[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Darren Naish asked me to forward this to the DML.
The implication that belief in a polyphyletic Palaeognathae
is widespread in ornithology seems a rather odd thing to
argue in view of the technical literature on this area - and
there is an awful lot of it, too much to summarise here.
For the record, 'ratite' is not synonymous with
'palaeognath'. Palaeognathae as presently conceived =
Tinamiformes/Tinamidae + Ratitae (plus some ostensible
basal palaeognaths that I won't discuss here; see Kurochkin,
1999, Hope, 2002).
While it has been proposed various times that ratites may
have descended from specific neognaths (e.g., Olson,
Feduccia and others have proposed that ostriches were
ergilornithid gruiform derivatives; Olson suggested that
kiwis might be derived ibises; both Olson and Feduccia
have at times intimated that moa may be derived from
anseriforms), little more than wishy-washy arm waving has
been proposed in defence of this view. All recent studies
that have examined ratite affinities find them to be
monophyletic. Among the more important of these works
include; Bock (1963) on cranial anatomy, Stapel et al.
(1984) on amino acid sequences of eye lens proteins,
Cracraft (1974), Bledsoe (1988) and Mayr and Clarke
(2003) on morphology, Cooper and Penny (1997) and van
Tuinen et al. (1998) on DNA, and Lee et al. (1997) on both
molecular and morphological data. Notably, even certain
authors who have hinted at a non-monophyletic
Palaeognathae regard ratite monophyly as sound. Houde
and Haubold (1987) for example (and it should be clear
from this thread that Houde is one of the few workers who
has argued strongly that tinamiforms might in some way be
allied with neognaths) strongly supported ratite monophyly
in their study of _Palaeotis weigelti_...
We do not concur with the idea that the paleognathous
[sic] palate is homoplastic because palaeognathous [sic]
birds are generally alike each other and differ from
neognathous birds in a plethora of non-osteological
characters: myology (Hofer 1950, McGowan 1982),
rhamphothecal grooves (Parkes and Clark 1966), plumage
as chicks (Pycraft 1900, Jehl 1971), pterylography (Parker
1864, Chandler 1916), spermatozoa (McFarlane 1971),
gonads (Meier 1979), Bursa of Fabricius (Berens von
Rautenfeld and Budras 1982), ocular pectin (Seemba and
Mathers MS), cardiovascular system (Glenny 1965, Baumel
1968), osseous microvascularization (Amprino and Godina
1944, Zavatarri and Cellini 1956), cortical neuroanatomy
(Craige 1935a, b, 1940a, b, Pearson 1972), Eustachian tubes
(Hopkin 1906), coelomic cavities (Duncker 1979), proteins
(Sibley 1960, Wilson et al. 1964, Miller and Feeney 1964,
Kaplan 1965, Fitch and Margoliash 1967, Osuga and
Feeney 1968, Feeney and Alison 1969, Gysels 1970, Sibley
and Ahlquist 1972, Sibley and Frelin 1972, Krampitz et al.
1974, Ho et al. 1976, Prager et al. 1976, Stapel et al. 1984),
DNA (Takagi et al. 1972, Takagi and Sasaki 1974, de Boer
1980, Sibley and Ahlquist 1981, 1985), behavior (Meise
1963), and parasites (Kellogg 1913). (p. 37).
While, therefore, it's been fun to suggest that different
ratites arose from different assorted neognaths, the evidence
is strongly against it. As for claims that ratites look so
different from one another (especially in pelvic anatomy)
that they simply must be polyphyletic, this isn't much of a
valid criticism (compare the diversity in ratite pelvic
anatomy with, e.g., piciform or passeriform cranial anatomy
[the point being that ratites don't look so different from one
another at all]), and it's countered by the twenty or so
derived characters that unite ratites and support their
monophyly (for which see, e.g., Lee et al., 1997).
Unfortunately the question of palaeognath monophyly is
often confused with the issue of ratite paedomorphism.
Ratites probably do exhibit heterochrony (some of their
features can be interpreted as peramorphic: they don't just
exhibit paedomorphosis - see Elzanowski, 1989, for a good
response to the paedomorphic argument), but claims that
this process horribly masks their morphology or muddies
any interpretation of their affinities are naïve given that they
still exhibit plenty of good characters that can be evaluated
The idea that tinamous might be allied to galliforms, rather
than to ratites, is old - Lesson in 1831 was one of the first
authors to propose this and it was later favoured by
Seebohm, Goodchild, Chandler, Dubinin and Verheyen.
Even Huxley (1867) placed tinamous within his Carinatae
(though he did admit that they were 'the most struthious of
all carinate birds' (p. 426)). However, the view that
tinamous are closer to ratites, and that any similarities with
galliforms are either convergent or not indicative of a
special affinity, is also old and, historically, equally as
popular - if not more so. Pycraft (1900) was the first to
include tinamous within Palaeognathae, and he placed them
closer to rheids, dinornithids and aepyornithids than to other
ratites; Stresemann in 1927 attributed similarities between
tinamous and galliforms to convergence; Oliver in the
1940s regarded tinamous as volant kin of ratites; McDowell
in 1948 treated tinamous as close relatives of rheids within a
palaeognath clade; Zavattari and Cellini in 1956 regarded
tinamous as close to ratites; Tyler and Simkiss in 1959
found exclusive egg shell similarities between tinamous and
ratites. and so on.
Recent studies on palaeognath affinities support an
affiliation of tinamous with ratites, and not with any
neognath group. Among the more significant of these
include Prager et al. (1976), Lee et al. (1997) and Mayr and
Clarke (2003). Groth and Barrowclough (1999) on the
nuclear RAG-1 gene - the study that led Ericson et al.
(2001) to reject their hypothesis of non-monophyly of
Galloanseres - found support for a monophyletic
Palaeognathae. This work is also significant in recovering
the palaeognath-neognath split as the basal dichotomy
within Neornithes, something not recovered in all molecular
studies (e.g., Mindell et al., 1997, Harlid and Arnason,
1999); the latter (and I am talking about the studies in which
passeriforms are found to be most basal neornithines) is
widely thought due to inadequate taxon sampling and long-
branch attraction. Bock (1963) and Starck (1995) concluded
from skull anatomy that tinamous and ratites formed a
clade, McGowan (1984) supported affiliation of tinamous
with ratites based on tarsal morphology and Gussekloo and
colleagues, while questioning the validity of some of the
morphological evidence supporting palaeognath distinction
(Gussekloo and Zweers, 1999, Gussekloo et al., 2001), still
find that palaeognaths are distinct from neognaths, more
basal than neognaths, and that 'the Tinamidae are the
closest relatives of the ratites' (Gussekloo and Zweers,
1999, p. 39). Palaeognath monophyly has also been upheld
and supported by Elzanowski (1995), Kurochkin (1995,
1999), van Tuinen et al. (2000), Dyke (2001, 2003),
Livezey and Zusi (2001), Cracraft (1981, 1988, 2001),
Cracraft and Clarke (2001), Ericson et al. (2001), Bock
(2002) and others. Despite his apparent championing of
palaeognath non-monophyly, Feduccia has repeatedly
published a phylogram in which palaeognath monophly is
unambiguously supported (Feduccia, 1994, p. 180;
Feduccia, 1995, p. 637; Feduccia, 1996, p. 172; Feduccia
2003, p. 173). I therefore conclude that even he supports
palaeognath monophyly on at least some days of the week.
As for lithornithids, Houde's work was extensively revised
and revisited by Dyke during his tenure at the AMNH under
Cracraft. Dyke (2003) included tinamous, ratites and
lithornithids in an analysis based mostly on the characters
used by Lee et al. (1997). The results: Palaeognathae is
monophyletic, and lithornithids are not 'proto-tinamous', at
least four characters show that they are more derived than
tinamous, being closer to ratites within Palaeognathae.
Houde's features, used by him to support an affinity with
galliforms, are convergent.
Contrary to the idea that palaeognath polyphyly is popular,
well supported, or thriving then, palaeognath monophyly -
specifically, the existence of a neornithine clade that
includes tinamous and ratites to the exclusion of other
neornithines - is well corroborated and, in fact, the
consensus view. More below on the latter point. Virtually
all recent work on palaeognath relationships has not
supported Houde's contention that Palaeognathae is non-
monophyletic and that tinamous are allied to any specific
neognath group (viz, galliforms).
Finally, I would like to make an important point: I've made
it several times before but I don't know whether anyone has
been listening or not. As is clear from the above discussion,
the concept of palaeognath non-
monophyly/paraphyly/polyphyly really is not popular
among working ornithologists. Why then would anyone
think that it is? The answer: the concept of palaeognath
non-monophyly/paraphyly/polyphyly has been well
publicised and well disseminated by a key minority group
of vocal researchers - the same researchers who are known
to hold other 'non-consensus' views on aspects of avian
phylogeny, but the only palaeornithologists that produce
important holistic works on avian phylogeny nonetheless.
Alan Feduccia would probably be the first to admit that the
views he favours are not those supported by most other
working ornithologists, so it is highly ironic that he is the
only person who produces books on neornithine evolution.
Those acquainted with research on bird origins are of course
familiar with the fact that the Feducciaries hold, errr,
heterodox ideas on bird origins. Less appreciated is that
these are exactly the same authors who also maintain views
strongly disputed by most other ornithologists. Examples?
The origin of feathers, the monophyly of palaeognaths, the
timing of the radiation of Neornithes, the monophyly of
Galloanseres, the pattern of character acquisition in
anseriforms and the position of screamers and magpie
geese, the position of presbyornithids, the affinities of
flamingos, the affinities of the shoebill, falconiform
monophyly, the affinities and monophyly of piciforms, the
relationships among gruiforms, the position of turnicids,
coraciiform phylogeny, the origin of passerines, and so on.
And, for the record, we do not uphold views such as the
theropod origin of birds, the monophyly of palaeognaths, or
the anatoid affinities of _Presbyornis_ because we
necessarily 'like' these ideas the most, or think that they are
the coolest, but because they are the ideas that are best
supported by the data.
Refs - -
Bledsoe, A. H. 1988. A phylogenetic analysis of postcranial
skeletal characters of the ratite birds. _Annals of Carnegie
Museum_ 57, 73-90.
Bock, W. J. 1963. The cranial evidence for ratite affinities.
_Proceedings of the XIII International Ornithological
Congress_ 13, 39-54.
Bock, W. J. 2002. The evoluion of avian cranial kinesis. In
Zhou, Z. & Zhang, F. (eds). _Proceedings of the 5th
Symposium of the Society of Avian Paleontology and
Evolution_. Science Press (Beijing), pp. 191-201.
Cooper, A. & Penny, D. 1997. Mass survival of birds across
the Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary: molecular evidence.
_Science_ 275, 1109-1113.
Cracraft, J. 1974. Phylogeny and evolution of the ratite
birds. _Ibis_ 116, 494-521.
Cracraft, J. 1981. Toward a phylogenetic classification of
the recent birds of the world (Class Aves). _The Auk_ 98,
Cracraft, J. 1988. The major clades of birds. In Benton, M.
J. (ed) _The Phylogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods,
Volume 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds_. Clarendon Press
(Oxford), pp. 339-361.
Cracraft, J. 2001. Avian evolution, Gondwana
biogeography and the Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction
event. _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_ B
Cracraft, J. & Clarke, J. 2001. The basal clades of modern
birds. In Gauthier, J. & Gall, L. F. (eds) _New Perspectives
on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of
the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom_.
Peabody Museum of Natural History, Yale University (New
Haven), pp. 143-156.
Dyke, G. J. 2001. The evolutionary radiation of modern
birds: systematics and patterns of diversification.
_Geological Journal_ 36, 305-315.
Dyke, G. J. 2003. The fossil record and molecular clocks:
basal radiations within Neornithes. In Smith, P. and
Donoghue, P (eds) _Telling the Evolutionary Time -
Molecular Clocks and the Fossil Record_. Taylor and
Francis (London), pp. 263-278.
Elzanowski, A. 1989. Ontogeny and evolution of ratites. In
Ouellet, H. (ed) _Acta XIX Congresseus Internationalis
Ornithologici, volume 2_. University of Ottawa Press
(Ottawa), pp. 2037-2046.
Elzanowski, A. 1995. Cretaceous birds and avian
phylogeny. _Courier Forschunginstitut Senckenberg_ 181,
Ericson, P. G. P., Parsons, T. J. & Johansson, U. S. 2001.
Morphological and molecular support for nonmonophyly of
the Galloanserae. In Gauthier, J. & Gall, L. F. (eds) _New
Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds:
Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of
John H. Ostrom_. Peabody Museum of Natural History,
Yale University (New Haven), pp. 157-168.
Feduccia, A. 1994. Tertiary bird history: notes and
comments. In Prothero, D. R. & Schoch, R. M. (eds) _Short
Courses in Paleontology, Number 7_. The Paleontological
Society, pp. 178-189.
Feduccia, A. 1995. Explosive evolution in Tertiary birds
and mammals. _Science_ 267, 637-638.
Feduccia, A. 1996. _The Origin and Evolution of Birds_.
Yale Unversity Press (New Haven and London).
Feduccia, A. 2003. 'Big bang' for Tertiary birds? _Trends
in Ecology and Evolution_ 18, 172-176.
Groth, J. G. & Barrowclough, G. F. 1999. Basal divergences
in birds and the phylogenetic utility of the nuclear RAG-1
gene. _Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution_ 12, 115-
Gussekloo, S. W. S., Vosselman, M. G. & Bout, R. G. 2001.
Three-dimensional kinematics of skeletal elements in avian
prokinetic and rhynchokinetic skulls determined by
Roentgen stereophotogrammetry. _The Journal of
Experimental Biology_ 204, 1735-1744.
Gussekloo, S. W. S. & Zweers, G. A. 1999. The
paleognathous pterygoid-palatinum complex. A true
character? _Netherlands Journal of Zoology_ 49, 29-43.
Harlid, A. & Arnason, U. 1999. Analyses of mitochondrial
DNA nest ratite birds within the Neognathae: supporting a
neotenous origin of ratite morphological characters.
_Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_ B 266, 305-
Hope, S. 2002. The Mesozoic radiation of Neornithes. In
Chiappe, L. M. & Witmer, L. M. (eds) _Mesozoic Birds:
Above the Heads of Dinosaurs_. University of California
Press (Berkeley), pp. 339-388.
Houde, P. & Haubold, H. 1987. _Palaeotis weigelti_
restudied: a small Middle Eocene ostrich (Aves:
Struthioniformes). _Palaeovertebrata_ 17, 27-42.
Huxley, T. H. 1867. On the classification of birds; and on
the taxonomic value of the modification of certain of the
cranial bones observable in that class. _Proceedings of the
Zoological Society of London_ 1867, 415-472.
Kurochkin, E. N. 1995. Synopsis of Mesozoic birds and
early evolution of class Aves. _Archaeopteryx_13, 47-66.
Kurochkin, E. N. 1999. The relationships of the Early
Cretaceous _Ambiortus_ and _Otogornis_
(Aves:Ambiortiformes). _Smithsonian Contributions to
Paleobiology_ 89, 275-284.
Lee, K., Feinstein, J. & Cracraft, J. 1997. The phylogeny of
ratite birds: resolving conflicts between molecular and
morphological data sets. In Mindell, D. P. (ed) _Avian
Molecular Evolution and Systematics_. Academic Press, pp.
Livezey, B. C. & Zusi, R. L. 2001. Higher-order
phylogenetics of modern Aves based on comparative
anatomy. _Netherlands Journal of Zoology_ 51, 179-205.
Mayr, G. & Clarke, J. 2003. The deep divergences of
neornithine birds: a phylogenetic analysis of morphological
characters. _Cladistics_ 19, 527-553.
McGowan, C. 1984. Evolutionary relationships of ratites
and carinates: evidence from ontogeny of the tarsus.
_Nature_ 307, 732-734.
Mindell, D. P., Sorenson, M. D., Huddleston, C. J.,
Miranda, H. C., Knight, A., Sawchuk, S. J. & Yuri, T. 1997.
Phylogenetic relationships among and within select avian
orders based on mitochondrial DNA. In Mindell, D. P. (ed)
_Avian Molecular Evolution and Systematics_. Academic
Press, pp. 213-247.
Prager, E. M., Wilson, A. C., Osuga, D. T. & Feeney, R. E.
1976. Evolution of flightless land birds on southern
continents: transferrin comparison shows monophyletic
origin of ratites. _Journal of Molecular Evolution_ 8, 283-
Pycraft, W. P. 1900. On the morphology and phylogeny of
the Palaeognathae (Ratitae and Crypturi) and Neognathae
(Carinatae). _Transactions of the Zoological Society of
London_ 15, 149-290.
Stapel, S. O., Leunissen, J. A. M., Versteeg, M., Wattel, J.
& de Jong, W. W. 1984. Ratites as oldest offshoot of avian
stem - evidence from á-crystallin A sequences. _Nature_
Starck, J. M. 1995. Comparative anatomy of the external
and middle ear of palaeognathous birds. _Advances in
Anatomy, Embryology and Cell Biology_ 131, 1-137.
van Tuinen, M. 2000. The early history of modern birds
inferred from DNA sequences of nuclear and mitochondrial
ribosomal genes. _Molecular Biology and Evolution_ 17,
van Tuinen, M., Sibley, C. G. & Hedges, S. B. 1998.
Phylogeny and biogeography of ratite birds inferred from
DNA sequences of the mitrochondrial ribosomal genes.
_Molecular Biology and Evolution_ 15, 370-376.
School of Earth & Environmental Sciences
University of Portsmouth UK, PO1 3QL
tel: 023 92846045