Mammalian Biology

, Volume 94, Issue 1, pp 127–131 | Cite as

Species delimitation in mammals: A comment on Zachos (2018)

  • Spartaco GippolitiEmail author
Short communication


Mammalian taxonomy based on the diagnosability version of the Phylogenetic Species Concept - considered as an operational manifestation of the Evolutionary Species Concept — offers a sound and verifiable base for understanding mammalian classification. There is now strong evidence that a taxonomy dominated by the Biological Synthesis (overlumped) has had deleterious effects on biodiversity conservation, while examples of its benefits remain obscure. It is interesting to note that when dealing with important issues (such as human health) the choice of taxonomy is necessarily analysis-based. In this reply to Zachos (2018), it is emphasized that we should avoid encouraging mistrust in taxonomy that can have negative consequences for taxonomists and taxonomic infrastructures. It is reinstated that while discussion over species concepts is fully legitimate, no doubt taxonomy is crucial to effective monitoring and conservation of mammal biodiversity.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Abbink, J., 2012. Dam controversies: contested governance and developmental discourse on the Ethiopian Omo River dam. Soc. Anthropol./Anthropol. Soc. 20, 125–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Attenborough, R., 2015. What are species and why does it matter? Anopheline taxonomy and the transmission of malaria. In: Behie, A.M., Oxenham, M.F. (Eds.), Taxonomic Tapestries. The Threads of Evolutionary, Behavioural and Conservation Research. Australian National University Press, Canberra, pp. 129–151.Google Scholar
  3. Bezerra, A.M.R., Annesi, F., Aloise, G., Amori, G., Giustini, L., Castiglia, R., 2016. Integrative taxonomy of the Italian pine voles, Microtus savii group (Cricetidae, Arvicolinae). Zool. Scr. 45, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Camerano, L., 1916. I caratteri del cranio, della colorazione e delle corna nella distinzione dei Camosci in specie e sottospecie. Rivista di Antropologia (Roma) 20, 1–14.Google Scholar
  5. Carpaneto, G.M., Gippoliti, S., 1994. Primates of the Harenna Forest, Ethiopia. Primate Conserv. 11, 12–15.Google Scholar
  6. Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P.R., Dirzo, R., 2018. Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A., Scholar
  7. COSEWIC (Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada), 2011. Designatable Units for Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) in Canada. Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, Ottawa, Ontario.Google Scholar
  8. Cotterill, F.P.D., Groves, C.P., Taylor, P.J., 2017. Taxonomy: refine rather than stabilize. Nature 547, 162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cotterill, F.P.D., Taylor, P.J., Gippoliti, S., Bishop, J.M., Groves, C.P., 2014. Why one century of phenetics is enough: response to ‘are there really twice as many bovid species as we thought?’. Syst. Biol. 63, 819–832.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darwin, C., 1964. On the Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the, 1st ed. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, Original work published 1859.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. DiEuliis, D., Johnson, K.R., Morse, S.S., Schindel, D.E., 2016. Specimen collections should have a much bigger role in infectious disease research and response. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 113, 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Doan, K., Zachos, F.E., Wilkens, B., Vigne, J.D., Piotrowska, N., Stankovic, A., et al., 2017. Phylogeography of the Tyrrhenian red deer (Cervus elaphus corsicanus) resolved using ancient DNA of radiocarbon-dated fossils. Sci. Rep. 7, 2331.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubois, A., 1998. Lists of European species of amphibian and reptiles: will we soon be reaching “stability”? Amphib. Reptilia 19, 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Francovich, E., 2018. South Selkirk mountain caribou herd possibly extinct. In: The Spokesman-Review, April 21 (available at Scholar
  15. Frankham, R., 2015. Genetic rescue of small inbred populations: meta-analysis reveals large and consistent benefits of gene flow. Mol. Ecol. 24 (11), 2610–2618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frost, D.R., Kluge, A.G., 1994. A consideration of epistemology in systematic biology, with special reference to species. Cladistics 10, 259–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Geist, V., 2007. Defining subspecies, invalid taxonomic tools, and the fate of the woodland Caribou. Rangifer 17, 25–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Garnett, S.T., Christidis, L., 2017. Taxonomy anarchy hampers conservation. Nature 546, 25–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gippoliti, S., 2013. Checklist delle specie di mammiferi italiani (esclusi Mysticeti e Odontoceti). Un contributo per la conservazione della biodiversità. Bollettino del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale di Verona, (Bot. Zool.) 37, 7–28.Google Scholar
  20. Gippoliti, S., Amori, G., 2004. Mediterranean island mammals: are they a priority for biodiversity conservation? Biogeographia. - J. Integr. Biogeogr. 25, 135–144.Google Scholar
  21. Gippoliti, S., Amori, G., 2007. The problem of subspecies and conservation lists: the case of mammals. Folia Zool. 56, 113–117.Google Scholar
  22. Gippoliti, S., Cotterill, F.P.D., Groves, C.P.D., Zinner, D., submitted. Poor taxonomy and genetic rescue are possible co-agents of silent extinction and biogeographic homogenization among ungulate mammals. Biogeographia - J. Integr. Biogeogr.Google Scholar
  23. Gippoliti, S., Cotterill, F.P.D., Zinner, D., Groves, C.P., 2018. Impacts of taxonomic inertia for the conservation of African ungulate diversity: an overview. Biol. Rev. 93, 115–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Gippoliti, S., Groves, C.P., in press 2018. Overlooked mammal diversity and conservation priorities in Italy: impacts of taxonomic neglect on a biodiversity hotspot in Europe. Zootaxa.Google Scholar
  25. Gonder, M.K., Disotell, T.R., Oates, J.F., 2006. New genetic evidence on the evolution of chimpanzee populations, and implications for taxonomy. Int. J. Primatol. 27 (4), 1103–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Goossens, B., Salgado-Lynn, M., Rovie-Ryan, J.J., Ahmad, A.H., Payne, J., Zainuddin, Z.Z., et al., 2013. Genetics and the last stand of the Sumatran rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis. Oryx 47, 340–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grassi, G.B., 1901. Studi di uno zoologo sulla malaria. Reale Accademia dei Lincei, Roma.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Groves, C.P., 2001. Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Groves, C.P., 2013. The nature of species: a rejoinderto Zachos et al. Mamm. Biol. 78, 7–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Groves, C.P., 2014. Primate taxonomy: inflation or real? Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43, 27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Groves, C.P., Grubb, P., 2011. Ungulate Taxonomy. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.Google Scholar
  32. Groves, C.P., Cotterill, F.P.D., Gippoliti, S., Robovsky, J., Roos, C., Taylor, P.J., Zinner, D., 2017. Species definitions and conservation: a review and case studies from African mammals. Conserv. Genet. 18, 1247–1256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gutiérrez, E.E., Garbino, G.S.T., 2018. Species delimitation based on diagnosis and monophyly, and its importance for advancing mammalian taxonomy. Zool. Res. 39 (3), 1–8.Google Scholar
  34. Gutiérrez, E.E., Helgen, K.M., McDonough, M.M., Bauer, F., Hawkins, M.T.R., Escobedo-Morales, L.A., Patterson, B.D., Maldonado, J.E., 2017. A gene-tree test of the traditional taxonomy of American deer: the importance of voucher specimens, geographic data, and dense sampling. ZooKeys 697, 87–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hafner, D.J., Yensen, E., Kirkland Jr., G.L. (Eds.), 1998. North American Rodents. Status Survey and Conservation Action Plan. IUCN/SSC Rodent Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland.Google Scholar
  36. Harley, E.H., de Waal, M., Murray, S., O’Ryan, C., 2016. Comparison of whole mitochondrial genome sequences of northern and southern white rhinoceroses (Ceratotherium simum): the conservation consequences of species definition. Conserv. Genet. 17, 1285–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Heller, R., Okello, J.B.A., Siegismund, H.R., 2010. Can small wildlife conservancies maintain genetically stable populations of large mammals?—Evidence for increased genetic drift in small populations of Cape buffalo in East Africa. Mol. Ecol. 19, 1324–1334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hennig, W., 1966. Phylogenetic Systematics. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.Google Scholar
  39. Isaac, N.J.B., Mallet, J., Mace, G.M., 2004. Taxonomic inflation: its influence on macroecology and conservation. Trends Ecol. Evol. 19 (9), 464–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Jackson, S.M., Groves, C.P., 2015. Taxonomy of Australian Mammals. CSIRO Publishing, Melbourne, 529 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kitchener, A.C., Breitenmoser-Wursten, Ch., Eizirik, E., Gentry, A., Werdelin, L., Wilting, A., Yamaguchi, N., Abramov, A.V., Christiansen, P., Driscoll, C., Duckworth, J.W., Johnson, W., Luo, S.J., Meijaard, E., O’Donoghue, P., Sanderson, J., Seymour, K., Bruford, M., Groves, C., Hoffmann, M., Nowell, K., Timmons, Z., Tobe, S., 2017. A Revised Taxonomy of the Felidae. The Final Report of the Cat Classification Task Force of the IUCN/SSC Cat Specialist Group, 11., pp. 1–80, Cat News Special Issue.Google Scholar
  42. Krystufek, B., Vohralík, V., 2012. Taxonomic revision of the Palaearctic rodents (Rodentia). Sciuridae: Xerinae 1 (Eutamias and Spermophilus). Lynx n. s. (Praha) 43 (1–2), 17–111.Google Scholar
  43. Leech, H., Jelinski, D.E., DeGroot, L., Kuzyk, G., 2017. The temporal niche and seasonal differences in predation risk to translocated and resident caribou (Rangifer tarandus caribou). Can. J. Zool. 95 (11), 809–820.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lovari, S., 1987. Evolutionary aspects of the biology of chamois, Rupicapra spp. (Bovidae, Caprinae). In: Soma, H. (Ed.), The Biology and Management of capricornis and Related Mountain Antelopes. Croom Helm, London, pp. 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mantilla-Meluk, H., Jiménez-Ortega, A.M., 2011. Revisiting the taxonomic status and ecological partitioning of night monkeys genus Aotus in western Colombia, with notes on Aotus zonalis Goldman, 1914. Revista Biodiversidad Neotropical 1 (1), 28–37, 2011.Google Scholar
  46. Meyer, M., Palkopoulou, E., Baleka, S., Stiller, M., Penkman, K.E.H., Alt, K.W., Ishida, Y., et al., 2017. Palaeogenomes of Eurasian straight-tusked elephants challenge the current view of elephant evolution. eLife 6, e25413,, 2017.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Meiri, M., Kosintsev, P., Conroy, K., Meiri, S., Barnes, I., Lister, A., 2018. Subspecies dynamics in space and time: a study of the red deer complex using ancient and modern DNA and morphology. J. Biogeogr., Scholar
  48. Mouton, A., Mortelliti, A., Grill, A., Sara, M., Krystufek, B., Juskaitis, R., et al., 2017. Evolutionary history and species delimitations: a case study of the hazel dormouse, Muscardinus avellanarius. Conserv. Genet. 18, 181–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Padial, J.M., De la Riva, I., 2006. Taxonomic inflation and the stability of species lists: the perils of ostrich’s behavior. Syst. Biol. 55, 859–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Parnaby, H., 1991. A sound species taxonomy is crucial to the conservation of forest bats. In: Lunney, D. (Ed.), Conservation of Australia’s Forest Fauna: 101–112. Royal Zoological Society of NSW, Mosman.Google Scholar
  51. Ralls, K., Ballou, J.D., Dudash, M.R., Eldridge, M.D.B., Fenster, C.B., Lacy, R.C., Sunnucks, P., Frankham, R., 2018. Call for a paradigm shift in the genetic management of fragmented populations. Conserv. Lett, Scholar
  52. Rylands, A.B., Mittermeier, R.A., 2014. Primate taxonomy: species and conservation. Evol. Anthropol. 23, 8–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Simpson, G.G., 1945. The principles of classification and a classification of mammals. Bull. Am. Mus. Nat. Hist. 85, 1–350.Google Scholar
  54. Small, E., 2011. The new Noah’s Ark: beautiful and useful species only. Part 1. Biodiversity conservation issues and priorities. Biodiversity 12, 232–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thomson, S.A., Pyle, R.L., Ahyong, S.T., Alonso-Zarazaga, M., Ammirati, J., Araya, J.F., et al., 2018. Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation. PLoS Biol. 16 (3), e2005075, Scholar
  56. Vane-Wright, R., Humphries, C., Williams, P., 1991. What to protect?—Systematics and the agony of choice. Biol. Conserv. 55, 235–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weeks, A.R., Heinze, D., Perrin, L., Stoklosa, J., Hoffmann, A.A., van Rooyen, A., Kelly, T., Mansergh, I., 2017. Genetic rescue increases fitness and aids rapid recovery of an endangered marsupial population. Nature Commun. 8, 1071.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wheeler, Q.D., 2008. The new taxonomy. In: Systematics Association Special Volume Series. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  59. Wiley, E.O., 1978. The evolutionary species concept reconsidered. Syst. Zool. 27, 17–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Wozencraft, W.C., 2005. Order carnivora. In: Wilson, D.E., Reeder, D.M. (Eds.), Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference., 3rd ed. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, pp. 532–628.Google Scholar
  61. Zachos, F., 2018. Mammals and meaningful taxonomic units: the debate about species concepts and conservation. Mammal Rev., Scholar
  62. Zachos, F.E., Apollonio, M., Bärmann, E.V., Festa-Bianchet, M., Göhlich, U., Habel, J.C., Haring, E., Kruckenhauser, L., Lovari, S., McDevitt, A.D., Pertoldi, C., 2013. Species inflation and taxonomic artefacts-a critical comment on recent trends in mammalian classification. Mamm. Biol. 78, 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Gesellschaft für Säugetierkunde 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Società Italiana per la Storia della Fauna “Giuseppe Altobello”RomeItaly

Personalised recommendations