[Taxacom] Woodpeckers: If any got to Madagascar, they were probably too late

[John Grehan]

No, its because they don't like aussie beer!
 
John Grehan

________________________________

From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of Robin Leech
Sent: Thu 5/19/2011 12:11 AM
To: Kenneth Kinman; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Woodpeckers: If any got to Madagascar,they were probably too late



Well, we know the reason woodpeckers didn't/couldnt survive in
Australia - the wood is too darn hard.
teehee
Robin
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kenneth Kinman" <kennethkinman at webtv.net>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, May 18, 2011 8:28 PM
Subject: [Taxacom] Woodpeckers: If any got to Madagascar,they were probably
too late


> Hi All,
>      I was thinking about the failure of woodpeckers to become
> established in Madagascar (or more importantly in Australasia).  Again,
> I have to assume competitive exclusion as the major factor.
>      Firstly, woodpeckers are certainly not the most migratory groups
> of birds.  Compared to song birds in general and various other groups
> which are more migratory, they aren't likely candidates to be early
> dispersers to isolated habitats.  Most woodpeckers tend to stay in a
> relatively limited range year-round.
>     Furthermore, they are thought to have originated in the northern
> hemisphere, while Passeriformes are thought to have originated in the
> southern hemisphere.  Passeriforms thus had the home court advantage in
> the south (even ignoring the fact that they are, as a group, better
> migrators).
>       Therefore, once the northern woodpeckers finally reached Africa,
> they probably had a fighting chance in some niches continent-wide.
> However, even if such relative-non-migrators reached Madagascar at all
> (admitedly a possibility given millions of years), a well-entrenched
> fauna of passeriforms, cuckoos, rollers, and other birds would have made
> life miserable, if not impossible, for such johnny-come-latelies in
> Madagascar.  In the Americas, woodpeckers seem to have had better luck
> diversifying in the extremely diverse environments in  South America (at
> least compared to out lying areas in the Old World like Madagascar or
> Australasia).
>      As for Australasia, passeriforms were clearly there by the early
> Eocene of Australia, and presumably earlier.  If woodpeckers had even
> tried to disperse over the Wallace Line (doubtful for a group not adept
> at migration or rapid expansion), a well-entrenched and diverse
> passeriform population would have most likely eliminated the invaders by
> competitive exclusion at various steps of attempted island-hopping.  And
> that is not even considering other competitors from other Orders of
> birds, or even pressures from birds of prey or non-bird predators which
> such northern birds would have not evolved much ability to confront.
> Given all of that, I feel little need to worry too much about molecular
> clocks or even sparse fossil records.  Woodpeckers probably had little
> chance invading (becoming established in) either Madagascar or even the
> outskirts of Australasia.
>              -------------Ken
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
>
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 
>
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
>



_______________________________________________

Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom

The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of these methods:

(1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org <http://taxacom.markmail.org/> 

(2) a Google search specified as:  site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here