Proposal (400) to South American Classification
Committee
Effect on SACC: This
moves the positions of two genera in our current linear sequence.
Background: Our current linear sequence is
the product largely of historical momentum and interpretations of comparative
morphology.
Pteroptochos
Scelorchilus
Rhinocrypta
Teledromas
Liosceles
Psilorhamphus
Merulaxis
Eleoscytalopus
Myornis
Scytalopus
Acropternis
New data: Moyle et al. (2009) sampled nuclear DNA (RAG-1, RAG-2) of
members of all the genera of Rhinocryptidae except Psilorhamphus, Merulaxis,
and Eleoscytalopus. They found that the current linear
sequence is consistent with phylogenetic data except for 1 major point: Acropternis, placed at the end of the
sequence in traditional sequences to follow Scytalopus
is the sister, with strong support, to Rhinocrypta
+ Teledromas. Thus, it is a member of the major
division of the Rhinocryptidae, which Moyle et al. proposed to be designated as
the subfamily Rhinocryptinae, whereas Scytalopus
is a member of the other proposed subfamily, Scytalopodinae.
Analysis and Recommendation: We can make our sequence consist with
the phylogenetic hypothesis of Moyle et al. (2009) by moving Acropternis back in the sequence, and
with a tweak of the position of Liosceles,
the sequence is consistent with the branching pattern in Moyle et al. In the absence of data, the three
genera not sampled can remain in their current position. I recommend a YES on this – our
existing sequence is not backed by any explicit hypotheses, much less data, as
far as I know, whereas the new one would be consistent with strong genetic
data.
Pteroptochos
Scelorchilus
Liosceles
Acropternis
Rhinocrypta
Teledromas
Psilorhamphus
Merulaxis
Eleoscytalopus
Myornis
Scytalopus
Lit Cit
MOYLE, R. G., R. T. CHESSER, R. T. BRUMFIELD, J. G.
TELLO, D. J. MARCHESE, AND J. CRACRAFT. 2009. Phylogeny and phylogenetic
classification of the antbirds, ovenbirds, woodcreepers, and allies (Aves:
Passeriformes: infraorder Furnariides). Cladistics 25: 1-20.
Van
Remsen, July 2009
Comments from Zimmer: “YES,
based on the genetic data of Moyle et al (2009). I am surprised that Liosceles
and Merulaxis don’t fall out as
closer to one another – there are a number of ecological and vocal
similarities that would suggest those two genera are closer than what they
appear to be.”
Comments from Stotz: “YES. I
agree that this is a better arrangement based on Moyle et al., beyond being
more intuitive. I also agree with
Kevin that Liosceles and Merulaxis seem like they are close to
one another. But in the absence of
data to support that feeling obviously we shouldn’t adjust the order to reflect
that.”
Comments from Stiles: “YES. The evidence for this change is persuasive (and
the movement of one genus to a place supported by solid evidence from a place
supported by little except historical momentum is a clear step forward.”
Comments from Nores: “YES. Me parece muy convincente la propuesta ya que está basada en el análisis
genético de Moyle et al. (2009). Lo que si queda pendiente donde irán colocados
finalmente los géneros Psilorhamphus,
Merulaxis, y Eleoscytalopus. Una cosa que me llama la atención es que no está el
género Eugralla, que tendría que
estar al lado de Scytalopus, pero
supongo que será una omisión involuntaria.”
Comments from
Jaramillo: “YES, the data and proposal are
persuasive.”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. Os
dados disponíveis bem corroboram a proposta.”