Proposal (622) to South
American Classification Committee
Recognize newly described Hylopezus whittakeri and split Hylopezus macularius into
two species
Effect
on South American CL:
If adopted, this proposal would add a newly
described species of Hylopezus to the
list and elevate to full species status one current subspecies of H. macularius (paraensis).
Background: Currently, H. macularius is treated as a polytypic
species with three recognized subspecies: H.
m. macularius, H. m. paraensis, and H. m. diversus (Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003). This taxonomic treatment began with Snethlage (1907) who
described paraensis as a subspecies
of H. macularius and was later
consolidated by Zimmer (1934), who lumped macularius,
paraensis, and the new taxon he
described, diversus, into a single
biological species because plumage differences separating them were very
subtle, suggesting only subspecific differentiation. In addition to the subspecies above, a fourth taxon, H.
m. dilutus, was described by Hellmayr (1910), but later synonymized with paraensis
by Cory and Hellmayr (1924). More recently, Maijer (1998) showed that H. auricularis (until then regarded as a
subspecies of H. macularius) was
vocally very distinct from any other taxa grouped under the Spotted Antpitta
and thus deserved full species status, a recommendation which has been followed
ever since (Krabbe and Schulenberg 2003, Remsen et al. 2013). Other similar
examples of cryptic undescribed variation still persist in the polytypic H. macularius complex, suggesting
that further splits are warranted (Krabbe
and Schulenberg 2003, Remsen et al.
2013).
New
information:
Carneiro et
al. (2012) conducted a systematic revision of the polytypic H. macularius based on morphometric,
plumage, vocal, and molecular characters. Reconstructed phylogenies recovered
with overall strong support the reciprocal monophyly among four main lineages
of the Spotted Antpitta, three corresponding to already named taxa (dilutus, macularius, and paraensis),
and one, to a newly described taxon, H.
whittakeri, endemic to the Madeira–Xingu interfluvium, and which proved to
be the vocally most divergent taxon in the complex (Carneiro et al. 2012).
Analysis/Recommendation: The statistically well supported reciprocal monophyly
recovered for the four lineages of the Spotted Antpitta identified in Carneiro et al. (2012), added to their vocal
mutual diagnoses, which remain constant within each clade, are indicative of
species level status either under the Phylogenetic Species Concept (PSC) or the
Biological Species Concept (BSC). Under the PSC, their reciprocal combined
molecular, vocal, and morphological diagnoses provide the basis for considering
macularius, dilutus, whittakeri, and paraensis as separate species, whereas
under the BSC the concerted evolution between genetic and vocal characters,
added to the absence of genetically/vocally intermediate individuals, are also
indicative of species level status for these lineages. However, given the poor
sampling of dilutus, it seems
premature to infer reproductive isolation between dilutus and macularius
given the results of the loudsong diagnosability tests, and the uncertain
phylogenetic affinities of the former, whose recovered sister relationship to H. paraensis and H. whittakeri lacked significant statistical support, therefore not
allowing the rejection of a putative monophyly involving macularius and dilutus. Therefore, the combined results support the
recognition of at least three biological species in the Spotted Antpitta
complex, as follows:
Hylopezus
macularius - Spotted Antpitta. Distributed in southern Venezuela
(Amazonas), southern Colombia (Amazonas), northern Peru west of the Ucayali
river through the western banks of the Negro and Branco rivers in the Brazilian
state of Amazonas (dilutus); the Guianan shield from the eastern bank of the Negro and Branco rivers
eastward through eastern Venezuela (Bolívar), Guyana, Suriname, French Guiana,
and the state of Amapá in Brazil (macularius).
Hylopezus
paraensis - Snethlage´s Antpitta. Distributed
south of the Amazon in Brazil from the Xingu River eastward in the state of
Pará to the western part of the state of Maranhão, and southward to southern
Pará.
Hylopezus
whittakeri- Alta Floresta Antpitta. Endemic to
the Madeira–Xingu interfluve in Brazilian south-central Amazonia.
Literature
Cited
Carneiro, L. S., Gonzaga, L. P., Rêgo, P. S., Sampaio, I., Schneider,
H., and Aleixo, A. 2012. Systematic revision of the Spotted Antpitta
(Grallariidae: Hylopezus macularius),
with description of a cryptic new species from Brazilian Amazonia. Auk 129: 338-351.
Cory, C. B. and C. E.
Hellmayr (1925). Catalogue of birds of the Americas, part 4. Field Museum of
Natural History Zoological Series 13: 1- 390.
Hellmayr, C. E. 1910. The birds of the Rio Madeira. Novitates Zoologicae
17:257– 428.
Krabbe, N., and T. S.
Schulenberg. 2003. Family Formicariidae (ground-antbirds). Pages. 682-731 in
Handbook of the Birds of the World, Vol. 8. Broadbills
to tapaculos. (J. del Hoyo et al., Eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Maijer, S. 1998. Rediscovery of Hylopezus (macularius)
auricularis: distinctive song and habitat indicate species rank. Auk 115:1072-1073.
Remsen,
J. V., Jr., C. D. Cadena, A. Jaramillo, M. Nores, J. F. Pacheco, J. Pérez-Emán,
M. B. Robbins, F. G. Stiles, D. F. Stotz, and K. J. Zimmer. 2013 [Version: 31
October 2013]. A classification of the bird species of South America. American
Ornithologists’ Union. [Online] Available at http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.html.
Snethlage, E. 1907. Neue Vogelarten aus Südamerika. Ornithologische
Monatsberichte 15:193–196.
Zimmer, J. T. 1934.
Studies on Peruvian birds. XII. Notes on Hylophylax,
Myrmothera, and Grallaria. American Museum Novitates 703: 1-21.
Lincoln Carneiro and Alexandre Aleixo, December
2013
______________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles: “YES. A very well-crafted study, with good sample
sizes and morphometric, vocal and genetic data clearly presented and analyzed,
with representative specimens of all forms photographed; I agree with the
authors’ conclusions regarding recognition of H. whittakeri and the resultant rearrangements and splits (a nice
change from the recent descriptions in the HBW volume!).”
Comments from
Remsen: “YES.
The Auk paper presents strong
vocal evidence for species rank of these taxa, with excellent N (27-45
individuals of the three taxa) and quantitative assessment of differences.
”As for English
names, not that the ones proposed in the proposal break the usual rule of
having a new names for each of the daughter species to prevent confusion. Thus, “Spotted” would refer to the new H. macularius sensu stricto, whereas for
many decades it referred to the broadly defined species.”
Comments from
Nores: “YES. The Auk paper presents clearly analyzed vocal and genetic data, which
is good evidence for species rank of these taxa.”
Comments from Zimmer: “YES. The Auk
paper presents strong evidence (vocal, genetic and morphological) for the
proposed split of H. macularius and
the recognition of H. whittakeri. Interestingly, the vocal distinctions between
whittakeri and the other members of
the macularius complex (which, as
noted, are the most divergent of any pairwise comparison in the complex) have
been recognized for a long time, at least since 1989 when Ted Parker first
visited the Alta Floresta region. The
problem was that those birds (= whittakeri)
were assumed to belong to south bank paraensis,
and the thinking was that the dramatic vocal differences represented a north
bank versus south bank difference between macularius
and paraensis. It was only much more recently that field
recordings from near the type locality of paraensis
have confirmed that it is vocally more similar to north bank macularius than either taxon is to south
bank whittakeri.”
Comments from Robbins: “YES. Carneiro et
al. provide multiple lines of evidence that clearly indicate that whittakeri and paraensis should be recognized as species; what a thorough piece of
work!”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. O artigo que fundamenta a proposição apresenta dados
vocais e moleculares que apoiam fortemente o tratamento em duas espécies.”