Phylogeny of birds (3 Viewers)

[Jacana]

I'm surprised at the relatively late divergence times between many of those Aequorlithornithes. Especially considering how early other groups diverged.

Some divergence times dated during the Cretaceous which are not currently recognised as separate orders, which might well constitute recognition:

Acanthisittiformes
Cathartiformes
Tytoniformes
Meropiformes*
Galbuliformes**
Megapodiiformes
Craciformes
Anhimiformes
Anseranatiformes

*Someone will have to remind me relationships between current Coraciiformes with regards to where Ground-Rollers, Todies and Motmots would fit if the order splintered

**Likewise, I'm assuming Puffbirds group with Jacamars rather than other Piciformes families.

 

[Mysticete]

I remain very very skeptical of the dates produced in this study, which are all far older than other recent studies. I just have trouble buying that many crown birds sailed through the K-Pg extinction unscathed, especially given the fossil record.

 

[Mysticete]

I'm looking at the fossil taxa they used to calibrate, which is where I think the issue is coming from

Ichthyornis is such an odd choice...it's outside the crown so I don't know why you would assume it represents a good calibration point for the oldest possible crown bird

Similarly, some of the calibration points are based on incredibly fragmentary material, sometimes with poor stratigraphic control. A lot of folks who work on fossil birds are skeptical these are correctly placed in the tree

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

The time calibration of Aequornithes is very weird

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Is there a clade name reuniting Columbimorphae et Otidomirphae/Cuculimorphae ?

 

[albertonykus]

Columbaves in Prum et al. (2015).

 

[andrew147]

Is there a clade name reuniting Columbimorphae et Otidomirphae/Cuculimorphae ?

No, they don't name it (or if they do, I can't find the info).

Are there any reasons we should favour this phylogeny over previous ones?

Some of the 'loose ends' seem to be conveniently tied up - e.g. grebes/flamingos, pigeons/cuckoos, hoatzin - and I'd like to trust that ...but the divergence time estimates seem far too generous and I'm failing to not view "Couble-striped thick-knee" as a red flag.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Columbaves in Prum et al. (2015).

Indeed

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I'm surprised at the relatively late divergence times between many of those Aequorlithornithes. Especially considering how early other groups diverged.

The datation of Aequornithes is clearly , very, really, totally, quitely, underestimated

 

[jts1882]

Columbaves in Prum et al. (2015).

Columbaves was also recovered in Kuhl et al (2021), where it was sister to Strisores + hoatzin.

They also recover Gruimorphae (Gruiformes + Charadriiformes), which was also recovered in Jarvis et al (2014) and Kuhl et al (2021).

They say their raptor grouping Hieraves is novel but that turned up in some analyses in Braun & Kimball (2021)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I'm surprised at the relatively late divergence times between many of those Aequorlithornithes. Especially considering how early other groups diverged.

Some divergence times dated during the Cretaceous which are not currently recognised as separate orders, which might well constitute recognition:

Acanthisittiformes
Cathartiformes
Tytoniformes
Meropiformes*
Galbuliformes**
Megapodiiformes
Craciformes
Anhimiformes
Anseranatiformes

*Someone will have to remind me relationships between current Coraciiformes with regards to where Ground-Rollers, Todies and Motmots would fit if the order splintered

**Likewise, I'm assuming Puffbirds group with Jacamars rather than other Piciformes families.

The position of the Hoazin in the Aequorlitornithes contrasts among all these waterbirds

 

[ornithociencia]

It's like a mix of Jarvis et al. (2014) and Prum et al. (2015).

 

[Mysticete]

No, they don't name it (or if they do, I can't find the info).

Are there any reasons we should favour this phylogeny over previous ones?

Some of the 'loose ends' seem to be conveniently tied up - e.g. grebes/flamingos, pigeons/cuckoos, hoatzin - and I'd like to trust that ...but the divergence time estimates seem far too generous and I'm failing to not view "Couble-striped thick-knee" as a red flag.

Worth noting that the portion of the tree containing hoatzin, and the grebe/flamingo clade has no reported bootstrap values, which makes me think the actual support for the positioning of a lot of taxa is minimal (which isn't particularly surprising; a rapid explosive radiation post K-Pg will do that )

 

[jts1882]

Worth noting that the portion of the tree containing hoatzin, and the grebe/flamingo clade has no reported bootstrap values, which makes me think the actual support for the positioning of a lot of taxa is minimal (which isn't particularly surprising; a rapid explosive radiation post K-Pg will do that )

It says bootstrap support numbers >90% not shown.

While there is something appealing about a fundamental terrestrial and water bird split (like in Galloanserae), I do wonder about the method. They use a neighbour-joining algorithm on a dataset where they had eliminated one type of data (CNEE) and then rejected 30% of the gene trees. The strategy is to maximise phylogenetic signal, but how much does the selection process influence the final result? I suppose wading through the supplementary figure may help provide an answer.

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

They also recover Gruimorphae

Are there other names to define this group?

 

[andrew147]

Are there other names to define this group?

Cursorimorphae

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Cursorimorphae

We need a name that does not end in -morphae. Why not "Limigrallae" ?

 

[jts1882]

Cursorimorphae

That's what Jarvis et al (2014) used. Was it new in that paper or does it have a longer history?

We need a name that does not end in -morphae. Why not "Limigrallae" ?

Why do you object to a -morphae ending? It seems appropriate to use a superorder ending to match all the others: Columbimorphae, Otidimorphae, Caprimulgimorphae, etc..

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

Why do you object to a -morphae ending? It seems appropriate to use a superorder ending to match all the others: Columbimorphae, Otidimorphae, Caprimulgimorphae, etc..

Yes, I prefer superorders to end in -morphae. But for unranked clade, find a name on the same model as Litusilvae, Columbaves, Picocoraciae, etc.

 

[jts1882]

Yes, I prefer superorders to end in -morphae. But for unranked clade, find a name on the same model as Litusilvae, Columbaves, Picocoraciae, etc.

Even if you don't use ranks, the endings give an idea of the hierarchy. You know a clade named somethingmorphae includes clades named somethingformes and anotherformes. With those other names there is no clue as to relative place in the hierarchy. It makes it much easier to remember the classification.

Thomas Near in his new classification of fish has taken an essentially phylocode approach but he does use traditional endings for his taxa and makes the point that a -formes taxon would never be nested in another and that an -oidei taxon would be part of a -formes taxon and not contain them. This seems a sensible approach and might win over some people who prefer a Linnaean rank based classification.