• 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.
Where premium quality meets exceptional value. ZEISS Conquest HDX.

My taxonomic predictions (2 Viewers)

Branch lengths seem fairly long for the weird island pigeons. I am not sure if they are that particularly closely related, versus simply being "relicts" left over from a past radiation of pigeons in the Indo-Pacific. They are currently split just to try to remain roughly consistent with the other current widely recognized groups within Raphinae
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
academic.oup.com

Oligo-Miocene radiation within South-west Pacific arc terranes underpinned repeated upstream continental dispersals in pigeons (Columbiformes)

Abstract. Upstream colonizations from islands to continents have played an important role in two major global bird radiations: the oscine passerines and th
academic.oup.com academic.oup.com
Click to expand...

I'd be a bit cautious about it.
First, this is based only on a cyt-b sequence -- this is the only gene that has been sequenced for Columba larvata.
Second, there are five cyt-b sequences for this species in GenBank (4 from Valente et al 2020, and a shorter one from Wilson et al 2022). Four of these are very similar to one another, while the fifth one is rather (~5%) divergent (and has quite a few unidentified nucleotides) -- this sequence might conceivably be problematic. Unfortunately, this divergent sequence is also the longest of the five, and is the one that Oliver et al 2023 chose to use in their supermatrix.
 
l_raty said:
I'd be a bit cautious about it.
First, this is based only on a cyt-b sequence -- this is the only gene that has been sequenced for Columba larvata.
Second, there are five cyt-b sequences for this species in GenBank (4 from Valente et al 2020, and a shorter one from Wilson et al 2022). Four of these are very similar to one another, while the fifth one is rather (~5%) divergent (and has quite a few unidentified nucleotides) -- this sequence might conceivably be problematic. Unfortunately, this divergent sequence is also the longest of the five, and is the one that Oliver et al 2023 chose to use in their supermatrix.
Click to expand...

What do you think of Jade Bruxaux’s study, which included Aplopelia larvata ?

Phylogeny and evolution of pigeons and doves (Columbidae) at different space and time scales

Pigeons and doves (Columbidae) belong to a species-rich worldwide-distributed family and are of major historical and ecological importance. We generated phylogenetic hypotheses from museum samples to clarify the diversification of the family, which probably took place between mid-Eocene and...
hal.ird.fr hal.ird.fr
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
What do you think of Jade Bruxaux’s study, which included Aplopelia larvata ?

Phylogeny and evolution of pigeons and doves (Columbidae) at different space and time scales

Pigeons and doves (Columbidae) belong to a species-rich worldwide-distributed family and are of major historical and ecological importance. We generated phylogenetic hypotheses from museum samples to clarify the diversification of the family, which probably took place between mid-Eocene and...
hal.ird.fr hal.ird.fr
Click to expand...
There was no good reason to include Aplopelia in Columba in the first place.

I was previously unaware of Bruxaux's study (thanks Jim), and I am fascinated to see genetic data for Starnoenas - apparently confirming the morphological/behavioural conclusions of Olson & Wiley (2016), that Starnoenas is more closely related to Old World taxa than to New World quail doves.
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
What do you think of Jade Bruxaux’s study, which included Aplopelia larvata ?

Phylogeny and evolution of pigeons and doves (Columbidae) at different space and time scales

Pigeons and doves (Columbidae) belong to a species-rich worldwide-distributed family and are of major historical and ecological importance. We generated phylogenetic hypotheses from museum samples to clarify the diversification of the family, which probably took place between mid-Eocene and...
hal.ird.fr hal.ird.fr
Click to expand...

I didn't know this either.
Although the relationships of larvata relative to Streptopelia, Nesoenas, Spilopelia, Columba remain not fully resolved here, a taxonomy recognizing Aplopelia would indeed seem to match the results.
 
I've now finished up (for now) the Columbiformes, and have moved into bustards and turacos

Otidiformes
Otididae
Lissotis, Ardeotis, Tetrax, Otis, Chlamydotis, Houbaropsis, Sypheotides, Lophotis, Heterotetrax, Eupodotis, and Afrotis

This is pretty much the TiF breakdown so not many surprises here. Wikipedia for some reason puts these in subfamilies as well, but I am not sure the basis of this and I haven't seen subfamilies used in other classifications as far as I can tell.

Musophagiformes
Musophagidae
Criniferinae
Crinifer

Corythaeolinae
Corythaeola

Musophaginae
Gallirex
Menelikornis
Tauraco

I am sure Jim will hate the way I break down Musophaginae, but it just seem unnecessary to break them down further based on clade age and morphological differentiation.
 
Mysticete said:
Otidiformes
Otididae
Lissotis, Ardeotis, Tetrax, Otis, Chlamydotis, Houbaropsis, Sypheotides, Lophotis, Heterotetrax, Eupodotis, and Afrotis

This is pretty much the TiF breakdown so not many surprises here. Wikipedia for some reason puts these in subfamilies as well, but I am not sure the basis of this and I haven't seen subfamilies used in other classifications as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

The subfamilies are from Verheyen (1957), when Otididae was part of Ralliformes. Can't find Lissotinae or Neotinae anywhere else except as synonyms of Otididae or on Wikipedia derived sites.

Verheyen, R. 1957. Contribution au démembrement de l’ordo artificiel des Gruiformes (Peters 1934). 1. Les Ralliformes. Bull. 33(21): 1-44
 
jts1882 said:
The subfamilies are from Verheyen (1957), when Otididae was part of Ralliformes. Can't find Lissotinae or Neotinae anywhere else except as synonyms of Otididae or on Wikipedia derived sites.

Verheyen, R. 1957. Contribution au démembrement de l’ordo artificiel des Gruiformes (Peters 1934). 1. Les Ralliformes. Bull. 33(21): 1-44
Click to expand...

I'd rather write "Verheyen (1957), who made Otididae a part of Ralliformes".

The extant families that Peters included in Gruiformes were the Mesoenatidae, Turnicidae, Pedionomidae, Gruidae, Aramidae, Psophiidae, Rallidae, Heliornithidae, Rhynochetidae, Eurypigidae, Cariamidae and Otidae.
Verheyen recognized a more restricted order, including the Gruidae, Aramidae, Psophiidae, Rallidae, Heliornithidae and Otidae, and named this restricted group the Ralliformes (despite it still included the cranes).

Verheyen himself used Lissotidinae (this spelling) again in 1960 :
Verheyen R. 1960. Considerations sur la colonne vertébrale des oiseaux (non-Passeres). Bull. Inst. R. Sci. Nat. Belgique, 36 (42): 1-24.

(The availability of Neotinae may be disputable, as no diagnosis is directly associated to the taxon in Verheyen 1957, and this name doesn't seem to have ever been used as valid in any other published work.)
 
Last edited:
Thanks, I wasn't sure if Verheyen created Ralliformes.

In other papers in the series on Gruiformes he had orders Cariamiformes and Jacaniformes, the latter for Rhynochetidae, Eurypigidae, and Jacanidae. I wonder what he did with mesites.
 
jts1882 said:
In other papers in the series on Gruiformes he had orders Cariamiformes and Jacaniformes, the latter for Rhynochetidae, Eurypigidae, and Jacanidae. I wonder what he did with mesites.
Click to expand...

His classification was quite idiosyncratic, being based mainly on what amounted to a purely phenetic analysis of osteological measurements and ratios.
In 1961, he grouped Mesites with Kagu, Sunbittern and Jaçanas, in an order Jacaniformes.

(Sibley & Ahlquist 1972 provided comments on many aspects of Verheyen's system.)
 
I've more focused on the subspecies group portion of the project but I am continuuing to work on my overall bird checklist. I HAVE gotten through Cuculiformes and nocturnal Strisores, but haven't posted much since the former is pretty non-controversial and I am sort of still in the process of revising the latter

Here's at least the Cuculiformes

Cuculiformes
Crotophagidae
Crotophaginae
Guira, Crotophaga

Neomorphinae
Tapera, Dromococcyx, Morococcyx, Geococcyx, Neomorphus

Centropodidae
Couinae
Carpococcyx, Coua

Centropodinae
Centropus

Cuculidae
Rhinorthinae
Rhinortha

Phaenicophaeinae
Ceuthmochares, Taccocua, Zanclostomus, Phaenicophaeus, Rhamphococcyx, Dasylophus, Clamator, Coccycua, Piaya, Coccyzus

Cuculinae
Pachycoccyx, Eudynamys, Microdynamis, Scythrops, Urodynamis, Nannococcyx, Chrysococcyx, Cacomantis, Cercococcyx, Surniculus, Hierococcyx, Cuculus
 
Mysticete said:
I've more focused on the subspecies group portion of the project but I am continuuing to work on my overall bird checklist. I HAVE gotten through Cuculiformes and nocturnal Strisores, but haven't posted much since the former is pretty non-controversial and I am sort of still in the process of revising the latter

Here's at least the Cuculiformes

Cuculiformes
Crotophagidae
Crotophaginae
Guira, Crotophaga

Neomorphinae
Tapera, Dromococcyx, Morococcyx, Geococcyx, Neomorphus

Centropodidae
Couinae
Carpococcyx, Coua

Centropodinae
Centropus

Cuculidae
Rhinorthinae
Rhinortha

Phaenicophaeinae
Ceuthmochares, Taccocua, Zanclostomus, Phaenicophaeus, Rhamphococcyx, Dasylophus, Clamator, Coccycua, Piaya, Coccyzus

Cuculinae
Pachycoccyx, Eudynamys, Microdynamis, Scythrops, Urodynamis, Nannococcyx, Chrysococcyx, Cacomantis, Cercococcyx, Surniculus, Hierococcyx, Cuculus
Click to expand...
Are there arguments in favor of splitting the family?
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
Are there arguments in favor of splitting the family?
Click to expand...
Crotophagidae has the strongest support...molecular clock data shows they split off VERY early from the other cuckoos, around ~40 million years ago, to the point that they are one of the few groups that bird-phylogeny.de, whose time-focused classification which tends to lump things actually suggest splitting them off. Both the main subfamilies here feel pretty distinctive to me. I've also seen some comments from SACC members to the effect that this could be an actual change that gets implemented some day

Centropodidae is a younger split and more arbitrary/borderline. However they have also often been recognized as a subfamily alongside Crotophaginae, and seem to form a morphologically cohesive group, or well at least the two subfamilies are cohesive.

At any rate, this is why a time-calibrated Cuckoo tree is high on my avian phylogeny wishlist. I am really interested in when these groups split off, and hypothetically I could see Couas and New World Ground Cuckoos also perhaps getting elevated.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 1, guests: 2)
Back
Top