• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Musophagidae (1 Viewer)

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
Utku Perktaş, Jeff G. Groth, and George F. Barrowclough "Phylogeography, Species Limits, Phylogeny, and Classification of the Turacos (Aves: Musophagidae) Based on Mitochondrial and Nuclear DNA Sequences," American Museum Novitates 2020(3949), 1-61, (3 April 2020). https://doi.org/10.1206/3949.1

Abstract:

We used mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequences to examine patterns of differentiation and evolution in the Musophagidae, an avian family endemic to sub-Saharan Africa; attention was focused on the subfamily Musophaginae, the turacos, or louries. Phylogeographic analysis of 410 individual ND2 sequences from throughout the ranges of the currently recognized species revealed multiple instances of unexpectedly large genetic divergences and cryptic taxa. Within both montane and lowland species, including Tauraco hartlaubi and T. schalowi, Menelikornis leucotis, Musophaga macrorhyncha, and Gallirex johnstoni, fixed private haplotypes were found in disjunct portions of the ranges, suggesting negligible recent gene flow and evolutionary independence of populations. Two taxa originally described as subspecies (T. schalowi loitanus and T. s. marungensis), but not recognized for over 50 years, were found to be 100% diagnosable based on the mitochondrial sequences. The data also revealed the existence of two polyphyletic traditional species, Tauraco livingstonii and T. schuettii, as well as the polyphyly or paraphyly of all traditional superspecies complexes involving members of the genus Tauraco. Overall, our analyses of genetic and morphological variation revealed substantial and unexpected geographic diversity within the Musophagidae. We recognize 33 species-level taxa that represent the appropriate units for phylogenetic and biogeographic analyses (phylogenetic species).

We used complete mitochondrial ND2 sequences and nuclear DNA sequences of an Aconitase intron and of the RAG-1 exon to infer the phylogenetic relationships among those species. The results include all the phylogenetic species and, for the first time, nuclear data. We present a new classification of the Musophagidae based on our phylogeographic and phylogenetic results. We allocate the 33 species to seven previously recognized genera, an average of 4.7 species per genus.
 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
I still maintain Corythaixoides, Criniferoides and Pseudopoetus as distinct genera despite their (despicable) generic recommendation
 
Last edited:

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
My classification of Turaco based on their result. I don't understand the choice of the authors to place macrorhynchus and verreauxii in Musophaga and merge Criniferoides and Corythaixoides in Crinifer. Do modern taxonomists take illicit substances ? What are they smoking ?


MUSOPHAGIFORMES Seebohm, 1890
Family Musophagidae Lesson, 1828
Subfamily Corythaeolinae Verheyen, 1956
Genus Corythaeola Heine, 1860
Corythaeola cristata (Vieillot, 1816)
Subfamily Criniferinae Verheyen, 1956
Genus Corythaixoides Smith, 1833
Corythaixoides concolor (Smith, 1833)
Corythaixoides leopoldi (Shelley, 1881)
Corythaixoides personatus (Rüppell, 1842)
Genus Crinifer Jarocki, 1821
Crinifer piscator (Boddaert, 1783)
Crinifer zonurus (Rüppell, 1835)
Genre Criniferoides Roberts, 1926
Criniferoides leucogaster (Rüppell, 1842)
Subfamily Musophaginae Lesson, 1828
Genus Gallirex Lesson, 1844
Gallirex chlorochlamys Shelley, 1881
Gallirex porphyreolophus (Vigors, 1831)
Gallirex johnstoni Sharpe, 1901
Gallirex kivuensis (Neumann, 1908)
Genus Menelikornis von Boetticher, 1947
Menelikornis donaldsoni (Sharpe, 1895)
Menelikornis leucotis (Rüppell, 1835)
Menelikornis ruspolii (Salvadori, 1896)
Genus Musophaga Isert, 1788
Musophaga rossae Gould, 1852
Musophaga violacea Isert, 1788
Genus Proturacus Bates, 1923
Proturacus bannermani (Bates, 1923)
Proturacus erythrolophus (Vieillot, 1819)
Proturacus leucolophus (von Heuglin, 1855)
Genus Pseudopoetus von Boetticher, 1947
Pseudopoetus macrorhynchus (Fraser, 1839)
Pseudopoetus verreauxii (Schlegel, 1854)
Genus Tauraco Kluk, 1779
Tauraco buffoni (Vieillot, 1819)
Tauraco chalcolophus (Naumann, 1895)
Tauraco corythaix (Wagler, 1827)
Tauraco emini (Reichenow, 1893)
Tauraco fischeri (Reichenow, 1878)
Tauraco hartlaubi (Fischer & Reichenow, 1884)
Tauraco livingstonii Gray, 1864
Tauraco loitanus (Naumann, 1908)
Tauraco marungensis (Reichenow, 1902)
Tauraco persa (Linnaeus, 1758)
Tauraco reichenowi (Fischer, 1880)
Tauraco schalowi (Reichenow, 1891)
Tauraco schuettii (Cabanis, 1879)
 
Last edited:

andrew147

Well-known member
I don't understand the choice of the authors to place macrorhynchus and verreauxii in Musophaga and merge Criniferoides and Corythaixoides in Crinifer

The divergence times for most turacos are given in Njabo & Sorenson (2008) and their phylogeny largely agrees with Perktaş et al. Based on these divergence estimates, the genera of Perktaş don't seem completely crazy but are rather inconsistent.

The most recent common ancestor of Musophaga + Pseudopoetus lived only c. 5.5 mya. So, however morphologically bizarre, a single genus seems warranted (it is slightly younger than Gallirex but no-one is arguing to reinstate Ruwenzorornis!).

Crinifer, however, is a different matter. The most recent common ancestor of all Criniferinae lived c. 10 mya and, although this is a reasonable age for a bird genus, it is slightly older than the lineage including all of Tauraco, Proturacus, Menelikornis & Musophaga… so, lumping all grey turacos into Crinifer does seem at odds with recognising four genera which could be equivalently lumped as Tauraco.

If it was up to me, I would adopt their five genus treatment of Musophaginae but keep Criniferinae as the three usual genera.
 
Last edited:

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
Sometimes I wonder if the divergence time is a reliable criterion (cf. Cranioleuca/Limnoctites/Thripophaga clade, about 5 mya, mooooh-yes, humm). For me, Pseudopoetus doesn't share any morphological character with Musophaga and doesn't deserve to be congeneric, they are like chalk and cheese. I keep saying, it's a taxonomicide
 
Last edited:

andrew147

Well-known member
Sometimes I wonder if the divergence time is a reliable criterion (cf. Cranioleuca/Limnoctites/Thripophaga clade, about 5 mya, mooooh-yes, humm). For me, Pseudopoetus doesn't share any morphological character with Musophaga and doesn't deserve to be congeneric, they are like chalk and cheese. I keep saying, it's taxonomicide

I fully agree that some divergence time estimates are wildly inaccurate: different methods produce different degrees of reliability. So, I only rely on them if they correspond with other, independent results - and if they fit well with the rapidly emerging, overall picture of Avian phylogeny.

In this case, three independent phylogenies (the two already mentioned + Verron & Winney (2000)) all place Pseudopoetus as a close relative of Musophaga within the traditional Tauraco group.

I have no field experience with macrorhynchus at all, but I can a see strong resemblance to Musophaga violacea (with which I am very familiar) in photographs and I don't think there is any dispute that violacea/rossae evolved from a green ancestor...?

In the end though, it doesn't matter, you can use nomenclature to indicate relatedness or to emphasise difference and genera are but a convenience.
 
Last edited:

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
In the end though, it doesn't matter, you can use nomenclature to indicate relatedness or to emphasise difference and genera are but a convenience.


It's one of the big advantage of taxonomy, free will, as long as the rules of the nomenclature are respected and that it doesn't go against phylogenetic results
 

Snapdragyn

Well-known member
It's one of the big advantage of taxonomy, free will, as long as the rules of the nomenclature are respected and that it doesn't go against phylogenetic results

I would counter that it is one of the big weaknesses of taxonomy, in that it skews the results of so many studies which seek to compare & contrast various factors between different taxonomic groups. If you compare two families (or two genera, or two of any taxonomic rank) in any way & those are actually two completely different _levels_ of things (because one emphasized similarity, while the other emphasized difference) - well, then you're comparing apple seeds & orange trees.

On the other hand, if there were a proper operational definition of each taxonomic rank, these studies could yield interesting & actually valid comparative results.
 

THE_FERN

Well-known member
I would counter that it is one of the big weaknesses of taxonomy, in that it skews the results of so many studies which seek to compare & contrast various factors between different taxonomic groups. If you compare two families (or two genera, or two of any taxonomic rank) in any way & those are actually two completely different _levels_ of things (because one emphasized similarity, while the other emphasized difference) - well, then you're comparing apple seeds & orange trees.

On the other hand, if there were a proper operational definition of each taxonomic rank, these studies could yield interesting & actually valid comparative results.

That's why you shouldn't do those sorts of things (compare genera, families or whatever). This was a big issue in ecology and evolution in c the early 90s. People developed various methods for dealing with the problem, but the basic idea is that you hang whatever characters/traits you're interested in on a phylogenetic tree and make sure the statistical methods you use take the relatedness (non-independence) of different branches into account
 

Jacana

Will Jones
Hungary
If anyone still wants this, then PM me

In the meantime, their recommendations, including proposed English names:

FAMILY MUSOPHAGIDAE Lesson, 1828

SUBFAMILY CORYTHAEOLINAE Verheyen, 1956 – blue turacos

Genus CORYTHAEOLA Heine, 1860

Corythaeola cristata (Vieillot, 1816) great blue turaco

SUBFAMILY CRINIFERINAE Verheyen, 1956 – go-away-birds

Genus CRINIFER Jarocki, 1821

Crinifer leucogaster (Rüppell, 1842a) white-bellied go-away-bird

Crinifer piscator (Boddaert, 1783) western grey plantain-eater

Crinifer zonurus (Rüppell, 1835a) eastern grey plantain-eater

Crinifer concolor (Smith, 1833) grey go-away-bird

Crinifer personatus (Rüppell, 1842b) bare-faced go-away-bird

SUBFAMILY MUSOPHAGINAE (Lesson, 1828) – turacos

Genus GALLIREX Lesson, 1844

Gallirex porphyreolophus (Vigors, 1831) southern purple-crested turaco

Gallirex chlorochlamys Shelley, 1881 northern purple-crested turaco

Gallirex johnstoni Sharpe, 1901 Rwenzori turaco

Gallirex kivuensis (Neumann, 1908a) Kivu turaco

Genus MENELIKORNIS von Boetticher, 1947

Menelikornis leucotis (Rüppell, 1835b) white-cheeked turaco

Menelikornis donaldsoni (Sharpe, 1895) Donaldson's turaco

Menelikornis ruspolii (Salvadori, 1896) Prince Ruspoli's turaco

Genus MUSOPHAGA Isert, 1789

Musophaga rossae Gould, 1852 Lady Ross'S turaco

Musophaga violacea Isert, 1789 violet turaco

Musophaga macrorhyncha (Fraser, 1839) western yellow-billed turaco

Musophaga verreauxii Schlegel, 1854 eastern yellow-billed turaco

Genus PROTURACUS Bates, 1923

Proturacus bannermani Bates, 1923 Bannerman's turaco

Proturacus leucolophus (von Heuglin, 1855) white-crested turaco

Proturacus erythrolophus (Vieillot, 1819a) red-crested turaco

Genus TAURACO Kluk, 1779

Tauraco persa (Linnaeus, 1758) eastern green turaco

Tauraco buffoni (Vieillot, 1819b) western green turaco

Tauraco emini (Reichenow, 1893) eastern black-billed turaco

Tauraco hartlaubi (Fischer and Reichenow, 1884) Hartlaub's turaco

Tauraco fischeri (Reichenow, 1878) Fischer's turaco

Tauraco reichenowi (Fischer, 1880) Reichenow's turaco

Tauraco corythaix (Wagler, 1827) Knysna turaco

Tauraco livingstonii (Gray, 1864) Livingstone's turaco

Tauraco schuettii (Cabanis, 1879) western black-billed turaco

Tauraco chalcolophus (Neumann, 1895) Ngorongoro turaco

Tauraco schalowi (Reichenow, 1891) Schalow's turaco

Tauraco loitanus (Neumann, 1908b) Loita turaco

Tauraco marungensis (Reichenow, 1902) Zambia turaco
 
Last edited:

T.O.

Well-known member
I went through this paper, but the results are not very convincing at a species level for me. There may be a good case for the recognition of the genera, but they use a narrow PSC view with very limited genetic data, so it is not really clear how valid their results really are. What is interesting is that they find Donaldson's Turaco as a sister to Ruspoli's Turacao, whereas it is currently considered as a very distinct subspecies of White-cheeked Turaco. But a lot more samples would be needed to verify that and other claims.
 

Jim LeNomenclatoriste

Taxonomy and zoological nomenclature
France
What is interesting is that they find Donaldson's Turaco as a sister to Ruspoli's Turacao, whereas it is currently considered as a very distinct subspecies of White-cheeked Turaco.

Maybe this subspecific concept was incorrect before this study (cf. Rigidipenna inexpectata)
 

T.O.

Well-known member
Maybe this subspecific concept was incorrect before this study (cf. Rigidipenna inexpectata)

That would very well be possible and that idea has been raised before as both donaldsoni and leucotis seem to occur parapatrically in e.g. Bale mountains. But this paper doesn't really answer that question, just puts another questionmark at the current status quo.
 

Peter Kovalik

Well-known member
Slovakia
IOC Updates Diary June 1

Post proposed splits of Donaldson’s Turaco from White-cheeked Turaco, (Western) Black-billed Turaco from (Eastern) Black-billed Turaco and Reichenow’s Turaco from Livingstone’s Turaco. Perktaş et al. (2020).
 

Xenospiza

Distracted
Supporter
I went through this paper, but the results are not very convincing at a species level for me. There may be a good case for the recognition of the genera, but they use a narrow PSC view with very limited genetic data, so it is not really clear how valid their results really are. What is interesting is that they find Donaldson's Turaco as a sister to Ruspoli's Turacao, whereas it is currently considered as a very distinct subspecies of White-cheeked Turaco. But a lot more samples would be needed to verify that and other claims.
Their ND2 network tells a different story on Donaldson's Turaco: no issue at all to keep it with White-cheeked. It also shows how closely related all these green turacos are: no surprise for anyone who has ever heard any of them.
Splitting these further is rather nonsensical!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top