Background: Isler et al. (2007) proposed that "sixpopulations of Warbling Antbird (Hypocnemis cantator) currentlyconsidered subspecies are more appropriately recognized as species" basedmainly on their comparative analyses of vocal differences, but also on plumagecoloration. Furthermore, "two forms currently considered subspecies aresyntopic and two others are parapatric without apparent physicalbarriers." The authors recommend treating the H. cantator complexas the following six species, and hyphenate the English name Warbling-Antbirdafter modifying it:
Hypocnemis cantator
Hypocnemis flavescens
Hypocnemis peruviana
Hypocnemis subflava
Hypocnemis ochrogyna
Hypocnemis striata
Effect on South American CL: SplittingHypocnemis cantatorWarbling Antbird into six species adds five species to the list, and requiresmodifying the English name forHypocnemis cantator.
Recommendation: Isler et al. (2007) state that furthermolecular phylogeny work on the H. cantator complex isforthcoming, which could provide new evidence that additional subspecies shouldbe elevated to species status, or that other subspecies are not valid taxa.Regardless, the authors advocate "this initial revision better reflectsthe taxonomic status of populations in the complex than currentclassifications." I recommend voting "Yes".
References:
Isler, M. L., P. R. Isler, & B. M. Whitney. 2007. Specieslimits in Antbirds (Thamnophilidae): The Warbling Antbird (Hypocnemiscantator) complex. Auk 124(1):11-28.
Comments from Remsen: "YES. Having been awareof this one for a while and having gone over the analyses, these taxa meritspecies rank under the BSC using the careful comparative framework establishedby the Islers and Whitney. The case of local syntopy of elevates automaticallyat least two of the taxa to species rank.
"As an aside, however, I note that additional genetic datawill not add anything to our understanding of species limits of allopatricpopulations (because degree of genetic divergence in 1-2 genes cannot be usedas a measure of taxon rank), but rather only the cases of parapatry as noted,where presence or lack of gene flow becomes relevant. As for genetic datacontributing to recognition of populations as subspecies, that would apply ifand only if the genes governing the phenotypic differences that distinguishthem could be discovered and sequenced; otherwise, validity of subspeciesdepends on their phenotypic diagnosability, and contrary to several publishedstatements, any lack of differentiation in a couple of genes (out of ca.25,000) is essentially irrelevant to ranking those populations as subspecies (=phenotypically diagnosable units)."
Comments from Stiles: "YES. The analyses looksolid, there is sufficient evidence under the BSC to justify these splits,and they are diagnosable morphologically as well. And as Van stated,genetic distances (at the degree of detail where we are now working) inthemselves do not supply appropriate criteria for making taxonomic decisions inthe species-subspecies range."
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES - I am not wild aboutthe hyphenated names, however, but it could be worse."
Note from Thomas Donegan:
Comments from Robbins: "YES. The combination ofsympatry in two of the taxa, coupled with vocal differences among the otherssupports species recognition for all."
Comments from Nores: "NO. Pienso que la evidencia aportada por Isler et al. es importante pero nodefinitiva como para crear 5 nuevas especies. Es más, ellos mismos mencionan" Further recommendations regarding status of all taxa within the WarblingAntbird complex and estimates of its phylogeny within the Thamnophilidae awaitmolecular analysis now underway" and "awaiting the completion offurther molecular, morphological and behavioral studies". A pesar de loque menciona Remsen sobre los datos moleculares, yo esperaría esos resultados uotro tipo de análisis antes de crear las especies. Por el momento, yo sólopasaría a especie asubflava por estar en simpatría conperuviana.La parapatría decantatoryflavescens señalada por Isler et al.y usada por Lebbin en su propuesta para apoyar la creación de las especies,para mi sugiere más subespecies que especies. Yo he tenido oportunidad deobservar a esta especie en diferentes partes de Amazonia y nunca noté diferenciasimportantes (con un análisis mucho menos profundo que el de Isler et al.) ni enla coloración ni en el canto como para pensar en diferentes especies
Comments from Cadena: "YES. The analyses looksolid and the documented sympatry of two of the taxa with no evidence ofhybridization really clinches the argument. I agree that molecular data wouldhave little to offer here other than giving estimates of divergence times,which may or may not say anything about species status. Perhaps the only situationin which DNA data would be of great value would be that of parapatricpopulations. Manuel's conservative suggestion of elevating onlyperuvianaansubflava to species status might be sensible, but it would leave thequestion open of how do you treat the rest of the taxa: subspecies ofperuviana?Ofsubflava? Ofcantator? How would one decide?"
Comments from Pacheco: "YES.
Comments from Zimmer: "YES. The data are solid onthis. Vocal differences between sympatric populations ofperuviana andsubflava/collinsiprovide an excellent yardstick for assessing the importance of vocaldifferences between other populations in the complex, most of which differ inmore vocal characters than doperuviana andsubflava/collinsi."