[Taxacom] Ratites and frogs of New Zealand

[John Grehan]

I would concur that I might not be up to date with the phylogenetic relationships of the leiopelmatid frogs with respect to the ascaphids. I recall that there was some debate over their relationships. If Ken would direct me to the relevant papers he has in mind I would be pleased to consider that information. Glad to know that I was not WRONG about the tuatara evidently.

Moas on rafts - has anyone published that idea? Moas flying - as for kiwi it is possible to think of it. Even if they could fly, does that mean that is the mechanisms responsible for their distribution. Even rails have a standard biogeographic distribution.

John Grehan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Ken Kinman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 11:45 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Cc: biogeography at bohm.snv.jussieu.fr
> Subject: [Taxacom] Ratites and frogs of New Zealand
> 
> John Grehan wrote:
>     When it comes to groups such as the tuatara or the leiopelmatid frogs
> what Ken or anyone else has to do is contend with the apparent fact athat
> the nearest relatives are not in Australia, but western North America!
> *********************************
> John,
>      WRONG!!!  The nearest relatives of Leiopelmatidae are NOT in western
> North America.  We now know that Family Ascaphidae is a relict of very
> primitive frogs, and Family Leiopelmatidae is a more advanced relict
> (although retaining some primitive features).  They are NOT sister
> groups!!!
>   Ascaphidae are like the monotremes of frogs.  Leiopelmatidae are like
> the
> marsupials of frogs.  All the rest of the frogs would be analagous to the
> placentals.  This is based on both molecular and morphological data sets.
> If you haven't yet abandoned that Trans-Pacific track for primitive frogs,
> you should do so immediately.
> 
>       Karl brings up a more realistic problem----the ratites of New
> Zealand.
>   However, I don't think it is as big an obstacle as has been made of it.
> Think about flightless rails populating islands all over the Pacific and
> elsewhere.  In my opinion, both ratites and rails are just prone to
> becoming
> flightless more easily than other bird groups.  The smallest known moas
> were
> turkey-sized, but their ancestors were no doubt smaller and perhaps even
> good fliers (at least as good as rails).  Anyway, that's how I look at the
> whole ratite controversy---the early ones were flying all over the place
> (just look at the lithornithids).  And even *if* New Zealand's ratites
> were
> flightless when they arrived, there is always the rafting alternative.  I
> think more people are ready to increasingly challenge the role of
> vicariance
> in any of New Zealand's modern biota, and just because vicariance seems a
> simpler explanation doesn't mean it happened that way.  You have to keep
> on
> your toes or mother nature will fool you by taking a path that doesn't
> *seem* parsimonious.
>     ----Cheers,
>             Ken Kinman
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Find sales, coupons, and free shipping, all in one place!  MSN Shopping
> Sales & Deals
> http://shopping.msn.com/content/shp/?ctid=198,ptnrid=176,ptnrdata=200639
>