[Taxacom] Columbiformes, ghost moths, Madagascar, etc.

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Lynn,
       Thanks, I had seen some of the earlier papers which they referred
to, but not that particular paper.  Seems like molecular (as well
morphological) research shows that the classification of Order
Columbiformes is long-overdue for a major overhaul.        
       Although I am obviously not philosophically opposed to one
paraphyletic (mother) family giving rise to another family, a huge
Family Columbidae giving rise to a tiny, highly derived Family Raphidae,
is totally the antithesis of a useful classification.  Therefore not a
mother-daughter pair that I would think anyone would advocate
maintaining.  It's certainly nothing like Class Reptilia giving rise to
Class Aves (the latter being highly diverse, as well as worldwide in
distribution).
     But it clearly has taken (perhaps far too long) for molecular data
to finally address this imbalance in columbiform classication.  How many
families of Order Columbiformes is optimal remains to be seen (certainly
more than two), but whether "Raphidae" remains as a full family, or
subfamily, or even tribe, remains to be seen.  
        In any case, this study and others seem to indicate that
biogeographic (and other) claims that Raphidae have an extensive ghost
lineage (as though it might be sister group to Family Columbidae) have
no credible basis at all (simply based on very derived morphological
characteristics which rapidly evolved due to insular isolation).  Those
interested in vicariance are best advised not to touch this one with a
ten-foot pole.  Many older taxa that are more likely to provide useful
informaton on vicariance would be a better bet by far.    
           ---------------Ken                            
  -------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Raw wrote:
       BTW, have you seen this paper
http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/656.full.pdf 

On 24 May 2011, at 22:33, Kenneth Kinman wrote: 
> Hi Michael,  
>       (1)  I wasn't suggesting that the fossa could have >eliminated 
> Columba on its own, but along with other predators (like >the
mongooses, 
> civet, etc.).  And again, I suggest that it wasn't >necessary to 
> eliminate a well-established Columba species if the >predators simply 
> prevented the population from being well-established in >the first
place 
> (nipping the population in the bud, so the speak).             
>     (2) Yes, I think there are plenty of cases of >vicariance
explaining 
> the distribution of taxa, instead of dispersal.  The New >Zealand
wrens 
> that we discussed is a great example.  But Madagascar >became isolated 
> much earlier than New Zealand, so I think the vertebrate >fauna of 
> Madagascar (especially mammals and birds) is much more the >result is 
> dispersal.  I would expect more vicariance among the other >vertebrate 
> groups which have been around longer (Jurassic or >earlier).  
>         -------Ken               
> --------------------------------------------------------