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. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (click)
Part 2. Accipitriformes 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 Tityridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (click)

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

 

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-bellied 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
Amaurospiza carrizalensis Carrizal Seedeater 37, 37a
Amaurospiza moesta Blackish-blue Seedeater 37
Cyanoloxia glaucocaerulea Glaucous-blue Grosbeak 23, 24
Cyanocompsa cyanoides Blue-black Grosbeak 24
Cyanocompsa brissonii Ultramarine Grosbeak 25, 26
Passerina caerulea Blue Grosbeak (V) 24, 27
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, Cyancompsa, 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 proposals passed to remove Saltator and Parkerthraustes and inclusion of Amaurospiza, and Granatellus. <incorp. Bock (1960), Hellack 1976, Hellack & Schnell 1977>. The current sequence of species in this family is meaningless and will be re-evaluated once proposals are processed. Proposal on sequence of genera badly needed. <Remsen working on one>
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). 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 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) 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. 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). 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). 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. Proposal needed.
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.
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.
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 Curaao (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. Proposal badly 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 sister but that the Cyanocompsa group also included Cyanoloxia and Amaurospiza, and recommended the merger of the three genera (Cyanoloxia has priority). Proposal badly needed.
25. 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.
26. For use of brissonii over cyanea, see Paynter (1970c).
19. 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).
27. One specimen and one sight record (Gochfeld et al. 1974) for Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986); one specimen from Ecuador (Ridgely 1980).
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. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus were formerly placed in the genus Pitylus (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c); for merger of Pitylus into Saltator, see Hellack & Schnell (1977), Tamplin et al. (1993), Demastes and Remsen (1994), and Klicka et al. (2007).
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. Recently described: 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
Vermivora chrysoptera Golden-winged Warbler (NB) 1a, 1b
Vermivora pinus Blue-winged Warbler (V) 1b, 1bb
Vermivora peregrina Tennessee Warbler (NB) 1a
Parula americana Northern Parula (NB) 1b, 1c, 2, 2a, 2b, 2c
Parula pitiayumi Tropical Parula 2, 2a, 2b, 2d
Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided Warbler (V) 3, 1b, 1c
Dendroica petechia Yellow Warbler 4
Dendroica striata Blackpoll Warbler (NB) 4a
Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted Warbler (NB)
Dendroica fusca Blackburnian Warbler (NB)
Dendroica magnolia Magnolia Warbler (V) 5
Dendroica cerulea Cerulean Warbler (NB)
Dendroica tigrina Cape May Warbler (NB)
Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated Blue Warbler (NB)
Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped Warbler (V) 6
Dendroica virens Black-throated Green Warbler (NB)
Dendroica townsendi Townsend's Warbler (V) 7
Dendroica dominica Yellow-throated Warbler (V) 8
Dendroica discolor Prairie Warbler (V) 9
Dendroica palmarum Palm Warbler (NB)
Setophaga ruticilla American Redstart (NB) 9a
Mniotilta varia Black-and-white Warbler (NB)
Protonotaria citrea Prothonotary Warbler (NB) 1a
Helmitheros vermivorum Worm-eating Warbler (V) 10, 10b
Seiurus aurocapilla Ovenbird (NB) 11
Seiurus noveboracensis Northern Waterthrush (NB) 12
Seiurus motacilla Louisiana Waterthrush (NB) 12
Oporornis formosus Kentucky Warbler (NB) 13
Oporornis agilis Connecticut Warbler (NB)
Oporornis philadelphia Mourning Warbler (NB)
Geothlypis trichas Common Yellowthroat (NB)
Geothlypis semiflava Olive-crowned Yellowthroat
Geothlypis aequinoctialis Masked Yellowthroat 14
Wilsonia citrina Hooded Warbler (NB) 15
Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's Warbler (V) 15, 15a
Wilsonia canadensis Canada Warbler (NB) 15
Myioborus miniatus Slate-throated Redstart 16
Myioborus brunniceps Brown-capped Redstart 17, 18
Myioborus castaneocapilla Tepui Redstart 17, 17a, 18, 18a
Myioborus pariae Paria Redstart 18, 18b, 18c
Myioborus cardonai Saffron-breasted Redstart 18, 18a, 19
Myioborus albifacies White-faced Redstart 18, 18a
Myioborus ornatus Golden-fronted Redstart 21, 21a, 21b
Myioborus melanocephalus Spectacled Redstart 21a
Myioborus albifrons White-fronted Redstart 21, 21b
Myioborus flavivertex Yellow-crowned Redstart 21, 21f
Basileuterus fraseri Gray-and-gold Warbler
Basileuterus bivittatus Two-banded Warbler 21c, 21e
Basileuterus chrysogaster Golden-bellied Warbler 21d, 21e
Basileuterus luteoviridis Citrine Warbler 22
Basileuterus signatus Pale-legged Warbler 22, 22a
Basileuterus nigrocristatus Black-crested Warbler 22
Basileuterus griseiceps Gray-headed Warbler
Basileuterus cinereicollis Gray-throated Warbler
Basileuterus conspicillatus White-lored Warbler 23
Basileuterus coronatus Russet-crowned Warbler 23a
Basileuterus trifasciatus Three-banded Warbler 24
Basileuterus culicivorus Golden-crowned Warbler 25, 25a
Basileuterus hypoleucus White-bellied Warbler 25
Basileuterus rufifrons Rufous-capped Warbler 26
Basileuterus ignotus Pirre Warbler 27
Basileuterus tristriatus Three-striped Warbler 27
Basileuterus basilicus Santa Marta Warbler 22b
Basileuterus flaveolus Flavescent Warbler 22a, 28, 28a
Basileuterus leucoblepharus White-browed Warbler 28, 29, 29a
Basileuterus leucophrys White-striped Warbler 28
Phaeothlypis fulvicauda Buff-rumped Warbler 30, 31
Phaeothlypis rivularis Riverbank Warbler 30, 31, 32

 



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."
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. Proposal needed <wait for NACC>.
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.  SACC proposal needed <wait for NACC>.
1c. Genetic data (Lovette REF, Klein et al. 2004) indicate that Dendroica is paraphyletic with respect to Parula. The boundaries of these two genera and Vermivora have long been considered suspicious (e.g., Griscom & Sprunt 1957, Meyer De Schauensee 1966, AOU 1998) and are likely to be revised substantially with forthcoming genetic data.
2. Parula americana (and presumably P. pitiayumi) are nested with Dendroica according to analyses of molecular data (Lovette & Bermingham 2002, Klein et al. 2004); Parula has priority over Dendroica. <wait for AOU?>
2a. The genus Parula was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944) known as Compsothlypis, but see <REF>.
2b. Parula americana and P. 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 Dendroica 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, D. aestiva ("Yellow Warbler") and tropical resident populations as another, D. petechia ("Mangrove Warbler"). A three-species classification, as used by Hilty (2003), would separate the tropical populations into two species: mainly Pacific coastal populations, D. erithachorides ("Mangrove Warbler"), and Caribbean D. 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. Dendroica striata was known in some older literature (e.g., Pinto 1944, Zimmer 1949) as D. 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 Curaao (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 Bogot 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 & Rodrguez 1979). Single sight records from Aruba and Curaao (Voous 1985) and Trinidad (ffrench 1991).
9a. Genetic data (Avise et al. 1980, Lovette & Bermingham 1999, Klein et al. 2004) indicate that Setophaga is embedded within Dendroica, as suggested by previous analyses of behavior, song, and plumage (Ficken & Ficken 1965, Parkes 1961, Spector 1992, Mayr & Short 1970). <wait AOU>
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. Proposal needed <wait for NACC>.
13. Oporornis has been merged into Geothlypis by some authors (e.g., Lowery & Monroe 1968), but see
Raikow (1978); the merger is consistent with genetic data (Lovette & Bermingham 2002), but taxon-sampling needs to be expanded.
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) indicate that Wilsonia citrina is not closely related to the other two Wilsonia, but falls within the genus Dendroica (a result consistent with the allozyme data of Avise et al. 1980). <wait AOU>
15a. One photographic record from central Colombia (Ocampo-Tobn 2005); also one sight record from northwestern Colombia (Pearman 1993). Two additional unpublished sight records from northern Colombia are also mentioned by Ocampo-Tobn (2005).
16. Fjelds & 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.
17. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that the castaneocapillus, 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 (Prez-Emn 2005) strongly support treatment of castaneocapillus as a separate species.
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 (Prez-Emn 2005) indicate that M. brunniceps, however, is not part of this group.
18a. Evidence for treating Myioborus cardonai and M. albifacies as separate species from castaneocapillus 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 (Prez-Emn 2005) suggest that M. castaneocapillus 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 (Prez-Emn 2005).
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.
20.
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 (Prez-Emn 2005) indicate that M. flavivertex may not be part of this group, and support for inclusion of M. torquatus is weak.
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. 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 (Prez-Emn 2005) indicate, however, that ruficoronatus is more closely related to M. ornatus than to M. melanocephalus, as is suggested by their probably 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). Proposal needed.
21b. Evidence for treating Myioborus albifrons as a separate species from M. ornatus was considered weak by Hilty (2003), but genetic data (Prez-Emn 2005) 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 Basileuterus bivittatus as a separate species, B. roraimae, but presented no evidence. SACC proposal to split roraimae from bivittatus did not pass due to insufficient published data.
21d. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated the northern subspecies chlorophrys as a separate species from Basileuterus 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 Basileuterus bivittatus and B. chrysogaster might be conspecific, but see Zimmer (1949) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989).
21f. Called "Santa Marta Whitestart" in Fjelds & Krabbe (1990).
22. As noted by Ridgely and Tudor (1989), species limits and relationships among Basileuterus luteoviridis, B. signatus, and B. nigrocristatus may be more complicated than indicated by current species limits; the subspecies euophrys (of B. luteoviridis) is more similar in some plumage features to B. nigrocristatus than it is to other B. luteoviridis, and its ecological relationship to B. signatus (often syntopic) differs from that of other luteoviridis subspecies; euophrys was once considered a subspecies of B. nigrocristatus (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.
22a. Based on plumage pattern and coloration, Zimmer (1949) considered Basileuterus signatus and B. flaveolus to be sister species that might be considered conspecific, but subsequent authors have kept them distant in linear sequences.
22b. Although Hellmayr (1935) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that Basileuterus basilicus was part of the B. tristriatus complex due to plumage similarities, Lowery & Monroe (1968) moved it next to B. cinereicollis and B. conspicillatus, evidently due to similarities in size and shape,
23. Basileuterus conspicillatus was formerly been considered a subspecies of B. cinereicollis (Hellmayr 1935) or B. coronatus (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 B. conspicillatus differs in plumage as much from either of those as they do from each other.
23a. The castaneiceps subspecies group of Ecuador and Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) treated as a separate species from Basileuterus coronatus, 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.
25. Although Lowery & Monroe (1968) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) placed Basileuterus culicivorus and B. hypoleucus far apart in their linear sequences, they are almost certainly allospecies, as suggested by Hellmayr (1935); they differ only in color of the underparts, and they hybridize to a limited extent in their areas of contact (Hellmayr 1935, REFS).
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. The three presumably constitute a superspecies
28. Ridgely and Tudor (1989) pointed out that these lowland Basileuterus resemble Phaeothlypis in behavior and voice more than they do montane Basileuterus; see also Note 30.
28a. Hilty (2003) suspected that northern and southern populations of Basileuterus flaveolus might represent separate species.
29. Olson (1975) proposed that Basileuterus leucoblepharus was closely related to B. 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, and excluded its obvious 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 Basileuterus (e.g., B. leucoblepharus) are 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 two genera 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 Basileuterus; however, Basileuterus itself does not yet resolve cleanly as a monophyletic group with respect to other parulids. Proposal badly needed. <but Irby Lovette (pers. comm.) recommends waiting additional genetic analyses because Basileuterus may not be monophyletic.>
31. Phaeothlypis fulvicauda and P. 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) suggest that P. fulvicauda and P. 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
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
Clypicterus oseryi Casqued Oropendola 2, 8
Ocyalus latirostris Band-tailed Oropendola 2, 8a
Cacicus chrysonotus Mountain Cacique 9, 12a
Cacicus sclateri Ecuadorian Cacique 10, 11, 12a
Cacicus koepckeae Selva Cacique 10, 12
Cacicus solitarius Solitary Black Cacique 13, 14, 12a
Cacicus cela Yellow-rumped Cacique 15
Cacicus haemorrhous Red-rumped Cacique
Cacicus uropygialis Scarlet-rumped Cacique 16
Cacicus chrysopterus Golden-winged Cacique 12, 12a, 12b
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 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 warszewiczi Scrub Blackbird 22
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
Curaeus forbesi Forbes's Blackbird 25b, 25c
Amblyramphus holosericeus Scarlet-headed Blackbird 25c, 26
Agelasticus xanthophthalmus Pale-eyed Blackbird 27
Agelasticus cyanopus Unicolored Blackbird 27
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 Bay-winged Cowbird 29, 30
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
Sturnella militaris Red-breasted Blackbird 35, 36
Sturnella superciliaris White-browed Blackbird 35, 36
Sturnella bellicosa Peruvian Meadowlark 36, 38, 39
Sturnella defilippii Pampas Meadowlark 37, 38
Sturnella loyca Long-tailed Meadowlark 40
Sturnella magna Eastern Meadowlark
Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink (NB) 41

1. The sequence of genera follows [REF]. Beecher (1950, 1951). Molecular 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>
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.
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).
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), 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). Proposal badly 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).
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).
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, Fjelds & 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) and Hilty (2003). Proposal needed.
10. Cacicus sclateri is placed next to its presumed sister species, C. koepckeae, following Cardiff and Remsen (1994).
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).
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.
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 (2002, 2004)'s 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. SACC proposal to recognize Procacicus did not pass.
14. Called "Solitary Cacique" by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003). Proposal needed?
15. Jaramillo & Burke (1999) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) 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>.
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, Lanyon-Omland [REFS]) indicate that this species does not belong in Cacicus.
17a. Reported voices in Colombia (australis) and Peru (nominate) differ and warrant further investigation (Donegan et al. 2007).
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 Lanyon-Omland [REFS].
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) 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) that forms a superspecies with I. cayanensis (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Omland et al. (1999) and D'Horta et al. 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 (DHorta et al. 2008, Omland et al. 1999, Sturge et al. 2009) also indicate that the southern pyrrhopterus group is reciprocally monophyletic with the Amazonian groups, with no evidence of hybridization and some evidence of sympatry (Jaramillo and Burke 1999).  SACC proposal pending 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.
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).
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) and Jaramillo & Burke (1999). 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.
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) in placing it in Curaeus.
25c. Genetic data (REFS, Johnson & Lanyon 1999) indicate that Amblyramphus and Curaeus are sister genera.
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.
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.
28a. Barreiro & Prez 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, Lanyon-Omland REF, Johnson & Lanyon 1999).
30a. Called "Baywing" in Jaramillo & Burke (1999) and Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
30b. Jaramillo & Burke (1999) proposed that the subspecies fringillarius should be considered as a separate species from Agelaioides badius.
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). 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).
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 recently corroborated by genetic data (Lanyon 1992, REFS, Johnson & Lanyon 1999).
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.
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, Fjelds & 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 (REFS).
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.
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 [REFS].
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).

FRINGILLIDAE (FINCHES) 1
Fringillinae 1a
Carduelis chloris European Greenfinch (IN) 2, 2a
Carduelis carduelis European Goldfinch (IN) 2b
Carduelis spinescens Andean Siskin 3, 3a
Carduelis yarrellii Yellow-faced Siskin 3a
Carduelis cucullata Red Siskin
Carduelis crassirostris Thick-billed Siskin
Carduelis magellanica Hooded Siskin 3b, 3d, 4
Carduelis siemiradzkii Saffron Siskin 3b, 5
Carduelis olivacea Olivaceous Siskin 3b, 6
Carduelis xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Siskin
Carduelis atrata Black Siskin
Carduelis uropygialis Yellow-rumped Siskin 3d
Carduelis barbata Black-chinned Siskin
Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch 3c

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, Garca-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. Banks et al. (REF) also .
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 will be required. Proposal needed. <wait for BOU>
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 & Tudor1989) 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) indicate that Carduelis as currently constituted is not monophyletic and that resurrection of Spinus will be required. Proposal needed. <wait for NACC>. Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2007) also showed that the Neotropical species of Carduelis likely form a monophyletic group that does not include C. psaltria, which forms a strongly supported group with the two North American goldfinches, C. tristis and C. lawrencei. Arnaiz-Villena et al. (2007) also showed that within the Neotropical group, C. notata is basal to the rest, followed by C. xanthogastra, but relationships among the remaining species are not resolved.
3a. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered Carduelis spinescens and C. yarrellii to form a superspecies, but preliminary genetic data (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2007) do not corroborate their sister relationship.
3b. Carduelis magellanica, C. siemiradzkii, and C. olivacea were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley and Monroe (1990).
3c. Called "Dark-backed Goldfinch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970).
3d. Carduelis magellanica and C. uropygialis evidently hybridize extensively in southwestern Peru (Fjelds & 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 Carduelis magellanica, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); see Short (1975) for rationale.
5. Carduelis siemiradzkii was considered a subspecies of C. magellanica by Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Howell et al. (1968) 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 C. magellanica and C. siemiradzkii in western Ecuador.
6. Although Carduelis olivacea traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Howell et al. 1968, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) has been treated as a separate species from C. magellanica, some authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) have questioned whether it merits species rank.
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 the latter has been suppressed by the ICZN (Bull. Zool. Nomenclature 25: 74, 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. Proposal needed?
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).
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 Curaao (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.

 

Click for Literature Cited
Click for Hypothetical List

 


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, Paul Clapham, 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, 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, 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, Steve Olesen, John Penhallurick, Sergio Pereira, Alan Peterson, Manuel A. Plenge, Vitor Piacentini, Paulo C. Pulgarn R., Mike Ramos, Robin Restall, Michael Rieser, Clemencia Rodner, Jan Axel Cubilla Rodrguez, Frederick H. Sheldon, Joseph Tobias, Jason D. Weckstein, and Robin Woods.