Proposal (359) to South American Classification Committee
Eliminar la categoría "Incertae Sedis" de la "Main SACC
List"
El avance de los análisis moleculares ha
permitido resolver muchos problemas taxonómicos y sobre la secuencia linear de
órdenes, familias, géneros y especies. Sin embargo, yo pienso que el SACC
Committee ha exagerado la importancia de dichos análisis, a tal punto que los
trabajos taxonómicos llevados a cabo por ornitólogos tradicionales: Hellmayr,
Zimmer, Peters, y tantos otros, parecen tener poca importancia en la
actualidad. Por lo que se observa en la Main List, algunos de los problemas que
no pueden resolver los análisis moleculares se los deriva a "Incertae
Sedis" (que tampoco resuelve nada), en vez de mantener la taxonomía
tradicional, hasta tanto los análisis moleculares demuestren
"definitivamente" cuál es la verdadera relación taxonómica. Hay un
gran número de taxas que todavía necesitan estudios más profundos para
determinar su verdadera relación, que podrían también pasar a la categoría de
"Incertae Sedis", pero no parece la solución.
Por ejemplo, la Familia Cathartidae ha sido
tradicionalmente incluida en Falconiformes y también se ha dicho que podría
estar relacionados con los Ciconiiformes. Los análisis moleculares (Cracraft
et al. 2004, Ericson et al. 2006, Gibb et al. 2007, Slack et al. 2007) refutan
la relación Cathartidae/Ciconiiformes. Su relación con otros Falconiformes los
análisis moleculares son controvérsicos. Ericson et al. (2006) y Gibbs et al.
(2007), no encuentran relación entre Cathartidae y Accipitridae, mientras que
Slack et al. (2007) incluyen Cathartidae en Falconiformes. En la "Main
SACC List" se deriva la familia a "Incertae Sedis", siendo que
para mí lo lógico sería mantenerla dentro de Falconiformes, como ha sido
tradicionalmente hecho, hasta que se demuestre lo contrario.
Otro caso es el de Phibalura flavirostris,
Piprites chloris, Piprites pileata y Calyptura cristata. Aunque
hay varios análisis moleculares, los resultados no son coincidentes en la
relación con Cotingidae/Pipridae/Tyrannidae, por lo que se evidencia también
que los análisis moleculares no son infalibles. Para mi habría que dejar Phibalura
flavirostris y Calyptura cristata dentro de Cotingidae y Piprites
chloris y Piprites pileata en Pipridae, como fue hecho por un
especialista en ambas familias: David Snow en el HBW, hasta que se demuestre lo
contrario.
A Donacobius atricapillus yo la
pondría en Donacobiidae como propuesto por Aleixo & Pacheco (2006), con la
aclaración "SACC proposal pending to recognize Donacobiidae". Si la
votación decide lo contrario (ya hay cinco votos a favor y ninguno en contra),
le aclararía "Proposal needed" para ubicar a esta especie en alguna
de las familias existentes.
El otro grupo es: Chlorospingus,
Mitrospingus, Rhodinocichla, Coereba, Tiaris, Certhidea, Platyspiza,
Camarhynchus, Geospiza, Saltator, Saltatricula y Parkerthraustes. Yo
pondría a Chlorospingus en Emberizidae, como sugerido por Yuri
y Mindell (2002) y Klicka et al. (2007) y el resto (Mitrospingus y Rhodinocichla,
Coereba, Tiaris, Platyspiza, Camarhynchus y Geospiza) en Thraupidae
(Burns et al 2002, 2003, Klicka et al. 2007).
Como me parece que pasar taxas a
"Incertae Sedis" es algo artificial y si se quiere poco científico,
yo voto SI a esta propuesta.
Manuel Nores, May 2008
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments from Remsen: "NO. I recognize that this
category is unpopular with most on SACC. Here's my defense of it. Taxa above
the species level must be monophyletic to have any scientific value in terms of
phylogeny. Therefore, inclusion of taxa within a higher-level taxon implies a
level of certainty that is part of our responsibility to evaluate in terms of
recent research. Therefore, Incertae Sedis allows us the necessary option to
indicate a reasonable level of uncertainty. It further provides the useful
educational function of alerting everyone to the need for further research and
that much research is still needed to make certain that higher-level taxa
represent monophyletic groups."
Comments from Cadena: "NO. I generally don't
like incertae sedis and like other committee members, I feel we often
tend to use it too much. However, I think this is useful for cases in which we
simply do not know where different taxa should go. To use Manuel's words, I'd
argue it is more unscientific and more artificial to leave taxa in groups where
we know they do not belong. For example, many "tanagers" were
unplaced for a while because we knew they were outside Thraupidae but could not
assign them to any other family with certainty, a situation that we are now
finally being able to solve. That said, I'd reemphasize that there are many
cases in which we are not absolutely clueless (e.g. Donacobius) and
in those, we should go with the best available information. In sum,
avoid incertae sedis whenever we can, but let it be."
Comments from Nores: "YES, por las razones dadas en la propuesta."
Comments from Zimmer: "NO. Having it allows us to
move when we know something doesn't belong where the current taxonomy places
it, even though we are not sure where it should go. Without the category, we
are stuck with either making no move until everything is settled, or having to
just make our best guess about where to move a misplaced taxon."
Comments from Schulenberg: "NO. Most if not all members
of the committee do not much like the category "incertae sedis," and
we probably use it too often. So, I can sympathize with the arguments that
Manuel makes for us to eliminate this category. But as Daniel points out, there
are rare situations for which we still need to invoke "incertae
sedis." If we have strong evidence that a taxon is classified incorrectly,
but at the same time are left with little or no evidence of the true
relationships of this taxon, then I don't see that we have any choice other
than to place it in "incertae sedis." Leaving said taxon in the
traditional classification perhaps is more convenient, but we could so only be
ignoring strong evidence that this classification is incorrect; and I don't
think that we should make a habit of ignoring strong evidence."
Comments from Stotz: "NO I don't like Incertae
sedis, just like most of the rest of the committee. But especially with
molecular work telling us that the status quo is wrong is a particular case,
but not clearly providing a new "truth" we will have situations where
we can stick with something we know to be wrong, or place something somewhere
new that we can't really justify (or create a new taxon; not often a good
choice). Incertae sedis provides a temporary holding pen for these
problems, and also points out clearly problems that require more work."
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES - Count this as a
protest vote, given that I doubt that the category will be eliminated given the
voting thus far. The protest is that I think we should avoid it at all costs.
The Donacobius is a good example of where it is to be used. However, in the
shifts and re-arrangements of groups where information may as yet be
incomplete, I suggest we leave species misplaced in the status quo, until new
information comes along. They were misplaced all along, so why not keep that
going for a few more years, until the data is all in? No need to shift them out
to Incertae Sedis just to be an increment close to an incomplete solution."
Additional comment from Remsen: "Responding to
Alvaro's point above on 'why not leave them misplaced,' the rationale is as
follows. Say someone wants to use a classification to define taxonomic groups
for an analysis of some sort. By continuing to include taxa in that group that
we know do not belong in the group, that analysis becomes flawed. If these
problem taxa are excised and deported to holding areas, namely Incertae Sedis, then
no one will include them in any of their groups, which they hope are
monophyletic."