SACCBaseline09 by panniuniu

VIEWS: 2 PAGES: 37

									   A classification of the bird species of
               South America
        South American Classification Committee


               American Ornithologists' Union




                                (Part 9)



Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to
Sturnidae) (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 (Eurylaimidae and Furnariidae)
(click)
Part 7. Suboscine Passeriformes, B (Thamnophilidae to
Rhinocryptidae) (click)
Part 8. Suboscine Passeriformes, C (Tyrannidae to Tityridae) (click)
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to Emberizidae) (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) 1

VIREONIDAE (VIREOS) 1a
Cyclarhis gujanensis Rufous-browed Peppershrike 2
Cyclarhis nigrirostris Black-billed Peppershrike 3
Vireolanius eximius Yellow-browed Shrike-Vireo 4, 5
Vireolanius leucotis Slaty-capped Shrike-Vireo 4, 5a
Vireo flavifrons Yellow-throated Vireo (NB)
Vireo masteri Choco Vireo 6, 6a
Vireo leucophrys Brown-capped Vireo 7, 7a
Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia Vireo (V) 7b
Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed Vireo 8, 8a, 8b
Vireo gracilirostris Noronha Vireo 9, 8a
Vireo flavoviridis Yellow-green Vireo (NB) 10, 8a
Vireo altiloquus Black-whiskered Vireo 8a, 8c
Hylophilus poicilotis Rufous-crowned Greenlet 11, 11a
Hylophilus amaurocephalus Gray-eyed Greenlet 12
Hylophilus thoracicus Lemon-chested Greenlet
Hylophilus semicinereus Gray-chested Greenlet
Hylophilus pectoralis Ashy-headed Greenlet
Hylophilus sclateri Tepui Greenlet
Hylophilus brunneiceps Brown-headed Greenlet
Hylophilus semibrunneus Rufous-naped Greenlet 12a
Hylophilus aurantiifrons Golden-fronted Greenlet 12a, 12b
Hylophilus hypoxanthus Dusky-capped Greenlet 12b, 13
Hylophilus muscicapinus Buff-cheeked Greenlet
Hylophilus flavipes Scrub Greenlet 13a, 13b
Hylophilus olivaceus Olivaceous Greenlet 13a
Hylophilus ochraceiceps Tawny-crowned Greenlet 14
Hylophilus decurtatus Lesser Greenlet 15
1. Within the Passeres, two major divisions have been identified by
   morphological (Bock 1962) and genetic (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990,
   Sheldon & Gill 1996, Mindell et al. 1997, Ericson et al. 2000, García -
   Moreno & Mindell 2000, Prychitko & Moore 2003) studies: the
   Corvida (here Vireonidae through) and Passerida (the rest of the
   families). Whether these groups are monophyletic is not yet certain
   (Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Treplin et al. 2008).
1a. The Vireonidae was formerly placed, based on some
   morphological studies (e.g., Beecher 1953, Tordoff 1954a), in or
   next to the nine-primaried oscines in linear sequences (e.g., Meyer
   de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); however, genetic data
   (e.g., Johnson et al. 1988, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Cicero & Johnson
   2001, Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) have confirmed
   Sibley & Ahlquist's (1982, 1990) once-controversial finding that the
   Vireonidae is part of the Corvida lineage. Cyclarhis and Vireolanius
   were formerly treated in separate families, Cyclarhiidae and
   Vireolaniidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, REFs), but see Zimmer (1942b),
   Barlow & James (1975), Raikow (1978), Orenstein & Barlow (1981),
   and Sibley & Ahlquist (1982) for inclusion within the Vireonidae.
   Even retention of these groups as subfamilies (e.g., Blake 1968a)
   within the Vireonidae is refuted by genetic data (Johnson et al.
   1988, Cicero & Johnson 2001), thus supporting a complete return
   to the classification of Ridgway (1904). Relationships of genera
   within the family are not well-resolved, and preliminary genetic
   data do not provide clear relationships among the genera (Johnson
   et al. 1988, Cicero and Johnson 2001). <incorp. Murray et al. check
   Hamilton 1962>
2. The subspecies ochrocephala of southeastern Brazil was formerly
   (e.g., Pinto 1944) occasionally treated as a separate species from
   Cyclarhis gujanensis, but they were considered conspecific by
   Hellmayr (1935), and this has been followed in all subsequent
   classifications. Ridgway (1904) treated the flavipectus subspecies
   group of n. South America and Central America, as well as the
   Middle America flaviventris subspecies group, as separate species
   from C. gujanensis; Hellmayr (1935) treated them all as conspecific,
   and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.
3. Although traditionally recognized at the species level, Cyclarhis
   nigrirostris is very similar in plumage to some nearby populations
   of C. gujanensis, and treatment of nigrirostris as a species may
   make C. gujanensis paraphyletic.
4. Vireolanius eximius and V. leucotis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
   1935, Zimmer 1942b, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a,
   Eisenmann 1955, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore et al. 1984)
   placed in a separate genus, Smaragdolanius, but recent
   classifications (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Blake
   (1968a) in merging this into Vireolanius.
5. Vireolanius eximius was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps &
   Phelps 1950a, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) considered
   a subspecies of Middle American V. pulchellus, but recent
   classifications have followed Eisenmann (1955) and AOU (1983) in
   considering them as separate species. Wetmore et al. (1984) noted
   that Hellmayr's (1935) claim that the subspecies mutabilis
   represented a taxon intermediate between eximius and pulchellus
   was incorrect (and that mutabilis was not even a valid taxon);
   therefore, Wetmore et al. (1984) recommended treating the two as
   separate species pending further data. The two species form a
   superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
5a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that Vireolanius leucotis
   may involve more than one species.
5b. Vireo flavifrons was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in
   separate genus, Lanivireo, along with North American V. solitarius
   group.
6. Genetic data (Johnson et al. 1988) suggest that the genus Vireo is
   not a monophyletic group if extralimital V. bellii is included;
   Johnson et al. (1988) also noted that the degrees of genetic
   difference within Vireo among other groups of species are
   comparable to those among currently recognized genera in the
   family.
6a. Recently described: Salaman and Stiles (1996).
7. Vireo leucophrys was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1941d, Blake 1968a,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, Mayr & Short 1970, Barlow 1981)
   considered a subspecies of V. gilvus ("Warbling Vireo"), but recent
   classifications (e.g., AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely and Tudor 1989,
   Sibley & Monroe 1990) have considered them to represent separate
   species, thus returning to the classification of Hellmayr (1935), and
   Phelps & Phelps (1950a); genetic data are also consistent with
   such a treatment (Johnson et al. 1988, Cicero and Johnson 2001).
   See Zimmer (1941d) for rationale for treatment as conspecific
   based on existence of taxa intermediate in phenotype; no explicit
   rationale other than comparative genetic distance data (Johnson et
   al. 1988) has been published to support treatment as separate
   species; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). The
   species name josephae was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for
   Vireo leucophrys.
7a. Some genetic data (Murray et al. 1994 <check Cicero-Johnson
   refs>) support the traditional "eye-lined" species group (here
   including V. leucophrys, V. philadelphicus, V. olivaceus, V.
   gracilirostris, V. flavoviridis, and V. altiloquus) as a monophyletic
   unit within the genus Vireo; these species were formerly (e.g.,
   Ridgway 1904) placed in a separate genus, Vireosylva.
7b. Three specimen records from northern Colombia (Hilty & Brown
   1986). Photograph from Aruba (Wells & Wells 2004). Sight record
   from Curaçao (Wells and Wells 2001).
8. Some classifications (e.g., Pinto 1944) have considered the South
   American chivi group as a separate species ("Chivi Vireo") from V.
   olivaceus, or as conspecific with V. flavoviridis (Hamilton 1962),
   but see Hellmayr (1935), Zimmer (1941d), Eisenmann 1962a,
   Johnson & Zink (1985), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Ridgely &
   Greenfield (2001) suggested, however, that more than one species
   may be involved within the South American chivi group.
8a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Vireo olivaceus and V.
   flavoviridis to form a superspecies, and V. altiloquus to form a
   superspecies with Caribbean V. magister; they excluded V.
   gracilirostris from either superspecies because they thought it
   might be more closely related to the latter subspecies even though
   gracilirostris was formerly considered a subspecies of V. olivaceus
   (see Note 9). Blake (1968) and Mayr & Short (1970) considered V.
   olivaceus (with flavoviridis and gracilirostris treated as
   conspecific) to form a superspecies with V. altiloquus and
   excluded V. magister. Collectively, these taxa presumably form a
   monophyletic group (AOU 1998).
8b. Vireo olivaceus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935) known as Vireo
   virescens (and occasionally in recent decades, e.g., Phillips 1991),
   but see AOU (1931), Zimmer (1941d), Monroe (1968), and Banks &
   Browning (1995).
8c. The species name calidris was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used
   for Vireo altiloquus.
9. Vireo gracilirostris was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970)
   considered a subspecies of V. olivaceus, but see Oren (1984) and
   Olson (1994) for a return to treatment at the species level, as in
   Hellmayr (1935) and Pinto (1944).

10. Vireo flavoviridis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Hamilton 1958,
   Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970, AOU 1983) treated
   as a subspecies of V. olivaceus, but see Hamilton (1962),
   Eisenmann (1962a), Wetmore et al. (1984), and Johnson & Zink
   (1985) for a return to the classification of Ridgway (1904).

11. Preliminary genetic data suggest that Hylophilus is not
   monophyletic (Johnson et al. 1988). The name Pachysylvia was
   formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used for Hylophilus.

11a.The species name of Hylophilus poicilotis is occasionally
  misspelled as "poecilotis" (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989).
12. Hylophilus amaurocephalus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935,
   Pinto 1944, Blake 1968a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a
   subspecies of H. poicilotis, but see Willis (1991) and Raposo et al.
   (1998) for a return to the treatment of Todd (1929); the two species
   are sympatric, differ strongly in vocalizations, and do not show
   intergradation.
12a. Hylophilus semibrunneus and H. aurantiifrons form a
  superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
12b. Ridgway (1904) treated H. hypoxanthus as a subspecies of H.
  aurantiifrons. Hellmayr (1935) treated them as separate species,
  and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.
13. Hylophilus hypoxanthus includes the subspecies inornatus,
   formerly (e.g., Blake 1968a) considered a subspecies of H.
   brunneiceps, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989). The subspecies
   flaviventris of eastern Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935)
   treated as a separate species from H. hypoxanthus.
13a. Hylophilus flavipes and H. olivaceus form a superspecies (AOU
  1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by
  Zimmer (1942b).
13b. The subspecies viridiflavus of Central America was formerly
  (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species from Hylophilus
  flavipes; Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that vocal differences
  may indicate that viridiflavus deserves species rank. Ridgway
  (1904) treated the subspecies acuticauda (of n. Venezuela) and
  insularis (of Tobago) as separate species; Hellmayr (1935) treated
  them all as conspecific, and this has been followed in all
  subsequent classifications.
14. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for potential reasons for ranking of the
   southern rubrifrons subspecies group as a separate species from
   Hylophilus ochraceiceps.
15. The minor subspecies group of South America has been treated
   (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966) as a separate species ("Gray-
   headed Greenlet") from Middle American decurtatus, but they
   intergrade in Panama (Wetmore et al. 1984).




CORVIDAE (JAYS) 1
Cyanolyca armillata Black-collared Jay 2, 3
Cyanolyca viridicyanus White-collared Jay 2, 4, 4a
Cyanolyca turcosa Turquoise Jay 2
Cyanolyca pulchra Beautiful Jay 5
Cyanocorax violaceus Violaceous Jay 6
Cyanocorax cyanomelas Purplish Jay 6
Cyanocorax caeruleus Azure Jay 6
Cyanocorax cristatellus Curl-crested Jay 6, 7
Cyanocorax affinis Black-chested Jay 6
Cyanocorax mystacalis White-tailed Jay 6
Cyanocorax cayanus Cayenne Jay 6
Cyanocorax heilprini Azure-naped Jay
Cyanocorax chrysops Plush-crested Jay 8
Cyanocorax cyanopogon White-naped Jay 8
Cyanocorax yncas Green Jay 9, 10


1. [note on monophyly, relationships, within-family relationships] .
   <incorp. Amadon 1944, Hardy 1961, 1964, 1969>. The genera in
   South America are part of a group of New World jays the
   monophyly of which is supported by genetic (Ericson et al. 2005,
   Ekman and Ericson 2006) and morphological (Manegold 2008)
   characters.
2. Cyanolyca armillata was formerly (e.g., Blake and Vaurie 1962,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986, Fjeldså & Krabbe
   1990) considered conspecific with C. viridicyanus; see Goodwin
   (1976) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for rationale for treating them as
   separate species. Cyanolyca armillata, C. viridicyanus, and C.
   turcosa were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley &
   Monroe (1990), but C. armillata and C. turcosa overlap in the
   eastern Andes of s. Colombia and n. Ecuador. Cyanolyca turcosa
   was also formerly (e.g., Blake and Vaurie 1962) considered a
   subspecies of C. viridicyanus, but see Zimmer (1953c) and Meyer
   de Schauensee (1966). These three species form a monophyletic
   group (Bonaccorso 2009).
3. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for rationale for using "Black-collared"
   instead of "Collared," as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
4. Correct spelling for species name is viridicyanus, not viridicyana
   (David & Gosselin 2002a).
4a. Bonaccorso (2009) proposed that the northern subspecies jolyaea
   should be considered a separate species based on strong genetic
   and plumage differences from the other subspecies Cyanolyca
   viridicyanus.
5. Cyanolyca pulchra may form a superspecies with Middle American
   C. cucullata (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly
   (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered conspecific, but see Pitelka (1951).
   Genetic data (Bonaccorso 2009) indicate that they are sister
   species.
6. Cyanocorax violaceus, C. cyanomelas, C. caeruleus, and C.
   cristatellus may form a superspecies (Ridgely & Tudor 1989);
   Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered C. cyanomelas and C.
   caeruleus to form a superspecies, but not the others.
7. Cyanocorax cristatellus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto
   1944) placed in the monotypic genus Uroleuca.
8. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Cyanocorax chrysops and C.
   cyanopogon, along with Mexican C. dickeyi, to form a
   superspecies; C. chrysops and C. cyanopogon were formerly (e.g.,
   Hellmayr 1934, Blake & Vaurie 1962) considered conspecific, but
   see Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
9. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated Middle
   American populations as a separate species, C. luxosus ("Green
   Jay") from South American C. yncas ("Inca Jay"), but no data
   presented; they were formerly (e.g., REFS) considered separate
   species. Proposal needed?
10. Cyanocorax yncas was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) placed in the
   monotypic genus Xanthoura, but see Zimmer (1953c) for its merger
   into Cyanocorax.



ALAUDIDAE (LARKS) 1
Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark 2



1. The Alaudidae are basal to a group of largely Old World sylvioid
   families (Fuchs et L. 2006, Alström et al. (2006), Johannson et al.
   2008).

2. Eremophila alpestris was formerly treated in the genus Otocoris
   (e.g. Ridgway 1907, AOU 1931) but see <>.




HIRUNDINIDAE (SWALLOWS) 1
Pygochelidon cyanoleuca Blue-and-white Swallow 11, 11a
Pygochelidon melanoleuca Black-collared Swallow 11d
Alopochelidon fucata Tawny-headed Swallow 12
Orochelidon murina Brown-bellied Swallow 11b
Orochelidon flavipes Pale-footed Swallow 11c
Orochelidon andecola Andean Swallow 10, 10a
Atticora fasciata White-banded Swallow
Atticora tibialis White-thighed Swallow
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Southern Rough-winged Swallow 13
Progne tapera Brown-chested Martin 6
Progne subis Purple Martin (NB) 7
Progne dominicensis Caribbean Martin 7
Progne cryptoleuca Cuban Martin (V) 7, 8
Progne chalybea Gray-breasted Martin 7
Progne elegans Southern Martin 7, 9
Progne murphyi Peruvian Martin 7, 9
Progne modesta Galapagos Martin 7, 9
Tachycineta bicolor Tree Swallow (NB) 2
Tachycineta stolzmanni Tumbes Swallow 3, 3a
Tachycineta albiventer White-winged Swallow 3a
Tachycineta leucorrhoa White-rumped Swallow 4
Tachycineta meyeni Chilean Swallow 4, 5
Riparia riparia Bank Swallow (NB) 14
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow 15, 15a, 15b
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow (NB) 16, 16a
Petrochelidon fulva Cave Swallow (V) 16, 17
Petrochelidon rufocollaris Chestnut-collared Swallow 16, 18

1. The swallows are a distinctive family with no certain close relatives
   (Sheldon & Gill 1996, REFS), although some data suggest a
   relationship to the Alaudidae (Treplin et al. 2008). Recent genetic
   data indicate that they may be part of a primarily Old World
   radiation of "sylvioid" families such as babblers and tits (Barker et
   al. 2004), including the Alaudidae (Johansson et al. 2008).
1a. Classifications of the family in last 60 years or so have generally
   followed Mayr & Bond (1943) in merging many monotypic genera
   and grouping species into genera based on nest site construction
   and plumage characters. For the most part, these broad genera
   conform to the groups identified by genetic data (Sheldon &
   Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 1999). SACC proposal passed to
   redefine sequence of genera and generic limits based largely on
   the genetic data of Sheldon et al. (2005). [Stiles working on rewriting
   this and several Notes below.]
2. Sequence of species in Tachycineta follows Whittingham et al.
   (2002).
2a. All South American Tachycineta were formerly (e.g., Ridgway
   1904, Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, AOU 1957)
   placed in the genus Iridoprocne along with North American T.
   bicolor; recent authors have followed Peters (1960) in merging this
   into Tachycineta. Genetic data (Whittingham et al. 2002) indicate
   that Iridoprocne is not monophyletic, although the South American
   species themselves form a monophyletic group. See Whittingham
   et al. (2002) for rationale for maintaining a broadly defined
   Tachycineta as in Peters (1960).
3. Tachycineta stolzmanni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters
   1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, Ridgely & Tudor 1989,
   Turner & Rose 1989; cf. Wetmore et al. 1984) considered a
   subspecies of T. albilinea, but see Robbins et al. (1997). Genetic
   data (Whittingham et al. 2002) indicate that T. albiventer and T.
   albilinea ("Mangrove Swallow") are sister taxa, and thus more
   closely related to each other than either is to T. stolzmanni.
3a. Tachycineta albilinea, T. stolzmanni, and T. albiventer form a
   superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data support the
   monophyly of this group.
4. Tachycineta meyeni and T. leucorrhoa are sister species
   (Whittingham et al. 2002). Meyer de Schauensee (1966) proposed
   that these two species are best treated as subspecies of the same
   species; rationale for treating them as separate species is weak
   (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe
   1990).
5. Tachycineta meyeni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as T. leucopyga, but the latter
   was considered preoccupied; see Ridgway (1904), Brooke (1974)
   and Sibley and Monroe (1990). However, the analysis by Mlíkovsky
   & Frahnert (2009) indicated that leucopyga is the correct species
   name. Proposal needed.
6. Progne tapera was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Pinto 1944, Phelps
   & Phelps 1950a, Zimmer 1955b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU
   1983, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) placed in the monotypic genus
   Phaeoprogne (sometimes incorrectly spelled "Phaeprogne")
   because it differed in coloration, degree of sexual dimorphism,
   more slender bill, less forked tail, and more extensive tarsal
   feathering (Zimmer 1955b). Genetic data indicate that tapera is the
   sister to all other Progne (Sheldon & Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al.
   1999, 2005, Moyle et al. 2008. Treatment of them as congeneric
   follows Peters (1960), Wetmore et al. (1984), Turner & Rose (1989),
   and AOU (1998), but at this point rests solely on arbitrary
   evaluations of the significance of the phenotypic characters
   outlined by Zimmer (1955b).
7. Progne subis, P. dominicensis, P. cryptoleuca, P. chalybea, P.
   elegans, P. murphyi, and P. modesta, along with P. sinaloae of
   Middle America, are usually considered to form a superspecies
   (Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Mayr & Short 1970,
   Ridgely and Tudor 1989); Sibley and Monroe (1990) excluded the
   latter three because of extensive overlap of that group with P.
   chalybea; Zimmer (1955b) also noted that overlap was likely
   between P. chalybea and Middle American P. sinaloae (which he
   also considered a subspecies of P. dominicensis because of
   plumage similarities). On the other hand, reported sympatry
   between P. chalybea and P. modesta was questioned by
   Eisenmann & Haverschmidt (1972), who also reported possible
   hybridization between them. Regardless of whether they all form a
   superspecies, species limits in this group very greatly among
   classifications, and species limits are largely arbitrary; no
   convincing rationale has been published for any particular set of
   species limits. Recent genetic data (Moyle et al. 2008) indicate that
   current species limits are at least consistent with DNA sequence
   data except for the polyphyly of P. chalybea in terms of mtDNA,
   with Middle American chalybea close to other Middle American
   taxa and South American chalybea sister to P. elegans.
8. Specimens from Curaçao (Voous 1982, 1985).
9. Progne elegans and P. murphyi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Turner & Rose 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe
   1990, Sibley and Monroe 1990) treated as conspecific with P.
   modesta, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Fjeldså &
   Krabbe (1990) suggested that they might not be conspecific,
   suggesting a return to the treatment by Ridgway (1904); elegans
   was treated as a separate species by Wetmore et al. (1984) based
   on differences in size and plumage pattern. Evidence for treating
   either as separate species from modesta is weak; see Ridgely &
   Tudor (1989). Eisenmann and Haverschmidt (1970) proposed that
   P. modesta was derived from P. subis, and that P. murphyi from P.
   elegans.
9a. The species name furcata was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) used
   for Progne elegans.
10. Genetic data (Sheldon et al. 2005) indicate that the species in the
   genera Haplochelidon, Pygochelidon, Notiochelidon, Atticora,
   Neochelidon, and Alopochelidon together form a monophyletic
   group, but that current species assignments within these genera
   make them all paraphyletic or polyphyletic: "Atticora" melanoleuca
   is the sister species to Pygochelidon cyanoleuca, whereas A.
   fasciata is likely the sister to Middle American Notiochelidon
   pileata + Neochelidon tibialis, and Notiochelidon murina is the
   sister to Haplochelidon andecola. Therefore, generic limits require
   major modification. SACC proposal passed to redefine limits of
   genera. See additional notes below on the historical fluidity of the
   limits of these genera.
10a. Notiochelidon andecola has been merged into Petrochelidon by
   some (e.g., Chapman 1924b, Hellmayr 1935, Peters 1960) or into a
   broad Hirundo that includes Petrochelidon by others (REF, Ridgely
   and Tudor 1989, Turner & Rose 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
   Parkes (1993) presented evidence from nest construction and
   plumage that indicated that andecola is not a member of the
   Petrochelidon-Hirundo group, but rather a member of the
   Stelgidopteryx-Alopochelidon group. Genetic data (Sheldon &
   Winkler 1993, Sheldon et al. 2005) also indicate that andecola is not
   a member of the Petrochelidon-Hirundo group, and that it is a
   member of a Neotropical group that includes Pygochelidon,
   Notiochelidon, Atticora, and Neochelidon. SACC proposal passed
   to include in the genus Orochelidon.
11. Pygochelidon cyanoleuca is usually included in Notiochelidon
   (e.g., Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor
   1989, Turner & Rose 1989, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe
   1990), although Zimmer (1955b) placed it in Atticora. It was
   maintained in the monotypic genus Pygochelidon by AOU (1983,
   1998) and Sheldon & Winkler (1993), as in Ridgway (1904), Hellmayr
   (1935), and Pinto (1944). Sheldon et al. (1999) returned to placing it
   in Notiochelidon, but Sheldon et al. (2005) found that it is less
   closely related Notiochelidon than to Atticora melanoleuca.
11a. The southern subspecies patagonica was considered a separate
   species from Pygochelidon cyanoleuca by Ridgway (1904).
11b. Orochelidon murina was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps &
   Phelps 1950a, Zimmer 1955b) treated in the monotypic genus
   Orochelidon, but most recent classifications have placed in it
   Notiochelidon. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Orochelidon.
11c. Notiochelidon flavipes was formerly placed in Pygochelidon
   (Hellmayr 1935) or Atticora (Zimmer 1955b), but recent
   classifications have followed Peters (1960) in placing it in
   Notiochelidon. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Orochelidon
   and to place flavipes in that genus.
11d. Atticora melanoleuca was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904) placed in
   the monotypic genus Diplochelidon. SACC proposal passed to
   include melanoleuca in Pygochelidon.
12. Alopochelidon has been merged into Stelgidopteryx by some (e.g.,
   Short 1975, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), as
   suggested by Zimmer (1955b); but also see Zimmer(1955b) for
   rationale for retaining a monotypic Alopochelidon. Genetic data
   (e.g., Sheldon et al. 2005) clearly indicate that it does not belong in
   Stelgidopteryx. SACC proposal passed to maintain in monotypic
   genus.
13. Stelgidopteryx ruficollis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Peters
   1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as conspecific with S.
   serripennis ("Northern Rough-winged Swallow") of North America
   and Middle America, but see Stiles (1981) for a return to the
   classification of Ridgway (1904); they constitute a superspecies
   (Sibley and Monroe 1990).
13b. Stelgidopteryx was merged into Riparia by Phillips et al. (1964),
   but see Gaunt (1965), Parkes (1993), Sheldon & Winkler (1993), and
   Sheldon et al. (1999, 2005).
14. Called "Sand Martin" or "Common Sand-Martin" in Old World
   literature and in Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Turner & Rose (1989),
   Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC
   Proposal to change to "Sand Martin" did not pass. SACC proposal
   to add to "Sand Martin" as an alternative name did not pass.
15. Recently recorded breeding in Argentina (Martínez 1983).
15a. Hirundo rustica may form a superspecies with several Old World
   taxa (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
15b. The New World populations of Hirundo rustica were formerly
   (e.g., Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species, H.
   erythrogastra, from Old World populations.
16. Petrochelidon was included in Hirundo by <REF>, and this was
   followed by AOU (1983), Turner & Rose (1989), Sibley and Monroe
   (1990), and others, but see Sheldon & Winkler (1993) and Sheldon
   et al. (1999, 2005) for genetic data that indicate that they are not
   sister genera.
16a. The species name formerly (e.g., AOU 1931) and occasionally
   more recently (e.g., Phillips 1986) used for Petrochelidon
   pyrrhonota was albifrons, but see Banks & Browning (1995). Even
   earlier (e.g., Ridgway 1904), the species name lunifrons was used
   for Progne elegans.
17. Specimen of subspecies pallida collected on Curaçao (Voous
   1985); and <>.
18. Petrochelidon rufocollaris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935,
   Peters 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, Turner & Rose
   1989) treated as a subspecies of P. fulva , but see Ridgely and
   Tudor (1989) and AOU (1998) for returning to the classification of
   Ridgway (1904); they form a superspecies (Sibley and Monroe
   1990).




TROGLODYTIDAE (WRENS) 1
Microcerculus marginatus Scaly-breasted Wren 2, 3, 4
Microcerculus ustulatus Flutist Wren
Microcerculus bambla Wing-banded Wren
Odontorchilus branickii Gray-mantled Wren 2, 5, 6, 6a
Odontorchilus cinereus Tooth-billed Wren 6
Troglodytes aedon House Wren 7, 8, 9
Troglodytes solstitialis Mountain Wren 10
Troglodytes monticola Santa Marta Wren 10
Troglodytes rufulus Tepui Wren 10
Cistothorus platensis Sedge Wren 7, 11, 12, 13
Cistothorus meridae Merida Wren 13, 14
Cistothorus apolinari Apolinar's Wren 13, 15
Campylorhynchus albobrunneus White-headed Wren 16, 17, 18
Campylorhynchus zonatus Band-backed Wren 17, 18, 18a
Campylorhynchus nuchalis Stripe-backed Wren 18
Campylorhynchus fasciatus Fasciated Wren 18
Campylorhynchus griseus Bicolored Wren 19, 20
Campylorhynchus turdinus Thrush-like Wren 21, 22
Pheugopedius spadix Sooty-headed Wren 23, 24, 24a
Pheugopedius fasciatoventris Black-bellied Wren
Pheugopedius euophrys Plain-tailed Wren 25, 26
Pheugopedius eisenmanni Inca Wren 25, 27
Pheugopedius mystacalis Whiskered Wren 28
Pheugopedius genibarbis Moustached Wren 28
Pheugopedius coraya Coraya Wren 29
Pheugopedius rutilus Rufous-breasted Wren 30
Pheugopedius sclateri Speckle-breasted Wren 30
Thryophilus rufalbus Rufous-and-white Wren 33, 35
Thryophilus nicefori Niceforo's Wren 33, 35
Cantorchilus leucopogon Stripe-throated Wren 33, 34
Cantorchilus nigricapillus Bay Wren 31, 32, 33
Cantorchilus superciliaris Superciliated Wren 33, 36
Cantorchilus leucotis Buff-breasted Wren 33, 36, 36a
Cantorchilus longirostris Long-billed Wren 33, 36, 36a, 36b
Cantorchilus guarayanus Fawn-breasted Wren 33, 36, 36a
Cantorchilus griseus Gray Wren 6a, 37
Cinnycerthia unirufa Rufous Wren
Cinnycerthia olivascens Sharpe's Wren 38, 39
Cinnycerthia peruana Peruvian Wren 38
Cinnycerthia fulva Fulvous Wren 38
Henicorhina leucosticta White-breasted Wood-Wren 40, 43a
Henicorhina leucoptera Bar-winged Wood-Wren 43, 43a
Henicorhina leucophrys Gray-breasted Wood-Wren 41, 43a
Henicorhina negreti Munchique Wood-Wren 42
Cyphorhinus thoracicus Chestnut-breasted Wren 44, 45
Cyphorhinus phaeocephalus Song Wren 45
Cyphorhinus arada Musician Wren 45, 46, 47



1. Traditional classifications (e.g., Mayr & Amadon 1951, Wetmore
   1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed the Troglodytidae near
   the Sittidae, Certhiidae, Mimidae, and Cinclidae to reflect proposed
   relationships to those families (e.g., Beecher 1953). Genetic data
   (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Sheldon & Gill 1996, Barker et al. 2004,
   Voelker & Spellman 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) indicate a close
   relationship to the Polioptilidae, followed by Certhiidae and
   Sittidae. Barker's (2004) genetic data support the monophyly of the
   Troglodytidae, once Donacobius is removed (see Note 28), as well
   as a sister relationship between the Troglodytidae and
   Polioptilidae. Barker (2004) also found that the traditional linear
   sequence of genera, with Campylorhynchus listed first and
   Microcerculus and Cyphorhinus, requires rearrangement to reflect
   phylogenetic relationships and basal taxa. SACC proposal passed
   to change linear sequence to the one used here.
2. Genetic data (Barker 2004) suggest that Microcerculus and
   Odontorchilus are basal to other genera that occur in South
   America.
3. Microcerculus marginatus formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee
   1970) included Middle American M. philomela, but see Stiles (1983)
   for treatment of the Middle American taxa as two separate species,
   both separate from South American M. marginatus, a return
   <?check> to the classification of Hellmayr (1934); they form a
   superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). More than one species is
   almost certainly involved within South American populations
   based on vocalizations (see Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely &
   Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003, Kroodsma & Brewer 2005).
4. Microcerculus marginatus was called "Southern Nightingale-Wren"
   by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Brewer (2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer
   (2005); it was called "Whistler Wren" by Wetmore et al. (1984).
   SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
5. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that vocal differences
   between the subspecies minor and the nominate subspecies might
   indicate that Odontorchilus branickii consists of more than one
   species.
6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Odontorchilus branickii and O.
   cinereus to form a superspecies; Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and
   Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be treated
   as conspecific.
6a. "Odontorchilus olallae" is now know to be a synonym of
   Thryothorus griseus (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
7. Genetic data (Barker 2004) indicate that Cistothorus and
   Troglodytes are sister genera, contrary to traditional linear
   sequences.
8. Many authors (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps
   1950a) formerly treated Neotropical mainland populations as a
   separate species T. musculus; see also Brumfield and Capparella
   (1996); this treatment was followed by Brewer (2001) and
   Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). <incorp. Paynter 1957?> The Falklands
   population, T. a. cobbi, might also be best treated as a species
   (Wood 1993), as was done by Brewer (2001), Mazar Barnett &
   Pearman (2001), Jaramillo (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).
   SACC proposal to treat cobbi as separate species did not pass.
9. Although the name Troglodytes domesticus has priority for this
   species, Banks & Browning (1995) recommended continued use of
   aedon as the species name for reasons of stability.
10. Troglodytes solstitialis, T. monticola, and T. rufulus form a
   superspecies with Middle American T. rufociliatus and T.
   ochraceus (Sibley & Monroe 1990); species limits in this group
   traditionally based on plumage coloration and lack explicit
   rationale (except for considering T. ochraceus and T. solstitialis as
   separate species; see Stiles & Skutch 1989). Hellmayr (1934)
   considered Troglodytes solstitialis, T. monticola, and T. rufulus to
   each warrant species rank; Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de
   Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered monticola to be a subspecies
   of T. solstitialis, but treated T. rufulus as a species. <incorp. Paynter
  1957?>
11. Two distinctive major subspecies groups, Andean and south-
   temperate platensis and lowland polyglottus, intergrade in
   southeastern South America (Traylor 1988). The North American
   stellaris group may warrant species rank from Cistothorus
   platensis (e.g., see Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor
   1989).
12. Called "Grass Wren" by Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Ridgely &
   Tudor (1989), and others. SACC proposal to change English name
   did not pass. Formerly (e.g., AOU 1957) known as "Short-billed
   Marsh-Wren."
13. Cistothorus platensis, C. meridae, and C. apolinari form a
   superspecies (Mayr & Short 1970, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe
   1990).
14. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990,
   Rodner et al. 2000, Dickinson 2003) called "Paramo Wren." Called
   "Merida Wren" by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Brewer (2001), Hilty
   (2003), and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005). SACC proposal passed to
   change English name to "Merida Wren."
15. Called "Apolinar's Marsh-Wren" by Meyer de Schauensee (1970)
   and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), but as noted by Ridgely & Tudor
   (1989), this implied an incorrect relationship to North American C.
   palustris ("Marsh Wren").
16. The name Heleodytes was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto
   1944) used for Campylorhynchus, but see <REF>.
17. Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966)
   considered Campylorhynchus albobrunneus to be a subspecies of
   C. turdinus, but Haffer (1975), Hilty & Brown (1986), Ridgely &
   Tudor (1989), and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) noted that C.
   albobrunneus and C. zonatus may be sister species or even
   conspecific because the taxon aenigmaticus of southwestern
   Nariño, currently treated as a subspecies of C. albobrunneus, may
   represent a hybrid zone between albobrunneus and zonatus (Haffer
   1967); their vocalizations are not known to differ. Barker (2007)
   found that albobrunneus was more closely related to C. fasciatus
   than to either C. zonatus or C. turdinus. Treatment of albobrunneus
   as a separate species represents a return to the classifications of
   Hellmayr (1934) and Selander (1964).
18. Campylorhynchus zonatus, C. albobrunneus, C. nuchalis, and C.
   fasciatus were considered to form a superspecies (Sibley &
   Monroe 1990; cf. Selander 1964), but they do not form a
   monophyletic group (Barker 2007).
18a. Campylorhynchus zonatus likely consists of more than one
   species (Barker 2007).
19. Campylorhynchus griseus and Middle American C. chiapensis
   may form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer
   de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be treated as
   conspecific, as treated by Paynter & Vaurie (1960).
20. The minor subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934)
   considered a separate species from Campylorhynchus griseus.
21. The southern subspecies unicolor was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
   1934, Pinto 1944) treated as a separate species from
   Campylorhynchus turdinus, but Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated
   them as conspecific.
22. Called "Banded-backed Wren" in Stiles & Skutch (1989) and
   Dickinson (2003).
23. Genetic data (Barker 2004) indicate that the genus Thryothorus is
   paraphyletic with respect to Cyphorhinus, Henicorhina,
   Cinnycerthia, and probably also Campylorhynchus and
   Thryomanes. Additional taxon-sampling within "Thryothorus" will
   be needed before any genus-level revision is possible, e.g., a
   return to recognition of Thryophilus and Pheugopedius (see Note
   24).
24. Genetic data (Mann et al. 2006) indicate that the broad genus
   Thryothorus is polyphyletic, and that true Thryothorus is not found
   in South America; Mann et al. (2006) recommended recognition of
   three genera for South American taxa by resurrecting two from the
   synonymy of Thryothorus (Pheugopedius and Thryophilus) and
   describing a new one (Cantorchilus). SACC proposal to redistribute
   South American "Thryothorus" into three genera did not pass.
   <add Pheugopedius, Cantorchilus, and Thryophilus limits to Notes
   below>. Mann et al. (2009) found distinctive vocal behaviors
   marking Pheugopedius, Thryophilus, and Cantorchilus. New SACC
   proposals passed to revise Thryothorus and linear sequences of
   species.
24a. Thryothorus spadix and Central American T. atrogularis appear
   to form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they
   were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1934) and Paynter &
   Vaurie (1960), but see Wetmore et al. (1984).
25. Thryothorus euophrys and T. eisenmanni to form a superspecies
   (Parker & O'Neill 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
26. The subspecies atriceps was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934)
   considered a separate species from Thryothorus euophrys, but
   Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated them as conspecific.
27. Recently described: Parker & O'Neill (1985).28. Ridgely & Tudor
   (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated montane mystacalis as a
   separate species from lowland Thryothorus genibarbis; this was
   followed by Brewer (2001), Ridgely et al. (2001), Hilty (2003), and
   Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); voices are described as different, but
   no analysis has been published; they were formerly treated as
   separate species (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) until Paynter & Vaurie (1960)
   treated them as conspecific. SACC proposal passed to elevate
   mystacalis to species rank. The northern subspecies macrurus was
   also formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934) considered a separate species
   from Thryothorus genibarbis, but Paynter & Vaurie (1960) treated
   them as conspecific; <REFS?> and Brewer (2001) noted that
   macrurus, known from one specimen, may be an aberrant
   individual of T. g. amaurogaster, but subsequently treated as a
   valid taxon by Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) <trace this -- not
   mentioned in Paynter & Vaurie (1960)>.
29. Hilty (2003) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) pointed out that vocal
   differences between subspecies of Venezuelan Tepui region and
   lowlands suggest that Thryothorus coraya may consist of more
   than one species.
30. Thryothorus rutilus, T. sclateri, and Middle American T.
   maculipectus were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1934), but
   they were treated as separate species by AOU (1983, 1998),
   Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely & Greenfield
   (2001) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and
   Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) treated the similarly patterned
   but widely separated sclateri and maculipectus as conspecific, but
   maintained geographically intermediate T. rutilus as a separate
   species. See Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for a synopsis and for
   rationale for tentative treatment of the three groups as separate
   species. They form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe
   1990).
31. Thryothorus nigricapillus and Central American T. semibadius
   form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were
   formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Paynter & Vaurie 1960) treated as
   conspecific, but see Slud (1964), Wetmore et al. (1984), and
   Kroodsma & Brewer (2005).
32. The Central American subspecies castaneus was formerly (e.g.,
   Ridgway 1904) treated as a separate species from Thryothorus
   nigricapillus, but Hellmayr (1934) treated them as conspecific see
   <?> Wetmore (1959).
33. Thryothorus nigricapillus, T. leucopogon, T. rufalbus, T. nicefori,
   T. leucotis, T. superciliaris, T. guarayanus, and T. longirostris were
   formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1904, Chapman 1917) placed in a separate
   genus, Thryophilus.
34. Thryothorus leucopogon was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934,
   Paynter & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a
   subspecies of T. thoracicus of Central America; here it is treated as
   separate species, following AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al.
   (1984), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and
   Kroodsma & Brewer (2005); vocalizations are described differing
   strongly, but no analysis has been published. They form a
   superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
35. Many have suggested that Thryothorus nicefori is perhaps best
   treated as a subspecies of T. rufalbus (Paynter & Vaurie 1960,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), but see
   Valderrama et al. (2007) for support for species rank for nicefori;
   they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
36. Thryothorus leucotis, T. superciliaris, T. guarayanus, and T.
   longirostris, along with Middle American T. modestus, form a
   superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Kroodsma & Brewer 2005),
   and justification for ranking each as a species is weak (see
   additional comments in Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Meyer de
   Schauensee (1966) suggested that T. superciliaris might best be
   treated as a subspecies of T. leucotis.
36a. The southern subspecies rufiventris was treated as a separate
   species from Thryothorus leucotis by (REF) <noted in Kroodsma &
   Brewer (2005)>. Species limits among T. leucotis, T. longirostris,
   and T. guarayanus are controversial (Ridgely and Tudor 1994,
   Hayes 1995).
36b. Kroodsma & Brewer (2005) suggested that the northern
   subspecies bahiae might warrant treatment as a separate species
   from Thryothorus longirostris. See also Zimmer and Whittaker
   (2009).
37. Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Brewer (2001), and Kroodsma & Brewer
   (2005) suggested that T. griseus is so different from other
   Thryothorus (now Cantorchilus) that it might deserve placement in
   separate genus. Its placement here in Cantorchilus is tentative.
38. Cinnycerthia olivascens and C. fulva were formerly (e.g., Paynter
   & Vaurie 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific
   with C. peruana, but see Brumfield & Remsen (1996); this treatment
   was followed by Brewer (2001), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Kroodsma
   & Brewer (2005). Hellmayr (1934) had previously treated fulva as a
   separate species from C. peruana. The three species form a
   superspecies.
39. Called "Sepia-brown Wren" in Ridgely et al. (2001). SACC proposal
   to change English name did not pass.
40. The prostheleuca and pittieri subspecies groups of Middle
   American may each warrant recognition as separate species from
   Henicorhina leucosticta (Winker et al. 1996). Dingle et al. (2006)
   further suggested splitting H. leucosticta into at least three taxa: (i)
   a Central American prostheleuca group; (ii) a Chocó inornata
   group; and (iii) an Amazonian leucosticta group. Proposal needed.
41. Henicorhina leucophrys may consist of more than one species;
   see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Kroodsma & Brewer (2005)
42. Recently described: Salaman et al. (2003). SACC proposal passed
   to add newly described Henicorhina negreti.
43. Recently described: Fitzpatrick et al. (1977).
43a. Dingle et al.'s (2006) analysis of mtDNA haplotype distribution
   indicates that Henicorhina leucoptera is more closely related to H.
   leucosticta than to H. leucophrys, and in fact Chocó populations of
   the former are more closely related to H. leucoptera than either is
   to other H. leucosticta populations. SACC proposal passed to
   change linear sequence of species within Henicorhina.
44. The name formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps &
   Phelps 1950a) used for the genus Cyphorhinus was Leucolepis;
   see Storer (1970a).
45. Cyphorhinus phaeocephalus was considered conspecific with C.
   arada by Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966,
   1970); most authors have followed Hellmayr (1934), AOU (1983),
   and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) in treating them as separate species;
   virtually no relevant published data support either treatment; they
   form a superspecies (AOU 1983); Paynter & Vaurie (1960) and
   Sibley & Monroe (1990) also included C. thoracicus in this
   superspecies.
46. The southern subspecies modulator (with rufogularis,
   transfluviatilis, interpositus, and griseolateralis) was formerly (e.g.,
   Pinto 1944) occasionally treated as a separate species from
   Cyphorhinus arada; they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr
   (1934) and Paynter & Vaurie (1960), and this has been followed by
   subsequent authors. Whittaker (2009) noted that vocal differences
   among subspecies suggest that more than one species is involved.
47. This species' name is often given as "aradus", but see Meyer de
   Schauensee (1966), Jobling (1991), and David & Gosselin (2002a).




POLIOPTILIDAE (GNATCATCHERS) 1
Microbates collaris Collared Gnatwren
Microbates cinereiventris Half-collared Gnatwren 2
Ramphocaenus melanurus Long-billed Gnatwren 3
Polioptila plumbea Tropical Gnatcatcher 4, 5
Polioptila lactea Creamy-bellied Gnatcatcher 5
Polioptila guianensis Guianan Gnatcatcher 6, 7
Polioptila clementsi Iquitos Gnatcatcher 8
Polioptila schistaceigula Slate-throated Gnatcatcher 6
Polioptila dumicola Masked Gnatcatcher 9
1. Although this group had been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de
   Schauensee 1970) as a tribe or subfamily of the Old World
   Warblers (Sylviidae), actual evidence for that relationship was
   weak. Independent genetic data sets (Sibley & Ahlquist 1990,
   Sheldon & Gill 1996, Barker et al. 2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004,
   Alström et al. 2006, Johansson et al. 2008) indicate a relationship to
   the Troglodytidae (which is much more plausible in terms of
   biogeography). The conservative position is, pending additional
   data, to treat this group as a family of its own. Rand & Traylor
   (1953) proposed that Ramphocaenus and Microbates were more
   closely related to the African sylviid genus Macrosphenus than to
   Polioptila, but Beecher (1953) considered this to represent
   convergence. At one time (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924, Pinto 1937),
   Microbates and Ramphocaenus were placed in the Formicariidae (=
   Thamnophilidae), but see Rand & Traylor (1953). These two genera
   are often placed in a separate tribe, Ramphoceaenini, from
   Polioptila when the collective group is ranked as a subfamily (e.g.,
   AOU 1998); genetic data for their sister relationship to Polioptila
   rests on Sibley & Ahlquist (1990).

2. Called "Tawny-faced Gnatwren" by Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983,
   1998), Wetmore et al. (1984), Ridgely and Tudor (1989), Stiles &
   Skutch (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001),
   and Gill & Wright (2006). The name "Half-collared" dates from at
   least Ridgway (1911), and was used by Cory (1924), Eisenmann
   (1955), Meyer de Schauensee (1970), Parker et al. (1982), and Hilty
   & Brown (1986). Proposal needed. <NACC proposal to change
   NACC to Half-collared did not pass>

3. The rufiventris subspecies group of Middle America and western
   Colombia was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1924) considered a
   separate species from Ramphocaenus melanurus, but see Zimmer
   (1931) for rationale for treating them as conspecific.

4. Polioptila plumbea likely includes several species (Atwood and
   Lerman 2006). The subspecies maior of the Marañon Valley (treated
   as a separate species by Hellmayr 1934) and the bilineata group of
   northern South American and Middle America may each warrant
   species recognition, but a published analysis is lacking (Ridgely &
   Tudor 1989). Even within populations east of the Andes, vocal
  differences suggest that more than one species is involved
  (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003).

4a. Middle American Polioptila albiloris was formerly (e.g., Zimmer
   1942c) considered a subspecies of P. plumbea.

5. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Polioptila plumbea and P. lactea
   to form a superspecies; Paynter (1964) and Meyer de Schauensee
   (1966) suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.

6. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Polioptila guianensis and P.
   schistaceigula to form a superspecies; Zimmer (1942c) and Paynter
   (1964) suggested that they might best be treated as conspecific.

7. Whitney and Alvarez A. (2005) provided evidence that P. guianensis
   should be treated as three separate species, with the subspecies
   paraensis and facilis treated as species-level taxa. Atwood and
   Lerman (2006) followed this treatment. SACC proposal for
   recognition of P. facilis and P. paraensis did not pass.

8. Newly described: Whitney and Alvarez A. (2005), who considered it
   part of the P. guianensis group, which they also considered to
   consist of at least two additional species (see previous Note).
   SACC proposal passed for recognition of P. clementsi.

9. The subspecies berlepschi differs substantially in plumage and
   perhaps voice, and may merit recognition as a separate species
   (Ridgely & Tudor 1989).



DONACOBIIDAE (Donacobius) 1

Donacobius atricapilla Black-capped Donacobius 2, 3



1. Donacobius atricapilla was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr
   1934, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Davis & Miller 1960,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994)
   considered to be a member of the Mimidae; it was moved from the
  Mimidae to the Troglodytidae based on Wetmore et al. (1984) and
  Kiltie & Fitzpatrick (1984). Genetic data (Barker 2004, Alström et al.
  2006), however, indicate that it does not belong in either of those
  families, but is a member of the Old World Sylvioidea group, most
  likely related to the Megaluridae or "Bernieridae" (Johansson et al.
  2008). SACC proposal passed to remove from Troglodytidae and
  place as Incertae Sedis. Aleixo & Pacheco (2006) proposed that
  Donacobius be elevated to family rank, Donacobiidae. SACC
  proposal passed to recognize Donacobiidae. Chesser et al. (2010)
  also formally recognized this new family.

2. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Black-capped
   Mockingthrush." Called "Black-capped Mockingbird" in
   Haverschmidt & Mees (1994) and "Donacobius" in Kroodsma &
   Brewer (2005). Proposal needed?

3. Correct spelling for species name is atricapilla (David & Gosselin
   2002a).




CINCLIDAE (DIPPERS) 1
Cinclus leucocephalus White-capped Dipper 2, 3
Cinclus schulzi Rufous-throated Dipper 2, 4



1. [relationships of family; Sibley 1970, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990]
    Genetic data suggest that the Cinclidae are most closely related to
    the Turdidae+Muscicapidae (Barker et al. 2004, Treplin et al. 2008,
    Johannson et al. 2008) or to the Sturnidae+Mimidae (Voelker &
    Spellman 2004).

2. Cinclus leucocephalus and C. schulzi form a superspecies (Sibley
   & Monroe 1990, Ormerod & Tyler 2005); they were formerly (e.g.,
   Hellmayr 1934, Greenway 1960) considered conspecific.

3. The leuconotus subspecies group was considered a separate
   species from Cinclus leucocephalus by (REF).
4. The correct spelling of the species name is schulzi (Ridgely &
   Tudor 1989), not "schultzi" as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) and
   elsewhere.



BOMBYCILLIDAE (WAXWINGS) 1
Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar Waxwing (V) 2



1. The relationships of the Bombycillidae remain uncertain. Some
   genetic data (Voelker & Spellman 2004) suggest that the
   Bombycillidae are not closely related to the Muscicapoidea
   assemblage, as proposed by Sibley & Ahlquist (1990); other
   genetic data (Barker et al. 2004) support that relationship. Jonsson
   & Fjeldså (2006) included them within the Muscicapoidea, but
   Johannson et al. (2008) found little support for that placement.

2. Specimen records from northwestern Colombia (Hilty & Brown
   1986) and northwestern Venezuela (Aveledo & Pons 1952). Dead
   bird examined (Voous 1983) but evidently not preserved as a
   specimen.



TURDIDAE (THRUSHES) 1
Myadestes coloratus Varied Solitaire 2, 3
Myadestes ralloides Andean Solitaire 2, 3
Catharus aurantiirostris Orange-billed Nightingale-Thrush 5, 5c
Catharus fuscater Slaty-backed Nightingale-Thrush 5c
Catharus dryas Spotted Nightingale-Thrush 5c
Catharus fuscescens Veery (NB) 5a
Catharus minimus Gray-cheeked Thrush (NB) 5a, 5c
Catharus ustulatus Swainson's Thrush (NB) 5a, 5c
Hylocichla mustelina Wood Thrush (V) 5a, 5b
Entomodestes coracinus Black Solitaire 6, 6a
Entomodestes leucotis White-eared Solitaire 6a
Cichlopsis leucogenys Rufous-brown Solitaire 4
Turdus leucops Pale-eyed Thrush 6b
Turdus falcklandii Austral Thrush
Turdus reevei Plumbeous-backed Thrush
Turdus flavipes Yellow-legged Thrush 6b, 6bb
Turdus leucomelas Pale-breasted Thrush
Turdus fumigatus Cocoa Thrush 8b
Turdus hauxwelli Hauxwell's Thrush 8b
Turdus obsoletus Pale-vented Thrush 8b, 8c
Turdus rufiventris Rufous-bellied Thrush
Turdus grayi Clay-colored Thrush 8d, 10
Turdus nudigenis Spectacled Thrush 8c, 8d, 11, 11a, 11b
Turdus maculirostris Ecuadorian Thrush 11
Turdus haplochrous Unicolored Thrush 8d
Turdus lawrencii Lawrence's Thrush
Turdus amaurochalinus Creamy-bellied Thrush
Turdus ignobilis Black-billed Thrush 8a
Turdus maranonicus Marañon Thrush
Turdus fulviventris Chestnut-bellied Thrush
Turdus olivater Black-hooded Thrush 8
Turdus nigriceps Slaty Thrush 7
Turdus fuscater Great Thrush 5d, 6c
Turdus chiguanco Chiguanco Thrush 6c, 6d
Turdus serranus Glossy-black Thrush 6e
Turdus assimilis White-throated Thrush 12, 12a, 12b, 13
Turdus albicollis White-necked Thrush 12, 14, 15



1. [relationships of family] < incorp. Mayr & Greenway 1956, Breviora,
    Voelker & Spellman 2004> The limits of the Turdidae, as
    traditionally defined (e.g., REFS) are almost certainly incorrect.
    Genetic data (Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Treplin et al. 2008) indicate
    that he mostly Old World saxicoline genera are more closely
    related to members of the traditional Muscicapidae than to the
    Turdidae; this would require a merger of the two families or a
    transfer of the saxicoline genera (none yet recorded in South
    America, although Oenanthe oenanthe almost certainly will be
    sooner or later) to the Muscicapidae. Within the remaining
    Turdidae, genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005) suggest that the genera
    Myadestes, Sialia (North America), and Neocossyphus (Africa) form
    a basal, sister group to all other true thrushes; Olson (1989) and
    Pasquet et al. (1999) proposed recognition of a separate subfamily
   for this group, Myadestinae. Proposal needed? <incorp. Ripley
   1952, Goodwin 1957>
2. Hellmayr (1934), Ripley (1964), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966,
   1970) considered Myadestes coloratus, M. ralloides, and Central
   American M. melanops to be conspecific; Ridgway (1907), AOU
   (1983, 1998), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989), however, treated them as
   separate species; evidence for either treatment is weak; they
   constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990), and
   genetic data indicate that they form a monophyletic group (Miller et
   al. 2007, Voelker & Klicka 2008).
3. Sibley's (1973a) analysis of egg-white proteins indicated that
   Myadestes was most closely related to Middle American
   Ptilogonatidae, and this was followed by Wetmore et al. (1984).
   However, recent genetic data (Pasquet et al. 1999, Cibois & Cracraft
   2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004, Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka
   2008) support an earlier suggestion based on morphology (Olson
   1989) that Myadestes is more closely related to the Afrotropical
   genera Stizorhina and Neocossyphus than to other New World
   thrushes except perhaps Sialia (Voelker & Klicka 2008). Ripley's
   (1964) linear sequence placed Myadestes next to African Stizorhina
   and Neocossyphus rather than near other New World thrush
   genera.
4. Hellmayr (1934), Pinto (1944), and Phelps & Phelps (1950a) treated
   this species in the monotypic genus Cichlopsis. Ripley (1964) and
   Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) merged Cichlopsis into
   Myadestes, but see Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for resurrection of
   Cichlopsis; this has been followed by most recent authors (e.g.,
   Sibley & Monroe 1990). Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005,
   Voelker & Klicka 2008) indicate that Cichlopsis is not closely
   related to Myadestes but rather is the sister genus to
   Entomodestes; in fact, Klicka et al. (2005) recommended the
   merger of Cichlopsis into Entomodestes. SACC proposal passed to
   move Cichlopsis in linear sequence.
5. The griseiceps subspecies group of Central America and western
   Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934)
   considered a separate species from Catharus aurantiirostris, but
   see Zimmer (1944).
5a. Whether the monotypic genus Hylocichla should be recognized or
   merged into Catharus, as done by Sibley & Monroe (1990), was
   long considered controversial; see Winker & Rappole (1988) and
   AOU (1998) and references therein. Recent genetic data (Klicka et
   al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka 2008) support retention of Hylocichla as a
   separate genus and suggest that its closest relative is Middle
   American Ridgwayia. Catharus fuscescens, C. minimus, and C.
   ustulatus were also formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1934,
   Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, AOU 1957) included in
   Hylocichla, but most classifications have followed Ripley (1964)
   and Meyer de Schauensee (1966), based on Dilger (1956), in placing
   them in Catharus. Recent genetic data (Outlaw et al. 2003) strongly
   support their inclusion in Catharus rather than Hylocichla.
   5b. Specimens from northern Colombia (Rodríguez 1980), Curaçao
   (Voous 1983, 1985), and the Falkland Islands (Olrog 1972, Mazar
   Barnett & Pearman 2001).
5c. Genetic data (Outlaw et al. 2003, Klicka et al. 2005) indicate that (1)
   Catharus fuscater, C. dryas, C. aurantiirostris, and Middle
   American C. mexicanus form a monophyletic group, but
   relationships within that group are not well-resolved; and (2) C.
   fuscescens, C. minimus, and C. ustulatus form a monophyletic
   group with the remaining North and Middle American species in the
   genus. Voelker & Klicka (2008) found strong support for a sister
   relationship between C. fuscater and C. dryas.
5d. Ridgway (1907) placed all New World Turdus in the genus
   Planesticus.
6. Ripley's (1964) linear sequence placed Entomodestes, along with
   Myadestes, next to African Stizorhina and Neocossyphus rather
   than near other New World thrush genera. Genetic data (Pasquet et
   al. 1999, Cibois & Cracraft 2004, Klicka et al. 2005, Voelker & Klicka
   2008) indicate that Entomodestes is close to true thrushes, in
   contrast to Myadestes (see Note 3).
6a. Entomodestes coracinus and E. leucotis form a superspecies;
   genetic data (Voelker & Klicka 2008) support the monophyly of the
   genus.
6aa. Voelker et al. (2007) found strong support for largely South
   American clade within Turdus that includes all species in South
   America plus T. pelios of Africa. Within the South American group,
   other strongly supported groups are (a) albicollis + assimilis +
   fulviventris + olivater + nigriceps + fuscater + serranus +
   chiguanco; (b) T. lawrencii + amaurochalinus + ignobilis +
   maranonicus + Nesocichla of Tristan da Cunha; (c) T. leucomelas +
   hauxwelli + fumigatus; and (d) rufiventris + grayi + nudigenis +
   haplochrous. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence.
6b. Turdus (Platycichla) leucops was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1934)
   considered a subspecies of T. flavipes, but Phelps & Phelps (1946)
   found that they are sympatric in Venezuela. Recent genetic data
   (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate that they are not even sister species,
   and thus the formerly recognized genus Platycichla is not
   monophyletic; see also Note 6bb.
6bb. Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2005) indicate that the genus
   Platycichla is embedded within Turdus. Klicka et al. (2005) did not
   include the merger of Platycichla into Turdus because additional
   taxon-sampling within Turdus is planned in follow-up studies, but
   Collar (2005) merged the two genera. <incorp. Goodwin 1957> Pan
   et al. (2007) and Voelker et al. (2007) found additional support for
   the merger into Turdus; see also Note 6b. SACC proposal passed
   to merge Platycichla into Turdus. SACC proposal passed to change
   linear sequence.
6c. Turdus fuscater and T. chiguanco may intergrade in central
   Bolivia although they behave as biological species elsewhere
   (Fjeldså & Krabbe 1989, 1990). Recent genetic data (Voelker et al.
   2007) indicate that they are not sister species, with T. serranus and
   T. chiguanco sisters.
6d. Jaramillo (2003) suggested that the subspecies anthracinus might
   deserve recognition as a separate species from Turdus chiguanco.
6e. Turdus serranus and Middle American T. infuscatus were
   considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), and
   were considered conspecific by Ripley (1964). Recent genetic data
   (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate that they are only distantly related, not
   even members of the same species group.
7. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) considered the subspecies subalaris to be a
   separate species from Turdus nigriceps, based on unpublished
   vocal differences; this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990),
   Clement (2000), and Ridgely et al. (2001), and represents a return to
   the classification of Hellmayr (1934) and Pinto (1944); it was not
   followed by Collar (2005) because of the absence of published
   data. Proposal needed.
8. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that T. o. caucae might warrant
   recognition as a species.
8a. Middle American Turdus plebejus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr
   1934) considered conspecific with T. ignobilis. Recent genetic data
   (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate that they are only distantly related and
   are not members of the same species group.
8b. Species limits in this group have been controversial and
   confusing. Hellmayr (1934), Pinto (1944), Phelps & Phelps (1950a),
   and Snow (1985) treated Turdus hauxwelli and T. obsoletus as
   conspecific with T. fumigatus. Ripley (1964) considered T.
   fumigatus and T. obsoletus to be conspecific but treated T.
   hauxwelli as a separate species, because Gyldenstolpe (1945,
   1951) found it sympatric with T. fumigatus in western Brazil. Meyer
   de Schauensee (1966) considered these two as separate species
   but considered hauxwelli to be conspecific with T. obsoletus (and
   also suggested that the Lesser Antillean personus group might
   warrant treatment as a separate species from T. fumigatus).
   Ridgely & Tudor (1989), followed by Collar (2005), considered T.
   fumigatus, T. obsoletus, and T. hauxwelli as separate species
   based on plumage, habitat, and elevational differences, and this
   treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors. Meyer
   de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that
   assignment of the subspecies parambanus, colombianus, and
   orinocensis is problematic. Turdus fumigatus, T. obsoletus, and T.
   hauxwelli form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Collar 2005).
   Recent genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate that although T.
   fumigatus and T. hauxwelli are sister species, T. obsoletus is not
   particularly closely related to them.
8c. Called "Pale-vented Robin" in Wetmore et al. (1984).
8d. Hellmayr (1934) suggested that Turdus haplochrous and T.
   nudigenis were sister species, and recent genetic data (Voelker et
   al. 2007) suggest that this is correct. Turdus grayi and T. nudigenis
   were considered to form a superspecies by AOU (1983) and Sibley
   & Monroe (1990), and recent genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007)
   indicate that they form a monophyletic group if T. haplochrous also
   included. See also Note 11.
10. Called "Clay-colored Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al.
   (1984), and Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal passed to change to
   "Thrush".
11. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) considered the subspecies maculirostris a
   separate species from Turdus nudigenis, and this was followed by
   Sibley & Monroe (1990), Clement (2000), Ridgely et al. (2001), Collar
   (2005), and Restall et al. (2006). Recent genetic data (Voelker et al.
   2007, Nylander 2008) indicate that maculirostris may not be the
   sister taxon to T. nudigenis. SACC proposal passed to elevate
   maculirostris to species rank.
11a. Called "Bare-eyed Robin" in AOU (1998) and Dickinson (2003).
   Called "Naked-eyed Thrush" by Ridgway (1907), "Yellow-eyed
   Thrush" by Clement (2000), and "Spectacled Thrush" by Collar
   (2005). To call it "Bare-eyed Thrush," as in AOU (1983), Ridgely &
   Tudor (1989), and Hilty (2003), confuses it with African T.
   tephronotus, which has the same English name. SACC proposal
   passed to change to "Thrush." SACC proposal passed to change
   "Bare-eyed" to another name. SACC proposal passed to change
   name to "Spectacled Thrush."
11b. The species name for Turdus nudigenis was formerly
   gymnophthalmus (e.g., Ridgway 1907)
12. Turdus assimilis has often (e.g., Ripley 1964, Wetmore et al. 1964,
   Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Collar 2005) considered conspecific
   with T. albicollis, but most recent classifications have followed
   Monroe (1968), AOU (1983), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) in treating
   them as separate species, representing a return to the
   classification of Hellmayr (1934); evidence supporting either
   treatment is weak; they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley &
   Monroe 1990). Recent genetic data (Voelker et al. 2007) indicate
   that they are sister taxa. Proposal needed.
12a. The subspecies daguae of the Chocó region has been
   considered (e.g., REF) a separate species ("Dagua Robin") from T.
   assimilis, but most recent authors have treated them as
   conspecific (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor
   1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001)
   considered daguae to be a separate species, in part because its
   voice resembles that of T. albicollis more than that of T. assimilis.
   Proposal needed.
12b. The species name for Turdus assimilis was formerly tristis (e.g.,
   Ridgway 1907).
13. Called "White-throated Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998) and Dickinson
   (2003). SACC proposal passed to change to "Thrush".
14. Called "White-necked Robin" in AOU (1983, 1998), Wetmore et al.
   (1984), and Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal pending to change to
   "Thrush".
15. REFS and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that the <>
   subspecies group of most of South America east of the Andes may
   deserve recognition as a separate species from the nominate
  albicollis group southeastern South America. The phaeopygus
  subspecies group of northern South America was considered a
  separate species from T. albicollis by Pinto (1944) <REFs>.



MIMIDAE (MOCKINGBIRDS) 1
Dumetella carolinensis Gray Catbird (V) 2
Mimus gilvus Tropical Mockingbird 3, 3a
Mimus longicaudatus Long-tailed Mockingbird 4
Mimus thenca Chilean Mockingbird 4
Mimus patagonicus Patagonian Mockingbird 4a
Mimus saturninus Chalk-browed Mockingbird 4a
Mimus triurus White-banded Mockingbird 4b
Mimus dorsalis Brown-backed Mockingbird 4b
Mimus parvulus Galapagos Mockingbird 5, 6, 6d
Mimus trifasciatus Floreana Mockingbird 6, 6a
Mimus macdonaldi Española Mockingbird 6, 6b
Mimus melanotis San Cristobal Mockingbird 6, 6c
Toxostoma rufum Brown Thrasher (V) 7
Margarops fuscatus Pearly-eyed Thrasher



1. Recent genetic data (Barker et al. 2002, 2004, Cibois & Cracraft
   2004, Voelker & Spellman 2004, Johannson et al. 2008, Treplin et al.
   2008) have confirmed once-controversial findings (e.g., Beecher
   1953, Stallcup 1961, Sibley & Ahlquist 1980, 1984, 1985, 1990) that
   the Mimidae and Sturnidae are sister families, suggested originally
   by the morphological analysis of Beecher (1953). Within the
   Mimidae, genetic data (Hunt et al. 2001, Cibois & Cracraft 2004,
   Lovette & Rubenstein 2007) indicate two main groups: (1) a
   Caribbean group that also includes Dumetella, and (2) Mimus +
   Nesomimus +Toxostoma + extralimital Oreoscoptes. <wait for AOU
   to change linear sequence.>

2. At least two specimen records and additional sight records from
   northern Colombia (Hilty & Brown 1986).
3. Mimus gilvus forms a superspecies with North American M.
   polyglottus (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cody 2005); some authors (e.g.,
   Davis & Miller 1960, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) have suggested
   that they are conspecific, but see <?> Binford (1989). Genetic data
   (e.g., Lovette & Rubenstein 2007) indicate that they are sister taxa.

3a. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that the subspecies
   antelius of eastern Brazil should be treated as a separate species
   from M. gilvus.

4. Mimus longicaudatus and M. thenca were considered to form a
   superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Cody (2005); Davis &
   Miller (1960) suggested that they might be best treated as
   conspecific. However, genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette &
   Rubenstein 2007) indicate that they are not sister species.

4a. Mimus saturninus and M. patagonicus were considered to form a
   superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but genetic data indicate
   that they are not sister taxa (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette &
   Rubenstein 2007).

4b. Mimus dorsalis and M. triurus were considered to form a
  superspecies by Sibley & Monroe 91990).

5. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that the Pacific coastal Mimus (M.
   longicaudatus and M. thenca) are at least superficially more similar
   to the Galapagos Mimus (formerly Nesomimus) than to other
   Mimus, but genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette &
   Rubenstein 2007) indicate that they are not sister groups.

6. The four species of former Nesomimus (now Mimus) form a
   superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Cody 2005); they were all
   considered conspecific by Davis & Miller (1960). Ridgway (1907)
   recognized 11 species in the genus, ranking each subspecies as a
   species. Recent genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006, Lovette &
   Rubenstein 2007) indicate that "Nesomimus" is embedded within
   Mimus and is more closely related to N. Hemisphere Mimus than to
   South American species. SACC proposal passed to merge
   Nesomimus into Mimus. Arbogast et al. (2006) and Lovette &
   Rubenstein (2007) also found that M. triurus and M. saturninus are
   sister species, as are M. thenca and M. patagonicus, and that these
  four form a strongly supported monophyletic group within Mimus.
  SACC proposal passed to alter linear sequence.

6a. Formerly called "Charles Mockingbird" (e.g., Dickinson 2003).
   SACC proposal passed to change English name.

6b. Formerly called "Hood Mockingbird" (e.g., Dickinson 2003). SACC
  proposal passed to change English name.

6c. Formerly called "Chatham Mockingbird"(e.g., Dickinson 2003)..
   SACC proposal passed to change English name.

6d. Recent genetic data (Arbogast et al. 2006) suggest that Mimus
  parvulus is paraphyletic with respect to N. macdonaldi. Proposal
  badly needed.

7. Specimen from Curaçao (Voous 1983, 1985) and <>.



STURNIDAE (STARLINGS) 1
Acridotheres cristatellus Crested Myna (IN) 2
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling (V, IN) 3



1. See Note 1 under Mimidae above for evidence that the Sturnidae
   and Mimidae are sister families.

2. Acridotheres cristatellus is established in prov. Buenos Aires,
   Argentina (Saidon et al. 1988, Di Giacomo et al. 1993, Churla &
   Martinez 1995, Churla 1999, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001, Zelaya
   et al. 2001). SACC proposal passed to add to Main List.

3. Sight records or unpublished photographs from Aruba and Bonaire
   (Voous 1985). Introduced and established in Buenos Aires area of
   Argentina (Di Giacomo et al. 1993, Mazar Barnett & Pearman 2001,
   Montalti & Kopig 2001).
Part 10. Oscine Passeriformes, B (Motacillidae to
Emberizidae) (click)

								
To top