Big Bird Relationships Revision

DNA studies have led to a major revision in the ordering of relationships among the world's bird species, published in the journal Science. Cynthia Graber reports.

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

For the last five years, researchers have been analyzing bird DNA. That effort has now completely altered our understanding of which bird species really do flock together in evolutionary history. The overall project is called Assembling the Tree of Life, with the avian part known as Early Bird. The new relationships appear in the June 27th issue of the journal Science.   

It turns out much of what we thought about how bird species were related to one another was just wrong. For example, scientists thought that birds that live on water, like flamingos, evolved from a separate waterbird group. But flamingoes took to the water after speciating. And it might make sense to think that birds with similar lifestyles, like falcons and eagles, were related. Nope. Instead, falcons are more closely related to parrots.

Rearchers found other surprising relatives—colorful hummingbirds that flit about when the sun shines descended from drab, nocturnal nightjars. Get ready for Latin species names to change. And textbooks and field guides will have to be revised to correct former assumptions about relationships. The 82 million American birdwatchers will certainly go cookoo.

—Cynthia Graber

60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe