[Taxacom] Columbiformes (clarifications)

[Kenneth Kinman]

Hi Michael,
       I think that you misinterpreted the meaning of the final
paragraph in my post (see below).  When I suggested not touching "this
one", it was in reference to the preceding sentence regarding the
biogeography of Raphidae (its dispersal and lack of an extensive ghost
lineage or vicariance). Thus, older lineages of pigeons and doves "are
more likely to provide useful information on vicariance".  Sorry that I
didn't make that clearer.     
      So you were actually preaching to the choir as far as I am
concerned.  Any avenue of research on the evolution of columbiforms
should be used to get its classification revised (20th Century
ornithologists lumped the wrong columbiform families and failed the lump
the highly derived Raphidae).  In the meantime, probably best to refer
to them as Subfamily Raphinae (as is done in the Wikipedia article on
columbiforms).    
      The only thing that bothered me about the paper (which Lynn Raw
brought to our attention) is that their choice of outgroups might not be
optimal.  For instance, did they try using any lariforms as an outgroup
to see how that might affect the results.  The question of the closest
relatives of columbiforms is still a controversial subject.                 
         -----------Ken
 -----------------------------------------------------------
I wrote:
       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