A classification of the bird species of South America

84a. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) noted that the original spelling was hypocondria and that hypochondria is an unjustified emendation. SACC proposal to change to hypocondria did not pass.
85. Hellmayr (1938) considered Poospiza erythrophrys and P. rubecula to be sister species. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza erythrophrys and P. ornata are sister species based on plumage similarities, as reflected in their placement in traditional linear sequences. Lougheed et al.'s (2000) limited genetic data did not support such a relationship.
86. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Andean populations (whitii with wagneri) as a separate species ("Black-and-chestnut Warbling-Finch") from Poospiza nigrorufa, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); Sibley & Monroe (1990) treated them as species, and members of a superspecies; Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) also treated them as separate species. SACC proposal to recognize whitii as separate species did not pass.
87. Poospiza cabanisi has been traditionally treated as a subspecies of P. lateralis, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that cabanisi might merit treatment as a separate species. Assis et al. (2007) presented evidence for treating cabanisi as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to elevate cabanisi to species rank.
88. Poospiza caesar was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus, Poospizopsis; most authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) have followed Paynter (1970a) in merging it into Poospiza, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000) indicate that it is not particularly close to other Poospiza except for P. hispaniolensis, and that these two are probably sister species. Hellmayr (1938) considered Poospiza hispaniolensis and P. torquata to be closely related, and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they perhaps should be treated as conspecific; genetic data, however, indicate that they are only distantly related (Lougheed et al. 2000). The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016) showed that P. caesar and P. hypochondria are sister species that are not members of Poospiza to Tiaris; Burns et al. (2016) recommended resurrection of Poospizopsis for these two species (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal pending to recognize Poospizopsis.
89. Lougheed et al. (2000) suggested that the southern subspecies pectoralis deserves treatment as a separate species from nominate torquata based on genetic distance data.
90. Poospiza melanoleuca has sometimes been treated as a subspecies of P. cinerea (e.g., Paynter 1970a, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990), but see Short (1975) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) for continued treatment as separate species, as in Hellmayr (1938), Pinto (1944), and Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Ridgely & Tudor (1989) noted that melanoleuca has priority over cinerea if considered conspecific, contra Paynter (1970a).
91. Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri were traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) placed in that genus, but Paynter (1970a) merged this into Poospiza, as suggested by Bond (1951), and this treatment has been followed by most authors subsequently. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that baeri is not the sister species to three other Poospiza sampled. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Compsospiza. Compsospiza garleppi and C. baeri form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990), and genetic data (Lougheed et al. 2000) support their treatment as sister species; Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Paynter (1970a), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that they might be treated as conspecific. Burns et al. (2016) based on Burns et al. (2014) recommended that they be transferred back to Poospiza; see Note 84. SACC proposal pending.
92. Fjeldså (1992) proposed that Poospiza caesar, P. rubecula, P. garleppi, and P. baeri formed a monophyletic group based on plumage similarities, contrary to their placement in traditional linear sequences. Lougheed et al.'s (2000) limited genetic data did not support such a group.
93. Genetic data indicate that the genus Sicalis (based on S. luteola or S. olivascens) belongs in the Thraupidae (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Sicalis (and Piezorina, Emberizoides, Embernagra, Volatinia, Sporophila, Oryzoborus [now Sporophila], Amaurospiza, Dolospingus [now Sporophila], and Catamenia) was placed with the carduelines by Hellmayr (1938) but then moved to the emberizines by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) based on the morphological data of Tordoff (1954). Paynter (1970a) emphasized that species limits within the genus were uncertain and in need of much study.
93a. Kashin (1978) noted that the original spelling of the genus by Lafresnaye was Piezorina, and that the subsequent spelling Piezorhina was an unjustified emendation, and Gregory & Dickinson (2012) agreed. SACC proposal passed to change to Piezorina.
93b. Correct spelling is uropigialis according to Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed.
94. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Sicalis olivascens and S. lebruni to form a superspecies; they were considered conspecific by Paynter (1970a), as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
94a. Areta et al. (2012) provided evidence for treatment of the subspecies mendozae as a separate species from Sicalis olivascens. SACC proposal passed to treat mendozae as separate species.
95. Called "Saffron Yellow-Finch" in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001).
96. "Sicalis striata," known from two specimens from Prov. Buenos Aires and treated as a species by (REF), is now considered to be based on an immature S. flaveola pelzelni (Paynter 1970a, Sibley & Monroe 1990). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
97. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that the southern subspecies luteiventris might represent a separate species from Sicalis luteola, and it was treated as such by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and AOU ( 1983, 1998). Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), and Hilty (2003) also suggested that the subspecies bogotensis might deserve species rank.
98. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Sicalis luteola and S. raimondii to form a superspecies; they were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered conspecific, but Koepcke (1963) found that they were locally sympatric.
99. Sicalis taczanowskii was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Gnathospiza, but Paynter (1970a) merged this into Sicalis, following the suggestion by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); this treatment has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001).
100. Evidence for maintaining Emberizoides duidae as a separate species from E. herbicola is weak (Hilty 2003); they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1938), Phelps & Phelps (1950a), and Paynter (1970a); ; they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
101. Eisenmann & Short (1982) showed that E. ypiranganus is widely sympatric with E. herbicola and thus merits continued recognition as a separate species.
102. Genetic data indicate that Emberizoides and Embernagra belong in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and that Emberizoides and Embernagra are sister taxa (Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
103. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Embernagra platensis and E. longicauda to form a superspecies.
104. Nores et al. (1983) reported sympatry between olivascens and nominate platensis in Córdoba, which would elevate the former to species rank; they were formerly (e.g., REF) treated as separate species but considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). . Hayes (2003) provided additional evidence for lack of gene flow between the olivascens group and nominate platensis. SACC proposal to treat olivascens group as a separate species did not pass.
105. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) called this species "Buff-throated Pampa-Finch", and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) called it "Pale-throated Serra-Finch."
106. Genetic data indicate that Volatinia belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007) and may be the sister genus to Conothraupis (Burns et al. 2003). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Steadman (1982) proposed that Volatinia be merged with Geospiza, and this was followed by Wetmore et al. (1984); however, nest architecture and genetic data (Burns et al. 2002, Klicka et al. 2007) do not support this.
107. Clark (1986) found that Volatinia, Sporophila, Oryzoborus [now Sporophila], Dolospingus [now Sporophila], and Charitospiza share a unique foot scute character that suggests that they form a monophyletic group. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007), however, indicate that Volatinia and Sporophila + Oryzoborus are not close relatives. Mason & Burns (2013) found that Dolospingus was embedded in Sporophila and proposed merger of it into Sporophila. SACC proposal passed to merge Oryzoborus and Dolospingus into Sporophila. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this treatment.
108. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013) indicate that levels of genetic divergence among species in the genus Sporophila are quite low compared to other genera and that some taxa currently treated as species may be paraphyletic. In perhaps no other genus of Neotropical birds are there so many species-level taxa of that are suspected to represent aberrant individuals or hybrids. Traditionally, relationships within the genus have based on plumage similarities, but these have been shown to be influenced by convergence by Mason & Burns (2013), who found that only 1 of the 7 plumage groups of Ridgely & Tudor (1989) was monophyletic. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. A new species, Sporophila iberaensis, was described by Di Giacomo and Kopuchian (2016). SACC proposal badly needed.
109. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007) indicate that Sporophila and Oryzoborus belong in the Thraupidae; some morphological data are consistent with this (Clark 1986). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Olson (1981c) provided evidence that there is little morphological evidence for maintaining the genus Oryzoborus as separate from Sporophila, and Wetmore et al. (1984) merged Oryzoborus into Sporophila; the diagnosis of Oryzoborus relies on bill size and shape, which are notoriously unreliable indicators of phylogenetic relationships, although see Stiles (1996). Webster & Webster (1999) also recommended keeping them as separate genera because of differences in skeletal morphology. Sick (1963) noted that intergeneric hybrids were . Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) strongly support the merger of Oryzoborus into Sporophila (and provide minimal support for monophyly of Oryzoborus itself). SACC proposal to merge Oryzoborus into Sporophila did not pass. Mason & Burns (2013) found that Oryzoborus was embedded in Sporophila and proposed merger of it into Sporophila. SACC proposal passed to merge Oryzoborus and Dolospingus into Sporophila.
110. The genus Sporophila was formerly (e.g., REFS, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) known as Spermophila, but see .
111. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Mason & Burns 2013) indicate that Sporophila falcirostris and S. schistacea are sister species, confirming their traditional placement (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) in linear sequences.
111a. Repenning et al. (2013) described a new species, Sporophila beltoni, for the yellow-billed population of S. plumbea. SACC proposal passed to recognize Sporophila beltoni.
112. Sporophila intermedia may include a cryptic species, S. insularis (Rodner et al. 2000, Restall 2002, Hilty 2003). SACC proposal to recognize insularis as a separate species did not pass.
113. Sporophila corvina and S. americana are considered conspecific by most recent authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Olson's (1981a) study of the contact zone in Panama between corvina and the subspecies hicksii of S. americana suggested complete intergradation between the two, with the taxon "aurita" representing nothing more than a hybrid swarm. Subsequently, Stiles (1996b) provided rationale for recognition of the corvina and americana groups as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1938); Stiles (1996b) also treated the subspecies murallae as separate species from S. americana, and this was followed by Dickinson (2003). Stiles (1996b) also provided rationale for treating S. intermedia as part of this complex. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.
114. Stiles (1996b) showed that the correct name for this species group is corvina, not aurita as in many references.
115. Sporophila bouvronides was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970a) considered a subspecies of S. lineola, but see Schwartz (1975) for rationale for treating them as separate species, representing a return to the classification of Hellmayr (1938) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); this treatment has been followed by subsequent authors; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
116. "Sporophila melanops," known only from the type specimen from Goiás, Brazil, and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938) and Pinto (1944), is usually treated as species of uncertain status (Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Sibley & Monroe 1990); more likely a variant of S. nigricollis or a hybrid than a valid species (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Treated as a valid species by Dickinson et al. (2003) but not by Dickinson % Christidis (2014). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
117. Sick (1997), based on Sick (1962, 1963), suggested that S. ardesiaca is only a subspecies or variant of S. nigricollis; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) expressed doubt that ardesiaca was a valid species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) treated it as a subspecies of S. nigricollis. . SACC proposal badly needed.
118. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013Mason & Burns 2013) indicate that Sporophila bouvreuil (including pileata), S. minuta, S. hypoxantha, S. ruficollis, S. palustris, S. hypochroma, S. cinnamomea, S. nigrorufa, and S. melanogaster form a monophyletic group, as reflected in traditional linear sequences (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) based on plumage similarities. These plumage similarities also suggest that if S. zelichi is a valid species (see Note 32a), then it also belongs in this group (Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Lijtmaer et al. (2004) included S. castaneiventris in this group, but see Campagna et al. (2009, 2013) and Mason & Burns (2013). SACC proposal needed to change linear sequence.
119. The western subspecies bicolor was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species from Sporophila leucoptera; Ridgely & Tudor (1989) suggested that bicolor might merit recognition as a separate species.
120. Sporophila peruviana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) placed in the monotypic genus Neorhynchus.
121. The subspecies saturata was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered a separate species from Sporophila bouvreuil, but they were considered conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Machado & Silveira (2011) showed that saturata is not a diagnosable taxon. They also demonstrated the subspecies pileata is sympatric with S. bouvreuil and therefore should be considered a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat pileata as separate species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this treatment. SACC proposal passed to establish English names of S. bouvreuil and S. pileata. Mason & Burns (2013) found that S. bouvreuil and S. pileata might not be sister species. Campagna et al. (2013) found not only that they were not sisters, but also that S. bouvreuil was likely the sister to all of the “capuchino” group except for S. minuta.
122. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) provided reasons for why Sporophila insulata might be the sister species of S. telasco, rather than to S. minuta, the traditional hypothesis. Sporophila telasco and S. minuta were considered closely related, perhaps sister species, by Hellmayr (1938), but subsequent classifications (e.g., Paynter 1970a) separated them without explanation. Stiles (2004) concluded from plumage characters that S. insulata is indeed more closely related to S. telasco and also that it is more likely a color morph or subspecies of the latter. SACC proposal passed to delete Sporophila insulata as a valid species. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) followed this treatment.
123. Sporophila hypoxantha was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) considered a subspecies of S. minuta, but see Short (1969a); this treatment, a return to the classification of REF, has been followed by subsequent authors (e.g., Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies, but genetic data (Lijtmaer et al 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013, Mason & Burns 2013) indicate that they are not sister species.
124. Short (1975) suggested that Sporophila ruficollis was not a valid species but a color morph of S. [minuta] hypoxantha; they have been traditionally considered closely related, perhaps sister species (e.g., Hellmayr 1938), as confirmed by Campagna et al. (2013).
125. Short (1975) considered Sporophila palustris to be just a color morph of S. ruficollis, but syntopy has not yet been reported (Ridgely & Tudor 1989); Hellmayr (1938) considered it more closely related to S. hypoxantha.
126. Hellmayr (1938) pointed out the close relationship between Sporophila hypochroma and S. cinnamomea; Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be conspecific; Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered S. hypochroma and S. cinnamomea to form a superspecies but suggested that hypochroma might just be a color morph of S. cinnamomea. Meyer de Schauensee (1952) considered hypochroma to be a subspecies of S. castaneiventris, but later treated it as a separate species (Meyer de Schauensee 1966), as recently confirmed by genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004, Campagna et al. 2009, 2013), which also indicate that they are not even sister species.
127. Narosky (1977) described Sporophila zelichi as a new species, but whether it is a valid species is controversial. Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) maintained it as a species but noted that it was perhaps a localized color morph of S. cinnamomea or a hybrid population (S. cinnamomea X S. palustris), as suggested by Vuilleumier & Mayr (1987). Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) also continued to recognize it as a species. The observations of Azpiroz (2003) suggest that zelichi could be a valid species confined to marsh vegetation. Areta (2008) presented evidence that there is no data to support species rank for zelichi. SACC proposal passed to remove from main list.
128. Hellmayr (1936) placed Oryzoborus with the carduelines, but morphological data (Beecher REF, Tordoff 1954, Bock 1960) indicated that it was emberizine, where moved by Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
129. Olson (1981b,c) and most authors (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001) have considered S. funerea to be a subspecies of S. angolensis, with the composite English name "Lesser Seed-Finch." However, the nature of gene flow between the two has never been studied adequately; although hybrids occur in the area of contact in northern Colombia, there is no evidence of a hybrid swarm or intergradation (contra Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003) in the area that would indicate free interbreeding between the two; thus, AOU (1983, 1998) continued to rank them as separate species, following Hellmayr (1938). SACC proposal to consider S. funerea and S. angolensis conspecific did not pass.
130. Species limits in the large Oryzoborus [now Sporophila] seed-finches are complex, controversial, and need further work. Paynter (1970a) treated them all as conspecific. Meyer de Schauensee (1970x) provided rationale for why S. maximiliani should be treated as a separate species from S. crassirostris; they are broadly sympatric in the Guianas region; however, this sympatry might be only during the nonbreeding season <>(Phelps & Phelps 1950). Treatment as separate species has been followed by most subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, REFS). However, as outlined by Ridgely & Tudor (1989), placement of some subspecies is likely incorrect. Also, Sibley & Monroe (1990), followed by Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), treated the subspecies atrirostris (with gigantirostris) as a separate species from S. maximiliani. Hellmayr (1938) treated atrirostris (with gigantirostris) as a separate species. [get TSS to do sentences on atrirostris]. Middle American S. nuttingi was formerly (e.g., REFS) included in S. maximiliani, but see Stiles (1984).
136. Called "Large-billed Seed-finch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
137. Called "Greater Large-billed Seed-finch" in Meyer de Schauensee (1970).
138. Genetic data indicate that Catamenia belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Campagna et al. 2011) and forms a group with Diglossa, Acanthidops, Xenodacnis, Diglossa, Haplospiza, and most Phrygilus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae. Catamenia was placed with the carduelines by Hellmayr (1938) but then moved to the emberizines by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) based on the morphological data of Beecher (REF) and Tordoff (1954).
139. The Santa Marta subspecies oreophila was reluctantly treated as a separate species by Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Paynter (1970a), but most recent authors, including Meyer de Schauensee (1970), have treated it as a subspecies of C. homochroa; see Zambrano (1977) for rationale.
140. <>Miller (1928) proposed that Charitospiza was closely related to Lophospingus.
141. Genetic data indicate that Coryphospingus belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Burns & Racicot 2009), as suspected long ago by Paynter (1970a), and forms a group with Lanio, Eucometis, and Tachyphonus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
142. Coryphospingus pileatus and C. cucullatus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they hybridize to an uncertain extent in <> (REF). Their sister relationship was confirmed by Burns & Racicot (2009).
143. Called "Gray Pileated-Finch" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989).
144. Called "Red Pileated-Finch" in Ridgely & Tudor (1989) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Formerly called "Crimson Finch", but this is the long-standing name for the Old World estrildid Neochmia phaeton; see Clements and Shany (2001).
145. Paynter (1971) suggested that Rhodospingus might belong in Thraupidae. Burns & Racicot (2009) found not only that it was a member of the Thraupidae but also that it might be embedded within one group of Tachyphonus. SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
146. The genus Gubernatrix has been placed traditionally in the Emberizidae, sometimes (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, 1970) with the cardinal grosbeaks, which in this classification are considered a separate family, Cardinalidae. Paynter (1970a) tentatively included it in the Emberizidae, following Tordoff (1954), who presented morphological data that indicated that Gubernatrix was not related to the cardinalines. Genetic data indicate that it belongs in the Thraupidae (Campagna et al. 2011). SACC proposal passed to move to Thraupidae.
147. Until recently, the relationships of Coereba remained unresolved, and temporary treatment as a monotypic family (e.g., AOU 1998) seemed warranted. Some authors (Beecher 1951, Tordoff 1954a, Lowery & Monroe 1968) have included it within the Parulidae, and others (e.g., Bledsoe 1988) have included it within the Thraupidae; the most recent genetic data set (Burns et al. 2002) provides strong support for a monophyletic group consisting of Coereba, Tiaris, and the Galapagos finches (including Pinaroloxias), as well as Caribbean genera Euneornis, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha; this group appears to be embedded within the thraupine lineage. Lovette & Bermingham's (2002) genetic data were also consistent with placement of Coereba in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to abandon the family name "Coerebidae" and to move Coereba elsewhere. SACC proposal passed to move next to Tiaris and Galapagos "finches", and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category.
148. Genetic data indicate that Tiaris belongs in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as part of a group that includes Coereba, the Galapagos finches, and several Caribbean genera (see also Sato et al. 2001, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed move Tiaris and Galapagos "finches" next to Coereba, and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category. Tiaris itself is also paraphyletic, with minimally olivacea, the type species of the genus, not being not particularly close to other "Tiaris." Tiaris had formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, AOU 1957) been placed with the cardinalines, and then with the emberizines based on skeletal morphology (Tordoff 1954a).
149. Tiaris is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are olivaceus, obscurus, and fuliginosus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
150. Tiaris obscurus was formerly placed in the genus Sporophila and known as "Dull-colored Seedeater" (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but nest structure and voice indicate that it belonged in Tiaris s.l. (Paynter 1970a, Ridgely & Tudor 1989), as confirmed by recent genetic (Burns et al. 2002, Lijtmaer et al. 2004) and morphological (Clark 1986) data. Genetic data (Lijtmaer et al. 2004) indicate that Tiaris fuliginosus and T. obscurus are sister species. The comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016), showed that these two species are not closely related to Tiaris; Burns et al. (2016) described a new genus, Asemospiza, for these two species. SACC proposal pending to recognize Asemospiza.
151. Based on the comprehensive phylogenies of Burns et al. (2014) and Barker et al. (2016), Burns et al. (2016) recommended the transfer of Tiaris bicolor to Melanospiza (as in Dickinson & Christidis 2014). SACC proposal pending.
152. Genetic data indicate that the Galapagos finches belong in the Thraupidae (Burns et al. 2002, 2003) as part of a group that includes Coereba, Tiaris, and several Caribbean genera (see also Akie et al. 2001, Sato et al. 2001, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Klicka et al. 2007). SACC proposal passed to move Tiaris and Galapagos "finches" next to Coereba, and to place them all in Incertae Sedis category. Classification of Galapagos finches based on Petren et al. (1999), Sato et al. (1999, 2001), and Burns et al. (2002), who found that resurrection of Platyspiza for crassirostris is required to keep Camarhynchus from being paraphyletic (and that extralimital Pinaroloxias is embedded within the Galapagos finches). The Galapagos finches were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) placed in a separate subfamily, Geospizinae, from other sparrows and finches, but were placed in the Emberizinae by Mayr and Amadon (1951) and Tordoff (1954a). Subsequent genetic data (e.g., Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) have confirmed the monophyly of the group.
153. Genetic data (Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001, Burns et al. 2002) indicate that Certhidea olivacea is basal within the Galapagos finches.
154. Freeland & Boag (1999b), Petren et al. (1999), and Tonnis et al. (2005) found that C. olivacea consists of two distinct lineages. Tonnis et al. (2005) found that the two lineages were associated with habitat differences among islands, with one (olivacea) found on islands with moist upland woodland and the other (fusca) found on drier woodland on low islands; the two lineages show no sings of reproductive isolation (Grant & Grant 2002). SACC proposal passed to recognize C. fusca as a separate species.
155. "Camarhynchus conjunctus," known from two specimens from Charles and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is considered a probable hybrid (Camarhynchus parvulus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). "Camarhynchus aureus," known from one specimen from Chatham and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is also considered a probable hybrid (Camarhynchus parvulus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). "Camarhynchus giffordi," known from one specimen from Indefatigable and treated as a valid species by Hellmayr (1938), is also considered an aberrant C. pallidus or hybrid (Camarhynchus pallidus X Certhidea olivaceus) (Lack 1947, Paynter 1970a). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
156. Camarhynchus pallida and C. heliobates were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) treated in a separate genus, Cactospiza, but REFS and Paynter (1970a) merged this into Camarhynchus; this merger is strongly supported by genetic data (Freeland & Boag 1999b, Petren et al. 1999, Sato et al. 1999, 2001).
157. The subspecies affinis and habeli were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) both considered a separate species from Camarhynchus psittacula, but REFS and Paynter (1970a) treated them as conspecific.
158. Petren et al. (2005) showed that Geospiza difficilis might be polyphyletic, with the central island populations perhaps sister to most of the Darwin’s Finches, although microsatellite and mtDNA differ in the pattern of relationship of different populations. Lamichhaney et al. (2015) proposed that difficilis consists of three species, with acutirostris of Genovesa and septentrionalis of Wolf and Darwin elevated to species rank. SACC proposal pending.
159. See Paynter (1970a) over concerns that the name nebulosa may have priority for this species.
160. Large and small beak morphs of Geospiza fortis show positive assortative mating on Santa Cruz Island (Huber et al. 2007).
161. Petren et al. (2005) found that the Española population of Geospiza conirostris may be distinct enough to deserve separation as a species. Lamichhaney et al. (2015) proposed that conirostris consists of two species, with propinqua of Genovesa elevated to species rank. SACC proposal pending.
162. Parkerthraustes humeralis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) placed in the genus Caryothraustes; for rationale for generic separation of Parkerthraustes from Caryothraustes, as anticipated by Hellmayr (1938), see Demastes & Remsen (1994) and Remsen (1997). Recent genetic data (Klicka et al. 2007) confirm that Parkerthraustes is not only not part of Caryothraustes but also not a cardinaline and that it likely belongs in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Thraupidae.
163. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus are sister allotaxa (Chaves et al. 2013) that might be best treated as conspecific (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Ridgely & Tudor 1989); evidence for treatment of the two species as separate species is weak; they were treated as conspecific by Paynter (1970c) and as forming a superspecies by Sibley & Monroe (1990).
164. Klicka et al. (2007) found strong genetic support for a sister relationship between Saltator and core Thraupidae. Sushkin (1924) proposed that Saltator was thraupine, not emberizine/cardinaline. SACC proposal passed to transfer Saltator from Cardinalidae to Incertae Sedis. SACC proposal to transfer to Thraupidae did not pass. Barker et al. (2013) found that Saltator and Saltatricula were embedded in the Thraupidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Thraupidae. Chavez et al. (2013) found that relationships within the genus are not consistent with the current linear sequence of species. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence.
165. Saltator grossus and S. fuliginosus were formerly placed in the genus Pitylus (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c); for merger of Pitylus into Saltator, see Hellack & Schnell (1977), Tamplin et al. (1993), Demastes and Remsen (1994), Klicka et al. (2007), and Chaves et al. (2013).
166. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Saltator coerulescens, S. similis, and S. maxillosus to form a superspecies, but see Note 11.
167. Hilty (2003) treated the Middle American grandis subspecies group as a separate species from the nominate South American Saltator coerulescens group, a return to the classification of (REF). Hilty (2003) also indicated that vocal differences within South America suggest that additional species may be involved. The gene tree of Chavez et al. (2013) is consistent with treating the Middle American and northern South American grandis group as a separate species: if striatipectus is treated as a separate species, it is the sister to the South American coerulescens group, making broadly defined coerulescens paraphyletic. SACC proposal needed.
168. Hellmayr (1938) considered Saltator maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris conspecific, and Short (1975) reported that S. maxillosus and S. aurantiirostris intergrade in Corrientes, Argentina .
169. Saltator nigriceps was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970c, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) considered conspecific with S. aurantiirostris, but most recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) in considering them separate species owing to differences in bill and tail shape and body size. They are parapatric (Ridgely & Tudor 1989), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; they evidently differ in vocalizations (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Klicka et al. (2007) and Chaves et al. (2013) found that nigriceps was actually basal to ((S. aurantiirostris + S. maxillosus) + (S. grossus + S. fuliginosus)).
170. Saltator striatipectus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c) considered conspecific with S. albicollis ("Lesser Antillean Saltator"), but see Seutin et al. (1993) for a return to the classification of (REF); Seutin et al. (1993) also suggested that additional South American taxa might deserve recognition as separate species. However, Chaves et al. (2013) found that Saltator striatipectus was indeed part of the S. albicollis/S. coerulescens group. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence.
171. Inclusion of S. cinctus and S. atricollis in Saltator was questioned by Hellack and Schnell (1977)(? REFs). However, Chaves et al. (2013) found that S. cinctus was deeply embedded in Saltator. See also Note 172.
172. Saltatricula, traditionally placed in the Emberizidae, is one of many "emberizine" genera for which genetic data (Burns et al. 2003) suggest a closer relationship to the Thraupidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that it was embedded within the genus Saltator (and that Saltator itself was close to if not sister to Thraupidae) and that its sister species was Saltator atricollis. SACC proposal passed to transfer out of Emberizidae and place next to Saltator. SACC proposal to merge into Saltator did not pass. Chaves et al. (2013) confirmed the sister relationship between Saltator atricollis and Saltatricula multicolor and found that these two were the sister taxon to all other Saltator; therefore, Saltatricula should be merged into Saltator, or atricollis should be transferred to Saltatricula. SACC proposal passed to revise linear sequence. SACC proposal to merge Saltatricula into Saltator did not pass. Dickinson & Christidis (2014) moved atricollis to Saltatricula. Burns et al. (2016) recommended that Saltatricula be merged into Saltator. SACC proposal pending.

INCERTAE SEDIS

[Almost certainly do not belong in their traditional families, listed here Incertae Sedis; see Burns (1997) Burns et al. (2002, 2003), Klicka et al. (2000), Yuri & Mindell (2002).]

Mitrospingus cassinii Dusky-faced Tanager 8a

Mitrospingus oleagineus Olive-backed Tanager 8a

Rhodinocichla rosea Rosy Thrush-Tanager 9, 9a


8a. Barker et al. (2013) found Mitrospingus is a member of a lineage that is not particularly close to other nine-primaried families and proposed creating a new family, Mitrospinigdae, for it, Orthogonys, and Lamprospiza. SACC proposal needed
9. Familial affinities of Rhodinocichla rosea have always been uncertain, with some suspecting that it might be closest to the Mimidae (Skutch 1962), but traditionally placed in the tanagers (Eisenmann 1962), with support from morphological data (Clark 1974, Raikow 1978); genetic data (Seutin and Bermingham 1997) suggest that it is closest to some "tanagers". Storer (1970a) suspected that plumage similarities between Rhodinocichla and Granatellus suggested a close relationship between the two. Barker et al. (2013) found that it was not particularly closely related to any other nine-primaried oscine lineage and that to keep existing families monophyletic, they proposed a monotypic family for it, Rhodinocichlidae; this was adopted by Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed .
9a. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Rose-breasted Thrush-Tanager."

EMBERIZIDAE (SPARROWS) 1

Oreothraupis arremonops Tanager Finch 49

Chlorospingus flavigularis Yellow-throated Chlorospingus 66

Chlorospingus parvirostris Short-billed Chlorospingus 66, 67

Chlorospingus canigularis Ashy-throated Chlorospingus 68

Chlorospingus flavopectus Common Chlorospingus 64, 65, 65a, 69

Chlorospingus tacarcunae Tacarcuna Chlorospingus 69

Chlorospingus semifuscus Dusky Chlorospingus 70

Chlorospingus flavovirens Yellow-green Chlorospingus 67a

Rhynchospiza stolzmanni Tumbes Sparrow 3

Rhynchospiza strigiceps Stripe-capped Sparrow 3

Ammodramus savannarum Grasshopper Sparrow 2

Ammodramus humeralis Grassland Sparrow 2

Ammodramus aurifrons Yellow-browed Sparrow 2

Arremonops conirostris Black-striped Sparrow 44b

Arremonops tocuyensis Tocuyo Sparrow 44, 44a

Arremon basilicus Sierra Nevada Brushfinch 47, 47a, 48, 48a

Arremon perijanus Perija Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon atricapillus Black-headed Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon phaeopleurus Caracas Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon phygas Paria Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon assimilis Gray-browed Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon torquatus White-browed Brushfinch 47, 48

Arremon aurantiirostris Orange-billed Sparrow 45a

Arremon abeillei Black-capped Sparrow 45a, 45c

Arremon schlegeli Golden-winged Sparrow 45a

Arremon taciturnus Pectoral Sparrow 45, 45a, 45b, 47

Arremon franciscanus São Francisco Sparrow 45a, 46

Arremon semitorquatus Half-collared Sparrow 45

Arremon flavirostris Saffron-billed Sparrow 45a

Arremon brunneinucha Chestnut-capped Brushfinch 47

Arremon castaneiceps Olive Finch 47, 49a

Zonotrichia capensis Rufous-collared Sparrow

Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's Sparrow (V) 1a

Atlapetes albinucha White-naped Brushfinch 47a, 50a

Atlapetes albofrenatus Moustached Brushfinch 50

Atlapetes personatus Tepui Brushfinch

Atlapetes melanocephalus Santa Marta Brushfinch

Atlapetes semirufus Ochre-breasted Brushfinch

Atlapetes flaviceps Yellow-headed Brushfinch 51

Atlapetes fuscoolivaceus Dusky-headed Brushfinch

Atlapetes leucopis White-rimmed Brushfinch

Atlapetes albiceps White-headed Brushfinch 54c

Atlapetes rufigenis Rufous-eared Brushfinch 53

Atlapetes tricolor Tricolored Brushfinch 51a

Atlapetes schistaceus Slaty Brushfinch 54a, 55a

Atlapetes pallidinucha Pale-naped Brushfinch

Atlapetes blancae Antioquia Brushfinch 52c

Atlapetes latinuchus Yellow-breasted Brushfinch 52, 52a, 52b

Atlapetes leucopterus White-winged Brushfinch 54b

Atlapetes pallidiceps Pale-headed Brushfinch 54c

Atlapetes seebohmi Bay-crowned Brushfinch 55, 55a, 55b

Atlapetes nationi Rusty-bellied Brushfinch 55, 55a

Atlapetes forbesi Apurimac Brushfinch 53

Atlapetes melanopsis Black-spectacled Brushfinch 54

Atlapetes terborghi Vilcabamba Brushfinch 57, 52

Atlapetes canigenis Cuzco Brushfinch 56, 54a

Atlapetes melanolaemus Black-faced Brushfinch 58, 58a, 52

Atlapetes rufinucha Bolivian Brushfinch 52, 52aa

Atlapetes fulviceps Fulvous-headed Brushfinch

Atlapetes citrinellus Yellow-striped Brushfinch

1. Genetic data (Bledsoe 1988, Sibley & Ahlquist 1990, Lougheed et al. 2000, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007, Sedano & Burns 2010 -- check Groth-Barrowclough etc.) indicate that the family Emberizidae as traditionally constituted is polyphyletic, with most genera occurring in South America belonging to the tanager lineage; some morphological data (Clark 1986) also support this. The only genera in South America traditionally placed in the Emberizidae for which genetic data indicate that they are true Emberizidae are: Zonotrichia, Ammodramus, Aimophila (DaCosta et al. 2009), Arremon, and Atlapetes; the majority have been found to be members of the Thraupidae; see Note 1 under that family. Barker et al. (2013) and Klicka et al. (2014) found that even a more narrowly defined Emberizidae was not a monophyletic group and that recognition of a new family, Passerellidae, was required for all New World members of Emberizidae. SACC proposal needed Klicka et al. (2014) also found that the phylogenetic relationships among genera and species in this family are not reflected in traditional linear sequences. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence.
1a. Recorded from Aruba (Voous 1985).
2. Ammodramus humeralis and A. aurifrons were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated in a separate genus, Myospiza, but most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley and Monroe 1990) have followed Paynter (1970a) and Robins & Schnell (1971) in merging this into Ammodramus. Genetic data (Carson & Spicer 2003, Klicka & Spellman 2007, DaCosta et al. 2009, Klicka et al. 2014) indicate that as currently defined, Ammodramus is polyphyletic. Because the type species of Ammodramus is savannarum, and DaCosta et al. (2009) and Klicka et al. (2014) found that the latter is the sister to the two Myospiza, this result should not affect classification of South American species.
3. Rhynchospiza was traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a monotypic genus, with its sole species being stolzmanni; however, most recent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1989) have followed Paynter (1967, 1970a) in merging this into Aimophila, which was widely suspected of being polyphyletic (Ridgway 1901, Storer 1955b, Wolf 1977). DaCosta et al. (2009) have confirmed that Aimophila is polyphyletic and that the South American taxa are not members of true Aimophila; they recommended resurrection of Rhynchospiza, which would also include stolzmanni’s sister species, A. strigiceps. SACC proposal passed to resurrect Rhynchospiza. Klicka et al. (2014) found that Rhynchospiza is sister to the group of sparrow genera that includes true Ammodramus, Arremonops, and Peucaea.
44. The genus Arremonops has been merged into Arremon by some authors (Phelps and Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1951), but they are not closely related; see Klicka et al. (2014).
44a. Arremonops tocuyensis was considered to form a superspecies with Middle American A. rufivirgatus (Mayr & Short 1970, AOU 1983, Sibley and Monroe 1990), but it is the sister species to A. conirostris (Klicka et al. 2014). Arremonops conirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered conspecific with Middle American A. chloronotus, but they are sympatric in Honduras (Monroe 1963b), and Klicka et al. (2014) found that A. chloronotus is sister to A. rufivirgatus.
45. Raposo and Parrini (1997) proposed recognizing the subspecies semitorquatus as a separate species from Arremon taciturnus. SACC proposal passed to recognize semitorquatus as a species.
45a. Sibley and Monroe (1990) considered all the species of Arremon form a superspecies, but A. aurantiirostris and A. abeillei are sympatric in western Ecuador.
45b. The Colombian subspecies axillaris was treated as a separate species from Arremon taciturnus by .
45c. The Marañon subspecies nigriceps was treated as a separate species from Arremon abeillei by .
46. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Raposo (1997).
47. Buarremon was merged into Atlapetes by Hellmayr (1938), and this was followed by Paynter (REFS, 1970a), Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970), and most subsequent authors. Remsen and Graves (1995) resurrected the genus Buarremon as separate from Atlapetes because it is not certain that they are sister genera; this treatment was followed by AOU (1998), Ridgely et al. (2001), and Dickinson (2003). Genetic data (DaCosta et al. 2009, Klicka et al. 2014) confirm that Buarremon is not closely related to Atlapetes. Cadena et al. (2007) found that Buarremon itself is paraphyletic with respect to Arremon and probably Lysurus. SACC proposal passed to merge all into Arremon; also followed by Banks et al. (2008). Additional genetic analyses (Flórez-Rodríguez et al. 2011) found that the paraphyly of Buarremon was generated largely by mtDNA gene trees and that some, but not all, other loci support a monophyletic Buarremon. Klicka et al. (2014) confirmed that former Buarremon was indeed paraphyletic with respect to Arremon and Lysurus.
47a. The placement of the former Buarremon in Arremon creates a problem with the English names in that hyphenated “Brush-Finch” now used in two genera, Atlapetes and Arremon, with most species in the latter called “Sparrow” or “Finch.” Thus, the hyphen is misleading with respect to relationships, and this needs fixing. SACC proposal passed to change to “Brushfinch”.
48. The relationships among the forms assigned to the atricapillus and torquatus groups are controversial, with virtually no relevant data available. Wetmore et al. (1984), Paynter (1970a), and Remsen & Graves (1995) treated the atricapillus group as conspecific with B. torquatus largely because of the intermediate phenotypes shown by subspecies such as tacarcunae and costaricensis. Hellmayr (1938), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) treated them as two species because of the close geographical approach of nominate atricapillus and B. t. assimilis without signs of gene flow. Donegan et al. (2007) found B. [t.] atricapillus and B. [t.] assimilis to replace one another elevationally in the East Andes of Colombia (Santander and Boyacá departments), without any evidence of hybridization, suggesting that treatment of this complex within a single species is not supportable. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered B. torquatus and B. atricapillus, along with Middle American B. virenticeps, to form a superspecies. Buarremon virenticeps was considered conspecific with B. torquatus by Paynter (1970a) and Wetmore et al. (1984), but was treated as a separate species by Paynter (1978), AOU (1983, 1998), and Ridgely & Tudor (1989). Cadena & Cuervo’s (2010) analysis of voice, plumage, and genetics in the group indicates that as many as eight species should be recognized in this complex. SACC proposal passed to revise species limits.
48a. Called “Bangs’s Brush-finch” in Hilty (2011).
49. The relationships of Oreothraupis have been controversial. It was included in the Thraupidae by Hellmayr (1936). Storer (1958) pointed out that similarities in plumage pattern and texture, and in juvenal plumage strongly suggested a close relationship to Atlapetes, and Paynter (1970a) considered it close enough to Atlapetes that he stated that they might be considered congeneric. Klicka et al. (2014) found that it was a New World sparrow (Passerellidae) and that it was sister to Chlorospingus.
49a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered A. castaneiceps to form a superspecies with Middle American A. crassirostris. Genetic data (Klicka et al. 2014) confirm that they are sister species, as anticipated from their former treatment as the two species in the genus Lysurus. See Note 47.
50. Donegan & Huertas (2006) found no strong support in an analysis of plumage characters for A. a. meridae (Mérida range) being closely related to the nominate race (Eastern Cordillera) and that the two taxa differ in biometrics; however, vocal and molecular analyses are lacking.
50a. Paynter (1964) provided rationale for merging the Atlapetes gutturalis group into A. albinucha; and this treatment was followed by Paynter (1970a), AOU (1998), and Dickinson (2003).
51. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Hilty & Brown 1986, Dickinson 2003) known as "Olive-headed Brush-Finch". Called "Yellow-headed Brush-Finch" in BirdLife International (2000). SACC proposal passed to change English name.
51a. The subspecies crassus of the W. Andes of Colombia and Ecuador may merit species rank (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Dickinson (2003) prematurely elevated crassus to species rank.
52. Atlapetes rufinucha was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered to be a polytypic species with a disjunct distribution. However, the genetic data of García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and Klicka et al. (2014) corroborated the predictions of Remsen & Graves (1995b) that these populations did not form a monophyletic group but instead were more closely related to adjacent populations of A. schistaceus. Thus, Atlapetes latinuchus was formerly considered a subspecies of A. rufinucha, but it is more closely related to parapatric A. pallidinucha (Klicka et al. 2014). Donegan & Huertas (2006) noted that A. latinuchus itself (even without A. [l.] nigrifrons) might involve more than one species. See also Note 54a below.
52a. Called "Northern Rufous-naped Brush-Finch" in García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and "Cloud-forest Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (2001). SACC proposal to change English name did not pass.
52aa. Broadly defined Atlapetes rufinucha was called “Rufous-naped Brush-Finch,” and so narrowly defined A. rufinucha was renamed “Bolivian Brush-Finch” to avoid confusion. SACC proposal passed to change English name.
52b. Donegan & Huertas (2006) and Donegan et al. (2014) proposed that the subspecies nigrifrons (formerly phelpsi) of the Perijá Mountains should be ranked as a species from Atlapetes latinuchus. SACC proposal needed.
52c. Donegan (2007b) described a new species (Atlapetes blancae) that is possibly most closely related to the A. latinuchus group, from the Central Andes of Colombia. SACC proposal passed to recognize A. blancae.
53. Atlapetes forbesi has traditionally been treated (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Paynter 1970c, Ridgely & Tudor 1989) as a subspecies of A. rufigenis, although Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that it should be treated as a separate species. Genetic data (García-Moreno & Fjeldså 1999, Klicka et al. 2014) indicate that they are each more closely related to other species of Atlapetes than they are to each other and thus must be treated as separate species.
54. Described since Meyer de Schauensee (1970): Valqui & Fjeldså (1999). More recently renamed: Valqui & Fjeldså (2002).
54a. Atlapetes schistaceus was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered to be a polytypic species with a disjunct distribution. However, the genetic data of García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and Klicka et al. (2014) corroborated the predictions of Remsen & Graves (1995b) that these populations did not form a monophyletic group but instead were more closely related to parapatric populations of A. rufinucha. Thus, Atlapetes canigenis was formerly considered a subspecies of A. schistaceus, but it is more closely related to parapatric members of the rufinucha group.
54b. [paynteri etc.] The subspecies dresseri was formerly (e.g., REF) considered a separate species from Atlapetes leucopterus, but they were treated as conspecific by Paynter (REF) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
54c. Hellmayr (1938) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that A. pallidiceps should be considered a subspecies of A. albiceps, but they are not sister taxa (Klicka et al. 2014).
55. For continued treatment of A. seebohmi and A. nationi as separate species, as in Hellmayr (1938) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970), see Ridgely & Tudor (1989); Koepcke (1957, 1958), Paynter (1970a, 1972), and Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) regarded them as conspecific; they form a superspecies. Paynter (1970a) suspected that A. nationi (with seebohmi) might be better treated as a subspecies of A. schistaceus.
55a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Atlapetes schistaceus, A. seebohmi, and A. nationi to form a superspecies; however, A. schistaceus is a paraphyletic species (see Note 54a), and so if this superspecies designation is correct, it applies only to the nominate schistaceus group and must also include A. latinuchus. Klicka et al. (2014) found that A. latinuchus and A. pallidinucha.
55b. The subspecies ceciliae and simonsi were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1938) considered separate species from Atlapetes seebohmi, but Paynter (1970a) and Meyer de Schauensee (1966) treated them as conspecific.
56. Called "Grey Brush-Finch" in García-Moreno and Fjeldså (1999) and "Cusco Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (2001). SACC proposal passed to change English name from "Sooty Brush-Finch," as in Dickinson (2003), to "Cuzco Brush-Finch".
57. Recently described (as a subspecies of A. rufinucha): Remsen (1993). García-Moreno & Fjeldså (1995) provided evidence that it should be recognized as a separate species. SACC proposal to lump terborghi into melanolaemus or rufinucha did not pass.
58. Atlapetes melanolaemus was formerly (Hellmayr 1938, Paynter 1970a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Ridgely & Tudor 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered a subspecies of A. rufinucha, but see García-Moreno & Fjeldså (1999). SACC proposal to lump melanolaemus into rufinucha did not pass.
58a. Called "Dark-faced Brush-Finch" in Clements and Shany (1999).
64. Genetic data (REFS, Burns et al. 2002, 2003) indicate the genus Chlorospingus is not a member of the Thraupidae, but (Klicka et al. 2007) a member of the Emberizidae. SACC proposal passed to transfer to Emberizidae. Barker et al. (2013) further confirmed the placement of the genus with the New World sparrows. Frank Pitelka (in Tordoff 1954a) long ago noted the emberizine-like behavior of Chlorospingus. SACC proposal passed to change English names of the species in the genus from “Bush-Tanager” to “Chlorospingus”.
65. Chlorospingus ophthalmicus, as currently circumscribed, is paraphyletic with respect to C. tacarcunae, C. semifuscus, and C. inornatus, and likely consists of several species (Weir et al. 2008).
65a. Zimmer (1947) evidently did not realize that the name flavopectus Lafresnaye, 1840, has priority over ophthalmicus (Du Bus de Gisignies, 1847). SACC proposal pending to use flavopectus. SACC proposal passed to use flavopectus.
66. Chlorospingus parvirostris was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis, but see Zimmer (1947).
67. Chlorospingus parvirostris was called "Yellow-whiskered Bush-Tanager" in Isler & Isler (1987), Ridgely & Tudor (1989), Sibley & Monroe (1990), and Ridgely et al. (2001). Proposal needed.
67a. Klicka et al. (2014) found that flavovirens was not a member of Chlorospingus and was actually a true tanager (Thraupidae). Avendaño et al. (2016) found that its closest relatives were Bangsia tanagers and recommend its transfer to that genus. SACC proposal badly needed.
68. Stiles & Skutch (1989) suggested that the isolated Central American subspecies, olivaceiceps, may deserve recognition as a separate species from South American Chlorospingus canigularis.
68a. Recent genetic data (Yuri & Mindell 2002, Burns et al. 2003) failed to find support for inclusion of Mitrospingus in Thraupidae. Klicka et al. (2007) found that it did not fit within any of the traditionally recognized families.
69. Species limits in the Chlorospingus ophthalmicus complex are controversial. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Chlorospingus ophthalmicus and C. tacarcunae to form a superspecies with C. inornatus of Cerro Pirre, eastern Panama; C. tacarcunae was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. flavigularis before Zimmer (1947) treated it as a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) continued to treat tacarcunae as a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus, but most classifications have followed Ridgely (1976), AOU (1983), and Wetmore et al. (1984) in treating it as a separate species. The subspecies cinereocephalus of central Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) considered a subspecies of C. semifuscus until Zimmer (1947) considered it a subspecies of C. ophthalmicus. The flavopectus subspecies group of Ecuador and northern Peru was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1936) treated as a separate species from C. ophthalmicus, but see Zimmer (1947).
70. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Fjeldså & Krabbe 1990) known as "Dusky-bellied Bush-Tanager."

Part 11. Oscine Passeriformes, C (Cardinalidae to end)