Time calibration and Linnean ranks in birds (2 Viewers)

[Mysticete]

I honestly would just keep fossil taxa as unranked. We can create clade names and such without necessarily assigning them to family, order, etc. Obviously keep the existing names but I would be careful about creating new ones. Otherwise you get into a weird situation where either you have to redo the the whole thing everytime a new taxa is described that is a stem lineage, or you have to start breaking out the obscure and little used ranks (or just create new ones)

 

[Acanthis]

I am trying to intergrate and experiment with multiple ranks to see how things look, at least for non-passeriformes.

I came out with this taxonomy for Galliformes last night, fixing Order to the approximate time of the PETM (~55 Ma), Families to before the Oligocene (>34 Ma), Subfamilies to Oligocene (~34-23 Ma), and Tribes to the Middle Miocene Climatic Optimum (~17-14 Ma)

The revised taxonomy looks like this
Megapodiiformes

Megapodiidae - Megapodes
Talegallinae - Brush Turkeys
Megapodiinae
Macrocephalonini - Maleos
Megapodiini" - Megapodes

Galliformes

Cracidae - Guans, Chachalacas, and Currasows
Numididae - Guineafowl
Ptilopachidae -Stone Partridges
Odontophoridae - New World Quail
Rollulidae - Hill Partridges
"Xenoperdixinae" - African Highland Partridges
Rollulinae - Asiatic Partridges
Rollulini - Crested Partridges and Allies
"Arborophilini" (Hill Partridges)
Phasianidae - Pheasants, Chickens, and Peafowl
Argusianinae - Arguses
Pavoninae - Peafowl
"Tropicoperdicinae" - Peacock-Partridges
Polyplectroninae - Peacock-Pheasants
Gallinae - Chickens and Francolins
Gallini - Chickens
Francolinii - Francolins
Coturnicinae - Spurfowl and Old World Quail
Tetraogallini - Snowcocks
Alectoridini - Chukars
"Pternistini" - Spurfowl
"Ammoperdicini" - Sand Partridges
Coturnicini - Old World Quail
Lerwinae - Snow Partridges
Ithagininae - Blood Pheasants
Lophophorinae - Monals and Tragopans
Lophorphorini - Monals
Tragopanini - Tragopans
Phasianinae (True Pheasants and Grouse)
Rhizotherini - Long-billed Partridges
Pucrasiini - Koklass
Meleagrini - Turkeys
Tetraonini - Grouse
Perdicini - True Partridges
Phasianini - True Pheasants

Pretty much 'snap!'
I'll check for differences but it looks much the same as I worked out, and very satisfying it was too😌

 

[jurek]

By the way, the result that modern seabirds and most landbirds appeared well in the Tertiary is interesting. There is a long time gap between the extinction of the dinosaurs and appearance of modern groups of birds. What were the birds which filled all these habitats and ecological niches then?

The age of Vegavis iaai Clarke, Tambussi, Noriega, Erickson et Ketcham, 2005 is clear: Late Cretaceous,

I referred to Vegavis as an example of how sparse and open to interpretation is fossil record, how far-reaching interpretations are often derived, and how fluid and questionable are these interpretations.

Vegavis was a discovery of few bones coming indeed from the Cretaceous. Few characteristics on literally one bone were interpreted as either that is a derived relative of the Magpie Goose lineage or a basal Galloanserae. Depending from this interpretation, gallinaceous birds, screamers, magpie geese, other waterfowl and other modern birds were already separated in the Cretaceous, and it was argued that by extension further modern lineages of birds separated already at the time of dinosaurs. Or that all this radiation of birds happened well within the Tertiary.

Science often must work with incomplete data, but at some point this became the proverbial building castles in the air.

One point which interest me IS exactly what to do with fossil forms.

A method of classification should not have exceptions if it is a science. But with monophyletic groups as used currently, one ends up with an impossibly big number of fossil groups, or must make an exception for fossil species.

 

[Mysticete]

I am not sure I would say "well into the tertiary" Most modern orders would have been probably present by the end of the Paleocene, less than 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaur, if not before. Birds would have rapidly radiated after the K-Pg.

Also, most likely some of those niches were occupied by groups no longer present. Pelagornithidae probably filled the albatross niche, and I know some phylogenetic analyses place them as stem Anseriformes, and it certainly seems they were unrelated to modern Procellariiformes.

Whats interesting to me is how many weird oddball groups, some representing separate lineages that survived the K-Pg only to go extinct by the end of the Neogene, may have been around.

 

[Mysticete]

Since my last post I have received the Largest Avian Radiation book and have skimmed through that source, as well as other papers.

The authors of that books suggest a good cut off for Passeriformes would be 20 million years, but then include so many exceptions that it kind of renders trying to use that date pointless. Out of curiosity, I tried to apply this date to songbird, while adding in a 15 mya for subfamilies, to see what I could get. For tribes I couldn't use a cut off date as things were getting too recent, so I just defined it as "A long branch" which diverged after the 15 mya. Superfamilies would be groups that were equivalent to the "Families" of I used the phylogeny of the Largest Avian Radiation as the baseline, unless there were more recent studies (Such as Harvey's work on suboscines). When there was conflict between studies or error bars that otherwise made time of divergence difficult to nail down, I went with the status quo

I'm not going to to through the full classification. For the most part, a lot of it is similar to the traditional classification. However, here are the major differences.

First, NEW families that would be needed with this system, or at least families not widely recognized by many)

Pseudocalyptomenidae (Grauer's Broadbill)
Smithornithidae (African Broadbills)
Ptilochloridae (Mourners and Schiffornis) - kind of borderline

The next 4 families are groups already split by TiF and seem to be of interest as potential splits by SACC

Pipritidae (Piprites)
Platyrinchidae (Spadebills)
Tachurididae (Many-colored Rush Tyrant)
Rhynchocyclidae (Flatbills, Tody-Tyrants, and Allies)

Grallariidae (from Myrmotheridae)- there are some old divergences within Antpittas
Scytalopodidae (Typical Tapaculos)
Chamaezidae ("Patterned" Antthrushes) - would produce two monogeneric families
Amytornithidae (Grasswrens)
Myzaidae (Myzas) - Suggested by other studies as potentially meriting family level recognition
Pteruthiidae (Shrike-Babblers) - old divergence from other vireos
Amblyospizidae (Thick-billed Weavers) - uncertain affinities
Carpospizidae (Pale Rockfinches) - uncertain affinities

 

[Mysticete]

The following are the families that would be LOST using this metric

Corcoracidae (Apostlebirds) and Ifritidae (Blue-capped Ifrits) - low diversity groups that would be merged and treated as subfamilies within a broader Paradisaeidae. Not one hundred % sold that the dates are as young as they appear however

A broader Corvidae - This would treat Platylophidae (Jayshrikes), Laniidae (True Shrikes), and the recently proposed Eurocephalidae (White-crowned Shrikes) as subfamilies within Corvidae

Cettidae would include as subfamilies Erythrocercidae (Bristle Flycatchers) and Scotocercidae (Scrub Warblers), something already recognized in some classifications

Timalidae would be expanded to include Pellorneidae (Ground Babblers), Alcippeidae (Nun Babblers), and Leiothrichidae (Laughingthrushes) as subfamilies.

Polioptilidae (Gnatcatchers) would become a subfamily of Troglodytidae

Mimidae (Thrashers and Mockingbirds) would become a subfamily of Sturnidae

Viduidae (Whydahs and Widowbirds) would become a subfamily of Estrildidae

And the big one: Rhodinocichlidae (Thrush-Tanagers), Calcariidae (Longspurs), Emberizidae (Old World Buntings), Passerellidae (New World Sparrows), Spindalidae (Spindalises - Which would include Puerto Rican Tanager Nesospingidae as a tribe), Calyptophilidae (Chat-Tanagers), Phaenicophilidae (Palm Tanagers), Parulidae (New World Warblers), Zeledoniidae (Wrenthrushes), Terestristiidae (Cuban Warblers), Icteriidae (Yellow-breasted Chats), Icteridae (New World Orioles and Blackbirds), Mitrospingidae (Aberrant Tanagers), Cardinalidae (Cardinals and New World Buntings), and Thraupidae (Tanagers) would all be subfamilies of a broader Emberizidae

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Viduidae (Whydahs and Widowbirds) would become a subfamily of Estrildidae

The inverse x)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Pseudocalyptomenidae (Grauer's Broadbill)
Smithornithidae (African Broadbills)

Pipritidae (Piprites)
Platyrinchidae (Spadebills)
Tachurididae (Many-colored Rush Tyrant)
Rhynchocyclidae (Flatbills, Tody-Tyrants, and Allies)


Myzaidae (Myzas) - Suggested by other studies as potentially meriting family level recognition
Pteruthiidae (Shrike-Babblers) - old divergence from other vireos
Amblyospizidae (Thick-billed Weavers) - uncertain affinities
Carpospizidae (Pale Rockfinches) - uncertain affinities

That I do for all of them

 

[jts1882]

The next 4 families are groups already split by TiF and seem to be of interest as potential splits by SACC

Pipritidae (Piprites)
Platyrinchidae (Spadebills)
Tachurididae (Many-colored Rush Tyrant)
Rhynchocyclidae (Flatbills, Tody-Tyrants, and Allies)

Those families and Pipromorphidae are recognised in H&M4. I'm guessing that this might have been an older arrangement and the other checklists have lumped them since 2014.

 

[Acanthis]

Since my last post I have received the Largest Avian Radiation book and have skimmed through that source, as well as other papers.

The authors of that books suggest a good cut off for Passeriformes would be 20 million years, but then include so many exceptions that it kind of renders trying to use that date pointless. Out of curiosity, I tried to apply this date to songbird, while adding in a 15 mya for subfamilies, to see what I could get. For tribes I couldn't use a cut off date as things were getting too recent, so I just defined it as "A long branch" which diverged after the 15 mya. Superfamilies would be groups that were equivalent to the "Families" of I used the phylogeny of the Largest Avian Radiation as the baseline, unless there were more recent studies (Such as Harvey's work on suboscines). When there was conflict between studies or error bars that otherwise made time of divergence difficult to nail down, I went with the status quo

I'm not going to to through the full classification. For the most part, a lot of it is similar to the traditional classification. However, here are the major differences.

First, NEW families that would be needed with this system, or at least families not widely recognized by many)

Pseudocalyptomenidae (Grauer's Broadbill)
Smithornithidae (African Broadbills)
Ptilochloridae (Mourners and Schiffornis) - kind of borderline

The next 4 families are groups already split by TiF and seem to be of interest as potential splits by SACC

Pipritidae (Piprites)
Platyrinchidae (Spadebills)
Tachurididae (Many-colored Rush Tyrant)
Rhynchocyclidae (Flatbills, Tody-Tyrants, and Allies)

Grallariidae (from Myrmotheridae)- there are some old divergences within Antpittas
Scytalopodidae (Typical Tapaculos)
Chamaezidae ("Patterned" Antthrushes) - would produce two monogeneric families
Amytornithidae (Grasswrens)
Myzaidae (Myzas) - Suggested by other studies as potentially meriting family level recognition
Pteruthiidae (Shrike-Babblers) - old divergence from other vireos
Amblyospizidae (Thick-billed Weavers) - uncertain affinities
Carpospizidae (Pale Rockfinches) - uncertain affinities

I recall Sporopipes has an interesting position with regard to the other Ploceids.
Though perhaps it isn't well supported?
Can't check at the moment

 

[Xenospiza]

I recall Sporopipes has an interesting position with regard to the other Ploceids.
Though perhaps it isn't well supported?
Can't check at the moment

See here: https://www.mgirard.fish/files/De_Silva_et_al_2017.pdf

 

[l_raty]

The inverse x)

No. x)
As Norbert wrote the other day :

It once more shows that Bock (1994) is not reliable and that one has to trace every entry if one wants to be sure about family-group names. Unfortunately, sources like Taxonomy in Flux and others took over Bock's mistaken entries without checking them for reliability.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

No. x)
As Norbert wrote the other day :

So we must trace these names

 

[l_raty]

Estreldinae was first used by Blyth in 1846, which is before Cabanis introduced Viduanae.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Estreldinae was first used by Blyth in 1846, which is before Cabanis introduced Viduanae.

What does the Code say about alternative spellings? here Estrildinae/Estreldinae

 

[Acanthis]

See here: https://www.mgirard.fish/files/De_Silva_et_al_2017.pdf

Yeah that's a firmer placing. Still a pretty early divergence

 

[l_raty]

What does the Code say about alternative spellings? here Estrildinae/Estreldinae

When a family-group name was formed from a subsequent spelling, the stem must be corrected to that of the OS.
Bonaparte 1850 (Bock's source) had used Estreldinae as well.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Ok. I used Bonaparte, 1850 in my list instead of Blyth but it's not my fault and it's too late to correct

 

[Acanthis]

Ok. I used Bonaparte, 1850 in my list instead of Blyth but it's not my fault and it's too late to correct

Already an update required for the next version of L'inventaire 😉

 

[jurek]

Like with other bird groups, almost all deeply split lineages are rain forest birds.

I wonder if it is because rain forests are stable environment, so offer a sanctuary allowing the species to keep their ancient appearance. Or because significant open and cold habitats appeared on Earth relatively recently.