Hirundinidae (1 Viewer)

[MJB]

I just wanted to know, in a short way, if the two main lineages were sufficiently divergent to be treated as two biological species : rustica and erythrogaster

I don't get that conclusion from the paper, I must admit. Re these two groups, the separation dates are estimated at to have split into two major phylogenetic branches, "which might have diverged approximately 100 thousand years ago (Kya) and geographically correspond to Europe-Middle East and Asia-3 America" citing Zink et al 2006 and Dor et al 2010.

Of more concern, if I've understood the paper correctly, is the apparent inference that the closely-related group, Ethiopian Swallow Hirundo aethiopica, Angola Swallow H. angolensis, White-bibbed Swallow H. nigrita, Wire-tailed Swallow H. smithii and White-throated Swallow H. albigularis are recently separated from Barn Swallow H. rustica, but it dates only the divergence between H. rustica and H. aethiopica, the most closely related species, at 493Kya, which would indicate a possible future lump?

The paper's dispersal map places erythrogaster in North America >51Kya, with tytleri emrging from it into the easternmost Palearctic <21Kya.

MJB
Dor R, RJ Safran, FH Sheldon, DW Winkler and IJ Lovette. 2010. Phylogeny of the genus Hirundo and the barn swallow subspecies complex. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 56(1): 409-418.
Zink RM, A Pavlova, S Rohwer and SV Drovetski. 2006. Barn swallows before barns: population histories and intercontinental colonization. Proc. Bio. Sci. 273(1591): 1245-1251.

 

[Kirk Roth]

I just wanted to know, in a short way, if the two main lineages were sufficiently divergent to be treated as two biological species : rustica and erythrogaster

The paper says almost nothing concerning biological species (e.g. barely any mention of behavior or assortive mating). If anything, there is slight evidence against splitting - as they found one "gutturalis" specimen within the rustica clade; all other gutturalis are in the erythrogaster clade. Also Figure 5 has a big sticker at the contact point between the two groups that says "Recent admixture?" so a split does not seem to be on their mind.

 

[Kirk Roth]

I don't get that conclusion from the paper, I must admit. Re these two groups, the separation dates are estimated at to have split into two major phylogenetic branches, "which might have diverged approximately 100 thousand years ago (Kya) and geographically correspond to Europe-Middle East and Asia-3 America" citing Zink et al 2006 and Dor et al 2010.

Of more concern, if I've understood the paper correctly, is the apparent inference that the closely-related group, Ethiopian Swallow Hirundo aethiopica, Angola Swallow H. angolensis, White-bibbed Swallow H. nigrita, Wire-tailed Swallow H. smithii and White-throated Swallow H. albigularis are recently separated from Barn Swallow H. rustica, but it dates only the divergence between H. rustica and H. aethiopica, the most closely related species, at 493Kya, which would indicate a possible future lump?

The paper's dispersal map places erythrogaster in North America >51Kya, with tytleri emrging from it into the easternmost Palearctic <21Kya.

MJB
Dor R, RJ Safran, FH Sheldon, DW Winkler and IJ Lovette. 2010. Phylogeny of the genus Hirundo and the barn swallow subspecies complex. Mol. Phyl. Evol. 56(1): 409-418.
Zink RM, A Pavlova, S Rohwer and SV Drovetski. 2006. Barn swallows before barns: population histories and intercontinental colonization. Proc. Bio. Sci. 273(1591): 1245-1251.

I did not take in that same message with aethiopica. While the 493Kya can be considered relatively short, I don't think that is nearly as short for a common ancestor as 51Kya and I think that one of the points the authors are trying to express. I'm not a pro at reading cladograms, but the one they provide seems to me to show a great genetic distance between H. angolensis/aethiopica and the all the H. rustica subspecies, especially when compared to the differences within rustica.

If you're talking about a lump of all of aethiopica, angolensis, nigrita, albigularis, etc. I don't think that is a correct inference - they are just using the nearest close ancestor as a reference point, as their interest is the rustica group, not all of Hirundo. I couldn't tell from your comment if this is your concern or not - if my response is quaint, please forgive me!

 

[MJB]

I did not take in that same message with aethiopica. While the 493Kya can be considered relatively short, I don't think that is nearly as short for a common ancestor as 51Kya and I think that one of the points the authors are trying to express. I'm not a pro at reading cladograms, but the one they provide seems to me to show a great genetic distance between H. angolensis/aethiopica and the all the H. rustica subspecies, especially when compared to the differences within rustica.

If you're talking about a lump of all of aethiopica, angolensis, nigrita, albigularis, etc. I don't think that is a correct inference - they are just using the nearest close ancestor as a reference point, as their interest is the rustica group, not all of Hirundo. I couldn't tell from your comment if this is your concern or not - if my response is quaint, please forgive me!

I understand that Lombardo et al 2022 are concentrating on rustica sspp and whether any are invalid, but they don't make it clear in the text how closely related other Hirundo spp (except H. aethiopica) are related to H. rustica, their wording suggesting that the African group are indeed pretty closely related.

Winker 2021 stated "MtDNA divergence does produce incompatibilities and thus reproductive isolating mechanisms, but not in a predictable, linear manner, and certainly with no obvious speciation threshold, because of the randomness of mutations and their effects." and "Within-species mitochondrial lineages with splits as deep as ~2.6 My to likely more than ~4 My (depending on data) have been documented in birds." Kevin Winker's 'Lay Summary' is given below.

Lombardo et al 2022 assessed the sequence variation of 411 complete mitogenomes, one of their conclusions being that rustica and aethiopica separated c493Kya ago. Within taxonomic judgments there appears to be a requirement, almost on a case-by-case basis, to examine a selection of a a long list of factors to determine whether two taxa are species and subspecies or two separate species.

I doubt if there is a simple timescale criterion that would apply to small Palearctic passerines, but there may be a set of timescales related to species-groups, families, or even breeding latitude. It would be useful for non-specialists if a few paragraphs specialists could provide us with some kind of key!

Kevin Winker's Lay Summary

• The process of population divergence and speciation produces avian diversity but is very complex.

• I review this process and some of the challenges we have in translating this knowledge into taxonomic names.

• Natural and sexual selection, gene flow, time, and neutral changes affect lineages differently, creating difficult puzzles for us to solve when asking “Is it a species?”

• Avian taxonomy will continue to change as we improve our data and analyses and test historic hypotheses about species limits.

• An integrative approach using diverse datasets in a comparative framework is the most promising way forward.
MJB
Winker, K. 2021. An overview of speciation and species limits in birds. Ornithology. 138(2): doi.org/10.1093/ornithology/ukab006

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Coevolutionary maintenance of forked tails and song in hirundines (Aves: Hirundininae)

Both conspicuous plumage ornamentation and song are well-known examples of sexually selected traits but their interrelationship is not well-known, perhaps in part because of confounding factors, including interspecific variation in ecology, habitat, morphology, and type of ornamentation. Here...

www.biorxiv.org

 

[albertonykus]

Fishpool, L.D.C. (2023)
Square-tailed Saw-wing Psalidoprocne nitens in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: identity and taxonomic status
Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club 143: 295–308
doi: 10.25226/bboc.v143i3.2023.a5

The race centralis Neumann, 1904, of Square-tailed Saw-wing Psalidoprocne nitens is currently considered both to be poorly differentiated morphologically from the nominate subspecies and restricted to a limited area of north-eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, being replaced elsewhere in the country by nominate nitens. Such views are mistaken. Study of specimens confirms assessments of earlier publications, in Dutch and French, that centralis occurs throughout the forest zone of northern and central DR Congo—to which region it is confined—whereas the nominate is known only from the coastal far west of the country. Moreover, the plumage of centralis is glossy dark bottle green, whereas that of nominate nitens is blackish with a dull oily green gloss. This difference was the justification for the initial recognition of centralis but has been almost entirely overlooked since the publication of the original description. Combined with the commonly reported contrast in throat colour and a previously unrecorded difference between the plumages of immatures, centralis is hence more distinct morphologically than previously appreciated. Further, a recent genetic analysis, involving samples from specimens shown by this study to have been centralis, demonstrated a divergence of c.4% from nominate nitens. In combination, these findings argue for the elevation of centralis to species rank.

 

[Taphrospilus]

Delichon nipalense Moore, F 1854 Swallows – IOC World Bird List
I am a little bit confused what's correct nipalense or nipalensis? If Avibase is correct OD v.1 (1854) - A catalogue of the birds in the Museum of the Honorable East India Company - Biodiversity Heritage Library
Even if we consider pt.21-23 (1853-1855) - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library or pt.21-23 (1853-1855) - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library or plate pt.21-23 (1853-1855) - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library as OD why nipalense ?
As well the question of authorship? Why not Horsfield v.1 (1854) - A catalogue of the birds in the Museum of the Honorable East India Company - Biodiversity Heritage Library ?

 

[Xenospiza]

It was changed to D. nipalense for the same reason as D. urbica was changed to D. urbicum.

Wrongfully in my opinion, as stated below.

Well I am seriously offended by the name change from Delichon urbica to Delichon urbicum, which the ICZN seems to have no issues with.

Delichon is an anagram of the Greek Chelidon (χελιδων) which is feminine, but David and Gosselin, apparently not hampered by a knowledge of Greek, stated:
Quoted from the AERC: "Delichon is an anagram of Chelidon, its gender was not indicated by its original author but it ends in -on and as a consequence must be treated as neuter (David & Gosselin 2002a)."
If I read it all correctly Delichon nipalensis is the type species, so the gender can be two things, but most definitely not neutre.

 

[mb1848]

The Moore PZS article is printed April 8, 1855.
1893 - Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London - Biodiversity Heritage Library .
Publication date of Horsfield and Moore Catalogue is November 1854?
Authorship of new names in the Catalogue were mostly by Moore.
https://www.aviansystematics.org/uploads/downloads/146/file/ZV350_149-166.pdf .

 

[l_raty]

The problem is that the gender of a genus-group name, in the Code, must always be fixed exclusively by the contents of the OD. "The gender can be two things" based on the contents of the OD is not an option at all.

D&G, arguing the name is an anagram, treated it as being neither Latin nor Greek. The Code tells us about such names:

30.2. Gender of names formed from words that are neither Latin nor Greek
30.2.1. If a name reproduces exactly a noun having a gender in a modern European language (without having to be transliterated from a non-Latin alphabet into the Latin alphabet) it takes the gender of that noun.
Example. Pfrille, from the feminine German noun Pfrille (a minnow), is feminine.
30.2.2. Unless Article 30.2.1 applies, a name that is not formed from a Latin or Greek word takes the gender expressly specified by its author.
30.2.3. If no gender was specified, the name takes the gender indicated by its combination with one or more adjectival species-group names of the originally included nominal species [Art. 67.2.].
30.2.4. If no gender was specified or indicated, the name is to be treated as masculine, except that, if the name ends in -a the gender is feminine, and if it ends in -um, -on, or -u the gender is neuter.

The name does not reproduce a noun having a gender in a modern European language, thus 30.2.1 does not applies. No gender was specified, thus 30.2.2 does not applies. It was combined with nipalensis only, which does not indicate a unique gender, thus 30.2.3 does not applies. It ends in -on, thus it must be treated as neuter under 30.2.4...

There is arguably an issue with the above, though : a name which is an anagram of a Greek word is, actually, quite clearly not "formed from words that are neither Latin nor Greek", thus it is questionable that Art. 30.2 applies at all to the present case... (Prior to D&G, the name had evidently been treated as though it retained the gender of the Greek word χελιδων. As the ending of the word (= what generally determines its gender) had not been changed, perhaps it might be argued that this was a sensible thing to do...?)


The generic and specific names, Delichon and nipalensis, are both attributed in Horsfield & Moore's Catalogue to "(Hodgs.) Moore, P. Z. S. (1854), p." (which is a reference to Moore's paper in PZS, that had not appeared yet). When a name in a work authored by more than one person is attributed to only one of them, this must in principle be respected.

 

[l_raty]

"The gender can be two things" based on the contents of the OD is not an option at all.

See also the case of Poecile, which D&G treated as the Greek word ποικίλος (poikilos), latinized with a modified ending.
The Code indicates that such a name "takes the gender normally appropriate to the changed ending". In Latin, the "gender normally appropriate" to an -e ending is neuter (if the word is genuinely Latin) or feminine (if the word is of Greek origin). Yet, D&G argued that there was no unique "gender normally appropriate" in this case, and gave the name the "default" gender, i.e., masculine...

 

[Xenospiza]

See also the case of Poecile, which D&G treated as the Greek word ποικίλος (poikilos), latinized with a modified ending.
The Code indicates that such a name "takes the gender normally appropriate to the changed ending". In Latin, the "gender normally appropriate" to an -e ending is neuter (if the word is genuinely Latin) or feminine (if the word is of Greek origin). Yet, D&G argued that there was no unique "gender normally appropriate" in this case, and gave the name the "default" gender, i.e., masculine...

Well that proves my point that their knowledge of classical Greek was lacking!

 

[Taphrospilus]

Sorry again a question on authorship as it is not always clear for me and I feel it is sometimes interpreted different. This time Riparia diluta indica Ticehurst, 1916 OD ser.10:v.4=no.[13-16] (1916) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library and article started ser.10:v.4=no.[13-16] (1916) - Ibis - Biodiversity Heritage Library.

Is this not simlarly seen to

The paper is in three sections with distinct authorship, Einleintung, pp. 551-555, von E. Stresemann; Allgemeine Vorbemerkungen, pp. 155-165, von G. Heinrich; Systematischer und Biologischer Teil, pp. 166-264, von E. Stresemann und G. Heinrich.

Of couse we can see a note on the March species from Ticehurst. But does that make him the author? I feel it needs to be attributed to Whistler.

 

[l_raty]

Of couse we can see a note on the March species from Ticehurst. But does that make him the author? I feel it needs to be attributed to Whistler.

The entire description here is a note by Ticehurst, which is placed in square brackets and starts on the previous page (with "[Mr. Whistler notes" [etc.]).

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Maneuverable flight evolved with forked tails and opportunities for extrapair mating in swallows and martins (Aves: Hirundininae)

Whole-organism performance in relation to ornamentation is often examined to evaluate the cost of ornamentation, assuming that high performance is favored by viability selection. These studies typically conduct experimental manipulations of ornamentation, which potentially impair phenotypic...

www.biorxiv.org

Abstract
Whole-organism performance in relation to ornamentation is often examined to evaluate the cost of ornamentation, assuming that high performance is favored by viability selection. These studies typically conduct experimental manipulations of ornamentation, which potentially impair phenotypic integration with compensatory traits, making it difficult to clarify performance function of ornamentation. Here, we adopted an alternative approach, macroevolutionary analysis, and examined the flight performance of swallows (Aves: Hirundininae) in relation to tail fork depth to clarify evolutionary force favoring the ornamentation. We found that a measure of flight performance, presence of notable non-straight flight including maneuvering, turning, and swerving, peaked at intermediate fork depth, which appear to support viability selection for moderately forked tails. However, the quadratic relationship was found only in males, and hirundines with high opportunities for extrapair mating had higher probability of non-straight flight, indicating the importance of sexual selection. The current findings indicate that the flight performance of hirundines evolved through sexual selection, at least partially; thus, its relationship with forked tail might not clarify the viability cost of ornamentation. Whole-organism performance should be carefully interpreted when deducing the cost function, and thus, the evolutionary driver, of ornamentation.


In his study, Hasegawa finds Pseudhirundo and Cheramoeca sister to Psalidoprocne, while Brown (2019) shows that Psalidoprocne forms the sister group to all Hirundininae and that Cheramoeca and Pseudhirundo are included in the Prognini (Progninae). What do you think is the best topology?

 

[D Halas]

In his study, Hasegawa finds Pseudhirundo and Cheramoeca sister to Psalidoprocne, while Brown (2019) shows that Psalidoprocne forms the sister group to all Hirundininae and that Cheramoeca and Pseudhirundo are included in the Prognini (Progninae). What do you think is the best topology?

This study doesn't find anything about relationships in the Hirundinidae; it uses pre-existing trees to reconstruct the evolution of maneuverable flight. Here's the relevant text from the methods section:

"To account for phylogenetic uncertainty, we fit models with each tree and applied multimodel inference using 1,000 alternative trees obtained from birdtree.org (Garamszegi & Mundry 2014; Rubolini et al. 2015; see Sheldon et al. 2005 for an original phylogeny in swallows)."

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

"To account for phylogenetic uncertainty, we fit models with each tree and applied multimodel inference using 1,000 alternative trees obtained from birdtree.org (Garamszegi & Mundry 2014; Rubolini et al. 2015; see Sheldon et al. 2005 for an original phylogeny in swallows)."

Oki. I should read the article rather than the figures only but since I don't understand the language, I only focus on what matters to me 🤷

 

[albertonykus]

Chan, Y.-F., C.-W. Lu, H.-C. Kuo, and C.-M. Hung (2024)
A chromosome-level genome assembly of the Asian house martin implies potential genes associated with the feathered-foot trait
G3 (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/g3journal/jkae077

The presence of feathers is a vital characteristic among birds, yet most modern birds had no feather on their feet. The discoveries of feathers on the hind limbs of basal birds and dinosaurs have sparked an interest in the evolutionary origin and genetic mechanism of feathered feet. However, the majority of studies investigating the genes associated with this trait focused on domestic populations. Understanding the genetic mechanism underpinned feathered-foot development in wild birds is still in its infancy. Here, we assembled a chromosome-level genome of the Asian house martin (Delichon dasypus) using the long-read HiFi sequencing approach to initiate the search for genes associated with its feathered feet. We employed the whole genome alignment of D. dasypus with other swallow species to identify high-SNP regions and chromosomal inversions in the D. dasypus genome. After filtering out variations unrelated to D. dasypus evolution, we found six genes related to feather development near the high-SNP regions. We also detected three feather development genes in chromosomal inversions between the Asian house martin and the barn swallow genomes. We discussed their association with the WNT, BMP and FGF pathways and their potential roles in feathered-foot development. Future studies are encouraged to utilize the D. dasypus genome to explore the evolutionary process of the feathered-foot trait in avian species. This endeavor will shed light on the evolutionary path of feathers in birds.