4.3 Article

The fossil record and phylogeny of the anklets (Pan-Alcidae, Aethiini)

Journal

JOURNAL OF SYSTEMATIC PALAEONTOLOGY
Volume 12, Issue 2, Pages 217-236

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14772019.2012.742147

Keywords

Aethia; Charadriiformes; fossil seabirds; palaeodiversity; wing-propelled diving; Ptychoramphus

Funding

  1. NSF DEB [0949897]
  2. National Evolutionary Synthesis Center Postdoctoral Fellowship (NESCent) [NSF EF-0905606]
  3. Division Of Environmental Biology
  4. Direct For Biological Sciences [0949897] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The auklets Aethia and Ptychoramphus comprise the smallest known Alcidae (Aves, Charadriiformes) and have a fossil record that extends into the Miocene. The evolution of auklets is poorly understood because systematic hypotheses of relationships among extant auklets are largely incongruent, the morphology of auklet fossils has not been evaluated in detail, and extinct species of auklets have not been previously included in a phylogenetic analysis. Previously described auklet fossil remains are reviewed and two new species of auklet, Aethia barnesi sp. nov. and Aethia storeri sp. nov., are described from the Miocene and Pliocene of southern California, USA. Previously described auklet fossil remains, the two newly described extinct species of auklet, and extant species of auklets and other alcids are included in combined phylogenetic analyses of morphological and molecular sequence data. Based on the results of the phylogenetic analyses, the taxonomy of fossils referred to Aethiini is revised and the evolution of the clade is evaluated in a phylogenetic context. The osteological morphology of extinct auklets appears to be little changed from their extant relatives, suggesting that the ecological attributes of these small wing-propelled divers may also be relatively unchanged since the Miocene

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available