[Taxacom] "Family" Tetrapterygidae

[Tony Rees]

Hi Ken,

I did find this paper online:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Bao_Chun_Jiang/publication/51920363_Testing_the_utility_of_mitochondrial_cytochrome_oxidase_subunit_1_sequences_for_phylogenetic_estimates_of_relationships_between_crane_Grus_species/links/5695a02e08ae820ff074df72.pdf

The presentation is a bit inconsistent, mixing references to the
genus Anthropoides in the text with that of "Grus"
(i.e. Anthropoides) paradisea in the tables, also similar for "Grus"
(i.e. Bugeranus) carunculatus; at any rate these two appear to group with
Grus virgo as a sub-group within a greater Grus. No Tetrapteryx, though...

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees

On 28 November 2016 at 01:47, Kenneth Kinman <kinman at hotmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Tony,
>
>       I think that this is a typical case of splitters vs. lumpers,
> especially lumpers who cannot tolerate paraphyletic genera.  There seems to
> be no controversy about the two species of Anthropoides being sister taxa.
>
>        However, there are indications that a genus Anthropoides could
> render genus Grus paraphyletic.  Therefore, those who cannot tolerate
> paraphyly can either resort to extreme splitting or just lumping them all
> in genus Grus.  In this case, they have chosen lumping.  Meanwhile, those
> who aren't bothered by paraphyly, have taken a middle ground approach
> between lumping and extreme splitting (splitting off Tetrapteryx as a
> separate monotypic genus from Anthropoides).
>
>                    ----------------Ken
>