<p>Phylogeny of the genus <i>Agapornis</i> based on existing molecular evidence. The species with the red line is currently unplaced in the phylogeny, but does belong to this genus.
</p>
<dl><dd>Actually, <i>swinderniana</i> is unplaced in the <i>molecular</i> phylogeny only, and in any case attaching it basal is wrong, wrong wrong (unsampled species are either attached to the tree in the place inferred from other data, or not attached at all)!</dd>
<dd>With <i>swinderniana</i> parapatric to <i>pullarius</i>, <i>cana</i> (and not <i>taranta</i>) being resolved as the most basal species, the "eyering" group being the most advanced clade, and the closest living relatives occurring from India to the Wallacea, it is as good as certain that <i>swinderniana</i> either is part of the <i>pullarius-taranta</i> superspecies, or forms a polytomy with it, or is immediately basal to it. That what the image currently suggests to the novice reader requires either Darwin to be utterly wrong or teleportation to work. Neither is the case AFAIK. So the image needs updating. <a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dysmorodrepanis" title="User:Dysmorodrepanis">Dysmorodrepanis</a> (<a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dysmorodrepanis" title="User talk:Dysmorodrepanis"><span class="signature-talk">talk</span></a>) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)</dd></dl>
<a href="//commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dbc334" title="User:Dbc334">Dbc334</a>
2007-06-16
<span class="int-own-work" lang="en">Own work</span>