Proposal (504) to South American Classification Committee

 

New linear sequence of genera in Furnariidae

 

The recently published phylogeny of the Furnariidae (Derryberry et al. 2011), which includes all currently recognized genera and 285 of 293 species, shows that the current linear sequence of genera does not reflect phylogenetic relationships, at least in the limited way that a linear sequence can do so.  Using the trees in the Supplementary material in Derryberry et al. (2011) (pdfs available on request), we each independently sequenced the genera according to the convention that (1) between sister groups, the one with less diversity (typically but misleadingly referred to as “basal”) is listed first, and (2) when diversity is the same, then the sister listed first is the one listed first in traditional sequences (to minimize perturbation of traditional sequence).  We both came up with the identical sequence, as given below, and recommend we adopt it in the SACC classification:

 

 

(Sclerurinae)

Sclerurus

Geositta

 

(Dendrocolaptinae)

Certhiasomus

Sittasomus

Deconychura

Dendrocincla

Glyphorynchus

Dendrexetastes

Nasica

Dendrocolaptes

Hylexetastes

Xiphocolaptes

Xiphorhynchus

Dendroplex

Campylorhamphus

Drymotoxeres

Drymornis

Lepidocolaptes

 

(Furnariinae)

Xenops

Berlepschia

Microxenops

Pygarrhichas

Ochetorhynchus

Pseudocolaptes

Premnornis

Tarphonomus

Furnarius

Lochmias

Phleocryptes

Limnornis

Geocerthia

Upucerthia

Cinclodes

Anabazenops

Megaxenops

Cichlocolaptes

Heliobletus

Philydor

Anabacerthia

Syndactyla

Simoxenops

Ancistrops

Clibanornis

Hylocryptus

Hyloctistes

Automolus

Thripadectes

Premnoplex

Margarornis

Aphrastura

Sylviorthorhynchus

Leptasthenura

Phacellodomus

Hellmayrea

Anumbius

Coryphistera

Asthenes (now incl. Schizoeaca, Oreophylax)

Acrobatornis

Metopothrix

Xenerpestes

Siptornis

Roraimia

Thripophaga

Limnoctites

Cranioleuca

Pseudasthenes

Spartonoica

Pseudoseisura

Schoeniophylax

Certhiaxis

Synallaxis

Siptornopsis

Gyalophylax

 

         Genera highlighted in yellow are traditionally recognized genera that Derryberry et al. found to be polyphyletic or paraphyletic, and these will be dealt with in subsequent papers by that same author team.  For now, their placement in the linear sequence is determined by where the type species of the genus falls in the phylogeny.

 

         To evaluate this sequence, you will need to see the expanded trees in the Supplementary material.  If anyone finds problems, let us know. 

 

Van Remsen & Santiago Claramunt, October 2011

 

=========================================================

 

Comments from Stiles: “YES – the sequence proposed is a clear improvement on that we currently have, given the very exhaustive phylogeny of Derryberry et al.  Some further changes will undoubtedly be necessary, but for now this sequence is the best available.”

 

Comments from Pacheco: “YES.  Sou de opiničo que a nova sequencia representa bem os avanćos suportados por este recentíssimo trabalho, incrivelmente amplo em sua cobertura de gźneros amostrados.”

 

Comments from Pérez: “YES. The proposed linear sequence reflects the most up-to-date information available on phylogenetic relationships. Genera found to be poly- or paraphyletic will also have an impact on placement of other monophyletic genera depending on their mutual relationships, but it will be a matter of future proposals.”

 

Comments from Zimmer: “YES.  This clearly is based on the best available evidence (taxon sampling of Derryberry et al. was impressive), and we should adopt it, knowing that resolution of the several polyphyletic or paraphyletic genera will necessitate still more changes.”