Proposal (29) to South American Classification Committee
Remove Euphonia and Chlorophonia
from Incertae Sedis and place as subfamily Euphoniinae in Fringillidae
Effect
on South American CL: We currently treat the genera Euphonia
and Chlorophonia as Incertae Sedis within the 9-primaried oscines. This
proposal would move them to Fringillidae, as a subfamily (and therefore also
force recognition of subfamily Carduelinae for the fringillids in South
America).
Background: Although Euphonia and Chlorophonia have
always been placed in Thraupidae, several aspects of their biology have marked
them as "weird." The complex, melodious songs of some species have
been noted as superficially "goldfinch-like" and unlike that of most
tanagers. The presence of pronounced vocal copying in E. violacea,
E. laniirostris, and E. pectoralis (Snow 1974,
Morton 1976, Remsen 1976, Sick 1997) is unlike any tanager but reminiscent of
several fringillids (e.g., Mundinger 1970, Remsen et
al. 1982, Taylor 1979). The domed nest with side entrance is unlike that of any
typical tanager (Isler and Isler 1987). The vagility of some (e.g., E. chlorotica,
C. cyanea, C. flavirostris) seems unusual for
tanagers but typical of fringillids, as do reports of large single-species
flocks in at least one species, C. flavirostris. The
near-vegetarian diet recalls that of many fringillids, and their stomach
"structure" is bizarre. They feed their young by regurgitation,
unlike (?) tanagers but like many fringillids. None of these features, however,
has been accorded any phylogenetic significance.
New data: Four labs have independently shown that Euphonia
does not belong in Thraupidae but clusters with Fringillidae (Burns 1997, Burns
et al. 2002, Klicka et al. 2000, Sato et al. 2001, and Yuri and Mindell 2002).
My only hesitation is that these results are based mostly on one gene,
cytochrome b. Although Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) retained Euphonia
within their Thraupini, that branch was the deepest in the group, which
also included Piranga, Habia, Coereba, and Sicalis.
Recommendation: I recommend a YES on this one. The AOU Checklist Committee
has unanimously approved a similar proposal by Jim Rising, and created a
subfamily taxon, Euphoniinae, for these two genera within Fringillidae.
Although I would feel more comfortable if some sequence data came from a
nuclear gene, I see no reason other than historical momentum to keep these two
genera in Thraupidae. The additional phenotypic, albeit anecdotal, data is also
consistent with a fringillid connection.
Lit Cit:
BURNS,
K. J. 1997. Molecular systematics of tanagers (Thraupinae): Evolution and
biogeography of a diverse radiation of Neotropical birds. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 8:334-348.
BURNS,
K. J., S. J. HACKETT, & N. K. KLEIN. 2002. Phylogenetic relationships and
morphological diversity in Darwin's finches and their relatives. Evolution 56:
1240-1252.
ISLER,
M., AND P. ISLER. 1987. The tanagers, natural history, distribution, and
identification. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
KLICKA,
J, K. P. JOHNSON, & S. M. LANYON. 2000. New World nine-primaried oscine
relationships: constructing a mitochondrial DNA framework. Auk 117: 321-326.
MORTON,
E. S. 1976. Vocal mimicry in the Thick-billed Euphonia. Wilson Bull. 88:
485-487.
MUNDINDER,
P. C. 1970. Vocal imitation and individual recognition of finch calls. Science
168: 480-482.
REMSEN,
J. V., JR., K. GARRETT, & R. ERICKSON. 1982. Vocal copying in Lawrence's
and Lesser goldfinches. West. Birds 13: 29-33.
SATO,
A., H. TICHY, C. O'HUIGIN, P. R. GRANT, B. R. GRANT, & J. KLEIN. 2001. On
the origin of Darwin's finches. Mol. Biol. Evol. 18: 299-311.
SIBLEY,
C. G., AND J. E. AHLQUIST. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds. Yale
Univ. Press, New Haven, Connecticut.
SICK, H.
1997. Ornitologia Brasileira. Ed. Nova Fronteira, Rio
de Janeiro.
TAYLOR,
P. 1979. Interspecific vocal mimicry by Pine Grosbeaks. Can. Field Nat. 93:
436-437.
YURI,
T., & D. P. MINDELL. 2002. Molecular phylogenetic analysis of Fringillidae,
"New World nine-primaried oscines" (Aves: Passeriformes). Molecular
Phylogenetics & Evolution 23: 229-243.
Van Remsen, 5 June 2003
________________________________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Zimmer: "YES. The preponderance of
vocal, ecological, morphological and molecular data all suggest this
otherwise."
Comments
from Schulenberg: "YES. That said, I don't see
that Burns 1997 or Burns et al. 2002 include any fringillids among their
outgroups. So, these two papers support the idea that Euphonia and Chlorophonia
are not tanagers (whatever a tanager is), but do not directly address the
current proposal. And, therefore, we are down to three (not four) laboratories
that report this result, not that this matters much.
"Otherwise,
I also note that these studies generally compare a euphonia to a cardueline
(although a different species of Euphonia in each case), so our sampling
isn't very deep here. (Yuri and Mindell do a little better in this regard.)
Klicka et al. were cautious in suggesting that their results, for example,
indicate that "Euphonia (and by association Chlorophonia)
represents either a derived cardueline form or a basal, previously unrecognized
radiation within the nine-primaried oscine clade." So, I can approve the
proposal based on current knowledge. But I also wouldn't be surprised if down
the line, after the relationships of Euphonia and Chlorophonia
become the subject of an investigation (and not just a side issue to some other
question), we are asked to vote on recognizing a family Euphonidae,
or something along those lines. Time will tell."
Comments
from Stotz: "Tom's suggestion that we might
eventually have a separate Euphoniidae someday is
interesting, and could be true. However, Yuri and Mindell did have stronger
taxon sampling relating to this question (six Fringillid genera) and Euphonia
did not end up basal in this group. Since that paper is based on just
mitochondrial DNA, it certainly is not the last word, but it does suggest that Euphonia
and Chlorophonia belong within Fringillidae proper. Another problem is
that based on Yuri and Mindell, Euphonia and Chlorophonia could
cluster within Fringillidae, in which case we'd have to do away with
Euphoniinae. Since the SACC list does not include subfamilies, I guess we don't
need to worry about this. Given that Euphonia clusters with Fringilla in
Yuri and Mindell, I suggest that Euphonia and Chlorophonia be
placed at the start of the of Carduelinae in their lists."
Comments
from Stiles: "YES (the evidence now seems
solid enough to justify this change)>"