CHAPTER 7 – The Phylogeny of Ratite Birds: Resolving Conflicts between Molecular and Morphological Data Sets
CHAPTER 7 – The Phylogeny of Ratite Birds: Resolving Conflicts between Molecular and Morphological Data Sets
复制标题
第 7 章 – 平胸鸟类的系统发育：解决分子和形态数据集之间的冲突
DOI：
10.1016/b978-012498315-1/50011-x
复制
发表时间：
1997
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Cracraft
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Krista D. Lee;Julie Feinstein;J. Cracraft
174 K。李等人平胸和tinamous。特别是平胸鸟，100多年来一直令鸟类分类学家感兴趣和困惑。早期的研究者注意到胸骨上没有龙骨，于是将平胸放在一起（Merrem，1813; Lesson，1831），这一观点后来被Huxley（1867）加强，他注意到它们共享一个所谓的”双颌腭“。另一方面，其他鸟类系统分类学家则否认它们之间有密切的关系，认为平胸类之间的相似性是由于趋同所致（Flirbringer，1888，1902;帕克，1895）。当然，不考虑平胸类之间密切关系的主要原因是，它们广泛的间断分布--在稳定大陆范式的背景下解释--似乎只能通过假设独立的起源于独立的、能飞的祖先来解释。在本世纪的前半叶，大多数后来的研究者并不接受古颌类的单系性，而是认为古颌类的所有主要类群都是独立地从不同的龙骨状祖先中产生的（参见Sibley和Ahlquist，1990）。Meise（1963）利用行为相似性，是第一个提出古颌类单系性以及科间关系的明确假设的人之一。10年后，Cracraft（1974）利用一组骨骼学数据提出了古颚类单系和平胸类相互关系的分支系统假说。
174 K. Lee et al ratites and the tinamous. The ratite birds, in particular, have interested and perplexed avian systematists for well over 100 years. Early workers, noting the absence of a keel on the sternum, placed the ratites together (Merrem, 1813; Lesson, 1831), and this view was later reinforced by Huxley (1867), who noted that they share a so-called" dromaeognathous palate." Other avian systematists, on the other hand, denied a close relationship, believing instead that the similarities among ratites were due to convergence (Flirbringer, 1888, 1902; Parker, 1895). Certainly a primary reason for discounting a close relationship among the ratites was that their widely disjunct distributions—interpreted within the context of a stable-continent paradigm—could seemingly be explained only by assuming independent origins from separate, volant ancestors. Most subsequent investigators during the first half of this century did not accept paleognath monophyly, thinking instead that all the major groups of paleognaths arose independently from various carinate ancestors (see Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990, for a review). Using behavioral similarities, Meise (1963) was among the first to present an explicit hypothesis of paleognath monophyly as well as for the relationships among the families. A decade later, Cracraft (1974) presented a cladistic hypothesis of paleognath monophyly and ratite interrelationships using an osteological data set.