A classification of the bird species of South America

1. Recently found nesting in northern Venezuela (Hilty 2003) and locally established (R. Restall, pers. comm.). Possibly becoming established on Curaçao (Voous 1985).

2. Reported in northern Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000), where established locally (R. Restall, pers. comm.). Called "Southern Masked Weaver" by Rodner et al. (2000). Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed Louette & Benson (1982) in treating katangae group as separate species from P. velatus and used “Southern Masked Weaver” for the latter. SACC proposal needed.

ESTRILDIDAE (ESTRILDIDS)

Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill (IN) 1

Lonchura malacca Tricolored Munia (IN) 2, 3

Lonchura oryzivora Java Sparrow (IN) 4, 5

1. Established in several areas of eastern Brazil (Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Oren & Smith 1978, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sick 1993).

2. Recorded in northern Venezuela (Sharpe et al. 1997) and subsequently rapidly established as breeding species (R. Restall, pers. comm.). Recent records in Colombia but status uncertain (Salaman et al. 2007). Population breeding and probably established on Trinidad (Kenefick 2012).

3. Formerly called “Black-headed Munia, but Restall (1996) and Rodner et al. (2000) used “Tricolored Munia.” SACC proposal passed to change to Tricolored.

4. Formerly placed in the genus Padda, but see Restall (1996).

5. Established locally in northern Venezuela (Sharpe et al. 1997, Hilty 2003); recent records in Colombia but status uncertain (Salaman et al. 2007).

PASSERIDAE (OLD WORLD SPARROWS) 1

Passer domesticus House Sparrow (IN)

1. Genetic data (e.g., Barker et al. 2002) corroborate earlier morphological data that indicate that the genus Passer and relatives are not particularly closely related to the Ploceidae, in which they are traditionally placed, and thus merit family rank.

MOTACILLIDAE (PIPITS AND WAGTAILS) 1a

Motacilla alba White Wagtail (V) 2

Anthus cervinus Red-throated Pipit (V) 3

Anthus chii Yellowish Pipit 4, 5, 6, 7

Anthus furcatus Short-billed Pipit 8

Anthus peruvianus Peruvian Pipit 4, 7

Anthus chacoensis Pampas Pipit 9

Anthus correndera Correndera Pipit 10, 11

Anthus nattereri Ochre-breasted Pipit

Anthus hellmayri Hellmayr's Pipit 10

Anthus bogotensis Paramo Pipit 12

1a. Barker et al. (2015) proposed new family limits within this suborder; these were adopted by Chesser et al. (2017). SACC proposal passed to modify family limits and change linear sequence of families.

1b. Genetic data (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Groth 1998, Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Johannson et al. 2008, Treplin et al. 2008) indicate that this family belongs within the "nine-primaried oscine" cluster of families, probably most closely related to Fringillidae or Emberizidae. Linear sequence of species reflects Voelker (1999); see also Note 4..

2. Photographed in French Guiana 26 Oct. 2009 (Ingels et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Unpublished photo and sight record from Trinidad (ffrench 1991, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Ingels et al. 2010).

3. Photographed in Ecuador in 2008 (Brinkhuizen et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

4. Relationships among New World Anthus differ (van Els & Norambuena 2018) from those suggested by the current linear sequence. SACC proposal badly needed.

5. Anthus lutescens was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1953c) known as A. chii, but see Hellmayr (1934) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Smith & Clay (2021) provided evidence that chii is the correct name for this species. SACC proposal passed to change to chii.

6. The subspecies parvus of Panama was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) considered a separate species from Anthus lutescens; they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1935), and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. See also van Els & Norambuena (2018).

7. Jaramillo (2003) noted that the subspecies peruvianus of coastal Peru and N. Chile differs strongly in song and calls from Anthus lutescens. Van Els & Norambuena (2018) found that peruvianus is not particularly closely related to A. lutescens but instead is sister to a group of South American Anthus species that does not include A. lutescens. SACC proposal passed to treat peruvianus as a separate species.

8. Van Els & Norambuena (2018) proposed that the subspecies brevirostris of the Andes be treated as a separate species from lowland nominate furcatus based on voice and genetic distance. SACC proposal to treat brevirostris as a separate species did not pass.

9. Anthus chacoensis was described as a subspecies of A. lutescens by Zimmer (1952), but soon after, additional specimens convinced him (Zimmer 1953c) that it was a separate species. Straneck (1987) and Casañas et al. (2008) found differences between the two in display flights, vocalizations, and habitat preferences, including elucidating that the species does not breed in chaco habitat. SACC proposal passed to change English name to Pampas Pipit. Van Els & Norambuena (2018) found that it is not closely related to A. lutescens.

10. Voelker (1999) found these two species to be paraphyletic but see van Els & Norambuena (2018).

11. Van Els & Norambuena (2018) proposed that extralimital Anthus antarcticus (South Georgia Pipit) be treated as a subspecies of A. correndera because it is embedded in the phylogeny of A. correndera subspecies and is weakly differentiated from A. c. grayi. However, Van Els & Norambuena (2018) also showed that the song of Anthus antarcticus differs considerably from that of all A. correndera subspecies sampled, in addition to differing in plumage and morphology from A. correndera.

12. Van Els & Norambuena (2018) found that the subspecies meridae might deserve species rank based on genetic data that suggest it is sister to A. bogotensis + A. hellmayri.

FRINGILLIDAE (FINCHES) 1

Fringillinae 1a

Chloris chloris European Greenfinch (IN) 2, 2a

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch (IN) 2b

Spinus spinescens Andean Siskin 3, 3a

Spinus yarrellii Yellow-faced Siskin 3a

Spinus cucullatus Red Siskin

Spinus crassirostris Thick-billed Siskin 5

Spinus magellanicus Hooded Siskin 3b, 3d, 4, 5

Spinus siemiradzkii Saffron Siskin 3b

Spinus olivaceus Olivaceous Siskin 3b

Spinus xanthogastrus Yellow-bellied Siskin 5, 5a

Spinus atratus Black Siskin 5, 5a

Spinus uropygialis Yellow-rumped Siskin 3d, 5

Spinus barbatus Black-chinned Siskin

Spinus psaltria Lesser Goldfinch 3, 6

Euphoniinae 1, 6a

Chlorophonia cyanocephala Golden-rumped Euphonia 6a, 10

Chlorophonia cyanea Blue-naped Chlorophonia

Chlorophonia pyrrhophrys Chestnut-breasted Chlorophonia

Chlorophonia flavirostris Yellow-collared Chlorophonia

Euphonia saturata Orange-crowned Euphonia 6a, 7b

Euphonia plumbea Plumbeous Euphonia 7

Euphonia chlorotica Purple-throated Euphonia 7a

Euphonia finschi Finsch's Euphonia 7b

Euphonia concinna Velvet-fronted Euphonia 7b

Euphonia trinitatis Trinidad Euphonia 7a

Euphonia chrysopasta Golden-bellied Euphonia 11

Euphonia minuta White-vented Euphonia

Euphonia chalybea Green-throated Euphonia 9

Euphonia violacea Violaceous Euphonia 8

Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia 8, 8a

Euphonia fulvicrissa Fulvous-vented Euphonia 10a

Euphonia anneae Tawny-capped Euphonia 12

Euphonia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia 12, 12a

Euphonia mesochrysa Bronze-green Euphonia 13

Euphonia cayennensis Golden-sided Euphonia 13

Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia 13

Euphonia pectoralis Chestnut-bellied Euphonia 12a, 13

1. [family status, relationships]. Tordoff (1954a) proposed that Carduelis and relatives were more closely related to the Ploceidae than to other Fringillidae (which in Tordoff's view included the Emberizidae) based on palatal structure and nesting biology. <add more recent data, e.g. incorp. Zuccon et al. 2012> The genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia were formerly placed in the Thraupidae, but genetic data (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, Klicka et al. 2000, 2005, García-Moreno et al. 2001, Sato et al. 2001, Yuri & Mindell 2002) indicate that they are more closely related to the Fringillidae than to any other family; this finding is also consistent with aspects of the biology of the euphonias and chlorophonias with respect to voice, diet, and nesting biology. SACC proposal passed to move Euphonia and Chlorophonia from the Thraupidae to the Fringillidae and list them as a subfamily of that family.

1a. <incorp. Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1998>

2. Carduelis chloris was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in genus Chloris, but most recent classifications have merged this genus into Carduelis, following Howell et al. (1968). Recent genetic data (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2007) indicate that Carduelis as currently constituted is not monophyletic and that resurrection of Chloris is required; this treatment was adopted by Chesser et al. (2009). SACC proposal passed to reinstate Chloris.

2a. Introduced and established in Argentina (REF, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001) and <>.

2b. Introduced and established in southern Uruguay (Ridgely & Tudor 1989) and northeastern Argentina <?> (REF, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).

3. New World members of the genus Carduelis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in the genus Spinus, but recent authors (e.g., AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Howell et al. (1968) in merging Spinus into Carduelis. <check Ackermann J. Orn. 108: 430-473, 1967>. Recent genetic data (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2007, Nguembock et al. 2009) found that Carduelis as currently constituted is not monophyletic and that resurrection of Spinus is required, and Chesser et al. (2009) followed this by placing all New World goldfinches and siskins in Carduelis. Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2007) also showed that the Neotropical species of Carduelis likely form a monophyletic group that might not include C. psaltria, which forms a strongly supported group with the two North American goldfinches, C. tristis and C. lawrencei. Nguembock et al. (2009) found that C. psaltria was sister to the Neotropical group (but did not sample C. tristis or C. lawrencei); they also found that Spinus was more closely related to Loxia than to the New World goldfinch-siskin group, and that the latter was more closely related to true Serinus (at least in their concatenated data set). Therefore, they recommended that Sporagra Reichenbach, 1850, be resurrected for this group. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Sporagra (and Astragalinus for psaltria). Beckman & Witt (2015), however, found that Spinus (s.s.) was the sister group to the Neotropical Sporagra group. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) included all New World goldfinches and siskins in Spinus. SACC proposal passed to merge Sporagra into Spinus.

3a. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered Sporagra spinescens and S. yarrellii to form a superspecies, but preliminary genetic data (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2007) do not corroborate their sister relationship.

3b. The taxonomy of Sporagra magellanica, S. siemiradzkii, and S. olivacea has been controversial. Sporagra siemiradzkii was considered a subspecies of C. magellanica by [REFS]. Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966 <check>, 1970), and Howell et al. (1968) <check> treated siemiradzkii as a species, and this treatment has been followed in most recent classifications (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley and Monroe 1990); Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) reported near sympatry between S. magellanica and S. siemiradzkii in western Ecuador. Sporagra magellanica, S. siemiradzkii, and S. olivacea were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley and Monroe (1990), but genetic data (Nguembock et al. 2009) did not recover a sister relationship between siemiradzkii and magellanica (olivacea not sampled). Beckman & Witt (2015) found that siemiradzkii was indeed embedded in the S. magellanica group. Although Sporagra olivacea traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Howell et al. 1968, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) has been treated as a separate species from C. magellanica, Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) questioned whether it merits species rank. Beckman & Witt (2015), however, found that S. olivacea was sister to S. spinescens.

3d. Sporagra magellanica and S. uropygialis evidently hybridize extensively in southwestern Peru (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990).

4. The subspecies santaecrucis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) a separate species, but recent classifications (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Howell et al. (1968) in treating it as a subspecies of Sporagra magellanica, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); see Short (1975) for rationale. Beckman & Witt (2015) found that the subspecies S. m. alleni was sister to S. xanthogastra.

5. Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2007) found that within the Neotropical group, extralimital Sporagra notata is basal to the rest, followed by S. xanthogastra, but relationships among the remaining species are not resolved. With better gene-sampling but weaker taxon-sampling, Nguembock et al. (2009) found that S. xanthogastra formed a strongly supported group with S. magellanica and S. atrata, and that S. uropygialis and S. crassirostris were likely sisters, but otherwise relationships were not well-resolved. Beckman & Witt (2015), however, found relationships that differed from most of the above relationships, with S. atratus and S. crassirostris embedded with the magellanicus group. Beckman & Witt (2015) noted that genetic differentiation among sympatric species of Sporagra is minimal; thus, resolving the relationships within this lineage is difficult. Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2020), with a more SACC proposal needed to revise linear sequence <or wait for better data?>.

5a. Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2020) found that S. xanthogastra stejneri was sister to S. atratus and not particularly closely related to S. xanthogastra. SACC proposal needed. For uncertain reasons, Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2020) proposed a “provisional” name “lapazensis” for an unspecified taxon, but that name is not valid under the Code no matter what it refers to.

6. Called "Dark-backed Goldfinch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970).

6a. Imfeld et al. (2020) showed that the blue-hooded euphonia group was sister to Chlorophonia, thus making traditional Euphonia paraphyletic and proposed resurrecting the genus Cyanophonia for E. cyanocephala, with extralimital E. musica and E. elegantissima; they also showed that the traditional linear sequence within Euphonia did not accurately reflect phylogenetic relationships. SACC proposal to resurrect Cyanophonia did not pass (but E. cyanocephala transferred to Chlorophonia). SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence. Vázquez-López et al. (2024) provided new evidence for the resurrection of Cyanophonia. SACC proposal needed. <wait for NACC version>

7. The genus Euphonia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1943a, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) known as Tanagra, but see ICZN (1968).

7a. Euphonia trinitatis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of E. chlorotica, but Zimmer (1943a) noted that specimens taken at same locality in Venezuela forced them to be treated as separate species, but suspected that evidence would eventually be found that they were not actually breeding sympatrically. Euphonia trinitatis and E. chlorotica were considered to form a superspecies, along with Middle American E. affinis and E. luteicapilla by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Imfeld et al. (2020) found that they together formed a monophyletic group only if E. finschi and E. concinna were also included.

7b. Euphonia saturata and E. finschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered conspecific with E. concinna, but see Zimmer (1943a), who also discussed the complex relationships among these three species and E. trinitatis and E. chlorotica. Imfeld et al. (2020) found that they were all members of the same group, but that E. saturata was sister to the ancestor of all members of the group.

8. [superspecies? Ridgely & Tudor (1989) range map seems to indicate overlap in central Amazonia].

8a. The subspecies melanura was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a separate species from Euphonia laniirostris.

9. Called "Green-chinned Euphonia" by Ridgely & Tudor (1989).

10. Euphonia cyanocephala and Middle American E. elegantissima were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a) considered subspecies of E. musica of the West Indies, but recent classifications have usually followed AOU (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) in considering the three as separate species that form a superspecies, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); no analysis has been published to justify either treatment.

10a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Euphonia fulvicrissa to form a superspecies with Central American E. imitans, but Imfeld et al. (2020) showed that Middle American E. gouldi must also be included if they are treated as a monophyletic group.

11. Called "White-lored Euphonia" by Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Hilty (2003). Proposal needed.

12. Euphonia anneae and E. xanthogaster form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Imfeld et al. (2020) confirmed that they are sister species.

12a. "Euphonia vittata," known only from the type specimen from "Rio de Janeiro" and reluctantly treated as a species by Hellmayr (1936; as E. catastica, as also in Pinto 1944) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is probably a hybrid (E. pectoralis X E. xanthogaster) (Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Haffer 1970, Storer 1970a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

13. Euphonia rufiventris, E. cayennensis, and E. pectoralis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Laubmann (1936) suggested that E. rufiventris and E. pectoralis should be considered conspecific. Imfeld et al. (2020) confirmed that the three form a monophyletic group. Vázquez-López et al. (2024) found that species xanthogaster, mesochrysa, cayennensis, rufiventris, pectoralis, and the Middle American species fulvicrissa, imitans, gouldi, and anneae together formed a monophyletic group that they proposed to be recognized as a new genus, Rufiphonia. SACC proposal badly needed. <wait NACC>

RHODINOCICHLIDAE (THRUSH-TANAGER) 1

Rhodinocichla rosea Rosy Thrush-Tanager 1, 1a

1. Familial affinities of Rhodinocichla rosea have always been uncertain, with some suspecting that it might be closest to the Mimidae (Skutch 1962), but traditionally placed in the tanagers (Eisenmann 1962), with support from morphological data (Clark 1974, Raikow 1978); genetic data (Seutin and Bermingham 1997) suggest that it is closest to some "tanagers". Storer (1970a) suspected that plumage similarities between Rhodinocichla and Granatellus suggested a close relationship between the two. Barker et al. (2013) found that it was not particularly closely related to any other nine-primaried oscine lineage and that to keep existing families monophyletic, they proposed a monotypic family for it, Rhodinocichlidae; this was adopted by Dickinson & Christidis (2014) and Chesser et al. (2017). SACC proposal passed to recognize Rhodinocichlidae.

1a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Rose-breasted Thrush-Tanager."

PASSERELLIDAE (SPARROWS) 1

Oreothraupis arremonops Tanager Finch 49

Chlorospingus flavigularis Yellow-throated Chlorospingus 66

Chlorospingus parvirostris Short-billed Chlorospingus 66, 67

Chlorospingus canigularis Ashy-throated Chlorospingus 68

Chlorospingus flavopectus Common Chlorospingus 64, 65, 65a, 69

Chlorospingus tacarcunae Tacarcuna Chlorospingus 69

Chlorospingus semifuscus Dusky Chlorospingus 70

Rhynchospiza stolzmanni Tumbes Sparrow 3

Rhynchospiza dabbenei Yungas Sparrow 3, 3a

Rhynchospiza strigiceps Chaco Sparrow 3, 3a

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 2

Ammodramus humeralis Grassland Sparrow 2

Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow 2

Arremonops conirostris Black-striped Sparrow 44b

Arremonops tocuyensis Tocuyo Sparrow 44, 44a

Arremon basilicus Sierra Nevada Brushfinch 47, 47a, 48, 48a

Arremon perijanus Perija Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon atricapillus Black-headed Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon phaeopleurus Caracas Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon phygas Paria Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon assimilis Gray-browed Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon torquatus White-browed Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon aurantiirostris Orange-billed Sparrow 45a

Arremon abeillei Black-capped Sparrow 45a, 45c

Arremon schlegeli Golden-winged Sparrow 45a

Arremon axillaris Yellow-mandibled Sparrow 45, 45b

Arremon taciturnus Pectoral Sparrow 45, 45a, 45b, 47

Arremon franciscanus São Francisco Sparrow 45a, 46

Arremon semitorquatus Half-collared Sparrow 45

Arremon dorbignii Moss-backed Sparrow 45a, 45d

Arremon flavirostris Saffron-billed Sparrow 45a, 45d

Arremon brunneinucha Chestnut-capped Brushfinch 47

Arremon crassirostris Sooty-faced Finch 48b

Arremon castaneiceps Olive Finch 47, 49a

Spizella pallida Clay-colored Sparrow (V) 1a

Zonotrichia capensis Rufous-collared Sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow (V) 1b

Atlapetes albinucha White-naped Brushfinch 47a, 50a

Atlapetes albofrenatus Moustached Brushfinch 50

Atlapetes personatus Tepui Brushfinch

Atlapetes melanocephalus Santa Marta Brushfinch

Atlapetes semirufus Ochre-breasted Brushfinch

Atlapetes flaviceps Yellow-headed Brushfinch 51

Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus Dusky-headed Brushfinch

Atlapetes leucopis White-rimmed Brushfinch

Atlapetes albiceps White-headed Brushfinch 54c

Atlapetes rufigenis Rufous-eared Brushfinch 53

Atlapetes tricolor Tricolored Brushfinch 51a

Atlapetes schistaceus Slaty Brushfinch 54a, 55a

Atlapetes pallidinucha Pale-naped Brushfinch

Atlapetes blancae Antioquia Brushfinch 52c

Atlapetes latinuchus Yellow-breasted Brushfinch 52, 52a, 52b

Atlapetes leucopterus White-winged Brushfinch 54b

Atlapetes pallidiceps Pale-headed Brushfinch 54c

Atlapetes seebohmi Bay-crowned Brushfinch 55, 55a, 55b

Atlapetes nationi Rusty-bellied Brushfinch 55, 55a

Atlapetes forbesi Apurimac Brushfinch 53

Atlapetes melanopsis Black-spectacled Brushfinch 54

Atlapetes terborghi Vilcabamba Brushfinch 57, 52

Atlapetes canigenis Cuzco Brushfinch 56, 54a

Atlapetes melanolaemus Black-faced Brushfinch 58, 58a, 52

Atlapetes rufinucha Bolivian Brushfinch 52, 52aa

Atlapetes fulviceps Fulvous-headed Brushfinch

Atlapetes citrinellus Yellow-striped Brushfinch

1. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2010 -- check Groth-Barrowclough etc.) indicate that the family Emberizidae as traditionally constituted is polyphyletic, with most genera occurring in South America belonging to the tanager lineage; some morphological data (Clark 1986) also support this. The only genera in South America traditionally placed in the Emberizidae for which genetic data indicate that they are true Emberizidae (now Passerellidae) are: Zonotrichia, Ammodramus, Aimophila (DaCosta et al. 2009), Arremon, and Atlapetes; the majority have been found to be members of the Thraupidae; see Note 1 under that family. Barker et al. (2013) and Klicka et al. (2014) found that even a more narrowly defined Emberizidae was not a monophyletic group and that recognition of a new family, Passerellidae, was required for all New World members of Emberizidae. This was adopted by Chesser et al. (2017). SACC proposal passed to recognize Rhodinocichlidae. Klicka et al. (2014) also found that the phylogenetic relationships among genera and species in this family are not reflected in traditional linear sequences. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

1a. Specimen from Colombia, 16 May 2016, Valle de Cauca, Colombia (Tigreros A. et al. 2019). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

1b. Recorded from Aruba (Voous 1985).

2. Ammodramus humeralis and A. aurifrons were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in a separate genus, Myospiza, but most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley and Monroe 1990) have followed Paynter (1970a) and Robins & Schnell (1971) in merging this into Ammodramus. Genetic data (Carson & Spicer 2003, Klicka & Spellman 2007, DaCosta et al. 2009, Klicka et al. 2014) indicate that as currently defined, Ammodramus is polyphyletic. Because the type species of Ammodramus is savannarum, and DaCosta et al. (2009) and Klicka et al. (2014) found that the latter is the sister to the two Myospiza, this result should not affect classification of South American species.

3. Rhynchospiza was traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a monotypic genus, with its sole species being stolzmanni; however, most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Paynter (1967, 1970a) in merging this into Aimophila, which was widely suspected of being polyphyletic (Ridgway 1901, Storer 1955b, Wolf 1977). DaCosta et al. (2009) have confirmed that Aimophila is polyphyletic and that the South American taxa are not members of true Aimophila; they recommended resurrection of Rhynchospiza, which would also include stolzmanni’s sister species, A. strigiceps. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Rhynchospiza. Klicka et al. (2014) found that Rhynchospiza is sister to the group of sparrow genera that includes true Ammodramus, Arremonops, and Peucaea.

3a. Areta et al. (2019) presented evidence that the subspecies dabbenei should be treated as a separate species from Rhynchospiza strigiceps. SACC proposal passed to recognize dabbenei as a separate species.

44. The genus Arremonops has been merged into Arremon by some authors (Phelps and Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1951), but they are not closely related; see Klicka et al. (2014).

44a. Arremonops tocuyensis was considered to form a superspecies with Middle American A. rufivirgatus (Mayr & Short 1970, AOU 1983, Sibley and Monroe 1990), but it is the sister species to A. conirostris (Klicka et al. 2014). Arremonops conirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered conspecific with Middle American A. chloronotus, but they are sympatric in Honduras (Monroe 1963b), and Klicka et al. (2014) found that A. chloronotus is sister to A. rufivirgatus.

45. Hellmayr (1938) treated semitorquatus as a subspecies of broadly defined A. taciturnus because of individual variation within semitorquatus (cf. Raposo & Parrini 1997), and this classification was followed by subsequent classifications (e.g. Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a, Sick 1993) until Raposo & Parrini (1997) elucidate the ecological differences between the two in the general region of sympatry. SACC proposal passed to recognize semitorquatus as a species. Buainain et al. (2017) also provided additional evidence for species rank for semitorquatus, including lack of evidence for gene flow where they co-occur and vocal differences. Buainain et al. (2022) showed that A. semitorquatus and A. taciturnus were not closely related, thus removing any controversy over species limits.

45a. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered all the species of Arremon form a superspecies, but A. aurantiirostris and A. abeillei are sympatric in western Ecuador.

45b. Hellmayr (1938) treated axillaris as one of four subspecies in his broadly defined Arremon taciturnus (including also “nigrirostris” [see Buainain et al. 2017] and semitorquatus (but see Note 45). The Colombian subspecies axillaris was treated as a separate species (“Yellow-mandibled Sparrow”) from Arremon taciturnus by del Hoyo & Collar (2016), although Boesman (2016j) did not find major vocal differences between the two. Buainain et al. (2017) provided rationale for treatment of axillaris as a species based on plumage in a PSC framework. SACC proposal passed to treat axillaris as a separate species.

45c. The Peruvian Marañon subspecies nigriceps was treated as a separate species from Arremon abeillei by <REF>. Oswald et al. (2017) found evidence for virtually no gene flow between the two taxa. SACC proposal badly needed.

45d. Silva (1991) proposed that Arremon flavirostris should be treated as three species, with subspecies dorbignii and polionotus elevated to species rank. Buainain et al. (2016) and Trujillo-Arias et al. (2017), including use of data on vocalizations, proposed that dorbignii should be treated as a separate species, but they differed with respect to treating polionotus as a species. SACC proposal passed to treat dorbignii as a separate species and establish a new English name for it. SACC proposal did not pass to treat polionotus as a separate species.

46. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Raposo (1997). See Buainain et al. (2017) for additional evidence for species rank, including on its distinctive vocalizations.

47. Buarremon was merged into Atlapetes by Hellmayr (1938), and this was followed by Paynter (REFS, 1970a), Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and most subsequent authors. Remsen and Graves (1995) resurrected the genus Buarremon as separate from Atlapetes because it is not certain that they are sister genera; this treatment was followed by AOU (1998), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (DaCosta et al. 2009, Klicka et al. 2014) confirm that Buarremon is not closely related to Atlapetes. Cadena et al. (2007) found that Buarremon itself is paraphyletic with respect to Arremon and probably Lysurus. SACC proposal passed to merge all into Arremon; also followed by Banks et al. (2008). Additional genetic analyses (Flórez-Rodríguez et al. 2011) found that the paraphyly of Buarremon was generated largely by mtDNA gene trees and that some, but not all, other loci support a monophyletic Buarremon. Klicka et al. (2014) confirmed that former Buarremon was indeed paraphyletic with respect to Arremon and Lysurus.

47a. The placement of the former Buarremon in Arremon creates a problem with the English names in that hyphenated “Brush-Finch” now used in two genera, Atlapetes and Arremon, with most species in the latter called “Sparrow” or “Finch.” Thus, the hyphen is misleading with respect to relationships, and this needs fixing. SACC proposal passed to change to “Brushfinch”.

48. The relationships among the forms assigned to the atricapillus and torquatus groups are controversial, with virtually no relevant data available. Wetmore et al. (1984), Paynter (1970a), and Remsen & Graves (1995) treated the atricapillus group as conspecific with B. torquatus largely because of the intermediate phenotypes shown by subspecies such as tacarcunae and costaricensis. Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) treated them as two species because of the close geographical approach of nominate atricapillus and B. t. assimilis without signs of gene flow. Donegan et al. (2007) found B. [t.] atricapillus and B. [t.] assimilis to replace one another elevationally in the East Andes of Colombia (Santander and Boyacá departments), without any evidence of hybridization, suggesting that treatment of this complex within a single species is not supportable. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. torquatus and B. atricapillus, along with Middle American B. virenticeps, to form a superspecies. Buarremon virenticeps was considered conspecific with B. torquatus by Paynter (1970a) and Wetmore et al. (1984), but was treated as a separate species by Paynter (1978), AOU (1983, 1998), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Cadena & Cuervo’s (2010) analysis of voice, plumage, and genetics in the group indicates that as many as eight species should be recognized in this complex. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.

48a. Called “Bangs’s Brush-finch” in Hilty (2011) and Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

48b. Sight reports from Colombian side of Cerro Tacarcuna (see Ridgely & Tudor 1989; no specimens collected, fide C. Daniel Cadena). Renjifo et al. (2017) recently collected specimens on Colombian side. SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.

49. The relationships of Oreothraupis have been controversial. It was included in the Thraupidae by Hellmayr (1936). Storer (1958) pointed out that similarities in plumage pattern and texture, and in juvenal plumage strongly suggested a close relationship to Atlapetes, and Paynter (1970a) considered it close enough to Atlapetes that he stated that they might be considered congeneric. Klicka et al. (2014) found that it was a New World sparrow (Passerellidae) and that it was sister to Chlorospingus.

49a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered A. crassirostris and A. castaneiceps to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2014) confirm that they are sister species, as anticipated from their former treatment as the two species in the genus Lysurus. See Note 47.

50. Donegan & Huertas (2006) found no strong support in an analysis of plumage characters for A. a. meridae (Mérida range) being closely related to the nominate race (Eastern Cordillera) and that the two taxa differ in biometrics; however, vocal and molecular analyses are lacking.

50a. Paynter (1964b) provided rationale for merging the Atlapetes gutturalis group into A. albinucha; and this treatment was followed by Paynter (1970a), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003).

51. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986, Dickinson 2003) known as "Olive-headed Brush-Finch". Called "Yellow-headed Brush-Finch" in BirdLife International (2000). SACC proposal passed to change English name.

51a. The subspecies crassus of the W. Andes of Colombia and Ecuador may merit species rank (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Dickinson (2003) prematurely elevated crassus to species rank.

52. Atlapetes rufinucha was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered to be a polytypic species with a disjunct distribution. However, the genetic data of García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and Klicka et al. (2014) corroborated the predictions of Remsen & Graves (1995b) that these populations did not form a monophyletic group but instead were more closely related to adjacent populations of A. schistaceus. Thus, Atlapetes latinuchus was formerly considered a subspecies of A. rufinucha, but it is more closely related to parapatric A. pallidinucha (Klicka et al. 2014). Donegan & Huertas (2006) noted that A. latinuchus itself (even without A. [l.] nigrifrons) might involve more than one species. See also Note 54a below.

52a. Called "Northern Rufous-naped Brush-Finch" in García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and "Cloud-forest Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

52aa. Broadly defined Atlapetes rufinucha was called “Rufous-naped Brush-Finch,” and so narrowly defined A. rufinucha was renamed “Bolivian Brush-Finch” to avoid confusion. SACC proposal passed to change English name.

52b. Donegan & Huertas (2006) and Donegan et al. (2014) proposed that the subspecies nigrifrons (formerly phelpsi) of the Perijá Mountains should be ranked as a species from Atlapetes latinuchus. SACC proposal needed.

52c. Donegan (2007b) described a new species (Atlapetes blancae) that is possibly most closely related to the A. latinuchus group, from the Central Andes of Colombia. SACC proposal passed to recognize A. blancae.

53. Atlapetes forbesi has traditionally been treated (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) as a subspecies of A. rufigenis, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that it should be treated as a separate species. Genetic data (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 1999, Klicka et al. 2014) indicate that they are each more closely related to other species of Atlapetes than they are to each other and thus must be treated as separate species.

54. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Valqui & Fjeldså (1999). More recently renamed: Valqui & Fjeldså (2002).

54a. Atlapetes schistaceus was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered to be a polytypic species with a disjunct distribution. However, the genetic data of García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and Klicka et al. (2014) corroborated the predictions of Remsen & Graves (1995b) that these populations did not form a monophyletic group but instead were more closely related to parapatric populations of A. rufinucha. Thus, Atlapetes canigenis was formerly considered a subspecies of A. schistaceus, but it is more closely related to parapatric members of the rufinucha group.

54b. [paynteri etc.] The subspecies dresseri was formerly (e.g., REF) considered a separate species from Atlapetes leucopterus, but they were treated as conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Paynter (1970a). <incorp. Valqui & Fjeldså 1999>

54c. Hellmayr (1938) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that A. pallidiceps should be considered a subspecies of A. albiceps, but they are not sister taxa (Klicka et al. 2014).

55. For continued treatment of A. seebohmi and A. nationi as separate species, as in Hellmayr (1938) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970), see Ridgely & Tudor (1989); Koepcke (1957, 1958), Paynter (1970a, 1972), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) regarded them as conspecific; they form a superspecies. Paynter (1970a) suspected that A. nationi (with seebohmi) might be better treated as a subspecies of A. schistaceus.

55a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Atlapetes schistaceus, A. seebohmi, and A. nationi to form a superspecies; however, A. schistaceus is a paraphyletic species (see Note 54a), and so if this superspecies designation is correct, it applies only to the nominate schistaceus group and must also include A. latinuchus. Klicka et al. (2014) found that A. latinuchus and A. pallidinucha are sister taxa.

55b. The subspecies celicae and simonsi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered separate species from Atlapetes seebohmi, but Paynter (1970a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) treated them as conspecific.

56. Called "Grey Brush-Finch" in García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and "Cusco Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (2001). SACC proposal passed to change English name from "Sooty Brush-Finch," as in Dickinson (2003), to "Cuzco Brush-Finch".

57. Recently described (as a subspecies of A. rufinucha): Remsen (1993). García-Moreno & Fjeldså (1995) provided evidence that it should be recognized as a separate species. SACC proposal to lump terborghi into melanolaemus or rufinucha did not pass.

58. Atlapetes melanolaemus was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered a subspecies of A. rufinucha, but see García-Moreno & Fjeldså (1999). SACC proposal to lump melanolaemus into rufinucha did not pass.

58a. Called "Dark-faced Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (1999).

64. Genetic data (REFS, Burns et al. 2002, 2003) indicate the genus Chlorospingus is not a member of the Thraupidae, but (Klicka et al. 2007) a member of the Emberizidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Emberizidae. Barker et al. (2013) further confirmed the placement of the genus with the New World sparrows. Frank Pitelka (in Tordoff 1954a) long ago noted the emberizine-like behavior of Chlorospingus. SACC proposal passed to change English names of the species in the genus from “Bush-Tanager” to “Chlorospingus”. Called “Tanager Finches” by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

65. Chlorospingus ophthalmicus, as currently circumscribed, is paraphyletic with respect to C. tacarcunae, C. semifuscus, and C. inornatus, and likely consists of several species (Weir et al. 2008). SACC proposal? <wait better data?>>

65a. Peters (1936) and Zimmer (1947) evidently did not realize that the name flavopectus Lafresnaye, 1840, has priority over ophthalmicus (Du Bus de Gisignies, 1847). SACC proposal passed to use flavopectus.

66. Chlorospingus parvirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis, but see Zimmer (1947).

67. Chlorospingus parvirostris was called "Yellow-whiskered Bush-Tanager" in Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely et al. (2001). Proposal needed.

68. Stiles & Skutch (1989) suggested that the isolated Central American subspecies, olivaceiceps, may deserve recognition as a separate species from South American Chlorospingus canigularis.

69. Species limits in the Chlorospingus ophthalmicus complex are controversial. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Chlorospingus ophthalmicus and C. tacarcunae to form a superspecies with C. inornatus of Cerro Pirre, eastern Panama; C. tacarcunae was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis before Zimmer (1947) treated it as a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) continued to treat tacarcunae as a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus, but most classifications have followed Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983), and Wetmore et al. (1984) in treating it as a separate species. The subspecies cinereocephalus of central Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. semifuscus until Zimmer (1947) considered it a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus. The flavopectus subspecies group of Ecuador and northern Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) treated as a separate species from C. ophthalmicus, but see Zimmer (1947).

70. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) known as "Dusky-bellied Bush-Tanager."

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