LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Taxonomic inflation and the poverty of the Phylogenetic Species Concept
May 30, 2013
6:38 pm
Avatar
Stefan
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1567
Member Since:
January 29, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Taxonomic inflation and the poverty of the Phylogenetic Species Concept – a reply to Gippoliti and Groves (2013)

 

Open access: http://www.italian-journal-of-.....9/pdf_8849

 

 

This is not about ichthyology directly, however appliciable to a species concept often used in ichthyology, which I think makes for a nice read.

 

May 30, 2013
8:45 pm
Avatar
Gloups
New Member
Forum Posts: 7
Member Since:
December 5, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

My experience on a few large scale projects dealing with micro-organisms suggests me that sometimes "species" are sometimes more artifacts of sampling, than real biological entities. The more information one can gain about a natural populations of micro-organism (through hight-hroughput metagenomics for example), the more "intermediate" forms can be found, which make less clear the delineation between existing taxa, but not all! Considering upper taxa (e.g fishes), the situation is certainly complicated by the fact that the actual populations are often reduced and that their potential habitats are already seriously reduced.

From another point of view, there is also an obvious political dimension to this issue. It is much more easy to convince a politician to preserve a "unique endemic species found only at a given location in the country" instead of preserving a species that is retrieved "almost identically" in the surrounding countries. I believe that the current trend in taxonomy is also supported by some non-scientific, but certainly noble motivations.

May 31, 2013
8:08 am
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Very much agree with the latter point, although unfortunately freshwater species tend to feature pretty low down on priority lists for conservation work and funding.

Cake or death?
June 1, 2013
10:37 pm
Avatar
Amazonas
Member
Forum Posts: 25
Member Since:
July 17, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Dear all,
the paper mentioned above is part of a discussion about 'taxonomic inflation' (see  http://www.italian-journal-of-.....1/pdf_8881 for a reply to Zachos and Lovari).
I do not think that it is the (poverty) Phylogenetic Species Concept which is forcing the 'inflation'. It is just 'bad' taxonomy. The paper cited above criticized the taxonomic treatment of Ungulate species taxa by Groves & Grubb,. The taxonomic decision in Groves & Grubb based often on a low number of specimens (< 10 specimens or even limited to a single specimen). Heller et al. (2013) are given the  illustrative example of the Klipspringer (Oreotragus oreotragus). Currently it is considered as one species,but Groves & Grubb have split it into 11  species just on minor differences in the states of the pelage (the variation within each of these species greater than between them) and in length of the horns. The horn length ranges given for the concerned species are 89–109 mm (n=2), 72.5–100.0 mm (n=7), and 82.5–87.0 mm (n=4). The overlap makes the horn length unusable as a diagnostic character, and no other justification for splitting are provided. There is a huge number of similar 'bad' cases in ichthyology too. A current most curious example is P. kempkesi. The author of this taxon not even examined type specimens.
Taxonomic inflation is not only a serious threat for the length of the list of synonyms but also for conservation (Agapow et al. 2004). The insatiable desire to name new species is part of this unfortunate habit.
Cheers, Amazonas.

Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Desktop (1)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1253

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30286

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4595

Posts: 36615

Newest Members: grayergroove, bhisma wildan, costeacristianalex, knebeshwar, tdog44632

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239