Journal für Ornithologie

, Volume 125, Issue 1, pp 25–37 | Cite as

Concordance between classifications of the Ciconiidae based on behavioral and morphological data

  • D. Scott Wood


Kahl's data on courtship behavior in the Ciconiidae were recoded and analyzed from a phenetic viewpoint. The results reflect his published classification except for the placement ofCiconia nigra and the generaJabiru andEphippiorhynchus. Similarities based on skeletal morphology are highly congruent with those recalculated from the behavioral data. The classification suggested by both sets of data is similar to that proposed byKahl with the following changes: (1)Jabiru is included withEphippiorhynchus; (2)Ephippiorhynchus is transferred into the Ciconiini.


Animal Ecology Behavioral Data Morphological Data Courtship Behavior Skeletal Morphology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Klassifikation der Ciconiidae nach ethologischen und morphologischen Daten


Die DatenKahls über das Sexualverhalten der Ciconiidae wurden nach äußeren Merkmalen codiert und analysiert. Die Ergebnisse spiegeln seine publizierte Klassifikation wider, mit Ausnahme der Stellung vonCiconia nigra und der GeneraJabiru undEphippiorhynchus. Ähnlichkeiten der Skelettmorphologie stimmen mit dem Vergleich der Verhaltensdaten in hohem Maße überein. Die auf der Grundlage von beiden Datensätzen sich abzeichnende Klassifikation ist jener vonKahl sehr ähnlich mit Ausnahme der folgenden Änderungen:Jabiru ist mitEphippiorhynchus zusammenzufassen;Ephippiorhynchus wird in die Ciconiini eingegliedert.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Atchley, W. R. (1978): Ratios, regression intercepts, and the scaling of data. Syst. Zool. 27: 78–83.Google Scholar
  2. Kahl, M. P. (1966): Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. Part 1. The Marabou Stork,Leptoptilos crumeniferus (Lesson). Behavior 27: 76–106.Google Scholar
  3. Ditto (1971): Social behavior and taxonomic relationships of the storks. Living Bird 10: 151–170.Google Scholar
  4. Ditto (1972 a): A revision of the family Ciconiidae (Aves). J. Zool. 167: 451–461.Google Scholar
  5. Ditto (1972 b): Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. Part 2. The adjutant storks,Leptoptilos dubius (Gmelin) andL. javanicus (Horsfield). Ardea 60: 97–111.Google Scholar
  6. Ditto (1972 c): Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. The woodstorks (generaMycteria andIbis). Ibis 114: 15–29.Google Scholar
  7. Ditto (1972 d): Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. Part 4. The „typical“ storks (generaCiconia, Sphenorhynchus, Dissoura, andEuxenura). Z. Tierpsychol. 30: 225–252.Google Scholar
  8. Ditto (1972 e): Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. Part 5. The openbill storks (genusAnastomus). J. Orn. 113: 121–137.Google Scholar
  9. Ditto (1973): Comparative ethology of the Ciconiidae. Part 6. The Blacknecked, Saddlebill, and Jabiru storks (generaXenorhynchus, Ephippiorhynchus, andJabiru). Condor 75: 17–27.Google Scholar
  10. Ditto (1979): Family Ciconiidae. Pp 245–252,in Check-list of birds of the world (E. Mayr &G. W. Cottrell, eds.), Mus. Comp. Zool., Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2nd ed., vol 1: xvii + 1–547.Google Scholar
  11. Katz, J. C., &F. J. Rohlf (1974): Functionplane — A new approach to simple structure rotation. Psychometrika 39: 37–51.Google Scholar
  12. Olson, S. L. (1978): Multiple origins of the Ciconiiformes. Proc. Colonial Waterbird Group 1978: 165–170.Google Scholar
  13. Parkes, K. C. (1978): A review of the classification of the Ciconiiformes.In A. Sprunt, J. C. Ogden, &S. Winckler, eds. Wading birds. Natl. Audubon Soc. Res. Rep. no. 7: 7–15.Google Scholar
  14. Peters, J. L. (1931): Check-list of birds of the world. Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass. vol. 1: xviii + 1–345.Google Scholar
  15. Rohlf, F. J. (1970): Linear adaptive hierarchical clustering schemes. Syst. Zool. 19: 58–82.Google Scholar
  16. Ditto (1981): Consensus indices for comparing classifications. Math. Biosci. 59: 131–144.Google Scholar
  17. Ditto &R. R. Sokal (1981): Comparing numerical taxonomic studies. Syst. Zool. 30: 459–490.Google Scholar
  18. Sneath, P.H. A., &R. R. Sokal (1973): Numerical taxonomy. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. 573 pp.Google Scholar
  19. Verheyen, R. (1959): Contribution à l'anatomie et à la systematique de base des Ciconiiformes (Parker 1868). Bull. Inst. Roy Soc. Natur. Belg. 35: 1–34.Google Scholar
  20. Wetmore, A. (1960): A classification for the birds of the world. Smithsonian Misc. Coll. 139: 1–37.Google Scholar
  21. Wood, D. S. (1982): A phenetic assessment of the Ciconiidae (Aves) using skeletal morphology. Unpubl. Ph. D. Diss., Univ. Oklahoma, Norman.Google Scholar
  22. Ditto (1983 a): Phenetic relationships within the Ciconiidae (Aves). Ann. Carnegie Mus. 52: 79–112.Google Scholar
  23. Ditto (1983 b): Character transformations in phenetic studies using continuous morphometric variables. Syst. Zool. 32: 125–131.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Verlag der Deutschen Ornithologen-Gesellschaft 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. Scott Wood
    • 1
  1. 1.Section of Birds, Carnegie Museum of Natural HistoryPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations