Phylogeny of the genus Agapornis based on existing molecular evidence. The species with the red line is currently unplaced in the phylogeny, but does belong to this genus.

Actually, swinderniana is unplaced in the molecular phylogeny only, and in any case attaching it basal is wrong, wrong wrong (unsampled species are either attached to the tree in the place inferred from other data, or not attached at all)!

With swinderniana parapatric to pullarius, cana (and not taranta) being resolved as the most basal species, the "eyering" group being the most advanced clade, and the closest living relatives occurring from India to the Wallacea, it is as good as certain that swinderniana either is part of the pullarius-taranta superspecies, or forms a polytomy with it, or is immediately basal to it. That what the image currently suggests to the novice reader requires either Darwin to be utterly wrong or teleportation to work. Neither is the case AFAIK. So the image needs updating. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)