A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee
American Ornithologists' Union
(Part 10)

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Ciconiiformes (click)
Part 2. Falconiformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Pipridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

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

PASSERIFORMES
Suborder PASSERES (OSCINES) (continued)

MOTACILLIDAE (PIPITS AND WAGTAILS) 1
Anthus lutescens Yellowish Pipit 2
Anthus furcatus Short-billed Pipit
Anthus chacoensis Chaco Pipit 3
Anthus correndera Correndera Pipit 4
Anthus nattereri Ochre-breasted Pipit
Anthus hellmayri Hellmayr's Pipit 4
Anthus bogotensis Paramo Pipit

THRAUPIDAE (TANAGERS) 1
Orchesticus abeillei Brown Tanager
Paroaria coronata Red-crested Cardinal 64, 65, 66b
Paroaria dominicana Red-cowled Cardinal 65
Paroaria gularis Red-capped Cardinal 66, 66a
Paroaria baeri Crimson-fronted Cardinal 66
Paroaria capitata Yellow-billed Cardinal 66
Schistochlamys melanopis Black-faced Tanager 1a
Schistochlamys ruficapillus Cinnamon Tanager
Cissopis leverianus Magpie Tanager 1a, 1b
Neothraupis fasciata White-banded Tanager 1a
Conothraupis speculigera Black-and-white Tanager 1c
Conothraupis mesoleuca Cone-billed Tanager 1c
Lamprospiza melanoleuca Red-billed Pied Tanager 1d
Compsothraupis loricata Scarlet-throated Tanager 2
Sericossypha albocristata White-capped Tanager 3, 3a
Nemosia pileata Hooded Tanager 3a
Nemosia rourei Cherry-throated Tanager 3a
Creurgops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager 4
Creurgops dentatus Slaty Tanager 4, 4a, 4b
Orthogonys chloricterus Olive-green Tanager
Hemispingus atropileus Black-capped Hemispingus 5, 6
Hemispingus calophrys Orange-browed Hemispingus 6
Hemispingus parodii Parodi's Hemispingus 7
Hemispingus superciliaris Superciliaried Hemispingus 8, 8a
Hemispingus reyi Gray-capped Hemispingus
Hemispingus frontalis Oleaginous Hemispingus 9
Hemispingus melanotis Black-eared Hemispingus 10
Hemispingus goeringi Slaty-backed Hemispingus
Hemispingus rufosuperciliaris Rufous-browed Hemispingus 11
Hemispingus verticalis Black-headed Hemispingus 12
Hemispingus xanthophthalmus Drab Hemispingus 12
Hemispingus trifasciatus Three-striped Hemispingus 12a
Cnemoscopus rubrirostris Gray-hooded Bush-Tanager 12b, 12c
Thlypopsis fulviceps Fulvous-headed Tanager
Thlypopsis ornata Rufous-chested Tanager 12d
Thlypopsis pectoralis Brown-flanked Tanager 12d
Thlypopsis sordida Orange-headed Tanager 12e
Thlypopsis inornata Buff-bellied Tanager 12e
Thlypopsis ruficeps Rust-and-yellow Tanager
Pyrrhocoma ruficeps Chestnut-headed Tanager
Cypsnagra hirundinacea White-rumped Tanager
Nephelornis oneilli Pardusco 13
Trichothraupis melanops Black-goggled Tanager
Eucometis penicillata Gray-headed Tanager 14
Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager 14, 14a
Tachyphonus rufiventer Yellow-crested Tanager 14b
Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager
Tachyphonus luctuosus White-shouldered Tanager
Tachyphonus delatrii Tawny-crested Tanager
Tachyphonus coronatus Ruby-crowned Tanager
Tachyphonus rufus White-lined Tanager
Tachyphonus phoenicius Red-shouldered Tanager
Lanio fulvus Fulvous Shrike-Tanager 14, 15
Lanio versicolor White-winged Shrike-Tanager 15
Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager
Ramphocelus dimidiatus Crimson-backed Tanager 16
Ramphocelus melanogaster Black-bellied Tanager 16, 16a
Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager 16
Ramphocelus bresilius Brazilian Tanager 16, 16b
Ramphocelus flammigerus Flame-rumped Tanager 17, 17a
Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager 17b, 17c
Thraupis sayaca Sayaca Tanager 18
Thraupis glaucocolpa Glaucous Tanager 19
Thraupis cyanoptera Azure-shouldered Tanager
Thraupis ornata Golden-chevroned Tanager
Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager
Thraupis cyanocephala Blue-capped Tanager 19a
Thraupis bonariensis Blue-and-yellow Tanager 19b
Calochaetes coccineus Vermilion Tanager 24b
Cyanicterus cyanicterus Blue-backed Tanager
Bangsia melanochlamys Black-and-gold Tanager 20
Bangsia rothschildi Golden-chested Tanager
Bangsia edwardsi Moss-backed Tanager
Bangsia aureocincta Gold-ringed Tanager
Wetmorethraupis sterrhopteron Orange-throated Tanager 21
Buthraupis montana Hooded Mountain-Tanager 24b
Buthraupis eximia Black-chested Mountain-Tanager 21a
Buthraupis aureodorsalis Golden-backed Mountain-Tanager 21a, 22
Buthraupis wetmorei Masked Mountain-Tanager 22a
Anisognathus melanogenys Black-cheeked Mountain-Tanager 23, 23a, 23b, 24b
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
Chlorornis riefferii Grass-green Tanager 24b
Dubusia taeniata Buff-breasted Mountain-Tanager 24b, 25
Delothraupis castaneoventris Chestnut-bellied Mountain-Tanager 24b, 25a
Stephanophorus diadematus Diademed Tanager
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
Chlorochrysa phoenicotis Glistening-green Tanager 27a, 28
Chlorochrysa calliparaea Orange-eared Tanager 28
Chlorochrysa nitidissima Multicolored Tanager
Tangara ruficervix Golden-naped Tanager 30b, 30c
Tangara cyanoptera Black-headed Tanager 36, 36a
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
Tangara meyerdeschauenseei Green-capped Tanager 30, 30a
Tangara cayana Burnished-buff Tanager 30a
Tangara vitriolina Scrub Tanager 29b, 30a
Tangara nigrocincta Masked Tanager 31
Tangara larvata Golden-hooded Tanager 31, 31a
Tangara cyanicollis Blue-necked Tanager
Tangara varia Dotted Tanager 28cc
Tangara rufigula Rufous-throated Tanager 28cc
Tangara guttata Speckled Tanager 28cc, 28e
Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager 28c, 28cc
Tangara punctata Spotted Tanager 28cc
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
Tangara cyanoventris Gilt-edged Tanager 28b
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
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
Cyanerpes nitidus Short-billed Honeycreeper 39
Cyanerpes lucidus Shining Honeycreeper 41a
Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper 41a
Cyanerpes cyaneus Red-legged Honeycreeper
Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper 42
Iridophanes pulcherrimus Golden-collared Honeycreeper 43, 43b
Heterospingus xanthopygius Scarlet-browed Tanager 43c, 43d
Hemithraupis guira Guira Tanager 44, 43d
Hemithraupis ruficapilla Rufous-headed Tanager 44
Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager
Chrysothlypis chrysomelas Black-and-yellow Tanager 43d, 45
Chrysothlypis salmoni Scarlet-and-white Tanager 46
Conirostrum speciosum Chestnut-vented Conebill 47, 48
Conirostrum leucogenys White-eared Conebill 48
Conirostrum bicolor Bicolored Conebill 48
Conirostrum margaritae Pearly-breasted Conebill 48
Conirostrum cinereum Cinereous Conebill 48b
Conirostrum sitticolor Blue-backed Conebill
Conirostrum albifrons Capped Conebill 48c
Conirostrum rufum Rufous-browed Conebill
Conirostrum tamarugense Tamarugo Conebill 49
Conirostrum ferrugineiventre White-browed Conebill 50
Oreomanes fraseri Giant Conebill 50
Xenodacnis parina Tit-like Dacnis 51, 51a
Diglossa sittoides Rusty Flowerpiercer 52, 52a, 53
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
Diglossa glauca Deep-blue Flowerpiercer 57, 57a
Diglossa caerulescens Bluish Flowerpiercer 57
Diglossa cyanea Masked Flowerpiercer 57, 57b
Catamblyrhynchus diadema Plushcap 58, 58a
Urothraupis stolzmanni Black-backed Bush-Tanager 59

1. [note on linear sequence follows Burns (1997, 1998), Burns (2002), and Burns [unpublished data]. <Storer 1969 and references therein; also those in Meyer de Schauensee 1966> The genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia, traditionally placed in this family, have been transferred to the Fringillidae (see below).
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 formerly (e.g., <?>) placed in the monotypic genus Rhynchothraupis, but see Bond (1951a)<check> 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).
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.
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).
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) corroborate that they are correctly placed in the Thraupidae.
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). Proposal needed. Taxa ranked as species in this group were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).
7. Recently described: 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).
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.
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. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) further recognized the subspecies ochraceus based on plumage differences. Proposal needed.
11. Recently described: 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.
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.
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).
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.
14a. The taxon nattereri, considered a separate species by some (e.g., Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is usually considered a subspecies of, or an aberrant individual of, Tachyphonus cristatus (Zimmer 1945, Storer 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989).
14b. Tachyphonus rufiventer was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944) known as Tachyphonus metallactus, but see Zimmer (1945) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
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 1945), 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>
16a. Called "Huallaga Tanager" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
16b. Frisch (2007, Nature Society News, Griggsville 42(5):13) used the name "Rhamphocelus ciropalbicaudatus" for a "new species" of Ramphocelus tanager that he photographed in Brazil. Not only does the description not qualify as a valid description under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature but 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).
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] 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. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) suggest that Thraupis and Pipraeidea are closely related and presumably sister genera. Proposal needed to change linear sequence.
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 superificially similar to T. sayaca, more so than it is to the pale-shouldered Amazonian epsicopus 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. 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).
21. Storer (1970a) merged Wetmorethraupis into Buthraupis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors; see Isler & Isler (1987).
21a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Buthraupis eximia and B. aureodorsalis to form a superspecies.
22. Recently described: Blake & Hocking (1974).
22a. Buthraupis wetmorei was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in a monotypic genus, 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).
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).
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).
24b. Contrary to traditional linear sequences, genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) 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).
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.
25a. Delothraupis was merged into Dubusia by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and <REFS>. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Delothraupis and Dubusia are sister taxa.
26. Iridosornis porphyrocephala 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. porphyrocephala 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. Depsite 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.
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.
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.
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 plumageand vocal similarities. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this as a monophyletic group.
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) suspect that Tangara peruviana and T. preciosa are actually color morphs of the same species.
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. Recently described: 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).
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. Recently described: 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 thatTangara 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), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). 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.
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.
37. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suspected that the subspecies cyanomela 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., Tordoff 1954a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered members of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but it was placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1969, 1970a), and 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 it was placed in the Thraupidae by Tordoff (1954a) and Storer (1969, 1970a), and molecular 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).
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); molecular 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. Recently described: 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). 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). Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that plumage similarities suggest a close link between Oreomanes and Poospiza.
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).
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 because of its apparent close relationship to Acanthidops (Eisenmann in Meyer de Schauensee 1966), traditionally placed in the Emberizidae. Diglossa was placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a), and 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 and Catamenia (Burns et al. 2002, 2003), traditionally placed in the Emberizidae.
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).
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; they species form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
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.
56. Diglossa venezuelensis and D. albilatera constitute a superspecies (REFs, Isler & Isler 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
57. Bock (1985) proposed separating glauca, caerulescens, indigotica, and cyanea in the genus Diglossopis, and this was followed by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003). Proposal needed? <wait until Burns has better taxon-sampling in the genus>
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 (1954) concluded that it was not a cardinaline but an emberizine genus, based on <> skeletal data. Genetic data indicate that the genus Paroaria belongs in the Thraupidae (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns and Naoki 2004, Klicka et al. 2005), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
65. Paroaria coronata and P. dominicana form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
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.
66a. The subspecies nigrogenis of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Paroaria gularis.
66b. <Coccopsis for Paroaria as in Phelps & Phelps 1950a.>

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). AOU Checklist is currently reviewing proposal to move Piranga through Chlorothraupis to Cardinalidae, where placed by Jonsson & Fjeldså (2006):]

Chlorospingus ophthalmicus Common Bush-Tanager 1, 1a, 15a
Chlorospingus tacarcunae Tacarcuna Bush-Tanager 15a
Chlorospingus semifuscus Dusky Bush-Tanager 15
Chlorospingus parvirostris Short-billed Bush-Tanager 1aa, 1b
Chlorospingus flavigularis Yellow-throated Bush-Tanager 1aa
Chlorospingus flavovirens Yellow-green Bush-Tanager
Chlorospingus canigularis Ashy-throated Bush-Tanager 1c
Mitrospingus cassinii Dusky-faced Tanager 8a
Mitrospingus oleagineus Olive-backed Tanager 8a
Rhodinocichla rosea Rosy Thrush-Tanager 9, 9a
Coereba flaveola Bananaquit 18
Tiaris olivaceus Yellow-faced Grassquit 18, 19, 21
Tiaris obscurus Dull-colored Grassquit 20, 21, 22
Tiaris fuliginosus Sooty Grassquit 20, 21
Tiaris bicolor Black-faced Grassquit
Certhidea olivacea Warbler Finch 18, 23, 24
Platyspiza crassirostris Vegetarian Finch 23
Camarhynchus pallidus Woodpecker Finch 25
Camarhynchus psittacula Large Tree-Finch 26
Camarhynchus pauper Medium Tree-Finch
Camarhynchus parvulus Small Tree-Finch
Camarhynchus heliobates Mangrove Finch 25
Geospiza fuliginosa Small Ground-Finch
Geospiza magnirostris Large Ground-Finch
Geospiza difficilis Sharp-beaked Ground-Finch 27
Geospiza scandens Common Cactus-Finch
Geospiza fortis Medium Ground-Finch 28
Geospiza conirostris Large Cactus-Finch
Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak 38, 38a
Saltator fuliginosus Black-throated Grosbeak 38
Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator
Saltator atripennis Black-winged Saltator
Saltator coerulescens Grayish Saltator 39, 40
Saltator similis Green-winged Saltator 39
Saltator maxillosus Thick-billed Saltator 39, 41
Saltator orenocensis Orinocan Saltator
Saltator nigriceps Black-cowled Saltator 42
Saltator aurantiirostris Golden-billed Saltator 42
Saltator striatipectus Streaked Saltator 43
Saltator cinctus Masked Saltator 44
Saltator atricollis Black-throated Saltator 44, 58b
Saltator rufiventris Rufous-bellied Saltator 44
Saltatricula multicolor Many-colored Chaco-Finch 58b
Parkerthraustes humeralis Yellow-shouldered Grosbeak 46

1. 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. Frank Pitelka (in Tordoff 1954a) long ago noted the emberizine-like behavior of Chlorospingus. Proposal needed.
1a. 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). Proposal needed.
1aa. Chlorospingus parvirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis, but see Zimmer (1947).
1b. 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.
1c. Stiles & Skutch (1989) suggested that the isolated Central American subspecies, olivaceiceps, may deserve recognition as a separate species from South American Chlorospingus canigularis.
8a. 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.
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.
9a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Rose-breasted Thrush-Tanager."
15. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) known as "Dusky-bellied Bush-Tanager."
15a. 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).
18. 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.
19. 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).
20. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) indicate that Tiaris fuliginosus and T. obscurus are sister species.
21 Tiaris is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are olivaceus, obscurus, and fuliginosus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
22. 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 belongs in Tiaris (Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), as confirmed by recent genetic (Burns et al. 2002, Lijtmaer et al. 2004) and morphological (Clark 1986) data.
23. 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.
24. Genetic data (Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) indicate that Certhidea olivacea is basal within the Galapago finches. 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).
25. 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).
26. 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.
27. See Paynter (1970a) over concerns that the name nebulosa may have priority for this species.
28. Large and small beak morphs of Geospiza fortis show positive assortative mating on Santa Cruz Island (Huber et al. 2007).
38. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus are sister allotaxa 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).
38a. 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 pending to transfer to Thraupidae.
39. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Saltator coerulescens, S. similis, and S. maxillosus to form a superspecies, but see Note 11.
40. 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 suggests that additional species may be involved.
41. Hellmayr (1938) considered Saltator maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris conspecific, and Short (1975) reported that S. maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris intergrade in Corrientes, Argentina <check>.
42. 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) found that nigriceps was actually basal to S. aurantiirostris + S. grossus.
43. 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.
44. Inclusion of these species in Saltator has been questioned (Hellack and Schnell 1977, REFs). Saltator rufiventris is definitely not a saltator but a tanager, closely related to Delothraupis and Dubusia. Proposal badly needed. <Remsen working on one>
46. 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.
58b. 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 mege into Saltator did not pass. Proposal needed to merge Saltator atricollis into Saltatricula.

EMBERIZIDAE (SPARROWS) 1
Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow (V) 1a
Zonotrichia capensis Rufous-collared Sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 2
Ammodramus humeralis Grassland Sparrow 2
Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow 2
Aimophila stolzmanni Tumbes Sparrow 3, 3a
Aimophila strigiceps Stripe-capped Sparrow 3
Porphyrospiza caerulescens Blue Finch 4
Phrygilus atriceps Black-hooded Sierra-Finch 5, 6
Phrygilus punensis Peruvian Sierra-Finch 5
Phrygilus gayi Gray-hooded Sierra-Finch 5
Phrygilus patagonicus Patagonian Sierra-Finch
Phrygilus fruticeti Mourning Sierra-Finch
Phrygilus unicolor Plumbeous Sierra-Finch
Phrygilus dorsalis Red-backed Sierra-Finch 7
Phrygilus erythronotus White-throated Sierra-Finch 7
Phrygilus plebejus Ash-breasted Sierra-Finch
Phrygilus carbonarius Carbonated Sierra-Finch 7b
Phrygilus alaudinus Band-tailed Sierra-Finch
Idiopsar brachyurus Short-tailed Finch 7c
Diuca speculifera White-winged Diuca-Finch 8, 8a
Diuca diuca Common Diuca-Finch 8, 8a
Melanodera melanodera White-bridled Finch 8b
Melanodera xanthogramma Yellow-bridled Finch
Haplospiza rustica Slaty Finch 9, 9a
Haplospiza unicolor Uniform Finch 9, 9a
Lophospingus pusillus Black-crested Finch 9b, 58c
Lophospingus griseocristatus Gray-crested Finch 9b
Donacospiza albifrons Long-tailed Reed-Finch
Piezorhina cinerea Cinereous Finch
Xenospingus concolor Slender-billed Finch
Incaspiza pulchra Great Inca-Finch 9c
Incaspiza personata Rufous-backed Inca-Finch 9c
Incaspiza ortizi Gray-winged Inca-Finch 9c
Incaspiza laeta Buff-bridled Inca-Finch
Incaspiza watkinsi Little Inca-Finch
Poospiza thoracica Bay-chested Warbling-Finch 10, 10a
Poospiza boliviana Bolivian Warbling-Finch 10a
Poospiza alticola Plain-tailed Warbling-Finch 10b
Poospiza hypochondria Rufous-sided Warbling-Finch 10b
Poospiza erythrophrys Rusty-browed Warbling-Finch 10c, 10d
Poospiza ornata Cinnamon Warbling-Finch 10c
Poospiza nigrorufa Black-and-rufous Warbling-Finch 11
Poospiza lateralis Red-rumped Warbling-Finch 10b, 12
Poospiza rubecula Rufous-breasted Warbling-Finch 10d, 15a
Poospiza caesar Chestnut-breasted Mountain-Finch 13, 15a
Poospiza hispaniolensis Collared Warbling-Finch 13a
Poospiza torquata Ringed Warbling-Finch 13a, 13b
Poospiza melanoleuca Black-capped Warbling-Finch 14
Poospiza cinerea Cinereous Warbling-Finch 14
Poospiza garleppi Cochabamba Mountain-Finch 15, 15a
Poospiza baeri Tucuman Mountain-Finch 15, 15a
Sicalis citrina Stripe-tailed Yellow-Finch 16
Sicalis lutea Puna Yellow-Finch
Sicalis uropygialis Bright-rumped Yellow-Finch
Sicalis luteocephala Citron-headed Yellow-Finch
Sicalis auriventris Greater Yellow-Finch
Sicalis olivascens Greenish Yellow-Finch 16a
Sicalis lebruni Patagonian Yellow-Finch 16a
Sicalis columbiana Orange-fronted Yellow-Finch
Sicalis flaveola Saffron Finch 16b
Sicalis luteola Grassland Yellow-Finch 17, 17a
Sicalis raimondii Raimondi's Yellow-Finch 17a
Sicalis taczanowskii Sulphur-throated Finch 18
Emberizoides herbicola Wedge-tailed Grass-Finch 18b, 19
Emberizoides duidae Duida Grass-Finch 18b
Emberizoides ypiranganus Lesser Grass-Finch 18c
Embernagra platensis Great Pampa-Finch 19, 19a, 20
Embernagra longicauda Pale-throated Pampa-Finch 19a, 21
Volatinia jacarina Blue-black Grassquit 22, 22a
Sporophila frontalis Buffy-fronted Seedeater 22a, 22b, 23, 33a
Sporophila falcirostris Temminck's Seedeater 22c
Sporophila schistacea Slate-colored Seedeater 22c
Sporophila plumbea Plumbeous Seedeater
Sporophila corvina Variable Seedeater 24
Sporophila intermedia Gray Seedeater 23a, 23b
Sporophila americana Wing-barred Seedeater 24
Sporophila murallae Caqueta Seedeater 24
Sporophila collaris Rusty-collared Seedeater
Sporophila bouvronides Lesson's Seedeater 25
Sporophila lineola Lined Seedeater 25
Sporophila luctuosa Black-and-white Seedeater
Sporophila nigricollis Yellow-bellied Seedeater
Sporophila ardesiaca Dubois's Seedeater 26
Sporophila caerulescens Double-collared Seedeater
Sporophila albogularis White-throated Seedeater
Sporophila leucoptera White-bellied Seedeater 28
Sporophila peruviana Parrot-billed Seedeater 28a
Sporophila simplex Drab Seedeater
Sporophila nigrorufa Black-and-tawny Seedeater
Sporophila bouvreuil Capped Seedeater 27, 28b
Sporophila minuta Ruddy-breasted Seedeater 27, 29, 30
Sporophila hypoxantha Tawny-bellied Seedeater 27, 30
Sporophila ruficollis Dark-throated Seedeater 27, 30a
Sporophila palustris Marsh Seedeater 27, 31
Sporophila castaneiventris Chestnut-bellied Seedeater 27
Sporophila hypochroma Rufous-rumped Seedeater 27, 32
Sporophila cinnamomea Chestnut Seedeater 27, 32, 32a
Sporophila zelichi Narosky's Seedeater 32, 32a, 32b
Sporophila melanogaster Black-bellied Seedeater 27
Sporophila telasco Chestnut-throated Seedeater 29
Oryzoborus funereus Thick-billed Seed-Finch 22a, 23, 33, 33a, 33aa
Oryzoborus angolensis Chestnut-bellied Seed-Finch 33aa
Oryzoborus crassirostris Large-billed Seed-Finch 34, 35
Oryzoborus maximiliani Great-billed Seed-Finch 34, 36
Oryzoborus atrirostris Black-billed Seed-Finch 34
Dolospingus fringilloides White-naped Seedeater 22a, 37b
Catamenia analis Band-tailed Seedeater 38
Catamenia inornata Plain-colored Seedeater
Catamenia homochroa Paramo Seedeater 39
Arremonops tocuyensis Tocuyo Sparrow 44, 44a
Arremonops conirostris Black-striped Sparrow 44b
Arremon taciturnus Pectoral Sparrow 45, 45a, 45b
Arremon semitorquatus Half-collared Sparrow 45
Arremon franciscanus São Francisco Sparrow 45a, 46
Arremon flavirostris Saffron-billed Sparrow 45a
Arremon aurantiirostris Orange-billed Sparrow 45a
Arremon schlegeli Golden-winged Sparrow 45a
Arremon abeillei Black-capped Sparrow 45a, 45c
Arremon brunneinucha Chestnut-capped Brush-Finch 47
Arremon torquatus Stripe-headed Brush-Finch 48
Arremon castaneiceps Olive Finch 49a
Oreothraupis arremonops Tanager Finch 49
Atlapetes albofrenatus Moustached Brush-Finch 50
Atlapetes semirufus Ochre-breasted Brush-Finch
Atlapetes personatus Tepui Brush-Finch
Atlapetes albinucha White-naped Brush-Finch 50a
Atlapetes melanocephalus Santa Marta Brush-Finch
Atlapetes pallidinucha Pale-naped Brush-Finch
Atlapetes flaviceps Yellow-headed Brush-Finch 51
Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus Dusky-headed Brush-Finch
Atlapetes tricolor Tricolored Brush-Finch
Atlapetes leucopis White-rimmed Brush-Finch
Atlapetes latinuchus Yellow-breasted Brush-Finch 52, 52a, 52b
Atlapetes blancae Antioquia Brush-Finch 52c
Atlapetes rufigenis Rufous-eared Brush-Finch 53
Atlapetes forbesi Apurimac Brush-Finch 53
Atlapetes melanopsis Black-spectacled Brush-Finch 54
Atlapetes schistaceus Slaty Brush-Finch 54a, 55a
Atlapetes leucopterus White-winged Brush-Finch 54b
Atlapetes albiceps White-headed Brush-Finch 54c
Atlapetes pallidiceps Pale-headed Brush-Finch 54c
Atlapetes seebohmi Bay-crowned Brush-Finch 55, 55a, 55b
Atlapetes nationi Rusty-bellied Brush-Finch 55, 55a
Atlapetes canigenis Cuzco Brush-Finch 56, 54a
Atlapetes terborghi Vilcabamba Brush-Finch 57, 52a
Atlapetes melanolaemus Black-faced Brush-Finch 58, 58a, 52a
Atlapetes rufinucha Rufous-naped Brush-Finch 52a
Atlapetes fulviceps Fulvous-headed Brush-Finch
Atlapetes citrinellus Yellow-striped Brush-Finch
Charitospiza eucosma Coal-crested Finch 22a, 58c
Coryphaspiza melanotis Black-masked Finch
Coryphospingus pileatus Pileated Finch 59, 60
Coryphospingus cucullatus Red-crested Finch 61
Rhodospingus cruentus Crimson-breasted Finch 62
Gubernatrix cristata Yellow Cardinal 63

1. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003 <etc>, Klicka et al. 2007 -- check Groth-Barrowclough etc.) indicate that the family Emberizidae as traditionally constituted is polyphyletic, with many genera belonging to the tanager lineage; some morphological data (Clark 1986) also support this. However, taxon sampling has been so incomplete that a wholesale redefining of the limits of the family must await publication of additional data. With one of the main characters for membership in this family being bill shape, which is one of the least reliable predictors of phylogenetic relationships, it is quite likely that the composition of this family will eventually be changed more than that of any other bird family in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps even the world. Hellmayr (1938) placed the genera Piezorhina, Sicalis, Sporophila, Volatinia, Oryzoborus, Amaurospiza, Dolospingus, and Catamenia in the subfamily Carduelinae, not in the Emberizinae, but <?> Tordoff (1954) placed these in the Emberizinae based on skeletal characters. [Emberiza itself might not be part of the New World "sparrow" lineage - REF; incorp. Groth 1998, Greenlaw 1977, Harrison 1967, Parkes 1957, Raikow 1980, Carson & Spicer 2003]
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, Myopsiza, 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) indicate that as currently defined, Ammodramus is polyphyletic. Because the type species of Ammodramus is savannarum, and because Klicka & Spellman (2007) indicate that their unpublished data unite the two Myopsiza with A. savannarum, this result should not affect classification of South American species.
3. <Aimophila; incorp Storer 1955b, Wolf 1977>
3a. Formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) in a monotypic genus, Rhynchospiza, but most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Paynter (1967, 1970a) in merging this into Aimophila.
4. 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)
5. 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.
5a. 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.
6. Genetic data indicate that Phrygilus alaudinus belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns e