l_raty
laurent raty
OK -- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1463-6409.2008.00382
I place little confidence in supertrees, actually. (Real supertrees, as in this paper, which are obtained by combining the topologies of trees published elsewhere -- these are typically much less trustworthy than trees built from a supermatrix combining the data from different sources.)
To explain the result, one should probably look at all the source trees published in the 108 refs listed in the first supplementary file associated to the paper.
Anyway, to begin with, Nettapus being embedded in Erismaturini/Oxyurini doesn't really inspire confidence...
In terms of genetic data, the hemoglobin sequences are too recent to have been included in this analysis (and, in the only published tree based on them that I have seen, only a small number of terminals are labelled, hence it could not be readily used for this purpose); the only genetic trees with some Nettapus in them that will have been available at this date are those in Sraml et al 1996, which used the N. coromandelianus and N. pulchellus cytochrome-b sequences I alludes to above. As the two Nettapus spp that ended up united in Eo et al's tree are precisely these two species, I suspect that N. auritus did not follow due to a lack of data, rather than to data actually showing it to be distinct.
Last edited:
(Even though, so far as I know, the taxon is undescribed : were it to be described tomorrow as "Xenoperdixini", this spelling would in principle stand.)
