That it's rushed, whether he's right or not.What are folks thoughts on the Tinamus situation cited above?
What are folks thoughts on the Tinamus situation cited above?
References:December 13
Lithornithiformes: Recent work (e.g., Worthy et al., 2017;Yonezawa et al., 2017). suggests that the Lithornithiformes are sister torest of the known Paleognaths, rather than being sister to theTinamiformes. Whether this is correct remains uncertain. A mesozoicLithornithidae fossil would resolve the question quickly, but there aren'tany. See also Nesbitt and Clarke (2016) and Widrig and Field (2022) formore on the Lithornithiformes.
[Palaeognathae: Ratites and Tinamous, 3.04]
I am just copying and pasting from the Taxonomy in-flux website. You would have to chat with the operator of the website, although he usually is good about putting references on his bibliography page.References:
Sterling J. Nesbitt & Julia A. Clarke, 2016
The Anatomy and Taxonomy of the Exquisitely Preserved Green Eiver Formation (Early Eocene) Lithornithids (Aves) and the Relationships of Lithornithidae
Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 406: 1-91
Worthy at al., 2017
It is not clear to me which paper Mysticete means, there are several Worthy et al, 2017 papers. So I hope Mysticete can give rhe full reference.
Takahiro Yonezawa, Takahiro Segawa, Hiroshi Mori, Paula F. Campos, Yuichi Hongoh, Hideki Endo, Ayumi Akiyoshi, Naoki Kohno, Shin Nishida, Jiaqi Wu, Haofei Jin, Jun Adachi, Hirohisa Kishino, Ken Kurokawa, Yoshifumi Nogi, Hideyuki Tanabe, Harutaka Mukoyama, Kunio Yoshida, Armand Rasoamiaramanana, Satoshi Yamagishi, Yoshihiro Hayashi, Akira Yoshida, Hiroko Koike, Fumihito Akishinonomiya, Eske Willerslev, and Masami Hasegawa, 2017
Phylogenomics and Morphology of Extinct Paleognaths Reveal the Origin and Evolution of the Ratites
Current Biology 27, 68–77, January 9, 2017 ª 2017 Elsevier Ltd
Fred
Hi Mysticete,I am just copying and pasting from the Taxonomy in-flux website. You would have to chat with the operator of the website, although he usually is good about putting references on his bibliography page.
Actually the inclusion of Lithornithidae at all surprises me. Boyd generally hasn't included Pre-Holocene extinct birds. I wonder if he is planning to expand coverage to cover ancient birds.
Yeah...this is an entirely PSC split, which is the case with most of the more "novel" TiF splits. Eared Grebe being an example I always think of, not to mention the recent backtracked Great Cormorant split. Personally I really only see an argument for splitting the Old vs New World forms at this point.Interesting the comment about breeding chronology for Great White Heron. I had either never seen it or forgotten about that.
Also pretty aggressive on the treatment of Striated Heron but we expect nothing less
Jim, have you any firm idea on the attribution of the other 16 (+?) subspecies post-split. Most seem obvious, but...Striated Herons: I've split the Striated Heron, Butorides striata into five taxa:
American Striated Heron, Butorides striata
African Striated Heron, Butorides atricapilla
Arabian Striated Heron, Butorides brevipes
Asian Striated Heron, Butorides javanica
Australasian Striated Heron, Butorides macrorhyncha.
[Ardeiformes, Ardeae II, 3.10]
I had considered 4 species of Butorides (striata, sundevalli, virescens, atricapilla) with a monotypic striata and the other subspecies united in atricapillaJim, have you any firm idea on the attribution of the other 16 (+?) subspecies post-split. Most seem obvious, but...
MJB
Personally I really only see an argument for splitting the Old vs New World forms at this point.
Oh yeah...Lava was just assumed....I forget it's not widely recognized.Agreed on OW vs NW but also Lava Heron seemed to look decent as well from reading the paper.
To maintain Lava Heron, 3 NW spp must be recognised (as Lava is closer to virescens than either is to striata).Agreed on OW vs NW but also Lava Heron seemed to look decent as well from reading the paper.