Literature DB >> 11133189

The phylogenetic relationships of the shags and cormorants: can sequence data resolve a disagreement between behavior and morphology?

M Kennedy1, R D Gray, H G Spencer.   

Abstract

Taxonomic arrangements for the cormorants and shags (Phalacrocoracidae) had varied greatly until two quite similar arrangements, one based on behavior and the other on osteological characters, became the basis for current thought on the evolutionary relationships of these birds. The terms cormorant and shag, which had previously been haphazardly applied to members of the group, became the vernacular terms for the two major subdivisions within this family. The two taxonomies differ in places, however, with the behavioral taxonomy placing several species within the shags and the osteological taxonomy and phylogeny grouping those species (as the marine cormorants) and placing them within the cormorants. In an attempt to resolve the differences in the relationships hypothesized by behavior and morphology, we sequenced three mitochondrial genes (12S, ATPase 6, and ATPase 8). Initial equally weighted parsimony trees differed slightly from our two weighted parsimony trees, one of which was also our maximum-likelihood tree. Many of the branches within our trees were well supported, but some sections of the phylogeny proved difficult to resolve with confidence. Our sequence trees differ substantially from the morphological phylogeny and show that neither the shags nor the cormorants are monophyletic, but form an intermingled group. Some of the groups supported by both the behavioral and the morphological taxonomies (e.g., the cliff shags, Stictocarbo) appear to be polyphyletic. Conversely, the monophyly of the blue-eyed shags, a traditional group that the osteological analysis had found to be paraphyletic, was supported by the sequence data. Until more taxa are sampled and a fully robust phylogeny is obtained, a conservative approach accepting a single genus, Phalacrocorax, for the shags and cormorants is recommended. Copyright 2000 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2000        PMID: 11133189     DOI: 10.1006/mpev.2000.0840

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Phylogenet Evol        ISSN: 1055-7903            Impact factor:   4.286


  6 in total

1.  Phylogenetic analysis of pelecaniformes (aves) based on osteological data: implications for waterbird phylogeny and fossil calibration studies.

Authors:  Nathan D Smith
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Evolution of New Zealand's terrestrial fauna: a review of molecular evidence.

Authors:  Julia Goldberg; Steven A Trewick; Adrian M Paterson
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 6.237

3.  Higher-order phylogeny of modern birds (Theropoda, Aves: Neornithes) based on comparative anatomy. II. Analysis and discussion.

Authors:  Bradley C Livezey; Richard L Zusi
Journal:  Zool J Linn Soc       Date:  2007-01-01       Impact factor: 3.286

4.  Prevalence of blood parasites in seabirds - a review.

Authors:  Petra Quillfeldt; Elena Arriero; Javier Martínez; Juan F Masello; Santiago Merino
Journal:  Front Zool       Date:  2011-10-31       Impact factor: 3.172

5.  Can foraging ecology drive the evolution of body size in a diving endotherm?

Authors:  Timothée R Cook; Amélie Lescroël; Yves Cherel; Akiko Kato; Charles-André Bost
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Evolution of within-colony distribution patterns of birds in response to habitat structure.

Authors:  Piotr Minias
Journal:  Behav Ecol Sociobiol       Date:  2014-03-04       Impact factor: 2.980

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.