2004
DOI: 10.1016/j.ympev.2003.11.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Phylogeny of the Falconidae (Aves): a comparison of the efficacy of morphological, mitochondrial, and nuclear data

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
48
0
4

Year Published

2008
2008
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 72 publications
(59 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
7
48
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…The strict consensus cladogram ( Figure 8) agrees with previous analyses of Falconidae in recovery of the monophyly of 3 major subclades, the sister-taxon relationship between Polyborinae and Falconinae, as well as most species-level relationships (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al 2004, Fuchs et al 2011 Figure 8.…”
Section: Falco Is Essentially Deep Throughout Its Length (supporting
confidence: 86%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The strict consensus cladogram ( Figure 8) agrees with previous analyses of Falconidae in recovery of the monophyly of 3 major subclades, the sister-taxon relationship between Polyborinae and Falconinae, as well as most species-level relationships (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al 2004, Fuchs et al 2011 Figure 8.…”
Section: Falco Is Essentially Deep Throughout Its Length (supporting
confidence: 86%
“…This clade has 3 recognized subclades-Herpetotherinae (laughing falcon and forest falcon), Falconinae (typical falcons, kestrels, and falconets), and Polyborinae (caracaras)-that have been supported by analyses of both molecular and morphological datasets (Griffiths 1999, Griffiths et al 2004, Fuchs et al 2012. Most Falconidae are small to medium aerial predators that feed on insects, amphibians, lizards, turtles, snakes, birds, and small mammals, whereas the caracaras are specialized scaven-gers that occasionally consume plant material (Fuchs et al 2012).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We therefore generated four different phylogenetic trees based on the interordinal relationships provided in Sibley and Ahlquist (1990), Cracraft et al (2004), Livezey and Zusi (2007), and Hackett et al (2008). Because these studies focused on interordinal and -familial relationships, resolution at the species level was provided by additional sources (Brown and Toft, 1999;Riesing et al, 2003;Griffiths et al, 2004;Wink and Sauer-Gurth, 2004;Lerner and Mindell, 2005;Barrowclough et al, 2006;Wink et al, 2008;Wright et al, 2008). Genera and species not present in these studies were omitted from our phylogenetic tree because incorrect placement of species can result in an increased risk of error in calculating correlation coefficients (Symonds, 2002).…”
Section: Phylogenetic Comparative Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aquila is polyphyletic; significant rearrangements at generic level; Accipiter left unresolved (146-163) Falconiformes no major taxonomic change; Falco left largely unresolved (147,152,158,164,165 (72,(273)(274)(275)(276)(277)(278)(279)(280)(281)(282)(283)(284)(285)(286)(287)(288)(289)(290)(291) …”
Section: Accipitriformesmentioning
confidence: 99%