A classification of the bird species of South America. Part 6

1. Virtually all morphological and genetic data support the monophyly of the order Passeriformes. Within the Passeriformes, genetic data (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Edwards et al. 1991, Mindell et al. 1997, García-Moreno & Mindell 2000, Lovette & Bermingham 2000, Irestedt et al. 2001, Prychitko & Moore 2003, Hackett et al. 2008, Harvey et al. 2021) support the traditional division of the order based on morphology (see Ames 1971, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) into suboscines (here Dendrocolaptidae through Sapayoidae) and oscines (the rest of the families), with the exception that the Acanthisittidae of New Zealand are basal to both groups (REF, Hackett et al. 2008).

2. Within the suboscines, suborder Tyranni, two major divisions are traditionally recognized and are supported by genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1985, 1990, Chesser 2004, Harvey et al. 2021): (1) the New World families ("Tyrannides" of Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) and (2) the Old World families (broadbills, pittas, and asities). Genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2003, Chesser 2004, Hackett et al. 2008, Harvey et al. 2021) confirm that the Neotropical species Sapayoa aenigma is the only New World member of the otherwise strictly Old World group (see below). Within the New World "Tyrannides," two major divisions are traditionally recognized and supported by genetic data (e.g., Chesser 2004, Hackett et al. 2008, Harvey et al. 2021): (1) the woodcreepers, ovenbirds, antbirds, gnateaters, and tapaculos, and (2) the tyrant-flycatchers, manakins, and cotingas. For relationships among members within these two groups, see appropriate family sections below. The sequence of families follows Moyle et al. (2009); see SACC Proposal 481.

SAPAYOIDAE (SAPAYOA) 1

Sapayoa aenigma Sapayoa 2

1. Sapayoa aenigma was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the family Pipridae, although that placement had been regarded as doubtful (e.g., Wetmore 1972). Lanyon (1985) found not only that Sapayoa did not fit within the Pipridae but also did not appear to be closely related to any groups in the New World tyrannoid assemblage; Lanyon (1985) suggested that it might be more closely related to Old World suboscines <check>. Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) had similar results, leading Sibley & Monroe (1990) to place Sapayoa as Incertae Sedis in the suboscines. < incorp. Prum & Lanyon 1989, Prum 1990, Fjeldså et al. 2003>. Treated in its own monotypic family, Sapayoidae, by SACC until proposal below passed to place in Eurylaimidae; spelled "Sapayoaidae" elsewhere (e.g., Dickinson 2003, Snow 2004), but see Irestedt et al. (2006). Chesser (2004) and Hackett et al. (2008) also clearly showed that Sapayoa is most closely related to the Old World suboscines (broadbills, pittas, asities), and Irestedt et al. (2006) and Moyle et al. (2006) further showed that it is embedded within the Eurylaimidae as currently defined. SACC proposal passed to place Sapayoa in Eurylaimidae. Irestedt et al. (2006) further proposed breaking the Eurylaimidae into two families (actually resurrecting the old family name Calyptomenidae for Smithornis and Calyptomena to retain family-level rank for Sapayoidae. SACC proposal passed to recognize Sapayoidae. Harvey et al. (2021) confirmed the position of Sapayoa as embedded within the Old World suboscines but possibly sister to the Pittidae.

2. Sapayoa aenigma was formerly called "Broad-billed Manakin" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Called "Broad-billed Sapayoa" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Kirwan & Green (2011). SACC proposal to change to "Broad-billed Sapayoa" did not pass.

THAMNOPHILIDAE (ANTBIRDS) 1

Euchrepomis callinota Rufous-rumped Antwren 39c, 39cc, 39ccc, 39cccc

Euchrepomis humeralis Chestnut-shouldered Antwren 39cc

Euchrepomis sharpei Yellow-rumped Antwren 39cc

Euchrepomis spodioptila Ash-winged Antwren 39cc

Cymbilaimus lineatus Fasciated Antshrike 2

Cymbilaimus sanctaemariae Bamboo Antshrike 2

Hypoedaleus guttatus Spot-backed Antshrike 1a

Batara cinerea Giant Antshrike 1a

Mackenziaena leachii Large-tailed Antshrike 1a

Mackenziaena severa Tufted Antshrike 1a, 2a

Frederickena viridis Black-throated Antshrike 1a, 2b

Frederickena unduliger Undulated Antshrike 1a, 2b, 2c, 2d

Frederickena fulva Fulvous Antshrike 1a, 2b, 2c

Taraba major Great Antshrike 1a, 2e

Sakesphorus canadensis Black-crested Antshrike 2f, 2g, 2h

Sakesphorus luctuosus Glossy Antshrike

Radinopsyche sellowi Caatinga Antwren 10b, 27a, 27b, 28

Biatas nigropectus White-bearded Antshrike

Thamnophilus doliatus Barred Antshrike 2f, 3, 3a, 3c, 3d

Thamnophilus ruficapillus Rufous-capped Antshrike 7c, 7f

Thamnophilus torquatus Rufous-winged Antshrike 7f

Thamnophilus zarumae Chapman's Antshrike 3

Thamnophilus multistriatus Bar-crested Antshrike 3b

Thamnophilus tenuepunctatus Lined Antshrike 3b, 4, 4a

Thamnophilus palliatus Chestnut-backed Antshrike 4, 4a

Thamnophilus bernardi Collared Antshrike 2f, 2g

Thamnophilus atrinucha Black-crowned Antshrike 7

Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike 6, 6a, 6b

Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike

Thamnophilus nigriceps Black Antshrike 4b

Thamnophilus praecox Cocha Antshrike 4b

Thamnophilus cryptoleucus Castelnau's Antshrike 5

Thamnophilus nigrocinereus Blackish-gray Antshrike 5, 5a

Thamnophilus punctatus Northern Slaty-Antshrike 7, 8

Thamnophilus stictocephalus Natterer's Slaty-Antshrike 7

Thamnophilus sticturus Bolivian Slaty-Antshrike 7

Thamnophilus pelzelni Planalto Slaty-Antshrike 7

Thamnophilus ambiguus Sooretama Slaty-Antshrike 7

Thamnophilus caerulescens Variable Antshrike 7b, 7d

Thamnophilus unicolor Uniform Antshrike 5b

Thamnophilus aethiops White-shouldered Antshrike 5b, 5c

Thamnophilus aroyae Upland Antshrike

Thamnophilus melanonotus Black-backed Antshrike 2f

Thamnophilus melanothorax Band-tailed Antshrike 2f

Thamnophilus amazonicus Amazonian Antshrike 7a, 7d, 7e

Thamnophilus insignis Streak-backed Antshrike 7aaa

Thamnophilus divisorius Acre Antshrike 7aa, 7aaa

Rhopias gularis Star-throated Antwren 23a

Megastictus margaritatus Pearly Antshrike

Neoctantes niger Black Bushbird

Clytoctantes alixii Recurve-billed Bushbird 8a

Clytoctantes atrogularis Rondonia Bushbird 9

Thamnistes anabatinus Russet Antshrike 10, 10a

Thamnistes rufescens Rufescent Antshrike 10, 10a

Sakesphoroides cristatus Silvery-cheeked Antshrike 2g, 2gg

Dysithamnus stictothorax Spot-breasted Antvireo 10b, 27b

Dysithamnus mentalis Plain Antvireo

Dysithamnus puncticeps Spot-crowned Antvireo 10c

Dysithamnus xanthopterus Rufous-backed Antvireo

Dysithamnus occidentalis Bicolored Antvireo 11, 11a

Dysithamnus leucostictus White-streaked Antvireo 12, 12a

Dysithamnus plumbeus Plumbeous Antvireo 12, 12a

Herpsilochmus parkeri Ash-throated Antwren 27a, 30

Herpsilochmus motacilloides Creamy-bellied Antwren 27a

Herpsilochmus praedictus Predicted Antwren 27a

Herpsilochmus stotzi Aripuana Antwren 27a

Herpsilochmus atricapillus Black-capped Antwren 27a

Herpsilochmus pileatus Bahia Antwren 27a, 29

Herpsilochmus sticturus Spot-tailed Antwren 31

Herpsilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren 31

Herpsilochmus stictocephalus Todd's Antwren 31a

Herpsilochmus gentryi Ancient Antwren 31a, 31b

Herpsilochmus dorsimaculatus Spot-backed Antwren

Herpsilochmus roraimae Roraiman Antwren

Herpsilochmus pectoralis Pectoral Antwren 32

Herpsilochmus longirostris Large-billed Antwren 32

Herpsilochmus axillaris Yellow-breasted Antwren

Herpsilochmus frater Rusty-winged Antwren 32a

Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus Rufous-margined Antwren 32a

Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike 13, 13a

Thamnomanes saturninus Saturnine Antshrike 13

Thamnomanes caesius Cinereous Antshrike 14, 14a

Thamnomanes schistogynus Bluish-slate Antshrike 14

Xenornis setifrons Spiny-faced Antshrike 15

Isleria hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren 23

Isleria guttata Rufous-bellied Antwren 23

Pygiptila stellaris Spot-winged Antshrike 10, 16

Epinecrophylla fulviventris Checker-throated Stipplethroat 16, 16a

Epinecrophylla ornata Ornate Stipplethroat 18

Epinecrophylla erythrura Rufous-tailed Stipplethroat 16d

Epinecrophylla leucophthalma White-eyed Stipplethroat 16b

Epinecrophylla gutturalis Brown-bellied Stipplethroat 16d

Epinecrophylla haematonota Rufous-backed Stipplethroat 16c

Epinecrophylla spodionota Foothill Stipplethroat 16c

Epinecrophylla amazonica Rio Madeira Stipplethroat 16c

Myrmotherula brachyura Pygmy Antwren 19

Myrmotherula ignota Moustached Antwren 20

Myrmotherula ambigua Yellow-throated Antwren 20a

Myrmotherula sclateri Sclater's Antwren 20a, 20b

Myrmotherula surinamensis Guianan Streaked-Antwren 21

Myrmotherula multostriata Amazonian Streaked-Antwren 21

Myrmotherula pacifica Pacific Antwren 22

Myrmotherula cherriei Cherrie's Antwren 22

Myrmotherula klagesi Klages's Antwren 22a

Myrmotherula longicauda Stripe-chested Antwren 22a, 22b

Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren 23b, 23d

Myrmotherula schisticolor Slaty Antwren 23c

Myrmotherula sunensis Rio Suno Antwren 23c

Myrmotherula minor Salvadori's Antwren 23c

Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren 24, 24a

Myrmotherula urosticta Band-tailed Antwren 24a

Myrmotherula iheringi Ihering's Antwren 24b

Myrmotherula fluminensis Rio de Janeiro Antwren 25

Myrmotherula grisea Ashy Antwren 24, 26, 26a

Myrmotherula unicolor Unicolored Antwren 26a, 27

Myrmotherula snowi Alagoas Antwren 26a, 27

Myrmotherula behni Plain-winged Antwren 26a

Myrmotherula menetriesii Gray Antwren

Myrmotherula assimilis Leaden Antwren

Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird

Myrmorchilus strigilatus Stripe-backed Antbird 32b

Microrhopias quixensis Dot-winged Antwren 32b, 32bb, 32c

Formicivora iheringi Narrow-billed Antwren 33, 33a

Formicivora erythronotos Black-hooded Antwren 34

Formicivora grisea White-fringed Antwren 34a, 34b, 37

Formicivora serrana Serra Antwren 35

Formicivora littoralis Restinga Antwren 35, 36

Formicivora melanogaster Black-bellied Antwren 35

Formicivora rufa Rusty-backed Antwren 16, 37

Formicivora grantsaui Sincora Antwren 34c

Formicivora acutirostris Marsh Antwren 37, 37a, 37b

Drymophila ferruginea Ferruginous Antbird 38, 45

Drymophila rubricollis Bertoni's Antbird 38

Drymophila genei Rufous-tailed Antbird 38a

Drymophila ochropyga Ochre-rumped Antbird 38a

Drymophila malura Dusky-tailed Antbird

Drymophila squamata Scaled Antbird

Drymophila devillei Striated Antbird 38b

Drymophila hellmayri Santa Marta Antbird 38b, 38c

Drymophila klagesi Klages’s Antbird 38b, 38c

Drymophila caudata East Andean Antbird 38b, 38c

Drymophila striaticeps Streak-headed Antbird 38b, 38c

Hypocnemis cantator Guianan Warbling-Antbird 45, 45a

Hypocnemis flavescens Imeri Warbling-Antbird 45a

Hypocnemis peruviana Peruvian Warbling-Antbird 45a

Hypocnemis subflava Yellow-breasted Warbling-Antbird 45a

Hypocnemis rondoni Manicore Warbling-Antbird 45a

Hypocnemis ochrogyna Rondonia Warbling-Antbird 45a

Hypocnemis striata Spix's Warbling-Antbird 45a

Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird

Terenura sicki Orange-bellied Antwren 39, 39a, 39aa, 39b

Terenura maculata Streak-capped Antwren 39a

Cercomacroides laeta Willis's Antbird 39f, 39g

Cercomacroides parkeri Parker's Antbird 39e, 41

Cercomacroides tyrannina Dusky Antbird 39e, 39g, 39h

Cercomacroides serva Black Antbird 39e

Cercomacroides nigrescens Blackish Antbird 39e, 41a

Cercomacroides fuscicauda Riparian Antbird 39e, 41a

Cercomacra manu Manu Antbird 42a

Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird 39d, 39e

Cercomacra brasiliana Rio de Janeiro Antbird 39g

Cercomacra melanaria Mato Grosso Antbird 42

Cercomacra ferdinandi Bananal Antbird 42

Cercomacra nigricans Jet Antbird 42

Cercomacra carbonaria Rio Branco Antbird 42

Pyriglena maura Western Fire-eye 43, 44, 44f

Pyriglena similis Tapajos Fire-eye 43

Pyriglena leuconota East Amazonian Fire-eye 43

Pyriglena atra Fringe-backed Fire-eye 43

Pyriglena leucoptera White-shouldered Fire-eye 43

Rhopornis ardesiacus Slender Antbird 44, 44a

Myrmoborus leucophrys White-browed Antbird 44b

Myrmoborus lugubris Ash-breasted Antbird

Myrmoborus myotherinus Black-faced Antbird 44c

Myrmoborus melanurus Black-tailed Antbird

Myrmoborus lophotes White-lined Antbird 49, 49a

Hypocnemoides melanopogon Black-chinned Antbird 44d

Hypocnemoides maculicauda Band-tailed Antbird 46

Myrmochanes hemileucus Black-and-white Antbird 16

Gymnocichla nudiceps Bare-crowned Antbird 44e

Sclateria naevia Silvered Antbird 46b, 44g

Percnostola rufifrons Black-headed Antbird 47, 48a

Percnostola arenarum Allpahuayo Antbird 48, 48a

Myrmelastes schistaceus Slate-colored Antbird 44g, 50, 51

Myrmelastes saturatus Roraiman Antbird 50a

Myrmelastes hyperythrus Plumbeous Antbird 50

Myrmelastes leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird 50a

Myrmelastes humaythae Humaita Antbird 50a

Myrmelastes brunneiceps Brownish-headed Antbird 50a

Myrmelastes rufifacies Rufous-faced Antbird 50a

Myrmelastes caurensis Caura Antbird 50a

Myrmeciza longipes White-bellied Antbird 51, 51a

Poliocrania exsul Chestnut-backed Antbird 51, 51e, 51ee

Ampelornis griseiceps Gray-headed Antbird 55c

Sipia laemosticta Dull-mantled Antbird (V) 51dd

Sipia palliata Magdalena Antbird 51, 51c, 51d

Sipia nigricauda Esmeraldas Antbird 51, 51c, 52

Sipia berlepschi Stub-tailed Antbird 52, 52a

Sciaphylax hemimelaena Chestnut-tailed Antbird 51, 52b, 53

Sciaphylax castanea Zimmer's Antbird 53

Myrmoderus eowilsoni Cordillera Azul Antbird 51, 51b, 51bb

Myrmoderus ferrugineus Ferruginous-backed Antbird 51, 51b

Myrmoderus ruficauda Scalloped Antbird 51, 51b

Myrmoderus loricatus White-bibbed Antbird 51, 51b

Myrmoderus squamosus Squamate Antbird 51, 51b

Akletos melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird 55

Akletos goeldii Goeldi's Antbird 55

Hafferia fortis Sooty Antbird 55a

Hafferia zeledoni Zeledon’s Antbird 55a, 55aa, 55aaa

Hafferia immaculata Blue-lored Antbird 55a, 55aa, 55aaa

Aprositornis disjuncta Yapacana Antbird 55b

Myrmophylax atrothorax Black-throated Antbird 32b, 51, 54, 54b

Ammonastes pelzelni Gray-bellied Antbird 51, 51g

Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird 55d, 55e, 55f

Pithys albifrons White-plumed Antbird 55g, 56

Pithys castaneus White-masked Antbird 56, 56b

Gymnopithys bicolor Bicolored Antbird 55g, 57

Gymnopithys leucaspis White-cheeked Antbird 55g, 57

Gymnopithys rufigula Rufous-throated Antbird 57

Oneillornis salvini White-throated Antbird 57aa

Oneillornis lunulatus Lunulated Antbird 57aa, 57b

Rhegmatorhina gymnops Bare-eyed Antbird 55g, 58

Rhegmatorhina berlepschi Harlequin Antbird 58

Rhegmatorhina hoffmannsi White-breasted Antbird 58

Rhegmatorhina cristata Chestnut-crested Antbird 58

Rhegmatorhina melanosticta Hairy-crested Antbird 58, 58a, 58b

Hylophylax naevioides Spotted Antbird 44d, 59

Hylophylax naevius Spot-backed Antbird 59, 59b, 59c

Hylophylax punctulatus Dot-backed Antbird 59b

Willisornis poecilinotus Common Scale-backed Antbird 55g, 59b, 60, 60a

Willisornis vidua Xingu Scale-backed Antbird 60, 60a

Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye 55g, 61

Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye

Phlegopsis borbae Pale-faced Bare-eye 62, 62a

Phaenostictus mcleannani Ocellated Antbird 55g

1. This family is separated from the Formicariidae following Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Harshman (1994), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), AOU (1998), and Zimmer & Isler (2003). More recent genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) corroborate this result. Sibley & Ahlquist (1985, 1990) found that the Thamnophilidae was the sister to all other furnarioid families, and this result has been corroborated by other genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009; cf. Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of families. Within the Thamnophilidae, the current linear sequence of genera has already been shown not to reflect phylogenetic relationships (Irestedt et al. 2004, Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009, Isler et al. 2013). SACC proposal badly needed for changing linear sequence of genera.<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>. Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed dividing the family into three subfamilies, Euchrepomidinae, Myrmornithinae, and Thamnophilinae, the latter divided into five tribes; this was also followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014); see also Isler et al. (2013). The current linear sequence of genera and does not reflect recent phylogenetic data. SACC proposal badly needed. <wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

1a. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Hypoedaleus, Batara, Mackenziaena, Frederickena, Cymbilaimus, and Taraba form a monophyletic group, with relationships as follows: (Cymbilaimus + Taraba) + ((Hypoedaleus + Batara) + (Mackenziaena + Frederickena)). Proposal needed to move Taraba in linear sequence. <wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

2. Cymbilaimus sanctaemariae was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. lineatus, but Pierpont and Fitzpatrick (1983) demonstrated that it is sympatric with lineatus and that the two differ in many ways, including voice.

2a. Frederickena unduliger was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937) placed in the genus Mackenziaena, but see Zimmer (1944). Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004) indicate that Frederickena and Mackenziaena are sister genera. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Mackenziaena severa might be more closely related to species in the genus Frederickena than to M. leachii; Haffer (1987) proposed a close relationship among these three. See Note 1a.

2b. Frederickena unduliger and F. viridis form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Zimmer & Isler 2003); this would also now include F. fulva as separate species; see Note 2c.

2c. Parker et al. (1991) suggested that Frederickena unduliger might consist of more than one species. Isler et al. (2009) found that vocal differences indicated that the westernmost subspecies fulva should be treated as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to split fulva from F. unduliger.

2d. David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the correct spelling of the species name is unduliger. SACC proposal passed to change name.

2e. Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that vocal differences between the Middle American/trans-Andean transandeanus subspecies group and nominate major subspecies group of east of the Andes indicate that the former may merit recognition as a separate species from Taraba major.

2f. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004) suggest that Sakesphorus (as represented by S. bernardi) may be embedded within Thamnophilus. Brumfield & Edwards (2007) found that bernardi indeed is the sister taxon to Thamnophilus atrinucha + T. bridgesi; they also found that melanothorax and melanonotus are members of a group of Thamnophilus that includes T. amazonicus, T. insignis, and T. divisorius. SACC proposal passed to move three species from Sakesphorus to Thamnophilus.

2g. Zimmer & Isler (2003) proposed that Sakesphorus canadensis, S. cristatus, and S. bernardi probably form a superspecies, but Brumfield & Edwards (2007) showed that bernardi is not part of that group.

2gg. Grantsau (2010) named a new genus, Sakesphoroides, for Sakesphorus cristatus based on its distinctive morphological characters. Bravo et al. (2021) showed that Sakesphorus as then defined was not monophyletic, with S. cristatus is sister to the clade Dysithamnus + Herpsilochmus, whereas S. luctuosus and S. canadensis (type species of Sakesphorus) were sister to Thamnophilus; thus, Bravo et al. supported recognition of Sakesphoroides for cristatus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Sakesphoroides. Linear sequence also adjusted to conform to this finding.

2h. The northwestern subspecies pulchellus differs vocally from the others and may merit recognition as a separate species (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

3. Thamnophilus zarumae was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of T. doliatus, but Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Parker et al. (1995) provided rationale based on differences in voice and plumage for treatment of zarumae as a separate species, and this was followed by Zimmer & Isler (2003) but not Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) indicate that they are not even sister taxa, with T. zarumae a member of the T. palliatus group of striped Thamnophilus.

3a. Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that vocal differences among populations suggest that Thamnophilus doliatus may include more than one species.

3b. Zimmer (1933a) suspected that Thamnophilus multistriatus might be best treated as conspecific with a then-broadly defined T. palliatus. Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) indicate that T. multistriatus is a member of the T. palliatus group of striped Thamnophilus, but that if tenuepunctatus is treated as a separate species from T. palliatus (see Note 4), then T. multistriatus should also be ranked at the species level.

3c. Brumfield and Edwards (2007) published a phylogeny of Thamnophilus that changed the linear sequence of species in the genus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

3d. Assis et al. (2007a) claimed that they have "validated" that the subspecies capistratus of eastern Brazil is a species, but all that they showed was that capistratus is a diagnosable taxon (i.e., treated as subspecies under Biological Species Concept); whether capistratus merits species rank under the criteria used in this classification seems unlikely in that Assis et al. (2007a) found no significant difference in any loudsong characters between capistratus and doliatus from adjacent Brazilian Amazon. SACC proposal did not pass to treat capistratus as a separate species.

4. Thamnophilus tenuepunctatus (with subspecies tenuifasciatus and berlepschi) was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of T. palliatus, but see Cory & Hellmayr (1924), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Zimmer & Isler (2003); they constitute a superspecies; genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa.

4a. See Cory & Hellmayr (1924) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for use of "Lined Antshrike" for tenuepunctatus and "Chestnut-backed Antshrike" for T. palliatus.

4b. Thamnophilus nigriceps and T. praecox are sister species (Zimmer 1937a) and form a superspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Zimmer & Isler 2003); genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa.

5. Pinto (1937), Peters (1951), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered cryptoleucus to be a subspecies of Thamnophilus nigrocinereus, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) for continued recognition of this species as separate from T. nigrocinereus, following Meyer de Schauensee (1970); they constitute a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa. Cory & Hellmayr (1924) treated cryptoleucus as a separate species, but in the genus Myrmeciza.

5a. Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that vocal differences among subspecies indicate that Thamnophilus nigrocinereus may include more than one species.

5b. Thamnophilus aethiops and T. unicolor form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003). Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) confirm that they form a group that also includes T. aroyae.

5c. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Thamnophilus aethiops may consist of more than one species.

6. Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) confirm that Thamnophilus schistaceus and T. murinus are sister taxa, as reflected in traditional linear sequences.

6a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Black-capped Antshrike," but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994); followed by Dickinson (2003) and Zimmer & Isler (2003).

6b. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that the subspecies heterogynus might deserve species rank.

7. Thamnophilus atrinucha, T. stictocephalus, T. sticturus, T. pelzelni, and T. ambiguus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with T. punctatus, with the broad species known as "Slaty Antshrike," but see Willis (1982) and Isler et al. (1997) for recognition as species, based mainly on vocal differences. Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) indicate that atrinucha and punctatus belong to separate groups within Thamnophilus. SACC proposal passed to change English name of atrinucha. SACC proposal to change name to “Western Slaty Antshrike” did not pass. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) further recognized leucogaster of the Marañon Valley (with huallagae of Huallaga Valley) as a separate species; this taxon was tentatively retained as a subspecies of T. punctatus by Isler et al. (1997), with further evidence confirming subspecies status presented by Isler et al. (2001). The subspecies huallagae was formerly (e.g. Peters 1951) treated as a subspecies of T. amazonicus, but see Isler et al. (1997). Genetic data (Lacerda et al. 2007) indicate that ranking pelzelni and ambiguus as species is consistent with levels of divergence within this group.

7a. The subspecies cinereiceps was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) treated as a separate species from Thamnophilus amazonicus, but see Zimmer (1933b), Pinto (1978), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

7aa. Newly described: Whitney et al. (2004). SACC proposal passed to recognize divisorius as a valid new species.

7aaa. Thamnophilus divisorius and T. insignis are sister species (Whitney et al. 2004, Brumfield & Edwards 2007).

7b. Thamnophilus amazonicus and the T. punctatus complex have been considered closely related, and there has been some taxonomic confusion between the two in the past (see Zimmer 1933b). Brumfield & Edwards (2007), however, found that they belong to different groups within Thamnophilus, with T. amazonicus related to a group that includes "Sakesphorus" melanothorax, T. insignis, and T. divisorius, and the South American T. punctatus group the sister to T. nigrocinereus + T. cryptoleucus.

7b. Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Hayes (1995) suggested that Thamnophilus caerulescens may consist of more than one species; Cory & Hellmayr (1924) considered the western subspecies connectens, aspersiventer, and melanochrous each as separate species, but these were all considered conspecific with T. caerulescens by Zimmer (1933b) and Peters (1951); other authors (e.g. REF) have also considered the subspecies gilvigaster as a separate species. Vocal and genetic data support continued treatment of the Bolivian taxa, where most of the plumage extremes are represented, as subspecies of a single species (Brumfield 2005, Isler et al. 2005).

7c. Short (1975) suggested that the Andean subspecies (marcapatae and jaczewskii) might warrant recognition as a separate species from Thamnophilus ruficapillus, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Del Hoyo and Collar (2016) treated the Andean subfasciatus group as a separate species based on plumage scores. SACC proposal to treat subfasciatus group as a separate species did not pass.

7d. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thamnophilus amazonicus and T. caerulescens to form a superspecies, but see Zimmer & Isler (2003) and Brumfield & Edwards (2007).

7f. Plumage and vocal characters strongly suggested that Thamnophilus ruficapillus and T. torquatus should be placed next to the T. doliatus group in linear sequences (Ridgely and Tudor 1994), and this change in sequence was made by Zimmer & Isler (2003), who considered them to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) strongly support this, with T. ruficapillus and T. torquatus are sister species and closely related to T. doliatus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of species. Genetic data (Bolívar‐Leguizamón et al. 2024) suggest treating as conspecific. SACC proposal pending.

8. Called "Guianan Slaty-Antshrike" in Isler et al. (1997), but see Isler et al. (2001).

8a. Correct spelling is "alixii" (Sibley & Monroe 1990), not "alixi", as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

9. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Lanyon et al. (1990).

10. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004) indicate that Thamnistes and Pygiptila are sister genera. Brumfield et al. (2007) and Moyle et al. (2009) corroborated this and also found that Myrmornis was sister to this pair. Proposal needed to change linear sequence..<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS> Moyle et al. (2009) also proposed that these three genera be placed in a separate subfamily, Myrmornithinae, sister to all other antbirds (Thamnophilinae) except Terenura.

10a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Thamnistes anabatinus might consist of more than one species. Vocal data indicate that at least two species are involved. SACC proposal passed to elevate subspecies rufescens to species rank. SACC proposal passed to establish English names.

10b. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) suggest that Dysithamnus and Herpsilochmus are sister taxa, but better taxon-sampling needed.

10c. Dysithamnus puncticeps presumably forms a superspecies with Middle American D. striaticeps (AOU 1983, 1998).

11. Dysithamnus occidentalis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986) placed in Thamnomanes, and previously considered a subspecies of Thamnophilus aethiops (Cory & Hellmayr 1924), but see Zimmer (1933a), Willis (1984a), Whitney (1992), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). The subspecies punctitectus was described as a separate species and in the genus Dysithamnus (Chapman 1924) while occidentalis was still considered a subspecies of Thamnophilus aethiops; Zimmer (1933a) provided rationale for considering this form a subspecies of D. occidentalis. See Ridgely & Tudor (1984) for the complex taxonomic history of this species.

11a. Formerly called "Western Antvireo" or "Western Antshrike" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but see Whitney (1992).

12. Dysithamnus plumbeus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Thamnomanes, but see Schulenberg (1983) for a return to the classifications of Pinto (1937), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and Peters (1951).

12a. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that the Andean and Venezuelan subspecies, leucostictus and tucuyensis, might be best treated as a separate species from Dysithamnus plumbeus, as they were previously treated (e.g., Peters 1951). Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) treated leucostictus (with tucuyensis) as a separate species from D. plumbeus. Hilty (2003) further treated tucuyensis as a separate species from leucostictus. SACC proposal to elevate these to species rank did not pass. Isler et al. (2008) provided vocal evidence that leucostictus (with tucuyensis) should be treated as a separate species from D. plumbeus. SACC proposal passed to elevate leucostictus to species rank and to call it White-streaked Antvireo. SACC proposal to elevate tucuyensis to species rank did not pass.

13. Thamnomanes ardesiacus and T. saturninus have been treated as conspecific by many (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Hilty & Brown 1986, Sibley & Monroe 1990); see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for continued recognition as separate species; they form a superspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

13a. Thamnomanes ardesiacus and T. saturninus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951) placed in Dysithamnus, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Zimmer & Isler (2003), and for T. saturatus, Brumfield et al. (2007).

14. Thamnomanes caesius and T. schistogynus form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Zimmer & Isler 2003); they were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Zimmer 1932b, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) treated as conspecific, but there is no sign of intergradation where their ranges approach.

14a. Gyldenstolpe (1951) and Pinto (1978) treated glaucus (with persimilis) of southeastern Brazil as a separate species from Thamnomanes caesius.

15. Similarities in foraging behavior and some vocalizations suggest that Xenornis is most closely related to Thamnomanes (Whitney & Rosenberg 1993). <and Megastictus?>

15a. Called "Gray-faced Antbird" in (REF Eisenmann?), "Speckle-breasted Antshrike" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and "Speckled Antshrike" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003); see Remsen (1997) for retaining "Spiny-faced Antshrike," as in Wetmore (1972), AOU (1983, 1998). SACC proposal to change to "Speckle-breasted Antshrike" did not pass.

16. Genetic (Hackett & Rosenberg 1990) and vocal (Zimmer & Isler 2003) data indicated that the "stipple-throated" species formerly included in Myrmotherula (fulviventris through erythrura) form a monophyletic group that may be more closely related to Pygiptila than to other Myrmotherula. Irestedt et al. (2004), Brumfield et al. (2007), and Moyle et al. (2009) found that Myrmotherula was polyphyletic but found no relationship to Pygiptila, which they found to be closely related to Thamnistes and Myrmornis (see Note 10). Isler et al. (2006) named a new genus, Epinecrophylla, for the stipple-throated antwrens. SACC proposal passed to recognize Epinecrophylla; also followed by Banks et al. (2008). However, the remaining Myrmotherula themselves do not form a monophyletic group: Brumfield et al. (2007) found that M. axillaris is sister to Formicivora (F. rufa), and that they are members of a strongly supported group that also includes M. brachyura, M. longicauda, and Myrmochanes. See Note 19. SACC proposal passed to call all species in Epinecrophylla “Stipplethroat”, in part to avoid awkward compound names in species-level splits in the haematonota group; see Note 16c. Johnson et al. (2020) showed that Epinecrophylla consists of four groups, three of which are broadly sympatric groups: (1) E. fulviventris, (2) E. ornata, (3) E. leucophthalma and E. erythrura, and (4) E. haematonota group. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

16a. Called "Fulvous Antwren" in Wetmore (1972).

16b. Zimmer (1932) suggested that the subspecies phaeonota might merit recognition as a separate species from Epinecrophylla leucophthalma, but noted that they are best treated as conspecific; see that paper for reallocation of subspecies to E. leucophthalma and E. haematonota from previous classifications.

16c. Epinecrophylla haematonota, E. fjeldsaai, and E. spodionota form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003). Epinecrophylla spodionota (with subspecies sororia) was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1932, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with E. haematonota, but see Hilty & Brown (1986), Parker & Remsen (1987), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Epinecrophylla haematonota, E. fjeldsaai, and E. spodionota (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003). Epinecrophylla haematonota and E. spodionota were considered subspecies of E. leucophthalma by Cory & Hellmayr (1924). Whitney et al. (2013) described a new species in the complex, Epinecrophylla dentei, and provided evidence that the subspecies amazonica and pyrrhonota should be treated as separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat E. haematonota as three species, but with dentei as a subspecies of E. amazonica. Johnson et al. (2020) found additional support for treating dentei as a subspecies. Whitney et al. (2013) also provided evidence that E. fjeldsaai should be treated as a subspecies of narrowly defined E. haematonota. SACC proposal to treat E. fjeldsaai as a subspecies of E. haematonota did not pass. SACC proposal passed to establish English names for the species. Isler & Whitney’s (2018) analysis of vocalizations indicated that fjeldsaai and pyrrhonota should be considered subspecies of E. haematonota. SACC proposal passed to treat fjeldsaai and pyrrhonota as subspecies of E. haematonota. Johnson et al. (2020) found evidence that supports subspecies rank for fjeldsaai but that pyrrhonota deserves species rank. SACC proposal badly needed.

16d. Zimmer (1932a) suggested that Epinecrophylla erythrura and E. gutturalis were sister species; Haffer (1987) considered them to form a superspecies, along with Myrmotherula gularis (but see Note 23a).

17. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Krabbe et al. (1999).

17a. Called "Yasuní Antwren" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

18. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that Epinecrophylla ornata might consist of more than one species; the subspecies atrogularis was considered a separate species from Epinecrophylla ornata by Cory & Hellmayr (1924), but Zimmer (1932a) provided rationale for their treatment as conspecific.

19. Genetic (Hackett & Rosenberg 1990) and vocal (Zimmer & Isler 2003) data indicate that the yellow-bellied species of Myrmotherula (M. brachyura through M. longicauda) form a monophyletic group. However, Myrmotherula, as currently defined, even after removal of Epinecrophylla (Note 16), Isleria (Note 23), and Rhopias (Note 23a), remains polyphyletic and consists of three separate lineages (Bravo et al. 2014). <wait follow-up paper by Bravo et al.>

20. Peters (1951), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and most recent references treated the taxon ignota as a subspecies of Myrmotherula brachyura. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated ignota as a separate species ("Griscom's Antwren"). Isler & Isler (2003), however, demonstrated that ignota should be treated as a separate species from M. brachyura, and also provided rationale for merging M. obscura with M. ignota (which has priority), as proposed by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Isler & Isler (2003) proposed the name "Moustached Antwren" for the combined species, and this was used by Zimmer & Isler (2003). SACC proposal passed to follow Isler & Isler (2003). Thus, Myrmotherula obscura ("Short-billed Antwren") is considered conspecific with, and a subspecies of, M. ignota.

20a. Myrmotherula sclateri and M. ambigua form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003); Zimmer (1932), who described M. ambigua, considered it likely that they were conspecific.

20b. "Myrmotherula kermiti," considered likely a valid species by Zimmer (1932), is generally considered a synonym of M. sclateri. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

21. Myrmotherula multostriata was formerly (e.g., <check Hellmayr>, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of M. surinamensis (broadly known as "Streaked Antwren"), but see Isler et al. (1999) and Hilty (2003) for treatment as a separate species (and for linear sequence); this was followed by Zimmer & Isler (2003).

22. Called "Pacific Streaked-Antwren" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994), but see Isler et al. (1999) and Zimmer and Isler (2003), who noted that its sister species might be M. cherriei.

22a. Zimmer and Isler (2003) noted that vocal similarities suggest that Myrmotherula klagesi and M. longicauda are sister species.

22b. Gyldenstolpe (1930) recognized the southern, foothill subspecies australis as a separate species, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors; see Zimmer (1932).

23. Myrmotherula hauxwelli and M. guttata form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003). They are not closely related to other Myrmotherula (Hackett & Rosenberg 1990, Bravo et al. 2012), and so Bravo et al. (2012) named a new genus for them, Isleria. SACC proposal passed to recognize Isleria.

23a. The relationships of this species, formerly known as Myrmotherula gularis, are uncertain; often placed with the "stipple-throated group" (see Note 16d), its nest and behavior suggests that it is more closely related to M. hauxwelli and M. guttata (Zimmer & Isler 2003). Belmonte-Lopes et al. (2012) found that it is not closely related to any species of Myrmotherula and that its sister is likely Dichrozona cincta or a group of antshrike genera; therefore, they resurrected Rhopias as a monotypic genus for this species. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Rhopias.

23b. Willis (1984b), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Hilty (2003), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that vocal differences among several subspecies of Myrmotherula axillaris suggest that more than one species is involved. SACC proposal needed.

23c. Vocal, morphological, and behavioral similarities suggest that Myrmotherula schisticolor, M. sunensis, and M. minor may form a monophyletic group (<?>Whitney 1997, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

23d. Called "Black Antwren" in Wetmore (1972).

24. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmotherula longipennis may consist of more than one species; the subspecies garbei was treated as a separate species from Myrmotherula longipennis by Cory & Hellmayr (1924), but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951).

24a. Myrmotherula longipennis and M. urosticta form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

24b. Whittaker (2009) noted that vocal differences between the two subspecies of M. iheringi suggests that two species are involved. Miranda et al. (2013) elevated the subspecies heteroptera to species rank and described a new species in the complex, Myrmotherula oreni, from southwestern Amazonia. SACC proposal to recognize oreni at species rank did not pass.

25. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Gonzaga (1988). Known only from the type specimen, which may be a hybrid M. axillaris X M. unicolor (Gonzaga 1988, Zimmer & Isler 2003) or an aberrant M. axillaris luctuosa (D. M. Teixeira as cited by Mallet-Rodrigues 2008).

26. Myrmotherula grisea, M. unicolor, M. snowi, and M. behni seem to form a monophyletic group based on vocalizations and habitat (Whitney 1997, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

26a. Called "Yungas Antwren" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003). SACC proposal to change English name to Yungas Antwren did not pass.

27. Recently described (as subspecies of M. unicolor): Teixeira & Gonzaga (1985). See Collar et al. (1992) and Whitney & Pacheco (1997) for elevation of M. snowi to species rank; they constitute a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

27a. Herpsilochmus pileatus, H. atricapillus, H. motacilloides, and H. parkeri form a monophyletic group, but in describing H. sellowi, Whitney et al. (2000) noted that it might well merit a separate genus because of several unique features. Herpsilochmus atricapillus and H. motacilloides were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with H. pileatus, but see Davis and O'Neill (1986) and Whitney et al. (2000) for treatment of as separate species; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered these three to form a superspecies. Cohn-Haft and Bravo (2013) and Whitney et al. (2013) confirmed that H. pileatus and H. atricapillus are sister species, and they are sister to H. parkeri + H. motacilloides; they also described two new species in the group from southwestern Amazonia, Herpsilochmus praedictus and Herpsilochmus stotzi. SACC proposal passed to recognize H. stotzi. SACC proposal passed to recognize H. praedictus.

27b. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Herpsilochmus and Dysithamnus are sister genera.

28. Recently described but nomenclature complex, with H. pileatus actually the "newly discovered" taxon (Whitney et al. 2000). Bravo et al. (2021) found that the genus Herpsilochmus is not monophyletic because H. sellowi is sister to Biatas nigropectus; therefore, they described a new genus, Radinopscyhe, for sellowi. SACC proposal passed to recognize Radinopsyche. R. sellowi moved in the linear sequence to precede Biatas.

29. Called "Pileated Antwren" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal passed to change English name from "Pileated Antwren" to "Bahia Antwren," following Zimmer & Isler (2003).

30. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Davis and O'Neill (1986).

31. Herpsilochmus dugandi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of H. sticturus, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003); they constitute a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

31a. Herpsilochmus stictocephalus was considered to form a superspecies with H. sticturus and H. dugandi by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but see Whitney & Alvarez (1998) for sister relationship to H. gentryi.

31b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Whitney & Alvarez (1998).

32. Herpsilochmus pectoralis and H. longirostris were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

32a. Differences in vocalizations suggest that Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus might consist of more than one species (Zimmer & Isler 2003). SACC proposal passed to treat the frater group as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to establish English names.

32b. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Microrhopias, Myrmorchilus, and Myrmeciza (atrothorax) form a strongly supported group; Moyle et al. (2009) recommended recognizing this group at the tribe level, Microrhopini. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

32bb. Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Pinto (1978), AOU (1983), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Microrhopias quixensis might consist of more than one species.

32c. Called "Dotted-winged Antwren" in Wetmore (1972).

33. Cory & Hellmayr (1924) used the name Neorhopias instead of Formicivora for this genus, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

33a. Formicivora iheringi differs in many ways from other species in the genus and may warrant treatment in monotypic genus (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

34. Formicivora erythronotos was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Myrmotherula, but see Pacheco (1988) for its return to Formicivora (where it was described).

34a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Formicivora grisea may consist of more than one species. Hilty (2003) described major vocal differences between intermedia and grisea in Venezuela and treated them as separate species. SACC proposal needed.

34b. Called "Black-breasted Antwren" in Wetmore (1972).

34c. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Gonzaga et al. (2007). SACC proposal passed to recognize Formicivora grantsaui.

35. Formicivora serrana, F. littoralis, and F. melanogaster form a superspecies and justification for treating them as species is weak (Pinto & Camargo 1948, Ridgely & Tudor 1994); Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered the first two to form a superspecies but did not include F. melanogaster (but did consider it the sister to F. serrana/F. littoralis.

36. Recently described (as subspecies of F. serrana): Gonzaga & Pacheco (1990). See Collar et al. (1992) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for considering it as a separate species from F. serrana. Firme & Raposo (2011) presented evidence that littoralis should be considered a subspecies of F. serrana, as originally described. SACC proposal badly needed.

37. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Bornschein et al. (1995). Stymphalornis acutirostris probably should be transferred to the genus Formicivora; it may be more closely related to F. rufa and F. grisea than those species are to other Formicivora (L. P. Gonzaga [unpubl. data], Zimmer & Isler 2003). Treated in Formicivora by Gonzaga et al. (2007). Buzzetti et al. (2013) described its sister taxon, paludicola, in Formicivora. Bravo et al. (2014) found that Stymphalornis is indeed embedded in Formicivora. SACC proposal passed to include in Formicivora. Harvey et al. (2020) found that it was sister to F. grantsaui.

37a. Called "Marsh Antwren" in Zimmer & Isler (2003). SACC proposal passed to change English name.

37b. Buzzetti et al. (2013) described a new species, Formicivora paludicola, that is sister to this species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) and del Hoyo and Collar (2016) recognized paludicola as a species. SACC proposal to recognize paludicola as a species did not pass.

38. Drymophila rubricollis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of D. ferruginea, but see Willis (1988) for evidence for treating this as a separate species.

38a. Drymophila genei and D. ochropyga are sister species (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

38b. Drymophila devillei and the D. caudata complex are sister taxa (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

38c. Isler et al. (2012) proposed that the broadly defined Drymophila caudata consists of four species: (1) klagesi, with aristeguietana; (2) hellmayri; (3) nominate caudata; and (4) striaticeps, with occidentalis, peruviana, and boliviana. SACC proposal passed to recognize four species. SACC proposal passed to change English name of narrowly defined Drymophila caudata.

39. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicated that Terenura is the sister to all other thamnophilids. Bravo et al. (2012) found that Terenura itself was polyphyletic and that the Amazonian-Andean group was not only distant to true Terenura but sister to all other antbirds. They named a new genus, Euchrepomis, for callinota, humeralis, sharpei, and spodioptila, and named a new subfamily, Euchrepomidinae, for them. SACC proposal passed to recognize Euchrepomis.

39a. Terenura sicki and T. maculata form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

39aa. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Teixeira & Gonzaga (1983).

39b. Called "Alagoas Antwren" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).

39c. Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps (1978) suggested that the Perijá subspecies venezuelana might deserve recognition as a separate species from Terenura callinota.

39cc. Zimmer (1932b) suggested that Terenura callinota and T. humeralis might be conspecific, but they are presumed to be elevationally parapatric, and no intermediate specimens are known. Haffer (1987) proposed that T. callinota and T. spodioptila formed a superspecies. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), considered T. callinota and T. sharpei to form a superspecies, as suggested by their parapatry and similar elevational distributions.

39ccc. Called "Rufous-backed Antwren" in Wetmore (1972).

39cccc. "Hylophilus puella" is based on a female Terenura callinota (Meyer de Schauensee 1982). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

39d. The subspecies sclateri was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) treated as a separate species from Cercomacra cinerascens, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951). Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Cercomacra cinerascens may consist of more than one species.

39e. Fitzpatrick & Willard (1990) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered Cercomacra tyrannina, C. laeta, C. parkeri, C. nigrescens, and C. serva form a monophyletic group based on plumage and voice. Tello et al. (2014) confirmed the monophyly of this group and also showed that they are not the sister group to other Cercomacra, thus requiring the naming of a new genus, Cercomacroides, for them. SACC proposal passed to recognize Cercomacroides.

39f. Cercomacroides laeta was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered conspecific with C. tyrannina, but see Bierregaard et al. (1997) for evidence for treatment as a separate species.

39g. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that Cercomacra brasiliana form a superspecies with C. tyrannina and C. laeta. Zimmer & Isler (2003), however, considered its relationships to other Cercomacra uncertain, and Tello et al. (2014) showed that they were actually in different genera.

39h. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) known as “Tyrannine Antbird.”

39i. Cavarzere & Silveira (2024) proposed that the subspecies hypomelaena be treated as a separate species from Cercomacroides serva. SACC proposal badly needed.

41. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Graves (1997b).

41a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Cercomacroides (then Cercomacra) nigrescens might consist of more than one species. Mayer et al. (2014) provided evidence that the subspecies fuscicauda of w. Amazonia should be treated as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to recognize fuscicauda as a separate species.

42. Fitzpatrick & Willard (1990), Silva (1992), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Cercomacra nigricans, C. carbonaria, C. melanaria, and C. ferdinandi form a monophyletic group based on plumage, voice, and ecology; Tello et al. (2014) showed that they do form a monophyletic group within Cercomacra.

42a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Fitzpatrick & Willard (1990).

43. The three (now five) Pyriglena species constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003); they have been considered conspecific by some (e.g., Zimmer 1931). See Willis & Oniki (1981) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for justification for continued treatment of P. atra as a separate species from P. leuconota, of which it was treated as a subspecies by <check Cory & Hellmayr 1925>, Pinto (1937). Parker & Carr (1992), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Pyriglena leuconota might consist of more than one species, but also see Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Isler and Maldonado-Coelho. (2017) used vocalizations to recommend revision of species limits in the group to recognize five species. SACC proposal passed to recognize five species: (1) P. maura, also including subspecies pacifica, picea (including “castanoptera”), marcapatensis, and hellmayri; (2) P. similis; (3) P. leuconota, also including subspecies interposita and pernambucensis; (4) P. atra; and (5) P. leucoptera.

44. Voice and behavior suggest that Pyriglena and Rhopornis are sister genera (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

44a. Rhopornis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is ardesiacus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

44b. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmoborus leucophrys might consist of more than one species.

44c. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmoborus myotherinus might consist of more than one species.

44d. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Hypocnemoides and Hypocnemis are sister genera. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence..<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

44e. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Gymnocichla is most closely related to certain Myrmeciza. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

44f. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Pyriglena is most closely related to certain Myrmeciza. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

44g. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Sclateria is most closely related to Schistocichla. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence. <wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

45. Genetic data (Bates et al. 1999) indicate suggested that Hypocnemis is closely related to Drymophila, contrary to its placement in traditional linear sequences. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. This has been corroborated with additional genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009).

45a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that the yellow-bellied (flavescens) subspecies group is almost certainly a separate species from Hypocnemis cantator (as treated by Cory & Hellmayr [1924] and Pinto [1937]). Following Zimmer (1932a), they have been treated as conspecific. Vocal differences and documentation of syntopy and parapatry among taxa formerly ranked as subspecies (Isler et al. 2007) indicate that H. cantator actually consists of at least six species, including H. flavescens. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits. Whitney et al. (2013) described a new species in the complex from southwestern Amazonian Brazil, Hypocnemis rondoni. SACC proposal passed to recognize rondoni as a species.

46. Reasons for treatment of Hypocnemoides maculicauda as a separate species from H. melanopogon are weak (Zimmer 1932a, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Zimmer & Isler 2003); they form a superspecies (Haffer 1987).

46b. "Myrmeciza dubia," described from one specimen from Pará and considered a valid species by Pinto (1937), is generally considered a synonym of Sclateria naevia (Peters 1951). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

47. Capparella et al. (1997) recommended considering the western subspecies, minor (with jensoni), as a separate species from Percnostola rufifrons, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003); see, however, Isler et al. (2001) and Hilty (2003).

48. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Isler et al. (2001).

48a. Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered Percnostola rufifrons and P. arenarum to form a superspecies.

49. "Percnostola macrolopha," formerly considered a distinct species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), represents the male plumage of P. lophotes (Parker 1982). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

49a. Percnostola lophotes is unlikely to belong in Percnostola (Parker 1982<?>); Cory & Hellmayr (1924) and Zimmer (1932b) placed it in Myrmeciza, but subsequent authors have considered that incorrect. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that it is the sister taxon to Myrmoborus, not a member of Percnostola. Isler et al. (2013) placed it in Myrmoborus. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Myrmoborus.

50. The species in Schistocichla were formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in Percnostola, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for rationale for return to use of Schistocichla for these three species (as in, e.g., Zimmer 1931, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a). Zimmer & Isler (2003) continued to treat them in Percnostola; see also Braun et al. (2005). Cory & Hellmayr (1924) placed them in Sclateria. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Schistocichla is not closely related to Percnostola but rather is the sister taxon to Myrmeciza hyperythra. Isler et al. (2013) found that that species in currently defined Schistocichla form a monophyletic group with “Myrmeciza” hyperythrus and that they are not closely related to Myrmeciza or Percnostola, and are the sister group to Sclateria; they resurrected the genus Myrmelastes for these eight species, of which Schistocichla becomes a junior synonym. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Myrmelastes. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

50a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that the formerly broadly defined Schistocichla leucostigma probably consisted of more than one species. Braun et al. (2005) provided evidence that the Tepui taxon saturata deserves species rank. SACC proposal passed to treat saturata as a species. Isler et al. (2007) further showed that the taxa humaythae, brunneiceps, and rufifacies, currently treated as subspecies of P. leucostigma, also warrant species rank. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.

51. The genus Myrmeciza has been widely suspected of being polyphyletic (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Zimmer & Isler 2003), and this has been confirmed by recent genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004, Brumfield et al. 2007). Myrmeciza ferruginea, M. ruficauda, M. loricata, M. squamosa, M. pelzelni, M. hemimelaena, M. atrothorax, and M. griseiceps were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) placed in a separate genus, Myrmoderus, but genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that this would still be a polyphyletic genus. Peters (1951) removed all but loricata and squamosa from Myrmoderus; atrothorax was placed in a separate genus, Myrmophylax, and the rest were transferred to Myrmeciza. Zimmer (1932b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) merged Myrmoderus and Myrmophylax into Myrmeciza. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that atrothorax is indeed distant from other Myrmeciza (see Note 32b). Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that Myrmeciza ferruginea, M. ruficauda, M. loricata, and M. squamosa likely form a monophyletic group based on plumage, voice, and nest structure. Brumfield et al. (2007) found that the Myrmeciza sampled fell into 5 groups: (a) atrothorax (see Note 32b); (b) hyperythra (see Note 50); (c) fortis, immaculata, goeldii, and melanoceps; (d) hemimelaena (see Note); and (e) exsul and berlepschi. See also Notes 55b and 55c. Isler et al. (2013) sampled all species currently placed in the genus in addition to almost all species in the family Thamnophilidae and confirmed that “Myrmeciza” includes species from three of the five tribes in the family and 12 genera, seven of which were newly named; this likely sets a record for degree of polyphyly in an avian genus. In fact, true Myrmeciza consists only of a single species, M. longipes, the type species for the genus; see Isler et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to revise Myrmeciza.

51a. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmeciza longipes might consist of more than one species.

51b. Pinto (1978) suggested that Myrmeciza loricata and M. squamosa should be considered conspecific, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994); they form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003). Isler et al. (2013) confirmed that they are sister species and that they, M. ruficauda, and M. ferruginea are not members of Myrmeciza; therefore, they resurrected the genus Myrmoderus for these three species. SACC proposal passed to recognize Myrmoderus. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

51bb. Newly described: Moncrieff et al. (2017). SACC proposal passed to recognize eowilsoni as a valid new species.

51c. Extralimital Myrmeciza laemosticta (and thus by implication M. palliata) and M. nigricauda were considered to form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003). Isler et al. (2013) showed that these three and M. berlepschi formed a monophyletic group that was not related to Myrmeciza; therefore, they resurrected the genus Sipia for these four species. SACC proposal passed to recognize Sipia. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

51d. Formerly treated as a subspecies of M. laemosticta, but Chaves et al. (2010) presented evidence that palliata should be ranked as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate palliata to species rank.

51dd. Photographed in Chocó, Colombia, 9 October 2012. SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

51e. Ridgway (1908) treated the subspecies maculifer and cassini both as separate species from mostly Central American exsul (which leaks into South America in extreme NW Colombia). Chapman (1917) treated them all as conspecific, citing broad intergradation, and this was followed by Cory & Hellmayr (1924) and all subsequent treatments, including AOU (1983), which stated: “Populations from eastern Panama (eastern Darién) south to western Colombia have sometimes been regarded as a distinct species, M. maculifer (Hellmayr, 1906) [WING-SPOTTED ANTBIRD], but intergradation occurs in western Darién.” Del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated the southern maculifer, with cassini, as a separate species (“Short-tailed Antbird”). Woltmann et al. (2020) reported minimal vocal differences between the two groups of taxa. SACC proposal to treat maculifer as a separate species did not pass.

51ee. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) called "Salvin's Antbird."

51f. Isler et al. (2013) found that Myrmeciza exsul is not closely related to any species placed in broadly defined Myrmeciza and described a new genus for it: Poliocrania. SACC proposal passed to recognize Poliocrania. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

51g. Isler et al. (2013) found that Myrmeciza pelzelni was not related to most other species placed in broadly defined Myrmeciza and named a new genus for it: Ammonastes. SACC proposal passed to recognize Ammonastes. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

52. "Sipia rosenbergi," formerly considered a valid species (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924 Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is a synonym of M. laemosticta nigricauda (Robbins and Ridgely 1991). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

52a. Myrmeciza berlepschi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in a separate genus, Sipia, along with "Sipia rosenbergi" (see note 52). The genus Sipia, however, is not diagnosable and was merged into Myrmeciza by Robbins and Ridgely (1991). Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) confirm that berlepschi belongs in the broadly defined (albeit polyphyletic) Myrmeciza, and that berlepschi is most closely related to M. exsul. Isler et al. (2013) resurrected Sipia for this group of species; see Note 51c.

52b. Genetic data (REF) indicate that M. hemimelaena (and presumably also M. castanea) is not closely related to other Myrmeciza but rather to Cercomacra. Isler et al. (2013) confirmed this relationship and name a new genus, Sciaphylax, for this and “M.” castanea. SACC proposal passed to recognize Sciaphylax. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

53. Isler et al. (2002) provided rationale for why the subspecies castanea should be treated as a species distinct from M. hemimelaena. SACC proposal passed to recognize Myrmeciza castanea as a species distinct from M. hemimelaena. Fernandes et al. (2012) found additional evidence for ranking castanea as a species. Whittaker (2009) further noted possible species-level differences in songs within populations of M. h. pallens. Fernandes et al. (2012) found evidence that M. hemimelaena, even with castanea removed, consists of more than one species.

53a. SACC proposal passed to retain long-standing "Chestnut-tailed Antbird" for M. hemimelaena, and to coin new name, "Zimmer's Antbird" (after John T. Zimmer, who described this taxon as a species), for M. castanea, rather than adopt the English names "Northern Chestnut-tailed Antbird" for Myrmeciza castanea and "Southern Chestnut-tailed Antbird" for Myrmeciza hemimelaena, as in Zimmer & Isler (2003).

54. "Myrmeciza stictothorax," formerly considered a separate species (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) or as a subspecies of M. atrothorax (e.g., Pinto 1937), is now considered a synonym of M. atrothorax melanura (Schulenberg & Stotz 1991). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

54b. Isler et al. (2013) found that Myrmeciza atrothorax is not closely related to any species in broadly defined Myrmeciza and resurrected the genus Myrmophylax for it. SACC proposal passed to recognize Myrmophylax. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

55. Myrmeciza melanoceps and M. goeldii were considered to form a superspecies by Parker (1982), Haffer (1987), and Sibley & Monroe (1990). Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Isler et al. 2013) indicate that they are sister species. Isler et al. (2013) found that these two are not closely related to Myrmeciza and names a new genus, Inundicola, for them. Isler et al. (2014) then determined that Akletos Dunajewski 1948 has priority. SACC proposal adopted tentatively recognize Akletos. Akletos peruvianus Dunajewski 1948 is a synonym of Myrmeciza melanoceps; see Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

55a. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmeciza immaculata and M. fortis might form a superspecies. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that they are sister species. Isler et al. (2013) found that they (including “M”. zeledoni) are not closely related to Myrmeciza and named a new genus, Hafferia, for them. SACC proposal tentatively adopted to recognize Hafferia. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to merge Hafferia and Akletos into Percnostola did not pass.

55aa. Donegan (2012b) provided evidence that the subspecies zeledoni of Central America and macrorhyncha of the Chocó region should be treated together as a separate species from South American M. immaculata, as originally proposed by Ridgway (1909). SACC proposal passed to treat zeledoni as a separate species.

55aaa. SACC proposal passed to change English names of immaculate antbirds to Zeledon’s Antbird for M. zeledoni, and something besides a compound name for M. immaculata. SACC proposal passed to make English name of M. immaculata “Blue-lored Antbird.”

55b. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Hilty (2003) proposed that Myrmeciza disjuncta may not belong in Myrmeciza but rather in Sclateria; Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered its relationships to other Myrmeciza uncertain.<see recent Zimmer paper>. Isler et al. (2013) found that it was not related to most other species placed in broadly defined Myrmeciza and named a new genus for it: Aprositornis. SACC proposal passed to recognize Aprositornis. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

55c. Myrmeciza griseiceps may not belong in Myrmeciza but rather in Cercomacra or a monotypic genus (Zimmer 1932b, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001); Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered its relationships to other Myrmeciza uncertain but possibly related to M. nigricauda. Isler et al. (2013) confirmed that it is not closely related to any species placed in broadly defined Myrmeciza and named a new genus for it: Ampelornis. SACC proposal passed to recognize Ampelornis. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

55d. Although its terrestrial morphology recalls an antpitta (Formicariidae), Schwartz & Lentino (1984) noted that its voice and plumage suggested that Myrmornis torquata is a member of the Thamnophilidae, closest to Myrmeciza. Genetic (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) and morphological (Galvão & Gonzaga 2011) data have confirmed that its placement in Thamnophilidae is correct. See Note 10. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

55e. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmornis torquata might consist of more than one species; Cory & Hellmayr (1924) treated the subspecies stictoptera of Central America and western Colombia as a separate species.

55f. Myrmornis torquata was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1950a) listed as Rhopoterpe torquata, but see <REF>.

55g. Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Willisornis, Pithys, Phaenostictus, Phlegopsis, Gymnopithys, and Rhegmatorhina form a monophyletic group of specialized ant-followers. Within this group, Pithys and Phaenostictus are sister genera. Gymnopithys and Rhegmatorhina are sister taxa, consistent with their placement in traditional linear sequences; Phlegopsis is likely sister to this pair. SACC proposal to merge Rhegmatorhina into Gymnopithys did not pass. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.<wait Bravo/Brumfield MS>

56. Pithys castaneus, until recently known only from the type specimen (e.g., see Bond 1951a), has been suspected of being an aberrant P. albifrons or a hybrid (Willis 1984c), but Lane et al. (2006) discovered populations in northeastern Peru and have shown that it is a valid species. Whether it belongs in Pithys was considered uncertain (Zimmer & Isler 2003; cf. Bond 1951a), but Brumfield et al. (2007) confirmed that it is the sister taxon to P. albifrons.

56b. Pithys is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is castaneus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

57. Willis (1967) suggested that trans-Andean bicolor subspecies group deserved separate species, and this was followed by Wetmore (1972), Hilty & Brown (1986), and Sibley & Monroe (1990), returning to the species limits of Cory & Hellmayr (1924). See Hackett (1993) for continued treatment of bicolor as conspecific with G. leucaspis, as outlined by Zimmer (1937a). However, genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that leucaspis is actually the sister to G. rufigula, not to bicolor. SACC proposal passed to treat bicolor as separate species. Gymnopithys leucaspis, G. bicolor, and G. rufigula form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

57aa. Gymnopithys lunulatus and G. salvini are sister species (Zimmer 1937a, Brumfield et al. 2007) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003). Isler et al. (2014) found that they are not the sister group to the other Gymnopithys and named a new genus, Oneillornis, for these two species. SACC proposal passed to recognize Oneillornis.

57b. Gymnopithys is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is lunulatus; rufigula, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

58. The five species of Rhegmatorhina form a superspecies (Haffer REF, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ribas et al. (2018) confirmed that they are a monophyletic group of parapatric taxa.

58a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that the subspecies brunneiceps might deserve recognition as a separate species from Rhegmatorhina melanosticta; Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that R. melanosticta may consist of more than one species.

58b. Rhegmatorhina melanosticta was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) placed in the genus Gymnopithys, but see Zimmer (1932b) for its transfer to Rhegmatorhina, which has been followed in all subsequent classifications.

59. Hylophylax naevioides and H. naevius were considered to form a superspecies by the AOU (1983, 1998).

59b. Hylophylax is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are naevius, punctulatus, and poecilinotus (David & Gosselin 2002b); the correct spelling of the latter is poecilinota (now poecilinotus), not poecilonota (e.g., as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).

59c. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Hylophylax naevius may consist of more than one species.

60. Pinto (1978) treated lepidonota (with duidae) as a separate species from W. poecilinotus, and Hilty (2003) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that more than one species was involved; however, see Zimmer (1934d), Willis (1982), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Isler & Whitney (2011) presented evidence that the subspecies vidua merits species rank (including also nigrigula). SACC proposal passed to treat vidua as separate species. Quaresma et al. (2022) found that broadly defined W. poecilinotus was paraphyletic with respect to W. vidua; they recommended recognizing six species of Willisornis, largely in a PSC framework. SACC proposal needed.

60a. Traditionally treated in the genus Hylophylax, Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that poecilinotus might belong in Hypocnemoides. Zimmer & Isler (2003) also suggested that it might not be closely related to other Hylophylax. Brumfield et al. (2007) have shown that its inclusion in Hylophylax makes that genus a paraphyletic taxon. SACC proposal passed to revive genus Dichropogon. Agne & Pacheco (2007), however, noted that Dichropogon is preoccupied by a genus of asilid fly, and so they proposed Willisornis as a new name. SACC proposal passed to replace with Willisornis.

61. "Phlegopsis barringeri", formerly considered a valid species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), was shown to be a hybrid P. erythroptera X P. nigromaculata by Graves (1992), as suspected by Willis (1979). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

62. Phlegopsis borbae was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Skutchia (REFS, Zimmer & Isler (2003). Recent genetic data (Aleixo et al. 2009) indicate that this species is the sister to Phlegopsis nigromaculata. SACC proposal passed to merge Skutchia into Phlegopsis, where it had been placed formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951).

62a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Dickinson 2003) known as "Pale-faced Bare-eye." Called "Pale-faced Antbird" in Willis (1968), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) to emphasize that it does not belong in the genus Phlegopsis. SACC proposal passed to change English name from "Bare-eye" to "Antbird.” However, with the finding that Skutchia should be merged into Phlegopsis, the name should be changed back to “Bare-eye.” SACC proposal passed to change to “Bare-eye.”

MELANOPAREIIDAE (CRESCENTCHESTS) 1, 3

Melanopareia torquata Collared Crescentchest 2

Melanopareia maximiliani Olive-crowned Crescentchest 2, 4

Melanopareia maranonica Marañon Crescentchest 5

Melanopareia elegans Elegant Crescentchest 5

1. Until recently, Melanopareia was placed in the Rhinocryptidae, although that placement has been controversial. Cory & Hellmayr (1924) placed it in the Formicariidae (= Thamnophilidae). Feduccia and Olson (1982) found that the stapes of Melanopareia was unlike that of any other suboscine but instead like those of oscines. Genetic data (Irestedt et al., Chesser 2004) indicate that Melanopareia does not belong in the Rhinocryptidae. SACC proposal passed to create new family. Ericson et al. (2010) also confirmed this and formally named the new family.

2. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Melanopareia torquata and M. maximiliani to form a superspecies.

2a. Lopes & Gonzaga (2016) provided evidence that the subspecies bitorquata should be treated as a separate species from Melanopareia torquata. SACC proposal needed.

3. The hyphen in "Crescent-chest" seems to have crept into the English name of this genus although it seems unnecessary; Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and earlier lists did not use a hyphen. SACC proposal passed to delete hyphen in English name "Crescent-chest."

4. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) noted that vocal differences suggest that the southern subspecies pallida may warrant treatment as a separate species from Melanopareia maximiliani.

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Melanopareia maranonica and M. elegans to be conspecific, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); they presumably form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).

CONOPOPHAGIDAE (GNATEATERS) 1

Pittasoma michleri Black-crowned Antpitta

Pittasoma rufopileatum Rufous-crowned Antpitta

Conopophaga melanogaster Black-bellied Gnateater

Conopophaga melanops Black-cheeked Gnateater

Conopophaga aurita Chestnut-belted Gnateater 2, 3, 4

Conopophaga peruviana Ash-throated Gnateater

Conopophaga cearae Ceara Gnateater

Conopophaga roberti Hooded Gnateater

Conopophaga lineata Rufous Gnateater 5, 6

Conopophaga castaneiceps Chestnut-crowned Gnateater

Conopophaga ardesiaca Slaty Gnateater

1. The Conopophagidae have sometimes been treated in the Formicariidae sensu lato (e.g., Ames 1968, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). [recent data] <incorp. Whitney 2003> Some genetic data (Chesser 2004) indicated that they are the sister group to the Thamnophilidae, but see Moyle et al. (2009). Rice (2005a, b, Moyle et al. 2009) found that Pittasoma was the sister taxon to Conopophaga; therefore, Rice (2005b) advocated inclusion of Pittasoma in the Conopophagidae. SACC proposal passed to include Pittasoma in the Conopophagidae. Batalha-Filho et al. (2014) confirmed the sister relationship between Conopophaga and Pittasoma, and the monophyly of each genus.

2. Species sequence in Conopophaga follows Whitney (2003). Batalha-Filho et al. (2014) found well-supported relationships within the genus that conflict with this arrangement, including that C. melanogaster is sister to all other species in the genus. SACC proposal passed for revision of linear sequence.

3. Conopophaga aurita almost certainly consists of more than one species (Whitney 2003); see also Batalha-Filho et al. (2014).

4. Conopophaga aurita was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) known as C. snethlageae, but aurita has priority (see Peters 1951).

5. The subspecies cearae of northeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) considered a separate species from Conopophaga lineata, but most authors have followed Pinto & Camargo (1961) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in considering them conspecific. Vocal differences between cearae and other populations of C. lineata suggest that it deserves a return to species rank (Whitney 2003), and Batalha-Filho et al. (2014) found that cearae was the sister to C. peruviana, not C. lineata. SACC proposal passed to elevate cearae to species rank.

6. Whitney (2003) proposed that Conopophaga lineata was a member of species group that includes C. roberti, C. peruviana, C. ardesiaca, C. castaneiceps, and also possibly C. melanogaster.

GRALLARIIDAE (ANTPITTAS) 1

Grallaria squamigera Undulated Antpitta 4b

Grallaria gigantea Giant Antpitta 4b

Grallaria excelsa Great Antpitta 4b

Grallaria varia Variegated Antpitta 4bb

Grallaria alleni Moustached Antpitta 4e

Grallaria guatimalensis Scaled Antpitta 4e

Grallaria chthonia Tachira Antpitta 4c

Grallaria haplonota Plain-backed Antpitta

Grallaria dignissima Ochre-striped Antpitta 4d, 4f

Grallaria eludens Elusive Antpitta 4f

Grallaria ruficapilla Chestnut-crowned Antpitta 6

Grallaria watkinsi Watkins's Antpitta 6

Grallaria bangsi Santa Marta Antpitta

Grallaria kaestneri Cundinamarca Antpitta 7

Grallaria andicolus Stripe-headed Antpitta 8, 8b

Grallaria griseonucha Gray-naped Antpitta

Grallaria ridgelyi Jocotoco Antpitta 9

Grallaria nuchalis Chestnut-naped Antpitta 9a

Grallaria carrikeri Pale-billed Antpitta 9a, 10

Grallaria albigula White-throated Antpitta 10a

Grallaria flavotincta Yellow-breasted Antpitta 11

Grallaria hypoleuca White-bellied Antpitta 12

Grallaria przewalskii Rusty-tinged Antpitta 12

Grallaria capitalis Bay Antpitta 12

Grallaria erythroleuca Red-and-white Antpitta 8c, 12

Grallaria spatiator Sierra Nevada Antpitta 13

Grallaria saltuensis Perija Antpitta 13

Grallaria rufocinerea Bicolored Antpitta 8c, 13

Grallaria rufula Muisca Antpitta 13, 14a

Grallaria blakei Chestnut Antpitta 13, 14, 14a

Grallaria occabambae Urubamba Antpitta 13

Grallaria cochabambae Bolivian Antpitta 13

Grallaria alvarezi Chami Antpitta 13, 14aa

Grallaria saturata Equatorial Antpitta 13

Grallaria cajamarcae Cajamarca Antpitta 13

Grallaria gravesi Graves’s Antpitta 13, 14aa

Grallaria oneilli O’Neill’s Antpitta 13, 14aa

Grallaria obscura Junin Antpitta 13

Grallaria centralis Oxapampa Antpitta 13, 14aa

Grallaria ayacuchensis Ayacucho Antpitta 13, 14aa

Grallaria sinaensis Puno Antpitta 13, 14aa

Grallaria quitensis Tawny Antpitta 14b

Grallaria urraoensis Urrao Antpitta 14c

Grallaria milleri Brown-banded Antpitta 14c

Grallaria erythrotis Rufous-faced Antpitta 12

Cryptopezus nattereri Speckle-breasted Antpitta 15, 19

Grallaricula flavirostris Ochre-breasted Antpitta 20a, 20aa

Grallaricula lineifrons Crescent-faced Antpitta 22

Grallaricula leymebambae Leymebamba Antpitta 22

Grallaricula loricata Scallop-breasted Antpitta 20b

Grallaricula cucullata Hooded Antpitta

Grallaricula peruviana Peruvian Antpitta 20c, 20b

Grallaricula ochraceifrons Ochre-fronted Antpitta 20c, 21

Grallaricula ferrugineipectus Rusty-breasted Antpitta 22, 24, 25

Grallaricula nana Slate-crowned Antpitta 23, 24

Grallaricula cumanensis Sucre Antpitta 23, 24

Hylopezus auricularis Masked Antpitta 16

Hylopezus ochroleucus White-browed Antpitta 19

Hylopezus perspicillatus Streak-chested Antpitta 15, 15a

Hylopezus macularius Spotted Antpitta 16

Hylopezus whittakeri Alta Floresta Antpitta 16

Hylopezus paraensis Snethlage’s Antpitta 16

Myrmothera fulviventris White-lored Antpitta 15, 17

Myrmothera berlepschi Amazonian Antpitta 15, 17

Myrmothera dives Thicket Antpitta 15, 17, 18

Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta 15, 19a

Myrmothera simplex Tepui Antpitta 20

Myrmothera subcanescens Tapajos Antpitta

1. Formerly included as a subfamily in the Formicariidae, but genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004, Rice 2005a, 2005b) revealed that they are not sister taxa, thus requiring a change in taxon rank. SACC proposal passed to recognize the family Grallariidae. Subsequent genetic data (e.g. Moyle et al. 2009, Harvey et al. 2000) confirm these relationships. Carneiro et al. (2018) and Harvey et al. (2020) found that the traditional linear sequence of genera in this family did not accurately portray relationships. SACC proposal needed.

2. Gaudin et al. (2021) proposed that the correct name for the family is not Grallariidae but Myrmotheridae. SACC proposal needed.

4b. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Grallaria squamigera and G. gigantea were sister species, based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences. Hilty (2003) and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that Grallaria excelsa and G. gigantea may be conspecific. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) further suggested that the subspecies lehmanni, currently treated within G. gigantea, could be placed in G. excelsa, or that the subspecies hylodroma, currently treated within G. gigantea, should be treated as a separate species. Rice (2005) found that G. squamigera and G. varia were sister taxa (G. gigantea not sampled) that form a group basal to all other Grallaria.

4bb. <REFS> suggested that the subspecies imperator (with intercedens) might deserve recognition as a separate species from Grallaria varia, but see Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a).

4c. Hilty (2003) noted that Grallaria chthonia is extremely similar to G. guatimalensis and may be only a subspecies of that species. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) considered Grallaria chthonia and G. alleni to be more closely related.

4d. Grallaria dignissima was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Zimmer 1937a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) placed in the genus Thamnocharis, but see Lowery & O'Neill (1969) for its merger into Grallaria.

4e. Grallaria guatimalensis and G. alleni form a superspecies; they may be better treated as conspecific (Sibley & Monroe 1990). [incorp. Krabbe & Coopmans (2000)]

4f. Grallaria dignissima and G. eludens form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a); genetic data (Rice 2005) indicate that they are sister species.

6. Grallaria watkinsi was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1934, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of G. ruficapilla, but Parker et al. (1995) <check>, Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) considered watkinsi a separate species primarily because of their songs differ strongly, thus returning to the species limits of Chapman (1919) and Cory & Hellmayr (1924); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). See Zimmer (1934) for the original rationale for treatment of watkinsi as conspecific with G. ruficapilla.

7. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Stiles (1992).

8. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that Grallaria andicolus is not particularly closely related to other Grallaria species and may warrant treatment in monotypic genus.

8a. The southern subspecies punensis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) considered a separate species from Grallaria andicolus, but Peters (1951) treated them as conspecific; Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) noted that vocal differences suggest that punensis should be treated as a separate species.

8b. Correct spelling for species name is andicolus (David & Gosselin 2002a).

8c. Based on shared plumage features, Zimmer (1934d) proposed that Grallaria rufocinerea and G. erythroleuca were sister species. However, Chesser et al. (2020) showed that it was the sister species to Grallaria rufula, sensu stricto; see proposal 8c.

9. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Krabbe et al. (1999).

9a. Grallaria nuchalis and G. carrikeri form a superspecies (Schulenberg & Williams 1982, Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

9b. The northern subspecies ruficeps was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) considered a separate species from Grallaria nuchalis, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951). Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) noted that vocal differences suggest that the subspecies obsoleta deserves recognition as a separate species from G. nuchalis.

10. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Schulenberg & Williams (1982).

10a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that Grallaria albigula might be part of the G. hypoleuca superspecies (see Note 12); see Zimmer (1934d) for rationale for a close relationship to the G. nuchalis group.

11. Grallaria flavotincta was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of G. hypoleuca, but Hilty & Brown (1986)<check>, Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) considered flavotincta a separate species because of slight differences in voice, thus returning to the species limits of Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

12. Grallaria hypoleuca (with flavotincta), G. przewalskii, G. erythroleuca, and G. capitalis were considered conspecific ("Bay-backed Antpitta") by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) but not by Peters (1951), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), or any recent authors; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). See also Note 8c. Winger et al. (2015) found that G. erythrotis is sister to G. erythroleuca. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

13. Geographic variation in song strongly suggests that Grallaria rufula includes more than one species (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). Hilty (2003) noted that plumage and size differences alone suggest that saltuensis from the Perijá Mountains may be a separate species, and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that saltuensis might be more closely related to G. quitensis. A comprehensive analysis by Isler et al. (2020) indicates that current G. rufula consists of 15 species, including six newly described ones: Grallaria alvarezi, Grallaria gravesi, Grallaria oneilli, Grallaria centralis, Grallaria ayacuchensis, and Grallaria sinaensis. SACC proposal passed to recognize species classification of Isler et al (2020). SACC proposal to change two of the English names proposed by Isler et al (2020) did not pass.

14. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Graves (1987).

14a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) considered Grallaria blakei and G. rufula to form a superspecies; early genetic data (Rice 2005) were consistent with their treatment as sister species. However, Isler et al. (2020) found that Grallaria blakei was actually embedded among the taxa assigned to broadly defined G. rufula and is one of the 16 species in that complex; see Note 13.

14aa. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Isler et al. (2020).

14b. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) noted that vocal differences suggest that the subspecies alticola and atuensis each deserves recognition as a separate species from Grallaria quitensis.

14c. A new species of Grallaria was described from Colombia in two separate papers with competing names: Grallaria fenwickorum (Barrera et al. 2010) and Grallaria urraoensis (Carantón-Ayala, D, & K. Certuche-Cubillos 2010). SACC proposal passed to recognize new species. SACC proposal passed to use urraoensis as the name for the new species. ProAves (2013) defended the use of fenwickorum, but the description of fenwickorum violates Articles 72.5 and 73.1 of the Code; see Claramunt et al. (2014). <<needs to be updated to include ICZN opinions, commentary in Ornitologia Colombiana, Elliott (2020)>>

15. See Lowery & O'Neill (1969) for recognition of Hylopezus as a separate genus from Grallaria, in which it was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) included. In fact, genetic data (Rice 2005) indicate that Hylopezus is the sister genus to Myrmothera, not to Grallaria. Carneiro et al. (2019) found that Hylopezus is paraphyletic with respect to both Myrmothera and Grallaricula, and they described a new genus, Cryptopezus, for Hylopezus nattereri to maintain monophyly of existing genera once Hylopezus berlepschi, H. fulviventris, and H. dives are transferred to Myrmothera. SACC proposal passed.

15a. Called "Spectacled Antpitta" in AOU (1983), Ridgely & Gwynne (1989), and Stiles & Skutch (1989).

16. Hylopezus auricularis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of H. macularius, but Maijer (1998) provided evidence from vocalizations that it warrants recognition as a separate species; they form a superspecies. As predicted by Hilty (2003) and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a), macularius as currently defined consists of multiple species (Carneiro et al. 2012), including newly described Hylopezus whittakeri and the taxa formerly treated as subspecies of macularius: dilutus and paraensis. SACC proposal passed.

17. Myrmothera (formerly Hylopezus) dives was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of M. fulviventris, but evidence from vocalizations (REFS, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) indicates that it warrants recognition as a separate species; they form a superspecies with M. berlepschi (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) noted that vocal similarities between M. fulviventris and M. berlepschi suggest that they might be conspecific.

18. Myrmothera (formerly Hylopezus) dives was called "Fulvous-bellied Antpitta", the name for the former composite species (dives + fulviventris), by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). The AOU (1998) coined "Thicket Antpitta" not only to emphasize the species split but also to avoid use of "Fulvous-bellied" for M. dives when the species name for White-lored is fulviventris.

19. Cryptopezus (formerly Hylopezus) nattereri was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of Hylopezus ochroleucus, but Whitney et al. (1995) provided evidence from differences in vocalizations, habitat, and plumage that it warrants recognition as a separate species, a return to the classification of Pinto (1937); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Carneiro et al. (2019) found that they are members of separate genera; see Note 15.

19a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that the southeastern subspecies subcanescens deserves recognition as a separate species. Carneiro et al. (2018) found that subcanescens is sister to Myrmothera simplex, and thus not a subspecies of M. campanisona. SACC proposal passed to treat subcanescens as a separate species.

20. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Brown-breasted Antpitta," but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

20a. The subspecies boliviana (with similis) was formerly (e.g., REF) considered a separate species from Grallaricula flavirostris.

20aa. Called "Ochraceous Pygmy Antpitta" in Wetmore (1972).

20b. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that Grallaricula peruviana might be best treated as a subspecies of G. loricata.

20c. Grallaricula peruviana and G. ochraceifrons were considered to form a superspecies by Parker et al. (1985) and Sibley & Monroe (1990).

21. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Graves et al. (1983).

22. The subspecies rara was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) treated as a separate species from Grallaricula ferrugineipectus, but Peters (1951) treated them as conspecific. Ridgely & Tudor (1984) suspected that G. ferrugineipectus might consist of more than one species. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) indicated that vocal differences suggest that the southern subspecies leymebambae deserves recognition as a separate species. Van Doren et al. (2018) provided evidence that the southern subspecies leymebambae is actually the sister to G. lineifrons and should thus be treated as a separate species from Grallaricula ferrugineipectus. SACC proposal passed to treat leymebambae as a separate species. SACC proposal passed on English names.

23. Ridgely and Tudor (1994) suggested that the subspecies of the coastal mountains of Venezuela (cumanensis + pariae) deserve recognition as a separate species from Grallaricula nana, but voices are evidently similar (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). Donegan (2008) noted that vocal differences between some subspecies of G. nana are equivalent to those between some sympatric Grallaricula species; he suggested that G. nana consists of at least three biological species: the nana group, found primarily in the Andes, the kukenamensis group of the Tepuis, and the cumanensis group of northeastern Venezuela. SACC proposal passed to elevate cumanensis to species rank; SACC proposal did not pass to elevate kukenamensis to species rank. Ridgely and Tudor (1994) proposed the name “Paria Antpitta” for G. cumanensis, but see Donegan (2008). SACC proposal to change English name to Paria Antpitta did not pass.

24. Parker et al. (1985) proposed that Grallaricula nana (including G. cumanensis) and G. ferrugineipectus formed a superspecies.

RHINOCRYPTIDAE (TAPACULOS) 1

Psilorhamphus guttatus Spotted Bamboowren 4, 4a

Liosceles thoracicus Rusty-belted Tapaculo

Acropternis orthonyx Ocellated Tapaculo

Rhinocrypta lanceolata Crested Gallito

Teledromas fuscus Sandy Gallito

Pteroptochos castaneus Chestnut-throated Huet-huet 2

Pteroptochos tarnii Black-throated Huet-huet 2

Pteroptochos megapodius Moustached Turca

Scelorchilus albicollis White-throated Tapaculo

Scelorchilus rubecula Chucao Tapaculo

Merulaxis ater Slaty Bristlefront 4b, 4c

Merulaxis stresemanni Stresemann's Bristlefront 4b

Eleoscytalopus psychopompus Bahia Tapaculo 4c, 26, 26b

Eleoscytalopus indigoticus White-breasted Tapaculo 4c, 25, 26, 26a

Eugralla paradoxa Ochre-flanked Tapaculo 4d

Myornis senilis Ash-colored Tapaculo 5

Scytalopus iraiensis Marsh Tapaculo 9a, 10, 25

Scytalopus diamantinensis Diamantina Tapaculo 9d, 9e

Scytalopus novacapitalis Brasilia Tapaculo 25

Scytalopus petrophilus Rock Tapaculo 9e

Scytalopus pachecoi Planalto Tapaculo 9a, 9b, 9d, 25

Scytalopus gonzagai Boa Nova Tapaculo 9a

Scytalopus speluncae Mouse-colored Tapaculo 9a, 9b, 9c, 25

Scytalopus fuscus Dusky Tapaculo 37

Scytalopus magellanicus Magellanic Tapaculo 27

Scytalopus affinis Ancash Tapaculo 31, 31a

Scytalopus krabbei White-winged Tapaculo 31, 31a

Scytalopus androstictus Loja Tapaculo 38

Scytalopus opacus Paramo Tapaculo 38

Scytalopus canus Paramillo Tapaculo 38

Scytalopus superciliaris White-browed Tapaculo 36

Scytalopus zimmeri Zimmer's Tapaculo 35

Scytalopus simonsi Puna Tapaculo 34, 34a

Scytalopus schulenbergi Diademed Tapaculo 39

Scytalopus urubambae Vilcabamba Tapaculo 33, 33a

Scytalopus whitneyi Ampay Tapaculo 33a

Scytalopus frankeae Jalca Tapaculo 30, 30a

Scytalopus altirostris Neblina Tapaculo 30, 30a

Scytalopus parvirostris Trilling Tapaculo 9

Scytalopus bolivianus Bolivian Tapaculo 15

Scytalopus atratus White-crowned Tapaculo 14

Scytalopus sanctaemartae Santa Marta Tapaculo 11

Scytalopus micropterus Long-tailed Tapaculo 12

Scytalopus femoralis Rufous-vented Tapaculo 13

Scytalopus intermedius Utcubamba Tapaculo 7a

Scytalopus macropus Large-footed Tapaculo 7a, 10b

Scytalopus gettyae Junin Tapaculo 7b

Scytalopus unicolor Unicolored Tapaculo 8

Scytalopus acutirostris Tschudi's Tapaculo 32

Scytalopus latrans Blackish Tapaculo 6, 7, 7a

Scytalopus vicinior Nariño Tapaculo 20

Scytalopus panamensis Tacarcuna Tapaculo 16, 16a, 20

Scytalopus chocoensis Choco Tapaculo 17

Scytalopus rodriguezi Magdalena Tapaculo 19a

Scytalopus stilesi Stiles's Tapaculo 17a

Scytalopus alvarezlopezi Tatama Tapaculo 19b

Scytalopus robbinsi Ecuadorian Tapaculo 18, 19, 19a, 19b

Scytalopus caracae Caracas Tapaculo 22

Scytalopus griseicollis Pale-bellied Tapaculo 28, 28a, 28b

Scytalopus latebricola Brown-rumped Tapaculo 26a

Scytalopus perijanus Perija Tapaculo 21

Scytalopus meridanus Merida Tapaculo 21, 29

Scytalopus parkeri Chusquea Tapaculo 23a, 24

Scytalopus spillmanni Spillmann's Tapaculo 23, 23a

1. [family relationships, linear sequence; undescribed species]. Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that the Rhinocryptidae are most closely related to the Grallariidae. Proposal needed to change linear sequence of families. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004, Moyle et al. 2009) also indicate that Melanopareia does not belong in the Rhinocryptidae. SACC proposal passed to create new family. Within the Rhinocryptidae, these genetic data indicate a deep division between two groups: (a) genera Myornis, Eugralla, and Scytalopus, and (b) the genera above from Pteroptochos through Liosceles (Psilorhamphus, Merulaxis, and Eleoscytalopus not sampled). Within group b, Pteroptochos and Scelorchilus are sisters, and these two are sisters to the others, with their relationships Liosceles + (Acropternis + (Rhinocrypta + Teledromas)). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera. More recent data (Ericson et al. 2009) affirmed much of the above and also confirmed that Psilorhamphus is a rhinocryptid (see Note 4) and is the sister taxon to Liosceles, and that Merulaxis and Eleoscytalopus are sister taxa and they in turn are sisters to the group that includes Myornis, Eugralla, and Scytalopus. Ericson et al. (2010) also found that Pteroptochos and Scelorchilus belong in group “a” above. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Maurício et al.’s (2012) morphological analyses are generally consistent with the groupings in Ericson et al. (2010) but differ in the topology of the deeper branches. Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed that the family be divided into two subfamilies, Rhinocryptinae and Scytalopodinae, and this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed.

2. See Howell & Webb (1995) and Chesser (1999) for evidence for continued recognition of Pteroptochos castaneus and P. tarnii as separate species; they were considered conspecific by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990); they form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).

4. Psilorhamphus formerly had been placed by some in the Formicariidae (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Sick 1954), and Wetmore (1943) and Peters (1951) proposed that it belonged in the Sylviidae, but Plótnik (1958) morphological analysis indicated that it was a member of the Rhinocryptidae. Its position in the Rhinocryptidae has not been questioned since Sick (1960). Ericson et al. (2010) and Maurício et al. (2012) confirmed that it is a member of the Rhinocryptidae.

4a. SACC proposal passed to delete hyphen from English name "Bamboo-wren”.

4b. Merulaxis stresemanni and M. ater form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).

4c. Maurício et al. (2008) found that Scytalopus is paraphyletic with respect to Merulaxis, with S. indigoticus and S. psychopompus more closely related to Merulaxis than to other Scytalopus; they described a new genus, Eleoscytalopus, for indigoticus and psychopompus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Eleoscytalopus. See also Mata et al. (2009) and Maurício et al. (2012) for additional support for recognizing Eleoscytalopus.

4d. Eugralla has priority over Triptorhinus, the name used by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

5. Hilty & Brown (1986) considered Myornis not worthy of recognition in a monotypic genus, but see Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b), Ericson et al. (2010), Maurício et al. (2012) and Ohlson et al. (2013) for continued recognition.

6. Scytalopus latrans was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. unicolor; for treatment as a separate species from S. unicolor based on differences in voice, see Coopmans et al. (2001) and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

7. Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies subcinereus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Scytalopus latrans.

7a. Zimmer (1939) described the taxon intermedius as a subspecies of widespread, polytypic Scytalopus unicolor, which was subsequently shown to include multiple species, one of which was S. latrans, of which intermedius was then treated as a subspecies (see Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997, Coopmans et al. 2001). Schulenberg et al. (2007) described the song of intermedius as similar to that of Scytalopus macropus. Freeman and Montgomery (2017) found lack of playback response of Scytalopus latrans to songs of S. l. intermedius. Cadena et al. (2020) found that intermedius was actually the sister to Scytalopus macropus. SACC proposal passed to elevate intermedius to species rank.

7b. Hosner et al. (2013) described a new species (Scytalopus gettyae) of uncertain affinities. SACC proposal passed to recognize S. gettyae. Cadena et al. (2020) found that Scytalopus gettyae was part of the femoralis-latrans species group. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence in Scytalopus.

8. Formerly much more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and Coopmans et al. (2001).

9. Scytalopus parvirostris was described as (Zimmer 1939x), and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of, S. unicolor; for treatment as a separate species from S. unicolor based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

9a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) considered Scytalopus speluncae (broadly defined) and S. iraiensis to be sister species. Bornschein et al. (2007) found that the songs of these two species did not differ. Proposal needed to re-evaluate species rank of iraiensis. Maurício et al. (2014) described a new species, Scytalopus gonzagai, from Bahia. SACC proposal passed to recognize S. gonzagai as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to establish English name of S. gonzagai as Boa Nova Tapaculo. See also Maurício et al. (2015).

9b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Maurício (2005). Scytalopus pachecoi populations were formerly included in S. speluncae, but the two differ in voice and are locally sympatric Maurício (2005). SACC proposal passed to recognize S. pachecoi.

9c. Raposo et al. (2006) described a new species, S. notorius, most closely related to S. speluncae, and have redescribed S. speluncae. Raposo & Kirwan (2008) further defended their position on the type specimen of speluncae. Maurício et al. (2010) showed that notorius is a junior synonym of speluncae, but see Raposo et al. (2012); see Note 9e. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed Raposo & Kirwan (2008) and Raposo et al. (2012) in recognizing S. notorius, and called S. speluncae “Ménétries Tapaculo”.

9d. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Bornschein et al. (2007) and presumably most closely related to S. pachecoi. SACC proposal to recognize diamantinensis as a species passed.

9e. Whitney et al. (2010) described a new species, Scytalopus petrophilus, from Minas Gerais; they proposed that it was the sister species to S. diamantinensis. SACC proposal passed to recognize S. petrophilus. Whitney et al. (2010) also proposed that these two species and S. pachecoi formed a monophyletic group. Raposo et al. (2012) have argued that S. petrophilus is a junior synonym of S. speluncae. SACC proposal to synonymize petrophilus and to recognize S. notorius did not pass. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) recognized S. notorius.

10. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Bornschein et al. (1998).

10b. Zimmer (1939x) suspected that Scytalopus macropus was most closely related to his broadly defined Scytalopus unicolor based on structural proportions, bill shape, and plumage.

11. Scytalopus sanctaemartae was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

12. Scytalopus micropterus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997). [incorp? Arctander and Fjeldså 1994.]

13. Scytalopus femoralis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) much more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

14. Scytalopus atratus (with confusus and nigricans) was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

15. Scytalopus bolivianus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

16. Scytalopus panamensis was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951) more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) for treatment of South American vicinior as a separate species.

16a. Formerly known as “Pale-throated Tapaculo”. Called "Tacarcuna Tapaculo" in Ridgely & Gwynne (1989) and AOU (1998). SACC proposal passed to change to Tacarcuna Tapaculo.

17. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

17a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Cuervo et al. (2005). SACC proposal passed to recognize S. stilesi.

18. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

19. Called "El Oro Tapaculo" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

19a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Krabbe et al. (2005). Possibly most closely related to S. robbinsi and S. stilesi. Proposal passed to recognize S. rodriguezi. SACC proposal passed to change English name. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) used the English name in the original description: “Upper Magdalena Tapaculo”.

19b. A new species (Scytalopus alvarezlopezi) most closely related to S. robbinsi has been described by Stiles et al. (2017). SACC proposal passed to recognize S. alvarezlopezi.

20. Scytalopus vicinior was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970<?>) considered conspecific with S. panamensis; for treatment as a separate species from S. panamensis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); see also Wetmore (1972).

21. Scytalopus meridanus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. latebricola; for treatment as a separate species from S. latebricola based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

21. Avendaño et al. (2015) described a new species (Scytalopus perijanus) from the Perijá Mountains that is most closely related to the meridanus-caracae-latebricola group. SACC proposal passed for recognition of Scytalopus perijanus as a species-level taxon.

22. Scytalopus caracae was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. latebricola; for treatment as a separate species from S. latebricola based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

23. Scytalopus spillmanni was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. latebricola; for treatment as a separate species from S. latebricola based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

23a. Scytalopus spillmanni and S. parkeri form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).

24. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

25. Scytalopus novacapitalis was originally considered closely related to E. indigoticus (Sick 1960<check>). Genetic data (Mata et al. 2009) indicate that S. novacapitalis and S. pachecoi are sisters, with S. iraiensis and S. speluncae successively more distantly related in a clade composed of Brazilian Scytalopus. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence in Scytalopus.

26. Eleoscytalopus indigoticus and E. psychopompus are sister species (Mata et al. 2009). The latter may be only a subspecies of E. indigoticus (Vuilleumier et al. 1992, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b). Mata et al. (2009) argued for species rank based on genetic distance, as did de Moraes et al. (2018) based on vocal and morphological characters.

26a. Zimmer (1939x) suspected that Scytalopus indigoticus is most closely related to his broadly defined S. latebricola, but see Note 4.

26b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Teixeira & Carnevalli (1989). <<need to elaborate on initial controversy>>

27. Scytalopus magellanicus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) much more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

28. Scytalopus griseicollis was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

28a. The subspecies infasciatus was treated as a separate species from Scytalopus griseicollis by Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997), but see Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) and Donegan & Avendaño (2008). SACC proposal to recognize infasciatus as a separate species did not pass.

28b. "Matorral Tapaculo" was proposed as an English name for S. griseicollis by Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and was used by Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003) and Restall et al. (2006). "Rufous-rumped Tapaculo" was used by Hilty (2003) and Gill & Wright (2006). "Pale-bellied Tapaculo" was used by Asociación Bogotana de Ornitología (2000) and Donegan & Avendaño (2008). "Colombian Tapaculo" has previously been used for S. infasciatus (e.g. Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997) but "Cundinamarca Tapaculo" was used by Gill & Wright (2006) for S. infasciatus. SACC proposal passed to change English name from Matorral Tapaculo to Pale-bellied Tapaculo.

29. The subspecies fuscicauda was formerly considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or of S. griseicollis (Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997, Hilty 2003); for treatment as a separate species, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) although they stated that S. fuscicauda may be conspecific or even a synonym of S. meridanus. Donegan & Avendaño (2008) presented vocal and morphological evidence for treatment of S. fuscicauda as, at best, a subspecies of S. meridanus. SACC proposal passed to treat fuscicauda as conspecific with S. meridanus.

30. Scytalopus altirostris was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

30a. A new species, Scytalopus frankeae, sister to S. altirostris (Cadena et al. 2020), was described by Rosenberg et al. in Krabbe et al. (2020). SACC proposal passed to recognize Scytalopus frankeae.

31. Scytalopus affinis was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

31a. A new species, Scytalopus krabbei, sister to S. affinis (Cadena et al. 2020), was described by Schulenberg et al. in Krabbe et al. (2020). SACC proposal passed to recognize Scytalopus krabbei.

32. Scytalopus acutirostris was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

33. Scytalopus urubambae was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

33a. A new species, Scytalopus whitneyi, sister to S. urubambae (Cadena et al. 2020), was described by Krabbe, Fjeldså, Hosner, Robbins, and Andersen in Krabbe et al. (2020). SACC proposal passed to recognize Scytalopus whitneyi.

34. Scytalopus simonsi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus, or a synonym of S. acutirostris (Zimmer 1939x); for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

34a. Two vocally distinct populations separated by the La Paz river canyon have been identified, the northern one representing an undescribed species (Areta & Monteleone 2023).

35. Scytalopus zimmeri was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

35a. Scytalopus zimmeri and S. superciliaris form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).

36. Scytalopus superciliaris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for evidence for continued treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).

37. Scytalopus fuscus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; however, not only do they differ vocally but also they are sympatric in central Chile (Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997, 2003b); S. fuscus had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

38. Scytalopus canus (with opacus) was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus or of S. unicolor (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924); for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997). Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) noted that further research may show that opacus also deserves species rank. Krabbe and Cadena (2010) showed that the voice of opacus differs strongly from that of canus and recommended that opacus be ranked as a species. SACC proposal passed to treat opacus as a separate species. For rationale for the English names for the two species, see Krabbe and Cadena (2010). Krabbe et al. (2020) provided rationale for treating the subspecies androstictus as a separate species from S. opacus, of which it has been described as a subspecies by Krabbe and Cadena (2010). SACC proposal passed to treat androstictus as a separate species.

39b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Whitney (1994).

FORMICARIIDAE (ANTTHRUSHES) 1

Formicarius colma Rufous-capped Antthrush 1a

Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush 1b

Formicarius rufifrons Rufous-fronted Antthrush

Formicarius nigricapillus Black-headed Antthrush

Formicarius rufipectus Rufous-breasted Antthrush

Chamaeza campanisona Short-tailed Antthrush 1c, 1d

Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush 2, 2a

Chamaeza meruloides Such's Antthrush 3

Chamaeza turdina Schwartz's Antthrush 4, 4a

Chamaeza ruficauda Rufous-tailed Antthrush 4, 4aa

Chamaeza mollissima Barred Antthrush

1. This family is separated from the Thamnophilidae following Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Harshman (1994), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), AOU (1998), and Zimmer & Isler (2003). Genetic data (Chesser 2004, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that it is more closely related to the Rhinocryptidae + Furnariidae than to the Thamnophilidae. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004, Rice 2005b, Moyle et al. 2009) also indicate that the Formicariidae itself, as originally constituted, is not monophyletic: Formicarius, the type genus for the family, and Chamaeza are more closely related to the Furnariidae and Rhinocryptidae than to a group that includes Grallaria, Grallaricula, and Myrmothera. Genetic data (Rice 2005a, b, Moyle et al. 2009) also indicate that Pittasoma is more closely related to the Conopophagidae than to the Grallaria group. SACC proposal passed to create new family for Grallaria group and to transfer Pittasoma to Conopophagidae. Within the Grallariidae, genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Grallaricula (as represented by G. nana) is the sister to Hylopezus + Myrmothera; this is consistent with the current linear sequence.

1a. The ruficeps subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Formicarius colma, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951) and subsequent authors.

1b. Formicarius analis may include two or three taxa that deserve recognition as separate species (Howell 1994, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a); Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) treated the northern subspecies group as a separate species, F. moniliger, and this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). Proposal needed. <<recycle NACC proposal>>

1c. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that Chamaeza campanisona might consist of up to four separate species.

1d. Chamaeza campanisona was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937) known as C. brevicauda, but see Peters (1951).

1e. SACC proposal to change English names of species in Formicarius and Chamaeza to "Ant-thrush" did not pass.

2. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that the southeastern subspecies fulvipectus deserves recognition as a separate species from Chamaeza nobilis.

2a. Called "Noble Antthrush" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994), but Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) reverted to "Striated Antthrush."

3. Chamaeza meruloides was formerly overlooked as a separate species from C. ruficauda and C. turdina, but see Willis (1992) for evidence for treating it as a separate species and for assigning the name meruloides to it.

3a. Called "Cryptic Antthrush" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a). SACC proposal to change to "Cryptic Antthrush" did not pass.

4. Chamaeza turdina was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with C. ruficauda, but see Willis (1992).

4a. Called "Scalloped Antthrush" in Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change to "Scalloped Antthrush" did not pass.

4aa. Called "Brazilian Antthrush" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Sick (1993), and Clements (2000). SACC proposal to change to "Brazilian Antthrush" did not pass.

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)