Species concepts
What type of species concepts exist?
To date, more then 20 different species concepts have been proposed. It can be difficult to differentiate between these concepts. However, they key out in three larger groups:
- concepts that require some sort of overall similarity and/or gaps in character distribution.
- concepts committed to understanding evolution.
- concepts based on phylogenetics.
Why are there different species concepts?
Species concepts have and continue to be central tenets in biological science. From the earliest days of biological thinking until well after Darwin’s (1859) On the Origin of Species, species concepts were essentially of a typological nature. This was the consequence of the rather general belief that all species were created by God and thus were fixed and immutable. As intraspecific variation remained unrecognized, geographical variants and different morphs within and between populations were considered different species.
But, when the causal theory of evolution gained momentum, it became increasingly clear that the idea of fixed created units had to be abandoned. The recognition that species occur as reproductively isolated units gave rise to the biological species concept (BSC) that embraced the dynamical nature of life and its entities. By the 1940’s it seemed that the debate was at its terminus.
However, the fact that the BSC applied only to biparental sexually reproducing organisms and not to asexual and/or extinct species, together with the desire to apply cladistic techniques at the species level, led to the rapid development of phylogenetic species concepts. With phylogeny as a guide; species concepts have become synonyms of diagnosable clades. The debate has been re-opened.
How to use species concepts wisely?
A silver bullet species concept that attends to the biologist’s perceived needs does not exist. Some species concepts have a large theoretical value (e.g. BSC) but are only narrowly applicable in practice. Others are more practical (e.g. the morphological SC) but fail to explain intra- and interspecific variation.
The viewpoint that species represent branches (terminal ones for extant species) of different evolutionary lineages seems to be accepted, in one or another form, by most contemporary taxonomists. The phylogenetic species concept is therefore increasingly used.
Course
Sense and nonsense of species concepts (pdf format , English)
References
Agapow, P-M., Bininda-Egmonds, O.R.P., Grandall, K.A., Gittleman, J.L., Mace, G.M., Marshall, J.C. & Purvis, A. 2004. The impact of species concept on biodiversity studies. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 79: 161-179.
Alroy, J. 2002. How many named species are valid? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99: 3706-3711.
Alström, P. 2006. Species concepts and their application: insights from the genera Seicercus and Phylloscopus. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52: 429-434.
Beardsley, S. 2005. Bending to Bar Codes. Scientific American, May 2005: 26-27.
Blaxter, M.L. 2004. The promise of DNA taxonomy. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 669-679.
Bock, W.J. 2004. Species: the concept, category and taxon. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research 42: 178-190.
Bock, W.J. 2006. Species concepts versus categories versus species taxa. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52: 421-424.
Buckley-Beason, V.A. et al. 2006. Molecular Evidence for Species-Level Distinctions in Clouded Leopards. Current Biology 16: 2371-2376.
Callaway, E. 2007. Mystery ox finds its identity. Nature 449: 124. Castresana, J. 2001. Cytochrome b Phylogeny and the Taxonomy of Great Apes and Mammals. Mol.Biol.Evol. 18: 465-471.
Chaitra, M.S., Vasudevan, K. & Shanker, K. 2004. The Biodiversity Bandwagon: the splitters have it. Current Science 86: 897-899.
Chung, C. 2003. On the origin of typological/population distinction in Ernst Mayr's changing views of species, 1942-1959. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 34: 277-296.
Claridge, M.F., Dawah, H.A. & Wilson, M.R. (Eds).1997. Species : The Units of Biodiversity. Chapman & Hall.
Cook, L.G., Edwards, R.D., Crisp, M.D., Hardy, N.B. 2010. Need morphology always be required for new species descriptions. Invertebrate Systematics 24: 322-326
de Querioz, K. 2005a. Different species problems and their resolution. BioEssays 27: 1263-1269.
de Querioz, K. 2005b. Ernst Mayr and the modern concept of species. PNAS 102: 6600-6607.
Dillon, S. & Fjeldså, J. 2005. The implications of different species concepts for describing biodiversity patterns and assessing conservation needs for African birds. Ecography 28: 1-11.
Ebach, M.C. & Holdredge, C. 2005a. DNA barcoding is no substitute for taxonomy. Nature 434: 697.
Ebach, M.C. & Holdredge, C. 2005b. More Taxonomy, Not DNA Barcoding. BioScience 55: 822-82
Ennos, R.A., French, G.C. & Hollingsworth, P.M. 2005. Conserving taxonomic complexity. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 20: 164-168.
Finlay, B.J. 2004. Protist taxonomy: an ecological perspective. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 599-610.
Forey, P.L., Fortrey, R.A., Kenrick, P. & Smith, A.B. 2004. Taxonomy and fossils: a critical appraisal. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B, 359: 639-65
Fukami, H. et al. 2004. Conventional taxonomy obscures deep divergence between Pacific and Atlantic corals. Nature 427: 832-835.
Gaston, K.J. & O'Neill, M.A. 2004. Automated species identification: why not? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 655-667.
Ghiselin, M.T. 2001. Species Concepts. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences 5.
Gouws, G., Stewart, B.A. & Daniels, S.R. 2004. Cryptic species within the freshwater isopod Mesamphisopus capensis (Phreatoicidea: Amphisopodidae) in the Western Cape, South Africa: allozyme and 12S rRNA sequence data and morphometric evidence. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 81: 235-253.
Gregory, T.R. 2005. DNA barcoding does not compete with taxonomy. Nature 434: 106
Guiller, A., Coutellec-Vreto, M. A., Madec, L. & Deunff, J. 2001. Evolutionary history of the land snail Helix aspersa in the Western Mediterranean: preliminary results inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Molecular Ecology 10: 81-8
Haffer, J. 2006. The history of the biological species concept. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52: 415-420.
Hajibabaei, M. et al. 2007. DNA barcoding: how it complements taxonomy, molecular phylogenetics, and population genetics. Trends in Genetics 23: 167-172
Halt, M.N. et al. 2010. Naming species with no morphological indicators: species status of Galeolaria caespitosa (Annelida: Serpulidae) inferred from molecular and mitochondrial gene sequences and morphology. Invertebrate Systematics 23: 205-222.
Hayashi, A.M. 1999. On the Origins of Subspecies. Scientific American 23-24.
Helbig, A.J. et al 2002. Guidelines for assigning species rank. Ibis 144: 518-525.
Herbert, P.D.N & Gregory, T.R. 2005. The Promise of DNA Barcoding for Taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 852-85
Hey, J. 2006. On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 21: 447-45
Iglésias, S.P., Toulhoat, L., Sellos, D.Y. 2009. Taxonomic confusion and market mislabelling of threatened skates: importnat consequences for their conservation status. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems (article online in advance of print).
Irwin, D.E., Bensch, S., Irwin, J.H. & Price, T.D. 2005. Speciation by Distance in a Ring Species. Science 307: 414-41
Isaac, N.J.B., Mallet, J. & Mace, G.M. 2004. Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19: 464-46
Kitchener, A.C., Beaumont, M.A. & Richardson, R.C. 2006. Geographical Variation in the Clouded Leopard, Neofelis nebulosa, Reveals Two Species. Current Biology 16: 2377-238
Krell, F-T. 2004. Parataxonomy vs. taxonomy in biodiversity studies – pitfalls and applicability of ‘morphospecies’ sorting. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 795-812.
Lang, C., Sober, E. & Strier, K. 2002. Are human beings part of the rest of nature? Biology and Philosophy 17: 661-67
Laporte, J. 2007. In defense of species. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science 38: 255-26
Leonard, J.A., Vilà, C. & Wayne, R.K. 2005. Legacy lost: genetic variability and population size of extirpated US grey wolves (Canis lupus). Molecular Ecology 14: 9-1
Lopéz, A. & Atran, S. 1997. The Tree of Life: Universal and Cultural Features of Folkbiological Taxonomies and Inductions. Cognitive Psychology 32: 251-295.
Mace, G.M. 2004. The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London B 359: 711-71
Mallet, J. 2007. Hybrid speciation. Nature 446: 279-283.
Marris, E. 2007. The species and the specious. Nature 446: 250-25
Marshall, E. 2005. Will DNA bar codes breathe life into classification? Science 307: 103
Meiri, S. & Mace, G.M. 2007. New Taxonomy and the Origin of Species. PLOS Biology 5: 1385-1386.
Meyer C.P. & Paulay G. 2005. DNA Barcoding: Error Rates Based on Comprehensive Sampling. PLOS Biology 3: 10 p
- Meeûs de, T., Durand, P. & Renaud, F. 2003. Species concepts: what for? TRENDS in Parasitology 19: 425-427.
Muir, G., Fleming, C.C. & Schlötterer, C. 2000. Species status of hybridising oaks. Nature 405: 101
Nemecek, S. 1996. Return of the Red Wolf. Scientific American 31-32.
Parkin, D.T. et al. 2006. Developing guidelines to assist in defining species limits. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52: 435-43
Ramey, R.R. et al. 2006. Response to Vignieri et al. (2006) : Should hypothesis testing or selective post hoc interpretation of results guide the allocation of conservation effort? Animal Conservation 9: 244-247.
Rhymer, J.M. 2006. Extinction by hybridization and introgression in anatine ducks. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52: 583-58.
Robins, J.H., Ross, H.A., Allen, M.S. & Matisoo-Smith, E. 2006. Sus bucculentus revisited. Nature 440:7.
Schodde, R. 2006. The ultrataxon and its use in pure and applied biology. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52: 425-428.
Seddon, J.M., Parker, H.G., Ostrander, E. A. & Ellegren, H. 2005. SNPs in ecological and conservation studies: a test in the Scandinavian wolf population. Molecular Ecology 14: 503-511.
Sereno, P.C. 2005. The Logical Basis of Phylogenetic Taxonomy. Systematic Biology 54: 595-61.
Shaw, K.L. 2002. Do We Need Species Concepts? Science 295: 1238-1239.
Soares, C. 2004. What’s in a Name? Scientific American, November 2004: 36-37.
Tattersall, I. & Mowbray, K. 2005. Species and paleoantropology. Theory in Biosciences 123: 371-379.
Tautz, D., Arctander, P., Minelli, A., Thomas, R. H. & Vogler, A.P. 2003. A plea for DNA taxonomy. TRENDS in Ecology and Evolution 18: 70-74.
Trivedi, B.P. 2005. What's in a Species' Name? More than $ 450,000. Science 307: 1399.
Uthicke, S., O'Hara, T. D. & Byrne, M. 2004. Species composition and molecular phylogeny of the Indo-Pacific teatfish (Echinodermata: Holothuroidea) bêche-de-mer fishery. Marine and Freshwater Research 55: 837-848.
Uthicke, S., Welch, D. & Benzie, J.A. H. 2004. Slow growth and lack of recovery in overfished Holothurians on the Great Barrier Reef: Evidence from DNA fingerprints and repeated large-scale surveys. Conservation Biology 18: 1395-1404.
Uthicke, S., Purcell, S. & Blockmans, B. 2005. Natural hybridization does not dissolve species boundaries in commercially important sea cucumbers. Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 85: 261-270.
Vignieri, S.N. et al. 2006. Mistaken view of taxonomic validity undermines conservation of an evolutionary distinct mouse: a response to Ramey et al. (2005). Animal Conservation 9: 237-243.
Waugh, J. 2007. DNA barcoding in animal species: progress, potential and pitfalls. BioEssays 29: 188-19
Wilkins, J. 2007. The dimensions, modes and definitions of species and speciation. Biology and Philosophy 22: 247-266.
Wilkins, J. 2011. Philosophically speaking, how many species concepts are there? Zootaxa 2765: 58-60.
Wolff, P., Medin, D.L. & Pankratz, C. 1999. Evolution and devolution of folkbiological knowledge. Cognition 73: 177-204.
More information is available in the Learn more folder below.