Proposal (240) to South American Classification Committee
Recognize Percnostola
[Schistocichla] saturata (Thamnophilidae) as a species separate
from P. leucostigma
Taxonomic history of saturata:
Salvin (1885) originally described the eastern tepui saturata as
a species, but Cory and Hellmayr (1924) treated it as conspecific with leucostigma
and both were treated as subspecies of Sclateria schistacea. Although
Todd (1927) never examined a specimen of saturata, he treated it as
a species in his newly erected genus Schistocichla. Based on sympatry,
Zimmer (1931) treated leucostigma and schistacea as species,
and both Zimmer (1931) and Chapman (1931) considered saturata as a
subspecies of leucostigma. Because of the lack of new information on
this range-restricted taxon, saturate has been maintained as a
subspecies of leucostigma.
Braun et al. (2005 - pdf available from Robbins) demonstrated
based on plumage, morphometrics, vocalizations, and genetics that saturata
is quite distinct from leucostigma. The two are parapatric, with saturata
replacing the lowland inhabiting leucostigma at the base of the eastern
tepuis. This elevational replacement of closely related taxa is now appreciated
for a number of eastern tepuis taxa.
Although morphological differences are subtle (e.g., both male and
female are darker in respective plumage coloration than nominate leucostigma;
male saturata have all black bills, whereas the mandible in male leucosticta
is pale at the base; statistically significant differences between males in
wing and exposed culmen length), the loud song is quite distinct between the
two taxa (Braun et al. 2005). Based on 2064 bp of mtDNA (ATPase 6, ND2, and
ND3), sequence divergence between saturata and leucostigma samples
averaged 9 % (range 8.8%-9.1%, 200 comparisons). To put the molecular data in
context, P. schistacea is 10 % divergent from saturata and leucostigma
(Braun et al. 2005).
In summary, the morphological, vocal, and genetic data clearly
demonstrate that saturata be recognized as a species. The authors
suggested the English name, Roraiman Antbird for saturata given
that there is no distinctive morphological character and Chubb (1921) used the
name Roraiman Ant-creeper. The name Tepui Antbird would not be
appropriate as saturata appears to be restricted to the easternmost
tepuis. I strongly support the recognition of saturate as a species and
the English name Roraiman Antbird.
Literature Cited:
Braun, J.M., M.L. Isler, P.R. Isler, J.M. Bates and M.B. Robbins.
2005. Avian speciation in the Pantepui: the case of the Roraiman Antbird (Percnostola
[Schistocichla] "leucostigma" saturata). Condor
107:327-341.
Chapman, F.M. 1931. The upper zonal bird-life of Mts. Roraima and
Duida. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 63:1-135.
Chubb, C. 1921. The birds of British Guiana. Vol. 1 (1916), Vol. 2
(1921). Bernard Quaritch, London.
Cory, C. and C.E. Hellmayr. 1924. Catalogue of birds of the
Americas. Pteroptochidae-Conopophagidae-Formicariidae. Field Museum of Natural
History, Zoological Series 13, part 3:1-369.
Salvin, O. 1885. A list of the birds obtained by Mr. Henry Whitely
in British Guiana. Ibis 1885:418-439.
Todd, W.E.C. 1927. New gnateaters and antbirds from tropical
America, with a revision of the genus Myrmeciza and its
allies. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 40:149-178.
Zimmer, J.T. 1931. Studies of Peruvian birds. I. New and other
birds from Peru, Ecuador, and Brazil. Am. Mus. Novitates 500:1-23.
Mark
Robbins, August 2006
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles: "YES. Braun et al. present a
battery of convincing arguments for recognizing saturata as a
species."
Comments from Zimmer: "YES. These are clearly two
different species, as evidenced not only by strong vocal differences in
loudsongs, but also by elevational parapatry. The two forms occur within 10 km
or so of one another along the Escalera road in SE Bolívar, Venezuela. A vocal
analysis by Isler et al (in press) of the entire leucostigma complex
lends further support to the already published paper by Braun et al."
Comments from Stotz: "YES, although I should note
that leucostigma will probably need to be further split. But that is not
a strong argument for leaving saturata in leucostigma."
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES - solid data and
analysis."
Comments from Pacheco: "YES. Os resultados da análise do repertório vocal por
Isler, Isler, Whitney & Zimmer (Wilson J Orn 119:53-70) são consistentes
com este estudo abrangente de Braun et al. e reforçam o arranjo aqui proposto."