• 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.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Laniidae (1 Viewer)

Jérôme Fuchs Per Alström Reuven Yosef Urban Olsson. Miocene diversification of an open‐habitat predatorial passerine radiation, the shrikes (Aves: Passeriformes: Laniidae). Zoologica Scripta. First Published: 13 August 2019. https://doi.org/10.1111/zsc.12363

Abstract:

Diversification of avifaunas associated with savannah and steppes appears to correlate with open habitats becoming available, starting in the Miocene. Few comparative analyses exist for families for which all species are predominantly adapted to these habitats. One such group is Laniidae (Passeriformes), which are small‐ to medium‐sized predatory passerines known for their distinctive behaviour of impaling prey. We used multispecies coalescent‐based and concatenation methods to provide the first complete species‐level phylogeny for this group, as well as an estimate of the timing of diversification. Our analyses indicate that Laniidae as currently delimited is not monophyletic, as the genus Eurocephalus is not closely related to the remaining species. The two species currently assigned to the monotypic genera Urolestes and Corvinella are part of the same clade as the Lanius species, and we propose that they are included in the genus Lanius, making Laniidae monogeneric. The initial diversification of the clade is inferred to have occurred very rapidly, starting about 7.2–9.1 million years ago, timing depending on calibration method, but in either case coinciding with the expansion of C4 grasses. An African origin is inferred in the biogeographic analysis. In the redefined Laniidae, cooperative breeding is inferred to be restricted to a single clade, characterized by gregarious behaviour and rallying. Migratory behaviour evolved multiple times within the family.

My eyes are ready to read it ^^
 
Our analyses indicate that Laniidae as currently delimited is not monophyletic, as the genus Eurocephalus is not closely related to the remaining species. The two species currently assigned to the monotypic genera Urolestes and Corvinella are part of the same clade as the Lanius species, and we propose that they are included in the genus Lanius, making Laniidae monogeneric.

Can I assume they included Platylophus in the study?
Maybe I should just ask for a copy! ;)
 
If you click on supporting information -> figure 4 seems to be their speciestree.
The way I understand it is that Eurocephalus is part of Platylophidae

Can't find the age of the split between Laniidae & Platylophidae, maybe that's in the full pdf?
 
If you click on supporting information -> figure 4 seems to be their speciestree.
The way I understand it is that Eurocephalus is part of Platylophidae

Can't find the age of the split between Laniidae & Platylophidae, maybe that's in the full pdf?

Thanks Tom

You know both of these families are pretty close to the Corvidae if my recollection from an earlier paper is correct. If it wasn't for the fact that Corvidae and Laniidae are both so very firmly established in bird people's minds an argument could be made for subsuming both Laniidae and Platylophidae into an expanded Corvidae.

Too heretical?
 
If you click on supporting information -> figure 4 seems to be their speciestree.
The way I understand it is that Eurocephalus is part of Platylophidae

Can't find the age of the split between Laniidae & Platylophidae, maybe that's in the full pdf?
Eurocephalus and Platylophus are sister in the tree, but support is not good. This pair is then sister to Lanius in the supplement file, but to Corvidae in the tree published in the paper. ("Eurocephalus (Laniidae) was either sister to Platylophus [...] or to the Corvidae [...], or in an unresolved position in the Corvoidea that also included the Paradisaeidae, Rhipiduridae/Chaetorhynchus/Lamprolia, Monarchidae, Melampitta, Dicruridae, Corcorax, and the “core Laniidae” [...]; most of the relationships among these primary lineages were unresolved or poorly supported.") In the text, they say Eurocephalus diverged from its closer relative some 18-22 MYA.

I don't think "Platylophidae" (even though it is used in a lot of places) is an available name.
 
Last edited:
Looks like we shouldn't look at the tree in supporting information.

As for subsuming both Laniidae and Platylophidae into an expanded Corvidae:
Our analyses confirm the affinities of the Laniidae with the above‐mentioned families but could not identify a specific sister lineage to the Laniidae.

They actually say their findings support family-status for Eurocephalus - so apart from Platylophus (but treat it as incertae sedis for now)
The genus Eurocephalus is not closely related to the “core Laniidae” and should be removed from the family Laniidae. More focused studies are needed to determine whether Eurocephalus should be included in any currently recognized family or, as suggested by current evidence, be placed in a family of their own.
 
As for subsuming both Laniidae and Platylophidae into an expanded Corvidae:

"Our analyses confirm the affinities of the Laniidae with the above‐mentioned families but could not identify a specific sister lineage to the Laniidae."

Good! I was only teasing. ;)

They actually say their findings support family-status for Eurocephalus - so apart from Platylophus (but treat it as incertae sedis for now)

"The genus Eurocephalus is not closely related to the “core Laniidae” and should be removed from the family Laniidae. More focused studies are needed to determine whether Eurocephalus should be included in any currently recognized family or, as suggested by current evidence, be placed in a family of their own." )
So yet another fascinating, remnant taxon.
 
Laurent, how does one make available a Family name under the Code?
For names introduced after 1999:
  1. The name must be introduced in a work published in the sense of the Code.
  2. It must be used as valid (unconditionally) in this publication for a supra-generic taxon.
  3. It must be a noun in the plural form, formed from the stem of an available genus-group name, then used as a valid generic (= not subgeneric) name in this taxon, cited in the publication, with the addition of a laninized plural family-group suffix. The genus-group name cannot be a name previously suppressed by the Commission.
  4. It must come with a description or a definition that states in words characters purported to differentiate the taxon, or a reference to such a description or definition published in an earlier work, or be a new replacement name proposed to be used instead of an already established name.
  5. The intent of the author(s) to establish the name as a new name must be explicit. Most usually this is indicated by flagging the name as "fam. nov.", "new fam.", or some equivalent; but using this method is not strictly required. (I.e., it might as well be made an explicit sentence, which might then conceivably appear in the text, in a place that may not be directly next to the name itself.)
Some of these are not required for names introduced earlier. E.g., condition (4) applies without reservation to names published after 1960 only. (A family-group name published after 1930 and before 1961 without a description can be available from this publication if it was "used as valid before 2000, and also was not rejected by an author who, after 1960 and before 2000, expressly applied Article 13 of the then current editions of the Code". For names published before 1931, no description is needed at all.) Condition (5) applies only to names published after 1999.

With recent names, the problems are most often with:

(1) -- work not published in the sense of the Code. Typically: work published online only, in a way that is not Code-compliant.
(4) -- no statement of characters distinguishing the taxon. E.g., name appearing in a check-list, in a classification, or in reference to a node in a phylogenetic tree only; name equipped with a 'diagnosis' that is actually a phylogenetic definition and states no actual characters (things like: 'the most inclusive clade that includes taxon A but not taxon B').
(5) -- no explicit indication of the intention to establish a new name.

Even if explicitly introduced as new, a name will not be available from its first publication if the taxon is not described there. Similarly, even if equipped with a description, a name will not be available from its first publication if no intention to establish it as a new name is made explicit there. Such a name can then be used 1000 times, including in works where the taxon is described, it will not become available unless it is presented as new again.

(Then will come a day someone will introduce, this time correctly, a new subfamily name for an obscure member of the family -- and if the problem had not been solved before this happens, this subfamily name will have priority for the family-rank taxon, however universally established the previously used, unavailable name may have been.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks Laurent. It does not really seem that hard. But in this case with only one genus and one species, although four subspecies the characters that makes the family different from others is the same as the specie's characteristics and genus characteristics?
 
I am wanting to compare juvenile shrike plumages across Philippine taxa. This is clearly a significant and much quoted article
OLIVIER, G.1947. Note sur Lanius validirostris Grant 1894 des iles Philippines. L 'Oiseau 17: 182 185.
It is on google but not available. Does anyone know how I might get a digital copy?
TIA
 
Lanius badius was described as a full species and was treated as such until at least the early 20th C -- e.g., Ogilvie-Grant 1910 A list of British birds ... - Biodiversity Heritage Library. L. senator badius is also listed (as a subspecies) in the Dutch CSNA WP list maintained by Arnoud van den Berg, which makes it part of "a selection of taxa which, at times, have been considered specifically distinct by various authorities" -- this means that the taxon retains a level of visibility as a "potential split". With the recent findings that some Mediterranean insular forms, which have been treated as subspecies in the past, can be treated as full species, coupled to the numerous recent changes in species limits in the genus Lanius, I guess it may be tempting to speculate. Is there more than this ?

The only published genetic study which included a bird presented as a badius that I'm aware of, was:
A badius control region sequence in this study was identical to two sequences of nominate senator, and very close to a sequence of niloticus from Israel. This paper was admittedly based on a (very) short fragment of mtDNA only, but this result is consistent with what the recent study found -- in this study, badius, senator, and 'western' niloticus (from Israel) did not differ in mtDNA (nd2, cox1, cytb, cr). 'Eastern' niloticus, on the other hand (Armenia and Iran in this study; Iraq and Kuwait in BOLD, are genetically distinct.

(That being said, what was known of the genetics of isabellinus and phoenicuroides isabelline shrikes at the time they were split did not, in my opinion, make these a very plausible split either.)
 
Last edited:
Aoki, D., S. Matsui, M. Esashi, I. Nishiumi, J. Nagata, and M. Takagi (2023)
Population genetics of recent natural colonization by the bull-headed shrike (Lanius bucephalus; Aves) suggests the importance of recurrent immigration on remote islands
Biological Journal of the Linnean Society (advance online publication)
doi: 10.1093/biolinnean/blad105

Founder effects and recurrent immigration are two major factors that might potentially contribute to genetic differentiation and population persistence in the early stage of remote island colonization. However, their relative importance remains controversial. By conducting population genetic analyses of four remote island populations of the bull-headed shrike (Lanius bucephalus) established naturally within several decades in Japan, we examined the contributions of founder effects and recurrent immigration to these island populations. Based on the standard genetic indices and population structure analyses using 15 microsatellite loci, we suggested island-specific scenarios of colonization. Notably, the founder effect strongly influenced genetic differentiation in the population on the most remote oceanic island, Chichi-jima Island, which, however, became extinct 20 years after colonization, possibly owing to a lack of recurrent immigration. In contrast, another oceanic island, Minami-Daito Island, was probably subjected to multiple recurrent immigration events from the mainland, which obscured any genetic differentiation previously established by the founder effect. Temporal samples collected over 8 years on this island confidently supported this scenario. Underlying the island-specific scenarios of colonization, we provide evidence that recurrent immigration strongly affected the population persistence, overwhelming the initial founder effects. We argue for the importance of recurrent immigration even in colonization of highly remote islands.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top