A classification of the bird species of South America

1. 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).

1a. 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 Unpublished photo and sight record from Trinidad (ffrench 1991, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Ingels et al. 2010).

1b. Photographed in Ecuador in 2008 (Brinkhuizen et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

2. Anthus lutescens was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1953c) know as A. chii, but see Hellmayr (1934) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. Voelker (1999) found these two species to be paraphyletic [but action premature?.]

THRAUPIDAE (TANAGERS) 1

Cyanicterus cyanicterus Blue-backed Tanager

Nemosia pileata Hooded Tanager 3a

Nemosia rourei Cherry-throated Tanager 3a

Compsothraupis loricata Scarlet-throated Tanager 2

Sericossypha albocristata White-capped Tanager 3, 3a

Orchesticus abeillei Brown Tanager

Parkerthraustes humeralis Yellow-shouldered Grosbeak 162

Catamblyrhynchus diadema Plushcap 58, 58a

Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper 42, 42a

Iridophanes pulcherrimus Golden-collared Honeycreeper 43, 43b

Chrysothlypis chrysomelas Black-and-yellow Tanager 43d, 45

Chrysothlypis salmoni Scarlet-and-white Tanager 46

Heterospingus xanthopygius Scarlet-browed Tanager 43c, 43d

Hemithraupis guira Guira Tanager 44, 43d

Hemithraupis ruficapilla Rufous-headed Tanager 44

Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager

Conirostrum bicolor Bicolored Conebill 48

Conirostrum margaritae Pearly-breasted Conebill 48

Conirostrum speciosum Chestnut-vented Conebill 47, 48

Conirostrum leucogenys White-eared Conebill 48

Conirostrum binghami Giant Conebill 50

Conirostrum ferrugineiventre White-browed Conebill 50

Conirostrum sitticolor Blue-backed Conebill

Conirostrum albifrons Capped Conebill 48c

Conirostrum tamarugense Tamarugo Conebill 49

Conirostrum rufum Rufous-browed Conebill

Conirostrum cinereum Cinereous Conebill 48b

Sicalis citrina Stripe-tailed Yellow-Finch 93

Sicalis lutea Puna Yellow-Finch

Sicalis uropygialis Bright-rumped Yellow-Finch 93b

Sicalis luteocephala Citron-headed Yellow-Finch

Sicalis auriventris Greater Yellow-Finch

Sicalis olivascens Greenish Yellow-Finch 94, 94a

Sicalis mendozae Monte Yellow-Finch 94, 94a

Sicalis lebruni Patagonian Yellow-Finch 94, 94b

Sicalis columbiana Orange-fronted Yellow-Finch

Sicalis flaveola Saffron Finch 95, 96

Sicalis luteola Grassland Yellow-Finch 97, 98

Sicalis raimondii Raimondi's Yellow-Finch 98

Sicalis taczanowskii Sulphur-throated Finch 99

Phrygilus atriceps Black-hooded Sierra-Finch 68, 69, 70, 71

Phrygilus punensis Peruvian Sierra-Finch 69, 70

Phrygilus gayi Gray-hooded Sierra-Finch 69, 70

Phrygilus patagonicus Patagonian Sierra-Finch 70

Phrygilus fruticeti Mourning Sierra-Finch 71

Phrygilus dorsalis Red-backed Sierra-Finch 72, 74

Phrygilus erythronotus White-throated Sierra-Finch 72, 74

Phrygilus carbonarius Carbonated Sierra-Finch 73

Phrygilus alaudinus Band-tailed Sierra-Finch

Phrygilus unicolor Plumbeous Sierra-Finch 71

Phrygilus plebejus Ash-breasted Sierra-Finch 71

Porphyrospiza caerulescens Blue Finch 67

Melanodera melanodera White-bridled Finch 77, 78

Melanodera xanthogramma Yellow-bridled Finch

Catamenia analis Band-tailed Seedeater 138, 93

Catamenia inornata Plain-colored Seedeater

Catamenia homochroa Paramo Seedeater 139

Diglossa gloriosissima Chestnut-bellied Flowerpiercer 54

Diglossa lafresnayii Glossy Flowerpiercer 54

Diglossa mystacalis Moustached Flowerpiercer 54

Diglossa gloriosa Merida Flowerpiercer 55

Diglossa humeralis Black Flowerpiercer 55

Diglossa brunneiventris Black-throated Flowerpiercer 55

Diglossa carbonaria Gray-bellied Flowerpiercer 55

Diglossa venezuelensis Venezuelan Flowerpiercer 56

Diglossa albilatera White-sided Flowerpiercer 56

Diglossa duidae Scaled Flowerpiercer

Diglossa major Greater Flowerpiercer

Diglossa indigotica Indigo Flowerpiercer 57

Diglossa sittoides Rusty Flowerpiercer 52, 52a, 53

Diglossa glauca Deep-blue Flowerpiercer 57, 57a

Diglossa caerulescens Bluish Flowerpiercer 55, 57

Diglossa cyanea Masked Flowerpiercer 55, 57, 57b

Idiopsar brachyurus Short-tailed Finch 74, 75

Xenodacnis parina Tit-like Dacnis 51, 51a

Haplospiza rustica Slaty Finch 79, 80

Haplospiza unicolor Uniform Finch 79, 80

Volatinia jacarina Blue-black Grassquit 106, 107, 93

Conothraupis speculigera Black-and-white Tanager 1c

Conothraupis mesoleuca Cone-billed Tanager 1c, 1cc

Creurgops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager 4

Creurgops dentatus Slaty Tanager 4, 4a, 4b, 4c

Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager 14, 14a

Tachyphonus rufiventer Yellow-crested Tanager 14c

Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager 14

Tachyphonus luctuosus White-shouldered Tanager 14

Tachyphonus delatrii Tawny-crested Tanager

Tachyphonus coronatus Ruby-crowned Tanager 14, 14d

Tachyphonus rufus White-lined Tanager 14d

Tachyphonus phoenicius Red-shouldered Tanager 14d

Eucometis penicillata Gray-headed Tanager 14

Trichothraupis melanops Black-goggled Tanager 14

Coryphospingus pileatus Pileated Finch 141, 142, 143

Coryphospingus cucullatus Red-crested Finch 142, 144

Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager 14

Ramphocelus dimidiatus Crimson-backed Tanager 16

Ramphocelus melanogaster Black-bellied Tanager 16, 16a

Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager 16, 16b

Ramphocelus bresilius Brazilian Tanager 16, 16c

Ramphocelus flammigerus Flame-rumped Tanager 17, 17a

Lanio fulvus Fulvous Shrike-Tanager 14, 15

Lanio versicolor White-winged Shrike-Tanager 15

Rhodospingus cruentus Crimson-breasted Finch 145

Charitospiza eucosma Coal-crested Finch 107, 140

Cyanerpes nitidus Short-billed Honeycreeper 39

Cyanerpes lucidus Shining Honeycreeper 41a

Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper 41a

Cyanerpes cyaneus Red-legged Honeycreeper

Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager 38

Dacnis albiventris White-bellied Dacnis 39

Dacnis lineata Black-faced Dacnis 40

Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis

Dacnis hartlaubi Turquoise Dacnis 41

Dacnis nigripes Black-legged Dacnis

Dacnis venusta Scarlet-thighed Dacnis

Dacnis cayana Blue Dacnis

Dacnis viguieri Viridian Dacnis

Dacnis berlepschi Scarlet-breasted Dacnis

Sporophila bouvronides Lesson's Seedeater 115

Sporophila lineola Lined Seedeater 115

Sporophila leucoptera White-bellied Seedeater 119

Sporophila peruviana Parrot-billed Seedeater 120

Sporophila telasco Chestnut-throated Seedeater 122

Sporophila simplex Drab Seedeater

Sporophila castaneiventris Chestnut-bellied Seedeater 118

Sporophila minuta Ruddy-breasted Seedeater 118, 122, 123

Sporophila nigrorufa Black-and-tawny Seedeater

Sporophila bouvreuil Copper Seedeater 118, 121

Sporophila pileata Pearly-bellied Seedeater 118, 121

Sporophila hypoxantha Tawny-bellied Seedeater 118, 123

Sporophila ruficollis Dark-throated Seedeater 118, 124, 125

Sporophila palustris Marsh Seedeater 118, 125

Sporophila hypochroma Rufous-rumped Seedeater 118, 126

Sporophila cinnamomea Chestnut Seedeater 118, 126, 127

Sporophila melanogaster Black-bellied Seedeater 118

Sporophila funerea Thick-billed Seed-Finch 107, 109, 128, 129, 93

Sporophila angolensis Chestnut-bellied Seed-Finch 129

Sporophila maximiliani Great-billed Seed-Finch 130, 132

Sporophila crassirostris Large-billed Seed-Finch 130, 131

Sporophila atrirostris Black-billed Seed-Finch 130

Sporophila corvina Variable Seedeater 113, 114

Sporophila intermedia Gray Seedeater 112

Sporophila americana Wing-barred Seedeater 113

Sporophila murallae Caqueta Seedeater 113

Sporophila fringilloides White-naped Seedeater 107, 37b, 93

Sporophila luctuosa Black-and-white Seedeater

Sporophila nigricollis Yellow-bellied Seedeater 116

Sporophila ardesiaca Dubois's Seedeater 117

Sporophila caerulescens Double-collared Seedeater

Sporophila schistacea Slate-colored Seedeater 111

Sporophila falcirostris Temminck's Seedeater 111

Sporophila frontalis Buffy-fronted Seedeater 107, 108, 109, 110, 93

Sporophila plumbea Plumbeous Seedeater 111a

Sporophila beltoni Tropeiro Seedeater 111a

Sporophila collaris Rusty-collared Seedeater

Sporophila albogularis White-throated Seedeater

Saltatricula multicolor Many-colored Chaco Finch 164, 172

Saltatricula atricollis Black-throated Saltator 164, 171, 172

Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator

Saltator atripennis Black-winged Saltator

Saltator orenocensis Orinocan Saltator

Saltator coerulescens Grayish Saltator 166, 167

Saltator striatipectus Streaked Saltator 170

Saltator similis Green-winged Saltator 166

Saltator nigriceps Black-cowled Saltator 169

Saltator maxillosus Thick-billed Saltator 166, 168

Saltator aurantiirostris Golden-billed Saltator 169

Saltator cinctus Masked Saltator 171

Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak 163, 165

Saltator fuliginosus Black-throated Grosbeak 163

Coryphaspiza melanotis Black-masked Finch

Embernagra platensis Great Pampa-Finch 102, 103, 104, 93

Embernagra longicauda Pale-throated Pampa-Finch 103, 105

Emberizoides herbicola Wedge-tailed Grass-Finch 100, 102, 93

Emberizoides duidae Duida Grass-Finch 100

Emberizoides ypiranganus Lesser Grass-Finch 101

Xenospingus concolor Slender-billed Finch

Piezorina cinerea Cinereous Finch 93, 93a

Pseudospingus verticalis Black-headed Hemispingus 5, 12

Pseudospingus xanthophthalmus Drab Hemispingus 5, 12

Cnemoscopus rubrirostris Gray-hooded Bush Tanager 12b, 12c

Castanozoster thoracicus Bay-chested Warbling-Finch 84

Poospiza goeringi Slaty-backed Hemispingus 5, 84

Poospiza rufosuperciliaris Rufous-browed Hemispingus 5, 11, 84

Poospiza boliviana Bolivian Warbling-Finch 84

Poospiza hypochondria Rufous-sided Warbling-Finch 84, 84a, 88

Poospiza ornata Cinnamon Warbling-Finch 84, 85

Poospiza nigrorufa Black-and-rufous Warbling-Finch 84, 86

Poospiza rubecula Rufous-breasted Warbling-Finch 84, 85, 92

Poospiza caesar Chestnut-breasted Mountain-Finch 88, 92

Poospiza hispaniolensis Collared Warbling-Finch 84, 88

Poospiza garleppi Cochabamba Mountain-Finch 84, 91, 92

Poospiza baeri Tucuman Mountain-Finch 84, 91, 92

Kleinothraupis reyi Gray-capped Hemispingus

Kleinothraupis atropileus Black-capped Hemispingus 5, 6, 6a

Kleinothraupis parodii Parodi's Hemispingus 5, 7

Kleinothraupis calophrys Orange-browed Hemispingus 5, 6,

Sphenopsis frontalis Oleaginous Hemispingus 5, 9

Sphenopsis melanotis Black-eared Hemispingus 5, 10

Thlypopsis sordida Orange-headed Tanager 12e

Thlypopsis inornata Buff-bellied Tanager 12e

Thlypopsis fulviceps Fulvous-headed Tanager

Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma Chestnut-headed Tanager 12f

Thlypopsis ruficeps Rust-and-yellow Tanager

Thlypopsis superciliaris Superciliaried Hemispingus 5, 8, 8a, 8b

Thlypopsis ornata Rufous-chested Tanager 12d

Thlypopsis pectoralis Brown-flanked Tanager 12d

Microspingus alticola Plain-tailed Warbling-Finch 12a, 84

Microspingus erythrophrys Rusty-browed Warbling-Finch 12a, 84, 85

Microspingus lateralis Buff-throated Warbling-Finch 12a, 84, 87

Microspingus cabanisi Gray-throated Warbling-Finch 12a, 84, 87

Microspingus torquatus Ringed Warbling-Finch 12a, 84, 88, 89

Microspingus melanoleucus Black-capped Warbling-Finch 12a, 84, 90

Microspingus cinereus Cinereous Warbling-Finch 12a, 84, 90

Microspingus trifasciatus Three-striped Hemispingus 12a

Nephelornis oneilli Pardusco 13

Urothraupis stolzmanni Black-backed Bush Tanager 59

Cypsnagra hirundinacea White-rumped Tanager

Donacospiza albifrons Long-tailed Reed Finch

Incaspiza pulchra Great Inca-Finch 83

Incaspiza personata Rufous-backed Inca-Finch 83

Incaspiza ortizi Gray-winged Inca-Finch 83

Incaspiza laeta Buff-bridled Inca-Finch

Incaspiza watkinsi Little Inca-Finch

Coereba flaveola Bananaquit 147

Tiaris olivaceus Yellow-faced Grassquit 148, 149

Tiaris obscurus Dull-colored Grassquit 150, 22

Tiaris fuliginosus Sooty Grassquit 150

Tiaris bicolor Black-faced Grassquit 151

Certhidea olivacea Green Warbler-Finch 152, 153, 154, 155

Certhidea fusca Gray Warbler-Finch 154

Platyspiza crassirostris Vegetarian Finch 152

Camarhynchus pallidus Woodpecker Finch 156

Camarhynchus psittacula Large Tree-Finch 157

Camarhynchus pauper Medium Tree-Finch

Camarhynchus parvulus Small Tree-Finch 155

Camarhynchus heliobates Mangrove Finch 156

Geospiza fuliginosa Small Ground-Finch

Geospiza magnirostris Large Ground-Finch

Geospiza difficilis Sharp-beaked Ground-Finch 158, 159

Geospiza scandens Common Cactus-Finch

Geospiza fortis Medium Ground-Finch 160

Geospiza conirostris Large Cactus-Finch 161

Chlorochrysa phoenicotis Glistening-green Tanager 27a, 28

Chlorochrysa calliparaea Orange-eared Tanager 28

Chlorochrysa nitidissima Multicolored Tanager

Lophospingus pusillus Black-crested Finch 81, 82, 58c

Lophospingus griseocristatus Gray-crested Finch

Neothraupis fasciata White-banded Tanager 1a

Diuca diuca Common Diuca-Finch 76

Diuca speculifera White-winged Diuca-Finch 75, 76

Gubernatrix cristata Yellow Cardinal 146

Paroaria coronata Red-crested Cardinal 64, 65, 66b

Paroaria dominicana Red-cowled Cardinal 65, 65a

Paroaria nigrogenis Masked Cardinal 66

Paroaria gularis Red-capped Cardinal 66

Paroaria baeri Crimson-fronted Cardinal 66

Paroaria capitata Yellow-billed Cardinal 66

Stephanophorus diadematus Diademed Tanager

Schistochlamys melanopis Black-faced Tanager 1a

Schistochlamys ruficapillus Cinnamon Tanager

Cissopis leverianus Magpie Tanager 1a, 1b

Calochaetes coccineus Vermilion Tanager 24b

Iridosornis porphyrocephalus Purplish-mantled Tanager 26, 26b

Iridosornis analis Yellow-throated Tanager 26

Iridosornis jelskii Golden-collared Tanager

Iridosornis rufivertex Golden-crowned Tanager 27

Iridosornis reinhardti Yellow-scarfed Tanager 27

Pipraeidea melanonota Fawn-breasted Tanager 17b

Pipraeidea bonariensis Blue-and-yellow Tanager 19b

Pseudosaltator rufiventris Rufous-bellied Mountain-Tanager 24c, 25b

Dubusia taeniata Buff-breasted Mountain-Tanager 24b, 24c, 25

Dubusia castaneoventris Chestnut-bellied Mountain-Tanager 24b, 25a

Anisognathus melanogenys Black-cheeked Mountain-Tanager 23, 23a, 23b, 24b, 24c

Anisognathus lacrymosus Lacrimose Mountain-Tanager 23a, 23b, 23c

Anisognathus igniventris Scarlet-bellied Mountain-Tanager 23b

Anisognathus somptuosus Blue-winged Mountain-Tanager 24, 24a

Anisognathus notabilis Black-chinned Mountain-Tanager 24a

Buthraupis montana Hooded Mountain-Tanager 24b, 24c

Buthraupis wetmorei Masked Mountain-Tanager 22a

Chlorornis riefferii Grass-green Tanager 24b

Cnemathraupis eximia Black-chested Mountain-Tanager 21a, 24c

Cnemathraupis aureodorsalis Golden-backed Mountain-Tanager 21a, 22

Wetmorethraupis sterrhopteron Orange-throated Tanager 21

Bangsia arcaei Blue-and-gold Tanager 20a

Bangsia melanochlamys Black-and-gold Tanager 20

Bangsia rothschildi Golden-chested Tanager

Bangsia edwardsi Moss-backed Tanager

Bangsia aureocincta Gold-ringed Tanager

Tangara ruficervix Golden-naped Tanager 30b, 30c

Tangara cyanoptera Black-headed Tanager 36, 36a, 36aa

Tangara viridicollis Silvery Tanager 33, 34

Tangara heinei Black-capped Tanager 33

Tangara argyrofenges Green-throated Tanager 33, 35

Tangara phillipsi Sira Tanager 32, 33

Tangara palmeri Gray-and-gold Tanager 28ab

Tangara peruviana Black-backed Tanager 29, 30a

Tangara preciosa Chestnut-backed Tanager 29, 29a, 30a, 30aa

Tangara meyerdeschauenseei Green-capped Tanager 30, 30a

Tangara cayana Burnished-buff Tanager 30a, 30aa

Tangara vitriolina Scrub Tanager 29b, 30a

Tangara nigrocincta Masked Tanager 31

Tangara larvata Golden-hooded Tanager 31, 31a

Tangara cyanicollis Blue-necked Tanager

Tangara vassorii Blue-and-black Tanager 32a

Tangara nigroviridis Beryl-spangled Tanager 32a

Tangara labradorides Metallic-green Tanager 30c

Tangara cyanotis Blue-browed Tanager 30c

Tangara inornata Plain-colored Tanager 28a, 28aa, 28aa

Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager 28aa, 28f

Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager 28bb, 37a

Tangara velia Opal-rumped Tanager 37, 37a

Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager 37a

Tangara seledon Green-headed Tanager 28b, 28bb

Tangara fastuosa Seven-colored Tanager 28b, 28bb

Tangara cyanocephala Red-necked Tanager 28b

Tangara desmaresti Brassy-breasted Tanager 28b, 28bbbb

Tangara cyanoventris Gilt-edged Tanager 28b, 28bbbb

Tangara lavinia Rufous-winged Tanager 28d

Tangara gyrola Bay-headed Tanager 28d

Tangara rufigenis Rufous-cheeked Tanager 28d

Tangara chrysotis Golden-eared Tanager 28bbb

Tangara xanthocephala Saffron-crowned Tanager 28bbb

Tangara parzudakii Flame-faced Tanager 28bbb

Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager 28bbb

Tangara johannae Blue-whiskered Tanager 28bbb

Tangara arthus Golden Tanager 28bbb

Tangara florida Emerald Tanager 28bbb

Tangara icterocephala Silver-throated Tanager 28bbb

Thraupis cyanocephala Blue-capped Tanager 19a, 19aa

Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager 17b, 17c, 28a

Thraupis sayaca Sayaca Tanager 18

Thraupis glaucocolpa Glaucous Tanager 19

Thraupis cyanoptera Azure-shouldered Tanager

Thraupis ornata Golden-chevroned Tanager

Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager

Ixothraupis varia Dotted Tanager 28cc

Ixothraupis rufigula Rufous-throated Tanager 28cc

Ixothraupis guttata Speckled Tanager 28cc, 28e

Ixothraupis xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager 28c, 28cc

Ixothraupis punctata Spotted Tanager 28cc, 28ccc

Orthogonys chloricterus Olive-green Tanager 1d

Lamprospiza melanoleuca Red-billed Pied Tanager 1d

1. As traditionally constituted (e.g., Storer 1969, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), the family Thraupidae was strikingly polyphyletic with respect to the Emberizidae, Fringillidae, and Cardinalidae. Genetic data have revolutionized our understanding of what constitutes a true tanager more so than for any other New World family. In fact, the English name “tanager” no longer has any taxonomic meaning (currently associated with species also in the Emberizidae and Cardinalidae) but rather refers to a morphotype, usually a bill shape, considered intermediate between the thick bills of emberizid sparrows and cardinaline grosbeaks and the thin bills of wood-warblers. The genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia, traditionally placed in this family, have been transferred to the Fringillidae (see below). The genera Piranga and Habia have been found to members of the Cardinalidae (see that family), and Parkerthraustes of the Cardinalidae has been found to be a member of the Thraupidae (see below). Most members of the former family “Coerebidae” are now known to be tanagers. More than 30 genera formerly placed in the Emberizidae have been found to be tanagers, and Chlorospingus, formerly considered a tanager, has been found to be a member of the Emberizidae. With the transfer of a major block of former Emberizidae to the Thraupidae (see SACC proposal and references therein), the current linear sequence is temporary because those genera have simply been inserted at the end of the family until a phylogenetic linear sequence can be worked out. <Remsen and Burns working on this>. The linear sequence through Urothraupis has been adapted from Burns (1997, 1998), Burns (2002), Burns & Naoki (2004), and Klicka et al. (2007). Many genera formerly placed in the Emberizidae are now placed in this family on the basis of those papers and Barker et al. (2013). The linear sequence in the Thraupidae follows that in Dickinson & Christidis (2014) pending a formal proposal to revise it.

1a. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Schistochlamys, Cissopis, and Neothraupis are each other's closest relatives.

1b. Cissopis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is leverianus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

1c. Storer (1960)<> suspected that Conothraupis was closely related to Sporophila based on remarkable plumage similarities; Zimmer (1947) had previously suspected that Conothraupis was a "finch" and not a "tanager" based on bill shape.

1cc. Conothraupis mesoleuca was described in the monotypic genus Rhynchothraupis, but see Bond (1951a) for placement in Conothraupis, as in Hellmayr (1936) and most subsequent classifications.

1d. Some genetic data (Yuri & Mindell 2002) fail to find support for inclusion of Lamprospiza in Thraupidae; its placement in the Thraupidae was questioned by (REFS). Barker et al. (2013) found that it formed a monophyletic group with Orthogonys and Mitrospingus and that these three genera have to be recognized in a separate family, Mitrospingidae, to keep related families monophyletic; this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed

2. Compsothraupis has been included by some (e.g., Zimmer 1947, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) in Sericossypha, but Storer (1970a) suspected that their similarities represented convergence.

3. Although Sericossypha albocristata was at one time suspected of not being a tanager (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), morphological (Morony 1985) and genetic data (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) support its traditional placement in the Thraupidae.

3a. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Sericossypha and Nemosia are closely related and probably sister taxa.

4. The two species of Creurgops form a superspecies (Dickinson & Christidis 2014).

4a. Creurgops dentatus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in a separate genus, Malacothraupis.

4b. Creurgops is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is dentatus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

4c. "Malacothraupis gustavi," known from southern Peru and northern Bolivia and treated reluctantly as a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), is now known to be a synonym (male plumage) of Creurgops dentatus (Bond & Meyer de Schauensee 1941, Zimmer 1947b), as suspected by Hellmayr (1936). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5. Despite concerns over the monophyly of the genus Hemispingus owing to rather disparate morphology, genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001) provided some support for monophyly for the taxa for which genetic samples are available, including the most morphologically divergent species, H. rufosuperciliaris. A subsequent analysis of a larger data set, however, could not confirm or reject monophyly of the genus (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). Some authors (e.g., Ridgway 1902) considered Hemispingus and Cnemoscopus to be members of the Parulidae, but recent genetic data (Burns REF, Klicka et al. 2007) corroborate that they are correctly placed in the Thraupidae. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) found that Hemispingus is indeed not monophyletic. Therefore, Burns et al. (2016) (1) described a new genus, Kleinothraupis, for H. atropileus, H. calophrys, and H. parodii; (2) recommended resurrecting Sphenopsis Sclater for H. melanotis and H. frontalis (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014); and (3) transferred H. superciliaris to Thlypopsis. SACC proposals passed to recognize Kleinothraupis and Sphenopsis. SACC proposal needed on English names.

6. Hemispingus calophrys was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a) considered a subspecies of H. atropileus, but Weske & Terborgh (1974) provided rationale for treating southern calophrys as a species separate from H. atropileus; this treatment has been followed by most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but not by Isler & Isler (1987). Inclusion of calophrys in H. atropileus would make that broad species paraphyletic with respect to H. parodii, the sister taxon of H. calophrys (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). The subspecies auricularis is at least as distinct genetically and morphologically, and should presumably given equal taxonomic rank (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). SACC proposal needed. Taxa ranked as species in this group were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

7. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Weske & Terborgh (1974).

8. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) indicate that Hemispingus superciliaris clusters with the group of Hemispingus that consists of H. verticalis-H. xanthophthalmus; plumage similarities also suggest that H. reyi belongs in this group. SACC proposal to alter linear sequence did not pass.

8a. The leucogaster subspecies group of Peru and the subspecies chrysophrys of Venezuela were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered separate species from Hemispingus superciliaris, but see Zimmer (1947).

8b. "Basileuterus zimmeri," described from Venezuela, is now known to be a synonym of Hemispingus superciliaris chrysophrys (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

9. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suspected that the Venezuelan subspecies collectively (as H. ignobilis) might deserve separate species status from Hemispingus frontalis; Hilty (2003), however, noted that their vocalizations and behavior were similar.

9a. Storer (1970a) suggested that Haplospiza, along with Middle American Acanthidops, might be more closely related to Diglossa in the Thraupidae than to other emberizine genera; this is consistent with some genetic data (Burns et al. 2003), although broader taxon-sampling (Klicka et al. 2007, Mauck & Burns 2009, Campagna et al. 2011) indicated that Haplospiza, some Phrygilus, some Sicalis, Diglossa, and Catamenia are phylogenetically intermingled. In any case, all genetic data indicate that Haplospiza is a member of the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

10. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) indicate that the distinctive taxon piurae, currently treated as a subspecies of H. melanotis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is more distant from the latter than is H. frontalis, and that piurae is basal to frontalis + melanotis; these analyses, however, are based on only ca. 300 base-pairs of mtDNA. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated piurae as a separate species from H. melanotis based on plumage and vocal differences. SACC proposal to recognize piurae as a species did not pass. Hilty (2011) also treated piurae as a separate species. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2011) further recognized the subspecies ochraceus as a separate species based on plumage differences. SACC proposal needed.

11. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Blake & Hocking (1974).

12. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) support the traditional view based on plumage, morphology, and biogeography (Parker et al. 1985, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990) that Hemispingus verticalis and H. xanthophthalmus are sister species and form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in a separate genus, Pseudospingus, but Zimmer (1947) merged this into Hemispingus. However, the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) provided the basis for the recommendation by Burns et al. (2016) that Pseudospingus be resurrected for these two species (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal passed to recognize Pseudospingus. SACC proposal needed on English names.

12a. Hemispingus trifasciatus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in the monotypic genus Microspingus, but Zimmer (1947) merged this into Hemispingus. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) support the continued inclusion of this species in Hemispingus, although its relationships to other taxa within that genus remain uncertain. However, the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) showed that this species is not closely related to Hemispingus. Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrecting Microspingus and also the transfer of Poospiza cabanisi, P. lateralis, P. erythrophrys, P. alticola, P. torquatus, P. cinerea, and P. melanoleuca to Microspingus (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal passed to recognize Microspingus. SACC proposal needed on English names.

12b. <REF> included Cnemoscopus within Hemispingus, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors; genetic data (REFS, Burns et al. 2003, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) are consistent with a close relationship.

12c. The southern subspecies chrysogaster was formerly (e.g., REF <any since Berlepsch 1912?>) considered a separate species from Cnemoscopus rubrirostris.

12d. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thlypopsis ornata and T. pectoralis to form a superspecies; they are parapatric sister species that may be sympatric at some localities (Zimmer 1947b).

12e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thlypopsis sordida and T. inornata to form a superspecies; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific, but they may be sympatric at some localities (Zimmer 1947b).

12f. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) showed that Pyrrhocoma is embedded in Thlypopsis. Burns et al. (2016) recommended transfer to Thlypopsis, which also forces creation of a new name, Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, for this species. SACC proposal passed to merger Pyrrhocoma into Thlypopsis.

13. Recently described species and genus: Lowery & Tallman (1976). Although initially uncertain to which family this genus belonged, genetic data indicate that it is a tanager (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003).

14. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Eucometis, Tachyphonus, and Lanio are closely related and that Coryphospingus, currently placed in the Emberizidae, is also part of this group. Burns and Racicot (2009), however, found that Tachyphonus is not a monophyletic group, with some species (T. coronatus, T. rufus, and T. phoenicius) more closely related to Ramphocelus than to other Tachyphonus, and T. surinamus more closely related to Eucometis + Trichothraupis than to other Tachyphonus. Burns and Racicot (2009) confirmed the close relationship of these genera along with Lanio as represented in the traditional linear sequences of genera within the Thraupidae, including Eucometis and Trichothraupis as sister genera. However, they also found that the “emberizid” genera Coryphospingus and Rhodospingus are members of this clade, with the latter possibly embedded within one group of Tachyphonus. SACC proposal passed to transfer Rhodospingus and Coryphospingus to Thraupidae. Burns and Racicot (2009) recommended broader generic limits in this group to avoid naming as many as three new genera, but a broadly defined Ramphocelus and Lanio would produce genera of with far greater morphological heterogeneity than in traditional passerine genera. However, the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) provided the basis for the recommendation by Burns et al. (2016) that (1) Islerothraupis Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for T. cristatus, T. luctuosus, and T. rufiventer; (2) Maschalethraupis Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for T. surinamus; and (3) Chrysocorypha, Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for T. delatrii. SACC proposals pending.

14a. "Tachyphonus nattereri," known from two specimens from southwestern Brazil and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), Pinto (1944), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), is now usually considered a subspecies of, or an aberrant individual of, T. cristatus (Zimmer 1945b, Storer 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

14c. Tachyphonus rufiventer was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944) known as Tachyphonus metallactus, but see Zimmer (1945b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

14d. Burns and Racicot (2009) found that Tachyphonus coronatus and T. rufus were sisters, with T. phoenicius sister to these two (thus consistent with traditional linear sequences).

15. Lanio fulvus and L. versicolor form a superspecies (Haffer 1987).

16. Ramphocelus dimidiatus, R. carbo, R. melanogaster, and R. bresilius form a superspecies (Novaes 1959, Storer 1970a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ramphocelus carbo and R. melanogaster hybridize to an uncertain extent in Peru (Zimmer 1945b), but they are generally considered separate species because there is no sign of intergradation between the two. Ramphocelus carbo and R. bresilius hybridize to an uncertain extent in southeastern Brazil (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). <check Novaes 1959> Burns and Racicot (2009) noted that levels of sequence divergence between these pairs are consistent with low levels of gene flow between them and their continued treatment as species. They also found the following relationships among cis-Andean Ramphocelus: (dimidiatus + nigrogularis) + [bresilius + (carbo + melanogaster)]; the traditional linear sequence is consistent with these relationships.

16a. Called "Huallaga Tanager" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Hilty (2011). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

16b. "Ramphocelus ciropalbicaudatus" Frisch, (2007. Nature Society News, Griggsville 42[5]:13) used this name for a "new species" of Ramphocelus tanager that he photographed in São Paulo, Brazil. The description not qualify as a valid description under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature; furthermore, the individual bird is most likely a partially leucistic R. carbo. See CBRO web page: (http://www.cbro.org.br/CBRO/justif.htm#Rhamphocelus%20ciropalbicaudatus%20F). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

16c. Schodde & Bock (2016) determined that the species epithet is a noun in apposition and should the name should be Ramphocelus bresilia. SACC proposal needed.

17. The taxon icteronotus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species from Ramphocelus flammigerus, but intergradation between them in southwestern Colombia (Chapman 1917, Sibley 1958) led Storer (1970a) to consider them conspecific, and this treatment has been followed by most authors subsequently (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990). However, as noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), the differences between these two are comparable to those between two Ramphocelus taxa (passerinii and costaricensis) recently treated as separate species (Hackett 1996, AOU 1998). [The problem is that the two Middle American taxa should not have been split acc. to Stiles] SACC proposal needed.

17a. Ramphocelus flammigerus forms a superspecies with Middle American R. passerinii (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Storer 1970a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

17b. Genetic data (burns et al. 2014) indicate that Thraupis is embedded within broadly defined Tangara. To maintain Thraupis, Burns et al. (2016) recommended dividing Tangara

17bb. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) suggest that Thraupis and Pipraeidea are closely related and presumably sister genera. However, Thraupis itself is polyphyletic (Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2010), so a more complete Thraupidae phylogeny is needed before changes can be made. Sedano & Burns (2010) found that T. bonariensis is the one species of Thraupis that is sister to Pipraeidea. SACC proposal passed to transfer Thraupis bonariensis into Pipraeidea. This was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014).

17c. The species name formerly (e.g., REFS, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) for Thraupis episcopus was virens, but see <REF>.

18. Zimmer (1944a) suggested that Thraupis sayaca is only a subspecies of T. episcopus; the population in their area of contact, boliviana, is somewhat intermediate in plumage; it was described as a subspecies of T. episcopus but is closer in plumage to T. sayaca (Gyldenstolpe 1945). However, Gyldenstolpe (1945) found the two species sympatric in northern Bolivia; also, the two evidently differ in vocalizations (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Also, T. glaucocolpa, roughly as distinct phenotypically from T. episcopus as T. sayaca is, is broadly sympatric with T. episcopus (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Thraupis episcopus, T. sayaca, and T. glaucocolpa were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but T. glaucocolpa cannot be included because of it is almost completely overlapping in distribution with T. episcopus. Although Middle American and trans-Andean populations, the cana group, were treated as separate species by Ridgway (19##; "Blue Tanager"), they have been treated as conspecific since at least Hellmayr (1936). <track reasons for change> However, the cana group is superficially similar to T. sayaca, more so than it is to the pale-shouldered Amazonian episcopus group. Therefore, if sayaca is treated as a separate species, perhaps the cana group should also be returned to species rank.

19. Thraupis glaucocolpa was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a) treated as a subspecies of T. sayaca, but most recent classifications have treated it as a separate species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps 1978, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

19a. Sedano & Burns (2011) found that Thraupis cyanocephala was not a member of Thraupis but was close to Anisognathus. Burns et al. (2016) also recommended resurrecting Sporathraupis, as in Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal pending to resurrect Sporathraupis.

19aa. The subspecies olivicyanea of the Coastal Range of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., REF <since Berlepsch 1912?) considered a separate species from Thraupis cyanocephala, but they evidently intergrade where in contact (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

19b. The Andean subspecies darwinii was formerly (e.g., Chapman 1926, Zimmer 1930) considered a separate species from Thraupis bonariensis.

20. Storer (1970a) merged Bangsia into Buthraupis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors; see Monroe et al. (1993). They are not sister genera (Sedano & Burns 2010).

20a. Recently recorded at Cerro Tacarcuna, Colombia (Ruiz-Ovalle & Hurtado-Guerra (2014).

21. Storer (1970a) merged Wetmorethraupis into Buthraupis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors; see Isler & Isler (1987). They are not sister genera (Sedano & Burns 2010).

21a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Buthraupis eximia and B. aureodorsalis to form a superspecies. Sedano & Burns (2010) confirmed that they are sister species but also found that they are sister to Chlorornis riefferii. SACC proposal passed to remove from Buthraupis and to resurrect the genus Cnemathraupis for them.

22. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Blake & Hocking (1974).

22a. Buthraupis wetmorei was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in a monotypic genus, Tephrophilus. Sedano & Burns (2010) showed that it was not a member of Buthraupis. Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrecting Tephrophilus, as in Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal pending to resurrect Tephrospilus.

23. Called "Santa Marta Mountain-Tanager" by Ridgely & Tudor (1989). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

23a. Anisognathus melanogenys and A. lacrymosus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1936) and Storer (1970a). See Donegan and Avendaño (2010) for evidence supporting species rank for melanogenys. SACC proposal did not pass to treat melanogenys as a subspecies of lacrymosus.

23b. Anisognathus melanogenys, A. lacrymosus, and A. igniventris were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in the genus Poecilothraupis, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

23c. SACC proposal to change spelling of English name to "Lachrymose" did not pass.

24. Anisognathus somptuosus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) known as A. flavinuchus (or flavinucha), but see Sibley & Monroe (1990). Hilty (2011) elevated the subspecies flavinucha to species rank, with the English name “Bolivian Mountain-Tanager.”

24a. Anisognathus somptuosus and A. notabilis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1944a, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in the genus Compsocoma, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Sedano & Burns (2010) found that their inclusion in Anisognathus was problematic. SACC proposals pending.

24b. Contrary to traditional linear sequences, genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004, Sedano & Burns 2010) indicate that Chlorornis is a member of a group of Andean tanager genera that consists of Buthraupis, Anisognathus, Delothraupis, Dubusia, and Calochaetes (and presumably also Bangsia and Wetmorethraupis).

24c. The hyphenated English group-name “Mountain-Tanager” no longer refers to a monophyletic group (e.g. Burns et al. 2016), so the hyphens must be removed. SACC proposal needed. <<wait on prop. 730>>

25. The subspecies carrikeri of the Santa Marta Mountains, was described as a separate species from Dubusia taeniata, but was treated as a subspecies of the latter by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent authors. Described as a separate species and treated as such by Chapman (1926), the southern subspecies stictocephala was treated as a subspecies of D. taeniata by Hellmayr (1936) and subsequent authors. Vocal differences between it and nominate taeniata are pronounced (Robbins et al., unpubl. data). SACC proposal to elevate stictocephala to species rank did not pass.

25a. Delothraupis was merged into Dubusia by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and <REFS>. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004, Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2010) indicate that Delothraupis and Dubusia are sister taxa. SACC proposal passed to merge these two genera.

25b. Hellack and Schnell (1977, REFs) previously noted that “Saltator” rufiventris was an unusual saltator based on plumage and morphology. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007, Chaves et al. 2013) have revealed that “Saltator” rufiventris is definitely not a saltator but a tanager, closely related to Delothraupis and Dubusia. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Because there is no other genus name available, the species is maintained here provisionally, as indicated by quotation marks, pending a proposal to move to Dubusia or naming of a new genus. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) transferred it to Dubusia and called it Rufous-bellied Mountain-Tanager. Burns et al. (2016) named a new genus for the species: Pseudosaltator. SACC proposal passed to recognize Pseudosaltator and to change English name to Rufous-bellied Mountain-Tanager.

26. Iridosornis porphyrocephalus and I. analis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species is weak (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1936). Orcés (1944) reported them to be sympatric in southern Ecuador, but the locality for I. porphyrocephalus is widely regarded as dubious (Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Paynter 1993, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

26b. Iridosornis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is porphyrocephalus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

27. Iridosornis reinhardti was considered a subspecies of I. rufivertex by Hellmayr (1936), Zimmer (1944a), and Storer (1970a); they form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

27a. Although Chlorochrysa is traditionally placed next to Tangara in linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that they are not closely related.

28. Chlorochrysa phoenicotis and C. calliparaea form a superspecies (REF).

28a. Despite being one of the largest genera in the world in terms of species richness, genetic data (Burns and Naoki 2004) strongly support Tangara as a monophyletic group. The genus Tangara was formerly called Calospiza (e.g., Hellmayr 1936), and in literature from the 1800s, Calliste; see Zimmer (1943b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Although Burns and Naoki (2004) found support for the monophyly of the genus, relationships within the genus were found to differ from those implied by traditional linear sequences. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Sedano & Burns (2010), however, found that Tangara was monophyletic only if Thraupis was included. SACC proposal did not pass to modify generic limits. Burns et al. (2014) confirmed this, and Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrection of several genera and described two new ones to partition Tangara into monophyletic groups; see various Notes 28ab, 28cc, and 36.

28aa. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara inornata and T. mexicana were sister species based on similarities in sociality, feeding behavior, habitat, and voice. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) corroborate this relationship. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

28ab. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara palmeri and Middle American T. cabanisi were sister species based on similarities in plumage, habitat, and voice. Burns et al. (2014) confirmed this with genetic data. Burns et al. (2016) described a new genus, Poecilostreptus, for these two species. SACC proposal pending to recognize Poecilostreptus.

28b. Storer (1970a) considered Tangara cyanocephala and T. desmaresti to form a superspecies. Isler & Isler (1987) considered these two to form a species group with T. cyanoventris. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Tangara cyanocephala and T. desmaresti are likely sister species (T. cyanoventris not sampled), and that they form a monophyletic group with T. seledon and T. fastuosa, which are also sister species.

28bb. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara chilensis, T. seledon, and T. fastuosa were sister species based on similarities in plumage, behavior, habitat, biogeography, and voice. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004), however, do not corroborate this relationship; see Notes 28b and 37b.

28bbb. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara johannae, T. schrankii, T. florida, T. arthus, T. icterocephala, T. xanthocephala, T. chrysotis, and T. parzudakii form a species group based on similarities in plumage and foraging behavior. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this as a monophyletic group.

28bbbb. "Tangara gouldi," known only from the type specimens from southeastern Brazil and considered a species by Hellmayr (1936) and Pinto (1944), is considered a hybrid (T. cyanoventris X T. desmaresti) (Bond 1947, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Storer 1970a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

28c. Hilty (2003) suspected that the subspecies phelpsi of the Tepuis might deserve recognition as a separate species from Tangara xanthogastra.

28cc. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara xanthogastra, T. punctata, T. guttata, T. varia, and T. rufigula form a species group based on plumage and vocal similarities. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004, Burns et al. 2014) confirm this as a monophyletic group. Burns et al. (2016) recommended restoration of Ixothraupis Bonaparte for these five species. SACC proposal passed to recognize Ixothraupis.

28d. Storer (1970a) considered Tangara gyrola and T. lavinia to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this relationship. Isler & Isler (1987) suggested that T. rufigenis might also be part of this group based on plumage and habitat similarities.

28dd. As pointed out by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), the differences among subspecies groups currently treated included in T. gyrola seem to be at least of the same magnitude as those between T. gyrola and T. lavinia; indeed, the viridissima subspecies group and the bangsi subspecies group were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1902, Chapman 1925) each treated as separate species from T. gyrola.

28e. The species named used for Tangara guttata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) chrysophrys, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Storer (1970a).

28f. The subspecies brasiliensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) treated as a separate species from Tangara mexicana, but most classifications have followed Zimmer (1943c) in treated them as conspecific.

29. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Sick 1997) have suspected that Tangara peruviana and T. preciosa are actually color morphs of the same species, but they are largely parapatric with little or no evidence for interbreeding (Firme et al. 2007).

29a. The species named used for Tangara preciosa was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944) castanonota, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Storer (1970a).

29b. The species named used for Tangara vitriolina was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) ruficapilla, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Storer (1970a).

30. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Schulenberg & Binford (1985).

30a. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara cayana, T. peruviana, T. preciosa, T. meyerdeschauenseei, T. vitriolina, and West Indian T. cucullata form a species group based on similarities in plumage and habitat. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) corroborate the close relationship among Tangara cayana, T. vitriolina, T. cucullata, and T. meyerdeschauenseei (T. peruviana and T. preciosa not sampled).

30aa. "Tangara arnaulti," known from one aviary specimen and reluctantly considered a valid species by Hellmayr (1936) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966); presumably a hybrid (T. preciosa X T. cayana) (Hellmayr 1936, Bond 1951a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Storer 1970a, Ingels 1971). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

30b. The southern subspecies fulvicervix was formerly (e.g., Berlepsch 1912) considered a separate species from Tangara ruficervix, a treatment that will almost certainly be restored; they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1936) and subsequent authors; they differ in more plumage features than do many pairs of Tangara treated as separate species, yet they show limited genetic divergence (Burns & Naoki 2004).

30c. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara ruficervix, T. labradorides, and T. cyanotis formed a species group based on plumage similarities. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) do not confirm this relationship; these three species do not cluster within any of the other species groups in the genus.

31. Tangara larvata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1943b, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of T. nigrocincta, but most classifications have generally followed Eisenmann (1957) in treating it as a separate species; see Wetmore et al. (1984) for rationale. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) show that T. larvata is actually more closely related to T. cyanicollis than either is to T. nigrocincta, thus confirming treatment of T. nigrocincta as a separate species from T. larvata and negating treatment of T. larvata and T. nigrocincta as members of superspecies.

31a. Formerly known as "Golden-masked Tanager" (e.g., AOU 1983), but see <Ridgely REF>.

32. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Graves & Weske (1987).

32a. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara vassorii and T. nigroviridis formed a species group with Central American T. dowii and T. fucosa. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm their close relationship, with T. vassorii basal to the other three,

33. Graves & Weske (1987) proposed that Tangara heinei, T. phillipsi, T. argyrofenges, and T. viridicollis formed a monophyletic group. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) corroborate the close relationship of Tangara heinei, T. argyrofenges, and T. viridicollis. Sibley & Monroe (1990) proposed that T. heinei and T. phillipsi formed a superspecies.

34. Called "Silver-backed Tanager" by Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

35. Called "Straw-backed Tanager" by Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Hilty (2011). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

36. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Tangara cyanoptera is the sister to the T. heinei species complex (see Note 33), thus corroborating its traditional position in linear sequences. Burns et al. (2014) found that these two, plus T. larvata, T. nigrocincta, T. cyanicollis, T. preciosa, T. peruana, T. meyerdeschauenseei, T. vitriolina, T. cucullatus, T. cayana, T. viridicollis, T. phillipsi, and T. argyrofenges, formed a monophyletic group not included in Tangara s.s.; Burns et al. (2016) described a new genus, Stilpnia, for this group. SACC proposal pending to recognize Stilpnia.

36a. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Hilty (2003) suspected that the subspecies whitelyi of the Tepui region might deserve treatment as a separate species from Tangara cyanoptera.

36aa. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) noted that cyanoptera was preoccupied in Tangara by Saltator cyanopterus Vieillot, 1817, and they replaced Tangara cyanoptera with the name Tangara argentea (Lafresnaye, 1843). SACC proposal needed.

37. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suspected that the subspecies cyanomelas of the Atlantic forest region of Brazil deserves consideration as a separate species status from Tangara velia.

37a. Tangara velia and T. callophrys were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1943a, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in a separate genus, Tanagrella; similarities in plumage and bill shape have suggested to most authors (e.g., Isler & Isler 1987) that T. velia and T. callophrys are sister species. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this relationship and also indicate that T. chilensis is the sister species to these two.

38. Tersina was formerly placed in its own monotypic family, Tersinidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Tordoff 1954a, <>George 1962, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), or subfamily or tribe with the tanagers (e.g., Tersininae as in Storer 1970a, or Tersinini as in <REF>); in all these treatments it was considered the sister taxon to all other tanagers. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as well as morphological data (Raikow 1978), however, indicate that it is embedded within the tanagers, and most closely related to Dacnis and Cyanerpes (Burns et al. 2003). <Sibley & Ahlquist 1973b>

39. The genera Dacnis and Cyanerpes were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered members of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but they were considered to be tanagers on the basis of skull structure by Tordoff (1954a) and were placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1969, 1970a). This has been followed in most subsequent classifications. Molecular data indicate that they are sister genera, but embedded within the tanagers, forming a group with Tersina (Burns et al. 2002, 2003).

39a. Dacnis albiventris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) placed in a monotypic genus, Hemidacnis, but Zimmer (1942d) merged this into Dacnis.

40. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out the trans-Andean egregia group may deserve species rank. Ridgely et al. (2001) considered egregia a species separate from lineata based on plumage differences and disjunct range. SACC proposal to recognize Dacnis egregia as a separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data.

41. Dacnis hartlaubi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in a monotypic genus, Pseudodacnis and included in the Thraupidae (as "Turquoise Dacnis-Tanager") when other Dacnis were placed in the Coerebidae. Storer (1969, 1970a) merged this genus into Dacnis, and subsequent classifications have followed this treatment.

41a. Cyanerpes lucidus and C. caeruleus form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1935), but they are sympatric in northwestern Colombia.

42. The genus Chlorophanes was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but Tordoff (1954a) considered it a tanager on the basis of skull morphology and Storer (1969, 1970a) placed it in the Thraupidae. Genetic data indicate that it is embedded within the tanagers; molecular data do not support a close relationship to Dacnis or Cyanerpes, but its closest relatives remain uncertain (Burns et al. 2002, 2003).

42a. "Chlorophanes purpurascens," known only from the type specimen from "Caracas" and considered a valid species by Hellmayr (1935), is presumably a hybrid. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

43. Iridophanes pulcherrimus was placed in the genus Tangara by Storer (1970a) because of its stunning similarity in plumage to T. cyanoptera, but genetic data (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2003) indicates that it may be the sister genus to Chlorophanes, corroborating predictions from bill shape and behavior (Ridgely & Tudor 1989).

43b. Iridophanes is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is pulcherrimus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

43c. Heterospingus xanthopygius forms a superspecies with Central American H. rubrifrons (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Storer 1970a) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications follow Wetmore et al. (1984) in treating them as separate species because of the radical differences in male plumage; they are not, however, sympatric (Wetmore et al. 1984; contra Haffer 1975).

43d. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Chrysothlypis and Hemithraupis are closely related and probably sister taxa, and that Heterospingus is also part of this group.

44. Hemithraupis guira and H. ruficapilla hybridize to at least some degree but do not intergrade where they come in contact (Zimmer 1947b, Sick REF?); they are sister species that constitute a superspecies (Zimmer 1947b, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

45. Correct spelling for species name is chrysomelas, not chrysomelaena (David & Gosselin 2002a).

45a. [need citation for record for Colombia]

46. Chrysothlypis salmoni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Erythrothlypis, but subsequent classifications have followed its merger by Storer (1970a) into Chrysothlypis. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that Chrysothlypis itself could be merged into Hemithraupis. See Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for doubts as to whether Erythrothlypis should be considered congeneric with Chrysothlypis.

47. The genus Conirostrum was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, and by others a member of the Parulidae (Ridgway 1902, Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954a, Lowery & Monroe 1968). Genetic data (based on C. speciosum, C. bicolor, and C. sitticolor) indicate that it should be included in the tanagers, with Oreomanes as the sister genus (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) or perhaps included within Conirostrum (Lovette & Bermingham 2002).

48. Conirostrum speciosum, C. leucogenys, C. bicolor, and C. margaritae were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Tordoff 1954a) placed in a separate genus, Ateleodacnis, but see Zimmer (1942d) for its merger into Conirostrum. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that this lowland group was quite distinct from montane Conirostrum, perhaps meriting a return to treatment as a separate genus.

48b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies littorale of western Peru might deserve recognition as a separate species from Conirostrum cinereum.

48c. The atrocyanea subspecies group was formerly (e.g., <REFS, not Hellmayr 1935>) considered a separate species from Conirostrum albifrons.

49. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Johnson & Millie (1972); described as C. tamarugensis, but see Mayr & Vuilleumier (1983).

50. The genus Oreomanes was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, and by others a member of the Parulidae <REF>; it was tentatively placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a). Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that plumage similarities suggest a close link between Oreomanes and Poospiza. Genetic data indicate that it should be included in the tanagers, with Conirostrum as the sister genus (Burns et al. 2002, 2003). A hybrid Oreomanes fraseri X C. ferrugineiventre and plumage, morphological, and foraging similarities also supports their close relationship (Schulenberg 1985, Fjeldså 1992). The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) showed that Oreomanes is embedded within Conirostrum; therefore Burns et al. (2016) transferred it to Conirostrum; this would also require a change in the species name (to Conirostrum binghami), as in Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal passed to change to Conirostrum binghami.

51. The genus Xenodacnis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but it was placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a); genetic data indicate that it should be included in the Thraupidae, and that it forms a group with Acanthidops, Diglossa, and Catamenia (Burns et al. 2002, 2003); its relationship to other "Coerebidae" was questioned long ago by Zimmer (1942d). <Beecher>

51a. The northern petersi subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Bond & Meyer de Schauensee 1939) considered a separate species from Xenodacnis parina.

52. The genus Diglossa was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae. Others considered it a member of the Parulidae (e.g., AOU 1983) or Emberizidae (REF) because of its apparent close relationship to Acanthidops (Eisenmann in Meyer de Schauensee 1966), traditionally placed in the Emberizidae. Tordoff (1954a) considered Diglossa to be a tanager based on skull morphology, and Storer (1970a) placed it in the Thraupidae; this has been followed in most subsequent classifications. Genetic data confirm that it should be included in the tanagers, and forms a group with Acanthidops, Catamenia, and other genera, many formerly considered emberizine (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Mauck & Burns 2009). Vuilleumier (1969) divided the genus into four species groups, but genetic data (Mauck & Burns 2009) indicate that these are not monophyletic groups.

52a. The English name "flowerpiercer" is hyphenated in many classifications. SACC proposal to change to "flower-piercer" did not pass.

53. Diglossa sittoides was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Zimmer 1942e, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Wetmore et al. 1984, Isler & Isler 1987) considered conspecific with D. baritula and D. plumbea of Middle America, but see Vuilleumier (1969) and Hackett (1995) for their treatment as separate species, representing a return to the classification of <REF ? Ridgway>; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group: D. sittoides + (D. plumbea + D. baritula).

54. Diglossa gloriosissima and D. mystacalis were considered subspecies of D. lafresnayii by many (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Isler & Isler 1987), but see Vuilleumier (1969) for ranking of these two groups as species separate from D. lafresnayii. These three form a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group and indicate that D. gloriosissima and D. lafresnayii are more closely related than either is to D. mystacalis.

55. Diglossa gloriosa, D. humeralis, D. brunneiventris, and D. carbonaria were formerly considered conspecific ("Carbonated Flower-piercer") by many (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Isler & Isler 1987), but see Graves (1982) for treatment of all four as separate species. However, whether the two disjunct populations of D. brunneiventris are more closely related to each other than to adjacent and intervening D. humeralis populations remains to be determined. The four species constitute a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.

56. Diglossa venezuelensis and D. albilatera constitute a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Isler & Isler 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.

57. Diglossa caerulescens was formerly treated in the monotypic genus Diglossopis, but was included in Diglossa by Hellmayr (1935). Bock (1985) proposed separating glauca, caerulescens, and cyanea in the genus Diglossopis, and he interpreted morphological data to indicate that this and Diglossa were not sister genera. This classification was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), who also added D. indigotica to the genus based on Vuilleumier’s (1969) species groups. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003) also recognized Diglossopis. Genetic data (Mauck & Burns 2009) indicate that species assigned to Diglossopis do not form a monophyletic group: D. cyanea and D. caerulescens are sister species, and D. glauca is sister to these two, but D. indigotica is sister to the D. baritula superspecies. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. SACC proposal to recognize modified Diglossopis did not pass. Genetic data also indicate that broadly defined Diglossa is a monophyletic group, contra Bock (1985).

57a. Called "Golden-eyed Flowerpiercer" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

57b. Hilty (2003) noted that differences in song between northern and southern populations of Diglossa cyanea suggest that two species may be involved.

58. The genus Catamblyrhynchus is often maintained in a separate monotypic family, Catamblyrhynchidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Tordoff 1954a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or subfamily (Paynter 1970b, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); genetic data suggest that it should be at least tentatively included in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988).

58a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Plush-capped Finch".

59. Genetic data support continued but tentative inclusion of Urothraupis in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990); some authors have included it tentatively in the Emberizidae (e.g., Paynter 1970a), based on superficial similarity to Atlapetes.

64. The genus Paroaria has been placed traditionally in the Emberizidae, sometimes with the cardinal grosbeaks (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970), which in this classification are considered a separate family, Cardinalidae. Tordoff (1954a) concluded that it was not a cardinaline but an emberizine genus, based on skeletal data. Genetic data, however, indicate that the genus Paroaria belongs in the Thraupidae (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns and Naoki 2004, Klicka et al. 2007), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

65. Paroaria coronata and P. dominicana were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

65a. "Paroaria humberti," described from a captive individual, was treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), who noted that it could be simply a melanistic P. dominicana; it has been treated as such by subsequent authors (e.g., Paynter 1970c). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

66. Paroaria gularis, P. baeri, and P. capitata form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species is weak (Paynter 1970a); Hellmayr (1938) suspected that P. capitata might best be treated as a subspecies of P. gularis, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that baeri might also best be treated as a subspecies of P. gularis. The subspecies P. g. nigrogenis of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Paroaria gularis. Dávalos & Porzecanski (2009) also found evidence that nigrogenis was not most closely to P. gularis; they elevated all diagnosable taxa to species rank based on the phylogenetic species concept. SACC proposal passed to elevate nigrogenis to species rank; SACC proposal to elevate cervicalis and xinguensis to species rank did not pass. Lopes & Gonzaga (2013) provided additional rationale for treating xinguensis as a separate species from P. baeri. SACC proposal to recognize xinguensis as a separate species did not pass.

66b. <Coccopsis for Paroaria as in Phelps & Phelps 1950a.>

67. In linear sequences, the genus Porphyrospiza has traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) been associated with the Passerina buntings, now in the Cardinalidae; Paynter (1970c) even merged Porphyrospiza into Passerina. This traditional association is based on shared plumage coloration and pattern with some Passerina buntings. It is generally agreed, however, among recent authors who know Porphyrospiza caerulescens in the field (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, REFS) that it is not related to cardinaline buntings but to other genera currently in the Emberizidae, as proposed by Tordoff (1954a) based on skull morphology. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that it is not related to cardinalines but rather is the sister (of the taxa sampled) to Phrygilus alaudinus (but that both are members of the Thraupidae, not Emberizidae). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

68. Genetic data indicate that all Phrygilus species sampled so far (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) belong in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

69. Phrygilus atriceps is treated as a separate species from P. gayi because of sympatric breeding reported in Chile (see Johnson 1967). <check BBOC 109:66-82, 1989> Paynter (1970a) considered the taxon punensis to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, whereas Meyer de Schauensee (1970) treated it as a subspecies of P. gayi. Recent classifications usually follow Ridgely & Tudor (1989), who elevated punensis to species rank based largely on unpublished data. SACC proposal to consider punensis and atriceps conspecific did not pass.

70. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phrygilus atriceps, P. punensis, P. gayi, and P. patagonicus to form a superspecies, but the degree of apparent sympatry between P. gayi and P. patagonicus would make inclusion of the latter questionable.

71 The genus Phrygilus is highly polyphyletic (Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011). Campagna et al. (2011) found that the genus consists of at least four lineages: (1) gayi, patagonicus, punensis, and atriceps, which comprise the sister group to Melanodera (including extralimital Rowettia goughensis); (2) fruticeti, alaudinus, and carbonaria; (3) plebejus and unicolor, which are sister to Haplospiza; and (4) dorsalis and erythronotus, which are sister to Idiopsar. The type species for Phrygilus is gayi. Hellmayr’s (1938) synonymy indicates that Rhopospina Cabanis is available for Group 2, with fruticeti the designated type species, and that Geospizopsis Bonaparte is available for Group 3, with unicolor the designated type species. Clearly, major taxonomic revisions are needed but additional taxon sampling is needed within the Thraupidae. SACC proposal to revise classification did not pass. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) provided the basis for the recommendation by Burns et al. (2016) that (1) Rhopospina be resurrected for fruticeti, (2) Corydospiza Sundevall be resurrected for alaudinus and carbonarius, (3) Geospizopsis Bonaparte be resurrected for plebejus and unicolor (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014), and (4) Ephippiospingus Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for dorsalis and erythronotus. This would leave gayi, patagonicus, punensis, and atriceps as the only species in Phrygilus. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) resurrected Rhopospina and included in it not only fruticeti, alaudinus, and carbonarius but also Porphyrospiza caerulescens. SACC proposals pending.

71b. With the transfer of Phrygilus unicolor to Haplospiza, this species becomes Haplospiza geospizopsis (Bonaparte, 1853) because Haplospiza unicolor Cabanis, 1851, is the type species for Haplospiza.

72. Phrygilus dorsalis and P. erythronotus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) noted interbreeding between the two and wondered whether dorsalis might not be just a color phase P. erythronotus. Genetic data confirm that they are sister species but are not members of Phrygilus (Burns et al. 2016 and references therein). Burns et al. described a new genus, Ephippiospingus, for these two species. SACC proposals pending. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) included them both in Idiopsar.

73. SACC proposal did not pass to change English name to something other than "Carbonated" (because the latter nowadays associated primarily with carbon dioxide injection into beverages). Dickinson & Christidis (2014) called it “Carbon Finch.”

74. Paynter (1970a) suggested that Idiopsar could be merged into Diuca, but genetic data (Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that they are distantly related and that Idiopsar is the sister to Phrygilus erythronotus + P. dorsalis (and thus also a member of the Thraupidae; see Note 6). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

75. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that Diuca does not belong in the Emberizidae; in fact, it is embedded within the “core tanagers” (Sedano & Burns 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

76. Diuca speculifera and D. diuca were considered to form a superspecies by Paynter (1970a) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), but they are not closely related (Burns et al. 2014). Burns et al. (2016) described a new genus, Chionodacryon, for speculifera. SACC proposal pending to recognize Chionodacryon.

77. Genetic data (Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that Melanodera is sister to one of the Phrygilus lineages (see Note 6), and that it is a member of the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

78. Called "White-bridled Finch" in Mazar Barnett and Pearman (2001) and Gill and Wright (2006). The Australian estrildid Poephila cincta is also known as "Black-throated Finch," the name formerly used by most New World references. Called “Canary-winged Finch” by Jaramillo (2011). SACC proposal passed to change to "Canary-winged Finch" but subsequent SACC proposal passed to change to "White-bridled Finch."

79. Haplospiza rustica was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated in a separate genus, Spodiornis, but Meyer de Schauensee (1966) merged this into Haplospiza. The two species of Haplospiza form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species was considered weak by Paynter (1970a). However, Burns et al. (2014) found that they are not sister species, with H. rustica sister to Central American Acanthidops bairdi; Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrection of Spodiornis for H. rustica. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) including all three species in Haplospiza. SACC proposal pending to recognize Spodiornis.

81. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that Lophospingus is not a member of the Emberizidae but belongs in the Thraupidae; in fact, it is embedded within the “core tanagers” (Sedano & Burns 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

82. Lophospingus pusillus was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Schistospiza, but see Miller (1928) for its merger into Lophospingus.

83. Incaspiza pulchra, I. personata, and I. ortizi form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); I. pulchra and I. personata were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1938) and Paynter (1970a), but recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in treated them as separate species.

84. Genetic data indicate that Poospiza belongs in the Thraupidae (Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and forms a group with Pyrrhocoma, Thlypopsis, Cypsnagra, Nephelornis, Hemispingus, and Cnemoscopus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000, Klicka et al. 2007) also indicate that Poospiza is likely polyphyletic. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) confirmed that Poospiza is polyphyletic and should be restricted to P. hispaniolensis, P. rubecula, P. nigrorufa, P. boliviana, and P. ornata. Additionally, Burns et al. (2016) recommended (1) the transfer of the following species to Poospiza: Hemispingus rufosuperciliaris, H. goeringi, Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri; (2) resurrection of Poospizopsis for P. caesar and P. hypochondria (see Note 88); (3) recognition of Castanozoster Burns et al. 2016 for P. thoracica; and (4) transfer of remaining species to Microspingus (see Note 12a). Dickinson & Christidis (2014) resurrected Orospingus, Riley, 1922, for rufosuperciliaris and H. goeringi. SACC proposals passed to revise generic limits. SACC proposal needed on English names.

84a. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) noted that the original spelling was hypocondria and that hypochondria is an unjustified emendation. SACC proposal to change to hypocondria did not pass.

85. Hellmayr (1938) considered Poospiza erythrophrys and P. rubecula to be sister species. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza erythrophrys and P. ornata are sister species based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences. Lougheed et al.'s (2000) limited genetic data did not support such a relationship.

86. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Andean populations (whitii with wagneri) as a separate species ("Black-and-chestnut Warbling-Finch") from Poospiza nigrorufa, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated them as species, and members of a superspecies; Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) also treated them as separate species. SACC proposal to recognize whitii as separate species did not pass.

87. Poospiza cabanisi has been traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lateralis, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that cabanisi might merit treatment as a separate species. Assis et al. (2007) presented evidence for treating cabanisi as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate cabanisi to species rank.

88. Poospiza caesar was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Poospizopsis; most authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed Paynter (1970a) in merging it into Poospiza, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000) indicate that it is not particularly close to other Poospiza except for P. hispaniolensis, and that these two are probably sister species. Hellmayr (1938) considered Poospiza hispaniolensis and P. torquata to be closely related, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they perhaps should be treated as conspecific; genetic data, however, indicate that they are only distantly related (Lougheed et al. 2000). The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) showed that P. caesar and P. hypochondria are sister species that are not members of Poospiza to Tiaris; Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrection of Poospizopsis for these two species (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal pending to recognize Poospizopsis.

89. Lougheed et al. (2000) suggested that the southern subspecies pectoralis deserves treatment as a separate species from nominate torquata based on genetic distance data.

90. Poospiza melanoleuca has sometimes been treated as a subspecies of P. cinerea (e.g., Paynter 1970a, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), but see Short (1975) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for continued treatment as separate species, as in Hellmayr (1938), Pinto (1944), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that melanoleuca has priority over cinerea if considered conspecific, contra Paynter (1970a).

91. Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri were traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in that genus, but Paynter (1970a) merged this into Poospiza, as suggested by Bond (1951), and this treatment has been followed by most authors subsequently. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that baeri is not the sister species to three other Poospiza sampled. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Compsospiza. Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000) support their treatment as sister species; Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Paynter (1970a), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they might be treated as conspecific. Burns et al. (2016) based on Burns et al. (2014) recommended that they be transferred back to Poospiza; see Note 84. SACC proposal pending.

92. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza caesar, P. rubecula, P. garleppi, and P. baeri formed a monophyletic group based on plumage similarities, contrary to their placement in traditional linear sequences. Lougheed et al.'s (2000) limited genetic data did not support such a group.

93. Genetic data indicate that the genus Sicalis (based on S. luteola or S. olivascens) belongs in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Sicalis (and Piezorina, Emberizoides, Embernagra, Volatinia, Sporophila, Oryzoborus [now Sporophila], Amaurospiza, Dolospingus [now Sporophila], and Catamenia) was placed with the carduelines by Hellmayr (1938) but then moved to the emberizines by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) based on the morphological data of Tordoff (1954). Paynter (1970a) emphasized that species limits within the genus were uncertain and in need of much study.

93a. Kashin (1978) noted that the original spelling of the genus by Lafresnaye was Piezorina, and that the subsequent spelling Piezorhina was an unjustified emendation, and Gregory & Dickinson (2012) agreed. SACC proposal passed to change to Piezorina.

93b. Correct spelling is uropigialis according to Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed.

94. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Sicalis olivascens and S. lebruni to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Paynter (1970a), as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

94a. Areta et al. (2012) provided evidence for treatment of the subspecies mendozae as a separate species from Sicalis olivascens. SACC proposal passed to treat mendozae as separate species.

94b. López-Lanús (2017) described a new species, Sicalis holmbergi, from prov. Buenos Aires, Argentina, from a population previously considered to be S. lebruni. SACC proposal pending to recognize Sicalis holmbergi.

95. Called "Saffron Yellow-Finch" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

96. "Sicalis striata," known from two specimens from Prov. Buenos Aires and treated as a species by (REF), is now considered to be based on an immature S. flaveola pelzelni (Paynter 1970a, Sibley & Monroe 1990). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

97. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that the southern subspecies luteiventris might represent a separate species from Sicalis luteola, and it was treated as such by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and AOU (<?> 1983, 1998). Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Hilty (2003) also suggested that the subspecies bogotensis might deserve species rank.

98. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Sicalis luteola and S. raimondii to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered conspecific, but Koepcke (1963) found that they were locally sympatric.

99. Sicalis taczanowskii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Gnathospiza, but Paynter (1970a) merged this into Sicalis, following the suggestion by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

100. Evidence for maintaining Emberizoides duidae as a separate species from E. herbicola is weak (Hilty 2003); they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1938), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and Paynter (1970a); <check Eisenmann & Short 1982> ; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

101. Eisenmann & Short (1982) showed that E. ypiranganus is widely sympatric with E. herbicola and thus merits continued recognition as a separate species.

102. Genetic data indicate that Emberizoides and Embernagra belong in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and that Emberizoides and Embernagra are sister taxa (Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

103. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Embernagra platensis and E. longicauda to form a superspecies.

104. Nores et al. (1983) reported sympatry between olivascens and nominate platensis in Córdoba, which would elevate the former to species rank; they were formerly (e.g., REF) treated as separate species but considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). <incorp. Contreras 1980>. Hayes (2003) provided additional evidence for lack of gene flow between the olivascens group and nominate platensis. SACC proposal to treat olivascens group as a separate species did not pass.

105. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) called this species "Buff-throated Pampa-Finch", and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) called it "Pale-throated Serra-Finch."

106. Genetic data indicate that Volatinia belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007) and may be the sister genus to Conothraupis (Burns et al. 2003). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Steadman (1982) proposed that Volatinia be merged with Geospiza, and this was followed by Wetmore et al. (1984); however, nest architecture and genetic data (Burns et al. 2002, Klicka et al. 2007) do not support this.

107. Clark (1986) found that Volatinia, Sporophila, Oryzoborus [now Sporophila], Dolospingus [now Sporophila], and Charitospiza share a unique foot scute character that suggests that they form a monophyletic group. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007), however, indicate that Volatinia and Sporophila + Oryzoborus are not close relatives. Mason & Burns (2013) found that Dolospingus was embedded in Sporophila and proposed merger of it into Sporophila. SACC proposal passed to merge Oryzoborus and Dolospingus into Sporophila. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this treatment.

108. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013) indicate that levels of genetic divergence among species in the genus Sporophila are quite low compared to other genera and that some taxa currently treated as species may be paraphyletic. In perhaps no other genus of Neotropical birds are there so many species-level taxa of that are suspected to represent aberrant individuals or hybrids. Traditionally, relationships within the genus have based on plumage similarities, but these have been shown to be influenced by convergence by Mason & Burns (2013), who found that only 1 of the 7 plumage groups of Ridgely & Tudor (1989) was monophyletic. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. A new species, Sporophila iberaensis, was described by Di Giacomo and Kopuchian (2016). SACC proposal badly needed.

109. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that Sporophila and Oryzoborus belong in the Thraupidae; some morphological data are consistent with this (Clark 1986). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Olson (1981c) provided evidence that there is little morphological evidence for maintaining the genus Oryzoborus as separate from Sporophila, and Wetmore et al. (1984) merged Oryzoborus into Sporophila; the diagnosis of Oryzoborus relies on bill size and shape, which are notoriously unreliable indicators of phylogenetic relationships, although see Stiles (1996). Webster & Webster (1999) also recommended keeping them as separate genera because of differences in skeletal morphology. Sick (1963) noted that intergeneric hybrids were <numerous?>. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) strongly support the merger of Oryzoborus into Sporophila (and provide minimal support for monophyly of Oryzoborus itself). SACC proposal to merge Oryzoborus into Sporophila did not pass. Mason & Burns (2013) found that Oryzoborus was embedded in Sporophila and proposed merger of it into Sporophila. SACC proposal passed to merge Oryzoborus and Dolospingus into Sporophila.

110. The genus Sporophila was formerly (e.g., REFS, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) known as Spermophila, but see <REF>.

111. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Mason & Burns 2013) indicate that Sporophila falcirostris and S. schistacea are sister species, confirming their traditional placement (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) in linear sequences.

111a. Repenning et al. (2013) described a new species, Sporophila beltoni, for the yellow-billed population of S. plumbea. SACC proposal passed to recognize Sporophila beltoni.

112. Sporophila intermedia may include a cryptic species, S. insularis (Rodner et al. 2000, Restall 2002, Hilty 2003). SACC proposal to recognize insularis as a separate species did not pass.

113. Sporophila corvina and S. americana are considered conspecific by most recent authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Olson's (1981a) study of the contact zone in Panama between corvina and the subspecies hicksii of S. americana suggested complete intergradation between the two, with the taxon "aurita" representing nothing more than a hybrid swarm. Subsequently, Stiles (1996b) provided rationale for recognition of the corvina and americana groups as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1938); Stiles (1996b) also treated the subspecies murallae as separate species from S. americana, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003). Stiles (1996b) also provided rationale for treating S. intermedia as part of this complex. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.

114. Stiles (1996b) showed that the correct name for this species group is corvina, not aurita as in many references. <check>

115. Sporophila bouvronides was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a) considered a subspecies of S. lineola, but see Schwartz (1975) for rationale for treating them as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1938) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); this treatment has been followed by subsequent authors; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

116. "Sporophila melanops," known only from the type specimen from Goiás, Brazil, and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938) and Pinto (1944), is usually treated as species of uncertain status (Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990); more likely a variant of S. nigricollis or a hybrid than a valid species (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Treated as a valid species by Dickinson et al. (2003) but not by Dickinson % Christidis (2014). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

117. Sick (1997), based on Sick (1962, 1963), suggested that S. ardesiaca is only a subspecies or variant of S. nigricollis; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) expressed doubt that ardesiaca was a valid species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) treated it as a subspecies of S. nigricollis. <check Willis-Oniki 1993 reference therein>. SACC proposal badly needed.

118. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013Mason & Burns 2013) indicate that Sporophila bouvreuil (including pileata), S. minuta, S. hypoxantha, S. ruficollis, S. palustris, S. hypochroma, S. cinnamomea, S. nigrorufa, and S. melanogaster form a monophyletic group, as reflected in traditional linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) based on plumage similarities. These plumage similarities also suggest that if S. zelichi is a valid species (see Note 32a), then it also belongs in this group (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Lijtmaer et al. (2004) included S. castaneiventris in this group, but see Campagna et al. (2009, 2013) and Mason & Burns (2013). SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.

119. The western subspecies bicolor was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Sporophila leucoptera; Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that bicolor might merit recognition as a separate species.

120. Sporophila peruviana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) placed in the monotypic genus Neorhynchus.

121. The subspecies saturata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered a separate species from Sporophila bouvreuil, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Machado & Silveira (2011) showed that saturata is not a diagnosable taxon. They also demonstrated the subspecies pileata is sympatric with S. bouvreuil and therefore should be considered a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat pileata as separate species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this treatment. SACC proposal passed to establish English names of S. bouvreuil and S. pileata. Mason & Burns (2013) found that S. bouvreuil and S. pileata might not be sister species. Campagna et al. (2013) found not only that they were not sisters, but also that S. bouvreuil was likely the sister to all of the “capuchino” group except for S. minuta.

122. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) provided reasons for why Sporophila insulata might be the sister species of S. telasco, rather than to S. minuta, the traditional hypothesis. Sporophila telasco and S. minuta were considered closely related, perhaps sister species, by Hellmayr (1938), but subsequent classifications (e.g., Paynter 1970a) separated them without explanation. Stiles (2004) concluded from plumage characters that S. insulata is indeed more closely related to S. telasco and also that it is more likely a color morph or subspecies of the latter. SACC proposal passed to delete Sporophila insulata as a valid species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this treatment.

123. Sporophila hypoxantha was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of S. minuta, but see Short (1969a); this treatment, a return to the classification of REF, has been followed by subsequent authors (e.g., Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but genetic data (Lijtmaer et al 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013, Mason & Burns 2013) indicate that they are not sister species.

124. Short (1975) suggested that Sporophila ruficollis was not a valid species but a color morph of S. [minuta] hypoxantha; they have been traditionally considered closely related, perhaps sister species (e.g., Hellmayr 1938), as confirmed by Campagna et al. (2013).

125. Short (1975) considered Sporophila palustris to be just a color morph of S. ruficollis, but syntopy has not yet been reported (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Hellmayr (1938) considered it more closely related to S. hypoxantha.

126. Hellmayr (1938) pointed out the close relationship between Sporophila hypochroma and S. cinnamomea; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be conspecific; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered S. hypochroma and S. cinnamomea to form a superspecies but suggested that hypochroma might just be a color morph of S. cinnamomea. Meyer de Schauensee (1952) considered hypochroma to be a subspecies of S. castaneiventris, but later treated it as a separate species (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), as recently confirmed by genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013), which also indicate that they are not even sister species.

127. Narosky (1977) described Sporophila zelichi as a new species, but whether it is a valid species is controversial. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) maintained it as a species but noted that it was perhaps a localized color morph of S. cinnamomea or a hybrid population (S. cinnamomea X S. palustris), as suggested by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987). Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) also continued to recognize it as a species. The observations of Azpiroz (2003) suggest that zelichi could be a valid species confined to marsh vegetation. Areta (2008) presented evidence that there is no data to support species rank for zelichi. SACC proposal passed to remove from main list.

128. Hellmayr (1936) placed Oryzoborus with the carduelines, but morphological data (Beecher REF, Tordoff 1954, Bock 1960) indicated that it was emberizine, where moved by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

129. Olson (1981b,c) and most authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) have considered S. funerea to be a subspecies of S. angolensis, with the composite English name "Lesser Seed-Finch." However, the nature of gene flow between the two has never been studied adequately; although hybrids occur in the area of contact in northern Colombia, there is no evidence of a hybrid swarm or intergradation (contra Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) in the area that would indicate free interbreeding between the two; thus, AOU (1983, 1998) continued to rank them as separate species, following Hellmayr (1938). SACC proposal to consider S. funerea and S. angolensis conspecific did not pass.

130. Species limits in the large Oryzoborus [now Sporophila] seed-finches are complex, controversial, and need further work. Paynter (1970a) treated them all as conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1970x) provided rationale for why S. maximiliani should be treated as a separate species from S. crassirostris; they are broadly sympatric in the Guianas region; however, this sympatry might be only during the nonbreeding season <>(Phelps & Phelps 1950). Treatment as separate species has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, REFS). However, as outlined by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), placement of some subspecies is likely incorrect. Also, Sibley & Monroe (1990), followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), treated the subspecies atrirostris (with gigantirostris) as a separate species from S. maximiliani. Hellmayr (1938) treated atrirostris (with gigantirostris) as a separate species. [get TSS to do sentences on atrirostris]. Middle American S. nuttingi was formerly (e.g., REFS) included in S. maximiliani, but see Stiles (1984).

136. Called "Large-billed Seed-finch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

137. Called "Greater Large-billed Seed-finch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

138. Genetic data indicate that Catamenia belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and forms a group with Diglossa, Acanthidops, Xenodacnis, Diglossa, Haplospiza, and most Phrygilus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Catamenia was placed with the carduelines by Hellmayr (1938) but then moved to the emberizines by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) based on the morphological data of Beecher (REF) and Tordoff (1954).

139. The Santa Marta subspecies oreophila was reluctantly treated as a separate species by Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Paynter (1970a), but most recent authors, including Meyer de Schauensee (1970), have treated it as a subspecies of C. homochroa; see Zambrano (1977) for rationale.

140. <>Miller (1928) proposed that Charitospiza was closely related to Lophospingus.

141. Genetic data indicate that Coryphospingus belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Burns & Racicot 2009), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a), and forms a group with Lanio, Eucometis, and Tachyphonus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

142. Coryphospingus pileatus and C. cucullatus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they hybridize to an uncertain extent in <> (REF). Their sister relationship was confirmed by Burns & Racicot (2009).

143. Called "Gray Pileated-Finch" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989).

144. Called "Red Pileated-Finch" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Formerly called "Crimson Finch", but this is the long-standing name for the Old World estrildid Neochmia phaeton; see Clements and Shany (2001).

145. Paynter (1971) suggested that Rhodospingus might belong in Thraupidae. Burns & Racicot (2009) found not only that it was a member of the Thraupidae but also that it might be embedded within one group of Tachyphonus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

146. The genus Gubernatrix has been placed traditionally in the Emberizidae, sometimes (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) with the cardinal grosbeaks, which in this classification are considered a separate family, Cardinalidae. Paynter (1970a) tentatively included it in the Emberizidae, following Tordoff (1954), who presented morphological data that indicated that Gubernatrix was not related to the cardinalines. Genetic data indicate that it belongs in the Thraupidae (Campagna et al. 2011). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

147. Until recently, the relationships of Coereba remained unresolved, and temporary treatment as a monotypic family (e.g., AOU 1998) seemed warranted. Some authors (Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954a, Lowery & Monroe 1968) have included it within the Parulidae, and others (e.g., Bledsoe 1988) have included it within the Thraupidae; the most recent genetic data set (Burns et al. 2002) provides strong support for a monophyletic group consisting of Coereba, Tiaris, and the Galapagos finches (including Pinaroloxias), as well as Caribbean genera Euneornis, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha; this group appears to be embedded within the thraupine lineage. Lovette & Bermingham's (2002) genetic data were also consistent with placement of Coereba in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to abandon the family name "Coerebidae" and to move Coereba elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to move next to Tiaris and Galapagos "finches", and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category.

148. Genetic data indicate that Tiaris belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as part of a group that includes Coereba, the Galapagos finches, and several Caribbean genera (see also Sato et al. 2001, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed move Tiaris and Galapagos "finches" next to Coereba, and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category. Tiaris itself is also paraphyletic, with minimally olivacea, the type species of the genus, not being not particularly close to other "Tiaris." Tiaris had formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, AOU 1957) been placed with the cardinalines, and then with the emberizines based on skeletal morphology (Tordoff 1954a).

149. Tiaris is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are olivaceus, obscurus, and fuliginosus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

150. Tiaris obscurus was formerly placed in the genus Sporophila and known as "Dull-colored Seedeater" (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but nest structure and voice indicate that it belonged in Tiaris s.l. (Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), as confirmed by recent genetic (Burns et al. 2002, Lijtmaer et al. 2004) and morphological (Clark 1986) data. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) indicate that Tiaris fuliginosus and T. obscurus are sister species. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015) showed that these two species are not closely related to Tiaris; Burns et al. (2016) described a new genus, Asemospiza, for these two species. SACC proposal pending to recognize Asemospiza.

151. Based on the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2015), Burns et al. (2016) recommended the transfer of Tiaris bicolor to Melanospiza (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal pending.

152. Genetic data indicate that the Galapagos finches belong in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as part of a group that includes Coereba, Tiaris, and several Caribbean genera (see also Akie et al. 2001, Sato et al. 2001, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move Tiaris and Galapagos "finches" next to Coereba, and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category. Classification of Galapagos finches based on Petren et al. (1999), Sato et al. (1999, 2001), and Burns et al. (2002), who found that resurrection of Platyspiza for crassirostris is required to keep Camarhynchus from being paraphyletic (and that extralimital Pinaroloxias is embedded within the Galapagos finches). <incorp. Freeland and Boag 1999a.> The Galapagos finches were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) placed in a separate subfamily, Geospizinae, from other sparrows and finches, but were placed in the Emberizinae by Mayr and Amadon (1951) and Tordoff (1954a). Subsequent genetic data (e.g., Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) have confirmed the monophyly of the group.

153. Genetic data (Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) indicate that Certhidea olivacea is basal within the Galapagos finches.

154. Freeland & Boag (1999b), Petren et al. (1999), and Tonnis et al. (2005) found that C. olivacea consists of two distinct lineages. Tonnis et al. (2005) found that the two lineages were associated with habitat differences among islands, with one (olivacea) found on islands with moist upland woodland and the other (fusca) found on drier woodland on low islands; the two lineages show no sings of reproductive isolation (Grant & Grant 2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize C. fusca as a separate species.

155. "Camarhynchus conjunctus," known from two specimens from Charles and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is considered a probable hybrid (Camarhynchus parvulus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). "Camarhynchus aureus," known from one specimen from Chatham and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is also considered a probable hybrid (Camarhynchus parvulus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). "Camarhynchus giffordi," known from one specimen from Indefatigable and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is also considered an aberrant C. pallidus or hybrid (Camarhynchus pallidus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

156. Camarhynchus pallida and C. heliobates were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) treated in a separate genus, Cactospiza, but REFS and Paynter (1970a) merged this into Camarhynchus; this merger is strongly supported by genetic data (Freeland & Boag 1999b, Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001).

157. The subspecies affinis and habeli were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) both considered a separate species from Camarhynchus psittacula, but REFS and Paynter (1970a) treated them as conspecific.

158. Petren et al. (2005) showed that Geospiza difficilis might be polyphyletic, with the central island populations perhaps sister to most of the Darwin’s Finches, although microsatellite and mtDNA differ in the pattern of relationship of different populations. Lamichhaney et al. (2015) proposed that difficilis consists of three species, with acutirostris of Genovesa and septentrionalis of Wolf and Darwin elevated to species rank. SACC proposal passed to recognize three species. SACC proposal pending on English names.

159. See Paynter (1970a) over concerns that the name nebulosa may have priority for this species.

160. Large and small beak morphs of Geospiza fortis show positive assortative mating on Santa Cruz Island (Huber et al. 2007).

161. Petren et al. (2005) found that the Española population of Geospiza conirostris may be distinct enough to deserve separation as a species. Lamichhaney et al. (2015) proposed that conirostris consists of two species, with propinqua of Genovesa elevated to species rank. SACC proposal passed to recognize three species. SACC proposal pending on English names.

162. Parkerthraustes humeralis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in the genus Caryothraustes; for rationale for generic separation of Parkerthraustes from Caryothraustes, as anticipated by Hellmayr (1938), see Demastes & Remsen (1994) and Remsen (1997). Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that Parkerthraustes is not only not part of Caryothraustes but also not a cardinaline and that it likely belongs in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Thraupidae.

163. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus are sister allotaxa (Chaves et al. 2013) that might be best treated as conspecific (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); evidence for treatment of the two species as separate species is weak; they were treated as conspecific by Paynter (1970c) and as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

164. Klicka et al. (2007) found strong genetic support for a sister relationship between Saltator and core Thraupidae. Sushkin (1924) proposed that Saltator was thraupine, not emberizine/cardinaline. SACC proposal passed to transfer Saltator from Cardinalidae to Incertae Sedis. SACC proposal to transfer to Thraupidae did not pass. Barker et al. (2013) found that Saltator and Saltatricula were embedded in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Thraupidae. Chavez et al. (2013) found that relationships within the genus are not consistent with the current linear sequence of species. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence.

165. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus were formerly placed in the genus Pitylus (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c); for merger of Pitylus into Saltator, see Hellack & Schnell (1977), Tamplin et al. (1993), Demastes and Remsen (1994), Klicka et al. (2007), and Chaves et al. (2013).

166. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Saltator coerulescens, S. similis, and S. maxillosus to form a superspecies, but see Note 11.

167. Hilty (2003) treated the Middle American grandis subspecies group as a separate species from the nominate South American Saltator coerulescens group, a return to the classification of (REF). Hilty (2003) also indicated that vocal differences within South America suggest that additional species may be involved. The gene tree of Chavez et al. (2013) is consistent with treating the Middle American and northern South American grandis group as a separate species: if striatipectus is treated as a separate species, it is the sister to the South American coerulescens group, making broadly defined coerulescens paraphyletic. SACC proposal needed.

168. Hellmayr (1938) considered Saltator maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris conspecific, and Short (1975) reported that S. maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris intergrade in Corrientes, Argentina <check>.

169. Saltator nigriceps was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970c, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific with S. aurantiirostris, but most recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in considering them separate species owing to differences in bill and tail shape and body size. They are parapatric (Ridgely & Tudor 1989), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; they evidently differ in vocalizations (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Klicka et al. (2007) and Chaves et al. (2013) found that nigriceps was actually basal to ((S. aurantiirostris + S. maxillosus) + (S. grossus + S. fuliginosus)).

170. Saltator striatipectus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c) considered conspecific with S. albicollis ("Lesser Antillean Saltator"), but see Seutin et al. (1993) for a return to the classification of (REF); Seutin et al. (1993) also suggested that additional South American taxa might deserve recognition as separate species. However, Chaves et al. (2013) found that Saltator striatipectus was indeed part of the S. albicollis/S. coerulescens group. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence.

171. Inclusion of S. cinctus and S. atricollis in Saltator was questioned by Hellack and Schnell (1977)(? REFs). However, Chaves et al. (2013) found that S. cinctus was deeply embedded in Saltator. See also Note 172.

172. Saltatricula, traditionally placed in the Emberizidae, is one of many "emberizine" genera for which genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) suggest a closer relationship to the Thraupidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that it was embedded within the genus Saltator (and that Saltator itself was close to if not sister to Thraupidae) and that its sister species was Saltator atricollis. SACC proposal passed to transfer out of Emberizidae and place next to Saltator. SACC proposal to merge into Saltator did not pass. Chaves et al. (2013) confirmed the sister relationship between Saltator atricollis and Saltatricula multicolor and found that these two were the sister taxon to all other Saltator; therefore, Saltatricula should be merged into Saltator, or atricollis should be transferred to Saltatricula. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence. SACC proposal to merge Saltatricula into Saltator did not pass. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) moved atricollis to Saltatricula. Burns et al. (2016) recommended that Saltatricula be merged into Saltator. SACC proposal passed to place atricollis in Saltatricula.

INCERTAE SEDIS

[Almost certainly do not belong in their traditional families, listed here Incertae Sedis; see Burns (1997) Burns et al. (2002, 2003), Klicka et al. (2000), Yuri & Mindell (2002).]

Mitrospingus cassinii Dusky-faced Tanager 8a

Mitrospingus oleagineus Olive-backed Tanager 8a

Rhodinocichla rosea Rosy Thrush-Tanager 9, 9a

8a. Barker et al. (2013) found Mitrospingus is a member of a lineage that is not particularly close to other nine-primaried families and proposed creating a new family, Mitrospinigdae, for it, Orthogonys, and Lamprospiza. SACC proposal needed <wait on NACC>

9. 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). SACC proposal needed <wait on NACC>.

9a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Rose-breasted Thrush-Tanager."

EMBERIZIDAE (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

Chlorospingus flavovirens Yellow-green Chlorospingus 67a

Rhynchospiza stolzmanni Tumbes Sparrow 3

Rhynchospiza strigiceps Stripe-capped Sparrow 3

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

Arremon franciscanus São Francisco Sparrow 45a, 46

Arremon semitorquatus Half-collared Sparrow 45

Arremon flavirostris Saffron-billed Sparrow 45a

Arremon brunneinucha Chestnut-capped Brushfinch 47

Arremon castaneiceps Olive Finch 47, 49a

Zonotrichia capensis Rufous-collared Sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow (V) 1a

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 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. SACC proposal needed <wait on NACC> 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. 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.

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. Raposo and Parrini (1997) proposed recognizing the subspecies semitorquatus as a separate species from Arremon taciturnus. SACC proposal passed to recognize semitorquatus as a species.

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. The Colombian subspecies axillaris was treated as a separate species from Arremon taciturnus by <REF>.

45c. The Marañon subspecies nigriceps was treated as a separate species from Arremon abeillei by <REF>.

46. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Raposo (1997).

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).

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. castaneiceps to form a superspecies with Middle American A. crassirostris. 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 (1964) 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 Paynter (REF) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

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.

55b. The subspecies ceciliae 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).

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

67a. Klicka et al. (2014) found that flavovirens was not a member of Chlorospingus and was actually a true tanager (Thraupidae). Avendaño et al. (2016) found that its closest relatives were Bangsia tanagers and recommend its transfer to that genus. SACC proposal badly 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.

68a. Recent genetic data (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns et al. 2003) failed to find support for inclusion of Mitrospingus in Thraupidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that it did not fit within any of the traditionally recognized families.

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 (Cardinalidae to end)