Proposal (855) to South American Classification Committee
Recognize Scytalopus
androstictus as a species
A:
Accept Scytalopus androstictus as a
species.
The
delineation and ranking of Scytalopus
taxa has undergone considerable change and remains problematic. Zimmer (1939)
used only morphology to define taxa. Krabbe and Schulenberg (1997) included
vocal data, ranking all forms with distinctive songs as species. This approach
was consistent with the limited genetic material available at the time
(Arctander and Fjeldså 1993) and has since been corroborated in full (e.g.
Cadena et al. 2020). Later, three Brazilian forms, all genetically distinct and
with diagnostic calls, but with songs that do not differ appreciably from those
of relatives were described and ranked as species, first S. iraiensis (Marsh Tapaculo), whose song principally differs that
of southern populations of S. speluncae/notorius (Mouse-colored Tapaculo) in the
introductory notes (Bornschein et al. 1998), later S. diamantinensis (Diamantina Tapaculo) (Bornschein et al. 2007)
and S. petrophilus (Rock Tapaculo)
(Whitney et al. 2010). Note that the latter two species have songs are very
similar to, or least overlap in most quantitative traits, with songs of S. pachecoi (Planalto Tapaculo), but both S. diamantinensis and S.
petrophilus have diagnostic calls. The recognition by SACC of S. diamantinensis, in particular,
generated much discussion (see AOS-SACC Proposals 329 on diamantinensis and 463 on petrophilus), but both were
accepted after healthy debate.
Krabbe
and Cadena (2010) described a new taxon androstictus
and followed (albeit with hesitation) a rigid interpretation of the criteria of
Krabbe & Schulenberg (1997) by ranking it as a subspecies of S. opacus because the two have fairly
similar songs. Genetically, canus, opacus, and androstictus are each other’s closest relatives and form three
distinct branches with pairwise differences in mtDNA exceeding 5%, being about
equally distinct from each other. Although canus
differs from the others in both morphology, song, and call, the diagnostic
features of androstictus that
separate it from opacus include only
a white wing patch present in 10 out of 12 Ecuadorian males (but lacking in all
three males from Peru), a substantially different call, and a song lacking the
distinctive introductory notes, which are present in 19 of 23 songs of opacus analyzed (see Fig. 5 in Krabbe
and Cadena 2010).
Krabbe
et al. (2020) gave weight to four criteria in ranking Scytalopus taxa:
“(1) Populations are found in sympatry or parapatry along
elevational gradients without evidence of interbreeding, thus maintaining their
integrity because of reproductive isolation (Mayr 1942).
(2)
Populations are vocally diagnosable. Contra Krabbe and
Schulenberg (1997, 2003), who
considered only vocal differences in song, we follow the broader approach by Whitney et al. (2010) by also including diagnostic calls.
(3)
Populations are genetically distinct, as inferred by phylogenetic analysis of
available genetic data revealing reciprocal monophyly. We expect that
populations are more likely to be species if they have maintained DNA sequence
divergence from other similar populations, but we apply no operational
thresholds for recognizing species.
(4)
Populations are morphologically diagnosable. Many universally accepted Scytalopus
species fail to fulfill this expectation, but we include it for cases of
morphological distinctness.
Here, we
rank populations as species if they fulfill at least criterion 1, or the union
of criteria 2 and 3, resulting in taxonomic decisions broadly consistent with
those already in place for Scytalopus.”
Concerning criterion 1,
opacus and androstictus are today separated only by 28 km of ridge immediately
west of Loja city, and except for a 1 km stretch at 2400 m elevation at the
cold and windy Cajanuma divide, no pass in this ridge is below 2500 m, which is
just 400 m below the present lower elevational limit for them. The two almost
certainly met during colder periods in the Pleistocene, yet maintained their
integrity. As for criterion 2, the two are certainly vocally diagnosable, as
they have strikingly different calls. Additionally, the song usually also
differs. As for criterion 3, the genetic difference between them is 5.3 % in
mtDNA, which is more than between some forms now presumed to live in sympatry (intermedius and macropus) or living in parapatry, replacing each other
altitudinally (various members of the very recently evolved [S. femoralis] clade). Some populations
of S. atratus, S. bolivianus, and S.
parvirostris differ genetically more from each other, but these are
expected to be split after further study of their vocalizations (Cadena et al.
2020). Even criterion 4 arguably applies, as 10 out of 12 males (10 out of 15,
if Peruvian birds are included) can be distinguished by their white wing spot.
This leaves undecided the ranking of forms with distinctive calls
but with little genetic or morphological differentiation, such as the
population of S. spillmanni in the W Andes of Colombia (Krabbe et al.
2006). This and many other species of Scytalopus
(such as latrans, acutirostris, schulenbergi, parvirostris,
atratus, and speluncae/notorius) are still in need of further
sampling and study.
To
sum up, androstictus fulfils criteria
2 and 3, and arguably also criteria 1 and 4 of Krabbe et al. (2020) and thus
should be ranked as a biological species. I therefore recommend that you vote
yes to part A of the proposal.
B:
Adopt the English name Loja Tapaculo.
The
species occurs on the ridges separating the provinces of Loja and
Zamora-Chinchipe in Ecuador, and the departments of Piura and Cajamarca in
Peru. I suggest the name Loja Tapaculo, whence comes the type. S. opacus also occurs in Loja, but it
has a much larger range (north to Colombia). The name Loja Tapaculo indicates a
small range. S. opacus could keep the
name Paramo Tapaculo.
As
for the vernacular name, I also recommend a yes, but better suggestions are
welcome.
References:
Arctander,
P. and Fjeldså, J. 1994. Andean tapaculos of the genus Scytalopus (Aves, Rhinocryptidae): a study of speciation using DNA
sequence data. In: Loeschcke, V., Tomiuk, J., Jain, S.K. (Eds.), Conservation Genetics. Birkhauser
Verlag, Basel, Switzerland, pp. 205-225.
Bornschein, M. R., Reinert, B. L., and Pichorim, M.
1998. Descrição, ecologia e conservação
de um novo Scytalopus
(Rhinocryptidae) do sul do Brasil, com comentários sobre a morfologia da
família. Ararajuba
6: 3-36.
Bornschein, M. R., Maurício, G. N., Belmonte-Lopes,
R., Mata, H., and Bonatto, S. L. 2007. Diamantina Tapaculo, a new Scytalopus endemic to the Chapada
Diamantina, northeastern Brazil (Passeriformes: Rhinocryptidae).
Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia
15:151–174.
Cadena D. C., Cuervo, A. M., Céspedes, L. N., Bravo,
G. A., Krabbe, N., Schulenberg, T. S., Derryberry, G. E., Luis Silveira, L. F.,
Derryberry, E. P., Robb T. Brumfield, R. T. & Fjeldså, J. (2020).
Systematics, biogeography and diversification of Scytalopus tapaculos (Rhinocryptidae), an enigmatic radiation of
Neotropical montane birds. The Auk
137: xxx. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukz077
Krabbe, N. & Schulenberg, T. S. 1997. Species
limits and natural history of Scytalopus
tapaculos (Rhinocryptidae), with descriptions of the Ecuadorian taxa, including
three new species. Pp. 46-88 in
Remsen, J. V. [Ed.] Studies in Neotropical ornithology honoring Ted Parker. Ornithological Monographs 48.
Krabbe, N., Florez, P., Suárez, G., Castaño, J.,
Arango, D. & Duque, A. 2006. The birds of Páramo de Frontino,
Western Andes of Colombia. Ornitología Colombiana 4: 37-48.
Krabbe, N. and Cadena, C. D. 2010. A taxonomic
revision of the Paramo Tapaculo Scytalopus
canus Chapman (Aves: Rhinocryptidae), with description of a new subspecies
from Ecuador and Peru. Zootaxa. 2354:
56-66.
Krabbe, N. K., Schulenberg, T. S., Hosner, P. A.,
Rosenberg, K. V., Davis, T. D., Rosenberg, G. H., Lane, D. F., Andersen, M. J.,
Robbins, M. B., Cadena, C. D., Valqui, T., Salter, J. F., Spencer, A. J. &
and Fjeldså, J. 2020. Untangling cryptic diversity in the High Andes: revision
of the Scytalopus [magellanicus] complex (Rhinocryptidae)
in Peru reveals three new species. The
Auk 137: xxx. https://doi.org/10.1093/auk/ukaa003
Whitney, B.M., Vasconcelos, M.F., Silveira, L.F.,
Pacheco, J.F. 2010. Scytalopus petrophilus (Rock Tapaculo): a new species from Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Revista Brasileira de Ornitologia 18:
73-88.
Zimmer, J.T. 1939. Studies of Peruvian birds. No. XXXII. The genus Scytalopus. American Museum Novitates 1044.
Niels Kaare Krabbe, 23
April 2020
Comments
from Robbins:
“YES, based on the distinctive calls and the relatively substantial genetic
differentiation from closely related taxa.”
Comments
from Areta:
“YES. The
calls of androstictus differ dramatically from those of opacus (and canus). Songs of androstictus differ from opacus not only by the lack of the short trilled introductory
notes, but also by their more ticking sound (although this may demand more
precise measurements, it sounds more ticking to my ear) and their sometimes
clearly ticking ‘introductions’.”
Comments
from Bonaccorso:
“YES. Differences in genetics and voice are
consistent with a new species.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“A. YES – A tad more confusing than the previous ones, but convincing. Both
calls, and genetic distance. B. YES – Loja Tapaculo works.”
Comments from Zimmer: “A. YES to recognizing androstictus
as a distinct species. The sum of
evidence from multiple data sets (vocal, morphological, genetic) supports this
recognition. There is substantial
precedent in other suboscine species-complexes for calls being better
indicators of relatedness than primary songs, so, using that yardstick, the
vocal evidence seems rock solid. B. YES to applying the English name of Loja
Tapaculo, in recognition of the type locality for the species, a common naming
practice in this morphologically conservative group.”
Comments
from Stotz:
“A. YES. I think the genetic and vocal
differences are sufficient to accept androstictus as a distinct species. B. YES. Loja
Tapaculo seems like a good choice for an English name.”
Comments from
Stiles: “YES: calls
and genetics clearly indicate that androstictus should be accorded
species rank.”
Comments from Pacheco: “A. YES. Considering the
taxonomic decisions already existing for Scytalopus, the arguments used
to defend the species ranking for the present taxon seem to me to be consistent.”