A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee

American Ornithologists' Union

(Part 4)

Part 4. Apodiformes (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (click)
Part 2. Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae) (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)

---

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, 6a
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
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, 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>

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., (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1940, AOU <>).

5. Cypseloides rothschildi was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1953, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with C. fumigatus, but see REF. Proposal needed? 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).

6a. "Chaetura nubicola," treated as a valid species by Peters (1940), is known to be a synonym of Streptoprocne rutila (REF, Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

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); they constitute a superspecies.

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 REFS 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.

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 et al. (2001) treated the subspecies ocypetes as a distinct species from Chaetura brachyura based on morphology and (anecdotal descriptions of) voice. Proposal needed?

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?].

---

TROCHILIDAE (HUMMINGBIRDS) 1
Topazinae
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 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
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
Heliangelus zusii Bogota Sunangel 57
Heliangelus regalis Royal Sunangel 58
Sephanoides sephaniodes Green-backed Firecrown 54c
Sephanoides fernandensis Juan Fernandez Firecrown
Discosura popelairii Wire-crested Thorntail 29
Discosura langsdorffi Black-bellied Thorntail 29, 29a
Discosura letitiae Coppery Thorntail 29, 30
Discosura conversii Green Thorntail 29
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 Blossomcrown 47c
Aglaiocercus kingi Long-tailed Sylph 62cc, 66a, 67, 67a
Aglaiocercus coelestis Violet-tailed Sylph 67a
Aglaiocercus berlepschi Venezuelan Sylph 67a
Sappho sparganura Red-tailed Comet 62e, 62f, 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, 62dd
Lesbia nuna Green-tailed Trainbearer 62c, 62d, 62dd
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 guerinii Bearded Helmetcrest 62g, 62h, 63
Oreonympha nobilis Bearded Mountaineer 62g, 63
Metallura iracunda Perija Metaltail 63, 63a
Metallura tyrianthina Tyrian Metaltail 63, 63a, 63b
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 alinae Emerald-bellied Puffleg 60a
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 phalerata White-tailed Starfrontlet
Coeligena orina Dusky Starfrontlet 53a, 54
Coeligena bonapartei Golden-bellied Starfrontlet 53, 53a, 54
Coeligena helianthea Blue-throated Starfrontlet 53a
Coeligena lutetiae Buff-winged Starfrontlet 52a, 53a, 53d
Coeligena violifer Violet-throated Starfrontlet 53a, 53c, 53d
Coeligena iris Rainbow Starfrontlet 53a, 53e
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
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 aureoventris Glittering-bellied Emerald 34b
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 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 47e
Thalurania colombica Violet-crowned Woodnymph 37, 37aa
Thalurania fannyi Green-crowned Woodnymph 37, 37a
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, 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 saucerrottei Steely-vented Hummingbird 47, 47aaa
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
Hylocharis eliciae Blue-throated Goldentail
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

---

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) updated the phylogeny presented in Altshuler et al. (2004). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera.

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) and morphology (Fristch & Schuchmann 1988) confirm that Ramphodon is a member of the Phaethornithinae, where traditionally placed, and strongly suggest that its sister genus is Glaucis, not Eutoxeres, as proposed by Frtisch & Schuchmann (1988). Proposal needed to move next to Glaucis in linear sequence.
3. Glaucis dohrnii was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in genus Ramphodon, but see [REF] for a return to the classification of Cory (1918) and Peter (1945).
3a. The genetic difference, as measured by protein electrophoresis, between the genera Glaucis and Threnetes is actually less than that among species within other genera of hermits (Gill & Gerwin 1989), thus making maintenance of two separate genera difficult to defend. A similar result was obtained from analysis of DNA sequence divergence values (Altshuler et al. 2004). [wait for completion ongoing DNA sequence data before making proposal?]
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 was formerly (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 cristalinae" as a synonym of T. l. loehkeni). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. Proposal needed?
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). proposal needed?
8a. Hinkelmann and Schuchmann (1997) divided Phaethornis into three subgenera based on plumage and morphology, but genetic data (McGuire et al. 2008) 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). proposal needed?.
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. aethopyga represented hybrids between P. ruber and P. rupurumii amazonicus. Piacentini et al. (2009) showed that aethopyga was not only a valid taxon but also probably worthy of species rank. Proposal needed.
9c. Phaethornis idaliae, P. nattereri, P. ruber, and <> were formerly (e.g., <check Cory 1918>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) 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.
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).
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.
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.
13a. Phaethornis pretrei was formerly (e.g., <check Cory 1918>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. Recently described: Weske & Terborgh (1977).
14a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phaethornis koepckeae and P. philippii to form a superspecies.
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., <check Cory 1918,>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) <check>, 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.
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.
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) 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).
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). Zusi & Bentz (1982), Bleiweiss et al. (1997), and McGuire et al. (2008) 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.
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).
20. Schuchmann (1999) merged Eupetomena into Campylopterus, but little justification provided. SACC proposal to lump Eupetomena into Campylopterus did not pass.
21. Schuchmann (1999) merged Aphantochroa into Campylopterus, but little justification provided. proposal needed.
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). proposal needed?
22a. The 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 was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1950c) included in Anthracothorax prevostii, but see Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for inclusion in A. nigricollis, as in Peters (1945); 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).
26. Called "Ruby Topaz" in Schuchmann (1999). proposal needed?
26a. Chrysolampis mosquitus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) known as C. elatus.
26b. "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.
27a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Black-breasted Plovercrest." proposal needed?
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.
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., <check Cory 1918,> 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." Proposal needed.
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. (2008) found that Chlorostilbon was paraphyletic with respect to Chlorestes, but because of limited taxon-sampling and conflict between nDNA and mtDNA trees, they recommended retaining a monophyletic Chlorestes pending further data.
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 Microhera 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.
34a. Recently described: 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.
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.
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. fannyi 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).
37a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) recognized the subspecies hypochlora of southwestern Ecuador as a separate species from Thalurania fannyi 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.
37aa. Called "Crowned Woodnymph" in Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983), Hilty (1986), Ridgely & Gwynne (1989), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Howell & Webb (1995); 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."
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.
37d. 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. SACC proposal passed to recognize humboldtii as a separate species.
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).
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 (1940) 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 Polytmus. 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).
39a. 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.
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.
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. 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, a return to the classification of <check 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) 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., <check Cory 1918,> 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; Meyer de Schauensee <?>(1966) treated hollandi as a subspecies of A. versicolor.
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., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Schuchmann (1999) and Weller & Schuchmann (2009), a return to the species name of Bangs & Penard (1918) and Pinto (1937). <check Cory 1918> <incorp. Chebez et al. 2008>.
44a. Weller & Schuchmann (1999) proposed that A. brevirostris and A. versicolor form a superspecies.
45. Schuchmann (1999) resurrected the genus Polyerata 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) 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.
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 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. SACC proposal passed to continue to recognize broad Amazilia pending publication of data and rationale to support the fragmentation.
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. SACC 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 saucerrottei and probably deserves recognition as a separate species.
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). The relationships of Anthocephala are uncertain. Schuchmann (1999) noted possible relationships to Adelomyia or extralimital Microchera.
47d. The subspecies intermedia of southwestern Ecuador was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Chapman 1926) considered a separate species from Chalybura buffonii, but Peters (1945) tentatively treated them as conspecific; 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
48f. Although Patagona is traditionally placed next to Andean genera in the "coquettes" or "brilliants" groups (see Notes 55 and 60), McGuire et al. (2008) could not place this monotypic genus within any other group of hummingbirds within the Trochilinae.
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) 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.
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.
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., in press). Schuchmann (1985) proposed that morphology and behavior indicated a close relationship between Aglaeactis, Pterophanes, and Chalcostigma, but genetic data (McGuire et al. in press) 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). proposal needed?
51a. The subspecies bolivianus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1945) considered a separate species from Oreotrochilus estella, but Zimmer (1951a) showed that bolivianus was not even a diagnosable taxon and considered it a synonym of estella; this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.
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.
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 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.
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).
53b. The subspecies conradi, 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.
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 form a superspecies (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).
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.
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.
54. Coeligena orina was formerly (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.
54a. Pterophanes cyanoptera was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as P. temmincki, but see Peters (1945).
54b. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that Pterophanes should probably be merged into Coeligena, but McGuire et al. (2008) showed that they are not sister taxa.
54c. The name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) used for the genus Sephanoides was Eustephanus, but see Peters (1945).
55. McGuire et al. (2008) 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.
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). 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.
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.
56a. Called "Flame-throated Sunangel" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
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 (Kirchmann et al. (2009). SACC proposal needed.
58. Recently described: 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 and E. cupreoventris, with E. sapphiropygia also ranked as a species; [c] E. alinae, E. mirabilis) and three species of uncertain affinities (E. glaucopoides, E. mosquera, E. derbyi).
58aa. The name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) used for the genus Eriocnemis was Vestipedes.
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 soederstroemi," known from one specimen from western Ecuador, 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 (between E. vestita and E. <>). Proposal needed. Also, suspected as being a subspecies of vestita (by whom?) according to Ridgely et al. 2001.
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).
60a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Eriocnemis alinae 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 alinae, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific. For continued ranking of dybowskii as a subspecies, see Schuchmann et al. (2001b).
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).
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. 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.
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.
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). 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, but 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 kingi 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); see also Note 62c.
62dd. "Lesbia eucharis," known from two males from Colombia and treated as a species by Cory (1918), is now considered a hybrid, L. nuna X L. victoriae (Weller & Schuchmann 2004). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
62e. Sappho sparganura 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 sparganura, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific; see Peters (1945) and Zimmer (1952a) for the complex nomenclature of this species.
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., in press), however, indicate that although closely related, they are nested within Chalcostigma.
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.
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 form a superspecies (Heindl & Schuchmann 1998).
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, and M. aeneocauda basal within the superspecies. 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), 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. Proposal needed?
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. (2008) sampled only C. ruficeps and C. herrani, but nonetheless found that they did not form a monophyletic group; see also Note 63.
64d. Chalcostigma ruficeps was placed in the genus Metallura by Peters (1945), but most classifications have followed Zimmer (1952a) in keeping it in Chalcostigma (see also Note 63)
65. Recently described: 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 (Kirchmann et al. 2009) indicate that Taphrolesbia is probably sister to Aglaiocercus, and that Polyonymus is probably the sister to Oreotrochilus. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
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. kingi group, and this is the treatment followed here. Aglaiocercus coelestis and A. kingi 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. kingi, 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 kingi, but see Zimmer (1952) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). The taxa caudata and mocoa were also formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered separate species, but see Zimmer (1952) for rationale for treating them as subspecies of A. kingi.
68. Augastes is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is scutatus; lumachella, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002a, b).
68a. Augastes scutatus was formerly (e.g., <check Cory 1918,>Pinto 1937) known as A. superbus, but see REF, Peters (1945).
69. Schuchmann (1999) merged Schistes into Augastes, following Ruschi (1963). SACC proposal to merge the two genera did not pass.
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.
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. The relationships of Loddigesia are uncertain. Although plumage and morphology suggest a relationship to Heliactin and Heliothryx, preliminary genetic data suggest a surprising relationship to Eriocnemis (J. McGuire and C. Witt, unpubl. data).
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," 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., <check Cory 1918,>, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Lepidolarynx, but 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). Heliactin is masculine, however, so the correct spelling of the species name is bilophus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
71e. Bleiweiss et al. (1997) and McGuire et al. (2008) found that the genera in this linear sequence from Myrtis to Chaetocercus formed a monophyletic group, the "bees," 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.
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.
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. proposal needed?
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.
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 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)