Species delimitations – not ‘only descriptive’

  • Gerhard HaszprunarEmail author
Forum Paper


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.


Species 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.


  1. Agnarsson, I., & Kuntner, M. (2007). Taxonomy in a changing world: seeking solutions for a science in crisis. Systematic Biology, 56, 531–539.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agosti, D., & Johnson, N. F. (2002). Taxonomists need better access to published data. Nature, 417, 222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barkley, T. M., DePriest, P., Funk, V., Kiger, R. W., Kress, W. J., Moore, G., et al. (2004). A review of the international Code of Botanical Nomenclature with respect to its compatibility with phylogenetic classification. Taxon, 53, 159–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bininda-Emonds, O. R. P. (2011). Supporting species in ODE: explaining and citing. Organisms Diversity & Evolution, 11, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. De Boer, P. A. C. M., Jansen, R. F., & Ter Maat, A. (1997). Copulation in the hermaphroditic snail Lymnaea stagnalis. Invertebrate Reproduction & Development, 30, 167–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. De Queiroz, K. (1988). Systematics and the Darwinian revolution. Philosophy of Science, 55, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. De Queiroz, K. (2007). Species concepts and species delimitation. Systematic Biology, 56, 879–886.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Giongo, K., Tyler, H. L., Zipperer, U. N., & Triplett, E. W. (2010). Two genome sequences of the same bacterial strain, Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus PAl 5, suggest a new standard in genome sequence submission. Standards in Genomic Sequences, 2, 309–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Godfray, H. C. J. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy. Nature, 417, 17–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Godfray, H. C. J., Clark, B. R., Kitching, I. J., Mayo, S. J., & Scoble, M. J. (2007). The web and the structure of taxonomy. Systematic Biology, 56, 934–955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gourbière, S., & Mallet, J. (2010). Are species real? The shape of the species boundary with exponential failure, reinforcement, and the ‘missing snowball’. Evolution, 64, 1–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jager, M., Murienne, J., Clabaut, C., Deutsch, J., Le Guyader, H., & Manuel, M. (2006). Homology of arthropod anterior appendages revealed by Hox gene expression in a sea spider. Nature, 441, 506–509.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. 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
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. Painter, S. D., Zuckermann, R. A., Nagle, G. T., & Blankenship, J. E. (1985). The anatomy and functional morphology of the large hermaphroditic duct of three species of Aplysia, with special reference to the atrial gland. Journal of Morphology, 186, 167–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Petit, R. J., & Excoffier, L. (2009). Gene flow and species delimitation. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 24, 386–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rogers, S. H., & Wells, H. (1984). The structure and function of the bursa copulatrix of the monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). Journal of Morphology, 180, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schlick-Steiner, B. C., Steiner, F. M., Seifert, B., Stauffer, C., Christian, E., & Crozier, R. H. (2010). Integrative taxonomy: a multisource approach to exploring biodiversity. Annual Review of Entomology, 55, 421–438.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sexton, J. P., McIntyre, P. J., Angert, A. L., & Rice, K. J. (2009). Evolution and ecology of species range limits. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, 40, 393–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Siveter, D. J., Williams, M., & Walossek, D. (2001). A phosphatocopid crustacean with appendages from the Lower Cambrian. Science, 293, 479–481.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vilgalys, R. (2003). Taxonomic misidentification in public DNA databases. The New Phytologist, 160, 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wheeler, Q. D., & Meier, R. (Eds.). (2000). Species concepts and phylogenetic theory. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Wiens, J. J. (2007). Species delimitation: new approaches for discovering diversity. Systematic Biology, 56, 875–878.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Gesellschaft für Biologische Systematik 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zoologische Staatssammlung MünchenMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Biology I and GeoBio-CenterLudwig-Maximilians-University MunichPlanegg-MartinsriedGermany

Personalised recommendations