A classification of the bird species of South America. Part 7

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). Recent genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2003, Chesser 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) 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.

__________________________________________________

FURNARIIDAE (OVENBIRDS) 1

Sclerurinae

Sclerurus obscurior South American Leaftosser 1a, 1b, 1c

Sclerurus rufigularis Short-billed Leaftosser

Sclerurus guatemalensis Scaly-throated Leaftosser 1d

Sclerurus caudacutus Black-tailed Leaftosser 1d

Sclerurus albigularis Gray-throated Leaftosser 1e

Sclerurus scansor Rufous-breasted Leaftosser 1e

Geositta peruviana Coastal Miner 3b, 3bb

Geositta tenuirostris Slender-billed Miner 4

Geositta cunicularia Common Miner 3, 3a

Geositta punensis Puna Miner 3c

Geositta poeciloptera Campo Miner 1a, 2, 2a

Geositta crassirostris Thick-billed Miner

Geositta rufipennis Rufous-banded Miner 3c, 4a

Geositta maritima Grayish Miner 3b

Geositta antarctica Short-billed Miner 3a

Geositta saxicolina Dark-winged Miner

Geositta isabellina Creamy-rumped Miner

Dendrocolaptinae 105

Certhiasomus stictolaemus Spot-throated Woodcreeper 109, 110, 110a

Sittasomus griseicapillus Olivaceous Woodcreeper 111

Deconychura longicauda Long-tailed Woodcreeper 109, 110a

Dendrocincla tyrannina Tyrannine Woodcreeper 105a

Dendrocincla merula White-chinned Woodcreeper 108

Dendrocincla homochroa Ruddy Woodcreeper

Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain-brown Woodcreeper 106, 107

Dendrocincla turdina Plain-winged Woodcreeper 106, 107

Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper 112, 113, 114

Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper 116, 117

Nasica longirostris Long-billed Woodcreeper

Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae Northern Barred-Woodcreeper 123, 124

Dendrocolaptes certhia Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper 123, 125, 125a

Dendrocolaptes picumnus Black-banded Woodcreeper 126, 127

Dendrocolaptes hoffmannsi Hoffmanns's Woodcreeper 126

Dendrocolaptes platyrostris Planalto Woodcreeper 126, 126a

Hylexetastes stresemanni Bar-bellied Woodcreeper 118

Hylexetastes perrotii Red-billed Woodcreeper 118

Hylexetastes uniformis Uniform Woodcreeper 118

Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus Strong-billed Woodcreeper 119, 120

Xiphocolaptes falcirostris Moustached Woodcreeper 119, 121

Xiphocolaptes albicollis White-throated Woodcreeper 119, 122

Xiphocolaptes major Great Rufous Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus obsoletus Striped Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus atlanticus Ceara Woodcreeper 131, 131a

Xiphorhynchus fuscus Lesser Woodcreeper 131, 131a

Xiphorhynchus pardalotus Chestnut-rumped Woodcreeper 134

Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper 132, 134

Xiphorhynchus elegans Elegant Woodcreeper 133, 134

Xiphorhynchus spixii Spix's Woodcreeper 133, 134

Xiphorhynchus susurrans Cocoa Woodcreeper 135

Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper 135

Xiphorhynchus lachrymosus Black-striped Woodcreeper

Xiphorhynchus erythropygius Spotted Woodcreeper 136

Xiphorhynchus triangularis Olive-backed Woodcreeper 136

Dendroplex picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper 128, 129

Dendroplex kienerii Zimmer's Woodcreeper 128, 130

Campylorhamphus trochilirostris Red-billed Scythebill 142, 142a

Campylorhamphus falcularius Black-billed Scythebill 142

Campylorhamphus procurvoides Curve-billed Scythebill 143, 143a

Campylorhamphus pusillus Brown-billed Scythebill 144

Drymotoxeres pucheranii Greater Scythebill 140, 141

Drymornis bridgesii Scimitar-billed Woodcreeper 115

Lepidocolaptes souleyetii Streak-headed Woodcreeper

Lepidocolaptes angustirostris Narrow-billed Woodcreeper

Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger Montane Woodcreeper 137

Lepidocolaptes squamatus Scaled Woodcreeper

Lepidocolaptes falcinellus Scalloped Woodcreeper 138

Lepidocolaptes duidae Duida Woodcreeper 139

Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Guianan Woodcreeper 139

Lepidocolaptes fatimalimae Inambari Woodcreeper 139

Lepidocolaptes fuscicapillus Dusky-capped Woodcreeper 139

Furnariinae 101

Xenops tenuirostris Slender-billed Xenops

Xenops minutus Plain Xenops 102b

Xenops rutilans Streaked Xenops 102c

Berlepschia rikeri Point-tailed Palmcreeper

Microxenops milleri Rufous-tailed Xenops 102, 102a

Pygarrhichas albogularis White-throated Treerunner 104

Ochetorhynchus andaecola Rock Earthcreeper 5a

Ochetorhynchus ruficaudus Straight-billed Earthcreeper 5a, 6

Ochetorhynchus phoenicurus Band-tailed Earthcreeper 5a, 9, 9a, 9b

Ochetorhynchus melanurus Crag Chilia 7, 9, 9c

Pseudocolaptes johnsoni Pacific Tuftedcheek 78a, 81, 81a, 81b

Pseudocolaptes boissonneautii Streaked Tuftedcheek 81, 81c

Premnornis guttuliger Rusty-winged Barbtail 78a, 78b

Tarphonomus harterti Bolivian Earthcreeper 7, 8

Tarphonomus certhioides Chaco Earthcreeper 7, 8

Furnarius figulus Wing-banded Hornero 16, 16a

Furnarius leucopus Pale-legged Hornero 17, 18

Furnarius torridus Pale-billed Hornero 18, 18a

Furnarius minor Lesser Hornero

Furnarius rufus Rufous Hornero

Furnarius cristatus Crested Hornero

Lochmias nematura Sharp-tailed Streamcreeper 100, 100a, 100b

Phleocryptes melanops Wren-like Rushbird 19

Limnornis curvirostris Curve-billed Reedhaunter 19

Geocerthia serrana Striated Earthcreeper 5a

Upucerthia saturatior Patagonian Forest Earthcreeper 4b

Upucerthia dumetaria Scale-throated Earthcreeper 4b

Upucerthia albigula White-throated Earthcreeper

Upucerthia validirostris Buff-breasted Earthcreeper 5

Cinclodes pabsti Long-tailed Cinclodes 13, 13a, 13b

Cinclodes fuscus Buff-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b, 14c

Cinclodes antarcticus Blackish Cinclodes 10a, 15b

Cinclodes comechingonus Cordoba Cinclodes 12, 13a

Cinclodes albidiventris Chestnut-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b

Cinclodes olrogi Olrog's Cinclodes 14, 14a

Cinclodes albiventris Cream-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b

Cinclodes oustaleti Gray-flanked Cinclodes 14a, 14d

Cinclodes excelsior Stout-billed Cinclodes 10, 10a, 10b

Cinclodes aricomae Royal Cinclodes 10a, 10b, 11

Cinclodes palliatus White-bellied Cinclodes 15c

Cinclodes atacamensis White-winged Cinclodes 15c

Cinclodes patagonicus Dark-bellied Cinclodes 15b

Cinclodes taczanowskii Surf Cinclodes 15, 15a

Cinclodes nigrofumosus Seaside Cinclodes 15, 15a

Anabazenops dorsalis Dusky-cheeked Foliage-gleaner 92c, 93, 93a

Anabazenops fuscus White-collared Foliage-gleaner

Megaxenops parnaguae Great Xenops 103

Cichlocolaptes leucophrus Pale-browed Treehunter 93b, 93bb

Heliobletus contaminatus Sharp-billed Treehunter 101a

Philydor fuscipenne Slaty-winged Foliage-gleaner 90, 91, 90aaa

Philydor erythrocercum Rufous-rumped Foliage-gleaner 90, 90a, 90bb

Philydor novaesi Alagoas Foliage-gleaner (EX) 90c, 90d

Philydor atricapillus Black-capped Foliage-gleaner 90d

Philydor pyrrhodes Cinnamon-rumped Foliage-gleaner 90b

Anabacerthia striaticollis Montane Foliage-gleaner 82a, 82aa, 82b

Anabacerthia variegaticeps Scaly-throated Foliage-gleaner 82, 82a, 82aa, 83, 83a, 85a

Anabacerthia ruficaudata Rufous-tailed Foliage-gleaner 82a, 85a

Anabacerthia amaurotis White-browed Foliage-gleaner 82a

Anabacerthia lichtensteini Ochre-breasted Foliage-gleaner 82a

Syndactyla rufosuperciliata Buff-browed Foliage-gleaner

Syndactyla dimidiata Russet-mantled Foliage-gleaner 90, 90b, 92, 92a, 92b

Syndactyla roraimae White-throated Foliage-gleaner 97a, 97b, 97c

Syndactyla subalaris Lineated Foliage-gleaner 85, 85a

Syndactyla ruficollis Rufous-necked Foliage-gleaner 86

Syndactyla guttulata Guttulate Foliage-gleaner 84, 85, 85aa

Syndactyla ucayalae Peruvian Recurvebill 87, 87a, 87b

Syndactyla striata Bolivian Recurvebill 87, 87a

Ancistrops strigilatus Chestnut-winged Hookbill 88

Dendroma rufa Buff-fronted Foliage-gleaner 88, 90

Dendroma erythroptera Chestnut-winged Foliage-gleaner 88, 90

Clibanornis rectirostris Chestnut-capped Foliage-gleaner 98, 99a

Clibanornis dendrocolaptoides Canebrake Groundcreeper 75, 82

Clibanornis erythrocephalus Henna-hooded Foliage-gleaner 98

Clibanornis rubiginosus Ruddy Foliage-gleaner 97d

Clibanornis rufipectus Santa Marta Foliage-gleaner 97d

Thripadectes ignobilis Uniform Treehunter 85a, 94

Thripadectes flammulatus Flammulated Treehunter 94a

Thripadectes scrutator Rufous-backed Treehunter 94, 95

Thripadectes holostictus Striped Treehunter

Thripadectes virgaticeps Streak-capped Treehunter

Thripadectes melanorhynchus Black-billed Treehunter

Automolus rufipileatus Chestnut-crowned Foliage-gleaner

Automolus melanopezus Brown-rumped Foliage-gleaner

Automolus ochrolaemus Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner 85a

Automolus subulatus Striped Woodhaunter 85a, 89, 89a, 89b

Automolus infuscatus Olive-backed Foliage-gleaner 96, 96a

Automolus paraensis Para Foliage-gleaner 96, 96a

Automolus lammi Pernambuco Foliage-gleaner 96a, 96b

Automolus leucophthalmus White-eyed Foliage-gleaner 96a, 96b

Premnoplex brunnescens Spotted Barbtail 77, 78a

Premnoplex tatei White-throated Barbtail 77, 78a

Margarornis stellatus Fulvous-dotted Treerunner 79

Margarornis squamiger Pearled Treerunner 79a

Aphrastura spinicauda Thorn-tailed Rayadito 19a

Aphrastura masafuerae Masafuera Rayadito 19aa

Sylviorthorhynchus desmursii Des Murs's Wiretail 22c, 22d

Sylviorthorhynchus yanacensis Tawny Tit-Spinetail 19b, 22c

Leptasthenura fuliginiceps Brown-capped Tit-Spinetail 19a

Leptasthenura platensis Tufted Tit-Spinetail 19b, 19c, 22

Leptasthenura aegithaloides Plain-mantled Tit-Spinetail 19c, 19e

Leptasthenura striolata Striolated Tit-Spinetail 22

Leptasthenura pileata Rusty-crowned Tit-Spinetail 20

Leptasthenura xenothorax White-browed Tit-Spinetail 20

Leptasthenura striata Streaked Tit-Spinetail 21, 21a

Leptasthenura andicola Andean Tit-Spinetail

Leptasthenura setaria Araucaria Tit-Spinetail 19d, 22

Phacellodomus rufifrons Rufous-fronted Thornbird 72, 72a, 72b

Phacellodomus striaticeps Streak-fronted Thornbird

Phacellodomus sibilatrix Little Thornbird 72b

Phacellodomus dorsalis Chestnut-backed Thornbird

Phacellodomus maculipectus Spot-breasted Thornbird 73

Phacellodomus striaticollis Freckle-breasted Thornbird 73

Phacellodomus ruber Greater Thornbird

Phacellodomus erythrophthalmus Orange-eyed Thornbird 74, 74a

Phacellodomus ferrugineigula Orange-breasted Thornbird 74, 74a

Hellmayrea gularis White-browed Spinetail 47

Anumbius annumbi Firewood-gatherer 74b

Coryphistera alaudina Lark-like Brushrunner 74b

Asthenes dorbignyi Creamy-breasted Canastero 67, 68

Asthenes berlepschi Berlepsch's Canastero 67, 69

Asthenes baeri Short-billed Canastero 66a, 67

Asthenes luizae Cipo Canastero 71

Asthenes hudsoni Hudson's Canastero 63

Asthenes anthoides Austral Canastero 63

Asthenes urubambensis Line-fronted Canastero

Asthenes flammulata Many-striped Canastero 65

Asthenes virgata Junin Canastero 65

Asthenes maculicauda Scribble-tailed Canastero 65

Asthenes wyatti Streak-backed Canastero 63

Asthenes sclateri Puna Canastero 63, 64

Asthenes humilis Streak-throated Canastero

Asthenes modesta Cordilleran Canastero 62

Asthenes moreirae Itatiaia Spinetail 27

Asthenes pyrrholeuca Sharp-billed Canastero 66, 66a

Asthenes harterti Black-throated Thistletail 24

Asthenes helleri Puna Thistletail 24

Asthenes ayacuchensis Ayacucho Thistletail 24, 26, 26a

Asthenes vilcabambae Vilcabamba Thistletail 24, 26

Asthenes pudibunda Canyon Canastero 61, 61a

Asthenes ottonis Rusty-fronted Canastero 61a

Asthenes heterura Maquis Canastero 61a

Asthenes palpebralis Eye-ringed Thistletail 24

Asthenes coryi Ochre-browed Thistletail 24

Asthenes perijana Perija Thistletail 23, 24

Asthenes fuliginosa White-chinned Thistletail 24, 25

Asthenes griseomurina Mouse-colored Thistletail 24

Acrobatornis fonsecai Pink-legged Graveteiro 75a, 76

Metopothrix aurantiaca Orange-fronted Plushcrown 75a, 75b

Xenerpestes minlosi Double-banded Graytail 75a, 75a, 76b, 76c

Xenerpestes singularis Equatorial Graytail 76b

Siptornis striaticollis Spectacled Prickletail 74c

Roraimia adusta Roraiman Barbtail 78c

Thripophaga macroura Striated Softtail 59, 59a

Thripophaga cherriei Orinoco Softtail

Thripophaga amacurensis Delta Amacuro Softtail 60

Thripophaga fusciceps Plain Softtail

Thripophaga berlepschi Russet-mantled Softtail 50

Limnoctites rectirostris Straight-billed Reedhaunter 19

Limnoctites sulphuriferus Sulphur-bearded Reedhaunter 19

Cranioleuca marcapatae Marcapata Spinetail 48, 49

Cranioleuca albiceps Light-crowned Spinetail 49

Cranioleuca vulpina Rusty-backed Spinetail 49b, 50

Cranioleuca vulpecula Parker's Spinetail 50

Cranioleuca subcristata Crested Spinetail 54

Cranioleuca pyrrhophia Stripe-crowned Spinetail 51

Cranioleuca henricae Bolivian Spinetail 51, 52

Cranioleuca obsoleta Olive Spinetail 51, 53

Cranioleuca pallida Pallid Spinetail

Cranioleuca semicinerea Gray-headed Spinetail 54

Cranioleuca albicapilla Creamy-crested Spinetail

Cranioleuca erythrops Red-faced Spinetail

Cranioleuca demissa Tepui Spinetail 54

Cranioleuca hellmayri Streak-capped Spinetail 54

Cranioleuca curtata Ash-browed Spinetail 54a, 55

Cranioleuca antisiensis Line-cheeked Spinetail 51, 56

Cranioleuca gutturata Speckled Spinetail 19, 56a

Cranioleuca muelleri Scaled Spinetail 50

Pseudasthenes humicola Dusky-tailed Canastero 61, 67

Pseudasthenes patagonica Patagonian Canastero 61, 67

Pseudasthenes steinbachi Steinbach's Canastero 61, 67, 70

Pseudasthenes cactorum Cactus Canastero 61, 62

Spartonoica maluroides Bay-capped Wren-Spinetail 22a, 22b

Pseudoseisura cristata Caatinga Cacholote 22a, 80

Pseudoseisura unirufa Rufous Cacholote 80

Pseudoseisura lophotes Brown Cacholote

Pseudoseisura gutturalis White-throated Cacholote

Certhiaxis cinnamomeus Yellow-chinned Spinetail 48, 57, 58a

Certhiaxis mustelinus Red-and-white Spinetail 48, 57

Mazaria propinqua White-bellied Spinetail 28

Schoeniophylax phryganophilus Chotoy Spinetail 28, 28b

Synallaxis scutata Ochre-cheeked Spinetail 43

Synallaxis cinerascens Gray-bellied Spinetail 43

Synallaxis gujanensis Plain-crowned Spinetail 41

Synallaxis albilora White-lored Spinetail 41, 42

Synallaxis maranonica Marañon Spinetail 41

Synallaxis hypochondriaca Great Spinetail 45, 44

Synallaxis stictothorax Necklaced Spinetail 44, 44a

Synallaxis chinchipensis Chinchipe Spinetail 44, 44a

Synallaxis zimmeri Russet-bellied Spinetail 44

Synallaxis brachyura Slaty Spinetail

Synallaxis subpudica Silvery-throated Spinetail

Synallaxis hellmayri Red-shouldered Spinetail 46

Synallaxis ruficapilla Rufous-capped Spinetail 29

Synallaxis cinerea Bahia Spinetail 29, 30

Synallaxis infuscata Pinto's Spinetail 29

Synallaxis moesta Dusky Spinetail 39, 38

Synallaxis macconnelli McConnell's Spinetail 39, 40

Synallaxis cabanisi Cabanis's Spinetail 39

Synallaxis hypospodia Cinereous-breasted Spinetail 36

Synallaxis spixi Spix's Spinetail 35

Synallaxis albigularis Dark-breasted Spinetail 34a, 34b

Synallaxis beverlyae Rio Orinoco Spinetail 34b

Synallaxis albescens Pale-breasted Spinetail 34a

Synallaxis frontalis Sooty-fronted Spinetail 32

Synallaxis azarae Azara's Spinetail 33

Synallaxis courseni Apurimac Spinetail 34

Synallaxis candei White-whiskered Spinetail 43

Synallaxis kollari Hoary-throated Spinetail 43

Synallaxis tithys Blackish-headed Spinetail

Synallaxis fuscorufa Rusty-headed Spinetail 37

Synallaxis unirufa Rufous Spinetail 37

Synallaxis castanea Black-throated Spinetail 37

Synallaxis cinnamomea Stripe-breasted Spinetail

Synallaxis rutilans Ruddy Spinetail

Synallaxis cherriei Chestnut-throated Spinetail

1. This classification treats the woodcreepers (formerly Dendrocolaptidae) and the ovenbirds (Furnariidae) as members of a single family. Whether the two groups are sister taxa has never seriously been questioned (see Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Marantz et al. 2003, Remsen 2003). Historically, the controversy centered around the taxonomic ranking of the two groups, with some authors treating them as subfamilies of the same family, whereas others treated them each as separate families. Feduccia (1973) proposed that the woodcreepers were embedded within the Furnariidae, thus making that family paraphyletic. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a, Fjeldså et al. 2005, Moyle et al. 2009) strongly support the latter, with the genera Geositta and Sclerurus basal to all other ovenbirds plus woodcreepers. SACC proposal passed to merge Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae into single family without subfamily rankings. If family or subfamily ranks are retained within this group, then a third group, Geositta plus Sclerurus, must also be accorded taxonomic rank; the linear sequence here simply places the woodcreepers at the end. SACC proposal passed to add subfamily ranks. An alternative classification would be to recognize all three major groups as families, i.e., Scleruridae, Furnariidae, and Dendrocolaptidae, as in Moyle et al. (2009) and Ohlson et al. (2013). A gene-based phylogeny of the Furnariidae (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicates that a major rearrangement of the linear sequence of genera is required to reflect phylogenetic data. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

1a. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a, Moyle et al. 2009, (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that Geositta and Sclerurus are sister genera that are basal to other Furnariidae (including dendrocolaptids). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

1b. Species in the genus Sclerurus were formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) known as "Leaf-scrapers."

1c. D’Horta et al. (2013) found that Sclerurus mexicanus consists of at least two species, the Middle American mexicanus group (including subspecies pullus), which is the sister to S. rufigularis, and the remaining species from E. Panama and South America. D’Horta et al. (2013) additionally found evidence that at least four of the five South American subspecies should be treated as separate species due to strong genetic divergence despite apparent parapatry. SACC proposal did not pass. Cooper and Cuervo (2017) provided data on vocal differences that suggest Sclerurus mexicanus consists of multiple species. SACC proposal passed to split Middle American mexicanus and pullus groups from all South American subspecies, grouped under the name Sclerurus obscurior. SACC proposal passed on English names of S. mexicanus and S. obscurior.

1d. D’Horta et al. (2013) confirmed the traditional view that Sclerurus guatemalensis and S. caudacutus are sister species.

1e. D’Horta et al. (2013) confirmed the view (Remsen 2003) that Sclerurus albigularis and S. scansor are sister species; they may not, however, be reciprocally monophyletic with respect to neutral loci.

2. Vaurie (1980) proposed that Geositta consisted of three major groups based on bill shape and distribution. Cheviron et al. (2005) found that none of these groups is monophyletic, but that within the genus, there are two main groups: (1) cunicularia + tenuirostris + peruviana, and (2) all other species. Within the second group, Cheviron et al. (2005) found strong support for two groups: (3) antarctica + isabellina + saxicolina + maritima, and (4) punensis + rufipennis + poeciloptera + crassirostris. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of species. Additional genetic data with broader sampling of loci (Derryberry et al. 2011) found that punensis is actually sister to cunicularia and belongs in group 1. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

2a. Geositta poeciloptera was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in the monotypic genus Geobates, but see Vaurie (1980) and Remsen (2003). Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that poeciloptera is embedded within Geositta.

3. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that vocal differences between lowland nominate cunicularia and Andean subspecies indicate that at least two species are involved in Geositta cunicularia. Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) also suggest that more than one species is involved.

3a. Vaurie (1980) tentatively considered Geositta maritima and G. peruviana to be sister species because of their lowland distribution, small size, and plumage similarities, but he also suspected that these similarities might be due to convergence. Cheviron et al. (2005) and Derryberry et al. (2011) corroborated the convergence hypothesis; these two species belong in different clades within the genus.

3b. Geositta cunicularia and G. antarctica have been considered to be closely related because of their similarity in plumage (Vaurie 1980, Vuilleumier 1991), but genetic data indicate that they are only distantly related within the genus (Cheviron et al. 2005, Derryberry et al. 2011).

3bb. [Geositta peruviana vs. paytae; ICZN (1978)].

3c. Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) indicate that Geositta punensis and G. rufipennis are sister species, but Derryberry et al. (2011) with broader genetic sampling found that G. punensis was the sister to G. cunicularia.

4. Geositta tenuirostris is traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed near the end of the linear sequence of species in the genus because of its unusually long and decurved bill. However, bill curvature and length are notoriously labile characters; the plumage pattern of tenuirostris suggests a close relationship to G. cunicularia (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that G. tenuirostris and G. cunicularia are closely related.

4a. Geositta rufipennis may consist of more than one species (Jaramillo 2003, Remsen 2003).

4b. Esteban (1951) provided rationale for considering the taxon saturatior a separate species from Upucerthia dumetaria, but subsequent authors did not follow this suggestion. Areta and Pearman (2009), however, provided evidence of parapatry without intergradation as well as documented differences in song, bare parts colors, morphology, plumage, habitat, and migratory patterns that validate Esteban’s (1951) original assessment. SACC proposal passed to elevate saturatior to species rank.

5. Although the jelskii subspecies group has been considered separate species from U. validirostris in most recent classifications (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Sibley & Monroe 1990), evidence for their treatment as such is weak (Remsen 2003). Earlier classifications treated them as conspecific (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951). A report of sympatry in southern Bolivia (Cabot 1990) is based on a misidentification (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa but weakly differentiated (Derryberry et al. 2011). Areta & Pearman (2009, 2013) found no differences in their voices. Areta & Pearman (2013) proposed that they be treated as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to treat them as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to use the English name “Buff-breasted Earthcreeper” for broadly defined U. validirostris.

5a. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Upucerthia serrana and U. andaecola were sister species, based on plumage and voice, and that they formed a monophyletic group with U. ruficaudus and Eremobius phoenicurus, despite the unusual nest of the latter that has led in part to its placement in a monotypic genus. However, Chesser et al. (2007) and Fjeldså et al. (2007) found that serrana is not closely related to andaecola, or to other species currently placed in Upucerthia. See also Notes 7 and 9. Chesser et al. (2009) described a new genus, Geocerthia, for serrana. SACC proposal passed to recognize Geocerthia. Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this finding.

6. Correct spelling for species name is ruficaudus, not ruficauda (David & Gosselin 2002a).

7. The genus Ochetorhynchus was used for U. harterti and U. certhioides by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) to recognize the distinctiveness of these two species from other Upucerthia (especially with respect to nest type); however, the type species of Ochetorhynchus is ruficaudus, making that name unavailable for harterti + certhioides unless ruficaudus is also included (Remsen 2003). Peters (1951) treated those three species in Ochetorhynchus. The genus Upucerthia is highly polyphyletic (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009), with (a) harterti and certhioides in a group with Pseudocolaptes and Premnornis, (b) andaecola and ruficaudus in a group with Eremobius and Chilia [see Note 9], (c) serrana basal to a group that includes Cinclodes and the remaining Upucerthia (dumetaria, albigula, jelskii, and validirostris). Chesser and Brumfield (2007) named a new genus Tarphonomus for certhioides + harterti. SACC proposal passed to recognize Tarphonomus. Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this treatment.

8. Vaurie (1980) considered harterti and certhioides as conspecific, but see Kratter et al. (1993) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for maintaining as separate species until more data are available; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003) and are sister taxa (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007) but weakly differentiated (Derryberry et al. 2011).

9. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that Eremobius is probably more closely related to Upucerthia than to the genera near which often placed in linear sequences, but nest structure much more like synallaxine spinetails (Zyskowski and Prum 1989). Chesser et al. (2007) and Fjeldså et al. (2007) found that Eremobius is the sister taxon to U. ruficaudus. Chesser et al. (2007) further recommended that Ochetorhynchus be revived for ruficaudus and that Eremobius be merged into it, as well as Chilia. See also Notes 5a and 7. SACC proposal passed to reinstate Ochetorhynchus. Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this treatment, and also found that O. melanurus is the sister to O. ruficaudus + O. phoenicurus. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

9a. Eremobius phoenicurus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated in the genus Enicornis.

9b. Called "Band-tailed Eremobius" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

10. Chesser’s (2004a) phylogeny indicates that the traditional linear sequence within Cinclodes requires modification. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Derryberry et al. (2011) corroborated much of this but with an expanded sampling of loci found a slightly different pattern of relationships. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of species.

10a. Hellmayr's (1925) placed Cinclodes excelsior in Upucerthia, and Vaurie (1980) placed Cinclodes excelsior and C. aricomae in Geositta.

10b. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Cinclodes antarcticus is the sister taxon to C. excelsior and C. aricomae, based on plumage similarities. Genetic data, however, indicate that C. antarcticus and C. fuscus are sister species (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011).

11. Cinclodes aricomae is often considered conspecific with C. excelsior (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), and evidence for treating them as separate species (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Remsen 2003) is weak. SACC proposal needed.

12. Cinclodes comechingonus is considered by some (e.g., Mayr 1957<?>, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Navas & Bó 1987) to be a subspecies of (broadly defined) C. fuscus; sympatry is only during nonbreeding season; they were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Genetic data, however, indicate that C. fuscus and C. antarcticus are sister species, and that C. comechingonus is the sister to C. albiventris + C. olrogi + C. oustaleti (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011); therefore, treatment as a species-level taxon is strongly supported. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of species in Cinclodes. See also Note 14b.

13. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Sick (1969).

13a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cinclodes pabsti to form a superspecies with C. fuscus (broadly defined) and C. comechingonus. However, genetic data (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that C. pabsti is basal in the genus and not particularly closely related to any other Cinclodes species.

13b. Freitas et al. (2012) described a new species, Cinclodes espinhacensis, that is closely related to C. pabsti. SACC proposal to recognize espinhacensis at the species rank did not pass.

14. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Nores & Yzurieta (1979).

14a. Nores (1986) considered Cinclodes olrogi to be a subspecies of C. fuscus (broadly defined); others (Olrog 1979, Navas & Bó 1987, Vuilleumier & Mayr 1987, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001) considered it more likely to be closely related to C. oustaleti. Genetic data support the latter relationship (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011). See also Note 14b. SACC proposal to treat olrogi as a subspecies of C. oustaleti did not pass.

14b. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the albiventris group might warrant recognition as a separate species from Cinclodes fuscus. Unfortunately, Chesser's (2004a) sampling did not include populations of C. fuscus from the Andes north of Argentina. Sanín et al. (2009) sampled C. fuscus from throughout its range and found that it was polyphyletic, with various populations more closely related to C. olrogi, C. oustaleti, C. comechingonus, and C. antarcticus. SACC proposal passed to elevate the albiventris and albidiventris groups to species rank. Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this treatment. As for English names, Jaramillo (2003) proposed Cream-winged Cinclodes for C. albiventris and Buff-winged Cinclodes for C. fuscus, and Jaramillo (see proposal 415) proposed Chestnut-winged Cinclodes for C. albidiventris; these are used here tentatively until formal SACC action.

14c. López-Lanús (2019) described a new species of Cinclodes, C. lopezlanusorum, from the Nothofagus forest of Argentina. SACC proposal to recognize Cinclodes lopezlanusorum as a valid species did not pass.

14d. Called "Oustalet's Cinclodes" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

15. Cinclodes taczanowskii and C. nigrofumosus were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), although previously (e.g., Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) considered separate species; justification for treating them as separate species is weak (Remsen 2003); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003), and genetic data (Chesser 2004a) show that they are weakly differentiated sister taxa. SACC proposal to treat these two species as conspecific did not pass because of insufficient published data. Derryberry et al. (2011) found them to be barely differentiated in terms of loci sampled. SACC proposal needed.

15a. Called "Peruvian Seaside-Cinclodes" and "Chilean Seaside-Cinclodes" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English names did not pass.

15b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that Cinclodes antarcticus may be part of a superspecies with C. taczanowskii and C. nigrofumosus, but genetic data show that they are not closely related and that their maritime habits have evolved independently (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011), and that Cinclodes patagonicus is the sister species to C. taczanowskii + C. nigrofumosus.

15c. Chesser (2004a) showed that C. atacamensis and C. palliatus are sister species, consistent with their traditional classification, but with expanded genetic sampling, Derryberry et al. (2011) could not corroborate this with certainty.

16. Called "Band-tailed Hornero" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

17. The subspecies cinnamomeus of W. Ecuador and NW. Peru may deserve recognition as a separate species from F. leucopus (Ridgely & Tudor 1994) and was treated as such by Parker & Carr (1992) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). The subspecies longirostris was also treated as a separate species by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003). Although vocal and behavioral differences have been reported, no real analysis has been published to support these splits. SACC proposal to elevate cinnamomeus to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.

18. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) considered Furnarius torridus to be a subspecies of F. leucopus, and Vaurie (1973) considered F. torridus to be a color morph of F. leucopus. Zimmer (1936) presented evidence that torridus was a separate species, and this has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) found that F. torridus was sister to F. leucopus + F. figulus. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence of species.

18a. Called "Bay Hornero" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

19. Vaurie (1980) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Limnoctites into Limnornis; this was followed by Dickinson (2003), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). Olson et al. (2005) have shown that Limnornis and Limnoctites are not particularly closely related, with Limnoctites embedded within Cranioleuca, and with Limnornis closely related to Phleocryptes (see also Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009). However, taxon-sampling still so incomplete within the genus that although C. sulphurifera and Limnoctites are almost certainly sisters, their inclusion together in Cranioleuca is uncertain. SACC proposal to merge Limnoctites into Cranioleuca did not pass. Broader taxon-sampling (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirmed the sister relationship between Limnoctites and C. sulphurifera, and that this pair is sister to all other Cranioleuca except C. gutturata. SACC proposal passed to transfer sulphurifera to Limnoctites (thus requiring a change in the variable ending to sulphuriferus) and to change English name of Limnoctites sulphuriferus to “Sulphur-bearded Reedhaunter.”

19a. Vaurie (1980) and Fjeldså (1992) proposed that morphological similarities indicate that Aphrastura and Leptasthenura are sister genera, but genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) do not support this.

19aa. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) changed the spelling of the species name to “masafucrae”, a typographical error in the original description. Elliott (2020) noted that the original description did not explicitly mentioned the island’s name despite the clear intent of the name, so there is no case for the emendation to masafuerae. SACC proposal to change to masafucrae did not pass.

19b. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura fuliginiceps and L. yanacensis were sister species, based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences, but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that they were only distantly related. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura. <<wait Claramunt paper>>

19c. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura platensis and L. aegithaloides were sister species, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011), however, indicates that they are only distantly related, and that and L. aegithaloides is the sister to L. andicola. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura. <<wait Claramunt paper>>

19d. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Leptasthenura aegithaloides might consist of more than one species.

20. Leptasthenura xenothorax was considered a subspecies of L. pileata by Vaurie (1980); they are generally considered to be sister species (e.g., Fjeldså 1992) and form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011), however, indicates that they are only distantly related and that L. xenothorax is sister to all other Leptasthenura except L. yanacensis (see Note 22c). SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura. <<wait Claramunt paper>>

21. Called "Streak-backed Tit-Spinetail" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal needed.

21a. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura striata was the sister taxon to L. pileata/L. xenothorax, based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences, but this is refuted by genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011).

22. Leptasthenura setaria was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) treated in the monotypic genus Dendrophylax. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it was sister to L. striolata + L. platensis, the other two lowland taxa of that biogeographic region. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura. <<wait Claramunt paper>>

22a. Spartonoica was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) included in Asthenes. Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that it is the sister to Pseudoseisura. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

22b. Spartonoica was misspelled (as "Spartanoica") in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and elsewhere.

22c. Remsen (2003) noted that similarities in general morphology and tail structure suggested a possible relationship of Sylviorthorhynchus to Schizoeaca. However, genetic data (Gonzalez and Wink 2008, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate a close relationship to Leptasthenura, and Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Sylviorthorhynchus was the sister to L. yanacensis. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) transferred yanacensis to Sylviorthorhynchus. SACC proposal passed to transferred yanacensis to Sylviorthorhynchus.

22d. Species name changed to desmurii by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to change to desmurii did not pass. Elliott (2020) provided reasons why the original spelling desmurii cannot be emended.

23. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Phelps (1977).

24. Vaurie (1980) considered all Schizoeaca conspecific, but see Remsen (1981, 2003), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for maintaining traditional species limits, as, for example, in Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but Derryberry et al. (2010b, 2011) found that they do not form a monophyletic group and are highly polyphyletic with respect to Asthenes. SACC proposal passed to merge Schizoeaca and Oreophylax into Asthenes.

25. It seems likely that Schizoeaca fuliginosa is a paraphyletic species with respect to S. griseomurina, whose range interrupts the two northern subspecies, nominate fuliginosa and fumigata, and the two southern subspecies, peruviana and plengei (Remsen 2003).

26. Recently described (as subspecies of S. fuliginosa): Vaurie et al. (1972).

26a. Hosner et al. (2015a) provided rationale for treatment of the subspecies ayacuchensis as a separate species from Asthenes vilcabambae. SACC proposal passed to recognize Asthenes ayacuchensis as a separate species.

27. Asthenes moreirae is traditionally placed in the monotypic genus Oreophylax, but was included in Schizoeaca by Vaurie (1980) and Sibley & Monroe (1990); but see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Irestedt et al. (2006) confirmed that they are closely related and probably sister taxa, but broader taxon sampling (Derryberry et al. 2010b, 2011) found that they do not form a monophyletic group but are polyphyletic with respect to Asthenes. See Note 24.

28. Vaurie (1980) included Schoeniophylax in Synallaxis, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). Recent genetic data confirm that they are closely related and probably sister taxa (Irestedt et al. 2006). Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed this in part but found that Schoeniophylax and Synallaxis propinqua were sister taxa. Claramunt (2014) found that Schoeniophylax and Synallaxis propinqua were sister taxa and named a new genus, Mazaria, for propinqua. SACC proposal passed to recognize Mazaria for propinqua.

28b. Schoeniophylax is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is phryganophilus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

29. Synallaxis infuscata was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. ruficapilla, but see Vaurie (1980) and Pacheco & Gonzaga (1995) for evidence for treating as a separate species. Synallaxis ruficapilla, S. whitneyi/cinerea, and S. infuscata form a superspecies (Pacheco & Gonzaga 1995).

30. Synallaxis whitneyi/cinerea was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a junior synonym of S. ruficapilla. Pacheco and Gonzaga (1995) showed that this population merits species rank, which they named S. whitneyi. Whitney & Pacheco (2001) then showed that whitneyi was a synonym of cinerea. More recently, however, Stopiglia and Raposo (2006) proposed that whitneyi is indeed the correct name. SACC proposal passed to change back to S. whitneyi. For an opinion on this from Edward Dickinson, see: whitneyi. Bauernfeind et al. (2014), however, concluded that cinerea is the correct name. SACC proposal passed. Stopiglia et al. (2013) proposed that whitneyi (cinerea) was a synonym of S. ruficapilla. Proposal badly needed.

32. "Synallaxis poliophrys," was formerly treated as a species (e.g., e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but Vaurie (1971b) determined that it is a synonym of S. frontalis. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

33. The superciliosa subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Buff-browed Spinetail") from S. azarae, but see Remsen et al. (1988). Vaurie (1980) treated the elegantior subspecies group as a species separate from S. azarae, and this was followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990); see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for a return to the treatment of the elegantior group as conspecific with S. azarae.

34. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Blake (1971). Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990) noted that Synallaxis courseni is most closely related to S. azarae, as corroborated by Derryberry et al. (2011), and perhaps best considered a subspecies of S. azarae; it was originally thought to be closest to S. brachyura.

34a. Synallaxis albigularis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) considered conspecific with S. albescens, but see Chapman (1931) and Zimmer (1936b).

34b. Hilty and Ascanio (2009) described a new species, Synallaxis beverlyae, from Venezuela, whose vocalizations are closest to those of S. albigularis, S. hypospodia, and S. spixi, but most similar in plumage to S. albescens. SACC proposal passed to recognize S. beverlyae. Its placement in the linear sequence is tentative and represents the hypothesis that its closest relative is S. albigularis.

35. Synallaxis spixi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) known as "Chicli Spinetail," but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

36. Synallaxis hypospodia was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a subspecies of S. spixi, but see Zimmer (1936b).

37. Synallaxis castanea was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. unirufa, but see Vaurie and Schwartz (1972) for rationale for considering it a separate species; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990) that presumably also includes S. fuscorufa (Remsen 2003). Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed that S. castanea and S. unirufa are sister taxa.

38. The subspecies brunneicaudalis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Synallaxis moesta.

39. Synallaxis macconnelli was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1936b, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. cabanisi, but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating macconnelli as a separate species; Synallaxis macconnelli, S. cabanisi, and S. moesta form a superspecies. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that they are a monophyletic group.

40. English name often given incorrectly as "MacConnell's Spinetail"; it was named for F. V. McConnell.

41. Synallaxis maranonica and S. albilora were formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1936b, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. gujanensis, but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating them as separate species (as presaged by Meyer de Schauensee 1966). Cory & Hellmayr (1925) considered maranonica to be a separate species from S. gujanensis, but not albilora. These three taxa presumably constitute a superspecies, although Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded maranonica. The boundary between albilora and gujanensis, based on plumage, does not correspond to the boundary in vocal types (Remsen 2003). SACC proposal to treat albilora as conspecific with S. gujanensis did not pass. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that the three formed a monophyletic group.

42. Called "Ochre-breasted Spinetail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

43. The genus Poecilurus (for candei, kollari, and scutatus) was merged into Synallaxis by Vaurie (1980), and this merger has been followed by some (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Hilty 2003) but not others (Ridgely & Tudor 1994). Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) recognized Poecilurus for candei and kollari, but placed scutatus in Synallaxis. Synallaxis is feminine (N. David, pers. comm.), so scutatus becomes scutata. In terms of voice and plumage at least, P. scutatus is certainly well within the range of variation of Synallaxis, and the nests of P. candei are essentially identical to those of S. erythrothorax; there is no way to characterize Poecilurus as a genus other than as a composite of the plumage features of the component species, and it is not certain whether the three species form a monophyletic group (Remsen 2003). In fact, Derryberry et al. (2011) found that candei is the sister species to Middle American Synallaxis erythrothorax, with kollari the sister to that pair, and that scutata was only distantly related and was the sister species to S. cinerascens.

44. Synallaxis stictothorax has been proposed as being more closely related to Siptornopsis or Cranioleuca than to other Synallaxis; see Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Remsen (2003). In fact, Vaurie (1980) merged Siptornopsis into Cranioleuca. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that S. stictothorax was actually the sister species to S. zimmeri, with Siptornopsis the sister to this pair. SACC proposal passed to merge Siptornopsis into Synallaxis. Claramunt (2014) confirmed the placement stictothorax and hypochondriaca in Synallaxis.

44a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered the upper Marañon population chinchipensis as a separate species, but no analysis or data published. SACC proposal to elevate chinchipensis to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data. Stopiglia et al. (2020) provided evidence for treatment of chinchipensis as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate chinchipensis to species rank. SACC proposal passed to establish English name for Synallaxis chinchipensis.

45. Siptornopsis and Synallaxis are feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is hypochondriaca (David & Gosselin 2002b), as in Cory & Hellmayr (1925).

46. Vaurie (1980) merged Gyalophylax into Synallaxis; Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) included it in Asthenes. See Whitney & Pacheco (1994) for continued recognition as monotypic genus until relationships clarified. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that it is embedded within Synallaxis. SACC proposal passed to merge into Synallaxis.

47. Hellmayrea was formerly included in Synallaxis (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or in Cranioleuca (Vaurie 1980). Braun and Parker (1985) provided evidence for why Hellmayrea should be maintained as a monotypic genus, as in Phelps & Phelps (1950a) and Peters (1951). Recent genetic data confirm that Hellmayrea is not closely related to Synallaxis (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009); in fact, Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it is the sister to a cluster of synallaxine genera that also includes Cranioleuca, Asthenes, Thripophaga, etc.

48. Sequence of species in Cranioleuca incorporates the genetic data from García-Moreno et al. (1999b). Vaurie (1980) included Cranioleuca in Certhiaxis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., see Wetmore 1972, Fitzpatrick REF). Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Certhiaxis was not closely related to Cranioleuca but is sister to Synallaxis (except S. propinqua); see also Irestedt et al. (2006) and Moyle et al. (2009). SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

49. The superspecies relationship proposed for Cranioleuca marcapatae and C. albiceps (e.g., Remsen 1984) is corroborated by genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 1999b, Derryberry et al. 2011); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that they might be best treated as conspecific.

49b. "Cranioleuca solimonensis," described from a single specimen from Amazonian Brazil, is now considered a synonym of Cranioleuca vulpina alopecias (Peters 1951). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

50. Cranioleuca vulpecula was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of C. vulpina, but see Zimmer (1997) for evidence for treating C. vulpecula as a separate species. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) further indicate that C. vulpecula is the sister to a group that includes C. vulpina, C. muelleri, and “Thripophaga” berlepschi. SACC proposal needed. <<wait Claramunt paper>>

51. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 1999b) are consistent with the proposal that Cranioleuca henricae, C. pyrrhophia, and C. obsoleta form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Maijer and Fjeldså 1997). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that C. pyrrhophia might form a superspecies with C. antisiensis/C. baroni, but genetic data indicate that they are not closely related (Derryberry et al. 2011).

52. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Maijer and Fjeldså (1997).

53. Belton (1985) suggested that Cranioleuca obsoleta was a subspecies of C. pyrrhophia based on specimens from Rio Grande do Sul that he considered intermediate. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) acknowledged specimens showing some intermediate characters, but continued to recognize obsoleta as a distinct species, as do other authors (e.g., see Hayes 1995). Claramunt (2002) showed that evidence for free interbreeding between the two was weak at best. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that they are not sister species, with the sister to C. pyrrhophia being C. pallida.

54. Cranioleuca hellmayri and C. demissa were once considered conspecific (e.g., REF), but recent authors have followed Vaurie (1971b) in treating them as separate species; they were considered to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that C. demissa was sister to a group that included C. hellmayri, C. subcristata, and C. semicinerea. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence. <<wait Claramunt paper>>

54a. The subspecies cisandina was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Cranioleuca curtata, but Peters (1951) treated them as conspecific; all subsequent authors have followed this.

55. As suspected by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), the taxon "Cranioleuca furcata," formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) considered a valid species, has been shown to be a juvenal/immature plumage of C. curtata (Graves 1986b), despite earlier claims to the contrary (Vaurie 1971c, 1980). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

56. Cranioleuca baroni was considered conspecific with C. antisiensis by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), following Koepcke (1961a); it had formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) been considered a separate species. Although most current references (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994) treat baroni as a species, evidence for considering this species separate from C. antisiensis is weak; as noted by Koepcke (1961), the closest populations, geographically, of antisiensis and baroni are more similar to one another than they are to other subspecies within their respective "species", and drawing a line between these two is arbitrary, even though the extremes differ radically (Remsen 2003). Seeholzer & Brumfield (2017) showed that there is no clean division between the two and providing evidence that they should be treated as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to treat baroni as conspecific with antisiensis. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) found that C. curtata is also a member of this group.). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that C. curtata might be best treated as conspecific with C. erythrops, but see Derryberry et al. (2011), who found that Cranioleuca erythrops, C. curtata, C. antisiensis, and C. baroni did form a monophyletic group, but that C. erythrops was the sister to the other three.

56a. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Cranioleuca gutturata was a Thripophaga, and this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal badly needed.

57. Certhiaxis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are cinnamomeus and mustelinus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

58a. Certhiaxis cinnamomea was called "Yellow-throated Spinetail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

59. The genus Thripophaga was suspected by several authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994) of being a non-monophyletic genus. Vaurie (1980) considered Thripophaga fusciceps and T. berlepschi to belong in Phacellodomus. <Check> Derryberry et al. (2011) found that T. berlepschi was embedded in Cranioleuca, but that T. cherriei and T. fusciceps were sister species; T. macroura, the type species for the genus, was not sampled.

59a. SACC proposal to hyphenate the English name to make it "Soft-tail" did not pass.

60. Hilty et al. (2013) described a new species of Thripophaga, most similar to T. cherriei and T. macroura. SACC proposal passed to recognize Thripophaga amacurensis.

61. Irestedt et al. (2006) and Moyle et al. (2009) found that Asthenes is a polyphyletic genus. Derryberry et al. (2010b, 2011), with more complete taxon-sampling, showed that four species currently placed in Asthenes are actually more closely related to a group of genera that consists of Pseudoseisura, Xenerpestes, etc., and named a new genus, Pseudasthenes, for these four species (humicola, patagonica, steinbachi, cactorum). SACC proposal passed to recognize Pseudasthenes.

61a. Asthenes heterura was considered a subspecies of A. pudibunda by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) , but see Vaurie (1971a, 1980) for treatment as a separate species, as was done previously by Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Peters (1951); it is more likely to be closer to A. ottonis (Vaurie 1971a, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), which was considered a subspecies of A. pudibunda by Cory & Hellmayr (1925). Called "Iquico Canastero" in Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Asthenes pudibunda, A. ottonis, and A. heterura are considered to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

62. Vaurie (1980) not only considered Asthenes cactorum conspecific with A. modesta but also did not even consider cactorum to represent a distinct subspecies of A. modesta; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies. However, genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2010, 2011) indicate that cactorum is not even in the same genus as A. modesta; see Note 61.

63. Species limits in this group have been fluid and confusing and have spanned virtually every permutation of combinations of taxa. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) recognized three species, Asthenes wyatti, A. punensis (including subspecies cuchacanchae and lilloi), and A. anthoides, and considered A. sclateri to be a synonym of A. hudsoni. Peters (1951) considered the punensis subspecies group to be conspecific with A. wyatti, and elevated sclateri to species rank, but considered it (by implication) not closely related to A. wyatti. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) followed Peters (1951) except that he considered the punensis group to be conspecific with A. anthoides based on tail patterns. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated the four major groups as four species: Asthenes wyatti, A. punensis, A. sclateri, and A. anthoides. Navas & Bó (1982) followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) except that they treated the punensis group to be conspecific with A. sclateri rather than A. anthoides; this treatment, the one used here, was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). However, evidence for considering Asthenes wyatti as separate species from A. sclateri is weak; they may intergrade in Titicaca basin (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), and the northern group of subspecies differs more in plumage from southern group than the latter does from adjacent A. sclateri subspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1994). Asthenes wyatti and A. sclateri form a superspecies, in which A. anthoides was considered to be presumably also included (Olrog REF, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990); some authors (check Olrog REF) consider them all conspecific. <<incorp. Krabbe (2000)> Derryberry et al. (2011) found that although Asthenes wyatti (including punensis) and A. sclateri were sisters, A. anthoides was distantly related and the sister to A. hudsoni. SACC passed to change linear sequence.

64. See Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for the use of "Puna Canastero" for this species.

65. Vuilleumier (1968) considered Asthenes virgata a subspecies of A. flammulata, but see Vaurie (1980). Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that A. maculicauda might be considered a subspecies of A. flammulata. Asthenes flammulata, A. virgata, and A. maculicauda form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that all three could be considered conspecific. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2010, 2011) are consistent with the three forming a monophyletic group, with A. virgata and A. maculicauda being sister taxa.

66. Called "Lesser Canastero" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

66a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Asthenes pyrrholeuca and A. baeri to form a superspecies, but no other authors consider this likely; they are only distantly related (Derryberry et al. 2010, 2011).

67. Asthenes dorbignyi presumably forms a superspecies with A. berlepschi, A. baeri, and perhaps A. steinbachi; except for their throat patches, they are superficially closer to the smaller Phacellodomus in several aspects of plumage, voice, and nest structure than they are to most other Asthenes. Asthenes steinbachi and A. baeri are close enough in plumage that A. b. neiffi was initially described as a subspecies of A. steinbachi (Navas and Bó 1987). Asthenes steinbachi has also been considered conspecific with A. dorbignyi (e.g., Olrog 1963), but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Derryberry et al. (2011) found that A. dorbignyi and A. baeri were sisters (but A. berlepschi and A. steinbachi not sampled)

68. The subspecies huancavelicae and arequipae were considered separate species ("Pale-tailed Canastero" and "Dark-winged Canastero") from Asthenes dorbignyi by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to recognize huancavelicae and arequipae as separate species did not pass because published data are incomplete and insufficient.

69. Asthenes berlepschi may best be treated as a subspecies of A. dorbignyi (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Remsen 2003); it differs less in plumage from A. dorbignyi than do taxa treated as subspecies within A. dorbignyi do from one another.

70. Called "Chestnut Canastero" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970).

71. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Vielliard (1990).

72. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered northern inornatus (with castilloi) a separate species from Phacellodomus rufifrons, and this was followed by Hilty (2003); vocalizations are reported to differ, but no analysis or data have been published. SACC proposal to recognize inornatus as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) also suggested that the subspecies peruvianus of the Marañon valley deserved recognition as a separate species. Corbett et al. (2020) noted that strictly on genetic distance, inornatus was as divergent from the southern rufifrons group as are some other furnariids ranked as species, but see that paper for what additional data are needed.

72a. Called "Common Thornbird" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

72b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phacellodomus rufifrons and P. sibilatrix to form a superspecies, but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that P. sibilatrix was the sister to P. striaticeps, with P. rufifrons the sister to that pair.

73. Phacellodomus maculipectus was formerly (e.g., Peters, 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. striaticollis. Ridgely & Tudor (1994), based on Nores and Yzurieta (1979<check>), considered the subspecies maculipectus to be a separate species from striaticollis. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculipectus as a separate species. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that they were not sister taxa, with P. striaticollis the sister to P. ruber, and P. maculipectus sister to P. dorsalis. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

74. Phacellodomus erythrophthalmus (including ferrugineigula) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Drioctistes, but Peters (1951) merged this into Phacellodomus. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) noted distinctions in voice, plumage, and nest architecture compared to other Phacellodomus that were consistent with such separation. However, Derryberry et al. (2011) found that P. erythrophthalmus was embedded in Phacellodomus and the sister to P. striaticollis + P. ruber.

74a. The southern race ferrugineigula has recently been shown to be a separate species from Phacellodomus erythrophthalmus by the discovery of their sympatry (Simon et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to treat ferrugineigula as a separate species. SACC proposal passed on English names.

74b. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) support the close relationship, presumably as sister taxa, between Anumbius and Coryphistera.

74c. Siptornis has been placed traditionally near Metopothrix and Xenerpestes, but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it is the sister taxon to a group that consists of Cranioleuca + Thripophaga. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

75. Vaurie (1980) included Clibanornis in Phacellodomus. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it was the sister to Hylocryptus rectirostris. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

75a. The coloration of Metopothrix is so unusual that it was long questioned whether it belonged it the Furnariidae (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see Feduccia (1970), <>Traylor (1972). Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that it is the sister genus to Xenerpestes, with Acrobatornis sister to this group. Whether Xenerpestes belongs in the Furnariidae had also been questioned (Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see Vaurie (1971d). SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

75b. Metopothrix is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is aurantiaca (David & Gosselin 2002b).

76. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Pacheco et al. (1996).

76b. Xenerpestes minlosi and X. singularis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm their sister relationship.

76c. Called "Double-banded Soft-tail" in Wetmore (1972).

77. Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), Peters (1951), and Vaurie (1980) treated tatei as a subspecies of Premnoplex brunnescens, but Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) elevated it to species rank, as it was originally described; published evidence for treatment as separate species was considered weak by Remsen (2003); they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998). Data on habitat and vocalizations support separate species status for tatei and brunnescens (Areta 2007); see also Pérez-Emán et al. (2010).

78a. Vaurie (1980) included Premnornis and Premnoplex in Margarornis. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Pérez-Emán et al. 2010), however, indicate that Premnornis is not closely related to Premnoplex + Margarornis, but may be the sister taxon to Pseudocolaptes. Moyle et al. (2009) and Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed this but found that Tarphonomus is the sister to Premnornis, with Pseudocolaptes sister to that pair. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera. Premnoplex and Margarornis are sister genera, but have no close relatives in the Furnariidae (Derryberry et al. 2011)

78b. David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the correct spelling of the species name is guttuliger. SACC proposal passed to change name.

78c. Vaurie (1980) included Roraimia in Margarornis; see Rudge & Raikow (1992) for maintaining it as a monotypic genus. Differences in tail-shape, behavior and vocalizations suggest that Roraimia is not closely related to other members in the Margarornis assemblage (Areta 2007). Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Pérez-Emán et al. 2010, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that it is not a member of the “Margarornis group” and that it is part of the Thripophaga + Cranioleuca group. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

79. Margarornis stellatus was called "Star-chested Treerunner" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Considered to form a superspecies with Middle American M. rubiginosus by AOU (1983), but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that M. rubiginosus is the sister to all other Margarornis. SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

79a. Margarornis squamiger was considered to form a superspecies with M. bellulus of Darién, Panama (AOU 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003), but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that M. stellatus is the sister to M. bellulus.

80. Pseudoseisura unirufa was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters, 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of P. cristata, but see Zimmer & Whittaker (2000) for evidence for considering P. unirufa as a separate species; they form a superspecies (Remsen 2003).

80a. The name Cacholote is frequently misspelled as “Cachalote” (e.g. Dickinson & Christidis 2014, del Hoyo & Collar 2016).

81. Extralimital Pseudocolaptes lawrencii (then also including P. johnsoni) and P. boissonneautii form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003); they were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered conspecific, but Peters (1951) and subsequent authors treated them as separate species.

81a. See Zimmer (1936c) for recognition of johnsoni as a distinct taxon and its presumed relationship to extralimital P. lawrencii; it was considered a subspecies of P. lawrencii by Peters (1951), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty (1986), Remsen (2003), Dickinson and Remsen (2013), and others. Robbins and Ridgely (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that johnsoni should be treated as a separate species, and this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to recognize johnsoni as a separate species did not pass. Spencer (2011) and Boesman (2016) noted vocal differences between johnsoni, lawrencii, and boissonneautii, and del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated johnsoni as a separate species. Freeman et al.’s (2017) playback trials showed that the song of johnsoni does not elicit any response in lawrencii individuals. Harvey et al. (2020) found that johnsoni might be more closely related to P. boissonneautii than to P. lawrencii. Forcina et al. (2021) interpreted genetic data to support species rank for johnsoni. SACC proposal passed to recognize johnsoni as a species.

81b. Formerly known as "Lawrence's Tuftedcheek" (e.g., Wetmore 1972).

81c. Elliott (2020) noted that he correct spelling of P. boissonneautii should be P. boissonneautii: the taxon was named for M. Boissonneau, and the “t” is a consequence of a typographical error. SACC proposal needed.

82. Moyle et al. (2009) and Derryberry et al. (2011) found strong support for the monophyly of a group that consists of the foliage-gleaner genera Anabacerthia, Syndactyla, Simoxenops, Megaxenops, Anabazenops, Heliobletus, Cichlocolaptes, Philydor, Ancistrops, Thripadectes, Hylocryptus, Clibanornis, Hyloctistes, and Automolus.

82a. Vaurie (1980) included Anabacerthia in Philydor; Hilty (2003) suspected that Anabacerthia might even belong in narrowly defined Philydor. Anabacerthia amaurotis was considered more closely related to Philydor sensu stricto, especially P. lichtensteini, than to the other two Anabacerthia species by Vaurie (1980), and was treated in Philydor by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Zimmer (1935) considered Philydor ruficaudatum to have no close relatives in the genus and that it shared some characters with Anabacerthia. In fact, genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that Philydor lichtensteini and A. amaurotis are sister species and that P. lichtensteini and P. ruficaudatum are embedded in Anabacerthia. SACC proposal passed to move lichtensteini and ruficaudatum to Anabacerthia. Other Philydor, however, including the type species for the genus (atricapillus), are not; in fact, Syndactyla + Simoxenops is the sister group to Anabacerthia.

82aa. Anabacerthia variegaticeps and A. striaticollis have been considered conspecific (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951), but most authors have followed Wetmore (1972) in treating them as separate species, based mainly on differences in plumage pattern. Although formerly considered to constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Remsen 2003), they are not sister taxa (Derryberry et al. 2011).

82b. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) used for Anabacerthia striaticollis was montanus, but striaticollis has priority (Peters 1951).

83. Winker (1997) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies temporalis of the Western Andes should be recognized as a separate species from Anabacerthia variegaticeps, as previously treated by Peters (1951).

83a. Called "Spectacled Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Gwynne (1989) <elsewhere?>, but see Remsen (1997a).

84. Vaurie (1980) included Syndactyla in Philydor; the former name for the genus was Xenoctistes (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925), but see Zimmer (1935).

85. Syndactyla guttulata and S. subalaris were considered to constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Remsen 2003), but they are not sister species: S. subalaris is sister to S. ruficollis, whereas S. guttulata is the sister to Simoxenops.

85a. Wetmore (1972) used "Leaf-gleaner" as the English name for species in the genera Philydor, Anabacerthia, Syndactyla, Hyloctistes, Automolus, and Thripadectes.

85aa. Formerly known as "Guttulated Foliage-gleaner." There is no such word as "Guttulated,” and the proper adjectival form is "guttulate." SACC proposal passed to change English name.

85b. The genus Automolus as currently defined is polyphyletic (Derryberry et al. 2011). Claramunt et al. (2013) transferred rubiginosus and rufipectus to Clibanornis to restore monophyly to Automolus; see Noted 97d. SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

86. Syndactyla ruficollis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Automolus, but see Parker et al. (1985) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm the placement of ruficollis in Syndactyla.

87. Vaurie (1980) included Simoxenops in Philydor. Robbins & Zimmer (2005) recommended the merger of Simoxenops and Syndactyla based on voice and morphology. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Simoxenops is embedded in Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to merge into Syndactyla.

87a. Some authors (REFS) have considered Syndactyla ucayalae and S. striata to be conspecific; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; substantial differences in bill shape and habitat (Remsen 2003), however, make this unlikely. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that they are sister taxa.

87b. "Megaxenops ferrugineus," described from Madre de Dios, Peru, is a synonym of Syndactyla ucayalae (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Vaurie 1980). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

88. Vaurie (1980) included Ancistrops in a broadly defined Philydor, but this is not consistent with genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011): it is the sister to P. rufum + P. erythropterum, but not other Philydor. See Note 89c. SACC proposal passed to resurrect the genus Dendroma for P. rufum and P. erythropterum. Dendroma Swainson 1837 is feminine, thus requiring a change in the variable endings of the species to rufa and erythroptera.

89. Vaurie (1980) included Hyloctistes in Philydor, but genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) indicated that Hyloctistes is sister to Automolus. Broader taxon-sampling (Derryberry et al. 2011) revealed that Hyloctistes is actually embedded within Automolus. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera. SACC proposal passed to merge Hyloctistes into Automolus.

89a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that Trans-Andean populations (virgatus group) and Amazonian populations might merit species rank based on vocal differences; Ridgely & Tudor (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated them as separate species. SACC proposal to elevate virgatus to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.

89b. Called "Striped Foliage-gleaner" in <REFS> and Stiles & Skutch (1989).

89c. The genus Philydor is polyphyletic: Derryberry et al. (2011) found that the type species for the genus, P. atricapilla, is likely the sister to P. pyrrhodes, which together form a monophyletic group with Heliobletus and Cichlocolaptes, but all other species currently in Philydor are more closely related to other genera. See Notes 82a, 88, and 91.

90. Philydor is neuter, so the correct spellings of the species names are fuscipenne, erythrocercum, erythropterum, and rufum (David & Gosselin 2002b).

90a. The montane subspecies ochrogaster is likely a separate species from Philydor erythrocercum, and was treated that way by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but the contact with lowland populations needs to be investigated in greater detail. See Zimmer (1935) for rationale for treatment of ochrogaster as subspecies of P. erythrocercum.

90aaa. The subspecies erythronotum was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as separate species from Philydor fuscipenne/P. erythrocercum, but see Zimmer (1935).

90b. Pinto (1937) placed dimidiata in the genus Pseudoxenops Pinto, 1932. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Philydor pyrrhodes and "P." dimidiatum to form a superspecies, but other authors consider this unlikely. In fact, Robbins & Zimmer (2005) provided evidence that "Philydor" dimidiatum should be transferred to the genus Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Syndactyla. Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed this and found that S. dimidiata is the sister to S. rufosuperciliata.

90bb. The subspecies subfulvum was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as separate species from Philydor erythrocercum, but see Zimmer (1935).

90c. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Teixeira & Gonzaga (1983a). Now considered extinct (Butchart et al. 2018, IUCN 2019, Pacheco et al. 2021).

90d. Philydor novaesi and P. atricapillus are considered to form a superspecies (Teixeira & Gonzaga 1983a, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

91. Philydor fuscipenne was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore 1972, AOU 1983) considered conspecific with P. erythrocercum, but see Hilty & Brown (1986) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating it as a separate species, thus returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1925). Derryberry et al. (2011) found that these two species are not members of Philydor but form the sister group to Megaxenops parnaguae, and this was confirmed by Harvey et al. (2020). Sangster et al. (2023) named a new genus, Neophilydor, for these two species. SACC proposal pending to recognize Neophilydor.

92. Called "Planalto Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

92a. The subspecies baeri was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) considered a separate species from Philydor dimidiatum; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. <incorp. Pinto & Camargo 1955>

92b. "Syndactyla mirandae," described from Goiás and treated as a valid species by Peters (1951), is a synonym of Syndactyla dimidiata (Novaes 1953, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Vaurie 1980). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

92c. Anabazenops was included in Philydor by Vaurie (1980), but this is not consistent with genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011).

93. Anabazenops dorsalis (e.g., Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) was formerly placed in Automolus, but see Kratter & Parker (1997) for including dorsalis in Anabazenops, as confirmed by genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011).

93a. Called "Crested Foliage-gleaner" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Hilty & Brown (1986), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Called "Bamboo Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

93b. Cichlocolaptes was included in Philydor by Vaurie (1980), but see Note 89c.

93bb. A new species of Cichlocolaptes, C. mazarbarnetti, has been described by Mazar Barnett & Buzzetti (2014); see also Claramunt (2014b). SACC proposal to recognize C. mazarbarnetti did not pass. This taxon is treated as a species by many (REF) and is now considered extinct (Butchart et al. 2018, IUCN 2019, Pacheco et al. 2021).

94. Derryberry et al. (2011) and Claramunt (2013) found that T. ignobilis is sister to T. flammulatus + T. scrutator. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

94a. Thripadectes flammulatus and T. scrutator form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they should be considered conspecific. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that they are sister taxa.

95. Thripadectes scrutator was called "Buff-throated Treehunter" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and "Peruvian Treehunter" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

96. Zimmer (2002) provided evidence, mainly vocal, that the taxon paraensis of southeastern Amazonia should be ranked at the species level. SACC proposal passed to recognize paraensis as a separate species.

96a. Automolus infuscatus, A. paraensis, A. lammi, and A. leucophthalmus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer 2002, Remsen 2003); genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.

96b. Zimmer (2008) presented data on vocalizations that suggest that the subspecies lammi should be ranked as a separate species from Automolus leucophthalmus. SACC proposal passed to recognize lammi as a species.

97. Automolus roraimae was listed as A. albigularis by Peters (1951), but see Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Vaurie (1980).

97a. "Philydor hylobius," formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a valid species (and even treated as a subspecies of Philydor atricapillus by Vaurie 1980), represents the juvenal plumage of Automolus roraimae (Dickerman et al. 1986). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

97b. Called "Tepui Foliage-gleaner" in Hilty (2003). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

97c. Syndactyla roraimae was formerly considered a member of the genus Automolus, but was considered by several authors unlikely to be a member of that genus (Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Kratter & Parker 1997, Hilty 2003). Zimmer et al. (2008) used multiple lines of evidence to show that it was not an Automolus, but rather a Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Syndactyla. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that it is embedded in Syndactyla.

97d. Clibanornis (formerly Automolus) rubiginosus likely includes several species-level taxa (AOU 1998, Hilty 2003, Remsen 2003). The subspecies nigricauda (with saturatus) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951) and all subsequent authors. Krabbe (2008) provided evidence that the subspecies rufipectus of the Santa Marta Mountains merits species rank and pointed out its close resemblance to Hylocryptus erythrocephalus in voice and habitat. SACC proposal passed to treat rufipectus as a separate species. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that Hylocryptus erythrocephalus is the sister to Automolus rubiginosus (as represented by subspecies nigricauda and watkinsi), and that A. rufipectus is the sister to these two; Claramunt et al. (2013) transferred rubiginosus and rufipectus to Clibanornis. SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

98. Vaurie (1980) included Hylocryptus (now Clibanornis) in Automolus. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) included Hylocryptus (now Clibanornis) rectirostris in Automolus (while recognizing Hylocryptus as a monotypic genus for erythrocephalus), but noted the possibility that rectirostris was most closely related to H. erythrocephalus; see Zimmer (1936c) for rationale for the transfer of rectirostris to Hylocryptus. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that the two species of Hylocryptus are not closely related and that rectirostris is sister to Clibanornis dendrocolaptoides. Claramunt et al. (2013) merged Hylocryptus into Clibanornis. See Notes 75 and 97d. SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

99a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) called this species "Henna-capped Foliage-gleaner." SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

100. The relationships of Lochmias within the family are controversial; general morphology has usually (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore 1972) led to its placement in linear sequences near Sclerurus, but see Vaurie (1971a). Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Sclerurus and Lochmias are in separate branches of the Furnariidae. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Lochmias is sister to Limnornis and Phleocryptes. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

100a. [potential Lochmias species split]

100b. Called "Sharp-tailed Creeper" in Wetmore (1972) and "Streamside Lochmias" in AOU (1983).

101. Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed that Xenops be treated in a separate family, Xenopidae, and that the Furnariinae, therein treated at the family rank, be divided into five subfamilies (Berlepschiinae, Pygarrhichinae, Philydorinae, Furnariinae, and Synallaxinae, the latter with two tribes). Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this in part by adding six subfamilies to Furnariidae. SACC proposal needed.

101a. Vaurie (1980) included Heliobletus in Xenops; plumage pattern of this species remarkably similar to that of X. milleri. However, genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Heliobletus and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it is sister to true Philydor. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

102. Xenops milleri was originally (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in monotypic genus Microxenops; it lacks wedge-shaped bill and complex tail pattern of Xenops. Peters (1951) merged it into Xenops, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that milleri is sister to Eremobius and Chilia (now included in Ochetorhynchus) and thus not particularly close to Xenops. SACC proposal passed to restore Microxenops.

102a. Some genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2005, Irestedt et al. 2006) indicated that Xenops might be the sister taxon to the dendrocolaptid woodcreepers, but this has been shown to be incorrect (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011).

102b. Xenops minutus may consist of more than one species; see Remsen (2003). Harvey & Brumfield (2015) found that X. minutus consists of three deeply divergent genetic groups: (1) the Middle American and trans-Andean mexicanus group; (2) the mostly Amazonian genibarbis group, and (3) nominate minutus of SE Brazil. Boesman (2016e) outlined three groups based on vocal differences, and these matched the genetic groups found by Harvey & Brumfield (2015). Del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated X. genibarbis as a separate species from X. minutus, with genibarbis (“Plain Xenops”) including all subspecies other than nominate minutus (“White-throated Xenops”). Freeman & Montgomery (2017) documented strong vocal differences between cis- and trans-Andean populations and response differences between the two (represented by X. m. obsoletus and X. m. littoralis) in playback experiments. SACC proposal pending.

102c. Xenops rutilans was listed as Xenops rutilus by Cory & Hellmayr (1925) but as Xenops rutilans by Peters (1950) and all subsequent classifications. Dickinson (2011) showed that rutilans is actually an incorrect subsequent spelling and that rutilus has priority; this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to change to Xenops rutilus did not pass. Elliott (2020) disputed that prevailing usage of rutilans is more important than the correct original spelling.

103. Foraging behavior suggests that Megaxenops is not closely related to Xenops, and that bill shape similarity is due to convergence (Remsen 2003). In fact, genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Megaxenops and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Megaxenops is sister to Philydor fuscipenne + P. erythrocercum. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera.

104. Traditional linear sequences place Pygarrhichas at the end, near Xenops, but this placement is almost certainly due to convergence on climbing behavior -- otherwise, nothing supports this relationship, which seems highly unlikely biogeographically (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2005, Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Pygarrhichas and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae. Irestedt et al. (2006) found that it clustered with Margarornis and Premnoplex, but more thorough analyses indicate that it is sister to a group that includes Microxenops milleri and Ochetorhynchus (Moyle et al. 2009). Moyle et al. (2009) proposed that these genera be recognized as a subfamily, Pygarrhichinae. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera. Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this grouping as monophyletic.

105. Although the monophyly of the former Dendrocolaptidae seems reasonably well established (Feduccia 1973, Raikow 1994, Clench 1995, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Marantz et al. 2003), whether it is embedded within the Furnariidae (as proposed by Feduccia 1973) or sister to all Furnariidae (Clench 1995, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) has been controversial. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004, Fjeldså et al. 2005. Moyle et al. 2009) data strongly support the former, with the genera Geositta and Sclerurus basal to all other ovenbirds plus woodcreepers. Some authors had previously treated the Dendrocolaptidae as a subfamily of the Furnariidae (e.g., REFS <check Mayr & Amadon, 1951, AMNov1496.> <incorp. Irestedt et al. 2004>. If family or subfamily ranks are retained within this group, then a third group, Geositta plus Sclerurus, must also be accorded taxonomic rank. SACC proposal passed to merge Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae into single family subfamily rankings. <relationships among genera in dendrocolaptids; incorp. Aleixo 2002, Irestedt et al. 2006>. Moyle et al. (2009) and Derryberry et al. (2011) found that (a) the woodcreepers consisted of two divergent branches, with Dendrocincla, Deconychura, and Sittasomus sister to all other genera; (b) within the latter, Glyphorynchus was sister to the remaining genera; (c) the remaining genera consisted of two major groups, with one consisting of Xiphorhynchus + Dendroplex +(Campylorhamphus +[Drymornis + Lepidocolaptes]), and the other (Nasica + Dendrexetastes) + (Dendrocolaptes + [Hylexetastes + Xiphocolaptes]). Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed subfamily rank for the two lineages, with Sittasominae for lineage “a” above (with Dendrocolaptinae treated at the family rank); in this classification, this group would be treated as a tribe, Sittasomini. SACC proposal needed.

105a. "Dendrocincla macrorhyncha," known from two specimens from Ecuador, is considered to represent aberrant individuals of D. tyrannina (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1986, Marantz et al. 2003). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

106. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) treated the subspecies turdina and atrirostris each as separate species from Dendrocincla fuliginosa; Pinto (1937) treated turdina as a separate species but not atrirostris; Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered them all conspecific. Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Marantz et al. (2003) treated turdina as a separate species ("Plain-winged Woodcreeper") based largely on Willis (1983). Weir & Price (2011) found that fuliginosa might be more closely related to Middle American D. anabatina than to turdina. SACC proposal passed to treat turdina as separate species. Placement of the subspecies taunayi remains problematic; it was included in Dendrocincla fuliginosa by Marantz et al. (2003) but Weir & Price (2011) found that it might belong with D. turdina. <check Todd (1948) for treatment of meruloides as species, formerly placed in merula; Marantz et al. 2003>

107. Called "Brown Woodcreeper" in Wetmore (1972).

108. Marantz et al. (2003) noted that differences in voice and iris color between nominate merula (with obidensis) and the rest of the subspecies suggested that more than one species might be involved; see also Hilty (2003).

109. The subspecies typica was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated (with minor and Panamanian dariensis) as a separate species from Deconychura longicauda. Marantz et al. (2003) indicated that vocal differences among populations suggest that more than one species might be involved, with the typica group possibly more closely related to Certhiasomus stictolaema than to Amazonian longicauda group.

110. The subspecies secundus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Certhiasomus stictolaemus.

110a. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2010a, 2011) indicate that the two species formerly in Deconychura are not each other’s closest relatives and that a new genus was needed for stictolaemus. Derryberry et al. (2010a) named a new genus, Certhiasomus, for stictolaemus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Certhiasomus.

111. Sittasomus griseicapillus almost certainly consists of multiple species (Hardy et al. 1991, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Parker et al. 1995, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003), with at least five subspecies groups possibly deserving separate species status (Marantz et al. 2003). The subspecies viridis and amazonus are elevational replacements in southern Peru with different song types (Robbins et al. 2013).

111a. Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed the monophyly of the genus Dendrocincla but found relationships among species that differ from those suggested in the traditional linear sequence, e.g., D. tyrannina and D. merula are sister species. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of species.

112. Marantz et al. (2003) noted that vocal differences among populations of Glyphorynchus spirurus suggest that more than one species might be involved. Fernandes et al. (2012) also found genetic evidence (mtDNA gene trees) consistent with existence of multiple species.

113. Irestedt et al. (2004) found that Glyphorynchus was sister to all other genera in the family, but see Note 105.

114. Glyphorynchus is regularly misspelled as "Glyphorhynchus."

115. Drymornis bridgesii differs from all other woodcreepers in syringeal structure (Ames 1971) and foraging behavior (semiterrestrial), and Raikow (1994) suggested that it and Nasica might be the outgroup taxa to all other Dendrocolaptidae. Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004, Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011), however, indicate that the traditional placement of Drymornis within the woodcreepers is correct. See Note 105.

116. Raikow (1994) proposed that Dendrexetastes is closely related to Campylorhamphus, contrary to their traditional placements in linear sequences, but this is refuted by genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004, Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011).

117. The subspecies devillei was considered a separate species from Dendrexetastes rufigula by REF, but their voices are similar (Marantz et al. 2003).

118. The two species of Hylexetastes form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Marantz et al. (2003) suggested that vocal similarities and intermediate plumage of subspecies insignis suggests that they could be considered conspecific, as suspected by Zimmer (1934c). The subspecies uniformis was treated as a species separate from H. perrotii by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Silva (1995) found no evidence for hybridization among various Hylexetastes taxa in areas where potentially parapatric and thus ranked all four taxa, including newly described brigidai (Silva et al. 1995), as species. Marantz et al. (2003), however, noted that voices of perrotii, uniformis, and brigidai are all quite similar. Azuaje-Rodríguez et al. (2020) found evidence that broadly defined H. perrotii is paraphyletic with respect to H. stresemanni unless uniformis (with brigidai) is treated as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat uniformis as a separate species.

119. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered X. promeropirhynchus and X. albicollis to form a superspecies; X. falcirostris should perhaps be included (?REF).

120. The orenocensis subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, AOU 1983) treated as a separate species from Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus, and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that this would be found to be the correct treatment. The emigrans subspecies group of Middle America was also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1911) considered a separate species. Zimmer (1934c), however, was unable to find a clear demarcation in plumage between the two groups, and Marantz et al. (2003) noted that voices were remarkably similar among these forms, given their pronounced plumage differences, but see also Lane (2012). Clearly, a thorough analysis is required.

121. The taxon franciscanus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species ("Snethlage's Woodcreeper"); here it is treated as subspecies of X. falcirostris, following Teixeira et al. (1989), Teixeira (1990), and Silva and Oren (1997); see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Marantz et al. (2003). Pinto (1952) suggested that franciscanus was a subspecies of X. albicollis.

122. Here villanovae treated as subspecies of Xiphocolaptes albicollis, following Marantz et al. (2003), but it may warrant species rank (Pinto & Camargo 1961); villanovae is not a subspecies of X. falcirostris, where placed by Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Clements (2000).

123. Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with D. certhia, but Willis (1992b) and Marantz (1997) provided evidence that they should be treated as separate species; they constitute a superspecies.

124. Marantz et al. (2003) noted that the southeastern subspecies punctipectus might also deserve treatment as a separate species from Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae.

125. The taxon concolor was formerly (e.g., Todd 1948, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species ("Concolor Woodcreeper"); here it is treated as subspecies of D. certhia, following Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Pinto (1937), Willis & Oniki (1978), Willis (1992b), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Marantz (1997), and Marantz et al. (2003).

125a. Batista et al. (2013) described a new species from the Xingu-Tocantins interfluvium, Dendrocolaptes retentus. They also recognized all valid subspecies in the D. certhia complex as separate species, but not under BSC criteria. SACC proposal did not pass.

126. The relationships of Dendrocolaptes picumnus, D. hoffmannsi, and D. platyrostris are controversial. Pinto (1937) treated D. hoffmannsi as a subspecies of D. picumnus, but subsequently (Pinto 1978) considered D. hoffmannsi to be a subspecies of D. pallescens, a taxon usually treated as a subspecies of D. picumnus (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970). Willis (1982) suggested that D. hoffmannsi and D. platyrostris were perhaps best treated as conspecific with D. picumnus (followed by AOU 1983). The three species presumably form a superspecies (Marantz et al. 2003); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered D. picumnus and D. platyrostris to form a superspecies but did not include D. hoffmannsi. Raikow (1994) and Marantz (1997) proposed that D. hoffmannsi was closer to D. sanctithomae/D. certhia than to D. picumnus/D. platyrostris, but vocal characters and biogeography suggest that this is not correct (Marantz et al. 2003). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that picumnus, hoffmannsi, and platyrostris form a monophyletic group, with little genetic differentiation among them. Santana et al. (2020, 2021) also found that D. picumnus consists of at least two species and is paraphyletic with respect to D. hoffmannsi and D. platyrostris. SACC proposal badly needed.

126a. Willis & Oniki (2002) noted that voices of the two subspecies differ strongly and suggested that the subspecies intermedius may deserve species rank.

127. The subspecies pallescens and transfasciatus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) each considered separate species from Dendrocolaptes picumnus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951).

128. Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Zimmer 1934c, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated Dendroplex picus and D. kienerii (= necopinus) in that genus, but Dendroplex was merged into Xiphorhynchus by Peters (1951). Wetmore (1972), however, maintained Dendroplex as a separate genus based not only on bill shape but also on (unstated) cranial characters. Aleixo et al. (2007) summarized rationale for validity of Dendroplex and for its usage for these two species, but see Raposo et al. (2018), who proposed a replacement genus name Paludicolaptes. SACC proposal badly needed. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Dendroplex for these two species. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) are consistent with recognizing Dendroplex as a separate genus.

129. The northern picirostris subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Dendroplex picus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951).

130. Species name formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) necopinus, but Aleixo & Whitney (2002) showed that kienerii is a synonym of, and has priority over, necopinus. SACC proposal passed to change name from X. necopinus to X. kienerii.

131. Xiphorhynchus fuscus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered to be a member of the genus Lepidocolaptes, but genetic and morphological data clearly place it within Xiphorhynchus (Raikow 1994, García-Moreno & Silva 1997, Aleixo 2002, Irestedt et al. 2004, Derryberry et al. 2011).

131a. García et al. (2018) provided evidence for treatment of the subspecies atlanticus as a separate species from X. fuscus. SACC proposal passed to treat atlanticus as a separate species from X. fuscus. SACC proposal on English names passed.

132. The subspecies chunchotambo of the Andean foothills was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Xiphorhynchus ocellatus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951). Aleixo (2002) found that Xiphorhynchus ocellatus is paraphyletic with respect to X. pardalotus, and suggested that X. chunchotambo of the foothills of the Andes be recognized as a separate species from lowland X. ocellatus; this was followed by Marantz et al. (2003), who treated chunchotambo (with napensis and brevirostris) as a separate species ("Tschudi's Woodcreeper"). <incorp. Aleixo 2004> Derryberry et al. (2011) found that chunchotambo did not group with X. ocellatus. Sousa-Neves et al. (2013), with more extensive population sampling, found that chunchotambo, with brevirostris and napensis, were indeed sister to X. ocellatus, and that the subspecies beauperthuysii was sister to them; they argued that chunchotambo and beauperthuysii each deserved species rank. SACC proposal to recognize chunchotambo and beauperthuysii did not pass.

133. Zimmer (1934a), Pinto (1938), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered Xiphorhynchus elegans and X. spixii conspecific, but see Haffer (1997) for rationale for treating them as separate species, as in Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Aleixo (2002) also found molecular support for treating nominate spixii as a separate species from all other taxa in the group; they constitute a superspecies. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) treated the subspecies juruanus and insignis as separate species from X. spixii, and Pinto (1947) also maintained juruanus as a separate species; but they were considered conspecific by Zimmer (1934d) and Peters (1951). <incorp. Aleixo 2004>

134. Genetic data (Aleixo 2002) indicate that Xiphorhynchus pardalotus, sometimes considered a member of the X. spixii superspecies, and X. ocellatus are sister species, as proposed by Zimmer (1934d); Aleixo (2002) and found that pardalotus is embedded within taxa currently treated under X. ocellatus; see Note 21), and this should be reflected in linear sequence. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that X. pardalotus was the sister to the single population sample of X. ocellatus, and Sousa-Neves et al. (2013) confirmed this but also with the addition of taxa treated as subspecies of X. ocellatus. SACC proposal passed to alter linear sequence.

135. The relationships among taxa included in Xiphorhynchus susurrans and X. guttatus are complex and need much additional work. Xiphorhynchus susurrans was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1934d, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with X. guttatus, but Willis (1983) provided evidence that it should be treated as a separate species; this treatment was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and AOU (1998); they constitute a superspecies. Xiphorhynchus susurrans had previously been treated as a species by Cory & Hellmayr (1925), who also treated the subspecies polystictus (= sororius) as a separate species; this was considered conspecific with X. guttatus by Zimmer (1934d) and Peters (1951). However, Aleixo (2002) found that treating X. susurrans at the species level makes Xiphorhynchus guttatus paraphyletic with respect to Amazonian guttatoides group of western and southwestern Amazonia (guttatoides, dorbignyianus, eytoni, and vicinalis) and eastern Amazonian guttatus group (guttatus, polystictus, and provisionally, connectens). Marantz et al. (2003) also emphasized that the current assignment of subspecies to either X. susurrans or X. guttatus does not correspond to the boundaries in vocalizations. Furthermore, the eytoni subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Todd 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a separate species ("Dusky-billed Woodcreeper") from X. guttatus; here it is treated as subspecies of guttatus following Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Zimmer (1934d), Pinto (1937), Peters (1951), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994), but Marantz et al. (2003) noted that this group differed in vocalizations from other taxa included in X. guttatus. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that eytoni was the sister to X. guttatus + X. susurrans. Proposal needed to merge all three into guttatus or recognize eytoni as a species.

136. Xiphorhynchus erythropygius and X. triangularis were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered conspecific; they were treated as separate species by Peters (1951). Wetmore (1972) summarized the strong plumage differences between the two and noted sympatry in depto. Antioquia, Colombia; see also Marantz et al. (2003) for synopsis of evidence for considering them as separate species; they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) corroborate that they are sister taxa.

136a. Xiphorhynchus erythropygius consists of two groups: a northern (erythropygius) group from Mexico to Nicaragua and a southern group (aequatorialis) from Nicaragua south to southwestern Ecuador; see AOU (1983) and Marantz et al. (2003). Formerly, the two groups have been treated as separate species by some authors (e.g., Ridgway 1911, Peters 1951), and currently by del Hoyo and Collar (2016). SACC proposal to treat aequatorialis as a separate species did not pass.

137. Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered conspecific with Middle American L. affinis (Spot-crowned Woodcreeper), but recent treatments (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Hilty 2003) usually follow Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Zimmer (1934c), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a) in treating them as separate species. Their vocalizations differ strongly, although a formal analysis has not been published. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that L. lacrymiger is actually the sister to L. affinis + L. leucogaster.

138. Lepidocolaptes falcinellus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of L. squamatus, but Silva & Straube (1996) provided evidence for why it should be treated as a species, and this was followed by Marantz et al. (2003). SACC proposal to treat falcinellus as a subspecies of squamatus did not pass.

139. The Amazonian fuscicapillus subspecies group (with madeirae and layardi) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Lepidocolaptes albolineatus, but recent authors have followed Zimmer (1934c) in treating them as conspecific; Hilty (2003) suspected that this treatment will be shown to be correct, and Marantz et al. (2003) suspected that more than one species was involved. Rodrigues et al. (2013) treated all diagnosable taxa in the complex as separate species; they also described a new species, Lepidocolaptes fatimalimae, from southwestern Amazonia. SACC proposal passed to recognize fatimalimae as a species and also elevate subspecies layardi and fuscicapillus to species rank. SACC proposal passed on English names. SACC proposal passed to treat layardi as a subspecies of fuscicapillus. SACC proposal passed to change English name.

140. Claramunt et al. (2010) found that pucheranii is not closely related to other Campylorhamphus and that its closest relative is Drymornis; they named a new genus, Drymotoxeres, for this species. SACC proposal passed to recognize Drymotoxeres. See also Note 105.

141. See David et al. (2009) for the use of pucheranii versus widely used “pucherani.”

142. Campylorhamphus trochilirostris and C. falcularius were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990); they were considered conspecific by Pinto (1937) and Peters (1951). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011), however, show that C. falcularius is actually the sister to C. pusillus + (C. trochilirostris + C. procurvoides). SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

143. The multostriatus subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species from Campylorhamphus procurvoides, but they were treated as conspecific by Zimmer (1934b) and Peters (1951); however, Marantz et al. (2003) noted that multostriatus group is closer vocally to C. trochilirostris than to nominate procurvoides group. Aleixo et al. (2013) found that the subspecies multostriatus is actually sister to C. procurvoides + C. trochilirostris and thus should be treated as a separate species. Aleixo et al. (2013) also proposed recognizing the remaining subspecies in C. procurvoides as separate species, including newly described Campylorhamphus gyldenstolpei. Portes et al. (2013) described an additional new species, Campylorhamphus cardosoi, from southeastern Amazonian Brazil. SACC proposal did not pass.

144. The borealis subspecies group of Central America was considered a separate species from Campylorhamphus pusillus by Ridgway (1911).

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