next message in archive
next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects
classification and conventional wisdo
------=_Part_8455_27446842.1214567917615
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Y'know, we hear this every few years, especially since the molecular people
("gene jockeys") got their hands on birds' DNA.
"Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the
evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."
Possibly so. But that doesn't mean that what these authors are proposing is
correct. Or even better. Just wait...in two years, a new technique will come
on board and we'll have another complete revision.
Randy
Antigonish Co.
2008/6/27 Wild Flora <herself@wildflora.com>:
> FYI:
>
>
>
> New DNA research published in Science magazine today claims to "completely
> redraw" the family tree of birds. A press release from The Field Museum of
> Chicago, where several of the researchers are based, states that "the
> scientific names of dozens of birds will have to be changed, and biology
> textbooks and birdwatchers' field guides will have to be revised." Summarizing
> the research for the Birder's World magazine blog, one of the lead authors
> said, "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar
> are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and
> conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."
>
> Some key findings (again quoting the Field Musem press release):
>
> "Birds adapted to the diverse environments several distinct times because
> many birds that now live on water (such as flamingos, tropicbirds and
> grebes) did not evolve from a different waterbird group, and many birds that
> now live on land (such as turacos, doves, sandgrouse and cuckoos) did not
> evolve from a different landbird group.
>
> "Similarly, distinctive lifestyles (such as nocturnal, raptorial and
> pelagic, i.e., living on the ocean or open seas) evolved several times. For
> example, contrary to conventional thinking, colorful, daytime hummingbirds
> evolved from drab nocturnal nightjars; falcons are not closely related to
> hawks and eagles; and tropicbirds (white, swift-flying ocean birds) are not
> closely related to pelicans and other waterbirds.
>
> "Shorebirds are not a basal evolutionary group, which refutes the widely
> held view that shorebirds gave rise to all modern birds."
>
> Some of the more surprising findings are that songbirds and parrots evolved
> from a common ancestor; the falcon family is not in the same order as the
> hawk and osprey family; the falcon family is actually more closely related
> to songbirds and parrots than to hawks and ospreys; hummingbirds and swifts
> evolved from nightjars and their allies; woodpeckers evolved from
> kingfishers, hornbills, rollers, and allies.
>
> For more information, here are the best accounts I was able to find online:
>
> Science magazine article (abstract is free but you have to pay to get full
> text): http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/320/5884/1763
>
> Detailed press release from the Field Museum:
> http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2008-06/fm-hgp062008.php
>
> Good summary on Birder's World magazine blog:
> http://bwfov.typepad.com/birders_world_field_of_vi/2008/06/new-research-shows-that-much-of-bird-classification-is-wrong.html
>
> Wild Flora
>
------=_Part_8455_27446842.1214567917615
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
<div>Y'know, we hear this every few years, especially since the molecular people ("gene jockeys") got their hands on birds' DNA.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><font size="3">"Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."</font></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Possibly so. But that doesn't mean that what these authors are proposing is correct. Or even better. Just wait...in two years, a new technique will come on board and we'll have another complete revision.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Randy</div>
<div>Antigonish Co.<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">2008/6/27 Wild Flora <herself@wildflora.com>:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">
<div lang="EN-US" vlink="purple" link="blue" bgcolor="white">
<div>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">FYI:</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext"> </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">New DNA research published in Science magazine today claims to "completely redraw" the family tree of birds. A press release from The Field Museum of Chicago, where several of the researchers are based, states that "</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">the scientific names of dozens of birds will have to be changed, and biology textbooks and birdwatchers' field guides will have to be revised." </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">Summarizing the research for the Birder's World magazine blog, </span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt">one of the lead authors said, "First, appearances can be deceiving. Birds that look or act similar are not necessarily related. Second, much of bird classification and conventional wisdom on the evolutionary relationships of birds is wrong."</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext"></span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext"></span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">Some key findings (again quoting the Field Musem press release):</span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">"</span><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">Birds adapted to the diverse environments several distinct times because many birds that now live on water (such as flamingos, tropicbirds and grebes) did not evolve from a different waterbird group, and many birds that now live on land (such as turacos, doves, sandgrouse and cuckoos) did not evolve from a different landbird group. </span></p>
<p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; COLOR: windowtext">"Similarly, distinctive lifestyles (such as nocturnal, raptorial and pelagic, i.e., living on the ocean or open seas) evolved several times. For example, contrary to conventional thinking, colorful, daytime hummingbirds evolved from drab nocturnal