1 The name Cettiinae is validly introduced in this work (see Appendix 2) but yields precedence to two other names. In that Appendix will also be found the necessary First Reviser assignment of precedence to Scotocercidae over Erythrocercidae; these names having been introduced together by Fregin et al. (2012) [Fregin, 2012 #14321].

2 For reasons to remove this genus from the Monarchidae see Pasquet et al. (2002) [Pasquet, 2002 #2955].

3 Includes harterti; see Vaurie (1959) [Vaurie, 1959 #3961] and, implicitly, Cramp et al. (1992) [Cramp, 1992 #1088].

4 For date correction see Steinheimer (2005) [Steinheimer, 2005 #3709].

5 Sequence of genera based on Alström et al. (2011) [Alström, 2011 #13606].

6 Previously subsumed in Urosphena subulata but for reasons to place this in Tesia see King (1989) [King, 1989 #4398].

7 Species sequence follows Alström et al.(2011) [Alström, 2011 #13606] in which the position of C. major is not fully resolved. An arrangement in which the distinctive monotypic genus Oligura could be retained would be preferable although four monotypic genera would be the result - one of these now lacking a genus-group name.

8 Ascribed to Horsfield & Moore, 1854, by Watson (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449], however Moore made clear that this was his new name by indicating that he had it in press with the Proceedings of the Zoological Society, London.

9 Includes whistleri and umbraticus. We follow Vaurie (1959) [Vaurie, 1959 #3961] in treating this as monotypic.

10 Placed in the genus Oligura by Watson et al. (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449], and often in Tesia. Recent DNA findings reject placement in Tesia and do not easily support the alternative (although if a genus-group name had been founded on Cettia major it would be acceptable to restore Oligura for a monotypic genus).

11 Includes sericea, a name based on Spanish birds; see Kennerley & Pearson (2010) [Kennerley, 2010 #12739].

12 Placement of H. pallidipes in this genus is based on the findings of Alström et al. (2011) [Alström, 2011 #13606] although not their recommended option; and is chosen because placing the species pallidipes in Urosphena was not a convincing option. No applicable name located for a monotypic genus.

13 For changes to this genus since Watson et al. (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449] see King (1989) [King, 1989 #4398].

14 Includes ussuriana; see Kennerley & Pearson (2010) [Kennerley, 2010 #12739]. But see Stepanyan (1990) [Stepanyan, 1990 #3721].

15 For correction of authorship see Dickinson (2004) [Dickinson, 2004 #1388].

16 For correct date of publication see Dickinson & Walters (2006) [Dickinson, 2006 #9469].

17 Before designating the type species herein we concluded that neither of the two taxa listed by Sharpe (1883), now considered subspecies of one species, had been designated as the type and Art. 68.3 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059] cannot be considered to have applied or to apply.

18 For transfer from the genus Orthotomus as in Watson et al. (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449] see Alström et al. (2006) [Alström, 2006 #9747] and Nguembock et al. (2007) [Nguembock, 2007 #9988].

19 Alström et al. (2013) [Alström, 2013 #14634] screened five subspecies, including the distinctive heterolaemus; their results suggest that this comprises two or more species.

20 Blyth, sole author of the article, credited the name to Jerdon & Blyth but see Art. 50 in I.C.Z.N., 1999 [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059].

21 The emended name used here is a justified emendation because the original vernacular name 'chaperonné' means hooded, for which the Latinised cucullatus is correct.

22 For treatment as a separate species see Madge (2006) [Madge, 2006 #15444].

23 Blyth credited the name to Jerdon & Blyth, but see Art. 50 of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) [I.C.Z.N., 1999 #2059].

24 Sequence of species based on Alström et al. (2011) [Alström, 2011 #13606].

25 Date 1871 refers to an earlier description than that cited by Watson (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449]; see link after range statement.

26 For correct date of publication see Dickinson et al. (2011) [Dickinson, 2011 #13287].

27 For reasons to attach robustipes to this species see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

28 For treatment as a separate species from H. acanthizoides, see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749] and Alström et al. (2007) [Alström, 2007 #9748].

29 For correct date of publication see Dickinson et al. (2011) [Dickinson, 2011 #13287].

30 The name was mistakenly placed in synonymy by Watson et al. (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449]; see Dickinson et al. (1991) [Dickinson, 1991 #1361].

31 For a suggestion that the taxa intricatus and oblitus be transferred to H. vulcanius see Olsson et al. (2006) [Olsson, 2006 #9997]; but see Kennerley & Pearson (2010) [Kennerley, 2010 #12739].

32 Includes Phylloscopus affinis arcanus; see Alström et al. (1993) [Alström, 1993 #11288].

33 Includes alexanderi; see Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749].

34 Includes dulcivox which was treated as a synonym of H. fortipes davidiana by Watson et al. (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449]. Cheng (1987) [Cheng, 1987 #739] followed Vaurie (1959) [Vaurie, 1959 #3961] in considering that it belonged here; however, as Vaurie noted, the unique type has been destroyed so that this treatment is speculative; best considered unidentifiable.

35 For treatment as a separate species from H. diphone see Orenstein & Pratt (1983) [Orenstein, 1983 #2871].

36 Includes sakhalinensis and implicitly viridis; see Kennerley & Pearson (2010) [Kennerley, 2010 #12739].

37 Includes panafidicus moved from the synonymy of nominate diphone; see Orn. Soc. Japan (2000) [Ornithological Society of Japan, 2000 #2875]. For Ryukyu birds see footnote to riukiuensis.

38 Momiyama (1930) [Momiyama, 1930 #7181] used dual original spellings, see Morioka et al. (2005) [Morioka, 2005 #7217]. As it appears no-one has acted as First Reviser we here select panafidicus over ponafidicus as the former better fits the island name at the root of the issue.

39 The breeding bird in the Ryukyu Is. differs, see [Kajita, 2002 #4394] and Kennerley & Pearson (2010) [Kennerley, 2010 #12739], and has been called restrictus; that name was applied to resident, but now extinct, birds from Daito-jima of which no specimens remain. In contrast to these authorities we do not apply that name to the Ryukyu birds as this confounds our understanding of the extinction of that taxon.

40 The Ryukyu birds should be described as new and named.

41 Introduced to Hawaiian Is.

42 For separation from H. diphone see Deignan (1963) [Deignan, 1963 #1245], King & Dickinson (1975) [King, 1975 #2219], Rasmussen & Anderton (2005) [Rasmussen, 2005 #4749] and Kennerley & Pearson (2010) [Kennerley, 2010 #12739]. But see Watson et al. (1986) [Watson, 1986 #4449] and Dickinson (2003) [Dickinson, 2003 #9533].

43 Described first in the Sydney Morning Herald; see McAllan (2006) [McAllan, 2006 #7018].

44 For placement in this family see Johansson et al. (2008) [Johansson, 2008 #10998].

45 This genus has been placed in this family by Harrap (1996) [Harrap, 1996 #1894] and by Fry (2000) [Fry, 2000 #1631].

46 Based on Sefc et al. (2003) this genus and Hylia must be close sisters; that view is followed in placing this here with Hylia.