4.5 Article

The Sulawesi Thrush (Cataponera turdoides; Aves: Passeriformes) belongs to the genus Turdus

期刊

ZOOLOGICA SCRIPTA
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 32-40

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/zsc.12518

关键词

-

资金

  1. Villum Foundation (Young Investigator Programme) [15560]
  2. National Genomics Infrastructure in Stockholm - Science for Life Laboratory
  3. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  4. Swedish Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The Wallace Line area is the convergence zone of the Asian and Australo-Papuan faunas, and studying the origins and relationships of species here has been ongoing for over a century. Despite considerable progress in clarifying the affinities of Wallacean taxa, taxonomic puzzles still exist, as seen in the case of the Sulawesi Thrush.
The Asian and Australo-Papuan faunas meet and intermix across the islands of Wallacea. Untangling the origins and relationships of the species inhabiting these archipelagos is an ongoing project that has lasted for well over a century. In recent years, molecular phylogenetic studies have made considerable progress in clarifying the affinities of enigmatic Wallacean taxa, but taxonomic riddles remain, even in groups as well studied as birds. Such is the case with Sulawesi Thrush Cataponera turdoides, a scarce and elusive montane songbird whose taxonomic placement has remained controversial since its description. To determine the evolutionary relationships of this monotypic genus, we obtained a museum specimen and employed whole-genome resequencing to generate a multi-locus dataset. Phylogenetic analyses were performed using UCEs, and individual mitochondrial and nuclear genes. We show that Cataponera is a true thrush of the large and geographically widespread genus Turdus. It belongs to a clade predominantly composed of migratory Palearctic species, but has no close relatives within that group. Sulawesi Thrush is one of only two members of the genus Turdus known to have crossed Wallace's Line to form resident populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据