus, but Silva & Straube (1996) provided evidence for why it should be treated as a species, and this was followed by Marantz et al. (2003).
139. The Amazonian fuscicapillus subspecies group (with madeirae and layardi) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Lepidocolaptes albolineatus, but recent authors have followed Zimmer (1934c) in treating them as conspecific; Hilty (2003) suspected that this treatment will be shown to be correct.
140. Campylorhamphus trochilirostris and C. falcularius form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Pinto (1937) and Peters (1951).
141. The multostriatus subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species from Campylorhamphus procurvoides, but they were treated as conspecific by Zimmer (1934b) and Peters (1951); however, Marantz et al. (2003) noted that multostriatus group is closer vocally to C. trochilirostris than to nominate procurvoides group.
142. The borealis subspecies group of Central America was considered a separate species from Campylorhamphus pusillus by Ridgway (1911).

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)