Phylogeny, diversity, and classification of the Accipitridae based on DNA sequences of the RAG-1 exon
Abstract
The avian family Accipitridae has historically been divided into subfamilies or tribes based on features such as general resemblance, feeding ecology, and behavior. Consequently, the monophyly of those groups has been questionable. Recently, three phylogenetic analyses of a majority of the genera have appeared, one based on osteology, one on DNA sequences from a single mitochondrial gene, and the third on mitochondrial plus nuclear DNA sequences, and the resulting phylogenies were in substantial disagreement concerning the composition and basal branching patterns of the clades and hence require further analysis and confirmation. Here we use DNA sequences from the large nuclear RAG-1 exon to investigate the phylogenetic relationships of these birds. Our results largely corroborated the prior study that included nuclear genes. We found strong support for a monophyletic clade comprising the secretarybird Sagittarius serpentarius, the osprey Pandion haliaetus, and the traditional accipitrids. However, every one of the traditionally recognized subfamilies of accipitrids was found to be polyphyletic. The most basal nodes in the phylogeny separate small clades of insectivorous and scavenger species, such as kites and Old World vultures, from the rest of the family. The speciose genera of bird and mammal predators are all relatively derived (terminal) in the phylogeny. Many of the basal clades are cosmopolitan in their distributions, consistent with the great mobility of these raptor…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
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).”
From Enigmas no longer: using ultraconserved elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus <i>Accipiter</i> (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) (2025) · cites this paper as Griffiths, 2007
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).”
From Enigmas no longer: using ultraconserved elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus <i>Accipiter</i> (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) (2025) · cites this paper as Griffiths et al. (2007)
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).”
From Enigmas no longer: using ultraconserved elements to place several unusual hawk taxa and address the non-monophyly of the genus <i>Accipiter</i> (Accipitriformes: Accipitridae) (2025) · cites this paper as Griffiths, 2007
Cites
Barker, F. K., Barrowclough, G. F., & Groth, J. G. (2002) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.2001.1883 · Cited by 377 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The shapes of bird beaks are highly controlled by nondietary factors
Bright, J. A., Marugán-Lobón, J., Cobb, S. N., & Rayfield, E. J. (2016) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1602683113 · Cited by 258 · see citing works
Mindell, D. P., Fuchs, J., & Johnson, J. A. (2018) · Birds of Prey · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-73745-4_1 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Catanach, T. A., Halley, M. R., & Pirro, S. (2025) · Biological Journal of the Linnean Society · doi:10.1093/biolinnean/blae028 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
do Amaral, F. R., Sheldon, F. H., Gamauf, A., Haring, E., Riesing, M., Silveira, L. F., & Wajntal, A. (2009) · Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution · doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.07.020 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
- Authors
- Griffiths, C. S., Barrowclough, G. F., Groth, J. G., & Mertz, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Long Island University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Avian Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-09
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 587-602
- ISSN
- 0908-8857 (ISSN-L)
- 1600-048X
- OpenAlex
- W1991291797
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 47 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.55
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Avian Biology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- American Museum of Natural History
- Long Island 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
- Accipitridae, raptors, phylogeny, monophyly, subfamily classification, polyphyly, Sagittarius serpentarius, Pandion haliaetus, kites, Old World vultures, avian predators, molecular phylogeny, taxonomic revision
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