The main problem here remains the data of Warren et al. 2012 [
pdf]. Under the assumption that "there's an Asian clade (true Ploceus) and an African clade (Textor)", you must correct the rooting of the tree shown on Fig.2 of this paper to make the "African clade", a clade--that will be sister to the
Euplectes/
Quelea/true
Ploceus/
Foudia group. This makes the topology of this "African clade":
[Ploceus sakasava, (Ploceus "cucullata", [Ploceus bicolor, Malimbus nitens])]
Re. support: in the re-oriented part of the tree, the values that appeared next to a node in the original, apply to the node at the opposite end of the branch that lead to it. In other words,
P. bicolor is sister to
M. nitens with support 96/100; these are sister to
P. "cuculata" with support 95/100; and this group is sister to
P. sakasava with support 100/100. (All of which are very high.)
There are no published genetic data for
M. malimbicus (the type species of
Malimbus), but the BOLD database has a private sequence that places it sister to
M. nitens in ID trees--hence I see no reason to doubt that the position of
M. nitens represents the correct position of the name.
Of course,
Malimbus Vieillot 1805 has precendence over
Textor Temminck 1825.
If the Warren et al topology is correct, neither
bicolor nor
sakasava can be in
Textor.
