4.2 Article

Systematic dismantlement of Lichenostomus improves the basis for understanding relationships within the honeyeaters (Meliphagidae) and the historical development of Australo-Papuan bird communities

期刊

EMU-AUSTRAL ORNITHOLOGY
卷 111, 期 3, 页码 202-211

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AUSTRALIA
DOI: 10.1071/MU10047

关键词

-

资金

  1. CSIRO Ecosystems Science (CES)
  2. Atlas of Living Australia
  3. University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute
  4. American Museum of Natural History

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evaluations of relationships among honeyeaters (Passeriformes : Meliphagidae) have used dense taxon and nucleotide sampling. Here we focus on the systematically contentious meliphagid genus Lichenostomus. We use data from two molecular markers that were common to two major recent studies, the mitochondrial protein-coding gene ND2 and the nuclear intron Fib5. Based on complete species-level sampling of Lichenostomus, we confirm the recent finding that Lichenostomus is not monophyletic. We recover seven distinct lineages dispersed within the meliphagid assemblage. Two uniform and unadorned species, the White-gaped (L. unicolor) and Yellow (L. flavus) Honeyeaters, were sister species close to some other taxa currently placed in Lichenostomus. The only two mangrove specialists, the Varied (L. versicolor) and Mangrove (L. fasciogularis) Honeyeaters from north-eastern and central-eastern Australia respectively, were not sister-species, but the former was sister to the pair comprising Mangrove Honeyeater and the widespread Singing Honeyeater (L. virescens). Two endemic New Guinean species, the Obscure (L. obscurus) and Black-throated (L. subfrenatus) Honeyeaters, are a sister pair to the Yellow-faced Honeyeater (L. chrysops) of eastern Australia. We suggest a revised generic nomenclature for the species recently placed in Lichenostomus and erect one new genus-group name, Bolemoreus, to include two species that have been previously grouped in Caligavis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据