Phylogenetics, biogeography and classification of, and character evolution in, gamebirds (Aves: Galliformes): effects of character exclusion, data partitioning and missing data

Abstract

The phylogenetic relationships, biogeography and classification of, and morphobehavioral (M/B) evolution in, gamebirds (Aves: Galliformes) are investigated. In-group taxa (rooted on representatives of the Anseriformes) include 158 species representing all suprageneric galliform taxa and 65 genera. The characters include 102 M/B attributes and 4452 nucleic acid base pairs from mitochondrial cytochrome b (CYT B), NADH dehydrogenase subunit 2 (ND2), 12S ribosomal DNA (12S) and control region (CR), and openUP -February 2007

Ant-Based Phylogenetic Reconstruction (ABPR): A new distance algorithm for phylogenetic estimation based on ant colony optimization

“…The unrooted tree recovers the expected relationships at the ordinal level, and for most of basal relationships within Galliformes (e.g. Groth and Barrowclough, 1999;Pereira and Baker, 2006;Crowe et al, 2006). However, the relationships among New World quails, guineafowl and Phasianidae (pheasants, turkeys, grouse and allies; Node B in Figure 3) are not concordant among the ABPR (this study) and optimization algorithms (Pereira and Baker, 2006;Crowe et al, 2006).…”

“…However, the relationships among New World quails, guineafowl and Phasianidae (pheasants, turkeys, grouse and allies; Node B in Figure 3) are not concordant among the ABPR (this study) and optimization algorithms (Pereira and Baker, 2006;Crowe et al, 2006). Moreover, the ABPR algorithm is not able to recover curassows as a sister group to all other galliforms in exclusion to megapodes (Node C in Figure 3), as expected based on mitochondrial and/or nuclear sequences (Groth and Barrowclough, 1999;Pereira and Baker, 2006;Crowe et al, 2006). Optimization algorithms have also had problems to solve the above mentioned relationships confidently, which are assumed to have occurred in a short period.…”

Guidelines for the re-introduction of Galliformes for conservation purposes

“…These two studies and others published earlier (reviewed in Crowe et al, 2006) show that Megapodiidae, followed by Cracidae, is the sister group to all other Galliformes. However, the remaining relationships are still far from clear.…”

“…Dimcheff et al, 2002;Dyke et al, 2003, Crowe et al, 2006 and more data are required to improve the resolution of these relationships. Below family-level, wellsupported phylogenies have been proposed for megapodes (Birks and Edwards, 2002), many cracids (Pereira et al, 2002;Pereira and Baker, 2004;Grau et al, 2005), grouse (Lucchini et al, Figure 1: Phylogenetic relationships of Galliformes (modified from Crowe et al, 2006). Family and subfamily names are given to the right and left of grey bars, respectively.…”

“…Recently, Crowe et al (2006) performed one of the most extensive studies on the phylogenetic relationships of Galliformes based on a combined data set of morphological, behavioural and molecular attributes. They proposed a classification for the group, recognising five monophyletic families: Megapodiidae, Cracidae, Numididae, Odontophoridae and Phasianidae (Figure 1).…”