English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In their recent article, Dussex et al. (2018) draw attention to some current issues in New Zealand avian systematics, and particularly the difficulties that can potentially arise in cases where molecular and morphological data prove difficult to reconcile. These researchers call for integrative approaches to avian systematics, to overcome the limitations of singlemethod studies, and we wholeheartedly agree with this common-sense view. Additionally, while taxonomic studies at shallow phylogenetic levels may struggle to capture dynamic evolutionary processes, multiple forms of concordant data can provide a strong basis for recognising and conserving recently-evolved biological diversity. Given Dussex et al.’s (2018) plea for avian taxonomy to be grounded in multiple sources of non-conflicting data, we were surprised to read their criticism of a recent study that used precisely the type of integrative approach that these authors seem to advocate. Specifically, Dussex et al. (2018) take issue with Rawlence et al.’s (2017) recent recognition of

The importance of recognising and conserving biological diversity: a reply to Dussex et al. (2018)