Phylogeny and classification of the Bucconidae (Aves, Galbuliformes) (1 Viewer)

[Fred Ruhe]

Sérgio Roberto Posso; Reginaldo José Donatelli; Vitor Q. Piacentini & Anderson Guzzi, 2020

Phylogeny and classification of the Bucconidae (Aves, Galbuliformes) based on osteological characters

Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (São Paulo) 60:e20206027
DOI: 10.11606/1807-0205/2020.60.27

Free pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/public...albuliformes_based_on_osteological_characters

Abstract:

The puffbirds (Bucconidae) are relatively poorly studied birds whose intrafamilial relationships have not yet been explored within a phylogenetic framework in a published study. Here, we performed a parsimony analysis of osteological data obtained following the examination of all the genera and 32 out of the 36 species recognized in Bucconidae currently. The analysis yielded eight equally parsimonious trees (426 minimum steps). Ambiguous relationships were observed only in Notharcus ordii, Malacoptila fusca, and Nonnula rubecula. Notably, Bucco was polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of Cyphos and Tamatia. In addition, the osteological data provided a well-resolved phylogeny (topological dichotomies) and the support indices indicated that most of the nodes were robust at all hierarchical levels. We thus propose the first revised classification of the Bucconidae.

Enjoy,

Fred

 

[THE_FERN]

Sérgio Roberto Posso; Reginaldo José Donatelli; Vitor Q. Piacentini & Anderson Guzzi, 2020

Phylogeny and classification of the Bucconidae (Aves, Galbuliformes) based on osteological characters

Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (São Paulo) 60:e20206027
DOI: 10.11606/1807-0205/2020.60.27

Free pdf: https://www.researchgate.net/public...albuliformes_based_on_osteological_characters

Abstract:

The puffbirds (Bucconidae) are relatively poorly studied birds whose intrafamilial relationships have not yet been explored within a phylogenetic framework in a published study. Here, we performed a parsimony analysis of osteological data obtained following the examination of all the genera and 32 out of the 36 species recognized in Bucconidae currently. The analysis yielded eight equally parsimonious trees (426 minimum steps). Ambiguous relationships were observed only in Notharcus ordii, Malacoptila fusca, and Nonnula rubecula. Notably, Bucco was polyphyletic, leading to the resurrection of Cyphos and Tamatia. In addition, the osteological data provided a well-resolved phylogeny (topological dichotomies) and the support indices indicated that most of the nodes were robust at all hierarchical levels. We thus propose the first revised classification of the Bucconidae.

Enjoy,

Fred

Interesting. To go into / link to in the main taxonomy forum..?

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I am puzzled as to the relevance of a study based only on osteology. A study provided by Ferreira et al and not yet published, based on genetics data, shows another configuration at generic level. My taxonomy of this family is a mix of Posso (for the subfamily) and Ferreira (for the generic relationship)

 

[Fred Ruhe]

Interesting. To go into / link to in the main taxonomy forum..?

I thought about that, but as osteology is very important for avian paleontology and paleornithologists, I decided to place it here, but of course everybody is welcome to visit this thread,

Fred

 

[Fred Ruhe]

I am puzzled as to the relevance of a study based only on osteology. A study provided by Ferreira et al and not yet published, based on genetics data, shows another configuration at generic level. My taxonomy of this family is a mix of Posso (for the subfamily) and Ferreira (for the generic relationship)

What happens is that one methed of research doesn't have to lead to the same conclusions as another method. That doesn't mean that one method is better than another,

Genetic data is based in a lot of assumptions and statistics and is only possible with fairly recent specimen, osteology is based on morphological data. The results can be very different, But for paleornithologists osteology is the most important method.

Fred

Fred

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

What happens is that one methed of research doesn't have to lead to the same conclusions as another method. That doesn't mean that one method is better than another,

Genetic data is based in a lot of assumptions and statistics and is only possible with fairly recent specimen, osteology is based on morphological data. The results can be very different, But for paleornithologists osteology is the most important method.

Fred

Fred

For paleontology, it is obvious but for once, there, the present study is about living species.
This is why I combine the two studies :brains:

 

[Fred Ruhe]

For paleontology, it is obvious but for once, there, the present study is about living species.
This is why I combine the two studies :brains:

Yes, that is true. But I am interested in paleornithology and for that this study is important. By the way, at this moment there is no fossil record for this family except for two recent species known from the Pleistocene.

Fred