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.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 2967656" data-attributes="member: 24811">They write:The fragment they obtained from vigorsii is fully identical to the homologous sequence of T. tetrax; it differs from the homologous sequence of E. humilis by one single substitution; it differs from the homologous sequence of E. rueppellii by 19 substitutions. (See attached tree; note I used sequences of rather variable length to build it, though.) Thus the group would include T. tetrax, but exclude E. rueppellii... which in fact is hardly supportive of what <a href="https://www.academia.edu/5410971/Phylogenetic_Relationships_and_Ancestral_Areas_of_the_Bustards_Gruiformes_Otididae_Inferred_from_Mitochondrial_DNA_and_Nuclear_Intron_Sequences" target="_blank">Pitra et al.</a> "proposed". (Pitra et al. obtained a highly uncertain placement of E. rueppellii in their trees, and suggested that this was possibly a consequence of them having not included data from humilis and vigorsii, which they assumed to be the closest relatives of rueppellii. Here, Horreo et al.'s data suggest that these two species are both extremely close to T. tetrax, and in no way particularly related to E. rueppellii; including them in the analysis doesn't seem to help clarify the placement of E. rueppellii at all.)If correct, this would be quite amazing...</blockquote>