Part Accipitriformes to Charadriiformes
Download 0.57 Mb.
|
26. The three species of Procnias, along with Central American P. tricarunculatus, were considered to form a superspecies by the AOU (1983); Snow (2004a) proposed that P. tricarunculatus and P. albus were sister species, and that P. averano and P. nudicollis were sister species. 27. Procnias is masculine, so the correct spelling of the species name is albus (David & Gosselin 2002b). 27a. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007) indicate that Procnias and Porphyrolaema are sister genera. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. However, Tello et al. (2009) found that two were not particularly closely related. SACC proposal needed. 28. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007) indicate that Tijuca and Lipaugus are sister genera, as suggested by Snow (1982). 28a. Recently described: Snow (1980). 29. Recently described: Cuervo et al. (2001). 29a. The genus Lipaugus was placed in the Tyrannidae by Wetmore (1972) based on its similarities in plumage and morphology to Laniocera and Rhytipterna; however, Warter (1965) and provided evidence for retention in Cotingidae, as confirmed by all recent genetic data. 30. Lipaugus fuscocinereus and L. uropygialis presumably form a superspecies (Remsen 1984b) that may also include L. weberi (Snow 2004a).31. Lipaugus uropygialis was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979b) placed in the monotypic genus Chirocylla, but see Remsen (1982) and Prum REF. 31a. Lipaugus unirufus and L. vociferans form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, AOU 1983); Snow (1979b) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific. 31b. Lipaugus vociferans was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929) known as L. cineraceus. 32. Snowornis subalaris and S. cryptolophus were formerly placed in the genus Lipaugus (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979b), but see Prum et al. (2000), Prum (2001), Ohlson et al. (2007), and Tello et al. (2009). Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) used the genus name Lathria for these two species, but . 32a. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007) have revealed a monophyletic group that consists of (Procnias +? Porphyrolaema) + [(Xipholena + Carpodectes) + (Conioptilon + Gymnoderus)]. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence. Tello et al. (2009) found the same relationships except that Procnias was not part of this assemblage. SACC proposal needed. 33. The three species of Xipholena form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, 2004a, Sibley & Monroe 1990). 33a. Carpodectes hopkei forms a superspecies with Central American C. nitidus and C. antoniae (Snow 1979b, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Hellmayr (1929) considered them all as conspecific, but most authors have followed Ridgway (1907), Meyer de Schauensee (1966), and Wetmore (1972) in treating them each as separate species. 33b. Called "White Cotinga" in Wetmore (1972). 34. The two species of Cephalopterus, along with Central American C. glabricollis, form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, AOU 1983, Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); they were treated as conspecific by Hellmayr (1929), but see Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and Snow (2004a). 35. Genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2007, Tello et al. 2009) indicate that Haematoderus, Querula, Pyroderus, Cephalopterus, and Perissocephalus (the latter two being sister genera) form a monophyletic group. PIPRIDAE (MANAKINS) 1 Neopelminae Tyranneutes stolzmanni Dwarf Tyrant-Manakin 2, 3 Tyranneutes virescens Tiny Tyrant-Manakin 3 Neopelma pallescens Pale-bellied Tyrant-Manakin 2, 2a Neopelma chrysocephalum Saffron-crested Tyrant-Manakin 2a Neopelma aurifrons Wied's Tyrant-Manakin 2a Neopelma chrysolophum Serra do Mar Tyrant-Manakin 2a, 2b, 2c Neopelma sulphureiventer Sulphur-bellied Tyrant-Manakin 2a, 2d Piprinae Chloropipo flavicapilla Yellow-headed Manakin 16 Chloropipo unicolor Jet Manakin 16 Antilophia bokermanni Araripe Manakin 13, 13a Antilophia galeata Helmeted Manakin 13 Chiroxiphia lanceolata Lance-tailed Manakin 14 Chiroxiphia pareola Blue-backed Manakin 14 Chiroxiphia boliviana Yungas Manakin 14, 14a, 15 Chiroxiphia caudata Swallow-tailed Manakin 14 Ilicura militaris Pin-tailed Manakin 3a Masius chrysopterus Golden-winged Manakin 3a Corapipo altera White-ruffed Manakin 3a, 4, 5 Corapipo leucorrhoa White-bibbed Manakin 4, 5 Corapipo gutturalis White-throated Manakin 5 Xenopipo uniformis Olive Manakin 16 Xenopipo atronitens Black Manakin Cryptopipo holochlora Green Manakin 16, 16b Lepidothrix coronata Blue-crowned Manakin 7, 7a, 8, 8a Lepidothrix nattereri Snow-capped Manakin 8 Lepidothrix vilasboasi Golden-crowned Manakin 8, 9 Lepidothrix iris Opal-crowned Manakin 8 Lepidothrix suavissima Orange-bellied Manakin 8, 10, 10a Lepidothrix serena White-fronted Manakin 8 Lepidothrix isidorei Blue-rumped Manakin 11, 11a Lepidothrix coeruleocapilla Cerulean-capped Manakin 11, 11b Heterocercus aurantiivertex Orange-crowned Manakin 17, 17a Heterocercus flavivertex Yellow-crowned Manakin 17, 18 Heterocercus linteatus Flame-crowned Manakin 17, 19, 21a Manacus manacus White-bearded Manakin 12, 12a Pipra aureola Crimson-hooded Manakin 21, 21a Pipra filicauda Wire-tailed Manakin 11, 21 Pipra fasciicauda Band-tailed Manakin 21 Machaeropterus deliciosus Club-winged Manakin 6 Machaeropterus regulus Striped Manakin 6a Machaeropterus pyrocephalus Fiery-capped Manakin Dixiphia pipra White-crowned Manakin 20 Ceratopipra cornuta Scarlet-horned Manakin Ceratopipra mentalis Red-capped Manakin 22 Ceratopipra erythrocephala Golden-headed Manakin 12a, 22 Ceratopipra rubrocapilla Red-headed Manakin 22 Ceratopipra chloromeros Round-tailed Manakin 1. Sequence of genera and composition of the family follow Prum (1990a, 1992). Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009, McKay et al. 2010) confirm the monophyly of the Pipridae as constituted above, but also provide evidence that the existing linear sequence of genera conflicts in several ways with phylogenetic data. SACC proposal passed to change linear sequence of genera. Ohlson et al. (2013) proposed recognizing two subfamilies, Neopelminae and Piprinae, and additional tribes within Piprinae. SACC proposal passed to recognize subfamilies; their results also indicate that modifications to the linear sequence of genera are also needed. SACC proposal passed to revise sequence. 2. Warter (1965) proposed that Neopelma belonged in the Tyrannidae based on morphology, but see Lanyon (1985) and Prum (1990), who supported its placement in Pipridae and proposed a sister relationship to Tyranneutes. Recent genetic data (Barber & Rice 2007) confirmed the placement of both genera in the Pipridae and their sister relationship; this was confirmed by Tello et al. (2009) and Ohlson et al. (2013), who found that these two were sister to all other piprid genera (thus consistent with the linear sequence above). 2a. Snow (1979c) suspected that the species of Neopelma formed a superspecies. 2b. Neopelma chrysolophum was formerly (e.g., Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, 1979c) considered a subspecies of N. aurifrons, but see Pacheco & Whitney (1995) for evidence for recognition as a separate species, as suggested by Meyer de Schauensee (1966). 2c. Called "Pinto's Tyrant-Manakin" in Meyer de Schauensee (1966) and "Serra Tyrant-Manakin" in Snow (2004b). Proposal needed? 2d. Elaenia viridicata huallagae Carriker, 1934, is a synonym of Neopelma sulphureiventer (Zimmer 1941a, Meyer de Schauensee 1966). 3. The two species of Tyranneutes form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, 2004b, Sibley & Monroe 1990). 3a. Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009) indicate that Masius and Corapipo are sister genera, with Ilicura sister to these two (thus consistent with linear sequence above). Ohlson et al. (2013) found similar results except that they could not confirm the monophyly of Corapipo with respect to Masius. 4. Corapipo altera was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979c, AOU 1983) considered conspecific with C. leucorrhoa, but recent classifications (e.g., Sibley & Monroe 1990, Ridgely & Tudor 1994, AOU 1998, but not Snow 2004b), have usually considered it a separate species, based largely on Wetmore (1972), who pointed out they differ strongly in the shape of the outer primary and show no signs of current or past intergradation; they constitute a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990). Ridgely & Tudor (1994) reversed the traditional English names of C. altera and C. leucorrhoa, presumably a lapsus. 5. Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suspected that Corapipo leucorrhoa (with altera) might best be treated as a subspecies of C. gutturalis; Snow (1979) considered them to form a superspecies. 6. Machaeropterus deliciosus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in monotypic genus Allocotopterus, but see Snow (1975), Prum & Wilson (1987), Prum (1992, 1994), and Ohlson et al. (2013). 6a. Snow (2004b) considered the Amazonian striolatus subspecies group to be a separate species from Machaeropterus regulus of SE Brazil based on . Proposal needed. 7. The genus Lepidothrix was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Zimmer 1936d, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979, Ridgely & Tudor 1994) included within broadly defined Pipra, but see Prum (1990b?, 1992, 1994a, b) and Rego et al. (2007). 7a. Palct (2009) proposed a new name, Neolepidothrix, based on the premise that Lepidothrix Bonaparte, 1854, was preoccupied by Lepidothrix Menge, 1854, which refers to a genus of thysanuran insects; see, however, Zuccon (2011) for conservation of Lepidothrix. 8. The lowland species of Lepidothrix form a superspecies (Haffer 1974, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Snow (1979c) also included L. isidorei and L. coeruleocapilla. 8a. Ridgway (1907) treated trans-Andean velutina and the green-bellied exquisita subspecies group as separate species from L. coronata; they were treated as conspecific with L. coronata by Hellmayr (1929), and this treatment has been followed in most subsequent classifications. Gyldenstolpe (1951) suggested that green-bellied exquisita subspecies group deserved recognition as a separate species, but they intergrade with the black-bellied coronata group where in contact (Haffer 1970, REF). 9. "Pipra obscura," formerly considered a distinct species (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970), is the female plumage of L. vilasboasi (Haffer 1970, Snow 1979c, 2004b, Gonzaga 1989, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Sick 1997x). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. 10. Lepidothrix suavissima was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979) treated as a subspecies of L. serena, but see Prum (1990, 1992, 1994b) and Snow (2004b). 10a. Called "Tepui Manakin" in Sibley & Monroe (1993). 11. Lepidothrix isidorei and L. coeruleocapilla form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, Snow 2004b); genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2013) show that they are sister species.. 11a. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the southern subspecies leucopygia might represent a separate species. 11b. Sibley & Monroe (1990) noted that the correct spelling for the species name is coeruleocapilla, not “caeruleocapilla” as in Hellmayr (1929) and Meyer de Schauensee (1970) 12. Many classifications (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Wetmore 1972, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Snow 2004b) have considered the vitellinus subspecies group (and also, or along with, Middle American candei, cerritus, and aurantiacus) to be separate species. Species limits in this genus are problematic, with hybrid zones between taxa that differ strongly in color (Haffer 1967, REFS), and with paraphyly of M. manacus sensu stricto (Brumfield & Braun 2001, Brumfield et al. 2001, 2008). [The problem is that cis- and trans-Andean "M. manacus" are not sister taxa fide Brumfield - I suspect that the best solution would be to split these two and elevate all the other "traditional species to species rank; proposal welcomed - JVR] 12a. "Manacus coronatus," known only from the type specimen from "Upper Amazon" and considered a distinct species by Ridgway (1907) and reluctantly by Hellmayr (1929), is now considered a hybrid (Manacus manacus X Ceratopipra erythrocephala) (Parkes 1961). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. 13. Snow (2004b) proposed that Antilophia and Chiroxiphia were sister genera <check for earlier refs>; this has been confirmed by genetic data (Tello et al. 2009, Ohlson et al. 2013). 13a. Recently described: Coelho and Silva (1998). 14. The four species of Chiroxiphia, along with Middle American C. linearis, form a superspecies (Snow 1975, 1979c, Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998). The name Chiroprion was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for the genus, but Chiroxiphia Cabanis, 1847, has priority. 14a. Chiroxiphia pareola likely consists of more than one species (REF, Hilty 2003). Ridgway (1907) treated yellow-crowned populations from western Amazonia, regina, as a separate species; Hellmayr (1929) treated regina as a subspecies of C. pareola, and this treatment has been followed in most subsequent classifications. 15. Chiroxiphia boliviana was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) considered a subspecies of C. pareola, but see Parker & Remsen (1987) and Ridgely & Tudor (1994); evidence for treatment as separate species is weak. 16. Xenopipo (now Cryptopipo) holochlora, X. (now Chloropipo) flavicapilla, X. (now Chloropipo) unicolor, and X. uniformis were formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) all placed in Chloropipo; for treatment of all in Xenopipo, see Prum (1992); they were even considered to form a superspecies by Snow (1979c). Ohlson et al.’s (2013), however, found that Chloropipo and broadly defined Xenopipo were polyphyletic, and described a new genus, Cryptopipo, for holochlora, which they found to be sister to Lepidothrix; they also resurrected Chloropipo for flavicapilla and unicolor, and retained uniformis in Xenopipo with atronitens. SACC proposal passed to recognize Cryptopipo and resurrect Chloropipo. 16b. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) suggested that the subspecies litae should be considered a separate species from Xenopipo holochlora. 17. The three species of Heterocercus form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, Haffer 1987, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they all could be considered conspecific. Genetic data (Tello et al. 2009, Ohlson et al. 2013) confirm that Heterocercus, despite its morphological distinctiveness, is nested within typical piprid genera. 17a. Called "Orange-crested Manakin" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001). Proposal needed? 18. Called "Yellow-crested Manakin" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Hilty (2003). Proposal needed? 19. Called "Flame-crested Manakin" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994). Proposal needed? 20. Even after the removal of the species in Lepidothrix (see Note 7), the monophyly of Pipra as currently constituted is in doubt. Prum (1992, 1994a) resurrected the monotypic genus Dixiphia for Pipra pipra to keep Pipra monophyletic. Rego et al. (2007) also found that retaining P. pipra in Pipra makes that group nonmonophyletic. SACC proposal to recognize Dixiphia did not pass. Rego et al. (2007) also found that Pipra may not be monophyletic because the P. aureola group is more closely related to Heterocercus than to other Pipra, which in turn may be more closely related to Machaeropterus. Rego et al. (2007) proposed resurrecting the genus name Ceratopipra for the erythrocephala group. SACC proposal to recognize Ceratopipra did not pass. Subsequently, Tello et al. (2009) found that the aureola group (as represented by filicauda) was not closely related the erythrocephala group plus P. pipra; they found that the erythrocephala group was sister to P. pipra and that they were sister to Machaeropterus. SACC proposal passed to revise generic limits. McKay et al. (2010) also found strong support for the latter relationship but did not sample any taxa from the aureola group. Ohlson et al. (2013) found strong support for treating Dixiphia and Ceratopipra as separate genera. 20a. Dixiphia pipra almost certainly consists of more than one species (AOU 1998), with the foothill taxon coracina nearly parapatric with lowland populations, from which it evidently differs in display behavior and voice (Ridgely & Greenfield 2001, Hilty 2003). 21. Pipra filicauda was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in the monotypic genus Teleonema; see Haffer (1970) and Prum (1992) for merger of Teleonema into Pipra; this was subsequently reinforced by genetic data (Rego et al. 2007). 21. Pipra aureola, P. filicauda, and P. fasciicauda form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, 2004b, Sibley & Monroe 1990). 21a. "Pipra anomala," known only from the type specimen from Pará and formerly considered a distinct species (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944), is now considered a hybrid (Heterocercus linteatus X Pipra aureola) (Parkes 1961). "Pipra heterocerca," known only from the type specimen from an uncertain locality and tentatively considered a distinct species by Hellmayr (1929), is now considered a hybrid (Pipra filicauda X P. aureola (Haffer 1970, 1974, 2002). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. 22. Ceratopipra mentalis, C. erythrocephala, and C. rubrocapilla form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998); Snow (1979c) also included C. chloromeros in that superspecies, but its distribution widely overlaps that of C. rubrocapilla. Hellmayr (1929) and Pinto (1944) considered C. erythrocephala and C. rubrocapilla to be conspecific. TITYRIDAE (TITYRAS) 1 Tityra inquisitor Black-crowned Tityra 2, 2a, 2b Tityra cayana Black-tailed Tityra 2bb Tityra semifasciata Masked Tityra 2bbb Schiffornis major Varzea Schiffornis 2c, 2d, 2e, 4 Schiffornis veraepacis Northern Schiffornis 3 Schiffornis aenea Foothill Schiffornis 3 Schiffornis olivacea Olivaceous Schiffornis 3 Schiffornis stenorhyncha Russet-winged Schiffornis 3 Schiffornis turdina Brown-winged Schiffornis 3, 5, 5a Schiffornis virescens Greenish Schiffornis 5, 5b Laniocera rufescens Speckled Mourner 6, 6a Laniocera hypopyrra Cinereous Mourner 6, 6a Iodopleura isabellae White-browed Purpletuft 6b, 6c Iodopleura fusca Dusky Purpletuft 6b Iodopleura pipra Buff-throated Purpletuft 6b Laniisoma elegans Shrike-like Cotinga 6d, 7, 7a Xenopsaris albinucha White-naped Xenopsaris 7b Pachyramphus viridis Green-backed Becard 8, 8a, 8b Pachyramphus versicolor Barred Becard 8b Pachyramphus spodiurus Slaty Becard 8b, 9 Pachyramphus rufus Cinereous Becard 8b, 9, 9a Pachyramphus cinnamomeus Cinnamon Becard 9a Pachyramphus castaneus Chestnut-crowned Becard 9aa, 9c Pachyramphus polychopterus White-winged Becard 9b, 9bb Pachyramphus albogriseus Black-and-white Becard 9b, 9d Pachyramphus marginatus Black-capped Becard 9b Pachyramphus surinamus Glossy-backed Becard Pachyramphus homochrous One-colored Becard 10 Pachyramphus minor Pink-throated Becard 10 Pachyramphus validus Crested Becard 10, 11, 11a 1. In this classification, the genera Tityra through Phibalura were formerly placed tentatively in the Cotingidae, following Prum et al. (2000). They had formerly been scattered among the Tyrannidae, Cotingidae, and Pipridae. Prum and Lanyon (1989) and Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) found that Tityra, Schiffornis, and Pachyramphus formed a distinct group, separate from the rest of the Tyrannidae; Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) proposed that they were most closely related to core Tyrannidae than to other tyrannoid families such as the Cotingidae or Pipridae. More recent genetic data (Johansson et al. 2002, Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007) confirm that the genera Tityra through at least Pachyramphus form a monophyletic group, but Chesser (2004) found that this group is more closely related to the Pipridae than to the Cotingidae or Tyrannidae. SACC proposal passed to remove from Cotingidae (and place as Incertae Sedis or as separate family, Tityridae). Ericson et al. (2006), Barber & Rice (2007), and Tello et al. (2009) not only confirmed the monophyly of the group but also proposed elevation to family rank. SACC proposal passed to recognize Tityridae. Within this group, Barber & Rice (2007) found genetic evidence for two major groups: (a) Laniisoma, Laniocera, and Schiffornis, and (b) Iodopleura, Tityra, Xenopsaris, and Pachyramphus. They proposed that the two groups be ranked as subfamilies (Laniisominae and Tityrinae). Tello et al. (2009) confirmed these relationships, and Ohlson et al. (2013) also recommended subfamily rank for the two lineages. Proposal needed. 2. The relationships of the distinctive genus Tityra have been controversial, with some authors (e.g., Traylor 1977, 1979b) including it in the Tyrannidae and others (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, REFS) in the Cotingidae. Morphological (Prum and Lanyon 1989) and genetic (Sibley and Ahlquist 1990, Prum et al. 2000, Johansson et al. 2002, Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data revealed that Tityra and other genera formed a distinct group of uncertain affinities within the tyrannoid assemblage; see Barber & Rice (2007) and Note 1 for summary, 2a. "Tityra leucura," sometimes tentatively considered a species (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Snow 1979a, Dickinson 2003), is widely regarded as a variant of some sort of T. inquisitor (Hellmayr 1929, Sibley & Monroe 1990, Fitzpatrick 2004). See Hybrids and Dubious Taxa. Whittaker (2008), however, has presented evidence that it represents a valid species restricted to southwestern Amazonian Brazil. Proposal badly needed. 2b. Tityra inquisitor was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in a monotypic genus, Erator, but this was merged into Tityra by Hellmayr (1929); although this has been followed by most subsequent classifications, see Wetmore (1972) for resurrection of Erator, based on differences in skull structure as well as the original characters given by Ridgway (i.e., tarsal structure, bill shape, and lack of bare skin on face). To emphasize the distinctiveness of this species from tityras, Wetmore (1972) called it "Black-crowned Becard." Vocalizations and general plumage pattern of T. inquisitor are like those of the other two species of Tityra (e.g., see Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Barber and Rice (2007) confirmed that it is basal to T. cayana + T. semifasciata. 2bb. The subspecies brasiliensis of the Atlantic Forest region was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Tityra cayana; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. 2bb. The subspecies nigriceps of nw. Ecuador and sw. Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Tityra semifasciata; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. 2c. The genus Schiffornis was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979c, AOU 1983) included in the Pipridae. Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989) and genetic (Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data indicate that it does not belong in that family but rather forms a group with the genera Tityra through Pachyramphus. 2c. The name Scotothorus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for Schiffornis. 2d. Schiffornis major was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929) placed in the monotypic genus Massornis, but see Zimmer (1936d). Barber and Rice (2007) showed that it is the sister to S. turdina + S. virescens. 2e. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Greater Manakin," but see Prum & Lanyon (1989). Called "Greater Schiffornis" in Sibley & Monroe (1990). Prum & Lanyon (1989) suggested "Varzea Mourner," and this was followed by Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Snow (2004b). Proposal needed? 3. Schiffornis turdina formerly included the species S. olivacea, S. veraepacis (including subspecies dumicola, rosenbergi, “buckleyi” and acrolophites), S. aenea, and S. stenorhyncha (including subspecies panamensis), although many authors had noted that more than one species was involved (Meyer de Schauensee 1966, Stiles & Skutch 1989, Ridgely & Greenfield 2001). Ridgway (1907) treated the subspecies amazona (with stenorhyncha), veraepacis, wallacii, furva, rosenbergi, and olivacea each as separate species from S. turdina. Nyári (2007) presented evidence that at least five species should be recognized. SACC proposal to treat as five species did not pass. Donegan et al. (2011) presented additional evidence that at least five species should be recognized, with only the subspecies steinbachi, amazonum, wallacii and intermedia remaining in S. turdina. SACC proposal passed to split S. turdina into multiple species. SACC proposals passed to determine English names. 4. The species in the genus Schiffornis were formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) called "Manakins," but most references have followed the AOU (1998) in changing the English group name to "Schiffornis." SACC proposal to change Schiffornis to "Mourner" as an English name did not pass. 5. Schiffornis turdina, broadly defined, and S. virescens were considered to form a superspecies (Snow 1979c, Sibley & Monroe 1990); the parapatric distributions of the species of the turdina group (see Note 3) indicate that they should all be part of that superspecies. 5a. Schiffornis is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is turdina (David & Gosselin 2002b). 5b. The species name for S. virescens was formerly unicolor (e.g., Ridgway 1907), but see [REF]. 6. The genus Laniocera was formerly placed in the Pipridae (e.g., Ridgway 1907) or Cotingidae (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a) but then transferred to the Tyrannidae (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Traylor 1979c, Fitzpatrick 2004) based on the anatomical analysis of Ames (1971). Snow (1973) also provided rationale for its removal from the Cotingidae, but Prum et al. (2000) tentatively placed this group in the Cotingidae. However, morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989), ecological (Londoño and Cadena 2003), and genetic (Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data indicate that Laniocera belongs in the "Schiffornis group" of genera (here the Tityridae), most closely related to Schiffornis or Laniisoma. See also Note 1. 6a. Laniocera rufescens and L. hypopyrra form a superspecies (Sibley & Monroe 1990, AOU 1998, Fitzpatrick 2004). 6b. Iodopleura isabellae and I. fusca form a superspecies (Snow 1979b, 2004a, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might be best treated as conspecific. Haffer (1987) considered all three Iodopleura to form a superspecies. 6c. The genus Iodopleura has been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1973, 1979b, 2004a) in the Cotingidae, where also placed tentatively by Prum et al. (2000). Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989) and additional genetic (Chesser 2004, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data, however, indicate that Iodopleura is a member of the "Schiffornis group" (here Tityridae); see also Note 1. 6d. The genus Laniisoma has been placed traditionally (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1973, 1979b) in the Cotingidae, and was tentatively placed there by Prum et al. (2000). Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989) and recent genetic (Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data indicate that Laniisoma is a member of the "Schiffornis group" (here Tityridae) and is the sister genus to Laniocera; see also Note 1. 7. Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) and Hilty (2003) treated the Andean subspecies buckleyi as a separate species (including also venezuelensis and cadwaladeri) from Laniisoma elegans of southeastern Brazil, returning to the species limits of Hellmayr (1929); not followed by Snow (2004a). Proposal needed. 7a. Called "Elegant Mourner" in Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Snow (2004a). Although considered by Snow (1982) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) "not in the slightest shrike-like," its bill shape and body size is roughly similar to that of many shrikes (Laniidae), as reflected in the genus name. Now that it is no longer a true cotinga, however, proposal needed to change English name. 7b. The relationships of Xenopsaris have been controversial. Some authors have considered it closely related to Pachyramphus (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1966), whereas others have considered it not closely related to Pachyramphus (with the resemblance in plumage between the two considered superficial or convergent) and closely related to serpophagine tyrannids (Cory & Hellmayr 1927, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Smith 1971, Snow 1973) or incertae sedis within Tyrannidae (Traylor 1977); it was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in the Cotingidae. Prum & Lanyon (1989)'s morphological analysis strongly supported a sister relationship to Pachyramphus, and genetic data (Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) confirm that relationship; see Fitzpatrick (2004) for rationale for maintaining as a separate genus pending further data. 7c. Called "Reed Manakin" in Prum & Lanyon (1989). 8. The relationships of the genus Pachyramphus have been controversial, with some authors (e.g., Traylor 1977) including it in the Tyrannidae and others (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Prum et al. 2000) in the Cotingidae. Morphological (Prum & Lanyon 1989, REFS) and genetic (Chesser 1994, Barber & Rice 2007, Tello et al. 2009) data indicate that Pachyramphus does not belong in either family but rather forms a group with the genera Tityra through Pachyramphus (here Tityridae). 8a. Ridgely & Tudor (1994) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001) considered Andean xanthogenys a species separate from P. viridis, and this was followed by Fitzpatrick (2004) and Barber & Rice (2007). Proposal needed. 8b. Barber & Rice (2007) found that P. viridis, P. versicolor, P. spodiurus, and P. rufus formed a monophyletic group within the genus, with P. versicolor basal, followed by P. viridis, with P. rufus and P. spodiurus as sister species. Proposal needed for minor change in linear sequence. 9. Pachyramphus spodiurus has sometimes (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) been considered a subspecies of P. rufus, with the composite species called "Crested Becard," but see Zimmer (1936f) for maintaining the species limits of Hellmayr (1929); they form a superspecies (Snow 1979a, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Barber & Rice (2007) confirmed that they are sister taxa. 9a. The species names cinereus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for Pachyramphus rufus. The name atricapillus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) applied to the Guianas population and treated as a separate species from Pachyramphus rufus; Hellmayr (1929) treated atricapillus as a synonym of P. rufus, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. 9aa. Pachyramphus cinnamomeus and P. castaneus form a superspecies (Snow 1979a, AOU 1983, 1998, Sibley & Monroe 1990). Barber & Rice (2007) not only found that they are sister species, but also found some evidence that P. castaneus might be paraphyletic with respect to P. cinnamomeus. 9b. Pachyramphus albogriseus and P. marginatus have been considered to form a superspecies (Snow 1979a, AOU 1983), and Sibley & Monroe (1990) also included Middle American P. major in this superspecies. Barber & Rice (2007), however, found that P. polychopterus is embedded in this group and that it is likely the sister species to P. albogriseus. 9bb. The subspecies dorsalis of w. Colombia and W. Ecuador and nanus (treated formerly under the species name atricapillus) of Amazonia were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Pachyramphus polychopterus; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. 9c. Called "Grey-naped Becard" in " in Mazar Barnett & Pearman (2001). 9d. The subspecies ornatus of Central American and n. Colombia was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Pachyramphus albogriseus; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. 10. Pachyramphus homochrous, P. minor, and P. validus were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907, Hellmayr 1929, Zimmer 1936f, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) placed in a separate genus, Platypsaris, but most recent authors have followed Snow (1973, 1979a) in merging the latter into Pachyramphus. They form a superspecies, along with Middle American P. aglaiae (Snow 1979a, AOU 1983, Sibley & Monroe 1990); Meyer de Schauensee (1966) suggested that they might all be considered conspecific, and Webster (1963) tentatively treated homochrous and aglaiae as conspecific. Hilty & Brown (1986) and Ridgely & Greenfield (2001), and Hilty (2003) retained Platypsaris based on differences in voice and nest shape and placement. Although genetic data show that they form a monophyletic group, resurrection of Platypsaris would make Pachyramphus a paraphyletic group ( Barber & Rice 2007). 11. Pachyramphus validus was formerly (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Zimmer 1936f, Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as Platypsaris rufus, but the merger of Platypsaris into Pachyramphus meant that rufus was preoccupied in Pachyramphus, forcing the use of validus for that species (Snow 1973, 1979a). Pachyramphus validus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) placed in the monotypic genus Hylonax. The subspecies dorsalis of w. Colombia and W. Ecuador and nanus (treated formerly under the species name atricapillus) of Amazonia were formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) treated as a separate species from Pachyramphus polychopterus; Hellmayr (1929) treated them as conspecific, and this has been followed in all subsequent classifications. The name atricapillus was formerly (e.g., Ridgway 1907) used for this species when placed in Platypsaris. 11a. Called "Plain Becard" in Fitzpatrick (2004). INCERTAE SEDIS 1 Phibalura flavirostris Swallow-tailed Cotinga 11b, 11c Piprites chloris Wing-barred Piprites 12, 13, 14 Piprites pileata Black-capped Piprites 12, 13, 14, 15 Calyptura cristata Kinglet Calyptura 1 1. Recent genetic data (Ohlson et al. 2012) indicate that Calyptura is a tyrant-flycatcher, most closely related to Platyrinchus and Neopipo. SACC proposal badly needed. 11b. [lack of data on true relationships] 11c. Hennessey (2011) summarized plumage, vocal, and other evidence in support of treatment of the isolated subspecies boliviana as a separate species. SACC proposal to treat boliviana as separate species did not pass. 12. The relationships of the genus Piprites have been controversial. Traditionally (e.g., 13. The two South American Piprites were considered to form a superspecies with Middle American P. griseiceps by the AOU (1983), but Snow (1979c, 2004b) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) excluded P. pileata from the superspecies, because it is so different from the other two, which were formerly (e.g., REF) placed in a separate genus, Hemipipo. 14. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Wing-barred Manakin." 15. Formerly (e.g., Meyer de Schauensee 1970) known as "Black-capped Manakin." 16. Piprites is feminine, so the correct spelling of the species name is pileata (David & Gosselin 2002b). Part 9. Oscine Passeriformes, A (Vireonidae to Sturnidae) 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:
|