Part Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes
b. "Muscisaxicola titicacae
Download 0.57 Mb.
|
101b. "Muscisaxicola titicacae," described from Lake Titicaca, Peru, is now considered a synonym of Muscisaxicola fluviatilis (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). 102. Muscisaxicola griseus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977, 1979b, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) treated as a subspecies of M. alpinus, but see Chesser (2000). 102a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) called M. griseus "Plain-capped Ground-Tyrant" (the name used by Meyer de Schauensee 1966 and all subsequent references for broadly defined M. alpinus) and coined "Paramo Ground-Tyrant" for M. alpinus after the split with M. griseus. "Taczanowski's Ground-Tyrant" was coined for M. griseus by Dickinson (2003), leaving "Plain-capped Ground-Tyrant" for M. alpinus; this was followed by Fitzpatrick (2004). SACC proposal passed to change English names. 103. Muscisaxicola is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are griseus, cinereus, maclovianus, alpinus, and capistratus; flavinucha and albilora, however, are invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b). 103a. Cory & Hellmayr (1927) considered Muscisaxicola juninensis to be closely related to, and perhaps a subspecies of, M. albilora, but see REF. 103aa. "Muscisaxicola tenuirostris," described from Junín, Peru, is now considered a synonym of Muscisaxicola juninensis (Meyer de Schauensee 1966). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. 103b. Muscisaxicola cinereus was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) treated as a subspecies of M. alpinus, but recent treatments have followed Traylor (1977REF?, 1979b) in treating it as a separate species, thus returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927); they form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) suggested that the subspecies M. c. argentina actually belongs in M. alpinus. 103c. The northern subspecies occipitalis may be a separate species from Muscisaxicola rufivertex (REF?, Fitzpatrick 2004). 103d. Genetic data (Chesser 2000) indicate that Muscisaxicola capistratus and M. frontalis are sister species, consistent with their placement in traditional linear sequences. 104. Agriornis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are montanus, lividus, micropterus, and murinus (David & Gosselin 2002b); andicola, however, is invariable. 105. Formerly known as Agriornis andicola, but that name is considered preoccupied (Meyer de Schauensee 1966; see Zimmer 1937b, Traylor 1979b and Sibley & Monroe 1990); see Dickinson (2003) for a return to use of A. albicauda. SACC proposal passed to change to albicauda. 106. Agriornis murinus was formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Xolmis (and known as "Mouse-brown Monjita"), but following Smith & Vuilleumier (1971), subsequent authors (e.g., Traylor 1979b) have treated this species in Agriornis. See Ridgely & Tudor (1994), however, for some doubts as to this classification. 107. Xolmis pyrope was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Pyrope, but see Smith & Vuilleumier (1977) and Traylor (1977) for a return to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927). 108. Xolmis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are cinereus, coronatus, velatus, and dominicanus; rubetra, however, is invariable (David & Gosselin 2002b). 108a. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered Xolmis cinereus and X. coronatus to form a superspecies, 109. Recently described: by Nores & Yzurieta (1979), as a subspecies of Xolmis (Neoxolmis) rubetra, but generally treated as a species by subsequent authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Fitzpatrick 2004), but not by Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) or Dickinson (2003). SACC proposal to treat salinarum as a subspecies of X. rubetra did not pass. 110. Neoxolmis rubetra was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Xolmis, but was moved to Neoxolmis by Traylor (salinarum not yet described); Lanyon (1986) and Vuilleumier (1994) provided additional morphological evidence in support of recognizing Neoxolmis as a separate genus. Sibley & Monroe (1990) retained the two species in Xolmis, based on a personal communication from R. Ridgely, and treated them as forming a superspecies. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) retained it in Xolmis but noted that it was a "rather aberrant Xolmis"; nonetheless. they also stated "we question whether it is very close to Neoxolmis" but instead suggested that it might be closer to Agriornis. Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001) followed the placement of rubetra with salinarum in Neoxolmis. Fitzpatrick (2004) retained rubetra in Xolmis. Proposal badly needed. 111. Xolmis dominicanus was placed in the monotypic genus Heteroxolmis by Lanyon (1986), based on morphological data, and this was followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990) and Dickinson (2003). Proposal needed. 112. <Myiotheretes pernix and M. fumigatus form a superspecies.> 112a. Sibley & Monroe 1990) considered Myiotheretes fumigatus and M. fuscorufus to form a superspecies, but see Parker & O'Neill (1980). 112b. Myiotheretes pernix, M. fumigatus, and M. fuscorufus were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) placed in a separate genus, Ochthodiaeta. 113. Cnemarchus erythropygius was formerly (e.g., Traylor 1979b, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Myiotheretes, but Lanyon (1988b) provided morphological evidence for recognition of Cnemarchus as a genus separate from Myiotheretes, thus returning to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927). 114. Polioxolmis rufipennis was formerly placed in Cnemarchus (Cory & Hellmayr 1927), or Xolmis (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979b), but Lanyon (1988b) provided morphological evidence for recognition of Polioxolmis as a genus separate from Xolmis. 115. Fluvicola albiventer is often considered a subspecies of F. pica (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1937b, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1977, 1979b, AOU 1998, Dickinson 2003); Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them as separate species and as forming a superspecies; Ridgely & Tudor (1994) provided rationale for treatment as separate species. Proposal badly needed. 115a. Fluvicola nengeta was formerly (e.g., <check Cory & Hellmayr 1927> Pinto 1944) known as Fluvicola climazura, but see Schneider (1938). 115b. The subspecies atripennis from w. Ecuador and nw. Peru might be a species distinct from Fluvicola nengeta (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Fitzpatrick (2004). 116. Arundinicola was merged into Fluvicola by Traylor (1979b); <> provided morphological evidence for continued recognition of Arundinicola as a genus separate from Fluvicola. 117. Alectrurus risora was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Yetapa, but see 118. Lanyon (1986) merged Tumbezia into Ochthoeca based on morphological data, followed by Sibley & Monroe (1990), but genetic data do not indicate that it is definitely embedded within Ochthoeca (García-Moreno et al. 1998). 119. Lanyon (1986) separated Ochthoeca frontalis, O. jelskii, O. diadema, and O. pulchella into the genus Silvicultrix, but genetic data (García-Moreno et al. 1998) indicated that this would make Ochthoeca paraphyletic. 119a. Ochthoeca jelskii was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of O. pulchella or of O. frontalis (e.g., Zimmer 1937b), but Traylor (1985) provided rationale for treatment as a separate species, more closely related to O. frontalis, which has been followed by most subsequent authors. Sibley & Monroe (1990) considered them to form a superspecies; Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990), however, treated jelskii as a subspecies of O. frontalis. Proposal needed. 119b. Ochthoeca pulchella was at one time (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927) considered a subspecies of O. frontalis until they were shown to be sympatric (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966). 119c. Ochthoeca frontalis was formerly (e.g. Zimmer 1937b) known as Ochthoeca albidiadema, but frontalis has priority . 120. García-Moreno et al. (1998) suggested that the plumage and genetic differences between the frontalis and spodionota subspecies groups warranted species-level recognition for each. Proposal needed? 120a. Ochthoeca diadema and O. pulchella form a superspecies (<>Traylor 1985, Sibley & Monroe 1990). 120b. Ochthoeca piurae and O. leucophrys form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927), but most authors have followed Koepcke (1961b) in considering them as separate species. Fjeldså & Krabbe (1990) recommended a return to their treatment as conspecific. 121. García-Moreno et al. (1998) suggested that the plumage and genetic differences between subspecies groups north and south of the Marañon should be recognized at the species level, with Ochthoeca thoracica the name for the southern species. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) reported that there are also vocal differences that would support this split. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) further recognized Venezuelan nigrita as a separate species from O. cinnamomeiventris, as done by Cory & Hellmayr (1927); see Zimmer (1937b) for the rationale for treating them all as conspecific based on plumage pattern, the treatment followed by Fitzpatrick (2004). Proposal needed. 121a. Hilty (2003) suggested that Ochthoeca fumicolor consists more than one species; Cory & Hellmayr (1927) considered the subspecies superciliosa of Venezuela to be a separate species. 121b. Colorhamphus parvirostris was formerly considered related to Mecocerculus or Elaenia (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), but <Traylor 1979b etc.>. Lanyon (1986) presented morphological data that confirmed its close relationship to Ochthoeca but considered it best treated in its former monotypic genus. 121c. Muscigralla is sometimes (Vuilleumier 1971) merged into Muscisaxicola. Morphological data (Lanyon 1986) suggest that the two genera may not be closely related, but genetic data (Chesser 2000) support a close relationship. 122. Machetornis is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is rixosa (David & Gosselin 2002b). 122a. The Middle American subspecies, texensis, was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Myiozetetes similis, but was considered conspecific with M. similis by Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and most subsequent authors; under the former treatment, the English name "Vermilion-crowned Flycatcher" was applied to the similis group, but it is sometimes applied to the species as a whole (e.g., Wetmore 1972). 122b. Legatus leucophaius was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) known as L. albicollis. 123. Myiozetetes luteiventris was formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in Tyrannopsis, but recent classifications have followed Traylor (1979) in transferring it from Tyrannopsis to Myiozetetes, a return to the classification of Cory & Hellmayr (1927) and Phelps & Phelps (1950a); morphological data (Lanyon 1984) support this transfer. 124. Phelpsia inornatus was formerly placed in Myiozetetes (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) or Conopias (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a); Lanyon (1986) provided morphological data for recognition of Phelpsia as a genus separate from Myiozetetes or Conopias. Proposal needed? 125. Lanyon (1986) provided morphological evidence for placement of Pitangus lictor in a monotypic genus, Philohydor, as suggested by Haverschmidt (1957) and Wetmore (1972); this has been followed by some authors (e.g., Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003, Fitzpatrick 2004) but not others (e.g., AOU 1998). Proposal needed? <wait until J. Mobley publishes his molecular data> 126. South American parvus is usually (e.g., Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003, Fitzpatrick 2004) considered a separate species from Conopias albovittatus of Central America and northwestern South America; Ridgely & Tudor (1994) provided rationale for treating parvus as a separate species. SACC proposal passed to split parvus from albovittatus. 126a. Conopias albovittatus and C. parvus) were formerly (e.g., Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Wetmore 1972, AOU 1983) treated in a separate genus, Coryphotriccus, from Conopias, based mainly on bill shape differences, but most recent classifications have followed Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Traylor (1977, 1979) in merging Coryphotriccus into Conopias; see Lanyon (1984) for morphological support for this merger. 127. Conopias is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are albovittatus, parvus, and trivirgatus (David & Gosselin 2002b). 127a. Fitzpatrick (2004) suggested that the Amazonian subspecies berlepschi might be a separate species from Conopias trivirgatus. 127b. Myiodynastes chrysocephalus forms a superspecies with Middle American M. hemichrysus (AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were considered conspecific by Cory & Hellmayr (1927). 128. The southern, migratory subspecies solitarius was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Pinto 1944) considered to be a separate species from Myiodynastes maculatus, but at that time, it was not realized that solitarius was an austral migrant that invaded the range of M. maculatus outside of the breeding season; see Zimmer (1937b) for rationale for treatment of this distinctive taxon as a subspecies of M. maculatus. 128a. Myiodynastes luteiventris and M. maculatus are sister species (Zimmer 1937d). 129. Frequently (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) misspelled as "Megarhynchus." 129a. Hilty (2003) that Empidonomus varius might consist of more than one species. 130. Lanyon (1986) provided morphological data for placing aurantioatrocristatus in a monotypic genus, Griseotyrannus, and this treatment was followed by Fitzpatrick (2004). Proposal needed? 130b. "Tyrannus apolites," known only from the type specimen from "Rio de Janeiro" and treated as a valid species by Ridgway (1907), Cory & Hellmayr (1927), and Pinto (1944), is presumed to be a hybrid (T. melancholicus X Empidonomus varius) (Meise 1949, Meyer de Schauensee 1970). 131. Tyrannus savana was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Zimmer 1937c, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the genus Muscivora, but recent classifications have followed Smith (1966) and Traylor (1977, 1979c) in merging Muscivora into Tyrannus, which then also forced the renaming of this species from Muscivora tyrannus to Tyrannus savana because the species name tyrannus was preoccupied in Tyrannus. 131a. Rhytipterna holerythra and R. simplex evidently form a superspecies (AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990). 131b. The genus Rhytipterna was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) placed in the Cotingidae, but subsequent to the anatomical analyses of Warter (1965) and Ames (1971), it was placed in the Tyrannidae, near Myiarchus. See also Snow (1973) for rationale for removal from Cotingidae. (REFS). 132. See W. E. Lanyon (1985) for evidence for the close relationship of the genera Rhytipterna through Ramphotrigon. 132a. Sirystes was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) thought to be a cotinga, but Cory & Hellmayr (1927) placed it in the Tyrannidae, near Tyrannus; Warter's (1965) analysis of skull morphology indicated that it was close to Myiarchus, and this was further strengthened by analyses of syringeal morphology and behavior (Lanyon & Fitzpatrick 1983). 132b. The trans-Andean subspecies albogriseus and the Amazonian subspecies albocinereus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as separate species; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific with S. sibilator, and subsequent authors have followed that treatment. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), followed by Hilty (2003), treated albogriseus as a separate species from Sirystes sibilator, based mainly on differences in vocalizations. <earlier treatments as 2 species?>. Donegan (2013) interpreted vocal and plumage variation to indicate that four species should be recognized: in addition to trans-Andean albogriseus, also albocinereus of western Amazonia and subcanescens of the Guianan Shield. SACC proposal passed to recognize four species in Sirystes. 133. Casiornis rufus and C. fuscus form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990); reasons for treating them as separate species are weak (Traylor 1979b, Ridgely & Tudor 1994). 133a. Casiornis is masculine, so the correct spellings of the species names are rufus and fuscus (David & Gosselin 2002b). 133b. The genus Casiornis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966) placed in the Cotingidae, but subsequent to the anatomical analyses of Ames (1971), it was placed in the Tyrannidae, near Myiarchus. See also Snow (1973) for rationale for removal from Cotingidae. (REFS). 133c. Joseph et al. (2004) found that Myiarchus semirufus was basal to all other Myiarchus, that its level of sequence divergence from other Myiarchus was exceptional, and that in some analyses it grouped more closely with Rhytipterna immunda than with other Myiarchus; resurrection of the monotypic genus Muscifur may be necessary pending additional taxon sampling. 134. The classification of Myiarchus followed here follows Lanyon (1967, 1978). Genetic data (Joseph et al. 2004) indicate that the genus is monophyletic, with the possible exception of M. rufus (see Note 133c) and M. magnirostris (not sampled; see Note 140b); within the genus, two major divisions are evident: (1) a primarily South American group that consists of all the resident species in this classification except M. tyrannulus but including Jamaican M. barbirostris, and (2) a Middle American-North American-Caribbean group that consists of all the extralimital taxa, M. tyrannulus, and M. crinitus. Directory: ~Remsen ~Remsen -> Larus belcheri from "Band-tailed Gull" to "Belcher's Gull" ~Remsen -> Larus belcheri from "Band-tailed Gull" to "Belcher's Gull" Download 0.57 Mb. Share with your friends:
|