INTRODUCTION
Australia and southern Africa are ecologically comparable.
Both landmasses possess a range of climates, from mediterranean and adjacent arid to summer-rainfall tropical. Furthermore, in both cases the substrates tend to be nutrient-poor, owing to profound weathering on a largely flat topography.
In both Australia and southern Africa, there are many and various plants pollinated mainly by birds. On both landmasses, the flowers/inflorescences in question tend to be bright-hued, bearing copious nectar deep within a structure that makes it adaptive for nectarivorous animals to have long mouthparts, including long, curved beaks in the case of birds.
It is widely believed that certain Meliphagidae in Australia and certain Nectariniidae in southern Africa show evolutionary convergence, as part of an adaptive syndrome of mutualism with ornithophilous plants (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithophily).
However, closer scrutiny undermines this 'textbook' interpretation.
The fallacy is evident not only because most meliphagids differ obviously from nectariniids in having relatively large bodies and relatively short beaks. Even when the closest intercontinental counterparts are carefully compared, noteworthy disparities emerge.
Meliphagids, which are broadly associated with ornithophily, have undergone an extreme evolutionary radiation in Australasia. However, my main finding is that it is the differences between meliphagids and nectariniids that are more significant than the similarities.
NON-CONVERGENT RESULTS IN THE INTERCONTINENTAL COMPARISON
The main intercontinental differences are as follows.
Firstly, the tongues are remarkably different.
In meliphagids, the tongue is fairly simple except for its length and its brush-like tip (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fimbriated and https://www.perplexity.ai/search/does-the-morphology-of-the-ton-dWPr2lh8Qi.prkVX4Uv7Jg and https://www.perplexity.ai/search/can-the-tongue-of-any-nectarin-M7OaIr9IR86NcZp.ZVFZjA).
By contrast, in nectariniids the tongue differs from all other nectarivorous birds (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.14.594085v1.full.pdf). This is because it operates by means of suction, not capillarity, or pressure exerted by the closure of the beak.
In other words, the tongue of nectariniids serves as a drinking straw (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_straw), the main complication being the distal bifurcation of the straw.
Secondly, the syndromes of plumage and colouration differ, as follows:
Thirdly, no meliphagid builds a 'dome' nest. By contrast, all nectariniids build nests protected and hidden by a roofs. The closest convergence is achieved by e.g. Lichmera indistincta, the nest of which is pouch-like - but still open at the top.
Fourthly, meliphagids tend to eat honeydew/lerp /manna/extrafloral nectar as well as floral nectar (https://www.publish.csiro.au/mu/pdf/mu9800213#:~:text=Manna%2C%20honeydew%20and%20lerp%20have,of%20these%20resources%20and%20nectar. and https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01584197.1980.11799277).
By contrast, nectariniids have not been recorded eating these alternative sugary exudates. The only exception of which I am aware is the ostensible eating of the sap of Elaeis guineensis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elaeis_guineensis) by Cinnyris coccinigastrus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145182-Cinnyris-coccinigastrus), which may be anthropogenic.
CLOSEST INTERCONTINENTAL COUNTERPARTS
Please note: in all cases the difference remains that
- the tongue of meliphagids is fimbriate, whereas that of nectariniids is tubular, and
- the nest of meliphagids is open at the top, whereas that of nectariniids is sealed at the top.
(My values for body length and body mass refer to adult females.)
The meliphagid Sugomel nigrum (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/367631-Sugomel-nigrum, body length 11 cm, body mass 9.5 g) is fairly closely matched with the nectariniid Cinnyris fuscus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145189-Cinnyris-fuscus and https://thebdi.org/2024/06/04/dusky-sunbird-cinnyris-fuscus/, body length 10 cm, body mass ?8 g).
In both cases,
- the plumage of males is dull-hued (dark and pale), with iridescence slight even in the nectariniid (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/156621773),
- the colouration differs between the sexes,
- the habitat is the semi-arid interior of the landmass, where the vegetation is sparse, and
- the populations tend to be nomadic.
Sugomel nigrum is associated mainly with Myoporaceae (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?subview=map&taxon_id=136365&view=species). The nectariniid is instead associated mainly with Asphodelaceae (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?place_id=113055&subview=map&taxon_id=71400&view=species and https://www.naturepl.com/stock-photo-dusky-sunbird-cinnyris-fuscus-feeding-on-the-nectar-of-quiver-tree-nature-image01596050.html and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/224213747 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/55666885).
The similarity in colouration is greatest when males of the nectariniid are in non-breeding plumage (https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/98889-failure-of-evolutionary-convergence-in-nectarivorous-birds-between-australia-meliphagidae-and-southern-africa-nectariniidae#activity_comment_68c95b95-0846-4b9d-85ab-c2631edd7749).
However, the following differences remain:
- the meliphagid is somewhat larger-bodied than the nectariniid, with a proportionately smaller head and shorter beak,
- the meliphagid qualifies, in males, as pied/piebald (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/piebald), which is not quite emulated by C. fuscus (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/229807463), let alone any other nectariniid,
- the meliphagid has frequently been recorded eating ash, which as far as I know has never been recorded in any nectariniid,
- the nectariniid remains categorically more iridescent (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/47327328 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/152404812 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/122277798 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/103055723 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/74663407 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/47327356 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/27908216) than any meliphagid, and
- males of the nectariniid - even in non-breeding plumage - retains bright-hued pectoral tufts (https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/17509372 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/16648040 and https://www.inaturalist.org/observations/6591102), absent from meliphagids.
The meliphagid Acanthorhynchus superciliosus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12237-Acanthorhynchus-superciliosus, female length 14 cm, body mass 9 g) is somewhat similar to the nectariniid Anthobaphes violacea (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145130-Anthobaphes-violacea, female length 12 cm, body mass ?7-8 g).
In both cases,
- the colouration differs between the sexes,
- the beak is proportionately fairly long,
- there is a particular coevolutionary (mutualistic) association with extremely diverse floras (e.g. Proteaceae) in sclerophyllous, fire-prone vegetation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kwongan and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fynbos) on nutrient-poor, sandy substrates under mediterranean climates, and
- clutch-size, normally two in the relevant meliphagids and nectariniids alike, is often only one in both A. supercilious and A. violacea.
However, differences remains in
- body size, with the meliphagid somewhat the larger (additionally verified by the fact that egg sizes differ, viz. 18 X 13 mm in the meliphagid, vs 16.5 X 12.4 mm in the nectariniid),
- aerial acrobatics, with the meliphagid the more powerful and rapid flier, and
- colouration, with conspicuously pale-tipped tail (in flight) only in the Australian species, and iridescence only in the southern African species.
Myzomela sanguinolenta (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12443-Myzomela-sanguinolenta, body length 10 cm, body mass 8 g) is fairly similar to Hedydipna collaris (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145122-Hedydipna-collaris, body length 10 cm, body mass 8 g).
The meliphagid actually exceeds the nectariniid in sexually dimorphism in colouration.
Furthermore, both spp.
- are equally small-bodied, with M. sanguinolenta being the smallest-bodied and brightest-hued (in the case of males, which qualify as glossy albeit not iridescent) of all meliphagids (other than Ephthianura),
- have short beaks,
- are insectivorous as much as nectarivorous,
- depend on dense forests, and
- reach nearly to the southern extreme of the mainland, where rain falls year-round.
However,
The intercontinental difference in the nests - in size as well as shape - is illustrated in:
The meliphagid Myzomela obscura (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/12376-Myzomela-obscura, body length 13 cm, body mass ? g) is a counterpart for the nectarinid Cyanomitra olivacea (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145136-Cyanomitra-olivacea, body length 13 cm, body mass 9 g).
Both forms
- lack sexual dimorphism in colouration,
- lack iridescence, even in males while breeding,
- are remarkably dull-coloured, and
- occur in wildfire-free, dense forest on the northeastern coastal strips of the landmasses.
However,
Finally:
Cinnyris frenatus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/1504995-Cinnyris-frenatus, body length 10 cm, body mass ?8 g) of tropical northeasternmost Australia is extremely similar to Cinnyris venustus (https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/145188-Cinnyris-venustus, body length 10 cm, body mass 7 g) of northeasternmost southern Africa.
Both spp. are equatorial to tropical. The colouration is similar, including the sexual difference. (Is the Australian species the less sexually dimorphic in colouration?)
This, the closest matching of all, does not represent much evolutionary convergence. This is because
- the intercontinental counterparts belong to a single, exceptionally widespread and speciose (total 63 spp.) genus, and
- the main convergence is in body size within the genus (relative to e.g. Cinnyris coccinigastrus, which may have double this body mass, based on body length of 14 cm).
DISCUSSION
Among meliphagids, the genus most closely approaching iridescence is Myzomela. However, the beak in Myzomela is relatively short, reflecting a relatively generalised diet, lacking any ornithophilous specialisation.
https://sora.unm.edu/sites/default/files/journals/condor/v073n04/p0485-p0486.pdf https://www.inaturalist.org/taxa/979744-Kurochkinegramma-hypogrammicum
In general, the norm in meliphagids is relatively large-bodied and short-beaked, whereas the norm in nectariniids is small-bodied and long-beaked.
However, the intercontinental differences pointed out here cannot be explained by means of phylogenetic constraints and the geographical isolation of Australia.
This is partly because:
Meliphagids have not reached southern Africa, but the converse does not apply. Nectariniids, although originating in Africa/Asia, have in fact reached Australasia - where they have failed to undergo evolutionary radiation.
Further investigation is warranted of the possible difference between meliphagids and nectariniids in predation on relatively large and venomous spiders. My impression from the literature is that nectariniids are the family more resembling 'arachnophages', in the sense that they use their long beaks not only to probe flowers, but also to kill spiders safely (https://www.inaturalist.org/posts/98889-failure-of-evolutionary-convergence-in-nectarivorous-birds-between-australia-meliphagidae-and-southern-africa-nectariniidae#activity_comment_0590a394-7178-4d76-bec2-11bc68b0e569).
