Insects found in birds’ nests from Argentina. Part I: a bibliographical review, with taxonomical corrections, comments and a hypothetical mechanism of transmission of cimicid bugs Author Turienzo, Paola Author Iorio, Osvaldo Di text Zootaxa 2007 1561 1 52 journal article 10.5281/zenodo.178338 8b7bb0da-4dda-42b6-a563-839a5281eedd 1175-5326 178338 Serpophaga sp. n. [ sensu Herzog & Barnett (2004) ] = Serpophaga griseiceps : Mezquida & Marone 2001 . DIPTERA : Muscidae Philornis sp. Mendoza: Ñacuñán Biological Reserve ( Mezquida & Marone 2001 ); Fig. 8 . Note: Nomenclature and identification of the species in the genus Serpophaga is actually highly controversial. Mezquida & Marone (2000) textually says: “the taxonomic status of S. munda in relation with S. subcrisfata is controversial (Zimmer 1955). Straneck (1993), based on voice analyses, suggested that S. subcristata and S. munda ( sensu Narosky and Yzurieta 1987) should be considered subspecies of S. subcristata , and revalidated S. griseiceps (Gray-crowned Tyrannulet), a species described by Berlioz in 1959 for Cercado, Cochabamba ( Bolivia ). Ridgely and Tudor (1994) treated S. griseiceps as a synonym of S. munda following Zimmer (1955), and S. subcristata and S. munda as full species, because their sympatry seems to be established and, at least in Bolivia , their voices differ (J. V. Remsen Jr., pers. comm. to Ridgely and Tudor 1994). However, the voice ascribed by J. V. Remsen (Remsen and Traylor 1989) to S. subcristata would actually correspond to S. griseiceps (Straneck 1993) . Serpophaga species are distributed in Argentina during the breeding season as follows: S. subcristata subcristata in the eastern half of the country, from Buenos Aires to Misiones province, while S. subcristata munda and S. griseiceps occupy the western half from La Pampa and Mendoza to Salta and Jujuy provinces (Straneck 1993). In the Biosphere Reserve of Nacuñán (Mendoza), Contreras (1979) and Marone (1992) cited S. munda , but we observed that S. griseiceps is the most abundant species in the reserve. Therefore, the species referred to by Contreras (1979) and Marone (1992) should be S. griseiceps . The identity of this species was confirmed by an analysis of its vocalizations (R. Straneck, pers. com.). The occasional presence of S. subcristata munda also has been established in Nacuñán (J. Lopez de Casenave and V. Cueto, pers. com.)”. From this it can be deduced that Mezquida & Marone (2001) are speaking about S. griseiseps sensu Straneck, 1993 , and not of S. griseiceps Berlioz, 1959 . Lately Herzog & Barnett (2004) concluded that Serpophaga griseiceps Berlioz, 1959 represents the juvenal plumage of S. munda , this last a separate species from S. subcristata , and that S. griseiceps sensu Straneck, 1993 corresponds to an undescribed species. This last criterion is followed here. Sublegatus modestus [ brevirostris (D´Orbigny & Lafresnaye, 1837)] DIPTERA : Muscidae Philornis torquans ( Nielsen, 1913 ) Santa Fe: see Table 2; Fig. 9 . Tyrannus savana [ savana Vieillot, 1807 ] HEMIPTERA Reduviidae : Triatominae Species not stated Corrientes ( Bar et al . 1999 ; Damborsky et al . 2001 , only as Tyrannidae ).