A Classification of the Bird
Species of South America
South American Classification Committee
(Part 7)
Part 7. Suboscine
Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae) (below)
__________________________________________________
Part 1. Rheiformes to
Podicipediformes
Part
2. Columbiformes to
Caprimulgiformes
Part
3. Apodiformes
Part
4. Opisthocomiformes to
Strigiformes
Part
5. Trogoniformes to
Psittaciformes
Part
6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to
Formicariidae)
Part
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)
Suborder TYRANNI (SUBOSCINES) (continued)
1.
Virtually all morphological and genetic data support the monophyly of the order
Passeriformes. Within the Passeriformes, genetic data (e.g., Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, Edwards et al. 1991, Mindell et al. 1997, García-Moreno &
Mindell 2000, Lovette & Bermingham 2000, Irestedt et al. 2001, Prychitko &
Moore 2003, Hackett et al. 2008, Harvey et al. 2021) support the traditional
division of the order based on morphology (see Ames 1971, Sibley & Ahlquist
1990) into suboscines (here Dendrocolaptidae through Sapayoidae) and oscines
(the rest of the families), with the exception that the Acanthisittidae of New
Zealand are basal to both groups (REF, Hackett et al. 2008).
2. Within
the suboscines, suborder Tyranni, two major divisions are traditionally
recognized and are supported by genetic data (Sibley & Ahlquist 1985, 1990,
Chesser 2004, Harvey et al. 2021): (1) the New World families
("Tyrannides" of Sibley & Ahlquist 1990) and (2) the Old World
families (broadbills, pittas, and asities). Recent genetic data (Fjeldså et al.
2003, Chesser 2004, Hackett et al. 2008) confirm that the Neotropical species Sapayoa
aenigma is the only New World member of the otherwise strictly Old World
group (see below). Within the New World "Tyrannides," two major
divisions are traditionally recognized and supported by genetic data (e.g.,
Chesser 2004, Hackett et al. 2008, Harvey et al. 2021): (1) the woodcreepers,
ovenbirds, antbirds, gnateaters, and tapaculos, and (2) the tyrant-flycatchers,
manakins, and cotingas. For relationships among members within these two
groups, see appropriate family sections below.
__________________________________________________
FURNARIIDAE
(OVENBIRDS) 1
Sclerurinae
Sclerurus
obscurior
South American Leaftosser 1a, 1b, 1c
Sclerurus
rufigularis
Short-billed Leaftosser
Sclerurus
guatemalensis
Scaly-throated Leaftosser 1d
Sclerurus
caudacutus
Black-tailed Leaftosser 1d
Sclerurus
albigularis
Gray-throated Leaftosser 1e
Sclerurus
scansor
Rufous-breasted Leaftosser 1e
Geositta
peruviana Coastal Miner 3b, 3bb
Geositta
tenuirostris Slender-billed Miner 4
Geositta
cunicularia Common Miner 3, 3a
Geositta
punensis Puna Miner 3c
Geositta poeciloptera Campo Miner 1a, 2, 2a
Geositta
crassirostris Thick-billed Miner
Geositta
rufipennis Rufous-banded Miner 3c, 4a
Geositta
maritima Grayish Miner 3b
Geositta
antarctica Short-billed Miner 3a
Geositta
saxicolina Dark-winged Miner
Geositta
isabellina Creamy-rumped Miner
Dendrocolaptinae 105
Certhiasomus stictolaemus Spot-throated Woodcreeper 109, 110, 110a
Sittasomus griseicapillus Olivaceous Woodcreeper 111
Deconychura longicauda Long-tailed Woodcreeper 109, 110a
Dendrocincla tyrannina Tyrannine Woodcreeper 105a
Dendrocincla merula White-chinned Woodcreeper 108
Dendrocincla homochroa Ruddy Woodcreeper
Dendrocincla fuliginosa Plain-brown Woodcreeper 106, 107
Dendrocincla turdina Plain-winged Woodcreeper 106, 107
Glyphorynchus spirurus Wedge-billed Woodcreeper 112, 113, 114
Dendrexetastes rufigula Cinnamon-throated Woodcreeper 116, 117
Nasica longirostris Long-billed Woodcreeper
Dendrocolaptes sanctithomae Northern Barred-Woodcreeper 123, 124
Dendrocolaptes certhia Amazonian Barred-Woodcreeper 123, 125, 125a
Dendrocolaptes picumnus Black-banded Woodcreeper 126, 127
Dendrocolaptes hoffmannsi Hoffmanns's Woodcreeper 126
Dendrocolaptes platyrostris Planalto Woodcreeper 126, 126a
Hylexetastes stresemanni Bar-bellied Woodcreeper 118
Hylexetastes perrotii Red-billed Woodcreeper 118
Hylexetastes uniformis Uniform Woodcreeper 118
Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus
Strong-billed Woodcreeper 119, 120
Xiphocolaptes falcirostris Moustached Woodcreeper 119, 121
Xiphocolaptes albicollis White-throated Woodcreeper 119, 122
Xiphocolaptes major Great Rufous Woodcreeper
Xiphorhynchus obsoletus Striped Woodcreeper
Xiphorhynchus atlanticus Ceara Woodcreeper 131, 131a
Xiphorhynchus fuscus Lesser Woodcreeper 131, 131a
Xiphorhynchus pardalotus Chestnut-rumped Woodcreeper 134
Xiphorhynchus ocellatus Ocellated Woodcreeper 132, 134
Xiphorhynchus elegans Elegant Woodcreeper 133, 134
Xiphorhynchus spixii Spix's Woodcreeper 133, 134
Xiphorhynchus susurrans Cocoa Woodcreeper 135
Xiphorhynchus guttatus Buff-throated Woodcreeper 135
Xiphorhynchus lachrymosus Black-striped Woodcreeper
Xiphorhynchus erythropygius Spotted Woodcreeper 136
Xiphorhynchus triangularis Olive-backed Woodcreeper 136
Dendroplex picus Straight-billed Woodcreeper 128, 129
Dendroplex kienerii Zimmer's
Woodcreeper 128, 130
Campylorhamphus trochilirostris
Red-billed Scythebill 142, 142a
Campylorhamphus falcularius Black-billed Scythebill 142
Campylorhamphus procurvoides Curve-billed Scythebill 143, 143a
Campylorhamphus pusillus Brown-billed Scythebill 144
Drymotoxeres pucheranii Greater Scythebill 140, 141
Drymornis bridgesii Scimitar-billed Woodcreeper 115
Lepidocolaptes souleyetii Streak-headed Woodcreeper
Lepidocolaptes angustirostris Narrow-billed Woodcreeper
Lepidocolaptes lacrymiger Montane Woodcreeper 137
Lepidocolaptes squamatus Scaled Woodcreeper
Lepidocolaptes falcinellus Scalloped Woodcreeper 138
Lepidocolaptes duidae Duida Woodcreeper 139
Lepidocolaptes albolineatus Guianan Woodcreeper 139
Lepidocolaptes fatimalimae Inambari Woodcreeper 139
Lepidocolaptes fuscicapillus Dusky-capped Woodcreeper 139
Furnariinae 101
Xenops
tenuirostris
Slender-billed Xenops
Xenops
mexicanus
Northern Plain-Xenops 102b
Xenops
genibarbis
Amazonian Plain-Xenops 102b
Xenops
minutus
Atlantic Plain-Xenops 102b
Xenops
rutilans
Streaked Xenops 102c
Berlepschia
rikeri
Point-tailed Palmcreeper
Microxenops
milleri
Rufous-tailed Xenops 102, 102a
Pygarrhichas
albogularis
White-throated Treerunner 104
Ochetorhynchus andaecola Rock Earthcreeper 5a
Ochetorhynchus ruficaudus Straight-billed Earthcreeper 5a, 6
Ochetorhynchus
phoenicurus
Band-tailed Earthcreeper 5a, 9, 9a, 9b
Ochetorhynchus
melanurus
Crag Chilia 7, 9, 9c
Pseudocolaptes
johnsoni
Pacific Tuftedcheek 78a, 81, 81a, 81b
Pseudocolaptes
boissonneautii
Streaked Tuftedcheek 81, 81c
Premnornis
guttuliger
Rusty-winged Barbtail 78a, 78b
Tarphonomus
harterti
Bolivian Earthcreeper 7, 8
Tarphonomus
certhioides
Chaco Earthcreeper 7, 8
Furnarius
figulus
Wing-banded Hornero 16, 16a
Furnarius
leucopus
Pale-legged Hornero 17, 18
Furnarius
torridus
Pale-billed Hornero 18, 18a
Furnarius
minor
Lesser Hornero
Furnarius
rufus
Rufous Hornero
Furnarius
cristatus
Crested Hornero
Lochmias
nematura
Sharp-tailed Streamcreeper 100, 100a, 100b
Phleocryptes
melanops
Wren-like Rushbird 19
Limnornis
curvirostris
Curve-billed Reedhaunter 19
Geocerthia
serrana
Striated Earthcreeper 5a
Upucerthia
saturatior
Patagonian Forest Earthcreeper 4b
Upucerthia
dumetaria
Scale-throated Earthcreeper 4b
Upucerthia albigula White-throated Earthcreeper
Upucerthia
validirostris
Buff-breasted Earthcreeper 5
Cinclodes
pabsti
Long-tailed Cinclodes 13, 13a, 13b
Cinclodes
fuscus
Buff-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b, 14c
Cinclodes
antarcticus
Blackish Cinclodes 10a, 15b
Cinclodes
comechingonus
Cordoba Cinclodes 12, 13a
Cinclodes
albidiventris
Chestnut-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b
Cinclodes
olrogi
Olrog's Cinclodes 14, 14a
Cinclodes
albiventris
Cream-winged Cinclodes 12, 13a, 14a, 14b
Cinclodes
oustaleti
Gray-flanked Cinclodes 14a, 14d
Cinclodes
excelsior
Stout-billed Cinclodes 10, 10a, 10b
Cinclodes
aricomae
Royal Cinclodes 10a, 10b, 11
Cinclodes
palliatus
White-bellied Cinclodes 15c
Cinclodes
atacamensis
White-winged Cinclodes 15c
Cinclodes
patagonicus
Dark-bellied Cinclodes 15b
Cinclodes
taczanowskii
Surf Cinclodes 15, 15a
Cinclodes
nigrofumosus
Seaside Cinclodes 15, 15a
Anabazenops
dorsalis
Dusky-cheeked Foliage-gleaner 92c, 93, 93a
Anabazenops
fuscus
White-collared Foliage-gleaner
Neophilydor
fuscipenne
Slaty-winged Foliage-gleaner 90, 91, 90aaa
Neophilydor
erythrocercum
Rufous-rumped Foliage-gleaner 90, 90a, 90bb
Megaxenops
parnaguae
Great Xenops 103
Cichlocolaptes
leucophrus
Pale-browed Treehunter 93b, 93bb
Heliobletus
contaminatus
Sharp-billed Treehunter 101a
Philydor
novaesi
Alagoas Foliage-gleaner (EX) 90c, 90d
Philydor
atricapillus
Black-capped Foliage-gleaner 90d
Philydor
pyrrhodes
Cinnamon-rumped Foliage-gleaner 90b
Anabacerthia
striaticollis
Montane Foliage-gleaner 82a, 82aa, 82b
Anabacerthia
variegaticeps
Scaly-throated Foliage-gleaner 82, 82a,
82aa, 83, 83a, 85a
Anabacerthia
ruficaudata
Rufous-tailed Foliage-gleaner 82a, 85a
Anabacerthia
amaurotis
White-browed Foliage-gleaner 82a
Anabacerthia
lichtensteini
Ochre-breasted Foliage-gleaner 82a
Syndactyla
rufosuperciliata Buff-browed Foliage-gleaner
Syndactyla
dimidiata
Russet-mantled Foliage-gleaner 90, 90b, 92,
92a, 92b
Syndactyla
roraimae
White-throated Foliage-gleaner 97a, 97b, 97c
Syndactyla
subalaris
Lineated Foliage-gleaner 85, 85a
Syndactyla
ruficollis
Rufous-necked Foliage-gleaner 86
Syndactyla
guttulata
Guttulate Foliage-gleaner 84, 85, 85aa
Syndactyla
ucayalae
Peruvian Recurvebill 87, 87a, 87b
Syndactyla
striata
Bolivian Recurvebill 87, 87a
Ancistrops
strigilatus
Chestnut-winged Hookbill 88
Dendroma
rufa
Buff-fronted Foliage-gleaner 88, 90
Dendroma
erythroptera
Chestnut-winged Foliage-gleaner 88, 90
Clibanornis
rectirostris Chestnut-capped Foliage-gleaner 98, 99a
Clibanornis
dendrocolaptoides Canebrake Groundcreeper
75, 82
Clibanornis
erythrocephalus Henna-hooded Foliage-gleaner
98
Clibanornis
rubiginosus
Ruddy Foliage-gleaner 97d
Clibanornis
rufipectus
Santa Marta Foliage-gleaner 97d
Thripadectes
ignobilis
Uniform Treehunter 85a, 94
Thripadectes
flammulatus
Flammulated Treehunter 94a
Thripadectes
scrutator
Rufous-backed Treehunter 94, 95
Thripadectes
holostictus
Striped Treehunter
Thripadectes
virgaticeps
Streak-capped Treehunter
Thripadectes
melanorhynchus
Black-billed Treehunter
Automolus
rufipileatus
Chestnut-crowned Foliage-gleaner
Automolus
melanopezus
Brown-rumped Foliage-gleaner
Automolus
ochrolaemus
Buff-throated Foliage-gleaner 85a
Automolus
subulatus
Striped Woodhaunter 85a, 89, 89a, 89b
Automolus
infuscatus
Olive-backed Foliage-gleaner 96, 96a
Automolus
paraensis
Para Foliage-gleaner 96, 96a
Automolus
lammi
Pernambuco Foliage-gleaner 96a, 96b
Automolus
leucophthalmus
White-eyed Foliage-gleaner 96a, 96b
Premnoplex
brunnescens
Spotted Barbtail 77, 78a
Premnoplex
tatei
White-throated Barbtail 77, 78a
Margarornis
stellatus
Fulvous-dotted Treerunner 79
Margarornis
squamiger
Pearled Treerunner 79a
Aphrastura
spinicauda
Thorn-tailed Rayadito 19a
Aphrastura
masafuerae
Masafuera Rayadito 19aa
Sylviorthorhynchus
desmursii
Des Murs's Wiretail 22c, 22d
Sylviorthorhynchus
yanacensis
Tawny Tit-Spinetail 19b, 22c
Leptasthenura
fuliginiceps
Brown-capped Tit-Spinetail 19a
Leptasthenura
platensis
Tufted Tit-Spinetail 19b, 19c, 22
Leptasthenura
aegithaloides
Plain-mantled Tit-Spinetail 19c, 19e
Leptasthenura
striolata
Striolated Tit-Spinetail 22
Leptasthenura
pileata
Rusty-crowned Tit-Spinetail 20
Leptasthenura
xenothorax
White-browed Tit-Spinetail 20
Leptasthenura
striata
Streaked Tit-Spinetail 21, 21a
Leptasthenura
andicola
Andean Tit-Spinetail
Leptasthenura
setaria
Araucaria Tit-Spinetail 19d, 22
Phacellodomus
rufifrons
Rufous-fronted Thornbird 72, 72a, 72b
Phacellodomus
striaticeps
Streak-fronted Thornbird
Phacellodomus
sibilatrix
Little Thornbird 72b
Phacellodomus
dorsalis
Chestnut-backed Thornbird
Phacellodomus
maculipectus
Spot-breasted Thornbird 73
Phacellodomus
striaticollis
Freckle-breasted Thornbird 73
Phacellodomus
ruber
Greater Thornbird
Phacellodomus
erythrophthalmus Orange-eyed Thornbird
74, 74a
Phacellodomus
ferrugineigula Orange-breasted Thornbird 74, 74a
Hellmayrea
gularis
White-browed Spinetail 47
Anumbius
annumbi
Firewood-gatherer 74b
Coryphistera
alaudina
Lark-like Brushrunner 74b
Asthenes
dorbignyi
Creamy-breasted Canastero 67, 68
Asthenes
berlepschi
Berlepsch's Canastero 67, 69
Asthenes
baeri
Short-billed Canastero 66a, 67
Asthenes
luizae
Cipo Canastero 71
Asthenes
hudsoni
Hudson's Canastero 63
Asthenes
anthoides
Austral Canastero 63
Asthenes
urubambensis
Line-fronted Canastero
Asthenes
flammulata
Many-striped Canastero 65
Asthenes
virgata
Junin Canastero 65
Asthenes
maculicauda
Scribble-tailed Canastero 65
Asthenes
wyatti
Streak-backed Canastero 63
Asthenes
sclateri
Puna Canastero 63, 64
Asthenes
humilis
Streak-throated Canastero
Asthenes
modesta
Cordilleran Canastero 62
Asthenes
moreirae
Itatiaia Spinetail 27
Asthenes
pyrrholeuca
Sharp-billed Canastero 66, 66a
Asthenes
harterti
Black-throated Thistletail 24
Asthenes
helleri
Puna Thistletail 24
Asthenes
ayacuchensis
Ayacucho Thistletail 24, 26, 26a
Asthenes
vilcabambae
Vilcabamba Thistletail 24, 26
Asthenes
pudibunda
Canyon Canastero 61, 61a
Asthenes
ottonis
Rusty-fronted Canastero 61a
Asthenes
heterura
Maquis Canastero 61a
Asthenes
palpebralis
Eye-ringed Thistletail 24
Asthenes
coryi
Ochre-browed Thistletail 24
Asthenes
perijana
Perija Thistletail 23, 24
Asthenes
fuliginosa
White-chinned Thistletail 24, 25
Asthenes
griseomurina
Mouse-colored Thistletail 24
Acrobatornis
fonsecai
Pink-legged Graveteiro 75a, 76
Metopothrix
aurantiaca
Orange-fronted Plushcrown 75a, 75b
Xenerpestes
minlosi
Double-banded Graytail 75a, 75a, 76b, 76c
Xenerpestes
singularis
Equatorial Graytail 76b
Siptornis
striaticollis
Spectacled Prickletail 74c
Roraimia
adusta
Roraiman Barbtail 78c
Thripophaga
macroura
Striated Softtail 59, 59a
Thripophaga
cherriei
Orinoco Softtail
Thripophaga
amacurensis
Delta Amacuro Softtail 60
Thripophaga
fusciceps
Plain Softtail
Thripophaga
berlepschi Russet-mantled Softtail 50
Limnoctites
rectirostris
Straight-billed Reedhaunter 19
Limnoctites
sulphuriferus
Sulphur-bearded Reedhaunter 19
Cranioleuca
marcapatae
Marcapata Spinetail 48, 49
Cranioleuca
albiceps
Light-crowned Spinetail 49
Cranioleuca
vulpina
Rusty-backed Spinetail 49b, 50
Cranioleuca
vulpecula
Parker's Spinetail 50
Cranioleuca
subcristata
Crested Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca
pyrrhophia
Stripe-crowned Spinetail 51
Cranioleuca
henricae
Bolivian Spinetail 51, 52
Cranioleuca
obsoleta
Olive Spinetail 51, 53
Cranioleuca
pallida
Pallid Spinetail
Cranioleuca
semicinerea
Gray-headed Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca
albicapilla
Creamy-crested Spinetail
Cranioleuca
erythrops
Red-faced Spinetail
Cranioleuca
demissa
Tepui Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca
hellmayri
Streak-capped Spinetail 54
Cranioleuca
curtata
Ash-browed Spinetail 54a, 55
Cranioleuca
antisiensis
Line-cheeked Spinetail 51, 56
Cranioleuca
gutturata
Speckled Spinetail 19, 56a
Cranioleuca
muelleri
Scaled Spinetail
50
Pseudasthenes
humicola
Dusky-tailed Canastero 61, 67
Pseudasthenes
patagonica
Patagonian Canastero 61, 67
Pseudasthenes
steinbachi
Steinbach's Canastero 61, 67, 70
Pseudasthenes
cactorum
Cactus Canastero 61, 62
Spartonoica
maluroides
Bay-capped Wren-Spinetail 22a, 22b
Pseudoseisura
cristata
Caatinga Cacholote 22a, 80
Pseudoseisura
unirufa
Rufous Cacholote 80
Pseudoseisura
lophotes
Brown Cacholote
Pseudoseisura
gutturalis
White-throated Cacholote
Certhiaxis
cinnamomeus
Yellow-chinned Spinetail 48, 57, 58a
Certhiaxis
mustelinus
Red-and-white Spinetail 48, 57
Mazaria
propinqua
White-bellied Spinetail 28
Schoeniophylax phryganophilus Chotoy Spinetail 28, 28b
Synallaxis
scutata
Ochre-cheeked Spinetail 43
Synallaxis
cinerascens
Gray-bellied Spinetail 43
Synallaxis
gujanensis
Plain-crowned Spinetail 41
Synallaxis
albilora
White-lored Spinetail 41, 42
Synallaxis
maranonica
Marañon Spinetail 41
Synallaxis
hypochondriaca
Great Spinetail 45, 44
Synallaxis
stictothorax
Necklaced Spinetail 44, 44a
Synallaxis
chinchipensis
Chinchipe Spinetail 44, 44a
Synallaxis
zimmeri
Russet-bellied Spinetail 44
Synallaxis
brachyura
Slaty Spinetail
Synallaxis
subpudica
Silvery-throated Spinetail
Synallaxis
hellmayri
Red-shouldered Spinetail 46
Synallaxis
ruficapilla
Rufous-capped Spinetail 29
Synallaxis
cinerea
Bahia Spinetail 29, 30
Synallaxis
infuscata
Pinto's Spinetail 29
Synallaxis
moesta
Dusky Spinetail 39, 38
Synallaxis
macconnelli McConnell's Spinetail 39, 40
Synallaxis
cabanisi
Cabanis's Spinetail 39
Synallaxis
hypospodia
Cinereous-breasted Spinetail 36
Synallaxis
spixi
Spix's Spinetail 35
Synallaxis
albigularis
Dark-breasted Spinetail 34a, 34b
Synallaxis
beverlyae
Rio Orinoco Spinetail 34b
Synallaxis
albescens
Pale-breasted Spinetail 34a
Synallaxis
frontalis
Sooty-fronted Spinetail 32
Synallaxis
azarae
Azara's Spinetail 33
Synallaxis
courseni
Apurimac Spinetail 34
Synallaxis
candei
White-whiskered Spinetail 43
Synallaxis
kollari
Hoary-throated Spinetail 43
Synallaxis
tithys
Blackish-headed Spinetail
Synallaxis
fuscorufa
Rusty-headed Spinetail 37
Synallaxis
unirufa
Rufous Spinetail 37
Synallaxis
castanea
Black-throated Spinetail 37
Synallaxis
cinnamomea
Stripe-breasted Spinetail
Synallaxis
rutilans
Ruddy Spinetail
Synallaxis
cherriei
Chestnut-throated Spinetail
1. This
classification treats the woodcreepers (formerly Dendrocolaptidae) and the
ovenbirds (Furnariidae) as members of a single family. Whether the two groups
are sister taxa has never seriously been questioned (see Sibley & Ahlquist
1990, Marantz et al. 2003, Remsen 2003). Historically, the controversy centered
around the taxonomic ranking of the two groups, with some authors treating them
as subfamilies of the same family, whereas others treated them each as separate
families. Feduccia (1973) proposed that the woodcreepers were embedded within
the Furnariidae, thus making that family paraphyletic. Genetic data (Irestedt
et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a, Fjeldså et al. 2005, Moyle et al. 2009)
strongly support the latter, with the genera Geositta and Sclerurus
basal to all other ovenbirds plus woodcreepers. SACC proposal passed to merge
Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae into single family without subfamily rankings.
If family or
subfamily ranks are retained within this group, then a third group, Geositta
plus Sclerurus, must also be accorded taxonomic rank; the linear
sequence here simply places the woodcreepers at the end. SACC proposal passed to add subfamily
ranks. An alternative classification would be to
recognize all three major groups as families, i.e., Scleruridae, Furnariidae,
and Dendrocolaptidae, as in Moyle et al. (2009) and Ohlson et al. (2013). A gene-based phylogeny of the Furnariidae
(Derryberry et al. 2011) indicates that a major rearrangement of the linear
sequence of genera is required to reflect phylogenetic data. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
1a. Genetic
data (Irestedt et al. 2002, 2006, Chesser 2004a, Moyle et al. 2009, (Derryberry
et al. 2011) indicate that Geositta and Sclerurus are sister
genera that are basal to other Furnariidae (including dendrocolaptids). SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence.
1b. Species
in the genus Sclerurus were formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) known as
"Leaf-scrapers."
1c. D’Horta
et al. (2013) found that Sclerurus
mexicanus consists of at least two species, the Middle American mexicanus group (including subspecies pullus), which is the sister to S. rufigularis, and the remaining
species from E. Panama and South America. D’Horta et al. (2013) additionally
found evidence that at least four of the five South American subspecies should
be treated as separate species due to strong genetic divergence despite apparent
parapatry. SACC
proposal did not pass.
Cooper and Cuervo (2017) provided data on vocal differences that suggest
Sclerurus mexicanus consists of
multiple species. SACC proposal passed to split Middle
American mexicanus and pullus groups from all South American
subspecies, grouped under the name Sclerurus
obscurior. SACC proposal passed on English names of S.
mexicanus and S. obscurior.
1d. D’Horta
et al. (2013) confirmed the traditional view that Sclerurus guatemalensis and S.
caudacutus are sister species.
1e. D’Horta
et al. (2013) confirmed the view (Remsen 2003) that Sclerurus albigularis and S.
scansor are sister species; they may not, however, be reciprocally
monophyletic with respect to neutral loci.
2. Vaurie
(1980) proposed that Geositta consisted of three major groups based on
bill shape and distribution. Cheviron et al. (2005) found that none of these
groups is monophyletic, but that within the genus, there are two main groups:
(1) cunicularia + tenuirostris + peruviana, and (2) all
other species. Within the second group, Cheviron et al. (2005) found strong
support for two groups: (3) antarctica + isabellina + saxicolina
+ maritima, and (4) punensis + rufipennis + poeciloptera
+ crassirostris. SACC proposal passed to modify linear
sequence of species. Additional genetic data with broader sampling
of loci (Derryberry et al. 2011) found that punensis
is actually sister to cunicularia and
belongs in group 1. SACC proposal passed to modify linear
sequence.
2a. Geositta
poeciloptera was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in the monotypic genus Geobates, but
see Vaurie (1980) and Remsen (2003). Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005,
Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that poeciloptera is embedded within Geositta.
3. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested
that vocal differences between lowland nominate cunicularia and Andean
subspecies indicate that at least two species are involved in Geositta cunicularia.
Genetic data (Cheviron et al. 2005) also suggest that more than one species is
involved.
3a. Vaurie
(1980) tentatively considered Geositta maritima and G. peruviana
to be sister species because of their lowland distribution, small size, and
plumage similarities, but he also suspected that these similarities might be
due to convergence. Cheviron et al. (2005) and Derryberry et al. (2011) corroborated
the convergence hypothesis; these two species belong in different clades within
the genus.
3b. Geositta
cunicularia and G. antarctica have been considered to be closely
related because of their similarity in plumage (Vaurie 1980, Vuilleumier 1991),
but genetic data indicate that they are only distantly related within the genus
(Cheviron et al. 2005, Derryberry et al. 2011).
3bb. [Geositta peruviana vs. paytae; ICZN (1978)].
3c. Genetic
data (Cheviron et al. 2005) indicate that Geositta punensis and G.
rufipennis are sister species, but Derryberry et al. (2011) with broader
genetic sampling found that G. punensis
was the sister to G. cunicularia.
4. Geositta
tenuirostris is traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed near
the end of the linear sequence of species in the genus because of its unusually
long and decurved bill. However, bill curvature and length are notoriously
labile characters; the plumage pattern of tenuirostris suggests a close
relationship to G. cunicularia (Remsen 2003). Genetic data
(Cheviron et al. 2005, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that G. tenuirostris
and G. cunicularia are closely related.
4a. Geositta
rufipennis may consist of more than one species (Jaramillo 2003, Remsen
2003).
4b. Esteban
(1951) provided rationale for considering the taxon saturatior a
separate species from Upucerthia dumetaria, but subsequent authors did
not follow this suggestion. Areta and
Pearman (2009), however, provided evidence of parapatry without intergradation
as well as documented differences in song, bare parts colors, morphology,
plumage, habitat, and migratory patterns that validate Esteban’s (1951)
original assessment. SACC proposal passed to elevate saturatior to species rank.
5. Although
the jelskii subspecies
group has been considered separate species from U. validirostris
in most recent classifications (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely &
Tudor 1994, Sibley & Monroe 1990), evidence for their treatment as such is
weak (Remsen 2003). Earlier classifications treated them as conspecific (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951). A report of sympatry in southern
Bolivia (Cabot 1990) is based on a misidentification (Remsen 2003). Genetic
data (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007) confirm that they are sister
taxa but weakly differentiated (Derryberry et al. 2011). Areta & Pearman (2009, 2013) found no
differences in their voices. Areta &
Pearman (2013) proposed that they be treated as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to treat them as
conspecific. SACC proposal passed to use the English
name “Buff-breasted Earthcreeper” for broadly defined U. validirostris.
5a. Fjeldså
(1992) proposed that Upucerthia serrana and U. andaecola were
sister species, based on plumage and voice, and that they formed a monophyletic
group with U. ruficaudus and Eremobius phoenicurus, despite the
unusual nest of the latter that has led in part to its placement in a monotypic
genus. However, Chesser et al. (2007) and Fjeldså et al. (2007) found that serrana
is not closely related to andaecola, or to other species currently
placed in Upucerthia. See also Notes 7 and 9. Chesser et al. (2009) described a new genus, Geocerthia, for serrana. SACC proposal passed to recognize Geocerthia.
Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this finding.
6. Correct spelling for species name is ruficaudus, not
ruficauda (David & Gosselin 2002a).
7. The
genus Ochetorhynchus was used for U. harterti and U.
certhioides by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) to recognize the
distinctiveness of these two species from other Upucerthia (especially
with respect to nest type); however, the type species of Ochetorhynchus
is ruficaudus, making that name unavailable for harterti + certhioides
unless ruficaudus is also included (Remsen 2003). Peters (1951) treated
those three species in Ochetorhynchus. The genus Upucerthia is
highly polyphyletic (Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007, Moyle et al.
2009), with (a) harterti and certhioides in a group with Pseudocolaptes
and Premnornis, (b) andaecola and ruficaudus in a group
with Eremobius and Chilia [see Note 9], (c) serrana basal
to a group that includes Cinclodes and the remaining Upucerthia (dumetaria,
albigula, jelskii, and validirostris). Chesser and Brumfield (2007) named a new genus
Tarphonomus for certhioides + harterti. SACC proposal passed to recognize Tarphonomus.
Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this treatment.
8. Vaurie
(1980) considered harterti and certhioides as conspecific, but
see Kratter et al. (1993) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for
maintaining as separate species until more data are available; they form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003) and are sister taxa
(Chesser et al. 2007, Fjeldså et al. 2007) but weakly differentiated
(Derryberry et al. 2011).
9. Fjeldså
& Krabbe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) proposed that Eremobius
is probably more closely related to Upucerthia than to the genera near
which often placed in linear sequences, but nest structure much more like
synallaxine spinetails (Zyskowski and Prum 1989). Chesser et al. (2007) and
Fjeldså et al. (2007) found that Eremobius is the sister taxon to U.
ruficaudus. Chesser et al. (2007) further recommended that Ochetorhynchus
be revived for ruficaudus and that Eremobius be merged into it,
as well as Chilia. See also Notes 5a and 7. SACC
proposal passed to reinstate Ochetorhynchus.
Derryberry
et al. (2011) also corroborated this treatment, and also found that O. melanurus is the sister to O. ruficaudus + O. phoenicurus. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.
9a. Eremobius
phoenicurus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated in the
genus Enicornis.
9b. Called
"Band-tailed Eremobius" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
10.
Chesser’s (2004a) phylogeny indicates that the traditional linear sequence
within Cinclodes requires modification. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Derryberry et al. (2011) corroborated
much of this but with an expanded sampling of loci found a slightly different
pattern of relationships. SACC proposal passed to modify linear
sequence of species.
10a.
Hellmayr's (1925) placed Cinclodes excelsior in Upucerthia, and Vaurie
(1980) placed Cinclodes excelsior and
C. aricomae in Geositta.
10b.
Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Cinclodes antarcticus is the sister taxon
to C. excelsior and C. aricomae, based on plumage similarities.
Genetic data, however, indicate that C. antarcticus and C. fuscus
are sister species (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011).
11. Cinclodes
aricomae is often considered conspecific with C. excelsior
(e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), and evidence for treating them
as separate species (e.g., Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Remsen 2003) is weak. SACC proposal needed.
12. Cinclodes
comechingonus is considered by some (e.g., Mayr 1957<?>, Meyer
de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Navas & Bó 1987) to be a subspecies of (broadly defined) C. fuscus;
sympatry is only during nonbreeding season; they were considered to form a
superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990). Genetic data, however, indicate
that C. fuscus and C. antarcticus are sister species, and that C.
comechingonus is the sister to C. albiventris + C. olrogi + C.
oustaleti (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011); therefore, treatment as
a species-level taxon is strongly supported.
SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of species in Cinclodes.
See also Note 14b.
13. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Sick (1969).
13a. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Cinclodes pabsti to form a superspecies
with C. fuscus (broadly
defined) and C. comechingonus. However, genetic data
(Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that C. pabsti is basal
in the genus and not particularly closely related to any other Cinclodes
species.
13b. Freitas et al. (2012) described a new
species, Cinclodes espinhacensis,
that is closely related to C. pabsti. SACC proposal to recognize espinhacensis at the species rank did not pass.
14. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Nores & Yzurieta (1979).
14a. Nores
(1986) considered Cinclodes olrogi to be a subspecies of C. fuscus (broadly defined); others
(Olrog 1979, Navas & Bó 1987, Vuilleumier & Mayr 1987, Mazar Barnett
& Pearman 2001) considered it more likely to be closely related to C.
oustaleti. Genetic data support the latter relationship (Chesser 2004a,
Derryberry et al. 2011). See also Note
14b. SACC proposal to treat olrogi as a
subspecies of C. oustaleti did not pass.
14b.
Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the albiventris group might warrant
recognition as a separate species from Cinclodes fuscus. Unfortunately,
Chesser's (2004a) sampling did not include populations of C. fuscus from
the Andes north of Argentina. Sanín et
al. (2009) sampled C. fuscus from
throughout its range and found that it was polyphyletic, with various
populations more closely related to C.
olrogi, C. oustaleti, C. comechingonus, and C. antarcticus. SACC proposal passed to elevate the albiventris and albidiventris groups to species rank.
Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this treatment. As for English names, Jaramillo (2003)
proposed Cream-winged Cinclodes for C.
albiventris and Buff-winged Cinclodes for C. fuscus, and Jaramillo (see proposal 415) proposed Chestnut-winged Cinclodes for
C. albidiventris; these are used here
tentatively until formal SACC action.
14c. López-Lanús (2019) described a new species of Cinclodes,
C. lopezlanusorum, from the Nothofagus forest of Argentina. SACC proposal to recognize Cinclodes
lopezlanusorum as a valid species did not pass.
14d. Called
"Oustalet's Cinclodes" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
15. Cinclodes
taczanowskii and C. nigrofumosus were considered conspecific by
Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), although previously (e.g., Hellmayr 1925,
Peters 1951) considered separate species; justification for treating them as
separate species is weak (Remsen 2003); they form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003), and genetic data (Chesser 2004a) show that they are
weakly differentiated sister taxa. SACC proposal to treat these two species as
conspecific did not pass because of insufficient published data.
Derryberry et al. (2011) found them to be barely differentiated in terms
of loci sampled. SACC proposal needed.
15a. Called
"Peruvian Seaside-Cinclodes" and "Chilean
Seaside-Cinclodes" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC
proposal to change English names did
not pass.
15b. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) suggested that Cinclodes antarcticus may be part of
a superspecies with C. taczanowskii and C. nigrofumosus, but
genetic data show that they are not closely related and that their maritime
habits have evolved independently (Chesser 2004a, Derryberry et al. 2011), and
that Cinclodes patagonicus is the sister species to C. taczanowskii +
C. nigrofumosus.
15c.
Chesser (2004a) showed that C. atacamensis and C. palliatus are
sister species, consistent with their traditional classification, but with
expanded genetic sampling, Derryberry et al. (2011) could not corroborate this
with certainty.
16. Called
"Band-tailed Hornero" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
17. The
subspecies cinnamomeus of W. Ecuador and NW. Peru may deserve
recognition as a separate species from F. leucopus (Ridgely & Tudor
1994) and was treated as such by Parker & Carr (1992) and Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001). The subspecies longirostris was also treated as a
separate species by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003). Although
vocal and behavioral differences have been reported, no real analysis has been
published to support these splits. SACC proposal to elevate cinnamomeus
to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.
18. Cory
& Hellmayr (1925) considered Furnarius torridus to be a subspecies
of F. leucopus, and Vaurie (1973) considered F. torridus to be a
color morph of F. leucopus. Zimmer (1936) presented evidence that torridus
was a separate species, and this has been followed by most subsequent authors
(e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered them to form a superspecies, but they are widely sympatric. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) found
that F. torridus was sister to F.
leucopus + F. figulus. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence of species.
18a. Called
"Bay Hornero" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC
proposal to change English name did
not pass.
19. Vaurie
(1980) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) merged Limnoctites into Limnornis;
this was followed by Dickinson (2003), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and
Remsen (2003). Olson et al. (2005) have shown that Limnornis and Limnoctites
are not particularly closely related, with Limnoctites embedded within Cranioleuca,
and with Limnornis closely related to Phleocryptes (see also
Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009). However, taxon-sampling still so
incomplete within the genus that although C. sulphurifera and Limnoctites
are almost certainly sisters, their inclusion together in Cranioleuca is
uncertain. SACC proposal to merge Limnoctites into
Cranioleuca did not pass. Broader taxon-sampling (Derryberry et al.
2011) confirmed the sister relationship between Limnoctites and C.
sulphurifera, and that this pair is sister to all other Cranioleuca except
C. gutturata. SACC proposal passed to transfer
sulphurifera to Limnoctites (thus requiring a change in the variable
ending to sulphuriferus) and to change English name of Limnoctites
sulphuriferus to “Sulphur-bearded Reedhaunter.”
19a. Vaurie
(1980) and Fjeldså (1992) proposed that morphological similarities indicate
that Aphrastura and Leptasthenura are sister genera, but genetic
data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) do not support this.
19aa.
Dickinson & Christidis (2014) changed the spelling of the species name to “masafucrae”, a typographical error in
the original description. Elliott (2020)
noted that the original description did not explicitly mentioned the island’s
name despite the clear intent of the name, so there is no case for the
emendation to masafuerae. SACC proposal to change to masafucrae
did not pass.
19b.
Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura fuliginiceps and L.
yanacensis were sister species, based on plumage similarities, as reflected
in their placement in traditional linear sequences, but Derryberry et al.
(2011) found that they were only distantly related. SACC proposal needed
to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura.
<<wait Claramunt paper>>
19c.
Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura platensis and L. aegithaloides
were sister species, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear
sequences. Genetic data (Derryberry et
al. 2011), however, indicates that they are only distantly related, and that and
L. aegithaloides is the sister to L.
andicola. SACC
proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura. <<wait
Claramunt paper>>
19d.
Jaramillo (2003) suggested that Leptasthenura aegithaloides might
consist of more than one species.
20. Leptasthenura
xenothorax was considered a subspecies of L. pileata by Vaurie
(1980); they are generally considered to be sister species (e.g., Fjeldså 1992)
and form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011),
however, indicates that they are only distantly related and that L. xenothorax is sister to all other Leptasthenura except
L. yanacensis (see Note 22c). SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura.
<<wait Claramunt paper>>
21. Called
"Streak-backed Tit-Spinetail" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal needed.
21a.
Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Leptasthenura striata was the sister taxon
to L. pileata/L. xenothorax, based on plumage similarities, as reflected
in their placement in traditional linear sequences, but this is refuted by
genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011).
22. Leptasthenura
setaria was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) treated in the monotypic genus Dendrophylax. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it was
sister to L. striolata + L. platensis, the other two lowland taxa
of that biogeographic region. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence in Leptasthenura.
<<wait Claramunt paper>>
22a. Spartonoica
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto
1937) included in Asthenes.
Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that
it is the sister to Pseudoseisura. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
22b. Spartonoica
was misspelled (as "Spartanoica") in Meyer de Schauensee
(1966, 1970) and elsewhere.
22c. Remsen
(2003) noted that similarities in general morphology and tail structure
suggested a possible relationship of Sylviorthorhynchus to Schizoeaca.
However, genetic data (Gonzalez and Wink 2008, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate a
close relationship to Leptasthenura, and Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Sylviorthorhynchus
was the sister to L. yanacensis. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) transferred
yanacensis to Sylviorthorhynchus.
SACC proposal passed to transferred yanacensis to Sylviorthorhynchus.
22d. Species name changed to desmurii by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to change to desmurii did not pass.
Elliott (2020) provided reasons why the original spelling desmurii cannot be emended.
23. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Phelps (1977).
24. Vaurie
(1980) considered all Schizoeaca conspecific, but see Remsen (1981, 2003),
Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for maintaining
traditional species limits, as, for example, in Peters (1951) and Meyer de
Schauensee (1966, 1970). Sibley &
Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but Derryberry et al.
(2010b, 2011) found that they do not form a monophyletic group and are highly
polyphyletic with respect to Asthenes. SACC proposal passed to merge Schizoeaca
and Oreophylax into Asthenes.
25. It
seems likely that Schizoeaca fuliginosa is a paraphyletic species
with respect to S. griseomurina, whose range interrupts the two
northern subspecies, nominate fuliginosa and fumigata, and the
two southern subspecies, peruviana and plengei (Remsen 2003).
26.
Recently described (as subspecies of S. fuliginosa): Vaurie et al.
(1972).
26a. Hosner et al. (2015a) provided rationale for
treatment of the subspecies ayacuchensis
as a separate species from Asthenes
vilcabambae. SACC proposal passed to recognize Asthenes
ayacuchensis as a separate species.
27. Asthenes moreirae is traditionally
placed in the monotypic genus Oreophylax, but was included in Schizoeaca by Vaurie (1980)
and Sibley & Monroe (1990); but see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Irestedt et al. (2006) confirmed that they are
closely related and probably sister taxa, but broader taxon sampling
(Derryberry et al. 2010b, 2011) found that they do not form a monophyletic
group but are polyphyletic with respect to Asthenes.
See Note 24.
28.
Vaurie (1980) included Schoeniophylax in Synallaxis, but see
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Remsen (2003). Recent genetic data confirm that
they are closely related and probably sister taxa (Irestedt et al. 2006). Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed this in
part but found that Schoeniophylax and Synallaxis propinqua were sister taxa. Claramunt (2014) found that Schoeniophylax
and Synallaxis propinqua were sister taxa and named a new genus, Mazaria,
for propinqua. SACC proposal passed to recognize Mazaria for propinqua.
28b. Schoeniophylax
is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is phryganophilus
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
29. Synallaxis
infuscata was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
subspecies of S. ruficapilla, but see Vaurie (1980) and Pacheco
& Gonzaga (1995) for evidence for treating as a separate species. Synallaxis ruficapilla, S. whitneyi/cinerea,
and S. infuscata form a superspecies (Pacheco & Gonzaga
1995).
30. Synallaxis
whitneyi/cinerea was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
considered a junior synonym of S. ruficapilla. Pacheco and
Gonzaga (1995) showed that this population merits species rank, which they
named S. whitneyi. Whitney & Pacheco (2001) then showed that whitneyi
was a synonym of cinerea. More recently, however, Stopiglia and Raposo
(2006) proposed that whitneyi is indeed the correct name. SACC proposal passed to change back to S.
whitneyi. For an opinion on this from Edward Dickinson,
see: whitneyi.
Bauernfeind et al. (2014), however,
concluded that cinerea is the correct
name. SACC proposal passed.
Stopiglia et al. (2013) proposed that whitneyi (cinerea) was a synonym of S. ruficapilla. SACC proposal pending to treat cinerea as conspecific with S. ruficapilla.
32. "Synallaxis
poliophrys," was formerly treated as a species (e.g., e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but Vaurie
(1971b) determined that it is a synonym of S. frontalis. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
33. The superciliosa
subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species ("Buff-browed
Spinetail") from S. azarae, but see Remsen et al. (1988).
Vaurie (1980) treated the elegantior subspecies group as a species
separate from S. azarae, and this was followed by Fjeldså &
Krabbe (1990); see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for a return to the treatment of
the elegantior group as conspecific with S. azarae.
34. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Blake (1971). Fjeldså and Krabbe (1990) noted that Synallaxis
courseni is most closely related to S. azarae, as corroborated by Derryberry et
al. (2011), and perhaps best considered a subspecies of S. azarae; it
was originally thought to be closest to S. brachyura.
34a. Synallaxis
albigularis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) considered conspecific with S.
albescens, but see Chapman (1931) and Zimmer (1936b).
34b. Hilty
and Ascanio (2009) described a new species, Synallaxis
beverlyae, from Venezuela, whose vocalizations are closest to those of S. albigularis, S. hypospodia, and S. spixi,
but most similar in plumage to S.
albescens. SACC
proposal passed to recognize S. beverlyae.
Its placement in the linear sequence is tentative and represents the
hypothesis that its closest relative is S.
albigularis.
35. Synallaxis
spixi was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe
1990) known as "Chicli Spinetail," but see Ridgely & Tudor
(1994).
36. Synallaxis
hypospodia was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a
subspecies of S. spixi, but see Zimmer (1936b).
37. Synallaxis
castanea was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951, Phelps
& Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of S.
unirufa, but see Vaurie and Schwartz (1972) for rationale for
considering it a separate species; they form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990) that presumably also includes S. fuscorufa (Remsen
2003). Derryberry et al. (2011)
confirmed that S. castanea and S. unirufa are sister taxa.
38. The
subspecies brunneicaudalis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
treated as a separate species from Synallaxis moesta.
39. Synallaxis
macconnelli was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1936b, Phelps & Phelps 1950a,
Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S. cabanisi,
but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for
treating macconnelli as a separate species; Synallaxis macconnelli,
S. cabanisi, and S. moesta form a superspecies. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm
that they are a monophyletic group.
40. English
name often given incorrectly as "MacConnell's Spinetail"; it was
named for F. V. McConnell.
41. Synallaxis
maranonica and S. albilora were formerly (e.g., Zimmer
1936b, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with S.
gujanensis, but see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994)
for rationale for treating them as separate species (as presaged by Meyer de
Schauensee 1966). Cory & Hellmayr (1925) considered maranonica to be
a separate species from S. gujanensis, but not albilora. These
three taxa presumably constitute a superspecies, although Sibley & Monroe
(1990) excluded maranonica. The boundary between albilora and gujanensis,
based on plumage, does not correspond to the boundary in vocal types (Remsen
2003). SACC proposal to treat albilora as conspecific with S.
gujanensis did not pass. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that the three
formed a monophyletic group.
42. Called
"Ochre-breasted Spinetail" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
43. The
genus Poecilurus (for candei, kollari, and scutatus)
was merged into Synallaxis by Vaurie (1980), and this merger has been
followed by some (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Hilty 2003) but not others (Ridgely
& Tudor 1994). Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto
(1937) recognized Poecilurus for candei and kollari,
but placed scutatus in Synallaxis. Synallaxis
is feminine (N. David, pers. comm.), so scutatus becomes scutata. In terms of voice and plumage at least, P.
scutatus is certainly well within the range of variation of Synallaxis,
and the nests of P. candei are essentially identical to those of S.
erythrothorax; there is no way to characterize Poecilurus as a
genus other than as a composite of the plumage features of the component
species, and it is not certain whether the three species form a monophyletic
group (Remsen 2003). In fact, Derryberry et al. (2011) found that candei is the sister species to Middle
American Synallaxis erythrothorax,
with kollari the sister to that pair, and that scutata was only
distantly related and was the sister species to S. cinerascens.
44. Synallaxis
stictothorax has been proposed as being more closely related to Siptornopsis
or Cranioleuca than to other Synallaxis; see Ridgely & Tudor
(1994), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Remsen (2003). In fact, Vaurie (1980) merged Siptornopsis
into Cranioleuca. O’Shea (2009)
and Derryberry et al. (2011) found that S. stictothorax was actually the
sister species to S. zimmeri, with Siptornopsis the sister to this
pair. SACC proposal passed to merge Siptornopsis into Synallaxis. Claramunt (2014) confirmed the placement of stictothorax
and hypochondriaca in Synallaxis.
44a.
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered the
upper Marañon population chinchipensis as a separate species, but no
analysis or data published. SACC proposal to elevate chinchipensis
to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data. Stopiglia
et al. (2020) provided evidence for treatment of chinchipensis as a
separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate chinchipensis
to species rank. SACC proposal passed to establish English
name for Synallaxis chinchipensis.
45. Siptornopsis
and Synallaxis are feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name
is hypochondriaca (David & Gosselin 2002b), as in Cory &
Hellmayr (1925).
46. Vaurie
(1980) merged Gyalophylax into Synallaxis; Cory & Hellmayr
(1925) and Pinto (1937) included it in Asthenes.
See Whitney & Pacheco (1994) for continued recognition as monotypic genus
until relationships clarified. Genetic
data (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that it is embedded within Synallaxis. SACC proposal passed to merge into Synallaxis.
47. Hellmayrea
was formerly included in Synallaxis (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or in Cranioleuca (Vaurie 1980). Braun and
Parker (1985) provided evidence for why Hellmayrea should be maintained
as a monotypic genus, as in Phelps & Phelps (1950a) and Peters (1951).
Recent genetic data confirm that Hellmayrea is not closely related to Synallaxis
(Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009); in fact, Derryberry et al. (2011)
found that it is the sister to a cluster of synallaxine genera that also
includes Cranioleuca, Asthenes, Thripophaga, etc.
48.
Sequence of species in Cranioleuca incorporates the genetic data from
García-Moreno et al. (1999b). Vaurie (1980) included Cranioleuca in Certhiaxis,
but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., see Wetmore
1972, Fitzpatrick REF). Derryberry et
al. (2011) found that Certhiaxis
was not closely related to Cranioleuca but is sister to Synallaxis (except S. propinqua); see also Irestedt
et al. (2006) and Moyle et al. (2009).
SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
49. The
superspecies relationship proposed for Cranioleuca marcapatae and
C. albiceps (e.g., Remsen 1984) is corroborated by genetic data
(García-Moreno et al. 1999b, Derryberry et al. 2011); Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990) proposed that they might be best treated as conspecific. Del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated the
subspecies weskei as a separate species from C. marcapatae based
on plumage and the vocal analysis of Boesman (2106p). SACC proposal pending to treat weskei
as a separate species.
49b. "Cranioleuca
solimonensis," described from a single specimen from Amazonian
Brazil, is now considered a synonym of Cranioleuca vulpina alopecias
(Peters 1951). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
50. Cranioleuca
vulpecula was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of C. vulpina,
but see Zimmer (1997) for evidence for treating C. vulpecula as a
separate species. Genetic data
(Derryberry et al. 2011) further indicate that C. vulpecula is the
sister to a group that includes C. vulpina, C. muelleri, and “Thripophaga” berlepschi. SACC proposal
needed. <<wait Claramunt paper>>
51. Genetic
data (García-Moreno et al. 1999b) are consistent with the proposal that Cranioleuca
henricae, C. pyrrhophia, and C. obsoleta
form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Maijer and Fjeldså 1997).
Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) proposed that C. pyrrhophia might
form a superspecies with C. antisiensis/C. baroni, but genetic
data indicate that they are not closely related (Derryberry et al. 2011).
52. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Maijer and Fjeldså (1997).
53. Belton
(1985) suggested that Cranioleuca obsoleta was a subspecies of C.
pyrrhophia based on specimens from Rio Grande do Sul that he considered
intermediate. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) acknowledged specimens showing some
intermediate characters, but continued to recognize obsoleta as a
distinct species, as do other authors (e.g., see Hayes 1995). Claramunt (2002)
showed that evidence for free interbreeding between the two was weak at best. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that they are
not sister species, with the sister to C. pyrrhophia being C. pallida.
54. Cranioleuca
hellmayri and C. demissa were once considered conspecific
(e.g., REF), but recent authors have followed Vaurie (1971b) in treating them
as separate species; they were considered to form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990), but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that C. demissa was sister to a group that included C. hellmayri,
C. subcristata, and C. semicinerea. SACC proposal needed to change linear
sequence. <<wait Claramunt paper>>
54a. The
subspecies cisandina was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
treated as a separate species from Cranioleuca curtata, but Peters
(1951) treated them as conspecific; all subsequent authors have followed this.
55. As
suspected by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), the taxon "Cranioleuca
furcata," formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951)
considered a valid species, has been shown to be a juvenal/immature plumage of C.
curtata (Graves 1986b), despite earlier claims to the contrary (Vaurie
1971c, 1980). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
56. Cranioleuca
baroni was considered conspecific with C. antisiensis by
Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), following Koepcke (1961a); it had formerly
(e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951) been considered a separate
species. Although most current references (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994)
treat baroni as a species, evidence for considering this species
separate from C. antisiensis is weak; as noted by Koepcke (1961), the
closest populations, geographically, of antisiensis and baroni
are more similar to one another than they are to other subspecies within their
respective "species", and drawing a line between these two is
arbitrary, even though the extremes differ radically (Remsen 2003). Seeholzer & Brumfield (2017) showed that
there is no clean division between the two and providing evidence that they
should be treated as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to treat baroni as conspecific with antisiensis. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) found
that C. curtata is also a member of
this group.). Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990) proposed that C. curtata might be best treated as conspecific
with C. erythrops, but see Derryberry
et al. (2011), who found that Cranioleuca erythrops, C. curtata, C.
antisiensis, and C. baroni did form a monophyletic group, but that C.
erythrops was the sister to the
other three.
56a. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Cranioleuca gutturata was a Thripophaga, and this was followed by
Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal badly needed.
57. Certhiaxis
is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are cinnamomeus
and mustelinus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
58a. Certhiaxis
cinnamomea was called "Yellow-throated Spinetail" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
59. The
genus Thripophaga was suspected by several authors (e.g., Ridgely &
Tudor 1994) of being a non-monophyletic genus.
Vaurie (1980) considered Thripophaga fusciceps and T. berlepschi to belong in Phacellodomus. <Check>
Derryberry et al.
(2011) found that T. berlepschi was
embedded in Cranioleuca, but that T. cherriei and T. fusciceps were sister species; T. macroura, the type species for the genus, was not sampled.
59a. SACC proposal to hyphenate the English
name to make it "Soft-tail" did not pass.
60. Hilty
et al. (2013) described a new species of Thripophaga,
most similar to T. cherriei and T. macroura. SACC proposal passed to recognize Thripophaga amacurensis.
61.
Irestedt et al. (2006) and Moyle et al. (2009) found that Asthenes is a
polyphyletic genus. Derryberry et al.
(2010b, 2011), with more complete taxon-sampling, showed that four species
currently placed in Asthenes are
actually more closely related to a group of genera that consists of Pseudoseisura, Xenerpestes, etc., and named a new genus, Pseudasthenes, for these four species (humicola, patagonica, steinbachi, cactorum). SACC proposal passed to recognize Pseudasthenes.
61a. Asthenes
heterura was considered a subspecies of A. pudibunda by Meyer de
Schauensee (1966, 1970) , but see Vaurie (1971a, 1980) for treatment as a
separate species, as was done previously by Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and
Peters (1951); it is more likely to be closer to A. ottonis (Vaurie
1971a, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), which was considered a subspecies of A.
pudibunda by Cory & Hellmayr (1925). Called "Iquico
Canastero" in Cory & Hellmayr (1925) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Asthenes
pudibunda, A. ottonis, and A. heterura are considered to form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
62. Vaurie
(1980) not only considered Asthenes cactorum conspecific with A.
modesta but also did not even consider cactorum
to represent a distinct subspecies of A.
modesta; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies. However, genetic data (Derryberry et al.
2010, 2011) indicate that cactorum is
not even in the same genus as A. modesta;
see Note 61.
63. Species
limits in this group have been fluid and confusing and have spanned virtually
every permutation of combinations of taxa. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) recognized three
species, Asthenes wyatti, A. punensis (including
subspecies cuchacanchae and lilloi), and A. anthoides, and
considered A. sclateri to be a synonym of A. hudsoni. Peters (1951) considered the punensis
subspecies group to be conspecific with A. wyatti, and elevated sclateri
to species rank, but considered it (by implication) not closely related to A.
wyatti. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) followed Peters (1951) except that
he considered the punensis group to be conspecific with A. anthoides
based on tail patterns. Fjeldså &
Krabbe (1990) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated the four major groups as
four species: Asthenes wyatti, A. punensis, A. sclateri,
and A. anthoides. Navas & Bó (1982) followed Meyer de Schauensee
(1966, 1970) except that they treated the punensis group to be
conspecific with A. sclateri rather than A. anthoides; this
treatment, the one used here, was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and
Remsen (2003). However, evidence for
considering Asthenes wyatti as separate species from A. sclateri
is weak; they may intergrade in Titicaca basin (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), and
the northern group of subspecies differs more in plumage from southern group
than the latter does from adjacent A. sclateri subspecies (Ridgely &
Tudor 1994). Asthenes wyatti and A.
sclateri form a superspecies, in which A. anthoides was considered
to be presumably also included (Olrog REF, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley
& Monroe 1990); some authors (check Olrog REF) consider them all
conspecific. <<incorp.
Krabbe (2000)>
Derryberry et al. (2011) found that although Asthenes wyatti (including punensis) and A. sclateri were
sisters, A. anthoides was distantly related and the sister to A. hudsoni. SACC passed to change linear sequence.
64. See
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for the use of "Puna Canastero" for this
species.
65. Vuilleumier
(1968) considered Asthenes virgata a subspecies of A. flammulata,
but see Vaurie (1980). Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that A. maculicauda
might be considered a subspecies of A. flammulata. Asthenes flammulata, A.
virgata, and A. maculicauda form a superspecies (Sibley
& Monroe 1990); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that all three could
be considered conspecific. Genetic data
(Derryberry et al. 2010, 2011) are consistent with the three forming a
monophyletic group, with A. virgata and A. maculicauda being sister taxa.
66. Called
"Lesser Canastero" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
66a. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Asthenes pyrrholeuca and A. baeri
to form a superspecies, but no other authors consider this likely; they are
only distantly related (Derryberry et al. 2010, 2011).
67. Asthenes
dorbignyi presumably forms a superspecies with A. berlepschi,
A. baeri, and perhaps A. steinbachi; except for
their throat patches, they are superficially closer to the smaller Phacellodomus
in several aspects of plumage, voice, and nest structure than they are to most other
Asthenes. Asthenes steinbachi
and A. baeri are close enough in
plumage that A. b. neiffi was initially described as a subspecies of A.
steinbachi (Navas and Bó 1987). Asthenes steinbachi has also
been considered conspecific with A. dorbignyi (e.g., Olrog 1963), but
see Vaurie (1980) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Derryberry et al. (2011) found that A. dorbignyi and A. baeri were sisters (but A.
berlepschi and A. steinbachi not
sampled)
68. The
subspecies huancavelicae and arequipae were considered separate
species ("Pale-tailed Canastero" and "Dark-winged
Canastero") from Asthenes dorbignyi by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990)
and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to recognize huancavelicae
and arequipae as separate species did not pass because published data
are incomplete and insufficient.
69. Asthenes
berlepschi may best be treated as a subspecies of A. dorbignyi
(Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994,
Remsen 2003); it differs less in plumage from A. dorbignyi than
do taxa treated as subspecies within A. dorbignyi do from one
another.
70. Called
"Chestnut Canastero" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970).
71. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Vielliard (1990).
72. Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) considered northern inornatus (with castilloi)
a separate species from Phacellodomus rufifrons, and this was followed
by Hilty (2003); vocalizations are reported to differ, but no analysis or data
have been published. SACC proposal to recognize inornatus
as separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) also
suggested that the subspecies peruvianus of the Marañon valley deserved
recognition as a separate species. Corbett et al. (2020) noted that strictly on
genetic distance, inornatus was as divergent from the southern rufifrons
group as are some other furnariids ranked as species, but see that paper for
what additional data are needed.
72a. Called
"Common Thornbird" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
72b. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Phacellodomus rufifrons and P.
sibilatrix to form a superspecies, but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that P.
sibilatrix was the sister to P. striaticeps, with P. rufifrons the sister to that pair.
73. Phacellodomus
maculipectus was formerly (e.g., Peters, 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
considered a subspecies of P. striaticollis. Ridgely & Tudor
(1994), based on Nores and Yzurieta (1979<check>), considered the
subspecies maculipectus to be a separate species from striaticollis.
SACC proposal passed to recognize maculipectus
as a separate species. Derryberry
et al. (2011) found that they were not sister taxa, with P. striaticollis the sister to P. ruber, and P.
maculipectus sister to P. dorsalis. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence.
74. Phacellodomus
erythrophthalmus (including ferrugineigula) was formerly (e.g., Cory
& Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937) placed in the
monotypic genus Drioctistes, but Peters (1951) merged this into Phacellodomus.
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) noted distinctions in voice, plumage, and nest
architecture compared to other Phacellodomus that were consistent with
such separation. However, Derryberry et
al. (2011) found that P. erythrophthalmus was embedded in Phacellodomus
and the sister to P. striaticollis + P. ruber.
74a. The southern race ferrugineigula
has recently been shown to be a separate species from Phacellodomus
erythrophthalmus by the discovery of their sympatry (Simon et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to treat ferrugineigula as a separate species.
SACC proposal passed on English names.
74b. Genetic
data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011) support
the close relationship, presumably as sister taxa, between Anumbius and Coryphistera.
74c. Siptornis has been placed traditionally
near Metopothrix and Xenerpestes, but Derryberry et al.
(2011) found that it is the sister taxon to a group that consists of Cranioleuca + Thripophaga. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
75. Vaurie
(1980) included Clibanornis in Phacellodomus. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it
was the sister to Hylocryptus
rectirostris. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
75a. The coloration of Metopothrix
is so unusual that it was long questioned whether it belonged it the
Furnariidae (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), but see Feduccia (1970),
<>Traylor (1972). Genetic data
(Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that it is the sister genus to Xenerpestes, with Acrobatornis sister to this
group. Whether Xenerpestes
belongs in the Furnariidae had also been questioned (Peters 1951, Meyer de
Schauensee 1966), but see Vaurie (1971d).
SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
75b. Metopothrix
is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is aurantiaca
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
76. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Pacheco et al. (1996).
76b. Xenerpestes
minlosi and X. singularis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990); genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm their sister relationship.
76c. Called
"Double-banded Soft-tail" in Wetmore (1972).
77. Cory
& Hellmayr (1925), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), Peters (1951), and Vaurie
(1980) treated tatei as a subspecies of Premnoplex brunnescens,
but Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) elevated it to species rank, as it was
originally described; published evidence for treatment as
separate species was considered weak by Remsen (2003); they form a superspecies
(AOU 1983, 1998). Data on habitat and vocalizations support
separate species status for tatei and brunnescens (Areta 2007);
see also Pérez-Emán
et al. (2010).
78a. Vaurie
(1980) included Premnornis and Premnoplex in Margarornis.
Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Pérez-Emán et al. 2010), however, indicate
that Premnornis is not closely related to Premnoplex + Margarornis,
but may be the sister taxon to Pseudocolaptes. Moyle et al. (2009) and Derryberry et al.
(2011) confirmed this but found that Tarphonomus
is the sister to Premnornis, with Pseudocolaptes sister to that pair. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera. Premnoplex
and Margarornis are sister genera,
but have no close relatives in the Furnariidae (Derryberry et al. 2011)
78b.
David & Gosselin (2011) showed that the correct spelling of the
species name is guttuliger. SACC proposal passed to change name.
78c. Vaurie (1980) included Roraimia
in Margarornis; see Rudge & Raikow (1992) for maintaining it as a
monotypic genus. Differences in tail-shape, behavior and
vocalizations suggest that Roraimia is not closely related to other
members in the Margarornis assemblage (Areta 2007). Genetic
data (Moyle et al. 2009, Pérez-Emán et al. 2010, Derryberry et al. 2011)
indicate that it is not a member of the “Margarornis
group” and that it is part of the Thripophaga
+ Cranioleuca group. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
79. Margarornis
stellatus was called "Star-chested Treerunner" by Ridgely &
Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Considered to form a
superspecies with Middle American M. rubiginosus by AOU (1983),
but Derryberry et al. (2011) found that M. rubiginosus is the
sister to all other Margarornis. SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
79a. Margarornis squamiger was
considered to form a superspecies with M. bellulus of Darién, Panama
(AOU 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003), but Derryberry et al. (2011)
found that M. stellatus is
the sister to M. bellulus.
80. Pseudoseisura
unirufa was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters, 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of P. cristata,
but see Zimmer & Whittaker (2000) for evidence for considering P.
unirufa as a separate species; they form a superspecies (Remsen 2003).
80a. The name Cacholote is frequently misspelled
as “Cachalote” (e.g. Dickinson & Christidis 2014, del Hoyo & Collar
2016).
81. Extralimital
Pseudocolaptes lawrencii (then also including P. johnsoni) and P.
boissonneautii form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe
1990, Remsen 2003); they were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
considered conspecific, but Peters (1951) and subsequent authors treated them
as separate species.
81a. See Zimmer
(1936c) for recognition of johnsoni as a distinct taxon and its presumed
relationship to extralimital P. lawrencii;
it was considered a subspecies of P. lawrencii
by Peters (1951), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Hilty (1986), Remsen (2003),
Dickinson and Remsen (2013), and others. Robbins and Ridgely (1990) and Ridgely &
Tudor (1994) proposed that johnsoni should be treated as a separate
species, and this was followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to recognize johnsoni
as a separate species did not pass.
Spencer (2011) and Boesman (2016) noted
vocal differences between johnsoni, lawrencii, and boissonneautii,
and del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated johnsoni as a separate species. Freeman et al.’s (2017) playback trials showed
that the song of johnsoni does not elicit any response in lawrencii
individuals. Harvey et al. (2020) found
that johnsoni might be more closely related to P. boissonneautii
than to P. lawrencii. Forcina et
al. (2021) interpreted genetic data to support species rank for johnsoni. SACC proposal passed to recognize johnsoni
as a species.
81b.
Formerly known as "Lawrence's Tuftedcheek" (e.g., Wetmore 1972).
81c. Elliott
(2020) noted that he correct spelling of P. boissonneautii should be P.
boissonneautii: the taxon was named for M. Boissonneau, and the “t” is a
consequence of a typographical error. SACC proposal needed.
82. Moyle
et al. (2009) and Derryberry et al. (2011) found strong support for the
monophyly of a group that consists of the foliage-gleaner genera Anabacerthia, Syndactyla, Simoxenops,
Megaxenops, Anabazenops, Heliobletus, Cichlocolaptes, Philydor, Ancistrops, Thripadectes, Hylocryptus, Clibanornis, Hyloctistes,
and Automolus.
82a. Vaurie
(1980) included Anabacerthia in Philydor;
Hilty (2003) suspected that Anabacerthia might even belong in narrowly
defined Philydor. Anabacerthia
amaurotis was considered more closely related to Philydor sensu
stricto, especially P. lichtensteini, than to the other two Anabacerthia
species by Vaurie (1980), and was treated in Philydor by Sibley &
Monroe (1990). Zimmer (1935) considered Philydor
ruficaudatum to have no close relatives in the genus and that it shared
some characters with Anabacerthia. In fact, genetic data (Derryberry et
al. 2011) confirm that Philydor
lichtensteini and A. amaurotis are sister species and
that P. lichtensteini and P.
ruficaudatum are embedded in Anabacerthia. SACC proposal passed to move lichtensteini
and ruficaudatum to Anabacerthia. Other Philydor,
however, including the type species for the genus (atricapillus), are
not; in fact, Syndactyla + Simoxenops is the sister group to Anabacerthia.
82aa. Anabacerthia
variegaticeps and A. striaticollis have been considered conspecific
(e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Peters 1951), but most authors have followed
Wetmore (1972) in treating them as separate species, based mainly on
differences in plumage pattern. Although formerly considered to constitute a
superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Remsen 2003), they are not sister taxa (Derryberry et al. 2011).
82b. The
species name formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) used for Anabacerthia
striaticollis was montanus, but striaticollis has priority
(Peters 1951).
83. Winker
(1997) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies temporalis
of the Western Andes should be recognized as a separate species from Anabacerthia
variegaticeps, as previously treated by Peters (1951).
83a. Called
"Spectacled Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Gwynne (1989) <elsewhere?>, but see Remsen (1997a).
84. Vaurie
(1980) included Syndactyla in Philydor; the former name for the
genus was Xenoctistes (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925), but see Zimmer
(1935).
85. Syndactyla
guttulata and S. subalaris were
considered to constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Remsen 2003), but
they are not sister species: S. subalaris is sister to S. ruficollis, whereas S. guttulata is the
sister to Simoxenops.
85a.
Wetmore (1972) used "Leaf-gleaner" as the English name for species in
the genera Philydor, Anabacerthia, Syndactyla, Hyloctistes,
Automolus, and Thripadectes.
85aa.
Formerly known as "Guttulated Foliage-gleaner." There is no such word
as "Guttulated,” and the proper adjectival form is "guttulate." SACC proposal passed to change English
name.
85b. The genus Automolus
as currently defined is polyphyletic (Derryberry et al. 2011). Claramunt et al. (2013) transferred rubiginosus and rufipectus to Clibanornis
to restore monophyly to Automolus;
see Noted 97d. SACC
proposal passed to revise
classification.
86. Syndactyla
ruficollis was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Zimmer 1935,
Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Automolus, but see
Parker et al. (1985) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm
the placement of ruficollis in Syndactyla.
87. Vaurie
(1980) included Simoxenops in Philydor. Robbins & Zimmer
(2005) recommended the merger of Simoxenops and Syndactyla based
on voice and morphology. Derryberry et
al. (2011) found that Simoxenops is embedded in Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to merge into Syndactyla.
87a. Some
authors (REFS) have considered Syndactyla ucayalae and S. striata
to be conspecific; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a
superspecies; substantial differences in bill shape and habitat (Remsen 2003),
however, make this unlikely. Genetic
data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that they are sister taxa.
87b. "Megaxenops
ferrugineus," described from Madre de Dios, Peru, is a synonym
of Syndactyla ucayalae (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Vaurie 1980). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
88. Vaurie
(1980) included Ancistrops in a broadly defined Philydor, but
this is not consistent with genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al.
2011): it is the sister to P. rufum +
P. erythropterum, but not other Philydor. See
Note 89c. SACC proposal passed to resurrect
the genus Dendroma for P. rufum and P. erythropterum. Dendroma Swainson
1837 is feminine, thus requiring a change in the variable endings of the
species to rufa and erythroptera.
89. Vaurie
(1980) included Hyloctistes in Philydor, but genetic data (Moyle
et al. 2009) indicated that Hyloctistes
is sister to Automolus. Broader taxon-sampling (Derryberry et al.
2011) revealed that Hyloctistes is
actually embedded within Automolus. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera. SACC proposal passed to merge Hyloctistes into Automolus.
89a.
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that Trans-Andean populations (virgatus
group) and Amazonian populations might merit species rank based on vocal
differences; Ridgely & Tudor (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated them as
separate species. SACC proposal to elevate virgatus
to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.
89b. Called
"Striped Foliage-gleaner" in <REFS> and Stiles & Skutch
(1989).
89c. The genus Philydor is polyphyletic:
Derryberry et al. (2011) found that the type species for the genus, P. atricapilla, is likely the sister to P. pyrrhodes, which together form a
monophyletic group with Heliobletus
and Cichlocolaptes, but all other
species currently in Philydor are more closely related to other
genera. See Notes 82a, 88, and 91.
90. Philydor
is neuter, so the correct spellings of the species names are fuscipenne,
erythrocercum, erythropterum, and rufum (David &
Gosselin 2002b).
90a. The
montane subspecies ochrogaster is likely a separate species from Philydor
erythrocercum, and was treated that way by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but
the contact with lowland populations needs to be investigated in greater
detail. See Zimmer (1935) for rationale for treatment of ochrogaster as
subspecies of P. erythrocercum.
90aaa. The
subspecies erythronotum was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
treated as separate species from Philydor fuscipenne/P. erythrocercum,
but see Zimmer (1935).
90b. Pinto
(1937) placed dimidiata in the genus Pseudoxenops Pinto, 1932. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Philydor
pyrrhodes and "P." dimidiatum to form a superspecies, but
other authors consider this unlikely. In fact, Robbins & Zimmer (2005)
provided evidence that "Philydor" dimidiatum should be
transferred to the genus Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Syndactyla. Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed this and
found that S. dimidiata is the
sister to S. rufosuperciliata.
90bb. The
subspecies subfulvum was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
treated as separate species from Philydor erythrocercum, but see Zimmer
(1935).
90c. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Teixeira & Gonzaga (1983a). Now considered extinct (Butchart et al. 2018,
IUCN 2019, Pacheco et al. 2021).
90d. Philydor
novaesi and P. atricapillus are considered to form a superspecies
(Teixeira & Gonzaga 1983a, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
91. Philydor
fuscipenne was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Wetmore 1972, AOU 1983) considered conspecific with P. erythrocercum,
but see Hilty & Brown (1986) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale
for treating it as a separate species, thus returning to the classification of
Cory & Hellmayr (1925). Derryberry
et al. (2011) found that these two species are not members of Philydor but form the sister group to Megaxenops parnaguae. Harvey et al. (2020) found that they were
sister to Anabazenops. Sangster
et al. (2023) named a new genus, Neophilydor, for these two
species. SACC proposal passed to recognize Neophilydor.
92. Called
"Planalto Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
92a. The
subspecies baeri was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Peters 1951) considered a separate
species from Philydor dimidiatum; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered
them conspecific, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. <incorp. Pinto
& Camargo 1955>
92b. "Syndactyla
mirandae," described from Goiás and treated as a valid species
by Peters (1951), is a synonym of Syndactyla dimidiata (Novaes 1953,
Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Vaurie 1980). See
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
92c. Anabazenops
was included in Philydor by Vaurie (1980), but this is not
consistent with genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011).
93. Anabazenops
dorsalis (e.g., Zimmer 1935, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely
& Tudor 1994) was formerly placed in Automolus, but see Kratter
& Parker (1997) for including dorsalis in Anabazenops, as
confirmed by genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011).
93a. Called
"Crested Foliage-gleaner" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Hilty
& Brown (1986), but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Called "Bamboo
Foliage-gleaner" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
93b. Cichlocolaptes
was included in Philydor by Vaurie (1980), but see Note 89c.
93bb. A new
species of Cichlocolaptes, C. mazarbarnetti, has been described by Mazar Barnett & Buzzetti (2014); see also
Claramunt (2014b). SACC proposal to
recognize C. mazarbarnetti did not pass. This taxon is treated as a species by many
(REF) and is now considered extinct (Butchart et al. 2018, IUCN 2019, Pacheco
et al. 2021).
94. Derryberry et al. (2011) and Claramunt (2013)
found that T. ignobilis is sister to T. flammulatus + T. scrutator. SACC proposal passed to modify linear
sequence.
94a. Thripadectes
flammulatus and T. scrutator form a superspecies (Parker et
al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Remsen 2003); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990)
suggested that they should be considered conspecific. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm
that they are sister taxa.
95. Thripadectes
scrutator was called "Buff-throated Treehunter" in Meyer de
Schauensee (1970) and "Peruvian Treehunter" in Ridgely & Tudor
(1994). SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
96. Zimmer
(2002) provided evidence, mainly vocal, that the taxon paraensis of
southeastern Amazonia should be ranked at the species level. SACC proposal passed to recognize paraensis
as a separate species.
96a.
Automolus infuscatus, A. paraensis, A. lammi, and A. leucophthalmus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Zimmer 2002,
Remsen 2003); genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that they form a
monophyletic group.
96b. Zimmer
(2008) presented data on vocalizations that suggest that the subspecies lammi
should be ranked as a separate species from Automolus leucophthalmus. SACC
proposal passed to recognize lammi
as a species.
97. Automolus
roraimae was listed as A. albigularis by Peters (1951), but see Cory
& Hellmayr (1925), Meyer de Schauensee (1966),
and Vaurie (1980).
97a. "Philydor
hylobius," formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a
valid species (and even treated as a subspecies of Philydor atricapillus
by Vaurie 1980), represents the juvenal plumage of Automolus roraimae
(Dickerman et al. 1986). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
97b. Called
"Tepui Foliage-gleaner" in Hilty (2003). SACC
proposal to change English name did
not pass.
97c. Syndactyla roraimae was formerly
considered a member of the genus Automolus, but was considered by several authors unlikely to be a
member of that genus (Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Kratter & Parker 1997,
Hilty 2003). Zimmer et al. (2008) used multiple lines of evidence to show that
it was not an Automolus, but
rather a Syndactyla. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Syndactyla.
Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) confirm that it is embedded in Syndactyla.
97d. Clibanornis (formerly Automolus)
rubiginosus likely includes several species-level taxa (AOU 1998,
Hilty 2003, Remsen 2003). The subspecies nigricauda (with saturatus)
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species,
but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951) and all subsequent
authors. Krabbe (2008) provided evidence
that the subspecies rufipectus of the
Santa Marta Mountains merits species rank and
pointed out its close resemblance to Hylocryptus
erythrocephalus in voice and habitat. SACC proposal passed to treat rufipectus as a separate species. Genetic
data (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that Hylocryptus erythrocephalus is the sister to Automolus rubiginosus (as
represented by subspecies nigricauda and watkinsi), and that A. rufipectus is the sister to these two; Claramunt et al. (2013)
transferred rubiginosus and rufipectus to Clibanornis. SACC proposal passed to revise
classification.
98. Vaurie
(1980) included Hylocryptus (now Clibanornis)
in Automolus. Cory &
Hellmayr (1925) and Pinto (1937) included Hylocryptus
(now Clibanornis) rectirostris
in Automolus (while recognizing Hylocryptus as a monotypic genus
for erythrocephalus), but noted the possibility that rectirostris
was most closely related to H. erythrocephalus; see Zimmer (1936c) for
rationale for the transfer of rectirostris to Hylocryptus. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that the two
species of Hylocryptus are not
closely related and that rectirostris is sister to Clibanornis dendrocolaptoides. Claramunt
et al. (2013) merged Hylocryptus into Clibanornis. See
Notes 75 and 97d. SACC proposal passed to revise
classification.
99a.
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) called this species "Henna-capped
Foliage-gleaner." SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
100. The
relationships of Lochmias within the family are controversial; general
morphology has usually (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore
1972) led to its placement in linear sequences near Sclerurus, but see
Vaurie (1971a). Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate
that Sclerurus and Lochmias are in separate branches of the
Furnariidae. Derryberry et al. (2011)
found that Lochmias is sister to Limnornis
and Phleocryptes. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
100a. [potential Lochmias species
split]
100b.
Called "Sharp-tailed Creeper" in Wetmore (1972) and "Streamside
Lochmias" in AOU (1983).
101. Ohlson
et al. (2013) proposed that Xenops be
treated in a separate family, Xenopidae, and that the Furnariinae, therein
treated at the family rank, be divided into five subfamilies (Berlepschiinae,
Pygarrhichinae, Philydorinae, Furnariinae, and Synallaxinae, the latter with
two tribes). Dickinson & Christidis
(2014) followed this in part by adding six subfamilies to Furnariidae. SACC proposal needed.
101a. Vaurie (1980) included Heliobletus
in Xenops; plumage pattern of this species remarkably
similar to that of X. milleri. However, genetic data (Irestedt et al.
2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Heliobletus and Xenops are
in separate branches of the Furnariidae.
Derryberry et al. (2011) found that it is sister to true Philydor. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
102. Xenops
milleri was originally (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in
monotypic genus Microxenops; it lacks wedge-shaped bill and complex tail
pattern of Xenops. Peters (1951)
merged it into Xenops, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. Genetic data (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry
et al. 2011) indicate that milleri is
sister to Eremobius and Chilia (now included in Ochetorhynchus)
and thus not particularly close to Xenops. SACC proposal passed to restore Microxenops.
102a. Some
genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2005, Irestedt et al. 2006) indicated that Xenops
might be the sister taxon to the dendrocolaptid woodcreepers, but this has been
shown to be incorrect (Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011).
102b. Xenops minutus may consist of more than
one species; see Remsen (2003). Harvey
& Brumfield (2015) found that X. minutus consists of three deeply
divergent genetic groups: (1) the Middle American and trans-Andean mexicanus
group; (2) the mostly Amazonian genibarbis group, and (3) nominate minutus
of SE Brazil. Boesman (2016e) outlined
three groups based on vocal differences, and these matched the genetic groups
found by Harvey & Brumfield (2015). Del
Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated X. genibarbis as a separate species
from X. minutus, with genibarbis (“Plain Xenops”) including all
subspecies other than nominate minutus (“White-throated Xenops”). Freeman & Montgomery (2017) documented
strong vocal differences between cis- and trans-Andean populations and response
differences between the two (represented by X. m. obsoletus and X. m.
littoralis) in playback experiments.
SACC proposal passed to treat as three
species.
102c. Xenops rutilans was listed as Xenops rutilus by Cory & Hellmayr
(1925) but as Xenops rutilans by Peters (1950) and all subsequent
classifications. Dickinson (2011) showed
that rutilans is actually an
incorrect subsequent spelling and that rutilus
has priority; this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to change to Xenops rutilus did not pass. Elliott (2020) disputed that prevailing usage
of rutilans is more important than the correct original spelling.
103.
Foraging behavior suggests that Megaxenops is not closely related to Xenops,
and that bill shape similarity is due to convergence (Remsen 2003). In fact,
genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Megaxenops
and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that Megaxenops
is sister to Philydor fuscipenne + P. erythrocercum. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of
genera.
104. Traditional linear sequences place Pygarrhichas at the end, near Xenops, but this placement is almost certainly due to convergence on climbing behavior -- otherwise, nothing supports this relationship, which seems highly unlikely biogeographically (Remsen 2003). Genetic data (Fjeldså et al. 2005, Irestedt et al. 2006, Moyle et al. 2009) indicate that Pygarrhichas and Xenops are in separate branches of the Furnariidae. Irestedt et al. (2006) found that it clustered with Margarornis and Premnoplex, but more thorough analyses indicate that it is sister to a group that includes Microxenops milleri and Ochetorhynchus (Moyle et al. 2009). Moyle et al. (2009) proposed that these genera be recognized as a subfamily, Pygarrhichinae. SACC proposal passed for a new sequence of genera. Derryberry et al. (2011) also corroborated this grouping as monophyletic.
105.
Although the monophyly of the former Dendrocolaptidae seems reasonably well
established (Feduccia 1973, Raikow 1994, Clench 1995, Sibley & Ahlquist
1990, Marantz et al. 2003), whether it is embedded within the Furnariidae (as
proposed by Feduccia 1973) or sister to all Furnariidae (Clench 1995, Sibley
& Ahlquist 1990) has been controversial. Genetic data (Irestedt et al.
2002, 2006, Chesser 2004, Fjeldså et al. 2005. Moyle et al. 2009) data strongly
support the former, with the genera Geositta and Sclerurus basal
to all other ovenbirds plus woodcreepers. Some authors had previously treated
the Dendrocolaptidae as a subfamily of the Furnariidae (e.g., REFS <check Mayr
& Amadon, 1951, AMNov1496.>
<incorp.
Irestedt et al. 2004>.
If family or subfamily ranks are retained within this group, then a third
group, Geositta plus Sclerurus, must also be accorded taxonomic
rank. SACC proposal passed to merge
Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae into single family subfamily rankings. <relationships
among genera in dendrocolaptids; incorp. Aleixo 2002, Irestedt et al. 2006>. Moyle
et al. (2009) and Derryberry
et al. (2011) found that (a) the woodcreepers consisted of two divergent
branches, with Dendrocincla, Deconychura, and Sittasomus sister to all other genera; (b) within the latter, Glyphorynchus was sister to the
remaining genera; (c) the remaining genera consisted of two major groups, with
one consisting of Xiphorhynchus + Dendroplex +(Campylorhamphus +[Drymornis
+ Lepidocolaptes]), and the other (Nasica + Dendrexetastes) + (Dendrocolaptes
+ [Hylexetastes + Xiphocolaptes]). Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed subfamily rank
for the two lineages, with Sittasominae for lineage “a” above (with
Dendrocolaptinae treated at the family rank); in this classification, this
group would be treated as a tribe, Sittasomini.
SACC proposal needed.
105a.
"Dendrocincla macrorhyncha," known from two specimens
from Ecuador, is considered to represent aberrant individuals of D. tyrannina
(Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1986, Marantz et al. 2003). See
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
106. Cory
& Hellmayr (1925) treated the subspecies turdina and atrirostris
each as separate species from Dendrocincla fuliginosa; Pinto (1937) treated turdina as a separate
species but not atrirostris; Peters (1951) and Meyer de Schauensee
(1970) considered them all conspecific. Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely
& Tudor (1994), and Marantz et al. (2003) treated turdina as a
separate species ("Plain-winged Woodcreeper") based largely on Willis
(1983). Weir & Price (2011) found
that fuliginosa might be more closely
related to Middle American D. anabatina
than to turdina. SACC proposal passed to treat turdina as separate species. Placement of the subspecies taunayi remains problematic; it was
included in Dendrocincla fuliginosa by Marantz et al. (2003) but Weir
& Price (2011) found that it might belong with D. turdina. <check Todd
(1948) for treatment of meruloides as species, formerly placed in merula;
Marantz et al. 2003>
107. Called
"Brown Woodcreeper" in Wetmore (1972).
108.
Marantz et al. (2003) noted that differences in voice and iris color between
nominate merula (with obidensis) and the rest of the subspecies
suggested that more than one species might be involved; see also Hilty (2003).
109. The
subspecies typica was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1911, Cory & Hellmayr
1925) treated (with minor and
Panamanian dariensis) as a separate species from Deconychura
longicauda, but Zimmer (1934) treated it as a subspecies of D. longicauda
without comment, and this was followed by Peters (1951) and subsequent
classifications. Marantz et al. (2003)
indicated that vocal differences among populations suggest that more than one
species might be involved, with the typica group possibly more closely
related to Certhiasomus stictolaema than to Amazonian longicauda group. Barbosa (2010) found vocal evidence that D.
longicauda consists of three of more species. Boesman’s (2016f) analysis of vocalizations
also supported recognizing at least three species, and this was done by del
Hoyo & Collar (2016): D. typica of Middle American, D. longicauda
of the Guianan Shield, and D. pallida of Amazonia. SACC proposal pending to recognize
three species.
110. The
subspecies secundus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925)
treated as a separate species from Certhiasomus stictolaemus.
110a. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2010a, 2011)
indicate that the two species formerly in Deconychura
are not each other’s closest relatives and that a new genus was needed for stictolaemus. Derryberry
et al. (2010a) named a new genus, Certhiasomus,
for stictolaemus. SACC proposal passed to recognize Certhiasomus.
111. Sittasomus
griseicapillus almost certainly consists of multiple species (Hardy et al.
1991, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Parker et al. 1995, Ridgely & Greenfield
2001, Hilty 2003), with at least five subspecies groups possibly deserving
separate species status (Marantz et al. 2003).
The subspecies viridis and amazonus are elevational replacements in
southern Peru with different song types (Robbins et al. 2013).
111a. Derryberry et al. (2011) confirmed the
monophyly of the genus Dendrocincla
but found relationships among species that differ from those suggested in the
traditional linear sequence, e.g., D.
tyrannina and D. merula are
sister species. SACC
proposal passed to change linear sequence
of species.
112.
Marantz et al. (2003) noted that vocal differences among populations of Glyphorynchus
spirurus suggest that more than one species might be involved. Fernandes et al. (2012) also found genetic
evidence (mtDNA gene trees) consistent with existence of multiple species.
113.
Irestedt et al. (2004) found that Glyphorynchus was sister to all other
genera in the family, but see Note 105.
114. Glyphorynchus
is regularly misspelled as "Glyphorhynchus."
115. Drymornis
bridgesii differs from all other woodcreepers in syringeal structure (Ames
1971) and foraging behavior (semiterrestrial), and Raikow (1994) suggested that
it and Nasica might be the outgroup taxa to all other Dendrocolaptidae.
Genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004, Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al. 2011),
however, indicate that the traditional placement of Drymornis within the
woodcreepers is correct. See Note 105.
116. Raikow
(1994) proposed that Dendrexetastes is closely related to Campylorhamphus,
contrary to their traditional placements in linear sequences, but this is refuted
by genetic data (Irestedt et al. 2004, Moyle et al. 2009, Derryberry et al.
2011).
117. The
subspecies devillei was considered a separate species from Dendrexetastes
rufigula by REF, but their voices are similar (Marantz et al. 2003).
118. The two species of Hylexetastes form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990);
Marantz et al. (2003) suggested that vocal similarities and intermediate
plumage of subspecies insignis suggests that they could be considered
conspecific, as suspected by Zimmer (1934c). The subspecies uniformis
was treated as a species separate from H. perrotii by Ridgely
& Tudor (1994). Silva (1995) found no evidence for hybridization among
various Hylexetastes taxa in areas where potentially parapatric and thus
ranked all four taxa, including newly described brigidai (Silva et al.
1995), as species. Marantz et al. (2003), however, noted that voices of perrotii,
uniformis, and brigidai are all quite similar. Azuaje-Rodríguez
et al. (2020) found evidence that broadly defined H. perrotii is
paraphyletic with respect to H. stresemanni unless uniformis
(with brigidai) is treated as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat uniformis
as a separate species.
119. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered X. promeropirhynchus and X. albicollis
to form a superspecies; X. falcirostris should perhaps be included
(?REF).
120. The orenocensis
subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925, AOU 1983)
treated as a separate species from Xiphocolaptes promeropirhynchus,
and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested that this would be found to be the
correct treatment. The emigrans subspecies group of Middle America was
also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1911) considered a separate species. Zimmer
(1934c), however, was unable to find a clear demarcation in plumage between the
two groups, and Marantz et al. (2003) noted that voices were remarkably similar
among these forms, given their pronounced plumage differences, but see also
Lane (2012). Clearly, a thorough
analysis is required.
121. The
taxon franciscanus was formerly (e.g., Pinto
1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate
species ("Snethlage's Woodcreeper"); here it is treated as
subspecies of X. falcirostris, following Teixeira et al. (1989),
Teixeira (1990), and Silva and Oren (1997); see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994)
and Marantz et al. (2003). Pinto (1952) suggested that franciscanus was
a subspecies of X. albicollis.
122. Here villanovae
treated as subspecies of Xiphocolaptes albicollis, following Marantz et
al. (2003), but it may warrant species rank (Pinto & Camargo 1961); villanovae
is not a subspecies of X. falcirostris, where placed by Cory &
Hellmayr (1925) and Clements (2000).
123. Dendrocolaptes
sanctithomae was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
considered conspecific with D. certhia, but Willis (1992b) and
Marantz (1997) provided evidence that they should be treated as separate
species; they constitute a superspecies.
124.
Marantz et al. (2003) noted that the southeastern subspecies punctipectus
might also deserve treatment as a separate species from Dendrocolaptes
sanctithomae.
125. The
taxon concolor was formerly (e.g., Todd 1948, Peters 1951, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) treated as a separate species ("Concolor
Woodcreeper"); here it is treated as subspecies of D. certhia,
following Cory & Hellmayr (1925), Pinto (1937), Willis & Oniki (1978),
Willis (1992b), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Marantz (1997), and Marantz et al.
(2003).
125a.
Batista et al. (2013) described a new species from the Xingu-Tocantins
interfluvium, Dendrocolaptes retentus. They also recognized all valid subspecies in
the D. certhia complex as separate species, but not under BSC criteria. SACC proposal did not pass.
126. The
relationships of Dendrocolaptes picumnus, D. hoffmannsi,
and D. platyrostris are controversial. Pinto
(1937) treated D. hoffmannsi as a subspecies of D. picumnus,
but subsequently (Pinto 1978) considered D. hoffmannsi to be a
subspecies of D. pallescens, a taxon usually treated as a subspecies of D.
picumnus (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters 1951,
Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970). Willis (1982) suggested that D. hoffmannsi
and D. platyrostris were perhaps best treated as conspecific with D.
picumnus (followed by AOU 1983). The three species presumably form a
superspecies (Marantz et al. 2003); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered D. picumnus and D. platyrostris
to form a superspecies but did not include D. hoffmannsi. Raikow (1994) and Marantz (1997) proposed that
D. hoffmannsi was closer to D. sanctithomae/D. certhia
than to D. picumnus/D. platyrostris, but vocal characters and
biogeography suggest that this is not correct (Marantz et al. 2003).
Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) indicate that picumnus, hoffmannsi, and platyrostris
form a monophyletic group, with little genetic differentiation among them. Santana et al. (2020, 2021) also found that D.
picumnus consists of at least two species and is paraphyletic with respect
to D. hoffmannsi and D. platyrostris. SACC
proposal badly needed.
126a. Willis & Oniki (2002) noted that voices of the two subspecies
differ strongly and suggested that the subspecies intermedius may
deserve species rank.
127. The
subspecies pallescens and transfasciatus were formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1925) each considered separate species from Dendrocolaptes
picumnus, but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951).
128. Cory & Hellmayr 1925, Zimmer
1934c, Pinto 1937, Phelps & Phelps 1950a)
treated Dendroplex picus and D. kienerii (= necopinus) in that genus, but Dendroplex was merged into Xiphorhynchus
by Peters (1951). Wetmore (1972), however, maintained
Dendroplex as a separate genus based not only on bill shape but also on
(unstated) cranial characters. Aleixo et al. (2007) summarized rationale for
validity of Dendroplex and for its usage for these two species, but see
Raposo et al. (2018), who proposed a replacement genus name Paludicolaptes.
SACC proposal to use Paludicolaptes
did not pass. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Dendroplex
for these two species. Genetic data (Derryberry et al. 2011) are
consistent with recognizing Dendroplex as a separate genus.
129. The northern picirostris
subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a
separate species from Dendroplex picus, but they were considered conspecific
by Peters (1951).
130. Species
name formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1979, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Ridgely & Tudor 1994) necopinus,
but Aleixo & Whitney (2002) showed that kienerii
is a synonym of, and has priority over, necopinus. SACC proposal passed to change name from X.
necopinus to X. kienerii.
131. Xiphorhynchus
fuscus was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1937, Peters
1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered to be a
member of the genus Lepidocolaptes, but genetic and morphological data
clearly place it within Xiphorhynchus (Raikow 1994, García-Moreno &
Silva 1997, Aleixo 2002, Irestedt et al. 2004, Derryberry et al. 2011).
131a. García et al. (2018) provided evidence for
treatment of the subspecies atlanticus
as a separate species from X. fuscus. SACC proposal passed to treat atlanticus as a separate species from X. fuscus. SACC proposal on English names passed.
132. The subspecies chunchotambo of the Andean
foothills was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr
1925) treated as a separate species from Xiphorhynchus ocellatus,
but they were considered conspecific by Peters (1951). Aleixo
(2002) found that Xiphorhynchus ocellatus is paraphyletic with respect to X. pardalotus, and
suggested that X. chunchotambo of the foothills of the Andes be
recognized as a separate species from lowland X. ocellatus; this was
followed by Marantz et al. (2003), who treated chunchotambo (with napensis
and brevirostris) as a separate species ("Tschudi's
Woodcreeper"). <incorp. Aleixo 2004> Derryberry et al. (2011) found that chunchotambo did not group
with X. ocellatus. Sousa-Neves et al. (2013), with more extensive population
sampling, found that chunchotambo,
with brevirostris and napensis, were indeed sister to X. ocellatus, and that the
subspecies beauperthuysii was sister to them; they argued that chunchotambo and beauperthuysii each deserved species rank.
SACC proposal to recognize chunchotambo and beauperthuysii did not pass.
133. Zimmer
(1934a), Pinto (1938), Ridgely & Tudor
(1994), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered Xiphorhynchus elegans
and X. spixii conspecific, but see Haffer (1997) for rationale
for treating them as separate species, as in Peters (1951) and Meyer de
Schauensee (1970). Aleixo (2002) also found molecular support for treating
nominate spixii as a separate species from all other taxa in the group;
they constitute a superspecies. Cory & Hellmayr (1925) treated the
subspecies juruanus and insignis as separate species from X.
spixii, and Pinto (1947) also maintained juruanus as a separate
species; but they were considered conspecific by Zimmer (1934d) and Peters
(1951). <incorp. Aleixo 2004>
134. Genetic data (Aleixo
2002) indicate that Xiphorhynchus pardalotus, sometimes considered a
member of the X. spixii superspecies, and X. ocellatus are
sister species, as proposed by Zimmer (1934d); Aleixo (2002) and found that pardalotus
is embedded within taxa currently treated under X. ocellatus; see
Note 21), and this should be reflected in linear sequence. Derryberry
et al. (2011) found that X. pardalotus was the sister to the single population sample of X.
ocellatus, and Sousa-Neves
et al. (2013) confirmed this but also
with the addition of taxa treated as subspecies of X. ocellatus. SACC proposal passed to alter linear
sequence.
135. The
relationships among taxa included in Xiphorhynchus susurrans and X.
guttatus are complex and need much additional work. Xiphorhynchus
susurrans was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1934d, Phelps & Phelps 1950a,
Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with X.
guttatus, but Willis (1983) provided evidence that it should be
treated as a separate species;
this treatment was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and AOU (1998); they
constitute a superspecies. Xiphorhynchus susurrans had previously been
treated as a species by Cory & Hellmayr (1925), who also treated the
subspecies polystictus (= sororius) as a separate species; this
was considered conspecific with X. guttatus by Zimmer (1934d) and Peters
(1951). However, Aleixo (2002) found that treating X. susurrans at the
species level makes Xiphorhynchus guttatus paraphyletic with respect to
Amazonian guttatoides group of western and southwestern Amazonia (guttatoides,
dorbignyianus, eytoni, and vicinalis) and eastern
Amazonian guttatus group (guttatus, polystictus, and
provisionally, connectens). Marantz et al. (2003) also emphasized that
the current assignment of subspecies to either X. susurrans or X.
guttatus does not correspond to the boundaries in vocalizations.
Furthermore, the eytoni subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Todd 1948,
Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a separate species
("Dusky-billed Woodcreeper") from X. guttatus; here it
is treated as subspecies of guttatus following Cory & Hellmayr
(1925), Zimmer (1934d), Pinto (1937), Peters
(1951), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994), but Marantz et al. (2003) noted that
this group differed in vocalizations from other taxa included in X. guttatus.
Derryberry et al. (2011) found that eytoni
was the sister to X. guttatus + X. susurrans. Proposal needed to
merge all three into guttatus or
recognize eytoni as a species.
136. Xiphorhynchus
erythropygius and X. triangularis were formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered conspecific; they were treated as separate
species by Peters (1951). Wetmore (1972) summarized the strong plumage
differences between the two and noted sympatry in depto. Antioquia, Colombia;
see also Marantz et al. (2003) for synopsis of evidence for considering them as
separate species; they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Fjeldså & Krabbe
1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic
data (Derryberry et al. 2011) corroborate that they are sister taxa.
136a. Xiphorhynchus
erythropygius consists of two groups: a northern (erythropygius)
group from Mexico to Nicaragua and a southern group (aequatorialis) from
Nicaragua south to southwestern Ecuador; see AOU (1983) and Marantz et al.
(2003). Formerly, the two groups have
been treated as separate species by some authors (e.g., Ridgway 1911, Peters
1951), and currently by del Hoyo and Collar (2016). SACC
proposal to treat aequatorialis
as a separate species did not pass.
137. Lepidocolaptes
lacrymiger was formerly (e.g., Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered conspecific with Middle
American L. affinis (Spot-crowned Woodcreeper), but recent
treatments (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Hilty 2003) usually follow Cory
& Hellmayr (1925), Zimmer (1934c), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a) in
treating them as separate species. Their vocalizations differ strongly,
although a formal analysis has not been published. Derryberry et al. (2011) found that L.
lacrymiger is actually the sister
to L. affinis + L. leucogaster.
138. Lepidocolaptes
falcinellus was formerly (e.g., Pinto
1937, Peters 1951, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Ridgely & Tudor 1994) considered a subspecies of L. squamatus,
but Silva & Straube (1996) provided evidence for why it should be treated
as a species, and this was followed by Marantz et al. (2003). SACC proposal to treat falcinellus
as a subspecies of squamatus did not pass.
139. The Amazonian fuscicapillus
subspecies group (with madeirae and layardi) was formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1925) treated as a separate species from Lepidocolaptes
albolineatus, but recent authors have followed Zimmer (1934c) in treating
them as conspecific; Hilty (2003) suspected that this treatment will be
shown to be correct, and Marantz et al. (2003) suspected that more than one
species was involved. Rodrigues et al.
(2013) treated all diagnosable taxa in the complex as separate species; they
also described a new species, Lepidocolaptes
fatimalimae, from southwestern Amazonia. SACC
proposal passed
to recognize fatimalimae as a species and also
elevate subspecies layardi and fuscicapillus to species rank. SACC proposal passed on English
names. SACC proposal passed to treat layardi as a subspecies of fuscicapillus. SACC proposal passed to change English
name.
140. Claramunt et al. (2010) found that pucheranii is not closely related to
other Campylorhamphus and that
its closest relative is Drymornis; they named a new genus, Drymotoxeres,
for this species. SACC proposal
passed to recognize Drymotoxeres. See also
Note 105.
141. See David et al. (2009) for the use of pucheranii versus widely used “pucherani.”
142. Campylorhamphus trochilirostris and C.
falcularius were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990);
they were considered conspecific by Pinto (1937) and Peters
(1951). Genetic data (Derryberry et al.
2011), however, show that C. falcularius is actually the sister to C.
pusillus + (C. trochilirostris
+ C. procurvoides). SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
143. The multostriatus subspecies group was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species from Campylorhamphus
procurvoides, but they were treated as conspecific by Zimmer (1934b) and
Peters (1951); however, Marantz et al. (2003) noted that multostriatus
group is closer vocally to C. trochilirostris than to nominate procurvoides
group. Aleixo et al. (2013) found that
the subspecies multostriatus is
actually sister to C. procurvoides + C. trochilirostris and thus
should be treated as a separate species. Aleixo et al. (2013) also proposed
recognizing the remaining subspecies in C.
procurvoides as separate
species, including newly described Campylorhamphus gyldenstolpei. Portes
et al. (2013) described an additional new species, Campylorhamphus cardosoi,
from southeastern Amazonian Brazil. SACC proposal did
not pass.
144. The borealis subspecies group of
Central America was considered a separate species from Campylorhamphus
pusillus by Ridgway (1911).
Part
8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae)