6 thoughts on “Black-and-gold Tanager (Bangsia melanochlamys)”
As far as I know, there is no additional information regarding the ecology of the species and there is no direct assessment of population trends. Seems reasonable to downlist the species based on the current information.
The extent of occurrence, estimated from occurrence data revised by Carrillo et al. (in prep.; https://zenodo.org/records/14187316), is 22,510 km²—placing the species in the neighborhood of the threshold for Vulnerable under IUCN criterion B1. Within this extent and the species’ altitudinal range, forest cover has decreased in 2.2% (182 km²) between 2014 and 2023 (Global Forest Watch). Therefore, instead of downlisting to least concern we suggest downlisting to near threatened due to ongoing habitat loss within the species range and a extent of occurrence just above the threshold for Vulnerable under B1.
One quick suggestion: the range map incorrectly places the species in the central andes near the city of Manizales. Citizen science observations of the species in that area are few and lack any supporting evidence in spite of being one of the most heavily birded areas in Colombia. The only record with media in that region actually corresponded to a different species (Yellow-bellied Siskin – Spinus xanthogastrus) which was removed after being reported. Therefore we suggest removing that area from future version of the species range map.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
We thank all contributors for their comments. We thank J. Velásquez for the above comment and have now revised the range map accordingly. However, the EOO (calculated from a minimum convex polygon around the mapped range where the species is known to occur) remains above the required threshold of 20,000 km2 for listing as threatened.
Even if the species’ EOO did approach the threshold for Vulnerable, it would need to meet two of the additional subcriteria to qualify as Near Threatened. Specifically, in addition to the ongoing decline in habitat area/extent/quality, it would need to either be severely fragmented (>50% of individuals or the total AOO in habitat patches that are both isolated and too small to support viable populations) or be restricted to ten or fewer locations (the term ‘location’ defining a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present). There is currently no evidence that the majority of individuals are in subpopulations that would be considered unviable. The spatial footprint of each individual threat event likely to affect the species is small, such that the number of locations would be many. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.
As far as I know, there is no additional information regarding the ecology of the species and there is no direct assessment of population trends. Seems reasonable to downlist the species based on the current information.
The extent of occurrence, estimated from occurrence data revised by Carrillo et al. (in prep.; https://zenodo.org/records/14187316), is 22,510 km²—placing the species in the neighborhood of the threshold for Vulnerable under IUCN criterion B1. Within this extent and the species’ altitudinal range, forest cover has decreased in 2.2% (182 km²) between 2014 and 2023 (Global Forest Watch). Therefore, instead of downlisting to least concern we suggest downlisting to near threatened due to ongoing habitat loss within the species range and a extent of occurrence just above the threshold for Vulnerable under B1.
One quick suggestion: the range map incorrectly places the species in the central andes near the city of Manizales. Citizen science observations of the species in that area are few and lack any supporting evidence in spite of being one of the most heavily birded areas in Colombia. The only record with media in that region actually corresponded to a different species (Yellow-bellied Siskin – Spinus xanthogastrus) which was removed after being reported. Therefore we suggest removing that area from future version of the species range map.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments until 25 April 2025. We will now analyse and interpret the information, and we will post a preliminary decision on this species’ Red List category on this page on 25 April 2025, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank all contributors for their comments. We thank J. Velásquez for the above comment and have now revised the range map accordingly. However, the EOO (calculated from a minimum convex polygon around the mapped range where the species is known to occur) remains above the required threshold of 20,000 km2 for listing as threatened.
Even if the species’ EOO did approach the threshold for Vulnerable, it would need to meet two of the additional subcriteria to qualify as Near Threatened. Specifically, in addition to the ongoing decline in habitat area/extent/quality, it would need to either be severely fragmented (>50% of individuals or the total AOO in habitat patches that are both isolated and too small to support viable populations) or be restricted to ten or fewer locations (the term ‘location’ defining a geographically or ecologically distinct area in which a single threatening event can rapidly affect all individuals of the taxon present). There is currently no evidence that the majority of individuals are in subpopulations that would be considered unviable. The spatial footprint of each individual threat event likely to affect the species is small, such that the number of locations would be many. Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to adopt the proposed classification outlined in the initial forum discussion.
There is now a period for further comments until the final deadline on 4 May 2025, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2025 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites in October 2025, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.
Many thanks to everyone who has contributed to this discussion. We greatly appreciate the time and effort invested in commenting. The window for consultation is now closed and we are unable to accept any more comments. We will analyse and interpret the information, and a final decision on this species’ Red List category will be posted on this page on 12 May 2025.