DNA-DNA Hybridization Evidence for Subfamily Structure among Hummingbirds

Bleiweiss, Robert; Kirsch, John A. W.; Matheus, Juan Carlos

doi:10.2307/4088500

Cited by 56 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(b) DNA^DNA hybridization analyses DNA hybridization experiments were performed using a protocol modi¢ed from that of Sibley & Ahlquist (1990) and described previously (Kirsch et al 1990;Bleiweiss et al 1994) and included 21 mostly aquatic species. Representative birds were as in the DNA sequence study except for Accipiter melanoleucus, Amaurornis phoenicurus, Anhinga rufa, Bubo virginianus, Diomedeabulleria, Egretta novaehollandiae, Mycteriaamericana, Phaethon rubricauda, Phalacrocorax carunculatus, Plegadis falcinellus, Pygoscelis papua and Sula dactylatra.…”

Section: (A) Dna Sequence Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds

Tuinenf

Butvill²,

Kirsch³

et al. 2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

125

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aquatic birds exceed other terrestrial vertebrates in the diversity of their adaptations to aquatic niches. For many species this has created di¤culty in understanding their evolutionary origin and, in particular, for the £amingos, hamerkop, shoebill and pelecaniforms. Here, new evidence from nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequences and DNA^DNA hybridization data indicates extensive morphological convergence and divergence in aquatic birds. Among the unexpected ¢ndings is a grouping of £amingos and grebes, species which otherwise show no resemblance. These results suggest that the traditional characters used to unite certain aquatic groups, such as totipalmate feet, foot-propelled diving and long legs, evolved more than once and that organismal change in aquatic birds has proceeded at a faster pace than previously recognized.

show abstract

Section: (A) Dna Sequence Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds

Tuinenf

Butvill²,

Kirsch³

et al. 2001

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

125

123

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Early hummingbird classifications drew attention to the fundamental distinction between so-called hermit and nonhermit hummingbirds, which were recognized as the subfamilies Phaethornithinae and Trochilinae, respectively (Gould 1861;Ridgway 1911). Although hermits and nonhermits originally were distinguished by superficial differences in plumage and trophic characters, several recent anatomical and molecular studies have supported monophyly of these two groups (Zusi and Bentz 1982;Gill and Gerwin 1989;Sibley and Ahlquist 1990;Bleiweiss 1991;BleiWeiss, Kirsch, and Matheus 1994). Other than this one feature of the family's phylogeny, however, broad relationships among hummingbirds remain poorly known.…”

Section: Hummingbirdsmentioning

confidence: 99%

DNA hybridization evidence for the principal lineages of hummingbirds (Aves:Trochilidae)

Bleiweiss

Kirsch²,

Matheus³

1997

Molecular Biology and Evolution

106

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The spectacular evolutionary radiation of hummingbirds (Trochilidae) has served as a model system for many biological studies. To begin to provide a historical context for these investigations, we generated a complete matrix of DNA hybridization distances among 26 hummingbirds and an outgroup swift (Chaeturu pelagica) to determine the principal hummingbird lineages. FITCH topologies estimated from symmetrized AT,H-C values and subjected to various validation methods (bootstrapping, weighted jackknifing, branch length significance) indicated a fundamental split between hermit (Eutoxeres uquilu, Threnetes ruckeri; Phaethornithinae) and nonhermit (Trochilinae) hummingbirds, and provided strong support for six principal nonhermit clades with the following branching order: (1) analyses on a matrix of unsymmetrized A values gave similar support for these relationships except that the branching order of the two Andean clades (2, 3 above) was unresolved. In general, subsidiary relationships were consistent and well supported by both matrices, sometimes revealing surprising associations between forms that differ dramatically in plumage and bill morphology. Our results also reveal some basic aspects of hummingbird ecologic and morphologic evolution. For example, most of the diverse endemic Andean assemblage apparently comprises two genetically divergent clades, whereas the majority of North American hummingbirds belong a single third clade. Genetic distances separating some morphologically distinct genera (Oreotrochilus, Agluiocercus, Lesbiu; Myrtis, Acestruru, Philodice) were no greater than among congeneric (Coeligenu) species, indicating that, in hummingbirds, morphological divergence does not necessarily reflect level of genetic divergence.

show abstract

“…Numerous representatives from each of the principal lineages within each subfamily (Bleiweiss et al 1994(Bleiweiss et al , 1997 are included. Thus, the sample of taxa should be representative of overall patterns in the family.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zink 1989, 1998Gill & Gerwin 1989;Sibley & Ahlquist 1990;Bleiweiss et al 1994Bleiweiss et al , 1997. Branch lengths were not available for most regions of the tree, and were speci¢ed under a speciational model that set all branch lengths equal to 1.…”

Section: (C) Analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Joint effects of feeding and breeding behaviour on trophic dimorphism in hummingbirds

Bleiweiss

1999

Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey of 166 hummingbird species reveals novel associations of bill-length sexual dimorphism (BLSD) with plumage and breeding behaviours. Across all species, female bills become proportionately longer than male bills (higher female-to-male BLSD ratio) as sexual dichromatism increases. However, male bills are proportionately longer (lower female-to-male BLSD ratio) in both lekkers (traditional group display) and clustered breeders (female harems or colonial nests) compared with dispersed breeders. The overall positive association of plumage with BLSD suggests that social status determines priority of access to nectar-providing £owers. Furthermore, the distinctive BLSD associated with breeding aggregations may arise from behaviours that impose constraints on the usual male priority at £owers: female dominance over males around nest colonies and male residence on lek-mating territories. These various factors appear to alter plumage and bill characters of both sexes to produce the range of dimorphisms within the various dispersed and aggregated breeding system categories. Feedback loops caused by ecological consequences of breeding behaviour may alter the evolutionary dynamics of breeding systems, bird^plant interactions, and competing pollinators, as well as help explain the lek paradox.

show abstract

DNA-DNA Hybridization Evidence for Subfamily Structure among Hummingbirds

Cited by 56 publications

References 25 publications

Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds

Convergence and divergence in the evolution of aquatic birds

DNA hybridization evidence for the principal lineages of hummingbirds (Aves:Trochilidae)

Joint effects of feeding and breeding behaviour on trophic dimorphism in hummingbirds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About