Bird Families

Phylogenetic Relationships of Finch Birds (Fringillidae, Aves) in the Light of Molecular Data: A Brief Review

Pin
Send
Share
Send
Send


Originator: Crop Development Center, University of Saskatchewan, Canada

Intensive technological variety, for classic technology (not Clearfield), seed coat gray, orange cotyledons

in production - 2.4 t / ha (Kursk region)

in the state test - 5.1 t / ha (Kursk region)

Vegetation period 65-90 days

Weight of 1000 grains 30-40 g

Food (shelled, chipped and whole), excellent commercial and culinary qualities

Passes state test

Medium early ripening time, average plant height, average branching intensity. The height of the lower pod attachment is 10–14 cm. Good resistance to lodging and shedding. Excellent drought tolerance. Harvesting starts at 18% moisture with headers with a flexible FLEX cutterbar, which perfectly follows the unevenness of the soil and reduces losses. The combine is adjusted to a gentle mode (the drum speed is reduced to 500-600 rpm)

Sowing time Early

Seeding rate (germinating seeds / m2) 190-220 seeds / m2

Basic application or with sowing:

- nitrogen: 15–20 kg / ha ae.

- phosphorus: 60–80 kg / ha a.i.

- potassium: 70–110 kg / ha ae.

Disease resistance

Strong - fusarium wilting, bacteriosis of roots

Medium - rust, ascochitis

Herbicide of continuous action before emergence (glyphosate group). In countries with large areas of lentils, the following are used: soil preparations - Dual Gold 1.6 l / ha + Gezagard 3 l / ha, post-emergence - Pulsar 0.5 l / ha or Zenkor 0.5 l / ha. Lentils are very sensitive to post-emergence drugs, especially in dry conditions, so it is better to divide the dosage into two applications.

The seeds were produced at the EkoNiva Group's own enterprises. A complete package of documents in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, incl. in the field of copyright protection. Big bag packaging. Delivery across the Russian Federation and export is possible. Volume from 1 t.

  • Prices for seeds of cereals and leguminous crops, suppliers (2772 +1467)
  • Demand for seeds of cereals and leguminous crops, buyers (45 +16)

OATS SEEDS price: from 12.00 rubles / kg.

Seeds of cereals and legumes:

  • Goods and services (2772)
  • Demand (45)
  • Companies (291)

We sell lentil seeds for sowing:

1. Lentils grade "Gian-Z" (Italian green)

GOST R 52325-2005, RS1

- Similarity -98%, (standard not less than 87%)

Lentils are an annual herb of the legume family. Stem height 15-75 cm, prone to lodging or erect, blackish, tetrahedral, pubescent, branched. Lentil leaves are compound, with 2-8 pairs of leaflets, paired-pinnate, which end in a branched tendril, very rarely in its rudiment. The root system is branched.

Lentils are whimsical to moisture and cold-resistant plant. The growing season lasts from 75 to 115 days. The best soils for growing lentils are chernozems, they do not tolerate saline, acidic and heavy soils. The plant is self-pollinated. Lentils are used as a fodder and food crop. The grain contains - 35% protein, 2.6% oil, 61% starch, cereals, flour, etc. are made from it.

Abstract of a scientific article on biological sciences, the author of the scientific work - Paevsky Vladimir Alexandrovich

Second edition. First publication: Paevsky V.A. 2014. Phylogenetic relationships of finches (Fringillidae, Aves) in the light of molecular data: a brief overview // Development of life in the process of abiotic changes on Earth. Irkutsk, 3: 248-253.

Phylogenetic Relationships of Finch Birds (Fringillidae, Aves) in the Light of Molecular Data: A Brief Review

Russian Ornithological Journal 2018, Volume 27, Express issue 1662: 4340-4346

Phylogenetic relationships of finches (Fringillidae, Aves) in the light of molecular data: a brief overview

Second edition. First published in 2014 *

The phylogeny and classification of birds continue to be the arena of intense debate. The debate has become particularly acute in connection with the use of molecular methods to resolve issues of taxonomy. Reviews of classification problems for the Passeriformes order of passerines (Sibley, Ahlquist 1990, Koblik et al. 2013, Paevsky 2013a), accounting for about 60% of all living bird species (Sibley, Monroe 1990), clearly showed the difficulties of taxonomists at the present stage of study.

The family of finches Fringillidae consists mainly of seminivorous cone-billed birds with a characteristic structure of the palatal surface of the upper beak and nine functional primary flight feathers. The distribution of finches is almost global, and the lifestyle of most of them is associated with tree and shrub vegetation, but there are both desert and mountain species. Many finches are well known and popular with the general public, but their taxonomy and family ties still require revision.

In recent years, the phylogeny and phylogeography of finches have been intensively studied by molecular methods. A series of publications by Spanish biologists (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999, 2001, 2007, etc.) for 1998-2012, as well as other significant works (van den Elzen 2000, Nguembock et al. 2009, Töpfer et al. 2011, Zuccon et al. 2012, Tietze et al. 2013, and others) significantly changed the concept of taxonomy and the rate of diversification of species of this family. The synthesis of paleontological, biogeographic and molecular data made it possible to construct phylogenetic trees taking into account the time of origin and the rate of divergence of individual evolutionary lines. On the example of many finch species, it has been shown that very rapid speciation occurred at the end of the Miocene and Pliocene (9-2 million years ago) in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The Pleistocene glaciations could be important only for the formation of subspecies.

* Paevsky V.A. 2014. Phylogenetic relationships of finches (Fringillidae, Aves) in the light of molecular data: a brief overview II Development of life in the process of abiotic changes on Earth. Irkutsk, 3: 248-253.

The size of the finch family has been insufficiently studied, and there are different, sometimes conflicting views (Dementyev 1937, Kartashev 1974, Sibley, Ahlquist 1990, Cramp, Perrins 1994, etc.). Throughout the history of taxonomy, this family included or excluded such groups as weaver Ploceidae, bunting Emberizidae, Darwin or Galapagos finches Geospizidae, Cardinalidae cardinals, Hawaiian flower girls Drepanididae, Parnagus corpus deer Thraupidae, ... As a result, the size of the finch family ranged from 137 (Boehme and Flint 1994) to 993 (Sibley and Ahlquist 1990) species.

The Latin name of the finch family Fringillidae Leach, 1820 appeared much later than previous attempts to classify birds of this family, of which K. Linnaeus had the genus Fringilla Linnaeus, 1758, which included 8 species, and the genus Loxia Linnaeus, 1758 with 5 species. In the subsequent classifications of the family, in addition to the finches themselves, various groups of birds were included in it, and the distribution of species by subfamilies and tribes most often took place on the basis of external signs of body structure: the shape of the beak, the structure of the tongue, the number of primary flight feathers, the shape of the wings, tail and legs ( reviews: Kartashev 1974, Sibley, Ahlquist 1990). In the 12th volume of the "Catalog of birds of the British Museum" (Sharpe 1888), finches, represented by 97 genera, were divided into three subfamilies: finches Fringillinae, bunting Emberizinae and gannets Coccothraustinae. In the monograph on birds of the world by M.A. Menzbier (1909), finches were recognized as close to the bunting family, but M.A. Menzbir also referred to finches as all Passeridae sparrows, and he singled out the grosbeaks into a separate family. P.P. Sushkin (Sushkin 1924, 1929) was the first to suggest the close relationship of Hawaiian flower girls with finches. According to P.P. Sushkin, finches and buntings are in the rank of superfamilies, and the superfamily Frin-gilloidei consists of the families Fringillidae, Drepanididae and Ploceidae. The monograph on the taxonomy of birds of the world (Kartashev 1974) lists 4 subfamilies of finches, uniting from 89 to 123 genera and from 414 to 468 species: bunting, Darwin's finches, cardinals and true finches. However, modern guidelines (Cramp, Perrins 1994, del Hoyo et al. 2010) treat finches and buntings as separate families.

A very large-scale phylogenetic picture of the evolution of all birds according to molecular data, the first in the history of taxonomy, appeared in

the capital monograph by C. Sibley and I. Olquist (Sibley, Ahlquist 1990), which presents the results of the work of numerous collaborators on the hybridization of DNA from 1,700 bird species from 168 families, i.e. the combination of complementary single-stranded nucleic acids into a hybrid molecule, where the degree of relatedness is

developed through a temperature gradient during hybridization. Phylogenetic schemes were built on the basis of cladistics, in particular, the principles of subordination of taxa and the rank of the category were based on the time of their origin, and the same rank was established for sister groups.

The classification of the family of finches according to the results of DNA hybridization turned out to be as follows: the family of true finches Fringillidae - 240 genera, 993 species, consists of 3 subfamilies: 1) olive songbird Peucedraminae with one genus and species, 2) Old World finches Fringillinae - 39 genera, 169 species, consisting of 3 tribes - finches and yurok Fringillini - 1 genus Fringilla with 3 species, goldfinches, crossbills, etc. Carduelini - 20 genera, 136 species, Hawaiian flower girls Drepanidini - 18 genera, 30 species, 3) New World bunting Emberizinae - 200 genera, 823 species, consisting of 5 tribes - bunting, taui, etc. Emberizini - 32 genera, 156 species, forest songbirds Parulini - 25 genera, 115 species, Cardinalini cardinals - 13 genera, 42 species, corpiales, grackles, etc. Icte-rini - 26 genera, 97 species, Thraupini tanager - 104 genera, 413 species.

Soon after the great success of these studies, criticism began to appear on various aspects of the stated phylogeny (Ericson, Johansson 2003, Barker et al. 2004, and others). This gave reason to believe that both the phylogeny according to Sibley and Alquist, and the taxonomy partially based on it (Sibley, Monroe 1990), are very problematic. Sequencing data for the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene (Groth 1998) challenged the sister group relationship between Old World finches and New World buntings, but subsequent phylogenetic molecular analyzes have supported this relationship (Klicka et al. 2000, Yuri, Mindell 2002). Nonetheless, molecular studies of Old World buntings (Alstrom et al. 2008) confirmed their monophilia, but did not find a sister relationship with the New World Em-berizini. As for the Hawaiian flower girls, demonstrating one of the most striking adaptive radiation in animals (a huge variety of beak types), their ancestors and relatives were searched for in different groups of birds, bringing them closer to both tanagers and corpses. Recent data from analyzes based on a combination of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA sequencing (Lerner et al. 2011, Zuccon et al. 2012) have shown that in fact, Hawaiian flower girls are a clade deep within the subfamily Carduelinae, and form a sister group to the Asiatic species of lentils of the genus Carpodacus Kaup, 1829 (see figure).

An amazing discovery of recent years is the recognition of neotropical euphonies as finches (genus Euphonia Desmarest, 1806 with 27 species and genus Chlorophonia Bonaparte, 1851 with 5 species). Despite some differences from tanager, birds from these two genera

traditionally ranked among them. Molecular studies of the relationship of tanager have shown that several genera of tanager form a clade outside the main group, which made it possible to exclude them from tanager (Burns 1997, Yuri, Mindell 2002, Erikson, Johansson 2003).

Cladograms of a family and three tribes of finches based on combined data of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA sequencing. Simplified diagrams, with changes, from: Lta2-Ushepa e1 a /. 2001,

2issop e1 a1. 2012, Tie1ge e1 a1. 2013.

A large-scale molecular study to clarify relationships within finches (Zuccon bb a . 2012) made it possible to identify three well-supported clades at the subfamily level: Fringillinae, Euphoniinae, and Carduelinae (figure). The presence of the South American tropical clade Euphoniinae in the finch family, most of which live in the Old World, is not

mnno, speaks of the significant intercontinental dispersion that took place long ago and the subsequent radiation of some part of the ancient species of the family.

The subfamily of goldfinches is the largest group (183 species) of true finches. Extensive analyzes based on sequencing of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001, Nguembock et al. 2009, Zuccon et al. 2012) have established that the three largest genera of the subfamily: Carduelis Brisson, 1760, Carpodacus Kaup, 1829 and Serinus Koch, 1816 (traditionally represented up to 70% of all species) are polyphyletic, which greatly complicates the study of their evolution. It was proposed (Nguembock et al. 2009, Zuccon et al. 2012) to limit the genus Carduelis to only two species. The rest of the groups - siskins, greenfinches, linnet and tap dancers, according to these data, form separate treasures, and therefore the former generic names are proposed for them: for siskins - Spinus Koch, 1816, for greenfinches - Chloris Cuvier, 1800, for linnet - Linaria Bechstein , 1802, for the tap dancers - Acanthis Borkhausen, 1797, which is fully consistent with the taxonomy based on traditional morphological data (Wolters 1982). However, according to the results of molecular analysis (Nguembock et al. 2009), which testifies to a separate phylogenetic clade of these birds, all species of siskins of Central and South America were given the resurrected generic name Sporagra Reichenbach, 1850. As for the crossbills (genus Loxia Linnaeus, 1758), then they turned out to be related to the tap dancers (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001).

Molecular analysis of lentils - a large group of Holarctic finches with great diversity in the Himalayan mountains and Tibet - showed (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 2001, 2007, Zuccon et al. 2012, Tietze et al. 2013) that North American lentil species, Carpodacus cassinii Baird, 1854, C. purpureus (Gmelin, 1789) and C. mexicanus (Müller, 1776), in comparison with the Eurasian ones, belong to a different lineage and therefore a different, former generic name Haemorhous Swainson, 1837 is proposed for them. that the thin-billed lentils Carpodacus nipalensis (Hodgson, 1836) and Blanford's lentils C. rubescens (Blanford, 1872) are bullfinches, not lentils, and should enter the Pyrrhulini tribe, but at the same time each forming its own separate genus, the first being Procarduelis Blyth 1843, and the second, Agraphospiza gen. n. Uragus Uragus sibiricus (Pallas, 1773), rhododendra beech Pinicola subhimachala (Hodgson, 1836), Roborovsky lentils Kozlowia roborowskii (Przewalski, 1887), as well as Chaunostroctus ferreorin, which died out in Bonostroctus (1887), as well as Chaunostroctus ferreorin, died out in the genus Carpodacus (Pallas, 1773) islands near Japan. However, the most widespread Eurasian common lentil, Carpodacus erythrinus (Pallas, 1770), falls outside the main clade of lentils (figure) and for it

the former generic name Erythrina Brehm, 1829 is proposed (Zuccon et al. 2012). It is believed that lentils originated in Southwestern China and the Himalayas 14 million years ago and during this time they were divided into 4 main lineages, some of which became forest birds, and some became mountain and desert birds (Tietze et al. 2013).

The canary finches Serinus Koch, 1816 show a high species diversity within Africa and the Mediterranean. Mito-chondrial sequencing of cytochrome b from 20 bird species of this genus (Arnaiz-Villena et al. 1999) showed only 4% genetic discrepancy, which indicates a very rapid radiation of the group. Subsequent molecular analysis showed that this genus should be limited to only 6 species (canaria, pusillus, alario, canicollis, serinus, and sy-riacus), while for the rest forming a monophyletic clade, the resurrected generic name Crithagra Swainson, 1827 (Zuccon et al. 2012).

In conclusion, it should be emphasized that despite completely unexpected ideas about the phylogenetic position of some taxa based on the results of molecular genetic studies, many previous traditional morphological studies often gave correct indications of the special position of a number of species in the system. A critical assessment of cladograms obtained by molecular methods is of particular importance today, since many branches of the phylogenetic tree often remain poorly supported (Koblik et al. 2013, Paevsky 2013b). The need for the current practice of unconditional and immediate revision of the systematic lists of birds in individual regions and countries on the basis of the latest results of molecular studies remains questionable.

Boehme R.L., Flint V.E. 1994. A five-language dictionary of animal names: Birds. M .: 1-846.

Dementyev G.P. 1937. Complete guide to birds of the USSR. T. 4. Passerines. M., L .: 1-334. Kartashev H.H. 1974. Taxonomy of birds. M .: 1-362.

E.A. Koblik, S.V. Volkov, A.A. Mosalov (2013) 2016. Review of some contradictions in modern views on the taxonomy of passerine birds // Rus. ornithol. zhurn. 25 (1236): 128-133. Menzbir M.A. 1909. Birds. SPb .: 1-1231.

Paevsky V.A. 2013a. Phylogeny and classification of passerine birds, Passeri-

formes // Success so far. biol. 133, 4: 401-416. Paevsky V.A. (2013b) 2016. Traditional and modern concepts of phylogeny and classification of passerine birds // Rus. ornithol. zhurn. 25 (1236): 133-137. Alström P., Olsson U., Lei F. et al. 2008. Phylogeny and classification of Old World Ember-

izini (Aves, Passeriformes) // Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 47: 960-973. Arnaiz-Villena A., Alvarez-Tejado M., Ruiz-del-Valle V. et al. 1999. Rapid radiation of Canaries (Genus Serinus) // Mol. Biol. Evol. 16: 2-11.

Arnaiz-Villena A., Guillen J., Ruiz-del-Valle V. et al. 2001. Phylogeography of crossbills, bullfinches, grosbeaks, and rosefinches // Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 58: 1-8.

Arnaiz-Villena A., Moscoso J., Ruiz-del-Valle V. et al. 2007. Bayesian phylogeny of Frin-gillinae birds: Status of the singular African oriole finch Linurgus olivaceus and evolution and heterogeneity of the genus Carpodacus // Acta Zool. Sinica 53,5: 826-834.

Barker F.K., Cibois A., Schikler P. et al. 2004.Phylogeny and diversification of the largest avian radiation // Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 101: 11040-11045.

Burns K.J. 1997. Molecular systematics of tanagers (Thraupinae): Evolution and biogeogra-phy of a diverse radiation of neotropical birds // Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 8: 334-348.

Cramp S., Perrins, C.M. (eds.). 1994. The Birds of the Western Palearctic. Vol. 8. Crows to Finches. Oxford Univ. Press: 1-899.

del Hoyo J., Elliott J. A., Christie D. (eds). 2010. Handbook of the birds of the world. Vol. 15. Weavers to New World warblers. Barcelona: 1-880.

Ericson P.G.P., Johansson U.S. 2003. Phylogeny of Passerida (Aves: Passeriformes) based on nuclear and mitochondrial sequence data // Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 29: 126-138.

Groth J.G. 1998. Molecular phylogenetics of finches and sparrows: Consequences of character state removal in cytochrome b sequences // Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 10: 377-390.

Klicka J., Johnson K.P., Lanyon S.M. 2000. New World nine-primaried oscine relationships: Constructing a mitochondrial DNA framework // Auk 117: 321-336.

Lerner H.R.L., Meyer M., James H.F. et al. 2011. Multilocus resolution of phylogeny and timescale in the extant adaptive radiation of Hawaiian Honeycreepers // Current Biology 21: 1-7.

Linnaeus C. 1758. Systema naturae per regna tria naturae, secundum classes, ordines, genera, species, cum characteribus, differentiis, synonymis, locis. Editio decima, reformata. Holmiae (Stockholm): 1-823.

Nguembock B., Fjeldsa J., Couloux A., Pasquet E. 2009. Molecular phylogeny of Cardu-elinae (Aves, Passeriformes, Fringillidae) proves polyphyletic origin of the genera Ser-inus and Carduelis and suggests redefined generic limits // Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 51: 169181.

Sharpe R.B. 1888. Catalog of birds in the British Museum. London, 12.

Sibley C.G., Ahlquist J.E. 1990. Phylogeny and classification of birds: a study in molecular evolution. Yale Univ. Press: 1-976.

Sibley C.G., Monroe B.L. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of the world. Yale Univ. Press: 1-1111.

Sushkin P.P. 1924. On the morphology of the Fringillidae and allied groups // Bull. Brit. Or-nithol. Club. 45: 36-39.

Sushkin P.P. 1929. On the systematic position of the Drepaniidae // Proceed. 6th Internat. Ornith. Congr .: 379-381.

Tietze, D. T., Päckert M., Martens J. et al. 2013. Complete phylogeny and historical bioge-ography of true rosefinches (Aves: Carpodacus) // Zool. J. Linn. Soc. 169: 215-234.

Töpfer T., Haring E., Birkhead T.R. et al. 2011. A molecular phylogeny of bullfinches Pyr-rhula Brisson, 1760 (Aves: Fringillidae) // Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 58: 271-282.

Van den Elzen R. 2000. Systematics and distribution patterns of Afrotropical Canaries (Serinus species group, Aves, Passeriformes, Carduelidae) // Bonn. Zool. Monogr. 46: 133-143.

Pin
Send
Share
Send
Send