A classification of the bird species of South America

Sporophila bouvronides Lesson's Seedeater 115

Sporophila lineola Lined Seedeater 115

Sporophila leucoptera White-bellied Seedeater 119

Sporophila peruviana Parrot-billed Seedeater 120

Sporophila telasco Chestnut-throated Seedeater 122

Sporophila simplex Drab Seedeater

Sporophila castaneiventris Chestnut-bellied Seedeater 118

Sporophila minuta Ruddy-breasted Seedeater 118, 122, 123

Sporophila nigrorufa Black-and-tawny Seedeater

Sporophila bouvreuil Copper Seedeater 118, 121

Sporophila pileata Pearly-bellied Seedeater 118, 121

Sporophila hypoxantha Tawny-bellied Seedeater 118, 123

Sporophila ruficollis Dark-throated Seedeater 118, 124, 125

Sporophila palustris Marsh Seedeater 118, 125

Sporophila hypochroma Rufous-rumped Seedeater 118, 126

Sporophila cinnamomea Chestnut Seedeater 118, 126, 127

Sporophila melanogaster Black-bellied Seedeater 118

Sporophila funerea Thick-billed Seed-Finch 107, 109, 128, 129, 93

Sporophila angolensis Chestnut-bellied Seed-Finch 129

Sporophila maximiliani Great-billed Seed-Finch 130, 132

Sporophila crassirostris Large-billed Seed-Finch 130, 131

Sporophila atrirostris Black-billed Seed-Finch 130

Sporophila corvina Variable Seedeater 113, 114

Sporophila intermedia Gray Seedeater 112

Sporophila americana Wing-barred Seedeater 113

Sporophila murallae Caqueta Seedeater 113

Sporophila fringilloides White-naped Seedeater 107, 37b, 93

Sporophila luctuosa Black-and-white Seedeater

Sporophila nigricollis Yellow-bellied Seedeater 116

Sporophila ardesiaca Dubois's Seedeater 117

Sporophila caerulescens Double-collared Seedeater

Sporophila schistacea Slate-colored Seedeater 111

Sporophila falcirostris Temminck's Seedeater 111

Sporophila frontalis Buffy-fronted Seedeater 107, 108, 109, 110, 93

Sporophila plumbea Plumbeous Seedeater 111a

Sporophila beltoni Tropeiro Seedeater 111a

Sporophila collaris Rusty-collared Seedeater

Sporophila albogularis White-throated Seedeater

Catamenia analis Band-tailed Seedeater 138, 93

Catamenia inornata Plain-colored Seedeater

Catamenia homochroa Paramo Seedeater 139

Charitospiza eucosma Coal-crested Finch 107, 140

Coryphaspiza melanotis Black-masked Finch

Coryphospingus pileatus Pileated Finch 141, 142, 143

Coryphospingus cucullatus Red-crested Finch 142, 144

Rhodospingus cruentus Crimson-breasted Finch 145

Gubernatrix cristata Yellow Cardinal 146

Coereba flaveola Bananaquit 147

Tiaris olivaceus Yellow-faced Grassquit 148, 149

Tiaris obscurus Dull-colored Grassquit 150, 22

Tiaris fuliginosus Sooty Grassquit 150

Tiaris bicolor Black-faced Grassquit 151

Certhidea olivacea Green Warbler-Finch 152, 153, 154, 155

Certhidea fusca Gray Warbler-Finch 154

Platyspiza crassirostris Vegetarian Finch 152

Camarhynchus pallidus Woodpecker Finch 156

Camarhynchus psittacula Large Tree-Finch 157

Camarhynchus pauper Medium Tree-Finch

Camarhynchus parvulus Small Tree-Finch 155

Camarhynchus heliobates Mangrove Finch 156

Geospiza fuliginosa Small Ground-Finch

Geospiza magnirostris Large Ground-Finch

Geospiza difficilis Sharp-beaked Ground-Finch 158, 159

Geospiza scandens Common Cactus-Finch

Geospiza fortis Medium Ground-Finch 160

Geospiza conirostris Large Cactus-Finch 161

Parkerthraustes humeralis Yellow-shouldered Grosbeak 162

1. As traditionally constituted (e.g., Storer 1969, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), the family Thraupidae was strikingly polyphyletic with respect to the Emberizidae, Fringillidae, and Cardinalidae. Genetic data have revolutionized our understanding of what constitutes a true tanager more so than for any other New World family. In fact, the English name “tanager” no longer has any taxonomic meaning (currently associated with species also in the Emberizidae and Cardinalidae) but rather refers to a morphotype, usually a bill shape, considered intermediate between the thick bills of emberizid sparrows and cardinaline grosbeaks and the thin bills of wood-warblers. The genera Euphonia and Chlorophonia, traditionally placed in this family, have been transferred to the Fringillidae (see below). The genera Piranga and Habia have been found to members of the Cardinalidae (see that family), and Parkerthraustes of the Cardinalidae has been found to be a member of the Thraupidae (see below). Most members of the former family “Coerebidae” are now known to be tanagers. More than 30 genera formerly placed in the Emberizidae have been found to be tanagers, and Chlorospingus, formerly considered a tanager, has been found to be a member of the Emberizidae. With the transfer of a major block of former Emberizidae to the Thraupidae (see SACC proposal and references therein), the current linear sequence is temporary because those genera have simply been inserted at the end of the family until a phylogenetic linear sequence can be worked out. . The linear sequence through Urothraupis has been adapted from Burns (1997, 1998), Burns (2002), Burns & Naoki (2004), and Klicka et al. (2007). Many genera formerly placed in the Emberizidae are now placed in this family on the basis of those papers and Barker et al. (2013).
1a. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003, Burns & Naoki 2004) indicate that Schistochlamys, Cissopis, and Neothraupis are each other's closest relatives.
1b. Cissopis is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is leverianus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
1c. Storer (1960)<> suspected that Conothraupis was closely related to Sporophila based on remarkable plumage similarities; Zimmer (1947) had previously suspected that Conothraupis was a "finch" and not a "tanager" based on bill shape.
1cc. Conothraupis mesoleuca was described in the monotypic genus Rhynchothraupis, but see Bond (1951a) for placement in Conothraupis, as in Hellmayr (1936) and most subsequent classifications.
1d. Some genetic data (Yuri & Mindell 2002) fail to find support for inclusion of Lamprospiza in Thraupidae; its placement in the Thraupidae was questioned by (REFS). Barker et al. (2013) found that it formed a monophyletic group with Orthogonys and Mitrospingus and that these three genera have to be recognized in a separate family, Mitrospingidae, to keep related families monophyletic; this was followed by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed
2. Compsothraupis has been included by some (e.g., Zimmer 1947, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) in Sericossypha, but Storer (1970a) suspected that their similarities represented convergence.
3. Although Sericossypha albocristata was at one time suspected of not being a tanager (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), morphological (Morony 1985) and genetic data (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) support its traditional placement in the Thraupidae.
3a. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Sericossypha and Nemosia are closely related and probably sister taxa.
4. The two species of Creurgops form a superspecies (Dickinson & Christidis 2014).
4a. Creurgops dentatus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in a separate genus, Malacothraupis.
4b. Creurgops is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is dentatus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
4c. "Malacothraupis gustavi," known from southern Peru and northern Bolivia and treated reluctantly as a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), is now known to be a synonym (male plumage) of Creurgops dentatus (Bond & Meyer de Schauensee 1941, Zimmer 1947b), as suspected by Hellmayr (1936). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
5. Despite concerns over the monophyly of the genus Hemispingus owing to rather disparate morphology, genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001) provided some support for monophyly for the taxa for which genetic samples are available, including the most morphologically divergent species, H. rufosuperciliaris. A subsequent analysis of a larger data set, however, could not confirm or reject monophyly of the genus (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). Some authors (e.g., Ridgway 1902) considered Hemispingus and Cnemoscopus to be members of the Parulidae, but recent genetic data (Burns REF, Klicka et al. 2007) corroborate that they are correctly placed in the Thraupidae. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) found that Hemispingus is indeed not monophyletic. Therefore, Burns et al. (2016) (1) described a new genus, Kleinothraupis, for H. atropileus, H. calophrys, and H. parodii; (2) recommended resurrecting Sphenopsis Sclater for H. melanotis and H. frontalis (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014); and (3) transferred H. superciliaris to Thlypopsis. SACC proposals pending to recognize Kleinothraupis and Sphenopsis.
6. Hemispingus calophrys was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a) considered a subspecies of H. atropileus, but Weske & Terborgh (1974) provided rationale for treating southern calophrys as a species separate from H. atropileus; this treatment has been followed by most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990), but not by Isler & Isler (1987). Inclusion of calophrys in H. atropileus would make that broad species paraphyletic with respect to H. parodii, the sister taxon of H. calophrys (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). The subspecies auricularis is at least as distinct genetically and morphologically, and should presumably given equal taxonomic rank (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003). SACC proposal needed. Taxa ranked as species in this group were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).
7. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Weske & Terborgh (1974).
8. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) indicate that Hemispingus superciliaris clusters with the group of Hemispingus that consists of H. verticalis-H. xanthophthalmus; plumage similarities also suggest that H. reyi belongs in this group. SACC proposal to alter linear sequence did not pass.
8a. The leucogaster subspecies group of Peru and the subspecies chrysophrys of Venezuela were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered separate species from Hemispingus superciliaris, but see Zimmer (1947).
8b. "Basileuterus zimmeri," described from Venezuela, is now known to be a synonym of Hemispingus superciliaris chrysophrys (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
9. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suspected that the Venezuelan subspecies collectively (as H. ignobilis) might deserve separate species status from Hemispingus frontalis; Hilty (2003), however, noted that their vocalizations and behavior were similar.
9a. Storer (1970a) suggested that Haplospiza, along with Middle American Acanthidops, might be more closely related to Diglossa in the Thraupidae than to other emberizine genera; this is consistent with some genetic data (Burns et al. 2003), although broader taxon-sampling (Klicka et al. 2007, Mauck & Burns 2009, Campagna et al. 2011) indicated that Haplospiza, some Phrygilus, some Sicalis, Diglossa, and Catamenia are phylogenetically intermingled. In any case, all genetic data indicate that Haplospiza is a member of the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
10. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) indicate that the distinctive taxon piurae, currently treated as a subspecies of H. melanotis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is more distant from the latter than is H. frontalis, and that piurae is basal to frontalis + melanotis; these analyses, however, are based on only ca. 300 base-pairs of mtDNA. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) treated piurae as a separate species from H. melanotis based on plumage and vocal differences. SACC proposal to recognize piurae as a species did not pass. Hilty (2011) also treated piurae as a separate species. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2011) further recognized the subspecies ochraceus as a separate species based on plumage differences. SACC proposal needed.
11. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Blake & Hocking (1974).
12. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) support the traditional view based on plumage, morphology, and biogeography (Parker et al. 1985, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990, Sibley & Monroe 1990) that Hemispingus verticalis and H. xanthophthalmus are sister species and form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in a separate genus, Pseudospingus, but Zimmer (1947) merged this into Hemispingus. However, the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) provided the basis for the recommendation by Burns et al. (2016) that Pseudospingus be resurrected for these two species (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal pending to recognize Pseudospingus.
12a. Hemispingus trifasciatus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) placed in the monotypic genus Microspingus, but Zimmer (1947) merged this into Hemispingus. Genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 2001, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) support the continued inclusion of this species in Hemispingus, although its relationships to other taxa within that genus remain uncertain. However, the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) showed that this species is not closely related to Hemispingus. Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrecting Microspingus and also the transfer of Poospiza cabanisi, P. lateralis, P. erythrophrys, P. alticola, P. torquatus, P. cinerea, and P. melanoleuca to Microspingus (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal pending to recognize Microspingus.
12b. included Cnemoscopus within Hemispingus, but this has not been followed by subsequent authors; genetic data (REFS, Burns et al. 2003, García-Moreno & Fjeldså 2003) are consistent with a close relationship.
12c. The southern subspecies chrysogaster was formerly (e.g., REF ) considered a separate species from Cnemoscopus rubrirostris.
12d. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thlypopsis ornata and T. pectoralis to form a superspecies; they are parapatric sister species that may be sympatric at some localities (Zimmer 1947b).
12e. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Thlypopsis sordida and T. inornata to form a superspecies; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific, but they may be sympatric at some localities (Zimmer 1947b).
12f. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) showed that Pyrrhocoma is embedded in Thlypopsis. Burns et al. (2016) recommended transfer to Thlypopsis, which also forces creation of a new name, Thlypopsis pyrrhocoma, for this species. SACC proposals pending.
13. Recently described species and genus: Lowery & Tallman (1976). Although initially uncertain to which family this genus belonged, genetic data indicate that it is a tanager (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003).
14. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Eucometis, Tachyphonus, and Lanio are closely related and that Coryphospingus, currently placed in the Emberizidae, is also part of this group. Burns and Racicot (2009), however, found that Tachyphonus is not a monophyletic group, with some species (T. coronatus, T. rufus, and T. phoenicius) more closely related to Ramphocelus than to other Tachyphonus, and T. surinamus more closely related to Eucometis + Trichothraupis than to other Tachyphonus. Burns and Racicot (2009) confirmed the close relationship of these genera along with Lanio as represented in the traditional linear sequences of genera within the Thraupidae, including Eucometis and Trichothraupis as sister genera. However, they also found that the “emberizid” genera Coryphospingus and Rhodospingus are members of this clade, with the latter possibly embedded within one group of Tachyphonus. SACC proposal passed to transfer Rhodospingus and Coryphospingus to Thraupidae. Burns and Racicot (2009) recommended broader generic limits in this group to avoid naming as many as three new genera, but a broadly defined Ramphocelus and Lanio would produce genera of with far greater morphological heterogeneity than in traditional passerine genera. However, the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) provided the basis for the recommendation by Burns et al. (2016) that (1) Islerothraupis Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for T. cristatus, T. luctuosus, and T. rufiventer; (2) Maschalethraupis Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for T. cristatus; and (3) Chrysocorypha, Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for T. delatrii. SACC proposals pending.
14a. "Tachyphonus nattereri," known from two specimens from southwestern Brazil and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1936), Pinto (1944), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), is now usually considered a subspecies of, or an aberrant individual of, T. cristatus (Zimmer 1945b, Storer 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
14c. Tachyphonus rufiventer was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Pinto 1944) known as Tachyphonus metallactus, but see Zimmer (1945b) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
14d. Burns and Racicot (2009) found that Tachyphonus coronatus and T. rufus were sisters, with T. phoenicius sister to these two (thus consistent with traditional linear sequences).
15. Lanio fulvus and L. versicolor form a superspecies (Haffer 1987).
16. Ramphocelus dimidiatus, R. carbo, R. melanogaster, and R. bresilius form a superspecies (Novaes 1959, Storer 1970a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ramphocelus carbo and R. melanogaster hybridize to an uncertain extent in Peru (Zimmer 1945b), but they are generally considered separate species because there is no sign of intergradation between the two. Ramphocelus carbo and R. bresilius hybridize to an uncertain extent in southeastern Brazil (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). Burns and Racicot (2009) noted that levels of sequence divergence between these pairs are consistent with low levels of gene flow between them and their continued treatment as species. They also found the following relationships among cis-Andean Ramphocelus: (dimidiatus + nigrogularis) + [bresilius + (carbo + melanogaster)]; the traditional linear sequence is consistent with these relationships.
16a. Called "Huallaga Tanager" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Hilty (2011). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
16b. "Ramphocelus ciropalbicaudatus" Frisch, (2007. Nature Society News, Griggsville 42[5]:13) used this name for a "new species" of Ramphocelus tanager that he photographed in São Paulo, Brazil. The description not qualify as a valid description under the rules of the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature; furthermore, the individual bird is most likely a partially leucistic R. carbo. See CBRO web page: (http://www.cbro.org.br/CBRO/justif.htm#Rhamphocelus%20ciropalbicaudatus%20F). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
16c. Schodde & Bock (2016) determined that the species epithet is a noun in apposition and should the name should be Ramphocelus bresilia. SACC proposal needed.
17. The taxon icteronotus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a separate species from Ramphocelus flammigerus, but intergradation between them in southwestern Colombia (Chapman 1917, Sibley 1958) led Storer (1970a) to consider them conspecific, and this treatment has been followed by most authors subsequently (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990). However, as noted by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), the differences between these two are comparable to those between two Ramphocelus taxa (passerinii and costaricensis) recently treated as separate species (Hackett 1996, AOU 1998). [The problem is that the two Middle American taxa should not have been split acc. to Stiles] SACC proposal needed.
17a. Ramphocelus flammigerus forms a superspecies with Middle American R. passerinii (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Storer 1970a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990).