Proposal (301) to South American Classification
Committee
Elevate subspecies humaythae,
brunneiceps, and rufifacies (within Schistocichla
leucostigma) to species rank
Background: As already footnoted in the checklist "Ridgely &
Tudor (1994) and Zimmer & Isler (2003) suggested that Schistocichla
leucostigma may consist of more than one species. Braun et al. (2005)
provided evidence that the Tepui taxon saturata deserves
species rank. Current SACC Note states: "SACC proposal passed to
treat saturata as a species. Isler et al. (2007) further
showed that the taxa humaythae, brunneiceps, and rufifacies,
currently treated as subspecies of P. leucostigma, also warrant
species rank. Proposal badly needed." Well, here is the proposal then.
SACC
currently lists the following Schistocichla species:
Schistocichla schistacea Slate-colored
Antbird
Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged
Antbird
Schistocichla saturata Roraiman Antbird
Schistocichla caurensis Caura Antbird
Isler
et al. (2007) proposed recognizing seven Schistocichla species,
and recommended English names. They stated, "the sequence is tentative
pending genetic analysis." They present the species as Percnostola,
although SACC treats them in the genus Schistocichla. Following the
treatment of Isler et al. (2007) yields the following taxa:
Schistocichla schistacea Slate-colored
Antbird
Schistocichla leucostigma Spot-winged
Antbird
Schistocichla humaythae Humaita Antbird
Schistocichla brunneiceps Brownish-headed
Antbird
Schistocichla rufifacies Rufous-faced
Antbird
Schistocichla saturata Roraiman Antbird
Schistocichla caurensis Caura Antbird
Effect on South American CL: This change adds three species to the list.
Recommendation: Isler et al. (2007) stated that further molecular
phylogeny work on this complex is forthcoming, but as in their analysis
of Hypocnemis, I agree that this initial revision better reflects
the taxonomic status of population in the complex than current
classifications. I recommend voting "Yes" to adopt the
treatment of Isler et al. (2007), but hope SACC committee members with personal
experience with these taxa take a critical look at the work of Isler et al.
(2007) before agreeing.
References:
Isler, M. L., P. R.
Isler, B. M. Whitney, & K. J. Zimmer. 2007. Species limits in the "Schistocichla"
complex of Percnostola antbirds (Passeriformes:
Thamnophilidae). Wilson Journal of Ornithology 119:53-70.
Daniel Lebbin, August
2007
============================================================
Comments from Stotz: "YES. This basic story has been in the
works for a while and based on voice seems clear."
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES - I will note that the proposal is a
little sparse though, not summarizing methods or data even in a cursory way.
The Isler et al 2007 paper seems solid though."
Comments from Stiles: "YES. As presented the proposal is
definitely thin, but the Isler et al. paper looks solid. It would be helpful if
proponents of such proposals set out the main arguments thereof instead of
simply stating "there is a paper that proposes X taxonomic change or new
species, so I propose it to SACC."
Comments from Robbins: "YES. Although the proposal is weak in
providing background and details of the results, the Isler et al. (2007) paper
convincingly presents data supporting the recognition of three additional
species."
Comments from Nores: "NO. Yo creo que hay
que tener en cuenta lo sugerido por Isler et al.
(2007) cuando proponen reconocer siete especies de Schistocichla. "The sequence is
tentative pending genetic analysis" Tanto para
este caso, como para la propuesta 295, la decisi—n implica crear nuevas
especies que a lo mejor no existen en la naturaleza, por eso habr’a que tener
total seguridad. Aunque al revŽs es tambiŽn posible, o sea que existan en la
naturaleza y no estŽn reconocidas, yo prefiero no innovar hasta que no haya
datos que lo confirmen definitivamente."
Comments from Zimmer: "YES. As one of the authors of the paper
on which this proposal is based, I clearly vote YES, for reasons spelled out in
Isler et al."
Comments from Cadena: "YES. The data and analyses appear solid.
The comment by the authors that "The sequence is tentative pending genetic
analysis" does not mean that they are uncertain about their delimitation
of species. Rather, they are saying that the definitive position of these
species in a linear sequence will need to await phylogenetic analyses based on
molecular data to establish their evolutionary relationships (i.e. a
phylogeny). How the different populations are related to each other will not
change the picture of how many species should be recognize, so I believe we can
act now on the basis of the careful analyses that Isler et al. (2007) have
provided.Ó