Date: 1/12/18 7:05 pm
From: Robert O'Brien <baro...>
Subject: [obol] Re: Brown Creeper (Certhia americana) phylogeny
OK, To avoid the further *Wrath of Joel*, I'll let this
thread die. (Mercifully). Bob

On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 6:40 PM, Nathaniel Wander <nw105...>
wrote:

> I didn't mean this as a game, let alone by Monty Python rules.
>
> Sir Bedemere: “What do you do with witches?”
>
> “Villagers: Burn ‘em!”
>
> SB: “And what do you burn apart from witches?’
>
> Vs: “More witches.” “Wood.”
>
> SB: “So, why do witches burn?”
>
> Vs:“Cause they’re made of wood?”
>
> SB: “Good. So how do we tell whether she is made of wood?”
>
> Vs: “Build a bridge out of her.”
>
> SB: “But can you not build a bridge out of stone?”
>
> Vs: “Uh, yeah.”
>
> SB: “Does wood sink in water?”
>
> Vs: “No.” “No.” “It floats.” “It floats.” “Throw her in the pond.”
>
> SB: “What also floats in water?”
>
> Vs: “Bread.” “Apples.” “Very small rocks.” “Cider.” Grape gravy.”
> “Cherries.” “Mud.” “Churches.” “Lead.”
>
> King Arthur interjects authoritatively: “A duck!”
>
> SB: “Exactly. So, logically …?”
>
> Vs: “If she weighs the same as a duck … she’s made of wood.”
>
> SB: “And, therefore …?”
>
> Vs: “A witch!”
>
> Nathaniel Wander
> Portland, OR
>
> *Max Planck* is supposed to have said:
> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
> eventually die
> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
> *Andreas Wagner* observed of Planck's remark:
> Science, like nature, advances one funeral at a time. (*Arrival of the
> Fittest*, p.197)
>
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2018, 5:50:58 PM PST, roger freeman <
> <carrotguy55...> wrote:
>
>
> Now, this is fun!
>
> Roger Freeman
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2018, Robert O'Brien <baro...> wrote:
>
> Oh boy. Them's fightin' words....................
>
> What I meant to say is that Brown Creeper is about the closest thing*
> _we have here_*
> to a woodpecker. Of course, my statement was more general than that, but
> I'll still defend it.
> If there is something closer in Oregon/US to woodpeckers I want to learn
> what it is.
>
> We don't have a whole lot of trunk-feeding birds here. Off the top of my
> head we have woodpeckers,
> creepers, and nuthatches. (Tits, kinglets, some warblers and maybe some
> others sometimes feed in trunk crevices
> but not habitually). Woodpeckers and creepers have stiffened, elongated
> central feathers
> (as the roosting photo shows). These are used in balancing these two
> families for their lives
> against vertical or flat surfaces, often or always against tree trunks.
> they roost in a similar fashion.
> Nuthatches do not have such tail feathers. I'm not sure where they roost.
>
> Woodpeckers have heads/bills adapted to pounding into softer wood while
> creepers
> don't. Woodpeckers usually have two toes forward and two behind while
> creepers have the usual
> 3:1 structure. Yet woodpeckers, especially the smaller ones, feed very
> often in bark crevices just as creepers do.
> While creepers don't excavate true holes as woodpeckers often do, they
> usually nest along tree trunks
> as well; usually under pieces of loose bark, but are not above nesting in
> existing cavities of a sort and even clean
> them out of debris or loose/rotted wood as woodpeckers do.
>
> I didn't say they were phylogenetic (direct) descendents of woodpeckers or
> a common ancestor.
> There is evolution, and there is *_convergent evolution_* of which I
> claimed the latter.
> That is, they have evolved from different original families to occupy a
> similar habitat and lifestyle
> to another family's descendents. (Cacti & euphorbias are totally
> unrelated family-wise, but
> have evolved similar structures and habitats (succulent, drought tolerant,
> thorns, supressed or absent leaves, etc.).
> Their different upbringing is given away by their totally different
> flowers, however.)
>
> Another example. Australia has no woodpeckers at all. The closest thing
> that continent has is Riflebirds,
> specifically in my experience, Paradise Riflebird, a flicker-sized bird
> with a (very strong in this case)
> decurved bill like Brown Creeper's miniature bill. It lacks the central,
> stiff tail feathers, it's tail more like
> a nuthatch. Like Creepers, this species has no phylogenetic relationship
> to woodpeckers but has
> evolved similar habits such as foraging in rotting wood.
>
> http://www.australianwildlife. org/wildlife/paradise- riflebird.aspx
> <http://www.australianwildlife.org/wildlife/paradise-riflebird.aspx>
>
> The Wallcreeper of Eurasia has a similar clinging lifestyle as their name
> implies, but they also
> lack the central tail feathers with tails like nuthatches to which they
> are sometimes thought to be
> related. They're still working on evolving that feature I guess. They
> have no plans to
> evolve bills capable to boring into rocky cliffs, their preferred habitat.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wallcreeper
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallcreeper>
>
> So there (hee, hee; how do ya' like them apples?).
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Nathaniel Wander <nw105...>
> wrote:
>
> While I’m guessing that Bob O’Brien offered the remark that Brown Creepers
> were the “about the closest thing that you can get to a woodpecker” in an
> act of kindness to lighten the mood and “spare the blushes” of an honest
> mis-identification, they are, of course, nothing of the sort. Creepers
> (treecreepers in the Old World) are songbirds: they don’t look like
> woodpeckers, they don’t behave like woodpeckers and they have no near
> phylogenetic relationship to woodpeckers. Their one interesting connection
> to woodpeckers is that they compete with and defend territories against
> Redheaded Woodpeckers (*Melanerpes erythrocephalus*) in eastern North
> America. Even still, they prefer arachnids to insects and eat seeds in
> winter.
>
> Brown Creepers’ closest relatives are the as many as ten treecreeper
> species in Europe and Asia. After that, they appear to be most closely
> related to gnatcatchers and are considered general kin to wrens—these
> species comprise the family Certhioidea. There are thought to be about six
> to nine races of Brown Creepers in North America, not counting a few
> Mexican races that reach the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. The
> details of their relationships have been much debated. In the past the
> North American birds have sometimes been divided into three or four
> discrete species, sometimes even lumped with the Eurasian Treecreeper (*C
> familiaris*). There was a proposal before the AOS last spring to divide
> the present single New World species into a North American species
> (exclusive of the highland Arizona/New Mexico populations) and a
> Mexican/Central American species (including highland Arizona/New Mexico
> populations) possibly to be named Nearctic Creeper and Neotropical Creeper
> respectively. I can’t see that it has been voted on yet.
>
> Otherwise, creepers feed on tree trunks by poking beneath bark flakes
> rather than boring holes like woodpeckers. They are not cavity nesters,
> but weavers. They communicate via high pitched calls and songs, not
> drumming and they are cryptically colored rather than boldly marked. They
> take insects but prefer arachnids and, of course, their prey range is
> generally significantly smaller than that of woodpeckers: I’ve found no
> evidence that they consume ants.
>
> It may be that Bob wasn’t genially joking, but was thinking of
> woodcreepers (Dendrocolaptinae) rather than creepers/treecreepers. These
> 50-60 odd Central/S American forest birds fall in the woodpecker size range
> and have some evolutionarily convergent features with the latter including
> stiff tails which they use woodpecker-like as an important point of contact
> in shimmying up tree trunks. Woodcreepers generally have heavy bills, but
> use them for bark-probing like creepers/treecreepers rather than boring
> like woodpeckers. Their generally cryptic coloration is also sometimes
> said to be convergent with creepers/treecreepers. Woodcreepers too are
> passerines, though suboscines (like flycatchers) rather than ‘true’ oscine
> songbirds. Suboscine songs are generally less complex than those of oscine
> songbirds and typically are acquired genetically rather than learned.
>
>
> Nathaniel Wander
> Portland, OR
>
> *Max Planck* is supposed to have said:
> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
> eventually die
> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
> *Andreas Wagner* observed of Planck's remark:
> Science, like nature, advances one funeral at a time. (*Arrival of the
> Fittest*, p.197)
>
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2018, 5:50:58 PM PST, roger freeman <
> <carrotguy55...> wrote:
>
>
> Now, this is fun!
>
> Roger Freeman
>
> On Friday, January 12, 2018, Robert O'Brien <baro...> wrote:
>
> Oh boy. Them's fightin' words....................
>
> What I meant to say is that Brown Creeper is about the closest thing*
> _we have here_*
> to a woodpecker. Of course, my statement was more general than that, but
> I'll still defend it.
> If there is something closer in Oregon/US to woodpeckers I want to learn
> what it is.
>
> We don't have a whole lot of trunk-feeding birds here. Off the top of my
> head we have woodpeckers,
> creepers, and nuthatches. (Tits, kinglets, some warblers and maybe some
> others sometimes feed in trunk crevices
> but not habitually). Woodpeckers and creepers have stiffened, elongated
> central feathers
> (as the roosting photo shows). These are used in balancing these two
> families for their lives
> against vertical or flat surfaces, often or always against tree trunks.
> they roost in a similar fashion.
> Nuthatches do not have such tail feathers. I'm not sure where they roost.
>
> Woodpeckers have heads/bills adapted to pounding into softer wood while
> creepers
> don't. Woodpeckers usually have two toes forward and two behind while
> creepers have the usual
> 3:1 structure. Yet woodpeckers, especially the smaller ones, feed very
> often in bark crevices just as creepers do.
> While creepers don't excavate true holes as woodpeckers often do, they
> usually nest along tree trunks
> as well; usually under pieces of loose bark, but are not above nesting in
> existing cavities of a sort and even clean
> them out of debris or loose/rotted wood as woodpeckers do.
>
> I didn't say they were phylogenetic (direct) descendents of woodpeckers or
> a common ancestor.
> There is evolution, and there is *_convergent evolution_* of which I
> claimed the latter.
> That is, they have evolved from different original families to occupy a
> similar habitat and lifestyle
> to another family's descendents. (Cacti & euphorbias are totally
> unrelated family-wise, but
> have evolved similar structures and habitats (succulent, drought tolerant,
> thorns, supressed or absent leaves, etc.).
> Their different upbringing is given away by their totally different
> flowers, however.)
>
> Another example. Australia has no woodpeckers at all. The closest thing
> that continent has is Riflebirds,
> specifically in my experience, Paradise Riflebird, a flicker-sized bird
> with a (very strong in this case)
> decurved bill like Brown Creeper's miniature bill. It lacks the central,
> stiff tail feathers, it's tail more like
> a nuthatch. Like Creepers, this species has no phylogenetic relationship
> to woodpeckers but has
> evolved similar habits such as foraging in rotting wood.
>
> http://www.australianwildlife. org/wildlife/paradise- riflebird.aspx
> <http://www.australianwildlife.org/wildlife/paradise-riflebird.aspx>
>
> The Wallcreeper of Eurasia has a similar clinging lifestyle as their name
> implies, but they also
> lack the central tail feathers with tails like nuthatches to which they
> are sometimes thought to be
> related. They're still working on evolving that feature I guess. They
> have no plans to
> evolve bills capable to boring into rocky cliffs, their preferred habitat.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wallcreeper
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallcreeper>
>
> So there (hee, hee; how do ya' like them apples?).
>
> Bob
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Nathaniel Wander <nw105...>
> wrote:
>
> While I’m guessing that Bob O’Brien offered the remark that Brown Creepers
> were the “about the closest thing that you can get to a woodpecker” in an
> act of kindness to lighten the mood and “spare the blushes” of an honest
> mis-identification, they are, of course, nothing of the sort. Creepers
> (treecreepers in the Old World) are songbirds: they don’t look like
> woodpeckers, they don’t behave like woodpeckers and they have no near
> phylogenetic relationship to woodpeckers. Their one interesting connection
> to woodpeckers is that they compete with and defend territories against
> Redheaded Woodpeckers (*Melanerpes erythrocephalus*) in eastern North
> America. Even still, they prefer arachnids to insects and eat seeds in
> winter.
>
> Brown Creepers’ closest relatives are the as many as ten treecreeper
> species in Europe and Asia. After that, they appear to be most closely
> related to gnatcatchers and are considered general kin to wrens—these
> species comprise the family Certhioidea. There are thought to be about six
> to nine races of Brown Creepers in North America, not counting a few
> Mexican races that reach the mountains of Arizona and New Mexico. The
> details of their relationships have been much debated. In the past the
> North American birds have sometimes been divided into three or four
> discrete species, sometimes even lumped with the Eurasian Treecreeper (*C
> familiaris*). There was a proposal before the AOS last spring to divide
> the present single New World species into a North American species
> (exclusive of the highland Arizona/New Mexico populations) and a
> Mexican/Central American species (including highland Arizona/New Mexico
> populations) possibly to be named Nearctic Creeper and Neotropical Creeper
> respectively. I can’t see that it has been voted on yet.
>
> Otherwise, creepers feed on tree trunks by poking beneath bark flakes
> rather than boring holes like woodpeckers. They are not cavity nesters,
> but weavers. They communicate via high pitched calls and songs, not
> drumming and they are cryptically colored rather than boldly marked. They
> take insects but prefer arachnids and, of course, their prey range is
> generally significantly smaller than that of woodpeckers: I’ve found no
> evidence that they consume ants.
>
> It may be that Bob wasn’t genially joking, but was thinking of
> woodcreepers (Dendrocolaptinae) rather than creepers/treecreepers. These
> 50-60 odd Central/S American forest birds fall in the woodpecker size range
> and have some evolutionarily convergent features with the latter including
> stiff tails which they use woodpecker-like as an important point of contact
> in shimmying up tree trunks. Woodcreepers generally have heavy bills, but
> use them for bark-probing like creepers/treecreepers rather than boring
> like woodpeckers. Their generally cryptic coloration is also sometimes
> said to be convergent with creepers/treecreepers. Woodcreepers too are
> passerines, though suboscines (like flycatchers) rather than ‘true’ oscine
> songbirds. Suboscine songs are generally less complex than those of oscine
> songbirds and typically are acquired genetically rather than learned.
>
>
> Nathaniel Wander
> Portland, OR
>
> *Max Planck* is supposed to have said:
> A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
> making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
> eventually die
> and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
> *Andreas Wagner* observed of Planck's remark:
> Science, like nature, advances one funeral at a time. (*Arrival of the
> Fittest*, p.197)
>
>
>

 
Join us on Facebook!