||Xenoligea montana (Chapman, 1917)
||White-winged Warbler, White-winged Ground-warbler
||del Hoyo, J., Collar, N.J., Christie, D.A., Elliott, A., Fishpool, L.D.C., Boesman, P. and Kirwan, G.M. 2016. HBW and BirdLife International Illustrated Checklist of the Birds of the World. Volume 2: Passerines. Lynx Edicions and BirdLife International, Barcelona, Spain and Cambridge, UK.
||14.5 cm. Chunky, heavy billed, olive denizen of dense cloud-forest. Olive upperparts contrast with grey head. White subloral spot and slightly split white eye-ring. Whitish underparts and extensive white in primaries. Grey tail with white outer rectrices. Heavy black bill and dark eye. Juvenile undescribed. Similar spp Green-tailed Warbler Microligea palustris is duller, less contrasting, and lacks white subloral spot and white in primaries. Voice Song is short accelerating series of squeaky notes. Call is thin tseep and low chattering. Hints Best located by call in dense understorey. Usually seen in pairs, but sometimes with mixed-species flocks.
|Red List Category & Criteria:
A2c+3c+4c; B1ab(i,ii,iii,iv,v); C2a(i)
||Butchart, S. & Symes, A.
||Bayard, P., Fernandez, E. & Lloyd, J.
||Fisher, S., Isherwood, I., Mahood, S., Pople, R., Sharpe, C J, Wege, D., Ashpole, J & Wheatley, H.
This species is considered Vulnerable because it has a small and severely fragmented range and population, which has undergone a considerable historic decline and presumably continues to decline rapidly as a result of habitat loss.
|Previously published Red List assessments:|
- 2015 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2012 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2008 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2005 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2004 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 2000 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 1996 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 1994 – Vulnerable (VU)
- 1988 – Threatened (T)
|Range Description:||Xenoligea montana is known from the Massifs de la Hotte and de la Selle, Haiti, and the Sierras de Baoruco and de Neiba, and the Cordillera Central in the Dominican Republic. It is extremely threatened in Haiti, and may already have been extirpated from much of the country, including the Massif de la Selle (Raffaele et al. 1998, Dávalos and Brooks 2001), but there are recent records from Pic Macaya National Park where it is fairly common in wet karst limestone forest (P. Bayard and E. Fernandez in litt. 2003, Latta et al. 2006). In the Dominican Republic, it is still locally common, but is presumably declining. |
Dominican Republic; Haiti
|♦ Continuing decline in area of occupancy (AOO):||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in area of occupancy (AOO):||No||♦ Estimated extent of occurrence (EOO) - km2:||33700|
|♦ Continuing decline in extent of occurrence (EOO):||Yes||♦ Extreme fluctuations in extent of occurrence (EOO):||No|
|♦ Number of Locations:||11-100||♦ Continuing decline in number of locations:||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in the number of locations:||No||♦ Lower elevation limit (metres):||1200|
|♦ Upper elevation limit (metres):||2000|
|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: Population trend data based on constant-effort mist netting show mixed results. Annual declines of 2.1-20.5% have been documented from sites in Sierra de Bahoruco National Park during the period 1997-2010 (Lloyd et al. 2016), which equates to a loss of 21-93% across three generations (11.7 years), assuming exponential decline. However, the authors have low confidence in these findings because trends were driven by exceptionally high capture rates in 1997 and varied between sites. If further evidence confirms a reduction of 50% or more across three generations, the species may be uplisted to a higher threat category.
|Current Population Trend:||Decreasing|
|♦ Number of mature individuals:||1500-7000||♦ Continuing decline of mature individuals:||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations:||No||♦ Population severely fragmented:||Yes|
|♦ No. of subpopulations:||2-100||♦ Continuing decline in subpopulations:||Yes|
|♦ Extreme fluctuations in subpopulations:||No||♦ All individuals in one subpopulation:||No|