Australo-Papuan robins (1 Viewer)

[l_raty]

Just as a follow up: We have agreement from all involved that when P. brachyura is merged with the species currently assigned to Heteromyias that the recombined genus must be Leucophantes. Thanks again for pointing out this oversight.

It remains our plan to move brachyurus to an enlarged Leucophantes based on morphologic similarities as pointed out in Beehler & Pratt (2016) and to not retain it in Poecilodryas. We have been reminded by one of the co-authors of the Garcia-Navas et al. (2017) paper that the "phylogeny in Garcia Novas et al. was from the Jetz et al. global phylogeny which was a sort of supertree incorporating molecular and non-molecular data. There is no molecular data on brachyura that I am aware of. The placement in the Jetz tree would have been based on past conventional taxonomic sequence. It would not be based on any actual morphological or DNA analysis". So, the fact that it is embedded within Poecilodryas in that paper no genetic basis.

We are NOT dissuaded from placing it along with the species currently in Heteromyias into Leuophantes, or to needlessly accept a monotypic Leucophantes, based on the best morphologic evidence we have at this time.

There are six sequences of Poecilodryas brachyura in GenBank, dated 6 Dec 2022, by Knud Andreas Jønsson, not associated to any publication.
nd2, nd3, cytb, myo, gapdh, odc.

In BLAST trees based on nd2 sequences, P. brachyura seems embedded in Poecilodryas.
Sister to a clade made of P. cerviniventris, P. superciliosa and P. hypoleuca, with P. albonotata sister to these three plus P. brachyura.

 

[l_raty]

In BLAST trees based on nd2 sequences, P. brachyura seems embedded in Poecilodryas.
Sister to a clade made of P. cerviniventris, P. superciliosa and P. hypoleuca, with P. albonotata sister to these three plus P. brachyura.

But I now see that IOC has moved albonotata to a monotypic Plesiodryas Mathews 1920... If so, brachyura seems to be sister to the rest of Poecilodryas sensu IOC, and could conceivably be moved to a monotypic Leucophantes Sclater 1874, should this be viewed as really desirable.

Is it desirable, though ? (See post #29 above.)

(I'll try to compute a ML tree -- but I'm not home, and only have an old laptop running a 10+ yo distro of Linux here, so it could take some time. The other genes are (currently) not informative, as they have not (yet) been sequenced for other spp of Poecilodryas.)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

.. If so, brachyura seems to be sister to the rest of Poecilodryas sensu IOC, and could conceivably be moved to a monotypic Leucophantes Sclater 1974, should this be viewed as really desirable.

it differs little from Poecilodryas that said

 

[l_raty]

it differs little from Poecilodryas that said

The uncorrected nd2 distance between brachyura and other species of Poecilodryas is 13-14%. In Petroicidae, distances in this range exist both between species treated as congeneric (e.g., within Peneothello sensu IOC) and between species treated as allogeneric.

 

[l_raty]

(I'll try to compute a ML tree -- but I'm not home, and only have an old laptop running a 10+ yo distro of Linux here, so it could take some time. The other genes are (currently) not informative, as they have not (yet) been sequenced for other spp of Poecilodryas.)

Attached. I tried to make the taxonomy agree with current IOC treatment -- hopefully I got everything correct. The numbers on branches are bootstrap supports based on 100 replicates. The tree is mid-rooted (i.e., I included no non-Petroicidae outgroup in the analysis).

 

[Mysticete]

Unless I am missing something, seems like the genera assignment by IOC is accurate.

 

[l_raty]

Unless I am missing something, seems like the genera assignment by IOC is accurate.

Yes, the generic classification was revised in 2019, so it is quite up to date.
The issue was whether Poecilodryas brachyura, which has never been included in a published genetic study, should be moved out of Poecilodryas. (And, if so, what should be done with it.)
Clements recently moved it to Heteromyias -- which, as Jim noted, is nomenclaturally untenable, brachyura being the type of a genus-group name that is senior to Heteromyias (and was used as a valid name after 1899). This doesn't seem very tenable taxonomically either...

 

[l_raty]

BTW, I was interested to see that Heteromyias albispecularis and H. [albispecularis] armiti (split by IOC, treated as ssp groups in Clements) were not reconstructed as reciprocally monophyletic.
H. albispecularis stricto sensu may as well never have been included in a published genetic analysis. The sequence I used here has the same source as the sequence of brachyura (deposited in GenBank by KA Jønsson in 2022, not associated to a publication). This sequence is from [this specimen].

 

[DDonsker]

Attached. I tried to make the taxonomy agree with current IOC treatment -- hopefully I got everything correct. The numbers on branches are bootstrap supports based on 100 replicates. The tree is mid-rooted (i.e., I included no non-Petroicidae outgroup in the analysis).

Laurent,

Thanks for this valuable contribution. We will certainly reassess our current thinking in view of it, and pass it along to others similarly deeply involved.

 

[l_raty]

Thanks for this valuable contribution. We will certainly reassess our current thinking in view of it, and pass it along to others similarly deeply involved.

Thanks David, I'll be looking for your conclusions.
Of course, those who produced the data are the ones who really made the analysis provided above possible.

 

[l_raty]

BTW, as I am here now :
In my notes, I lack the page of introduction of the family-group name Drymodinae Schodde & Mason 1999.
The work is : Schodde R, Mason IJ. 1999. The directory of Australian birds. Passerines. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne.
There is a preview in Google Books (Directory of Australian Birds: Passerines) but it is unpaginated and looks to me like it is from an epub version of the book.
Would anyone here, by chance, have an access to the printed book ?

(This name is still attributed in TiF to Wolters 1980, as per Bock 1994, but it was of course a nomen nudum there.)

(Bock's attribution of Petroicidae to Mathews "1919-1920", although widely accepted on the web, is of course wrong as well. This name appears to have been authored -- as was actually explicitly indicated by Mathews "1919-1920" (actually 1920) : it's hard to understand why Bock did not follow this lead -- by Alfred Newton, who first suggested it (spelling it "Petroecinae") in the 9th ed of the Encyclopaedia Britannica -- originally published by A&C Black in 1888 (and reprinted several times in the following years by American publishers). The name also appeared in a part of Newton's A dictionary of birds that was published in 1896.)

 

[Daniel Philippe]

The best I could do.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Brett W Benz, Phylogeography and palaeoecological modelling shed light on the diversification history of a montane New Guinea passerine, Peneothello cyanus (Petroicidae), Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 143, Issue 4, December 2024, blae111, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blae111

 

[njlarsen]

Brett W Benz, Phylogeography and palaeoecological modelling shed light on the diversification history of a montane New Guinea passerine, Peneothello cyanus (Petroicidae), Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, Volume 143, Issue 4, December 2024, blae111, https://doi.org/10.1093/biolinnean/blae111

The abstract includes the words "constraints on admixture". Does this mean species level differences?
Niels

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The abstract includes the words "constraints on admixture". Does this mean species level differences?
Niels

I'll send it to you

 

[Jacana]

The abstract includes the words "constraints on admixture". Does this mean species level differences?
Niels

From the abstract, I think it's more to do with the narrow elevational requirements that mean that contact zones only happen in a very small area, restricting the rate of admixture. Rather than some genetic incompatibilities.

 

[l_raty]

"dispersal ability and constraints on admixture associated with the linear distribution of these montane environments"

I've not seen the full paper either, but I would understand this as meaning that admixture is constrained by the fact that, in PNG, patches of montane environments (alt., "sky islands") have a linear distribution (i.e., are more or less disposed geographically along a WNW-ESE line).

 

[njlarsen]

In the paper, the strongest recommendation they come with is to continue to recognize three subspecies quote:

More recently, Beehler and Pratt (2016)
subsumed P. c. atricapilla into P. c. subcyanea, citing limited dif-
ferences in plumage coloration. The present study confirms that
both subspecies are genetically distinct, with a contact zone in
the vicinity of the Digul-Sobger Divide (Figs 1–3).

They also describe that the birds in Vogelkop Peninsula (nominate subspecies) are more genetically similar to the central island birds than to intervening populations.

Nominate P. c. cyanus is restricted to the Vogelkop
Peninsula, with substantial populations in the Arfak and Tamrau
Mountains; however, additional sampling is required to clarify
the status of isolated Fak Fak and Kumuwa Mountain popula-
tions, because these communities share several endemic taxa
with the Vogelkop (Diamond 1985). Surprisingly, nominate P.
c. cyanus does not share a direct or exclusive relationship with
adjacent Wandamen or Weyland populations, but is genetically
most similar to populations in the CDR, including Ilaga Valley
and Mount Goliath (Fig. 3).

All analysis are limited to the mitochondrial genome.

Niels