A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

 

South American Classification Committee

 

 

(Part 9)

 

Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (below)

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes

Part 3. Apodiformes

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes

Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes

Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae)

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)

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

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Ploceidae to Passerellidae)

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Icteridae to end)

 

Hypothetical List

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

 

 

PASSERIFORMES

Suborder PASSERES (OSCINES) 1

 

VIREONIDAE (VIREOS) 1a

Cyclarhis gujanensis Rufous-browed Peppershrike 2

Cyclarhis nigrirostris Black-billed Peppershrike 3

Hylophilus amaurocephalus Gray-eyed Greenlet 12

Hylophilus poicilotis Rufous-crowned Greenlet 11, 11a

Hylophilus olivaceus Olivaceous Greenlet 13a

Hylophilus pectoralis Ashy-headed Greenlet

Hylophilus flavipes Scrub Greenlet 13a, 13b

Hylophilus semicinereus Gray-chested Greenlet

Hylophilus brunneiceps Brown-headed Greenlet

Hylophilus thoracicus Lemon-chested Greenlet

Vireolanius eximius Yellow-browed Shrike-Vireo 4, 5

Vireolanius leucotis Slaty-capped Shrike-Vireo 4, 5a

Tunchiornis ochraceiceps Tawny-crowned Greenlet 14, 14a

Pachysylvia decurtata Lesser Greenlet 15

Pachysylvia hypoxantha Dusky-capped Greenlet 12b, 13

Pachysylvia muscicapina Buff-cheeked Greenlet

Pachysylvia aurantiifrons Golden-fronted Greenlet 12aa, 12b

Pachysylvia semibrunnea Rufous-naped Greenlet 11, 12aa

Vireo griseus White-eyed Vireo (V) 6a

Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo (NB)

Vireo masteri Choco Vireo 6, 6b

Vireo sclateri Tepui Vireo 12a

Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo (V) 7b

Vireo gilvus Warbling Vireo (V) 7, 7c

Vireo leucophrys Brown-capped Vireo 7, 7a

Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo (NB) 8, 8a, 8b

Vireo chivi Chivi Vireo 8, 8a

Vireo gracilirostris Noronha Vireo 9, 8a

Vireo flavoviridis Yellow-green Vireo (NB) 8a, 10

Vireo altiloquus Black-whiskered Vireo 8a, 8c

 

 

1. Within the Passeres, two major divisions have been identified by morphological (Bock 1962) and genetic (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Mindell et al. 1997, Ericson et al. 2000, García -Moreno & Mindell 2000, Prychitko & Moore 2003) studies: the Corvida (here Vireonidae through Corvidae) and Passerida (the rest of the families). Whether these groups are monophyletic is not yet certain (Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Treplin et al. 2008).

 

1a. The Vireonidae was formerly placed, based on some morphological studies (e.g., Beecher 1953, Tordoff 1954a), in or next to the nine-primaried oscines in linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); however, genetic data (e.g., Johnson et al. 1988, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Cicero & Johnson 2001, Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) have confirmed Sibley & Ahlquist's (1982, 1990) once-controversial finding that the Vireonidae is part of the Corvida lineage.  Slager et al. (2014) confirmed the monophyly of the family (including Indomalayan Pteruthius and Erpornis, as discovered by Reddy & Cracraft 2007).  Cyclarhis and Vireolanius were formerly treated in separate families, Cyclarhiidae and Vireolaniidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, REFs), but see Zimmer (1942b), Barlow & James (1975), Raikow (1978), Orenstein & Barlow (1981), and Sibley & Ahlquist (1982) for inclusion within the Vireonidae. Retention of these groups as subfamilies (e.g., Blake 1968a) within the Vireonidae was contested by early genetic data (Johnson et al. 1988, Cicero & Johnson 2001), and more recent, more comprehensive surveys (Slager et al. 2014) are unable to conclusively resolve the topology of the deepest branches. <incorp. Murray et al. check Hamilton 1962>.  The classification adopted here follows Slager et al. (2014).

 

2. The subspecies ochrocephala of southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944) occasionally treated as a separate species from Cyclarhis gujanensis, but they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1935), and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.  Ridgway (1904) treated the flavipectus subspecies group of n. South America and Central America, as well as the Middle America flaviventris subspecies group, as separate species from C. gujanensis; Hellmayr (1935) treated them all as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.  Slager et al. (2014) found deep divergences among several lineages within broadly defined C. gujanensis.

 

3. Although traditionally recognized at the species level, Cyclarhis nigrirostris is very similar in plumage to some nearby populations of C. gujanensis.  Slager et al. (2014) found that most analyses indicate that treatment of nigrirostris as a species makes C. gujanensis paraphyletic.  SACC proposal needed <wait follow-up taxonomic paper by Slager et al., and NACC>

 

4. Vireolanius eximius and V. leucotis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Zimmer 1942b, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Eisenmann 1955, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore et al. 1984) placed in a separate genus, Smaragdolanius, but recent classifications (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Blake (1968a) in merging this into Vireolanius.

 

5. Vireolanius eximius was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) considered a subspecies of Middle American V. pulchellus, but recent classifications have followed Eisenmann (1955) and AOU (1983) in considering them as separate species. Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that Hellmayr's (1935) claim that the subspecies mutabilis represented a taxon intermediate between eximius and pulchellus was incorrect (and that mutabilis was not even a valid taxon); therefore, Wetmore et al. (1984) recommended treating the two as separate species pending further data. The two species form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

5a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that Vireolanius leucotis may involve more than one species, and this is supported by the genetic data of Slager et al. (2014), who found that V. leucotis as currently defined is paraphyletic with respect to V. pulchellus and V. eximius. SACC proposal needed <wait follow-up taxonomic paper by Slager et al., and NACC>

 

5b.  Vireo flavifrons was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in separate genus, Lanivireo, along with North American V. solitarius group.

 

6. Johnson et al. (1988) suggest that the genus Vireo is not a monophyletic group if extralimital V. bellii is included; Johnson et al. (1988) also noted that the degrees of genetic difference within Vireo among other groups of species are comparable to those among currently recognized genera in the family.  Slager et al. (2014) confirmed that Vireo as currently defined is not monophyletic, but not because of V. bellii but because it is paraphyletic with respect to Hylophilus.  SACC proposal passed to revise classification.

 

6a. Sight record from Venezuela (Rodríguez et al. 2017).  Photographed in Trinidad, 9 Jan. 2018, (Kenefick 2019).  SACC proposal passed to add to main list.  Sight record from Venezuela

 

6b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Salaman and Stiles (1996).

 

7. Vireo leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1941d, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Mayr & Short 1970, Barlow 1981) considered a subspecies of V. gilvus ("Warbling Vireo"), but recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely and Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered them to represent separate species, thus returning to the classification of Hellmayr (1935), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); genetic data are also consistent with such a treatment (Johnson et al. 1988, Cicero and Johnson 2001, Slager et al. 2014). See Zimmer (1941d) for rationale for treatment as conspecific based on existence of taxa intermediate in phenotype. Johnson et al. (1988) used comparative genetic distance data to support treatment as separate species.  Slager et al. (2014), however, found that V. philadelphicus may be embedded within the gilvus-leucophrys clade, thus requiring treatment of each as separate species. Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated V. gilvus and V. leucophrys as superspecies, but if placement of V. philadelphicus within that group can be corroborated, then that refutes the superspecies designation, even if V. philadelphicus were included, because V. philadelphicus and V. gilvus are partially sympatric. The species name josephae was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Vireo leucophrys.

 

7a. Genetic data (Murray et al. 1994) support the traditional "eye-lined" species group (here including V. gilvus, V. leucophrys, V. philadelphicus, V. olivaceus, V. gracilirostris, V. flavoviridis, and V. altiloquus) as a monophyletic unit within the genus Vireo; these species were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in a separate genus, Vireosylva.  SACC proposal to resurrect Vireosylva did not pass.  Slager et al. (2014) confirmed that they formed a monophyletic group, but only if Hylophilus sclateri is included (see Note 12a).  SACC proposal passed to transfer sclateri to Vireo.

 

7b. Three specimen records from northern Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986).  Photograph from Aruba (Wells & Wells 2004). Sight record from Curaçao (Wells and Wells 2001).

 

7c. Photographed in Ecuador (see Freile et al. 2019).  SACC proposal passed to add Vireo gilvus to the main list.

 

8. Some classifications (e.g., Pinto 1944) have considered the South American chivi group as a separate species ("Chivi Vireo") from V. olivaceus, or as conspecific with V. flavoviridis (Hamilton 1962), but see Hellmayr (1935), Zimmer (1941d), Eisenmann 1962a, Johnson & Zink (1985), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested, however, that more than one species may be involved within the South American chivi group.  Slager et al. (2014) found that V. olivaceus as currently defined might be polyphyletic, and Battey & Klicka (2017) found that broadly defined V. olivaceus was paraphyletic with respect to V. altiloquus.  SACC proposal passed to treat chivi group as a separate species from V. olivaceus. Additional studies are badly needed on species limits within the South American breeding taxa; for example, V. chivi is likely paraphyletic with respect to V. gracilirostris, which is assumed to be a derivative of the V. chivi group (Hellmayr 1934, Olson 1994).

 

8a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Vireo olivaceus (then also including V. chivi) and V. flavoviridis to form a superspecies, and V. altiloquus to form a superspecies with Caribbean V. magister; they excluded V. gracilirostris from either superspecies because they thought it might be more closely related to the latter subspecies even though gracilirostris was formerly considered a subspecies of V. olivaceus (see Note 9).  Blake (1968) and Mayr & Short (1970) considered V. olivaceus, then also including V. chivi (with flavoviridis and gracilirostris treated as conspecific) to form a superspecies with V. altiloquus and excluded V. magister. Collectively, these taxa form a monophyletic group, but relationships within the group (Slager et al. 2014) do not conform to any of these superspecies designations.

 

8b. Vireo olivaceus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) known as Vireo virescens (and occasionally in recent decades, e.g., Phillips 1991), but see AOU (1931), Zimmer (1941d), Monroe (1968), and Banks & Browning (1995).

 

8c. The species name calidris was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Vireo altiloquus, but see Hellmayr (1935).

 

9. Vireo gracilirostris was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of broadly defined V. olivaceus, but see Oren (1984) and Olson (1994) for a return to treatment at the species level, as in Hellmayr (1935) and Pinto (1944).

 

10. Vireo flavoviridis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Hamilton 1958, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, AOU 1983) treated as a subspecies of V. olivaceus, but see Hamilton (1962), Eisenmann (1962a), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Johnson & Zink (1985) for a return to the classification of Ridgway (1904).  Further, Slager et al. (2014) found that V. flavoviridis itself might not be monophyletic. <wait follow-up taxonomic paper by Slager et al., and NACC>

 

11. Genetic data indicate that Hylophilus is not monophyletic (Johnson et al. 1988) and that at least three separate genera are required (Slager et al. 2014).  The name Pachysylvia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Hylophilus.  SACC proposal passed to resurrect Pachysylvia.  SACC proposal to change English names of greenlets did not pass.

 

11a.The species name of Hylophilus poicilotis is occasionally misspelled as "poecilotis" (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989).

 

12. Hylophilus amaurocephalus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of H. poicilotis, but see Willis (1991) and Raposo et al. (1998) for a return to the treatment of Todd (1929); the two species are sympatric, differ strongly in vocalizations, and do not show intergradation.

 

12a. Slager et al. (2014) found that Hylophilus sclateri was not a member of any of the three lineages currently included in Hylophilus (see Note 11) and that it was a member of the Vireosylva group (see Note 7a).  SACC proposal passed to transfer sclateri to Vireo, and to change English name from “Tepui Greenlet” to “Tepui Vireo”.

 

12aa. Pachysylvia semibrunnea and H. aurantiifrons form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).  Slager et al. (2014) found that they are sister species.

 

12b. Ridgway (1904) treated P. hypoxantha as a subspecies of P. aurantiifrons.  Hellmayr (1935) treated them as separate species, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.

 

13. Pachysylvia hypoxantha includes the subspecies inornata, formerly (e.g., Blake 1968a) considered a subspecies of H. brunneiceps, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989). The subspecies flaviventris of eastern Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) treated as a separate species from P. hypoxantha.

 

13a. Hylophilus flavipes and H. olivaceus were considered to form a superspecies by AOU (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) because Zimmer (1942b) considered them conspecific.  Slager et al. (2014), however, found that they are not sister species: H. olivaceus and H. pectoralis are sisters, and H. flavipes and H. semicinereus are sisters.  SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

 

13b. The subspecies viridiflavus of Central America was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species from Hylophilus flavipes; Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that vocal differences may indicate that viridiflavus deserves species rank. Ridgway (1904) treated the subspecies acuticauda (of n. Venezuela) and insularis (of Tobago) as separate species; Hellmayr (1935) treated them all as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.

 

14. Slager et al. (2014) found that Inclusion of ochraceiceps in Hylophilus would make that genus paraphyletic.  Slager & Klicka (2014) named a new genus for this species, Tunchiornis.  SACC proposal passed to adopt Tunchiornis.

 

14a. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for potential reasons for ranking of the southern rubrifrons subspecies group as a separate species from Hylophilus ochraceiceps.  Slager et al. (2014) found deep divergences within among lineages included in H. ochraceiceps.  Buainain et al. (2021) found evidence for treating it as consisting at four species.  SACC proposal badly needed.

 

15. The minor subspecies group of South America has been treated (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) as a separate species ("Gray-headed Greenlet") from Middle American decurtatus, but they intergrade in Panama (Wetmore et al. 1984).

 

 

CORVIDAE (JAYS) 1

Cyanolyca armillata Black-collared Jay 2, 3

Cyanolyca viridicyanus White-collared Jay 2, 4, 4a

Cyanolyca turcosa Turquoise Jay 2

Cyanolyca pulchra Beautiful Jay 5

Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay 6

Cyanocorax cyanomelas Purplish Jay 6

Cyanocorax caeruleus Azure Jay 6, 6a

Cyanocorax cristatellus Curl-crested Jay 6, 7

Cyanocorax affinis Black-chested Jay 6

Cyanocorax mystacalis White-tailed Jay 6

Cyanocorax cayanus Cayenne Jay 6

Cyanocorax heilprini Azure-naped Jay 6b

Cyanocorax chrysops Plush-crested Jay 8

Cyanocorax cyanopogon White-naped Jay 8

Cyanocorax yncas Green Jay 9, 10

 

 

1. [note on monophyly, relationships, within-family relationships]. <incorp. Amadon 1944, Hardy 1961, 1964, 1969>.  The genera in South America are part of a group of New World jays the monophyly of which is supported by genetic (Ericson et al. 2005, Ekman and Ericson 2006) and morphological (Manegold 2008) characters.

 

2. Cyanolyca armillata was formerly (e.g., Blake and Vaurie 1962, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific with C. viridicyanus; see Goodwin (1976) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for rationale for treating them as separate species.  Cyanolyca armillata, C. viridicyanus, and C. turcosa were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but C. armillata and C. turcosa overlap in the eastern Andes of s. Colombia and n. Ecuador. Cyanolyca turcosa was also formerly (e.g., Blake and Vaurie 1962) considered a subspecies of C. viridicyanus, but see Zimmer (1953c) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).  These three species form a monophyletic group (Bonaccorso 2009).

 

3. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for rationale for using "Black-collared" instead of "Collared," as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

 

4. Correct spelling for species name is viridicyanus, not viridicyana (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

4a.  Bonaccorso (2009) proposed that the northern subspecies jolyaea should be considered a separate species based on strong genetic and plumage differences from the other subspecies Cyanolyca viridicyanus.

 

5. Cyanolyca pulchra may form a superspecies with Middle American C. cucullata (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered conspecific, but see Pitelka (1951).  Genetic data (Bonaccorso 2009) indicate that they are sister species.

 

6. Cyanocorax violaceus, C. cyanomelas, C. caeruleus, and C. cristatellus may form a superspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. cyanomelas and C. caeruleus to form a superspecies, but not the others.

 

6a. David & Dickinson (2016) presented evidence that the original spelling of the species name is coerulescens.  SACC proposal to change to coerulescens did not pass.

 

6b.  Cohn-Haft et al. (2013) described a new species from southwestern Amazonian Brazil, Cyanocorax hafferi, that they found was most closely related to C. heilprini and C. affinis.  SACC proposal to recognize Cyanocorax hafferi did not pass.

 

7. Cyanocorax cristatellus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944) placed in the monotypic genus Uroleuca.

 

8. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cyanocorax chrysops and C. cyanopogon, along with Mexican C. dickeyi, to form a superspecies; C. chrysops and C. cyanopogon were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Blake & Vaurie 1962) considered conspecific, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

 

9. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated Middle American populations as a separate species, C. luxuosus ("Green Jay") from South American C. yncas ("Inca Jay"), but no data presented; they were formerly (e.g., REFS) considered separate species.

 

10. Cyanocorax yncas was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) placed in the monotypic genus Xanthoura, but see Zimmer (1953c) for its merger into Cyanocorax.

 

 

ALAUDIDAE (LARKS) 1

Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark 2

 

 

1.  The Alaudidae are members of a group of largely Old World sylvioid families (Fuchs et al. 2006, Alström et al. 2006, Johansson et al. 2008).

 

2. Eremophila alpestris was formerly treated in the genus Otocoris (e.g. Ridgway 1907, AOU 1931) but see AOU (1947).

 

 

HIRUNDINIDAE (SWALLOWS) 1

Pygochelidon cyanoleuca Blue-and-white Swallow 11, 11a

Pygochelidon melanoleuca Black-collared Swallow 11d

Alopochelidon fucata Tawny-headed Swallow 12

Orochelidon murina Brown-bellied Swallow 11b

Orochelidon flavipes Pale-footed Swallow 11c

Orochelidon andecola Andean Swallow 10, 10a

Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow

Atticora tibialis White-thighed Swallow

Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern Rough-winged Swallow 13

Progne tapera Brown-chested Martin 6

Progne subis Purple Martin (NB) 7

Progne dominicensis Caribbean Martin 7

Progne cryptoleuca Cuban Martin (V) 7, 8

Progne chalybea Gray-breasted Martin 7

Progne elegans Southern Martin 7, 9

Progne murphyi Peruvian Martin 7, 9

Progne modesta Galapagos Martin 7, 9

Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow (NB) 2

Tachycineta stolzmanni Tumbes Swallow 3, 3a

Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow 3a

Tachycineta leucorrhoa White-rumped Swallow 4

Tachycineta leucopyga Chilean Swallow 4, 5

Riparia riparia Bank Swallow (NB) 14

Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 15, 15a, 15b

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow 16, 16a, 16b

Petrochelidon fulva Cave Swallow (V) 16, 17

Petrochelidon rufocollaris Chestnut-collared Swallow 16, 18

 

 

1. The swallows are a distinctive family with no certain close relatives (Sheldon & Gill 1996, REFS), although some data suggest a relationship to the Alaudidae (Treplin et al. 2008).  Recent genetic data indicate that they may be part of a primarily Old World radiation of "sylvioid" families such as babblers and tits (Barker et al. 2004), including the Alaudidae (Johansson et al. 2008).

 

1a. Classifications of the family in last 60 years or so have generally followed Mayr & Bond (1943) in merging many monotypic genera and grouping species into genera based on nest site construction and plumage characters. For the most part, these broad genera conform to the groups identified by genetic data (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 1999). SACC proposal passed to redefine sequence of genera and generic limits based largely on the genetic data of Sheldon et al. (2005). [Stiles working on rewriting this and several Notes below.]

 

2. Sequence of species in Tachycineta follows Whittingham et al. (2002) and Dor et al. (2012).

 

2a. All South American Tachycineta were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904, Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, AOU 1957) placed in the genus Iridoprocne along with North American T. bicolor; recent authors have followed Peters (1960) in merging this into Tachycineta. Genetic data (Whittingham et al. 2002) indicate that Iridoprocne is not monophyletic, although the South American species themselves form a monophyletic group. See Whittingham et al. (2002) for rationale for maintaining a broadly defined Tachycineta as in Peters (1960).

 

3. Tachycineta stolzmanni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989; cf. Wetmore et al. 1984) considered a subspecies of T. albilinea, but see Robbins et al. (1997). Genetic data (Whittingham et al. 2002) indicate that T. albiventer and T. albilinea ("Mangrove Swallow") are sister taxa, and thus more closely related to each other than either is to T. stolzmanni.

 

3a. Tachycineta albilinea, T. stolzmanni, and T. albiventer form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data support the monophyly of this group.

 

4. Tachycineta leucopyga and T. leucorrhoa are sister species (Whittingham et al. 2002). Meyer de Schauensee (1966) proposed that these two species are best treated as subspecies of the same species; rationale for treating them as separate species is weak (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

5. Tachycineta leucopyga was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as T. leucopyga, but the latter was considered preoccupied; see Ridgway (1904), Brooke (1974) and Sibley and Monroe (1990). However, the analysis by Mlíkovsky & Frahnert (2009) indicated that leucopyga is the correct species name, and this was endorsed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).  Proposal passed to return to leucopyga as the species name.  Elliott (2020) provided the rationale for why meyeni is the correct name.  SACC proposal needed.

 

6. Progne tapera was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Zimmer 1955b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) placed in the monotypic genus Phaeoprogne (sometimes incorrectly spelled "Phaeprogne") because it differed in coloration, degree of sexual dimorphism, slenderer bill, less forked tail, and more extensive tarsal feathering (Zimmer 1955b). Genetic data indicate that tapera is the sister to all other Progne (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 1999, 2005, Moyle et al. 2008. Treatment of them as congeneric follows Peters (1960), Wetmore et al. (1984), Turner & Rose (1989), and AOU (1998), but at this point rests solely on arbitrary evaluations of the significance of the phenotypic characters outlined by Zimmer (1955b).

 

7. Progne subis, P. dominicensis, P. cryptoleuca, P. chalybea, P. elegans, P. murphyi, and P. modesta, along with P. sinaloae of Middle America, are usually considered to form a superspecies (Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Mayr & Short 1970, Ridgely and Tudor 1989); Sibley and Monroe (1990) excluded the latter three because of extensive overlap of that group with P. chalybea; Zimmer (1955b) also noted that overlap was likely between P. chalybea and Middle American P. sinaloae (which he also considered a subspecies of P. dominicensis because of plumage similarities). On the other hand, reported sympatry between P. chalybea and P. modesta was questioned by Eisenmann & Haverschmidt (1972), who also reported possible hybridization between them. Regardless of whether they all form a superspecies, species limits in this group very greatly among classifications, and species limits are largely arbitrary; no convincing rationale has been published for any particular set of species limits.  Recent genetic data (Moyle et al. 2008) indicate that current species limits are at least consistent with DNA sequence data except for the polyphyly of P. chalybea in terms of mtDNA, with Middle American chalybea close to other Middle American taxa and South American chalybea sister to P. elegans.

 

8. Specimens from Curaçao (Voous 1982, 1985).

 

9. Progne elegans and P. murphyi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Turner & Rose 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley and Monroe 1990) treated as conspecific with P. modesta, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they might not be conspecific, suggesting a return to the treatment by Ridgway (1904); elegans was treated as a separate species by Wetmore et al. (1984) based on differences in size and plumage pattern. Evidence for treating either as separate species from modesta is weak; see Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Eisenmann and Haverschmidt (1970) proposed that P. modesta was derived from P. subis, and that P. murphyi from P. elegans.

 

9a.  The species name furcata was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Progne elegans.

 

10. Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 2005) indicate that the species in the genera Haplochelidon, Pygochelidon, Notiochelidon, Atticora, Neochelidon, and Alopochelidon together form a monophyletic group, but that current species assignments within these genera make them all paraphyletic or polyphyletic: "Atticora" melanoleuca is the sister species to Pygochelidon cyanoleuca, whereas A. fasciata is likely the sister to Middle American Notiochelidon pileata + Neochelidon tibialis, and Notiochelidon murina is the sister to Haplochelidon andecola. Therefore, generic limits require major modification. SACC proposal passed to redefine limits of genera. See additional notes below on the historical fluidity of the limits of these genera.

 

10a. Notiochelidon andecola has been merged into Petrochelidon by some (e.g., Chapman 1924b, Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960) or into a broad Hirundo that includes Petrochelidon by others (REF, Ridgely and Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Parkes (1993) presented evidence from nest construction and plumage that indicated that andecola is not a member of the Petrochelidon-Hirundo group, but rather a member of the Stelgidopteryx-Alopochelidon group. Genetic data (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 2005) also indicate that andecola is not a member of the Petrochelidon-Hirundo group, and that it is a member of a Neotropical group that includes Pygochelidon, Notiochelidon, Atticora, and Neochelidon. SACC proposal passed to include in the genus Orochelidon.

 

11. Pygochelidon cyanoleuca is usually included in Notiochelidon (e.g., Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990), although Zimmer (1955b) placed it in Atticora. It was maintained in the monotypic genus Pygochelidon by AOU (1983, 1998) and Sheldon & Winkler (1993), as in Ridgway (1904), Hellmayr (1935), and Pinto (1944). Sheldon et al. (1999) returned to placing it in Notiochelidon, but Sheldon et al. (2005) found that it is less closely related Notiochelidon than to Atticora melanoleuca.

 

11a. The southern subspecies patagonica was considered a separate species from Pygochelidon cyanoleuca by Ridgway (1904).

 

11b. Orochelidon murina was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Zimmer 1955b) treated in the monotypic genus Orochelidon, but most recent classifications have placed in it Notiochelidon. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Orochelidon.

 

11c. Notiochelidon flavipes was formerly placed in Pygochelidon (Hellmayr 1935) or Atticora (Zimmer 1955b), but recent classifications have followed Peters (1960) in placing it in Notiochelidon. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Orochelidon and to place flavipes in that genus.

 

11d. Atticora melanoleuca was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in the monotypic genus Diplochelidon. SACC proposal passed to include melanoleuca in Pygochelidon.

 

12. Alopochelidon has been merged into Stelgidopteryx by some (e.g., Short 1975, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), as suggested by Zimmer (1955b); but also see Zimmer(1955b) for rationale for retaining a monotypic Alopochelidon. Genetic data (e.g., Sheldon et al. 2005) clearly indicate that it does not belong in Stelgidopteryx. SACC proposal passed to maintain in monotypic genus.

 

13. Stelgidopteryx ruficollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as conspecific with S. serripennis ("Northern Rough-winged Swallow") of North America and Middle America, but see Stiles (1981) for a return to the classification of Ridgway (1904); they constitute a superspecies (Sibley and Monroe 1990).

 

13b. Stelgidopteryx was merged into Riparia by Phillips et al. (1964), but see Gaunt (1965), Parkes (1993), Sheldon & Winkler (1993), and Sheldon et al. (1999, 2005).

 

14. Called "Sand Martin" or "Common Sand-Martin" in Old World literature and in Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Turner & Rose (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change to "Sand Martin" did not pass. SACC proposal to add to "Sand Martin" as an alternative name did not pass.

 

15. Recently recorded breeding in Argentina (Martínez 1983).

 

15a. Hirundo rustica may form a superspecies with several Old World taxa (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

15b. The New World populations of Hirundo rustica were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species, H. erythrogastra, from Old World populations, but they were treated as conspecific by van Rossem (1934), Hellmayr (1935), and subsequent authors.

 

16. Petrochelidon was included in Hirundo by <REF>, and this was followed by AOU (1983), Turner & Rose (1989), Sibley and Monroe (1990), and others, but see Sheldon & Winkler (1993) and Sheldon et al. (1999, 2005) for genetic data that indicate that they are not sister genera.

 

16a. The species name formerly (e.g., AOU 1931) and occasionally more recently (e.g., Phillips 1986) used for Petrochelidon pyrrhonota was albifrons, but see Banks & Browning (1995). Even earlier (e.g., Ridgway 1904), the species name lunifrons was used for Progne elegans.

 

16b. Recently recorded breeding in Argentina (Salvador et al. 2016).

 

17. Specimen of subspecies pallida collected on Curaçao (Voous 1985); and <>.  Published photos from Venezuela (Escola et al. 2011).

 

18. Petrochelidon rufocollaris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, Turner & Rose 1989) treated as a subspecies of P. fulva, but see Ridgely and Tudor (1989) and AOU (1998) for returning to the classification of Ridgway (1904); they form a superspecies (Sibley and Monroe 1990).

 

 

TROGLODYTIDAE (WRENS) 1

Microcerculus marginatus Scaly-breasted Wren 2, 3, 4

Microcerculus ustulatus Flutist Wren

Microcerculus bambla Wing-banded Wren

Odontorchilus branickii Gray-mantled Wren 2, 5, 6, 6a

Odontorchilus cinereus Tooth-billed Wren 6

Troglodytes aedon House Wren 7, 8, 9

Troglodytes cobbi Cobb’s Wren 8

Troglodytes ochraceus Ochraceous Wren 10,10a

Troglodytes solstitialis Mountain Wren 10

Troglodytes monticola Santa Marta Wren 10

Troglodytes rufulus Tepui Wren 10

Cistothorus platensis Grass Wren 7, 11, 12, 13

Cistothorus meridae Merida Wren 13, 14

Cistothorus apolinari Apolinar's Wren 13, 15

Campylorhynchus albobrunneus White-headed Wren 16, 17, 18

Campylorhynchus zonatus Band-backed Wren 17, 18, 18a

Campylorhynchus nuchalis Stripe-backed Wren 18

Campylorhynchus fasciatus Fasciated Wren 18

Campylorhynchus griseus Bicolored Wren 19, 20

Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren 21, 22

Pheugopedius spadix Sooty-headed Wren 24, 24a

Pheugopedius fasciatoventris Black-bellied Wren

Pheugopedius euophrys Plain-tailed Wren 25, 26

Pheugopedius eisenmanni Inca Wren 25, 27

Pheugopedius mystacalis Whiskered Wren 28

Pheugopedius genibarbis Moustached Wren 28

Pheugopedius coraya Coraya Wren 29

Pheugopedius rutilus Rufous-breasted Wren 30

Pheugopedius sclateri Speckle-breasted Wren 30

Thryophilus rufalbus Rufous-and-white Wren 23, 24, 35

Thryophilus sernai Antioquia Wren 23, 35

Thryophilus nicefori Niceforo's Wren 35

Cantorchilus leucopogon Stripe-throated Wren 24, 34

Cantorchilus nigricapillus Bay Wren 31, 32

Cantorchilus superciliaris Superciliated Wren 36, 36a

Cantorchilus leucotis Buff-breasted Wren 36, 36aa

Cantorchilus longirostris Long-billed Wren 36, 36aa, 36b

Cantorchilus guarayanus Fawn-breasted Wren 36, 36aa

Cantorchilus griseus Gray Wren 6a, 37

Cinnycerthia unirufa Rufous Wren

Cinnycerthia olivascens Sharpe's Wren 38, 39

Cinnycerthia peruana Peruvian Wren 38

Cinnycerthia fulva Fulvous Wren 38

Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-Wren 40, 43a

Henicorhina leucoptera Bar-winged Wood-Wren 43, 43a

Henicorhina leucophrys Gray-breasted Wood-Wren 41, 43a

Henicorhina anachoreta Hermit Wood-Wren 41

Henicorhina negreti Munchique Wood-Wren 42

Cyphorhinus thoracicus Chestnut-breasted Wren 44, 45

Cyphorhinus phaeocephalus Song Wren 45

Cyphorhinus arada Musician Wren 45, 46, 47

 

 

1. Traditional classifications (e.g., Mayr & Amadon 1951, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed the Troglodytidae near the Sittidae, Certhiidae, Mimidae, and Cinclidae to reflect proposed relationships to those families (e.g., Beecher 1953). Genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Barker et al. 2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) indicate a close relationship to the Polioptilidae.

 

6a. "Odontorchilus olallae" is now known to be a synonym of Thryothorus griseus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

 

7. Genetic data (Barker 2004) indicate that Cistothorus and Troglodytes are sister genera, contrary to traditional linear sequences.

 

8. Many authors (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) formerly treated Neotropical mainland populations as a separate species T. musculus; see also Brumfield and Capparella (1996); this treatment was followed by Brewer (2001) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). <incorp. Paynter 1957?>  The Falklands population, T. a. cobbi, might also be best treated as a species (Woods 1993), as was done by Brewer (2001), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). SACC proposal to treat cobbi as separate species did not pass.  Campagna et al. (2012) provided additional evidence that cobbi merits species rank.  SACC proposal passed to treat cobbi as separate species.

 

9. Although the name Troglodytes domesticus has priority for this species, Banks & Browning (1995) recommended continued use of aedon as the species name for reasons of stability.

 

10. Troglodytes ochraceus, T. solstitialis, T. monticola, and T. rufulus form a superspecies with Middle American T. rufociliatus and (Sibley & Monroe 1990); species limits in this group traditionally based on plumage coloration and lack explicit rationale (except for considering T. ochraceus and T. solstitialis as separate species; see Stiles & Skutch 1989). Hellmayr (1934) considered Troglodytes solstitialis, T. monticola, and T. rufulus to each warrant species rank; Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered monticola to be a subspecies of T. solstitialis, but treated T. rufulus as a species. <incorp. Paynter 1957?>

 

10a. Troglodytes ochraceus was recently discovered on the Colombian side of Cerro Tacarcuna (Renjifo et al. 2017).  SACC proposal passed to add to SACC list.

 

11. Two distinctive major subspecies groups, Andean and south-temperate platensis and lowland polyglottus, intergrade in southeastern South America (Traylor 1988). The North American stellaris group may warrant species rank from Cistothorus platensis (e.g., see Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Robbins and Nyári 2014).  SACC proposal passed to treat stellaris group as separate species.

 

12. Called "Grass Wren" by Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and others. SACC proposal to change English name did not pass. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Short-billed Marsh-Wren."

 

13. Cistothorus platensis (sensu lato), C. meridae, and C. apolinari form a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).  Robbins & Nyári (2014) found that Cistothorus platensis was paraphyletic with respect to the other two, and they proposed recognition of nine species within broadly defined platensis, seven of which are in South America: C. alticola, C. aequatorialis, C. graminicola, C. minimus, C. tucumanus, C. hornensis, and C. platensis.  SACC proposal passed to treat South American platensis group as separate species from northern C. stellaris.  SACC proposal did not pass to recognize additional species within C. platensis.

 

14. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Rodner et al. 2000, Dickinson 2003) called "Paramo Wren." Called "Merida Wren" by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Brewer (2001), Hilty (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).  SACC proposal passed to change English name to "Merida Wren."

 

15. Called "Apolinar's Marsh-Wren" by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), but as noted by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), this implied an incorrect relationship to North American C. palustris ("Marsh Wren").

 

16. The name Heleodytes was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944) used for Campylorhynchus, but see <REF>.

 

17. Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered Campylorhynchus albobrunneus to be a subspecies of C. turdinus, but Haffer (1975), Hilty & Brown (1986), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) noted that C. albobrunneus and C. zonatus may be sister species or even conspecific because the taxon aenigmaticus of southwestern Nariño, currently treated as a subspecies of C. albobrunneus, may represent a hybrid zone between albobrunneus and zonatus (Haffer 1967); their vocalizations are not known to differ. Barker (2007) and Vásquez-Miranda & Barker (2021) found that albobrunneus was more closely related to C. fasciatus than to either C. zonatus or C. turdinus. Treatment of albobrunneus as a separate species represents a return to the classifications of Hellmayr (1934) and Selander (1964).  However, Vásquez-Miranda & Barker (2021) found that C. zonatus is paraphyletic with respect to fasciatus and albobrunneus. SACC proposal needed. <wait NACC?>

 

18. Campylorhynchus zonatus, C. albobrunneus, C. nuchalis, and C. fasciatus were considered to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990; cf. Selander 1964), but they do not form a monophyletic group (Barker 2007).

 

18a. Campylorhynchus zonatus likely consists of more than one species (Barker 2007).

 

19. Campylorhynchus griseus and Middle American C. chiapensis may form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be treated as conspecific, as treated by Paynter & Vaurie (1960).

 

20. The minor subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Campylorhynchus griseus.

 

21. The southern subspecies unicolor was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944) treated as a separate species from Campylorhynchus turdinus, but Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific.

 

22. Called "Banded-backed Wren" in Stiles & Skutch (1989) and Dickinson (2003).

 

23. Lara et al. (2012) described a new species, Thryophilus sernai, from northern Colombia.  SACC proposal passed to recognize T. sernai as a new species.

 

24. Genetic data (Barker 2004, Mann et al. 2006) indicate that the broad genus Thryothorus is polyphyletic, and that true Thryothorus is not found in South America; Mann et al. (2006) recommended recognition of three genera for South American taxa by resurrecting two from the synonymy of Thryothorus (Pheugopedius and Thryophilus) and describing a new one (Cantorchilus). SACC proposal to redistribute South American "Thryothorus" into three genera did not pass. <add Pheugopedius, Cantorchilus, and Thryophilus limits to Notes below>.  Mann et al. (2009) found distinctive vocal behaviors marking Pheugopedius, Thryophilus, and Cantorchilus. New SACC proposals passed to revise Thryothorus and linear sequences of species.

 

24a. Pheugopedius spadix and Central American P. atrogularis appear to form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1934) and Paynter & Vaurie (1960), but see Wetmore et al. (1984).

 

25. Pheugopedius euophrys and P. eisenmanni to form a superspecies (Parker & O'Neill 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

26. The subspecies atriceps was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Pheugopedius euophrys, but Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific.

 

27. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Parker & O'Neill (1985).

 

28. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated montane mystacalis as a separate species from lowland Pheugopedius genibarbis; this was followed by Brewer (2001), Ridgely et al. (2001), Hilty (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); voices are described as different, but no analysis has been published; they were formerly treated as separate species (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) until Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to elevate mystacalis to species rank. The northern subspecies macrurus was also formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Pheugopedius genibarbis, but Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific; <REFS?> and Brewer (2001) noted that macrurus, known from one specimen, may be an aberrant individual of P. g. amaurogaster, but subsequently treated as a valid taxon by Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) <trace this -- not mentioned in Paynter & Vaurie (1960)>.

 

29. Hilty (2003) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) pointed out that vocal differences between subspecies of Venezuelan Tepui region and lowlands suggest that Pheugopedius coraya may consist of more than one species.

 

30. Pheugopedius rutilus, P. sclateri, and Middle American P. maculipectus were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1934), but they were treated as separate species by AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) treated the similarly patterned but widely separated sclateri and maculipectus as conspecific, but maintained geographically intermediate P. rutilus as a separate species. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for a synopsis and for rationale for tentative treatment of the three groups as separate species. They form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

31. Pheugopedius nigricapillus and Central American P. semibadius form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Paynter & Vaurie 1960) treated as conspecific, but see Slud (1964), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).

 

32. The Central American subspecies castaneus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species from Pheugopedius nigricapillus, but Hellmayr (1934) treated them as conspecific see <?> Wetmore (1959).

 

34. Cantorchilus leucopogon was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Paynter & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of C. thoracicus of Central America; here it is treated as separate species, following AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); vocalizations are described differing strongly, but no analysis has been published. They form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

35. Many have suggested that Thryophilus nicefori is perhaps best treated as a subspecies of T. rufalbus (Paynter & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), but see Valderrama et al. (2007) for support for species rank for nicefori; they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

36. Cantorchilus leucotis, C. superciliaris, C. guarayanus, and C. longirostris, along with Middle American C. modestus, form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Kroodsma & Brewer 2005), and justification for ranking each as a species is weak (see additional comments in Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that C. superciliaris might best be treated as a subspecies of C. leucotis.

 

36a. Called “Eyebrowed Wren” in Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

 

36aa. The southern subspecies rufiventris was treated as a separate species from Cantorchilus leucotis by (REF) <noted in Kroodsma & Brewer (2005)>.  Species limits among C. leucotis, C. longirostris, and C. guarayanus are controversial (Ridgely and Tudor 1994, Hayes 1995).

 

36b. Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) suggested that the northern subspecies bahiae might warrant treatment as a separate species from Cantorchilus longirostris.  See also Zimmer and Whittaker (2009).

 

37. Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Brewer (2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) suggested that C. griseus is so different from other Thryothorus (now Cantorchilus) that it might deserve placement in separate genus.  Its placement here in Cantorchilus is tentative.

 

38. Cinnycerthia olivascens and C. fulva were formerly (e.g., Paynter & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with C. peruana, but see Brumfield & Remsen (1996); this treatment was followed by Brewer (2001), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). Hellmayr (1934) had previously treated fulva as a separate species from C. peruana. The three species form a superspecies.

 

39. Called "Sepia-brown Wren" in Ridgely et al. (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

 

40. The prostheleuca and pittieri subspecies groups of Middle American may each warrant recognition as separate species from Henicorhina leucosticta (Winker et al. 1996). Dingle et al. (2006) further suggested splitting H. leucosticta into at least three taxa: (i) a Central American prostheleuca group; (ii) a Chocó inornata group; and (iii) an Amazonian leucosticta group.   See also Smith et al. (2014).  Pegan et al. (2015) proposed that at least two species be recognized based on vocal data.  SACC proposal to revise species limits did not pass.

 

41. Henicorhina leucophrys may consist of more than one species; see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).  Dingle et al. (2010) found that the subspecies hilaris and nominate leucophrys differ significantly in voice and are elevationally parapatric with an uncertain degree of intergradation.  Halfwerk et al. (2016) found assortative mating with limited hybridization between hilaris and nominate leucophrys, which also have different songs (Dingle et al. 2008, 2010).  SACC proposal needed.  Caro et al. (2013) found that the parapatric subspecies H. l. bangsi and H. l. anachoreta are not closely related within the broader complex and that their songs differ.  Cadena et al. (2015) found that H. l. bangsi and H. l. anachoreta are elevationally parapatric in the Santa Marta Mountains.  SACC proposal passed to treat anachoreta as a separate species. SACC proposal passed on English name.  Cadena et al. (2019) showed that there are as many as 35 lineages within H. leucophrys that could merit recognition as species under some species concepts.

 

42. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Salaman et al. (2003). SACC proposal passed to add newly described Henicorhina negreti.

 

43. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Fitzpatrick et al. (1977).

 

43a. Dingle et al.'s (2006) analysis of mtDNA haplotype distribution indicates that Henicorhina leucoptera is more closely related to H. leucosticta than to H. leucophrys, and in fact Chocó populations of the former are more closely related to H. leucoptera than either is to other H. leucosticta populations. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of species within Henicorhina.

 

44. The name formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) used for the genus Cyphorhinus was Leucolepis; see Storer (1970a).

 

45. Cyphorhinus phaeocephalus was considered conspecific with C. arada by Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970); most authors have followed Hellmayr (1934), AOU (1983), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) in treating them as separate species; virtually no relevant published data support either treatment; they form a superspecies (AOU 1983); Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) also included C. thoracicus in this superspecies.

 

46. The southern subspecies modulator (with rufogularis, transfluvialis, interpositus, and griseolateralis) was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944) occasionally treated as a separate species from Cyphorhinus arada; they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1934) and Paynter & Vaurie (1960), and this has been followed by subsequent authors.  Whittaker (2009) noted that vocal differences among subspecies suggest that more than one species is involved.  Bocalini & Silveira (2016) proposed elevating five subspecies (salvini, modulator, transfluvialis, interpositus, and griseolateralis) to species rank based on vocal and plumage differences.  SACC proposal needed.

 

47. This species' name is often given as "aradus", but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Jobling (1991), and David & Gosselin (2002a).

 

 

POLIOPTILIDAE (GNATCATCHERS) 1

Microbates collaris Collared Gnatwren

Microbates cinereiventris Half-collared Gnatwren 2

Ramphocaenus melanurus Long-billed Gnatwren 3

Ramphocaenus sticturus Chattering Gnatwren 3

Polioptila plumbea Tropical Gnatcatcher 4, 5

Polioptila lactea Creamy-bellied Gnatcatcher 5

Polioptila facilis Rio Negro Gnatcatcher 7

Polioptila guianensis Guianan Gnatcatcher 6, 7

Polioptila clementsi Iquitos Gnatcatcher 7, 8

Polioptila paraensis Klages’s Gnatcatcher 7

Polioptila attenboroughi Inambari Gnatcatcher 7

Polioptila schistaceigula Slate-throated Gnatcatcher 6

Polioptila dumicola Masked Gnatcatcher 9

 

 

1. Although this group had been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) as a tribe or subfamily of the Old World Warblers (Sylviidae), actual evidence for that relationship was weak. Independent genetic data sets (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Barker et al. 2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004, Alström et al. 2006, Johansson et al. 2008) indicate a relationship to the Troglodytidae (which is much more plausible in terms of biogeography). The conservative position is, pending additional data, to treat this group as a family of its own.  Rand & Traylor (1953) proposed that Ramphocaenus and Microbates were more closely related to the African sylviid genus Macrosphenus than to Polioptila, but Beecher (1953) considered this to represent convergence.  At one time (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937), Microbates and Ramphocaenus were placed in the Formicariidae (= Thamnophilidae), but see Rand & Traylor (1953).  These two genera are often placed in a separate tribe, Ramphoceaenini, from Polioptila when the collective group is ranked as a subfamily (e.g., AOU 1998); genetic data for their sister relationship to Polioptila rests on Sibley & Ahlquist (1990).

 

2. Called "Tawny-faced Gnatwren" by Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely and Tudor (1989), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Gill & Wright (2006). The name "Half-collared" dates from at least Ridgway (1911), and was used by Cory (1924), Eisenmann (1955), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Parker et al. (1982), and Hilty & Brown (1986). SACC proposal needed. <NACC proposal to change to Half-collared did not pass.>

 

3. The rufiventris subspecies group of Middle America and western Colombia was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) considered a separate species from Ramphocaenus melanurus, but see Zimmer (1931) for rationale for treating them as conspecific.  Harvey et al. (2014) proposed that the subspecies sticturus (with obscurus) should be treated as a separate species from other Amazonian populations because of local sympatry without any sign of interbreeding along with strong vocal differences.  Smith et al. (2018) also provided evidence for treatment of several subspecies as separate species.  SACC proposal passed to treat sticturus as a separate species from Ramphocaenus melanurus. SACC proposal passed to establish English names for the two species.

 

4. Polioptila plumbea likely includes several species (Atwood and Lerman 2006). The subspecies maior of the Marañon Valley (treated as a separate species by Hellmayr 1934) and the bilineata group of northern South American and Middle America may each warrant species recognition, but a published analysis is lacking (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Even within populations east of the Andes, vocal differences suggest that more than one species is involved (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003).

 

4a. Middle American Polioptila albiloris was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1942c) considered a subspecies of P. plumbea.

 

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Polioptila plumbea and P. lactea to form a superspecies; Paynter (1964a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.

 

6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Polioptila guianensis and P. schistaceigula to form a superspecies; Zimmer (1942c) and Paynter (1964) suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.

 

7. Whitney and Alvarez A. (2005) provided evidence that P. guianensis should be treated as three separate species, with the subspecies paraensis and facilis treated as species-level taxa. Atwood and Lerman (2006) followed this treatment. SACC proposal for recognition of P. facilis and P. paraensis did not pass.  Whittaker et al. (2013) described a new species in the complex from southwestern Amazonian Brazil, Polioptila attenboroughi, and presented evidence that paraensis and facilis should also be ranked as separate species.  SACC proposal to recognize these as species did not pass.  Smith et al. (2018) generally corroborated all previously proposed species-level elevations and novel species descriptions (Whitney et al. 2005, Whittaker et al. 2013) in the Polioptila guianensis complex, which had been based on analyses of combined vocal and morphological data sets.  SACC proposal passed to recognize facilis, paraensis, and attenboroughi as species.

 

8. Newly described: Whitney and Alvarez A. (2005), who considered it part of the P. guianensis group, which they also considered to consist of at least two additional species (see previous Note). SACC proposal passed for recognition of P. clementsi.

 

9. The subspecies berlepschi differs substantially in plumage and perhaps voice, and may merit recognition as a separate species (Ridgely & Tudor 1989).

 

 

DONACOBIIDAE (DONACOBIUS) 1

Donacobius atricapilla Black-capped Donacobius 2, 3

 

 

1. Donacobius atricapilla was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Davis & Miller 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered to be a member of the Mimidae; it was moved from the Mimidae to the Troglodytidae based on Wetmore et al. (1984) and Kiltie & Fitzpatrick (1984). Genetic data (Barker 2004, Alström et al. 2006), however, indicate that it does not belong in either of those families, but is a member of the Old World Sylvioidea group, most likely related to the Megaluridae or "Bernieridae" (Johansson et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to remove from Troglodytidae and place as Incertae Sedis. Aleixo & Pacheco (2006) proposed that Donacobius be elevated to family rank, Donacobiidae. SACC proposal passed to recognize Donacobiidae.  Chesser et al. (2010) also formally recognized this new family.

 

2. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Black-capped Mockingthrush." Called "Black-capped Mockingbird" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994) and "Donacobius" in Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).

 

3. Correct spelling for species name is atricapilla (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

 

CINCLIDAE (DIPPERS) 1

Cinclus leucocephalus White-capped Dipper 2, 3

Cinclus schulzii Rufous-throated Dipper 2, 4

 

 

1. [relationships of family; Sibley 1970, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990] Genetic data suggest that the Cinclidae are most closely related to the Turdidae + Muscicapidae (Barker et al. 2004, Treplin et al. 2008, Johansson et al. 2008) or to the Sturnidae + Mimidae (Voelker & Spellman 2004).

 

2. Cinclus leucocephalus and C. schulzii form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ormerod & Tyler 2005); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Greenway 1960) considered conspecific.

 

3. The leuconotus subspecies group was considered a separate species from Cinclus leucocephalus by (REF).

 

4. The correct spelling of the species name is schulzii (Dickinson & Christidis 2014), not “schulzi” (as in Ridgely & Tudor 1989<check?>, Dickinson 2003, and thus previous versions of the current classification), or “schultzi” (as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970 and elsewhere).

 

 

BOMBYCILLIDAE (WAXWINGS) 1

Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing (V) 2

 

 

1.  The relationships of the Bombycillidae remain uncertain.  Some genetic data (Voelker & Spellman 2004) suggest that the Bombycillidae are not closely related to the Muscicapoidea assemblage, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); other genetic data (Barker et al. 2004) support that relationship.  Jonsson & Fjeldså (2006) included them within the Muscicapoidea, but Johansson et al. (2008) found little support for that placement.

 

2. Specimen records from northwestern Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986) and northwestern Venezuela (Aveledo & Pons 1952).  Dead bird examined (Voous 1983) but evidently not preserved as a specimen.

 

 

TURDIDAE (THRUSHES) 1

Myadestes coloratus Varied Solitaire 2, 3

Myadestes ralloides Andean Solitaire 2, 3

Catharus aurantiirostris Orange-billed Nightingale-Thrush 5, 5c

Catharus fuscater Slaty-backed Nightingale-Thrush 5c

Catharus maculatus Speckled Nightingale-Thrush 5c, 5cc

Catharus fuscescens Veery (NB) 5a

Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush (NB) 5a, 5c

Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush (NB) 5a, 5c

Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush (V) 5a, 5b

Entomodestes coracinus Black Solitaire 6, 6a

Entomodestes leucotis White-eared Solitaire 6a

Cichlopsis leucogenys Rufous-brown Solitaire 4

Turdus leucops Pale-eyed Thrush 6b

Turdus falcklandii Austral Thrush

Turdus reevei Plumbeous-backed Thrush

Turdus flavipes Yellow-legged Thrush 6b, 6bb

Turdus leucomelas Pale-breasted Thrush

Turdus fumigatus Cocoa Thrush 8b

Turdus hauxwelli Hauxwell's Thrush 8b, 8bb

Turdus obsoletus Pale-vented Thrush 8b, 8c

Turdus rufiventris Rufous-bellied Thrush

Turdus grayi Clay-colored Thrush 8d, 10

Turdus nudigenis Spectacled Thrush 8c, 8d, 11, 11a, 11b

Turdus maculirostris Ecuadorian Thrush 11

Turdus sanchezorum Varzea Thrush 8bb, 8d

Turdus haplochrous Unicolored Thrush 8d

Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush

Turdus murinus Pantepui Thrush 8aa

Turdus amaurochalinus Creamy-bellied Thrush

Turdus ignobilis Black-billed Thrush 8a, 8aa

Turdus arthuri Campina Thrush 8a, 8aa

Turdus maranonicus Marañon Thrush

Turdus fulviventris Chestnut-bellied Thrush

Turdus olivater Black-hooded Thrush 8

Turdus nigriceps Andean Slaty Thrush 7

Turdus subalaris Blacksmith Thrush 7

Turdus fuscater Great Thrush 6c, 6d, 8

Turdus chiguanco Chiguanco Thrush 6c, 6d

Turdus serranus Glossy-black Thrush 6e

Turdus assimilis White-throated Thrush 12, 12a, 12b, 13

Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush 12, 14, 15

 

 

1. [relationships of family] < incorp. Mayr & Greenway 1956, Breviora, Voelker & Spellman 2004> The limits of the Turdidae, as traditionally defined (e.g., REFS) are almost certainly incorrect. Genetic data (Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Treplin et al. 2008, Sangster et al. 2010) indicate that the mostly Old World saxicoline genera are more closely related to members of the traditional Muscicapidae than to the Turdidae; this would require a merger of the two families or a transfer of the saxicoline genera (e.g., Oenanthe) to the Muscicapidae. Within the remaining Turdidae, genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005, Sangster et al. 2010) indicate that Myadestes is more closely related to a group that includes the Old World genera Stizorhina and Neocossyphus than it is to other New World thrushes; Olson (1989) and Pasquet et al. (1999) proposed recognition of a separate subfamily for this group, Myadestinae. <incorp. Ripley 1952, Goodwin 1957>

 

2. Hellmayr (1934), Ripley (1964), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered Myadestes coloratus, M. ralloides, and Central American M. melanops to be conspecific; Ridgway (1907), AOU (1983, 1998), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989), however, treated them as separate species; evidence for either treatment is weak; they constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data indicate that they form a monophyletic group (Miller et al. 2007, Voelker & Klicka 2008).

 

3. Sibley's (1973a) analysis of egg-white proteins indicated that Myadestes was most closely related to Middle American Ptilogonatidae, and this was followed by Wetmore et al. (1984). However, recent genetic data (Pasquet et al. 1999, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004, Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008) support an earlier suggestion based on morphology (Olson 1989) that Myadestes is more closely related to the Afrotropical genera Stizorhina and Neocossyphus than to other New World thrushes except perhaps Sialia (Voelker & Klicka 2008). Ripley's (1964) linear sequence placed Myadestes next to African Stizorhina and Neocossyphus rather than near other New World thrush genera.

 

4. Hellmayr (1934), Pinto (1944), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a) treated this species in the monotypic genus Cichlopsis. Ripley (1964) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) merged Cichlopsis into Myadestes, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for resurrection of Cichlopsis; this has been followed by most recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990). Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008) indicate that Cichlopsis is not closely related to Myadestes but rather is the sister genus to Entomodestes; in fact, Klicka et al. (2005) recommended the merger of Cichlopsis into Entomodestes. SACC proposal passed to move Cichlopsis in linear sequence.

 

5. The griseiceps subspecies group of Central America and western Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Catharus aurantiirostris, but see Zimmer (1944b).

 

5a. Whether the monotypic genus Hylocichla should be recognized or merged into Catharus, as done by Sibley & Monroe (1990), was long considered controversial; see Winker & Rappole (1988) and AOU (1998) and references therein. Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008) support retention of Hylocichla as a separate genus and suggest that its closest relative is Middle American Ridgwayia. Catharus fuscescens, C. minimus, and C. ustulatus were also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, AOU 1957) included in Hylocichla, but most classifications have followed Ripley (1964) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), based on Dilger (1956), in placing them in Catharus. Recent genetic data (Outlaw et al. 2003) strongly support their inclusion in Catharus rather than Hylocichla.

 

5b. Specimens from northern Colombia (Rodríguez 1980), Curaçao (Voous 1983, 1985), and the Falkland Islands (Olrog 1972, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).

 

5c. Genetic data (Outlaw et al. 2003, Klicka et al. 2005) indicate that (1) Catharus fuscater, C. (dryas) maculatus, C. aurantiirostris, and Middle American C. mexicanus form a monophyletic group, but relationships within that group are not well-resolved; and (2) C. fuscescens, C. minimus, and C. ustulatus form a monophyletic group with the remaining North and Middle American species in the genus. Voelker & Klicka (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship between C. fuscater and C. dryas.

 

5cc. Halley et al. (2017) provided evidence that the South American maculatus subspecies group should be treated as a separate species from (extralimital) nominate (dryas) subspecies group from Middle America.  SACC proposal to treat as separate species passed, but proposal to establish English name did not.  SACC proposal to establish English name passed.

 

6. Ripley's (1964) linear sequence placed Entomodestes, along with Myadestes, next to African Stizorhina and Neocossyphus rather than near other New World thrush genera. Genetic data (Pasquet et al. 1999, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008, Sangster et al. 2010) indicate that Entomodestes is close to true thrushes, in contrast to Myadestes (see Note 3).

 

6a. Entomodestes coracinus and E. leucotis form a superspecies; genetic data (Voelker & Klicka 2008) support the monophyly of the genus.

 

6aa. Ridgway (1907) placed all New World Turdus in the genus Planesticus.  Voelker et al. (2007) found strong support for largely South American clade within Turdus that includes all species in South America plus T. pelios of Africa. Within the South American group, other strongly supported groups are (a) albicollis + assimilis + fulviventris + olivater + nigriceps + fuscater + serranus + chiguanco; (b) T. lawrencii + amaurochalinus + ignobilis + maranonicus + Nesocichla of Tristan da Cunha; (c) T. leucomelas + hauxwelli + fumigatus; and (d) rufiventris + grayi + nudigenis + haplochrous. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.  Bautista et al. (2020) found that the New World Turdus constitute a monophyletic group, with T. pelios grouping with other Old World taxa, not with the South American group, for which they also found support; their branching patterns within that group differed slightly.  SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

 

6b. Turdus (Platycichla) leucops was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a subspecies of T. flavipes, but Phelps & Phelps (1946) found that they are sympatric in Venezuela. Recent genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate that they are not even sister species, and thus the formerly recognized genus Platycichla is not monophyletic; see also Note 6bb.

 

6bb. Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005) indicate that the genus Platycichla is embedded within Turdus. Klicka et al. (2005) did not include the merger of Platycichla into Turdus because additional taxon-sampling within Turdus is planned in follow-up studies, but Collar (2005) merged the two genera. <incorp. Goodwin 1957> Pan et al. (2007) and Voelker et al. (2007) found additional support for the merger into Turdus; see also Note 6b. SACC proposal passed to merge Platycichla into Turdus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.  Additional comprehensive sampling of new world Turdus (Batista et al. 2020) has modified our understanding of relationships within the genus that require changes in the linear sequence of species.  SACC proposal needed.

 

6c. Turdus fuscater and T. chiguanco may intergrade in central Bolivia although they behave as biological species elsewhere (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1989, 1990). Voelker et al. (2007) indicated that they are not sister species, with T. serranus and T. chiguanco sisters, but Batista et al. (2020) showed that this is because fuscater itself is not monophyletic. SACC proposal on species limits in T. fuscater did not pass.

 

6d. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies anthracinus might deserve recognition as a separate species from Turdus chiguanco.  Batista et al. (2020) found that anthracinus was sister to a T. chiguanco + one population of T. fuscater, and treated anthracinus as a separate species.  SACC proposal did not pass.

 

6e. Turdus serranus and Middle American T. infuscatus were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), and were considered conspecific by Ripley (1964). However, genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that they are only distantly related, not even members of the same species group.

 

7. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) considered the subspecies subalaris to be a separate species from Turdus nigriceps, based on unpublished vocal differences; this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Clement (2000), and Ridgely et al. (2001), and represents a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1934) and Pinto (1944); it was not followed by Collar (2005) because of the absence of published data.  Cerqueira et al. (2016) and Avendaño et al. (2017) found that subalaris was not even a member of the same group of Turdus as Turdus nigriceps SACC proposal passed to treat subalaris as a separate species and to establish new English names.  SACC proposal badly needed to modify linear sequence.

 

8. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that T. o. caucae might warrant recognition as a species.

 

8a. Middle American Turdus plebejus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered conspecific with T. ignobilis. However, genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that they are only distantly related and are not members of the same species group.

 

8aa. Cerqueira et al. (2016) proposed that Turdus ignobilis consisted of at least three species, with the subspecies debilis sister to Turdus maranonicus.  Batista et al. (2020) also found that debilis was sister toAvendaño et al. (2017) found that Turdus ignobilis might consist of as many as four species, but certainly consists of at least two: the tepui subspecies murinus is not closely related to Turdus ignobilis.  Stiles & Avendaño (2019) provided evidence that the subspecies arthuri also merited species rank.  SACC proposal passed to treat murinus and arthuri as species.

 

8b. Species limits in this group have been controversial and confusing. Hellmayr (1934), Pinto (1944), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and Snow (1985) treated Turdus hauxwelli and T. obsoletus as conspecific with T. fumigatus. Ripley (1964) considered T. fumigatus and T. obsoletus to be conspecific but treated T. hauxwelli as a separate species, because Gyldenstolpe (1945, 1951) found it sympatric with T. fumigatus in western Brazil. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered these two as separate species but considered hauxwelli to be conspecific with T. obsoletus (and also suggested that the Lesser Antillean personus group might warrant treatment as a separate species from T. fumigatus). Ridgely & Tudor (1989), followed by Collar (2005), considered T. fumigatus, T. obsoletus, and T. hauxwelli as separate species based on plumage, habitat, and elevational differences, and this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that assignment of the subspecies parambanus, colombianus, and orinocensis is problematic. Turdus fumigatus, T. obsoletus, and T. hauxwelli were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (2005); however, genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that although T. fumigatus and T. hauxwelli are sister species, T. obsoletus is not particularly closely related to them.

 

8bb. O’Neill et al. (2011) described a new species of Turdus (T. sanchezorum), previously misidentified as T. hauxwelli, that is the sister to T. haplochrous.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Turdus sanchezorum.  Batista et al. (2020), however, found that T. sanchezorum and T. haplochrous were not sister species but members of a group that also includes T. grayi, T. maculirostris, T. nudigenis, and T. rufiventris.  SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

 

8c. Called "Pale-vented Robin" in Wetmore et al. (1984).

 

8d. Hellmayr (1934) suggested that Turdus haplochrous and T. nudigenis were sister species, and some genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007) suggested that this is correct. Turdus grayi and T. nudigenis were considered to form a superspecies by AOU (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), and genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that they form a monophyletic group if T. haplochrous and other species also included.  See also Note 11.

 

10. Called "Clay-colored Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Dickinson (2003).  SACC proposal passed to change to "Thrush".

 

11. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) considered the subspecies maculirostris a separate species from Turdus nudigenis, and this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Clement (2000), Ridgely et al. (2001), Collar (2005), and Restall et al. (2006). Genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Nylander 2008, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that maculirostris is not the sister taxon to T. nudigenis.  SACC proposal passed to elevate maculirostris to species rank.

 

11a. Called "Bare-eyed Robin" in AOU (1998) and Dickinson (2003). Called "Naked-eyed Thrush" by Ridgway (1907), "Yellow-eyed Thrush" by Clement (2000), and "Spectacled Thrush" by Collar (2005). To call it "Bare-eyed Thrush," as in AOU (1983), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Hilty (2003), confuses it with African T. tephronotus, which has the same English name. SACC proposal passed to change to "Thrush."  SACC proposal passed to change "Bare-eyed" to another name.  SACC proposal passed to change name to "Spectacled Thrush."

 

11b. The species name for Turdus nudigenis was formerly gymnophthalmus (e.g., Ridgway 1907).

 

12. Turdus assimilis has often (e.g., Ripley 1964, Wetmore et al. 1964, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Collar 2005) been considered conspecific with T. albicollis, but most recent classifications have followed Monroe (1968), AOU (1983), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) in treating them as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1934); evidence supporting either treatment is weak, although supported by assessment of songs (Boesman 2016); they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) confirm that they are sister taxa.

 

12a. The subspecies daguae of the Chocó region has been treated as a subspecies of T. assimilis, and most recent authors have treated them as conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Ripley 1964, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Clement 2000, Dickinson & Christidis 2014).  Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), however, considered daguae to be a separate species, in part because its voice resembles that of T. albicollis more than that of T. assimilis.  Nuñez-Zapata et al. (2016) presented evidence that daguae should be treated as a separate species from Turdus assimilis.  Del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated as a subspecies of T. albicollis, not T. assimilis, based on Boesman’s (2016) assessment of songs.  SACC proposal to treat daguae as a species did not pass.

 

12b. The species name for Turdus assimilis was formerly tristis (e.g., Ridgway 1907).

 

13. Called "White-throated Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998) and Dickinson (2003).  SACC proposal passed to change to "Thrush".

 

14. Called "White-necked Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal to change to "Thrush".

 

15. REFS and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that the <> subspecies group of most of South America east of the Andes may deserve recognition as a separate species from the nominate albicollis group southeastern South America. The phaeopygus subspecies group of northern South America was considered a separate species from T. albicollis by Pinto (1944) <REFs>.

 

 

MUSCICAPIDAE (OLD WORLD FLYCATCHERS) 1

Oenanthe oenanthe Northern Wheatear (V) 2

 

 

1. For inclusion of Oenanthe in Muscicapidae rather than Turdidae, see REFS.

 

2. Published photo from French Guiana (Renaudier et al. 2010).  SACC proposal passed to move to main list.  Also, one unpublished photograph from Bonaire and one sight record from Curaçao (Voous 1983).

 

 

MIMIDAE (MOCKINGBIRDS) 1

Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird (V) 2

Mimus gilvus Tropical Mockingbird 3, 3a

Mimus longicaudatus Long-tailed Mockingbird 4

Mimus thenca Chilean Mockingbird 4

Mimus patagonicus Patagonian Mockingbird 4a

Mimus saturninus Chalk-browed Mockingbird 4a

Mimus triurus White-banded Mockingbird 4b

Mimus dorsalis Brown-backed Mockingbird 4b

Mimus parvulus Galapagos Mockingbird 5, 6, 6d

Mimus trifasciatus Floreana Mockingbird 6, 6a

Mimus macdonaldi Española Mockingbird 6, 6b

Mimus melanotis San Cristobal Mockingbird 6, 6c

Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher (V) 7

Margarops fuscatus Pearly-eyed Thrasher

 

 

1. Recent genetic data (Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004, Johansson et al. 2008, Treplin et al. 2008) have confirmed once-controversial findings (e.g., Beecher 1953, Stallcup 1961, Sibley & Ahlquist 1980, 1984, 1985, 1990) that the Mimidae and Sturnidae are sister families, suggested originally by the morphological analysis of Beecher (1953). Within the Mimidae, genetic data (Hunt et al. 2001, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012) indicate two main groups: (1) a Caribbean group that also includes Dumetella, and (2) Mimus + Nesomimus +Toxostoma + extralimital Oreoscoptes. <wait for AOU to change linear sequence.>

 

2. At least two specimen records and additional sight records from northern Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986).

 

3. Mimus gilvus forms a superspecies with North American M. polyglottos (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cody 2005); some authors (e.g., Davis & Miller 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) have suggested that they are conspecific, but see <?> Binford (1989). Lovette & Rubenstein (2007) found that they are sister taxa, but more extensive sampling (Lovette et al. 2012) has shown that M. polyglottos might be nested within M. gilvus. <wait NACC proposal>

 

3a. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that the subspecies antelius of eastern Brazil should be treated as a separate species from M. gilvus.

 

4. Mimus longicaudatus and M. thenca were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cody (2005); Davis & Miller (1960) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific. However, genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012) indicate that they are not sister species.

 

4a. Mimus saturninus and M. patagonicus were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but genetic data indicate that they are not sister taxa (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012).

 

4b. Mimus dorsalis and M. triurus were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data confirm that they are sisters (Lovette et al. 2012).

 

5. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that the Pacific coastal Mimus (M. longicaudatus and M. thenca) are at least superficially more similar to the Galapagos Mimus (formerly Nesomimus) than to other Mimus, but genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012) indicate that they are not sister groups.

 

6. The four species of former Nesomimus (now Mimus) form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cody 2005); they were all considered conspecific by Davis & Miller (1960). Ridgway (1907) recognized 11 species in the genus, ranking each subspecies as a species. Recent genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012) indicate that "Nesomimus" is embedded within Mimus and is more closely related to N. Hemisphere Mimus, specifically West Indian M. gundlachii, than to South American species. SACC proposal passed to merge Nesomimus into Mimus. Arbogast et al. (2006) and Lovette & Rubenstein (2007) also found that M. triurus and M. saturninus are sister species, as are M. thenca and M. patagonicus, and that these four form a strongly supported monophyletic group within Mimus.  SACC proposal passed to alter linear sequence.  Lovette et al. (2012) found further support for these relationships except that M. dorsalis, previously unsampled, was the sister species to M. triurus.

 

6a. Formerly called "Charles Mockingbird" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to change English name.

 

6b. Formerly called "Hood Mockingbird" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to change English name.  Called "Hood Island Mockingbird" in Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

 

6c. Formerly called "Chatham Mockingbird"(e.g., Dickinson 2003).  SACC proposal passed to change English name.  Called "Chatham Island Mockingbird" in Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

 

6d. Some genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006) suggested that Mimus parvulus is paraphyletic with respect to M. macdonaldi, but see Hoeck et al. (2010).

 

7. Specimen from Curaçao (Voous 1983, 1985) and <>.

 

 

STURNIDAE (STARLINGS) 1

Acridotheres cristatellus Crested Myna (IN) 2

Sturnus vulgaris European Starling (V, IN) 3

 

 

1. See Note 1 under Mimidae above for evidence that the Sturnidae and Mimidae are sister families.

 

2. Acridotheres cristatellus is established in prov. Buenos Aires, Argentina (Saidon et al. 1988, Di Giacomo et al. 1993, Churla & Martinez 1995, Churla 1999, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, Zelaya et al. 2001). SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.

 

3. Sight records or unpublished photographs from Aruba and Bonaire (Voous 1985). Introduced and established in Buenos Aires area of Argentina (Di Giacomo et al. 1993, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, Montalti & Kopig 2001).

 

 

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Passerellidae)