Samoan dating asian all online datingsite
The regrouping in Orioloidea has caused me to move the whistlers and orioles to the end of Orioloidea. Several superfamilies are marked on the Ti F corvid tree shown below. Chestnut Quail-thrush / Chestnut-backed Quail-thrush, Cinclosoma castanotum, is split into Copperback Quail-thrush, Cinclosoma clarum, and Chestnut Quail-thrush, Cinclosoma castanotum, based on Dolman and Joseph (2015). I've separated the three Analisoma (Mathews, 1928) because the cicadabirds (Edolisoma, Jacquinot and Pucheran, 1853) form a tight group that is relatively distant from the Analisoma. This is recognized by placing the minivets in a separate subfamily, Pericrocotinae. The sittellas are nuthatch-like birds of Australia and New Guinea.There are some other differences involving minor families: Eulacestomaidae (ploughbill), Psophodidae (whipbirds), and the exact placement of Machaerirhynchidae (boatbills) and Rhagologidae (mottled berryhunter, formerly whistler). The Campephagoidea are the next branch according to Moyle et al. The Admiralty Islands Cicadabird, Edolisoma admiralitatis, has been split from Common Cicadabird, Edolisoma tenuirostre (H&M 4; Jønsson et al., 2010c). One common thread in most recent analyses of the Corvida is that the sittellas, which were formerly considered whistlers, end up on a branch by themselves. Indeed, they were considered nuthatches as late as 1967.Previously, the most comprehensive study of the Corvida was the six-gene analysis by Jønsson et al. I have ended up with a tree that is a compromise between Aggerbeck et al. Well, here it is 2017 and Corvid taxonomy remains contentious.(2011b), which includes one of more representative from each of the corvid families except the monotypic Pityriaseidae (bristlehead). sampled a large fraction (86%) of the corvid taxa, far beyond what anyone else has done. Moyle et al.'s (2016) latest research has complicated it further.The second consists of the whistlers (Pachycephalidae) and orioles (Oriolidae). These two papers also disagree concerning the relationships of the familes in Orioloidea. (2015), using a dataset similar to Jønsson et al., gives an arrangement that is close to that of Aggerbeck et al. (2016) is somewhat different, removing Cinclosomatidae entirely to the root of Corvida and placing Eulacestomatidae basal in Orioloidea. This family of New Guinea endemics was previously removed from the Melanocharitidae (Passerida) and placed in their own family in Corvida.
Nonetheless, H&M-3 (Dickinson, 2003) still had them united in a single family, but now inside what I call Corvida. (2004), this time with the Paramythiidae located near Oriolus (as they are) and with the Melanocharitidae as basal Corvida near Callaeatidae.
Boles (2007) and HBW include them in Pachycephalidae. The monotypic ploughbill family (Eulacestomatidae) is basal. I have previously treated these taxa and other possibily related taxa such as Paramythiidae in various ways (e.g., based on Norman et al., 2009a). Although the grouping of Falcunculidae and Cinclosomatidae was strongly supported in Aggerbeck et al. (2016), support for including Oreoicidae was less strong. (2016) have Cinclosomatidae basal in Corvida while Falcunculidae remains here, and that is the solution I follow. They even suggest putting them all in the same genus (Oreoica has priority), but with the split between them somewhere around 10 million years ago, I do not see a compelling reason to do this.
However, the evidence for any of these is very weak. They appear to be fairly closely related, possibly congeneric, whether one looks at osteology (Olson, 1990) or DNA hybridization (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1987). (2016) estimated a common ancestor roughly 9-10 million years ago, so perhaps they are not quite so close after all. Next, there is small group of three families: whipbirds and wedgebills (Psophodidae), Australo-Papuan bellbirds (Oreoicidae), and shriketits (Falcunculidae). I accept the name Oreoicidae (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1985a) over Oreoicidae (Schodde and Christidis, 2014).
Current thinking is that the Corvida have their origin in Australia/New Guinea (the actual continent of Australia). (2004) suggested Corvida is divided into two superfamilies, Callaeoidea and Corvoidea.
In particular, their diversity may have been developed during the late Eocene/early Oligocene in the New Guinea archipelago, and then certain taxa pumped out into Asia and the rest of the world. Where they overlap, I consider the dates in Jønsson et al. However, Irestedt and Ohlson (2009) argued that the families in Barker et al.'s Callaeoidea (Melanocharitidae, Cnemophilidae, Callaeidae, and by implication, Notiomystidae) are really basal Passerida.
Most of the well-supported portions of Jønsson et al.'s (2011b) phylogeny are pretty much the same as Aggerbeck et al. were able to find good support for much more of their phylogeny. These two papers, with 5 overlapping co-authors both use a similar data set. used up to 7 nuclear and 4 mitochondrial genes, while Jønsson et al. They use a different method, focusing on ultraconserved elements. Although Australo-Papua is the ancestral region for the Corvida, the Campephagidae have expanded well beyond that. (2008a, b) suggested some generic boundaries need to be redrawn for Coracina and related genera. (2010c) analyzed most of the revelant taxa, and the current organization is based on their results.