Proposal (400) to South American Classification Committee

Change linear sequence of genera in Rhinocryptidae

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.”