Proposal (882) to South
American Classification Committee
Split Synallaxis
stictothorax into two species: coastal S. stictothorax and interior S.
chinchipensis
Effect
on SACC classification: add Synallaxis chinchipensis as a species separate
from S. stictothorax.
Background: From SACC notes:
“Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely
& Greenfield (2001) considered the upper Marañon population chinchipensis
as a separate species, but no analysis or data published. SACC proposal to elevate chinchipensis
to species rank did not pass because of insufficient published data.”
Well, that analysis has finally been published
in the form of Stopiglia et al. (2020), using
morphology, and the phylogenetic reconstruction from Tobias et al. (2014), in
which was demonstrated that S. chinchipensis is not sister to S.
stictothorax, but rather to S. hypochondriaca. This, in addition to
the distinct voices of S. stictothorax and S. chinchipensis
(e.g., as described in Schulenberg et al. 2010, and easily heard in the
recordings linked below) require the recognition of the latter as a full
species, as suggested by Ridgely and Tudor (1994) and Ridgely and Greenfield
(2001).
Voice comparison:
Synallaxis stictothorax:
https://www.xeno-canto.org/species/Synallaxis-stictothorax
Synallaxis chinchipensis:
https://www.xeno-canto.org/species/Synallaxis-stictothorax?query=ssp:%22chinchipensis%22
Analysis: This split has been
anticipated for a long time, and it is one that is not a surprise given the
morphological and vocal distinctions between S. chinchipensis and the
remainder of S. stictothorax. Basically all that was missing was a
publication that laid out these characters. The phylogeny that shows that the
two are not sisters should make the change in classification clear.
Recommendation:
I recommend that SACC accept the elevation of Synallaxis chinchipensis
to full species separate from S. stictothorax.
Literature
cited:
Ridgely, R.
S., and P. J. Greenfield. 2001. The birds of Ecuador. Status, Distribution, and
Taxonomy, vol. I. Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press.
Ridgely, R.
S., and G. Tudor. 1994. The Birds of South America, vol. 2. Austin, University
of Texas Press.
Schulenberg.
T. S., D. F.
Stotz., D. F. Lane., J. P. O’Neill, and T. A. Parker, III. 2010. Birds of Peru,
revised and updated edition. Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press.
Stopiglia, R., F. A. Bockmann,
C. P. de Assis, and M. A. Raposo. 2020 Alpha
taxonomy of Synallaxis
stictothorax group (Aves: Passeriformes:
Furnariidae): Synallaxis
chinchipensis Chapman, 1925 as a valid species, with a
lectotype designation. Vertebrate Zoology 70: 319-331.
Tobias, J.
A., C. K. Cornwallis, E. P. Derryberry, S. Claramunt, R. T. Brumfield, and N.
Seddon. 2014. Species coexistence and the dynamics of phenotypic evolution in
adaptive radiation. Nature, 506: 359– 363.
Dan Lane, Aug 2020
Comments
from Stiles:
“YES; all lines of evidence coincide in supporting this split.”
Comments
from Areta:
“YES, chinchipensis differs in vocalizations,
genetics, and plumage to the point that it deserves treatment at the species
level.”
Comments
from Claramunt:
“YES. Plumage, morphological, and vocal differences
alone support chinchipensis as a different species. On top of that, it is not even
sister to stictothorax.”
Comments
from Robbins:
“YES for recognizing chinchipensis, as
this is a straightforward proposal that does not leave any doubt of the course
of action.”
Comments from Zimmer: “YES. I was a “reluctant NO”
vote the first time around on this issue, noting that, in addition to the
obvious plumage and biometric distinctions between stictothorax and chinchipensis,
that my own field experience and tape recordings did support the idea that the
two taxa differed vocally, and that treating them as distinct species from one
another would fit an established biogeographic pattern regarding Marañon versus
coastal populations across several different taxa. The reason for my previous “no” vote, was the
lack of any formal, published analysis.
Such a publication is now available (Stopiglia
et al. 2020), and it leaves no doubt as to the best course of action going
forward.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“YES – Now that information that was widely known but unpublished has been
published, we can separate these species.”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. Confirming a 26-year
presumption with robust evidence.”
Comments
from Bonaccorso:
“YES. Non-monophyly is key to separate them.
Additional differences in measurements, song, and minor plumage differences
provide diagnostic characters.”