A classification of the bird species of South America

South American Classification Committee

American Ornithologists' Union

 (Part 10)

 

Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (below)

Part 1. Struthioniformes to Cathartiformes (click)
Part 2. Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes (click)
Part 3. Columbiformes to Caprimulgiformes (click)
Part 4. Apodiformes (click)
Part 5. Trogoniformes to Piciformes (click)
Part 6. Suboscine Passeriformes, A (Sapayoidae to Formicariidae) (click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Furnariidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae) (click)
Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) (click)
Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)

Hypothetical List (click)
Hybrids and Dubious Taxa (click)
Literature Cited (click)

 

PASSERIFORMES
Suborder PASSERES (OSCINES) (continued)

MOTACILLIDAE (PIPITS AND WAGTAILS) 1
Motacilla alba White Wagtail (V) 1a
Anthus cervinus Red-throated Pipit (V) 1b
Anthus lutescens Yellowish Pipit 2, 3
Anthus furcatus Short-billed Pipit
Anthus chacoensis Pampas Pipit 4
Anthus correndera Correndera Pipit 5
Anthus nattereri Ochre-breasted Pipit
Anthus hellmayri Hellmayr's Pipit 5
Anthus bogotensis Paramo Pipit

1. Genetic data (e.g., Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Groth 1998, Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Johannson et al. 2008, Treplin et al. 2008) indicate that this family belongs within the "nine-primaried oscine" cluster of families, probably most closely related to Fringillidae or Emberizidae.  Linear sequence of species reflects Voelker (1999).

1a.  Photographed in French Guiana 26 Oct. 2009 (Ingels et al. 2010).  SACC proposal passed to add to main list.  Unpublished photo and sight record from Trinidad (ffrench 1991, Kenefick & Hayes 2006, Ingels et al. 2010).

1b.  Photographed in Ecuador in 2008 (Brinkhuizen et al. 2010).  SACC proposal passed to add to main list.

2. Anthus lutescens was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1953c) know as A. chii, but see Hellmayr (1934) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

3. The subspecies parvus of Panama was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) considered a separate species from Anthus lutescens; they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1935), and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.

4.  Anthus chacoensis was described as a subspecies of A. lutescens by Zimmer (1952), but soon after, additional specimens convinced him (Zimmer 1953c) that it was a separate species.  Straneck (1987) and Casañas et al. (2008) found differences between the two in display flights, vocalizations, and habitat preferences, including elucidating that the species does not breed in chaco habitat.  SACC proposal passed to change English name to Pampas Pipit.

5. Voelker (1999) found these two species to be paraphyletic [but action premature?.]

 

THRAUPIDAE (TANAGERS) 1
Orchesticus abeillei Brown Tanager
Paroaria coronata Red-crested Cardinal 64, 65, 66b
Paroaria dominicana Red-cowled Cardinal 65, 65a
Paroaria nigrogenis Masked Cardinal 66
Paroaria gularis Red-capped Cardinal 66
Paroaria baeri Crimson-fronted Cardinal 66
Paroaria capitata Yellow-billed Cardinal 66
Schistochlamys melanopis Black-faced Tanager 1a
Schistochlamys ruficapillus Cinnamon Tanager
Cissopis leverianus Magpie Tanager 1a, 1b
Neothraupis fasciata White-banded Tanager 1a
Conothraupis speculigera Black-and-white Tanager 1c
Conothraupis mesoleuca Cone-billed Tanager 1c, 1cc
Lamprospiza melanoleuca Red-billed Pied Tanager 1d
Compsothraupis loricata Scarlet-throated Tanager 2
Sericossypha albocristata White-capped Tanager 3, 3a
Nemosia pileata Hooded Tanager 3a
Nemosia rourei Cherry-throated Tanager 3a
Creurgops verticalis Rufous-crested Tanager 4
Creurgops dentatus Slaty Tanager 4, 4a, 4b, 4c
Orthogonys chloricterus Olive-green Tanager
Hemispingus atropileus Black-capped Hemispingus 5, 6
Hemispingus calophrys Orange-browed Hemispingus 6
Hemispingus parodii Parodi's Hemispingus 7
Hemispingus superciliaris Superciliaried Hemispingus 8, 8a, 8b
Hemispingus reyi Gray-capped Hemispingus
Hemispingus frontalis Oleaginous Hemispingus 9
Hemispingus melanotis Black-eared Hemispingus 10
Hemispingus goeringi Slaty-backed Hemispingus
Hemispingus rufosuperciliaris Rufous-browed Hemispingus 11
Hemispingus verticalis Black-headed Hemispingus 12
Hemispingus xanthophthalmus Drab Hemispingus 12
Hemispingus trifasciatus Three-striped Hemispingus 12a
Cnemoscopus rubrirostris Gray-hooded Bush Tanager 12b, 12c
Thlypopsis fulviceps Fulvous-headed Tanager
Thlypopsis ornata Rufous-chested Tanager 12d
Thlypopsis pectoralis Brown-flanked Tanager 12d
Thlypopsis sordida Orange-headed Tanager 12e
Thlypopsis inornata Buff-bellied Tanager 12e
Thlypopsis ruficeps Rust-and-yellow Tanager
Pyrrhocoma ruficeps Chestnut-headed Tanager
Cypsnagra hirundinacea White-rumped Tanager
Nephelornis oneilli Pardusco 13
Trichothraupis melanops Black-goggled Tanager 14
Eucometis penicillata Gray-headed Tanager 14
Tachyphonus cristatus Flame-crested Tanager 14, 14a, 14b
Tachyphonus rufiventer Yellow-crested Tanager 14b, 14c
Tachyphonus surinamus Fulvous-crested Tanager
Tachyphonus luctuosus White-shouldered Tanager 14b
Tachyphonus delatrii Tawny-crested Tanager
Tachyphonus coronatus Ruby-crowned Tanager 14d
Tachyphonus rufus White-lined Tanager 14d
Tachyphonus phoenicius Red-shouldered Tanager 14d
Lanio fulvus Fulvous Shrike-Tanager 14, 15
Lanio versicolor White-winged Shrike-Tanager 15
Ramphocelus nigrogularis Masked Crimson Tanager 14
Ramphocelus dimidiatus Crimson-backed Tanager 16
Ramphocelus melanogaster Black-bellied Tanager 16, 16a
Ramphocelus carbo Silver-beaked Tanager 16, 16b
Ramphocelus bresilius Brazilian Tanager 16
Ramphocelus flammigerus Flame-rumped Tanager 17, 17a
Thraupis episcopus Blue-gray Tanager 17b, 17c
Thraupis sayaca Sayaca Tanager 18
Thraupis glaucocolpa Glaucous Tanager 19
Thraupis cyanoptera Azure-shouldered Tanager
Thraupis ornata Golden-chevroned Tanager
Thraupis palmarum Palm Tanager
Thraupis cyanocephala Blue-capped Tanager 19a
Thraupis bonariensis Blue-and-yellow Tanager 19b
Calochaetes coccineus Vermilion Tanager 24b
Cyanicterus cyanicterus Blue-backed Tanager
Bangsia melanochlamys Black-and-gold Tanager 20
Bangsia rothschildi Golden-chested Tanager
Bangsia edwardsi Moss-backed Tanager
Bangsia aureocincta Gold-ringed Tanager
Wetmorethraupis sterrhopteron Orange-throated Tanager 21
Buthraupis montana Hooded Mountain-Tanager 24b
Buthraupis eximia Black-chested Mountain-Tanager 21a
Buthraupis aureodorsalis Golden-backed Mountain-Tanager 21a, 22
Buthraupis wetmorei Masked Mountain-Tanager 22a
Anisognathus melanogenys Black-cheeked Mountain-Tanager 23, 23a, 23b, 24b
Anisognathus lacrymosus Lacrimose Mountain-Tanager 23a, 23b, 23c
Anisognathus igniventris Scarlet-bellied Mountain-Tanager 23b
Anisognathus somptuosus Blue-winged Mountain-Tanager 24, 24a
Anisognathus notabilis Black-chinned Mountain-Tanager 24a
Chlorornis riefferii Grass-green Tanager 24b
Dubusia taeniata Buff-breasted Mountain-Tanager 24b, 25
Delothraupis castaneoventris Chestnut-bellied Mountain-Tanager 24b, 25a
“Saltator” rufiventris Rufous-bellied Saltator 25b
Stephanophorus diadematus Diademed Tanager
Iridosornis porphyrocephalus Purplish-mantled Tanager 26, 26b
Iridosornis analis Yellow-throated Tanager 26
Iridosornis jelskii Golden-collared Tanager
Iridosornis rufivertex Golden-crowned Tanager 27
Iridosornis reinhardti Yellow-scarfed Tanager 27
Pipraeidea melanonota Fawn-breasted Tanager 17b
Chlorochrysa phoenicotis Glistening-green Tanager 27a, 28
Chlorochrysa calliparaea Orange-eared Tanager 28
Chlorochrysa nitidissima Multicolored Tanager
Tangara ruficervix Golden-naped Tanager 30b, 30c
Tangara cyanoptera Black-headed Tanager 36, 36a
Tangara viridicollis Silvery Tanager 33, 34
Tangara heinei Black-capped Tanager 33
Tangara argyrofenges Green-throated Tanager 33, 35
Tangara phillipsi Sira Tanager 32, 33
Tangara palmeri Gray-and-gold Tanager 28ab
Tangara peruviana Black-backed Tanager 29, 30a
Tangara preciosa Chestnut-backed Tanager 29, 29a, 30a, 30aa
Tangara meyerdeschauenseei Green-capped Tanager 30, 30a
Tangara cayana Burnished-buff Tanager 30a, 30aa
Tangara vitriolina Scrub Tanager 29b, 30a
Tangara nigrocincta Masked Tanager 31
Tangara larvata Golden-hooded Tanager 31, 31a
Tangara cyanicollis Blue-necked Tanager
Tangara varia Dotted Tanager 28cc
Tangara rufigula Rufous-throated Tanager 28cc
Tangara guttata Speckled Tanager 28cc, 28e
Tangara xanthogastra Yellow-bellied Tanager 28c, 28cc
Tangara punctata Spotted Tanager 28cc
Tangara vassorii Blue-and-black Tanager 32a
Tangara nigroviridis Beryl-spangled Tanager 32a
Tangara labradorides Metallic-green Tanager 30c
Tangara cyanotis Blue-browed Tanager 30c
Tangara inornata Plain-colored Tanager 28a, 28aa, 28aa
Tangara mexicana Turquoise Tanager 28aa, 28f
Tangara chilensis Paradise Tanager 28bb, 37a
Tangara velia Opal-rumped Tanager 37, 37a
Tangara callophrys Opal-crowned Tanager 37a
Tangara seledon Green-headed Tanager 28b, 28bb
Tangara fastuosa Seven-colored Tanager 28b, 28bb
Tangara cyanocephala Red-necked Tanager 28b
Tangara desmaresti Brassy-breasted Tanager 28b, 28bbbb
Tangara cyanoventris Gilt-edged Tanager 28b, 28bbbb
Tangara lavinia Rufous-winged Tanager 28d
Tangara gyrola Bay-headed Tanager 28d
Tangara rufigenis Rufous-cheeked Tanager 28d
Tangara chrysotis Golden-eared Tanager 28bbb
Tangara xanthocephala Saffron-crowned Tanager 28bbb
Tangara parzudakii Flame-faced Tanager 28bbb
Tangara schrankii Green-and-gold Tanager 28bbb
Tangara johannae Blue-whiskered Tanager 28bbb
Tangara arthus Golden Tanager 28bbb
Tangara florida Emerald Tanager 28bbb
Tangara icterocephala Silver-throated Tanager 28bbb
Tersina viridis Swallow Tanager 38
Dacnis albiventris White-bellied Dacnis 39
Dacnis lineata Black-faced Dacnis 40
Dacnis flaviventer Yellow-bellied Dacnis
Dacnis hartlaubi Turquoise Dacnis 41
Dacnis nigripes Black-legged Dacnis
Dacnis venusta Scarlet-thighed Dacnis
Dacnis cayana Blue Dacnis
Dacnis viguieri Viridian Dacnis
Dacnis berlepschi Scarlet-breasted Dacnis
Cyanerpes nitidus Short-billed Honeycreeper 39
Cyanerpes lucidus Shining Honeycreeper 41a
Cyanerpes caeruleus Purple Honeycreeper 41a
Cyanerpes cyaneus Red-legged Honeycreeper
Chlorophanes spiza Green Honeycreeper 42, 42a
Iridophanes pulcherrimus Golden-collared Honeycreeper 43, 43b
Heterospingus xanthopygius Scarlet-browed Tanager 43c, 43d
Hemithraupis guira Guira Tanager 44, 43d
Hemithraupis ruficapilla Rufous-headed Tanager 44
Hemithraupis flavicollis Yellow-backed Tanager
Chrysothlypis chrysomelas Black-and-yellow Tanager 43d, 45
Chrysothlypis salmoni Scarlet-and-white Tanager 46
Conirostrum speciosum Chestnut-vented Conebill 47, 48
Conirostrum leucogenys White-eared Conebill 48
Conirostrum bicolor Bicolored Conebill 48
Conirostrum margaritae Pearly-breasted Conebill 48
Conirostrum cinereum Cinereous Conebill 48b
Conirostrum sitticolor Blue-backed Conebill
Conirostrum albifrons Capped Conebill 48c
Conirostrum rufum Rufous-browed Conebill
Conirostrum tamarugense Tamarugo Conebill 49
Conirostrum ferrugineiventre White-browed Conebill 50
Oreomanes fraseri Giant Conebill 50
Xenodacnis parina Tit-like Dacnis 51, 51a
Diglossa gloriosissima Chestnut-bellied Flowerpiercer 54
Diglossa lafresnayii Glossy Flowerpiercer 54
Diglossa mystacalis Moustached Flowerpiercer 54
Diglossa gloriosa Merida Flowerpiercer 55
Diglossa humeralis Black Flowerpiercer 55
Diglossa brunneiventris Black-throated Flowerpiercer 55
Diglossa carbonaria Gray-bellied Flowerpiercer 55
Diglossa venezuelensis Venezuelan Flowerpiercer 56
Diglossa albilatera White-sided Flowerpiercer 56
Diglossa duidae Scaled Flowerpiercer
Diglossa major Greater Flowerpiercer
Diglossa indigotica Indigo Flowerpiercer 57
Diglossa sittoides Rusty Flowerpiercer 52, 52a, 53
Diglossa glauca Deep-blue Flowerpiercer 57, 57a
Diglossa caerulescens Bluish Flowerpiercer 55, 57
Diglossa cyanea Masked Flowerpiercer 55, 57, 57b
Catamblyrhynchus diadema Plushcap 58, 58a
Urothraupis stolzmanni Black-backed Bush Tanager 59

1. [note on linear sequence =  follows Burns (1997, 1998), Burns (2002), and Burns [unpublished data]. <Storer 1969 and references therein; also those in Meyer de Schauensee 1966> The genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia, traditionally placed in this family, have been transferred to the Fringillidae (see below).

1a. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Schistochlamys, Cissopis, and Neothraupis are each other's closest relatives.

1b. Cissopis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is leverianus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
1c. Storer (1960)<> suspected that Conothraupis was closely related to Sporophila based on remarkable plumage similarities; Zimmer (1947) had previously suspected that Conothraupis was a "finch" and not a "tanager" based on bill shape.

1cc. Conothraupis mesoleuca was described in the monotypic genus Rhynchothraupis, but see Bond (1951a) for placement in Conothraupis, as in Hellmayr (1936) and most subsequent classifications.

1d. Some genetic data (Yuri & Mindell 2002) fail to find support for inclusion of Lamprospiza in Thraupidae; its placement in the Thraupidae was questioned by (REFS).

2. Compsothraupis has been included by some (e.g., Zimmer 1947, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) in Sericossypha, but Storer (1970a) suspected that their similarities represented convergence.

3. Although Sericossypha albocristata was at one time suspected of not being a tanager (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), morphological (Morony 1985) and genetic data (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) support its traditional placement in the Thraupidae.

3a. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Sericossypha and Nemosia are closely related and probably sister taxa.

4. The two species of Creurgops form a superspecies.

4a. Creurgops dentatus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in a separate genus, Malacothraupis.

4b. Creurgops is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is dentatus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

4c. "Malacothraupis gustavi," known from southern Peru and northern Bolivia and treated reluctantly as a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), is now known to be a synonym (male plumage) of Creurgops dentatus (Bond & Meyer de Schauensee 1941, Zimmer 1947b), as suspected by Hellmayr (1936). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

5. Despite concerns over the monophyly of the genus Hemispingus owing to rather disparate morphology, genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001) provided some support for monophyly for the taxa for which genetic samples are available, including the most morphologically divergent species, H. rufosuperciliaris. A subsequent analysis of a larger data set, however, could not confirm or reject monophyly of the genus (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). Some authors (e.g., Ridgway 1902) considered Hemispingus and Cnemoscopus to be members of the Parulidae, but recent genetic data (Burns REF, Klicka et al. 2007) corroborate that they are correctly placed in the Thraupidae.

6. Hemispingus calophrys was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a) considered a subspecies of H. atropileus, but Weske & Terborgh (1974) provided rationale for treating southern calophrys as a species separate from H. atropileus; this treatment has been followed by most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but not by Isler & Isler (1987). Inclusion of calophrys in H. atropileus would make that broad species paraphyletic with respect to H. parodii, the sister taxon of H. calophrys (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). The subspecies auricularis is at least as distinct genetically and morphologically, and should presumably given equal taxonomic rank (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). Proposal needed. Taxa ranked as species in this group were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

7. Recently described: Weske & Terborgh (1974).

8. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) indicate that Hemispingus superciliaris clusters with the group of Hemispingus that consists of H. verticalis-H. xanthophthalmus; plumage similarities also suggest that H. reyi belongs in this group. SACC proposal to alter linear sequence did not pass.

8a. The leucogaster subspecies group of Peru and the subspecies chrysophrys of Venezuela were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered separate species from Hemispingus superciliaris, but see Zimmer (1947).

8b. "Basileuterus zimmeri," described from Venezuela, is now known to be a synonym of Hemispingus superciliaris chrysophrys (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

9. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suspected that the Venezuelan subspecies collectively (as H. ignobilis) might deserve separate species status from Hemispingus frontalis; Hilty (2003), however, noted that their vocalizations and behavior were similar.

10. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) indicate that the distinctive taxon piurae, currently treated as a subspecies of H. melanotis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is more distant from the latter than is H. frontalis, and that piurae is basal to frontalis + melanotis; these analyses, however, are based on only ca. 300 base-pairs of mtDNA. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated piurae as a separate species from H. melanotis based on plumage and vocal differences. SACC proposal to recognize piurae as a species did not pass. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) further recognized the subspecies ochraceus based on plumage differences. Proposal needed.

11. Recently described: Blake & Hocking (1974).

12. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) support the traditional view based on plumage, morphology, and biogeography (Parker et al. 1985, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990) that Hemispingus verticalis and H. xanthophthalmus are sister species and form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in a separate genus, Pseudospingus, but Zimmer (1947) merged this into Hemispingus.

12a. Hemispingus trifasciatus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in the monotypic genus Microspingus, but Zimmer (1947) merged this into Hemispingus. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) support the continued inclusion of this species in Hemispingus, although its relationships to other taxa within that genus remain uncertain.

12b. <REF> included Cnemoscopus within Hemispingus, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors; genetic data (REFS, Burns et al. 2003, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) are consistent with a close relationship.

12c. The southern subspecies chrysogaster was formerly (e.g., REF <any since Berlepsch 1912?>) considered a separate species from Cnemoscopus rubrirostris.

12d. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thlypopsis ornata and T. pectoralis to form a superspecies; they are parapatric sister species that may be sympatric at some localities (Zimmer 1947b).

12e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thlypopsis sordida and T. inornata to form a superspecies; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific, but they may be sympatric at some localities (Zimmer 1947b).

13. Recently described species and genus: Lowery & Tallman (1976). Although initially uncertain to which family this genus belonged, genetic data indicate that it is a tanager (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003).

14. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Eucometis, Tachyphonus, and Lanio are closely related and that Coryphospingus, currently placed in the Emberizidae, is also part of this group.  Burns and Racicot (2009), however, found that Tachyphonus is not a monophyletic group, with some species (T. coronatus, T. rufus, and T. phoenicius) more closely related to Ramphocelus than to other Tachyphonus, and T. surinamus more closely related to Eucometis + Trichothraupis than to other Tachyphonus.  Burns and Racicot (2009) confirmed the close relationship of these genera along with Lanio as represented in the traditional linear sequences of genera within the Thraupidae, including Eucometis and Trichothraupis as sister genera.  However, they also found that the “emberizid” genera Coryphospingus and Rhodospingus are members of this clade, with the latter possibly embedded within one group of Tachyphonus.  SACC proposal badly needed to transfer Rhodospingus and Coryphospingus to Thraupidae.  Burns and Racicot recommended broader generic limits in this group to avoid naming as many as three new genera, but a broadly defined Ramphocelus and Lanio would produce genera of with far greater morphological heterogeneity than in traditional passerine genera.

14a. "Tachyphonus nattereri," known from two specimens from southwestern Brazil and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), Pinto (1944), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), is now usually considered a subspecies of, or an aberrant individual of, T. cristatus (Zimmer 1945b, Storer 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

14b. Burns and Racicot (2009) found that Tachyphonus cristatus and T. rufiventer were sisters, with T. luctuosus sister to these two.  SACC proposal need to modify linear sequence.

14c. Tachyphonus rufiventer was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944) known as Tachyphonus metallactus, but see Zimmer (1945b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

14d.  Burns and Racicot (2009) found that Tachyphonus coronatus and T. rufus were sisters, with T. phoenicius sister to these two (thus consistent with traditional linear sequences). 

15. Lanio fulvus and L. versicolor form a superspecies (Haffer 1987).

16. Ramphocelus dimidiatus, R. carbo, R. melanogaster, and R. bresilius form a superspecies (Novaes 1959, Storer 1970a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ramphocelus carbo and R. melanogaster hybridize to an uncertain extent in Peru (Zimmer 1945b), but they are generally considered separate species because there is no sign of intergradation between the two. Ramphocelus carbo and R. bresilius hybridize to an uncertain extent in southeastern Brazil (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). <check Novaes 1959>  Burns and Racicot (2009) noted that levels of sequence divergence between these pairs are consistent with low levels of gene flow between them and their continued treatment as species.  They also found the following relationships among cis-Andean Ramphocelus: (dimidiatus + nigrogularis) + [bresilius + (carbo + melanogaster)]; the traditional linear sequence is consistent with these relationships.

16a. Called "Huallaga Tanager" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

16b. "Ramphocelus ciropalbicaudatus" Frisch, (2007. Nature Society News, Griggsville 42[5]:13) used this name for a "new species" of Ramphocelus tanager that he photographed in São Paulo, Brazil. The description not qualify as a valid description under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature; furthermore, the individual bird is most likely a partially leucistic R. carbo. See CBRO web page: (http://www.cbro.org.br/CBRO/justif.htm#Rhamphocelus%20ciropalbicaudatus%20F).  See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

17. The taxon icteronotus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species from Ramphocelus flammigerus, but intergradation between them in southwestern Colombia (Chapman 1917, Sibley 1958) led Storer (1970a) to consider them conspecific, and this treatment has been followed by most authors subsequently (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990). However, as noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), the differences between these two are comparable to those between two Ramphocelus taxa (passerinii and costaricensis) recently treated as separate species (Hackett 1996, AOU 1998). [The problem is that the two Middle American taxa should not have been split acc. to Stiles] Proposal needed?

17a. Ramphocelus flammigerus forms a superspecies with Middle American R. passerinii (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Storer 1970a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

17b. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) suggest that Thraupis and Pipraeidea are closely related and presumably sister genera. However, Thraupis itself is polyphyletic (Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2009), so a more complete Thraupidae phylogeny is needed before changes can be made.  SACC proposal pending to modify generic limits.

17c. The species name formerly (e.g., REFS, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) for Thraupis episcopus was virens, but see <REF>.

18. Zimmer (1944a) suggested that Thraupis sayaca is only a subspecies of T. episcopus; the population in their area of contact, boliviana, is somewhat intermediate in plumage; it was described as a subspecies of T. episcopus but is closer in plumage to T. sayaca (Gyldenstolpe 1945). However, Gyldenstolpe (1945) found the two species sympatric in northern Bolivia; also, the two evidently differ in vocalizations (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Also, T. glaucocolpa, roughly as distinct phenotypically from T. episcopus as T. sayaca is, is broadly sympatric with T. episcopus (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Thraupis episcopus, T. sayaca, and T. glaucocolpa were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but T. glaucocolpa cannot be included because of it is almost completely overlapping in distribution with T. episcopus. Although Middle American and trans-Andean populations, the cana group, were treated as separate species by Ridgway (19##; "Blue Tanager"), they have been treated as conspecific since at least Hellmayr (1936). <track reasons for change> However, the cana group is superficially similar to T. sayaca, more so than it is to the pale-shouldered Amazonian episcopus group. Therefore, if sayaca is treated as a separate species, perhaps the cana group should also be returned to species rank.

19. Thraupis glaucocolpa was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a) treated as a subspecies of T. sayaca, but most recent classifications have treated it as a separate species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee & Phelps 1978, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

19a. The subspecies olivicyanea of the Coastal Range of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., REF <since Berlepsch 1912?) considered a separate species from Thraupis cyanocephala, but they evidently intergrade where in contact (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).

19b. The Andean subspecies darwinii was formerly (e.g., Chapman 1926, Zimmer 1930) considered a separate species from Thraupis bonariensis.

20. Storer (1970a) merged Bangsia into Buthraupis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors; see Monroe et al. (1993).  They are not sister genera (Sedano & Burns 2009).

21. Storer (1970a) merged Wetmorethraupis into Buthraupis, but this has not been followed by most subsequent authors; see Isler & Isler (1987).  They are not sister genera (Sedano & Burns 2009).

21a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Buthraupis eximia and B. aureodorsalis to form a superspecies.

22. Recently described: Blake & Hocking (1974).

22a. Buthraupis wetmorei was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in a monotypic genus, Tephrophilus.

23. Called "Santa Marta Mountain-Tanager" by Ridgely & Tudor (1989). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

23a. Anisognathus melanogenys and A. lacrymosus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1936) and Storer (1970a). See Donegan and Avendaño (2010) for evidence supporting species rank for melanogenys.  SACC proposal did not pass to treat melanogenys as a subspecies of lacrymosus.

23b. Anisognathus melanogenys, A. lacrymosus, and A. igniventris were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in the genus Poecilothraupis, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

23c. SACC proposal to change spelling of English name to "Lachrymose" did not pass.

24. Anisognathus somptuosus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) known as A. flavinuchus (or flavinucha), but see Sibley & Monroe (1990).

24a. Anisognathus somptuosus and A. notabilis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1944a, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in the genus Compsocoma, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

24b. Contrary to traditional linear sequences, genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004, Sedano & Burns 2009) indicate that Chlorornis is a member of a group of Andean tanager genera that consists of Buthraupis, Anisognathus, Delothraupis, Dubusia, and Calochaetes (and presumably also Bangsia and Wetmorethraupis).  SACC proposal pending to modify generic limits.

25. The subspecies carrikeri of the Santa Marta Mountains, was described as a separate species from Dubusia taeniata, but was treated as a subspecies of the latter by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent authors.  Described as a separate species and treated as such by Chapman (1926), the southern subspecies stictocephala was treated as a subspecies of D. taeniata by Hellmayr (1936) and subsequent authors.  Vocal differences between it and nominate taeniata are pronounced (Robbins et al., unpubl. data).  SACC proposal to elevate stictocephala to species rank did not pass.

25a. Delothraupis was merged into Dubusia by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and <REFS>. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004, Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2009) indicate that Delothraupis and Dubusia are sister taxa.  SACC proposal pending to merge these two genera.

25b.  Hellack and Schnell (1977, REFs) previously noted that “Saltator” rufiventris was an unusual saltator based on plumage and morphology. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) have revealed that “Saltator” rufiventris is definitely not a saltator but a tanager, closely related to Delothraupis and Dubusia. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.  Because there is no other genus name available, the species is maintained here provisionally, as indicated by quotation marks, pending a proposal to move to Dubusia or naming of a new genus.

26. Iridosornis porphyrocephalus and I. analis form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species is weak (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1936). Orcés (1944) reported them to be sympatric in southern Ecuador, but the locality for I. porphyrocephalus is widely regarded as dubious (Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Paynter 1993, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

26b. Iridosornis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is porphyrocephalus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

27. Iridosornis reinhardti was considered a subspecies of I. rufivertex by Hellmayr (1936), Zimmer (1944a), and Storer (1970a); they form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

27a. Although Chlorochrysa is traditionally placed next to Tangara in linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that they are not closely related.

28. Chlorochrysa phoenicotis and C. calliparaea form a superspecies (REF).

28a. Despite being one of the largest genera in the world in terms of species richness, genetic data (Burns and Naoki 2004) strongly support Tangara as a monophyletic group. The genus Tangara was formerly called Calospiza (e.g., Hellmayr 1936), and in literature from the 1800s, Calliste; see Zimmer (1943b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Although Burns and Naoki (2004) found support for the monophyly of the genus, relationships within the genus were found to differ from those implied by traditional linear sequences. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.  Sedano & Burns (2009), however, found that Tangara was monophyletic only if Thraupis was included.  SACC proposal pending to modify generic limits.

28aa. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara inornata and T. mexicana were sister species based on similarities in sociality, feeding behavior, habitat, and voice. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) corroborate this relationship. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.

28ab. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara palmeri and Middle American T. cabanisi were sister species based on similarities in plumage, habitat, and voice.

28b. Storer (1970a) considered Tangara cyanocephala and T. desmaresti to form a superspecies. Isler & Isler (1987) considered these two to form a species group with T. cyanoventris. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Tangara cyanocephala and T. desmaresti are likely sister species (T. cyanoventris not sampled), and that they form a monophyletic group with T. seledon and T. fastuosa, which are also sister species.

28bb. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara chilensis, T. seledon, and T. fastuosa were sister species based on similarities in plumage, behavior, habitat, biogeography, and voice. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004), however, do not corroborate this relationship; see Notes 28b and 37b.

28bbb. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara johannae, T. schrankii, T. florida, T. arthus, T. icterocephala, T. xanthocephala, T. chrysotis, and T. parzudakii form a species group based on similarities in plumage and foraging behavior. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this as a monophyletic group.

28bbbb. "Tangara gouldi," known only from the type specimens from southeastern Brazil and considered a species by Hellmayr (1936) and Pinto (1944), is considered a hybrid (T. cyanoventris X T. desmaresti) (Bond 1947, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Storer 1970a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

28c. Hilty (2003) suspected that the subspecies phelpsi of the Tepuis might deserve recognition as a separate species from Tangara xanthogastra.

28cc. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara xanthogastra, T. punctata, T. guttata, T. varia, and T. rufigula form a species group based on plumage and vocal similarities. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this as a monophyletic group.

28d. Storer (1970a) considered Tangara gyrola and T. lavinia to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this relationship. Isler & Isler (1987) suggested that T. rufigenis might also be part of this group based on plumage and habitat similarities.

28dd. As pointed out by Meyer de Schauensee (1966), the differences among subspecies groups currently treated included in T. gyrola seem to be at least of the same magnitude as those between T. gyrola and T. lavinia; indeed, the viridissima subspecies group and the bangsi subspecies group were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1902, Chapman 1925) each treated as separate species from T. gyrola.

28e. The species named used for Tangara guttata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) chrysophrys, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Storer (1970a).

28f. The subspecies brasiliensis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) treated as a separate species from Tangara mexicana, but most classifications have followed Zimmer (1943c) in treated them as conspecific.

29. Some authors (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Sick 1997) have suspected that Tangara peruviana and T. preciosa are actually color morphs of the same species, but they are largely parapatric with little or no evidence for interbreeding (Firme et al. 2007).

29a. The species named used for Tangara preciosa was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944) castanonota, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Storer (1970a).

29b. The species named used for Tangara vitriolina was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) ruficapilla, but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Storer (1970a).

30. Recently described: Schulenberg & Binford (1985).

30a. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara cayana, T. peruviana, T. preciosa, T. meyerdeschauenseei, T. vitriolina, and West Indian T. cucullata form a species group based on similarities in plumage and habitat. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) corroborate the close relationship among Tangara cayana, T. vitriolina, T. cucullata, and T. meyerdeschauenseei (T. peruviana and T. preciosa not sampled).

30aa. "Tangara arnaulti," known from one aviary specimen and reluctantly considered a valid species by Hellmayr (1936) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966); presumably a hybrid (T. preciosa X T. cayana) (Hellmayr 1936, Bond 1951a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Storer 1970a, Ingels 1971). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

30b. The southern subspecies fulvicervix was formerly (e.g., Berlepsch 1912) considered a separate species from Tangara ruficervix, a treatment that will almost certainly be restored; they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1936) and subsequent authors; they differ in more plumage features than do many pairs of Tangara treated as separate species, yet they show limited genetic divergence (Burns & Naoki 2004).

30c. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara ruficervix, T. labradorides, and T. cyanotis formed a species group based on plumage similarities. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) do not confirm this relationship; these three species do not cluster within any of the other species groups in the genus.

31. Tangara larvata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1943b, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of T. nigrocincta, but most classifications have generally followed Eisenmann (1957) in treating it as a separate species; see Wetmore et al. (1984) for rationale. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) show that T. larvata is actually more closely related to T. cyanicollis than either is to T. nigrocincta, thus confirming treatment of T. nigrocincta as a separate species from T. larvata and negating treatment of T. larvata and T. nigrocincta as members of superspecies.

31a. Formerly known as "Golden-masked Tanager" (e.g., AOU 1983), but see <Ridgely REF>.

32. Recently described: Graves & Weske (1987).

32a. Isler & Isler (1987) proposed that Tangara vassorii and T. nigroviridis formed a species group with Central American T. dowii and T. fucosa. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm their close relationship, with T. vassorii basal to the other three,

33. Graves & Weske (1987) proposed that Tangara heinei, T. phillipsi, T. argyrofenges, and T. viridicollis formed a monophyletic group. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) corroborate the close relationship of Tangara heinei, T. argyrofenges, and T. viridicollis. Sibley & Monroe (1990) proposed that T. heinei and T. phillipsi formed a superspecies.

34. Called "Silver-backed Tanager" by Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

35. Called "Straw-backed Tanager" by Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

36. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Tangara cyanoptera is the sister to the T. heinei species complex (see Note 33), thus corroborating its traditional position in linear sequences.

36a. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Hilty (2003) suspected that the subspecies whitelyi of the Tepui region might deserve treatment as a separate species from Tangara cyanoptera.

37. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suspected that the subspecies cyanomela of the Atlantic forest region of Brazil deserves consideration as a separate species status from Tangara velia.

37a. Tangara velia and T. callophrys were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Zimmer 1943a, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in a separate genus, Tanagrella; similarities in plumage and bill shape have suggested to most authors (e.g., Isler & Isler 1987) that T. velia and T. callophrys are sister species. Genetic data (Burns & Naoki 2004) confirm this relationship and also indicate that T. chilensis is the sister species to these two.

38. Tersina was formerly placed in its own monotypic family, Tersinidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Tordoff 1954a, <>George 1962, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), or subfamily or tribe with the tanagers (e.g., Tersininae as in Storer 1970a, or Tersinini as in <REF>); in all these treatments it was considered the sister taxon to all other tanagers. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as well as morphological data (Raikow 1978), however, indicate that it is embedded within the tanagers, and most closely related to Dacnis and Cyanerpes (Burns et al. 2003). <Sibley & Ahlquist 1973b>

39. The genera Dacnis and Cyanerpes were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered members of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but they were considered to be tanagers on the basis of skull structure by Tordoff (1954a) and were placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1969, 1970a). This has been followed in most subsequent classifications. Molecular data indicate that they are sister genera, but embedded within the tanagers, forming a group with Tersina (Burns et al. 2002, 2003).

39a. Dacnis albiventris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) placed in a monotypic genus, Hemidacnis, but Zimmer (1942d) merged this into Dacnis.

40. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out the trans-Andean egregia group may deserve species rank. Ridgely et al. (2001) considered egregia a species separate from lineata based on plumage differences and disjunct range. SACC proposal to recognize Dacnis egregia as a separate species did not pass because of insufficient published data.

41. Dacnis hartlaubi was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in a monotypic genus, Pseudodacnis and included in the Thraupidae (as "Turquoise Dacnis-Tanager") when other Dacnis were placed in the Coerebidae. Storer (1969, 1970a) merged this genus into Dacnis, and subsequent classifications have followed this treatment.

41a. Cyanerpes lucidus and C. caeruleus form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1935), but they are sympatric in northwestern Colombia.

42. The genus Chlorophanes was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but Tordoff (1954a) considered it a tanager on the basis of skull morphology and Storer (1969, 1970a) placed it in the Thraupidae. Genetic data indicate that it is embedded within the tanagers; molecular data do not support a close relationship to Dacnis or Cyanerpes, but its closest relatives remain uncertain (Burns et al. 2002, 2003).

42a. "Chlorophanes purpurascens," known only from the type specimen from "Caracas" and considered a valid species by Hellmayr (1935), is presumably a hybrid. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

43. Iridophanes pulcherrimus was placed in the genus Tangara by Storer (1970a) because of its stunning similarity in plumage to T. cyanoptera, but genetic data (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2003) indicates that it may be the sister genus to Chlorophanes, corroborating predictions from bill shape and behavior (Ridgely & Tudor 1989).

43b. Iridophanes is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is pulcherrimus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

43c. Heterospingus xanthopygius forms a superspecies with Central American H. rubrifrons (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Storer 1970a) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications follow Wetmore et al. (1984) in treating them as separate species because of the radical differences in male plumage; they are not, however, sympatric (Wetmore et al. 1984; contra Haffer 1975).

43d. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Chrysothlypis and Hemithraupis are closely related and probably sister taxa, and that Heterospingus is also part of this group.

44. Hemithraupis guira and H. ruficapilla hybridize to at least some degree but do not intergrade where they come in contact (Zimmer 1947b, Sick REF?); they are sister species that constitute a superspecies (Zimmer 1947b, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

45. Correct spelling for species name is chrysomelas, not chrysomelaena (David & Gosselin 2002a).

45a. [need citation for record for Colombia]

46. Chrysothlypis salmoni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Erythrothlypis, but subsequent classifications have followed its merger by Storer (1970a) into Chrysothlypis. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that Chrysothlypis itself could be merged into Hemithraupis. See Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for doubts as to whether Erythrothlypis should be considered congeneric with Chrysothlypis.

47. The genus Conirostrum was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, and by others a member of the Parulidae (Ridgway 1902, Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954a, Lowery & Monroe 1968). Genetic data (based on C. speciosum, C. bicolor, and C. sitticolor) indicate that it should be included in the tanagers, with Oreomanes as the sister genus (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) or perhaps included within Conirostrum (Lovette & Bermingham 2002).

48. Conirostrum speciosum, C. leucogenys, C. bicolor, and C. margaritae were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Tordoff 1954a) placed in a separate genus, Ateleodacnis, but see Zimmer (1942d) for its merger into Conirostrum. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that this lowland group was quite distinct from montane Conirostrum, perhaps meriting a return to treatment as a separate genus.

48b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies littorale of western Peru might deserve recognition as a separate species from Conirostrum cinereum.

48c. The atrocyanea subspecies group was formerly (e.g., <REFS, not Hellmayr 1935>) considered a separate species from Conirostrum albifrons.

49. Recently described: Johnson & Millie (1972); described as C. tamarugensis, but see Mayr & Vuilleumier (1983).

50. The genus Oreomanes was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, and by others a member of the Parulidae <REF>; it was tentatively placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a). Genetic data indicate that it should be included in the tanagers, with Conirostrum as the sister genus (Burns et al. 2002, 2003). A hybrid Oreomanes fraseri X C. ferrugineiventre and plumage, morphological, and foraging similarities also supports their close relationship (Schulenberg 1985, Fjeldså 1992). Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that plumage similarities suggest a close link between Oreomanes and Poospiza. <Beecher>

51. The genus Xenodacnis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but it was placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a); genetic data indicate that it should be included in the Thraupidae, and that it forms a group with Acanthidops, Diglossa, and Catamenia (Burns et al. 2002, 2003); its relationship to other "Coerebidae" was questioned long ago by Zimmer (1942d). <Beecher>

51a. The northern petersi subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Bond & Meyer de Schauensee 1939) considered a separate species from Xenodacnis parina.

52. The genus Diglossa was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae. Others considered it a member of the Parulidae (e.g., AOU 1983) or Emberizidae (REF) because of its apparent close relationship to Acanthidops (Eisenmann in Meyer de Schauensee 1966), traditionally placed in the Emberizidae. Tordoff (1954a) considered Diglossa to be a tanager based on skull morphology, and Storer (1970a) placed it in the Thraupidae; this has been followed in most subsequent classifications. Genetic data confirm that it should be included in the tanagers, and forms a group with Acanthidops, Catamenia, and other genera, many formerly considered emberizine (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Mauck & Burns 2009).  Vuilleumier (1969) divided the genus into four species groups, but genetic data (Mauck & Burns 2009) indicate that these are not monophyletic groups.

52a. The English name "flowerpiercer" is hyphenated in many classifications. SACC proposal to change to "flower-piercer" did not pass.

53. Diglossa sittoides was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Zimmer 1942e, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Wetmore et al. 1984, Isler & Isler 1987) considered conspecific with D. baritula and D. plumbea of Middle America, but see Vuilleumier (1969) and Hackett (1995) for their treatment as separate species, representing a return to the classification of <REF ? Ridgway>; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group: D. sittoides + (D. plumbea + D. baritula).

54. Diglossa gloriosissima and D. mystacalis were considered subspecies of D. lafresnayii by many (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Isler & Isler 1987), but see Vuilleumier (1969) for ranking of these two groups as species separate from D. lafresnayii.  These three form a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Sibley & Monroe 1990).  Genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group and indicate that D. gloriosissima and D. lafresnayii are more closely related than either is to D. mystacalis.

55. Diglossa gloriosa, D. humeralis, D. brunneiventris, and D. carbonaria were formerly considered conspecific ("Carbonated Flower-piercer") by many (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Isler & Isler 1987), but see Graves (1982) for treatment of all four as separate species. However, whether the two disjunct populations of D. brunneiventris are more closely related to each other than to adjacent and intervening D. humeralis populations remains to be determined.  The four species constitute a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.

56. Diglossa venezuelensis and D. albilatera constitute a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Isler & Isler 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.

57. Diglossa caerulescens was formerly treated in the monotypic genus Diglossopis, but was included in Diglossa by Hellmayr (1935).  Bock (1985) proposed separating glauca, caerulescens, and cyanea in the genus Diglossopis, and he interpreted morphological data to indicate that this and Diglossa were not sister genera.  This classification was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), who also added D. indigotica to the genus based on Vuilleumier’s (1969) species groups.  Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003) also recognized Diglossopis.  Genetic data (Mauck & Burns 2009) indicate that species assigned to Diglossopis do not form a monophyletic group: D. cyanea and D. caerulescens are sister species, and D. glauca is sister to these two, but D. indigotica is sister to the D. baritula superspecies.  SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.  SACC proposal to recognize modified Diglossopis did not pass.  Genetic data also indicate that broadly defined Diglossa is a monophyletic group, contra Bock (1985).

57a. Called "Golden-eyed Flowerpiercer" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

57b. Hilty (2003) noted that differences in song between northern and southern populations of Diglossa cyanea suggest that two species may be involved.

58. The genus Catamblyrhynchus is often maintained in a separate monotypic family, Catamblyrhynchidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Tordoff 1954a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or subfamily (Paynter 1970b, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); genetic data suggest that it should be at least tentatively included in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988).

58a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Plush-capped Finch".

59. Genetic data support continued but tentative inclusion of Urothraupis in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990); some authors have included it tentatively in the Emberizidae (e.g., Paynter 1970a), based on superficial similarity to Atlapetes.

64. The genus Paroaria has been placed traditionally in the Emberizidae, sometimes with the cardinal grosbeaks (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970), which in this classification are considered a separate family, Cardinalidae. Tordoff (1954a) concluded that it was not a cardinaline but an emberizine genus, based on skeletal data. Genetic data, however, indicate that the genus Paroaria belongs in the Thraupidae (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns and Naoki 2004, Klicka et al. 2007), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.

65. Paroaria coronata and P. dominicana were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

65a. "Paroaria humberti," described from a captive individual, was treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), who noted that it could be simply a melanistic P. dominicana; it has been treated as such by subsequent authors (e.g., Paynter 1970c). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

66. Paroaria gularis, P. baeri, and P. capitata form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species is weak (Paynter 1970a); Hellmayr (1938) suspected that P. capitata might best be treated as a subspecies of P. gularis, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that baeri might also best be treated as a subspecies of P. gularis.  The subspecies P. g. nigrogenis of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Paroaria gularis.  Dávalos & Porzecanski (2009) also found evidence that nigrogenis was not most closely to P. gularis; they elevated all diagnosable taxa to species rank based on the phylogenetic species concept.  SACC proposal passed to elevate nigrogenis to species rank; SACC proposal to elevate cervicalis and xinguensis to species rank did not pass.

66b. <Coccopsis for Paroaria as in Phelps & Phelps 1950a.>

INCERTAE SEDIS:

[Almost certainly do not belong in their traditional families, listed here Incertae Sedis; see Burns (1997) Burns et al. (2002, 2003), Klicka et al. (2000), Yuri & Mindell (2002). AOU Checklist is currently reviewing proposal to move Piranga through Chlorothraupis to Cardinalidae, where placed by Jonsson & Fjeldså (2006):]

Mitrospingus cassinii Dusky-faced Tanager 8a
Mitrospingus oleagineus Olive-backed Tanager 8a
Rhodinocichla rosea Rosy Thrush-Tanager 9, 9a
Coereba flaveola Bananaquit 18
Tiaris olivaceus Yellow-faced Grassquit 18, 19, 21
Tiaris obscurus Dull-colored Grassquit 20, 21, 22
Tiaris fuliginosus Sooty Grassquit 20, 21
Tiaris bicolor Black-faced Grassquit
Certhidea olivacea Green Warbler-Finch 18, 23, 24, 24a
Certhidea fusca Gray Warbler-Finch 24
Platyspiza crassirostris Vegetarian Finch 23
Camarhynchus pallidus Woodpecker Finch 25
Camarhynchus psittacula Large Tree-Finch 26
Camarhynchus pauper Medium Tree-Finch
Camarhynchus parvulus Small Tree-Finch 24a
Camarhynchus heliobates Mangrove Finch 25
Geospiza fuliginosa Small Ground-Finch
Geospiza magnirostris Large Ground-Finch
Geospiza difficilis Sharp-beaked Ground-Finch 27, 27a
Geospiza scandens Common Cactus-Finch
Geospiza fortis Medium Ground-Finch 28
Geospiza conirostris Large Cactus-Finch 28a
Saltator grossus Slate-colored Grosbeak 38, 38a
Saltator fuliginosus Black-throated Grosbeak 38
Saltator maximus Buff-throated Saltator
Saltator atripennis Black-winged Saltator
Saltator coerulescens Grayish Saltator 39, 40
Saltator similis Green-winged Saltator 39
Saltator maxillosus Thick-billed Saltator 39, 41
Saltator orenocensis Orinocan Saltator
Saltator nigriceps Black-cowled Saltator 42
Saltator aurantiirostris Golden-billed Saltator 42
Saltator striatipectus Streaked Saltator 43
Saltator cinctus Masked Saltator 44
Saltator atricollis Black-throated Saltator 44, 58b
Saltatricula multicolor Many-colored Chaco Finch 58b
Parkerthraustes humeralis Yellow-shouldered Grosbeak 46

9. Familial affinities of Rhodinocichla rosea have always been uncertain, with some suspecting that it might be closest to the Mimidae (Skutch 1962), but traditionally placed in the tanagers (Eisenmann 1962), with support from morphological data (Clark 1974, Raikow 1978); genetic data (Seutin and Bermingham 1997) suggest that it is closest to some "tanagers". Storer (1970a) suspected that plumage similarities between Rhodinocichla and Granatellus suggested a close relationship between the two.

9a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Rose-breasted Thrush-Tanager."

18. Until recently, the relationships of Coereba remained unresolved, and temporary treatment as a monotypic family (e.g., AOU 1998) seemed warranted. Some authors (Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954a, Lowery & Monroe 1968) have included it within the Parulidae, and others (e.g., Bledsoe 1988) have included it within the Thraupidae; the most recent genetic data set (Burns et al. 2002) provides strong support for a monophyletic group consisting of Coereba, Tiaris, and the Galapagos finches (including Pinaroloxias), as well as Caribbean genera Euneornis, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha; this group appears to be embedded within the thraupine lineage. Lovette & Bermingham's (2002) genetic data were also consistent with placement of Coereba in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to abandon the family name "Coerebidae" and to move Coereba elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to move next to Tiaris and Galapagos "finches", and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

19. Genetic data indicate that Tiaris belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as part of a group that includes Coereba, the Galapagos finches, and several Caribbean genera (see also Sato et al. 2001, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed move Tiaris and Galapagos "finches" next to Coereba, and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category. Tiaris itself is also paraphyletic, with minimally olivacea, the type species of the genus, not being not particularly close to other "Tiaris." Tiaris had formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, AOU 1957) been placed with the cardinalines, and then with the emberizines based on skeletal morphology (Tordoff 1954a).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae

20. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) indicate that Tiaris fuliginosus and T. obscurus are sister species.

21. Tiaris is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are olivaceus, obscurus, and fuliginosus (David & Gosselin 2002b).

22. Tiaris obscurus was formerly placed in the genus Sporophila and known as "Dull-colored Seedeater" (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but nest structure and voice indicate that it belongs in Tiaris (Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), as confirmed by recent genetic (Burns et al. 2002, Lijtmaer et al. 2004) and morphological (Clark 1986) data.

23. Genetic data indicate that the Galapagos finches belong in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as part of a group that includes Coereba, Tiaris, and several Caribbean genera (see also Akie et al. 2001, Sato et al. 2001, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move Tiaris and Galapagos "finches" next to Coereba, and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category. SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.  Classification of Galapagos finches based on Petren et al. (1999), Sato et al. (1999, 2001), and Burns et al. (2002), who found that resurrection of Platyspiza for crassirostris is required to keep Camarhynchus from being paraphyletic (and that extralimital Pinaroloxias is embedded within the Galapagos finches). <incorp. Freeland and Boag 1999a.> The Galapagos finches were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) placed in a separate subfamily, Geospizinae, from other sparrows and finches, but were placed in the Emberizinae by Mayr and Amadon (1951) and Tordoff (1954a). Subsequent genetic data (e.g., Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) have confirmed the monophyly of the group.

24. Genetic data (Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) indicate that Certhidea olivacea is basal within the Galapagos finches. Freeland & Boag (1999b), Petren et al. (1999), and Tonnis et al. (2005) found that C. olivacea consists of two distinct lineages. Tonnis et al. (2005) found that the two lineages were associated with habitat differences among islands, with one (olivacea) found on islands with moist upland woodland and the other (fusca) found on drier woodland on low islands; the two lineages show no sings of reproductive isolation (Grant & Grant 2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize C. fusca as a separate species.

24a. "Camarhynchus conjunctus," known from two specimens from Charles and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is considered a probable hybrid (Camarhynchus parvulus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). "Camarhynchus aureus," known from one specimen from Chatham and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is also considered a probable hybrid (Camarhynchus parvulus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). "Camarhynchus giffordi," known from one specimen from Indefatigable and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is also considered an aberrant C. pallidus or hybrid (Camarhynchus pallidus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

25. Camarhynchus pallida and C. heliobates were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) treated in a separate genus, Cactospiza, but REFS and Paynter (1970a) merged this into Camarhynchus; this merger is strongly supported by genetic data (Freeland & Boag 1999b, Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001).

26. The subspecies affinis and habeli were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) both considered a separate species from Camarhynchus psittacula, but REFS and Paynter (1970a) treated them as conspecific.

27. Petren et al. (2005) showed that Geospiza difficilis might be polyphyletic, with the central island populations perhaps sister to most of the Darwin’s Finches, although microsatellite and mtDNA differ in the pattern of relationship of different populations.

27a. See Paynter (1970a) over concerns that the name nebulosa may have priority for this species.

28. Large and small beak morphs of Geospiza fortis show positive assortative mating on Santa Cruz Island (Huber et al. 2007).

28a. Petren et al. (2005) found that the Española population of Geospiza conirostris may be distinct enough to deserve separation as a species.

38. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus are sister allotaxa that might be best treated as conspecific (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); evidence for treatment of the two species as separate species is weak; they were treated as conspecific by Paynter (1970c) and as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).

38a. Klicka et al. (2007) found strong genetic support for a sister relationship between Saltator and core Thraupidae. Sushkin (1924) proposed that Saltator was thraupine, not emberizine/cardinaline. SACC proposal passed to transfer Saltator from Cardinalidae to Incertae Sedis. SACC proposal to transfer to Thraupidae did not pass.

39. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Saltator coerulescens, S. similis, and S. maxillosus to form a superspecies, but see Note 11.

40. Hilty (2003) treated the Middle American grandis subspecies group as a separate species from the nominate South American Saltator coerulescens group, a return to the classification of (REF). Hilty (2003) also indicated that vocal differences within South America suggests that additional species may be involved.

41. Hellmayr (1938) considered Saltator maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris conspecific, and Short (1975) reported that S. maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris intergrade in Corrientes, Argentina <check>.

42. Saltator nigriceps was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970c, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific with S. aurantiirostris, but most recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in considering them separate species owing to differences in bill and tail shape and body size. They are parapatric (Ridgely & Tudor 1989), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; they evidently differ in vocalizations (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Klicka et al. (2007) found that nigriceps was actually basal to S. aurantiirostris + S. grossus.

43. Saltator striatipectus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c) considered conspecific with S. albicollis ("Lesser Antillean Saltator"), but see Seutin et al. (1993) for a return to the classification of (REF); Seutin et al. (1993) also suggested that additional South American taxa might deserve recognition as separate species.

44. Inclusion of two species in Saltator has been questioned (Hellack and Schnell 1977, REFs).

46. Parkerthraustes humeralis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in the genus Caryothraustes; for rationale for generic separation of Parkerthraustes from Caryothraustes, as anticipated by Hellmayr (1938), see Demastes & Remsen (1994) and Remsen (1997). Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that Parkerthraustes is not only not part of Caryothraustes but also not a cardinaline and that it likely belongs in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Thraupidae.

58b. Saltatricula, traditionally placed in the Emberizidae, is one of many "emberizine" genera for which genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) suggest a closer relationship to the Thraupidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that it was embedded within the genus Saltator (and that Saltator itself was close to if not sister to Thraupidae) and that its sister species was Saltator atricollis. SACC proposal passed to transfer out of Emberizidae and place next to Saltator. SACC proposal to merge into Saltator did not pass. Proposal needed to merge Saltator atricollis into Saltatricula.

EMBERIZIDAE (SPARROWS) 1
Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow (V) 1a
Zonotrichia capensis Rufous-collared Sparrow
Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 2
Ammodramus humeralis Grassland Sparrow 2
Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow 2
Rhynchospiza stolzmanni Tumbes Sparrow 3
Rhynchospiza strigiceps Stripe-capped Sparrow 3
Porphyrospiza caerulescens Blue Finch 4
Phrygilus atriceps Black-hooded Sierra-Finch 5, 5a, 5b, 6
Phrygilus punensis Peruvian Sierra-Finch 5a, 5b, 6
Phrygilus gayi Gray-hooded Sierra-Finch 5a, 5b, 6
Phrygilus patagonicus Patagonian Sierra-Finch 5b, 6
Phrygilus fruticeti Mourning Sierra-Finch 6
Phrygilus unicolor Plumbeous Sierra-Finch 6
Phrygilus dorsalis Red-backed Sierra-Finch 6, 7
Phrygilus erythronotus White-throated Sierra-Finch 6, 7
Phrygilus plebejus Ash-breasted Sierra-Finch 6
Phrygilus carbonarius Carbonated Sierra-Finch 6, 7b
Phrygilus alaudinus Band-tailed Sierra-Finch 6
Idiopsar brachyurus Short-tailed Finch 7c
Diuca speculifera White-winged Diuca-Finch 8, 8a
Diuca diuca Common Diuca-Finch 8, 8a
Melanodera melanodera White-bridled Finch 8b
Melanodera xanthogramma Yellow-bridled Finch
Haplospiza rustica Slaty Finch 9, 9a
Haplospiza unicolor Uniform Finch 9, 9a
Lophospingus pusillus Black-crested Finch 9b, 58c
Lophospingus griseocristatus Gray-crested Finch 9b
Donacospiza albifrons Long-tailed Reed Finch
Piezorhina cinerea Cinereous Finch
Xenospingus concolor Slender-billed Finch
Incaspiza pulchra Great Inca-Finch 9c
Incaspiza personata Rufous-backed Inca-Finch 9c
Incaspiza ortizi Gray-winged Inca-Finch 9c
Incaspiza laeta Buff-bridled Inca-Finch
Incaspiza watkinsi Little Inca-Finch
Poospiza thoracica Bay-chested Warbling-Finch 10, 10a
Poospiza boliviana Bolivian Warbling-Finch 10a
Poospiza alticola Plain-tailed Warbling-Finch 10b
Poospiza hypochondria Rufous-sided Warbling-Finch 10b
Poospiza erythrophrys Rusty-browed Warbling-Finch 10c, 10d
Poospiza ornata Cinnamon Warbling-Finch 10c
Poospiza nigrorufa Black-and-rufous Warbling-Finch 11
Poospiza lateralis Buff-throated Warbling-Finch 10b, 12
Poospiza cabanisi Gray-throated Warbling-Finch 10b, 12
Poospiza rubecula Rufous-breasted Warbling-Finch 10d, 15a
Poospiza caesar Chestnut-breasted Mountain-Finch 13, 15a
Poospiza hispaniolensis Collared Warbling-Finch 13a
Poospiza torquata Ringed Warbling-Finch 13a, 13b
Poospiza melanoleuca Black-capped Warbling-Finch 14
Poospiza cinerea Cinereous Warbling-Finch 14
Compsospiza garleppi Cochabamba Mountain-Finch 15, 15a
Compsospiza baeri Tucuman Mountain-Finch 15, 15a
Sicalis citrina Stripe-tailed Yellow-Finch 16
Sicalis lutea Puna Yellow-Finch
Sicalis uropygialis Bright-rumped Yellow-Finch
Sicalis luteocephala Citron-headed Yellow-Finch
Sicalis auriventris Greater Yellow-Finch
Sicalis olivascens Greenish Yellow-Finch 16a
Sicalis lebruni Patagonian Yellow-Finch 16a
Sicalis columbiana Orange-fronted Yellow-Finch
Sicalis flaveola Saffron Finch 16b, 16c
Sicalis luteola Grassland Yellow-Finch 17, 17a
Sicalis raimondii Raimondi's Yellow-Finch 17a
Sicalis taczanowskii Sulphur-throated Finch 18
Emberizoides herbicola Wedge-tailed Grass-Finch 18b, 19
Emberizoides duidae Duida Grass-Finch 18b
Emberizoides ypiranganus Lesser Grass-Finch 18c
Embernagra platensis Great Pampa-Finch 19, 19a, 20
Embernagra longicauda Pale-throated Pampa-Finch 19a, 21
Volatinia jacarina Blue-black Grassquit 22, 22a
Sporophila frontalis Buffy-fronted Seedeater 22a, 22b, 23, 33a
Sporophila falcirostris Temminck's Seedeater 22c
Sporophila schistacea Slate-colored Seedeater 22c
Sporophila plumbea Plumbeous Seedeater
Sporophila corvina Variable Seedeater 24
Sporophila intermedia Gray Seedeater 23a, 23b
Sporophila americana Wing-barred Seedeater 24
Sporophila murallae Caqueta Seedeater 24
Sporophila collaris Rusty-collared Seedeater
Sporophila bouvronides Lesson's Seedeater 25
Sporophila lineola Lined Seedeater 25
Sporophila luctuosa Black-and-white Seedeater
Sporophila nigricollis Yellow-bellied Seedeater 25b
Sporophila ardesiaca Dubois's Seedeater 26
Sporophila caerulescens Double-collared Seedeater
Sporophila albogularis White-throated Seedeater
Sporophila leucoptera White-bellied Seedeater 28
Sporophila peruviana Parrot-billed Seedeater 28a
Sporophila simplex Drab Seedeater
Sporophila nigrorufa Black-and-tawny Seedeater
Sporophila bouvreuil Capped Seedeater 27, 28b
Sporophila minuta Ruddy-breasted Seedeater 27, 29, 30
Sporophila hypoxantha Tawny-bellied Seedeater 27, 30
Sporophila ruficollis Dark-throated Seedeater 27, 30a
Sporophila palustris Marsh Seedeater 27, 31
Sporophila castaneiventris Chestnut-bellied Seedeater 27, 27a
Sporophila hypochroma Rufous-rumped Seedeater 27, 32
Sporophila cinnamomea Chestnut Seedeater 27, 32, 32a
Sporophila melanogaster Black-bellied Seedeater 27
Sporophila telasco Chestnut-throated Seedeater 29
Oryzoborus funereus Thick-billed Seed-Finch 22a, 23, 33, 33a, 33aa
Oryzoborus angolensis Chestnut-bellied Seed-Finch 33aa
Oryzoborus crassirostris Large-billed Seed-Finch 34, 35
Oryzoborus maximiliani Great-billed Seed-Finch 34, 36
Oryzoborus atrirostris Black-billed Seed-Finch 34
Dolospingus fringilloides White-naped Seedeater 22a, 37b
Catamenia analis Band-tailed Seedeater 38
Catamenia inornata Plain-colored Seedeater
Catamenia homochroa Paramo Seedeater 39
Arremonops tocuyensis Tocuyo Sparrow 44, 44a
Arremonops conirostris Black-striped Sparrow 44b
Arremon taciturnus Pectoral Sparrow 45, 45a, 45b, 47
Arremon semitorquatus Half-collared Sparrow 45
Arremon franciscanus São Francisco Sparrow 45a, 46
Arremon flavirostris Saffron-billed Sparrow 45a
Arremon aurantiirostris Orange-billed Sparrow 45a
Arremon schlegeli Golden-winged Sparrow 45a
Arremon abeillei Black-capped Sparrow 45a, 45c
Arremon brunneinucha Chestnut-capped Brush-Finch 47
Arremon atricapillus Black-headed Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon basilicus Sierra Nevada Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon perijanus Perija Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon phaeopleurus Caracas Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon phygas Paria Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon assimilis Gray-browed Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon torquatus White-browed Brush-Finch 47, 48
Arremon castaneiceps Olive Finch 47, 49a
Oreothraupis arremonops Tanager Finch 49
Atlapetes albofrenatus Moustached Brush-Finch 50
Atlapetes semirufus Ochre-breasted Brush-Finch
Atlapetes personatus Tepui Brush-Finch
Atlapetes albinucha White-naped Brush-Finch 50a
Atlapetes melanocephalus Santa Marta Brush-Finch
Atlapetes pallidinucha Pale-naped Brush-Finch
Atlapetes flaviceps Yellow-headed Brush-Finch 51
Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus Dusky-headed Brush-Finch
Atlapetes tricolor Tricolored Brush-Finch
Atlapetes leucopis White-rimmed Brush-Finch 51a
Atlapetes latinuchus Yellow-breasted Brush-Finch 52, 52a, 52b
Atlapetes blancae Antioquia Brush-Finch 52c
Atlapetes rufigenis Rufous-eared Brush-Finch 53
Atlapetes forbesi Apurimac Brush-Finch 53
Atlapetes melanopsis Black-spectacled Brush-Finch 54
Atlapetes schistaceus Slaty Brush-Finch 54a, 55a
Atlapetes leucopterus White-winged Brush-Finch 54b
Atlapetes albiceps White-headed Brush-Finch 54c
Atlapetes pallidiceps Pale-headed Brush-Finch 54c
Atlapetes seebohmi Bay-crowned Brush-Finch 55, 55a, 55b
Atlapetes nationi Rusty-bellied Brush-Finch 55, 55a
Atlapetes canigenis Cuzco Brush-Finch 56, 54a
Atlapetes terborghi Vilcabamba Brush-Finch 57, 52
Atlapetes melanolaemus Black-faced Brush-Finch 58, 58a, 52
Atlapetes rufinucha Bolivian Brush-Finch 52, 52aa
Atlapetes fulviceps Fulvous-headed Brush-Finch
Atlapetes citrinellus Yellow-striped Brush-Finch
Charitospiza eucosma Coal-crested Finch 22a, 58c
Coryphaspiza melanotis Black-masked Finch
Coryphospingus pileatus Pileated Finch 59, 59a, 60
Coryphospingus cucullatus Red-crested Finch 59a, 61
Rhodospingus cruentus Crimson-breasted Finch 62
Gubernatrix cristata Yellow Cardinal 63
Chlorospingus ophthalmicus Common Bush-Tanager 64, 65, 69
Chlorospingus tacarcunae Tacarcuna Bush-Tanager 69
Chlorospingus semifuscus Dusky Bush-Tanager 70
Chlorospingus parvirostris Short-billed Bush-Tanager 66, 67
Chlorospingus flavigularis Yellow-throated Bush-Tanager 66
Chlorospingus flavovirens Yellow-green Bush-Tanager
Chlorospingus canigularis Ashy-throated Bush-Tanager 68

1. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003 <etc>, Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2009 -- check Groth-Barrowclough etc.) indicate that the family Emberizidae as traditionally constituted is polyphyletic, with many genera belonging to the tanager lineage; some morphological data (Clark 1986) also support this.  However, taxon sampling is not yet complete, so a wholesale redefining of the limits of the family awaits publication of additional data.  The genera in South America for which genetic data indicate that they actually belong in the Thraupidae are: Porphyrospiza, Phrygilus, Diuca, Haplospiza, Lophospingus, Poospiza, Compsospiza, Sicalis, Sporophila, Oryzoborus, Volatinia, Catamenia, and Coryphospingus.  The only genera in South America for which genetic data indicate that they are true Emberizidae are: Zonotrichia, Ammodramus, Aimophila (DaCosta et al. 2009), Arremon, and Atlapetes.  The remaining genera not yet sampled are likely all tanagers based on plumage and morphological similarities to the other former emberizine genera, but we hesitate to transfer them without data.  Because one of the main characters for membership in this family is bill shape, which is one of the least reliable predictors of phylogenetic relationships, it is quite likely that the composition of this family will eventually be changed more than that of any other bird family in the Western Hemisphere, perhaps even the world.  Hellmayr (1938) placed the genera Piezorhina, Sicalis, Emberizoides, Embernagra, Sporophila, Volatinia, Oryzoborus, Amaurospiza, Dolospingus, and Catamenia in the subfamily Carduelinae, not in the Emberizinae, but <?> Tordoff (1954) placed these in the Emberizinae based on skeletal characters. [Emberiza itself might not be part of the New World "sparrow" lineage - REF; incorp. Groth 1998, Greenlaw 1977, Harrison 1967, Parkes 1957, Raikow 1980, Carson & Spicer 2003, Klicka et al. 2007].

1a. Recorded from Aruba (Voous 1985).

2. Ammodramus humeralis and A. aurifrons were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in a separate genus, Myopsiza, but most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley and Monroe 1990) have followed Paynter (1970a) and Robins & Schnell (1971) in merging this into Ammodramus. Genetic data (Carson & Spicer 2003, Klicka & Spellman 2007, DaCosta et al. 2009) indicate that as currently defined, Ammodramus is polyphyletic. Because the type species of Ammodramus is savannarum, and DaCosta et al. (2009) found that the latter is the sister to the two Myopsiza, this result should not affect classification of South American species.

3.  Rhynchospiza was traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a monotypic genus, with its sole species being stolzmanni; however, most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Paynter (1967, 1970a) in merging this into Aimophila, which was widely suspected of being polyphyletic (Ridgway 1901, Storer 1955b, Wolf 1977).  DaCosta et al. (2009) have confirmed that Aimophila is polyphyletic and that the South American taxa are not members of true Aimophila; they recommended resurrection of Rhynchospiza, which would also include stolzmanni’s sister species, A. strigiceps.  SACC proposal passed to resurrect Rhynchospiza.

4. In linear sequences, the genus Porphyrospiza has traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) been associated with the Passerina buntings, now in the Cardinalidae; Paynter (1970c) even merged Porphyrospiza into Passerina. This traditional association is based on shared plumage coloration and pattern with some Passerina buntings. It is generally agreed, however, among recent authors who know Porphyrospiza caerulescens in the field (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, REFS) that it is not related to cardinaline buntings but to other genera currently in the Emberizidae, as proposed by Tordoff (1954a) based on skull morphology. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that it is not related to cardinalines but rather is the sister (of the taxa sampled) to Phrygilus alaudinus (but that both are members of the Thraupidae, not Emberizidae).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

5. Genetic data indicate that all Phrygilus species sampled so far (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) belong in the Thraupidae.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

5a. Phrygilus atriceps is treated as a separate species from P. gayi because of sympatric breeding reported in Chile (see Johnson 1967). <check BBOC 109:66-82, 1989> Paynter (1970a) considered the taxon punensis to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, whereas Meyer de Schauensee (1970) treated it as a subspecies of P. gayi. Recent classifications usually follow Ridgely & Tudor (1989), who elevated punensis to species rank based largely on unpublished data. SACC proposal to consider punensis and atriceps conspecific did not pass.

5b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phrygilus atriceps, P. punensis, P. gayi, and P. patagonicus to form a superspecies, but the degree of apparent sympatry between P. gayi and P. patagonicus would make inclusion of the latter questionable.

6. The genus Phrygilus is highly polyphyletic (Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011).  Campagna et al. (2011) found that the genus consists of at least four lineages: (1) gayi, patagonicus, punensis, and atriceps, which comprise the sister group to Melanodera (including extralimital Rowettia goughensis); (2) fruticeti, alaudinus, and carbonaria; (3) plebejus and unicolor, which are sister to Haplospiza; and (4) dorsalis and erythronotus, which are sister to Idiopsar.  The type species for Phrygilus is gayi; Hellmayr’s (1938) synonymy indicates that Rhopospina Cabanis is available for Group 2, with fruticeti the designated type species, and that Geospizopsis Bonaparte is available for Group 3, with unicolor the designated type species.  Clearly, major taxonomic revisions are needed but additional taxon sampling is needed within the Thraupidae.  SACC proposal pending to revise classification.

7. Phrygilus dorsalis and P. erythronotus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) noted interbreeding between the two and wondered whether dorsalis might not be just a color phase P. erythronotus.

7b. SACC proposal did not pass to change English name to something other than "Carbonated" (because the latter nowadays associated primarily with carbon dioxide injection into beverages).

7c. Paynter (1970a) suggested that Idiopsar could be merged into Diuca, but genetic data (Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that they are distantly related and that Idiopsar is the sister to Phrygilus erythronotus + P. dorsalis (and thus also a member of the Thraupidae; see Note 6).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

8. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that Diuca does not belong in the Emberizidae; in fact, it is embedded within the “core tanagers” (Sedano & Burns 2009).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

8a. Diuca speculifera and D. diuca form a superspecies (Paynter 1970a, Sibley & Monroe 1990).

8b.  Genetic data (Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that Melanodera is sister to one of the Phrygilus lineages (see Note 6), and that it is a member of the Thraupidae.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

8c. Called "White-bridled Finch" in Mazar Barnett and Pearman (2001) and Gill and Wright (2006). The Australian estrildid Poephila cincta is also known as "Black-throated Finch," the name formerly used by most New World references. SACC proposal passed to change to "Canary-winged Finch" but subsequent SACC proposal passed to change to "White-bridled Finch."

9. Haplospiza rustica was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated in a separate genus, Spodiornis, but Meyer de Schauensee (1966) merged this into Haplospiza. The two species of Haplospiza form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species is weak (Paynter 1970a).

9a. Storer (1970a) suggested that Haplospiza, along with Middle American Acanthidops, might be more closely related to Diglossa in the Thraupidae than to other emberizine genera; this is consistent with some genetic data (Burns et al. 2003), although broader taxon-sampling (Klicka et al. 2007, Mauck & Burns 2009, Campagna et al. 2011) indicated that Haplospiza, some Phrygilus, some Sicalis, Diglossa, and Catamenia are phylogenetically intermingled.  In any case, all genetic data indicate that Haplospiza is a member of the Thraupidae.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

9b. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that Lophospingus is not a member of the Emberizidae but belongs in the Thraupidae; in fact, it is embedded within the “core tanagers” (Sedano & Burns 2009).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

9bb. Lophospingus pusillus was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Schistospiza, but see Miller (1928) for its merger into Lophospingus.

9c. Incaspiza pulchra, I. personata, and I. ortizi form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); I. pulchra and I. personata were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1938) and Paynter (1970a), but recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in treated them as separate species.

10. Genetic data indicate that Poospiza belongs in the Thraupidae (Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and forms a group with Pyrrhocoma, Thlypopsis, Cypsnagra, Nephelornis, Hemispingus, and Cnemoscopus. SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.  Genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000, Klicka et al. 2007) also indicate that Poospiza is likely polyphyletic.

10a. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza thoracica and P. hypochondriaca are sister species based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences.

10b. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza hypochondria and P. lateralis (then including P. cabanisi) were sister species based on plumage similarities, contrary to their placement in traditional linear sequences, e.g., Hellmayr (1938), who considered P. alticola and P. hypochondriaca to be closely related.

10c. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza erythrophrys and P. ornata were sister species based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences. Lougheed et al.'s (2000) limited genetic data did not support such a relationship.

10d. Hellmayr (1938) considered Poospiza erythrophrys and P. rubecula to be sister species.

11. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Andean populations (whitii with wagneri) as a separate species ("Black-and-chestnut Warbling-Finch") from Poospiza nigrorufa, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated them as species, and members of a superspecies; Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) also treated them as separate species. SACC proposal to recognize whitii as separate species did not pass.

12. Poospiza cabanisi has been traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lateralis, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that cabanisi might merit treatment as a separate species.  Assis et al. (2007) presented evidence for treating cabanisi as a separate species.  SACC proposal passed to elevate cabanisi to species rank.

13. Poospiza caesar was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Poospizopsis; most authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed Paynter (1970a) in merging it into Poospiza, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000) indicate that it is not particularly close to other Poospiza except for P. hispaniolensis, and that these two are probably sister species.

13a. Hellmayr (1938) considered Poospiza hispaniolensis and P. torquata to be closely related, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they perhaps should be treated as conspecific; genetic data, however, indicate that they are only distantly related (Lougheed et al. 2000).

13b. Lougheed et al. (2000) suggested that the southern subspecies pectoralis deserves treatment as a separate species from nominate torquata based on genetic distance data.

14. Poospiza melanoleuca has sometimes been treated as a subspecies of P. cinerea (e.g., Paynter 1970a, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), but see Short (1975) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for continued treatment as separate species, as in Hellmayr (1938), Pinto (1944), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).  Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that melanoleuca has priority over cinerea if considered conspecific, contra Paynter (1970a).

15. Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri were traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in that genus, but Paynter (1970a) merged this into Poospiza, as suggested by Bond (1951), and this treatment has been followed by most authors subsequently.  Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that baeri is not the sister species to three other Poospiza sampled.  SACC proposal passed to resurrect Compsospiza.  Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000) support their treatment as sister species; Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Paynter (1970a), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they might be treated as conspecific.

15a. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza caesar, P. rubecula, P. garleppi, and P. baeri formed a monophyletic group based on plumage similarities, contrary to their placement in traditional linear sequences. Lougheed et al.'s (2000) limited genetic data did not support such a group.

16. Genetic data indicate that the genus Sicalis (based on S. luteola or S. olivascens) belongs in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.  Sicalis was placed with the carduelines by Hellmayr (1938) but then moved to the emberizines by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) based on the morphological data of Tordoff (1954). Paynter (1970a) emphasized that species limits within the genus were uncertain and in need of much study.

16a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Sicalis olivascens and S. lebruni to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Paynter (1970a), as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

16b. Called "Saffron Yellow-Finch" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

16c. "Sicalis striata," known from two specimens from Prov. Buenos Aires and treated as a species by (REF), is now considered to be based on an immature S. flaveola pelzelni (Paynter 1970a, Sibley & Monroe 1990). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.

17. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that the southern subspecies luteiventris might represent a separate species from Sicalis luteola, and it was treated as such by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and AOU (<?> 1983, 1998). Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Hilty (2003) also suggested that the subspecies bogotensis might deserve species rank.

17a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Sicalis luteola and S. raimondii to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered conspecific, but Koepcke (1963) found that they were locally sympatric.

18. Sicalis taczanowskii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Gnathospiza, but Paynter (1970a) merged this into Sicalis, following the suggestion by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); that treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).

18b. Evidence for maintaining Emberizoides duidae as a separate species from E. herbicola is weak (Hilty 2003); they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1938), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and Paynter (1970a); <check Eisenmann & Short 1982> ; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

18c. Eisenmann & Short (1982) showed that E. ypiranganus is widely sympatric with E. herbicola and thus merits continued recognition as a separate species.

19. Genetic data indicate that Emberizoides and Embernagra belong in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and that Emberizoides and Embernagra are sister taxa (Klicka et al. 2007).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

19a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Embernagra platensis and E. longicauda to form a superspecies.

20. Nores et al. (1983) reported sympatry between olivascens and nominate platensis in Córdoba, which would elevate the former to species rank; they were formerly (e.g., REF) treated as separate species but considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). <incorp. Contreras 1980>. Hayes (2003) provided additional evidence for lack of gene flow between the olivascens group and nominate platensis. SACC proposal to treat olivascens group as a separate species did not pass.

21. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) called this species "Buff-throated Pampa-Finch", and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) called it "Pale-throated Serra-Finch."

22. Genetic data indicate that Volatinia belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007) and may be the sister genus to Conothraupis (Burns et al. 2003).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.  Steadman (1982) proposed that Volatinia be merged with Geospiza, and this was followed by Wetmore et al. (1984); however, nest architecture and genetic data (Burns et al. 2002, Klicka et al. 2007) do not support this.

22a. Clark (1986) found that Volatinia, Sporophila, Oryzoborus, Dolospingus, and Charitospiza share a unique foot-scute character that suggests that they form a monophyletic group. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007), however, indicate that Volatinia and Sporophila + Oryzoborus are not close relatives.

22b. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009) indicate that levels of genetic divergence among species in the genus Sporophila are quite low compared to other genera and that some taxa currently treated as species may be paraphyletic. In perhaps no other genus of Neotropical birds are there so many species-level taxa of that are suspected to represent aberrant individuals or hybrids.

22c. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) indicate that Sporophila falcirostris and S. schistacea are sister species, confirming their traditional placement (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) in linear sequences.

23. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that Sporophila and Oryzoborus belong in the Thraupidae; some morphological data are consistent with this (Clark 1986).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

23a. The genus Sporophila was formerly (e.g., REFS, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) known as Spermophila, but see <REF>.

23b. Sporophila intermedia may include a cryptic species, S. insularis (Rodner et al. 2000, Restall 2002, Hilty 2003). SACC proposal to recognize insularis as a separate species did not pass.

24. Sporophila corvina and S. americana are considered conspecific by most recent authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Olson's (1981a) study of the contact zone in Panama between corvina and the subspecies hicksii of S. americana suggested complete intergradation between the two, with the taxon "aurita" representing nothing more than a hybrid swarm.  Subsequently, Stiles (1996b) provided rationale for recognition of the corvina and americana groups as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1938); Stiles (1996b) also treated the subspecies murallae as separate species from S. americana, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003).  Stiles (1996b) also provided rationale for treating S. intermedia as part of this complex. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.

24a. Stiles (1996b) showed that the correct name for this species group is corvina, not aurita as in many references. <check>

25. Sporophila bouvronides was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a) considered a subspecies of S. lineola, but see Schwartz (1975) for rationale for treating them as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1938) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); this treatment has been followed by subsequent authors; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).

25b. "Sporophila melanops," known only from the type specimen from Goias, Brazil, and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938) and Pinto (1944), is usually treated as species of uncertain status (Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990); more likely a variant of S. nigricollis or a hybrid than a valid species (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Treated as a valid species by Dickinson et al. (2003). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. Proposal badly needed.

26. Sick (1997), based on Sick (1962, 1963), suggested that S. ardesiaca is only a subspecies or variant of S. nigricollis; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) expressed doubt that ardesiaca was a valid species. Proposal needed.

27. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009) indicate that Sporophila bouvreuil, S. minuta, S. hypoxantha, S. ruficollis, S. palustris, S. hypochroma, S. cinnamomea, S. nigrorufa, and S. melanogaster form a monophyletic group, as reflected in traditional linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) based on plumage similarities. These plumage similarities also suggest that if S. zelichi is a valid species (see Note 32a), then it also belongs in this group (Ridgely & Tudor 1989).  Lijtmaer et al. (2004) included S. castaneiventris in this group but see Campagna et al. (2009).  Proposal needed to change linear sequence.

28. The western subspecies bicolor was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Sporophila leucoptera; Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that bicolor might merit recognition as a separate species.

28a. Sporophila peruviana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) placed in the monotypic genus Neorhynchus.

28b. The subspecies saturata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered a separate species from Sporophila bouvreuil, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).  Machado & Silveira (2011) showed that saturata is not a diagnosable taxon.  They also demonstrated the subspecies pileata is sympatric with S. bouvreuil and therefore should be considered a separate species.  SACC proposal pending to treat pileata as separate species.

29. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) provided reasons for why Sporophila insulata might be the sister species of S. telasco, rather than to S. minuta, the traditional hypothesis. Sporophila telasco and S. minuta were considered closely related, perhaps sister species, by Hellmayr (1938), but subsequent classifications (e.g., Paynter 1970a) separated them without explanation. Stiles (2004) concluded from plumage characters that S. insulata is indeed more closely related to S. telasco and also that it is more likely a color morph or subspecies of the latter. SACC proposal passed to delete Sporophila insulata as a valid species.

30. Sporophila hypoxantha was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of S. minuta, but see Short (1969a); this treatment, a return to the classification of REF, has been followed by subsequent authors (e.g., Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but genetic data (Lijtmaer et al 2004, Campagna et al. 2009) suggest that they are not sister species.

30a. Short (1975) suggested that Sporophila ruficollis was not a valid species but a color morph of S. [minuta] hypoxantha; they have been traditionally considered closely related, perhaps sister species (e.g., Hellmayr 1938).

31. Short (1975) considered Sporophila palustris to be just a color morph of S. ruficollis, but syntopy has not yet been reported (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Hellmayr (1938) considered it more closely related to S. hypoxantha.

32. Hellmayr (1938) pointed out the close relationship between Sporophila hypochroma and S. cinnamomea; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be conspecific; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered S. hypochroma and S. cinnamomea to form a superspecies but suggested that hypochroma might just be a color morph of S. cinnamomea. Meyer de Schauensee (1952) considered hypochroma to be a subspecies of S. castaneiventris, but later treated it as a separate species (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), as recently confirmed by genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009), which also indicate that they are not even sister species.

32a. Narosky (1977) described Sporophila zelichi as a new species, but whether it is a valid species is controversial. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) maintained it as a species but noted that it was perhaps a localized color morph of S. cinnamomea or a hybrid population (S. cinnamomea X S. palustris), as suggested by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987). Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) also continued to recognize it as a species. The observations of Azpiroz (2003) suggest that zelichi could be a valid species confined to marsh vegetation. Areta (2008) presented evidence that there is no data to support species rank for zelichi. SACC proposal passed to remove from main list.

32b. Called "Zelich's Seedeater" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).

33. Olson (1981c) provided evidence that there is little morphological evidence for maintaining the genus Oryzoborus as separate from Sporophila, and Wetmore et al. (1984) merged Oryzoborus into Sporophila; the diagnosis of Oryzoborus relies on bill size and shape, which are notoriously unreliable indicators of phylogenetic relationships, although see Stiles (1996). Webster & Webster (1999) also recommended keeping them as separate genera because of differences in skeletal morphology. Sick (1963) noted that intergeneric hybrids were <numerous?>. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) strongly support the merger of Oryzoborus into Sporophila (and provide minimal support for monophyly of Oryzoborus itself). SACC proposal to merge Oryzoborus into Sporophila did not pass.

33a. Hellmayr (1936) placed Oryzoborus with the carduelines, but morphological data (Beecher REF, Tordoff 1954, Bock 1960) indicated that it was emberizine, where moved by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

33aa. Olson (1981b,c) and most authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) have considered O. funereus to be a subspecies of O. angolensis, with the composite English name "Lesser Seed-Finch." However, the nature of gene flow between the two has never been studied adequately; although hybrids occur in the area of contact in northern Colombia, there is no evidence of a hybrid swarm or intergradation (contra Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) in the area that would indicate free interbreeding between the two; thus, AOU (1983, 1998) continued to rank them as separate species, following Hellmayr (1938). SACC proposal to consider O. funereus and O. angolensis conspecific did not pass.

34. Species limits in the large Oryzoborus seed-finches are complex, controversial, and need further work. Paynter (1970a) treated them all as conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1970x) provided rationale for why O. maximiliani should be treated as a separate species from O. crassirostris; they are broadly sympatric in the Guianas region; however, this sympatry might be a only during the nonbreeding season <>(Phelps & Phelps 1950). Treatment as separate species has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, REFS). However, as outlined by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), placement of some subspecies is likely incorrect. Also, Sibley & Monroe (1990), followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), treated the subspecies atrirostris (with gigantirostris) as a separate species from O. maximiliani. Hellmayr (1938) treated atrirostris (with gigantirostris) as a separate species. [get TSS to do sentences on atrirostris]. Middle American O. nuttingi was formerly (e.g., REFS) included in O. maximiliani, but see Stiles (1984).

35. Called "Large-billed Seed-finch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

36. Called "Greater Large-billed Seed-finch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).

37b. <Tordoff's (1954) analysis of skeletal characters.>

38. Genetic data indicate that Catamenia belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and forms a group with Diglossa, Acanthidops, Xenodacnis, Diglossa, Haplospiza, and most Phrygilus.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.  Catamenia was placed with the carduelines by Hellmayr (1938) but then moved to the emberizines by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) based on the morphological data of Beecher (REF) and Tordoff (1954).

39. The Santa Marta subspecies oreophila was reluctantly treated as a separate species by Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Paynter (1970a), but most recent authors, including Meyer de Schauensee (1970), have treated it as a subspecies of C. homochroa; see Zambrano (1977) for rationale.

44. The genus Arremonops has been merged into Arremon by some authors (Phelps and Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1951).

44a. Arremonops tocuyensis may form a superspecies with Middle American A. rufivirgatus (Mayr & Short 1970, AOU 1983, Sibley and Monroe 1990).

44b. Arremonops conirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered conspecific with Middle American A. chloronotus, but they are sympatric in Honduras (Monroe 1963b).

45. Raposo and Parrini (1997) proposed recognizing the subspecies semitorquatus as a separate species from Arremon taciturnus. SACC proposal passed to recognize semitorquatus as a species.

45a. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered all the species of Arremon form a superspecies, but A. aurantiirostris and A. abeillei are sympatric in western Ecuador.

45b. The Colombian subspecies axillaris was treated as a separate species from Arremon taciturnus by <REF>.

45c. The Marañon subspecies nigriceps was treated as a separate species from Arremon abeillei by <REF>.

46. Recently described: Raposo (1997).

47. Buarremon was merged into Atlapetes by Hellmayr (1938), and this was followed by Paynter (REFS, 1970a), Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and most subsequent authors. Remsen and Graves (1995) resurrected the genus Buarremon as separate from Atlapetes because it is not certain that they are sister genera; this treatment was followed by AOU (1998), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (DaCosta et al. 2009) confirm that Buarremon is not closely related to Atlapetes.  Cadena et al. (2007) found that Buarremon itself is paraphyletic with respect to Arremon and probably Lysurus.  SACC proposal passed to merge all into Arremon; also followed by Banks et al. (2008).  Additional genetic analyses (Flórez-Rodríguez et al. 2011) found that the paraphyly of Buarremon was generated largely by mtDNA gene trees and that some, but not all, other loci support a monophyletic Buarremon.  Proposal needed?  The placement of the former Buarremon in Arremon creates a problem with the English names in that hyphenated “Brush-Finch” now used in two genera, Atlapetes and Arremon, with most species in the latter called “Sparrow” or “Finch.”  Thus, the hyphen is misleading with respect to relationships, and this needs fixing.  SACC proposal needed.

48. The relationships among the forms assigned to the atricapillus and torquatus groups are controversial, with virtually no relevant data available.  Wetmore et al. (1984), Paynter (1970a), and Remsen & Graves (1995) treated the atricapillus group as conspecific with B. torquatus largely because of the intermediate phenotypes shown by subspecies such as tacarcunae and costaricensis. Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) treated them as two species because of the close geographical approach of nominate atricapillus and B. t. assimilis without signs of gene flow.  Donegan et al. (2007) found B. [t.] atricapillus and B. [t.] assimilis to replace one another elevationally in the East Andes of Colombia (Santander and Boyacá departments), without any evidence of hybridization, suggesting that treatment of this complex within a single species is not supportable.  Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. torquatus and B. atricapillus, along with Middle American B. virenticeps, to form a superspecies. Buarremon virenticeps was considered conspecific with B. torquatus by Paynter (1970a) and Wetmore et al. (1984), but was treated as a separate species by Paynter (1978), AOU (1983, 1998), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989).  Cadena & Cuervo’s (2010) analysis of voice, plumage, and genetics in the group indicates that as many as eight species should be recognized in this complex.  SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.

49. The relationships of Oreothraupis are uncertain; it was included in the Thraupidae by Hellmayr (1936).  Storer (1958) pointed out that similarities in plumage pattern and texture, and in juvenal plumage strongly suggested a close relationship to Atlapetes, and Paynter (1970a) considered it close enough to Atlapetes that he stated that they might be considered congeneric.

49a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Lysurus castaneiceps to form a superspecies with Middle American L. crassirostris.

50. Donegan & Huertas (2006) found no strong support in an analysis of plumage characters for A. a. meridae (Mérida range) being closely related to the nominate race (Eastern Cordillera) and that the two taxa differ in biometrics; however, vocal and molecular analyses are lacking.

50a. Paynter (1964) provided rationale for merging the Atlapetes gutturalis group into A. albinucha; and this treatment was followed by Paynter (1970a), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003).

51. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986, Dickinson 2003) known as "Olive-headed Brush-Finch".  Called "Yellow-headed Brush-Finch" in BirdLife International (2000).  SACC proposal passed to change English name to the latter because the historical name is inaccurate and misleading.

51a.  The subspecies crassus of the W. Andes of Colombia and Ecuador may merit species rank (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).  Dickinson (2003) prematurely elevated crassus to species rank.

52. Atlapetes rufinucha was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered to be a polytypic species with a disjunct distribution.  However, the genetic data of García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) corroborated the predictions of Remsen & Graves (1995b) that these populations did not form a monophyletic group but instead were more closely related to adjacent populations of A. schistaceus.  Thus, Atlapetes latinuchus was formerly considered a subspecies of A. rufinucha, but it is more closely related to parapatric A. schistaceus.  Donegan & Huertas (2006) noted that A. latinuchus itself (even without A. [l.] nigrifrons) may involve more than one species.  See also Note 54a below.

52a. Called "Northern Rufous-naped Brush-Finch" in García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and "Cloud-forest Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.

52aa.  Broadly defined Atlapetes rufinucha was called “Rufous-naped Brush-Finch,” and so narrowly defined A. rufinucha was renamed “Bolivian Brush-Finch” to avoid confusion.  SACC proposal passed to change English name.

52b. Donegan & Huertas (2006) proposed that the subspecies nigrifrons (formerly phelpsi) of the Perijá Mountains should be ranked as a species.

52c. Donegan (2007b) has described a new species (Atlapetes blancae) that is possibly most closely related to the A. latinuchus group, from the Central Andes of Colombia. SACC proposal passed to recognize A. blancae.

53. Atlapetes forbesi has traditionally been treated (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) as a subspecies of A. rufigenis, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that it should be treated as a separate species. Genetic data (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 1999) indicate that they are each more closely related to other species of Atlapetes than they are to each other and thus must be treated as separate species.

54. Recently described: Valqui & Fjeldså (1999). More recently renamed: Valqui & Fjeldså (2002).

54a. Atlapetes schistaceus was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered to be a polytypic species with a disjunct distribution. However, the genetic data of García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) corroborated the predictions of Remsen & Graves (1995b) that these populations did not form a monophyletic group but instead were more closely related to parapatric populations of A. rufinucha. Thus, Atlapetes canigenis was formerly considered a subspecies of A. schistaceus, but it is more closely related to parapatric members of the rufinucha group.

54b. [paynteri etc.] The subspecies dresseri was formerly (e.g., REF) considered a separate species from Atlapetes leucopterus, but they were treated as conspecific by Paynter (REF) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).

54c. Hellmayr (1938) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that A. pallidiceps should be considered a subspecies of A. albiceps; they are almost certainly sister taxa.

55. For continued treatment of A. seebohmi and A. nationi as separate species, as in Hellmayr (1938) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970), see Ridgely & Tudor (1989); Koepcke (1957, 1958), Paynter (1970a, 1972), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) regarded them as conspecific; they form a superspecies. Paynter (1970a) suspected that A. nationi (with seebohmi) might be better treated as a subspecies of A. schistaceus.

55a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Atlapetes schistaceus, A. seebohmi, and A. nationi to form a superspecies; however, A. schistaceus is a paraphyletic species (see Note 54a), and so if this superspecies designation is correct, it applies only to the nominate schistaceus group and must also include A. latinuchus. Until the complex phylogenetic relationships in this genus are more certain, it seems best to be cautious in designation of superspecies.

55b. The subspecies ceciliae and simonsi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered separate species from Atlapetes seebohmi, but Paynter (1970a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) treated them as conspecific.

56. Called "Grey Brush-Finch" in García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and "Cusco Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (2001). SACC proposal passed to change English name from "Sooty Brush-Finch," as in Dickinson (2003), to "Cuzco Brush-Finch".

57. Recently described (as a subspecies of A. rufinucha): Remsen (1993). García-Moreno & Fjeldså (1995) provided evidence that it should be recognized as a separate species. SACC proposal to lump terborghi into melanolaemus or rufinucha did not pass.

58. Atlapetes melanolaemus was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered a subspecies of A. rufinucha, but see García-Moreno & Fjeldså (1999). SACC proposal to lump melanolaemus into rufinucha did not pass.

58a. Called "Dark-faced Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (1999).

58c. <>Miller (1928) proposed that Charitospiza was closely related to Lophospingus.

59. Genetic data indicate that Coryphospingus belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Burns & Racicot 2009), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a), and forms a group with Lanio, Eucometis, and Tachyphonus.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

59a. Coryphospingus pileatus and C. cucullatus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they hybridize to an uncertain extent in <> (REF).  Their sister relationship was confirmed by Burns & Racicot (2009).

60. Called "Gray Pileated-Finch" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989).

61. Called "Red Pileated-Finch" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001).

62. Paynter (1971) suggested that Rhodospingus might belong in Thraupidae.  Burns & Racicot (2009) found not only that it was a member of the Thraupidae but also that it might be embedded within one group of Tachyphonus.  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

62a. Formerly called "Crimson Finch", but this is the long-standing name for the Old World estrildid Neochmia phaeton; see Clements and Shany (2001).

63. The genus Gubernatrix has been placed traditionally in the Emberizidae, sometimes (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) with the cardinal grosbeaks, which in this classification are considered a separate family, Cardinalidae. Paynter (1970a) tentatively included it in the Emberizidae, following Tordoff (1954), who presented morphological data that indicated that Gubernatrix was not related to the cardinalines.  Genetic data indicate that it belongs in the Thraupidae (Campagna et al. 2011).  SACC proposal pending to move to Thraupidae.

64. Genetic data (REFS, Burns et al. 2002, 2003) indicate the genus Chlorospingus is not a member of the Thraupidae, but (Klicka et al. 2007) a member of the Emberizidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Emberizidae.  Frank Pitelka (in Tordoff 1954a) long ago noted the emberizine-like behavior of Chlorospingus.

65. Chlorospingus ophthalmicus, as currently circumscribed, is paraphyletic with respect to C. tacarcunae, C. semifuscus, and C. inornatus, and likely consists of several species (Weir et al. 2008). Proposal needed.

66. Chlorospingus parvirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis, but see Zimmer (1947).

67. Chlorospingus parvirostris was called "Yellow-whiskered Bush-Tanager" in Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely et al. (2001). Proposal needed.

68. Stiles & Skutch (1989) suggested that the isolated Central American subspecies, olivaceiceps, may deserve recognition as a separate species from South American Chlorospingus canigularis.
8a. Recent genetic data (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns et al. 2003) failed to find support for inclusion of Mitrospingus in Thraupidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that it did not fit within any of the traditionally recognized families.

69. Species limits in the Chlorospingus ophthalmicus complex are controversial. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Chlorospingus ophthalmicus and C. tacarcunae to form a superspecies with C. inornatus of Cerro Pirre, eastern Panama; C. tacarcunae was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis before Zimmer (1947) treated it as a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) continued to treat tacarcunae as a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus, but most classifications have followed Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983), and Wetmore et al. (1984) in treating it as a separate species. The subspecies cinereocephalus of central Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. semifuscus until Zimmer (1947) considered it a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus. The flavopectus subspecies group of Ecuador and northern Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) treated as a separate species from C. ophthalmicus, but see Zimmer (1947).

70. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) known as "Dusky-bellied Bush-Tanager."

 

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end) (click)