Cited by 239Evolution and Paleontology StudiesPaleontology and Evolutionary BiologyGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Phylogenomic evidence for multiple losses of flight in ratite birds

Open access
Harshman, John, Braun, Edward L., Braun, Michael J., Huddleston, Christopher J., Bowie, Rauri C. K., Chojnowski, Jena L., Hackett, Shannon J., Han, Kin-Lan +10 more·2008·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

Ratites (ostriches, emus, rheas, cassowaries, and kiwis) are large, flightless birds that have long fascinated biologists. Their current distribution on isolated southern land masses is believed to reflect the breakup of the paleocontinent of Gondwana. The prevailing view is that ratites are monophyletic, with the flighted tinamous as their sister group, suggesting a single loss of flight in the common ancestry of ratites. However, phylogenetic analyses of 20 unlinked nuclear genes reveal a genome-wide signal that unequivocally places tinamous within ratites, making ratites polyphyletic and suggesting multiple losses of flight. Phenomena that can mislead phylogenetic analyses, including long branch attraction, base compositional bias, discordance between gene trees and species trees, and sequence alignment errors, have been eliminated as explanations for this result. The most plausible hypothesis requires at least three losses of flight and explains the many morphological and behavioral similarities among ratites by parallel or convergent evolution. Finally, this phylogeny demands fundamental reconsideration of proposals that relate ratite evolution to continental drift.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0803242105

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Recent phylogenetic work supports the conclusion that the ratites are paraphyletic, implying convergent loss of flight in these lineages.

    “Recent phylogenetic work supports the conclusion that the ratites (including ostrich, emu, cassowaries, kiwis, rheas, and the extinct moas and elephant bird) are paraphyletic, implying convergent loss of flight in these lineages”

    From Bayesian Detection of Convergent Rate Changes of Conserved Noncoding Elements on Phylogenetic Trees (2019) · cites this paper as Harshman et al. 2008

    The Results and Discussion place flighted tinamous within the flightless ratites and infer at least three independent losses of flight, supporting the claim’s central evolutionary point. The paper explicitly calls ratites “polyphyletic,” not “paraphyletic,” and its stated minimum of three losses concerns ostriches, rheas, and Australasian ratites rather than establishing separate losses for the extinct moas and elephant birds. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Harshman et al. PNAS � September 9, 2008 � vol. 105 � no. 36 � 13467

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Harshman, J., Braun, E. L., Braun, M. J., Huddleston, C. J., Bowie, R. C. K., Chojnowski, J. L., Hackett, S. J., Han, K.-L., Kimball, R. T., Marks, B. D., Miglia, K. J., Moore, W. S., Reddy, S., Sheldon, F. H., Steadman, D. W., Steppan, S. J., Witt, C. C., & Yuri, T.
Affiliations
  • Field Museum of Natural History (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Smithsonian Institution (US)
  • Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (US)
  • Louisiana State University (US)
  • Wayne State University (US)
  • Florida Museum of Natural History (US)
  • Florida State University (US)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2008-09-09
Volume
105
Issue
36
Pages
13462-13467
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W2100742818
Cited by
239
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 16
FWCI
9.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Scholar Commons (University of South Carolina) (submittedVersion)
  • Smithsonian Digital Repository (Smithsonian Institution) (submittedVersion)
  • SUNScholar (Stellenbosch University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Louisiana State University
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Paleontology and Evolutionary Biology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
ratites, flight loss, tinamous, polyphyly, convergent evolution, Gondwana breakup, continental drift, avian phylogeny, nuclear gene phylogeny, long-branch attraction, gene tree discordance
MeSH terms
Animals, Base Sequence, Cell Nucleus, DNA, Biological Evolution, Flight, Animal, Molecular Sequence Data, Phylogeny, Sequence Alignment, Genome, Palaeognathae

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