Talk:Mohoidae

Correction

Well, even with a source, the statement "These now extinct birds form their own family, representing the only complete extinction of an entire avian family in modern times" seems not quite correct as the family Turnagridae is still seen as valid family --Melly42 (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

True, if considered a valid family. Although the validity of that family is still disputed by some scientists. I will change the sentence a bit. Peter Maas\^talk 07:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

• Oppose as per standard for non-monotypic taxa. Though there seems to be little additional content at family level (it's mostly Moho content, considering Chaetoptila is so little known), in particular a discussion of biogeography and pollinator biology/coevolution pertaining to the entire family would belong here. Though pollinator associations for Chaetoptila are speculative, the fossil record provides quite a bit of data on probable habitat associations and resource partitioning between the genera and species. So, this article would depart from the usual scheme of bird family articles a bit, being concerned mostly with biogeography and synecology, as there are otherwise fairly few known synapomorphies to write about.

(Briefly, there are 2-3 prehistorically extinct species of Chaetoptila, and given their date of disappearance and Gloger's Rule etc, it seems that Chaetoptila was mostly associated with lowland mesic habitat - little if any of that survived into historic times, so the birds disappeared with their whole ecosystem - while Moho was more of an upland rainforest lineage and thus persisted much longer. One of the prehistoric Chaetoptila had a very slender bill suggesting specialization to some particular flower, which almost certainly is also extinct today.

But the Palmchat might also be considered - even though it is itself a highly peculiar insular endemic, the realization that Mohoidae were not honeyeaters at all suggests that it may be more than superficially similar to the kioeas... it's an incipient nectarivore and the plumage pattern is strikingly similar. So a Palmchat might give a rather good impression of how the original Mohoidae must have looked like... although the Ptiliogonatidae are probably a bit closer relatives, and they too have one and a half remarkable case of melanism. Note the Phainopepla is by no means a rainforest bird, ie it's very unlikely to evolve such a plumage. Melanism must have run easy in these birds, no wonder Moho looked like it did... Altogether though there is no easily discerned plesiomorphic plumage type in bombycillids... The Hypocolius, waxwings, Ptiliogonys all look vaguely "different but alike", much grey with some very localized but conspicuous markings including a black face and often reds and yellows. No blues or true greens. As regards the further ancestry, that pretty certainly looked much like a mottled thrush/"true" flycatcher/Aplonis/Philippine creeper, ie much like a Palmchat or Kioea.

A remarkable thing is that all sources I have seen don't note Mohoidae were social birds. In some cases it was explicitly stated that they were loners. This is remarkable, all their relatives have a reputation for gregariousness, communal roosting and wandering etc. Such stuff could also be put in this article, it looks like a remarkable autapomorphy.)

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)