Talk:Penguin

Icadyptes paper in PNAS

Did anyone check it out yet? Phew. Grand. I think if I deep-read it, I'll need a week go get the hang of it. Be sure to get the supplement to read the phylogeny correctly.

I no get!!!!!!!!!!!!

See here. Dysmorodrepanis 11:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Finally, some serious pattern emerges, if you compare short branches from the paper with support values from the supplement. Palaeeudyptines certainly paraphyletic (type genus too), but Simpson's merger of Anthropornis therein seems good. Icadyptes is fairly trivial, but Perudyptes is decidedly incertae sedis. Basal branch of the first giants, apparently. Also interesting: that the Eocene mini spp are so basal. Got the Inguza paper BTW. Dysmorodrepanis 19:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Ugh! Digging through the data, I note that the divergence times are wrong either here or in Baker et al. 2006. Bad bad bad. I need to look at it very close and check the 2 recent papers on clock calibration. I'd tend to say that the new paper is better and at least the paleobios among the authors are usually reliable. But OTOH, from my experience with reviewing molecular clock papers, "fast" clocks for seabirds are usually erroneous - especially in Procellariiformes it's documented, and the case for at least some of these and penguins being evolutionarily at least in the same neighborhood is rather convincing.

On the other hand, what's funny is that the hypotheses of Baker et al are little affected by this clocking problem. It's mostly whether the extant pengu's ancestors loitered around in the Pacific and Argentina until the circumantarctic seas were open, or whether their divergence occurred when the current was already flowing freely.

But still, the difference is huge. Especially if it's based on the same genes (the present paper uses some 12% longer sequences. But that should not make such a difference). Dysmorodrepanis 03:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving on: there's a new member of the basal Spheniscus lineage described in APP. This is incompatible with the clock of the new paper, period. Even if the "basal Spheniscus" are considered a distinct genus, they'd evolve two million years too late.

As the new Spheniscus description was written at the same time as the PNAS paper but published earlier and the PNAS paper is still in preprint, I hope this will be resolved in the final version.

Regarding Anthropornis, on second looks I'm less sure about them being inseparable from palaeeudyptines. But as they form a reasonably-supported basal branch in the palaeeudyptine s str. polytomy, it's probably better to leave them merged for the time being. Dysmorodrepanis 15:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

== Technically the contention that penguins face no land predators on Antarctica and Antarctic islands is not completely correct: abandoned sled dogs that remained in Antarctica thrived by preying upon penguins. Dogs no longer have the role in Antarctic exploration that they once did, and if dogs are not banned outright on Antarctica, they are closely controlled in that continent so that they do not become the "tigers of Antarctica" as the one land predator capable of killing penguins. --Paul from Michigan 05:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention humans of course. Penguin stew fried in penguin oil, a common meal of explorers til (I think) the mid-20th century. Plus, there might be the cats and pigs that have overrun some subantarctic islands. So the issue could be explained in detail, or simply corrected by inserting the word "native" before "land". Dysmorodrepanis 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Peiguns

Hey!

Dani

Hey Dani!!! I love you