Proposal (132)
to South
American Classification Committee
Merge
families Dendrocolaptidae and Furnariidae
Effect on SACC: This
would combine two families into one.
Background:
Controversy over whether the woodcreepers and ovenbirds should both be ranked
at the family level or treated as subfamilies of the same family go almost 100
years. See brief summary under Dendrocolaptidae at the SACC site, or see Remsen
(2003) or Marantz et al. (2003). The controversy has two components: a trivial
one on whether each group "deserves" family or subfamily rank, and an
important one on whether the two groups are reciprocally monophyletic.
New data: Irestedt
et al.'s (2002) DNA sequence data indicated that Furnariidae was paraphyletic
with respect to the Dendrocolaptidae because Sclerurus was
basal to Dendrocolaptidae + rest of Furnariidae. Chesser (2004) analyzed both
nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and had much greater taxon-sampling than Irestedt
et al. (2002); he found strong support for the above relationship (e.g., 99%
bootstrap value) as well as for Geositta also lying outside
Dendrocolaptidae + rest of Furnariidae (and Geositta and Sclerurus
as sisters). Of interest is that Ames (1971) long ago noted that Geositta did
not have the syringeal structure that defined the rest of the Furnariidae. Geositta and
Sclerurus each have unique minor phenotypic traits that distinguish them
from other ovenbirds (Remsen 2003).
Analysis: Two
independent genetic data sets strongly indicate that the Furnariidae is a
paraphyletic taxon as currently constituted, thus confirming suspicions that
date back to at least Ihering (1915) and consistent with morphological data
(e.g., Ames 1971, Feduccia 1973). Therefore, to maintain the two families as
monophyletic taxa, as in our current list, is not defensible with any data of
which I am aware.
One solution would be to create yet
a third family-level taxon for Geositta + Sclerurus, but with
only one data set to support the monophyly of that grouping, I would be highly
reluctant to concoct a novel family-level taxon (especially given the rather
disturbing biogeographic anomaly that that sister relationship would
represent).
The other solution is to simply
revert to earlier treatments that recognize only a single family, Furnariidae
and to also abandon subfamily ranks for woodcreepers and ovenbirds.
Recommendation: I vote
YES on this because the combination of recent genetic and historical evidence makes
untenable the ranking these two groups as separate taxa at any level.
If this proposal passes, I may do
another on linear sequence with respect to Geositta and Sclerurus.
For now, however, the effect on our list would be to simply place all Dendrocolaptidae
at the END of the Furnariidae.
Literature Cited
AMES, P. L.
1971. The morphology of the syrinx in passerine birds. Bulletin Peabody Museum
Natural History 37: 1-194.
CHESSER, R.
T. 2004. Molecular systematics of New World suboscine birds. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 32: 11-24.
FEDUCCIA,
A. 1973. Evolutionary trends in the Neotropical ovenbirds and woodhewers.
Ornithol. Monogr. 13.
IRESTEDT,
M., J. FJELDSÅ, U. S. JOHANSSON, AND P. G. P. ERICSON. 2002. Systematic
relationships and biogeography of the tracheophone suboscines (Aves
: Passeriformes). Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution 23: 499-512.
MARANTZ, C.
A., A. ALEIXO, L. R. BEVIER, AND M. A. PATTEN. 2003. Family Dendrocolaptidae
(woodcreepers). Pp. 358-447 in "Handbook of the Birds of
the World, Vol. 8. Broadbills to tapaculos." (J. del Hoyo et
al., eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
REMSEN, J.
V., JR. 2003. Family Furnariidae (ovenbirds). Pp. 162-357 in "Handbook
of the Birds of the World, Vol. 8. Broadbills to tapaculos." (J. del Hoyo
et al., eds.). Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.
Van Remsen,
September 2004
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Stiles:
"YES. Ever since Feduccia's study I have felt
comfortable with woodcreepers as a subfamily of Furnariidae (though less so if
all subfamilies are abolished, though this might be a necessary result of the Sclerurus-Geositta
connection). Actually, the latter might not be so terribly illogical as an
old subfamily of very terrestrial furnariids that initially got split by
the Andes rising, with the Pacific guys adapting to very dry habitats and the
eastern bunch spreading into humid forest)."
Comments from Robbins:
"YES, as the molecular data clearly support this treatment."
Comments from Nores:
"YES; a pesar de que sentimentalmente me resulta poco
agradable eliminar la familia Dendrocolaptidae, el hecho de que dos diferentes estudios
genéticos llegan a la misma conclusión resulta definitivo. De todos modos, sigo
pensando que en morfología y comportamiento son bastante diferentes como
para pertenecer a diferentes familias."
Comments from Silva:
"YES. I think this is the best solution."
Comments from Zimmer: "I
vote "YES" for all of the reasons stated by Van."
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES.
However, I am uncomfortable doing away
with the subfamilies. Is it not reasonable to propose a new subfamily for Sclerurus
and Geositta? Was Upucerthia sampled in the Chesser paper? I have
a hard time believing that Geositta and Upucerthia are not in the
same group.”
Additional comment from Remsen: “Alvaro –
yes Upucerthia sampled.”