• 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.

Passeriformes (1 Viewer)

mgharvey said:
Since figure 1 does not contain support values for most nodes and is generally not optimized for zooming in to inspect particular relationships, I replaced the previous file with an expanded, high-resolution version of the same tree:


This version provides RAxML bootstrap support values and annotates the tip names with the names from our primary taxonomy (AOS SACC for South American taxa, NACC for North American, and the Howard and Moore list for the few Old World taxa) and locality information (taken directly from sample databases with minimal editing/formatting). With a study of this size, there are sure to be (hopefully very few!) errors with sample identification, species assignment, or locality. Please let me know if you spot any ([email protected]).

Mike Harvey

PS. Yes, the sister relationship between Casiornis and Rhytipterna immunda is strongly supported (100% bootstrap support in the primary tree).
Click to expand...
Asthenes need to be split into three genera regarding the divergence time of each clade

Since few weeks, I was placed Casiornis on synonymy with Rhytipterna

And Phyllomyias griseocapilla need a new genus
 
Last edited:
Wow! My focus has been out of town for too long! Playing catch up. Gotta take this download and edit it into bite-size portions:)
 
OK, I'm not familiar with the Eurylaimidae (Not yet anyway :) ) but looking at the above paper's results there's a deep divergence between the African Pseudocalyptomena and the rest. I looked it up in lynx edicions "Illustrated checklist". The bird looks rather out of place among all the Asian species but as I said I'm not familiar with the family and there may be good reasons for its inclusion, other than avoiding the creation of a monospecific family.
Incidentally the book suggests the two discrete populations may merit "taxonomic separation".
 
Acanthis said:
OK, I'm not familiar with the Eurylaimidae (Not yet anyway :) ) but looking at the above paper's results there's a deep divergence between the African Pseudocalyptomena and the rest. I looked it up in lynx edicions "Illustrated checklist". The bird looks rather out of place among all the Asian species but as I said I'm not familiar with the family and there may be good reasons for its inclusion, other than avoiding the creation of a monospecific family.
Incidentally the book suggests the two discrete populations may merit "taxonomic separation".
Click to expand...
The good reason is that there hasn't been a review yet. Now that you say it, I will raise the Pseudocalyptomininae to family rank as a monotypic Pseudocalyptomenidae
 
Jim LeNomenclatoriste said:
Rhynchocyclidae : There is so much to say, it merits a whole post lol mdr
Click to expand...
So I'm guessing you split Rhynchocyclidae from Pipromorphidae, and therefore most of the interesting stuff is going on in Triccinae/ini.
I've done a fair bit of scribbling on this tree myself.
Care to share and compare? 😁
 
Acanthis said:
So I'm guessing you split Rhynchocyclidae from Pipromorphidae, and therefore most of the interesting stuff is going on in Triccinae/ini.
I've done a fair bit of scribbling on this tree myself.
Care to share and compare? 😁
Click to expand...
Nope, Pipromorphinae is still a subfamily of Rhynchocyclidae 😏
 
The name "Pipromorphidae" is problematic. (This was already noted by Storrs Olson in his review of Bock's work on family-group names, back in 1995.)

Bock 1994 attributed this name to Bonaparte 1853, but in this work Pipromorpha was a pure nomen nudum, hence the family-group name based on it is a pure nomen nudum there as well. Bonaparte never used it again. Wolters used it in 1977, but he did not describe his family-group taxa, hence, this being after 1960, the name is a nomen nudum there as well. The name was then adopted by the Sibley-Monroe group in 1991 (for a group they had called Mionectidae in earlier works, without really diagnosing it either), again without a description. It has been used a significant number of times since, and, although I have not seen such a thing, it's not fully impossible that somewhere the group was given a diagnosis. But the wannabe type-genus name has been universally synonymized with Mionectes since the 1980's, and a family-group name cannot be made available in a work where the genus-group name it was formed from is not treated as the valid name of a full genus, thus any introduction in a work from the 1990's is likely to be problematic. Of course, to be available from a post-1999 work, the name should also be presented as intentionally new in this work (which so far did not happen, to the best of my knowledge).

I know no source this name could be deemed available from.

(I had assumed this was why Harvey et al. used Rhynchocyclidae, which is available from Berlepsch 1907, for this group ? Triccidae Heine & Reichenow 1890 seems to have precedence, however.)
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
mb1848 said:
This taxa is mentioned by Bock but Heine & Reichenow put Pipromorpha Schiff 1854 in subfamily Elaininae not in Triccinae??
Click to expand...
Triccinae Heine & Reichenow 1890 (originally a subfamily name): https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/33338327
The type is Triccus Cabanis 1846, which is an objective synonym of Todirostrum Lesson 1831, with as its type Todus cinereus Linnaeus 1766. Todirostrum is part of the group that Harvey et al (Fig. 1) called Rhynchocyclidae.
(This group was the sister group of Tyrannidae proper; it included (1) Phylloscartes, Corythopis, Pseudotriccus, Leptopogon and Mionectes (syn. Pipromorpha); (2) Rhynchocyclus and Tolmomyias; and (3) Taeniotriccus, Cnipodectes, Todirostrum (syn. Triccus), Poecilotriccus, Hemitriccus, Myiornis, Atalotriccus, Lophotriccus and Oncostoma. Elaenia is in Tyrannidae.)

mb1848 said:
Pipromorpha Schiff 1854 is the name used by Gray in 1855.
https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/229752#page/304/mode/1up .
Click to expand...
"Pipromorpha Schiff" was also the name used by Bonaparte in 1854 https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/13470586 .
Schiff did not publish it; the name is nude in Bonaparte 1854 (a mere list of taxa going down to generic names); it is available as Pipromorpha Gray 1855, because Gray 1855 (who presumably took it from Bonaparte 1854) used it as a valid subgeneric name and associated a nominal species denoted by an available species-group name to it.
 
Last edited:
l_raty said:
Triccidae Heine & Reichenow 1890 seems to have precedence, however.
Click to expand...
Mmh. Actually no.
Rhynchocyclidae was introduced by Berlepsch 1907; however, the type Rhynchocyclus Cabanis & Heine 1860 was a new name for Cyclorhynchus Sundevall 1836 (deemed preoccupied by Cyclorrhynchus Kaup 1829, Alcidae), and Bonaparte had a group called Cyclorhyncheae in 1854.
Rhynchocyclidae may be seen as taking precedence from the establishment of this name under Art. 40.2 (i.e., as Rhynchocyclidae Berlepsch 1907 (1854)), which makes it senior to Triccidae.
(With the possible caveat that this interpretation is conditional to Rhynchocyclidae being "in prevailing usage", which might perhaps be questionable.)
 
Last edited:
 
Last edited:
Just been having another look at the above YouTube video.

At 36:15 there's a nice phylogeny in which if you look closely Urocynchramidae appears to be sandwiched between Fringillidae and the NW 9-primaried oscines.

Unless I've missed something this appears to be a new placement.
 
Acanthis said:
Just been having another look at the above YouTube video.

At 36:15 there's a nice phylogeny in which if you look closely Urocynchramidae appears to be sandwiched between Fringillidae and the NW 9-primaried oscines.

Unless I've missed something this appears to be a new placement.
Click to expand...
90% of the passerines have been sampled. I think in the remaining 5%, Sunbirds, Macrosphenidae & Humblotia flavirostris are missing.
 
Acanthis said:
Just been having another look at the above YouTube video.

At 36:15 there's a nice phylogeny in which if you look closely Urocynchramidae appears to be sandwiched between Fringillidae and the NW 9-primaried oscines.

Unless I've missed something this appears to be a new placement.
Click to expand...

That figure seems to be from Fjeldsa's The Largest Avian Radiation. There is a modified version in Winks (2021) (figure 8).

I note that the thick-billed weaver (Amblyospiza albifrons) gets its own family, Amblyospizidae.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Mysticete
Time calibration and Linnean ranks in birds
4 5 6
Replies
100
Views
11K
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
Jim LeNomenclatoriste
A
Phylogenetic affinities of fossil passerines
Replies
1
Views
1K
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Genomes, fossils, and the concurrent rise of modern birds and flowering plants in the Late Cretaceous
Replies
5
Views
2K
THE_FERN
T
Fred Ruhe
Southern hemisphere tectonics in the Cenozoic shaped the pantropical distribution of parrots and passerines
Replies
3
Views
945
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe
Palaeoceanographic changes in the late Pliocene promoted rapid diversification in pelagic seabirds
Replies
0
Views
801
Fred Ruhe
Fred Ruhe

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top