Three subspecies are recognized, which mainly differ in their coloration; the drier the area, the less coloration they have:

Serpophaga subcristata straminea

Differences from the other subspecies: Very yellow ventrally and olive-colored on the back.
Geographic Distribution: Uruguay and southeastern Brazil.

Serpophaga subcristata subcristata

Differences from the other subspecies: Pale yellow ventral and less olive on the back.
Geographic Distribution: Eastern Argentina: from the center-west, northeast, and east of Buenos Aires, Entre Ríos, Santa Fe, Corrientes, Chaco, Misiones, eastern Formosa, eastern Córdoba, and eastern Santiago del Estero.
Sympatry: This subspecies occurs in sympatry with the Shining Flycatcher in the autumn-winter period.

Serpophaga subcristata munda

Differences from the other subspecies: Fully white ventral and gray on the back.
Geographic Distribution: In the west: from the north of Chubut province, the Andean region of Mendoza, San Juan, Catamarca, La Rioja, Tucumán, Salta, and Jujuy; center and east of Río Negro, central and western La Pampa, central and western Córdoba and Santiago del Estero, western Chaco, and Formosa.
Sympatry: This subspecies occurs in sympatry with the Shining Flycatcher during the breeding season.
Taxonomy: A very debated topic in science. Berlepsch (1893) described S. munda separating it from S. subcristata. Zimmer (1955) analyzes both forms and considers that S. munda corresponds to a xerophilous-mountain habitat, and S. subcristata to humid plains. He argues that the dorsal and ventral coloration is inconclusive. Bó (1969) reaches a result similar to Zimmer (1955) but finds that in certain areas, both forms occur in sympatry, raising the question of whether genetic isolation is broken and they hybridize. Short (1975) considers S. munda as a subspecies or morph of S. subcristata. Straneck (1993) unifies S. subcristata with S. munda due to identical acoustic repertoires, confirming what Zimmer (1955), Short (1975), and Bó (1969) mentioned. Smith (1971) previously conducted acoustic analyses of both forms and supported the view of munda as a valid species due to differences in coloration and some vocalizations from S. subcristata, to which Straneck (1993) refutes that the vocal differences reported by Smith (1971) are minimal and attributable to individual or regional differences, adding that Smith did not have enough comparative material. Herzog (2001) points out that Straneck (1993) has severe methodological flaws and comments that re-examining all the information with a conservative criterion yields opposite results, stating that S. subcristata and S. munda are valid species. Mazar Barnett and Pearman (2001) follow Straneck (1993) based on identical vocalizations and intergradation in the contact zone. Herzog and Mazar Barnett (2004) assert that S. griseiceps specimens from Berlioz (1959) represent juveniles of S. munda. Straneck (2007) explains that the error of authors who insist that S. griseiceps are juveniles of S. munda (Berlioz, 1959; Traylor, 1979, 1982; Remsen and Traylor, 1989; Herzog and Mazar Barnett, 2004) comes from their studies only being based on skins and not conducting acoustic analyses of the species. He continues to treat S. s. munda as a subspecies of S. subcristata mentioning that "the color difference is more likely due to chromatic adaptation to the environment in which they live, rather than a specific difference."

Comparison with the Shining Flycatcher (Serpophaga griseicapilla): Twin species that are very difficult to differentiate in photographs. The Common Flycatcher has a crown that is much whiter, although not always visible, and the size is larger than that of the Shining Flycatcher.

Vocalization: It is distinguishable from the Shining Flycatcher by its acoustic repertoire, which it repeats throughout the year, although with greater frequency during the breeding period. It is worth noting that some voices of the Common Flycatcher could be considered trills, which could confuse people who do not know the characteristic vocalization of the Shining Flycatcher, meaning that not only the Shining Flycatcher "trills."

Behavior: The behavior of the Shining Flycatcher and the Common Flycatcher is similar, they move by hopping and short fluttering on tree branches capturing small arthropods, so behavioral differences are not considered valid until more studies on this genus are published.


Author of this compilation: Jorge La Grotteria - 04/05/2016

 See related literature