Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T05:33:14.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

2 - On the arbitrary identification of real species

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2012

Jody Hey
Affiliation:
Department of Genetics, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
Roger Butlin
Affiliation:
University of Sheffield
Jon Bridle
Affiliation:
University of Bristol
Dolph Schluter
Affiliation:
University of British Columbia, Vancouver
Get access

Summary

Introduction

The detection of a new species is the result of a decision-making process, one that has traditionally and primarily been based upon the discovery of distinguishing characters (Cronquist 1978; Mayr 1982; Winston 1999; Sites & Marshall 2004). This process, called diagnosis, is acutely important as it necessarily lies at the crux of the discovery of biodiversity, including the identification of conservation units. With the rise of quantitative phylogenetic methods, and the increasing accessibility of molecular data, numerous methods for diagnosis have been proposed in recent years (Sites & Marshall 2004).

For many situations the identification of a new species does not particularly require quantitative methodology. These are the cases where the organisms of the putative new species are conspicuously divergent from all known species and, thus, where the new species is identified as a sister taxon to previously identified groups. But increasingly, as more new species are described and as more species are the subject of additional investigation, the questions of diagnosis arise within previously described species, wherein patterns of differentiation among populations of the same species must be interpreted in taxonomic terms. In short: how do we decide when a closer look at one taxonomic species actually reveals the presence of more than one species?

A similar question arises in conservation contexts: do the data from one species (or one conservation unit) actually reveal the presence of multiple units, each of which merit recognition and possibly protection?

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baum, D. A. and Shaw, K. L. (1995) Genealogical perspectives on the species problem. In: Experimental and Molecular Approaches to Plant Biosystematics (ed. Hock, P. C. and Stevenson, A. G.), pp. 289–303. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis.Google Scholar
Bull, V., Beltran, M., Jiggins, C. D., et al. (2006) Polyphyly and gene flow between non-sibling Heliconius species. BMC Biology 4, 11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cronquist, A. (1978) Once again, what is a species? In: Biosystematics in Agriculture (ed. Romberger, J. A.), pp. 3–20. Allanheld & Osmun, Montclair, NJ.Google Scholar
Darwin, C. (1859) On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Murray, London.Google Scholar
Davis, J. I. and Nixon, K. C. (1992) Populations, genetic variation, and the delimitation of phylogenetic species. Systematic Biology 41, 421–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSalle, R. and Amato, G. (2004) The expansion of conservation genetics. Nature Reviews Genetics 5, 702–712.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
DeSalle, R., Egan, M. and Siddall, M. (2005) The unholy trinity: taxonomy, species delimitation and DNA barcoding. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 360, 1905–1916.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dimmick, W. W., Ghedotti, M. J., Grose, M. J., et al. (1999) The importance of systematic biology in defining units of conservation units. Conservation Biology 13, 653–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldstein, P. Z., Desalle, R., Amato, G. and Vogler, A. P. (2000) Conservation genetics at the species boundary. Conservation Biology 14, 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, D. A. and Wake, D. B. (1992) Geographic variation and speciation in the torrent salamanders of the genus Rhyacotriton (Caudata: Rhyacotritonidae). University of California Publications in Zoology 126, 1–91.Google Scholar
Hebert, P. D. N., Stoeckle, M. Y., Zemlak, T. S. and Francis, C. M. (2004) Identification of birds through DNA barcodes. PLoS Biology 2, e312.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hey, J. and Machado, C. A. (2003) The study of structured populations – new hope for a difficult and divided science. Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 535–543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, J. and Nielsen, R. (2004) Multilocus methods for estimating population sizes, migration rates and divergence time, with applications to the divergence of Drosophila pseudoobscura and D. persimilis. Genetics 167, 747–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Highton, R. (1990) Taxonomic treatment of genetically differentiated populations. Herpetologica 46, 114–121.Google Scholar
Highton, R., Maha, G. C. and Maxson, L. R. (1989) Biochemical evolution in the slimy salamanders of the Plethodon glutinosus complex in the eastern United States. Illinois Biological Monographs 57, 1–78.Google Scholar
Hudson, R. R. and Coyne, J. A. (2002) Mathematical consequences of the genealogical species concept. Evolution 56, 1557–1565.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, J. B., Daily, G. C. and Ehrlich, P. R. (1997) Population diversity: its extent and extinction. Science 278, 689–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Machado, C. A., Kliman, R. M., Markert, J. M. and Hey, J. (2002) Inferring the history of speciation from multilocus DNA sequence data: the case of Drosophila pseudoobscura and its close relatives. Molecular Biology and Evolution 19, 472–488.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mallet, J. (1995) A species definition for the modern synthesis. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 10, 294–299.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayden, R. L. (1997) A hierarchy of species concepts: the denouement in the saga of the species problem. In: Species: The Units of Biodiversity (ed. Claridge, M. F., Dawah, H. A. and Wilson, M. R.), pp. 381–424. Chapman and Hall, London.Google Scholar
Mayr, E. (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Moritz, C. (1994) Defining ‘evolutionary significant units’ for conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 9, 373–375.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nei, M. (1972) Genetic distance between populations. American Naturalist 106, 283–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, R. and Wakeley, J. (2001) Distinguishing migration from isolation: a Markov chain Monte Carlo approach. Genetics 158, 885–896.Google ScholarPubMed
Pennock, D. S. and Dimmick, W. W. (1997) Critique of the evolutionary significant unit as a defnition for ‘distinct population segments’ under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology 11, 611–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Porter, A. H. (1990) Testing nominal species boundaries using gene flow statistics: the taxonomy of two hybridizing admiral butterflies (Limenitis: Nymphalidae). Systematic Zoology 39, 131–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sites, J. W. and Crandall, K. A. (1997) Testing species boundaries in biodiversity studies. Conservation Biology 11, 1289–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sites, J. W. and Marshall, J. C. (2004) Operational criteria for delimiting species. Annual Review of Ecology Evolution and Systematics 35, 199–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slatkin, M. and Voelm, L. (1991) FST in a hierarchical island model. Genetics 127, 627–629.Google Scholar
Takahata, N. and Nei, M. (1985) Gene genealogy and variance of interpopulational nucleotide differences. Genetics 110, 325–344.Google ScholarPubMed
Templeton, A. R. (1998) Nested clade analyses of phylogeographic data: testing hypotheses about gene flow and population history. Molecular Ecology 7, 381–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Templeton, A. R. (2001) Using phylogeographic analyses of gene trees to test species status and processes. Molecular Ecology 10, 779–791.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Templeton, A. R., Routman, E. and Phillips, C. A. (1995) Separating population structure from population history: a cladistic analysis of the geographical distribution of mitochondrial DNA haplotypes in the tiger salamander, Ambystoma tigrinum. Genetics 140, 767–782.Google ScholarPubMed
Vogler, A. P. and DeSalle, R. (1994) Diagnosing units of conservation management. Conservation Biology 8, 354–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wakeley, J. and Hey, J. (1998) Testing speciation models with DNA sequence data. In: Molecular Approaches to Ecology and Evolution (ed. DeSalle, R. and Schierwater, B.), pp. 157–175. Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waples, R. S. (1991a) Definition of ‘Species’ Under the Endangered Species Act: Application to Pacific Salmon, p. 29. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA.Google Scholar
Waples, R. S. (1991b) Pacific salmon, Oncorhynchus spp., and the definition of ‘species’ under the Endangered Species Act. Marine Fisheries Review 53, 11–22.Google Scholar
Waples, R. S. (1995) Evolutionarily significant units and the conservation of biological diversity under the Endangered Species Act. In: Evolution and the Aquatic Ecosystem: Defining Unique Units in Population Conservation (ed. Nielsen, J. L.), pp. 8–27. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.Google Scholar
Whitlock, M. C. and McCauley, D. E. (1999) Indirect measures of gene flow and migration: FST not equal to 1/(4 Nm + 1). Heredity 82 (Pt 2), 117–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. (1999) Polymorphism in systematics and comparative biology. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 30, 327–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiens, J. J. and Servedio, M. R. (2000) Species delimitation in systematics: inferring diagnostic differences between species. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series B-Biological Sciences 267, 631–636.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winston, J. (1999) Describing Species. Columbia University Press, New York, NY.Google Scholar
Won, Y. J. and Hey, J. (2005) Divergence population genetics of chimpanzees. Molecular Biology and Evolution 22, 297–307.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1931) Evolution in Mendelian populations. Genetics 16, 97–159.Google ScholarPubMed
Wright, S. (1951) The genetical structure of populations. Annals of Eugenics 15, 323–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yoder, A. D., Irwin, J. A., Goodman, S. M. and Rakotoarisoa, S. V. (2000) Genetic tests of the taxonomic status of the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta) from the high mountain zone of the Andringitra Massif, Madagascar. Journal of Zoology 252, 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×