Enigmas no longer: using ultraconserved elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus Accipiter (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae)

One of the final two major clades contained the genera Harpagus and two 'Accipiter' species that were recently reclassified in the genus Microspizias.

“One contained the genera Harpagus and two”

• cites Sangster et al., 2021 sourceSupported

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

Ornithologists have struggled to resolve relationships within Accipitridae because of high levels of apparent convergence, in external morphology and skeletal structure, likely caused by shared selective pressures that stem inherently from a predatory lifestyle.

“Despite this considerable diversity, ornithologists have struggled to resolve relationships within Accipitridae because of high levels of apparent convergence, in external morphology and skeletal structure, likely caused by shared selective pressures that stem inherently from a predatory lifestyle (Holdaway, 1994;Pecsics et al., 2019).”

• cites Holdaway, 1994Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Pecsics et al., 2019 sourcePartly supported

  The Introduction (p. 2) describes uncertain relationships among higher raptor taxa and calls diurnal birds of prey a convergent group. The Discussion (p. 10) links similar skull traits in hawk- and eagle-like species from different subfamilies to convergent evolution and similar ecological demands. It does not specifically say that ornithologists have struggled to resolve relationships within Accipitridae because of convergence in both external morphology and skeletal structure. (LLM, conf=0.85)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

In one case only, 'Accipiter' species have been reclassified in a new genus after molecular data showed that they were not members of the larger Accipiter (sensu lato) clade: the Tiny Hawk and Semicollared Hawk are now placed in the genus Microspizias by some authors.

“In one case only, have”

• cites Hugall & Stuart-Fox, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Oatley, 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Sangster et al. (2021) sourceSupported

Preliminary analysis of commonly used nuclear and mitochondrial genes produced phylogenies with no statistical support for many key nodes.

“Preliminary analysis of commonly used nuclear and mitochondrial genes, using IQ-TREE 1.6 (Nguyen, 2015) for model selection and tree inference, produced phylogenies with no statistical support for many key nodes.”

• cites Nguyen, 2015 sourceSupported

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

Harpagus and Microspizias were recovered as sister genera.

“We recovered a sister relationship between the genera Harpagus and Microspizias, which was erected by Sangster et al. (2021) to accommodate the phylogenetic placement of [A.] superciliosus and [A.] collaris.”

• cites Sangster et al. (2021) sourceSupported

Melieraxinae was sister to only Accipitrinae + Circinae, not to a clade containing Accipitrinae + Circinae + Buteoninae.

“However, while Mindell et al. (2018) inferred Melieraxinae to be sister to a clade containing Accipitrinae + Circinae + Buteoninae, we found it to be sister to only Accipitrinae + Circinae, an arrangement also proposed by Lerner et al. (2008).”

• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Lerner et al. (2008) sourcePartly supported

  The Results and Discussion (p. 9) place Kaupifalco with Melierax and its goshawk relatives rather than with buteonines, and report Circus nested within an Accipiter clade. The passages do not establish the specific claim that the Melierax group is sister to the Accipiter–Circus clade; a separate cytb analysis instead reports a polytomy among those groups and others (p. 6). (LLM, conf=0.77)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

With respect to the two tribes and their constituent members, our phylogeny was in agreement with previous studies.

“With respect to the two tribes and their constituent members, our phylogeny was in agreement with previous studies (Lerner & Mindell, 2005;Amaral et al., 2006;Amaral et al., 2009;Mindell et al., 2018).”

• cites Lerner & Mindell, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Amaral et al., 2006 sourcePartly supported

  The Results (no page available) report a phylogeny of Neotropical buteonine genera and their species, so this paper can serve as a previous study for comparisons involving those members. It does not establish the membership or phylogenetic relationships of the citing document’s two tribes as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.84)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
• cites Amaral et al., 2009 sourcePartly supported

  Section 3.2 reports the constituent groups recovered in the paper’s buteonine phylogeny, and Section 4.1 says some of its relationships corroborate earlier studies. The paper examines buteonines, however, and does not establish agreement for both tribes in the citing authors’ phylogeny. (LLM, conf=0.82)

  Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

The common ancestor of extant taxa within Cathartidae was estimated at 15.6 MYA.

“The common ancestor of extant taxa within Cathartidae was estimated at 15.6 MYA.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

The 120 species UCE phylogeny was well supported (bootstrap values = 100) at virtually every node.

“Our 120 species UCE phylogeny (Figure 2; Supplemental Figure 1 for detailed divergence estimates) was well supported (bootstrap values = 100) at virtually every node.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The majority of generic level splits occurred at least 5 MYA.

“The majority of generic level splits occurred at least 5 MYA, although in some cases several million years passed between the inferred origin of the genus (i.e., the node uniting it with its sister group) and the most recent common ancestor of its extant (or recently extinct) members.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

The monotypic 'Accipiter' trivirgatus was recovered as the sister group to the remainder of Accipitridae.

“Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae + Circaetinae + Aegypiinae + Aquilinae + Harpiinae, the monotypic”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The non-monophyly of Accipiter was primarily caused by the embedded placement of Circus, Erythrotriorchis, and Megatriorchis.

“The non-monophyly of Accipiter was primarily caused by the embedded placement of Circus, Erythrotriorchis, and Megatriorchis (see below).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

Several large clades within Accipitridae corresponded roughly to the subfamilies recognized by Mindell et al. (2018) and Lerner & Mindell (2005).

“Several large clades within Accipitridae corresponded roughly (except as noted) to the subfamilies recognized by Mindell et al. (2018) and Lerner & Mindell (2005).”

• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Lerner & Mindell (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

A clade composed of genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Harpiinae (Macheiramphus, Harpyopsis, Morphnus, Harpia) was the sister group of the remainder of Accipitridae.

“Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae + Circaetinae + Aegypiinae + Aquilinae, a clade composed of genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Harpiinae (Macheiramphus, Harpyopsis, Morphnus, Harpia) was the sister group of the remainder of Accipitridae.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The most basal split within Accipitridae separated the monophyletic subfamily Elaninae.

“The most basal split within Accipitridae separated the monophyletic subfamily Elaninae”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The final two major clades were reciprocally monophyletic.

“The final two major clades were reciprocally monophyletic.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

Of the 19 genera for which multiple species were sampled in the 120 species UCE phylogeny, all but Accipiter were monophyletic.

“Of the 19 genera for which multiple species were sampled in our 120 species UCE phylogeny, all but Accipiter were monophyletic.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

Within Accipitriformes, the family Sagitariidae was sister to the rest of Accipitriformes.

“Within Accipitriformes, the family Sagitariidae was sister to the rest of Accipitriformes, and Pandionidae was sister to the rest of Accipitridae.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

Pandionidae was sister to the rest of Accipitridae.

“Within Accipitriformes, the family Sagitariidae was sister to the rest of Accipitriformes, and Pandionidae was sister to the rest of Accipitridae.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The order Cathartiformes formed a clade that was sister to Accipitriformes.

“The order Cathartiformes formed a clade that was sister to Accipitriformes.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The family Sagittariidae diverged from the rest of Accipitriformes at 60.7 MYA.

“The family Sagittariidae diverged from the rest of Accipitriformes at 60.7 MYA, and Pandionidae diverged from Accipitridae at 50.2 MYA.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

In the 236 species phylogeny, the genus Circaetus was not monophyletic because Dryotriorchus was embedded within it.

“Furthermore, in the 236 species phylogeny, the genus Circaetus was not monophyletic, because Dryotriorchus was embedded within it.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

Only five nodes in the 120 species UCE phylogeny had less than perfect support.

“Only five nodes had less than perfect support, and four of those represented splits between closely related species or groups of species (two within Buteo, one within Buteogallus, one in Gyps).”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

Pandionidae diverged from Accipitridae at 50.2 MYA.

“The family Sagittariidae diverged from the rest of Accipitriformes at 60.7 MYA, and Pandionidae diverged from Accipitridae at 50.2 MYA.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

The paper's densely-sampled phylogeny includes 90% of recognized species.

“Our densely-sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The phylogeny confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter.

“Our densely-sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The remainder of Accipitridae after 'Accipiter' trivirgatus was divided into three major clades.

“the monotypic”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sets of assembled UCE sequences that matched each other but differed drastically from other sequences were artifacts of assembly, not biological signal.

The orders Cathartiformes and Accipitriformes were estimated to have diverged at 61.1 MYA.

“The orders Cathartiformes and Accipitriformes were estimated to have diverged at 61.1 MYA.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

The estimated divergence time for the split between the two main clades of Cathartiformes is 15.6 MYA.

“Our estimated divergence time for the split between the two main clades of Cathartiformes (15.6 MYA) was similar to that of Johnson et al. (2016)”

• cites Johnson et al. (2016) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Chelictinia riocourii was sister to the monophyletic genus Elanus.

“Within the Elaninae, the monotypic Scissor-tailed Kite, Chelictinia riocourii (Temminck, 1821), was sister to the monophyletic genus Elanus, which is comprised of four species”

In some cases several million years passed between the inferred origin of a genus and the most recent common ancestor of its extant (or recently extinct) members.

“The majority of generic level splits occurred at least 5 MYA, although in some cases several million years passed between the inferred origin of the genus (i.e., the node uniting it with its sister group) and the most recent common ancestor of its extant (or recently extinct) members.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

Pandionidae diverged from Accipitridae around 50.2 MYA.

“and we estimated that Pandionidae diverged from Accipitridae around 50.2 MYA.”

The estimated divergence time for the Cathartiformes and Accipitriformes split is 61.1 MYA.

“but they estimated a older date for the Cathartiformes and Accipitriformes split (~69 MYA), whereas our estimate (61.1 MYA) was more similar to those of Jarvis et al. (2014) and Knapp et al. (2019).”

• cites Jarvis et al. (2014) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Knapp et al. (2019) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

These topologies were also impacted by the nonrandom distribution of missing data.

“These topologies were also impacted by the nonrandom distribution of missing data.”

• AssumptionThe authors state this as an assumption: Sequences came from the same individual only when specimen voucher information was explicitly stated, or samples were identified as coming from an individual with a unique code such as a banding number.

The genus Accipiter is not monophyletic.

“Our phylogeny was topologically similar to previously published studies of Accipitridae and included the non-monophyly of Accipiter.”

• Also stated in: § ACCIPITRINAE, CIRCINAE, & MELIERAXINAE · plain

  “Even after the removal of the species now placed in Lophospiza or Microspizias, the remaining members of Accipiter (senso stricto) still do not form a monophyletic group because Circus, Erythrotriorchis, and Megatriorchis are embedded within the”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Generic classification should reflect evolutionary relationships, such that non-monophyletic genera should be split.

Gampsonyx swainsonii was sister to the Chelictinia + Elanus clade.

“and Pearl Kite, Gampsonyx swainsonii Vigors, 1825, was sister to the Chelictinia + Elanus clade.”

The divergence of Elaninae from the rest of Accipitridae is estimated at 44.7 MYA.

“Our estimate for the divergence of Elaninae from the rest of Accipitridae (44.7 MYA) was roughly twice as old as that of Starikov & Wink (2020)”

• cites Starikov & Wink (2020) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Sagittariidae diverged from the Pandionidae + Accipitridae clade around 60.7 MYA.

“We estimated that Sagittariidae diverged from the Pandionidae + Accipitridae clade around 60.7 MYA, shortly after the split between Accipitriformes and Cathartiformes”

Polyboroides typus was sister to a clade containing the rest of the species in the clade containing most species typically placed in Gypaetinae, Perninae, and Polyboroidinae.

“Within the clade containing most species typically placed in the subfamilies Gypaetinae, Perninae, and Polyboroidinae (e.g., Brown & Amadon, 1968;Lerner & Mindell, 2005), we found that African Harrier-Hawk (Polyboroides typus) was sister to a clade containing the rest of the species.”

• cites Brown & Amadon, 1968Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Lerner & Mindell, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

These divergence estimates were similar to those inferred by Johnson et al. (2016) and Knapp et al. (2019).

“These estimates were similar to those inferred by Johnson et al. (2016) and Knapp et al. (2019”

• cites Johnson et al. (2016) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Knapp et al. (2019 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The divergence of Elanus and Chelictinia is estimated at about twice as old as the estimate of Mindell et al. (2018).

“Conversely, our estimate for the divergence of Elanus and Chelictinia was about twice as old as the estimate of Mindell et al. (2018), whereas Starikov & Wink (2020) provided an intermediate estimate.”

• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Starikov & Wink (2020) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Cathartiformes is the sister clade to Accipitriformes.

“Our analysis, which included UCE data from all five extant genera and legacy data from all currently recognized extant species, recovered Cathartiformes as the sister clade to Accipitriformes.”

Generic relationships within Aquilinae were different in our phylogeny compared to former studies.

“although generic relationships were different in our phylogeny compared to former studies.”

The common ancestor of Aerospiza and Tachyspiza diverged at 17.4 MYA.

“Our analysis estimated that the common ancestor of Aerospiza and Tachyspiza diverged at 17.4 MYA, whereas Mindell et al. (2018) gave an estimate of c.10 MYA.”

• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Kaupifalco monogrammicus was recovered with high support (Bootstrap Value = 100) as sister to a clade containing the remainder of 'Accipiter' + Erythrotriorchis + Circus + Megatriorchis.

“In our analysis, Kaupifalco monogrammicus was recovered with high support (Bootstrap Value = 100) as sister to a clade containing the remainder of”

Our results support a monophyletic Gypaetinae only if Polyboroides is excluded.

“Our results only support a monophyletic Gypaetinae if Polyboroides is excluded, although we think additional sampling is needed to be confident about this result.”

Our data indicate that the extinct Eyles's Harrier, C. teauteenis, was sister of Spotted Harrier, C. assimilis.

“Corroborating Knapp et al. (2019), our data indicate that the extinct Eyles's Harrier, C. teauteenis Forbes, 1892, known from New Zealand, was sister of Spotted Harrier, C. assimilis Jardine and Selby, 1828, (found in Australia and some islands).”

• cites Knapp et al. (2019) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The most recent common ancestor of Gyps is estimated at 2.7 MYA.

“Lastly, we estimated that the most recent common ancestor of Gyps occurred at 2.7 MYA (vs.1.5 MYA, Mindell et al., 2018).”

• cites Mindell et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Samples from three species in the genus Spilornis formed a clade that was sister to a clade containing samples from Pithecophaga, Terathopius, Circaetus, and Dryotriorchis.

“Within a clade containing most of the genera formerly placed in the subfamily Circaetinae (excluding Eutriorchis, contra Lerner & Mindell, 2005), samples from three species in the genus Spilornis, which is composed primarily of southeast Asian island endemics, formed a clade that was sister to a clade containing samples from the genera Pithecophaga, Terathopius, Circaetus, and Dryotriorchis.”

• cites Lerner & Mindell, 2005 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Eutriorchis astur was recovered as the sister group of a monophyletic Perninae containing Henicopernis, Lophoictinia, Hamirostra, Elanoides, Pernis, Aviceda, Leptodon, and Chondrohierax.

“Rather, we recovered E. astur as the sister group of a monophyletic Perninae containing the genera Henicopernis, Lophoictinia, Hamirostra, Elanoides, Pernis, Aviceda, Leptodon, and Chondrohierax.”

The estimate for the common ancestor of modern Aquilinae is 15.6 MYA.

“However, our estimate for the common ancestor of modern Aquilinae (15.6 MYA) was similar to Knapp et al. (2019;c.17 MYA), but much older than Mindell et al. (2018;c.10 MYA).”

• cites Knapp et al. (2019 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mindell et al. (2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The 120 species UCE phylogeny supported (Bootstrap Value = 100) the placement of Macheiramphus alcinus in Harpiinae.

“Our 120 species UCE phylogeny supported (Bootstrap Value = 100) the placement of Bat Hawk, Macheiramphus alcinus Bonaparte, 1850, in the Harpiinae”

Spizaetus was sister to a clade containing all Aquilinae taxa except S. coronatus and Nisaetus.

“In our analysis, the Neotropical genus Spizaetus was sister to a clade containing all Aquilinae taxa except S. coronatus and Nisaetus”

We recovered a clade containing ten lineages corresponding to genera traditionally classified in Aquilinae.

“We recovered a clade containing ten lineages corresponding to genera traditionally classified in the subfamily Aquilinae (Stephanoaetus, Nisaetus, Lophotriorchis, Polemaetus, Spizaetus [including S. isidori (Des Murs, 1845), formerly in the monotypic genus Oroaetus; see Haring et al., 2007], Ictinaetus, Lophaetus, Clanga, Aquila [including A. africanus (Cassin, 1865), formerly in Spizaetus; see H”

• cites Haring et al., 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The split between Gyps and Necrosyrtes is estimated at 10 MYA.

“and the split between Gyps and Necrosyrtes at 10 MYA (vs.6 MYA, Mindell et al., 2018).”

• cites Mindell et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Pithecophaga jefferyi was sister to the Circaetus + Terathopius clade.

“and a sample of Philippine Eagle, Pithecophaga jefferyi Ogilvie-Grant, 1896, was sister to the Circaetus + Terathopius clade.”

Elanoides forficatus was placed as sister to a clade containing Hamirostra, Lophoictinia, and Henicopernis.

“One notable difference was our placement of Swallow-tailed Kite, Elanoides forficatus (Linnaeus, 1758), as sister to a clade containing Hamirostra, Lophoictinia, and Henicopernis”

Harpiinae was sister to the Buteoninae + Accipitrinae clade.

“We found this clade to be sister to the Buteoninae + Accipitrinae clade, whereas former studies placed it as sister to Aquilinae (Mindell et al., 2018) or a clade containing Aquilinae + Buteoninae + Accipitrinae sensu lato (Lerner et al., 2017)”

• cites Mindell et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Lerner et al., 2017 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The Gypaetus + Neophron clade was sister to Gypohierax angolensis.

“and found that this clade was sister to Palm-nut Vulture (Gypohierax angolensis).”

A clade containing the four genera placed in Harpiinae (Harpia, Macheiramphus, Morphnus, Harpyopsis) shared a branching order with Griffiths et al. (2007) and Mindell et al. (2018).

“In our phylogeny, a clade containing the four genera placed in the subfamily Harpiinae (Harpia Macheiramphus, Morphnus, Harpyopsis,) shared a branching order with Griffiths et al. (2007) and Mindell et al. (2018).”

• cites Griffiths et al. (2007) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

We found strong support (Bootstrap Value = 100) for a monophyletic clade consisting of all samples in the genus Circus, with comprehensive sampling of extant species and one extinct species.

“We found strong support (Bootstrap Value = 100) for a monophyletic clade consisting of all samples in the genus Circus de Lacépède, 1799, with comprehensive sampling of extant species and one extinct species.”

Accipiter trivirgatus was placed as sister to a large clade containing the Accipitrinae (sensu lato) and Buteoninae, with high support (Bootstrap Value = 100).

“For example, our analysis placed Crested Goshawk, Accipiter trivirgatus (Temminck, 1824), as sister to a large clade containing the Accipitrinae (sensu lato) and Buteoninae, with high support (Bootstrap Value = 100).”

The split between the two main clades of Aegypiinae is estimated at 11.7 MYA.

“For example, we estimated the split between the two main clades of Aegypiinae at 11.7 MYA (vs.8 MYA, Mindell et al., 2018)”

• cites Mindell et al., 2018 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Terathopius ecaudatus was sister to Circaetus (sensu lato, including D. spectabilis).

“A sample of Bateleur, Terathopius ecaudatus, was sister to Circaetus (sensu lato, including [D.] spectabilis)”

Dryotriorchis spectabilis was nested within a clade of Circaetus samples.

“A sample of Congo Serpent Eagle (Dryotriorchis spectabilis), which had been classified in Circaetus prior to Mindell et al. (2018), was nested within a clade of Circaetus samples.”

• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The Microspizias + Harpagus clade was sister to Buteoninae.

“Like Oatley et al. (2015), we found the Microspizias + Harpagus clade to be sister to Buteoninae, whereas Mindell et al. (2018) found it to be sister to a clade containing Buteoninae and the rest of Accipitrinae (sensu lato).”

• cites Oatley et al. (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The divergence estimate for the crown age of Circaetinae is 20.6 MYA.

“Our divergence estimate for the crown age of Circaetinae was 20.6 MYA, which is substantially older than Mindell et al.'s (2018) estimated date of c.14 MYA.”

• cites Mindell et al.'s (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

A clade containing all genera traditionally placed in Buteoninae was comprised of two major subclades corresponding to the tribes Milvini (Haliastur, Milvus, Haliaeetus) and Buteonini (Buteo, Leucopternis, Geranoaetus, Pseudastur, Parabuteo, Rupornis, Cryptoleucopteryx, Buteogallus, Busarellus, Helocolestes, Rostrhamus, Geranospiza, Ictinia, Butastur).

“Finally, a clade containing all genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Buteoninae was comprised of two major subclades corresponding to the tribes Milvini (Haliastur, Milvus, Haliaeetus) and Buteonini (Buteo, Leucopternis, Geranoaetus, Pseudastur, Parabuteo, Rupornis, Cryptoleucopteryx, Buteogallus, Busarellus, Helocolestes, Rostrhamus, Geranospiza, Ictinia, Butastur).”

In the 236 species phylogeny, we recovered a clade containing most taxa that were placed within Accipitrinae, Circinae, and Melieraxinae by Lerner & Mindell (2005).

“In our 236 species phylogeny, we recovered a clade containing most taxa that were placed within these subfamilies by Lerner & Mindell (2005).”

• cites Lerner & Mindell (2005) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Circaetinae and Aegypiinae were reciprocally monophyletic.

“Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae, a clade containing all members of the subfamilies Circaetinae (Spilornis, Pithecophaga, Terathopius, Circaetus, Dryotriorchis) and Aegypiinae (Sarcogyps, Trigonoceps, Torgos, Aegypius, Necrosyrtes, Gyps), which were reciprocally monophyletic, formed the sister group to the remainder of Accipitridae.”

Within the sister group of Elaninae, a clade containing all genera traditionally placed in Gypaetinae and Perninae formed the sister group of the remainder of Accipitridae.

“Within the sister group of Elaninae, a clade containing all genera traditionally placed in Gypaetinae (Polyboroides, Gypohierax, Neophron, Gypaetus) and Perninae (Eutriorchis, Leptodon, Chondrohierax, Elanoides, Pernis, Aviceda, Hamirostra, Lophoictinia, Henicopernis) formed the sister group of the remainder of Accipitridae.”

The phylogenetic position of Rupornis magnirostris remains unresolved.

“Lastly, the phylogenetic position of Roadside Hawk, Rupornis magnirostris (Gmelin, 1788), has been similarly fluid, and remains unresolved.”

Geranospiza caerulescens was sister to a clade containing three monotypic genera (Busarellus, Rostrhamus, Helicolestes) represented by UCE data in our phylogeny.

“For example, Crane Hawk, Geranospiza caerulescens (Vieillot, 1817), was sister to a clade containing three monotypic genera (Busarellus, Rostrhamus, Helicolestes) represented by UCE data in our phylogeny.”

Morphnarchus princeps was sister to a clade containing Cryptoleucopteryx and Buteogallus.

“The enigmatic Barred Hawk, Morphnarchus princeps (Sclater, 1865), represented by UCE data in our phylogeny, was sister to a clade containing the monotypic Cryptoleucopteryx (also represented by UCE data) and speciose Buteogallus (all 9 species represented by legacy data, 6 by UCEs).”

Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae, a clade containing all members of Circaetinae and Aegypiinae formed the sister group to the remainder of Accipitridae.

“Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae, a clade containing all members of the subfamilies Circaetinae (Spilornis, Pithecophaga, Terathopius, Circaetus, Dryotriorchis) and Aegypiinae (Sarcogyps, Trigonoceps, Torgos, Aegypius, Necrosyrtes, Gyps), which were reciprocally monophyletic, formed the sister group to the remainder of Accipitridae.”

The second Aegypiinae subclade contained Aegypius, Torgos, Trigonoceps, and Sarcogyps in a nested pattern.

“AEGYPIINAEA clade containing all six genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Aegypilnae (Trigonoceps, Gyps, Necrosyrtes, Aegypius, Torgos, Sarcogyps) contained two subclades, the first containing the (reciprocally monophyletic) sibling genera Gyps and Necrosyrtes, and the other containing the genera Aegypius, Torgos, Trigonoceps, and Sarcogyps, arranged in a nested pattern.”

Both Erythrotriorchis and Megatriorchis were embedded within the 'Accipiter' (sensu lato) + Circus clade, as early diverging sisters to larger clades.

“Finally, we found that both Erythrotriorchis (2 spp.) and Megatriorchis (monotypic) were embedded within the “Accipiter” (sensu lato) + Circus clade, as early diverging sisters to larger clades.”

The Aegypiinae clade containing all six genera traditionally placed in Aegypiinae contained two subclades.

“AEGYPIINAEA clade containing all six genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Aegypilnae (Trigonoceps, Gyps, Necrosyrtes, Aegypius, Torgos, Sarcogyps) contained two subclades, the first containing the (reciprocally monophyletic) sibling genera Gyps and Necrosyrtes, and the other containing the genera Aegypius, Torgos, Trigonoceps, and Sarcogyps, arranged in a nested pattern.”

This Aegypiinae topology agreed with Arshad et al. (2009) and Mindell et al. (2018).

“This topology agreed with Arshad et al. (2009) and Mindell et al. (2018)”

• cites Arshad et al. (2009) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae + Circaetinae + Aegypiinae, a clade containing the subfamily Aquilinae formed the sister group to the remainder of Accipitridae.

“Within the sister group of Elaninae + Gypaetinae + Perninae + Circaetinae + Aegypiinae, a clade containing the subfamily Aquilinae (Stephanoaetus, Nisaetus, Spizaetus, Lophotriorchis, Polemaetus, Lophaetus, Ictinaetus, Clanga, Hieraaetus, Aquila) formed the sister group to the remainder of Accipitridae.”

Our analysis of legacy data placed Rupornis magnirostris as sister to a large clade composed of Buteo, Leucopternis, Geranoaetus, Pseudastur, and Parabuteo.

“but our analysis of legacy data placed it as sister to a large clade composed of the genera Buteo, Leucopternis, Geranoaetus, Pseudastur, and Parabuteo.”

Polyboroides typus was placed as sister to the rest of the Gypaetinae + Perninae clade.

“However, Polyboroides typus Smith, 1829 was placed as sister to the rest of the Gypaetinae + Perninae clade, which rendered Gypaetinae non-monophyletic.”

The placement of Dryotriorchis spectabilis rendered Circaetus paraphyletic.

“Dryotriorchis spectabilis (Schlegel, 1863) was embedded within the genus Circaetus, rendering it paraphyletic.”

In the myc gene tree, A. ovampensis was included in the A. nisus clade.

“in the myc gene tree, A. ovampensis was included in the A. nisus clade”

The placement of Polyboroides typus rendered Gypaetinae non-monophyletic.

“However, Polyboroides typus Smith, 1829 was placed as sister to the rest of the Gypaetinae + Perninae clade, which rendered Gypaetinae non-monophyletic.”

The first Aegypiinae subclade contained the reciprocally monophyletic sibling genera Gyps and Necrosyrtes.

“AEGYPIINAEA clade containing all six genera traditionally placed in the subfamily Aegypilnae (Trigonoceps, Gyps, Necrosyrtes, Aegypius, Torgos, Sarcogyps) contained two subclades, the first containing the (reciprocally monophyletic) sibling genera Gyps and Necrosyrtes, and the other containing the genera Aegypius, Torgos, Trigonoceps, and Sarcogyps, arranged in a nested pattern.”

With UCE data from both taxa and their closest relatives (Busarellus, Geranospiza), we found strong evidence that Helicolestes and Rostrhamus are sister lineages.

“Here, with UCE data from both taxa and their closest relatives (i.e., Busarellus, Geranospiza), we found strong evidence that Helicolestes and Rostrhamus are sister lineages.”

Dryotriorchis spectabilis was embedded within the genus Circaetus.

“Dryotriorchis spectabilis (Schlegel, 1863) was embedded within the genus Circaetus, rendering it paraphyletic.”

Megatriorchis doriae was sister to Circus (Bootstrap Value = 100).

“We found that Doria's Goshawk (Megatriorchis doriae) was sister to Circus (Bootstrap Value = 100)”

Divergence estimates for the nodes separating the monotypic genera in Buteoninae (9.3-13 MYA) are older than most generic splits within Buteoninae (e.g., several pairs of sister genera diverged between 5.6-8.7 MYA).

“Furthermore, divergence estimates for the nodes separating these genera (9.3-13 MYA) are older than most generic splits within the Buteoninae (e.g., several pairs of sister genera diverged between 5.6 -8.7 MYA).”

Erythrotriorchis was sister to the Accipiter (sensu stricto) + Astur + Megatriorchis + Circus clade.

“Erythrotriorchis was sister to Accipiter (sensu stricto) + Astur + Megatriorchis + Circus clade”

The phylogeny provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy of Accipitridae.

“Our densely-sampled phylogeny, which includes 90% of recognized species, confirms the non-monophyly of Accipiter and provides a sufficient basis to revise the genus-level taxonomy, such that all genera in Accipitridae represent monophyletic groups.”

Evidence that Accipiter is non-monophyletic has primarily come from studies focused on more distantly related clades, which happened to include 'Accipiter' taxa as outgroups in phylogenetic analyses.

“Evidence that Accipiter is non-monophyletic has primarily come from studies focused on more distantly related clades, which happened to include”

Accipiter, as traditionally defined (Peters, 1931), does not form a monophyletic group.

“a wave of evidence that Accipiter, as traditionally defined (Peters, 1931), does not form a monophyletic group (e.g., Griffiths, 2007;Hugall & Stuart-Fox, 2012;Oatley et al., 2015;Mindell et al., 2018).”

• cites Griffiths, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Hugall & Stuart-Fox, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Oatley et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

Including several enigmatic species removed a primary source of uncertainty that prevented former authors from reconciling genus-level nomenclature with phylogenetic data.

“However, by including several enigmatic species, we removed a primary source of uncertainty that prevented former authors from reconciling the genus-level nomenclature with phylogenetic data.”

The authors removed all samples on extremely long branches, which likely resulted from contamination or poor sequence quality.

“First, after this initial quality control analysis, we removed all samples on extremely long branches, which likely resulted from contamination or poor sequence quality.”

Approximately half of the sampled species were included in the UCE dataset.

“Approximately half of these species were included in our UCE dataset, which enabled us to test the monophyly criterion with greater confidence.”

Inclusion of approximately half of sampled species in the UCE dataset enabled testing the monophyly criterion with greater confidence.

“Approximately half of these species were included in our UCE dataset, which enabled us to test the monophyly criterion with greater confidence.”

High-quality tissues are lacking for several genera, due to challenges associated with collecting diurnal birds of prey (e.g., heightened legal protection and low population densities).

“This is an important breakthrough for studies of Accipitridae systematics because high-quality tissues are lacking for several genera, due to challenges associated with collecting diurnal birds of prey (e.g., heightened legal protection and low population densities).”

Because Eutriorchis astur was only represented by legacy data, we are unable to conclusively resolve its placement.

“Because it was only represented by legacy data, we are unable to conclusively resolve the placement of E. astur at this time.”

We attribute the difference in placement of C. assimilis to more comprehensive sampling of genetic loci in our study.

“We attribute this difference to more comprehensive sampling of genetic loci in our study.”

This discord could explain why existing Aquilinae phylogenies are in conflict.

“This discord could explain why existing Aquilinae phylogenies are in conflict.”

The combined UCE and legacy datasets are sufficient to resolve the persistent issue of Accipiter non-monophyly.

“We contend that our combined UCE and legacy datasets are sufficient to resolve this persistent issue, to determine generic boundaries in the polyphyletic Accipiter and restrict genus names to monophyletic groups (clades).”

The combined UCE and legacy datasets are sufficient to determine generic boundaries in the polyphyletic Accipiter.

“We contend that our combined UCE and legacy datasets are sufficient to resolve this persistent issue, to determine generic boundaries in the polyphyletic Accipiter and restrict genus names to monophyletic groups (clades).”

The preponderance of evidence supports the retention of two monotypic genera, Helicolestes and Rostrhamus.

“Therefore, although H. hamatus and R. sociabilis share some morphological and ecological characteristics, the preponderance of evidence supports the retention of two, monotypic genera.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Divergence times comparable to or older than those of clades currently treated as genera justify recognition as separate genera.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Morphological and ecological distinctness of a lineage justifies retaining it as a separate genus.

Our UCE sampling included several enigmatic taxa for which little molecular data were previously available and previously had uncertain phylogenetic placements.

“Notably, our UCE sampling included several enigmatic taxa for which little molecular data were previously available and previously had uncertain phylogenetic placements.”

Several species within Accipitridae are not monophyletic.

“Several species within Accipitridae are not monophyletic and a detailed revision of species limits within several clades is sorely needed (e.g., Catanach et al., 2021).”

• cites Catanach et al., 2021 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The discrepancies between our divergence time estimates and those of Mindell et al. (2018) and Prum et al. (2015) probably resulted from different calibration methods.

“These discrepancies probably resulted from different calibration methods.”

• cites Mindell et al. (2018) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Prum et al. (2015) sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

The genus Accipiter is non-monophyletic.

“The non-monophyly of the diverse genus Accipiter is a particularly thorny problem, which has been unresolved for many years (e.g., Griffiths, 2007;Hugall & Stuart-Fox, 2012;Oatley et al., 2015;Mindell et al., 2018).”

• cites Griffiths, 2007 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Hugall & Stuart-Fox, 2012 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source
• cites Oatley et al., 2015 sourceNot checked — no full text of the source

There is unanimous support for the sister relationship of Buteo and Leucopternis.

“Thus, there is unanimous support for the sister relationship of Buteo and Leucopternis, but the relationships among Geranoaetus, Pseudastur, and the other genera have been variable.”

The combined UCE and legacy datasets are sufficient to restrict genus names to monophyletic groups (clades).

“We contend that our combined UCE and legacy datasets are sufficient to resolve this persistent issue, to determine generic boundaries in the polyphyletic Accipiter and restrict genus names to monophyletic groups (clades).”