Sequence of non-passerine families (1 Viewer)

Based on Hackett et al (see for their tree: http://scienceblogs.com/evolgen/2008/06/the_evolutionary_history_of_bi.php) and on old tastes, I have tried to put together a sequence that makes sense...

The ♦ denotes the start of an obvious clade, ▬ a branch (usually within the clade) that may have less or more support and that I may have moved about a bit.
It may be clear that I see no need to translate a tree literally into a linear sequence... there may be better alternatives (trying to get the "seabirds" behind the ducks would probably please many fieldguide users).

♦Ratites
♦♦Megapodes, Cracids, Pheasants, Ducks
♦♦♦Flamingos, Grebes
▬ Tropicbirds [skeleton apparently quite similar to grebes]
▬ Sandgrouse
▬ Mesites, Pigeons [groups with unclear relationships moved about to get a more familiar linear sequence]
▬ Potoos, oilbird, Nightjars, Owlet-Nightjars, Swifts, Hummingbirds
▬ Sunbittern, Kagu [basal to "nightbird/swift clade", but moved to back to allow continuity of "gruiform" birds]
♦♦♦♦Bustards, Cranes, Trumpeters, Rails, Cuckoos [changed sequence somewhat to allow continuity of "gruiform" birds, and get a nice "odd tree dweller" group]
▬ Hoatzin [moved away from other badly supported groups I've left in the Metaves arrangement]
▬ Turacos [basal to next clade according to Hackett, so would follow Hoatzin anyway: placed here for clarity]
♦♦♦♦♦Divers, Penguins, Tubenoses, Frigatebirds, Gannets, Cormorants, Pelicans, Shoebill, Hammerkop, Herons, Ibises, Storks [a sequence most of us will recognise again; "flipped" Hackett's trees to get a more familiar sequence]
♦♦♦♦♦♦Thick-knees, Egyptian-plover, Plovers, Oystercatchers, Avocets, Sandpipers, Jacanas, Painted-snipe, Seed-snipe, Plains-wanderer, Buttonquails, Coursers & Pratincoles, Skuas, Gulls & Terns, Auks [Buttonquails most surprising?]
♦♦♦♦♦♦♦Cuckoo-roller
▬ Trogons, Hoopoes, Hornbills, Bee-eaters, Rollers, Kingfishers etc, Puffbirds, Jacamars, Barbets & Toucans, Honeyguides, Woodpeckers [pretty much in the sequence expected]
▬ Mousebirds [basal in this clade but placed near owls & hawks: moved not disturb "raptor grouping" or "coraciid/picid grouping"]
▬ Owls [basal in this clade, moved to get a "raptor grouping"]
▬ Hawks, New World Vultures
▬ Seriemas, Falcons, Parrots, Passerines

And why not?

I know that the point of reshuffling the families, including the passerines, is to attempt to reflect reality rather than to be useful, but what it's done for me is that it now takes me a very long time to find a particular bird or family in these constantly changing lists. I've given up even trying to explode my brain remembering, eg where wrens might be right now, because in a couple of months they'll probably be somewhere else, and that's if we're lucky. 3 other places separated by other families if we're not. It used to be so easy finding a bird family roughly a certain way into the world list. It's doing my head in.:eat::eat::eat: whatever that means. It's even changing too fast to be interesting for me now. I wonder how other non-scientists feel? Not that it matters.

Somewhat tongue-in cheek, us non-scientists use the index when using hard copy and the 'Find' function on the keyboard. But then, my engineering background quickly taught me not to adopt the "If all else fails, read the instructions" approach!
MJB

MJB said:

Somewhat tongue-in cheek, us non-scientists use the index when using hard copy and the 'Find' function on the keyboard. But then, my engineering background quickly taught me not to adopt the "If all else fails, read the instructions" approach!
MJB

Click to expand...

Ah yes, but the index in say the IOC list, is divided into sections that often say family X to family Z. Reshuffling means it can take a while now finding a family if it is no longer between the families you expect it to be between, and plenty of scrolling all the way down sections to find that your family has drifted off somewhere else in the index.

Anyway I'm just having a laugh really, but it is annoying. I reckon Xenospiza's idea of just coming up with his own order is as good as any. Especially if it's going to change all the time from now on anyway.

Larry Wheatland said:

Anyway I'm just having a laugh really, but it is annoying.

Click to expand...

I agree (especially for the passerines, which I won't touch for now!)

I have the feeling that the non-passerines may be reaching quieter waters now the "rails" have been assigned. I just had a go at trying to put groups together that "non-scientists" (which I am when it comes to ornithology) would instinctively search in the same area of a field guide, without messing up the one particular tree I based it on too much (we'll just wait for the next one...).

That is pretty much identical with a few exceptions to how I arrange my own life list (again, based on the Hackett et al. study)

Larry Wheatland said:

Ah yes, but the index in say the IOC list, is divided into sections that often say family X to family Z. Reshuffling means it can take a while now finding a family if it is no longer between the families you expect it to be between, and plenty of scrolling all the way down sections to find that your family has drifted off somewhere else in the index.

Anyway I'm just having a laugh really, but it is annoying. I reckon Xenospiza's idea of just coming up with his own order is as good as any. Especially if it's going to change all the time from now on anyway.

Click to expand...

Larry,
If you download the IOC List (at present v2.7), you don't need to use the Index on the website, just the 'Find' function. Since this List is in Excel format, you can add your own notes and comment to suit, or you can rearrange into Xenospiza's version! Certainly, making a user-friendly version has its merits.

Philosophically, if everyone comes up with their own order, no-one can share the discussion until after the differences between any two orders have been agreed. Rather like the 'Mine is bigger than yours', debate!

Perhaps some of the slight difficulties we encounter with grappling with the changes to over 10 000 species in the IOC List might be eased if changes of English or scientific names were in a different-coloured font for the life of a version, and the shifts between genera and sequence were advised as brief notes immediately after the Family names: eg following Cisticolidae, 'Scrub Warbler Scotocerca inquieta moved to Cettidae', not that I'm advocating an entry for every individual species.
MJB

Thanks for the tip MJB, I'll ask my technical adviser (girlfriend) to help me find the find function on the keyboard. This could be a big help :t:

On a windows machine hold down the Ctrl key and hit F (for find)

Niels