• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Vegaviidae (1 Viewer)

Fred Ruhe

Well-known member
Netherlands
Federico L. Agnolín, Federico Brissón Egli, Sankar Chatterjee, Jordi Alexis Garcia Marsà & Fernando E. Novas (2017)

Vegaviidae, a new clade of southern diving birds that survived the K/T boundary.

The Science of Nature 104:87 (advance online publication)
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-017-1508-y
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00114-017-1508-y

Abstract:

The fossil record of Late Cretaceous–Paleogene modern birds in the Southern Hemisphere includes the Maastrichtian Neogaeornis wetzeli from Chile, Polarornis gregorii and Vegavis iaai from Antarctica, and Australornis lovei from the Paleogene of New Zealand. The recent finding of a new and nearly complete Vegavis skeleton constitutes the most informative source for anatomical comparisons among Australornis, Polarornis, and Vegavis. The present contribution includes, for the first time, Vegavis, Polarornis, and Australornis in a comprehensive phylogenetic analysis. This analysis resulted in the recognition of these taxa as a clade of basal Anseriformes that we call Vegaviidae. Vegaviids share a combination of characters related to diving adaptations, including compact and thickened cortex of hindlimb bones, femur with anteroposteriorly compressed and bowed shaft, deep and wide popliteal fossa delimited by a medial ridge, tibiotarsus showing notably proximally expanded cnemial crests, expanded fibular crest, anteroposterior compression of the tibial shaft, and a tarsometatarsus with a strong transverse compression of the shaft. Isolated bones coming from the Cretaceous and Paleogene of South America, Antarctica, and New Zealand are also referred to here to Vegaviidae and support the view that these basal anseriforms were abundant and diverse at high southern latitudes. Moreover, vegaviids represent the first avian lineage to have definitely crossed the K–Pg boundary, supporting the idea that some avian clades were not affected by the end Mesozoic mass extinction event, countering previous interpretations. Recognition of Vegaviidae indicates that modern birds were diversified in southern continents by the Cretaceous and reinforces the hypothesis indicating the important role of Gondwana for the evolutionary history of Anseriformes and Neornithes as a whole.

Enjoy,

Fred
 
About the name Vegaviidae: can a nomenclaturist tell me, if the type genus is Vegavis, should the family name not be Vegavidae?

Fred
 
A cladogram showing the phylogenetic position of the Vegaviidae.

Enjoy,

Fred
 

Attachments

  • Vegaviidae.jpg
    Vegaviidae.jpg
    67.8 KB · Views: 126
Contrary to what is said on Wikepedia the taxa included in Vegaviidae are:

Polarornis gregorii Chatterjee, 2002. Late Cretaceous of Antaerctica, Seymour Island.
Vegavis iaai Clarke, Tambussi, Noriega, Erickson et Ketcham, 2005. Late Cretaceous of Antaerctica, Vega Island.
Australornis lovei G. Mayr et Scofield, 2014. Early Paleocene of New Zealand.
Neogaeornis wetzeli Lambrecht, 1929. Late Cretaceous of Chili.

Further there are several additional specimens that may belong to Vegaviidae. Mayr and Scofield (2014) described from the Paleocene of New Zealand an incomplete proximal humerus that was referred to Phaethontiformes; Case et al. (2006) and Acosta Hospitaleche and Gelfo (2015) described two incomplete distal femora from the Late Cretaceous of Antarctica, referred by these authors to Cariamiformes and Gaviiformes, respectively; Yury-Yáñez et al. (2012) described the distal end of a femur of an indeterminate bird from the Eocene beds of Southern Chile; Acosta Hospitaleche and Gelfo (2015) described an isolated
coracoid from the Eocene of Antarctica as belonging to Gaviiformes; Acosta Hospitaleche and Gelfo (2015) described from the Late Cretaceous and Paleogene of Antarctica isolated tibiotarsi that they referred to Gaviiformes; Isolated tarsometatarsi from the Late Cretaceous of Antarctica (identified as Gaviiformes by Acosta Hospitaleche and Gelfo 2015) and from the Paleogene of New Zealand (Ksepka and Cracraft 2008) share a combination of features reminiscent to Vegaviidae.

Literature:

Acosta Hospitaleche C, Gelfo JN (2015) New Antarctic findings of Upper Cretaceous and lower Eocene loons (Aves: Gaviiformes). In: Annales de Paléontologie (vol 101, no. 4, pp 315–324). Elsevier Masson, France

Case J, Reguero M, Martin J, Cordes-Person A (2006) A cursorial bird from the Maastrichtian of Antarctica. J Vertebr Paleontol 26(3, Supplement):48A

Chatterjee S (2002) The morphology and systematics of Polarornis, a Cretaceous loon (Aves, Gaviidae) from Antarctica. In: Zhou Z, Zhang F (eds) Proceedings of the 5th Symposium of the Society of Avian Paleontology and Evolution. Science Press, Beijing, pp 125–155

Clarke JA, Tambussi CP, Noriega JI, Erickson GM, Ketcham RA (2005) Definitive fossil evidence for the extant avian radiation in the Cretaceous. Nature 433:305–308

Ksepka DT, Cracraft J (2008) An avian tarsometatarsus from near the KT boundary of New Zealand. J Vertebr Paleontol 28(4):1224–1227

Lambrecht K, (1929) Neogaeornis wetzeli n.g.n.sp., der Erste Kreidevogel der Südlichen Hemisphäre.
Paläontologische Zeitschrift 11: 121-129

Mayr G, Scofield RP (2014) First diagnosable non-sphenisciform bird from the early Paleocene of New Zealand. J R Soc N Z 44(1):48–56

Yury-Yáñez RE, Otero RA, Soto-Acuña S, Suárez ME, Rubilar-Rogers D, Sallaberry M (2012) First bird remains from the Eocene of Algarrobo, central Chile. Andean Geol 39(3):548–557.

Enjoy,

Fred
 
About the name Vegaviidae: can a nomenclaturist tell me, if the type genus is Vegavis, should the family name not be Vegavidae?
The Latin word avis (a bird) is a 3rd-declension i-stem noun, its stem as defined in grammars is avi-. (Hence, e.g., the English adjective 'avian'.) But the Code does not actually use grammatical stems; it has its own way to extract 'stems', which departs from that of grammars. From Art. 29.3.1:
29.3.1. If a generic name is or ends in a Greek or Latin word, or ends in a Greek or Latin suffix, the stem for the purposes of the Code is found by deleting the case ending of the appropriate genitive singular.
Examples. Coccinella (genitive Coccinellae, stem Coccinell-) gives the family name COCCINELLIDAE. Similarly Culex (genitive Culicis, stem Culic-) gives CULICIDAE, Reduvius (genitive Reduvii, stem Reduvi-) gives REDUVIIDAE, Archaeopteryx (genitive Archaeo-pterygis, stem Archaeopteryg-) gives ARCHAEOPTERYGIDAE.
Taking avian names as examples: the grammatical stem of Ardea (1st declensions = a-stem declension) is Ardea-, that of Corvus (2nd declension = o-stem declension) is Corvo-; yet the Code stems are Arde- (genitive Ardeae with the case ending -ae deleted) and Corv- (genitive Corvi with the case ending -i deleted), and the associated family names are Ardeidae and Corvidae, not Ardeaidae and Corvoidae.

Under Art. 29.3, the stem of Vegavis is Vegav-, obtained by deleting the case ending -is from the genitive Vegavis (which happens to be identical to the nominative). Before 2000, the only possible correct spelling for a family name formed from this generic name would unquestionably have been Vegavidae. Since 2000, however, we also have an Art. 29.4:
29.4. Acceptance of originally formed stem. If after 1999 a new family-group name is based on a generic name which is or ends in a Greek or Latin word or ends in a Greek or Latin suffix, but its derivation does not follow the grammatical procedures of Articles 29.3.1 or 29.3.2, its original spelling must be maintained as the correct original spelling, provided
29.4.1. it has a correctly formed suffix [Art. 29.2], and
29.4.2. its stem is formed from the name of the type genus as though it were an arbitrary combination of letters [Art. 29.3.3].​
Example. If an author proposes after 1999 the name PROREXIDAE based on the generic name Prorex (genitive: Proregis) that spelling is to be maintained, even though the spelling PROREGIDAE would have been proper under Article 29.3.1.
The stem of names that are arbitrary combinations of letters is governed by:
29.3.3. If a generic name is or ends in a word not Greek or Latin, or is an arbitrary combination of letters, the stem for the purposes of the Code is that adopted by the author who establishes the new family-group taxon, either the entire generic name (see Article 29.6), or the entire generic name with the ending elided, or the entire generic name with one or more appropriate linking letters incorporated in order to form a more euphonious family-group name.
(The last possible 'method' offered in this article (the one involving an incorporation of linking letters) is somewhat problematic, as the French text of the Code differs from the English text, with the two versions making different stems acceptable (and unacceptable). But this has no impact in the present case.)

Under 29.4, if a family-group name is made available after 1999, based on a generic name ending in -avis, using a stem in '-avi-' (= the entire generic name with the final '-s' elided), this stem must be preserved.

The purpose of this rule is to make it possible to avoid homony in family-group names formed from generic names that, although different, would have identical stems under Art. 29.3. For instance, if another family-group name Vegavidae had already been proposed, based on a hypothetical genus 'Vegava', an author could now propose Vegaviidae for Vegavis without creating a junior homonym. On the other hand, this rule is unfortunate, as it opens the road to the use (even where wholly unnecessary) of different stems by different authors for the very same Latin or Greek word, thus forcing users to remember who may well have used what, on a case-by-case basis. This also looks like a receipt to ensure the long-term persistence of multiple spellings for some names -- some subsequent users will, unavoidably, end up using the stem they are used to, rather than that which was used when the name was proposed.

The only other avian family-group name I know of, that was proposed with a stem ending in -avi-, is 'Claraviinae' Todd 1913 [OD] (Claravis Oberholser 1899). This is also the oldest name based on a generic name in -avis that I have in my notes, and the only one to have been proposed for a non-fossil group. Fossil family-group names formed from generic names ending in -avis include: Marinavidae Harrison & Walker 1977 (Marinavis Harrison & Walker 1977), Anatalavinae Olson 1999 (Anatalavis Olson & Paris 1987), Fluvioviridavidae Mayr 2005 (Fluvioviridavis Mayr & Daniels 2001), Vastanavidae Mayr et al. 2010 (Vastanavis Mayr et al. 2007), Brodavidae Martin et al. 2012 (Brodavis Martin et al. 2012). There may be more. (Particularly in more basal groups, as I did not research these at all.)


The proposal of a name in -idae expressly for an unranked clade is very odd, if I may. If a family-group name in the sense of the Code (is it one?), this name cannot be used as such if it denotes anything else than a family.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your explanation Laurent. I am not competent to tell you whether Vegaviidae is ment as a family group-name, they only speak of a clade, but if you want the paper you can see for yourself, just drop me a line.

Fossil families names-avidae are:
Rahonavidae Livezey et Zusi, 2007.
Longirostravidae Zhou, 2006.
Apsaravidae Livezey et Zusi, 2007.
Brodavidae Martin, Kurochkin et Tokaryk, 2012.
Marinavidae Harrison et Walker, 1977.
Graculavidae Olson et Parris, 1987. (a form family)
Vastanavidae G. Mayr, Rana, Rose, Sahni, Kumar, Sing et T. Smith, 2010.
Fluvioviridavidae G. Mayr, 2005.
Cypselavidae Mourer-Chauviré, 2006.
Picavidae G. Mayr et Gregorová, 2012.

Fred
 
Thanks Fred.

I had not listed Graculavidae Olson et Parris 1987 (Graculavus Marsh 1872), Cypselavidae Mourer-Chauviré 2006 (Cypselavus Gaillard 1908) and Picavidae Mayr & Gregorová 2012 (Picavus Mayr & Gregorová 2012) because, although these indeed end in -avidae, they were not formed from generic names ending in -avis.

I have seen the paper, but I fail to understand why they introduced the name that way. From the moment they use an -idae ending, they give the name a rank under the ICZN. By failing to (refusing to?) acknowledge that rank, they place themselve in a position that is borderline at best.
(If the object they named can be interpreted as not being a family-group taxon, the status of the name under the Code becomes extremely muddy, to my eye at least.)

------
PS--Outside of the group in question, the re-evaluation of Neogaeornis may be of importance, as this fossil has been used to calibrate phylogenetic hypotheses proposed for the Gaviiformes -- see, e.g. [here]. If it is a basal Anseriform, treating it as a Gaviiform in these analyses will have (spuriously) increased the inferred ancienty of the loon lineage (as well as, probably, of its subdivisions).
 
Last edited:
Thanks Fred.

PS--Outside of the group in question, the re-evaluation of Neogaeornis may be of importance, as this fossil has been used to calibrate phylogenetic hypotheses proposed for the Gaviiformes -- see, e.g. [here]. If it is a basal Anseriform, treating it as a Gaviiform in these analyses will have (spuriously) increased the inferred ancienty of the loon lineage (as well as, probably, of its subdivisions).

Yes, it shows again how important paleornithology is for neornithology. You need corect relationships and now that Neogaeornis no longer is a Gaviiformes, you cannot base your phylogentic hypothesis on this fossil species.
 
There are some interesting remarks on the Dinosaur Mailing List:

David Marjanovic wrote: "Interestingly, Vegaviidae is neither called a family anywhere in the paper, nor is it given a phylogenetic definition – even though there's a "type" genus, a list of included taxa and a diagnosis. Evidently the name is not meant to belong to either rank-based or phylogenetic nomenclature, even though the authors would clearly like future works to use this name in a consistent way.

(The lack of registration in ZooBank is consistent with this, but of course doesn't mean much.)"

Ben Creisler: "And as has been pointed out in a few places online, the spelling should be "Vegavidae" if it's formed from the generic name Vegavis. Apparently, the spelling here is patterned after Gaviidae (from Gavia) with a double i..

David Marjanovic replies: "Ve-gaviidae... ha, I completely missed that :)"

Fred
 
There are some interesting remarks on the Dinosaur Mailing List:
Also on the DML...
David Marjanovic, commenting on Worthy et al. 2017 (cf. [this thread]):
And there, in Table 1, we have the first published misunderstanding of Vegaviidae as a family: "family vegaviidae agnolin et al. [97]". (Bizarrely, the entire table is in lowercase.) Reference 97, the paper by Agnolin et al., isn't cited anywhere else in the paper, evidently because it came out too recently; yet, the same Table 1 names "order vegaviiformes new taxon".

Not that that matters; orders are by definition as informal as Vegaviidae. Apart from such basics as the letter inventory, the ICZN only regulates the species group, genus group and family group of ranks. Even priority does not apply to orders, classes or phyla; thus, for example, the choice between Ceratosauria Owen, 1888, and Ceratosauria Marsh, 1884, is one of (universal) personal preference.
Tim Williams:
> Not that that matters; orders are by definition as informal as Vegaviidae.

The fact that the name ends in -idae (and is clearly not a genus or species) might mean that it's treated as a family-level taxon (per Article 29.2), even though the original authors do not explicitly call it a family.
(I'm not the only one to find the status of this name confusing, in any case.)
 
(The lack of registration in ZooBank is consistent with this, but of course doesn't mean much.)"
It's not actually correct that the work was not registered in ZooBank. It was registered prior to publication (on 18 Aug 2017), by F. Brissón Egli: C5A0C794-5444-424B-987C-D11621BCCBAD
The fact that the work itself does not include evidence that this registration had happened, means that the online version (the .pdf downloadable from the Springer website) is to be regarded as unpublished in the sense of the Code. But Sci. Nat. is still a printed journal, so far as I know: the name will be published in the paper version.
 
The proposal of a name in -idae expressly for an unranked clade is very odd, if I may. If a family-group name in the sense of the Code (is it one?), this name cannot be used as such if it denotes anything else than a family.


According to zoobank:

Nomenclatural Acts (1)

Family Group
Vegaviidae Agnolin, Brisson Egli, Chatterjee, Alexis & Novas, 2017

So it is a family Group name

Fred
 
It was registered as such by the authors, yes.
(What is in ZooBank, so far, is what users put in it. The fact that something appears there does not in itself imply an endorsement, e.g., by the Commission.)

You are right Laurent, but one of the authors put it in as a family-group name, so I believe the authors ment it to be a new family.

Fred
 
Warning! This thread is more than 7 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top