Proposal
(732) to South American Classification Committee
Recognize
new family Pipritidae for Piprites
Effect
on SACC classification:
This would recognize a new family-level category for species in the genus Piprites, which are currently the only
species in the Incertae Sedis category in the suboscines.
Background: From SACC notes:
12.
The relationships of the genus Piprites have been controversial.
Traditionally (e.g., Hellmayr 1929, Pinto 1944, Phelps & Phelps 1950a,
Meyer de Schauensee 1970, Snow 1979c) placed in the Pipridae, Ames (1971)
suggested that it belonged in the Tyrannidae and was closely related to the
genus Myiobius. Prum (1990) was unable to place it within either the
Pipridae or Cotingidae. Genetic data
have been equivocal concerning its relationships. Prum et al. (2000) were unable to place it
within any existing family. Ericson et
al. (2006), Ohlson et al. (2008), and Prum et al. (2015) found that it was
sister to a limited sample of genera in the Tyrannidae. Barber & Rice (2007) showed that it was
not a member of the Tityridae and was sister to the Tyrannidae genera
sampled. Tello et al. (2009) found
genetic support for its placement in the Tyrannidae, as a member of the group
that includes the “flatbills” and other genera. Ohlson et al. (2013) found that it was sister
to all lineages in the Tyrannidae and proposed family rank for Piprites, and this was followed by
Dickinson & Christidis (2014). SACC proposal needed.
Analysis
and Recommendation:
After our recent removal of Phibalura
and Calyptura from the Incertae Sedis
category in the suboscines, that category contains only Piprites. Ohlson et al.
(2013) formally established Pipritidae as a group name and recommended
recognition at the family rank. Given
that there is no evidence for placement in any existing family and that it is
likely as old a lineage as any in the Tyrannoidea, I see no reason not to
follow this classification. Furthermore,
it is technically not Incertae Sedis with respect to its placement in the
suboscines: data are converging on a sister relationship to Tyrannidae.
An
alternative classification would be to place it in the Tyrannidae, because that
is consistent with most genetic data so far.
However, recent recommendations for ranking several of the major
divisions within the Tyrannidae at the family level (e.g. Tello et al. 2009,
Ohlson et al. 2013, Dickinson & Christidis 2014), if adopted, would make
such a treatment unjustifiable.
Furthermore, it is clear that Piprites
is a very old and distinctive lineage that, in my opinion, merits a taxon rank
comparable to Tyrannidae.
Van Remsen,
November 2016
____________________________________________________________
Comments
from Claramunt:
“NO.
Phylogenetic information is still ambiguous. Piprites could be either sister to Tyrannidae (Ohlson et al.
nuclear introns) or nested within it (Tello et al. RAG exon). Erecting a new family for Piprites is
compatible with only one of these possibilities. The monophyly of Tyrannidae would not be
warranted. I prefer to include Piprites in Tyrannidae, a solution that
is more conservative and is compatible with all phylogenetic alternatives so
far. Therefore, I vote NO to this
proposal and will submit a new proposal for including Piprites into Tyrannidae if this proposal does not pass.”
Comments
from Robbins:
"For now, I vote “NO” for erecting a new family for Piprites. I find Santiago’s
comments to be consistent with the data that have been published."
Comments from Areta: “A mild YES. I think that we need to reconsider what the
Tyrannidae are, given phylogenetic knowledge on the deep splits within this
traditional and humongous family. Regardless of uncertainties on its precise
phylogenetic relationships as expressed by Santiago, Piprites has always been problematic to place, and the three
species are distinctive in vocalizations, morphology and behavior. I cannot consider the three Piprites as tyrants if tyrant is to have
a more precise meaning (I also want to note that within-Piprites divergences are very deep). This takes us to the issue of
whether to recognize Platyrinchidae, Tachurididae, Rhynchociclidae and
Tyrannidae (sensu stricto) or to keep
all these taxa within the Tyrannidae.”
Comments
from Stiles:
“YES. I agree with Nacho that while not unequivocal, the most recent and
detailed genetic data do support this
alternative. Certainly the behavior and vocalizations of the two species of Piprites that I know are quite distinct
from those of all Tyrannidae in my experience.”
Comments
from Pacheco:
“YES. From direct experience, I consider Piprites
sufficiently divergent to accept for the moment the proposition of a family
apart for this genus. Faced with the many suggestions to subdivide this large
group, I align myself to Nacho in asking if we are going to reassess the
recognition of more families in the Suborder Tyranni.”
Comments
from Stotz:
“NO. I have to agree with Santiago on this.
We may eventually treat this as a separate family, but I think it is
premature to do that without reassessing the possibility of splitting up
Tyrannidae into a number of families.”
Comments
from Cadena:
“NO, for reasons noted
by Santiago. I hear the comments by others on the heterogeneity of the
Tyrannidae, the distinctiveness of Piprites,
and the need to reconsider what the Tyrannidae are. These would all be quite
valid points if we had an objective definition of what a family is, which we
don’t have – families are simply monophyletic groups that include mophyletic
gropus ranked as genera and which are nested within monophyletic groups ranked
as orders. I thus think that any proposals to change classification at this
level must begin with showing that (1) genera, families or orders are not
monophyletic or (2) that the placement of problematic taxa has been
definitively resolved and moving them around does not cause problems with
monophyly of other groups. Given uncertainties noted by Santiago, in this case
the evidence for neither of these points appears conclusive. I would thus favor
retaining Piprites as incertae sedis
until more data are available (I suspect that UCE-based phylogenies of
suboscine are close to being published).”
Comments from Zimmer: “Put me down as a reluctant “NO”. I think the three species of Piprites form a vocally, behaviorally
and morphologically cohesive group that is worthy of recognition at the Family
level. But I am ultimately persuaded by
Daniel & Santiago’s arguments (particularly as regards Daniel’s point #2)
that the phylogenetic information is still incomplete with respect to whether Piprites is sister to Tyrannidae or
nested within it, and that we should be sure that by moving Piprites around, that we do not create
problems concerning the monophyly of other groups. By using Tyrannidae as a ‘placeholder’ for Piprites, we can preserve the
distinctiveness of Piprites as an
internally cohesive distinctive group, next to its presumed closest relatives,
until such time as we can sort out what to do with recognizing the other
various deep divisions within this huge family.
Many of these types of decisions on whether to recognize a distinctive,
monophyletic group at the Genus or Family level come down to taste, and I would
personally lean towards recognizing Piprites
at the familial level. But, if we
continue to maintain Pittasoma as a
genus within Conopophaga, then I can live with Piprites being considered Tyrants, at least until we get a better
handle on the phylogenetic relationships within this mega-diverse group.”
Comments
from Jaramillo:
“YES. Particularly swayed by Nacho on
this “on the fence” topic for me. Although creating a new family is a big deal,
in this case my concern with that weight is lessened by the consideration that
Tyrannidae itself may require an overhaul. This overhaul is unlikely to include
Piprites within one of the subgroups
that will come out of it.”