A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee


American Ornithologists' Union


(Part 7)

 

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

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (click)
Part 2. Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

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

 

 

PASSERIFORMES
Suborder TYRANNI (SUBOSCINES) (continued)

THAMNOPHILIDAE (ANTBIRDS) 1
Cymbilaimus lineatus Fasciated Antshrike 2
Cymbilaimus sanctaemariae Bamboo Antshrike 2
Hypoedaleus guttatus Spot-backed Antshrike 1a
Batara cinerea Giant Antshrike 1a
Mackenziaena leachii Large-tailed Antshrike 1a
Mackenziaena severa Tufted Antshrike 1a, 2a
Frederickena viridis Black-throated Antshrike 1a, 2b
Frederickena unduligera Undulated Antshrike 1a, 2b, 2c
Taraba major Great Antshrike 1a, 2e
Sakesphorus canadensis Black-crested Antshrike 2f, 2g, 2h
Sakesphorus cristatus Silvery-cheeked Antshrike 2g
Sakesphorus luctuosus Glossy Antshrike
Biatas nigropectus White-bearded Antshrike
Thamnophilus doliatus Barred Antshrike 2f, 3, 3a, 3c, 3d
Thamnophilus ruficapillus Rufous-capped Antshrike 7c, 7f
Thamnophilus torquatus Rufous-winged Antshrike 7f
Thamnophilus zarumae Chapman's Antshrike 3
Thamnophilus multistriatus Bar-crested Antshrike 3b
Thamnophilus tenuepunctatus Lined Antshrike 3b, 4, 4a
Thamnophilus palliatus Chestnut-backed Antshrike 4, 4a
Thamnophilus bernardi Collared Antshrike 2f, 2g
Thamnophilus atrinucha Western Slaty-Antshrike 7
Thamnophilus schistaceus Plain-winged Antshrike 6
Thamnophilus murinus Mouse-colored Antshrike
Thamnophilus nigriceps Black Antshrike 4b
Thamnophilus praecox Cocha Antshrike 4b
Thamnophilus cryptoleucus Castelnau's Antshrike 5
Thamnophilus nigrocinereus Blackish-gray Antshrike 5, 5a
Thamnophilus punctatus Northern Slaty-Antshrike 7, 8
Thamnophilus stictocephalus Natterer's Slaty-Antshrike 7
Thamnophilus sticturus Bolivian Slaty-Antshrike 7
Thamnophilus pelzelni Planalto Slaty-Antshrike 7
Thamnophilus ambiguus Sooretama Slaty-Antshrike 7
Thamnophilus caerulescens Variable Antshrike 7b, 7d
Thamnophilus unicolor Uniform Antshrike 5b
Thamnophilus aethiops White-shouldered Antshrike 5b, 5c
Thamnophilus aroyae Upland Antshrike
Thamnophilus melanonotus Black-backed Antshrike 2f
Thamnophilus melanothorax Band-tailed Antshrike 2f
Thamnophilus amazonicus Amazonian Antshrike 7a, 7d, 7e
Thamnophilus insignis Streak-backed Antshrike 7aaa
Thamnophilus divisorius Acre Antshrike 7aa, 7aaa
Megastictus margaritatus Pearly Antshrike
Neoctantes niger Black Bushbird
Clytoctantes alixii Recurve-billed Bushbird 8a
Clytoctantes atrogularis Rondonia Bushbird 9
Thamnistes anabatinus Russet Antshrike 10, 10a
Dysithamnus stictothorax Spot-breasted Antvireo 10b
Dysithamnus mentalis Plain Antvireo
Dysithamnus puncticeps Spot-crowned Antvireo 10c
Dysithamnus xanthopterus Rufous-backed Antvireo
Dysithamnus occidentalis Bicolored Antvireo 11, 11a
Dysithamnus plumbeus Plumbeous Antvireo 12, 12a
Thamnomanes ardesiacus Dusky-throated Antshrike 13, 13a
Thamnomanes saturninus Saturnine Antshrike 13
Thamnomanes caesius Cinereous Antshrike 14, 14a
Thamnomanes schistogynus Bluish-slate Antshrike 14
Xenornis setifrons Spiny-faced Antshrike 15
Pygiptila stellaris Spot-winged Antshrike 10, 16
Epinecrophylla fulviventris Checker-throated Antwren 16, 16a
Epinecrophylla gutturalis Brown-bellied Antwren 16d
Epinecrophylla leucophthalma White-eyed Antwren 16b
Epinecrophylla haematonota Stipple-throated Antwren 16c
Epinecrophylla fjeldsaai Brown-backed Antwren 16c, 17
Epinecrophylla spodionota Foothill Antwren 16c
Epinecrophylla ornata Ornate Antwren 18
Epinecrophylla erythrura Rufous-tailed Antwren 16d
Myrmotherula brachyura Pygmy Antwren 19
Myrmotherula ignota Moustached Antwren 20
Myrmotherula ambigua Yellow-throated Antwren 20a
Myrmotherula sclateri Sclater's Antwren 20a, 20b
Myrmotherula surinamensis Guianan Streaked-Antwren 21
Myrmotherula multostriata Amazonian Streaked-Antwren 21
Myrmotherula pacifica Pacific Antwren 22
Myrmotherula cherriei Cherrie's Antwren 22
Myrmotherula klagesi Klages's Antwren 22a
Myrmotherula longicauda Stripe-chested Antwren 22a, 22b
Myrmotherula hauxwelli Plain-throated Antwren 23
Myrmotherula guttata Rufous-bellied Antwren 23
Myrmotherula gularis Star-throated Antwren 16d, 23a
Myrmotherula axillaris White-flanked Antwren 23b, 23d
Myrmotherula schisticolor Slaty Antwren 23c
Myrmotherula sunensis Rio Suno Antwren 23c
Myrmotherula minor Salvadori's Antwren 23c
Myrmotherula longipennis Long-winged Antwren 24, 24a
Myrmotherula urosticta Band-tailed Antwren 24a
Myrmotherula iheringi Ihering's Antwren 24b
Myrmotherula fluminensis Rio de Janeiro Antwren 25
Myrmotherula grisea Ashy Antwren 24, 26, 26a
Myrmotherula unicolor Unicolored Antwren 26a, 27
Myrmotherula snowi Alagoas Antwren 26a, 27
Myrmotherula behni Plain-winged Antwren 26a
Myrmotherula menetriesii Gray Antwren
Myrmotherula assimilis Leaden Antwren
Dichrozona cincta Banded Antbird
Myrmorchilus strigilatus Stripe-backed Antbird 32b
Herpsilochmus sellowi Caatinga Antwren 10b, 27a, 28
Herpsilochmus pileatus Bahia Antwren 27a, 27b, 29
Herpsilochmus atricapillus Black-capped Antwren 27a, 28a
Herpsilochmus motacilloides Creamy-bellied Antwren 27a, 28a
Herpsilochmus parkeri Ash-throated Antwren 27a, 28a, 30
Herpsilochmus sticturus Spot-tailed Antwren 31
Herpsilochmus dugandi Dugand's Antwren 31
Herpsilochmus stictocephalus Todd's Antwren 31a
Herpsilochmus gentryi Ancient Antwren 31a, 31b
Herpsilochmus dorsimaculatus Spot-backed Antwren
Herpsilochmus roraimae Roraiman Antwren
Herpsilochmus pectoralis Pectoral Antwren 32
Herpsilochmus longirostris Large-billed Antwren 32
Herpsilochmus axillaris Yellow-breasted Antwren
Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus Rufous-winged Antwren 32a
Microrhopias quixensis Dot-winged Antwren 32b, 32bb, 32c
Formicivora iheringi Narrow-billed Antwren 33, 33a
Formicivora erythronotos Black-hooded Antwren 34
Formicivora grisea White-fringed Antwren 34a, 34b
Formicivora serrana Serra Antwren 35
Formicivora littoralis Restinga Antwren 35, 36
Formicivora melanogaster Black-bellied Antwren 35
Formicivora rufa Rusty-backed Antwren 16
Formicivora grantsaui Sincora Antwren 34c
Stymphalornis acutirostris Parana Antwren 37, 37a, 37b
Drymophila ferruginea Ferruginous Antbird 38, 45
Drymophila rubricollis Bertoni's Antbird 38
Drymophila genei Rufous-tailed Antbird 38a
Drymophila ochropyga Ochre-rumped Antbird 38a
Drymophila malura Dusky-tailed Antbird
Drymophila squamata Scaled Antbird
Drymophila devillei Striated Antbird 38b
Drymophila caudata Long-tailed Antbird 38b
Hypocnemis cantator Guianan Warbling-Antbird 45, 45a
Hypocnemis flavescens Imeri Warbling-Antbird 45a
Hypocnemis peruviana Peruvian Warbling-Antbird 45a
Hypocnemis subflava Yellow-breasted Warbling-Antbird 45a
Hypocnemis ochrogyna Rondonia Warbling-Antbird 45a
Hypocnemis striata Spix's Warbling-Antbird 45a
Hypocnemis hypoxantha Yellow-browed Antbird
Terenura sicki Orange-bellied Antwren 39, 39a, 39aa, 39b
Terenura maculata Streak-capped Antwren 39a
Terenura callinota Rufous-rumped Antwren 39c, 39cc, 39ccc, 39cccc
Terenura humeralis Chestnut-shouldered Antwren 39cc
Terenura sharpei Yellow-rumped Antwren 39cc
Terenura spodioptila Ash-winged Antwren 39cc
Cercomacra cinerascens Gray Antbird 39d
Cercomacra brasiliana Rio de Janeiro Antbird 39f
Cercomacra tyrannina Dusky Antbird 39e, 39f, 39g
Cercomacra laeta Willis's Antbird 39e, 39f, 40
Cercomacra parkeri Parker's Antbird 39e, 41
Cercomacra nigrescens Blackish Antbird 39e, 41a
Cercomacra serva Black Antbird 39e
Cercomacra nigricans Jet Antbird 42
Cercomacra carbonaria Rio Branco Antbird 42
Cercomacra melanaria Mato Grosso Antbird 42
Cercomacra manu Manu Antbird 42a
Cercomacra ferdinandi Bananal Antbird 42
Pyriglena leuconota White-backed Fire-eye 43, 43a, 44, 44f
Pyriglena atra Fringe-backed Fire-eye 43
Pyriglena leucoptera White-shouldered Fire-eye 43
Rhopornis ardesiacus Slender Antbird 44, 44a
Myrmoborus leucophrys White-browed Antbird 44b
Myrmoborus lugubris Ash-breasted Antbird
Myrmoborus myotherinus Black-faced Antbird 44c
Myrmoborus melanurus Black-tailed Antbird
Hypocnemoides melanopogon Black-chinned Antbird 44d
Hypocnemoides maculicauda Band-tailed Antbird 46
Myrmochanes hemileucus Black-and-white Antbird 16
Gymnocichla nudiceps Bare-crowned Antbird 44e
Sclateria naevia Silvered Antbird 46b, 44g
Percnostola rufifrons Black-headed Antbird 47, 48a
Percnostola arenarum Allpahuayo Antbird 48, 48a
Percnostola lophotes White-lined Antbird 49, 49a
Schistocichla schistacea Slate-colored Antbird 44g, 50
Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged Antbird 50a
Schistocichla humaythae Humaita Antbird 50a
Schistocichla brunneiceps Brownish-headed Antbird 50a
Schistocichla rufifacies Rufous-faced Antbird 50a
Schistocichla saturata Roraiman Antbird 50a
Schistocichla caurensis Caura Antbird 50a
Myrmeciza longipes White-bellied Antbird 51, 51a
Myrmeciza exsul Chestnut-backed Antbird 51
Myrmeciza ferruginea Ferruginous-backed Antbird 51
Myrmeciza ruficauda Scalloped Antbird 51
Myrmeciza loricata White-bibbed Antbird 51, 51b
Myrmeciza squamosa Squamate Antbird 51, 51b
Myrmeciza laemosticta Dull-mantled Antbird 51, 51c, 51d
Myrmeciza nigricauda Esmeraldas Antbird 51, 51c, 52
Myrmeciza berlepschi Stub-tailed Antbird 52, 52a
Myrmeciza pelzelni Gray-bellied Antbird 51
Myrmeciza hemimelaena Chestnut-tailed Antbird 51, 52b, 53
Myrmeciza castanea Zimmer's Antbird 53
Myrmeciza atrothorax Black-throated Antbird 32b, 51, 54, 54b
Myrmeciza melanoceps White-shouldered Antbird 55
Myrmeciza goeldii Goeldi's Antbird 55
Myrmeciza hyperythra Plumbeous Antbird 50
Myrmeciza fortis Sooty Antbird 55a
Myrmeciza immaculata Immaculate Antbird 55a
Myrmeciza disjuncta Yapacana Antbird 55b
Myrmeciza griseiceps Gray-headed Antbird 55c
Myrmornis torquata Wing-banded Antbird 55d, 55e, 55f
Pithys albifrons White-plumed Antbird 55g, 56
Pithys castaneus White-masked Antbird 56, 56b
Gymnopithys leucaspis Bicolored Antbird 55g, 57
Gymnopithys rufigula Rufous-throated Antbird 57
Gymnopithys salvini White-throated Antbird 57aa
Gymnopithys lunulatus Lunulated Antbird 57aa, 57b
Rhegmatorhina gymnops Bare-eyed Antbird 55g, 58
Rhegmatorhina berlepschi Harlequin Antbird 58
Rhegmatorhina hoffmannsi White-breasted Antbird 58
Rhegmatorhina cristata Chestnut-crested Antbird 58
Rhegmatorhina melanosticta Hairy-crested Antbird 58, 58a, 58b
Hylophylax naevioides Spotted Antbird 44d, 59
Hylophylax naevius Spot-backed Antbird 59, 59b, 59c
Hylophylax punctulatus Dot-backed Antbird 59b
Willisornis poecilinotus Scale-backed Antbird 55g, 59b, 60, 60a
Phlegopsis nigromaculata Black-spotted Bare-eye 55g, 61
Phlegopsis erythroptera Reddish-winged Bare-eye
Skutchia borbae Pale-faced Antbird 62, 62a
Phaenostictus mcleannani Ocellated Antbird 55g

 

1. This family is separated from the Formicariidae following Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Harshman (1994), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), AOU (1998), and Zimmer & Isler (2003). More recent genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) corroborate this result.  Sibley & Ahlquist (1985, 1990) found that the Thamnophilidae was the sister to all other furnaroid families, and this result has been corroborated by other genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009; cf. Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004).  Within the Thamnophilidae, the current linear sequence of genera has already been shown not to reflect phylogenetic relationships (Irestedt et al. 2004, Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009).  SACC proposal badly needed for changing linear sequence of genera.

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

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

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

2b. Frederickena unduligera and F. viridis form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

2c. Parker et al. (1991) suggested that Frederickena unduligera might consist of more than one species.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3d. Assis et al. (2007) claimed that they have "validated" that the subspecies capistratus of eastern Brazil is a species, but all that they showed was that capistratus is a diagnosable taxon (i.e., treated as subspecies under Biological Species Concept); whether capistratus merits species rank under the criteria used in this classification seems unlikely in that Assis et al. (2007) found no significant difference in any loudsong characters between capistratus and doliatus from adjacent Brazilian Amazon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Thamnophilus schistaceus and T. murinus are presumably sister species (Zimmer & Isler 2003), as suggested by their traditional placement together in linear sequences. Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa.

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

7. Thamnophilus atrinucha, T. stictocephalus, T. sticturus, T. pelzelni, and T. ambiguus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with T. punctatus, with the broad species known as "Slaty Antshrike," but see Willis (1982) and Isler et al. (1997) for recognition as species, based mainly on vocal differences. Genetic data (Brumfield & Edwards 2007) indicate that atrinucha and punctatus belong to separate groups within Thamnophilus. Ridgely & Greenfield further recognized leucogaster of the Mara–on Valley as a separate species; this taxon was tentatively retained as a subspecies of T. punctatus by Isler et al. (1997), with further evidence confirming subspecies status presented by Isler et al. (2001). Genetic data (Lacerda et al. 2007) indicate that ranking pelzelni and ambiguus as species is consistent with levels of divergence within this group.

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

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

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

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

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

7c. Short (1975) suggested that the Andean subspecies (marcapatae and jaczewskii) might warrant recognition as a separate species from Thamnophilus ruficapillus, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

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

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

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

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

9. Recently described: Lanyon et al. (1990).

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

10a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Thamnistes anabatinus might consist of more than one species.10b. <note needed>

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

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

11. Dysithamnus occidentalis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986) placed in Thamnomanes, and previously considered a subspecies of Thamnophilus aethiops (Cory & Hellmayr 1924), but see Zimmer (1933a), Willis (1984a), Whitney (1992), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). The subspecies punctitectus was described as a separate species and in the genus Dysithamnus (Chapman 1924) while occidentalis was still considered a subspecies of Thamnophilus aethiops; Zimmer (1933a) provided rationale for considering this form a subspecies of D. occidentalis. See Ridgely & Tudor (1984) for the complex taxonomic history of this species. Donegan et al. (2007) noted that the Andean Dysithamnus (leucostictus and occidentalis) have similar bill structure, bill length, wing length, mass, male and female plumage, elevational range, distribution and habitat use to Thamnophilus unicolor; whether this reflects relationships or convergent evolution is not known.

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

12. Dysithamnus plumbeus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Thamnomanes, but see Schulenberg (1983) for a return to the classifications of Pinto (1937) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a).

12a. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that the Andean and Venezuelan subspecies, leucostictus and tucuyensis, might be best treated as a separate species from Dysithamnus plumbeus. Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) treated leucostictus (with tucuyensis) as a separate species from D. plumbeus. Hilty (2003) further treated tucuyensis as a separate species from leucostictus. SACC proposal to elevate these to species rank did not pass. Isler et al. (2008) provided vocal evidence that leucostictus (with tucuyensis) should be treated as a separate species from D. plumbeus. SACC proposals pending to elevate leucostictus and tucuyensis to species rank.

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. Genetic (Hackett & Rosenberg 1990) and vocal (Zimmer & Isler 2003) data indicated that the "stipple-throated" species formerly included in Myrmotherula (fulviventris through erythrura) form a monophyletic group that may be more closely related to Pygiptila than to other Myrmotherula. Irestedt et al. (2004), Brumfield et al. (2007), and Moyle et al. (2009) found that Myrmotherula was polyphyletic but found no relationship to Pygiptila, which they found to be closely related to Thamnistes and Myrmornis (see Note 10). Isler et al. (2006) named a new genus, Epinecrophylla, for the stipple-throated antwrens. SACC proposal passed to recognize Epinecrophylla; also followed by Banks et al. (2008).  However, the remaining Myrmotherula themselves do not form a monophyletic group:  Brumfield et al. (2007) found that M. axillaris is sister to Formicivora (F. rufa), and that they are members of a strongly supported group that also includes M. brachyura, M. longicauda, and Myrmochanes.

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

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

16c. Epinecrophylla haematonota, E. fjeldsaai, and E. spodionota form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003). Epinecrophylla spodionota (with subspecies sororia) was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1932, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with E. haematonota, but see Hilty & Brown (1986), Parker & Remsen (1987), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Epinecrophylla haematonota, E. fjeldsaai, and E. spodionota (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003). Epinecrophylla haematonota and E. spodionota were considered subspecies of E. leucophthalma by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).

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

17. Recently described: Krabbe et al. (1999).

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

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

19. Genetic (Hackett & Rosenberg 1990) and vocal (Zimmer & Isler 2003) data indicate that the yellow-bellied species of Myrmotherula (M. brachyura through M. longicauda) form a monophyletic group.  However, as currently constituted (see Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23. Myrmotherula hauxwelli and M. guttata form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003). They are perhaps not closely related to other Myrmotherula (Hackett & Rosenberg 1990).

23a. The relationships of Myrmotherula gularis are uncertain; often placed with the "stipple-throated group" (see Note 16d), its nest and behavior suggests that it is more closely related to M. hauxwelli and M. guttata (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

24b. Whittaker (2009) noted that vocal differences between the two subspecies suggests that two species are involved.

25. Recently described: Gonzaga (1988). Known only from the type specimen, which may be a hybrid M. axillaris X M. unicolor (Gonzaga 1988, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

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

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

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

27a. Herpsilochmus pileatus, H. atricapillus, H. motacilloides, and H. parkeri form a monophyletic group, but in describing sellowi, H. sellowi, Whitney et al. (2000) noted that it might well merit a separate genus because of several unique features. Herpsilochmus atricapillus and H. motacilloides were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with H. pileatus, but see Davis and O'Neill (1986) and Whitney et al. (2000) for treatment of as separate species; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered these three to form a superspecies.

27b. See Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for use of "Pileated Antwren" for this species.

28. Recently described but nomenclature complex, with H. pileatus actually the "newly discovered" taxon (Whitney et al. 2000).

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

30. Recently described: Davis and O'Neill (1986).

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

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

31b. Recently described: Whitney & Alvarez (1998).

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

32a. Differences in vocalizations suggest that Herpsilochmus rufimarginatus might consist of more than one species (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34c. Recently described: Gonzaga et al. (2007). SACC proposal passed to recognize Formicivora grantsaui.

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

36. Recently described (as subspecies of F. serrana): Gonzaga & Pacheco (1990). See Collar et al. (1992) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for considering it as a separate species from F. serrana.

37. Recently described: Bornschein et al. (1995). Treated in Formicivora by Gonzaga et al. (2007).

37a. Called "Marsh Antwren" in Zimmer & Isler (2003). proposal needed.

37b. Stymphalornis acutirostris probably should be transferred to the genus Formicivora; it may be more closely related to F. rufa and F. grisea than those species are to other Formicivora (REFS, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

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

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

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

39.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Terenura is the sister to all other thamnophilids.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

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

39aa. Recently described: Teixeira & Gonzaga (1983).

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

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

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

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

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

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

39e. Fitzpatrick & Willard (1990) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered Cercomacra tyrannina, C. laeta, C . parkeri, C. nigrescens, and C. serva form a monophyletic group based on plumage and voice. Cercomacra laeta was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered conspecific with C. tyrannina, but see Bierregaard et al. (1997) for evidence for treatment as a separate species.

39f. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that Cercomacra brasiliana may form a superspecies with C. tyrannina and C. laeta. Zimmer & Isler (2003), however, considered its relationships to other Cercomacra uncertain.

39g. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) known as "Tyrannine Antbird.'

41. Recently described: Graves (1997b).

41a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Cercomacra nigrescens may consist of more than one species.

42. Fitzpatrick & Willard (1990), Silva (1992), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Cercomacra nigricans, C. carbonaria, C. melanaria, and C. ferdinandi form a monophyletic group based on plumage, voice, and ecology.

42a. Recently described: Fitzpatrick & Willard (1990).

43. The three Pyriglena species constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003); they have been considered conspecific by some (e.g., Zimmer 1931). See Willis & Oniki (1981) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for justification for continued treatment of P. atra as a separate species from P. leuconota, of which it was treated as a subspecies by <check Cory & Hellmayr 1925>, Pinto (1937).

43a. Parker & Carr (1992), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Pyriglena leuconota might consist of more than one species, but also see Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

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

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

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

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

44d.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2009) indicate that Hypocnemoides and Hypocnemis are sister genera.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

44e.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2009) indicate that Gymnocichla is most closely related to certain Myrmeciza.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

44f.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2009) indicate that Pyriglena is most closely related to certain Myrmeciza.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

44g.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2009) indicate that Sclateria is most closely related to Schistocichla.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

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

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

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

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

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

48. Recently described: Isler et al. (2001).

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

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

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

50. The species in Schistocichla were formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in Percnostola, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for rationale for return to use of Schistocichla for these three species (as in, e.g., Zimmer 1931, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a). Zimmer & Isler (2003) continued to treat them in Percnostola; see also Braun et al. 2005. Cory & Hellmayr (1924) placed them in Sclateria.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Schistocichla is not closely related to Percnostola but rather is the sister taxon to Myrmeciza hyperythra.

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

51. The genus Myrmeciza is widely suspected of being polyphyletic (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Zimmer & Isler 2003), and this has been confirmed by recent genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004, Brumfield et al. 2007). Myrmeciza ferruginea, M. ruficauda, M. loricata, M. squamosa, M. pelzelni, M. hemimelaena, M. atrothorax, and M. griseiceps were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) placed in a separate genus, Myrmoderus, but genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that this would still be a polyphyletic genus. Peters (1951) removed all but loricata and squamosa from Myrmoderus; atrothorax was placed in a separate genus, Myrmophylax, and the rest were transferred to Myrmeciza. Zimmer (1932b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) merged Myrmoderus and Myrmophylax into Myrmeciza.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that atrothorax is indeed distant from other Myrmeciza (see Note 32b). SACC proposal needed to resurrect Myrmophylax.  Zimmer & Isler (2003) noted that Myrmeciza ferruginea, M. ruficauda, M. loricata, and M. squamosa likely form a monophyletic group based on plumage, voice, and nest structure. Brumfield et al. (2007) found that the Myrmeciza sampled fell into 5 groups: (a) atrothorax (see Note 32b); (b) hyperthyra (see Note 50); (c) fortis, immaculata, goeldii, and melanoceps; (d) hemimelaena (see Note); and (e) exsul and berlepschi.  See also Notes 55b and 55c.  The type species for the genus, longipes, has yet to be placed in a gene-based analysis.  When all taxa are sampled, it is likely that Myrmeciza, as constituted for the last 60+ years, may set a record for degree of polyphyly.

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

51b. Pinto (1978) suggested that Myrmeciza loricata and M. squamosa should be considered conspecific, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994); they form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

51c. Myrmeciza laemosticta and M. nigricauda form a superspecies (Zimmer & Isler 2003).

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

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

52a. Myrmeciza berlepschi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in a separate genus, Sipia, along with "Sipia rosenbergi" (see note 52). The genus Sipia, however, is not diagnosable and was merged into Myrmeciza by Robbins and Ridgely (1991).  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) confirm that berlepschi belongs in the broadly defined (albeit polyphyletic) Myrmeciza, and that berlepschi is most closely related to M. exsul.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

52b.  Genetic data indicate that M. hemimelaena is not closely related to other Myrmeciza but rather to Cercomacra.

53. Isler et al. (2002) provided rationale for why the subspecies castanea should be treated as a species distinct from M. hemimelaena.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Myrmeciza castanea as a species distinct from M. hemimelaena.  Whittaker (2009) further noted possible species-level differences in songs within populations of M. h. pallescens.

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

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

55. Myrmeciza melanoceps and M. goeldii were considered to form a superspecies by Parker (1982), Haffer (1987), and Sibley & Monroe (1990).  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that they are sister species.

55a. Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Myrmeciza immaculata and M. fortis might form a superspecies.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that they are sister species.

55b. Myrmeciza disjuncta may not belong in Myrmeciza but rather in Sclateria (Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Hilty 2003); Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered its relationships to other Myrmeciza uncertain.<see recent Zimmer paper>

55c. Myrmeciza griseiceps may not belong in Myrmeciza but rather in Cercomacra or a monotypic genus (Zimmer 1932b, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001); Zimmer & Isler (2003) considered its relationships to other Myrmeciza uncertain but possibly related to M. nigricauda.

55d. Although its terrestrial morphology recalls an antpitta (Formicariidae), voice and plumage suggest that Myrmornis torquata is a member of the Thamnophilidae (Schwartz & Lentino 1984). Zimmer & Isler (2003), however, suggested that its inclusion in the Thamnophilidae was in need of reappraisal.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007, Moyle et al. 2009) confirmed that its placement in Thamnophilidae is correct.  See Note 10.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

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

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

55g.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that Willisornis, Pithys, Phaenostictus, Phlegopsis, Gymnopithys, and Rhegmatorhina form a monophyletic group of specialized ant-followers.  Within this group, Pithys and Phaenostictus are sister genera.  Gymnopithys and Rhegmatorhina are sister taxa, consistent with their placement in traditional linear sequences; Phlegopsis is likely sister to this pair.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

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

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

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

57a.  Genetic data (Brumfield et al. 2007) indicate that 57aa. Gymnopithys lunulatus and G. salvini are sister species (Zimmer 1937a, Brumfield et al. 2007) that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer & Isler 2003).

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

58. The five species of Rhegmatorhina form a superspecies (Haffer REF, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

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

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

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

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

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

60. Pinto (1978) treated lepidonota (with duidae) as a separate species from W. poecilinotus, and Hilty (2003) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that more than one species was involved; however, see Zimmer (1934d), Willis (1982), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

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

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

62. Skutchia borbae was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) placed in the genus Phlegopsis, but see <REFs>, Zimmer & Isler (2003).  Recent genetic data (Aleixo et al. 2009) that this species is the sister to Phlegopsis nigromaculata.  SACC proposal badly needed to merge Skutchia into Phlegopsis.

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

FORMICARIIDAE (ANTTHRUSHES) 1
Formicarius colma Rufous-capped Antthrush 1a
Formicarius analis Black-faced Antthrush 1b
Formicarius rufifrons Rufous-fronted Antthrush
Formicarius nigricapillus Black-headed Antthrush
Formicarius rufipectus Rufous-breasted Antthrush
Chamaeza campanisona Short-tailed Antthrush 1c, 1d
Chamaeza nobilis Striated Antthrush 2, 2a
Chamaeza meruloides Such's Antthrush 3
Chamaeza turdina Schwartz's Antthrush 4, 4a
Chamaeza ruficauda Rufous-tailed Antthrush 4, 4aa
Chamaeza mollissima Barred Antthrush


GRALLARIIDAE (ANTPITTAS) 1
Grallaria squamigera Undulated Antpitta 4b
Grallaria gigantea Giant Antpitta 4b
Grallaria excelsa Great Antpitta 4b
Grallaria varia Variegated Antpitta 4bb
Grallaria alleni Moustached Antpitta 4e
Grallaria guatimalensis Scaled Antpitta 4e
Grallaria chthonia Tachira Antpitta 4c
Grallaria haplonota Plain-backed Antpitta
Grallaria dignissima Ochre-striped Antpitta 4d, 4f
Grallaria eludens Elusive Antpitta 4f
Grallaria ruficapilla Chestnut-crowned Antpitta 6
Grallaria watkinsi Watkins's Antpitta 6
Grallaria bangsi Santa Marta Antpitta
Grallaria kaestneri Cundinamarca Antpitta 7
Grallaria andicolus Stripe-headed Antpitta 8, 8b
Grallaria griseonucha Gray-naped Antpitta
Grallaria rufocinerea Bicolored Antpitta 8c
Grallaria ridgelyi Jocotoco Antpitta 9
Grallaria nuchalis Chestnut-naped Antpitta 9a
Grallaria carrikeri Pale-billed Antpitta 9a, 10
Grallaria albigula White-throated Antpitta 10a
Grallaria flavotincta Yellow-breasted Antpitta 11
Grallaria hypoleuca White-bellied Antpitta 12
Grallaria przewalskii Rusty-tinged Antpitta 12
Grallaria capitalis Bay Antpitta 12
Grallaria erythroleuca Red-and-white Antpitta 8c, 12
Grallaria rufula Rufous Antpitta 13
Grallaria blakei Chestnut Antpitta 14
Grallaria quitensis Tawny Antpitta 14a
Grallaria milleri Brown-banded Antpitta
Grallaria erythrotis Rufous-faced Antpitta
Hylopezus perspicillatus Streak-chested Antpitta 15, 15a
Hylopezus macularius Spotted Antpitta 16
Hylopezus auricularis Masked Antpitta 16
Hylopezus dives Thicket Antpitta 17, 18
Hylopezus fulviventris White-lored Antpitta 17
Hylopezus berlepschi Amazonian Antpitta 17
Hylopezus ochroleucus White-browed Antpitta 19
Hylopezus nattereri Speckle-breasted Antpitta 19
Myrmothera campanisona Thrush-like Antpitta 15, 19a
Myrmothera simplex Tepui Antpitta 20
Grallaricula flavirostris Ochre-breasted Antpitta 20a, 20aa
Grallaricula loricata Scallop-breasted Antpitta 20b
Grallaricula cucullata Hooded Antpitta
Grallaricula peruviana Peruvian Antpitta 20c, 20b
Grallaricula ochraceifrons Ochre-fronted Antpitta 20c, 21
Grallaricula ferrugineipectus Rusty-breasted Antpitta 22, 24
Grallaricula nana Slate-crowned Antpitta 23, 24
Grallaricula lineifrons Crescent-faced Antpitta

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

1a. The ruficeps subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) considered a separate species from Formicarius colma, but they were treated as conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970).

1b. Formicarius analis may include two or three taxa that deserve recognition as separate species (Howell 1994, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a); Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) treated the northern subspecies group as a separate species, F. moniliger. proposal needed.

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

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

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

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

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

3. Chamaeza meruloides was formerly (e.g., REFS) considered conspecific with C. ruficauda, but see <REFS>.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Recently described: Stiles (1992).

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

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

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

8c. Based on shared plumage features, Zimmer (1934d) proposed that Grallaria rufocinerea and G. erythroleuca were sister species.

9. Recently described: Krabbe et al. (1999).

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

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

10. Recently described: Schulenberg & Williams (1982).

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

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

12. Grallaria hypoleuca (with flavotincta), G. przewalskii, G. erythroleuca, and G. capitalis were considered conspecific ("Bay-backed Antpitta") by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) but not by Peters (1951) or Meyer de Schauensee (1966) or any recent authors; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). See also Note 8c.

13. Geographic variation in song strongly suggests that Grallaria rufula includes more than one species (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). Hilty (2003) noted that plumage and size differences alone suggest that saltuensis from the Perij‡ Mountains may be a separate species, and Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that saltuensis might be more closely related to G. quitensis.

14. Recently described: Graves (1987).

14a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) considered Grallaria blakei and G. rufula to form a superspecies; genetic data (Rice 2005) are consistent with their treatment as sister species.

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

15. See Lowery & O'Neill (1969) for recognition of Hylopezus as a separate genus from Grallaria, in which it was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) included. In fact, genetic data (Rice 2005) indicate that Hylopezus is the sister genus to Myrmothera, not to Grallaria.

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

16. Hylopezus auricularis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of H. macularius, but Maijer (1998) provided evidence from vocalizations that it warrants recognition as a separate species; they form a superspecies. Additional species may be involved within macularius (Hilty 2003, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a).

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

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

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

19a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) suggested that the southeastern subspecies subcanescens deserves recognition as a separate species.

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

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

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

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

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

21. Recently described: Graves et al. (1983).

22. The subspecies rara was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) treated as a separate species from Grallaricula ferrugineipectus, but Peters (1951) treated them as conspecific. Ridgely & Tudor (1984) suspected that G. ferrugineipectus might consist of more than one species. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003a) indicated that vocal differences suggest that the southern subspecies leymebambae deserves recognition as a separate species.

23. Ridgely and Tudor (1994) suggested that the subspecies of the coastal mountains of Venezuela (cumanensis + pariae) deserve recognition as a separate species from Grallaricula nana, but voices are evidently similar (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003a). Donegan (2008) noted that vocal differences between some subspecies of G. nana are equivalent to those between some sympatric Grallaricula species; he suggested that G. nana consists of at least three biological species: the nana group, found primarily in the Andes, the kukenamensis group of the Tepuis, and the cumanensis group of northeastern Venezuela. Proposal needed.

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

CONOPOPHAGIDAE (GNATEATERS) 1
Conopophaga lineata Rufous Gnateater 2
Conopophaga aurita Chestnut-belted Gnateater 3, 4
Conopophaga roberti Hooded Gnateater
Conopophaga melanogaster Black-bellied Gnateater
Conopophaga peruviana Ash-throated Gnateater
Conopophaga castaneiceps Chestnut-crowned Gnateater
Conopophaga ardesiaca Slaty Gnateater
Conopophaga melanops Black-cheeked Gnateater
Pittasoma michleri Black-crowned Antpitta
Pittasoma rufopileatum Rufous-crowned Antpitta

 

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

2. The subspecies cearae of northeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) considered a separate species from Conopophaga lineata, but most authors have followed Pinto & Camargo (1961) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in considering them conspecific. Vocal differences between cearae and other populations of C. lineata suggest that it deserves a return to species rank (Whitney 2003).

3. Conopophaga aurita almost certainly consists of more than one species (Whitney 2003).

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


RHINOCRYPTIDAE (TAPACULOS) 1
Pteroptochos castaneus Chestnut-throated Huet-huet 2
Pteroptochos tarnii Black-throated Huet-huet 2
Pteroptochos megapodius Moustached Turca
Scelorchilus albicollis White-throated Tapaculo
Scelorchilus rubecula Chucao Tapaculo
Liosceles thoracicus Rusty-belted Tapaculo
Acropternis orthonyx Ocellated Tapaculo
Rhinocrypta lanceolata Crested Gallito
Teledromas fuscus Sandy Gallito
Psilorhamphus guttatus Spotted Bamboowren 4, 4a
Merulaxis ater Slaty Bristlefront 4b, 4c
Merulaxis stresemanni Stresemann's Bristlefront 4b
Eleoscytalopus indigoticus White-breasted Tapaculo 4c, 25, 26, 26a
Eleoscytalopus psychopompus Bahia Tapaculo 4c, 26, 26b
Eugralla paradoxa Ochre-flanked Tapaculo 4d
Myornis senilis Ash-colored Tapaculo 5
Scytalopus latrans Blackish Tapaculo 6, 7
Scytalopus unicolor Unicolored Tapaculo 8
Scytalopus parvirostris Trilling Tapaculo 9
Scytalopus speluncae Mouse-colored Tapaculo 9a, 9b, 9c, 25
Scytalopus diamantinensis Diamantina Tapaculo 9d
Scytalopus pachecoi Planalto Tapaculo 9a, 9b, 9d, 25
Scytalopus iraiensis Marsh Tapaculo 9a, 10, 25
Scytalopus macropus Large-footed Tapaculo 10b
Scytalopus sanctaemartae Santa Marta Tapaculo 11
Scytalopus micropterus Long-tailed Tapaculo 12
Scytalopus femoralis Rufous-vented Tapaculo 13
Scytalopus atratus White-crowned Tapaculo 14
Scytalopus bolivianus Bolivian Tapaculo 15
Scytalopus panamensis Pale-throated Tapaculo 16, 16a, 20
Scytalopus chocoensis Choco Tapaculo 17
Scytalopus rodriguezi Upper Magdalena Tapaculo 19a
Scytalopus stilesi Stiles's Tapaculo 17a
Scytalopus robbinsi Ecuadorian Tapaculo 18, 19, 19a
Scytalopus vicinior Nari–o Tapaculo 20
Scytalopus latebricola Brown-rumped Tapaculo 26a
Scytalopus meridanus Merida Tapaculo 21, 29
Scytalopus caracae Caracas Tapaculo 22
Scytalopus spillmanni Spillmann's Tapaculo 23, 23a
Scytalopus parkeri Chusquea Tapaculo 23a, 24
Scytalopus novacapitalis Brasilia Tapaculo 25
Scytalopus magellanicus Magellanic Tapaculo 27
Scytalopus griseicollis Matorral Tapaculo 28
Scytalopus altirostris Neblina Tapaculo 30
Scytalopus affinis Ancash Tapaculo 31
Scytalopus acutirostris Tschudi's Tapaculo 32
Scytalopus urubambae Vilcabamba Tapaculo 33
Scytalopus simonsi Puna Tapaculo 34
Scytalopus zimmeri Zimmer's Tapaculo 35
Scytalopus superciliaris White-browed Tapaculo 36
Scytalopus fuscus Dusky Tapaculo 37
Scytalopus canus Paramo Tapaculo 38
Scytalopus schulenbergi Diademed Tapaculo 39

MELANOPAREIIDAE (CRESCENTCHESTS) 40
Melanopareia torquata Collared Crescentchest 41, 43
Melanopareia maximiliani Olive-crowned Crescentchest 41
Melanopareia maranonica Mara–on Crescentchest 42
Melanopareia elegans Elegant Crescentchest 42

1. [family relationships, linear sequence; undescribed species]. Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that the Rhinocryptidae are most closely related to the Grallariidae.  Proposal needed to change linear sequence of families.  Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2002, Chesser 2004, Moyle et al. 2009) also indicate that Melanopareia does not belong in the Rhinocryptidae. SACC proposal passed to create new family.  Within the Rhinocryptidae, these genetic data indicate a deep division between two groups: (a) genera Myornis, Eugralla, and Scytalopus, and (b) the genera above from Pteroptochos through Liosceles (Psilorhamphus, Merulaxis, and Eleoscytalopus not sampled).  Within group b, Pteroptochos and Scelorchilus are sisters, and these two are sisters to the others, with their relationships Liosceles + (Acropternis + (Rhinocrypta + Teledromas)).  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera.  More recent data (Ericson et al. 2009) affirmed much of the above and also confirmed that Psilorhamphus is a rhinocryptid (see Note 4) and is the sister taxon to Liosceles, and that Merulaxis, and Eleoscytalopus are sister taxa and they in turn are sisters to the group that includes Myornis, Eugralla, and Scytalopus.  SACC proposal badly needed to change linear sequence.  Ericson et al. (2009) also found that Pteroptochos and Scelorchilus belong in group ÒaÓ above.
2. See Howell & Webb (1995) and Chesser (1999) for evidence for continued recognition of Pteroptochos castaneus and P. tarnii as separate species; they were considered conspecific by FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990); they form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).
4. Psilorhamphus formerly had been placed by some in the Formicariidae (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937, Sick 1954), and Wetmore (1943) and Peters (1951) proposed that it belonged in the Sylviidae, but Pl—tnik (1958) morphological analysis indicated that it was a member of the Rhinocryptidae.  Its position in the Rhinocryptidae has not been questioned since Sick (1960).  Ericson et al. (2009) confirmed that it is a member of the Rhinocryptidae.
4a. SACC proposal passed to delete hyphen from English name "Bamboo-wren."
4b. Merulaxis stresemanni and M. ater form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).
4c. Maur’cio et al. (2008) found that Scytalopus is paraphyletic with respect to Merulaxis, with S. indigoticus and S. psychopompus more closely related to Merulaxis than to other Scytalopus; they described a new genus, Eleoscytalopus, for indigoticus and psychopompus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Eleoscytalopus.  See also Mata et al. (2009) for additional support for recognizing Eleoscytalopus.
4d. Eugralla has priority over Triptorhinus, the name used by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
5. REFS, and Hilty & Brown (1986) considered Myornis not worthy of recognition in a monotypic genus, but see FjeldsΠ& Krabbe (1990) for continued recognition of the genus. <REF> included it within Scytalopus, but see Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b).
6. Scytalopus latrans was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. unicolor; for treatment as a separate species from S. unicolor based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and Coopmans et al. (2001); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
7. Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies subcinereus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Scytalopus latrans.
8. Formerly much more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and Coopmans et al. (2001).
9. Scytalopus parvirostris was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. unicolor; for treatment as a separate species from S. unicolor based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
9a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) considered Scytalopus speluncae and S. iraiensis to be sister species. Bornschein et al. (2007) found that the songs of these two species did not differ. Proposal needed to re-evaluate species rank of iraiensis?.
9b. Recently described: Maur’cio (2005). Scytalopus pachecoi populations were formerly included in S. speluncae, but the two differ in voice and are locally sympatric Maur’cio (2005). SACC proposal passed to recognize S. pachecoi.
9c. Raposo et al. (2006) have described a new species, S. notorius, most closely related to S. speluncae, and have redescribed S. speluncae. Raposo & Kirwan (2008) further defended their position on the type specimen of speluncae. Proposal badly needed.
9d. Recently described: Bornschein et al. (2007) and presumably most closely related to S. pachecoi. SACC proposal to recognize diamantinensis as a species passed.
10. Recently described: Bornschein et al. (1998).
10b. Zimmer (1939x) suspected that Scytalopus macropus was most closely related to his broadly defined Scytalopus unicolor based on structural proportions, bill shape, and plumage.
11. Scytalopus sanctaemartae was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
12. Scytalopus micropterus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997). [Arctander and FjeldsΠ1994.]
13. Scytalopus femoralis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) much more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
14. Scytalopus atratus (with confusus and nigricans) was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
15. Scytalopus bolivianus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. femoralis; for treatment as a separate species from S. femoralis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
16. Scytalopus panamensis was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951) more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) for treatment of South American vicinior as a separate species.
16a. Called "Tacarcuna Tapaculo" in Ridgely & Gwynne (1989) and AOU (1998). Proposal needed?
17. Recently described: Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
17a. Recently described: Cuervo et al. (2005). SACC proposal passed to recognize S. stilesi. The sister species is probably S. robbinsi (Cuervo et al. 2005).
18. Recently described: Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
19. Called "El Oro Tapaculo" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed?
19a. Krabbe et al. (2005) recently described a new species, Scytalopus rodriguezi, also endemic to Colombia, and also possibly most closely related to S. robbinsi and S. stilesi. Proposal passed to recognize S. rodriguezi.
20. Scytalopus vicinior was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970<?>) considered conspecific with S. panamensis; for treatment as a separate species from S. panamensis based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); see also Wetmore (1972).
21. Scytalopus meridanus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. latebricola; for treatment as a separate species from S. latebricola based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
22. Scytalopus caracae was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. latebricola; for treatment as a separate species from S. latebricola based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
23. Scytalopus spillmanni was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. latebricola; for treatment as a separate species from S. latebricola based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
23a. Scytalopus spillmanni and S. parkeri form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).
24. Recently described: Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
25. Scytalopus novacapitalis was originally considered closely related to E. indigoticus (Sick 1960<check>).  Genetic data (Mata et al. 2009) indicate that S. novacapitalis and S. pachecoi are sisters, with S. iraiensis and S. speluncae successively more distantly related in a clade composed of Brazilian Scytalopus.  SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
26. Euscytalopus indigoticus and E. psychopompus are sister species (Mata et al. 2009).  The latter may be only a subspecies of S. indigoticus (Gonzaga et al. 1995, Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).  Mata et al. argued for species rank based on genetic distance.
26a. Zimmer (1939x) suspected that Scytalopus indigoticus is most closely related to his broadly defined S. latebricola, but see Note 4.
26b. Recently described: Teixeira & Carnevalli (1989).
27. Scytalopus magellanicus was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) much more broadly defined; see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
28. Scytalopus griseicollis was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
28a. The subspecies infasciatus was treated as a separate species from Scytalopus griseicollis by Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997), but see Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) and Donegan & Avenda–o (2008).  SACC proposal pending to recognize infasciatus as a separate species.
28b. "Matorral Tapaculo" was proposed as an English name for S. griseicollis by Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) and was used by Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003) and Restall et al. (2006).  "Rufous-rumped Tapaculo" was used by Hilty (2003) and Gill & Wright (2006).  "Pale-bellied Tapaculo" was used by Asociaci—n Bogotana de Ornitolog’a (2000) and Donegan & Avenda–o (2008).  "Colombian Tapaculo" has previously been used for S. infasciatus (e.g. Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997) but "Cundinamarca Tapaculo" was used by Gill & Wright (2006) for S. infasciatus.  Proposal needed?
29. The subspecies fuscicauda was formerly considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or of S. griseicollis (Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997, Hilty 2003); for treatment as a separate species, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) although they stated that S. fuscicauda may be conspecific or even a synonym of S. meridanus.  Donegan & Avenda–o (2008) presented vocal and morphological evidence for treatment of S. fuscicauda as, at best, a subspecies of S. meridanus.  SACC proposal passed to treat fuscicauda as conspecific with S. meridanus.
30. Scytalopus altirostris was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
31. Scytalopus affinis was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
32. Scytalopus acutirostris was described as (Zimmer 1939x) and formerly (e.g., , Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997); it had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
33. Scytalopus urubambae was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
34. Scytalopus simonsi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus, or a synonym of S. acutirostris (Zimmer 1939x); for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
35. Scytalopus zimmeri was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
35a. Scytalopus zimmeri and S. superciliaris form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).
36. Scytalopus superciliaris was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; for evidence for continued treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997).
37. Scytalopus fuscus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus; however, not only do they differ vocally but also they are sympatric in central Chile (Krabbe & Schulenberg 1997, 2003b); S. fuscus had previously been considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1924).
38. Scytalopus canus (with opacus) was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939x, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. magellanicus or of S. unicolor (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924); for treatment as a separate species from S. magellanicus based on differences in voice, see Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997). Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) noted that further research may show that opacus also deserves species rank.
39. Recently described: Whitney (1994).
40. Whether Melanopareia belongs in the Rhinocryptidae has been controversial. Cory & Hellmayr (1924) placed it in the Formicariidae (= Thamnophilidae). Genetic data (Irestedt et al., Chesser 2004) indicate that Melanopareia does not belong in the Rhinocryptidae. Proposal passed to create new family.  Ericson et al. (2009) also confirmed this and formally named the new family.
41. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Melanopareia torquata and M. maximiliani to form a superspecies.
41a. Krabbe & Schulenberg (2003b) noted that vocal differences suggest that the southern subspecies pallida may warrant treatment as a separate species from Melanopareia maximiliani.
42. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Melanopareia maranonica and M. elegans to be conspecific, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); they presumably form a superspecies (Krabbe & Schulenberg 2003b).
43. The hyphen in "Crescent-chest" seems to have crept into the English name of this genus although it seems unnecessary; Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and earlier lists did not use a hyphen. SACC proposal passed to delete hyphen in English name "Crescent-chest."


Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Pipridae) (click)