Cited by 54Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPlant Diversity and EvolutionPaleontology and Evolutionary Biology

Multi-locus phylogenetic inference among New World vultures (Aves: Cathartidae)

Open access
Johnson, Jeff A., Brown, Joseph W., Fuchs, Jérôme, Mindell, David P.·2016·Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution

Abstract

New World Vultures are large-bodied carrion feeding birds in the family Cathartidae, currently consisting of seven species from five genera with geographic distributions in North and South America. No study to date has included all cathartid species in a single phylogenetic analysis. In this study, we investigated the phylogenetic relationships among all cathartid species using five nuclear (nuc; 4060bp) and two mitochondrial (mt; 2165bp) DNA loci with fossil calibrated gene tree (27 outgroup taxa) and coalescent-based species tree (2 outgroup taxa) analyses. We also included an additional four nuclear loci (2578bp) for the species tree analysis to explore changes in nodal support values. Although the stem lineage is inferred to have originated ∼69 million years ago (Ma; 74.5-64.9 credible interval), a more recent basal split within Cathartidae was recovered at ∼14Ma (17.1-11.1 credible interval). Two primary clades were identified: (1) Black Vulture (Coragyps atratus) together with the three Cathartes species (Lesser C. burrovianus and Greater C. melambrotus Yellow-headed Vultures, and Turkey Vulture C. aura), and (2) King Vulture (Sarcoramphus papa), California (Gymnogyps californianus) and Andean (Vultur gryphus) Condors. Support for taxon relationships within the two basal clades were inconsistent between analyses with the exception of Black Vulture sister to a monophyletic Cathartes clade. Increased support for a yellow-headed vulture clade was recovered in the species t…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ympev.2016.08.025

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Johnson, J. A., Brown, J. W., Fuchs, J., & Mindell, D. P.
Affiliations
  • University of North Texas (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
  • Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (US)
Corresponding author
Johnson, Jeff A.
Venue
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
105
Pages
193-199
ISSN
1055-7903 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2514524868
Cited by
54
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
Keywords
Cathartidae, New World vultures, phylogenetic relationships, species tree, divergence time estimation, fossil calibration, nuclear loci, mitochondrial loci, Coragyps atratus, Sarcoramphus papa, California condor, Andean condor, Condor, speciation, life history
MeSH terms
Animals, Birds, California, DNA, DNA, Mitochondrial, Phylogeny, South America, Sequence Analysis, DNA

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review