• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

Banded Stilt (1 Viewer)

Well, OK: there is a problem with genetic data, but it is not with data from this species, actually.

The only study based on molecular sequences to have included Cladorhynchus is Baker et al. 2008 [pdf]. The problem here is with their ND2 seq of Recurvirostra americana: if you make a BLAST search on this sequence, it appears extremely close (almost identical) to a sequence of Rostratula bengalensis australis from another dataset, then closest to two other sequences of Rostratula benghalensis, and it does not cluster with any of the other Recurvirostridae. This sequence is obviously wrong. Its inclusion in the Baker et al. 2008 dataset resulted in Recurvirostra appearing more divergent from Himantopus and Cladorhynchus than it really is, which in turn resulted in Cladorhynchus appearing sister to Himantopus in their tree.

This is unreliable.
 
Last edited:
I think it is generally unwise to assume that a single genetic data set can provide a definitive resolution of any issue. To be really confident about something, I need some type of data corroboration, preferably from an independent source, and this is cruelly lacking here. But as it stands, I would say that the part of the data set that is not obviously incorrect appears to contradict the relationships suggested in the article...

I also do not believe that a tree can still be trusted if the data set is shown to have included chimeric sequences--eg., if some terminals are actually represented by a mixture of sequences from different taxa, like here a Rostratula ND2 concatenated to Recurvirostra Cytochrome b, 12S-rRNA and RAG-1. Such chimeras create attractions within the data set that should not have been there, and this affects the whole tree reconstruction, not just their own position. If shown to be present, they must be removed, and the analysis must be entirely re-done.
Unfortunately, there are many such sequences in this particular data set.
 
Last edited:
Re. the supertree by Thomas et al. 2004 [full text] (NB: "Gavin" is his first name).

This was produced by combining 51 source trees that were either taken from publications, or derived by recoding published classifications. Most of these trees of course did not include all the taxa addressed in the work. Using their [Additional File 6], it is reasonably straightforward to isolate the trees that were informative on the present question: those having included at least one member of each one of the tree genera Cladorhynchus, Himantopus and Recurvirostra, and which did not place them in a polytomy. Only five trees fit the bill:
  • [Reference 18, osteology]
    Strauch JG Jr. 1978. The phylogeny of the Charadriiformes (Aves): a new estimate using the method of character compatibility analysis. Trans Zool Soc Lond, 34:263-345. [pdf] Fig. 36.
    (Cladorhynchus sister to Recurvirostra.)
  • [Reference 19, osteology]
    Chu PC. 1995. Phylogenetic reanalysis of Strauch's osteological data set for the Charadriiformes. Condor, 97:174-196. [pdf] Fig. 5.
    (Cladorhynchus sister to Recurvirostra.)
  • [Reference 30, osteology]
    Dove CJ. 2000. A descriptive and phylogenetic analysis of plumalaceous feather characters in Charadriiformes. Ornith Monogr, 51:1-163. [pdf] Fig. 146.
    (Cladorhynchus sister to Recurvirostra.)
    .
  • [Reference 30, downy feather characters ]
    Dove CJ. 2000. A descriptive and phylogenetic analysis of plumalaceous feather characters in Charadriiformes. Ornith Monogr, 51:1-163. [pdf] Fig. 145.
    (Cladorhynchus basal.)
    .
  • [Reference 27, protein electrophoresis]
    Christian PD, Christidis L, Schodde R. 1992. Biochemical systematics of the Charadriiformes (shorebirds): relationships between the Charadrii, Scolopaci, and Lari. Aus J Zool, 40:291-302. [abstract] (Figs 1-3.)
    (Cladorhynchus basal.)
The "Cladorhynchus sister to Recurvirostra" relationship presumably "won" because it was supported by three trees, while "Clacorhynchus basal" was supported by two. Note however that the three trees supporting the former actually represent successive re-analyses of the same osteological dataset, so they should probably not be viewed as independent... (Note also that none of the sources that the authors found back then supported a sister-group relationship between Cladorhynchus and Himantopus, as suggested by Baker et al. 2008.)
 
Last edited:
Very interesting to see this summary! Thanks for that! :)

Cladorhynchus as basal makes a lot of sense to me. Earlier I was considering renaming Banded Stilt to Banded Avocet (in the Handbook of Shorebirds of the World, in prep). If it is basal then I would leave it Banded Stilt. Cladorhynchus being sister to Recurvirostra is very probable, based on the picked literatures of your summary, and definitely not a sister to Himantopus. If not basal then renaming to Banded Avocet would be reasonable.
 
The discussion here also needs to be: how much should common names reflect taxonomy and how much should they reflect phenotype? An Avocet to me is a bird with a clearly upturned bill. Banded Stilt on the photos seems to have a bill with about the same level of upturn as a greenshank.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
The discussion here also needs to be: how much should common names reflect taxonomy and how much should they reflect phenotype?
Click to expand...
But it potentially affects the classification, not just the suitability of common names – H&M4 and HBW/BirdLife place Cladorhynchus in subfamily Recurvirostrinae (avocets) rather than Himantopodinae (stilts).

[Although TiF doesn't recognise subfamilies within Recurvirostridae.]

PS. But I'm not generally in favour of changing established common (ie, vernacular) names just to follow developments in systematics.
 
Last edited:
Richard Klim said:
But it potentially affects the classification, not just the suitability of common names – H&M4 and HBW/BirdLife place Cladorhynchus in subfamily Recurvirostrinae (avocets) rather than Himantopodinae (stilts).

[Although TiF doesn't recognise subfamilies within Recurvirostridae.]
Click to expand...
And if basal, presumably it'd have to be in its own Cladorhynchinae. But the whole family has so few genera and species, that dividing into subfamilies each with just one (or at most two) genera is rather pointless.
 
Richard Klim said:
But it potentially affects the classification, not just the suitability of common names – H&M4 and HBW/BirdLife place Cladorhynchus in subfamily Recurvirostrinae (avocets) rather than Himantopodinae (stilts).

[Although TiF doesn't recognise subfamilies within Recurvirostridae.]

PS. But I'm not generally in favour of changing established common (ie, vernacular) names just to follow developments in systematics.
Click to expand...

Richard, I disagree with your first words. A common name can never *affect* the classification, it can at most reflect the classification. The classification is fixed through the scientific names. And as you say in your PS, common names should not necessarily be changed all the time to reflect the latest changes in our understanding of the classification. That is what we do by changing the scientific name every time.

Niels
 
njlarsen said:
Richard, I disagree with your first words. A common name can never *affect* the classification, it can at most reflect the classification. The classification is fixed through the scientific names.
Click to expand...
Niels, my wording was obviously unclear. I was commenting that the tree affects the classification (in this case the placement of genera/species in subfamilies), as well as the suitability of common names; not that common names affect the classification. ;)
 
Warning! This thread is more than 10 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.

Similar threads

Peter Kovalik
NACC, North American birds
Replies
4
Views
1K
l_raty
l_raty
P
On 2nd of September 2019 at Reiffel Bird Sanctuary, Vancouver, British Colombia : Stilt Sandpiper ?
Replies
10
Views
794
THE_FERN
T
TicoTyler
Banding Volunteer Opportunity
Replies
0
Views
3K
TicoTyler
TicoTyler
TicoTyler
Wild Bird Research on Bird Forum
Replies
2
Views
693
TicoTyler
TicoTyler
L
DxO PureRAW 5 Review: Worth the Upgrade?
Replies
3
Views
1K
luxBorealis–TerryMcDonald
L

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top