A Classification of the Bird
Species of South America
South American Classification Committee
(Part 8)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Pipridae to Tyrannidae) (below)
_______________________________________________________
Part 1. Rheiformes to
Podicipediformes
Part
2. Columbiformes to
Caprimulgiformes
Part
3. Apodiformes
Part
4. Opisthocomiformes to
Strigiformes
Part
5. Trogoniformes to
Psittaciformes
Part
6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to
Formicariidae)
Part
7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae)
Part
9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)
Part
10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Ploceidae to Passerellidae)
Part
11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Icteridae to end)
PASSERIFORMES
Suborder TYRANNI (SUBOSCINES) (concluded)
PIPRIDAE
(MANAKINS) 1
Neopelminae
Tyranneutes
stolzmanni
Dwarf Tyrant-Manakin 2, 3
Tyranneutes
virescens
Tiny Tyrant-Manakin 3
Neopelma
pallescens
Pale-bellied Tyrant-Manakin 2, 2a
Neopelma
chrysocephalum
Saffron-crested Tyrant-Manakin 2a
Neopelma
aurifrons
Wied's Tyrant-Manakin 2a
Neopelma
chrysolophum
Serra do Mar Tyrant-Manakin 2a, 2b, 2c
Neopelma
sulphureiventer Sulphur-bellied Tyrant-Manakin
2a, 2d
Piprinae
Chloropipo
flavicapilla
Yellow-headed Manakin 16, 16a
Chloropipo
unicolor
Jet Manakin 16
Chiroxiphia
boliviana
Yungas Manakin 14, 14a, 15
Chiroxiphia
pareola
Blue-backed Manakin 14
Chiroxiphia
lanceolata
Lance-tailed Manakin 14
Chiroxiphia
caudata
Swallow-tailed Manakin 14, 14b
Chiroxiphia
bokermanni
Araripe Manakin 13, 13a
Chiroxiphia
galeata
Helmeted Manakin 13
Ilicura
militaris
Pin-tailed Manakin 3a
Masius
chrysopterus
Golden-winged Manakin 3a
Corapipo
altera
White-ruffed Manakin 3a, 4, 5
Corapipo
leucorrhoa
White-bibbed Manakin 4, 5
Corapipo
gutturalis
White-throated Manakin 5
Xenopipo
uniformis
Olive Manakin 16
Xenopipo
atronitens
Black Manakin
Cryptopipo
holochlora
Green Manakin 16, 16b
Lepidothrix
velutina
Velvety Manakin 7, 7a, 8, 8a
Lepidothrix
coronata
Blue-capped Manakin 7, 7a, 8, 8a
Lepidothrix
nattereri
Snow-capped Manakin 8
Lepidothrix
vilasboasi
Golden-crowned Manakin 8, 9
Lepidothrix
iris
Opal-crowned Manakin 8
Lepidothrix
suavissima
Orange-bellied Manakin 8, 10, 10a
Lepidothrix
serena
White-fronted Manakin 8
Lepidothrix
isidorei
Blue-rumped Manakin 11, 11a
Lepidothrix
coeruleocapilla Cerulean-capped Manakin
11, 11b
Heterocercus
aurantiivertex
Orange-crowned Manakin 17, 17a
Heterocercus
flavivertex
Yellow-crowned Manakin 17, 18
Heterocercus
linteatus
Flame-crowned Manakin 17, 19, 21a
Manacus
manacus
White-bearded Manakin 12, 12a, 12b
Pipra
aureola
Crimson-hooded Manakin 21, 21a
Pipra
filicauda
Wire-tailed Manakin 11, 21
Pipra
fasciicauda
Band-tailed Manakin 21
Machaeropterus
deliciosus
Club-winged Manakin 6
Machaeropterus
striolatus
Striolated Manakin 6a
Machaeropterus
eckelberryi
Painted Manakin 6a
Machaeropterus
regulus
Kinglet Manakin 6a
Machaeropterus
pyrocephalus
Fiery-capped Manakin
Pseudopipra pipra White-crowned Manakin 20, 20a, 20b
Ceratopipra
cornuta
Scarlet-horned Manakin
Ceratopipra
mentalis
Red-capped Manakin 22
Ceratopipra
erythrocephala
Golden-headed Manakin 12a, 22
Ceratopipra
rubrocapilla
Red-headed Manakin 22
Ceratopipra
chloromeros
Round-tailed Manakin
1. Composition
of the family follows Prum (1990a, 1992). Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009,
McKay et al. 2010) confirm the monophyly of the Pipridae as constituted above,
but also provide evidence that the existing linear sequence of genera conflicts
in several ways with phylogenetic data. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of genera. Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed recognizing two
subfamilies, Neopelminae and Piprinae, and additional tribes within
Piprinae. SACC proposal passed to recognize
subfamilies; their
results also indicate that modifications to the linear sequence of genera are
also needed. Leite et al. (2021) also
found strong support for two major divisions of the family. SACC proposal passed to revise sequence.
2. Warter
(1965) proposed that Neopelma belonged in the Tyrannidae based on
morphology, but see Lanyon (1985) and Prum (1990), who supported its placement
in Pipridae and proposed a sister relationship to Tyranneutes. Recent
genetic data (Barber & Rice 2007) confirmed the placement of both genera in
the Pipridae and their sister relationship (but see Note 2b); this was
confirmed by Tello et al. (2009) and Ohlson et al. (2013), who found that these
two were sister to all other piprid genera (thus consistent with the linear
sequence above).
2a. Snow
(1979c) suspected that the species of Neopelma formed a superspecies.
2b. Neopelma
chrysolophum was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
1979c) considered a subspecies of N. aurifrons, but see Pacheco
& Whitney (1995) for evidence for recognition as a separate species, as
suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
Capurucho et al. (2018), Silva et al. (2018), Harvey et al. (2021), and
Leite et al. (2021) further found that N. chrysolophum was sister to Neopelma + Tyranneutes,
and van Els et al. (2023) described a new genus, Protopelma, for chrysolophum. SACC proposal badly needed.
2c. Called
"Pinto's Tyrant-Manakin" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and
"Serra Tyrant-Manakin" in Snow (2004b).
2d. Elaenia
viridicata huallagae Carriker, 1934, is a synonym of Neopelma sulphureiventer
(Zimmer 1941a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
3. The two
species of Tyranneutes form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, 2004b, Sibley
& Monroe 1990).
3a. Genetic
data (Tello et al. 2009, Harvey et al. 2021) indicate that Masius and Corapipo are
sister genera, with Ilicura sister to
these two (thus consistent with linear sequence above). Ohlson et al. (2013) found similar results
except that they could not confirm the monophyly of Corapipo with respect to Masius (but see Harvey et al. 2021).
4. Corapipo
altera was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979c, AOU 1983) considered conspecific with C. leucorrhoa,
but recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor
1994, AOU 1998, but not Snow 2004b), have usually considered it a separate
species, based largely on Wetmore (1972), who pointed out they differ strongly
in the shape of the outer primary and show no signs of current or past
intergradation; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) reversed the traditional English names of C. altera
and C. leucorrhoa, presumably a lapsus.
5. Meyer de
Schauensee (1966) suspected that Corapipo leucorrhoa (with altera)
might best be treated as a subspecies of C. gutturalis; Snow (1979)
considered them to form a superspecies.
6. Machaeropterus
deliciosus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
placed in monotypic genus Allocotopterus, but see Snow (1975), Prum
& Wilson (1987), Prum (1992, 1994), and Ohlson et al. (2013).
6a. Snow
(2004b) considered the Amazonian striolatus subspecies group to be a
separate species from Machaeropterus regulus of SE Brazil, evidently
based on Whittaker and Oren (1999). Lane
et al. (2017) also proposed to treat the western subspecies striolatus as a separate species from
nominate regulus of the Atlantic
forest region. SACC proposal passed to recognize Machaeropterus
striolatus as a separate species. SACC proposal passed on English names.
6b. Lane et
al. (2017) described a new species of Machaeropterus
(M. eckelberryi). SACC proposal passed to recognize Machaeropterus
eckelberryi.
7. The
genus Lepidothrix was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Zimmer 1936d, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) included within broadly
defined Pipra, but see Prum (1990b?, 1992, 1994a, b) and Rêgo et al.
(2007).
7a. Palct
(2009) proposed a new name, Neolepidothrix,
based on the premise that Lepidothrix
Bonaparte, 1854, was preoccupied by Lepidothrix
Menge, 1854, which refers to a genus of thysanuran insects; see, however,
Zuccon (2011) for conservation of Lepidothrix.
8. The
lowland species of Lepidothrix form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, AOU
1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Snow (1979c) also included L. isidorei
and L. coeruleocapilla.
8a. Ridgway
(1907) treated trans-Andean velutina
as separate species from cis-Andean L.
coronata; they were treated as conspecific with L. coronata by Hellmayr (1929), and this treatment has been
followed in most subsequent classifications.
Gyldenstolpe (1951) suggested that green-bellied exquisita
subspecies group deserved recognition as a separate species, but they
intergrade with the black-bellied coronata
group where in contact (Haffer 1970, REF, Moncrieff et al. 2022, 2024). Moncrieff et al. (2022) provided evidence for
treatment of trans- and cis-Andean species groups as separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat velutina
group as a separate species and establish new English names.
9. "Pipra
obscura," formerly considered a distinct species (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970), is the female plumage of L. vilasboasi (Haffer
1970, Snow 1979c, 2004b, Gonzaga 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Sick 1997x).
See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
10. Lepidothrix
suavissima was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Phelps & Phelps 1950a,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979) treated as a subspecies of L. serena,
but see Prum (1990, 1992, 1994b) and Snow (2004b).
10a. Called
"Tepui Manakin" in Sibley & Monroe (1993).
11. Lepidothrix
isidorei and L. coeruleocapilla form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Snow 2004b); genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2013, Harvey et al. 2021)
show that they are sister species.
11a.
Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the southern subspecies leucopygia
might represent a separate species.
11b. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) noted that the correct spelling for the species name is coeruleocapilla,
not “caeruleocapilla” as in Hellmayr (1929) and Meyer de Schauensee
(1970)
12. Many
classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Wetmore 1972, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Snow 2004b, Kirwan &
Green 2011) have considered the vitellinus subspecies group (and also,
or along with, Middle American candei, “cerritus”, and aurantiacus)
to be separate species. Species limits in this genus are problematic, with
hybrid zones between taxa that differ strongly in color (Haffer 1967, REFS),
and with paraphyly of M. manacus sensu stricto (Brumfield &
Braun 2001, Brumfield et al. 2001, 2008). Harvey et al. (2021) confirmed that M. manacus
is paraphyletic. SACC proposal badly needed.
12a. "Manacus
coronatus," known only from the type specimen from
"Upper Amazon" and considered a distinct species by Ridgway (1907)
and reluctantly by Hellmayr (1929), is now considered a hybrid (Manacus
manacus X Ceratopipra erythrocephala) (Parkes 1961a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
12b. Broadly defined Manacus manacus was called “Bearded Manakin” by Dickinson &
Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed.
13. Snow
(2004b) proposed that Antilophia and Chiroxiphia were sister
genera as has been implicit in classifications that have placed them next to
each other in linear sequences (e.g. Meyer de Schauensee 1970); this close
relationship was confirmed by genetic data (Tello et al. 2009, Ohlson et al.
2013). Broader sampling of taxa and
genes (Silva et al. 2018, Harvey et al. 2020, Leite et al. 2021, Zhao et al.
2022) has found that recognition of Antilophia makes Chiroxiphia paraphyletic.
SACC proposal passed to merge Antilophia
into Chiroxiphia.
13a. Described
since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Coelho and Silva (1998). See also Amaral de Raposo et al. (2018).
14. The
four species of Chiroxiphia, along with Middle American C. linearis,
were considered to form a superspecies (Snow 1975, 1979c, Haffer 1987, Sibley
& Monroe 1990, AOU 1998), but see Note 13.
The name Chiroprion was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for the genus, but Chiroxiphia Cabanis, 1847, has priority.
14a. Chiroxiphia
pareola likely consists of more than one species (REF, Hilty 2003). Ridgway
(1907) treated yellow-crowned populations from western Amazonia, regina, as a separate species; Hellmayr
(1929) treated regina as a subspecies
of C. pareola, and this treatment has
been followed in most subsequent classifications. Silva et al. (2018) proposed that regina and the subspecies napensis each be treated as separate
species based on genetic distance. SACC proposal needed.
14b. Called
“Blue Manakin” in Sick (1993), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Kirwan &
Greene (2011).
15. Chiroxiphia
boliviana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
considered a subspecies of C. pareola, but see Parker &
Remsen (1987) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
See Silva et al. (2018) for additional support for species rank for boliviana.
Harvey et al. (2021) found that C. pareola is actually
sister to all other Chiroxiphia + Antilophia.
16. Xenopipo
(now Cryptopipo) holochlora,
X. (now Chloropipo) flavicapilla, X. (now Chloropipo)
unicolor, and X. uniformis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
1929, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) all placed in Chloropipo;
for treatment of all in Xenopipo, see Prum (1992); they were even considered
to form a superspecies by Snow (1979c).
Ohlson et al. (2013), however, found that Chloropipo and broadly defined Xenopipo were
polyphyletic, and described a new genus, Cryptopipo, for holochlora,
which they found to be sister to Lepidothrix; they also resurrected Chloropipo
for flavicapilla and unicolor, and retained uniformis in Xenopipo
with atronitens. SACC proposal
passed to recognize Cryptopipo and resurrect Chloropipo.
16a. Leite
et al. (2020) found that Chloropipo was more closely related to the Ilicurini
(sensu Ohlson et al. 2013) than to the Piprini.
SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
16b.
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that
the subspecies litae should be considered a separate species from Xenopipo
holochlora.
17. The
three species of Heterocercus form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, Haffer
1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they
all could be considered conspecific.
Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009, Ohlson et al. 2013) confirm that Heterocercus,
despite its morphological distinctiveness, is nested within typical piprid
genera.
17a. Called
"Orange-crested Manakin" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001), and Kirwan & Green (2011). SACC
proposal needed.
18. Called
"Yellow-crested Manakin" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994), Hilty (2003),
and Kirwan & Green (2011). SACC proposal needed.
19. Called
"Flame-crested Manakin" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Kirwan
& Green (2011). SACC proposal needed.
20. Even
after the removal of the species in Lepidothrix
(see Note 7), the monophyly of Pipra
as currently constituted is in doubt.
Prum (1992, 1994a) resurrected the monotypic genus Dixiphia for Pipra pipra to keep Pipra monophyletic. Rêgo et al. (2007) also found that retaining P.
pipra in Pipra makes that group nonmonophyletic. SACC proposal to recognize Dixiphia
did not pass. Rêgo et al. (2007) also found that Pipra
may not be monophyletic because the P. aureola group is more closely
related to Heterocercus than to other Pipra, which in turn may be
more closely related to Machaeropterus.
Rêgo et al. (2007) proposed resurrecting the genus name Ceratopipra
for the erythrocephala group. SACC proposal to recognize Ceratopipra
did not pass. Subsequently, Tello et al. (2009) found that
the aureola group (as represented by filicauda) was not closely related the erythrocephala group plus P. pipra; they found that the erythrocephala group was sister to P. pipra and that they were sister to Machaeropterus. SACC proposal passed to revise generic
limits. McKay et al. (2010) also found strong support
for the latter relationship but did not sample any taxa from the aureola group. Ohlson et al. (2013) found strong support for
treating Dixiphia and Ceratopipra as separate genera.
20a. Pseudopipra pipra almost certainly consists of more than one species
(AOU 1998), with the foothill taxon coracina nearly parapatric with
lowland populations, from which it evidently differs in display behavior and
voice (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003). Berv et al. (2021) found evidence for
treating it as multiple species. SACC proposal badly needed.
20b. Kirwan
et al. (2016) noted that Dixiphia
Reichenbach 1850 is a synonym of Arundinicola,
and therefore named a new genus, Pseudopipra,
for this taxon. See also David et al.
(2017), especially considering Pythis Boie, 1826. SACC proposal passed to change to Pseudopipra.
21. Pipra
filicauda was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps &
Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Teleonema;
see Haffer (1970) and Prum (1992) for merger of Teleonema into Pipra;
this was subsequently reinforced by genetic data (Rêgo et al. 2007).
21. Pipra
aureola, P. filicauda, and P. fasciicauda
form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, 2004b, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
21a. "Pipra
anomala," known only from the type specimen from Pará and formerly
considered a distinct species (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944), is now
considered a hybrid (Heterocercus linteatus X Pipra aureola)
(Parkes 1961). "Pipra heterocerca,"
known only from the type specimen from an uncertain locality and
tentatively considered a distinct species by Hellmayr (1929), is now considered
a hybrid (Pipra filicauda X P. aureola (Haffer 1970, 1974,
2002). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
22. Ceratopipra mentalis, C. erythrocephala, and C.
rubrocapilla form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998);
Snow (1979c) also included C. chloromeros in that superspecies, but its
distribution widely overlaps that of C. rubrocapilla. Hellmayr (1929) and Pinto (1944)
considered C. erythrocephala and C. rubrocapilla to
be conspecific.
COTINGIDAE
(COTINGAS) 1
Carpornis
cucullata
Hooded Berryeater 19, 19a
Carpornis
melanocephala
Black-headed Berryeater 19, 19a
Pipreola
riefferii
Green-and-black Fruiteater 19b, 19c, 19d
Pipreola
intermedia
Band-tailed Fruiteater 19c
Pipreola
arcuata
Barred Fruiteater
Pipreola
aureopectus
Golden-breasted Fruiteater 20
Pipreola
jucunda
Orange-breasted Fruiteater 20
Pipreola
lubomirskii
Black-chested Fruiteater 20
Pipreola
pulchra
Masked Fruiteater 20
Pipreola
frontalis
Scarlet-breasted Fruiteater 20b, 20c
Pipreola
chlorolepidota
Fiery-throated Fruiteater 20c, 20d
Pipreola
formosa
Handsome Fruiteater
Pipreola
whitelyi
Red-banded Fruiteater
Ampelioides
tschudii
Scaled Fruiteater 21
Zaratornis
stresemanni
White-cheeked Cotinga 13, 17
Phytotoma
raimondii
Peruvian Plantcutter 17, 18
Phytotoma
rutila
White-tipped Plantcutter 18
Phytotoma
rara
Rufous-tailed Plantcutter 18
Phibalura
flavirostris
Swallow-tailed Cotinga 11b, 11c
Doliornis
remseni
Chestnut-bellied Cotinga 14, 15, 16, 17
Doliornis
sclateri
Bay-vented Cotinga 16
Ampelion
rubrocristatus
Red-crested Cotinga 12, 12a, 17
Ampelion
rufaxilla
Chestnut-crested Cotinga 12
Phoenicircus
carnifex
Guianan Red-Cotinga 24
Phoenicircus
nigricollis
Black-necked Red-Cotinga 24
Rupicola
rupicola
Guianan Cock-of-the-rock 22, 22a, 23
Rupicola
peruvianus
Andean Cock-of-the-rock 22, 22a, 23
Snowornis
subalaris
Gray-tailed Piha 32
Snowornis
cryptolophus
Olivaceous Piha 32
Haematoderus
militaris
Crimson Fruitcrow 35
Querula
purpurata
Purple-throated Fruitcrow
Pyroderus
scutatus
Red-ruffed Fruitcrow 35
Cephalopterus
ornatus
Amazonian Umbrellabird 34, 35
Cephalopterus
penduliger
Long-wattled Umbrellabird 34
Perissocephalus
tricolor
Capuchinbird 35
Cotinga
nattererii
Blue Cotinga 25, 25a
Cotinga
maynana
Plum-throated Cotinga 25
Cotinga
cotinga
Purple-breasted Cotinga 25
Cotinga
maculata
Banded Cotinga 25, 25b
Cotinga
cayana
Spangled Cotinga
Lipaugus
unirufus
Rufous Piha 31a
Lipaugus
streptophorus
Rose-collared Piha
Lipaugus
vociferans
Screaming Piha 31a, 31b
Lipaugus
lanioides
Cinnamon-vented Piha
Lipaugus
ater
Black-and-gold Cotinga 28
Lipaugus
conditus
Gray-winged Cotinga 28a
Lipaugus
weberi
Chestnut-capped Piha 28, 29, 29a
Lipaugus
fuscocinereus
Dusky Piha 30
Lipaugus
uropygialis
Scimitar-winged Piha 30, 31
Procnias
albus
White Bellbird 26, 27, 27a
Procnias
averano
Bearded Bellbird 26
Procnias
nudicollis
Bare-throated Bellbird 26
Porphyrolaema
porphyrolaema
Purple-throated Cotinga 27a
Carpodectes
hopkei
Black-tipped Cotinga 32a, 33a, 33b
Xipholena
punicea
Pompadour Cotinga 33
Xipholena
lamellipennis
White-tailed Cotinga 33
Xipholena
atropurpurea
White-winged Cotinga 33
Gymnoderus
foetidus
Bare-necked Fruitcrow 32a
Conioptilon
mcilhennyi
Black-faced Cotinga 32a
1. For sequence of genera in this family
and their sequence, see Prum & Lanyon (1989), Prum (1990a, 2001), and Prum
et al. (2000). Recent genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007) suggest that this
linear sequence does not correctly reflect phylogeny; see details in Notes
below. These new data indicate that the Cotingidae consists of four major
groups, the relations among which are unresolved: (1) Pipreola + Ampelioides;
(2) Zaratornis, Phytotoma, Ampelion, and Doliornis; (3) Rupicola + Phoenicircus;
and (4) the rest of the genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Tello et al. (2009) confirmed that these
genera formed a monophyletic group and the monophyly of the four groups above
except that Snowornis clustered with
group 3. Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed
recognizing three subfamilies, Pipreolinae for lineage 1, Phytotominae for
lineage 2, and Cotinginae for lineages 3 and 4.
Berv & Prum (2014) produced a comprehensive phylogeny for the family
reflecting many of these divisions and additional new relationships among taxa;
they proposed recognition of 5 subfamilies: (1) Pipreolinae for Ampelioides and Pipreola; (2) Rupicolinae for Snowornis,
Carpornis, Rupicola, and Phoenicircus;
(3) Phytotominae for Zaratornis, Phytotoma, Phibalura, Doliornis, and Ampelion;
(4) Cephalopterinae for Haematoderus,
Querula, Pyroderus, Cephalopterus,
and Perissocephalus; and Cotinginae
for the rest of the genera. SACC proposals needed for linear sequence of genera and
recognition of subfamilies. <<wait for results from ongoing genomic
project on suboscines>>
11b. Phibalura
has been traditionally placed in the family Cotingidae (e.g. Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) but with no obvious close relatives. Snow (1982) suggested
that it might be related to Laniisoma,
based mainly on plumage similarities, which is now placed in the Tityridae.
Berv & Prum (2014) found that Phibalura
belongs in the Cotingidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer (from
Incertae Sedis) to Cotingidae.
11c. Hennessey (2011) summarized plumage, vocal,
and other evidence in support of treatment of the isolated subspecies boliviana as a separate species. SACC proposal to treat boliviana as separate species did not
pass.
12. Ampelion rubrocristatus
and A. rufaxilla were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929,
Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated in the genus Heliochera, but see
Zimmer (1930).
12a. Ampelion is masculine, so
the correct spelling of the species name is rubrocristatus; rufaxilla,
however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
13. Some authors (e.g., Snow 1973,
1979b, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) have merged Zaratornis into Ampelion;
for continued separation of Zaratornis from Ampelion, see Lanyon
& Lanyon (1989), Robbins et al. (1994), Snow (2004a), Ohlson et al. (2007),
and Berv & Prum (2014).
14. Some authors (e.g., Snow 1973,
1979b, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) have merged Doliornis into Ampelion;
for continued separation of Doliornis from Ampelion, see Lanyon
& Lanyon (1989), Robbins et al. (1994) and Berv & Prum (2014).
15. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Robbins et al. (1994).
16. Doliornis remseni and D.
sclateri form a superspecies (Robbins et al. 1994). Genetic data are consistent with their
treatment as separate species (Berv & Prum 2014).
17. The genus Phytotoma was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in its own
family, Phytotomidae, but it is more closely related to Ampelion than
the latter is to most other cotingas (Lanyon & Lanyon 1989, Prum REF).
Genetic data strongly support its inclusion within the traditional Cotingidae (W.
E. Lanyon 1985, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Prum et al. 2000, Johansson et al.
2002, Chesser 2004, Ohlson et al. 2007, Tello et al. 2009). Genetic data
(Ohlson et al. 2007, Tello et al. 2009, Berv & Prum 2014) strongly support
a monophyletic group that consists of Zaratornis, Phytotoma, Ampelion,
and Doliornis. <Parker ref>
18. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Phytotoma raimondii and P. rutila to form a
superspecies, but did not include P. rara.
19. Carpornis was included in Ampelion
by Hellmayr (1929) and Pinto (1944); Ridgway (1907) and Meyer de Schauensee
(1966, 1970) placed these two species in Carpornis, and this has been followed in all
subsequent treatments. Tello et
al. (2009) found that Carpornis represented a very distinct lineage, and
proposed that it was likely the sister to the common ancestor of their groups 2
and 3 (see Note 1). Berv & Prum
(2014) found that it was the sister to Snowornis.
19a. Carpornis is feminine, so
the correct spellings of the species names are cucullata and melanocephala
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
19b. The isolated subspecies tallmanorum
may deserve recognition as a separate species from Pipreola riefferii (O'Neill & Parker 1981, Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Snow 2004a, Berv & Prum 2014).
Berv & Prum (2014) treated the subspecies melanolaema of the Coastal Range of Venezuela as a separate species
based on genetic distance and plumage differences.
19c. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Pipreola riefferii and P. intermedia to form a
superspecies despite some geographic overlap in Peru; they are sister taxa
(Snow 2004a, Berv & Prum 2014). Pipreola intermedia was originally
described as a subspecies of Pipreola riefferii, but Hellmayr (1929)
provided rationale for their treatment as separate species.
19d. See Zimmer (1930) for the use of Pipreola
rather than Euchlornis, as in Ridgway (1907) and Hellmayr (1929).
20. Pipreola aureopectus, P.
jucunda, P. lubomirskii, and P. pulchra were considered
conspecific by Snow (1973, 1979b), but most authors, including Snow
(1982<check>, 2004a) and Berv & Prum (2014), have treated them as
separate species based on parapatry or apparent sympatry without signs of
intergradation; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
20b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
suggested that the subspecies squamipectus of Ecuador might deserve
recognition as a separate species from P. frontalis.
20c. Snow (1982, 2004a) considered P.
frontalis and P. chlorolepidota to be sister species, as
corroborated by Berv & Prum (2014).
20d. Pipreola chlorolepidota was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929) known as Euchlornis sclateri, but see
Zimmer (1930).
21. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007,
Berv & Prum 2014) indicate that Ampelioides and Pipreola are
sister genera.
21a.
The name Stictornis was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for Ampelioides.
22. The two species of Rupicola
were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in their
own family, Rupicolidae, but see (Snow 1973<?>, 1979c) for inclusion
within Cotingidae, as in Pinto (1944), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and REFS;
this has been confirmed in all subsequent genetic analyses (e.g., Berv &
Prum (2014).
22a. Rupicola rupicola and R.
peruviana form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, Haffer 1987).
23. Rupicola is masculine, so the
correct spelling of the species name is peruvianus; rupicola,
however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
23a. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007,
Tello et al. 2009, Berv & Prum 2014) indicate that Phoenicircus and Rupicola
are sister genera, as suggested by Hellmayr (1929)
24. Phoenicircus nigricollis
and P. carnifex form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, Snow 1979b,
2004a, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
25. Cotinga nattererii, C.
maynana, C. cotinga, and C. maculata, along
with Middle American C. amabilis and C. ridgwayi,
form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Snow
(1979b) only included C. amabilis, C. ridgwayi, and
C. nattererii in the superspecies, with C. cotinga
and C. maculata forming a separate superspecies, but he suggested
that the other three might be included. Meyer
de Schauensee (1966) suggested that Cotinga nattererii, C. amabilis,
and C. ridgwayi might be considered conspecific, and that C. maculata
and C. cotinga might be considered conspecific.
25a. Formerly (e.g., Wetmore 1972) known
as "Natterer's Cotinga."
25b. The species name cincta was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907)
used for C. maculata.
26. The three species of Procnias,
along with Central American P. tricarunculatus, were considered
to form a superspecies by the AOU (1983); Snow (2004a) proposed that P. tricarunculatus
and P. albus were sister species, and that P. averano and P.
nudicollis were sister species.
27. Procnias is masculine, so the
correct spelling of the species name is albus (David & Gosselin
2002b).
27a. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007)
indicate that Procnias and Porphyrolaema are sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. However, Tello et al. (2009) and Berv &
Prum (2014) found that two were not particularly closely related. SACC proposal needed.
<<wait
ongoing project>>
28. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007) suggested
that Tijuca and Lipaugus are sister genera, as suggested by Snow
(1982). Berv & Prum (2014) found
that Tijuca atra was embedded in Lipaugus and sister to L. lanioides and thus merged Tijuca into Lipaugus. SACC proposal passed to merge Tijuca
into Lipaugus. Harvey et al.’s (2020) comprehensive genomic
data confirmed that Tijuca is embedded in Lipaugus (which is
masculine, forcing the change in the species name from condita to conditus and atra to ater).
28a. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Snow (1980).
29. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Cuervo et al. (2001).
29a. The genus Lipaugus was
placed in the Tyrannidae by Wetmore (1972) based on its similarities in plumage
and morphology to Laniocera and Rhytipterna; however, Warter
(1965) and <Prum REFS> provided evidence for retention in Cotingidae, as
confirmed by all recent genetic data.
30. Lipaugus fuscocinereus and
L. uropygialis presumably form a superspecies (Remsen 1984b) that may also
include L. weberi (Snow 2004a). Berv & Prum (2014) and
Harvey et al. (2020) corroborated that Lipaugus fuscocinereus and L.
uropygialis are sister species.
31. Lipaugus uropygialis was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979b) placed in
the monotypic genus Chirocylla, but see Remsen (1982) and Prum REF;
Harvey et al. confirmed that uropygialis is embedded in Lipaugus.
31a. Lipaugus unirufus and L.
vociferans were considered to
form a superspecies
(Snow 1979b, AOU 1983); Snow (1979b) suggested that they might be best treated
as conspecific. Berv & Prum (2014),
however, found that they are not sister species, as confirmed by Harvey et al.
(2020), unless L. streptophorus is also included.
31b. Lipaugus vociferans was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929) known as L. cineraceus.
32. Snowornis subalaris and S.
cryptolophus were formerly placed in the genus Lipaugus (e.g.,
Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979b), but see Prum et al.
(2000), Prum (2001), Ohlson et al. (2007), Tello et al. (2009), and Berv &
Prum (2014). Prum (1990) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) used the genus
name Lathria for these two species, but see Prum (2001).
32a. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007)
have revealed a monophyletic group that consists of (Procnias +? Porphyrolaema)
+ [(Xipholena + Carpodectes) + (Conioptilon + Gymnoderus)].
SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Tello et al. (2009) and Berv & Prum (2014)
found the same relationships except that Procnias
was not part of this assemblage. SACC proposal needed.
<<wait
ongoing project>>
33. The three species of Xipholena
form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, 2004a, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
33a. Carpodectes hopkei forms a
superspecies with Central American C. nitidus and C. antoniae
(Snow 1979b, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Hellmayr (1929) considered them all as
conspecific, but most authors have followed Ridgway (1907), Meyer de Schauensee
(1966), and Wetmore (1972) in treating them each as separate species.
33b. Called "White Cotinga" in
Wetmore (1972).
34. The two species of Cephalopterus,
along with Central American C. glabricollis, form a superspecies
(Snow 1979b, AOU 1983, Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were
treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1929), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966),
Snow (2004a) and Berv & Prum (2014).
35. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007,
Tello et al. 2009, Berv & Prum 2014) indicate that Haematoderus, Querula,
Pyroderus, Cephalopterus, and Perissocephalus form a monophyletic
group. Berv & Prum (2014) found that Perissocephalus was embedded in Cephalopterus.
TITYRIDAE (TITYRAS) 1
Tityra
inquisitor
Black-crowned Tityra 2, 2a, 2b
Tityra
cayana
Black-tailed Tityra 2bb
Tityra
semifasciata
Masked Tityra 2bbb
Schiffornis
major
Varzea Schiffornis 2c, 2d, 2e, 4
Schiffornis
veraepacis
Northern Schiffornis 3
Schiffornis
aenea
Foothill Schiffornis 3
Schiffornis
olivacea
Olivaceous Schiffornis 3
Schiffornis
stenorhyncha
Russet-winged Schiffornis 3
Schiffornis
turdina
Brown-winged Schiffornis 3, 5, 5a
Schiffornis
virescens
Greenish Schiffornis 5, 5b
Laniocera
rufescens
Speckled Mourner 6, 6a
Laniocera
hypopyrra
Cinereous Mourner 6, 6a
Iodopleura
isabellae
White-browed Purpletuft 6b, 6c
Iodopleura
fusca
Dusky Purpletuft 6b
Iodopleura
pipra
Buff-throated Purpletuft 6b
Laniisoma
elegans
Shrike-like Cotinga 6d, 7, 7a
Xenopsaris
albinucha
White-naped Xenopsaris 7b
Pachyramphus
viridis
Green-backed Becard 8, 8a, 8b
Pachyramphus
versicolor
Barred Becard 8b
Pachyramphus
spodiurus
Slaty Becard 8b, 9
Pachyramphus
rufus
Cinereous Becard 8b, 9, 9a
Pachyramphus
cinnamomeus
Cinnamon Becard 9a
Pachyramphus
castaneus
Chestnut-crowned Becard 9aa, 9c
Pachyramphus
salvini
Cryptic Becard 9d
Pachyramphus
polychopterus
White-winged Becard 9b, 9bb
Pachyramphus
albogriseus
Black-and-white Becard 9b, 9d
Pachyramphus
marginatus
Black-capped Becard 9b
Pachyramphus
surinamus
Glossy-backed Becard
Pachyramphus
homochrous
One-colored Becard 10
Pachyramphus
minor
Pink-throated Becard 10
Pachyramphus
validus
Crested Becard 10, 11, 11a
1. In this
classification, the genera Tityra through Phibalura were formerly
placed tentatively in the Cotingidae, following Prum et al. (2000). They had
formerly been scattered among the Tyrannidae, Cotingidae, and Pipridae. Prum
and Lanyon (1989) and Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) found that Tityra, Schiffornis,
and Pachyramphus formed a distinct group, separate from the rest of the
Tyrannidae; Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) proposed that they were most closely
related to core Tyrannidae than to other tyrannoid families such as the
Cotingidae or Pipridae. More recent genetic data (Johansson et al. 2002,
Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007) confirm that the genera Tityra
through at least Pachyramphus form a monophyletic group, but Chesser
(2004) found that this group is more closely related to the Pipridae than to
the Cotingidae or Tyrannidae. SACC proposal passed to remove from
Cotingidae
(and place as
Incertae Sedis or as separate family, Tityridae). Ericson et al. (2006), Barber & Rice
(2007), and Tello et al. (2009) not only confirmed the monophyly of the group
but also proposed elevation to family rank. SACC proposal passed to recognize
Tityridae. Within this group, Barber & Rice (2007)
found genetic evidence for two major groups: (a) Laniisoma, Laniocera,
and Schiffornis, and (b) Iodopleura, Tityra, Xenopsaris,
and Pachyramphus. They proposed
that the two groups be ranked as subfamilies (Laniisominae and Tityrinae). Tello et al. (2009) confirmed these
relationships, and Ohlson et al. (2013) also recommended subfamily rank for the
two lineages; this treatment was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed.
2. The
relationships of the distinctive genus Tityra have been controversial,
with some authors (e.g., Traylor 1977, 1979b) including it in the Tyrannidae
and others (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps
1950a, REFS) in the Cotingidae. Morphological (Prum and Lanyon 1989) and
genetic (Sibley and Ahlquist 1990, Prum et al. 2000, Johansson et al. 2002,
Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data revealed that Tityra
and other genera formed a distinct group of uncertain affinities within the
tyrannoid assemblage; see Barber & Rice (2007) and Note 1 for summary.
2a. "Tityra
leucura," sometimes tentatively considered a species (e.g., Hellmayr
1929, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Snow 1979a, Dickinson 2003), is
widely regarded as a variant of some sort of T. inquisitor (Hellmayr
1929, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. Whittaker (2008), however, has
presented evidence that it represents a valid species restricted to
southwestern Amazonian Brazil, and this was followed by Dickinson &
Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to recognize T. leucura did not pass.
2b. Tityra
inquisitor was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in a monotypic genus, Erator,
but this was merged into Tityra by Hellmayr (1929); although this has
been followed by most subsequent classifications, see Wetmore (1972) for
resurrection of Erator, based on differences in skull structure as well
as the original characters given by Ridgway (i.e., tarsal structure, bill
shape, and lack of bare skin on face). To
emphasize the distinctiveness of this species from tityras, Wetmore (1972)
called it "Black-crowned Becard." Vocalizations and general plumage
pattern of T. inquisitor are like those of the other two species of Tityra
(e.g., see Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Barber and Rice (2007) and Musher et
al. (2019) confirmed that it is sister to T. cayana + T. semifasciata.
2bb. The
subspecies braziliensis of the
Atlantic Forest region was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate
species from Tityra cayana; Hellmayr
(1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent
classifications.
2bb. The
subspecies nigriceps of nw. Ecuador
and sw. Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate
species from Tityra semifasciata;
Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all
subsequent classifications.
2c. The
genus Schiffornis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto
1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979c, AOU
1983) included in the Pipridae. Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989) and
genetic (Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data indicate
that it does not belong in that family but rather forms a group with the genera
Tityra through Pachyramphus.
2c. The name Scotothorus
Oberholser, 1899, was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for Schiffornis, but see Oberholser (1920c).
2d. Schiffornis
major was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929) placed in the monotypic genus Massornis,
but see Zimmer (1936d). Barber and Rice (2007) showed that it is the sister to S.
turdina + S. virescens.
2e.
Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Greater Manakin,"
but see Prum & Lanyon (1989). Called "Greater Schiffornis" in
Sibley & Monroe (1990). Prum & Lanyon (1989) suggested "Varzea
Mourner," and this was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Snow
(2004b).
3. Schiffornis
turdina formerly included the species S.
olivacea, S. veraepacis (including
subspecies dumicola, rosenbergi, “buckleyi” and acrolophites),
S. aenea, and S. stenorhyncha (including
subspecies panamensis), although many authors had noted that
more than one species was involved (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Stiles &
Skutch 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Ridgway (1907) treated the
subspecies amazona (with stenorhyncha), veraepacis, wallacii, furva, rosenbergi, and olivacea
each as separate species from S. turdina. Nyári (2007) presented evidence that at least
five species should be recognized. SACC proposal to treat as five species did
not pass. Donegan et al. (2011) presented
additional evidence that at least five species should be recognized, with only
the subspecies steinbachi, amazonum, wallacii and intermedia remaining in S.
turdina. SACC proposal passed to split S. turdina into multiple species.
SACC proposals passed to determine English
names.
4. The
species in the genus Schiffornis were formerly (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) called "Manakins," but most references have followed
the AOU (1998) in changing the English group name to "Schiffornis." SACC proposal to change Schiffornis to
"Mourner" as an English name did not pass.
5. Schiffornis
turdina, broadly defined,
and S. virescens were considered to form a superspecies (Snow 1979c,
Sibley & Monroe 1990); the parapatric distributions of the species of the turdina group (see Note 3) indicate that
they should all be part of that superspecies.
5a. Schiffornis
is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is turdina
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
5b. The
species name for S. virescens was
formerly unicolor Bonaparte, 1854 (e.g.,
Ridgway 1907), but see Hellmayr (1929).
6. The
genus Laniocera was formerly placed in the Pipridae (e.g., Ridgway 1907)
or Cotingidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) but
then transferred to the Tyrannidae (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor
1979c, Fitzpatrick 2004) based on the anatomical analysis of Ames (1971). Snow
(1973) also provided rationale for its removal from the Cotingidae, but Prum et
al. (2000) tentatively placed this group in the Cotingidae. However,
morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989), ecological (Londoño and Cadena 2003),
and genetic (Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data
indicate that Laniocera belongs in the "Schiffornis group" of
genera (here the Tityridae),
most closely related to Schiffornis or Laniisoma. See also Note
1.
6a. Laniocera
rufescens and L. hypopyrra form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990, AOU 1998, Fitzpatrick 2004).
6b. Iodopleura
isabellae and I. fusca form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, 2004a,
Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might
be best treated as conspecific. Haffer (1987) considered all three Iodopleura
to form a superspecies.
6c. The
genus Iodopleura has been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Snow 1973, 1979b, 2004a) in the Cotingidae, where also placed
tentatively by Prum et al. (2000). Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989) and
additional genetic (Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009)
data, however, indicate that Iodopleura is a member of the
"Schiffornis group" (here Tityridae);
see also Note 1.
6d. The
genus Laniisoma has been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Snow 1973, 1979b) in the Cotingidae, and was tentatively placed there by
Prum et al. (2000). Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989) and genetic (Barber
& Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data indicate that Laniisoma is a
member of the "Schiffornis
group" (here Tityridae)
and is the sister genus to Laniocera (Harvey et al. 2020); see also Note
1.
7. Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated the Andean subspecies buckleyi
as a separate species (including also venezuelensis and cadwaladeri)
from Laniisoma elegans of southeastern Brazil, returning to the
species limits of Hellmayr (1929); not followed by Snow (2004a). SACC proposal needed.
7a. Called
"Elegant Mourner" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Snow (2004a), and
“Laniisoma” in Dickinson & Christidis (2014). Called “Andean Laniisoma” in Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001) and “Andean Mourner” in Hilty (2003); both authors treated
the taxon in their country books as a separate species from nominate elegans
of SE Brazil (see Note 7). Del Hoyo
& Collar (2016), who also treated them as separate species, called them
“Andean Mourner” and “Elegant Mourner” respectively. Although considered by Snow (1982) and
Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) "not in the slightest shrike-like,"
its bill shape and body size is roughly similar to that of many shrikes
(Laniidae), as reflected in the genus name. Now that it is no longer a true cotinga,
however, calling it “Cotinga” is problematic. SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
7b. The
relationships of Xenopsaris have been controversial. Some authors have
considered it closely related to Pachyramphus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1966), whereas others have considered it not closely related to Pachyramphus
(with the resemblance in plumage between the two considered superficial or
convergent) and closely related to serpophagine tyrannids (Cory & Hellmayr
1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Smith 1971, Snow 1973) or incertae sedis
within Tyrannidae (Traylor 1977); it was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed
in the Cotingidae. Prum & Lanyon (1989)'s morphological analysis strongly
supported a sister relationship to Pachyramphus, and genetic data
(Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009, Musher et al. 2019) confirm that
relationship; see Fitzpatrick (2004) for rationale for maintaining as a
separate genus pending further data.
7c. Called
"Reed Manakin" in Prum & Lanyon (1989).
8. The
relationships of the genus Pachyramphus have been controversial, with
some authors (e.g., Traylor 1977) including it in the Tyrannidae and others
(e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Prum
et al. 2000) in the Cotingidae. Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989, REFS)
and genetic (Chesser 1994, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009, Musher et
al. 2019) data indicate that Pachyramphus does not belong in either
family but rather forms a group with the genera Tityra through Pachyramphus
(here Tityridae).
8a. Ridgely
& Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered Andean xanthogenys
a species separate from P. viridis, and this was followed by Fitzpatrick
(2004), Barber & Rice (2007), and Dickinson & Christidis (2014). Musher
et al. (2019) confirmed that they are closely related sister taxa. SACC proposal needed.
8b. Barber
& Rice (2007) found that P. viridis, P. versicolor, P.
spodiurus, and P. rufus formed a monophyletic group within the
genus, with P. versicolor basal, followed by P. viridis, with P.
rufus and P. spodiurus as sister species; with denser
taxon-sampling, Musher et al. found slight differences in relationships among
species in Pachyramphus. Proposal needed for
change in linear sequence.
9. Pachyramphus
spodiurus has sometimes (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) been
considered a subspecies of P. rufus, with the composite species called
"Crested Becard," but see Zimmer (1936f) for maintaining the
species limits of Hellmayr (1929); they form a superspecies (Snow 1979a, AOU
1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Barber & Rice (2007) and Musher et
al. (2019) confirmed that they are sister taxa.
9a. The
species names cinereus was formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for Pachyramphus rufus. The name atricapillus
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) applied to the Guianas population and treated
as a separate species from Pachyramphus rufus; Hellmayr (1929) treated atricapillus as a synonym of P. rufus, and this has been followed in
all subsequent classifications.
9aa. Pachyramphus
cinnamomeus and P. castaneus form a superspecies (Snow 1979a, AOU
1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Barber & Rice (2007) not only found
that they are sister species, but also found some evidence that P. castaneus
might be paraphyletic with respect to P. cinnamomeus; Musher et al. (2019) confirmed the sister
relationship but did not find evidence for paraphyly.
9b. Pachyramphus
albogriseus and P. marginatus have been considered to form a
superspecies (Snow 1979a, AOU 1983), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) also
included Middle American P. major in this superspecies. Barber &
Rice (2007), however, found that P. polychopterus is embedded in this
group and that it is likely the sister species to P. albogriseus. However, Musher et al. (2019) found that P.
polychopterus was sister to these three species rather than embedded within
them and confirmed the close relationship of P. major to P. albogriseus
and P. marginatus, with major and albogriseus sisters.
9bb. The subspecies dorsalis of w. Colombia and w. Ecuador and nanus (treated formerly under the species name atricapillus) of Amazonia were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907)
treated as a separate species from Pachyramphus
polychopterus; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has
been followed in all subsequent classifications. Musher
et al. (2019) found that dorsalis was sister to all other subspecies of Pachyramphus polychopterus sampled
(including the spixii group).
9bbb.
Smith et al. (2018) showed that Pachyramphus melanocephalus (Vieillot, 1816) has priority over Pachyramphus
polychopterus (Vieillot, 1818), but recommended suppression for the sake of
stability.
9c. Called
"Grey-naped Becard" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
9d. The
subspecies ornatus of Central
American and n. Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a
separate species from Pachyramphus
albogriseus; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been
followed in all subsequent classifications.
Musher et al. (2019) confirmed
the sister relationship of ornatus
to northern Andean salvini, and that they were sister to nominate albogriseus
(in mtDNA tree). However, Pachyramphus
albogriseus guayaquilensis of
western Ecuador and nw. Peru did not belong in this group but rather was the
sister taxon to Pachyramphus polychopterus. SACC proposal did
not pass to treat guayaquilensis
as a separate species. Musher et
al. (2023) found evidence that two species should be recognized, but that guayaquilensis is a junior
synonym of salvini; hence the
new species should be P. salvini. SACC proposal passed to recognize Pachyramphus
salvini.
10. Pachyramphus
homochrous, P. minor, and P. validus were
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Zimmer 1936f, Pinto 1944, Phelps
& Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a separate genus, Platypsaris,
but most recent authors have followed Snow (1973, 1979a) in merging the latter
into Pachyramphus. They form a superspecies, along with Middle American P.
aglaiae (Snow 1979a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de
Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might all be considered conspecific, and
Webster (1963) tentatively treated homochrous and aglaiae as
conspecific. Hilty & Brown (1986) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and
Hilty (2003) retained Platypsaris based on differences in voice and nest
shape and placement. Although genetic data show that they form a monophyletic
group, resurrection of Platypsaris would make Pachyramphus a
paraphyletic group ( Barber & Rice 2007, Musher et al. 2019).
11. Pachyramphus
validus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Zimmer 1936f, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) known as Platypsaris rufus, but the merger of Platypsaris
into Pachyramphus meant that rufus was preoccupied in Pachyramphus,
forcing the use of validus for that species (Snow 1973, 1979a). Pachyramphus
validus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in the monotypic genus Hylonax, but it is the sister species to
P. minor.
11a. Called
"Plain Becard" in Fitzpatrick (2004).
OXYRUNCIDAE (SHARPBILL) 1
Oxyruncus
cristatus
Sharpbill
1. The relationships of Oxyruncus
have been controversial. It was previously included in the Cotingidae in this
classification, as in Snow (2004a), based on Sibley et al. (1984), Sibley &
Ahlquist (1985, 1990), and Prum et al. (2000). Oxyruncus had been
formerly placed in a monotypic family Oxyruncidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Phelps
& Phelps 1950a, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ames 1971, AOU
1983, 1998) or in the Tyrannidae (Mayr & Amadon 1951). Lanyon (1985) found
no relationship between Oxyruncus and traditional members of the
Cotingidae, but rather a relationship between Oxyruncus and the
Tyrannidae or Tityridae. Prum (1990a) found some morphological evidence for a
relationship to Pachyramphus but concluded that Oxyruncus was not
a member of the "Schiffornis
group" that includes Pachyramphus (Prum & Lanyon 1989). Recent
genetic data (Johansson et al. 2002, Chesser 2004) found no strong support for
any of these relationships, and Ohlson et al. (2007) found strong evidence
against inclusion of Oxyruncus in the Cotingidae. Thus, the traditional
ranking of Oxyruncus as a monotypic family was the best portrayal of our
understanding of its relationships at that time. SACC proposal passed to resurrect
Oxyruncidae. Tello et al. (2009) have confirmed the
distinctiveness of Oxyruncus relative to the traditional family
groupings but found that the tyrannid genera Onychorhynchus, Myiobius,
and Terenotriccus grouped with Oxyruncus,
and proposed that these genera be moved to Oxyruncidae.
ONYCHORHYNCHIDAE (ROYAL FLYCATCHERS) 1
Onychorhynchus
coronatus
Royal Flycatcher 2
Terenotriccus
erythrurus
Ruddy-tailed Flycatcher 3
Myiobius
villosus
Tawny-breasted Flycatcher 3, 4
Myiobius
barbatus
Sulphur-rumped Flycatcher 5, 6
Myiobius
atricaudus
Black-tailed Flycatcher 6, 7
1. Formerly treated as genera within the
Tyrannidae, these three genera form a monophyletic that is more closely related
to the Oxyruncidae than to the Tyrannidae (Tello et al. 2009, Ohlson et al.
2013, Oliveros et al. 2019. SACC proposal passed to recognize the
family Onychorhynchidae. SACC proposal passed to formalize English family
name.
2. Ridgway (1907), Cory & Hellmayr
(1927), and Pinto (1944) considered the four
subspecies groups in Onychorhynchus coronatus as separate
species: mexicanus of Middle America and northwestern Colombia, occidentalis
of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru, coronatus of Amazonia, and swainsoni
of southeastern Brazil. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and considered them
all as conspecific without providing justification, and this was followed by
Traylor (1977<?>, 1979b), AOU (1983, 1998), Sibley & Monroe (1990),
Fitzpatrick (2004), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994), who provided rationale for
their continued treatment as conspecific, but not by Wetmore (1972), who
considered the evidence insufficient for the broad treatment. Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) returned to the classification of Cory &
Hellmayr (1927). Collar et al. (1992) considered occidentalis as a
separate species. See Whittingham & Williams (2000) for analysis and
discussion of morphological characters. Reyes et al. (2023) advocated separate
species status for recognition of six separate species based on deep divergence
in mtDNA. SACC proposal badly needed.
3. Lanyon (1988c) and Mobley & Prum
(1995) merged Terenotriccus into Myiobius based on morphological
data, followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but differences in voice and
behavior have resulted in continued treatment in monotypic genus (Ridgely &
Tudor 1994, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003).
4. Myiobius villosus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as
conspecific with M. (b.) sulphureipygius; Cory &
Hellmayr (1927) treated them as separate species, and this has been followed in
all subsequent classifications.
5. Cory & Hellmayr (1927), Wetmore
(1972), and the AOU (1983, 1998) treated the sulphureipygius group as a
separate species from Myiobius barbatus, but see Zimmer (1939b) and
Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for continued treatment as
conspecific; however, Ridgely and Greenfield (2001) returned to AOU
classification, followed by Hilty (2003) and Fitzpatrick (2004), with the name
"Whiskered Flycatcher" applied to the Amazonian barbatus
group, as in Cory & Hellmayr (1927). SACC proposal to treat sulphureipygius
as separate species did not pass. The name
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for sulphureipygius was xanthopygus. The subspecies mastacalis
of southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species,
but see Zimmer (1939b). SACC proposal pending to treat mastacalis
as separate species did not pass.
6. Myiobius atricaudus
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as conspecific with M. barbatus; Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated them as
separate species, and this has been followed in most subsequent
classifications.
7. The subspecies ridgwayi of
southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927)
considered a separate species from Myiobius atricaudus, but they were
treated as conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent
classifications. Parker et al. (1996) implied that ridgwayi deserved
treatment as a separate species. SACC proposal to treat ridgwayi as
separate species did not pass.
TYRANNIDAE
(TYRANT FLYCATCHERS) 1
Pipritinae
Piprites
chloris
Wing-barred Piprites 148, 149, 150
Piprites
pileata
Black-capped Piprites 148, 149, 151, 152
Platyrinchinae
Calyptura
cristata
Kinglet Calyptura 146
Neopipo
cinnamomea
Cinnamon Manakin-Tyrant 83, 83a
Platyrinchus
saturatus Cinnamon-crested Spadebill
Platyrinchus
mystaceus
White-throated Spadebill 78, 78a
Platyrinchus
coronatus
Golden-crowned Spadebill 78b
Platyrinchus
flavigularis
Yellow-throated Spadebill
Platyrinchus
platyrhynchos
White-crested Spadebill
Platyrinchus
leucoryphus
Russet-winged Spadebill 79
Tyranninae
Pseudotriccus pelzelni Bronze-olive Pygmy-Tyrant 22b, 22c
Pseudotriccus simplex Hazel-fronted Pygmy-Tyrant 22b
Pseudotriccus ruficeps Rufous-headed Pygmy-Tyrant 22d
Corythopis torquatus Ringed Antpipit 23, 23a, 24
Corythopis delalandi Southern Antpipit 23, 23a
Pogonotriccus difficilis Serra do Mar Bristle-Tyrant 31
Pogonotriccus eximius Southern Bristle-Tyrant 31
Pogonotriccus lanyoni Antioquia Bristle-Tyrant 32, 31b
Pogonotriccus ophthalmicus Marble-faced Bristle-Tyrant 31, 31a
Pogonotriccus paulista São Paulo Bristle-Tyrant 31, 38
Pogonotriccus poecilotis Variegated Bristle-Tyrant 31
Pogonotriccus venezuelanus Venezuelan Bristle-Tyrant 31
Pogonotriccus orbitalis Spectacled Bristle-Tyrant 31, 31b, 31c
Pogonotriccus chapmani Chapman's Bristle-Tyrant 31
Phylloscartes
ventralis
Mottle-cheeked Tyrannulet 32a, 32b
Phylloscartes
kronei Restinga Tyrannulet 34, 32a
Phylloscartes
beckeri
Bahia Tyrannulet 35, 32a
Phylloscartes virescens Olive-green Tyrannulet 32a
Phylloscartes gualaquizae Ecuadorian Tyrannulet 31cc
Phylloscartes nigrifrons Black-fronted Tyrannulet 31d, 31dd
Phylloscartes superciliaris Rufous-browed Tyrannulet 31e, 36b
Phylloscartes
ceciliae Alagoas Tyrannulet 33, 36b
Phylloscartes flaviventris Rufous-lored Tyrannulet 31, 36, 36a, 36b
Phylloscartes parkeri Cinnamon-faced Tyrannulet 37, 36a, 36b
Phylloscartes roquettei Minas Gerais Tyrannulet 36b
Phylloscartes oustaleti Oustalet's Tyrannulet
Phylloscartes sylviolus Bay-ringed Tyrannulet 36b, 39
Mionectes striaticollis Streak-necked Flycatcher 36c
Mionectes olivaceus Olive-striped Flycatcher 36cc
Mionectes oleagineus Ochre-bellied Flycatcher 40, 40a, 40b
Mionectes macconnelli McConnell's Flycatcher 40, 40c
Mionectes roraimae Sierra de Lema Flycatcher 40, 40d
Mionectes rufiventris Gray-hooded Flycatcher 40
Leptopogon amaurocephalus Sepia-capped Flycatcher 41, 41a
Leptopogon superciliaris Slaty-capped Flycatcher 41d
Leptopogon rufipectus Rufous-breasted Flycatcher 41a, 41b
Leptopogon taczanowskii Inca Flycatcher 41aa
Taeniotriccus
andrei
Black-chested Tyrant 68
Cnipodectes
subbrunneus Brownish Twistwing 72, 72a, 72aa, 72b
Cnipodectes
superrufus Rufous Twistwing 72d
Rhynchocyclus
olivaceus
Olivaceous Flatbill 72b, 72c, 72d, 73a
Rhynchocyclus
brevirostris
Eye-ringed Flatbill 73b
Rhynchocyclus
pacificus
Pacific Flatbill 73b
Rhynchocyclus
fulvipectus
Fulvous-breasted Flatbill 73
Tolmomyias
flavotectus
Yellow-winged Flatbill 72b, 74, 74a. 76
Tolmomyias
poliocephalus
Gray-crowned Flatbill 74, 74b
Tolmomyias
assimilis
Yellow-margined Flatbill 74, 76, 76a
Tolmomyias
traylori Orange-eyed Flatbill 74, 75
Tolmomyias
flaviventris
Yellow-breasted Flatbill 74, 77
Tolmomyias
viridiceps
Olive-faced Flatbill 74, 77
Tolmomyias
sulphurescens
Yellow-olive Flatbill 72b, 74, 74a
Myiornis
auricularis
Eared Pygmy-Tyrant 22cc, 45, 45a
Myiornis
albiventris
White-bellied Pygmy-Tyrant 45a, 45b
Myiornis
atricapillus
Black-capped Pygmy-Tyrant 46
Myiornis
ecaudatus
Short-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant 46, 46a
Oncostoma
cinereigulare Northern Bentbill (V?) 45, 46b,
47
Oncostoma
olivaceum
Southern Bentbill 47
Lophotriccus
pileatus
Scale-crested Pygmy-Tyrant 22cc, 45, 47c
Lophotriccus
vitiosus
Double-banded Pygmy-Tyrant 47a, 47b
Lophotriccus
eulophotes
Long-crested Pygmy-Tyrant 47a
Lophotriccus
galeatus
Helmeted Pygmy-Tyrant 48
Atalotriccus
pilaris
Pale-eyed Pygmy-Tyrant 45, 49, 49a
Hemitriccus
minor
Snethlage's Tody-Tyrant 45, 50, 50a, 50b
Hemitriccus
cohnhafti
Acre Tody-Tyrant 50a
Hemitriccus
spodiops
Yungas Tody-Tyrant 50a
Hemitriccus
flammulatus
Flammulated Pygmy-Tyrant 22cc, 53, 53a
Hemitriccus
diops
Drab-breasted Pygmy-Tyrant 53, 53a
Hemitriccus
obsoletus
Brown-breasted Pygmy-Tyrant 53, 53a
Hemitriccus
josephinae
Boat-billed Tody-Tyrant 54
Hemitriccus
zosterops
White-eyed Tody-Tyrant 51, 55, 63d, 63e,
63ee
Hemitriccus
griseipectus
White-bellied Tody-Tyrant 51, 55, 63d
Hemitriccus
orbitatus
Eye-ringed Tody-Tyrant 51, 63d
Hemitriccus
iohannis
Johannes's Tody-Tyrant 51, 56, 63d
Hemitriccus
striaticollis
Stripe-necked Tody-Tyrant 51, 63d, 63e
Hemitriccus
nidipendulus
Hangnest Tody-Tyrant 51, 63d
Hemitriccus
margaritaceiventer Pearly-vented Tody-Tyrant
51, 51a, 63d
Hemitriccus
inornatus
Pelzeln's Tody-Tyrant 57, 63d
Hemitriccus
minimus
Zimmer's Tody-Tyrant 51, 58
Hemitriccus
granadensis
Black-throated Tody-Tyrant 51, 63c, 63d
Hemitriccus
cinnamomeipectus Cinnamon-breasted Tody-Tyrant
59, 60, 60a
Hemitriccus
mirandae
Buff-breasted Tody-Tyrant 51, 51b, 60, 60a,
60b
Hemitriccus
kaempferi
Kaempfer's Tody-Tyrant 60, 60a
Hemitriccus
rufigularis
Buff-throated Tody-Tyrant 51, 63d
Hemitriccus
furcatus
Fork-tailed Pygmy-Tyrant 61
Poecilotriccus
ruficeps
Rufous-crowned Tody-Flycatcher 62, 62a
Poecilotriccus
luluae
Johnson's Tody-Flycatcher 62, 62b, 62c
Poecilotriccus
albifacies
White-cheeked Tody-Flycatcher 63, 64a, 64b
Poecilotriccus
capitalis
Black-and-white Tody-Flycatcher 63, 64, 64a,
64b, 65
Poecilotriccus
senex
Buff-cheeked Tody-Flycatcher 63, 66
Poecilotriccus
russatus
Ruddy Tody-Flycatcher 63, 63b, 63d
Poecilotriccus plumbeiceps Ochre-faced Tody-Flycatcher 63, 63b, 63d
Poecilotriccus fumifrons Smoky-fronted Tody-Flycatcher 63, 63c
Poecilotriccus
latirostris
Rusty-fronted Tody-Flycatcher 63, 63c, 63dd
Poecilotriccus
sylvia
Slate-headed Tody-Flycatcher 63, 63b, 63bb
Poecilotriccus
calopterus
Golden-winged Tody-Flycatcher 63, 67
Poecilotriccus
pulchellus
Black-backed Tody-Flycatcher 63, 67
Todirostrum
maculatum
Spotted Tody-Flycatcher
Todirostrum
poliocephalum
Gray-headed Tody-Flycatcher 69
Todirostrum
cinereum
Common Tody-Flycatcher
Todirostrum
viridanum
Maracaibo Tody-Flycatcher 70
Todirostrum
nigriceps
Black-headed Tody-Flycatcher 71
Todirostrum
pictum
Painted Tody-Flycatcher 71
Todirostrum
chrysocrotaphum Yellow-browed Tody-Flycatcher
71, 71a
Myiotriccus ornatus Ornate Flycatcher 43a
Nephelomyias pulcher Handsome Flycatcher 43a, 80, 80aa
Nephelomyias lintoni Orange-banded
Flycatcher
80, 80b
Nephelomyias ochraceiventris Ochraceous-breasted Flycatcher 80, 80b
Hirundinea
ferruginea
Cliff Flycatcher 43a, 85
Pyrrhomyias
cinnamomeus
Cinnamon Flycatcher 43a, 84, 84a
Zimmerius vilissimus Mistletoe Tyrannulet 26, 27
Zimmerius petersi Venezuelan Tyrannulet 26, 27
Zimmerius improbus Spectacled Tyrannulet 26, 27
Zimmerius albigularis Choco Tyrannulet 26, 26a
Zimmerius bolivianus Bolivian Tyrannulet 26
Zimmerius cinereicapilla Red-billed Tyrannulet 26, 28, 28a, 29a
Zimmerius
villarejoi
Mishana Tyrannulet 29, 29a, 29b
Zimmerius
chicomendesi
Chico’s Tyrannulet 29, 29a, 29b
Zimmerius gracilipes Slender-footed Tyrannulet 26, 28a, 28b
Zimmerius acer Guianan Tyrannulet 26, 28a, 28b
Zimmerius chrysops Golden-faced Tyrannulet 26, 26a, 30
Zimmerius viridiflavus Peruvian Tyrannulet 26
Stigmatura napensis Lesser Wagtail-Tyrant 25a, 25b
Stigmatura budytoides Greater Wagtail-Tyrant 25a
Inezia tenuirostris Slender-billed Tyrannulet 42a, 42aa, 42b, 42c, 42e
Inezia inornata Plain Tyrannulet 42a, 42d
Inezia subflava Amazonian Tyrannulet 43
Inezia
caudata
Pale-tipped Tyrannulet 43
Euscarthmus meloryphus Fulvous-crowned Scrub-Tyrant 24a, 24b
Euscarthmus fulviceps Fulvous-faced Scrub-Tyrant 24a, 24b
Euscarthmus rufomarginatus Rufous-sided Scrub-Tyrant 24c
Elaenia
flavogaster
Yellow-bellied Elaenia 8e, 8ee, 8f
Elaenia
martinica
Caribbean Elaenia 8d
Elaenia
spectabilis
Large Elaenia 8e, 9
Elaenia
ridleyana
Noronha Elaenia 9
Elaenia
albiceps
White-crested Elaenia 10, 10c, 10d, 10g
Elaenia
parvirostris
Small-billed Elaenia 10c, 10ccc
Elaenia
mesoleuca
Olivaceous Elaenia
Elaenia
strepera Slaty Elaenia
Elaenia
gigas
Mottle-backed Elaenia 8f
Elaenia
pelzelni Brownish Elaenia
Elaenia cristata Plain-crested Elaenia 10cc
Elaenia chiriquensis Lesser Elaenia 8d, 10b
Elaenia brachyptera Coopmans’s Elaenia 10b
Elaenia ruficeps Rufous-crowned Elaenia 10cc
Elaenia frantzii Mountain Elaenia 10a
Elaenia olivina Tepui Elaenia 10f
Elaenia obscura Highland Elaenia 10a, 10aa
Elaenia dayi Great Elaenia 10a, 10aa, 10e
Elaenia sordida Small-headed Elaenia 10a, 10aa
Elaenia pallatangae Sierran Elaenia 10, 10f, 10g
Tyrannulus elatus Yellow-crowned Tyrannulet 7a
Myiopagis gaimardii Forest Elaenia 7b, 7d, 7e
Myiopagis caniceps Gray Elaenia 7c, 7cc, 7ccc
Myiopagis olallai Foothill Elaenia 7ccc, 8
Myiopagis subplacens Pacific Elaenia
Myiopagis flavivertex Yellow-crowned Elaenia
Myiopagis viridicata Greenish Elaenia 8b, 8c
Suiriri
suiriri
Suiriri Flycatcher 7b, 12
Capsiempis
flaveola Yellow Tyrannulet 21
Mecocerculus
poecilocercus
White-tailed Tyrannulet 14a
Mecocerculus
hellmayri
Buff-banded Tyrannulet 14a
Mecocerculus
stictopterus
White-banded Tyrannulet
Mecocerculus
leucophrys
White-throated Tyrannulet 14, 14b
Mecocerculus
calopterus Rufous-winged Tyrannulet
Mecocerculus
minor
Sulphur-bellied Tyrannulet
Phyllomyias
virescens
Greenish Tyrannulet 3, 3a
Phyllomyias
reiseri
Reiser's Tyrannulet 3, 3a, 4
Phyllomyias
urichi
Urich's Tyrannulet 3, 4
Phyllomyias sclateri Sclater's Tyrannulet 3, 5
Phyllomyias
weedeni
Yungas Tyrannulet 3b
Phyllomyias
fasciatus
Planalto Tyrannulet 3b
Phyllomyias griseiceps Sooty-headed Tyrannulet 5a
Phyllomyias plumbeiceps Plumbeous-crowned Tyrannulet 7
Phyllomyias griseocapilla Gray-capped Tyrannulet 7
Acrochordopus
zeledoni
White-fronted Tyrannulet 2, 2a, 2b
Acrochordopus
burmeisteri
Rough-legged Tyrannulet 2, 2a, 2b
Tyranniscus cinereiceps Ashy-headed Tyrannulet 6
Tyranniscus nigrocapillus Black-capped Tyrannulet 6
Tyranniscus uropygialis Tawny-rumped Tyrannulet 6
Camptostoma
obsoletum
Southern Beardless-Tyrannulet 11d, 11e
Ornithion
brunneicapillus Brown-capped Tyrannulet
11, 11b, 11c
Ornithion
inerme
White-lored Tyrannulet 11cc
Nesotriccus
murinus
Mouse-colored Tyrannulet 20, 20a
Nesotriccus
tumbezanus
Tumbesian Tyrannulet 20, 20a
Nesotriccus
maranonicus
Marañon Tyrannulet 20, 20a
Pseudelaenia leucospodia Gray-and-white Tyrannulet 25
Anairetes
nigrocristatus
Black-crested Tit-Tyrant 15, 15a
Anairetes
reguloides
Pied-crested Tit-Tyrant 15
Anairetes
alpinus Ash-breasted Tit-Tyrant 15c
Anairetes
flavirostris
Yellow-billed Tit-Tyrant
Anairetes
parulus
Tufted Tit-Tyrant 15b
Anairetes
fernandezianus
Juan Fernandez Tit-Tyrant 15b
Polystictus
pectoralis
Bearded Tachuri 21a, 21b, 21c
Polystictus
superciliaris
Gray-backed Tachuri 21a, 21b
Culicivora
caudacuta
Sharp-tailed Tyrant 44
Pseudocolopteryx
sclateri
Crested Doradito 43b
Pseudocolopteryx
acutipennis
Subtropical Doradito 22
Pseudocolopteryx
dinelliana Dinelli's Doradito 22, 22a
Pseudocolopteryx
flaviventris
Warbling Doradito 22aa
Pseudocolopteryx
citreola
Ticking Doradito 22aa
Serpophaga
cinerea
Torrent Tyrannulet 17
Serpophaga
hypoleuca
River Tyrannulet
Serpophaga
nigricans
Sooty Tyrannulet
Serpophaga
subcristata
White-crested Tyrannulet 18
Serpophaga
griseicapilla
Straneck’s Tyrannulet 18, 19
Uromyias
agilis
Agile Tit-Tyrant 16
Uromyias
agraphia
Unstreaked Tit-Tyrant 16
Muscigralla
brevicauda
Short-tailed Field Tyrant 121b
Attila
phoenicurus Rufous-tailed Attila 143
Attila
cinnamomeus
Cinnamon Attila 143a
Attila
torridus
Ochraceous Attila 143b
Attila
citriniventris
Citron-bellied Attila
Attila
bolivianus
Dull-capped Attila 144
Attila
rufus Gray-hooded Attila
Attila
spadiceus
Bright-rumped Attila 145
Legatus
leucophaius
Piratic Flycatcher 122b
Ramphotrigon
megacephalum
Large-headed Flatbill 141, 142, 142a, 142b
Ramphotrigon
ruficauda
Rufous-tailed Flatbill
Ramphotrigon
fuscicauda Dusky-tailed Flatbill
Pitangus
sulphuratus
Great Kiskadee
Philohydor
lictor
Lesser Kiskadee 125
Machetornis
rixosa
Cattle Tyrant 122
Tyrannopsis sulphurea Sulphury Flycatcher
Megarynchus
pitangua
Boat-billed Flycatcher 129
Myiodynastes
hemichrysus
Golden-bellied Flycatcher 127b
Myiodynastes
chrysocephalus
Golden-crowned Flycatcher 127b
Myiodynastes
bairdii
Baird's Flycatcher
Myiodynastes
luteiventris
Sulphur-bellied Flycatcher (NB) 128a
Myiodynastes
maculatus
Streaked Flycatcher 128, 128a
Myiozetetes
cayanensis
Rusty-margined Flycatcher
Myiozetetes
similis
Social Flycatcher 122a
Myiozetetes
granadensis Gray-capped Flycatcher
Myiozetetes
luteiventris
Dusky-chested Flycatcher 123
Conopias
albovittatus
White-ringed Flycatcher 126, 126a, 127
Conopias
parvus
Yellow-throated Flycatcher 126, 126a, 127
Conopias
trivirgatus
Three-striped Flycatcher 127, 127a
Conopias
cinchoneti
Lemon-browed Flycatcher
Phelpsia
inornata
White-bearded Flycatcher 124
Empidonomus varius Variegated Flycatcher 129a, 130b
Empidonomus aurantioatrocristatus
Crowned Slaty Flycatcher 130
Tyrannus
niveigularis
Snowy-throated Kingbird
Tyrannus
albogularis White-throated Kingbird
Tyrannus
melancholicus
Tropical Kingbird 130b
Tyrannus forficatus Scissor-tailed Flycatcher (V) 130bb
Tyrannus
savana
Fork-tailed Flycatcher 131, 131a
Tyrannus
tyrannus
Eastern Kingbird (NB)
Tyrannus
dominicensis Gray Kingbird
Rhytipterna
holerythra
Rufous Mourner 131aa, 131b
Rhytipterna
simplex
Grayish Mourner 131aa, 132
Rhytipterna
immunda
Pale-bellied Mourner 133c, 133d
Casiornis
rufus
Rufous Casiornis 133, 133a, 133b
Casiornis
fuscus
Ash-throated Casiornis 133, 133a, 133b
Sirystes
albogriseus
Choco Sirystes 132a, 132b
Sirystes
albocinereus
White-rumped Sirystes 132b
Sirystes
subcanescens
Todd’s Sirystes 132b
Sirystes
sibilator
Sibilant Sirystes 132b
Myiarchus
semirufus
Rufous Flycatcher 133c
Myiarchus
tuberculifer
Dusky-capped Flycatcher 134, 135
Myiarchus
swainsoni
Swainson's Flycatcher 136
Myiarchus venezuelensis Venezuelan Flycatcher 137
Myiarchus panamensis Panama Flycatcher 137, 138
Myiarchus ferox Short-crested Flycatcher 137, 138
Myiarchus apicalis Apical Flycatcher
Myiarchus phaeocephalus Sooty-crowned Flycatcher 137, 138a, 138b
Myiarchus cephalotes Pale-edged Flycatcher 138a
Myiarchus
crinitus
Great Crested Flycatcher (NB) 139
Myiarchus
tyrannulus
Brown-crested Flycatcher 140, 140a, 140aa
Myiarchus
magnirostris
Galapagos Flycatcher 140b
Colonia
colonus
Long-tailed Tyrant
Myiophobus
flavicans
Flavescent Flycatcher 43a, 80
Myiophobus
phoenicomitra Orange-crested Flycatcher 80
Myiophobus
inornatus
Unadorned Flycatcher 80
Myiophobus
roraimae
Roraiman Flycatcher 80, 80a
Myiophobus
cryptoxanthus
Olive-chested Flycatcher 80, 81
Myiophobus
fasciatus
Bran-colored Flycatcher 80, 81, 82
Myiophobus
crypterythrus
Mouse-gray Flycatcher 80, 81, 82
Myiophobus
rufescens
Rufescent Flycatcher 80, 81, 82
Colorhamphus
parvirostris
Patagonian Tyrant 121c
Silvicultrix
frontalis
Crowned Chat-Tyrant 119, 119c, 120
Silvicultrix
jelskii
Jelski's Chat-Tyrant 119, 119a
Silvicultrix
pulchella
Golden-browed Chat-Tyrant 119, 119b, 120a
Silvicultrix
diadema
Yellow-bellied Chat-Tyrant 119, 120a
Ochthoeca
cinnamomeiventris Slaty-backed Chat-Tyrant
121
Ochthoeca
rufipectoralis Rufous-breasted Chat-Tyrant
Ochthoeca
fumicolor
Brown-backed Chat-Tyrant 121a
Ochthoeca
oenanthoides
d'Orbigny's Chat-Tyrant
Ochthoeca
piurae
Piura Chat-Tyrant 120b
Ochthoeca
leucophrys
White-browed Chat-Tyrant 120b
Tumbezia
salvini
Tumbes Tyrant 118
Guyramemua
affine
Chapada Flycatcher 13
Sublegatus arenarum Northern Scrub-Flycatcher 41c, 41e, 42
Sublegatus obscurior Amazonian Scrub-Flycatcher 41f, 42
Sublegatus modestus Southern Scrub-Flycatcher 41f, 42
Pyrocephalus
rubinus
Vermilion Flycatcher 94c
Pyrocephalus
nanus
Brujo Flycatcher 94c
Fluvicola
pica
Pied Water Tyrant 100b, 115
Fluvicola
albiventer
Black-backed Water Tyrant 115
Fluvicola
nengeta
Masked Water Tyrant 115a, 115b
Arundinicola
leucocephala
White-headed Marsh Tyrant 116
Gubernetes
yetapa
Streamer-tailed Tyrant
Heteroxolmis
dominicana
Black-and-white Monjita 108, 111
Alectrurus
tricolor
Cock-tailed Tyrant
Alectrurus
risora Strange-tailed Tyrant 117
Lessonia rufa Austral Negrito 95
Lessonia oreas Andean Negrito 95
Hymenops
perspicillatus
Spectacled Tyrant 100
Knipolegus
orenocensis
Riverside Tyrant 98d
Knipolegus
poecilurus
Rufous-tailed Tyrant 98c
Knipolegus
poecilocercus
Amazonian Black-Tyrant 97
Knipolegus
franciscanus
Caatinga Black-Tyrant 99
Knipolegus
lophotes
Crested Black-Tyrant
Knipolegus
nigerrimus
Velvety Black-Tyrant
Knipolegus
signatus
Jelski’s Black-Tyrant 98, 98a
Knipolegus
cabanisi
Plumbeous Black-Tyrant 98, 98a
Knipolegus
cyanirostris
Blue-billed Black-Tyrant
Knipolegus
striaticeps
Cinereous Tyrant 96
Knipolegus
aterrimus
White-winged Black-Tyrant 99
Knipolegus
hudsoni
Hudson's Black-Tyrant 97
Satrapa
icterophrys
Yellow-browed Tyrant
Syrtidicola
fluviatilis
Little Ground-Tyrant 101a, 101b
Muscisaxicola
maculirostris
Spot-billed Ground-Tyrant
Muscisaxicola
griseus
Taczanowski's Ground-Tyrant 101b, 102, 102a,
103
Muscisaxicola
juninensis Puna Ground-Tyrant 103a, 103aa
Muscisaxicola
cinereus
Cinereous Ground-Tyrant 103, 103b
Muscisaxicola
albifrons White-fronted Ground-Tyrant
Muscisaxicola
flavinucha
Ochre-naped Ground-Tyrant
Muscisaxicola
rufivertex
Rufous-naped Ground-Tyrant 103c
Muscisaxicola
maclovianus
Dark-faced Ground-Tyrant 103
Muscisaxicola
albilora
White-browed Ground-Tyrant 103a
Muscisaxicola
alpinus
Plain-capped Ground-Tyrant 102a, 103
Muscisaxicola
capistratus
Cinnamon-bellied Ground-Tyrant 103, 103d
Muscisaxicola
frontalis
Black-fronted Ground-Tyrant 103d
Cnemarchus
erythropygius
Red-rumped Bush-Tyrant 113
Cnemarchus
rufipennis
Rufous-webbed Bush-Tyrant 114
Pyrope
pyrope
Fire-eyed Diucon 107
Xolmis
velatus
White-rumped Monjita 108
Xolmis
irupero
White Monjita
Nengetus
cinereus
Gray Monjita 108, 108a, 108b, 111a
Neoxolmis
coronatus
Black-crowned Monjita 108, 108a, 108c
Neoxolmis
salinarum
Salinas Monjita 109, 110
Neoxolmis
rubetra
Rusty-backed Monjita 108, 110, 110a
Neoxolmis
rufiventris
Chocolate-vented Tyrant 110a, 111a
Agriornis
montanus
Black-billed Shrike-Tyrant 104
Agriornis
albicauda
White-tailed Shrike-Tyrant 105
Agriornis
lividus
Great Shrike-Tyrant 104
Agriornis
micropterus
Gray-bellied Shrike-Tyrant 104
Agriornis
murinus
Lesser Shrike-Tyrant 104, 106
Myiotheretes
striaticollis
Streak-throated Bush-Tyrant 112
Myiotheretes
pernix
Santa Marta Bush-Tyrant 112, 112b
Myiotheretes
fumigatus
Smoky Bush-Tyrant 112a, 112b
Myiotheretes
fuscorufus
Rufous-bellied Bush-Tyrant 112a, 112b
Ochthornis
littoralis
Drab Water Tyrant 101
Cnemotriccus
fuscatus
Fuscous Flycatcher 87b
Aphanotriccus
audax
Black-billed Flycatcher 87, 87a
Lathrotriccus
euleri Euler's Flycatcher 86, 86a, 87
Lathrotriccus
griseipectus
Gray-breasted Flycatcher 86
Mitrephanes
phaeocercus
Tufted Flycatcher 94, 94a
Mitrephanes
olivaceus
Olive Flycatcher 94, 94a
Sayornis
nigricans
Black Phoebe 94b
Empidonax
virescens
Acadian Flycatcher (NB)
88
Empidonax
alnorum
Alder Flycatcher (NB)
89
Empidonax
traillii
Willow Flycatcher (NB)
89
Contopus
cooperi
Olive-sided Flycatcher (NB) 90, 91
Contopus
fumigatus
Smoke-colored Pewee 92, 92a
Contopus
sordidulus
Western Wood-Pewee (NB)
93, 93b, 93c
Contopus
virens
Eastern Wood-Pewee (NB)
93, 93b
Contopus
cinereus
Tropical Pewee 93a, 93b, 93bb
Contopus
albogularis
White-throated Pewee
Contopus
nigrescens
Blackish Pewee 93c
Muscipipra
vetula
Shear-tailed Gray Tyrant 147
Incertae sedis
Tachuris
rubrigastra
Many-colored Rush Tyrant 43b
1. [relationships of family, sequence of genera]
[add subfamilies?]. Sibley & Ahlquist (1985, 1990) found that the
Tyrannidae consisted of two major groups, the "Mionectidae" for Mionectes
and several genera of small flycatchers placed in the subfamily Elaeniinae
(sensu Traylor 1979a); Sibley & Ahlquist's data also indicated that the
"Mionectidae" and Tyrannidae were not sister groups. Subsequent analyses (S. Lanyon 1985, W.
Lanyon 1988a, b) did not support such a division. However, Chesser (2004) found
the same deep division in the Tyrannidae, but found that the two groups were
sisters. Tello et al. (2009) found that Mionectes
was deeply embedded in the Tyrannidae and sister to Leptopogon. For detailed
discussions of relationships among genera, see Traylor (1977) and W. Lanyon
(1985, 1986, 1988a, 1988b, 1988c). [incorp. Birdsley (2002),
Fitzpatrick 2004]. Tello et al. (2009) have
conducted the first comprehensive, gene-based analysis of relationships within
the family and have discovered a number of novel relationships not yet
reflected in the classification above or the Notes below, including grouping of
Onychorhynchus, Myiobius, and Terenotriccus
with Oxyruncus (Oxyruncidae). Ohlson
et al. (2013) proposed dividing the Tyrannidae into families: Onychorhynchidae (for Onychorhynchus, Myiobius, and Terenotriccus),
Platyrinchidae (for Calyptura, Neopipo, and Platyrinchus), Tachurididae (for Tachuris), Rhynchocyclidae (for Mionectes
through Oncostoma, with three
subfamilies), and Tyrannidae (with remaining genera, divided into five
subfamilies and several additional tribes); this was followed by Dickinson
& Christidis (2014). See
Franz (2015) correction of Tachurididae to Tachurisidae. See Fjeldså et al. (2018) for new information
on relationships within the fluvicoline group.
SACC proposal passed to recognize
Onychorhynchidae as a separate family, and to divide Tyrannidae into three
subfamilies, Pipritinae, Platyrinchinae, and Tyranninae, as well as rearrange
linear sequence of suboscine families. The current
Tyranninae tentatively includes genera placed in the following subfamilies by
other authors: Rhynchocyclinae, Fluvicolinae, Pipromorphinae, Hirundineinae, Elaeniinae,
Triccinae, and Muscigrallinae. The
tentative linear sequence of genera within broadly defined Tyranninae follows
the sequence of genera in Dickinson & Christidis (2014) for their
Tachurisidae through Tyrannidae.
2. Although Fitzpatrick
(2004) followed Traylor's (1977,
1979a) broad definition of Phyllomyias, he
noted that this genus is likely polyphyletic, with P. fasciatus, P.
griseocapilla, and P. griseiceps possibly forming a group unrelated
to the other species, which would force minimally the resurrection of Tyranniscus
(see Note 6).
2a. The species burmeisteri was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) separated in the genus Acrochordopus
based on tarsal morphology, but Acrochordopus was merged into Phyllomyias
by Traylor (1977, 1979a). Acrochordopus was considered to belong in the
Cotingidae by Ridgway (1907) and Wetmore & Phelps (1956). The name Idiotriccus
was formerly (e.g. Ridgway 1907) used for Acrochordopus. Harvey et al. (2020) showed that Phyllomyias
was polyphyletic with respect to Mecocerculus, Ornithion, and Camptostoma,
and that burmeisteri was more closely related to the latter two genera
than to Phyllomyias. SACC proposal passed to recognize Acrochordopus
(including also zeledoni as a separate species; see Note 2b).
2b. Wetmore (1972), Stiles & Skutch
(1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) recognized the northern subspecies zeledoni as a
separate species (“White-fronted Tyrannulet”) from Phyllomyias burmeisteri based on described vocal differences;
this treatment returns to earlier ones (Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1941c,
Phelps & Phelps 1950a) that treated the two as separate before Meyer de
Schauensee's (1966, 1970) and Traylor's (1977<?>, 1979a) classifications.
Stiles & Skutch (1989) further recognized Andean birds as a separate
species, P. leucogonys, from Central American P. zeledoni,
returning to the classification of (REF). Elevation of these taxa to species
rank was not followed by Fitzpatrick (2004) due to lack of published analyses
of vocal differences or other data. Parra-Hernández et al. (2020a,b) showed
that the zeledoni group (including leucogonys) had distinctly different
vocalizations from burmeisteri; see also Herzog et al. (2016) and Areta et al. (2021). SACC proposal passed to treat zeledoni
(along with subspecies wetmorei, viridiceps, bunites, and leucogonys)
as a separate species from burmeisteri.
3. The species virescens (with urichi),
reiseri , and sclateri, were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr
1927, Zimmer 1941b, Pinto 1944, Phelps &
Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Xanthomyias,
but this was merged into Phyllomyias by Traylor (1977, 1979a).
3a. Phyllomyias reiseri and P.
virescens were considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), Meyer
de Schauensee (1970), and Traylor (1977<?>, 1979a, 1982), but see Zimmer
(1955), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Stotz (1990), and Hayes (1995); they form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), along with P. urichi
(Fitzpatrick 2004).
3b. Newly described: Herzog et al.
(2008). SACC proposal passed to recognize P.
weedeni. Herzog
et al. (2008) proposed that its closest relative is P. fasciatus.
4. [split from virescens; Silva
(1996).]; followed by Fitzpatrick (2004).
5. "Tyranniscus australis,"
considered a valid species by Meyer de Schauensee (1970), was shown by Traylor
(1982) to be a synonym of Phyllomyias sclateri. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
5a. Called "Crested
Tyrannulet" in Wetmore (1972).
6. The species nigrocapillus, cinereiceps,
and uropygialis were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr
1927, Zimmer 1941b, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed
in a separate genus, Tyranniscus, but they were transferred to Phyllomyias
by Traylor (1977, 1979a). <check gracilipes -- in Tyranniscus
in Pinto 1944>. Harvey et al. (2020) showed that broadly
defined Phyllomyias was polyphyletic and that these three species were
more closely related to Ornithion and Camptostoma than to Phyllomyias. SACC proposal passed to restore Tyranniscus.
7. Phyllomyias plumbeiceps and
P. griseocapilla were formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1941c, Meyer de Schauensee
1970) placed in a separate genus, Oreotriccus, but this was merged into Phyllomyias
by Traylor (1977, 1979a), a return to the classification of Pinto (1944).
7a. The tarsal morphology of Tyrannulus
has been interpreted to indicate that it belongs in the Cotingidae (Ridgway
1907). Traylor (1977) considered Tyrannulus most closely related to Myiopagis
because of plumage similarities to M. gaimardii.
7b. The genus Myiopagis was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) included in Elaenia; Zimmer
(1941b) treated the two as separate, and this has been followed in all
subsequent classifications. Tello et al.
(2009) found that Myiopagis and Suiriri were sister genera, and that Elaenia was the sister to these two.
Within Myiopagis, Rheindt et al. (2009) found the following
relationships (caniceps + olallai) + [(subplacens + gaimardii) +
(flavivertex + viridicata)]. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
7c. Hilty (2003) suspected that Myiopagis
caniceps might not belong in that genus, but Rheindt et al. (2009)
confirmed that it belongs there.
7cc. "Serpophaga araguayae,"
known only from the type specimen from Goiás, Brazil, and formerly
considered a valid species (e.g., Pinto 1944, Meyer
de Schauensee 1966, 1970), is a synonym of Myiopagis c. caniceps (Silva
1990). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
7ccc.
Genetic data (Rheindt et al. 2009, Cuervo et al. 2014) reveal that Myiopagis
caniceps consists of two species,
with strong plumage differences between them (Fitzpatrick 2004), and that M.
olallai is nested within M. caniceps as currently defined. SACC proposal needed.
7d. Ridgway (1907) considered Myiopagis
gaimardii to be in the monotypic genus Elainopsis and placed it in
the Cotingidae based on tarsal morphology, but see Zimmer (1941a) for placement
in Myiopagis. Recent genetic data
(Rheindt et al. 2009, Tello et al. 2009) confirm this placement.
7e. "Serpophaga berliozi,"
described as a valid species from Amazonas, Peru, is now considered a
synonym of Myiopagis g. gaimardii (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Mayr 1971,
Traylor 1979a).
8. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Coopmans & Krabbe (2000).
8b. Myiopagis viridicata and M.
cotta of Jamaica are sister species (Fitzpatrick 2004).
8c. Hilty (2003) suspected that Myiopagis
viridicata might consist of more than one species; genetic data (Rheindt et
al. 2009) indicate a very deep split between cis- and trans-Andean populations.
8cc.
The species name placens was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) applied to Myiopagis
viridicata, but see [REF].
8d. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that Elaenia
martinica and E. chiriquensis were sister species.
8e. Olrog (1963) suggested that Elaenia
spectabilis should be considered conspecific with E. flavogaster.
8ee. Genetic data (Rheindt et al. 2008a)
indicate that the traditional linear sequence of Elaenia species, as
given here, does not accurately reflect phylogenetic relationships among taxa. SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
8f. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that Elaenia
flavogaster and E. gigas were closely related based on vocal,
behavioral, and plumage similarities, but genetic data (Rheindt et al. 2008a)
indicate that they are not closely related.
9. Elaenia ridleyana was formerly
(e.g., Zimmer 1941a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979a) considered a
subspecies of E. spectabilis or of E. chiriquensis (Cory &
Hellmayr 1927); treated here as a species separate from following Sick
(1985) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994); E. ridleyana forms a superspecies
with E. spectabilis (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
10. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) suggested
that Elaenia albiceps may consist of two or three species. Fitzpatrick
(2004) suggested that Elaenia pallatangae and E. albiceps might
be closely related; they may hybridize to an uncertain extent in N. Peru
(Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990). Rheindt et al. (2008a) found that Andean
populations (Cuzco) were genetically more similar to sympatric populations of E.
pallatangae but suggested that this could be due to gene flow between them.
Rheindt et al. (2009) provided evidence that the subspecies chilensis is actually more closely
related E. pallatangae. SACC proposal needed.
10a. Elaenia frantzii and E.
obscura were considered to form a superspecies by AOU (1983) but not by
subsequent authors; they were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927)
considered conspecific; Zimmer (1941a) provided rationale for their treatment
as separate species, and this has been followed in most subsequent
classifications. Genetic data (Rheindt et al. 2008a) indicate that they are not
closely related. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that E. dayi might also be
closely related to these two; genetic data (Rheindt et al. 2008) indicate that E.
dayi and E. obscura are sister species.
10aa. Rheindt et al. (2008a) and Tang et
al. (2018) proposed that the subspecies sordida be treated as a separate
species from E. obscura based on genetic distance and some suggestion
that it might be more closely related to E. dayi than to other E.
obscura. SACC
proposal passed to treat sordida as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to establish English
names for E. obscura and E.
sordida.
10b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
suggested that the subspecies brachyptera might deserve recognition as a
separate species from Elaenia chiriquensis based on vocal
differences. Rheindt et al. (2008a)
supported species rank for brachyptera based on genetic distance. Rheindt et al. (2015) found that that brachyptera
should be ranked as a separate species based on voice and genetic
distance. SACC proposal passed to elevate brachyptera to species rank.
10c. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Elaenia albiceps and E. parvirostris to form a
superspecies. Genetic data (Rheindt et al. 2008a) indicate that they are not
closely related. Although they seem to intergrade in some areas of central
Bolivia, they are sympatric without interbreeding in Argentina (Traylor 1982).
10cc. Zimmer (1941a) proposed that Elaenia
cristata and E. ruficeps were probably sister species based on
morphology and habitat similarities, and this is strongly supported by genetic
data (Rheindt et al. 2008a).
10ccc. "Elaenia aenigma,"
described as a valid species from eastern Ecuador, is a synonym of E.
parvirostris (Zimmer 1941b, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Traylor 1979b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
10d. The subspecies modesta was
formerly (REF) considered a separate species from Elaenia albiceps, but
see Zimmer (1941a). Jaramillo (2003) suggested that E. albiceps consists
of more than one species.
10e. The subspecies tyleri of
Cerro Duida was described as a separate species from Elaenia dayi
(Chapman 1929).
10f. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated
the subspecies olivina as a distinct
species but noted that it was probably better treated as a subspecies of E. pallatangae. Zimmer (1941a) treated olivina as a subspecies of E. pallatangae. This classification was
followed by all subsequent authors until Rheindt et al. (2008a, 2009) and Tang
et al. (2018) found that olivina was
not particularly closely related to E.
pallatangae. This was followed by
Dickinson & Christidis (2014) and del Hoyo and Collar (2016), who treated
it as E. olivina (“Tepui
Elaenia”). SACC
proposal passed to treat olivina as a separate species.
SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence
of species in Elaenia.
10g. Elaenia pallatangae and E.
albiceps may hybridize to an uncertain extent in Ecuador and N. Peru (Fitzpatrick
2004, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990).
11. Ornithion brunneicapillus was formerly
(e.g., Zimmer 1941, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with
Middle American O. semiflavum, but Slud (1964) noted vocal
differences between the two and recommended treatment as separate species. This
has been followed by most subsequent classifications (e.g., Wetmore 1972,
Traylor 1977<?>, 1979a, Stiles & Skutch 1989, Fitzpatrick 2004), thus
returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927); they constitute
a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004). Correct spelling for species name is brunneicapillus,
not brunneicapillum (David & Gosselin 2002a).
11b. The tarsal morphology of Ornithion
has been interpreted to indicate that it belongs in the Cotingidae (Ridgway
1907). Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009)
indicate that it is the sister to Camptostoma.
11c. Ornithion brunneicapillus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927)
placed with Middle American O. semiflavum in a separate genus, Microtriccus,
which Zimmer (1941c) merged into Ornithion; this has been followed by
most subsequent classifications (e.g., Traylor <?>1977, 1979, Ridgely
& Tudor 1994, Fitzpatrick 2004), but Wetmore (1972) maintained Microtriccus
on the basis of differences in primary shape, rectrix shape, and relative tail
length.
11cc. "Ornithion fasciatus,"
described as a valid species from Peru, is now considered a synonym of Ornithion
inerme (Zimmer 1941c, Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
11d. Camptostoma obsoletum forms a superspecies with Middle
American C. imberbe (AOU 1983, 1998, Fitzpatrick 2004); Meyer de
Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be conspecific, but they are
sympatric in Costa Rica (Stiles & Skutch 1989).
11e. Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001) and Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that Camptostoma
obsoletum may consist of more than one species; Rheindt et al. (2008c)
found genetic evidence consistent with at least three species, but recommended
waiting for additional analyses. Ridgway
(1907) treated the Central American and western South American subspecies as a
separate species, C. pusillum.
12. Some authors (Cory & Hellmayr
1927, Short 1975, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered S. affinis as a
species separate from S. suiriri, but they intergrade in southeastern
Bolivia, northeastern Paraguay, and southwestern Brazil (Laubmann 1940, Zimmer
1955, Traylor 1982, Hayes 1995, 2001). Their vocalizations are similar (Zimmer
et al. 2001), and all 17 specimens from the Paraguayan hybrid zone are
intermediate, suggesting free interbreeding (Hayes 1995, 2001).
13. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Zimmer et al. (2001). Kirwan et
al. (2014) proposed that the species name islerorum
is a synonym of affinis. SACC proposal passed to change to Suiriri affinis. Lopes et al. (2018) found that Suiriri affinis was not closely related
to Suiriri suiriri but rather to Sublegatus
they named a new genus for affinis: Guyramemua. SACC proposal passed to recognize Guyramemua. The genus is neuter, so the species name
becomes affine, but Elliott (2020) presented the case that the gender of
Guyramemua is feminine and thus affine should be changed back to affinis. SACC
proposal needed. Harvey et
al. (2020) confirmed the sister relationship to Sublegatus.
14. Morphological data indicate that Mecocerculus
is almost certainly polyphyletic (Lanyon 1988a), but no choice now but to
retain as is without further study. With leucophrys as the type species
for the genus, placement of the genus arbitrarily reflects the position of M.
leucophrys in Lanyon's (1988a) phylogeny.
14a. Mecocerculus poecilocercus
and M. hellmayri form a superspecies (Fitzpatrick 2004).
14b. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990)
suggested that the subspecies pallidior of western Peru might be
considered a separate species from Mecocerculus leucophrys.
15. Anairetes nigrocristatus was
formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1940b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>,
1979a) considered conspecific with A. reguloides, but see Fjeldså &
Krabbe (1990) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for recognition as a separate
species, as was suspected was the best treatment by Meyer de Schauensee (1966);
they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004) and are
sister taxa (DuBay & Witt 2012).
15a. Spizitornis was formerly
(e.g., Oberholser 1920b, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1940b) used for Anairetes,
but see <REF>, Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
15b. Genetic data (Roy et al. 1999)
confirm that Anairetes parulus and A. fernandezianus are sister
species.
15c. Anairetes alpinus was
formerly (e.g., reluctantly by Zimmer 1940b) placed in the monotypic genus Yanacea,
but this was merged into Anairetes by Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970). DuBay & Witt (2012) founded that alpinus
is indeed embedded in Anairetes and
is sister to A. parulus + A. flavirostris, and together they are
sister to A. reguloides + A. nigrocristatus.
16. Uromyias agilis and U.
agraphia were traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor (1977,
1979a) placed in Uromyias, many
recent classifications (e.g., Dickinson 2003) have merged Uromyias into Anairetes.
Although Lanyon (1988a), Ridgely & Tudor (1994), and Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001) maintained Uromyias on the basis of morphological and
vocal characters, Roy et al.'s (1999) genetic data found that it is embedded
within Anairetes. DuBay &
Witt (2012), however, refuted this and proposed restoring Uromyias. SACC proposal
passed to recognize Uromyias. Uromyias agilis and U. agraphia form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
17. Bertoni (1925) described a new genus
for Serpophaga nigricans. Chebez
& Agnolin (2012) provided evidence that Serpophaga is not monophyletic and named a new genus, Holmbergphaga,
for the species cinerea, hypoleuca, and nigricans. However, if
split, the name Ridgwayornis Bertoni,
1925, would have priority. Jordan et al.
(2020) also found that Serpophaga is not monophyletic,
and suggested resurrecting Ridgwayornis for nigricans. <wait for
additional analysis>
17a. Silva (1990) showed that "Serpophaga
araguayae," formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
valid species ("Bananal Tyrannulet"), is actually a synonym of Myiopagis
c. caniceps.
18. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated
the taxon munda as a separate species from Serpophaga subcristata,
and this was followed by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and most subsequent authors. However, some authors considered it as a
subspecies of S. subcristata (e.g., Zimmer 1955, Traylor 1977<?>,
1979a, Straneck 1993; cf. Herzog 2001) or a morph (Short 1975). Bó (1969) found intermediate specimens at the
contact in central Argentina, and Krabbe (2015) and Pearman & Areta (2020,
2021) provided evidence for their treatment as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to treat them as
conspecific.
19. "Serpophaga griseiceps,"
known from four specimens from Bolivia, was formerly considered a valid
species (e.g., Zimmer 1955, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970). Traylor (1979)
treated S. griseiceps as a synonym of S. munda; rationale,
however, was not published. Straneck (1993) resurrected S. griseiceps
as a valid species, but see Herzog & Barnett (2004), who concluded that
"griseiceps" most likely represents the juvenal plumage of S.
munda. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. Straneck (2007) described a new
species, Serpophaga griseicapilla, for the taxon previously suspected to
be S. "griseiceps." SACC proposal passed to recognize griseicapilla. SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
20. Zucker et al. (2016) found that
extralimital Cocos Flycatcher in the monotypic genus Nesotriccus was
actually embedded with Phaeomyias taxa; genomic data (Harvey et al.
2020) corroborated this relationship. Nesotriccus
Townsend 1895 has priority over Phaeomyias Berlepsch 1902. SACC proposal passed to treat Phaeomyias
as a junior synonym of Nesotriccus. Nesotriccus
is masculine, and thus variable endings of taxa in former Phaeomyias
must change.
20a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) noted
that vocal differences suggest that Nesotriccus (Phaeomyias)
murina might consist of more than one species. Ridgely & Greenfield
(2001) considered the subspecies tumbezana (with inflava and maranonica)
of southwestern Ecuador and northwestern Peru to represent a separate species
based on differences in vocalizations. Rheindt
et al. (2008c) found genetic evidence consistent with two species, and Zucker
et al. (2016) found additional evidence for multiple species within P. murina as did Harvey et al. (2022).
SACC proposal passed to treat murina
(now murinus; see Note 20) as consisting of three separate species.
SACC proposal passed to establish English
names.
21. The genus Capsiempis was
merged into Phylloscartes by Traylor (1977<?>, 1979a), but see
Lanyon (1988a) for resurrection of the genus on morphological data, which
suggest that Capsiempis was closer to Phaeomyias and Nesotriccus
than to Phylloscartes. In terms of voice, Capsiempis is most like
Inezia (Zimmer & Whittaker 2000).
Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009) indicate that it is the sister to Phaeomyias + Phyllomyias (griseiceps).
21a. The name Habrura was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944,
Phelps & Phelps 1950a) used for Polystictus, but see <REF?>
and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
21b. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and
Fitzpatrick (2004) noted that evidence for treatment of Polystictus
pectoralis and P. superciliaris as congeneric is weak
21c. Fitzpatrick (2004) noted that the
possibly extinct subspecies bogotensis probably deserves treatment as a
separate species from Polystictus pectoralis. Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990) suggested that the northern subspecies brevipennis might also
deserve treatment as a separate species.
22. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Pseudocolopteryx acutipennis and P. dinelliana to form
a superspecies. Jordan et al. (2020),
however, found that they are not sister species but rather that P.
dinelliana is sister to P. flaviventris + P. citreola.
22a. Pseudocolopteryx is
feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is dinelliana
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
22aa. Ábalos
& Areta (2009) provided evidence that P. flaviventris includes two
cryptic species (P. flaviventris and P. citreola) that differ in
vocalizations and displays, and do not respond to cross-playback
experiments. SACC
proposal passed to treat citreola as a species. Jordan et al. (2020) found that the two
species are not distinguishable genetically at the mtDNA loci sampled.
22b. Pseudotriccus pelzelni and P.
simplex form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004)
and might be conspecific (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004).
22c. Called "Olive-crowned
Pygmy-Tyrant" in Wetmore (1972).
22cc.
The English name “Pygmy-Tyrant” is applied to species in Pseudotriccus, Myiornis, Lophotriccus,
and some Hemitriccus; therefore,
either the hyphens should be removed or the names changed. SACC proposal pending.
22d. Pseudotriccus ruficeps was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in the monotypic genus Caenotriccus,
but see Zimmer (1940) for its merger into Pseudotriccus.
23. See Sick (1985), Ridgely & Tudor
(1994), and Fitzpatrick (2004) for reasons for maintaining Corythopis
torquatus and C. delalandi as separate species; they form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
23a. Corythopis was formerly
(e.g., Pinto 1937, Meyer de Schauensee 1966)
placed in the Conopophagidae, but see Ames et al. (1968) for independent
anatomical data sets that show that this species belongs in the Tyrannidae.
<Sibley-Ahlquist etc. REFS>. Tello and Bates (2007) and Tello et al.
(2009) found strong support for a sister relationship between Corythopis
and Pseudotriccus, a relationship previously identified by morphological
data (Lanyon 1988b).
24. Corythopis is masculine, so
the correct spelling of the species name is torquatus (David &
Gosselin 2002b).
24a. Euscarthmus was formerly
(<REF>) placed in the Formicariidae [=Thamnophilidae] because of
similarities in tarsal scutellation.
24b. Franz et al. (2020) found that the
subspecies fulviceps of the Pacific coast of Ecuador and Peru differed
vocally from other populations of Euscarthmus melacoryphus to the
extent that it merits treatment as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat fulviceps as a separate
species. SACC proposals passed to provide new names for both
species and to change “Pygmy-Tyrant” to “Scrub-Tyrant” to reduce confusion with the unrelated
Hemitriccus etc. pygmy-tyrants; the two new names are thus
“Fulvous-faced Scrub-Tyrant” for E. fulviceps and “Fulvous-crowned
Scrub-Tyrant” for E. melacoryphus sensu stricto.
24c. Formerly known as “Rufous-sided
Pygmy-Tyrant”, but see Note 24b.
25. Pseudelaenia leucospodia was
formerly placed in the genus Phaeomyias (e.g., Zimmer 1941b, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970), Myiopagis (e.g., Traylor 1977, 1979a), or Elaenia
(e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927), but see Lanyon (1988a). Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009) confirm that
it is not the sister to any of these genera but is a member of a group of
genera that includes Phaeomyias.
25a. Stigmatura napensis and S.
budytoides were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944)
considered conspecific, and napensis was described as a subspecies of S.
budytoides; recent authors have followed Zimmer (1940b) in treating them as
separate species; they are considered to form a superspecies by Sibley &
Monroe (1990) and Fitzpatrick (2004).
25b. Ridgway (1907) and Cory &
Hellmayr (1927) suggested that Stigmatura might belong in the
Formicariidae [=Thamnophilidae] because of its superficial resemblance to the
genus Formicivora.
26. The species vilissimus, bolivianus,
cinereicapilla, gracilipes, acer, and viridiflavus (with chrysops
and albigularis) were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer
1941b, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a
separate genus, Tyranniscus, but see Traylor (1977) for separation in
the genus Zimmerius.
26a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
considered the subspecies flavidifrons of southwestern Ecuador and
northwestern Peru to represent a separate species from Zimmerius chrysops
based on differences in voice. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Krabbe &
Nielsson (2003), and Fitzpatrick (2004) also noted that the taxon albigularis
from w. Ecuador and sw. Colombia might be a species distinct from Zimmerius
chrysops. Rheindt et al. (2008b) found that albigularis is actually
the sister taxon to Zimmerius vilissimus. SACC proposal passed to elevate albigularis
to species rank. Rheindt et al. (2014) found genetic and vocal
evidence for treatment of the subspecies minimus
from NW Venezuela and the Santa Marta Mountains, including tentatively also cumanensis from Turimiquire Mtn. in eastern Venezuela,
as a separate species from Z. chrysops. SACC proposal passed to treat flavidifrons as
a subspecies of Z. viridiflavus
instead of Z. chrysops.
27. Sibley & Monroe (1990) and
Ridgely & Tudor (1994), followed by Hilty (2003) and Fitzpatrick (2004),
considered the South American improbus group of subspecies to be a
separate species from Zimmerius vilissimus. SACC
proposal to treat improbus as
a separate species did not pass.
Traylor (1982) suspected that the subspecies parvus, from Honduras to NW
Colombia, should also be considered a separate species. Rheindt et al. (2014) found additional
genetic and vocal support for treating improbus (with tamae) as a separate species as well as petersi and extralimital parvus.
Dickinson & Christidis (2014) treated improbus (“Mountain
Tyrannulet”) and petersi (“Venezuelan
Tyrannulet”) as separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat as three
species. SACC proposal passed to establish English
names.
28. Correct
spelling for species name is cinereicapilla (David & Gosselin
2002a).
28a. Zimmerius cinereicapilla
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered conspecific with Z.
gracilipes.
28b. Zimmerius acer
was treated as a separate species from Zimmerius gracilipes by Cory
& Hellmayr (1927), but Zimmer (1941) treated them as conspecific; Pinto
(1944), however, treated them as separate species and noted that both had been
collected at Santarem, Brazil (Gyldenstolpe 1941). Most recent classifications
(e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Dickinson 2003,
Fitzpatrick 2004) have followed Zimmer (1941) in treating them as conspecific.
Rheindt et al.'s (2008b) genetic data indicate that acer and gracilipes
are not sisters, with acer basal to all other Zimmerius taxa
sampled. SACC
proposal passed to elevate acer
to species rank. SACC proposal did not pass to change
English name of Z. acer.
29. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Alvarez-Alfonso & Whitney (2001).
29a. Alvarez-Alfonso & Whitney
(2001) considered Zimmerius cinereicapilla and Z. villarejoi to be sister species.
29b. Whitney et al. (2013) described a new
species, Zimmerius chicomendesi,
from southwestern Amazonian Brazil that is likely most closely related to Z.
villarejoi; recognized by Dickinson & Christidis (2014), but with reservations.
SACC proposal passed to recognize Z.
chicomendesi.
30. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and
Traylor (1979) considered chrysops to be a subspecies of Zimmerius viridiflavus;
see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for
rationale for keeping Z. chrysops as a separate species, a treatment
supported by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), Zimmer (1941), and Fitzpatrick (2004);
they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). SACC proposal to treat Z. chrysops
as conspecific with Z. viridiflavus did not pass. More recent genetic data (Rheindt et al.
2008b) indicate that current species limits in the chrysops-viridiflavus
group do not reflect relationships indicated by genetic or vocal data. SACC proposal to elevate flavidifrons to
species rank did not pass.
31. The species poecilotis, ophthalmicus,
orbitalis, venezuelanus, eximius, gualaquizae, and flaviventris
were formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Pogonotriccus, but this was merged
into Phylloscartes by Traylor (1977<?>, 1979a). The species poecilotis
through eximius do form a distinctive group within the genus and
thus the English name Bristle-Tyrant is retained for them, following Ridgely
& Tudor (1994). Hilty & Brown (1986), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001),
Hilty (2003), and Fitzpatrick (2004) retained Pogonotriccus because this
group has consistent morphological and behavioral differences from Phylloscartes. See
also Graves (1988) and Fitzpatrick & Stotz (1997) for support for retention
of Pogonotriccus. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) also resurrected Pogonotriccus. Harvey et al. (2020) showed that Pogonotriccus
formed a monophyletic group that included also paulista and difficilis. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Pogonotriccus
and to modify all species’ names to use the group name Bristle-Tyrant.
31a. The southern subspecies ottonis
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species
from Phylloscartes ophthalmicus.
31b. Phylloscartes lanyoni and P.
orbitalis are sister taxa (Graves 1988) that form a superspecies (Sibley
& Monroe 1990); Fitzpatrick (2004) also considered P. venezuelanus a
member of this superspecies.
31c. Phylloscartes orbitalis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in
the genus Capsiempis.
31cc. Phylloscartes gualaquizae,
one of the former members of Pogonotriccus (see Note 31 above), is not a
member of that group (Robbins et al. 1987, Fitzpatrick 2004).
31d. Vocal and foraging behavior
suggests that Phylloscartes nigrifrons might be most closely related to P.
flaviventris and P. parkeri (Fitzpatrick 2004).
31dd. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) placed Phylloscartes
nigrifrons in Leptopogon.
31e. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) placed Phylloscartes
superciliaris in Mecocerculus,
and Ridgway placed it in Leptotriccus with P. sylviolus and P.
flaviventris.
32. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Graves (1988).
32a. Phylloscartes ventralis is
considered to form a superspecies with Panamanian P. flavovirens
(AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe (1990) and also P. virescens (Fitzpatrick
2004); they were all considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927). Phylloscartes
kronei and P. beckeri are also probably part of this species group
(Fitzpatrick 2004). Proposal needed to change linear sequence (from northwest to
southeast).
32b. "Phylloscartes pammictus,"
known only from the unique type specimen from "Rio de Janeiro"
and formerly considered a valid species (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944), is now considered a synonym of Phylloscartes
v. ventralis (Traylor 1979b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
33. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Teixeira (1987).
34. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Willis & Oniki (1992).
35. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Gonzaga & Pacheco (1995).
36. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970) called "Yellow-bellied Bristle-Tyrant"; see Ridgely & Tudor
(1994) for reasons for the need for their new English name for this species.
36a. Phylloscartes flaviventris and
P. parkeri form a superspecies (Fitzpatrick and Stotz 1997, Fitzpatrick
2004).
36b. Phylloscartes ceciliae, P.
superciliaris, P. roquettei, and P. sylviolus might be
closely related to, or part of, the P. flaviventris-P. parkeri
superspecies (Fitzpatrick and Stotz 1997, Fitzpatrick 2004).
36c.
Vocal differences between populations in Peru suggest that more than one
species may be involved in Mionectes
striaticollis (Hosner et al. 2015b).
36cc. Del Hoyo and Collar (2016) based
on Boesman (2016) treated the subspecies galbinus of the Santa Marta
Mountains as a separate species. SACC proposal to treat galbinus as
a separate species did not pass.
37. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Fitzpatrick and Stotz (1997).
38. Straube & Pacheco (2002)
proposed that the species name should be changed from paulistus to paulista,
and this was followed by Fitzpatrick (2004). SACC proposal passed to change to paulista.
39. Phylloscartes sylviolus
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto
1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the (then) monotypic genus Leptotriccus,
but this was merged into Phylloscartes by Traylor (1977<?>,
1979a).
40. Mionectes oleagineus, M.
macconnelli (then including also M. roraimae), and M. rufiventris
were formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1941c, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Pipromorpha, but this was merged
into Mionectes by Traylor (1977, 1979), as first proposed by van Rossem
(1938), and a merger supported by morphological data (Ames 1971, Lanyon 1988a;
cf. Zimmer 1941c); Wetmore (1972) tentatively maintained Pipromorpha on
the basis of plumage differences, evident even in juvenal plumage, and primary
shape in adult males. SACC proposal to resurrect Pipromorpha
did not pass. New
genetic data (Miller et al. 2008) are consistent with resurrecting Pipromorpha
as a genus-level taxon; the three species of Pipromorpha form a
monophyletic group that shows a 14% sequence divergence (cytochrome b)
from the other two. SACC proposal to reinstate Pipromorpha
did not pass.
40a. Ridgway (1907) treated the Middle
American subspecies assimilis (with dyscola) as a separate species from M. oleagineus. Apparently parapatric populations of some
populations of M. oleagineus show no signs of gene flow between them,
suggesting that more than one species may be involved (Miller et al. 2008).
40b. "Mionectes turi,"
described from "Cayenne" as a valid species, is now considered a
synonym of Mionectes oleagineus wallacei (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
40c. Genetic
data (Miller et al. 2008) suggest that M.
macconnelli peruanus of
southwestern Amazonia may be the sister to M.
oleagineus, M. rufiventris, and M. m. macconnelli and thus should be treated as a separate
species; additional gene sampling and vocal analyses needed.
40d.
Hilty & Ascanio (2014) found vocal evidence that the tepui subspecies Mionectes
m. roraimae should be treated as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to recognize roraimae as a separate species, with
the name “Sierra de Lema Flycatcher”.
41. Linear sequence of species in Leptopogon
follows Bates & Zink (1994), who showed that genetic data indicate that the
lowland species amaurocephalus is sister to the ancestor of the rest of
the genus, and the highest-elevation species are most recently derived.
41a. Leptopogon rufipectus and L.
taczanowskii are sister species (Zimmer 1941c, Bates & Zink 1994) that
form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick
2004).
41b. Leptopogon rufipectus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) known as L.
erythrops, but see <REF>.
41c. Traylor (1977) considered Sublegatus
so closely related to Elaenia, as reflected in their traditional
placement in linear sequences, that they might be considered congeneric, but
syringeal morphology (Lanyon 1988a) does not support a close relationship. In fact, genetic data (Tello et al. 2009)
show that Sublegatus is only distantly related to Elaenia and is
a member of the fluvicoline group.
41d. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that
further study might show that the distinctive southern subspecies albidiventris
might be a separate species from Leptopogon superciliaris.
41e. Called "Mangrove Scrub
Flycatcher" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994).
41f. Haverschmidt & Mees (1994), who
treated Sublegatus obscurior as a subspecies of S. modestus,
called the composite species "Forest Scrub Flycatcher".
42. All Sublegatus were formerly
considered conspecific (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee
1970), with the composite species called "Scrub Flycatcher." Species
limits in Sublegatus have been fluid and confusing, including different
treatments by the same author (e.g., Traylor 1977<?>, 1979a vs. Traylor
1982); Zimmer (1941b) considered the taxon glaber, currently treated as
a subspecies of S. modestus, to be a separate species that included S.
obscurior (and also the subspecies orinocensis, and pallens,
as well as the taxa peruvianus and sordidus, which were
considered synonyms of S. obscurior by Traylor 1979a); see also
Fitzpatrick (2004). Seasonal movements may also complicate evidence of sympatry
(Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Traylor 1982). Vocal differences exist among the
three taxa recognized as species here, but formal analysis and additional
research badly needed. See Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for a synopsis.
42a. The genus Inezia is likely
polyphyletic (Fitzpatrick 2004).
42aa. Short (1975) and Sibley &
Monroe (1990) considered Inezia tenuirostris and I. inornata to
form a superspecies.
42b. The tarsal morphology of Inezia
has been interpreted to indicate that it belongs in the Cotingidae (Ridgway
1907? REF).
42c. Inezia tenuirostris
was formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in Phaeomyias,
but see Zimmer (1955).
42d. Inezia inornata was
formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Smith
1971) placed in Serpophaga, but see Parkes (1973) and Lanyon (1988a).
43. Inezia caudata was
formerly (e.g.,
Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>, 1979a, Ridgely & Tudor 1994)
considered a subspecies of I. subflava, with the composite
species known as "Pale-tipped Tyrannulet"; Zimmer & Whittaker
(2000) showed that caudata merits recognition as a separate species based
on vocal differences; they also recommended use of "Inezia"
as English name. Inezia
caudata was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in the genus Capsiempis.
43a. The intrafamilial relationships of
the distinctive genus Myiotriccus are uncertain; <REF?> and
Fitzpatrick (2004) proposed that it was most closely related to Myiophobus
based on cranial, plumage, and nest characters.
Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009) indicate that it is sister to “Myiophobus” ochraceiventris and along
with Onychorhynchus, a member of the
Oxyruncidae. Ohlson et al. (2013),
however, found that it was most closely related to a group of genera (Nephelomyias,
Pyrrhomyias, Hirundinea) that they placed in their own subfamily,
Hirundineinae.
43b. The intrafamilial relationships of
the distinctive genus Tachuris are uncertain; <REF cited by
Fitzpatrick 2004>
proposed that it was most closely related to Pseudocolopteryx. Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009) indicate
that it is a member of a group consisting mainly of the flatbills, but that it
has no close relatives. SACC proposal needed. <<wait ongoing
project>>
44. Fitzpatrick (2004) summarized the
unique characters of Culicivora and suggested that it was closest to Polystictus
based on plumage, bill morphology, behavior, and habitat. Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009) confirm this relationship.
44a. Called "Sharp-tailed
Grass-Tyrant" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
45. Lanyon (1988b) used syringeal and
skull morphology to propose that the genera Myiornis through Onychorhynchus
represented a monophyletic group, the "flatbills." Birdsley (2002)
questioned the monophyly of the group based on an analysis of morphological and
behavioral data. Genetic data (Tello and Bates 2007) indicate that the
flatbills are monophyletic if Platyrinchus and Onychorhynchus are
removed. Tello et al. (2009) found that the genera from Myiornis through Tolmomyias
in the sequence presented above form a monophyletic group if Cnipodectes is removed. SACC proposal needed. Within the flatbills, Myiornis was
merged into Hemitriccus by Lanyon (1988b) based on syringeal morphology,
and this merger is supported by the genetic data of Tello & Bates (2007)
and Tello et al. (2009), who also found that Lophotriccus was
paraphyletic with respect to Oncostoma, and that Hemitriccus was
paraphyletic with respect to these two genera and Atalotriccus. Although
further taxon-sampling needed, a case could be made that these five genera
should be combined (Hemitriccus has priority). SACC
proposal needed. <<wait ongoing project>>
45a. Although Meyer de Schauensee (1970)
considered Myiornis albiventris to be a subspecies of M. auricularis,
this was not followed by previous (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1940)
or subsequent authors; they are considered to form a superspecies by Sibley
& Monroe (1990) and Fitzpatrick (2004).
45b. Called "White-breasted
Pygmy-Tyrant" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Parker et al. (1982).
46. Myiornis atricapillus was
formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies
of M. ecaudatus, but most recent classifications have followed Wetmore
(1972) in considering the evidence insufficient for treatment as conspecific,
thus returning to the classification of Ridgway (1907) and Cory & Hellmayr
(1927); they constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Fitzpatrick 2004).
46a. Myiornis was formerly (e.g.,
Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944)
treated in a separate genus, Perissotriccus, but this was merged into Myiornis
by Zimmer (1940); this has been followed by most subsequent authors, but not by
Wetmore (1972), who maintained Perissotriccus on the basis of
differences in wing shape, bill shape, relative tail length, and extent of
rictal bristles.
46b. The authenticity of a specimen from
northern Colombia (Romero & Rodriguez 1980) was questioned by Ridgely &
Tudor (1994) and Fitzpatrick (2004); examination of the specimen by F. G.
Stiles confirmed the identification. Whether this record represents a wandering
individual or sympatry with O. olivaceum cannot yet be determined. SACC proposal passed to remove this
species from the Hypothetical List and to add it to the main list.
47. Oncostoma cinereigulare and O.
olivaceum form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Fitzpatrick 2004); they were considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr
(1927).
47a. Lophotriccus vitiosus and L.
eulophotes form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were
treated as conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and Pinto (1944).
47b. The subspecies congener was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944)
considered a separate species from Lophotriccus vitiosus, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).<Zimmer>
47c. The name squamaecristatus
was previously considered to have priority over pileatus (e.g., Ridgway
1907).
48. Lophotriccus galeatus was
formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in
the monotypic genus Colopteryx (based on its unusually narrow outer
primaries), but this was merged into Lophotriccus by Traylor (1977,
1979a).
49. Lanyon (1988b) recommended that Atalotriccus
be merged into Lophotriccus, and this was followed by AOU (1998);
however, see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for reasons to maintain as separate
genus until relationships are resolved.
49a. Called "Light-eyed
Pygmy-Tyrant" in Wetmore (1972).
50. Hemitriccus minor was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944,
Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus
Snethlagea (based on bill morphology), but this was merged into Hemitriccus
by Traylor (1977, 1979).
50a. Cohn-Haft (1996) provided
morphological and vocal evidence for treating Hemitriccus minor and H.
spodiops as sister species. Zimmer
et al. (2013) described a new species from southwestern Amazonian Brazil, Hemitriccus
cohnhafti, that they found to be
the sister species to H. spodiops. SACC proposal passed
to recognize H. cohnhafti.
50b. Hemitriccus as defined by
Traylor (1979) and used here is likely paraphyletic with respect to Lophotriccus
(Cohn-Haft 1996) and perhaps Atalotriccus and Oncostoma.
51. The species spodiops, zosterops
(with griseipectus), orbitatus, striaticollis (with iohannis),
nidipendulus, margaritaceiventer, minimus (as "aenigma"),
granadensis, mirandae (with kaempferi), and rufigularis
were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Idioptilon,
but recent classifications have followed Traylor (1977, 1979) in merging Idioptilon
into Hemitriccus. However,
genetic data (Tello et al. 2009)
show that a broadly defined Hemitriccus
is not monophyletic. SACC proposal
needed.
51a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and
Hilty (2003) suspected that Hemitriccus margaritaceiventer might
consist of more than one species; Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated the
subspecies impiger and septentrionalis both as separate species,
and Chapman (1929) described the subspecies duidae as a species; all
were considered conspecific with H. margaritaceiventer by Meyer
de Schauensee (1966, 1970).
51b. Hemitriccus mirandae was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in Todirostrum.
52. [Cohn-Haft
(1996) ... .]
53. Hemitriccus flammulatus, H.
diops, and H. obsoletus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
1990); they were treated as conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and Pinto (1944), but most recent authors have followed
Zimmer (1940) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in treating them as separate
species.
53a. These three Hemitriccus were
called "Bamboo-Tyrants" by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). SACC proposal to change to
"Tody-Tyrants" as in other Hemitriccus did not pass. SACC proposal pending to modify English
names of “tody-tyrants” and “pygmy-tyrants.”
54. Hemitriccus josephinae was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Microcochlearius,
but recent classifications have followed Traylor (1977, 1979a) in merging this
into Hemitriccus.
55. Hemitriccus griseipectus was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>, 1979a,
<check R-T>) considered conspecific with H. zosterops, but
see Cohn-Haft et al. (1997) for rationale for treatment as separate species,
thus returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927).
56. Hemitriccus iohannis was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1940, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
subspecies of H. striaticollis, but see Traylor (1982) for
rationale for recognition as a separate species.
57. Hemitriccus inornatus
was considered a doubtful species by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
57a. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Hemitriccus margaritaceiventer and H. inornatus to
form a superspecies.
58. For use of minimus instead of
aenigma, see Stotz (1992).
58a. Hemitriccus minimus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in
the genus Snethlagea, but this was merged into Hemitriccus
by Traylor (1977, 1979), who also considered it a subspecies of Hemitriccus
(Snethlagea) minor, following Zimmer (1940). See also Note 50.
59. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Fitzpatrick & O'Neill (1979).
60. Hemitriccus kaempferi was
described as and formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
subspecies of H. mirandae; for recognition of kaempferi as a
species separate from mirandae, see Fitzpatrick (1976) and Fitzpatrick
& O'Neill (1979).
60a. Fitzpatrick & O'Neill (1979),
Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Fitzpatrick (2004) considered Hemitriccus
cinnamomeipectus, H. mirandae, and H. kaempferi to
form a superspecies.
60b. Hemitriccus mirandae was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944)
placed in the genus Todirostrum.
61. Hemitriccus furcatus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Ceratotriccus (based
on tail structure), but this was merged into Hemitriccus by Traylor
(1977, 1979a). Thus, it was renamed "Fork-tailed Tody-Tyrant" by
Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Fitzpatrick
(2004) suggested that H. furcatus was most closely related to the H.
mirandae superspecies.
62. Poecilotriccus ruficeps and P.
luluae form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, <>Johnson and Jones
2001, Fitzpatrick 2004).
62a. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that Poecilotriccus
ruficeps might consist of two or more species-level taxa.
62b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Johnson and Jones (2001).
62c. Johnson and Jones suggested
"Lulu's Tody-Tyrant" for the English name. The logical
"Rufous-headed" is already in use in Pseudotriccus
pygmy-tyrants. SACC proposal passed to make the English
name "Johnson's Tody-Tyrant", in honor of its recently deceased
describer, Ned. K. Johnson. "Johnson's
Tody-Tyrant" also adopted by Fitzpatrick (2004).
63. The species albifacies,
capitalis, senex, russatus, plumbeiceps, fumifrons,
latirostris, sylvia, chrysocrotaphum, and calopterus
were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>, 1979a) placed in Todirostrum,
but Lanyon (1988b) provided morphological evidence for their transfer to Poecilotriccus.
Note that the English names of former Todirostrum exported to Poecilotriccus
did not change from "Tody-Flycatcher" to "Tody-Tyrant." SACC proposal passed to change English
names of all Poecilotriccus to "Tody-Flycatcher." Tello and Bates (2007) and Tello et al.
(2009) found that (with limited taxon-sampling) Poecilotriccus + Todirostrum
forms the sister group to other tody-tyrants (Myiornis through Hemitriccus).
63a. The northern subspecies schistaceiceps
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) considered a separate species from P.
sylvia.
63aa.
Called “Slaty-headed Tody Flycatcher” by Dickinson & Christidis
(2014).
63b. Poecilotriccus russatus and P.
plumbeiceps form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick
2004).
63bb. "Todirostrum hypospodium,"
known only from the type specimen from "Bogotá" and treated as a
valid species by Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and reluctantly
so by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), is now considered a synonym of P. s. sylvia
(Traylor 1979b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
63c. Poecilotriccus latirostris
and P. fumifrons form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Fitzpatrick 2004).
63d. Hemitriccus spodiops, H.
zosterops, H. griseipectus, H. orbitatus, H. striaticollis,
H. iohannis, H. nidipendulus, H. margaritaceiventer, H.
inornatus, H. granadensis, and H. rufigularis, and Poecilotriccus
russatus and P. plumbeiceps were all formerly (e.g., Cory &
Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1940, Pinto 1944, Phelps
& Phelps 1950a) placed in the genus Euscarthmornis, now included in Hemitriccus;
see Zimmer (1953b) for the use of Idioptilon over Euscarthmornis,
where they were transferred by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), except for Poecilotriccus
russatus and P. plumbeiceps, which were transferred by Zimmer (1940)
to Todirostrum. Traylor (1977<?>, 1979b) then merged Idioptilon
into Hemitriccus.
63dd. "Poecilotriccus nattereri,"
described from Brazil and treated as a distinct species by Cory & Hellmayr
(1927) and Pinto (1944), is now considered a
synonym of Poecilotriccus latirostris ochropterus (Meyer de
Schauensee 1966, Traylor 1979b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
63e. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that Hemitriccus
granadensis might consist of more than one species-level taxa, and that it
might be most closely related to the Hemitriccus mirandae superspecies.
63ee. "Hemitriccus rothschildi,"
described from French Guiana and treated as a valid species by Cory &
Hellmayr (1927), is now regarded as a synonym of Hemitriccus z.
zosterops (Zimmer 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Traylor 1979b). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
63f. Hemitriccus zosterops was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered
a subspecies of H. striaticollis, but Zimmer
(1940)
provided rationale for treating zosterops as a separate species.
64. Included in Poecilotriccus
capitalis is Todirostrum tricolor, considered a valid species by
Traylor (1979b), but tricolor may not even be a valid subspecies; see
Parker et al. (1997) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).
64a. Poecilotriccus capitalis and
P. albifacies have been considered conspecific (Fitzpatrick 1976), but
see Traylor & Fitzpatrick (1982) for rationale for treating them as
separate species.
64b. Poecilotriccus albifacies
was considered a synonym of "P. tricolor" by Fitzpatrick
(1976) and Traylor (1979b), but "P. tricolor" is now
considered a dubious taxon; see Traylor & Fitzpatrick (1982).
65. See David & Gosselin (2002a) for why the species name
is capitalis rather than capitale.
66. Poecilotriccus (Todirostrum/Platyrinchus)
senex was considered a dubious taxon by Meyer de Schauensee (1970), but
see Fitzpatrick (1976).
67. Poecilotriccus pulchellus was
formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1940, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979b, Dickinson
2003) considered conspecific with P. calopterus, but see Ridgely
& Tudor (1994) for rationale for treating it as a separate species, thus
returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927); they form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004).
68. Traylor (1977, 1979a) and Lanyon
(1988b) merged Taeniotriccus into Poecilotriccus, but see Ridgely
& Tudor (1994) and Fitzpatrick (2004) for reasons to maintain as monotypic
genus until more data are available.
Tello et al. (2009) found that it was not closely related to Poecilotriccus
and allied but rather the sister taxon to Cnipodectes.
69. Called "Yellow-lored
Tody-Flycatcher" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994).
70. Todirostrum viridanum was
formerly (e.g., Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered
conspecific with T. cinereum, but recent authors (e.g., Hilty 2003,
Fitzpatrick 2004) tend to follow Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps (1978) in
treating them as separate species, thus returning to the classification of Cory
& Hellmayr (1927); see caveats in Ridgely & Tudor (1994); they form a
superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
71. Todirostrum nigriceps, T.
pictum, and T. chrysocrotaphum form a superspecies (Fitzpatrick
1976, 2004, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Zimmer
(1940) considered nigriceps and pictum as subspecies of T.
chrysocrotaphum, and this was followed by Phelps & Phelps (1950a) <check>.
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) treated pictum as a subspecies of T.
chrysocrotaphum with the composite species called "Painted
Tody-Flycatcher." Recent treatments usually follow Wetmore (1972),
Fitzpatrick (1976), and Traylor (1977<?>, 1979a) in ranking all three as
a species, thus returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927).
71a. The subspecies guttatum was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species from T.
chrysocrotaphum, but most classifications have followed Zimmer (1940) in
treating them as conspecific.
72. Zimmer (1939c) pointed out that the
toe structure of Cnipodectes subbrunneus suggests a relationship to the
Pipridae, not Tyrannidae.
72a. The Amazonian subspecies C. s. minor was formerly (e.g., Ridgway
1907) treated as a separate species from Cnipodectes subbrunneus; they were treated as conspecific by Cory
and Hellmayr (1927), and this has been followed in all subsequent
classifications.
72aa. Called "Brownish
Flycatcher" by Eisenmann (1955), Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), Ridgely
(1976), Parker et al. (1982), AOU (1983, 1998), Hilty & Brown (1986),
Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Dickinson (2003), in addition to most older literature;
called "Brown Flycatcher" in Wetmore (1972). Ridgely & Tudor
(1994) introduced the novel name "Twistwing", and this was followed
by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), Hilty (2003) and Fitzpatrick (2004). SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass. SACC proposal to change English name
passed on second try after description of C. superrufus.
72b. Genetic data (Tello and Bates 2007)
indicate that Tolmomyias and Rhynchocyclus are sister genera, as
reflected in their traditional linear classification, and that Cnipodectes
may be the sister genus to these two.
72c.
Ridgway (1907) used the name Craspedoprion
instead of Rhynchocyclus, which he
applied to Tolmomyias.
72d. Newly described: Lane et al.
(2007). SACC proposal passed to recognize C.
superrufus.
73a.
Simões et al. (2021) found that Rhynchocyclus olivaceus as
currently defined is paraphyletic with respect to R. fulvipectus, and
also proposed that Amazonian populations of R. olivaceus consists of four
species: R. olivaceus of the Atlantic Forest, R. guianensis
of the Guianas and eastern Amazonia, R. aequinoctialis of e.
Panama, northwestern Colombia, and northwestern Amazonia, and newly described R.
cryptus of southwestern Amazonia. SACC proposal badly needed.
73b. Rhynchocyclus pacificus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>, 1979a) considered a subspecies of R.
brevirostris, but Zimmer (1939a) treated it as a separate species and noted
that it is probably more closely related to R. fulvipectus; it was
treated as a species by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and AOU (1998), the latter
of whom considered R. brevirostris and R. pacificus to form a
superspecies.
74. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) used
the English group name "Flatbill" for the species of Tolmomyias,
returning to a name used by Ridgway (1907) and Cory & Hellmayr (1925); this
was followed by Hilty (2003), del Hoyo & Collar (2016), and others. SACC proposal passed to change to Flatbill.
74a. The AOU (1998), Hilty (2003), and
Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that Tolmomyias sulphurescens almost
certainly consists of multiple species.
Ridgway treated Middle American subspecies cinereiceps and flavoolivaceus
each as a separate species from T. sulphurescens. Harvey et al. (2020) found that the Middle
American and South American species groups are not each other’s closest
relatives. SACC
proposal needed. <<wait ongoing
projects>>
74n. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated
the subspecies klagesi as a separate species from Tolmomyias poliocephalus,
but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
75. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Schulenberg & Parker (1997).
76. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001),
followed by Hilty (2003), considered populations of Central America and
trans-Andean South America to represent a separate species, T. flavotectus,
from Tolmomyias assimilis; they restricted the name
"Yellow-margined Flycatcher/Flatbill" to the latter and called the
Amazonian species "Zimmer's Flatbill." The latter is also likely to
consist of more than one species (see Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Fitzpatrick
(2004) concluded that further research was needed before any changes are made
to current species limits. Whitney et
al. (2013) described a new species in the complex, Tolmomyias sucunduri, from south-central Amazonian Brazil. SACC proposal to treat sucunduri
as a species did not pass. Harvey et al. (2020) found that flavotectus was the sister to a cluster of Tolmomyias
species that includes T. assimilis. SACC proposal passed to treat Tolmomyias
flavotectus as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to establish English
names for Tolmomyias flavotectus (“Yellow-winged Flatbill”) and T.
assimilis (“Yellow-margined Flatbill”).
76a. Tolmomyias assimilis was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a subspecies of T.
sulphurescens, but Zimmer (1939a) provided rationale for considering it a
separate species, and for treatment of Central American flavotectus,
considered a separate species by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), as a subspecies of
T. assimilis. Zimmer
(1939a), followed by Pinto (1944), considered flavotectus to have
priority over assimilis as the species name, but see <>.
77. Tolmomyias flaviventris
almost certainly involves more than one species; see Bates et al. (1992) and
Ridgely & Tudor (1994). The subspecies viridiceps is almost
certainly a distinct species, and was so considered (“Olive-faced Flatbill”) by
Ridgely and Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003). However, Zimmer (1939a)
considered them conspecific because he considered the subspecies subsimilis
and dissors to represent taxa that were intermediate between the two,
and this treatment was followed by Fitzpatrick (2004) in the absence of
published data supporting a split. SACC proposal passed to treat viridiceps
as a separate species.
SACC proposal passed to establish English
name.
78. Ridgway (1907) used the genus name Platytriccus
for Platyrinchus.
78a. Middle American Platyrinchus
cancrominus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
treated as a subspecies of P. mystaceus, but they are locally sympatric
in Costa Rica and differ in vocalizations (Slud 1964. Stiles & Skutch
1989), as formerly treated by Ridgway (1907) and Cory & Hellmayr (1927);
they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
78a. The northern albogularis
group was considered a separate species from Platyrinchus mystaceus
by Olson (1993a).
78b. Platyrinchus coronatus was placed by Ridgway (1907) in a separate
genus, Placostomus.
79. Platyrinchus leucoryphus was
called P. platyrhynchos in Cory & Hellmayr (1927); see Meyer de
Schauensee (1966) for the potentially confusing nomenclature of these species.
80. Morphological (Lanyon 1988a) and
genetic (Ohlson et al. 2008) data strongly suggest that Myiophobus is a
polyphyletic genus. Placement in linear sequence here arbitrarily assigned
where type species of the genus falls in Lanyon's (1988a) phylogeny, in which
there are three species groups that are each evidently monophyletic but the
groups themselves may not be each other’s closest relatives: (1) M. flavicans,
M. phoenicomitra, M. inornatus, and M. roraimae;
(2) M. lintoni and M. ochraceiventris; and (3) M.
cryptoxanthus and M. fasciatus; placement of M. pulcher
is uncertain (Fitzpatrick 2004). Tello
et al. (2009) found that roraimae was not closely related to true Myiophobus.
Ohlson et al. (2009) established that the three groups above are unrelated and
that pulcher belongs in group 2; for
that group, they described a new genus, Nephelomyias. SACC proposal passed to recognize Nephelomyias.
80a. The southern subspecies rufipennis,
described as a separate species from M. roraimae, was considered
conspecific with M. roraimae by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) without
providing rationale, despite their greatly disjunct ranges, and subsequent
authors have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
80aa. The subspecies bellus of
the eastern slope of the Andes and Eastern and Central Cordilleras of Colombia
has a longer tail and wing than other subspecies (though not 100%
diagnostically) and differs in plumage from nominate Myiophobus pulcher
of the West slope (Salaman et al. 2002, Donegan et al. 2007). Some calls may
also differ, although a thorough vocal study is warranted (Donegan et al.
2007).
80b. Nephelomyias lintoni and N.
ochraceiventris form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley &
Monroe 1990); genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2009) confirm that they are sister
species.
81. Myiophobus fasciatus and M.
cryptoxanthus form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe
1990); they were considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), but see
Zimmer (1939c) for rationale for their treatment as separate species.
82. The subspecies rufescens of
arid western Peru and northern Chile was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr
1927) considered a separate species from Myiophobus fasciatus, but
Zimmer (1939c) and Koepcke (1961) reported specimens that showed signs of
intergradation between rufescens and M. f. crypterythrus (cf.
Ridgely & Tudor 1994); thus, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered them
conspecific, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. Jaramillo
(2003), however, suggested that rufescens should be considered a
separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat rufescens
and crypterythrus as separate species.
SACC proposal passed to establish English
names for crypterythrus and rufescens.
83. Neopipo cinnamomea was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in the Pipridae ("Cinnamon Manakin");
placement in Tyrannidae follows Mobley and Prum (1995), Ohlson et al. (2008),
and Rheindt et al. (2008). Placement in
the Platyrinchinae follows Ohlson et al. (2013).
83a. Called "Cinnamon
Tyrant-Manakin" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Cinnamon Tyrant"
in Mobley & Prum (1995), Fitzpatrick (2004), and Schulenberg et al. (2007),
and "Cinnamon Neopipo" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty
(2003), thus perhaps setting a new temporal record for lack of stability in an
English name. SACC proposal to change English name to
"Cinnamon Neopipo" did not pass. SACC proposal to change to "Cinnamon
Tyrant" did not pass.
SACC proposal passed to change to
"Cinnamon Manakin-Tyrant."
84. The northern subspecies vieillotioides
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species
from Pyrrhomyias cinnamomeus, but see Zimmer (1939c).
84a. Pyrrhomyias is masculine, so
the correct spelling of the species name is cinnamomeus (David &
Gosselin 2002b).
85. The southern and eastern bellicosa
group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered
a separate species from Hirundinea ferruginea,, but they were
considered conspecific by <Zimmer> Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Sibley
and Monroe (1990) followed Cory & Hellmayr (1927)
in treating them as separate species.
86. Species in the genus Lathrotriccus
were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory &
Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1939b, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) included in Empidonax, but see Zink &
Johnson (1984), Lanyon & Lanyon (1986), and Cicero & Johnson (2002) for
why euleri is not in Empidonax. See Ridgely & Tudor
(1994) and Parker et al. (1995 for inclusion of griseipectus in Lathrotriccus.
86a. The lawrencei subspecies
group (with johnstoni) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927,
Pinto 1944) considered as a separate species from Lathrotriccus euleri;
Zimmer (1939b) provided rationale for treating them as conspecific.
87. Genetic data indicate that Aphanotriccus
and Lathrotriccus are sister genera and that Cnemotriccus is the
sister to Aphanotriccus + Lathrotriccus (Lanyon & Lanyon
1986, Cicero & Johnson 2002); this relationship is consistent with the
morphological and ecological data of Lanyon (1986a).
87a. Aphanotriccus audax was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in the genus Praedo,
but most subsequent classifications have followed Griscom (1935) and Traylor
(1979) in merging this into Aphanotriccus; Wetmore (1972) maintained
recognition of Praedo because of differences in extent of rictal
bristles.
87b. Pronounced differences in
vocalizations, habitat, and nest construction indicate that widespread C. f. bimaculatus should be treated as a
separate species from nominate Cnemotriccus f. fuscatus (Belton 1984). Hilty (2003) also suggested that C. f. duidae should be treated as a
separate species based on voice. In
Peru, the taxa duidae and fuscatior differ in voice and occur
in close proximity are separated by habitat differences (Alvarez et al. 2012,
Harvey et al. 2014, Moncrieff et al. 2019).
Clearly, two or more species are currently included within currently
defined Cnemotriccus fuscatus, but formal recognition awaits a
detailed study that treats all taxa in the complex.
88. Genetic data indicate that Empidonax
and Contopus are sister genera and that Mitrephanes is the sister
to Empidonax + Contopus (Lanyon & Lanyon 1986, Cicero &
Johnson 2002). However, Empidonax itself
may not be monophyletic (Fjeldså
et al. 2018). Tello et al. (2009) found
that Sayornis was closer to Empidonax + Contopus and that Mitrephanes
was sister to the group formed by those three genera.
89. Empidonax traillii and E.
alnorum were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory
& Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific
("Traill's Flycatcher"), but Stein (1958, 1963) showed that they were
vocally distinguishable, reproductively isolated species.
90. Contopus cooperi was formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto
1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a
monotypic genus Nuttallornis, but its merger into Contopus by
Traylor (1977, 1979b) has been followed by all subsequent authors. <check recent
genetic data for support, Zink-Johnson-Cicero papers>.
91. The correct species epithet was
shown to be cooperi, not borealis as in most recent literature
(or mesoleucus, as in Cory & Hellmayr 1927), by Banks and Browning
(1995).
91a. Called "Boreal Pewee" in
Sibley & Monroe (1990).
92. Contopus fumigatus formerly
(e.g., Zimmer 1939b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979b) included the
Middle American taxa now generally considered separate species (C. pertinax
and C. lugubris; e.g., AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely & Tudor 1994); they
were previously also treated as separate species by Ridgway (1907), Cory & Hellmayr (1927), and Wetmore (1972); they
constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). No formal
analysis has been published. Meyer de
Schauensee (1970) used "Greater Pewee" for the composite species.
92a. The name formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory
& Hellmayr 1927) used for the Contopus known from South
America except C. cooperi was Myiochanes, but see <REF>.
93. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970)
considered Contopus sordidulus to be conspecific with Contopus virens,
with the composite name "Wood Pewee", but this treatment has seldom
been followed, before (e.g., AOU 1957) or after (e.g., Traylor 1977<?>,
1979b); see, for example, Rising & Schueler (1980).
93x. Contopus sordidulus was
called C. richardsonii in much early literature (e.g., Ridgway 1907,
Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a), but see Phillips and
Parkes (1955) for why the latter applies to Sayornis phoebe.
93a. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Contopus cinereus to form a superspecies with C.
sordidulus and C. virens.
93b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
considered the subspecies punensis of southwestern Ecuador and
northwestern Peru to represent a separate species from Contopus cinereus
based on vocal differences.
93bb. The species name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used
for Contopus cinereus was brachytarsus.
93c. Cory & Hellmayr
(1927) considered Contopus nigrescens to be a subspecies of C.
cinereus.
94. Mitrephanes olivaceus is
often (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1938, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, 1998) considered conspecific with M. phaeocercus,
but see Webster (1968). They constitute
a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
94a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
called these two species "Northern Tufted-Flycatcher" and "Olive
Tufted-Flycatcher." Dickinson &
Christidis call the latter “Olive-tufted Flycatcher.”
94b. The South American latirostris
subspecies group was considered a separate species from northern Sayornis
nigricans by (REFS- delete? Not
Ridgway or Hellmayr).
94c. The Galapagos subspecies nanus
and dubius were each treated as a separate species from Pyrocephalus
rubinus by Ridgway (1907).
The obscurus subspecies group of coastal Peru was also treated/proposed
as a separate species by Ridgway (1907),
but see Zimmer (1941c). Based on voice,
behavior, and genetics, Carmi et al. (2016) proposed the Pyrocephalus
rubinus is best treated as four
species, including both Galapagos subspecies.
SACC proposal passed to treat nanus (including dubius) as a separate species from Pyrocephalus
rubinus. SACC proposal
to treat dubius as
a separate species from nanus
did not pass. SACC proposal to treat the obscurus group as a separate species from
nominate rubinus
did not pass. SACC proposal passed to establish
English names for the two species.
95. Lessonia oreas was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered
conspecific with L. rufa (with composite species known as
"Rufous-backed Negrito"). Traylor (1977) apparently recognized the
two as separate species, as suggested (without explicit rationale) by Meyer de
Schauensee (1966); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
Evidence for treatment as separate species was presumably based only on plumage
differences, but see Areta & Miller (2014) for additional support based on
feather structure and potential display differences.
96. Knipolegus striaticeps was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Entotriccus,
but recent classifications have followed Traylor (1977<?>, 1979b) in
merging this into Knipolegus.
97. Knipolegus hudsoni and K.
poecilocercus were formerly (e.g., Cory &
Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Phaeotriccus, but recent
classifications have followed Traylor (1979) in merging this into Knipolegus. Hosner & Moyle (2012) found that both
species are embedded within Knipolegus, and that they are not sister species.
SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence
of species. SACC proposal on English names in Knipolegus
did not pass.
98. The history of Knipolegus signatus and K. cabanisi
is complex and confusing. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated them as separate
species in separate genera: signatus in Ochthodiaeta (now Myiotheretes)
and cabanisi in Knipolegus.
Meyer de Schauensee (1970) also treated them as separate species in
separate genera, with signatus in Myiotheretes ("Jelski's
Bush-Tyrant") and cabanisi in Knipolegus ("Plumbeous
Tyrant"). Traylor (1979, 1982)
identified signatus and cabanisi as sister taxa, transferred signatus
to Knipolegus, and considered them conspecific, but noted that they
might also be considered separate species, as also noted by Ridgely & Tudor
(1994). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them conspecific and coined the
name "Andean Tyrant" for the composite species, and this was followed
by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Fitzpatrick (2004); Fjeldså & Krabbe
(1990) also considered them conspecific but used "Plumbeous Tyrant,"
but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for reasons not to use that English name. Hosner & Moyle (2012) presented evidence
that cabanisi merits treatment
as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat cabanisi as a species. 98a. "Knipolegus subflammulatus,"
formerly treated as a valid species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), is now
known to be the immature male plumage of K. signatus cabanisi (Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Mayr 1971, Traylor 1982). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
98c. Knipolegus poecilurus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in Cnemotriccus.
Brodkorb (1937) described a monotypic genus for it, Eumyiobius, and this
was followed by Pinto (1944). Zimmer (1937c) provided rationale for its
placement in Knipolegus, and all subsequent authors have followed this. Hosner & Moyle (2012) found that poecilurus was the sister species to K.
poecilocercus.
98d. Fitzpatrick (2004) noted that
differences in degree of sexual dimorphism suggest that Amazonian subspecies could
be considered separate species from nominate Knipolegus orenocensis.
99. Silva & Oren (1992) considered
the subspecies franciscanus to be a separate species from aterrimus;
see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Hosner & Moyle (2012) found that franciscanus
is actually more closely related to K.
lophotes + K. nigerrimus. SACC proposal passed to treat franciscanus as a species.
SACC proposal passed to modify
linear sequence of species. Hosner & Moyle (2012) recommended use
of the English name Caatinga Black-Tyrant because it was already the most
frequently used name for the taxon when treated as a species.
100. The name formerly
(e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944) used for
the genus Hymenops was Lichenops,
but Hymenops has priority (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
100a. Hymenops is masculine, so
the correct spelling of the species name is perspicillatus (David &
Gosselin 2002b).
100b. The hyphenated English group-name
“Water-Tyrant” does not refer to a monophyletic group, so the hyphens must be
removed.
101. Ochthornis was merged into Ochthoeca
by Traylor (1977<?>, 1979b), but Lanyon (1988b) provided morphological
evidence for continued recognition of Ochthornis as a genus separate
from Ochthoeca, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) etc.
101a. Genetic data (Chesser 2000)
strongly support the monophyly of a core group of Muscisaxicola species,
but support for inclusion of the two small species (M. maculirostris and
M. fluviatilis) is weak; see also Muscigralla (Note 121c). Fjeldså et al. (2018), however, found support
for inclusion of M. maculirostris and M. fluviatilis within Muscisaxicola.
Within the core group, Chesser (2000) found support for two monophyletic
groups: (1) M. griseus, M. juninensis, M. cinereus, M.
albifrons, M. flavinucha, and
M. rufivertex , and (2) M. maclovianus, M. albilora, M.
alpinus, M. capistratus, and M. frontalis; this finding is
consistent with traditional linear sequences.
Chesser et al. (2020) found that fluviatilis was more closely
related to Satrapa than to Muscisaxicola and named a new genus
for it, Syrtidicola. SACC proposal passed to recognize Syrtidicola
for fluviatilis. SACC proposal needed
on English name.
101b. "Muscisaxicola titicacae,"
described from Lake Titicaca, Peru, is now considered a synonym of Muscisaxicola
fluviatilis (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
102. Muscisaxicola griseus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>, 1979b, Sibley & Monroe 1990,
Ridgely & Tudor 1994) treated as a subspecies of M. alpinus, but see
Chesser (2000).
102a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
called M. griseus "Plain-capped
Ground-Tyrant" (the name used by Meyer de Schauensee 1966 and all
subsequent references for broadly defined M.
alpinus) and coined "Paramo Ground-Tyrant" for M. alpinus after the split with M. griseus. "Taczanowski's
Ground-Tyrant" was coined for M.
griseus by Dickinson (2003), leaving "Plain-capped Ground-Tyrant"
for M. alpinus; this was followed by
Fitzpatrick (2004). SACC proposal passed to change English names.
103. Muscisaxicola is masculine,
so the correct spellings of the species names are griseus, cinereus,
maclovianus, alpinus, and capistratus; flavinucha
and albilora, however, are invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
103a. Cory & Hellmayr (1927)
considered Muscisaxicola juninensis to be closely related to, and
perhaps a subspecies of, M. albilora, but see REF.
103aa. "Muscisaxicola
tenuirostris," described from Junín, Peru, is now considered a synonym
of Muscisaxicola juninensis (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
103b. Muscisaxicola cinereus was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of M.
alpinus, but recent treatments have followed Traylor (1977REF?, 1979b) in
treating it as a separate species, thus returning to the classification of Cory
& Hellmayr (1927); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that the subspecies M. c. argentina
actually belongs in M. alpinus.
103c. The northern subspecies occipitalis
may be a separate species from Muscisaxicola rufivertex (REF?, Fitzpatrick
2004).
103d. Genetic data (Chesser 2000)
indicate that Muscisaxicola capistratus and M. frontalis are
sister species, consistent with their placement in traditional linear
sequences.
104. Agriornis is masculine, so
the correct spellings of the species names are montanus, lividus,
micropterus, and murinus (David & Gosselin 2002b); andicola,
however, is invariable.
105. Formerly known as Agriornis
andicola, but that name is considered preoccupied (Meyer de Schauensee
1966; see Zimmer 1937b, Traylor 1979b and Sibley & Monroe 1990); see
Dickinson (2003) for a return to use of A. albicauda. SACC proposal passed to change to albicauda.
106. Agriornis murinus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in
the genus Xolmis (and known as "Mouse-brown Monjita"), but
following Smith & Vuilleumier (1971), subsequent authors (e.g., Traylor
1979b Fitzpatrick 2004, Dickinson & Christidis 2014) have treated this
species in Agriornis. Ridgely & Tudor (1994), however, expressed
some doubts as to this classification, but Fjeldså et al. (2018) and Chesser et
al. (2020) confirmed that it is a member of Agriornis.
107. Pyrope pyrope was formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in the genus Xolmis, but Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) returned it to the monotypic genus Pyrope. Smith & Vuilleumier (1971) and Traylor
(1977, 1979b), however, placed it in Xolmis, and this was followed by Lanyon
(1986b), Fitzpatrick (2004), and Dickinson & Christidis (2014). Chesser et al. (2020) found that this species
is not a member of Xolmis and is best returned to monotypic Pyrope,
as also recommended by Ohlson et al. (2020).
SACC proposal passed to resurrect Pyrope.
108. Xolmis is masculine, so the
correct spellings of the species names are cinereus, coronatus, velatus,
and dominicanus; rubetra, however, is invariable (David &
Gosselin 2002b). See other Notes for
transfer of all but velatus out of Xolmis.
108a. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Xolmis cinereus and X. coronatus to form a
superspecies; however, Chesser et al. (2020) found that they are not sister
species and placed them in Nengetus.
SACC proposal passed to resurrect Nengetus but to restrict it to
the distinctive taxon cinereus and to transfer coronatus to an
expanded Neoxolmis; see Notes 110 and 111a.
108b. Nengetus cinereus was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor
1979b, Lanyon 1986b, Fitzpatrick 2004, Dickinson & Christidis 2014) in Xolmis. Fjeldså et al. (2018) found that it was not a
member of Xolmis. Chesser et al.
(2020) confirmed this and resurrected Nengetus for cinereus; see Note 111a.
108c. Neoxolmis coronatus was
placed in the genus Xolmis by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), and this was
followed in most subsequent classifications (e.g. Meyer de Schauensee 1970,
Traylor 1979b, Lanyon 1986b, Fitzpatrick 2004, Dickinson & Christidis
2014). Fjeldså et al. (2018), however,
found that this species did not belong in Xolmis, and this was confirmed
by Chesser et al. (2020), who included it in an expanded Nengetus, as
did Ohlson et al. (2020) in an even broader Nengetus. SACC proposal passed to remove it from
Xolmis but to retain it in an expanded Neoxolmis.
See also Note 111a.
109. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): by Nores & Yzurieta (1979), as a subspecies of Xolmis (now Neoxolmis)
rubetra, but generally treated as a species by subsequent authors (e.g.,
Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Fitzpatrick 2004, Dickinson & Christidis 2014),
but not by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) or Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal to treat salinarum as
a subspecies of N. rubetra did not pass.
See also Note 110.
110. Neoxolmis rubetra was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Smith &
Vuilleumier 1971) placed in the genus Xolmis, but was moved to Neoxolmis
by Traylor (1979b); Lanyon (1986b) and Vuilleumier (1994) provided additional
morphological evidence for recognizing Neoxolmis as a separate genus.
Sibley & Monroe (1990) retained the two species in Xolmis, based on
a personal communication from R. Ridgely, and treated them as forming a
superspecies. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) retained it in Xolmis but noted
that it was a "rather aberrant Xolmis"; nonetheless. they also
stated, "we question whether it is very close to Neoxolmis"
but instead suggested that it might be closer to Agriornis. Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) followed
the placement of rubetra, with salinarum, in Neoxolmis.
Fitzpatrick (2004) and Dickinson &
Christidis (2014) retained rubetra in Xolmis. Fjeldså et al. (2018) found that it was sister
to Neoxolmis rufiventris. Chesser
et al. (2020) found that rubetra cannot be retained in Xolmis but
placed it in the resurrected genus Nengetus, in which they also included
Neoxolmis rufiventris; see Note 111a. Ohlson et al. (2020) also included it in
their broadly defined Nengetus. SACC proposal passed to retain rubetra
in Neoxolmis.
110a. Neoxolmis was described as
a monotypic genus by Cory & Hellmayr (1927) for rufiventris, which
had previously been placed in Myiotheretes and Taenioptera, among
others. This classification has been
followed by many subsequent authors (e.g. Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fitzpatrick
2004, Dickinson & Christidis 2014).
Traylor (1979b) and Lanyon (1986b), however, also included “Xolmis”
rubetra in Neoxolmis, and Fjeldså et al. (2018) and Chesser et
al. (2020) found that rufiventris and rubetra were sisters (salinarum
not sampled). Chesser et al. (2020) and
Ohlson et al. (2020) included them in an expanded Nengetus. SACC proposal passed to keep them in Neoxolmis.
See also Note 111a.
111. Heteroxolmis dominicana was
placed in the genus Xolmis by Cory and Hellmayr (1927), and this was
followed by all subsequent classifications (e.g. Traylor 1979b) until Lanyon
(1986b) described a new, monotypic genus for it, Heteroxolmis, based on
morphological data. This was
followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Dickinson (2003). Fjeldså et al. (2018) found that dominicana
was only distantly related to Xolmiini but instead was a member of the
Fluvicolini, where placed by Ohlson et al. (2020). Chesser et al. (2020) and confirmed that it
was a member of the Fluvicolini and closely related to Gubernetes and Alectrurus. SACC proposal passed to move Heteroxolmis
from Xolmis to a new position in a new linear sequence of genera.
Heteroxolmis is masculine, thus requiring the change in the
variable ending of the species epithet to dominicana.
111a. Chesser et al. (2020) found that Xolmis
cinereus, X. coronatus, X. rubetra, and X.
rufiventris formed a monophyletic group that is sister to Myiotheretes
+ Agriornis and thus not members of Xolmis; they resurrected the
genus Nengetus for thus group. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Nengetus
but for cinereus only. SACC proposal needed to
consider changes in English names in this group now that Monjita no longer
marks a monophyletic group.
112. <Myiotheretes pernix and M.
fumigatus form a superspecies.>
112a. Sibley & Monroe 1990)
considered Myiotheretes fumigatus and M. fuscorufus to
form a superspecies, but see Parker & O'Neill (1980).
112b. Myiotheretes pernix, M.
fumigatus, M. fuscorufus, and Knipolegus signatus (then treated in Myiotheretes)
were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a)
placed in a separate genus, Ochthodiaeta.
112c. Ohlson et al. (2020), based on the
results of Fjeldså et al. (2018) merged Myiotheretes into Nengetus. SACC proposal to include Myiotheretes
in Nengetus did not pass.
113. Cnemarchus erythropygius was
formerly (e.g., Traylor 1979b, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) placed in Myiotheretes, but Lanyon (1988b) provided
morphological evidence for recognition of Cnemarchus as a genus separate
from Myiotheretes, thus returning to the classification of Cory &
Hellmayr (1927). Tello et al. (2009)
confirmed that erythropygius was not a member of Myiotheretes but
rather the sister taxon to Polioxolmis rufipennis. See Note 114.
114. Polioxolmis rufipennis was
formerly placed in Cnemarchus (Cory &
Hellmayr 1927), or Xolmis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979b), but Lanyon (1988b) provided
morphological evidence for recognition of Polioxolmis as a genus
separate from Xolmis. Tello et
al. (2009) confirmed that it was the sister taxon to Cnemarchus
erythropygius. Chesser at al. (2020)
confirmed the placement of rufipennis in Cnemarchus. SACC proposal passed to place rufipennis
in Cnemarchus.
115. Fluvicola albiventer is
often considered a subspecies of F. pica (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1937b, Pinto 1944, Meyer
de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977<?>, 1979b, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003);
Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them as separate species and as forming a
superspecies; Ridgely & Tudor (1994) provided rationale for treatment as
separate species.
115a. Fluvicola nengeta was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944) known
as Fluvicola climazura, but see Schneider (1938).
115b. The subspecies atripennis
from w. Ecuador and nw. Peru might be a species distinct from Fluvicola
nengeta (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Fitzpatrick (2004).
116. Arundinicola was merged into
Fluvicola by Traylor (1977, 1979b); <REF> provided morphological
evidence for continued recognition of Arundinicola as a genus separate
from Fluvicola. Tello et al.
(2009) found that they are not sister genera.
117. Alectrurus risora was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Yetapa,
but see <REFS> and Fitzpatrick (2004).
118. Lanyon (1986a) merged Tumbezia
into Ochthoeca based on morphological data, followed by Sibley &
Monroe (1990), and genetic data confirm that it is embedded within Ochthoeca
sensu lato (Tello et al. 2009; cf. García-Moreno et al. 1998). SACC proposal did not pass to merge Tumbezia
into Ochthoeca.
119. Lanyon (1986a) separated Ochthoeca
frontalis, O. jelskii, O. diadema, and O. pulchella
into the genus Silvicultrix, and genetic data (Tello et al. 2009; cf. García-Moreno
et al. 1998) indicated that the Silvicultrix group is more closely
related to Colorhamphus. Harvey
et al. (2020), however, found that Silvicultrix was sister to Colorhamphus + Tumbezia
+ Ochthoeca. SACC proposal passed to recognize Silvicultrix.
119a. Ochthoeca jelskii was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of O.
pulchella or of O. frontalis (e.g., Zimmer 1937b), but Traylor
(1985) provided rationale for treatment as a separate species, more closely
related to O. frontalis, which has been followed by most subsequent
authors. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies;
Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, treated jelskii as a subspecies of
O. frontalis. SACC proposal needed.
119b. Ochthoeca pulchella was at
one time (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a subspecies of O.
frontalis until they were shown to be sympatric (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1966).
119c. Ochthoeca frontalis was
formerly (e.g. Zimmer 1937b) known as Ochthoeca albidiadema, but frontalis
has priority <REF>.
120. García-Moreno et al. (1998)
suggested that the plumage and genetic differences between the frontalis
and spodionota subspecies groups warranted species-level recognition for
each.
120a. Ochthoeca diadema and O.
pulchella form a superspecies (<>Traylor 1985, Sibley & Monroe
1990).
120b. Ochthoeca piurae and O.
leucophrys form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were
considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), but most authors have
followed Koepcke (1961b) in considering them as separate species. Fjeldså &
Krabbe (1990) recommended a return to their treatment as conspecific.
121. García-Moreno et al. (1998)
suggested that the plumage and genetic differences between subspecies groups
north and south of the Marañon should be recognized at the species level, with Ochthoeca
thoracica the name for the southern species. Ridgely & Tudor (1994)
reported that there are also vocal differences that would support this split.
Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) further recognized Venezuelan nigrita
as a separate species from O. cinnamomeiventris, as done by Cory &
Hellmayr (1927); see Zimmer (1937b) for the rationale for treating them all as
conspecific based on plumage pattern, the treatment followed by Fitzpatrick
(2004). SACC proposal needed.
121a. Hilty (2003) suggested that Ochthoeca
fumicolor consists
more than one species; Cory & Hellmayr (1927) considered the subspecies superciliosa
of Venezuela to be a separate species.
121b. Colorhamphus parvirostris
was formerly considered related to Mecocerculus or Elaenia (e.g.,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but <Traylor 1979b etc.>. Lanyon (1986b) presented
morphological data that confirmed its close relationship to Ochthoeca
but considered it best treated in its former monotypic genus. Harvey et al. (2020) found that Colorhamphus
was embedded in broadly defined Ochthoeca. See Note 119.
SACC proposal did not pass to merge Colorhamphus
into Ochthoeca.
121c. Muscigralla is sometimes
(Vuilleumier 1971) merged into Muscisaxicola. Morphological data (Lanyon 1986b) suggest that
the two genera may not be closely related, as confirmed by genetic data (Tello
et al. 2009), which show that it has no close relatives.
122. Machetornis is feminine, so
the correct spelling of the species name is rixosa (David & Gosselin
2002b).
122a. The Middle American subspecies, texensis,
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Myiozetetes
similis, but was considered conspecific with M. similis by Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and most subsequent
authors; under the former treatment, the English name "Vermilion-crowned
Flycatcher" was applied to the similis group, but it is sometimes
applied to the species as a whole (e.g., Wetmore 1972).
122b.
Legatus leucophaius was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) known as L.
albicollis.
123. Myiozetetes luteiventris was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Tyrannopsis, but
recent classifications have followed Traylor (1979) in transferring it from Tyrannopsis
to Myiozetetes, a return to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr
(1927) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); morphological data (Lanyon 1984)
support this transfer.
124. Phelpsia inornatus was
formerly placed in Myiozetetes (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or Conopias
(e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a); Lanyon (1986b)
provided morphological data for recognition of Phelpsia as a genus
separate from Myiozetetes or Conopias.
125. Lanyon (1986b) provided
morphological evidence for placement of Pitangus lictor in a
monotypic genus, Philohydor, as suggested by Haverschmidt (1957) and
Wetmore (1972); this has been followed by some authors (e.g., Ridgely &
Tudor 1994, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003, Fitzpatrick 2004) but
not others (e.g., AOU 1998). Genetic
data (Tello et al. 2009) confirmed that they the two Pitangus are sister
taxa, but expanded gene- and taxon-sampling needed. Harvey et al. (2021), with broader sampling,
showed that were not sister taxa. SACC proposal passed to recognize Philohydor.
(Rearrangement of linear sequence awaits broader proposals.)
126. South American parvus is
usually (e.g., Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps
1950a, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Ridgely &
Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003, Fitzpatrick 2004) considered a separate species
from Conopias albovittatus of Central America and northwestern South
America; Ridgely & Tudor (1994) provided rationale for treating parvus
as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to split parvus
from albovittatus.
126a. Conopias albovittatus
and C. parvus) were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Wetmore 1972,
AOU 1983) treated in a separate genus, Coryphotriccus, from Conopias,
based mainly on bill shape differences, but most recent classifications have
followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Traylor (1977, 1979) in merging Coryphotriccus
into Conopias; see Lanyon (1984) for morphological support for this
merger.
127. Conopias is masculine, so
the correct spellings of the species names are albovittatus, parvus,
and trivirgatus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
127a. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that
the Amazonian subspecies berlepschi might be a separate species from Conopias
trivirgatus.
127b. Myiodynastes chrysocephalus
forms a superspecies with Middle American M. hemichrysus (AOU
1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Cory
& Hellmayr (1927). On the basis of
shared vocalizations, Boesman (2016) recommended treating the two northern
subspecies of M. chrysocephalus as subspecies of M. hemichrysus. SACC proposal passed to make the transfer
and thus add M. hemichrysus to the SACC list.
128. The southern, migratory subspecies solitarius
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944) considered to be a separate species from
Myiodynastes maculatus, but at that time, it was not realized that solitarius
was an austral migrant that invaded the range of M. maculatus outside of
the breeding season; see Zimmer (1937b) for rationale for treatment of this
distinctive taxon as a subspecies of M. maculatus.
128a. Myiodynastes luteiventris
and M. maculatus are sister species (Zimmer 1937d).
129. Frequently (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970) misspelled as "Megarhynchus."
129a. Hilty (2003) that Empidonomus
varius might consist of more than one species.
130. Lanyon (1986b) provided
morphological data for placing aurantioatrocristatus in a monotypic
genus, Griseotyrannus, and this treatment was followed by Fitzpatrick
(2004); this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). Tello et al. (2009) used Griseotyrannus, but their data showed that the two species
are closer in genetic distance than many congeners in the same analysis.
130b. "Tyrannus apolites,"
known only from the type specimen from "Rio de Janeiro" and
treated as a valid species by Ridgway (1907), Cory
& Hellmayr (1927), and Pinto (1944), is presumed to be a hybrid (T. melancholicus X Empidonomus
varius) (Meise 1949, Meyer de Schauensee 1970).
130bb.: One photographed in on 20 December
2018 by Rob Felix (https://ebird.org/checklist/S51126799).
SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
131. Tyrannus savana was formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer
1937c, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
placed in the genus Muscivora, but recent classifications have followed
Smith (1966) and Traylor (1977<?>, 1979c) in merging Muscivora
into Tyrannus, which then also forced the renaming of this species from Muscivora
tyrannus to Tyrannus savana because the species name tyrannus
was preoccupied in Tyrannus.
131a. Gómez-Bahamón et al. (2020)
presented evidence that the migratory and sedentary subspecies of T. savanna
should be treated as separate species because of temporal overlap of breeding
and nonbreeding populations. SACC proposal needed.
131aa. Rhytipterna holerythra and
R. simplex evidently form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley &
Monroe 1990).
131b. The genus Rhytipterna was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps
1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) placed in the Cotingidae, but subsequent to
the anatomical analyses of Warter (1965) and Ames (1971), it was placed in the
Tyrannidae, near Myiarchus. See also Snow (1973) for rationale for
removal from Cotingidae. (REFS).
132. See W. E. Lanyon (1985) for
evidence for the close relationship of the genera Rhytipterna through Ramphotrigon.
132a. Sirystes was formerly
(e.g., Ridgway 1907) thought to be a cotinga, but Cory & Hellmayr (1927)
placed it in the Tyrannidae, near Tyrannus; Warter's (1965) analysis of
skull morphology indicated that it was close to Myiarchus, and this was
further strengthened by analyses of syringeal morphology and behavior (Lanyon
& Fitzpatrick 1983).
132b. The trans-Andean subspecies albogriseus and the Amazonian subspecies
albocinereus were formerly (e.g.,
Ridgway 1907) treated as separate species; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as
conspecific with S. sibilator, and
subsequent authors have followed that treatment. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), followed by
Hilty (2003), treated albogriseus as a separate species from Sirystes
sibilator, based mainly on differences in vocalizations. <earlier
treatments as 2 species?>. Donegan (2013) interpreted vocal and plumage
variation to indicate that four species should be recognized: in addition to
trans-Andean albogriseus, also albocinereus of western Amazonia and subcanescens of the Guianan Shield. This was followed by Dickinson &
Christidis (2014). SACC proposal passed to recognize four
species in Sirystes. SACC proposal did not pass to change
English name of Choco Sirystes.
133. Casiornis rufus and C.
fuscus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and reasons for
treating them as separate species have been considered weak (Snow 1973, Traylor
1979b, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Chavez et al. 2008). However, Vasconcelos et al. (2006) showed
that they are sympatric and found no support for Snow’s (1973) statements
concerning intermediate specimens,
133a. Casiornis is masculine, so
the correct spellings of the species names are rufus and fuscus
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
133b. The genus Casiornis was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee
1966) placed in the Cotingidae, but subsequent to the anatomical analyses of
Ames (1971), it was placed in the Tyrannidae, near Myiarchus. See also
Snow (1973) for rationale for removal from Cotingidae. (REFS).
133c. Joseph et al. (2004) found that Myiarchus
semirufus was “basal” to all other Myiarchus, that its level of
sequence divergence from other Myiarchus was exceptional, and that in
some analyses it grouped more closely with Rhytipterna immunda than with
other Myiarchus; resurrection of the monotypic genus Muscifur may
be necessary pending additional taxon and gene sampling.
133d. Rhytipterna immunda shares a unique tarsal scutellation pattern
with the other two species of Rhytipterna
(Warter 1965). It was originally
described in Lipaugus but was transferred to Rhytipterna by <REF-need to trace>, and Hellmayr (1929). Lanyon and Fry (1973) pointed out that R. immunda is more similar in plumage to
Myiarchus flycatchers, especially M. ferox, than to the other two Rhytipterna, that its vocalizations were
reported to be very odd for a tyrannid, and that its relationships might best
be considered unresolved. Joseph et al.
(2004) included R. immunda in their
sampling and found that it did not fall within Myiarchus, but this was based on short sequences of mtDNA (see also
133c).
134. The classification of Myiarchus
followed here follows Lanyon (1967, 1978). Genetic data (Joseph et al. 2004)
indicate that the genus is monophyletic, with the possible exception of M.
rufus (see Note 133c) and M. magnirostris (not sampled; see
Note 140b); within the genus, two major divisions are evident: (1) a primarily
South American group that consists of all the resident species in this
classification except M. tyrannulus but including Jamaican M.
barbirostris, and (2) a Middle American-North American-Caribbean group that
consists of all the extralimital taxa, M. tyrannulus, and M. crinitus.
134a. Myiarchus tuberculifer
forms a superspecies with Jamaican M. barbirostris (AOU 1998); they were
formerly considered conspecific (REF), but see Lanyon (1978) for a return to
the classification of Ridgway (1907) and Cory &
Hellmayr (1927). Lanyon (1978) also showed that lowland tuberculifer
group intergrades with montane atriceps group in the southern Andes;
they had been considered separate species by (REF). Genetic data (Joseph &
Wilke 2004, Joseph et al. 2004) indicate that M. tuberculifer is a
paraphyletic taxon (with respect to M. barbirostris and M. swainsoni),
and also that Andean M. t. atriceps is not a monophyletic taxon, with a
northern population more closely related to a Central American group of
populations (of the taxa sampled, nigricapillus is the oldest name) than
to southern M. t. atriceps and M. t. tuberculifer. The species name lawrenceii was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for M.
tuberculifer.
135. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, REFS)
known as "Olivaceous Flycatcher."
136. The pelzelni and phaeonotus
subspecies groups were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927)
each treated as separate species from Myiarchus swainsoni (and also by
Haverschmidt & Mees 1994); Zimmer (1938) provided rationale for treating
them all as conspecific. [species limits problems - L. Joseph et al. 2003
paper] Genetic data
(Joseph et al. 2004) indicate that M. swainsoni is paraphyletic
with respect to M. tuberculifer, with all the subspecies except nominate
swainsoni more closely related to M. tuberculifer than to M.
s. swainsoni, the M. ferox group (see Note ___), or M. cephalotes.
SACC proposal needed.
137. Genetic data (Joseph et al. 2004)
provide strong support for considering M. ferox, M. phaeocephalus,
M. panamensis, and M. venezuelensis to form a monophyletic group
(M. apicalis not sampled). Myiarchus venezuelensis was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer
1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
subspecies of M. ferox, but Lanyon (REF) treated it as a separate
species based on sympatry and vocal differences; genetic data (Joseph et al.
2004) suggest that venezuelensis may be nested with M. ferox, but
the identification of the venezuelensis blood sample cannot be
confirmed.
138. Myiarchus panamensis was
formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer
1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
subspecies of M. ferox, but Lanyon (1978) treated it as a
separate species based on vocal differences; they have been considered to form
a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but genetic data
(Joseph et al. 2004) cannot yet confirm a sister relationship.
138a. Myiarchus phaeocephalus
and M. cephalotes were treated as forming a superspecies by Sibley &
Monroe (1990), but genetic data cannot confirm a sister relationship between
the two; additionally, M. phaeocephalus itself may be paraphyletic
(Joseph et al. 2004).
138b. "Myiarchus toddi,"
known only from the type specimen from northern Peru and treated as a valid
species by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), is now considered an aberrant M.
phaeocephalus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Traylor 1979c, Sibley & Monroe
1990). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
139. Occasionally (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970) called "Great-crested Flycatcher," but the correct
orthography is "Great Crested Flycatcher."
140. Myiarchus tyrannulus is
considered to form a superspecies with M. nugator of the Lesser
Antilles (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Joseph et
al. 2004) indicate that nugator is nested within M. tyrannulus,
and that nugator might be more closely related to M. tyrannulus
of nearby Venezuela and Trinidad than either is to other M. tyrannulus.
140a. The subspecies brevipennis of the Netherlands Antilles and
Los Roques archipelago (Venezuela) was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907)
treated as a separate species from M.
tyrannulus; it was treated as conspecific with M. tyrannulus by Peters (1927) and all subsequent authors.
140aa. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957, REFS)
known as "Wied's Crested Flycatcher."
140b. Myiarchus magnirostris was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927) treated in a separate monotypic
genus, Eribates, but Traylor (1977) merged this into Myiarchus.
141. See Lanyon (1985) for proposed
close relationship of Ramphotrigon to Myiarchus. Ramphotrigon was included in the Cotingidae by Ridgway
(1907).
142. Ramphotrigon is neuter, so
the correct spelling of the species name is megacephalum; fuscicauda and
ruficauda, however, are invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b).
142a. Called "Bamboo Flatbill"
in Hilty (2003).
142b. Ramphotrigon megacephalum
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto
1944) placed in Tolmomyias, but Zimmer (1939a) transferred it to Ramphotrigon,
where placed by all subsequent authors.
143. Attila phoenicurus was
formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in the monotypic
genus Pseudattila, but Traylor (1977, 1979c) merged it into Attila,
and this treatment has been followed in most subsequent classifications,
returning to the earlier treatment by Hellmayr (1929); Zimmer (1936e) described
monotypic Pseudattila to highlight its differences from other Attila
in form of the tarsus, wing formula, bill size, and tarsus length.
143a. The genus Attila was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps
1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) placed in the Cotingidae, but subsequent to
the anatomical analyses of Warter (1965) and Ames (1971), it was placed in the
Tyrannidae, near Myiarchus. See also Snow (1973) for reasons for removal
from the Cotingidae. (REFS).
143b. Attila torridus was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929) considered conspecific with A. cinnamomeus,
but see Zimmer (1936e) for rationale for treatment as a separate species.
144. Called "White-eyed
Attila" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).
145.
Some of the color morphs of Attila
spadiceus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) considered as separate
species, e.g. “A. viridescens” and “A. wightii.” The Middle American flammulatus subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907)
treated as a separate species from A.
spadiceus; Ridgway (1907) also treated the subspecies parvirostris of northeastern Colombia, as well as its rufous phase
“A. rufipectus,” as separate
species. Hellmayr (1929) considered all
of these conspecific with A. spadiceus,
and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. Leger and Mountjoy (2003) found major vocal
differences between South American and Middle American populations of Attila
spadiceus, strongly suggesting that at least two species are involved, but
did not adequately sample populations from west of Andes in South America;
these are vocally similar to the Middle American flammulatus group (P.
Coopmans, pers. comm.).
146.
Recent genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2012) indicate that Calyptura is a tyrant-flycatcher, most closely
related to Platyrinchus and Neopipo, and this was followed by
Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal passed to transfer (from
Incertae Sedis) to Tyrannidae.
147.
[Muscipipra]
148.
The relationships of the genus Piprites have been controversial.
Traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979c) placed in the Pipridae, Ames (1971) suggested
that it belonged in the Tyrannidae and was closely related to the genus Myiobius.
Prum (1990) was unable to place it within either the Pipridae or Cotingidae. Genetic data have been equivocal concerning
its relationships. Prum et al. (2000)
were unable to place it within any existing family. Ericson et al. (2006) Ohlson et al. (2008),
and Prum et al. (2015) found that it was sister to a limited sample of genera
in the Tyrannidae. Barber & Rice
(2007) showed that it was not a member of the Tityridae and was sister to the
Tyrannidae genera sampled. Tello et al.
(2009) found genetic support for its placement in the Tyrannidae, as a member
of the group that includes the “flatbills” and other genera. Ohlson et al. (2013) found that it was sister
to all lineages in the Tyrannidae and proposed family rank for Piprites,
and this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal to recognize family
Pipritidae did not pass.
149.
The two South American Piprites were considered to form a superspecies
with Middle American P. griseiceps by the AOU (1983), but Snow
(1979c, 2004b) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded P. pileata from
the superspecies, because it is so different from the other two, which were
formerly (e.g., REF) placed in a separate genus, Hemipipo.
150.
Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Wing-barred
Manakin."
151.
Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Black-capped
Manakin."
152.
Piprites is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is pileata
(David & Gosselin 2002b).
Part
9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae)