Proposal (661) to South American Classification Committee
Revise
the linear sequence of Vireonidae
Effect
on SACC:
         This proposal revises the linear
sequence of Vireonidae to reflect the molecular phylogeny of Slager et al.
(2014). 
Background:
         Vireonidae is a rather morphologically
conserved family that has received relatively little phylogenetic attention
over the years.
         SACC Vireonidae footnote 13a reads as
follows:
     13a. Hylophilus
flavipes and H. olivaceus were considered to form a
superspecies by AOU (1983) and Sibley & Monroe (1990) because they were
considered conspecific by Zimmer (1942b). 
Slager et al. (2014), however, found that they are not sister species: H.
olivaceus and H. pectoralis are sisters, and H. flavipes and H. semicinereus are sisters. 
SACC proposal needed to modify linear sequence.
New
Information:
         Slager et al. (2014) produced a
phylogeny of Vireonidae using mitochondrial (ND2) and nuclear (3 Z-linked loci)
data that included 221 samples representing 46/52 currently recognized vireonid
species.
         Concurrently submitted SACC proposals
address splitting the genus Hylophilus.  This proposal deals only with the linear
sequence.
Analysis:
         The multilocus and ND2 trees in Slager
et al. (2014) provide many new insights on relationships within Vireonidae.
         Gene tree conflict occurs at the
deepest nodes in Slager et al. (2014). 
Three Z-linked nuclear loci, concatenated mtDNA + nuclear loci, and
species tree analyses of 4 loci place Cyclarhis
sister to "scrub" Hylophilus,
which are in turn sister to (Vireolanius
+ the rest of Vireonidae).  However,
analyzing mitochondrial ND2 sequences alone places Cyclarhis sister to the rest of Vireonidae.  This proposal uses the former topology since
it is the one best supported by multiple loci.
         Translating the tree of Slager et al.
(2014) into a linear sequence (using their multilocus concatenated/species tree
topology for the deeper nodes and their ND2 tree for shallower nodes) yields
the following (with extralimital taxa in gray):
Cyclarhis gujanensis
Cyclarhis nigrirostris
    Hylophilus amaurocephalus *
    Hylophilus poicilotis
                Hylophilus olivaceus
                Hylophilus pectoralis
                Hylophilus flavipes
                Hylophilus semicinereus
                
                Hylophilus brunneiceps
                Hylophilus thoracicus
                Vireolanius melitophrys 
                Vireolanius
pulchellus
                Vireolanius eximius
                Vireolanius leucotis
Tunchiornis
ochraceiceps
    Pachysylvia
decurtata
                Pachysylvia
hypoxantha
                            Pachysylvia muscicapina 
                                        Pachysylvia aurantiifrons 
                                        Pachysylvia semibrunnea 
Vireo hypochryseus
(following
AOU, mostly, because of lack of structure)
    Vireo osburni
    Vireo  
brevipennis
    Vireo atricapilla
    Vireo nelsoni *
    Vireo griseus
    Vireo crassirostris
    Vireo pallens
    Vireo bairdi
    Vireo caribaeus *
    Vireo modestus
    Vireo gundlachi *
    Vireo latimeri
    Vireo nanus
    Vireo bellii
    Vireo vicinior
    Vireo huttoni
Vireo
flavifrons
                Vireo carmioli
                Vireo masteri *
                            Vireo cassinii
                                        Vireo
solitarius
                                        Vireo
plumbeus 
Vireo
sclateri 
                Vireo
philadelphicus
                Vireo
gilvus
                Vireo leucophrys
Vireo olivaceus (ignoring species limits problems)
Vireo gracilirostris *
Vireo flavoviridis
Vireo altiloquus
Vireo magister
Pachysylvia and Tunchiornis
are new names, and Vireo sclateri is a new combination, pending other
current SACC proposals.  Also, note that
SACC proposal 658
proposes to transfer the species in Vireo
from sclateri through altiloquus to Vireosylva.
* unsampled
Recommendation:
         I recommend a YES vote.  Although Slager et al. (2014) does not
resolve every last node, the proposed linear sequence reflects the current
state of knowledge much better than the existing linear sequence.
Literature
Cited:
Slager, D.L., Battey, C.J., Bryson, R.W. Jr., Voelker, G.,
& Klicka J. (2014)  A multilocus
phylogeny of a major New World avian radiation: The Vireonidae.  Molecular
Phylogenetics and Evolution 80, 95-104.
Dave Slager, December
2014 (with input from Remsen)
_________________________________________________________________
Comments
from Nores: “NO. In the phylogeny of Vireonidae (Slager et al. 2014), the
taxon that splits first is Cyclarhis and must be placed at the top of the sequence. Then, splits the clade
containing Vireolanius of which leucotis splits first and must be placed
in that order. Then splits the clade containing several species of
scrub-dwelling Hylophilus and
finally, the clades containing Hylophilus ochraceiceps, “canopy” Hylophilus, Vireo and Hylophilus
sclateri. In my opinion Hylophilus
ochraceiceps, “canopy” Hylophilus and
Hylophilus sclateri could be included
within Vireo, the linear sequence
would be as follows”:
    Cyclarhis
gujanensis
    Cyclarhis nigrirostris
    Vireolanius leucotis
    Vireolanius eximius
    
    Hylophilus amaurocephalus 
    Hylophilus poicilotis
    Hylophilus olivaceus
    Hylophilus pectoralis
    Hylophilus flavipes
    Hylophilus semicinereus
    Hylophilus brunneiceps
    Hylophilus thoracicus
    
    Vireo ochraceiceps
                Vireo decurtatus
                Vireo hypoxanthus
                Vireo muscicapinus
                Vireo aurantiifrons
                Vireo semibrunneus
                Vireo flavifrons
                Vireo masteri 
                Vireo sclateri
                Vireo philadelphicus
                Vireo leucophrys
                Vireo olivaceus 
                Vireo gracilirostris 
                Vireo flavoviridis
                Vireo altiloquus
Comments
from Stiles: “YES,
with the minor tweak suggested by Manuel. 
However, I do think that it would be important to sequence V. masteri in particular (see my comment
on prop. 658).”
Comments from Jaramillo: “YES - I see no
problems with the new proposed linear order, some fine-tuning on the species
level stuff is of course necessary.”
Additional comments from Remsen: “Concerning Manuel’s objection to
the proposed sequence, see the second paragraph under Analysis above.”
Comments
from Pacheco:  “YES. 
I choose the exact sequence in Slater's proposal, considering the
comments of Remsen.”