77. Tolmomyias flaviventris almost certainly involves more than one species; see Bates et al. (1992) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994). The subspecies viridiceps is almost certainly a distinct species, and was so considered by Ridgely et al. (2001) and Hilty (2003). However, Zimmer (1939a) considered them conspecific because the subspecies he considered the subspecies subsimilis and dissors to represent taxa that were intermediate between the two, and this treatment was followed by Fitzpatrick (2004) in the absence of published data supporting a split. Proposal needed.
78. Ridgway (1907) used the genus name Platytriccus for Platyrinchus.
78a. Middle American Platyrinchus cancrominus was formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939c, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of P. mystaceus, but they are locally sympatric in Costa Rica and differ in vocalizations (Slud 1964. Stiles & Skutch 1989), as formerly treated by Ridgway (1907) and Cory & Hellmayr (1927); they form a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990).
78a. The northern albogularis group was considered a separate species from Platyrinchus mystaceus by Olson (1993a). Proposal needed.
78b. Platyrinchus coronatus was placed by Ridgway (1907) in a separate genus, Placostomus.
78c. Platyrinchus leucoryphus was called P. platyrhynchos in Cory & Hellmayr (1927); see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) for the potentially confusing nomenclature of these species.
79. Ridgway (1907), Cory & Hellmayr (1927), and Pinto (1944) considered the four subspecies groups in Onychorhynchus coronatus as separate species: mexicanus of Middle America and northwestern Colombia, occidentalis of western Ecuador and northwestern Peru, coronatus of Amazonia, and swainsoni of southeastern Brazil. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) and considered them all as conspecific without providing justification, and this was followed by Traylor (1977>, 1979b), AOU (1983, 1998), Sibley & Monroe (1990), Fitzpatrick (2004), and Ridgely & Tudor (1994), who provided rationale for their continued treatment as conspecific, but not by Wetmore (1972), who considered the evidence insufficient for the broad treatment. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) returned to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927). Collar et al. (1992) considered occidentalis as a separate species. See Whittingham & Williams (2000) for analysis and discussion of morphological characters. Proposal needed.
80. Morphological (Lanyon 1988a) and genetic (Ohlson et al. 2008) data strongly suggest that Myiophobus is a polyphyletic genus. Placement in linear sequence here arbitrarily assigned where type species of the genus falls in Lanyon's (1988a) phylogeny, in which there are three species groups that are each evidently monophyletic but the groups themselves may not be each others' closest relatives: (1) M. flavicans, M. phoenicomitra, M. inornatus, and M. roraimae; (2) M. lintoni and M. ochraceiventris; and (3) M. cryptoxanthus and M. fasciatus; placement of M. pulcher is uncertain (Fitzpatrick 2004). Recent genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2009) establish that the three groups above are unrelated and that pulcher belongs in group 2; for that group, they described a new genus, Nephelomyias. SACC proposal passed to recognize Nephelomyias.
80a. The southern subspecies rufipennis, described as a separate species from M. roraimae, was considered conspecific with M. roraimae by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) without providing rationale, despite their greatly disjunct ranges, and subsequent authors have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966).
80aa. The subspecies bellus of the eastern slope of the Andes and Eastern and Central Cordilleras of Colombia has a longer tail and wing to other subspecies (though not 100% diagnostically) and differs in plumage from nominate Myiophobus pulcher of the West slope (Salaman et al. 2002, Donegan et al. 2007). Some calls may also differ, although a thorough vocal study is warranted (Donegan et al. 2007).
80b. Myiophobus lintoni and M. ochraceiventris form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990); genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2009) confirm that they are sister species.
80c. Myiophobus fasciatus and M. cryptoxanthus form a superspecies (Parker et al. 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), but see Zimmer (1939c) for rationale for their treatment as separate species.
80d. The subspecies rufescens of arid western Peru and northern Chile was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species from Myiophobus fasciatus, but Zimmer (1939c) and Koepcke (1961) reported specimens that showed signs of intergradation between rufescens and M. f. crypterythrus (cf. Ridgely & Tudor 1994); thus, Meyer de Schauensee (1966) considered them conspecific, and this has been followed by subsequent authors. Jaramillo (2003), however, suggested that rufescens should be considered a separate species.
80e. Myiobius villosus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as conspecific with M. (b.) sulphureipygius; Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated them as separate species, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications.
81. Cory & Hellmayr (1927), Wetmore (1972), and the AOU (1983, 1998) treated the sulphureipygius group as a separate species from Myiobius barbatus, but see Zimmer (1939b) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for rationale for continued treatment as conspecific; however, Ridgely and Greenfield (2001) returned to AOU classification, followed by Hilty (2003) and Fitzpatrick (2004), with the name "Whiskered Flycatcher" applied to the Amazonian barbatus group, as in Cory & Hellmayr (1927). SACC proposal to treat sulphureipygius as separate species did not pass. The name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for sulphureipygius was xanthopygus. The subspecies mastacalis of southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., REF) treated as a separate species, but see Zimmer (1939b). SACC proposal pending to treat mastacalis as separate species did not pass.
81a. The subspecies ridgwayi of southeastern Brazil was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species from Myiobius atricaudus, but they were treated as conspecific by Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and subsequent classifications. Parker et al. (1996) implied that ridgwayi deserved treatment as a separate species. SACC proposal to treat ridgwayi as separate species did not pass.
81aa. Myiobius atricaudus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as conspecific with M. barbatus; Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated them as separate species, and this has been followed in most subsequent classifications.
82. Lanyon (1988c) and Mobley & Prum (1995) merged Terenotriccus into Myiobius based on morphological data, followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but differences in voice and behavior have resulted in continued treatment in monotypic genus (Ridgely & Tudor 1994, AOU 1998, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003). Proposal needed?
83. Neopipo cinnamomea was formerly (e.g., <check Hellmayr>, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the Pipridae ("Cinnamon Manakin"); placement in Tyrannidae follows Mobley and Prum (1995).
83a. Called "Cinnamon Tyrant-Manakin" in Sibley & Monroe (1990), "Cinnamon Tyrant" in Mobley & Prum (1995), Fitzpatrick (2004), and Schulenberg et al. (2007), and "Cinnamon Neopipo" in Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003), thus perhaps setting a new temporal record for lack of stability in an English name. SACC proposal to change English name to "Cinnamon Neopipo" did not pass. SACC proposal to change to "Cinnamon Tyrant" did not pass. SACC proposal passed to change to "Cinnamon Manakin-Tyrant."
84. The northern subspecies vieillotioides was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species from Pyrrhomyias cinnamomeus, but see Zimmer (1939c).
84a. Pyrrhomyias is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is cinnamomeus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
85. The southern and eastern bellicosa group was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a separate species from Hirundinea ferruginea,, but they were considered conspecific by <Zimmer> Meyer de Schauensee (1966). Sibley and Monroe (1990) followed Cory & Hellmayr (1927) in treating them as separate species.
86. Species in the genus Lathrotriccus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1939b, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Haverschmidt & Mees 1994) included in Empidonax, but see Zink & Johnson (1984), Lanyon & Lanyon (1986) and Cicero & Johnson (2002). <check latter to see if griseipectus sampled -- if not cite R&T 94, Parker et al. 95 for inclusion in L. rather than E.>
86a. The lawrencei subspecies group (with johnstoni) was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944) considered as a separate species from Lathrotriccus euleri; Zimmer (1939b) provided rationale for treating them as conspecific.
87. Genetic data indicate that Aphanotriccus and Lathrotriccus are sister genera and that Cnemotriccus is the sister to Aphanotriccus + Lathrotriccus (Lanyon & Lanyon 1986, Cicero & Johnson 2002); this relationship is consistent with the morphological and ecological data of Lanyon (1986).
87a. Aphanotriccus audax was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in the genus Praedo, but most subsequent classifications have followed Griscom (1935) and Traylor (1979) in merging this into Aphanotriccus; Wetmore (1972) maintained recognition of Praedo because of differences in extent of rictal bristles.
87b. Pronounced differences in vocalizations, habitat, and nest construction indicate that widespread C. f. bimaculatus should be treated as a separate species from nominate Cnemotriccus f. fuscatus consists of more than one species (Belton 1984). Proposal badly needed. Hilty (2003) also suggested that C. f. duidae should be treated as a separate species based on voice.
88. Genetic data indicate that Empidonax and Contopus are sister genera and that Mitrephanes is the sister to Empidonax + Contopus (Lanyon & Lanyon 1986, Cicero & Johnson 2002).
89. Empidonax traillii and E. alnorum were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific ("Traill's Flycatcher"), but Stein (1958, 1963) showed that they were vocally distinguishable, reproductively isolated species.
90. Contopus cooperi was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a monotypic genus Nuttallornis, but its merger into Contopus by Traylor (1977, 1979b) has been followed by all subsequent authors. <check recent genetic data for support, Zink-Johnson-Cicero papers>.
91. The correct species epithet was shown to be cooperi, not borealis as in most recent literature (or mesoleucus, as in Cory & Hellmayr 1927), by Banks and Browning (1995).
91a. Called "Boreal Pewee" in Sibley & Monroe (1990).
92. Contopus fumigatus formerly (e.g., Zimmer 1939b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979b) included the Middle American taxa now generally considered separate species (C. pertinax and C. lugubris; e.g., AOU 1983, 1998, Ridgely & Tudor 1994); they were previously also treated as separate species by Ridgway (1907), Cory & Hellmayr (1927), and Wetmore (1972); they constitute a superspecies (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). No formal analysis has been published. Proposal needed? Meyer de Schauensee (1970) used "Greater Pewee" for the composite species.
92a. The name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927) used for the Contopus known from South America except C. cooperi was Myiochanes, but see [.]
93. Meyer de Schauensee (1966, 1970) considered Contopus sordidulus to be conspecific with Contopus virens, with the composite name "Wood Pewee", but this treatment has seldom been followed, before (e.g., AOU 1957) or after (e.g., Traylor 1977>, 1979b); see, for example, Rising & Schueler (1980).
93x. Contopus sordidulus was called C. richardsonii in much early literature (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a), but see Phillips and Parkes (1955) for why the latter applies to Sayornis phoebe.
93a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Contopus cinereus to form a superspecies with C. sordidulus and C. virens.
93b. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered the subspecies punensis of southwestern Ecuador and northwestern Peru to represent a separate species from Contopus cinereus based on vocal differences. Proposal needed.
93bb. The species name formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for Contopus cinereus was brachytarsus.
93c. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) considered Contopus nigrescens to be a subspecies of C. cinereus.
94. Mitrephanes olivaceus is often (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1938, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, AOU 1983, 1998) considered conspecific with M. phaeocercus, but see Webster (1968). Proposal needed? They constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990).
94a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) called these two species "Northern Tufted-Flycatcher" and "Olive Tufted-Flycatcher." Proposal needed.
94b. The South American latirostris subspecies group was considered a separate species from northern Sayornis nigricans by (REFS <check Ridgway>).
94c. The Galapagos subspecies nanus and dubius were each treated as a separate species from Pyrocephalus rubinus by Ridgway (1907). The obscurus subspecies group of coastal Peru was also treated/proposed as a separate species by Ridgway (1907), but see Zimmer (1941c).
95. Lessonia oreas was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered conspecific with L. rufa (with composite species known as "Rufous-backed Negrito"). Traylor (1977) apparently recognized the two as separate species, as suggested (without explicit rationale) by Meyer de Schauensee (1966); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Evidence for treatment as separate species is presumably based only on plumage differences.
96. Knipolegus striaticeps was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Entotriccus, but recent classifications have followed Traylor (1977>, 1979b) in merging this into Knipolegus.
97. Knipolegus hudsoni and K. poecilocercus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Phaeotriccus, but recent classifications have followed Traylor (1979) in merging this into Knipolegus. Hosner & Moyle (2012) found that both species are embedded within Knipolegus, and that they are not sister species. SACC proposal pending to modify linear sequence of species.
98. The history of Knipolegus signatus and K. cabanisi is complex and confusing. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) treated them as separate species in separate genera: signatus in Ochthodiaeta (now Myiotheretes) and cabanisi in Knipolegus. Meyer de Schauensee (1970) also treated them as separate species in separate genera, with signatus in Myiotheretes ("Jelski's Bush-Tyrant") and cabanisi in Knipolegus ("Plumbeous Tyrant"). Traylor (1979, 1982) identified signatus and cabanisi as sister taxa, transferred signatus to Knipolegus, and considered them conspecific, but noted that they might also be considered separate species, as also noted by Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them conspecific and coined the name "Andean Tyrant" for the composite species, and this was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Fitzpatrick (2004); Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) also considered them conspecific but used "Plumbeous Tyrant," but see Ridgely & Tudor (1994) for reasons not to use that English name. Hosner & Moyle (2012) presented evidence that cabanisi merits treatment as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to treat cabanisi as a species. SACC proposal needed on English names in Knipolegus.
98a. "Knipolegus subflammulatus," formerly treated as a valid species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), is now known to be the immature male plumage of K. signatus cabanisi (Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Mayr 1971, Traylor 1982). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa.
98c. Knipolegus poecilurus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) placed in Cnemotriccus. Brodkorb (1937) described a monotypic genus for it, Eumyiobius, and this was followed by Pinto (1944). Zimmer (1937c) provided rationale for its placement in Knipolegus, and all subsequent authors have followed this. Hosner & Moyle (2012) found that poecilurus was the sister species to K. poecilocercus.
98d. Fitzpatrick (2004) noted that differences in degree of sexual dimorphism suggest that Amazonian subspecies could be considered separate species from nominate Knipolegus orenocensis.
99. Silva & Oren (1992) considered the subspecies franciscanus to be a separate species from aterrimus; see also Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Hosner & Moyle (2012) found that franciscanus is actually more closely related to K. lophotes + K. nigerrimus. SACC proposal passed to treat franciscanus as a species. SACC proposal passed to modify linear sequence of species. Hosner & Moyle (2012) recommended use of the English name Caatinga Black-Tyrant because it was already the most frequently used name for the taxon when treated as a species.
100. The name formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944) used for the genus Hymenops was Lichenops, but Hymenops has priority (Meyer de Schauensee 1966).
100a. Hymenops is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is perspicillatus (David & Gosselin 2002b).
101. Ochthornis was merged into Ochthoeca by Traylor (1977>, 1979b), but Lanyon (1988b) provided morphological evidence for continued recognition of Ochthornis as a genus separate from Ochthoeca, as in Meyer de Schauensee (1970) etc.
101a. Genetic data (Chesser 2000) strongly support the monophyly of a core group of Muscisaxicola species, but support for inclusion of the two small species (M. maculirostris and M. fluviatilis) is weak; see also Muscigralla (Note 121c). Within the core group, Chesser (2000) found support for two monophyletic groups: (1) M. griseus, M. juninensis, M. cinereus, M. albifrons, M. flavinucha, and M. rufivertex , and (2) M. maclovianus, M. albilora, M. alpinus, M. capistratus, and M. frontalis; this finding is consistent with traditional linear sequences.
Share with your friends: |