“…Nonetheless, this number is likely an underestimate given that distinct studies have revealed candidate species that are pending of taxonomic revision (da Cruz & Weksler, ; Firth et al, ; Hanson, Utrera, & Fulhorst, ; Miranda et al, ; Palma et al, ; Rivera et al, ; Rogers et al, ; Teta, Jayat, Ortiz, & D'Elía, ). At the same time, only few species have been explored phylogeographically (e.g., O. longicaudatus , O. flavescens , O. microtis , O. nigripes ; Gonçalves, Marinho, & Freitas, ; Patton, Da Silva, & Malcolm, ; Palma et al, ; Rivera et al, ), which constitutes a first proxy of their variation; in fact, some species have not been studied since their original description (e.g., O. andinus , O. arenalis , O. destructor , O. griseolus ; Weksler & Bonvicino, ), at the time that some forms have controversial taxonomic status (e.g., O. fornesi , O. magellanicus , O. flavescens occidentalis ; Palma & Rodríguez‐Serrano, ; Rivera et al, ; Weksler, Lemos, D'Andrea, & Bonvicino, ).…”