Hostname: page-component-cd4964975-xtmlv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2023-03-29T18:02:44.616Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Notes on the ecology, conservation and taxonomic status of Hylorchilus wrens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2010

Philip W. Atkinson
Greylands, Rue des Grons, St Martin, Guernsey, Channel Islands
Mark J. Whittingham
107 Tavistock Drive, Mapperley Park, Nottingham NG3 5BE, U.K.
Hector Gomez de Silva Garza
Xola 314-E, 03100 México DF, Mexico
Adam M. Kent
3513 NW 10th Avenue, Gainesville, FL 32605, U.S.A.
Ruth T. Maier
School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, U.K.
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]


HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Fieldwork conducted in Veracruz and Chiapas, Mexico, between July and December 1991 indicates that the genus Hylorchilus merits retention and that the two forms, H. (sumichrasti) sumichrasti and H. (s.) navai, are good species, based chiefly on this study's discovery of their very different voices. Both are, however, ground-level feeders on invertebrates gleaned from limestone outcrops under closed-canopy forest, and both are at risk from habitat loss. Despite the very restricted range of H. navai and threats to its habitat the population is partially protected and so it is recommended it be allocated IUCN status “Rare”, while H. sumichrasti merits the existing classification “Vulnerable/Rare”.

Los trabajos de campo realizados en Veracruz y Chiapas, México, entre Julio y Diciembre de 1991 indican que el género Hylorchilus merece ser mantenido, y que las dos formas, H. (sumichrasti) sumichrasti y H. (s.) navai, son especies válidas, en base a las diferencias de voz descubiertas en este estudio. Ambas especies se alimentan a nivel del suelo, a base de invertebrados que capturan sobre rocas calizas en áreas de selva cerrada, y ambas están amenazadas por la pérdida de su hábitat. A pesar de que H. navai tiene un área de distribución muy pequeña y de que su hábitat está amenazado, la población está parcialmente protegida y por lo tanto se recomienda que se le considere en la categoría de amenaza “Rara” de la UICN, mientras que H. sumichrasti debe continuar como “Vulnerable/Rara”.

Research Article
Copyright © Birdlife International 1993


AOU (in prep.) Checklist of the birds of Mexico. Seventh edition. Auk. Supplement no 37.Google Scholar
Bangs, O. and Peters, J. L. (1927) Birds from the rain forest region of Veracruz. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool. 67: 471487.Google Scholar
Collar, N. J., Gonzaga, L. P., Krabbe, N., Madroño Nieto, A., Naranjo, L. G., Parker, T. A. and Wege, D. C. (1992) Threatened birds of the Americas: the ICBP/IUCN Red Data Book. Cambridge U.K.: International Council for Bird Preservation.Google Scholar
Crossin, R. S. and Ely, C. A. (1973) A new race of Sumichrast's Wren from Chiapas, Mexico. Condor 75: 137139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
García, E. (1973) Modificaciones al sistema de clasificación de Koppen. UNAM, Mexico: Instituto de Geografía.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. W. and Delaney, D. J. (1987) The vocalizations of the Slender-billed Wren (Hylorchilus sumichrasti): who are its close relatives? Auk 104: 528530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, E. W. (1897) Preliminary descriptions of new birds from Mexico and Guatemala in the collection of the United States Department of Agriculture. Auk 14: 4276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, A. R. (1986) The knowm birds of North and Middle America, part 1. Denver, Colorado: Allan R. Phillips.Google Scholar
Ridgway, R. (1904) The birds of North and Middle America. Bull. U.S. Natn. Mus. 50(3).Google Scholar
Sibley, C. G. and Monroe, B. L. (1990) Distribution and taxonomy of the birds of the world. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar