A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

 

South American Classification Committee

 

American Ornithologists' Union

 

 

(Part 11)

 

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (below)

 

_______________________________________________________

 

Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes

Part 3. Apodiformes

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes

Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes

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

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)

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

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

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

 

Hypothetical List

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

 


 

PASSERIFORMES

Suborder PASSERES (OSCINES) (concluded)

 

CARDINALIDAE (CARDINAL GROSBEAKS) 1

Piranga flava Hepatic Tanager 2, 3

Piranga rubra Summer Tanager (NB)

Piranga olivacea Scarlet Tanager (NB)

Piranga ludoviciana Western Tanager (V) 4

Piranga rubriceps Red-hooded Tanager

Piranga leucoptera White-winged Tanager 5

Habia rubica Red-crowned Ant-Tanager 6

Habia fuscicauda Red-throated Ant-Tanager 7, 8

Habia gutturalis Sooty Ant-Tanager 7

Habia cristata Crested Ant-Tanager

Chlorothraupis carmioli Carmiol's Tanager 9, 10, 11, 12

Chlorothraupis olivacea Lemon-spectacled Tanager 12, 13

Chlorothraupis stolzmanni Ochre-breasted Tanager

Pheucticus chrysogaster Golden Grosbeak 14, 15

Pheucticus aureoventris Black-backed Grosbeak

Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted Grosbeak (NB) 16

Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-headed Grosbeak (V) 16, 17

Granatellus pelzelni Rose-breasted Chat 33, 34

Cardinalis phoeniceus Vermilion Cardinal 18, 19

Caryothraustes canadensis Yellow-green Grosbeak 20, 21, 22

Periporphyrus erythromelas Red-and-black Grosbeak 22

Amaurospiza concolor Blue Seedeater 37, 37a

Amaurospiza carrizalensis Carrizal Seedeater 37, 37b

Amaurospiza moesta Blackish-blue Seedeater 37

Cyanoloxia glaucocaerulea Glaucous-blue Grosbeak 23, 24

Cyanoloxia cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak 24, 25

Cyanoloxia brissonii Ultramarine Grosbeak 24, 25, 26

Passerina caerulea Blue Grosbeak (V) 24, 27, 27a

Passerina cyanea Indigo Bunting (NB)

Spiza americana Dickcissel (NB) 28

 


 

1. This group is treated as a family, following AOU (1998). Tordoff (1954a) defined the group on the basis of shared characters of the skull to consist of Caryothraustes, Cyanocompsa, Passerina, Pheucticus, Cardinalis, Saltator, and Spiza, as well as extralimital Rhodothraupis). Sushkin (1924) considered Saltator to be a thick-billed tanager rather than a cardinalid or emberizid. Klicka et al. (2000) failed to find genetic support for inclusion of Saltator in this family, and this was later confirmed by Klicka et al. (2007), whose genetic data showed that the Cardinalidae, as defined above, is highly polyphyletic. A monophyletic Cardinalidae would require removal of Saltator and Parkerthraustes and inclusion of Amaurospiza, and Granatellus. SACC proposal passed to remove Saltator and Parkerthraustes; SACC proposal passed to include Amaurospiza, and Granatellus. <incorp. Bock (1960), Hellack 1976, Hellack & Schnell 1977>.   Barker et al. (2013) confirmed that the genera listed here are members of the Cardinalidae.  The current sequence of species in this family is meaningless and will be re-evaluated once proposals are processed. SACC proposal on sequence of genera badly needed.

 

2. Although traditionally considered a member of the Thraupidae, strong genetic evidence indicates that the genus Piranga belongs in the Cardinalidae (Burns 1997, Klicka et al. 2000, 2007, Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns et al. 2003). SACC proposal passed to transfer to Cardinalidae.

 

3. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) proposed that this species probably consists of two or three separate species.  Two of these occur in South America: nominate flava of southern and eastern South America, and the lutea group of the Andes region (and also Panama and Costa Rica). See Zimmer (1929) concerning earlier claims of sympatry between flava and lutea. <Burns (1998) > Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2011) treated the three groups as separate species. Haverschmidt and Mees (1994) treated the subspecies haemalea of the Tepuis as a separate species from P. flava based on habitat differences.  SACC proposal needed.

 

4. Recently photographed in Netherlands Antilles (Wells and Wells 2002; also see http://www.neotropicalbirdclub.org/feature/cotinga18/westerntanager.html); SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

 

5. Howell & Webb (1995) resurrected the genus Spermagra for Piranga leucoptera and Middle American P. erythrocephala.

 

6. Although traditionally considered a member of the Thraupidae, strong genetic evidence indicates that the genus Habia belongs in the Cardinalidae (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2000, 2007). SACC proposal passed to transfer to Cardinalidae.

 

7. 16. Habia fuscicauda and H. gutturalis are considered to form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1936); several subspecies formerly associated with gutturalis were transferred to H. fuscicauda by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that they are sister taxa, at least with respect to H. rubica. Storer (1970a) suggested that Central American H. atromaxillaris might best be considered a subspecies of H. fuscicauda.

 

8. The Middle American subspecies salvini was formerly (e.g., REF) considered a separate species from Habia fuscicauda.

 

9. Although traditionally considered a member of the Thraupidae, strong genetic evidence (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2000, 2007) indicates that the genus Chlorothraupis belongs in the Cardinalidae. Similarity in behavior to Habia had been noted previously by Willis (1966). SACC proposal passed to transfer to Cardinalidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that Habia is paraphyletic with respect to Chlorothraupis, with H. rubica closer to Chlorothraupis than to H. fuscicauda + H. gutturalis.

 

10. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the South American subspecies frenata as a separate species from Chlorothraupis carmioli based on descriptions of voice and disjunct distribution.

 

11. Called "Olive Tanager" in AOU (1983, 1998), Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and elsewhere, but this creates unnecessary confusion with C. olivacea; as noted by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), "Olive" is best used for those classification that consider the two conspecific, in which olivacea has priority.

 

12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Chlorothraupis carmioli and C. olivacea to form a superspecies; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might prove to be conspecific. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that they are sister taxa.

 

13. Formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, AOU 1983, Wetmore et al. 1984) known as "Lemon-browed Tanager."

 

14. Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and Paynter (1970c) treated Pheucticus chrysogaster (and P. tibialis of Middle America) as subspecies of P. chrysopeplus of Mexico. Here, P. chrysogaster is treated as a separate species from P. chrysopeplus, following AOU (1983, 1998), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Evidence for either treatment is weak.  Pulgarín et al. (2013) found that Pheucticus aureoventris may be paraphyletic with respect to P. chrysogaster.

 

15. Called "Southern Yellow-Grosbeak" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name to "Southern Yellow-Grosbeak" did not pass.  SACC proposal passed to change English name to “Golden Grosbeak”.  SACC proposal did not pass to change English name to something other than “Golden Grosbeak”.

 

16. Pheucticus ludovicianus and P. melanocephalus were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) treated in a separate genus, Hedymeles, but REFS and Paynter (1970c) merged this into Pheucticus. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that they are sister species and that the tropical Pheucticus species are their sister group.

 

17. Specimen from Curaçao (Voous 1985). <specimen ID needs to be checked; same as sight record of male in Voous 1983?>

 

18. Paynter (1970c) considered Cardinalis phoeniceus to form a superspecies with North American C. cardinalis; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected it was more closely related to North American C. sinuata. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007), however, indicate that C. phoeniceus and C. sinuata are sisters.

 

19. The genus Cardinalis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) known as Richmondena, but see Mayr et al. (1964), Eisenmann et al. (1973), and Banks & Browning (1995).

 

20. Caryothraustes canadensis forms a superspecies with Middle American C. poliogaster (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they form a superspecies (Paynter 1970c); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that they might best be treated as conspecific. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirms that they are sister taxa.

 

21. Called "Green Grosbeak" by Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and AOU (1983).

 

22. Klicka et al. (2007) found that Caryothraustes, Periporphyrus, and Middle American Rhodothraupis formed a strongly supported group within the Cardinalidae and recommend merging the three genera into Caryothraustes. SACC proposal needed.

 

23. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Indigo Grosbeak." SACC proposal passed to change English name to "Glaucous-blue Grosbeak," as in Ridgely & Tudor (1989).

 

24. Some authors merge Cyanocompsa into Passerina (e.g., Paynter 1970c). Klicka et al. (2000) found that the two genera are sisters. Klicka et al. (2007), with broader taxon sampling, confirmed that they are sisters but that the Cyanocompsa group also included Cyanoloxia and Amaurospiza, and recommended the merger of the three genera (Cyanoloxia has priority).  SACC proposal to expand Cyanoloxia did not pass.  Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cyanocompsa brissonii and Middle American C. parellina to form a superspecies.  Klicka et al. (2007), however, showed that they are not sister species.  Bryson et al. (2014) found that C. parellina is actually sister to Passerina and recommended merger of parellina into Passerina.  This leaves Cyanoloxia available for cyanoides, brissonii, and glaucocaerulea, which is desirable because Bryson et al. (2014) also found that Cyanocompsa brissonii and Cyanoloxia glaucocaerulea are sisters.  SACC proposal passed to merge Cyanocompsa into Cyanoloxia.

 

25. Bryson et al. (2014) found that the subspecies east of the Andes, rothschildii, was strongly divergent from trans-Andean populations and recommended that it be elevated to species rank.  They also found little evidence for gene flow between populations of the cyanoides group in contact in northern South America and suspected that two species may be involved.  García et al. (2016) recommended treating rothschildii as a separate species based on degree of genetic and plumage differences.  SACC proposal pending to treat rothschildii as a separate species.

 

26. For use of brissonii over cyanea, see Paynter (1970c).

 

27. Passerina caerulea is often placed in the monotypic genus Guiraca (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Tamplin et al. 1993, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001), but see Klicka et al. (2000, 2007) for inclusion in Passerina, a treatment used by some previous references (e.g., Paynter 1970c).

 

27a. One specimen and one sight record (Gochfeld et al. 1974) for Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986); one specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely 1980); one sight record for Venezuela (Pacheco-Benavente & Fernández-Ordóñez 2014).

 

28. Although the familial relationships of Spiza have sometimes been controversial (e.g., Beecher 1951b, 1953), several independent data sets now support its inclusion with the Cardinalidae (Stallcup 1954, Tordoff 1954a, REFS, Klicka et al. 2000, 2007).

 

33. Recent genetic data (Lovette & Bermingham 2002) show that the genus Granatellus is not a member of the Parulidae (but true relationships uncertain, perhaps closest to Cardinalidae); Lowery & Monroe (1968) suspected that it did not belong in the Parulidae, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that it belonged in the Thraupidae. Storer (1970a) suspected that plumage similarities between Granatellus and Rhodinocichla suggested a close relationship between the two. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate strong support for placement in the Cardinalidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer Granatellus to Cardinalidae.

 

34. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Granatellus pelzelni to form a superspecies with Middle American G. venustus and G. sallaei. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2000) confirm the monophyly of the genus and indicate that G. pelzelni is basal to the other two.

 

37. Although linear classifications traditionally place Amaurospiza in the Emberizidae near Oryzoborus and Sporophila (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a), Paynter (1970a) noted that plumage pattern and habitat suggests a relationship to Cyanocompsa and Passerina in the Cardinalidae. Amaurospiza was placed between Sporophila and Cyanospiza (= Passerina) by Ridgway (1901), who proposed a close relationship to Cyanospiza. Beecher (1953) and Tordoff (1954) used morphological characters to propose that Amaurospiza belonged in the Emberizidae and was thus not close to the cardinalines. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) now confirm that Amaurospiza belongs on the Cardinalidae, as originally proposed by Ridgway. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Cardinalidae.

 

37a.  Bryson et al. (2014) found that Amaurospiza concolor is paraphyletic with respect to A. carrizalensis and proposed elevating the South American subspecies aequatorialis to species rank.  SACC proposal pending.

 

37b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Lentino & Restall (2003). SACC proposal passed to recognize Amaurospiza carrizalensis as a species. SACC proposal passed to change name to "Carrizal Seedeater" from Lentino & Restall's "Carrizal Blue Seedeater," which if retained would have required a modifier for the traditional name "Blue Seedeater" for A. concolor.

 


 

PARULIDAE (WOOD-WARBLERS) 1

Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird (NB) 1, 11

Helmitheros vermivorum Worm-eating Warbler (V) 1, 10, 10b

Parkesia noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush (NB) 12

Parkesia motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush (NB) 12

Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler (NB) 1a, 1b

Vermivora cyanoptera Blue-winged Warbler (V) 1b, 1bb

Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler (NB)

Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler (NB) 1a

Leiothlypis peregrina Tennessee Warbler (NB) 1a

Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler (NB)

Geothlypis aequinoctialis Masked Yellowthroat 14

Geothlypis philadelphia Mourning Warbler (NB)

Geothlypis formosa Kentucky Warbler (NB) 13

Geothlypis semiflava Olive-crowned Yellowthroat

Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat (NB)

Setophaga citrina Hooded Warbler (NB) 15, 15a

Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart (NB) 2

Setophaga tigrina Cape May Warbler (NB)

Setophaga cerulea Cerulean Warbler (NB)

Setophaga americana Northern Parula (NB) 1b, 2, 2a, 2c

Setophaga pitiayumi Tropical Parula 2, 2a, 2d

Setophaga magnolia Magnolia Warbler (V) 5

Setophaga castanea Bay-breasted Warbler (NB)

Setophaga fusca Blackburnian Warbler (NB)

Setophaga petechia Yellow Warbler 4

Setophaga pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler (V) 2, 3, 1b

Setophaga striata Blackpoll Warbler (NB) 4a

Setophaga caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler (NB)

Setophaga palmarum Palm Warbler (NB)

Setophaga coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler (V) 6

Setophaga dominica Yellow-throated Warbler (V) 8

Setophaga discolor Prairie Warbler (V) 9

Setophaga townsendi Townsend's Warbler (V) 7

Setophaga virens Black-throated Green Warbler (NB)

Myiothlypis luteoviridis Citrine Warbler 22

Myiothlypis basilica Santa Marta Warbler 22b

Myiothlypis leucophrys White-striped Warbler

Myiothlypis flaveola Flavescent Warbler 22a, 28

Myiothlypis leucoblephara White-browed Warbler 29, 29a

Myiothlypis nigrocristata Black-crested Warbler 22

Myiothlypis signata Pale-legged Warbler 22, 22a

Myiothlypis fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler 30, 31

Myiothlypis rivularis Riverbank Warbler 30, 31, 32

Myiothlypis bivittata Two-banded Warbler 21c, 21e

Myiothlypis chrysogaster Golden-bellied Warbler 21d, 21e

Myiothlypis conspicillata White-lored Warbler 23

Myiothlypis cinereicollis Gray-throated Warbler

Myiothlypis fraseri Gray-and-gold Warbler

Myiothlypis coronata Russet-crowned Warbler 23a

Basileuterus rufifrons Rufous-capped Warbler 26

Basileuterus culicivorus Golden-crowned Warbler 25, 25a

Basileuterus ignotus Pirre Warbler 27

Basileuterus tristriatus Three-striped Warbler 27, 27a

Basileuterus trifasciatus Three-banded Warbler 24, 27a

Basileuterus griseiceps Gray-headed Warbler

Cardellina canadensis Canada Warbler (NB) 15, 15a

Cardellina pusilla Wilson's Warbler (V) 15, 15a, 15b

Myioborus miniatus Slate-throated Redstart 16

Myioborus brunniceps Brown-capped Redstart 17, 18

Myioborus flavivertex Yellow-crowned Redstart 21, 21f

Myioborus albifrons White-fronted Redstart 21, 21b

Myioborus ornatus Golden-fronted Redstart 21, 21a, 21b

Myioborus melanocephalus Spectacled Redstart 21a

Myioborus pariae Paria Redstart 18, 18b, 18c

Myioborus albifacies White-faced Redstart 18, 18a

Myioborus cardonai Saffron-breasted Redstart 18, 18a, 19

Myioborus castaneocapilla Tepui Redstart 17, 17a, 18, 18a

 


 

1. Several genetic data sets indicate that the sister family of the Parulidae is the Icteridae (e.g., Bledsoe 1988, Barker et al. 2002, Yuri & Mindell 2002) [and get other subsequent REFS]. <incorp. Lovette & Bermingham 1999> The family was known in the older literature as "Compsothlypidae."  Genetic data (Lovette et al. 2010) indicates that the traditional sequence of genera needs modification to reflect relationships among the genera, e.g., Seiurus is sister to all other Parulidae, and Helmitheros is then sister to all other genera.  SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits and sequence.

 

1a. Genetic data (Avise et al. 1980, Klein et al. 2004, Lovette & Hochachka 2006) indicate that the genus Vermivora is not monophyletic, with the true Vermivora (V. pinus and V. chrysoptera) probably more closely related to Protonotaria and Limnothlypis than to the other species such as "V." peregrina.  Sangster (2008a) named a new genus, Leiothlypis, for the dull "Vermivora," including "V." peregrina, but this was merged into a resurrected Oreothlypis by Chesser et al. (2010).  SACC proposal to recognize Oreothlypis did not pass.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Leiothlypis for V. peregrina.

 

1b. One specimen record from northern Colombia (<REF>; Hilty & Brown 1986); one sight record from northern Venezuela (Hilty 2003).

 

1bb.  Olson and Reveal (2009) have shown that pinus is not the correct name for this species and formally introduced a new name for the species, Vermivora cyanoptera.  This was followed by Chesser et al. (2010).  SACC proposal passed to change name to cyanoptera.

 

2. Until recently, known as Parula americana (and presumably P. pitiayumi), but Lovette & Bermingham (2002) and Klein et al. (2004) found that these two species are nested with Dendroica according to analyses of molecular data.  The genus Parula was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944) known as Compsothlypis, but see <REF>.  Further sampling (Lovette et al. 2010) revealed that Dendroica is paraphyletic with respect to Setophaga, as indicated in previous analyses (Avise et al. 1980, Lovette & Bermingham 1999, Klein et al. 2004); this had been suggested by previous analyses of behavior, song, and plumage (Ficken & Ficken 1965, Parkes 1961, Spector 1992, Mayr & Short 1970).  Setophaga is the oldest name, which required the merger of Dendroica and Parula into Setophaga.  SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits and sequence of species.

 

2a.  Setophaga americana and S. pitiayumi constitute a superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they have been considered (e.g., REF) or suspected of (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) being conspecific.

 

2c. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called "Parula Warbler."

 

2d. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) called "Olive-backed Warbler."

 

3. Three sight reports from northern Colombia (Orejuela et al. 1980; Hilty & Brown 1986), and two specimens and at least eight sight reports from northern Venezuela (Hilty 2003); sight records from Aruba and Bonaire (Voous 1983) and Ecuador (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

 

4. Many authors suspect that the breeding populations of Setophaga petechia in South America may represent one or more separate species from North American wintering populations, but species limits in the "Yellow Warbler' complex are controversial (Klein and Brown 1994). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) used a two-species classification, with North American wintering populations as one species, S. aestiva ("Yellow Warbler") and tropical resident populations as another, S. petechia ("Mangrove Warbler"). A three-species classification, as used by Hilty (2003), would separate the tropical populations into two species: mainly Pacific coastal populations, S. erithachorides ("Mangrove Warbler"), and Caribbean S. petechia ("Golden Warbler"). Olson (1980) noted that the South American populations on the Pacific coast show a gradation of characters between the erithachorides and petechia groups. SACC proposal to split petechia into two or more species did not pass due to insufficient published data.

 

4a. Setophaga striata was known in some older literature (e.g., Pinto 1944, Zimmer 1949) as Dendroica breviunguis, but see Banks & Browning (1995).

 

5. One specimen and several sight records from Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986), and one specimen from northern Venezuela (Hilty 2003); sight records from Aruba and Bonaire (Voous 1985).

 

6. One specimen and two sight records from Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986, Downing 2005), one specimen from northern Venezuela (Hilty 2003), and one specimen from Curaçao (Voous 1983); sight record from Aruba (Voous 1985). Also, two sight reports of auduboni form from northern Venezuela (Hilty 2003).

 

7. One specimen from northern Colombia (Marinkelle 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986).

 

8. One “Bogotá” specimen presumably from Colombia (Salaman et al. 2008) and one photographic record (Ellery et al. 2009); see Hilty & Brown (1986) and Strewe & Navarro (2004) for additional sight reports from Colombia.

 

9. One specimen record from northern Colombia (Serna & Rodríguez 1979). Single sight records from Aruba and Curaçao (Voous 1985) and Trinidad (ffrench 1991).

 

10. One specimen and one sight report from northern Venezuela (Lentino et al. 1984; Hilty 2003); one sight report from Colombia (Donegan & Huertas 2002).

 

10b. Helmitheros is neuter, so the correct spelling of the species name is vermivorum (David & Gosselin 2002b).

 

11. Correct spelling for species name is aurocapilla (David & Gosselin 2002a), not aurocapillus, as in most references.

 

12. Genetic data (Avise et al. 1980, Lovette & Bermingham 2002, Hebert et al. 2004, Klein et al. 2004, Lovette & Hochachka 2006) indicate that the waterthrushes, Seiurus noveboracensis and S. motacilla, are not particularly closely related to S. aurocapilla; new generic assignment needed. Sangster (2008b) named a new genus, Parkesia, for noveboracensis and motacilla.  This was followed by Chesser et al. (2010).  SACC proposal passed to recognize Parkesia.

 

13. Oporornis was merged into Geothlypis by some authors (e.g., Lowery & Monroe 1968), but see Raikow (1978).  The merger of all species except O. agilis is consistent with genetic data (Lovette & Bermingham 2002, Lovette et al. 2010).  SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits and sequence.

 

14. Escalante-Pliego (1992) considered auricularis (with peruviana) of western Peru and Ecuador and the velata subspecies group of southern South America as separate species from Geothlypis aequinoctialis, as they had been treated by (REF - fide Meyer de Schauensee 1966 - trace).  Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that auricularis (with peruviana) differs in plumage from other aequinoctialis at least as much as do taxa of Geothlypis yellowthroats treated as full species in Middle America. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) followed Escalante-Pliego (1992) in treating auricularis, velata, and Central American chiriquensis as separate species from aequinoctialis, but see Wetmore et al. (1984). SACC proposal to elevate auricularis and velata to species rank did not pass due to insufficient published data. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) also suggested that vocal differences between auricularis and the subspecies peruviana indicated that peruviana should also be recognized as a separate species. We note that North American G. trichas shows remarkable geographic variation in song (BNA REF), and so we urge caution in comparing vocalizations among localities without taking into account potential geographic variation from across the range of any Geothlypis species complex.

 

15. Genetic data (Klein et al. 2004, Lovette et al. 2010) indicates that Wilsonia citrina is not closely related to the other two former Wilsonia (see Note 15a), but falls within the genus Setophaga (SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits).

 

15a. Cardellina canadensis and C. pusilla were formerly placed in the genus Wilsonia, but see Lovette et al. (2010).

 

15b. One photographic record from central Colombia (Ocampo-Tobón 2005); also one sight record from northwestern Colombia (Pearman 1993). Two additional unpublished sight records from northern Colombia are also mentioned by Ocampo-Tobón (2005).

 

16. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Curson et al. (1994), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003) used the name "Whitestart" for members of the genus Myioborus, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Rowlett (2003) for reasons for retaining "Redstart" as the group name. SACC proposal to change English names to "Whitestarts" did not pass. A second proposal to change English names to "Whitestarts" also did not pass.  The name “redstart” is derived from the superficial overall similarity to Eurasian Phoenicurus redstarts (which are also not red), just as parulids are called warblers, tyrannids are called flycatchers, and Icterus species are called orioles, etc.; “redstart” does not specifically to red in the tail (which in the original New World redstart, American Redstart, Setophaga ruticilla, is also not red, but orange).

 

17. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that castaneocapilla, traditionally (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated as a northern subspecies of Myioborus brunniceps, might deserve treatment as a separate species, and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) treated castaneocapillus (with duidae and macguirei) as a separate species based on differences in songs; this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Hilty (2003). SACC proposal passed to elevate castaneocapillus to species rank. Genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005, Lovette et al. 2010) strongly support treatment of castaneocapillus as a separate species, which is the sister species to M. cardonai, and not closely related to M. brunniceps.

 

17a. Correct spelling is castaneocapilla, not castaneocapillus (David & Gosselin 2002a).

 

18. Myioborus brunniceps, M. castaneocapillus, M. pariae, M. cardonai, and M. albifacies are considered a superspecies by Ridgely and Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990). Genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005, Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that M. brunniceps, however, is not part of this group.

 

18a. Evidence for treating Myioborus cardonai and M. albifacies as separate species from M. castaneocapilla is weak; see Hilty (2003). Furthermore, although traditionally treated as a separate species from Myioborus cardonai, Ridgely and Tudor (1989) pointed out that justification for treating M. albifacies as a separate species from M. cardonai is also weak. However, genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005, Lovette et al. 2010) suggest that M. castaneocapilla is paraphyletic with respect to M. cardonai, and that M. albifacies is the sister to these two.

 

18b. For rationale for treating Myioborus pariae, originally described as a subspecies of M. brunniceps, as a full species, see Phelps and Phelps (1963). Species rank is also supported by genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005, Lovette et al. 2010).

 

18c. Called "Paria Redstart" by Ridgely and Tudor (1989) and Hilty (2003), but formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee (1970) called "Yellow-faced Redstart." SACC proposal passed to change English name from "Yellow-faced Redstart" to "Paria Redstart".

 

19. Called "Guaiquinima Redstart" by Ridgely and Tudor (1989) and Hilty (2003). SACC proposal to change English name to "Guaiquinima Redstart" did not pass.

 

21. Myioborus ornatus, M. melanocephalus, M. albifrons, and M. flavivertex with Central American M. torquatus are considered a superspecies by Ridgely and Tudor (1989); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered only M. melanocephalus and M. ornatus to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005, Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that suggest that Myioborus ornatus, M. melanocephalus, and M. albifrons form a monophyletic group, but M. flavivertex cannot be confirmed as a member of this group, and there is little support for inclusion of M. torquatus.

 

21a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) pointed out that Myioborus ornatus and M. melanocephalus ruficoronatus may intergrade in northern Ecuador and southern Colombia, and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that further studies may show M. ornatus and M. melanocephalus to be conspecific; genetic data (Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that they are sister taxa and barely differentiated. The subspecies ruficoronatus of southwestern Colombia and Ecuador was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) treated as a separate species from M. melanocephalus, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1946) and Zimmer (1949) for rationale for treating them as conspecific. Genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005) indicate, however, that ruficoronatus is more closely related to M. ornatus than to M. melanocephalus, as is suggested by their probable introgression where parapatric.  Rather than include M. m. ruficoronatus in M. ornatus, another option is to treat M. ornatus and M. melanocephalus as conspecific, as suggested by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal needed.

 

21b. Evidence for treating Myioborus albifrons as a separate species from M. ornatus was considered weak by Hilty (2003), but genetic data (Pérez-Emán 2005, Lovette et al. 2010) indicate that it merits treatment at the species rank if M. ornatus and M. melanocephalus are ranked as species-level taxa.

 

21c. Hilty (2003) treated Tepui populations of Myiothlypis bivittata as a separate species, M. roraimae, but presented no evidence. SACC proposal to split roraimae from bivittata did not pass due to insufficient published data.  Genetic data suggest but cannot confirm that they are sister species (Lovette et al. 2010).  New SACC proposal to treat roraimae as a separate species did not pass.

 

21d. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the northern subspecies chlorophrys as a separate species from Myiothlypis chrysogaster based on differences in descriptions of songs; see Zimmer (1949) for rationale for considering them sister taxa. SACC proposal to split chlorophrys from chrysogaster did not pass due to insufficient published data. 

 

21e. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that Myiothlypis bivittata and M. chrysogaster might be conspecific, but see Zimmer (1949), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Lovette et al. (2010).

 

21f. Called "Santa Marta Whitestart" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).

 

22. As noted by Ridgely and Tudor (1989), species limits and relationships among Myiothlypis luteoviridis, M. signata, and M. nigrocristata may be more complicated than indicated by current species limits; the subspecies euophrys (of M. luteoviridis) is more similar in some plumage features to M. nigrocristata than it is to other M. luteoviridis, and its ecological relationship to M. signata (often syntopic) differs from that of other luteoviridis subspecies; euophrys was once considered a subspecies of M. nigrocristata (e.g., Hellmayr 1935), but see Zimmer (1949). The subspecies richardsoni of western Colombia was formerly (e.g. Hellmayr 1935) treated as a separate species.  Genetic data suggest but do not confirm that M. signata and M. nigrocristata are sister species (Lovette et al. 2010).

 

22a. Based on plumage pattern and coloration, Zimmer (1949) considered Myiothlypis signata and M. flaveola to be sister species that might be considered conspecific, but subsequent authors have kept them distant in linear sequences.  Genetic data confirm that they are not sister species (Lovette et al. 2010).

 

22b. Although Hellmayr (1935) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that Myiothlypis basilica was part of the Basileuterus tristriatus complex due to plumage similarities, Lowery & Monroe (1968) moved it next to M. cinereicollis and M. conspicillata, evidently due to similarities in size and shape.  Genetic data (Gutiérrez-Pinto et al. 2012), however, indicate that it is sister to M. luteoviridis; see Note 30.

 

23. Myiothlypis conspicillata was formerly been considered a subspecies of M. cinereicollis (Hellmayr 1935) or M. coronata (Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Lowery & Monroe (1968) treated it as a full species, and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that this treatment is best, in the absence of a thorough analysis, because M. conspicillata differs in plumage as much from either of those as they do from each other.  Genetic data indicate that M. conspicillata and M. cinereicollis are sister taxa (Lovette et al. 2010).

 

23a. The castaneiceps subspecies group of Ecuador and Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) treated as a separate species from Myiothlypis coronata, but see Zimmer (1949).

 

24. Basileuterus trifasciatus has been considered by some (REFS) to be a subspecies of B. culicivorus; Zimmer (1949) pointed out the close relationship between the two, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) pointed out that B. trifasciatus closely resembles the subspecies B. c. indignus of the Santa Marta mountains. Basileuterus trifasciatus presumably forms a superspecies with B. culicivorus and B. hypoleucus; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. trifasciatus and B. culicivorus to form a superspecies but did not include B. hypoleucus.  Genetic data indicate that B. trifasciatus and B. tristriatus are sister species, and that they are sister to B. culicivorus +B. hypoleucus (Lovette et al. 2010); hypoleucus is now treated as a subspecies of B. culicivorus; see Note 25.

 

25. The subspecies hypoleucus has been traditionally treated as a separate species from B. culicivorus, and Lowery & Monroe (1968) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) even placed Basileuterus culicivorus and B. hypoleucus far apart in their linear sequences.  However, they are almost certainly allotaxa, as suggested by Hellmayr (1935); they differ only in color of the underparts, and they hybridize to some extent in their areas of contact (Hellmayr 1935, Sick 2001).  Genetic data confirm that they are sister taxa (Lovette et al. 2010).  Vilaça & Santos (2010) provided genetic evidence that hypoleucus is not a separate species from B. culicivorus and cited unpublished thesis data that they do not differ vocally.  SACC proposal passed to treat hypoleucus as conspecific with B. culicivorus.

 

25a. The South American subspecies were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944) treated as two separate species (B. auricapillus and B. cabanisi) from Middle American Basileuterus culicivorus.

 

26. The delatrii group of subspecies, from Guatemala south to northwestern South America, was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) treated as separate species from the Basileuterus rufifrons of (mainly) Mexico, but they evidently intergrade in Guatemala and Honduras (Monroe 1968, AOU 1983).

 

27. Basileuterus ignotus and B. tristriatus were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) treated as conspecific, along with Central American B. melanogenys. Eisenmann (1955) and Lowery & Monroe (1968) treated melanogenys as a separate species, and ignotus as a subspecies of B. melanogenys (as it was originally described). [<check> Hellmayr's (1935) linear sequence indicates that he did not think that they were so closely related.] Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983), and most subsequent classifications treated all three as separate species. Wetmore et al. (1984) treated ignotus as a subspecies of B. melanogenys and noted that there is no evidence to support ranking of ignotus as a species.  SACC proposal needed.  Genetic data indicate that B. melanogenys and Middle America B. belli are sister taxa, and that B. tristriatus belongs in a different species group (Lovette et al. 2010).

 

27a.  Gutiérrez-Pinto et al. (2012) found that broadly defined Basileuterus tristriatus consists of 10 distinct clades, one of which is B. trifasciatus, which is the sister group to B. tristriatus tacarcunae of the Darién.  Donegan (2014) provided evidence that the Bolivian punctipectus group (including canens) should be treated as a separate species. SACC proposal needed.

 

28. Hilty (2003) suspected that northern and southern populations of Myiothlypis flaveola might represent separate species.

 

29. Olson (1975b) proposed that Myiothlypis leucoblephara was closely related to Basileuterus griseiceps, but see Ridgely and Tudor (1989).

 

29a. Called "White-rimmed Warbler" by Ridgely and Tudor (1989). SACC proposal to change English name to "White-rimmed Warbler" did not pass.

 

30. Todd (1929) named the genus Phaeothlypis for fulvicauda, but excluded its sister species, P. rivularis, from Phaeothlypis. Lowery & Monroe (1968) expanded Phaeothlypis to include P. rivularis, and this was followed by some subsequent classifications (e.g., AOU 1983, 1998). However, most classifications (e.g., Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) continued to follow Hellmayr (1935) in including Phaeothlypis in Basileuterus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that in terms of behavior and voice, some species then treated in Basileuterus (e.g., M. leucoblephara) were suspected of being more closely related to Phaeothlypis than they are to other Basileuterus. Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that inclusion of rivularis in Phaeothlypis leaves that genus undiagnosable. Eaton (2001) found that these Phaeothlypis and broadly defined Basileuterus share a pattern of cranial ossification that is unique within the Parulidae, and Lovette & Bermingham (2002) using genetic data found that Phaeothlypis is nested within one group of broadly defined Basileuterus.  Thorough taxon-sampling (Lovette et al. 2010) indicated that Basileuterus itself is not monophyletic and that the genus Myiothlypis needs to be resurrected for the majority of species in Basileuterus, and that Phaeothlypis should be merged into Basileuterus. SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits and sequence.  Because Myiothlypis is feminine (fide N. David), spelling of several species’ names with variable endings had to be changed.

 

31. Myiothlypis fulvicauda and M. rivularis have been treated as conspecific by many authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970); most recent authors (e.g., Lowery & Monroe 1968, AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely and Tudor 1989) followed the suggestion by Miller (1952) that they should be regarded as separate species, as they had been treated by Hellmayr (1935); they constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). MtDNA gene trees (Lovette 2004) suggested that M. fulvicauda and M. rivularis may not be monophyletic groups, although this in part may be due to gene flow between the two in southwestern Amazonia.

 

32. Although usually called "River Warbler" in New World literature, this is the long-standing name of Old World Locustella fluviatilis; therefore, we reluctantly create a new English name, which retains as much similarity as possible to the historical name. Clements & Shany (2001) called it "Neotropical River Warbler," Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) called it "Streamside Warbler," and Hilty (2003) called it "Riverside Warbler."

 


 

ICTERIDAE (BLACKBIRDS) 1

Psarocolius angustifrons Russet-backed Oropendola 2, 3

Psarocolius atrovirens Dusky-green Oropendola 2, 4

Psarocolius viridis Green Oropendola 2, 2a

Psarocolius wagleri Chestnut-headed Oropendola 2

Psarocolius decumanus Crested Oropendola 2

Psarocolius guatimozinus Black Oropendola 2, 5

Psarocolius cassini Baudo Oropendola 2, 5, 6

Psarocolius bifasciatus Olive Oropendola 2, 5, 7

Cacicus solitarius Solitary Black Cacique 12a, 13, 14

Cacicus chrysopterus Golden-winged Cacique 12, 12a, 12b

Cacicus sclateri Ecuadorian Cacique 10, 11, 12a

Cacicus koepckeae Selva Cacique 10, 12

Cacicus uropygialis Scarlet-rumped Cacique 16

Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique 15

Cacicus chrysonotus Mountain Cacique 9, 12a

Cacicus latirostris Band-tailed Cacique 2, 8a

Cacicus haemorrhous Red-rumped Cacique

Cacicus oseryi Casqued Cacique 2, 8

Amblycercus holosericeus Yellow-billed Cacique 17, 17a

Icterus icterus Venezuelan Troupial 18, 19

Icterus croconotus Orange-backed Troupial 19

Icterus jamacaii Campo Troupial 19

Icterus graceannae White-edged Oriole

Icterus mesomelas Yellow-tailed Oriole

Icterus cayanensis Epaulet Oriole 20, 20a

Icterus pyrrhopterus Variable Oriole 20

Icterus spurius Orchard Oriole (NB) 20a

Icterus auricapillus Orange-crowned Oriole 21

Icterus chrysater Yellow-backed Oriole 21a

Icterus galbula Baltimore Oriole (NB)

Icterus nigrogularis Yellow Oriole

Dives warczewiczi Scrub Blackbird 22, 22a

Macroagelaius subalaris Mountain Grackle 23, 24

Macroagelaius imthurni Golden-tufted Grackle 23, 25

Gymnomystax mexicanus Oriole Blackbird 24a

Hypopyrrhus pyrohypogaster Red-bellied Grackle 24a

Lampropsar tanagrinus Velvet-fronted Grackle 24a, 24b

Gnorimopsar chopi Chopi Blackbird

Curaeus curaeus Austral Blackbird 25a, 25c

Anumara forbesi Forbes's Blackbird 25b, 25c

Amblyramphus holosericeus Scarlet-headed Blackbird 25c, 26

Agelasticus xanthophthalmus Pale-eyed Blackbird 27

Agelasticus cyanopus Unicolored Blackbird 27, 27a

Agelasticus thilius Yellow-winged Blackbird 27

Chrysomus ruficapillus Chestnut-capped Blackbird 27

Chrysomus icterocephalus Yellow-hooded Blackbird 27

Xanthopsar flavus Saffron-cowled Blackbird 28, 28a

Pseudoleistes guirahuro Yellow-rumped Marshbird

Pseudoleistes virescens Brown-and-yellow Marshbird

Oreopsar bolivianus Bolivian Blackbird 29

Agelaioides badius Grayish Baywing 29, 30, 30a

Agelaioides fringillarius Pale Baywing 29, 30, 30a

Molothrus rufoaxillaris Screaming Cowbird

Molothrus oryzivorus Giant Cowbird 31

Molothrus aeneus Bronzed Cowbird 32, 32a, 32b

Molothrus bonariensis Shiny Cowbird

Quiscalus lugubris Carib Grackle 33

Quiscalus mexicanus Great-tailed Grackle 34

Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink (NB) 41

Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark

Sturnella militaris Red-breasted Meadowlark 35, 35a, 36

Sturnella superciliaris White-browed Meadowlark 35, 35a, 36

Sturnella bellicosa Peruvian Meadowlark 36, 38, 39

Sturnella defilippii Pampas Meadowlark 37, 38

Sturnella loyca Long-tailed Meadowlark 40

 


 

1. The sequence of genera follows Dickinson (2003), which mostly follows Blake (1968). <incorp. Beecher (1950, 1951)>. Powell et al. (2014) produced a comprehensive phylogenetic hypothesis for relationships in the family that will require revision of sequence of genera and species, and generic limits in the family, and Remsen et al. (2016) implemented those recommendations.  SACC proposal needed. <<wait NACC>>.  Genetic data indicate that the Icteridae and Parulidae are sister families (see Notes under Parulidae).

 

2. Generic limits in the large oropendolas have been exceptionally unstable. Hellmayr (1937) considered Gymnostinops to include cassini, guatimozinus, Middle American montezumae, and bifasciatus (with yuracares treated as a separate species from bifasciatus); the species decumanus, viridis, angustifrons, and atrovirens to be in a separate genus, Xanthornus (or in Ostinops, as in Pinto 1944); and wagleri was placed in a monotypic genus, Zarhynchus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) followed the same generic limits as Hellmayr (1937), but replaced the name Xanthornus with Psarocolius. Blake (1968b) merged Gymnostinops (and Clypicterus and Ocyalus) into a broad Psarocolius. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) followed Blake (1968b) in using a broad Psarocolius (except for retention of Ocyalus). Sibley & Monroe's (1990) classification was like that of Ridgely & Tudor (1989), but they resurrected Gymnostinops. Price & Lanyon (2002) found genetic support for the merger by Blake (1968b) of Gymnostinops into Psarocolius (but support for retention of Ocyalus and Clypicterus), and that is the classification followed here. <incorp. Freeman-Zink 1995>. Powell et al. (2014) found that Clypicterus and Ocyalus were actually more closely related to Cacicus, especially C. haemorrhous, than to any Psarocolius.  SACC proposal passed to merge Clypicterus and Ocyalus into Cacicus.  Linear sequence of species in Cacicus thus modified to reflect the findings of Powell et al. (2014).  Remsen et al. (2016) recommended continued treatment of Ocyalus and Clypicterus in Cacicus.

 

2a. Price & Lanyon (2004) and REF (2013) found that P. viridis was the sister to the species formerly placed in Gymnostinops.  SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

 

3. Hilty & Brown (1986), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Jaramillo & Burke (1999), and Hilty (2003) suggested that montane alfredi subspecies group perhaps deserves recognition as a separate species from Psarocolius angustifrons.

 

4. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that Psarocolius atrovirens might best be treated as a subspecies of P. viridis, but Powell et al. (2014) showed that they are not closely related.

 

5. Meyer de Schauensee 1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that Psarocolius guatimozinus, P. cassini, and P. bifasciatus could be merged into a single species; evidence for maintaining them as separate species is weak; they form a superspecies, along with Middle American P. montezumae (Meyer de Schauensee 1966. AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).  Powell et al. (2014) confirmed that they form a monophyletic group.

 

6. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and older literature used "Chestnut-mantled Oropendola," but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989).

 

7. The subspecies yuracares was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1968b) treated as a separate species from Psarocolius bifasciatus, but Haffer (1974) provided rationale for considering them conspecific, as suspected by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Jaramillo & Burke (1999), followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Fraga (2011), treated them as separate species but acknowledged that the subspecies P. y. neivae is likely a hybrid swarm between P. yuracares and P. bifasciatus, as noted by Haffer (1974). SACC proposal needed. When yuracares was considered a separate species, nominate bifasciatus was known as "Para Oropendola." Sibley & Monroe (1990) called the broad bifasciatus "Amazonian Oropendola."

 

8. Clypicterus oseryi has been treated in Psarocolius in some recent classifications (e.g., Blake 1968b, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), but recent genetic data (Price and Lanyon 2002) showed that it is more closely related to Ocyalus than to Psarocolius. SACC proposal passed to remove from Psarocolius, as did a proposal to restore the monotypic genus Clypicterus for this species, as in many former classifications (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970).  Powell et al. (2014) found that Ocyalus latirostris was embedded in Cacicus.  SACC proposal passed to transfer to Cacicus.  SACC proposal passed to change English name to “Casqued Cacique”.

 

8a. Ocyalus latirostris was placed in Psarocolius by Blake (1968b), but see Price and Lanyon (2002). Hellmayr (1937) considered O. latirostris and Zarhynchus (= Psarocolius) wagleri to be sister species, but this has not been borne out in subsequent analyses (e.g., Price and Lanyon 2002, Powell et al. 2014).  Powell et al. (2014) found that Ocyalus latirostris was embedded in Cacicus.  SACC proposal passed to transfer to Cacicus.  SACC proposal passed to change English name to “Band-tailed Cacique”.

 

9. The northern (leucoramphus) and southern (chrysonotus) groups of subspecies were treated as separate species by Blake (1968b), but most classifications have treated them as a single species (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990; and usually as Cacicus leucoramphus, an error, because chrysonotus has priority) because specimens near the contact zone show some signs of gene flow (Hellmayr 1937, Bond 1953). However, see Jaramillo & Burke (1999) for possible reasons for ranking them as species; this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Hilty (2003), and Fraga (2011). Powell et al. (2014) found that the two were deeply divergent genetically, more so than some Cacicus treated as species, but did not sample populations anywhere near the contact zone. SACC proposal to treat leucoramphus as a separate species did not pass.  Hosner et al. (2015b) found evidence for intergradation between the taxa in Ayacucho, Peru.

 

10. Cacicus sclateri is placed next to its presumed sister species, C. koepckeae, following Cardiff and Remsen (1994), as confirmed by Powell et al. (2014).

 

11. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) called "Ecuadorian Black Cacique," but this implies, as noted by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), a close relationship to Cacicus solitarius, and so most subsequent authors have followed Ridgely & Tudor (1989) in use of the shortened "Ecuadorian Cacique."

 

12. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cacicus koepckeae and C. chrysopterus to form a superspecies, but see Cardiff & Remsen (1994) and Powell et al. (2014).

 

12a. Cacicus chrysopterus, C. chrysonotus, C. sclateri, and C. solitarius were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in the genus Archiplanus, but most classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) <check Miller 1924 as cited by Meyer de Schauensee> in merging this into Cacicus.  These four species do not form a monophyletic group (Powell et al. 2014).

 

12b. Cacicus chrysopterus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944) known as Archiplanus albirostris, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

 

13. Cacicus solitarius was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937) placed in Amblycercus or in Archiplanus (e.g., Pinto 1944), but most classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Blake (1968b) in placing it in Cacicus.  Price & Lanyon’s (2002, 2004) genetic data indicate that C. solitarius is not particularly closely related to other Cacicus and likely more closely related to the oropendolas.  Fraga (2005) has proposed a new genus name, Procacicus, to reflect this and used this in his classification (Fraga 2011).  SACC proposal to recognize Procacicus did not pass.  Powell et al. (2014) found that C. solitarius was the sister to all other Cacicus plus Clypicterus and Ocyalus.  Dickinson & Christidis (2014) recognized Procacicus, but Remsen et al. (2016) recommended continued inclusion in Cacicus.

 

14. Called "Solitary Cacique" by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003).

 

15. Jaramillo & Burke (1999), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Fraga (2011) suggested that Cacicus cela may consist of two or three species-level taxa; the subspecies vitellinus of northern Colombia was treated as a separate species by <REF>.  SACC proposal to treat as two species did not pass.

 

16. Cacicus uropygialis likely includes two, perhaps three, species-level taxa (Hilty & Brown 1986, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); trans-Andean microrhynchus was treated as a separate species by Jaramillo & Burke (1999), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Hilty (2003); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that the subspecies pacificus of western Colombia, included by Jaramillo and Burke (1999) et al. as a subspecies of microrhynchus, might also deserve species rank. Wetmore et al. (1984) maintained all as conspecific because of the seemingly intermediate characters of pacificus. SACC proposal to recognize microrhynchus as separate species did not pass because of absence of formal published analysis.

 

17. Amblycercus was formerly (e.g., Blake 1968b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Cacicus, but AOU (1983) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) followed Hellmayr (1937) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a) in retaining the genus Amblycercus, mainly because of differences in nest structure. Genetic data (Freeman & Zink 1995, Omland et al. 1999, Powell et al. 2014) indicate that this species does not belong in Cacicus.

 

18. The sequence of species in Icterus follows Lanyon-Omland (REF). Freeman & Zink's (1995) genetic data indicated that the Icterus icterus group is not closely related to other species of Icterus, but see Omland et al. (1999) and Powell et al. (2014), who found that Icterus consists of two lineages that are more divergent genetically than are most genera in the family.

 

19. Icterus icterus, I. jamacaii, and I. croconotus were formerly treated as a single species by many authors (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Blake 1968, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Dickinson 2003), although others have treated them as three species (Hilty 2003, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Fraga 2011) or as two species (croconotus as a subspecies of I. jamacaii; e.g., Hilty & Brown 1986, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Omland et al. 1999). See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Jaramillo & Burke (1999) for details. SACC proposal passed to split into three species.

 

20. This treatment includes chrysocephalus as a subspecies of Icterus cayanensis, following Blake (1968b); this taxon is usually treated as a species (e.g., Pinto 1944, Short 1975, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Jaramillo & Burke 1999, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Fraga 2011) that forms a superspecies with I. cayanensis (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Omland et al. (1999) and D'Horta et al. (2008) showed that ranking chrysocephalus as a species makes cayanensis paraphyletic. Although Haverschmidt & Mees (1994) reported that chrysocephalus and cayanensis are locally sympatric in Surinam, phenotypes of most samples from Surinam, French Guiana, and adjacent northeastern Brazil are intermediates and part of a large hybrid zone (D'Horta et al. 2008).  Genetic data (D´Horta et al. 2008, Omland et al. 1999, Sturge et al. 2009) also indicate that the southern pyrrhopterus group (which would include tibialis, periporphyrus, and valenciobuenoi) is reciprocally monophyletic with the Amazonian groups, with no evidence of hybridization and some evidence of sympatry (Jaramillo and Burke 1999).  SACC proposal passed to recognize pyrrhopterus as a separate species.

 

20a. Beecher (1950) used anatomical characters to justify separating Icterus cayanensis and I. spurius in a separate genus (Bananivorus = Pendulinus; see Meyer de Schauensee 1966) from Icterus.  However, this species group is deeply embedded in Icterus (Powell et al. 2014).

 

21. [placement in sequence]; Jaramillo & Burke (1999) suggested that closest relative of Icterus auricapillus is I. cucullatus.

 

21a. The subspecies hondae of northern Colombia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937) considered a separate species from Icterus chrysater, but see Olson (1981). <showed that it is a synonym of I. chrysater or subsp.??>

 

22. Southern subspecies kalinowskii has been treated as a separate species from Dives warszewiczi by some (e.g. AOU 1983), but intermediates between the two are known (Schulenberg and Parker 1991); see also Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Jaramillo & Burke (1999). Dives warszewiczi forms a superspecies with Middle American D. dives (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1937) and Blake (1968b).

 

22a.  The correct original spelling is warczewiczi (Dickinson & Christidis 2014).  SACC proposal passed to change spelling.

 

23. Macroagelaius imthurni and M. subalaris form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1937), but Meyer de Schauensee (1951) provided rationale for treating them as separate species.

 

24. Called "Colombian Mountain-Grackle" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Jaramillo & Burke (1999), and Fraga (2011). Called "Colombian Grackle" in <REF>.

 

24a. Genetic data (Cadena et al. 2004) indicate that Gymnomystax, Hypopyrrhus, and Lampropsar form a closely related group (consistent with their proximity in traditional linear sequences); vocal and morphological data (Cadena et al. 2004) additionally suggest that Gymnomystax and Hypopyrrhus are sister genera.  Powell et al. (2014) found that these four genera likely form a monophyletic group.

 

24b. "Tachyphonus valeryi," described from two specimens from northeastern Peru and considered a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), is now known to be a synonym of the icterid Lampropsar t. tanagrinus (Zimmer 1945, Bond 1951a, Storer 1955). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

 

25. Called "Tepui Mountain-Grackle" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Jaramillo & Burke (1999); called "Golden-tufted Mountain-Grackle" in Hilty (2003).

 

25a. Curaeus curaeus was listed by Hellmayr (1937) as Notiopsar curaeus, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

 

25b. Curaeus forbesi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) placed in the genus Agelaius, but recent classifications have followed Blake (1968b) and Short & Parkes (1979) in placing it in Curaeus.  Powell et al. (2014) found that the two species in Curaeus are not sister taxa, and named a new genus, Anumara, for forbesi.  SACC proposal passed to recognize Anumara.

 

25c. Genetic data (Lanyon 1994, Johnson & Lanyon 1999, Powell et al. 2014) indicate that Amblyramphus and Curaeus (based on C. curaeus) are sister genera, but see 25b.

 

26. Called "Scarlet-hooded Blackbird" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994).

 

27. North American and South American Agelaius are not closely related to each other (Lanyon 1994, Johnson & Lanyon 1999). Therefore, Chrysomus Swainson, 1837, has been resurrected for the South American species. However, Chrysomus itself is paraphyletic with respect to Pseudoleistes and Xanthopsar (Johnson & Lanyon 1999): genetic data (REFS, Johnson & Lanyon 1999) indicate that (a) C. icterocephalus and C. ruficapillus are sister species, and that they form a sister group to Xanthopsar + Pseudoleistes; and (b) C. cyanopus and C. xanthophthalmus are sister species, that C. thilius is the sister of this pair of species, and that together these three form a sister-group to a group of taxa that consists of Agelaioides, the other two South American Chrysomus, Xanthopsar, and Pseudoleistes. Lowther et al. (2004) proposed the resurrection of Agelasticus for C. cyanopus, C. xanthophthalmus, and C. thilius to keep Chrysomus monophyletic. SACC proposal passed to recognize Agelasticus for cyanopus, xanthophthalmus, and thilius.  Powell et al. (2014) confirmed these relationships.

 

27a. Lopes (2017) provided rationale for treatment of the subspecies Agelasticus cyanopus atroviolaceus should be treated as a separate species (including also subspecies unicolor).  SACC proposal badly needed.

 

28. Xanthopsar was merged into Agelaius by Short (1975), a treatment followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Genetic data, however, strongly support a sister relationship between Xanthopsar and Pseudoleistes (Johnson & Lanyon 1999). SACC proposal to merge Xanthopsar into Agelaius did not pass.  Powell et al. (2014) confirmed the sister relationship of Xanthopsar and Pseudoleistes.

 

28a. Barreiro & Pérez del Val (2001) showed that the dubious taxon "Icterus xantholaemus" is a synonym of Xanthopsar flavus.

 

29. Lowther (2001) proposed the new name Agelaioides oreopsar for this species if merged into Agelaioides (because bolivianus preoccupied in that genus); these two species are almost certainly sisters. However, if Oreopsar maintained as monotypic genus, then there is no need for new name. Johnson & Lanyon (1999) proposed that the genera be merged, with "Molothrus" badius becoming "Oreopsar badius"; however, if the genera are merged, Agelaioides has priority.

 

30. Agelaioides badius has been treated as a species of Molothrus for most of this century; genetic data, however, show that badius is not a Molothrus (Lanyon 1992, Johnson & Lanyon 1999, Powell et al. 2014).

 

30a. Formerly treated as a single species, A. badius (Bay-winged Cowbird), which was called "Baywing" in Jaramillo & Burke (1999) and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).  SACC proposal passed to change to Baywing.  Jaramillo & Burke (1999) proposed that the subspecies fringillarius should be considered as a separate species from Agelaioides badius.  Fraga (2011) treated it as a separate species and called it “Pale Baywing” and A. badius “Greyish Baywing”.  SACC proposal passed to treat fringillarius as a separate species.

 

31. Molothrus oryzivorus was formerly (e.g., Blake 1968b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) placed in the monotypic genus Scaphidura, but see Lanyon (1992), REFS, Johnson & Lanyon (1999), and Powell et al. (2014). Earlier (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a), it had been placed in the monotypic genus Psomocolax, but see Parkes (1954).

 

32. The isolated subspecies armenti of northern Colombia was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, AOU 1983) treated as a separate species ("Bronze-brown Cowbird") from Molothrus aeneus, but see Dugand & Eisenmann (1983).  Fraga (2011) treated it as a separate species.  SACC proposal needed.

 

32a. Molothrus aeneus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Tangavius, but Parkes & Blake (1965) provided rationale for its inclusion in Molothrus, as corroborated by genetic data (Lanyon 1992, REFS, Johnson & Lanyon 1999, Powell et al. 2014).

 

32b. Formerly (e.g., REF) known as "Red-eyed Cowbird."

 

33. Quiscalus lugubris may form a superspecies with West Indian Q. niger (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937) placed in a separate genus, Holoquiscalus. Genetic data, however, do not support either treatment (Johnson & Lanyon 1999).

 

34. Quiscalus mexicanus forms a superspecies with North American Q. major (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998<?>); they were formerly considered conspecific (and in a separate genus, Cassidix; e.g., Hellmayr 1937), but Selander & Giller (1961) and Pratt (1991) showed that they breed sympatrically with limited interbreeding. Genetic data (e.g., Johnson & Lanyon 1999) support their traditional treatment as sister species, although western populations of Q. mexicanus appear to be sister to extinct Q. palustris of Mexico (Powell et al. 2014).

 

35. Sturnella militaris and S. superciliaris have often been treated in a separate genus, Leistes (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Blake 1968b, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Parker & Remsen 1987, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994).  Short (1968) provided rationale for merging Leistes into Sturnella; S. defilippii, for example, is intermediate between the two groups. Genetic data make it clear that Leistes cannot be recognized as a genus without making Sturnella paraphyletic or resurrecting Pezites (REFS, Powell et al. 2014); see Note 38.

 

35a. Sturnella militaris and S. superciliaris have occasionally been called “Meadowlark,” which more accurately reflects their phylogenetic relationships.  SACC proposal passed to change to “Red-breasted Meadowlark” and “White-browed Meadowlark”.

 

36. Sturnella superciliaris and S. militaris were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Blake 1968b, AOU 1983, Wetmore et al. 1984) treated as conspecific; most recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1970) in treating them as separate species, because no signs of intergradation have been detected in areas of potential contact (see Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated them as forming a superspecies, but also included S. bellicosa in that superspecies.

 

37. Sturnella defilippii was formerly known as S. militaris, but that name is preoccupied when Leistes is merged with Sturnella; see Short (1968).

 

38. Sturnella bellicosa, S. defilippii, and S. loyca were formerly treated as conspecific and in a separate genus, Pezites (e.g., Hellmayr 1937, Pinto 1944, Blake 1968b), but see Short (1968) for their treatment as separate species in a superspecies and for merger of Pezites in Sturnella.  Powell et al. (2014) found that these species and the two Sturnella formerly placed in Leistes (see Note 35) are deeply divergent from North American Sturnella, more so than most icterid genera.  SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of species in Sturnella.  Remsen et al. (2016) recommended recognizing Leistes to include not just Sturnella militaris and S. superciliaris but also the three species formerly included in Pezites, as in Dickinson & Christidis (2014).  SACC proposal needed <<wait NACC>>.

 

39. Called "Peruvian Red-breasted Meadowlark" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but most recent authors have followed Ridgely & Tudor's (1989) shortened name.

 

40. Called "Lesser Red-breasted Meadowlark" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), but most recent authors have followed Short (1968).

 

41. Dolichonyx is often placed in a monotypic subfamily (e.g., Blake 1968b), but see (Lanyon REFS), Johnson & Lanyon 1999, and Powell et al. (2014).  Remsen et al. (2016) recommended recognition of the subfamily Dolichonychinae as well as the subfamilies Sturnellinae, Amblycercinae, Cacicinae (see Schodde & Remsen 2016), Icterinae, and Agelaiinae to recognize the deep divisions in the family shown by Powell et al. (2014).  SACC proposal needed. <<wait NACC>>.

 


 

FRINGILLIDAE (FINCHES) 1

Fringillinae 1a

Chloris chloris European Greenfinch (IN) 2, 2a

Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch (IN) 2b

Spinus spinescens Andean Siskin 3, 3a

Spinus yarrellii Yellow-faced Siskin 3a

Spinus cucullatus Red Siskin

Spinus crassirostris Thick-billed Siskin 5

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

Spinus siemiradzkii Saffron Siskin 3b

Spinus olivaceus Olivaceous Siskin 3b

Spinus xanthogastrus Yellow-bellied Siskin 5

Spinus atratus Black Siskin 5

Spinus uropygialis Yellow-rumped Siskin 3d, 5

Spinus barbatus Black-chinned Siskin

Spinus psaltria Lesser Goldfinch 3, 6

 

Euphoniinae 1

Euphonia plumbea Plumbeous Euphonia 7

Euphonia chlorotica Purple-throated Euphonia 7a

Euphonia trinitatis Trinidad Euphonia 7a

Euphonia concinna Velvet-fronted Euphonia 7b

Euphonia saturata Orange-crowned Euphonia 7b

Euphonia finschi Finsch's Euphonia 7b

Euphonia violacea Violaceous Euphonia 8

Euphonia laniirostris Thick-billed Euphonia 8, 8a

Euphonia chalybea Green-throated Euphonia 9

Euphonia cyanocephala Golden-rumped Euphonia 10

Euphonia fulvicrissa Fulvous-vented Euphonia 10a

Euphonia chrysopasta Golden-bellied Euphonia 11

Euphonia mesochrysa Bronze-green Euphonia

Euphonia minuta White-vented Euphonia

Euphonia anneae Tawny-capped Euphonia 12

Euphonia xanthogaster Orange-bellied Euphonia 12, 12a

Euphonia rufiventris Rufous-bellied Euphonia 13

Euphonia cayennensis Golden-sided Euphonia 13

Euphonia pectoralis Chestnut-bellied Euphonia 12a, 13

Chlorophonia cyanea Blue-naped Chlorophonia

Chlorophonia pyrrhophrys Chestnut-breasted Chlorophonia

Chlorophonia flavirostris Yellow-collared Chlorophonia

 


 

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

 

1a. [within-subfamily relationships] <incorp. Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1998>

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

7a. Euphonia trinitatis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of E. chlorotica, but Zimmer (1943a) noted that specimens taken at same locality in Venezuela forced them to be treated as separate species, but suspected that evidence would eventually be found that they were not actually breeding sympatrically. Euphonia trinitatis and E. chlorotica form a superspecies, along with Middle American E. affinis and E. luteicapilla (Sibley & Monroe 1990); .

 

7b. Euphonia saturata and E. finschi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936)<<??check??>> considered conspecific with E. concinna, but see Zimmer (1943a), who also discussed the complex relationships among these three species and E. trinitatis and E. chlorotica.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

10a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Euphonia fulvicrissa to form a superspecies with Central American E. imitans.

 

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

 

12. Euphonia anneae and E. xanthogaster form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

 

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

 

13. Euphonia rufiventris, E. cayennensis, and E. pectoralis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); Laubmann (1936) suggested that E. rufiventris and E. pectoralis should be considered conspecific.

 


 

ESTRILDIDAE (ESTRILDIDS)

Estrilda astrild Common Waxbill (IN) 1

Lonchura malacca Tricolored Munia (IN) 2, 3

Lonchura oryzivora Java Sparrow (IN) 4, 5

 


 

1. Established in several areas of eastern Brazil (Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sick 1993). <what is "Estrilda cinerea" listed by Pinto 1944?>

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 


 

PLOCEIDAE (WEAVERS)

Ploceus cucullatus Village Weaver (IN) 1

Ploceus velatus African Masked Weaver (IN) 2

 


 

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

 

2. Reported in northern Venezuela (Rodner et al. 2000), where established locally (R. Restall, pers. comm.). Called "Southern Masked Weaver" by Rodner et al. (2000).

 


 

PASSERIDAE (OLD WORLD SPARROWS) 1

Passer domesticus House Sparrow (IN)

 


 

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

 


 

Acknowledgments: non-SACC members who have provided help so far: Alexandre Aleixo, Richard C. Banks, F. Keith Barker, Frederik Brammer, Mark Brown, Olivier Claessens, Nigel Cleere, James F. Clements, Normand David, Thomas Donegan, Mario Cohn-Haft, Katrina Cook, Normand David, Edward C. Dickinson, Mark Elwonger, Allaina Ferguson, Rosendo Fraga, Juan Freile, Kimball Garrett, David Gibson, Peter R. Grant, Alan Grenon, Carole Griffiths, Floyd E. Hayes, Sebastian Herzog, Steven L. Hilty, Peter Houde, Rich Hoyer, Marshall J. Iliff, Morton L. Isler, Olaf Jahn, Kevin P. Johnson, Tjeerd B. Jongeling, Peter Kaestner, Peter Kovalik, Niels Krabbe, Marek Kuziemko, Daniel F. Lane, Daniel Lebbin, Denis Lepage, Arne J. Lesterhuis, Mark Lockwood, Curtis A. Marantz, Kevin G. McCracken, Sjoerd Mayer, Jeremy Minns, William S. Moore, Robert G. Moyle, Mark Mulhollam, John Penhallurick, Sergio Pereira, Alan Peterson, Manuel A. Plenge, Paulo C. Pulgarín R., Mike Ramos, Robin Restall, Michael Rieser, Duncan Ritchie, Clemencia Rodner, Jan Axel Cubilla Rodríguez, Frederick H. Sheldon, Joseph Tobias, Jason D. Weckstein, and Robin Woods.