@kokhuitan @lukedowney @tonyrebelo @jeremygilmore @ludwig_muller @ptexis @vynbos @baldcoot @craigpeter @rion_c @rjq @moxcalvitiumtorgos @johnnybirder @jakob @christiaan_viljoen @shanafelt_ben @botswanabugs @thebeachcomber @wynand_uys @simontonge @bwjone432155 @jadonald @ratite @gumnut @naturalis_physicus @gposs @skipperdogman @nyoni-pete @william-harland @lloyd_esler @bioshots_jm @chuditch @graham_winterflood @judebirder @em_nature @justinponder2505
INTRODUCTION
Australia and southern Africa are ecologically comparable.
Both landmasses possess a range of climates, from mediterranean (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_climate) and adjacent arid to summer-rainfall tropical (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Australia#:~:text=The%20largest%20part%20of%20Australia,varying%20between%20grasslands%20and%20desert. and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_South_Africa).
Furthermore, in both cases the substrates tend to be nutrient-poor, owing to profound weathering on a largely flat topography (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17624961/ and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6213166_Ecology_of_Australia_The_effects_of_nutrient-poor_soils_and_intense_fires and https://www.jstor.org/stable/2845371).
In both Australia and southern Africa, there are many and various plants pollinated mainly by birds (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/0028825X.1979.10432566#:~:text=The%20genera%20most%20frequently%20visited,insects%20as%20well%20as%20birds. and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0028825X.1979.10432566 and https://mdahlem.net/birds/plant/pollen.php and https://science.uct.ac.za/fitzpatrick/research-understanding-biodiversity-evolutionary-and-behavioural-ecology/bird-pollination-cape-floristic-region and https://naturesvalleytrust.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Whitehead-K.-2018.pdf and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0367253006000259 and https://www.jstor.org/stable/43234070).
On both landmasses, the flowers/inflorescences in question tend to be bright-hued, bearing copious nectar deep within a structure that makes it adaptive for nectarivorous passerine birds to have long, curved beaks.
In general, the norm in meliphagids is relatively large-bodied and short-beaked, whereas the norm in nectariniids is small-bodied and long-beaked. However, the variation seems sufficient for close counterparts potentially to have evolved on the two separate landmasses.
AIMS
It is widely believed that certain Meliphagidae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honeyeater) in Australia and certain Nectariniidae (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunbird) in southern Africa show evolutionary convergence (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution), as part of an adaptive syndrome of mutualism with ornithophilous plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithophily).
The aim of this Post is to test evolutionary convergence in the case of meliphagids in Australia vs nectariniids in southern Africa.
NON-CONVERGENCES EMERGING FROM MY INTERCONTINENTAL COMPARISON OF MELIPHAGIDS WITH NECTARINIIDS
The following scrutiny undermines the 'textbook' interpretation.
Meliphagids have undergone an extreme evolutionary radiation on the 'island continent', Australia. However, it is the differences between meliphagids and nectariniids - according to my findings - that emerge as more significant than the similarities.
This failure of evolutionary convergence is partly in line with the observation that meliphagids generally differ from nectariniids in having relatively large bodies and relatively short beaks. However, the biological disparities are manifold, and most remain even in the closest intercontinental counterparts.
The main intercontinental disparities are as follows.
Firstly, the tongues are remarkably different.
In meliphagids, the tongue is fairly simple except for its brush-like tip (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-the-morphology-of-the-ton-dWPr2lh8Qi.prkVX4Uv7Jg and https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-the-tongue-of-any-nectarin-M7OaIr9IR86NcZp.ZVFZjA).
By contrast, in nectariniids the tongue is odd even among nectarivorous birds (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.14.594085v1.full.pdf). This is because it operates by means of suction, as opposed to either capillarity, or pressure exerted by the closure of the beak.
In other words, the tongue of nectariniids serves as a drinking straw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_straw), the main complication being the distal bifurcation of the straw.
Secondly, plumage and colouration differ according to the following syndrome:
Thirdly, most meliphagids do not build a 'dome' nest. By contrast, all nectariniids build nests protected and hidden by a roof.
CLOSEST INTERCONTINENTAL COUNTERPARTS
(My values for body length and body mass refer to adult females.)
In all the following cases:
The meliphagid Sugomel nigrum (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/367631-Sugomel-nigrum, body length 11 cm, body mass 9.5 g) is fairly closely matched with the nectariniid Cinnyris fuscus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145189-Cinnyris-fuscus and https://thebdi.org/2024/06/04/dusky-sunbird-cinnyris-fuscus/, body length 10 cm, body mass ?8 g).
The habitat in both cases is the semi-arid interior of the landmass, where vegetation is sparse,
In both of these approximate counterparts,
The similarity in colouration is greatest when males of the nectariniid are in non-breeding plumage (https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/98889-failure-of-evolutionary-convergence-in-nectarivorous-birds-between-australia-meliphagidae-and-southern-africa-nectariniidae#activity_comment_68c95b95-0846-4b9d-85ab-c2631edd7749).
However, the following differences remain:
Sugomel nigrum is associated mainly with Myoporaceae (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?subview=map&taxon_id=136365&view=species). The nectariniid is instead associated mainly with Asphodelaceae (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=map&taxon_id=71400&view=species and https://www.naturepl.com/stock-photo-dusky-sunbird-cinnyris-fuscus-feeding-on-the-nectar-of-quiver-tree-nature-image01596050.html and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/224213747 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/55666885).
The meliphagid Acanthorhynchus superciliosus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12237-Acanthorhynchus-superciliosus, female length 14 cm, body mass 9 g) is somewhat similar to the nectariniid Anthobaphes violacea (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145130-Anthobaphes-violacea, female length 12 cm, body mass ?7-8 g).
In both cases,
However, differences remain in
Myzomela sanguinolenta (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12443-Myzomela-sanguinolenta, body length 10 cm, body mass 8 g) is fairly similar to Hedydipna collaris (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145122-Hedydipna-collaris, body length 10 cm, body mass 8 g).
The meliphagid actually exceeds the nectariniid in sexually dimorphism in colouration.
Furthermore, both spp.
However,
The intercontinental difference in the nests - in size as well as shape - is illustrated in:
The meliphagid Myzomela obscura (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12376-Myzomela-obscura and https://search.informit.org/doi/abs/10.3316/informit.658559031573707, body length 13 cm, body mass ? g) is a counterpart for the nectarinid Cyanomitra olivacea (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145136-Cyanomitra-olivacea, body length 13 cm, body mass 9 g).
Both forms
Myzomela obscura and C. olivacea occur in wildfire-free, dense forest on the northeastern coastal strips of the landmasses.
However,
Finally:
Cinnyris frenatus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1504995-Cinnyris-frenatus, body length 10 cm, body mass ?8 g) of tropical northeasternmost Australia is extremely similar to Cinnyris venustus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145188-Cinnyris-venustus, body length 10 cm, body mass 7 g) of northeasternmost southern Africa.
Both spp. are equatorial to tropical. The colouration is similar, including the sexual difference. (Is the Australian species the less sexually dimorphic in colouration?)
This, the closest intercontinental matching of all in the present context, does not represent much evolutionary convergence. This is because
INTERCONTINENTAL SIMILARITY IN LACK OF LERP/MANNA/EXTRAFLORAL NECTAR IN DIETS
Meliphagids tend to eat honeydew/lerp/manna/extrafloral nectar as well as floral nectar (https://www.publish.csiro.au/mu/pdf/mu9800213#:~:text=Manna%2C%20honeydew%20and%20lerp%20have,of%20these%20resources%20and%20nectar. and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01584197.1980.11799277).
By contrast, nectariniids have not been recorded eating these alternative sugary exudates. The only exception of which I am aware is the ostensible eating of the sap of Elaeis guineensis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaeis_guineensis) by Cinnyris coccinigastrus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145182-Cinnyris-coccinigastrus), which may be anthropogenic.
I have not found any records of the eating of lerp/manna/extrafloral nectar in the meliphagids examined in this Post. This, as far as it goes, supports the notion of evolutionary convergence.
PHYLOGENETIC CONSTRAINTS?
The intercontinental differences pointed out here cannot be explained by means of phylogenetic constraints and the geographical isolation of Australia. This is because meliphagids show much adaptive versatility in relevant ways, including
Iridescence is known in at least one species of meliphagid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C5%AB%C4%AB and https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12580-Prosthemadera-novaeseelandiae). Therefore, the failure of all the members of this family examined in this Post to develop iridescence is unlikely to be an accident of evolutionary history. It is instead likely to be adaptive in some poorly-understood way.
By a similar token, a brush-tipped, not tubular, tongue is known in at least one species of nectariniid (https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v073n04/p0485-p0486.pdf and https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/979744-Kurochkinegramma-hypogrammicum).
One species of meliphagid (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12364-Ramsayornis-modestus) does actually build a nest similar to that of nectariniids (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-the-brown-backed-honeyeat-Owk0Fg1ySme.S4UJwWfsEA). This is particularly significant because the other species in the same genus builds a cup-shaped nest, typical of meliphagids.
Again: the failure of all the members of this family examined in this Post to build dome nests is unlikely to be an accident of evolutionary history. It is instead likely to be adaptive, and the relative paucity of certain predators on the 'island continent' is a possible factor.
Also relevant to the question of phylogenetic constraints is the fact that nectariniids have in fact reached Australia. Indeed, several genera may have reached what is now the Australian mainland, when there was a broad land-bridge from what is now New Guinea. The failure of nectariniids to undergo evolutionary radiation across Australia indicates ecological unsuitability rather than an accident of history/phylogenetic constraints.
Further investigation is warranted of the possible difference between meliphagids and nectariniids in predation on relatively large and venomous spiders. My impression from the literature is that nectariniids are the family more resembling 'arachnophages', in the sense that they use their long beaks not only to probe flowers, but also to kill spiders safely (https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/98889-failure-of-evolutionary-convergence-in-nectarivorous-birds-between-australia-meliphagidae-and-southern-africa-nectariniidae#activity_comment_0590a394-7178-4d76-bec2-11bc68b0e569).
Comments
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmor.21513
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/describe-the-mechanism-whereby-XKc5Q4GJS.O9qT7_2fMR2g
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3497234/
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/describe-the-mechanism-whereby-XKc5Q4GJS.O9qT7_2fMR2g
Lichmera indistincta:
https://besjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2688-8319.12262
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371046295_Observations_of_nectarivorous_birds_and_potential_biological_control_agents_in_berry_orchards
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/describe-the-tongue-of-lichmer-BzCqnntsT0uxLdzgJoNHog
Paton and Collins (1989):
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1989.tb01457.x
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00985098
https://www.aavac.com.au/files/2000-17.pdf
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/has-any-member-of-the-nectarin-0iY88OrKSKO5C0VQBB2V4A
Pizzey G (1980) A field guide to the birds of Australia, pages 356-357, re Cinnyris frenatus:
"Many spiders are eaten,,,takes quite large spiders, dismembering them while hovering before their webs".
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/do-any-nectariniids-in-africa-q8meL8wTQMuCpRG1SKagnQ
Lichmera indistincta
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12526-Lichmera-indistincta
body length ?13 cm
body mass 9 g
https://www.perplexity.ai/search/in-which-nectariniidae-is-red-XR3BUNGtSp.ShSoTe8aehA
SUGOMEL NIGRUM (Australia) VS CINNYRIS FUSCUS (southern Africa)
When males are in breeding plumage, there is no confusion between Sugomel nigrum of semi-arid Australia and its closest counterpart, Cinnyris fuscus of semi-arid South Africa and Namibia:
Sugomel nigrum
https://www.graemechapman.com.au/library/viewphotos.php?c=245
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/237940313
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Black_Honeyeater.jpg
https://australian.museum/learn/animals/birds/black-honeyeater/
https://canberrabirds.org.au/birds/black-honeyeater/
https://ebird.org/species/blahon1
https://laurieross.com.au/border_galleries/honeyeaters/#
Cinnyris fuscus
https://www.biodiversityexplorer.info/birds/nectariniidae/cinnyris_fuscus.htm
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/115567236
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/199000215
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/200918314
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/70275289
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/57960712
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/18880535
However, males in non-breeding condition of C. fuscus have colouration similar to that of S. nigrum, as follows:
Sugomel nigrum
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/79927782
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/46897981
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/46897118
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/31659153
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/26662712
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/228703843
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/204661748
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/180862834
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/180862829
Cinnyris fuscus
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/218956668
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/151574550
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/237617079
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/229807463
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/228212986
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/203613613
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/151359608
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/149976351
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/27908295
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/11030851
In terms of adaptive colouration, 'pied' patterns are particularly conspicuous at distance, owing to the bold contrast between dark and pale (black and white).
The following show that males of Sugomel nigrum qualify as pied, owing to the crisp contrast between dark and the white on the flanks just anterior to the folded wings:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/198543908
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/193836228
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/186014420
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/185534986
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/177488552
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/168942733
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/130890592
The following show that males of Cinnyris fuscus, despite their similarity to S. nigrum, do not qualify as pied:
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/226248388
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/173962897
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/4299736
https://www.buckhambirding.co.za/dusky-sunbird-cinnyris-fuscus/
https://naturalselection.travel/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/19Kwessi-Dune-Lodge-Dusky-sunbird.jpg
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/196432459
https://geoffpark.wordpress.com/2019/03/09/from-certhionyx-to-sugomel/
http://stellenboschwriters.com/Stellenbirds/dusky.html
https://africawild-forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=8081&start=1420
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/229597257
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0254629909002701
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2019.0349
https://tytotony.blogspot.com/2010/11/brown-backed-honeyeaters-in-your-face.html
https://www.lirralirra.com/brown-backed-honeyeaters-and-crocodiles/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lou1003/19965606946
https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/australian-honeyeaters-meliphagidae
https://mdahlem.net/birds/18/blackhon.php
https://www.publish.csiro.au/mu/mu9800213
https://www.publish.csiro.au/mu/pdf/MU9800213
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1442-9993.1989.tb01430.x
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230181322_Lerp-feeding_in_birds_A_smorgasbord_experiment
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1071/MU9840137
https://www.publish.csiro.au/wr/wr97078
https://www.publish.csiro.au/MU/MU9840137
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ibi.12350
https://www.lfwseq.org.au/lerps-one-of-natures-sweet-offerings/
https://absa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Cor-Vol-19-Pg55-60_AbundanceRatios_ScarletHoneyeaters.pdf
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=NE1kAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA83&dq=Diet+of+myzomela&ots=YjjoY08QbC&sig=fLU95OTSrfn-YDmXG08PuGgCQUk&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Diet%20of%20myzomela&f=false
https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Fp-l8IEAFHQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA147&dq=Diet+of+myzomela&ots=TF7c3da7ZN&sig=lhZfkIbxUaJgUUy8DqPPdhLEBY0&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Diet%20of%20myzomela&f=false
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1071/MU967159
Myzomela sanguinolenta has been recorded eating ash in captivity (https://cageandaviarybirds.com/features/foreign-softbills/food-fit-for-a-honeyeater).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289318628_The_breeding_biology_of_the_Dusky_Honeyeater_Myzomela_obscura_in_the_Northern_Territory_and_the_importance_of_nectar_in_the_diet_of_nestling_honeyeaters
https://absa.asn.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/C233053.pdf
You ignore Promerops which is an African "Meliphagid" - and indeed in older literature was lumped with them. in size, nest structure and colouration, they are far more similar.
Promerops is the dominant species in nutrient poor systems.
What do nutrient-rich systems in Australia look like with regard to "Sunbird" equivalents?
What about community ecology?
Promerops and Anthobaphes may comprise over 50% of (non-Ostrich) bird biomass in Fynbos (in other ecosystems, nectar feeders seldom get to 10% of bird biomass). How does biomass compare in Australian ecosystems?
@tonyrebelo
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-006-6736-y
https://museum.wa.gov.au/research/records-supplements/records/vegetation-dongolocking-nature-reserve
https://museum.wa.gov.au/research/records-supplements/records/introduction-dongolocking-nature-reserve
https://www.exploroz.com/places/66941/wa+dongolocking-nature-reserve
https://purl.slwa.wa.gov.au/slwa_b4193072_1
http://bonzle.com/c/a?a=p&p=58491&cmd=sp
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Dongolocking-landscape-showing-reserves-and-Land-for-Wildlife-sites_fig1_326573653
https://www.mypacer.com/parks/359733/mount-pleasant-nature-reserve-nippering
@tonyrebelo
The bird community in kwongan is much more complicated than that in fynbos, in the context of this discussion.
Firstly, the 'nectarivores' are far more diverse at all levels, viz. alpha-, beta-, and gamma-diversities - while at the same time being less specialised for floral nectar.
Secondly, the 'granivores' are far larger-bodied, because they consist mainly of Psittaciformes, including a raven-size species.
In kwongan, the closest counterparts for Promerops are Phylidonyris spp. and Anthochaera chrysoptera. The closest counterparts for Anthobaphes are Acanthorhynchus and Lichmera. Intermediate in body size are various short-billed meliphagids. e.g. Gavicalis and Melithreptus. All coexist in complex and variable combinations.
It is possible that the proportion of total avian biomass contributed by 'nectarivores' in kwongan would rival that in fynbos. However, this would be hard to calculate, partly because the psittaciforms are nomadic, and could greatly outweigh the 'nectarivores' at times.
An important fact, emerging from all this complexity and ambivalence, is that there is no real counterpart for Anthobaphes in Australia.
This is despite the diversity and abundance of meliphagids in kwongan, and mainly because Anthobaphes is smaller-bodied (adult females 8 g or less) than any meliphagid. Furthermore, the meliphagids in kwongan that are smallest-bodied and longest-beaked, viz. Acanthorhynchus and Lichmera, are not particularly abundant relative to other coexisting meliphagids.
The lack of any real counterpart for Anthobaphes may be partly owing to the fact that, in all the floristic diversity of kwongan and despite the diversity of Ericaceae here (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?nelat=-33.6810189&nelng=119.9766127&subview=map&swlat=-34.4116765&swlng=119.1835027&taxon_id=133387), there are few ericas with a long, tubular corolla in Western Australia (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/consider-australian-ericaceae-oZ0yG_UzTVuKpnM9_g4Ysg).
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1478466-Styphelia-foliosa
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1428386-Styphelia-serratifolia
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1471096-Styphelia-erectifolia
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1478468-Styphelia-microdonta
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/918160-Styphelia-hainesii
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1551768-Styphelia-prostrata
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/59926-Epacris-impressa
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/320837-Epacris-longiflora
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/493270-Epacris-reclinata
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/918342-Epacris-calvertiana
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?subview=map&taxon_id=59950
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1391449-Styphelia-humifusa
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/321200-Styphelia-tubiflora
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/321198-Styphelia-triflora
https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1428314-Styphelia-tortifolia
@tonyrebelo
You asked re counterparts for nectariniids in nutrient-rich ecosystems in Australia.
Perhaps the most appropriate example of a nutrient-rich ecosystem in southern Africa is thorn scrub, dominated by spinescent acacias. Such ecosystems always feature small nectariniids in genus Cinnyris.
(Do you know whether Cinnyris has ever been recorded taking extrafloral nectar, whether from acacias or from any other plants?)
There is no vegetation in Australia similar to thorn scrub. There are also no meliphagid counterparts for e.g. Cinnyris mariquensis (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145170-Cinnyris-mariquensis).
This is despite the abundance and diversity of Acacia in Australia, and the fact that various meliphagids do take nectar from this genus (https://www.perplexity.ai/search/in-australia-which-meliphagids-R1BLdKpWQx2xXajtr7O1ug).
Add a Comment