[Taxacom] "Family" Tetrapterygidae

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 27 14:08:03 CST 2016

Hi Ken,

I did find this paper online:


The presentation is a bit inconsistent, mixing references to the
genus Anthropoides in the text with that of "Grus"
(i.e. Anthropoides) paradisea in the tables, also similar for "Grus"
(i.e. Bugeranus) carunculatus; at any rate these two appear to group with
Grus virgo as a sub-group within a greater Grus. No Tetrapteryx, though...

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia

On 28 November 2016 at 01:47, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>       I think that this is a typical case of splitters vs. lumpers,
> especially lumpers who cannot tolerate paraphyletic genera.  There seems to
> be no controversy about the two species of Anthropoides being sister taxa.
>        However, there are indications that a genus Anthropoides could
> render genus Grus paraphyletic.  Therefore, those who cannot tolerate
> paraphyly can either resort to extreme splitting or just lumping them all
> in genus Grus.  In this case, they have chosen lumping.  Meanwhile, those
> who aren't bothered by paraphyly, have taken a middle ground approach
> between lumping and extreme splitting (splitting off Tetrapteryx as a
> separate monotypic genus from Anthropoides).
>                    ----------------Ken

More information about the Taxacom mailing list