Cited by 57Evolution and Paleontology StudiesAvian ecology and behaviorPlant Diversity and Evolution

Molecular phylogenetics of the buteonine birds of prey (Accipitridae)

Open access
LERNER, HEATHER R. L., KLAVER, MATTHEW C., MINDELL, DAVID P.·2008·The Auk

Abstract

Phylogenetic relationships among birds of prey in the subfamily Buteoninae are not fully established but are of particular interest because the Buteoninae constitute one of the largest accipitrid subgroups and include multiple species of conservation concern. Genera previously included within the Buteoninae are Buteo, Leucopternis, Buteogallus, Harpyhaliaetus, Busarellus, Parabuteo, Geranoaetus, Geranospiza, Ictinia, Rostrhamus, Kaupifalco, and Butastur. We analyzed representatives from all buteonine genera and most non-Buteo (i.e., "sub-buteo") species with >3,000 bases of nuclear and mitochondrial DNA and found non-monophyly for the nominal genera Buteo, Buteogallus, and Leucopternis. The Old World Lizard Buzzard (Kaupifalco monogrammicus) is not closely related to buteonine taxa but is sister to goshawks in the genera Melierax, Micronisus, and Urotriorchis. Another Old World genus, Butastur, is sister to the clade including all other buteonine genera mentioned above. Investigation of several "superspecies" complexes within the genus Leucopternis revealed non-monophyly for the four subspecies of White Hawk (L. albicollis). On the basis of mitochondrial data, L. a. albicollis forms a clade with L. polionotus, whereas L. a. costaricensis, L. a. ghiesbreghti, and L. a. williaminae form a clade with L. occidentalis. Among taxa included as outgroups, we found two species in the genus Circus to be clearly nested within a clade of Accipiter spp.

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 · 10.1525/auk.2008.06161

Cites

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?

  • 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).”

    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 Lerner et al. (2008)

    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

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Amadon, D., and J. Bull. 1988. Hawks and owls of the world: A distributional and taxonomic list (with the genus Otus by J. T. Marshall and B. E. King). Proceedings of the Western Founda� tion of Vertebrate Zoology 3:295-357.
  2. David, N., and M. Gosselin. 2002. Gender agreement of avian species names. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 122:14-49.
  3. Hall, T. A. 1999. BIOEDIT: A user-friendly biological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT. Nucleic Acids Symposium Series 41:95-98.
  4. Hilty, S. L., and W. L. Brown. 1986. A Guide to the Birds of Colombia. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
  5. Holdaway, R. N. 1994. An exploratory phylogenetic analysis of the genera of the Accipitridae, with notes on the biogeography of the family. Pages 601-649 in Raptor Conservation Today (B.-U. Meyburg and R. D. Chancellor, Eds.). World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, London, and Pica Press, Berlin.
  6. Howell, S. N. G., and S. Webb. 1995. A Guide to the Birds of Mex� ico and Northern Central America. Oxford University Press, New York.
  7. Hudson, R. R. 1990. Gene genealogies and the coalescent process. Pages 1-44 in Oxford Surveys in Evolutionary Biology, vol. 7 (D. Futuyma and J. Antonovics, Eds.). Oxford University Press, New York.
  8. Jones, H. L. 2003. Birds of Belize. University of Texas Press, Austin.
  9. Olson, S. L. 1982. The distribution of fused phalanges of the inner toe in the Accipitridae. Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club 102:8-12.
  10. Peters, J. L. 1931. Check-List of Birds of the World, vol I. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
  11. Ridgway, R. 1876. Studies of the American Falconidae. Bulletin of the U.S. Geological and Geographic Survey Territories 2:91-182.
  12. Sick, H. 1993. Birds in Brazil. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.
  13. Slud, P. 1964. The birds of Costa Rica: Distribution and ecology. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History, no. 128.
  14. Thiollay, J. M. 1994. Family Accipitridae (Hawks and Eagles). Pages 52-205 in Handbook of the Birds of the World, vol. 2: New World Vultures to Guineafowl (J. del Hoyo, A. Elliott, and J. Sar� gatal, Eds.). Lynx Ediciones, Barcelona, Spain.
  15. Thurber, W. A., J. F. Serrano, A. Sermeño, and M. Benitez. 1987. Status of uncommon and previously unreported birds of El Salvador. Proceedings of the Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 3:109-293.
  16. Wetmore, A. 1965. The Birds of the Republic of Panamá, part 1: Tinamidae (Tinamous) to Rynchopidae (Skimmers). Smithson� ian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 150.
  17. Wink, M., and H. Sauer-Gurth. 2004. Phylogenetic relation� ships in diurnal raptors based on nucleotide sequences of mito� chondrial and nuclear marker genes. Pages 483-498 in Raptors Worldwide (R. D. Chancellor and B.-U. Meyburg, Eds.). World Working Group on Birds of Prey and Owls, Berlin.
  18. Wink, M., and I. Seibold. 1996. Molecular phylogeny of Medi� terranean raptors (Families Accipitridae and Falconidae). Pages 335-344 in Biology and Conservation of Mediterranean Raptors, vol. 4 (J. Muntaner and J. Mayol, Eds.). SEO BirdLife, Madrid.
  19. Zwickl, D. J. 2006. Genetic algorithm approaches for the phylo� genetic analysis of large biological sequence datasets under the maximum likelihood criterion. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, Austin.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
LERNER, H. R. L., KLAVER, M. C., & MINDELL, D. P.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
The Auk
Published
2008-04
Volume
125
Issue
2
Pages
304-315
ISSN
  • 0004-8038 (ISSN-L)
  • 1938-4254
OpenAlex
W2137240109
Cited by
57
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Auk (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Earth and Planetary Sciences › Paleontology › Evolution and Paleontology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Avian ecology and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Plant Diversity and Evolution
Keywords
Accipitridae, raptors, phylogenetic relationships, Buteo, non-monophyly, conservation concern, northern goshawk, circus, Accipiter

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