Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Laniidae

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Wednesday 14th August 2019, 15:25   #26
Acanthis
Registered User
 
Acanthis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: East Lothian, Scotland
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDerutter View Post
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?
__________________
SANDY
Latest Lifer: Peruvian Sheartail
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums;
eBird: https://ebird.org/profile/NTA1NzAz
Acanthis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th August 2019, 15:34   #27
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDerutter View Post
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 by l_raty : Wednesday 14th August 2019 at 15:45.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th August 2019, 15:58   #28
TomDerutter
Registered User

 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Flanders
Posts: 2
Looks like we shouldn't look at the tree in supporting information.

As for subsuming both Laniidae and Platylophidae into an expanded Corvidae:
Quote:
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)
Quote:
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.
TomDerutter is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 14th August 2019, 18:08   #29
Acanthis
Registered User
 
Acanthis's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: East Lothian, Scotland
Posts: 434
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDerutter View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TomDerutter View Post
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.
__________________
SANDY
Latest Lifer: Peruvian Sheartail
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums;
eBird: https://ebird.org/profile/NTA1NzAz
Acanthis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th August 2019, 05:39   #30
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,080
Laurent, how does one make available a Family name under the Code?
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th August 2019, 10:43   #31
l_raty
laurent raty
 
l_raty's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Brussels, Belgium
Posts: 3,198
Quote:
Originally Posted by mb1848 View Post
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 by l_raty : Thursday 15th August 2019 at 16:54.
l_raty is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 15th August 2019, 21:23   #32
mb1848
Registered User

 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Santa Maria, California USA
Posts: 2,080
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?
__________________
Mark Brown, Esq.
mb1848 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.15472007 seconds with 19 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:59.