||Campylopterus phainopeplus Salvin & Godman, 1879
||Santa Marta Sabrewing
||Colibrí de Santa Marta
||SACC. 2005 and updates. A classification of the bird species of South America. Available at: #http://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCBaseline.htm#.
||13 cm. Large, glittering, green hummingbird. Slightly decurved, stout black bill. Male mainly glittering green. Green forecrown. Glittering green hindcrown and rest of upperparts. Glittering blue throat and chest. Steely blue-black, square tail. Female shiny green above, duller forecrown and cheeks. Grey below with green flanks and undertail-coverts. Green tail, narrowly tipped grey. Similar spp. White-vented Plumeleteer Chalybura buffonii of lowlands has shorter tail and green (not white) undertail-coverts. Voice Plaintive double note twit-twit.
|Red List Category & Criteria:
||Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
||Coopmans, P., Fjeldså, J., Kirwan, G., Olarte, L., Renjifo, L., Salaman, P. & Züchner, T.
||Benstead, P., Capper, D., Isherwood, I., Sharpe, C.J., Stuart, T., Symes, A.
This species has very small breeding and non-breeding ranges, within which it is known from few locations. Habitat loss and degradation are continuing, and population and range declines are thus suspected. It therefore qualifies as Endangered.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
- 2012 – Endangered (EN)
- 2008 – Endangered (EN)
- 2004 – Endangered (EN)
- 2000 – Endangered (EN)
- 1994 – Lower Risk/near threatened (LR/nt)
- 1988 – Near Threatened (NT)
|Range Description:||Campylopterus phainopeplus is endemic to the Santa Marta mountains, north-east Colombia, where it is locally fairly common on the south-east and north slopes (Hilty and Brown 1986, L. G. Olarte and M. Pearman per P. G. W. Salaman in litt. 1998, 1999 and verbally 2000, (P. Coopmans in litt. 2000). The few recent records (G. M. Kirwan in litt 1998) are from two sites on the south-east slope (L. G. Olarte and M. Pearman per P. G. W. Salaman in litt. 1998, 1999 and verbally 2000) and one on the San Lorenzo ridge (P. Coopmans in litt. 2000), the massif's north-western extremity, during the 1990s. The paucity of records is presumably related to a lack of observers in this politically and militarily sensitive region (G. M. Kirwan in litt 1998), although the reason it went unrecorded on the relatively well-watched San Lorenzo ridge until 1999 is unknown.|
|♦ Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO):||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO):||No||♦ Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2:||2900|
|♦ Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO):||Yes||♦ Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO):||No|
|♦ Number of Locations:||3||♦ Continuing decline in number of locations:||Unknown|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations:||No||♦ Lower elevation limit (metres):||1200|
|♦ Upper elevation limit (metres):||4800|
|Range Map:||Click here to open the map viewer and explore range.|
|Population:||The population is estimated to number 2,500-9,999 individuals based on an assessment of known records, descriptions of abundance and range size. This is consistent with recorded population density estimates for congeners or close relatives with a similar body size, and the fact that only a proportion of the estimated Extent of Occurrence is likely to be occupied. This estimate is equivalent to 1,667-6,666 mature individuals, rounded here to 1,500-7,000 mature individuals.|
Trend Justification: A moderate and on-going decline is suspected, owing to habitat loss and fragmentation.
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|♦ Number of mature individuals:||1500-7000||♦ Continuing decline of mature individuals:||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations:||No||♦ Population severely fragmented:||No|
|♦ No. of subpopulations:||2-100||♦ Continuing decline in subpopulations:||Unknown|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:||No||♦ All individuals in one subpopulation:||No|