Sula dactylatra ssp. tasmani (Tasman Booby)

[another specialist]

The tarsometatarsus of Sula has a relatively wider shaft than that
of Morus (Figures 9 and 10). The proximal end of the tarsometatarsus
is relatively wider in Sula than in Morus. The intercotylar prominence
is more pronounced in Sula than in Morus. At the proximal end of the
tarsometatarsus, as noted by Harrison (1978 Figure 2), there are differences
between Morus and Sula in the arrangements of the calcaneal ridges and
tendinal canals of the hypotarsus. Morus and Sula have three calcaneal
ridges and three canal positions. Morus has a closed canal between a large
inner ridge and a middle ridge and another closed canal between the middle
ridge and an outer ridge. In Sula abbotti these two canals are open. In
the other extant species of Sula, the outer and middle ridges are fused
without a canal between them, a closed canal is between the middle and
the inner ridges and, as described by Harrison (1978), a single large canal
pierces the inner ridge. The inner ridge is not pierced by a canal in Moms
and Sula abbotti.
The second phalanx of digit I11 is shorter than the first in Moms
and longer than the first in Sula.
The aim of the osteological comparisons reported above was to
determine whether the sulid bones found on Lord Howe and Norfolk
Islands could be identified initially as either Sula or Morus. Besides verifying
published differences, we found more characters that may be used to
distinguish bones of Moms from those of Sula. These characters strengthen
the case for maintaining Morus as a distinct genus.

Osteologically S. abbotti has most of the characters that separate Sula
from Morus. S. abbotti differs from other extant species of Sula in having
a Morus-like ilia1 process on the pelvis and a unique pattern of hypotarsal
canals and ridges. Whether these and other morphological differences merit
a new generic or subgeneric name for S. abbotti will have to await further
study.



SYSTEMATICS
Because the Tasman Booby differs in size and shape from modern and
fossil species in the genus Sula, we propose for it the following new specific
name:

Sula tasmani nsp.
Holotype: ANWC BS3322, part skeleton, including all or parts of the
following elements: maxilla, cranium, mandible, quadrate, cervical and
thoracic vertebrae, sternum, ulna and carpometacarpus. Sand dunes near
Kingston, Norfolk Island.
Paraty es: ANWC BS3318, part skeleton of a juvenile, including all or
parts orthe following elements: maxilla, cranium, mandible, quadrate,
cervical and thoracic vertebrae, ribs, sternum, pelvis, coracoid, scapula,
humerus, radius, ulna, carpometacarpus, wing phalanges, femur,
tibiotarsus, fibula, tarsometatarsus, and pedal phalanges; ANWC BS3326,

part skeleton of a juvenile, including all or parts of: mandible, cervical
vertebrae, ribs, sternum, coracoid, scapula, humerus, radius, ulna, femur,
tibiotarsus, fibula, tarsometatarsus and pedal phalanges. Sand dunes near
Kingston, Norfolk Island.
Referred specimens: Skeletal elements listed in Table 9.
Etymology: Named after the Tasman Sea in which Norfolk and Lord
Howe Islands are situated, and in honour of Abel Janszoon Tasman, who
in I642 sailed across the sea from Tasmania to New Zealand and who
may have seen the bird alive.
Diagnosis. Similar to S. dactylatra but with a body larger and a bill
broader and deeper and more dorso-laterally concave.

DESCRIPTION
Skull
The maxilla of the Tasman Booby 14 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3322, BS3323 and BS33331 differs from that of S. abbotti,
which is similar in length, by being narrower at the base, shallower
subterminally, more concave on the sides above the lateral groove, broader
at the tip, and in having the maxillo-jugal junction situated relatively less
posteriorly (Figures 1 and 2). The maxilla differs from that of S. dactylatra,
which is similar in length, by being broader at the base, deeper, and more
concave on the sides above the lateral groove, and broader at the tip (Figures
1 and 2). It differs from those of the other four extant species of Sula
by being much larger and by being broader at the tip.
The cranium of the Tasman Booby 16 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3322, BS3325 (juvenile), BS3333, MV 150802 (juvenile) and
1508051 differs from that of S. abbotti, which is similar in length, by being
broader except at the naso-frontal hinge, and by having the temporal fossae
[=crotaphyte fossae of Shufeldt (1888, 1902) and crotaphyte depressions
of Owre (1967)l much larger and meeting at a narrow ridge medially on
top of the cranium. It differs from that of S. dactylatra, which is similar
in length, by having larger temporal fossae. It differs from those of other
extant species of SuEa by being much larger and by having relatively large
temporal fossae.
The mandible of the Tasman Booby [ll specimens - AM F56463,
ANWC BS3318 (juvenile), BS3320, BS3322, BS3324, BS3326 (juvenile),
BS3327, MV 150806, 150808, 163650 and 1641181 differs from that of S.
abbotti, which is similar in length and depth, by having a wider tip, narrower
dentaries, wider surangulars, narrower posterior ends and a large foramen
on the dorsal surface near the internal articular process. It differs from
that of S. dactylatra, which is similar in length, by having a wider tip
and deeper posterior ends and by being slightly longer between the articular
facet and the coronoid process. It differs from those of the other extant
species of Sula by being much larger and by having a broader tip.
Pectoral girdle
The sternum of the Tasman Booby [5 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3322, BS3326 (juvenile), MV 150802 and 1508081 differs from that of S. dactylatra, which is similar in size, by having a broader carinal
apex, anterior carinal margin and separation between the dorsal lips of
the coracoidal sulci. It differs from those of the other five extant species
of Sula by being much larger (Figure 3).
The furcula of the Tasman Booby [l specimen - MV 1508081 differs
from that of S. dactylatra, which is similar in size, by having a broader
sternal facet and deeper clavicles. It differs from those of the other extant
species of Sula by being much larger.
The scapula of the Tasman Booby [4 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3326 (juvenile), MV 150806 and 1508081 differs from that
of S. dactylatra by being slightly longer with a relatively larger proximal
end. It differs from those of the other extant species of Sula by being
much larger.
The coracoid of the Tasman Booby [6 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3321, BS3326 (juvenile), MV 150803, 150806 and 1641851
differs from that of S. dactylatra by being slightly larger with a relatively
broader sterno-coracoidal process, except for ANWC BS3318 (juvenile),
which is similar in size. It differs from those of the other extant species
of Sula by being much larger (Figure 5).
Wing
The humerus of the Tasman Booby [8 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3321, BS3326 (juvenile), BS3329, BS3332, BS4298 (juvenile),
BS4299, and MV 1508061 differs from that of S. abbotti by being relatively
thicker with much larger proximal and distal ends and more distally located
attachments for M. latissimus dorsi. It differs from that of S. dactylatra
by being larger, except in juveniles. It differs from those of the other
extant species of Sula by being much larger (Figure 7).
The ulna of the Tasman Booby [8 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3322, BS3326 (juvenile), BS3329, BS3332, MV 150806,
150808 and 1641231 differs from those of S. abbotti, S. dactylatra and
S. nebouxii, which are similar in size, by being thicker. It differs from
those of other extant species of Sula by being much longer (Figure 8).
At the distal end of the ulna, the external condyle extends proximally,
relatively less in S. abborti, and relatively more in S. nebouxii and S.
variegata, than in S. sula, S. leucogaster, S. dactylatra and the Tasman
Booby.
The radius of the Tasman Booby [7 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3321, BS3326 (juvenile), BS3332, MV 150804, 150806 and
1508081 differs from that of S. abbotti, which is similar in length, by being
thicker and having a larger distal end. It differs from that of S. nebouxii,
which is similar in length, by the shaft being relatively thicker proximally
and relatively thinner distally. It differs from that of S. dactylatra, which
is similar in size, by the bicipital tubercle extending relatively less distally
and having a relatively larger muscle scar in the ulnar depression. It differs
from those of the other extant species of Sula by being much larger.

[another specialist]

The carpometacarpus of the Tasman Booby [5 specimens - ANWC
BS3318 (juvenile), BS3322, MV 150804, 150808 and 1641261 is similar
to or larger than that of S. dactylatra. Those of the other extant species
of Sula are smaller.
Pelvic girdle
The pelvis of the Tasman Booby [3 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3332 and MV 150802 (juvenile)] is similar in size to that
of S. dactylatra. Those of the other extant species of Sula are smaller.
Leg
The femur of the Tasman Booby [6 specimens - ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3326, BS3328 (juvenile), BS3337 (juvenile), MV 150806 and
1643311 is similar to or larger than that of S. dactylatra. Those of the
other extant species of Sula are smaller.
The tibiotarsus of the Tasman Booby [4 specimens ANWC BS3318
(juvenile), BS3326 (juvenile), MV 150802 and 1508061 differs from that
of S. dactylatra by being slightly to much longer, with relatively longer
bases to the inner cnemial crests and relatively shorter bases to the outer
cnemial crests. It differs from those of the other extant species of Sula
by being much larger.
The tarsometatarsus of the Tasman Booby [9 specimens - ANWC
BS3318 (juvenile), BS3326 (juvenile), BS3327, BS3336, MV 150801,
150806, 164124, 164137 and 1643341 differs from that of S. dactylatra by
being broader and slightly to much longer. It differs from those of the
other extant species of Sula by being much larger and by having, as in
S. dactylatra, a tubercle on the internal edge of the internal cotyla (Figures
9 and 10).
General
The bones of the extinct Tasman Booby of Lord Howe and Norfolk
Islands have the characteristics of Sula as distinct from those of Moms
as outlined above. In general proportions, shape and size, the bones of
the Tasman Booby resemble most those of Sula dactylatra from Lord Howe
and Norfolk Islands, but are more massive. S. dactylatra at these islands
is much larger than in the Atlantic Ocean and at low latitude colonies
in the Indian and Pacific Oceans. The bones of the Tasman Booby and
of S. dactylatra from Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands are also larger than
those of other species of Sula, except for the wing bones of S. abbotti,
which has a smaller body and shorter legs (cf. Bourne 1976, Nelson 1978).
Measurements of the bones of the Tasman Booby and S. dactylatra from
Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands are given in Tables 1-8.
Of the fossil species of Sula listed by Brodkorb (1963a), S. ronzoni
and S. arvernensis of the Oligocene of France are based on poorly preserved
pelves and their taxonomic status is debatable (cf. Harrison 1975, Olson
1985). The remaining fossil species, S. universitatis, S. pohli, S. willetti,
S. guano, S. phosphata and S. humeralis, are based on skeletal elements
that are smaller than those of S. dactylatra and are therefore also smaller
than those of the Tasman Booby (Bourne 1976, Brodkorb 1955, 1963b,
Howard 1958, Miller 1925, 1935, Miller & Bowman 1958).

DISCUSSION
On Norfolk Island the bones of Sda tctsmani nsp. were found in situ
with those of the kiore or Polynesian rat (Rams exulans) and below charcoal
with a radiocarbon date of about 800 years BP or 1200 AD (Meredith
et el. 1985). The rat was presumably introduced by the Polynesians , who
left stone artifacts on the island and introduced a plantain banana (Musa
sp.) (King MS and Laing 1915). The Polynesians may have directly or
indirectly caused the extinction of the Tasman Booby on Norfolk Island.
When Norfolk Island was discovered in 1774 (Hoare 1974) the only
booby recorded by Cook, and painted by George Forster, was the Masked
Booby (Sula dactylatra). King (MS) expressed annoyance that the Masked
Booby did not nest on the main island but on relatively inaccessible Philip
Island. He landed and settled near the location where the Tasman Booby
material was found and reported that the area was so densely covered
with scrub that a site had to be cleared to pitch his tents. The area, therefore,
was too densely wooded for ground-nesting by boobies.
The extracts from journals and letters of the First Fleet quoted by
Rabone (1959) make no mention of sulids at Lord Howe Island at the
time of its discovery (15 Feburary 1788) and at the time of the first landing
(13 March 1788) by Lieutenant Henry Lidgbird Ball and the crew of
the Supply. When the Supply returned from Sydney with other ships on
16 May 1788, however, the most numerous birds at the same landing site
on the sandy shores of the lagoon were "thousands of gannets", very large
and fat. According to Lieutenant John Watts of the Lady Penrhyn (Anon
1789), they were in prodigious number, the "females" all being on their
nests, which were simple hollows in the sand. Many "gannets" and their
eggs were collected for food, but apparently none as scientific specimens.
We have not located any drawings of them. It has been assumed that
the "gannets" were the Masked Booby, although Hindwood (1940) noted
that eggs in May was at variance with the present nesting time of S.
dactylatra at Lord Howe Island, where breeding occurs from September
to January, most eggs being laid in October (Hull 1910). At Philip Island
near Norfolk Island, eggs are laid from 5 July to 3 January, with a peak
in September (Hermes et al. 1986). The nests of S. dactylarra are relatively
far apart for sulids, some clumping in small groups of a few nests (Nelson
1978). The Australasian Gannet (Morus serrator) does nest in very dense
colonies, but it is smaller than the North Atlantic Gannet ( M. bassanus)
and its nesting season is similar to that of S. dactylatra, August to December
in New Zealand (Oliver 1955) and October to January in Australia (North
1912, Mathews & Iredale 1921). At Philip Island eggs are laid from 30
August to 1 Feburary (Hermes et al. 1986).
Thus, the dense nesting with a peak of egg-laying in May by a very
large fat "gannet" suggests a sulid other than Sula dactylarra and Moms
serrator. The observations by the homeward-bound members of the First
Fleet may have been the first, last and only recorded sightings of Sula
tasmani.

[another specialist]

thanks dysmorodrepanis for notifying us about this pdf file.

Lots of info

[Melanie]

Bird thought to be extinct found in the lab
London (IANS): A seabird thought to have been driven to extinction by hungry European sailors in the late 18th century has been rediscovered, in the laboratory. It turns out the 'extinct' species is actually a sub-species of a bird very much alive.

Tammy Steeves, Marie Hale and Richard Holdaway are part of a team of scientists from across New Zealand and Australia who have used an innovative approach to resolve the taxonomic status of the “extinct” Tasman booby (Sula tasmani).

It is the first study of its kind to report the rediscovery of an extinct bird using classical paleontological data combined with ancient and modern DNA data.

“Many re-discoveries of 'extinct' birds are the result of an intensive search in the field, but ours is a little different -- we rediscovered our bird in the laboratory,” said Steeves.

“What was once considered to be an extinct species, the Tasman booby, turns out be a subspecies of a living species, the masked booby (Sula dactylatra fullagari). And now these charismatic sea birds have a new name - Sula dactylatra tasmani.”

Masked boobies are large colonial sea birds that breed on oceanic islands throughout the tropics and subtropics. In addition to having longer wings than birds elsewhere, the masked boobies breeding on three remote island groups in the North Tasman Sea have sepia, not yellow, eyes.

Future research will explore how these long-winged, sepia-eyed birds came to be so different from their short-winged, yellow-eyed counterparts.

These findings have been recently published online in Biology Letters.

www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/008200908141040.htm

Tasman Booby rediscovered
13/08/2009 13:28:01


University researchers in Australia and Canterbury have rediscovered a seabird they thought had died out in the 18th Century.


A trans-Tasman team, including Dr Tammy Steeves, Dr Marie Hale and Professor Richard Holdaway, has found the Tasman Booby.


Dr Steeves says they had a hunch that the Tasman Booby is a subspecies of the living bird, the Masked Booby. She says after the bone matches were made, they had just one other match to make.


"Then we also thought we could go one step better and actually look at the DNA in those bones, as well from some blood from living birds - and what we found is the DNA in both are identical."


Dr Steeves says there are about 3,000 Tasman Boobies, living mainly on islands in the Tasman Sea.

www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=161565

[Melanie]

"Extinct" Booby Exposed -- Found "Masked," Using AliasMatt Kaplan
for National Geographic News

August 11, 2009
Disguises and aliases might seem like the stuff of spy movies, but real-world scientific sleuths have rediscovered an "extinct" bird living under a false name and wearing a mask.

The Tasman booby has had it rough. It started when humans learned that the booby was easy to catch and tasty to eat.


Native to small islands off Australia and New Zealand, the species was dealt its first near fatal blow around A.D. 1200, when Polynesian settlers on Norfolk Island (map) hunted it to the brink of extinction.

Yet the Tasman booby managed to survive in one small population on Lord Howe Island (map) for another 500 years.

Then trouble came again, in the form of hungry European sailors, who were thought to have wiped out every last Tasman booby—until now.

(Related: "'Extinct' Bird Seen, Eaten.")

Who Was That Masked Booby?

Researchers had long suspected that the "extinct" Tasman booby and the living masked booby of the North Tasman Sea were closely related. The birds have similar male and female body shapes and characteristically long wings, for starters.

But it was only when a group of naturalists, paleontologists, and geneticists pooled their expertise that these suspicions could be put to the test, said Tammy Steeves of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, who led the new study.

The researchers compared fossilized and modern bones and DNA from specimens identified as Tasman and masked boobies.

Physically, the fossil bones looked strikingly similar to their modern counterparts. More important, the DNA was a perfect match, Steeves said.

The Tasman booby, the study suggests, never actually went extinct.

The bird's been hanging out for the past few hundred years under the "assumed" name of the masked booby.

The double-naming came about, Steeves said, "because paleontologists and biologists in recent decades did not communicate."

The fossil experts unknowingly compared ancient bones of female Tasman boobies to those of male "masked boobies." Unaware that Tasman booby females are markedly bigger than males, the paleontologists assumed they were looking at two species.

Rare Treat

Before the study, Steeves had expected the obviously similar species would be exposed as close evolutionary cousins.

"Imagine my surprise when we found that they were identical!" she said. "It's a rare treat to uncover such a definitive result.

"Many rediscoveries of 'extinct' birds are the result of an intensive search in the field, but ours is a little different," Steeves added. "We are the first to rediscover a bird in the laboratory."

Findings to be published tomorrow in the journal Biology Letters.

news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/08/090811-extinct-booby-masked.html

[Melanie]

Merging ancient and modern DNA: extinct seabird taxon rediscovered in the North Tasman Sea
Tammy E. Steeves1,*, Richard N. Holdaway1,2, Marie L. Hale1, Emma McLay3, Ian A. W. McAllan4, Margaret Christian5, Mark E. Hauber6,7 and Michael Bunce3
+Author Affiliations

1School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
2Palaecol Research Ltd, PO Box 16569, Christchurch, New Zealand
3School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University, South Street, Perth, Western Australia 6150, Australia
446 Yeramba Street, Turramurra, New South Wales 2074, Australia
5PO Box 999, Norfolk Island 2899, South Pacific
6School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
7Department of Psychology, Hunter College, City University of New York, NY 10065, USA
* Author for correspondence ([e-mail]).
Abstract
Ancient DNA has revolutionized the way in which evolutionary biologists research both extinct and extant taxa, from the inference of evolutionary history to the resolution of taxonomy. Here, we present, to our knowledge, the first study to report the rediscovery of an ‘extinct’ avian taxon, the Tasman booby (Sula tasmani), using classical palaeontological data combined with ancient and modern DNA data. Contrary to earlier work, we show an overlap in size between fossil and modern birds in the North Tasman Sea (classified currently as S. tasmani and Sula dactylatra fullagari, respectively). In addition, we show that Holocene fossil birds have mitochondrial control region sequences that are identical to those found in modern birds. These results indicate that the Tasman booby is not an extinct taxon: S. dactylatra fullagari O'Brien & Davies, 1990 is therefore a junior synonym of Sula tasmani van Tets, Meredith, Fullagar & Davidson, 1988 and all North Tasman Sea boobies should be known as S. d. tasmani. In addition to reporting the rediscovery of an extinct avian taxon, our study highlights the need for researchers to be cognizant of multidisciplinary approaches to understanding taxonomy and past biodiversity.

rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/07/rsbl.2009.0478.abstract?sid=f65cc0ae-7f9d-4044-aae7-7be744b2968a

[Melanie]

Merging ancient and
modern DNA: extinct
seabird taxon rediscovered
in the North Tasman Sea
Tammy E. Steeves1,*, Richard N. Holdaway1,2,
Marie L. Hale1, Emma McLay3, Ian A. W. McAllan4,
Margaret Christian5, Mark E. Hauber6,7
and Michael Bunce3
1School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury,
Private Bag 4800, Christchurch 8140, New Zealand
2Palaecol Research Ltd, PO Box 16569, Christchurch, New Zealand
3School of Biological Sciences and Biotechnology, Murdoch University,
South Street, Perth, Western Australia 6150, Australia
446 Yeramba Street, Turramurra, New South Wales 2074, Australia
5PO Box 999, Norfolk Island 2899, South Pacific
6School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland,
Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand
7Department of Psychology, Hunter College, City University
of New York, NY 10065, USA
*Author for correspondence ([e-mail]).
Ancient DNA has revolutionized the way in which
evolutionary biologists research both extinct and
extant taxa, from the inference of evolutionary
history to the resolution of taxonomy. Here, we
present, to our knowledge, the first study to
report the rediscovery of an ‘extinct’ avian
taxon, the Tasman booby (Sula tasmani), using
classical palaeontological data combined with
ancient and modern DNA data. Contrary to earlier
work, we show an overlap in size between
fossil and modern birds in the North Tasman
Sea (classified currently as S. tasmani and Sula
dactylatra fullagari, respectively). In addition,
we show that Holocene fossil birds have
mitochondrial control region sequences that are
identical to those found in modern birds. These
results indicate that the Tasman booby is not an
extinct taxon: S. dactylatra fullagari O’Brien &
Davies, 1990 is therefore a junior synonym of
Sula tasmani van Tets, Meredith, Fullagar &
Davidson, 1988 and all North Tasman Sea boobies
should be known as S. d. tasmani. In addition to
reporting the rediscovery of an extinct avian
taxon, our study highlights the need for researchers
to be cognizant ofmultidisciplinary approaches
to understanding taxonomy and past biodiversity.
Keywords: Sula tasmani; Sula dactylatra fullagari;
masked booby; ancient DNA; mitochondrial DNA;
phylogeography
1. INTRODUCTION
Once the realm of palaeontologists, interpretation of the
extensive Quaternary avian fossil record has become a
multidisciplinary pursuit. Classical palaeontological
data augmented by ancient DNA are often used to
assess the taxonomic status of extinct taxa (e.g. moa; Bunce et al. 2003; Huynen et al. 2003). When these
data are further augmented by modern DNA, they
may also be used to describe previously unrecognized
extinct lineages (e.g. geese; Paxinos et al. 2002) or
even extinct species (e.g. penguins; Boessenkool et al.
2009). Here, we combine classical palaeontological
data with ancient and modern DNA data to assess the
taxonomic status of two seabird taxa, one of which
was thought to have become extinct during the late
eighteenth century (van Tets et al. 1988).
Masked boobies (Sula dactylatra) are large colonial
seabirds that breed on oceanic islands throughout the
tropics and subtropics, and exhibit extensive morphological
variation. As many as six subspecies have been
proposed based largely on geographical variation in
bare-part coloration (Nelson 1978; O’Brien & Davies
1990). The southernmost populations, currently
referred to as Sula dactylatra fullagari, breed on the
Lord Howe, Norfolk and Kermadec Island groups in
the North Tasman Sea, and comprise fewer than 1500
breeding pairs (Garnett & Crowley 2000; Taylor 2000;
Priddel et al. 2005). In addition to having longer wings
than masked boobies elsewhere, the North Tasman
Sea birds have sepia, not yellow, irides (O’Brien &
Davies 1990; but see Shaughnessy 1993; figure 1a).
An extinct congeneric sulid species, the Tasman booby
(Sula tasmani), has also been described from Holocene
fossil deposits on Norfolk and Lord Howe Islands (van
Tets et al. 1988). Whereas the extinction of the
Tasman booby on Norfolk Island was attributed to Polynesian
colonization before AD 1200, the ultimate
demise of the species was attributed to hungry European
sailors on Lord Howe Island during the late eighteenth
century (van Tets et al. 1988). However, preliminary
analysis of additional fossil material collected in the
1980s and in 1995 has suggested the fossils of ‘extinct’
S. tasmani, described by van Tets et al. (1988), might
instead be from individuals of the upper size range of
extant S. dactylatra (Holdaway & Anderson 2001).
To clarify the taxonomic status of North Tasman
Sea boobies, we used a multidisciplinary, two-stage
approach: (i) we compared standard morphometric
measurements of new fossil material collected from
Norfolk Island to new modern specimens collected in
the North Tasman Sea, and (ii) we used ancient and
modern DNA methods to compare mitochondrial control
region sequences from the Norfolk Island fossils to
those in a global sample of modern birds.
2. MATERIAL AND METHODS
(a) Sample collection
Five adult humeri from modern birds, collected at Curtis and
Macauley Islands (Kermadec Island Group) and Nepean Island
(Norfolk Island Group), were borrowed from Te Papa Tongarewa
(accession nos. S24156, S24383, S24384, S27613, S27614). Five
adult right humeri and one juvenile right radius were sampled from
fossil deposits at Cemetery Bay, Norfolk Island, held by R.N.H.
(figure 1b). A total of 55 blood samples (25 new and 30 from Steeves
et al. (2005b)) were collected from adults or juveniles at three
modern colonies in the North Tasman Sea (figure 2).
(b) Morphometric analysis
Modern and fossil humeri were measured to +0.1 mm by Vernier
calipers or to +0.5 mm by steel rule. Sample sizes were too small
to warrant comparative statistical analysis.
(c) Genetic analysis
Modern DNA extraction and polymerase chain reaction (PCR)
amplification of a 500 bp fragment of the mitochondrial control region were performed at the University of Canterbury using the protocols
outlined in Steeves et al. (2005a). Ancient DNA was extracted
in a dedicated clean room at Murdoch University using strict ancient
DNA guidelines as described in Allentoft et al. (2009). Partial or
complete amplification of the 500 bp mitochondrial control region
fragment described above was achieved using primer pairs that
amplified three overlapping fragments, ranging in size from 170 to
179 bp (see table S1 in the electronic supplementary material),
using the reaction conditions described in Steeves et al. (2005a).
PCR products were sequenced in both directions using BIGDYE
v. 3.1 (Applied Biosystems) and visualized using either a 3100 Genetic
Analyser or a 3730 DNA Analyser (Applied Biosystems). Sequences
were aligned manually using Geneious (Biomatters Limited) and
variable sites were confirmed by visual inspection of the chromatograms.
Relationships among modern and ancient mitochondrial
control region sequences were inferred by constructing statistical
parsimony networks using TCS v. 1.21 (Clement et al. 2000).
3. RESULTS
(a) Morphometric data
Contrary to van Tets et al. (1988), our comparison of
new skeletal material revealed a size overlap between
modern and fossil specimens for all standard humerus
measurements (table 1).
(b) Genetic data
Among the 55 modern samples, we found 14
mitochondrial control region haplotypes defined by
23 variable sites (see table S2 in the electronic
supplementary material). The majority of haplotypes
were unique to a single colony in the North Tasman
Sea with the following exceptions: three haplotypes
were shared among all three colonies and one haplotype
was shared between Lord Howe Island and the
Norfolk Island Group (figure 2). No haplotypes were
shared between the three colonies in the North
Tasman Sea and colonies elsewhere in the Indo-
Pacific. Two statistical parsimony networks were
generated by TCS for the modern control region
haplotypes (99% parsimony probability ¼ 4 steps).
Both networks contained haplotypes from all three
North Tasman Sea colonies (figure 2).
Of the six fossil samples, we achieved complete
amplification of the mitochondrial control region for
one specimen (500 bp fragment, domain I and II;
RVST6) and partial amplification for two additional
specimens (170 bp fragment, domain I only; RVST1,
RVST5). Subsequent sequence analyses revealed that
RVST6 was identical to haplotype Sd_41, and that
RVST1 and RVST5 were identical to the 50 end of haplotype
Sd_35, both of which were found in modern
birds at all three North Tasman Sea colonies (figure 2).
4. DISCUSSION
Despite limited sampling, we describe an overlap in
skeletal size between fossil and modern boobies in the
North Tasman Sea and show that fossil birds have mitochondrial
control region sequences that are identical to
those found in modern North Tasman Sea birds. In
agreement with previous studies (Steeves et al. 2005b),
we also show that modern birds from all three colonies
in the North Tasman Sea are genetically isolated from
colonies elsewhere in the Indo-Pacific. Because Indo-
Pacific masked boobies exhibit strong genetic structure
(most haplotypes are unique to a single colony; Steeves
et al. 2005b; this study), haplotype sharing between fossil
and modern birds is unlikely to be owing to incomplete
lineage sorting. These combined results indicate that
extinct S. tasmani and extant S. d. fullagari are referable
to the same taxon. The senior available name for
masked boobies in the North Tasman Sea is Sula
tasmani van Tets, Meredith, Fullagar & Davidson,
1988. We accept this taxon at the subspecific level as
S. d. tasmani with the same authorship. In addition to
reporting the rediscovery of an ‘extinct’ seabird taxon,
our study highlights the need for a multidisciplinary
approach when classifying new taxa.
Despite ample evidence for reversed sexual size
dimorphism in modern masked boobies (Nelson
1978), when describing S. tasmani, van Tets et al.
(1988) failed to acknowledge a potential explanation
for the minimal size overlap between the fossil and
modern birds: the fossil specimens were female and
the modern specimens were male. Similarly, although
O’Brien & Davies (1990) referenced van Tets et al.
(1988) when they described S. d. fullagari as a new
subspecies of masked booby in the North Tasman
Sea with longer wings than birds elsewhere in the
Indo-Pacific, they did not mention the long wings
that characterized the extinct Tasman booby.
O’Brien & Davies (1990) presented convincing morphological
and ecological evidence for the taxonomic distinctiveness of modern masked boobies in the North
Tasman Sea (but see Shaughnessy 1993); despite overlapping
non-breeding distributions in the Coral Sea,
the breeding distribution of the long-winged, sepia-eyed
S. d. tasmani, does not overlap with that of the shortwinged,
yellow-eyed S. d. personata. Although iris
colour is rarely used as a sole taxonomic character,
recent studies indicate that sepia-eyed (Thalassarche melanophris) and honey-eyed (Thalassarche impavida)
black-browed albatrosses are indeed genetically distinct
(Robertson & Nunn 1998; Burg & Croxall 2001). Similarly,
recent genetic evidence for masked boobies in the
North Tasman Sea (Steeves et al. 2005b; this study)
suggests S. d. tasmani may be an incipient species. If
future studies indicate that S. d. tasmani is indeed on
an independent evolutionary trajectory, then elevation
of its conservation status from vulnerable to endangered
may be warranted (Garnett & Crowley 2000; Taylor
2000). Establishing a robust taxonomic framework for
species at risk, such as masked boobies, is critical. This
study adds to the growing body of literature (reviewed
in Leonard 2008) that has benefited from the integration
of ancient DNA data with more conventional approaches
to elucidate questions involving taxonomy, demography
and conservation.
Sampling was conducted according to permit guidelines
issued by the Department of Conservation (permit AK-
22658-FAU) and Australian National Parks (permit issued
18 May 2007).
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of P. O’Neill for
providing tissue samples from Lord Howe Island. We thank
D. Bigg, P. Coyne and H. McCoy for logistical support in
the Norfolk Island Group and K. Baird, E. Favell,
S. Ismar, Department of Conservation staff and the crew of
RV Tangaroa for logistical support in the Kermadecs. We
also thank A. Tennyson/Te Papa Tongarewa for access to
modern skeletal material, F. Wilson for laboratory
assistance and M. Walters for graphics support. We are
grateful for funding support from the University of
Canterbury (M.L.H.), New Zealand Department of
Conservation (R.N.H.) and the Australian Research
Council DP0771971 (M.B.).
Allentoft, M. E., Schuster, S. C., Holdaway, R. N., Hale, M.
L., McLay, E., Oskam, C., Gilbert, M. T. P., Spencer, P.,
Willerslev, E. & Bunce, M. 2009 Identification of
microsatellites from an extinct moa species using
high-throughput (454) sequence data. BioTechniques 46,
195–200. (doi:10.2144/000113086)
Boessenkool, S., Austin, J. J., Worthy, T. H., Scofield, P.,
Cooper, A., Seddon, P. J. & Waters, J. M. 2009 Relict
or colonizer? Extinction and range expansion of penguins
in southern New Zealand. Proc. R. Soc. B 276, 815–821.
(doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1246)
Bunce, M., Worthy, T. H., Ford, T., Hoppitt, W., Willerslev,
E., Drummond, A. & Cooper, A. 2003 Extreme reversed
sexual size dimorphism in the extinct New Zealand moa
Dinornis. Nature 425, 172–175. (doi:10.1038/
nature01871)
Burg, T. M. & Croxall, J. P. 2001 Global relationships
amongst black-browed and grey-headed albatrosses:
analysis of population structure using mitochondrial
DNA and microsatellites. Mol. Ecol. 10, 2647–2660.
(doi:10.1046/j.0962-1083.2001.01392.x)
Clement, M., Posada, D. & Crandall, K. 2000 TCS: a computer
program to estimate gene genealogies. Mol. Ecol. 9,
1657–1660. (doi:10.1046/j.1365-294x.2000.01020.x)
Garnett, S. T. & Crowley, G. M. 2000 The action plan for
Australian birds 2000. Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth
of Australia.
Holdaway, R. N. & Anderson, A. 2001 Avifauna from the
Emily Bay Settlement Site, Norfolk Island: a preliminary
account. Rec. Aust. Mus. Suppl. 27, 85–100.
Huynen, L., Millar, C. D., Scofield, R. P. & Lambert, D. M.
2003 Nuclear DNA sequences detect species limits in
ancient moa. Nature 425, 175–178. (doi:10.1038/
nature01838)
Leonard, J. A. 2008 Ancient DNA applications for wildlife
conservation. Mol. Ecol. 17, 4186–4196. (doi:10.1111/j.
1365-294X.2008.03891.x)
Nelson, J. B. 1978 The Sulidae. Oxford, UK: Oxford
University Press.
O’Brien, R. M. & Davies, J. 1990 A new subspecies of
masked booby, Sula dactylatra from Lord Howe, Norfolk
and Kermadec Islands. Mar. Ornithol. 18, 1–7.
Paxinos, E. E., James, H. F., Olson, S. L., Sorenson, M. D. &
Fleischer, R. C. 2002. MtDNA from fossils reveals a
radiation of Hawaiian geese recently derived from
the Canada goose (Branta canadensis). Proc. Natl
Acad. Sci. USA 99, 1399–1404. (doi:10.1073/pnas.
032166399)
Priddel, D., Hutton, I., Olson, S. & Wheeler, R. 2005
Breeding biology of masked boobies (Sula dactylatra
tasmani) on Lord Howe Island, Australia. Emu 105,
105–113. (doi:10.1071/MU04028)
Robertson, C. & Nunn, G. 1998 Towards a new taxonomy
for albatrosses. In Albatross biology and conservation (eds
G. Robertson & R. Gales), pp. 13–19. Chipping
Norton, UK: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Shaughnessy, P. D. 1993 Commentary on a statistical
oversight used to describe a masked booby subspecies.
Mar. Ornithol. 21, 69–70.
Steeves, T. E., Anderson, D. J. & Friesen, V. L. 2005a
The Isthmus of Panama: a major physical barrier to
gene flow in a highly mobile tropical seabird. J. Evol.
Biol. 18, 1000–1008. (doi:10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.
00906.x)
Steeves, T. E., Anderson, D. J. & Friesen, V. L. 2005b A role
for nonphysical barriers to gene flow in the diversification
of a highly vagile seabird, the masked booby (Sula
dactylatra). Mol. Ecol. 14, 3877–3887. (doi:10.1111/j.
1365-294X.2005.02713.x)
Taylor, G. A. 2000 Action plan for seabird conservation in New
Zealand. Threatened Species Occasional Publication
No. 16. Wellington, New Zealand: Department of
Conservation.
van Tets, G. F., Meredith, C. W., Fullagar, P. J. & Davidson,
P. M. 1988 Osteological differences between Sula and
Morus, and a description of an extinct new species of
Sula from Lord Howe and Norfolk Islands, Tasman Sea.
Notornis 35, 35–57.





rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2009/08/07/rsbl.2009.0478.abstract?sid=f65cc0ae-7f9d-4044-aae7-7be744b2968a

People who are interested in the full paper should drop me a note.

[surroundx]

This thread should be moved to the rediscovered board.

[Melanie]

Jul 7, 2015 13:55:09 GMT surroundx said:

This thread should be moved to the rediscovered board.

It depends on what do you understand under the term rediscovery. A genetic research revealed that S. dactylatra fullagari (described as new subspecies in 1990) is identical with S. tasmani but therefor that S. tasmani is the older name it retains.

[surroundx]

Jul 7, 2015 15:18:03 GMT Melanie said:

Jul 7, 2015 13:55:09 GMT surroundx said:

This thread should be moved to the rediscovered board.

It depends on what do you understand under the term rediscovery. A genetic research revealed that S. dactylatra fullagari (described as new subspecies in 1990) is identical with S. tasmani but therefor that S. tasmani is the older name it retains.

S. tasmani was thought to be extinct. It turns out that it still exists, so it was rediscovered. Same thing happened with the Las Vegas leopard frog (Lithobates fisheri).

[Melanie]

Recently described form fullagari is synonymous with tasmani; latter name was previously applied to a form mistakenly believed extinct (Tasman Booby, S. tasmani), which has now been reclassified on basis of morphological and genetic data as a race of present species.

From HBW alive

Should be renamed into S. dactylatra tasmani as it is not a full species.