• 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.

Tinamidae (1 Viewer)

Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
What can you say about the Rhynchotus/Nothoprocta clade?
Click to expand...

The node that unites Nothoprocta cinerascens to Rhynchotus spp (thereby contradicting the monophyly of Nothoprocta) is much better supported (1/100/94), and N. cinerascens, R. rufescens and N. ornata are represented in the data set by the whole set of genes -- thus I would be much more confident that the result is correct, and that Nothoprocta as currently defined is indeed not tenable.
 
l_raty said:
The node that unites Nothoprocta cinerascens to Rhynchotus spp (thereby contradicting the monophyly of Nothoprocta) is much better supported (1/100/94), and N. cinerascens, R. rufescens and N. ornata are represented in the data set by the whole set of genes -- thus I would be much more confident that the result is correct, and that Nothoprocta as currently defined is indeed not tenable.
Click to expand...
In either case, do you suppose that Taoniscus and Nothoprocta become synonyms of Nothura and Rhynchotus respectively, rather than erection of new genera ?
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
In either case, do you suppose that Taoniscus and Nothoprocta become synonyms of Nothura and Rhynchotus respectively, rather than erection of new genera ?
Click to expand...

This is a subjective issue, it has no objectively "correct" answer.
As Xenospiza noted yesterday, the divergence between some members of Crypturellus seems older than between members of a (Nothura + Taoniscus) or members of a (Rhynchotus + Nothoprocta) : lumping would make the ages of genera more homogeneous in the group; splitting would have the opposite effect.
 
l_raty said:
This is a subjective issue, it has no objectively "correct" answer.
As Xenospiza noted yesterday, the divergence between some members of Crypturellus seems older than between members of a (Nothura + Taoniscus) or members of a (Rhynchotus + Nothoprocta) : lumping would make the ages of genera more homogeneous in the group; splitting would have the opposite effect.
Click to expand...
We could also split Crypturellus for the homogeneity
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
We could also split Crypturellus for the homogeneity
Click to expand...

In theory, yes, we could.
But to get groups of the age of the genera of an Eudromiinae ("Nothurinae") in which we'd have resolved genus-level paraphyly through splitting, we would probably have to split it a lot (five genera ?), which does not feel like a very palatable option...
 
default.png
This figure intrigues me because it shows a tree with bold branches and a tree with greyish branches. I read the legend but more explanation is needed, especially on the time calibration which differs according to the methodology
 
My bad, in my list, Crypturellus occidentalis is treated as a separate species from cinnamomeus but I no longer know what I based to recognize its status. HBW or so a published study that I can no longer find...
 
Lukas J Musher, Therese A Catanach, Thomas Valqui, Robb T Brumfield, Alexandre Aleixo, Kevin P. Johnson, Jason D Weckstein. Whole-genome phylogenomics of the tinamous (Aves: Tinamidae): comparing gene tree estimation error between BUSCOs and UCEs illuminates rapid divergence with introgression. bioRxiv 2024.01.22.576737; doi: Whole-genome phylogenomics of the tinamous (Aves: Tinamidae): comparing gene tree estimation error between BUSCOs and UCEs illuminates rapid divergence with introgression
Incomplete lineage sorting (ILS) and introgression increase genealogical discordance across the genome, which complicates phylogenetic inference. In such cases, identifying orthologs that result in gene trees with low estimation error is crucial because phylogenomic methods rely on accurate gene histories. We sequenced whole genomes for the tinamous (Aves: Tinamidae) to dissect the sources of gene and species-tree discordance and reconstruct their interrelationships. We compared results based on four ortholog sets: (1) coding genes (BUSCOs), (2) ultraconserved elements (UCEs) with short flanking regions, (3) UCEs with intermediate flanks, and (4) UCEs with long flanks. We hypothesized that orthologs with more phylogenetically informative sites would result in more accurate species trees because the resulting gene trees contain lower error. Consistent with our hypothesis, we found that long UCEs had the most informative sites and lowest rates of error. However, despite having many informative sites, BUSCO gene trees contained high error compared to long UCEs. Unlike UCEs, BUSCO gene sequences showed a positive association between the proportion of parsimony informative sites and gene tree error. Thus, BUSCO and UCE datasets have different underlying properties of molecular evolution, and these differences should be considered when selecting loci for phylogenomic analysis. Still, species trees from different datasets were mostly congruent. Only one clade, with a history of ILS and introgression, exhibited substantial species-tree discordance across the different data sets. Overall, we present the most complete phylogeny for tinamous to date, identify a new species, and provide a case study for species-level phylogenomic analysis using whole-genomes.
 
The important paragraph for this forum:

Importantly, our phylogenetic results imply that multiple taxonomic changes are necessary to appropriately classify taxa within Tinamidae. First, Nothoprocta cinerascens was recovered as sister to the genus Rhynchotus. Rhynchotus (Spix 1825) has nomenclatural priority over Nothoprocta (Sclater and Salvin 1873), and therefore we suggest moving N. cinerascens to the genus Rhynchotus (Bertelli and Porzecanski 2004; Valqui 2008). Second, Taoniscus nanus was recovered as embedded within the genus Nothura, and thus, Taoniscus (Gloger 1842) is a junior synonym of Nothura (Wagler 1827). We therefore suggest transferring T. nanus to Nothura. Finally, we found evidence for what is likely a new species of Nothoprocta (see also Valqui 2008); specimens ascribed to N. pentlandii were polyphyletic, with a specimen of the nominate subspecies from Bolivia recovered as sister to N. perdicaria, and multiple specimens from Peru recovered as a clade sister to all other Nothoprocta. Thus, there appear to be at least two species-level taxa within N. pentlandii.
Click to expand...
 
Sara Bertelli, Francisca Cunha Almeida, Norberto P. Giannini (2025). A new phylogeny and classification of the tinamous, volant palaeognathous birds from the Neotropics. Cladistics, in press


Abstract​


The Neotropical Tinamidae is the most diverse family of palaeognathous birds (Neornithes; Palaeognathae). This is the only family with species capable of powered flight, in striking contrast to all the other flightless, large-bodied, both living and recently extinct, palaeognaths. Here we report our latest phylogenetic analysis of tinamous, built on previous comprehensive studies, presently including all 46 currently recognized species. Our goal was to apply all the valid available supraspecific names to the clades recovered, creating new ones as needed. We recovered the traditional major subclades, forest-dwelling vs. open-areas tinamous, with all three currently recognized genera in the former matching the chief groupings, and with two taxa in the latter that do not fit the current classification as per the phylogenetic results. Our analysis of the taxonomic history of tinamid taxa revealed complications chiefly owing to the convoluted history of certain key names, particularly Tinamus. We disentangled the perceived misapplication of Tinamus to various tinamid taxa, concluding that Tinamus Hermann, 1783 is valid and not Tinamus Latham, 1790, with type species soui Hermann, 1783, currently placed in Crypturellus. As a consequence, while the phylogenetic signal is clear, a major taxonomic rearrangement is needed in the forest-dwelling tinamous reassigning species of small forest tinamous (currently in Crypturellus) according to priority to Tinamus Hermann, and former invalid Tinamus Latham to Pezus Spix, 1825. In the open-areas tinamous (Tinamotidinae), we recognize two tribes and the phylogeny also indicated the need for a new genus to be applied to cinerascens, formerly in Nothoprocta; and the synonymy of Taoniscus, as the single species nanus was recovered nested in Nothura. We discuss at length our taxonomic proposal against alternatives; this is particularly complicated owing to a long, unresolved taxonomic history.


Paranothoprocta is described as new genus for "Nothoprocta" cinerascens
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
[...] a major taxonomic rearrangement is needed in the forest-dwelling tinamous reassigning species of small forest tinamous (currently in Crypturellus) according to priority to Tinamus Hermann, and former invalid Tinamus Latham to Pezus Spix, 1825. [...]
Click to expand...

Interesting...
The use if Pezus Spix 1825 suggests they did not regard Tinamus Latham 1790 as an available junior homonym of Tinamus Hermann 1783, but rather as a mere subsequent use of Hermann's name, lacking separate availability...?
(Otherwise, Crypturus Illiger 1811, which is usually understood as a substitute to Latham's (not Hermann's) Tinamus, would seem to have precedence over Pezus Spix.)
 
l_raty said:
Interesting...
The use if Pezus Spix 1825 suggests they did not regard Tinamus Latham 1790 as an available junior homonym of Tinamus Hermann 1783, but rather as a mere subsequent use of Hermann's name, lacking separate availability...?
(Otherwise, Crypturus Illiger 1811, which is usually understood as a substitute to Latham's (not Hermann's) Tinamus, would seem to have precedence over Pezus Spix.)
Click to expand...
Do they have the right to do this without first going through the ICZN, knowing the risk to stability?
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
Do they have the right to do this without first going through the ICZN, knowing the risk to stability?
Click to expand...

This type of case may not be exactly what the article was intended to deal with, but ICZN 70.2 says :
70.2. Type fixation overlooked
If it is found that an earlier type species fixation has been overlooked, the overlooked fixation is to be accepted and any later fixations are invalid. If this is considered to cause instability or confusion the case is to be referred to the Commission for a ruling.
Click to expand...
Here it was overlooked that the type has been fixed by monotypy since 1783, and a much later type designation was accepted. The authors of the recent paper, obviously, accepted the overlooked type fixation. If anyone "considers" (= subjective judgement call) that this is problematic, he "is to" (= must) refer the case to the Commission for a ruling.

The only action that would definitely be in breach of the Code, would be to continue using the name according to the invalid type fixation without referring the case to the Commission.
 

Similar threads

Peter Kovalik
How to describe a new species in zoology
Replies
11
Views
2K
l_raty
l_raty
Markus Lagerqvist
Island radiations
Replies
9
Views
2K
Jacana
Jacana
A
?Pseudocrypturus danielsi sp. nov. and ?Pseudocrypturus gracilipes sp. nov.
Replies
0
Views
580
albertonykus
A
A
Lumbrerornis rougieri gen. et sp. nov.
Replies
0
Views
908
albertonykus
A
Taphrospilus
Notes on Charles James Meller
Replies
1
Views
721
PScofield
P

Users who are viewing this thread

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