A Classification of the Bird
Species of South America
South American Classification Committee
(Part 9)
Part
9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (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
8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Pipridae to Tyrannidae)
Part
10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Ploceidae to Passerellidae)
Part
11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Icteridae to end)
PASSERIFORMES
Suborder PASSERES (OSCINES) 1
VIREONIDAE (VIREOS) 1a
Cyclarhis gujanensis
Rufous-browed Peppershrike 2
Cyclarhis nigrirostris
Black-billed Peppershrike 3
Hylophilus amaurocephalus
Gray-eyed Greenlet 12
Hylophilus poicilotis
Rufous-crowned Greenlet 11, 11a
Hylophilus
olivaceus Olivaceous Greenlet 13a
Hylophilus pectoralis
Ashy-headed Greenlet
Hylophilus flavipes
Scrub Greenlet 13a, 13b
Hylophilus semicinereus
Gray-chested Greenlet
Hylophilus brunneiceps
Brown-headed Greenlet
Hylophilus thoracicus
Lemon-chested Greenlet
Vireolanius eximius
Yellow-browed Shrike-Vireo 4, 5
Vireolanius leucotis
Slaty-capped Shrike-Vireo 4, 5a
Tunchiornis ochraceiceps
Tawny-crowned Greenlet 14, 14a
Pachysylvia decurtata
Lesser Greenlet 15
Pachysylvia hypoxantha
Dusky-capped Greenlet 12b, 13
Pachysylvia muscicapina
Buff-cheeked Greenlet
Pachysylvia aurantiifrons
Golden-fronted Greenlet 12aa, 12b
Pachysylvia semibrunnea
Rufous-naped Greenlet 11, 12aa
Vireo griseus White-eyed
Vireo
(V) 6a
Vireo flavifrons
Yellow-throated Vireo (NB)
Vireo masteri
Choco Vireo 6, 6b
Vireo sclateri
Tepui Vireo 12a
Vireo philadelphicus
Philadelphia
Vireo (V) 7b
Vireo gilvus
Warbling
Vireo (V) 7, 7c
Vireo leucophrys
Brown-capped Vireo 7, 7a
Vireo olivaceus
Red-eyed Vireo (NB)
8, 8a, 8b
Vireo chivi Chivi Vireo 8, 8a
Vireo gracilirostris
Noronha Vireo 9, 8a
Vireo flavoviridis
Yellow-green Vireo (NB)
8a, 10
Vireo altiloquus
Black-whiskered Vireo 8a, 8c
1. Within the Passeres, two major
divisions have been identified by morphological (Bock 1962) and genetic (Sibley
& Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Mindell et al. 1997, Ericson et
al. 2000, García -Moreno & Mindell 2000, Prychitko & Moore 2003)
studies: the Corvida (here Vireonidae through Corvidae) and Passerida (the rest
of the families). Whether these groups are monophyletic is not yet certain
(Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Treplin et al. 2008).
1a. The Vireonidae was formerly placed,
based on some morphological studies (e.g., Beecher 1953, Tordoff 1954a), in or
next to the nine-primaried oscines in linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); however, genetic data (e.g.,
Johnson et al. 1988, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Cicero & Johnson 2001, Barker
et al. 2002, 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) have confirmed Sibley & Ahlquist's
(1982, 1990) once-controversial finding that the Vireonidae is part of the
Corvida lineage. Slager et al. (2014)
confirmed the monophyly of the family (including Indomalayan Pteruthius and Erpornis, as discovered by Reddy & Cracraft 2007). Cyclarhis and Vireolanius were
formerly treated in separate families, Cyclarhiidae and Vireolaniidae (e.g.,
Hellmayr 1935, REFs), but see Zimmer (1942b), Barlow & James (1975), Raikow
(1978), Orenstein & Barlow (1981), and Sibley & Ahlquist (1982) for
inclusion within the Vireonidae. Retention of these groups as subfamilies
(e.g., Blake 1968a) within the Vireonidae was contested by early genetic data
(Johnson et al. 1988, Cicero & Johnson 2001), and more recent, more
comprehensive surveys (Slager et al. 2014) are unable to conclusively resolve
the topology of the deepest branches. <incorp.
Murray et al. check Hamilton 1962>. The classification adopted here follows
Slager et al. (2014).
2. The subspecies ochrocephala of
southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944)
occasionally treated as a separate species from Cyclarhis gujanensis,
but they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1935), and this has been followed in all subsequent
classifications. Ridgway (1904) treated the flavipectus subspecies
group of n. South America and Central America, as well as the Middle America flaviventris
subspecies group, as separate species from C. gujanensis; Hellmayr
(1935) treated them all as conspecific, and this has been followed in all
subsequent classifications. Slager et
al. (2014) found deep divergences among several lineages within broadly defined
C. gujanensis.
3. Although traditionally recognized at
the species level, Cyclarhis nigrirostris is very similar in
plumage to some nearby populations of C. gujanensis. Slager et al. (2014) found that most
analyses indicate that treatment of nigrirostris as a species makes C.
gujanensis paraphyletic. SACC proposal needed <wait follow-up taxonomic paper by Slager et al., and NACC>
4. Vireolanius eximius and
V. leucotis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Zimmer 1942b, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Eisenmann
1955, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore et al. 1984) placed in a separate
genus, Smaragdolanius, but recent classifications (e.g., Ridgely &
Tudor 1989) have followed Blake (1968a) in merging this into Vireolanius.
5. Vireolanius eximius was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Blake 1968a, Meyer de
Schauensee 1966) considered a subspecies of Middle American V. pulchellus,
but recent classifications have followed Eisenmann (1955) and AOU (1983) in
considering them as separate species. Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that
Hellmayr's (1935) claim that the subspecies mutabilis represented a
taxon intermediate between eximius and pulchellus was incorrect
(and that mutabilis was not even a valid taxon); therefore, Wetmore et
al. (1984) recommended treating the two as separate species pending further
data. The two species form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
5a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
suggested that Vireolanius leucotis may involve more than one species,
and this is supported by the genetic data of Slager et al. (2014), who found
that V. leucotis as currently defined
is paraphyletic with respect to V. pulchellus and V. eximius. SACC proposal needed <wait follow-up taxonomic paper by Slager et al., and NACC>
5b.
Vireo
flavifrons was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in separate genus, Lanivireo, along with North American V. solitarius group.
6. Johnson et al. (1988) suggest that
the genus Vireo is not a monophyletic group if extralimital V. bellii
is included; Johnson et al. (1988) also noted that the degrees of genetic
difference within Vireo among other groups of species are comparable to
those among currently recognized genera in the family. Slager et al. (2014) confirmed that Vireo as currently defined is not
monophyletic, but not because of V. bellii but because it is paraphyletic with respect to Hylophilus. SACC proposal passed to revise
classification.
6a. Sight record from Venezuela
(Rodríguez et al. 2017). Photographed in
Trinidad, 9 Jan. 2018, (Kenefick 2019). SACC proposal passed to add to main list.
Sight record from Venezuela
6b. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Salaman and Stiles (1996).
7. Vireo leucophrys was formerly
(e.g., Zimmer 1941d, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Mayr &
Short 1970, Barlow 1981) considered a subspecies of V. gilvus
("Warbling Vireo"), but recent classifications (e.g., AOU 1983, 1998,
Ridgely and Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered them to
represent separate species, thus returning to the classification of Hellmayr
(1935), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); genetic data are also consistent with
such a treatment (Johnson et al. 1988, Cicero and Johnson 2001, Slager et al.
2014). See Zimmer (1941d) for rationale for treatment as conspecific based on
existence of taxa intermediate in phenotype. Johnson et al. (1988) used
comparative genetic distance data to support treatment as separate
species. Slager et al. (2014), however,
found that V. philadelphicus may be
embedded within the gilvus-leucophrys clade, thus requiring
treatment of each as separate species. Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated V. gilvus and V. leucophrys as superspecies, but if placement of V. philadelphicus within that group can
be corroborated, then that refutes the superspecies designation, even if V. philadelphicus were included, because
V. philadelphicus and V. gilvus are partially sympatric. The species
name josephae was formerly (e.g.,
Ridgway 1904) used for Vireo leucophrys.
7a. Genetic data (Murray et al. 1994)
support the traditional "eye-lined" species group (here including V.
gilvus, V. leucophrys, V. philadelphicus, V. olivaceus, V.
gracilirostris, V. flavoviridis, and V. altiloquus) as a
monophyletic unit within the genus Vireo; these species were formerly (e.g.,
Ridgway 1904) placed in a separate genus, Vireosylva. SACC proposal to resurrect Vireosylva did not pass. Slager
et al. (2014) confirmed that they formed a monophyletic group, but only if Hylophilus sclateri is included (see
Note 12a). SACC
proposal passed to transfer sclateri to Vireo.
7b. Three specimen records from northern
Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986). Photograph
from Aruba (Wells & Wells 2004). Sight record from Curaçao (Wells and Wells
2001).
7c. Photographed in Ecuador (see Freile
et al. 2019). SACC proposal passed to add Vireo gilvus to
the main list.
8. Some classifications (e.g., Pinto 1944) have considered the South American chivi
group as a separate species ("Chivi Vireo") from V. olivaceus,
or as conspecific with V. flavoviridis (Hamilton 1962), but see Hellmayr
(1935), Zimmer (1941d), Eisenmann 1962a, Johnson & Zink (1985), and Ridgely
& Tudor (1989). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested, however, that
more than one species may be involved within the South American chivi
group. Slager et al. (2014) found that V.
olivaceus as currently defined might
be polyphyletic, and Battey & Klicka (2017) found that broadly defined V. olivaceus was paraphyletic with respect to V. altiloquus. SACC proposal passed to treat chivi group as a separate species from V. olivaceus. Additional
studies are badly needed on species limits within the South American breeding
taxa; for example, V. chivi is likely
paraphyletic with respect to V. gracilirostris, which is
assumed to be a derivative of the V. chivi group
(Hellmayr 1934, Olson 1994).
8a. Sibley & Monroe (1990)
considered Vireo olivaceus (then also including V. chivi) and
V. flavoviridis to form a superspecies, and V. altiloquus to form
a superspecies with Caribbean V. magister; they excluded V.
gracilirostris from either superspecies because they thought it might be
more closely related to the latter subspecies even though gracilirostris
was formerly considered a subspecies of V. olivaceus (see Note 9). Blake (1968) and Mayr & Short (1970)
considered V. olivaceus, then also including V. chivi
(with flavoviridis and gracilirostris treated as conspecific) to
form a superspecies with V. altiloquus and excluded V. magister.
Collectively, these taxa form a monophyletic group, but relationships within
the group (Slager et al. 2014) do not conform to any of these superspecies
designations.
8b. Vireo olivaceus was formerly
(e.g., Hellmayr 1935) known as Vireo virescens (and occasionally in
recent decades, e.g., Phillips 1991), but see AOU (1931), Zimmer (1941d),
Monroe (1968), and Banks & Browning (1995).
8c. The species name calidris was formerly (e.g., Ridgway
1904) used for Vireo altiloquus, but see Hellmayr (1935).
9. Vireo gracilirostris was
formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of broadly
defined V. olivaceus, but see Oren (1984) and Olson (1994) for a
return to treatment at the species level, as in Hellmayr (1935) and Pinto (1944).
10. Vireo flavoviridis was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Hamilton 1958, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee
1966, 1970, AOU 1983) treated as a subspecies of V. olivaceus,
but see Hamilton (1962), Eisenmann (1962a), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Johnson
& Zink (1985) for a return to the classification of Ridgway (1904). Further, Slager et al. (2014) found that V. flavoviridis itself might not be monophyletic.
<wait follow-up taxonomic paper by
Slager et al., and NACC>
11. Genetic data indicate that Hylophilus
is not monophyletic (Johnson et al. 1988) and that at least three separate
genera are required (Slager et al. 2014). The name Pachysylvia
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Hylophilus. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Pachysylvia. SACC proposal to change English names of
greenlets did not pass.
11a.The species name of Hylophilus poicilotis
is occasionally misspelled as "poecilotis" (e.g., Ridgely
& Tudor 1989).
12. Hylophilus amaurocephalus was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee
1970) considered a subspecies of H. poicilotis, but see Willis
(1991) and Raposo et al. (1998) for a return to the treatment of Todd (1929);
the two species are sympatric, differ strongly in vocalizations, and do not
show intergradation.
12a. Slager et al. (2014) found that Hylophilus
sclateri was not a member of any
of the three lineages currently included in Hylophilus (see Note 11) and
that it was a member of the Vireosylva group (see Note 7a). SACC proposal passed to transfer sclateri to Vireo, and to change English name
from “Tepui Greenlet” to “Tepui Vireo”.
12aa. Pachysylvia semibrunnea and
H. aurantiifrons form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Slager et al. (2014) found that they are
sister species.
12b. Ridgway (1904) treated P. hypoxantha as a subspecies of P.
aurantiifrons. Hellmayr (1935)
treated them as separate species, and this has been followed in all subsequent
classifications.
13. Pachysylvia hypoxantha includes
the subspecies inornata, formerly (e.g., Blake 1968a) considered a
subspecies of H. brunneiceps, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989).
The subspecies flaviventris of eastern Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
1935) treated as a separate species from P. hypoxantha.
13a. Hylophilus flavipes
and H. olivaceus were considered to form a superspecies by AOU (1983)
and Sibley & Monroe (1990) because Zimmer (1942b) considered them
conspecific. Slager et al. (2014),
however, found that they are not sister species: H. olivaceus and H. pectoralis are sisters, and H. flavipes and H. semicinereus are sisters.
SACC proposal passed to modify
linear sequence.
13b. The subspecies viridiflavus
of Central America was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate
species from Hylophilus flavipes; Ridgely & Tudor (1989)
suggested that vocal differences may indicate that viridiflavus deserves
species rank. Ridgway (1904) treated
the subspecies acuticauda (of n. Venezuela) and insularis (of
Tobago) as separate species; Hellmayr (1935) treated them all as conspecific,
and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.
14. Slager et al. (2014) found that
Inclusion of ochraceiceps in Hylophilus would make that genus
paraphyletic. Slager & Klicka (2014)
named a new genus for this species, Tunchiornis. SACC proposal passed to adopt Tunchiornis.
14a. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for
potential reasons for ranking of the southern rubrifrons subspecies
group as a separate species from Hylophilus ochraceiceps. Slager et al. (2014) found deep divergences
within among lineages included in H. ochraceiceps. Del Hoyo & Collar (2016) treated luteifrons
of the Guianan Shield as a separate species (“Olive-crowned Greenlet”) based in
part on Slager et al. (2014) and also on vocal differences pointed out by
Boesman (2016h). Buainain et al. (2021)
found evidence for treating it as consisting at four species; they found that luteifrons
is sister to the rubrifrons group of southeastern Amazonia, treated as
conspecific with ochraceiceps by del Hoyo & Collar (2016). SACC proposal pending.
15. The minor subspecies group of
South America has been treated (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) as a separate
species ("Gray-headed Greenlet") from Middle American decurtatus,
but they intergrade in Panama (Wetmore et al. 1984).
CORVIDAE (JAYS) 1
Cyanolyca armillata
Black-collared Jay 2, 3
Cyanolyca viridicyanus
White-collared Jay 2, 4, 4a
Cyanolyca turcosa
Turquoise Jay 2
Cyanolyca pulchra
Beautiful Jay 5
Cyanocorax violaceus
Violaceous Jay 6
Cyanocorax cyanomelas
Purplish Jay 6
Cyanocorax caeruleus
Azure Jay 6, 6a
Cyanocorax cristatellus
Curl-crested Jay 6, 7
Cyanocorax affinis
Black-chested Jay 6
Cyanocorax mystacalis
White-tailed Jay 6
Cyanocorax cayanus
Cayenne Jay 6
Cyanocorax heilprini
Azure-naped Jay 6b
Cyanocorax chrysops
Plush-crested Jay 8
Cyanocorax cyanopogon
White-naped Jay 8
Cyanocorax yncas
Green Jay 9, 10
1. [note on monophyly, relationships,
within-family relationships]. <incorp. Amadon 1944, Hardy 1961, 1964,
1969>. The genera in South America
are part of a group of New World jays the monophyly of which is supported by
genetic (Ericson et al. 2005, Ekman and Ericson 2006) and morphological
(Manegold 2008) characters.
2. Cyanolyca armillata was
formerly (e.g., Blake and Vaurie 1962, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty &
Brown 1986, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific with C.
viridicyanus; see Goodwin (1976) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for
rationale for treating them as separate species. Cyanolyca armillata, C.
viridicyanus, and C. turcosa were considered to form a superspecies
by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but C.
armillata and C. turcosa overlap
in the eastern Andes of s. Colombia and n. Ecuador. Cyanolyca turcosa
was also formerly (e.g., Blake and Vaurie 1962) considered a subspecies of C.
viridicyanus, but see Zimmer (1953c) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). These three species form a monophyletic group
(Bonaccorso 2009).
3. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for
rationale for using "Black-collared" instead of "Collared,"
as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
4. Correct
spelling for species name is viridicyanus,
not viridicyana (David & Gosselin 2002a).
4a. Bonaccorso (2009) proposed that the northern
subspecies jolyaea should be
considered a separate species based on strong genetic and plumage differences
from the other subspecies Cyanolyca
viridicyanus.
5. Cyanolyca pulchra may form a superspecies with Middle
American C. cucullata (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they
were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered conspecific, but see Pitelka
(1951). Genetic data (Bonaccorso 2009)
indicate that they are sister species.
6. Cyanocorax violaceus, C. cyanomelas, C.
caeruleus, and C.
cristatellus may form a superspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1989);
Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. cyanomelas and C. caeruleus
to form a superspecies, but not the others.
6a. David & Dickinson (2016) presented evidence that the original
spelling of the species name is coerulescens. SACC proposal to change to coerulescens did not pass.
6b.
Cohn-Haft et al. (2013) described a new species from southwestern
Amazonian Brazil, Cyanocorax hafferi, that they found was most closely related to C. heilprini and C.
affinis. SACC
proposal to
recognize Cyanocorax hafferi did not pass.
7. Cyanocorax cristatellus was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944)
placed in the monotypic genus Uroleuca.
8. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered
Cyanocorax chrysops and C. cyanopogon, along with Mexican C.
dickeyi, to form a superspecies; C. chrysops and C.
cyanopogon were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Blake & Vaurie 1962)
considered conspecific, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
9. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and
Hilty (2003) treated Middle American populations as a separate species, C.
luxuosus ("Green Jay") from South American C. yncas
("Inca Jay"), but no data presented; they were formerly (e.g., REFS)
considered separate species.
10. Cyanocorax yncas was formerly
(e.g., Hellmayr 1934) placed in the monotypic genus Xanthoura, but see
Zimmer (1953c) for its merger into Cyanocorax.
ALAUDIDAE (LARKS)
1
Eremophila
alpestris Horned Lark 2
1. The Alaudidae are members of a group of
largely Old World sylvioid families (Fuchs et al. 2006, Alström et al. 2006, Johansson
et al. 2008).
2. Eremophila
alpestris was formerly treated in the genus Otocoris (e.g. Ridgway
1907, AOU 1931) but see AOU (1947).
HIRUNDINIDAE
(SWALLOWS) 1, 1a
Pygochelidon
cyanoleuca Blue-and-white
Swallow 11, 11a
Pygochelidon
melanoleuca Black-collared
Swallow 11d
Alopochelidon
fucata Tawny-headed
Swallow 12
Orochelidon
murina Brown-bellied
Swallow 11b
Orochelidon
flavipes Pale-footed
Swallow 11c
Orochelidon
andecola Andean
Swallow 10, 10a
Atticora
fasciata White-banded
Swallow
Atticora
tibialis White-thighed
Swallow
Stelgidopteryx
ruficollis Southern
Rough-winged Swallow 13
Progne
tapera Brown-chested
Martin 6
Progne
subis Purple Martin
(NB) 7
Progne
dominicensis Caribbean Martin 7
Progne
cryptoleuca Cuban Martin (V) 7, 8
Progne
chalybea Gray-breasted
Martin 7
Progne
elegans Southern Martin
7, 9
Progne
murphyi Peruvian Martin
7, 9
Progne
modesta Galapagos Martin
7, 9
Tachycineta
bicolor Tree Swallow
(NB) 2
Tachycineta
stolzmanni Tumbes
Swallow 3, 3a
Tachycineta
albiventer White-winged
Swallow 3a
Tachycineta
leucorrhoa White-rumped
Swallow 4
Tachycineta
leucopyga Chilean
Swallow 4, 5
Riparia
riparia Bank Swallow
(NB) 14
Hirundo
rustica Barn Swallow
15, 15a, 15b
Petrochelidon
pyrrhonota Cliff
Swallow 16, 16a, 16b
Petrochelidon
fulva Cave Swallow (V) 16, 17
Petrochelidon
rufocollaris Chestnut-collared
Swallow 16, 18
1. The swallows are a distinctive family
with no certain close relatives. Although some data suggested a relationship to
the Alaudidae (Treplin et al. 2008, cf. Johansson et al. 2008), more recent
genetic data indicate that they may be part of a primarily Old World radiation
of "sylvioid" families such as babblers, bulbuls, and Old World
warblers (Alström et al. 2013).
1a. Classifications of the family in
last 60 years or so have generally followed Mayr & Bond (1943) in merging
many monotypic genera and grouping species into genera based on nest site
construction and plumage characters. For
the most part, these broad genera conform to the groups identified by genetic
data (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 1999). SACC proposal passed to redefine sequence of
genera and generic limits based largely on the genetic data of Sheldon et al.
(2005). Schield et al. (2024), with
broader taxon- and gene-sampling than previous studies, found slightly
different relationships among genera that will require modification of the
current linear sequence. SACC proposal needed.
The phylogeny on which SACC classification is based is that of Schield
et al. (2024).
2. Sequence of species in Tachycineta
follows Whittingham et al. (2002) and Dor et al. (2012).
2a. All South American Tachycineta were
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904, Hellmayr 1935, Pinto
1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, AOU 1957) placed in the genus Iridoprocne
along with North American T. bicolor; recent authors have followed
Peters (1960) in merging this into Tachycineta. Genetic data
(Whittingham et al. 2002) indicate that Iridoprocne is not monophyletic,
although the South American species themselves form a monophyletic group. See
Whittingham et al. (2002) for rationale for maintaining a broadly defined Tachycineta
as in Peters (1960), and more recently Schield et al. (2024).
3. Tachycineta stolzmanni was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983,
Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989; cf. Wetmore et al. 1984)
considered a subspecies of T. albilinea, but see Robbins et al. (1997).
Genetic data (Whittingham et al. 2002, Schield et al. 2024) indicate that T.
albiventer and T. albilinea ("Mangrove Swallow") are
sister taxa, and thus more closely related to each other than either is to T.
stolzmanni.
3a. Tachycineta albilinea, T.
stolzmanni, and T. albiventer form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990); genetic data (Schield et al. 2024) support the monophyly of this
group.
4. Tachycineta leucopyga and T.
leucorrhoa are sister species (Whittingham et al. 2002, Schield et al. 2024).
Meyer de Schauensee (1966) proposed that these two species are best treated as
subspecies of the same species; rationale for treating them as separate species
is weak (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); they form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990).
5. Tachycineta leucopyga was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as T.
leucopyga, but the latter was considered preoccupied; see Ridgway
(1904), Brooke (1974) and Sibley and Monroe (1990). However, the analysis by
Mlíkovsky & Frahnert (2009) indicated that leucopyga is the correct species name, and this was endorsed by
Dickinson & Christidis (2014). Proposal passed to return to leucopyga as the species name.
Elliott (2020) provided the rationale for why meyeni is the
correct name. SACC
proposal needed.
6. Progne tapera was formerly
(e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Phelps &
Phelps 1950a, Zimmer 1955b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, Fjeldså &
Krabbe 1990) placed in the monotypic genus Phaeoprogne (sometimes
incorrectly spelled "Phaeprogne") because it differed in
coloration, degree of sexual dimorphism, slenderer bill, less forked tail, and
more extensive tarsal feathering (Zimmer 1955b). Genetic data indicate that tapera
is the sister to all other Progne (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon
et al. 1999, 2005, Moyle et al. 2008, Schield et al. 2024). Treatment of them
as congeneric follows Peters (1960), Wetmore et al. (1984), Turner & Rose
(1989), and AOU (1998), but at this point rests solely on arbitrary evaluations
of the significance of the phenotypic characters outlined by Zimmer (1955b).
7. Progne subis, P. dominicensis,
P. cryptoleuca, P. chalybea, P. elegans,
P. murphyi, and P. modesta, along with P. sinaloae
of Middle America, are usually considered to form a superspecies (Peters 1960,
Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Mayr & Short 1970, Ridgely and Tudor 1989);
Sibley and Monroe (1990) excluded the latter three because of extensive overlap
of that group with P. chalybea; Zimmer (1955b) also noted that
overlap was likely between P. chalybea and Middle American P.
sinaloae (which he also considered a subspecies of P. dominicensis
because of plumage similarities). On the other hand, reported sympatry between P.
chalybea and P. modesta was questioned by Eisenmann &
Haverschmidt (1972), who also reported possible hybridization between them.
Regardless of whether they all form a superspecies, species limits in this
group very greatly among classifications, and species limits are largely
arbitrary; no convincing rationale has been published for any particular set of
species limits. Recent genetic data (Moyle
et al. 2008) indicate that current species limits are at least consistent with
DNA sequence data except for the polyphyly of P. chalybea in terms of mtDNA, with Middle American chalybea close to other Middle American
taxa and South American chalybea
sister to P. elegans, and these data were corroborated by Schield
et al. (2024). SACC
proposal needed.
8. Specimens from Curaçao (Voous 1982,
1985).
9. Progne elegans and P. murphyi
were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Turner
& Rose 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley and Monroe 1990) treated as
conspecific with P. modesta, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966)
and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they might not be conspecific,
suggesting a return to the treatment by Ridgway (1904); elegans was
treated as a separate species by Wetmore et al. (1984) based on differences in
size and plumage pattern. Evidence for treating either as separate species from
modesta is weak; see Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Eisenmann and
Haverschmidt (1970) proposed that P. modesta was derived from P.
subis, and that P. murphyi from P. elegans.
9a.
The species name furcata was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Progne
elegans.
10. Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 2005)
indicate that the species in the genera Haplochelidon, Pygochelidon,
Notiochelidon, Atticora, Neochelidon, and Alopochelidon
together form a monophyletic group, but that current species assignments within
these genera make them all paraphyletic or polyphyletic: "Atticora"
melanoleuca is the sister species to Pygochelidon cyanoleuca,
whereas A. fasciata is likely the sister to Middle American Notiochelidon
pileata + Neochelidon tibialis, and Notiochelidon murina is
the sister to Haplochelidon andecola. Therefore, generic limits require
major modification. SACC proposal passed to redefine limits of
genera. See also
Schield et al. (2024) and additional notes below on the historical fluidity of
the limits of these genera.
10a. Notiochelidon andecola has
been merged into Petrochelidon by some (e.g., Chapman 1924b, Hellmayr
1935, Peters 1960) or into a broad Hirundo that includes Petrochelidon
by others (REF, Ridgely and Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989, Sibley &
Monroe 1990). Parkes (1993) presented evidence from nest construction and
plumage that indicated that andecola is not a member of the Petrochelidon-Hirundo
group, but rather a member of the Stelgidopteryx-Alopochelidon
group. Genetic data (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 2005) also
indicate that andecola is not a member of the Petrochelidon-Hirundo
group, and that it is a member of a Neotropical group that includes Pygochelidon,
Notiochelidon, Atticora, and Neochelidon. SACC proposal passed to include in the
genus Orochelidon. Schield et al. (2024) found that O.
andecola and O. murina are sister species.
11. Pygochelidon cyanoleuca is
usually included in Notiochelidon (e.g., Peters 1960, Meyer de
Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989, Fjeldså
& Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990), although Zimmer (1955b) placed it
in Atticora. It was maintained in the monotypic genus Pygochelidon by
AOU (1983, 1998) and Sheldon & Winkler (1993), as in Ridgway (1904),
Hellmayr (1935), and Pinto (1944). Sheldon et
al. (1999) returned to placing it in Notiochelidon, but Sheldon et al.
(2005) found that it is less closely related Notiochelidon than to Atticora
melanoleuca. Schield et al. (2024)
confirmed that it is sister to P. melanoleuca.
11a. The southern subspecies patagonica
was considered a separate species from Pygochelidon cyanoleuca by
Ridgway (1904).
11b. Orochelidon murina was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Zimmer 1955b) treated
in the monotypic genus Orochelidon, but most recent classifications have
placed in it Notiochelidon. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Orochelidon.
Schield et al.
(2024) found that O. andecola and O. murina are sister species.
11c. Notiochelidon flavipes was
formerly placed in Pygochelidon (Hellmayr 1935) or Atticora
(Zimmer 1955b), but recent classifications have followed Peters (1960) in
placing it in Notiochelidon. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Orochelidon
and to place flavipes in that genus.
Schield et
al. (2024) found confirmed that O. flavipes is sister to O. andecola
+ O. murina.
11d. Atticora melanoleuca was
formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in the monotypic genus Diplochelidon.
SACC proposal passed to include melanoleuca
in Pygochelidon.
12. Alopochelidon has been merged
into Stelgidopteryx by some (e.g., Short 1975, Ridgely & Tudor 1989,
Sibley & Monroe 1990), as suggested by Zimmer (1955b); but also see
Zimmer(1955b) for rationale for retaining a monotypic Alopochelidon.
Genetic data (e.g., Sheldon et al. 2005) clearly indicate that it does not
belong in Stelgidopteryx. SACC proposal passed to maintain in
monotypic genus. Schield et al. (2024) showed that it was sister to Orochelidon.
13. Stelgidopteryx ruficollis was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated
as conspecific with S. serripennis ("Northern Rough-winged
Swallow") of North America and Middle America, but see Stiles (1981) for a
return to the classification of Ridgway (1904); they constitute a superspecies
(Sibley and Monroe 1990).
13b. Stelgidopteryx was merged
into Riparia by Phillips et al. (1964), but see Gaunt (1965), Parkes
(1993), Sheldon & Winkler (1993), Sheldon et al. (1999, 2005), and Schield
et al. (2024).
14. Called "Sand Martin" or
"Common Sand-Martin" in Old World literature and in Ridgely &
Tudor (1989), Turner & Rose (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change to "Sand
Martin" did not pass. SACC proposal to add to "Sand
Martin" as an alternative name did not pass.
15. Recently recorded breeding in
Argentina (Martínez 1983).
15a. Hirundo rustica may form a
superspecies with several Old World taxa (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
15b. The New World populations of Hirundo
rustica were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species, H.
erythrogastra, from Old World populations, but they were treated as
conspecific by van Rossem (1934), Hellmayr (1935), and subsequent authors.
16. Petrochelidon was included in
Hirundo by <REF>, and this was followed by AOU (1983), Turner
& Rose (1989), Sibley and Monroe (1990), and others, but see Sheldon &
Winkler (1993), Sheldon et al. (1999, 2005), and Schield et al. (2024) for genetic data that indicate that they are
not sister genera.
16a. The species name formerly (e.g.,
AOU 1931) and occasionally more recently (e.g., Phillips 1986) used for Petrochelidon
pyrrhonota was albifrons, but see Banks & Browning (1995). Even
earlier (e.g., Ridgway 1904), the species name was lunifrons.
16b. Recently recorded breeding in
Argentina (Salvador et al. 2016).
17. Specimen of subspecies pallida
collected on Curaçao (Voous 1985); and <>. Published photos from Venezuela (Escola et
al. 2011).
18. Petrochelidon rufocollaris was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983,
Turner & Rose 1989) treated as a subspecies of P. fulva, but
see Ridgely and Tudor (1989) and AOU (1998) for returning to the classification
of Ridgway (1904); they form a superspecies (Sibley and Monroe 1990).
TROGLODYTIDAE (WRENS) 1
Microcerculus marginatus
Scaly-breasted Wren 2, 3, 4
Microcerculus ustulatus
Flutist Wren
Microcerculus bambla
Wing-banded Wren
Odontorchilus branickii
Gray-mantled Wren 2, 5, 6, 6a
Odontorchilus cinereus
Tooth-billed Wren 6
Troglodytes aedon
House Wren 7, 8, 9
Troglodytes cobbi
Cobb’s Wren 8
Troglodytes ochraceus
Ochraceous Wren 10,10a
Troglodytes solstitialis
Mountain Wren 10
Troglodytes monticola
Santa Marta Wren 10
Troglodytes rufulus
Tepui Wren 10
Cistothorus platensis
Grass Wren 7, 11, 12, 13
Cistothorus meridae
Merida Wren 13, 14
Cistothorus apolinari
Apolinar's Wren 13, 15
Campylorhynchus albobrunneus
White-headed Wren 16, 17, 18
Campylorhynchus zonatus
Band-backed Wren 17, 18, 18a
Campylorhynchus nuchalis
Stripe-backed Wren 18
Campylorhynchus fasciatus
Fasciated Wren 18
Campylorhynchus griseus
Bicolored Wren 19, 20
Campylorhynchus turdinus
Thrush-like Wren 21, 22
Pheugopedius spadix
Sooty-headed Wren 24, 24a
Pheugopedius fasciatoventris
Black-bellied Wren
Pheugopedius euophrys
Plain-tailed Wren 25, 26
Pheugopedius eisenmanni
Inca Wren 25, 27
Pheugopedius mystacalis
Whiskered Wren 28
Pheugopedius genibarbis
Moustached Wren 28
Pheugopedius coraya
Coraya Wren 29
Pheugopedius rutilus
Rufous-breasted Wren 30
Pheugopedius sclateri
Speckle-breasted Wren 30
Thryophilus rufalbus
Rufous-and-white Wren 23, 24, 35
Thryophilus sernai
Antioquia Wren 23, 35
Thryophilus nicefori
Niceforo's Wren 35
Cantorchilus leucopogon
Stripe-throated Wren 24, 34
Cantorchilus nigricapillus
Bay Wren 31, 32
Cantorchilus superciliaris
Superciliated Wren 36, 36a
Cantorchilus leucotis
Buff-breasted Wren 36, 36aa
Cantorchilus longirostris
Long-billed Wren 36, 36aa, 36b
Cantorchilus guarayanus
Fawn-breasted Wren 36, 36aa
Cantorchilus griseus
Gray Wren 6a, 37
Cinnycerthia unirufa
Rufous Wren
Cinnycerthia olivascens
Sharpe's Wren 38, 39
Cinnycerthia peruana
Peruvian Wren 38
Cinnycerthia fulva
Fulvous Wren 38
Henicorhina leucosticta
White-breasted Wood-Wren 40, 43a
Henicorhina leucoptera
Bar-winged Wood-Wren 43, 43a
Henicorhina leucophrys
Gray-breasted Wood-Wren 41, 43a
Henicorhina anachoreta
Hermit Wood-Wren 41
Henicorhina negreti
Munchique Wood-Wren 42
Cyphorhinus thoracicus
Chestnut-breasted Wren 44, 45
Cyphorhinus phaeocephalus
Song Wren 45
Cyphorhinus arada
Musician Wren 45, 46, 47
1. Traditional classifications (e.g.,
Mayr & Amadon 1951, Wetmore 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed the
Troglodytidae near the Sittidae, Certhiidae, Mimidae, and Cinclidae to reflect
proposed relationships to those families (e.g., Beecher 1953). Genetic data (Sibley
& Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Barker et al. 2004, Voelker &
Spellman 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) indicate a close relationship to the Polioptilidae.
2. [lost]
3. [lost]
4. [lost]
6a. "Odontorchilus olallae"
is now known to be a synonym of Thryothorus griseus (Meyer de Schauensee
1966).
7. Genetic data (Barker 2004) indicate
that Cistothorus and Troglodytes are sister genera, contrary to
traditional linear sequences.
8. Many authors (e.g.,
Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) formerly treated Neotropical mainland populations
as a separate species T. musculus; see also Brumfield and Capparella
(1996); this treatment was followed by Brewer (2001) and Kroodsma & Brewer
(2005). <incorp. Paynter 1957?>
The Falklands population, T. a. cobbi, might also be best treated
as a species (Woods 1993), as was done by Brewer (2001), Mazar Barnett &
Pearman (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). SACC proposal to treat cobbi as separate species did not pass.
Campagna et al. (2012) provided additional evidence that cobbi merits species rank. SACC proposal passed to treat cobbi as separate species.
9. Although the name Troglodytes
domesticus has priority for this species, Banks & Browning (1995)
recommended continued use of aedon as the species name for reasons of
stability.
10. Troglodytes ochraceus, T. solstitialis, T.
monticola, and T. rufulus form a superspecies with Middle
American T. rufociliatus and (Sibley & Monroe 1990); species
limits in this group traditionally based on plumage coloration and lack
explicit rationale (except for considering T. ochraceus and T.
solstitialis as separate species; see Stiles & Skutch 1989). Hellmayr
(1934) considered Troglodytes solstitialis, T. monticola,
and T. rufulus to each warrant species rank; Paynter & Vaurie (1960)
and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered monticola to be a
subspecies of T. solstitialis, but treated T. rufulus as a
species. <incorp. Paynter 1957?>
10a. Troglodytes ochraceus
was recently discovered on the Colombian side of Cerro Tacarcuna (Renjifo et
al. 2017). SACC
proposal passed to add to SACC list.
11. Two distinctive major subspecies
groups, Andean and south-temperate platensis and lowland polyglottus,
intergrade in southeastern South America (Traylor 1988). The North American stellaris
group may warrant species rank from Cistothorus platensis (e.g., see
Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Robbins and Nyári 2014). SACC proposal passed
to treat stellaris group as separate species.
12. Called "Grass Wren" by
Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and others. SACC proposal to change English name did not
pass. Formerly
(e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Short-billed Marsh-Wren."
13. Cistothorus platensis (sensu
lato), C. meridae, and C. apolinari form a
superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Robbins & Nyári (2014) found that Cistothorus
platensis was paraphyletic with
respect to the other two, and they proposed recognition of nine species within
broadly defined platensis, seven of which are in South America: C.
alticola, C. aequatorialis,
C. graminicola, C. minimus, C. tucumanus, C. hornensis, and C. platensis. SACC proposal passed to treat South American platensis group as separate
species from northern C. stellaris. SACC proposal did not pass to recognize additional species within C.
platensis.
14. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Rodner et al. 2000, Dickinson 2003) called
"Paramo Wren." Called "Merida Wren" by Ridgely & Tudor
(1989), Brewer (2001), Hilty (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). SACC proposal passed to change English
name to "Merida Wren."
15. Called "Apolinar's
Marsh-Wren" by Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990),
but as noted by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), this implied an incorrect
relationship to North American C. palustris ("Marsh
Wren").
16. The name Heleodytes was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944)
used for Campylorhynchus, but see <REF>.
17. Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and
Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered Campylorhynchus albobrunneus to be
a subspecies of C. turdinus, but Haffer (1975), Hilty & Brown
(1986), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) noted
that C. albobrunneus and C. zonatus may be sister
species or even conspecific because the taxon aenigmaticus of
southwestern Nariño, currently treated as a subspecies of C.
albobrunneus, may represent a hybrid zone between albobrunneus and zonatus
(Haffer 1967); their vocalizations are not known to differ. Barker (2007) and
Vásquez-Miranda & Barker (2021) found that albobrunneus was more
closely related to C. fasciatus than to either C. zonatus or C.
turdinus. Treatment of albobrunneus as a separate species represents
a return to the classifications of Hellmayr (1934) and Selander (1964). However, Vásquez-Miranda & Barker (2021)
found that C. zonatus is paraphyletic with
respect to fasciatus and albobrunneus. SACC
proposal needed. <wait NACC?>
18. Campylorhynchus zonatus, C.
albobrunneus, C. nuchalis, and C. fasciatus were considered
to form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990; cf. Selander 1964), but they
do not form a monophyletic group (Barker 2007).
18a. Campylorhynchus zonatus
likely consists of more than one species (Barker 2007).
19. Campylorhynchus griseus
and Middle American C. chiapensis may form a superspecies (AOU
1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they
might be treated as conspecific, as treated by Paynter & Vaurie (1960).
20. The minor subspecies group
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Campylorhynchus
griseus.
21. The southern subspecies unicolor
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944)
treated as a separate species from Campylorhynchus turdinus, but Paynter
& Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific.
22. Called "Banded-backed
Wren" in Stiles & Skutch (1989) and Dickinson (2003).
23. Lara et al. (2012) described a new
species, Thryophilus sernai, from
northern Colombia. SACC proposal passed to recognize T. sernai as a new species.
24. Genetic data (Barker 2004, Mann et
al. 2006) indicate that the broad genus Thryothorus is polyphyletic, and
that true Thryothorus is not found in South America; Mann et al. (2006)
recommended recognition of three genera for South American taxa by resurrecting
two from the synonymy of Thryothorus (Pheugopedius and
Thryophilus) and describing a new one (Cantorchilus). SACC proposal to redistribute South
American "Thryothorus" into three genera did not pass. <add Pheugopedius, Cantorchilus, and
Thryophilus limits to Notes below>. Mann et al. (2009) found
distinctive vocal behaviors marking Pheugopedius, Thryophilus, and
Cantorchilus. New SACC proposals passed to revise Thryothorus
and linear sequences of species.
24a. Pheugopedius spadix and
Central American P. atrogularis appear to form a superspecies
(AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by
Hellmayr (1934) and Paynter & Vaurie (1960), but see Wetmore et al. (1984).
25. Pheugopedius euophrys and P.
eisenmanni to form a superspecies (Parker & O'Neill 1985, Sibley
& Monroe 1990).
26. The subspecies atriceps was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Pheugopedius
euophrys, but Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific.
27. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Parker & O'Neill (1985).
28. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and
Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated montane mystacalis as a separate
species from lowland Pheugopedius genibarbis; this was followed by
Brewer (2001), Ridgely et al. (2001), Hilty (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer
(2005); voices are described as different, but no analysis has been published;
they were formerly treated as separate species (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) until
Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to elevate mystacalis
to species rank. The
northern subspecies macrurus was also formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934)
considered a separate species from Pheugopedius genibarbis, but Paynter
& Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific; <REFS?> and Brewer
(2001) noted that macrurus, known from one specimen, may be an aberrant
individual of P. g. amaurogaster, but subsequently treated as a valid
taxon by Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) <trace this -- not mentioned in
Paynter & Vaurie (1960)>.
29. Hilty (2003) and Kroodsma &
Brewer (2005) pointed out that vocal differences between subspecies of
Venezuelan Tepui region and lowlands suggest that Pheugopedius coraya may
consist of more than one species.
30. Pheugopedius rutilus, P.
sclateri, and Middle American P. maculipectus were treated as
conspecific by Hellmayr (1934), but they were treated as separate species by
AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); Paynter & Vaurie
(1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) treated the similarly patterned but
widely separated sclateri and maculipectus as conspecific, but
maintained geographically intermediate P. rutilus as a separate
species. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for a synopsis and for rationale for
tentative treatment of the three groups as separate species. They form a
superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
31. Pheugopedius nigricapillus
and Central American P. semibadius form a superspecies (AOU 1983,
Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Paynter
& Vaurie 1960) treated as conspecific, but see Slud (1964), Wetmore et al.
(1984), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).
32. The Central American subspecies castaneus
was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species from Pheugopedius
nigricapillus, but Hellmayr (1934) treated them as conspecific see
<?> Wetmore (1959).
34. Cantorchilus leucopogon was
formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Paynter &
Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of C. thoracicus
of Central America; here it is treated as separate species, following AOU
(1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely &
Greenfield (2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); vocalizations are
described differing strongly, but no analysis has been published. They form a
superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
35. Many have suggested that Thryophilus
nicefori is perhaps best treated as a subspecies of T. rufalbus
(Paynter & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor
1989), but see Valderrama et al. (2007) for support for species rank for nicefori;
they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
36. Cantorchilus leucotis, C.
superciliaris, C. guarayanus, and C. longirostris,
along with Middle American C. modestus, form a superspecies
(Sibley & Monroe 1990, Kroodsma & Brewer 2005), and justification for
ranking each as a species is weak (see additional comments in Ridgely &
Tudor 1989); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that C. superciliaris
might best be treated as a subspecies of C. leucotis.
36a. Called “Eyebrowed Wren” in
Dickinson & Christidis (2014).
36aa. The southern subspecies rufiventris
was treated as a separate species from Cantorchilus leucotis by (REF)
<noted in Kroodsma & Brewer (2005)>.
Species limits among C. leucotis,
C. longirostris, and C. guarayanus are controversial (Ridgely
and Tudor 1994, Hayes 1995).
36b. Kroodsma & Brewer (2005)
suggested that the northern subspecies bahiae might warrant treatment as
a separate species from Cantorchilus longirostris.
See also Zimmer and Whittaker (2009).
37. Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Brewer
(2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) suggested that C. griseus
is so different from other Thryothorus (now Cantorchilus) that it might deserve placement in separate
genus. Its placement here in Cantorchilus is tentative.
38. Cinnycerthia olivascens and C.
fulva were formerly (e.g., Paynter & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee
1970) considered conspecific with C. peruana, but see Brumfield &
Remsen (1996); this treatment was followed by Brewer (2001), Ridgely et al.
(2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). Hellmayr (1934) had previously
treated fulva as a separate species from C. peruana. The three
species form a superspecies.
39. Called "Sepia-brown Wren"
in Ridgely et al. (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did
not pass.
40. The prostheleuca and pittieri
subspecies groups of Middle American may each warrant recognition as separate
species from Henicorhina leucosticta (Winker et al. 1996). Dingle et al.
(2006) further suggested splitting H. leucosticta into at least three
taxa: (i) a Central American prostheleuca group; (ii) a Chocó
inornata group; and (iii) an Amazonian leucosticta group. See also Smith et al. (2014). Pegan et al. (2015) proposed that at least
two species be recognized based on vocal data.
SACC proposal to revise species limits did
not pass.
41. Henicorhina leucophrys
may consist of more than one species; see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and
Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). Dingle et al. (2010) found that the
subspecies hilaris and nominate leucophrys differ significantly in voice
and are elevationally parapatric with an uncertain degree of intergradation. Halfwerk et al. (2016) found assortative
mating with limited hybridization between hilaris
and nominate leucophrys, which also
have different songs (Dingle et al. 2008, 2010). SACC proposal needed. Caro et al. (2013) found that the parapatric subspecies
H. l. bangsi and H. l. anachoreta are not closely related within the broader complex
and that their songs differ. Cadena et
al. (2015) found that H. l. bangsi
and H. l. anachoreta are
elevationally parapatric in the Santa Marta Mountains. SACC proposal passed to treat anachoreta as a separate species. SACC proposal passed on English name.
Cadena et al. (2019) showed that there are as many as 35 lineages within
H. leucophrys that could merit recognition as species under some species
concepts.
42. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Salaman et al. (2003). SACC proposal passed to add newly
described Henicorhina negreti.
43. Described since Meyer de Schauensee
(1970): Fitzpatrick et al. (1977).
43a. Dingle et al.'s (2006) analysis of
mtDNA haplotype distribution indicates that Henicorhina leucoptera is
more closely related to H. leucosticta than to H. leucophrys, and
in fact Chocó populations of the former are more closely related to H.
leucoptera than either is to other H. leucosticta populations. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence of species within Henicorhina.
44. The name formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps
1950a) used for the genus Cyphorhinus
was Leucolepis;
see Storer (1970a).
45. Cyphorhinus phaeocephalus
was considered conspecific with C. arada by Paynter & Vaurie (1960)
and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970); most authors have followed Hellmayr
(1934), AOU (1983), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) in treating them as separate
species; virtually no relevant published data support either treatment; they
form a superspecies (AOU 1983); Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Sibley &
Monroe (1990) also included C. thoracicus in this superspecies.
46. The southern subspecies modulator
(with rufogularis, transfluvialis, interpositus, and griseolateralis)
was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944) occasionally treated
as a separate species from Cyphorhinus arada; they were treated as
conspecific by Hellmayr (1934) and Paynter & Vaurie (1960), and this
has been followed by subsequent authors.
Whittaker (2009) noted that vocal differences among subspecies suggest
that more than one species is involved.
Bocalini & Silveira (2016) proposed elevating five subspecies (salvini, modulator, transfluvialis, interpositus, and griseolateralis) to species rank based on vocal and
plumage differences. SACC proposal needed.
47. This species' name is often given as
"aradus", but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Jobling (1991),
and David & Gosselin (2002a).
POLIOPTILIDAE (GNATCATCHERS) 1
Microbates collaris
Collared Gnatwren
Microbates cinereiventris
Half-collared Gnatwren 2
Ramphocaenus melanurus
Long-billed Gnatwren 3
Ramphocaenus sticturus
Chattering Gnatwren 3
Polioptila plumbea
Tropical Gnatcatcher 4, 5
Polioptila lactea
Creamy-bellied Gnatcatcher 5
Polioptila facilis Rio Negro Gnatcatcher 7
Polioptila guianensis
Guianan Gnatcatcher 6, 7
Polioptila clementsi
Iquitos Gnatcatcher 7, 8
Polioptila paraensis Klages’s Gnatcatcher 7
Polioptila attenboroughi Inambari Gnatcatcher 7
Polioptila schistaceigula
Slate-throated Gnatcatcher 6
Polioptila dumicola
Masked Gnatcatcher 9
1. Although
this group had been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) as a
tribe or subfamily of the Old World Warblers (Sylviidae sensu lato),
evidence for that relationship was based strictly on rough similarity in
phenotype to some groups of Old World Warblers. Genetic data (Sibley &
Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Barker et al. 2004, Voelker &
Spellman 2004, Alström et al. 2006, Johansson et al. 2008) indicate a sister relationship
to the Troglodytidae. Rand & Traylor (1953) proposed that Ramphocaenus
and Microbates were more closely related to the African sylviid genus Macrosphenus
than to Polioptila, but Beecher (1953) considered this to represent
convergence. At one time (e.g., Cory
& Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937), Microbates
and Ramphocaenus were placed in the Formicariidae (= Thamnophilidae),
but see Rand & Traylor (1953). These
two genera are often placed in a separate tribe, Ramphoceaenini, from Polioptila
when the collective group is ranked as a subfamily (e.g., AOU 1998).
2. Called
"Tawny-faced Gnatwren" by Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore
et al. (1984), Ridgely and Tudor (1989), Stiles & Skutch (1989), Sibley
& Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Gill & Wright
(2006). The name "Half-collared" dates from at least Ridgway (1911),
and was used by Cory (1924), Eisenmann (1955), Meyer de Schauensee (1970),
Parker et al. (1982), and Hilty & Brown (1986). SACC
proposal needed. <NACC proposal to change to Half-collared did not
pass.>
3. The rufiventris
subspecies group of Middle America and western Colombia was formerly (e.g.,
Cory & Hellmayr 1924) considered a separate species from Ramphocaenus
melanurus, but see Zimmer (1931) for rationale for treating them as
conspecific. Harvey et al. (2014)
proposed that the subspecies sticturus
(with obscurus) should be treated as
a separate species from other Amazonian populations because of local sympatry
without any sign of interbreeding along with strong vocal differences. Smith et al. (2018) also provided evidence
for treatment of several subspecies as separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat sticturus
as a separate species from Ramphocaenus melanurus. SACC proposal passed to establish English
names for the two species.
4. Polioptila
plumbea likely includes several species (Atwood and Lerman 2006). The
subspecies maior of the Marañon Valley (treated as a separate species by
Hellmayr 1934) and the bilineata group of northern South American and
Middle America may each warrant species recognition, but a published analysis
is lacking (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Even within populations east of the
Andes, vocal differences suggest that more than one species is involved
(Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003).
4a. Middle
American Polioptila albiloris was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1942c)
considered a subspecies of P. plumbea.
5. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Polioptila plumbea and P. lactea
to form a superspecies; Paynter (1964a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966)
suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.
6. Sibley
& Monroe (1990) considered Polioptila guianensis and P.
schistaceigula to form a superspecies; Zimmer (1942c) and Paynter (1964)
suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.
7. Whitney and Alvarez A. (2005)
provided evidence that P. guianensis should be treated as three separate
species, with the subspecies paraensis and facilis treated as
species-level taxa. Atwood and Lerman (2006) followed this treatment. SACC proposal for recognition of P.
facilis and P. paraensis did not pass.
Whittaker et al. (2013) described a new species in the complex from
southwestern Amazonian Brazil, Polioptila
attenboroughi, and presented evidence that paraensis and facilis should also be ranked as separate species. SACC proposal to recognize these as
species did not pass. Smith et al. (2018)
generally corroborated all previously proposed species-level elevations and
novel species descriptions (Whitney et al. 2005, Whittaker et al. 2013) in the Polioptila
guianensis complex, which had been based on analyses of combined vocal and
morphological data sets. SACC proposal passed to recognize facilis,
paraensis, and attenboroughi as species.
8. Newly
described: Whitney and Alvarez A. (2005), who considered it part of the P.
guianensis group, which they also considered to consist of at least two
additional species (see previous Note). SACC proposal passed for recognition of P.
clementsi.
9. The
subspecies berlepschi differs substantially in plumage and perhaps
voice, and may merit recognition as a separate species (Ridgely & Tudor
1989).
DONACOBIIDAE (DONACOBIUS) 1
Donacobius
atricapilla Black-capped
Donacobius 2, 3
1. Donacobius
atricapilla was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Davis &
Miller 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) considered
to be a member of the Mimidae; it was moved from the Mimidae to the
Troglodytidae based on Wetmore et al. (1984) and Kiltie & Fitzpatrick
(1984). Genetic data (Barker 2004, Alström et al. 2006), however, indicate that
it does not belong in either of those families, but is a member of the Old
World Sylvioidea group, most likely related to the Megaluridae or
"Bernieridae" (Johansson et al. 2008). SACC proposal passed to remove from
Troglodytidae and place as Incertae Sedis. Aleixo & Pacheco (2006) proposed that Donacobius
be elevated to family rank, Donacobiidae. SACC proposal passed to recognize
Donacobiidae. Chesser et al.
(2010) also formally recognized this new family.
2. Formerly
(e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Black-capped Mockingthrush."
Called "Black-capped Mockingbird" in Haverschmidt & Mees (1994)
and "Donacobius" in Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).
3. Correct spelling for species name is atricapilla (David
& Gosselin 2002a).
CINCLIDAE (DIPPERS) 1
Cinclus leucocephalus
White-capped Dipper 2, 3
Cinclus schulzii
Rufous-throated Dipper 2, 4
1.
[relationships of family; Sibley 1970, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990] Genetic data
suggest that the Cinclidae are most closely related to the Turdidae + Muscicapidae
(Barker et al. 2004, Treplin et al. 2008, Johansson et al. 2008) or to the
Sturnidae + Mimidae (Voelker & Spellman 2004).
2. Cinclus
leucocephalus and C. schulzii form a superspecies (Sibley &
Monroe 1990, Ormerod & Tyler 2005); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
1934, Greenway 1960) considered conspecific.
3. The leuconotus
subspecies group was considered a separate species from Cinclus
leucocephalus by (REF).
4. The
correct spelling of the species name is schulzii (Dickinson & Christidis 2014), not “schulzi” (as in Ridgely & Tudor 1989<check?>,
Dickinson 2003, and thus previous versions of the current classification), or “schultzi”
(as in Meyer de Schauensee 1970 and elsewhere).
BOMBYCILLIDAE (WAXWINGS) 1
Bombycilla cedrorum
Cedar
Waxwing (V) 2
1. The relationships of the Bombycillidae remain
uncertain. Some genetic data (Voelker
& Spellman 2004) suggest that the Bombycillidae are not closely related to
the Muscicapoidea assemblage, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990);
other genetic data (Barker et al. 2004) support that relationship. Jonsson & Fjeldså (2006) included them
within the Muscicapoidea, but Johansson et al. (2008) found little support for
that placement.
2. Specimen
records from northwestern Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986) and northwestern
Venezuela (Aveledo & Pons 1952). Dead
bird examined (Voous 1983) but evidently not preserved as a specimen.
TURDIDAE (THRUSHES) 1
Myadestes coloratus
Varied Solitaire 2, 3
Myadestes ralloides
Andean Solitaire 2, 3
Catharus aurantiirostris
Orange-billed Nightingale-Thrush 5, 5c
Catharus fuscater
Slaty-backed Nightingale-Thrush 5c
Catharus maculatus
Speckled Nightingale-Thrush 5c, 5cc
Catharus fuscescens
Veery (NB)
5a
Catharus minimus
Gray-cheeked Thrush (NB) 5a, 5c
Catharus ustulatus
Swainson's Thrush (NB)
5a, 5c
Hylocichla mustelina
Wood
Thrush (V) 5a, 5b
Entomodestes coracinus
Black Solitaire 6, 6a
Entomodestes leucotis
White-eared Solitaire 6a
Cichlopsis leucogenys
Rufous-brown Solitaire 4
Turdus leucops
Pale-eyed Thrush 6b
Turdus falcklandii
Austral Thrush
Turdus reevei
Plumbeous-backed Thrush
Turdus flavipes
Yellow-legged Thrush 6b, 6bb
Turdus leucomelas
Pale-breasted Thrush
Turdus fumigatus
Cocoa Thrush 8b
Turdus hauxwelli
Hauxwell's Thrush 8b, 8bb
Turdus obsoletus
Pale-vented Thrush 8b, 8c
Turdus rufiventris
Rufous-bellied Thrush
Turdus grayi
Clay-colored Thrush 8d, 10
Turdus nudigenis
Spectacled Thrush 8c, 8d, 11, 11a, 11b
Turdus maculirostris
Ecuadorian Thrush 11
Turdus sanchezorum
Varzea Thrush 8bb, 8d
Turdus haplochrous
Unicolored Thrush 8d
Turdus lawrencii
Lawrence's Thrush
Turdus murinus
Pantepui Thrush 8aa
Turdus amaurochalinus
Creamy-bellied Thrush
Turdus ignobilis
Black-billed Thrush 8a, 8aa
Turdus arthuri
Campina Thrush 8a, 8aa
Turdus maranonicus
Marañon Thrush
Turdus fulviventris
Chestnut-bellied Thrush
Turdus olivater
Black-hooded Thrush 8
Turdus nigriceps
Andean Slaty Thrush 7
Turdus subalaris
Blacksmith Thrush 7
Turdus fuscater
Great Thrush 6c, 6d, 8
Turdus chiguanco
Chiguanco Thrush 6c, 6d
Turdus serranus
Glossy-black Thrush 6e
Turdus assimilis
White-throated Thrush 12, 12a, 12b, 13
Turdus albicollis
White-necked Thrush 12, 14, 15
1. [relationships of family] <
incorp. Mayr & Greenway 1956, Breviora, Voelker & Spellman 2004> The
limits of the Turdidae, as traditionally defined (e.g., REFS) are almost
certainly incorrect. Genetic data (Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Treplin et al.
2008, Sangster et al. 2010) indicate that the mostly Old World saxicoline
genera are more closely related to members of the traditional Muscicapidae than
to the Turdidae; this would require a merger of the two families or a transfer
of the saxicoline genera (e.g., Oenanthe) to the Muscicapidae. Within
the remaining Turdidae, genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005, Sangster et al. 2010)
indicate that Myadestes is more closely related to a group that includes
the Old World genera Stizorhina and Neocossyphus than it is to other New
World thrushes; Olson (1989) and Pasquet et al. (1999) proposed recognition of
a separate subfamily for this group, Myadestinae. <incorp. Ripley 1952,
Goodwin 1957>
2. Hellmayr (1934), Ripley (1964), and
Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered Myadestes coloratus, M.
ralloides, and Central American M. melanops to be
conspecific; Ridgway (1907), AOU (1983, 1998), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989),
however, treated them as separate species; evidence for either treatment is
weak; they constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990), and
genetic data indicate that they form a monophyletic group (Miller et al. 2007,
Voelker & Klicka 2008).
3. Sibley's (1973a) analysis of
egg-white proteins indicated that Myadestes was most closely related to
Middle American Ptilogonatidae, and this was followed by Wetmore et al. (1984).
However, recent genetic data (Pasquet et al. 1999, Cibois & Cracraft 2004,
Voelker & Spellman 2004, Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008)
support an earlier suggestion based on morphology (Olson 1989) that Myadestes
is more closely related to the Afrotropical genera Stizorhina and Neocossyphus
than to other New World thrushes except perhaps Sialia (Voelker &
Klicka 2008). Ripley's (1964) linear sequence placed Myadestes next to
African Stizorhina and Neocossyphus rather than near other New
World thrush genera.
4. Hellmayr (1934), Pinto (1944), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a)
treated this species in the monotypic genus Cichlopsis. Ripley (1964)
and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) merged Cichlopsis into Myadestes,
but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for resurrection of Cichlopsis; this
has been followed by most recent authors (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990).
Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008) indicate
that Cichlopsis is not closely related to Myadestes but rather is
the sister genus to Entomodestes; in fact, Klicka et al. (2005)
recommended the merger of Cichlopsis into Entomodestes. SACC proposal passed to move Cichlopsis
in linear sequence.
5. The griseiceps subspecies
group of Central America and western Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907,
Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species from Catharus aurantiirostris,
but see Zimmer (1944b).
5a. Whether the monotypic genus Hylocichla
should be recognized or merged into Catharus, as done by Sibley &
Monroe (1990), was long considered controversial; see Winker & Rappole
(1988) and AOU (1998) and references therein. Recent genetic data (Klicka et
al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008) support retention of Hylocichla as
a separate genus and suggest that its closest relative is Middle American Ridgwayia.
Catharus fuscescens, C. minimus, and C. ustulatus were
also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934, Pinto
1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, AOU 1957) included in Hylocichla,
but most classifications have followed Ripley (1964) and Meyer de Schauensee
(1966), based on Dilger (1956), in placing them in Catharus. Recent
genetic data (Outlaw et al. 2003) strongly support their inclusion in Catharus
rather than Hylocichla.
5b. Specimens from northern Colombia
(Rodríguez 1980), Curaçao (Voous 1983, 1985), and the Falkland Islands (Olrog
1972, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001).
5c. Genetic data (Outlaw et al. 2003,
Klicka et al. 2005) indicate that (1) Catharus fuscater, C. (dryas)
maculatus, C. aurantiirostris, and Middle American C.
mexicanus form a monophyletic group, but relationships within that group
are not well-resolved; and (2) C. fuscescens, C. minimus, and C.
ustulatus form a monophyletic group with the remaining North and Middle
American species in the genus. Voelker & Klicka (2008) found strong support
for a sister relationship between C. fuscater and C. dryas.
5cc. Halley et al. (2017) provided
evidence that the South American maculatus
subspecies group should be treated as a separate species from (extralimital)
nominate (dryas) subspecies group from Middle America. SACC proposal to treat as separate species
passed, but proposal to establish English name did not.
SACC proposal to establish English name
passed.
6. Ripley's (1964) linear sequence
placed Entomodestes, along with Myadestes, next to African Stizorhina
and Neocossyphus rather than near other New World thrush genera. Genetic
data (Pasquet et al. 1999, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Klicka et al. 2005,
Voelker & Klicka 2008, Sangster et al. 2010) indicate that Entomodestes
is close to true thrushes, in contrast to Myadestes (see Note 3).
6a. Entomodestes coracinus
and E. leucotis form a superspecies; genetic data (Voelker &
Klicka 2008) support the monophyly of the genus.
6aa. Ridgway (1907) placed all New World
Turdus in the genus Planesticus.
Voelker et al. (2007) found strong support for largely South American
clade within Turdus that includes all species in South America plus T.
pelios of Africa. Within the South American group, other strongly supported
groups are (a) albicollis + assimilis + fulviventris + olivater
+ nigriceps + fuscater + serranus + chiguanco; (b) T.
lawrencii + amaurochalinus + ignobilis + maranonicus +
Nesocichla of Tristan da Cunha; (c) T. leucomelas + hauxwelli
+ fumigatus; and (d) rufiventris + grayi + nudigenis
+ haplochrous. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Bautista et al. (2020) found that the New
World Turdus constitute a monophyletic group, with T. pelios
grouping with other Old World taxa, not with the South American group, for
which they also found support; their branching patterns within that group
differed slightly. SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.
6b. Turdus (Platycichla) leucops
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a subspecies of T. flavipes,
but Phelps & Phelps (1946) found that they are sympatric in Venezuela.
Recent genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate that they are not even
sister species, and thus the formerly recognized genus Platycichla is
not monophyletic; see also Note 6bb.
6bb. Recent genetic data (Klicka et al.
2005) indicate that the genus Platycichla is embedded within Turdus.
Klicka et al. (2005) did not include the merger of Platycichla into Turdus
because additional taxon-sampling within Turdus is planned in follow-up
studies, but Collar (2005) merged the two genera. <incorp. Goodwin 1957>
Pan et al. (2007) and Voelker et al. (2007) found additional support for the
merger into Turdus; see also Note 6b. SACC proposal passed to merge Platycichla
into Turdus. SACC proposal passed to change linear
sequence. Additional comprehensive sampling of new
world Turdus (Batista et al. 2020) has modified our understanding of
relationships within the genus that require changes in the linear sequence of
species. SACC
proposal needed.
6c. Turdus fuscater and T.
chiguanco may intergrade in central Bolivia although they behave as
biological species elsewhere (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1989, 1990). Voelker et al. (2007)
indicated that they are not sister species, with T. serranus and T.
chiguanco sisters, but Batista et al. (2020) showed that this is because fuscater
itself is not monophyletic. SACC proposal on species limits in T.
fuscater did not pass.
6d. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the
subspecies anthracinus might deserve recognition as a separate species
from Turdus chiguanco. Batista et
al. (2020) found that anthracinus was sister to a T. chiguanco +
one population of T. fuscater, and treated anthracinus as a
separate species. SACC proposal did not pass.
6e. Turdus serranus and Middle
American T. infuscatus were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley
& Monroe (1990), and were considered conspecific by Ripley (1964). However,
genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that they are
only distantly related, not even members of the same species group.
7. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) considered
the subspecies subalaris to be a separate species from Turdus
nigriceps, based on unpublished vocal differences; this was followed by
Sibley & Monroe (1990), Clement (2000), and Ridgely et al. (2001), and
represents a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1934) and Pinto (1944); it was not followed by Collar (2005)
because of the absence of published data. Cerqueira et al. (2016)
and Avendaño et al. (2017) found that subalaris was not even
a member of the same group of Turdus
as Turdus nigriceps SACC proposal passed to treat subalaris as a separate species and to
establish new English names. SACC proposal badly needed
to modify linear sequence.
8. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested
that T. o. caucae might warrant recognition as a species.
8a. Middle American Turdus plebejus
was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered conspecific with T. ignobilis.
However, genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that
they are only distantly related and are not members of the same species group.
8aa. Cerqueira et al. (2016) proposed
that Turdus ignobilis consisted
of at least three species, with the subspecies debilis sister to Turdus maranonicus. Batista
et al. (2020) also found that debilis was sister to T. maranonicus. Avendaño et al. (2017) found that Turdus ignobilis
might consist of as many as four species, but certainly consists of at least
two: the tepui subspecies murinus is not closely related to Turdus ignobilis. Stiles & Avendaño (2019) provided
evidence that the subspecies arthuri also merited species rank. SACC proposal passed to treat murinus and
arthuri as species.
8b. Species limits in this group have
been controversial and confusing. Hellmayr (1934), Pinto
(1944), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and Snow (1985) treated Turdus
hauxwelli and T. obsoletus as conspecific with T. fumigatus.
Ripley (1964) considered T. fumigatus and T. obsoletus to be
conspecific but treated T. hauxwelli as a separate species,
because Gyldenstolpe (1945, 1951) found it sympatric with T. fumigatus
in western Brazil. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered these two as separate
species but considered hauxwelli to be conspecific with T. obsoletus
(and also suggested that the Lesser Antillean personus group might
warrant treatment as a separate species from T. fumigatus). Ridgely
& Tudor (1989), followed by Collar (2005), considered T. fumigatus, T.
obsoletus, and T. hauxwelli as separate species based on
plumage, habitat, and elevational differences, and this treatment has been
followed by most subsequent authors. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely
& Tudor (1989) noted that assignment of the subspecies parambanus, colombianus,
and orinocensis is problematic. Turdus fumigatus, T. obsoletus,
and T. hauxwelli were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley
& Monroe (1990) and Collar (2005); however, genetic data (Voelker et al.
2007, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that although T. fumigatus and T.
hauxwelli are sister species, T. obsoletus is not particularly
closely related to them.
8bb. O’Neill et al. (2011) described a
new species of Turdus (T. sanchezorum), previously
misidentified as T. hauxwelli, that
is the sister to T. haplochrous. SACC proposal passed to recognize Turdus sanchezorum.
Batista et al. (2020), however, found that T. sanchezorum and T. haplochrous were not sister species but members of a group that also includes T. grayi, T. maculirostris, T. nudigenis, and T. rufiventris. SACC proposal needed
to modify linear sequence.
8c. Called "Pale-vented Robin"
in Wetmore et al. (1984).
8d. Hellmayr (1934) suggested that Turdus
haplochrous and T. nudigenis were sister species, and some genetic
data (Voelker et al. 2007) suggested that this is correct. Turdus grayi
and T. nudigenis were considered to form a superspecies by AOU
(1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), and genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007,
Batista et al. 2020) indicate that they form a monophyletic group if T.
haplochrous and other species also included. See also Note 11.
10. Called "Clay-colored
Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal passed to change to
"Thrush".
11. Ridgely & Tudor (1989)
considered the subspecies maculirostris a separate species from Turdus
nudigenis, and this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), Clement
(2000), Ridgely et al. (2001), Collar (2005), and Restall et al. (2006). Genetic
data (Voelker et al. 2007, Nylander 2008, Batista et al. 2020) indicate that maculirostris
is not the sister taxon to T. nudigenis. SACC proposal passed to elevate maculirostris to species rank.
11a. Called "Bare-eyed Robin"
in AOU (1998) and Dickinson (2003). Called "Naked-eyed Thrush" by
Ridgway (1907), "Yellow-eyed Thrush" by Clement (2000), and
"Spectacled Thrush" by Collar (2005). To call it "Bare-eyed
Thrush," as in AOU (1983), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Hilty (2003),
confuses it with African T. tephronotus, which has the same English
name. SACC proposal passed to change to
"Thrush." SACC proposal passed to change
"Bare-eyed" to another name.
SACC proposal passed to change name to "Spectacled Thrush."
11b. The species name for Turdus
nudigenis was formerly gymnophthalmus (e.g., Ridgway 1907).
12. Turdus assimilis has often
(e.g., Ripley 1964, Wetmore et al. 1964, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Collar 2005)
been considered conspecific with T. albicollis, but most recent
classifications have followed Monroe (1968), AOU (1983), and Ridgely &
Tudor (1989) in treating them as separate species, representing a return to the
classification of Hellmayr (1934); evidence supporting either treatment is weak,
although supported by assessment of songs (Boesman 2016); they form a
superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Voelker et al.
2007, Batista et al. 2020) confirm that they are sister taxa.
12a. The subspecies daguae of the
Chocó region has been treated as a subspecies of T. assimilis, and most
recent authors have treated them as conspecific (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Ripley
1964, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley
& Monroe 1990, Clement 2000, Dickinson & Christidis 2014). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), however,
considered daguae to be a separate species, in part because its voice
resembles that of T. albicollis more than that of T. assimilis. Nuñez-Zapata et al. (2016) presented evidence
that daguae should be treated as a separate species from Turdus
assimilis. Del Hoyo & Collar
(2016) treated as a subspecies of T. albicollis, not T. assimilis,
based on Boesman’s (2016) assessment of songs. SACC proposal to treat daguae as a species
did not pass.
12b. The species name for Turdus
assimilis was formerly tristis (e.g., Ridgway 1907).
13. Called "White-throated
Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998) and Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal passed to change to
"Thrush".
14. Called "White-necked
Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal to change to
"Thrush".
15. REFS and Ridgely & Tudor (1989)
suggested that the <> subspecies group of most of South America east of
the Andes may deserve recognition as a separate species from the nominate albicollis
group southeastern South America. The phaeopygus subspecies group of
northern South America was considered a separate species from T. albicollis
by Pinto (1944) <REFs>.
MUSCICAPIDAE
(OLD WORLD FLYCATCHERS) 1
Oenanthe
oenanthe Northern Wheatear (V) 2
1. For inclusion of Oenanthe in Muscicapidae rather than Turdidae, see REFS.
2. Published photo from French Guiana
(Renaudier et al. 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to main list.
Also, one unpublished photograph from
Bonaire and one sight record from Curaçao (Voous 1983).
MIMIDAE (MOCKINGBIRDS) 1
Dumetella carolinensis
Gray
Catbird (V) 2
Mimus gilvus
Tropical Mockingbird 3, 3a
Mimus longicaudatus
Long-tailed Mockingbird 4
Mimus
thenca Chilean Mockingbird 4
Mimus patagonicus
Patagonian Mockingbird 4a
Mimus saturninus
Chalk-browed Mockingbird 4a
Mimus triurus
White-banded Mockingbird 4b
Mimus dorsalis
Brown-backed Mockingbird 4b
Mimus parvulus
Galapagos Mockingbird 5, 6, 6d
Mimus trifasciatus
Floreana Mockingbird 6, 6a
Mimus macdonaldi
Española Mockingbird 6, 6b
Mimus melanotis
San Cristobal Mockingbird 6, 6c
Toxostoma rufum
Brown
Thrasher (V) 7
Margarops fuscatus
Pearly-eyed Thrasher
1. Recent
genetic data (Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Voelker
& Spellman 2004, Johansson et al. 2008, Treplin et al. 2008) have confirmed
once-controversial findings (e.g., Beecher 1953, Stallcup 1961, Sibley &
Ahlquist 1980, 1984, 1985, 1990) that the Mimidae and Sturnidae are sister
families, suggested originally by the morphological analysis of Beecher (1953).
Within the Mimidae, genetic data (Hunt et al. 2001, Cibois & Cracraft 2004,
Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012) indicate two main groups:
(1) a Caribbean group that also includes Dumetella, and (2) Mimus
+ Nesomimus +Toxostoma + extralimital Oreoscoptes. <wait
for AOU to change linear sequence.> Here is the tree from Lovette et al.
(2012) [trial run on adding
trees]:
2. At least
two specimen records and additional sight records from northern Colombia (Hilty
& Brown 1986).
3. Mimus
gilvus forms a superspecies with North American M. polyglottos
(Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cody 2005); some authors (e.g., Davis & Miller
1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) have suggested that they are conspecific, but
see <?> Binford (1989). Lovette & Rubenstein (2007) found that they
are sister taxa, but more extensive sampling (Lovette et al. 2012) has shown
that M. polyglottos might be nested
within M. gilvus. <wait NACC
proposal>
3a. Meyer
de Schauensee (1966) suggested that the subspecies antelius of eastern
Brazil should be treated as a separate species from M. gilvus.
4. Mimus
longicaudatus and M. thenca were considered to form a
superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cody (2005); Davis & Miller
(1960) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific. However,
genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et
al. 2012) indicate that they are not sister species.
4a. Mimus
saturninus and M. patagonicus were considered to form a
superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but genetic data indicate that they
are not sister taxa (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007,
Lovette et al. 2012).
4b. Mimus
dorsalis and M. triurus were considered to form a
superspecies by Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data confirm that they
are sisters (Lovette et al. 2012).
5. Ridgely
& Tudor (1989) noted that the Pacific coastal Mimus (M. longicaudatus
and M. thenca) are at least superficially more similar to the
Galapagos Mimus (formerly Nesomimus) than to other Mimus,
but genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette
et al. 2012) indicate that they are not sister groups.
6. The four
species of former Nesomimus (now Mimus) form a superspecies
(Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cody 2005); they were all considered conspecific by
Davis & Miller (1960). Ridgway (1907) recognized 11 species in the genus,
ranking each subspecies as a species. Recent genetic data (Arbogast et al.
2006, Lovette & Rubenstein 2007, Lovette et al. 2012) indicate that "Nesomimus"
is embedded within Mimus and is more closely related to N. Hemisphere Mimus,
specifically West Indian M.
gundlachii, than to South American species. SACC
proposal passed to merge Nesomimus
into Mimus.
Arbogast et al. (2006) and Lovette & Rubenstein (2007) also found that M.
triurus and M. saturninus are sister species, as are M. thenca
and M. patagonicus, and that these four form a strongly supported
monophyletic group within Mimus. SACC proposal passed to alter linear
sequence. Lovette et al. (2012) found further support
for these relationships except that M.
dorsalis, previously unsampled, was the sister species to M. triurus.
6a.
Formerly called "Charles Mockingbird" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to change English
name.
6b.
Formerly called "Hood Mockingbird" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to change English
name. Called "Hood Island Mockingbird"
in Dickinson & Christidis (2014).
6c.
Formerly called "Chatham Mockingbird"(e.g., Dickinson 2003). SACC proposal passed to change English
name. Called "Chatham Island Mockingbird"
in Dickinson & Christidis (2014).
6d. Some
genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006) suggested that Mimus parvulus is
paraphyletic with respect to M. macdonaldi, but see Hoeck et al. (2010).
7. Specimen
from Curaçao (Voous 1983, 1985) and <>.
STURNIDAE (STARLINGS) 1
Acridotheres cristatellus
Crested Myna
(IN) 2
Sturnus vulgaris
European Starling (V,
IN) 3
1. See Note
1 under Mimidae above for evidence that the Sturnidae and Mimidae are sister
families.
2. Acridotheres
cristatellus is established in prov. Buenos Aires, Argentina (Saidon et al.
1988, Di Giacomo et al. 1993, Churla & Martinez 1995, Churla 1999, Mazar
Barnett & Pearman 2001, Zelaya et al. 2001). SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.
3. Sight
records or unpublished photographs from Aruba and Bonaire (Voous 1985).
Introduced and established in Buenos Aires area of Argentina (Di Giacomo et al.
1993, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, Montalti & Kopig 2001).
Part
10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Passerellidae)