-
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.
Cisticolidae (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Richard Klim
- Start date
MJB
Well-known member
Richar,
In passing, two points: this study seems to support the Socotra endemic Incana incana as distant from other genera in which it has been included in the past; Figs 3 and 4 omit Cisticola juncidis juncidis.
I'd welcome any other info on taxon incana that I might have missed.
The omissions I mention may have been for solid DNA-research reasoning, but I can't see any obvious explanation on first reading, although it could be there!
MJB
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Olsson et al
Olsson, Irestedt, Sangster, Ericson & Alström (in press). Systematic revision of the avian family Cisticolidae based on a multi-locus phylogeny of all genera. Mol Phylogenet Evol.
Presumably Rhopophilus and Scotocerca removed to Sylviidae and 'Scotocercidae' respectively...
Last edited:
Billy Nguembock
Member
Response to Olsson et al and Kim
For Olsson et al., I checked and I did not find your paper, according to you, in press in Mol Phylogenet Evol...
For Kim concerning the position of Incana of Socotra, you can just read my first paper concerning this cisticolid group (Nguembock et al. 2007) and this position is confirmed in our last paper (Nguembock et al. 2012).
Best regards,
Billy
For Olsson et al., I checked and I did not find your paper, according to you, in press in Mol Phylogenet Evol...
For Kim concerning the position of Incana of Socotra, you can just read my first paper concerning this cisticolid group (Nguembock et al. 2007) and this position is confirmed in our last paper (Nguembock et al. 2012).
Best regards,
Billy
l_raty
laurent raty
Olsson et al
Billy,
The Swedish Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet very often announce their publications on their own website, before they are available from the publisher.
Presumably Richard got the info and abstract from there...?
(But admittedly, if it isn't on ScienceDirect yet, "submitted" of "forthcoming" might be more accurate than "in press".)
Cheers, Laurent -
Billy,
The Swedish Naturhistoriska Riksmuseet very often announce their publications on their own website, before they are available from the publisher.
Presumably Richard got the info and abstract from there...?
(But admittedly, if it isn't on ScienceDirect yet, "submitted" of "forthcoming" might be more accurate than "in press".)
Cheers, Laurent -
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Billy Nguembock
Member
Laurent,
Thank for your reply. I wait this paper because I do research on this group since my postgraduate diploma and I know very well this group. As you know, I already published 3 papers concerning this cisticolid group in several Journals (Mol. Phylogenet Evol, Ibis and Open Ornithology Journal).
In my last paper (Nguembock et al. 2012), we found very strong two clades (forest warblers and open warblers) with four markers (ATPase6, ND2, ND3and myoglobin intron-2) and one is a very strong natural lineage (forest warblers cisticolid clade); and this result confirmed our first results (Nguembock et al., 2007 and Nguembock et al., 2008). But in your abstract, you wrote that you found until four major clades among which their basal branch... and you suggested a name just for one (and others?)! I do not understand but firstly I need to read your paper and check your bootstrap as well as markers you used for your study. I go on to wait your paper "in press" in Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
Best regards,
Billy
Thank for your reply. I wait this paper because I do research on this group since my postgraduate diploma and I know very well this group. As you know, I already published 3 papers concerning this cisticolid group in several Journals (Mol. Phylogenet Evol, Ibis and Open Ornithology Journal).
In my last paper (Nguembock et al. 2012), we found very strong two clades (forest warblers and open warblers) with four markers (ATPase6, ND2, ND3and myoglobin intron-2) and one is a very strong natural lineage (forest warblers cisticolid clade); and this result confirmed our first results (Nguembock et al., 2007 and Nguembock et al., 2008). But in your abstract, you wrote that you found until four major clades among which their basal branch... and you suggested a name just for one (and others?)! I do not understand but firstly I need to read your paper and check your bootstrap as well as markers you used for your study. I go on to wait your paper "in press" in Mol. Phylogenet. Evol.
Best regards,
Billy
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Olsson et al
Billy, the authors of the forthcoming paper are Urban Olsson, Martin Irestedt, George Sangster, Per Ericson and Per Alström.
Billy Nguembock
Member
Richard,
Thank for this point and I think that if Urban wrote my message, he would understand that it was for them.
Best regards,
Billy
Thank for this point and I think that if Urban wrote my message, he would understand that it was for them.
Best regards,
Billy
l_raty
laurent raty
Billy,
That said, I can try some (hopefully educated) guesses...
The taxon Olsson et al. (forthcoming) will describe is to be named "Neomixinae", which indicates a subfamily with Neomixis as type-genus. This will presumably correspond to the "Clade A" of your 2007 paper/"Basal cisticolid clade" of your 2012 paper. The reason why they name only this one, is probably that the other three "major" clades already have an available family-group name applying to them. Bock (1994) cited the following names in the synonymy of Sylviinae, that would apply to birds now regared as cisticolid warblers:
- Cisticolinae Sundevall, 1872 [Cisticola Kaup, 1829]
- Priniinae Roberts, 1922 (1854) [Prinia Horsfield, 1821] (syn. Drymoicinae Bonaparte, 1854 [Drymoica Swainson, 1827 = Prinia])
- Orthotominae Wolters, 1983 [Orthotomus Horsfield, 1821]
- Bathmocercinae Wolters, 1983 [Bathmocercus Reichenow, 1895]
- Eminiinae Wolters, 1983 [Eminia Hartlaub, 1881]
- Eremomelinae Sharpe, 1883 [Eremomela Sundevall, 1850]
- Apalinae Wolters, 1983 [Apalis Swainson, 1833]
I suspect, however, that the authors of Olsson et al. would not recognise the names of Wolters, 1983, as validly introduced. (Particularly given the recent description of "Macrosphenidae, Fregin, Haase, Olsson and Alström, 2012" in Fregin et al. (2012), with an explicit statement that this name "has not been formally described yet", while Bock [1994] treated it, too, as available from Wolters, 1983... I've not actually seen Wolters [1983], but this is a shortish (70 pp.) opus, entitled Die Vögel Europas im System der Vögel: eine Übersicht, which seems quite an odd place to have names like Orthotominae, Bathmocercinae, Eminiinae, Apalinae, or Macrospheninae, introduced with a lot of details. And Bock [1994:98] deliberately departed from the Code in accepting family-group names that had been introduced en passant, without a description, after 1930...) If we disregard these names, we are left with only three possibilities:
- Cisticolinae Sundevall, 1872 [Cisticola Kaup, 1829]
- Priniinae Roberts, 1922 (1854) [Prinia Horsfield, 1821] (syn. Drymoicinae Bonaparte, 1854 [Drymoica Swainson, 1827 = Prinia])
- Eremomelinae Sharpe, 1883 [Eremomela Sundevall, 1850]
There is then no other choice but having each of these three names applying to one of the three "major clades" recognised, but not named by Olsson et al. If this is correct, these three "major clades" must be the "Forest warbler cisticolid Clades" (= Eremomelinae; Eremomela clusters with this clade based on the results of Fregin et al. (2012)), and the two main subclades in the "Open warbler cisticolid Clades" (= Priniinae [Prinia + Orthotomus], and Cisticolinae [the rest, which includes Cisticola]).
As Richard already wrote, this is absolutely not "my" paper, hence I can in no way be certain about what this paper will conclude, or suggest as a classification system.
That said, I can try some (hopefully educated) guesses...
The taxon Olsson et al. (forthcoming) will describe is to be named "Neomixinae", which indicates a subfamily with Neomixis as type-genus. This will presumably correspond to the "Clade A" of your 2007 paper/"Basal cisticolid clade" of your 2012 paper. The reason why they name only this one, is probably that the other three "major" clades already have an available family-group name applying to them. Bock (1994) cited the following names in the synonymy of Sylviinae, that would apply to birds now regared as cisticolid warblers:
- Cisticolinae Sundevall, 1872 [Cisticola Kaup, 1829]
- Priniinae Roberts, 1922 (1854) [Prinia Horsfield, 1821] (syn. Drymoicinae Bonaparte, 1854 [Drymoica Swainson, 1827 = Prinia])
- Orthotominae Wolters, 1983 [Orthotomus Horsfield, 1821]
- Bathmocercinae Wolters, 1983 [Bathmocercus Reichenow, 1895]
- Eminiinae Wolters, 1983 [Eminia Hartlaub, 1881]
- Eremomelinae Sharpe, 1883 [Eremomela Sundevall, 1850]
- Apalinae Wolters, 1983 [Apalis Swainson, 1833]
I suspect, however, that the authors of Olsson et al. would not recognise the names of Wolters, 1983, as validly introduced. (Particularly given the recent description of "Macrosphenidae, Fregin, Haase, Olsson and Alström, 2012" in Fregin et al. (2012), with an explicit statement that this name "has not been formally described yet", while Bock [1994] treated it, too, as available from Wolters, 1983... I've not actually seen Wolters [1983], but this is a shortish (70 pp.) opus, entitled Die Vögel Europas im System der Vögel: eine Übersicht, which seems quite an odd place to have names like Orthotominae, Bathmocercinae, Eminiinae, Apalinae, or Macrospheninae, introduced with a lot of details. And Bock [1994:98] deliberately departed from the Code in accepting family-group names that had been introduced en passant, without a description, after 1930...) If we disregard these names, we are left with only three possibilities:
- Cisticolinae Sundevall, 1872 [Cisticola Kaup, 1829]
- Priniinae Roberts, 1922 (1854) [Prinia Horsfield, 1821] (syn. Drymoicinae Bonaparte, 1854 [Drymoica Swainson, 1827 = Prinia])
- Eremomelinae Sharpe, 1883 [Eremomela Sundevall, 1850]
There is then no other choice but having each of these three names applying to one of the three "major clades" recognised, but not named by Olsson et al. If this is correct, these three "major clades" must be the "Forest warbler cisticolid Clades" (= Eremomelinae; Eremomela clusters with this clade based on the results of Fregin et al. (2012)), and the two main subclades in the "Open warbler cisticolid Clades" (= Priniinae [Prinia + Orthotomus], and Cisticolinae [the rest, which includes Cisticola]).
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Olsson et al
[As usual, the figures with the abstract are legible (enough).]
Accepted MS now online: [abstract]
[As usual, the figures with the abstract are legible (enough).]
Last edited:
Daniel Philippe
Well-known member
Any idea where Prinia (Laticilla) burnesii & P. (L.) cinerascens go now ? Close to Pellorneum, but where exactly ?
Valéry Schollaert
Respect animals, don't eat or wear their body or s
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Olsson et al
John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html [17 Nov 2012]
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List21.html#cisticolidae
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List23.html#pellorneidae
John Boyd (TiF):
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/changes.html [17 Nov 2012]
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List21.html#cisticolidae
www.jboyd.net/Taxo/List23.html#pellorneidae
Last edited:
These new findings in Cisticolidae are to my layman's view quite amazing!
1. A Philippine genus part of or sister to an all-African subfamily! What's the biogeographic story behind that? Up there with the Cinnabon-Ibon-being-a-sparrow story.
2. An until now solid member of a genus turns out to belong to another family altogether! The only other example I can think of is the Yellow-bellied Fantail, but hasn't it always been considered aberrant? It makes me wonder what comes next!
Timaliidae really is going through an interesting development. First a waste bin taxon, now species previously considered to be something else turns out to be timalids: Graminicola and now Latocilla. It's interesting also that both are grass dwellers. Chaetornis next?
1. A Philippine genus part of or sister to an all-African subfamily! What's the biogeographic story behind that? Up there with the Cinnabon-Ibon-being-a-sparrow story.
2. An until now solid member of a genus turns out to belong to another family altogether! The only other example I can think of is the Yellow-bellied Fantail, but hasn't it always been considered aberrant? It makes me wonder what comes next!
Timaliidae really is going through an interesting development. First a waste bin taxon, now species previously considered to be something else turns out to be timalids: Graminicola and now Latocilla. It's interesting also that both are grass dwellers. Chaetornis next?
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Richard Klim
-------------------------
Rufous-vented Prinia
Prinia burnesii placed in Laticilla (Pellorneidae) in IOC World Bird List v3.4 (Draft).
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/taxonomy
Prinia burnesii placed in Laticilla (Pellorneidae) in IOC World Bird List v3.4 (Draft).
www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/taxonomy
Similar threads
