Range map update
Based on new information submitted in January 2026 the range map has been updated as follows:
Loja Tapaculo (Scytalopus androstictus)
Loja Tapaculo (Scytalopus androstictus)
Range map update
Based on new information submitted in January 2026 the range map has been updated as follows:
While occurring down to 2600 m on exposed ridges, the species is largely confined to elevations between 3000 and 3650 m. The range map is grossly overestimated in both Ecuador and Peru. See Krabbe et al. (1998, full title below) for range in Ecuador. However, the species is common in its habitat (contra Ridgely & Greenfield 2001), so the species is not threatened.
Krabbe, N., Skov, F., Fjeldså, J. & Krag Petersen, I. (1998) Avian diversity in the Ecuadorian Andes – an atlas of distribution of Andean forest birds and conservation priorities. Centre for Research on Cultural and Biological Diversity of Andean Rainforests (DIVA), 143 pp, DIVA, Technical Report no. 4.
Also, it is a bird of humid treeline scrub, not a forest bird.
As N. Krabbe noted, the range of this species is more restricted than indicated by BirdLife International. It primarily inhabits shrubs, scrubs, and humid páramo grassland areas.
The bird does not thrive in more wooded or forested habitats, as these are typically occupied by 2–3 other tapaculo species.
Important note: Please do not rely solely on records from eBird or iNaturalist (especially eBird) when designing distribution maps. As an eBird reviewer who has worked extensively with its millions of data points (including for Key Biodiversity Area processes), I can confirm that the dataset is not 100% reliable. While it has great potential, records are often biased due to the hotspot system or misidentifications.
This tapaculo appears to be more consistently present near the treeline and in elfin forest zones (approximately 3,000–3,650 m a.s.l.), despite some records below 3,000 m. Its distribution extends southward from Abra de Zamora in southern Ecuador. Any records north of this pass require thorough documentation and verification. Using a mapping tool, examine the páramo areas south of Abra de Zamora (a high mountain pass at ~2,800 m on the border between Loja and Zamora-Chinchipe provinces, serving as a key biodiversity hotspot).
In eBird you will see a clear concentration of valid records in grassland páramo regions rather than in closed forest areas south of Abra de Zamora. The species’ range is very narrow, confined mainly to the páramo and treeline ecotone. Although, it does not currently face immediate extinction risk, fires pose a severe threat across its entire distribution in both Ecuador and Peru. Additionally, legal and illegal mining represent emerging potential threats. For a precise location of Abra de Zamora, refer to this paper on amphibians (a key biodiversity hotspot in the area): Székely P, Eguiguren JS, Ordóñez-Delgado L, Armijos-Ojeda D, Székely D (2020) Fifty years after: A taxonomic revision of the amphibian species from the Ecuadorian biodiversity hotspot Abra de Zamora, with description of two new Pristimantis species. PLoS ONE 15(9): e0238306. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238306
Abra de Zamora is a high pass at approximately 2,802 m, located on the provincial boundary between Loja and Zamora-Chinchipe in southern Ecuador, known for its exceptional amphibian endemism and páramo habitats.
In Peru, it’ll be the same logic (humid paramo grassland and tree line).
If this Tapaculo can reach any threatened category it should be calculated using EOO, I did not run any analysis from my side, but it might reach NT or as an maximum extreme, VU. But, VU may be an excess.
Definitely, is a range restricted species under KBA criteria. And it’ll apply as an endemic bird of the Southern Central Andes (Sttatersfield et al, 1998).
Thank you, Niels and Manuel, for your comments on this assessment. I have been in contact with Niels and have revised the distribution map to more closely reflect the distribution modelling from his 1998 paper.
Considering Manuel’s comment, I can see there are no records with photo, video, or audio evidence north of Abra de Zamora. The map will be reduced further to reflect this and will be edited to better reflect páramo habitat rather than forest where possible. Though I note that this is a species range map and is intended to reflect the known or inferred limits of the species distribution and will therefore always be an overestimate compared to an Area of Habitat or Occupancy map.
In response to Manuel’s comment on its threatened category: the species currently meets the thresholds for Threatened under Criterion B1 and B2 for its Extent of Occurrence (<20,000 km2) and Area of Occupancy (<2,000 km2). However, for the species to be considered Near Threatened or Threatened, it needs to meet one (Near Threatened) or two (Threatened) of sub-criteria a), b), or c). Of most relevance to this assessment is sub-criterion b) which requires continuing declines in habitat, number of mature individuals, AOO/EOO, or Locations/subpopulations.
I note your comment about the impacts of fire and the emerging threats of mining. It would be beneficial to this assessment if you could provide any further evidence of declines in the species’ habitat or evidence that the species has disappeared from any sites because of these threats.
Thank you for your contribution to this assessment.
Kind Regards,
Lachlan Richardson
Hi Lachlan,
There has been no proper population analysis conducted for this specific tapaculo species, nor for most others in the region, with the exception of some targeted studies on rare and threatened taxa.
Scytalopus androstictus was only recently proposed as a full-rank species in 2020 by Niels et al (2020), so no population trends, declines, or quantitative estimates are currently available. These birds are far more often heard than seen, which adds to the difficulty of studying them.
The shrub and scrub extensions along the páramo treeline remain in relatively good condition and appear sufficient to support viable populations at present.
However, no detailed analysis of territory size or habitat requirements has been carried out to date.
All the best,
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 2 February 2026. 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 2 February 2026, when discussions will re-open.
Preliminary proposal
We thank Niels and Manuel for their contributions. The range map has been updated to reflect their feedback (see the updated map above). This has resulted in an updated EOO (5,550 km2) and AOO (808-2,700 km2).
Based on available information, our preliminary proposal for the 2026 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 8 February 2026, after which the recommended categorisations will be put forward to IUCN.
The final 2026 Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, 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 16 February 2026.
Recommended categorisation to be put forward to IUCN
The final categorisation for this species has not changed. Loja Tapaculo is recommended to be listed as Least Concern.
Many thanks to everyone who contributed to the 2026.1 GTB Forum process. The final Red List categories will be published on the BirdLife and IUCN websites later this year, following further checking of information relevant to the assessments by both BirdLife and IUCN.