BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

Register for an account to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="l_raty" data-source="post: 1230122" data-attributes="member: 24811">The first file in attachment is a ML tree based on ND2 sequences from GenBank. I've tried several other genes (cytochrome b, COI, beta-fibrinogen intron 4) and, as far as generic limits would be concerned, they give similar results - but ND2 has a broader taxonomic sampling, hence is the most interesting to show.Troglodytes s.l., Thryorchilus and Cistothorus form a clade that has a very strong support. This clade includes three main, well-supported lineages, namely [Troglodytes s.s. + Thryorchilus], Cistothorus, and Nannus.The basal node in this clade groups Cistothorus with Nannus in most cases, but always with very poor support; in some trees I get a node grouping Cistothorus with [Troglodytes + Thryorchilus] instead (see also <a href="http://www.specifysoftware.org/Informatics/bios/biostownpeterson/MBP_A_2005.pdf" target="_blank">http://www.specifysoftware.org/Informatics/bios/biostownpeterson/MBP_A_2005.pdf</a>).Thryorchilus may be basal to all Troglodytes s.s., but the node grouping the latter is also poorly supported.Based on this, several options could be possible, but the most straightforward would indeed probably be to recognize the three main lineages, because they have strong individual support, thus transfer the winter wren to Nannus. This move would be rather secure if it can gain wide acceptance (the probability that the resulting taxonomy could be proved unacceptable would be very low) - the question might be whether the (huge) part of the World that has a single wren species to deal with, would be ready to accept it.Few people use Nannus currently, I'm afraid - just compare the number of hits in Google -<a href="http://www.google.be/search?q=wren+nannus-troglodytes" target="_blank">http://www.google.be/search?q=wren+nannus-troglodytes</a><a href="http://www.google.be/search?q=wren+troglodytes-troglodytes" target="_blank">http://www.google.be/search?q=wren+troglodytes-troglodytes</a>Note the structure within the house wren group in the ND2 tree: brunneicollis is basal to the house wren complex; two sequences of aedon from Illinois group with a musculus sequence (from Oaxaca, Mexico); one sequence of aedon from Washington State groups with the Socorro wren.The second attached file is a COI tree generated by feeding the BOLD ID engine (<a href="http://www.barcodinglife.org" target="_blank">http://www.barcodinglife.org</a>) with a house wren COI sequence from GenBank. I used a full-database search, which means that the tree can include unvalidated sequences, some of which may be misidentified, hence we have to look at it with caution. (In particular, if a taxon pops up in a tree at a completely unexpected place, this is certainly not to be trusted.)It is rather clear that there is a lot of genetic structure in the house wren (which parallels the case of the winter wren).The most divergent bird labelled T. aedon in the BOLD database is from Venezuela. It differs from the focal sequence I used to generate the tree by 8.3% (for comparison, the largest distances within T. troglodytes barely pass 6%). It clusters with (but is still quite distant from) sequences of T. solstitialis from Argentina: this is quite odd for a house wren, so I'm not sure we should buy this one. (This could conceivably be a misidentified T. solstitialis from another population, or a T. rufulus, both of which occur in Venezuela.)The next most divergent bird is still 7.4% away from the focal sequence. This one clusters with a sequence of Henicorhina in the tree, which is clearly odd too - but in this case, the Henicorhina ID is probably the first one we should question, as this genus should not normally appear in this tree at all, certainly not in a position embedded in Troglodytes. Both samples are from SC Mexico. Brunneicollis? The phylogenetic position would in any case be consistent with that of this taxon in the ND2 tree, and the location would seem to fit as well.Then we get a group of three clusters, two of which correspond to populations usually treated as different species, T. sissonii (Socorro wren) and T. tanneri (Clarion wren), and the last being composed of T. aedon from W North America (British Columbia), together with a bird from C Mexico. The divergence from the focal sequence there is around 5.5-6%, comparable to the divergence between the W and E American groups of T. troglodytes.The remaining includes, in order of decreasing apparent divergence from the focal sequence:- a group of two clusters: one from the Yucatan/Quintana Roo in SE Mexico; the other from Dominica;- a cluster from S Argentina (Tierra del Fuego, Sta Cruz, Rio Negro);- a cluster from C and N Argentina (Buenos Aires, Corrientes, Formosa, Entre Rios, Jujuy);- a group of four clusters: one from N Argentina (Formosa, Misiones); one from Grenada; and two from Trinidad & Tobago, one of which also includes a bird from Venezuela; and- a cluster from NC/NE America (Quebec, Ontario).Divergence levels withing this entire group are below 5%.The usual cautionary statements apply - this tree is based on data, and generated with a method, that are aimed at identifying clusters of closely related haplotypes, not relationships. No measures of support are given, and (some of the) the relationships shown in the tree can be wrong. But I just can't go without noticing that the grouping of British Columbia aedon with T. sissonii parallels the grouping of a Washington aedon with the same taxon in the ND2 tree; and the grouping of Ontario aedon with birds of Yucatan parallels the grouping of two Illinois aedon with a T. (aedon) musculus from Oaxaca in the ND2 tree.This means that we have two independent data sets that suggest congruently that the deepest genetic divergence in the house wren complex, if you exclude brunneicollis, could be between two North American populations....</blockquote>

Verification