Advertisement

Primates

pp 1–8 | Cite as

What is in a genus name? Conceptual and empirical issues preclude the proposed recognition of Callibella (Callitrichinae) as a genus

  • Guilherme S. T. GarbinoEmail author
  • José E. Serrano-Villavicencio
  • Eliécer E. Gutiérrez
Original Article

Abstract

In a recent article, Silva et al. (Zool Scr 47:133–143, 2018) proposed the relocation of the dwarf marmoset, Mico humilis, to the so far unrecognized genus Callibella. We contend that a taxonomic scheme that recognizes Callibella as if it were a valid genus is inadequately supported, and to some extent contradicted, by the ecological and morphological information provided by the authors. We discuss why the criterion of sympatry, invoked by Silva et al. to justify the recognition of Callibella at the genus level, is uninformative for taxonomic decisions above the species level. We also show that the morphological characteristics used by Silva et al. to separate Mico humilis from the other Mico are individually variable and present in every analyzed species of the genus. Moreover, we demonstrate that the Evolutionarily Distinct and Globally Endangered (EDGE) metric, employed by those authors to attempt to justify their taxonomic proposition, makes no sense in a taxonomic context. Conceptually, the use of autapomorphies and plesiomorphies to justify using Callibella goes against one of the main objectives of a meaningful classification, that is, to allow for all kinds of inferences based on previous observations (i.e., to be inductively projectible). Based on these arguments, we demonstrate that regarding Callibella as a subgenus of Mico is the most suitable way of making the Linnean taxonomy of marmosets congruent with the phylogenetic information available for the group.

Keywords

Classification Dwarf marmoset Genus concept Mico humilis Subgenus Taxonomy 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are thankful to Maria Nazareth F. da Silva and Manoela Borges (INPA), Luis Fabio Silveira, Mario de Vivo and Juliana Gualda (MZUSP), Sergio Maia Vaz and João Oliveira (MNRJ), and José de Souza e Silva Juníor (MPEG) for allowing us to examine specimens under their care. Daniel Casali provided very useful comments and suggestions. We are also grateful to Felipe E. Silva and Rodrigo Araújo for providing information on their article about Mico humilis and to Janet Buckner for providing us with the tree files of her Callitrichinae phylogeny. Two anonymous referees provided helpful comments. This study was funded in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior, Brazil (CAPES; Code 001).

Supplementary material

10329_2019_714_MOESM1_ESM.nwk (2 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (NWK 3 kb)
10329_2019_714_MOESM2_ESM.r (2 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (R 3 kb)

References

  1. Aguiar JM, Lacher TE (2009) Cranial morphology of the dwarf marmoset Callibella in the context of callitrichid variability. In: Ford S, Porter L, Davis L (eds) The smallest anthropoids. Developments in primatology: progress and prospects. Springer, Boston, pp 355–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson RP (2003) Taxonomy, distribution, and natural history of the genus Heteromys (Rodentia: Heteromyidae) in western Venezuela, with the description of a dwarf species from the Península de Paraguaná. Am Mus Novit 3396:1–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson RP, Handley CO Jr (2001) A new species of three-toed sloth (Mammalia: Xenarthra) from Panamá, with a review of the genus Bradypus. Proc Biol Soc Wash 114:1–33Google Scholar
  4. Begon M, Townsend C, Harper H (2006) Ecology from individuals to ecosystems. Blackwell, LondonGoogle Scholar
  5. Bornholdt R, Helgen K, Koepfli KP et al (2013) Taxonomic revision of the genus Galictis (Carnivora: Mustelidae): species delimitation, morphological diagnosis, and refined mapping of geographical distribution. Zool J Linn Soc 167:449–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brasil (2014) Lista Nacional Oficial de Espécies da Fauna Ameaçada de Extinção - Portaria N° 443, de 17 de dezembro de 2014. Ministério do Meio Ambiente. Diário Oficial da União, Brasília, 1(245):121–130Google Scholar
  7. Buckner JC, Lynch Alfaro JW, Rylands AB et al (2015) Biogeography of the marmosets and tamarins (Callitrichidae). Mol Phylogenet Evol 82:413–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cooper N, Rodríguez J, Purvis A (2008) A common tendency for phylogenetic overdispersion in mammalian assemblages. Proc R Soc Lond B 275:2031–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darwin C (1859) On the origin of species. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  10. de Vivo M (1991) Taxonomia de Callithrix Erxleben, 1777. Fundação Biodiversitas, Belo HorizonteGoogle Scholar
  11. Dragoo JW, Honeycutt RL, Schmidly DJ (2003) Taxonomic status of white-backed hog-nose skunks, genus Conepatus (Carnivora: Mephitidae). J Mamm 84:159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fabre PH, Pagès M, Musser GG et al (2013) A new genus of rodent from Wallacea (Rodentia: Muridae: Murinae: Rattini), and its implication for biogeography and Indo-Pacific Rattini systematics. Zool J Linn Soc 169:408–447CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feijó A, Patterson BD, Cordeiro-Estrela P (2018) Taxonomic revision of the long-nosed armadillos, Genus Dasypus Linnaeus, 1758 (Mammalia, Cingulata). PLoS One 13:e0195084CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ford SM, Davis LC (2009) Marmoset postcrania and the skeleton of the dwarf marmoset, Callibella humilis. In: Ford S, Porter L, Davis L (eds) The smallest anthropoids. Developments in primatology: progress and prospects. Springer, Boston, pp 411–448CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garbino GST (2015a) How many marmoset (Primates: Cebidae: Callitrichinae) genera are there? A phylogenetic analysis based on multiple morphological systems. Cladistics 31:652–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Garbino GST (2015b) Defining genera of New World Monkeys: the need for a critical view in a necessarily arbitrary task. Int J Primatol 36:1049–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garbino GST, Martins-Junior AMG (2018) Phenotypic evolution in marmoset and tamarin monkeys (Cebidae, Callitrichinae) and a revised genus-level classification. Mol Phylogenet Evol 118:156–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gause GF (1934) The struggle for existence. Williams & Wilkins, BaltimoreCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gippoliti S, Cotterill FP, Zinner D, Groves CP (2018) Impacts of taxonomic inertia for the conservation of African ungulate diversity: an overview. Biol Rev 93:115–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Groves CP (2001) Primate taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. Groves CP (2017) Primates (Taxonomy). In: Fuentes A (ed) The international encyclopedia of primatology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–9Google Scholar
  22. Gutiérrez EE, Marinho-Filho J (2017) The mammalian faunas endemic to the Cerrado and the Caatinga. ZooKeys 644:105–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutiérrez EE, Molinari J (2008) Morphometrics and taxonomy of bats of the genus Pteronotus (subgenus Phyllodia) in Venezuela. J Mamm 89:292–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Helgen KM (2005) Systematics of the Pacific monkey-faced bats (Chiroptera: Pteropodidae), with a new species of Pteralopex and a new Fijian genus. Syst Biodivers 3:433–453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hillis DM (2007) Constraints in naming parts of the tree of life. Mol Phylogenet Evol 42:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hutchinson GE (1959) Homage to Santa Rosalia, or why are there so many kinds of animals? Am Nat 93:145–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isaac NJB, Turvey ST, Collen B et al (2007) Mammals on the EDGE: conservation priorities based on threat and phylogeny. PLoS One 2:e296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kembel SW, Cowan PD, Helmus MR et al (2010) Picante: R tools for integrating phylogenies and ecology. Bioinformatics 26:1463–1464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemen CA, Freeman PW (1984) The genus: a macroevolutionary problem. Evolution 38:1219–1237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mace GM (2004) The role of taxonomy in species conservation. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 359:711–719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Patterson BD (1992) A new genus and species of long-clawed mouse (Rodentia: Muridae) from temperate rainforests of Chile. Zool J Linn Soc 106:127–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pfennig KS, Pfennig DW (2009) Character displacement: ecological and reproductive responses to a common evolutionary problem. Q Rev Biol 84:253–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Reeder DM, Helgen KM, Vodzak ME et al (2013) A new genus for a rare African vespertilionid bat: insights from South Sudan. ZooKeys 285:89–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Revell LJ (2012) Phytools: an R package for phylogenetic comparative biology (and other things). Methods Ecol Evol 3:217–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Scheel DM, Slater GJ, Kolokotronis SO et al (2014) Biogeography and taxonomy of extinct and endangered monk seals illuminated by ancient DNA and skull morphology. ZooKeys 409:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schneider H, Bernardi JAR, da Cunha DB et al (2012) A molecular analysis of the evolutionary relationships in the Callitrichinae, with emphasis on the position of the dwarf marmoset. Zool Scr 41:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Silva FE, Costa-Araújo R, Boubli JP et al (2018) In search of a meaningful classification for Amazonian marmosets: should dwarf marmosets be considered Mico congenerics? Zool Scr 47:133–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Teta P (2018) The usage of subgenera in mammalian taxonomy. Mammalia.  https://doi.org/10.1515/mammalia-2018-0059 Google Scholar
  39. Teta P, Abba AM, Cassini GH et al (2018) Lista revisada de los mamíferos de Argentina. Mastozool Neotrop 25:163–198Google Scholar
  40. Thomson S, Pyle RL, Ahyong ST et al (2018) Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol 16:e2005075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Valdecasas AG, Peláez ML, Wheeler QD (2014) What’s in a (biological) name? The wrath of Lord Rutherford. Cladistics 30:215–223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Velazco PM (2005) Morphological phylogeny of the bat genus Platyrrhinus (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) with the description of four new species. Fieldiana Zool 105:1–53Google Scholar
  43. Voss RS, Jansa SA (2009) Phylogenetic relationships and classification of didelphid marsupials, an extant radiation of New World metatherian mammals. Bull Am Mus Nat Hist 322:1–177CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Voss RS, Gutiérrez EE, Solari S et al (2014) Phylogenetic relationships of mouse opossums (Didelphidae, Marmosa) with a revised subgeneric classification and notes on sympatric diversity. Am Mus Novit 3817:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wallach V, Wuester W, Broadley DG (2009) In praise of subgenera: taxonomic status of cobras of the genus Naja Laurenti (Serpentes: Elapidae). Zootaxa 2236:26–36Google Scholar
  46. Wilkins JS, Ebach MC (2013) The nature of classification: relationships and kinds in the natural sciences. Palgrave Macmillan, BasingstokeCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Japan Monkey Centre and Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Guilherme S. T. Garbino
    • 1
    Email author
  • José E. Serrano-Villavicencio
    • 2
    • 3
  • Eliécer E. Gutiérrez
    • 4
    • 5
  1. 1.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zoologia, Departamento de Zoologia, Instituto de Ciências BiológicasUniversidade Federal de Minas GeraisBelo HorizonteBrazil
  2. 2.Pós-graduação, Mastozoologia, Museu de ZoologiaUniversidade de São PauloSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Centro de Investigación Biodiversidad Sostenible (BioS), Calle Francisco de ZelaLimaPeru
  4. 4.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Biodiversidade Animal, Centro de Ciências Naturais e ExatasUniversidade Federal de Santa MariaSanta MariaBrazil
  5. 5.Programa de Pós-Graduação em Zoologia, Departamento de ZoologiaUniversidade de BrasíliaBrasíliaBrazil

Personalised recommendations