Advertisement

Journal für Ornithologie

, Volume 144, Issue 2, pp 157–175 | Cite as

The phylogenetic affinities of the Shoebill (Balaeniceps rex)

  • Gerald Mayr
Article

Summary

The phylogenetic affinities between the shoebill (Balaenicipitidae) and pelecaniform and ciconiiform birds are analysed. A cladistic analysis of 54 anatomical characters resulted in monophyly of the taxon (Scopidae + (Balaenicipitidae + Steganopodes (sensu Cracraft 1985))) and showed both Ciconiiformes and Pelecaniformes to be polyphyletic. Derived characters which support the resulting phylogeny are discussed. Monophyly of the taxon (Scopidae + (Balaenicipitidae + Steganopodes)) is better supported by morphological evidence than monophyly of the taxon (Procellariiformes + (Phaethontidae + Steganopodes)) which was established by Cracraft (1985). The shared derived characters of Scopidae, Balaenicipitidae and Steganopodes are furthermore less easily explained by convergent evolution than by the few characters which support monophyly of the taxon (Phaethontidae + Steganopodes). The Phaethontidae share derived characters with the Procellariiformes, which might support a sister group relationship between the two taxa.

Keywords

Phylogeny Balaenicipitidae Scopidae Pelecaniformes Ciconiiformes Procellariiformes osteology 

Die phylogenetischen Beziehungen des Schuhschnabels (Balaeniceps rex)

Zusammenfassung

Die phylogenetischen Beziehungen zwischen dem Schuhschnabel (Balaenicipitidae) und pelecaniformen und ciconiiformen Vögeln werden untersucht. Eine kladistische Analyse von 54 anatomischen Merkmalen resultierte in Monophylie des Taxons (Scopidae + (Balaenicipitidae + Steganopodes (sensu Cracraft 1985))) und ergab, dass sowohl Ciconiiformes als auch Pelecaniformes polyphyletisch sind. Abgeleitete Merkmale, welche den resultierenden Stammbaum begründen, werden diskutiert. Monophylie des Taxons (Scopidae + (Balaenicipitidae + Steganopodes)) ist besser gestützt durch morphologische Merkmale, als die von Cracraft (1985) begründete Monophylie des Taxons (Procellariiformes + (Phaethontidae + Steganopodes)). Die gemeinsamen abgeleiteten Merkmale von Scopidae, Balaenicipitidae und Steganopodes lassen sich darüber hinaus weniger leicht durch Konvergenz erklären, als die wenigen Merkmale, welche Monophylie des Taxons (Phaethontidae + Steganopodes) begründen könnten. Die Phaethontidae teilen abgeleitete Merkmale mit den Procellariiformes, welche eine Schwestergruppenbeziehung zwischen beiden Taxa stützen könnten.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bartlett, A. D. (1861): On the affinities ofBalaeniceps. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1861: 131–134.Google Scholar
  2. Baumel, J.J. & Witmer, L.M. (1993): Osteologia. In: Baumel, J.J., King, A. S., Breazile, J.E., Evans, H. E. & Vanden Berge, J. C. (Eds.): Handbook of avian anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium. Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club 23:45–132.Google Scholar
  3. Beddard, F. E. (1884): A contribution to the anatomy ofScopus umbretta. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1884:543–553.Google Scholar
  4. Beddard, F.E. (1888): On certain points in the Visceral Anatomy ofBalaeniceps rex bearing on its Affinities. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1888: 284–290.Google Scholar
  5. Beddard, F.E. (1898): The structure and classification of birds. London.Google Scholar
  6. Bock, W.J. (1960): Secondary articulation of the avian mandible. Auk 77: 19–55.Google Scholar
  7. Böhm, M. (1930): Über den Bau des jugendlichen Schädels vonBalaeniceps rex nebst Bemerkungen über dessen systematische Stellung und über das Gaumenskelett der Vögel. Z. Morph. Ökol. Tiere 17: 677–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cottam, P. A. (1957): The pelecaniform characters of the skeleton of the Shoebill Stork,Balaeniceps rex. Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.) Zool. 5: 51–72.Google Scholar
  9. Cracraft, J. (1968): The Lacrimal-Ectethmoid Bone Complex in Birds: A Single Character Analysis. The American Midland Naturalist 80: 316–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cracraft, J. (1981): Toward a phylogenetic classification of the recent birds of the world (Class Aves). Auk 98: 681–714.Google Scholar
  11. Cracraft, J. (1985): Monophyly and phylogenetic relationships of the Pelecaniformes: a numerical cladistic analysis. Auk 102: 834–853.Google Scholar
  12. Cracraft, J. (1988): The major clades of birds. In: Benton, M. J. (Ed.): The Phytogeny and Classification of the Tetrapods, Volume 1: Amphibians, Reptiles, Birds: 339–361. Oxford.Google Scholar
  13. del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (1992, Eds.): Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1. Barcelona.Google Scholar
  14. Elliott, A. (1992): Family Balaenicipitidae (Shoebill). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (Eds.): Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1:466–471, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  15. Farris, J. S., Källersjö, M., Crowe, T. M., Lipscomb, D. & Johansson, U. (1999): Frigatebirds, Tropicbirds and Ciconiidae. Excess of Confidence Probability. Cladistics 15: 1–7.Google Scholar
  16. Feduccia, A. (1977): The whalebill is a stork. Nature 266:719–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forbes, W. A. (1882): Report on the Anatomy of the Petrels (Tubinares), collected during the Voyage of H. M. S. Challenger. Report on the scientific results of the voyage of H. M. S. Challenger during the years 1873–76, zoology, vol. 4: 1–64.Google Scholar
  18. Gadow, H. (1891): Vogel. I. — Anatomischer Theil. In: Bronn, H. G. (Ed.): Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, vol. 6 (4). Leipzig.Google Scholar
  19. Gadow, H. (1893): Vogel. II. — Systematischer Theil. In: Bronn, H. G. (Ed.): Klassen und Ordnungen des Thier-Reichs, vol. 6 (4). Leipzig.Google Scholar
  20. George, J. C. & Berger, A. J. (1966): Avian myology. New York.Google Scholar
  21. Giebel, C.G. (1873):Balaeniceps rex. Z. ges. Naturw. Berlin 41: 350–354.Google Scholar
  22. Gould, J. (1852): On a new and most remarkable form in ornithology. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1851: 1–2.Google Scholar
  23. Groth, J.G. & Barrowclough, G.F. (1999): Basal Divergences in Birds and the Phylogenetic Utility of the Nuclear RAG-1 Gene. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 12: 115–123.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harrison, C. J.O. & Walker, A. (1982): Fossil Birds from the Upper Miocene of Northern Pakistan. Tertiary Res. 4: 53–69.Google Scholar
  25. Harshman, J. (1994): Reweaving the tapestry: What can we learn from Sibley and Ahlquist (1990)? Auk 111: 377–388.Google Scholar
  26. Hedges, S.B. & Sibley, C.G. (1994): Molecules vs. morphology in avian evolution: The case of the “pelecaniform” birds. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91: 9861–9865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houde, P. (1987): Critical evaluation of DNA hybridization studies in avian systematics. Auk 104: 17–32.Google Scholar
  28. Lanham, U. N. (1947): Notes on the phylogeny of the Pelecaniformes. Auk 64: 65–70.Google Scholar
  29. Lanyon, S.M. (1992): Review of Sibley and Ahlquist’s“Phylogeny and Classification of Birds. A Study in Molecular Evolution”. Condor 94: 304–310.Google Scholar
  30. Livezey, B.C. & Zusi, R.L. (2001): Higher-order phylogenetics of modern Aves based on comparative anatomy. Netherlands Journal of Zoology 51: 179–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McKitrick, M. C. (1991): Phylogenetic Analysis of Avian Hindlimb Musculature. Univ. Michigan Mus. Zool. Misc. Publ. 179: 1–85.Google Scholar
  32. Mikhailov, K. E. (1995): Eggshell structure in the Shoebill and pelecaniform birds: comparison with Hamerkop, herons, ibises and storks. Canadian Journal of Zoology 73 (9): 1754–1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mitchell, P. C. (1913): Observations on the Anatomy of the Shoe-bill (Balaeniceps rex) and allied birds. Proc. Zool. Soc. London 1913: 644–703.Google Scholar
  34. Olson, S.L. (1977): A Lower Eocene frigatebird from the Green River Formation of Wyoming (Pelecaniformes: Fregatidae). Smithson. Contrib. Paleobiol. 35: 1–33.Google Scholar
  35. Olson, S.L. (1979): Multiple origin of the Ciconiiformes. Proc. Colonial Waterbird Group 1978: 165–170.Google Scholar
  36. Olson, S. L. (1982): A critique of Cracraft’s classification of birds. Auk 99: 733–739.Google Scholar
  37. Olson, S. L. (1984): A hamerkop from the early Pliocene of South Africa (Aves: Scopidae). Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 97: 736–740.Google Scholar
  38. Orta, J. (1992): Family Fregatidae (Frigatebirds). In: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. (Eds.): Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 1: 362–374, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  39. Parker, W.K. (1861): On the osteology ofBalaeniceps rex. Trans. Zool. Soc. London 4: 269–352.Google Scholar
  40. Payne, R.B. & Risley, C. J. (1976): Systematics and Evolutionary Relationships Among the Herons (Ardeidae). Univ. Michigan Mus. Zool. Misc. Publ. 150: 1–115.Google Scholar
  41. Rasmussen, D.T, Olson, S.L. & Simons, E.L. (1987): Fossil Birds from the Oligocene Jebel Qatrani Formation, Fayum Province, Egypt. Smithsonian Contributions to Paleobiology 62: 1–20.Google Scholar
  42. Rea, A. (1983): Cathartid affinities: A brief overview. In: Wilbur, S.R. & Jackson, J.A. (Eds.): Vulture biology and management: 26–56. Berkeley.Google Scholar
  43. Reinhardt, J. (1861): Some Remarks on the GenusBalaeniceps. Ibis 1862: 158–175.Google Scholar
  44. Saiff, E.I. (1978): The middle ear of the skull of birds: The Pelecaniformes and Ciconiiformes. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 63: 315–370.Google Scholar
  45. Sibley, C.G. & Ahlquist, J.E. (1990): Phylogeny and classification of birds: A study in molecular evolution. New Haven and London.Google Scholar
  46. Siegel-Causey, D. (1990): Phylogenetic patterns of size and shape of the nasal gland depression in Phalacrocoracidae. Auk 107: 110–118.Google Scholar
  47. Siegel-Causey, D. (1997): Phylogeny of the Pelecaniformes: Molecular Systematics of a Privative Group. In: Mindell, D. P. (Ed.): Avian Molecular Evolution and Systematics: 159–171. San Diego.Google Scholar
  48. Stegmann, B. (1963): Der Processus internus indicis im Skelett des Vogelflugels. J. Ornithol. 104: 413–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Swofford, D.L. (1993): PAUP: Phylogenetic analysis using parsimony, version 3.1. Champaign.Google Scholar
  50. Technau, G. (1936): Die Nasendrüse der Vögel. Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Morphologie der Nasenhohle. J. Ornithol. 84: 511–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Vanden Berge, J. C. (1970): A Comparative Study of the Appendicular Musculature of the Order Ciconiiformes. American Midland Naturalist 84: 289–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Vanden Berge, J. C. & Zweers, G. A. (1993): Myologia. In: Baumel, J. J., King, A. S., Breazile, J.E., Evans, H. E. & Vanden Berge, J. C. (Eds.): Handbook of avian anatomy: Nomina Anatomica Avium. Publications of the Nuttall Ornithological Club 23: 189–247.Google Scholar
  53. van Tets, G. F. (1965): A comparative study of some social communication patterns in the Pelecaniformes. Ornithol. Monogr. 2: 1–88.Google Scholar
  54. van Tuinen, M., Butvill, D.B., Kirsch, J.A.W. & Hedges, S.B. (2001): Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 268: 1345–1350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Walters, M. (1994): Birds’ eggs. London.Google Scholar
  56. Warheit, K.I., Good, D.A., de Queiroz, K. (1989): Variation in numbers of scleral ossicles and their phylogenetic transformations within Pelecaniformes. Auk 106: 383–388.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Ornithologen-Gesellschaft/Blackwell Verlag 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gerald Mayr
    • 1
  1. 1.Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg, Sektion für OrnithologieFrankfurt/M.Germany

Personalised recommendations