Proposal (98) to South American Classification Committee
Delete the family Coerebidae
Effect on South American CL: This proposal would delete the
family-level taxon Coerebidae from our classification (and a subsequent
proposal would determine the placement of Coereba).
Background: We currently follow the classification of the AOU (1998)
and Dickinson (2003), which maintains the monotypic family Coerebidae for Coereba
flaveola. The AOU (1998) maintained Coereba in its own family solely
because of lack of information at that point as to its family assignment; the
AOU (1983) and Ridgely & Tudor (1989) treated Coereba in a monotypic
subfamily, with equivalent rank to tanagers (Thraupinae), in a broad
Emberizidae. (The other genera in the Coerebidae/Coerebinae had already been
placed in other families, primarily the Thraupidae).
New information: Two genetic data-sets (Sato et al. 1999, Burns et al.
2002, 2003) now show that Coereba is embedded in a clade of
"island" taxa, most of which were formerly classified as sparrows
(Emberizidae/Emberizinae): Euneornis, Loxigilla, Loxipasser,
Melanospiza, Melopyrrha of the West Indies, Tiaris of
primarily the Caribbean Basin, and all of the Geospizinae (Galapagos finches).
Of these, only Euneornis was a member of an earlier constitution of the
Coerebidae. Based in 1045 bp of cytochrome b, the bootstrap support value for
this clade (parsimony /PAUP) in Burns et al. (2003) is 98%; the same group is
supported by a 100% posterior probability value in a Bayesian analysis. Based
on ca. 2000 bp of cytochrome b, plus ca. 1500 bp of numt2 and numt3,
in Sato et al. bootstrap support for this group was 74% (parsimony/PAUP) and
77% (maximum likelihood/PAUP); Sato et al. did not have as complete a
taxon-sampling as Burns et al. for the non-Galapagos taxa, but had more
geospizines, including Pinaroloxias of Cocos Island.
Therefore, maintaining the family Coerebidae, as constituted
solely by Coereba, is untenable.
Recommendation: Unless we wish to add all of the above taxa to the
Coerebidae, we have to abandon family-level classification for Coereba.
A YES vote for this proposal means only that we "do something" with Coereba
other than keep it as a monotypic family. If this proposal passes, then I will
do a subsequent proposal to deal with those options (other than keep monotypic
Coerebidae), i.e., (a) move Coereba into our current Emberizidae next to
Tiaris [minimum "disturbance" to classification but maximum
perpetuation of a classification that maintains polyphyletic Emberizidae]; (b)
placement of Coereba and all other taxa in this group in Incertae Sedis
category in nine-primaried oscines; and (c) placement of Coereba and all
other taxa in this group in the Thraupidae [probably most consistent with
current genetic data].
Literature Cited
BURNS, K. J., S. J. HACKETT, AND N. K. KLEIN. 2002.
Phylogenetic relationships and morphological diversity in Darwin's finches and
their relatives. Evolution 56: 1240-1252.
BURNS, K. J., S. J. HACKETT, AND N. K. KLEIN. 2003.
Phylogenetic relationships of Neotropical honeycreepers and the evolution of
feeding morphology. J. Avian Biology 34: 360-370.
SATO, A., C. O'HUIGIN, F. FIGUEROA, P. R. GRANT, B. R.
GRANT, H. TICHY, AND J. KLEIN. 1999. Phylogeny of Darwin's finches as revealed
by mtDNA sequences. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 96: 5101-5106.
Van Remsen, February 2004
======================================================
Comments from Zimmer: "YES. Evidence outlined by Van would seem to suggest
that we have little choice here, and that the hard part will be figuring out
what to do with Coereba once we've taken it out of its own family."
Comments from Stiles: "YES. The genetic data do seem convincing, and do
resolve, at least in part, inconsistencies regarding nest type and placement
that led me to recognize "Coerebidae" for Coereba in the Costa Rica
guide. I am somewhat less convinced regarding placing Coereba et al. in
the Thraupidae without more extensive taxon sampling. On the other hand, while
perhaps more intuitively satisfying, placing the whole group in Emberizidae
does not resolve problems of polyphyly (prob. more data needed here).
"Incertae sedis" is intuitively irritating but perhaps more accurate
given current uncertainties."
Comments from Nores: "Si. Aunque no tengo fundamentos propios
para opinar sobre esto, pienso que los datos genŽticos son bastante
convincentes."
Comments from Jaramillo: "YES.
Independent data sets saying the same thing. Bye-bye Coerebidae."