[Taxacom] "Family" Tetrapterygidae

Tony Rees tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Sun Nov 27 17:09:52 CST 2016

Also of potential interest, the IOC World Bird List dropped both Anthropoides
and Bugeranus in favour of Grus in 2010, as per this extract from
http://www.worldbirdnames.org/updates/archives/taxonomy-version-2/ :

TAXONOMY UPDATES – v2.6 (Oct 23, 2010)

Seq Previous IOC  List English Name Updated List (v2.6) Code Reference
40 *Anthropoides virgo* Demoiselle Crane *Grus virgo* TAX, SEQ Drop
*Anthropoides*, which is embedded in *Grus* (Krajewski 2010)
40 *Anthropoides paradiseus* Blue Crane *Grus paradisea* TAX, SEQ Drop
*Anthropoides*,    which is embedded in    *Grus* (Krajewski 2010)
40 *Bugeranus carunculatus* Wattled Crane *Grus carunculata* TAX, SEQ Drop
*Bugeranus*,    which is embedded in    *Grus* (Krajewski 2010)

However if you read Krajewski et al.'s 2010 paper - available at
http://www.aoucospubs.org/doi/full/10.1525/auk.2009.09045 - they recommend
retention of the generic names Anthropoides and Bugeranus as distinct from
(though embedded within) Grus:

"*Classification*.—Crane classification had been reasonably stable
throughout the 20th century until Krajewski (1989) suggested that *Grus* as
constituted by Peters (1934) was not monophyletic, because of the early
separation of the Siberian Crane (then *“Grus” leucogeranus*) from other
gruines. Krajewski's remedy was to transfer the species of *Bugeranus* and
*Anthropoides* to *Grus*, leaving the latter as the only extant genus
within Gruinae. Krajewski and Fetzner (1994) failed to resolve the Siberian
Crane as a basal gruine with cyt *b* sequences and lamented that
Krajewski's (1989) lumping expedient may have been premature.
Unfortunately, that classification has since been adopted in some prominent
tabulations of avian diversity (e.g., Monroe and Sibley 1993, IUCN 2007).
Although our mtDNA results confirm Krajewski's (1989) phylogeny, we endorse
Livezey's (1998) proposal to recognize the Siberian Crane as a monotypic
genus (*Leucogeranus*) and retain Peters's (1934) other gruine genera
Bugeranus*, and *Grus*; Table 1). This scheme captures what is well
supported by numerous phylogenetic analyses while otherwise maintaining
nomenclatural stability. In particular, the position of the Anthropoides
genera in relation to *Grus* (node 11 in Fig. 2) is not highly resolved by
mtDNA sequences. A fully satisfactory phylogenetic classification will also
require confirmation of the novel mtDNA alliance of the Canadensis and
Antigone groups."

So I guess it depends on which way you wish to jump... in any
case, Tetrapterygidae would seem to be a non-starter.

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia

On 28 November 2016 at 07:08, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Ken,
> I did find this paper online:
> https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bao_Chun_Jiang/
> publication/51920363_Testing_the_utility_of_mitochondrial_
> cytochrome_oxidase_subunit_1_sequences_for_phylogenetic_
> estimates_of_relationships_between_crane_Grus_species/links/
> 5695a02e08ae820ff074df72.pdf
> 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
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> 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