Jump to content

Talk:Pelecaniformes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

currently, Pelecaniform redirects to Pelecaniformes. Should it be the other way around? Matt 23:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Help![edit]

Can someone put Pelecaniformes in the TaxoBox of the families Ardeidae Balaenicipitidae Scopidae and Threskiornithidae, along with their subfamilies, genera, and species' TaxoBox as well. The reason is a reason study that these families (along with their species) are in fact more kin to the Pelecaniformes. --4444hhhh (talk) 16:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Birds project discussion. As regards herons and ibises, we'll have to wait and see. The other two are indeed Pelecaniformes, while cormorants etc are not. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating split[edit]

Since we have to anticipate that Pelecaniformes in the strict sense (i.e. pelicans, Shoebill, Hammerkop) will be merged into Ciconiiformes (however these are circumscribed) and that the others are better considered Phalacrocoraciiformes, it may be pointless to try and save this article.

It would perhaps be better to tear it into pieces and use them for Phalacrocoraciiformes etc. The present content could be moved to Steganopod (presently redirects here) or Steganopodes - the old name of the "totipalmate" waterbirds. For that article we'd use Cairinini as a model. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 20:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term itself is an important historical one, and maybe the best is a short article describing he historical use with prominent links to the other articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:48, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The map seems to treat cormorants as part of this order. Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - should be removed and deleted on commons. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram[edit]

In searching for a reference for the cladogram that is included in this article I was surprised to find that the sources do not agree. The IOC list includes the note: "The relationships among groups in the terminal waterbird clade (Pelecaniformes) differ among analyses (Hackett et al. 2008; Prum et al. 2015)."

Hackett et al (2008)[1]
Prum et al (2015)[2]
Reddy et al (2017)[3]
Kuhl et al (2021)[4]

The disagreement is discussed in Braun et al (2019).[5] The two more recent analyses have the same phylogeny and I've chosen to follow these in the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 12:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hackett, S.J.; Kimball, R.T.; Reddy, S.; Bowie, R.C.K.; Braun, E.L.; Braun, M.J.; Chojnowski, J.L.; Cox, W.A.; Han, K-L.; Harshman, J.; Huddleston, C.J.; Marks, B.D.; Miglia, K.J.; Moore, W.S.; Sheldon, F.H.; Steadman, D.W.; Witt, C.C.; Yuri, T. (2008). "A phylogenomic study of birds reveals their evolutionary history". Science. 320 (5884): 1763–1767. doi:10.1126/science.1157704.
  2. ^ Prum, R.O.; Berv, J.S.; Dornburg, A.; Field, D.J.; Townsend, J.P.; Lemmon, E.M.; Lemmon, A.R. (2015). "A comprehensive phylogeny of birds (Aves) using targeted next-generation DNA sequencing". Nature. 526 (7574): 569–573. doi:10.1038/nature15697.
  3. ^ Reddy, S.; Kimball, R.T.; Pandey, A.; Hosner, P.A.; Braun, M.J.; Hackett, S.J.; Han, K.-L.; Harshman, J.; Huddleston, C.J.; Kingston, S.; Marks, B.D.; Miglia, K.J.; Moore, W.S.; Sheldon, F.H.; Witt, C.C.; Yuri, T.; Braun, E.L. (2017). "Why do phylogenomic data sets yield conflicting trees? Data type influences the avian tree of life more than taxon sampling". Systematic Biology. 66 (5): 857–879. doi:10.1093/sysbio/syx041.
  4. ^ Kuhl, H.; Frankl-Vilches, C.; Bakker, A.; Mayr, G.; Nikolaus, G.; Boerno, S.T.; Klages, S.; Timmermann, B.; Gahr, M. (2021). "An unbiased molecular approach using 3′-UTRs resolves the avian family-level tree of life". Molecular Biology and Evolution. 38 (1): 108–127. doi:10.1093/molbev/msaa191.
  5. ^ Braun, E.L.; Cracraft, J.; Houde, P. (2019). "Resolving the avian tree of life from top to botton: the promise and potential boundaries of the phylogenetic era". In Kraus, R.H.S. (ed.). Avian Genomics in Ecology and Evolution. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 151-210 [173]. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-16477-5_6. ISBN 9783030164775.

Old name still used?[edit]

The second word of this article ("A steganopode") appears to be the old name for the group? At the very least it seems confusing when the article is titled "Pelecaniformes". But I'm no expert, and this could be correct. 155.190.13.13 (talk) 23:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this on 6 November. "Steganopode" is not the name for the current, monophyletic, Pelecaniformes, which consists of pelicans, hamerkops, shoebills, herons, ibises and spoonbills. Rather, steganopodes are the traditional, polyphyletic, Pelecaniformes, which consisted of pelicans, frigatebirds, boobies, gannets, cormorants and tropicbirds. --Grey Clownfish (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The taxobox's internal taxonomy is questionable[edit]

It includes Ardei as a suborder, when in fact, Ardei seems to be paraphyletic, as Threskiornithidae seems to be sister to the rest of Pelecaniformes. Should this be changed, so that Threskiornithidae and Ardeidae are not listed as part of a suborder?

P.S. I just realised that Template:Taxonomy/Threskiornithidae and Template:Taxonomy/Ardeidae have Ardei as their parent. Should this be changed too? --Grey Clownfish (talk) 06:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pelecaniformes&oldid=1200425610"