Viduidae (3 Viewers)

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

I'm surprised there isn't a thread on Viduidae or it was discussed in another topic.

In all authorities, the classification of this family is based on Sorenson & al (2004) and to my knowledge there has been no other study. However, I am not convinced that this classification truly reflects the relatively small divergences between the taxa recognized as species when looking at Figures 3 and 4 of the paper and I think that the number of species should be considerably reduced as follows:

Vidua Cuvier, 1816
chalybeata (Statius Muller, 1776)
fischeri (Reichenow, 1882)
funerea (de Tarragon, 1847) (included codringtoni, purpurascens)
hypocherina Verreaux & Verreaux, 1856
macroura (Pallas, 1764) (two potential species may be involved)
orientalis Heuglin, 1870 (included interjecta, togoensis)
paradisaea (Linnaeus, 1758) (includes obtusa)
regia (Linne, 1766)
wilsoni (Hartert, 1901) (included camerunensis, larvaticola, maryae, nigeriae, raricola)

I think that this classification is very consistent with the only phylogeny that exists and despite differences in behavior or parasitism.

 

[Brian J Small]

For those interested, here is a paper by Robert Payne on indigobirds

https://ia804601.us.archive.org/13/items/biostor-261507/biostor-261507.pdf

Brian

 

[Mysticete]

I'm surprised there isn't a thread on Viduidae or it was discussed in another topic.

In all authorities, the classification of this family is based on Sorenson & al (2004) and to my knowledge there has been no other study. However, I am not convinced that this classification truly reflects the relatively small divergences between the taxa recognized as species when looking at Figures 3 and 4 of the paper and I think that the number of species should be considerably reduced as follows:

Vidua Cuvier, 1816
chalybeata (Statius Muller, 1776)
fischeri (Reichenow, 1882)
funerea (de Tarragon, 1847) (included codringtoni, purpurascens)
hypocherina Verreaux & Verreaux, 1856
macroura (Pallas, 1764) (two potential species may be involved)
orientalis Heuglin, 1870 (included interjecta, togoensis)
paradisaea (Linnaeus, 1758) (includes obtusa)
regia (Linne, 1766)
wilsoni (Hartert, 1901) (included camerunensis, larvaticola, maryae, nigeriae, raricola)

I think that this classification is very consistent with the only phylogeny that exists and despite differences in behavior or parasitism.

This would depend rather on the species concept used, correct? if specialization towards different host species results in reproductive isolation, then even with minor genetic differences separate species would be supported.

(Caveat that I know little about Viduidae biology!)

 

[Jim LeNomenclatoriste]

This would depend rather on the species concept used, correct? if specialization towards different host species results in reproductive isolation, then even with minor genetic differences separate species would be supported.

(Caveat that I know little about Viduidae biology!)

I consider that below a certain period (less than 900,000 years), it is better to make subspecies. It seems that there are lineages that do not exceed 200,000 years. I agree that it does not work for very young groups like Thraupidae.

 

[Mysticete]

While I have no problem calibrating higher ranks using divergence dating (just because, outside of monophyly, there really isn't much criteria other than personal opinion about ranking something a tribe, subfamily, or family), I am skeptical of using degree of genetic divergence/age of split as the sole criteria. Speciation is complex and I wouldn't expect two species which otherwise act as good species to necessarily split from one another at the same time as a unrelated group of birds. Especially since a lot of studies have error bars in their dating which are often significantly larger than 1 million years!

 

[jurek]

I pointed before that setting a fixed date for separation of species, families etc. is against the scientific concept that speed of evolution changes with the strength of selection, environment, generation time etc. Basically, not scientific.