Polyplectron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia:How to read a taxobox
How to read a taxobox
Peacock-pheasants
male Palawan Peacock-pheasantPolyplectron napoleonis
male Palawan Peacock-pheasant
Polyplectron napoleonis
Scientific classification
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Galliformes
Family: Phasianidae
Genus: Polyplectron
Temminck, 1813
Synonyms

Polyplectrum (lapsus)

The genus Polyplectron of the family Phasianidae consist of seven peacock-pheasant species. The males have varying display plumage, while the females are colored far more inconspicuously.

The systematics of the genus are somewhat unclear. The species of Polyplectron evolved at some time between, roughly, the Early Pliocene and the Middle Pleistocene, or 5-1 mya[1]. The morphologically somewhat aberrant Polyplectron malacense and its little-known sister species P. schleiermacheri form a basal radiation around the southern South China Sea together with the striking P. napoleonis, as is confirmed by comparison of biogeography and mtDNA cytochrome b and D-loop as well as the nuclear ovomucoid intron G (Kimball et al. 2001).

The relationships of the other forms are more poorly understood. P. germaini and P. bicalcaratum are similar in morphology and are nearly parapatric; the molecular data suggests that the latter is a symplesiomorphy, but with not too high confidence. In any case, the brownish insular or peninsular species chalcurum and inopinatum do not seem to be derived from a single isolation event, and seem to have acquired the more subdued coloration independently. The trend in this genus to lose, not to gain, pronounced sexual dimorphism is better supported by biogeographical and molecular data than the alternate scenario.(Kimball et al. 2001)

[edit] Species

[edit] References

  • Kimball, Rebecca T.; Braun, Edward L.; Ligon, J. David; Lucchini, Vittorio & Randi, Ettore (2001): A molecular phylogeny of the peacock-pheasants (Galliformes: Polyplectron spp.) indicates loss and reduction of ornamental traits and display behaviours. Biol. J. Linn. Soc. 73(2): 187–198. HTML abstract

[edit] Footnotes

  1. ^ The molecular clock used by Kimball et al. (2001) is a very crude estimate based on an outdated model and uncalibrated by fossil evidence. Hence, their supposed divergence dates are as likely to be wrong as the assumption that sea level changes were not a factor in the genus' radiation is unwarranted at this time.
In other languages