Proposal
(318) to South American
Classification Committee
Transfer Piranga,
Habia, and Chlorothraupis to Cardinalidae
Effect on SACC: This would transfer three genera that we have
already excised from Thraupidae to the Cardinalidae.
Background: SACC classification has already removed
these three genera from their traditional home in the Thraupidae to Incertae
Sedis, with the following footnotes:
2. [Piranga]
There is strong generic evidence that the genus Piranga belongs in
the Cardinalidae (Burns 1997, Klicka et al. 2000, Yuri and Mindell 2002, Burns
et al. 2003, Klicka et al. 2007). Proposal badly needed.
5. [Habia]
Genetic data (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2000, 2007)
indicate that the genus Habia does not belong in the Thraupidae,
but in the Cardinalidae. Proposal badly needed.
6. [Chlorothraupis]
Genetic data (Burns 1997, Burns et al. 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2000, 2007)
indicate that the genus Chlorothraupis does not belong in the
Thraupidae, but in the Cardinalidae. Similarity in behavior to Habia had
been noted previously by Willis (1966). Proposal badly needed. Klicka et al.
(2007) found that Habia is paraphyletic with respect to Chlorothraupis,
with H. rubica closer to Chlorothraupis than to H. fuscicauda +
H. gutturalis.
New information: Klicka et al. (2007) confirmed
these findings with broader taxon-sampling. Their combined analysis included
102 genera of tanagers, emberizines, and cardinalines. Because the three genera
above have been sampled in most of the previous genetic work, with similar
results, they are treated here as a package. [Klicka et al. (2007) also found
that Granatellus is embedded in Cardinalidae but Saltator is
not cardinaline, and made other taxonomic recommendations, such as a merger of Habia
and Chlorothraupis, but these are best dealt with in separate
proposals.] The genetic sampling consisted of 2281 bp of two mitochondrial
genes, ND2 and cyt-b ... a nice sample.
The critical node (#1 in their Fig. 1) that places these three
genera within a group that also consists of Cardinalis, Caryothraustes,
Periporphyrus, Rhodothraupis, Pheucticus, Granatellus, Cyanocompsa,
Amaurospiza, Cyanoloxia, Passerina, and Spiza has strong
support (100% Bayesian, 78% MP bootstrap, 92% ML bootstrap); see the MS for
additional details.
Analysis and Recommendation: mtDNA is widely
considered a reliable predictor of phylogeny at these levels of taxonomy, and
certainly these data sets represent the first truly scientific estimates of the
phylogeny and classification of this group. As hard as it will be for some
people, North Americans at least, to accept that what they think of as
"tanagers" are not true tanagers, the genetic data leave no option to
but to transfer them to Cardinalidae. Although Klicka et al. (2007)
consistently found support for a Thraupidae-Cardinalidae sister relationship,
that node does not have strong support. Therefore, merging Cardinalidae into
Thraupidae cannot be just justified. Klicka et al. (2007) treated these
families as well as parulids, icterids, and emberizids as tribes of Sibley
& Ahlquist's massive Emberizidae, and once we get more confidence in
estimating divergence times and hopefully tying family rank to absolute age of
the lineage, then in fact they may all end up in one family. But that is not
relevant to group monophyly and our current classification, which ranks them as
families.
To comfort those who might be disturbed by such a radical change,
note that Piranga shares with Pheucticus and some Passerina
complex age and seasonal plumage changes and complex songs that are rare or
unknown in core Thraupidae. The resemblance in plumage between Cardinalis
and Habia cristata is not the coincidence that we once thought. Having
placed all the cardinalines sensu Klicka et al. in a separate synoptic series
section in our collection, I am impressed by the overall phenotypic
similarities in plumage patterns, subtle shades, and texture; these sort of
fuzzy things don't count for anything, of course, but I speculate that had
earlier ornithologists not been so mesmerized by bill shape differences in
their classifications and focused more on patterns and textures that the
"new" Cardinalidae wouldn't be so radical.
I recommend a YES vote on this one -- we've had these genera
dangling in Incertae Sedis limbo waiting for just one more data set, and those
data have arrived.
References:
KLICKA, J., K. BURNS, AND G. M. SPELLMAN. 2007. Defining a
monophyletic Cardinalini: A molecular perspective. Molecular Phylogenetics and
Evolution 45: 1014-1032.
(see SACC Biblio for rest).
Van Remsen
(in consultation with Kevin Burns and John Klicka), November 2007
Note: This move will undoubtedly cause some major anxiety among those
concerned with making English names "perfect." Rather than consider
changing the names to something besides "Tanager", I recommend
considering the name "tanager" to refer to an ecomorph (intermediate
bill shape between warbler and finch), just like "sparrow,"
"grosbeak," "finch," "warbler," "chat,"
"flycatcher," and so, rather to refer to a taxonomic group, with
"tanager" the name used for those with beak morphology intermediate between
"finch" and "warbler."
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Robbins: "YES, for transferring these
three genera from Incertae Sedis status to the currently recognized family
Cardinalidae. As an aside, I fully support changing the English names of these
taxa to reflect their true relationships. Let’s call all the Piranga "tanagers",
Scarlet Piranga, Hepatic Piranga, etc. In my opinion, there is no difference in
using that as an English name as there is in using Euphonia or a host of
others. Now is the time to correct these misnomers."
Comments from Stiles: "YES. This transfer is
clearly mandated by the data. I really don't have a strong opinion on the
English names. I see no problem with continuing to call them tanagers in the
generic sense; although Mark's idea of calling them "Pirangas" is not
bad, I suspect that the rather enormous inertia of 150+ years of
"tanagers" is enough to tip the balance towards conservatism in this
case."
Comments from Stotz: "YES. This has been in the works for a while, and
this dataset seems to make it clear that these genera all belong in
Cardinalinae. In terms of the English names, I am in favor of leaving them be,
at least for the time being. Once everything is moved around the
Thraupidae is going to be full of things not called tanagers and there will be
tanagers scattered through various families. We have grosbeaks, buntings and
finches already in multiple families, and seem to have survived. I think
we can survive the name tanagers not providing much phylogenetic information."
Comments from Zimmer: "YES. The genetic data seem
clear. With respect to English names, I like Mark's suggestion because it
cleans up a messy situation, but I would have to agree with Doug that we are
probably better off waiting on any changes given that there is bound to be more
upheaval."
Comments from Schulenberg: "YES. I don't have any
problems with leaving all with "tanager" as part of the English. As
Van says (for once I agree with Van on English names - take note!), we long ago
accepted that many other group names have no phylogenetic meaning. I'd like to
see if this same approach can be accepted for ex-thraupid tanagers."
Comments from Nores: "YES. El análisis genético muestra bien esto, pero yo sería de la idea que en
caso como estos en que existe un análisis confiable, como parece ser el de
Klicka et al., y que todas las propuestas están basadas en ese análisis, se
hiciera una sola propuesta con todos los cambios. Por ejemplo .... 319,
320, 321."