I think you're well on your way though?I seem to recall the birds at Cerro Mongus (N Ecuador) sounding different to those in southern Ecuador although I think they are currently one taxon. "Numerous" sounds rather higher than ten to me - which would be a worry (for those interested in seeing them!).
"Our results indicate that the G. rufula complex consists of numerous genetic units, almost all of which differ enough vocally to be considered separate biological species."
thanks
alan
Andrew Spencer:
Chesser, R. T., M. L. Isler, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena, S. C. Galen, L. M. Bergner, R. C. Fleischer, G. A. Bravo, D. F. Lane & P. A. Hosner. 2020. Conservative plumage masks extraordinary phylogenetic diversity in the Grallaria rufula (Rufous Antpitta) complex of the humid Andes. The Auk: in press.
Link to Cadena's site
and higher up on the same page, under Manuscripts:
Isler, M. L., R. T. Chesser, M. B. Robbins, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena & P. A. Hosner. Taxonomic evaluation of the Rufous Antpitta complex (Aves: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species. In revision.
________________________________________________________________
Grallaria rufula is traditionally considered to contain 7 subspecies. So that might mean up to 9 new species being described in one paper. "Grallaria rufula complex" might include G. blakei though (which apparently harbours its own cryptic species), in which case there might not be quite as many as 9.
Cheers,
Liam
Isler, M. L., R. T. Chesser, M. B. Robbins, A. M. Cuervo, C. D. Cadena & P. A. Hosner. Taxonomic evaluation of the Rufous Antpitta complex (Aves: Grallariidae) distinguishes sixteen species. In revision.
______________________________________________
Finally out: https://www.mapress.com/j/zt/article/view/zootaxa.4817.1.1
Abstract
Populations in the Rufous Antpitta (Grallaria rufula) complex occupy humid montane forests of the Andes from northern Colombia and adjacent Venezuela to central Bolivia. Their tawny to cinnamon-colored plumages are generally uniform, featuring subtle variation in hue and saturation across this range. In contrast to their conservative plumage, substantial vocal differences occur among geographically isolated or parapatric populations. Working within the framework of a comprehensive molecular phylogeny, we reexamined species limits in the G. rufula complex, basing taxonomic recommendations on diagnostic differences in vocalizations and considering identifiable differences in plumage where pertinent. We identified 16 populations for species designation, including seven populations previously described as subspecies and, remarkably, six new species described herein. Within one of these species, we identified less robust vocal differences between populations that we designate as subspecies. Geographic variation exists within another species, but its critical evaluation requires additional material. Taxonomic revisions of groups consisting of cryptic species, like the Grallaria rufula complex, are imperative for their conservation. Rather than widespread species as currently defined, these complexes can comprise many range-restricted taxa at higher risk of extinction given the continuing human pressures on their habitats.
I can download the full pdf from sci-hub at this link, I don't know if it will work for everyone: https://sci-hub.st/10.11646/zootaxa.4817.1.1
I don't really get why any author would feel like it was a slap in the face to have a common name honoring them changed.
If nothing else, because there is no sensible reason for those common names to be changed. They were suggested by the multi-national team (the bulk of the authors are from the US and Colombia) who untangled the Rufous Antpitta complex and described these new species, so it is also disrespectful to the people who picked these names in the first place to change them in the face of social media pressure.
Not specific to antpittas, (or even South America), but there is a movement to eliminate eponyms in general from usage in common names. Some of this is because certain people always have disliked them simply for being uninformative, but most of this is about bird names honoring some people who engaged in less than savory activities (cough Jameson and child murder cough) or supported slavery, genocide, misogyny, etc. Basically this is the birding parallel to the statue debate in the US, with the idea that removing some names making birding more inclusive. Since some of this is subjective, some people have suggested discarding all eponyms, because then we don't have to worry about gray areas. There are a couple of threads in the general birding forum about this. NACC is apparently also entertaining a set of proposals concerning this topic which didn't make it to this year's list, but presumably may pop up next year.Out of interest, where is all this "social media pressure"? There is a lot of interesting discussion on this forum about bird names, but on the whole it is pretty balanced and various reasonable, diverse and honestly held differing views are put forwards without any particular agenda overall. Is there some other anti-eponym movement out there?