2012
DOI: 10.1080/03014223.2012.665060
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Twenty-first century advances in knowledge of the biology of moa (Aves: Dinornithiformes): a new morphological analysis and moa diagnoses revised

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
84
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 81 publications
(87 citation statements)
references
References 86 publications
(84 reference statements)
3
84
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Such great structural differences among moa may relate to the habitats that they occupied. Moa were browsers, consuming herbs and low shrubs (Wood et al, 2008;Worthy and Scofield, 2012). A potential explanation for the large difference in Q i is that Dinornis may have occupied open habitat, whereas other moa foraged in closed forests (Bunce et al, 2009).…”
Section: Moamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Such great structural differences among moa may relate to the habitats that they occupied. Moa were browsers, consuming herbs and low shrubs (Wood et al, 2008;Worthy and Scofield, 2012). A potential explanation for the large difference in Q i is that Dinornis may have occupied open habitat, whereas other moa foraged in closed forests (Bunce et al, 2009).…”
Section: Moamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All analyses strongly retrieved the kiwi-elephant bird clade/split (Table S9). The 34 taxa (17 palaeognaths and 17 outgroups; Table S4) in the concatenated mitochondrial and nuclear datasets were scored for morphological data using a dataset derived from Worthy and Scofield (17), with additional characters from Johnston (16). Fifteen of the seventeen palaeognath taxa could be scored for morphology (only Apteryx haastii and Tinamus major lacked morphological data), along with three outgroups (Table S4).…”
Section: Testing Sensitivity Of Tree Topology (Mitochondrial Nuclearmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Direct body mass measurements were used for extant ratites, whereas moa body masses were calculated using an algorithm based on available skeletal measurement data. Femoral circumference, an accurate predictor of body mass in large birds, has recently been used to estimate body masses for some moa taxa [19,39]; however, published femoral circumference data are unavailable for moa samples containing identified sexual dimorphs [16,17,20], so a regression equation developed for birds in general (and irrespective of sex) based on femoral length [40], representing another widely used predictor of avian body mass also used in recent moa studies [14,17,39], was used instead. Although the use of a broad-taxon regression to calculate moa body masses could conceivably affect accuracy of estimation if moa deviated consistently in size from taxon-wide trends, different moa species show considerable variation in robust or gracile leg morphology [14,41], suggesting that our estimates are unlikely to be consistently biased, and the high R 2 value for this equation (0.99 [40]) further indicates that our mass estimates are likely to be accurate and so useful for investigating patterns of palaeognath evolution.…”
Section: Materials and Methods (A) Body Mass Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Dinornis body mass estimates vary widely from different Pleistocene and Holocene environments, and so median, minimum, and maximum estimates are used for each species.) rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org Proc R Soc B 280: 20130401 Indeed, whereas species-level taxonomy for most extant ratites and genus-level taxonomy for moa are both well understood, moa species-level taxonomy is notoriously unstable and has been in a state of continuing revision in recent years [14][15][16]19,42,43]. Tinamous are genus-and species-rich, and so we selected two representative genera (Tinamus and Eudromia) for which male and female body mass data are available and which are close to the root of the tinamou clade [47].…”
Section: (B) Phylogeniesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation