1 Genera included follow Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812], except that genera not screened are treated as incertae sedis as is the genus Chlorocharis.

2 For close relationship with the some Philippine 'babblers' and recognition of differently related genus Erpornis see Cibois et al. (2002) [Cibois, 2002 #766]. For the further association with the Zosteropidae see Zhang et al. (2007) [Zhang Shu-xia, 2007 #11267]. For broad treatment of this genus, as used here, see Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

3 For separation of a genus Staphida (not Staphidia) from Yuhina see Cibois et al. (2002) [Cibois, 2002 #766] and Zhang et al. (2007) [Zhang, 2007 #11267].

4 Sequence of species based on Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

5 For recognition see Traylor (1967) [Traylor, 1967 #3863].

6 Subspecies groups derived from treatment as three species by Collar & Robson (2007) [Collar, 2007 #12226]; we accept the isolated Borneo form as a separate species, however, striata and torqueola likely to meet and further investigation required.

7 For recognition as a species separate from Y. castaniceps; see Smythies (1999) [Smythies, 1999 #3667].

8 Includes intermedia and pallida; see Collar & Robson (2007) [Collar, 2007 #12226], variation considered clinal.

9 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with Y. humilis.

10 For separation from Y. flavicollis see King & Dickinson (1975) [King, 1975 #2219].

11 For recognition that these species did not belong to genus Stachyris and were not babblers see Cibois et al. (2002) [Cibois, 2002 #766] and for assignment to the Zosteropidae see Zhang et al. (2007) [Zhang Shu-xia, 2007 #11267]. However, morphologically this genus could be restricted to Z. whiteheadi and a new genus name proposed for the striped species.

12 The dates inside the volume show pp. 177-243 as published on 10 Jan. 1962, which was presumably why duPont, 1971 [duPont, 1971 #4614], dated this 1962; However, the wrapper of the preprint is dated 1961 and under Art. 21.8 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059] this date should be accepted.

13 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with Z. nigrorum and Z. hypogrammicus; and thus likely to include the recently discovered Z. latistriatus.

14 For recognition see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

15 Type species seem not to have been screened for either Heleia or Lophozosterops but the former has date precedence. Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812] included Oculocincta but did not screen Heleia, however Gelang & Cibois (2009) [Gelang, 2009 #11542] screened Heleia crassirostris. Here it is assumed H. muelleri belongs in the same group.

16 For removal from Zosterops and placement with a group of aberrant white-eyes see Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

17 Placed in Lophozosterops by Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

18 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies in the genus Lophozosterops with species goodfellowi and squamiceps.

19 For evidence of triviality of distinction of junior from nominate see Mees (1969) [Mees, 1969 #2613]; but see also Mees (2006) [Mees, 2006 #7094].

20 Formerly seen as a meliphagid; but see Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3635], Slikas et al. (2000) [Slikas, 2000 #3654] and Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

21 For recognition that these species did not belong to genus Stachyris and were not babblers see Cibois et al. (2002) [Cibois, 2002 #766] and for assignment to the Zosteropidae see Zhang et al. (2007) [Zhang Shu-xia, 2007 #11267].

22 For separation of this species and S. nigrocapitatus from S. capitalis see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

23 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with S. dennistouni and S. nigrocapitatus.

24 For recognition see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

25 For recognition see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

26 For recognition that these species did not belong to genus Stachyris and were not babblers see Cibois et al. (2002) [Cibois, 2002 #766] and for assignment to the Zosteropidae see Zhang et al. (2007) [Zhang Shu-xia, 2007 #11267].

27 Restoration of this genus name derives from significantly different morphology from Sterrhoptilus; but it may still be polyphyletic as this comment relates solely to the type species.

28 Subspecies groups derive from Collar & Robson (2007) [Collar, 2007 #12226].

29 Based on Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812] this includes Speirops and Woodfordia and one species previously assigned to Rukia, and excludes Zosterops wallacei transferred to Lophozosterops.

30 Significant change in species sequence is deferred because expanded taxon-sampling is needed, but the species newly assigned here are placed next to taxa they appear beside in the phylogenetic tree of Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

31 For date correction see Raphael (1970) [Raphael, 1970 #3206].

32 Includes alopekion and xerophila; see Milá et al. (2010) [Milá, 2010 #15322].

33 For treatment as a separate species from Z. borbonicus see Milá et al. (2010) [Milá, 2010 #15322].

34 Includes sierramadrensis Rand & Rabor, 1969 [Rand, 1969 #3201], see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

35 Treatment uneven; White & Bruce (1986) [White, 1986 #4194] in respect of Wallacea recognized fewer subspecies; for the Philippines Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361] left subspecies there almost unaltered.

36 Includes steini; see White & Bruce (1986) [White, 1986 #4194].

37 Dated '1851?' by Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564] [Moreau, 1967 #2727], but see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #4296].

38 Accidentally omitted in 2014 edition.

39 For recognition see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

40 For recognition see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

41 For recognition see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

42 Includes ternatanus and seranensis; see White & Bruce (1986) [White, 1986 #4194].

43 The plate appeared in 1845 before the text (see Holthuis & Sakai, 1970) [Holthuis, 1970 #1986].

44 Introduced to Singapore, islands off S Japan (stejnegeri and alani on Ogasawara Is. and alani on Minami Tori-shima) and Hawaiian Is.

45 For recognition at species level see Parkes (1971) [Parkes, 1971 #2925].

46 Includes gilli duPont, 1971 [duPont, 1971 #1443]; see van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251], perhaps based on Mees (2006) [Mees, 2006 #7094].

47 Dated '1851?' by Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564], but see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #4296].

48 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with Z. japonicus and Z. meyeni.

49 Subspecies treatment follows Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] where see footnote 6 for explanations.

50 For recognition, with amabilis considered indistinguishable except for bill size, see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749].

51 For recognition of egregius see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749].

52 May require recognition of a further subspecies; see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749].

53 Pratt et al. (1987) [Pratt, 1987 #3119] postulated several species were involved in the one treated by Mees (1969) [Mees, 1969 #2613]. Recent molecular studies by Slikas et al. (2000) [Slikas, 2000 #3654] largely confirmed this. We follow them in treating four species: Z. conspicillatus, Z. semperi, Z. hypolais and Z. rotensis.

54 Subspecies groups derive from treatment by van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

55 Plate 19 was published in the Zweiten Heft in 1833 not the Erstes Heft in 1832.

56 Considered doubtfully distinct by Kirwan (2007) [Kirwan, 2007 #10614].

57 The molecular results of Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241] indicate that this comprises more than one species.

58 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] and van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251] to form a superspecies with Z. vaughani.

59 Dated '1851?' by Moreau (1967) [Moreau, 1967 #2727], but see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #4296].

60 Doubtless not conspecific here, forming perhaps with some of its sister subspecies, another species; see Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

61 For transfer from Z. poliogastrus to Z. senegalensis see Fry (2000) [Fry, 2000 #1631].

62 For recognition see Smith in Hockey (2005) [Hockey, 2005 #12724].

63 Includes sundevalli, see Bowie in Hockey et al. (2005) [Hockey, 2005 #12724].

64 For treatment as a separate species from Z. pallidus; see Oatley et al. (2012) [Oatley, 2012 #14714].

65 The names virens and capensis originate from the same work; for assignment of precedence to virens see White (1963) [White, 1963 #4190] and Moreau (1967) [Moreau, 1967 #2727].

66 Includes atmorii; see Bowie in Hockey et al. (2005) [Hockey, 2005 #12724].

67 Includes caniviridis; see Bowie in Hockey et al. (2005) [Hockey, 2005 #12724].

68 Branch lengths shown by Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241] demonstrate that the ultrataxa, although closely related, may deserve recognition as multiple species.

69 Correct original spelling. Spelling aldabransis in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] was an ISS.

70 For placement in this species see Warren et al. (2006) [Warren, 2006 #10104] and Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

71 Correct original spelling. Spelling anjouanensis in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] was an ISS.

72 For treatment within Z. maderaspatanus see Louette (1988) [Louette, 1988 #15324] and Warren et al. (2006) [Warren, 2006 #10104].

73 Recognition as a monotypic species follows Warren et al. (2006) [Warren, 2006 #10104].

74 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] as a broad species (including São Tomé population) to form a superspecies with Z. griseovirescens.

75 Separated from Z. ficedulinus due to paraphyly; see Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

76 The original spelling leucophaea must agree in gender. The spelling leucophoeus in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] was an ISS.

77 Formerly separated in the genus Speirops; transferred following Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

78 Formerly separated in the genus Speirops; transferred following Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

79 The molecular results of Warren et al. (2006) [Warren, 2006 #10104] and Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241] indicate that this species includes some paraphyly.

80 For treatment as a separate species from Z. senegalensis see Hall & Moreau (1970) [Hall, 1970 #1887].

81 Date correction taken from the original (May 25, 1948).

82 Date correction taken from the original (Nov. 4, 1935).

83 Correct date of publication (Oct. 30, 1934) taken from original. Perhaps better attributed to joint authorship, but any such change should be consistent with the varying evidence within the Bulletin of the British Ornithiologists' Club over the years.

84 Formerly separated in the genus Speirops; transferred following Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812] and Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

85 Formerly separated in the genus Speirops; transferred following Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812] and Melo et al. (2011) [Melo, 2011 #13241].

86 For treatment as a separate species from Z. lugubris; see Fry (2000) [Fry, 2000 #1631].

87 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with Z. citrinella; for treatment of the two as separate species see Mees (1969) [Mees, 1969 #2613].

88 Dated '1851?' by Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564], but see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #4296].

89 Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] perceived three subspecies groups; but see White & Bruce (1986) [White, 1986 #4194].

90 Dated '1851?' by Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564], but see Zimmer (1926) [Zimmer, 1926 #4296].

91 For evidence of paraphyly see Nyári & Joseph (2013) [Nyári, 2013 #14878]. Treatment of Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524] maintained, pending further evidence, especially from where the two taxa interact.

92 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with Z. uropygialis.

93 Considered by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to form a superspecies with Z. atrifrons (s.l.) and thus with the derivatives of that, listed here through to Z. hypoxanthus.

94 For date correction see Duncan (1937) [Duncan, 1937 #1442].

95 For recognition see van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

96 The review by Rasmussen et al. (2000) [Rasmussen, 2000 #3222] led to separation of Z. atriceps, Z. nehrkorni, Z. stalkeri, Z. meeki and Z. hypoxanthus from Z. atrifrons as adopted by van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

97 A name proposed conditionally by Holmes & Holmes (1985) [Holmes, 1985 #1984] for a population in SC Sulawesi was not made available by that proposal, see Art. 15 of the Code, I.C.Z.N. (1999: 19) [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059].

98 For recognition see Rasmussen et al. (2000) [Rasmussen, 2000 #3222].

99 For treatment as a species see Rasmussen et al. (2000) [Rasmussen, 2000 #3222].

100 For three subspecies groups see Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

101 For date correction see Poggi (1996) [Poggi, 1996 #10153].

102 For a recommendation to separate this from Z. atrifrons; see Indrawan et al. (2008) [Indrawan, 2008 #11867]; adopted by van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

103 Considered to be an intergrade; see Mees (1961, 1969) [Mees, 1961 #2601], [Mees, 1969 #2613] and van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

104 Treated as a synonym of chrysolaemus; see van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

105 Treated as a synonym of delicatulus; see van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

106 For correct spelling see David & Gosselin (2002) [David, 2002 #1124].

107 Two subspecies groups follow Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636].

108 For date correction see Poggi (1996) [Poggi, 1996 #10153].

109 Treated as a synonym of nominate metcalfi by Mayr & Diamond (2001) [Mayr, 2001 #10562].

110 As in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] we follow the nomenclature of Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564]. Van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251] followed the nomenclature proposed by Mees (1961) [Mees, 1961 #2601]. The reason why that treatment was misconceived is set out in our Appendix 2.

111 Date 1881 in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] miscopied.

112 Formerly separated in the genus Woodfordia, of which it is the type species; transferred following Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

113 Formerly treated in the genus Woodfordia of which the type species was transferred to Zosterops following Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812]; no reason apparent to treat this species differently.

114 Considered by Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564] and Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] to possibly form a superspecies with Z. explorator, Z. minutus and Z. xanthochroa.

115 May comprise multiple species, see Phillimore et al. (2008) [Phillimore, 2008 #11251].

116 Two subspecies groups derive from treatment as two species by van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

117 Formerly placed in the genus Rukia, but transferred to Zosterops by Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636]. Also treated as belonging in Zosterops by Slikas et al. (2000) [Slikas, 2000 #3654] and by Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

118 Considered by Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812] to form a superspecies with Z. splendidus, Z. kulambangrae and Z. rendovae.

119 For separation from Z. luteirostris; see van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251] and Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

120 For separation from Z. kulambangrae; see Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

121 Includes paradoxa; proposed for use instead of that name. See Appendix 2 for reasons to reject the views of Mees (1955, 1961) [Mees, 1955 #7077], [Mees, 1961 #2601]. The name rendovae should have been used in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533].

122 Treatment of Australian taxa based on Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524].

123 Considered by van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251] to form a superspecies including Z. albogularis, Z. tenuirostris and Z. strenuus.

124 Includes macmillani; see Mees (1969) [Mees, 1969 #2613] and van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

125 The name ramsayi attached to a population intergradient between subspecies vegetus and cornwalli; see Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524] both these names emerging from its synonymy.

126 Maintained as a subspecies of Z. lateralis, following Christidis & Boles (2008) [Christidis, 2008 #11602]. But see Kikkawa (2003) [Kikkawa, 2003 #15319].

127 Implicitly includes familiaris Mees, 1969 [Mees, 1969 #2613]; see Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524], who also recognised westernensis and provided a neotype fixing its source outside a zone of intergradation.

128 The name Certhia caerulescens Latham, 1801 has been judged unidentifiable see [Hindwood, 1970 #15746] as its geographic origins are uncertain.

129 Date 1930 in Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533] was miscopied.

130 Suggestions that this might be a distinct species were discussed by Mees (1969) [Mees, 1969 #2613].

131 The name Certhia caerulescens Latham, 1801, is based on an image considered not certainly identifiable see Hindwood (1970).

132 For reasons to revert to 1801 and not use 1802 see Schodde et al. (2010) [Schodde, 2010 #12422].

133 Introduced to Society Is. and Iles Australes.

134 Includes gouldi a nomen novum now considered unnecessary for this name (Schodde & Mason, 1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524]. Also perhaps includes halmaturina given to birds of Kangaroo I. which are intermediate.

135 Position after Z. lateralis follows Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524] and Gill et al. (2010) [Gill, 2010 #12348]; but see Christidis & Boles (2008) [Christidis, 2008 #11602].

136 Separation as species from Z. tenuirostris follows Christidis & Boles (2008) [Christidis, 2008 #11602]; but see Schodde & Mason (1999) [Schodde, 1999 #3524] and Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533].

137 The superspecies comprising Z. griseotinctus, Z. rennellianus, Z. vellalavella, Z. luteirostris and Z. kulambangrae, as perceived by Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564] and Sibley & Monroe (1990) [Sibley, 1990 #3636] was not supported by the findings of Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812].

138 For treatment as a synonym of nominate griseotinctus; see van Balen (2008) [van Balen, 2008 #12251].

139 For qualification of range see LeCroy & Peckover (1998) [LeCroy, 1998 #15750].

140 For reasons to use this generic name see Mees (1969) [Mees, 1969 #2613].

141 Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564] suggested this belongs in a natural group with Lophozosterops and Oculocincta.

142 Mayr (1967) [Mayr, 1967 #2564] suggested this belongs in a natural group with Lophozosterops and Oculocincta.

143 Moyle et al. (2009) [Moyle, 2009 #11812] placed this in Zosterops; which is not supported by morphology and not accepted by Gawin et al. (2014) [Gawin, 2014 #15478]. A further sample should be screened from a voucher specimen with guaranteed identity.

144 Known from just two specimens and not evaluated by Ramji et al. (2012) [Ramji, 2012 #15477]. Validity open to question.

145 For placement in the Zosteropidae see Springer et al. (1995) [Springer, 1995 #3689].

146 Original wrapper bears date December 1830.