Cercomacroides, Tello & Raposo & Bates & Bravo & Cadena & Maldonado-Coelho, 2014, Tello & Raposo & Bates & Bravo & Cadena & Maldonado-Coelho, 2014

Tello, Jose G., Raposo, Marcos, Bates, John M., Bravo, Gustavo A., Cadena, Carlos Daniel & Maldonado-Coelho, Marcos, 2014, Reassessment of the systematics of the widespread Neotropical genus Cercomacra (Aves: Thamnophilidae), Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 170 (3), pp. 546-565 : 556

RELATIONSHIPS WITHIN CERCOMACROIDES

The new genus Cercomacroides comprises nigrescens , laeta, parkeri, tyrannina , and serva . In the concatenated tree, all internal nodes within Cercomacroides received high posterior probability support, but low or no ML bootstrap support ( Fig. 3 ). An incongruent signal between the mitochondrial and nuclear markers was uncovered in this group, and the concatenated tree was biased toward the FIB5 signal (see discussion above and Figs 3–5 ). The main difference between these two topologies is regarding the identity of the taxon sister to the rest of the group: nigrescens in the mtDNA tree, and laeta in the FIB5 tree ( Fig. 5 ). Both major data sets supported a close relationship between serva and tyrannina (although support in the mitochondrial tree was low; Fig. 4A ), which was not expected due to the great plumage similarity between tyrannina and parkeri ( Graves, 1997) . Overall similarities in male and female vocalizations (based on the analysis of vocalizations from Isler & Whitney, 2002) and plumage coloration ( Graves, 1997; Zimmer & Isler, 2003) suggest that parkeri is closer to tyrannina and serva than to laeta or nigrescens , but do not provide clear evidence for the phylogenetic placement of laeta and nigrescens . Full resolution of the internal relationships within Cercomacroides may require the addition of more nuclear markers.

Figures

Figure 3. Cladogram of the Bayesian consensus tree of Cercomacra from the ten-partition model analysis (−lnL = 37320.48, 1stND2[GTR+G], 2ndND2[TVM+I+G], 3rdND2[HKY+G], 1stND3[SYM+G], 2ndND3[TIM3+I+G], 3rdND3[TIM1+G], 1stCYTB[GTR+I+G], 2ndCYTB[TIM2+I+G], 3rdCYTB[GTR+I+G], FIB5[TIM3+G]). Support values correspond to Bayesian posterior probabilities and bootstrap values of the single-partition model ML tree (−lnL = 39246.13, HKY+I+G), respectively. Nodes that uncovered ingroup relationships are numbered 1–14.

Figure 4. Resulting phylograms of the Bayesian consensus trees of Cercomacra from the separate analyses of concatenated mitochondrial (A) and FIB5 (B) data sets. A, phylogram of Bayesian consensus tree from the concatenated mitochondrial nine-partition model analysis (1stND2[GTR+G], 2ndND2[TVM+I+G], 3rdND2[HKY+G], 1stND3[SYM+G], 2ndND3[TIM3+I+G], 3rdND3[TIM1+G], 1stCYTB[GTR+I+G], 2ndCYTB[TIM2+I+G], 3rdCYTB[GTR+I+G]). B, phylogram of Bayesian consensus tree from the FIB5 single-partition model analysis (TIM3+G). Support values correspond to Bayesian posterior probabilities and ML bootstrap values, respectively. Numbered nodes represent those also found in the concatenated analysis. Incongruent nodes between the mitochondrial (node 15) and FIB5 (nodes 11 and 12) trees are marked with asterisks.

Figure 5. Trees showing incongruent topologies within the ‘tyrannina’ clade. The number of mitochondrial and nuclear substitutions supporting those topologies is showed below the branches. Numbers above the branches represent Bayesian posterior probabilities and maximum-likelihood bootstraps.