-
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.
Ratites (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Daniel Philippe
- Start date
mb1848
Well-known member
I found an interesting discussion here:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk...ad/8cdc4f5578b5927c/fd5dd17e1bcc3c57?lnk=raot .
The juicy bit:
Here's a whole series of dumb/trivial questions:
Did you look into the possibility of including the Moa and Elephant
Bird in your analysis? (Actually, a more realistic question might be:
for how many seconds did you consider including these taxa?)
The recurring term "the Root of the Avian Tree" makes one think that
you and your co-authors define Aves as the crown group (as opposed to
using "Neornithes" to label that clade). Was this to avoid semantic
confusion? Was there some debate as to what term to use?
Was the final sentence in the conclusion yours?
Are the Brauns related somehow?
And *finally*, there are no "affiliations" referenced by c or e.
In answer : “There is actually DNA sequence for moas, three complete mt genomes. But
mt data aren't up to the job of sorting out ratite phylogeny. Getting
nuclear sequence out of moas is a difficult job that we didn't
contemplate at all, though I understand that Alan Cooper has succeeded.
Elephant birds are much more difficult to work with than moas, and
there's not even any mt sequence for them.
For what it's worth, if you add the mt sequences to the analysis, moas
come out as sister to tinamous, with no change to the rest of the tree.
That's four origins of flightlessness, if you're counting.
> The recurring term "the Root of the Avian Tree" makes one think that
> you and your co-authors define Aves as the crown group (as opposed to
> using "Neornithes" to label that clade). Was this to avoid semantic
> confusion? Was there some debate as to what term to use?
I personally favor the crown group definition, but "avian" is just a
word for "bird", and our paper took no position on Neornithes vs. Aves.
> Was the final sentence in the conclusion yours?
No. That was Ed's, if I recall.
> Are the Brauns related somehow?
Conceivably, though neither of them knows it. It's a pretty common name
in Germany.
> And *finally*, there are no "affiliations" referenced by c or e.
No affiliations, but there are footnotes. Look in the bottom right
corner of the page.”
http://groups.google.com/group/talk...ad/8cdc4f5578b5927c/fd5dd17e1bcc3c57?lnk=raot .
The juicy bit:
Here's a whole series of dumb/trivial questions:
Did you look into the possibility of including the Moa and Elephant
Bird in your analysis? (Actually, a more realistic question might be:
for how many seconds did you consider including these taxa?)
The recurring term "the Root of the Avian Tree" makes one think that
you and your co-authors define Aves as the crown group (as opposed to
using "Neornithes" to label that clade). Was this to avoid semantic
confusion? Was there some debate as to what term to use?
Was the final sentence in the conclusion yours?
Are the Brauns related somehow?
And *finally*, there are no "affiliations" referenced by c or e.
In answer : “There is actually DNA sequence for moas, three complete mt genomes. But
mt data aren't up to the job of sorting out ratite phylogeny. Getting
nuclear sequence out of moas is a difficult job that we didn't
contemplate at all, though I understand that Alan Cooper has succeeded.
Elephant birds are much more difficult to work with than moas, and
there's not even any mt sequence for them.
For what it's worth, if you add the mt sequences to the analysis, moas
come out as sister to tinamous, with no change to the rest of the tree.
That's four origins of flightlessness, if you're counting.
> The recurring term "the Root of the Avian Tree" makes one think that
> you and your co-authors define Aves as the crown group (as opposed to
> using "Neornithes" to label that clade). Was this to avoid semantic
> confusion? Was there some debate as to what term to use?
I personally favor the crown group definition, but "avian" is just a
word for "bird", and our paper took no position on Neornithes vs. Aves.
> Was the final sentence in the conclusion yours?
No. That was Ed's, if I recall.
> Are the Brauns related somehow?
Conceivably, though neither of them knows it. It's a pretty common name
in Germany.
> And *finally*, there are no "affiliations" referenced by c or e.
No affiliations, but there are footnotes. Look in the bottom right
corner of the page.”
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Smith et al
Smith, Braun & Kimball (in press). Ratite non-monophyly: independent evidence from 40 novel loci. Syst Biol. [abstract]
[See also: Tinamous and Moa Flock Together.]
Smith, Braun & Kimball (in press). Ratite non-monophyly: independent evidence from 40 novel loci. Syst Biol. [abstract]
[See also: Tinamous and Moa Flock Together.]
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Last edited:
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Melanie
Well-known member
Free available from here
http://www.academia.edu/4790815/Woo..._sympatric_moa_species_Aves_Dinornithiformes_
Richard Klim
-------------------------
l_raty
laurent raty
Baker AJ, Haddrath O, McPherson JD, Cloutier A. (in press) Genomic support for a moa-tinamou clade and adaptive morphological convergence in flightless ratites. Mol. Biol. Evol. doi:10.1093/molbev/msu153
Abstract
One of the most startling discoveries in avian molecular phylogenetics is that the volant tinamous are embedded in the flightless ratites, but this topology remains controversial because recent morphological phylogenies place tinamous as the closest relative of a monophyletic ratite clade. Here, we integrate new phylogenomic sequences from 1,448 nuclear DNA loci totalling almost one million base pairs from the extinct little bush moa, Chilean tinamou and emu with available sequences from ostrich, elegant crested tinamou, four neognaths and the green anole. Phylogenetic analysis using standard homogeneous models and heterogeneous models robust to common topological artefacts recovered compelling support for ratite paraphyly with the little bush moa closest to tinamous within ratites. Ratite paraphyly was further corroborated by eight independent CR1 retroposon insertions. Analysis of morphological characters reinterpreted on a 27-gene paleognath topology indicates that many characters are convergent in the ratites, probably as the result of adaptation to a cursorial life style.
Key words
phylogenomics, ratite paraphyly, CR1 retroposon insertions, little bush moa, ancient DNA, morphological convergence
See also http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tless-birds-ostriches-moas-evolution-science/
(With thanks to Ian Paulsen for reporting it on NEOORN-L.)
Abstract
One of the most startling discoveries in avian molecular phylogenetics is that the volant tinamous are embedded in the flightless ratites, but this topology remains controversial because recent morphological phylogenies place tinamous as the closest relative of a monophyletic ratite clade. Here, we integrate new phylogenomic sequences from 1,448 nuclear DNA loci totalling almost one million base pairs from the extinct little bush moa, Chilean tinamou and emu with available sequences from ostrich, elegant crested tinamou, four neognaths and the green anole. Phylogenetic analysis using standard homogeneous models and heterogeneous models robust to common topological artefacts recovered compelling support for ratite paraphyly with the little bush moa closest to tinamous within ratites. Ratite paraphyly was further corroborated by eight independent CR1 retroposon insertions. Analysis of morphological characters reinterpreted on a 27-gene paleognath topology indicates that many characters are convergent in the ratites, probably as the result of adaptation to a cursorial life style.
Key words
phylogenomics, ratite paraphyly, CR1 retroposon insertions, little bush moa, ancient DNA, morphological convergence
See also http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...tless-birds-ostriches-moas-evolution-science/
(With thanks to Ian Paulsen for reporting it on NEOORN-L.)
Richard Klim
-------------------------
l_raty
laurent raty
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Easily miss-understood... :eek!:"miss-expression" ??
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Mitchell et al 2014
Mitchell, Llamas, Soubrier, Rawlence, Worthy, Wood, Lee & Cooper 2014. Ancient DNA reveals elephant birds and kiwi are sister taxa and clarifies ratite bird evolution. Science 344(6186): 898–900. [abstract] [suppl]
University of Adelaide, 23 May 2014: Ancient DNA ends Aussie claim to kiwi origins.
Mitchell, Llamas, Soubrier, Rawlence, Worthy, Wood, Lee & Cooper 2014. Ancient DNA reveals elephant birds and kiwi are sister taxa and clarifies ratite bird evolution. Science 344(6186): 898–900. [abstract] [suppl]
University of Adelaide, 23 May 2014: Ancient DNA ends Aussie claim to kiwi origins.
Last edited:
Peter Kovalik
Well-known member
