A Classification of the Bird Species of South America

South American Classification Committee

(Part 5)

Part 5. Trogoniformes to Psittaciformes (below)

__________________________________________________

Part 1. Rheiformes to Podicipediformes

Part 2. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes

Part 3. Apodiformes

Part 4. Opisthocomiformes to Strigiformes

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

Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)

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

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

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Ploceidae to Passerellidae)

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Icteridae to end)

Hypothetical List

Hybrids and Dubious Taxa

Literature Cited

---

TROGONIFORMES ¹

TROGONIDAE (TROGONS)

Pharomachrus pavoninus Pavonine Quetzal 16

Pharomachrus auriceps Golden-headed Quetzal 16, 16b

Pharomachrus fulgidus White-tipped Quetzal 17, 18

Pharomachrus antisianus Crested Quetzal 17, 19

Trogon massena Slaty-tailed Trogon 11, 12

Trogon comptus Blue-tailed Trogon 11, 14

Trogon mesurus Ecuadorian Trogon 11, 13

Trogon melanurus Black-tailed Trogon 11, 12

Trogon chionurus White-tailed Trogon 1a, 2, 3, 4

Trogon viridis Green-backed Trogon 1a, 2, 3, 4

Trogon caligatus Gartered Violaceous-Trogon 8, 8a

Trogon ramonianus Amazonian Violaceous-Trogon 8, 8a

Trogon violaceus Guianan Violaceous-Trogon 8, 8a

Trogon curucui Blue-crowned Trogon 6, 7, 7a, 7b

Trogon surrucura Surucua Trogon 5, 6

Trogon tenellus Graceful Black-throated Trogon 6, 7, 7c

Trogon cupreicauda Kerr’s Black-throated Trogon 6, 7, 7c

Trogon rufus Amazonian Black-throated Trogon 6, 7, 7c

Trogon chrysochloros Atlantic Black-throated Trogon 6, 7, 7c

Trogon collaris Collared Trogon 6, 7, 9

Trogon personatus Masked Trogon 6, 10, 10a

__________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Trogoniformes has never been questioned; its relationships to other birds, however, are uncertain. Traditional classifications have considered the Trogonidae to be more closely related to the Coraciiformes than to other orders, or to a group that includes Coraciiformes + Piciformes; see reviews in Sibley & Ahlquist (1990), Espinosa de los Monteros (2000), and Mayr (2003); some genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) are consistent with this view. A recent analysis of morphological data (Mayr 2003b, Mayr & Clarke 2003) suggested that the Steatornithidae and the Trogoniformes and might be sister taxa. Some early genetic data (Espinosa de los Monteros 2000) suggested a sister relationship with the Coliiformes (mousebirds), whereas other genetic data (Fain & Houde 2004) supported a sister relationship with the Old World Bucerotidae. However, the most recent, comprehensive genetic data sets (Hackett et al. 2008, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) reveal strong support for their traditional position: they are members of a group of orders that consists of the Coraciiformes, Piciformes, Bucerotiformes, and Upupiformes. Recent genetic data (Moyle 2005) suggest that the quetzals (Pharomachrus + Euptilotis) might be basal to all other trogons, including Old World genera. SACC proposal passed to invert linear sequence of genera.

1a. Within the genus Trogon, genetic data (Moyle 2005, DaCosta and Klicka 2008, Ornelas et al. 2009) provide strong support for two major groups: (1) those with brown-backed females (collaris, personatus, and rufus, along with Middle American aurantiiventris, elegans, and mexicanus) and (2) those with gray-backed females (the rest). Within the latter group, two additional groups are strongly supported: (3) those with blue-headed males and strongly contrasting black-and-white tail patterns (viridis, surrucura, violaceus, and curucui, along with Middle American melanocephalus, citreolus, and bairdii) and (4) those with green-headed males and mostly dark, unpatterned tails (massena, comptus, melanurus, and Middle American clathratus). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of species.

2. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered the subspecies chionurus of the Chocó region to be a separate species from Trogon viridis; followed by Hilty (2003); SACC proposal to recognize this split did not pass because of insufficient published data. Genetic data (DaCosta & Klicka 2008) suggest that chionurus is more closely related to T. bairdii than either are to Amazonian T. viridis. SACC proposal passed to recognize chionurus as a species. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Trogon viridis to form a superspecies with Central American T. bairdii, and suggested that they might be conspecific.

3. Collar (2001) also included Middle American Trogon melanocephalus and T. citreolus in a superspecies with T. viridis (including chionurus) and T. bairdii, and genetic data (DaCosta & Klicka 2008) indicate that these two form a sister group to T. viridis + T. bairdii.

4. Trogon viridis was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1945) called Trogon strigilatus, but see Zimmer (1948).

5. The subspecies aurantius was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated as a separate species from Trogon surrucura; they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1945), and this treatment has been followed in subsequent classifications until del Hoyo & Collar (2014) again treated aurantius as a separate species based mainly on plumage differences.

6. Trogon collaris, T. personatus, broadly defined T. rufus, T. surrucura, and T. curucui were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Trogonurus, but this was merged into Trogon by Peters (1945). Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2005, DaCosta & Klicka 2008, Ornelas et al. 2009) indicate that "Trogonurus" is not a monophyletic group (see Note 1a).

7. Species names used in Cory (1919), Pinto (1937), and other literature before Peters (1945) used incorrect names that were sorted out by Schneider (1938); the name curucui was applied to T. collaris and to T. rufus, whereas T. curucui was called T. variegatus.

7a. The western subspecies bolivianus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Trogon curucui. Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific, and this treatment has been followed in subsequent classifications.

7b. "Trogon variegatus," known from throughout much of range of T. curucui and treated as a valid species by Cory (1919); it was considered by Peters (1945) <a color variant?> and a synonym of nominate curucui. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

7c. Dickens et al. (2021) found evidence that T. rufus should be treated as five separate species, including one newly described: Trogon muriciensis of the Atlantic Forest patches of northeastern Brazil; they recommended elevating the subspecies tenellus, cupreicauda, and chrysochloros to species rank. SACC proposal passed to recognize tenellus, cupreicauda, and chrysochloros as species. SACC proposal passed to establish English names for these four species.

8. The subspecies ramonianus and caligatus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered separate species from Trogon violaceus, but Peters (1945) considered them all conspecific. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered caligatus of Middle America and northwestern South America to be a separate species from Trogon violaceus, and this was followed by Hilty (2003); SACC proposal to recognize this split did not pass because of insufficient published data. Genetic data (DaCosta & Klicka 2008) indicate that caligatus is basal to a group that includes Amazonian T. violaceus, T. curucui, and T. surrucura (and that Amazonian violaceus may be paraphyletic with respect to the latter two species). SACC proposal passed to recognize caligatus as a species. SACC proposal passed to recognize ramonianus as a separate species from T. violaceus. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) questioned the vocal and plumage evidence in support of this split. Proposal needed. SACC proposal passed to add group name “Violaceous-Trogon” to English name.

8a. Trogon violaceus (including caligatus) was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Chrysotrogon, but this was merged into Trogon by Peters (1945). Genetic data (Moyle 2005, DaCosta & Klicka 2008, Ornelas et al. 2009) provide no support for recognition of this monotypic genus.

9. The subspecies puella of Middle American was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Trogon collaris; they were considered conspecific by Peters (1945), and this treatment has been followed in subsequent classifications. Genetic data (DaCosta & Klicka 2008) indicate that puella is more closely related to Middle American T. aurantiiventris than either is to Amazonian T. collaris. Chesser et al. (2019needed) treated aurantiiventris as conspecific with T. collaris.

10. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the higher-elevation subspecies temperatus deserves recognition as a separate species from lower elevation Trogon personatus, as originally designated by Chapman (1923) and so treated by Meyer de Schauensee (1964); their voices also differ; their apparent elevational parapatry in Ecuador would be sufficient evidence for recognition as separate species, and so the details of this situation need to be examined and published. Zimmer (1948) agreed that the abrupt elevational replacement in Colombia suggested species rank, but considered T. p. assimilis of northern Ecuador and southern Colombia to show characters intermediate between the two suggestive of intergradation.

10a. The subspecies assimilis of the W. Andes was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Trogon personatus; Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific, and this treatment has been followed in subsequent classifications.

11. Trogon massena, T. comptus, T. mesurus, and T. melanurus form a closely related group, along with Central American T. clathratus (Collar 2001), but geographic overlap prevents considering them as a superspecies (Meyer de Schauensee 1966); see also Zimmer (1948) for discussion of overlap and confusing character distribution of these three in western Colombia; they were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Curucujus, but this was merged into Trogon by Peters (1945). Genetic data (Moyle 2005, DaCosta & Klicka 2008, Ornelas et al. 2009) provide strong support for recognition of this group as monophyletic, but to treat it as a separate genus would require recognition of at least one additional genus with broadly defined Trogon.

12. <?Hellmayr 1929> considered the South American subspecies australis as a separate species from Middle American Trogon massena; Zimmer (1948) suspected that australis might actually be a subspecies of T. melanurus. The subspecies macroura of northwestern Colombia and Panama was formerly (e.g., REF<?Hellmayr 1929>) considered a species separate from Trogon melanurus, and it may deserve recognition as a separate species (Zimmer 1948).

13. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered mesurus of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru to be a separate species from T. melanurus; SACC proposal to recognize this split did not pass because of insufficient published data. Genetic data (DaCosta & Klicka 2008) indicate that melanurus may be paraphyletic with respect to T. massena and T. comptus. SACC proposal passed to recognize mesurus as a species.

14. Called "White-eyed Trogon" in Sibley & Monroe (1990) and "Chocó Trogon" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

16. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (2001) considered Pharomachrus auriceps and P. pavoninus to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Peters 1945, Zimmer 1948) considered conspecific, but most classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in treating them as separate species. The subspecies hargitti of the Venezuelan Andes has been occasionally treated as a subspecies of (e.g., Howard & Moore 1991), or synonym of (e.g., Peters 1945), P. pavoninus instead of P. auriceps. The subspecies P. a. heliactin of western Ecuador has been considered (e.g., Peters 1945) a subspecies of P. pavoninus when auriceps treated as a subspecies of P. pavoninus; Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) stated that heliactin may be a separate species; Zimmer (1948) and Collar (2001), however, considered heliactin indistinguishable from P. a. auriceps.

16b. "Pharomachrus xanthogaster”, known only from the type specimen from "Bogotá”, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1919), but he suspected that it was a color variant of P. auriceps; Peters (1945) considered it a synonym of auriceps. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

17. Pharomachrus fulgidus and P. antisianus may form a superspecies (REF); (REFS) considered them conspecific. Other authors suspect that P. fulgidus may be part of the P. auriceps-P. pavoninus superspecies (Collar 2001). <incorp. Berlioz 1956>

18. The subspecies festatus of the Santa Marta Mountains was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pharomachrus fulgidus, but Peters (1945) treated them as conspecific.

19. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (2001) considered Pharomachrus antisianus to form a superspecies with Middle American P. mocinno, but did not include fulgidus. Peters (1945), Zimmer (1948), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a) considered antisianus to be conspecific with Middle American P. mocinno, but most classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in treating them as separate species.

__________________________________________________

CORACIIFORMES ¹

__________________________________________________

MOMOTIDAE (MOTMOTS) 1

Hylomanes momotula Tody Motmot

Electron platyrhynchum Broad-billed Motmot 2

Baryphthengus martii Rufous Motmot 3

Baryphthengus ruficapillus Rufous-capped Motmot 3

Momotus subrufescens Whooping Motmot 4

Momotus bahamensis Trinidad Motmot 4

Momotus momota Amazonian Motmot 4

Momotus aequatorialis Andean Motmot 4

__________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Momotidae has never been seriously questioned. Several data sets (e.g., Olson 1976, Mayr 1998, Espinosa de los Monteros 2000, Johansson et al. 2001, Overton & Rhoads 2004) indicated that the Momotidae and the West Indian Todidae are sister families, but Ericson et al. (2004), Hackett et al. (2008) and Prum et al. (2015) supported a sister relationship between the Alcedinidae and Momotidae. SACC proposal passed to invert sequence of families. Although generic limits in the family have remained fairly constant (see Snow 2001), the relationships of genera within the Momotidae have not been subjected to any modern analyses. <incorp Maurer & Raikow 1981>

2. Because they lack racket tips on their tails, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that the pyrrholaemum subspecies group east of the Andes might deserve treatments as a separate species from Electron platyrhynchum.

3. Baryphthengus martii, formerly considered a subspecies of B. ruficapilla (e.g., Peters 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is now generally considered a separate species, following Sick (1993); however, no formal analysis has ever been published, although at one time (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1918) they were considered not only separate species but martii was placed in a separate genus, Urospatha; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

4. All Momotus were treated as a single species in most recent classifications since Peters (1945), but see Stiles (2009) for rationale for recognizing five species, four of which occur in South America. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits. The subspecies aequatorialis, venezuelae, subrufescens, microstephanus, and argenticinctus were all formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) considered separate species from M. momota, as were two Middle American taxa. Chapman (1923) recognized four species in South America: M. subrufescens (including "venezuelae") of the Caribbean rim of northern South America, M. bahamensis of Trinidad, M. aequatorialis of the Andes, and M. momota (including microstephanus) of the rest of South America, including argenticinctus of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru. Peters (1945) considered them all conspecific, and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and AOU (1983, 1998). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that the Andean form aequatorialis was a separate species from M. momota, and this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Dickinson (2003), and Schulenberg et al. (2007), thus returning to the classification of Cory (1919) and Chapman (1923, 1926). However, no formal analysis had ever been published, and the published evidence in support of treating aequatorialis as a species-level taxon is weak. SACC proposal passed for treating aequatorialis as conspecific with M. momota. The latter decision was reversed, however, by the more recent proposal to revise species limits based on new data.

__________________________________________________

ALCEDINIDAE (KINGFISHERS)

Megaceryle torquata Ringed Kingfisher 2, 3, 4, 5

Megaceryle alcyon Belted Kingfisher (NB) 2, 3

Chloroceryle amazona Amazon Kingfisher 6

Chloroceryle aenea American Pygmy Kingfisher 6, 7

Chloroceryle americana Green Kingfisher 6

Chloroceryle inda Green-and-rufous Kingfisher 6

__________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Coraciiformes is controversial (see reviews in Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Johansson et al. 2001). The most comprehensive genetic survey (Hackett et al. 2008) found strong support for the monophyly of the traditional Coraciiformes only if limited to the families Meropidae, Coraciidae, Brachypteraciidae, Todidae, Momotidae, and Alcedinidae (and thus excluding hornbills, hoopoes, and Leptosomus). Sibley-Ahlquist (1990) divided the Alcedinidae into three families, which consist of the three traditional subfamilies elevated to family rank (Alcedinidae, Dacelonidae, and Cerylidae) because of DNA-DNA hybridization data indicated deep divergences among these three; New World kingfishers were placed in the Cerylidae.

2. Megaceryle torquata and M. alcyon have been placed in the genus Ceryle in many classifications (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, 1998), but most classifications have followed Fry (1980) in restricting Ceryle to Old World C. rudis (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fry & Fry 1992, Woodall 2001). Recent genetic data (Moyle 2006) indicate that Old World Ceryle rudis is the sister to Chloroceryle, and so Megaceryle must be recognized if Chloroceryle is maintained as a genus.

3. Megaceryle torquata and M. alcyon were considered sister species by Fry (1980) in a superspecies complex that included Old World M. maxima and M. lugubris. Moyle's (2006) data are consistent with their status as sister species.

4. The name Streptoceryle was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) used in place of Megaceryle, but see Miller (1920).

5. Ceryle is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is torquatus (David & Gosselin 2002b) when that genus is used; Megaceryle, however, is feminine, so the species name remains torquata when that genus is used (David & Gosselin 2002b).

6. Fry (1980) and Fry & Fry (1992) proposed that plumage similarities indicate that Chloroceryle amazona and C. americana are sister species, as are C. inda and C. aenea. Genetic data (Moyle 2006), however, indicate that C. americana and C. inda are sisters, that C. aenea is sister to this pair, and that C. amazona is sister to the ancestor of all other species in the genus. Proposal passed to change linear sequence. See also Andersen et al. (2018).

7. Chloroceryle aenea was formerly known as "Pygmy Kingfisher", but most sources (e.g., AOU 1983, 1998, Stiles & Skutch 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fry et al. 1992, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Woodall 2001, Hilty 2003) now call this "American Pygmy Kingfisher" to avoid confusion with African taxa Ceyx pictus ("African Pygmy Kingfisher") and C. madagascariensis ("Madagascar Pygmy Kingfisher").

__________________________________________________

GALBULIFORMES 1

GALBULIDAE (JACAMARS) 1a

Galbalcyrhynchus leucotis White-eared Jacamar 2

Galbalcyrhynchus purusianus Purus Jacamar 2

Brachygalba albogularis White-throated Jacamar 3

Brachygalba lugubris Brown Jacamar 3, 4

Brachygalba goeringi Pale-headed Jacamar 3

Brachygalba salmoni Dusky-backed Jacamar 3

Jacamaralcyon tridactyla Three-toed Jacamar 5

Galbula albirostris Yellow-billed Jacamar 6, 7

Galbula cyanicollis Blue-cheeked Jacamar 6, 8

Galbula ruficauda Rufous-tailed Jacamar 9, 10

Galbula galbula Green-tailed Jacamar 9

Galbula tombacea White-chinned Jacamar 9

Galbula cyanescens Bluish-fronted Jacamar 9

Galbula pastazae Coppery-chested Jacamar 9

Galbula chalcothorax Purplish Jacamar 11

Galbula leucogastra Bronzy Jacamar 11

Galbula dea Paradise Jacamar 11a

Jacamerops aureus Great Jacamar 12

__________________________________________________

1. Evidence from genetics (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Johansson et al. 2001, Johansson & Ericson 2003, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008) and morphology (e.g., Sibley 1956, Simpson and Cracraft 1981, Swierczewski and Raikow 1981, Mayr et al. 2003, Manegold 2005) strongly indicate that the Galbulidae and the Bucconidae are sister taxa, a relationship identified over 250 years ago. The monophyly of each has never been seriously questioned (see reviews in Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Rasmussen & Collar 2002, Tobias 2002). They are usually considered to be a suborder, Galbulae, of the Piciformes, but some evidence (Sibley and Ahlquist 1972, 1985, 1986, Olson 1983, 1985, Burton 1984, Mayr 1998, Höfling & Alvarenga 2001) suggested that they might be more closely related to the Coraciiformes. The original genetic evidence for this relationship (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) is actually ambiguous (Harshman 1994). Almost all recent genetic evidence (Johansson & Ericson 2003, Mayr et al. 2003, Cracraft et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008; cf. Fain & Houde 2004) supports the traditional placement of the Galbuliformes as sister to the Piciformes, so maintaining them as a separate order is arbitrary. However, these two lineages are estimated to have diverged roughly 50 mya (Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) , and so they are as old as most lineages treated as separate orders.

1a. Within-family relationships in the Galbulidae have not been subjected to any modern analyses; see Tobias et al. (2002) for a summary of literature that supports the traditional linear sequence of genera used here.

2. Galbalcyrhynchus leucotis and G. purusianus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated as separate species, but Peters (1948) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) considered them conspecific ("Chestnut Jacamar"). Haffer (1974) noted that they are parapatric in the Río Ucayali area with no sign of interbreeding and that they differ in plumage to the same degree as other jacamars currently ranked as species; they constitute a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Tobias et al. 2002).

3. The four Brachygalba species form a superspecies (Haffer 1967, 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Tobias et al. 2002).

4. The subspecies fulviventris (with caquetae) and melanosterna were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) each considered separate species from B. lugubris, but they were all treated as conspecific by Peters (1948). The subspecies phaeonota was also formerly (e.g., Todd 1943, Peters 1948) considered a separate species from Brachygalba lugubris, but was treated as conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications.

5. Jacamaralcyon and Brachygalba are presumably sister genera (Haffer 1974).

6. Galbula albirostris and G. cyanicollis were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but Haffer (1974) noted that they are parapatric in eastern Peru area with no sign of interbreeding; they constitute a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Tobias et al. 2002); they had formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) been considered separate species, and in fact, albirostris was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) placed in a separate, monotypic genus, Psilopornis (which was merged into Galbula by Pinto 1937 and Peters 1948).

7. The subspecies chalcocephala may represent a separate species from Galbula albirostris (Tobias et al. 2002); it shows no signs of intergradation with nominate albirostris where their ranges approach (Haffer 1974). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated chalcocephala as a separate species (“Cerise-crowned Jacamar”) based on plumage and bare parts, and on lack of evidence of intergradation. Proposal needed.

8. Called "Blue-necked Jacamar" by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Tobias et al. (2002).

9. Galbula ruficauda, G. galbula, G. tombacea, G. cyanescens, and G. pastazae are considered to form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Tobias et al. 2002); evidence for ranking them at species level rather weak (except perhaps for pastazae), but there is no sign of hybridization among them where their ranges are in contact.

10. The subspecies rufoviridis (with heterogyna) is geographically separated from northern subspecies by Galbula galbula and other members of the superspecies; thus, whether G. ruficauda, as presently constituted, is monophyletic warrants study; rufoviridis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species. Trans-Andean melanogenia was also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Haffer 1967) considered a separate species, but apparent intergradation with nominate ruficauda (Wetmore 1968) has led to them being considered conspecific (e.g., Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Tobias et al. 2002).

10a. Galbula cyanescens has been considered a subspecies of G. tombacea by some authors (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937), but Peters (1948) treated them as separate species, and this has been followed by virtually all subsequent authors. <check Haffer for history and rationale>

11. Galbula chalcothorax and G. leucogastra were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Cory 1919, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haffer 1974), but there is no indication of hybridization between the two, and they differ as much or more in plumage than most parapatric jacamars ranked at the species level (Parker & Remsen 1987); they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Tobias et al. 2002).

11a. Galbula dea was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Urogalba; Peters (1948) included it in Galbula, and this has been followed by all subsequent authors.

12. Jacamerops is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is aureus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

__________________________________________________

BUCCONIDAE (PUFFBIRDS) 1

Notharchus hyperrhynchus White-necked Puffbird 1a, 1b, 1c

Notharchus macrorhynchos Guianan Puffbird 1b

Notharchus swainsoni Buff-bellied Puffbird 1b

Notharchus pectoralis Black-breasted Puffbird 2

Notharchus ordii Brown-banded Puffbird 2

Notharchus tectus Pied Puffbird 3

Bucco macrodactylus Chestnut-capped Puffbird 4

Bucco tamatia Spotted Puffbird 5, 5a

Bucco noanamae Sooty-capped Puffbird 5, 5a

Bucco capensis Collared Puffbird

Nystalus radiatus Barred Puffbird 6, 6a

Nystalus obamai Western Striolated-Puffbird 6, 6a, 6b

Nystalus striolatus Eastern Striolated-Puffbird 6, 6a, 6b

Nystalus chacuru White-eared Puffbird 6a

Nystalus maculatus Spot-backed Puffbird 7, 7a

Hypnelus ruficollis Russet-throated Puffbird 8, 9

Malacoptila fusca White-chested Puffbird 10

Malacoptila semicincta Semicollared Puffbird 10

Malacoptila striata Crescent-chested Puffbird 10, 10a

Malacoptila rufa Rufous-necked Puffbird

Malacoptila panamensis White-whiskered Puffbird 11

Malacoptila fulvogularis Black-streaked Puffbird 11, 11a

Malacoptila mystacalis Moustached Puffbird 11

Micromonacha lanceolata Lanceolated Monklet

Nonnula rubecula Rusty-breasted Nunlet 12

Nonnula sclateri Fulvous-chinned Nunlet 13

Nonnula brunnea Brown Nunlet 13

Nonnula frontalis Gray-cheeked Nunlet 14

Nonnula ruficapilla Rufous-capped Nunlet 14

Nonnula amaurocephala Chestnut-headed Nunlet 15

Hapaloptila castanea White-faced Nunbird 15a

Monasa atra Black Nunbird 16

Monasa nigrifrons Black-fronted Nunbird 16

Monasa morphoeus White-fronted Nunbird 16, 16a

Monasa flavirostris Yellow-billed Nunbird

Chelidoptera tenebrosa Swallow-winged Puffbird 17

__________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Bucconidae has never been seriously questioned. Within-family relationships in the Bucconidae have not been subjected to any published genetic analyses; see Rasmussen & Collar (2002) for a summary of literature that supports the traditional linear sequence of genera used here. Posso et al. (2020) produced a phylogeny based on cladistic analyses of osteological data that divided the taxa into two subfamilies and four tribes.

1a. Notharchus was merged into Bucco by Cottrell (1968), and this was followed by the AOU (1983), but not by other classifications; see Monroe et al. (1993).

1b. The taxon swainsoni of the Atlantic forest region was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Notharchus macrorhynchos, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific; this was followed by most subsequent classifications. Rasmussen & Collar (2002) elevated swainsoni to species rank, and Alvarenga et al. (2002) provided rationale in support of that treatment. SACC proposal passed to elevate swainsoni to species rank. The hyperrhynchus subspecies group was also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species, but it was also treated as conspecific with N. macrorhynchos by Peters (1948). Rasmussen & Collar (2002) also suggested that the hyperrhynchus group might also warrant species rank. SACC proposal passed to elevate hyperrhynchus to species rank; SACC proposal passed to apply English name "Guianan Puffbird" to narrowly distributed macrorhynchos; SACC proposal passed to retain "White-necked" for widely distributed hyperrhynchus.

1c. The correct spelling of the species name is hyperrhynchus, not hyperrynchus, as in several publications (e.g. Peters 1948, Dickinson 2003); see Eisenmann (1958).

2. Some authors (e.g., REFS, Rasmussen & Collar 2002) consider Notharchus pectoralis and N. ordii to form a superspecies.

3. Trans-Andean subspecies subtectus was described as a separate species but subsequently treated as a subspecies of B. tectus (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated subtectus as a separate species (“Lesser Pied Puffbird”) based on plumage and unpublished vocal differences, but see Donegan et al. (2015).

4. Bucco macrodactylus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Argicus, but this was merged into Bucco by Peters (1948); this has been followed by most subsequent classifications, except for Rasmussen & Collar (2002), who resurrected Argicus. Penhallurick (2008) noted that Cyphos has priority over Argicus, and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) used Cyphos, as did Posso et al. (2020), who also found osteological evidence that macrodactylus was not a member of Bucco.

5. Bucco tamatia and B. noanamae were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) placed in the genus Nystactes, but this was merged into Bucco by Peters (1948), and this has been followed by most subsequent classifications, except for Rasmussen & Collar (2002) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014), who resurrected Nystactes. Posso et al. (2020) noted that Tamatia Cuvier, 1817, has priority over Nystactes Gloger, 1827, and proposed resurrection of Tamatia.

5a. Bucco tamatia and B. noanamae form a superspecies (REFS, Rasmussen & Collar 2002).

6. Nystalus radiatus and N. striolatus may form a superspecies (Rasmussen & Collar (2002).

6a. Nystalus radiatus, N. striolatus, and N. chacuru were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) treated in a separate genus, Ecchaunornis, but Peters (1948) merged this into Nystalus.

6b. Whitney et al. (2013) described the population of western Amazonia as a new species, Nystalus obamai and also recommended treating the subspecies torridus of SE Amazonia as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to recognize two species. SACC proposal passed on English names.

7. Silva (1991) considered striatipectus a separate species from Nystalus maculatus; this not followed by Rasmussen & Collar (2002).

7a. Called "Spot-bellied Puffbird" in Rasmussen & Collar (2002).

8. Although Cory (1919) and Peters (1948) considered the subspecies bicinctus to be a separate species from Hypnelus ruficollis, Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered them conspecific, evidently <check> on the basis that the subspecies described by Phelps & Phelps (1958) was intermediate between the two, and because another population was also considered intermediate. Rasmussen & Collar (2002) considered bicinctus (with stoicus) as a separate species from H. ruficollis; they reported that hybridization in area of contact was infrequent and certainly not indicative of free interbreeding, as is often stated or implied (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also treated bicinctus as a separate species (“Two-banded Puffbird”). Donegan et al. (2015) also treated it as a separate species based in part on vocal differences. Proposal badly needed.

9. Hypnelus was merged into Bucco by Cottrell (1968), but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors.

10. Malacoptila fusca and M. semicincta form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Rasmussen & Collar 2002); they were once considered conspecific (e.g., Peters 1948), but see Traylor (1951, 1956<?>). Ferreira et al. (2016) confirmed that they are sister species. Sibley & Monroe (1990) also included M. striata in the superspecies, but Ferreira et al. (2016) found that M. rufa was the sister taxon to M. fusca + M. semicincta.

10a. Malacoptila striata was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) known as M. torquata, but see Peters (1948).

10b. The subspecies minor was treated as a separate species from Malacoptila striata by del Hoyo & Collar (2014) based on size and measurements. Ferreira et al. (2016) supported this treatment based on genetic distance.

11. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Malacoptila panamensis and M. mystacalis to form a superspecies; Rasmussen & Collar (2002) also included M. fulvogularis.

11a. The Colombian subspecies substriata was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Malacoptila fulvogularis, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific; Rasmussen & Collar (2002) treated substriata as a synonym of fulvogularis, regarded by them as a monotypic species.

12. Nonnula rubecula may consist of more than one species (Rasmussen & Collar 2002).

13. Nonnula sclateri and N. brunnea form a superspecies (REFS); they have been considered conspecific by some authors (e.g., REFS). Also, N. rubecula is sometimes (e.g., (REFs, Rasmussen & Collar 2002) included in this superspecies, but it may be sympatric with N. brunnea w. Amazonia.

14. Many authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) have treated Nonnula frontalis as subspecies of N. ruficapilla, following Meyer de Schauensee (1946b); published evidence for considering them separate species is weak; Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Rasmussen & Collar (2002) considered them to form a superspecies.

15. Nonnula amaurocephala was considered to form a superspecies with N. frontalis and N. ruficapilla by REFS, Rasmussen & Collar (2002).

15a. Called "White-faced Puffbird" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990).

16. Rasmussen & Collar (2002) considered Monasa morphoeus and M. nigrifrons to form a superspecies with M. atra, but the first two are broadly sympatric and cannot be considered allospecies.

16a. The subspecies grandior, fidelis, similis, pallescens (with sclateri and minor), and rikeri were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) each considered separate species from Monasa morphoeus, but Peters (1948) treated them all as conspecific (and similis as a synonym of fidelis, and rikeri as a synonym of nominate morphoeus).

17. Called "Swallow-wing" by Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Snyder (1966), Haverschmidt (1968), Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps (1978), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), and elsewhere; Hilty & Brown (1986) evidently were the first to use "Swallow-winged Puffbird," and this has been followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Rasmussen & Collar (2002), Hilty (2003).

__________________________________________________

PICIFORMES 1

CAPITONIDAE (NEW WORLD BARBETS) 2

Capito aurovirens Scarlet-crowned Barbet

Capito dayi Black-girdled Barbet 3

Capito maculicoronatus Spot-crowned Barbet 4

Capito squamatus Orange-fronted Barbet 4

Capito hypoleucus White-mantled Barbet 4a

Capito wallacei Scarlet-banded Barbet 5

Capito quinticolor Five-colored Barbet 4a

Capito brunneipectus Brown-chested Barbet 6, 7

Capito niger Black-spotted Barbet 6

Capito auratus Gilded Barbet 6, 6b

Eubucco richardsoni Lemon-throated Barbet 8, 8a

Eubucco tucinkae Scarlet-hooded Barbet 9

Eubucco bourcierii Red-headed Barbet 10

Eubucco versicolor Versicolored Barbet 8a, 10, 11

SEMNORNITHIDAE (TOUCAN-BARBETS) 2

Semnornis ramphastinus Toucan Barbet

__________________________________________________

1. Genetic data (Sibley and Ahlquist 1985, 1986, 1990, Johansson et al. 2001, Prychitko & Moore 2003, Fain & Houde 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) support traditional morphological data (e.g., Simpson and Cracraft 1981, Swierczewski and Raikow 1981) that the Piciformes, as constituted here, are a monophyletic group. Most classifications also include jacamars and puffbirds in this order (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Wetmore 1960), but see notes under Galbuliformes.

2. The families Capitonidae, Semnornithidae, and Ramphastidae are each other's closest relatives with respect to Old World barbets (Burton 1984, Prum 1988, Sibley and Ahlquist 1990, Lanyon & Hall 1994, Barker & Lanyon 2000, Johansson et al. 2001, Johannson & Ericson 2003, Moyle 2004). [Old Word barbets are here tangentially but implicitly treated as separate families, Asian Megalaimidae and African Lybiidae; recent genetic data (Moyle 2004) support the monophyly of the barbet radiations within each region.] To emphasize the close relationships among New World taxa, these three families were treated as subfamilies of a single family, Ramphastidae, by AOU (1998) and Cracraft (2013). SACC proposal passed to treat these taxa at family rank. Semnornis is treated as separate family until affinities resolved. Swierczewski and Raikow's (1981) analysis of characters of the hindlimb musculature supported the traditional inclusion (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) of Semnornis in the barbets, but Prum's (1988a) analysis of morphological data indicated that Semnornis is the sister taxon to the Ramphastidae, not the Capitonidae. Genetic data indicate that Semnornis may be basal to both families (Barker and Lanyon 2000); Moyle (2004) found weak support for that relationship, but also weak support for a sister relationship to Ramphastidae.

3. Capito dayi was considered conspecific with a broadly defined C. niger by Ripley (1945), but see Ripley (1946) and Haffer (1997). Genetic data (Armenta et al. 2005) indicate that C. dayi is definitely not part of the C. niger group, but more closely related to other species of Capito, especially C. quinticolor.

4. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Capito maculicoronatus and C. squamatus to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Ripley (1945). Genetic data (Armenta et al. 2005) indicate that they are sister taxa.

4a. Capito hypoleucos was considered conspecific with C. quinticolor by Ripley (1945).

5. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): O'Neill et al. (2000). A new species, Capito fitzpatricki, was described by Seeholzer et al. (2012); it is the sister taxon to C. wallacei. SACC proposal to rank at species level did not pass. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) and Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated fitzpatricki as a separate species (“Sira Barbet”).

6. Capito brunneipectus and C. auratus were formerly (e.g., Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with C. niger. Haffer (1997) split brunneipectus and auratus from niger because: (1) no good evidence was ever presented for the treatment of the three as conspecific; (2) no evidence exists for gene flow between niger and auratus where they are in contact; and (3) brunneipectus differs dramatically in coloration from auratus and niger. Genetic data (Armenta et al. 2005) support this treatment. Sibley & Monroe (1990), Short & Horne (2001), and Short & Horne (2002a) treated brunneipectus as separate species but not auratus. Capito niger, C. auratus, and C. brunneipectus presumably form a superspecies (Haffer 1997), but Short & Horne (2001) were not confident that brunneipectus belongs in that group; C. niger and C. brunneipectus are monotypic, with all subspecies-level taxa in the group included under C. auratus. Ridgway (1914), Cory (1919), Pinto (1937), and Chapman (1928) treated auratus as a separate species, but Bond & Meyer de Schauensee (1943), Ripley (1945), and Peters (1948) considered them conspecific.

6b. "Capito aurantiiventris," known from the "Upper Amazon Valley" and formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated as a species, was subsequently (e.g., Peters 1948) treated as a synonym of C. auratus amazonicus. "Capito peruvianus," known from eastern Peru and Ecuador, and formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated as a species, was subsequently treated as a synonym of C. auratus auratus (<> Chapman 1928).

7. Called "Cinnamon-breasted Barbet" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), Short & Horne (2001), and Short & Horne (2002a).

8. The subspecies aurantiicollis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Eubucco richardsoni, but Berlioz (1937b), Ripley (1945), and Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated aurantiicollis as a separate species (“Flame-throated Barbet”) on plumage differences.

8a. Eubucco richardsoni and E. versicolor were considered conspecific by Ripley (1945), but see, for example, Traylor (1951b).

9. Eubucco tucinkae was formerly considered to form superspecies with (Sibley & Monroe 1990), the sister taxon of (Haffer 1987), or even conspecific with (e.g., Peters 1948), E. bourcierii, but lowland distribution and habitat makes it unlikely that they are even sister species; Short & Horne (2001) also made this point, but based it on morphology; see also Traylor (1951b).

10. Eubucco bourcierii and E. versicolor were considered to form a probable superspecies by Parker et al. (1985); cf. Short & Horne (2002a).

11. The subspecies steerii and glaucogularis were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) each considered a separate species from Eubucco versicolor, but Berlioz (1938), Ripley (1945), and Peters (1948) treated them all as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated steerii (“Blue-cowled Barbet”) and glaucogularis (“Blue-chinned Barbet”) as separate species on plumage differences.

__________________________________________________

RAMPHASTIDAE (TOUCANS) 1

Ramphastos toco Toco Toucan

Ramphastos ambiguus Yellow-throated Toucan 23, 24, 25

Ramphastos tucanus White-throated Toucan 22, 22a, 22b, 23, 23b

Ramphastos sulfuratus Keel-billed Toucan 18, 21

Ramphastos brevis Choco Toucan 18, 20

Ramphastos vitellinus Channel-billed Toucan 18, 19, 19a

Ramphastos dicolorus Red-breasted Toucan 18, 18a, 18b

Aulacorhynchus albivitta Southern Emerald-Toucanet 1a

Aulacorhynchus sulcatus Groove-billed Toucanet 2, 3

Aulacorhynchus derbianus Chestnut-tipped Toucanet 3, 3a

Aulacorhynchus whitelianus Tepui Toucanet 3, 3a

Aulacorhynchus haematopygus Crimson-rumped Toucanet 4

Aulacorhynchus huallagae Yellow-browed Toucanet 4

Aulacorhynchus coeruleicinctis Blue-banded Toucanet 4, 5

Andigena hypoglauca Gray-breasted Mountain-Toucan 17

Andigena laminirostris Plate-billed Mountain-Toucan 17

Andigena cucullata Hooded Mountain-Toucan 17

Andigena nigrirostris Black-billed Mountain-Toucan

Selenidera spectabilis Yellow-eared Toucanet 14

Selenidera piperivora Guianan Toucanet 14, 14a

Selenidera reinwardtii Golden-collared Toucanet 14, 15

Selenidera nattereri Tawny-tufted Toucanet 14

Selenidera gouldii Gould's Toucanet 14, 16

Selenidera maculirostris Spot-billed Toucanet 14

Pteroglossus bailloni Saffron Toucanet 13

Pteroglossus viridis Green Aracari 6

Pteroglossus inscriptus Lettered Aracari 6, 7a, 7b, 10b

Pteroglossus torquatus Collared Aracari 10a, 11, 11a

Pteroglossus aracari Black-necked Aracari 10, 10c

Pteroglossus castanotis Chestnut-eared Aracari 10

Pteroglossus pluricinctus Many-banded Aracari 10

Pteroglossus azara Ivory-billed Aracari 8, 9, 9a, 10, 10b

Pteroglossus beauharnaisii Curl-crested Aracari 12

Pteroglossus bitorquatus Red-necked Aracari 8, 8a

__________________________________________________

1. Multiple independent data sets identify the Capitonidae/Semnornithidae as the sister to the Ramphastidae (see notes under those families above). The Ramphastidae have a number of unusual characters that distinguish them from all barbets, New World and Old World, including a unique arrangement of the caudal vertebrae and sleeping posture (see Short & Horne 2001) and a unique cranial morphology (Höfling 1991, 1998); the genus Aulacorhynchus shares these characters and is firmly embedded in the Ramphastidae, despite Sibley & Ahlquist's (1990) suggestion that it was intermediate in some respects between toucans and Capitonidae. Genetic data are consistent with the monophyly of the Ramphastidae (Moyle 2004). Genetic data (Barker & Lanyon 2000, Moyle 2004) indicate that Ramphastos is basal to all other toucan genera, and other genetic data sets are consistent with this (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Nahum et al. 2003). Moyle (2004), Weckstein (2004), and Pereira & Wajntal (2008) found that Andigena and Selenidera were sister genera, and Moyle (2004) and Weckstein (2004) found that Aulacorhynchus was the sister of Andigena + Selenidera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera to the one used in this classification.

1a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that Aulacorhynchus prasinus may consist of more than one species-level taxon, but see Short & Horne (2001), who pointed out that the allopatric taxa are no more distinctive than those known to intergrade. The subspecies caeruleogularis, lautus, albivitta, cyanolaemus, dimidiatus, and atrogularis, as well as Middle American wagleri, were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) each considered separate species from (and in some cases not particularly closely related to) Aulacorhynchus prasinus, but Peters (1948) and Haffer (1974) treated them all as conspecific. <add synopsis of Navarro et al. (2001)>. Puebla-Olivares et al. (2008) identified three clades in South America based on mtDNA and proposed species rank for each. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated broadly defined A. prasinus as consisting of six species, four of which occur in South America: caeruleogularis (“Blue-throated Toucanet”), albivitta (“Grayish-throated Toucanet”), cyanolaemus (“Black-billed Toucanet”), and atrogularis (“Black-throated Toucanet”). Donegan et al. (2015) were unable to find any consistent vocal differences among these taxa and rejected species rank for them. Winker (2016) concluded that five species should be recognized in the complex, three of which occur in South America (caeruleogularis, albivitta, and atrogularis). SACC proposal passed to treat South American taxa as separate species, A. albivitta (Southern Emerald-Toucanet).

2. The taxon calorhynchus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Peters 1948, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species ("Yellow-billed Toucanet") from Aulacorhynchus sulcatus, but in their area of contact in Venezuela, only individuals with intermediate bill characters are found (Schwartz 1972b). Nonetheless, they were still treated as separate species by Hilty (2003) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). Donegan et al. (2015) were unable to find consistent vocal differences between the two. Donegan et al. (2015), however, proposed that the subspecies erythrognathus of the Paria Peninsula and mountains in Sucre, Venezuela, might merit species rank based on vocal differences.

3. Aulacorhynchus sulcatus and A. derbianus form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Short & Horne 2001, Short & Horne 2002b), and their sister relationship has been confirmed by genetic data (Bonaccorso et al. 2011, Bonaccorso & Guayasamin 2013); they are treated as separate species because of differences in voice and bill shape.

3a. The whitelianus subspecies group of the Tepui region was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species (“Whitely’s Toucanet”) from Aulacorhynchus derbianus, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1948). Genetic data (Bonaccorso et al. 2011, Bonaccorso & Guayasamin 2013), however, indicate that Andean derbianus is more closely related to A. sulcatus than either is to the whitelianus group. SACC proposal passed to elevate whitelianus group to species rank.

4. Aulacorhynchus haematopygus, A. huallagae, and A. coeruleicinctis were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1974), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Short & Horne (2001), and Short & Horne (2002b). Genetic data (Bonaccorso et al. 2011) confirm the sister relationship of the latter two but indicate that A. haematopygus is the sister to those two plus also A. whitelianus, A. sulcatus, and A. derbianus, or (Bonaccorso & Guayasamin 2013) to just A. whitelianus, A. sulcatus, and A. derbianus.

5. Species name often given incorrectly as "coeruleicinctus.

6. Pteroglossus viridis and P. inscriptus form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Short & Horne 2001); their sister relationship has been confirmed by genetic data (Patel et al. 2010). <incorp. Cracraft & Prum 1988>

7a. Cory (1919) treated the subspecies humboldti as a separate species from P. viridis and P. inscriptus. Peters (1948) treated humboldti as a subspecies of Pteroglossus viridis, but Haffer (1974) included it in P. inscriptus; intermediate specimens from their area of contact led Haffer (1974) to treat humboldti as conspecific with and a subspecies of P. inscriptus. Genetic data (Pereira & Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010) support the close relationship of the three taxa and indicate that humboldti and inscriptus are sister taxa. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated humboldti as a separate species (“Humboldt’s Aracari”) based on coloration and insufficient evidence for free interbreeding. Proposal needed.

7b. "Pteroglossus didymus," known from eastern Peru and treated as a valid species by Cory (1919), is now considered a synonym of Pteroglossus inscriptus humboldti (Traylor 1958, Friedmann 1958, Borrero 1959, Haffer 1974, Short & Horne 2002b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

8. Pteroglossus bitorquatus and P. azara were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1974), but Short & Horne (2002b) considered P. bitorquatus to be probably more closely related to P. viridis/P. inscriptus. Genetic data (Pereira & Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010) indicate that P. pluricinctus, P. castanotis, and P. aracari form a monophyletic group. <incorp. Cracraft & Prum 1988>

8a. The subspecies sturmii was treated as a separate species from Pteroglossus bitorquatus by del Hoyo & Collar (2014) based mainly on color differences.

9. Haffer (1974) showed that Pteroglossus mariae, formerly (e.g., Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Brown-mandibled Aracari"), forms hybrid zones with subspecies flavirostris (i.e. azara) wherever they are in contact and is thus best treated as a subspecies, as suspected by Peters (1948) and treated by Cory (1919) and Pinto (1937); this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors except Ridgely & Greenfield (2001); previous reports of sympatry (Todd 1943, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) are now considered erroneous (Haffer 1974). Analysis of plumage characters (REF) supports and genetic data (Pereira & Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010; cf. Hackett & Lehn 1997) confirm their treatment as sister taxa.

9a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) pointed out that Pteroglossus azara is the correct name used for this species, not P. flavirostris, the latter used since Peters (1948).

10. Pteroglossus torquatus (including sanguineus, erythropygius, and Middle American P. frantzii), P. pluricinctus, P. aracari, and P. castanotis were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1974); however, P. pluricinctus is widely sympatric with P. castanotis in western Amazonia. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Pteroglossus torquatus and P. pluricinctus to form a superspecies, but genetic data (Hackett & Lehn 199, Pereira & Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010) provide no support for that relationship. Pteroglossus aracari and P. castanotis are generally considered to be sister species based on plumage similarities (e.g., Prum 1988b); Sibley & Monroe (1990), Short & Horne (2001), and Short & Horne (2002b) considered P. aracari and P. castanotis to form a superspecies, but genetic data (Pereira & Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010) indicate that P. azara is more closely related to P. castanotis + pluricinctus than to P. aracari.

10b. "Pteroglossus olallae," known only from the type specimen from the Rio Jurua, Brazil, was treated as a species by Peters (1948) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) but is generally considered a hybrid or aberrant individual (e.g. see Zimmer & Mayr 1943). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

10c. "Pteroglossus formosus," known from an uncertain locality and treated as a valid species by Cory (1919), is considered a synonym of Pteroglossus a. aracari by Short & Horne (2002b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

11. Subspecies sanguineus ("Stripe-billed Aracari") and erythropygius ("Pale-mandibled Aracari") were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Dickinson 2003) considered separate species from Pteroglossus torquatus, but hybridization in areas of contact with each other and with nominate torquatus (e.g., Haffer 1967) has led some subsequent authors (e.g., Haffer 1974, Short and Horne 2002b) to consider them as subspecies of P. torquatus. Haffer (1967) interpreted specimen data as indicating free interbreeding between torquatus and sanguineus in northwestern Colombia; these two differ no more from each other than do sanguineus and erythropygius from each other, and so Haffer (1974) considered the latter also as a subspecies of torquatus. Short & Horne (2001) also reported signs of extensive intergradation between sanguineus and erythropygius and between torquatus and sanguineus. Genetic data (Hackett & Lehn 1997, Pereira & Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010) are consistent with a close relationship among these taxa, as well as Middle American frantzii (which Short & Horne 2001 considered possibly conspecific with P. torquatus), as is the traditional treatment based on plumage characters (e.g., Prum 1988b). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) continued to rank them all as species. SACC proposal to recognize sanguineus and erythropygius as separate species did not pass. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated sanguineus and erythropygius as separate species. Donegan et al. (2015) found no obvious vocal differences between sanguineus and torquatus.

11a. Called "Spot-breasted Aracari" in Haffer (1974) and Short & Horne (2001).

12. Unusual crown feathers and face pattern led to former placement of Pteroglossus beauharnaisii in monotypic genus Beauharnaisius/Bauharnaisius by some authors (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937; see Bruce 2023). Genetic data (Hackett & Lehn 1997, Pereira & Wajntal 2008) indicate that beauharnaisii is not only nested within Pteroglossus, but also the sister species to P. bitorquatus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

12a. Wright (2015) proposed that the correct spelling for the species name is beauharnaisii, but see Bock & Schodde (2016) but also David et al. (2020). SACC proposal passed to change spelling from beauharnaesii to beauharnaisii. Elliott (2020) supported the position of David et al. (2020).

13. Pteroglossus bailloni has previously been placed nearly universally in a monotypic genus, Baillonius. Peters (1948) placed Baillonius bailloni in Andigena, but genetic data (Hackett & Lehn 1997, Barker & Lanyon 2000, Nahum et al. 2003, Moyle 2004, Weckstein 2004) support the widespread view (e.g., Haffer 1974, Short & Horne 2001) that Baillonius and Pteroglossus are sister genera. Recent genetic data (Kimura et al. 2004, Eberhard and Bermingham 2005, Pereira and Wajntal 2008, Patel et al. 2010) further indicate that Baillonius is embedded within Pteroglossus and thus should be merged into that genus. Morphological and vocal data (Haffer 1974, Sick 1997, Short and Horne 2001, Höfling 2004) are also consistent with this merger. SACC proposal passed to merge Baillonius into Pteroglossus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

14. The species in the genus Selenidera are considered to form a superspecies (Haffer 1974; cf. Short & Horne 2001, 2002b); however, Lutz et al. (2013) found that Selenidera spectabilis grouped with Andigena rather than with other Selenidera but cautioned that additional data be obtained before making any taxonomic changes.

14b. The species name for Selenidera culik was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) piperivora, but see Peters (1930, 1948). Pacheco & Whitney (2006) proposed that piperivora is indeed the valid name for this taxon, but this remains controversial (Walters 2007, Piacentini et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to use piperivora.

15. The subspecies langsdorffii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Peters 1948) treated as separate species from Selenidera reinwardtii, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent authors. <summarize Haffer>. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated langsdorffii as a separate species based mainly on color differences.

16. Selenidera gouldii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S. maculirostris, but they were treated as separate species by Haffer (1974); they are presumably sister species.

17. Andigena hypoglauca, A. laminirostris, and A. cucullata were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1974), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Short & Horne 2001, 2002b). However, Lutz et al. (2013) found that A. nigrirostris was the sister to A. hypoglauca + A. cucullata.

18. Haffer (1974) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Ramphastos sulfuratus, R. brevis, R. vitellinus, and R. dicolorus to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Patané et al. 2009) indicate that R. dicolurus is the sister to R. brevis + R. vitellinus.

18a. Genetic data (Weckstein 2004, Patané et al. 2009) indicate that Ramphastos toco is the basal species in the genus, and that Haffer's (1974) "croaker" group (R. vitellinus, R. brevis, R. sulfuratus) and "yelper" group (R. tucanus, R. ambiguus/swainsonii) were monophyletic; support for the placement of R. sulfuratus, however, in the "croaker" group was weak. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of species.

18b. Called "Green-billed Toucan" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

19. Cory (1919) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) treated R. culminatus ("Yellow-ridged Toucan") and R. citrolaemus ("Citron-throated Toucan") as separate species from Ramphastos vitellinus. Haffer (1974) treated these as a subspecies of R. vitellinus, and this treatment, actually a partial return to the classification of Pinto (1937) and Peters (1948), has been followed by most subsequent authors (but not Sibley & Monroe 1990, Hilty 2003, del Hoyo & Collar 2014). Haffer identified broad hybrid zones between vitellinus and culminatus wherever they meet; see Short & Horne (2001) for additional information; genetic data (Patané et al. 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group. "Ramphastos osculans," known from northern Brazil, Venezuela, and Guyana, and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is a population of intergrades between R. culminatus and R. vitellinus (Hellmayr 1933, Haffer 1974). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

19a. The subspecies ariel of eastern and southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Ramphastos vitellinus, but Pinto (1937) and Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific. Weckstein (2004) and Patané et al. (2009) found that Amazonian ariel was more closely related to culminatus than either was to nominate vitellinus (opposite the relationship suggested by plumage characters; Prum 1988b); also, Weckstein (2004) and Patané et al. (2009) also found that ariel from the Atlantic forest region was not the sister taxon to Amazonian ariel. Nonetheless, del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated ariel as a separate species (“Ariel Toucan”), but see Donegan et al. (2015).

20. Ramphastos brevis was formerly (e.g., Peters 1948) considered a subspecies of R. ambiguus, but the two differ in vocalizations [REF- check Haffer], and genetic data (Patané et al. 2009) indicate that R. brevis is the sister to R. vitellinus. Plumage characters suggest that R. brevis and R. sulfuratus are sister species (Prum 1988b), but this is not supported by genetic data (Weckstein 2004, Patané et al. 2009).

21. Called "Rainbow-billed Toucan" by Short & Horne (2001) and Short & Horne (2002b).

22. Haffer (1974) showed that R. cuvieri ("Cuvier's Toucan") and R. tucanus form a broad hybrid zone in northern and eastern Amazonia, and, therefore, treated cuvieri (with inca, also considered a separate species by Peters 1948) as a subspecies of Ramphastos tucanus; see also Short & Horne (2001); this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors, but Sibley & Monroe (1990) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) continued to treat cuvieri as a species, following earlier classifications (e.g., Cory 1919, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Genetic data (Patané et al. 2009) are consistent with their treatment as conspecific; see also Donegan et al. (2015).

22b. Also known as "White-breasted Toucan" (Haffer 1974, Hilty 2003) and "Red-billed Toucan" (Meyer de Schauensee 1970).

23. Haffer (1974) considered Ramphastos tucanus and R. ambiguus (including swainsonii) to form a superspecies; genetic data (Patané et al. 2009) indicate that they are sister taxa.

23b. "Ramphastos aurantiirostris," formerly (e.g., Peters 1948, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) treated as a species, is only a color variant of nominate R. tucanus (Pinto 1938, Haffer 1974). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

24. Haffer (1974) considered the taxon swainsonii to be a subspecies of R. ambiguus, and this treatment has been followed by Short & Horne (2001, 2002b); they have very similar if not identical voices and differ only in color of facial skin and mandible (e.g., Prum 1988b). Others continue to treat them as component species in a superspecies (e.g., AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Stiles et al. (1999) noted vocal and biometric differences between abbreviatus and ambiguus and noted that abbreviatus of the Magdalena Valley should be treated as conspecific with swainsonii (not ambiguus as treated by some authors) if the species is split. The R. a. swainsonii group and R. a. ambiguus apparently replace one another on opposite slopes of the Eastern Andes and show a 1.4% difference in mtDNA sequences (Donegan et al. 2007). Treatment of swainsonii as a species (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) may have persisted because of the sympatry between it and R. brevis, which was described as, and long thought to be, a subspecies of ambiguus (e.g., Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1966; see Short & Horne 2001, Short & Horne 2002b). SACC proposal to treat swainsonii as a separate species did not pass.

25. Called "Yellow-throated Toucan" by Haffer (1974), Short & Horne (2001), Short & Horne (2002b), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal passed to change to “Yellow-throated Toucan”.

__________________________________________________

PICIDAE (WOODPECKERS) 1

Picumninae

Picumnus aurifrons Bar-breasted Piculet 2, 3, 4

Picumnus pumilus Orinoco Piculet 5, 5a

Picumnus lafresnayi Lafresnaye's Piculet 4, 5

Picumnus exilis Golden-spangled Piculet 5b, 6

Picumnus sclateri Ecuadorian Piculet

Picumnus squamulatus Scaled Piculet

Picumnus spilogaster White-bellied Piculet 8, 9

Picumnus limae Ochraceous Piculet 19, 20

Picumnus minutissimus Arrowhead Piculet 8, 9, 10, 16

Picumnus pygmaeus Spotted Piculet 11, 17b

Picumnus steindachneri Speckle-chested Piculet

Picumnus varzeae Varzea Piculet 11, 12

Picumnus cirratus White-barred Piculet 12, 13, 14, 16

Picumnus dorbignyanus Ocellated Piculet 13, 15, 16

Picumnus temminckii Ochre-collared Piculet 13, 16

Picumnus albosquamatus White-wedged Piculet 16, 17, 17b

Picumnus fuscus Rusty-necked Piculet 18

Picumnus rufiventris Rufous-breasted Piculet

Picumnus nebulosus Mottled Piculet 20, 20a

Picumnus castelnau Plain-breasted Piculet 21

Picumnus subtilis Fine-barred Piculet 21

Picumnus olivaceus Olivaceous Piculet 22

Picumnus granadensis Grayish Piculet 22

Picumnus cinnamomeus Chestnut Piculet

Picinae

Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (V) 35a

Melanerpes candidus White Woodpecker 23

Melanerpes formicivorus Acorn Woodpecker 24, 25

Melanerpes cruentatus Yellow-tufted Woodpecker 26, 27, 28, 29

Melanerpes flavifrons Yellow-fronted Woodpecker 26, 27

Melanerpes pulcher Beautiful Woodpecker 26, 30, 31

Melanerpes pucherani Black-cheeked Woodpecker 26, 30

Melanerpes cactorum White-fronted Woodpecker 32

Melanerpes rubricapillus Red-crowned Woodpecker 33, 34, 35

Dryobates fumigatus Smoky-brown Woodpecker 41, 41a, 41b

Dryobates kirkii Red-rumped Woodpecker 41, 44

Dryobates cassini Golden-collared Woodpecker 45

Dryobates spilogaster White-spotted Woodpecker 42

Dryobates mixtus Checkered Woodpecker 36, 37, 38

Dryobates lignarius Striped Woodpecker 36, 37

Dryobates sanguineus Blood-colored Woodpecker

Dryobates passerinus Little Woodpecker 42, 43

Dryobates frontalis Dot-fronted Woodpecker 42

Dryobates callonotus Scarlet-backed Woodpecker

Dryobates dignus Yellow-vented Woodpecker 39, 40

Dryobates nigriceps Bar-bellied Woodpecker 40

Dryobates affinis Red-stained Woodpecker 44, 45, 46

Dryobates chocoensis Choco Woodpecker 45

Dryobates maculifrons Yellow-eared Woodpecker

Campephilus pollens Powerful Woodpecker 81, 82

Campephilus haematogaster Crimson-bellied Woodpecker 82, 83, 84

Campephilus rubricollis Red-necked Woodpecker 81, 85, 85a

Campephilus robustus Robust Woodpecker

Campephilus melanoleucos Crimson-crested Woodpecker 81, 86, 87

Campephilus gayaquilensis Guayaquil Woodpecker 81, 87

Campephilus leucopogon Cream-backed Woodpecker 81

Campephilus magellanicus Magellanic Woodpecker 88

Dryocopus lineatus Lineated Woodpecker 76a, 77, 78, 79

Dryocopus schulzi Black-bodied Woodpecker 77, 80, 80a, 80aa

Celeus loricatus Cinnamon Woodpecker 66

Celeus torquatus Ringed Woodpecker 74, 75

Celeus galeatus Helmeted Woodpecker 76, 76a

Celeus undatus Variable Woodpecker 66

Celeus flavus Cream-colored Woodpecker 72

Celeus spectabilis Rufous-headed Woodpecker 73

Celeus obrieni Kaempfer's Woodpecker 73, 73a

Celeus ochraceus Ochre-backed Woodpecker 69a

Celeus elegans Chestnut Woodpecker 69, 70, 70a

Celeus lugubris Pale-crested Woodpecker 69, 70a, 71

Celeus flavescens Blond-crested Woodpecker 69, 69a

Piculus leucolaemus White-throated Woodpecker 47, 47a, 48, 49, 35

Piculus litae Lita Woodpecker 48

Piculus flavigula Yellow-throated Woodpecker 50

Piculus chrysochloros Golden-green Woodpecker 51, 52

Piculus aurulentus White-browed Woodpecker 51

Colaptes rubiginosus Golden-olive Woodpecker 47, 53, 54, 55

Colaptes rivolii Crimson-mantled Woodpecker 47, 55, 56, 57

Colaptes atricollis Black-necked Woodpecker 58, 59, 35

Colaptes punctigula Spot-breasted Woodpecker 58, 59, 61

Colaptes melanochloros Green-barred Woodpecker 58, 59, 60, 61

Colaptes pitius Chilean Flicker 62, 63

Colaptes rupicola Andean Flicker 62, 63, 64

Colaptes campestris Campo Flicker 62, 65, 66

__________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Picidae has never been seriously questioned. Within the Piciformes, evidence supports a sister relationship to the Old World Indicatoridae (<REFS>, Prychitko & Moore 2003, Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Webb & Moore 2005, Benz et al. 2006, Ericson et al. 2006, Hackett et al. 2008). The linear arrangement and composition of genera below in general follows that of Short (1982), who placed the piculets in a separate subfamily, Picumninae, and divided the typical woodpeckers, Picinae, into six tribes, four of which have representatives in South America: Melanerpini for a broadly defined Melanerpes and Sphyrapicus; Campetherini for a broadly defined Picoides and Veniliornis (now Dryobates); Colaptini for Piculus, Colaptes, and Celeus; and Campephilini for Dryocopus and Campephilus. In general, Short's classification, culminating in a monographic treatment of the family (Short 1982), merged many previously recognized genera into many fewer, broadly defined genera. <incorp. Goodge 1972>. Genetic data (Webb & Moore 2005, Benz et al. 2006) that most of these groups are not monophyletic. Webb and Moore (2005), generally supported by Benz et al. (2006), recommended a classification with three tribes for the three major groups in the Picinae: (1) Malarpicini for Colaptes, Piculus, Celeus, Dryocopus, and several Old World genera; (2) Dendropicini for Picoides, Veniliornis (now Dryobates), Melanerpes, Sphyrapicus, and several Old World genera; and (3) Campephilus, Chrysocolaptes, and two Old World genera. SACC proposal passed for modifying linear sequence. Genetic data (Benz et al. 2006) support the monophyly and distinctiveness of the Picumninae (Picumnus and Old World Sasia, but not Caribbean Nesoctites) as the sister taxon to all other woodpeckers.

2. Species-level taxonomy in the genus Picumnus needs major re-evaluation; interbreeding, to varying degrees, between various pairs of parapatric and partially sympatric species is inordinately high; see Short (1982).

3. Following Short (1982), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Winkler & Christie (2002), Picumnus aurifrons here includes P. borbae (with juruanus), treated as a separate species (as "Bar-breasted Piculet," with aurifrons called "Gold-fronted Piculet") by Peters (1948), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and others. The subspecies wallacii was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Picumnus aurifrons, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific. The subspecies pusillus was described and treated as a separate species (Pinto 1937), but Peters (1948) treated it as conspecific with P. aurifrons; Dickinson & Remsen (2013) treated it as a subspecies of lafresnayi.

4. Picumnus lafresnayi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. aurifrons, but see Short (1982) for rationale for treating as a separate species, representing a return to the classification of Cory (1919). The subspecies punctifrons was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific. Short (1982) proposed that the sister species of P. lafresnayi could be either P. aurifrons or P. exilis.

5. Picumnus pumilus was formerly (e.g., Short 1982) treated as a subspecies of P. lafresnayi, and they are presumed sister species that form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they overlap slightly in se. Colombia with no sign of interbreeding (Hilty & Brown 1986, Winkler & Christie 2002).

5a. "Picumnus stellae," known from the Río Orinoco, Venezuela, and treated as a valid species by Cory (1919), is now considered a synonym of P. pumilus (Peters 1948). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5b. Picumnus exilis was considered by Short (1982) to be most closely related to the P. aurifrons group (of Note 3 above). Rêgo et al. (2014) presented evidence that P. exilis actually consists of five PSC species. The subspecies undulatus, buffoni, and salvini were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) each considered a separate species from Picumnus exilis, but Peters (1948) treated them all as conspecific.

6. The taxon nigropunctatus was formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Black-spotted Piculet") from Picumnus exilis, but Short (1982) stated that it was a synonym of P. exilis, and this treatment was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990). It continues to be ranked as a species by Rodner et al. (2000) and Winkler & Christie (2002), based in part on unpublished data of M. Lentino, which is summarized in Winkler & Christie (2002). Rêgo et al. (2014) provided evidence that it is a junior synonym of Picumnus squamulatus obsoletus; Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) continued to treat it as a separate species.

8. The subspecies pallidus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1948) considered a separate species from Picumnus spilogaster, or was considered as a subspecies of Picumnus minutissimus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966); plumage pattern, however, favors treatment as a subspecies of P. spilogaster (Short 1982, Winkler & Christie 2002).

9. Picumnus spilogaster was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1948) known as P. leucogaster, but see Zimmer & Phelps (1950) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966); Peters (1948) considered it a synonym of P. minutissimus, but see <REF-check Short book>.

10. Called "Guianan Piculet" in Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Dickinson (2003).

11. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that Picumnus varzeae might be a subspecies of P. pygmaeus, but see Short (1982).

12. Picumnus varzeae and P. cirratus hybridize to an uncertain extent along the Amazon River (Short 1982).

13. Picumnus cirratus, P. dorbignyanus, and P. temminckii are considered to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winkler & Christie 2002); they interbreed to varying and uncertain degrees where parapatric (Short 1982, Winkler & Christie 2002), and thus have all been considered conspecific by some (e.g., Short 1982). Relationships among these three and also P. albosquamatus (see Note 16) are badly in need of detailed study; see also Hayes (1995).

14. The Peruvian subspecies jelskii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Picumnus cirratus, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed by Short (1982) and most subsequent classifications.

15. Winkler & Christie (2002) pointed out that an error has been perpetuated in the spelling of the species name, usually given incorrectly as "dorbygnianus" (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970).

16. Picumnus albosquamatus interbreeds to varying uncertain degrees with P. dorbignyanus, P. temminckii, and P. cirratus (Short 1982, Winkler & Christie 2002), and may be part of that superspecies (Short 1982); it was considered conspecific with P. minutissimus by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), following Gyldenstolpe (1945), but see Short (1982).

17. The southern Brazilian subspecies guttifer was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1948) considered a separate species from Picumnus albosquamatus/minutissimus, but Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific, following Bond and Meyer de Schauensee (1943).

17b. "Picumnus asterias," known only from the type specimen from "Brazil" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1919), Pinto (1937), and Peters (1948), and as tentatively valid by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is possibly a variant of P. pygmaeus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) or P. albosquamatus guttifer (Short 1982, Sibley & Monroe 1990). "Picumnus arileucus," described from Mato Grosso and treated as a valid species by Pinto (1937), is now considered a synonym of P. albosquamatus corumbanus (Peters 1948). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

18. Picumnus fuscus was considered a doubtful species by Peters (1948) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and was not recognized as a species by Meyer de Schauensee (1970); Short (1982) recognized it as a valid species, and this has been followed by subsequent authors.

19. Picumnus fulvescens was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of P. limae; they are presumably sister species (Winkler & Christie 2002); see Short (1982) for rationale for treating fulvescens as a species. Picumnus limae saturatus is a synonym of P. fulvescens; see Pinto (1978). Lima et al. (2020) found that fulvescens and limae are just the ends of clinal variation and recommended that fulvescens be treated as a synonym of P. limae. SACC proposal passed to synonymize fulvescens.

20. Short (1982) suspected that Picumnus nebulosus might be closely related to P. “fulvescens” and P. limae, but Lima et al. (2020) suspected that it is closely related to P. spilogaster due to their similarity in the plumage pattern and voice. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.

20a. "Picumnus iheringi," known from southeastern Brazil; and treated as a valid species by Pinto (1937), is now considered a synonym of P. nebulosus (Gyldenstolpe 1945, Peters 1948).

21. Picumnus castelnau and P. subtilis were considered to be sister species by Short (1982) and Winkler & Christie (2002); they may occasionally hybridize (Short 1982).

22. Picumnus olivaceus and P. granadensis were considered to form a superspecies by Short (1982), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Winkler & Christie (2002), and evidence for treatment as separate species is weak; they were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914) considered conspecific.

23. Melanerpes candidus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Leuconerpes, but most authors have followed Short (1982) in merging this into Melanerpes.

24. Melanerpes formicivorus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) placed in a separate genus Balanosphyra, but most authors have followed Peters (1948) in merging this into Melanerpes.

25. The Colombian subspecies flavigula was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Middle American Melanerpes formicivorus, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific.

26. Melanerpes cruentatus, M. flavifrons, M. chrysauchen, and M. pucherani were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Tripsurus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Melanerpes; these four species were considered by Short (1982) to form a superspecies.

27. Melanerpes cruentatus and M. flavifrons form a superspecies (Short 1982, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winkler & Christie 2002).

28. Called "Red-fronted Woodpecker" by Short (1982).

29. The form "rubrifrons" was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a separate species, but most recent authors have followed Griscom & Greenway (1941) and Short (1982) in treating it as a regional color morph of M. cruentatus.

30. Melanerpes chrysauchen and M. pucherani form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winkler & Christie 2002). Short (1982) also included M. cruentatus and M. flavifrons in this superspecies; in head and back pattern, M. flavifrons is more similar to distant M. chrysauchen and M. pucherani than it is to nearby M. cruentatus.

31. The Colombian taxon pulcher was considered a separate species from Central American Melanerpes chrysauchen by Cory (1919), Eisenmann (1955), and Stiles & Skutch (1989); however, Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific, and that treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1979, Short 1982, Hilty & Brown 1986, Winkler et al. 1995, AOU 1998, Winkler & Christie 2002, Dickinson 2003). Wetmore (1968) provided rationale for treating pulcher as a separate species, as noted by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors. SACC proposal passed to recognize pulcher as separate species.

32. Melanerpes cactorum was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Peters 1948, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a separate monotypic genus Trichopicus, but recent authors have followed Short (1982) in merging this into Melanerpes, as suggested long ago by Wetmore (1926).

33. Melanerpes rubricapillus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Phelps & Phelps 1958a) placed in the genus Centurus, along with many North and Middle American species; Peters (1948) merged Centurus into Melanerpes, and this has been followed by most recent authors.

34. Melanerpes rubricapillus was considered conspecific with Middle American M. pygmaeus by Peters (1948) and Short (1982); they were treated as members of a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Winkler & Christie (2002).

35. Melanerpes rubricapillus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) known as M. subelegans, but see Peters (1948).

35a. Published photograph report from n. Colombia in the Santa Marta Mountains (Luna et al. 2011). SACC proposal passed to move to main list. Additional <sight record/photo?> from Colombia (Burton et al. 2013).

36. Dryobates lignarius and D. mixtus form a superspecies (Short 1982, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winkler & Christie 2002); justification is weak for their treatment as separate species (Short 1970, 1971, 1982); genetic data (Weibel & Moore 2002a, b) confirm their relationship as sister species.

37. Dryobates lignarius and D. mixtus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Dyctiopicus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Dendrocopos, which was then merged into Picoides by Short (1970, 1971, 1982); see Goodwin (1968) and Ouellet (1978) for differing view. Recent genetic data (Weibel & Moore 2002a, 2002b, Webb & Moore 2005), however, indicate that the widespread genus Picoides is polyphyletic unless Veniliornis (now Dryobates) and Dendropicos are included. In particular, the two South American species formerly treated in Picoides are more closely related to Veniliornis/Dryobates (as represented by D. nigriceps and D. callonotus) than they are to Northern Hemisphere Picoides; see also Moore et al. (2006). This result is exceptionally robust with respect to analytical techniques, and it includes both mitochondrial and nuclear genes. However, it might be best to wait for additional taxon-sampling before proposing a merger (and to wait for broader rearrangement of Picoides, which consists of at least five lineages worthy of generic recognition, including restoration of Dendrocopos and Dryobates). Data from Moore et al. (2006), however, require removal of lignarius and mixtus from Picoides. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Veniliornis. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence within Veniliornis. However, see Note 41 for transfer to Dryobates.

38. The northeastern subspecies cancellatus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Dryobates mixtus, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific; they intergrade where their ranges meet in northeastern Paraguay (Short 1982).

39. The Peruvian subspecies valdizani was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Dryobates dignus, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific.

40. Short (1982) noted that plumage similarities suggest that Dryobates dignus and D. nigriceps are sister species, but see Moore et al. (2006).

41. Winkler et al. (2014) resurrected Dryobates Boie 1826 and placed all South American Picoides and Veniliornis in that genus; however, this was based on a single mitochondrial locus. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) followed this except that they also resurrected Leuconotopicus for some New World Picoides (including fumigatus) and retained Veniliornis. Fuchs & Pons (2015) also resurrected Leuconotopicus for fumigatus, restricting Picoides to the Holarctic three-toed species. Shakya et al. (2017) also found support for resurrecting Leuconotopicus and including fumigatus in it. Chesser et al. (2018) favored an expanded Dryobates to include fumigatus and all Veniliornis. SACC proposal passed to transfer fumigatus and all Veniliornis to Dryobates.

41a. The species name for Dryobates fumigatus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) oleaginus, but see Peters (1948).

41b. Genetic data (Moore et al. 2006) indicate that Veniliornis (now Dryobates) fumigatus is embedded within Picoides and is not closely related to Veniliornis sensu stricto. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Picoides. Peters (1948) stated Gray (1855) designated fumigatus as the type species of Veniliornis, but this is incorrect: Gray designated sanguineus as the type species (as noted by Cory 1919).

42. Dryobates passerinus and D. frontalis are sister taxa (Zimmer 1942a, Moore et al. 2006) that form a superspecies (Short 1982); they may hybridize to a limited extent (Short 1982, Winkler & Christie 2002). Short (1982) also noted that plumage similarities suggest that D. spilogaster might be the sister species to D. dignus + D. nigriceps, but see Moore et al. (2006).

43. The subspecies taenionotus (with "cearae") of eastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Dryobates passerinus, but Zimmer (1942a), Peters (1948), and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific. The subspecies fidelis, agilis, and olvinus were also formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) each considered separate species from D. passerinus, but Zimmer (1942a), Peters (1948), and Short (1982) also treated them all as conspecific.

44. Dryobates kirkii, D. affinis, D. cassini, and D. maculifrons were considered to form a superspecies (Short 1982, Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winkler & Christie 2002); however, the apparent broad geographic overlap between D. kirkii and D. a. chocoensis would invalidate the superspecies designation, as does the phylogeny of the genus (Moore et al. 2006).

45. The taxon chocoensis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) regarded as a subspecies of Dryobates cassini, but it was transferred to D. affinis by Short (1974, 1982). It was treated as a separate species ("Choco Woodpecker") by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Winkler et al. (1995), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Winkler & Christie (2002), but little evidence is published to support this; chocoensis differs from D. affinis and D. cassini only in minor plumage details. SACC proposal passed to elevate chocoensis to species rank.

46. The subspecies ruficeps (with "haematostygma" = hilaris; see Zimmer 1942a) and orenocensis were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) both considered separate species from Dryobates affinis, but they were all treated as conspecific by Zimmer (1942a), Peters (1948), and Short (1982).

47. Genetic data (Webb & Moore 2005, Benz et al. 2006. Moore et al. 2011) indicate that the genus Piculus is paraphyletic with respect to Colaptes: P. rubiginosus and P. rivolii are embedded within Colaptes. SACC proposal passed to transfer the latter two to Colaptes.

47a. The name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919) used for the genus Piculus was Chloronerpes, but see Peters (1948).

48. The subspecies litae of the Chocó was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Piculus leucolaemus; Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific, and this was followed by many subsequent authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Short 1982). Recently, litae was treated as a species ("Lita Woodpecker") by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Winkler & Christie (2002), but published evidence to support this is weak. On the other hand, litae resembles P. flavigula in some aspects of its plumage as much as it does P. leucolaemus; in fact, specimens of litae from southwestern Colombia have been misidentified as P. flavigula (REF, Winker & Christie 2002). SACC proposal passed to elevate litae to species rank.

49. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Piculus leucolaemus to form a superspecies with Middle American P. simplex and P. callopterus; some authors (e.g., Short 1982, AOU 1983) have considered them all as conspecific, and Peters (1948) considered P. callopterus to be a subspecies of P. leucolaemus. See Wetmore (1968) and Stiles & Skutch (1989) for rationale for treating them as separate species.

50. The subspecies erythropis of eastern and southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Piculus flavigula, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific; Winkler & Christie (2002) suggested that it might deserve recognition as a separate species.

51. Piculus chrysochloros and P. aurulentus form a superspecies (Short 1982, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winkler & Christie 2002).

52. The subspecies xanthochlorus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Piculus chrysochloros, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific.

53. Piculus rubiginosus and Middle American P. auricularis form a superspecies (Short 1982, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Winker & Christie 2002). Moore et al. (2011) and Dufort (2015) found that P. rubiginosus was not a monophyletic taxon, with some populations more closely related to P. auricularis and P. atricollis than to other rubiginosus populations.

54. The Peruvian subspecies chrysogaster was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Piculus rubiginosus, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific.

55. Short (1982) considered Colaptes rivolii to be the sister species to C. rubiginosus/auricularis based on plumage similarities, but see Moore et al. (2011).

56. Colaptes rivolii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated in a separate genus, Hypoxanthus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Piculus.

57. The southern subspecies atriceps was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Colaptes rivolii, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated atriceps as a separate species (“Black-crowned Woodpecker”).

58. Colaptes atricollis, C. punctigula, and C. melanochloros were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1948, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in a separate genus, Chrysoptilus, but Short (1965, 1972a, 1982) merged this into Colaptes. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) retained Chrysoptilus for punctigula only. Plumage similarities of these three species to Piculus suggested that further study may reveal a closer relationship to that genus; in fact, recent genetic data with limited taxon-sampling suggest that Piculus and South American Colaptes are more closely related to each other than either is to North American Colaptes (Prychitko & Moore 2000, Weibel & Moore 2002a, b; see also Webb & Moore 2005).

59. Colaptes atricollis, C. punctigula, and C. melanochloros were called "Flickers" by Short (1982).

60. The subspecies melanolaimus (with nigroviridis and leucofrenatus) was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Traylor 1951c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970; but not Laubmann 1934, Peters 1948) considered a separate species ("Golden-breasted Woodpecker") from Colaptes melanochloros, but they intergrade where in contact (Short 1972a, Hayes 1995, Winkler & Christie 2002). The subspecies nigroviridis and "mariae" were also formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) each considered separate species from Colaptes melanochloros, but Peters (1948) treated them all as conspecific; "mariae" is not currently recognized as a valid taxon at any level (Short 1972a, 1982, Winkler & Christie 2002).

61. Short (1972a, 1982) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Colaptes punctigula and C. melanochloros to form a superspecies.

62. Colaptes campestris and C. rupicola were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated in a separate genus, Soroplex, but Peters (1948) merged this into Colaptes. Colaptes pitius was also formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Pituipicus, but Peters (1948) also merged this into Colaptes. Short (1982) considered Colaptes campestris to be the sister species to Colaptes pitius + C. rupicola, but see Moore et al. (2011). Although these South American flickers have been considered congeneric with North American Colaptes since Peters (1948), their distribution and plumage similarities to Piculus and "Chrysoptilus" suggest that their morphological similarities to North American flickers may be due to convergence, as verified by Moore et al. (2011). Short (1972a) proposed that the broadly defined Colaptes was the sister genus to Piculus, and he suspected that they could be merged into a single genus, as partially confirmed by Moore et al. (2011).

63. Plumage similarities and somewhat complementary distributions suggested that Colaptes pitius and C. rupicola are sister species (Short 1982), and this was confirmed by Moore et al. (2011).

64. The northern subspecies cinereicapillus and puna were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) both considered separate species from Colaptes rupicola, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them all as conspecific; Short (1972a) interpreted patterns of geographic variation in cinereicapillus, puna, and nominate rupicola to suggest intergradation among the three forms. Short (1982) reported differences in vocalizations between cinereicapillus and the other taxa, but it hybridizes to some extent with C. r. puna where in contact in central Peru. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated cinereicapillus as a separate species based largely on plumage differences.

65. The subspecies campestroides was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Meyer de Schauensee 1970; but not Pinto 1937 or Peters 1948) considered a separate species ("Field Flicker") from Colaptes campestris, but they evidently freely interbreed where in contact (Short 1972a, 1982, Winkler & Christie 2002). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated campestroides as a separate species (“Pampas Flicker”) based on plumage differences and unpublished minor vocal differences.

66. Haffer (1974) considered Celeus loricatus, C. grammicus, and C. undatus to form a superspecies; however, Short (1982), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Winkler & Christie (2002) excluded loricatus from the superspecies. Genetic data (Benz & Robbins 2011), however, indicate that loricatus and torquatus are sisters and that together they are sister to all other Celeus. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Benz & Robbins (2011) also found that C. undatus and C. grammicus are sisters, but noted that they might be best treated as conspecific, as recommended by Short (1972a). Sampaio et al. (2018) found no clear phenotypic or genetic separation between the two and recommended treatment as a single species. SACC proposal passed to treat then as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to establish new name for composite species.

67. [deleted]

68. [deleted]

69. Short (1972b, 1982) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Celeus elegans, C. lugubris, C. flavescens, and Middle American C. castaneus to form a superspecies; Peters (1948) considered lugubris to be conspecific with C. flavescens. Celeus elegans and C. lugubris occasionally hybridize where in contact in Brazil (Short 1972b). Benz & Robbins (2011) found that C. castaneus is not a member of this group, but is sister to C. undatus + C. grammicus; the other three formed a monophyletic group (see also Note 69a).

69a. Genetic data (Benz & Robbins 2011) revealed that the taxon formerly treated as the subspecies Celeus flavescens ochraceus of eastern Brazil is actually the sister to C. flavescens + C. elegans + C. lugubris, and treated it as a separate species. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated ochraceus as a separate species (“Ochre-backed Woodpecker”) based on these results. SACC proposal passed to elevate ochraceus to species rank. SACC proposal passed to change English name from Ochraceous Woodpecker to Ochre-backed Woodpecker.

70. The subspecies citreopygius and jumanus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) both considered separate species from Celeus elegans; Peters (1948) treated citreopygius and jumanus as conspecific, but still considered jumanus to be a separate species from C. elegans. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Short (1972b, 1982) considered the jumanus group to be conspecific with C. elegans, and this has been followed by subsequent authors; they evidently intergrade in eastern Venezuela (Short 1972b). However, Benz & Robbins (2011) found that the jumanus group was the sister to C. flavescens, not the elegans group, but recommended additional analyses.

70a. "Celeus roosevelti," described from southwestern Brazil and treated as a valid species by Cory (1919), is now considered a probable hybrid or backcross between C. elegans jumanus and C. lugubris (Short 1972b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

71. The subspecies kerri was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Celeus lugubris, but Peters (1948) and Short (1972b, 1982) treated them as conspecific.

72. Celeus flavus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Crocomorphus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Celeus.

73. Celeus obrieni, known from one specimen from Piauí, Brazil, is traditionally (e.g., Short 1973, 1982) considered a subspecies of C. spectabilis, but it differs so dramatically in plumage from C. spectabilis that this seems unlikely (Whittaker & Oren 1999, Winkler & Christie 2002). SACC proposal passed to elevate obrieni to species rank. Genetic data (Benz & Robbins 2011, Azevedo et al. 2013) also support treatment as a separate species, sister to C. spectabilis. Additional modern records now known from Tocantins, Brazil (Pinheiro & Dornas 2008).

73a. Formerly known as "Caatinga Woodpecker”. SACC proposal passed to change English name.

74. Celeus torquatus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Cerchneipicus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Celeus.

75. The subspecies tinnunculus (with occidentalis) was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Celeus torquatus, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated both tinnunculus and occidentalis as separate species (“Atlantic Black-breasted Woodpecker”, “Amazonian Black-breasted Woodpecker”) based on plumage differences.

76. Winkler et al. (2014) found that Old World Dryocopus were more closely related to Mulleripicus than either is to New World Dryocopus and thus merged Mulleripicus into Dryocopus. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014), however, resurrected Hylatomus for New World Dryocopus.

76a. Dryocopus lineatus and D. galeatus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Ceophloeus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Dryocopus. Bertoni (1923) and Short (1982) noted that D. galeatus shares some plumage and structural features with Celeus, especially C. spectabilis. Benz et al. (2015) found that D. galeatus is indeed a Celeus. SACC proposal passed to transfer galeatus to Celeus.

77. Dryocopus lineatus and D. schulzi, along with North American D. pileatus, are considered to form a superspecies by Mayr and Short (1970), Short (1982), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Winkler & Christie (2002); D. lineatus and D. schulzi hybridize to a limited extent where their ranges meet (Short 1982, Hayes 1995).

78. The subspecies fuscipennis of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Dryocopus lineatus, but Peters (1948) and Short (1982) treated them as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated fuscipennis as a separate species (“Dusky-winged Woodpecker”).

79. The subspecies erythrops was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937, Peters 1948) considered a separate species from Dryocopus lineatus; it has been considered a color morph of D. lineatus (Pinto 1947, Pergolani de Costa 1962), but see Short (1975, 1982) for treatment as a subspecies of D. lineatus.

80. Dryocopus schulzi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated in a separate genus, Neophloeotomus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Dryocopus.

80aa. "Dryocopus shiptoni," known from Tucumán, Argentina, and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is considered a variant of D. schulzi (Peters 1948, Pergolani de Costa 1962, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Short 1982). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

80aa. Dickinson & Christidis (2015) changed Dryocopus schulzi to Dryocopus “schulzii” but did provide a citation or rationale. SACC proposal to change to schulzii did not pass.

81. Campephilus pollens, C. rubricollis, C. robustus, C. melanoleucos, C. leucopogon, and C. gayaquilensis were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Scapaneus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Phloeoceastes, and this was followed by Phelps & Phelps (1958a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970). Most recent authors have followed REFS, Short (1982) in merging Phloeoceastes into Campephilus.

82. Short (1982) considered Campephilus pollens and C. haematogaster to be sister species based on plumage and morphology.

83. Campephilus haematogaster was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1914, Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Cniparchus, but Peters (1948) merged this into Phloeoceastes, which was then merged into Campephilus by REFS?, Short (1982).

84. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies splendens of the Western Andes might deserve recognition as a separate species from Campephilus haematogaster). Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated splendens as a separate species (“Splendid Woodpecker”) based on plumage differences and unpublished vocal differences. Donegan et al. (2015) also treated it as a separate species based on vocal differences. SACC proposal to treat splendens as a separate species did not pass.

85. The southwestern subspecies trachelopyrus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Campephilus rubricollis, but they intergrade in western Amazonia (Peters 1948, Short 1982).

85a. Called "Red-headed Woodpecker" in Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), presumably a lapsus.

86. The northwestern subspecies malherbii was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) considered a separate species from Campephilus melanoleucos, but Peters (1948) treated them as conspecific; they intergrade in eastern Colombia (Short 1982).

87. Campephilus melanoleucos and C. gayaquilensis, along with Middle American C. guatemalensis, are considered to form a superspecies by Short (1982), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Winkler & Christie (2002); Campephilus melanoleucos and C. gayaquilensis were considered conspecific by Peters (1948), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

88. Campephilus magellanicus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919) treated in a separate monotypic genus, Ipocranter, but Peters (1948) merged this into Campephilus.

______________________________________________________________________

CARIAMIFORMES

______________________________________________________________________

CARIAMIDAE (SERIEMAS) 1

Cariama cristata Red-legged Seriema

Chunga burmeisteri Black-legged Seriema

______________________________________________________________________

1. The Cariamidae has been traditionally included in the Gruiformes, but recent genetic and morphological data do not support their inclusion in that order or any existing orders. SACC proposal passed to move in linear sequence or orders to precede Falconiformes. See Note 1 under Gruiformes.

__________________________________________________

FALCONIFORMES 1

FALCONIDAE (FALCONS) 1a

Herpetotherinae

Herpetotheres cachinnans Laughing Falcon

Micrastur ruficollis Barred Forest-Falcon 8

Micrastur plumbeus Plumbeous Forest-Falcon 8a

Micrastur gilvicollis Lined Forest-Falcon 8a, 9, 10a

Micrastur mintoni Cryptic Forest-Falcon 10, 10a

Micrastur mirandollei Slaty-backed Forest-Falcon

Micrastur semitorquatus Collared Forest-Falcon

Micrastur buckleyi Buckley's Forest-Falcon 10b

Falconinae

Spiziapteryx circumcincta Spot-winged Falconet 11, 11a

Caracara plancus Crested Caracara 2, 3b, 6, 7

Ibycter americanus Red-throated Caracara 2

Phalcoboenus carunculatus Carunculated Caracara 2, 3, 3a 3b

Phalcoboenus megalopterus Mountain Caracara 3, 3a

Phalcoboenus albogularis White-throated Caracara 3, 4

Phalcoboenus australis Striated Caracara 3, 5

Daptrius ater Black Caracara 2

Milvago chimachima Yellow-headed Caracara 2, 7b, 7c

Milvago chimango Chimango Caracara 7b, 7c

Falco tinnunculus Eurasian Kestrel (V) 10c, 10d

Falco sparverius American Kestrel 11b

Falco columbarius Merlin (NB) 11c

Falco rufigularis Bat Falcon 11d, 12

Falco deiroleucus Orange-breasted Falcon 12

Falco femoralis Aplomado Falcon 12a

Falco peregrinus Peregrine Falcon 12, 12b

__________________________________________________

1. SACC proposal passed to separate Accipitriformes from Falconiformes. See Note 1 under Accipitriformes. Ericson et al. (2006) and Hackett et al. (2008) found that the Falconiformes are actually more closely related to the Psittaciformes and Passeriformes than to any other orders. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of orders.

1a. The monophyly of the Falconidae is well supported (REFS, Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al. 2004). Genetic and morphological data (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al. 2004, Fuchs et al. 2011) indicate that there are three major, deep divisions in the Falconidae: (1) the caracaras and Spiziapteryx, (2) the falcons (Falco plus extralimital Polihierax and Microhierax), and (3) the forest-falcons (Micrastur and Herpetotheres), with the latter group basal to the other two. SACC proposal passed to add subfamily ranks and change in linear sequence. Fuchs et al. (2014) recognized each of the three as subfamilies, i.e. Polyborinae to include Spiziapteryx and the caracaras. SACC proposal did not pass to recognize three families within Falconiformes.

2. Ibycter americanus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950, Phelps & Phelps 1958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Stresemann & Amadon 1979. Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) placed in genus Daptrius, but Griffiths (1994, 1999) and Griffiths et al. (2004) showed that americanus was more closely related to Milvago and Phalcoboenus than to D. ater, therefore requiring the resurrection of Ibycter, as proposed by Brown & Amadon (1968). Griffiths et al. (2004) also found that Caracara was basal in the caracara group. SACC proposal passed to change in linear sequence of genera.

3. Amadon & Bull (1988) considered the four species of Phalcoboenus to form a superspecies; Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded P. australis from the superspecies; this species has always been recognized as an outlier in the genus and sometimes treated in its own genus Senex (see Peters 1931 for inclusion in Phalcoboenus). Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Vuilleumier 1970, Stresemann & Amadon 1979) have considered P. carunculatus and P. megalopterus conspecific with P. albogularis, but most authors have followed Amadon (1964) in treating all four as separate species; Zimmer (1930) and Vuilleumier (1970) found some evidence of intermediate phenotypes in their areas of contact. Vuilleumier (1970) considered broadly defined P. albogularis to form a superspecies with P. australis.

3a. Poulsen (1993) showed that there is no evidence, contrary to earlier claims, for hybridization between Phalcoboenus megalopterus and P. carunculatus.

3b. Vuilleumier (1970) proposed that Phalcoboenus be merged into Polyborus (= Caracara), but subsequent authors have not followed this. Genetic (Griffiths et al. 2004) and morphological (Griffiths 1994)<check> data indicate that Phalcoboenus and Caracara are not sister genera.

4. Called "Darwin's Caracara" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

5. Called "Forster's Caracara" in Ferguson-Lees & Christie (2001).

6. The name formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Stresemann & Amadon 1979) used for Caracara was Polyborus, following Amadon (1954), but see Wetmore (1965) and Banks & Dove (1992) for the use of Caracara instead of Polyborus, as in Hellmayr & Conover (1949). See also Smith (2017b).

7. Caracara cheriway and C. plancus were formerly considered conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Phelps & Phelps 1958a), sometimes also including C. lutosa of Guadalupe Island (e.g., Vuilleumier 1970, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Stresemann and Amadon 1979), but the ranges of cheriway and plancus are nearly parapatric with no sign of intergradation, contrary to earlier interpretations (see Dove & Banks 1999); they constitute a superspecies. The three forms had previously been considered separate species by Pinto (1938) and Friedmann (1950). Fuchs et al. (2012) showed that the two were very similar genetically, even when comparing samples from extremes of their distributions. SACC proposal passed to treat as conspecific.

7a. Caracara cheriway and C. plancus were called "Northern Crested-Caracara" and "Southern Crested-Caracara" respectively in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

7b.Vuilleumier (1970) proposed that Milvago be merged into Polyborus (= Caracara), but genetic data (e.g., Griffiths et al. 2004) indicate that they are not particularly closely related. Fuchs et al. (2012) found that Milvago itself is not monophyletic, with chimachima sister to Daptrius and chimango sister to Phalcoboenus; they recommended transfer of chimango to Phalcoboenus. This was followed Del Hoyo & Collar (2014). SACC proposal did not pass to transfer Milvago chimango to Phalcoboenus. Dickinson & Remsen (2013) transferred Milvago and Phalcoboenus to Daptrius. Fuchs et al. (2015) merged Milvago, Ibycter, and Phalcoboenus into Daptrius without providing rationale. SACC proposal badly needed.

7c. Amadon & Brown (1968) proposed that the two species of Milvago be considered superspecies; Vuilleumier (1970), however, pointed out that their degree of sympatry negated this treatment; although he considered them closely related, he also pointed out that they differed in morphology and likely also in ecology. Fuchs et al. (2012) found that they are not sister species – see Note 7b.

8. Fuchs et al. (2011) found strong support for the monophyly of Micrastur and for its division into two groups consistent with traditional linear sequences: (1) M. buckleyi, M. mirandollei, M. semitorquatus, and (2) the other four species. Dos Santos Soares et al. (2019) corroborated this pattern (M. buckleyi not sampled) and as well as support for species rank of recently described M. mintoni. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence of species.

8a. Micrastur plumbeus has been treated as a subspecies of M. gilvicollis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Stresemann & Amadon 1979); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; see Amadon (1964) for rationale treating them as sister taxa. Fuchs et al. (2011) were unable to resolve sister relationships among this, M. mintoni, M. ruficollis, and M. gilvicollis, but more recent data (Dos Santos Soares et al. 2019) found that M. plumbeus was sister to other three and thus clearly a separate species. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence of species.

9. Schwartz (1972a) and (Dos Santos Soares et al. 2019) confirmed that Micrastur gilvicollis is a valid species, separate from M. ruficollis; although treated as separate species by Pinto (1938, 1947), Hellmayr & Conover (1949), Friedmann (1950), and Phelps & Phelps (1958a), they were treated as conspecific by Amadon (1964), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), and Blake (1977).

10. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Whittaker (2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize newly described Micrastur mintoni as a species. Genetic data (Fuchs et al. 2011, Dos Santos Soares et al. 2019) are consistent with treatment as a species.

10a. Micrastur gilvicollis and M. mintoni were considered to form a superspecies by Whittaker (2002), but genetic data Dos Santos Soares et al. (2019) show that mintoni is sister to gilvicollis + ruficollis.

10b. Micrastur buckleyi was formerly (e.g., Peters 1931, Hellmayr & Conover 1949, Friedmann 1950) considered a variant or subspecies of M. semitorquatus, but see Traylor (1948) and Amadon (1964). Fuchs et al. (2011) further showed that it is the sister to M. mirandollei + M. semitorquatus.

10c. Recent record from São Pedro and São Paulo Archipelago off Brazil with published photographs (Bencke et al. 2005). SACC proposal passed to add to main list. Photographed in Trinidad in 2003 (Kenefick & Hayes 2006). Previous sight record from French Guiana (Tostain et al. 1992); now also photograph published from there (Renaudier et al. 2010).

10d. The sequence of species in Falco is consistent with the topology of the tree in Fuchs et al. (2015) but not the linear sequence in their proposed classification.

11. [relationships to other falcons]. Although morphological data (Griffiths 1994) suggested that Spiziapteryx was most closely related to falcons (Falco etc.), genetic data (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al. 2004, Fuchs et al. 2015) indicate that it is closest to the caracaras.

11a. Spiziapteryx is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is circumcincta (David & Gosselin 2002b).

11b. Falco sparverius was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938) placed in the monotypic genus Cerchneis.

11c. On the basis of reciprocal monophyly and comparative genetic distances, Fuchs et al. (2015) treated the Old World subspecies aesalon as a separate species from New World columbarius.

11d. The species name formerly (e.g., Chapman 1926, Peters 1931, Friedmann 1950) used for Falco rufigularis was albigularis, but see Eisenmann (1966) for use of rufigularis.

12. Stresemann & Amadon (1979) proposed that Falco deiroleucus and F. peregrinus might form a superspecies, but this was refuted by genetic data (Fuchs et al. 2015) that showed that F. rufigularis and F. deiroleucus are sister species, as previously proposed based plumage and vocal similarities (Thiollay 1994).

12a. Falco femoralis was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1938, Hellmayr & Conover 1949) known as F. fuscocaerulescens, but see Peters & Griswold (1943) and Blake (1977).

12b. Falco peregrinus includes "Falco kreyenborgi", formerly considered a distinct species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Blake 1977, Stresemann & Amadon 1979); here treated as a color phase of F. peregrinus, following Ellis & Grant (1983); it was tentatively considered to be a color phase of F. peregrinus cassini by Peters (1931) and Hellmayr & Conover (1949). <incorp. Amadon & Stresemann 1963> See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

__________________________________________________

PSITTACIFORMES 1, 1a

PSITTACULIDAE (OLD WORLD PARROTS)

Psittaculinae

Psittacula krameri Rose-ringed Parakeet (IN) 1aa

PSITTACIDAE (NEW WORLD AND AFRICAN PARROTS)

Arinae

Touit batavicus Lilac-tailed Parrotlet 21e, 25b, 25c

Touit huetii Scarlet-shouldered Parrotlet

Touit dilectissimus Blue-fronted Parrotlet 25b, 26, 26a

Touit purpuratus Sapphire-rumped Parrotlet 25b

Touit melanonotus Brown-backed Parrotlet 25b, 25d

Touit surdus Golden-tailed Parrotlet 25b

Touit stictopterus Spot-winged Parrotlet 25b 25dd

Psilopsiagon aymara Gray-hooded Parakeet 21c

Psilopsiagon aurifrons Mountain Parakeet 22, 22a

Bolborhynchus lineola Barred Parakeet 21e

Bolborhynchus ferrugineifrons Rufous-fronted Parakeet 22b

Bolborhynchus orbygnesius Andean Parakeet 22b, 22c, 22cc

Nannopsittaca panychlora Tepui Parrotlet 21e, 24g

Nannopsittaca dachilleae Amazonian Parrotlet 24g, 25

Myiopsitta monachus Monk Parakeet 21b, 21d

Myiopsitta luchsi Cliff Parakeet 21b, 21d

Brotogeris sanctithomae Tui Parakeet 21d

Brotogeris tirica Plain Parakeet 21d, 23c

Brotogeris versicolurus Canary-winged Parakeet 23c, 24, 24a, 24aa

Brotogeris chiriri Yellow-chevroned Parakeet 23c, 24

Brotogeris pyrrhoptera Gray-cheeked Parakeet 24d

Brotogeris jugularis Orange-chinned Parakeet 24b

Brotogeris cyanoptera Cobalt-winged Parakeet 24b, 24c, 24d

Brotogeris chrysoptera Golden-winged Parakeet 24b, 24e, 24f

Pionopsitta pileata Pileated Parrot 28, 28aa

Triclaria malachitacea Blue-bellied Parrot

Hapalopsittaca amazonina Rusty-faced Parrot 32

Hapalopsittaca fuertesi Indigo-winged Parrot 32

Hapalopsittaca pyrrhops Red-faced Parrot 32

Hapalopsittaca melanotis Black-winged Parrot 31a, 31b

Pyrilia haematotis Brown-hooded Parrot 28,

Pyrilia pulchra Rose-faced Parrot 28, 31

Pyrilia pyrilia Saffron-headed Parrot 28

Pyrilia barrabandi Orange-cheeked Parrot 28

Pyrilia caica Caica Parrot 28

Pyrilia aurantiocephala Bald Parrot 28, 30

Pyrilia vulturina Vulturine Parrot 28, 29, 30

Pionus fuscus Dusky Parrot

Pionus sordidus Red-billed Parrot 32a, 32b

Pionus maximiliani Scaly-headed Parrot 32f

Pionus tumultuosus Speckle-faced Parrot 33

Pionus menstruus Blue-headed Parrot 32a, 32aa, 32c, 32d, 32e

Pionus chalcopterus Bronze-winged Parrot

Graydidascalus brachyurus Short-tailed Parrot 32d

Alipiopsitta xanthops Yellow-faced Parrot 36b

Amazona festiva Festive Amazon 34, 36

Amazona vinacea Vinaceous-breasted Amazon 34a, 39

Amazona tucumana Tucuman Amazon 32d, 34, 34a, 34b

Amazona pretrei Red-spectacled Amazon 34a

Amazona autumnalis Red-lored Amazon 34c

Amazona dufresniana Blue-cheeked Amazon 35

Amazona rhodocorytha Red-browed Amazon 35

Amazona ochrocephala Yellow-crowned Amazon 37a, 37b

Amazona barbadensis Yellow-shouldered Amazon

Amazona aestiva Turquoise-fronted Amazon 36c, 37, 37a

Amazona farinosa Mealy Amazon 38b

Amazona kawalli Kawall's Amazon 38, 38a

Amazona brasiliensis Red-tailed Amazon 35

Amazona amazonica Orange-winged Amazon 35

Amazona mercenarius Scaly-naped Amazon 35a

Forpus modestus Dusky-billed Parrotlet 23a

Forpus crassirostris Riparian Parrotlet 22d, 22g, 23, 23aa

Forpus conspicillatus Spectacled Parrotlet

Forpus coelestis Pacific Parrotlet 23b

Forpus xanthops Yellow-faced Parrotlet 23b

Forpus xanthopterygius Cobalt-rumped Parrotlet 22d, 23aa

Forpus passerinus Green-rumped Parrotlet 22d, 22f, 22h

Forpus spengeli Turquoise-winged Parrotlet 23d

Pionites melanocephalus Black-headed Parrot 27, 27b, 41

Pionites leucogaster White-bellied Parrot 27, 27b, 27c

Deroptyus accipitrinus Red-fan Parrot 32c, 40

Pyrrhura cruentata Ochre-marked Parakeet 5b, 10a

Pyrrhura devillei Blaze-winged Parakeet 11

Pyrrhura frontalis Maroon-bellied Parakeet 11, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e

Pyrrhura lepida Pearly Parakeet 12a, 12b

Pyrrhura perlata Crimson-bellied Parakeet 12a, 12b

Pyrrhura molinae Green-cheeked Parakeet 12c, 12d

Pyrrhura pfrimeri Pfrimer's Parakeet 14, 14a, 14aa

Pyrrhura griseipectus Gray-breasted Parakeet 14, 14a, 14b

Pyrrhura leucotis Maroon-faced Parakeet 14, 14a

Pyrrhura picta Painted Parakeet 14a, 15

Pyrrhura amazonum Santarem Parakeet 15

Pyrrhura lucianii Bonaparte's Parakeet 15

Pyrrhura roseifrons Rose-fronted Parakeet 15

Pyrrhura viridicata Santa Marta Parakeet

Pyrrhura egregia Fiery-shouldered Parakeet

Pyrrhura melanura Maroon-tailed Parakeet 14a, 16, 16a, 17

Pyrrhura orcesi El Oro Parakeet 17, 18

Pyrrhura rupicola Black-capped Parakeet 19

Pyrrhura albipectus White-necked Parakeet 20, 20a

Pyrrhura calliptera Brown-breasted Parakeet 21

Pyrrhura hoematotis Red-eared Parakeet

Pyrrhura rhodocephala Rose-headed Parakeet

Enicognathus ferrugineus Austral Parakeet 5b, 21a

Enicognathus leptorhynchus Slender-billed Parakeet 21aa

Cyanoliseus patagonus Burrowing Parakeet 21aa, 21aaa

Anodorhynchus hyacinthinus Hyacinth Macaw

Anodorhynchus glaucus Glaucous Macaw 1b, 1c

Anodorhynchus leari Indigo Macaw 1b

Eupsittula aurea Peach-fronted Parakeet 9c, 6c

Eupsittula pertinax Brown-throated Parakeet 9e, 6c

Eupsittula cactorum Cactus Parakeet 9e

Aratinga weddellii Dusky-headed Parakeet 6c

Aratinga nenday Nanday Parakeet 5b, 9f, 9ff

Aratinga solstitialis Sun Parakeet 9a, 10, 6c

Aratinga maculata Sulphur-breasted Parakeet 10

Aratinga jandaya Jandaya Parakeet 9a, 6c

Aratinga auricapillus Golden-capped Parakeet 9a, 9b, 6c

Cyanopsitta spixii Spix's Macaw 1d

Orthopsittaca manilatus Red-bellied Macaw 3, 3a

Primolius maracana Blue-winged Macaw 4, 4a, 4b

Primolius couloni Blue-headed Macaw 4, 4a, 4b

Primolius auricollis Yellow-collared Macaw 4, 4a, 4b

Ara ararauna Blue-and-yellow Macaw 2

Ara glaucogularis Blue-throated Macaw 2b

Ara severus Chestnut-fronted Macaw 2a

Ara rubrogenys Red-fronted Macaw

Ara militaris Military Macaw 2bb

Ara ambiguus Great Green Macaw 2a, 2bb

Ara macao Scarlet Macaw

Ara chloropterus Red-and-green Macaw 2a, 2c

Leptosittaca branickii Golden-plumed Parakeet 5b, 9g

Ognorhynchus icterotis Yellow-eared Parrot

Guaruba guarouba Golden Parakeet 5b, 6, 6c, 6cc

Thectocercus acuticaudatus Blue-crowned Parakeet 5b, 5bb, 6a, 6b, 6d

Diopsittaca nobilis Red-shouldered Macaw 5

Psittacara frontatus Cordilleran Parakeet 7

Psittacara mitratus Mitred Parakeet 7, 7a, 7b, 8, 8a

Psittacara wagleri Scarlet-fronted Parakeet 7, 7a, 7b

Psittacara erythrogenys Red-masked Parakeet 8b

Psittacara leucophthalmus White-eyed Parakeet 8c, 9b, 6d

__________________________________________________

1. The monophyly of the Psittaciformes has never been seriously questioned and has been supported by genetic data (e.g., de Kloet & de Kloet 2005, Wright et al. 2008) and recent morphological data (Livezey & Zusi 2007). The relationship of the Psittaciformes to other orders, however, has been uncertain (e.g., Cracraft et al. 2004, Fain & Houde 2004, Ericson et al. 2006). Genetic analyses (Hackett et al. 2008, Suh et al. 2011, Jarvis et al. 2014, Prum et al. 2015) indicate that the closest relative is the Passeriformes SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of orders. <incorp. Smith 1975, Forshaw>. Within the order, different authors rank various groups as families, subfamilies, or tribes (e.g., see Collar 1998); so far, all data point towards the New World parrots as forming a monophyletic group (e.g., de Kloet & de Kloet 2005, Wright et al. 2008, Smith et al. 2024). Joseph et al. (2012) and Cracraft (2013) recognized several families within the Psittaciformes and subfamilies within those families; they placed the New World parrots in the Psittacidae and subfamily Arinae (and the Old World group containing the introduced Psittacula krameri in the Psittaculidae and subfamily Psittaculinae. SACC proposal passed to revise higher-level classification with the parrots[JR1] .

1a. Within the New World parrots, Tavares et al. (2006) and Wright et al. (2008) found very strong support for the monophyly of a group that includes the genera in the linear sequence below from Anodorhynchus through Enicognathus but also including Pionites and Deroptyus (Ognorhynchus not sampled). Tavares et al. (2006) also found moderately strong support for inclusion of Forpus in this group, but Wright et al. (2008) did not. Tavares et al. (2006) also found very strong support for the monophyly of a group that includes the genera in the linear sequence below from Pionopsitta through Triclaria, excluding Pionites and Deroptyus; Hapalopsittaca was not sampled, but see Ribas et al. (2005) and Wright et al. (2008) for its inclusion in this group. Kirchman et al. (2012) and Schirtzinger et al. (2012) found that a group consisting of Touit, Bolborhynchus, and Psilopsiagon was sister to all other New World parrots, as well as many other differences that would affect the traditional linear sequence of genera. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of genera. These relationships were generally confirmed by Smith et al. (2024).

1aa. Established as a breeding bird locally in Caracas, Venezuela, since the early 1980s (Nebot 1999, Hilty 2003, Restall et al. 2006). Also reported to be established on Curaçao (Voous 1985).

1b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Anodorhynchus leari and A. glaucus to form a superspecies. Alvarenga (2007) proposed that they be treated as conspecific. Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) indicate that they are sister taxa.

1c. Anodorhynchus glaucus may be extinct (BirdLife International 2000).

1d. Cyanopsitta spixii was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937) included in the genus Ara, but see [REF]. The genetic data of Tavares et al. (2006) indicate that Cyanopsitta requires recognition as a separate genus from Ara if Primolius and Orthopsittaca are also recognized as genera, and that it is sister to these three genera (Kirchman et al. 2012, Schirtzinger et al. 2012); additional genetic data indicate that Primolius and Ara are sisters. i.e. the relationships are: Cyanopsitta ((Orthopsittaca (Primolius + Ara)).See Note 3.

2. Johannson et al. (2018) found a slightly different topology within Ara than is reflected in traditional linear sequences. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence. Smith et al. (2024), however, found a different topology. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

2b. Ara glaucogularis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered an invalid taxon of some sort, e.g., as a color variant of A. ararauna (REF). For recognition of A. glaucogularis as a valid species, see Ingels et al. (1981). This species was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937) known as "Ara caninde", but that name probably referable to A. ararauna. It is the sister species to A. ararauna (Smith et al. 2024)

2a. Ara is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are ambiguus, chloropterus, and severus; ararauna, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

2bb. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Ara militaris and A. ambiguus to form a superspecies; Fjeldså et al. (1987) suggested that they might be considered conspecific. They have always been considered sister taxa, as confirmed by genetic data (Smith et al. 2024).

2c. Called "Green-winged Macaw" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994) and many technical papers as well as avicultural literature..

3. Orthopsittaca was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Ara, but see Sick (1990) for a return (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) to the recognition of this monotypic genus; followed by Collar (1997), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (Kirchman et al. 2012, Schirtzinger et al. 2012, Smith et al. 2024) indicate that Orthopsittaca is the sister to Primolius + Ara. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of genera.

3a. Orthopsittaca is masculine (Dickinson & Remsen 2013, N. David pers. comm.), and thus a change in the variable ending of the species name is required.

4. Primolius/Propyrrhura was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Ara, but see Sick (1990) for a return (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) to the recognition of this genus; this was followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003). Recent genetic data (Tavares et al. 2004) strongly support recognition of Primolius/Propyrrhura to avoid making Ara polyphyletic.

4a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered the three species of Primolius to form a superspecies; genetic data confirm that they form a monophyletic group. Primolius couloni and P. maracana have been considered conspecific by some authors (REF).

4b. Penhallurick (2001) proposed that the name Primolius has priority over Propyrrhura. SACC proposal passed to use Primolius.

5. Diopsittaca was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Ara, but see Sick (1990) for a return (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) to the recognition of this genus; followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (Tavares et al. 2004) strongly support recognition of Diopsittaca to avoid making Ara paraphyletic, and that the sister genus to Diopsittaca was Guaruba (see also Tavares et al. 2006, Wright et al. 2008, Kirchman et al. 2012, Smith et al. 2024).

5a. The eastern subspecies cumanensis (= "hahni") was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Diopsittaca nobilis, and was treated as such by Del Hoyo & Collar (2016).

5b. Species in the genera Guaruba, Thectocercus, Psittacara, Aratinga, Eupsittula, Leptosittaca, Ognorhynchus, Pyrrhura, and Enicognathus are often called "conures" (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990 and most avicultural literature).

5bb. The genus Aratinga as broadly defined by Peters (1937) consists of four independent lineages (Ribas et al. (2004), Tavares et al. 2006, Kirchman et al. (2012), Schirtzinger et al. (2012), Urantówka et al. 2012) that correspond closely to the generic limits outlined by Ridgway (1916); see Remsen et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to separating Aratinga into four genera. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of genera. More recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) have confirmed these findings.

6. Guaruba was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) included in Aratinga, but see Sick (1990), and also Tavares et al. (2004, 2006), Wright et al. (2008), Kirchman et al. (2012), and Smith et al. (2024), whose genetic data indicated that the sister genus to Guaruba is Diopsittaca, thus forcing a return to earlier classifications (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) that treated it in a monotypic genus.

6a. Thectocercus acuticaudatus was originally (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1916, Cory 1918) treated in a separate genus, Thectocercus, but Peters (1937) merged this into Aratinga. Urantówka et al. (2012) and Remsen et al. (2013) presented evidence that Thectocercus should be resurrected for acuticaudatus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Thectocercus. Genetic data (e.g. Smith et al. 2024) indicate that Thectocercus is sister to Guaruba + Diopsittaca. SACC proposal needed for slight modification of linear sequence.

6b. The northern haemorrhous subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Ridgway & Friedmann 1916, Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Thectocercus acuticaudatus, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937).

6c. Guaruba guarouba, Aratinga auricapillus, A. jandaya, A. solstitialis, A. weddellii, A. aurea, and A. pertinax, along with Middle American A. canicularis and A. astec and West Indian A. nana, were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in a separate genus, Eupsittula Bonaparte, 1853 (type species = A. canicularis), but these were merged into Aratinga by Peters (1937). See also Note 9c.

6cc. Frequently spelled Guarouba because of dual original spellings. See David et al. (2009) for use of Guaruba over Guarouba.

6d. Thectocercus acuticaudata and “Aratinga” leucophthalmus were treated in a separate genus, Psittacara Vigors, 1825 (type = leucophthalma), by Pinto (1937), but were included in Aratinga by Peters (1937). Silveira et al. (2005) suspected that Aratinga was not monophyletic and that Peters’ merger of several genera into Aratinga was not correct. Kirchman et al. (2012) found that “A.” leucophthalmus was sister to a group of “Aratinga” (wagleri, mitrata, and several extralimital species) that were not closely related to true Aratinga (type species = solstitialis; see Note 9a); this corresponds to one of the groups outlined by Silveira et al. (2005). This species group is sister to Leptosittaca + (Guaruba + Diopsittaca); see Remsen et al. (2013). SACC proposal passed to resurrect Psittacara. More recent genetic data confirm these relationships (Smith et al. 2024).

7. Psittacara frontatus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Psittacara wagleri, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) noted that frontatus (with minor) of Ecuador and Peru might deserve recognition as a separate species. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated frontatus as a separate species (“Cordilleran Parakeet”) based on differences in plumage and habitat, and this was supported by Donegan et al. (2016). Smith et al. (2024) found that frontatus was sister to all other Psittacara. SACC proposal passed to treat frontatus as a separate species.

7a. Collar (1997) suggested that Psittacara wagleri and P. mitratus might be conspecific, but see Kirchman et al. (2012). P. mitratus is actually sister to all other Psittacara except P. frontatus (Smith et al. 2024).

7b. Arndt (2006) described a new species, Aratinga (=Psittacara) hockingi; specimens in museums of this taxon had been identified as A. mitrata (= Psittacara mitratus), but the new species may be more closely related to A. wagleri. SACC proposal to recognize hockingi did not pass. Not recognized by Schulenberg et al. (2007) or Remsen et al. (2013).

8. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) suggested that the subspecies alticola of Peru might deserve species rank from Psittacara mitratus. Arndt (2006) provided further rationale for treatment of alticola as a separate species. SACC proposal to recognize alticola as a separate species did not pass. Not recognized by Schulenberg et al. (2007) or Remsen et al. (2013).

8a. Doug Pratt (pers. comm.) pointed out that in North American English, "mitre" is normally "miter”, which would make the name of this species "Mitered Parakeet”, which would also reduce chronic mispronunciation. Proposal needed.

8b. Psittacara erythrogenys was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as P. rubrolarvata, but see Peters (1937).

8c. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Psittacara leucophthalmus to form a superspecies with Central American P. finschi; they have been considered conspecific by many authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024), however, indicate that they are not even sister species.

9a. Aratinga jandaya and A. auricapillus have been treated (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Joseph 1992, Sick 1997) as subspecies of A. solstitialis, but see Silveira et al. (2005); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997) and are sister taxa (Ribas & Miyaki 2004, Smith et al. 2024). Kirchman et al. (2012) found that “Nandayus” nenday was sister to A. auricapillus + A. solstitialis; see also Schirtzinger et al. (2012). SACC proposal passed to redefine limits of genera and species sequence. More recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) confirm those relationships.

9b. When Psittacara leucophthalmus is placed in Aratinga, which is feminine, the correct spelling of the species name is leucophthalma, not leucophthalmus as was often given; auricapillus, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002a, b, Dickinson & Remsen 2013).

9c. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Eupsittula aurea to form a superspecies with Middle American E. canicularis. Kirchman et al. (2012) found that E. pertinax was sister to E. aurea + E. nana. See also Notes 6c and 9f. SACC proposal passed to resurrect of Eupsittula Bonaparte, 1853 (type species = canicularis), as used by Ridgway & Friedmann (1916) for canicularis, nana, aurea, and pertinax; see also Silveira et al. (2005).

9e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Eupsittula pertinax and E. cactorum to form a superspecies; Collar (1997) suggested that they might be conspecific.

9f. Aratinga nenday has traditionally been placed in the monotypic genus Nandayus, although it was typically considered very closely related to Aratinga (e.g., Collar 1997). Nandayus was included in Aratinga by Peters (1937). Genetic data (Ribas & Miyaki 2004) indicate that Nandayus is embedded in Aratinga, as predicted by Silveira et al. (2005), and is sister to the group solstitialis + (jandaya + auricapilla). SACC proposal passed for merger of Nandayus into Aratinga. See also Note 9a and Smith et al. (2024).

9ff. Aratinga nenday was formerly known as “Black-hooded Parakeet” (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970). SACC proposal to restore “Black-hooded” did not pass.

9g. Leptosittaca was included in Aratinga by (REF), but genetic data (Wright et al. 2008) indicate that it is part of a group that includes Guaruba and Diopsittaca. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. More recent genetic data confirm those relationships (Smith et al. 2024).

10. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Silveira et al. (2005). SACC proposal passed to recognize Aratinga pintoi as a separate species from A. solstitialis. However, Nemésio and Rasmussen (2009) presented evidence that this taxon had been previously described as A. maculata. SACC proposal passed to recognize maculata as the valid name.

10a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Ochre-marked Parakeet" but now widely listed as “Blue-throated” (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997, Juniper & Parr 1998, Clem ents 2000, Forshaw 2010), which is a misleading, inaccurate name. SACC proposal passed to restore “Ochre-marked.”

11. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Pyrrhura devillei and P. frontalis to form a superspecies; Hayes (1995) and Collar (1997) suggested they may be conspecific. Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) indicate that they are sister taxa.

11b. Pyrrhura frontalis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) known as P. vittata.

11c. "Pyrrhura borellii”, formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a species, considered by Peters (1937) to be a synonym of P. f. chiripepe. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

11d. Maroon-bellied Parakeet was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Reddish-bellied Parakeet", and this was also used by Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). Proposal needed?

12a. Pyrrhura perlata and P. lepida form a superspecies (Haffer 1987, Collar 1997). Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) indicate that they are sister taxa.

12b. Nomenclature of Pyrrhura perlata and P. lepida is confusing and complex. Arndt (1983) showed that the original types of perlata were actually referable to the name rhodogaster; thus, rhodogaster, long used as a species name (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), becomes a junior synonym of perlata; the transfer of rhodogaster to the synonymy of perlata thus left the former in need of a name, the next oldest of which is lepida. Adding further confusion, Collar (1997) retained the English name "Pearly Parakeet" for lepida.

12c. "Pyrrhura hypoxantha," formerly considered a valid (e.g., Cory 1918, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or questionable (Peters 1937) species, is now considered to represent xanthistic individuals of P. molinae (Arndt 1991, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

13. [Pyrrhura superspecies note 1] <Note – revision needed of Notes 14-14a now that complex Proposal 306 has passed>

14. [note needed on possible splits]. Olmos et al. (1997). The subspecies emma and griseipectus were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered separate species from Pyrrhura leucotis, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937) and Pinto (1937). The subspecies pfrimeri was also formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937) treated as a separate species, but was considered conspecific with P. leucotis by Peters (1937). <Inc. Joseph and Bates 2002; followed by Dickinson 2003.> SACC proposal passed to treat pfrimeri and griseipectus as separate species from P. leucotis. Subsequently, SACC proposal to lump griseipectus into P. leucotis passed. SACC proposal passed to transfer subspecies emma from P. leucotis to P. picta. SACC proposal passed to re-elevate P. griseipectus to species rank. <incorp. Olmos et al. 2005>. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated emma as a separate species (“Venezuelan Parakeet”) based on plumage differences.

14a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Pyrrhura leucotis [including pfrimeri and griseipectus] and P. picta to form a superspecies; Haffer (1987) also included P. melanura in that superspecies. <incorp. Ribas et al. 2006, Smith et al. 2024>

14aa. Called “Goias Parakeet” by del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

14b. Teixeira (1991) proposed that the name for Pyrrhura griseipectus should be Pyrrhura anaca (Gmelin, 1788). Proposal badly needed.

15. [note needed, and probably a proposal, on possible splits in picta; Joseph REF, Smith et al. 2024]. The Colombian subspecies subandina was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pyrrhura picta, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific. Arndt (2008) treated the forms subandina, eisenmanni, caeruleiceps, and peruviana as a species, and described a new species, Pyrrhura parvifrons, from eastern Peru. SACC proposal to recognize parvifrons did not pass. <summarize. Ribas et al. 2006> SACC proposal passed to separate amazonum (with snethlageae as a subspecies of amazonum) from picta. SACC proposal passed to separate roseifrons (including peruviana as a subspecies of roseifrons) from picta. SACC proposal passed to separate lucianii (including peruviana as a subspecies of roseifrons) from picta. SACC proposals to rank the subspecies eisenmanni, caeruleiceps, and subandina as separate species did not pass. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated subandina (“Sinu Parakeet”), caeruleiceps (“Perija Parakeet”), peruviana (“White-breasted Parakeet”), parvifrons (“Garlepp’s Parakeet”) and snethlageae (“Madeira Parakeet”) as separate species based on minor plumage differences.

15b. Proposals needed on English names, here given tentatively, of P. amazonum, P. lucianii, and P. roseifrons. The names for the first two are those used by Cory (1918) and need evaluation. "Santarem" derives from the type locality of amazonum and thus seems appropriate. "Bonaparte's" evidently derives from lucianii, presumably named for Jules Laurent Lucien, aka Prince Bonaparte; Bonaparte was also the author of the genus name Pyrrhura; however, Jobling (REF) gives lucianii as honoring the French entomologist J. Lucian Bucquet. "Rose-fronted" is merely the translation of the species epithet.

16. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies pacifica of northwestern South America may deserve recognition as a separate species from Pyrrhura melanura. SACC proposal to elevate pacifica to species rank did not pass. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated pacifica as a separate species (“Choco Parakeet”) based on color differences.

16a. The subspecies berlepschi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Berlepsch's Parakeet") from Pyrrhura melanura, but most recent classifications have considered them conspecific following <REF>). The Colombian subspecies souancei was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pyrrhura melanura, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that the montane subspecies chapmani might deserve recognition as a separate species.

17. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Pyrrhura melanura and P. orcesi to form a superspecies, based on Ridgely & Robbins (1988), but they are not members of the same clade (Smith et al. 2024). <incorp. Ribas et al. 2006>

18. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Ridgely & Robbins (1988).

19. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Rock Parakeet", but see [REFS].

20. Robbins et al. (1987) proposed that Pyrrhura albipectus might be conspecific with P. melanura, but genetic data indicate that they are not sister taxa.

20a. White-necked Parakeet was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "White-breasted Parakeet". <trace change - S&M 1990 used White-necked>. proposal?

21. Brown-breasted Parakeet was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Flame-winged Parakeet". <trace change -S&M 1990 used Brown-breasted>. proposal?

21a. Enicognathus ferrugineus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937) placed in the monotypic genus Microsittace, but see <?> Peters & Blake (1948).

21aa. "Cyanoliseus byroni”, treated as a species by Cory (1918) and as a subspecies of Cyanoliseus patagonus by Peters (1937), is now considered a synonym of Enicognathus leptorhynchus (Olson 1995b, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

21aaa. Also known (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Johnson & Goodall 1967, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Jaramillo 2003 etc.) as “Burrowing Parrot”. Cory (1918) referred to it as a Parakeet (“Paroquet”), which is consistent with its relatives as well as pointed-tailed parrots of similar size in general (versus “parrot” for square-tailed parrots of roughly the same size). However, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) used “Parrot”, and this was followed in much subsequent literature. Sibley & Monroe (1990) restored “Parakeet”, and this was followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003). In aviculture, often called “Patagonian Conure”.

21b. Collar (1997) treated Andean luchsi as a separate species from Myiopsitta monachus based on differences in plumage and nest site; this taxon was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) treated as a separate species, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific. SACC proposal to treat luchsi as a separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data. Russello et al. (2008) found that luchsi was genetically isolated from lowland populations. SACC proposal to treat luchsi as a separate species did not pass. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated luchsi as a separate species (“Cliff Parakeet”). Boesman (2017) documented differences in vocalizations between the two. Smith et al. (2024) found that luchsi was as genetically distinct from monachus as are several sister pairs of taxa treated as species in the same group of genera. SACC proposal passed to recognize luchsi as a separate species.

21c. Psilopsiagon aymara was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Amoropsittaca (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937), but was then (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Bolborhynchus; more recently, it has been placed in Psilopsiagon (Collar 1997, Dickinson 2003), which is supported by genetic data (Smith et al. 2024).

21d. Tavares et al. (2006) and Wright et al. (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship between Myiopsitta and Brotogeris. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Kirchman et al. (2012), Schirtzinger et al. (2012), and Smith et al. (2024) also found support for this relationship. Genetic data support the monophyly of Brotogeris (Ribas et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2024). Within Brotogeris, genetic data (Ribas et al. 2009) found strong support for two major groups, one consisting of B. tirica, B. versicolurus, B. chiriri, and B. sanctithomae, and the other consisting of B. pyrrhoptera, B. jugularis, B. cyanoptera, and B. chrysoptera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence in the genus. These relationships within Brotogeris were confirmed by Smith et al. (2024).

21e. Tavares et al. (2006) and Kirchman et al. (2012) found strong support for a sister relationship between Bolborhynchus lineola and Nannopsittaca, whereas Wright et al. (2008) found strong support for a sister relationship between Touit and Nannopsittaca (Bolborhynchus not sampled). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Schirtzinger et al. (2012) and Smith et la. (2024) found that Psilopsiagon was a member in this group, sister to Bolborhynchus + Nannopsittaca.

22. Psilopsiagon aurifrons was formerly treated as the only species in the genus (e.g., Peters 1937), but was then (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Bolborhynchus; more recently, it has been returned to Psilopsiagon (Collar 1997, Dickinson 2003); see also Smith et al. (2024).

22a. The southern subspecies rubrirostris was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Psilopsiagon aurifrons, but Peters (1937) considered them conspecific.

22b. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Bolborhynchus orbygnesius and B. ferrugineifrons to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) confirm that they are sister taxa.

22c. Bolborhynchus orbygnesius was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937) considered a subspecies of Psilopsiagon aurifrons.

22cc. "Bolborhynchus andicolus”, described from Peru, was treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Peters (1937); it was later found to be a synonym of B. orbygnesius (Berlioz & Dorst 1956, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

22d. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Forpus passerinus and F. xanthopterygius to form a superspecies; once considered conspecific (e.g., Peters 1937), Gyldenstolpe (1945) provided rationale for treating them as separate species based on near-sympatry and plumage color differences, and this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors. Smith et al. 2013) found that they are sister taxa, but see Smith et al. (2024).

22f. The genus Forpus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Psittacula, but see Peters (1937). Forpus represents a distinct lineage within the New World parrots that is not particularly closely related to any other genus (Schirtzinger et al. 2012). Smith et al. (2013) found that F. modestus is sister to all other species in the genus. Proposal passed to change linear sequence of species. Smith et al (2024) confirmed that relationship.

22g. The northern subspecies spengeli was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1916, Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Forpus xanthopterygius, but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937). Smith et al. (2013) showed that spengeli belongs in Forpus passerinus. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated spengeli as a separate species (“Turquoise-winged Parrotlet”) based on plumage differences. Bocalini & Silveira (2015) treated spengeli as a species based on PSC rationale and on comparisons only to F. xanthopterygius. SACC proposal passed to treat spengeli as a separate species and to adopt English name Turquoise-winged Parrotlet.

22h. Bertgagnolio & Racheli (2010) described a new species of Forpus (as “Forpus flavicollis”) based on an internet photo of a flock of caged parrotlets; although no type specimen was declared, the description evidently meets ICZN criteria for availability but not necessarily for validity (Notton 2011). SACC proposal to recognize Forpus flavicollis did not pass. Donegan et al. (2011) considered it to be a synonym of F. conspicillatus.

23. The nomenclatural history of Forpus xanthopterygius is complex. The original taxon (Psittacula xanthopterygius Spix, 1824) was long considered not valid, and the name applied to what we now consider F. xanthopterygius) was formerly known as Forpus vivida (e.g., Ridgway 1916, Cory 1918). The taxon vivida Ridgway, 1888, was originally described as a subspecies of Forpus passerinus, and was again treated as such by Peters (1937). However, Gyldenstolpe (1945b) <review> resurrected xanthopterygius as the valid name for the species, but Pinto (1945), followed by Collar (1997) and others, considered xanthopterygius to be an invalid name because it was based on two species with no type designated. Pinto (1945) used Forpus crassirostris as the valid name, and this was followed by Collar (1997), but not Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Forshaw (1973), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and others. Whitney & Pacheco (1999) explained why the valid name for this taxon is Forpus xanthopterygius, as in Gyldenstolpe (1945b), and not Forpus crassirostris, or Psittacula vivida (= Forpus vividus) as in Ridgway (1916) and Cory (1919). Darrieu (1983) <check treated vivida as a synonym of > SACC proposal passed to retain xanthopterygius.

23a. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Forpus sclateri was modestus. Pacheco & Whitney (2006) proposed that modestus is indeed the valid name for this taxon. SACC proposal passed to change to modestus. <<rewrite>>

23aa. The subspecies crassirostris was formerly (Cory 1918) treated as a separate species from Forpus xanthopterygius. Smith et al. (2013) found evidence that the subspecies crassirostris is best treated as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat crassirostris as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to adopt English name Riparian Parrotlet for crassirostris and Cobalt-rumped Parrotlet for xanthopterygius sensu stricto. See also Smith et al. (2024).

23b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Forpus coelestis and F. xanthops to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Peters (1937), but most classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) <check> in treating them as separate species. Genetic data (Smith et al. 2013, 2024) confirm that they are sister taxa.

23c. Brotogeris tirica, B. versicolurus, and B. chiriri were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) treated in a separate genus, Tirica, but Peters (1937) merged this into Brotogeris. Genetic data (Ribas et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2024) indicate that they are closely related, but B. sanctithomae also falls in this group. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.

24. Brotogeris chiriri was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of B. versicolurus, but see Pinto & Camargo (1957), REFS; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Ribas et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2024) confirm that they are closely related sister taxa.

24a. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Brotogeris versicolurus was virescens, but see Peters (1937).

24aa. AOU (1998) used the English name "White-winged Parakeet" for Brotogeris versicolurus after B. chiriri was treated as a separate species, but Dickinson (2003), following Collar (1997) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), did not and retained "Canary-winged Parakeet" for B. versicolurus. SACC proposal to change to "White-winged Parakeet" did not pass. New SACC proposal to change to "White-winged Parakeet" did not pass. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) used "White-winged Parakeet".

24b. Haffer (1987) considered Brotogeris cyanoptera and B. chrysoptera to form a superspecies; Sibley & Monroe (1990) also included B. jugularis in that superspecies. Collar (1997) was hesitant about the inclusion of B. jugularis, although Peters (1937) wondered whether cyanoptera should be treated as a subspecies of jugularis. Genetic data (Ribas et al. 2009, Smith et al. 2024) indicate that cyanoptera and chrysoptera are sister taxa, which in turn are sister to jugularis + pyrrhoptera.

24c. The subspecies gustavi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Peters 1937) considered a separate species from Brotogeris cyanoptera, but Traylor (1958) indicated that they probably intergrade in the Huallaga valley.

24d. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Brotogeris cyanoptera was devillei, but see Peters (1937).

24e. Brotogeris is feminine, so the correct spellings of the species names are chrysoptera and pyrrhoptera; versicolurus, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

24f. The eastern subspecies tuipara and the western subspecies chrysosema were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) considered a separate species from Brotogeris chrysoptera, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

24g. Collar (1997) considered Nannopsittaca panychlora and N. dachilleae to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024), however, indicate that dachilleae is sister to Bolborhynchus lineola. SACC proposal needed.

25. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): O'Neill et al. (1991).

25b. Touit is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are batavicus, dilectissimus, purpuratus, melanonotus, surdus, and stictopterus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

25c. The genus Touit was formerly (e.g., Cory 1919, Pinto 1937) known as Urochroma, but see Peters (1937).

25d. The species name formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) used for Touit melanonotus was wiedi, but see Peters (1937).

25dd. "Touit emmae”, known from "Bogotá”, treated as a valid species by Cory (1918) and Peters (1937), represents the female plumage of T. stictopterus (Dugand 1945, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Collar 1997). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

26. Touit dilectissimus forms a superspecies with Central American T. costaricensis (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1937) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), but see Wetmore (1968). Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) confirm that they are closely related sister taxa.

26a. Called "Red-winged Parakeet" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but that name typically applied only when dilectissimus and costaricensis are considered conspecific (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

27. Pionites melanocephalus and P. leucogaster form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, 1977b, 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997). Genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) confirm that they are closely related sister taxa. [add additional references on hybridization]

27b. Pionites is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is melanocephalus; leucogaster, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).

27c. The western subspecies xanthomerius was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pionites leucogaster, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated xanthomerius as a separate species (“Black-legged Parrot”) based on plumage differences. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) also treated the subspecies xanthurus as a separate species (“Yellow-tailed Parrot”) based on plumage differences and called Pionites leucogaster “Green-thighed Parrot.”

28. All species of Pionopsitta/Pyrilia except Pionopsitta pileata were considered to form a superspecies by Haffer (1970, 1974); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered only P. haematotis and P. pulchra to form a superspecies. Pyrilia haematotis, P. pulchra, P. barrabandi, P. pyrilia, and P. caica were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) placed in a separate genus, Eucinetus, and P. pyrilia was placed in the monotypic genus Pyrilia. Cracraft & Prum's (1988) analysis of plumage characters suggested that pileata was basal to all other Pionopsitta (then considered to include Gypopsitta), and the following sister relationships: (a) haematotis + pulchra, (b) vulturina + barrabandi, (c) pyrilia + [vulturina + barrabandi], and (d) caica basal to (pyrilia + [vulturina + barrabandi]). Ribas et al. (2005) found that Pionopsitta + Gypopsitta (= Pyrilia) is not monophyletic, with pileata sister to the others, and they placed all but pileata in Gypopsitta, the sister genus of which is Hapalopsittaca (Kirchman et al. 2012, Schirtzinger et al. 2012; see also Note 31a). Tavares et al. (2006) also found that traditional Pionopsitta was paraphyletic, and that P. pileata was sister to a group that included Triclaria, Pyrilia, and others. SACC proposal passed to split Gypopsitta from Pionopsitta. SACC proposal passed on use of Pyrilia over Gypopsitta; also followed by Banks et al. (2008). Ribas et al. (2005) also found a different set of relationships within the Pyrilia group than those proposed by Cracraft & Prum (1988). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence within Pyrilia. See also Smith et al. (2024).

28a. Cracraft & Prum (1988) and Ribas et al. (2005) treated the subspecies coccinicollaris of Panama and nw. Colombia as a separate species from nominate Pyrilia haematotis of Middle America. SACC proposal to elevate coccinicollaris to species rank did not pass.

28aa. Formerly known as “Red-capped Parrot”, but that is the long-standing name for Australian Purpureicephalus spurius.

29. Pyrilia vulturina was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1oll958a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as the only member of a monotypic genus Gypopsitta because of featherless head, but see Haffer (1974), REFS, Car (1997), and Cracraft & Prum (1988), Ribas et al. (2005), and Smith et al. (2024).

30. Newly described: Gaban-Lima et al. (2002). This taxon was previously considered an immature plumage of P. vulturina, but see Gaban-Lima et al. (2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize aurantiocephala as a valid new species. "Bald Parrot" temporarily adopted for English name; SACC proposal passed to formalize this name. Smith et al. (2024) showed that they are weakly differentiated.

31. Pyrilia pulchra was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of P. haematotis, but see [REFS?] Collar (1997). Proposal needed.

31a. Hapalopsittaca melanotis was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) placed in the genus Pionopsitta, which at that time contained only P. pileata.

31b. Called "Black-eared Parrot" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966,1970) and elsewhere. Proposal needed.

32. Hapalopsittaca fuertesi and H. pyrrhops were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered subspecies of H. amazonina, but see Graves & Restrepo (1989) for a return to the species limits used by Cory (1918) and Peters (1937), as suggested by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990); they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) confirm that they are sister taxa.

32a. The eastern subspecies reichenowi was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pionus menstruus, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

32aa. Genetic data (Ribas et al. 2007) indicate that P. menstruus and P. sordidus are not sister species as is implied in traditional linear sequences, but rather that P. menstruus groups with P. chalcopterus, extralimital P. senilis, and P. tumultuosus, and that P. maximiliani and P. sordidus are sisters, with P. fuscus sister to that pair. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. More recent genetic data (Smith et al. 2024) confirm those relationships

32b. The southern subspecies corallinus was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Pionus sordidus, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

32c. Tavares et al. (2006) found very strong support for inclusion of Pionites and Deroptyus in a monophyletic group that consists of the genera in the linear sequence above from Anodorhynchus through Enicognathus; they also found very strong support for a sister relationship between Pionites and Deroptyus, as did Wright et al. (2008) and Schirtzinger et al. (2012). SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Smith et al. (2024) confirmed that sister relationship.

32d. Tavares et al. (2006) and Schirtzinger et al. (2012) also found very strong support for the monophyly of a group that consists of Pionus, Graydidascalus, and Amazona, and Kirchman et al. (2012) confirmed Alipiopsitta as a member of this group.

32e. "Pionus cobaltinus," described from "Colombia" and treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is now considered a synonym of Pionus menstruus (Peters 1937). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

32f. "Pionus bridgesi," treated as a valid species by Cory (1918), is now known to be a synonym of Pionus maximiliani siy (Peters 1937). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

33. The subspecies seniloides was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("White-capped Parrot") from Pionus tumultuosus (“Plum-crowned Parrot”), but see O'Neill & Parker (1977), who noted that the only differences between the two are the degree of saturation of rosy pigment; this treatment was followed by Collar (1997) and Dickinson (2003), but not by Forshaw (1989), Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), or Ridgely et al. (2001). There is no evidence of intergradation between the two. SACC proposal to treat seniloides as a species did not pass. Recent genetic data (Ribas et al. 2007, Smith et al. 2024) indicate that the genetic distance between them is about the same as other taxa ranked as species in Pionus. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated seniloides as a separate species, with English name "Speckle-faced Parrot" for composite species following suggestion by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990). SACC proposal to treat seniloides as a separate species did not pass.

34. Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and del Hoyo & Collar (2014) used the avicultural name "Amazon" for the English names of the species in the genus Amazona (but did not use, for example, "Conure" for species of Aratinga). Many other recent classifications have also switched to “Amazon”. SACC proposal passed to change group name for Amazona parrots to “Amazon”.

34a. Genetic data (Ottens-Wainwright et al. 2004, Russello & Amato 2004) indicate that the traditional linear sequence of species in Amazona does not reflect phylogenetic relationships. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. With denser taxon-sampling and genomic data, Smith et al. (2024) produced a different topology that is not reflected in the linear sequence. SACC proposal needed

34aa. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered Amazona tucumana and A. pretrei to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Peters (1937). Reports of sympatry in northeastern Argentina (Hornero 6: 535, 1936, as cited by Meyer de Schauensee 1966) are erroneous. Genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004, Smith et al. 2024) support their status as sister species and also suggest that A. vinacea is the sister to that group.

34b. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Alder Parrot”, but "Tucuman Parrot" dates back to Cory (1919).

34c. The Ecuadorian subspecies lilacina and the Brazilian subspecies diadema were formerly (e.g., Cory 1918, Pinto 1937) considered separate species from Amazona autumnalis, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated diadema as a separate species but did not provide justification. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated both lilacina (“Lilacine Amazon”) and diadema (“Diademed Amazon”) as separate species based on differences in plumage and bare parts coloration, and this was further supported by qualitative inspection of specimens by Donegan et al. (2016). Smith et al. (2023) found a deep genetic divergence between autumnalis s.s. and diadema. SACC proposal to recognize three species did not pass.

35. Amazona dufresniana was formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of A. brasiliensis, then called "Blue-cheeked Parrot”, but see (REF). Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Collar (1997) considered these two and A. rhodocorytha to form a superspecies. Amazona rhodocorytha was also formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of A. brasiliensis, but see Collar (1997), followed by Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004, Smith et al. 2024) support this treatment: Amazona rhodocorytha and A. dufresniana are sister species. However, they are not closely related to A. brasiliensis, which is more closely related to A. amazonica than to any other South American Amazona. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

35a. David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the correct spelling of the species name is mercenarius. SACC proposal passed to change name.

36. The northern subspecies bodini was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from, and only distantly related to, Amazona festiva, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated bodini as a separate species (“Northern Festive Amazon”) from nominate festiva (“Southern Festive Amazon”).

36b. Placement of Amazona xanthops in Amazona has been questioned in virtually every study of the genus (e.g., Ribeiro 1920, Sick 1984, Birt et al. 1992, Duarte and Caparroz 1995, Miyaki et al. 1998, Caparroz and Duarte 2004). Miranda-Ribeiro (1920) named a new genus for it: Salvatoria. Recent genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004, Tavares et al. 2006, Kirchman et al. 2012) indicate that its inclusion in Amazona makes that genus paraphyletic with respect to Pionus and Graydidascalus, and found strong support for a sister relationship between xanthops and Graydidascalus. SACC proposal passed to remove from Amazona and revive monotypic genus Salvatoria. Caparroz & Pacheco (2006) noted that Salvatoria is preoccupied by an annelid genus, and they proposed a new name, Alipiopsitta, for Salvatoria Miranda-Ribeiro, 1920. SACC proposal passed to change to Alipiopsitta. Smith et al. (2024) confirmed these relationships.

36c. The subspecies xanthopteryx was considered a separate species from Amazona aestiva by Berlepsch (1896) and Brabourne & Chubb (1912).

37. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Turquoise-fronted Parrot" but changed for no apparent reason to “Blue-fronted” in many recent treatments (e.g. Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997, Juniper and Parr 1998, Clements 2000, Forshaw 2010). SACC proposal passed to restore “Turquoise-fronted.”

37a. Formerly (e.g., Peters 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), Amazona ochrocephala was generally treated as including taxa north to Mexico. Following Monroe & Howell (1966), most authors treated Middle American A. oratrix and A. auropalliata as separate species; however, Forshaw (1989), Losada & Howell (1996), and Collar (1997) have raised doubts about ranking these taxa as species. Recent genetic data (Eberhard & Bermingham 2004, Russello & Amato 2004, Urantówka et al. 2014) indicate that ranking of oratrix or auropalliata as species makes A. ochrocephala paraphyletic, and that A. ochrocephala is also paraphyletic with respect to A. aestiva and A. barbadensis, at least at mtDNA loci. Smith et al. (2024) found a complex relationship of taxa in this group with a topology with many short branch lengths and weakly supported nodes. Proposal needed.

37b. The southern subspecies nattereri was formerly (e.g., Cory 1918) considered a separate species from Amazona ochrocephala, but Peters (1937) treated them as conspecific.

38. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Grantsau & Camargo (1989), Collar (1996). Genetic data (Russello & Amato 2004, Smith et al. 2024) are consistent with treatment of Amazona kawalli as a separate species from, but sister species to, A. farinosa, which is sympatric with A. kawalli in southwestern Brazil. See also Martuscelli & Yamashita (1997).

38a. Called "White-faced Amazon" in Collar (1997) and del Hoyo & Collar (2014).

38b. Wenner et al. (2012) proposed that the Middle American subspecies (virenticeps and guatemalae) be treated as a separate species from nominate farinosa (central Panama to South America) based on genetic data. Del Hoyo & Collar (2014) treated guatemalae (with virenticeps) as a separate species (“Northern Mealy Amazon”) from nominate farinosa (“Southern Mealy Amazon”). SACC proposal to treat as separate species did not pass.

39. Called "Vinaceous-breasted Parrot" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but many recent treatments switched with no explanation a less accurate “Vinaceous Parrot/Amazon” (e.g. Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 1997, Juniper and Parr 1998, Clements 2000, Forshaw 2010). SACC proposal passed to restore “Vinaceous-breasted.”

40. Collar (1997) suggested that the subspecies fuscifrons from south of the Amazon River might deserve recognition as a separate species from Deroptyus accipitrinus.

__________________________________________________

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

---

[JR1]Smith et al. topologies examined with respect to Notes. Still need to go through text.