Proposal (394) to South American Classification Committee
Effect
on SACC: This would elevate a subspecies of Automolus rubiginosus to species rank.
Background: All modern classifications treat Automolus rubiginosus as a single,
polytypic species, since at least Cory & Hellmayr (1925), who considered it
a subspecies of A. rubiginosus, evidently because of the plumage similarity to
distant A. r. guerrerensis. Here is what our current Note says:
“97d.
Automolus rubiginosus likely includes several species-level taxa (AOU
1998, Hilty 2003, Remsen 2003). The subspecies nigricauda (with saturatus)
was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1925) considered a separate species,
but they were treated as conspecific by Peters (1951) and all subsequent
authors. Krabbe (2008) provided evidence
that the subspecies rufipectus of the
Santa Marta Mountains merits species rank.
Proposal badly needed.”
New
information:
Krabbe (2008) taped four individuals of A.
r. rufipectus and gathered recordings of two others; these were compared to
sonograms of all other Automolus and
related genera.
The songs and calls of rufipectus differ from those of 8
subspecies (no recordings available for 5) of A. rubiginosus in multiple ways, and Krabbe summarized reasons why
the unsampled subspecies should not differ from those sampled. In contrast, the song of rufipectus actually resembles that of Hylocryptus erythrocephalus of the Tumbesian region more than that
of any other species. Making that link
even more tantalizing is Krabbe’s observations of rufipectus feeding mostly on the ground (albeit small N) and its
preference for semihumid forest.
Analysis
and Recommendation: In my opinion, Krabbe has established that
there is no real evidence that rufipectus
should be treated as a subspecies of rubiginosus;
its traditional ranking as such is based on the similarity in ventral plumage
color. That so many populations of rubiginosus, many of which are as
isolated as is rufipectus, are
similar makes dramatic the difference between rufipectus and the others. Although comparing among Automolus might be risky, I think that it is safe to say that rufipectus song differs more from that
of rubiginosus than does that of A. paraensis from A. infuscatus or A. lammi
from A. leucophthalmus, two
species-level splits recently endorsed by SACC.
Therefore, I support a YES vote on this one.
English
name:
Cory & Hellmayr (1925) referred to it as “Rufous-chested Automolus.” So “Rufous-chested Foliage-gleaner” seems
appropriate and accurate. The only other
obvious candidate would be “Santa Marta Foliage-gleaner” (but it seems that we
have a surplus of Santa Marta Somethings). Krabbe (2008) noted: "Santa
Marta Foliage- gleaner (rather than Rufous-chested Automolus as employed by
Cory & Hellmayr 1925) might be an appropriate vernacular name." If in your vote, you could indicate a
preference for either one, or propose a novelty, I’ll use those comments to
construct a proposal.
Lit Cit
KRABBE,
N. 2008.
Vocal evidence for restitution of species rank to a Santa Marta endemic:
Automolus rufipectus Bangs
(Furnariidae), with comments on its generic affinities. Bulletin British Ornithologists' Club 128:
219-227.
Van Remsen, April 2009
Comments
from Cadena:
“YES. The
vocal differences between rufipectus
and all other forms included in Automolus
rubiginosus are truly remarkable. In addition, I should note that Krabbe's
suggestion that rufipectus might be a
close relative of Hylocryptus erythrocephalus
and not to other populations referred to A.
rubiginosus based on its distinctive voice seems to be correct. Based on
sequences of mitochondrial genes obtained from the specimen we collected that
was mentioned in the Krabbe paper, rufipectus
indeed appears to be sister to H.
erythrocephalus. Because the relationships of the clade formed by these two
to other Automolus rubiginosus is
complicated, this will be discussed at length in a forthcoming paper we will
produce in collaboration with Robb Brumfield, Santiago Claramunt, and others.”
Comments from Nores:
“YES. Las diferencias en canto expresadas por Krabbe no dejan dudas
de que se trata de una especie diferente de Autumolus
rubiginosus. Es más, como señala el autor su posición genérica puede demandar
re-ubicación, que probablemente se evidenciarán cuando se realicen estudios
moleculares.”
Comments from Zimmer:
“YES. The
sample sizes of audio recordings are small, but the distinctions are pretty
marked. A. rubiginosus is clearly more than one species, and there is
probably more splitting that needs to be done, but this is a good start. I would support “Rufous-chested
Foliage-gleaner” as an English name.
Given the similarities of this taxon to Hylocryptus, we are probably better off not calling it ‘Rufous-chested
Automolus’.”
Comment
from T. Donegan and P. Salaman: “We accepted this split
and adopted "Santa Marta Foliage-Gleaner" as the English name for
this species in the 2009 Colombia checklist (Salaman et al. 2009), as
recommended by Krabbe (2008). This vernacular name is more
informative than "Rufous-chested Automolus", given that many
foliage-gleaners are rufous-chested; and "Automolus" is not a word in
the English language. The name "Rufous-chested" has not been
widely used for this taxon in recent history.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“YES – I prefer Santa Marta Foliage-Gleaner.”
Comments
from Schulenberg:
“YES. I
don't have a strong preference for one English name over the other. There's no
lack of "Santa Marta" thises and thats, but that's probably more
informative than "Rufous-chested.”
Comments
from Robbins:
“YES. I agree with Niel’s suggestion of
“Santa Marta Foliage-Gleaner.”
Comments from Stiles:
“YES
(again, just to complete the voting roster ... the reasons adduced by Van and
others are quite convincing.)”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. Em concordância com os dados
apresentados no artigo de Krabbe e comentários aqui expostos.”