Not a fact anymore

Ostriches, emus, kiwis and other ratites inherited flightlessness from one flightless common ancestor.

What we know now

The major ratite lineages are best explained by repeated losses of flight from flying ancestors. Genetic family trees place flying tinamous among these birds and link extinct New Zealand moa to tinamous, rather than to kiwis.

Why it changed

A 2008 comparison of multiple nuclear genes placed flying tinamous inside the traditional ratite group. Later studies using ancient DNA from moa and elephant birds reinforced repeated losses of flight and dispersal by flying ancestors.

Status
Superseded
Category
Evolution
Accepted for
Not quantified
Accepted approximately
Late 20th century–2000s
Changed approximately
2008–2014

Ostriches, emus, rheas and kiwis share conspicuous features associated with life on the ground. For much of the late twentieth century, a leading explanation traced them to a single flightless ancestor. The breakup of the southern supercontinent Gondwana seemed to explain why their descendants lived on widely separated landmasses.

DNA complicated that tidy story.

A 2008 study compared 20 nuclear genes and placed tinamous, which can fly, within the traditional ratite group. Later work including extinct moa found that these New Zealand giants were especially close to South American tinamous. In 2014, ancient DNA linked Madagascar’s elephant birds to New Zealand’s kiwi.

These relationships support a different reconstruction: flying ancestors could disperse, and separate lineages later lost flight. Similar body plans need not all have been inherited from one already-flightless ancestor.

The birds still share common ancestry. What changed was where flightlessness arose within their family tree and how geography helped shape it. Researchers continue to refine the number and timing of losses. Regaining flight is a logical alternative for some tree arrangements, but repeated loss fits the broader evidence better.

Evidence

Sources and what they establish

Previous belief

Primary research

Current evidence

Related entries

Or go somewhere else: