Rallus carvaoensis, Alcover, Josep Antoni, Pieper, Harald, Pereira, Fernando & Rando, Juan Carlos, 2015
publication ID |
https://doi.org/ 10.11646/zootaxa.4057.2.1 |
publication LSID |
lsid:zoobank.org:pub:BADD5843-1566-4BF8-A507-7369C1F5B950 |
DOI |
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6119644 |
persistent identifier |
https://treatment.plazi.org/id/A03A6F74-FFC1-5B7B-63D3-12C4FE8152F5 |
treatment provided by |
Plazi |
scientific name |
Rallus carvaoensis |
status |
|
R. carvaoensis n. sp. belongs to the group of species that combine robust leg bones (in this case, excluding the femur) with reduced wings. It is smaller than R. lowei n. sp. from Madeira and larger than R. minutus n. sp. from São Jorge.
Although no complete skulls are available, the premaxilla is longer and more curved than in R. aquaticus and R. montivagorum n. sp. (see Figure 8 View FIGURE 8 B–E). The bill shape was probably similar to that of R. minutus n. sp. R. carvaoensis n. sp. has a shorter coracoid and humerus than R. montivagorum n. sp. from Pico (12% and 19% shorter, respectively; U = -2.448; p = 0.007, U = -2.714; p = 0.002) and R. aquaticus (26% and 29% shorter, respectively; U = -2.833; p <0.001, U = -2.842; p <0.001). The available forelimb bones (humerus and carpometacarpus) are around 30% smaller than in R. aquaticus , while the femur, tibiotarsus and tarsometatarsus are 12%, 17% and 26% smaller than in R. aquaticus , respectively.
The humerus is longer (9%) than in R. minutus n. sp. The carpometacarpus is smaller than in the Pico rail (21%) and in R. aquaticus (30%) (Table 1), and it is longer than in R. minutus n. sp. (35%). Despite all the known ulnae being incomplete, its extreme reduction in size is clear based on their width measurements (see Table 1).
The femur length of R. carvaoensis n. sp. is close to R. lowei n. sp. and R. adolfocaesaris n.sp (Table 1). The ANOVA of femur length (trait 17) of the Rallus from São Miguel, Pico, and R. aquaticus , reveal significant differences among them (F2,66 = 75,664; p <0.001). These differences were significant between R. carvaoensis n. sp. and R. aquaticus (p <0.001) (12%), but not between R. carvaoensis n. sp and the Rallus from Pico (p = 0.601). The tibiotarsus of R. carvaoensis n. sp. is longer than in R. minutus n. sp. (14%), slightly longer than in R. adolfocaesaris n. sp., close in length to R. lowei n. sp. and the Rallus from Pico, and smaller (17%) than in R. aquaticus .
The ANOVA of the tibiotarsus distal width (trait 25) identified morphological differences between R. carvaoensis n. sp. and R. adolfocaesaris n. sp. (p = 0.007), R. aquaticus (p <0.001), and R. minutus n. sp. (p = 0.002), but not with Rallus montivagorum n. sp. (p = 0.262).
The MANOVA of tarsometatarsus lengths (total length and distal width; traits 26 and 29) showed that R. carvaoensis n. sp. has a shorter tarsometatarsus than in R. lowei n. sp. (11%) (p = 0.003), R. montivagorum n. sp. (11%) (p <0.001), and R. aquaticus (26%) (p <0.001), but it is longer than in R. minutus n. sp. (p <0.001). The tarsometatarsus distal width of R. carvaoensis n. sp. is shorter than in R. lowei n. sp. (p <0.001) and R. aquaticus (p <0.001), but similar to R. montivagorum n. sp. (p = 0.795) and R. minutus n. sp. (p = 0.871). The length and distal width of the tarsometatarsus of R. carvaoensis n. sp. is similar to R. adolfocaesaris n. sp. (U = - 1,837; p = 0.085, U = - 1,829; p = 0.067), whereas its proximal width is narrower than in R. lowei n. sp. (U = 3.337; p <0.001), but similar to R. adolfocaesaris n. sp. (U = - 0,155; p = 0.94), R. montivagorum n. sp. (U = - 0,907; p = 0.388), R. minutus n. sp. (U = -1.533; p = 0.145) and R. aquaticus (U = - 1,911; p = 0.057).
The leg bones of R. carvaoensis n. sp. indicate that it was more stout than Rallus aquaticus . The low humerusto-femur length ratio (0.76) –the smallest among all the species here described—is clearly indicative of flightlessness. The short stout tarsometatarsus (relative to the femur) suggests that R. carvaoensis n. sp. could be a slow-pace runner
No known copyright restrictions apply. See Agosti, D., Egloff, W., 2009. Taxonomic information exchange and copyright: the Plazi approach. BMC Research Notes 2009, 2:53 for further explanation.
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |
Kingdom |
|
Phylum |
|
Class |
|
Order |
|
Family |
|
Genus |