ntbirdman
Well-known member
This was mentioned in another post but deserves its own discussion thread:
Going to Extremes: Contrasting Rates of Diversification in a Recent Radiation of New World Passerine Birds
F. Keith Barker, Kevin J. Burns, John Klicka, Scott M. Lanyon and Irby J. Lovette
abstract:
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org.pr...ntent/early/2012/12/08/sysbio.sys094.abstract
Proposes splitting this group into 15 families, some of them wholly new:
Here is their taxonomic justification:
Going to Extremes: Contrasting Rates of Diversification in a Recent Radiation of New World Passerine Birds
F. Keith Barker, Kevin J. Burns, John Klicka, Scott M. Lanyon and Irby J. Lovette
abstract:
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org.pr...ntent/early/2012/12/08/sysbio.sys094.abstract
Proposes splitting this group into 15 families, some of them wholly new:
Superfamily Emberizoidea
Family Calcariidae Ridgway, 1901; Genera: Calcarius, Plectrophenax, Rhynchophanes
Family Rhodinocichlidae Ridgway, 1902; Genera: Rhodinocichla
Family Emberizidae Vigors, 1825; Genera: Emberiza, Latoucheornis, Melophus, Miliaria
Family Passerellidae Cabanis and Heine, 1850-51; Genera: Aimophila, Ammodramus, Amphispiza, Arremon, Arremonops, Atlapetes, Calamospiza, Chlorospingus, Chondestes, Junco, Lysurus, Melospiza, Melozone, Oreothraupis, Oriturus, Passerculus, Passerella, Pezopetes, Pipilo, Pooecetes, Pselliophorus, Spizella, Torreornis, Xenospiza, Zonotrichia
Family Spindalidae (new family); Type genus: Spindalis; Diagnosis: Containing a single genus, this family is diagnosed by the generic characters of Spindalis (Jardine and Selby 1837); Genus: Spindalis
Family Nesospingidae (new family); Type genus: Nesospingus; Diagnosis: Containing a single genus, this family is diagnosed by the generic characters of Nesospingus (Sclater 1885); Genus: Nesospingus
Family Phaenicophilidae Sclater, 1886; Diagnosis: This family was originally erected for the genus Phaenicophilus alone. However, the two species in this genus share an olive back, wings and tail, gray underparts, and a broken white eye ring with both Xenoligea and Microligea; Genera: Phaenicophilus, Xenoligea, Microligea
Family Zeledoniidae Ridgway, 1907; Genus: Zeledonia
Family Teretistridae Baird, 1864; Genus: Teretistris
Family Parulidae Wetmore et al., 1947; Genera: Seiurus, Helmitheros, Parkesia, Vermivora, Mniotilta, Protonotaria, Limnothlypis, Oreothlypis, Leucopeza, Oporornis, Geothlypis, Catharopeza, Setophaga, Myiothlypis, Basileuterus, Cardellina, Myioborus (see Lovette et al. 2010; Chesser et al. 2011).
Family Icteriidae Baird, 1858; Genus: Icteria
Family Icteridae Vigors, 1825; Genera: Agelaioides, Agelaius, Agelasticus, Amblycercus, Amblyramphus, Cacicus, Chrysomus, Curaeus, Dives, Dolichonyx, Euphagus, Gnorimopsar, Gymnomystax, Hypopyrrhus, Icteria, Icterus, Lampropsar, Macroagelaius, Molothrus, Nesopsar, Ocyalus, Oreopsar, Psarocolius (including Gymnostinops), Pseudoleistes, Quiscalus, Sturnella (including Leistes), Xanthocephalus
Family Calyptophilidae Ridgway, 1907; Genus: Calyptophilus
Family Mitrospingidae (new family); Type genus: Mitrospingus; Diagnosis: We know of no morphological characters that unite these three genera of South and southern Central America. In lieu of such characters, we list 13 unreversed molecular synapomorphies of the group, from four different genes. These changes include (numbered by their position in each gene alignment) CYTB: A627C, T798C, C801T, A1074G; ND2: C27T, T195C, C231T, C372A, G637A, C710T, T968C; ACO1-I9: C977T; RAG1: A1987G. Cladistically, we define this family as the descendants of the common ancestor of Mitrospingus cassinii and Lamprospiza melanoleuca; Genera: Lamprospiza, Mitrospingus, Orthogonys
Family Cardinalidae Ridgway, 1901; Genera: Amaurospiza, Cardinalis, Caryothraustes, Chlorothraupis, Cyanocompsa, Cyanoloxia, Granatellus, Guiraca, Habia, Passerina, Periporphyrus, Pheucticus, Piranga, Rhodothraupis, Spiza
Family Thraupidae Cabanis, 1847; Genera: Acanthidops, Anisognathus, Bangsia, Buthraupis, Calochaetes, Camarhynchus, Catamblyrhynchus, Catamenia, Certhidea, Charitospiza, Chlorochrysa, Chlorophanes, Chlorornis, Chrysothlypis, Cissopis, Cnemoscopus, Coereba, Compsothraupis, Conirostrum, Conothraupis, Coryphaspiza, Coryphospingus, Creurgops, Cyanerpes, Cyanicterus, Cypsnagra, Dacnis (including Pseudodacnis), Delothraupis, Diglossa (including Diglossopis), Diuca, Dolospingus, Donacospiza, Dubusia, Emberizoides, Embernagra, Eucometis, Euneornis, Geospiza, Gubernatrix, Haplospiza, Hemispingus, Hemithraupis, Heterospingus, Idiopsar, Incaspiza, Iridophanes, Iridosornis, Lanio, Lophospingus, Loxigilla, Loxipasser, Melanodera, Melanospiza, Melopyrrha, Nemosia, Neothraupis, Nephelornis, Nesospiza, Orchesticus, Oreomanes, Oryzoborus, Parkerthraustes, Paroaria, Phrygilus, Piezorhina, Pinaroloxias, Pipraeidea, Poospiza, Porphyrospiza, Pyrrhocoma, Ramphocelus, Rhodospingus, Rowettia, Saltator, Saltatricula, Schistochlamys, Sericossypha, Sicalis, Sporophila, Stephanophorus, Tachyphonus, Tangara, Tersina, Thlypopsis, Thraupis, Tiaris, Trichothraupis, Urothraupis, Volatinia, Wetmorethraupis, Xenodacnis, Xenospingus
Here is their taxonomic justification:
APPENDIX 1. A TAXONOMY OF NEW WORLD NINE-PRIMARIED OSCINES The New World nine-primaried oscines are traditionally classified in five families, with nothing to associate them with one another except adjacency within the linear order of passerines. Sibley and Monroe (1990), in an attempt to determine rank by genetic divergence, classified these five families as tribes within a single subfamily, the Emberizinae, within the family Fringillidae. As discussed in the main text, there is substantial evidence from molecular data for the existence of five clades corresponding to the traditional families. However, a number of genera appear to be more distantly related, raising the question of how those groups should be classified, and how the relatedness of all of them to one another should be reflected taxonomically. The sister group to this clade, comprising the chaffinches, goldfinches, honeycreepers, and allies, is currently recognized as a single family, the Fringillidae, by most taxonomies (American Ornithologists' Union 1998, Dickinson 2003). One possible treatment for the group under consideration would be to rank it as a family (the Emberizidae), and to rank lineages within it as subfamilies; however, to do so would overturn more than a century of taxonomic practice. Instead, we have chosen to minimize changes to higher-level avian classification and to continue to rank the lineages within this group as families. In addition, as a further effort to maintain stability, we have chosen to continue to recognize the five core lineages (Emberizidae, Cardinalidae, Thraupidae, Parulidae, and Icteridae) as families in accordance with universal practice (excepting Sibley and Monroe 1990). Perhaps unfortunately, given the constraint of naming only monophyletic groups, recognizing these five families requires that we recognize eleven additional families within this larger radiation. One of these—the Calcariidae—which includes the genera Calcarius and Plectrophenax, in addition to the recently resurrected genus Rhynchophanes, has already been recognized by the AOU (American Ornithologists' Union 1998). Another five—the Rhodinocichlidae, Zeledoniidae, Teretistridae, Icteriidae and Calyptophilidae—have also been previously recognized (Bock 1994) for their corresponding genera. Another family-level name, Phaenicophilidae, has previously been applied to that genus alone (Sclater 1886), but we suggest expanding its definition to include Xenoligea and Microligea. In addition to these previously-named groups, we propose the following new family names (see descriptions below): Spindalidae (genus Spindalis), Nesospingidae (genus Nesospingus), and Mitrospingidae (genera Mitrospingus, Lamprospiza and Orthogonys). These steps would triple the number of families in this diverse radiation of birds. More importantly, this would give formal recognition to the deep evolutionary history preserved in these unique lineages of birds, especially those in Caribbean habitats, some of which are threatened by habitat fragmentation and loss.
Finally, in addition to the five traditional core families and the nine families listed above, we recommend recognition of a separate family name for the New World sparrows. As discussed previously, although our data strongly support monophyly of the Old World buntings and New World sparrows, they also demonstrate significant conflict over the placement of these groups relative to one another, with mtDNA strongly supporting a monophyletic grouping of the two, and ACO1-I9 and combined analyses favoring their separation: analyses including additional gene regions will be used to address this conflict in more detail. For the sake of future taxonomic stability, and to recognize real biological differences between the two groups, we propose their separation and recognition of both at the family level. Aside from the obvious biogeographic difference (one group is exclusively New World, and the other is Old World with a single species breeding marginally in Alaska), these groups also differ in the frequency of sexual dichromatism (buntings are generally sexually dichromatic, sparrows monochromatic), and have often been seen as more closely allied to the genera Plectrophenax and Calcarius (Paynter 1970, Patten and Fugate 1998). Restriction of the family name Emberizidae to the Old World buntings (genus Emberiza and allies) requires application of another name to the sparrows. Several names for this group are already available, but the oldest is the Passerellidae (Cabanis and Heine 1850; see Bock 1994).
Here we recognize the primarily New World group of nine-primaried oscines that form a clade sister to the finch family Fringillidae as the superfamily Emberizoidea. We list the families in our currently preferred order, with the genera (as recognized in the taxonomy of Dickinson 2003, with emendations from AOU 1998 and Lovette et al. 2010) assigned to each listed (alphabetically with the exception of the Parulidae; ordering within other families will depend on better-sampled analyses of relationships in each, combined with standard sequencing conventions), although we recognize that substantial revision of generic limits will be necessary in the near future. Type designations and diagnoses are given for three new families, and a diagnosis is given for a fourth family not previously used for two of the genera we place within it.
Last edited: