Proposal (975) to South American Classification Committee

Merge Antilophia into Chiroxiphia

Our current SACC Note reads as follows:

13. Snow (2004b) proposed that Antilophia and Chiroxiphia were sister genera as has been implicit in classifications that have placed them next to each other in linear sequences (e.g. Meyer de Schauensee 1970); this close relationship was confirmed by genetic data (Tello et al. 2009, Ohlson et al. 2013). Broader sampling of taxa and genes (Silva et al. 2018, Harvey et al. 2020, Leite et al. 2021, Zhao et al. 2022) has found that recognition of Antilophia makes Chiroxiphia paraphyletic. SACC proposal badly needed.

Briefly, Silva et al. (2018) used DNA sequence data to indicate that Antilophia bokermanni was sister to Chiroxiphia boliviana:

Harvey et al.’s (2020) genomic data indicated that the two species of Antilophia were most likely sister to Chiroxiphia caudata, with substandard support, but with strong support for Antilophia being embedded in Chiroxiphia:

Leite et al. (2021) using mostly the same genomic data found the same topology:

Zhao et al. (2022) did a deep dive into conflicts among various data sets using analyses that are beyond my level of comprehension. Their “Implications for Manakin Taxonomy” section concluded with the following statement:

“Second, our study presents a strong case for a revision of the genera Chiroxiphia and Antilophia. When our results are considered in light of some other previous studies (e.g., Tello et al. 2009; Ohlson et al. 2013; Silva et al. 2018; Harvey et al. 2020; Leite et al. 2021) it is clear that Antilophia is nested within Chiroxiphia. Thus, Antilophia Reichenbach, 1850 should be subsumed into Chiroxiphia Cabanis, 1847 based on priority (see Banki et al. 2021).”

Therefore, all data support merging Antilophia into Chiroxiphia and the two species of Antilophia should become

Chiroxiphia bokermanni Araripe Manakin

Chiroxiphia galeata Helmeted Manakin

(The loss of Antilophia, one of the best genus names in birds [“different crest”] shall be mourned.)

Antilophia is feminine just like Chiroxiphia, so no change is needed in galeata, which has a variable ending (Dickinson & Christidis 2014).

Selected references:

HARVEY, M. G., G. A. BRAVO, S. CLARAMUNT, A. M CUERVO, G. E. DERRYBERRY, J. BATTILANA, G. F. SEEHOLZER, J. S. MCKAY, B. C. O’MEARA, B. G. FAIRCLOTH, S. V. EDWARDS, J. PÉREZ-EMÁN, R. G. MOYLE, F. H. SHEDLON, A. ALEIXO, B. T. SMITH, R. T. CHESSER, L. F. SILVEIRA, J. CRACRAFT, R. T. BRUMFIELD, AND E. P. DERRYBERRY. 2020. The evolution of a tropical biodiversity hotspot. Science 370: 1343-1348.

LEITE, R. N., R. T. KIMBALL, E. L. BRAUN, E. P. DERRYBERRY, P. A. HOSNER, G. E. DERRYBERRY, M. ANCIAES, J. S. MCKAY, A, ALEIXO, C. C. RIBAS, R. T. BRUMFIELD, AND J. CRACRAFT. 2021. Phylogenomics of manakins (Aves: Pipridae) using alternative locus filtering strategies based on informativeness. Molecular Phylogenetics Evolution 155: 107013.

SILVA, S. M., C. E. AGNE, A. ALEIXO, AND S. L. BONATTO. 2018. Phylogeny and systematics of Chiroxiphia and Antilophia manakins (Aves, Pipridae). Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 127: 706–711.

ZHAO, M., S. M. KURTIS, N. D. WHITE, A. E. MONCRIEFF, R. N. LEITE, R. T. BRUMFIELD, E. L. BRAUN, AND R. T. KIMBALL. 2022. Exploring conflicts in whole genome phylogenetics: case study within manakins (Aves: Pipridae). Systematic Biology 72:161–178.

Van Remsen, June 2023

Vote tabulation: https://www.museum.lsu.edu/~Remsen/SACCPropChart864+.htm

Comments from Andre Moncrieff (voting for Remsen): “YES. Multiple genomic studies based on thousands of loci confirm Antilophia as nested within Chiroxiphia. I think merging Antilophia with Chiroxiphia is the simplest and most reasonable way to avoid a paraphyletic Chiroxiphia.”

Comments from Stiles: “YES to subsuming Antilophia into Chiroxiphia. Maintaining Antilophia separate would require including caudata, which phenotypically is clearly a Chiroxiphia (and the extremely short branch separating these from Chiroxiphia are much shorter branches separating various species of Chiroxiphia) also indicates that the most logical solution is to include both in Chiroxiphia.”

Comments from Robbins: “YES. The multiple genetic data sets make this a clearcut decision: Antilophia should be merged into Chiroxiphia.”

Comments from Areta: “YES. The genetic data forces us to do something here, as some Chiroxiphia are more closely related to Antilophia than to other Chiroxiphia (variable, depending on the study). Given that the most recent common ancestor is estimated to have existed at around 5MY, and embracing some of the phylogenetic uncertainty, it seems best to merge Antilophia into Chiroxiphia. It is also worth noting that hybrids of Chiroxiphia caudata and Antilophia galeata are widely known in Brazil, and receive the name “Rei dos Tangaras” (see for example Sick 1979, Vasconcelos et al 2005, Guaraldo et al 2008, Rezende et al 2013). Incidentally, as Pacheco (2011; Tangara 1:5-11) has explained, the name Tangara is a Tupi word used to designate Chiroxiphia pareola/C. caudata.”

Comments from Del-Rio: “YES because of strong support from reduced representation genomic data (feeling bad for ‘Antilophia’)”

Comments from Claramunt: “YES. The molecular evidence is as strong as it can be.”

Comments from Bonaccorso: “YES. Very straightforward. The different datasets and analyses all point to the paraphyly of Chiroxiphia, so merging Antilophia into Chiroxiphia makes perfect sense.”

Comments from Zimmer: “Sadly, YES, because all genetic data sets point to the paraphyly of Chiroxiphia with respect to Antilophia, with either C. boliviana or C. caudata (depending on which study you listen to) shown as more closely related to galeata & bokermanni than to other species currently treated in Chiroxiphia. There are some obvious vocal similarities (and less obvious morphological similarities) between galeata/bokermanni and the “blue manakins”, but I can’t help but be surprised that either caudata or boliviana would be more closely related to the pair of Antilophia than they would to other “blue manakins”, given not only the plumage and structural cohesiveness of Chiroxiphia as previously constituted, but also, given the extreme differences in mating behavior and associated displays between the two groups. The two Antilophia are divergent in that they are strikingly sexually dichromatic, but seemingly monogamous, with males defending classic territories, whereas the various Chiroxiphia are famous for their polygynous mating systems and employment of elaborate, synchronized male displays at leks for the purposes of signal amplification in attracting females. With that in mind, I find it interesting that males of C. boliviana (a species with which I have no experience), are reported to display singly, and not at leks with other males – thus, closer to the behavior of the two species of Antilophia. This would suggest that the data set from Silva et al (2018) may have been more accurate in identifying the position of galeata/bokermanni within Chiroxiphia (= sister to boliviana as opposed to caudata) than the other two studies.”

Comments from Lane: “Reluctantly YES. I hate when two rather obviously morphologically distinctive genera have to be merged because of paraphyly. It just hurts.”