A classification of the bird species of South America

42a. "Chlorophanes purpurascens," known only from the type specimen from "Caracas" and considered a valid species by Hellmayr (1935), is presumably a hybrid. See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
43. Iridophanes pulcherrimus was placed in the genus Tangara by Storer (1970a) because of its stunning similarity in plumage to T. cyanoptera, but genetic data (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2003) indicates that it may be the sister genus to Chlorophanes, corroborating predictions from bill shape and behavior (Ridgely & Tudor 1989).
43b. Iridophanes is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is pulcherrimus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
43c. Heterospingus xanthopygius forms a superspecies with Central American H. rubrifrons (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Storer 1970a) considered conspecific, but most recent classifications follow Wetmore et al. (1984) in treating them as separate species because of the radical differences in male plumage; they are not, however, sympatric (Wetmore et al. 1984; contra Haffer 1975).
43d. Genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) indicate that Chrysothlypis and Hemithraupis are closely related and probably sister taxa, and that Heterospingus is also part of this group.
44. Hemithraupis guira and H. ruficapilla hybridize to at least some degree but do not intergrade where they come in contact (Zimmer 1947b, Sick REF?); they are sister species that constitute a superspecies (Zimmer 1947b, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
45. Correct spelling for species name is chrysomelas, not chrysomelaena (David & Gosselin 2002a).
45a. [need citation for record for Colombia]
46. Chrysothlypis salmoni was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Erythrothlypis, but subsequent classifications have followed its merger by Storer (1970a) into Chrysothlypis. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that Chrysothlypis itself could be merged into Hemithraupis. See Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) for doubts as to whether Erythrothlypis should be considered congeneric with Chrysothlypis.
47. The genus Conirostrum was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, and by others a member of the Parulidae (Ridgway 1902, Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954a, Lowery & Monroe 1968). Genetic data (based on C. speciosum, C. bicolor, and C. sitticolor) indicate that it should be included in the tanagers, with Oreomanes as the sister genus (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) or perhaps included within Conirostrum (Lovette & Bermingham 2002).
48. Conirostrum speciosum, C. leucogenys, C. bicolor, and C. margaritae were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Tordoff 1954a) placed in a separate genus, Ateleodacnis, but see Zimmer (1942d) for its merger into Conirostrum. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) pointed out that this lowland group was quite distinct from montane Conirostrum, perhaps meriting a return to treatment as a separate genus.
48b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies littorale of western Peru might deserve recognition as a separate species from Conirostrum cinereum.
48c. The atrocyanea subspecies group was formerly (e.g., ) considered a separate species from Conirostrum albifrons.
49. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Johnson & Millie (1972); described as C. tamarugensis, but see Mayr & Vuilleumier (1983).
50. The genus Oreomanes was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, and by others a member of the Parulidae ; it was tentatively placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a). Wetmore et al. (1984) noted that plumage similarities suggest a close link between Oreomanes and Poospiza. Genetic data indicate that it should be included in the tanagers, with Conirostrum as the sister genus (Burns et al. 2002, 2003). A hybrid Oreomanes fraseri X C. ferrugineiventre and plumage, morphological, and foraging similarities also supports their close relationship (Schulenberg 1985, Fjeldså 1992). The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) showed that Oreomanes is embedded within Conirostrum; therefore Burns et al. (2016) transferred it to Conirostrum; this would also require a change in the species name (to Oreomanes binghami), as in Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal pending.
51. The genus Xenodacnis was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae, but it was placed in the Thraupidae by Storer (1970a); genetic data indicate that it should be included in the Thraupidae, and that it forms a group with Acanthidops, Diglossa, and Catamenia (Burns et al. 2002, 2003); its relationship to other "Coerebidae" was questioned long ago by Zimmer (1942d).
51a. The northern petersi subspecies group was formerly (e.g., Bond & Meyer de Schauensee 1939) considered a separate species from Xenodacnis parina.
52. The genus Diglossa was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered a member of a separate family, the Coerebidae. Others considered it a member of the Parulidae (e.g., AOU 1983) or Emberizidae (REF) because of its apparent close relationship to Acanthidops (Eisenmann in Meyer de Schauensee 1966), traditionally placed in the Emberizidae. Tordoff (1954a) considered Diglossa to be a tanager based on skull morphology, and Storer (1970a) placed it in the Thraupidae; this has been followed in most subsequent classifications. Genetic data confirm that it should be included in the tanagers, and forms a group with Acanthidops, Catamenia, and other genera, many formerly considered emberizine (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Mauck & Burns 2009). Vuilleumier (1969) divided the genus into four species groups, but genetic data (Mauck & Burns 2009) indicate that these are not monophyletic groups.
52a. The English name "flowerpiercer" is hyphenated in many classifications. SACC proposal to change to "flower-piercer" did not pass.
53. Diglossa sittoides was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Zimmer 1942e, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Wetmore et al. 1984, Isler & Isler 1987) considered conspecific with D. baritula and D. plumbea of Middle America, but see Vuilleumier (1969) and Hackett (1995) for their treatment as separate species, representing a return to the classification of ; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group: D. sittoides + (D. plumbea + D. baritula).
54. Diglossa gloriosissima and D. mystacalis were considered subspecies of D. lafresnayii by many (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Isler & Isler 1987), but see Vuilleumier (1969) for ranking of these two groups as species separate from D. lafresnayii. These three form a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group and indicate that D. gloriosissima and D. lafresnayii are more closely related than either is to D. mystacalis.
55. Diglossa gloriosa, D. humeralis, D. brunneiventris, and D. carbonaria were formerly considered conspecific ("Carbonated Flower-piercer") by many (e.g., Hellmayr 1935, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Storer 1970a, Isler & Isler 1987), but see Graves (1982) for treatment of all four as separate species. However, whether the two disjunct populations of D. brunneiventris are more closely related to each other than to adjacent and intervening D. humeralis populations remains to be determined. The four species constitute a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.
56. Diglossa venezuelensis and D. albilatera constitute a superspecies (Vuilleumier 1969, Isler & Isler 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Mauck and Burns 2009) confirm that they form a monophyletic group.
57. Diglossa caerulescens was formerly treated in the monotypic genus Diglossopis, but was included in Diglossa by Hellmayr (1935). Bock (1985) proposed separating glauca, caerulescens, and cyanea in the genus Diglossopis, and he interpreted morphological data to indicate that this and Diglossa were not sister genera. This classification was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), who also added D. indigotica to the genus based on Vuilleumier’s (1969) species groups. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and (Hilty 2003) also recognized Diglossopis. Genetic data (Mauck & Burns 2009) indicate that species assigned to Diglossopis do not form a monophyletic group: D. cyanea and D. caerulescens are sister species, and D. glauca is sister to these two, but D. indigotica is sister to the D. baritula superspecies. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. SACC proposal to recognize modified Diglossopis did not pass. Genetic data also indicate that broadly defined Diglossa is a monophyletic group, contra Bock (1985).
57a. Called "Golden-eyed Flowerpiercer" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
57b. Hilty (2003) noted that differences in song between northern and southern populations of Diglossa cyanea suggest that two species may be involved.
58. The genus Catamblyrhynchus is often maintained in a separate monotypic family, Catamblyrhynchidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Tordoff 1954a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or subfamily (Paynter 1970b, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); genetic data suggest that it should be at least tentatively included in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988).
58a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Plush-capped Finch".
59. Genetic data support continued but tentative inclusion of Urothraupis in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990); some authors have included it tentatively in the Emberizidae (e.g., Paynter 1970a), based on superficial similarity to Atlapetes.
64. The genus Paroaria has been placed traditionally in the Emberizidae, sometimes with the cardinal grosbeaks (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970), which in this classification are considered a separate family, Cardinalidae. Tordoff (1954a) concluded that it was not a cardinaline but an emberizine genus, based on skeletal data. Genetic data, however, indicate that the genus Paroaria belongs in the Thraupidae (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns and Naoki 2004, Klicka et al. 2007), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
65. Paroaria coronata and P. dominicana were considered to form a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).
65a. "Paroaria humberti," described from a captive individual, was treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), who noted that it could be simply a melanistic P. dominicana; it has been treated as such by subsequent authors (e.g., Paynter 1970c). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
66. Paroaria gularis, P. baeri, and P. capitata form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species is weak (Paynter 1970a); Hellmayr (1938) suspected that P. capitata might best be treated as a subspecies of P. gularis, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that baeri might also best be treated as a subspecies of P. gularis. The subspecies P. g. nigrogenis of Venezuela was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Paroaria gularis. Dávalos & Porzecanski (2009) also found evidence that nigrogenis was not most closely to P. gularis; they elevated all diagnosable taxa to species rank based on the phylogenetic species concept. SACC proposal passed to elevate nigrogenis to species rank; SACC proposal to elevate cervicalis and xinguensis to species rank did not pass. Lopes & Gonzaga (2013) provided additional rationale for treating xinguensis as a separate species from P. baeri. SACC proposal needed.
66b. <Coccopsis for Paroaria as in Phelps & Phelps 1950a.>
67. In linear sequences, the genus Porphyrospiza has traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) been associated with the Passerina buntings, now in the Cardinalidae; Paynter (1970c) even merged Porphyrospiza into Passerina. This traditional association is based on shared plumage coloration and pattern with some Passerina buntings. It is generally agreed, however, among recent authors who know Porphyrospiza caerulescens in the field (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, REFS) that it is not related to cardinaline buntings but to other genera currently in the Emberizidae, as proposed by Tordoff (1954a) based on skull morphology. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that it is not related to cardinalines but rather is the sister (of the taxa sampled) to Phrygilus alaudinus (but that both are members of the Thraupidae, not Emberizidae). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
68. Genetic data indicate that all Phrygilus species sampled so far (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) belong in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
69. Phrygilus atriceps is treated as a separate species from P. gayi because of sympatric breeding reported in Chile (see Johnson 1967). Paynter (1970a) considered the taxon punensis to be a subspecies of P. atriceps, whereas Meyer de Schauensee (1970) treated it as a subspecies of P. gayi. Recent classifications usually follow Ridgely & Tudor (1989), who elevated punensis to species rank based largely on unpublished data. SACC proposal to consider punensis and atriceps conspecific did not pass.
70. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Phrygilus atriceps, P. punensis, P. gayi, and P. patagonicus to form a superspecies, but the degree of apparent sympatry between P. gayi and P. patagonicus would make inclusion of the latter questionable.
71. The genus Phrygilus is highly polyphyletic (Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011). Campagna et al. (2011) found that the genus consists of at least four lineages: (1) gayi, patagonicus, punensis, and atriceps, which comprise the sister group to Melanodera (including extralimital Rowettia goughensis); (2) fruticeti, alaudinus, and carbonaria; (3) plebejus and unicolor, which are sister to Haplospiza; and (4) dorsalis and erythronotus, which are sister to Idiopsar. The type species for Phrygilus is gayi. Hellmayr’s (1938) synonymy indicates that Rhopospina Cabanis is available for Group 2, with fruticeti the designated type species, and that Geospizopsis Bonaparte is available for Group 3, with unicolor the designated type species. Clearly, major taxonomic revisions are needed but additional taxon sampling is needed within the Thraupidae. SACC proposal to revise classification did not pass. 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) Rhopospina be resurrected for fruticeti, (2) Corydospiza Sundevall be resurrected for alaudinus and carbonarius, (3) Geospizopsis Bonaparte be resurrected for plebejus and unicolor (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014), and (4) Ephippiospingus Burns et al. 2016 be recognized for dorsalis and erythronotus. This would leave gayi, patagonicus, punensis, and atriceps as the only species in Phrygilus. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) resurrected Rhopospina and included in it not only fruticeti, alaudinus, and carbonarius but also Porphyrospiza caerulescens. SACC proposals pending.
72. Phrygilus dorsalis and P. erythronotus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) noted interbreeding between the two and wondered whether dorsalis might not be just a color phase P. erythronotus. Genetic data confirm that they are sister species but are not members of Phrygilus (Burns et al. 2016 and references therein). Burns et al. described a new genus, Ephippiospingus, for these two species. SACC proposals pending. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) included them both in Idiopsar.
73. SACC proposal did not pass to change English name to something other than "Carbonated" (because the latter nowadays associated primarily with carbon dioxide injection into beverages). Dickinson & Christidis (2014) called it “Carbon Finch.”
74. Paynter (1970a) suggested that Idiopsar could be merged into Diuca, but genetic data (Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that they are distantly related and that Idiopsar is the sister to Phrygilus erythronotus + P. dorsalis (and thus also a member of the Thraupidae; see Note 6). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
75. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that Diuca does not belong in the Emberizidae; in fact, it is embedded within the “core tanagers” (Sedano & Burns 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
76. Diuca speculifera and D. diuca were considered to form a superspecies by Paynter (1970a) and Sibley & Monroe (1990), but they are not closely related (Burns et al. 2014). Burns et al. (2016) described a new genus, Chionodacryon, for speculifera. SACC proposal pending to recognize Chionodacryon.
77. Genetic data (Campagna et al. 2011) indicate that Melanodera is sister to one of the Phrygilus lineages (see Note 6), and that it is a member of the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
78. Called "White-bridled Finch" in Mazar Barnett and Pearman (2001) and Gill and Wright (2006). The Australian estrildid Poephila cincta is also known as "Black-throated Finch," the name formerly used by most New World references. Called “Canary-winged Finch” by Jaramillo (2011). SACC proposal passed to change to "Canary-winged Finch" but subsequent SACC proposal passed to change to "White-bridled Finch."
79. Haplospiza rustica was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) treated in a separate genus, Spodiornis, but Meyer de Schauensee (1966) merged this into Haplospiza. The two species of Haplospiza form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); evidence for treating them as separate species was considered weak by Paynter (1970a). However, Burns et al. (2014) found that they are not sister species, with H. rustica sister to Central American Acanthidops bairdi; Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrection of Spodiornis for H. rustica. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) including all three species in Haplospiza. SACC proposal pending to recognize Spodiornis.
81. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that Lophospingus is not a member of the Emberizidae but belongs in the Thraupidae; in fact, it is embedded within the “core tanagers” (Sedano & Burns 2010). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
82. Lophospingus pusillus was formerly placed in the monotypic genus Schistospiza, but see Miller (1928) for its merger into Lophospingus.
83. Incaspiza pulchra, I. personata, and I. ortizi form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); I. pulchra and I. personata were considered conspecific by Hellmayr (1938) and Paynter (1970a), but recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in treated them as separate species.
84. Genetic data indicate that Poospiza belongs in the Thraupidae (Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and forms a group with Pyrrhocoma, Thlypopsis, Cypsnagra, Nephelornis, Hemispingus, and Cnemoscopus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000, Klicka et al. 2007) also indicate that Poospiza is likely polyphyletic. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) confirmed that Poospiza is polyphyletic and should be restricted to P. hispaniolensis, P. rubecula, P. nigrorufa, P. boliviana, and P. ornata. Additionally, Burns et al. (2016) recommended (1) the transfer of the following species to Poospiza: Hemispingus rufosuperciliaris, H. goeringi, Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri; (2) resurrection of Poospizopsis for P. caesar and P. hypochondria (see Note 88); (3) recognition of Castanozoster Burns et al. 2016 for P. thoracica; and (4) transfer of remaining species to Microspingus (see Note 12a). Dickinson & Christidis (2014) resurrected Orospingus, Riley, 1922, for rufosuperciliaris and H. goeringi. SACC proposals pending.