Species delimitations – not ‘only descriptive’
- 294 Downloads
Species descriptions as well as all other kinds of species delimitations within revisionary work are not ‘only descriptive’, as is often stated, but include several genuinely scientific, i.e. potentially falsifiable hypotheses: (1) The specimens under study represent a new or so far incorrectly defined species; (2) the phylogenetic position of the newly defined species; (3) descriptive terms, which are themselves hypotheses of homology (orthology) and/or function, regardless of whether they are of phenotypic or genotypic nature. Accordingly, species delimitations are genuine scientific hypotheses and thus should be cited in the same way as regularly done with all other previous scientific hypotheses on which a paper is based.
KeywordsSpecies description Species delimitation Revision Taxonomy Hypothesis Citations
This contribution is based on several lectures I presented during the past ten years on various occasions, the last one during the 52nd Phylogenetic Symposium in Munich, November 2010. I thank all my discussion opponents, who have thus helped to shape this paper. I am also grateful to two anonymous referees who gave helpful advice and comments on the draft of this paper, and to the editors for polishing the language.
- Bouchet, P., & Rocroi, J. P. (1993). The lottery of bibliographical databases: a reply to Edwards & Thorne. Malacologia: International Journal of Malacology, 35, 407–410.Google Scholar
- Longo, M. S., O’Neill, M. J., & O’Neill, R. J. (2011). Abundant human DNA contamination identified in non-primate genome databases. PloSOne, 6(2), e16410. 164.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (2000a). The biological species concept. In Q. D. Wheeler & R. Meier (Eds.), Species concepts and phylogenetic theory (pp. 17–29). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (2000b). A critique from the biological species concept perspective: What is a species, and what is not? In Q. D. Wheeler & R. Meier (Eds.), Species concepts and phylogenetic theory (pp. 93–100). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Mayr, E. (2000c). A defense of the biological species concept. In Q. D. Wheeler & R. Meier (Eds.), Species concepts and phylogenetic theory (pp. 161–166). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
- Meyer, A., Todt, C., Mikkelsen, N. T., & Lieb, B. (2010). Fast evolving 18S rRNA sequences from Solenogastres (Mollusca) resist standard PCR amplification and give new insights into mollusk substitution rate heterogeneity. BMC Evolutionary Biology, 10(70), 1–12.Google Scholar
- Nilsson, R. H., Ryberg, M., Kristiansson, E., Abarenkov, K., Larsson, K.-H., & Köljalg, U. (2006). Taxonomic reliability of DNA sequences in public sequence databases: a fungal perspective. PLoS ONE, 1(e59), 1–4.Google Scholar
- Padial, J. M., Miralles, A., de la Riva, I., & Vences, M. (2010). The integrative future of taxonomy. Frontiers in Zoology, 7(16), 1–14.Google Scholar
- Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.). (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar