1. Ascanio notes that the site where he saw the bird in 2005 had been “almost completely clear-cut and converted to grassland.” So, to the question above, the species has disappeared from at least one site.
2. Ascanio also notes that they used satellite image and local information to identify three potential sites for the species, but at least one of these sites was too degraded to be suitable for the species. Again, this suggests that there has been a reduction in suitable habitat/sites.
3. The site where Ascanio found the bird is close to where a specimen was collected in 1943, so was not a new site for the species.
4. Ascanio observed that Urich’s Tyrannulet is likely dependent on primary intact forest which is being rapidly lost within its range.
A few other notable points:
1. Since 2021, all recent sighting of Urich’s Tyrannulet in eBird are either from the exact location of Ascanio’s record or within a few kilometers of it.
2. No recent sighting of the species has been of more than 2 individuals (see data in eBird.org).
4. As far as I can tell the existence of Urich’s Tyrannulet on the Paria Peninsula is supported by two sight-only records. Multiple subsequent visits to the same location as these records as well as to other areas on the Paria Peninsula by ornithologists experienced with the species (e.g., Ascanio, Jhonathan Miranda) have not resulted in any documented records. With this in mind, it seems that the status of Urich’s Tyrannulet on the Paria requires further confirmation and if the bird is present there it is rarer than in other parts of its range.
Put together, the recent evidence we have seems to be that: a) there is only a single limited area where we have documented evidence of the tyrannulet existing this century; b) the total population in that area could potentially be only a few individuals; and c) there is definite evidence of the tyrannulet disappearing from at least one if not more locations.
If anything, it seems that the species should be uplisted to CR rather than vice versa.
Venezuelan experts familiar with the species, like Ascanio and Miranda, will know this situation better. Hopefully they can comment here or be contacted directly.
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 would like to thank J.C. Mittermeier for the information provided in the above comment. It is agreed that the record from the Paria Peninsula is unconfirmed. This record will be changed to ‘possibly extant’ on the range map. As a result, the revised minimum AOO/EOO now meets the thresholds for listing as Endangered under Criteria B1 and B2. However, listing under these criteria also requires that the species occurs in fewer than five Locations (for Endangered) or 10 (for Vulnerable) (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), or that the species be severely fragmented.
The primary observer effort appears to have been in El Guacharo NP, but largely around the edges, and while few territories have been encountered (although there appear to be at least a couple within only a few hundred metres of each other [eBird 2025]), there remains a considerable area of potentially suitable semi-deciduous habitat further inside the park which do not appear to have been visited by observers familiar with the species. Additionally, areas to the north-west of Caripe, and areas between D. Ascanio’s 2005 record in the west and El Guacharo NP have been visited very little or not at all. The loss of habitat around the locality of the 2005 record is of concern, and indicates that the main threat to the species can have a significant footprint. But forest does remain in this area within Sucre, to the north of the locality, so it may be too soon to determine the species has been extirpated from this area. Noting that the area with confirmed recent records is so small, and considering the loss of the species from the site in Anzoategui province, a precautionary lower bound of six locations is applied, even with the relatively limited footprint of individual threat events. If it is found to be present widely in El Guacharo and to persist in other forest patches, especially the area close to the 2005 D. Ascanio record, a larger number of locations would be appropriate, with an upper bound set here at 20.
Based on this information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to list Urich’s Tyrannulet as Vulnerable under Criteria B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii).
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.
Increasing the species’ distribution area based on records lacking evidence is questionable and unfalsifiable. Therefore, its presence should be considered hypothetical rather than a fact. It would be an error to assume that such a record validates a change in the threat risk category for a species with such a restricted distribution, particularly in one of the country’s least protected areas. Since 2005, during my visits to the area as a biology student, through research projects, and for bird monitoring, the zone has been significantly impacted by fires, cattle ranching expansion, agricultural expansion, and to a lesser extent, urban development. Repeated visits to different localities within the Cueva del Guachara National Park, employing playback techniques, have failed to locate new sites within the national park. Out of the 12 localities visited throughout the region with suitable habitat, only the original collection locality (and subsequent rediscovery site) and another located 9 km linear distance from it yielded positive results for the species’ presence. The western portion of the Turimiquire Massif, in Anzoátegui state, is currently almost entirely deforested and lacks any effective legal protection (no national parks exist). The eastern side, towards Caripe, although a portion is protected by the Cueva del Guacharo National Park, does not encompass all the optimal zones for the species. The habitat type where the species is found is often suitable for cultivation and easily accessible for the constant expansion of cattle ranching, thus its medium-term stability is not assured. It is important to note that between 1985 and 2023, the highest rates of habitat loss in Venezuela were in the north of the country, totaling 36,200 km2 during that period (source: Provita). My recommendation is not to consider the Paria record as confirmed presence and to maintain the species in the Endangered category.
Data influencing this decision as listed in Annex 1, appears out of date and unreliable. Specifically, the number of mature individuals is estimated (with “suspected*”) at 2,500-10,000 individuals based on Sharpe 2008. Yet, as noted by John Mittermeier and Jhonthan Miranda, this species has gone completely undetected for more than a ten year period, and the most recent surveys have only been able to locate this species at two closely-located sites (not 11-50 locations as estimated in Annex 1). It seems more conservative to rely on these surveys which suggests the population could be only a few individuals and way less than the thousands estimated, and perhaps the population estimate should be revised to <50 mature individuals. For a species possibly on the brink of extinction, down-listing seems unwise and I think this species should be up-listed to CR, based on the lack of evidence of more than just a few individual birds.
In addition to what already has been posted, I would like to know which criteria has been followed to determine the population size of Phyllomyias urichi, considering that is probably the least-known Venezuelan endemic in the north of Venezuela.
What we know (in prep.) is that the species occurs in a narrow altitudinal band of primary forest, and such band is the most heavily impacted by agriculture practices. In the past, this band was used for shade grown coffee but the use has shifted to grow suit peppers and other products that require a complete deforestation of the area.
Given the steep terrain, a cleared patch of forest is basically an area lost for the survival of the species. Add to that, the absolute absence of patrolling and resources to protect the forest which is part of a national park (quite frankly, only in written).
As of today, the species has practically been extirpated in the state of Anzoátegui and the only viable population remains in one of the two separate areas of El Guacharo national park (slope facing east, sector Mata de Mango). Further to that, I have not noticed a likely habitat for the species in the Paria Peninsula thus it seems to me highly speculative to consider the presence of the species there based in a single sight record.
P. urichi, along with Myiothlypis griseiceps, are among the most threatened endemic species in Venezuela. If this species was considered vulnerable in the past, it seems to me that the risk of extinction has only increased.
In closing, it is my opinion that it will be a big mistake to downgrade the threat of extinction of P.urichi.
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.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
Following further review, the recommended categorisation for this species has been changed. Urich’s Tyrannulet is now recommended to be listed as Endangered under Criteria B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii).
The assessment previously lacked information on survey effort within Cueva del Guachara National Park. The information provided by J. Miranda indicates that a greater proportion of the potential area of suitable habitat has been visited, suggesting that occupancy is genuinely limited. How limited does depend on assessing the proportion of potential habitat has been assessed. Using abundant and detectable species, Bananaquit Coereba flaveola and Bay-headed Tanager Tangara gyrola, as surrogates for effort indicates good coverage of the more disturbed areas around Cuerva del Guachara NP to the northwest, but that there appears to be no effort further east and southeast beyond the series of sightings of Urich’s Tyrannulet. (note the western record south of Caripe is misplaced). The data demonstrates that the species may only occur at these two identified sites (noting that D. Ascanio’s 2005 site is likely no longer suitable), but also that there is considerable habitat that has not yet been searched.
We would also like to confirm that information provided on the uncertainty of the Paria Peninsula record was received, and this site will no longer be included in the confirmed resident range, with the revised EOO/AOO now meeting the thresholds for Endangered.
This further new information and investigation means that the number of Locations can be set at a lower number because; one, the potentially suitable area of habitat that the species may occupy is smaller, and two, forest loss is noted to disproportionately affect the species’ habitat. A new range of 2-15 Locations is proposed. The minimum of this range now meets the threshold for Endangered.
In response to D. Lebbin: it is recognised that the species may only occur at two sites, but the delineation of a Location depends on an assessment of the footprint of each threat event, in this case habitat loss through deforestation caused by conversion to agriculture by individuals. In this way, a single site may contain several Locations. Considering the spatial scale and rate of forest loss, it is rare that each site is equal to a single Location or that the species occurs within a single Location (the required threshold for CR). However, noting the apparent extirpation of the species from the site further west, in this case the footprint of each clearance event may be moderately large. Accepting the most precautionary position, that the species only occurs at the western edge of the protected area, then two locations is a reasonable lower bound. However, the lack of survey in what appears to be a large area of intact habitat contiguous with occupied areas suggests it remains plausible that the species occurs in a larger number of locations. Even if the species is absent from the northern section of the protected area, the southern region contains roughly 15 times the area of the assumed footprint around the two known occupied sites.
We would also like to thank D. Lebbin for the suggested revised population size. As noted in the comments above, the range is likely more restricted than indicated by the original proposed range map and the population size will be revised down. However, it is not possible to assess this species on the population size alone. This would require that the population size be “estimated” (as opposed to suspected) under the IUCN Red List definition. The uncertainty over the area of suitable habitat for the species, absence of a density estimate, and the lack of effort across a significant area of the potentially occupied area means that it is not currently possible to satisfy the ‘estimated’ qualifier.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final 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.
Obviously not much is known about this species, but the recent information that is available does not seem to support down-listing it.
It is worth referencing David Ascanio’s comments on his experience searching for the tyrannulet in 2021: https://abcbirds.org/news/found-urichs-tyrannulet/
A few salient points from that description:
1. Ascanio notes that the site where he saw the bird in 2005 had been “almost completely clear-cut and converted to grassland.” So, to the question above, the species has disappeared from at least one site.
2. Ascanio also notes that they used satellite image and local information to identify three potential sites for the species, but at least one of these sites was too degraded to be suitable for the species. Again, this suggests that there has been a reduction in suitable habitat/sites.
3. The site where Ascanio found the bird is close to where a specimen was collected in 1943, so was not a new site for the species.
4. Ascanio observed that Urich’s Tyrannulet is likely dependent on primary intact forest which is being rapidly lost within its range.
A few other notable points:
1. Since 2021, all recent sighting of Urich’s Tyrannulet in eBird are either from the exact location of Ascanio’s record or within a few kilometers of it.
2. No recent sighting of the species has been of more than 2 individuals (see data in eBird.org).
3. As noted, the species may be dependent on primary forest, and its range is experiencing some the highest rates of deforestation in Venezuela and the region https://www.globalforestwatch.org/dashboards/country/VEN/
4. As far as I can tell the existence of Urich’s Tyrannulet on the Paria Peninsula is supported by two sight-only records. Multiple subsequent visits to the same location as these records as well as to other areas on the Paria Peninsula by ornithologists experienced with the species (e.g., Ascanio, Jhonathan Miranda) have not resulted in any documented records. With this in mind, it seems that the status of Urich’s Tyrannulet on the Paria requires further confirmation and if the bird is present there it is rarer than in other parts of its range.
Put together, the recent evidence we have seems to be that: a) there is only a single limited area where we have documented evidence of the tyrannulet existing this century; b) the total population in that area could potentially be only a few individuals; and c) there is definite evidence of the tyrannulet disappearing from at least one if not more locations.
If anything, it seems that the species should be uplisted to CR rather than vice versa.
Venezuelan experts familiar with the species, like Ascanio and Miranda, will know this situation better. Hopefully they can comment here or be contacted directly.
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 would like to thank J.C. Mittermeier for the information provided in the above comment. It is agreed that the record from the Paria Peninsula is unconfirmed. This record will be changed to ‘possibly extant’ on the range map. As a result, the revised minimum AOO/EOO now meets the thresholds for listing as Endangered under Criteria B1 and B2. However, listing under these criteria also requires that the species occurs in fewer than five Locations (for Endangered) or 10 (for Vulnerable) (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), or that the species be severely fragmented.
The primary observer effort appears to have been in El Guacharo NP, but largely around the edges, and while few territories have been encountered (although there appear to be at least a couple within only a few hundred metres of each other [eBird 2025]), there remains a considerable area of potentially suitable semi-deciduous habitat further inside the park which do not appear to have been visited by observers familiar with the species. Additionally, areas to the north-west of Caripe, and areas between D. Ascanio’s 2005 record in the west and El Guacharo NP have been visited very little or not at all. The loss of habitat around the locality of the 2005 record is of concern, and indicates that the main threat to the species can have a significant footprint. But forest does remain in this area within Sucre, to the north of the locality, so it may be too soon to determine the species has been extirpated from this area. Noting that the area with confirmed recent records is so small, and considering the loss of the species from the site in Anzoategui province, a precautionary lower bound of six locations is applied, even with the relatively limited footprint of individual threat events. If it is found to be present widely in El Guacharo and to persist in other forest patches, especially the area close to the 2005 D. Ascanio record, a larger number of locations would be appropriate, with an upper bound set here at 20.
Based on this information, our preliminary proposal for the 2025 Red List would be to list Urich’s Tyrannulet as Vulnerable under Criteria B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii).
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.
Increasing the species’ distribution area based on records lacking evidence is questionable and unfalsifiable. Therefore, its presence should be considered hypothetical rather than a fact. It would be an error to assume that such a record validates a change in the threat risk category for a species with such a restricted distribution, particularly in one of the country’s least protected areas. Since 2005, during my visits to the area as a biology student, through research projects, and for bird monitoring, the zone has been significantly impacted by fires, cattle ranching expansion, agricultural expansion, and to a lesser extent, urban development. Repeated visits to different localities within the Cueva del Guachara National Park, employing playback techniques, have failed to locate new sites within the national park. Out of the 12 localities visited throughout the region with suitable habitat, only the original collection locality (and subsequent rediscovery site) and another located 9 km linear distance from it yielded positive results for the species’ presence. The western portion of the Turimiquire Massif, in Anzoátegui state, is currently almost entirely deforested and lacks any effective legal protection (no national parks exist). The eastern side, towards Caripe, although a portion is protected by the Cueva del Guacharo National Park, does not encompass all the optimal zones for the species. The habitat type where the species is found is often suitable for cultivation and easily accessible for the constant expansion of cattle ranching, thus its medium-term stability is not assured. It is important to note that between 1985 and 2023, the highest rates of habitat loss in Venezuela were in the north of the country, totaling 36,200 km2 during that period (source: Provita). My recommendation is not to consider the Paria record as confirmed presence and to maintain the species in the Endangered category.
Data influencing this decision as listed in Annex 1, appears out of date and unreliable. Specifically, the number of mature individuals is estimated (with “suspected*”) at 2,500-10,000 individuals based on Sharpe 2008. Yet, as noted by John Mittermeier and Jhonthan Miranda, this species has gone completely undetected for more than a ten year period, and the most recent surveys have only been able to locate this species at two closely-located sites (not 11-50 locations as estimated in Annex 1). It seems more conservative to rely on these surveys which suggests the population could be only a few individuals and way less than the thousands estimated, and perhaps the population estimate should be revised to <50 mature individuals. For a species possibly on the brink of extinction, down-listing seems unwise and I think this species should be up-listed to CR, based on the lack of evidence of more than just a few individual birds.
In addition to what already has been posted, I would like to know which criteria has been followed to determine the population size of Phyllomyias urichi, considering that is probably the least-known Venezuelan endemic in the north of Venezuela.
What we know (in prep.) is that the species occurs in a narrow altitudinal band of primary forest, and such band is the most heavily impacted by agriculture practices. In the past, this band was used for shade grown coffee but the use has shifted to grow suit peppers and other products that require a complete deforestation of the area.
Given the steep terrain, a cleared patch of forest is basically an area lost for the survival of the species. Add to that, the absolute absence of patrolling and resources to protect the forest which is part of a national park (quite frankly, only in written).
As of today, the species has practically been extirpated in the state of Anzoátegui and the only viable population remains in one of the two separate areas of El Guacharo national park (slope facing east, sector Mata de Mango). Further to that, I have not noticed a likely habitat for the species in the Paria Peninsula thus it seems to me highly speculative to consider the presence of the species there based in a single sight record.
P. urichi, along with Myiothlypis griseiceps, are among the most threatened endemic species in Venezuela. If this species was considered vulnerable in the past, it seems to me that the risk of extinction has only increased.
In closing, it is my opinion that it will be a big mistake to downgrade the threat of extinction of P.urichi.
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.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
Following further review, the recommended categorisation for this species has been changed. Urich’s Tyrannulet is now recommended to be listed as Endangered under Criteria B1ab(ii,iii)+2ab(ii,iii).
The assessment previously lacked information on survey effort within Cueva del Guachara National Park. The information provided by J. Miranda indicates that a greater proportion of the potential area of suitable habitat has been visited, suggesting that occupancy is genuinely limited. How limited does depend on assessing the proportion of potential habitat has been assessed. Using abundant and detectable species, Bananaquit Coereba flaveola and Bay-headed Tanager Tangara gyrola, as surrogates for effort indicates good coverage of the more disturbed areas around Cuerva del Guachara NP to the northwest, but that there appears to be no effort further east and southeast beyond the series of sightings of Urich’s Tyrannulet. (note the western record south of Caripe is misplaced). The data demonstrates that the species may only occur at these two identified sites (noting that D. Ascanio’s 2005 site is likely no longer suitable), but also that there is considerable habitat that has not yet been searched.
We would also like to confirm that information provided on the uncertainty of the Paria Peninsula record was received, and this site will no longer be included in the confirmed resident range, with the revised EOO/AOO now meeting the thresholds for Endangered.
This further new information and investigation means that the number of Locations can be set at a lower number because; one, the potentially suitable area of habitat that the species may occupy is smaller, and two, forest loss is noted to disproportionately affect the species’ habitat. A new range of 2-15 Locations is proposed. The minimum of this range now meets the threshold for Endangered.
In response to D. Lebbin: it is recognised that the species may only occur at two sites, but the delineation of a Location depends on an assessment of the footprint of each threat event, in this case habitat loss through deforestation caused by conversion to agriculture by individuals. In this way, a single site may contain several Locations. Considering the spatial scale and rate of forest loss, it is rare that each site is equal to a single Location or that the species occurs within a single Location (the required threshold for CR). However, noting the apparent extirpation of the species from the site further west, in this case the footprint of each clearance event may be moderately large. Accepting the most precautionary position, that the species only occurs at the western edge of the protected area, then two locations is a reasonable lower bound. However, the lack of survey in what appears to be a large area of intact habitat contiguous with occupied areas suggests it remains plausible that the species occurs in a larger number of locations. Even if the species is absent from the northern section of the protected area, the southern region contains roughly 15 times the area of the assumed footprint around the two known occupied sites.
We would also like to thank D. Lebbin for the suggested revised population size. As noted in the comments above, the range is likely more restricted than indicated by the original proposed range map and the population size will be revised down. However, it is not possible to assess this species on the population size alone. This would require that the population size be “estimated” (as opposed to suspected) under the IUCN Red List definition. The uncertainty over the area of suitable habitat for the species, absence of a density estimate, and the lack of effort across a significant area of the potentially occupied area means that it is not currently possible to satisfy the ‘estimated’ qualifier.
Many thanks for everyone who contributed to the 2025.2 GTB Forum process. The final 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.