[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Density of intraclade sampling (was: More evidence for Eufalconimorphae and Psittacopasserae)
evelyn sobielski <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> L&Z could easily tell that their "raptor clade" was bogus
It is interesting that a slightly modified version of Livezey and
Zusi's "falconimorphans" (with Falconidae excluded, that is,
Accipitriformes + Strigiformes) cannot be conclusively refused by the
Hackett et al. data. Bootstrap support values for the
Coliidae/Strigiformes clade and for the split between accipitriforms
and remaining landbirds were low (less than 70%) in Hackett et al.'s
ML analysis and their MP analysis did not find these groupings at all.
> I am still very unsure about seriemas.
Their position seems to be quite stable in recent molecular studies:
both sequence analyses (Ericson et al. 2006 -- 4 loci; Hackett et al.
2008 -- 19 loci; Wang et al. 2011 -- 30 loci) and the retroposon
analysis of Suh et al. (2011) found them in the same place: inside
Passerimorphae* and usually in a sister-group relationship with
Eufalconimorphae. Is there any alternative position with similarly
*Boyd's name for the (seriemas + (falcons + (parrots + passerines)))
clade from his Taxonomy in Flux checklist.