Implications of paper by Derryberry et al. 2011
Hi friends,
I just got the pdf of the paper by Elizabeth P. Derryberry, Santiago Claramunt, Graham Derryberry, R. Terry Chesser, Joel Cracraft, Alexandre Aleixo, Jorge Perez-Eman, J. V. Remsen, Jr., and Robb T. Brumfield on the Furnariidae published in Evolution 65-10: 2973-2986. I feel that the implcations of this paper for the generic level of the Furnariidae seem to have been overlooked.
There seem to be implications for a number of generic changes, and I thought I would point these out. I have paid attention to the posterior probabilities of the various nodes.
- both Gyalophylax Peters,1950 and Siptornopsis Cory,1919 should be merged with Synallaxis Vieillot,1818. Both are nestled within Synallaxis and the nodes above them have posterior probability of >95%
- ???Synallaxis propinqua Pelzeln,1859 should be placed in Schoeniophylax Ridgway,1909. Less sure about this as the posterior probability of the node joining propinqua and S.phryganophilus has <75% p.p. But propinqua definitely does not form a part of the Synallaxis clade, and these two taxa separated form the clade containing both Synallaxis and Certhiaxis more than 10 million years ago.
- Thripophaga berlepeschi should be merged into Cranioleuca. The nesting of this species within the Cranioleuca clade is supported by nodes with a pp of >95%. I note that Thripophaga cherrei & T. fusciceps form part of a separate clade, and that shows that van Remsen’s statement in HBW,8,p. 301 justifying the transfer of berlepschi from Phacellodomus to Thripophaga on the basis that head pattern and bill coloration very similar to those of T.fusciceps led to an erroneous conclusion. That makes it a pity that the type of Thripophaga, Thripophaga macroura (Wied,1821) was not included.
- Cranioleuca gutturata is distinct from the other Cranioleuca and groups with both Thripophaga cherrei & T. fusciceps. Maybe, since the node joining C. gutturata with Roraimia adusta (Salvin & Godman,1884) has a pp of >95% it should go in Roraimia.
- Cranioleuca sulphurifera (Burmeister,1869) should be included in Limnoctites Hellmayr,1925. The node joining them has >95% p.p, and this pair separated from the rest of the Cranioleuca clade some 5 million years ago.
- The clade containing most species of Schizoeaca Cabanis,1873 is interesting in that includes several species of Asthenes: A.pudibunda (P.L.Sclater,1874); A.ottonis (Berlepsch,1901). The junctions of both of these with specimens of Schizoeaca have pps of >95%. Two other apparently misplaced species occur in the Schizoeaca clade: Asthenes pyrrholeuca and Oreophylax moreirae. The IOC Worldlist still places moreirae in Asthenes. But there is a further catch: pyrrholeuca is the type of Asthenes. And since there is a well-supported clade containing the rest of the members of Asthenes, it appears that pyrrholeuca belongs with the members of Schizoeaca. The node joinging the "Schizoeaca" clade with the clade containing the rest of Asthenes goes back nearly 9 million years But Asthenes Reichenbach,1853 has priority over Schizoeaca Cabanis,1873. So it appears that the "Schizoeaca" clade should become Asthenes. That means that the rest of the Asthenes clade must transfer to some other generic name. It appears the earliest available name is Siptornoides Cory,1919,Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington,32,p.150.Type,by original designation,Synallaxis flammulatus W.Jardine,1850.
- There appear to be some species within the Automolus clade that should be transferred to that genus: namely, Hyloctistes subulatus (Spix,1824).
- It also appears that Automolus Reichenbach,1853 is polyphyletic, in that several members (rubiginosus and rufipectus) group with a clade containing Hylocryptus erythrocephalus. The sister-clade to the clade containing 7 species of Automolus, including the type, Anabates leucophthalmus Wied,1821, is the Thripadectes P.L.Sclater,1862 clade. Just to complicate things the genus Hylocryptus Chapman,1919, which has as its type Hylocryptus erythrocephalus Chapman,1919, is also polyphyletic. Clearly both Automolus rubiginosus and A. rufopectus should be transferred to Hylocryptus. Hylocryptus rectirostris clusters with Clibanornis dendrocolaptoides (Pelzeln,1859). Clibanornis is P.L.Sclater & Salvin,1873, and it appears that rectirostris should be placed in Clibanornis. A further problem is that Hyloctistes Ridgway,1909 has as type Phylidor virgatus Lawrence,1867. That species is not included in the dataset.
- Simoxenops ucayalae and Simoxenops striatus are buried within the Syndactyla clade, though the node linking them to Syndactyla guttulata has only >75pp support. Simoxenops Chapman,1937 is a new name for Anachilus Chapman,1928,American Museum Novitates,no.332,p.11,12,fig.1(generic details).Type,by original designation,Anachilus ucayalae Chapman,1928. Not Anachilus Leconte,1861,Coleoptera. So the type of Simoxenops remains Anachilus ucayalae Chapman,1928. Also Robbins & K.J.Zimmer,2005,Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club,125,no.3,pp.212-228 recommended that Simoxenops be subsumed in Syndactyla based on plumage,structural and vocal characters.
- The genus Philydor Spix,1824 is polyphyletic.The type of Philydor is Anabates atricapillus Wied,1821, which occurs in a clade containing also Philydor pyrrhodes (Cabanis,1848). The two Philydor form a clade with Heliobletus contaminatus (Pelzeln,1859), a junction about 8 million years old. And all three form a clade with Cichocolaptes leucophrys (Jardine & Selby,1830) dating back almost 10 million years.
- Philydor erythropterum (P.L.Sclater,1856) and Philydor rufum (Vieillot,1818) occur in a clade with Ancistrops strigilatus (Spix,1825). Ancistrops is of P.L.Sclater,1862.
- The well-supported (pp >95%) and deep junction between these two Philydor and Ancistrops strigilatus suggests that a new generic name is needed for these two. The earliest available name is Dendroma Swainson,1837,On the natural history and classification of birds,in D.Lardner,The Cabinet Cyclopaedia,no.92,2,p.316[generic characters only].Type,by designation(G.R.Gray,1855,Catalogue of the genera and subgenera of birds contained in the British Museum,p.28),Sphenura poliocephala M.C.H.Lichtenstein,1823 = Dendrocopus rufus Vieillot,1818.
- We also have another clade where Philydor ruficaudatum (d'Orbigny & Lafresnaye,1838) groups with Anabacerthia variegaticeps (P.L.Sclater,1857) and Philydor lichtensteini Cabanis & Heine,1859 with Anabacerthia amaurotis (Temminck,1823). All four of the species just mentioned form a clade that groups with Anabacerthia striaticollis Lafresnaye,1841. This last is the type of Anabacerthia Lafresnaye,1841. So it looks as if the two Philydor in this clade should become Anabacerthia.
- Philydor fuscipenne P.L.Sclater,1866 and Philydor erythrocercum (Pelzeln,1859) form a distinct clade whose nearest neighbour is Megaxenops parnaguae Reiser,1905. The junction of this group lies back more than 10 million years ago, so probably a distnct generic name will be need for these two Philydor. But there is no generic name available to be attached to either of them.
- Xenops milleri (Chapman,1914) is in a clade distinct from that of the other members of Xenops. So it will need to be transferred to Microxenops Chapman,1914, as the authors of this paper have done.
Dr John Penhallurick
86 Bingley Cres
Fraser A.C.T. 2615
Australia
email:jpenhall AT bigpond.net.au
Phone: Home (612) 62585428
Mobile:0408585426
sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia tangunt Aeneid Book 1,line 462 "The world is a world of tears, and the burdens of mortality touch the heart."
Magna est veritas et praevalebit Vulgate, Book of Edras
Please visit my website:
http://www.worldbirdinfo.net
Please also visit my blog at
http://jpenhall.wordpress.com/2011/...favour-of-the-ipccs-attack-on-carbon-dioxide/