RE: New Paper (Shorebird pre-K/T divergences)

[evelyn sobielski <koreke77@yahoo.de>]

--- Michael Habib <mhabib5@jhmi.edu> schrieb:

> It does not look like anyone has posted this yet; I
> presume some on the 
> list will find it interesting:

You're oh so correct. Thanks!
 
> Phylogenetic relationships and divergence times of
> Charadriiformes 
> genera: multigene evidence for the Cretaceous origin
> of at least 14 
> clades of shorebirds
> 
> Baker AJ, Pereira SL, Paton TA.  BIOLOGY LETTERS 3
> (2): 205-209 APR 22 
> 2007
> 
> Abstract:
> Comparative study of character evolution in the
> shorebirds is presently 
> limited because the phylogenetic placement of some
> enigmatic genera 
> remains unclear. We therefore used Bayesian methods
> to obtain a 
> well-supported phylogeny of 90 recognized genera
> using 5 kb of 
> mitochondrial and nuclear sequences. The tree
> comprised three major 
> clades: Lari (gulls, auks and allies plus
> buttonquails) as sister to 

I wonder how well the buttonquails were supported
there this time.

> Scolopaci (sandpipers, jacanas and allies), and in
> turn sister to 
> Charadrii (plovers, oystercatchers and allies), as
> in previous 
> molecular studies. Plovers and noddies were not
> recovered as 
> monophyletic assemblages, and the Egyptian plover
> Pluvianus is 
> apparently not a plover. Molecular dating using

Aha? Interesting.

> multiple fossil 
> constraints suggests that the three suborders
> originated in the late 
> Cretaceous between 79 and 102 Mya, and at least 14
> lineages of modern 
> shorebirds survived the mass extinction at the K/T
> boundary. Previous 

14 may be a bit much, need to check calibration. But I
am not in the least surprised. Wasn't actually
expecting it, but, well. Need to check calibration.

> difficulties in determining the phylogenetic
> relationships of enigmatic 
> taxa reflect the fact that they are
> well-differentiated relicts of old, 
> genus-poor lineages. We refrain from suggesting
> systematic revisions 
> for shorebirds at this time because gene trees may
> fail to recover the 
> species tree when long branches are connected to
> deep, shorter 
> branches, as is the case for some of the enigmatic
> taxa.

Sounds good.

"Nice paper. I'll take it!"


All the best,

Eike


      __________________________________  Kennt man wirklich jeden über 3 
Ecken? Die Antworten gibt's bei Yahoo! Clever. www.yahoo.de/clever