Integumentary Characters and theIntegumentary Characters and the

Phylogenetics of Galliform BirdsPhylogenetics of Galliform Birds

byby

Ureka Summer ProgramUreka Summer Program

UCD/NMINH Ireland UCD/NMINH Ireland

20052005

Paulo C. Pulgarín-RPaulo C. Pulgarín-R

Order Galliformes“Chicken-like” birds – “Landfowl” – “Gamebirds”

Including: Cracids, Megapods, Turkey, Grouse, New

World and Old World Quails and Guineafowls

~280 species (816 taxa)

77 genus

Extremely different life histories, plumage variation

and distribution, voice, behavior…

Cracids (Cracidae)

Megapodes (Megapodiidae)

Turkey and Phasianids (Phasianidae)

Grouse (Tetraonidae)

Guineafowl (Numididae)

New World Quail (Odontophoridae)

?

Previous hypothesis

Megapods &

Cracids

New Word Quails

Guineafowl

Groose,

Pheasants

& relatives

Sibley & Ahlquist 1990

ANSERIFORMES

DUCKS,

GEESE &

SCREAMERS

CRACIDAE

CRACIDS

MEGPODIIDAE

MEGAPODES

NUMIDIDAE

GUINEAFOWLS

MELEGRIDIDAE

TURKEYS

TETRAONIDAE

GROUSE

PHASIANINAE

PHEASANTS,

JUNGLE FOWLS &

PEACOCK/ARGUS

PHEASANTS

ODONTOPHORIDAE

NEW WORLD

QUAILS

PERDICINAE

PARTRIDGES,

OLD-WORLD

QUAILS,

FRANCOLINS &

SPURFOWLS

PHASIANIDAE

OUTGROUP Dyke et al. 2003

Aims of the research project

Are the feathers (at a microscopic level) informative

to resolve galliform evolutionary relationships?

Are Dove’s (2000) list of characters useful to understand

galliform interrelationships?

Scientific specimens “bird skins”- NMINH

Taxon sampling

INGROUP

6 Families (1 lacking)*

43 Genera (55%)*

56 Species (20%)*

OUTGROUP

3 Anseriformes

1 Cuculiformes

* Taxon representatives follow HBW: del Hoyo, J., Elliott, A. & Sargatal, J. eds. (1994). Handbook of the birds of the world.Vol 2. New World Vultures to Guineafowl. Lynx Edicions, Barcelona.

Cladistic analysis and descriptions

using Dove’s 2000

Monograph on Charadriiformes (Shorebirds)

Descriptive survey

Galliformes (Megapodiidae)

Anseriformes (Anatidae)

Cuculiformes (Cuculidae)

Unique in Galliforms “ring like-nodes”

Subpennaceous region morphology

Guttera plumifera (Numididae)

Megapodidus cummingi (Megapodidae)

Tetrao urogallus (Tetraonidae)

Variation in distal proportions of the

barbule (tip cells)

Tetrao urogallus

(Tetraoidae)

Short prongs

Colinus virginianus (Odontophoridae)

Long prongs

Oreophrasis derbianus (Cracidae)

Sword tip cell

Variation in Node-internode complex

Bonasa umbellus

(Tetraonidae)

Megacephalon maleo (Megapodiidae)Guttera plumifera (Numididae)

More potential characters for further

examination?

Bonasa umbellus

Strap-like base cell pigmentation

pattern

Node pigmentation shape

Colinus virginianus

Colinus virginianus

Shape and longitude of basal barbule cell

Colinus virginianus

Rings shape and distribution

Cladistic (Parsimony) analysis

using Dove’s 2000 list of

characteres:

A heuristic and ratchet search

56 taxa and 31 characters

63 trees equally parsimonious

157 length

CI: 2.0 – RI: 6.0

Aythya

Branta

Lei

Oreoder

Abu

Tragbly

Guttplu

Catrewa

Acryvul

Numid

Ortaven

Ammo

Bonasu

Bonasb

Anseranas

Opisto

Megar

Lerw

Phascol

Gallolu

Tetra2

Chryy

Dendrob

Ithacru

Mega

Dendrao

Oreopic

Chryx

Cotu

Lagolx

Lagoly

Lagoru

Tetra1

Argus

Phasi

Pavo

Alect

Franc

Lyru

Perdi

Odontca

Colli

Penepur

Craxdub

Nummele

Nummitr

Polybic

Galllas

Gallsma

Pip

Megafre

Megadyp

Megacep

Cathela

Megapods and Cracids

Other groups

Groose, Numids…

Outgroup (Ducks, Goose)

Phasianidae:

Nodes distinctively pigmented

Nodes more expanded at basal than distal parts

Nodes with many spines

Ausence of developed hooks at Subpennaceous region

Large prongs

In brief

Odontophoridae:

Tip cells with several spines

Pigment at nodes very distinctive

High density of basal “ringed barbules”

In brief

Numididae:

High node density

Enlarged flat prong

Node mophology very homogeneus

Abundance of “ringed barbules”

No strongly pigmented

In brief

Megapodiidae and Cracidae:

Huge and expanded nodes

Absence “ringed barbules”

Lack of distinctive pigments

“Enlarged” and characteristic hook morphology at SP region

In brief

In brief

Tetraonidae:

Short and uniform prongs

Oblong nodes through barbule

Nodes highly pigmented

Subpennaceous region reduced in some species

What are the conclusions of this

study?

Are the feathers (at a microscopic level) informative

to resolve galliform evolutionary relationships?

Yes, feathers contain enough historical information to be used to

formulate hypotheses of evolutionary relationships amongst

galliforms

Most of the ‘traditional’ galliform groupings can be recognized

using microscopic plumulaceous features

Further, microscopic feather characters may be reliable, and useful

traits, for resolving high-level bird systematics

Are Dove’s (2000) list of characters useful to

understand galliforms interrelationships?

No, Dove’s 2000 list of characters were not useful resolving

galliforms relationships, incongruence with former hypothesis and

lack of support

Characters need to be redefined in order to understand the

galliformes integumentary microscopic variation in a phylogenetic

context

Acknowledgements

Gareth Dyke and Julia Sigwart

Delphine Ledru, Eric Callaghan, Nigel Monaghan and Paolo

Viscardi

Carla Dove and Sara Bertelli

UCD Stuff and faculty

The UREKAN’s

(Adam, Alishia, Boris “the Big Fish”, Des, Hannah, Louise

“Cookie” and Musawenkosi)