Proposal (551) to South American Classification Committee
Change linear sequence of genera in Charadriidae
Background: Our current sequence of genera in the plovers is as follows:
Vanellus
Pluvialis
Charadrius
Phegornis
Oreopholus
New Evidence: Recent DNA sequence data from the Allan Baker lab has shown
that this sequence does not reflect phylogenetic relationships. The new findings on Pluvialis are summarized
in our footnote:
5. Some data indicated that Pluvialis might not belong in the
Charadriidae but rather (Ericson et al. 2003) sister to the Charadriidae +
(Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae) or (Baker et al. 2007, Fain & Houde
2007) sister to Recurvirostridae + Haematopodidae. The distinctiveness of Pluvialis
compared to other plover-like birds was first elucidated by Christian et al.
(1992). However, Baker et al. (2012),
with much improved gene sampling than in previous studies, found that Pluvialis is indeed in the Charadriidae,
sister to other plover genera.
In other words, initial findings indicated, to much
surprise, that Pluvialis might be
more closely related to other Charadrii families, and would thus require its
own family. However, more thorough
gene sampling revealed that Pluvialis
was sister to all other plovers.
[This, by the way, is an excellent example of why odd findings should
require corroboration with additional data.]
With respect to Oreopholus,
our current footnote is as follows:
17. Some authors follow Bock (1958) in merging Oreopholus
into Eudromias when that genus considered separate from Charadrius. Baker et al. (2007) indicate that Oreopholus is the sister to a group of
genera that includes Phegornis and Charadrius. Livezey’s (2010) analysis of phenotypic
characters supports retention of a monotypic genus for ruficollis. Baker et
al. (2012) found that Oreopholus was
sister to Vanellus + Charadrius. Proposal needed to change
linear sequence of genera in Charadriidae.
Baker et al.’s summary tree is as follows (although the
conflict among the various single gene trees is enlightening):
Tangentially, the Charadriidae have often been divided into
two subfamilies: the lapwings (Vanellinae) and the plovers (Charadriidae). We do not use subfamilies and should
continue to avoid them until taxon sampling has been improved. First, we would need to have at least 4
subfamilies (Pluvialinae, “Oreopholinae”, Vanellinae, Charadriinae). Second, the type species of Vanellus itself has yet to be sampled as
far as I know; the Baker et al. studies of Vanellus
are based on V. chilensis, which was
formerly placed in the genus Belonopterus. Third, most species of lapwings were placed
in separate genera until Bock (1958) – there is a lot of morphological
diversity in Vanellus that was
combined into one genus, including our own V.
cayanus, which many think may be closer to Charadrius (see our SACC footnote) and should be returned to its
monotypic genus Hoploxypterus. Because Bock was clearly way off in his
merger of Oreopholus into Eudromias (now merged into Charadrius) in the same paper, my
confidence in his merger of all lapwing genera into Vanellus is not high.
Fifth, the Australian genus Peltohyas is sister to Charadrius in Baker et al. (2012) but to Vanellus in Baker et al.
(2007). Clearly, a lot more work
is needed on plovers to sort this all out.
Recommendation: So that our sequence reflects the latest and best phylogenetic
data (Baker et al. 2012), it should be as follows, using the standard
conventions:
Pluvialis
Oreopholus
Vanellus
Charadrius
Phegornis
Literature:
BAKER, A. J., S. L.
PEREIRA,
AND T. P. PATON. 2007. Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times
of Charadriiformes genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin of
at least 14 clades of shorebirds.
Biology Letters 3: 205–209.
BAKER, A. J., Y. YATSENKO, AND E. S.
TAVARES.
2012. Eight independent
nuclear genes support monophyly of the plovers: the role of mutational variance
in gene trees. Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 65: 631-641.
BOCK, W. J. 1958. A
generic review of the plovers (Charadriinae, Aves). Bulletin Museum Comparative
Zoology 118: 27-97.
Van Remsen,
October 2012
Comments from Stiles:
“YES. The proposed sequence best represents the current state of
knowledge.”
Comments from Pacheco: “YES. A sequência sugerida se
coaduna com o mais recente trabalho.”