Re: Nest predation

["Matthew Troutman" <m_troutman@hotmail.com>]

<<Not necessarily.  There have been several papers in recent years on 
the use of behavioral characters in phylogenetics - they aren't 
necessarily more likely to converge (or, in the lingo of cladistics, 
they don't show significantly higher levels of homoplasy) than do 
morphological or molecular characters, at least for some groups.>>

There are many cases of convergence of behaviors in birds, such as the 
similiar hunting techniques used by _Cariama_ and _Sagittarius_.  But a 
strong case for the relations of flamingos lies largely in the behaviors 
they share with stilts, which are too unique to be thought to be 
convergences.  (I find the similiar nesting and feeding behaviors very 
convincing, no matter what Joel Cracraft says.)  

<<2.  At what node do you draw the line and say "It's more likely from 
here on up."?  As far as I know, no living paleognath parasitizes - one 
could make a case that parasitism is restricted not to birds, but more 
specifically to neognaths.  Moreover, IIRC parasitic taxa are not found 
among galliforms, loons, or waterfowl, the lineages thought to be toward 
the root of Neognathae, and so parasitism may be more restricted still 
within Neognathae.>>

Anyone else think that Peter Houde was right when he said that 
galliforms and tinamous were sister-groups?  

Matt Troutman

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com