Inference of phylogenetic relationships in passerine birds (Aves: Passeriformes) using new molecular markers [Elektronische Ressource] / von Simone Treplin

Treplin

Informations

• Publié par: universitat_potsdam
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2006
• Nombre de lectures: 8
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

Institut für Biochemie und Biologie
Evolutionsbiologie/Spezielle Zoologie




Inference of phylogenetic relationships in passerine
birds (Aves: Passeriformes) using new molecular
markers



Dissertation
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades
“doctor rerum naturalium”
(Dr. rer. nat.)
in der Wissenschaftsdisziplin “Evolutionsbiologie“


eingereicht an der
Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Fakultät
der Universität Potsdam


von
Simone Treplin


Potsdam, August 2006
Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements

First of all, I would like to thank Prof. Dr. Ralph Tiedemann for the exciting topic of
my thesis. I’m grateful for his ongoing interest, discussions, support, and confidence in the
project and me.
I thank the University of Potsdam for the opportunity to perform my PhD and the
financial and logistical funds.
This thesis would not have been possible without many institutions and people, who
provided samples: University of Kiel, Haustierkunde (Heiner Luttmann and Joachim Oesert),
Zoologischer Garten Berlin (Rudolf Reinhard), Tierpark Berlin (Martin Kaiser), Transvaal
Museum, South Africa (Tamar Cassidy), Vogelpark Walsrode (Bernd Marcordes), Eberhard
Curio, Roger Fotso, Tomek Janiszewski, Hazell Shokellu Thompson, and Dieter
Wallschläger. Additionally, I thank everybody who thought of me in the moment of finding a
bird, collected and delivered it immediately.
I express my gratitude to Christoph Bleidorn for his great help with the phylogenetic
analyses, the fight with the cluster, the discussions, and proof-reading. Special thanks go to
Susanne Hauswaldt for patiently reading my thesis and improving my English.
I thank my colleagues of the whole group of evolutionary biology/systematic zoology
for the friendly and positive working atmosphere, the funny lunch brakes, and the favours in
the lab. I’m grateful to Romy for being my first, ‘easy-care’ diploma-student and producing
many data.
I’m very grateful to Katja for her patience and perpetual technical help.
A very special thank goes to Philine for her friendship, encouragement, understanding,
and good ideas. It would have been harder without her.
Thanks to Steffi for cat-sitting on Potsdam-weekends and
together with ‘the Henne’ for realistic birds. I hope you understand
why I preferred Mama’s nice painting of the fieldfare for the cover.

I could not have reached anything without Malte and my parents, who have supported
me throughout the years and are there for me whenever I need them. Thank you for love,
confidence, encouragement, and being with me.
Table of contents
Table of contents

1 Introduction .................................................................................................. 1
1.1 Phylogenetic relationships within Passeriformes and the need for new markers .......... 1
1.2 ZENK and CR1 as new phylogenetic molecular markers................................................ 4
1.3 Aims of this study................................................................................................................. 7
2 Summary of articles ..................................................................................... 8
2.1 article I:........................................................................................................... 8
2.2 Summary of article II: ....................................................................................................... 10
2.3 Summary of article III: ..................................................................................................... 12
3 Discussion .................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Utility of new molecular markers for Passeriformes systematics.................................. 14
3.1.1 ZENK............................................................................................................................................ 14
3.1.2 CR1 elements as apomorphic markers .......................................................................................... 15
3.1.3 Sequences of CR1 elements .......................................................................................................... 17
3.2 Phylogenetic relationships within Passeriformes inferred from new markers ............ 18
3.2.1 Suboscines..................................................................................................................................... 18
3.2.2 ‘Corvida’ ....................................................................................................................................... 19
3.2.3 Picathartidae.................................................................................................................................. 19
3.2.4 Passerida.................. 20
3.3 Conclusion..... 23
4 Abstract ....................................................................................................... 25
5 Abstract (German version)........................................................................ 26
6 References ................................................................................................... 28
7 Appendix ..................................................................................................... 38
7.1 Article I:.............................................................................................................................. 38
7.2 Article II: ............................................................................................................................ 78
7.3 Article III:......................................................................................................................... 103



Introduction
1 Introduction

1.1 Phylogenetic relationships within Passeriformes and the need for new
markers

Among all classes of living organisms, Aves is supposed to be the best known, and
some argue that presumably ‘all’ species have been discovered and named (Groth and
Barrowclough, 1999). Nevertheless, their origin, phylogeny, and biogeography has been a
continuous matter of debate, which has been intensified through the use of molecular data
(e.g. Cracraft, 2001; Groth and Barrowclough, 1999; Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990). The
difficulty in resolving these issues stems from their rapid adaptive radiation and the adaptation
to flight. The anatomical characteristics correlated with the development of flight gained by
the first birds are more or less conserved in recent species and thus, birds own only few taxon
specific morphological synapomorphies (Feduccia, 1996).
The highest diversity among living birds is found in the order Passeriformes. This by
far largest avian taxon comprises roughly 59 % of all living birds (more than 5700 species,
Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990). The Passeriformes form a morphologically very homogenous
group and their monophyly is well established, both on morphological (Raikow, 1982) and
molecular grounds (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990). However, phylogenetic relationships within
the group have been extremely puzzling, as most of the evolutionary lineages originated
through rapid radiation during the early Tertiary (Feduccia, 1995). Fast diverging clades had
little opportunity to acquire synapomorphies, which resulted in ill-defined groups for
reconstructions of a phylogeny (Lanyon, 1988).
The first extensive molecular study on avian systematics was based on DNA-DNA
hybridization analyses (Sibley and Ahlquist, 1990) and corroborated the basal split of
Passeriformes into the two morphologically monophyletic clades of suboscines (Tyranni) and
oscines (Passeri) (e.g. Ames, 1971; Feduccia, 1975). This study, however, has been criticised
by several authors concerning its reproducibility (Mindell, 1992), sparse sampling and its lack
of internal consistency (Cracraft, 1992; Lanyon, 1992). Nevertheless, Sibley and Ahlquist’s
(1990) phylogeny of the Passeriformes (Fig. 1) with 46 families and 46 subfamilies (classified
by Sibley and Monroe (1990)) has become the basis for subsequent DNA sequence analyses.
While sequence-based studies generally agree with the partition of Passeriformes into the
monophyletic clades of suboscines and oscines, a third group composed of the New Zealand
1 Introduction
Fig. 1 Phylogenetic relationships of passerine families and their higher-level systematic
classifications based on the DNA-DNA hybridization analyses of Sibley and Ahlquist
(1990).
wrens (Acanthisittidae) has been established as the earliest branch within the Passeriformes
and sister group to suboscines and oscines (Barker et al., 2002; Ericson et al., 2002a). The
division of the oscines into the two sister taxa Corvida and Passerida, which had been
hypothesised by Sibley and Ahlquist (1990), has been rejected later, as the Corvida appear to
be paraphyletic (Barker et al., 2002; Ericson et al., 2002a, b). Additionally, conflicting
phylogenetic hypotheses have been put forward for lower phylogenetic relationships,
especially within the Passerida and their three superfamilies defined by Sibley and Ahlquist
(1990): Muscicapoidea, Sylvioidea and Passeroidea (e